#which at face value isn’t inherently the issue | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bobbile-blog · 5 months

Text

Not sure if anyone’s said this yet but now that we have Laterano events plural I’m fascinated by their (imo) very deliberate choice of protagonists, and there are almost a couple of layers of narrative going on there. I struggle a little figuring out how to get this into words but specifically I think they’re chosen to be people who can carry a narrative without contradicting the orthodox morals of the church. There’s a LOT of vaguely anti-authoritarian rambling below the cut so please kindly bear with me and my English major brain.

I can’t really start there though. One of the reasons this is so brain hurty is how deeply it’s woven into the storyline, so to start, I have to verbalize how Laterano and Arknights writing more generally is different from other, similar settings. Because like, I hear the words “morally negative church in a grimdark setting” and my brain immediately shuts off. Come on, that’s so far beyond low-hanging fruit, if you’ve seen any grimdark setting ever you know exactly what that looks like. And sure, it was fine the first two or three times you saw it, depending on your tolerance for that kinda thing, but it gets boring quick and even when it was new it was kinda uninteresting story-wise. “Religion is always fake because it inspires hope which means everyone who takes meaning from it is either a corrupt grifter or naive and misled” isn’t just edgy nonsense, it’s also basically useless as an actual critique. It tells you absolutely nothing except how to tune out a particular kind of story, and a story that tries to get you to hear less is doing its job wrong.

So, Arknights does something different. Instead of denying the premise of the church entirely, it actually takes it at its word. Laterano is, in almost every definition of the word, a paradise. It is basically unmatched in terms of actual quality of life, with its only competitors being the Durin cities and maybe Aegir, and is worlds apart from now much the rest of Terra sucks. More than that, though, the paradise is specifically tailored to the worldview of a religion with a strong central authority - when I say it takes it at its word, I mean the authoritarian bits too. Laterano is a city that lives in perfect order and peace because everyone follows the law perfectly and they all understand each other and never fight. Empathy is really important for this, as it allows for a believable amount of superhuman societal order. Laterano has very little crime, political drama, or quarrels in general. It’s the promises of a strict higher authority actually taken at face value: everyone follows the rules and that means they have effectively unfettered freedom, because they don’t want to break the rules and therefore they can do anything they want.

Laterano is specifically written to be a believable paradise in a setting that has none, so that when the story then turns around and criticizes that setting, it has significantly more weight. Even when the promises of paradise are taken at face value, there are still issues that cannot be addressed because the system is inherently flawed even in the imaginary scenario where it works. Even worse, the problems that poke holes in the imaginary perfect scenario are the same problems that they face in the real world, like “how do you deal with the interpretation of scriptures” and “hey there’s this racism thing I keep hearing about should we be worried about that or what”. Because of the way this imaginary perfect system works, we then look back on our real world in a new light and understand it a little better. It’s good critique.

Okay so how did we get here and what does this have to do with the protagonists? Well, this starts with Fiametta in Guide Ahead, because she’s a really weird protagonist. This is a cold take at this point but despite being the character on the front of the box, she has very little to actually do with the central conflict of the event. Most of the conflict is handled by Ezell first and Andoain second, and Fiametta mostly putters around putting holes in people until the finale where Andoain receives the answer he’s been looking for, he turns to explain it to the world, and he runs into the only person in the whole of Laterano who does not care about his motivations or his revelation. Her role, in other words, is to replace the climax of Andoain’s story with her own, and in doing so she makes it much harder to actually get a resolution and a meaning out of the story (this should not be taken as a criticism of her character, let me cook). Guide Ahead’s ending is hazy, with only small piecemeal resolutions to its conflicts, and for the longest time that was just the way the event was written and it stood on its own.

But now, Hortus de Escapismo is out and the monkey brain see patterns. Specifically, with the choice of protagonists. Because Executor is definitely different from Fiametta as a protagonist, but there’s one particularly important connection between the two, and that’s that as I mentioned in the beginning, they allow for stories don’t contradict orthodox morality. Fiametta we went over, as she’s uninterested in any of Andoain’s morality and just wants him dead. Executor, though, is purely focused on his mission and views the world through that lens. He only wants to achieve his objective, and while helping the needy is in line with the stated objectives of the church and he does do so when able, it’s secondary to his assigned task. He does change as he gets further into the story, and we’re not gonna ignore that, but we’ll be back to it later. What I mean is more that he is designed as a person who is able to lead a story that doesn’t contradict with the morals of Laterano. He sees the injustice and suffering around him, but that’s not his job, so he doesn’t need to solve it to have a complete story with a happy ending.

This is where it really gets complicated, so I apologize if I don’t explain this very well. I see this as us dealing with multiple layers of fiction: the events of the story, the perspective of the church, and our perspective as readers. Back to the first point - authoritarian institutions almost always use stories to sell people on their brand of order. Simple stories, simple enough that even calling them myths seems like overselling it a little, your “Saint George slays a dragon” kinda thing. This is the point of the second layer, the perspective of the church. I don’t really have an in-world justification for this layer - maybe you could make the argument that it has to do with Law’s perspective on things, but I don’t totally buy that - I think it’s more in a weird narrative transition space for people who don’t read very carefully. Regardless, Fiametta and Executor’s shared indifference to the questionable circumstances surrounding them is designed to let them tell a story to prop up the existing order. Their protagonist status and their missions are specifically constructed to allow them to ignore the suffering around them, and as such ignore the larger questions that might poke holes in the larger order. They’re both playing out the story of Saint George, where they go and find a bad guy and kill them and that’s all there is to it. The story is designed and told specifically for that “that’s all there is to it”.

But, as we said earlier, this is a good critique, and as such it intentionally undercuts this story with the third layer: what we actually see as readers. We are shown the suffering and the injustice, and then get to see our protagonists ignoring that to pursue their goals. This is what gives Guide Ahead’s ending its unique texture, which sets it apart from every other event with a vaguely unresolved ending. We have seen the actual issues with Laterano, and also watched our protagonist explicitly ignore them in favor of her own story. It’s unsatisfying in a way that only really makes sense to me if we as the readers have an understanding of intentional authorship. Whether it be Yvangelista XI or Law or The Actual Real Life Pope, there are issues here that we want to see a resolution to but people are choosing not to address them. Again, it’s good critique. Not only does it push the reader to unpack and understand the actual real-world technique, but it also helps blunt it. You have just seen a plot and protagonist ring uncharacteristically hollow. You then look around to see why that is, and you realize there are many things that should have been resolved that weren’t. The next time you see a story resolve with that same hollow-ness, you know where to look. Surprise! Harry Potter was propaganda the whole time. It’s okay, it was never good, you were just twelve.

I guess the last thing is where we go from here, because Executor’s story breaks this mold somewhat. In Hortus de Escapismo, he has to deal with a mission that isn’t actually bounded by his normal rules, and because of that he actually does have leeway to help the people around him. He starts as someone who is totally mission-focused, but by the end of the event he’s done a total 180 and is blocking Oren’s attack, which makes the mission harder but helps the non-mission-critical civilians of the monastery. He breaks from the rigid thinking of “kill the bad guy and that’s all there is do it”, and gives his attention to the people he isn’t supposed to see. I think this is an indication of the direction we’re going to be headed in the future with Laterano events. The events aren’t going to get better - they’re going to keep being just as morally murky and complicated as in the past - but the characters are going to get better at handling it, and when they do, they’re going to actually start to change things for the better.

Goddamn that was a lot of writing for 1 AM. I still have a. Lot of thoughts on this event with stuff like empathy and Lemuen and Federico being an autistic icon(my beloved) but I’m going to leave things there, I think, because if I write for any longer my phone is going to crash when I try to post this. Anyway if you actually made it to the end thanks for listening to me rambling and I hope that made sense. Cheers.

#arknights #arknights thoughts #hortus de escapismo #laterano #fiametta #executor arknights #I deadass had to ask folks to proofread this one #to make sure I didn’t sound like I didn’t sound off my rocker #also don’t mind my random Harry Potter slander that’s an entirely different rant

329 notes · View notes

umbrify · 10 months

Note

hello i saw u tagged jimmy solidarity on that "free my man he did none of that. he did a bunch of other shit though" post and i am incredibly compelled by the implications here. please may i have an essay on the subject

YOU MAY.

Okay so we’re gonna be specifically talking about Empires SMP Season 2 Jimmy (henceforth, Jimmy,) and the way he conducts himself, how those actions reflect on him, versus how he sees himself (and how the fandom sees him in turn). Welcome to my Ted Talk.

The most important thing to understand about Jimmy is that he lies. He lies about everything, and convinces himself that his lie is true to the point where he really thinks it is. Take, for example, a moment in Sausage’s episode 41 [full exchange from 9:10 - 19:37] where Jimmy kills Sausage, and then when Sausage, followed by fWhip, return to Tumble Town to discuss the murder, Jimmy blatantly lies about the altercation to fWhip, claiming “[Sausage] came over, and he assaulted me, fWhip!” Jimmy insists that it was Sausage who physically started it, despite that being completely untrue. Jimmy then goes on to deny having killed Sausage Sausage at all, sounding affronted at the idea and demanding to see the player head that drops on death. fWhip asks how many levels Sausage has, which is none, and Jimmy claims that Sausage must have used all his experience. Jimmy denies and lies, and when fWhip goes looking for Sausage’s things, finding them in Jimmy’s storage, Jimmy acts shocked, saying “I think I’m being set up! […] I’m gonna leave this conversation, you do what you gotta do, but I don’t think I’m the bad guy here.” As if Jimmy didn’t explicitly kill Sausage moments ago!! As if it isn’t his fault!!!

