#or they have to involve themselves in the discourse | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

gothhabiba · 11 months

Note

I understand what people mean by prison abolition, but what does it mean in practice to abolish the family? I've never quite got it - who is raising children? How does it work? I'm asking in good faith, I've just always been a bit embarrassed to ask anyone

Like positions that are “anti-work” or against “gender,” the thing being objected to is more detailed and specific than the range of meanings that can reasonably or semi-reasonably be assigned to the word in question (“work,” “gender,” “family”)—which is why these propositions and programmes can have a bit of a PR problem. And, as with all terms that position themselves against something (e.g. "anti-psychiatry"), the term "family abolition" can be taken up by people with a range of different positions who disagree amongst themselves on some issues. In general, though, no one objects to "people living together or being emotionally close to each other" or "children not being left to roam about at random and get eaten by wolves" or anything.

Rather, anti-capitalist objections to "the family" tend to hinge on objections to:

parental rights, or "the special legal powers of parents to control major aspects of their children’s lives," which function as "quasi-property interests" more than anything that is in the best interest of children (link explicitly relates to U.S. law). Parents legally control where their children live, whether and where they go to school, what information they have access to, what level of freedom of mobility they have, what medical care they receive and don't receive, and what they may do with their own bodies, and are legally allowed to physically assault their children.

relatedly, the lack of legal autonomy that children possess (this is also often discussed under the banner of "children's rights" or objections to "adultism").

the positioning of "the family" as the only economic or social "safety net" in an economy and a society which provide no other one (creating an artificial "structural scarcity" of care). In a society which is otherwise dominated by "economic competition between atomized individuals," the family must be relied on—and yet, for some people (whose families cannot or will not provide living space or financial support in an emergency; whose families are abusive and physically or psychically dangerous to be around or rely on; who will not receive help or emotional support from a spouse or family unit without making serious concessions on the level of their personhood being basically respected; Black working-class people in whose communities the nuclear family unit has been deliberately prevented from forming by government intervention), the family cannot be relied on.

the way that the positioning of "the family" as the only safety net therefore constitutes economic coercion that works to keep people (especially women and LGBT, disabled and/or transracially adopted people) in abusive or exploitative situations, and that works to create incentives for working-class women (whose employment is generally less secure) to make themselves erotically desirable to men & disincentives for doing anything else.

the idea that housework, gestational labour & childbirth, and childcare are tasks "naturally" falling to the "mother" ("mother" as a "natural category"), such that the social, political, and economic nature of these tasks, and the economic and political discourses that mobilise the creation of our concept of "motherhood," are obscured.

Thus the objection is to "the family" as a unit of social reproduction under capitalism—as a legal, political entity that structures inheritance, taxes, health insurance, "race" and ethnicity, &c., and therefore works as a sort of interface between the capitalist state and the individual.

So the programme of "family abolition" involves, firstly, the control of the means of production on the part of the proletariat (this is a communist programme—the point isn't to remove the safety net of the family while keeping capitalism in place, but rather the idea is that without capitalism this ultimately abusive safety net ought not to be needed); and then the abolition of marriage as a legal institution; the abolition of parental rights; the putting in place of measures for the elderly and disabled to be cared for regardless of whether they have family alive who are both able and willing to care for them; the forming of social networks at will; and, depending on who you ask, the communal raising of children (which involves ceasing to privilege "parent" as a legal title automatically conferred upon biologically creating a child).

Obviously, toddlers who do not yet understand things about the world including "causation" and "mortality" will need on occasion to be restrained from running blithely into the jaws of wolves &c. The argument is just that coercion of this sort should be legitimately in the best interests of the child; not performed by two people who need answer for their actions, up to and including battery of their children, in no way other than saying that they "plausibly believe this to be necessary to control, train or educate their child"; and walked back in measure as the child gains the ability to assert their own desires.

Probably no one has a perfect solution 100% worked out—life is messy, and we don't know what the future will look like—but having a perfect solution 100% worked out should not be a prerequisite for noticing that the current situation is abusive and untenable.

#family abolition #nuclear family #family #capitalism #communism #questions #Anonymous

925 notes · View notes

maikingsenseofit · 8 months

Text

There’s so much discourse from people who want to misconstrue Zuko and Mai’s relationship (to further their own personal shipping agendas) and how they understand Zuko’s decision to leave Mai in the fire nation.

No, he DIDNT want to leave her behind like he did the rest of the gala and glamor of the fire nation . No she did not make it easier for him to leave because he truly had no attachments to the home that spurned him.

In fact we see in CANON (not your fanfiction, sorry you have to come to this reckoning) that Mai is the one thing that ties Zuko to his old life. His one regret. His heroic sacrifice for the greater good.

