claire.she.goes

Category: I’m just sayin’.

  • Superman and The Manosphere’s Superhero Complex

    Superman and The Manosphere’s Superhero Complex

    Photo by Esteban López on Unsplash

    For ages, offline, I’ve been writing and wanting to share some of my thoughts on what’s been bothering me about the manosphere. The latest version of my work contains a few segments, and this post is inspired by one of them.

    I’ve noticed a curious trend in the critiques of James Gunn’s latest film, and rather than offering a long preamble, I think I’ll cut to the chase.

    Looking into why people don’t like Gunn’s version of Superman brings up articles like this one. (And in my list of search results, I couldn’t help but notice a piece entitled, “They’re Literally Angry at Superman for Being Nice”–something that I might read, even though I’m pretty sure the writer and I are on the same page.)

    Superman–as depicted in James Gunn’s latest film via David Corenswet–troubles many Big C Conservatives and their acolytes because he violates a core tenet of the manosphere. 

    Specifically, this:

    Physically fit, good looking men are NOT supposed to demonstrably (earnestly) care about, or be sensitive towards others. (Here, of course, “others” refers to those members of humanity who are vulnerable or likely to need their help–or, hell–are just people who may be different from them, and therefore have experienced life differently.) These men don’t need to practice kindness of any kind in order to get what they want out of life.

    And if a man is white, that rule goes double for him, and six times on Saturdays.

    But Claire–you say–what are you talking about? When has one of the Manosphere’s Leaders–herein, otherwise known as Podcast Bros–dared to utter such a thing out loud?

    Well, it may not have been explicitly said, but time and again, such a guideline has been HEAVILY implied and encouraged.

    Within the manosphere’s media, individuals and causes that require sensitivity, depth, and nuance are mocked. You could be talking about the environment, race or racism, equality…

    (And by the way–the way some of the leaders of the Dudebro Dynasty used false rhetoric over time to slander the concept of DEI needs to be studied…) 

    Time and again, ANY call for men to help or generally understand and accept various members of humanity is depicted as laughable and somehow beneath what “REAL” men ought to be interested in.

    Men who demonstrate any sort of sensitivity to others–such as women–are called names like “cuck” and at least one other term that escapes me as I type.

    Meanwhile, those who tell the truth about what the rest of humanity would appreciate in men are vilified and treated as The Enemy. 

    Womanese

    I remember a few weeks ago, I saw a video wherein a man noted certain qualities that he expected from a woman in a relationship. In return, the woman shared her hopes concerning a partner.

    And what did the man say in response? He declared that she was speaking “womanese”–as in some sort of foreign, woman-specific language.

    In return, I thought, “Pardon me, sir. But don’t you want to end up with a woman? Shouldn’t you care about how we think or what we genuinely desire?”

    Within the manosphere, Dear Reader, I MUST ask: Where is this desperate need to make normal things sound repugnant coming from???

    Never mind. I’m getting away from myself. 

    One thing that I want to point out is that intentionally casting everyone that isn’t A Certain Type of Man or Person as The Enemy isn’t getting these men where they think it is.

    And indeed, as I was saying–my main grievance at this time stems from the fact that within the manosphere, the most basic of human traits connected to kindness–an INTRINSIC and VERY popular human value–are lied about and portrayed as antithetical to what men should aspire to. 

    If you don’t believe me, let’s consider how the manosphere regards the “s” word, aka something that’s–judging from their reactions–one of the most wretched of all things in this world:

    Safety.

    Everything is… AWFUL?

    Let’s kick off this part of my discussion with a little comedy, shall we?

    Take a minute and watch this.

    I remember the first time I saw “The Official Woke List”. I thought that whoever came up with it deserved All of The Awards.

    Seriously.

    All great comedy contains grains of truth. And watching the podcast host receive Colin’s litany of “woke” offenders reminded me of some of the top Manosphere Leaders’ content. Over time I’ve noticed they’ve been heavily invested in warning their audiences about society’s supposed dangers. 

    And did you notice what “Colin from Portsmouth” shouted at 0:47?

