#or historically where these words had different meaning the community & society was Completely Different | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

baeddel · 3 years

Text

discussion on this post, @horatiovonbecker asks @otatma their opinion about extended families as an alternative to the nuclear family. @otatma replies that it is “a good thing to strive for” but “depends hugely on the family being nontoxic.” true enough!

as it’s my activity feed and they can’t stop me i’ll butt into the conversation. i grew up in an extended family. i lived with my mother and my maternal grandparents, and my aunt would live with us some days out of the week. all of this was accomplished in a 2-bedroom bungalow. i had very little privacy and i hated it; when i was 15 i ran away. my mother pleaded with the council and we managed to secure a terraced house in a socialized housing estate with a bedroom for each of us, plus a spare room (almost unthinkable today). we live near our grandparents and they visit every day.

when i was 16 i met my absentee father. he had been homeless in England and imprisoned in Scotland and when he returned to Ireland that year i found him living in a rhizomatic extended family scenario spanning four generations and three households. they were always being chased out by landlords or paramilitaries and relocating and, in any case, one could never predict who would be living in which house at any time; children would live with grandparents one month, parents the next, aunts and uncles the next, and so on. even husbands and wives did not always share a home.

[long post: 3k words, on the historical development of family structure in Ireland and England and what it means for monogamy, the family and anarchy]

based on this i believed the extended family to be an Irish institution. this is an assumption i shared with most sociologists and historians until about the 1990s (Seward et. al., 2005, pg. 2). the standard narrative was that, world-over, families historically lived in large, three-generation households and that thanks to the industrial revolution this was deteriorating. “Max Weber himself implies in his magisterial way that the rise of capitalist organisation was associated with 'the household community shrinking' ” (Laslett, 1974, pg. 7). Ireland was traditionally conceived of as an exception to this process of deterioration as, on this account, the extended family remained dominant while the rest of the world was going nuclear. it turns out to be the reverse in both cases: the extended family was never the dominant family structure anywhere (ibid. pg. 2-3; Vann 1974, pg. 3-4), except for in Ireland beginning in the 19th century, where over the course of the 20th century it did deteriorate (Laslett, 1974 pg. 34; Gibbon & Curtin, 1978).

the reason for this is embarassingly obvious once you realize it. the fact is that not all families in a society can be extended families. if all children remain in the family home along with their children into perpetuity this house will soon have the population of a small town. this is actually the origin of society proposed by Filmer in Patriarcha (1680), where parental authority becomes the “fountain of all Regal Authority” as their progeny multiply, until humanity is scattered about in the Confusion of Tongues (pg. 11-15). without a Confusion of Tongues to interrupt the exponential increase (and millions, rather than thousands, of years to account for) we have to imagine another sort of family structure. the 19th century sociologist Frédéric Le Play proposed that a new family structure emerged out of ancient patriarchy which he called the Stem-Extended Family. on this account one son was selected to inherit and he remained at the family’s residence; the other siblings were dispersed (Gibbon & Curtin, 1978 pg. 2-3).

to the extent that this form of family organization did exist, it could not have been the dominant form. in a family with three sons, two of them would have to go and form nuclear families with their spouses. they might go on to build their own extended family, or they might not. in many societies the extended family was indeed considered “a good thing to strive for”, and this was the position adopted by the conservative Catholic Le Play, and later accepted by the Catholic Church, who lobbied for policy interventions that would stem the tide of nuclear proliferation in Ireland, particularly by limiting employment opportunities for women. For example, women were barred from civil service positions until 1973 (Seward et. al., 2005, pg. 7).

if this is the case, how could the extended family become the dominant form of family structure in Ireland in the 19th and early 20th centuries? the most significant factor was the reorganization of agriculture carried out by English colonial interests; after the infamous Potato Famine the population of Ireland almost halved (after already more than halving after Cromwell’s genocides), as well as the almost constant state of war that Ireland was submerged in (continuing into the 90s in the occupied North). in the aftermath it was necessary for families to consolidate (Seward et. al., 2005, pg. 3). on top of this, fertility was exceptionally low and emigration was exceptionally high (in the North it remains very high, especially among Catholics). as a result, more generations could live together, and children were more likely to leave the country than disperse elsewhere in Ireland (Seward et. al., 2005, pg. 14). throughout the 20th century, as industry and free secondary education were introduced to Ireland, more children began to move from country to town and nuclear families rapidly replaced extended ones (Seward et. al., 2005, pg. 6).

my family tree more or less follows this narrative along. in the chaos following the Land War my great, great grandmother was the head of a large intergenerational family involving aunts and uncles, as well as an adopted street orphan. my great grandfather met a homeless woman possessing a child out of wedlock and fell in love with her; they moved to this town and rented a house while he sought work as a street sweeper, starting a new nuclear family. in the 40s my grandmother worked in factories until she married my grandfather, a sailor, and they began their own nuclear family in the same town, renting different little apartments until, thanks to the state of the housing market in the 80s, they purchased the modest accomodations aforementioned. by the 90s this arrangement threatened to become a new Stem-Extended Family (with my mother and i playing the role of inheriting sons), but it proved inoperable in the new context of the 21st century’s mechanized Ireland, and we spilled over into our own single-parent home. given that both me and my aunt are infertile, the maternal line terminates here.

does it follow that we ought to give in and admit that the nuclear family is the natural unit of human society, and that the extended family is possible only in the middle of an ongoing genocide? despite what we’ve just said, there doesn’t seem to be good evidence for this either. while Gibbon & Curtin characterized a debate where Laslett “advanced the iconoclastic [proposition] that there had been little essential historical change in family structure” (1978, pg. 3) this doesn’t seem to actually be Laslett’s position. Laslett argued that family size has not changed considerably throughout history, but on the very first page of his landmark Household and Family in Past Time (1970) he emphasizes that he is “not concerned with the family as a network of kinship” and instead defines his area of research in terms of “coresident domestic groups”, which might bear little relationship to kinship structures. in the past the household very frequently involved not just blood relatives but “lodgers, boarders and visitors” (Vann, 1974, pg. 5) as well as slaves and servants. Vann quotes Etienne Hélin's caution that “[a]rithmetic means, although they varied so little covered a whole series of different situations” and describes how post-industrial English households had twice the number of blood relatives per house as pre-industrial ones, but fewer lodgers, and thus about the same mean. the difference between historical and modern families might not be one of size but of an increasing emphasis on blood relations.

it may come as a surprise that, as a matter of fact, Old English has no word for family. they have a word for relatives in general (sibb), for tribes (cynn, the root of Modern English kin), but the basic social unit known to the Anglo-Saxons was the hiw (and its many compounds), which might be translated ‘household’ (or, indeed, ‘coresident domestic group’). who belonged to a hiw? it was somewhat nakedly a property relation. it was not only a man’s wife and children but also his servants, his slaves, as well as his animals (Stanley, 2008, pg. 1). the Textus Rofensus makes only one distinction between members of a household, that they be “slaves or free” (ibid. pg. 7). it could also refer to a monastic group, involving the whole cloister. Stanley notes (and it seems true to me) that there is a virtual absence of family relations in the corpus of Old English literature. in fact i cannot think of a single example, except perhaps for the monster Grendel and his mother. in the mournful Wife’s Lament and the passionate Wulf and Eadwacer the emphasis is on completely personal affections and seductions, and in any case both depict forbidden relationships outside of the hired.

correspondingly, we find that the average Anglo-Saxon home was a large one; typically they were a single room which measured about 50 square meters and “could have accomodated up to about a dozen or so people” (Hines, 2003, pg. 139). there is no reason to suppose that this was to accomodate several generations of blood relatives; the Anglo-Saxons had many, now very unfamilliar, relationships to populate their houses with. there was husband, wife, and concubine, along with their children; there was slave and hostage (Lavelle, 2006), including many orders of slaves with different status (such as the relatively respectable title of bryti, a sort of ‘head slave’); and indeed guest, visitor, boarder, and in the case of lords and aristocratic thegns, perhaps retainers. in Beowulf about thirty thegns sleep with their lord in Heorot, pulling aside the bench-planks and replacing them with straw beds at night (and when the Geats arrive they incorporate them as still more visitors). we know that at least some beds were placed in recesses in the walls and had curtains (Wright), perhaps to accomodate private intimacy between husband, wife and concubine or, indeed, guest, retainer, hostage, slave, or (why not?) animal. even when husband and wife are the only kin relatives in residence we would hesitate to call this arrangement a ‘nuclear family‘, or indeed an ‘extended family’ should it include a grandparent.

why has industrial modernization corresponded with the narrowing of the productive unit of society to the nuclear family (or, increasingly, the single parent family)? why have non-blood relations become so systematically excluded from the household? these seem like open questions to me. our own experience leads us to suspect conditions placed on family structure by the labour market together with city planning. until the 70s in Ireland, as we discussed, it was typical (and indeed lawful) for wives to stay at home and husbands to work; today very few workers could afford to keep their wives at home, even without children. houses are also too small to sustain extended families (nevermind concubines, hostages and the rest). old council houses such as ours have two bedrooms, one for the parents and the other for the children, along with a room for guests. today they do not include the guest room. there are, in addition, only two common rooms: a family room and a kitchen. it is not only difficult to accomodate three generations in these houses (the small guest bedroom is a poor substitue for the reitrement room of many 19th century Irish houses), it is difficult to accomodate even two generations. teenagers will already complain about sharing a bedroom, and one sibling might take up the guestroom. but we know of women with six, seven, as many as twelve children who live here. as adults they could fill at least three of such houses. all of this is possible only on the theory that as the children grow up they will move out into their own homes.

so. it is tempting to analyze the family situation abstractly, counting up the merits and dysfunctions of different systems and comparing them. for example, using Hirschman’s well-known framework of “exit” and “voice”, we might ask how effective the different forms of family structure are at responding to dysfunction (abuse, neglect and so on). the extended family, we might say, gives a child better access to “voice” - they can turn to parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and siblings for help. your mother might answer to your grandmother who is therefore well poised to address parenting issues, while your father can probably smoothe things over with your uncle if you quarrel. this means that you actually have to worry less about “toxicity” in the family compared to a nuclear family where parents aren’t accountable to anyone. however, in case of a family wide problem, you may have much less room to “exit” compared to a nuclear family, where exit is expected.

which one is better? you might reply that the extended family sounds better. it very well might be; but in reality you’ll never get to act on this exercise in judgement no matter how much striving you do. the nuclear family does not predominate because of the tyrannical thirst for the awesome power of parenthood (no matter how much we do find this thirst satisfied), but because of the given conditions of labour, housing, inheritance and so forth. this is why @horatiovonbecker can reply that all of this is “fair enough” but that they ”don't think it follows that discouraging monogamy will help.” no, surely it does not follow. especially now that we know that family size and kinship relations are not essential features of domestic organization. why was monogamy ever implicated in the first place?

now it seems like a curious slip of the tongue that when Goldman and Parsons disagree about monogamy they do so by attacking and defending the family by turns. but at that time monogamy was not so easily separable. free love was not really polyamory. it was this and also the abolition of both marriage and parenthood, as they understood both as property relations: “marriage slavery”, as even Parsons called it, and parental ownership of children. it was also the abolition of sex work, which they understood as the "public” expression of the subjugation of women which finds its “private” expression in marriage (Marx & Engels, 1848, pg. 24-25), ie. that women are dependent on men’s property and must acquire it by marriage or by sexual labour. as a corrolary they advocated for divorce (which became an immense priority to later Soviet planners who designed mobile, modular homes which would allow couples to separate and cohabit arbitrarily). it was also access to contraceptives and to abortion, as well as, believe it or not, very often the advocacy of eugenics (on the account that with abortion, contraceptives and the freedom to select partners, the previously blind and mute force of sexual reproduction would become domesticated to the rational will; see the anarchist journal Moses Harman founded in the 1880s, Lucifer the Light Bearer, later renamed the American Journal of Eugenics).

this constellation of problems no longer appear all together. after most women entered the conventional work force we could no longer as easily see monogamy and marriage as a relationship of slavery. as we say in the previous post, for many women the struggle is that they are too independent, saddled with childrearing and wage labour and housework with only the cold comfort of the day-care for assistance. for this reason sex work no longer appears as anything special compared to the other forms of labour women do out of necessity; “sex work is work” is the guiding catchphrase of militant sex workers. contraceptives and abortion still appear as a leading issue in feminist agitation but we no longer imagine they have the power to transform the everyday life of the household (nevermind summon forth the genetic Ubermensch). all together the abolition of marriage was replaced, as @birlinterrupted reminds us, with its extension: gay marriage. as of right now monogamy and marraige are still inseparable (i can now marry one of my girlfriends but not all three), but we think it need not always be. all together the program fragmented as its success was realized in pieces and none of them were actually irreparably fixed by the property relation (even if they did emerge from it).

Engels actually believed that a true equality of the sexes would, “according to all previous experience,” result in monogamous men and polyandrous women (Engels, 1884, pg. 43), but he admits that we can only conjecture about “the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production.” he finishes this thought with this remarkable little statement:

[W]hat will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.

the straightforward correspondence between property, economic dependence and monogamy is still here, and which to us now seems insufficient to the problem (ie. the problem still persists after these given conditions are eliminated). broadening the question from questions of marriage, sexual access and economic dependence to the more general question of the organization of the household in general and the necessary social and economic conditions proper to it would clarify what’s really at stake in domestic oppression, the organization of reproduction, and so on. but it remains true that we can only remain sensitive to trends, to those of us organizing new experiments with the household, and where new opportunities might open as the present conditions dig their own grave.

Let’s give the final word to an old friend. What is the Family, Renzo Novatore? Why, nothing but “the denial of life, love and liberty.” Nevermind his entry for Love, which is a “deception of the flesh and damage to the spirit, disease of the soul, atrophy of the brain, weakening of the heart” and so forth.

118 notes · View notes

gingerswagfreckles · 3 years

Note

Queer is my fave word, thanks for posting about that book, I'm gonna try to get a copy! It's just awesome to have an umbrella term for not feeling cis-hetero but not entirely certain where you fit under the umbrella yet.

Ahh yes!! You mean Gay New York by George Chauncey? That book is THE book on queer history in the US (it's really not just about NYC, but it is focused there). Not only is it the most meticulously well researched book I have EVER read, it is just. So brilliant in how it analyses the construction of and intersection of gender, sexuality, biological sex, class, race, and society. Like I read it for a class in freshman year of college and trust me I was already EXTREMELY liberal and well versed in queer discourse. Yet it completely I mean COMPLETELY changed my understanding of not only sex and gender but just like. What identity is, how much of what we see as static and natural are actually very contextual social constructs. And it really showed in a very concrete and reality based way how every identity exists and is defined through the context of its environment, and that while our experiences are very inherently real, the lines we draw around these experiences to define them are not. Like. The existence of a queer identity the way we generally think of it now did NOT exist in the same way throughout history. The intersection of so many facets of life have been interpreted so completely differently throughout history and in different places and social contexts. The queer community has never been some static and well defined club that one is or is not a member of. It is and always has been a nebulous and highly changeable social network of people with common experiences and interests who have defined their own communities in wildly different ways depending on where you look. Trying to strictly define who does or does not belong in or who has or hasn't existed in the queer community throughout history is completely pointless, because in reality we are talking about an absolutely enormous group of people who have been variously connected to and socially isolated from others, who have seen their own identities and their own communities in completely different ways.

It really highlighted for me how pointless 99% of the discourse on this website is, and how much almost all of it boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what identity is. NONE of the identities we think of as inherently real are inherently real, and arguing about who should be included in a community or who's identities are "valid" just shows that you think the framework through which you understand sex and gender is universal rather than cultural, contextual, and highly individual. Like, identities overlap! Identities step on each others toes!!! Words and labels change, and people do not universally agree on what they mean at any point in time!!! You would not believe how many people who you would think of as being part of the queer community didn't think of themselves as part of the queer community, and you would not believe how many people who you do NOT think of as part of the queer community DID see themselves as part of it, and were accepted!!

Like, for example, the interpretation of what it even meant to be "homosexual" was SO different depending on what period on time you look at, what location, what social and financial class these people were part of, what racial identity they saw themselves as (and that's a whole 'nother can of worms!) Sexuality was often seen as MUCH more connected to gender performance and sexual roles one took than it is today, and a lot, I mean a LOT of men who always topped did not see themselves as homosexual/gay/part of the queer community at all, especially in working class communities. And!! Guess what!! This is the part that will really blow your mind!!!

T H E Y W E R E N ' T W R O N G!!!!!!!!!!!

They were not WRONG about how they defined their identities or how they saw themselves in relation to a certain social community!! Because they were using their OWN social and sexual framework to interpret their identities and their actions!!! And saying they were WRONG in their interpretation fundamentally misunderstands that the criteria YOU use to measure whether someone is part of an identity or social group is not any more correct or real than the criteria THEY used! Saying these people were "wrong" is to impose one's own modern and highly contextual social framework on people from the past-- and TBH it's fine to see people from the past through modern lenses, and to recognize that they would be seen as gay/a certain identity by modern standards. That's fine! But the way they saw themselves then wasn't wrong, it was just different, and your criteria for what you see as gay or straight or part of a community is just as arbitrary and based on the context of your environment as theirs was.

People like to argue with this all the time, saying things like that these individuals were just suffering from internalized homophobia, gender bias, ignorance of what this or that identity "really" means, and these people are really really really misunderstanding the point. These are usually the same people who say things like "words mean things!!" when points like the one I'm making are brought up, because they continue to misunderstand how much these words yes, mean things, but mean things within historical and cultural contexts that are NOT shared by the entire world. Like, ok, you may say our example man from the 1910s is gay whether he recognized that or not, because he engaged in homosexual acts. But what does it mean to have homosexual sex? To have sex with someone of the same biological sex? Well what is biological sex, and how do we define what makes ones biological sex the "same" or "different" from your own? Is it someone with the same type of genitals as you? That's not a universally shared opinion, and the way you define the "types" of genitals are not universally shared either. What if I told you that there have been cultures throughout history who have categorized biological sex through the length of the penis, with people with shorter penises being seen as a separate sex than those who have longer penises? So two people with penises could have sex with each other and not be understood as having sex with someone of the same sex, in that culture!

