Child Custody Information Form Holy Family School: Fill & Download for Free

HBO released a documentary in time for national foster care month titled simply enough "Foster." It is set in Los Angeles county and focuses on the LA county foster care system.Let's review it.First, I will openly admit that I was skeptical. 100%. I believe it's damn near impossible to make a film about this experience which captures it appropriately or which appropriately displays the problems in the system.Second, it wasn't as bad as I had feared.Third, every one of the foster children and survivors in the film were amazing and brave. It takes a lot of courage to be on camera and discuss the life they have lived.Finally, and unfortunately, the film fails to move the needle in any direction.Like all complicated social policy matters, the film makers chickened out on the hard issues. The viewer is left with a sense that whatever problems the system has, it's the children who are responsible for their plight and perhaps a few good and caring judges, social workers or foster parents along the way.All of the promotional material for this film emphasis the "Oscar winning" film makers. One would be right in assuming they might have cast a critical eye to all involved. One would be wrong.The film does not address, nor make any mention of, the turn over rate in foster homes, the systemic and common abuse of children IN the system, nor the failings of the social workers involved.In fact, the film demonstrates several glaring problem with social workers in the system while failing to even notice that they caught it on tape. But I digress.Let's start at the beginning.*******The film opens with a couple of statistics:CP agencies across the US receive about 4 million calls of neglect and abuse per year1 in 8 children suffer a confirmed case of abuse or neglect by age 18.Ms BeaversThe first scene centers on Ms. Beavers who has been a foster parent for 27 years. I am always skeptical when a foster parent is so out front with the children in their care. But much to my surprise, Ms. Beavers seems pretty awesome! She truly appears to care and love the children in her home, the ones who have passed through her home and the ones to (possibly) come. More importantly and to her credit, it is the children in her care who demonstrate the quality of care and love she provides. So, score one big point for Ms. Beavers and the children in her care. No problems here.Krys'Lyn, and her parents, Raeanne and ChrisNext up, we have the first case to tug at your heart strings. Child protective services (CPS) receives a call. A baby girl has been born and her mother Raeanne, tested positive for cocaine exposure. The baby's urine was negative, but the mandated reporter reporting the case to CPS explains that the nursing staff missed the first urine sample and they are waiting on the meconium (so that they can test that for exposure). So the viewer is left to assume.... ? Sunshine and rainbows?By the way - the film NEVER comes back to this point and never states wether or not the baby's meconium tested positive. And that is an important point. Because all through the film, the narrative that is built is that the baby must have had cocaine in her system and that this is all the result of a horrible mother who has lied to her baby's father, and to CPS about her cocaine use.In rewatching this particular segment one thing that caught my ear was a statement by the CPS worker involved with this case, "I always compare being a DCFS social worker like being in the marines. 'Cause we're out in the field in the front lines."Let's stop here for just a second.I understand where this social worker is coming from. I understand her intent is good. I understand her motives are (so far as she is aware,) pure. I get it. But in any system/business/organization/field of work, when you begin to see the people you serve as an adversary that you have to fight or control (the marine analogy), then you need to take a step back and re-think the premise of your work. Something is wrong in your organization or with the basic principle behind your work.Viewing your work as akin to a war zone leads to you seeing the people you serve as an enemy, as people you cannot and should not trust. It heightens, or increases, the moral judgments. I get that many of the people this social worker is interfacing with are not truthful. They are not truthful because they fear what is going to happen. They know that they have been caught in a "punitive system" (I'll come back to that phrase by the way). So this is the first place where the film makers fail to address the problems social workers have brought into their work.Now, where were we? Oh yes, a call placed to CPS about a baby born to a mother whose urine tested positive for cocaine. Ok.Here is what happens next.In the film interview, Raeanne explains that she "uses" cocaine. And she also explains that the father, Chris was unaware of this. And as you watch the film and you watch Chris and listen to him, you begin to see that he truly, by all accounts did not know. And so, if he didn't know, he's probably also not using.Now, mom (Raeanne) rightly fears that her daughter is about to be taken. And because she knows that this is the punishment we met out on (some) mothers who use (some) drugs, she asks Chris to also lie to CPS.So, Chris lied for Raeanne at her request. You see just how naive and trusting he is. He is trying to protect his family.And CPS assumed he was lying. The CPS worker tells Chris that CPS is "going for a removal order" and so he needs to be honest, "is she (Raeanne) using, does she have an addiction?"asks the CPS worker. And Chris says no.Let's stop again and consider what we have just seen.A very well dressed, educated, young social worker has uttered the word "addiction" about a new mom. Addiction. She also said "user." But she also said "addiction." And while you may think I am parsing hairs here, I am not. There is a world of difference between a "user" and an "addict."I personally usealcohol. I am not an alcohol addict. And I hope I never am. (And being on antibiotics for a sinus infection at the moment, I am unfortunately not even using alcohol while watching this. I digress.)Putting aside which drugs are legal for use (by some people), this issue is important. Because there is a world of difference in the care and opportunity which can be provided for a casual "user" versus an "addict." And there should be a world of difference in how we care for a new mother who uses a drug which has been declared illegal versus a new mother who is clearly an addict of that same drug.So far, the film makers have allowed two things to slip by in this particular case (won't be the last either). Failing to divulge the results of the meconium analysis, the viewer is left to assume that the baby had cocaine in her system (maybe she did, maybe she didn't). And now the viewer has the word "addiction" assigned to the mother. Coupled with a very nicely dressed, young and bright social worker, the viewer's judgement has already been made against this mother. Perhaps it should be. Perhaps it should not be.Now, where were we? Oh yes, Chris (the father) is on the hot seat.The CPS worker tells Chris that CPS is "going for a removal order" and so he needs to be honest, "is she (Raeanne) using, does she have an addiction?"asks the CPS worker.What we do not hear and I assume was not really explained to this young and naive father, is the CPS worker informing Chris that the baby could be related to HIS custody if he comes clean. Perhaps the father could take a drug test to prove he is not using. (Perhaps we could do something besides take the baby, but that's a whole other issue).In this case, the film makers could have expanded on this dilemma. Was Chris given an option to take the baby home after testing negative for drugs (which he clearly does not use based on his complete unawareness of Raeanne's use and his eventual custody of his new born daughter)? Did the CPS worker explain all of this? Or did she continue to entrap Chris in this lie he is repeating because he wrongly thinks it will protect his child? After all, if you see the work you do as being in a war zone, why would you bother explaining all of this to Chris?The CPS worker explains that they could not release the baby to the father "based on the information we had at the time." And just like in a war zone, she failed to look for the information she needed to release the baby to Chris. Instead of punishing him because of his covering for Raeanne, why didn't they test his urine? Why didn't they send a social worker to his house (as they would soon do after taking the baby)? All of these things COULD be done IF the "system" decided to do them. And the film makers do NOT bother to go into this. All of the ensuing trauma COULD be avoided.At 12 minutes into the film, we start the story of Mary an 18 year old foster survivor.Mary explains her journey thusly: "I was born a drug baby. My mom was on cocaine, crystal meth. I got taken away right away, and put into the foster care system. I went from home to home to home to home. Sometimes with my sister, sometimes not. Overall I have been in about, I dunno, 16, 17, 18 homes?"So, Mary's story is designed (by the film makers) to mirror the story of the new born we have just seen - Kris'Lyn. New born, placed in foster care at birth because of mom's drug use.But as we will later see, there is a world of difference between the two stories. Whereas Raeanne has admittedly used cocaine at times during pregnancy, we later learn that Mary's mom was clearly on a much darker path. And while we learn about baby Kris'Lyn's father (Chris), and how stable he is, we never hear about Mary's father.Now, you could say, "hey, doesn't that show how DCFS is changing and working to meet the needs of each child in care? If Kris'Lyn (as we will see) ends up with her father and Mary never did, doesn't that show that everything will work out?" And that is one way to look at it.Another way to look at is is that this new born girl Kris'Lyn never should have left her father's arms. If CPS had taken a couple of small steps before removal, this baby could have avoided any trauma. Even if the baby is reunited with her father in a few days, the removal IS STILL TRAUMA!Regardless, Mary is an amazing young adult. Through all of her experiences, she has the courage and stamina to explain her past to the film makers and to give us a glimpse of her life.At 15 minutes, we get back to Ms. BeaversAnd I have to agree again, that this lady has (apparently) given a lot of love to a lot of kids. I cannot (nor can anyone) vouch for every kid who has ever been in her care, but I can say that for me at least, the calmness in her voice, the kindness in her voice and her ability to compassionately explain the plight of the kids in her care speaks volumes of her intent. I am also sure she has lost her temper a few times, as every parent does.At 19 minutes in, we're back to Jessica ChandlerWe saw Jessica briefly at the beginning of the film. She explained that she had been a child in the foster care and juvenile court system. She explains how a divorce at age 8, followed by her mother's breast cancer, changed the course of her life. Such is the plight of so many children in foster care. The general public thinks all children are in care because of drugs, prostitution, poverty, etc. But these things are not so simple. Often a family is stable and caring until a tragedy befalls them. A tragedy with which we as a society will not help the family cope.Now, a moment of truth for the viewer as Jessica explains during a drive through LA, "Majority of our children that we see live in poverty. They are minorities. (True in LA, and many large cities not true everywhere). They come from single parent households. They come from families where there's undiagnosed mental illness. These are the larger society's problems that we haven't addressed.Indeed. But the film makers don't focus on this.At 22 minutes, we're introduced to Dasani, 16 years old.Dasani is speaking with his Defense Attorney from the Children's Defense Fund, Patrica Soung. And I gotta say, this lady impresses me the whole way through the film. She gets it. Dasani was placed on probation for an alleged fight at his group home. Dear God, can we just think about that for a second? Kids get in fights. Sadly, they do. But in foster care, you don't get a time out or grounded. You get probation. Again - a "punitive system."Then Dasani was detained in Juvenile hall for violating his probation on a number of allegations, including smoking marijuana. Yeah. Ok. 16 year old gets in a fight at a group home, is put on probation. He violates probation, down we go. But the attorneys from the Children's Defense Fund are working to help him and have some