    You can run it back if you want… 

    Among all of the things that he listed as “woke” and detrimental to civilized society, he barked

    “PLACES WHERE PEOPLE FEEL SAFE!!!”

    Now, I’ve seen the way Podcast Bros discuss safety, and in particular, people’s desire for safe spaces. Watching them, you might believe that safety and safe spaces are something needed by people who are mewling, immature, or inferior. Meanwhile, within society, who tends to speak openly of needing a safe space?

    Nearly anyone who isn’t a straight white male.

    And in saying that, I can’t help but think about what I believe people are after when they (we) say they want a safe space–or just to feel safe. 

    Which makes me ask the following:

    If you’re a man who’s reading this, whether alone or around others, don’t you appreciate being in places where you are

    • Genuinely listened to–especially during your most vulnerable moments
    • Taken seriously
    • Respected
    • Comfortable, not made to worry or needlessly feel stressed
    • Not at risk of being baselessly ridiculed or criticized
    • Not at risk of being attacked–physically, verbally, or otherwise

    I could go on. But don’t you (men) want to be able to experience this sort of social decency–for lack of a better term? 

    Why, then, depict safety as some sort of monstrous enemy?

    I don’t mean to lump all men into the same massive stereotype. But for the most part, I could argue that a large percentage of them don’t have to worry about being disrespected or feeling unsafe to the degree that other people do. 

    Perhaps that’s why certain Podcast Bros have so successfully portrayed the concept of purposely seeking safety as ridiculous. Because so many of their audience members can’t fathom something that, as adults, they haven’t necessarily needed. Or at least had to consider to the extent that others do.

    Nevertheless, I’ve been alarmed by the lack of maturity the manosphere has displayed regarding this subject. Just because you don’t need something, that doesn’t mean it isn’t important to someone else. Especially when that someone is more vulnerable than you are.

    And yet…

    By now, if you’re a heterosexual man and you’re reading this, and you still don’t understand why other people value safety, I’m going to offer you the following illustration. Take a moment, and ask yourself: What’s your relationship like with women?

    I’m not even talking about long term relationships, or how frequently you date. Just think.

    Do women find you attractive? Do they simply enjoy being around you? Do you appreciate their attention?

    If you answered those last few questions with a “yes”, then know this: If women didn’t FEEL SAFE around you, then they (we) wouldn’t want you within a thousand miles of them. Period.

    Understand: Contrary to what the Podcast Bros have been spewing, the word “safe” and its derivatives aren’t some funny, loopy buzzwords. And safety is not just a human right. It is a human value. Something that most human beings genuinely appreciate, on a molecular level.

    Anecdotally speaking, I’ll tell you–a few days ago, I saw a social media post where someone asked women–apart from material factors such as money, what did they really want in a man? 

    “Safety” and its cousins–words relating to kindness and sensitivity came up time and again. 

    Meanwhile, for some reason, Podcast Bros seem dedicated to encouraging men to be the antithesis of what is needed for them to succeed in their interpersonal relationships–romantic and otherwise. 

    Isn’t it Ironic?

    Don’t you think?

    While working on edits for another story, it hit me: The Men of the Manosphere provide their mostly (white) male fans with THE ULTIMATE Safe Space. 

    Really. Think about it.

    Their takes on humanity’s pressing issues fall on the ears of a large, attentive audience. Their views are supported and thus far haven’t been questioned in a way that inspires them to change course.

    All the while, the information that the Podcast Bros share encourages men to remain culturally impotent. Through their programming, the public sees the hosts modeling behaviour and using language that encourages their audience to believe that it’s fun and badass to be ignorant of others’ basic needs.

    And yet, in spite of their eagerness to support popular lies about their chosen topic(s), they have the gall to regard others with dismay and disdain.

    Why?

    Because, apparently, the mainstream doesn’t appreciate their “special” knowledge and how they conduct themselves.

    But is that really what’s wrong?

    Or, could it be that various individuals like me tend to avoid Podcast Bros and their True Believers because they’re committed to upholding ignorance?

    In all seriousness, their loyalty to these men’s ideologies is downright frightening. In the end, I wonder what dividends these men’s blind fealty to the Dudebro Dynamos is yielding in their relationships, apart from frustration.