Oh, that's not what you meant? That's wrong? Why? Why? Because your personal understanding and your culture's general perception of what biological sex is is more valid and real than that culture's? Why? WHY? Could you really explain why, or is it just that the difference is making you uncomfortable, because it threatens your perception of a LOT of the ideas you see as inherently real?

And we could do the same thing with the ACT of sex! I mean, what is sex? What physical acts are sexual, and what aren't? Is it just someone putting a body part inside of another person's body in some way? Well what about handjobs and other kinds of outercourse? Is sex then some physical thing we do in pursuit of an orgasm? What if you don't orgasm? Is it not sex then? Is sex the use of our bodies to derive general physical pleasure? Well what about a massage? Is a massage sex? In some times and places, many people would have said yes!

These aren't just theoretical questions- Chauncey outlines how these differing definitions of what sex is and what makes it queer not only allowed for a lot of people we would unquestioningly think of as part of the queer community to exclude themselves, but also resulted in the inclusion of people we would never consider to be queer now. Like, most female prostitutes who served only male cliental absolutely hands down refused to give blow jobs in the early 1900s, because blowjobs were seen as an extremely deviant expression of sexuality and were understood to be part of "homosexual" activity, regardless of the sex or genders of the people involved, because it was sexual activity that explicitly was not seeking to create a baby. This was a widely understood concept at the time, and persisted despite the fact that many of these women were using contraception and therefore obviously not seeking to get pregnant. Blowjobs were still seen as perverse and "homosexual," and thus not something most regular female prostitutes were willing to engage in.

Therefore! Female prostitutes who only ever had sex with male cliental but DID provide oral sex (and many other not-penis-in-vagina-activities) were often lumped in with lesbians!!! And treated as such in arrest records and propaganda! And guess what?? As a result, guess who these women usually hung around with, and where they usually could be found? Within the queer community and queer spaces!! These women were seen by the broader society as well as by much of the queer community as QUEER, and many of them likely understood themselves this way as well!

And for the record, these questions of what sex is and what gender is and what makes it gay or straight or whatever are not questions that belong strictly to the past. Survey the general population about what act they consider to have been the one where they "lost their virginity," and you will get wildly different answers. Survey self identified gay or straight people on what kind of sex acts they engage with and with who, and you will similarly find an enormous variation in reports.

And these questions MATTER! These questions matter, not in that we have to find some way to answer them, but in order to understand that we can't, definitively, and that thinking our own perceptions of any of these things are more valid than others' perceptions is incredibly harmful and dismissive to the lived experiences of other people. You can't define other people's identities out of existence just because they threaten or overlap or contradict with your own understanding of some concept, because your definitions of literally any of the criteria you are using to try to build your boxes are ALSO up for interpretation!

Like, I'm sorry I know I am rambling soooo much but you opened the same floodgates that this book opened back when I read it. If the people on this stupid website had any understanding of the history they claim to know so much about, they would see how their attitudes of "this identity is more valid than that identity" and "you can't sit with us because you're not actually part of this or that identity because my definition is better than your definition" is nothing new or woke or progressive, but is the exact same shit that has always been done and has been used to marginalize people who's existence or behaviors threaten the status quo. Like yelling at asexual or pansexual or nonbinary or aromantic people or whatever other group that they don't belong, or that their identity isn't real because it threatens the perceived integrity of another identity...it's all so stupid!! Your identity is also just a way for you to define yourself within your cultural context! Like I've literally seen people be like "asexality isn't a real identity bc if we didn't live in a society that was so sex obsessed then you wouldn't feel the need to define yourself this way." And it's like....what?? Yeah, ok??? But we do live in this society???????? And you can say that about LITERALLY ANY identity??! Not even ones related to sex and gender! Like "you aren't really deaf and deafness isn't real, because if we lived in a world without sound then you wouldn't notice you couldn't hear." Like yeah?? But we do live in a world with sound?? So...people find this term useful to articulate their experiences? And they might even dare to form an identity around it, and maybe a community, and might even become proud of it, even though it is a social construct, just like pretty much everything else??

It just drives me nuts. We go around and around in circles without ever understanding that so much of the bigotry we face is the same thing we are perpetuating with each other, because we don't understand that it is natural and normal for people's definitions of certain identities to conflict, and for their interpretations of the world to run up against each other sometimes. And that there is no strictly defined queer community, and who does or doesn't "belong" is not a decision that any one person or even any one culture gets to make, ever.

To try to finally actually wrap back around to what your actual comment was to begin with, I think queer is a wonderful word, and that GENERALLY SPEAKING in our current cultural context, it is used to encapsulate so much of the messiness and overlap that makes people so uncomfortable, but is what makes the queer community so great!!!!! That being said, it of course has had different definitions in different time periods and cultural contexts just like everything else, and some people may still have negative connotations associated with it and therefore not feel comfortable using it to self-identify. And that's fine too, as long as you don't try to force other people to stop using the term to describe their own identities on the basis that your definition is more real than theirs, which is the opposite of what queer history is all about.

If anyone is interested in the book I am talking about, you can buy it as an ebook, audiobook, or paper copy here: https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/george-chauncey/gay-new-york/9780786723355/

It goes into way way way more depth about everything I'm rambling about here, and backs it up with the most research and evidence I've ever seen in one single book. The physical copy is about as thick as two bricks stacked on top of each other, so if you can't get an exclusionist to read it, you can always just whack them over the head.

100 notes · View notes

atruththatyoudeny · 3 years

Text

Happy 28th! I read shockingly little fic this month so I’m going to support some fic fests that are currently running.There are so many amazing new fics all around so make sure to check them out and leave lots of love for the authors ♥ @onedirectionbigbang: Big Bang Round 4 just finished this month but you can find a complete round up of all the fics on the blog | AO3 collection here @1daboficfest: you can also find some rare pair a/b/o’s here | AO3 collection here @hlmpregficfest: The mpreg fest just started posting last week | AO3 collection here @wipsanonymousfest: support authors to complete their wips here | AO3 collection here

The eight fics I actually finished this month are under the cut:

The Earl and His Duke | QuickedWeen | Regency - historical - friends to lovers - light angst - smut - 53k Lord Tomlinson, the elusive Duke of Leeds, has suddenly emerged in London for the first time in six years. He is believed to have been abroad. He is believed to have been widowed. He is believed to want to withdraw from society. Harry doesn’t know what is true and what isn’t. He only knows that the older brother of one of his best friends is back in town to stay, and that time has taken him from merely the most beautiful man Harry knew, to the most handsome man to ever walk the earth. A man whose gaze probably still skips over Harry like he doesn’t exist the same way it did when they were young.

Double Trouble | Beanno28 | mpreg - canon divergence - smut - 23k Exactly five minutes later, Harry walked out of the room with his head down, focusing on doing up the last of the buttons on his shirt. “There you are,” a familiar male voice startled Harry. “What were you… oh, I see you must have found some poor stagehand to sneak off with.” Harry smirked, thinking about his time with Louis, “I guess you could say that.” “You’d better make a quick stop in the bathroom before joining everyone else on the bus, you stink,” Paul, one of their security guards, advised. Or the one where Harry and Louis start secretly hooking up while on tour and Harry ends up pregnant.

eucalyptus | docklands | a/b/o - kid fic - scenting - lactation kink - breeding kink - 46k Harry didn't mean to get pregnant at all. When little Agnes comes along, his bachelor life takes a turn and he has to figure out how to single parent, with the occasional help from his best friend and co-worker, Zayn. Everything is running smoothly until Agnes starts acting strange, crying non-stop, sleeping at the most unconventional hours and not caring that she's ruining Harry's life. Her doctor says she's just an infant and that there's nothing wrong with her. Harry's instincts tell him the doctor's wrong and that he needs to seek a second opinion. Agnes' new paediatrician, Louis Tomlinson, is enthusiastic, passionate about his job and a little too charming for Harry's lonely heart to take. More than figuring out what's wrong with her, Louis ends up revealing secrets about Harry's life he had never even dreamed about.

Lunar Waltz | outropeace | a/b/o - 19th century - marriage of convenience - hate to love - mystery - enemies to lovers - angst - deception - smut - 57k “You want me to seduce an alpha,” Louis hissed. “I want you to marry an alpha. It’s the only way I could ever get back on my feet. You didn’t think a few dances at a ball would do anything to Alastair’s reputation or mine...” “And what if Alastair comes back? Have you thought about him in all of this? You’re going to marry him to an alpha he doesn’t even know!” “Oh he does know him, in fact... he’d be ecstatic to know he got to marry him.” Louis’ blood ran cold, already suspecting who was the alpha the earl was talking about. “Who is he?” he asked anyways, hating how fragile and almost scared his voice sounded. “Lord Harry Styles.” Louis' stomach dropped, the words came smelling like danger, sending a bolt of fear down his spine, the Earl wanted Louis to seduce The Duke of Death. Or Louis has to replace his (missing) twin brother and marry one of the most dangerous alphas of the kingdom.

Unveiled | phdmama | a/b/o - royalty - magic - 60k The train grinds to a halt and Harry leans forward in his eagerness to take it all in. It’s a gorgeous Spring day, the sky the same intense blue that he knows from home, which comforts him. There’s much here that looks almost familiar, but then so much that is new and strange to his eyes. The bustling station platform and winding streets beyond paved in cobblestones look much like home. There are vehicles ranging from small to very large, some with strange and unusual shapes of which he can only guess the purpose. But most surprising are the people. There is a crowd gathered, filled with men and women, some in what looks to be a military uniform, some in what must be the street clothes in this Land. There are no robes. And not a single one of them is veiled.

Stubborn Hearts | Rearviewdreamer | social worker Louis - kid fic - foster care - adoption - angst - 33k Louis’ job description as a child social worker doesn’t cover half of what he does, but he doesn’t mind going above and beyond and putting his whole heart into it, especially when it comes to Sydney.

The Money Mark | brightgolden | a/b/o - Sugar Daddy/Sugar Baby - exes to lovers - pining - nesting - age difference - smut - 52k Harry's heart beats faster in his chest as the name sinks in. The Tomlinson name is awfully familiar, and he isn’t sure how many rich Tomlinsons are out here in London, but he knew one. Seven years ago. Like all fine things in the world, Louis Tomlinson ages exceptionally well. OR Where Louis is Harry’s first sugar daddy who dumped him over text and their paths cross, seven years later.

Is it a sign? | bluegreenish | a/b/o - deaf character - 25k “Also, I didn’t mean it literally,” Harry continues his rambling, gesticulating to support his point. “You don’t owe me a beer and I surely don’t expect you to buy me anything, it was just to start a conversation but you’re obviously not interested in that. Which, again, maybe next time an omega, or anyone really, approaches you, you could convey -” To Harry’s surprise, he’s interrupted by the handsome stranger, who’s been weirdly fixated on his lips the whole time. What a creep! “You speak so fast, I can’t read your lips like this.” What? Harry’s frown deepens and he just stares at the man, waiting for him to explain. Because why the hell would he need to read Harry’s lips? They’re not in some detective movie. The man rolls his eyes at Harry’s obvious lack of understanding. “I’m deaf,” he huffs and points to his ear. And oh. Yikes. That’s kind of embarrassing. or, the one where Harry meets a certain handsome alpha at his sister's wedding and learns that speaking verbally doesn't have to be the only means of communication.

#28th appreciation #fic rec #my fic rec #my reads #monthly reads #monthly fic rec

69 notes · View notes

gwynsplainer · 3 years

Text

On The Grinning Man and the De-Politicization of L'Homme Qui Rit (a Spontaneous Essay)

Since I watched The Grinning Man I’ve been meaning to write a post comparing it to The Man Who Laughs but I have a lot of opinions and analysis I wanted to do so I have been putting it off for ages. So here goes! If I were to make a post where I explain everything the musical changes it would definitely go over the word limit, so I’ll mostly stick to the thematic. Let me know if that’s a post you’d like to see, though!

Ultimately, The Grinning Man isn’t really an adaptation of the Man Who Laughs. It keeps some of the major plot beats (a disfigured young man with a mysterious past raised by a man and his wolf to perform to make a living alongside the blind girl he rescued from the snow, restored to his aristocratic past by chance after their show is seen by Lord David and Duchess Josiana, and the interference of the scheming Barkilphedro…. well, that’s just about it). The problem I had with the show, however, wasn’t the plot points not syncing up, it was the thematic inconsistency with the book. By replacing the book’s antagonistic act—the existence of a privileged ruling class—with the actions of one or two individuals from the lower class, transforming the societal tragedy into a revenge plot, and reducing the pain of dehumanization and abuse to the pain of a physical wound, The Grinning Man is a sanitized, thematically weak failure to adapt The Man Who Laughs.

I think the main change is related to the reason I posit the book never made it in the English-speaking world. The musical was made in England, the setting of the book which was so critical of its monarchy, it’s aristocracy, and the failings of its society in ways that really haven’t been remedied so far. It might be a bit of a jump to assume this is connected, but I have evidence. They refer to it as a place somewhat like our own, but change King James to King Clarence, and Queen Anne to Angelica. Obviously, the events of the book are fictional, and it was a weird move for Hugo to implicate real historical figures as responsible for the torture of a child, but it clearly served a purpose in his political criticism that the creative team made a choice to erase. They didn’t just change the names, though, they replaced the responsibility completely. In the book, Gwynplaine’s disfigurement—I will be referring to him as Gwynplaine because I think the musical calling him Grinpayne was an incredibly stupid and cruel choice—was done to him very deliberately, with malice aforethought, at the order of the king. The king represents the oppression of the privileged, and having the fault be all Barkilphédro loses a lot thematically. The antagonism of the rich is replaced by the cruelty of an upwardly mobile poor man (Barkilphédro), and the complicity of another poor man.

The other “villain” of the original story is the way that Gwynplaine is treated. I think for 1869, this was a very ahead-of-its-time approach to disability, which almost resembles the contemporary understanding of the Social Model of disability. (Sidenote: I can’t argue on Déa’s behalf. Hugo really dropped the ball with her. I’m going to take a moment to shout out the musical for the strength and agency they gave Déa.) The way the public treats Gwynplaine was kind of absent from the show. I thought it was a very interesting and potentially good choice to have the audience enter the role of Gwynplaine’s audience (the first they see of him is onstage, performing as the Grinning Man) rather than the role of the reader (where we first see him as a child, fleeing a storm). If done right, this could have explored the story’s theme of our tendency to place our empathy on hold in order to be distracted and feel good, eventually returning to critique the audience’s complicity in Gwynplaine’s treatment. However, since Grinpayne’s suffering is primarily based in the angst caused by his missing past and the physical pain of his wound (long-healed into a network of scars in the book) [a quick side-note: I think it was refreshing to see chronic pain appear in media, you almost never see that, but I wish it wasn’t in place of the depth of the original story], the audience does not have to confront their role in his pain. They hardly play one. Instead, it is Barkilphédro, the singular villain, who is responsible for Grinpayne’s suffering. Absolving the audience and the systems of power which put us comfortably in our seats to watch the show of pain and misery by relegating responsibility to one character, the audience gets to go home feeling good.

If you want to stretch, the villain of the Grinning Man could be two people and not one. It doesn’t really matter, since it still comes back to individual fault, not even the individual fault of a person of high status, but one or two poor people. Musical!Ursus is an infinitely shittier person than his literary counterpart. In the book, Gwynplaine is still forced to perform spectacles that show off his appearance, but they’re a lot less personal and a lot less retraumatizing. In the musical, they randomly decided that not only would the role of the rich in the suffering of the poor be minimized, but also it would be poor people that hurt Grinpayne the most. Musical!Ursus idly allows a boy to be mutilated and then takes him in and forces him to perform a sanitized version of his own trauma while trying to convince him that he just needs to move on. In the book, he is much kinder. Their show, Chaos Vanquished, also allows him to show off as an acrobat and a singer, along with Déa, whose blindness isn’t exploited for the show at all. He performs because he needs to for them all to survive. He lives a complex life like real people do, of misery and joy. He’s not obsessed with “descanting on his own deformity” (dark shoutout to William Shakespeare for that little…infuriating line from Richard III), but rather thoughtfully aware of what it means. He deeply feels the reality of how he is seen and treated. Gwynplaine understands that he was hurt by the people who discarded him for looking different and for being poor, and he fucking goes off about it in the Parliament Confrontation scene (more to come on this). It is not a lesson he has to learn but a lesson he has to teach.

Grinpayne, on the other hand, spends his days in agony over his inability to recall who disfigured him, and his burning need to seek revenge. To me, this feels more than a little reminiscent of the trope of the Search for a Cure which is so pervasive in media portrayals of disability, in which disabled characters are able to think of nothing but how terribly wrong their lives went upon becoming disabled and plan out how they might rectify this. Grinpayne wants to avenge his mutilation. Gwynplaine wants to fix society. Sure, he decides to take the high road and not do this, and his learning is a valuable part of the musical’s story, but I think there’s something so awesome about how the book shows a disabled man who understands his life better than any abled mentor-philosophers who try to tell him how to feel. Nor is Gwynplaine fixed by Déa or vice versa, they merely find solace and strength in each other’s company and solidarity. The musical uses a lot of language about love making their bodies whole which feels off-base to me.

I must also note how deeply subversive the book was for making him actually happy: despite the pain he feels, he is able to enjoy his life in the company and solidarity he finds with Déa and takes pride in his ability to provide for her. The assumption that he should want to change his lot in life is not only directly addressed, but also stated outright as a failure of the audience: “You may think that had the offer been made to him to remove his deformity he would have grasped at it. Yet he would have refused it emphatically…Without his rictus… Déa would perhaps not have had bread every day”

He has a found family that he loves and that loves him. I thought having him come from a loving ~Noble~ family that meant more to him than Ursus did rather than having Ursus, a poor old man, be the most he had of a family in all his memory and having Déa end up being Ursus’ biological daughter really undercut the found family aspect of the book in a disappointing way.

