#and trying to maintain his autonomy and have agency in his own life | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

marezablr · 3 months

Note

i just read your future gohan fic and it made me feel horrible both emotionally (as one does about him) and physically. your character writing is great and you absolutely nailed gohan's inner monologue and how he works. however im very curious as to how this 17/gohan thing occured to you, and why you decided to explore that? it took me by surprise and i even considered stopping reading (im glad i didn't tho) at first. future gohan's life and self-perception is already so awful so i wanted to know why you'd add to that in such a specifically unnerving way? specially since you clarify at the start that it's not a shipping thing, im really very curious on your thought process here. but yes great writing

thank you so much for reading! i very much understand the reservations, and i appreciate that you were willing to give it a chance. this answer is a bit long, because i wanted to try to fully, properly respond to what you're asking. so, here we go!

1) how it came to be:

i'd just played the dbz:kakarot dlc, and i had seen some art that made me feel some kind of way about future gohan, so i was browsing ao3 for fic, as one does. i encountered basically this premise in the summary of an explicit fic, and i… was very unnerved by it! a lot. fics will be what they will be! but this concept unsettled me.

but because of that, it stuck with me, and i ended up talking about why with a friend, to help me understand my own response. and in that discussion, i noticed that if you took that element of SA as a premise for a different type of story, a lot of concepts around agency and bodily autonomy that are relevant to the characters come up: gohan as a child soldier, with his right to decide the fate of his own body taken from him and, in this timeline, forever lost; the androids as victims of human experimentation, who had not just their bodies stolen but whose very minds were warped, so that the delight they have in their violent power over others is also the result of violence done to them—of their own minds ripped away and remade to someone else's design.

that resonated with something. so i started exploring ideas, and i ended up getting some concepts for a story that i liked, a story that felt like it was saying something about how people maintain integrity and assert agency in situations that try to take those things from them.

but i was still hesitant about the core premise, so i tried to find ways to write it out of the outline. i tested some things, but ultimately i realized i couldn’t get rid of that part of the story. it just didn't work without it. and it felt somehow cowardly for me to turn away from it? disrespectful, somehow, even? like…

there’s a way that 17 talks to gohan in the dbz:kakarot trunks dlc's english dub. 18 and 17 are both over-familiar with him, but 17 is mock-affectionate in a way that made me want to slap him. it made my skin crawl. and the type of violence addressed in "good loser" is not so distant from the violence that the androids and gohan both experience in canon: it's all violence that happens when someone decides that another person's body isn't theirs to control; instead, the body will be put to the perpetrator's purposes (for the androids, dr. gero’s plans; for gohan, piccolo’s vision of his potential vs the saiyans). (ofc there is a difference between piccolo and gero, which in "good loser" 17 refuses to see, but there IS also a similarity, which gohan refuses to see.)

and there's a link between those canonical violences and the uncomfortable way 17 talks to gohan. as a consequence of those experiences, the androids and gohan were set on a path where 17 and 18, in the bodies and minds that their abuser remade, would treat gohan as theirs to abuse and break, over and over, until they bored of him. and gohan could never back down, because of what he was made into—but also because of who he chooses to be

and that, i think, is 2) why i decided to explore it.

because the premise created a scenario where all those interrelated violences could be addressed, even if the characters resisted facing them. it pulled the uncomfortable truth of their experiences, and the situation they were now in, to the surface. if i wanted to tell a story that looked honestly at the way gohan's agency over his own body has been stolen from him by violence, and how that related to the androids' own loss of bodily and mental autonomy, i couldn’t run away from the idea that let me see it. i had to face it directly.

but if i was going to deal with it directly, i'd have to do so in a way that felt right to me.

so i decided on not doing any explicit content. aside from not wanting to write it, the absence worked better for the story i wanted to tell: 1) it reflected how gohan dissociated away from and repressed the experiences, and 2) it gave gohan a kind of meta-level agency. this is his story, in his pov, and he doesn’t want to share how he was victimized. so he gets to have that refusal.

i also knew i had to take seriously what this kind of violence means for the people involved. to take seriously what it would mean for 18, who was once a teen girl runaway, to see her brother perpetrate the type of violence that she was almost certainly threatened with, violence she may not be able to remember but that sticks deep in her subconscious. to take seriously 17’s mindset as a perpetrator, how he could justify and excuse it and not see what he was doing for what it was—how he could act like he and gohan were both contenders in a shared game, while at the same time enjoying how much he outclassed gohan, how he could differentiate himself to himself from the type of perpetrator his sister is trying not to see him as.

and most of all, i’d take seriously gohan’s experiences: not just the trauma and violation, but also the integrity and unflinching compassion, the deep love he has for the people he protects and for the people who protected him, the will he has to keep fighting even when it feels like a lost cause, because he believes someone else can build on his resistance and that one day that person will win.

that—gohan with his integrity and hope, doing all that he can to stop violence from happening to anyone else, if not now then tomorrow—that felt like the only way i'd feel right about writing this. that was the story that was meaningful to me, enough that, even in my discomfort, i wanted to tell it. i wanted to write more than resilience: i wanted to write gohan's resistance.

in the end, i had to accept that it would be unnerving as a premise, and i couldn't run away from it. all i could do was try my best to write it with care.

thanks again for reading, and for asking this question! it means a lot to me that you were willing to give the story a try. i hope this answer explains how it came to happen, and why i took the approach i did. if you want any clarifications or have any other questions, definitely let me know!

#peridotite #asks

11 notes · View notes

saraptor · 1 year

Note

🔥for dragon age!

thanks for the ask!! i apologize in advance if this is all out of sort and as blunt as a box of hammers because i am NOT good at being like. tactful. these hinges do not have hydraulics to help them close softly (not without trying tho) fjkelhgekghea but it's not my intention at all to be rude

i dont go into the disk horsey part of the fandom much so if this is a "yeah yeah we've all seen it" kind of opinion... oop

Mages VS Templars (and why I think pitting them against each other is counterproductive)

A lot of the mage vs templar debacle could be avoided, I think, if it was seen less as "both sides are dangerous" and more as "both sides are victims"

because they are. we have no way of knowing how young most templars are when they're taken into the order, but every major templar, or "almost templar" we know was inducted young. Cullen joined at 13. Way too young to make choices that impact your whole life. Alistair was given to the chantry at birth, and had no choice in becoming a templar. maybe he could have run away, but also if they're inducted young, as seems to be the case, that means a literal child would have to be savvy enough to live on their own. in Thedas. They have no agency but this is covered up with a thick slather of "it's an honor to serve!" and "it's the maker's will!" which is employing religion but i won't get into that.

now you have the mages who also have no choice, and their bodily autonomy is infringed upon BY the templars. this method of using victim against victim ensures their chances of ever related to their possibly similar circumstances are slim. templars are simultaneously scared and apathetic towards mages' oppression, because they themselves are also oppressed, but they don't see it that way—because it's an “honor to serve.”

when i first did that quest with cullen in DAI and Cass went on about how "mages made their suffering known, but templars never had," i'll admit my first reaction was "boo-hoo" until my critical thinking skills kicked in and realized how royally fucked it was that you have an organization of religiously-mandated drug addictions known to cause paranoia and mood swings overlooking the people they're afraid will turn into demons.

this is a powder keg that repeatedly explodes. it's bad for the mages AND for the templars. Everyone is getting hurt here!

This is also part of the reason I think Anders targeted the Chantry in particular in DA2. It would have been easy to specifically target the Templars because they are the tool being used, but they aren't the hand holding the tool—the Chantry is. Although I do genuinely think most people in the Chantry think they're doing good and helping, there's also the side of the Chantry that ALSO doesn't have a choice in being there. Girls given to the chantry become nuns, whether they like it or not—this was the whole plot of the Surana origin. Lily wanted to get married and have a family, but couldn't.

A demon also used this desire to exploit a Templar. He had taken a vow and wasn't allowed to start a family.

Basically, while the Templars are oppressive and have more privilege than the mages, and the Chantry exploits this to maintain a system they profit from. Religion is used as a tool to excuse their behavior and shut down anyone's questioning of the system—I mean, the Templars are literally just drinking experimental lyrium in DAI and they don't even question it! How many Templars are experimented on without even realizing?—and swathes them in a tenuous false sense of security.

This isn't to say all Templars are innocent victims of course—I'm not trying to discount the horror mages have gone through. One thing I'd love to see in the future, too, is the way mental illness has mixed with magic. But as far as I know, there is NO recourse or support for Templars until after DAI, if and only if Cullen manages to beat his lyrium addiction.

This is also why I always thought the likening templars to IRL cops doesn't work. I've said this in other posts before, but cops do the things they do with a lucid mind. They CHOOSE to be hateful and to uphold an oppressive system that outright favors them. THEY are the exploiters.

Especially coming from a place of how addicts are treated, with the Templars, imo at least, have a cult-like mentality, I feel like it's a disservice to simply view them through the lens of "fantasy cops."

I hope I articulated myself well, if anything is confusing don't hesitate to ask for elaboration! I don't want to be misunderstood ajfklehgekw

#this felt way longer that it looks while i was writing it #asks #saraptor dragon age rambles #i had a huge one about vivienne typed out bc i was nervous to post this one #but decided to not be a coward

1 note · View note

voidspacecowboy · 2 years

Text

Contains Spoilers

In chapter nine, we start to see the real root of the problem that’s keeping Noah from his own happily ever after — as much as he is aware that Daniel is becoming too difficult a ruse to maintain, and he knows he needs to stop, at the same time he loves it and can’t quite let go.

As Noah, he’s a small fish in a very large pond — overlooked, dismissed, laughed at by the nobles for daring to try and put himself on their level by courting the princess. And while right now he might be in a very advantageous position, three years ago when he first started being Daniel, he didn’t even know Crysta. His voice was lost in the crowd; he had his art, but not much else. And he is the kind of person who just can’t stand that.

But as Daniel, he’s making a difference. He’s doing something that matters. He’s important, in a way Noah could never be, and he has the power and the agency to actually make an impact on the lives of others in a pivotal way.

Which makes it all sound incredibly noble, and is exactly the kind of reasoning Noah gives himself to justify everything he’s doing, but it’s not the whole truth. It’s an ego trip, being Daniel, and an addictive one. And it’s an outlet for all the darker parts of himself that he can’t admit to in polite society.

In my mind, Daniel didn’t start out that way. It truly was just a kid trying to escape his own life for a while, have the freedom to be someone else and make his own way in the world. And then he got older, and started courting Crysta, and suddenly every move he made was under intense scrutiny, the standards ridiculously high if he wanted to keep his place in Crysta’s life. So Daniel became his freedom, the identity where he could do whatever he wanted without repercussion. He could show anger and get into fights and allow himself to be intimidating, after days on end of trying to be polite and non-threatening and demure in the face of nobles who all think they’re better than him.

Now obviously, this isn’t healthy, and it sure as heck isn’t a long-term solution. But it was a really interesting concept to write, and looking back on it now I kind of wish I’d explored it a little deeper in the whole regard of power dynamics and personal autonomy, because I think now — both being older than I was, but also having had several years of social media developing within society — I can see a lot of merit in the concept of having an alter-ego that is allowed to be all of the things you can’t be in your usual life, and even more than that, gets rewarded for it. You can understand why Noah is reluctant to give it up, as terrible as it is for his future happiness!

Also in these two chapters, we see a bit more of Noah’s father Evander, who is a character I am excited to talk about later on once we get to know him better. We start to get a hint of what he’s up to with his secret project, and see that the apple does not fall far from the tree; both he and Noah are too caught up in their own drama to see what’s going on with their loved ones.

So we’re definitely going to revisit Evander later in this read-through, and also for sure looking more into Rosa and Lena further down the line, but these little glimpses into their character are fun for me, both to see the hints of what’s to come and also to cement the idea that Noah is kind of self-centred, because even when he’s interacting with them he’s only really thinking about them in relation to his own issues.

Okay, yeah, Noah’s kind of a jerk. I know. But stick with him, because he’s a jerk with a whole lot to learn!

#TellusReadAlong

0 notes

licncourt · 2 years

Note

Please talk about Louis' ED in canon and in the human AU. His character is the first depiction of ED that I actually related to (especially the whole guilt over eating thing) and wasn't in "a very special episode" and not enough ppl in the fandom acknowledge that he displays typical ED behavior.

I also hate when in fics it's portrayed as funny or cute when lestat pressures louis into hunting together, or worse, follows him without his knowledge. Some days I intentionally skip meals just so I don't have to eat in front of ppl, or if I do it I can hardly get any food in because I'm too noxious. It's not funny or cute, it's really anxiety inducing.

Sorry that it turned into a bit of a vent in the end, but this aspect of his character is really important to me

Have a lovely day💗

No, yeah I totally feel you. I've dealt with an eating disorder myself and there's a lot about Louis' relationship with blood that rings very true to real life. I love a rat joke as much as anyone because, at the end of the day, it's fiction, but there's a lot more going on with Louis' feeding habits that warrant a closer reading.

Under the cut since this is a triggering topic

Louis' issues around blood and feeding aren't a perfect parallel to something like anorexia, but the issues of guilt and control remain to create what is very much a vampiric equivalent of something akin to it.

As we all know, the most common cause of restriction-based eating disorders is aesthetics, namely, external pressure to conform to beauty standards. That in itself is largely a form of guilt: guilt over perceived inadequacy, over "greed", over weakness, any number of things that can relate back to physical appearance, but don't necessarily. Control is often a huge part of it as well. In some cases, it's the motivating force. When an individual feels as if they aren't in charge of their own life, they may turn to food as something they can micromanage and exercise influence over

If we start with the control angle, it's immediately obvious that this is a big issue for Louis as a character in general. So much of what he does is out of a desire to restrict his own appetites and maintain a certain level of discipline that seems to comfort him and bring the structure he needs to function. I've discussed this in terms of sexuality, but it applies here too. It only becomes more acute when Lestat enters the picture, becoming an irresistible external force that robs Louis of his agency and attempts to dictate his life to him.

On the large scale, Louis is pretty helpless. He can't evict Lestat from their home, he can't leave him, he lacks the knowledge to be self-sufficient, and he has Lestat trying to strong-arm him day in and day out. One of the primary ways this manifests is Lestat's insistence that Louis feed on human blood, something he doesn't want to do. This one thing is something Louis can use to fight back though, something he can control. He can exercise a bit of autonomy by refusing to comply, and as long as he holds out, he has some small amount of agency. It's not hard to see why he clings to it.