    And on a personal level, is it any wonder that certain men end up like Colin from Portsmouth? He sounded so angry, and his portrayal would have been truly comedic if I wasn’t willing to bet everything that it was grounded in reality.

    When you’re invested in thinking the worst of others for absolutely no good reason, just how good can you expect your mental health to be?

    My Point? And Perhaps Superman’s

    Human beings are powerful. Men, in particular, are powerful. This is absolutely NOT a bad thing in and of itself.

    Yet so many men are wasting their abilities and energy, and tying themselves into knots by engaging in counter-productive habits such as insisting that the most normal and benign of human traits are their enemy. They end up judging their fellow human beings accordingly, and needlessly damaging their connections with others. 

    Yet in reality, it’s their attachment to weaponized ignorance that is hurting not only humanity on a broad scale, but them as well.

    The manosphere’s leaders seem to think it’s a shame that men aren’t loved or appreciated the way they used to be. (Not since the proverbial good old days, anyways.) And yet all the while, they leave out the fact that genuine love and appreciation are a result of reciprocal interaction.

    From what I’ve observed, the manosphere teaches men from a selfish space–that they deserve God knows what (*gestures broadly*) merely for existing. Meanwhile in reality, it’s vital to remember a timeless truth: At the end of the day, people are loved for how they treat others.

    And contrary to what contemporary society likes to trick too many of us into believing, attention is NOT love.

    Or, put into superhero terms: Superman isn’t a sensation simply because he’s good looking and has powers. He is genuinely loved because he actually cares about and uses his powers to help others.

    Meanwhile, the manosphere has their followers sulking over a lack of superhero treatment, while encouraging them to offer their fellow humans less than the bare minimum. 

    I’m longing for the revolution: The days when the manosphere movement’s leaders and followers awaken and realize that ALL human beings deserve better–including them.

  • Here’s the thing about fact checking.

    These are some thoughts I had before the 20th. And I haven’t changed my mind.

    A lot of people these days want to reserve their right to believe whatever information they like, whether it’s actually correct or not. They long to hold onto their ideas, even if believing them will result in others being harmed. 

    They may say that they don’t mean for these outcomes to occur. Yet they remain shortsighted.

    Sadly, the lies people tell publicly these days only tend to negatively affect a certain segment of the population.

    And if you are a woman, or Black, or like me, both–or some other flavour of “other”–when you dare to comment on the pending doom brought about by popular, publicized lies, what happens?

    Certain types of media intentionally interpret our words of warning as whining. Laughable. Meaningless drivel–having the potential to kill everything from people’s joy, to their bank accounts. And the faithful among their audiences believe them, and in turn grow addicted to not taking us seriously.

    To far too many, feeling good about themselves at all times matters more than recognizing the truth about society.

    Meanwhile, at the root of it all, all we’ve really been asking for is help. Or just the basics—like respect.

    As they say, genuine kindness costs nothing.

    To me, right now, our collective future looks bleak.

    Not entirely. But I don’t want to wait until An Evil Unknown takes place in society–something fomented via social media and the internet–before those who enjoy keeping their heads in the sand have an epiphany.

    One could easily say that such incidents have happened already. But have people been willing to think about them in ways that will bring about sincere, sustainable and positive change? Because that is what we truly need.


    Photo via Joice Kelly on Unsplash.


  • Your 40s: Reality, Perceptions, and Plastic Surgery

    Do you know what I absolutely love? And by “love” I mean HATE…?

    The way the public discusses aging. In particular, I’ve noticed certain stereotyping related to women who are over 40.

    On social media I keep seeing plastic surgeons who claim to know which celebrity has had what done to their face. These people seem to love nothing more than showing folks photos of famous 40-something women and screeching about how much work they’ve supposedly had done.

    Before I continue, I should offer a disclaimer: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having wrinkles. As for me personally, there’s a high chance that I’ll develop laugh lines. And I’m currently keeping an eye on the area under my eyes just because…

    That said, concerning alarmist plastic surgeons, I can’t help but wonder: Do they know any women in their 40s? I mean, in real life?