Most important to me was the fundamental change that came from the removal of the Parliament Confrontation scene, on both the themes of the show and the character of Gwynplaine. When Gwyn’s heritage is revealed and his peerage is restored to him, he gets the opportunity to confront society’s problems in the House of Parliament. When Gwynplaine arrives in the House of Parliament, the Peers of England are voting on what inordinate sum to allow as income to the husband of the Queen. The Peers expect any patriotic member of their ranks to blithely agree to this vote: in essence, it is a courtesy. Having grown up in extreme poverty, Gwynplaine is outraged by the pettiness of this vote and votes no. The Peers, shocked by this transgression, allow him to take the stand and explain himself. In this scene, Gwynplaine brilliantly and profoundly confronts the evils of society. He shows the Peers their own shame, recounting how in his darkest times a “pauper nourished him” while a “king mutilated him.” Even though he says nothing remotely funny, he is received with howling laughter. This scene does a really good job framing disability as a problem of a corrupt, compassionless society rather than something wrong with the disabled individual (again, see the Social Model of disability, which is obviously flawed, but does a good job recognizing society that denies access, understanding and compassion—the kind not built on pity—as a central problem faced by disabled communities). It is the central moment of Hugo’s story thematically, which calls out the injustices in a system and forces the reader to reckon with it.

It is so radical and interesting and full that Gwynplaine is as brilliant and aware as he is. He sees himself as a part of a system of cruelty and seeks justice for it. He is an empathic, sharp-minded person who seeks to make things better not just for himself and his family, but for all who suffer as he did at the hands of Kings. Grinpayne’s rallying cry is “I will find and kill the man who crucified my face.” He later gets wise to the nature of life and abandons this, but in that he never actually gets to control his own relationship to his life. When I took a class about disability in the media one of the things that seemed to stand out to me most is that disabled people should be treated as the experts on their own experiences, which Gwynplaine is. Again, for a book written in 1869 that is radical. Grinpayne is soothed into understanding by the memory of his (rich) mother’s kindness.

I’ll give one more point of credit. I loved that there was a happy ending. But maybe that’s just me. The cast was stellar, and the puppetry was magnificent. I wanted to like the show so badly, but I just couldn’t get behind what it did to the story I loved.

#the grinning man #the man who laughs #tgm musical #l'homme qui rit #victor hugo #gwynplaine's parliament rambles #long post /

74 notes · View notes

normal-thoughts-official · 3 years

Note

I would have loved to see more interactions with the seelies- people who can’t lie but are crafty and secretive sounds fascinating. Think of the dialog! Alec going to magnus for advice since he has centuries of experience talking to them, Alec playing mental chess while trying to maintain peace. Would have loved getting more- but let’s be real, Cassaundra and the show writers weren’t clever enough to actually make any conversations like that of value.

SAME!!!!! honestly i would have loved to see so much more of the seelies. like bro do you understand that their culture predates the VERY EXISTENCE OF HUMANITY??? they are the ONLY kind of downworlders whose culture is completely detached from any human culture, not only because of predating it, but also because of the relative isolationism - which means human culture barely had any influence on their culture and history AS it developed

so like you can literally go fucking bonkers??????????? you can make ANYTHING. they have a whole ass society that doesn't have to have ANY ties to mundane concepts or history AT ALL. complete creative freedom. you could do ANYTHING! and don't get me started on the potential this has, within storytelling, to contextualize a lot of stuff modern western culture sees as natural or timeless as actually pretty fucking specific - like monogamy, cisheteropatriarchy, the gender binary, racism. all immortals have that potential of course since they can come from an array of different cultural and historical backgrounds but seelies in particular have SO much potential that is NEVER! FUCKING! USED! it all goes to waste and they are just a generic vaguely monarchic society that behaves literally exactly as modern western cultural standards. WHY. i'll never stop being salty, especially within sh where all this potential was there and instead they just villainized the seelies like no tomorrow for nO FUCKING REASON, and included a whole plotline about their ruler being a terrible power-hungry person and then proceeded to act as if that would have no influence on the seelies under her rule? thanks for nothing

like i know the seelie queen was so badly written that her own motivations even as a power-hungry wacko didn't make sense or were consistent (like why give simon the mark of cain for example, and for god's sake what kind of power-hungry crazy bitch gives their main enemy the power to literally kill her and destroy everything she has at the blink of an eye, like??? she literally tried to assist in her own genocide, it makes no fucking sense, i fucking hate it here) but if they are going to make her Terrible the least they could do was show how that impacted the people under her rule, especially if they are going to have meliorn be fucking tortured and either forced to display the marks of said torture or choosing to display them themself, like? please give your plotlines one singular thought

but of course it's easier to villainize seelies and reduce them to their obviously tyrannical ruler so they can go back to focusing on the shadowhunters and their issues. nevermind the fact that seelies are obviously equivalent to native ppls/third world countries resisting colonialism/imperialism in sh's stupid ass racial metaphor, which makes making their ruler a big bad unequivocally evil villain that is ruining everything A Choice. and a particularly choicy Choice considering they cast a middle-eastern man to play the most important seelie character. but if they are going to do that they could at least address how the people under her rule suffer and how that's a direct consequence of shadowhunter colonialism and interference, but why would we fkcnig thdo that!!!! when we can have love triangle drama or whatever

and tHEN there is the whole aspect of being unable to lie which is bound to have such an impact on their culture and history since they have to rely on other forms of communication to protect themselves - and considering the whole "tyrannical rule" plotline, to further the queen's agenda in the first place. and how telling the truth without preamble would probably be considered a huge display of trust in a society that has culturally developed so many ways of talking around things. like again the potential of the cultural and historic background for that society! it makes me go insane!!!

anyway all of that to say #JusticeForSeelies and #SeeliePlotlinesNow 2021 and forever. and YES i would have loved to see more interactions between them and other characters, particularly magnus because 1- admittedly i'm a hoe; and 2- magnus was clearly the one that had the most experience talking to seelies and that others relied on for that communication. he also seemed to be the most comfortable with them, which indicates there is either some sort of history there, or magnus just happens to feel relatively at home with the workings of their culture. which makes sense, because magnus also had to develop pretty similar defense mechanisms due to his, A- work as a warlock representative who has to interact with shadowhunters on the regular; B- history with having to deal with asmodeus, which required him to be very smart about what he disclosed and how, especially considering that he had to have been planning banishing asmodeus for a long time before he got to do it; and C- just history with abuse in general. we've seen the way he closed his heart off to new people; but at the same time, magnus is obviously an extrovert and likes to be around people in general. this meant that, in order to be able to both be in the kind of environment where he thrives and protect himself/his heart/his feelings, he had to learn how to interact with people while putting on a convincing façade, which requires pretty much the same sorts of wordplay and defense mechanisms that seelies use

magnus is good at wordplay, he's good at using talking to his benefit; we've seen that. he is also good at hiding and deflecting. he is notably not good at directly lying - every time he directly said A Lie such as "i am perfectly fine and not bothered by this at all :)" it was way less convincing than it was a clear display that he wouldn't budge. even alec, who has difficulty with social cues, noticed the lying and seemed concerned about it. so like. clearly his defense mechanisms were less lying and more dancing around subjects, directing conversation to safe topics, and guiding people to making certain assumptions and seeing sides of his that were safer and he preferred

so in that way it makes sense that magnus is somewhat in his element when dealing with seelies. i think "comfortable" is a strong word because this whole song and dance takes a huge toll on anyone's mental health and energy (which i think is something that could be very interestingly explored in seelies, their collective psyche, and their culture, the way they build relationships, etc. let meliorn have partners they feel 100% comfortable talking without preamble with 2k21), but it's something he is used to and a dynamic he can fall into without as much effort as others who would be second guessing themselves more and going slower, which clearly gives the seelies, who are used to it, an advantage

and like i know that i'm implying a confrontation or sort of situation where they are on opposing sides to seelies here, which i kind of am because i am thinking mostly about magnus' interactions with the seelie queen specifically, since she was the seelie he had the most meaningful interactions with. his interactions with meliorn were very few and almost never relevant, i barely remember them happening outside of generic downworld cabinet interactions tbh. but i don't just mean that because again, stop villainizing seelies 2k21

i also mean just generally that magnus would be in a more comfortable position talking to seelie strangers and slowly working into building a relationship and mutual trust. and just generally understanding them and the workings of their culture because he can empathize with the way they have built their social defense mechanisms. no one is 100% truthful to strangers, but seelies always seem kind of- analytical. and the cultural difference + anti-seelie racism makes them seem untrustworthy to most people, but magnus Gets It, so the potential for friendships! and the mutual understanding and the relative comfort around each other! and both parts understanding the enormity that is letting their walls down gradually and being more direct as time goes by. like.... aaaaaa

and yes magnus becomes a sort of reference on talking to seelies, mostly because he is good at "playing their game", but also making it a point to humanize seelies and making the other parts understand where they are coming from and how they feel :) and just improving their relations, particularly with other downworlders

im not going to get into alec because 1- the relationship between shadowhunters and seelies is already filled with oppression and a lot of complications, and particularly now that the seelie realm is politically fragile due to the loss of their ruler (however terrible she might have been), it would play into either white savior narratives or just straight up colonialism, especially given how alec as a leader already has a history of trying to build tutelage over downworlders (i don't care what his intentions were, it's still true, and although he's learning... well. he's learning, continuous action); 2- that would be more a relationship of opposition and i'm not that interested in that. but i would love to see seelies rebuilding themselves and their relationships and alliances with other downworlders particularly, and all the better if magnus is playing a part in that :)

in short:

more seelies

more magnus with seelies, especially friendships

more focus on the politics of seelies now that the seelie queen is gone

more seelies

#sh #shadowhunters #lore #magnus bane #meliorn #seelies #the seelie queen #seelie culture #seelie history #meta #magnus bane meta #meliorn meta #in a way #ask #anonymous #long post #salt #a bit #ok maybe a lot but mostly to add flavor to my lore ramblings

36 notes · View notes

sexytiime · 3 years

Text

Shulamith Firestone on Marx & Engels

From the first chapter of The Dialectic of Sex: The case for Feminist Revolution:

“ Before we can act to change a situation, however, we must know how it has arisen and evolved, and through what institutions it now operates. Engels’s ‘[We must] examine the historic succession of events from which the antagonism has sprung in order to discover in the conditions thus created the means of ending the conflict.’ For feminist revolution we shall need an analysis of the dynamics of sex war as comprehensive as the Marx-Engels analysis of class antagonism was for the economic revolution. More comprehensive. For we are dealing with a larger problem, with an oppression that goes back beyond recorded history to the animal kingdom itself.

In creating such an analysis we can learn a lot from Marx and Engels: not their literal opinions about women – about the condition of women as an oppressed class they know next to nothing, recognizing it only where it overlaps with economics – but rather their analytic method.

Marx and Engels outdid their socialist forerunners in that they developed a method of analysis which was both dialectical and materialist. The first in centuries to view history dialectically, they saw the world as process, a natural flux of action and reaction, of opposites yet inseparable and interpenetrating. Because they were able to perceive history as movie rather than as snapshot, they attempted to avoid falling into the stagnant ‘metaphysical’ view that had trapped so many other great minds. (This sort of analysis itself may be a product of the sex division, as discussed in Chapter 9.) They combined this view of the dynamic interplay of historical forces with a materialist one, that is, they attempted for the first time to put historical and cultural change on a real basis, to trace the development of economic classes to organic causes. By understanding thoroughly the mechanics of history, they hoped to show men how to master it.

Socialist thinkers prior to Marx and Engels, such as Fourier, Owen, and Bebel, had been able to do no more than moralize about existing social inequalities, positing an ideal world where class privilege and exploitation should not exist – in the same way that early feminist thinkers posited a world where male privilege and exploitation ought not exist – by mere virtue of good will. In both cases, because the early thinkers did not really understand how the social injustice had evolved, maintained itself, or could be eliminated, their ideas existed in a cultural vacuum, utopian. Marx and Engels, on the other hand, attempted a scientific approach to history. They traced the class conflict to its real economic origins, projecting an economic solution based on objective economic preconditions already present: the seizure by the proletariat of the means of production would lead to a communism in which government had withered away, no longer needed to repress the lower class for the sake of the higher. In the classless society the interests of every individual would be synonymous with those of the larger society.

But the doctrine of historical materialism, much as it was a brilliant advance over previous historical analysis, was not the complete answer, as later events bore out. For though Marx and Engels grounded their history in reality, it was only a partial reality. Here is Engels’s strictly economic definition of historical materialism from Socialism: Utopian or Scientific :

“Historical materialism is that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all historical events in the economic development of society, in the changes of the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent division of society into distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes against one another.” (Italics mine)

Further, he claims:

“...that all past history with the exception of the primitive stages was the history of class struggles; that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and exchange - in a word, of the economic conditions of their time; that the economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious, philosophical, and other ideas of a given historical period.” (Italics mine)

It would be a mistake to attempt to explain the oppression of women according to this strictly economic interpretation. The class analysis is a beautiful piece of work, but limited: although correct in a linear sense, it does not go deep enough. There is a whole sexual substratum of the historical dialectic that Engels at times dimly perceives, but because he can see sexuality only through an economic filter, reducing everything to that, he is unable to evaluate it in its own right.

Engels did observe that the original division of labour was between man and woman for the purposes of child-breeding; that within the family the husband was the owner, the wife the means of production, the children the labour; and that reproduction of the human species was an important economic system distinct from the means of production.

But Engels has been given too much credit for these scattered recognitions of the oppression of women as a class. In fact he acknowledged the sexual class system only where it overlapped and illuminated his economic construct. Engels didn’t do so well even in this respect. But Marx was worse: there is a growing recognition of Marx’s bias against women (a cultual bias shared by Freud as well as all men of culture), dangerous if one attempts to squeeze feminism into an orthodox Marxist framework - freezing what were only incidental insights of Marx and Engels about sex class into dogma. Instead, we must enlarge historical materialism to include the strictly Marxian, in the same way that the physics of relativity did not invalidate Newtonian physics so much as it drew a circle around it, limiting its application - but only through comparison - to a smaller sphere. For an economic diagnosis traced to ownership of the means of production, even of the means of reproduction, does not explain everything. There is a level of reality that does not stem directly from economics.

The assumption that, beneath economics, reality is psychosexual is often rejected as ahistorical by those who accept a dialectical materialist view of history because it seems to land us back where Marx began: groping through a fog of utopian hypotheses, philosophical systems that might be right, that might be wrong (there is no way to tell), systems that explain concrete historical developments by a priori categories of thought; historical materialism, however, attempted to explain ‘knowing’ by ‘being’ and not vice versa.

But there is still an untried third alternative: we can attempt to develop a materialist view of history based on sex itself.

The early feminist theorists were to a materialist view of sex what Fourier, Bebel, and Owen were to a materialist view of class. By and large, feminist theory has been as inadequate as were the early feminists attempts to correct sexism. This was to be expected. The problem is so immense that, at first try, only the surface could be skimmed, the most blatant inequalities described. Simone de Beauvoir was the only one who came close to - who perhaps has done - the definitve analysis. Her profound work The Second Sex - which appeared as recenlty as the early fifties to a world convinced that feminism was dead - for the first time attempted to ground feminism in its historical base. Of all feminist theorists De Beauvoir is the most comprehensive and far-reaching, relating feminism to the best ideas in our culture.

It may be this virtue is also her one failing: she is almost too sophisticated, too knowledgeable. Where this becomes a weakness - and this is still certainly debatable - is in her rigidly existentialist interpretation of feminism (one wonders how much Sartre had to do with this). This, in view of the fact that all cultural systems, including existentialism, are themselves determined by the sex dualism. She says:

“Man never thinks of himself without thinking of the Other; he views the world under the sign of duality which is not in the first place sexual in character. But by being different from man, who sets himself up as the Same, it is naturally to the category of the Other that woman is consigned; the Other includes woman.” (Italics mine.)

Perhaps she has overshot her mark: Why postulate a fundamental Hegelian concept of Otherness as the final explanation - and then carefully document the biological and historical circumstances that have pushed the class ‘women’ into such a category - when one has never seriously considered the much simpler and more likely possibility that this fundamental dualism sprang from the sexual division itself? To posit a priori categories of thought and existence - ‘Otherness’, ‘Transcendance’, ‘Immanence’ - into which history then falls may not be necessary. Marx and Engels had discovered that these philosophical categories themselves grew out of history.

Before assuming such categories, let us first try to develop an analysis in which biology itself - procreation - is at the origin of the dualism. The immediate assumption of the layman that the unequal division of the sexes is ‘natural’ may be well-founded. We need not immediately look beyond this. Unlike economic class, sex class sprang directly from a biological reality: men and women were created different, and not equal. Although, as De Beauvoir points out, this difference of itself did not necessitate the development of a class system - the domination of one group by another - the reproductive functions of these differences did. The biological family is an inherently unequal power distribution. The need for power leading to the development of classes arises from the psychosexual formation of each individual according to this basic imbalance, rather than, as Freud, Norman O. Brown, and others have, once again over-shooting their mark, postulated some irreducivle conflict of Life against Death, Eros vs. Thanatos.

The biological family - the basic reproductive unit of male/female/infant, in whatever form of social organization - is charactereized by these fundamental - if not immutable - facts:

(1) That women throughout history before the advent of birth control were at the continual mercy of their biology - menstruation, menopause, and ‘female ills’, constant painful childbirth, wetnursing and care of infants, all of which made them dependent on males (whether brother, father, husband, lover, or clan, government, community-at-large) for physical survival.

