Tumgik
#historic strictures
sabra-n · 3 months
Text
I don't make New Year's resolutions, but if I did, one I'd make for 2024 is to write less meta-meta and more actual meta for OFMD. Fuck going around in passive-aggressive circles about alleged fans who are completely out of touch. The point has been made, repeatedly, and it isn't going to change a thing. So this is my last, long-ass word on the subject unless something truly new comes up:
Finding out that a ringleader of the stans was also deep in Sherlock conspiracy theorizing really helped me get a new perspective on the mess we have here. I wasn't in Sherlock fandom - I watched the first season and thought it was a mixed bag with promise, then started the second, realized it wasn't going to improve, and stopped. But I caught the edges of what happened there, which was kind of an apotheosis of old-school slash fandom moving into the 21st century combined with a whole lot of pure unadulterated wank.
What I mean to say is: a chunk of U.S. media fandom, historically, has been about telling queer stories that the actual canons were never going to explicitly tell onscreen, from Spock and Kirk to, well, Holmes and Watson. Rarely, you'd get a Xena that winked lovingly at slashers and made it clear that if it wasn't for the strictures of their medium there would absolutely be queer romance happening. But for the most part it was something fans built themselves, often in the face of others, including creators, saying "ew they're just friends," "but he has a canon girlfriend," etc., etc.
So fandom was and is, in part, the act of saying "I see that in the canon salad bar and I'm opting to leave it behind the sneeze guard," and also "hey, wouldn't this salad be better with this whole-ass quiche I made at home?" The impulse to elaborate upon canon goes far beyond 'shipping - procedurals are given emotional complexity, sci-fi schlock is granted intricate worldbuilding. And with a show like SGA or Teen Wolf, the stuff onscreen was sufficiently mediocre that it wasn't unfair or inaccurate for fans to go, "nah, I can do that better."
But so much of this was built on the fundament of "they'll never show these stories so I'll do it myself." And the further we moved forward in time, the more that foundation eroded. The Ninth Doctor kissed Jack in 2005, and the subsequent Torchwood was terrible, but it was also gleefully queer. So why couldn't Holmes and Watson kiss five years later, or ten, on a show with writers in common on the very same network? Combine that perfectly sensible question with canon that deliberately withheld information and creators who BSed for the sake of plot twists, and toss in a big ol' dose of fannish entitlement, and you got...well, this nonsense. A coterie of fans for whom reality would never, ever make a difference, because when you're a conspiracy theorist, a lack of evidence is only more evidence of that conspiracy's success. Clearly when the creators say Watson and Holmes won't be a couple they're lying again! And when they're not a couple onscreen it's because of network interference! Try disproving that negative. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
So to come back to OFMD: what we have in the crevasse is, once again, a group of fans convinced of a counter-reality that no barrage of facts will ever dissuade them from. They're exercising that old fannish muscle of "eh fuck canon I'll do it myself" so hard it's looped all the way around to believing the things they make up are canon. And it's so fucking stupid and sad, because y'all, OFMD isn't Sherlock, on so many levels.
First and most simply, OFMD isn't a mystery show. That isn't its genre or its style - no one is ever investigating something unknown to the viewer, and the plot doesn't center on the gradual revelation of information ultimately leading to the truth. Nothing is withheld for the sake of a twist: The writing and direction don't play tricks, so while the show can be multilayered and dense, it's never hiding things. So the possibility of a hidden plot or conspiracy simply isn't built into OFMD's bones the way it was with Sherlock.
Secondly, David Jenkins and co. are not Stephen Moffat, Mark Gatiss, etc., because they don't hold fans in contempt. They also don't withhold information, because OFMD doesn't rely on plot twists, and they can't queerbait because (for fuck's sake): their show is actually queer.
This is the true measure of the crevasse's folly: that they would bring their big gay conspiracy shit into a show where the "rom" in rom-com is between two men, and you can safely assume every character is queer unless proven otherwise. Literally none of the impetuses behind the Sherlock shit are present here, but does that stop them? No it does not.
Which brings me to another key point: Sherlock wasn't very good. It wasn't SGA bad, but like that show, it was at a level where fans collectively could go, "nah, we're doing it better" and be right. They wove that bathmat into a tapestry, so why wouldn't they favor their own work?
But OFMD is already La Chasse à la Licorne. And when the crevasse rejects the canon and replaces it with their own, they don't make it better- they rip it apart and make it small. A sweet queer romance with a quality antagonist becomes the story of a violent sociopath and his poor meow-meow victim who's never done anything wrong in his life. The only permissible character growth is for everyone else in the ensemble to realize how wrong they were for underappreciating this poor martyred baby and how he's actually brilliant and perfect and protected and helped them all along.
That's the secret show beneath the show, the one the writers are deviously hiding from the ignorant masses or were forced to stop because of network interference. And why would that be? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ As comical as it is for the answer to once again be "homophobia," here we sit, with actual-ass adults saying that Izzy was the only truly queer character, really, because of reasons.
The Sherlock conspiracy was fucking stupid nine years ago, and to keep banging that drum at this time, for this show, rises to previously unheard-of levels of inanity. The times have changed, but these people haven't. They are still destructive out of all proportion to their actual numbers, still prone to portraying themselves as wise fandom elders who know how everything "really" works, still using social justice language to bully and bullshit and portray themselves as victims, still proselytizing creepily to teenaged fans. To sum up: we have a wee cult among us. Logic won't change their minds, and no amount of ripping their idiocy to fucking pieces will make them stop spewing it.
But most importantly, paying attention to these awful few is in no way necessary to being in OFMD fandom. They contribute nothing, so I'm Marie Kondo-ing that shit: It doesn't bring me joy.
54 notes · View notes
katakaluptastrophy · 2 months
Text
Discussions of the Fifth's relationship tend to fall into two categories:
On the one hand, there's domestic fluff. And amidst all the awfulness of TLT, the Fifth are one of the few relationships who had the opportunity to have some.
On the other, there's a tendency to paint them as some form of swingers or poly. Many of these treatments are earnest and engaging with this in fun and interesting ways. (And Magnus certainly seems quite taken with Ortus and not particularly upset that he's flirting with his wife...)
But there can also be something of a tendency to sort of shrug and not know quite what to do with these people amidst a field of lesbians but, uh, they're older and wealthy and apparently heterosexual...um, swingers??
And I think that latter handwaving approach is a shame, because if you're trying to envisage something more than tea and cuddles, but aren't quite sure what to do with them, there are so many more interesting weird avenues to consider.
Do I suspect they have a strong vein of tea and cuddles and proof reading your wife's research papers as a love language? Absolutely.
But... What does spending your time dealing with feral, incorporeal spirits - something so destabilising it's apparently necessitated the Fifth's polite, stuff upper lipped affect - do to you? What's it like being married to someone who some days comes home from the library chatting about paleography and some days comes back staring too hard at something you can't even begin to fathom and trying to shake the cold and the feral hunger of the River? What does it mean to be the cavalier of a Speaker to the Dead? Is it strange to be married to a man who is simultaneously your cavalier, your Seneschal, and your subject?
Their marriage is a religious taboo on every other planet in the system, probably a porn trope, and "whatever road Abigail and Magnus had chosen to walk had been a difficult one". Why did they chose that? Historical curiosity? The practicalities of Abigail's apparent planned abdication? Were they kind of into it? Or do they resent the assumption that they might be?
And what must the five years of moving through high society as a married necromancer and cavalier have been like? Do you simply ignore people being weird about it? Are the strictures a mild inconvenience, almost funny? What about when you're visiting the Eighth, have spent the day with one silently walking half a step behind the other, and are pointedly put in a room with a single necromancer's bed and a cavalier cot?
What about tea and cuddles after a hard day of political graft as Lady and Seneschal of the Koniortos Court? Can softness and domesticity and love be made horrifying when they're indulged in so casually after a day working on the annexation of a planet or the dull paperwork of importing grain from a far flung planet that must still meet its business contracts to the Nine Houses even though its harvest has failed?
