My gripe with Euphoria. Part 3:
The Mixed Melodies of Maddy
For some, Maddy's character may be hit or miss, for a multitude of reasons. My main reason was that I wasn't sure how to feel, at least on a larger scale.
Maddy Perez, played by Alexa Demie
Like some of the other female leads, we are meant to ogle her as a very sexual and "empowered" teenager. Her archetype is presented as the cheerleader to Nate's jock. Both are rude, tend to achieve what they want, and have their horrendously unstable relationship to wave around to others. There is something that Maddy lacks, however, and that is Nate's disregard for others. Maddy is shown to empathize, especially with her friends. I would almost say that she cares for them more than she does Nate, but that idea could be challenged. She is shown to be confident and straightforward, which are good qualities, until the writer's decide otherwise. The viewer is left wondering how much of these confidence is a facade after all, especially when coupled with Nate. It is interesting to see how Nate's demon dick impacts the girls he's with. When Maddy was with Nate, she had seemed to have a streak of violence and hostility with others. When this relationship broke off, it was as if she mellowed, taking on a laid-back persona similar to Lexi's. There is still much to critique about her character, both pre and post mellow. It helps to have some background for Maddy Perez. At a young age, she was subjected to the controversial industry that is pageantry. Her confidence and skill helped in her success, which was quickly tarnished when her mother removed her from this arena due to the prevalence of pedophiles. I feel like this was the opportunity to introduce something big for the show, possibly a critique on the sexualization of girls as young as 3 years old.....but no. That misshap was brushed aside in a manner of "it happens" as Maddy rushes toward other avenues. She comes to the conclusion that she would rather do "nothing", then switches to possibly doing something in order to attain the high value of the women who's nails her mother painted. This is all to avoid the trappings of being both impoverished and in a strained relationship like her parents.
When she meets Nate Jacobs, this is where more of her character gets called into question. We see her purposefully portray herself as the perfect girl to Nate Jacobs, who has an odd list of demands (likes girls hairless, slender, small noses, chokers, and other shallow things) that supposedly Maddy is able to meet. She even lies about having never had sex just to increase her appeal. She will then use this newfound sexual status with Nate to convince him into treating her like the rich women she aspired to be, having him buy her lavish presents. This rich woman status feels more like pr*stitution, to put it flatly. The show presents her using her body for currency as empowering and confident. She even analyzes p*rn so that she can carry on their "techniques". It is stated offhandedly, that she doesn’t derive pleasure from doing so. Her body is no longer hers. It is Nate's, which he feels free to use at his own discretion.
All this, and Maddy admits that she is afraid of him. She has reason to be, given his violent streak not only from the 1st season where he chokes her, but also in the 2nd where threatens her life, then claims it was all a joke. In spite of this, she says that she is still attracted to him, although it makes her "sick to her stomach". It's clear why, and I think teen dating violence is often overlooked in the media, or isn't given the nuance it deserves. The girl’s abusers are not framed as such. Instead, these are boys with a troubled past who need rehabilitation through her love and her love alone. Never mind the stalking, the yelling, or the inappropriate touching. He says he "loves her". Unfortunately, these girls feel like they love them back. It's saddening to see Maddy's usually confident nature fizzle under the gaze of Nate. She is willing to hide her bruises for him, wrongly accuse someone for him, and even beat her friend over him. I do not want to claim that her character isn't strong because she still loves her abuser. A lot of women unfortunately fall in love with those that hurt them. Perhaps it is the need to give back, even when a lot has already been snatched away from her. Nevertheless, the show sees Maddy as empowering because of this toxic love. She gets right back with Nate despite her weariness of him, and even some lingering hatred. Still, this hatred is not as aimed toward him as I would have liked.