(2) That human infants take an even longer time to grow up than animals, and thus are helpless and, for some short period at least, dependent on adults for physical survival.

(3) That a basic mother/child interdependency has existed in some form in every society, past or present, and thus has shaped the psychology of every mature female and every infant.

(4) That the natural reproductive difference between the sexes led directly to the first division of labor at the origins of class, as well as furnishing the paradigm of caste (discrimination based on biological characteristics).

These biological contingencies of the human family cannot be covered over with anthropological sophistries. Anyone observing animals mating, reproducing, and caring for their young will have a hard time accepting the ‘cultural relativity’ line. For no matter how many tribes in Oceania you can find where the connection of the father to fertility is not known, no matter how many matrilineages, no matter how many cases of sex-role reversal, male housewifery, or even empathic labour pains, these facts prove only one thing: the amazing flexibility of human nature. But human nature is adaptable to something, it is, yes, determined by its environmental conditions. And the biological family that we have described has existed everywhere throughout time. Even in matriarchies where woman’s fertility is worshipped, and the father’s role is unkown or unimportant, if perhaps not on the genetic father, there is still some dependence of the female and the infant on the male. And though it is true that the nuclear family is only a recent development, one which, as I shall attempt to show, only intensifies the psychological penalties of the biological family, though it is true that throughout history there have been many variations on this biological family, the contingencies I have described existed in all of them, causing specific psychosexual distortions in the human personality.

But to grant that the sexual imbalance of power is biologically based is not to lose our case. We are no longer just animals. And the kingdom of nature does not reign absolute. As Simone de Beauvoir herself admits:

“The theory of historical materialism has brought to light some important truths. Humanity is not an animal species, it is a historical reality. Human society is an antiphysis - in a sense it is against nature; it does not passively submit to the presence of nature but rather takes over the control of nature on its own behalf. This arrogation is not an inward, subjective operation; it is accomplished objectively in practical action.

Thus the ‘natural’ is not necessarily a ‘human’ value. Humanity has begun to transcend Nature: we can no longer justify the maintenance of a discriminatory sex class system on grounds of its origins in nature. Indeed, for pragmatic reasons alone it is beginning to look as though we must get rid of it.

The problem becomes political, demanding more than a comprehensive historical analysis, when one realizes that, though man is increasingly capable of freeing himself from the biological conditions that created his tyranny over women and children, he has little reason to want to give this tyranny up. As Engels said, in the context of economic revolution:

“It is the law of division of labour that lies at the basis of the division into classes. [Note that this division itslef grew out of a fundamental biologival division.] But this does not prevent the ruling class, once having the upper hand, from consolidating its power at the expense of the working class, from turning its social leadership into an intensified exploitation of the masses.”

Though the sex class system may have originated in fundamental biological conditions, this does not guarantee once the biological basis of their oppression has been swept away that women and children will be freed. On the contrary, the new technology, especially fertility control, may be used against them to reinforce the entrenched system of exploitation.

So that just as to assure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction: not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but also their (temporary) seizure of control of human fertility - the new population biology as well as all the social institutions of child-bearing and child-rearing. And just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality - Freud’s ‘polymorphous perversity’ - would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.) The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would be born to both sexes equally, or independently of either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strenth would be compensated for culturally. The division of labour would be ended by the elimination of labour all together (through cybernetics). The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.

And with it the psychology of power. As Engels claimed for strictly socialist revolution: ‘The existence of not simply this or that ruling class but of any ruling class at all [will have] become an obsolete anachronism.’ That socialism has never come near achieving this predicated goal is not only the result of unfulfilled or misfired economic preconditions, but also because the Marxian analysis itself was insufficient: it did not dig deep enough to the psychosexual roots of class. Marx was on to something more profound than he knew when he observed that the family contained within itself in embryo all the antagonisms that later develop on a wide scale within the society organization, the bioloigcal family - the vinculum through which the psychology of power can always be smuggled - the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated. We shall need a sexual revolution much larger than - inclusive of - a socialist one to truly eradicate all class systems.

I have attempted to take the class analysis one step further to its roots in the biological division of the sexes. We have not thrown out the insights of the socialists; on the contrary, radical feminism can enlarge their analysis, granting it an even deeper basis in objective conditions and thereby explaining many of its insolubles. As a first step in this direction, and as the groundwork for our own analysis we shall expand Engels’s definition of historical materialism. Here is the same definition quoted above now rephrased to include the biological division of the sexes for the purpose of reproduction, which lies at the origins of class:

“Historical materialism is that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all historic events in the dialectic of sex: the division of society into two distinct biological classes for procreative reproduction, and the struggles of these classes with one another; in the changes in the modes of marriage, reproduction, and child care created by these struggles; in the connected development of other physically-differentiated classes [castes]; and in the first division of labour based on sex which developed into the [economic-cultural] class system.”

And here is the cultural superstructure, as well as the economic one, traced not just back to economic class, but all the way back to sex:

All past history [note that we can now eliminate ‘with the exception of primitive stages’] was the history of class struggle. These warring classes of society are always the product of the modes of organization of the biological family unit for reproduction of the species, as well as of the strictly economic modes of production and exchange of goods and services. The sexual-reproductive organization of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of economic, juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious, philosophical and other ideas of a given historical period.

And now Engels’s projection of the results of a materialist approach to history is more realistic:

The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man and have hitherto ruled him now comes under the dominion and control of man who for the first time becomes the real conscious Lord of Nature, master of his own social organization.

“

#shulamith firestone #radical feminism #radfemsafe #terfs please touch #terfs please interact #marxism #engels feminism #marxist feminism

52 notes · View notes

lingthusiasm · 3 years

Text

Transcript Lingthusiasm Episode 52: Writing is a technology

This is a transcript for Lingthusiasm Episode 52: Writing is a technology. It’s been lightly edited for readability. Listen to the episode here or wherever you get your podcasts. Links to studies mentioned and further reading can be found on the Episode 52 show notes page.

[Music]

Gretchen: Welcome to Lingthusiasm, a podcast that’s enthusiastic about linguistics! I’m Gretchen McCulloch.

Lauren: I’m Lauren Gawne. Today, we’re getting enthusiastic about writing as a technology. But first, do you wish there was more Lingthusiasm to listen to? Even though this is Episode 52, we have almost a hundred episodes of Lingthusiasm. Some of them exist as bonus episodes over at our Patreon.

Gretchen: If you want to listen to those and have more Lingthusiasm in your earballs, you can go to patron.com/lingthusiasm. This also helps keep the show ad-free. If you like listening to a show without ads, help us keep doing that.

Lauren: The Patreon also fosters this wonderful linguistics enthusiastic community. In fact, we have a Discord server, which is basically just a wonderful chat space for people to talk about linguistics. There are over 350 people on the Lingthusiasm Discord right now.

Gretchen: If you wish you had other lingthusiasts to talk to to share your interesting linguistics anecdotes and memes and general nerdery, and you want more people like that to talk to, you can join the Patreon to also get access to the Discord. We launched the Discord community just a year ago, and it’s been really fun to see it grow and thrive and take on a life of its own since then. If you are already a patron, and you haven’t linked your Patreon and Discord account together, it’s there waiting for you. Feel free to come join us.

Lauren: We have Patreon supporter levels at a range of tiers. Some of them include additional merch. One of my favourite perks is the very scientific Lingthusiasm IPA quiz where we send you a short quiz and then we give you your own custom IPA character which is enshrined on our Wall of Fame.

Gretchen: It’s a fun quiz. We have fun looking at people’s answers.

Lauren: Our most recent bonus episode is a collection of some of our favourite anecdotes from interviews and from other episodes that didn’t quite make it into the original episode. We’re delighted to share those in that bonus episode.

Gretchen: You get to see a bit behind-the-scenes with that episode. Also, do you want more linguistics on your favourite other podcasts?

Lauren: Always.

Gretchen: Constantly. We’re also very happy to do podcast interviews on other shows about various topics. If there’re other podcasts that you like that you wish would do a linguistics episode and interview one of us, you should tell them that! We’re happy to come on. Tag us both or something on social media or tell your favourite podcasts that they could do a linguistics episode because we’d be happy to do that.

[Music]

Lauren: Gretchen, do you remember learning how to read?

Gretchen: Not really. I mean, I remember encountering the alphabet chart in my first year of school, but I already sort of knew the alphabet at that point. I guess there was some point when I didn’t know how to read, and there was some point when I did, but I don’t really have concrete memories of that. Do you remember learning how to read?

Lauren: I feel like I have more memories of learning how to write, just because that’s such a mechanical thing. I remember sitting there writing out a row of As. I definitely wrote the number “five” backward for way longer than I probably should have, which is a really common thing that happens when kids are learning to write because it is a combination of brain skills and fine motor skills. But reading in English is something I feel like I’ve always just been able to do. I mean, I guess in comparison learning to read Nepali, which is written in a different script – it’s written in the Devanagari script – I have more memories of that because I did that in my 20s. Even now, I still feel the real disconnect between being relatively able to chat and really struggling to read and write. I still have to put my finger under the words as I’m going through, whereas with English it just feels like the words are beaming straight into my brain because I learnt to read that language so early in my life.

Gretchen: Yeah, I read at this automatic level. I can’t see a sign that says, “Stop,” on it and not read it in Latin script. But in undergrad I took both Ancient Greek and Arabic. In Greek, I got to the point – because the script is sort of similar enough and I was familiar enough with the letters previously-ish – that I got to the point where I could very slowly sound out words as I was reading them out loud because we had to do a lot of reading aloud in Greek class. But in Arabic, I was very much at that hooked on phonics level where you’re like, /p/-/t/-/k/-/a/. There are a few words that I have as sight words in Arabic. One of them is the word for “and,” which is “waa”, and one of the words for “the,” which is “al”, and one of them is the word for “book” because “kitaab” just shows up all the time. But most of the words I had to painstakingly sound out each letter and then listen to myself as I was saying them. I’d be like, “Oh, it’s that word,” even if I knew it, which is this process that I must’ve gone through in English, but I don’t remember doing it for the Latin script.

Lauren: I think that is one of the things that makes it really hard for people who grow up in highly literate, highly educated societies to tease writing and reading apart from language. But actually, when you step back, you realise that writing is actually super weird.

Gretchen: It’s so weird! It’s this interesting – it really is a technology. It’s a thing you do on top of language to do stuff with language, but it’s not the language itself. There are thousands and possibly millions of languages that have never been written down in the history of humanity. We have no idea. We’ve never met a society of humans, or heard of a society of humans, without language. But those are spoken and signed languages, which are just kind of there. Writing, by contrast, was invented somewhere between 3 and 4 times in the history of humanity.

Lauren: That we know of.

Gretchen: That we know of.

Lauren: There might’ve been a society that did a very ephemeral form of snow writing that we have lost forever. But we have records of 3 or 4 times.

Gretchen: It’s been invented a handful of times. There are a few other cases where there are scripts that haven’t been deciphered by modern humans. Maybe they’re scripts, maybe they’re not – it’s not quite clear. But it’s definitely a handful of number of times. And then once other cultures come in contact with the technology of writing, they’re like, “Oh, this is cool. Let’s adapt this to our linguistic situation,” and it gets borrowed a heck of a lot. But it only got cemented a few times.

Lauren: It’s worth saying that “3 to 4” is a bit squishy because it’s not entirely clear if cuneiform, which is a very pointy form of writing from Babylonia, somehow inspired the Egyptian system that became what we know as the hieroglyphs or if they just happened around the same time by coincidence are something we may never really fully put together. That’s a very contested situation. That’s why we can’t even pin down the number of times we think it was invented.

Gretchen: Cuneiform is the one that’s made with the sharpened reed that you push into your clay tablets or, if you’re some people on the internet, into your gingerbread because there’s some really excellent examples of cuneiform gingerbread tablets people have made, which I just wanna – yeah, it’s really great. The Egyptian hieroglyphs people have seen. But yeah, it’s unclear whether they were in contact with each other and kind of heard of each other in a very loose sense and were inspired by each other because there was some amount of contact between those two areas, or if that was elsewhere. The other two – one is in Mesoamerica, in modern-day Mexico and that area, where they had a writing system there that, again, developed into lots of different scripts as it got borrowed from different areas, of which the best deciphered is the Mayan script from the 3rd Century BCE. There’s also the Olmec script, which is probably the oldest. The Zapotec script is also really old. There’s a bunch of scripts in the modern-day Mexico area that also developed independently.

Lauren: Then the final system arose in China around the Bronze Age a couple of thousand years BCE. Because this script was mostly found in its most earliest forms on oracle bones, it’s known as the “oracle bone” script.

Gretchen: What is an oracle bone?

Lauren: They are turtle bones that are used in divination.

Gretchen: Oh.

Lauren: Yeah.

Gretchen: And, again, the Chinese script, once it developed further, it was also, yeah, influenced a bunch of the other writing systems in the area.

Lauren: I find it super fascinating, with absolutely no historical knowledge or insight to bring to this, that in these three different places that were completely separate and going about their own cultural lives writing arose at a similar time around 3,000 to 4,000 years ago.

Gretchen: Yeah! You wonder what was in the water or something. Well, and it’s partially, I think, that there’s a certain level of writing makes it easier to do things like administrative bureaucracy if you’re trying to keep track of whether people paid their taxes or – it’s a very empire-y thing to have is to develop a writing system.

Lauren: Oh yeah. And it’s absolutely worth stating that it’s not like three people in these three different locations all woke up on the same Tuesday 4,000 years ago and were like, “I’m gonna write a long letter to someone.”

Gretchen: Did they have Tuesdays 4,000 years ago?

Lauren: What you see is this emergence of, “I’m just gonna make a couple of notes so I know how much money you owe me.” Some of the earliest cuneiform tablets we have are just, like, beer supply stock takes.

Gretchen: Like, “Three oxes and this many baskets of grain” or whatever.

Lauren: I feel like it’s very human to be like, “We love writing because it’s poetry, and I can send letters to people I love,” and it’s like, no, it’s actually, “I just wanted to know how much you owe me.”

Gretchen: The king just wants to know if these people have paid their taxes.

Lauren: So, what you get is – although I’m like, “Oh, it all happened within similar millennia,” it is actually centuries of development from just keeping tabs on a few items to a fully fleshed out written system.

Gretchen: What types of things people thought were important to write down – things like legal codes and stuff like that – one of the interesting things that I came across when I was looking this up was that there’s a person named Enheduanna, who is the earliest known poet whose name has been recorded. She was the high priestess of the goddess Inanna and the moon god Nanna in the Sumerian city-state of Ur. There we go. But authorship shows up much later than some anonymous civil servant keeping track of who’s registered which grain or some anonymous priest or something keeping track of who’s made various offerings. This idea of like, “Oh, you’re gonna write poetry,” is a step later.

Lauren: Filing your tax is what is actually one of the best links you have to those ancient civilisations.

Gretchen: There’s this Egyptian named Ptahhotep – that’s “Pta,” P-T, even though I know I’m not pronouncing it that way – he was a vizier in Egypt. He’s also one of the first named writers, the first book in history – or people call him the first book in history – because he wrote these Maxims of Ptahhotep. There may have been people who were writing on more perishable materials that didn’t get recorded and stuff like that. It’s this whole process of, “Okay, I’m going to draw these little diagrams of oxen or something or draw these little diagrams of this plant or this animal or whatever to record what types of things get recorded.” But then in order for it to actually become a writing system, there’s also this step of abstraction that has to happen. This is when you start saying, “Okay, well, the word for this very easily visualisable thing” – so I’m thinking of oxen because the word for “ox” in one of the Semitic languages, I think, was something like /alef/. And so, this “ox’s head” gets transformed into, “Okay, what if this is the sound at the beginning of the word for ‘ox’s head,’” which is /alef/, and it gets transformed into our modern letter A, which is “alpha.” “Alpha” in Greek is just the name of the letter. It’s not “an ox’s head” in Greek anymore because the Greeks borrowed it form the Phoenicians. This level of abstraction that has to go from, “Okay, I’m gonna draw an ox’s head” – if you turn a capital A upside down, it kind of looks like an ox’s head.

Lauren: It’s got its little horns, which are the feet of an A.

Gretchen: Yeah, and there’re all these related languages. You know, Arabic’s got alif at the beginning, even though it doesn’t look like an ox’s head anymore. Hebrew’s got an alef, and Greek’s got an alpha, and all of these alphabets that begin with A. It’s this level of abstraction where you can use this thing to stand for this thing that was associated with an ox.

Lauren: There’re a couple of main different ways that you can relate these abstract images that you’re putting down in writing to the language that you are trying to capture. Of course, being a linguistics podcast, I was gonna bring this straight back to the structure of language.

Gretchen: Well, I think it’s interesting to look at the structure of languages in different areas of the world, and how people reflect those in the writing systems that are developed for those languages. When they borrow a writing system for a language with a very different structure, they end up doing certain adaptations to account for not just like, “Okay, languages have different sounds,” but also those sounds are organised and structured in different ways with relationship to each other. The writing systems often reflect some of that history.

Lauren: The Latin alphabet that both of us are most familiar with has a very approximate correspondence between each character of the writing system and a sound in the language. And I say “approximate” because English spelling is a wonderful historical record of how some of those sound changes have changed over time. I’m just gonna keep this upbeat. You can fall down a giant well of English writing system problems, but to get to a point where the majority of letters have a pretty stable correspondence to sounds that we recognise as phones in the language, and that allows us to write out the words of English.

Gretchen: One of the things that’s true about a lot of the Indo-European languages is that they have a particular ratio between consonants and vowels in the words, where they have a fair bit of consonants in relationship to their vowels but not a ton. You can see this in the writing system because the writing system represents consonants and vowels separately. And yet, when the Greeks were borrowing the alphabet from the Phoenicians – Phoenician is a Semitic language like modern-day Arabic and Hebrew – that alphabet only had consonants in it – letters for consonants – because the vowels were not that important. This is still true of modern-day Semitic languages is they’re often written in writing systems that don’t represent the vowels or kind of optionally represent the short vowels, or sometimes they represent the long vowels, but they’re often written in writing systems where the vowels can be omitted. That’s not really a thing you can do very well in Indo-European languages and still have things understood because the vowels carry enough information that you need to represent them somehow.