39 notes · View notes
docpiplup · 8 months
Text
#JON SNOW FORTNIGHT EVENT 2023 @asoiafcanonjonsnow
DAY 10: ECHOES OF THE PAST 🗝️📜 (1/2) ->
Historical parallels with Medieval bastard Kings.
Nowadays, ‘bastard’ is used as an insult.
Being born to unmarried parents is largely free of the kind of stigma and legal incapacities once attached to it in Western cultures, but it still has echoes of shame and sin. The disparagement of children born outside of marriage is often presumed to be a legacy of medieval Christian Europe, with its emphasis on compliance with Catholic marriage law.
Yet prior to the 13th century, legitimate marriage or its absence was not the key factor in determining quality of birth. Instead, what mattered was the social status of the parents – of the mother as well as of the father. Being born to the right parents, regardless of whether they were married according to the strictures of the church, made a child seem more worthy of inheriting parents’ lands, properties and titles.
It’s not until the late 12th century that evidence for the exclusion of children from succession on the grounds of illegitimate birth first appears. ‘Bastard’, as we now understand it, began to emerge here.
Importantly, this shift in the meaning and implications of illegitimacy did not arise as an imposition of Church doctrine. Instead, ordinary litigants began exploiting bits of Church doctrine to suit their own ends. Perhaps the earliest signs of this can be found in the annals of English legal history, with the Anstey case of the 1160s. This might have been the first time an individual was barred from inheriting because her parents had married illegally. And it happened not because the Church intervened, but because one clever plaintiff figured out how to exploit some scraps of theological doctrine. After that time, more and more plaintiffs began to do the same.
For example, towards the end of the 12th century, a regent countess of Champagne rushed to make use of an allegation of illegitimate birth against her nieces, in an effort to secure her son’s succession. Daughters could inherit in this region, and so these sisters did have a claim to the county once ruled by their late father. But the regent countess denounced the sisters as the product of an illegal marriage and therefore not legitimate heirs of their father. The strategy worked in that both daughters did eventually renounce their claims to the county, but not without first obtaining a great deal of money, enough to make them both extremely wealthy. As this suggests, the papacy had a far more passive role than is often imagined.
As bastardy began to acquire its modern meaning, in the early 13th century, it remained the case that the papacy focused on the regulation of illicit unions rather than the exclusion from succession or inheritance of those born to illicit unions. Hatred of illicit sex did trump dynastic politics on occasion. Hatred of the children born to such unions did not. There is very little evidence to suggest that an interest in keeping illegitimate children from inheriting noble or royal title outweighed political or practical considerations in the same way that the policing of illegal marriages sometimes did.
Understanding the changing meanings of bastardy helps us to arrive at a clearer picture of the workings and priorities of medieval society before the 13th century. Society then did not operate subject to rigid Christian canon law rules. Instead, it measured the value of its leaders based on their claims to celebrated ancestry, and the power attached to that kind of legitimacy. To be sure, marrying legitimately certainly received a good deal of lip service throughout the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, in this pre-13th-century world, the most intense attention was paid not to the formation of legitimate marriages, but to the lineage and respectability of mothers. Only beginning in the second half of the 12th century did birth outside of lawful marriage begin to render a child illegitimate, a ‘bastard’, and as such potentially ineligible to inherit noble or royal title.
Source
Well, George R.R. Martin has been using real life historical events as an inspiration for creating the lore of A Song of Ice and Fire, more concretely English and Western Late Medieval Europe history for Westeros, and it was precisely in the Late Middle Ages when the legal situation for bastards worsened by reinforcing marriage and legitimacy laws, reinforcing concubinates to disappear and laws to avoid any kind of polygamy.
In Westerosi society there's the stigma that comes from being born as a bastard, they're said to be born from lust, lies, and weakness, and as such, they are said to be wanton and treacherous by nature, and although they could get some prominent position either in the Citadel, the Kingsguard, Night's Watch or the Faith, they are generally discriminated by other Westerosi (except in Dorne, where there's tolerance towards bastards) and they rarely inherit his father's titles nor become kings. In the Asoiaf lore, there's recording of a bastard of a Bracken and a Blackwood, Benedict Waters, who founded the House of Justman and became King of the Trident as Benedict I; as well as Alyn Velaryon, a Velaryon bastard who was legitimised and became Lord of the Tides after The Dance of Dragons.
Till the events of the published books, Jon has reached the position as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and King Beyond the Wall in all but in name, two positions he has been chosen for.
But he would not have the possibility to inherit any title as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North/King in the North as a bastard, unless someone legitimised him, like Robb did in his Will. Jon has the chance of standing as a candidate for the Northern Succession Council after defeating the Boltons.
So, if The North stays away from the Iron Throne, Jon would be a good candidate for Lord of Winterfell and King in The North, but the question is... Is there any historical example of bastards who became kings?
Yes, there are, and in this meta we're going to down through history and remember those kings. This list probably doesn't include all of the bastard kings, just a selection, if you know about some more, feel free to share it.
The most common concept for bastardy is a child born of parents who were not married when the child was born, so firstly we'll list a few kings who are included in that group, as we consider Jon as Eddard Stark's bastard or Rhaegar and Lyanna's.
Their circumstances in which those kings got to throne are diverse, but we'll get into them searching for any simmilarities between Jon's story and their lifes.
Let's start, the list is on chonological order, and we'll notice that after the 13th century the amount of bastard kings is less, like we cited at the beginning of this meta.
8th Century
-> Mauregato I of Asturias (719-788), who reigned during the late 8th century, between 783 and 788, and was the son of Alfonso I of Asturias and a Muslim concubine or servant named Sisalda. He took the throne when the nobility had declared his nephew Alfonso II of Asturias as Silo's successor, although he probablyhad support of some parts of the nobility. He wed Creusa and had a son with her, Hermenegildo. Bermudo I was elected as King of Asturias after Mauregato died.
The identity of Mauregato's mother is a bit unclear, but her being a Muslim servant is considered a common statement, so his parents followed religions, Christianism and Islam, like Rhaegar and Lyanna, the Faith and the Old Gods.
Plus as happened to Mauregato, Jon may have some problems of nobles in the Northern Great Council because he's bastard and the other candidates would have support for being legimate, although they are kids, they would need a regent, that could be beneficial for them to control the North if they want to, but maybe some other members of the Council suggest or support Jon as their leader.
11th Century
-> Ramiro I of Aragon (1006/7-1063), natural son of Sancho III of Pamplona and Sancha de Aybar. His father Sancho splited his domains and passed down one of them to his sons; from the offspring she had with his wife Muniadona of Castile: García III inherited the Kingdom of Pamplona, Ferdinand I of Leon inherited the county of Castile and Gonzalo inherited the counties of Ribagorza & Sobrarbe; and Ramiro received the county of Aragon, and he annexed the counties of Ribagorza & Sobrarbe Gonzalo died. He unified the three counties to create the Kingdom of Aragon. His relationship with his siblings was complex, due to the rivalry between them for their kingdoms, initially Ramiro tried to conquer Pamplona but he was defeated by García III, and later Ramiro allied with García and his son Sancho IV against Ferdinand I.
His reign lasted 28 years.
Ramiro married Ermesinda of Foix and Agnes of Aquitaine, their offspring was: Sancho I of Aragon & V of Pamplona, Sancha, García, Urraca and Theresa, and he had a son named Sancho out of wedlock.
