Non-americans, Now Is Not The Time For Your Superiority Complex. This Is A Horrific Event And Belittling

IT👏IS👏NOT👏A👏COSTUME👏

It's original name is Calavera Garbancera (Chickpea Skull) and was created in Benito Juárez, Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada and Porfirio Díaz governments to express the discontent of the people and was a symbol of social and political denunciation that eventually became a traditional wear for day of the dead. This wear is called La Catrina, its not a representation of dead itself but that of a dead woman, and it was created by cartoonist José Guadalupe Posada.

(this 👇 is the original calavera garbancera engraved in metal)

Back then texts called calaveras alegres (cheerful skulls) were written by middle class people critiquing in a mocking way the upper class and the country's situation and were published in "combat newspapers" - this texts were accompanied by drawings of skulls and skeletons dressed in gala clothes, drinking pulque, riding on horseback and in high society parties but all of this in lackluster neighborhoods to represent the misery, the political mistakes and society's hypocrisy.

Origin of the name cheakpea skull: cheakpea merchants were notorious for being indigenous people that tried to pass as European and denied they're indigenous origins and their culture. They would dress in high class clothes but live very precariously. Posada tried to convey that in this work of art that was a critique to the Mexicans that were poor but tried to sustain an European lifestyle that they couldn't afford.

Originally she was naked except for a very big and elegant hat with ostrich feathers. Diego Rivera dressed her up and gave her the name La Catrina when he painted this mural 👇

(Catrin was the name given to extremely elegant and wealthy Mexican aristocracy in XIX)

Posada said this about his inspiration: "Death is democratic. Blonde, brunette; rich, poor; everyone ends up being skulls" and this quote is basically the reason she became so traditional on the day of the dead, since it represents so well mexicans point of view about it.

And the texts that accompanied her (the cheerful skulls) became the calaveritas literarias (literary skulls) which are traditionally Mexican verse compositions that are written on the eve of the day of the dead as a manifestation of culture to make fun of both the living and the dead, and remember that we are all going to die. They are written in a satirical or burlesque language and are very short texts that reflect all the spirit and festivity in the face of death.

This

Is

Not

A

Costume

It

Is

Mexican

Culture

Feminism vs Female Empowerment vs Feminist Exemplification

In the past years this thread of labeling anything that’s female positive as feminist has really skyrocketed and it bothers me greatly. Great female representation and female empowerment does not make a thing feminist. Something that illustrates, explains or describes a feminist value or point of view does not make that thing feminist.

What defines something as sexist or empowering or feminist is the context and the message or objective that it wants to convey.

There are men in the industry who are progressive and works towards equality by hiring more women, and actively trying to give us better female representation. There are women who direct women in films about women and who try to maintain a crew or team of mostly women. In both cases, none of this makes their project or them feminists.

The majority of the entertainment industry responds and caters to The Male Gaze – it does so even if there are no men operatively involved in the project, because 99.9% of people in the industry do not make art, they are here to make money.

And although it is based on what we commonly call artistic careers, that does not mean that there is a really artistic background or objective in the things being made – it’s purely commercial in a vast majority.  The ultimate goal of the entertainment industry is to sell. Therefore, much of this "art" is not progressive, thought-provoking or subversive in any way, specially if the person in charge believes that this could cost them money. The main objective is to market to the consumers and they do so at the expense of everything - this includes quality, values, points of view, consciousness and self-awareness. And this is when two very interesting things happen: Faux Feminism & Female Exploitation.

Female Exploitation is when the person in charge believes that what sells is quiet, beautiful and sensual women – this is the main thing, and the character's story is secondary (so much that most end up being just eye candy or as a manic pixie dream girl). In this case they think of subversive and thought-provoking as something that can harm their income. So the actresses talent and creativity doesn’t really matter, as long as they’re pretty and sell.

Faux Feminism is when the person in charge believes that the money is in the feminist pov and they make films that could pass as feminist and with strong female characters that follow closely and/or represent the political climate and feminist discourse of today – but that does not make the product feminist, mainly because in most cases they do this in the most superficial way for a monetary gain. Keep in mind, in this cases they don’t explicitally use the word feminism in attachment to whatever their selling, but it’s very obvious.

And sometimes is neither of these, but instead Casual Feminism - when something could represent, stand for feminism but that wasn’t the intention at all. Feminists saw it and were like HECK YEAH.

Is feminist a project in which mostly or only women participate? Is feminist a project where the main roles are 99% female? Is feminist a project that addresses sexism? Is feminist a project that’s inclusive? Is feminist a project with independent and empowered women? Is feminist a project that criticizes the way in which society treats women? The answer to all this is NO.

