I really like how Whitney's jewish convert status was handled in The Curse and I'm sad to see articles where writers just reveal their biases against jewish converts while writing about the show like man u missed the point and im side eyeing u.

It's set in a Germanic-based country ran by an authoritarian military that actively corrals and abuses a Jewish-coded minority group because they're viewed as monstrous threats to society. And that is JUSTIFIED in the author's opinion and in the eyes of the narrative. It is DIRECTLY antisemitic and specifically based in the kind of genocidal antisemitism the nazis embodied. You don't get to "I don't think it's nazis though:/" that.

presumably in relation to my comments on Attack on Titan in this post.

I admit I’ve had a hard time knowing how best to respond to this message. let’s say, I guess, that I had a similar impression of Attack on Titan prior to watching it. I changed my mind after seeing it. but I realise ‘not actually Nazi propaganda’ may be a tough sell for something with this much suspicion on it.

your tone seems like you think I’m some kind of diehard Attack on Titan fan who wishes to resolve cognitive dissonance by denying the fact that it is very obviously drawing on the history of the Nazis, the Holocaust, and global antisemitism in general in both its imagery and many elements of its narrative. so if it wasn’t clear enough from the previous post, I don’t give a shit about fandom. I don’t care if you love or hate it. I think Attack on Titan is fascinating and worthy of critical analysis, but that’s as much for its flaws as its successes. and for that reason I am trying to understand what makes it tick.

all the same, my reaction would be quite different if I believed the narrative really did try to justify the genocide and other atrocities it portrays.

so if you’re willing, let me present my reading of Attack on Titan; what I think it’s trying to do. I’m not trying to persuade you to enjoy it, but I would like to explain why I think ‘Nazi propaganda’ is not a justified reading, and - whatever the flaws in execution - I believe Isayama’s intentions must have been something else. in short, it’s very much about fascism, but I believe can very reasonably be read as an - forgive me - attack on fascism: an illustration of why people may fall to fascism, the horrific consequences, and perhaps how one might turn away from it.

so. just to clarify the premise a bit: the thrust of Attack on Titan’s later arcs is about how the “Eldians” (the ‘Jewish-coded minority group’ who comprise nearly every named character) try to deal with living in a world where nearly everyone hates and wants to kill them.

the majority of them live (at first, unknowingly) on an autarkic island-state where the whole population is Eldian, but later we learn how other Eldians, including the antagonists of the earlier parts of the story, live in ghettos within the neighbouring “Marleyan” empire and fight on its behalf in return for conditional privileges.

as far as justification, to address this at the start: we learn the Marleyan narrative backing the oppression of Eldians is to claim that all of this is a form of punishment for the abuses of the defeated Eldian empire. now, I think it is a misstep for there to be a concrete reason why people hate the Eldians (history shows that people have never needed a reason) - but as far as whether the narrative bears this out, it’s unequivocal that the alleged sins of this past Eldian empire are just a flimsy and irrelevant excuse for what the Marleyans are doing to them in the present.

nevertheless, this recent empire which is accused specifically of ‘eugenics and ethnic cleansing’ is part of why I think Japanese nationalism, and the concept of guilt over the atrocities of your country, is part of the pot here. I would argue that Isayama’s “Eldians” are not just an allegory for Jews, nor just an allegory for the Japanese. they are constructed out of elements of all of these - and even the Germans as well! it is Eldians who wear those iconic brown cropped uniforms that appear in all the marketing for the show, and it is only quite late in the story that we learn the main characters are ‘Eldians’ and not just the only surviving humans.

still, this does mean Isayama’s story approaches the history and imagery of Nazism, which is already dangerous enough, and also takes a run at the history of Japanese imperialism (hence the first major controversy being with Korean readers). ‘reckless’ would be an understatement, and it’s not really a surprise that it got such a bad reputation.

so, watching Attack on Titan, @mogsk and I were constantly asking each other what is this about?? what is it trying to say? often it’s hard to tell! but I think as we watched a picture emerged.

the major thrust of the final section of Attack on Titan, the part covered in Mappa’s anime rather than Wit Studio’s, revolves around the conflict between two brothers who both represent cartoonishly extreme possible responses for the Eldians. Zeke represents a sort of negative-utilitarian ‘lie down and die’ attitude: he believes that the lot of the Eldians is so irrevocably hopeless that it’s better not to exist at all than just to suffer. his plan for a sort of ethnic suicide calls to mind Gandhi’s infamous remark that the Jews should have willingly gone to the ovens rather than fight the Nazis. (in reality, if it needs saying, Jews resisted extermination fiercely in many different ways, even when the fight was absolutely futile).

meanwhile, Eren, who was previously the protagonist, develops his shōnen protagonist attitude - “if you don’t fight, you cannot win” - into such an extreme ‘us or them’ stance that “the whole world is his enemy”. he comes to believe everyone outside his home island must be destroyed in what we could call this story’s equivalent of a nuclear war: sending a bunch of huge guys to crush everything flat. (despite the dedicated efforts of the animators, in practice this can’t help but come across as very silly, especially when it’s given the hilarious name of ‘the Rumbling’, but whatever, it’s a fantasy story.)

as argued in this article (an article which points at a lot of things but doesn’t really develop them very far, though broadly seems to agree with me that the thrust of Attack on Titan‘s approach to far right ideology is a critical one), Eren’s worldview calls to mind the Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt’s idea of enmity - two incompatible existences where one must eventually be annihilated, and politics as the field of this conflict. in this framing, if you accept Eren’s belief that fighting to the death is inevitable, his conclusion - get them before they get you - follows.

so after the timeskip, Eren goes from being a hot-headed shōnen protagonist to a sort of Yukio Mishima-like figure, a quiet man at odds with the world due to an extreme nationalist ideology, who carries out an act of terrorism in attempt to provoke others to follow his lead. (there’s more to the Mishima link I want to develop, like I think the obsession with sacrifice can also be read in relation to him, but I’ll leave that for the more full treatment.) unlike Mishima, Eren largely succeeds and gets what he wants. (perhaps, rather than Mishima, we might think of the Nazis and the Beer Hall Putsch - like Hitler, Eren turns his imprisonment to his advantage.)

over the course of the season, Eren defeats Zeke and starts putting his plan into motion, becoming the primary antagonist who the other main characters now work to oppose. (their reasons vary: for some their family will be destroyed by Eren, while for island Eldians like Hange, it is explicitly that ‘there is no excuse for genocide’). Eren is supported by the Jaeger-ha faction led by the fanatical Floch, who are unequivocally presented as full-on fascists: a bunch of violent young men throwing their weight around with summary executions and torture in the conviction they’re going to make a new order under Eren. even though many of the Jaeger-ha are former comrades, the sympathetic surviving members of the Survey Corps such as Armin and Mikasa reluctantly commit to fighting and ultimately killing them in order to try to pursue Eren.

the alternative presented to these ridiculous grand schemes is perhaps a familiar set of anti-war story beats you might recognise from works like Gundam: characters from opposing sides spend time among their enemies, realise they are not so different from the Other, and talk to each other to put an end to the cyclic conflict and work towards a common cause (namely, stopping Eren). there are some really juicy dramatic scenes when the former enemies have it out and confront each other with all of their crimes - and try to understand what brought them about.

to set this arc up, we spend a lot of time not so much with Marleyans themselves, but with the Eldians who live in ghettos as hypersurveilled second-class citizens to the Marleyans, showing how their actions arose from their oppressive circumstances. these characters signify a number of possible responses, from eager complicity with the oppressor to conspiring against them according to various ideological lines, but most just trying to live out their lives in a deeply unfair scenario, upholding the few personal relationships they have.

by the point they’re all actually fighting, it’s become very ambiguous who we’re expected to root for. I think this is the point. this story is not about a heroic struggle for survival, it was all along about a stupid and needless bloodbath that grows to consume more and more and more.

a key moment, to me, comes in the final episode to date, which is mostly an extended flashback to the first time the island Eldians - our main characters, the Survey Corps - set foot in the wider world. they bear witness to acts of anti-Eldian prejudice, and later end up spending joyful evening drinking with a group of heavily Turkish-coded characters on the outskirts of the city. in the context, this happy moment is presented in a rather forlorn way: a peaceful ‘what could have been’ if everyone hadn’t been fucked up by empire, complicity, trauma etc. at the end of this episode, we return to the present and see Eren’s plan going into motion.

moments like this to me signify what Attack on Titan ultimately considers valuable: a positive encounter of different cultures. the times things go well for the characters are when they approach the Other honestly and openly; the times it goes poorly are when they close themselves off and refuse to let go of prejudice, and what tends to rescue this sort of situation is a character responding to this with forgiveness. (the arc of the two children from the ghetto, Gabi and Falco, and their meeting with Sasha’s family may be the most direct example of this.)

the same observation goes for the role of characters like Onyankopon (the story’s one Black character, a soldier recruited from a country annexed by the Marleyans, who defects to support the Eldians and is portrayed very sympathetically, at worst a little naive) and the characters from Hizuru (the setting’s Japan analogue, who arrive to make diplomatic overtures and propose an awful plan for how, with their technology, the Eldians can defend themselves in their new geopolitical context). although these are minor characters, the show puts a lot of work into building up their relationships with the island Eldians as part of a broader arc of being forced out of their ignorant, parochial worldview.

I am waiting for the anime to cover it to see the ending. it would surprise me a lot if Eren was not stopped (it would be quite a shaggy dog story otherwise), but I don’t ultimately know what the thematic answer is going to be. ultimately the challenge that Attack on Titan has set for itself is in showing not just the defeat of Eren as an individual, but showing that his entire belief system is wrong. having called it into question, it must provide a convincing account that coexistence between Eldians and everyone else is possible, and conflicts as entrenched as this one can be resolved peacefully rather than by annihilation.

in other words, the story has provided many convincing illustrations of why someone might fall prey to a fascist ideology, and many examples of that going badly for them, but ultimately it hinges on showing the limits of “if you don’t fight, you cannot win”.

so, let’s return to the question of whether it’s antisemitic.

intentionally? i don’t think so at all; the sympathies are overwhelmingly for the Eldians. I don’t think you could possibly read or watch this and come away thinking the author sees the Holocaust with anything other than absolute horror and revulsion.

unwittingly, through carelessness towards historical trauma? honestly, god that’s a hard one. were a Jewish author writing this story, many of the moves it makes would make plenty of sense to me; I’d have plenty of praise for it. but Hajime Isayama is not Jewish; this is not ‘his’ history and the context where he chose to tell his story is a popular shōnen manga that’s mostly about action - the nuances he’s trying to get at are unlikely to be appreciated by a lot of his audience, and it’s easy for people to latch on to the militaristic imagery and sympathise with what he seems to be trying to attack. (I am reminded of when The Man in the High Castle was adapted for television and the marketers decided to plaster every advertising surface in Nazi symbols. at that point it doesn’t matter how well the work in question criticises the Nazis, the damage has been done. Attack on Titan isn’t nearly that bad, but, yeah...)

certainly if I write a story about war and genocide, I try to avoid directly invoking the images of a specific genocide, but instead attempt to construct more of a layer of abstraction. (it is a difficult line to walk, since fiction should address the most horrible aspects of the world. too much timidity strips you of the ability to say anything at all.)

yet at the same time, it is precisely that reckless charge into the worst episodes of history that makes Attack on Titan so fascinating to drill into. it is not content to just be another action/horror shōnen with a series of escalating fights, but trying for something - to me that something seems to be some kind of grand story about the nature of conflict and the world and the forces behind fascism and nationalism. there is some sort of animating force at work here - Hajime Isayama was wrestling with something in the pages of this manga.

now, I don’t think Attack on Titan has any insight to offer on the Holocaust, if it is read as a historical allegory. the fact that the Eldians can turn into Titans and nobody else can - a fundamental difference between Eldians and everyone else - means we’re already far into the realm of fantasy with no real historical analogue.

in real genocides, it is vital to recognise that the first task of the perpetrator has always been to construct the difference between the two groups and make some minor difference salient: to convince some subset of the population who had been living alongside another to see themselves as an ‘us’ and the latter group as a ‘them’. and while Attack on Titan does show examples of anti-Eldian prejudice falling at random on people who are not Eldian but merely suspected by an angry crowd, the existence of that ‘real’ difference does change the scenario. all the other fantastical elements, like shared memories and even time travel, go even further to take it away from a historical model.

one particular case where it’s hard to figure out what Attack on Titan is doing is the matter of conspiracy theories. we learn at one point that the Eldian empire actually orchestrated their own downfall as a way to end the war, after which point a specific Eldian family actually secretly manipulated the Marleyan empire for the ensuing hundred years! yet this is no unified Eldian conspiracy; it all comes as news to all the other Eldian characters too, and very soon after revealing this, the manipulator character is killed off by Eren, the hardcore Eldian nationalist.

so like, god, what? this makes absolutely no sense as some sort of narrative about historical antisemitism. like, it’s not anything: it’s neither saying ‘look, antisemitic conspiracy theories are true’ because it’s not like the conspirators are secretly orchestrating things to Eldian benefit; rather it’s as if the ruling class threw their entire people away to the ghettos. yet nor is it ‘the conspiracy theories are a paranoid fantasy’: there actually is an Eldian pulling at least some of the strings. so the only frame it even sort-of makes sense is part of the show’s larger discourse on violence, pacifism and relating to the Other. yet it’s incredibly fraught to bring into a story that’s in part about the Holocaust!

why do that? I can’t even explain it.

and that’s definitely one of the most strained episodes in the whole story - not that things are ever especially grounded, but the idea of a guy putting on a stage show in a ghetto to reveal that he’s been pulling the strings only to ask for assistance in the genocide of his own people is just... bwuh? what is that? it is, throughout, very much manga storytelling: the characters are larger-than-life, and its image of war, however full of futility, is still one with room for considerable sentimentality.

all this is why ultimately I read Attack on Titan as being not so much a direct analogy, but a kind of attempt to drill into the emotional/ideological underpinning of fascism. the Titans are at first presented in a way that reflects the Nazis’ construction of their enemies as monstrous: distended proportions, mindless cannibals, natural features of the human body exaggerated to become a source of disgust, yet all curiously desexualised. at the outset of the story it is a case of heroic humans against monstrous enemy in a war of total annihilation.

gradually this story is revealed to be a complete delusion: the humans are not the last survivors at all but an ignorant bubble in a much wider world, and these Titans are of the same category as the ‘humans’, victims of a sadistic punishment by another human society. ultimately the villain is perhaps imperialism itself, whether under the hands of the warlord who created the Eldian people through enslavement and forced his enslaved wife to become the first Titan, or the rule of the Marleyans who one day came to replace them. the common people of both sides such as Sasha’s family, when they get to speak directly, figure out they are much the same as each other. they do not, in general, want to fight.

but despite everyone around him rapidly maturing, Eren is unable to let go of the proto-fascist worldview of his childhood, and he grows his category of ‘enemy’ larger and larger. for everyone else, despite their best efforts, more and more atrocities get added to the ledger as realpolitik takes hold and they act to defend whoever they define as their friends.

so the story unfolds as a tragedy: on a very simple level it could be read as saying, “this is why nationalism/fascism can seem appealing, but look, this is what happens if you don’t let go of it.” and alongside that it is perhaps trying to paint a path away, a story of characters unlearning nationalism. but at the same time often it seems to be merely observing the tragedy of such a world, taking after Schopenhauer, as that article from earlier argues.

so.

is that sort of project worth invoking the imagery of the Holocaust - a sudden flashback to children in what is evidently a close analogue to the Warsaw Ghetto? it’s not that it’s irrelevant, and indeed it may be better to directly confront that subject than to engage in Nazi military imagery without it ever coming up (c.f. many other shows that use it like Girl und Panzer etc.) yet even after all this, I don’t know! I feel like I could make a case for either stance.

ultimately, I don’t think there has to be a party line on Attack on Titan. if you find it hard to stomach regardless, I don’t blame you. people respond to works of fiction in many different ways.

at some point - probably when it’s actually ended in anime form - I still plan to write a more thorough analysis of Attack on Titan‘s thematic development. I don’t think I’ll be able to provide a definitive ‘yay or nay’ answer. it will always be a ‘challenging’ work and not one I’d recommend lightly. but I do at least think it’s worth the time I’ve spent engaging with it so far, and I hope you can see why, whatever the fuck it is, I at least don’t think it’s a work of Nazi propaganda.

⭐

I am going to take this opportunity (highly appreciated!) to talk about one of my personal favorite things I've written, Campfire.

I started writing this fic in the woods. I was literally in the woods (in Maine of course) and I had left my phone in the car because there was no reception anyway. And this fic just started coming to me in waves. Entire sentences. I was terrified I would forget it before I could write it down. When we went to the car for lunch, I grabbed my phone and quickly put some stuff in the notes app so I wouldn't forget.

And then we got home and my mom wanted to watch that Amazon Prime Cinderella movie and I just wanted to write. Aaaaaaa. So this is all leading into one of the things I'm not totally happy with, and probably why I think technically it's not quite on par with The Emergency Room, which is that I was so eager to get it posted the second half could have been better. It's not bad, but I'm not sure it's up to the first half.

The other thing I'm not entirely happy with is the title. It's fine, but I just went with it because I couldn't think of anything else, which is usually the case with my one-word titles.

The response to this fic was really gratifying, because I wasn't sure to what extent fans of a politics show would put up with what I affectionately thought of as summer camp bullshit. I'd had the image of Josh as a kid talking about his dead sister after being encouraged by a counselor, and everyone reacting uncomfortably, in mind for a long time.

My original vision for the summer camp section, when started writing it in the woods, was much darker. Josh remained a social outcast for the entire summer, and the focus was really on Irving. Irving was originally going to ruffle his hair during the breakfast scene, but I was worried that was too creepy, so I changed it to just a nod. I'm not sure that was the right call.

Before I left the woods, Issac, Barry, and Becca had demanded their existence, and Josh had friends. I looked up several alternative names for Becca, but ended up going back to my first choice. Two boys and a girl felt natural, but of course it mirrors Toby, Sam, and CJ.

I think my favorite part of this fic is the parallelism of "though they leave that part unspoken"/"though he leaves that part unspoken." I had quite a time trying to find books for Josh to read and I never really found one that was the exact level of recognizable I was going for. The little moment of guilt over tossing the bag is the sort of thing I would feel.

I named a kid with some minor significance Aaron, and people probably assumed it was a reference to Aaron Sorkin, but I honestly forgot that was his name. I was just looking for nice Jewish boy names to fill out the camp and it was hard because I didn't want to use names like David and Daniel that already belonged to somebody in the show. Alan from Hoboken is funny in hindsight because shortly afterward I would become obsessed with Alan Alda, famous for living in New Jersey.

"he knows that Cadillacs crash just as often as Chevrolets" I thought about googling the actual safety stats but I didn't. The choice of these two cars as a class signifier is entirely taken from Movin' Out by Billy Joel.

Something I think about a lot with Josh (especially but not exclusively in relation to Toby) is that he comes from a very privileged background, but he still has this major trauma. It's really very Jewish. That's why I wrote the part about "sheltered suburban kids." Then there's this:

What he learns is: they don’t talk about it.

I love this sentence to death in my head. I can hear the pause. I could not figure out how to make it look right. I tried a comma, a semicolon, and a colon, as well as no punctuation and just italicizing the second clause. I finally went with the one I hated least.

The genesis of the second half is that I've long believed CJ was the first of the main characters (aside from Leo, who as a friend of the family likely already knew) that Josh told about Joanie. I'm really invested in their sibling dynamic, and CJ is the one he talks to in The Crackpots and These Women. I had done this one-shot-two-narratives thing before with The Apple, and I really like it!

I'm really happy with this piece of dialogue in this scene:

“I’m sorry," she says, after a moment. “I mean, not I’m sorry. I'm just— I’m sorry seems so trite, but I can’t think of what else to say.” She takes a breath, composes herself. “I’m sorry I don’t know what to say.” Josh forces a sideways smile, wanting to reassure her. “No one does. It’s okay.” “It’s not,” she says. He shrugs, just one shoulder. “Maybe not.”

I wrote this story in September, a month that always gets a little weird and angsty for me as the anniversary of my best friend's death when I was ten approaches, and that definitely found its way into the fic. The details are all fictional, but Camp Greenfern is based on Camp Winnebago, where my grandfather's ashes were scattered.

I'd really like to write more about Josh and CJ, eventually.

We’re All Just Guys

Well it took the entire fucking season, but I FINALLY get the purpose for Henry Fondle: Sex Robot. And while the entire episode (and season, honestly) has been tremendous, that this ridiculous fucking punchline was the vehicle to deliver the overarching point with a solid knockout punch of meaning AND pathos? Absolutely floored. That BoJack Horseman can be (and often is) brilliant isn’t a surprise, but the ways is keeps proving it often are.

So “The Stopped Show”, a tale of accountability and responsibility and how we’re all just guys.

Each of our main characters closes out this season alone (sort of), in assorted stages of realizing the main themes, or completely failing to. I find Diane’s arc the hardest for me to make a decision on, which isn’t surprising, as I think in many ways, Diane’s the most complicated character in the show. She delivers, directly and succinctly, one of the major points of not just this season but the entire show, but how does it relate to her? I’M NOT COMPLETELY SURE. I think part of the problem with (and for) Diane is that she knows better. She’s the most insightful character, she has a fantastic head on her shoulders, but only for everyone else. She’s this fucked up little disaster prophet, her vision clear and her message concise, unable to ever apply her gifts to fix herself.

Diane is just as trapped as BoJack, but in a fun twist, is now lagging behind him in trying to do something about it. Nearly every single scene with Diane this season has been in this sad little room of her sad little apartment with all her sad little unpacked boxes, and no matter how much truth and wisdom she spits out, HERE SHE STILL IS, failing to correctly assemble IKEA furniture with names like Bȧcksleid. She already feels like shit for sleeping with Mr. Peanutbutter, so what does she do? THE SAME FUCKING THING. To which I groan and roll my eyes, while simultaneously being proud of her for directly and immediately setting him straight about not getting back together. Diane rides this constant line where she gets it but also doesn’t, which is so interesting to me in the level of additional frustration this makes me feel. BoJack is so self-absorbed you don’t really expect any better of him, which has the flip side of your expectations being so low that even the whiff of progress feels exceptional. Diane doesn’t come with any of that though, she knows better, you KNOW she knows better, and the consequence of this for the audience is that she winds up being more unlikeable than the guy who literally last episode nearly strangled his girlfriend and co-star in the middle of a paranoid drug-induced frenzy.

Which is fucked up! It’s intensely fucked up! And also, I think, the point! We expect more of Diane, and so feel more disappointed when she doesn’t deliver. Is that fair of us?

