#the point is that gender roles are a made up concept that we put way too much weight on and it is a waste of time to

[kcrabb88]

ok I'll bite. what are your thoughts on stewjoni biology?

Been waiting for a time when my frustration at the use of this trope (more than the existence of the trope) built up enough to be brave enough to answer. The usual disclaimer applies: people can write what they want. I'm not an anti. This is not a moral debate. People can have whatever kinks they want in fic. It's just my observations on how I'm seeing queer characters written in Star Wars fandom and how gender roles is being put into things based on what parts people have. Which, I thought we were not doing that anymore?

For the uninitiated, Stewjoni biology is a fanon concept where Obi-Wan is dual sex (he has a penis and a vagina and associated internal workings). The concept on it's own is fine. It's Star Wars! There is probably all kinds of biology and coming up with something for a planet with like, zero lore cause it was made up on the fly by George Lucas is creative! However. It's the execution and sameness of this concept that has started to uh, get under my skin.

So, I have a lot of thoughts on this, and they are two-fold and related. I think, likely without meaning to do so consciously, people are starting to assign personality traits to certain genitalia, and, in larger ways (due to other trends in Star Wars fandom) are re-inventing gender roles under the guise of queerness (which is, you know, kind of the opposite of the point of queerness!) Most fics I see with this concept (I said most, not all) simply ... have it there. There's not really an exploration of it so much from an intersex and/or trans point of view. How does this impact Obi-Wan's love life? Does it at all? How does it impact his life generally? What are his thoughts on his gender? Are dual sex people discriminated against in any way? I'm sure that is in some fics! But a lot of the time it pretty much goes down to "oh look he has a cunt!" Which I mean, that's not a mortal sin! I just think there could be things that are explored with it that aren't being explored. It's largely there to simply be another place for Obi-Wan to be penetrated.

The second, and likely more controversial part of my thought process, is that I find it. Kind of odd that it's Obi-Wan in particular this has been assigned to. Obi-Wan has what society might consider as more "feminine" traits. He's kind and he's patient and he prefers diplomacy over fighting. Now, this is not inherent to women, but society (and socialization) assigns these traits to women. So, I see a fic. It has this dual sex trope. Said dual sex trope LARGELY focuses on the fact that Obi-Wan, has a vagina. These fics are usually smut fics. Obi-Wan is usually a submissive in them (the conflation of "prefers to bottom" with submissive is a whole other rant and so is my Obi-Wan is sexually versatile agenda). Usually the other characters are, most of the time, a bit Super Masculine. The Super Masculine Man has a penis. The Less Masculine Man, Obi-Wan has a penis too but that's in the background. The focus is on the vagina. So it comes across as These Traits Are Assigned to These Genitals. It comes across as gender roles 2.0. The "feminine" one is the one who's submissive and has the genitals that are associated with cis women. He's the one who "takes it" as I've seen it phrased one too many times. Dirty talk in fic is fine! But the constant emphasis on that kind of phrasing in this situation has kind of off-putting implications as far as writing queer men goes, and kind of has some accidental misogyny in it to boot.

I will express again, these are deeply my opinions. No one who does this is bad or wrong and I have fic writers whose work I enjoy that use this trope. I just think that sometimes fandom picks A Thing To Do and then doesn't do it differently from each other, or take a step back and be like, huh, maybe we could examine this. I think it's one of those things that started off interesting and got flat over time. I'd love to see this concept explored! I'd love to see more trans Obi-Wan stuff! I just am not a fan of how this concept has been executed.

#I fear answering this but I'm going to #Asks #KCrabb rambles #Obi-Wan Kenobi #Star Wars tag

[lesbiskammerat]

Hi! I saw a post about you talking about the understanding of gender as socially constructed from a communist point of view. I would be interested to see yours and also if you have some reading recommendations 😊

Oh god I have to actually articulate something clear myself? And thus open myself up to legitimate and informed criticism? I'll do my best.

One of the main point of disagreement I have with other people who agree that gender is a social construct is whether it's "transhistorical," as in whether this construct (and that of patriarchy) is essentially the same across different periods of history. Some radical feminists and those deriving their ideas from them will often say that it is (although others are not social constructionists at all), but you find it in other tendencies as well. I don't think it's really the case. You can look at various past societies and see that they are made up of men and women (or at least that they use words for themselves that we translate to "men and women,") with the men having a position of power over the women. They're very comparable, but ultimately the actual details of how those systems of gender operate are very different from the modern one found in global capitalism, in a way that I think disqualifies them from being essentially the same. An obvious example would be all the memes you might have seen about how ancient Greek men would have sex with each other, as well as their conventions on the roles of penetrating vs being penetrated. These are things that don't fit into our modern conceptions of gender at all (and also one of the reasons some historians will say "today we would consider him gay" rather than "he was gay," for instance.) This also ties into the concept that the historical origin of patriarchy doesn't serve as its current foundation. A while ago I wrote something about that here.

Another point of disagreement is whether gender is something personal, an identity you can play around with and do whatever you want with, or a social role that isn't defined by you alone. The former is an attractive position both in that it's just more fun, but also because in defending trans people from attacks by conservatives, the argument that has become popular in liberal and some leftist discourse is that trans people are the gender they say they are. That argument is in my opinion putting the cart before the horse somewhat. A trans woman is not a woman simply because she says she is, but rather because she occupies the social position of womanhood. Identity is a product of that, not the cause, in my opinion. It follows that gender is not really something we can just play around with for fun, at least depending on how you define "gender." In an individual context we can identify however we want, using both conventional and unconventional terms. There's nothing wrong with this, and it would be absurd to say that this personal identification is illusory or meaningless, as some do. But in the context of analysing gender on a larger social scale, which we need to as communists and feminists, gender is just not a personal thing. We can't opt in or out or do whatever we feel like, it's a coercive system of categorisation.

However, it's important to note that this doesn't mean that the categories of "man" and "woman" are simply all that there is. It's here that Joe Biden's "at least three" answer to the question of how many genders there are is ironically kind of true. Because I think of you study how different people are treated by patriarchy, it eventually becomes clear that there's some kind of third category. What the best way of conceptualising this third thing is, I'm not really sure. Is it "outside" the two official genders? Is it "below" woman on some kind of hierarchy? Is there just one big spectrum? I don't think there's really a good way to visualise this, partially due to the nature of social constructs like this. It's not something one guy wrote down at one point, it's something all of us are continuously creating together, an amorphous blob of collective beliefs and practices, although obviously some have greater power than others. I have a soft spot for Monique Wittig's insight into this. She argues that lesbians are not women, because by rejecting men altogether they fail to perform the most important part of the role of "woman" that patriarchy has constructed. I think there's more to it than she gets into, but if lesbians are not women they are something else, and that something else is what I'm talking about. This "other" is also something that's a great motivator for performing your assigned role as best you can. Like I said it's difficult to visualise exactly how these roles relate to each other, but there's clearly some kind of hierarchy, and you're more or less constantly threatened with being "demoted" by failing to perform your role properly and thus falling into the "other." The desperation to stay afloat is what subconsciously motivates a lot of transphobia, both directed at the self and at others.

