perennial reminder (because of a friend, not me for once) that your job will fuck you, but it'll never love you.
toe the lines you have to, swallow what you gotta to pay rent, but keep notes, use what benefits you get, and double check that you're actually getting what they owe you.
So we all know about the older generation freaking out about the birth decline right? And that one of the reasons has been that they're worried about not enough people around to care for them in their old age.
(Hence one reason why supposedly there was a push to revoke Roe V. Wade because that would magically solve it. [even though lots of women died of birth related complications prior to Roe and now people are literally getting themselves sterilized to prevent that fate.])
But anyways, I have a new theory, it's about real estate. If people are truly dying faster at a significant rate than people are being born, then one, a lot of us will be inheriting property. Two, there may be an excess of real estate very soon, if birth decline trends continue.
What is one of the hardest things in a person's life to attain, property a place to live. Which has definitely been used to control people.
There's also a fact that real estate up until fairly recently was considered one of the safest ways of investing money. Most people would rather sell their home than not pay their mortgage.
What are the two ways that rich people make money without labor or control their workforce (if they're even business owners at all.)?
In interest, via people paying for their mortgages and in owning and renting property. Who's going to bother renting if there's a bunch of houses? How worthwhile will their many acres be if there's a ton of empty houses? Their land won't be gaining value just by existing in their names anymore.
If a true excess of houses happens, then the main money in real estate ventures will actually be in repairing them, maintaining them, and customizing them. All jobs that would be considered blue collar work that actually requires real labor.
The rich people paid various analysts to say that a declining birth rate would make the old people not get care (Which makes sense because the party that serves the richest also tends to be voted for via old people.) So they chose a fear that most of their voters would care about to take advantage of...
But yeah, it's about real estate and banks and not making interest anymore for doing nothing but holding onto resources.
Also obviously the less people there are, the more valuable all laborers would be too. When there's more people than jobs, that's an employers market, right? They can lowball their workers and the workers have to go for it because they need a place to live and eat. Where there are more jobs than people, that's an employees market. Where the main negotiation actually favors them, because they are hopefully empowered to know that the company needs them more than they need that company.
I keep seeing stuff about how gen z have doxxed and attacked SCOTUS over their overturning of roe vs. wade and stuff critising millennials for not doing more by comparison, but speaking as a left wing millennial, we're tired and disillusioned. We've been fighting battles over all this bullshit like climate change, equality, disenfranchisement and rights for over a decade, and have nothing to show for it. Not because we haven't tried or that we've been ignored but things have kept changing and we're now running on empty, and we've nothing left to give now.
We care about these things and tried to change them, but the system was rigged against us, and then when we began to make headway the system was changed to stop us making any more progress. For you young people, disappointment and frustration over climate collapse and getting stuck in poverty has always been there, but for us it wasn't. Most of us were your age when things started going to shit. We thought that we would be able to climb the ladder and then improve things for those who came after us so they didn't have to struggle.
But then, just as we were beginning to climb, the bastards at the top destroyed the ladder and when we complained about it, insisted that there had never been a ladder in the first place. We've spent most of our adult lives trying to build our own ladders, only to have them pushed away repeatedly. Now, the whole exercise just seems pointless. We've tried time and time again without success, so why should we try again?
We want to be hopeful and many of us hope to see you young people bring the bastards down, and we'll will be right there alongside you cheering as the tumbrel passes, but after expending so much time and effort for so little gain, we just expect you guys to be cast back down as well.
guys i have my trial shift tomorrow and ive never had it before when im actually bothered about the job in a specific way like in the past it's always been about GETTING a job and not really giving a toss where im working so long as im working but this is a place i actually really really want to work and will bummed if i dont get. like it's right by the river and it's a really upmarket bar kind of scene so hopefully i might even get proper training in that area and it'll be my first non-minimum wage job AND i'll get tips (every other job i've had i dont even SEE my tips bc the managers take it even if it's given directly to me) and the hours will be super good and it's fast-paced and yeah. im not actually stressed so much bc a trial shift is a trial shift and yeah it's hard getting used to a new place but i can waitress in my sleep but i just reallyyyyyyyy want the job
Whatever anyone makes of AI art or writing, if you harass people who use it you are a dick.
If you say you're against harassment 'but 'except for people who deserve it' you are not in fact against harassment.
If you send any form of threats to people you are a massive dick and ruin any argument you're making that AI art is harmful because you are causing direct harm to someone.
(Edit: do not try discourse with me about it please.)