success. The court hearing goes well, and we move on.At 27 minutes in we are at the first custody hearing for Kris'LynThe Children's Law Center attorney Anna Rak, Los Angeles Depedency Lawyer Andrew Rifkin, representing the father, and Viator Ozoude, also Los Angeles Depedency Lawyer, representing the mother, are present and arguing for Chris to have custody of his child.Chris is awarded custody. And you see the absolute relief and also the absolute intense and devastating trauma inflicted on this mother for her mistakes following the custody hearing.Raeanne then explains in the next scene how things in their life unfolded. "Everything just seemed to have hit us at one time. We lost our car, place, and me being pregnant, being homeless, I hit rock bottom. It was like 'dang, take everything away from us to give us this blessing that we've been wanting for years. I made some bad decisions and I allowed that decision to take over me. I used cocaine the day before my water broke."Again, one tragedy. One mistake.What can we say about ourselves as a society when we continually allow this to happen? Our social services policy and funding is what it is because the cruelty is the point. The cruelty drives the outcome. This is a case where the family never should have been put through this ordeal. A solution where the family are supervised as a unit in residential care facilities is a better solution, a less punitive solution, a healthier and less costly solution.At 32 minutes, Redina Sheriff, Children's social worker brings Kris'Lyn to her father late the same evening (or soon after the hearing, we aren't told when it happens). And I am stuck by something in particular by this lady - her motherhood. In contrast to what will happen later, any parent can spot that this lady has been around children, around new parents and she understands them. She doesn't come into Chris' home and judge the environment. She is clearly happy for Chris, she let's him hold the baby carrier the second they meet, she doesn't ask him about any parental training, simply saying instead, "how are you with handling?"All with a respectful tone.Chris says "you're home now"to his daughter.At this point it's also clear that I've been watching foster porn. Let's hope this changes.At 34 minutes we're back to Ms. Beavers and the children she has adopted and is caring for.We meet Jake, 23 years old. Ms Beavers fostered him starting at age 3. After caring for him for several years, social workers started the process of trying to move him to an adopted home. Instead, Ms. Beavers adopted him. Wonderful story. She is one of the foster parents you hear so much about who cannot believe the stupidity of the foster system in trying to move a child like Jake.Another moment of truth for the viewer, again from Ms Beavers who says. "Once a kid is taken from their parent, if they didn't have a issue before, they got one now. And that's what I try to tell some of them social workers. I said, once you took that kid away, they gonna become bitter, they gonna become destructive, they gonna become angry. They gonna have a lot of problems wrong with them because you took them from their comfort zone, form their parents, from their school, from their friends. You took them away. And you expect them to become OK with that, They're not."Amen says the non-theist! Why does it take 27 years of foster parenting, or former and traumatized foster children to explain this concept to fresh faced 20 something college grads who think they know what they are doing?36 minutes in, back to Mary.Mary is explaining that she doesn't feel ready for college. It's hard to imagine that. She presents herself as so very put together. And yet, I understand what she is feeling. It's not the grades. She thinks it's about the grades. It's not. It's the feeling and understanding that while you thought it would all change at 18 and things would magically be "normalized," instead you begin to see just how isolated from the world you have been. Nothing in this moment that Mary describes is about her grades. She believes it is. But it's not.37 minutes in, discussion of Dasani's foster parents' abuse of Dasani.Lanny Wilson, Children's Law Center Case Manager, and Patricia Soung discuss the trauma Dasani has witnessed - his mother being murdered - living with a family friend for ten years - his adoptive/foster parents being "sick" of him and dumping him - literally- at DCFS.And they are discussing how being a foster youth is the cause of his acting out, "Dasani is a foster youth, his delinquency is a product of that." And there you go!Lanny states it most clearly: "Everyone has a judgment on the youth and what they did and what they should do, but nobody is with them day to day."41 minutes in, Los Padrinos Group HomeJessica is again continuing the story of her childhood. "As a probation youth, when you run away from placement, they put out a warrant out for your arrest."Jessica visits the room that was hers at Los Padrinos. Looking at the windows in the room, she comments, "I don't know if I was really depressed or in a different room, I just don't remember any light. Like ever. Besides the... (points to the ceiling light). I was in eternal darkness."Looking at the juvenille detention center - holy krap! Jessica is describing how degrading it is. And it is."To me it was so degrading and so awful that, I dunno, it's just really hard to care about yourself when you're being punished at that level."And what is so freaking infuriating is how the detention officer is describing Jessica when she was a youth in the center and how all the kids are told that no one loves them, they will never be anything, but she saw in Jessica that she could be one of the kids that could be saved. And there is the tell my friends, "this could be one of the kids that we could save."Jessssssus christ. You made my point for me. It is this jacked up narrative which continues to fuel the heart of a dark and failing system - "one of the kids that we could save." ONE. It's an admission that most are already lost when they enter the system and that the system is not going to save them.Why are we doing this? If we know they are lost, if we know that we can't "save" them, then why? Is it just because we like the narrative of one out of 1,000 being saved? Does this make them a unicorn that we all revere? No, it doesn't. You save one. And then at 18 or 21 they are still thrown in with the rest of us in this world and expected to perform as if nothing happened, because if they don't perform like that - they are then lost and you never really saved them. We continue to pride ourselves on the "ones we saved." The special ones. The unicorns. We predicate this entire system on these few "successful" survivors. We could achieve the same success rate by doing nothing. How successful is that?Jessica was "saved." She speaks of the people in her life who did "hold out hope for me."Her story is not to be dismissed. I don't speak lightly of it. I merely have to point out that this wonderful story cannot, should not, be the basis of a system that is producing results which are no better than random chance.45 minutes, we see the supervised visit with Kris'Lyn's mother Raeanee.And Raeanne makes such a powerful point - this whole experience has taken not just her daughter from her but her partner as well due to the rules imposed by the state. How can we look at this and not realize that the same money, time and resources spent on fostering the WHOLE family as one, in one place, would have been a better outcome.No doubt, this forced separation contributes to their eventual permanent separation at the end.We continue with the personal stories of Raeanne and Chris and their childhood. No need to rehash the stories of these person's lives. The did what they could, as best they could.1 hour, 1 minute in, Lanny Wilson, Dasani's Children's Law Center Case Manager:"The foster care system is a punative system. Punishment is just more hurt."Yep.I'm not sure people understand this point. And it's perhaps the biggest reveal in the film. Foster care IS punitive. It IS punitive. It is punitive to the parents, and it is punitive to the children.A non punitive system would care for the family. Would work to make the family whole by working with them as a whole. Instead, it breaks the family apart, no matter how fragmented it may have been before. It punishes the parents both by taking the child and by imposing penalties. It punishes the children by removing them from the family they know and shuffling them between care givers, some of whom, like Ms. Beavers are great, others who are not.Yes, there are cases much more clear than that of Raeanne and Chris and Kris'Lyn. Cases where the abuse or neglect is clearly horrific and cannot be permitted to continue. But there are so many cases like that of Raeane and Chris where a change in approach could yield much better results.Cases like Dasani's case are troubling and prove the limits of the current foster care system. In Dasani's case, he witnessed his mother's murder at the age of 4. By a man presumed to be his father. He then lived with a family friend for several years, following by what is clearly described as an abusive foster home. When that foster no longer wanted to provide care for him, they dumped him - literally- back at the door of DCFS.Now, at 16 years of age, he is shuffling between group homes. He is smart. And he knows how ridiculous this all is. He knows that he is not going to be brought into a family to experience normalcy. Even if he does everything he is supposed to do from today forward, he will leave the system at 18, no family, no support. He knows this. All he is doing now is waiting. And that is the story of so many kids. They are not dumb. They know the end. And so they wait. The system failed Dasani in the initial placements and again now, just as it fails so many children.1 hour, 5 minutes in, two Childrens Law Center investigators check on Kris'Lyn in her home with her dad.You realize just how impossible and awkward it is for one human, or even two, to walk into a home and make an observation of another family. It's just awkaward as hell.What troubles me about the way these two ladies enter the room is how they strike me as non-parents. It's how they move, how they keep their distance, how they seem uncomfortable. Does it matter if they have children? I dunno. But if you are going into a home with a newborn - to observe, I feel that you should have lived that experience because it can be complete chaos and frustration. Fortunately for Chris and his daughter, everything is in place and calm.As these two ladies are watching, Kris'Lyn becomes very still for about 11 seconds, staring off into space. As a parent, this is not unusual to see in newborn's. It doesn't mean there is brain damage or seizures. Babies sometimes just don't do very much. And every child is absolutely unique. Sometimes, they just have a moment. And in any family where DCFS is not involved or observing, it would be unremarkable. And when Kris'Lyn starts moving again, she is perfectly happy and fine. No crying.Remember, we've already been primed by the CPS worker at the beginning of the film with the word "addicted" and we never learn wether or not Raeanne's meconium tested positive for cocaine. So, the next scene is with that in mind.The supervisor tells Chris that he needs to see a neurologist because his daughter froze for a few seconds. And Chris does say that she "day dreams" often. But by all indications, everything else is normal - the baby is eating, is a healthy weight and otherwise normal. Again, in a family not under DCFS supervision, this would be unremarkable.So, is this something that the doctor needs to know. NO! It's not. She's a one month old baby - they have moments where they simply lie still and do NOTHING! It happens. It's normal.Now, you may be thinking, "better safe than sorry, right." Yeah. Sure. But babies also have acid reflux from time to time, some have it often and it can easily mirror a small seizure. Some babies have panic attacks as well. So sure, better safe than sorry. But also better educated than not!So the doctor performs an EEG on the baby while DFCS is present. Not enough that they send Chris, no they apparently need to be there as well. And hey, in a punitive system, if you can confirm cocaine exposure in a baby, well then you might have a better case for termination of parental rights!1 hour and 17 minutes into the film, we pick up Mary again.Mary is struggling in school. She is debating changing schools, and her area of study. She is considering acting school. There is no judgment on my part about this. Only she knows what is right for her. But I suspect she is coming to terms with the thing that I also had to deal with, and it's hard to put into words.Up until age 18, you