One last point I'll get into because this post is very long now is the notion of "authenticity" when it comes to gender. Here I think Judith Butler is very insightful. Like Wittig I don't think they get into it fully, and in Butler's case I think a lot of their other theory is not quite right or at least often misused, but nonetheless they are correct on this one point. That point being that gender is an imitation with no original. Everybody is pretending. In that sense it's correct to say that trans people are just pretending, but only because so are cis people. In the same way, there isn't really a difference between "authentic" trans people, and people who are supposedly just pretending for attention or even out of some "sexual perversion." One of the things that made me think of the original post was seeing someone I follow (if you see this, hi, nothing against you) talking about the concept of only transitioning "to fuck lesbians," and it struck me as funny that really, you could just as well say that my reason for becoming a lesbian, that is, adopting that identity explicitly, was because I wanted to fuck lesbians.

Anyway, reading recommendations, right.

For Monique Wittig's argument, The Straight Mind and Other Essays is where you wanna look. For Judith Butler, I believe they wrote about that in Imitation and Gender Insubordination. Other than that, maybe Julia Serano's Whipping Girl and Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch?

These aren't things you should just absorb and move on, no work is like that, so I recommend reading with others and critically discussing it together.

[chiskz]

Chichi appeared on the cover of the latest issue of the Japanese magazine Omosan Street. She is the first Korean person to do so, making her also the first K-pop idol to be honored in this way.

In the magazine we will find a photo shoot and an interview.

《 ⬇️ INTERVIEW ⬇️ 》

Q: This is your first solo shoot for a Japanese magazine. Thank you for your participation!

🐯: No, thank you! It's really a great honor, I'm so happy to be here.

Q: You lived in Japan almost all your life, you grew up in Numazu and then moved to Kawasaki where you attended Senzoku Gakuen College of Music. You quickly became independent, didn't you?

🐯: Yes, you can say that. I never had a good relationship with my family, so cutting them off as soon as possible was the best solution. Sometimes you have to, even though it may seem difficult. I have fond memories of my time in Kawasaki. I always try to visit this city when I'm in Japan, although it's not always possible. I would like to take all my lovely members there someday. So far, I've only been there with Changbin, I.N, and Hyunjin.

Q: About your members - your next independent decision was to return to Korea, where you were actually just born. You've had your whole life in Japan, what made you make such a dramatic change?

🐯: Now that I think about it, it was probably a selfish decision *laughs* Dancing is my whole life and I can dance anywhere. However, after getting to know k-pop, I wanted something more, I wanted to have friends and show the world my love for dancing and singing. Just thinking about it was exciting enough that I didn't hesitate when I found out about the auditions for Stray 9th.

Q: But from what I remember, this was audition for the male group from the very beginning?

🐯: Yes it's true! But I didn't care. *laughs* I liked Stray Kids' debut and their other songs and just wanted to give it a try. Still, I didn't believe I could do it. I took advantage of the fact that the gender was not strictly defined in the requirements, but they could have rejected me precisely because I am a woman. But JYPe gave me a chance, which was an amazing twist.

Q: But you didn't want to try to get into the all-female group?

🐯: Male group, female group. Is there any difference? I trained harder than most men, lifted weights in competitions for a while. I didn't see a problem with my gender, I knew my abilities well. Also, choreographies for men's groups, their outfits and the most popular concepts appealed to me more.

Q: That sounds really bold and amazing. Especially since your main motto is breaking stereotypes, you really bring a lot of freshness to k-pop. You're the first female in the male group not to be labeled co-ed for this reason. Not having this status allows you to participate with the rest of the members in "boy groups" activities such as the Kingdom program.

🐯: Yes, it's true. When you talk about it that way, it really sounds amazing, although I would prefer that all groups have this opportunity. I would like to see more programs for both male and female groups to get to know each other better. Gender should not put barriers between us.

Q: You appeared in season two of Netflix's Alice in Borderland as Akane, an archer. It was definitely a turning point in your career. Can you share your thoughts on this with us?

🐯: When I was offered this role, I was ecstatic. I read the manga and watched the first season, so it was a dream come true to be in such a project. I must admit that constantly moving between Korea and Japan was difficult, additionally I still had to study and take part in Stray Kids activities. It was a difficult time, but it gave great satisfaction and a lot of joy, and above all, it was a great opportunity to develop and learn even better time management. However, I am glad that I had support from both Stray Kids and Alice in Borderland's cast.

Q: Who in Alice in Borderland's cast are you closest to?

🐯: They are all really wonderful people, but we have a special bond with Ayaka (Miyoshi). She is my good friend and I love her with all my heart. I wish I could see her more often!

Q: What was the hardest thing about being on this show?

🐯: I think the hardest part was playing the love interest *laughs* I didn't have much of a problem with the fight scenes, but faking feelings was an incredible challenge. I think I did pretty well in the end, Sho (Aoyagi) is a wonderful person who has given me a lot of support in this.

Q: You mentioned studying earlier. Is it true that despite your career and busy schedule, you took up university studies?

🐯: That's true. I've always wanted to study law, but it wasn't even remotely as important to me as dancing. However, the time spent with Stray Kids and being an idol made me realize that it won't last forever. I want to use this time to the fullest and best I can, but I also want to secure my future.

Q: This is a very responsible approach, certainly worth following.

🐯: Thank you. I know I don't always make the right choices, but this is one that I don't regret, no matter how hard things get sometimes.

Q: We wish you even more success, no matter which path you decide to go in the end.

🐯: Thank you very much and thank you again for the invitation!

#kpop addition #stray kids 9th member #kpop added member #kpop oc #stray kids oc #idol oc #idol au #stray kids female oc #stray kids added member #stray kids addition

[rbp-art]

“BOY PARTS is the incendiary debut novel from Eliza Clark, a pitch-black comedy both shocking and hilarious, fearlessly exploring the taboo regions of sexuality and gender roles in the twenty-first century.”

After reading this book, I was struck with the idea of designing a piece of cover art that captured the essence of the story. A scene that stuck out to me involved Irina, the protagonist, photographing a young man while he wore a rabbit mask to conceal his identity, and taking advantage of him with flimsy excuses for consent (‘he didn't say no, he didn't push me off of him,’ etc.). A consistent theme throughout the novel is Irina refusing to let herself be victimized, insisting on remaining in control regardless of the dire situations she finds herself in, and not caring who she hurts in her journey to power and fame.

The imagery of her victim being a rabbit - a symbol of a weak prey animal, always hiding in burrows and running from predators, unable to defend itself with teeth or claws - just amplifies Irina as a hunter, someone with a predatory nature, and I wanted to utilize that in my design.

My first concept was the rabbit in a vulnerable pose, smaller and rounder and soft-looking, while Irina takes up the foreground and looms over him with sharp edges and triangular shapes. I knew right away that I wanted to use a red and blue palette, both for the colour theory associated with them, and as a play on the ‘blue is for boys, pink is for girls’ idea that's so commonly touted as The Way Things Should Be. The male victim being coloured in baby blue, cowering beneath a sharp, red, female abuser, tells a visual story that's apparent to the viewer and captures the dynamic of their relationship throughout the novel.

The second idea I had was a close up of the rabbit masks’ eye reflecting Irina as she photographs her subject. The fact she cannot see under the mask, can't see his face, and doesn't see his tears, is a large part of her justifying her assault in the story. She sees what she wants to and cares only about herself and the footage she's capturing. I think the victim's face being obscured while Irina is the focal point of the shot is very poignant and highlights her self-centered nature and the dismissal of everyone else around her, so this is the concept I chose to develop.

I wanted to experiment with a more metaphorical depiction of a predator, so I tested out two designs. One shows Irina as she actually appears, and one shows the photographer transformed into a snarling wolf, leering over her prey and wielding her camera - her sword and shield.