A lot of people with "progressive" or "leftist" politics seem to think that defending small businesses and aspiring to start one is the peak of anti-capitalist action or countercultural when it's like... one of the most common liberal talking points. Like you can't be some epic punk anarchist and then want to reproduce the American Dream.
They tend to place a lot more emphasis on BigBusiness vs SmallBusiness and act like small business owners can like do no wrong. Also very common for small business defenders to be like "sure, you can pirate/shoplift but not from small business!!!" which like lol lmao.
There are a lot of problems with the mindset. It tends to distract from actual class politics, instead focusing more on the aesthetics of capital. It tends to towards all kinds of reactionary positions, especially on things such as IP as we have seen recently. The petit bougeoisie have (both historically and presently) often contributed against the working class, siding with the regular bourgeoisie when coming against working class movements. The class interests of the petit bourgoise are often in conflict with the class interests of the workers.
There are situations in which it can beneficial to defend small business but you should not hold a policy of "small business good" in general if you consider yourself anti-capitalist or "leftist" in any meaningful way (although leftist is in itself a meaningless term).
Anyways, obligatory disclaimer: No, you aren't evil for being a petit bourgeois. Class politics aren't moral categories. Yes, being petit bourgeois means that your class interests are in conflict with the working class. Yes, you can still be a communist, it just means you're going against your class interests, something that most of your peers do not do.
taking a bat to a hornets nest at work, only the hornets are pointed at management, or; casual question implying that they might make us effectively work a public holiday with a new schedule
rant incoming abt something i’ve observed for a while
i (american) feel like we need better traditions. so many young and queer people in my experience are completely disillusioned with most of our (western) holidays either because they’re related to religion and that’s awkward for many people or because they’ve become Capitalism Lite or both. it’s hard to really enjoy a holiday when it’s overshadowed by the uncomfortable truths behind all of it.
like, christmas is nice because you get time off but it’s a constant reminder that we live in an extremely christian society that chafes at even the idea of other religions trying to exist (happy holidays vs merry christmas drama). non-christian religious holidays get like zero acknowledgement from wider society. no time off work or school, no decor in stores, etc. thanksgiving is nice bc you get to eat good food, but it’s based on colonial bs. valentine’s day is nice in theory but also an inescapable reminder that our society sees you as sad and lonely if you’re not in a relationship and if you’re not willing to spend lots of money on a partner. then theres smaller ones like labor day which is important but hard to enjoy when you’re reminded of how hard we have to fight for even an inch of appreciation or rest for workers in the us. most of the other minor holidays are subsumed by neverending consumerism and advertisement, such as mothers/father’s day.
and tell me if i’m just projecting here. but there are so few actual holidays that we can enjoy that i think it accelerates the homogenization of the seasons w global warming and the isolation and lack of community everyone is struggling with.
this is part of my theory as to why halloween is so incredibly popular with gen z - it’s doesn’t come with religious or historical baggage, doesn’t force people to spend time with families they don’t like or shame people for not fitting into nuclear family structures, isn’t based largely around buying gifts/spending money, and is an important marker in the season of fall. also this is part of why i think we latch on to stupid little anniversaries ie. neil banging out the tunes. it’s lighthearted and silly and is a grounding landmark for the passage of time and it brings us together to have fun.
all this to say we should really promote more holidays that are just. for fun. or for the passage of time. summer solstice. moon landing day. new years does fall into this category. pi day. star wars day. april fools. i really feel like we should be emphasizing and celebrating these unofficial holidays!! bringing people together and hanging out w friends or going out somewhere specific or making specific foods or something. just a regular tradition that we can rely on. yk? it’s so important
So I went and had a look at how old Mikbell is for Reasons and because it’s very funny to me
He’s 22
“Oh 7 year age difference isn’t that long” it is when it’s almost 20% of your life, but isn’t when you’re unionising
Cuz see here’s the thing: Mikbell’s attitude towards Chilchuck is pretty fucking standard anti-union propaganda that bosses like to spread to workers
“They just want a cut of your money, you don’t need them, why would you share the profits of your hard work”
It’s also a complete and 1000% ignorance of the reason the union was started in the first place: people were literally using half-foots including Chilchuck himself as monster bait
(Big “capitalism consumes us all” metaphor energy)
Chilchuck made himself boss of all the half-foots on the island because he has Chronic Dad Disease and no one else was going to stop them from being mulched for profit
This is also why he always demands pay upfront, not after the job is over
Now, we don’t actually know when Mikbell reached the Island relative to Chilchuck, but since Chilchuck worked there as an adventurer long enough to be jaded, start a union, and become ubiquitous? It’s been a while
It’s also been long enough that a good chunk of the other half-foots cannot be original members, because they’d definitely have known about the succubus trap thing; starting unions is fucking hard work and people need to very clearly understand why they need the union, or you just get the Mikbell situation where no one bothers
Those original members would have told Mikbell exactly goddamn why they need that union and why they’re lucky as hell to have Chilchuck
They formed the union. They know exactly why it’s important
Now, we don’t know how much of Mikbell’s continued existence is pure luck of having met Kabru first instead of a succubus hunter party (or similar) vs how much is just the direct result of Chilchuck’s unionising having changed the Island’s work culture so that exploiting half-foots like that is no longer done
But hooooooo-boy does he look like a lucky little shit for having survived blowing off the guild that was specifically and recently formed to stop people mulching them for money long enough to be a dick about it
Hello, I’ve a part asoiaf part medieval history question. So despite the strict gender roles, we know that women (at least noble women) can enjoy some “male” activities like horse riding and some kinds of hunting (Cat says Arya can have a hunting hawk). Are there any other “male” activities women can partake too without being judged about it, or even encouraged to do so (both in Westeros and real world)?