-> Magnus I " the Good" of Norway and Denmark (1024 - 1047), son of Olaf II of Norway and English concubine named Alvhild. His reign lasted 12 years. When he was 4 year old, his father was dethroned by Cnut the Great, and then his family travelled through other courts seeking shelter but finally they stablished in at the court of the Grand Prince Yaroslav I of Novgorod, where he grew up, was trained as a warrior and was educated in Old Russian and  Greek. Olaf was killed when he reurned to Scandinavia to fight for the throne. When Cnut left for England wife Ælfgifu and their son Svein as regents, Magnus and his supporters return to Norway and he was proclaimed king of Norway. Another son of Cnut, Harthacnut of Denmark, reclaimed Norway, but after Harthacnut died Magnus took his kingdom, but he had to face another pretender Sweyn II, Cnut's nephew, whom Magnus battled against using his father's battle axe, Hel, and he was successful, but died, and Sweyn II succeeded him as King of Denmark and Harald III as King of Norway.
-> William I the Conqueror (1028-1087), illegitimate son of Duke Robert I of Normandy and Herleva of Falaise. He was duke of Normandy and conqueror and king of England.
He started the conquest of England after his cousin, Edward the Confessor died without issue, and Harold II inherited the English throne, but he was defeated and William became the first king of England of the House of Normandy.
William and his wife Matilda of Flanders had 9 children: Robert I of Normandy, Richard, William II of England, Henry I ofEngland, Adelaide, Cecily, Matilda, Constance and Adela .
William seems to be the inspiration for Aegon I the Conqueror and his bastard brother Orys Baratheon, but he could have in common with Jon in becoming kings after their cousins died without issue (i.e. Robb) and having to defeat someone else to become kings, i.e. Jon helping Stannis to defeat the Boltons.
-> Harald III "Hen" of Denmark (1040-1080), illegitimate son of Sweyn II of Denmark and a concubine, Thora.
After Sweyn II died, Harald got elected over his brother Cnut by an assembly, and faced opposition from his brothers during his reign. He ruled over 6 years, he's known to be a peaceful ruler and introduced some monetary and legal reforms like substituting trial by combat or trial by ordeal and replace it with avsystem used by the English of calling upon honorable men to swear oaths on behalf of the parties in a trial.
Harald was married to his cousin Margareta Hasbjörnsdatter, but did not leave any heirs, and was succeeded by his brother Canute IV.
-> Cnut IV "the Holy" of Denmark (1040-1086), illegitimate son of Sweyn II of Denmark with an unknown concubine. He succeeded his brother Harald.
Cnut is considered an ambitious and strict king, ruled during 6 years, limited the power of the nobility, gave great concession and donations to the Church, and took the property of a great quantity of common land for himself or the Church. He raided England a few times and created a fleet to invade it, since he considered William I an usurper, but on his way to lead the invasion, he was killed during a peasant revolt.
After he died, he was succeeded by his brother Olaf I of Denmark.
Cnut married Adela of Flanders. They had three children: Charles I of Flanders and the twin sisters Cæcilia and Ingerid. Ingerid's descendants, the House of Bjelbo, would ascend to the throne of Sweden and Norway and Canute IV's blood returned to the Danish throne in the person of Olaf II of Denmark.
->Olaf I "Hunger" of Denmark (c. 1050 – 1095) illegitimate son of Sweyn II of Denmark with an unknown concubine.
In his early years he was set aside and mistreatred and exiled by his brothers, who Ferrer he could be a political rival against them.
He succeeded his brother Cnut IV, and his reign lasted 9 years, that were plagued by several consecutive years of crop failure and famine.
Olaf married Ingegard of Norway, they didn't have any offspring, so he was succeeded by his brother Erik I.
11th Century/12th Century
-> Erik I " Evergood" of Denmark (c. 1060 – 1103), illegitimate son of Sweyn II of Denmark with an unknown concubine.
When he was young he was a supporter of his brother Cnut IV. After Olaf died, Erik was elected as new king.
Erik reign lasted 8 years, he was well liked by people, he was considered a strapping young man and a good speaker and diplomat, and ruthless towards pirates and robbers. Erik had a reputation as a loud man who liked parties, and even killed four of his men while he was drunken during one of his parties, and so he procced to go on pilgrimsge to Holy Land, journey in which he died. His brother Niels succeeded him.
Erik married Boedil Thurgotsdatter and had one legitimate son with her, Canute Lavard, father of Vademar I of Denmark. Eric had four children out of wedlock, Erik II of Denmark, Benedict, Harald Kesja and Ragnhilde, mother of Erik III of Denmark.
-> Niels I of Denmark (c. 1065 – 25 June 1134) illegitimate son of Sweyn II of Denmark with an unknown concubine. He was the last son of Sweyn to become king.
He was described as mild and forthcoming, though not a competent ruler.
Niels married Margaret Fredkulla, and had two children with her, Inge Nielsen and Magnus I of Sweden. He had a daughter born out of wedlock, Ingerd of Denmark.
During the majority of Niels' reign, 30 years, Denmark had internal peace, only broken when his son Magnus was forced from the Swedish throne and a conflict erupted between Magnus and his cousin Cnut Lavard, due to his popularity. After Magnus slew Cnut, Erik II took his brother's place in the conflict, and Niels supported Magnus.
Niels and Magnus died during the civil war and Erik II became king of Denmark.
-> Erik II "the Memorable" of Denmark (c.  1090– 1137 ), illegitimate son of Eric I of Denmark with an unknown concubine.
Erik the Memorable rebelled against his uncle Niels, and was declared king in 1134.
He punished his adversaries severely, and rewarded his supporters handsomely, as he was considered a harsh and unpopular ruler, he only ruled Denmark 3 years. He was killed by a subject in 1137 and was promptly succeeded by his nephew Erik III of Denmark.
Erik married Malmfred of Kiev, they had no issue, but Erik had a son with his concubine Thunna, Sweyn III of Denmark.
12th Century
-> Sweyn III of Denmark (1125-1157), illegitimate son of Erik II of Denmark and a concubine named Thunna.
He was elected king after Erik III of Denmark abdicated.
In 1154, Sweyn was overthrown by an alliance between Canute and Valdemar, who was crowned Canute's co-ruler as Valdemar.
This prompted the Danish magnates to force through a tripartition of the kingdom into Jutland, Zealand, and Scania. Sweyn chose first, and was made the ruler of Scania.
After that Sweyn organised apeace banquet, in which Sweyn planned on killing his two co-rulers, and succeeded in having Canute killed, but Valdemar escaped. After that Valdemar and Sweyn battled, Sweyn was killed while he was scaping from the battle. Valdemar I was proclaimed king of all Denmark.
Sweyn married Adela of Meissen, daughter of Conrad, Margrave of Meissen, and Luitgard of Ravenstein. They had two children Erik and Luitgard, who married Berthold I of Istria.
->Tancred I of Sicily ( 1138 – 1194), or Tancred of Lecce, illegitimate son of Roger III, duke of Apulia, eldest son of Roger II of Sicily, and his mistress Emma of Lecce.
Tancred was born in Lecce and inherited the county from his grandfather.
With his bastard uncle Simon plotted to remove William II, legitimate son of Roger II, but failed and went to exile.
Years after, Tancred returned to Sicily he swore fealty to his aunt Constance I as William II's heiress, Tancred rebelled and was crowned as King of Sicily. Constance I and her husband the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV fought against Tancred. Tancred died during the war after 5 years of reign, and was briefly succeeded by his son William III, who was soon captured and executed by orders of Henry IV.
Tancred had married Sybilla of Acerra, an their children were: Roger III, William III, Elvira, Constance, Medania and Valdrada.
13th Century
->Manfred I of Sicily (1232 – 1266), natural son of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II with Bianca Lancia, legitimised later by his father.
Manfred became regent over the kingdom of Sicily on behalf of his nephew Conradin. As regent he subdued rebellions in the kingdom, until in 1258 he usurped Conradin's rule. After an initial attempt to appease Pope Innocent IV he took up the ongoing conflict between the Hohenstaufens and the papacy through combat and political alliances. He defeated the papal army at Foggia. Manfred was excommunicated by three successive popes, Manfred was the target of a Crusade called by the Popes Alexander IV and Urban IV.