This is choice of food for control is convenient for Louis, because it also assuages his guilt. Much like people with EDs often feel that they don't deserve to eat or that it makes them weak/a bad person, Louis tries to abstain from blood for much the same reason. Blood taints him, it's gluttonous and a pleasure he doesn't deserve. Consumption is inherently evil in his eyes. This point is driven home by Louis' insistence that he feed alone when he does drink human blood. It's a painful and shameful thing for him, not the bonding experience or enjoyable activity Lestat sees it as. However, Louis, like someone with an ED, finds workarounds. He feeds in secret, he sneaks food, he finds ways to eat with minimal guilt. He refuses human blood and subsists on rats, chickens etc, mirroring the common ED idea of "safe foods", usually something that's extremely low in calories (for Louis, minimal in harm). These practices aren't enough to sustain him properly though, and in QotD, Marius observes this about Louis:

And this young one was hungry too; he was suffering; and he seemed to like it, to like the hunger and the pain.

Again, this is a hallmark of disordered eating, the twisted enjoyment of starvation. Hunger pains, cramps, blackouts, shaking, headaches, etc all become desirable as signs of success. The pain is a goal in itself, a sort of punishment and victory in one. Louis thinks he deserves this to the point where it brings him pleasure to suffer in the same way self-harm might.

This type of restriction can't go on indefinitely though, and binging will essentially always occur after an extended period of starvation. Louis experiences this with Claudia. He's been surviving on the bare minimum for so long that he can't take it anymore when faced with actual sustenance and drinks from her before he even knows what he's doing. He is predictably devastated afterward, wracked with guilt and shame for his actions, simultaneously restored and relieved but also more determined than ever to prevent it from happening again.

Later in the series, we find out that Louis, unlike most other vampires, can't take "the little drink" (can't feed without taking a life). This also reminds me a lot of a binge/restriction cycle, someone who abstains for so long that they have no ability to moderate when they do eat, and so they try even harder not to. The brain and relationship with food has been fundamentally warped and damaged so that there's no longer a middle ground, only artificial starvation mode. Even though Louis seems to be feeding normally by that point in canon, this problem remains as a lingering effect of his illness, as does his continuing dislike of being observed while feeding.

Lestat for his part responds to Louis in very much the same way many people respond to loved ones with eating disorders when they don't know any better. He doesn't understand why Louis is doing this, he has no frame of reference for it and can't relate to the mindset that would cause these feelings. Because of this, he quickly becomes frustrated, insisting that Louis eat, berating him for making things difficult for them both. This has the opposite of the intended effect, alienating Louis and making him feel attacked and misunderstood. When this inevitably fails, Lestat tries to reason with him, but that doesn't work either because eating disorders aren't rational. No hard evidence or carefully crafted argument can overcome the thought patterns of an ED, no matter how passionate or intelligent.

So there you go, another item on the long list of things I wish AR would've taken the time to explore. Maybe in another timeline, Louis gets a thoughtful and poignant arc exploring his ED and the reader actually gets to see him heal. Toss in the "could've been" pile I suppose.

#answered #vc #meta #louis de pointe du lac

53 notes · View notes

bigskydreaming · 3 years

Text

Brain topic du jour is reflecting on the frankly weird as fuck pattern in Dick’s life where....he barely ever experiences losses one at a time. Most of the loss he’s experienced in his life is compounded by him losing multiple people and other elements of stability all at the exact same time.

1) When his parents died, in some continuities this is coupled with him losing his extended family of his aunt and cousin as well, with his uncle left comatose and on life support for years before he eventually died as well. Even in continuities without Richard, Karla and John, the loss of Dick’s parents is compounded by the additional loss of his circus family in the sense that he was taken away from them by the state and their constant reassuring presences in his life were no longer comforts he was able to rely on.

2) When Jason died, Dick didn’t just lose his brother, as the tragedy was compounded by Bruce’s reaction. I’ll never be able to gloss over the effects of NTT #55, personally, because I think its too key to Dick’s entire characterization and the specific direction his character took in the years that followed this, to like....disregard that Bruce however unintentionally, while lost in his own grief, added to Dick’s own sense of loss for Jason in probably the worst way possible. As by kicking Dick out and telling him to leave his keys, Dick - having no way to know or guess that they’d ever reconcile, just like he never actually went back to the circus being a regular presence for him - to Dick, this was in essence the equivalent of his childhood tragedy all over again. Losing not just one family member, but his whole family in one sweep, and all the comforts and stability offered by a home he was forced to leave. Even Dick’s contact with Alfred was minimal for awhile, because why would the guy who basically JUST saw history repeat itself and was like, well I know how THIS tends to play out.....why would he think that if Alfred felt forced to actually choose between his loyalties to Bruce and Dick respectively, that Alfred would pick Dick over the man he’d known and raised from childhood himself?

3) Titans Hunt. I know I harp on this one a lot, but you can’t deny that it fits the pattern. Dick didn’t just lose one friend and teammate.....he lost Joey, he lost a good four or five lesser known Titans who nevertheless were people he viewed as directly HIS responsibility to keep safe. With these tragedies compounded by the fact that though comics played out a lot more slowburn and extended stories over years back then, like.....the aftermath of Titans Hunt was still everpresent and directly died into Dick’s reactions and emotions during the Mirage storyline and everything that happened with the failed wedding and his breakup with Kory AND the fact that he was literally forced off the team he’d basically founded, by the government agency that took over the team and appointed Roy as its leader in his stead.

3) Graduation Day. The second time the Titans disbanded it was again not due to a singular loss, because Dick didn’t just lose Donna at this point, but also Lilith died in the exact same story and though Lilith is criminally underused, like, she’s also one of Dick’s oldest friends. She was literally the first Titan to join after the original five. This then led into the Outsiders era, where Dick was shown to still be reeling from the losses of this story for an extended period of time, and in a fun parallel to the Titans Hunt aftermath, Dick was also ousted from his leadership of THIS team by essentially a vote of no confidence by his teammates (and uh, Bruce too, literally).

4) The Blockbuster arc. Where Dick’s emotional state was due to a continued string of multiple losses. He lost his apartment building and almost every one of the neighbors he’d built a community out of, as we’d been shown him actively involving himself in their lives and vice versa for YEARS before this point. Then he lost his circus, his childhood home, burned to the ground and with dozens of deaths - both spectators and actual performers Dick had known and loved as a child. Then he lost his relationship with Barbara, his sense of self-security and autonomy to Tarantula, he lost another teen vigilante who died in his colors, the mantle HE’D created, when Stephanie was believed dead in War Games, and it all culminated in losing the city he’d invested himself in as his CHOSEN home, the place he dedicated himself to protecting, when Chemo blew it up.

Oh just for the record - my nonexistent passport to the magical kingdom of Narnia for a fic that raises the point when bringing up Tim’s losses in the Red Robin era, that like.....ALL of the above happened at literally the EXACT SAME TIME as all Tim’s referenced losses occurred. Obviously Steph meant more to Tim than Dick on a personal level, but I also included her largely as an anchor point to the timeline, to show how that death, and not long after that Jack Drake’s and then Superboy’s.... occurred right smack in the middle of one of the absolute WORST periods of Dick’s life. To be clear, I don’t intend this to suggest that no actually, Dick had it harder than Tim - nah.

No thank you. Hard pass. I hate that sort of thing even in support of my own faves over other characters. No, instead the thing I’d love to see explored more is just in light of the SPECIFIC angle fics take here - that Dick’s actions while Bruce was lost in time showed an obliviousness to everything Tim had lost lately - for literally ANYONE to bring up or introduce into the timeline here an awareness of everything Dick had lost AT THE EXACT SAME TIME PERIOD. To establish that actually, Dick didn’t just ‘not understand what it was like’ - rather, its more accurate to say that nobody in universe around this time ever shows an awareness of Dick’s own losses and says oh wait, that doesn’t track then.

Because obviously, with this stuff put in proper perspective, Dick understands VERY VERY WELL the exact thing we’re accusing him of not understanding by being oblivious to Tim’s losses that he’s not actually oblivious to because he tries to talk to Tim about them all the time, while meanwhile its everyone else who has absolutely mum to say about the fact that Dick’s emotional state is compromised to hell and back at this point, not JUST because of losing Bruce, but also because *gestures wildly* literally ALL OF THE ABOVE in the exact same time frame Tim’s extended losses happened in.

And okay I am going to indulge in slight tiny itty bitty pettiness and point out my ire that so many fics set during this time tend to recite listicles of Tim’s losses, with Steph, Kon and Jack Drake at the very top of said list....while paying no attention whatsoever to the fact that STEPH WAS LITERALLY BACK BY THE TIME THE RED ROBIN SERIES HAPPENED. She’s LITERALLY a person Dick sends to check up on Tim after Tim turns Dick away when he tries himself. How are you gonna stress the impact Steph’s loss has on Tim when you’re not even acknowledging STEPH’S RIGHT HERE IN THE EXACT SPECIFIC CANON STORY YOU’RE CITING??? I just. afhioskhflafhlafhklfahlfa.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but you know who ELSE was also back at the same time? CONNOR. Superboy LITERALLY was already back to life by the time the Red Robin series even began. Like, the issue where a resurrected Kon and Cassie (Wonder Girl) have a heart to heart about the fact that Tim and Cassie ‘connected’ during his absence and Connor stresses that this doesn’t bother him or make him feel negatively towards either of them at all, because hello, he was literally dead at the time, why would he mind that two of the people he loves most in the world sought comfort in each other? Yeah, that issue? Literally came out BEFORE Tim even became Red Robin.

I MEAN. I’m just saying, when people constantly take shots at Dick’s choices during this period because of how much Tim had lost before Bruce already, in order to shift focus away from the fact that Dick lost Bruce every bit as much as Tim did......and you repeatedly emphasize the SAME three names as the focal point of Tim’s losses while paying no acknowledgment whatsoever to everything Dick lost at the exact same time Tim lost these three.....it quickly becomes kiiiiiiinda relevant in my opinion THAT TWO OF THE THREE NAMES CONSTANTLY MENTIONED AS BEING TIM’S LOSSES ARE NO LONGER EVEN LOST BY THE TIME THE SUBJECT COMES UP. Again, I’m just saying! Pettily, mind you! I am aware of the pettiness, I just beg awareness of like *again gesticulates wildly at all of the above* ALL THAT!

LOL.

But I digress.

5) When Bruce was believed dead while he was lost in the timestream. Again, Dick didn’t just lose the father who had been the only parent in his life for almost TWICE as long as his first parents......this was coupled with the loss of numerous other sources of stability in Dick’s life. There’s the matter of his personal sense of identity and self-expression....Dick FOUGHT against becoming Batman, trying to handle Gotham in Bruce’s absence as Nightwing for as long as he could, because he knew being Batman was very much NOT going to be good for him. He put so much of himself into building his identity as Nightwing, establishing himself in that role, that self-image, that yes, I maintain it was an actual LOSS for Dick, to feel like he had no choice but to give that up and everything it meant to him and his own life, in order to essentially live Bruce’s life for him in his absence.

Because it wasn’t just being Batman that Dick was struggling with at this time....he also had to act as the patriarch to the Wayne family, essentially raise Bruce’s ten year old son, step into Bruce’s old role in Wayne Enterprises, all while getting no acknowledgment for any of this, for literally LIVING his father’s life instead of the life Dick had worked so hard to build for HIMSELF....because of course Dick’s actions and struggles couldn’t even be advertised beyond the family and close friends, because the whole point of him doing all this was so that nobody else even realized that Bruce wasn’t really there anymore. Dick didn’t just assume Bruce’s responsibilities. Dick assumed Bruce’s life, so thoroughly that most people didn’t even put together that Bruce was ‘dead,’ between Dick handling Bruce’s actual roles and responsibilities while Hush made public appearances as him.

Like, when you’re living someone else’s life so completely that nobody can tell they’re even gone....how on earth does that leave any time or space for you to have ANY kind of life of your OWN, y’know? Not to mention the fact that like in so many times previously....all this meant that Dick couldn’t even afford to let his grief for his own losses show, because he wasn’t supposed to be grieving any losses in the first place, that was the whole point of the con!

Additionally, couple this with the fact that throughout this time period, Dick didn’t have Tim to lean on at all, because it was never that Dick kicked Tim out or neglected him or didn’t care....he’d actively stressed how much he needed Tim, because the partner Tim was convinced Dick chose ‘over’ him - Dick was the first one to admit back then that he DIDN’T trust Damian yet, couldn’t afford to, because he was all too aware that Damian didn’t give a fuck about him yet and couldn’t be guaranteed to step in to have Dick’s back - because that required mutual trust that Dick literally just hadn’t had time to build yet. And add to THAT the fact that during this time, Jason was actively antagonizing the family and Dick in particular at every turn, trying to bring them all down and basically write over what all of them saw as Bruce’s legacy with Jason’s own version of what he thought that should look like.

Also also, take into account that unlike how often we see fanon depict Dick as just too stubborn or proud to ask for help, there’s the fact that he actually had very few avenues TO ask for help! As already established, he DID ask Tim for help. Not like Jason was an option at this time, and Dick’s friends weren’t actually just sitting waiting in the wings and groaning about the fact that Dick was trying to do all of this solo....nah, they kinda had their own problems, which Dick was all too aware of?

Like the fact that in the wake of Final Crisis, it wasn’t just Bruce that was believed lost. Many other key Leaguers like Martian Manhunter were dead or lost, with others struggling to fill the gaps left in their absence. Cry For Justice happened right after Final Crisis too....that story where Lian was murdered? So it wasn’t like Dick was remotely going to try leaning on Roy when Roy had just lost his freaking DAUGHTER and very much wasn’t handling it well (and not to overshadow Roy’s loss at ALL, but please let’s not act like Dick - who had literally been the person to put a baby Lian in Roy’s arms for the first time and had known that girl for pretty much her entire life - like, it shouldn’t be used to detract from Roy’s loss at all, but it shouldn’t have to, to just acknowledge that Lian’s loss right at this exact time was painful as fuck to Dick, who’d loved his niece like crazy.)

The pattern of compounding, concurrent losses in Dick’s life. I’m just saying. Its there.

And it extends into the New 52 as well, where Forever Evil came right on the heels of Dick losing his circus in THIS continuity to the Joker, just as a way to hurt him in Death of A Family. And with the aftermath of Forever Evil and Dick’s own literal death, being like....the complete loss of Dick’s entire life, even though he was revived quickly. That didn’t mean he got to live HIS life though, since Dick Grayson was believed dead and he was told had to remain so, so its like fuck whatever he actually wanted to do as he went about on the Spyral mission aka something that pinched his own sense of morality and personal agenda at every turn and was kinda the last thing a therapist would recommend for a trauma recovery period, lol. And like, for all the focus that was paid to how Dick’s family were hurt because they believed they’d lost him when he was actually alive, let’s not forget that for all intents and purposes, Dick DID lose his family in the wake of his resurrection because he was flat out told over and over that due to what ‘he’d LET happen to him’ he was an ACTIVE danger to them, and thus wasn’t allowed by Bruce to contact any of them or lean on them to any degree, until Bruce got amnesia and stopped blocking Dick’s pleas to return home by just not being there to pick up the secret phone line at all.