So as medievalists and historians of gender have pointed out, ASOIAF is far more restrictive for women than actual medieval Europe. I'm actually going to leave aside the situation of noblewoman for a second, because the vast majority of women were not nobles and their experience of gender would be radically different.
What counted as "male activities" for example would vary enormously by location (rural vs. urban) and thus occupation (farmer vs. artisan). Among the peasantry, while men tended to work in the fields and concentrated on cereal-crop production and women tended to do the manifold work of maintaining the home, the reality is that the irregular nature of agricultural labor meant that in times of high demand (especially spring sowing and autumn harvest) it was a matter of survival for every single member of the household to work in the fields. So women absolutely knew how to work a plow, and swing a scythe.
As for the urban worker, while there was also a high degree of gender segregation by occupation and guilds could often be quite misogynistic when it came to trying to masculinize trades (especially those involving higher rates of capital investment), it was also true that the entire household was expected to contribute their labor, so that wives, daughters, collateral female relatives, and female servants picked up the trade alongside their male counterpart. Moreover, as biased towards men as guilds could be, they were even more committed to the principle that guild businesses were family businesses, and so in situations where a master artisan had only daughters or died childless or died with underage heirs, it was absolutely routine for guilds to admit daughters and widows as guild members, indeed usually at the rank of master, all so that the business could remain in the same family. This is why medievalists can point to so many examples of women who worked in skilled trades, often at a high level.
That's what I think GRRM's portrait of medieval society is missing: an entire world of women in business, working elbow-to-elbow with men to make a living.
As for noblewomen, part of the difficulty is that a big part of being a noble was not doing stuff - not working for a living, chiefly - and instead engaging in leisure activities as much as possible. And women were very much a part of those activities (indeed, for many of them the point was to mingle with eligible people of the opposite gender), whether that's feasting, dancing, hunting, hawking, theater and other entertainments, fireworks, tourneys and jousts, etc.
However, women were also engaged in the main "occupations" of the nobility - estate management and politics - way more than GRRM really takes note of. To begin with, as even GRRM acknowledges to some extent, the lady of the house was expected to take an active role in running the house, which meant managing servants, keeping track of accounts payable and receivable, making sure the supplies arrive on time and in the right quality and quantity, keeping an eye on maintenance and repairs (with the help of servants, natch), etc.
Given that even the manor houses of the nobility were units of economic production, the lady of the house would also be responsible for oversight of how the house was doing with its pigs, goats, chickens and pigeons and geese, bees (because beeswax and honey were really important commodities), sheep, and so on, and what kind of figures they were pulling down at the mill and the weir, and so forth.
As medievalists have known for a long time, this list of duties got even longer whenever the lord of the house was away at war or on business, when the lady would be expected to pick up all his work too - which means making sure the rents and taxes get paid, deciding which fields to distribute manpower to and when, dealing with legal disputes in the manorial court, and so on. And if the war came home, the lady of the house was expected to lead the defense of the castle and there are many, many examples of noblewomen who had to organize sieges that lasted months and even years.
However, we also have to consider the impact of inheritance by birth and the inherent randomness of sex at birth - as much as they tried to avoid it, plenty of noble houses ended up with female heirs or in the hands of widows. Most of the time in most countries, women could and did inherit (or at the very least their male children and relatives could inherit through them) titles and fiefdoms, and while their husbands would often take on overlordship de jure uxoris, unmarried women and widows very much exercised their authority as the Lady or Baroness or Countess or whatever, and history is also full of women who were extremely influential in medieval politics and backed up their influence by any means necessary.