Urban received the help of Charles of Anjou in overthrowing Manfred. Manfred was killed during his defeat by Charles at the Battle of Benevento, and Charles became King of Sicily as Charles I after having executed Conradin.
Manfred had married Beatrice of Savoy and Helena Angelina Doukaina, their children were Constance II of Sicily, Beatrice, Henry, Anselm and Frederick. He also had an illegitimate daughter, Flordelis.
His daughter Constance II married Peter III of Aragon, and with their supporters in the island of Sicily fought against Charles I, who, of the whole kingdom (the Kingdom of Sicily in that period was formed by Naples and the island of Sicily) now controlled only Naples, and Constance II and her children gained Sicily, that later became part of the Crown of Aragon, and their descendants Kings of Aragon annexed Naples some generations later, and Naples and Sicily were ruled by the same king again under the reigns of Alfonso V and his nephew Ferdinand II of Aragon & his descendants.
14th Century
-> Henry II "the Fratricidal" of Castile (1334-1379), or Henry of Trastámara, illegitimate son of Alfonso XI of Castile and his mistress Leonor de Guzmán.
Henry was the fourth of ten illegitimate children of King Alfonso XI of Castile and Eleanor de Guzmán, a great-granddaughter of Alfonso IX of León. He was born a twin to Fadrique Alfonso, Lord of Haro, and was the first boy born to the couple that survived to adulthood.
At birth, he was adopted by Rodrigo Álvarez de las Asturias. Rodrigo died the following year and Henry inherited his lordship of Noreña. His father later made him Count of Trastámara and lord over Lemos and Sarria in Galicia, and the towns of Cabrera and Ribera, which constituted a large and important heritage in the northwest of the peninsula. It made him the head of the new Trastámara dynasty, a bastard branch from the Castilian branch of House Burgundy.
Alfonso XI gave Eleanor many titles and privileges for their children. This caused discontent among many of the noblemen and in particular the queen, Maria of Portugal, and her son Peter I of Castile.
When Peter I succeeded his father, Henry and his siblings revolted several times and were on a intermittent wars during Peter I's reign, in which Henry was supported by Peter IV of Aragon and Charles V of France.
Henry had numerous lovers, Leonor Álvarez, Elvira Íñiguez, Beatriz Fernández, Beatriz Ponce de León y Jérica, Juana de Sousa, Juana de Cárcamo and Juana de Cifuentes, and had in total 13 bastard children: Alfonso, Eleanor, Joanna, Constance, Ferdinand, Mary, Fadrique, Beatrice, Henry, Peter, Isabella, Inés and Joanna.
Henry married Juana Manuel de Villena and they had three children, John I of Castile, Eleanor and Joanna.
In 1369 Henry II defeated and killed his brother Peter I, and became the first king of House Trastámara. During his 10 year reign he faced opposition from Ferdinand I of Portugal and Constance of Castile, Peter I's daughter, and her husband John of Gaunt. Henry II was succeeded by his son John I of Castile
Due to his alliance with Peter IV of Aragon, John I of Castile wed Peter's daughter, Eleanor of Aragon, two of his children were Henry III of Castile and Ferdinand I of Aragon, and so House Trastámara ruled over the Crowns of Castile and Aragon.
14th Century/15th Century
->John I "of Fond Memory" or "the Great" or "the Good" of Portugal (1357-1433), John of Avis, natural son of Peter I of Portugal and Teresa Guille Lourenço. He's the founder and first king of House of Avis, bastard branch from the Portuguese branch of House Burgundy.
His first important charge was Great Master of the Order of Avis, and years after, when Succession Crisis broke out, John ended up being crowned as King of Portugal. John I ruled Portugal over 48 years, the most extensive reign of all Portuguese monarch, and m9st of its reign was able to rule in peace and concentrate on the economic development and territorial expansion. He was succeeded by his son Edward I of Portugal.
It maybe a coincidence, but it's interesting the contrast between Jon and Ramsay, both being Northern bastards, but Ramsay it's like the personification of the Westerosi prejudices against bastards, Ramsay Bolton was legitimised and became his father's heir because he (allegedly) poisoned and killed his trueborn brother Domeric, meanwhile Jon will be KITN because Robb died due to the Bolton-Frey treason and in his will he legitimised and declared Jon as his heir, and in that way there's the parallel between Jon and Ramsay and John I of Portugal and Henry II of Castile, John seemed to have a good relationship with his brother Ferdinand I of Portugal and after the Succession war he became the next king, and Henry II didn't get along with his brother Peter I and he became king after he killed him.
This is a brief introduction, the next part of the meta it'll be dedicated fully to John I of Portugal and his parallels with Jon Snow.
15th Century
->Ferdinand I of Naples (1423-1494), illegitimate son of Alfonso V of Aragon and his mistress Gueraldona Carlino. Ferdinand I of Naples was named after his grandfather Ferdinand I of Aragon, first king of Crown of Aragon from House Trastámara.
His father had conquered Naples after defeating René I and stablished in Naples during most of the rest of his life there since he left in charge his wife and cousin Mary of Castile and his brother John for the government of Aragon when he was away in Italy. Alfonso didn't have legitimate children, he only had three children with his mistress, Ferdinand being the eldest.
So, Alfonso managed to declare his son as heir of Naples, with some alliances with the local nobility, like a marriage between Ferdinand and Isabella of Chiaramonte, and the rest of the Crown of Aragon was inherited by John II of Aragon.
Ferdinand I had to face opposition from foregain royalty and nobility and some local barons who didn't accept Ferdinand' reforms and ambitions and because he was a bastard and he limited they power, and often allied against him, like Pope Callixtus III, John of Anjou, Mariano Marzano, the Angevines, his cousin Charles of Viana (John's II eldest son, although John II accepted his nephew's kingship), among others.
John II of Aragon sent a fleet to support of his nephew against the Angevines, and when the Catalan nobility offered the Aragonese crown to René I during the Catalan civil war, sent troops in support.
Ferdinand had married Isabella of Taranto and his cousin Joanna of Aragon, their offspring was Alfonso II of Naples, Eleanor, Frederick I of Naples, John, Beatrice, Francesco and Joanna, who married his nephew Ferdinand II of Naples.
He had several children with his mistresses Diana Guardato, Marchesella Spitzata, Piscicella Piscicelli, Eulalia Ravignano and Giovannella Caracciolo: Mary, Joanna, Ilaria, Henry, Mary, Alonso, Cesare, Maria Cecilia, Lucrezia, Ferdinand, Mary and Joanna.
He was a very passionate man, he had an almost pathological attraction towards young women and, despite the numerous lovers and concubines, he loved very much his wife Isabella of Taranto, a woman of exceptional virtues, whose death greatly afflicted him. As a father he was very present and very fond of his offspring, especially known is the strong affection shown for his daughters.
Despite the odds, Ferdinand I ruled Naples during 36 years and brought peace and prosperity to Naples, although he had to deal with opponent powers like the Ottoman Empire, France, the Republic of Venice and the Papal States.
He was one of the most influential and feared monarchs in Europe at the time and an important figure of the Italian Renaissance, Ferdinand promoted Renaissance culture and art with his patronage, surrounding himself with numerous artists and writers who flourished in his kingdom, introducted the art of silk and printing, the King showed enthusiasm for music and established in Naples the first musical school in Italy and one of the first in Europe. Ferdinand expanded the very rich royal library founded by his father in Castel Capuano and grow at an impressive rate, thanks to purchases, gifts and the confiscation of the collections of the rebel barons.
He issued various social laws that undermined the excessive power of the Barons, favoring small artisans and peasants. This work of modernization and the resistance he put up against them led to the outbreak of the famous revolt which was subsequently suffocated.
Recognized as one of the most powerful political minds of the time, a very skilled diplomat, stablished the hegemony of Naples over other Italian states, and a dense network of alliances and relationships with Italian and foreign sovereigns, through marriages of his illegitimate and legitimate and children.