And the problem here, the core problem, is that so many people just… believe him. They take Jimmy’s words at face value and assume that he’s always a reliable narrator in his own stories, despite the fact that it couldn’t be further from the case. The issue is less that people assign New and Different problems to Jimmy, more that they strip him of any wrongdoing at all, making him out to be some sad little pathetic wet cat who didn’t deserve it. And— don’t get me wrong, he is extremely sad, but he also did it to himself.

I think one of the more interesting ways to illustrate this, is to talk about the way Jimmy perceives himself. From the start of the season, he always insists on being called “The Sheriff.” He’s not Jimmy, he’s The Sheriff, and throughout the season, he can be seen constantly insisting upon and chasing after that title. He wants respect— or, his version of respect. What he really wants is a yes man. This difference can very clearly be seen in the way he treats the two deputies he had throughout the season.

When fWhip was the deputy, it’s because he wanted to be. He sought Jimmy out because he wanted to be Jimmy’s right hand man, and Jimmy let him. fWhip consistently referred to Jimmy as The Sheriff, upholding Jimmy’s version of the laws as best he could. And, there really is something to be said about the fact that fWhip, as a goblin, inherently didn’t understand the concept of arbitrary laws, or that sort of morality at all, and was only one, upholding it because he cared about Jimmy, but two, treating the laws as Jimmy treated them— i.e, making a shrine for that which Jimmy made a church for, but that’s a whole separate essay that I want to write at some point. Either way, he was good to Jimmy, though their time together was short. He made Jimmy a home away from home in Gobland [fWhip episode 8 timestamp 20:28] and helped Jimmy win the court trial by serving as his lawyer in the case against Joel [Trial best seen in Jimmy’s episode 10 starts at 3:03]. After fWhip was fired, he went around Tumble Town noting down a bunch of “laws” that Jimmy was breaking. I wrote a whole post about this set of interactions already [here] but the short version is this: In fWhip’s episode 12 [5:54], he goes around and marks down all the laws that he’s saying Jimmy is breaking around Tumble Town. […] Of the seven instances that fWhip writes down, SIX of them almost directly relate to Jimmy not taking good care of himself or his empire. To me, it almost reads more like he cares about Jimmy, and is worried about him.

All this to say, that fWhip didn’t Respect The Sheriff as much as he Cared About Jimmy. And that’s an important distinction— he cared about Jimmy, the person. He had this whole veneer of respecting the laws— laws that he didn’t really understand— because he cared about Jimmy. And Jimmy fired him for a prank— one that wasn’t specifically targeted or malicious— because he saw that as Disrespecting The Sheriff. He didn’t want someone who Cared About Jimmy, he wanted someone who Respected The Sheriff. And fWhip wasn’t that.

Enter Scar.

During the Hermitcraft crossover, Scar started gunning for the position as deputy because he wanted the shiny deputy badge. That was it, that was the reason, and Scar acted accordingly. Everything was about acting like he Respected The Sheriff, even when he was blatantly breaking one of the core laws, wearing another player’s hat— both the sheriff hat [Jimmy episode 19 4:07] as well as trading away a sheriff hat, and being seen wearing one of Scott’s Chromia hats [Jimmy episode 22 14:27]. In this episode, Scar backhandedly compliments Jimmy, “oh, you’re just a… cute big guy, aren’t you?” to which Jimmy seems uncertain, asking “I’m real big, right?” to which Scar says he is. Jimmy then asks him about the Chromia hat Scar wears, and Scar tells him that he traded one of the sheriff hats to Scott. Jimmy gets upset at Scar, but before he can get properly mad, Scar distracts him by showing off a new section of Tumble Town that he made. Scar wears the mask of respect for just long enough to get the badge. When Jimmy gives him the badge, he says he has something else that he wants to give Scar as well. “I have found something real special for you, real special.” Scar says “I already got something special, this badge.” Jimmy says “you mean our friendship?” Which Scar dubiously agrees to. This is the last time Jimmy sees Scar before the hermits leave— Scar got what he wanted, and that was all. And yet, Jimmy hired him, because Scar put on the show. Scar was his yes man, Scar Respected The Sheriff, even if he didn’t Care About Jimmy.

He does it to himself, Jimmy does. He pushes away anyone that tries to care about him as a person, and surrounds himself with people that will be his yes men, his little sidekicks, anyone that holds the sheriff title in high regard. It’s why he takes so well to the Old Sheriff, who treats the sheriff title with the same reverence that he does, respecting the title of sheriff without actually respecting Jimmy much at all.

The thing about Jimmy is that he causes his own problems, and they’re all his fault. Yes he is crushingly lonely, and filled with self hatred, but he actively surrounds himself with it. It’s not that people are just inherently mean to him, he is almost asking them to be, by pushing away anyone that seems to care about him as a person.

I think, as my final note here, I wanna bring up a moment from Jimmy’s finale, episode 38. He and the Old sheriff, as they’re making their way to the Nether portal, discuss how fWhip only ever referred to himself as goblin fWhip, never as king. Jimmy says “I don’t think he ever held himself to the regard of being a king, and that— d’you know what? That sucks. He was my deputy for a while, he didn’t really think much of himself, I’m not gonna lie” [9:19]. I just find it interesting, that Jimmy says that it sucks how fWhip never called himself king— a title ostensibly higher than sheriff— and that fWhip was only a deputy. As if he thinks that fWhip could’ve been king, perhaps was worthy of the title, and just never took it— that he sees the taking of a title such as that to be so important, when for fWhip, it never was. I dunno, I just think there’s something to that. I think it says something about Jimmy and about the importance he places on titles that don’t really matter.

Jimmy ran away, in the end. He and the Old Sheriff ran far away from everything they ever knew. fWhip stayed, choosing to live out his days happily in the empire he helped to found. fWhip never took the title of king. Jimmy thinks he should’ve.

Isn’t that something?

#umbrify answers #ilexdiapason #thank you so much for this ask. i spent 3 hours drafting this response #I love empires. btw.#empires smp #jimmy solidarity #empires jimmy

255 notes · View notes

boyfridged · 1 year

Text

the brilliance of jay's progression in countdown is that it gives you a promise of positive character development, and then it breaks it. and it does so intentionally, in the most diverting way, to emphasize jason's inability to escape the cycle.

or, another post breaking down the series, where i repeat myself a lot but also make a clearer argument.

there are three notable events that happen at the beginning: the subtle showcase of jay's internal conflict considering his approach toward killing (the very first encounter with duela and the monitor), jay reaching out to donna in crisis ("i guess I just wanted to be around someone else who might know how it feels…"), and finally – his helmet shattering. these scenes tell you: jason's direction as a character is changing, and it seems, for the better. he's about to abandon his trauma-based (no matter how ironic, it does remain tied to his trauma) identity, he is connecting with people, and he seems to be on a brink of understanding that his moral standing does not provide easy answers or solutions either.

and for the most part of the series, we see that narrative unfolding (even if a bit non-linear, still innocently convincing way). it is, in many ways, supported by bringing up features of his characterisation from the 80s. jason remains, of course, still unpleasant in ways typical for this era of writing, and is conflicted and disagreeable, which makes sense for his utrh/post-utrh personality. however, there are also details that bring us back to his original robin run and his cameos on ntt – we see him being responsible (e.g. #43 – suggesting to bring in other superheroes in crisis, even though he clearly is not keen on the idea of working with them), determined (#16: “isn’t that your super-power, stupid boy? too stupid to ever give up?” “maybe it is”), sensitive (half of the whole storyline, really), caring for gotham (gotham by gaslight) and people-oriented (as early as #51).

the issue that particularly signals that jason is an inherently good person and externalizes his internal conflicts regarding classic heroic vigilantism vs his cynical approach is #30, where we meet batman of earth-15 – alt jason, whom our jason attempts to punch in the face.

and on topic of batman – jason is always gravitating towards batman. in gotham by gaslight jay looks delighted to see (the foreign) bruce and suggests checking with the local bat. then, earth-51 arc arrives.

earth-51 arc (#16 - #13) is a culmination of a promise of catharsis for jason. we have already seen him as batman, as a confirmation that a different life for him is possible. and here he has a chance to come to terms with his past and overcome it. he meets a version of bruce who has done exactly what he wanted him to do in utrh: killed the joker and the rest of the rogue gallery. what is most important – he is disappointed with this version of his father. we realise that jason, deep down, has an intimate and intuitive understanding of what batman stands for; and that he shares most of his values. this is a truth that you can't ignore especially since jay is the one to inspire this hollow, cynical version of batman to go out and fight in a seemingly lost battle.

and then batman dies. right in front of him.

this is a central moment of the narrative, for many reasons, most strikingly:

the symmetry:, a premise known from the lost days, becomes literal. this "the father had lost a son, and now the son had lost the father" is a cruel parallel to a death in the family and bruce's grief. jason's death created a gap between them that jay has been desperately trying to close, with no avail – because in bruce's mind, jason remains dead. now that jason is grieving bruce, the connection closes on both sides, and there's no way for either of them to reconcile the mourning with the reality of the other being truly alive. in this sense, the arc solidifies that jason can never come home.

no good deed goes unpunished. as i have mentioned before, so far jason is established as someone good at heart, but confused; and the reader intuitively assumes that his better, honest side will win. yet, the moment jason gives in to hope, it victimises and retraumatizes him. this event, again, brings to mind his own death, when he tried his best to save sheila and ended up paying the highest price for it. so, narrative-wise, jason is always punished for his kindness.

perhaps because of the nonchalant act that jason pulls off, many readers seem to miss that everything that happens after that arc is an upshot that follows logically from it.