Despite ending things in season 1, we jump to season 2 with Maddy making the claim that she would like to get back together with Nate, and the two soon resume this rugged relationship. This was with Maddy's knowledge of Nate's secret tapes, mind you. Tapes exhibiting graphic material of Nate's father and other men, mind you. But they get back together, with Nate's undiclosed relationship with Cassie almost floating in the background ready to burst in the season's finale. It soon does, however, and Nate and Cassie's lies are both exposed. Nate has lied and physically assaulted Maddy, but Maddy's aggression is turned to the lesser crimes of her former friend. Sympathy isn't a requirement for these characters, but I think the direction taken in having Maddy beat her friend at this revelation is one that I find typical. Regardless of his crimes, Nate is allowed to retain his humanity in not getting humiliated. Lexi's parody of him and his fellow jocks did not single Nate out the way the portrayal of Cassie did. Cassie's misguided attempt at finding attention winds up giving her a kick so far down that I hardly see her getting back up in one piece. Maddy hits Cassie with her shoes, leaving her bleeding and forced to stand her crumbling ground against a girl not much different from her.
Obviously, Nate is stronger and far more aggressive than Cassie could ever be, but why would Maddy result to violence? Is it because it is easier to beat down on another girl than to directly confront the boy who caused you the most harm? I do not mean to excuse Cassie's actions, as they were harmful to do to a friend. Also, I can't suggest that Maddy would have gone behind Cassie's back the way she did to her, but the result of this conflict landed in a direction that was telling, to say the least. Nate gets to eject his father from his life and resume in the next steps toward his "redemption". Meanwhile, Maddy and Cassie while likely not recover from this conflict, or they will find a difficult way of doing so. These girls that the show loved to deem powerful and strong in their sexualities were ultimately thwarted by exactly that: their sexuality. They did not learn anything outside of not being able to trust eachother. The thought of looking collectively at how their view of themselves, how they have been used, and how they can rise from this does not occur in the narrative's conclusion. What lies in wait is what remains dormant in most stories. The male leaves the women to their squabble as he comes on top and better than ever. The women, in their frustration and miguidance, are confused into hating eachother.
It's quite literally feminists' responsibility to care about each other's husbands. The role of a "woman" is a role where her existence is related to males; feminism is essentially heterosexual activism which is why non-heterosexuals struggle to find belonging in it because it's not for them (and it's getting awkward they constantly voice this but don't remove themselves from it).
Feminism is for the adult heterosexual and bisexual male and female because they are 99% of the adult population. The #1 misconception surrounding feminism is that it is for all women when it is absolutely NOT that - it's about equality in heterosexual relationships; this is what liberation and the death of misogyny is to the average woman. A male taking a bullet for them is their version of divine intervention because man is their god. If you are not in a heterosexual relationship there is nothing to protest against because you've achieved liberation without the drama and self-victimization. Congratulations, you've made it. You're at a point where you're free from distractions to make minor tweaks to your thinking to make your life go in the direction you want.
Feminists are not lacking class consciousness. To the manlover, heterosexuals are the only class to be conscious of which is why they're hostile toward anything that isn't about their union. They would know about the movement they created more than the ignorant few trying to dissuade them from what the majority of them agree on; homosexuals are the main ones causing division within their movement. When you pledge your allegiance to a group, you are agreeing to be owned and used by that group. The average feminist's activism ends when they get into the relationship they want leaving celibates, asexuals and lesbians fighting for the rest of their lives. All feminists hold up the patriarchy they complain about because they support heterosexual women who put the energy and resources they received from feminists into males. Since these females put all of their attention into the patriarchy and males it gets fuelled - they are their own oppressors.
Manlovers do not have to prioritize homosexuals since they do not relate to your plight - how can a lesbian expect the herculean task of "care" from people who lack empathy? If anything you are privileged for not being attracted to males because Ys are intoxicatingly irresistible to the point where you're the obstacle to women's liberation. Lesbians are nothing but a body that fluffs up their movement's numbers, a stepping stool and a token to use in arguments against transwomen. Adopt an elite mindset where you genuinely believe you deserve more instead of being a mutt begging for scraps under the table heterosexuals create podcasts about.
The same thing can be said for the recruiting female separatist - it's all work for the heterosexual if they are accepted into those spaces. Only lesbians, asexuals and celibates are creating safe spaces for women. Heterosexuals and bisexuals are not interested and are even looking to destroy female-only spaces because they are waiting for the right man to come along (and that cannot happen when there are only women around). Those who want to live a peaceful life simply live it instead of trying to convince manlovers it's for them when it isn't. They like the thrill of disease and death. Separatism is only for the 1% who are already doing it and it starts in the mind. People trying to convince other women to separate are those who aren't living that life, ironically. Real separatists aren't trying to attract anybody male-minded into their circle. There's nothing to talk about when you've found Peace except Peace itself.