I also decided to give some more movement to the rabbit, letting him raise his hand to defend himself from the flash - or possibly to pose for the camera? With his face obscured, there’s no way for the viewer to fully interpret his body language and understand his emotions. All we see is Irina’s point of view and the story she chooses to tell.

Upon painting both versions, I have a preference for the first image, where the photographer is presented as human. The dull, dead look in her eyes is a stark contrast to the bright, reflective ones of the rabbit, and I personally think the shading looks smoother and more appealing to the eye. I’m also happy with the effect of the text and how it creates 3 distinct bands of red against a mostly blue background, drawing the viewer’s eye to the centre of the piece.

Here I’ve created a mockup to see how this design would look as an actual book cover. I usually create simple illustrations or comics just for fun, so working on a piece with the goal of communicating an idea, appealing to a potential audience, and making a product was a fun challenge. I put more thought into the composition and colour, went outside of my usual box (flat colouring, cartoony style), and made something I’m proud of. Overall I’m very pleased with how this turned out. It’s very similar to what I visualized and I especially think the colour choices really help to get across the theme of vulnerability and power dynamics.

If I was to do this project again, I’d spend more time practicing digital painting, study fur patterns for the rabbit head, and research other artists for inspiration before jumping into it, so the end result would be more polished. I’d also like to explore the unused concept of the rabbit and photographer both being in frame, possibly leaning into the cartoon caricature style to create a stylised piece.

#portfolio #boy parts #eliza clark

[imperial--orthodoxy]

All 100 good questions, my friend :)

Are you bothered by your cosmic insignificance? Eh, not really. It's not something that's really come up.

Do you mourn for a place or person you’ve never known? Yes I miss Constantinople

Do you really think there is somebody for everybody? Absolutely

Do you place any value in gender roles? Yes, although everyone is different and as such will have different strengths and roles to play. Also, some roles are poorly understood or warped in a modern sense, but that's a whole essay no one cares about.

Do you have to be related to be family? Absolutely not.

Are your platonic relationships just as valuable as romantic or family ones? Yes

Are you in love? Do you want to be? I am in love, and married as well.

Do you think you can put love into categories (family, platonic, romantic, etc.) or is it just one general sensation? It's definitely in categories - anyone with enough life experience can easily attest to that. The love I have for friends like you (even if you like to slam me with asks like these ;)) is just as strong as say, my love for my family, but they definitely manifest in diffferent ways.

Would you be happy with a life without romance?  Can't honestly say I would be!

Are you always going to be a little in love with somebody? I would certainly hope so!

Would you change your appearance if you could? Have you seen my face? You would too. Smh.

Do you have the feeling you’ve lost something you might have had in another life - whether it be a person, a place, a world, a language, etc.? Not really

Do you believe in reincarnation? No, although I do think something along the lines of ancestral memory exists.

Would you want to be reincarnated? So I can mess everything up again? No, no thank you!

Do you think you’re special, or just another person amongst billions? Can you be both? Nah, I am not special at all.

Do theoretical ethical debates have any value? Is it important people discuss ethical dilemmas, e.g. the trolley problem? It's absolutely important. There are many debates that cannot be effectively solved by reason alone.

Did you have imaginary friends? Do you still have them? Hmm, not really?

Are you religious? Do you think your religion is ‘correct’? Yes and yes, or else there's no real point to believe in my religion at all. I'm not terribly bothered by people who don't believe, but it's important to me at least, even if I'm a terrible example of an Orthodox Christian.

If you aren’t religious, do you wish you were? Why? I always kinda longed for it back whenever I was atheist. I guess I yearned for something beyond

Do you want a grand adventure? Who doesn't?

Do you have somebody, whether it be a friend or stranger, who you think you could have loved if the circumstances were different? Maybe, but I don't tend to dwell on such things.

How long does it take you to fall in love with somebody? Is the sensation of ‘falling in love’ or ‘being in love’ better? Being in love is better, even if the sense of mystery about the former is sort of not as present.

Is love about convenience or something more? Can it be about both? Love by its very nature can be very inconvenient. We as humans are called to think and care about something beyond convenience in my opinion

Do you think you really understand your gender and sexuality? To be fair, there isn't much to misunderstand about either imo.

How fluid is your concept of gender and sexuality? An interesting question - it's not fluid at all, but we are also not defined by arbitrary characteristics of personality or anything of that nature.

What’s the most life-changing choice you’ve made so far? Definitely moving down here to Texas by myself.

Are you afraid of growing old? Not really.

Would you want to live forever? How about for a billion years, a million, a millennium, a century? I wouldn't want to live forever in this form at all.

Do you believe in some form of god/s? I believe in the Triune so, yes.

Are your choices fated or of your own free will? Free will for sure, though sometimes circumstances limit choice.

Do you have a hunch about how you’re going to die? Probably doing something stupid

Do you believe in star signs? No

How old do you have to be to be considered an adult? Well, it doesn't really come all at once (even if legally it works out that way) Probably around 25 or so you can be considered a full fledged adult

Was your childhood happy? No lmao although most of that was my own fault

What are you missing from your life? Cars and more cars. SMH

Have you ever met someone who had a very similar personality to your own? Did you get along? Yes...and yes and no lol

Do opposites attract? Definitely! I could tell you stories lmao

Is your life what you expected it would be five years ago? Not in the slightest tbh

Do you know what you want out of life? More or less

To be continued

[baezdylan]

Ok another thing!

I really like how... feminine Jack is. It's sort of an extension of his manic-pixie-dream-boy status. He's kind, soft-spoken and Rose generally makes him pretty nervous (though he's socially talented enough to work through that really well). This particularly stands out to me during their sex scene. I think it's my favourite sex scene of all time, actually. That may be a weird thing to have, but still. Rose is the one who initiates it ("Put your hands on me, Jack" is a GREAT line) and we immediately see Jack at the most nervous he's ever been. Then when they're done he's literally shaking so Rose asks if he's okay, and then SHE holds HIM as they (mostly Jack tho) calm down.

The movie is so conventional and so unconventional at the same time which speaks to its genius.

Reversal of gender roles isn't something that didn't exist before Titanic though. (and I KNOW that's not what you're saying here, but hear me out) LMA has done it in 1860s!!!!!!!! Greek mythology deals with gender themes (where do you think the term hermaphrodite came from?) In my opinion, Titanic didn't handle the concept in an innovative enough manner (and everybody knows I'm a BIG fan of that concept). It's cool! It's great! Blockbusters introduce the wider audience to great many things, but that doesn't mean they should be praised for every remotely unconventional idea that's a part of the story they're trying to tell. (making the already existing concept your own? that's another thing entirely and I LOVE IT!) What makes a good movie for me is taking what's already there and crowning it with your own unique perspective. What you're praising Titanic for is actually what I appreciate about Lady Bird (2017). It makes you think that it's all about tropes and cliches and everything that's stereotypically meant to speak to the female audience, but then it surprises you and does this fantastic spin on everything you've ever known without disregarding the tropes completely. But it's not just about simultaneously defying and celebrating the tropes (and here's the main difference), it's about this very personal viewpoint that Gerwig incorporated into the film. It's kinda like when you're adapting a book, you shouldn't try to make the movie resemble the source material (because that's NEVER gonna work, you simply can't meet everyone's expectations), you should make it resemble your own understanding of the source material. That's what makes it feel more personal to the viewer. Titanic didn't feel personal to me despite being meant to appeal to people. My point is: it's a movie that was made to be liked and appreciated which yes, isn't inherently a bad thing, but maybe I'm just too into modernism and avant-garde to appreciate that. It really is a personal preference! I like it better when the art I'm consuming doesn't make a big deal out of itself and ends up hitting the emotional mark without meaning to. (the main goal is usually to send some kind of message that tends to be controversial in some way) I don't like it when movie directors assume I'm going to relate to something because "everybody relates to it in some way". You CAN'T know that. (it puts a pressure on people, like you have to be a part of that specific circle or you're not human enough or whatever) This feels like that literature discussion about supposedly pointless overanalysing of motifs or claiming that classic lit is inherently difficult to read or whatever... Maybe it's not just propaganda coming from the male dominated world, maybe I LIKE long discussions on life and death and politics in my movies. (and just because something is problematic in one regard, it doesn't mean it has no significant value or worse, that it shouldn't be explored. you can always learn! from everything!) Which doesn't mean that I don't like a good coming of age story about a teenage girl. Or spend my time watching a teen soap. Or that somebody can't enjoy a romantic comedy if they love Dostoyevsky. Or that these art branches necessarily cancel each other out. (I'm referring to some of the points you made earlier, sorry for drifting away djsjdkkd)