The writers (The Ehasz couple mind you) literally go the extra length to include Mai when Sokka and Zuko deepen their friendship in The Boiling Rock. This was a pivotal development for Sokka and Zuko’s characters.

Sokka asks Zuko if he had anything or anyone he cared about left in the fire nation. Zuko says, “I did have a girlfriend Mai.” And when Sokka remembers her in a somewhat positive way, Zuko can’t help but smile the biggest most lovestruck smile he’s ever shown in the show. Clearly this man loved her.

Then Zuko volunteers this next piece of information without provocation, where he says “Everyone in the fire nation thinks I’m a traitor, I couldn’t drag her into it.” CLEARLY the dialogue shows that he had considered involving her but he couldn’t because he knew she would object and he wanted to protect her.

We literally see a poignant scene where he takes off all of his armor, portraying him in the rawest and most vulnerable state, when he writes her a letter (this is after he visits his mom shrine too). He takes his time writing it too. The authors deliberately used this scene to show that this wasn’t an easy decision, but it was the right decision Zuko had to make.

His dialogue “I’m sorry Mai” is a direct parallel to when Aang apologizes to Katara for his own sacrifice.

Compare that to Zuko leaving JIN or Zuko abandoning Katara in the catacombs. These supposed “love interests” are not even spared a second glance, a grimace of regret, or anything showing that Zuko truly cared about them (when they were not directly in front of him). Zuko completely forgot about why Katara was upset at him (you literally betrayed her trust) and doesn’t even remember Jin until he runs into her again in Going Home Again (thank you AE!)

Alas people will continue painting canon as they see fit and then deluding themselves into a circle jerk. But THATS where I come in.

#mai #zuko #avatar the last airbender #maiko #atla maiko #atla #pro maiko #anti zutara

559 notes · View notes

antimony-medusa · 7 months

Note

Gonna be honest with you though if someone outright says “don’t ship my character with other people” or something to that extent regarding smut or whatever I don’t think there should be any ambiguity

I get your point about the nature of fanfic being inherently encroaching upon people’s images so that levity should be extended to otherwise uncommon avenues but I really believe hardline boundaries should be respected, end of, no discussion. If I see people violating creators’ boundaries for their characters Or themselves (and these can be intertwined, it’s not up to the audience to pick apart their boundaries, cuz I’ve seen people try to do that) I’m not going to judge them fairly and I feel like neither should you.

Lines can be crossed and intimacy (not even necessarily romantic!) is a very different monster than the other avenues of storytelling because of how it involves real life relationships seeping into character relationships. Its’s uncommon for people to be like “I wrote A’s character being tortured because I feel like A is tortured in real life” but they Can and Often do that with ship work. So I don’t know, I feel like you’re not affording this the right nuance.

Alright, so, this is another post I'm gonna slap with a discourse and long post warning right away, buckle in.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, and this is not an uncommon opinion to have! It's still the opinion of twitter/x so far as I know, and I think it's probably the opinion of the bulk of dsmp fans here, as well. I know my posts get notes once they start circulating in hermitblr, but I don't kid myself that I have the majority view. I am posting to explain my views expressly because I know a lot of people don't agree with me!

And in this case we do have a difference of opinion. There's two sort of points as I see it in your posts— we have hardline boundaries about shipping/nsfw from some people, and everyone in the fandom should be abiding by those no exceptions or be thrown out of the fandom; and we have shipping boundaries but not boundaries for other things because shipping is uniquely boundary-crossing and terrible and invasive, in contrast to anything else we can do in fandom.

Taking the second part first, I just don't think that's true. Let's not forget, boundaries discourse started with SMPLive and SMPronpa, and it was not the shipping that caused the discussion, it was the death games. The first real fandom reckoning we had with the notion of boundaries as mcyt fandom was over gore and murder and portraying people in violent ways. Shipping was barely a blip on the radar. The way the discourse has developed now, shipping is framed as the absolute worst thing anyone could ever do with your public image, and everything else is fine, but that is not the case for everyone. Recently the Pirates SMP creators were asked repeatedly for their boundaries (bothered on twitter, really) until they gave them and thus we saw people being fine with shipping but not wanting family dynamic, or being against both shipping and gore, or being fine with shipping but not wanting to be gender bent or trans headcanoned, etc. Not everyone feels the same way about the same things, despite the us-american cultural viewpoint that romance and sexualization is uniquely bad but gore and torture is fine, that everything else is fine.

Like, if we're looking at DSMP, I think there are a lot of creators who would feel just as strongly if not stronger about fics in which their character died of a terminal illness than they would about a fic in which they kiss someone, for understandable reasons. But I see those tropes in the tags regularly!