After Ferdinand died he was succeeded by his son Alfonso II of Naples, who in turn abdicated very soon in favor of his own son Ferdinand II of Naples.
To expand the list, there's another case of bastardy, in which their parents' marriage was declared null or invalid, if we're considering the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna secretly and it could be considered invalid because Rhaegar was already married to Elia and maybe the lack of credible witness make that the wedding could be considered questionable, so for a great sector of the society would be considered a bastard (i.e. The Faith).
9th Century/10th Century
->Athelstan of England (894-939), first king of England, son Edward of Wessex and Egwina. Their parents married, but due to his mother low status, their marriage got annulled. Athelstan succeeded to the throne of Wessex after his brother King Ethelweard, son of Edward and Ælfflæd of Wessex, died.
Aethelstan is known for being a great diplomat, strategist and reformer, created a strong system of alliances, istarted being king of Wessex and anexxed the other six English kingdoms: Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Kent, Sussex and Essex. He never wed and ha no children, so after he died, his brother Edmund I, eldest son of Edward and his third wife, Edgiva, succeeded him.
The English Heptarchy seems to be the inspiration for the Seven Kingdoms, and it's an interesting datail that a bastard from a kingdom, started becoming king of that kingdom and then he ruled the seven kingdoms , as Jon could be proclaimed King in the North, for fighting the Others, he'll have to try to convince and unify the rest of Westeros to survive the War for the Dawn.
11th Century
->Harold I of England (1016-1040), son of Cnut the Great, King of Denmark, Norway, Sweden & England, and Ælfgifu Ælfhelmsdotter. His parents got married by the Danish law, but once Cnut converted to Cristianism and conquered England, married Emma of Normandy, who was considered as his only wife by the Church. Harthacnut, son of Cnut and Emma, left Harold as regent of England while he was away, and later Harold was proclaimed king of England. Harold ruled for four years and sixteen weeks, when he died, Harthacnut took the control of the English throne. Harold married Ælfgifu, and had a son, Ælfwine, but he became a monk.
One of the speculations within the fandom about Rhaegar and Lyanna is that there could have been a secret wedding, maybe it could have been in front of a weirwood in the Isle of Faces following the Northern wedding custumes, in contrast of Rhaegar marring Elia by the Faith of the Seven ceremony.
12th Century/13th Century
->Ferdinand III " the Saint" of Castile ( 1199/1201 – 1252), son of Alfonso IX of Leon and Berenguela I of Castile, their marriage was annulled due to the consanguinity between them. He's the first king of the Crown of Castile, his reign lasted 35 years. Ferdinand III married Beatrice of Swabia and Joan of Dammartin. His children were: Alfonso X "The Wise" of Castile, Fadrique, Ferdinand, Eleonor, Berenguela, Henry, Philip, Manuel, Mary, Ferdinand, Eleonor, Louis, Simon and John.
13th Century/14th Century
->Ferdinand IV "the Summoned" of Castile (1285 - 1312), son of Sancho IV of Castile and Maria de Molina, their marriage got annulled due to consanguinity and because Sancho was betrothed to another woman, although Pope Boniface VIII legitimised Sancho and Maria union when Ferdinand IV was already king. His reign lasted 16 years. Ferdinand IV married Constance of Portugal, their children were: Alfonso XI of Castile and Eleonor of Castile, wife of Alfonso IV of Aragon.
15th Century
-> Edward V of England (1470-1483), eldest son of Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville. His siblings and him were declared as bastards by their uncle Richard III alleged that Edward and Elizabeth was null because there was a promise of marriage from Edward IV to Eleanor Talbot, to get his nephew out of succession. He didn't married and had children since he was 12 when he died.
In this case, Edward V's circumstances seems to have inspired Joffrey's as well as Young Griff and Bran's partially. Stannis states that Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen are bastards and claims to be the rightful king of Westeros, like Richard III did with his brother's children and now he's trying to make it to the Iron Throne; Bran's part could be inspired by the Princes in the Tower event, in which Edward and his younger brother Richard were imprisioned and probably killed by orders of their uncle, and there were rumors during the following years that maybe one of the brothers scaped, fuelled with pretenders who claimed to be some of the princes, like Perkin Warbeck. In ASOIAF, Theon captures Winterfell and kills the miller's sons to pretend he has killed Bran and Rickon, although they had escaped and in the future the rest of The North is going to know they alived when they return to Winterfell; Young Griff claims to be Aegon VI, Rhaegar and Elia's baby son who was murdered by The Mountain during the Sack of King's Landing
In summary, after reading about the lives of these kings on the list, in many of them we can note the pattern of being elected in an assembly like the Danish kings or having to face adversaries that undermine their positions as kings for being bastards, sometimes by other relatives pretenders or the Church, like happened to most of them. And those are a couple of events that may happen to Jon in the future books, his rising to kingship probably being elected at the Northern Assembly, probably making negotiatons with the supporters of his other siblings i.e. Rickon being supported by the Manderlys, Sansa by Littlefinger and the Vale etc, but Jon could have the support of the Mountain Clans, the Mormonts, the Glovers, House Thenn and The Free Folk.
The meta doesn't end here, for the parallels between Jon and John I of Portugal click here.
62 notes · View notes
script-a-world · 10 days
Text
Submitted via Google Form:
I am trying to expand definitions what what are first, second, third world etc places. But I'm going to need more than that because it doesn't fit sci fi much as some places are medieval or older and others have extremely technology advanced. But even in each, there are different statuses. People who live like royalty/wealthy in a medieval world getting categorised near the bottom is natural when compared to the universe but also a bit unfair? I don't know. And there are obvious poor places in technology advanced worlds - but are miles ahead of royalty in medieval worlds. I'm not how to deal with this.
Licorice: Instead of using “first world”, “second world”, and “third world”, terms which are falling out of use anyway, have you considered using one of the terms used nowadays by aid and development circles, such as “developed country” or “low-income country”? These terms come with their own baggage and some people consider them to be equally pejorative, but they have the merit of describing the metric on which they’re based. 
If you’re building a sci-fi world, your starting place should be the standards which the powers that be in your world use to group, or rank, its communities (planets; countries; civilisations). If you have a Mother Planet that lords it over more recently colonised planets, you could have a literal First World-Second World situation. If the colonised planets then go on to colonise new planets of their own - Third World! If it’s all about which states have the most military power versus those which have little or none, you could invent a different term for that. 
Many sci-fi books and shows divide the world into communities/planets that share advanced tech and the culture that goes with it, and communities/planets that have been judged “not yet ready” for such tech, or communities/planets which are lagging behind in their development of that tech.
Tex: The terms you’re using come from the Cold War era (Wikipedia 1, Wikipedia 2), and are in use mostly as a function of macroeconomics (Wikipedia). As such, in order to expand such definitions, you need to have a similar catalyzing event in your world’s history to have the same functional starting point.
In this respect, I would encourage you to study Star Trek: The Original Series, as it was written during the Cold War and has much contemporary criticism to the social turbulence of the time (Wikipedia, Memory Alpha).
For a perspective that’s roughly a generation or so removed from the Cold War, I would recommend both Stargate SG-1 (Wikipedia, SGCommand) and Stargate Atlantis (Wikipedia, SGCommand), as it’s useful to understand intergenerational impacts of socioeconomic decisions made for the entrenchment of social stratification, particularly in a sci-fi setting.
Historically, the creation of such disparate social classes as seen in, as you describe, the European medieval era, is due to the consequential accumulation of wealth caused by many series of war based upon cultural stipulations like religious strictures. Whatever originally created royalty and nobility, it frequently becomes a fixed social class due to artificial means. If a social norm is artificially devised, then the conclusion usually follows that it is unfair by design and thus not natural, because there are no avenues for change to fix any flaws that crop up.