are both a victim of a punitive system (to use Lanny Wilson's words) and protected by it to a certain degree. By protected, I don't mean physically, emotionally, although that is supposed to happen and often does not. You are protected to a certain degree because you are a minor. In grade school, middle school, high school, everyone is on a somewhat even playing field. Let's not kid ourselves, it's not a very level field. But it's more purposfully level than the world outside - there are routines, shared expereinces, common courses that everyone takes, etc. This level of normalcy feels safe for kids, as any parent knows. But, for a child of the foster care system, a level of normalcy at this age can make you feel as though you are finally kind of, sort of, maybe, "normal." You are lulled into feeling that maybe, just maybe you are kind of like a normal kid, in some way.And then you turn 18. And whether you go to college, flee your foster home, or win the lottery, you are suddenly set free in an economically and emotionally competitive society that does not have time nor reason to give two flips about your background. You suddenly discover just how well off those other kids were. You see the sorting of peers - by peers - in real time and in a meaningful way that you did not see before. And you find yourself surrounded by a thousand triggering people and points. And it's overwhelming. And I think that is what Mary is struggling with.1 hour and 24 minutes in, we are watching Chris' "Family Preservation Meeting."Can I just say that it's some kind of Orwellian world when you break up a family, then hold a "Family Preservation Meeting."Just saying.Chris begins to discuss his anger and he's very clear headed about it and open with his emotions, but in a very mature manner. He shares his feelings about the neurology appointment. And I have to wonder if the directors have left something out.The idea that one instance of cocaine use, one day before birth can cause the baby to have seizures is just not what the medical literature supports. And, we don't yet know the results of the EEG. But Chris has been led to believe now that his daughter's instances of silence are the result of her mother's actions rather than just a thing babies do. What a fun place to find oneself.One of the case workers states how proud she is of Chris. Great! But no one said anything to mom about her efforts during this section we've been shown. No one says "Hey Raeanee, great job staying clean!" It either didn't happen (they didn't say anything positive), or the directors chose not to show it. Damnit. And we know she is because she's testing the entire time.Rennae explains all that she is doing, all the things that the court demanded, how she is testing clean, etc. No one seems to encourage her. No one says anything - at least that we are shown.1 hour, 28 minutes in, we see Mary moving into transitional housing with her sister.This is a great moment for Mary. A big moment. Some people may be shocked to see Mary so excited about a new mattress. You have no idea. For a foster child to have something new like a mattress feels like the height of luxury. Your mattress, not one that 20 other people have slept on. Mary is concerned about removing the plastic from the mattress, is she allowed to. One small example of how life in foster care is for pretty much all foster children. Mary explains that in most foster homes, you're not allowed to sleep without a mattress cover by the foster family. A social worker explains that's because foster parents are afraid the child will wet the bed during sleep. What sucks about that moment is that of course Mary knows that. Christ. She's not dumb. The comment about bed wetting is condescending. It's condescending because bed wetting isn't the only reason foster parents cover mattresses, or car seats, or couches. They cover them because the see the foster child as dirty, as different.1 hour and 32 minutes. We're back at the neurologist's office.The neurologist explains that the EEG showed no evidence of any seizures. He goes on to explain - and I quote: "I have no evidence that cocaine exposure causes seizure or injured her brain in a fashion which would explain the seizure that she had. When we look at the best studies of infants exposed to cocaine, methamphetamines, the main thing we worry about is long term developmental issues and it's something only time can tell. Every day, every week, every month that passes by, your daughter's risk does go down and it makes me feel more reassured."This whole instance is simply the social worker who visited Chris not knowing a damned thing about neuro-diversity in infants and then sending the entire case management team and medical staff down a fucking rabbit hole, not to mention the parents. Fuck all.1 hour, 36 minutes, Raeanne and Chris are back in court.They are awarded full custody of their daughter and the case is dismissed. Someone is heard saying "Congratulations!" Yeah, sure. I agree. Congratulations, you can have your daughter back!1 hour, 38 minutes, we see Jessica with her children again.Jessica states that she doens't want to throw away the child welfare system, she wants to reform it. She says, "There are other Jessica's out there. My mission in life is to find me and to save me. I believe that there's gonna be someone whose just waiting for someone to give them one more chance and that's gonna be me."So, now we're unicorn hunting.She obviously benefited from the system and that is wonderful. She was lucky to have someone who chose to advocate for her - to "hold out hope" as she said earlier. But even her own statement lays bare the ugly truth that she is searching for a needle in a haystack, for another unicorn - for "the good story" - an implicit admission that all the other pieces of straw are not going to make it.As the film ends, we're back to Ms. Beavers.And I do like how Ms Beavers ends the whole thing - "I teach my kids that... 'love your mom and your dad'. They couldn't take care of you guys, they have a problem. But you got to love them 'cause they're your mom and your dad. Can't not like them, say they're not your mom, they are. I'm just filling in for them until they get beter. Some will get better and some won't. But you have to hope they're going to get better."As for Raeanee, Chris and Kris'LynIt is noted at the end that Resanee and Chris have separated, but that they have had no further contact with the foster care system and Kris'Lyn has had no further health issues.***So, how does all this make me feel? Well, who cares? I mean, really, who cares? I am one voice in the wilderness. I watched this film primarily because someday someone will ask me if I have seen this (already happened) and I will need to say yes, I've seen it.But if the directors wanted to make any kind of impact or statement with this film, they utterly and completely failed. The only people who will come away from this thinking that they have learned anything are the people who have never had a clue about foster care - which is most people. So, it doesn't really matter how I feel about it."Foster porn" is a term we use to describe the act of watching the stories or listening to the stories of foster survivors - it's like "poverty porn" - AKA "Honey Boo Boo" and "Mama June." The only purpose it serves is entertainment. You feel something. But mostly, you feel better about yourself when you're done."Foster" does nothing to educate the public about the horrific outcomes of foster care. It does not tell you that 50% of all females in foster care will be pregnant by age 19. Or that about the same number of foster youth drop out of high school. Or that 25% of foster youth will be homeless within a few years of aging out of the system. Or any number of horrible statistics that demonstrate how the system is not producing the outcomes it is charged with producing.So much of the publicity around the film is about the Oscar wining directors. As if that means something. All it means is they can produce a film. It says nothing of its content. The film makers state in interviews that they were not taking a position on the issues. That's false. If you don't show the outcomes of the system and you only show the good people in the system and the "good" stories of kids in the system and the photogenic kids in the system, you have taken a position.In the end, this film does nothing to advance the cause of children in need of stable families.

There have a been a lot of Netflix originals related to ancient history recently. One such show is the German historical drama series Barbarians, which was first released on Netflix on 23 October 2020. The show is very loosely based on the historical events leading up to and surrounding the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE, in which an alliance of several Germanic tribes won a crushing victory against the Romans and destroyed three whole Roman legions.A lot of people have commented on Barbarians’ similarities to the History channel series Vikings, but there are a couple factors that differentiate it. One is that Barbarians is set about eight hundred years earlier than Vikings in the world of antiquity rather than the world of the Middle Ages. The other factor is that Barbarians is overtly a German show that is clearly made for a German target audience with German concerns; whereas Vikings was clearly made with British and North American target audiences primarily in mind.Barbarians is mostly fiction, but, so far at least, it does generally stick more closely to the broad outline of historical events than Vikings. (There are, for instance, no bizarre scenes in which historical figures who actually lived centuries apart are portrayed as meeting in person.) In this article, I want to talk about aspects of the show that are historically accurate and other aspects where the makers of the show have taken some creative license.The basic outlineThe most detailed surviving contemporary account of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest comes from the Roman historian Marcus Velleius Paterculus in his book Roman History 2.117–120, which he wrote in around the year 30 CE. This information is supplemented by details mentioned in other sources.Velleius writes that Arminius was born the son of Sigimer, a prominent nobleman of the Cherusci, a Germanic people that lived in northwestern Germany, in the region of what is now Niedersachsen and Nordrhein-Westfalen. When Arminius was only a small child, his father Sigimer sent him and his brother Florus as tributes to Rome, where they grew up and were given a Roman education. The name Arminius is Roman; no one knows what Arminius’s original Germanic name was because it is not mentioned in any surviving source.As soon as Arminius came of age, he was recruited into the ranks of the Roman army. He served as a Roman soldier for many years, was granted Roman citizenship, and even attained the rank of equestrian. Then, he was sent to his home region of northwestern Germany to assist the Roman general Publius Quinctilius Varus, who was working to force the peoples of the region into submission.ABOVE: Illustration from a 1714 edition of Pieter Corneliszoon Hooft’s Antiquitates Germanicæ, showing how the artist imagined a meeting between Varus and Germanic leaders might have lookedAt this point, Arminius secretly betrayed the Romans. He took advantage of Varus’s trust and secretly organized an alliance composed of the most prominent Germanic tribes that lived in the region. None of the ancient sources specifically list all the tribes that took part in this alliance, but it certainly included Arminius’s native Cherusci, and probably included at least the Marsi, Chatti, and Bructeri.A Cheruscan nobleman named Segestes, who supported the Romans and did not like Arminius, warned Varus that Arminius was convincing the local tribes to form an alliance against the Romans. Varus received his warning, but refused to believe him and continued to trust Arminius.In around September of the year 9 CE, Arminius fed Varus false reports about a small, local rebellion and lured him into the Teutoburg Forest, accompanied by three Roman legions, three cavalry units, and six auxiliary cohorts. Then, Arminius deserted the Romans and led the Germanic forces in a brutal ambush. The Romans were taken totally by surprise by both the suddenness of the attack and the surprisingly large numbers of the attackers.Over the course of a battle lasting approximately three full days, the Germanic forces utterly annihilated all three of Varus’s legions. It was one of the most devastating defeats the Roman Empire ever suffered. Varus himself committed suicide. The Germans desecrated his body, chopped off his head, and sent the severed head to Maroboduus, the king of the Marcomanni, who sent it to the emperor Augustus.Unfortunately, Velleius doesn’t give us very detailed information about what actually happened during the battle and more detailed accounts found in later sources—such as in the writings of the Greek historian Kassios Dion (lived c. 155 – c. 235 CE)—are probably more-or-less fiction.Pretty much everything that happens in the show Barbarians aside from what I have described here is made up, including the entire character of Folkwin Wolfspeer and all the subplots involving Thusnelda.ABOVE: Heavily romanticized scene of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, painted in 1909 by the German artist Otto Albert Koch, showing how he personally imagined the battle might have looked likeModern political background of the showBefore I go on to discuss specific inaccuracies in the show, I think I should talk a little bit about some of the political history involved here that viewers who haven’t studied modern German history may not be aware of.Until the nineteenth century, there was no unified nation-state of Germany. The push for German unification only began in earnest after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. Over the course of the nineteenth century, supporters of German unity portrayed Arminius as a proponent of their cause, claiming that he had “united” the Germanic tribes—totally ignoring the fact that his “union” was just a temporary alliance that only included tribes in one relatively small region of northwest Germany.Between 1836 and 1875, the German nationalist architect and sculptor Ernst von Bandel designed and built a monument to Arminius in the Teutoburg Forest. This monument, known as the Hermannsdenkmal, still stands today and bears a colossal statue intended to represent Arminius himself at the top.ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of the Hermannsdenkmal in the Teutoburg Forest, constructed between 1838 and 1875Unfortunately, Arminius and his victory over the Romans in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest have been used as symbols of much more than just German unity; they have also been used extensively as symbols of supposed Germanic racial supremacy.Historically speaking, we really have very little idea what Arminius looked like. There are no verifiable surviving ancient depictions of him. Since the late nineteenth century, however, he has been widely depicted as an enormous, muscle-bound man with long blond hair, a full blond beard, blue eyes, and pale skin. These depictions are clearly coded to emphasize the notion of Arminius as a supposed defender of Germanic racial purity.As most people are probably already aware, the Nazis were absolutely obsessed with ancient Germanic peoples. They were particularly fascinated with the figure of Arminius, whom they saw as some sort of proto-Hitler. One school textbook published in Germany in 1939 claims that, as a result of Arminius’s victory in 9 CE, “the purity of German blood was saved from the danger of ethnic poisoning, saved through the action of the first great political leader in German history.”In the midst of all this racial mythologization, the Nazis deliberately obscured the fact that Arminius was actually a trusted, high-ranking officer in the Roman military and that he achieved his victory by deceiving his superior officers.The association of ancient Germanic peoples with the Nazis was so complete that, after World War II, in West Germany, schools moved away from teaching about ancient Germanic tribes altogether.ABOVE: Arminius Saying Goodbye to Thusnelda, painted in 1884 by the German painter Johannes GehrtsThe creators of Barbarians decided to go in a very different direction. An article titled “Reclaiming, on Netflix, an Ancient Battle Beloved of Germany’s Far Right,” published in The New York Times on 28 October 2020, discusses how the makers of the show deliberately cast Laurence Rupp, an Austrian actor with black hair and a slightly darker complexion, to play Arminius, rather than a different actor who might more closely resemble the more explicitly racialized depictions of Arminius from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.While the Nazis chose to emphasize Arminius’s Germanic ancestry, the makers of Barbarians instead chose to emphasize his Roman upbringing and military training. Instead of portraying him as a long-haired, full-bearded Germanic warrior, they chose to portray him as short-haired and clean-shaven, since this was the fashion for Roman men in the first century CE.At the beginning of the show, Arminius is portrayed as a Roman soldier, still loyal to the Roman Empire. It is only when Arminius sees the cruelty that the Romans are inflicting against his own people that he decides to betray them. This emphasis on Arminius deciding to turn against the people for whom he has fought for his entire adult life not only makes the show somewhat more historically accurate, but actually makes for much better storytelling in my opinion.The makers of the show also impose some fictional elaborations in order to distance themselves from the Nazis. They do this especially through their portrayal of Arminius’s relationship with Varus. In the show, Varus is portrayed as Arminius’s adoptive father, but he is also as a chauvinistic Roman imperialist who sees all other cultures as inferior.In sharp contrast, the show sets up Arminius as an ardent believer in modern German Multikulturalismus. This point is made explicitly in the final episode of the season, when, after the big battle, Arminius speaks to Varus’s severed head, saying:“Du hast nie verstanden, dass man anders leben will als du. Anders glaubt, anders fühlt, und anders denkt als du.”This means:“You never understood that some people want to live different from you. They believe different, they feel different, and they think different than you.”Historically speaking, we have absolutely no evidence to suggest that Arminius was Varus’s adoptive son or that Arminius ever saw Varus as any kind of father figure. The first time the two men ever met was probably when Arminius was sent to serve Varus in Germany. It is extremely probable that Arminius hated Varus from the beginning and was not especially reluctant to betray him.Likewise, historically speaking, we have no evidence of any kind to suggest that Arminius was really a multiculturalist. It’s clear that the writers for the show have made these changes to the story in order to make an explicit statement about the vision they have for modern Germany. In their version of the story, Arminius is still a nation-builder, but not a nationalist in the traditional sense.I don’t have a problem with the writers of the show making these changes to the story; after all, they’re writing fiction. Nonetheless, I also think it is important for people like me who have studied these areas of history to talk about what’s made up and what isn’t so that ordinary viewers can have the opportunity to learn.ABOVE: Screenshot of Arminius, as he is portrayed by the Austrian actor Laurence Rupp in the Netflix series BarbariansSome obvious inaccuracies in Roman material cultureNow that I’ve talked about the broader picture of what the Battle of Teutoburg Forest was and how the show Barbarians fits in with modern politics, I’m going to focus in on a few specific aspects of the show that particularly stood out to me. I’ll start out with some really small details about Roman material culture and work my way up to some of the bigger things.In the show, when Roman officers ride on horseback, they are portrayed as using stirrups. This is inaccurate; the Romans in the first century CE never used stirrups because stirrups didn’t become used in Europe until the late sixth century CE at the very earliest. Instead, when the ancient Romans rode on horseback, they always rode with their feet hanging loose—even when they were riding into battle.ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of a Roman carving of a cavalry battle dated to around 40 BCE. Notice the lack of stirrups.In general, the show does a fairly accurate job of representing the different kinds of Roman armor. There are few things that aren’t very accurate, though. For one thing, throughout most of the series, Arminius is portrayed wearing a solid steel breastplate with rippling pectoral and abdominal muscles clearly outlined on it. We do know that breastplates of this kind certainly did exist in the first century CE, because there are surviving statues depicting Roman deities, emperors, and generals wearing them. Nevertheless, I have a few complaints about the one Arminius is wearing.ABOVE: Screenshot from Barbarians, season one, episode four, of Arminius wearing an absurdly inaccurate breastplateMy first complaint is that the abdominal muscles are over-exaggerated. In surviving Greek examples of muscle breastplates from earlier time periods, there is emphasis on the pectoral muscles and some slight contouring to the abdominal muscles, but there generally isn’t a well-defined six-pack like we see on Arminius’s armor in the show.ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of a Greek muscle breastplate dated to between c. 340 and c. 330 BCEIn Roman depictions of muscle breastplates from around the time Arminius was alive, we see even less emphasis on the abdominal muscles, which are often completely obscured by the often quite elaborate decorations covering the armor.ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of a Roman statue of a general wearing a muscle breastplateFurthermore, I think it is unlikely that Arminius would have worn this kind of breastplate at all, since, although muscle breastplates seem to have been more common in earlier times, by the first century CE, they seem to be almost exclusively worn in artistic depictions by emperors and generals—not by ordinary cavalry officers.Instead, I think that a Roman equestrian in the first century CE would have most likely worn a tunic of lorica squamata, or scale armor, which doesn’t look nearly as impressive as the muscle breastplate, but would have been less expensive and far more practical.ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of a reconstruction of how a Roman equestrian in the first century CE might have dressedABOVE: Detail from Wikimedia Commons of a surviving fragment of ancient Roman scale armorWhile the representation of Roman armor is generally quite good, the same cannot be said for the representation of Roman architecture and art, which is, to put it mildly, rather poor. For instance, about halfway through season one, episode two, there is a scene in which Arminius and his brother Florus are seen as children in Rome being taught by Varus to speak Latin. The building they are in is portrayed as having generic, white marble columns and a generic, white marble floor.In historical reality, the columns would have most likely been at least partially painted and the floors would have most likely been decorated with some kind of patterns or mosaics. Contrary to how they are usually portrayed in popular culture, the Romans loved color and they hated to leave any space undecorated.You can get a good sense of what the floor of a real Roman temple might look like by looking at the floor of the Pantheon in Rome, which still has its original ancient Roman marble flooring. You’ll notice that it’s not just white marble; there is a simple, but visually interesting pattern of different-colored circles and squares.ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of the marble floor of the Pantheon in RomeOn a similar note, at the very beginning of season one, episode three, there is a scene in which Arminius is portrayed as praying to a white, unpainted marble statue of the Roman god Mars. This is not accurate. All Roman marble statues were originally painted with vibrant, lifelike colors. Although most Roman statues appear white today, this is only because the original pigments have all worn away.ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of a modern reconstruction of what the famous Augustus of Prima Porta might have originally looked likeRoman crueltyBarbarians portrays the Roman army as a brutal occupying force demanding excessive tribute and enforcing horrific punishments against the local population. In season one, episode two, there is a scene in which Varus punishes the Cherusci by having a large number of them crucified and declaring that anyone who takes down the bodies to bury them will be crucified as well.I have personally argued before that some specific kinds of depictions of Roman cruelty in modern television shows are probably not historically accurate. Notably, in this article from December 2019, I object to the portrayal of Roman civilian life in the HBO series Rome.At one point in the first season, the series portrays two of the main characters torturing and murdering a Roman citizen in the sewers. Another one of the main characters, Lucius Vorenus, murders his wife (a free citizen) and doesn’t get in any kind of trouble. In the second season, the character Atia, a Roman noblewoman, brutally tortures another Roman noblewoman named Servilia in her basement.I think that all these examples of civilian violence portrayed in Rome are probably not reflective of what civilian life in ancient Rome was actually like. Violence against enslaved people was probably common, but violence against free Roman citizens outside warfare was taboo and illegal and, when it did happen, it was rare and shocking. Individually, each of the incidents portrayed in Rome could have really happened at some point or another, but, combined together, they create a misleading impression of how common civilian violence really was.In Barbarians, though, we have a completely different scenario because, instead of having Roman civilians torturing and murdering other Roman civilians right and left, the series portrays Roman soldiers inflicting acts of callous violence and cruelty against foreign Germanic tribespeople. I actually think that the portrayal of the violence of the Roman military against foreign peoples in Barbarians is probably fairly accurate.ABOVE: Screenshot from the HBO series Rome showing Titus Pullo and the young Octavian torturing and murdering Evander in the sewers beneath Rome. Torturing and murdering fellow citizens in sewers was not a normal thing in ancient Rome.The Romans could be extremely brutal to the peoples they conquered. The Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus (lived c. 56 – c. 120 CE), for instance, famously records the cruelty that the Romans inflicted on the Iceni people in Britain in his Annals 14.31, as translated by J. Jackson:“The Icenian king Prasutagus, celebrated for his long prosperity, had named the emperor his heir, together with his two daughters; an act of deference which he thought would place his kingdom and household beyond the risk of injury. The result was contrary — so much so that his kingdom was pillaged by centurions, his household by slaves; as though they had been prizes of war. As a beginning, his wife Boudicca was subjected to the lash and his daughters violated: all the chief men of the Icenians were stripped of their family estates, and the relatives of the king were treated as slaves.”“Impelled by this outrage and the dread of worse to come — for they had now been reduced to the status of a province — they flew to arms, and incited to rebellion the Trinobantes and others, who, not yet broken by servitude, had entered into a secret and treasonable compact to resume their independence.”“The bitterest animosity was felt against the veterans; who, fresh from their settlement in the colony of Camulodunum, were acting as though they had received a free gift of the entire country, driving the natives from their homes, ejecting them from their lands, — they styled them ‘captives’ and ‘slaves,’ — and abetted in their fury by the troops, with their similar mode of life and their hopes of equal indulgence.”The Jewish historian Titus Flavius Josephus (lived c. 37 – c. 100 CE) records how, during the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Roman commander Titus had his soldiers crucify thousands of Jewish civilians. He says that they crucified so many that they couldn’t even find space for all the crosses. He writes in The Jewish War 5.11.1, as translated by H. J. Thackeray:“Meanwhile the earthworks of Titus were progressing, notwithstanding the galling fire from the ramparts to which his men were exposed. The general, moreover, sent a detachment of horse with orders to lie in wait for any who issued from the town into the ravines in quest of food.”“These included some of the combatants, no longer satisfied with their plunder, but the majority were citizens of the poorer class, who were deterred from deserting by fear for their families; for they could neither hope to elude the rebels if they attempted to escape with their wives and children, nor endure to leave them to be butchered by the brigands on their behalf.”‘Famine, however, emboldened them to undertake these excursions, and it but remained for them if they escaped unobserved from the town to be taken prisoners by the enemy. When caught, they were driven to resist, and after a conflict it seemed too late to sue for mercy. They were accordingly scourged and subjected to torture of every description, before being killed, and then crucified opposite the walls.”“Titus indeed commiserated their fate, five hundred or sometimes more being captured daily; on the other hand, he recognized the risk of dismissing prisoners of war, and that the custody of such numbers would amount to the imprisonment of their custodians; but his main reason for not stopping the crucifixions was the hope that the spectacle might perhaps induce the Jews to surrender, for fear that continued resistance would involve them in a similar fate. The soldiers out of rage and hatred amused themselves by nailing their prisoners in different postures; and so great was their number, that space could not be found for the crosses nor crosses for the bodies.”These are obviously both extreme examples, but they do illustrate the cruelty that the Roman army was capable of inflicting. I think that the acts of Roman cruelty depicted in Barbarians would probably have been quite typical.ABOVE: The crucifixion of Jesus and suicide of Judas Iscariot depicted on a Roman ivory panel dated to between c. 420 and c. 430 CE—a rare early depiction of crucifixionThe Germanic peoplesThose are some of the accuracies and inaccuracies I noticed on the Roman side of things. Now let’s talk about the Germanic side. Unfortunately, our knowledge about how ancient Germanic peoples lived and dressed in the first century CE is extremely limited compared to our knowledge of the Romans, because there are a lot fewer depictions of Germanic people in art and a lot fewer written sources about them.Unfortunately, a great deal of our information about ancient Germanic peoples in the first century CE comes from Tacitus, who wrote a treatise titled De Origine et Situ Germanorum in which he purports to describe the customs and lifestyles of various Germanic tribes. Tacitus was a reputable historian and he did at least try to make his reports as accurate as possible. Nonetheless, he never actually visited Germania himself and all his information is therefore second-hand at best.Furthermore, Tacitus was writing with an explicit political agenda. He believed that the Roman Empire was corrupt and he therefore constructs the so-called “barbarians” north of the Roman borders as “noble savages” for the Romans to pay heed to and imitate. He deliberately emphasizes their qualities that he perceives as virtuous and “manly” while also portraying them as generally unsophisticated and uncorrupted by the evils of civilization.Tacitus also has a frustrating habit of using Roman names and concepts to describe the Germanic peoples and their beliefs. For instance, he tells us that the chief god of the Germanic peoples is “Mercurius” and that they also worship “Hercules” and “Mars.” Modern scholars have surmised that by “Mercurius” Tacitus really means Odin, by “Hercules” he really means Thor, and by “Mars” he really means Tíw.In other cases, modern scholars are still trying to figure out what Tacitus is talking about. For instance, Tacitus tells us that the Suebian peoples of northwestern Germany worship “Isis,” but scholars still aren’t sure which Germanic goddess he’s really talking about.ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of a modern Neoclassical statue outside the Austrian Parliament Building in Vienna, intended to represent the Roman historian TacitusGermanic clothing and hairstylesBarbarians generally does an admirable job of authentically portraying the sorts of clothing that ancient Germanic peoples generally seem to have worn. In a lot of older films and television shows, Germanic peoples are inaccurately portrayed wearing nothing but tattered rags or furs. Barbarians, however, much more accurately portrays them wearing tunics, cloaks, and trousers of various colors.We see people wearing greens, blues, and other colors aside from just brown. They dress and wear their hair in distinctive ways. They occasionally wear furs, but they wear other clothes too. For the most part, this portrayal seems to be in line with what we know about how ancient Germanic people dressed historically.ABOVE: Screenshot from the beginning of Barbarians, season one, episode one, of the characters Segimer and SegestesThe makers of the show have even incorporated some very specific historically authentic details into their portrayal of ancient Germanic peoples. For instance, you may have noticed a few male characters in Barbarians wearing their hair in a weird-looking knot on the front of one side of their scalp. This is actually a real hairstyle known as the “Suebian knot” that was traditionally worn by free, adult members of the Suebian Germanic tribes who lived in the region of northwestern Germany in the first century CE.This hairstyle is extremely well-attested. Tacitus describes it in his De Origine et Situ Germanorum 38. He writes, as translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb:“I must now speak of the Suevi, who are not one nation as are the Chatti and Tencteri, for they occupy the greater part of Germany, and have hitherto been divided into separate tribes with names of their own, though they are called by the general designation of ‘Suevi.’ A national peculiarity with them is to twist their hair back, and fasten it in a knot This distinguishes the Suevi from the other Germans, as it also does their own freeborn from their slaves.”“With other tribes, either from some connection with the Suevic race, or, as often happens, from imitation, the practice is an occasional one, and restricted to youth. The Suevi, till their heads are grey, affect the fashion of drawing back their unkempt locks, and often they are knotted on the very top of the head. The chiefs have a more elaborate style; so much do they study appearance, but in perfect innocence, not with any thoughts of love-making; but arranging their hair when they go to battle, to make themselves tall and terrible, they adorn themselves, so to speak, for the eyes of the foe.”In addition to Tacitus’s description, there are also dozens of surviving Roman depictions of Germanic peoples wearing the Suebian knot and there are even a couple extraordinarily well-preserved heads that have been found in bogs that still bear this hairstyle.ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of a Roman bronze figurine depicting a Germanic man wearing a Suebian knotABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of a Roman figurine depicting a Germanic captive wearing a Suebian knotABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of the head of an ancient Germanic man discovered in a bog at Osterby in northern Germany, dating to the first or second century CELanguagesOne thing that I personally found very interesting about the show is its use of languages. All of the dialogue spoken by the Germanic characters is dubbed in Modern High German and all of the dialogue by the Roman characters is dubbed in Classical Latin. The fact that the Germanic peoples and the Romans speak different languages plays an important role in the storyline; there are multiple points in the first episode alone where characters are surprised to discover that Arminius speaks German.The Latin is, in general, extremely accurate. All the Roman characters in the show speak using the reconstructed classical pronunciation, which is exactly the pronunciation that modern scholars believe Roman people would have used in the first century CE. The makers of the show clearly consulted extensively with experts to make sure their Latin was correct.The German used in the show is obviously modern, not ancient. I was curious, however, to find out what language the Cherusci would have spoken in historical reality. It turns out that the Roman writer Pliny the Elder (lived c. 23 – 79 CE) records in his Natural History 4.28 that there were five Germanic nations and that the Cherusci were members of the nation of the Irminones or Hermiones.Modern scholars have hypothesized that each of the five Germanic “nations” listed by Pliny probably spoke a different dialect of the Proto-Germanic language. The Irminones are hypothesized to have spoken an “Irminonic” or “Elbe Germanic” dialect, which is hypothesized to be ancestral to all the later High German languages.Thus, Arminius and the Cherusci probably would have been speaking a dialect of Proto-Germanic that is ancestral to the language they are portrayed as speaking in the show, but not the language they are speaking in the show itself. Meanwhile, the other Germanic tribes in the show would have probably spoken other dialects of the Proto-Germanic language.ABOVE: Map from Wikimedia Commons showing the dialects of Proto-Germanic that are hypothesized to have been spoken in the first century CE. “Irminonic” or “Elbe Germanic” is shown in yellow.