I think if we are honest with ourselves, if we are going to hardline boundaries about things that are uniquely invasive or bad to do to a creator's character with the view that we are putting all of this up for the creator's approval, we need to accept that this excludes us from writing anything where a character is abusive or is tortured or dies of a terminal illness or is psychologically broken or is age regressed or is neurodivergent or is queer if the cc is straight or trans if the cc is cis or cis if the cc is trans or straight if they're gay— the list of things that would be weird to do in the face of the real guy is really long. And it has most of our favourite tropes on it!

I love writing autistic philza. It would be really fuckin' weird to go up to Philza and tell him about how I write his character as whumped and autistic. Come on now. (But that's within boundaries, so that's— fine? I really don't think it's fine!)

Which is why my stance is that we should be thinking critically about these things, and keeping the fandom seperate from the creators. Some of these things are just not for the creators. They're fine but they shouldn't go on twitter. Y'know?

The idea that shipping draws uniquely on the real person and leads to invasive behaviour but nothing else does— that nobody does "I wrote A being tortured because I think A is tortured in real life"— Look. I have been in the fandom a long time. I remember how all the abused tommy narratives fed right into people assuming his family in real life were abusive— and talking about this on twitter! Where he and his family could see! People did this with WIlbur and Techno too!

I remember people reading about trans tommy and then truthing that the creator either was transmasc or was going to come out as transfemme any day now, publically, on twitter and in his chat. I have seen people she/her tubbo to his face on twitter, with fancams. I have been in chat when people who have clearly assigned Phil "dad" start asking WILDLY invasive things in TTS. If you think that shipping is the only fandom behaviour that can lead to people drawing directly from the streamers for their work and treating the creators weirdly about it, you simply have not been paying attention.

The way the fandom insists on treating benchtrio as children despite the fact that they're almost twenty and viciously attacking their friends for treating them as adults and chiding tommy and tubbo and ranboo for inappropriate behaviour. The list goes ON.

So. The recieved DSMP wisdom is that we should TTS the streamers to check if it's okay if we write a fic in which they die of cancer. We should DM them on instagram to ask if it's okay if we write them as a gender or sexual identity they don't share. We should show up in their twitter mentions to ask if it's okay if we write them as a physically abusive parent.

No????????

My view on that is that it is frankly bizzare it is that we have decided that "asking creators for detailed instructions regarding porn or gore" (especially in TTS! When they're fucking at WORK and can't step away! Stop doing this to the hermits!) is normal and fine and responsible but "post your shit in appropriate places and leave the creators out of it" will make you a monster.

Once again, the experience of someone coming up and saying "i think of you as age regressed" and someone saying "i found this fic where you're age regressed" and someone saying "can I write a fic where you're age regressed" is not that different. In all cases you know that the person has been thinking about it and putting it out there, and in all cases you didnt seek out this information, it was brought to you. In all cases it's weird. Just do not bring this information up to them!

If you just think about it for a while, you see that there is an entire host of things that would be weird to force into the view of a creator, especially when you consider that half the time we got these clips from TTS information when we have no idea if the person answering knew the context of what they were being asked, if they were specifically aware of the creator/cc divide that the fandom works with, or if they felt pressured into it. Oh yeah, let's take a TTS clip from Tubbo when it was 2 in the morning for him and he was deep in a minecraft mod when someone asked him about alters and delusions and he was like "oh you mean like— when they can't help it? I guess that's fine." That definately counts as freely given, reversible, informed, enthusiastic and specific consent to show him anything we want at all times forever. That's never going to make him uncomfortable.

Think a little here.

So I think there's a lot of the fandom that we should not be putting up for the approval of the creators, and if we don't have a firm answer on if they would like potential edge cases, we should probably be thinking about it and keeping it away from them (and I would err on the side of caution), we should NOT be showing up in the TTS to ask them about narratives in which they're institutionalized, or making them a GOP conservative in fiction, or if Wilbur was canon about seeing them as a bottom, or whatever bizzare thing someone is cooking up now. Honestly if you think to yourself "I don't know if the creator would like seeing this", I would be much more comfortable if the two choices we were picking between there were "simply don't write it" or "write it but keep it away from them", and "harass the creator for an answer on this subject and only write it if they say yes" never entered the equation at all.

And to return to your first point, if we already have a class of fiction that we are keeping away from the creators because basic intellectual curiosity would show that it would be weird to show someone, I don't think it's the end of the world to go "okay, creator doesn't like NSFW, so we also keep the NSFW away from them, keep this shit off twitter, block them if you create it, don't show it to them" and then we archive lock it and continue on our little weirdo on the internet ways.

Now, I don't expect to convince you of this, the phrasing of your post does not indicate that you're open to discussion on this topic. That's fine. Nobody has to agree with me. But I grew up conservative christian, and I have already had people try and get me to throw people out of the community for their perceived sins where I was like "well, I really don't think this is that bad", and I'm really resistant to being forced to do that again. I don't think it's a healthy way to run a fandom, to be shunning people for what they're doing in fiction. Harassing creators in chat? Sure, I will block them from my events as untrustworthy. That's hurting someone in the real world. Writing something that I don't vibe with privately on the archive for an audience of 50 people? That is not doing harm to real people. As long as they're not showing it to the creators, I don't count that as offensive.