But there’s more here, as we pivot to the accountability portion of this episode/season. From the beginning of the show, it’s been incredibly upfront about how everything is unfair. We come back to this time and again. Privilege rules the day in the world of Hollywoo. Fame, money, charisma, gender, power. BoJack has been an asshole from pretty much the moment he set foot in the spotlight (possibly before?), and the only thing ever even attempting to hold him back has been the moments his guilt manages to scream loud enough to be heard over his internal narrative. Whatever he does, however he fucks up, he always stumbles back to his feet, and NEVER with any (broad scale) consequences. Meanwhile, here’s Diane, in her sad shitty apartment. Consequences haunt Diane, even if she’s the one doing the haunting. The crap things she’s done and the shitty choices she’s made cling to her.

There’s no fairness in that either, no justice. But Hollywoo (and the entire world around it) (and our world too oh yes) has that privilege carved into its bones, and Diane bears none of its marks. Her situation is very different from but parallel to Gina, who is just so fucked over, it keeps legitimately making me angry for her.

Gina, of course, brought none of this on herself. She made the mistake of caring about BoJack and trying to help him. OOPS YOU WERE A GENEROUS PERSON WITH AN OPEN HEART FUCK YOU LADY. For her trouble, Gina has been assaulted and traumatized, AND she is in very real danger of her career being over when it’s only just finally beginning. And she KNOWS THIS. That’s the part that I keep coming back to. All this should be an aberration, an anomaly, and while that may be true of the specifics, conceptually, it’s so commonplace that Gina already knows how it’s going to play. She’ll stop being Gina and become The Woman Nearly Strangled To Death By BoJack Horseman. Even if she’s able to keep working, this is what she’ll be asked about in every interview forever. Even if she convinced people to genuinely listen to her, BoJack would, at worst, get a slap on the wrist as he stumbles back to his feet. We know that, WE ALL KNOW THAT, because it happens all. the. fucking. time. Gina did nothing wrong, but this would still define her for the rest of her life, while for BoJack, it would maybe become a footnote on his Wikipedia page.

Nothing about that is FAIR. Nothing about it is JUST. Gina’s choices shouldn’t have to be “this becomes my entire life” or “swallow this down and pretend it never happened”. But it is, as it has been in perpetuity for the victims of the privileged.

So then what can we do about it? Well that’s really the question, isn’t it? This episode answers it in an assortment of ways (I think the entire SHOW is very much about this, really, but this episode is for sure coming with guns blazing), while also showing us why none of those answers can work. It’s funny and sad and awful and true, but also, ultimately, the most hopeful answer because it’s the only one you can actually affect: It’s you. It’s me. It’s each and every one of us, individually, making a choice to be better.

And believe it or not, we embody this with Henry Fondle: Sex Robot.

I thought the whole thing was so unbelievably stupid. Half the season, we’ve had this goddamn multi-dildo’d juvenile frat boy joke running around with its stupid ass Speak-and-Say voice, doing the same shtick over and over, and I’m like, “okay this is just the shit I have to put up with to get the clever stuff, I guess.” BUT THAT’S EXACTLY THE POINT I’M SITTING THERE LIVING THE ENTIRE GODDAMN POINT AND MISSING IT. Henry Fondle: Sex Robot is seventeen shades of overt horribleness, AND WE ALL JUST GIVE IT A PASS. It’s just the way it is, the way the world works, the price of doing business. When the whole time -- THE ENTIRE FUCKING TIME -- all it took was one person to say no. One person who could see the game we all are playing and was willing to give up everything to stop it.

Hilariously, Henry Fondle IS a metaphor, sort of, but of the saddest kind. He is literally a robot, he can’t possibly change. What’s more, media fervor will never affect him, fallout will never touch him, and the powerful will always rally around themselves to retain their power. It takes Todd, the head of the company, the creator of Henry Fondle, and the one person who would benefit most from the unending efforts of the rest of the world bending over backwards to avoid the truth, to put a stop to it. In doing so, he immediately returns to his old, homeless, destitute self, but doesn’t once hesitate or look back.

It’s Todd, and only Todd, that stops that madness, because while individual people are a problem, the world at large is too. Stefani makes a great point that Diane holds herself and everyone else to impossible standards and a little forgiveness and grace wouldn’t go amiss, but when Diane suggests they apply that philosophy to their clickbait gossipy shit on their website, it’s just

Which again, is beautifully cynical and depressing, but not untrue. Fostering a more forgiving culture isn’t in stopping websites from posting clickbaity takedown articles, it’s each person deciding not to take the clickbait. We can absolutely have a conversation about the people creating their world or the world creating its people, but when you boil it down, only one of those things can you yourself absolutely and directly change, and it’s not the entire world.

A THING DIANE GETS BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT.

I can’t take myself away from this Diane thing, I know, but only because she’s the fucking CORE of each and every one of us struggling with this idea. She’s the simplicity of it and the complication all in one. Not BoJack, which is NOT where I thought we’d be when we started this journey. BoJack is more an action on the people around him at this point in the story, he IS the world you cannot change. He’s pointed to rehab, and off he goes -- or doesn’t! I don’t think it’s coincidence that we stay with Diane and watch her watching him.

Oh, Diane, indeed. As she tells her story of her friend Abby, who threw her over for the cool kids, who turned every confidence into a scar. Who Diane still helped anyway, because Abby needed her. Did Abby learn from that, did she get better? We don’t know; we stay with Diane and watch her watching Abby. Diane, who can so completely understand about personal responsibility while failing to recognize her own enabling for the shitty things that keep happening to her.

You can control yourself. That’s it. That’s the only playground with a guarantee.

Will BoJack go off to learn that? Will Diane stay and figure it out?

THAT’S WHAT NEXT SEASON IS FOR

Something I was toying with including in this, but ultimately decided against for a variety of reasons, was the contrast between BoJack’s take on personal responsibility independent of external response, and The Good Place’s argument that people need external support for personal growth. An idea I may not have even considered contrasting save that Doc’s talked before about these two Jewish creators with what are clearly very different philosophies, and basically, if she were ever able to manage a discussion between them on this, I’d love to be in the room. I’ll be very quiet and not get in the way, I promise.

It’s kind of weird to me that some (though obvs not all and honestly not the majority of) MCU Tony stans will literally say any stupid shit to make any criticisms against his character somehow seem ingenuine or meritless. I saw a post comparing Tony’s and Wanda’s traumas as well as their different responses to said traumas that has gained a little traction, and honestly I was kind of pissed off about the assumptions made about people who criticize Tony??? At one point the OP literally said that most people who “won’t forgive” Tony only dislike him because he’s a man and a billionaire but will forgive Wanda because she’s poor and a woman.

Um, okay then.

Folks, we are talking about fictional characters. They are not real people. Perhaps they may mean a lot to you, but these people are not and have never been real. That being said, Tony, in the context of the MCU in particular, is one of the most privileged characters in the films. He is a white American man who also happens to be a billionaire. He established his personal success by selling weapons to the US military which he knew were being used on villages overseas. Yes, it was Stane who made deals with the Ten Rings specifically, but Tony actively and enthusiastically did business with the military up until he became a victim of his own weapons. I’m not trying to diminish Tony’s arc or attempt to demonize him as he is a well-developed and complex character, but I’m rehashing his origins for the people who have apparently forgotten what he was like pre-Avengers. The point is, the man has a shit ton of privilege that he both actively and passively benefits from in literally every movie he’s in. 

Wanda was born in Sokovia which I honestly dislike for various reasons, mainly because the MCU has (as of now) erased Wanda’s longstanding identity as both a Romani and Jewish woman in the comics while also portraying her and Pietro’s MCU identities as Eastern Europeans in a negative and offensive light, but that’s something for a different time and lost her parents to weapons sold by Stark Industries at the age of ten. Ten. She and her brother were apparently in such a bad situation that they grew susceptible to Hydra’s rhetoric and volunteered for a program that no one else survived. Does that excuse what she does in AoU? No. Does shit like Pietro and Vision dying excuse what she does in WandaVision? Also no. That being said, her circumstances are vastly different from Tony’s, and I’m not going to say that Wanda, who has not mastered her abilities in Civil War, being unable to stop an explosion that she didn’t cause from hurting people is just as bad as Tony, who has access to a shit ton of money and advanced tech as well as his 500 doctorates, in AoU deciding to experiment with alien tech that was used to mindfuck people (including Clint, whom Tony seems to be on friendly terms with as of AoU) to create ‘a suit of armor around the world’ that the rest of the world had literally no say in (examples of “collateral damage” on both parties’ parts that the Tony stan post gave 🙄) because it’s not. It’s not the same at all.

They both have severe trauma and survivor’s guilt, and they both react poorly and out of grief and fear (Tony creating Ultron/siding with the Accords without considering individuals who can’t just “stop” their powers like he can take off his armor and I’m not saying Cap was right either but Tony was definitely in the wrong as well/Tony attacking and trying to kill Bucky, Wanda joining Hydra/using her powers on the Avengers/creating the Hex). Hell, they could even be foils in some way. However, their situations are so different that it’s not fair to minimize criticisms of Tony’s actions because they acknowledge the privilege the character has in-universe. We’re kind of supposed to be critical of people with privilege, y’know, not ignore it. Tony isn’t supposed to be a perfect character without flaws; in fact, his MCU version was created to intentionally show development over a period of time instead of instantaneously so as to not jar the viewer.  His development mitigates but does not erase his flaws. I actually like that about his character a lot. Because he is one of the smartest and richest and most privileged people in the MCU, however, I’m going to be much more critical of him than I am of other characters, just like I’m more critical of Doctor Strange, or Hank Pym, or even Danny fucking Rand. I’m not going to ignore the fact that the character is a fucking billionaire who made money off of weapons used by the US military for the war in Afghanistan just because he said a funny thing that I can relate to lmao

I do think a lot of viewers are writing off Wanda’s actions because of her trauma, and I don’t agree with that. Wanda being hurt does not give her the right to hurt innocent people. She, like Tony, is a very flawed yet very complex and interesting character, and I’m glad she’s starting to get a larger role within the MCU. I also think it’s dumb how some viewers are trying to blame everything that has happened in WandaVision on Tony (especially in regards to Vision’s body because there’s no way Tony had any say over what happened there, Tony is not Vision’s creator, Vision is not Tony’s creation). However, I don’t see why this is a reason to compare everything about her, including her criticisms, to Tony Stark because not everything about their respective situations is equivalent mainly due to their different circumstances and privilege in-universe.

And you know what, if people don’t like Tony just because he’s a billionaire white American man who once made a fortune off the US military bombing villages overseas, then they’re completely fucking valid. I personally wish they could look past that and instead focus on his evolution as a character, but, like, profiting from war is pretty fucking awful, so I don’t see how getting hung up on that is a problem on the part of the audience 🤷

Mosley, Leonard. Backs to the Wall: London Under Fire, 1939-1954. London: George Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1971; reprint, as Backs to the Wall: The Heroic Story of the People of London During World War II, New York: Random House, 1971.

Each generation gets the history that it needs — or wants, or demands. That’s what kept going through my head as I read Backs to the Wall, which appeared three years after France’s youth explicitly rejected both Charles de Gaulle, the self-appointed leader of the Free French during World War II, and the political ideology that he represented, and amidst ongoing unrest over the Vietnam War. (It’s also worth mentioning that it was published in the same year as Norman Longmate’s How We Lived Then: A History of Everyday Life During the Second World War and two years after Angus Calder’s The People’s War.) This book gives up a World War II narrative in which Churchill was an improvement on Chamberlain only in that he wasn’t an appeaser, de Gaulle was worse than both of them put together, the Allied leaders all cordially loathed each other, half the British public wanted to sue for peace, and there was across-the-board mutual dislike between London civilians and American troops (and British dismay at the way African-American troops were treated by their white counterparts was far from universal). Do I exaggerate? Only slightly. Backs to the Wall is a sort of distant, city-specific pre-echo of Juliet Gardner’s sour 2004 book Wartime: Britain, 1939-45.

As with Wartime, however, this book does have the virtue of introducing us to a number of very interesting people. I became interested in reading it because it brought Vere Hodgson’s wartime diary to public attention. Mosley quotes or paraphrases Hodgson’s writing from the beginning of the war through its end, and also seems to have interviewed her extensively. His primary villain, meanwhile, is not Chamberlain but Chamberlain’s chief acolyte, Henry “Chips” Channon, from whose diary he quotes widely (and who turns out to have been born and raised in the United States, to my surprise). We hear a great deal from the chemist and novelist C.P. Snow and follow the misadventures of two civilians, Jenny Martin and Polly Wright, whose consistency in both bad luck and bad choices meant that neither of them was able to stay out of serious trouble for any length of time.

There are many glimpses of the London home front through the eyes of two boys, both eight when the war began: John Hardiman, of Canning Town and later of Aldgate, who was evacuated in 1939 but soon returned to London, and Donald Ketley of Chadwell Heath, who was never evacuated at all. Donald, who thoroughly enjoyed himself during the war, had an experience that speaks to our own recent reality:

Another good thing: quite early in the Blitz, his school had been totally destroyed by a bomb. Since Donald was shy, a poor student and unpopular with his teacher, he was overjoyed when he heard the place was gone. Thereafter he went each day to his teacher’s home to pick up lessons, which he brought back the next day for marking. In the following months he changed from a poor student to an excellent one, and although he was aware that his teacher rather resented it, he didn’t care. 

Mosley also introduces us to Archibald McIndoe, the real-life counterpart of Patrick Jamieson, Bill Patterson’s character in the Foyle’s War episode ‘Enemy Fire.’ Art seems to have imitated life pretty accurately in that instance: he and his burn hospital in East Grinstead were apparently exactly like what was depicted, the only difference being that the hospital was set up in an existing hospital building, not in a requisitioned stately home.

Backs to the Wall seems to have been one of the earliest books to make substantial use of Mass-Observation writings. Most M-O diaries are anonymous, but there are two named diarists here who stand out. John James Donald was a committed pacifist whose air of lofty detachment as he observes the reactions of those around him to air-raids and other wartime event and prepares for his tribunal — which, in the end, he decides not to attend — quickly grows irritating. More interesting is Rosemary Black, a 28-year-old widow, in no small part because she differs markedly from what I had thought of as the archetypical M-O writer. Here’s her self-description on M-O documents: “Upper-middle-class; mother of two children (girls aged 3 and 2); of independent means.” Mosley continues:

She lived in a trim three-story house in a quiet street of the fashionable part of Maida Vale, a short taxi ride from the center of the West End, whose restaurants and theatres she knew well. She was chic and attractive, and lacked very few of the niceties of life: there was Irene, a Hungarian refugee, to look after the children; Helen, a Scottish maid, to look after herself and the house; and a daily cleaning woman to do the major chores.

Black took her children out of London at the beginning of the war but quickly brought them back, and when bombs began falling she kept them in place — air raids might be disruptive for them, but apparently relocation had been worse. She was very much aware that she was riding out the war in a position of privilege, and she often expressed guilt feelings; but this tended to fade away before her irritation at the dominance of “the muddling amateur or the soulless bureaucrat” in the war effort. Offering her services, even as a volunteer, proved very frustrating. “She was young, strong and willing; she typed, spoke languages, was an expert driver and had taken a course in first aid,” Mosley tells us, “but finding a job even as a chauffeur was proving difficult” in September 1940. (She actually wasn’t all that strong physically: as we learn, she suffered from rheumatism which grew worse during the war years and probably affected her outlook.)

Black was greeted with “apathy and indifference” by both A.R.P. and the Women’s Voluntary Service. Early in 1941 she was finally able to get a place handing out tea, sandwiches, cake, and so on to rescue and clean-up workers at bomb sites from a Y.M.C.A. mobile canteen. She was a bit intimidated by the women with whom she found herself working:

Their class is right up to the county family level. Nearly everyone is tall above the average and remarkably hefty, even definitely large, not necessarily fat but broad and brawny. Perhaps this is something to do with the survival of the fittest.

And the work did bring her some satisfaction, even if it was of the type that lent itself to being recorded with tongue placed firmly in cheek:

We had a pleasant and uneventful day’s work serving City fire sites, the General Post Office, demolition workers and Home Guard Stations, etc. We were complimented at least half a dozen times on the quality of our tea ... I think the provision of saccharine for the tea urns to compensate for the mean sugar allowance is my most successful piece of war work. What did you do in the Great War, Mummy? Sneaked pills into the tea urns, darling.

For all her good humor and astute observations, Mrs. Black was far from immune to tiny-mindedness. After an evening out in 1943 she wrote:

I had to wait some time for the others in the cinema foyer, and I was much struck, as often before, by the almost complete absence of English people these days, from the capital of England. Almost every person who came in was either a foreigner, a roaring Jew, or both. The Cumberland [Hotel] has always been a complete New Jerusalem, but this evening it really struck me as no worse than anywhere else! It is really dismaying to see that this should be the result of this war in defence of our country.

Indeed, Mosley cites the results of a multi-year Mass-Observation study that showed a marked increase in anti-Jewish views London’s general population over the course of the war. Since it’s just one study, and since I haven’t seen that study mentioned anywhere else, I am reluctant to trust blindly in its accuracy; and there’s also this:

The small flat which George [Hardiman] had procured for [his family] ... in Aldgate was cleaner and airier than the old house in Canning Town [which had been bombed], and the little Jewish children with whom John now went to school seemed to be cleaner than the ones in Elm Road; at any rate, he no longer came home with nits in his hair.

On the other hand, Mosley himself gives us only a fragmentary view of London’s wartime Jewish population: everyone seems to be either a terrified refugee or an impoverished East Ender. We hear nothing about the substantial middle- and upper-middle class population — mostly of German descent and in some cases German birth — that had already taken shape in Northwest London; and while we are briefly introduced to Sir David Waley, a Treasury official, in connection with the case of an interned Jewish refugee, we aren’t told that Waley himself was Jewish, a member of “the cousinhood.” On yet a third hand, Mosley also quotes other M-O surveys from the same period that indicate largely hostile attitudes to most foreigners in London, with Poles at the bottom of the ladder and the small Dutch contingent on top. (Incidentally, the book’s extremely patchy index identifies Vere Hodgson as a Mass-Observation diarist, which she wasn’t.)

Backs to the Wall closes with a very brief, remarkably non-partisan account of the 1945 general election and its immediate aftermath. “Neither side had any inkling of the way the minds of the British voters were turning,” he writes.

When [Churchill’s] friends suggested that he was a victim of base ingratitude, he shook his head. He would not have such a charge leveled against his beloved countrymen. Ingratitude? "Oh, no," he said quietly, "I wouldn’t call it that. They have had a very hard time."

The book is worth reading for the primary materials that it includes, but it probably tells us as much about the era in which it was written as about the period that it covers.  

Where Did My Plowshares Go?

Holy Saturday

by Gary Simpson

Scriptures:

Psalm 31:1-4 The Message

I run to you, GOD; I run for dear life. Don’t let me down! Take me seriously this time! Get down on my level and listen, and please—no procrastination! Your granite cave a hiding place, your high cliff nest a place of safety.

3-5 You’re my cave to hide in, my cliff to climb. Be my safe leader, be my true mountain guide. Free me from hidden traps; I want to hide in you. I’ve put my life in your hands. You won’t drop me, you’ll never let me down.

John 19:38-42 The Message

After all this, Joseph of Arimathea (he was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, because he was intimidated by the Jews) petitioned Pilate to take the body of Jesus. Pilate gave permission. So Joseph came and took the body.

39-42 Nicodemus, who had first come to Jesus at night, came now in broad daylight carrying a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. They took Jesus’ body and, following the Jewish burial custom, wrapped it in linen with the spices. There was a garden near the place he was crucified, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been placed. So, because it was Sabbath preparation for the Jews and the tomb was convenient, they placed Jesus in it.

1 Peter 4:1 and 6 (ESV)

Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,

6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

Reflection:

Holy Saturday is the link between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Today is a vigil pause between the cross and the resurrection.(1) Holy Saturday is that "in between time." (2) As much as we may wish that we could ignore the fact that we are caught in-between, we cannot ignore the in-between periods of our lives. We are not given the privilege of skipping Holy Saturday in our lives.(3) Our province and our country are stuck in Holy Saturday. The Coronavirus pandemic struck. Many businesses closed temporarily, some to never open again. At times early in the pandemic, things felt unnatural – just way too quiet. And the price of oil plummeted. We are still waiting for the normal to return. Spiritually, we caught in a holding zone. The crucifixion is passed, but the full glory of the resurrection is not here yet.(4) Holy Saturday 2021, for some of us, feels like over a year of Holy Saturdays. The Coronavirus lockdown is a brutally long, anxious, and vulnerable time.

Even children have Holy Saturday moments. When I was a kid, there were times when my punishment was to sit quietly on a kitchen chair. No talking was allowed. I could sit in the chair, okay, but no talking was rough. The three to five minutes timeouts felt like an eternity. I think my silent timeouts might have been more challenging for my mother than they were for me because I just could not keep quiet.

Canada is still sitting on the kitchen chair - over a year later. McDougall United Church is sitting on the chair for a second Easter. The Holy Saturday moments in life feel like they are an eternity long. During the pandemic, the Holy Saturday moments for children are especially challenging. Many children had to take courses online and were cut off from their friends and classmates for weeks, even months. Children learning at home have to try to navigate a dual relationship with their parents, where their parents might be functioning both in both a teacher's role and in a parent's role. And a special place dedicated to learning, school, no longer exists. Learning takes place in the home, the same place where children live and play. As with my time-out moments, the shift to learning at home can be difficult for parents too. Being plunged into a quasi-teaching role with almost no time to shift gears is difficult.

Jesus is gone – dead and buried. The disciples lost their teacher and friend, Jesus' family lost a son and a brother. The region of Palestine lost a dynamic itinerant rabbi. Jesus was executed for being a potential source of discontent against the government and the religious leadership, which were closely related. Jesus' disciples and family were deep in shock, possibly dealing with anger and fear. They may feel very vulnerable. What if someone falsely accuses them, just like they falsely accused Jesus? When you are hiding, hoping nobody is thinking of you or coming for you, time is painfully slow. Some people are experiencing are feeling afraid and vulnerable with our COVID Holy Saturday.

Hans Steiner, of Stanford University indicates that the social isolation caused by the pandemic Conflicts with our need to "social interventions" that help us "resolve anger" when we believe that we are "at the mercy of injustice and uncertainty." (5) Tensions seem to be high during the pandemic. There are many possible reasons – uncertainty, danger, children's education bouncing between school and home, work bouncing back and forth between office and home, job uncertainty, business closures, and extreme incidents of injustice. We are experiencing loss of loved ones, loss of lifestyle, loss of routines, loss of dreams, and financial loss. David Rosemarie, assistant professor in the Harvard Medical School's Department of Psychiatry, says he is seeing an increase in levels of anger in his practice.(6) There are times when anxiety and depression can look like anger.(7) David Rosemarie believes the anger over masks is related to fear over civil rights being taken away. He believes that fear is due to fear of the virus. Rosemarie observes, "When we're aggressive, we don't have to show our vulnerability to other people." (8)

You might be thinking, "Are there any scientific studies about COVID restrictions contributing to anger. In the United Kingdom, a study was conducted of over 2,200 participants aged 16–75 years. The study, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, found that 56% of the participants reported "having had arguments, feeling angry or fallen out with others because of COVID- 19." The researchers concluded that COVID-19 restrictions cause "considerable strain." (9) If you are feeling anxious and angry, and you think COVID restrictions might be impacting your behavior, you are not alone.