jason's immediate determination to leave – and later a short period of indecision that ends up with his dramatic exit, pushing his team away, makes perfect sense when you consider what intense trauma he has just gone through. admittedly, i'm not a fan of the notion that he would give up at all (i think he's always ready to give up on himself, but not on the world), but then on the other hand, if there's anything that would cause it, narrative-wise, witnessing batman dying does sound like a good incentive for that. (it also has to be pointed out that jason seems to be confident that the rest of the team can go into the final battle without him anyway; it's not like he would go back to his earth not even knowing if said earth will exist tomorrow).

it's crucial to notice that following that crisis of faith (faith in fighting for the world) is followed by him raising up for the challenge again, but now... worse and even more confused. in the final confrontation with donna, jason antagonizes the superhero community, and when we see him at the end of the series (#1) his monologue indicates that he believes the capes to be naive. (significantly, he also focuses on bruce and offends the memory of 51 earth-bruce by calling him crazy; an action that can be seen as suppression of his own guilt and invoking, once again, a cruel symmetry considering bruce's engagement in victim-blaming after jason's death). this, once again, is consistent with the "no good deed" reading – jason diminishes superhero values because he has been continuously punished for living by them. (and unlike other superheroes, he doesn't have a support system nor skills in compartmentalization that would help him deal with this trauma) every leap of hope re-traumatised him. hence, it seems to be no surprise that jason decides to abandon the mask, and in the closing scene we see him without it. the promise of the shattered helmet is pushed to an extreme – jason does not get a new alt identity. he denounces the idea of superheroism completely.

and yet, what is ultimately subversive about the ending, is that jay is not truly a civilian and he does not abandon vigilante ways. he does the same thing. we see him without a mask, but he is clearly working a case. he might have rejected the symbolic dimension of the vigilante work, but he still carries the same delusional hope for bettering the world and protecting people that the superhero community does. only now, he is even more isolated and doesn't have any identity to go by (as he is still legally dead).

as such, the ending opens a new question regarding jason's understanding of himself and vigilantism, or rather the lack thereof. is it possible that vigilantism is really at the core of jay's trauma? and why, potentially, is it something that is so destructive for him as a character specifically? (and i have some answers for that, but i'm not going to get into it here, as it's already a very long post)

so, tldr; the genius of countdown is that it establishes jay as sensitive, determined, and fundamentally good (this is what the purpose of seeing him as batman is!), and then it brutally reminds the reader that jason’s tragedy is that on this specific earth, in this specific timeline, his love doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. the story goes on as it did; one way or another, jay is trapped in the cycle of his care ironically creating rifts between him and the others, and bringing him to his own downfall.

#okay i know i said a lot of it already but it's been some time since i finished the reread and i feel like my take on it has shifted a bit #and i wanted to emphasise the 'no good deed' interpretation!!#also it's just that i've seen a lot of people saying that countdown ends with jason being a civilian.#while i think the whole genius of it is that he is not really a civilian??#have you seen civilians doing whatever the hell he is doing in the final scene?#this is arguably the element of the narrative that is by most readers missed – and i understand why #it's easy to get confused when navigating an event that spans across pretty much all of dc #fortunately for you i have worms for brain. and i have hyperanalysed it #i'm not saying overanalysed btw because i genuinely believe that this is not a case of accidental narrative brilliance #this is a pretty clear and straightforward progression once you dissect it from the rest of the series #and there are a lot of details that further cement my belief that it had to be intentional #i mean. even the recognition that donna and jason know each other is already... a lot for dc writers?#the fatal flaw #51 #no good deed #jay.zip #jay.txt #jason todd #core texts

189 notes · View notes

sixthwater · 5 months

Text

Thoughts on Modern Vedic

I’m finally able to put it into words. It’s not so much the practice as it is the way it’s produced currently, in a way. I have a few people that I follow as I’ve said before that I enjoy their way of going about this system and it’s actually very interesting and they’re very intelligent as well as impressive, but the system just isn’t for me.

Unfortunately, the vast majority turns me off of that system and it’s similar to how astrologers in general can turn people off of astrology. Something that I’ve really liked with this system is the way it utilizes themes or stories? Blanking on the word- To go along with nakshatras, but it bleeds into other aspects and it treats people more like caricatures and not People. Which can circle right back into stereotyping.

Bharani people are inherently sexual so they will end up being promiscuous. I took it at face value before realizing that people started to see others through that lens and flatten them to two dimensional characteristics. Regardless of how you feel about her, let’s look at Selena Gomez because it’s the perfect example of this problem:

When in reality:

Even if the second photo is only slightly better while still repeating the same mistake, you can’t ignore the rampant bias going on in modern Vedic. And that’s what turns me off from it. It’s supposed to be more accurate but people look at a person’s three actions and go “I just KNOW they’re Jyeshta” while forgetting they have a whole chart to break down because, what? They were inquiring about how other people view them consistently enough?

I can’t help but get frustrated that so many layers of it are being forgotten and it’s the very very intricate layers of it. There are cons to it, as well as objective issues (saying a native is born to have unsuccessful marriages or a terrible life and there’s nothing they can do about it is…something), but there’s beauty to everything.

Let’s look back at Bharani cause, I’m a Bharani Moon. As you know, I’m Asexual. That’s cuts half of this nakshatra in half. But it really doesn’t lol. I believe that sensuality is forgotten in a world that media has put sexuality on a pedestal — not in a holier than thou way but it’s made people lose touch within themselves and within intimacy between their partners. So Sensuality is important to me in a way, I love seeing that in media. I also Love media that involves themes of death/rebirth/the afterlife. Seeing transformation and metaphors for it are wonderful even if no one really dies because literal death isn’t necessary. Not a special attribute but I will be insanely protective of women even if I just met them, you have to get through me first if you wanna fuck with them. However all of those other Bharani qualities I rarely see because it hides behind whatever you can sexualize within its nakshatra which is very boring to be honest. I know that’s the point but if that’s the case…okay.

So I believe that’s my issue here. Modern explanations or configurations are so full of bias that it makes it difficult for it’s pure form to come through and it waters down so much of what it has to offer, so that by the time anyone might find a good astrologer, that have to seriously be convinced it has something more to it than anything judgmental

#so many times I answered the confusion in Vedic with tropical astrology within two minutes #your bias is beating your ass.

13 notes · View notes

bonyassfish · 7 months

Text

“Israel has a right to exist” first off, no states should have an inherent right to exist in my anarchist opinion, but let’s set that aside for the moment and answer this at face value. And to be clear I’m not discussing if Jewish people should live there, I’m talking about the state.

Israel’s existence and the project of Zionism are based on the idea that there should be a “Jewish state”, which is usually taken to mean a majority Jewish state. This is not possible unless the millions of Palestinians living inside the supposed borders of Israel are removed, murdered or displaced.

And there’s often this liberal Zionist ideology that a peaceful version of the Israeli state would be possible, that under the right leadership and conditions it could exist harmoniously next to a Palestinian state (which, where would that be?). The people who believe in this ideology will condemn the government and specific things like the West Bank settlements, but will stop short of condemning the state altogether. I understand this ideology, I even believed in it myself for a while. The ideology also ignores, to an extent, the violence enacted by Zionism for the last several decades. But the dream of liberal Zionists is just not possible. Not only because it’s absurd to pretend that Palestinians only come from Gaza and the West Bank, but because you cannot create a democratic state which is predicated on the privileged status of any one ethnic or religious group.

“So you don’t think Jews should have a state?” Again, I don’t think anybody should have a state, but yes. It’s not a punishment to exist as a minority in the countries we live in. I understand the fear of antisemitism, it’s very very real. But Israel doesn’t make any of us safer, it only thrusts us into militarism and violence. Our safety isn’t dependent on Palestinian genocide. It never has been, despite what Zionists will say.

And yes, by the way, this also means that antizionists living outside Israel/Palestine must take the issue of antisemitism seriously. The best defense against Zionism is to welcome and embrace Jews and assure them they have a home in diaspora.

#jewish tag

16 notes · View notes

deanismysavior · 2 years

Note

Why do people think Mike’s character is “ruined” if they don’t make him gay or bi in the final season? I understand he’s done some hurtful things to will and el, but he’s a teenage boy. Just because a character has been an asshole at times, that doesn’t mean the character is “ruined” or “makes no sense,” does it? If Byler isn’t canon in S5, won’t that mean you just misunderstood the character?

While I think that it might be a reach to say that it ruined his character, I do think that it would make a lot of the narrative elements of the show and how they built up Mike and Will's relationship make less sense. While in real life, I would typically agree that some people just "act like that" because they have an off day or whatever, but we have to remember that Mike is an intentionally written character with motivations and narrative direction, which means that what we see on screen about how Mike interacts with others and how he responds to situations is inspired by the lens with which the Duffers have written him. Mike's behavior over the course of the show has been rather inconsistent, especially when it comes to El and Will. While there are things that have stayed pretty constant about the way Mike thinks and perceives (i.e. his ability to plan and strategize under pressure, his deductive reasoning, his blame-shifting), we're able to tell a lot about Mike by the way his more inherent traits change over the course of the show and in relation to these characters (his going from an active, leading role in his friend group to becoming the passive partner that feels inferior to his girlfriend and his going from being incredibly overprotective over Will to basically ignoring him and pushing him away). I do think that a lot of Mike's motivations would seem to make less sense if we took everything from this season at face value. One of the strongest examples of this, I believe, is the entire setup to this season's arc. At the end of season 3, we see El confront Mike about what he said to Max in Hopper's cabin (when he blurted out that he loved El), and Mike immediately starts backtracking, saying he doesn't remember and that it was the heat of the moment. While you may be able to explain this away as Mike just being nervous because he doesn't want to tell El first, the reaction we get from Mike after El says "I love you too," does not suggest this. If Mike had been worried about saying this first, then we should have seen him relieved to hear El say she loved him, but instead we get this moment in which Mike is as stiff as a board when El kisses him, not kissing her back and keeping his eyes open. When she walks away, he looks utterly confused. If you wanted to write this off as just him being awkward, sure, I guess you could, if it didn't play such a huge narrative role in season 4. In this season, Mike and El's main arc is about how Mike still can't tell her he loves her. They've been together for over a year and a half, and Mike has not told her. This is no longer him just being awkward, this is him intentionally avoiding. At the end of the season, we get Mike's reasoning to be that he thought that the day he lost El would "hurt more" if he said he loved her, and aside from the fact that this was a recycled sentiment from Will's van speech, if we actually look at the direction of the narrative this season, we know that this doesn't make sense. When Mike describes his fight with El to Will as something they "can't come back from," Mike says this while knowing full-well what El wants him to say to her. If Mike genuinely loved El in the way she wanted him to, he wouldn't describe it as something they couldn't come back from, and he would have told her he loved her when she was crying over it in her room because that would have been the way to guarantee not losing her, but instead he deflects and gaslights her. While Mike doesn't have the best blueprint for romantic relationships, the issue is not that he can't be vulnerable, because we see him throughout the season consistently being able to be vulnerable and express his feelings with Will, he just can't be vulnerable with El. To me, it would take a lot more mental gymnastics to read this situation as Mike being genuinely in love with El than to deduce that he probably doesn't feel that way and just doesn't know how to tell her.