What you can always do in film is present your own unique perspective and celebrate that uniqueness. That's something people can connect with, regardless of the topic. If it makes its way to the heart of ONE person, it's a winner. And Titanic is definitely a winner in that respect! It just didn't get to me. And that's fine too.

Also! The intention behind a certain line doesn't make the line itself good (same goes for film in general)!!!!!! "Put your hands on me, Jack" is just... it's funny. I laughed when I heard it. This movie is just... way better in theory. I LOVED what you had to say about the ideas that went into it, but I didn't really catch that on screen. Both the characters and their love story failed to be compelling in my eyes, the aesthetics got in the way of that even if it wasn't supposed to. That's what happened if you ask me. Oh and disliking traditionally feminine tropes and plot directions and things such as grand romantic gestures or melodramatic confessions of love doesn't immediately mean that you're sexist or have internalized misogyny? Society is responsible for giving those things a bad rep, but disliking them doesn't always have to go beyond disliking them.

I'm making a lot of points here and I'm not wearing my contacts, dear tumblr forgive me. (I don't need you to, I'm just trying to be polite dhjdjdi)

#restless wind inside a letter box💌 #mal the writer wizard #sorry if i'm being annoying djdjdkkdkr #i've just always been into that 'idk i'm doing this because i like it and if it does something for people that's great!' energy #it's this paradoxical thing where the artists makes something for the sake of art and THAT'S what makes it personal for the viewer #i've felt it in the theatre a while ago #i was sitting there and these people really didn't give a damn about the controversy they were causing by performing that piece #and that's what made it seem like everything they were doing they were doing for me and me alone #titanic is a simple story that's supposed to be a simple story but you shouldn't assume everybody is gonna like it #your goal while making something should never be to please everyone and throw the people who disagree under the bus by using labels #mal the writer wizard 💜💫📝

[hopeless-eccentric]

https://at.tumblr.com/hopeless-eccentric/so-eowyn-huh-my-blistering-take-is-that-her/7321kxeb70wr

I really love this analysis. I don’t yet have a tumblr but while I’m thinking about it I just wanted to add on:

It is so important we remember there is no such thing as “feminine” and “masculine” natural to humans. Everything we call bt those words were always potential traits of all of us. And those concepts, even the idea to list and name passive/nurturing/subjugated vs active/conquering/dominant as 2 different types at all… that was a choice. That was a choice made by every culture that invented women’s subjugation and male supremacist ideals. While often vaguely tethered to something real without our invention, this is in the “grain of truth in the lie” way. Ex: of course mothers nurture most directly, yet taking this to mean nurturing is a woman-associated and not-man-associated role is a leap we chose to make.

So “feminine vs masculine” is a fake concept we made up and can choose to unmake (forget)

….. I guess it’s important to me in the context of this discussion because I don’t see Eowyn as wanting to be feminine at the end she wants to be HUMAN and whole, without reference to any of these false concepts. Not even androgyny is needed as a concept once we fully accept all people, ALL people benefit from being gentle, all people benefit from being strong, being calculating, being heartfelt, being angry when anger is called for, being forgiving when it’s time, and so on. That is not half feminine half masculine. That is not androgynous. Not really. Or, we don’t have to see it that way and I desperately feel we will all be better off once we don’t. It’s just people. People of whatever body type.

When a young woman who eschewed “being feminine” on purpose to defy what was put on her comes around to not auto-rejecting everything labeled feminine by others/society… she is NOT “embracing being feminine”. That’s the whole point. She has learned to see BEYOND these false concepts. She is no longer ruled by the concept feminine — not in conforming or auto-rejecting in resistance, in fear that if she gives an inch everyone takes mile after mile, including her own willpower to resist the allure, the rewards and skipped punishments, in feminine conformity. She now in contrast is comfortable in no longer being able to be controlled. Nonconformity is now so effortless it is not a resistance. Even in matching up with some random shit others label “feminine” she is nonconformist because she does not see it as related to this concept of “how 2 be woman” anymore. Woman is now just a state of her body. Nothing more to be read into it. She is now comfortable she has defeated the pressures external and internal, broken the socialization, developed her own critical eye and will never do anything that hurts herself, degrades her, or steals from joy. And she never needs to worry about any cultural standard or roles labeled “for woman” ever again. Because she is unbothered, and not listening to trash like that, fully, deeply not listening.

So now she can do whatever she likes, and does not need to think of the “gender” of any of it at all. A woman as I just described is as close as anyone in a still-sexist world can be to liberated and post-gender. I hope one day all of us are.

hey, thanks for sending this in!

i do think it's nice to read her in that type of liberating way, especially because she does get the same treatment/"reward" as male heroes in the text. tolkien's heroes are treated in a pretty egalitarian way in the text. basically dont enjoy war too much, observe the golden rule, and do good things for other people, and boom, youre a hero, have a nice long retirement where you never have to think about war ever again

i definitely understand why her ending can feel a bit reductive (ESPECIALLY in the movies where shes not as fleshed out) because even with the internal values of the text, a woman going from being the only lady swinging a sword to married and swearing off violence definitely has a different connotation outside of tolkien's whole internal textual rights and wrongs

however, i just think shes got a cool story at the end of the day, even if you have to take off your "real world connotation" goggles for a minute (which i suspect tolkien did to write it lol)

once again thank you for your ask! and also for teaching me that you can do asks without having a tumblr! after like six years youd think id have known

#ask #anon #lotr #lotr meta #eowyn

[clusterduck28]

hi! i promise i don’t mean to come across as rude, i’m just genuinely curious as to what you meant on that last mental health post where you said “Mental disorders are, in fact, social constructs. Just like gender and a bunch of other stuff, who knew...!”

are you saying that mental disorders are a made up thing by society? and if so, what do you make of ADHD, Bipolar Mania, and schizophrenia? i personally have the first two and my symptoms aren’t made up because i accepted societies ideas of Mania, there is an actual chemical imbalance in my brain.

if you’re talking about about actually putting names to illnesses, then i can definitely see where you’re coming from. medicine is evolving every day and obviously there will be advancements and changes to certain diagnoses, but it kind of rubs me the wrong way when you compare mental disorders to gender - which is definitely made up by society - because it implies that you mean that mental disorders are just something made up by a group of people and not something that is real and affects around 970 Million people (a rough estimate from the world health organization from 2022)

again, i really don’t mean to be rude so i hope it doesn’t come across that way!