What defines whether something is feminist or not, is first and foremost if whether its exhibitors/creators are feminists or if it was written to represent/stand for feminism explicitly and consciously. If I wear a shirt that says I am feminist, that does not make me feminist. Being a fan of Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Emma Watson or any other feminist does not make me a feminist. Reading one feminist book does not make me feminist (it’s the start, if so I decide). I'm just wearing something, following a person, consuming a product. And many artistic products are attributed the term feminist when they are not in the slightest. If you assume that it is feminist because it exemplifies feminism or is potentially empowering for women, that does not make it feminist. Talking about self-love, girl power, sorority and sexism does not make you a feminist - it makes you self-aware of your rights, strengths and weaknesses and that is excellent and encouraged, but it does not make you feminist.

Why? Because Feminism is a philosophical, social, political, economic and artistic current. What makes a feminist person a feminist, above all, is that they identify themselves as such, with all the awareness of what feminism is because they have studied it or are constantly studying it or have the intention of studying it.

We can long and dream for a feminist awakening in the entertainment industry, but precisely because of that we should not label just anything as sfeminist, because labeling something or someone as feminist when it is not is a disrespect to the person or product and misleading; and it is harmful to the people and products that are feminist and that are mostly ignored, criticized, received in a negative way and usually overshadowed by pseudo-feminist products with better marketing, plus it only helps to preserve the misinformation and misunderstanding of what feminism is and superficializes it. Not to mention it can perpetuate some misconceptions.

Something or someone not being feminist does not mean it is sexist and there IS feminism in the entertainment industry, but very little and it usually suffers from detractors from the industry itself; so what we find mostly is female empowerment, in an initial and often diluted facet.

So no, we can't call it feminist but we can call it empowering since many women feel that spark of strength, they feel identified and reflected accurately, maybe they even feel understood - and that is something very valuable. We can also use them as an exemplification of feminism, there are many artistic projects that are not feminist but serve to explain, illustrate or describe a feminist point of view because they showed it excellently.

Let’s see some examples of what I’m talking about:

Mean Girls is a great example of a feminist movie. It represents and portrays feminist points of view and feminist values consciously and with the intention and awareness of doing it directly from a feminist stand. It has the feminist label very big and very visibly. It was written by a feminist (Tina Fey), inspired on the novel of another feminist (Rosalind Wiseman). The director is not a feminist, as far as we know, but that doesn’t take away from its value as a feminist piece of work in any manner.

Legally Blonde is another great example of a feminist film. The writers, Karen McCullah and Kirsten Smith are both feminists, Kirsten notably being a Riot Grrrl. It is based on a novel written by a feminist (Amanda Brown). And just as Mean Girls, it represents and portrays feminist points of view and feminist values consciously and with the intention and awareness of doing it directly from a feminist stand. It has the feminist label very big and very visibly. Also, it is very female empowering.

Now let’s talk Harley Quinn, because is a very interesting one.

First, let’s talk about her in the comics. She wasn’t created by feminists. She isn’t coded as feminist. She is not written as a feminist character. She is not female empowering for most of her story. Nor she or her story are an exemplification of feminism. The character is not meant to represent or embody feminism in any way. So is she a feminist character? No.

Now, in the movie Birds of Prey. Again, she wasn’t created by feminists. Was the script written by a woman? Yes, but not a feminist woman. Is the movie directed by a woman? Yes, but again, not a feminist woman – the director even said in an interview that she didn’t want to “sound too much like a diehard bra-burning feminist”. The film had an all women crew. Again, Harley isn’t coded as feminist - she is not written as a feminist. The character is not meant to represent or embody feminism in any way. BUT is it female empowering? HELL YES. And the movie as a whole is a great exemplification of feminism, this is another quote from the director: “a harlequin’s role is to serve, they’re nothing without a master and so the movie is about Harley Quinn becoming her own master. And not just Harley, but the Birds of Prey as well. All these women go through something and they’re all trying to break free from their own chains”. So is the movie feminist? No, and so are not it’s characters. But we can and should embrace and celebrate Harley Quinn from a feminist point of view.

Is Hermione Granger a feminist character? No. But she is female empowering and an exemplification of feminism. The actress who plays her, Emma Watson, is a feminist but that doesn’t magically makes all the characters she portrays feminists or well written female characters.

On the other hand, Lisa Simpson IS a feminist. Is the voice-actress a feminist? I don’t know. Are the creators feminists? I dont know either - but it doesn’t matter because Lisa is a feminist and she is explicitly portrayed and written as such, she voices feminism and is meant to embody and represent a feminist (even if it’s an 8 year old one) – and she does so very well if I might add.