But even putting aside Mike's individual character motivations for a second, if we look at the way that his relationship with Will is structured, it would make a lot less sense narratively if the intention of the writers and showrunners was not to be setting these two up romantically. We get direct contrasts between scenes with El and Mike and Mike and Will that showcase the stark tonal difference, and the one that is framed more romantically, is the relationship between Mike and Will.

Mike looks confused when his girlfriend tells him she loves him,

Meanwhile he looks the happiest we've seen him all season when Will tells him he won't join another party.

Mike and El's breakup is framed as a comedic girlboss moment, and when Max tells El Mike will come crawling back to her, we see Mike complaining on the couch asking what he did wrong and eating a bag of chips, making no real effort to win El back until Lucas suggests it,

Meanwhile Mike and Will's fight is framed dramatically, where he begs Will not to leave his house after their fight, then bikes all the way across town in the rain without a second thought to apologize and make sure Will is alright.

El practically begs Mike to confirm to her that he loves her, and he deflects and gaslights her,

Meanwhile Mike apologizes to Will for being self-pitying and petty with him without Will even having to bring it up.

But even if we decide to put this framing contrast aside, Mike and Will are consistently paralleled throughout this season with other established couples whom we know have healthy dynamics and genuine feelings for one another (Jonathan and Nancy, Lucas and Max, and Joyce and Hopper), meanwhile El and Mike's relationship is paralleled to Karen and Ted's relationship, a loveless marriage, and El and Dr. Brenner's relationship, a complete power imbalance in which El feels othered.

If the Duffers wanted to sell Mike and El as a love story, they would not be writing them like this.

#byler #byler nation #byler endgame #ask #mike wheeler #will byers #el hopper #st #stranger things #mike x will #will x mike #will byers is gay #mike wheeler i know what you are

240 notes · View notes

thebestofoneshots · 3 months

Note

I’m not trying to be rude because it really isn’t just you (which is sad) but normalize saying “white-coded” reader please, it’s very tiring to read a fic then seeing something like “you blushed” “your cheeks turned pink”, if your intended is white people then clarify that please.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I appreciate your honesty and the opportunity to reflect on how my writing may unintentionally exclude certain readers.

Your point about "white-coded" language in fiction is valid, and it's something I've been reflecting on recently. While I may not have initially considered the implications of phrases like "your cheeks turned pink," I did read a post about it a few weeks past and now I think twice about the way I write things since they can inadvertently reinforce a narrow representation of beauty and emotion.

Lately, I've tried to move into things like "blood rushed to your cheeks" and, "you felt the skin of your face warm", and while in the past I might have written, "your cheeks turned pink" I have actively tried to avoid it now.

Having said that, the example that you provide, "you blushed" did jump at me a little since I have never considered blushing as an exclusively white reaction. I am not white, and I blush, so I decided to do a bit of research, since, perhaps, my idea of blushing has been wrong all along.

According to Felix I D Konotey-Ahulu (a consultant physician in General Medicine & Tropical Medicine at Cromwell Hospital in London) "blushing is far more than a mere cutaneous phenomenon" (Ahulu, 2004). He states that "not being able to ‘see’ the rush of blood does not mean it has not happened" (ibidem).

Now he does speak of a "white definition of blushing", that being that your cheeks turn pink and/or red, but blushing, really blushing, is not inherently related to the colour changes of your skin, but rather to the feeling it evokes: the embarrassment, the shame, etc. At least that's how I've always seen it.

If white-centricness has turned it into something that it isn't, the rest us shouldn't be feeling as though we cannot blush because our skin isn't pale enough to let it be evident, because then, in any case, we're just letting the white appropriation to topple over the meaning behind words.

Blushing is not exclusive to white people, and it never has been.

Implying that it is, is just falling into the same idea of otherness that whiteness has imposed over years of colonization, but we ARE all humans and WE ALL feel fundamentally the same emotions. Blushing is a reflection of emotion more than a physical (discernable or not) reaction.

I'm not saying I have never written "your cheeks turn pink," I have, and I think it's more to do with the media that I've consumed than with me wanting to exclude any skin tone from my texts, as you mentioned, I am not the only one to write like this, and it's because we are all reading the same books and unfortunately, those actually ARE very white-centric. Now it is not an excuse and I certainly should and WILL be more careful with the way I word things, but I'm STILL learning how to write.

I apologize if my writing has made you feel excluded or overlooked. That was never my intention, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to rethink my approach to things.

Moving forward, I will be even more mindful of the language I use and strive to create a more inclusive experience for all readers. Your feedback is invaluable in helping me grow as a writer, and I thank you for bringing this important issue to my attention, even if I found the manner in which you sent the comment a little confronting (and slightly upsetting), as it felt like you were making assumptions about me and my intended audience.

However, I respect your right to express your feelings and opinions, and I value the ability to have an open discussion and move forward together, even after this initial confrontation.

I'm committed to making positive changes based on your insights.

Bibliography:

Konotey Ahulu, F. (2004). Blushing in black skin. Blackwell Publishing Ltd , Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. Retrieved in: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1473-2130.2004.00040.x

#Ask lilly #Lilly talks #writing #this was kind of upsetting #not the comment #i think that was valid #but rather the way it was worded #implying my intended audience is exclusively white #that was pretty upsetting

15 notes · View notes

joys-of-everyday · 11 months

Text

Wei Wuxian and the Difficulties of Morality

Wow so I did not realise how much discourse there was around Wei Wuxian and moral greyness. Let me erm… poke around a little because that’s a hobby of mine.

Btw, I usually write about SVSSS. This won’t change. This is a one-off thing (for now).

Firstly, an Anecdote

Fun story, I watched cql and the mdzs donghua with my mum. There were many memorable things that came out of this, but one of the relevant points is an offhanded comment from my mum. She said (translated into English): ‘Wei Wuxian has no face to show Jiang Cheng, because he broke his promise to stay by his side’ (1). For context, my mum grew up in a fairly traditional Asian household. They take their declarations of loyalty seriously (or at least, that is my impression).

I find this interesting, because when it comes to moral judgement, I (who grew up in the west, with a lot of western values) get far more hung up on the things WWX did, rather than some promise he made in his adolescence. Breaking a promise is not ideal, but in my books, doesn’t really count as a huge moral failing.

The point here is not to say anything about the ethics of promise breaking, but to illustrate a point. Different people have different values. Or one person can have conflicting values. There are many scenarios where it’s not possible to say with certainty what is right or wrong. This is moral ambiguity.

(Funnily enough, the issue that my dad took with WWX was the fact he was fiddling around with dead bodies, which was like… the least of my concerns, but then I realised that bodies have a lot of religious significance.)

What even is moral greyness?

There are two possible and equally valid definitions of moral greyness.

1. Characters who are not 100% evil or 100% good

2. Characters who do not fall into the categories of ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

Note that definition 2 is a strictly stronger definition than definition 1. It is not that hard to argue that WWX does not fall under definition 2, in that he is somehow overall ‘good’. (I would also argue that MXTX encourages you to not think too hard about these dichotomies, particularly via SVSSS, but that’s a rabbit hole for another day.) It is also not that hard to argue WWX does fall under definition 1. Mainly because it’s quite hard not to breathe without falling under definition 1.

The Two Kinds of Uncertainty

When it comes to ethical questions, there are two uncertainties you naturally run into. Firstly, uncertainty of the world, which comes from having imperfect information about the situation or consequences of any given action. Secondly, uncertainty around the underlying moral question. Is it okay to sacrifice few for the sake of many? Should we place more value on those close to us in comparison to a stranger?

Humanity has not figured out morality, and certainly not for a lack of trying. Standards change over time. We look at the behaviour of our ancestors just a few hundred years ago with no small amount of repugnance. Most likely, in a few hundred years’ time our descendants will do the same. This isn’t to pass judgement on anything or anybody, but to make an observation that there is nothing you can do in the world that doesn’t inherently come with moral ambiguity, because there is always uncertainty – both of the world and the morals you are applying. And wherever there is moral ambiguity, there is moral greyness (definition 1).

That being said, ‘everything is morally grey’ is not really a helpful statement. There are things that we (society today) generally agree on e.g. ‘killing someone for no reason is bad’ or ‘being nice to people is good’. So the argument I want to posit today is that WWX’s moral greyness goes beyond this in a substantial way.

The Uncertain Character of WWX

The Fundamental Principle of MXTX is that all narrators are unreliable. At the bloodbath of the Nightless City, did WWX kill 5000? 3000? Far fewer? Had WWX acted in a different way, could JYL’s death have been avoided? We’ll never know.