(And omg, the obliviousness that just EMANATES off the hot takes that Dick had a ‘choice’ in all this and he still CHOSE to do what Bruce told him....like. LOLOL, stop being pissy about me bringing up the term abuse apologism when its literal victim blaming to paint the guy who had to be beaten into ‘agreeing’ to the Spyral mission in the immediate wake of the trauma of DYING, all while his father vocally blamed him for his own suffering and the ‘threat’ he now posed to his family, keying directly into the guilt complex Bruce knows damn well is at the core of most of Dick’s motivations.....fucking please. There’s no choice in all that. That’s active emotional, mental and physical abuse aimed at directly manipulating Dick’s actions, delivered by the guy who knows Dick best in the world and whose approval - particularly when Dick is at absolute rock bottom aka Current Location - matters more to Dick than just about anything because his sense of self-worth has more in common with dog shit than actual dog shit does. Or something. Idk. That analogy got away from me. But like. You get it.)

BUT. I. DIE. GRESS. (I guess).

Aaaaaaanyway, so yeah! That repeating pattern throughout Dick’s life of ‘loss? What loss (singular)? My losses only come in groups, lolol, fuuuuuun’ - mmmm. Yeah. So that’s what’s on MY brain right now. Thoughts?

201 notes · View notes

cube-cumb3r · 3 years

Text

The Means Reflect On The Ends Actually, (c!Dream & the conditioning of Exile)

What was the point of exile, storywise? What does it say about c!Dream? Sure, it’s showcasing how far he’s willing to go to achieve his own ends, but I don't think all discussion about what exile tells us about c!Dream should start and end there.

Dream is not cruel for cruelty’s sake. Dream’s end goal is not to hurt as many people as possible. He views his cruelty are “necessary evils”, and he doesn’t dwell much on whether the things he does are “good” or “bad”. He’s fully aware he’s hurting people and he ultimately thinks that hurting people, to the extent that he does, is worth it. That being said, while Dream has an ends justify the means mindset, but the truth is, the means absolutely reflect on the ends. His true intentions aren’t a mystery, it’s very clear in the text that his ultimate goal is unity, but why does he want unity? And what would said unity entail?

(Before this essay starts I have to do an ad break to promo @daggryet's very helpful [transcriptions from the exile streams], which I'll be using a lot of. Thanks for the very helpful resource.)

TW: Relatively extensive discussion abt the abuse in exile arc & the effects of said abuse.

Firstly, I don't think you should deny his relationship to control. A through-line of his character is achieving harmony through control, and more specifically, obedience. There’s a reason why he tends to single out Tommy the most. It’s not actually because Tommy is remarkably more troublesome than anyone else on the server, but rather, because his disruptive nature is at Dream’s expense. Tommy is the only character who’s consistently over and over again refused to respect Dream’s authority, and though he isn’t particularly threatening on his own, it’s the sentiment itself that’s dangerous. Similarly, this is why he has consistently targeted L’manburg, moreso than any other faction on the server such as, say, Badlands, El Rapids. It’s almost as if they represented the sentiment, “Hey, why are we listening to you anyway? Why can’t we be listening to anyone else?”, which is why he crushed them, over, and over again. What if everyone figures out they can just stop listening to him? What then?

We talk a lot about the effects exile had on Tommy, and rightfully so, but we don’t talk enough about what Dream was actually doing. What was the purpose of exile? Was it just a way to get closer to the discs? Just a means to an end? What was the end?

TOMMY: What, what could you possibly want more from me? You’ve tortured me.

DREAM: I’m just keeping an eye on you, Tommy.

TOMMY: What does that mean?!

DREAM: I’m just, I’m making sure that you’re not up to no good.

TOMMY: But, how, you’ve exiled me, you fucking stupid, manipulative fucking green bastard!

DREAM: I know! And you know why I did that?

TOMMY: Yes?

DREAM: No, you know why?

TOMMY: Why?

DREAM: Because you don’t listen to me ever, you’re the only person who doesn’t ever listen to me. If I tell you to do something, you’re like “no, fuck you!”, and you go and like do like the exact opposite.

[full transcription]

As much as I have to preface this with that this is speculative and we may not have any irrefutable confirmation, I think it's very likely that it's literally just what Dream is saying he's doing. Tommy is the one person who refuses to listen to him, and he wants him to listen. Exile was not only conditioning Tommy to believe that nobody other than Dream cares about him, not only conditioning Tommy to be entirely reliant on him, but also conditioning Tommy to listen to him, without question, without disobeying. And that is such a significant and reoccurring motif for it to arguably just be the intended reading of exile.

Abuse is a vague term that encompasses a lot of abusive practices. There are a good handful that apply to exile, I'm sure if you ask someone qualified they'll be able to provide you a nice handy list, but ultimately, all of them target Tommy's own sense of agency and autonomy, and it all revolves around power and control. Dream creates rituals purely to disarm him, threatens him and punishes him when he doesn't listen, and rewards him when he complies (or rather, conditions Tommy into thinking that not being punished is a reward).

TOMMY: [begins throwing his armor and axe down for DREAM to explode.]

DREAM: No, no, it’s fine.

TOMMY: Re-really?

DREAM: Yeah. Today’s the party, right?

---

TOMMY: So when can I- no, I wanna go back. I… hey, thanks for letting me keep my armour today.

DREAM: You’re welcome.

TOMMY: Kinda nice of you.

[full transcription]

Dream isn’t only hurting Tommy for the sake of hurting him. People tend to frame it as if Dream Just Hates Tommy, but that’s not true. He finds Tommy fun, in a twisted way. There are a lot of moments in exile where they’re both on very good terms and Dream is friendly with Tommy. But, it's also all part of horror of exile, making Tommy reliant on him and his company, getting him to doubt his sense of reality, making him question whether his friends back in L’manburg ever cared about him at all, and possibly questioning whether he’s imagining the abuse as well, Dream is so kind to him after all, why would he ever want to hurt him?

Over the course of exile Tommy agency and sense of self start to deteriorate as well as his mental health, he starts worrying about what Dream would think, starts asking Dream for permission, going out of his way to avoid upsetting him, his only friend, his only reliable caring companion.

TOMMY: Yeah, so I’m thinking we- and then I can- but the thing is; so recently my buddy, Dream, has been doing this thing where he, uhm… it makes sense, though, because I’m not in his land anymore, but he takes my shit from me, so I need to make sure- […]

---

RANBOO: Yeah, so what do you say- does Dream like take your armor? Is that what you said?

TOMMY: I don’t know, he just- hey man, I just follow the boss.

[full transcription]

TOMMY: “Visit Techno” no, no, what would Dream think? […]

---

TOMMY: I’ve had a little idea, by the way, and I wanna know what you think, and also if I’m allowed

DREAM: Okay?

[full transcription]

TOMMY: Yeah, I know he’s actually - he’s sort of my- he’s borderline my owner, Big Q, so I’m not really sure.

MEXICAN DREAM: He’s your dad?

TOMMY: No, no-

MEXICAN DREAM: Ey! Ey, Papa Thomas!

TOMMY: No, no, we’re- as in labor.

MEXICAN DREAM: You gotta teach your child some manners.

[full transcription]

Dream’s outburst in exile after finding Tommy’s chests, is arguably one of Dream's most emotionally honest (and reckless) moments in exile considering it was what made Tommy realize he needed to save himself and escape. And it's punishing Tommy for going behind his back and planning to revolt.

TOMMY: I’m really, no, I’m really sorry, though. Why don’t we just pretend this never- yeah, let’s, shall we just pretend this-?

DREAM: Sorry doesn’t cut it, Tommy. Listen, I’ll leave you here to think about what you did-

TOMMY: What about the nether? What about the nether, my friends, what-?

DREAM: No! You can’t go to the nether, no one can come here, you are alone, okay? As soon as I think that you have changed, have become somebody who isn’t going to hide and lie and try and revolt; then people can visit you again. You can go to the nether again. But for now - no, no one can. You- I was being very lenient. Yesterday I let you go into the Dream SMP on a temporary pass, and then what do I find out the next day?

TOMMY: I’m so sorry.

DREAM: I have been nothing but gracious to you. Tommy. Think about what you did.

---

Exile wasn’t only a means to getting closer to the discs or getting Tommy out of the way. Exile was a means to conditioning Tommy into listening and respecting Dream as his superior. Dreams solution to Tommy being disruptive and troublesome was to [physically beat], emotionally abuse, and psychologically condition him into obedience. Only seeing exile as a testament to how far how willing he was go to meet his ends is reductive, and not acknowledging what Dream considers to be a “problem” and what he considers to be “solutions” is to not engage with his worldview. You have to take exile into account and what it actually says about his ideals of harmony and unity.

---

TOMMY: I can’t go back… I can’t go back, and see my friends and see Tubbo. This is a shithole! He wasn’t- he wasn’t here ‘cause he was my friend. He was here to- what did he say on the first day? Got a little bug that he can’t flig off? I’m the only person who never does exactly what he says?

TOMMY: I’m the only person who never does what he says. Me! He said that to me, didn’t he?

TOMMY: He was here to watch me.

[full transcription]

Dream’s relationship to Tommy can (and honestly should) be compared to his relationship to the entire server at large. Not to imply that He Literally Wants To Abuse The Server, but rather the he views the server revolting as a problem, and the solution? Well. The [prison]. The hall of attachments. It’s no surprise that the disc war, a conflict that was initially only primarily between Dream and Tommy*, is suddenly about everyone. Bargaining and blackmailing using attachments, something Dream initially only subjected Tommy to, to keep him under his control, is now a means to control everyone.

Is Dream's goal of unity for the sake of the overall happiness and quality of life of the people living within said unity? I don’t doubt that this at some point in time was true. But, the fact that he’s willing to ruin lives and long-term psychologically destroy people over it, means that his goal isn’t unity for the sake of the people living in his ideal version of the server, but at their expense. Him believing he needs to control people to maintain unity and harmony means that he believes himself to know what's best for people moreso than the people themselves, and therefore he's the only one responsible enough to make decisions for them. And it also means that his motives has warped and twisted overtime, it’s likely that he’s become so fixated on the goal of unity itself that he’s lost track of why he wanted it in the first place.

Anyway. Stop buying into Dream's own self-justification of "ends justify the means" and put his deeply flawed and broken worldview and view of people under a little bit of goddam scrutiny.

#*yeah no its about tubbo and sapnap too but thats not really who dream has ever focused on #dream smp #dreamwastaken #tommyinnit #exile arc #tw abuse #ask to tag #lor3 essays

130 notes · View notes

reflections-in-a-critical-eye · 3 years

Text

BTS Documentaries and Ethics

The purpose of music documentaries is usually to put a spotlight on a particular artist, band or major event, with an aim to cast a light into the behind the scenes. It can be intimate, offering fans a glimpse into the thoughts of their favorite artists. It can be expository, which is the main category of music documentaries, like No Direction Home, Gaga: Five Foot Two, Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck, or it can take other shapes in order to tell a story differently than what is the norm, like Scorsese's Rolling Thunder Revue, a mockumentary that used footage from Renaldo and Clara, a film shot by Bob Dylan in the 70s while on tour, slightly altering some facts which would be caught on only by hardcore fans. Another example, which is a favorite of mine, would be 20.000 Days on Earth, which was a musical-documentary which portrayed a fictional day in the life of Nick Cave.

Turning to BTS now, their documentaries are expository, focusing on their tours, beginning with 2017. Burn the Stage is frankly quite relevant as compared to others as it was also the first one released. It's relevance is in showing the band on tour and also how they work. Not only that, it revealed on camera something which is absolutely normal, that is disagreement and honestly, it made it all more real. Not only that, it worked in terms of a documentary structure, that glimpse of conflict. Besides that, it showed some hardships and hard truths about the effect of such a tour and what a hectic work schedule can do to an individual. It's interesting to note that in the BTS case the purpose of a music documentary it's not the usual one. Fans don't really need to wait for it in order to find out more about the band, since BTS has had an online presence ever since the beginning, exposing part of their work life as much as they could. Either way, Burn the Stage had all the elements of a classic on the road documentary that managed to offer information that was not usually revealed up until then. I will not delve too much into the rest of the releases, as they're not at the same standard and over the years, not only it became a bit repetitive, it did not offer a ''realness'' like in the first one, a lot of footage was recycled, as it was used for other DVDs.

What my focus is on today is the question of ethics in documentary practices and I will talk about what was shown in Burn the Stage, specifically the parts of Jungkook getting sick, as this is an issue that was talked about a lot with many divisive opinions. My point stands for all similar instances in the BTS documentaries.

Documentary ethics is a very vast topic of discussion and a very complicated one, to say the least. A filmmaker has to think about what is considered to be necessary to get a story, how close can they get, is it ok to film some things, what impact it has on its subject, is it too intrusive? Or who benefits from it all? A filmmaker may say it benefits the subject or a certain community, depending on the topic, but it also benefits the filmmaker, as they can make money out of it, get some prestige if the documentary is part of film festivals, receives awards or it's shown on a major tv network. Or simply, money out of sold DVDs. There can be differences between what a filmmaker thinks and deems to be right, his subject and his audience. The first two can negotiate the lines of what is acceptable and come to an agreement and in some cases, a filmmaker spends years documenting, showing the subject what they have, what is their direction, getting their approval, while still maintaining artistic autonomy. It cannot be said the same thing when it comes to the audience, as there can be differences between what they think it's (un)ethical and the filmmaker's own position. I recommend this article that tackles this subject and the interesting part was the one that answered the question if the subject is to be treated differently, depending if they are average people of famous people:

“We say this to everyone at the beginning, we say you’re going to see this film before it’s done. You can see it when it can still be changed. We’re going to try to convince you that we need you in this movie; that it’s important for the story that it’s good for society in general to tell this story, and why your part of it is so important. At the end of the day, if I can’t convince you we’ll take you out of the movie.”

Quinn then went on to explain that the rules that apply to an average person, might not apply to someone who is already famous.

“If they’re already famous, they already have agency in the world,” Quinn said. “We want to get the facts right of course, and if it’s really something that bothers you or that you’re not happy with, you’re going to be listened to. But at the end of the day it has to be my decision.”

This doesn't mean there is a complete disregard towards someone just because they are famous, but the lines are drawn a bit differently when someone is a public figure and has consented to being filmed and appear in a documentary.

Now, how do all these ethical questions work on that particular part in Burn the Stage? When it comes to a documentary, in the best case scenario, the subjects consent to being filmed, they sign a contract. If there's something that should definitely not be seen, that part does not end up in the final cut or simply, not being filmed. As an audience, we have the outsider's point of view, which means we cannot possibly know what kind of discussions or agreements have taken place. The logical option is to understand that in that particular moment when Jungkook was sick, he more likely had not even payed attention to the camera as being intrusive. Not just because of the state he was in, but also because the camera is always there, ever since the beginning. If, after the entire situation, he would want that footage to not be included, he could have had the option to say so, but since that was not the case, we can assume that he consented to it. Of course we could come up with a bunch of scenarios, but that is too much speculation about information that we are simply not privy to so there's no point in going into that direction.

