Kyriarchical oppression.
Kyriarchy refers to the overlap of various inequalities caused by gender, race, sexuallity and disability describing overlaps of cross sectionality. It also refers to the practice of problems created by assumed superiority.
A lot of the fear of "conversion" really feels like parents getting ornery because someone might "damage their property" by telling them that being gay is perfectly fine. They want to have the whole heterosexual experience they had but lived vicariously all over again through someone they can pilot through life like a little low maintenance automoton. They want to narrow the field of choices to the ones they want.
You see it expressed all over the place. If you choose not to want kids or marry, pick a career they don't understand or would pick for themselves they tighten the thumbscrews. So often they don't love their kids they just love what they represent... Genetic legacy or bragging rights or a vehicle for constant validation. Being LGBTQIA+ is a threat because that represents paths that they would not have chosen. They can't empathize or desire it...
But estrangement has always been a thing. Kids always become adults and adults always have choices.. but we never forget what it was like to be a kid without autonomy. One day that kid is going to be able to make their own choices and there's not a thing their parent can do about it. I love and value my parents because they always treated me like my own person. I always consider their advice seriously and give them a high priority. Fillial piety is no burden when it feels like returning the support and love. It never sits uneasy. I know a lot of people who struggle because they are biologically programmed to have a bond but they just can't because the choices their parents made amd continue to attempt to make for them has left lasting damage.
They are actually flags which have been flown at events. If you don't believe me look up images of "straight pride" you will find pics of people holding and draped in them. At Pride events however you generally don't see those but the straight ally flag which celebrates people outside the LGBTQIA+ but who show support because Pride is an LGBTQIA+ style independence day.
Generally speaking though because cisness is usually assumed until proven otherwise cis people don't generally see a need to run up a flag so it doesn't see as much use. Because allyship is more an invisible thing you will see the ally flag on buttons and things.
I am not sure that's entirely it. Like... Those "exclusive neighbourhoods" basically just means "has fence and security system". If you didn't care about getting caught - basically spree killer style martyrdom- there isn't much to stop you. Most CEOs are notorious creatures of habit and they publicize where they will be fairly regularly. Just hang out by the right golf course and you'll find em.
I think it's just a different mindset. Maybe picking a specific target is more of a cold blooded logic killer thing not a hot blooded spree killer thing and the two require entirely separate buy ins? Or the target type is the difference. Spree killers tend to pick big populations for shock value or because it represents a wider social movement. They also take a bunch of people with them which probably satisfies a feeling of making it "worth it". It is kind of a "fuck that guy in particular" kind of premeditation you would need combined with a conviction to essentially light yourself on fire to burn someone else... And a one to one trade isn't exactly a feel good catharsis.
I don't think it's a matter that a couple of isolated incidents wouldn't cause a panic or not be consequential on a wider scale. I feel like the allure of extreme wealth would lose it's luster pretty fast if suddenly people felt the need to have extreme security details all the time. I don't think it would stop people from dragon hording but it wouldn't take too many incidents before they all would be too afraid to walk to the corner to grab a coffee in person at least for awhile. Generally being rich comes with the idea that it gives you more freedom, not less.
I think it's something on the horizon though. A lot of the language around the extreme wealthy is pretty dehumanizing. Like "He seems like a robot" or "souless narcissistic dirtbag" or "eat the rich" type rhetoric is pretty normalized. I think it's just most people value themselves more highly then taking out a single CEO regardless of the differing scope of individual impacts. We are kind of wired to look at the extreme wealthy as both above and apart in ability to impact the world stage... While simultaneously being kind of non-special people who aren't more or less worthwhile than we ourselves. It might just be that there's still enough hope around that things will change through non-violent means... But I think it is something more about the basic mental math.
I personally just hope we can tax the everliving bajeezus out of them and start some sensible basic quality of life initiatives and electoral reform before it starts getting properly ugly.
I realize this is gunna make me sound fairly radical and murdery, but it's more legit curiousity...
I sometimes wonder why out of all the people living in misery why someone hasn't gone on to just pick a CEO and... assassinate them? Like they are generally not super well protected. They aren't living like spies with people tasting their food for poison or anything.
People have been losing their patience with Corporate wealth for a long time and talking pitchforks for decades but it's not like these people are untouchable and unknowable. A lot of this stuff is fairly public information. I figure the prerequisites for stochastic terrorism would be pretty ripe but like... Why haven't we heard about even one case? Is it just too personal you think? What is the threshold for domestic terrorist incidents? Why do we see all these lone wolf gunman going after schools and clubs because they have been made so VERY angry... but not tracking down singular people? Is it a different psychological requirement?