How's that for nuance.

#discourse #fandom meta #dsmp shipping #qsmp shipping #anon #ask #long post

448 notes · View notes

tomatolandsca · 3 months

Text

Not to be too involved in fandom discourse but I think that the good omens fandoms (and most fandoms out there) has an issue with going back at the source material. I don't mean this in an patronizing way because I do it too, and it happens, you get so involved with a character and with a story that some things become blurred and more reflective of yourself (the watcher/reader) then of the story itself.

But sometimes, specially if you happen to find yourself hating a character that it's literally part of the main couple of the story you love, I think it's good to go back to that story you love and revisit the things you like about it and remind yourself what they really are like in canon.

The thing about Good Omens is that it is of course a very touching love story with very important themes, but it's also a clever comedy about two immortal beings and the insane divine/human world. Aziraphale and Crowley aren't two beings who are torturing themselves because of their love for centuries, they love and have fun with each other and the silly good/evil things the world has to offer.

#'aziraphale is toxic and an asshole to crowley'#'crowley is agressive and miserable'#NO #This is a story about humanity and it's complexity #they suffer but they are SILLY and they make mistakes because of that #sorry if I sounded mean but there are some takes that sometimes bother me #I absolutely adore that people love this story so much that it becomes so intrinsical with themselves #but sometimes I wish that we could go back to the show and remind ourselves some things #good omens #good omens season 2 #tomatineo rambles #aziraphale x crowley #ineffable partners #aziraphale #crowley

376 notes · View notes

showtoonzfan · 4 months

Text

So I wanted to avoid talking about the Alastor Voodoo discourse, (I kinda already did on twitter) but after seeing this thread I couldn’t help but want to give my two cents on it. Putting aside the fact that Rae is a problematic bootlicker regarding Viv and was someone who took part in dismissing her victims/transphobia, I wanted to say that their idea of Alastor being white passing when he was alive COULD work. I spoke with someone who is more educated on this subject than I am, and it actually could be good representation and educate people on the challenges POC had to face due to their history of being slaves and segregated. I actually wouldn’t mind the idea that he came off as more white passing, had to force himself to speak in a different accent for the show business, and that’s the reason he was able to get a job as a radio host in the first place, since he’s mixed.

HOWEVER, it’s upsetting that this thread was created just to excuse and defend Viv’s shitty character designing and silence people who have an issue with it, especially people of color themselves. I’m mixed race as well so it’s ridiculous that Al looks the way he does for a black man, there is no reason for his demon design to not have his ethnic features, it’s as simple as that, stop telling people they shouldn’t be upset about it, the time period has nothing to do with him looking white.

Rae also seems to have a similar issue with the fanbase where they’re inserting her personal headcanons/interpretation of Alastor into the canon show. I have NO idea what they’re going on about in the second tweet because all we know about Alastor is that he has a “moral code” and possibly only goes after bad people, but we don’t know the in depth details yet or anything on how he was murdering while being a radio host, Rae’s just adding stuff that isn’t there to fit their headcanon/idea. They need to realize they’re not a writer of the show, Viv is and we haven’t seen her ideas for Alastor yet, so using a fan theory/interpretation of what you THINK he could be like just to dismiss people’s issues with him is ridiculous. This goes for the entire fanbase as well.

I don’t know why everyone is trying to excuse the fact that he doesn’t look black and defend his voodoo practices. It has nothing to do with the character, it’s the creator that’s the issue. She was the one who decided to make him mix creole, she’s the one who decided to make him practice voodoo and yet she refuses to commit to her decisions, refusing to educate herself on how to fucking draw black people and listen to POC voices on how bad using REAL voodoo symbols are. Now that I think about it, why does Alastor need to be involved in Voodoo at all. Why couldn’t he just be a serial killer radio host. Him practicing voodoo doesn’t add anything to his character, at least yet. With Dr. Facilier it kinda made sense because his voodoo is what turned Naveen into a frog, he made deals with demons to give him these powers and that’s exactly what got him killed in the end. Alastor meanwhile is a deal maker and I guess that’s what made him powerful??? It’s kinda hard to say with Viv’s shitty vague world building, but you could have easily made him a powerful overlord without that.

The point is, these issues with Alastor are on HER, not on the people complaining about it and if these people were fucking normal regarding criticism and feedback, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

#vivziepop critical #spindlehorse critical #hazbin hotel critical #helluva critical #anti vivziepop #Hazbin hotel #Hazbin hotel Alastor #Alastor

211 notes · View notes