“Folkwin Wolfspeer”?One of the main characters in Barbarians is a Cheruscan warrior named “Folkwin Wolfspeer.” In the first episode, he helps Thusnelda steal the standard of one of Varus’s legions, thereby setting the plot of the story into motion. Throughout the later episodes, he serves as an important ally of Thusnelda and Arminius, but, at the end of the final episode of the first season, it is implied that he may be thinking about murdering Arminius and that he may be a major antagonist of the second season.He’s also totally made up. There was never a real person by the name “Folkwin Wolfspeer”—as you might have guessed by his name. Folkwin has the distinction of being the only Germanic character in the show with a surname and the only character in the show whose name is perfectly intelligible in both Modern High German and Modern English:The first component of his surname is the Modern High German word Wolf, which is derived from the Proto-West Germanic word *wulf, which is derived from the Proto-Germanic word *wulfaz. The English word wolf is a cognate.The second component of his surname is the Modern High German word Speer, which is derived from the Proto-Germanic word *speru. The English word spear is a cognate.It seems like the writers for the show just took the first two words that came to mind when they thought of a Germanic warrior and smashed them together to create the character’s name.ABOVE: Screenshot from the show Barbarians of the characters Thusnelda and Folkwin WolfspeerFemale Germanic warriors?Another one of the central characters in the show is Thusnelda, the daughter of Segestes, who is portrayed as fighting as a female warrior in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. Unlike Folkwin, Thusnelda was actually a real historical figure. In historical reality, she was the daughter of Segestes whom Arminius married against her father’s will. That part of the show’s portrayal is accurate.We have no evidence, however, to suggest that Thusnelda ever fought in battle as she is portrayed as doing in the show and it is very unlikely that she did so, since, if she did, it’s almost certain that Roman sources would have mentioned this. This does open a broader, more interesting question, though: Were there female Germanic warriors in ancient times?Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence for the existence of Germanic warrior women in the first century CE. Nevertheless, our information about Germanic peoples during this period is so fragmentary and incomplete that I wouldn’t feel comfortable saying that it didn’t happen.ABOVE: Screenshot of Thusnelda fighting as a warrior in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, as portrayed in Barbarians, season one, episode sixTacitus specifically records in his De Origine et Situ Germanorum, sections 7–8, that Germanic women often accompanied their men to battle. He, however, says that they did not fight in battle themselves, but rather stood on the sidelines to give the male warriors encouragement and tend the wounded. He writes, as translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb:“And what most stimulates their courage is, that their squadrons or battalions, instead of being formed by chance or by a fortuitous gathering, are composed of families and clans. Close by them, too, are those dearest to them, so that they hear the shrieks of women, the cries of infants. They are to every man the most sacred witnesses of his bravery—they are his most generous applauders. The soldier brings his wounds to mother and wife, who shrink not from counting or even demanding them and who administer both food and encouragement to the combatants.”“Tradition says that armies already wavering and giving way have been rallied by women who, with earnest entreaties and bosoms laid bare, have vividly represented the horrors of captivity, which the Germans fear with such extreme dread on behalf of their women, that the strongest tie by which a state can be bound is the being required to give, among the number of hostages, maidens of noble birth.”“They even believe that the sex has a certain sanctity and prescience, and they do not despise their counsels, or make light of their answers. In Vespasian’s days we saw Veleda, long regarded by many as a divinity. In former times, too, they venerated Aurinia, and many other women, but not with servile flatteries, or with sham deification.”The fact that Tacitus says nothing about the existence of Germanic women warriors strongly suggests that, if there were women warriors, they were very rare. At the same time, though, he does tell us that there were Germanic women on the battlefield.Not everything Tacitus says about the Germanic peoples is trustworthy, but, in this particular instance, there is good reason to believe that he isn’t just making this up. The Romans frequently encountered Germanic peoples in battle and, of all the things Tacitus says about Germanic peoples, the information he gives about their battle practices is therefore most likely to be accurate.Once you have women on the battlefield, it literally only takes a few seconds for one of those women to potentially pick up a weapon and start fighting. We know that, in much later times—centuries after the time when Tacitus was writing—there were Norse warrior women. The Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus (lived c. 1160 – c. 1220 CE) writes in his Gesta Danorum 7.6, as translated by Peter Fisher:“In case anyone is marveling that this sex should have sweated in warfare, let me digress briefly to explain the character and behavior of such females. There were once women in Denmark who dressed themselves to look like men and spent almost every minute cultivating soldiers’ skills; they did not want the sinews of their valour to lose tautness and be infected by self-indulgence.”“Loathing a dainty style of living, they would harden body and mind with toil and endurance, spirits to act with a virile ruthlessness. They courted military celebrity so earnestly that you would have guessed they had unsexed themselves. Those especially who had forceful personalities or were tall and elegant embarked on this way of life.”“As if they were forgetful of their true selves they put toughness before allure, aimed at conflicts instead of kisses, tasted blood, not lips, sought the clash of arms rather than the arm’s embrace, fitted to weapons hands which should have been weaving, desired not the couch but the kill, and those they could have appeased with looks they attacked with lances.”Saxo Grammaticus’s account has now apparently been confirmed by archaeological evidence. In 1889, archaeologists excavated the grave of an elite warrior in Birka, Sweden. The burial dated to around the tenth century CE. Among the grave goods, archaeologists found a sword, a battle knife, a spear, a battle ax, two shields, and a set of arrows designed for piercing armor. They also found the skeletons of two horses that the warrior might have ridden into battle.For a long time, the skeleton was assumed to be that of a male warrior. Later, osteological and genetic analysis, however, proved that the owner of the skeleton was biologically female. Various explanations have been offered to explain this, but I think the most parsimonious explanation is that the skeleton is that of a female warrior.We should be very careful not to conflate tenth-century CE Norsefolk living in Denmark and Scandinavia with first-century CE Germanic tribes living in Germany along the Roman border. Nonetheless, I think it is not totally implausible that, at least in some rare instances, some Germanic women during the early centuries CE may have potentially fought in battle.ABOVE: Illustration of the grave of the Birka female warrior, published in 1889Germanic peoples wearing warpaint?In Barbarians, the Germanic characters paint their faces and bodies before going into battle. This may strike some people as a historical inaccuracy, but it is actually supported by the ancient sources. Roman writers mention the fact that some Germanic warriors wore body paint into battle on several occasions. For instance, Tacitus, in his De Origine et Situ Germanorum, section 43, describes the Harii as attacking their enemies under the cover of night, with black shields and painted bodies. He writes, as translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb:“The Harii, besides being superior in strength to the tribes just enumerated, savage as they are, make the most of their natural ferocity by the help of art and opportunity. Their shields are black, their bodies dyed. They choose dark nights for battle, and, by the dread and gloomy aspect of their death-like host, strike terror into the foe, who can never confront their strange and almost infernal appearance. For in all battles it is the eye which is first vanquished.”As I mentioned before, Tacitus’s description of the Germanic peoples is probably most reliable when he is describing their battle practices. It therefore seems hard to avoid the conclusion that some Germanic peoples did indeed wear some kind of warpaint.Unfortunately, the Roman writers don’t give us any more detailed information. We therefore have absolutely no indication of what the warpaint worn by Germanic warriors in the first century CE might have looked like, so there is no way for anyone to tell whether the kind of paint depicted in Barbarians is accurate.ABOVE: Screenshot from Barbarians showing some of the Germanic warriors wearing warpaint into battleAncient Germanic religionBarbarians offers an extensive portrayal of ancient Germanic religion. For the most part, however, it’s hard to say how accurate this portrayal is, because, quite frankly, we know very little about what sorts of religious beliefs Germanic peoples held in the first century CE or what kinds of ritual practices they were engaging in. Our main source on the subject is Tacitus, who, as I noted before, isn’t always reliable and is probably even less reliable than usual when it comes to his descriptions of Germanic religion.At several points in the show, characters are portrayed as praying the gods and cutting their hands to make offerings of blood. It’s certain that Germanic peoples in this time period really did conduct ritual sacrifices, but I’m not presently aware of any evidence that they cut their own hands in the manner depicted in the show. Instead, they would have mostly sacrificed animals and occasionally other humans—usually enemy foreigners who had been captured in warfare. (For more information about the reasoning behind human sacrifice, you can read this article I wrote in November 2019.)An important point is made in the show about the god Wodan, who, in the show, is said to have cut out his own eye in order to have the gift of sight. In the final episode, right before the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, Thusnelda imitates Wodan by cutting her own right eye. This purportedly allows her to see a vision of the coming victory, which she describes to the other Germanic leaders to convince them to fight.In historical reality, all we can say is that Germanic peoples in the first century CE were probably worshipping Wodan in some form or another. The whole story about Wodan cutting out his eye comes from the fact that, many centuries later, Norse people told stories about their god Óðinn, whose name is cognate to Wodan, having sacrificed his eye in exchange for wisdom. We genuinely have no way of knowing whether people in northwest Germany had any kind of similar story to this one in the first century CE.We certainly have no evidence to suggest that Thusnelda ever cut her right eye or that she was ever thought of as any kind of seer. These are the sorts of things that our sources would be likely to mention if they were true. The fact that the sources are silent therefore strongly indicates that Thusnelda had both her eyes intact and that she was not viewed as a seer.ABOVE: Detail of a depiction of a figure riding an eight-legged horse, probably Odin riding Sleipnir, from the Tjängvide image stone, an eighth-century CE stone from SwedenDid the Battle of Teutoburg Forest really “stop” the Roman Empire?In popular culture, including in Barbarians, the Battle of Teutoburg Forest is routinely portrayed as the battle that “stopped” the Roman Empire from expanding its territorial control into northern Europe. Even that article from The New York Times that I referenced earlier claims that the battle “put an end to the Roman Empire’s aspirations of controlling much of what is now Germany.”I think that this portrayal is wildly overblown.There’s no doubt that the Battle of Teutoburg Forest was an absolutely devastating loss for the Romans and that the catastrophic defeat lived long in Roman memory. The Roman biographer Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (lived c. 69 – after c. 122 CE) gives a very vivid sense of how the Romans remembered the battle through his description of the emperor Augustus’s supposed reaction when he heard the news of the defeat in his Life of Augustus 23.1–2. He writes, as translated by J. C. Rolfe:“He [i.e., Augustus] suffered but two severe and ignominious defeats, those of Lollius and Varus, both of which were in Germany. Of these the former was more humiliating than serious, but the latter was almost fatal, since three legions were cut to pieces with their general, his lieutenants, and all the auxiliaries.”