#when it comes to the general public middle class has the most neutral implications | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bakuvantea · 3 years

Note

HEY BESTIE I HOPE YOUR HAVING AN AMAZING DAY

CAN I GET SOME GENERAL HEADCANONS WITH SUNG JIN-WOO WITH A FEMALE S/O

FEEL FREE TO IGNORE BUT REMEMBER TO TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF

>:)

general relationship headcanons of sung jin-woo with his beloved s/o

- warnings: none! just a tad bit of nsfw implications

- audience: I made this gender neutral, i do hope that’s okay!!

- a/n: hello >:) anonnn (may i call u that? lmao-) here’s your request love!! thank you for your kind words <33 stay heathy, stay hydrated, and always rest up okay? hope you have an amazing day ahead too!!

also idk who jacob is-

-•-

: pre-awakened jin-woo (before entering the carthenon temple)

> he was always cautious, he didn't want [you] to hear the whispers going around about how you could've chosen someone better, about how you could've loved someone that was not him. thus, he was very shy and timid, always on edge when he feels the piercing stares from his batchmates -most especially when you try to initiate physical contact with him in your school or in public, you'd see him uncomfortable and so you'd immediately stop (because you respect him, ily). behind closed doors though he would always go above and beyond in pleasing you and making you feel loved, although he always doubts himself so you always make sure to give him praises and assure him that he is the one you love (not that jerk jacob from the class next door).

> he always wears spare hair ties or hair pins around his wrists in case you forget or lose yours. in fact when its weekends -and when he's not out infiltrating dungeons and positively offering his life on a silver platter- he always tries to study new hairdos and hairstyles so he can have more variations and choices when he ties or pins your hair for you. he'd always kiss the top of your head after and you'd feel his smile as he nuzzles your hair, smelling your shampoo. since his hair is also long, you'd also return the favor and tie his hair for him. his favorite would have to be the classic apple look with a pointy lock of hair erect in the middle -he really looks like a shih tzu, adorable-

> he.blushes.so.easily !!! he is very weak to praises and your lil kisses that pepper his face. you can see him glow and you even see his smile evidently becoming wider despite him shying away from you, looking downwards to avoid your loving gaze.

> he may be sht but he is also very playful towards you, teasing you and throwing pillows at you when you’re in his room, what a baby.

> often during dates he'd always need to leave early because he really needs to earn money and g to the dungeons. although you try to offer him some of your savings or your help during the dungeon raids, he'd always reject your offer, thinking of how it may burden you or the dungeon raids may possibly hurt you. you don't listen to him though, you give some of your savings to his sister when you cross paths in your school, and you'd always register after him in raids or call up someone you know to have you join in.

"(name) why are you here?!"

"angel face, i can handle myself just fine. it's my choice to help you and whether you like it or not, i've also been called for this raid. come love, we're going in."

> you'd always take his blue hoodie and wear it. he gets so shy when you smell it.

he gets frantic when you take his hoodie and start sniffing it, exclaiming; "stop! i smell weird."

you raise an eyebrow at him, "woo, you smell fine. i like it."

he tries to stutter a remark but was silenced by your smile.

> you always try to visit his mother with him and his sister, jinah. you always talk to their mother out loud and you'd see jinah smile gently at you and jin-woo trying to stop sniffles from escaping his lips by biting them and covering his face with his hoodie.

jinah: u simp

jin-woo: shut it

> he loved cuddles! but he really likes kissing your cheeks. he loves how soft they are and he loves feeling your cheeks move when you smile or laugh at his cute antics.

> he loves you so so dear

: post-awakened jin-woo (after the events of the carthenon temple)

> oh, dear it's the monarch-

> you weren't with him when he raided the "d-rank" dungeon that then turned out to be,, well pretty much a bloodbath, so you were very worried when you heard word of the news. you and jinah basically ran to the hospital and when you caught sight of him you almost fell down from relief and pure shock in seeing the state he's in. well, not long after though suddenly he's all buff and you were really trying to make sense of what's happening.

you: hello there good sir, what in the name of fck are you doing in my boyfriend’s room all sweaty and half-naked😀

jin-woo: (name) it’s me

you: haha yes, sir ‘it’s me’ that’s a pretty weird name but i don't judge, anyways my baby boy is not here uhm haha please get out of my boyfriend’s room

jin-woo: (name) it’s really me!

you: no sir, my woo radiates baby energy, you on the other hand radiates big dilf energy, haha i do not like what i am sensing so please for the life of me leave-

(jinah had to convince you that it is indeed jin-woo, you had her stop you from trying to hold his tiddies)

> you were very happy in seeing how confident he’s become, and you were even more proud with how he still says so humble despite his new accomplishments and title.

> it was obvious that he has become distant with others and have set a boundary between him and other hunters, you accept that part of him though since you know just how much he has gone through. he may act aloof towards others but he’s still very playful and comfortable with you.

> you have also noticed another thing though, he has become a bit possessive or much protective over you and jinah. he’d always have you bring a shadow with you to guard you when he can’t be with you. also, when someone stares at you for far too long, he’d step in and go, “hey there pal” and oh gosh was that enough to get the guy running (pretty damn hot)

> you still visit his mom with him, he doesn’t cry now though.

> when he trains, you’d insist on lying down below him when he does push-ups. you’d kiss him every time he swoops down and you’d hear him laugh which then makes you giggle as you hold his cheeks between your hands

> jinah is sick of the two you, always screaming about how on earth did her brother get an s/o before her, the audacity!

> his shadows adore you, of they’d always try to impress you or get head pats when you tell jin-woo to summon them for you. you live them to bits and always thanks them for a job well done in helping jin-woo with his raids. on the first time you accompanied him for a raid -you had to bribe him with more cuddles- and you were shocked with how his sweet adorable shadows turned a full 180, becoming ruthless towards the enemies. quite a show you’d say. after though, they’re back to flocking over you, even dismissing jin-woo lmao

jin-woo, watching you give each shadows head pats: i hate it here

you: get in line then

> it may be due to his newly acquired talents and his current mental and physical prowess but he has become more perceptive towards you. he can always read you and know just what your mood is and he always tries to make you feel better by giving his whole attention to you.

> of but of course, since dear jin-woo has become quite the looker, you also notice how girls flock over to him. and especially miss hae-in (she’s very sweet yes, but hey that’s your man so like—). the moment you discovered that she left her guild to join jin-woo’s, and then confessed (well basically she did) to your man, well you were upset but really who could blame her? instead of taking your frustrations out on her and your boyfriend, you decided to just talk it out with jin-woo and ask him about how it went. the two of you cleared it out and you got kisses and maybe even more after that ;))

> you and jin-ho are menaces to society when you are together, he hates how endearing and annoying you two can be. i mean, does he really hate it? nope, he absolutely loves seeing you two interact, although his head always throbs when you two start screaming to britney, gaga, and doja.

> a tease, he has become the master of being a tease, you hate it and love it at the same time. he’d trail kisses down your neck to your thighs and leave some marks then he’d suddenly walk away while asking you what take-out you want. rude, that’s what he is. ofc he always finished what he starts tho oop-

> he always randomly bites you now, you don’t know why but it’s really cute when he starts nibbling so you let him be.

> so extra when he tells you that he loves you. he professes it in such weird but adorable ways. one time he had printed out ‘i love you so much’ on a big-ass tarpaulin and had his shadows hold it for him while he’s kneeling down smoldering at you. you hate him so much (you don’t-). or that one time he bought a bouquet basket and had a ring tied to one of the flowers, you had to take the bouquet apart since the damn ring fell to the very bottom.

> sometimes when he gets back to the agency after his dungeon raids you and jin-ho would see him all grumpy and you immediately know that either he wasn’t able to make the enemy his soldier or his coat got ruined.

jin-woo: *sad noises*

jin-ho: that’s okay, you can kill and slaughter the others and take their souls next time

you: jin-ho couldn’t you have worded that better-

over-all, he’s the bestest boyfriend, such a sweet and handsome pretty boy much strong and reliable we love him<333

-•-

- a/n: i can add more to this if you’d like!! just hit me up again lmao it’s too long now so-

#sung jin woo x reader #sung jin woo #solo leveling #solo leveling x reader #manhwa #jin woo #jinwoo #sung jinwoo #winamikobabbles #sung jinwoo x reader

1K notes · View notes

kshitij1997 · 4 years

Text

Hello again!

This story goes more complex as I write it :D

Building from the cliff-hanger last time, I have a major responsibility of bringing this story justice. We shall meet a lot of new people this time, some of them we know from the movies, some we don't. I hope it turns out as satisfying and gripping as I intended.

All frozen and Tangled characters belong to Disney, all I own is this head-cannon and the original characters.

With that, let's continue!

Chapter 5- Of parents, their children and the legend of Flynn Rider

Even as the king and queen of Arendelle announced the arrival of princess Elsa, they were more worried about the kidnapping of princess Eva Rapunzel, which was a scandal that was starting to make the crown of Corona look bad. King Reginald deployed a massive force to look for the princess and her abductor across Europe, which was christened 'The Golden Knights'. While The Golden Knights were supported in Corona by the backing of the king, they were seen as invaders in the rest of Europe, as a legitimate threat to the sovereignty of various kingdoms in the continent. Things came to a head as The Golden Knights grew throughout Europe, with some opportunists recognizing the possibility of grabbing power. The kingdoms feared that The Golden Knights would enable the local people to hedge more power, instigate revolution and crumble the hard-earned peace after nearly three decades of war. Such was the state of early 19th century Europe, rapidly industrializing and rife with mistrust and caution even among royal families related by similar blood.

It was left to Iduna and Agnarr, who had already conceived their second child, to come to Corona's rescue; who promptly called a conference between all the European nations in the only non-aligned country on the continent, Switzerland. Nearly every country's monarch came, except for the Tsar of Russia and the Emperors of France and Great Britain, as their respective health had started to fail. They had sent their chief advisers. As for the Ottomans, they refused to attend as a gesture of defiance. With queen Iduna presiding over the meeting, king Agnarr began to speak. "Your most royal majesties, lend me your ears." Said Agnarr, as he addressed the conference "The pope has been kind enough to grant us this neutral ground in order to decide how the business of looking for princess Eva must be conducted in the continent, or beyond. Now, king Reginald saw it fit to summon a huge force to look for his daughter. It is our moral duty to help our fellow monarch in this time of distress." The Arendellian king proceeded to continue his speech when he was rudely interrupted.

"This is such a crock of shit." Spat the duke of Weselton "I personally cannot believe the energy put into searching for a lost girl of a godforsaken kingdom."

"What are you trying to say, honourable duke?" snarled king Reginald, even as Agnarr tried to calm him down.

Ignoring the implied death threat in the question, the duke continued " Every time a problem arises in Europe, it always comes from fucking Corona. Be it Napoleon deposing the former king or queen of Corona, or the king threatening war in the middle east either for restitution in Serbia from my biggest partners there; the Ottomans, or for exotic medicine for his cursed fucking wife, or now, when he sends an invading force into my fucking fief to look for his damn litter. It has been two months already, give up, let us live in some fucking piece already, and conceive again. It's not as if the princess was to be the heir anyway. Moreover, you and your wife obviously know how to-" the duke's rant was cut short as king Reginald lunged towards him, kicked him once in the gut and once under the belt, and then proceeded to throttle the life out of him.

"I'll POUND YOU TO FUCKING PIECES, YOU FUCKING WEASEL!" roared king Reginald, the six-foot three king more than a match for the five footer duke. He would have made good on his threat, had he not been held back by the kings of Arendelle, the Southern Isles and Austria-Hungary. Agnarr finally managed to pull Reginald away and slapped him in the face "What the fuck is wrong with you, Reginald?!" Agnarr screamed to Reginald in the face, and Reginald was ready in sock him in the face, when-

"SILENCE!" thundered queen Iduna and banged the dais with her hands, which stunned everyone into being quiet. "WE WILL NOT REACH AN ACCORD IF WE CONTINUE TRYING TO ANTAGONIZE THE KING OF CORONA WHEN HE FACES THIS TOUGH TIME! MOREOVER, SUCH UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE AND VIOLENCE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN THIS SOLEMN GATHERING!" Iduna finished her tirade, then began again "I shall at once direct king Agnarr and king Reginald towards a period of recess, during which time they shall settle their differences peacefully and reach common ground again. As for the duke of Weselton, his disgusting behaviour and efforts towards instigating discord in this meeting, are grounds enough for me to expel him from the conference with prejudice." Iduna finished as she settled down.

The duke was beside himself with anger "I get kicked out of the meeting for calling a spade a spade?! All right….in front of all the kings of Europe I say this, your kingdom will regret this decision, Iduna."

"Leave of your own volition before you are defenestrated." Iduna said with a voice ice-cold, as the marshals prepared to throw out the troublemaker. Anticipating a painful recovery if he were thrown out from the windows, the duke beat a hasty retreat.

"Swine" muttered king Christian of the Southern Isles under his breath.

The gathering continued more or less smoothly after the duke's departure as Agnarr and Reginald were able to calm down and join the conference again. To remove any troubling feudal implications from the Golden Knights, it was agreed to change it from an armed force to a humanitarian one; a landmark decision as no prior organization like that had ever existed. While its primary objection was to still locate the lost princess and hopefully bring her kidnapper to justice, the Golden Knights now became a proto salvation army, setting makeshift camps, soup kitchens and clinics in princess Eva's name all over Europe. Resistance was still met; but it never broke out into open revolt.

Some questioned where queen Sophia was in all this. European society expected her to be the distraught and helpless parent praying for her child's safety, rescue and return. However, queen Sophia was not most people. She had been down this road before, wallowing in her misery and praying for fortune to reverse its unkind ways. But now she knew better. As Iduna and Agnarr went to support her dear Reggie, she stayed back in order to care for baby princess Elsa. It was she who nursed the curiously cold child. When she discovered her secret as Elsa's emotions became more prominent, she embraced her presence even further. The baby ice princess was unusually intelligent for her age, always understanding when Sophia was sad, or happy, and acted accordingly, making snowflakes and loud gurgling noises, which melted the queen's heart. As for the public, queen Sophia turned her attention to public welfare, instituting public laws that protected the wages of the emerging working class in the cities, and creating a vast chain of clinics, hospitals, and orphanages and institutions, all this in princess Eva's name. Soon, it led to Corona having the most public-centred and public-friendly policies in Europe, which brought both the king and queen respect from across the continent. When asked why this sudden change, she simply answered,

"When a mother loses a child, all that love has to go somewhere. And what are the citizens of this great kingdom if not my metaphorical kids." It was a masterstroke of an answer that endeared her to the public, along with adding princess Eva's name in all her ventures. Princess Eva soon acquired a mythical status, a figure who was sacrificed to bring prosperity to the people of Corona.