I don't think this came off as rude anon, don't worry about it :3 I'll expand on this real quick

So, basically, yes the symptoms are real, the chemical imbalances in the brain are also real and measurable, as well as like physiological brain abnormalities, ect. The names, definitions and categories we use to describe them are, however, socially constructed.

An interesting example I just came up with to illustrate this would be to think about prehistoric cave people who had nearly identical brain structures to our own but have yet to organize themselves into complex social systems like we have in modern times. Imagine yourself being born in pre-historic times with the exact same brain structure and chemistry you have right now, you would experience the exact same set of symptoms but you wouldn't know to think of them as 'ADHD' or 'Bipolar mania', etc. because these concepts simply don't exist yet. To summerized, the types of experiences that society now considers to be mental disorders have been present in human populations as long as our species existed but their names and categorization are a relatively recent invention.

Now bringing this back to gender, which is a social construction that affects over 7.75 billion people around the world (rough estimate I just googled lol) Again, thinking about prehistoric cave people, they actually didn't have the concept of gender for a good long while. They, of course still exhibited the same broad range of primary and secondary sex characteristics all mammies do but the social roles of 'man' and 'woman' had to be socially constructed at some point during the evolution of human social order. My understanding is that those roles were necessary for early division of labor, as some configurations of the human body are better suited for certain kinds of labor than others and constructing those categories along the lines of sex characteristics was the most efficient way of doing it. In other words, gender used to be kind like a job - a thing that you are because of the things that you do (A plumber is a plumber because he does plumbing, a man is a man because he does man tasks)

So the same way the genders were socially constructed to meet society's need to organize labor more efficiently, the various categories of mental disorders were constructed to meet society's need to take the individuals who experience various kinds of mental distress and better integrate them into the social order.

I feel like many people treat the term 'social construct' as some sort of value judgement, as it it's synonymous with 'fake' but it's really a value-neutral term that is used to describe stuff that doesn't exist outside the context of human society. Every single social construction was invented at a certain stage of social evolution for a reason, it solved some kind of problem and served some kind of purpose for the particular subset of people at a particular time who invented and shaped it. But the main purpose of identifying various social phenomena as socially constructed is to help think of society as something evolving and malleable, as something that is made up of various elements that can be either kept the same, reformed or retired entirely in some cases. In other words, every social construct serves a purpose but it doesn't mean it serves it prefectly and without creating more problems in the process.

TL;DR genders and mental disorders - malleable socially constructed categories. Human sexual dimorphism and individual experiences of mentally ill people - measurable and real.

#clusterasks #clustered thoughts #society #This became a whole thing huh? #Yeah I wasn't planning to write an essay today and yet I did #oh well I hope someone out there finds this helpful #Please reblog this I spent like an hour formulating my thoughts into something coherent and readable #Tune in next week for part 2 where I spend 10000 words explaining the even hotter take which is: #'Anything and Everting Is A Social Construction' #okay byeeee #yo momma so fake she's social construct #OOOHHHHHHHH #okay bye for real now

[apollo41writes]

Goodnight prompt 39/∞

Today I have a little bit of a different thing. While at first I came up with this idea for a specific fandom and ship (Star Wars, Ezra/Din/Luke), I think it can work on lots of fandoms with lots of ships.

To put it very succinctly, it's a different kind of secondary gender. Think A/B/O but also not, because it isn't necessarily a sex thing, but more of a societal norms & gender roles kind of bullshit.

Extra details: Basically in this AU your secondary gender is also kind of the determination of your role in society. There are four main genders: Protector, Nurturer, Guide, Developer.

The difference between each is not necessarily something tangible or physical, but it could also be, as I'll explain in the actual idea I had at first. In general, though, the concept it's that it's more or less a category in which you are put around puberty based on the way you behave and your attitude for a specific job.

It's also the reason why you can maybe be a Protector with Guide tendencies that show up later in life, and things like that.

But basically the idea is that this secondary identity thing is an entirely made up concept because of something that messed up the world so much that there is a need for people to stick to what they are good at based on their character (or nurtured into having when growing up). For the "greater good of society" kind of bullshit.

So, it works best with a dystopic society, or maybe under a dictatorship, or with races that are on the brink of extinctions, things similar to that. But it can work with just plain old modern AU if you want to focus more on actual societal issues we already have with gender even right now (gender equality, gender norms, gender identity).

But going back to these "genders": Protectors would have jobs like being cops or lawyers; Nurterer would be considered good candidates for working with younger kids or taking care of the sick; Guide would be mostly politicians but also teachers, especially for teens and up; Developer are usually people that build things or inventors.

Like I said, it's somewhat of an arbitrary division that all in all makes very little sense. Also, it's a different kind of sexism, so be aware that I know this is gonna sound like misogynistic bullshit, but the tone for this is something like the Handmaid's Tale. The point of it isn't to romanticize the issues, but to talk about them in a way that makes these issues as something absurd. It has a certain degree of separation from reality that I think would make it a little bit more palatable but still a good way to offer critique (to the secondary genre as well). Just an FYI before this makes someone mad and people start pointing fingers or something.

For anyone interested of where this idea came from, at first I actually was applying this concept to an AU where all of the characters were more or less drangonlike hybrids, a dying species that for each secondary gender actually had different physical attributes.

So it's actually based on the physical attributes, but it's kind of not relevant as well in most cases, because the person grew with people encouraging them to be somewhat more attuned to characteristics that would fit the role better suited to them.

For example, Protectors maybe have sharp claws and very hard skin, but also a good wingspan or a breath weapon; Nurturers have bodies that work best to have successful pregnancies and give birth to healthy kids, but having a hard skin would grant kids a better chance to survive: Guides and Developers have characteristics less obvious than others, like, they are maybe more humanlike than dragonlike, but still have wisdom and smart that come from their dragonic ancestry.

I just liked the idea of Protector (with Nurturer tendencies) Din finding a little Grogu beside their dead mother and taking them back to their tribe. And Nurturer (with Guide tendencies) Luke is the one that is decided will take care of Grogu, but it's the first time Luke has a pup in his care so they assign him a Protector guard (especially because they don't know if the sire of the kid will show up and claim him). And Protector (with Developer tendencies) Ezra is the one that is assigned to guard Luke and Grogu.

Basically they fall in love because Din keeps going to visit Grogu and Luke can't stand watching Ezra just walking around and on edge all the time and honestly Ezra is at his first solo assignment and he enjoys talking to both Din and Luke way more than he should.

ANYWAY, it's such an open to interpretation concept that it can basically be changed to fit multiple AUs and settings (and also different moods, since it doesn't necessarily have to focus on the whole gender critique, even if the potential is always there). So I'm just going to shout this into the void and be done with it.

#goodnight prompts #alpha beta omega #a/b/o #squick tag: a/b/o #fic prompt #daily prompt #prompt #star wars #skybridjarin #but can be used for any ship #feel free to change whatever detail as well #feel free to use this prompt however you want #once again well aware that this might be a problematic idea #if this sounds confusing it's because it is #the idea is not fully fledged in my brain either #i just wanted it out so i can focus on something else #because it's been a recurrent thoughts for at least 3 months by now #also it's absolutely something that can end up having quite the serious analysis and critique of societal gender norms and roles and such #i'm just not doing the actual deep dive into this post #mostly because I don't think I'm the best person to do this

[soraka-in-warhammer40k]

As your resident cranky goat I got some things to say about this video by (@ohnoitstbskyen):

This is, to put it politely, not good.