As I mentioned above, the way in which an audience perceives something shown in the documentary could be different than what was the filmmaker's intent, or in this case, also Big Hit. Before I proceed I would like to mention that when it comes to such situations we have to ask ourselves: is it gratuitous or it's there to reflect a reality? The purpose of the documentary was to show life on tour. It means that in such a work environment and given their profession, accidents can happen, people can get sick. It's not uncommon. And if the point is to show reality, then it makes sense that the decision was to film and include that particular situation. But why is there such a strong reaction to it? Is it because of the emotional connection fans have with the person being filmed? This is one answer and it's to be expected (I'm not judging it). Would this reaction be the same if the documentary was about a random average person? We should ask ourselves that, especially when we question intent because it's only fair that the audience as well can be aware of their own bias or preconceived notions.

#bts #bts discourse #bts documentary #burn the stage #documentary ethics

33 notes · View notes

mongeese · 3 years

Text

In honor of the TMA finale, I want to talk about Jon. Or rather, how the Web and Jonah Magnus used Jon. A few episodes back there was this line:

ANNABELLE CANE: “We found the one we believed most likely to bring about their manifestations. We marked him young, guided his path as best we could. And then, we took his voice.”

Something about that last sentence struck me. It just felt so horrible, at least as bad as Elias orchestrating all of Jon’s trauma. I didn’t know why, out of all the terrible things in tma, “we took his voice” was the thing that felt the most terrifying, but it did. Still does.

I realized, though, that almost all of Jon’s trauma relates to his body, with a few exceptions. Think about it: The Hive burrowed into him, Jude Perry burnt his hand, Daisy kidnapped him and held a knife to his throat, Nikola Orsinov kidnapped him and threatened to take his skin, Jared took his rib, he was literally killed in an explosion - et cetera. Most of his marks are physical.

That’s not to say he didn’t get psychological trauma from all of that, of course he did. My boy has been through a lot. Way too much. But through all of it, he had his voice. That was his own, or so he thought. In season 2 especially, it’s really easy to tell he used the tapes as a defense mechanism, and I personally think it’s a way for him to exercise some power over his situation. In episode 39, there’s the line: “I refuse to become another goddamn mystery.” Even if he can’t control what’s happening, he can record it. Save it, so that no one else has to live through what he did, or at least they’ll be prepared. At times, that’s his only way of fighting back against the shitty system he’s been placed into.

That’s why it’s so devastating that the Web took that from him. More than that, Jon’s recordings have been serving the Web all along. His body has been violated time and time again, and the one thing he had left - his voice - turned out to have been serving the same powers he’s been trying so hard to fight again. The Magnus Archives is a horror podcast, indeed.

After the finale, I also think that’s part of why Jon was so determined to end the world and trap the Fears. Part of it was a selfless desire to do good, sure, but a part of it was also one last desperate attempt to wrest control of his life back from the forces that have been manipulating him since the beginning. The Web/Jonah Magnus took everything from him - I think learning they took his voice too was the last straw. He wanted to hurt the things that had hurt him, he didn’t want to give in to their grand scheme that had wrecked his life. And I want to be clear, I absolutely do not blame Jon nor do I think that makes him a bad person. He is 100% justified in seeking revenge! He deserves it!

I do think it’s interesting that in trying to recover agency over his life, Jon was prepared to essentially give up his humanity. I mean, the pupil of the Eye is pretty eldritch monster. He tells Martin, “What’s left of me after this, you can’t see that.” He wouldn’t be serving the powers, but he’s sacrificing himself and his world to stop them. Now, that decision isn’t informed solely on Jon’s desire for bodily autonomy and/or revenge, but I do think that’s a significant part of it. I guess that to me, it shows that Jon would rather give up his body and his life entirely than be used any more than he already has. That just proves even more how deeply he was affected by all the manipulation, how much he hates that even his voice, his main defense, was used against him.

That leaves two interpretations of the actual outcome, which is that Jon gave in! He let the Web win! On one hand, you could think of that as a defeatist narrative, that after all of his struggle Jon wasn’t able to take his life back. However, I prefer to take a slightly more optimistic approach. I maintain that it was very much his decision in the end; he wasn’t being used or manipulated, he just genuinely wanted to be with the man he loved, whatever the cost. I think that means that Jon was ready to give up all his (rightful!) anger, all his self-sacrificial ideals, his complete determination to destroy the Fears, for Martin’s sake. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s an incredibly tragic, deeply terrifying story, but it is a more poetic end, in my opinion. When it came down to it, nothing was more important to them than being together, and that at least is something beautiful, regardless of whether or not you think they made the right decision.

#i hope this is coherent i just have a lot of thoughts #can u tell i hate the web a lot and the thought of being controlled terrifies me #anyway i love jon so fucking much i dont talk about him enough #mag 200 #the magnus archvies #tma spoilers #tma

20 notes · View notes

weil-weil-lautre · 3 years

Link

Jürgen Habermas may be the foremost intellectual in Europe. Since the 1960s his scholarship has set research agendas in philosophy, sociology, and history, while his newspaper articles and interviews have steered public debates on topics from the memory of the Holocaust to the Iraq War. He may also be the foremost intellectual of Europe, advocating for the continent’s economic and political integration.

In recent years, as that integration has stalled, one might have expected Habermas’s public interventions to gain in urgency. Instead, the opposite has happened: Although he has been as philosophically and politically productive as ever, his work has seemed to lose its relevance. Political developments against which he has struggled for decades, from populist nationalism to the erosion of the welfare state, seem more intractable than ever, while problems on which his political theory has little purchase, such as the growing influence within Europe of an illiberal and undemocratic China, appear ever more pressing. Still eminent in the academy but increasingly marginal outside it, the theorist best known for his notion of the “public sphere,” in which intellectuals influence politics by shaping public opinion, risks becoming the most compelling counterexample to his own ideal.

Habermas’s scholarly work and political commitments are held together by a worldview that expands on the ideas of the 18th-century Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. Yet, since the beginning of his career, Habermas has been shadowed by doubts about whether this vision can apply to politics. He has cast about for cultural resources, from the heritage of the French Revolution to the power of indignation, to generate a popular will in support of his program.

Since the turn of the century, this search has led Habermas to reconsider religion—to be more specific, Western Christianity—as a possible ally. Culminating in his recent Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie (Another History of Philosophy, 2019), which has not yet been translated into English, his turn to religion is best understood as yet another attempt to overcome an insuperable contradiction at the very foundation of his philosophical project.

The British historian Perry Anderson once defined the task of Marxism after the collapse of hopes for a proletarian revolution as the “search for subjective agencies” capable of overturning capitalism. Habermas’s growing irrelevance suggests that European liberalism has mistakenly committed itself to a similar project of trying to find volunteers for its predetermined goals—and that this project may come to the same bitter end as communist aspirations. His decline as a public intellectual is more than the product of changing cultural trends or unfortunate circumstances that have thwarted some of his cherished causes. It represents the potential exhaustion of the sort of politics that his career embodies.

In his first major book, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962), Habermas already positioned himself as Kant’s heir. As he saw it, Kant had articulated a system of morality in which all human beings should be treated as free and equal. Kant argued that this system is immanent in the structure of rational thought. All human beings, insofar as we think, are capable of becoming “autonomous” moral agents, recognizing independently that the “moral law” should apply to everyone. From this basis, Kant claimed that liberalism, a political and economic regime founded on the recognition of universal rights ensuring freedom and equality, corresponds to human nature—and that its global spread is the trajectory of history.

Inspired by Kant, Habermas nevertheless recognized several problems in his thought. Kant’s concept of autonomy seemed tainted by a defense of laissez-faire capitalism. People cannot really be autonomous, Habermas countered, unless they have a material basis for living independently. In the modern era, this means that they need the support of a welfare state. Since an expansive government, however, can undermine the independence of its citizens, it is imperative that the latter influence decision-making through voting and debate in the “public sphere.” Only with economic security and political participation can individuals see themselves and others as free and equal.

In the following decades, Habermas devoted his scholarly energies to reconstructing Kant’s account of the moral law, which appears to him as implicit in interpersonal communication rather than, as Kant had it, private thought. According to Habermas, whenever one person speaks with another, this person makes claims about what is true and gives what they hope the other person will take to be good reasons for accepting it. Although we often deceive each other, every conversation is premised on the possibility that human beings can come to an agreement guided by reason, without force or fraud.

As Habermas put it in his 1965 lecture “Knowledge and Interests,” every statement that we make to another person is a “foreshadowing of the right kind of life” (one based on autonomy) and a political demand that we work toward a society in which “communication can become, for everyone and with everyone, dialogue free of domination.”

But there is a tension in this theory. Habermas noted in the Public Sphere that Kant claimed that history would bring about a “cosmopolitan order … under which human beings could really get their right.” But, behind Kant’s “official” teaching, Habermas argued, must stand an “unofficial,” esoteric doctrine, in which instead of waiting for the end of history, “politics had first to push” its way there. In order to work effectively toward the goal of autonomy for all, political action would have to be directed by a collective “will,” shaped by intellectuals “giving guidance to the public.” This “unofficial” Kantian doctrine has been the banner under which Habermas has worked as an intellectual, trying to rally Europeans to the goal of autonomy.

Since the 1970s, Habermas has been concerned by two obstacles to this agenda. The first of these is economic. After the crisis caused by the oil shocks, Habermas came to believe that Europe’s nation-states no longer weigh enough in the balance of the global economy to protect the redistributive policies that make autonomy meaningful for ordinary people. In a globalizing economy, he has warned repeatedly, “Keynesianism in one country” is no longer possible. The welfare state must be recreated at a continental scale.

Habermas’s second problem concerns the collective “will” that is supposed to work toward autonomy. In Towards a Reconstruction of Historical Materialism (1975), he began to argue that such a will could not be located in any of the historical identities—class, religion, nation—that have organized European politics. Rather it should be found in a new kind of “collective identity” that would “no longer be anchored in a backward glance.” This new identity must be, in fact, not only European but universal, available to every human being without exclusion. Just as social democracy had to be extended from particular countries to a united continent, Europeans had to reimagine themselves as members of a common humanity.

This call for a collective identity that includes potentially everyone was a challenge the ideas of Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), the Nazi and Catholic political theorist who influenced the thought of Hitler’s regime and postwar West German conservatism. Schmitt argued that politics is founded on a “friend-enemy distinction” defining an in-group against a threatening out-group. He further claimed that modern politics is dominated by concepts derived from Christian tradition—a point, he insisted, that applies even to supposedly rational Kantians like Habermas. There can be no viable form of collective identity, Schmitt suggests, without powerful and potentially dangerous shared emotions and an aura of the sacred.

Habermas has often rejected Schmitt’s “clerico-fascist” ideas, with particular fervor in a 2011 article on Schmitt’s concept of the “The Political.” There he argued that liberal democracies neither have nor require a “religious aura.” They are based on “respect for the inviolability of human dignity,” which, he maintained, is a secular concept independent of any “friend-enemy” distinction. Appeals to collective will should be made on this rational, inclusive basis—or none at all.

Throughout his interventions in European politics, however, Habermas has been unable to stick to this formula. He has often called on Europeans to generate a collective will around a shared past, powerful emotions, and values of heroism and sacrifice, which border on the irrational and quasi-religious forces Schmitt saw as essential to politics. These injunctions, at odds with his own theoretical commitments, have been less than coherent intellectually and less than successful politically. They reveal the inadequacy of what Habermas has promoted since the 1980s as the “collective identity” to replace class, religion, and nation for Europe: “constitutional patriotism.”

Habermas developed the concept of “constitutional patriotism” during the Historikerstreit (“historians’ dispute”) of the late 1980s. During this period, West German conservative politicians and historians argued that their fellow citizens nursed a morbid sense of shared guilt over the crimes of the Nazi regime. Thinkers like Ernst Nolte insisted that Germans must develop a more positive national identity. These appeals often descended into downplaying the Holocaust, shifting the focus to German victims of Soviet reprisals, and they accelerated a rightward shift in the political culture.

Habermas was the most vocal opponent of this trend, and he cemented his status as a leading figure of the German center-left. Breaking through debates over historical guilt, he argued that his countrymen ought to shift their attention, and their affection, to the West German Constitution of 1949 and the broader European liberal democratic tradition on which it was based. They should find their identity in a “constitutional patriotism” potentially open to all human beings, rather than in positive or negative feelings about their national history.

While the Historikerstreit positioned Habermas as the champion of a post-national, progressive West Germany, he overplayed his hand. As the East German government collapsed in 1989, he insisted that “constitutional patriotism” meant that German reunification must not proceed on the basis of national identity. Rather, citizens from the former communist state should join West Germans to draft a new constitution, so that all could feel united by agreed-upon civic values, rather than their unchosen ethnic heritage. This proposal found little support, a failure that bitterly disappointed Habermas. In an interview given in 1993 (in The Past as Future), he complained that post-reunification German politics was based “vague appeals to national feeling” instead of constitutional values.

Rather than deciding that constitutional patriotism could not serve as the sort of collective identity his Kantian politics required, Habermas shifted focus from Germany to Europe. Since the days of the Historikerstreit, he has argued that Europeans should see themselves as united by the legacy of the French Revolution and should formalize their identity by creating a new constitution for a supernational European state, one that would transcend economic and legal integration to create a democratic policy. This decadeslong campaign seems from the perspective of the present like a larger-scale version of his unsuccessful intervention in German reunification. Both have been dogged not only by the resistance of public opinion and political elites, but also by an incoherent view of history.

While his ideal of collective identity seems to require Europeans to reject what he once dismissed as the “backward glance,” Habermas appeals to the legacy of the French Revolution in terms that echo the radical nationalism of 1789. In an essay written on the eve of its bicentennial (“Popular Sovereignty as Procedure”), he argued that what had begun with the fall of the Bastille was not over, “[r]ather it is a project we must carry forward in the consciousness of a revolution both permanent and quotidian.” The “ideals of 1789” must inspire passionate identification and deliberate action in the present. Otherwise, they “will not take root in our souls.”

With such language, Habermas spoke the language of the revolution’s leaders, who had tried to make the values of human rights and democracy part of what they called moeurs, or social practices and emotional experiences. Their efforts could be violent and illiberal. Creating a new civic religion centered on the rights of individuals and a passionate commitment to the nation led, for example, to the persecution of Catholics.

Although he has shied away from the revolution’s violence, Habermas has often described 1789 as the genesis of modern Europe and argued that a sense of connection to such historical events is vital to the “constitutional patriotism” he favors. In a 2001 talk at Washington University (“On Law and Disagreement”), he said that “citizens must see themselves as heirs to a founding generation, carrying on with the common project.”

