Lurking, Liking, Reblogging In My Lair

linked tree (includes options to donate to Ghanaian projects)

In my AP Art class, there was a girl who was just starting to experiment with mixed media. At this point she was still playing around, trying to decide what direction she wanted to go with her portfolio. So one critique day, she brought in an abstract canvas with some rhinestone highlights and painted and real peacock feathers. She loved sparkles and peacock feathers so she thought she’d try introducing them a *little*. And after everyone had given some input, the teacher gave her his advice, VERY roughly paraphrased here:

“So here’s the thing… I do not like this style. These are just elements that do not speak to me personally, but I see that you like them, and you’re doing interesting things with them.

“My biggest critique is, I only merely *dislike* this piece. I want you to make me HATE it. Go crazy with the things that you like. Don’t hold back trying to make it palatable to people like me. Because I am NEVER going to like it. And if the audience does not like it, it should drive them crazy seeing how much YOU love it.”

Her portfolio was chock full of neon colors and glitter and rhinestones and splashes of peacock feathers and it was a delight. Our teacher despised every piece lol, but she got great marks and I think even won some awards. And more importantly, she was happy and proud of the results. Because she didn’t limit herself by trying to appeal to people who were never going to enjoy what she enjoyed.

This is my personal list and my personal vibes, I am not saying that anyone else is wrong but giving my personal impressions. They are all headcanon. I am very happy to hear your theories and your vibes!

Sir Walter Elliot, Persuasion: Okay, dude totally has a crush on this Colonel Wallis whom he’s been parading around Bath with arm-in-arm. He is most likely pansexual: attracted to anyone who is a 10/10. Unfortunately he sees himself as a 11/10, so maybe not the best partner. 

Emma Woodhouse, Emma: She feels the need to staunchly defend the beauty of Jane Fairfax. Admires the beauty of both Harriet and Jane Fairfax but does not dwell on Mr. Elton or Frank Churchill, whom she does acknowledge are hot. Either she only has eyes for Knightley or she’s actually got some feelings for women. I will also accept some flavour of asexual/aromantic. Emma has vibes of some unspecified sort.

Charlotte Lucas, Pride and Prejudice: She’s on this list because she must be, she doesn’t actually give me queer vibes. I see Charlotte as highly pragmatic. The fact that she doesn’t consider romance doesn’t speak to me of her being a flavour of asexual or aromantic. I think you can account for Charlotte’s behaviour by her being highly loss adverse. This may be because I would probably make the same decision as her and I have extremely high loss aversion and was very anxious to get married as a young person.

Fanny Price, Mansfield Park: I know what you are thinking, don’t I mean Mary Crawford? No. We know exactly why Mary Crawford wants to be friends with Fanny, she’s bored. Fanny is not bored, doesn’t even like Mary, and views her as competition. And yet, Fanny admires her beauty, loves to look at her, and cannot even explain to herself why she keeps visiting (Fanny went to her every two or three days: it seemed a kind of fascination: she could not be easy without going). I can explain, Fanny! (Now do I think Mary Crawford would be down? Absolutely)

Fitzwilliam Darcy, Pride and Prejudice: This guy, he’s got vibes. He’s twenty-eight years old and yet has never really been so attracted to a woman before. He talks about what should attract him to a woman as if it’s a list he’s memorised. I read this very persuasive argument that he’s demisexual and I’m all for it.

Anne Steele, Sense and Sensibility: She is obsessed with Marianne Dashwood. Tracking what clothes she wears, calling her beautiful, wanting to barge in to see her in her bedroom despite rules of propriety. Anne has a very obvious crush on the lovely Marianne.

The doctor scraped out a bit of earwax to have a better look inside.

I was sent a bill for $200 PER EAR for this 5 second procedure which I did not give permission for them to do.

That was key- they did not ASK me if they could do this "procedure". And, as I OWN a medical practice (it's me. The medical practice is me, sitting in my house on video calls) I knew to call them when this bill came in to be like "You did not obtain informed consent for this procedure, and it was not en emergency procedure. You had full ability to gain my consent and didn't. I'm not paying."

And the massive hospital who owned the bill said "yuh-huh you do have to pay."