Actually its absolute garbage but let me first elaborate WHY I say that:

It starts great but then completly ignores every single implication Sorakas lore made with some "design ideas" so purely centered around the idea of "old" and fat "motherly" that I wonder if the author has some things in his subconscious he's not exactly aware of yet.

So first of all, Soraka is a extradimensional entity. "Motherly" does not apply to her because the entire concept in its mortal form is foreign to her. Soraka is FASCINATED by mortal material life as an OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE. She's A LITERAL ALIEN - on top of being an eternal constant, which adds to the weirdness. The very concept of having kids is probably entirely exotic to her. Her body runs on pure celestial energies and that should be reflected in the design - she should in fact be even skinner! Not "sexy model skinny" but "holy shit how is she alive" sort of skinny. A shell of skin and bones held together by powers beyond mortal comprehension that somehow give the illusion of a regular biological being. Add to that a certain size, and you got a prime uncanny-vally approximation of a mortal form that might pass when viewed from three galaxies over but fails to hold up when looking at it closely.

Trying to figure out her age should be impossible as an immortal - putting biological age markers on a being that DOES NOT AGE NOR FUNCTION ON ACTUAL BIOLOGY sounds remarkably pointless if you ask me. It takes away from the fundamental "otherness" that she posesses no matter how hard she tries to blend in. There is a certain level of isolation, a level mortals can never relate to her and the other way around, no matter how much she helps or how benevolent she is. This little piece of "immortal loneliness" must be perserved as it is a key to her character - she is not mortal, but also a rebel to her celestial kin. The "otherness" is intergral part of who she is, and the fact that she still helps despite being so different plays a huge role as well.

Small deviation as that was no point in the video: Expanding from the point of age, her gender should also be somewhat more vague in her presentation. "Male Or Female" are some very unusual categories when talking about swirling masses of extradimensional energies, but I'm not even going to bother with that direction. Riot has never been that experimental with gender presentations, and since there's no David Bowie-esque champion yet even after a decade I doubt that they even consider that direction for a rework of an established character. I sure wish we got more Illaoi, but instead there's shirtless dude #14. But that's a whole different topic for another post.

Also I got to ask: what is it with people connecting "healer characters" with "motherly attributes"? Y'all got no fathers? And why are those "motherly attributes" always signified with body fat of all things? Is this an american thing? Some random boob fetish? I just do not see it, but that might just be that the women in my family are mostly skin and bones by the blessing of genetics. It just makes zero sense. How many years is a child raised by their mother? Ideally until adulthood. How many of these years are they "on the boob"? A mere FRACTION of that that they can't even remember even at a young age. This sounds just like a MASSIVE collective-cultural fetish projection accepted as universal truth because it was parroted enough times to infest our culture.

It was enough projection to completly turn ignore the key aspect of Soraka's lore which makes her essentially the "Lucifer of Runeterra" (hooves, horn(s), red/purple-ish skin color, defies the celestial order, meddles in the lives of mortals, also GOAT) but then pulls a switcheroo by making the divine entities actual assholes and her rebellion therefore justified - even if she might be doing it for entirely selfish reasons like giving her bone-headed celesital kin the metaphorical finger and proving she was right.

#Soraka #League of Legends #t b skyen #if you think this post is rude consider this: it is the heavily edited and revamped version #this video got SO much wrong on SO many levells #this is the most polite its going to get #Youtube

[justfantaseaa]

I just want to say I’m grateful for Good Omens and this lovely community. As a queer person, it’s been a safe place where I can put my insecurities behind and find comfort.

So first, Good Omens is the haven for my gay heart. Upon watching the series, I realised the story is actually made for me, as in I feel the queer representations catered for queer people, and the romance actually feels comfortable and safe and relatable. I know I shouldn’t care what other people think of me and I like to think I don’t, but it’s good to know what it feels to take normalcy and goodwill for granted. It had felt privileged. I wish I lived in a world where I won’t get annoyed by how a stranger would say about me. But I don’t live in that world. So I’m so grateful that I have a place where I can just live and be, where I can enjoy myself without being in a defence stance and ready to defend and argue, where I feel safe and loved and approved (not that I needed to be approved, I’d argue myself, but I can’t deny it feels good).

Second, Good Omens had helped me discover that I’m gender fluid and non-binary. I’ve always hated gender roles and stereotypes for as long as I can remember. I grew up perceived as a tomboy, I had boy’s haircut until I was 17. I didn’t know why then, but now I know it was because I never felt I was a girl that my society deemed proper (also it was my way to rebel against heterosexuality). When I was 17, I finally decided liking girls and not wanting to be undermined by stereotypes didn’t mean I have to look masculine or like a boy, so I started to grew my hair out and embrace myself as a woman. When my hair grew too long and I felt too feminine, I cut it to mid-lengths because it still felt wrong.

Then I watched Good Omens and I realised that gender is no more bonded by femininity and masculinity than it’s bonded by stereotypes (which is not at all of course). And that sometimes I identify with she/her but sometimes I don’t. That my identity doesn’t necessarily correlate to how I look. Inspired by Crowley, I tried out different looks, and I was enjoying myself. I found that I couldn’t commit to one look, that I loved a mix of both feminine and masculine traits , and the gender binary started to blur and became less and less important. I had so much fun expressing myself by picking outfits every day. It was thrilling and liberating.

Before, I didn’t really understand the significance of non-binary concept, until I stumbled upon someone referring to Muriel as ‘she’. It had felt so wrong to me (not to judge), and I suddenly realised that’s how I feel sometimes when people perceive me as ‘she’. Being gender fluid and non-binary had never occurred to me, but when I embraced it, I had felt truly free.

My point is, I have struggled with my gender identity and was really confused for a long time, I couldn’t help but wonder how much easier this would be if we had more genderqueer representations. This is why we need more queer representations. It’s important to feel understood by and connected to other people, and Good Omens had brought so many queer people together.

I’m so glad I stumbled upon Good Omens, which is so relatable and illuminating regarding my own identity, that it’s become more than just a fandom but a rather personal experience that marked an important period of time in my life. And again, I’m grateful for that.

#good omens #good omens 2 #genderqueer #genderfluid #nonbinary #queer #My self-discovering journey #really just me ranting #bc I feel safe dumping my thoughts here #I feel so much better and lighter after sharing my story

[uf200singleproject]

Looking into the Early History of Single Women in the West

I know, it's kind of a big jump, but let’s try to get an idea of when the stigma might have started by exploring gender roles in early foraging societies. The kind of foraging societies I'm referring to are the ones historians believe were some of the earliest forms of human society, but it's important to note that foraging societies exist in many places today and are in no way "behind" for it.

According to Stephanie Coontz’s journal article “Historical Perspectives on Family Studies,” in foraging communities, “women traditionally contributed 60% to 90% of calories, and they were often in charge of household food distribution."1 That level of access to resources would, as we might guess, generally put single women in a more advantageous position than single men. And another key feature of this social organization—the significance of kinship—had similar benefits for people outside of explicitly recognized coupledom. Coontz explains that, in these foraging societies, “Often a woman has more call on her brother’s resources than on her husband’s and higher status as a sister than as a wife.”2

Huh. So what changed?