    During a woman’s fourth decade of living, concerning our appearance, anything is possible. Some of us may indeed have deep wrinkles. But there are others among us who don’t. And speaking from experience, having smooth skin at this age doesn’t necessarily require Botox and access to Hollywood’s most popular procedures.

    So why do some doctors insist on depicting us this way?

    On one hand they may genuinely believe that women in their 40s can’t be wrinkle-free without going under the knife. On the other, I think they’re trying to give older women a complex. Mind you for some, I imagine it’s some sort of strange marketing tactic. Nevertheless–either way, I’m tired of their rhetoric.

    Photo by Sam Moghadam Khamseh

  • The Idea of the Alpha Male Idol is No More*

    The Idea of the Alpha Male Idol is No More*

    At least for me. Like my childhood belief in Santa Claus, the man and the myth are truly, merely, a legend. For all I know there may be real-world examples that fit the bill. But the hope of finding his example among public figures is no longer realistic.

    But has it ever been? I tend to frown on the idea of worshipping humans. But recent events have made me realize that depending on how certain people show up in the world, I have held onto certain expectations.

    And I know that depending on who you consult, the term “alpha male” can have a negative meaning. For instance, one definition I discovered mentioned words like “domineering”, which led to a definition of that term, involving the word “arrogant”.

    But let’s connect for a moment to its positive connotations: There is the notion of the “alpha male” as a larger-than-life man who people look to in order to fulfill a leadership role within society. Some might consider him a hero-like figure who cares about humanity. Who has backbone enough to stand by his convictions. Who believes in defending and protecting the vulnerable.

    He also knows certain truths. Like the fact that POC and others deciding not to be friends with bigots is a matter of personal dignity, and not us trying to be “divisive”.

    Now, in response to what I’ve suggested, some may try to argue that I’m selfish, and only value these sorts of men for what they can do. “You only want something…”

    Well, excuse me. First of all, that’s not true. Secondly, don’t these men want something, too? I thought one of their objectives was to be respected and admired. (I had the impression that some of their favourite media figures claim that these qualities were lacking in their relationships.)

    But what else could they possibly desire?

    What about the idea of good people feeling at ease around them?  (Never mind those who are evil, or unkind! They can cower, if they choose.) Additionally, of course, there’s the idea of people believing in alphas and thinking of them as—as mentioned before—triumphant leaders in our culture.

    Here I must pause and note that there are those who will disagree with me. They may see the danger in making assumptions about people based on their gender and want to argue that the road to respect and admiration is a two-way street. And I couldn’t agree more!

    If so, then surely, they understand that for most people, respect and admiration are built on a foundation of trust.

    Unfortunately, I feel like that is a concept that certain folks have forgotten over the years. Trust is something that is normally earned. It shouldn’t be assumed, nor is it something that one is entitled to simply because they are born in a particular package. Yet that seems to be what certain folks have been taught and have come to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, it is hard to trust someone who is invested in ridiculing people for things like simply being honest about the harm done by prejudice and injustice.

    Returning to the idea of alpha males being the stuff of legends, in a certain sense, I hope that somewhere on Mount Olympus, the Great Heroes are seeing how their progeny have come to think of others, and are reviewing their Code of Conduct.

    *This article contains hyperbole. There are definitely “great” great men out there. But there are negative examples as well. And lately, the words of one in particular have left me disappointed.

    The picture in this post is an edited version of a photo by Marcin Lukasik.

  • Affirmative Action: The Plaintiff’s True Intentions?

    Affirmative Action: The Plaintiff’s True Intentions?

    Looking at the recent Supreme Court ruling on Affirmative Action in the United States, it’s hard for me not to see the subtext of what occurred. Contrary to what certain people may think they have achieved, the problems that they believe existed have not been solved. Not so long as things like legacy admissions are still in play.

    I have nothing more to offer on the matter. And even though this video is a few years old, I believe Hasan Minhaj said it all.

    Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash.

  • A.I. in Action? – Disney’s “Let it Go” vs “Part of Your World”

    A.I. in Action? – Disney’s “Let it Go” vs “Part of Your World”

    Years ago I became obsessed with the multi-lingual video for “Let it Go”, the hit song from Frozen.