When I was in high school we had this whole chant about babies and trash compactors and other edgy shit we thought was the funniest thing. Crazily enough... none of us ever harmed a kid and if anyone would have actually put a baby in harms way where we could see we would have been traumatized.
Ease off the pearls there. A lot of Queer folks make fun of the rhetoric that Conservatives sling around about being bogeymen after kids , particularly during Pride. A rowdy bunch of party people probably high as kites being dumb and edgy isn't news in most places. Treating the matter as though every single one of us has to be paragons of proper behaviour without exception every moment isn't exactly a bar any group of people is going to meet. Moreover why should everyone have to be subject to group punishment for an individual's transgression? If a boss punished everyone at your workplace because one person came in late how would you react?
A lot of the sentiments inside the community are that it doesn't matter how often we treat everything seriously, speak eloquently or point to actual studies and literature about how we're just people who are underserved by beaurcratic structures, children are not harmed by association and we are not monsters... All it takes is a couple of people being silly once and suddenly every nasty bigoted fear is confirmed beyond shadow of a doubt... So why bother? It's an impossible standard.
I mean.. There's like seven of them and two designs are used by groups that are known to be used by bigots during marches to politically protest a number of LGBTQIA+ civil rights issues.
But here you go, the cis flag colors to fly.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586825/
Frogs and other amphibians are actually incredibly sensitive to all manner of chemicals. Heavy metals, trace pharmaceutical contamination in human wastewater... They basically breathe water through their very thin skin and have delicate tissues overall. They provide unique issues for conservationists because they are usually the first water related species to collapse.
Humans have a history of being able to tolerate years and years of direct contact with arsenic, lead and various toxins. Your basic oil paint set from before 1950's has a lifetimes worth of a modern person's regular exposure. Frogs are a poor indicator of how humans react to anything.
Plant based estrogens don't impact humans much. They do sheep... But only because they have four stomachs and can actually sort of process them. In humans they just slip through the system mostly untouched.
I find it very strange as someone as comfortably far away from French Canada one can be while still being on the continent that I technically am described as French by this diagram. I failed French so hard in 8th grade my teacher passed me on the promise that I never take another French class.
Honestly I hear a lot of this complained about in Canada to try and make a Privatized system seem more reasonable...
And seriously it's grass is greener nonsense. I have American friends with joint issues. They may got their care maybe like two months faster than I did... And some of them are still paying it down five years later. I can afford to hobble for a little longer if it means the bank doesn't own my soul.
That's kind of my reasoning for thinking this whole bear thing is out of proportion. I grew up knowing how to deal with bears. If you're talking black bear you make a bunch of scary confusing noise and look big or... If you are already noisy they just steer clear and leave you the fuck alone. You gotta be pretty deep woods to encounter Grizzlies and most of the time they are chill. If they aren't, play dead or go up a tree.
I don't care if all a rando person, male, female non-binary whatever - does is try and strike up a conversation, I don't go to the woods to socialize. Act like a proper bear and gimme my gorram space!
Depends on the approach. In a lot of queer friendly spaces men's issues are generally accepted as incredibly valid as gay and trans men tend to get pretty hardcore beat down by failing to pass the bar of the expectations of cultural masculinity and on average they require more outside help from services or others because they are less likely to be able to return to their families to escape abusive relationships and face addictional precarity.
But the difference tends to be a general understanding that while women definitely get it and can absolutely sympathize they also aren't in a particularly great position to change things in a general sense because women also have to regularly fight against social power of systems that depower their autonomy that are fronted by men and they generally have to see to their own needs before being able to do the administrative work on men's behalf.
It's emergency airplane crash logic. Put your own supply of air on before you help the person next to you. If your job, legislature, judicial system and potential funding structure is only made up of a minority of women you are asking a lot of people who don't have institutional power to flex even on their own behalf and a lot of women have deep seated anger regarding that disparity so when someone tries to pile more on their plates the gut reaction is to throw it back. Women might be willing to assist, but they aren't going to accept doing the lions share of the required admin for another group when they have other priorities. The same goes for queer groups, racial minority groups, religious minorities, disability affected groups and so on. They might have room on their plate to show up to your protest... But usually that requires you to you show a willingness to reciprocate and show up to theirs.