To add to this complexity is subtle shifts in canon depending on the adaptation. WWX tortures Wen Chao pretty brutally in the novel (and even if you hate him, it’s a bit ick). In cql, it ‘fades to black’. In the donghua it’s a nice quick stab. Then there’s all of the fiddling around they did with JGY depending on the adaptations, giving him more or less blame for the events. I’m not sure if ‘novel is the only canon’ is the correct way to go, mainly because adaptation!WWX is interesting to analyse in itself. I won’t explore this too deeply here, but something to keep in mind.

Anyway, I want to argue that WWX is morally grey, through commentary on a few elements of his character.

1. The Horrors of War

WWX does a lot of things that are somewhat eyebrow raising. You know, killing people and stuff. Now it has been pointed out plenty of times that his situation was unusual (it was war!). The moralities surrounding warfare are in itself complicated. A pacifist might argue that war is no excuse for violence, but even without going to such extremes, these days we appreciate that there are some actions that cannot be condoned, even during times of coflict – this is the notion of war crimes.

War crimes are a surprisingly modern thing (people started to care a lot after the atrocities of WWII). Medieval warfare was brutal. Anyway, these include things like ‘torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments’ and ‘wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages’. Note that while killing large numbers of enemy soldiers doesn’t fall under war crimes (although some methods of going about this do, like biological weapons), torture does, so that’s one strike against book!WWX. Now there is subtly in these things, because if you judged people by these standards for anything more than 200 years old, basically everyone is committing war crimes without thinking too hard about it. WWX did do a lot of arguably good things in the Sunshot Campaign (whatever good means in war) – he fought against the tyranny of the Wens and was one of the key things that shifted the tides towards victory. Without him, the world might have looked a lot darker. Whether these ‘goods’ weigh over the ‘bads’ is something to think about.

On a slightly softer note, weapons of mass destructions are another cause of serious discussion. Those involved in the Manhattan Project creating the first atomic bomb weren’t exactly all war criminals (moreover, many of them genuinely believed they were doing what was right and necessary) but the consequences of their actions are what they are. So while WWX made the Yin Tiger Talley as a method of deterrence and assurance, considering the consequences of its use and the potential for future misuse, here lies another moral ambiguity.

2. Intent vs Consequences

It’s fair to say that most of the time, WWX’s intentions were good. Whether it be to protect the weak, to stand up for justice, these are all things we can get behind. The consequences of his actions? Well, JYL is dead, as well as a bunch of other people, and most the Wens didn’t survive anyway. That’s a big oof.

Now most people don’t subscribe to the strongest version of consequentialism which judges whether something is right or wrong by its consequences only. As in, for one, it’s almost impossible to apply in practice because you can’t predict the consequences of your actions at the point at which you chose to do them. Case in point, most of the consequences of WWX’s actions weren’t wholly down to WWX and it’s difficult to say if there was anything at all that he could have done to lead to a better outcome. (Arguably, WWX should have tried harder to negotiate with the rest of the cultivation world instead of being a one-man army against them, but in that case, they might have just mowed down the Wens anyway.)

Then again, I think most people do subscribe to at least a weak form of consequentialism. No matter how good the intentions, no matter how righteous and commendable… if the outcome is bad, it’s hard to label those actions as ‘good’ (play pumps is an example if you want to look into how charities can do more harm than good).

I draw no conclusions here. It’s food for thought.

3. On Conflicting Values and Lose-Lose Scenarios

A lot of the above comes from applying modern ethics to a character in a world largely based on ‘Ancient China’ (the quotation marks from the fact Ancient China is several thousands years old and changes significantly over time). We do this all the time. Hell, people are still reimagining the Three Kingdoms and making commentary on the morality of Cao Cao (155-220). MDZS makes a lot of commentary on modern social issues (the ‘mob mentality’ of MDZS feels like Weibo/twitter lol), so viewing it through a modern lens makes sense.

But let’s put that aside for a second and return to my mum’s comment about WWX’s broken promise. By traditional values, family is important. In Confucianism, the Four Virtues are ‘loyalty’, ‘filial piety’, ‘continence’, and ‘righteousness’. To illustrate just how serious family was, in the conflict between Liu Bang and Xiang Yu, Xiang Yu at some point threatened to kill Liu Bang’s father. Then Liu Bang was like ‘we’re sworn brothers, so technically he’s your father too’, and Xiang Yu didn’t kill him, because it would be unfilial to do so. All this is to say, WWX turning his back on his sect and his family was a big deal. Equally, loyalty towards a superior was valued greatly, even towards eyebrow raising superiors.

But Confucianism also teaches the importance of things like ‘righteousness’ and ‘benevolence’. Throughout many dynasties, important people have cared a lot about the grievances of the masses. Bullying the weak and hoarding power unjustly is seen as one of the ultimate evils, a big reason for a leader to lose the Mandate of Heaven, thus becoming unfit to rule. Plenty of subordinates have stood up against the tyranny of their superiors. So WWX standing up to the evils of the Jin clan is highly commendable by these standards too.

Another thing is ‘paying back your benefactors’. In the west, although we do have concepts like ‘owing a life’, I don’t think it’s as strong??? This is also serious business. In the Three Kingdoms, Cao Cao spared his enemy general Guan Yu, and later Guan Yu briefly fought for Cao Cao even though he was an enemy, in order to repay this debt. Wen Ning and Wen Qing saved WWX’s life and helped him when he was in need – WWX has a moral obligation to help them in return.

Thus we see WWX between a rock and hard place. Turn away from the Jiangs and he turns away from his family, and from someone he promised his loyalty to. But turn a blind eye to the treatment of the Wens, and he is a not only allowing evil to go unchallenged, but also abandoning his benefactors. The game is rigged. There is no right move here. Morally ambiguity -> moral greyness.

(Note: A lot of the previous two points can also be viewed from a 'traditional' lens. Mohism has been arguing about pacifism and universal love since 400BC. Taoism has many things to say about intervening in world affairs. Life has always been complicated, and while our language/framework may shift, many of the underlying questions remain.)

(Second note: my knowledge of Chinese philosophy is all the stuff I learnt in Saturday school+a few books/youtube videos aka. not a lot. Please call me out if I'm sprouting nonsense.)

Let’s wrap up

Tl;dr WWX is a morally grey character.

And I haven’t even started on what went down at the Nightless City, or how interesting (read: morally sus) his methods of murder were, or his fantastic takes on risk assessment.

Maybe he’s good overall. Maybe he’s a hero. But heroes too can be morally grey. That’s just a part of life.

1. This is really hard to translate actually, and I think the way I’ve written it makes sense but comes across stronger than it was. More literally it was ‘can’t raise his head towards’. It was sort of explaining why JC was giving WWX a lot of shit later on and WWX wasn’t arguing back, more in a sympathetic way rather than a critical way.

As usual, thank you for reading! Comments and criticism appreciated, but I may be significantly slower getting back because my brain is in svsss mode rn :)

#mdzs #mdzs meta #wei wuxian #wei ying #i started writing this at midnight #its now 4am #why do i do this?

24 notes · View notes

westworldparty19 · 11 months

Text

Okay thinking about it more…If someone from an alternate timeline showed up to the crew of our Enterprise and was like???everything here is so bad? You still have racism?! The romulans aren’t part of the federation yet? You still have famine and war and incurable disease? Something clearly went wrong in your timeline and I’m here to fix it…surely our crew would be like buzz off. La’an even says as much to Alt Kirk.

Expanding on what I said in the previous post about how destroying Alt Kirk’s timeline is a eugenicist way of thinking…like Kirk and La’an make the decision that people suffering through war do not have the same value as people presently free from war. (If this scenario happened even like 5 years earlier during the Klingon war…would La’an still fight for her timeline? Would Kirk be able to convince her that his was as worthy?) That people experiencing hardship are less “valuable” or worthy of living than those who live in a utopia…

Which brings me back to that Omelas episode from last season. A utopian society that flourishes through the suffering of just one child. Which Pike and crew are against but ultimately cannot stop and do not try to further put an end to. They acknowledge that what the people of this planet are doing is wrong and horrific and yet when faced with a similar decision…to allow thousands (or millions idk what the canon is now for eugenics war) to suffer and die in order to maintain their utopia, they side with the society they previously condemned, except to a greater extreme.

-well was La’an even in that episode? Don’t remember. Would Pike make the same choices if he was the one to go back in time, probably but we can’t really know.

I saw a bit from an interview I believe with Paul Wesley but I could be wrong, that said that Kirk always fights for what he believes is right/for those who can’t fight for themselves and sometimes has to resist the instinct to protect the one at the cost of the many…which is ultimately the choice La’an makes. Protect Khan at the cost of all the people he will cause to suffer and die. It’s also the inverse of what that planet decides, cause one to suffer to protect the rest.

What does this mean for La’an’s character? We’re meant to understand that she makes the right choice because she returns everything back to normal but was it really the right choice? How will this choice affect her in the future, affect her relationship to the Gorn?

I’m hoping that she will have a change of heart. Something like “I made a decision once that caused a lot of people to suffer. It benefited my people in the long run. Seems like the Gorn are also making choices that benefit them. Maybe evil isn’t inherent. Maybe evil is subjective. Maybe they think they are doing what’s right. Maybe we all think we’re doing what’s right. Maybe the Gorn aren’t so different from us after all. Maybe we’re all monsters, or maybe we’re all people faced with choices.”

I just have such major issues with the way the gorn have been presented and I think if the storyline were to resolve along those lines all my complaints would be erased lol. I’d eat my own tail for being so wrong, and I hope that that’s how it goes!

This post is all over the place lol. But I also think SNW is all over the place.