And I said "I own a practice. I know these laws. I do not owe you money for this."

And they conducted an "internal review" and SURPRISE! Decided I totally owed them money and they had never done anything wrong ever.

And so I called my state's Attorney General office, and explained the situation because, as I mentioned, I know the law. The AG got in touch within a couple days to say they were taking the case and would send the massive hospital conglomerate a knock it off, guys letter.

Lo and Behold, today I have a letter where said hospital graciously has agreed to forfeit the payment.

"How not to get screwed over by companies" should be part of civics class.

Know your rights and know who to call when they're infringed on. This whole process cost me $0 and honestly less effort than I would have expected.

Civics class wouldn't help most people in this case because the AG will not take on all these cases and most people cannot afford an attorney in this instance or more importantly, the hit to their credit.

Were they going to get into a lawsuit over my $400 bill? No obviously not. But they printed up a letter on fancy letterhead to say to stop and it worked. They followed up with me the next day to be sure, and so ask how much money they had saved me.

They use dinky cases like mine to track habitual misbehavior of large scale companies to build cases they could actually go to court over.

And because people are shocked- I never spoke to the AG of my state directly. He operates mainly by overseeing a whole crew of people. And this is what those people do.

This didn’t happen because I’m special because of my tiny therapy practice.

This happened because this is what the AG office is for.

“The problem is systemic” doesn’t mean “and there’s nothing you can do”.

Then you've been trained well by "The System".

Yes, that System you say can't be fought? Where did you get that idea, huh? Who taught you that "small" acts of illegality don't matter? Who made you think that there's no point in fighting back because it will all come to nothing?

Might it be the same entities that benefit if you believe all that?

Gonna pause and let you ponder.

Never. Ever. EVER.

EVER.

Let companies or corporations or hospitals or organizations or any business big or small get away with screwing you over without a fight. Maybe you personally don't win every fight, but you lose 100% of the time you don't try. You'll win more often than you think you will. I know cuz I've done it.

So have others. Attorneys General offices bring lawsuits against businesses all the time. They do so because citizens contacted them to say "someone is doing a crime" and the crime doers did not stop when told and got into way more trouble than if they'd just stopped. FAFO. The Find Out can't happen if you don't even bother to report the Fucking Around.

On that note, as OP said, please know your rights! And, in a situation where you don't but suspect something is hinky, ask! The people of the internet can help! So can librarians! So can many others. Find out what is and is not okay for them to do. If it's not okay, report them! See something, say something.

Don't let the System win by default.

John Dashwood in Sense & Sensibility is great example. He is very self interested, but he doesn't want to be viewed poorly in society:

He was not an ill-disposed young man, unless to be rather cold hearted and rather selfish is to be ill-disposed: but he was, in general, well respected; for he conducted himself with propriety in the discharge of his ordinary duties.

As much as I really doubt he cares at all about his stepmother and three half sisters, he's not going to throw them out of the house until they've found somewhere good to stay because he doesn't want it to reflect poorly on himself. He won't actually do much for them, but he also won't do them active harm, because that is the action of maximal self interest. Yet he's still very much an antagonist and causes pain.

Caroline Bingley of Pride & Prejudice "dropped all her resentment" because self interest is more important to her than cruelty. She may not like Elizabeth Darcy or be happy about Jane Bingley, but she will not prioritize snarky comments above her all important connections. Self interest wins.

In Elizabeth Gaskell's Wives and Daughters, the new Mrs. Gibson, Hyacinth Clare, does not care about her stepdaughter Molly at all. However, self interest dictates that she treats Molly well, because she doesn't want to disrupt her relationship with Molly's father or become talked about as a cruel stepmother in the town. She is a very selfish character, I honestly doubt she cares if Molly or her own daughter Cynthia live or die, but that self interest dictates that she give at least the appearance of kindness. She still causes a lot of distress in Molly through her "kindness," because it is rooted in selfishness.

you have to be kinder to people who are slow processors.

you have to be kinder to people who don't understand your jokes.

you have to be kinder to people who forget important dates.

you have to be kinder to people with cognitive decline.

you have to be kinder to people who were always this way, too.