As good natured and effective Sophia's take care demeanour was, it couldn't keep away the outside world from drastic change. In this din and pandemonium of all these things, the thirteenth child of king Christian was born without incident. It was a young boy, who took after his polish mother in terms of hair and eyes and took after the king in his nose and general face. His mother planned to name the prince Janus, after the great Polish king Jan Sobieski, who had led the charge of the winged hussars, ousting the Ottomans out of Vienna and protecting Europe from Ottoman dominance and suppression back in 1683. However, the king of the Southern Isles didn't care much for the name, believing it was too effeminate and silly for a prince, and had him christened to the more publicly acceptable Hans. His mother seethed at this utter disregard for her culture and identity to such an extent that, even as the baby prince was only beginning to recognize those around him, she decided to make sure prince Hans was raised Polish first. The fact that the Russian Empire, Corona and Austria-Hungary took every opportunity to carve out new territory from her ancestral home of Poland didn't help soothe her rage.

As for Sophia's policies, while they did a lot to bring the ever-increasing middle class out of poverty, it brought new problems along with them. Consider the Rhineland, the new industrial heartland of Corona. Even as the kingdom was modernizing, the climate of Northern Europe had started to change. As a result, the rains in the kingdom had started to dwindle, leaving agriculture not a very viable option for the populace. The cities of the Rhineland had started to burst at the seams with new arrivals from the countryside as a result, and the cities had become saturated with people from all walks and varieties of life as a result, from artisans, scholars and philosophers to the bargemen, dockworkers, other various blue collar jobs and veterans from the Napoleonic wars. There were a lot of orphans from the Napoleonic wars in Rhineland, and the cities had various orphanages built to accommodate them. However, while it was comparatively easy to build new spaces for those orphans to live in, trying to raise them into model members of society was a different beast all together. Soon, there were scores of kids doing odd jobs like selling trinkets, sweets or little items like candles and matchsticks on the street, sometimes sneaking into factories and demanding work from the factory owners, who readily gave them work, quietly ignoring the child labour laws the Monarchy of Corona had set up. Some found their real home on the street, joining a gang to get a piece of the action.

Two such children with these stories were Eugene and Mabel, a couple of nine-year olds who had become friends in one such orphanage. However, the two couldn't be further different from each other. Mabel believed in the good in people and honesty, raising money on her own in order to afford to go to those new-fangled schools being set up in the country. To raise said money, she often sold odd titbits on the road to pedestrians and passers-by. Eugene didn't believe in such lofty ideals, choosing instead to believe in standing up for himself and being on the never-ending hustle. Eugene was part of a gang of 10-year-old robbers led by a brutish eleven-year-old boy named Markus, and they regularly held up carriages and coaches inside and outside the city. Eugene got into the gang through his presence of mind and wit, and his ability to look innocent. It was Eugene who came up with the shivering dodge, the lucifer dodge and the scaldrum dodge. The shivering dodge was bit of play-acting, making oneself shiver by bathing in cold water, when one could get their hands on it, or wearing their thinnest clothes to make sure they shiver. Then one would go around the streets of the city, pleading for money for a warm coat or a hot beverage. As for the lucifer dodge, one carried some trinkets, and pretended to be pushed when a rich toff passed by, throwing one's merchandise on the ground. Looking at their ruined shop, they would pretend to bawl their hearts out and people would throw some coins in sympathy. Lastly, the scaldrum dodge, which Eugene found disgusting, but fell back onto in desperate times. It involved bruising oneself, by rubbing vinegar open soapy arms making them look like nasty blisters. It was uncomfortable and dirty, but at least one could get to spend a few days in the hospitals that were set up recently. Moreover, one could lay low in the hospital to stay away from watchful eyes of the law, which was beginning to crack down on gangs like theirs.

It was a clear contrast to what Markus preferred to do; garrotting. A typical garrotter used to hide in the horse-drawn carriages that carried people around. During the ride, the garrotter choked the passenger by his knuckles, being careful not to crush the windpipe and kill the unfortunate sod but enough to render them unconscious, then robbing the unconscious passenger and paying the carriage driver who was in on it. Another favourite money-maker of his was to nick purses at a public execution, to disappear into a crowd of spectators and ending up with enough wallets and cash for weeks. Last but not the least, there was always the smuggling of tea, China and other such valuables along the shipping routes of the Rhine river into all of Europe, and into Arendelle's canals and the dark sea up north as well. Markus' ways were rewarding but dangerous, as it was clearly a crime punishable by death.

Eugene's scams were far safer and as a result ,they were decent money makers, and soon a lot of kids were doing it for some pocket cash, but they had to pay tribute to Markus and Eugene, who were the clear two leaders of the gang. It was a strange camaraderie between the two of them. For to the world, Eugene went by his own name, but for Markus, he was Flynn.

"The fuck kind of name is Eugene anyway, huh? What are ya, bent?" Markus cackled once during such a talk. "The fuck does that mean, asshole?" Eugene grinned.

"It's not just the name, the whole damn act that you put, you know." Markus said.

"Brings in the dosh now, don't it? And without the noose threatening me neck" Eugene replied.

"True, but that's the street life I chose." said Markus. He loved the streets and saw no future for himself beyond that.

"You make me sad, you bastard. I see myself living in a big house, with the love of me life beside me, and an army of servants to lord over."

"Like the mansion at the outside the city huh? With your little trick?"

"Sure. However, she ain't no trick. Her name is Mabel."

"I know who she is, and I also know she don't like me."

"Well , you ain't no choir boy, punk."

"Yes and thank fuck for that."

"Ha! You twat!" Eugene laughed.

"Right back at ya, fuckin' romantic actor!" Markus laughed back.

Markus may have been an oaf, but he was right about how Mabel felt about him "That guy's a bad influence."

"A 'bad influence'? The fuck does that mean, Mabel?"

"It means he's rubbin' off you the wrong way, Eugene. In addition, if you want to cuss like a sailor, go to the barge and earn your keep."

"Bad influence, in addition, money well spent on books, eh?"

"It's our job innit? To become better and rise up?"

"Aye, that's what I'm doing, Mabel."

"Yeah, for the big house, huh?"

It was well-known throughout the orphanage how Eugene claimed that he would own that mansion one day. He used to get starry eyes when he started talking about it. If there was a child in Eugene, he came up in times like this.

"Hmm" rued Eugene.

"Speaking of that mansion, I got a job there, as a seller from the mansion." Said Mabel with a smile.

"Fuckin' result, that's damn neat!" shouted Eugene excitedly as he hugged Mabel.

"Eugene!"

"Sorry, got excited in the moment."

"That's all right, I think it's swell too. But if I want to study, I got to earn quick and stop working." finished Mabel.

"Don't worry about dosh, I always have some."

"Sure, but no more scams alright? They're cracking down on stuff like that."

"I swear I'll be sharp, Mabel."

"As for Markus, look I don't think he's that bad, but he's certainly an idiot. You gotta take care of him, make sure he doesn't land in any scuffles."

"Okay. I'll do it."

"Promise?"

"Sure"

"Look at you, taking charge." Mabel grinned.

"Look at you, moving up and caring for Markus." Eugene laughed.

"Hey Mabel, call me Flynn from now on."

"No" giggled Mabel as she gave him a small peck on his cheek.

This happy mood was not to last, as it became clearer to Eugene that Mabel was becoming miserable a few months later, towards the end of the year. It was a mansion in all but name as her employer was a hard-hearted taskmaster, resorting to abuse if his targets were not met, and poor Mabel suffered the worst of it, both physical and emotional. As for Markus, his life had become tougher as the law was coming down on his operation, and it was becoming tougher to buy off the bargemen, the carriage drivers and the law as a result.

"Those sons of bitches, they dare PISS IN MY HAT?!" screamed Markus on one such day.

"Zip it Mark" Eugene tried to calm him down.

"If those bargemen don't straighten up, I'll set their fuckin' ships ablaze, you hear me, Flynn?" Markus growled.

"You realize that they can wring your neck in one go, right? Don't be stupid. Talk to them, reach an accord and put this shit to bed." Eugene spoke.

"Reach an accord? Another expression from Mabel, eh Flynn?" Markus snapped

"Don't joke about her right now, she's in terrible shape. I gotta help her too somehow."

"Then go with her, don't worry about me, I'll talk to them." Markus said

"Yeah, burning their fuckin' ships?!" Eugene exclaimed incredulously

"Hey, I was just hurtin' and blowin' off some steam there, alright Flynn? Even I know better than to engage those seven-foot giants in a mosh pit." Markus replied.

"Alright, fine. I'll go with Mabel. Just don't blow your head open, Mark." said Eugene as he went on his way to Mabel.

What he saw Mabel, it wasn't a pretty sight.

There she was, in torn rags, bruised all over, beaten half to death and possibly molested, or worse.

"Eugene!" she cried as she collapsed into his chest, his vest quickly becoming wet from her tears and her blood as she sobbed.

"Who did this?" Eugene growled, even if he had half guessed who it was.

"They abused me and….threw me out in the middle of winter to fend for myself." Mabel wept, as she caught her breath.

"The people at the mansion?"

"Yes"

"I had to do something I never thought I would do, even in the direst of situations." Mabel cried.

"What?" Eugene asked, dreading how she might answer.

"I stole a week's supplies, planning to escape from that torturous place. I thought I could get out of the city, after selling what I could, then go as far away as possible from there. But I was caught. Those bastards, they beat the life out of me, and stripped me naked and-." Mabel couldn't finish her sentence as she crumbled into sobs again.

Eugene tried holding on to her, tears ebbing out of his eyes, but Mabel pushed him away, clearly hiding something she either couldn't tell Eugene out of shame, or at a loss to explain what had been done to her. Eugene considered going to the law, but decided against it, as it wouldn't change anything. He was jolted out of his thoughts when Mabel began again,

"Eugene, you've always been good to me, thank you so much for that. But I'm afraid I must get out of this city, and never come back."

"Wait, don't go! I'll make sure they pay, I promise." Eugene pleaded.

"I can't stay here after what happened, I must leave." Mabel pleaded back.

"Eugene choked back a lump that threatened to become a bawl when he said "Alright, but at least take some cash." He gave her his day's cut of his operation, two Corona Marks, which would have been enough to sustain someone for a month.

Mabel embraced him in gratitude before scurrying out of sight. Eugene sighed "Maybe, someday, she'll come back."

Alas, but there was no joyful end to Mabel's plight, as a rival gang member, jealous of Eugene, followed Mabel and beat her up again, and robbed her at knifepoint. He didn't even spare her shawl, which she used for covering herself, leaving her further bruised, in tatters and only a few matchboxes to keep her company as it started snowing on Christmas eve.

Eugene was ignorant of this misfortune as he scurried back to Markus, who'd been done for.

It had started well for Markus, as he had managed to find common ground with the carriage drivers and most of the law enforcers, but he made the mistake of going alone without muscle to back him up. The bargemen took the opportunity to anger Markus, who lunged at them with his razor. But it was over in an instant for poor Markus, as the bargemen broke his neck with one smack of their hand, and law enforcers shot him in the head for good measure. There Markus lay dead, his face blackened and bloody onto the snowy streets.

Eugene stepped back from the corpse in horror at the realization; he'll have to turn rat to save himself.

And so he did, in the snowy, dark night of Christmas eve 1820.

He went straight to the magistrate's office, cut a deal with law enforcement to let him go, after ratting out everyone from the three rival gangs to the corrupt law enforcers and bargemen. It was mayhem in the city that night, as the rival gangs were dealt with extreme prejudice, and the other bargemen, law enforcers and carriage drivers were arrested and dealt with savagely. Even the smuggling cargo ships were set ablaze or sunk.

It was an emotionally drained and tired Eugene who started to arrange for his departure from the city on Christmas morning when he glanced at something, or someone that would stand as a sheet of flame in his memory forever.

There lay Mabel, cooped up in a street corner, under nearly half a foot of snow, frozen to death.

Evidently, the poor girl had burned up the few matchsticks that she had left to keep warm. She had also tried in vain to knock on the doors and beg to be taken in for the night. Tragically, the Christmas spirit of giving didn't apply to a supposed bottom-feeding orphan like her.

But now, a crowd had started to gather around the frozen corpse, the people now showing sympathy to the lost soul according to their convenience. Eugene moved away from the scene in disgust. He hated it, he hated them all, he hated this fucking city. Fuck them, fuck them all.

As he moved towards the outskirts of the city, his aggrieved rage renewed when he saw the big house again. It all started here, for him, for Mabel, for all of them.

Once, staying in that house was all that he ever wanted.

Now, the mere sight of that monstrosity made him retch.

He sneaked into the house's kitchen, lit some coals alight, and let them loose onto the flammable powdered flour. As for good measure, he barred all the escape routes once he came out, cut loose one of the tethered horses, and rode off into the dawn as the house started burning in earnest, and the screams of people being charred to death could be heard in the distance.

It was pandemonium with all this chaos in the city, with rumours of a certain Flynn Rider exposing the criminal gangs, the corrupt officials and the bargemen. It was further rumoured that it was the same Flynn Rider burnt down the house that rumoured tortured little children for amusement and made them work almost to death, directly in violation to the Monarch's laws.

And thus, on Christmas day 1820, the legend of Flynn Rider came to be.

Whoa, this was a painful chapter to write.

As I can see, this is shaping up to be a neat Tangled-Frozen crossover, I promise I'll get to everyone in time.

Hang in there, people!

As always, constructive feedback is always welcome.

#frozen #frozen tangled #frozen fanfiction #frozen fanfic #frozen angst #tangled #eugene tangled #frozen fandom #tangled fanfiction #tangled fandom

3 notes · View notes

theteenagetrickster · 4 years

Text

Do certainly not Forget Allen and Twaha as our experts battle the U-r-b-a-n N-a-z-i|KAFILA-- 12 YEARS OF An USUAL QUEST

As our company in Kerala prepare for the long problem that may end merely when the misery of Hindutva is eventually rooted out coming from India as well as Kerala, as well as merely after the toxins that it has gushed is actually rubbed well-maintained coming from the hearts as well as hearts of our brethren, my only ask for is actually: satisfy do not neglect Allen as well as Twaha.

These two boys-- steadfast employees of the CPM-- were recently implicated of being actually Maoists as well as indeed-- 'metropolitan Naxalites'-- and detained on the flimsiest premises you can possibly imagine. These are 2 curious youths who found to understand arguments that Maoists made, by no stretch of imagination might they be looked at Maoists. Among all of them, Allen, is a third-generation CPM participant, as well as his household is very well-connected within the CPM. None of this mattered-- after a lengthy wait in which the loved ones felt that the best CPM management will come to their help, they were punished through the celebration, the condition authorities to deal with costs under the UAPA, and also left to the graces of the NIA. A lot articulation of grief from colleagues and also good friends adhered to, alongside protestations of vulnerability right now.