“When the news of this came, he ordered that watch be kept by night throughout the city, to prevent outbreak, and prolonged the terms of the governors of the provinces, that the allies might be held to their allegiance by experienced men with whom they were acquainted. He also vowed great games to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, in case the condition of the commonwealth should improve, a thing which had been done in the Cimbric and Marsic wars.”“In fact, they say that he was so greatly affected that for several months in succession he cut neither his beard nor his hair, and sometimes he would dash his head against a door, crying: ‘Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!’ And he observed the day of the disaster each year as one of sorrow and mourning.”I, however, don’t buy the notion that a single battle in 9 CE really stopped the Roman Empire from ever expanding substantially north of the Rhine in all the subsequent centuries of its existence. I think there are clearly other factors at play.I think that the primary reason why the Romans never expanded their empire into northern Germany, Denmark, Poland, or Scandinavia is simply because they weren’t particularly motivated to conquer those areas to begin with. After all, in this time period, those areas were cold, relatively sparsely populated, and generally not very wealthy. They weren’t exactly prime targets for conquest.Furthermore, from Augustus’s reign onwards, the Romans became more reticent about trying to conquer new territories generally. By this point, they already controlled the Mediterranean and they knew that trying to conquer northern Germany would be extremely costly—both in terms of the resources they would have to spend and the lives that would inevitably be lost.ABOVE: Map from Wikimedia Commons showing the territories of the Roman Empire in relation to Greater Germany in the second century CEIt’s also worth noting that the Romans did make something of a comeback in the years after the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. In 14 CE, the Roman general Germanicus led a punitive expedition to attack Arminius and avenge the Romans who had been killed in the battle five years earlier.According to Tacitus, Germanicus fought Arminius to a draw in the Battle of Pontes Longi in 15 CE. In that same year, Germanicus recovered one of eagles that the Germans had seized in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest and captured Arminius’s wife Thusnelda, who was pregnant at the time with a son.In 16 CE, Germanicus defeated Arminius in the Battle of Idistaviso. Shortly thereafter, he defeated Arminius again in the Battle of the Angrivarian Wall. He recaptured one of the other two eagles that had been lost in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest and declared that the battle had been avenged.In May 17 CE, Germanicus held a triumph in the city of Rome in which he paraded Thusnelda and her young son Thumelicus through the streets in chains so they could be mocked by the crowds. Thusnelda’s father Segestes watched her humiliation from the stands. Tacitus records in his Annals 1.58 that Thumelicus was raised in Ravenna, where there was a gladiator school, and that he later “came into derision.” Modern historians generally assume that he was forced to become a gladiator, although Tacitus does not clearly say this.ABOVE: Thusnelda at the Triumph of Germanicus, painted in 1873 by the German Academic painter Karl von Piloty, showing how he imagined Thusnelda’s humiliation might have lookedIn 21 CE, a group of Cheruscan nobles formed a conspiracy and murdered Arminius. Tacitus eulogizes him, writing in his Annals 2.88, as translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb:“Assuredly he was the deliverer of Germany, one too who had defied Rome, not in her early rise, as other kings and generals, but in the height of her empire’s glory, had fought, indeed, indecisive battles, yet in war remained unconquered. He completed thirty-seven years of life, twelve years of power, and he is still a theme of song among barbarous nations, though to Greek historians, who admire only their own achievements, he is unknown, and to Romans not as famous as he should be, while we extol the past and are indifferent to our own times.”Apparently, Barbarians has been renewed for a second season, but I genuinely have no idea what they’ll do with it, since everything only goes downhill for the Germanic peoples from the Battle of Teutoburg Forest onwards.Are they seriously going to try to try to make a patriotic narrative out of Arminius being soundly defeated by the Romans multiple times, Thusnelda being captured and paraded in chains through the streets of Rome, and Arminius being ultimately murdered at the hands of his own countrymen? Who knows.(NOTE: I have also published a version of this article on my website titled “How Historically Accurate Is Netflix’s ‘Barbarians’?” Here is a link to the version of the article on my website.)

This is going to be a long answer. So here’s the short version: no, and I believe it is not especially useful. Let me make it clear though that while this opinion may not be politically correct (and thus seldom aired publicly by people who care about their social reputation or professional prospects) it is totally uncontroversial.Most polls in the west show 70–80% of people believe in, and support equality. Most polls show that 70–80% of people agree there is still work to be done in order to achieve it. Yet those same polls show that around 70–80% of people will not adopt the feminist label, and that around 65% of them do not consider feminism to be a good thing.For my part though I’m not an anythingist in that I will not accept any idea on the basis of my identification with a given label. So to the extent that I can accept the value or accuracy of ideas associated with any ism be it capitalism, socialism, nihilism, existentialism, feminism, liberalism, atheism, theism, etc., it is not because I am a capitalist, a socialist, a nihilist, a feminist, or what have you, but because I believe there is evidence or at the very least logical argumentation to support the accuracy and or value of those ideas. This process is obviously subject to the limits of my own intellect, and complicated by my ignorance, emotionalism and overall fallibility. Nevertheless I think it far superior to the wholesale adoption of any immutable belief system, all of which bear the ‘lowly stamp of their origins,’ in having been composed by other human beings who are themselves given to lesser or greater degrees of intellectual limitation, ignorance, emotionalism, and fallibility.I believe this answer adumbrates my position with respect to the feminist principles and ideals I do support. I do not think modern day feminism has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever bringing them about. Practical concerns aside though if I might talk a little bit more about why I am not a feminist we have to look at ideologies and belief systems, and how they fossilise human thought patterns.Once upon a time belief in a god of some sort was not simply an article of faith, but the result of what seemed like a rational proposition based on the available evidence. The process of natural selection produces life forms that appear to have been intelligently designed, while our understanding of the process of cause and effect posited there could be no cause without effect both with regard to the origins of life, and the universe itself. What you might call the god-hypothesis, if only in the deistic sense, was a rational one. However the ongoing process of rational enquiry has furnished us with better explanations, and new data. The origin of life is accepted to have been a chemical event, its development the result of natural selection, while the idea that cause must precede effect can no longer be taken as an absolute.Now I don’t say these things disprove the existence of god, but what I can say is that as a hypothesis god no longer furnishes us with anything particularly useful in the material or intellectual sense. Moreover I can tell you that many of the ideas that the existence of god is used to support are nonsense of the highest calibre. Catholic priests for example are not upon investiture bestowed the magical ability to transmute watered down wine into the blood of a dead, two-thousand year old religious prophet who may or may not have even existed, and who if he did exist was almost certainly (almost as sexual activity is not an absolute prerequisite for fertilisation) not the son of a virgin let alone a virgin and an all-powerful deity for whose existence there is not one ounce of useful material or empirical evidence. And that’s just the laughable nonsense. A lot of it is far more sinister, as nonsense often is.Now if you’re still with me let’s talk about feminism.Modern feminism appeared at a time when nature vs. nurture was a genuine debate. Before we even knew what DNA or genes were let alone their impact in determining human behaviour. This was a time when you could actually say that nothing about a person’s behaviour or psychology was predetermined without being laughed out of any credible scientific community just as you could once upon a time have suggested that life appeared to have been intelligently designed without meeting the same result. Some came down squarely on the nurture side of this debate, and applied this belief to sex differences. They asserted that men and women are, in fact, equal. To this day this remains the guiding principle of feminism, as any feminist will readily admit. The belief was not that they are of equal worth, or that they deserve equal treatment (this is an egalitarian principle, and feminism would not need to exist if that was all it had ever asserted) or that they are equal but different, but that there are no differences - mental, physical or behavioural - between men and women other than those imposed socioculturally by oppressive gender roles.Furthermore they asserted that these gender roles were an oppressive sociocultural construct produced by a sexist social system to promotes male hegemony. They call this the patriarchy. No matter what marketing line feminists give you about how feminism is nothing more than a belief in equality (a defunct principle in and of itself) the patriarchy is as essential an article of faith to feminism as belief in god is to religion. Because the self-evident fact that men and women are not equal by design, that they are made to do different things, could not be explained without it. Consequentially the feminist assertion was, and frequently remains that if at any time there should be a situation in which outcomes favour men the explanation must be that it is due to sexist oppression, and the cause is patriarchy. Deconstruct patriarchy, and you deconstruct gender roles thereby eliminating sexism, and sexual inequality.This is feminism, and if patriarchy, as they define it, could be proven to not exist then feminism - as opposed to egalitarianism - becomes completely redundant. Now over the years feminists have been forced to admit (though they never did so willingly or without a struggle) that yes there are innate physical differences between men and women, and yes there are innate psychological differences between men and women, and yes there are innate behavioural differences between men and women that no amount of gender-neutral parenting or schooling will make go away. Indeed we now know that while gender is not an immutable product of sex, and may be exacerbated by socialisation it is not a social construct. In fact gender is so tangible a phenomena that it is actually possible for someone to be born a female, and be raised a woman, even in the most oppressively traditional environment, yet still for all psychological and behavioural purposes be a man, or