Lauren: Even when you have a phonemic script, it’s not necessary to always represent all of the sounds to convey the language.

Gretchen: Right. Then conversely, there are other languages where the vowels are even more important and, in fact, every consonant comes with a vowel or virtually every consonant comes with a vowel. In those, you often get what are called “syllabaries,” where they represent one syllable at a time, because why bother with representing each of these things separately when in every context where you have a consonant there’s gonna be a nearby vowel – or in virtually every context there’s gonna be a nearby vowel – and so you can have a symbol that just represents the whole syllable there. That’s also a structure that doesn’t work very well for Indo-European languages because they don’t have that many vowels. There’s this spot of like they have important enough vowels that you need to represent the vowels somehow but not so important are vowels that you have to represent lots of vowels all the time, whereas languages like Japanese or Hindi – well, Hindi’s Indo-European, but it’s got more vowels, I guess.

Lauren: The Devanagari writing system is inherently focused on the syllable, which is a very different approach to reading. Each character of this writing system, if there’s no vowel specified, it just comes with a bonus vowel. It’s like, “Buy this consonant, get this free letter A sound.”

Gretchen: Right. That’s partly a feature of the writing system, but it can only be a feature of the writing system because it’s already a feature of the language. A similar thing goes for a language like Chinese, where a lot of things are based around a syllable.

Lauren: Then you can go a level of abstraction further where your character in the writing system represents a word-level thing and doesn’t have a direct relationship to the sound correspondence, which is what happens with the Chinese script.

Gretchen: I think it’s important to recognise that there is a phonetic component to Chinese characters. They often make use of – especially for words that are more abstract – it’s not just like, “Oh, here’s a bunch of little pictures that we’ve drawn,” because that’s not capable of conveying abstract concepts like grammatical particles and words for things that don’t come with easy pictures. And so, making use of, “Okay, a lot of our words are one or two syllables long, so here’s a word that’s relatively easy to visualise that sounds very similar to a word that is not as easy to visualise.” We can just add a thing to be like, “It sounds like this, but it’s got a meaning more related to this,” and you can be like, “Oh, it must be this more abstract word.” The classic example, which I’m definitely gonna do the tones wrong on, is that the word for “horse” is /ma/, and the word for mother is also /ma/ with a different tone, and you can add the little horse semantic component with the woman semantic component and be like, “Oh, it’s the word that sounds like ‘horse’ but has to do with something with a woman,” and then you end up with “mother.”

Lauren: This works for languages in China because they tend to be not as long as words in English. We like to add all these extra bits of morphology within our grammar, whereas, again, you get – not a direct rule force – but you get this general tendency where the writing system kind of fits with the vibe of the grammar of the language.

Gretchen: One example of that is in Japanese where they were heavily influenced by the Chinese script, but Japanese actually does have suffixes and other little grammatical words and things you need to change about words. They made some of the Chinese characters that had formerly only had semantic things into just like, “Oh, this makes this sound, and this makes this sound,” because they needed to be able to represent that morphological information that’s not super important in Chinese but is very important in Japanese. You end up adapting a script into something else when it gets borrowed in a different context. Another interesting example here is Farsi or Persian which is an Indo-European language that’s conventionally written with the same script as Arabic except it’s also had a couple of additional letters added because Persian has a P and Arabic doesn’t. They had to create a symbol for the sound P, which is why you get “Farsi” instead of “Parsi” because Arabic doesn’t pronounce that P. So, it makes the P into an F. Sometimes you get people adding additional letters like adding a letter for P. Sometimes you get adapting whole sets of a script.

Lauren: Sometimes you lose letters. English had distinct characters for /θ/ and /ð/ until it was technologically easier to just use the characters in the printing press that English had borrowed. It’s makes me a little bit sad. But also, it makes international people – maybe it’s a little bit easier.

Gretchen: We used to have a thorn for the /ð/ sound, but those early printing presses from continental Europe didn’t have thorns on them. I mean, Icelandic still has thorns. One of the things that I think is more interesting in the closer to modern era – not strictly modern era – is cultures and peoples that are familiar with the idea of writing yet take the idea of writing and say, “We’re gonna make our own homegrown script that actually works really well for our particular language.” One of my favourites is the Cherokee syllabary, which was invented by Sequoyah, who was a Cherokee man who didn’t know how to read in English, but he’d encountered the Latin-based writing system in English. He thought it was cool that the English speakers had this, and so he locked himself in shed for several years and came up with a syllabary for Cherokee. Some of the symbols on the Cherokee syllabary look something like Latin letters, but they stand for completely different things because he wasn’t just learning to read from English. Some of them are completely different. This became hugely popular among the Cherokee in the area. There were newspapers in this in the 1800s. There was very high literacy in Cherokee country. It was really popular. It’s even still found on modern-day computer keyboards and stuff like this. You can get Windows and stuff in Cherokee. It’s this interesting example of that’s one where we can say a particular person was inspired by writing systems but also created his own thing that became very popular.

Lauren: The thing that makes Cherokee so compelling to me is not only did he come up with an incredibly elegant, well thought out, suits the language system, but that he actually got uptake as well – that the community decided to use this as the writing system that they would learn to read and write in, and that it had uptake. It’s very easy to come up with ways of improving the technology of writing but, as I think you’re fond of saying, language is very much an open-source project. You can come up with really elegant solutions, but if no one else is gonna take them up, that’s not gonna be very helpful. So, Sequoyah’s work is doubly amazing for that reason.

Gretchen: People actually made printing presses with the Cherokee symbols and were using those. Another interesting case of this disconnect between a person or people coming up with a system and actual uptake of it is Korean, which has what I think linguists generally agree is just the best writing system.

Lauren: Yeah, we’re like, “Writing as a technology is amazing. All writing systems are equally valid. But Korean is particularly great.”

Gretchen: “But Korean’s really cool.” The thing that’s cool about it from a completely biased linguist perspective is that the writing system of Korean, Hangul, the script, is not just based on individual sounds or phonemes, it’s actually at a more precise level based on the shape of the mouth and how you configure the mouth in order to make those particular sounds. There’s a lot of, okay, here are these closely related sounds – let’s say you make them all with the lips – and you just add an additional stroke to make it this other related sound that you make with the lips. Between P and B and M, which are all made with the lips, those symbols have a similar shape. It’s not an accident. It’s very systematic between that and the same thing with T and D and N. Those have a similar shape because they have this relationship. It’s very technically beautiful from an analysis of language perspective.

Lauren: I love this so much that when we were prototyping a potential script for the Aramteskan language for the Shadowscent books, when I was constructing that language, I also started constructing a script that we never used anywhere, but it was helpful to think about how the characters would write and what writing implements they would use. If you look at the script, you’ll notice that the letter P and B are very similar, but B has an additional stroke. T and D are very similar, but D has an additional stroke. Very much feature driven. And then for the vowels – it’s roughly a quadrant in the writing space – the /i/ vowel is in the top left of the quadrant, the /u/ vowel is in the top right of the quadrant, the /a/ vowel is in the bottom left of the quadrant.

Gretchen: So clever!

Lauren: It was actually just for really selfish reasons that I decided to go with a feature-based system, and that is that it was easier for me to remember if I used the features of the language and made sure that the voiced sound was always identical to the voiceless one but just with an additional stroke. It meant that I only had to remember half the characters.

Gretchen: That’s very elegant. The easy to remember bit is also true about the Hangul script because it’s got so much regularity. The famous quote about Hangul is something like “A wise man can learn it in an afternoon and a foolish man can learn it in a day.”

Lauren: So catchy!

Gretchen: There’s probably a better version of that quote. What’s interesting about it from an adoption perspective is that Hangul was invented by Sejong the Great.

Lauren: Appropriately named.

Gretchen: Who has a national holiday now because of the script. But it was created in 1443. It’s not quite clear whether it was him personally doing everything or whether he had an advisory committee of linguists, but it’s really extremely well-adapted to the linguistic situation of Korean in particular. Even though it’s just also really cool for how it represents the inside of the mouth, but it’s really well adapted for Korean. It was invented in 1443, but it wasn’t popularised in use until several centuries later because for a long time Korean was also using, like Japanese, this adapted version of the Chinese script or adapted version of the Japanese script because of the cultural influences. In the early 20th century, they were doing a much bigger literacy push in Korea to be like, “What want everyone to learn how to read.” And they said, “Okay, we’re gonna have an orthographic reform, and we’re gonna use this script which has this very nice historical pedigree but also is much easier to learn than this complicated thing that we had done that wasn’t really designed for Korean.” It’s got this historical antecedence but also it came back in the modern-day. Now, everything in Korean is written in it. It’s because it’s really easy to learn how to read and write in. The historical uptake wasn’t immediate. It wasn’t during King Sejong’s lifetime where they were like, “Oh, yeah, now we’re all gonna use his script,” people were like, “Okay, king, you’ve got this hobby,” but it wasn’t popularised until later.

Lauren: Even when there is really strong abstraction, humans have this unavoidable tendency to think about the relationship between sounds and other senses. In sound-based writing systems – Suzy Styles, who has been on the podcast before and works on perception across the senses, did an experiment alongside Nora Turoman where they looked at whether people can guess, for writing systems they’re not familiar with, which character was the /u/ sound and which character was the /i/ sound. They found that for a whole variety of scripts there is a much higher than chance – because there’s only two choices. If was completely arbitrary, it would be 50/50. But people do tend, across the evolution of sound-based writing systems, to have /u/ that has a more rounded, bigger sound has properties in the writing system that re-occur. People continue to unavoidably link the sounds of the language to the written properties of the script in a very low-level way. I’ll link to that study. It’s really great.

Gretchen: That’s interesting. It’s not gonna be 100%, but there’s this slightly better than chance relationship.

Lauren: Yeah.

Gretchen: Visual representation of physical information is also something that shows up in ways of writing signed languages.

Lauren: Yeah. Everything we’ve talked about so far, I think, we’ve talked about for spoken languages, but it is possible to write signed languages as well.

Gretchen: There are several different systems in place. Some of them are language-specific like, “Oh, this is the system for writing ASL in particular,” and some of them are kind of like your linguist, International Phonetic Alphabet trying to provide a language-agnostic way of writing signed languages for research purposes but, in a way, that’s sort of impractical, like the IPA for general use. There’s an interesting set of systems. There isn’t as much agreement among representers of signed languages in writing which amounts of information are crucial information that has to be written down and which are optional bits of information that the reader can fill in from their own knowledge of the language and the signer.

Lauren: I think it’s worth flagging that that’s not just a discussion that arises for signed languages. It’s just that those conversations got thrashed out for spoken languages four millennia ago, and we weren’t around when people were arguing about whether intonation had any role in the – or people probably were arguing because it was an emerging thing.

Gretchen: Well, when people were arguing about like, “Do we write vowels or not,” which was a big thing. Do we write vowels? Do we write intonation? And punctuation followed quite a bit after – you know, punctuation wasn’t as much of a thing for several of the early centuries and millennia of writing. They didn’t do punctuation. There’s some level of ongoingness that’s still there. If you think about the internet efforts to try to write tone of voice very precisely and communicate sarcasm and irony and rhetorical questions very precisely, there’s some level of ongoing debate that’s still happening in the spoken language context but not nearly as much as is still happening in the signed language context.

Lauren: Also, just because of the way that signed language communities tend to be embedded within larger spoken language communities, people who sign as a primary language tend to also be educated in the mainstream spoken language, and so literacy gets developed in, say, a language like English.

Gretchen: I think that’s the case for a lot of smaller spoken languages as well where sometimes there’s this imperative of, “Okay, we want to be able to write things to each other” or something, but if there hasn’t been a history of a lot of published literature in that language that you’re trying to read, then it becomes a question of, “Should we teach this in school,” because there isn’t literature there, even though there would be oral literature. It becomes a chicken and egg problem of which comes first, or which do you start teaching first, when you’re constantly comparing stuff against a few very large spoken languages that have this very long writing tradition. It shows up in languages with a newer writing tradition.

Lauren: Education systems have a massive influence there. My grandmother, actually her strongest written language is German. Even though she and her sister speak to each other in Polish, they would write to each other in German because that’s the language they had been educated to write in. Even with people who don’t speak minority languages, the influence of the education system there is so massive.

Gretchen: Reading and writing, they’re separate skills even though they’re often taught together. Sometimes you can read a language that you can’t write or something like that. But it’s a big question. With signed languages, because video technology is now available, if we’d had good audio recording technology 4,000 years ago, the pressure to develop writing systems for spoken languages might not have been as strong – probably wouldn’t have been as strong – even though there are other useful things that writing can do even in the audio-video era. It’s easier to be like, “Well, you can just make a video of the signer,” and then you’d know exactly what they were trying to say and exactly how they wanted to say it. You wouldn’t have this level of abstraction of are you gonna try to write it down in a way that imperfectly represents what a person is gonna do when they’re producing it. It is still interesting looking at some of the signed language writing systems. Some of them, like Stokoe notation and HamNoSys, which stands for “Hamburg Notation System,” they try to very physically represent the characteristics of the signer – where their hands are, where their face is, and things like that. There’s another one that I can’t find the name of that is based on the ASCII alphabet, so you can type it into search engine boxes, which has some advantages as well but represents things more abstractly. It’s got this link with Korean, which was representing this very physical aspect of what the mouth is doing. Several of the signed language writing systems like Stokoe and HamNoSys also have this very physical representation what the body’s doing when it’s being produced. But I think they’re more popular among researchers than they are among actual D/deaf users who tend to use video a lot.

Lauren: I encounter Stokoe and HamNoSys in the gesture and signed linguistics literature. I haven’t really seen them too much outside of that.

Gretchen: I think that it’s easy to conflate a language with its writing system because we’re so used to thinking of English as sort of inextricably linked to the Latin alphabet. But there isn’t a reason, in theory, why you couldn’t write English in the Greek alphabet or in the Arabic alphabet or in a very adapted version of Chinese characters where you’d have to do a lot of adaptation. The same thing is true when you write languages that don’t originally use the Latin alphabet and you have romanisations of them. Writing systems are just as much political and contextual. Some of them have this very tight structural relationship to the properties of the languages they represent and some of them have looser relationships because they’ve been adapted to it later.

Lauren: It’s this slightly looser relationship to language as it’s spoken or signed that means that linguists don’t always include writing systems in, say, an Introduction to Linguistics course. We don’t often talk about writing systems. But when we were putting together the Crash Course series, we ended up making writing the topic of our final episode for the series.

Gretchen: I think partly because people are really interested in it, so why not do something about writing, and also because I think that you can use writing systems as a window into some of the interesting structural features of different languages and how the writing systems represent that. As somebody who’s really interested in internet linguistics and the rise of informal writing and how we represent tone of voice and things like that in modern-day writing, and that’s still a moving target evolutionarily speaking, I think it’s interesting to give that linguistic lens on writing systems even though they are imperfect representations of the languages that they represent.

Lauren: “Writing Systems” is Video 16 of Crash Course linguistics, which is wrapping up this month. If you’ve been holding out to watch all 16 of those episodes, you’ll be able to do so very soon or perhaps even now thanks to the temporal vagueness of podcasts.

Gretchen: Crash Course is the YouTube series that we’ve been working on basically all of 2020. It’s especially popular with high school or undergraduate teaching. If you know people that age, or who teach people that age, that may be a useful thing to send to people. We hope that people find it useful as a resource for self-teaching or for instructing in various capacities.

[Music]

Lauren: For more Lingthusiasm and links to all the things mentioned in this episode, go to lingthusiasm.com. You can listen to us on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, SoundCloud, YouTube, or wherever else you get your podcasts. You can follow @Lingthusiasm on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Tumblr. You can get IPA scarves, “Not judging your grammar, just analysing it” mugs, and other Lingthusiasm merch at lingthusiasm.com/merch. I tweet and blog as Superlinguo.

Gretchen: I can be found as @GretchenAMcC on Twitter, my blog is AllThingsLinguistic.com, and book about internet language is called Because Internet. Have you listened to all the Lingthusiasm episodes and you wish there were more? You can access to 48 bonus episodes to listen to right now at patreon.com/lingthusiasm or follow the links from our website. Patrons also get access to our Discord chat room to talk with other linguistics fans – like, do you remember learning how to read – and other rewards as well as helping keep the show ad-free. Recent bonus topics include an AMA with a lexicographer and our favourite stories and anecdotes that we just didn’t have time for in some of the earlier episodes. Can’t afford to pledge? That’s okay, too. We also really appreciate it if you could recommend Lingthusiasm to anyone who needs a little more linguistics in their life. And, hey, tell your other favourite podcasts that they could a linguistics episode, and get us on! It’d be fun.

Lauren: Lingthusiasm is created and produced by Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne. Our Senior Producer is Claire Gawne, our Editorial Producer is Sarah Dopierala, and our music is “Ancient City” by The Triangles.

Gretchen: Stay lingthusiastic!

[Music]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

#linguistics #lingthusiasm #language #episode 52 #transcripts #writing #writing techonology #cuneiform #chinese oracle bones #scripts #orthography #technology #cherokee syllabary #hangul #olmec script #mayan script #stokoe notation #hamnosys

81 notes · View notes

nico-drives-badly · 3 years

Text

History 101: Devil Hunter's Edition

Yet another unnecessarily long worldbuilding post copied and pasted directly from my notes app. Enjoy!

Early History

Devil Hunters have existed for as long as human civilization itself, with the earliest examples of “demon warrior” soldiers dating back to the ancient city-states of Mesopotamia. Because of the sheer abundance of open Hell Gates in the millennia prior to Sparda's awakening, humans relied heavily on the protection of demon warriors — an early, militaresque form of devil hunter — to defend their homes and crops. As a result, these early fighters were highly revered in early societies and were ranked among the highest classes in political caste systems, second only to feudal lords and the royal courts. During this era, military soldiers were often recruited to fight demons just as often as they were to fight other humans, which is why the terms for “soldier/warrior” and “demon/enemy” were often interchangeable in ancient languages.