    I watched it repeatedly, many, MANY times. loved seeing the passion that each singer brought to their performance.

    Meanwhile, today, I discovered this video.

    Overall, I loved Halle’s voice. Yet with technology being what it is, I can’t help but wonder (assume?) that her voice was translated via AI. Somehow, this both delighted and scared me.

    Photo by Jayme McColgan via Unsplash

  • Myths Dispelled, Reality Laid Bare

    Myths Dispelled, Reality Laid Bare

    The Titan submersible tragedy has left me pondering many things.

    So much about it has had me mesmerized. I like to think that officially, I’ve never believed that rich people were smarter than me.

    Yet as revelations about the Titan have come in, I’ve started to realize something: It isn’t exactly that I’ve been too naive about the world’s wealthiest people. Rather, certain things have become crystal clear to me.

    One thing this situation reminded me of was a comment that Michelle Obama made while on her book tour in 2018.

    So many of us have been duped into believing that because someone is ultra-wealthy, or in an incredibly important position, they’re wiser than the rest of us. Yet from where I sit, everything about this disaster proves that the following assumptions are false:

    • Given the opportunity to be innovative, wealthy people will seek access to–and use–the best technology.
    • Whenever possible, wealthy people heed the word of experts who are wiser than them.
    • Wealthy people value their safety. When embarking on–or organizing– endeavours that involve a degree of risk, they do their due diligence.

    Ultimately, I see this tragedy as a reminder: We are all prone to mistakes, naïve thinking, and hubris. And problems are bound to arise when people engage in the latter two attitudes. There’s no telling who their actions will affect.

    Meanwhile

    Like so many other humans after a horrific event, I crave closure.

    The questions in my mind keep collapsing on themselves. One thing I’ve wondered is what’s next? How many more dubious things are influential people preparing to unleash, without considering the repercussions? (Hello, social media!) How many such things have already been released, but the general public isn’t aware of them?

    And at the root of my curiosity, there’s this:

    If the Titan was an unregulated vehicle, how did Stockton Rush gain permission to offer it to tourists for excursions?

    I mean, I can imagine how. (Immediately, I think it’s a matter of privilege. But maybe the details lie in one of the articles that I’d skimmed???)

    I honestly don’t know the hoops Rush had to jump through. But no one could stop him.

    And that detail leads me to another question: WHY?

    Also, how much research had the passengers done on his vehicle? And how much information about it was available that wasn’t prepared by a PR firm? It feels as though so much information about the Titan’s true nature was revealed this week—since it went missing. But what about beforehand?

    Ultimately, one thought keeps ringing in my mind.

    NONE OF THIS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

    Photo by Kevin Turcios

  • Conquer

    Conquer

    Land. Sea. People.

    This determination to conquer without considering consequences isn’t always wise.

    Photo by Clayton Malquist – Unsplash

  • Watching the Water: The Deepest Breath, and Beyond

    Watching the Water: The Deepest Breath, and Beyond

    Leave it to the internet algorithm to bring something foreboding to my YouTube homepage last night.

    This week the news of Titan, the missing submersible, has been on many people’s minds. And this story only deepened my fears about the situation’s outcome.

    The tourist submersible that went missing while exploring the Titanic wreck was previously the target of safety complaints from an employee of OceanGate, the parent company that owns the sub and runs tourist expeditions of the wreck. That employee complained specifically that the sub was not capable of descending to such extreme depths before he was fired…

    The concerns Lochridge voiced came to light as part of a breach of contract case related to Lochridge refusing to greenlight manned tests of the early models of the submersible over safety concerns. Lochridge was fired, and then OceanGate sued him for disclosing confidential information about the Titan submersible. In response, Lochridge filed a compulsory counterclaim where he alleged wrongful termination over being a whistleblower about the quality and safety of the submersible. 

    It’s disturbing to think that someone was fired due to their concern over safety precautions.

    Meanwhile, Netflix released a trailer for a film about freediving. If it came out any other week, I would be fine. And normally, I’d be curious. But a part of me wants to tell them to read the room.