Lmk what you think!

#star trek #snw #strange new worlds #snw spoilers #la’an noonien singh

10 notes · View notes

septicmomma · 1 year

Text

THE KERBLAM CONUNDRUM

The main idea behind Kerblam, other than a general condemnation of ecoterrorism is that businesses have to go beyond doing just the bare minimum to placate its workforce. Is a tool inherently evil or is it the bearers of those tools that use them that way? Almost every issue originates from a parasocial system engrained within a society of space corporatocracy, driven by an over-reliance on the system. Even going so far as giving the automated system the capacity to develop an emotional amoral compass. And thats the fundamental problem...You cant assign a moral value to a system (at least not in the way how we can emotionally convey as people), but you can assign a moral value to individuals that comprise that system. So the question becomes are people producing morals separate from greed and egoism ?, which represents one of main conflicts in the episode (Charlie vs 'the system')

Throughout Kerblam it's telling us that automation as a principle isn’t inherently malicious, so long as you don’t start treating people like left up currency, only to be used and abused.

It’s easy to say “capitalism bad” but it’s not that simple. Any system is bad if the values within it are bad Communism, socialism, none of these systems work if they have bad leadership and/or corrupt values.

If capitalist values changed and the wealth generated by it actually went back into the system to improve it. What prevents capitalism from making a good society are the values that are currently upheld. homelessness, climate change, wage gaps we could generally lead towards better lives with better values that cultivate ways to deal with all the crises we’re facing. As long as people had the money held good intensions.

The most common criticism surrounding this episode is that 'it presents capitalistic systems of power as inherently good, and anyone critical of it or who desires to change the system, are violent and inherently irrational'.

Which is an argument has never made much sense to me. We see a clear distinction between the AI system of Kerblam and the system of Capitalism. Kerblam has a union, something the likes of Amazon doesn’t have. There's Judy's who's whole job is based around maintaining safety and worker moral. You also have Slade, noting down the numerous 'disappearances' hence his own distrust of the system.

Kerblam explores what corrupts a system, whether it's the people outside or within, or whether it's simply a result of centuries of capitalism being cemented at the core of our current climate. You the Kerblam men acting as allegories for overbearing busybodies. “grouploops" Serve as house arrest ankle monitors.

Everything wrong with Kerblam's treatment of it's workers stems from the automated system, which originates from the capitalist society on Kandoka.

The problem is the system model it follows, a system that prioritises automation In pursuance of higher profit and efficiency, lower-class workers are being phased out by robotics and A.I, over people getting jobs at the price of living. 'The system' itself isn't evil, rather it made an informed decision without concern wether the behaviour in of itself was morally inscrutable. A system that Slade and Judy intend to break away from as shown by the ending.

There are deliberate parallels drawn between Charlie and the system. Both prone to violent outbursts, share a firm belief that the ends justify the means. Those traits are habitually inhabited in response of Charlie's discourse. Ironically, this is is something he refuses to see in himself, due to his own reckless abandon, the consequential outcome resulting in the death of Kira. His motivations weren't out of trying make conditions better, it was an elaborate act of vengeance under the facade of justice, outrage for the sake of outrage, as Charlie's desire for a 'better world' was going to result in the death over a multitude of people regardless of their political affiliations. His argument on how Kerblam undervalues its workers and that the system needs less control, so people are seen with more empathy and emotion in order for things improve; Is a valid concern but becomes completely antithetical as he was already murdering his own co-workers prior to being discovered. Workers who very much contribute to that “90%” he claims to be so fiercely in favour of defending, hence the Kerblam AI killing Kira in order to help him feel that same empathy which the Doctor reiterates to him the pain he feels over Kira's death is the same pain those families would feel if he continues down his current trajectory. 13 tries to motivate him into refocusing his love for Kira in an attempt to show him the ramifications of his violent actions and lead him into becoming more empathetic, but he’s just too stubborn and distort to see reason. It’s a sad possibility had Kira survived Charlie may have been more subject to reason however, her death acts a breaking point as his only emotional anchor is now gone...He let his own personal vindication override his original mission statement, rather than enact any real change that would actually allow people in his position to beneficially prosper.

Although the moment where Kerblam truly muddies the waters is where it concludes with the company suspending the operations for a mere month and workers are only given 2 weeks paid leave?? as a result it leaves those aspect feeling slightly glossed over and hangs a pretty limp celebration over the episode considering multiple employees were murdered by an ecoterrorist who almost got away with even MORE murder...

Kerblam sets itself up as a criticism of late-stage capitalism but the only issue that is ultimately addressed by the ending is automation. which is a problem but it’s more so the timely result of these systems flaws and how they have historically been exploited. However, those underlying issues aren’t really dwelled upon, or at least they don’t factor in with the episode's ending discussion as we don't see what results from the proceeding fallout.

#13th doctor #doctor who #kerblam!#controversial #doctor who series 11 #new who

14 notes · View notes

summers-pratt · 2 years

Note

I both love and hate that Angel quote where he says “Our time is never up - we pay for everything.” On one hand, when taken at face value (as I believe it was supposed to be) it’s a horrible piece of advice and a dangerously unhealthy mindset. But in the other hand, it perfectly illustrates Angel’s biggest flaw - his obsession with guilt. Not self-improvement or remorse, necessarily, but specifically guilt. Angel seems to believe that the only way he can make up for what he did is through endless self loathing and wallowing in self-pity, which is inadvertently more selfish than if he just let himself accept what he did and move on as a changed man. The biggest indicator of genuine remorse isn’t guilt - it’s changed behaviour. I also think this was probably the worst advice he could have given Faith, who already has a massive issue with letting herself indulge endlessly in self-loathing and self-pity but never truly moving on from it, especially since although Faith has done some horrific things, she ultimately has far less to be guilty over than Angel does.

Where were you when they were writing this shitty shitty show lmao they could've used that perspective on Faith's character- being told she's never going to be able to make up for her mistakes when she deep down desperately wants to but is not currently in a state to do so is not the way to kick start any amends-making, especially coming from a guy who is just worse in every way imaginable and does not even understand what making up for shit and being good actually means or entails.

In re Angel wallowing in his guilt and that being inherently selfish and not conducive to actually making amends in any way- yeah. Fucking yeah. He thinks if he feels bad about being bad, then that is enough to be good, but the key word in "being good" is being. It is an action in the present tense. To "be good" you have to actively make choices to do good things, and then do those things without expecting any kind of reward, as well as recognize your faults and errors of the past and make amends to the people you've hurt if at all possible, again without expecting anything in return. Angel does seemingly good things (sometimes) to make up for all the evil he's done as if he can balance some kind of cosmic scale, with the expectation of some kind of reward (ex. Buffy, Sanshuing, literally just fucking money, etc), declaring he is Good, all the while wallowing in self-pity because he did so many evil things he feels bad about doing. But feeling bad and trying to be good to make up for it (with the expectation to have god pat you on the head or whatever) is not actually a huge shift in behavior for him; these are still selfish acts. Wallowing in guilt makes him feel better about past misdeeds, it does nothing to try and right any of those wrongs, and it makes him feel good about himself that he is having the Correct Reaction to these things. Doing things that help people with an expectation of being rewarded or getting into the black in your morality ledger is still selfish because the end goal will give him something he wants, as well as making him feel better about that pesky guilt he wears like a tilted crown. @thoughtsofahouseplant and I were JUST having an Angel-hate-rant and she made the excellent point that Angel suffers from Main Character Syndrome and I think that is fitting here; everything is about him, his guilt, his redemption, his relationship with Buffy, his (weak) efforts to Be Good; it's all for him to feel better about himself and feel like he is important to the Grand Scheme of Things. And that is just inherently selfish.

#this turned into an angel rant and im not even sorry #this is an angel hate zone #ask

19 notes · View notes

ecoamerica · 2 months

Text

youtube

Watch the American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 now: https://youtu.be/bWiW4Rp8vF0?feature=shared

The American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 broadcast recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by active climate leaders. Watch to find out which finalist received the $50,000 grand prize! Hosted by Vanessa Hauc and featuring Bill McKibben and Katharine Hayhoe!

17K notes · View notes

aronarchy · 1 year

Text

@iris-sunflower I’ll respond to your reblog of my post here, since my OP was already very long and I don’t want its notes to be cluttered:

1) Children and everyone having a right to public, accessible education is such an important value for me. Is youthlib against the idea of funding public schools?

I’m not The Single Valid Youthlib Representative(tm). There are many different youth liberationists who don’t necessarily agree with each other on every single point. I can only give my own opinion, which I believe is the most accurate interpretation of the principle of youth liberation: Of course I agree, and I acknowledge that public schools are currently underfunded and should have more financial support. Gatekeeping from education is oppressive.

It would put all minors at a disadvantage, and we should be improving children’s education so they have a fairer prospect for their future. Being literate, understanding math especially finance, etc.

I agree it’s a problem that so many children are unable to access any education in the first place. But I would caution against taking the “less educated = less successful” at face value. The issue isn’t that being less educated automatically, inherently means one will become disadvantaged, but that capitalism creates these disadvantages for uneducated people. It’s unfair that people who haven’t had a chance to go to/remain in school are also gatekept from jobs, resources, and respect later in life. Resolving the issue (re classism and adultism) involves making it possible for children to be able to go to school instead of being unable to access it, but it also means fighting for justice for children & adults who didn’t get to go, instead of just leaving them behind in the dust now that it’s too late or whatever. It’s sad that if someone can’t understand the (overcomplicated, very bullshit, should-not-be-existing-in-the-first-place) financial system capitalism has forced onto us, then they’ll be disadvantaged in life.