The Roman Empire had the most advanced and organized demon warrior system in the world, with Roman gladiators being regularly dispatched throughout the Mediterranean to defend the lands they had conquered. Although the military might of their demon warriors struck fear into the hearts of millions, it was what ultimately led to their downfall; after Sparda's awakening 2000 years ago, the need for devil hunters decreased drastically as the number of open Hell Gates around the world began to dwindle, causing the caste system in the Roman Empire to buckle. Some historians even argue that it was Sparda himself who jump-started the fall of the Roman Empire, with some comparing the fables surrounding Mundus to the evil emperor Nero.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, devil hunters continued to thrive, albeit at a much smaller scale. Some feudal lords began to hire individual devil hunters to protect their property, and devil hunters in turn began to advertise their services in exchange for money; this form of devil hunting became known as the competitive model. Other land owners began to defend themselves in the event of a demon attack, and they began to defend other people's property in exchange for mutual protection, rather than for profit; this form of devil hunting became known as the centralized model. Over the next two millennia, countries would widely adopt one or both of these models on a national scale, which would eventually evolve into the modern iterations we have today.

In countries with a modern competitive model, thousands of devil hunting businesses across the nation compete with one another for profit. Monopolization, backroom deals, and political lobbying are all major issues under this model. In countries with a modern centralized model, devil hunters are grouped into different “departments” that collectively serve each district, similar to a police or fire department, and are subsidized by taxpayers. Disorganization, poor leadership, and abuse of power are all major issues under this model. Both models are infamous for their corruption and their historically unequal protection of marginalized populations.

Devil Hunting in Nascita

Nascita was the first country in the world to adopt a fluid model for devil hunting — a modern approach that allows each city or district to choose which model to adopt, creating a “fluid” mosaic of both models throughout the country. Although the major issues surrounding both systems still exist under the fluid model, it allows cities to change and adapt their devil hunting model to fit their individual needs, and several countries have since adopted Nascita's fluid model as a result.

During national emergency events, such as the sudden emergence of Hell Breaches following the Qliphoth incident in Life Rewritten, the Prime Minister will coordinate devil hunting efforts in each district via civil defense radio. Although this method is effective for short-term emergencies, Hell Breaches will likely become a long-term issue in Nascita due to the Qliphoth having severely weakened the human-hell barrier in the country; this means that, although Prime Minister Hartman's emergency communication efforts are working well for now, he will eventually have to create a more permanent method for reporting Hell Breaches in the near future.

Districts in Nascita include:

Red Grave City District (Southern Nascita)

Capulet District (Southwest Nascita)

Tumult City District (Southeast Nascita)

Sapere City District (Central Nascita)

Montague District (Northern Nascita)

Impetus City District (Northwest Nascita)

Rural District (Northeast Nascita)

Island Districts (Fortuna + Mallet Island)

Devil May Cry

Devil May Cry is a special case in that, because of Dante's alleged relation to Sparda, people from all across the country will personally request his services by name. In contrast to other for-profit devil hunting businesses, which typically only work within their district, Devil May Cry has completed at least one mission in every district of Nascita; in fact, word of DMC has spread so far that it remains the only devil hunting business in Nascitian history to complete a mission outside of the country (Dumary Island in South America).

Despite this, however, Dante has recently decided to only take missions in the Red Grave City District, leaving the rest for Nero and the mobile branch.

Humans and Orbs

Because of their close interactions (and even closer near-death experiences) with demons throughout history, humans have naturally adapted to not only optimize their civil defense against demons, but to utilize any and all resources they can obtain from demon carcasses. Demon orbs are a prime example of this. Thousands of years before the dawn of modern medicine, humans were using demon orbs as herbal remedies for a variety of health conditions, and even modern studies have shown that certain chemicals found in demon orbs are analogous to the active ingredients in various over-the-counter drugs.

Here is a breakdown of each orb and their use to humans:

Red Orbs

As you can see, most orbs have medicinal properties in humans, which in turn makes them highly valuable. Red orbs, on the other hand, have no health benefit whatsoever — in fact, for centuries, they were considered completely worthless! The event of a demon exploding into red orbs upon its death was once nothing more than an annoying inconvenience, like a miner digging for gold only to find nothing but useless rock. But it was in this worthlessness that red orbs eventually found a new purpose among the devil hunting community, particularly weaponsmiths.

You see, weaponsmiths often reserved their best weapons for only the most experienced and worthy of customers; after all, you don't want some young punk breaking the finest sword you've ever forged! But it wasn't always easy to tell the newbie devil hunters from the experienced ones, especially when dealing with travelers from outside of the village. Because of this, weaponsmiths began to require proof of a devil hunter's skill before selling their wares to them, and because demon bodies instantly dissolved into red orbs at the moment of death, the most readily available evidence of a devil hunter's skill was — you guessed it — how many red orbs they had in their possession. The more red orbs a devil hunter had, the more experienced they were, and the more likely they would receive good-quality weapons from the weaponsmiths.

Eventually, this practice evolved into the red orb currency we know of today, where basic mortal weapons cost the least amount of red orbs while advanced magical weapons cost the most. Red orbs still have no real value in the “real world”, but for devil hunters, it has effectively become their tool for bartering.

Green Orbs

Green orbs are used as a natural alternative to pain relievers. It's active ingredients are acetaminophen and menthol. Green orbs can be applied directly to the skin to help reduce inflammation, similarly to an ice pack (menthol), or it can be crushed and consumed orally to relieve muscle soreness and reduce fever, similar to Tylenol (acetaminophen).

Green orbs should NOT be used on an open wound. A common misconception in the DMCverse is that it can be used as a substitute for Neosporin, but that simply isn't the case. Rubbing a Green Orb on an open wound will only irritate the skin and increase the risk of infection.

White Orbs

White orbs can be used as a natural stimulant, akin to green tea extract. “White orb extract” and “white orb powder” are particularly popular finds in the nutrition aisle of grocery stores, as well as a popular ingredient in convenience store energy shots. Recent studies have even shown that white orbs, when used in small dosages, are less likely to damage your heart compared to regular caffeine, making it a healthier alternative to traditional energy products.

But don't get too excited; more research still needs to be done before white orbs can safely replace caffeine in all of our favorite energy drinks. There's still a lot of concern among scientists about potential drug interactions with prescription stimulants and with artificial sweeteners such as aspartame.

Blue Orbs

Blue orbs are different in that they provide no immediate health benefit upon consumption. This, for the longest time, led for blue orbs to be disregarded as useless outside of the devil hunting community, just like with red orbs. However, in recent decades, scientists have found that blue orbs contain essential vitamins and minerals that can be taken as part of a daily regimen to promote long-term health. It's not uncommon, therefore, to see multivitamins and children's gummies touting “made with all-natural blue orbs” on their labels.

Despite having a plethora of essential vitamins and minerals, however, there is no concrete evidence that taking blue orbs as a supplement every day actually increases longevity. But given how many health benefits *do* come from proper vitamin intake, you can understand why this orb is so popular among pharmaceuticals.

Purple Orbs

While similar in color to blue orbs, purple orbs have an entirely different chemical makeup; rather than vitamins and minerals, purple orbs are packed with hormones, particularly testosterone and estrogen. While testosterone and estrogen are considered the “male hormone” and “female hormone” in humans, both hormones are readily found in demons regardless of gender, and when isolated in a lab, these natural hormones can be manufactured into drugs used for everything from hormone replacement therapy to safer alternatives to anabolic steroids.

Talk to your doctor before taking PURPLE ORBS. Do not drive or operate machinery until you know how PURPLE ORBS affects you. And please, don't be like that guy on TikTok who just straight-up swallowed a purple orb and had to get his stomach pumped afterward. Yes, that is a thing that actually happened in the DMCverse. Capcom told me everything about it.

Yellow/Gold Orbs

Yellow orbs — or gold orbs, depending on what region you are from — contain ammonium carbonate, an ingredient commonly found in smelling salts. When a yellow orb is cracked open, this chemical is released, forcing an unconscious person awake. Yellow orbs were commonly used throughout the Victorian era to treat fainting spells in women, and are popular among athletes in modern times for their ability to increase alertness.

While yellow orbs can be the difference between life or death for a hybrid demon, the effects of yellow orbs on humans are much less profound. While it can help increase alertness and prevent fainting, it does not truly “revive” a human being, and it is completely ineffective at treating serious injuries such as concussions.

The Origin of Style Rankings

The history of style rankings is a rocky one, for sure. No one knows exactly when the sacred tradition of taunting your enemies and showing off your skills through cinematic flair became prevalent, nor when the grading system for judging a devil hunter's style was established; no one even knows who coined the term “style rank”, exactly. All we do know is that the concept of style has been an integral part of devil hunting for at least the past 200 years, with the earliest mentions of the word “style” dating back to the late 18th century.

Historians believe that style ranking began as a friendly competition between fellow devil hunters, who would show off their best skills on the battlefield and then determine whose skills were the greatest. These competitions were particularly popular among veteran devil hunters, leading some historians to argue that this seemingly fun activity was actually used as a coping mechanism for PTSD, similarly to how the characters in M*A*S*H used humor to distract themselves from the horrors of war.

Over time, the popularity of these informal contests began to steadily increase, and various rules and scoring mechanics were developed by style advocates. Although no historian can agree on who invented the grading system for style rank, they all know who helped popularize it: Isabella Montoya Velasquez, better known as The Nightmare of El Diablo. Isabella's fiery presence on the field, coupled with her historical achievement as the first woman of color to become a devil hunting chief in Nascita, made her a popular favorite in style challenges, and people from all over the country would come to Tumult City just to compete against her.

In an effort to make things fair, Isabella incorporated the then-niche grading system to judge each devil hunter's style level, with D being the lowest rank and A being the highest. For undisclosed reasons, Isabella also added an additional rank to the scale — the S rank. In the event that someone outperformed another competitor who achieved S rank, Isabella would tack on another S and give them an SS rank. And if someone managed to outperform Isabella herself (something which was nearly impossible to do in her prime, might I add), Isabella would add yet another S and give them the highly-coveted SSS rank.

When asked one day how she came up with the letter “S” for the highest rankings, Isabella responded that it was originally supposed to stand for “Sparda”, but once she started adding additional S's to the rank, this meaning was no longer relevant, so it “could mean anything, at this point. [cackling laughter]” This is why the words associated with each letter rank change from game to game; they don't really stand for anything, so devil hunters in turn can make them stand for whatever they want.

#devil may cry #nico writes #nico’s concepts

15 notes · View notes

star-anise · 4 years

Text

Until 50 years ago the word for a bisexual woman was “lesbian”

I’m not denying that female homosexuality is a natural part of human nature and has always sexisted. There absolutely are and always have been women who are exclusively attracted to only women. The distinction that is relatively recent is the distinction between people who are different levels of attracted to women.

Which is to say, if a woman had sex with other women, the word for her was “lesbian”, regardless of her relationship to men. Until the 1970s.

So for example, in lesbian bars of the 1930s-50s, where butch/femme culture emerged (check out Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold by Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy and Madeline Davis), femmes usually tended to be married to men who financially supported them. While married to their husbands, they went to lesbian bars and had affairs with other women. Bisexual women were part of the lesbian community. When the Daughters of Bilitis, the first lesbian advocacy group in the USA, formed in 1955, a great deal of their work was helping women leave their husbands. Some of them were completely gay and locked in loveless heterosexual marriages with men they were incapable of desiring–some of them were bisexuals who were capable of love and attachment to men, but were actively pursuing relationships with women. To tell which were which would involve delving deeply into their personal thoughts and feelings, which we can only do for a few of them through this much distance and time, because they at the time didn’t think the difference between gay and bisexual women was terribly important.

Or, very rarely, we’d know they were bisexual because it actually entered the historical record. As Genny Beemyn recounts in A Queer Capital: A History of Gay Life in Washington, Part 3, the Mattachine Society’s 1965 protest against homophobic discrimination in federal employment included lesbian Lilli Vincenz walking in the picket line next to self-identified bisexual woman Judith “JD” Kuch.

The split between lesbians and bisexual women as distinct groups dates back to the 1970s, with groups like The Furies Collective, who advocated that women withdraw from male society completely–that women end all working, personal, or casual relationships with men, and with any woman who would not do so also. The Furies are often cited as a landmark in the formation of lesbian feminism and lesbian separatism, but their first newspaper proclaimed, “Lesbianism is not a matter of sexual preference, but rather one of political choice which every woman must make if she is to become woman-identified and thereby end male supremacy.“

That’s where the major division between bisexual and lesbian women came from. It wasn’t a deep interrogation of the nature of lesbian women’s desires; it was appropriation of the word “lesbian” to mean a political choice instead of a sexual orientation. It comes from the sense that the choice to work with, be friends with, or sleep with men is a choice to be complicit in women’s oppression. From this comes the idea that bisexual women are less trustworthy, less capable of truly loving other women, and less deserving of a place in lesbian society.

This attitude about bisexual women shows in personal stories of the 1970s. For example, lesbian feminist Robin Tyler recalls an argument at the 1973 West Coast Lesbian Feminist Conference, where some members wanted to remove invited musician Beth Elliot from the stage because she was a trans woman: “When Robin Morgan came out against Beth, I said to her, look, you’re bisexual and you’re up here determining who should belong to this movement and who shouldn’t?“

Then in 1979, the lesbian sex manual Sapphistry by Pat Califia was being prepared for publication when its author came out as bisexual in an article for The Advocate. Its publisher immediately threatened to cancel publication of the book–a book about how women could have sex with women–because “we do not publish books by bisexual women!” (She later relented, and the book was published in 1980.)

History makes it very clear that it took active work to push bisexual women out of the lesbian community, and it hasn’t entirely stuck over the years–after all, most towns or cities don’t have a large enough LGBTQ+ population to have both a lesbian separatist potluck and a queer-friendly WLW sapphic potluck. A woman looking to date other women goes to lesbian events because that’s all there are in most places. We didn’t fight for “gay and sapphic marriage”, despite the number of bisexual women who wanted to marry other women; politically, bi women in relationships with women have always been grouped under “lesbian”, and there has been almost no push, especially not from lesbians, to popularize “sapphic” as the default descriptor for women attracted to women but with unknown sexual histories and/or personal desires.

#lgbt discourse #feminist discourse #long post #reposting to be its own thing #staranise original

2K notes · View notes

ldcu-12stem2-group4mil · 3 years

Text

Media Evolution and the Changing World

When various media sites began to emerge, internet usage grew in popularity. It continues to produce new platforms that anyone can easily access. Anything you wish to get can be reached with just a click of your mouse. Imagine having complete control over the Internet but before we did achieve this freedom our media did evolve from time to time, so let see how our media did evolve.

According to AKN Production, we are designing and modifying the message as it evolves with the medium throughout time. How? We've all become the Medium since we're all connected via the Internet. The term "media" has undergone numerous changes, including "mass media" (broadcast television, movies), "interactive media" (games, websites, apps), and "cross-media" (Transmedia), Multimedia, New Media, Social Media, etc... but these are just different mediums. What technology and the Internet have done is allowed us all to be a part of the media without having difficulties.

MEDIA EVOLUTION

Media has been through a lot of processes from using only the sense of hearing (Tribal Age), the invention of paper (Pre-Industrial Age), the widespread production of newspapers (Industrial Age), the first electronic computers and television, the use of smartphones (Electronic Age), and also the new way of conveying information via technology and social media platforms (Information Age).

Tribal Age (According to McLuhan, it is the 1st period in history)

Tribal Age, according to McLuhan, is an acoustic environment where the senses of hearing, touch, and scent were formed. Hearing helps you to be more aware of your environment in the tribal era than sight. Hearing and smelling offer a sense of things we can’t see, which is important in the tribal period.

Pre-Industrial Age (1500 B.C. - 1500 A.D.)

Between the usage of the first stone tools and the present, there was a period of human activity known as prehistory.

The development of writing systems, the first of which appeared 5,300 years ago, occurred 3.3. Million years ago. Technology that precedes the written word. History is both the study of the past through the use of written records and the record itself. Prehistoric (meaning “before history”) refers to everything that existed before the earliest written chronicles of history, including early technology. The technology originated with the first hominids, who used stone tools to light fires, hunt, chop food, and bury their dead around 2.5 million years before writing was invented.

Industrial Age (1700s-1930s)

The Industrial Age is a historical period marked by the replacement of hand tools with power-driven machines such as the power loom and steam engine, as well as the concentration of industry in big institutions, which began about 1760 in Great Britain and later in other nations.

Electronic Age (1930s-1980s)

The transistor’s creation signaled the beginning of the electronic age. People began to exploit the transistor’s power, which resulted in transistor communication being more efficient.

Information Age (1900s-2000s)

The Information Age, also known as the Digital Age, is an era in human history marked by a change from conventional industry to an economy centered on information computerization, as a result of the Industrial Revolution’s industrialization. With the introduction of personal computers, gadgets, and wearable technology, the internet cleared the path for the advancement of microelectronics. In addition, speech, picture, sound, and data have all been digitized.

The list of media tools could go on for pages, and technology is changing at such a breakneck pace that many industries, including corporations and news organizations, are struggling to stay up. Newspapers, firms, governments, and other forms of leading institutions in the conventional world merely had to disseminate information, which people would read or look at. According to Inquiries Journal many traditional and non-traditional news organizations report and comment on how the Internet and social media, particularly social networking, have begun to have a significant impact on news organizations and how they operate. Although newspapers are currently facing a dilemma in terms of how to make journalism profitable in the digital age.

Why is MEDIA important in today’s society?

With each passing by, today’s society becomes more socially focused. It’s not just a fleeting fad; social media is here to stay.