    In the past few weeks, we’ve heard about orcas attacking boats. Migrants have drowned at sea. And now, this submersible is missing.

    I shudder to think what could be next.

    What were they thinking?

    OceanGate’s CEO is a man named Stockton Rush. He was on board when his vehicle went on this week’s voyage. I can’t help but wonder if his fellow passengers were aware of how he perceived safety.

    Yesterday via social media, I saw the the following quote. And eventually, I found the article it came from. I admit that I skimmed to find the content, and looking at it in context I was horrified. Commenting on the Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 1993, the article states that

    The law was well-meaning, Rush says, but he believes it needlessly prioritized passenger safety over commercial innovation (a position a less adventurous submariner might find open to debate). “There hasn’t been an injury in the commercial sub industry in over 35 years. It’s obscenely safe, because they have all these regulations. But it also hasn’t innovated or grown—because they have all these regulations.” The U.S. government, meanwhile, has continued to favor space exploration over ocean research: NASA today gets about $10.5 billion annually for exploration, while NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research is allotted less than $50 million—a triumph of “emotion over logic,” Rush says. “Half of the United States is underwater, and we haven’t even mapped it!” (emphasis mine)

    The little that I’ve read about Mr. Rush has left me with a portrait of a man who was eager to make his mark in his industry. He wanted to be an innovator. But his comments above, combined with the previously-linked article suggest something sinister: He so longed to be a pioneer in his field, that he saw basic safety regulations as an enemy of his success.

    It’s good to be ambitious. But Dear Reader, I implore you: Don’t be so desperate to be the first to do something, that as you pursue your goals, you consider yourself a god.

    We humans are exceptional and can do all sorts of things. But at the end of the day, we have limits. We cannot defy the laws of nature, God, the Universe—whatever you care to call it. We mustn’t idolize our desire to be unique to the point where we ignore experts’ wisdom.

    Some like to say that rules were meant to be broken. But is that attitude worth it if it results in risking people’s lives?

    I’m someone who has taken swimming lessons as an adult, and in order to be truly safe in the water, I know that I need to take more. And throughout this saga, a part of me couldn’t help but think of swimming as a comparatively simpler aquatic activity, and a point of contrast.

    Remembering certain drowning cases involving adults has made me want to ask a question. At the risk of insulting the Titan’s passengers, did they truly understand what skilled swimmers take for granted?: Navigating the water isn’t remotely the same as going for a walk or even existing on land.

    It’s all too easy to meet your end if you aren’t properly prepared.

    I’ve always thought the ocean was beautiful, from afar. But right now, if I were given the opportunity to voyage out into her depths, I’d rather keep my distance.

    Photo by NEOM on Unsplash.

  • Still here? Why do I keep blogging?

    Still here? Why do I keep blogging?

    Behind the scenes on this website, I’ve been doing some restructuring. This led to me looking up the very first post that I shared, which in turn led to me realizing how old this blog really is.

    And, yikes. It’s been a small lifetime! A child and family likely would have been a wiser investment of my time.

    But let me continue my thoughts from my post on Monique Judge’s article…

    I remember, I was around 6 or 7 when I knew I was supposed to be a writer. Maybe younger.

    When I was in school, I wrote and read aloud a story about a little alien. As I recall, the alien’s experience was supposed to be analogous to mine. Some time later–or perhaps before that, who knows?–my teacher chastised me over a little book that I’d made. I think she even called it “nonsense”.

    She was so confident in her decision to dismiss me. Yet whether someone is an adult or a child, the vision that’s given to them about their destiny isn’t necessarily anyone else’s. As I’ve seen various pastors say, “God’s calling on your life wasn’t a conference call. Others don’t have to have heard it!” Meaning, people who know about your dreams may think they’re are crazy–even loved ones. But never mind what they think: Your dreams are yours and no one else’s.

    Whether I love or loathe the process, I know that I was born to write. I’m still here, and I have the keen sense that my true purpose has yet to be fulfilled. And I’ll never know what my true destiny is if I don’t continue to explore my talents. That’s why I’m thankful for this website: It makes a fine place to play!