Even as I laud the attempts of the CPM to withstand the awful programs of the central federal government, I may not aid reasoning of exactly how very closely our lives are in fact regulated through the Hindutva program although it is not the ideology of the ruling federal government. Insiders claim that Allen and Twaha were actually lost despite the fact that the government was actually fully enticed of their virtue. The management apparently fears the allegation that the CPM is actually a Muslim-controlled company-- that it will certainly affect the a large number voter-base consisted of Hindus. To assume that 2 youths (one significant reason that they are actually ideal sacrificial sufferers is undoubtedly the reality that they carry Muslim labels) may be thrown to the killers enjoy this-- without a snippet of reliable evidence-- only considering that the dominant left fears of electoral collapse, or more notably, because it is no more confident of repairing its hegemony on secular reasons, is galling.

Definitely, this is actually nearly inescapable. The CPM fixed its own hegemony in the 1990s on secular premises-- of local-level decentralized development-- neutralizing the dalit, feminist, adivasi, as well as rising Muslim reviews of the prevalent left, yet the here and now management is no more dedicated to it. The visible and also ostentatious buying of crony capitalists due to the found CPM leadership suggests that it actually possesses no information at all to create a new nonreligious hegemony. This was abundantly crystal clear when the CPM leadership chose to neglect the new public culture, primarily of younger people, that surfaced after the horrendous floods of 2018. This brand new development was centred around an ethics of mutual providing, what seemed to be an extraordinary launch from the stifling lifestyle of neoliberalism that had choked our ethical as well as political lifestyles over the previous twenty years. This will possess been an excellent bottom for the CPM to rejuvenate its own hegemony, for it took a fully new, youthful generation of folks-- the millennials-- right into the talk of sub-national pride as well as progression. Nevertheless, today leadership of the CPM picked to continue to be within the cozy accept of crony financing as well as predacious machines of natural sources denied it and permitted it to fritter away.

Because of this, the only procedure that the CPM can perhaps enjoy the collective resist the CAA and also NCR is actually an unsafe tight-rope walk in between maintaining the Hindu majoritarians happy and also taking over the placement of the protectors of the Muslims. The most convenient means of doing this is to predict majoritarian insecurities on the much smaller, singing teams advocating various purist variations of Islam, as well as those which accelerate extreme anti-caste politics, or ladies 'activists' who breach the revered room of Sabarimala, and so on, as well as crush all of them, consequently obtaining for on their own the image of a 'fair' secular guard. The opposite side of this particular 'secular security' is actually that radical variations of Hinduism, consisting of Hindutva neglected to the biggest feasible degree-- also the torment camps established through Hindutva agents to reconvert youths who were actually married to non-Hindus that were revealed during the course of the Hadiya instance were lightly sought.

It is very easy to see the relationship: those of our team that respond to the call through the CPM leadership to rally behind them in the anti-CAA-NRC protests must always be aware of the reality that the CPM's extremely ability to take that posture relaxes on its ongoing manufacturing of evidence for its devotion to the mainstream middle-class Hindu large number. That is, the CPM's current nonreligious picture is constructed upon its being rejected of these innocent boys, for, evidently, their self defense would certainly make the bulk insecure! It is actually additionally developed on going simple on Hindutva hooligans-- when they attack dalits, women, muslims and other individuals considered minimal by the ruling purchase of brahminism.

In this situation, it is actually certainly not clear anymore if pundits who have built their careers by means of allowing the prevalent left's patronage have any sort of function left, even. A number of them that I have recognized over recent many years appear to become sliding gradually into a pained muteness, or maybe anxiety. Most of all of them keep social workplaces handed to all of them through the party management; several others have obtained jobs with influencing consultation boards and also other authorizations directly or even indirectly. Most of these folks carried out think about on their own as having an independent posture regardless of their reliance on the CPM; or even, they carried out certainly not really feel that their near obedience to the CPM would demand them to censor on their own truly. However the Allen-Twaha instance seems to be to be showing typically. The entire accident seems to be highlighted also more firmly the serf-like entry the management anticipates of them.

I nevertheless still can not assist inquiring: why carried out certainly not these folks see the prejudice executed on those pair of younger males as a celebration to declare on their own? What will possess happened if all of them punished the federal government's as well as management's prejudice openly and revealed their longanimity from social workplaces?

The fact is that harasses will continue their intimidation provided that the victims are unable to present the moral guts to stand up to them in a continual way. That is the session that CPM and also all its own acolytes who possess, appropriately, led to, as they plunge into the anti-CAA-NCR struggle. Yet it is also one that the latter requirements to know-- if they possess any type of self-regard left.

This content was originally published here.

0 notes

gentlemansaurusrex · 5 years

Text

Evading the “Jaws” of Injustice

Hey y’all, for this week, we are going to dive into one of the most interesting military and judicial cases of the 19th and 20th Century. I discovered this topic, much like that of Belzoni through my 19th Century Europe class. This event was one of the biggest mass media events next to the sinking of the Titanic and the Jack the Ripper cases in London, England. Myself, as well as, many of my friends and colleagues have beaten this subject to death by reading a massive synopsis of this court case written thoroughly by a French lawyer. This court case that rocked France to the brink of war was the case known as the Dreyfus Affair. Before we get into the meat of this case, I must discuss the wonders of Geography.

Most people looking at a map can point out the location of France. For those who do not know, it is in Western Europe bordering Spain, Andorra, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and their historical rival of Germany. From 1870 to 1871, Germany, known as Prussia at the time, declared war against France through the artful statesman of the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The war was a result of Prussia’s ambition to have a unified German state. France saw this as a threat to their own ambitions. Prussia, coming from a very strong military tradition defeated France’s forces. The peace deal humiliated France and with that the historic area of Alsace-Lorraine (two geographic areas that form together). Today it is part of France, but historically the area, often through peace deals in war, has been traded back and force between France and Germany. Alsace-Lorraine has formed a unique language and cultured based on these circumstances. It is also a beautiful area where I spent a good chunk of time while on a trip to Europe. Now, reading this, you many really confused on why I am getting over excited about French and German geography. To answer this possible question, during the Dreyfus Affair, the Alsace-Lorrain region -specifically Alsace- was controlled by Germany. The man in question, Alfred Dreyfus, was Alsatian.

Now regarding Dreyfus’ Alsatian background, you may be wondering why that has anything to do with anything. Before we can talk about the whys, what’s, when’s, where’s, and all the simple questions, we must make it more confusing. Before Alfred served alongside Batman, he was an artillery officer in the French army who served as part of the General’s staff. One day, a lady was cleaning out an office and discovered a handwritten letter in the German Embassy in Paris. The letter was like a shopping list but instead of delicious French bread and the makings of a fine breakfast, it was planned from the French army. The list included plans for the use of different artillery as well as a note regarding a French colony off the coast of Africa known as Madagascar. After the letter was examined, the French Counterintelligence hired specialists to comb through their artillery officers handwriting to possibly figure out who wrote the note. This is where Alsace comes into play. Dreyfus was one of the men that the counterintelligence agents suspected. The reason being was that his handwriting was similar, plus he came from Alsace. While when Dreyfus was born, it was a French territory, it was then German. Due to loosely based evidence and the coincidences, Dreyfus was arrested.

The arrest came to a surprise to Dreyfus. I mean anyone accused of anything would be surprised, but Dreyfus was innocent, and most people knew it. His brother, Matthieu heard about the arrest and quickly went to get him out but was unsuccessful. Despite failing to get his brother out of jail, he still did his best to rally support pleading his innocence. Like most trials, there are usually multiple sides. This was the case for the Dreyfus affair as well. Unfortunately, more people were against Dreyfus because he was accused of betraying his country. During the investigation into Dreyfus, many already hated him but it became worse after finding out that he was Jewish. The newspapers and magazines exploded once they found this out. Paris was notorious for its anti-Semitic views. People in every walk of life became involved with this case now. There were those who supported Dreyfus, they called themselves Dreyfusards and there were those who simply hated him because of who he was called Anti-Dreyfusards. Looking at France, political divisions and instability are as common as a cold. This affair quickly engulfed the country, and many in the political arena involved themselves.

While France was fighting itself, literally, Dreyfus was sent to Devil’s Island off the coast of French Guiana. Dreyfus was the only person living on the island, aside from those who were supposed to watch over him. It was possible for Dreyfus to escape, but an escape would only make him more suspicious even if he did not commit any crime. During Dreyfus’ stay on the island he became sick. His French keepers treated him harshly where they eventually confined him to his room where he was chained to his bed. Despite limited mobility, Dreyfus could continue to write to his wife, Lucie. Lucie constantly encouraged Dreyfus to persist even if he felt like giving up and succumbing to his conditions. While Dreyfus sulked on Devil’s Island, he becomes a French national celebrity without knowing it as the affair grew to bigger proportions.

While the military was mixed on their stance during the affair, there were people who approached it neutrally then decided to take a stand. One such figure was Lieutenant Colonel Georges Picquart. Picquart went into the investigation seeking the truth. After discussing it with other French officers, politicians, and other officials, he concluded that Dreyfus was not the culprit. Picquart suggested that the criminal was Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy. Esterhazy was known to indulge himself with liquor and prostitutes, which heavily affected his standing with the military. Despite substantial proof from Picquart that Esterhazy was the real spy, nobody would listen to Picquart. Eventually, the French higher authorities suggest that Picquart needed to take a break from the investigation indefinitely. He was then sent to Tunisia. The higher ups did their best to keep this information away from the press, but it was released eventually due to feuding parties within the military.

Prominent journalists who were Dreyfusards were Emile Zola, Georges Clemenceau (the mustache of WW1 France), and Leon Blum. Zola, who's named sounds like Arnim Zola from Marvel received fame in the middle of this affair because of his writing. The writing, known as J’Accuse, was a letter to the French government heavily criticizing the way that the affair was being handled. This was a huge win for the Dreyfusards. Clemenceau received fame from his magazine, L’Aurore. He was brave enough to publish Zola’s letter. Later, Clemenceau would become the French Prime Minister and Leader during World War One. Like Blum, he was a socialist and deemed radical that was against the Anti-Dreyfusard campaign of injustice. He too would become a French Prime Minister in the years leading up to World War Two. Anyways, the 12-year run of the Dreyfus Affair is about to be wrapped up thanks for Manuel Baudoin.

Baudoin was a leading lawyer of the second trial in 1906. He established that everyone and anything involved in this case was to be restored to normal like nothing had happened. This meant that Dreyfus, Picquart and Esterhazy were all free of charges. Which was great, except that it wasn’t. Dreyfus endured years of imprisonment but, became a national celebrity. Picquart suffered humiliation. Esterhazy eventually ran away from France. Some pros that came out of this negative affair was that France reviewed itself. Monarchist and reactionary forces did not win, but it was a huge success for a more democratic France. Dreyfus was reinstated with his rank and served France diligently. He fought in World War One and made it to 1935 which was one year before Europe fell into World War Two. Picquart died in 1914 due to a horse-riding accident, the same year WW1 started. The Dreyfus Affair was a mess, but it was one of the most publicized events in the world during its time. It is a neat piece of French, European, and journalistic history. Unfortunately, this was the second largest affair to rock France. While it had more of political implication, the Faure Affair where a French president was killed by his mistress is considered the first. I will leave you all with one last fun fact. Richard Dreyfus, the actor who played in Mr. Holland’s Opus and Jaws consider himself to be a descendant or close relative to Alfred Dreyfus. Richard Dreyfus also starred in the movie titled A Prisoner of Honor, where he played Picquart. Anyways, there is the Dreyfus Affair.

Next Week: Kurt Cobain and Nirvana

#history

0 notes

dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram · 7 years

Note

Hello! I am v interested in the chav discourse that you mentioned in your tags (and also in the weird fandom discourse about Harry being 'posh', which I find really strange though I think it comes from a misunderstanding of what 'posh' actually signifies). I think of 'chav' and 'chavvy' as slur words so always do a double-take when I see them used even in a neutral way. To me it implies working-classness but also (potential) petty criminality - so it's really not a term to use of someone else -1

I think Louis's athleisure looks are all about the audience he is trying to reach with his EDM collaborations, and that audience is much wider than a UK one which might understand his look as communicating his working-classness... (I know you weren't using 'chav' lightly, I hope my previous didn't suggest that - I'd be off anon if I wasn't at work! my url is kit-catclub. would love to discuss with you as I always appreciate your views) 2

*******

Thanks for your ask! I’ve been hoping for an ask to help focus my incoherent rage at the way people have been talking about Louis and about working-class people. I won’t really be able to touch on Harry - except I think what’s going on is his original position as the posh one in One Direction (which I wrote about here) has overlapped with people’s feelings about him the most celebrity member of One Direction - when as you say they’re very different.

I think the best way to explain my reaction to the way people have been using the word ‘chav’ is with a metaphor. Lets imagine girl direction for a moment - and instead of people worrying that Louis is coming across as a ‘chav’ people are worried that girl!Louis is coming across as a slut. People write elaborate asks about how they’re worried that certain things she’s doing will make her come across as a slut and damage her reputation. Anons talk about how her styling is creating a certain image and they want her to wear different clothes because the general public might think she was a slut - and that erases successful businesswoman!Louis and superstar!Louis.

I think most fans would recognise this as quite hateful rhetoric - not just about girl!Louis, but about women more generally. Chav isn’t just a slur, because it’s a bad thing to suggest about someone, it’s a slur because it conveys a hateful view about a group of people. People who loudly worry that someone your a fan of is being forced to come across as a slut - you are promoting a hateful view of women. People who loudly worry that Louis is coming across as a ‘chav’ are promoting a hateful view of working-class people.

I’m being a little bit kinder than I feel here, because I’m aware that some of B’s anons could be very young and repeating ideas that they haven’t fully processed. But someone actually used the phrase ‘You can take the boy out of Doncaster, but you can’t take Doncaster out of the boy’ (although they didn’t say Doncaster). And that view is vile and vile is the nicest thing I could say about it (I’ve just been reading the report of the Hillsborough independant inquiry - I would actually say that such a view is murderous).

People who are like - oh it’s so terrible that Louis is seen in public eating McDonalds and wearing trackpants and smoking - that ruins his image - can pretend all they like that they’re just talking about public image - but they’re actually judging Louis. There is every reason to think that he does in fact smoke, eat McDonalds and wear trackpants. (And they’re also revealing that they have monstrous, abhorrent, snobbish views - but I sort of covered that already).

The other thing I want to say about this whole mess is to talk directly about what ‘chav’ means. People have been prepared to throw out some really specific signifiers of things that Louis (and even worse Lottie) are doing that makes them come across as ‘Chavs’. It is smoking and McDonalds and Trackpants and airport fights. Just like the term sluts is fundamentally criticising unruly women - the term chavs is criticising unruly working-class people. All those signifiers are things that are contrary to good middle class ideas of what moral citizens look like (I’m not going to expand on this idea now - although I could go on for some time - but I think Charlie Brooker nails it in this piece about Jamie Oliver). The implication of Louis coming across as a ‘chav’ isn’t just that he’s coming across as working-class - but he’s coming across as a working-class person who is disgusting and dangerous because he won’t do what he’s told. (I’m going to park the question of Louis’ actual class position then or now and how that relates to all this - this post is about image).