It is by no means obvious, however, that citizens of contemporary Western democracies see themselves as heirs of the revolution. As Habermas noted, European countries today are receiving more and more non-European immigrants with different worldviews, creating “divided societies” without a “strong value consensus.” It is doubtful whether young people in Europe today will learn to think of themselves as the heirs of 1789 if they do not come to identify with a culture, nation, or civilization that transmits this revolutionary heritage to them.

In an increasingly diverse Europe, ties of symbolic filiation are fraying. As Habermas’s own emotionally laden rhetoric of inheritances, legacies, and heirs suggests, the abstract civic ideals written into a constitution have meaning for citizens only to the extent that the latter already feel themselves to be part of a community to whom those ideals are addressed. So Habermas’s references to 1789 as a point of identification for Europeans contradict his own political theory—and Europe’s social realities.

No more coherent are his frequent appeals to the collective emotion of “indignation,” which he imagines all of us feel when human dignity is violated. The idea of indignation allows Habermas to imagine collective political action might be possible in the absence of traditional identities. In 1992, for example, after incidents of violence against Turkish immigrants in Germany were answered with mass protests, Habermas wrote to Die Zeit in support of demonstrators’ post-nationalist “indignation” on behalf of newcomers.

But indignation does not necessarily serve liberal, cosmopolitan ends. In a 1963 article in Merkur magazine, Habermas denounced the West German state’s campaign of repression against homosexual Germans, which he saw as fueled by homophobic “moral indignation.” As he insisted that people’s private sexual practices should be protected from the indignation of their fellow citizens, however, he argued that “not all indignation leads to witch-hunts” and that “political enlightenment also requires moral motivations.” But in the absence of shared values about the sorts of practices that our feelings about “human dignity” commit us to defend, indignation carries the risk of degenerating into a just such “witch hunts”—or into impotent moralizing.

The latter was the tone that Habermas struck during the Iraq War, castigating the George W. Bush administration for its violations of international law. He saved his most strident criticisms, however, for European leaders, who were unable to develop a united foreign policy as a counterweight to U.S. power. In a 2003 open letter (“February 15, or What Binds Europeans Together”), he deplored this “shipwreck.” Habermas was to some extent concerned by the split between the historic member states of the European Union and the new members from Eastern Europe, which generally fell into line behind the United States. But he was most animated by the failure of Germany, France, and Italy to turn their diplomatic corps’ outrage over U.S. policy into something more substantive. He was also, however, embarrassed and compromised by his own previous support for NATO’s 1999 bombing campaign in Serbia, which had begun without authorization from the United Nations. He struggled to explain why that apparent breach of international law had been acceptable, while U.S. action in Iraq was not.

Habermas found signs of hope, however, in the “power of feelings” that had inspired millions of Europeans to protest against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But this indignation could not give force to European foreign policy. Without the orientation provided by shared values and a common identity, popular feelings lack the sustained motivating power to shape elites’ behavior. And the United States is hardly Europe’s worst problem. In recent years, as Russia and China have made their influence felt in Europe, often exploiting the same divisions between Western and Eastern countries on which the Bush administration played, neither the threat of division nor popular disgust for Moscow’s and Beijing’s human rights abuses has seemed effective at moving Europe’s leaders toward a united foreign policy.

The legacy of 1789 and the feeling of indignation are not sufficient to produce the collective will that Habermas sees as essential to the realization of the Kantian ideal. In moments of frustration with the halting progress toward European integration, he seems to recognize this inadequacy, and he calls upon supplementary virtues of “heroism” and “sacrifice.”

However, there is no place for these values in Habermas’s theory. Indeed, he often speaks of them with contempt, associating them with the worst excesses of nationalism. In a characteristic moment, just weeks after the 9/11 attacks, he scoffed at Americans’ references to first responders as “heroes.” The “connotations” of heroism, he warned, evoke troubling political memories for a German. Quoting Bertolt Brecht, he concluded, “Unhappy is the country that needs heroes.”

Habermas did not recall that in The Inclusion of the Other (1996) he had demanded European leaders make a “heroic effort,” sacrificing their national identities and short-term interests for an integrated supernational polity. Later, in his On the Constitution of Europe (2011) he again summoned Europe’s “frightened” elites to show “courage” and bemoaned their inability to deepen the European Union’s cohesion. Europe is indeed “unhappy” if its future depends on intellectuals’ ability to coax elites into living up to values of heroism that they themselves despise.

The legacy of the French Revolution, mass emotion, and virtuous elites are only some of the incoherent and ineffective cultural resources that Habermas has drawn on in support of his Kantian political ideal. Such resources are supposed to motivate European citizens to forge a common will, while enabling them to break with historical forms of collective identity. None of them, however, seem to function in the absence of the traditions that Habermas intends them to replace. In an implicit admission of this failure, Habermas has turned in recent years to Christianity as another such resource.

In his recent Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie, Habermas argues—in a version Schmitt’s claims that he once vehemently rejected—that Christianity has been a historical source for many of liberalism’s core concepts. He insists that Christians today can contribute to the liberal project by “translating” Kantian imperatives into religious language and inspiring believers to advance liberal ends.

Much of Auch eine Geschichte can be seen as a quarrel with Schmitt, but also with the French sociologist of religion Émile Durkheim (1858-1917). The latter argued that politics is always underwritten by a sense of group identity generated in collective rituals through which individuals unite in a group defined by its allegiance to something “sacred.” A liberal democrat and Kantian like Habermas, Durkheim posited that human rights can only be cherished and defended by citizens who are united by a national identity indistinguishable in its intensity from religion.

Habermas notes that Durkheim called for the “renewal of solidarity” through emotion-generating collective rites, such as Bastille Day parades, in order to rescue liberalism from “the abyss of anomie,” or the decline of binding social norms. Yet, Habermas insists that while Durkheim’s ideas may have applied in ancient societies, they are not relevant today. His turn to religion will not go so far as to admit, as Schmitt and Durkheim do, that liberal democracy must itself be a kind of collective faith if it is to survive.

Habermas’s turn to religion is unlikely to offer a more successful prop for his “unofficial” Kantian politics than his previous appeals to 1789, indignation, and heroism. Even as he invokes Christianity as a means of evoking a collective will, Habermas continues to hold at arm’s length the idea that liberal democratic states must actively generate strong allegiances to a shared identity that is smaller than all of humanity. Instead of calling on the state to foster a form of patriotism more robust and less inclusive than Kant’s cosmopolitan ideal, Habermas appeals to religion, as he once appealed to history or emotion, to supply the willpower still absent in his own system. But the post-Reformation Christianity, filtered through Enlightenment philosophy, that he promotes as a resource for liberalism is already much more culturally specific and less inclusive than he acknowledges. Many Christian theologians, such as John Milbank, reject his instrumental conception of their tradition.

As Habermas reaches unconvincingly for Christianity as another stopgap in his search for a new form of post-national collective identity for Europe, Schmitt’s influence continues to grow. In a 1985 essay on Schmitt, Habermas asserted that his nemesis was unlikely to ever gain a wide readership the English-speaking world. Since the 1990s, however, Anglophone scholarship has been marked by a Schmitt revival, first led by figures on the left such as Chantal Mouffe, whose ideas have also exercised a great influence outside the academy, inspiring left-populist parties in Europe such as Podemos and La France Insoumise. More recently, right-wing imitators of Schmitt’s theologically inflected fascism, such as Adrian Vermeule, have risen to intellectual prominence, and perhaps soon to political influence.

More troublingly, Schmitt has become a major point of reference for leaders of the rising global power. China’s use of Schmittian theory to justify its recent crackdown in Hong Kong has been widely noted, but, as Gloria Davies warned in her 2007 article “Habermas in China,” if Schmitt has taken off in China, this is in part Habermas’s fault. Widely read in the 1990s and early 2000s by reform-minded intellectuals, Habermas sparked outrage when he seemed to violate his own cosmopolitan liberal theory by endorsing NATO’s bombing of Serbia, which infamously destroyed China’s embassy in Belgrade.

Habermas’s most widely read article in favor of airstrikes against Serbia, “Bestiality and Humanity,” was structured by claims that Slobodan Milosevic’s regime was committing crimes against humanity—and by an attack on Schmitt, who had dismissed the idea of crimes against humanity with the phrase, “humanity, bestiality.” Outraged Chinese intellectuals such as Zhang Rulun countered that by supporting the violation of Serbian sovereignty, Habermas was more like Schmitt than he realized. Zhang argued that Habermas had revealed Western liberals, for all their talk of “democratic procedure” and “dialogue,” had no more respect for international law than the “rogue” states they wanted to bomb.

Zhang has revealed a fact about Habermas he has often been at pains to conceal, if not escape: That behind his liberal veneer is an emotional and ultimately irrational heart. But what afflicts Habermas is less hypocrisy than self-denial—a lack of self-knowledge that has made it impossible to avoid a drift toward political irrelevance. What remains to be seen is whether the same is true of Western political culture writ large.

#sorry for the #long post #FP is behind a paywall #habermas #archivist #quote #jurgen habermas #political theory #philosophy

20 notes · View notes

comrade-meow · 3 years

Link

Soviet anti-prostitution poster: “After the destruction of capitalism — the proletariat will abolish prostitution — the great scourge of humanity!”

In the first part of this series, we deconstructed the notion that “transwomen are women” from a Marxist perspective. In that piece I said that notion is perhaps the most destructive facing the left today, but I’m going to have to reconsider that assertion as we tackle the next anti-feminist/anti-Marxist “big lie” facing the left today, the notion that “sex work is work”. Marxism has always recognized prostitution as one of the vilest forms of exploitation; every major Marxist revolutionary has condemned it in unequivocal terms. The Communist Manifesto openly proclaims that the socialist revolution will do away with “prostitution both public and private.”[1] In her first major work, Nadezhda Krupskaya, described how revolutionary workers, during one night of major labor strikes, also directed their rage at the brothels, destroying eleven of them in a single night.[2] And, yet, despite this damning and overwhelming Marxist condemnation of prostitution, the left has started to drink the “sex-work” Kool-Aid. This ranges from assertions that prostitution (and pornography, which is just filmed prostitution) is just a job like any other to outright proclaiming it liberating for women, a strike against bourgeois moralism! Pimps have become re-cast as “managers”, and johns as “clients”. Some so-called “Marxists” have even come out in support of collectivized brothels under socialism! Unsurprisingly, most of these declamations are being made by men who, distraught that the revolution wants to take away “their porn” and “their women”, are now trying to have their cake and eat it too by twisting the Marxist notion of free love and the Marxist attacks on bourgeois morality to suit their own exploitative ends. In this they are assisted by the “PhD Prostitutes”, well-off bourgeois women, often holding advanced degrees, who engage in prostitution as a lifestyle “choice”. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

But for now, we will leave these reactionary elements to stew where they are. First, it is incumbent to debunk the central assertion behind all of this, that “sex work is work”. To tear this apart, we need to first answer the question, what is labor? In his first major published work, The German Ideology, Marx defines labor as such:

“The first premise of all human existence and, therefore, of all history, [is that humans] must be in a position to live in order to be able to ‘make history’. But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life.”[3]

To put it in more succinct terms, labor is the process by which human beings create, and facilitate the use, of products of social value. Does the act of sexual intercourse in of itself have social value? Does pornographic material have social value? The answer is no. Sexual intercourse is not a fundamental human need in the way food, water, clothing, and shelter are. Nor does intercourse in of itself help us interpret and understand the world in the way that science and art do. Intercourse does take on social value when its purpose is reproduction, in that case it becomes reproductive labor. It also holds social value when it becomes a means of interpersonal communication, such as intercourse between lovers, but that is not necessarily labor as it does not produce anything of wider use for a community. In Prostitution and Ways of Fighting It, Alexandra Kollontai said, “prostitutes are all those who avoid the necessity of working by giving themselves to a man, either on a temporary basis or for life.”[4] She is clearly separating it from labor, rather defining it as the last act of the most desperate and rejected members of society. What does prostitution create, then? It creates, and increases, alienation and exploitation of the worst kind. Kollontai also railed against prostitution because it “threatens the feeling of solidarity and comradeship between working men and women, the members of the workers’ republic. And this feeling is the foundation and the basis of the communist society we are building and making a reality.”[5]

But if prostitution is not labor, what is it? The answer is simple. Sexual slavery; contractual rape. Continuing on her points already made, Kollontai reasoned that “Prostitution arose with the first states as the inevitable shadow of the official institution of marriage, which was designed to preserve the rights of private property and to guarantee property inheritance through a line of lawful heirs.”[6] This is a summation of what Engels described in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State; that prostitution allowed for men to engage in carnal relations outside of their marriage. In the society that gave birth to prostitution, women were either the de facto property of men, or their de jure property, as in the case of wives. The prostitute was essentially a slave, with no rights or autonomy of her own; her entire existence was devoted to serving men. This continued in the age of feudalism, where prostitution was highly organized and ubiquitous, in order to maintain the chastity and faithfulness of men’s daughters and wives, who remained their property. But it is capitalism that has brought forth the full horrific nature of prostitution, where now the whole lot of woman is threatened with prostitution if they cannot afford to feed themselves and their families, or pay their bills, afford an education, or any of the other necessities working people struggle to obtain and secure. Again we see the separation of prostitution from labor; the prostitute in capitalist society is the woman who cannot make an existence by labor alone. The prostitute is not even considered a human being, but rather a commodity. They are below even the lumpenproletariat, that great mass that contains both those almost totally squeezed dry by capitalism, as well as the criminal element of society, which are still recognized as human. This is the class to which the pimp belongs to.[7] The pimp is a parody of the parasitical capitalist who profits off the labor of the working class; in the case of the pimp, he profits off the dehumanized woman turned commodity.

The industrial and technological revolutions that have occurred under capitalism have only made the prostitute’s life worse. With the advent of mass pornography, especially in the modern age of mass and instant communication, the prostitute is no longer the commodity of just one john, but of millions of johns, who fuck her by proxy; in turn the pimp’s profits are doubled, tripled, quadrupled beyond anything they ever were. And not just women now, but also homosexual and gender non-conforming men, who as “exiles” from the community of men are increasingly finding themselves subjected to the lot previously reserved almost exclusively for women. Almost every pornography website has a section for “transsexual” porn. In prostitution we see the development of patriarchy and capitalism in microcosm; the mass dehumanization of human beings aimed at smashing our solidarity with one another, leaving us increasingly alienated and isolated, viewing one another not as comrades in a common struggle, but vessels to derive selfish pleasure.