Addy: It seems to me that you're trying to get a scale to describe societies at different tech levels. I'd recommend looking at the tech level system from the Traveller tabletop game - I think that could be a good spot for getting started. Or look at tech levels from other systems and things - that should help get you what you're looking for, a set of terms to effectively describe the technological level of a society.
Feral: I don’t have much to add to what Licorice and Tex have already said, but I would recommend studying cultural relativism to help with expanding your reasoning on how cultures interact with out reducing the broad spectrum of human experience to “advancement.”
11 notes · View notes
amielbjacobs · 1 month
Text
One thing that bugs me in sci-fi/fantasy worldbuilding (I swear, SF/F is most of what I read, I'm just on a historical kick right now) is that societal standards surrounding queer people are almost always either:
A) queer people are significantly oppressed as a group, typically in a way resembling the US in the 1950s.
or
B) queer people are totally free and treated exactly in line with the ideals of modern queer activists.
Like, neither of those are bad options, unless you're using A as an excuse just to never depict queer people in your writing, but they're very . . . binary. And a lot of our human cultures in our own history have ascribed to neither A nor B, but have had their own very specific ideas about queer people which are neither utopian nor dystopian. Why wouldn't alien cultures, or fantasy cultures, also have weird and specific ideas which don't fit into these two options?
The defense of option B is that people want fiction to be an escape, they want to be able to imagine a world where queer people don't have to worry about any strictures. And that's totally valid, option B should exist, but escapism and utopianism are not the only valid goals for fiction. Option B should exist, but it shouldn't be the only option.
Surely we can imagine a world that is broader and more interesting than utopia or dystopia.
8 notes · View notes
mercerislandbooks · 8 months
Text
Book Notes: A Lady’s Guide to Scandal
Tumblr media
Following Becca’s blog on what makes a good summer read, Sophie Irwin’s new historical romance, A Lady’s Guide to Scandal, fits each specification on Becca’s list and then some. I readily admit that a historical romance set in England is hard for me to pass up, but I was also very interested to see how Sophie Irwin would follow her debut novel, A Lady’s Guide to Fortune-Hunting, which I’d thoroughly enjoyed last summer. In A Lady's Guide to Scandal, Sophie Irwin has surpassed herself, delivering a Regency romance with all the traditional elements, while making it so much more.
Lady Eliza Somerset, having married a much older man to oblige her family and not her own heart, finds herself widowed ten years later and unexpectedly in possession of quite a large fortune. Unfortunately said fortune comes with a morality clause and the reappearance of her first love, Oliver. Because of course Oliver's uncle is the man Eliza married for duty, and having had no children, the estate and the title pass to Oliver as the new Lord Somerset. Given these challenging circumstances, Eliza takes the opportunity to escape her overbearingly ambitious family and take up residence in Bath. With her cousin Margaret very properly as chaperone, Eliza intends to finish out the last three months of her mourning and snatch at some measure of freedom for the first time in her life. As Eliza is not of Jane Austen’s mindset when it comes to Bath (Jane was not a fan), she takes to city living immediately -- going to concerts, taking the waters, making new acquaintances, and privately taking up her old passion of painting. But when the scandalous and handsome Lord Melville comes to town, followed shortly by the new Lord Somerset, Eliza’s recently discovered liberty is threatened, as well as her heart.
At first I thought I was getting a redo of Persuasion, when we started off with the love given up for duty returning, from the sea no less. It soon became clear that Irwin was interested in doing more than simply reworking Austen. Her cast contains a diversity that isn't just for show, but rather explored thoughtfully within the time period. She doesn't shy away from calling the marriage mart what it is, bartering young women for social and monetary advantage. All the while she grows the character of Eliza from a dutiful and repressed daughter to a woman aware of her own desires. It was delightful to see the pleasure that Eliza takes in each small rebellion against the strictures she’s lived with her entire life. Every time she makes a choice simply to please herself I wanted to cheer. Playful language, an undeniable humor, and poignant self-discovery all made A Lady's Guide to Scandal one of my favorite reads of the summer!
— Lori
11 notes · View notes
sorenblr · 1 year
Note
Kinda wanna know because your work has helped awaken in me an interest in spiritual/religious stuff. You an atheist? If so, what brought you to study/base your blog around this stuff as opposed to other elements of culture like art and such? Sorry if the question sounds like it comes from an asshole
No worries, glad I could help encourage your interest in any way. I am generally agnostic and ambivalent to the strictures of organized religion, but I don’t reject the notion of a spiritual dimension to life. You could probably convince me to believe whatever shit Kahlil Gibran was into if you yelled at me for long enough. Otherwise, myth is the domain of human culture where I’ve found the most transcendent creative energies to be concentrated. Individual episodes from myth are those that are most deeply seated in my memory- Jacob’s reunion with Esau in Genesis, Hanuman and Jambavan on the shore before Sri Lanka in the Ramayana, Ector’s paean to the deceased Lancelot in Le Morte d’Arthur etc.
From a purely academic perspective, myths are charged with a sort of historical and anthropological interest distinct from many forms of secular art, not only for their tremendous age but because they emerge from a more explicitly communal milieu, i.e. are the shared heritage of an entire people, and thus often exist outside the commodity relationship or the question of individual authorship. I think this quality of human collectivity informs many even semi-rigorous surveys of myth in the modern day; it’s what sets it apart from whatever commercial tripe is being hailed as a “modern mythology” at any given point in time.
38 notes · View notes
boredtechnologist · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
MicroProse's "Sid Meier’s Pirates!" for the NES console
Reviewing MicroProse's "Sid Meier’s Pirates!" involves exploring the game's thematic elements, mechanics, and narrative, and interpreting these in the context of broader philosophical questions and concepts.
1. The Notion of Freedom and Moral Ambiguity: "Sid Meier’s Pirates!" places players in the role of a pirate, a figure traditionally associated with both freedom and moral ambiguity. Philosophically, this setting allows for an exploration of the concept of freedom – what it means to be free, the price of freedom, and its moral implications. As pirates, players operate outside the strictures of society, suggesting a form of absolute freedom, yet this freedom comes with the cost of potentially immoral acts like theft and violence. This dichotomy encourages players to reflect on the nature of freedom and the ethical boundaries they are willing to cross in its pursuit.
2. Power Dynamics and Authority: The game's setting in the Caribbean during the age of sail is rife with power struggles between different nations and within the hierarchical structures of naval and pirate crews. These dynamics raise philosophical questions about authority, power, and resistance. The player's ability to challenge and overthrow existing powers, either through allegiance with a state or as a free agent, touches upon theories of political philosophy and rebellion against authority.
3. The Role of Fate and Free Will: In "Sid Meier’s Pirates!", players make choices that affect their journey, from aligning with certain factions to engaging in battles. This interplay of choice and the game's random events (such as storms or encounters) brings into focus the philosophical debate of free will versus determinism. The game becomes a canvas to reflect on how much of our lives are governed by our choices versus external circumstances.
4. The Search for Identity and Self-Made Destiny: The game allows players to forge their path, rising from a lowly sailor to a feared pirate or a respected privateer. This aspect resonates with existentialist themes, particularly the creation of one's essence through actions. The player's journey can be seen as a quest for identity, where one's choices and actions define who they become, highlighting the existentialist belief in the individual's responsibility in shaping their destiny.
5. Ethical Considerations of Wealth and Power: As players accumulate wealth and power, the game prompts reflection on the ethics of wealth accumulation and the use of power. The decision-making in managing resources, engaging in trade, or plundering can lead to a philosophical examination of economic ethics, the consequences of wealth, and the moral responsibility that comes with power.
6. Nostalgia and Historical Representation: The game's romantic portrayal of the pirate life can be seen as a form of nostalgia, idealizing a bygone era. This raises questions about how history is represented in media and the effects of romanticizing the past. Philosophically, it opens a discussion about our perception of history, the selective glorification of certain aspects, and the ethics of historical representation in entertainment.
