ok so larry and geeta
i really hate to rag on a character other people like for my own blorbo so uh, geeta fans i am so so sorry i would recommend skipping this post, i doubt its actually this deep </3 you are allowed to like her prommy
ok but ACtual analysis time, what the FUCK is up with larry and geeta (people who have never had a shitty two faced boss before ask. /j)
larry expresses anti institutional ideologies a lot, he wants to do things outside the system hes in will allow. he expresses a lot of negativity about his position, a lot of remarks which could rock the boat. which they HAVE with the amount of people now realizing most gym leaders have second jobs. and the system might! be kinda fucked! and deal shitty pay and is just kinda a whole gimmick of an industry in the whole universe. and larry sorta points directly at that, when he actively complains about Having to be a gym leader, Having to be an e4 member.
Geeta in this position would fucking hate Larrys guts! and would also point to her just quietly not saying anything when the player likes larry most. Because Geeta doesnt just dislike larry in this position. Geeta dislikes the ideals hes lowkey pioneering here. And when the player likes larry, its like the player is siding with larry. The player believes hes in the right, not Geeta, and it directly pits the player and Geeta at odds, in a very quiet way.
Geeta cant say shit. Geeta has to keep up the appearance of one big happy league full of amazing, positive members and they're all strong and etc etc. She keeps the facade of the entire league. Whether she genuinely loves the league or not, she has to keep an incredibly dedicated face up about the view of the league. But this same rule doesn't apply in private. The gym leaders, her workers have to keep that facade also, especially with Geeta, but Geeta doesnt have to give them that same light of day. Geeta can do whatever she wants, and the gym leaders just kinda have to deal with it.
i very much believe geeta and larrys relationship proposes this really. really sad idea. because geeta is larrys boss, and they. really dont like eachother! and geeta has. power. larry is afraid she will "dock his pay" for chitchat. but really it comes down to his chit chat going against the status quo, the status quo which Geeta benefits from. And ultimately, she does have the power to dock him for chit chat. She can rob him for being honest. And while Geeta's true treatment of the gym leaders as a manager will probably remain unknown, Larry's existence really offers the idea that it's probably not a great role.
Larry is not special. And thats the problem. Hes not breaking ass to go all out on a cute gimmick, hes not loving the institution as much as everyone else is to the point of doing more than its worth. Hes just doing the bare minimum to get by. Actively complains about his job, which for people in the right spheres it could seem like a huge deal to be a gym leader, and an elite four member. like bro! thats awesome! you just get to do pokemon battles all day! but really its not. once you live in the system, and you get sick enough of it, it loses its luster, and you realize that its just another grind, dodging pay cuts, trying to please the right people and constantly bust ass just to pay for the rent on your apartment and maybe groceries.
Larry is a pawn in the same system as everyone else. Geeta needs larry to be special. But he wont be. And Geeta doesn't take well to that.
Thats why hes the exceptional ordinary man. His ordinariness is what makes him the exception.
1K notes
·
View notes
I saw your tags on the post about trick or treaters not speaking and I am v interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the concept of “developmental delays”! I‘ve seen the idea that disability is a construct, but I’m not as familiar with the idea that development is also a construct. You have really great takes as an educator and someone who like, actually GETS how kids work, so I am interested in your thoughts!
I also know that posting on this subject might be poking the bear, so it is 1000% cool if you would rather not comment 💜 Tysm!
Oh I'm happy to talk about it! I love talking about this stuff, thank you for asking me to 💙
This isn't exactly new ground; there's been plenty of research into and writing on the subject, and deconstructing "development" as a static concept was, ironically, a huge part of my most recent development class.
The idea is that our understanding of "benchmarks" of development, which informs the larger concept of development as a whole, is heavily rooted in the assumption that Western culture is The Standard. We prioritize walking, talking, reading, and writing, which means we cultivate these skills in our children from a young age, which means they develop those skills more quickly than they do others.