And, some children/minors/adults just can’t understand math or finance or learn literacy well in the first place, regardless of how good their teachers/educational materials/settings are. It is unfair to expect that they should, or treat them as lesser, or refuse to accommodate them. Everyone, regardless of capability, should be able to expect a good future for themself, and to have the resources to live securely.

And, formal schools (both public and private) are extremely adultist and violent to children. Does that mean homeschooling is the solution? No, because family homes are also extremely adultist and violent to children. I’m frustrated at a lot of the discourse I’ve seen, where survivors of violence from schools or violence from the home have tried to discuss our traumas, only to be dismissed and told that we should just suck it up and deal with the flaws of the institution because the alternative would be “worse.” Many people have experienced immense abuse and trauma from both schools and our families. I want to think of solutions beyond just trying to pick the lesser of two evils.

(Official) schools (in their current form, at least) aren’t particularly good at teaching in the first place. They don’t teach how to really understand the concepts of “math” so much as rote memorization and computation, for example. The way subjects are taught in schools focuses more on trying to train them into good capitalist workers, not help them develop life skills for themselves or learn things they actually want to and choose to learn themselves. Meanwhile a lot of potential educational materials (paywalled academic texts, informative books in general, politically unpopular info/arguments like honest analyses about abuse dynamics/what to do in more difficult situations, niche things they don’t really care about because they’re not profitable) and sources of education (i.e. people, places from the outside) are withheld from children because of the formalized schooling system which narrows what and how they can learn, and meanwhile tries to force students to learn whatever they don’t want and don’t need to learn, and is especially hell for disabled children/minors being forced to attend and being overloaded with work when they can’t handle that, plus all the higher likelihood of bullying and abuse from authority figures they can’t escape from.

So I believe youth liberationists, and leftists in general, should be focused on both improving access to education and ensuring that people who had not been able to access education or just genuinely don’t want to or cannot are not being punished for being uneducated either. Right to learn things doesn’t mean also being okay with forcing children to learn things (which is also a major problem right now). And grassroots education outside of formal schooling hooked up to the state/capitalist systems / the nuclear family home should also be a priority. Though it would help, “reform & improve public schools” is still not a solution to the fundamental problem of enforcing a divide between “learning” and “the rest of life” / “place to learn” and “anywhere else” / monopolizing good (or as good as possible) education in the hands of authorities.

We should be making schools better for children not losing their right to an education.

(I prefer to frame children’s rights discussions as something which centers their input and their efforts; should not just be a thing “we” pass down onto “them” on their behalf instead of them being directly involved in the process.)

(Note that nowhere in the entire article I reposted was there any claim that children should “lose their right to an education.”)

2) Does losing parental rights make parental abuse obsolete as a legal protection? Confused here.

That’s not what “right” means. A right you have is something you can do, not something you have to do. “Parental rights over their children” doesn’t mean parents are being made to care for or be nonabusive to their children; “parental rights” are the mechanisms which allow parents to abuse their children because their children are viewed as their property, or to force invasive medical procedures onto/withhold needed medical care from their children because they’re viewed as having a right to make their children’s decisions for them regardless of what the children themselves feel, or to decide what their child’s future must look like because of their “right to control” them. “Parental rights” means that outsiders are barred from housing an abused/neglected child because only the parents may choose where “their” children live.

On the other hand, parental obligations (or responsibilities, or duties) are a rather different concept. For example, every person has an obligation (or responsibility) to not abuse or otherwise violate other sentient beings. Everyone also has an obligation to not hoard essential resources they won’t use themselves while others are in desperate need but can’t access them—for example, (IMO) very rich people with control over their finances are obligated to redistribute their wealth downwards ASAP, and are committing ethical violations when they do not. As for obligations specific to parents: if they have children under their care who cannot leave/acquire that care elsewhere, they have a responsibility to feed, clothe, house, and otherwise provide for their children wrt essential resources to the best of their physical and financial capability.

Parents should face consequences for abusing children, which unfortunately will happen sometimes regardless of efforts to prevent crime. Some parents are just cruel.

I like to think of this question a bit differently. The issue here is that right now, if a parent has cruel beliefs/intentions, then abuse will happen, because they have near-unchallenged power to enact their will for cruelty. Consequences for abuse which has happened are important, of course, but I’m also interested in preventing abuse from happening in the first place, instead of just keeping up the system where kids have to roll the dice and if they land on a cruel parent then that’s just what they get and having a good parents just depends on their luck. I want to work towards a world where regardless of an ideological bigot/authoritarian’s personal desire for cruelty, they will be unable to act out the abuse they want, because they no longer have the power to do so unresisted. This is also why general social justice organizing (if it’s good) doesn’t focus primarily on reforming bigots, getting them to change their beliefs/intentions, but on reclaiming power and autonomy so that despite what the bigots might still believe, they can no longer make those beliefs matter to us as easily.

Leftists and anarchists in general are often told that we are too utopian and need to understand that “violence will always happen no matter how much you make social changes.” I dislike this framing; first of all, I’m not a doomer, and I do not want to say there certainly will always be violence, because I don’t think it is possible to guess that with 100% accuracy, and I like to leave room for a little hope in the world; second of all, it’s not really a relevant objection, because we’re not about gambling on the possibility of there being no abuse, but about taking steps to reduce abuse as much as we can and make it as hard as possible for abuse to happen.

But if parents aren’t “legally responsible,” are they not also going to be found liable for abusing their children?

I’m thinking about a certain Reddit post I read a few months ago. A woman was raising an infant with her (boyfriend? husband? not exactly sure which it was). She hadn’t wanted the child, and he had. She was slowly realizing that she just couldn’t bring herself to love the kid, and the childcare work was annoying and frustrating and exhausting her. Her bf/husband really liked the kid and was enthusiastic about taking care of them and nurturing them. A lot of commenters on that thread told her that she should leave them, because she’s not suited to be a parent for the child, as they grow up they’ll be able to tell that she’s just faking her emotions and actually dislikes them/doesn’t love them, so she should halt the toxic dynamic as early as possible. That stuck with me a lot—it would’ve been so helpful to a lot of kids if it was normalized for parents who don’t like a kid to be able to give them to better-suited, more loving caretakers who do want to have a kid, because many parents are just incompatible, just aren’t fit to parent, personality-wise or otherwise. Expanding the options for everyone to have healthy relationships and get the love and nurturing they need does not mean that neglectful parents of children stuck in their abusive household are not culpable for their harms (i.e. specifically withholding resources when they were needed). And, in general, abuse is wrong when done by anybody to anyone, legal parent or not. This doesn’t change that. And, I don’t really care about the legal system much in the first place because even with laws forbidding extended kinship networks they still don’t actually do a lot about parental neglect or abuse. I’m interested in more concrete questions like “how do we help neglected children acquire the resources/care they’ve been deprived of” or “how do we get abuse victims out; how do we minimize unwanted relationships and maximize wanted relationships; which cultural norms do we need to change to facilitate this.”

3) How would we ensure that children, particularly very young, are being well cared for - diapers, feedings, etc? Currently parents are completely abandoned by the social systems in place. I actually think a reformed/socialist service like cps (unsure of a better word) should be freely provided to all parents. Social workers or volunteers can make sure a child isn’t being ISOLATED which is the biggest factor for abuse. Neighbors may not even know abusive parents have a child and that’s terrifying.

Agreed, though I’d like to point out that this isn’t just something that can only be done by a specially appointed or paid professional group; this is something anyone can do, and especially people already close by. Like, checking up on your friends if it seems like something abusive is going on. Being that person for them if they’re stuck in an abusive home. Normalizing being more attentive to children near you socially, paying more attention to people around you in general, and lending a hand, and creating more interconnected communities which make it harder to isolate someone. It’s kind of hard to imagine given our current atomized hellscape but there are & have been societies in which families weren’t just sorted into single-unit disconnected households, and it was a lot easier to notice if something was off/hold each other accountable; also people fighting for this right now—whether children/minors using the Internet to finally befriend outsiders when they never could before, or having electronic devices they hide from their abusers, or meeting/talking to a friend in secret; or the teachers, healthcare workers, classmates, anyone else seeing them and opening the pathway for questions, help where there were no other options before, etc. & preventing isolation and exploitation wholesale means targeting the root of the problem (the nuclear family’s isolation, thru various political/economic forces)—which is exactly what the article was talking about.

#re #iris-sunflower #child abuse #youthlib

4 notes · View notes

falinscloaca · 2 years

Text

unhinged rant about recent events in kill six billion demons and how it isn’t actually shitty queer tropes but also very well might be but its also not finished so who knows whats actually going to happen it makes my head hurt a bit i saw a comment on twitter mentioning it and my brain internalized the FUCK outta wanting to bring up that topic somehow somewhere all this is pointless i’m going to explode. SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ksbd: here! have some (questionably oversexualized) sapphics!

ksbd: here! have a character who was continually given transfeminine motifs actually (magic) transition! (for the record unlike the other parenthesis i don’t think this was badly handled much. (magic) is not a wince.)

ksbd twitter: hey i know this is going to look bad and i promise i hate “this trope” (???? everyone assumes it is “bury your gays” but i don’t even know if that was what he was referring to????) but you gotta trust me

ksbd: ok so one of these disappears completely (and is implicitly dead by the others dialogue + not being seen later or anything) or die trying to save protag (also.... fellas devils can revive with their masks and they can have a *chance* at preserving *some* of their identities but. the mask fucking... *melted*. its a pile of sludge. three years in the narrative past. i’m not saying her making a comeback is *impossible* but the common “oh yeah allison will put the mask back together obvi” is so stupid) (also who knows if literally precidenceless angelhumans can revive like angels do. we do not know shiiiit yet)

ksbd: the omniscient character keeps implying that everything is prewritten and is rather ambivalent on whether our “hero” has the ability to still like. DO anything significant in the grand scheme anymore. like on one hand thats sorta implied but also like the insistence that free will is an illusion doesn’t mean that the character can’t actually start trying to Accomplish gay-people-who-died-related stuff anymore LMAO. like theres still an overall “give up and move on” vibe pervading all of this (which.... are we SURE “the trope” isn’t smth about “hero uses power of love to defy death” or some related shit like “hero... is a hero in the conventional sense and saves the day”? are we SURE this is about burying your gays or fridging women or something?? did abaddon say smth on discord or somewhere????)