In summary, "Sid Meier’s Pirates!" offers more than just a strategic and adventurous gameplay experience; it serves as a medium for philosophical inquiry. The game engages with themes of freedom and morality, power dynamics, fate versus free will, identity, the ethics of wealth and power, and the representation of history, providing a rich tapestry for players to explore and reflect upon complex philosophical ideas.
3 notes · View notes
haggishlyhagging · 10 months
Text
“Although the oppression of women is universal, feminist consciousness is not. While I am not sure that I could demonstrate the necessity of its appearance in this time and place and not in another, I believe it is possible to identify two features of current social reality which, if not sufficient, are at least necessary conditions for the emergence of feminist consciousness. These features constitute, in addition, much of the content of this consciousness. I refer, first, to the existence of what Marxists call ‘contradictions’ in our society and, second, to the presence, due to these same contradictions, of concrete circumstances which would permit a significant alteration in the status of women.
In Marxist theory, the stage is set for social change when existing forms of social interaction—property relations as well as values, attitudes, and beliefs—come into conflict with new social relations which are generated by changes in the mode of production:
At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production in society come in conflict with the existing relations of production or—what is but a legal expression for the same thing—with the property relations within which they had been at work before. From forms of development of the forces of production these relations turn into their fetters. Then comes the period of social revolution.
Social conflict regularly takes an ideological form, so much so that conflicts which are fundamentally economic in origin may appear to be struggles between ideas, as, for instance, between competing conceptions of the nature of legitimate political authority or of woman's proper sphere. To date, no one has offered a comprehensive analysis of those changes in the socioeconomic stricture of contemporary American society which have made possible the emergence of feminist consciousness. This task is made doubly difficult by the fact that these changes constitute no completed process, no convenient object for dispassionate historical investigation, but are part of the fluid set of circumstances in which each of us must find our way from one day to another and whose ultimate direction is as yet unclear. In spite of this, several features of current social reality cannot escape notice.
First, if we add to the Marxist notion of ‘modes of production’ the idea of ‘modes of (biological) reproduction,’ then it is evident that the development of cheap and efficient types of contraception has been instrumental in changing both the concrete choices women are able to make and the prevailing conceptions about woman's function and destiny. Second, the rapid growth of service industries has had much to do with the steady rise in the percentage of women in the work force, since the post-World War II low in the early fifties. While poor women and women of color have often had to work for wages, middle-class women were largely restricted to the roles of wife, mother, and home maker; this restriction, together with the rationales that justify it, is clearly out of phase with the entry of millions of such women into the market economy. The growth and spread of a technology to ease the burden of housekeeping, a technology which is itself the result of a need on the part of late capitalism for ‘innovations’ in production, serves further to undermine traditional conceptions about woman's place. During part of the period of the most rapid rise in the percentage of women in the work force, to cite still another ‘contradiction,’ there appeared an anomalous and particularly virulent form of the ‘feminine mystique,’ which, together with its companion, the ideal of ‘togetherness,’ had the effect, among other things, of insuring that the family would remain an efficient vehicle of consumption. What triggered feminist consciousness most immediately, no doubt, were the civil rights movement and the peace and student movements of the sixties; while they had other aims as well, the later movements may also be read as expressions of protest against the growing bureaucratization, depersonalization, and inhumanity of late capitalist society. Women often found themselves forced to take subordinate positions within these movements; it did not take long for them to see the contradiction between the oppression these movements were fighting in the larger society and their own continuing oppression in the life of these movements themselves.”
-Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression
12 notes · View notes
hunting-songs · 24 days
Text
Tumblr media
A little Headcanon change- Senritsus Birthday is now put on the twelfth December (so the 12.12.1975, if we would go after the actual Manga timeline that stumbles 20 years behind our time). Which would make Senritsu: A Figtree: Fig Tree (the Sensibility) -- very strong minded, a bit self willed, honest, loyal, independent, hates contradiction or arguments, loves life and friends, enjoys children and animals, a social butterfly, great sense of humor, likes idleness and laziness after long demanding hours at work, has artistic talent and great intelligence.   Birthgem: Opaque Turquoise --- The turquoise is said to stand for perseverance, assertiveness and a quick grasp, as well as wisdom, calm, protection and is said to bring good luck. Historically, the gemstone was believed to have strong protective qualities, particularly for travel and warding off evil spirits. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it a protective stone against accidents and evil influences. Hildegard von Bingen also discovered its healing properties and included it among her twelve main stones. The birthstone of December is also thought to enhance intuition. Turquoise is also said to assist creative problem solving and calming the nerves when speaking in public, as well as being a promoter of self-realisation.Physically, turquoise is said to be an excellent stone for exhaustion, depression and panic attacks. It is thought to enhance the physical and physic immune systems, regenerate tissue, support the assimilation of nutrients, alleviate pollution and viral infections and heal the whole body. A Sagittarius: The Misunderstood Healer --- Guided by the centaurs and the story of Chiron, Sagittarius is the sign of teaching and healing. They are always ready to lend a helping hand and are natural benefactors, but their selflessness is often misunderstood by the common people. Pain is often hidden behind their smile, and they would willingly give everything they have to help others heal, and seek a life free from pain. Despite being blessed with many incredible things, Sagittarius individuals may still feel like something is missing to make their life complete. Sagittariuses have an independent streak like no other sign. Independence and the freedom to pursue what they want when they want is of the utmost importance to a Sagittarius. They are travelers, and risk-takers. Sagittariuses aren't afraid to blaze their own trails, even if that means going it alone. Perhaps related to their ability to intuitively understand issues larger than themselves is the Sagittarius characteristic for being deeply, soulfully compassionate. Because of their openness to new experiences and lack of strictures, Sagittariuses get along very well with diverse groups of people and are always willing to empathize with another person's experience. Their warm, generous willingness to set people at ease comes from a genuine concern for other peoples' experiences and well-being. All this independence can sometimes translate to behavior that seems spontaneous to the point of random and a tendency to get bored easily. They can also rebel against those in authority, which can cause conflicts at work. Additionally, A Sagiattarius's constant quest for new experiences translates to a reluctance to commit. This can be a good thing if you're, say, an Aries or Gemini, who likewise are likely to want to drift toward the new and get easily bored with the old. However, if you like a safe routine and predictability, the Sagittarius might be more of a challenge to find love with.
2 notes · View notes
Text
Feminist posthumanism?
definition of Human
Cartesian dualism
Philosophy guiding “disenchantment of nature” and colonialism, scientific racism
definition of post-Human (past Enlightenment strictures of thought)
cite some scholars like N Katherine Hayles, Cadigan, Braidotti, Alaimo, Haraway
Why important to solarpunk?
Transhumanist versions/posthuman
not new - cyberpunk had bodiless human - cadigan specifically called out in fiction, many other authors
important to know which version is being talked about - both come with a lot of philosophical/historical baggage
admit idk much about transhumanist baggage other than that most of its proponents are wealthy, mostly white, cis men who adhere to the mind/body split doctrind
solarpunk posthuman more like Haraway’s cyborg, innocent of origins
philosophical post-Human work has been done in gender studies so reality of solarpunk cyborg won’t have to think about it
solarpunk about embodied reality, rather than disembodied (extremely expensive) fictions?
5 notes · View notes
sabra-n · 5 months
Text
So I was thinking about Izzy and whether he should have been buried at sea. I get where the idea came from, but while I can't speak to the historical facts the way other folks have, I don't think the show itself really depicts the sea as "good" where land is "bad". Izzy doesn't have any aversion to going ashore, and neither do any of the other sailors we meet. Yes, piracy is more queer-friendly than "mainstream" colonist culture, but piracy exists on land, too, in the form of the Republic, just as colonialism exists at sea in the very obvious form of the various European navies.
In fact, not going on land is what's depicted as a bad thing, with Ed's weeping insistence that the Revenge will keep raiding forever and never come back to shore. There's a reason sailors treasure their shore leave! Ships don't exist in a vacuum; they're made to go from one piece of land to another.