There are many explanations as to what 1 Peter Chapter 4 means. I am not going to discuss the complex range of opinions. There might not be a highly definitive meaning for 1 Peter Chapter 4.(10) A few commentators consider the passage to be a mysterious encounter Jesus had with the dead, after Jesus' death.(11) 1 Peter Chapter 4 can be seen as a symbolic representation of the depth of God's love and grace. Holy Saturday could be the time when Jesus brought the Gospel of saving grace to all of the dead from the preceding ages. Verses 5-6 could refer to the Gospel going to "all the dead." The epistle of 1 Peter seems to be about Christ descending to the "place of the dead" to preach to the dead.(12) I tend to believe that descending into the depth of hell symbolizes the fact that there is no mistake, no sin that God cannot forgive, that nobody is left out of the realm of God's grace. The key takeaway is that God is just. Judgment is fair, because even those who died before Jesus' ministry on the cross hear the good news.(13)

Jonathan Turtle, an Anglican priest, describes Jesus as descending into the grave and "taking Adam and Eve by the hand," and leading them out of the grave, "pulling them up out of the grave." Rowan Williams, when he was the Archbishop of Canterbury, observes that this was not the youthful Adam and Eve.(14) Like Rowan Williams, I invite you to picture the old Adam and Eve. I am going to give you a moment to picture Adam and Eve. I see them as frail, with thin gray hair, arthritic hands, stooped shoulders, and eyes grown dim with age. I can almost picture them weighed down with a lifetime of guilt and shame. Then, I can visualize a change, as the fear of meeting God, and as a lifetime of guilt and shame, melts away in the presence of the Christ.

Middle Church tweeted, "Too many Christians act as if the Bible asks us to beat plowshares into swords." (15) Sadly, it is not just Christians who act like the Bible says we should beat our plowshares into swords. At a time fear is causing some tense, anxious, and fearful people to beat their emotional plowshares into swords, and they are living out an angry, grace challenged form of religion.

Prayer:

Companion God, in our Holy Saturday season, we give you our offering – the broken dreams, uncertainty, sense of oppression, anger, anxiety, fear, and depression. These things are too much for us. Beat the swords of those emotions into plowshares and use the plowshares to help plant a garden of healing. Amen.

Notes

(1)Jonathan Turtle. “A Sermon for Holy Saturday.” 26 March 2016, 18 March 2021. The Church of St, Mary and St. Martha. <https://stmaryandstmartha.org/a-sermon-for-holy-saturday/>.

(2)Michael K. Marsh. “A Sermon for Holy Saturday, Matthew 27:57-66.” Interrupting the Silence. <interruptingthesilence.com/2011/04/23/a-reflection-on-holy-saturday-matthew-2757-66/amp/>.

(3)Marsh <interruptingthesilence.com/2011/04/23/a-reflection-on-holy-saturday-matthew-2757-66/amp/>.

(4)Marsh <interruptingthesilence.com/2011/04/23/a-reflection-on-holy-saturday-matthew-2757-66/amp/>.

(5)Hans Steiner. “COVID-19 Q&A: Dr. Hans Steiner on Anger and Aggression.” Sanford University, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. n.d., 23 March 2021. <https:med.stanford.edu/psychiatry/about/covid19/anger.html>.

(6)Alvin Powell. “Soothing Advice for a Mad America.” The Harvard Gazette. 14 August 2020, 23 March 2021. <https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/08/a-closer-look-at-americas-pandemic-fueled-anger/>.

(7)Powell (2020) <https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/08/a-closer-look-at-americas-pandemic-fueled-anger/>.

(8)Powell (2020) <https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/08/a-closer-look-at-americas-pandemic-fueled-anger/>.

(9)Louise E Smith, et. al. “Anger and Confrontation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a National Cross-Sectional Survey in the UK.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine; 2021, Vol. 114(2) 77. <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0141076820962068>.

(10)William Barclay. The Daily Study Bible: The Letters of James and Peter. Revised Ed. (Burlington, Ontario: G.R. Welch, 1976), 248.

(11)Christian Community Bible. (Madrid: San Pablo International, 1988), N.T., 463.

(12)Barclay (1976), 248.

(13)Bruce B. Barton, et. al., eds. Life Application Study Bible. Second Ed. (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Pub., 2004), 2134.

(14)Turtle (2016) <https://stmaryandstmartha.org/a-sermon-for-holy-saturday/>.

(15)“Middle Church.” Twitter @middlechurch. 23 March 2021, 23 March 2021.

<https://twitter.com/middlechurch/status/1374343151805169667?s=21>.

She-Ra: Racism Problem Pt. 2

Thanks to everyone who said nice things about my earlier post!!!! I like am really invested in representation and media so I’m glad it’s being received well. 

I also want to add a caveat that I’m not trying to cancel She-Ra. I just want to hold media to a high standard and think that we can critique the things we like.

Next I want to talk about some pretty heavy topics: the White Savior trope and colonialism. Again, I’ll be pretty spoiler-heavy here. I also want to warn people that there will be mention of genocide and antisemitism. I’ll be writing about Hordak in the next part.

In the fourth part I want to add an addendum about Catra being coded as Latina, which I think is a valid interpretation. I also want to talk about the ableism present in the show with both Hordak and Entrapta, which is a separate issue so I’ll label it differently. 

Imagine a story like this: 

“I am a white-coded, able-bodied, implied cisgender protagonist who has a Special Trait that makes me Stronger and/or More Unique than other characters. I also have some connection to Some Evil Colonizers from Space. Oh no! Some Evil Colonizers from Space have showed up to threaten me and my Token Diverse friends who get about half as much screentime as I do! Wait a second, “evil?” There’s no such thing! They’re only Misunderstood Colonizers Who Didn’t Mean It, and/or there was More to the Story. Maybe they came from a Dysfunctional Family or were Abused/Bullied! I think the people/places they colonized may have been Secretly Bad or Just As Bad all along, too! Wowee! Let’s all have a Heart-to-Heart and/or sacrifice one of my Token Diverse friends to save the day!”

Which story am I referring to? Well...

Voltron... or She-Ra... or Steven Universe.. and probably others...yeah.

(And for those who claim that Keith isn’t the protagonist of Voltron, well... I mean he is... but that’s an entirely different essay. But notice how Lance and Hunk are actually smaller than the other characters on the screen and are partly transparent, and that Allura gets pushed to the back row and is mostly covered? Yikes...)

(On my previous post, someone also noted that Steven is half-Jewish. I was not aware that Rebecca had confirmed this officially. As I am not Jewish myself, I don’t want to speak over this, but I do want to point out that you can be white and Jewish, as it is a Diaspora identity. There are many Jewish ethnicities, such as Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim. I also wish that we had seen more of that in the show--like Steven celebrating Hanukkah, or learning Hebrew, or having a Rosh Hashanah celebration... From what I can tell, Rebecca only confirmed this on a Reddit AMA post. So I don’t know specifically how Steven identifies because that was never clarified in the show, but it seems like he is coded as white. Definitely feel free to disagree, this is just how I’ve interpreted the show, especially given its treatment of colonization.)   

On top of all three of these shows recycling a very similar plotline, they all share the White Savior trope. Teen Vogue has an article talking about how this is linked to colonialism and I highly encourage checking that out. I’m going to pull a large chunk of text from there because I think it’s really important and applies to animation, not just live action films. 

“Many white people in films based on the stories of POC are often subliminally depicted as godlike saviors, heroes who are rational and judicious to the core. They are usually deified men or women — glorified and righteous — like scripture out of a Holy Book. Look at Hillary Swank in Freedom Writers. The white savior somehow always ends up usurping the narrative. And in this centering of whiteness and white characters, the POC characters end up becoming props, which only perpetuates ideas of our otherness and unimportance, which then establishes a status quo of racism. Whiteness is again normalized, and POC are decentralized. This is particularly problematic because whiteness is not only favored in Hollywood but also in society at large; white privilege is ever-present and ubiquitous.”

Look at the center poster for She-Ra: Adora is pictured in white and gold and red as an accent. She’s bathed in a golden light. This color combination is no coincidence, because we already associate that combination with religious iconography, like the Vatican. 

(I also want to make a note that this is specifically associated with Christian/Catholic iconography. A lot of these shows could be classified as antisemitic in their handling of colonialism and genocide. I would argue--and will be arguing in my thesis--that Season 6-8 of Voltron’s plot heavily relied on antisemitic tropes, especially as it related to Lotor and the Alteans. But that’s for another day.) (Also see my discussion of Steven Universe’s Jewish identity above.)

So how exactly does She-Ra follow the White Savior trope, how is it similar to other stories’ utilization of the trope, and how does this all relate back to colonialism? I would say there are two main factors: setting up Adora as a white heroine with a darker-skinned foil (Catra), and setting up a narrative where Hordak “isn’t that bad of a guy, really.” For this part I’m gonna focus on Adora.

1: Adora as the White Savior

Adora is from the Horde. Keith is half-Galra. Steven’s mom is Pink Diamond. 

All three of these protagonists have some personal tie or connection to a group of colonizing villains. The Diamonds want(ed) to take over earth and suck the life force from it, as they’d done on other planets. They also used a super-weapon to with the intent to kill all the rebel gems. The Galra created an empire and also sucked the life out of planets. They also created a super-weapon that could kill an entire planet, and had already committed genocide against the Alteans. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Big Bad of She-Ra, Horde Prime, has similar goals. Hordak certainly does.

There is an ever-so-slight separation of Adora from the other two protagonists, who, at the start of the series, do not know they are related to the villain group in some way. (Steven doesn’t know he’s a Diamond.) Adora, on the other hand, starts the series as a villain. She’s part of a group that has actively been fighting and destroying the Princesses and the planet. The first episode notes that she is particularly good at her job, with Hordak nominating her for Force Captain. Adora also notes that “this is what [she’s] been working for her entire life.” When Catra and Adora leave the Fright Zone, it is not out of goodwill. They simply want to go for a joyride on a skiff. 

When Adora gains the power of She-Ra, she acts ignorant of the Horde’s actions. The first episode, Adora is completely defensive of Hordak. She even claims that “Hordak says we’re doing what’s best for Etheria.” It is not until the second episode that Adora begins to have any remorse for her actions--but also note that Adora’s main motivation during the first half of this episode is to continue onward with Bow and Glimmer because she wants to know more about herself, not repent for her actions. It is not until the end of the episode that she begins to become a bit more self-aware, but there is a key phrase that Glimmer utters that is very key to the White Savior narrative: “I feel like maybe you’re here to help us.” This line comes after Glimmer apologizes for not trusting Adora. Adora. The Horde soldier. The soldier from the group of colonizers who were responsible for the death of Glimmer’s father. 

Ok sure. 

Consider how realistic this is. (Not that fantasy has to be realistic, but when you’re working with a narrative based on systemic violence, you need to at least be considerate of how this works in reality.) Adora has been trained to fight and kill Princesses and their allies. She’s been trained to take over Etheria and strategically destroy and/or take resources to weaken them. Yet she acts as if this is all news to her. Suddenly meeting the people she’s been trained to destroy causes her to repent, and suddenly the people who have been victimized forgive her and trust her within two episodes. 

Here’s what I think is going on here: given the current hyper-conservative political climate and rampant xenophobia in the world right now, white creators feel the need to put a white person as the hero as if they’re claiming, “See, this character--and subsequently myself--aren’t like those other bad white people!” They want a degree of separation from the reality that they have white privilege and are part of the problem. 

There is no truly “woke” white person. White people have been raised in a society where they benefit off the oppression of the chosen “other,” in this case black and brown people. Even if you do your research like I’m doing, you still will mess up. White people cannot rid themselves of privilege no matter how hard they try, because in this current society, the legacy of colonialism, imperialism, and racism have made it so that white people will ultimately be more successful and have more opportunities for success than others. (Also, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so even attempts to be considerate about taking advantage of laborers cannot be completely successful.) 

All of this results in a lot of White Guilt. Thus, we end up with narratives where the white colonizer character suddenly has a change of heart and fights against the system without really challenging the core mechanics that put that system in place. But fighting against oppression and violence doesn’t make a white person special--it just makes them decent. 

It also ignores the fact that white people, to be blunt, haven’t done shit to advocate for inclusion and equity compared to literally everyone else. I want to pull another quote from the Teen Vogue article:

[White saviors] perpetuate an idea that is essentially a historical banner of colonialism: People of color need white people to save them. To this day, some people still latently believe what imperialists such as Rudyard Kipling said, that colonialism was important for everyone: the conqueror and, most importantly, the conquered. That without the colonizers, the colonized had no hope of survival. And by constantly churning out movies with plots in which white people "save" people of color, Hollywood reinforces colonialist dictum.

Why does Glimmer think that they NEED Adora to be saved? Why is this white woman the only one who can do it? Sure, Adora has the power of She-Ra, but remember that giving Adora, a white woman, that power was a CHOICE made by the writers. They could have given the sword to someone else, they could have made Adora a PoC... but they didn’t. So suddenly, because Adora, ex-Horde soldier, is there, the Princess alliance can be reformed, people start working together, the rebellion is saved! etc. etc. etc.... 

So then it’s extra ironic (and honestly is pretty predictable given this White Guilt narrative) when the White Savior trope goes right along with The Colonizers Weren’t Actually Evil, Just Misunderstood.

This post is way too long so I’ll continue in the next part. 

The Perception of Language and its Political Implications

The following is an opinion piece by guest writer Arman Hasan and does not reflect the views of the Indian Political Society. Arman is a first -year student studying Political Science at Ramjas College, Delhi University.

Sometimes memories emerge in your mind even when you are engaged in the most mundane activities. They have no structure or meaning, they are just glimpses from your past. For me, one of these is from my childhood, of a day when I was just staring at an illuminated manuscript of Persian calligraphy framed by my mother on the wall of our living room. Following some unknown inspiration, I decided to copy the calligraphy on a piece of paper. I ran to show my mother what I had achieved, and she responded enthusiastically, telling me how proud she felt. I could not comprehend why she felt so proud of me for merely copying down a text, a text that neither she nor I understood.

At the time, I could not make sense of this, and till this day, have never had a Eureka moment revealing to me the nature of that event. However, with every repetition of this piece of unstructured past in my mind, more and more depth began surrounding it.

I belong to a family of linguists and poets, so the privilege of learning the beauty of Persian, Arabic & Urdu was present in the meritocracy around me. Yet, when I see myself now, inept at speaking any one of these, it makes me introspect about the conscious decisions I took which deprived me of this privilege and the societal influences which shaped these decisions.

I remember my first day of primary school, with all the children bright with excitement and energy, waiting for their names to be called out by the teacher for a roll check. I was any other kid in uniform, with no way of distinguishing me from others, and yet when the teacher called out my full name - Arman Hasan- I could sense an ambiance of demarcation among the other children. A kid wearing the same uniform as the others was now somehow different. After some days had passed and I had finally made friends, one of them confessed a peculiar thing which confused my five-year-old self, "Arman, why don't you look like a Muslim?". I don't remember whether I responded to the query as I couldn't really comprehend what it meant, but it did sow the seed for future dilemmas I would face. As the years have passed, I've repeatedly been asked that same question, and each time the answer has kept evolving.

What others perceived of me began shaping how I perceived myself. There emerged a vehement need to distance myself from this perception- to do so my opinions about my language, culture and religion took the form of aversion. The second time I was asked this question by another one of my classmates sometime in middle school, I couldn’t stay silent. I had to show that I was different and not what they thought of me. I replied, "I am not like other Muslims, my family is very modern." The identity which others had prescribed to Muslims began shaping my opinions about my own community.

In school, I found myself developing an identity that my peers could relate more to. The Hindi dialect spoken at home was similar to Awadhi and was quite distinguishable from the Hindi spoken around Delhi. The word for 'Me' in Awadhi is 'Hamm,' but using that at school would bring mockery. So, I restricted the use of such phrases there. I thought I was successfully able to separate the two paradigms, but as time went by my vocabulary limited itself to what was taught formally at school.

Another subtle change that was occurring simultaneously was the shift in my opinions. I began mocking my mother for using 'Hamm' and became guilty of compromise, which I masqueraded as change.

Soon, my interest in Persian, Arabic, and Urdu began dwindling. Over the years, I've used different rationales to justify this- to be truly 'modern,' it was necessary to be fluent in English. English and Hindi were already taught at school, but to be even more modern, I opted for German as a third language. To be able to say 'Wie heißt du?' was a step towards modernity. Eurocentrism was being indoctrinated in my mind. My diminishing interest in Persian, Urdu & Arabic was inevitably due to structural problems as well- the popular Delhi school I attended didn't teach these languages, and so the belief that they are not modern or profitable became entrenched.

I tried many ways to rationalize my apathy towards the memory of me copying the Persian calligraphy. I began associating my mother’s happiness that day to her thinking that I was being religious. Modern society had established the notion that these languages are religion-centric, an identity I didn't want to confine myself to. Ironically, I later learnt that neither Persian nor Urdu are holy languages, and yet the association was made subconsciously. I was influenced to such an extent that as a kid, I used to argue with my relatives who knew no other language than Urdu, insisting that learning Urdu was useless, patronizing their entire existence.

In my search of identity within modernity, there was a dissonance in terms of the culture I was brought up with and the one which I strove to adopt. By merely learning my name, my peers could not unsee my Muslim identity, yet within my familial circles, I wasn't Muslim enough.  Not knowing the Ramayana led to me being differentiated while not keeping a beard led to the questioning of my beliefs. Why was society not content with my synthetization of the two?

Reading Hannah Arendt's 'Origins of Totalitarianism,' gave me some insight as to why I felt this way. She gives a detailed analysis of the psychology of middle-class Jews in 18th century Europe who wanted to be seen outside of their Jewish identity for want of not being confined to the prejudices of Anti-Semites. But regardless of their struggle, society did not see them without ingrained Anti-Semitism while the Jewish community didn’t see them as Jewish enough. This paradox became the primary causality behind their dissonance.

I could finally see how a single question asked again and again over many years caused so much moral dilemma, shaped opinions, and formed subconscious hierarchies of religion, culture, and language. It took some time to realize the nature of the causality behind all this.

Media and Pop Culture play a major role in enforcing stereotypes and prejudices against minorities. Portrayals of minorities in their designated roles are successful both in creating prejudices and ghettoizing their communities.  To see a Muslim outside of stereotypical clothing is for the person not to be Muslim anymore. Affiliation with Islamic languages cannot be classified as modern.

The base of my beliefs was shaped by stereotypes and prejudices and deconstructing such problematic associations became my primary task. I had to tell myself that language does not exist in a binary. To learn English, I did not have to give up Persian, Arabic or Urdu. Speaking these languages doesn’t make me any less progressive and the duty to define progress is up to me, not to how the society wanted me to perceive it.

I remember the last time I was asked the question, "Why don't you look like a Muslim?". After years of contempt and guilt brewing under the influence of this question, I finally took my time to carefully explain why the monolithic image of Islam was the one which the media wanted to portray, while being ignorant to the complexities and diversities which exist within the community, thus exacerbating the age-old stereotypes stemming from propaganda and hatred. The standardization of languages which had been coerced on me by society finally had to be dismantled. I realized that language and orthodoxy were highly political entities but separate from each other. Approval should not be a reason for me to sacrifice the experience of being mystified by richness of such languages.

As I recalled that vague memory slowly over a few years, acquiring some structure, I finally asked my mother why she felt so happy for me that day, receiving an answer I could not have anticipated. She felt pleased neither for society nor for our religion. She felt happy because she believed that I was privileged to have my forefather’s creativity in my possession, and not knowing what my father and forefathers wrote just because it was in a language I didn't understand would have truly been a tragedy. Over the years, society had made her conform and had shaped her views for which she often felt guilty as well. But I had an opportunity to transcend that guilt. For me, choosing to learn one language did not have to mean giving up the other. My act of noting down a single illuminated manuscript made her hope that the binary which society had reinforced, the prejudices it had exacerbated and the precarity it had caused could slowly but surely, be taken apart.

Christ's Compassion

by J.C. Ryle

"Now as he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation. Then he went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in it, saying to them, It is written, My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves." - Luke 19.41-45

We learn, firstly, how great is the tenderness and compassion of Christ toward sinners. We are told that when he came near Jerusalem for the last time, "He beheld the city and wept over it." He knew well the character of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Their cruelty, their self-righteousness, their stubbornness, their obstinate prejudice against the truth, their pride of heart were not hidden from him. He knew well what they were going to do to himself within a very few days. His unjust judgment, his delivery to the Gentiles, his suffering, his crucifixion, were all spread out distinctly before his mind's eye. And yet knowing all this, our Lord pities Jerusalem! "He beheld the city and wept over it."

We err greatly if we suppose that Christ cares for none but his own believing people. He cares for all. His heart is wide enough to take an interest in all mankind. His compassion extends to every man, woman, and child on earth. He has a love of general pity for the man who is going on still in wickedness, as well as a love of special affection for the sheep who hear his voice and follow him. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hardened sinners are fond of making excuses for their conduct. But they will never be able to say that Christ was not merciful, and was not ready to save.

We know but little of true Christianity if we do not feel a deep concern about the souls of unconverted people. A lazy indifference about the spiritual state of others may doubtless save us much trouble. To care nothing whether our neighbors are going to heaven or hell is no doubt the way of the world. But a man of this spirit is very unlike David who said, "Rivers of waters run down mine eyes because men keep not thy law." He is very unlike Paul who said, "I have great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart for my brethren." Above all, he is very unlike Christ. If Christ felt tenderly about wicked people, the disciples of Christ ought to feel likewise.

We learn, secondly, from these verses, that there is a religious ignorance which is sinful and blameworthy. We read that our Lord denounced judgments on Jerusalem, "because she knew not the time of her visitation." She might have known that the times of Messiah had fully come, and that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. But she would not know. Her rulers were willfully ignorant. They would not calmly examine evidences and impartially consider great plain facts. Her people would not see "the signs of the times." Therefore judgment was soon to come upon Jerusalem to the uttermost. Her willful ignorance left her without excuse.

The principle laid down by our Lord in this place is deeply important. It contradicts an opinion which is very common in the world. It teaches distinctly that all ignorance is not excusable, and that when men might know truth but refuse to know it, their guilt is very great in the sight of God. There is a degree of knowledge for which all are responsible, and if from indolence or prejudice we do not attain that knowledge, the lack of it will ruin our souls.

Let us impress this great principle deeply on our own hearts. Let us urge it diligently on others when we speak to them about religion. Let us not flatter ourselves that ignorance will excuse everyone who dies in ignorance and that he will be pardoned because he knew no better. Did he live up to the light he had? Did he use every means for attaining knowledge? Did he honestly employ every help within his reach and search industriously after wisdom? These are grave questions. If a man cannot answer them, he will certainly be condemned in the judgment day. A willful ignorance will never be allowed as a plea in a man's favor. On the contrary, it will rather add to his guilt.