This is a really interesting contrast to One Direction - who were very much launched in in the UK in the immediate aftermath of the London riots - as working-class boys made good who were compliant and would perform for middle-class people (I go more into that idea here). It’s a very different positioning from where they started - so I can see why it makes people anxious - but I have a very different reaction.

I am very much in favour of unruly working-class people, just as I am very much in favour of unruly women. I don’t know, I don’t think we can know, where Louis image is coming from, how he’s positioning himself, what various pressures he is navigating or what he feels about it. But I’m certainly not going to suggest that an image of compliance and willingness to perform for power is somehow better than an unruly image.

#There's more I could say #about how this part of the fandom's desire to erase Louis' laddishness #actually ends up promoting a form of homophobia and erasure #I may also have some thoughts about Louis' styling #but I won't be able to access them #until I've fully processed my rage at the things other people have been saying about Louis' styling #it may be some time #I agree that the reason for Louis styling is about much more than the UK market #although I suspect he is very UK conscious #Anonymous

49 notes · View notes

2libras · 7 years

Text

My Body Is a Prison of Pain so I Want to Leave It Like a Mystic But I Also Love It & Want it to Matter Politically, Johanna Hedva

In late 2014, I was sick with a chronic condition that, about every 12 to 18 months, gets bad enough to render me, for about five months each time, unable to walk, drive, do my job, sometimes speak or understand language, take a bath without assistance, and leave the bed. This particular flare coincided with the Black Lives Matter protests, which I would have attended unremittingly, had I been able to. I live one block away from MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, a predominantly Latino neighborhood and one colloquially understood to be the place where many immigrants begin their American lives. The park, then, is not surprisingly one of the most active places of protest in the city.

I listened to the sounds of the marches as they drifted up to my window. Attached to the bed, I rose up my sick woman fist, in solidarity.

I started to think about what modes of protest are afforded to sick people – it seemed to me that many for whom Black Lives Matter is especially in service, might not be able to be present for the marches because they were imprisoned by a job, the threat of being fired from their job if they marched, or literal incarceration, and of course the threat of violence and police brutality – but also because of illness or disability, or because they were caring for someone with an illness or disability.

I thought of all the other invisible bodies, with their fists up, tucked away and out of sight.

If we take Hannah Arendt’s definition of the political – which is still one of the most dominant in mainstream discourse – as being any action that is performed in public, we must contend with the implications of what that excludes. If being present in public is what is required to be political, then whole swathes of the population can be deemed a-political – simply because they are not physically able to get their bodies into the street.

In my graduate program, Arendt was a kind of god, and so I was trained to think that her definition of the political was radically liberating. Of course, I can see that it was, in its own way, in its time (the late 1950s): in one fell swoop she got rid of the need for infrastructures of law, the democratic process of voting, the reliance on individuals who’ve accumulated the power to affect policy – she got rid of the need for policy at all. All of these had been required for an action to be considered political and visible as such. No, Arendt said, just get your body into the street, and bam: political.

There are two failures here, though. The first is her reliance on a “public” – which requires a private, a binary between visible and invisible space. This meant that whatever takes place in private is not political. So, you can beat your wife in private and it doesn’t matter, for instance. You can send private emails containing racial slurs, but since they weren’t “meant for the public,” you are somehow not racist. Arendt was worried that if everything can be considered political, then nothing will be, which is why she divided the space into one that is political and one that is not. But for the sake of this anxiety, she chose to sacrifice whole groups of people, to continue to banish them to invisibility and political irrelevance. She chose to keep them out of the public sphere. I’m not the first to take Arendt to task for this. The failure of Arendt’s political was immediately exposed in the civil rights activism and feminism of the 1960s and 70s. “The personal is political” can also be read as saying “the private is political.” Because of course, everything you do in private is political: who you have sex with, how long your showers are, if you have access to clean water for a shower at all, and so on.

There is another problem too. As Judith Butler put it in her 2015 lecture, “Vulnerability and Resistance,” Arendt failed to account for who is allowed in to the public space, of who’s in charge of the public. Or, more specifically, who’s in charge of who gets in. Butler says that there is always one thing true about a public demonstration: the police are already there, or they are coming. This resonates with frightening force when considering the context of Black Lives Matter. The inevitability of violence at a demonstration – especially a demonstration that emerged to insist upon the importance of bodies who’ve been violently un-cared for – ensures that a certain amount of people won’t, because they can’t, show up. Couple this with physical and mental illnesses and disabilities that keep people in bed and at home, and we must contend with the fact that many whom these protests are for, are not able to participate in them – which means they are not able to be visible as political activists.

There was a Tumblr post that came across my dash during these weeks of protest, that said something to the effect of: “shout out to all the disabled people, sick people, people with PTSD, anxiety, etc., who can’t protest in the streets with us tonight. Your voices are heard and valued, and with us.” Heart. Reblog.

So, as I lay there, unable to march, hold up a sign, shout a slogan that would be heard, or be visible in any traditional capacity as a political being, the central question of Sick Woman Theory formed: How do you throw a brick through the window of a bank if you can’t get out of bed?

I have chronic illness. For those who don’t know what chronic illness means, let me help: the word “chronic” comes from the Latin chronos, which means “of time” (think of “chronology”), and it specifically means “a lifetime.” So, a chronic illness is an illness that lasts a lifetime. In other words, it does not get better. There is no cure.

And think about the weight of time: yes, that means you feel it every day. On very rare occasions, I get caught in a moment, as if something’s plucked me out of the world, where I realize that I haven’t thought about my illnesses for a few minutes, maybe a few precious hours. These blissful moments of oblivion are the closest thing to a miracle that I know. When you have chronic illness, life is reduced to a relentless rationing of energy. It costs you to do anything: to get out of bed, to cook for yourself, to get dressed, to answer an email. For those without chronic illness, you can spend and spend without consequence: the cost is not a problem. For those of us with limited funds, we have to ration, we have a limited supply: we often run out before lunch.

I’ve come to think about chronic illness in other ways.

Ann Cvetkovich writes: “What if depression, in the Americas, at least, could be traced to histories of colonialism, genocide, slavery, legal exclusion, and everyday segregation and isolation that haunt all of our lives, rather than to be biochemical imbalances?” I’d like to change the word “depression” here to be all mental illnesses. Cvetkovich continues: “Most medical literature tends to presume a white and middle-class subject for whom feeling bad is frequently a mystery because it doesn’t fit a life in which privilege and comfort make things seem fine on the surface.” In other words, wellness as it is talked about in America today, is a white and wealthy idea.

Let me quote Starhawk, in the preface to the new edition of her 1982 book Dreaming the Dark: “Psychologists have constructed a myth – that somewhere there exists some state of health which is the norm, meaning that most people presumably are in that state, and those who are anxious, depressed, neurotic, distressed, or generally unhappy are deviant.” I’d here supplant the word “psychologists” with “white supremacy,” “doctors,” “your boss,” “neoliberalism,” “heteronormativity,” and “America.”

There has been a slew of writing in recent years about how “female” pain is treated – or rather, not treated as seriously as men’s in emergency rooms and clinics, by doctors, specialists, insurance companies, families, husbands, friends, the culture at large. In a recent article in The Atlantic, called “How Doctors Take Women’s Pain Less Seriously,” a husband writes about the experience of his wife Rachel’s long wait in the ER before receiving the medical attention her condition warranted (which was an ovarian torsion, where an ovarian cyst grows so large it falls, twisting the fallopian tube). “Nationwide, men wait an average of 49 minutes before receiving an analgesic for acute abdominal pain. Women wait an average of 65 minutes for the same thing. Rachel waited somewhere between 90 minutes and two hours,” he writes. At the end of the ordeal, Rachel had waited nearly fifteen hours before going into the surgery she should have received upon arrival. The article concludes with her physical scars healing, but that “she’s still grappling with the psychic toll – what she calls ‘the trauma of not being seen.’”

What the article does not mention is race – which leads me to believe that the writer and his wife are white. Whiteness is what allows for such oblivious neutrality: it is the premise of blankness, the presumption of the universal. (Studies have shown that white people will listen to other white people when talking about race, far more openly than they will to a person of color. As someone who is white-passing, let me address white people directly: look at my white face and listen up.)

The trauma of not being seen. Again – who is allowed in to the public sphere? Who is allowed to be visible? I don’t mean to diminish Rachel’s horrible experience – I myself once had to wait ten hours in an ER to be diagnosed with a burst ovarian cyst – I only wish to point out the presumptions upon which her horror relies: that our vulnerability should be seen and honored, and that we should all receive care, quickly and in a way that “respects the autonomy of the patient,” as the Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics puts it. Of course, these presumptions are what we all should have. But we must ask the question of who is allowed to have them. In whom does society substantiate such beliefs? And in whom does society enforce the opposite?

Compare Rachel’s experience at the hands of the medical establishment with that of Kam Brock’s. In September 2014, Brock, a 32-year-old black woman, born in Jamaica and living in New York City, was driving a BMW when she was pulled over by the police. They accused her of driving under the influence of marijuana, and though her behavior and their search of her car yielded nothing to support this, they nevertheless impounded her car. According to a lawsuit brought against the City of New York and Harlem Hospital by Brock, when Brock appeared the next day to retrieve her car she was arrested by the police for behaving in a way that she calls “emotional,” and involuntarily hospitalized in the Harlem Hospital psych ward. (As someone who has also been involuntarily hospitalized for behaving “too” emotionally, this story feels like a rip of recognition through my brain.) The doctors thought she was “delusional” and suffering from bipolar disorder, because she claimed that Obama followed her on twitter – which was true, but which the medical staff failed to confirm. She was then held for eight days, forcibly injected with sedatives, made to ingest psychiatric medication, attend group therapy, and stripped. The medical records of the hospital – obtained by her lawyers – bear this out: the “master treatment plan” for Brock’s stay reads, “Objective: Patient will verbalize the importance of education for employment and will state that Obama is not following her on Twitter.” It notes her “inability to test reality.” Upon her release, she was given a bill for $13,637.10.

The question of why the hospital’s doctors thought Brock “delusional” because of her Obama-follow claim is easily answered: Because, according to this society, a young black woman can’t possibly be that important – and for her to insist that she is must mean she’s “sick.”

Before I can speak of the “sick woman” in all of her many guises, I must first speak as an individual, and address you from my particular location.

I am antagonistic to the notion that the Western medical-insurance industrial complex understands me in my entirety, though they seem to think they do. They have attached many words to me over the years, and though some of these have provided articulation that was useful – after all, no matter how much we are working to change the world, we must still find ways of coping with the reality at hand – first I want to suggest some other ways of understanding my “illness.”

Perhaps it can all be explained by the fact that my Moon’s in Cancer in the 8th House, the House of Death, or that my Mars is in the 12th House, the House of Illness, Secrets, Sorrow, and Self-Undoing. Or, that my father’s mother escaped from North Korea in her childhood and hid this fact from the family until a few years ago, when she accidentally let it slip out, and then swiftly, revealingly, denied it. Or, that my mother suffers from undiagnosed mental illness that was actively denied by her family, and was then exasperated by a 40-year-long drug addiction, sexual trauma, and hepatitis from a dirty needle, and to this day remains untreated, as she makes her way in and out of jails, squats, and homelessness. Or, that I was physically and emotionally abused as a child, raised in an environment of poverty, addiction, and violence, and have been estranged from my parents for 13 years. Perhaps it’s because I’m poor – according to the IRS, in 2014, my adjusted gross income was $5,730 (a result of not being well enough to work full-time) – which means that my health insurance is provided by the state of California (Medi-Cal), that my “primary care doctor” is a group of physician’s assistants and nurses in a clinic on the second floor of a strip mall, and that I rely on food stamps to eat. Perhaps it can be encapsulated in the word “trauma.” Perhaps I’ve just got thin skin, and have had some bad luck.

It’s important that I also share the Western medical terminology that’s been attached to me – whether I like it or not, it can provide a common vocabulary: “This is the oppressor’s language,” Adrienne Rich wrote in 1971, “yet I need it to talk to you.” But let me offer another language, too. In the Native American Cree language, the possessive noun and verb of a sentence are structured differently than in English. In Cree, one does not say, “I am sick.” Instead, one says, “The sickness has come to me.” I love that and want to honor it.

So, here is what has come to me:

Endometriosis, which is a disease of the uterus where the uterine lining grows where it shouldn’t – in the pelvic area mostly, but also anywhere, the legs, abdomen, even the head. It causes chronic pain; gastrointestinal chaos; epic, monstrous bleeding; in some cases, cancer; and means that I have miscarried, can’t have children, and have several surgeries to look forward to. When I explained the disease to a friend who didn’t know about it, she exclaimed: “So your whole body is a uterus!” That’s one way of looking at it, yes. (Imagine what the Ancient Greek doctors – the fathers of the theory of the “wandering womb” – would say about that.) It means that every month, those rogue uterine cells that have implanted themselves throughout my body, “obey their nature and bleed,” to quote fellow endo warrior Hilary Mantel. This causes cysts, which eventually burst, leaving behind bundles of dead tissue like the debris of little bombs.

Bipolar disorder, panic disorder, and depersonalization disorder have also come to me. This means that I live between this world and another one, one created by my own brain that has ceased to be contained by a discrete concept of “self.” Because of these “disorders,” I have access to incredibly vivid emotions, flights of thought, and dreamscapes, to the feeling that my mind has been obliterated into stars, to the sensation that I have become nothingness, as well as to intense ecstasies, raptures, sorrows, and nightmarish hallucinations. I have been hospitalized, voluntarily and involuntarily, because of it, and one of the medications I was prescribed once nearly killed me – it produces a rare side effect where one’s skin falls off. Another cost $800 a month – I only took it because my doctor slipped me free samples. If I want to be able to hold a job – which this world has decided I ought to be able to do – I must take an anti-psychotic medication daily that causes short-term memory loss and drooling, among other sexy side effects. These visitors have also brought their friends: nervous breakdowns, mental collapses, or whatever you want to call them, three times in my life. I’m certain they will be guests in my house again. They have motivated attempts at suicide (most of them while dissociated) more than a dozen times, the first one when I was nine years old. That first attempt didn’t work, only because after taking a mouthful of sleeping pills, I somehow woke up the next day and went to school, like nothing had happened. I told no one about it, until my first psychiatric evaluation in my mid 20s.