ksbd twitter: for once please take a character being defined one way (omniscent) at face value jesus christ guys (both related and unrelated to the whole Rocks Fall thing its just. added flavor to that whole last barely-can-even-be-called-a-paragraph)

ksbd: ok now that this whole depressing stint into our plucky implicitly-lesbian-but-never-actually-stated-to-be(PLEASE JUST CALL YOURSELF A DYKE ALICE. I. ACK. AUTHORS USE *WORDS* CHALLENGE) protagonist withering away completely is OVER, its DONE, the ultradepression segment is moving on, here comes *some guy!* (that people are making huge assumptions about being her ex-failed-fling and then making assumptions on top of that about him being here to try to help her somehow)

like, none of this is actually inherently shitty (well, none of the things that are actually the point of this, i dislike how cio and allison were framed since first official Couples Moment but that doesn’t REALLY factor in with this). gay people dying is fucking *fine* if the plot actually works. and i’m not actually worried it won’t! it *might* fucking suck but i’m not nearly as invested in “oh this is the worst thing on earth the author BETRAYED his gay fans” as the like two or three people in comments sections and tweets i saw (thus granting me this god damn thought cabinet affliction). the hyperbole that like three (other) people i’ve seen about “here comes some guy!” (which i will continue to mention like that bc even though i don’t take issue with it its FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) is just *delightfully* misplaced imo. but this is still stuff thats like... i don’t want to say trouble-ING but at the very least a bit trouble-SOME? its the kind of shit that’ll seem completely different (for better or worse!!) once the story actually finishes but for now is just like..... *Ehhhhhh...*

(also a lotta people are more worked up about Cio which like, fair, she just got a god damn collectible statue made and has a massive sub-fanbase of her own, but like. she had arguably the *entire* comic being subtextually sapphic and about ~two books worth of being textually very much bi. white chain meanwhile transitions in a moment of triumph immediately before her moment of triumph gets blown the fuck up sflkdhlsdhlkhlkgsd. one (fucking LONG) fight scene later and she’s completely MIA and we have no *clue* how her dying would work out (though again thankfully for her that ambiguity means that unlike Cio her coming back to relevance one way or another is kiiiinda all but confirmed. like the possibility exists that she doesn’t get to reincarnate she’s a human now Git Gud Scrubs but that writing decision sucks so bad that not even my worst-faith version of the author would pull that lksfdjlkfsdljksfdjkl) so she’s just kinda In Limbo And We’re Supposed To Just Kinda Treat Her As “dead details pending”. it sucks ass.)

but yeah all this is like. seeing hints of genuinely fucking terrible writing flaws but they don’t *actually* exist yet but they do but they don’t yes they don’t no they do </3. (also with a queer author i wouldn’t even bat an eye at this. like who cares. in my writing ideas i have a *terrible* track record at killing anyone but i strive for the guts to just drop pianos on my hapless transsexuals)

so all in all this was pointless but if i didn’t write it i would physically explode

#ksbd spoilers #zanathan book hour #i should have a 'unproofread superego-and-id-fucking-like-spring-rabbits ranting' posts shouldn't i

3 notes · View notes

somecunt · 6 months

Text

I’ve dissembled my lesbophobia, my misogyny, and my femmephobia.

I’ve carried a fear of being attracted to women, for a long time. I have a lot of anxiety surrounding attraction to women. Whenever I’d see a nude woman in a sexual context I’d become disgusted. This is partially due to it being very normalized for gay cis men to find women’s bodies, and objects associated with women’s bodies repulsive.

I’m working on it definitely. I didn’t value the relationships of wlw or wlnb/nblw or lesbians,sapphics and related attractions.

I used to have a, “not like other girls” mindset, yeah sure I’m ftm and I was in fact “not like other girls” but I leaned into misogyny heavily to distance myself for girls/women, and femininity in girls/women. some of my hatred of female bodies may also come from my need to not be in association with girls/women.

This could be misinterpreted for me as an trans male coming in to scold cis gay males for their “inherent attraction to male bodies and repugnance towards female bodies”, being a gay man isn’t synonymous with hating vaginas, breasts, and loving dick. I’m firmly attracted to nonwomen, and I like breasts, and vaginas, I like penis as well, but in terms of men I do have a preference toward vaginas, nonbinary people, no preference.

In the way I interpret sexuality, what I believe determines it is what are you thinking behind it. regardless of your partner if you’re intimate with them because you’re perceiving their body within womanhood, then you’re probably attracted to women, if you’re partner doesn’t perceive themselves that way, that’s an issue. there’s other things that affect this, like are you forcing yourself to perceive their body in some sort of way to prevent you from facing the reality that you’re one way. I think forcing, and widening your perspective is different.

We’ve been taught that penises, are male genitalia, they’re don’t have to be, they’re penises at their core, and they’re attached to many types of people, trans/cis men, fem/masc/neutral aligned people, trans/cis women. It’s understandable that you categorize penises as male because you were raised in a society where that’s the norm. Seeing more women and non-men with penises while genuinely recognizing them as women, and nonbinary can aid in expanding that view. You don’t need to sleep with anyone you don’t want to, but placing their body into a category of disgust is wrong.

Women’s bodies are beautiful, although I’m not attracted to them sexually, aesthetically all bodies carry their own intense beauty.

Some people don’t even weigh gender presentation, gender identity, or genitalia in their attraction to people, which I guess would be called pansexuality, although plenty of bisexual people also feel this way about their attraction. This doesn’t mean pansexual people can’t have these same issues of perceiving all bodies afab as women’s bodies, and all bodies amab as men’s bodies.

#this is poorly written… once again #this is sort of important to me to write so I’m sending it out as is #feel free to correct me #transgender #nonbinary #trans nonbinary #agender #queer #lgbt #lgbtq #ftm

0 notes

vitos-ordination-song · 11 months

Text

I never realized how gender oppressed I was raised bc sexism was so normalized I didn’t notice it, I believed in my mom’s right wing “girl power” rhetoric, and my brothers were actually treated worse than I was bc they were male. I now understand that that last point was also a part of the larger gender assumptions of my parents/my father’s childhood trauma, it fits in just fine with misogyny and it is sexist. “Benevolent sexism” is when women are assumed to need special treatment when men aren’t. In my family this played out through my dad not beating me or my sister (my mom handled our punishments) and the boys having to do hard manual labor and sadistic endurance challenges.

A lot of the misogyny I dealt with I just took as fact I think. Like, from the time I was 2 years old, I had already been convinced my older brother was smarter than me and always would be. It was in like 2018 when my dad just said that to my face—“you’re smart, but of course Zach is smarter”—and I was like “are you fucking serious? Of course he’s not smarter than me.” It was this built in hierarchy, and my compensation was getting to feel smarter than my adopted sister and brother (my family is extremely sick, that’s a whole other issue but I can’t get too off topic). Anyway I believed my older brother was inherently smarter than me, because he was male and I was female, for most of my childhood; I let his judgment rule me until I reached the age of 16 or so.

Even though I eventually rejected the way I was belittled, it’s still true that it shaped my life. I grew up constantly being told my brother was a genius, but as we entered adulthood, I realized I didn’t respect him as a person which set me free. But when I was just tiny, under three years old, I was constantly told how good he was at math and directions. “He’s already got Atlanta memorized and he’s only four!” He was so impressive, and I was flat out told I would never be good at math or directions because I was a girl and women don’t have “calculating minds” or something. How much did that limit me? Is that why it took me until age 22 to start trying to figure out where the fuck anything was in relation to me?

My mom had a couple talks with me growing up where she imparted some sort of girl power values on to me. She also is quite a dominant woman and was the true power in my parents’ marriage. Because of my naivety, it took me a long time to realize just how backwards she is on gender issues. I mean, there’s her conservative Christian values, but I always thought she had respect for women’s abilities. She was my role model as a little girl, competent and strong. So imagine my shock on becoming a teenager and actually listening to the shit that would come out of her mouth. Not just pushing anti-feminist garbage and rape culture, but acting like women are men’s natural inferiors.

Years ago we were listening to one of the family’s favorite bands, a husband and wife duo. A song came on and she went “this one isn’t very good, must have been written by the wife.” I sat there speechless and then went “what??” She replied “well women just aren’t as good at writing music, their minds aren’t equipped for it.” (She was wrong btw because both the husband and wife are credited on almost all their songs.)

When she came and visited recently, she spewed a lot of crazy right wing stuff, but the one that got under my skin the most was when she started ranting about how women’s economic freedom is a bad thing because it made labor less valuable. She also implied that it’s women’s duty to raise children at home. Mom. Please. First of all, the reason your childhood was marked by terrorism and horrific abuse is that your mother was financially dependent on your father. You told me that yourself when I was a little girl. Your father beat your mother, your siblings and you. He inflicted psychological torment on everyone around him, and he was a child rapist. Your mother was stuck under his thumb because she had no money. How can you believe all these lies about perfect god fearing American families when that was your childhood and your father was a preacher?

And she HATED being a stay-at-home mom. She pretends otherwise now but she used to fantasize openly about abandoning us, she complained that I ruined her body, she talked about how much more fun she had before she had kids, and how much she missed her career. Please tell me more about how a woman’s place is at home and not in the workforce.

0 notes