We learn, thirdly, from these verses, that God is sometimes pleased to give men special opportunities and invitations. We are told by our Lord that Jerusalem "knew not the day of her visitation." Jerusalem had a special season of mercy and privilege. The Son of God himself visited her. The mightiest miracles that man had ever seen were wrought around her. The most wonderful preaching that ever was heard was preached within her walls. The days of our Lord's ministry were days of the clearest calls to repentance and faith that any city ever received. They were calls so marked, peculiar, and unlike any previous calls Jerusalem had received that it seemed impossible they should be disregarded. But they were disregarded! And our Lord declares that this disregard was one of Jerusalem's principle sins.

The subject before us is a deep and mysterious one. It requires careful stating and delicate handling lest we should make one scripture contradict another. There seems no doubt that churches, nations, and even individuals are sometimes visited with special manifestations of God's presence and that their neglect of such manifestations is the turning point in their spiritual ruin. Why this should take place in some cases and not in others we cannot tell. Fact, plain facts in history and biography, appear to prove that it is so. The last day will probably show the world that there were seasons in the lives of many who died in sin when God drew very near to them, when conscience was peculiarly alive, when there seemed but a step between them and salvation. Those seasons will probably prove to have been what our Lord calls their "day of visitation." The neglect of such seasons will probably be at last one of the heaviest charges against their souls.

Deep as the subject is, it should teach men one practical lesson. That lesson is the immense importance of not quenching convictions and the workings of conscience. He that resists the voice of conscience may be throwing away his last chance of salvation. That warning voice may be God's "day of visitation." The neglect of it may fill up the measure of a man's iniquity and provoke God to let him alone forever.

We learn, lastly, from these verses, how much Christ disapproves of the profanation of holy things. We read that he cast the buyers and sellers out of the temple and told them that they had made God's house "a den of thieves." He knew how formal and ignorant the ministers of the temple were. He knew how soon the temple and its services were to be destroyed, the veil to be rent, and the priesthood to be ended. But he would have us know that a reverence is due to every place where God is worshiped. The reverence he claimed for the temple was not for the temple as the house of sacrifice, but as "the house of prayer."

Let us remember this conduct and language of our Lord whenever we go to a place of public worship. Christian churches no doubt are not like the Jewish temples. They have neither altars, priesthood, sacrifices, nor symbolic furniture. But they are places where God's word is read, where Christ is present, and where the Holy Ghost works on souls. These facts ought to make us grave, reverent, solemn and decorous, wherever we enter them. The man who behaves as carelessly in a church as he would in an inn or private dwelling has yet much to learn. He has not the "mind of Christ."

The myth of the “good” master

TW for talk about slavery and racism.

For those of you who don’t follow Star Wars stuff, @fialleril has lots of really good meta and stories fleshing out Tatooine slave culture and how that shaped Anakin and Shmi and Luke.  And one of the parts of that culture is a hatred of “Depur,” the master(s).

Somebody just sent them an ask about if there are any stories about good masters on Tatooine, who freed their slaves and provided cover for formerly enslaved people to do whatever, or who sold their slaves and got out.  (Asker replied to the response with an apology for using the word “sold”)  Fia had a good reply explaining why there wouldn’t, but I wanted to use Fia’s tags as a jumping off point for what I have to say about the myth of the “good” master, which is really prevalent in the US.  And shows up in fiction (written by White people) a lot, and it’s always really, really bad.  So let’s talk about both the problems with the myth, and the problems with the suggested stories about “good” masters.  First, Fia’s tags:

#slaves don't tell stories about 'good' masters

#it's the masters themselves #and their descendants trying to feel less guilty #who tell those stories

#i mean this ask is in the context of fiction and that's important

#but i'm also aware that i say this as a white person in america #and i remember hearing all sorts of stories about 'good' slave masters as a kid

#but you know what? #white people are the only ones who tell those stories #it's a way of trying to get around the sense of collective guilt

#so i actually could see stories like this cropping up in a future gffa #where tatooine has been free for a couple decades

#but you can bet it's not going to be the descendants of slaves telling those stories

I’m white, but I’ve studied US History and read books by Black people about slavery.  Black people today do not tell stories of "good" slave owners.  Just like Jewish people don't tell stories of "good" Nazis. I've heard Black interpreters at living history exhibits talk about how horrifying and exhausting it is to deal with White people trying to find a way to make the slave owner a good person.  They just keep asking and asking and posing what-if after what-if and trying to find SOME WAY that it's okay to participate in the system of slavery.  Some way to excuse what their ancestors (or the ancestors of their culture) did.  Some way to exonerate the ones we came from.  And the black re-enactor has to deal with this crap, and it is horrifying for them.   It is some of the most degrading emotional labor I can imagine.  At its heart, the insistence on “good” slaveowners comes from a place of arrogance and privilege and selfishness.  It’s saying “My desire to sweep my ancestor’s sins under the rug and pretend the evil they did was not evil is more important than the pain and suffering they caused, and it’s also more important than the pain and suffering I’m causing the Black people around me by trying to justify the people who hurt their ancestors and would hurt them too if they’d lived back then.”

Pretty much every study of slavery in the US I’ve ever read that went into any detail found that slavery was an intensely corroding social mechanism for everyone at every level of society who participated in it, willingly or unwillingly.  To participate, you had to either actively degrade and abuse other human beings, knowingly allow other human beings to be degraded and abused, or be degraded and abused yourself.  Not all slaveowners thought the system was right; not all slaveowners were vicious to their slaves.  But even the ones who disliked the system and were not personally vicious depended on the threat of selling their slaves to others who were worse than them to keep their slaves in line. And if you were a slaveowner, even one who consciously believed that slavery was wrong, well, human beings are terrible at admitting when we’re wrong.  There are all sorts of ways in which you slip down the path to justifying your actions.  “Yes, it’s wrong, but...” “Yes, I’m a slaveowner, but I’m not like those other slaveowners,”  “I’m a good slaveowner, so my slaves should be grateful to me because I’m so nice to them.”

Women, do these justifications sound familiar to you?  It’s #notallmen!  That’s what it is!  Except there really are men who treat women well and don’t perpetuate rape culture and the patriarchy, and there is no way to be a slaveowner without being part of the slave system.  Yes, all slaveowners did evil or facilitated evil or profited from evil.  Some of them just chose to use others to do the dirty work.  Owning slaves is inherently degrading and oppressive and abusive.  There’s no way around it.

Probably the best exploration of the “good slaveowner” myth I’ve ever seen is the 2016 movie Birth of a Nation by Nate Parker, about the Nat Turner slave rebellion of 1831.  The film is mostly about Nat, of course, but it also deals with the family that owned him, a “nice, good” White family.  They’re nice people.  Good, by the standards of their society.  They are a stark contrast to the horrifying evil of the slaveowners around them.  And yet ... they participate knowingly in that society.  They know it’s wrong and they still want to be respected by their neighbors whom they know do evil things.  So they themselves keep saying and doing things that get worse and worse, things that they know are wrong, because they choose fitting in to an evil society over doing the right thing.  It’s very accurate to the choices and reactions of most people we would label as “good” slaveowners, and in a lot of ways it made them more horrifying than the slaveowners who delighted in torturing their slaves.  The torturers were twisted and evil but they didn’t know any better.  The “good” slaveowners knew better and still did it anyway.

For decades there has been this idea (among White historians) that, even for those who accepted that there were no “good” slaveowners, White women whose families owned slaves could still be “good” slaveowners because they didn’t directly own slaves (married women not being allowed to own property) and were powerless to do anything to stop it.  A Black historian recently challenged this by showing that there were all SORTS of legal workarounds for this, and many married White women routinely owned their own slaves; many were given their first slave as a child and owning slaves was part of their identity.  In the places she’s studied, about 40% of slaveowners were women.  Interestingly enough, by comparing various primary sources by and about specific White women slaveowners, some of them seemed to be consciously creating the myth of a “good” slaveowner whose treatment of their slaves is a net benefit for the slave.  These women she’s pretty sure, knew that was false, but they wanted to be seen that way.  They know it’s purely selfish, but they want to be seen as altruistic.  So they lie.

The ask suggested a “good” slaveowner who freed their slaves and let them do whatever as cover.  The thing is, someone who frees slaves is, by definition, NOT a slave owner.  They are not maintaining power over any person. They are not benefiting or profiting from owning people in any way, shape, or form.  The idea that they could then pretend to be a slaveowner and use the privilege it gives them in order to cover for the actions of escaping slaves is bogus.  There is no way to maintain a position of power in a slave society without participating in enslavement.  Why?  Because the other slaveowners will notice if all your slaves disappear.  And they will not be happy.  And they will, at best, exclude you and not trust you.  If you free your slaves, you lose all status.  Unless, what, you free them and they keep working for you as cover for being a stop on the underground railroad?  There's easier and cheaper ways of setting up stops that don't involve formerly enslaved people having to act like slaves.  Can you imagine what that would be like?  You could not really be free, not inside your head, because you would have to keep playing that part.  It would be incredibly corrosive to the psyche of both "slave" and "master."  Because when we repeatedly do or say something, our brains incorporate that as right or good or natural even when we know better.  That's how brainwashing works.  If you repeat a lie often enough, even knowing that it is a lie, you begin to believe in it.  Formerly enslaved people setting up ruses that involve pretending to be enslaved for a brief mission is one thing.  A former master setting up something where the formerly enslaved people have to re-enact their enslavement ... yikes.

If we were talking about a real-life situation, would it be possible for it to happen in a way that was not bad?  Maybe for short temporary skirmishes into slaveowner society.  But given how much racism is wrapped up in the “good slaveowner” myth in American society, how much we cling to that myth and how much damage it does to real black people here and now, this is not a story we should be telling.  If a Black person wanted to write that story, okay, fine.  I highly doubt any would, because like Fia said earlier, Black people really do not tell stories of “good” slaveowners.  But in the here-and-now, given how much racism is wrapped up in the myth of the “good” slaveowner, I guarantee you that any White person trying to write such a story--even set in a fictional universe like Star Wars!--there’s pretty much no way for a White person to tell that story in a way that doesn’t reinforce current-day racism and slavery justifications.  And that goes for pretty much any story set in any fantasy, SFF, or alternate universe where slavery is present.  Not all slaveowners have to be mustache-twirling villains.  You can do complex things with them and relative moral states.  But if you ever start thinking of any of them as “good” stop right there and take a step back and take a good, hard look at what you’re doing.

OP also suggested a master being “good” for selling all their slaves, which they later realized was a stupid thing to say.  I’m glad they realized it, but I’d still like to address it.  "Oh, poor me, I have realized that it is wrong to treat people like property!  Boo-hoo!  I cannot own them any longer!  But if I free them, I will lose money and status!  So I will sell them to other people!  They're still slaves, but I'M such a good person because I have realized it's wrong to own people and now I don't any more!"  The slaveowner realizes that slavery is wrong and SELLS their slaves instead of FREEING them.  That does not make them a good person, that makes them a selfish person more concerned with feeling good about themself than actually doing something to reduce the harm they are causing.  This is a common thing humans do; “I don’t want to feel bad about having done this bad thing, so I’ll stop doing it in the way that has the least consequences for me, even if that screws over the people I’ve already screwed over.”  And it’s far more likely in situations where we think, consciously or subconsciously, that the people they screwed over are not their equals or not really people or don’t really matter.  When we realize we have hurt people we are biased against, we are often more concerned with salving our conscience than restoring the wrong we did.  This sort of conscience-salving is not the same as actually doing good, and it’s something we should all be on the lookout for in ourselves.  It can be very effective in a fictional character, as long as you don’t buy into the character’s self-justifying BS.

Please don’t dogpile the OP or abuse them.  I’m pretty sure it’s just a Clueless White Person who’s heard the story of Good Slaveowners all their life and bought into it.  Correction is one thing; dogpiling is another.

❝ To / have survived the ever-present restlessness of stars. / Wake now. All that we mourn is here already. ❞

               EMMA VANITY. 26. GEMINI. FORMER SLYTHERIN.                         SHE/HER. CIS-WOMAN. NEUTRAL.                HALFBLOOD. SEEKER FOR PUDDLEMERE UNITED. 

TW: MENTIONS OF RACISM, DEATH, DEPRESSION, BULLYING.  LINKS: PINTEREST

emma comes from a big family. the vaynshteyn’s needed to rebuild after the holocaust and wwii. they changed their name to vanity, it was easier to pronounce and an even easier way to assimilate. their blood was muddy, with many muggles and halfbloods in their family but moving to wizarding britain was a sturdy choice. emma is one of ten, one of the  many middle children who grew up in a loving but competitive environment. everyone had to be good at something, little emma frankly didn’t care for it, she was their supporters, their number one fans in everything they did. quidditch wasn’t even on her radar until her family saw a natural talent she had for it during family pick up games. emma swore up and down, she wasn’t in it for the competition, it was exhausting, she just wanted to have fun. she was good at it though, they wanted to nurture it -- the whole family. 

during every shabbat it came up that emma should’ve been doing more than just their little pick up games, that they should put her on a league. emma always rolled her eyes, spitting out a comment with the dry wit & exhaustion of a 90 year old man. they wanted her to WHAT? with whom? often, on shabbas, she’d tsk them, throw a jab at her oldest brother jacob for being obviously jealous that his failed music career was becoming more tragic by the month so he had to pick on someone smaller with more promise, cross her arms, keeping relatively quiet the rest of the night. 

they were a loud, loving, chaotic family, they were proudly themselves, emma loved how she grew up even if she acted exasperated as all hell with them at times. family means everything to the vanity’s, they made their children with care, her parents would always say. emma would pipe up, we get it, you had sex, you made children. everyone would groan, then laugh. it was a serendipity that was untouched from tragedy again for a very very long time.

not long enough, but that’s later. 

racism was still a thing in the wizarding world, whether jkr wants to acknowledge it or not, and while there were poc -- the temple that emma went to was not as diverse as it could’ve been. some of the people she grew up with, though well meaning, were ignorant when it came to being jewish and being a person of color -- many just assumed that emma and the rest of her family were sephardic. the muggle world even in their own community was a little perplexed by this family, but let them have a place to pray and with time welcomed them. emma is no longer as religious as she was as a kid, especially when she started to attend hogwarts most of the year. her siblings only instituted that they had friday night dinners together, but how they chose to practice was up to them. 

hogwarts was an interesting transition for emma, being sorted into slytherin was unexpected and emma wasn’t really the biggest fan of her house going in -- many of her housemates didn’t help with making it a better place for her. she left them alone though, even when they sometimes didn’t leave her alone. when they fucked up her shit, she said her piece and got on with her life. for her first year, she didn’t try to rock the boat at all -- she just observed. some could say she was lying in wait. 

when a group of classmates fucked up her little sister’s shit in her second year, she hatched a plan. some of them happened to be on the quidditch team, right? they fucked up her family, they had tried to fuck her up her time at hogwarts, she’d fuck them up with her presence by trying to get on the quidditch team. when she showed up for try outs, eyebrows rose, a few snickers here and there. what is she doing? she’s just going to add fuel to the fire. when she got on the team in her second year, they were stunned into silence. there was a respect, sure, but there was an anger born from being bested -- emma felt proud but also noticed how she felt good on the field then, proving everyone wrong, not because she needed to but because quidditch was fun. it always had been. 

when her family found out, they freaked. she got three howlers, one from each of her parents and one from her oldest brother jacob saying he was only so bitter because he believed in her so much & emma heard her oldest sister, miriam, yell BULLSHIT in the background. her family came to every one of her games, they cheered her on until they lost their voices, embarrassing emma but there would be moments after games where the best part wouldn’t be actually winning or playing, but seeing her family come together the way they did. seeing her parents so passionate about her, seeing them all so proud. 

to this day, her quidditch is what brings them together being on puddlemere united as their seeker has been nothing short of a privilege, emma knows. but the question of whether or not she would’ve gone as far with quidditch as she did if it wasn’t for her families reaction to it hangs over her head constantly. she knows, she knows they’re being supportive, she knows they were just so unbelievably happy for her that they couldn’t contain it, she knows staying with quidditch was her choice - but god, her family is everything to her. they deserve happiness after everything, she was giving it to them, it had to be enough. 

plus, she was good at quidditch and with practice she was excellent. she gained respect from her housemates, even the prejudiced ones from whom she never wanted their respect because it meant nothing to her -- but they treated her family with more respect by extension, which meant everything. as the years passed, she became captain and emma could say that quidditch was something she enjoyed doing. not just because she was given respect, not just because it felt good to be good at something, but it was a good way to pass time, it improved her life in so many ways, why not dedicate herself to it? when her body gave out, whenever it did, she could find her passion, but this was what she was going to do when she left school -- this was her path -- for now. 

the war got worse, emma’s older siblings were members of the order ( only one at the time was an actual member, the rest were supporters ), but emma felt guilty when she wanted nothing to do with it. not because she didn’t believe in them. she did. her family knew the hard way what had to be done in war to survive & to win, emma couldn’t fathom being able to stomach it. what needed to be done. she felt angry at herself and weak, ever so conflicted, quidditch proved to be the best distraction as she graduated and got onto puddlemere united and she threw herself into the team, the life, the people. straying farther away from her faith, she missed at least one shabbat a month, she never came to temple anymore ( except for the high holidays ), she started to stray a bit from her family. they came to most of her games, still, but there was some tension as emma had been relatively quiet about the war in general -- a topic that the family brought up during almost every conversation. 

what was she supposed to say? she’d never been one to easily reveal her emotions, in fact, she was a private person because she wasn’t always one to talk about herself -- it was just how it was. she wasn’t closed, not really, just not welcoming. this subject brought her shame and guilt, she didn’t want it on display for her entire family because she knew she should’ve done more, that she could’ve. but she wasn’t built for war. she didn’t quite know what she was built for, but it wasn’t war. 

when her youngest sister adina was murdered in a death eater attack almost a year ago, the combination of guilt, grief, anger & trauma started to eat away at her. a small crisis began -- what was she meant for? what was she supposed to do with her life? her family reeled at the loss, they lost the youngest and perhaps the brightest ( in smile, in life -- she had so much more to life to live ) of their family, it was devastating. the love that had always been there was still there, sure, but things that you wouldn’t say to someone you loved no matter how true it was, were said. individual traumas and issues that they were working on, came to the forefront. they may have known how to rebuild, but rebuilding took blood, sweat and tears and they all felt bled dry. 

emma watched her family explode and simply imploded. she’s found herself dealing with depression that makes her isolate herself or distract so intensely she’s almost hurt herself from playing quidditch too much. still, she keeps playing it -- the last year the sport has served as a pillar for her family to hold onto -- emma by proxy. she’s been able to carry herself with grace despite feeling anything but graceful, she’s been able to carry on, which is more than some of her family members can do. since her sister’s death, she’s found herself trying new thing after new thing, trying to find what makes her life full of passion because death is everywhere, it has touched her family, she feels selfish but if she doesn’t find something she loves for herself, she’s worried she’ll lose it. still, as each day passes she feels more and more guilty for not joining the war effort in any way -- sometimes she feels like a coward -- but knowing herself as much as she can, she knows she could do more harm than good if she joined a cause she couldn’t properly contribute to. morally & spiritually it’s the wrong choice, she knows, but when the time comes she hopes she’ll be able to help rebuild the world when the war is done. 

for the critical opinion on ships ask meme: dramione, rethaniel, joshbecca, grebecca?

Ah, yes, let’s see how many people I can piss off in one go. I’ll tackle these in reverse:

Grebecca: Maybe in some alternate universe these two could work out but not in the one we have. They were very toxic for each other and Greg, frankly, deserves better. I think It Was a Shit Show said everything about their relationship that needed to be said. It was terrible and Greg did the right thing by leaving. 

While I do think Rebecca loved him, as long her obsession with Josh and her on issues went unaddressed she would’ve continued to string him along and eventually they would’ve hated each other. I think they were a really good example of how love can’t save a toxic relationship and you shouldn’t destroy yourself trying to make a toxic relationship work.

I do think seeing all the shippers who harass Rachel and Aline have soured me further on this ship but I still love Greg as a character. He’s (in my opinion) the most realistically human character the show has had.

Joshbecca: Josh is a sweet guy but he’s not remotely emotionally intelligent enough to be with Rebecca. And frankly, they just don’t have much in common. The main way they connect at all is via his childishness but for Rebecca that’s not healthy (and I’d argue it’s not really healthy for Josh either.) 

There’s probably a universe where they could date for a few months and have fun but that’s it. They are just too different and in terms of the actual canon universe Rebecca has beyond treated him awfully and it’s only by the grace of the fact that Josh is the most forgiving and kind character on the show that he doesn’t hate her.

Rethaniel: Oh boy. Are you ever like, “Well, I’m about to say things that literally no one is going to be happy with”?

It’s been an interesting journey tracking my feelings about this ship. On my first watch through I was surprised by how much I was able to like Nathaniel, despite his flaws. But then I rewatched and was better able to analyse his actions (while watching season 3 live it became easy to forget things he had said and done and I didn’t pay attention to fan discussions at all.)

There are definitely Nathaniel moments I like. Actually, I still love his plot in Josh is Irrelevant because I really relate to him getting triggered in that episode for some personal reasons. It’s the only time I’ve found him relatable, though.

The funniest thing is that deciding to check out the CXGF fandom on Tumblr was the thing that really started to bring out my negativity about the ship. Simply because I was stunned to find out so many people... shipped them so wholeheartedly. It made me uncomfortable even though at that point I still hadn’t put an enormous amount of thought into it because frankly: I don’t care about Rebecca’s romantic life at all. It’s not why I watch the show. So my attitude has tended to be “she can have romantic stumbles and bad relationships as long as the end of the show isn’t about her romantic life.”

And I mean, that’s STILL my attitude. I know some people disagree but I’m fine with Rebecca having bad relationships and I know some people REALLY disagree but I think there is value to Nathaniel as a character (DON’T HATE ME LEAH) and deconstructing the privilege and abuses of wealthy straight white men in America.

Now, thankfully, my experience with Rethaniel shippers has all been great and most seem to be lovely people and many of them ARE critical of Nathaniel’s actions. So I don’t hold anything against them, and I’ve been forged in the fires of HP fandom where some truly gross ships are also some of the most popular so...

Anyhow, here’s why I’ve gone from kinda neutral on Rethaniel to them being actually something I’m against:

Look, before we get into any of Nathaniel’s behaviour and meta on his place on the show, I’ll just say: it’s really fucking hard to ignore that every female Jewish fan of the show I’ve interacted with hates Nathaniel. It’s not my place to comment on why that is but when an entire group is like “this dude makes us uncomfortable” I tend to listen.

Meta wise, we now know that Rebecca is Nathaniel’s Josh, aka object of obsession that he’s idealising. Which means that aside from any of his actual behaviour, once Nathaniel can get over that obsession it won’t be healthy for him to continue to interact with Rebecca.