The pro-“sex work” advocates would have one believe that entering prostitution is a “choice” freely made on the part of the prostitute, and to deny this is to deny the prostitute’s “agency”. To illustrate their point, they trot out the “PhD Prostitutes” mentioned above. But Marxists should know better than to take such evidence at face value. The Marxist method looks not at the conditions of individuals isolated from society as a whole, but at the individual within the larger social context they exist in. A study conducted by the Soroptimist International, “an international volunteer organization working to improve the lives of women and girls, in local communities and throughout the world” found that most prostitutes “were sexually and physically abused as children, deprived and pushed into selling sex at age 14, on average.” It also goes on to say:

“In one study of prostituted women, 90 percent of the women had been physically battered in childhood; 74 percent were sexually abused in their families, with 50 percent also having been sexually abused by someone outside the family. Of 123 survivors at the Council for Prostitution Alternatives in Portland, Oregon (an agency offering support, education, shelter and access to health services to clients of all sex industries), 85 percent reported a history of incest, 90 percent reported a history of physical abuse, and 98 percent cited a history of emotional abuse.”

The study also notes that women of color, women from the third world, and indigenous women are even more likely to be forced into prostitution.[8] Additionally “71 percent reported being physically abused and 63 percent reported being raped by a customer. In a rigorous study of pimps in seven cities in the United States, 58 percent of prostitutes reported violence, while 36 reported having abusive clients.” It also challenges the notion that “high-class” “call-girl” prostitution is safer than street prostitution, finding that escorts will be abused by johns at least twice a year. But perhaps the most damning evidence presented in the study to the “choice” argument, is the evidence that “more than 90 percent of prostituted women in various surveys want to leave prostitution, but lack viable options.”[9]

Despite this, the pro-“sex work” crowd insist that prostitution is not contractual rape, because prostitutes are giving their consent. But how can “consent” obtained under economic coercion truly be consent? This sounds like arguments put forward in defense of capitalism as a whole; for example, that workers who do not like the conditions of their work or their wages can always “choose” to get a different job. Marxists rightly recognize this argument as a diversion, because of the external circumstances that prevent individuals from just easily choosing the job they want to do. It is the same with the prostitute; her “consent” is only a passive consent, not the active consent that recognized as being necessary for a truly consensual sexual relationship. The “PhD Prostitutes” who are able to freely choose and screen their “clients” represent an incredibly small minority, and perhaps cannot even be considered prostitutes, but bourgeois dilettantes “playfully” aping the suffering of the classes beneath them.

Similarly, abolitionists have come under attack from the “sex work” crowd, being accused of moralism and puritanism. They argue that criminalization only worsens the plight of prostitutes, whereas bringing them into the recognized workforce through legalization and unionization will ease their suffering. In this first part, they are correct. The criminalization of the prostitute is an expression of not just bourgeois, but patriarchal hypocrisy, because the prostitute is essentially punished for trying to survive, punished for fulfilling the desires of the ruling class. The second part, however, is dead wrong. The countries that have legalized prostitution have seen a dramatic increase in human trafficking, because contrary to the free choice arguments of the “sex work” hypocrites, there exists nowhere near enough women who want to commodify themselves to meet the demand.[10] In Australia and New Zealand, legalization has decreased the agency of prostitutes, and increased the power of pimps, by introducing the “all-inclusive”, a single fee paid to the pimp instead of directly to the prostitute, essentially depriving prostituted women of what little power of negotiation they had.[11] In Germany, a pregnant prostitute was coerced into having group sex with a bunch of men who “wanted” a pregnant woman; under German law, this was perfectly legal. The prostitute in question said she felt like she had no power to say no, as her agency had been usurped by the brothel.[12] Similarly, the “sex worker unions” advocated for by the “sex work” activists are another vehicle for pimps and their supporters to exercise their dominance; the Scarlet Alliance, Australia’s largest “sex worker union” even harassed survivors of the sex industry.[13] Rosa Luxemburg did advocate for the formation of revolutionary unions of prostitutes, but not to “regulate” prostitution, but to smash it. In fact, the advocates of full legalization (with or without regulation) belong in the company of fascists, not revolutionary socialists. The Nazis established an extensive and centralized system of brothels in cities and military camps, as well as in the concentration camps themselves. When Franco seized power in Spain, he overturned the abolitionist reforms of the Republic, and re-legalized prostitution so that men were guaranteed their brides were virgins and not “spoiled goods”.[14]

The most effective method of combatting prostitution has been the Nordic Model, which is made up of two components: 1) The decriminalization of selling sex, and the criminalization of pimps and johns; and 2) The creation and strengthening of state resources, such as education, professional training, counseling, and community support, to help prostitutes make a safe exit from the industry. Countries that have adopted the Nordic Model, such as Sweden, Norway, and Iceland have seen dramatic reductions in prostitution. The Swedish Ministry of Justice found that since the adoption of the Sex Buyer Law in 1999, prostitution has fully halved, and continues to decline.[15] Additionally, no evidence has been found that prostitutes are being forced underground as a result of this policy.[16] And most importantly, not a single prostitute has been murdered by a john since the law came into effect. What the pimps, johns, and their apologists cannot stand about the Nordic Model is that it ends their monopoly on power, and actually punishes their exploitation of women, all while empowering their former slaves. This is why they always try to erect obfuscations against the Nordic Model, even outright crying about how it victimizes the “poor johns”. Some of the more cunning faux leftists argue against the Nordic Model on the basis that it increases the power of the bourgeois state and police; or they claim that there is no use in combatting prostitution since no reform under capitalism will eliminate it. On the contrary, the Nordic Model represents a perfect example of a transitional demand. Trotsky defined the transitional demand as being a bridge between the minimum demands of social democracy and the maximum demands of revolutionary socialism; demands that would allow the oppressed to win not just key reforms, but also to increase their strength and confidence against the capitalist state. Transitional demands are not just calls for reform, but calls for openly revolutionary action that will spark reforms and strengthen existing ones. The Nordic Model is a perfect example precisely because it is a reform that strikes at the heart of the patriarchal and capitalist system; it allows the masses to see just who supports and benefits from prostitution. Eugene Debs, when he was city clerk of Terre Haute, advocated for a kind of proto-Nordic Model, refusing to assess fines on prostitutes, because the police took no action against the pimps or the usually wealthy johns. As for the false concerns about increasing the power of the bourgeois state and police, the Nordic Model, like any good transitional reform, forces the state and the police to actually work for, not against, the people they claim to represent. Would these same “socialists” so worried about the cops being unleashed on pimps and johns have cried the same tears when Eisenhower sent in the National Guard to enforce the desegregation of schools in the Jim Crow south? It would, at the very least, be amusing to see a socialist cite this as an example of giving the bourgeois state “too much power”.

To reiterate, every socialist revolution has struck with the full force of its power against prostitution and the sex industry. Every major socialist revolutionary has recognized the emancipation of women from sexual slavery as one of the basic tasks of the revolution. These “sex work socialists” are more than just hypocrites and revisionists, they are outright misogynistic reactionaries. The degeneration of the revolutionary left in the western world, especially in the Anglophone world is what has allowed these trends to sprout and grow. The pernicious influence of neoliberalism and postmodernism have infected the body of the revolutionary left; slowly eating away at it like gradual poisoning. The Marxist concept of free love aims to eliminate the current patriarchal system of sexual coercion and exploitation, and replace it with a humane and open system of actively consensual intimacy. Those who believe otherwise would best be served by dropping the act, and joining the Libertarian Party, because that is where their politics truly lie. The left needs to remember its mission; the liberation of the oppressed peoples of the world, and take an active stand against the pimps and johns playing dress-up as communists.

#Anglo.txt

15 notes · View notes

ghostmartyr · 5 years

Text

SnK 119 Thoughts

In the next thrilling episode of things going much worse than they needed to, all my fake internet money is going towards Historia actually incubating Eren’s missing leg under her shirt.

Through the power of Paths he rips his way out of Historia’s stomach while NPC Farmer Guy watches in complete horror and Levi bleeds out on the kitchen table because everyone is too distracted by the latest bloody mess.

The rest of the manga is just devoted to extreme Biblical discourse over who is playing which part in the story, and how many ways can they be Frankensteined together.

With bonus points going to Levi sharing Jesus’ birthday.

Christ Bowl: Resurrection.

Like Serum Bowl only somehow worse for everyone.

Okay so a lot happened.

I wanna make sure I’ve got it.

Lessee.

Yeah.

So.

A bunch of people died.

Reiner was not one of them, because death would impede the manga’s one constant of Reiner suffering.

That’s it, that’s the chapter.

Geez, okay. So in one corner we’ve got all of the folks who Zeke turned into titans. And Zeke actually made that cog of the plot spin forward. So we’ve got a city full of titans. In previous times this was undesired and bad, and it still sort of is, but the people these titans will eat are Marleyan soldiers, so it’s a lot easier to not feel so bad about the cannibalism.

Then we’ve got Porco Galliard.

Who is apparently dead now.

Falco, who is not dead, no longer has a brother. Because Colt wanted to hug his baby brother during his time of need more than he wanted to live. So Colt’s dead too.

Zeke is somehow not dead. Still.

Gabi is keeping up the Braun tradition of living to survive further trauma.

Mikasa, Armin, Jean, and Connie continue to be good children who deserve only nice things as they try to clean up the mess their one friend has managed to create around them.

And Eren’s head gets blown off.

Which it’s sort of hard to argue he doesn’t deserve, all things considered. ‘All things’ including the part where he’s probably not going to stay dead if he even reaches that point.

...

Okay.

My main desire with this post is really just to scribble red marker everywhere and draw tiny explosions with the footnote, “things went wrong,” and leave it at that. This is very much one of this series’ chapters where I’d prefer to simply wait for what’s coming than to try to produce something meaningful over what we have.

The temptation to say this is all very rushed is very present, but I think that’s just because two characters with names die and the entire upper brass turns into titans in the space of forty pages.

Galliard’s been getting the crap beaten out of him every single fight. The impressive part is that he stays alive long enough to do something with his death instead of just getting killed.

Colt... yeah, people in hysterics don’t make good choices. I’ll come back to him with kinder words later, but mainly that.

I think I’m just a little in shock that the plot actually moved. While it’s gotten better over the years, the manga is still very much designed around paving a foundation with exposition, then hitting every single relevant beat of said exposition without pausing for air.

The threat of the military turning into titans has been around for months. It just. Finally really happened.

...Look, the manga might not want to take a breather, but I sure do. This is a lot of action dropping a lot of seeds, and part of me is still stuck on the fact that the grand titanization actually happened, and Galliard actually gets nommed.

Oki doki then.

Yay for fewer swords dangling over everyone?

Probably also a no on Jaws breaking Annie out? Falco won’t have the control to do it gently any time soon, and Falco, being a precious beacon of goodness, is not going to feel comfortable just cracking Annie open.

Hell. Some months I think would really go better without a post. With monthly series, there’s usually something each month that’s worth words, and I do think this still qualifies, but this really could use the cushioning of its future chapters. So many boxes got checked off for things happening so fast that it’s hard to gauge their impact. The smoke’s still clearing, and detailing the quality of the rising dust and ashes is not high on entertainment.

Oh well, into the cloud we go.

This month brought to you by brothers!

Colt and Falco; Porco and Marcel; Eren and Zeke. Brothers! Brothers feeling brotherly feelings and relating to each other through said feelings!

Or a series of older brothers severely traumatizing their younger siblings and making everything much worse by trying to be good big brothers in ways that lead to dead bodies littering the streets.

Reiner’s entire post-Warrior Candidate life happens because Marcel wants to keep his little brother safe.

It’s Zeke’s fault, but Colt hugging Falco means that Falco’s transformation kill Colt.

Zeke and Eren. Uh.

Bring out the red marker, because I think it would take less time to outline what area of the plot their grand plan hasn’t rained destruction all over.

This isn’t Evangelion, but good grief, if ever you wanted examples of people caring for each other as badly as they possibly can while maintaining vaguely good intentions, the sibling relationships covered in this chapter have your back.

Colt, to his credit, really is trying to be a good big brother, but. On the list of things Falco did not need, burning his brother to death is pretty high up there.

I’m going to try to stop being stunned by the fact this chapter really did happen now.

Colt, Gabi, and Falco have all been raised in an environment that encouraged hating themselves. The pinnacle of achievement in their lives is to be honored sacrifices for a country who doesn’t think they deserve life.

Gabi's been the star player in that show. Her innocence shatters with her psyche, and this arc has not been gentle in detailing that. She goes from being proud of her status and blowing things up with a laugh to shooting her greatest enemy in tears.

Falco’s been the precious cinnamon roll. He’s unfailingly kind. His goal has always been small: protect Gabi. He adjust to what he sees in front of him, and if it completely changes his worldview, that’s only the background. He’s still here for Gabi.

Colt, from the moment we meet him, is protecting his little brother. He picks Falco up and drags him away from trouble.

He’s Zeke’s successor, in theory. He doesn’t want Falco to ever inherit a Titan. That’s his role in the family. Their entire family is protected from the shame of his uncle’s rebellion through Colt volunteering.

Colt’s just a boy too.

Canon’s very familiar with child soldiers. Our cast is full of them. The land inside the walls has always been presented as a cruel world, and the fact that children regularly die training to become soldiers is their standard.

Warrior Candidates train so they will die.

Colt doesn’t join up because it’s better than working in the fields. It isn’t about saving face. His family’s quality of life is dependent on him doing everything he can to be the shiniest sacrifice of his age group.

It isn’t surprising that Marley uses children for their Warriors.

They’re eager to please and haven’t learned that they have personal agency. With the way Marley raises them, the goal is keeping them from ever learning that lesson to any functional degree. They obey and obey and obey until they die or their sanity snaps.

Because maybe it’ll get better. This small ray of hope is the only way out for their people or their families. Maybe.

Colt’s young. His mentor betrays his country, and now Zeke is the only thing standing between his little brother being okay or an inhuman monster.

The logical thing for Colt is to run straight up to Zeke, the leading spear of the enemy offensive, and beg him to wait for a little while so that Falco can get out of the line of fire. That’s what he has to work with. His love for his little brother and his confidence that the man he’s trained under doesn’t really want to hurt children.

Colt doesn’t understand the world any better than Gabi does, really.

He thinks, because he has a good heart, that that’s how people are. He thinks that the man who set up an entire plan based around robbing people of their autonomy will care more about a little boy than seeing that plan bear fruit.

He thinks it’s enough to argue that he loves his little brother.

Marleyans, Eldians. Those are just lines in the sand. They don’t really mean anything next to something like family. Colt’s little brother is right here, and Zeke can protect him.

So instead of running as far away from Zeke as possible from the start, Colt runs toward him and begs him for just a little time.

That was never going to work.

Colt thought it was worth the chance.

Much like every single Warrior Candidate since the program began.

Maybe it will work. Maybe this will save everyone.

Colt dies holding his little brother. There’s no point to it. It makes Falco more panicked than what’s already about to happen to him. It puts both of them at risk instead of just one.