Finally, an autoimmune disease that continues to baffle all the doctors I’ve seen, has come to me and refuses still to be named. As Carolyn Lazard has written about her experiences with autoimmune diseases: “Autoimmune disorders are difficult to diagnose. For ankylosing spondylitis, the average time between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis is eight to twelve years. I was lucky; I only had to wait one year.” Names like “MS,” “fibromyalgia,” and others that I can’t remember have fallen from the mouths of my doctors – but my insurance won’t cover the tests, nor is there a specialist in my insurance plan within one hundred miles of my home. I don’t have enough space here – will I ever? – to describe what living with an autoimmune disease is like. I can say it brings unimaginable fatigue, pain all over all the time, susceptibility to illnesses, a body that performs its “normal” functions monstrously abnormally. The worst symptom that mine brings is chronic shingles. For ten years I’ve gotten shingles in the same place on my back, so that I now have nerve damage there, which results in a ceaseless, searing pain on the skin and a dull, burning ache in the bones. Despite taking daily medication that is supposed to “suppress” the shingles virus, I still get them – they are my canaries in the coalmine, the harbingers of at least three weeks to be spent in bed.

My acupuncturist described it as a little demon steaming black smoke, frothing around, nestling into my bones.

With all of these visitors, I started writing Sick Woman Theory as a way to survive in a reality that I find unbearable, and as a way to bear witness to a self that does not feel like it can possibly be “mine.”

The early instigation for the project of “Sick Woman Theory,” and how it inherited its name, came from a few sources. One was in response to Audrey Wollen’s “Sad Girl Theory,” which proposes a way of redefining historically feminized pathologies into modes of political protest for girls: I was mainly concerned with the question of what happens to the sad girl when, if, she grows up. Another was incited by reading Kate Zambreno’s fantastic Heroines, and feeling an itch to fuck with the concept of “heroism” at all, and so I wanted to propose a figure with traditionally anti-heroic qualities – namely illness, idleness, and inaction – as capable of being the symbol of a grand Theory. Another was from the 1973 feminist book Complaints and Disorders, which differentiates between the “sick woman” of the white upper class, and the “sickening women” of the non-white working class.

Sick Woman Theory is for those who are faced with their vulnerability and unbearable fragility, every day, and so have to fight for their experience to be not only honored, but first made visible. For those who, in Audre Lorde’s words, were never meant to survive: because this world was built against their survival. It’s for my fellow spoonies. You know who you are, even if you’ve not been attached to a diagnosis: one of the aims of Sick Woman Theory is to resist the notion that one needs to be legitimated by an institution, so that they can try to fix you. You don’t need to be fixed, my queens – it’s the world that needs the fixing.

I offer this as a call to arms and a testimony of recognition. I hope that my thoughts can provide articulation and resonance, as well as tools of survival and resilience.

And for those of you who are not chronically ill or disabled, Sick Woman Theory asks you to stretch your empathy this way. To face us, to listen, to see.

Sick Woman Theory is an insistence that most modes of political protest are internalized, lived, embodied, suffering, and no doubt invisible. Sick Woman Theory redefines existence in a body as something that is primarily and always vulnerable, following from Judith Butler’s work on precarity and resistance. Because the premise insists that a body is defined by its vulnerability, not temporarily affected by it, the implication is that it is continuously reliant on infrastructures of support in order to endure, and so we need to re-shape the world around this fact. Sick Woman Theory maintains that the body and mind are sensitive and reactive to regimes of oppression – particularly our current regime of neoliberal, white-supremacist, imperial-capitalist, cis-hetero-patriarchy. It is that all of our bodies and minds carry the historical trauma of this, that it is the world itself that is making and keeping us sick.

To take the term “woman” as the subject-position of this work is a strategic, all-encompassing embrace and dedication to the particular, rather than the universal. Though the identity of “woman” has erased and excluded many (especially women of color and trans and genderfluid people), I choose to use it because it still represents the un-cared for, the secondary, the oppressed, the non-, the un-, the less-than. The problematics of this term will always require critique, and I hope that Sick Woman Theory can help undo those in its own way. But more than anything, I’m inspired to use the word “woman” because I saw this year how it can still be radical to be a woman in the 21st century. I use it to honor a dear friend of mine who came out as genderfluid last year. For her, what mattered the most was to be able to call herself a “woman,” to use the pronouns “she/her.” She didn’t want surgery or hormones; she loved her body and her big dick and didn’t want to change it – she only wanted the word. That the word itself can be an empowerment is the spirit in which Sick Woman Theory is named.

The Sick Woman is an identity and body that can belong to anyone denied the privileged existence – or the cruelly optimistic promise of such an existence – of the white, straight, healthy, neurotypical, upper and middle-class, cis- and able-bodied man who makes his home in a wealthy country, has never not had health insurance, and whose importance to society is everywhere recognized and made explicit by that society; whose importance and care dominates that society, at the expense of everyone else.

The Sick Woman is anyone who does not have this guarantee of care.

The Sick Woman is told that, to this society, her care, even her survival, does not matter.

The Sick Woman is all of the “dysfunctional,” “dangerous” and “in danger,” “badly behaved,” “crazy,” “incurable,” “traumatized,” “disordered,” “diseased,” “chronic,” “uninsurable,” “wretched,” “undesirable” and altogether “dysfunctional” bodies belonging to women, people of color, poor, ill, neuro-atypical, differently abled, queer, trans, and genderfluid people, who have been historically pathologized, hospitalized, institutionalized, brutalized, rendered “unmanageable,” and therefore made culturally illegitimate and politically invisible.

The Sick Woman is a black trans woman having panic attacks while using a public restroom, in fear of the violence awaiting her.

The Sick Woman is the child of parents whose indigenous histories have been erased, who suffers from the trauma of generations of colonization and violence.

The Sick Woman is a homeless person, especially one with any kind of disease and no access to treatment, and whose only access to mental-health care is a 72-hour hold in the county hospital.

The Sick Woman is a mentally ill black woman whose family called the police for help because she was suffering an episode, and who was murdered in police custody, and whose story was denied by everyone operating under white supremacy. Her name is Tanesha Anderson.

The Sick Woman is a 50-year-old gay man who was raped as a teenager and has remained silent and shamed, believing that men can’t be raped.

The Sick Woman is a disabled person who couldn’t go to the lecture on disability rights because it was held in a venue without accessibility.

The Sick Woman is a white woman with chronic illness rooted in sexual trauma who must take painkillers in order to get out of bed.

The Sick Woman is a straight man with depression who’s been medicated (managed) since early adolescence and now struggles to work the 60 hours per week that his job demands.

The Sick Woman is someone diagnosed with a chronic illness, whose family and friends continually tell them they should exercise more.

The Sick Woman is a queer woman of color whose activism, intellect, rage, and depression are seen by white society as unlikeable attributes of her personality.

The Sick Woman is a black man killed in police custody, and officially said to have severed his own spine. His name is Freddie Gray.

The Sick Woman is a veteran suffering from PTSD on the months-long waiting list to see a doctor at the VA.

The Sick Woman is a single mother, illegally emigrated to the “land of the free,” shuffling between three jobs in order to feed her family, and finding it harder and harder to breathe.

The Sick Woman is the refugee.

The Sick Woman is the abused child.

The Sick Woman is the person with autism whom the world is trying to “cure.”

The Sick Woman is the starving.

The Sick Woman is the dying.

And, crucially: The Sick Woman is who capitalism needs to perpetuate itself.

Why?

Because to stay alive, capitalism cannot be responsible for our care – its logic of exploitation requires that some of us die.

“Sickness” as we speak of it today is a capitalist construct, as is its perceived binary opposite, “wellness.” The “well” person is the person well enough to go to work. The “sick” person is the one who can’t. What is so destructive about conceiving of wellness as the default, as the standard mode of existence, is that it invents illness as temporary. When being sick is an abhorrence to the norm, it allows us to conceive of care and support in the same way.

Care, in this configuration, is only required sometimes. When sickness is temporary, care is not normal.

Here’s an exercise: go to the mirror, look yourself in the face, and say out loud: “To take care of you is not normal. I can only do it temporarily.”

Saying this to yourself will merely be an echo of what the world repeats all the time.

I used to think that the most anti-capitalist gestures left had to do with love, particularly love poetry: to write a love poem and give it to the one you desired, seemed to me a radical resistance. But now I see I was wrong.

The most anti-capitalist protest is to care for another and to care for yourself. To take on the historically feminized and therefore invisible practice of nursing, nurturing, caring. To take seriously each other’s vulnerability and fragility and precarity, and to support it, honor it, empower it. To protect each other, to enact and practice community. A radical kinship, an interdependent sociality, a politics of care.

Because, once we are all ill and confined to the bed, sharing our stories of therapies and comforts, forming support groups, bearing witness to each other’s tales of trauma, prioritizing the care and love of our sick, pained, expensive, sensitive, fantastic bodies, and there is no one left to go to work, perhaps then, finally, capitalism will screech to its much-needed, long-overdue, and motherfucking glorious halt.

This text is adapted from the lecture, “My Body Is a Prison of Pain so I Want to Leave It Like a Mystic But I Also Love It & Want It to Matter Politically,” delivered at Human Resources, sponsored by the Women’s Center for Creative Work, in Los Angeles, on October 7, 2015. The video is here.

Recommended Texts

Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Berkowitz, Amy. Tender Points. Oakland: Timeless, Infinite Light, 2015.

Berlant, Lauren Gail. Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke University Press, 2011.

Brown, Stephen Rex. “Woman Held in Psych Ward over Obama Twitter Claim.” NY Daily News. March 23, 2015.

Butler, Judith. “Vulnerability and Resistance.” REDCAT. December 19, 2014.

Cvetkovich, Ann. Depression: A Public Feeling. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2012.

Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Deirdre English. Complaints and Disorders; the Sexual Politics of Sickness. Old Westbury, N.Y.: Feminist Press, 1973.

Fassler, Joe. “How Doctors Take Women's Pain Less Seriously.” The Atlantic, October 15, 2015.

Federici, Silvia. Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. New York: Autonomedia, 2003.

Halberstam, Jack. “Zombie Humanism at the End of the World.” Lecture, Weak Resistance: Everyday Struggles and the Politics of Failure, ICI Berlin, May 27, 2015.

Harney, Stefano, and Fred Moten. The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study. New York: Minor Compositions, 2013.

Hedva, Johanna. “My Body Is a Prison of Pain so I Want to Leave It Like a Mystic But I Also Love It & Want It to Matter Politically.” Lecture, Human Resources, Los Angeles, October 7, 2015.

Lazard, Carolyn. “How to Be a Person in the Age of Autoimmunity.” The Cluster Mag. January 16, 2013.

Lorde, Audre. A Burst of Light: Essays. Ithaca, N.Y.: Firebrand Books, 1988.

Lorde, Audre. The Cancer Journals. Special ed. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1997.

Mantel, Hilary. “Every Part of My Body Hurt.” The Guardian, June 7, 2004.

Miserandino, Christine. “The Spoon Theory Written by Christine Miserandino.” But You Dont Look Sick: Support for Those with Invisible Illness or Chronic Illness. April 25, 2013.

Rich, Adrienne. “The Burning of Paper Instead of Children.” In Adrienne Rich's Poetry and Prose: Poems, Prose, Reviews, and Criticism, edited by Barbara Charlesworth Gelpi. New York: W.W. Norton, 1993.

Salek, Yasi. “Audrey Wollen on Sad Girl Theory.” CULTIST ZINE. June 19, 2014.

Starhawk. Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex, & Politics. 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 1988.

Thurman, Judith. “A Loss for Words: Can a Dying Language Be Saved?” The New Yorker, March 30, 2015.

Vankin, Jonathan. “Kam Brock: The Reason They Threw Her In A Mental Ward Was Crazy — What Happened Next Was Even Crazier.” The Inquisitr News. March 24, 2015.

Zambreno, Kate. Heroines. Semiotext(e) / Active Agents, 2012.

Watch: Event presented by the Women's Center for Creative Work at Human Resources on October 7, 2015

1 note · View note

yeariraq0-blog · 5 years

Text

Does Social Mobility Require Accent Mobility?

Dr Alex Baratta is a Lecturer in Language, Linguistics and Communications at the University of Manchester.

The issue of intergenerational social mobility, that is movement in occupational status between the generations, has dominated public policy debate for decades. Social researchers have grappled with questions around whether social mobility is declining, why those from the most privileged backgrounds continue to hoard the top jobs, and what explains the lack of movement between social class groups. The issue of place has often figured in these debates, with attention paid to ‘hot spots’ and ‘cold spots’ of social mobility as well as the geographic mobility and social mobility, including London as an ‘escalator region’ for social mobility. We also know much about the qualitative experiences of those who have been socially mobile in their lifetime, including the challenges faced, questions around identity, and sense of belonging. Sociologists describe the way in which socially mobile individuals are often ‘caught’ between two worlds.

Intertwined within these debates is the question of accent. A person’s accent and speech, grounded in the place where they grew up, can also be an important signifier of social class. It provides social mobility researchers with a lens from which to view and interpret the origins and destinations of individuals. It opens up new questions, for example, does a move up the social ladder necessitate accent mobility? Simply put, are broad varieties of regional accents in the UK essentially deemed unprofessional for certain professions? What are the implications for speakers of such accents within the teaching profession, an example of a middle-class career path that might appear to be at odds with accents deemed broad and by extension, working-class. Having obtained the views of 41 teachers, both trainees and established teachers, the results point toward Northern and Midlands teachers being more likely to be told to modify their accents to varieties deemed less broad and in turn, more ‘fitting’ for the teaching profession.

For example, a teacher from Lancashire being interviewed for a PGCE was told by the interviewer that the interview would be stopped unless he modified his accent. The interviewer told him that he would be required to correct his students if they spoke like him, and that parents would complain that someone with his accent had been hired to teach English. Likewise, a Midlands teacher teaching phonics in the South was told that if she wanted to teach phonics, it would be best to ‘go back to where you come from’, having been told to adjust her pronunciation to Southern speech in words such as bath and bus. A secondary Art teacher was told by her mentor to write the word ‘water’ with a capital ‘t’, in order to change her pronunciation by virtue of not skipping her t’s in such words, which her mentor found ‘unprofessional’. Finally, an EFL teacher from Rochdale was told during an interview that her accent was ‘too Northern’ and would ‘create the wrong impression’. This might be a reference to the fact that many EFL students, historically at least, are most familiar with British accents representative of RP. However, this is not the linguistic reality for people in the UK, given that RP is a minority accent. On a purely practical level, albeit tied specifically to the EFL context, how are students being prepared for real world communication if they have never been exposed to regional accents? The class-based connotations that are often part of these accents are, fortunately, lost on foreign students; the communicative-based need to hear such accents, however, is entirely relevant to the classroom.