vice-versa. Nevertheless, while gender is not immutably tied to it biological sex is the best predictor of gender we have. That is to say the majority of males exhibit masculine gender norms while the majority of females exhibit feminine gender norms, and they do this all by themselves. In fact they do it even if you tell them not to.This is a settled matter. The experiments have been run repeatedly.Men and women, whether we divide them by gender or by sex, are not equal. Most educated, ethical people believe they are of equal worth and that they deserve equal treatment but they are not equal. Moreover just as we can explain the origin of life and the cosmos without invoking the concept of god male hegemony as a cultural feature can be explained very easily, more easily in fact, without invoking the concept of patriarchy. Unfortunately feminism can no more let go of this concept than religion can let go of the concept of god. This is why despite the existence of certain progressive Utopias in Europe and elsewhere most feminist academics still maintain there is no such thing as a feminist country. Because even in the most profoundly egalitarian states there are still situations in which outcomes favour men, and feminist theory cannot allow for the existence of such a thing in the absence of an oppressive patriarchy.In short the very root and core of their argument for and belief in the existence of patriarchy, as they define it, has been completely debunked. The social constructs they claim it exists to enforce are not social constructs. The hegemony they claim proves its existence can be explained more easily without it, and male dominance persists even in cultures that have for many decades been enacting herculean efforts, and who have spent billions to promote social projects feminists claimed would fix it. In fact we have seen that nothing short of the arbitrary enforcement of equal outcomes by way of discriminatory quotas can actually achieve them, and even that doesn’t work sometimes as there simply aren’t enough candidates in some cases to fill said quotas. That feminist doctrine encouraged, and that feminists celebrate such measures tells you all you need to know about them.Now I don’t say these things disprove the existence of a patriarchy, but what I can say is that as a hypothesis it no longer furnishes us with anything particularly useful in the material or intellectual sense. Moreover I can tell you that many of the ideas it is used to support are nonsense of the highest calibre. Some of this nonsense is just laughable, but much of it is sinister. However because there is no feminism without patriarchy - just as there is no religion without god - it has simply become an article of faith, and in both cases this faith promotes absurdities. The theists prejudice faith over reason. The feminist do the same. In both cases faith often arises from intuition, lived experience and personal truth. These things are more valuable to them than evidence and logic. Many feminist scholars openly admit this.Now I’m not saying that feminism hasn’t moved with the times at all. It has. However I promise you that if you actually talk to them and really get a bead on their beliefs you’ll find the most rational and well-informed feminists are not really feminists at all anymore because at its best, in its most developed and empirically useful form feminism is just secular humanism in a pink shirt. They don’t support discriminatory quotas, they don’t dismiss the existence of sexism against men (traditional feminists always explain anti-male sexism as an unintended byproduct of misogyny) they admit that the oppressive nature of rigid gender roles is not a one-way phenomena, that the male gender role hurts men (and not merely as a byproduct of men’s sexism against women) and they acknowledge that that there are tangible differences between men and women which explain differential outcomes and that male-dominated societies have historically been a response to these differences. Most importantly and profoundly though they understand that women’s liberation is not contingent on deconstructing the patriarchy, but on promoting secular values, economic uplift, universal education, and the availability of reliable birth-control.To the extent that they refer to feminist scholarship and ideals they do so in the same way modern theists refer to their holy books. They cherry pick. Cobbling together a serviceable belief system panned from a river of nonsense. That’s feminism at its very best. Secular humanism contingent upon the individual’s ability to critically pare away the nonsense, both sinister and laughable. Sadly not everyone is that intelligent, and Voltaire was only too right when he said that ‘those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.’ The absurdity of feminist doctrine has manifested itself in atrocious behaviour over and over again.Here is a short list of nasty things mainstream feminism (I won’t even touch on radical feminism) has done, and which some modern-day feminists continue to do, and for the purposes of this list I’ll focus solely on things that have had a negative affect on women:Supported the post-modernist concept of cultural relativism which actively defends cultures in which women are treated like second-class citizens, and religions which mandate such treatment.Become a reliable apologist for the world’s largest organised purveyor of misogyny in the form of Islam.Fought against the legalisation of sex-work in the belief that it is a byproduct of internalised sexism, knowing this will place sex-workers on the street in the care of pimps rather than allowing them to work in a safe, regulated environment.Denied the existence of female rapists, and fought against legal or social recognition of rape as something other than a crime perpetrated by men against women even thought it necessitated them ignoring female victims.Denied the existence of female perpetrators of domestic violence, even to the extent to ignoring female victims in same-sex, or familial relationships, greatly hampering efforts to reduce both problems.Denied the existence of reciprocal intimate partner violence, even though researchers now admit that IPV perpetrated by women is a leading risk-factor in women’s likelihood of becoming victims. In short vastly reducing the effectiveness of efforts to reduce violence against women by refusing to teach women that if you don’t hit your partner there’s far less chance they will ever hit you.Advanced the doctrine that all criticisms of feminism and feminist dogma are simply a form of backlash, isolating themselves in an ideological echo-chamber.Turned on feminists who went against feminist dogma regardless of their evidence or argumentation. Often, as in the case of Erin Pizzey who recognised the role reciprocation plays in intimate partner violence decades ago, the evidence eventually vindicated their critics.Knowingly promulgated an endless array of myths about the prevalence of both rape and violence against women, promoting a culture of fear that has culminated in the philosophy that male strangers (who are statistically dozens of times more likely to render assistance in a variety of ways than they are to commit any form of assault) should be treated like potential rapists.While also making almost zero effort to combat the political left banning just about anything and everything women could conceivably use to defend themselves effectively against violence perpetrated by men.Promoted the idea of the aggregate wage gap so deceptively that many women are now convinced that they will be paid less for the same work.Promoted the myth of the pink tax, that products for women cost more because they are for women rather than encouraging women to buy products with more utilitarian designs and simpler packaging, which is the real cause of these price differences.Encouraged single-parenthood among women and promoted the idea that fathers do not matter despite the fact that single-parent households often struggle in profound ways, and that the men they raise are statistically more likely to hurt women in a wide variety of ways.Promoted and supported a family court system which routinely awards custody of children, many of them young girls, to negligent mothers.Fought against the idea that parents should be legally obliged to use child support to advance the welfare of their children.Promoted, and supported the myth that an unhappy marriage hurts children more than divorce.Denied that voluntary abortion can be a traumatic experience for reasons other than social stigma against abortion, hampering efforts to provide counselling and emotional support to women so affected.Espouse a realpolitik which does more to encourage benevolent sexism in men than to discourage it. If you think this helps women bear in mind that benevolent sexism is one of the best predictors for hostile sexism as the two things are inextricably bound to the same world-view.Alienated men from the struggle so adroitly it eventually gave rise to an entire social movement. Refused to dialogue or work with this movement and rather (ineptly) tried to silence and destroy it. This only worked in places where feminism enjoyed cultural primacy, and their anti-feminist world-view, rhetoric and vocabulary was exported to the developing world as a result where it now poses a serious threat to progressive gender policies, regardless of their source.This is just off the top of my head by the way. I could make this list a lot longer, and if I wanted to talk about the nasty things feminism has done to men (many of which ultimately end up hurting women) or the nasty things individual feminists have said and done, even just those instances I’ve had first-hand experience with, it would literally take me days to finish writing. I literally don’t have time for that.Now I know some of you (those who haven’t already clicked away and or hit downvote) are saying, ‘Yeah, well, why not write a list of all the good things feminism has done?!’ and I agree it would be a long list too, but if Voltaire flew over your head then perhaps you’re familiar with Steven Weinberg’s assertion which I paraphrase, that when left alone good people will do good things, and evil people will do evil things, but that for good people to do evil things you need religion. Well he should have said ideology. Indeed if the century of genocide showed us anything it is that in the absence of religion people will make religions of their ideologies, and gods of their leaders, and demagogues of all stripes will cheer them on.In that sense feminism has become the religion of the secular left.And while the bad things that I list would not have happened without feminism this is not really the case when it comes to the good. You do not need feminism to support equality. In fact most people who do are not feminists, as the polls show over and over. You do not need feminism to work for it, or to achieve it. Science and technology have done more to emancipate and liberate women than feminism can ever hope to lay claim to. The good things feminists do or have done can just as easily be motivated, and achieved by egalitarian or secular humanist principles, but the atrocious things feminists regularly promote, say, and do are not things which non feminists would do. They are things non-feminists find appalling. They belong entirely to feminism, and spring from feminist doctrine.And this isn’t to say feminist doctrine has never established useful ideas. Many highly intelligent women have been feminists. They used deductive reasoning to reach many conclusions about men, women and our interactions which have proven to be of great empirical value, but most of this material is rather old. It springs from an era in which you could be highly educated in non-feminist disciplines, and also believe in feminist ideals without having to treat them like a salad bar. That time is long past.There is another problem with ideology too. We like to think the cream rises to the top, but in any ideological context scum floats higher. It is the the die-hards, the ‘true believers,’ who tend to excel within such frameworks. It is no accident that within any given movement the radical voices are always the loudest. The radicals are also by their nature the most likely to seek and gain power. I know I’ve never met a feminist who I’d consider trustworthy in the slightest, or possessed of even a child’s grasp of ethics or moral philosophy (though I’ve met many feminists with both great integrity and an admirably well-calibrated moral compass) who has made a career of feminism. Who would be invited to give an interview on television, or publish an article in a national newspaper, or run a women’s studies department. The more feminist ideals become divorced from reality the more true this becomes.