So yes, on one level, sailing is freedom from the strictures of land, but on another level it's being trapped with your crew in a wooden vessel with almost no privacy and no one to talk to except that crew. Stede's initial dream for the Revenge aside, we don't see any children on ships, either, and every sailor was a child once. The sea alone isn't a complete life.
So maybe being at sea was the highlight of Izzy's life, but it wasn't the totality of it, or even the only important part. Land mattered too. And if you don't think he'd want to stay by Ed in death, well, there we'll just have to disagree.
18 notes · View notes
deathlygristly · 2 months
Text
I like reading posts on here because they help me realize that my experiences and my perceptions are not at all universal.
One thing I keep noticing in popular posts here is shame. It seems to go along with the ever present "we were told" that I've never understood, because I was never "told" anything. If I try to think about being "told" things, all I get is that my mother likes to say things like "We're all born good and when we die we all go to the happy hunting grounds" and "Men like to think they're telling you what to do, so you nod and smile at them and then you do what you were going to do anyway."
And it's not like I don't experience or understand shame! I mean, like, I went through a couple decades of some pretty bad self-hatred and toxic shame. It's just the sources of the shame and how I dealt with it vs what I see in popular posts are so very different.
Like English class trauma. I don't know if it's No Child Left Behind or very different cultures or what, but from what I remember of my English classes there was never any expectation of "only one way to think about this story" and horrible bullying if you didn't think about the story in that one way. I don't remember anything that would cause lasting hangups about books and reading and media interpretation and criticism. As far as I can remember we just hung out and had fun and laughed a lot and sometimes cried because we got really into the stories.
And then there's stuff about life in general. I'm pretty sure a lot of it is class differences. When you grow up around factory workers there's not a lot of exacting expectations around appearance or achievement. Not even for me, with my SAT scores in 7th grade that qualified me for Duke's TIP program. Yeah, my mother was upset when it turned out breezing through working class rural schools did not prepare me well for middle class academic environments and I ended up getting an associate's degree, but she got over it pretty quickly.
Gotta go now, but I want to work my way through this thought some more later.
One quick thought before I go do the mail: It makes me think of historical kdramas and how yangban (noble) women had all these really strict horrible rules and restraints and dire consequences for things like a man accidentally touching them or being outside the walls or not killing themselves after their husband died if they didn't have a son.
And then the lower classes had other problems of course, like getting enough to eat and finding shelter and escaping abuse and murder at the hands of the yangban, but they at least didn't have as many silly little rules with extreme consequences for breaking them. At least not when they weren't around the yangban. As far as I know, of course, and I need to do more research, but really I think that's a pattern in most cultures.
The more social status you have the more rules govern your behavior and the more strictures and expectations you have to deal with, especially if you're one of the lesser privileged members of the high status group like if you're female or disabled or whatever. But if you're lower status, sure, a lot of things are going to suck and meeting your basic necessities will be harder, but at least you aren't going to get horribly shunned for not knowing some esoteric rule about silverware or dress or something.
Anyway, really gotta go now.
4 notes · View notes
thr4ce · 2 months
Text
man it's been hours and i'm still thinking about kara's speech at the funeral.
i think... her feelings about cain are so complex and difficult to put into words, but there's this dichotomy there that is, in my view, inherently linked to kara's childhood abuse. there's a knowledge in her that cain's methods are far too extreme to some extent, and that natural desire to rebel against such strictures, especially and particularly when she knows there's a better way to get something done - and naturally her loyalty to adama is ever-present, front and centre. she will always choose him, always. however she also, simultaneously, thinks that cain is right in a lot of ideological respects. her decisiveness, her assertiveness, her willingness to do what needs to be done even when it's unsavoury. all of that wrapped up in the fact that she made kara her cag, gave her praise and consideration, made her feel important. the way cain runs her ship is so much more in alignment with kara's subconscious philosophy as leoben laid it out - that suffering is necessary and human, that pain is the defining trait of the human race. [we're not friends, you're the cag.] she reveres military tradition. cain is, even if she may not like it on a conscious level, her platonic ideal of a commander. much like socrata, cain says she has a deep sense of faith in kara, but unlike socrata she empathises with and is kind to kara - she validates kara's desire to return to caprica, and when kara completes her mission, cain says, aloud, that she is proud of her. (i draw this comparison not because i think kara sees a mother figure in cain but because there are shadows of socrata's treatment in every single relationship kara ever forms in her life, especially the romantic ones.) throughout the entirety of the arc kara outwardly protests cain's decisionmaking far less than lee does. "it's done," she says of her promotion and his demotion; she accepts it immediately. kara historically disavows the chain of command when she does not view the superior in question as someone worthy of her respect, but cain is perhaps the commanding officer that has earned it most wholly, apart from adama. she desperately did not want to kill cain, but she would have, for her father.
2 notes · View notes
sharpestasp · 8 months
Text
Cassiel's Servant
Cassiel's Servant by Jacqueline Carey, copyright 2023
Chapter Seven
Yes, Joscelin, nothing more than being a Cassiline Brother, we get that's what you want.
But Selwyn doesn't. Here in comes the tragedy in the making? And at the cost of one who was on the verge of taking his final oaths.
There's that chronal shift again, out of the boy's POV and into the man with experience. I think Carey meant that to serve to show he's an unreliable narrator, that it is the man remembering the boy, but... it keeps jarring me.
(For reference, in the Dark Elf Trilogy, Drizzt Do'Urden keeps his commentary from present confined to the beginning of things, sections or chapters? The actual 'memoir' portion is written in the tone of 'as it happened. I find that style FAR LESS JARRING.)
Six weeks to train himself to two-handedness. Nice.
I forgot that Joscelin is only 4 years Ysandre's senior.
+sighs+ YOU ARE TEN. OF COURSE YOU THINK CELIBACY IS A MARK OF GLORY/GRACE. And if you proved to be asexual, I never ever would doubt that that was all it was. But I've read the other books.
FUCK YOU. +swears a blue streak+ The institution that is the Brotherhood of Cassiel has absolutely fucking eschewed the entire RELIGION of Elua, in professing/teaching that there is no room for bonds of the heart in a Cassiline.
WHAT, IF NOT LOVE, bound Cassiel to Elua, to guard and protect Him in His travels? LOVE. If not Love for Elua, then for the Creator, whom Cassiel NEVER FELL FROM, even as the Creator turned away from His Earthly Grandson.
I mean, it is FULLY on par, on a historic level, that the meaning would be lost. That the strictures would tighten into a noose. BUT THE VERY CONCEPT OF LOVE AS THOU WILT IS THE BEDROCK OF THEIR RELIGION. It's a slap in the face to carve out this exception by failing to understand THAT THEIR FOUNDER'S LOVE LED TO THE DUTY.
Okay. Got that out of my system, moving on.
3 notes · View notes
alephskoteinos · 7 months
Text
I actually kinda don't like the Left Hand Path being summarized as "you are God". Not because of the apotheosis angle but because nowadays I see that and I think "that does not mean what you think it means!". Western occultism/esotericism outside the Left Hand Path already has this idea, but it's not a signifier of the divine stature of any discrete individual. Instead, it's more like what Eliphas Levi spelled out in The Great Secret, where mankind is supposed to understand itself as identical with God (who, I must emphasize, is to be understood as the Christian God), and that this identity is the basis of the power of the magician over the elements and matter. This idea is actually, if anything, one of the core tenets of what we would call the "Right Hand Path" in a historical sense, in that the aim of the Right Hand Path was always the realisation/completion of divine unity in the world through the magician, and the magical figuration of unity between the individual self and God, through upholding whatever moral strictures they have in mind so as to purify the soul. Simply put, within the historical context of Western esotericism, the phrase "You Are God" was actually meant to signify the identity of the discrete individual magician with (or perhaps absorption in) God, or usually whatever name the different Right Hand Path traditions have for exactly the same concept.
3 notes · View notes