This is not to suggest a linguistic conspiracy; clearly, the mentors’ views, while sometimes expressed bluntly, might be that there is a need to be understood as clearly as possible. This certainly makes sense for phonics teaching. However, are more broad realisations of regional accents, especially when being used in one’s home region, really hard(er) to understand? Or, is the issue, implied though it might be, more to do with the desire for an accent deemed less regional for the teaching profession, what, in layperson’s terms, might be designated as ‘neutral’ (i.e. you can sound regional, but not too regional). Moreover, while all teachers must use standard English – as made clear by the Teachers’ Standards – this can be spoken in a variety of accents. The only potential reference to accent in the Teachers’ Standards is seen with the broad word ‘articulacy’; but who decides what is or is not an ‘articulate’ accent?

In terms of the clash between accent perceptions held by the teacher and those in authority, this is illustrated with the Lancashire teacher. He believes that his accent signals him as working-class, the connotations of which to him are that he is ‘hard-working and straightforward’; for the PGCE interviewer, however, his accent was deemed inappropriate for the teaching profession. Likewise, the Art teacher believes that her broad South London accent marks her out to her students as being more authentic and real, which in turn allows her to be more approachable. To her mentor, her accent was deemed ‘unprofessional’.

Accent is a proxy for categories, such as race, ethnicity and indeed, class. Whatever the connotations are, positive or negative, of said categories, these are then placed onto the accent and subsequently, the speaker. Given that there might be a certain expectation for the use of language in the teaching profession, that which goes beyond phonics teaching, it might in turn be suggested that for this career path, there is an expectation that broad realisations of accents should be left at the school gate. This can go beyond the need to be understood by one’s students and instead point toward de facto standards for accents in British teaching, those that by all means can be regional, but not too regional, as mentioned. As a result, an upwardly mobile profession such as teaching is reflected in the accents of its teachers, which, while varied, display a realisation that does not suggest the negative connotations of a class level deemed perhaps unsuitable for the teaching profession.

This blog is based on the article, 'A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Accent and Social Mobility in the UK Teaching Profession', by Dr Alex Baratta, Dr Michael Donnelly, and Dr Sol Gamsu. Read the full article online.

Source: http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/02/12/does-social-mobility-require-accent-mobility/

0 notes

testinbeta · 5 years

Text

Infor-War, Cyberwar, Netwar, Anti-War

Information War, Cyberwar, Netwar, Anti-War, Technowar, Postmodern War are all new buzzwords in the field of military theory, buzzwords that are now becoming more commonplace and are entering the cultural mainstream.

I will not regurgitate the propaganda about the ‘information age’ and all the talks about superhighways, but stick to the field of military theory and then draw attention to the fact how much this concerns us…

The connection of concepts of information and the conduct of war was certainly not lost on the military theoreticians in the past from Sun Tse onwards. Napoleon is quoted as saying that three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.

What is Information War?

As concepts of information war are filtering into the cultural mainstream, often in form of manipulation and control of information by governments against their own citizens, nurturing cynicism about the democratic process, it is far from clear in military circles what we are talking about. Definitions such as the following are common, but not satisfying:

“Information warfare is the offensive and defensive use of information and information systems, while protecting one’s own. Such actions are designed to achieve advantages over military or business adversaries.”

The actual confusion is well illustrated at the beginning of an essay by Martin Libicki of the Institute for National Strategic Studies:

“In the fall of 1994, I was privileged to observe an Information Warfare game sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defence. Red, a middle-sized, middle-income nation with a sophisticated electronics industry, had developed an elaborate five-year plan that culminated in an attack on a neighboring country. Blue — the United States — was the neighbor’s ally and got wind of Red’s plan. The two sides began an extended period of preparation during which each conducted peacetime information warfare and contemplated wartime information warfare. Players on each side retreated to game rooms to decide on moves.

Upon returning from the game rooms, each side presented its strategy. Two troubling tendencies emerged: First, because of the difficulty each side had in determining how the other side’s information system was wired, for most of the operations proposed (for example, Blue considered taking down Red’s banking system) no one could prove which actions might or might not be successful, or even what “success” in this context meant. Second, conflict was the sound of two hands clapping, but not clapping on each other. Blue saw information warfare as legions of hackers searching out the vulnerabilities of Red’s computer systems, which might be exploited by hordes of viruses, worms, logic bombs, or Trojan horses. Red saw information warfare as psychological manipulation through media. Such were the visions in place even before wartime variations on information warfare came into the discussion. Battle was never joined, even by accident.”

The concept of Information War turns out to have little analytical coherence, and Libicki then goes on to propose 7 different types of Information War, saying that as a separate technique of waging war it doesn’t exist, and that instead there are several distinct forms, each laying claim to the larger concept – conflicts that involve the protection, manipulation, degradation, and denial of information.

“(i) command-and-control warfare (which strikes against the enemy’s head and neck), (ii) intelligence-based warfare (which consists of the design, protection, and denial of systems that seek sufficient knowledge to dominate the battlespace), (iii) electronic warfare (radio- electronic or cryptographic techniques), (iv) psychological warfare (in which information is used to change the minds of friends, neutrals, and foes), (v) “hacker” warfare (in which computer systems are attacked), (vi) economic information warfare (blocking information or channelling it to pursue economic dominance), and (vii) cyberwarfare (a grab bag of futuristic scenarios). All these forms are weakly related.”

Not only that: More often than not they have been part of the conduct of wars for centuries, and are, with few exceptions, by no means new. What has changed are the availablity of technology than allows worldwide transmission of information in real time, the potential lethality of conventional war, the role of the media, a context where a new emphasis for conflict and propaganda emerges: The management of information and visibility.

Old forms of propaganda and control are not vanishing but supplemented with new forms. Still there are security forces with rising budgets controlling the streets, but increasingly attempting to control the “information highways”. Still there are saturation bombings of the public mind by the mass media that are owned by less and less corporations with their own stake and quasi-political stance, as illustrated by the rise and fall of media mogul Berlusconi in Italy or the power of Rupert Murdoch and his involvement (not only) in British politics. There is an almost indiscriminate proliferation of spectacular information that is a kind of black magic creating social, political and cultural reality,consensus and identity. At the same time your data shadow is getting longer and longer as all you transactions and movements are recorded by cash machines and surveillance cameras. We have a double strategy of the noise of the spectacle supplemented by the silent totalitarianism of liberal fascism, because that is what Clinton and Blair are getting at when they talk about a “Third Way”. Capitalism’s shortcomings have been becoming clearer and clearer once more over the last few months, but now – since the fall of the Eastern Bloc – the West doesn’t have to prove anymore that it is indeed “better” and “freer”. Not that the east/west dichotomy offered any real choice, but now your only choice is to be on the side of the law or on the side of terrorists, pedophiles, drug cartels, criminals. With the disappearance of the other super-power as the main enemy, and the emergence of Rogue States and Super-Hackers the difference between hot war and cold war is disappearing as well.

And paranoia is emerging, as a quote from a paper titled “Political Aspects of Class III Information Warfare: Global Conflict and Terrorism” by Matthew G. Devost held at a conference called InfoWarCon II in Montreal January 18-19, 1995 will illustrate:

“There is no early warning system for information warfare. You don’t know it is coming, so you must always expect it which creates a high level of paranoia.”

The permanent threat to be attacked out of nowhere creates an aggressive siege mentality, where preemptive, surgical strikes, are advocated against the ‘rogue’ forces, global policing is enforced, a permanent state of almost-war (or ‘cool war’?) of which cultural conflicts as well as small scale armed conflicts are part.

In military speak this is often referred to as Low-Intensity Conflict, or LIC.

The rhetoric of Low-Intensity Conflict has taken over from the term Counter Insurgency:

“Low-intensity conflict is a limited politico-military struggle to achieve political, social, economic, or psychological objectives. It is often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychosocial pressures through terrorism and insurgency. Low-intensity conflict is generally confined to a geographic area and is often characterized by constraints on the weaponry, the tactics, and the level of violence.”

- Joint Low-Intensity Conflict Project Final Report (U.S.Army, 1986)

For those involved this can practically mean a situation of almost Total War, as long as it’s not fought with nukes or conventional means of mass destruction. The Gulf War was a ‘Mid-Intensity Conflict’ that involved systematic mass destruction.

July 13, 1970, General Westmoreland made this prediction to Congress:

“On the battlefield of the future, enemy forces will be located, tracked, and targeted almost instantaneously through the use of data links, computer assisted intelligence evaluation, and automated fire control. … I am confident that the American people expect this country to take full advantage of this technology – to welcome and applaud the developments that will replace wherever possible the man with the machine.”

Lethality, speed and scope of warfare is rising: Dr. Richard Gabriel:

“Military technology has reached a point where “conventional weapons have unconventional effects.” In both conventional war and nuclear war, combatants can no longer be reasonably expected to survive.” (1987)

From this follows that wars have to be conducted like terrorist attacks with an element of surprise in order to not have a situation of (prolonged) combat established.

Violence becomes sudden and exterminist.

It is suggested (in Postmodern War) the “reverse of the high tech strategy is to make your military target a political victory. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari call this ‘guerrilla warfare, minority warfare, revolutionary and popular war’ and note that, while war is necessary in this strategy, it is only necessary as a supplement to some other project. Practitioners of political war ‘can make war only on the condition that they simultaneously create something else , if only new unorganic social relations’ (in: Nomadology: The War Machine, 1986, p.121; emphasis in original). This is , after all, a very old form of war, dating back to prehistory. It contains many elements of ritual war, especially those that were borrowed from the hunt: stalking, hiding, waiting , deceiving, ambushing.”

All this has grave implications on Military theory, and we can observe an escalation of non-conventional methods of combat, not only for territories, but also for people’s minds and souls.

Counter-Insurgency, Low-Intensity Conflict, Information War: Behind the rhetoric lies the reality of a global civil war that is fought with acts of terror and mind control.

And in the so-called War on Drugs we can find parallels to the world of Information War, Propaganda and Terrorism. The War on Drugs is part of a strategy that involves Rogue States and Non-Governmental Organisations as well as evil terrorists; there have been various attempts to link those concepts up to create the much needed threat to internal security, such as in the idea of Narco-Terrorism that proposes that it is a combination of leftist guerrilla forces and the drug cartels that pose a threat to the American hegemony mainly in South America. Apart from incidental collusion this theory has been thoroughly rebuked by establishment researchers. No only is the Narco-Terrorism concept a propaganda lie (and pretext for bloody oppression), if we look deeper into it we are tempted to assume that in fact it is a practice used by the security enforcement agencies themselves, as the leaking drugs for guns and hostages deals underline… What is the head of the CIA doing in South Central L.A. parading his ‘innocence’ of alleged involvements of his agency in pumping crack into the neighbourhood? In other places such as Zürich and Liverpool large amounts of Heroin became available at dirt cheap prices around 1981 – just after massive riots had happened, and just as covert programs to finance the Islamic ‘Holy War’ against the Russians in Afganistan – a main producer of the drug – started rolling. Incidentally it was pretty much the same people the CIA was financing and arming then as the ones now accused by the US to be terrorists and drug dealers (see page 4 in this issue)…. Coincidences? Even in the early 80’s the heroin in Liverpool was referred to as ‘Maggie-smack’ (as in Margaret Thatcher, the then conservative prime minister). The War on Drugs was never meant to be ‘won’.

But it is by no means the only example of where double strategies are used by those in power to remain in control at any cost. The ‘strategy of tension’ in 70’s Italy is another example where a coalition of secret services, neo-fascists, mafia-linked right wing politicians, elements in the Vatican and the secret lodge P2 conspired to avert what they saw as an imminent communist takeover. Bombings and assassinations were organized, and radical left wing groups were blamed to create the climate for a military putsch. Neither happened, but hundreds died and thousands got arrested.

A crucial role in this scenario was played by the Brigate Rosse (Red Brigades) an originally radical communist group that was increasingly infiltrated by the secret service and was at least partly and very efficiently used against the rest of (or the real) radical left. Some think at least some of their actions, quite possibly including the kidnapping and killing of Aldo Moro, the president of Democrazia Christiana (the conservative party then in power, Moro being a part of its more liberal wing) , were actually controlled by the secret state. Let’s juxtapose this with the U.S. Department of Defence definition of terrorism: “Terrorism is carried out purposefully, in a cold-blooded, calculated fashion. The men and women who plan and execute these precision operations are neither crazy nor mad. They are very resourceful and competent criminals, systematically and intelligently attacking legally constituted nations that, for the most part, believe in the protection of individual rights and respect for the law. Nations that use terror to maintain the government are terrorists themselves.” We should keep this in mind when we think of the biggest act of terrorism in the US: The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, the anniversary of Waco. Despite Timothy McVeigh getting the death penalty for it there remain a large number of open questions that suggest that maybe a whole different scenario was at work than was brought forward by the mass media, probably the most powerful point being that there seems to have been prior knowledge of the bombing on the side of the authorities… If the authorities only had the slightest advance knowledge – and there there are indications that they did – incidents such as OK or Waco are part of a strategy of power that could be labelled preventive counterinsurgency gone out of control. To control and direct such out-of-control situations a severe management of information has to be applied.

This also means that the character of “minority warfare” is changing, in fact from a ‘hot’ strategy (e.g. armed insurrection) to a cold technological one, but only as a tendency – after all we should have noted that five out of the seven types of Information War proposed by Libicki are quite traditional forms of conflict that include sabotage, espionage, blockades and propaganda. Keep this in mind when we look at the concepts brought forward by RAND researchers John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt.

In their text ‘Cyberwar is Coming’ available on the web and more recently as a part of the book/anthology ‘In Athena’s Camp – Preparing for Conflict in the Information Age’ along with a collection of essays by various authors. The two main concepts they formulate are ‘Cyberwar’ and ‘Netwar’. Cyberwar is explained as referring to “conducting, and preparing to conduct, military operations according to information-related principles. It means disrupting, if not destroying, information and communications systems, broadly defined to include even military culture, on which an adversary relies in order to know itself: who it is, where it is, what it can do and when, why it is fighting, which threats to counter first, and so forth. It means trying to know everything about an adversary while keeping the adversary from knowing much about oneself.”

What is interesting is that they don’t pretend this to be fundamentally new form of war, in fact as the primary example for Cyberwar they mention the Mongols with their hugely successful army that was partly based on their fast information system that kept commanders in close contact over thousands of miles, although they do go so far as to claim: “As an innovation of warfare, we anticipate that cyberwar may be to the 21st century what Blitzkrieg was to the 20th.”

Netwar however is the kind of civilian, or civil war side of cyberwar. While cyberwar is concerned with traditionally military aspects like Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, also called C3I, intelligence collection, processing and distribution, tactical communications, positioning, identifications friend-or-foe (IFF) and so called ‘smart’ weapons systems, netwar “refers to information-related conflict at a grand level between nations and societies. It means trying to disrupt, damage, or modify what a target population knows or thinks it knows about itself and the world around it. A netwar may focus on public or elite opinion, or both. It may involve public diplomacy measures, propaganda and psychological campaigns, political and cultural subversion, deception of or interference with local media, infiltration of computer networks and databases, and efforts to promote dissident or opposition movements across computer networks.”