Nathaniel sexually harassed Rebecca while they were trapped in an elevator.

He plotted to deport Josh’s father and to murder Josh’s grandfather so that he could get laid (though it’s debatable whether Nathaniel really thought he would have to go through with these things, I do think if Rebecca had been cool with them he would’ve let them happen and buried any guilt as per usual.)

He repeatedly bodyshames her.

He treats her mental health problems as cute and attractive.

When she breaks up with him he fires her out of spite (something he basically confesses to.)

Rachel Bloom has said that Rebecca is attracted to Nathaniel in part BECAUSE he negs her and that definitely tracks with Rebecca’s low self-esteem. She’s also said that her interactions with Paula’s dad factor why she goes and sleeps with Nathaniel after getting back to West Covina, so erm, unpack THAT.

For me the final clincher is “Nothing is Ever Anyone’s Fault” a song which I should note, I like (as a piece of satire and meta-commentary, which is a case for a lot of the show’s morally not great pieces.) After everything, Nathaniel doesn’t see anything he’s done as wrong. I do think he will eventually but the end of season 3 and the title being “Nathaniel is Irrelevant” to me send a clear message. 

I’m baffled that some people think “Nothing is Ever Anyone’s Fault” is a sweet, romantic song when everything about it is the opposite of the message the show is trying to convey. Rebecca and Nathaniel are saying in that moment that part of what has drawn them together is not taking responsibility for their actions and blaming everything on trauma. It’s destructive and toxic, not romantic. And this evidenced by the following scene in the courtroom where Rebecca rejects Nathaniels amorality and chooses her conscience (aka Paula.)

And like, soon I will finish my season 3 reviews and get into why the season 3 finale is genuinely one of my favourite things the show has done (as it was the next missing piece that I wanted the show to cover... they had dealt with what Rebecca’s underlying problems were but not fully dealt with her need to take responsibility for her actions.)

I think there’s hope for Nathaniel as a character. He can grow and be redeemed and learn to use his privilege to help people, rather than using it as a weapon and a shield. But he needs to stay away from Rebecca. I do think they love each other but their love is destructive.

My final thought I want to attach is that... I think there’s something to be said for the relevancy characters like Nathaniel have for Americans. In this country, our real life villains look like Nathaniel and his family. They represent white privilege and and cold, driven capitalism.

It’s not entirely surprising that so many of us find it easy to love Nathaniel and latch onto him as a character. I think it’s something we’ve been conditioned to as a way of coping with life in a capitalist hellscape.

Observe the way people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are treated by many liberals. Jeff is, to be fair, a liberal but he’s also the wealthiest man in the world and his company has some serious ethical problems with how their workers are treated at all levels (it’s not just the people working in the warehouses, I’ve known Amazon programmers in the past and the work conditions are nightmarish and not sustainable unless you are in perfect health and have no personal life.)

And Elon Musk is a libertarian who has donated to Republicans who want to take people’s rights away but he still gets weirdly treated like some sort of liberal icon.

And I don’t want to poison the well too much, but I would like to at least make a cursory gesture at our president, who is a privileged straight white man who openly sexually harassed women, is guilty endless racism, antisemitism, ableism, misogyny and has of course been accused numerous times of sexual assault. A complete list of why our president is awful would require an entire novel to itself...

But someone like our president was able to get elected. Half the country voted him in. 

And obviously... Nathaniel isn’t wealthy on the level of guys like that (or he wouldn’t be pissing about with a lawfirm like Whitefeather) and he’s mercifully not a monster like our president. But I do think our need to cope with our environment contributes to liking characters like him. If people like him can be good inside and can be redeemed then maybe there’s hope for this country.

But in reality... people like Nathaniel don’t grow and change. But I believe they can. And, for me anyhow, this is the value I see in Nathaniel. They can send a message to straight, white men about privilege and learning to fight back against the patriarchy that lifts you up. He can be a good person. But his road to that might be a little harder because men like Nathaniel don’t change because privilege protects them. Why change when society itself never allows you to fail?

But I think Nathaniel will grow and change. But I think it’s important he does that on his own. Rebecca can’t be his manic pixie dream girl (even though that’s literally how he sees her.) Rebecca’s journey is her own and it’s not about the men.

Everyone Says I Love You

Each passing film Woody Allen I watch, I love. No matter how similar they are to one another at times or the consistent themes or even the same actors popping up can dissuade me from loving his work. Yet, in saying that, there has to be a film of his that knocked me so head-over-heels that it had me laughing throughout. Most of his films are great and lose a bit of steam towards the end or go the opposite route and only start to really hit their stride towards the end. Everyone Says I Love You, however, is a film that hits all of the right notes from the very beginning. As a musical romantic comedy, the film stands as Allen’s sole musical endeavor and yet it never feels out of his nature. Using realistic singing voices (read: decent to bad), comical musical numbers, and gooey song lyrics, as he explores the nature of love, the ups and downs, and the difference in love-based actions by everybody who engages in the feeling, Everyone Says I Love You is an absolute riot. Touching on various typical Allen themes - the nature of love, philosophy, psychotherapy, atheism, mortality, the changing of times (healthy food and technology), and politics - Everyone Says I Love You is whole-heartedly a Woody Allen film but it is handled - due to the music - in such a unique way that it stands apart from the rest of his filmography and becomes its own beast. Giving him room to honor old Hollywood, satire classic musicals, and deliver all of his typical neurosis, the film is perhaps the best Woody Allen film I have seen.

As with many Allen films, the plot is manic, neurotic, and obsessive. Here, however, it takes a page out of the book of Radio Days with a large family as the center for the film. At the center are exes Joe (Woody Allen) and Steffi (Goldie Hawn). The two remain good friends, while Joe struggles repeatedly to find somebody to love as he is still hung up on Steffi. For her part, Steffi is now married to Bob (Alan Alda). Joe and Steffi had one daughter together, D.J. (Natasha Lyonne) who serves as the narrator to our tale. D.J. is boy crazy as a college-aged girl, bouncing from one soul mate to the next, swearing she loves them, and even planning to marry one of them. Meanwhile, Bob and Steffi had four children together - Skylar (Drew Barrymore), Scott (Lukas Haas), Lane (Gaby Hoffmann), and Laura (Natalie Portman) - who all go through their own issues. Skylar is set to be married to Holden (Edward Norton), but falls for an ex-convict named Charles (Tim Roth) who her mother Steffi (as a democrat who regrets her privileged upbringing) campaigned for to receive parole. Lane and Laura compete over a boy named Jeffrey Vandermost (John Griffin), who turns out to be the heir to a major fortune. Scott, due to what is eventually revealed to be a brain blockage that is suffocating his thought process, is a conservative Republican which puts him at odds with Democratic father Bob, who grew up poor thus he does not have the same guilt as wife Steffi. Meanwhile, Joe tries to woo Von (Julia Roberts). With the assistance of D.J., who has overhead Von’s therapy sessions with one of her’s friends mothers in a fashion similar to the eavesdropping in Allen’s Another Woman, Joe pours it on thick and expresses a love for everything that he knows Von to love. As typical, a lot of theorizing about the nature of love, the ups and downs, and the swearing off of loving only to then love again occurs, but what becomes abundantly clear through Everyone Says I Love You is that nobody has any idea what they are doing. It is a free-flowing film with a quick pace to match just how quickly one’s mind changes as to where their feelings lie. There is no consistency and people, unfortunately, suffer from this ebb and flow of emotion with the tone and bouncy style of the film capturing this brilliantly.

While Allen is not really known for his musicals (okay, he is not known at all for musicals), Everyone Says I Love You nonetheless fits right into the classic Allen narrative formula. At the center of this film are a manic family defined by their neurosis and who brush shoulders with people who use psychoanalysis extensively. As their grandfather dies, the family does not mourn but instead takes it as a chance to ruminate on what happens after death with Bob asserting that he is absolutely an atheist though he was raised Jewish. During this same moment, a remark is made about how the standards for what is good to eat changes all the time, which falls right in line with Von’s earlier complaints about technology which previously led to Joe to invest in a typewriter. The politics in this film are decidedly Democratic with Republicanism defined as being a mental disorder, but Allen does not go easily on the Democrats as he mocks their lax attitude towards convicted criminals and their “bleeding heart” nature. In essence, all of this combines into a perfect combination of everything that a Woody Allen film can be about. There is religion, psychoanalysis, discussions about mortality, a resentment about the changing of the times, and the mocking of politics while being deeply political itself. Furthermore, Everyone Says I Love You additionally establishes itself as classic Allen material with how referential it is to old Hollywood. Name dropping Bernardo Bertolucci or Noel Coward, while Joe makes a crack about how Kirk Douglas playing Vincent Van Gogh is the only thing he knows about art, Everyone Says I Love You is a film that, while greatly experimental for Allen in terms of execution, is at its core a film that hardly breaks new ground for Allen. All of his films have these same themes and the same knack for referencing the classics or filmmakers who Allen idolizes. Yet, while it is nothing ground-breaking for him, what establishes this one as being one of his finest is the package in which it comes. Utilizing musical conventions could have been dangerous, but under Allen’s steady hand, he manages to balance the need for musical numbers with his typically neurotic sense of humor and his typical thematic endeavors with relative ease.

In the process, Allen creates a film that is as much a referential and deeply derivative as it is a satire about the musicals of old. The irreverent randomness of the musical numbers - such a ghost-led number or one set in a hospital where even the patients get in on the act - mocks the exuberance and burst of emotion of classic Hollywood musicals by pointing out their absurdity and then taking it a step further, a classic trait of satire. The ghosts or the patients may be absurd to see engaging in song and dance, but so are the other-worldly dance numbers in the middle of the street like in West Side Story or Gene Kelly running around and snagging light poles in Singin’ in the Rain. None of it makes sense and Allen, while honoring those musicals’ sensibilities and style, mocks the absurdity of their numbers with hysterically conceived ideas that only get increasingly absurd and funny as the film progresses. However, where the film truly nails the musical satire bit of its focus is in the final number. As the film switches from being partially set in New York City to having the whole cast converge in Paris - both classic musical settings with even La La Land switching to Paris by the end - Allen puts both Joe and Steffi at a bridge that carries a lot of memories for them before they break into song and dance. As the number progresses, Steffi is put on a wire, floating over Joe or sliding a hysterical distance away from him as if she were skating on ice. With these exaggerated movements, the whimsical nature of the scene, and the otherwise classic choreography of the number, Allen skewers the exuberant, over-stuffed, and fantastical nature of musicals with a closing number that allows Everyone Says I Love You to end on a truly excellent comedic note.

However, one of the best touches of Everyone Says I Love You is the singing. As an Allen film, it is obviously a romantic comedy with this musical touch being in addition to the other two bits. Thus, it is no surprise that everybody uses their natural singing voice - except Hawn who sung worse on purpose and Barrymore who was dubbed because she thought she was too awful - to communicate this tone. The singing is never bad, but it is decidedly average and realistic. It is not Hollywoodized, autotuned, or commercialized, just average people walking around the streets singing about love or their broken heart. With the pitch perfect notes, Everyone Says I Love You doubles down on its satire as it breaks the facade created by musicals - the facade being that this is the real world where these people are just so happy they sing perfectly and dance perfectly without any help - with these average people stumbling their way through these overly mushy songs about how they feel in the present moment. This incredibly tongue-in-cheek decision made by Allen to let his cast sing as they normally would is not just great for the satire, but great for the tone of the film. If he had stuck with great singing, the musical numbers would be at odds with the comedic approach to the rest of the film. It would be as if half the film was trying to be a serious romantic musical while the other half was just a typical neurotic Allen comedy. The pairing would be awkward and, largely, unenjoyable. However, as the entire cast sings poorly, it matches the light, not-to-be-taken-seriously tone of the rest of the film and allows the hilarity of the numbers and musical encounters to take center stage instead of how great their singing voices are.

In blending the romance, comedy, and musical, elements of the film, Allen deftly juggles everything he throws at this film and allows each piece to complement one another rather than stealing the focus for itself. The romance is gooey, creepy, and neurotic, as it always is in Allen films. The aforementioned endeavor to show how hopeless everyone is in love is well-written and often exemplified by the neurotic encounters between characters that elicit laughs or the musical moments expressing this hopelessness. All combine to make the romance always feel authentic and the problems the characters face are always grounded in reality in spite of the inclination on their part to break into song. The comedy is typically excellently timed and delivered, right down to visual gags such as the camera exploding as Joe takes a picture. It, like the romance, both enhances the awkwardness of the romantic relationships - such as Skylar screwing up deciding to go with Charles or as she eats her engagement ring with Holden - and makes the musical moments all the more enjoyable as Allen tosses in irreverent numbers or visual gags in those scenes. The musical bits are well-written and perfectly sung for the style of the film, while also serving to reveal a lot of inner thoughts regarding the romantic side of the film and helping to make the film funnier due to the goofy choreography or lyrics. In essence, what makes Everyone Says I Love You so effective is how top-notch each element of this film is in its own right and how it blends into the others. This is a film that is romantic, funny, and has great music. It does not sacrifice one or the other to give another side of the film more screen time, instead they all gel with one another as Allen deftly weaves them all together to create a highly entertaining and enjoyable experience.

A funny, inventive, daring, and incredibly unique take on Woody Allen’s classic narrative and themes, Everyone Says I Love You is a film with strong acting, fun musical numbers, top-notch comedy, and authentic romance. Honestly, there is not much this film does wrong with Allen hardly ever putting a foot wrong in this one. This one is very much an under-the-radar film from Allen, but for me, it is low-key his best film.

Wyatt answers a question (Part1)

Telling me not to so something makes me want to do it even more, DJ. Why Israel? Because when I joined this movement, I notice everyone talks about every other country but no serious discussion on Israel. No one is safe from criticism imo. So how about we do that, DJ? Shall we? Let's have honest discussion, DJ. Because truth is coming. It is obvious that elite 1% hide behind good jewish people to commit atrocities and profit on top of them. Much like America. I have no problem admitting that. We are great, but we are also monsters to much of the world. The elite 1% have created the jewish vehicle and manipulate good Americans and good Israelis, they do not care about the Jews. At. All. They hide behind them. In fact, Honest Jews should be most vocal. This common knowledge outside the schizophrenic propaganda bubble in America. Oh trust me, DJ, they don't care if you Jewish or Moslem or Christian. They have plans for each of you. They will use you. Tarnish your name. They will ride you like vehicle, & when you crash, they will use other vehicle. HRC=vehicle. Jews=vehicle. Christian's are vehicles. It's all pretty simple if you put emotions aside and think from perspective of psychotic king. Tbh, all of this new to me, I've only started looking into this topic since 2018. How the good jewish people aren't outraged is beyond me. I really don't get it. It'll be hard, ofc. It's funny. Some Q people follow like no one's biz and have malfunction when Israel brought up even tho Q says "saving Israel last." People afraid to RT etc but my views way up, so obv ppl curious & reading. Massive redpills incoming. Bend over and say ah. One side note. I like Gorka, but he gets foolish and smeared low follower acct I follow not long ago because he asked legitimate Q about Holocaust. Q everything? Gorka called him "denier." That is what I mean. No hate ever, we want honest discussion & curious why the deflections Also I dont always have opinion on the stuff I write about, just sayin. So if you say anything to me like dumb cuck, I'll laugh. I'm just typing what I see. Even from multiple perspectives sometimes But the Q was about the Holocaust numbers. Fair question. So I looked into it. The outright denial is chidish imo and not serious person. People definitely died, and there were labor camps, but numbers get questionable. Yes, yes they do. You can find examples everywhere. There was a single witness who supposedly was in two concentration camps and is the primary source for about 1/3 of Holocaust deaths. It's a nasty rabbit hole, but you figure out that a lot is stack of exaggerations. One of the most obvious is the fact that the Nazi's crematoriums would have had to burn a body about 10x faster than a modern one and be running 24/7 for years with literal zero downtime. There's a reason why they specifically say "Historians agree that 6 million died" because it's just an agreement, not an actual number based on facts. Have you ever seen the Treblinka Holocaust Memorial? It looks pretty strange for a "memorial". Looks like they just     Holocaust historians claim that during WW2 almost 900,000 people were killed and buried at Treblinka. And they claim that later the Germans dug up and burned the bodies in order to destroy the evidence. In 1999 a team of experts used an $80,000 Ground Penetration Radar (GPR) device to check for evidence that the soil had ever been disturbed as . They found no evidence of any soil disturbance. They covered the field with 17,000 boulders/stones and called it a memorial.Now you can't run any more Ground Penetration Radar tests - not without moving 17,000 boulders (which are set into concrete).  Of course, doing this would be disturbing a sacred Holocaust "memorial" - which would land you in jail.  Mission Accomplished. The whole Holocaust thing and the way the elite 1% use as a vehicle is very strange and fascinating at same time. Are you not at all curious as to why this is the only genocide event that needs legal protection by throwing "deniers" into jail? Or do you just happily overdose on the forced narratives? Surely the elite would never lie to you. They aren't psychopaths or anything. Trust us. Genuine Question. Why do we hear about the Holocaust over and over in movies, TV shows, documentaries, newspapers, books, etc. but almost never hear about the HUNDREDS of other historical genocides? It seems very weird until you figure out the real purpose of all this. Ask yourself one simple question, How in the world does Israel get away with their mass murder, ethnic cleansing and brutal oppression - if we're going to be honest. I have criticism for both sides of that conflict, don't get me wrong. I'm staying on outside looking in though. Why are we very allowed to discuss the idea of white privilege, but forbidden from discussion of the hypothesis of Jewish privilege? Foolish if you don't think it applies the other way too. In three words... Guilt/elites/vehicles. Guilt over Holocaust. Sick, but brilliant, no? The ultimate Guilt trip enables the ultimate in psychological manipulation. You see, Holocaust means that they entitled to special rights - the right to forbid people from discussing their disproportionate wealth & political influence. THE PERFECT VEHICLE. How do you not see? A found that the number one reason Jewish Americans give as the source of their identity as Jews is not race or religion.  Instead when asked "What does it mean to be Jewish?", the number one reason given (73%) was "Remembering the Holocaust". Hm. Some people think of it as a secular pseudo-religion called Holocaust-ianity or some shit (combining the words "holocaust" and "Christianity").  Laws in many U.S. states, known as , mandate teaching to all school children. Vedddy weird folks, no? This indoctrinates kids with the belief that the Jewish people are "unique" in their historical victim-hood.  This puts Jews at the very top of the victim hierarchy. This was the goal from beginning, since widely believed victim narrative gives you political power, being top of victim hierarchy give you the most political power.  That's why holocaust-ianity causes people to believe that Jews deserve special rights that no one else has. They mean well, but man are they slow. For example, holocaust-ianity means wealthy inbred morons can manipulate Israel and somehow hold ethical exemption to create type of racist country, whether citizens realize or not. Laughable. Israel is diverse. I know 4 that live in Haifa and they travel all over. Lefties, righties, buncha groups. If Mr.Trump just stomped out the major criminal networks we wouldn't even be dealing with any of this bullschiff. Regular citizens always the ones who suffer. It's pathetic. Normal chill citizens there can easily do what we are doing. What I'm saying is I condemn both sides of region but also support both sides for defending themselves. Innocent people always caught up in the middle. What I'm really saying is that Israel needs to flush their toilet. Not hard to separate elite agenda from normal people on planet. Some idiots will follow like lefties here. Man made systems. Can be infiltrated and can be used as vehicles to manipulate the masses of genuine good people out there. Also dont forget the horrific stuff Japanese did. And then you have them working with China and selling sensitive information and testing out traitorous surveillance tech. Like Hillary. Who is Rothschild pet. God forbid we should ever cut off their billions and cut aid entirely for now - they might really stab us in the back. Holocaust-ianity gives right to violate principle free speech, so people can be censored etc. Use Dan Cringeshaw, but never trust Dan Cringeshaw. He said it best. Said you're allowed to question everything and criticize every govt except for one lucky winner.  Hint: not USA Currently no other vehicle at time has this special political right to protect the victim-hood narrative against people who might use their free speech rights to question the narrative. Also why Obama talked schmack but still agreed to send billions. Elites are manipulating you. The political power engendered by Holocaust-ianity is so powerful that it must be protected at all costs from the blasphemers, otherwise known as holocaust "deniers." Pathetic boring game by 1%. Make no mistake. Creating J victimhood and using as vehicle is nothing new at all. If you start seriously questioning the narratives, some will malfunction and start melting and end up blocking you or telling me "why they are going to block me now" lolol. It's so childish and weird. All we're doing is talking, asking questions, normal stuff. So scary ... ffs.  Literally only thing I remember learning in Highschool was Holocaust and Rwandan genocide only because chill mf teacher put on movie Hotel Rwanda (really really good btw) about Rwandan genocide. We were taught as if Holocaust was the only genocide. Others not brought up. Why? I got indoctrinated by bs and became bored and 100% distanced from all this. When I saw a lot of the truth and became fascinated and interested in our history and cemented love of country and realized there are shit load of atrocities - feels clown like to treat anyone special. I wish more would sit down and look at things more honestly. Even if you dont know answer. I openly talk about all these topics with whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, my best friend Filipino (Dodi), or other best friend Sikh (Deepak), 99% understand none of this is our fault. That's why the state of Israel denies the Armenian Holocaust.  That's also why the state of Israel denies the Polish Holocaust.  And that's why the state of Israel agrees Ukrainian Holocaust must be downplayed.  Even ADL on video bullied Ukraine into There can be only one **top** victim narrative. We can't even trade positions for like a day. Boring!  And that position must belong to the "most oppressed people in history" - the "chosen people". *barf* The clip showing ADL's triggered bullying is from a documentary called "Defamation". Created by an Israeli Jew. Jews aren't a race, they are a religion Jewish supremacists in some top universities teach that Judaism is only a religion and that Jews are really just white people.  Of course, it's not true and they know it. America's Most Famous Rabbi (as well as Israeli scientists) admitted that Jews are a Race, not a Religion. So why do they teach the "Judaism is only a religion" fallacy? They do this so that they can promote the idea of "White Supremacy" imo. If Judaism is nothing but a religion, that means the concept of ["White Supremacy" can be used as camouflage to cover up the fact that we actually live in a System of Jewish Supremacy. Also you do NOT have to be "Jewish." It's a game. Many people like myself are very new to breaking out of the mind control propaganda.  They've had an almost total lock on the information for many decades.  The internet is allowing a break out of the 'forbidden' information. The Jewish Supremacists are clearly freaking out and trying their best to bring censorship to the internet under the cover of "hate speech" laws. Hopefully enough people can be de-programmed in time to prevent the censoring of more internet. The axis of power in the world is doing tilts and Israel has to start wiggling itself into good position with China. As for the US, state of Israel doesn't give two schiffs about US or its people, you are tax farm and buncha fools who will jump to defense when they tell you to. It's going to be interesting to see how they will attempt to wiggle w Chinese, they are less easily manipulated than the Americans. If you step on toes once they will not forget. Not like US which has gaping whole for ass of the huge arse f'ng it has been getting for years now. You should really talk to some Israelis or read what they write online. A few good websites out there. Israel is more critical of Israel than the US is of Israel. It is hysterical to me. Some Americans think Israel is some hivemind and each person is connected with a string. US "ally" Israel routinely caught sending American troops in to do the fighting they should be doing themselves. Israel is not the home of the chosen people. There are no chosen people. What a strange ridiculous idea. Some conservatives get creepy about it. I see in my replies.  Israelis have own interest in mind, always have. We may think they are our allies, but if somebody else gives them a better deal, they will sell us. That's just a fact. We have no real allies. Doesn't mean we end trade or anything. But we should know where everyone's coming from. It's just weird how the influence is all up in media. Hollywood. Basically 40% of all billionaires. Supreme court. Hell, 2% of population, but 80% of peach mints. Those witnesses were.... you'll never guess. Why would people not question this or at least have honest discussion. This was a brief duckduckgo search that took no more than 7 mins. I was reading article on how Tyler perry owns the movie studio in Atlanta, and how it’s bigger than paramount and dream works and other studios combined. So I started thinking about other influences in Hollyweird. Hollywood, I didn’t know this, made up of more than one movie studio. I’m ignoramus to this stuff. So I duckduck the owners of all the major studios in Hollywood. Boy oh boy, they’re all yeah you guessed it. To me, it's more interesting than anything. I'm just naturally curious. And it wasn’t till 2018 that I was exposed to this how Jewish Supremacists manipulate normal Israelis and normal Americans, and that would explain why America is Israel’s ho. Even that tho, the America is Israel’s biatch thing, I still don’t fully understand the foreign policy we have with them but I hear that phrase thrown out a lot by people who are known as "no bs" people. The inconsistency in the Jewish proportion of heavy hitter business people is fascinating. It really is. I’m still a shit and still learning when it comes to this and our ties with Israel. Over last few weeks I’ve been thinking about religions and how there’s really only three major ones, all with some things in common in their stories but with one major commonality, the holy land: I don’t think any of the religions got it right, something could have happened x amount of years ago in my opinion and the religions are essentially people’s versions of the story, most inconsistencies with a few similarities. How would we know. We wouldn't. Could very well be like a game of telephone. I could be wrong though, it could be something else but as I get older my belief in God grows, and idek how to pray to it or what to read about because I don’t think anyone’s got it right. And I'm a Catholic and believe in God. When your team runs the award-giving committee, you tend to win a lot of awards. That said, I have a lot of respect and admiration for the Jewish team. They've got an 'us-against'-the-world' thing going that encourages them work together and achieve some pretty cool things. Unfortunately, 'Us-against-the-world' also implies you can treat everyone who isn't on your team as an enemy combatant. It's this embattled attitude that generates a kind of ruthless, unsympathetic attitude toward players on the other team. And they are FIRST to call out any other group that adopts same strategy. It blows my mind how many people fail to understand this is a MACRO evolutionary strategy for them and they wish to slowly breed out and exile out races they don't like etc. Using Jewish label as a front. Yep, they even gave the White Helmets a Nobel Peace Prize. That shows the level of propaganda they are able to perpetuate against the American people through their mass media apparatus. Tons of Overwhelming Evidence That Israel Supports !slamic Terrorist Groups in Syria. You never hear about the regular, everyday Jews and it's shameful. I obviously know and talk to poor Jewish peeps, but it’s a thing, it’s such a thing to the point that it’s a stereotype. While stereotypes can be offensive or seem irrational because they cast a wide generalization on a large group of people, they exist for a reason and stick around for the same, so they must be true on some level. Not all catholic priests diddle. I went to 2 years of communion classes as boy at a catholic church with other kids and the priests were awesome. That doesn’t take away from the fact that a shitload of kids did get touched and molested by priests on such a large scale that the Vatican was aware. And I have no problem admitting Catholic Church one of most corrupt organizations in world and is used to manipulate masses. Not all Jews are bad or are out to take out America or care to gain influence through high ranking positions. It's all just a game. But we're the ones that suffer and get manipulated. Literally every Jewish person I've befriended, are normal, ethical people who care about living life through what their religion seems just. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that Jewish people, both male and female hold lots of highly influential and esteem positions in America, a country mostly made up of Christians when it comes to religious demographic, and these positions are dominated by Jewish people at an alarming inconsistent rate. Try reversing role and doing that shite in Israel. They'll kick you out so fast your head will be spinning. I watched interview one time with David Ben Gurion and the interviewer asked the former prime minister about Israel's nuclear program. (Israel has never admitted to having nukes, though there's lot of anecdotal evidence saying they do have nukes...but no country has inspected Israel's program since JFK. JFK was very suspect of state of Israel. So interviewer asks DBG if Israel has nukes and he replies, "We have enemies". So that's the situation. If you see the rest of the world as an enemy, you can do anything, because, it's for your survival. The truth is simply pointing out facts made from observations in data causes lots of childish triggering and weird deflection on this subject because of the deep history. Pointing out the inconsistency in that blacks make up 13-15% of the US population but over 70% of the prison population shouldn’t cause uproar or anger but rather curiosity and request of answers. Most videos of police officers will have you believe most cops use excessive force and that there is war going on between inner city black people and white pool ice officers. Total nonsense. Obviously not all blacks are criminals, but something’s fishy there. For a fact a lot of black people in prison did something wrong that led directly to their incarceration but the numbers simply hint at some sort of fuckery afoot, that leads to people asking questions. Doesn’t take a five minute duckduckgo search to realize how many blacks are doing hard time for ridiculous non violent drug offenses. Same thing goes for the cops. One of most stressful jobs ever, all day people are lying to you, when you show up to a situation it typically doesn’t mean something great is happening, pulling people over to give them tickets must feel like a shitty thing to do when a quota is set by dept. most are good at their job. It’s the few who we see in videos that show a lack of training and or skill under stressful situations. And same goes for this except when these observations are made immediate malfunction cognitive dissonance ensues. The difference with the outrage is they have a decent influence on so many sectors of this country, you can literally be black balled for life from anything. The collective identity makes sure that you think in terms of Group first and prior to anything else. On top of this, Judaism actively teaches infiltration of positions of power, politics, msm, and so on simply in order to better their chances at survival by group based nepotism. Imo the narratives have been twisted by the winners. This where the whole “history is written by the winners” phrase comes in. You have a full understanding of just how powerful the influence is when it comes to people just simply speaking about, or asking genuine questions etc.  