Because Colt’s just a dumb kid, and he thinks that the most important thing he can do in his last moments of life is let his little brother know that he’s there.

He could have lived if he let Falco be on his own, but his life wasn’t what Colt cared about. So he dies.

He dies, and Porco spends his last moments making sure that Falco still has a chance to live.

Marcel hides his brother away from the supposed honor he’s earned to keep him safe. Marcel never wanted Porco to be a Titan. He wanted his kid brother safe, even if it meant never seeing him again.

Porco finally has the truth, and then he spots these two dumb kids running into a warzone for the same reason.

Marcel tried so hard to spare Porco this hell. It didn’t work. Porco found his way there anyway. And if he’s dying anyway, he’s going to die for something that can actually do some good.

Way to follow your big brother’s example, Pock.

None of this is going to help Reiner in any section of his life. At this point you have to hope the guy lives, just so surviving all of this can be something more than a trauma conga line. I could say something about how the most actively suicidal character of the present manga is continually denied death, and I’m sure it would be profound, but really by now I just feel bad for the guy.

I’m not sure any of these people want to be here, come to think of it.

I’m even less clear on why all of them being here is according to keikaku.

In other news, Eren gets shot.

After all his friends, once again, do their damnedest to keep him alive through his complete lack of regard for them. Without their help, Eren’s dead long before Gabi steps in.

Say thanks, Eren.

Gabi shooting people even after she’s learned that the world is horrifying and complicated should probably elicit something from me, but I’ve long been in the mode of wanting the kid to be left alone with a warm blanket and a hug. Add one more reason to the list.

Plus, there’s shooting people, then there’s shooting Eren.

Knowing far more about Eren than Gabi ever will, I’m not sure I’d want him to make contact with Zeke either. Gabi has made a trillion worse judgment calls.

It’s also somewhat appropriate.

Gabi is only there because Eren destroyed her home. She’s only alive because Sasha cared about letting a little girl live when Eren didn’t. Sasha was only there because Eren manipulated all of his friends into a combat situation none of them wanted.

I’m sure Eren has his reasons, and I’m sure when he inevitably dies for real I’ll have all kinds of emotions about it, but this is a case of him reaping what he sowed.

Hell, the gun’s got a scope and everything. The scene is crying out for a ghost of Sasha superimposed over Gabi.

Sorry your head got fucking blown off, Eren, maybe you should make better life choices.

Because what I keep ending up stuck on is why this is all happening. Clearly, now that this road has been chosen, there are a few things that demand attention, but this is such a finicky, overwrought way of trying to get two bros to hold hands.

“Let’s start a war!”

“Cool!”

Would it have been so hard to just kidnap Zeke.

I’m sure it would have raised some flags.

But.

-gestures to entire chapter-

I just feel like most of this could have been easily avoided by. you know. doing literally anything else. The exact trajectory of this plan can’t possibly be necessary. It isn’t even going well. Eren’s missing his head, Zeke is approaching Reiner levels of plot armor to keep him breathing, and all that’s really been achieved is creating a bunch of new titans and killing some people they could have killed anywhere else.

The plan itself is fundamentally destructive, yet they’ve still managed to make it destructive in a way that actively interferes with the plan going anywhere.

Congrats, gents.

Some random eight-year-old with a sniper rifle destroyed all your hard work.

Much surprise. Very wow.

The explanation for all of this is going to be something incredible.

Either because it’ll be brilliant or because it will continue the downward spiral into the chaotic groupthink of the Yeager Bros and their one brain cell.

I’m okay with whichever the story wants to go with.

#Shingeki no Kyojin #SnK 119 #shingeki no spoilers #SnK spoilers #spoilers #chapter post #tl;dr

112 notes · View notes

sonicfanj · 4 years

Text

Was asked how I would remake Sonic Heroes and I put together an idea that totally throws the game out and tells a completely different story. If anyone is curious hit the jump to check it out.

A lot of the question with remaking Sonic Heroes would be what story are you trying to tell. The game itself is used in it's current state to do two things, and doesn't really balance those well. The first is bringing back Shadow who doesn't really get much in game but gets a whole game after ward while the second is reintroducing Metal Sonic who gets no follow up at all. So, where I would start here is honestly in an examination of what makes these two characters and their relationship with the titular Sonic Hero, Sonic himself. They are both dark counterparts to Sonic, one being his would-be killer and the other a darker and more pragmatic approach to how he solves problems. Where things get particularly interesting though, is I see Shadow as a character who would want to get out of comparisons to Sonic (if you don't mind a bit of forum browsing I really detail it in this forum thread https://board.sonicstadium.org/topic/25269-seeing-shadow-in-his-friends-enemies-and-maria/) whereas Metal believes himself to be the true Sonic. This works especially well for me when he has Sonic's personality like in the OVA as he would likely then see Sonic as a perversion of himself. It's part of why for my Ring bong AU I needed Sonic and Metal to share a Ring Bond. So, from this angle I would probably really warp the game quite a bit. possibly even beyond recognition.

At this point Metal and Shadow aren't really there own characters but rather dark and robot Sonics. Even Amy to a point is just girl Sonic which while I'm good with that doesn't really have a place in this hypothetical. So, exploring what makes Shadow not Sonic and Metal Sonic would be my overall approach to the story and I'd play it in three parts. I should also note at this point that I don't like Neo Metal Sonic or his further transformations. Further, a Sonic game is typically about the player taking Sonic to beat Eggman so I would want to go from that approach as well. In that case I would break it down like this.

For the first story or chapter I would start with Metal Sonic as your playable character. He is in his own mind supposed to be Sonic but he always loses. Part of that is due to Sonic's friends. In fact, outside of Free Riders i don't think Sonic has ever beat Metal straight up with out one of his friends being part of the story or a motivating factor. In that regard Metal's story would be about him going around of his own volition facing Sonic's friends to understand the strengths they provide his organic counterpart and developing his own from those encounters. Like Sonic he needs Sonic's friends to grow but being who he is goes a bout it wrong. As a result most of his campaign fights would be character bosses. Eventually Eggman would catch wind of Metal's actions and would try to reign him in resulting in Metal besting him and locking him up while he deals with Sonic. Wanting to see Sonic in action though he would set up the invitation as before and probably just use an Egg-robo to stand in for Eggman.

Now Sonic's story would be pretty much the same except for a couple of key differences. First up, he won't encounter Shadow during his campaign. Secondly, he'll be going this story solo as Tails and Knuckles as well as everyone else is in no shape to follow him after Eggman. On top of that Sonic wouldn't want to put them further into harms way. Metal is him at his best without restraint and he can't afford to slow down to face Eggman since he's brought him back out. This results in Sonic having a sense of urgency throughout the adventure that he normally lacks, and as his Eggman encounters would robots his impatience with Eggman not facing him directly would really be pushing his short temper that is rarely explored. In the end he would have a big climatic battle with Metal Sonic and during this time Shadow would be freed from his stasis.

Now I would still play up the amnesia angle much as I dislike the trope, but exploring Shadow requires connecting him to his past. So to do just that I would start with him teaming up with Omega to get out of Eggman's base and just following Omega around as he tries to figure out who he is. Eventually this would get Eggman's attention who has also gotten free at this point, also likely due to Sonic and Metal's fight and he would be looking to recruit Shadow to help him reign in Metal. Of course Omega complicates matters since despite being willing to wreak another Eggman robot he really doesn't want to help his master wreck a robot as that kind of defeats the point of his vengeance. Eggman meanwhile tries to appeal to Shadow through there ties with Gerald but Shadow's amnesia and Omega's reaction makes him back out of it From here he would go on a hunt of who he is and meet up with Rouge before ending up on the Ark and finally putting his memory back together again properly. Needing to step out of Sonic's shadow and distance himself from the madness that plagues Gerald and Eggman while upholding his promise to Maria he would return to earth to put a stop to Metal and Sonic's fight.

This leads into the final story where Eggman tired of all three hedgehogs decides just to wipe them out with his latest and greatest creation. Though Metal desires to off Sonic still, Sonic doesn't appreciate Eggman aiming to strip Metal of his autonomy and decides to fight alongside him to at least keep him around. Sonic also would hate to see Shadow rejoin the dead after showing up alive and well and asks him for help as well. From there the three face Eggman together (with or without the chaos Emeralds, it really doesn't matter). When they win they all go their separate ways with Sonic telling Metal to challenge him again after he figures out what it means to be himself and wishes Shadow luck at his second chance at life.

Wrapping it up like that I bring back to major characters and highlight who they are as well as their differences and similarities to Sonic. I also leave them in a place where they can both show up freely and maintain their own agency while Sonic has had the opportunity to show his compassion and some of the rarer facets of his personality. Even all of Sonic's friends end up showing up and serving a purpose to the story without detracting from the Sonic focus or concerning people with multiple gameplay styles. Instead you get three Sonics and ton of story, stages, and character building and highlighting. It's not a win-win for everyone, especially Chaotix fans as they are totally absent in this overhaul, but on a whole it's the way I would approach it right now.

#sonic the hedgehog #sonic heroes #shadow the hedgehog #metal sonic #video game redo #my thoughts #ideas

1 note · View note

ellawritesficssometimes · 6 years

Text

Without exaggerating and as I’ve proven in other posts, the nations suffer from a lot of things; to name a few, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. One thing that they don’t have and have never suffered from is Stockholm Syndrome.

Of course, the whole unequal power dynamic between the conquered country and their conqueror makes for an unhealthy relationship, no doubt. However, it’s within these relations, problematic as they may be, that the conquered countries are able to form better personal relationships with their ruling country.

What needs to be differentiated here is that the nations have a persona as well as a person. Put another way, they relate to each other both politically and on a personal level. This is why you’ll see nations fight over one seeking to obtain sovereignty and yet still attempt to befriend each other despite their hostile political relations.

Ex: America wanting to visit a sick England after the American Revolution.

Regardless if the nation is conquered and ruled over, what I’ll argue is that they’re still able to exercise agency and free will. Not only that, but they don’t wholeheartedly comply, have their own opinions, and their survival is never threatened should they oppose their ruling nation. It’s for this reason that Stockholm Syndrome doesn’t compare to what we see in Hetalia.

There are many problems with the characterization in these earlier strips [x]. Stockholm Syndrome isn’t one of them.

What is Stockholm Syndrome?:

Stockholm Syndrome occurs when a hostage forms an emotional bond with their captor. This, in turn, is at first a survival response that eventually becomes internalized and warped into an unhealthy attachment. [x]

The victim’s response occurs in four stages; shock, denial, traumatic depression and recrimination, and resolution and integration.

The shock stage occurs when the victim realizes that their life is in danger. On a surface level, their behaviour appears to be cooperative and friendly when they abide by their captor. In reality, they’re only trying to stay alive.

The denial stage occurs as this cooperative rationality further moulds itself into the victim’s thinking. The victim minimizes and dismisses the abuse committed by their captor as they spend more time with them.

The traumatic depression and recrimination stage occurs when the victim begins to see their captor more and more as a provider. This is called traumatic infantilism, which entails the victim’s becoming increasingly compliant, obedient, submissive, and more sympathetic toward their captor. It’s a survival tactic whereby children are engrained to cling to their caregivers for protection.

The last stage, resolution and integration, occurs when the victim loses their agency [identity] and identifies with their captor. In their eyes, their captor gives them life. This is especially in cases where the victim’s life is saved by the captor.

The attachment grows so strong that being released from their captor is now seen as the danger rather than being with them. Again, it’s like a child being separated from their parent. The trauma causes the victim to develop an infantized mentality. They cling to the figure with the most power, someone who can offer the most protection.

That said, let’s tie this back to the strips.

Why Italy didn’t have Stockholme Syndrome:

Don’t get me wrong.

The trauma that both Italy brothers went through in being conquered and fought over by other countries is not healthy at all.

Holy Rome attempting to drag Chibitalia against his will is not healthy.

Austria’s harsh punishments of Chibitalia are not healthy.

Despite all this, Chibitalia does not have Stockholm Syndrome.

I’ve said this before, but a lot of the older characterizations of the nations are cruder, more exaggerated, and not up to par as they are now. Hima’s grown as a content creator, and it’s important to recognize that.

I acknowledge the problems of these earlier storylines. All I’m aiming to do is prove that Chibitalia isn’t a victim of Stockholm Syndrome.

Chibitalia’s life isn’t ever in danger, unlike a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. Although, he is a hostage in that he has no choice but to live in Austria’s house.

It’s bullying that Chibitalia fears, not a fear for his life.

The boss and house system that the series depicts involves the conquered nations acting as a servant to the ruling nation.

Despite this power differential, they live together and have been seen to treat each other as family members.

Chibitalia still exercises agency and opposes Austria and Holy Rome on several occasions.

If Chibitalia’s life was truly in danger, he wouldn’t have drawn a mustache on Austria’s portrait.

Nor would he have painted, dressed up in costumes, or spent more time with Holy Rome than he absolutely had to. Politics and nationhood personas aside, they’re people living in one house, dysfunctional as the reason that brought them all together was.

Not to mention that Chibitalia refuses to form an empire with Holy Rome.

However little power that he had, Chibitalia wasn’t wholeheartedly complying to demands in order to survive. He didn’t sympathize or adopt Holy Rome/ Austria’s perspective as his own. Instead, he maintained his individuality and held firm on his opinions.

If anything, Holy Rome learns from Chibitalia and apologizes for all that he’s done before he leaves for war.

Admittedly, there is one moment where Italy is taken hostage by Spain in the Maria Theresa Series. When given a choice between the two, Italy chooses to stay with Austria. This is the closest that we come to an aspect of Stockholm Syndrome, and yet, it’s distinctly not the same.

Just imagine it. Italy loses his grandfather, his security blanket and protector, and is living in a new house with big, scary adult nations. Eventually, they warm up to them and he grows accustomed to the new niche he’s found. Being conquered and having to move again would disrupt that environment – his comfort zone.

That’s why I believe that Italy chose Austria. It didn’t have to do with survival. Spain would have taken good care of him, probably even better than Austria in terms of emotional availbility. Italy simply wanted to stick with what he was familiar with, with those whom he had formed a close personal bond.

It’s also important to mention that Italy is still a child in this strip. He’s terrified and respectively clings to Austria because that’s who he’s been raised by ever since Rome’s passing.

Lastly, when he’s not forced to choose between who he’s ruled by, Italy doesn’t perceive his freedom from Austria to be dangerous, as would someone with Stockholm Syndrome. He zealously fights for his autonomy.

In sum, while many aspects of the older strips are questionable and problematic, applying a label as severe as Stockholm Syndrome is not warranted. It actually detracts from the discussion acknowledging how the series has evolved for the better…

There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging past mishaps of a content creator if they’ve already proven to have learned from these mistakes.