It has to be emphasized here that Arquilla and Ronfeldt are researchers of the notorious RAND corporation, a private think tank, proclaiming to be a non profit organization, but always closely linked to the military- industrial complex, and under this point of view it becomes more surprising what conclusions they arrive at. In fact they see the monolithic, hierarchical structure of institutions and the military as ill equipped to deal with the new scenarios of Netwars and Low Intensity Conflicts between NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations), drug cartels, “racial and tribal gangs, insurgent guerrillas, social movements and cultural subversives” which are all organized as networks. They conclude:

”Perhaps a reason that military (and police) institutions have difficulty engaging in low intensity conflicts is because they are not meant to be fought by institutions. The lesson: Institutions can be defeated by networks, and it may take networks to counter networks.”

A new type of info-guerrilla is emerging, the small units proposed by the Critical Art Ensemble faintly echoing Carlos Marighela’s (the original theoretician of the urban guerrilla) Firing Unit, except they are firing data, not bullets. Conflicts such as Kosovo (a classic LIC), the Gulf Conflicts (basically adhering to the AirLand Battle doctrine as well as Cyberwar to some degree) and the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas, Mexico (where the idea of Netwar comes in), all happening at present, show that it is likely that different types of warfare will be fought simultaneously for the forseeable future. Localized conflicts don’t stop because the technical possibility of globalized action exists. There is a tendency towars more international interaction and a disappearance of distance and reaction times, but wars are unlikely to be fought solely by machines, smart weapons, robots and ‘ants’ alone. They cannot be sanitised, however much the official media tries to portray it that way. It is one of the strengths of Arquilla/Ronfeldt’s analysis that they take these complexities into account.

It’s no surprise that the RAND researchers have found a fascinated readership with left wing researchers such as Chris Hables Gray and Jason Wehling. I was certainly intrigued.

And while I can’t discount the thought that RAND has to present the danger to the establishment as worse than it is, their call to reorganization points to a genuine analysis. And it shouldn’t just flatter us. We have to take it serious when we are taken serious.

0 notes

marcjampole · 5 years

Text

AUMFs are really MFs, as they give POTUS authority to wage wars w/o first asking Congress. Let’s support Barbara Lee’s legislation to repeal 2001 & 2002 AUMFs

Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California wants to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the 2002 Iraq AUMF, which three presidents have now used to start shooting wars in what the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) calculates to be 18 different countries.

AUMFs authorize the president as commander-in-chief to authorize the use of American military forces unilaterally, without having to go to Congress for the permission or money. The 2001 AUMF enabled President Bush II legally to invade Afghanistan, and pretty much anywhere else he wanted to send troops. The 2002 AUMF specifically allowed Bush II to invade Iraq without having to go back to Congress for approval.

These AUMFs are really MFs, to use the parlance of Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Until repealed, they just keep on keeping on, giving a legal fig leaf to unconstitutional authoritarian actions by the president. Our Constitution states that Congress has the sole authority to decide when we go to war. Yet a majority of current members of Congress did not vote on any war that the United States is currently fighting.

To most Representatives and Senators, handing war-making authority to the president lets them off the hook with their constituents. They can say that they are in favor of or against a particular conflict, but they never have to have a voting record to put the lie to their words. It gives foreign powers—and the president himself (until a woman president comes along)—the illusion that the country is unified in supporting the war. Of course, I dare say most Americans would be unable to name the 18 countries in which we have fought under cover of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.

Tragic to note, not one of these wars has worked out with the U.S. getting what it wants. Iraq was perhaps the most foolish American invasion ever and led to the growth of ISIS throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. Afghanistan has been the quagmire that even a cursory reading of world history would have predicted.

We must repeal the two AUMFs as a first step in shrinking the military budget and changing U.S. foreign policy to focus on multilateral negotiations and economic actions, not brute force. In 2019, the United States is going to spend more than $700 billion in the military budget. We could easily cut the military budget to under $400 billion if we withdrew from our many dirty little wars and stopped development of robotic weapons that work without human command and the next generation of nuclear weapons.

Imagine having $300 billion to spend on building dedicated mass transit, fixing roads, bridges and sewer systems, cutting the number of children in public elementary school classes, preparing vulnerable areas for extreme weather events and investing in carbon neutral technologies. Combine that with the billions more we could raise by doing what Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposes: returning to the income tax system pre-Reagan, when the highest marginal rate was 70%. Then we would have enough to address our many social problems and pay down our national debt. The entire history of the United States and the Western European democracies demonstrate that replacing military spending with domestic investments and raising taxes on the wealthy leads to a stronger economy in which there are mostly middle class people, with few ultra-wealthy. The opposite approach, favored by Republicans, of lowering taxes on the wealthy and spending as much as possible on the military to the detriment of domestic programs, has proven to create a society in which most are struggling to get by and a few have fabulous incomes and assets.

Repealing the AUMFs thus carries constitutional, moral, foreign policy and economic implications. Constitutionally, it will put war-making decisions back where they belong—in the hands of Congress. The moral dimension is obvious: fewer wars, less death, destruction and displacement. On the foreign policy level, we will end up in fewer wars, because the bar for starting a war will be much higher—not just the whim of an imperial president, but the vote of democratic Congress. Finally the economic case for repealing the AUMFs is compelling: fewer wars means fewer expenditures, which in turn should lead to investing more in building our future.

Representative Lee is working to get 50 co-sponsors to legislation to revoke the two AUMFs. I urge all readers to write, call, email or telegraph their Representatives and Senators and tell them that you want them to support and co-sponsor legislation to repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years

Link

The big question about the American economy right now is what to do — or not do — about painfully slow wage growth.

Businesses have bounced back from the Great Recession, with the S&P 500 continually setting records while steady hiring has finally delivered a low unemployment rate. But when it comes to paychecks, wage growth has been so slow that over the past year it’s actually been less than inflation.

And while rising inequality is a huge part of the long-term story of the American economy, a convincing analysis from Jason Furman, the top economist in the Obama White House, indicates that the short-term driver is slow productivity growth. Growth has been driven by adding unemployed workers back into the labor force.

This, in turn, raises more questions: Why has productivity growth been so slow? Or, more to the point, can we expect it to turn around, so that wages will follow? Is it better to let good times continue, or do we need some kind of dramatic policy shake-up — or some old-fashioned good luck — to kick the economy into higher gear?

As Vox readers are no doubt aware, the United States has experienced a dramatic increase in income inequality over the past 40 years. What’s more, just last winter, the Trump administration passed a massive debt-financed corporate tax cut that is strikingly inegalitarian in its distributional implications.

But if you want to know what’s going on with wages specifically over the past few years, the story isn’t about inequality — wages have actually been growing pretty strongly for the bottom fifth of workers; it’s everyone else who is seeing only anemic growth.

Jason Furman

It’s simply difficult for middle-class wages to rise faster because overall productivity growth has been extremely weak since the recession.

Of course, because inequality grew so much in the past, it could be possible to grow middle-class incomes in the future purely through redistribution. But the weak wage growth trend we’ve been experiencing recently fundamentally isn’t about the distribution of the economic pie — the pie itself is just growing slowly.

And the question is will that turn around soon? There’s a case to be made that as the labor market continues to tighten, the problem will fix itself by essentially forcing businesses to become more productive.

One view is that not only has the years-long spell of high unemployment reduced pressure on employers to offer pay raises, it’s reduced pressure on employers to find ways to be more productive.

Little specks and hints of automation — self-checkout machines, ordering kiosks, app-based ordering systems, online scheduling options, etc. — are littered throughout the service economy, but very few companies use any of this stuff in a systemic way, and a lot of the software and hardware involved is fairly low-quality or unreliable. Almost nobody, in other words, is really rethinking how their business works from the ground up to try to integrate technology and get by with fewer service workers.

A few years ago when the unemployment rate was sky-high, there was widespread social panic about the idea that robots were taking all the jobs, but the evidentiary basis of this concern was always extremely weak.

A big question now is if low unemployment can make the automation boom actually happen. After all, while when workers are plentiful it may make sense to dabble in new technology, there’s genuinely very little economic rationale for seriously investing in it. Business investment has been low outside of the oil and gas sector for years now, perhaps because it simply hasn’t made much sense to invest. Now that workers are scarce, business may go back to investing in new equipment and new processes that allow for higher productivity.

Much the same could be said about worker training. Throughout the recession years, the business community talked incessantly about a “skills gap” but never actually did anything about it other than plead with the government to train workers at taxpayer expense.

But at the end of the day, nobody knows better how to equip workers with the skills they need to succeed in a workplace than the people who manage that workplace. It’s just that companies have gotten out of the habit of actually investing in people rather than merely seeing them as a cost. With workers now scarce, companies may be forced to step up and start equipping people with the skills they need to succeed. If that happens, productivity and pay should start to rise.

But will it happen? Or will full employment America just kind of find itself stuck in neutral, spared the acute pain of mass unemployment but doomed to muddle through with sluggish growth of productivity and wages? The truth is economic theory is ambiguous on this point, and to an extent, we’re just going to have to wait and see.

If low unemployment turns out not to automatically generate a surge of investment, productivity, and wages, then we’ll need to consider the possibility that the economy needs stronger medicine.

There are, right now, two really plausible candidates.

One is the idea that rising concentration in the American economy has stifled competition and is killing the incentives to invest and grow. CVS and Walgreens, for example, together control half the drugstore market in almost every American city, and Walgreens is in the process of merging with Rite-Aid, the No. 3 player in the market. Cozy oligopolists have little reason to plow profits into new investment, and have monopoly power over workers that can let them get away with holding down pay even when workers are relatively scarce.

Back in the summer of 2017, congressional Democrats rolled out a conceptually ambitious plan to tackle economic concentration, but it never really caught fire with the public and hasn’t been talked about much this year. If growth continues to disappoint for another couple of years, that might change.

Another idea relates to the financial structure of American capitalism, which currently seems to create incentives for businesses to operate as piggy banks that flush out cash to shareholders rather than investing in workers and equipment. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s recent proposals to change corporate governance — what she calls “accountable capitalism” — are one approach to changing that, though other Democrats have offered different ideas that also aim at the same target.

Less exotic proposals to strengthen worker bargaining power by empowering labor unions work to an extent on both of these dimensions and speak to the desire for straight-up redistribution.

Most of the ideas in this structural reform space have some merits beyond the economics. Employee voice in the workplace is in part just about quality of life rather than economic growth, and worries about economic concentration are in part concerns about democracy and the vibrancy of midsize communities.

All that said, it’s no coincidence that big programs of structural reform have become more prominent as wages have stagnated, and the fact that they appear to be continuing to stagnate even as the unemployment rate remains low has kicked calls for bigger change into high gear. Advocates are going to take advantage of the opportunity to make their case. That’s as it should be, but citizens in general should keep a somewhat open mind as the next couple of years unfold because we don’t really know what’s going to happen.

Ernie Tedeschi, an economist formerly with the US Treasury Department, posted a chart last week that should inspire some humility about humans’ ability to see the future. It illustrates a series of projections the Congressional Budget Office has made over the years of how the share of Americans with a job would evolve over time.

That started with a 2007 forecast showing a gradual, aging-induced decline. The real world instead offered a sudden, recession-induced decline. The ratio then stalled out at a low level for a while, which meant that by 2014, the CBO had become much more pessimistic about the long run. Each of the past four years has shown the prior year’s forecast to have been too pessimistic, and now they’ve come around to the view that the 2007 forecast was more or less accurate after all.

Continued confidence that we’re at full employment is the more ideological stance at this point. pic.twitter.com/FdCgHJvjC4

— LCDR Tedeschi, Chief of Economics, US Space Force (@ernietedeschi) August 17, 2018

The line way at the top, however, reminds us that before the labor market weakness of the mid-aughts, the CBO was even more optimistic than it had been before the Great Recession.

This is all a long-winded way of saying that it’s at least possible we’re further from full employment than the official numbers say and it’s going to take another year and a half for it to really kick in. I wouldn’t bet the farm on that theory, but I wouldn’t bet the farm against it, either. The point is we just don’t really know.

What we do know is that if the Federal Reserve can keep managing the economy competently despite the constant chaos in the White House, we’re about to find out a lot more about the underlying structure of the economy. Maybe the employment-population ration will keep rising, demonstrating that there was more slack in the labor market than we thought. Maybe business investment will start surging and bring productivity growth and wage increases with it, which would be great news for everyone. Or maybe we’ll find ourselves stuck in neutral and needing a bigger reform.

We’ve made tremendous, albeit belated, progress in healing the economy over the past eight years. What we’re going to discover soon is whether that healing is enough to create truly broad prosperity or whether something more is needed.

Original Source -> The big question about today’s economy — are wages going to start growing?

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes

nofomoartworld · 7 years

Text

Hyperallergic: Required Reading

Seoul-based designer Sukwoo Lee designed the medals for the 2018 Winter Olympics, which will take place in Pyeongchang, South Korea. The jagged front are based on the letters of Hangul, the Korean alphabet that dates back to the 15th century. More images at Dezeen. (via Dezeen)

Bendor Grosvenor writes about museum image fees and how they’re out of whack:

But for ‘old’ art the situation is very different. Many museums will have you believe that because they are licensing newly taken photographs of, say, a Hogarth, then they have copyright over that photograph, and can therefore charge what they want for it. But this is not the case. There are variances, but essentially in both US and UK law a straightforward photographic reproduction of an old painting does not generate any new copyright implications. For a new photograph of a Hogarth to have any copyright vested in it, it must in some way be original (ie, amended, added to, written over, distorted). So don’t let museums tell you that what you’re paying for is the right to legally reproduce their photograph of their painting. They’re not. In fact, all they’re doing is hustling you.

The designer of the Papyrus font justifies his invention after SNL lampoons it:

“I designed the font when I was 23 years old. I was right out of college. I was kind of just struggling with some different life issues, I was studying the Bible, looking for God and this font came to mind, this idea of, thinking about the biblical times and Egypt and the Middle East. I just started scribbling this alphabet while I was at work and it kind of looked pretty cool,” Costello said.

He added, “I had no idea it would be on every computer in the world and used for probably every conceivable design idea. This is a big surprise to me as well.”

Curator Andrew Hunter explains why he quit the Art Gallery of Ontario:

I have always been concerned about the role art museums play in the wider world, about how truly engaged they are with the critical issues of our times. I’m fortunate to be able to teach regularly on museum and curatorial practice (currently in the graduate program at OCAD University). We often begin with the origins of the contemporary museum, which was born out of the private collections of wealthy Europeans who had built their fortunes on the extraction of resources, and people, from the most vulnerable nations in the world.