Wyatt @SayWhenLA    

a day ago  BOOKMARK    SAVE AS PDF    MY AUTHORS     Read the full article

Enneagram 2

THE TWO IN PROFILE

Healthy: Empathetic, compassionate, feeling with and for others. Caring and concerned about their needs. Outgoing and passionate, they offer friendship and kindness. Thoughtful, warm-hearted, forgiving, and sincere. / Encouraging and appreciative, able to see the good in others. Dedicated and supportive of people, bringing out the best in them. Service is important: they are nurturing, generous, and giving—truly loving people. At Their Best: Deeply unselfish, humble, and altruistic, giving unconditional love to self and others. Feel it is a privilege to be in others’ lives. Radiantly joyful and gracious.

Average: Engage in “people pleasing” in order to be closer to others, becoming overly friendly, emotionally demonstrative, and full of “good intentions.” Bestow seductive attention on others: approval, “strokes,” flattery. Talkative, especially about love and their relationships. / Become overly intimate and intrusive: they need to be needed, so they hover, meddle, and control in the name of love. Want others to depend on them: give, but expect a return. Send mixed messages. Enveloping and possessive: the self-sacrificial, parenting persons who cannot do enough for others, wearing themselves out for everyone, creating needs for themselves to fulfill. / Increasingly self-important and self-satisfied, feel they are indispensable, although they overrate their efforts in others’ behalf. Seek specific forms of repayment for their help. Hypochondria, becoming a “martyr” for others. Overbearing, patronizing, presumptuous.

Unhealthy: Manipulative and self-serving, instilling guilt by making others feel indebted to them. Abuse food and medications to “stuff feelings” and get sympathy. Undermine people by making belittling, disparaging remarks. Extremely self-deceptive about their motives and how selfish and/or aggressive their behavior is. / Domineering and coercive: feel entitled to get anything they want from others and are bitterly resentful and angry. Somatization of their aggressions results in chronic health problems as they vindicate themselves by “falling apart” and burdening others.

Key Motivations: Want to be loved, to express their feelings for others, to be needed and appreciated, to get others to respond to them, to vindicate their claims about themselves.

Examples: Mother Teresa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Eleanor Roosevelt, Barbara Bush, Robert Fulghum, Leo Buscaglia, Luciano Pavarotti, Barry Manilow, Richard Simmons, Sammy Davis, Jr., Pat Boone, Doug Henning, Ann Landers, Florence Nightingale, “Melanie Hamilton Wilkes” in Gone with the Wind, the “Tin Woodsman” in The Wizard of Oz, and the “Jewish Mother” stereotype.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE TWO

Because it has so many facets, love is difficult to define. It means different things to different people in different kinds of relationships. The word can be used to cover a multitude of virtues as well as vices. Of all the personality types, Twos think of love in terms of having positive feelings for others, of taking care of others, and of self-sacrifice. Twos may also see love in terms of intimacy and achieving closeness with others. These aspects of love are undoubtedly important parts of the picture. But what Twos do not always remember is that, at its highest, love is more closely aligned with realism than with feelings. Genuine love wants what is best for the other, even if it means risking the relationship. Love wants the beloved to become strong and independent, even if it means that the Two must withdraw from the other’s life. Real love is never used to obtain from others what they would not freely give. Love outlives a lack of response, selfishness, and mistakes, no matter who is at fault. And it cannot be taken back. If it can be, it is not love.

A central thing to understand about Twos is that although on the surface they seem to be offering love, on a deeper level they are really searching for it. Twos believe that if they love others enough, surely others will love them in return. Again and again, as we shall see, Twos extend themselves to others with affection, gifts, services, and many other things, but are often disappointed by the responses they receive. However, until Twos learn to properly love themselves, none of the responses they get, however loving, will make them feel loved.

Twos believe deeply in the power of love as the prime source of everything good in life, and in many ways they are right. But what some Twos call “love” and what is worthy of the name are very different things. In this personality type, we will see the widest possible meanings of love, from disinterested, genuine love, to the flattering effusions of “pleasers,” to desperately needy manipulation and the dangerous obsessions of the “stalker.” There is tremendous variety among those who march under the banner of love, from the most selfless angels to the most hate-filled devils. Understanding the personality type Two will help us understand how they got that way.

In the Feeling Triad

Although Twos have strong feelings for others, they have potential problems with their feelings. They tend to over-express how positive they feel about others, while ignoring their negative feelings altogether. They see themselves as loving, caring people, yet all too often they love others only to manipulate others to love them in return. Their “love” is not free: expectations of repayment are attached. Twos are often hampered in their ability to truly love others because their self-image is highly invested in having only certain positive feelings for people, and not having other “unpleasant” feelings.

Healthy Twos, however, are the most considerate and genuinely loving of all the personality types. Because they have strong feelings and sincerely care about others, they go out of their way to help people, doing real good and serving real needs. But if they become unhealthy, Twos deceive themselves about the presence and extent of their own emotional needs as well as their aggressive feelings, not recognizing how manipulative and domineering they can be. As we shall see, unhealthy Twos are among the most difficult of the personality types to deal with because they are extremely selfish in the name of utter selflessness. They can do terrible harm to others while believing that they are completely good.

The essence of the problem is that even average Twos have difficulty seeing themselves as they really are, as persons of mixed motives, conflicting feelings, and personal needs which they want to fulfill. This is because their superegos tell them that if they pursue what they want directly, they are being selfish and will be punished. Thus, Twos must convince themselves that they have no needs, and that what they do for others is without self-interest. They must see themselves only in positive terms, laying the groundwork for self-deception. What is difficult to understand about less healthy Twos is how they can deceive themselves so thoroughly; what is difficult to deal with in them is the indirect way in which they go about getting their needs fulfilled. The more unhealthy they get, the more difficult it is for others to square their perceptions of them with the Twos’ increasingly virtuous perception of themselves. They constantly exonerate themselves and demand that others do the same—indeed, they demand that people accept their interpretation of their actions, sometimes even when that is contrary to the plain facts.

Twos correspond to the extroverted feeling type in Jung’s typology. Unfortunately, it is not one of his most insightful descriptions; nevertheless, the following characteristics are worth noting.

Depending on the degree of dissociation between the ego and the momentary state of feeling, signs of self-disunity will become clearly apparent, because the originally compensatory attitude of the unconscious has turned into open opposition. This shows itself first of all in extravagant displays of feeling, gushing talk, loud expostulations, etc., which ring hollow: “The lady doth protest too much.” It is at once apparent that some kind of resistance is being over-compensated, and one begins to wonder whether these demonstrations might not turn out quite different. And a little later they do. Only a very slight alteration in the situation is needed to call forth at once just the opposite pronouncement on the selfsame object.

(C. G. Jung, Psychological Types, 357–358.)

What Jung describes is the ambivalence of the Two’s feelings—the ability to shift from apparently totally positive feelings for others to highly negative ones. As we trace the deterioration of the Two along the Levels of Development, we can see that healthy Twos really do love others genuinely. But average Twos have mixed feelings: their love is nowhere near as pure or selfless as they want it to be. And in unhealthy Twos, the opposite of love is operative: hatred finds fuel in burning resentments against others. Jung is not correct in saying that “only a very slight alteration in the situation is needed to call forth at once just the opposite pronouncement on the selfsame object,” since hatred is at the other end of the spectrum from genuine love. But what is true is that step by step, as Twos deteriorate along the Levels toward neurosis, this is precisely what happens.

Problems with Hostility and Identity

Twos, Threes, and Fours have a common problem with hostility, although they manifest it in different ways. Twos deny that they have any hostile feelings whatsoever, concealing their aggressions not only from others, but also from themselves. Like everyone else, Twos have aggressive feelings, but they protect themselves from realizing their existence and extent because their self-image prohibits them from being openly hostile. They act aggressively only if they can convince themselves that their aggressions are for someone else’s good, never for their own self-interest. Average to unhealthy Twos fear that if they were ever openly selfish or aggressive, not only would their negative behavior contradict their virtuous self-image, it would drive others away from them. They therefore deny to themselves (and to others) that they have any selfish or aggressive motives whatsoever, while interpreting their actual behavior in a way which allows them to see themselves in a positive light. They eventually become so practiced at this that they completely deceive themselves about the contradiction between their expressed motives and their real behavior. Unhealthy Twos become capable of acting both very selfishly and very aggressively, while, in their minds, they are neither selfish nor aggressive.

The source of their motivation is the need to be loved. However, Twos are always in danger of allowing their desire to be loved to deteriorate into the desire to control others. By gradually making others dependent on them, average Twos inevitably arouse resentments against themselves while demanding that others confirm how virtuous they are. When interpersonal conflicts arise, as they inevitably do because of their attempts to control others, average to unhealthy Twos always feel “more sinned against than sinning.” They see themselves as martyrs who have sacrificed themselves selflessly without being appreciated for it in the least. Their re-pressed aggressive feelings and resentments eventually manifest themselves in severe psychosomatic complaints and physical illnesses which force others to take care of them.

Gaining the love of others is important to Twos because they fear that they are not loved for themselves alone. They feel that they will be loved only if they can earn love by always being good and by constantly sacrificing themselves for others. In a word, they fear that others would not love them unless they made others love them. (Twos could be briefly characterized as persons who, fearing that they are unlovable, spend their lives trying to make people love them.) Naturally, that creates a deep source of hidden aggression, and if people do not respond to them as they want, average to unhealthy Twos become increasingly resentful. But since they cannot consciously own up to their aggressive feelings, they express them indirectly, in manipulative behavior they disavow. It is astonishing to see how badly unhealthy Twos can treat others while justifying everything they do. But no matter how destructive their actions are, unhealthy Twos must persuade themselves that they have nothing but love and the purest of good intentions at heart.

One of the major ironies of all Twos is that, unless they are healthy, the focus of their attention is essentially on themselves, although they neither give this impression to others nor think of themselves as egocentric. Assertions to the contrary, even for average Twos the welfare of others is not primary. Rather, their positive feelings about themselves—as reinforced by the positive reactions of others—is what is important to them and what they are always angling for.

In a real way, Twos are dependent on the loving responses of others to validate their self-image—the good, selfless, loving person. The problem is that as long as Twos are focused on others to find indications of their own value and lovability, they fail to be fully aware of all of their own feelings and cannot recognize the lovable qualities within themselves. As Twos deteriorate, the situation worsens, because they also fail to recognize loving responses in others. Average to unhealthy Twos start looking for very specific signs of others’ affection for them, and any differing indications of love do not count. Thus, Twos must figure out what kind of person they need to be and what they will have to do in order to elicit from others the specific responses that “count” as love.

This is why Twos have a second problem in common with Threes and Fours—a problem with their identities. Other people do not see Twos as they really are, and, more important, Twos do not see themselves as they really are. There is an ever increasing disparity between the loving self-image and the actual needy person, between the claims of selfless generosity and the claims they make on the love of others.

In a real way, Twos have learned to reject themselves and their own legitimate needs, believing that the idealized self-image they have created—the selfless helper and friend—will be more acceptable than their own authentic feelings and responses. And because their identity is dependent upon others affirming and appreciating their goodness, Twos become trapped in behaviors that increasingly frustrate them and alienate others. For Twos to escape this trap, they need to recognize the degree to which they ignore their own needs as well as their grief and shame. They can then apply their extraordinary nurturing skills to someone who desperately needs them—themselves.

Parental Orientation

As children, Twos were ambivalent to the protective-figure, the person in their early development who was responsible for guidance, structure, and discipline. This is often the father, but other people can also play this role, including the mother or even an older sibling. Twos did not identify strongly with the protective-figure, but they also did not psychologically separate from the person entirely. As a result, Twos felt that they could best fit into the family system by creating an identity that was complementary to the protective-figure. Since the orientation is toward the protective-figure who represents the qualities associated with patriarchy— authority, structure, discipline, guiding the child in the ways of the world—the child began to identify with the complementary, matriarchal role. Young Twos learned to become “little nurturers” as a way of gaining safety and security in the family system. In other words, they believed that if they could nurture others in their family sufficiently, they could win the affection and protection of the protective-figure. This relationship with the protective-figure sets the stage for a similar orientation toward everyone who can give Twos the love they want.

This ambivalent orientation to their protective-figure helps explain why Twos’ self-esteem is conditional. Twos do not love themselves unconditionally, and this is really the source of all the suffering that Twos will experience or cause. Their self-esteem is based on the condition that they be absolutely good and “unselfish.” They must see themselves in this way because they believe that only by being extraordinarily good and generous people will they ever obtain love from others. Further, the more dysfunctional the Twos’ family systems were, the more they will feel that they must sacrifice and repress their own needs in order to get love.

Unfortunately, the more Twos see their own needs as selfish, the more they must find indirect ways of meeting them. Twos’ superegos are ever vigilant, judging not only the “selfishness” of the Two, but the responses of others to the Two’s help. (“That was a nice thing Brenda said, but if you were really a lovable person, she would have given you a hug.”) In average to unhealthy Twos, very little can satisfy the superego. The Two cannot be self-sacrificing enough, and no response from others is sufficient to make Twos believe that they are loved. Ironically, Twos try to maintain their psychological survival by trying even harder to convince themselves and others (as well as their punitive superegos) that they truly are being good, selfless, and without needs.

While there is certainly nothing objectionable about Twos seeing themselves as good and loving people when they are genuinely good, problems begin when they need to feel that they are good all the time. Even when they are far from good, Twos must see themselves as good for others. The irony is that their need to think of themselves as all-good and helpful is never more urgent than when they are frantically needy, self-centered, and manipulative.

However, when they are healthy, Twos are able to move beyond their desperate search for love by learning to nurture themselves. They understand that self-nurturance is not selfish: in fact, it is essential if they are going to be of any real help to anyone else. They know that to the degree that they can love themselves unconditionally, they do not have to get love from others by being good all the time. They can then be caring, unselfish, and disinterested, in the most positive meanings of those words, because their love is truly without agenda. Unfortunately, at the lower end of the personality continuum, the “love” of unhealthy Twos is nothing more than a veneer for the desire to create dependencies so that they can hold on to others. Because of the intensity of their neediness, unhealthy Twos do evil in the name of good and can no longer tell the difference.

ANALYZING THE HEALTHY TWO

Level 1: The Disinterested Altruist

At their best, healthy Twos are amazingly unselfish and altruistic, able to offer others a truly unconditional, continuing love with no strings attached. Their unconditional love allows Twos to love without concern for themselves and without necessarily being loved in return. “Getting a return” on their love is not what matters to them.

Truly unconditional love is both free and freeing: healthy Twos are free to love or not, and others are free to respond or not. Others are allowed to grow on their own terms, even if it means that they will grow away. Healthy Twos always remember that it is an immense privilege to be allowed to be a part of someone’s life, a gift others bestow on them, not something they can rightfully claim for themselves.

This is possible because at Level 1, Twos have learned to focus on their own real feelings and to truly nurture themselves. Healthy Twos are able to do good for themselves without feeling that they are being selfish or fearing that doing so will alienate people. By learning to love and nurture themselves, Twos no longer have to try to get love from others. They can honestly assess their own needs and deal with them and so can more objectively see and respond to the needs of the people in their lives. Sometimes they see that the best thing they can do is to do nothing. For very healthy Twos, giving is a choice, not a compulsion.

Very healthy Twos are as altruistic as human beings can be. They are unselfconscious about their goodness, not letting “their right hand know what their left hand is doing.” They have immense reservoirs of good will and are absolutely delighted at the good fortune of others. Their attitude is that good is to be done, no matter who does it or who gets the credit for it. Very healthy Twos are not angry if someone else takes credit for something they have done. Good was done, other people have benefited, and that is all that matters.

At their best, therefore, healthy Twos are completely disinterested in the truest sense of the word: they do not help others out of hidden self-interest, because they are directly attending to their own needs. Their intentions and actions are purely directed toward the good of the other, with no ulterior motives. Their disinterest allows Twos to see the real needs of others clearly, without ego or their own unmet needs clouding the picture. As a result, an extraordinary directness is possible in all their relationships, because ego and self-interest do not get in the way.

The paradox of very healthy Twos is that the more they learn to give to themselves, the more they enjoy giving to others. The more revered they are, the more humble they become. The more power people give them in their lives, the less they want. The less they look for love from others, the more others love them. Furthermore, virtue is not simply its own reward: the enduring reward of virtue is happiness. Very healthy Twos are happy to be good, and are filled with an outflowing joy. They are among the most radiant human beings one can hope to find in life—radiating the inexpressible happiness which comes from truly being good and doing good for others.