#hetalia #characterization in hetalia #aph italy #aph Holy Rome #aph Austria #aph Spain #aph France

163 notes · View notes

shoury01 · 3 years

Text

SELF DIFFERENTIATION: - BEHAVIOURS LINKED

Self-differentiation is a word we probably do not hear in everyday usage. But it is a crucial process to living (and eating) well. It is happening when we hear people speaking their minds with thoughtful conviction even though others might disapprove. It is lacking when someone spends their life rebelling against the views and values of parents/ colleagues and clinging to their opposite. It is missing when someone stifles feelings and thoughts in fear of hurting others or being rejected or shamed by them.

Differentiation of self was defined by Murray Bowen (Psychiatrist, Professor- Georgetown University) in 1978 as the degree to which one is able to balance: (a) emotional and intellectual functioning, and (b) intimacy and autonomy in relationships.

His theory has two major parts.

1) Differentiation of self is the ability to separate feelings and thoughts. Undifferentiated people cannot separate feelings and thoughts; when asked to think, they are flooded with feelings, and have difficulty thinking logically and basing their responses on that.

2) Further, they have difficulty separating their own from others’ feelings; they look to family to define how they think about issues, feel about people, and interpret their experiences.

On an intrapsychic level, differentiation refers to the ability to distinguish thoughts from feelings and to choose between being guided by one’s intellect or one’s emotions.

Self-differentiation involves being able to possess and identify our own thoughts and feelings and distinguish them from others. It is a process of not losing connection to self while holding a deep connection to others, including those we love whose views may differ from ours. For Example- if we grow up in a family in which everyone maintains attachment (or has only brief disconnects) in spite of having different thoughts and feelings, we can begin to self-differentiate.

Greater differentiation allows one to experience strong affect or shift to calm, logical reasoning when circumstances dictate. Flexible, adaptable, and better able to cope with stress, more differentiated individuals operate equally well on both emotional and rational levels while maintaining a measure of autonomy within their intimate relationships. Highly differentiated individuals are thought to demonstrate better psychological adjustment.

In contrast, poorly differentiated persons tend to be more emotionally reactive, finding it difficult to remain calm in response to the emotionality of others. With intellect and emotions fused, they tend to make decisions based on what “feels right”; in short, they are trapped in an emotional world. Less differentiated individuals experience greater chronic anxiety.

From a process orientation, differentiation is an active, ongoing process of connecting to and honouring our own experience, acting in integrity with our values, and engaging in collaboration with others to meet needs. When differentiated, we are able to identify our needs and preferences in any given situation and to speak up for them when necessary. We regularly and explicitly clarify boundaries. We are able to manage the reactivity and discomfort that comes from either risking greater intimacy or potential separation and conflict.

Not only do problems with lack of self-differentiation make healthy adult relationships impossible, but they cause tremendous inner turmoil which can often lead to comfort eating. We may get furious because we feel controlled by someone who wants us to do something we do not wish to do but believe we are unsafe expressing our feelings openly. Or we may silence ourselves around others and feel inauthentic, unheard, or invisible, and with needs unmet, seek food for solace.

Here are some core skills and behaviors that signify and support differentiation to cultivate and watch for:-

1) Groundedness and clarity about our identity; confidence in our innate goodness and lovability.

2) Self-awareness, self-empathy, self-regulation/soothing remain accessible and consistent throughout a given day.

3) Self-responsibility: an ability to share unmet needs without blame, criticism, or demands.

4) An ability to meet differences with respect, curiosity, empathy, or celebration.

5) An ability to listen with empathy in interactions we perceive as difficult or challenging.

6) An ability to make changes within or to end relationships in which collaboration and mutual respect are not met.

7) Consistent engagement in activities and behaviors that support our thriving.

8) Having multiple trusted strategies to meet any given need; not expecting to meet any need with just one person or one strategy.

9) A consistent sense of meaning and purpose.

10) A consistent and confident sense of autonomy and agency.

11) An ability to express authentically while considering the needs of others and risking conflict.

12) Mindfulness practice: noticing your experience with compassion; having an ability to identify your intention, feelings, needs, and requests in any given moment.

Emotional fusion refers to an emotional intertwining between people and or between people and other animals or between people and objects. This is an attachment that is a part of all relationships but varies in quantity depending on two variables: the level of chronic anxiety and the level of differentiation of self of the individuals involved.

A high degree of fusion or attachment reflects a high degree of sensitivity of people to each other and when sufficiently intense takes one of two forms: “I can’t do without you” or “I can’t stand to be around you.” Regardless of the external form fusion takes, it reflects a state of “we-ness” in that people believe, to some extent, that they must feel alike, think alike, and behave alike.

Anger and over-compliance, for example, are two sides of the same coin. Both are the result of fusion or the inability to function, the result of having thoughts and actions determined by others. We should take pride in our emotions but be wary of the forces that are trying to manipulate them. We must always balance emotion with reason.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa.

#autonomy #thoughts #feelings #emotions #emotional intelligence #emotional fusion #leadership #mentoring #mindfulness #self awareness #relationships #communication #empowerment #collaboration

0 notes

knightavery · 3 years

Text

insurance el paso

BEST ANSWER: Try this site where you can compare quotes from different companies :quotesdeal.net

insurance el paso

insurance el paso de la sujeta. You need a car. How do you? A car that owners have, in most parts of Spain and Italy, must have insurance if it is a business vehicle - such as, for example, a business vehicle on the side of the road and a personal home auto insurance policy. The amount of insurance the car owner will need is the amount of coverage for the entire car and its parts, which include safety, security, collision and comprehensive coverage. It will be possible to purchase such a broad package of coverations at the same level of protection. If you are going to be driving your car, there can be a policy that covers it. Some companies will require you to buy liability coverage, which will be necessary if you are in an accident, and will be necessary if the car is in the company’s custody. The insurance that you need depends on your needs, your skills and your budget. A good place to start is the site. This online database. insurance el paso: $10,000 uninsured motorist bodily injury to (UMBI) for property damage if a motorist is injured by an uninsured driver $10,000 motorist property damage to (UMPD) if a motorist is injured by a motorist with no policies when the driver is at fault $5,000 UNIVERSITY COVERED $100,000 if the person injured in one of the accident is uninsured Under Uninsured Motorist Coverage $10,000 or 30-percent of damage to the policy Uninsured Motorist policies under $10,000 UNIVERSITY COVERED $100,000 UNIVERSITY COVERED $1,000 Uninsured Motorist policies under $50,000 UNIVERSITY COVER $1,30000 Uninsured Motorist policies $. insurance el paso, and i am currently living in Hawaii. I work full time in the state of California and as a small business owner of a business in the area but for a couple of years that is. I live with my wife and two wonderful kids and am doing some things of my own. Do I want to get in the Honda? Does this company offer ? I do want to keep my Honda but I also have full coverage with my insurance and I am concerned for the safety of my husband and his wife on the road. Please I have read their brochure asking me if I will be insured under a full coverage Honda. Is this Honda legal?? Do I want full coverage? What is with that information on their brochure ? I was going to have to start calling companies in order to get the company to send to a physical address. so we are dealing with one of their clients or just one? The company that is supposed to be my insurance is listed or referred to on their brochure or.

What drives up car insurance rates in El Paso?

What drives up car insurance rates in El Paso? It’s not just the price alone that has a significant impact. Insurance companies use a formula to estimate how much of a risk a given individual will be or what type of car they will be driving. The insurance companies determine the risk associated with all drivers. When you buy insurance, you’re getting a quote that represents your risk profile, which you can change in real time without incurring an additional charge. Your premiums are determined by an array of factors that insurance agents use to assess your risk. They use your ZIP code to set your premium. You get your quotes from a network of companies. El Paso is one of the state’s top cities for real estate and insurance — with over $34.5 million in sales. It has a reputation for having a relatively low rate of non-owner accidents, uninsured drivers and drivers who have failed to have an auto insurance policy before their suspension with the company goes back to normal. But the highest rate, 7.8%,.

El Paso car insurance costs by age

El Paso car insurance costs by age 18-64 $1,087-$110 65+ $1,106-$965 Quote Time: 12 to 14 months in Florida Average Monthly Auto Insurance Rates by State StateAverage Low Low Premiums by State AlabamaLow cost by state AlaskaLow monthly premiums and deductibles by state ArizonaLow cost by state ArizonaLow monthly premiums and deductibles by state ArkansasLow monthly rates and deductibles by state CaliforniaLow fees, high deductibles and costly expensive car insurance ColoradoLow monthly rates by state ConnecticutLow monthly costs and deductibles by state DelawareLow monthly rates and deductibles by state FloridaLow monthly rates and deductibles by state GeorgiaLow monthly rates by state HawaiiLow monthly rates by state IdahoLow monthly rates and deduct.

The Best Auto Insurance Companies in El Paso, TX:

The Best Auto Insurance Companies in El Paso, TX: Esurance, Farmers, Jr, State Farm, Liberty Mutual, and Transamerica. For a list of companies that we recommend, visit our page. All policies issued by Allstate, Homeowners Insurance, New Mexico Farmers Security Insurance Fund, Liberty Mutual, Farmers Fire and Marine Insurance Companies, and State Farm policies will be effective from the date of issuance starting January 1, 2020. Each insurer will be contacted by a customer service representative prior to effective January 1, 2021. The Allstate, Liberty Mutual and Farmers Fire and Marine insurance companies do not warrant or guarantee the financial strength of the companies in the event of a claim. State Farm is not named as a provider of homeowners insurance in Texas. Each insurer is solely responsible for the claims the providers bear. A more complete listing of providers is available on a or the Allstate, Liberty Mutual and Farmers Fire and Marine insurance pages are available upon request.

El Paso car insurance rates by provider

El Paso car insurance rates by provider Compare loading Fetching your data... 4.0 NerdWallet rating Geico auto insurance earned 4.0 stars out of 5 for overall performance. NerdWallet’s ratings are determined by our editorial team. The scoring formula takes into account pricing and discounts, ease of filing a claim, website transparency, financial strength, complaint data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and more. Based on these ratings, Geico is among NerdWallet’s . But before you choose any insurance company, it’s important to know all of the pros and cons of each.

El Paso Auto Insurance Rates by Credit Score

El Paso Auto Insurance Rates by Credit Score & Style of Ride How to Buy Auto Insurance in Texas? The auto insurance industry has evolved through the years. In , the Insurance Information Institute (III) notes that insurance companies were granted exclusive jurisdiction over a variety of matters that they were tasked with investigating. One such inquiry was the failure to honor a promise made to take the appropriate action after an accident. While we may never fully understand these procedures, it is clear that in a world of legal and regulatory changes, insurance companies can no longer risk being under-insured or under-paying on claims. The IIA continues in this manner when it comes to the law and law of Texas. In this regard, they maintain a degree of autonomy that extends to their policyholders. In Texas, most insurers are required to pay for the insured vehicles before they can even begin covering the damages or losses. The IIA s policy states that for insured vehicles to receive coverage from an insurer, the vehicle must be maintained as a .

What You’ll Need to Know Before You Get Insurance

What You’ll Need to Know Before You Get Insurance on a Vehicle 1) Your car is in the custody of the state where the accident was recorded 2) The vehicle is registered in the address you bought it in 3) You have a license and/or license plate 4) You’ve had your license for a while 5) You’ve been driving the car for years If You Want To Get Your Insurance On A Car, or Get Your Vehicle Registration In New Jersey, Call us at to make changes to your life insurance policy. Helpful life insurance agents, who can assist you in servicing your policy, are just a phone call away. For all other policies, call or log in to your current , , or policy to review your policy and contact a customer service agent to discuss your jewelry insurance options. Purchased Mexico auto insurance before? With just a few clicks you can your insurance policy is with to find policy service options and contact information. GEICO is the best GEICO.

Car Insurance Companies in El Paso

Car Insurance Companies in El Paso – We are a local insurance agency and we will shop for you. We are here to help you with all needs and you are unique: Our agents specialize in personal auto insurance, life insurance, commercial and business insurance, business liability & casualty coverages, home insurance policies – we have been with Car insurance companies for almost 20 years now. We have a wealth of customer relationships with you that has made sure our agents can be there to answer your questions and provide the professional advice you deserve. We know how to shop for you and deliver you great value. We ve become a fast, free online provider for insurance and banking services. We are dedicated to making insurance easy, affordable, and convenient. We can help you with: Auto, Home, Renters, Life, Commercial Insurance, Commercial Property Insurance, Motorcycles, RVs, Boats, and more. Auto insurance quotes and savings are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Car insurance companies calculate your rate based.

Overview: El Paso, TX Auto Insurance by the Numbers

Overview: El Paso, TX Auto Insurance by the Numbers. Compare up to 20% more than what you can find online. With so many options, you won t have to find an insurance company without first looking at your existing policies. Get the auto insurance coverage that best meets your needs with Compareers. This will show how much you can save. You ll be surprised at how affordable your policy is when it comes to coverage for your vehicle. If you had just been involved in an accident, your insurance does not cover any vehicle damage. There is a wide number of auto and other insurance carriers who work outside of the U.S. so it makes sense to compare rates with them. Some are independent or have only one or two policy with an established company. Some even work with the auto insurance company that provides your car through your home. In any case, it is highly recommended that you research your own insurance policy before you choose to seek out any company but one with established insurance carriers. Be sure to compare.

Best Auto Insurance Providers El Paso, TX

Best Auto Insurance Providers El Paso, TX and Amarillo, TX will be covering for all other auto insurance companies. To learn more about how they’ll look at your rates, click here. El Paso, TX-based and based in El Paso, TX, is a one-stop-shop of auto insurance. Their headquarters is located at 1760 S. Highway 401 in El Paso, TX. For a free online car insurance quote, enter your zip code now. In addition to the El Paso, TX-based El Paso, TX, auto insurance companies can find you discounts in other cities in the same area of the city. In addition to its name, El Paso is known for cheap auto coverage, meaning insurance for any kind of vehicle (from autos to cars). But just in El Paso, when you get into an accident, a local auto insurance company will always give you a check to cover your damages. El Paso, TX-based auto insurance companies offer a variety of discounts to help you save money on your.

Drive Safely with the Right Insurance

Drive Safely with the Right Insurance Broker! Get Your Refused Nationwide Car Insurance Refused Nationwide or any other insurance or financial institution may offer to insure your car through the free quote provided. All Questions asked will be sent to the insurance company of the insured party, who for the avoidance of doubt will use their telephone handset. How long does one need Nationwide car insurance? Almost every car insurance carrier will give you free car insurance quotes for free, but it’s often not as necessary. There are ways to find this simple car insurance quote. Let’s look at all the options available to find Nationwide car insurance It should be noted that not all offers are available to insure the same type of insurance Is Nationwide free car insurance Free, or do you have a limited coverage? Get Your Refused Nationwide Car Insurance Refused Nationwide or any other financial institution may offer to insure your car through the free quote provided. How long does one.

0 notes