#i'm thinking.

there ain't a snowball's chance in hell that the Covey were all confined to 12. they were a nomadic group that's implied to have existed even pre Dark-Days, since they had nothing to do with the war, meaning they've visited other districts, meaning it's highly likely that the Covey have descendants in those districts. or maybe entire branches of the Covey remained. imagine how cool that would be.

do the Covey in 1 have elaborate homes and regalia, showing off their culture with the opulence of the district? did the Covey in 2 give up their pacifist ways, or did they go against the rest of the district? does the Covey in 3 still live technology-free like they do in 12, or did they adapt? does the Covey in 4 travel by sea, weave nets and shells and pearls into their outfits? is the Covey in 5 living on their own like in 12, unreliant on the grid to keep the lights on? do the Covey in 6 see all the transportation things, wishing and wanting for a life where they once roamed free? do the Covey in 7 talk to the trees and whistle songs about lumberjacks? does the Covey in 8 hand-stitch all their clothing, weaving love into every stitch? the Covey in 9, do they live free on the fields, or are they forced to work like everybody else? are the Covey in 10 renowned for being gentler with their animals than the other farmers? do the Covey in 11 whistle to the mockingjays, delighting in the fact that they sing back? and do the Covey in 12 know that they're not the only ones?

If your choices, albeit unconventional, strengthen your dignity as a person, they are feminist, otherwise not.

Also, the "we cannot criticize other women whatsoever" put us in this mess: I have critical skills and I can see how her sexy doll behaviour is hurting ourselves collectively. Of course I won't go throw tomatoes at her and I will defend her against men, but I am very critical of her choices and I feel repelled about her new album cover and title.

Where is her dignity in this? I don't think that being treated and consideres as a dog for the pleasure of others is feminist.

Of course she can do what she likes and she doesn't need to think about every woman in the world before making her choices, but every choice, even mine, can be criticised and analysed, since it doesn't happen in a void. Also there is a team behind her and this kind of choices.

That is such a good point!! I've been thinking about this since you sent it, and I think I agree.

One additional problem I see is also that expression of sexuality and marketing are so interlaced. In that sense: She is selling an image. She's singing songs others wrote for her, I have no idea whether she dresses herself or does her own poses. So her agency is questionable to begin with. As in: Is this even her action? Is this maybe the action of a (male?) marketing team, deciding for her? But even if this was all her idea, of course that idea is driven by marketability. Not to get back to that (very mean) other point but it does seem like her earlier ventures (flannel and guitar, sitting on a bed looking sad) flopped. I think this shock of self-humiliation has to be seen in that context, too. At least we're all talking about her. Sex sells. Preorder the album now.

Apart from that, lust vs self-objectivication: Is she expressing her desires or is she proving how good she is at fulfilling the sexual expectations of men? That's something I've been thinking about a LOT lately. It applies to many artists, honestly. To connect that to your point: When it comes to questioning whether an action is feminist - in the context of sexual expression, mainly - I've largely been thinking about this. Is it desire or servitude? Which comes close to the dignity aspect, I think! Still, that's a new thought for me and I'll continue to turn it around in my head. Thank you so much for this message!!

(featuring a really crappy doodle from two days ago)