Few people rise to this level of sustained altruistic love, and those who do, do not advertise it. Those few who do come as close to being saints as anyone becomes, although they are too humble to think of themselves this way. They would be embarrassed by any suggestion that they are saints because, good as they are, they know perfectly well that their virtue does not truly belong to them. And besides, their sights are no longer on their own qualities. Even so, when they are at their best, very healthy Twos present us with an example of the heights which human nature can attain. They have been victorious in the never-ending battle to transcend the ego to make room for both the self and the other. They have truly learned to love.

Level 2: The Caring Person

Even if they do not live at this high peak of disinterested altruism all of the time, healthy Twos remain personally concerned for the welfare of others. Emotionally attuned to other people, they are the most empathetic of the personality types.

Empathy is the quality of being able to feel with another person, to experience his or her feelings as if they were your own. Empathy makes the feelings of others your feelings, their needs your needs. Being highly empathetic, healthy Twos are able to put themselves in the place of others, feeling compassion and concern. They have the strength to empathize with those who suffer. For example, when they hear about a disaster on television, their hearts go out to those who have been affected. The marital or job problems of their friends touch them deeply. Just knowing that someone else knows how you feel, that someone weeps with you, cares about you, takes your needs seriously, and will do all he or she can to help you, is itself a source of great comfort in times of trouble.

At this Level, Twos are extremely healthy, extraordinary people, but they have lost some of the freedom they experienced at Level 1. This is because Twos have begun to shift their focus more toward others and so lose contact with some of their own feelings. They also begin to see themselves as people who have good feelings for others, rather than simply allowing whatever feelings are present to be felt. At Level 2, this self-consciousness is rather benign, and much good still comes from Twos because most of their positive feelings for others remain genuine and deep.

Because their emotions are engaged so strongly and so positively for others, healthy Twos are aware of themselves as empathetic, caring people. Their hearts rather than their heads are their main faculty, and because they are led by their hearts, they do not judge others or concern themselves with keeping a strict account of right and wrong.

Healthy Twos see themselves as good because, in fact, they are good. They rightly see themselves as loving persons because, in fact, they are loving. They are well meaning, sincere, and warm-hearted—and they recognize these strengths in themselves. Moreover, realizing that they sincerely care for others gives Twos an enormous amount of self-confidence, allowing them to venture “where angels fear to tread.” Their confidence, however, is not primarily in themselves but in the value of the goodness they so deeply believe in.

It almost goes without saying, but healthy Twos are extremely generous. One of the most important forms of their generosity is their generosity of spirit, not primarily a material generosity (since a particular Two may be poor or of modest means), but more an attitude toward others. They are charitable and put a positive interpretation on everything, emphasizing the good they find in others. This is, in a sense, an irrational gift, because it goes beyond reason: healthy Twos do not find fault with others even when there is fault to be found, not because they are not perceptive (far from it), but because they are much more attracted to what is positive and want to support those values. They are able to “love the sinner, not the sin,” a saving distinction.

Level 3: The Nurturing Helper

Healthy Twos like to express how much they love others. Their strong, positive feelings for others naturally impel them into action. Service therefore is the keynote at this stage, and healthy Twos become giving people who take great satisfaction in helping others in many tangible ways. They serve those who are in need and cannot take care of themselves, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, volunteering for philanthropic work, using whatever means are at their disposal to help others.

Healthy Twos reach out to people, giving substantial help even if it means going out of their way when it is inconvenient or difficult to do so. They are exceptionally thoughtful about the material, psychological, emotional, or spiritual needs of others. Twos are extraordinary in crisis situations because others know that they can count on them. They are the kind of people you know you can call in the middle of the night for help. They are generous with their time, attention, money, and other resources—self-sacrificial in the best sense of the word. Indeed, people seek out healthy Twos because of their unique mixture of personal concern and practical helpfulness.

Of course Healthy Twos do not spend all of their time running around looking after other people’s needs. Nonetheless, they experience in themselves a sense of bounty that they enjoy sharing with others, and there are many ways that Twos can express this beyond overt caretaking. Twos like to share whatever they have, and this can include talents like singing or performing, cooking, personal possessions, or simply their time. Healthy Twos are gratified by being able to give something of value to others and seeing others grow.

All of this is possible because healthy Twos have a clear sense of their own boundaries and their own needs. And while they are sincerely interested in helping others in whatever ways they can, they know their physical and emotional limits, and do not exceed them. While attending to others, they attend to themselves. While looking after someone else’s health, they look after their own health. While counseling others to get enough rest and recreation, they make sure that they do, too.

Having clear boundaries also enables Twos to have enough energy to enjoy their lives. They make stimulating companions because they are good listeners, emotionally attuned to others, and have a genuine sense of fun. And because they are realistic and honest about their needs and limitations, they are much more free and relaxed about their relationships.

Healthy Twos also have uniformly good effects on people because their love is so particular: they make others feel that someone really sees them and cares about them as an individual. They divine the good in others and, armed with this knowledge, they are able to encourage and praise others sincerely, uplift spirits, and instill confidence. They build self-esteem because they give people the attention and appreciation they need to thrive.

Without trying to do so, healthy Twos exert an immense influence over others, because few things in life are as powerful as instilling the feeling in others that someone good cares about them, believes in them, and is on their side. Expecting good from others and appreciating what they do nurtures self-confidence and creates a climate of expectation which enables others to do wonderful things.

Thus, healthy Twos are an archetype of the good parent, acting as parent figures, in the best possible sense, to everyone they meet. Good parents want what is best for their children. They actively look out for their welfare. Similarly, healthy Twos actively look out for the welfare of others—nurturing them, encouraging them, and empowering them to grow and discover their own strengths.

In a word, they are the embodiment of the ideal of charity in action. Healthy Twos may be saints—or not quite saints—but in either case, they try to be caring, loving, and helpful. This is their ideal, and to one degree or another, healthy Twos attain it.

ANALYZING THE AVERAGE TWO

Level 4: The Effusive Friend

While healthy Twos are genuinely good, average Twos do less real good while talking more about their feelings and good intentions. Some reverse gear in their psyches has become engaged, and the attention they previously directed toward others begins to be focused on themselves. Their attention shifts away from doing real good for others to seeking reassurance that others love them and have good feelings about them.

Average Twos have begun to fear that they are not doing enough for others to really “win them over,” and they begin to equate love with personal intimacy and closeness. While intimacy is certainly an essential quality of any good relationship, Twos begin focusing on it to the exclusion of many other things, and sometimes in situations in which it may be inappropriate. Nonetheless, Twos want people to notice how much they care and how deeply they feel for others. In conversation, they like to talk with people about the relationship they share as if to remind the person of how special the relationship is. (“Isn’t it wonderful how close we are?”) In truth, Twos are trying to get closer to others and to convince themselves that others really want them around.

At Level 4, Twos may still be helpful and generous, but they seem more interested in being seen as generous persons. They are friendly and talkative, and want to be on good terms with everyone they encounter. Twos at this stage can be quite sentimental—wearing their hearts on their sleeves and unapologetically telling everyone how they feel. They have a knack for meeting people, instantly regarding them as friends rather than acquaintances. Tactile people, they frequently give others a reassuring squeeze of the hand or an arm around the shoulder. They like to be physically close; kissing, touching, and hugging are natural extensions of their outgoing, effusive style.

At this stage, average Twos are people pleasers, gratifying others so that others will love them in return, although average Twos would have difficulty admitting this motive. They are convinced that they simply want to love others and to express how much they like people. But when they overstate their appreciation of others, genuine appreciation deteriorates into flattery, the purpose of which is not appreciation of the other, but that the flatterer be appreciated for his praise.

Average Twos are confident that they have something valuable to share with others: themselves—their love and attention. They are completely convinced of the sincerity of their good will toward everyone, putting a favorable interpretation on everything they do. However, they are not so much good as they are faultlessly well-intentioned. An inflation of ego is involved, although they take pains not to let this show, especially to themselves.

Religion often plays an important part in their lives. Average Twos may well be sincerely religious and want to do good for others because of their religious convictions. However, religion is also very congenial to the way they view themselves. Religion reinforces their self-image of being well-intentioned and gives credibility to their assertions of sincerity. Religion also gives average Twos a vocabulary and a respected value system in which to talk about love, friendship, self-sacrifice, goodness, what they do for others, and how they feel about others—all of their favorite topics. On another level, Twos often develop a connection with religion or focus on psychic abilities because these can become very valuable gifts Twos can bestow upon others. Also, religion or psychic abilities become “value-added” aspects of the Two’s persona to which others may be attracted. Furthermore, religion puts average Twos on the side of the angels so that few people, including, of course, average Twos themselves, will dare to question their motives. Religion also appeals to their pride: they would secretly like to be thought of as savior figures, miracle workers, and rescuers. They have fantasies of their love conquering all, of killing the other person with kindness, and of winning over others through sheer goodness—all religious themes which make average Twos feel good about themselves.

The genuine appreciation of others that we find in healthy Twos has deteriorated into the beginning of an egocentricity which draws attention to itself in subtle ways. In all circumstances, Twos assert the depth of their feelings and how sincerely well-intentioned they are. And while their fine words seem to be for others’ benefit, average Twos are in fact trying to get others to acknowledge their goodness. They begin to cultivate friendships, giving more and more attention to people whose love and appreciation they want to win, and encouraging them to reveal their inmost thoughts and intimate details about their personal lives. Average Twos want to be the “special friend,” the confidant, the person to go to when one is troubled, because they believe that being such a person would surely mean that they are lovable.

Many people like the attention of average Twos, and average Twos know it. Their ability to lavish praise and flattery on people is a source of power, particularly over those who are hungry for approval. The approval they give, however, is not without cost.

Level 5: The Possessive “Intimate”

Given their interpersonal talents, it is not unusual for average Twos to gather a circle of people around themselves who become increasingly dependent on them. Average Twos would like to create an extended family, or a community, with themselves at the center so that others will regard them as important figures in their lives. They envelop people, making others feel that they are both part of a family and indebted to them for being invited to join it.

At this stage, Twos are like the stereotypical Jewish Mother who cannot do enough for others, although average Twos of all religions and sexes are equally inclined to this behavior. They are forever feeding people both literally and emotionally, something which has a powerful effect on others. Few things are as disarming as a seemingly sincere interest in oneself, and average Twos are never more effective than with those who, for their own psychological reasons, are searching for a mother’s love. Because of this, average Twos are on the lookout for people who will need them, but this sets up a serious problem. Since Twos are taking care of others to get appreciation and in the hopes of eventually getting their own needs satisfied in return, selecting dysfunctional, emotionally needy people makes the chances of getting sufficient feedback remote at best. Twos end up being drawn to the people who will be least able to reciprocate their attention—addicts, the infirm, the emotionally wounded.

This would not be an issue if it were not for the fact that Twos are looking for specific signs of appreciation from the objects of their affection. Tragically, Twos have begun to fear that the people they care about will love others more than them, and they believe that they must be needed by others in order to stay in their lives. To this end, Twos increasingly look for ways to be needed by the people they love. Their superego does not allow them to acknowledge this, though, so Twos must continue to convince themselves that they are only motivated by selfless love.

Of course, love remains their supreme value, and they want to love everyone. Love becomes their excuse, their rationale, their every motive, their only goal in life. If there is any type which is a Johnny-one-note about anything, it is the average Two talking about love. But it is also clear that when average Twos talk about love what they mean is that it is their love which is the solution to everybody’s needs.

Thus, average Twos see everyone as needy children hungry for love and attention, which they begin to press on others whether they seek it or not. They hover and interfere, giving unrequested advice, intruding into situations, and imposing themselves on people—making pests of themselves in the name of self-sacrificial love. The difficulty is that they are self-sacrificial to a fault, martyrs who invent needs to fulfill so that they can assume a greater position of importance to others. In short, they need to be needed.

They become busybodies, intrusively nosing into people’s affairs. In adopting the role of the loving parent even to their peers, Twos make it their business to solve everyone’s problems, from matchmaking to finding a job to giving advice about decorating an apartment. Because they want others to need them (their love, advice, approval, guidance), they do not hesitate to jump into people’s lives to help out. Others often experience this as meddling, and begin to distance themselves from the Two—the very thing Twos want to avoid.

The intimate conversations of Level 4 have also deteriorated into gossip, which serves as a way to let others know how many friends the Two has and how close the relationship with them is. They talk incessantly about their friends (and about friendships) in embarrassingly explicit detail. (“Let’s talk about us.”) They also think nothing of asking very pointed personal questions. Most people are usually too embarrassed (or too dependent on them) to rebuff their inquiries. The problem is that the flow of information is one-sided: average Twos always pry more out of others than they reveal about themselves. After all, they do not have problems: they are there to help others solve their problems.

Average Twos insinuate themselves into other people’s lives very quickly; others invariably find it difficult to pull away. Unfortunately, average Twos begin to inflict their ego agenda on others, who have to bear the burden of the Two’s love—or really, of the Two’s need to feel loved. Not surprisingly, their intrusiveness has negative effects on the very people Twos think they love. (The smothering mother’s love suffocates.) But because their love is so relentlessly self-sacrificial, the beneficiaries of it are constrained from complaining about the quality of the Two’s help.

Since they are sacrificing themselves for others, average Twos begin to feel that they have proprietary rights over them. They become possessive and extremely jealous of their friends, constantly hovering and “checking in” on the telephone. Twos become increasingly insecure about others’ affection for them and are afraid that if they let their loved ones out of their sight, their loved ones would probably leave them. They do not introduce their friends or encourage them to get to know one another because they fear that they might be left behind. They begin secretly to like it when other people are in a crisis: this gives them a role to fulfill and guarantees that they will be needed—at least for a while. Average Twos do not know how to let go of people, a problem which only gets worse as they continue to deteriorate toward unhealth.

Average Twos look for tangible responses from others as signs of success in their relationships. As they become more fearful that they are not lovable, it takes more to convince them that people do love and appreciate them. By Level 5, Twos evaluate the responses of others to their overtures of friendship and help, and only very specific responses are recognized as love. Twos expect people to know what the Two wants and needs. After all, haven’t Twos made it their business to know what others need? They may expect to receive phone calls, or invitations to dinner, or cards for every conceivable occasion, or thank-you notes—constant reassurance that people miss and love them. But only the specific response counts. A card will never do if what the Two really wants is a hug. Twos often deal with this by projecting their desire onto the other. (“You look like you could use a good hug.”) More often, though, they will simmer with frustration and find more ways to be “helpful.” Their superego will not allow them the “selfishness” of asking for what they want directly. In their pride, Twos cannot admit to the depth of their hurt and need.

Twos compensate for their growing fears by acting as if they were holding court. It flatters Twos to be treated like a guru, someone to whom others come for advice about all sorts of personal matters. Naturally, others are expected to keep them informed about everything significant in their lives: they want to be the social switchboard through which every piece of important information must pass. Twos are frantic to get positive feedback, to hear that their love and attention is valued and appreciated. To keep the flow of responses going, they stay in touch with old friends, spending a considerable amount of time maintaining their relationships—letting people know that they are thinking of them, worrying about them, praying for them, and so forth. Thus, while average Twos may still be thoughtful, it is in increasingly superficial ways: they remember birthdays and call frequently on the phone, but they begin to avoid getting tied down to the real needs of others so they can influence more people.

Ironically, their overinvolvement in the lives of others takes a toll on their genuine obligations, especially if Twos have families of their own. A problem with commitment surfaces. They become fickle, not so much because they drop one person to become deeply involved with another, but because they are constantly looking for love from yet another source. Since they want to be loved and appreciated by everyone, average Twos are constantly widening their circle of friends and acquaintances, doing yet more for others and inventing more needs to fulfill. When those who depend on them turn to them for help, they find that the Two is no longer there—they are off helping someone else.

Average Twos inevitably overextend themselves, helping too many people, sitting on too many committees, giving advice to too many friends, until they begin to feel burdened and physically worn out by their charity. Yet it is difficult for them not to be so involved, since that is how they maintain their sense of self. Furthermore, histrionic qualities have begun to surface, and as average Twos sacrifice themselves for others, they feel that they suffer because of their goodness. They dramatize every ache and pain, every inconvenience and problem which their kindliness has cost them. Illnesses, little breakdowns, and hypochondria become part of the picture.

The fact is that at this stage average Twos are not as loving as they think they are. They have strong egos, something they probably would not deny. (They have never claimed that they have no ego but that they are always well-meaning and loving.) They also have aggressive impulses on which they cannot act directly, as well as personal needs. Since they cannot risk being selfish and driving others away, they convince themselves that what they do is never for themselves but for everyone else. (“I was just doing it for you, trying to make your life easier.”) Even the simplest, seemingly most spontaneous acts of kindness become loaded with unacknowledged ulterior motives.

Unfortunately, average Twos feel that they will be loved only if they are constantly doing things for people—in effect, bribing others to love them. Of course, Twos want a sincere response, but instead of allowing others to take the initiative, they prime the pump to get the kind of response they want. The irony is that when Twos receive the response they have maneuvered for, they never know whether they would have received it without their own prompting, so the response does not mean much. This raises a new anxiety: How much are they appreciated for themselves? It is a problem which Twos create—and then begin to chafe under.

Level 6: The Self-important “Saint”

Their point of view is understandable: average Twos feel that they have done many good things—they have taken a well-meaning interest in people, they have sacrificed themselves, they have taken care of people’s needs—and they simply want to be appreciated for it. It seems to them that others completely take for granted the efforts they have made. They feel that no one values them, that others do not think about their needs or sacrifice themselves for them the way they have. Twos feel that others are ungrateful and thoughtless and must be reminded of how good they are.

The reason for this kind of behavior is that it is difficult for Twos to appreciate themselves—and to keep their aggressive impulses under control—unless their value is reinforced by others. The person who was once so seemingly other-oriented has, at this stage, become egocentric under a veneer of modesty calculated to draw attention to itself. Twos at this stage are now altogether too self-important, patronizingly regarding themselves as indispensable to others, praising themselves, and becoming shamelessly self-congratulatory—modestly talking about their many virtues.

Vainglory is the capital sin of average Twos. Very pleased with themselves, they never allow an opportunity to slip by without reminding others of how much people love them, or how many friends they have, and what good works they have done. (“Imagine someone like me becoming friendly with someone like you! People have told me that you are lucky to have me as a friend.”) They drop the names of everyone they know, particularly if these are people of prominence. (Dropping names impresses others with how important Twos are as friends, sending the message that others had better value them since so many other people already do.)

Self-satisfied Twos may well not be aware of the extent of their pride. They like to impress others as selfless saints, calling attention to their virtue so that their good deeds will not go unnoticed—for the edification of others, of course. They like to shine in the eyes of others, be acclaimed for their virtues, and told what fine people they are, or even better, overhear themselves discussed in the most glowing terms. (Twos can, of course, proclaim their little human foibles, but God help anyone who accuses them of any serious faults.) The fact is that by now others have become mere appendages to their egos, little more than sources of gratification for their pride.

Pride is also destructive to Twos in the sense that it prevents them from acknowledging the intensity of their resentments or the depth of their emotional suffering. Twos believe that were they to admit to these “negative” feelings, they would be quickly abandoned. In fact, just the opposite is true. While Twos may not want to admit to their growing hurt and rage, others certainly feel it and are repelled by the mixed signals Twos send. Some open communication would be helpful, but at Level 6, they are too invested in maintaining their false self-image.

The servant has become the master. The underlying wounds to their self-esteem and narcissism are so deep that Twos need others to be grateful to them constantly: an unending stream of gratitude, attention, and praise must flow in their direction. They expect others to do favors for them as signs of their importance and feel that others should repay them—in cash or kind—for their previous self-sacrifices, real or imagined. Having done a good deed sometime in the past, self-important Twos feel that the beneficiary is forever in their debt. The problem is that they grossly overvalue what they have done for others, while undervaluing what everyone else does for them. What others find particularly galling is that Twos at this Level take credit for everything positive in their lives, as if they alone were responsible for whatever success or happiness others have. Twos feel that they are indispensable and that others could not have done anything without their help (“You have me to thank for that”), and do not hesitate to say so.

At the same time, Twos at Level 6 are still extremely needy for affection, and they are far less discriminating about where and how they get it. Their emotional needs are intense, and all the more so for being repressed. For all of their pride and self-importance, they are willing to chase after anyone who gives them the slightest hint of the kind of attention and contact they are looking for, and when they are at this Level or lower, what they recognize as love can be abusive and destructive.

Their tendency at Level 5 to take on too many obligations has escalated into an indiscriminate pursuit of attention. Before, they often left their primary loved ones unattended because of all of the “friends” that they had to help. Now they are eager to be part of any situation that promises to get them some attention or emotional connection. They want to be part of every social get-together they hear about, and can spend long hours on the phone in rambling conversations. Under certain circumstances, they may pursue various kinds of sexual escapades. Indeed, the ability to attract others sexually becomes an indication of their lovability. They can resemble Sevens in their scattered lack of focus, but while Sevens are running around to avoid their anxiety, Twos are running around because they are magnetized by any situation that even potentially offers to make them feel needed and loved. Thus, the people closest to them may feel abandoned by them, a particularly ironic turn of events given the Two’s desperate need for appreciation.

Unfortunately, Twos do not see that their expectations of appreciation are much too high. They are bound to be disappointed and furious if others do anything short of handing over their very lives to them. But this creates a serious conflict: they are furious with others if others do not love them in return. Yet rehashing their claims to force others into loving them will likely only drive others away, making Twos feel the bitter sting of rejection even more acutely because of their inflated self-importance. Often they will attempt to “stuff” their feelings by abusing food, alcohol, or prescription medications, but this only makes them feel more hopeless and unlovable. Resentments smolder, becoming the prelude to manipulation, coercion, and revenge.

ANALYZING THE UNHEALTHY TWO

Level 7: The Self-Deceptive Manipulator

It usually takes a background of chronic abuse or a major catastrophe in people’s lives to precipitate a fall into the unhealthy Levels, but when this does occur, Twos take a particularly nasty turn for the worse. Their aggressions have been strongly aroused, but because their aggressions conflict with their all-good self-image, Twos cannot express how they actually feel. The upshot is that unhealthy Twos have to express their aggressions indirectly, by manipulating others to give them the kind of loving response they desperately want. The irony is, however, that if they manipulate others, the responses they receive will never satisfy them.

Not feeling that they are loved not only hurts unhealthy Twos terribly, it calls into question their whole value system—the value of “love.” If love does not have the power to get them what they want, then what does? Having loved and lost, they are furious about it. The answer is, of course, that what passes for love in unhealthy Twos is not love, but extreme forms of codependency and desperate need. By Level 7, Twos are too neurotic to even recognize love, let alone give or receive it. While they still use the vocabulary of love, their words are self-serving, designed to get something from others without appearing to do so directly. Manipulation is the name of the game.

Manipulative Twos are the maestros of guilt; they can play others like an orchestra, upping the level of guilt into a disturbing crescendo or dampening it down to a whisper, as needed. They play people against each other, and worse, they are able to play others against themselves. It is shocking to people to realize how much the unhealthy Two’s manipulations pull them off their own center. Grown men and women, heads of households and corporations, are reduced to so much emotional wreckage by being manipulated into enlisting part of themselves against themselves. But by casting others into self-doubt and making them feel guilty and confused, unhealthy Twos throw others off the scent of their own manipulations.