Enter the agricultural society. With the rise of permanent settlements, clear lines supposedly began to emerge between households, separating extended family and spacing out communities. Coontz explains that “Most historians, anthropologists, and economists agree that the eclipse of extended kinship as the main mechanism of production and distribution limited the claims of individuals on resources beyond the household, whereas the development of plow agriculture, along with increased militarization, made women more dependent on men’s productive activities.”3 And it makes sense, doesn't it? Suddenly, a woman without a husband would be at a disadvantage, as the clusters of people working directly together to survive morphed from entire communities into something more closely resembling the nuclear family—our new normal. Right?

But it's pretty clear that both the transition from foraging to agricultural and the phasing out of extended kinship didn’t just happen in the blink of an eye. Some societies would hold on to certain features more than others, and no two communities would be identical in values. Glossing over that nuance, in my mind, calls into question whether the oversimplification of that progression (in certain accounts of history) might have paved the way for a retrospective overemphasis on the nuclear family earlier than was strictly accurate. After all, just how recent is the stigma towards unmarried women? Was it a slippery slope once towns popped up, or did it take more than the new concept of houses to sever extended family ties?

As it turns out, Amy M. Froide’s research in the fantastic book “Never Married: Singlewomen in Early Modern England” helps answer that question. She explains that “Modern historians have had a tendency to write as if ‘spinsters’ were a new ‘problem’ in the nineteenth century.”4 That means that up until that point, historical research was probably zoomed in on those who fit the nuclear family bill rather than those in other arrangements. The work of Froide and the book’s many contributing researchers has only highlighted that historical tunnel vision, as it’s become clear that “spinsters” as a minority group “emerged into the popular consciousness as early as the second half of the seventeenth century," with negative perceptions following behind.5

Let’s pause for a moment and address the phrasing here. If you are of the opinion that “spinsters” were a nineteenth century epidemic, then the seventeenth century is certainly “early” for this brand of social stigma to have taken root. But when we scoot all the way back to the emergence of Western agricultural societies, that is very, very late. This stigma is new—and single women are not.

1-3. Coontz, Stephanie. “Historical Perspectives on Family Studies.” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 62, no. 2, 2000, p. 286. JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/1566740.

4-5. Froide, Amy M. Never Married: Singlewomen in Early Modern England. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 8. Oxford Academic, doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199270606.001.0001.

[b-rainlet]

They did drop the line about Aemond at 13 being traumatized by a brothel visit set up by Aegon so there is a male SA victim narrative going on with Aemond. And just a big pile of Aegon as rapist narratives: Helaena, Dyana, technically Aemond, implied children in the pit? This is why while I did not read the Helaena speech as "He rapes me" I believe it was the writing team's intention. At this point, I just wonder who'll be next

Oh it's definitely the writer's intention but I simple dislike that they chose to portray Aegon as a rapist in the first place.

It just very much feels like an easy way for the writers to go 'See how evil Aegon is?? This is why Rhaenyra should be on the throne!' instead of simply letting Aegon be a pawn in King's clothing.

It's not even the fact that people could've rooted for him! Like, I am pretty sure Aegon is one of the few people on this show who actively dislike sitting on the throne and who would be happy to bend the knee and that's the goddamn tragedy of the story! That even though Rhaenyra was named heir and Aegon has no interest in being heir, people will keep on pushing Aegon to ursurp his sister simply based on the fact that he is male.

Why do you need to add an 'Oh, he's also a bad person!' to that? I don't really think it does anything at all for the story.

So I personally would've enjoyed them showing Rhaenyra and Aegon as two sides of the same coin, as people who are both suffering from expectations which are put upon them simply based on their gender.

That would've made both of them more interesting as people and it would've expanded the narrative of 'women suffering under the patriarchy' to 'people who don't fit rigid gender roles and archaic stereotypes suffer under the patriarchy' which I think would've been truly feminist.

(Little side note here, but I think a lot of shows/movies try to incorporate feminism into their writing but then forget that feminism includes everybody and that's how we end up with a few 'woke' buzzwords in some scenes and the same fucking problems still).

Then there's the thing about the Aemond scene. You're right, Aemond definitely is/could be framed as a SA victim there, but given that they don't address the fact that Aegon is one too - but go out of their way to imply that Helaena is, even though it's obvious neither of them want to have sex with each other and Aegon must be suffering from that too - we'll see how far they'll go with that or if they decide to drop it once it's time for Aemond to impregnate Alys.

(I personally hope they make him as shy and skittish and uncomfortable as possible around the concept of sex because it would fit into what they tried to allude to with said scene but we'll see).

You know which other guy was forced to sleep with somebody purely because of pressure from Westerosi Society? Laenor.

And aside from a throwaway line about him and Rhaenyra trying and it not working, most of the focus there is on Rhaenyra - and I get it, she's the main character, her having bastards weakens her claim to the throne blah blah, but if they were so hellbound on making Aegon the 'new Joffrey' they could've at least used Laenor to shed some light on male suffering but no.

I simply think the show is lacking in that department and it's especially sad for Aegon because he's such a tragic character but now he's reduced to rapist and that's it.

#to add to my side note and give an example: #On the MacGyver remake show MacGyver explained something to Jack - his best friend - because Jack didn't know and Mac is a Nerd #and a random woman was like 'omg did you just mansplain that to him???' like NO #THAT IS NOT HOW MANSPLAINING WORKS #YOU'RE WORSE THAN TUMBLR USERS #Anyway vote Rhaenyra/Aegon for most alike siblings ever <3 #They would've headbutted all the time but also been besties if they were allowed to interact as siblings from the beginning #ask tag

[gremlin-time-shenanigams]

'Consorting with Angels'

This drawing is based on a poem written by american poet Anne Sexton, called 'Consorting with Angels', which can be read in full here-

I studied Sexton's work back in 6th form, and ever since this poem struck a chord and stuck with me. I think partly because of the way she used Christian imagery to express sentiments that go quite against traditional conservative Christian values- I find this very appealing. I didn't grow up in a religious family, in fact, I was raised in an explicitly atheist household. But I was surrounded by cultural Christianity, attended schools where we said prayers and sang hymns, and just generally existed in a country where that is the largest religion. I love churches- I don't love going to church, I love the buildings. This is the opposite of how it's supposed to be, the church is supposed to be the people, the community, not the building, and you're supposed to love the people not the building. But I love the smell of old wood and stone, I love stained glass windows and candles. I like the idea of ritual that takes place there, even when it's boring to sit through in reality. I like the sense of divinity that exists there unrelated to actual religion or dogma. So I love things that take this sense of divinity, these images from Christianity like angels and saints and heavenly gates, and turn them into something deviant like in this poem. I love the description of angels in the poem, as weird, unique, almost conceptual,

'and the nature of the angels went unexplained,

no two made in the same species,

one with a nose, one with an ear in its hand,

one chewing a star and recording its orbit,

each one like a poem obeying itself,

performing God's functions,

a people apart.'

In my drawing I drew the angel as alien like, kinda like the classic grey aliens, and I also gave them three eyes, arms and wings. I was going to put eyes all over the body, like those fun biblically accurate angels, but it didn't feel right and was visually cluttering. I think I may have also been thinking about the angels from welcome to nightvale? It's been years since I listened and I don't remember if they ever actually describe how they look, but I liked those angel characters.