The media is an integral aspect of our lives and has a significant impact on our society. Because of the high level of connectedness that exists throughout the world, the relevance of media is rising by the day. As a result, all must critical that all of us become conscious of the media’s influence. This enables us to evaluate all of the information we get on a regular basis.

One of the reasons why media is important is because it’s one of the ways to distribute information. Its importance in industrialized countries is worth noting because it is the primary source of informing the public about political concerns and current events. It's also one of the most important pillars of entertainment.

Although the media is an important element of our culture, too much meddling in everything is unsettling. In certain cases, like what Chamzad said, unimportant news is given so much detail and priority for the goal of a bigger income that the true news is rarely noticed. Despite its intellectual bias, the importance of media cannot be overstated, especially in this age of globalization and liberalization. The media's jobs and responsibilities are growing every day, and there is still more to be done for the development of society. So always do things for the betterment of everyone and remember that "If you are not part of the solution maybe you are part of the problem." Be responsible when using media platforms, since we are all creators of media and its future.

References:

https://www.sutori.com/en/story/evolution-of-traditional-media-to-new-media--BkcHVPKVx3vjJSBvcFEGxhb4

https://evolutionofmediaorg.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/tribal-age/

https://impoff.com/importance-of-media/

https://www.ssim.ac.in/blog/role-of-media-in-society/

http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/202/the-social-media-revolution-exploring-the-impact-on-journalism-and-news-media-organizations

https://www.googlre.com/445664-argumentative-writings-and-competition-essays-the

#mediaandinformationliteracy2021

6 notes · View notes

unpopularkpop-opinions · 3 years

Text

[!] return from hiatus/updates

Hello everyone, Katherine here! First of all, I wanted to apologize for the short unplanned hiatus we just had. March is the start of the school year in Korea, and it was extra chaotic for me because I had to start working at two locations. I found myself with a very limited amount of free time, and two months flew by before I knew it. Plus some of the other admins were moving, job hunting, busy with schoolwork, etc. It was just one of those times when everyone ended up having to take an unexpected break.

We’re getting ready to open the ask box soon, but there are a few things we wanted to go over before we did. Most are related to posts that happened right before our unplanned hiatus, so they might not be fresh in everyone’s memories anymore… but we still want to mention them and talk about how we’ll address similar situations going forward.

1. We’ve noticed an increase in opinions about cultural appropriation in K-pop, as well as idols’ education/knowledge about the rest of the world in terms of culture, religion, certain historical events, etc. We post as many of these as we can because we believe that’s an incredibly important topic, but it’s starting to come into conflict with our “no talking about Korean society/history/politics” rule. This is a little tricky for us, because it’s true it isn’t always just an issue within K-pop specifically (breaking admin neutrality and speaking from experience). But a lot of the comment sections for these opinions end up moving away from K-pop and just becoming a debate about Korean society. So, we ask you to please stay on topic as much as you can. We know that these situations are not necessarily just an idol/K-pop issue, so we’re going to be a little more flexible... but please try and keep the discussion as close to K-pop as possible. Using examples about Korean society to prove your point is okay, but we’ll have to stop the conversation if it becomes JUST about Korean society.

2. There was a (fairly recent) post about GFriend that went way off-topic and turned into a debate over Sowon’s scandal. We understand that people wanted to talk about it since it happened between ask box openings, but turning someone’s opinion into a completely different discussion is unfair to the OP who submitted it. Since this has happened in the past with other idols, we decided to add onto our “stay on-topic” rule. From now on, please do not start conversations or make comments about an idol’s controversy under a post that’s NOT about that. This includes opinions about the group the idol belongs to AND posts about that idol that address a different topic. Going with the Sowon example, this means that we would not allow bringing up her controversy on posts about GFriend in general (if OP doesn’t mention it), posts about other GFriend members, or posts about her that don’t address the scandal (ie “I think Sowon is super underrated” or “I wish Sowon got more lines”). There will be plenty of posts about idols and their controversies where you can have these discussions; please respect the opinions that want to talk about something else.

3. In light of recent events in the K-pop industry - aka all of the bullying allegations against a number of idols - we’d like to remind everyone of our “no speculation” rule before we open the ask box. This means no opinions like, “I can’t believe _________ was forced to go on hiatus, he/she is totally innocent” or “I’m not surprised ________ turned out to be a bully, he/she always gave me that vibe.” We will be checking submitted opinions against the accusers’ posts and idols/agencies’ responses, and we won’t post any that speculate or repeat unverified rumors. We’ll put up another reminder of this when we open the ask box, but I just wanted to give you all a heads up.

4. Before our hiatus, one of our admins posted a controversial opinion that many of you took issue with, and we took it down. As the admin who approved the post, Jimin wanted to say a few words about the situation:

Hi all, I wanted to address a post we published from a few months ago that was homophobic and triggering to our LGBTQ+ followers. But before that, I want to sincerely apologize for how long it’s taken for me to respond. I firmly intended to address this publicly when it was first brought to my attention, but this blog went on the back burner for me these past two months, and I struggled to find the time to sit down and find the right words.

I want to publicly apologize for the homophobic post that I allowed to be published. The post has of course been deleted, but for those who are out of the loop, OP complained about fans holding LGBTQ+ signs at concerts and making “political statements” at said concerts but also other avenues like entertainment shows (e.g “lesbians for x group” posters). Both the admin who made the post and I (who approved it) are members of the LGBTQ+ community, but we failed to recognize how harmful the post was to those in our community. I do want to say, however, that I was the one who ultimately approved the post, so the fault is on me, and I take responsibility for this fault. I thank everyone who messaged me about this issue and explained (even though you absolutely did not have to) why this post was problematic. After rereading the post, I realized my lapse in judgement and immediately took it down.

Even though yes, the opinion was unpopular, the opinion absolutely does not align with our rules nor our morals. We vehemently condemn homophobia. Over the years, we’ve refined our rules as we learned what is unpopular and what is straight up hate/harm. By now, I should have learned which posts could be harmful to a marginalized group, but I clearly did not this time, to which again, I sincerely apologize. No opinion is worth harming a marginalized community that already faces so much vitriol, discrimination, and hurt outside this blog. I promise to do better and make sure I don’t have to greet you all like this again.

- Jimin

As always, thank you for your understanding and patience. We’re looking forward to getting things started up again, and we’ll let you know about the next ask box opening soon!

Love, Katherine (katherinedoeskpop) and Jimin (paperjewels)

#unpopularkpop #admin post

16 notes · View notes

redhoodedwolf · 4 years

Text

hey so maybe someday I’ll stop bring up dcoms but has anyone done a sterek Z.O.M.B.I.E.S. au yet??? like ignoring the whole second movie of course

W.E.R.E.W.O.L.V.E.S.

Beacon Hills was a normal town, with normal people, and everyone got along.

And then, werewolves.

Now, Beacon Hills is divided with Wolvenland. But times are changing, and werewolves are finally allowed to join back into society, but very very slowly. First, high school.

But relegated to the basement, completely separated from humans, with the only teacher being the janitor is not how Derek thought the year would start, alongside his best friends Erica and Boyd.

Stiles Stilinski, on the other hand, is the samest person as everyone else. Well, except for his moles that kind of, like, glow? For no reason? But he just cakes foundation on his face and it covers it all up, and that’s the way he has done it since he was a baby. No one has ever thought anything weird of him and he wants to keep it that way. Especially since it’s junior year and he’s finally old enough to be a junior member of the protection squad: the group that, when a part of, makes you a shoe-in for any security job he could ever want after graduation. Which as always been his goal; to follow in his fathers footsteps.

On the first day, Stiles meets Isaac, a timid kid who brightens only when talking about the protection squad. He gets it out of the tall teen that he used to be abused and wants to do what he can to stop that for anyone else. They quickly become friends, and Stiles introduces him to Scott, his step-brother, a senior, and the captain of the junior protection squad.

Scott is really against the integration of werewolves, secretly terrified of the power they have but refuses to show his fear and hides it behind a wall of hatred. See, werewolves used to be all feral and destroyed a third of the town before the government stepped in and solved the problem with W-Bands. Every werewolf wears one, and it emits electronic pulses that “contain” the wolf and calm them, supposedly. Though they still retain the fang and glowing eyes look most days. And Scott is very vocal about his dislike, but Stiles isn’t so sure.

He’d seen, that first day the way the senior protection squad had members posted up at the werewolf entrance and sneered at them, trying to antagonize them into lashing out. He watched as the one with glowing blue eyes held back the buff wolf next to the frizzy-haired blonde wolf when something had been said about her appearance. Blue Eyes had deescalated the situation quickly and ushered them into the building, but not before their eyes caught each other. Stiles had felt a shiver course up and down his spine, and it wasn’t out of fear. He was intrigued.

He became even further intrigued when Derek tried to show up for the first meeting of the junior protection squad, wanting to sign up. Derek knew that keeping the last of his family safe was the most important thing possible, and, joining the protection squad would make that possible. He would do whatever he could to stop hunters form coming after them again.

Tried is the opprative word, though, because the school principal expressly forbid werewolves from joining school clubs. Scott stood by, arms crossed and head shaking back and forth as Derek backed out of the gym, feeling dejected.

Stiles didn’t see him again until that evening, during their unofficial junior protection squad initiation which, unknowingly to Stiles and Isaac, took place in the middle of Wolvenland.

Scott hands them a jar of some ash and jerks his head towards the run-down homes on the block. “Line the front doors with this mountain ash and you’re in. It’ll keep them locked in their houses, which is the best way to keep humans safe. That’s your first task.”

Stiles and Isaac are left alone with this jar, staring at the house in front of them, both unsure if this was the right move. A door bangs and lights blink on, and they both duck out of view, just in case.

They hear footsteps, and Stiles glances up from the ground to see Blue Eyes stumbling down the front steps they were hiding against, head swinging side to side.

The wolf spots the two of them, and Stiles clenches his fingers around the jar. The werewolf glances down at it, eyes widening, and then—

“Derek!” A woman’s voice shouts form inside of the house. “Anyone there?”

Derek, apparently, what a normal name, takes a deep breath. Stiles winces, waiting for the retribution. Isaac is next to him, shaking.

“Nothing Laura.”

Stiles’ head shoots up at that, staring in shock at Derek as he stares back, frowning slightly.

“All clear,” Derek adds, for good measure, and then leaves, back into the house

Stiles and Isaac duck back to Beacon Hills as quickly as possible, the jar of mountain ash tossed into a trash bin. When Stiles got home, he just gave Scott a nod, letting him think what he wanted, and went to bed.

The next day, Stiles snuck down to the basement to apologize or maybe thank Derek for not ratting them out. They find a minute to sneak away, and after Stiles apologizes, he admits he doesn’t know a lot about werewolves but he doesn’t see the big deal. Derek, afraid to trust a human, as doing so has never been historically helpful for a ‘wolf Hale, tentatively accepts Stiles’ friendship and can admit to himself he may have a bit of a crush. Stiles is cute, okay? He has golden eyes that almost seem to glow like a werewolf’s, and he smells soft. Just, soft.

Stiles was trying to figure out how he could sneak around and spend time with Derek, maybe get Isaac involved if he be willing (he seemed sympathetic to the werewolves and supported Stiles’ confused rambling as to why they couldn’t join clubs), when a minor disaster struck.

It was the first official mission of the year for the squad and Stiles was excited to show his skills. It was just a routine patrol, something Scott told them would happen usually once a month. They were patrolling the school campus during the evening lacrosse game, Stiles leading his group, Isaac at his back, around the locker room entrance.

Sudden screams came from the field, and because Stiles’ team was they closest, they were told to investigate.

The field was chaos, the game abandoned as a crowd of hooded figures with guns and crossbows pointed their weapons at the scattering crowd. Hunters, Stiles realizes, and then his second thought is that there must have been werewolves in the stands, to encourage the illegal “vigilante” group out of hiding.

Stiles’ dad had dealt with them a few times he knew, but he never thought he’d have to on his first mission.

He’s prepared, though, but no one can prepare for trigger-happy hunters who, at the first sign of movement of Stiles’ team, aimed a crossbow at them and shot. Well, not them. At Stiles.

Stiles hears his name shouted and suddenly he is on his back and someone is flattening him into the ground and breathing heavily.

“Derek?” Stiles chokes when he recognizes the figure. “What..?”

“Are you okay?”

“Yeah, I’m fine. Are you?”

Stiles looks over Derek’s shoulder and sees an arrow sticking out of his arm. He screams.

“I’m fine,” Derek assured him. “No wolfsbane.”

Stiles doesn’t really understand wolfsbane, but he knows that means Derek won’t die from the wound.

Once Stiles was on his feet, he saw the hunters had vanished, naturally.

Stiles watches Derek heal right in front of his eyes and stares at him in awe.

The very next day, due to Derek’s rescue in front of many witnesses, he is probationarilly allowed to join the squad.

“You do good on these missions, protect the humans, and maybe we’ll think about letting the werewolves participate more.” This was the principal’s stance.

Suddenly, Derek was the poster boy for werewolves, which he never wanted but knew he now had to keep up, in order to maintain a friendship with Stiles.

Meanwhile Stiles was feeling a lot of pressure from Scott at school and at home for his obvious connection to werewolves. Scott warns him not to trust easily. You never know who could out you as a freak.

Stiles coats his makeup extra heavily for days afterwards, which is how Derek notices his excess palor. Stiles finds himself spilling his whole story, how he was born with these illumiscent markings on his face and he and his parents never knew why, though he suspects it has something to do with the werewolf attack his grandfather Stilinski barely survived right before meeting his grandmother. Residual magic is his best guess.

Stiles doesn’t let Derek see it, but Derek tells him he shouldn’t be ashamed of the things that make him different.

As each mission Derek is sent on with a wary and uncooperative team comes back successful, the students and the school begin to relax. Soon, werewolves have lockers in the same hallway as humans and are sharing classes and the cafeteria. Derek gets pats on the back from strangers in the halls.

But no matter the betterment of the reputation of werewolves, Scott is still scared and wary of being usurped from his position by a “monster”. So he keeps Stiles away as often as he can and never lets them go on missions together.

So Derek gets sneaky, using Erica and Boyd to pass messages to Stiles for him. Erica is against it, having been burned many times in her life for being a werewolf as well as an epileptic who never gets proper treatment for her condition. Boyd doesn’t care through, silent and stoic, and passes notes surreptitiously.

Derek’s most recent note had them meeting at the gate into Wolvenland, and Stiles tried to shake off his nerves because he quickly realized it was a full moon night. But Derek reassured him he wasn’t about to be eaten, he just wanted to invite him to their monthly festivities where everyone in the community gathered to be together, though it had originally started as a necessary meeting to protect the young from vigilante hunters who wanted to eradicate werewolves from Beacon Hills for good.

Stiles was having a blast, getting along with Erica for the first time, meeting Laura and Cora and them not clawing his intestines out for kindasorta dating their brother, and he was this close to finally kissing Derek when— BAM. The senior protection squad arrived, as apparently they did every time, to chase everyone back into their homes. Which means Stiles causes a diversion so that Derek can get away and not be spotted with him by Stiles’ father.

Back home after being thoroughly chastised by not only his dad but also Melissa and a silent glaring Scott, Stiles thinks about everything and realizes how deeply screwed he is and that he’s be willing to give it all up for Derek, which, that is what’s scary, not werewolves.

Derek stops Stiles in the stairwell the next day to apologize for leaving him alone, but Stiles waves it off, a determined glint to his eyes. If Derek looks close, he can see a faint glow under the power on his cheeks.

“If my family can’t accept werewolves, maybe I don’t want to be on the protection squad anymore.”

“But that’s all you’ve ever wanted to do. That ambition is what makes you you. It’s what I like about you.”

Stiles scoffs, a tad bit wetly. “I just wish I could flip a switch and solve everything.”

Derek stares down at the W-Band, which Erica had tampered with to alleviate the pain that came with it (hoping that by changing the level of the pulses, she could up her wolf powers and heal herself of her illness) and thinks, huh.

Maybe if the band made him less wolf, it could make him more human. If he could be human, they wouldn’t have these problems. He and Stiles might...

But it all goes wrong, because the hunters knew about the W-bands and their lax security and were just waiting for the right moment to strike. And Derek was the perfect folly.

The hunters set up a trap, calling an emergency meeting of the squad, junior and senior, to go after a false alarm. Stiles sneaks his way into Derek’s group, finally, but their joy doesn’t last for long.

Derek glances down at his wrist, sees the screen flash a bright purple, and then feels a sharp pain lace up his arm from his wrist, through his shoulder, across his back, and down his spine.

Stiles shouted for him when he saw something was wrong and watched as the band was disconnected, and Derek went full feral wolf. A slave to his basest instincts, Derek set off a howl that shook the ground and set blazing blue eyes on the squad, claws out, readying to attack.

“Derek, stop! This isn’t you!” Stiles screams.

Scott stumbles back, fear overcoming anything else in his body at the sight of the feral werewolf who has apparently set his sights straight on him.

But Derek stumbles as he approaches, and Scott watches in amazement as he reaches out towards him with one clawed hand, the other wrapped around the extended forearm, trying to...pull it back?

A flash bang went off, Derek screamed, and the next anyone could see, Derek was tackled to the pavement, shackles around his wrists, and features back to nearly human.

Scott, still baffled by the internal battle of Derek that he’d just seen, stood as the rest of the squad started yelling, shouting curses at Derek, damming werewolves, declaring they knew it was a bad idea all along it was only a matter of time before the monsters turned on them.

And Stiles snaps.

“He was your monster!” Stiles shouts as Derek, looking utterly defeated, is dragged away. “You did this to him! You made him into a weapon— no, a shield.”

“They’re freaks!”

Stiles wipes an arm across his face, revealing his glowing moles, striking the crowd silent. He did not meet his father’s eyes.

“If he’s a freak, than so am I.”