Focus on creating the life you want on an individual basis and you will find what you want happens quickly and your life will keep unfolding in that direction because you MUST get what you want. Activism does not work and it's just a time waster for those who are dedicated to it, but I understand the activist path is for the soulless so what else is there for them? When you ask for other people to get in line with what you want, you're asking others to go against their free will which means you depend on other people for your happiness and not yourself. In this situation you don't really want separatism, liberation or even peace, you want friends and it's okay to admit that.
Currently poking around radfem blogs after a trans woman on Tiktok said it was transphobic to not have sex with a post-op trans women because “their surgery makes their anatomy exactly the same as a real vagina” and so far I’m actually agreeing with what I’m reading on the radfem side of tumblr. I do have one question, though: how do radfems feel about representation of black women in media? From what I’ve seen, radfems are critical of gender roles and stereotypes, which I understand, but 1/2
as I answer this, keep in mind that I am a white woman, so my word should be taken with a grain of salt!
being inclusive of all women is vital to radical feminism, especially being inclusive of WOC. I know black women are often stereotypes as being “manly” or “aggressive”, but you and I both know that’s not true. I think it’s important to remember that masculinity for women is often just.. existing in our natural bodies. a black woman who doesn’t shave, doesn’t wear makeup, or doesn’t modify herself for others isn’t “masculine,” she’s just existing in her natural form.
the problem with how we address stereotypes is that we insist on simply defying them as opposed to abolishing them entirely. instead of saying “black women can be feminine too!”, we should say “stereotyping someone based on their race or sex is bigoted”. by defying most stereotypes, we only create new ones.
I hope this helps, any the radfems feel free to add on! (esp black radfems)
“The more we blame speech for violence, the more likely we are to use violence to stop speech.”
— Dan McLaughlin (via beyondthesleep)
Next time someone tells you women are meant to have children blah blah blah have them look up what a placenta is. We are so misinformed about the female body that despite most of us hearing that word before, we don’t really think about its role. The placenta is built by the embryo (not the mother) to essentially hide itself from the mother. Because otherwise she would KILL IT. It’s a foreign body with half of another person’s genetic code. Also we all have heard about the hormone HCG but most of us hear of it in regards to pregnancy tests and not the fact that it forces the mother’s uterus to start secreting a protein to feed the embryo. With every pregnancy, the fetus and mother are in competition. The fetus wants to grow and the mother tries to protect herself and not DIE. we are capable of pregnancy, we have the organs necessary to birth new life. This does NOT mean our organs are for anyone but ourselves. Every part of you is there FOR YOU. Regardless of what anyone might say. Don’t be ashamed of not wanting children. Don’t feel like a broken woman for not being able to have children. Don’t let anyone tell you your sexuality is wrong because it doesn’t result in offsprings.
I am speechless…
Everytime I see Germaine Greer mentioned on radfem tumblr I get a knee jerk reaction thinking about that creepy pedo book she made
An in-person conversation I had with my sister after mentioning Harry Potter (she’s in quotes):
“Fuck jk Rowling”
Random. Why?
“She’s a TERF”
How?
“She wrote all that shit about trans people”
What did she write?
“Like, a whole essay.”
Okay, so what did she say exactly?
“She basically said-“
No. I mean ‘exactly’. What’s a direct quote from her essay that’s 100%, indisputably, transphobic.
“I mean. She’s said a lot.”
yeah, I’m asking you to tell me, though. I’m genuinely curious.
“Idk. I don’t feel like reading it.”

You have to be selfish to be selfless. When you take care of yourself you automatically improve your environment. If you're always taking care of other people you will not be able to fulfill your purpose to the best of your ability or at all.
There are no "decent" human beings. Everybody has skeletons in their closet they're hoping somebody else will accept and that is most likely the person they will enter into a romantic relationship with - somebody who accepts them. If you are attracted to scum, you are latent scum. You will always be attracted to the dark side you suppress (unconsciously) and think that person is just charming/unique when you're really looking at you. I am especially wary of those who never point out their own flaws - this is somebody who is likely attracted to narcissists because they have latent narcissistic traits in them - these are people who are riddled with shame, anxiety and low self-esteem. There are no books, therapy or meds that can help with your consciousness other than facing the truth of reality.