To use one of my favorite examples from Rogoff, 2003, Orienting Concepts and Ways of Understanding the Cultural Nature of Human Development:
Although U.S. middle-class adults often do not trust children below about age 5 with knives, among the Efe of the Democratic Republic of Congo, infants routinely use machetes safely (Wilkie, personal communication, 1989). Likewise, Fore (New Guinea) infants handle knives and fire safely by the time they are able to walk (Sorenson, 1979). Aka parents of Central Africa teach 8- to 10-month-old infants how to throw small spears and use small pointed digging sticks and miniature axes with sharp metal blades:
"Training for autonomy begins in infancy. Infants are allowed to crawl or walk to whatever they want in camp and allowed to use knives, machetes, digging sticks, and clay pots around camp. Only if an infant begins to crawl into a fire or hits another child do parents or others interfere with the infant’s activity. It was not unusual, for instance, to see an eight month old with a six-inch knife chopping the branch frame of its family’s house. By three or four years of age children can cook themselves a meal on the fire, and by ten years of age Aka children know enough subsistence skills to live in the forest alone if need be. (Hewlett, 1991, p. 34)" (pg. 5)
In the US we would view "letting an 8-month-old handle a knife" as a sign of severe neglect, but the emphasis here is placed on the fact that these children are taught to do these things safely. They don't learn out of necessity, or stumble into knives when nobody is watching; they learn with care, support, and safety in mind, just like children here learn. It makes me wonder if Aka parents would view our children's lack of basic survival skills with the same concern and disdain as USAmerican parents would view their children's inability to read.
Do we disallow our children from handling knives because it is objectively, fundamentally unsafe for a child of that age to do so- because even teaching them is developmentally impossible- or is that just a cultural assumption?
What other cultural assumptions do we have about child development?
Which ties in neatly with various social-based models of disability, particularly learning and, of course, developmental disabilities. If your culture doesn't value the things you are good at, and you happen to struggle with the things it does value, what kinds of assumptions is it likely to make about you? How will it pathologize you? What happens to that culture if it understands those values to be arbitrary, in order to accommodate your unique existence?
174 notes
·
View notes
i think talia is such a romantic and she'd be so supportive of jon trying to marry damian. please more hc's i need them
STOP! I’ve always wanted to talk about them!!!! Jon and Talia always had an interesting dynamic with the way that Jon feels the need to actively defend Damian from her because he doesn’t know how complicated their relationship is but just how Damian has been affected by it. I feel like by this time Jon and Damian already had an intense conversation about his mother and he understands her a bit more but still can’t help but follow his instincts and defend Jon if Talia so much as fixes her lips to call Damian a weapon…
But if they wouldn’t be able to fight or so much as argue because no matter what they’d hurt Damian. They both always have Damian’s best interests at heart and If anything Talia is very traditional and would see a kryptonian as genetically perfect to be by Damian’s side but in a way it comforts her to know Damian is safe. That’s Talia’s biggest concern as his mother and if Jon is 1. Someone who makes Damian incredibly happy. And 2. Is able to keep him safe then why wouldn’t she like Jon for Damian?
As long as this marriage means that Jon is willing to devote his life to serving Damian’s every need then she’s totally fine with it. I mean she’d never wanna take that away from Damian, she loves him too much. I’d love to see these two interact, Jon gets on Batman’s case about Damian all the time and he’d probably be the same on Talia. I don’t think their relationship would be very domestic but I know that it would be interesting and sweet to have these two opposing forces coming together on a shared interest.
Just imagining Talia telling Jon “Keep him safe for me.” AUGH, my heart.
I feel like Damian would be SHOCKED to find that Talia approves but mostly on a level as to where they ARE kind of traditional so the topic of them being both boys would likely make Damian shy away from that conversation and secondly, Jon now is something that makes Talia see him as weaker: “In love,” but… really, she’s been trying to step away from that recently because she sees how Damian balances his heart and head.
56 notes
·
View notes