Stiles ran after Derek, spewing apologies, promising that he’d get him out, he would, don’t worry.”

When Stiles, having run the whole way to Wolvenland, panted out to a stunned Erica and Boyd what happened, he accepted the slap across the face.

“This is why we don’t trust humans. We can’t have human friends. They only betray us.”

School is scarily the same the next day, except for the gaping hole the lack of werewolves left behind. The tale of the previous evening had spread, and werewolves were back to being ostracized in the basement.

Stiles quit the squad. He hadn’t even gone home, spending the night at Isaac’s apartment where he lived with his older brother when he wasn’t stationed overseas in the army. He didn’t want to see his dad or Melissa. He really don’t want to see Scott.

The hunters got what they wanted, the town was back to distrust. It was time to finish this once and for all.

Words were whispered in the ears of important people, people of power, words like “stop them now, eradicate them, and erase them”

These words were whispered to Scott by a leggy blonde who wore the biggest smirk on her face that he felt like prey. But the words didn’t resonate with Scott.

Because Scott had spent the night awake replaying the event over and over in his head. Derek had tried to stop himself. He hadn’t wanted to attack. He was conscious enough to try and stop himself. Derek was human inside, he just had a bit extra. He wasn’t a monster unless they made him that way.

And he quickly formed a plan with his step dad, knowing some of the squad would not be on board so they had to keep it in a small group. He was approached that evening differently than earlier with the hunter, by a skittish girl who looked sort of familiar, maybe one with an itchy trigger finger, who admitted her family was involved with the hunters but she didn’t want to be part of it anymore and she wanted to convince Scott to help her stop them.

The three of them cornered Stiles, and once Scott apologized, his dad praised him for being brave, and Allison admitted to almost shooting him, Stiles joined in on their plan.

He promised to get Derek out and save him and he would fulfil that promise.

So there’s a big fight in here now where there’s another emotional speech, hunters disband or did, and then Derek is released. But I’m too tired at this point to write all that angst out.

Finally, Derek is back next to Stiles, and they smile at each other. Derek reaches up and stroked his thumb over Stiles’ cheek, over the glowing, and Stiles is less chicken and leaned into the touch and kisses Derek.

Happy ending, collective dance sequence, reprise of the opening song, beautiful moments, and happy wolves.

So, anyone write that yet?

#sterek #fanfiction #guess I ended up writing it sorta??#sterek fanfiction #this became nearly 3k oops #eternalsterek #sorry for any typos

45 notes · View notes

serpentstole · 3 years

Text

Luciferian Challenge: Day 12+13 (And 22)

A few of these prompts ended up being very similar in theme, so I’ve combined them into a bit of a long reply.

Dogma is something we throw about…that we reject it. Where do you think we may fall short as Luciferians/Satanists when it comes to dogma? Do you think dogma has a certain value?

I don’t think dogma has any value really, no, as I don’t like the idea of rules or ideas that cannot be questioned on principle. Even as a child, I took issue with blind obedience. My mother once called me downstairs, and I asked why, and my father got angry and said that I shouldn’t bother to ask why and just do it, and that even if one of them told me to jump out of a window they probably had a good reason for it.

That memory is seared into my brain and still irks me.

I do think rules themselves can be important, but when we speak of rejecting dogma it’s typically in the sense of it being some authoritative status quo that cannot be discussed or challenged. I think my example above is a good example of that, as petty as it may seem: that parents should be obeyed without question and with the assumption they have our best interests at heart.

I do not believe there’s room for that sort of attitude in an empathetic and respectful society, even towards children. Respecting their natural curiosity and teaching them about bodily autonomy is something I think can only be a net good. The only thing growing up in a strict household taught me, where there was little room for negotiation or challenging of the way things were, was how to be a decent liar.

It harmed me in far more ways than it helped instill any positive values, and while I would not want to belittle the experiences of anyone in a similar boat, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. There are some families where a dogmatic stance, whether based in politics or religion, can lead to the alienation or outright abandonment of LGBT youth, of young women who wish control over their own bodies, of those with views that differ from their parents’, or any other black sheep.

I feel like this question and my thoughts on it really go hand in hand with the next one, so I’m going to actually combine them into one post and make up the difference later.

Do you think it’s dogma or silly to say what Luciferianism/Satanism is not?

I do not think it’s dogmatic to say what Luciferianism or Satanism is or isn’t. The reason I’ve kept both labels in these two prompts, when I’ve removed them in every other post, is because I spent a lot of time in a mixed Luciferian and Satanist community during the beginning of my religious journey. Despite our differences, especially in the case of Atheist Satanism versus Theistic Luciferianism, I saw a great deal of overlap in a lot of the values/ideals, inspirations, and talking points.

I think outlining those ideals and values is important to just… having a label. Words mean things. Religious affiliations and ideas mean things. Even saying you belong to or adhere to a school of thought typically has some manner of definition or parameters. While Luciferianism and Satanism can be incredibly diverse when it comes to the details of one’s ethics and morals, practices, views of the divinity or lack there of, and other suck points, there’s a good deal that does unite us that’s reflected in the archetypal figures our religions are named after. I also believe that certain aspects of what is seen as the Standard Luciferian should be weighed more or less heavily. For example, I don’t see my irritation with hostility towards Christianity as something that makes me less of a Luciferian.

However, I want to combine these two prompts with one more to round out my view of this topic.

What do you disagree with Luciferians/Satanists most?

In the goddamn dogma they cling to and perpetuate while claiming to be adversarial to or enlightened above such ideas. It’s become almost a meaningless buzzword. It barely still looks like a real word to me anymore. This is honestly where my post goes completely off the rails into a mini essay, so it’s under the cut.

The idea that all “Abrahamic” religions should be treated as inherently harmful and oppressive is a bad take.

That Christianity, Judaism, and Islam should even be lumped together when discussing such issues betrays a shallow understanding of these religions that’s been regurgitated from one person to another, typically through a culturally Christian lens.

The idea that “only LaVeyan Satanism should be called Satanism because nothing else that calls itself Satanism is actually Satanism” is exhausting, and I will fist fight Anton myself in hell.

The principles of Might Makes Right and Social Darwanism that some Satanists perpetuate is dumb and bad and wrong, sorry, that’s the only rebuttal I’m dignifying that school of thought with. Once again, I will be fist fighting Anton in hell.

And that’s to say nothing of the Satanists and Luciferians out there that regurgitate the same racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other assorted bigotries that they’ll condemn religions like Christanity for while perpetuating it with a coat of black paint. Because I have absolutely seen this first hand, both as an observer and as the target of it.

Like... I can’t speak on Islam at all, because I have very very limited experience with it from both a research and real life experience point of view, and thus I’m not comfortable making any claims. On the other hand, I do know that to list all the ways that Judaism is not a dogmatic religion would deserve its own post written by someone far more knowledgeable than me, and it somehow still gets lumped into the Problematic n’ Dogmatic category of AbRaHaMiC ReLiGiOnS. For that reason, in the case of Islam, I can’t help but wonder if the assumption that it’s also dogmatic comes from the harmful assumption that it’s a religion that’s strict to the point of harshness that a lot of people have.

Even in the case of Christianity, which I would argue (as someone who I’d say was raised within the church) is hands down the most seemingly dogmatic of the three (particularly in North America), this is just not universally true. If it was, there probably wouldn’t be so many branches and denominations, many of which cannot stand each other and think the rest are misguided at best and heretical at worst. This is something that’s even brought up in the Satanic Bible; I’ve read the miserable thing. Have you ever seen someone say “Christians and Catholics”? That’s a pretty loaded example of how much disagreement exists within the religion when an entire core branch of it is considered tangentially related.

Not to mention, I was raised Lutheran. That came about because a German Catholic got incredibly steamed at his own religion so he made a more boring different version of it. While the existence of dogma has led to these schisms, historically speaking, the end result has been a religion so varied that it’s hard to say what is and isn’t treated as inarguable law. If you don’t believe me, try talking to a Protestant pastor about the Seven Deadly Sins and see how far you get. I tried during confirmation class and got shut down immediately... but on the flip side, my church was pretty accepting of LGBT folks, which I think some people would claim Christianity is dogmatically against by default.

Is there dogmatic thinking within specific churches or branches or communities? Absolutely, I wouldn’t argue that. I think it can arise in any community, religious or not, but that some religious communities seem to be particularly vulnerable to it. But the harm those specific cases could do should be where our focus goes, not the condemnation of these religions or the concept of religion as a whole, which I touched on in a previous prompt.

I’m not some glorious enlightened mind. I would not want to give the impression that I think I hold in my hands the One True Way to do Luciferianism, or that I think the majority of this religious community are uncritical edgelords. This is, after all, my answer to the thing I take issue with the most, not my thoughts on Luciferianism or Satanism as a whole. I just don’t think it should be a particularly hot take that Religious Discrimination Is Bad Actually, or that maybe you can be rebellious and adversarial and hedonistic and enlightened while still genuinely giving a shit about people. Because otherwise what’s the point?

If we are hostile and rebellious with no actual end goal, no greater cause or purpose, we are simply being contrarian for the sake of it. If we blame the idea of organized religion instead of those who manipulate and abuse faith and scripture for selfish and malicious ends, we’ve missed the point, as I said in the aforementioned previous post. Not all of us have the ability to become an activist, obviously, and I would not ask you to. But I think as those who would claim to reject dogmatic thinking and strive to embody either the ideals of enlightenment or the adversary would do well to be ever questioning their preconceptions of the world around them, of other religions, and of less obvious unjust structures of power.

I don’t know why a community that believes in illumination and free thinking sees the world in such black and white ways.

While I will always strive for a greater understanding of the world, and I hold the concept of enlightenment very dear to my heart, I think it’s something that one spends a lifetime working towards. Alongside my favourite quotes from Paradise Lost, I hold the Socratic Paradox of “I know that I know nothing” as a personal motto, and I wish more people who I share this label with would do the same.

#luciferianism #theistic luciferianism #satanism #theistic satanism #witchblr #left hand path #lhp #30 Day Luciferian Challenge #30dayluciferianchallenge #illumine

4 notes · View notes

wincestisasincest · 4 years

Text

The Green Book (Thorin’s Company x Reader, Part 1)

Hello all! This is something of a rewrite for an idea that I had when I was like, 13, but I started it and it was a hot pile of ass, so we’re taking another crack at it. Basically, sort of like how Bilbo and Fordo recorded everything in the Red Book of Westmarch, this is a book where (y/n) records all of her adventures after falling into Middle Earth.

I have no idea how long this is going to be, nor if there’s going to be any more specific pairings, so feel free to shoot me one if you’d like to see something play out!

A quick note! This story is in first person, not in second person, but it is still about the reader. It is the reader’s later account of their adventures. I’m sure you’re all smart people and can figure this out, but I wanted to make that clear.

Summary: (Y/n) falls into Middle Earth. Shocker. Somehow, she gets recruited to join a party of dwarves on their kinda crazy mission to reclaim their home of Erebor.

Part: 1

Words: 1593

Warnings: Plot clichés, getting lost, fainting

To whom it may concern: This book is a project by myself, (f/n) (l/n), to record an official account of both my voyage through the land of Middle Earth, how it intertwined with the quest to reclaim Erebor, and what happened in between. All information here has been directly experienced by me and has been corroborated by other living peoples in Middle Earth, which shall be credited in the after section if any reader seeks to verify.

I write you, the person reading my Green Book, this letter at the beginning of the book because I want to make clear my intention. While this book shall certainly be used for historical record, and I am honored to have it serve that purpose, that is not my primary intention in writing it. I feel that, in the case of historical record, we tend to miss out on a very important element in the stories of our ancestors. Their humanity.

Or dwarf-manity. Or hobbit-manity. Or wizard-manity.

The point is that I have scoured many manuscripts in my years, and all of them treat those of the past as though they are sculptures created purely of dates, epithets, and conquest, and that is simply not the case. The deeds of this company are not going to be forgotten for a long time, but their personality, individual quirks, fears, loves, hopes, dreams, and heart, may fade into obscurity as their time comes to an end.

That it what I wish to eliminate with this book. Above all else, I want you, the reader, not to remember them as historical icons, but as the caring, brave group of adventurers that I have come to love.

No, I cannot completely fix a disconnected view of the past, but I can sure try.

***********

I got my start in adventuring at the same time I got my start in Middle Earth. And both of them were complete accidents.

The land that I come from, just Earth, is wholly different from its Middle counterpart. There are no species besides that of the human race, which have ruled the planet for many centuries and divided into their own cultures with individual languages, practices, religions, and such. As humans are quite non-magical, however, this does also mean that there is no magic in this world. Instead, humans have conquered it through different applications of knowledge, through which they have created many a valuable devices that replace the need for magic. These devices may do things such as heal the sick, communicate over long distances, defend oneself, light up dark rooms, and so on.

The only common trait that it shared with its counterpart was that it had no idea that there was any Earth besides itself.

So, you can imagine that my stumble into Middle Earth was by no means intentional.

I was a dreamy young lady of (your age) years. I had things to do that would take up most of my day’s energy, but when I did have a minute of downtime or two, I could always be found wandering in the woods. Something in its peaceful nature, in which I could not hear the hustle and bustle of the rest of society, was very relaxing to me.

More often than not, I would recline on a large, flat rock deeper into the forest and go about leisure activities such as reading or drawing. Such leisure activities were exactly what I was occupied with on that very day that would change my life.

I looked up from the pages of a very gripping read at an odd sound coming from the woods. Now, the woods are full of odd sounds, and to try to put a name on all of them would do the terrain a disservice, but something in particular about this sound woke up something in me. My curiosity could only be quenched by an exploration.

The sound itself mirrored that of language, as though some mysterious force were whispering words but were hidden from sight, however, the words were not from any language that I understood or recognized. Even after I had come to learn of languages particular to the land of Middle Earth, such as Elvish and Khuzdul, I still cannot specifically attribute any one of them to this whispering.

I shoved everything that I was doing into my bright red backpack (or just pack, as they are more commonly called) and slid off my rock, walking towards the sound. One could almost say I was hypnotized, as it just dragged me in. Deeper and deeper I trailed into the woods.

At some point the whispering stopped, and I was snapped back to reality. I had completely lost track of time. I peered around, and realized that I could not recognize where I was. I whipped out my phone (a cellular device used for communication which I will expand on in later chapters) to check what time it was, only to be confronted with the fact that five hours had passed.

This news was even more distressing, because, if five hours had passed, then the sky should be occupied by the moon and not the sun. I ran the numbers in my head. I had been on the rock at about six, and my phone now read that it was eleven at night. But the birds still tweeted, and it was still sunny, as though it was but a pleasant afternoon.

I attempted to use my phone to possibly communicate with someone, or find out my location, but the technology failed. Resolving to save battery, I put it away and continued to observe my location. It did seem like this part of the world had been completely claimed by nature, with no sign of any sort of civilization in sight. I would’ve found it beautiful it it did not signal my possible demise.

In my world, a common piece of advice for those who are lost is to wait in one place. This advice is most commonly given when one is traveling with a group, which makes sense, as a group would not only quickly realize that you were lost, but could easily fan out to search for you, which would only be made easier if you were prevented from getting any farther from where you had strayed from.

However, I was not traveling with a group. I was alone. I quickly weighed the pros and cons of staying in once place, before deciding that, when combined with how big this forest apparently was, to how long it would take someone to realize I was gone, to how long it would take them to conclude that I was in the forest, to how long that it would take them to search the forest, to the fact that I had no concept of time anyway, that I would surely die before this technique yielded any results.

No, my best bet was to continue forward and hope to come across something eventually. If not civilization, then food or water. Either way, I would not die in the forest.

Gathering all my resolve, I continued to trek forward.

Slowly, but surely, night overtook this strange forest-land as well, and there was no sign of any civilization in sight. I had no food or water with me, which was only made clearer by my parched throat and growling stomach.

Against my terrible luck, a heavenly smell (or perhaps a nasty smell that simply came to me when I was hungry) wafted over the trees and to my location. I had no choice but to follow it.

It wasn’t something that I recognized, like beef or chicken, but was definitely a sort of meat. Regardless, I would eat anything at this point. My hope was only increased when I heard what sounded like conversations passing around a campfire. Perhaps, I thought, it was a group of campers that would be able to help out a very lost and confused traveller.

I grew more desperate. I pulled leaves and branches out of the way and nearly tripped over rocks. Though I still couldn’t make out the words that were being said, they sounded oddly aggressive and simplistic. It was intermixed with the neighing of horses, sounding very distressed, though my animalistic impulses at the time elected to ignore that.

“...and if it don’t look like mutton tomorra!” So that’s what the meat was. Mutton. That sounded delicious.

Finally, I could see the campfire peaking through the trees. I hopped out into the clearing, not even taking the time to think of what I would say or do, just following the food.

In front of me were three of the biggest and ugliest creatures that I had ever seen in my life. You and I now understand them as trolls, but I had never seen a troll before, though, if you had told me at the time that that’s what they were called, I would not be surprised. Their bodies were large and their heads were tiny, with layers and layers of fat making up their bulging stomachs, around which was a loosely tied loincloth. Whatever was under that, I didn’t want to think about. Their faces had crooked teeth, large noses, sloping foreheads, and very stupid looks plastered on them, though as it happened, all of those stupid looks were looking directly at me.

“Lads, we’re eating human tonight!” The middle one shouted gleefully, raising his arms and looking at me menacingly while getting up out of his chair.

I fainted on sight.

******

Ahhh, I just negged y’all. We’ll see the gang in the next chapter, don’t worry, but I gotta tease it first.

Next chapter will be out soon, by the way, because that’s what quarantine is for.

Also, if you’re interested, shoot me an ask/suggestion for what the reader has in her bag! I have a few ideas, but I’m really open to anything, whether it’s a specific book, a cool trinket, a sentimental object, whatever you guys have!

You can also shoot me pairings if you’d like though I may or may not have a very unpopular one in mind already

119 notes · View notes