Those who call themselves a certain label are telling you who they are - with every label they have the capacity to become the adversary of that label. So if somebody is vocal about being anti-abortion, they also have pro-abortion ideologies and vice versa. This is with every label; everybody has the capability to be both, one or neither positions at any point in their life because they will naturally want to experience that state of being once they're satisfied with their conclusion of one aspect. There are even states of duality and non-duality because that is also a polarization we can believe in. Consequently, becoming anything will make you appear as "bad" in somebody's eyes, even if you are neutral which is now considered "supporting evil." Balance and compromise are what is actually "evil" You either chose one side or opt out of that world completely and accept that. 50:50-ing yourself throughout your life isn't a way to live and only causes more mental fragmentation.
Somebody who calls herself heterosexual but is actively suppressing her attraction to males because of her “beliefs” is highly likely to end up with a male because her attention is overwhelmingly on her attraction to males. Same with women whose entire identity is being attracted to women they will end up with the "one exception male" at some point in their life which is what the discourse about what a "real lesbian" is about. This is what happens when you pay attention to something: by law, your attention naturally flows to both polarizations of the aspect you are fixated on and it's in human nature to explore both sides. I can see that this post is my mirror, why can't other people see it as theirs? There is where blinders like being male-minded, having autism and following religion make their grand entrance to capitalize on a population who is completely unaware. The fingers you point are pointing back at you so you can learn from them.
This is why I place emphasis on being neutral because you can only become conscious through neutrality and acceptance of both sides of the truth. This is why you seemingly can't get a straight answer from spiritualists, they're not about to mess up their own neutralized state to validate a belief you'll go to the polarizing end of in a year. You're supposed to be in a state of non-resistance/fluidity, but since most people won't look at the whole truth, they become sick and stagnant.
Most people are unconscious, so they reveal their true intentions in everything they say even if they are unaware of it. Everything you are drawn to is a reflection of you because you want to understand this aspect of yourself further. Once you've embodied the truth, everybody becomes transparent; when they talk about what they hate, you can also see what they love. Most people's shadow is that they are really happy with the way the world is, so they will continue it. Since most of them are in denial that they have a part in the world they've created, they'll continue to suffer from mental illnesses and other diseases. There is no need to expend energy on saving them - they've chosen to do what they want.
Trauma is based on a similar polarizing concept: if you are scared of being abandoned, other people's actions will overwhelmingly be placed under the perception of you being abandoned. Holding on to the pain of an event you were supposed to learn from doesn't do anything but get you addicted to that pain and identify with it. As a result, you will become abusive to demonstrate how much pain you're in. Unconscious or mentally ill people are dangerous and it's all due to the shame of their true Self. Those who are addicted to pain are dead inside and continue to engage in dangerous situations and perceive hostility where there is none because it re-opens their wounds. Most people do not believe they can neutralize trauma and renew their minds, so they won't. The only cure for this is unconditional acceptance.
Those who are upfront about holding two perspectives at once or do not care about appearing hypocritical are the most balanced, aware and honest people because every truth does have two sides to it if you believe in polarity/duality or complexity in general. Anybody pushing only one side of the truth has an agenda or is an unconscious follower because there will always be an exchange no matter what path you choose to follow.
Simultaneous marginalization and support
Of course no males would be “refugees” if they had a home in the male sex class. But it’s in Patriarchy’s interest to simultaneously marginalize and support trans people, just like it’s in Europe’s and America’s interest to simultaneously marginalize and support Jews. The marginalization drives the pressure of expansion. When people are secure in their homelands, they don’t emigrate. It’s the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free that up and move to a new land. Without antisemitism, the “west” would have no colony in the Middle East. Without patriarchal gender enforcement, TiMs wouldn’t be spearheading the further colonization of women. So men simultaneously threaten TiMs, and demand the protection of TiMs as “the most oppressed.” That male-imposed marginalization is what drives the whole project.
Trans people themselves are a tiny fraction of the population. So why are language, laws and institutions being changed just for them? Because it’s not just for them, it’s for all men. TiMs are the “settlers” of the latest patriarchal colonization project.