They undermine others while presenting themselves as “helpers” who can heal the pain they have subtly caused. They prick at tender spots with one hand while soothing the hurt with the other; they put people down and then bolster their self-confidence with left-handed compliments; they never let people forget their problems, making their future seem hopeless while promising to remain with them forever; they reopen old wounds, then rush in to stitch them up. They become one’s best friend and, unwittingly, one’s worst enemy.

At the same time, unhealthy Twos still feel compelled to do things for others to be needed. They are too unhealthy to really be of assistance, but still they cannot stop themselves, which inevitably leads to problems with their physical health. This often begins as hypochondria at Level 6. Getting sick allows Twos to take a break from wearing themselves out for everyone without feeling like a bad or selfish person. But over time, as Twos continue “stuffing” their anger and frustration and abusing food and medications, they really do get sick and begin to use their illness as a way of eliciting attention. In the unhealthy Two, pity comes to substitute for love.

Naturally, unhealthy Twos are difficult to help and notoriously resistant to therapy. They put themselves in a morally superior position, no matter what they have said or done. And by insisting on the absolute purity of their motives, they call those of others into question. No one can question their behavior or motives without Twos ascribing evil-mindedness to them. Even tangible evidence has no effect on them since it can be dismissed as irrelevant to their good intentions. Unhealthy Twos can always be depended on to defend themselves by appealing to good intentions and the laws of the heart to sanction anything they do. They use religious rationalizations to extricate themselves from guilt or responsibility for their actions; they make another’s attempt at an objective analysis of a situation seem niggling and petty by comparison to their superior ethics, which follow a higher morality. They have turned the dictum “love, and do what you will” into a license to do whatever they want in the name of “love.”

All of this destructive behavior stems from the tremendous rage which unhealthy Twos are suppressing, and the struggles of their fragile ego to survive. Convinced that everyone is leaving them or would leave them if they were less dependent on the Two, unhealthy Twos use whatever means they can to hold on to people at all costs. They are terrified of being left alone, but also furious at the people they “love” for causing them to suffer so much. But again, they cannot admit to their hatreds or even to the idea that they might have any self-interest.

Self-deception is the defense mechanism which allows unhealthy Twos to avoid seeing the discrepancy between the virtues they think they possess and their actual behavior. No matter how destructive they are, unhealthy Twos, through self-deception, are able to interpret whatever they do as good. In their minds, they always remain well-intentioned, loving human beings. Their consciences are always clear.

It is important to understand that unhealthy Twos are at peace with being manipulative because they do not have to rationalize individual acts. With the help of self-deception, they have managed to rationalize their entire lives. Once they have defined themselves as “good,” they are able to justify whatever they say or do without feeling guilty, and without feeling that they are no longer good. Others have caused them to suffer. They are only helpless victims. In fact, if they are at Level 7 or lower, Twos have likely been victimized by others in very serious and damaging ways. The wounds to their self-esteem are so great that they must constantly rationalize their behavior to justify their existence. Further, they are so afraid that people will not love them that they are desperate to hang on to any emotional connection with others, even if it is painful and destructive.

At Level 7, the joyously radiant qualities so evident in healthy Twos are nowhere to be found. Twos are bitter and in great pain, neither spreading joy nor experiencing it. Their behavior can be deeply frustrating and painful for those around them, but their aggressions are still primarily psychological. Unfortunately, without help, their behavior may get markedly worse.

Level 8: The Coercive Domintor

The possessiveness we saw in average Twos has deteriorated into coercively demanding love from others on their own terms—and neurotic terms at that. What emerges is a delusional sense of entitlement, the feeling that they have an absolute right to get whatever they want from others. From their viewpoint, everyone else owes them whatever they want because of the self-sacrifices unhealthy Twos insist they have made in the past.

Neurotic Twos are nearly hysterical in their fears of being unloved and can be highly irrational and extraordinarily difficult to deal with. Their ability to conceal the depth of their need breaks down. Twos at Level 8 lack the energy to maintain their image of selflessness in any consistent way. They are tired of being selfless. They now insist that others put their needs first. Their egos, whose needs were formerly met indirectly through various kinds of service to others, are thrust into the foreground, making demands on others with a vengeance.

Twos at this Level pursue their emotional gratification with a reckless abandon. They want love and they will turn to almost any source to find it. Often, a person at this level of unhealth will have suffered a highly dysfunctional childhood environment, quite possibly being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused. As a result, unhealthy Twos would not know genuine love if they fell over it. Instead, they compulsively seek out whatever kind of connection they had with their protective-figure as children, whether abusive, violent, or neglectful. The kinds of relationships they compulsively engage in are frequently clear indications of their root anxieties. Promiscuity, destructive affairs, and other forms of sexual acting out are not uncommon.

Nor are their emotional needs the only aspect of their personalities to be exposed at this Level. Twos have been harboring deep and painful resentments for a long time, and now their hatred and anger boils to the surface. They express their contempt and rage at others in a variety of ways, and yet what remains of their fragile ego demands that they justify their aggressions and keep their few remaining loved ones from deserting them completely.

Their aggressions often take the form of an unnerving and frustrating knack for belittling people in the name of love. Neurotic Twos can make the most derogatory remarks about others, both behind their backs and to their faces, if need be, “for their own good.” They may also punish others by withdrawing their love. (“Well, you can just try to get along without me!”) They do not hesitate to make dire predictions about others’ possibilities without them. (“You’re not going to be happy; you’re going to fall right on your face without me.”) By denying that they take any personal satisfaction in telling people what they think of them, or in having any ulterior motives whatsoever, they are free to do and say anything they please. (“I can say anything I want about him, because I love him.”)

They are furious with others and it shows. The veneer of love drops away, and neurotic Twos let loose a torrent of bitter complaints about how they have been treated, how their health has suffered, and how unappreciated they are. They endlessly dredge up things from the past, harping on how much they have helped people, how hopeless others are without them, and how they made others who they are today. (“Remember what I did for you? Is this the thanks I get?”)

While their incessant complaints and disparaging remarks bring them attention, it is the wrong kind of attention—the resentment and anger of others. Of course, unhealthy Twos are aware of this and it becomes a source of fresh complaints. The vicious circle of recrimination continues. However, they feel that anything offensive or hurtful they may do to others does not reflect on them as deeply loving human beings, but is justified by the unloving treatment they have received. Hence, they can do the most awful things to people without a qualm of conscience. (“If one judges love by most of its results, it is closer to hatred than friendship."—La Rochefoucauld)

Indeed, neurotic Twos want to be loved so much that they may attempt to coerce others to love them in the most damaging ways. It is possible that some forms of pedophilia and child molestation have their roots here, and that Twos, as a group, figure disproportionately in this kind of destructive behavior. It is worth remembering that Twos typically enjoy the trust and admiration of family and friends. They may be teachers, clergy, daycare workers, or nurses—those whose word and integrity is usually not suspected by anyone. But, at this stage, since Twos are neurotic and in all probability lack satisfactory intimate relationships with their peers, it is possible that they will turn to children or other inappropriate sources of "love” to fulfill their emotional and sexual needs.

Moreover, since they are already extremely manipulative and self-deceptive, neurotic Twos are more than capable of taking advantage of the powerlessness of children. Indeed, their helplessness is one of the qualities which attracts Twos to children: they can comfort the very child they have terrorized, playing the role of savior once again.

Level 9: The Psychosomatic Victim

If demanding love from others has gotten them nowhere, unhealthy Twos unconsciously try another avenue. They want to be loved, to be shown concern, and to be appreciated more desperately than ever. Physical illness seems to be a reliable way of ensuring that they receive the appreciation which they have been seeking. Becoming an invalid is the solution: others will have no choice but to take care of them. While being cared for is not the same as being loved, it may be as close to love as they are going to get.

Neurotic Twos try to obtain the love of others, which has always been their fundamental desire, by unconsciously desiring to go to pieces. They fear being held responsible for their words and deeds. They also fear that their aggressions have revealed some hypocrisy about themselves which would make them unlovable, their greatest fear. They therefore unconsciously attempt to escape responsibility for themselves by having a physical breakdown which will, in a sense, exempt them from further punishment. And, in their minds at least, physical suffering will conclusively prove many of the most important claims they have made about themselves: that they have been selfless, that they have been victimized by others, that they have worn themselves out for others, and so on, all of which may have some degree of truth to them.

Their health falls apart because, as formidable and willful as neurotic Twos are, the strain of living under enormous contradictions becomes unbearable. The stress of trying to control and justify their hatred of others takes its toll physically. Furthermore, their superego is so toxic and relentless that the only way unhealthy Twos feel that they can get some attention—or even some relief—is to become ill.

Psychosomatic illnesses are the result of the process known as hysterical conversion reaction. In psychological terms, neurotic Twos are hysterics who convert anxiety into physical symptoms. They usually fall victim to a wide array of mysterious illnesses, including skin eruptions, gastrointestinal problems, arthritis, and high blood pressure—all diseases in which stress plays an important role. (Even average Twos may develop mysterious illnesses; however, by the time a Two is fully neurotic, the list of diseases has become long, and being an invalid has become a way of life.) Because Twos are ill so often, others may suspect a masochistic enjoyment of their sufferings, but, strictly speaking, this is not the case. They do not actually enjoy suffering because the suffering is real; instead, they enjoy the benefits suffering affords them. Horney describes it vividly.

Suffering is unconsciously put into the service of asserting claims, which not only checks the incentive to overcome it but also leads to inadvertent exaggerations of suffering. This does not mean that his suffering is merely “put on” for demonstrative purposes. It affects him in a much deeper way because he must primarily prove himself to his own satisfaction that he is entitled to the fulfillment of his needs. He must feel that his suffering is so exceptional and so excessive that it entitles him to help. In other words this process makes a person actually feel his suffering more intensely than he would without its having acquired an unconscious strategic value. (Karen Homey, Neurosis and Human Growth, 229.)

Physical suffering is also a permanent, guilt-instilling rebuke to those who have not provided neurotic Twos with the love and appreciation they have always wanted. It is an unending source of demands for attention, care, concern—for love. The “saint” has become a drain on everyone. The most other-oriented person either drives away family and friends or makes their lives unbearable.

ANALYZING THE DYNAMICS OF THE TWO

The Direction of Disintegration: The Two Goes to Eight

Starting at Level 4, average to unhealthy Twos will sometimes respond to stress and adversity by exhibiting some of the traits of the average to unhealthy Eight. Because Twos repress many of their negative and aggressive feelings, the move to Eight can be seen as a way of acting them out when the Two’s normal ego defenses fail.

At Level 4, Twos tend to be friendly and well-meaning, expressing their positive feelings about everyone in their lives. When they go to Eight, they suddenly become more direct and, in a sense, “cut to the chase.” They can seem shrewd and pragmatic, in marked contrast to the image of sweetness they usually project, and can be downright blunt. They also respond to stress by working harder, getting more deeply engaged in the projects they have established, and getting concerned about their family’s survival needs.

At Level 5, Twos want to be needed, and try to make themselves indispensable to people. Here, the move toward Eight underscores their need to be appreciated for their efforts. They begin to draw attention to their importance, bluffing and boasting and making big promises to people. This mixes with the Two’s gossiping and name-dropping in a way that is intended to communicate to others, “I hope you are aware of how important I am in your life.” Twos at this Level can also pick up some of the Eight’s swaggering and domineering qualities. In response to the frustrations entailed in their self-sacrifices, they are starting to throw their weight around.

At Level 6, when patronizing and self-importance collapse, Twos can become more flagrantly aggressive and controlling in the manner of Eights at Level 6. They may make threats and attempt to undermine the confidence of the people around them as a way of getting them to stay, but also of exerting control. When Twos act out Eight traits at this Level, the pretenses of being loving and friendly disappear and the underlying rage and feelings of betrayal are exposed. Although Twos will tend to rationalize these episodes and even forget them, others will not.

By Level 7, Twos have become deeply neurotic and are using all of their strength to repress their growing rage and hostility in order to preserve the illusion that they are still good, selfless people. The movement toward Eight here is indicative of a failure to “keep the lid on” any longer. The tempers of Twos at this Level can be frightening, as their anger and disappointment come to the surface. They may strike others, or scream viciously and abusively at the people they feel are frustrating them.

At Level 8, even the pretenses of sweetness have vanished, and when Twos go to Eight now, they release their aggressions, going after whatever they want with feelings of entitlement. Their suppressed desires can emerge wildly out of control, and Twos can be relentless and brutal in pursuit of whatever they believe has been denied them. They feel powerful, justified, and unstoppable in the rush of lust that explodes in them.

The essential problem with unhealthy Twos is that they have not come to grips with their aggressive feelings. Even in the depths of their illness and suffering, neurotic Twos realize that they are still coercing the attention of others, and this thought continues to enrage them. They may be bedridden or hospitalized because they are physically ill, but they are not deranged or dissociating from reality.

Thus, at Level 9, while unconsciously having a physical breakdown has been adaptive (since illness and physical incapacitation take the possibility of violence against others out of their hands), this form of adaptation may not last for long. After all, they may actually recover and something else may precipitate a move to Eight, the eruption of their aggressive feelings into seriously destructive behavior.

Because they are still neurotic, however, unhealthy Twos are in no position to deal constructively with their aggressive impulses. Their bitterness and rancor, their desire for revenge and self-vindication, are directed to those who have frustrated their desire to be loved. When they move to Eight, neurotic Twos strike out at those who have not responded to them as they have wanted. The hatred they have suppressed comes pouring out, and is openly expressed against those who Twos feel have not loved them sufficiently in the past. Love completely turns into hatred, and smoldering hatred into violence and destruction.

A deeply neurotic Two at Eight can become physically violent, even murderous. Those in the immediate family are usually the people most at risk, the very ones for whom, Twos are convinced, they had nothing but good intentions and undying love. The invalid, the self-sacrificial martyr, the suffering saint becomes a monster, sacrificing others.

The Direction of Integration: The Two Goes to Four

When healthy Twos go to Four, they get in touch with their feelings, especially their aggressive ones, and become aware of themselves as they really are. They graduate from an unwillingness to examine themselves and their motives, and move toward self-knowledge.

Integrating Twos accept the presence of their negative feelings as fully as they accept their positive feelings. This does not mean that they act on their negative feelings when they are at Four, but that they are willing to acknowledge these feelings in themselves. Because Twos at Four become emotionally honest, they are able to express the full range of their emotions—not just their loving side, although it is certainly still present and more genuine than ever before.

For the first time, integrating Twos unconditionally accept themselves, just as they unconditionally accept others. It is therefore possible to give something deeper and more personal to others than they have ever done in the past. And when they are loved by others, it is all the more gratifying because others love the whole of them. Integrating Twos can rightly feel that they are no longer loved just for what they do for others, but for who they are.

There is also the possibility of harnessing their fuller, more authentic feelings into forms of creativity. They become more self-aware and reflective human beings, who have intuitions into the depths of the human condition. Whatever they give to others is now all the more valuable because integrating Twos are more genuine as human beings, whether as artists, or as parents, or as friends.

THE MAJOR SUBTYPES OF THE TWO

The Two with a One-Wing: “The Servant”

Both the Two and the One are strongly oriented to their superegos, so we see a heightened sense of altruism in the Two with a One-wing. At the same time, the Two’s traits and those of the One tend to conflict with each other: Twos are emotional, interpersonal, and histrionic, while Ones are rational, impersonal, and self-controlled. The empathy and interpersonalism of the Two are counterbalanced by the restraint, objectivity, and idealism of the One. Thus, the Two with a One-wing strives for love through goodness and selfless service. The One-wing contributes a degree of circumspection and severity which is less pronounced in the Two’s other subtype. The sense of obligation and duty is also stronger, while the Two’s more interpersonal qualities are typically more muted. In this respect, this subtype can be misidentified as Type Six, or vice versa. There is a strong conscience and a desire to act on principles so that people of this subtype will try to treat others fairly, no matter what their emotional needs are, although because Two is the basic type, they will probably feel conflicts between their principles and their heart. Noteworthy examples of this subtype include Mother Teresa, Eleanor Roosevelt, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Danny Thomas, Alan Alda, Ann Landers, Florence Nightingale, Lewis Carroll, “Melanie Hamilton Wilkes,” and “Jean Brodie.”

Healthy persons of this subtype can do a great deal of good for others, partly because of the One-wing’s principles. Teaching others, improving their lives, and working for a cause are noteworthy traits. Many charities and religious and philanthropic organizations are probably begun and staffed by this subtype. They want to give the best possible service to others, and they do so with less self-regard and more altruism than the Two’s other subtype. They often feel a seriousness of purpose and are drawn to search for their life’s task. They may be particularly fine teachers, since they not only have an objective, intellectual orientation to facts and values, but the emotional warmth to bring ideas to life. As teachers and parents, they are also very encouraging and appreciative of those in their charge. In their personal style, they like to keep things simple and functional, in contrast to the more flamboyant Two with a Three-wing.

In average persons of this subtype, there is a tension between personalism and idealism. As Twos, they empathize with people, but if they have a strong One-wing, their abstract ideals conflict with their feelings, making it difficult for them to empathize with others wholeheartedly. At least some part of them remains judgmental, ready to make moral pronouncements. Yet both components cause people of this subtype to feel strongly driven to serve others, and they experience great difficulty saying no to people. Average persons of this subtype can also be very controlling, both of others and of themselves. They are egocentric, although this is hidden by their ideals, especially the ideal of love. We see the conflicting tendencies of the two subtypes most clearly in the desire to be important to others versus the desire to be reasonable and objective. They feel awkward about drawing attention to themselves and prefer working in the background, yet as Twos they want to feel significant in others’ lives. Persons of this subtype are also more subject to guilt and to self-condemnation than Twos with a Three-wing, since they tend to be more highly critical of themselves when they fail to live up to their own moral standards. They often feel that they already have too much, and have more trouble asking for what they want than the other subtype of the Two.

Unhealthy people of this subtype are self-righteous, inflexible, and moralistic about whatever they think is the right thing to do. Self-righteousness and the desire to justify themselves combine with self-deception and manipulation to produce a strongly entrenched mind-set which is very difficult to change. Persons of this subtype are quick to condemn others and are able to justify themselves on moral grounds. They cannot allow themselves to be proved wrong, nor can they allow themselves to be proved selfish, and they completely deny their aggressive feelings. People of this subtype are subject to hypochondria and psychosomatic disorders—obsessions and compulsions focused on their bodies.

The Two with a Three-Wing: “The Host/Hostess”

The Two’s traits and those of the Three tend to reinforce each other: both types relate easily to people. The Three-wing adds elements of charm, “personality,” and adaptability; thus, Twos with a Three-wing seek love through the creation of intimacy and personal connection. This is also the more “seductive” side of the Two: this subtype employs charm and social graces to win the affection of others. The Three’s desire for acceptance and validation blends with the Two’s drive for appreciation and closeness to form a personality in which relationships are the central focus. Noteworthy examples of this subtype include Luciano Pavarotti, Barbara Bush, Barry Manilow, Richard Simmons, Sammy Davis, Jr., Leo Buscaglia, Kathy Bates, Doug Henning, Tommy Tune, John Denver, Pat Boone, and Lillian Carter.

Healthy people of this subtype are charming, friendly, and outgoing. They enjoy the attention of others, are self-assured, and exude an aura of well-being and wholesome self-enjoyment. They possess a free-spirited, worldly attitude that can easily be confused with the joie de vivre of the Seven. There is genuine warmth in people of this subtype, as well as the ability to communicate that warmth to others. The “giving” of this subtype is less likely to take the form of overt caretaking. They enjoy bestowing whatever talents they possess upon their friends and admirers: cooking, entertaining, singing, and listening are all experienced as an inner bountifulness to be shared. The Two with the Three-wing is more a “gift giver” than a “servant.” Social qualities are valued more than moral or intellectual ones. They are less task-driven than the other subtype, but also less likely to engage in self-questioning and self-criticism.

Average Twos with a Three-wing want to project an image of outstanding warmth and friendliness. It is important for them to be perceived as extraordinary, desirable people. Twos use others to validate their goodness; Threes, to validate their desirability, which in this subtype is often expressed as a focus on physical attractiveness and sexual desirability. Also, to the extent that the Three-wing is operative, they are hard working and want tangible signs of achievement and success. The image-consciousness of average Threes can begin to manifest in Twos as excessive friendliness, “cuteness,” and exaggerated sentimentality. They are also more prone to flattery and gossip than the other subtype. Whereas none of these behaviors are necessarily harmful, they tend to cause others to reject them as serious intimates—exactly the opposite of what Twos want. They are also highly aware of what others think of them and how they come across to others. When combined with the Two’s possessiveness, this can cause them to be overly concerned with their desirability in a way that can lead both to strong attractions and big disappointments. Having the right friends, dropping names, and cultivating people is typical. We also find the tendency to be self-important and narcissistic, although the Three’s calculation of his or her “image” and the Two’s self-sacrificial persona will mask this to some degree. The Three-wing helps Twos be more direct about what they want, but also causes them to draw more attention to the services they have provided. A person of this subtype fears being humiliated and losing status rather than feeling guilty over the violation of his or her moral ideals.

If people of this subtype become unhealthy, they can be emotionally devastating to others since they become both manipulative and exploitative, deceptive with respect to others and self-deceptive, opportunistic and neurotically feeling entitled to get whatever they want from others. Hostility toward others can be extremely strong and all-consuming: beneath their apparent charm lies viciousness. They are potentially psychopathic in the destructiveness they are capable of wreaking. In them we find elements of emotional obsession—even stalking behavior—that can lead to malice and the tendency to ruin what they cannot have, especially relationships. Twos with a Three-wing are capable of pathological jealousy and violent crimes of passion.

SOME FINAL THOUGHTS

As we look back, we can see that Twos have conflicts between their desire to love and their need to be loved, between their genuine self-esteem and their need to manipulate others to feel good about themselves. What is unfortunate is that, to paraphrase Othello, average to unhealthy Twos have loved neither too wisely nor too well. But at least according to their own lights, they have tried to love others. Therein lies the nobility of their goal and their tragedy if they fail to attain it.

The irony is that unhealthy Twos compulsively bring about the very thing they most fear: they want to be loved, but end up being hated, or at least unwanted by anyone. A second, darkly comic irony lies in the likelihood that the only person who may be attracted to the unenviable position of caring for an invalid, neurotic Two may be another Two. If the second Two is manipulatively self-sacrificial about the help which he or she gives, a pathetic duel of wills may play itself out between these two like-minded, draining souls. The result is a macabre dance of death.

If we draw a lesson from this personality type, it is that Twos can be right in their belief about the value of love, yet wrong in their manner of loving others. If they intrude upon people with “love,” Twos unwittingly prove that what they force on others is not love, and, for that very reason, is doomed to failure. As soon as ego masquerades behind love, love becomes tainted and eventually corrupt—with all the consequences which we have seen in this personality type.