The other reason I like this poem so much is the way Sexton rejects the interminable bullshit of being a woman and expresses gender non-conformity and non-binary gender. This poem was the first thing that actually made me understand that people can just reject the gender binary and that's a fine and totally valid way to be. Honestly it was a concept I struggled with when I was younger- I broadly understood what it meant to be a binary trans person since I was pretty young, I knew that sometimes people changed their gender between male or female, and that checked out with my child brain, like yeah, some people are born with the wrong body for them and they are actually the other gender, okay, cool, makes sense. But that there was an option other than male or femle confused me. Like, how could you be neither, nothing, have no gender? But reading this poem I got it-

'The bowl was filled with purple grapes

and the flies hovered in for the scent

and even my father came with his white bone.

But I was tired of the gender things.'

It's that line, 'I was tired of the gender of things.' It just clicked like, yeah, sometimes it is just super tiring to have all these expectations put on us because of gender, and it would be so nice to be free of it. Sexton was writing specifically from the point of casting away some concept or role of womanhood, but being a man has plenty of bullshit expectations some people want to be free from too. And the older I get the more I get it- sometimes I just feel so bogged down by gender, like, my own or the concept generally. Like I just wanna shake it off for a minute and be weightless, a weird, unique being consorting with the angels.

With the awareness of non-binary genders really increasing in recent years I'm still learning about the many ways for people to express themselves and identify outside of the binary, whether it's through being both or neither or nothing or something inbetween- and I just think that's cool and interesting. Another line of the poem relating to the rejection of binary gender is,

'I was not a woman anymore,

not one thing or the other.'

But my favourite part of the poem is the last three lines, which are probably my favourite last lines of any poem, it's such a strong ending to me-

'I'm all one skin like a fish.

I'm no more a woman

than Christ was a man.'

These lines have been rattling around my brain like a dried bean in a tin can for years since I first read this poem. They really resonates with something within me, like this idea I have of divinity being unbound by sex or gender. Also just the transgression of referring to christ as anything but a man is so fun. 'I'm all one skin like a fish.' is such a good line too, and I could analyse it more in regards to the presentation of sexuality in the poem, but I am not a literature student anymore so I think for now I'll just enjoy the words and rattle them around in my own brain a bit more.

#poetry #anne sexton #illustration #poetry illustration #drawing #digital and traditional #don't mind me i'm just cleaning my brain out #poetry analysis #kinda I'm not really analysing it I'm just talking about a poem I like

[neshel-sinco]

Corporate Social Responsibility

Do businesses have obligations to the communities and societies in which they operate? Because business decisions seem to be inextricably linked to social and political decisions, the concept of corporate social responsibility enters the picture. While the goal of maximizing profits and shareholder wealth should be recognized, it should also be recognized that corporate social responsibility should be integrated into the company's operations. To name a few, the company should contribute to the socioeconomic development of its workforce and communities, produce environmentally friendly products and services, pay taxes for welfare promotion, and promote health and safety in the workplace. There should also be a committee or department solely dedicated to organizing and implementing corporate social responsibility initiatives. In order for the programs and activities to be taken seriously, this committee or department should be funded. Corporate social responsibility should be integrated into a company's day-to-day operations and strategies, aiming for a more integrated and holistic approach to contribute to sustainable development. We do activities like tree planting in our company as a way of caring for the environment and fulfilling our role as stewards of God's creation. Corporate social responsibility is a concept that is more important than ever in order to achieve a sustainable future. If organizations are willing to look beyond short-term profit and realize their goals for the greater good of the community, proper approaches to applying and embedding corporate social responsibility within an organization can undoubtedly lead to sustainable development. Significant progress can be made by reuniting businesses and society. The consequences of irresponsible behavior do not have to continue; it is up to current generations, including organizations, to break the cycle. Corporate social responsibility is no longer an option; it is a necessary strategy for companies to keep their operations running and sustainable. As a result, the most acceptable way to corporate social responsibility would be for all workers and society to share the same vision and objective. If society recognizes social responsibility as a voluntary promise made by corporations anticipating a return on their investment, it should not be termed responsibility at all. If society opted to hold corporations accountable for their true expenses, there would be no need for their goodwill, and when it happened, it would really be something to be proud of. In general, firms are unwilling to prioritize gender equality on the corporate social responsibility agenda, preferring to focus on environmental activities or public remarks about their companies. The topic of how to assess a company's performance across cultural boundaries has to be discussed. When businesses operate in their own interests, society benefits. Therefore, shareholder pressure for sustainable growth in the profitability of enterprises will have a greater influence than corporate social responsibility. Businesses who are wise enough to understand that acting morally is a byproduct of their pursuit of profitability will fully embrace corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility is, to put it briefly, at a turning point. It depends on building momentum and on individuals like us who are always trying to make CSR supportive of sustainable development as to whether it will go down the road of sustainable development. Everybody's challenge and worthwhile aim has been and will be corporate social responsibility. We must contribute to making the term "corporate social responsibility" more widely used. Organizations won't start to have a significant enough impact until then.

[greentrickster]

The problem with Shakespeare in school is that it’s never presented in a way that shows how engaging or interesting it can be. Because there are interesting ways to introduce these plays, and there really is a little something for everyone.

You like broody anime guys? So did Shakespeare, go read Hamlet, be sure to make notes of what sort of tone you think a manga-ka or animator would use in the scenes you find significant.

How about historical fiction? Check out Julius Caesar or Anthony and Cleopatra - bonus points if you do some side research on the actual historical figures in the plays and make a list of inaccuracies or biases you spot in the play as a result.

Want to see a guy thoroughly ruin his own life, his family’s life, and his entire kingdom because he decided to retire? Because that’s King Lear in a nutshell - how many spots in the story can you spot where disaster could have been potentially averted?

You just here for some really, extremely messed up stuff and excessive gore? Titus Andronicus was probably written with you in mind. Please read a list of the trigger warnings before committing to this one, and then, as you read, consider how you would explain what you’re reading to a little kid without terrifying them, how this play would work as a tragedy, and how it would work as a horror movie.

Is romantic comedy more up your alley? Then take a look at a Midsummer Night’s Dream, and read it while remembering that this entire play is supposed to be set in era of ancient Greek mythology. How often do you have to remind yourself that the characters are Greek or in Greece? What are some ways that Shakespeare could have made this concept more apparent in the characters’ dialogue or with the supernatural elements he included?

You want to read a classic love story? There’s always Romeo and Juliet, and, as you go, make notes of how you think their relationship would develop over an extended period of time, given how they behave within the play.

Are you more of a psychological horror buff? Try reading Macbeth with the perspective that none of the supernatural elements exist outside the characters’ heads. How well does this work within the play? What elements could be enhanced in a production of the play to really push this idea?

And so on and so forth. All of these plays have a lot of meat on their bones, a lot of subjects they’d be good to read alongside, including history, mythology, anthropology, gender roles through the ages, and modern literature. There are ways to make these stories interesting and appealing to a wide variety of ages, and they can be great tools for teaching comparative thinking, analytics, healthy skepticism, and more.

The problem is, instead of doing something like that, it’s just a standard rote of, “Why is/isn’t Romeo and Juliet a love story?” “Memorize this monologue/scene.” “Why is Macbeth a tragic villain?” Never, “How many crude jokes did William sneak into this scene?” or “So this play is sexist and awful by our modern standards, but how did it hold up to the standards of the time it was written in? How much can we track how much society has/hasn’t changed in this one scene?” or “Guess which word Shakespeare made up and which got used for the first time ever in this line.” or “Which of the characters in this play, if put in a modern setting, would be the meme-lord of the group?”

#shakespeare #school #shakespeare plays