So stop calling everything “feminist” and stop telling people that if they believe in equality they are inherently feminists even if they dont want to use that label themselves, stop this specially towards people (I’ve seen this in comment sectons). In my experience, there are three types of women who refuse the feminist label:

1) The Closeted Feminist: a woman that’s not afraid to speak up about their opinions but doesn’t describe themselves or their povs with the word feminism even though their arguments and discourse has a feminist stand that is based on feminist theory to the point where it’s obvious this person has immersed themselves in feminist books, podcasts, films, documentaries, etc – this could be because labeling oneself as a feminist is dangerous. Either in their house, or in the society they’re a part of – and with this I mean that it could actually lead to abuse or active persecution. Not everyone has the same freedom, background and opportunity you do.

 2) The Double Agent: they say they don’t need feminism and they don’t believe in it but they still stand for equality and justice. Usually this person doesn’t really understand what feminism is because they have never cared to learn about it and yet they go round commenting on feminist blogs about “how feminists are wrong” – this person believes the patriarchy’s version of what feminism is. This person is aware of the injustice and inbalance but thinks feminism is sexism towards men, hatred of men and that is used for women as a women-victimizing campaign to get pity points and advantages. This are the people that said Taylor Swift played the victim for 13 years.

 3) The Free Woman: she doesn’t believe in feminism, she probably voices hate towards feminism and feminists and thinks very low of them because “she doesn’t need feminism” because she loves the men in her life and has “never suffered sexism” first hand so it doesn’t exist. The Free Woman and the Patriarchal Feminist have in common that they feel feminism victimizes women and is sexism towards men. The difference is one thinks inequality is a myth and the other one knows it’s still a thing.

If ya’ll read all of this KUDOS TO YOU and THANK YOU. I’ve been thinking about this for almost a year and it took me a long time and effort to write this and put my thoughts into words cause I’m really bad at expressing myself and lack communication skills. I’d like to write too about the difference between Feminist Icon – Feminist Woman – Iconic Women, just because I’m tired of that mess too.

“Para un habitante de Nueva York, París, o Londres, la muerte es la palabra que jamás se pronuncia porque quema los labios. El mexicano, en cambio, la frecuenta, la burla, la acaricia, duerme con ella, la festeja, es uno de sus juguetes favoritos y su amor más permanente. Cierto, en su actitud hay quizá tanto miedo como en la de otros; más al menos no se esconde ni la esconde; la contempla cara a cara con impaciencia, desdén o ironía: ‘si me han de matar mañana, que me maten de una vez’.” - Octavio Paz (El Laberinto de la Soledad, 1950)

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” — 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85

Feminists who hate, reject, exclude lgbtq+ are no feminists

"Omg now that Johnny won no one would believe women -"

Imma stop you right there and now. No, you do not have Johnny to blame, you have AMBER for lying and abusing someone, to blame if nobody believes women. As someone who's watched my mother, my aunt, my uncle, my sister and myself, fall into the hands of abusers and watched them get away with it, I'm glad Johnny won, because no one woud say "Oh no he's a kind man he can't be abusive" or "she's just a woman she cannot be abusive" anymore. Johnny stuck out his neck for every Abuse victim and won for us. Amber used society's view to try and hide her lies. As someone who's followed the trial from 2016 (you can imagine how young I was back then) to 2022, you can never, ever tell me, with every evidence out there placed for the world to see that Amber isn't an abuser. We all know the first trial in the UK was unfair because the Sun was hiding the truth, even refusing any of his evidence because the relative of the judge wrote the headlines. The US Virginia court let both have their say and Amber exposed herself.

Maybe now I have hope that when I put out my evidence no one will silence me like what Amber tried to do with Johnny again. This gave me hope because as long as I say the truth I have nothing to fear.

And if you choose to hate on the women that spoke in defence of Johnny Depp, you ARE the one who doesn't like women. You only care about your own narrative of 'feminism' which is supporting and using misogynistic and archaic ways of thinking when it caters to your case, like pretending women cannot be shitty people too. In this case, Amber had the power because media bent to her will and Johnny had nothing left but evidence and the support of his lawyers and fans.

And fuck NBC and their shitty takes on this case btw.

also if you are anti johnny depp go ahead and unfollow me. the amount of people i have seen on this app that support a**er is astonishing.

if you support her i suggest you leave because i will not stand for people supporting someone who has been seen multiple times mocking, and laughing at someone else’s pain.

like a lawyer in the trial said, nobody in any of the relationships, friendships or his family members has ever said he was violent in anyway other than yelling, which is barely violence.

200419 SuperM instastory