Out of this dubious practice evolved public educational institutions, or so they self-described. Really, they were outward displays of power that reinforced class division and validated the corporate and colonial systems that had made their founders rich. From wealth came power and then cultural dominance: museums set social rules, coercing the broader public toward shared values they deemed to be “acceptable.”

Saudi king’s gold escalator gets stuck (no comment):

Saudi King Salman's travel companion, his gold escalator, let him down during his historic visit to Russia http://pic.twitter.com/xgTaqV8WWG

— TRT World (@trtworld) October 5, 2017

Is the internet changing time? Laurence Scott writes:

The computer scientist and cyber-philosopher Jaron Lanier, who coined the term ‘virtual reality’ and who has written with both optimism and despair about the trajectory of the internet, believes that digitisation’s prodigious memory will be key to a sustainable global economy based primarily on exchanges of information. In Who Owns The Future?, he outlines a possible world in which data is the central commodity and all of us are properly remunerated for our contributions, conscious or involuntary, to the profitable crunching undertaken in Big Data’s storehouses. A simple example is that if you and your spouse meet on an online dating site and eventually get married, then you will receive a ‘micropayment’ every time two other people in the future are successfully matched up based on algorithms of compatibility to which your own happy coupling contributed. Lanier argues that since the data you provide – interests, profession, goals, politics – continually refine and improve the dating site’s ability to pair people, then you should own a share in the efficiency that your information nurtured. In this system, our digital pasts, archived across the network as data, resemble an actor’s filmography or an author’s back catalogue, an ongoing source of royalties. Such a model echoes Airbnb’s desire for everyone to ‘build a history’ online. Here the past is privileged in the way of all valuable things, as unforgettable as any personal treasure. Lanier’s design proposes an economy of remembering, whereby not even the smallest link in a lucrative data chain is forgotten. There is zero tolerance of structural amnesia in this system. As Lanier remarks, ‘Cash unfortunately forgets too much for an information economy.’

You know those orange-handled scissors that are in homes around the world? This is their story (I love design history.):

According to Jay Gillespie, Fiskars’s current VP of marketing, the company decided to vote on what color the final scissors design would be before it went into production. At the time, Gillespie says, colors like orange and lime were very popular, so they decided to stick with orange. “An icon was born from [that vote],” he says.

Nina Burleigh of Newsweek takes a look at Trump’s relationship with God:

Trump’s long and sometimes confounding spiritual journey started in Jamaica, Queens, at the bite-sized First Presbyterian Church, and later, at the WASPy Marble Collegiate Church on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue, where prosperity prophet Norman Vincent Peale preached that you could think yourself to success. In 1952, Peale published The Power of Positive Thinking, a New York Times best-seller for 186 weeks that sold more than 5 million copies and was translated into 15 languages. That tome and his hailstorm of follow-up titles trained a generation of Americans to grin and fake it all the way to the bank. His theology was well summarized by the mantra Fred Trump pounded into his boy, Donald: “You are a killer. You are a king.”

That nugget may have been as close as young Donald ever got to Scripture. During the recent presidential campaign, he called the biblical book Second Corinthians “Two Corinthians,” a transgression on par with referring to the Holy Trinity as the Three Amigos. He has called Communion “my little wine” and “my little cracker.” More alarming for the truly pious, he couldn’t come up with a favorite Bible verse when asked during the campaign, except to say he liked the Old Testament’s “an eye for an eye.”

This investigation by Buzzfeed gives very credible evidence for the close relationship between alt-right troll Milo, Breitbart and lots of other figures (including Peter Thiel) with the white nationalist movement. This is a must-read:

And the cache of emails — some of the most newsworthy of which BuzzFeed News is now making public — expose the extent to which this machine depended on Yiannopoulos, who channeled voices both inside and outside the establishment into a clear narrative about the threat liberal discourse posed to America. The emails tell the story of Steve Bannon’s grand plan for Yiannopoulos, whom the Breitbart executive chairman transformed from a charismatic young editor into a conservative media star capable of magnetizing a new generation of reactionary anger. Often, the documents reveal, this anger came from a legion of secret sympathizers in Silicon Valley, Hollywood, academia, suburbia, and everywhere in between.

In case you wondered what equivalent climate regions around the world were for the US, this map is interesting:

US climate with equivalent cities from around the world [OC] [1513 x 983] from MapPorn

Mona Kareem writes about popular fascination with fiction by Arab dictators:

The news of this new release provoked me, specifically because it reflects a demeaning western approach to modern Arabic literature. Back in 2003, Saddam’s novels were widely discussed among Arab intellectuals exchanging accusations of writing for dictators for money, or under threat. It was an exhausting and embarrassing battle, but nevertheless necessary. At least in these debates, no one claimed to be “politically neutral.” Political neutrality is the discourse of the dominant, they who take their individuality for granted and in such they assume that their actions can be abstract, ahistorical, and isolated of all contexts.

The interest in “Saddam Hussein’s world,” as one Iraqi novelist once described it, was a serious western fetish after the Iraq war. Despite the fact that the man ran a bloody and exciting life, in all impossible ways, the scale of horror and violence was not satisfactory for western eyes. They needed play-cards, movies, novels, video games, private recordings, and all sorts of things to complete a picture of the enemy. It was the best way to abstract the mass destruction of Iraq as something far, far away, on another planet, in Saddam Hussein’s world.

If you buy a US flag made in the United States, there’s a good chance it was made by a prisoner:

I was born and raised in California and certainly took my fair share of California history classes from elementary school through college. In high school, I marched in protests against Proposition 21, the 2000 ballot initiative that made it easier to prosecute young people, and I was educated by the types of teachers who gave extra credit for attending demonstrations in downtown San Francisco against the Iraq War. But even I was surprised to learn that our country’s symbols of freedom were made by women who had none.

What should Canadian Twitter users with the new increased character count? Well:

All true Canadians know there is only one proper use of the new 280 character limit on Twitter. | Tous les vrais Canadiens savent qu'il n'y a qu'une bonne utilisation de la nouvelle limite de 280 caractères sur Twitter.

— Matt BB-8 (@tederick) September 28, 2017

Required Reading is published every Sunday morning ET, and is comprised of a short list of art-related links to long-form articles, videos, blog posts, or photo essays worth a second look.

The post Required Reading appeared first on Hyperallergic.

from Hyperallergic http://ift.tt/2yRVNUV via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Hyperallergic

0 notes

teacherequality-blog · 7 years

Text

An Interview With a Trans Substitute

“Missoula district was really supportive and accommodating. MISSOULA.

I grew up in Columbia Falls

There were two students in big sky high school (brothers) who’s parents called in and rose a big stink over my teaching any of their classes at all.

The school’s response was “well, miss class then.” I was told at the beginning of the day that I had one student in two different periods that I was required to send to the counselor’s office immediately. Heard from another teacher (prior friend) about why. The admin never even told me about it. There was NO change to how, when, or where I could do my job over it.

When I first started subbing, I was covering my tattoos b/c I wasn’t sure their stance. When I called and asked district coordinator about it, she said they didn’t care at all. I never had to cover them at all. Especially nice given that while I used to be able to EASILY hide them all, girl shirts are all designed for cleavage whether you have any or not, so almost none of my shirts could cover the ones on my chest. always wore my sleeves rolled up all day, so everyone saw my tattoo sleeve. Aaaaall the kids know I have tattoos and gauges. When I started with MCPS, Missoula county public schools, they have a checklist sheet you mark all the classes you’re willing to sub for. Grades and subjects. I could give a damn, I can BS my way through anything so I just checked them all without thinking about it. Then I got an assignment to teach gym. Oops. So I dropped the job and called sub coordinator to ask about it, since many gym teacher offices are IN the locker rooms….. She said she didn’t know, she had never thought about it either. She said she’d look into it and get back to me. Got a call a couple of days later. Ver batim, she said I “could move through any bathroom or locker room in the entire district. Whatever you’re comfortable with.” Frenchtown is not so…. Free. When I asked them, he said that he knew what he had to say, and what was “probably the right answer.” They were implied as not the same thing. I told him that Missoula didn’t care about me and bathrooms and locker rooms at all. He said “yea, that’s probably the right answer. There’s a gender-neutral bathroom by the front office…” I told him no, flat out. Then pointed out that behind me were the FACULTY restrooms. Which, btw, are SINGLE Person bathrooms. One room. One toilet, one sink. I’m honestly not sure I understand the point of separating them at all. What’s it fucking matter if there’s only one person allowed in? after I pointed that out, he conceded I may have a point and didn’t push the matter, but I could tell it made him uncomfortable. He didn’t even respond to the gym issue. But, I found out later that every gym period in the junior high, there is an extra (female) faculty to be there at the beginning and end of every period. Bc the jr high him teacher is male, and they require the locker rooms be “checked in on”. Can’t trust kids to change their own clothes, naturally. Except, when *i* teach gym. Then, there are two extra faculty assigned to be there. I’m not allowed in either locker room. Not that I at ALL want to go into the boy’s locker room, but it just goes to show they don’t have a stance beyond “no, you can’t exist in here.” I stopped trying. Beyond that, Frenchtown has never done anything outright against me. But from the beginning I felt like the entire school staff were watching me. Not keeping tabs, just always cautious. Less welcoming. Missoula was ALwAYS welcoming and kind to me. Never an issue at all. The admin never once even mentioned to me that they had ever been contacted about me. At all. No changes. It’s not that they were hiding anything, it was just such a non-issue, they didn’t feel the need. If I had to guess given my experience speaking and interacting with the admin, I don’t feel offended at all. It just more than anything feels like “it affects nothing, so we didn’t want to bother you about it.” I heard about it second hand from other faculty. Though, I had noticed that every admin in all the buildings greeted me by my first name. I had never met them. They all just knew who I was on sight. They’ve had board and admin meetings about me. Its not that they didn’t address it before… those meetings were never because THEY needed to talk about it. It was to deal with the parents. Or, more rather, to decide how to respond to parents when they got angry (they were) phone calls about me. I only know any of this because I heard it second hand from other teachers. I have no idea how many times they were contacted over it, all I know for sure was that at least 3 schools got at least 2 calls. I get the feeling there were a lot more…. From what I heard (again, second hand info. Take as you will), that the jist of their “pre-determined formal response” was along the lines of: “we understand you have an issue with this. Please understand we don’t care. We are not going to discriminate against an effective substitute for these reasons. If you don’t want your children to attend class with this substitute, then you can come and pick them up from school for that period, and drop them off again after. We’re not in the business of babysitting kids who don’t want to go to class.” Second hand jist. But that’s how it was told to me. The only incident I have specific knowledge of (big sky), I was also told by teacher friend that the kids could have cared less. It was only the parets raising a stink.

As for the students in general, I for the most part haven’t had any real issues. Sometimes I think I may have heard the purposely misgender me, but they’re pretty quiet about it. No outright defiance (for that reason, at least implicitly. They’re still teenagers). I’ve been told by students on a few occasions that other kids had been making fun of me or being disrespectful when they knew I couldn’t hear, but I never really heard anything. At least not that I was sure enough of that I could say anything. My hearing is juuuuuust bad enough that I cant always tell for sure what pronoun someone uses. Especially if its under their breath. But nothing outright disrespectful to my face about it. I think they know what would happen to them if they did…. Its so hard for districts to get and keep good subs that they take any reports of behavior issues VERY seriously, for any reason or sub. If i said that they disrespected me in that manner, the whole world would come down on their head and they know it. I’ve gotten a few questions in poor taste, but its due more to benign curiosity than any kind of prejudice. It’s also an interesting pretense…. Everyone knows, apparently, they ALL talk about it (students), they all know I’m trans. Mostly. They’re fairly sure, they all know it’s the rumor. But no one has ever been actually TOLD about it. Its ignored. They THINK they know, but not enough to be sure. So, I get the occasional question. “is that a wig?” is one. There was one incident where they seriously raised their hand in the middle of class lecture to ask “are you trans?” My favorite response, is to point out that that’s NOT a question they want to be wrong about….. its like asking someone when the baby is due. If I’m NOT trans, that’s reaaaaaally insulting and worrisome. Once I point out to them the nature of the question they asked, they get this reeeaaaaally horrified look on their face…. Its fucking hysterical. I love it. Its aaaaaalmost worth it. But my usual response otherwise was “no, I’m a woman.” So, they know. Sorta. Mostly. But not for sure…… its awesome. I generally raise my eyebrows at them and make them consider their question. Most of the worst insults and misgendering by students is mostly perpetrated by the trouble students I’m already being stern with. I do not take their shit. And they KNOW it. Its part of my legend….. But a lot of students think I’m plenty amusing, and I get stopped all the time around town by kids saying hello and asking when I’m coming back. So, yea. The kids being douches, were already douches. Worst kids are still Frenchtown, but again. They’re still teenagers. Anyone is going to have some bullshit. And if they don’t insult with trans, they insult with something else equally offensive. My teaching experience in MCPS has been truly stellar. Not one concession has ever been made on the point, and not once has ANYone employed by MCPS EVER brought the fact that I’m trans up at all. On the FEW times its been a topic, *i* was the one to bring it up. They’ve been phenomenal. Kids have been pretty chill. All things considered, even Frenchtown has been at least moderately reasonable. The never said I COULDN’T teach gym, they just needed locker room people. To be fair. Just a different feel, and they were aware of the more rural attitude of the parents in general, and seem more nervous over it. No faculty has ever insulted me on purpose. Although, I have mixed feels over the woman faculty (ftown art) who approached me to express her support and that she was glad they had a trans teacher, and she’d heard about me and had to meet me. Mixed, because her saying so pretty well proves that she picked me out cold from a crowd….. but people don’t think about that implication. They’re usually always trying to be nice and supportive, in any case. Nice lady, though. She likes me.

Oooooo, one other thing to bear mentioning. I HAVE been approached by several students (quietly, away from other kids), who wanted to ask me about being trans. But, because they thought they may have been trans themselves….. they wanted to know what to do/go/talk to/proceed in general. I always pointed them to anne harris and mentioned that I didn’t point them to anyone. But they’re the only ones I’ve ever not denied it to. They’ve been pretty chill, and just trying to reach out because they were confused about themselves. In that respect, I’m glad I was in the schools particularly. Even, almost, a little, MAAAYYYYYYYYBE glad they could tell. So they knew they could ask. I met one little girl in 6th grade who came to me at start of period to tell me that the role sheet had the wrong name, and what to call her. The knowing look of gratitude was really rewarding. I’ve even been left notes from kids who wanted to support and express gratitude for having me. A couple were totally anonymous. They just showed up on top of my paperwork. So, in that respect, I’m really happy to have been a part of the schools systems in that age group of “flux”. When they really needed an adult that they could actually KNOW wouldn’t judge them for it. I never told anyone I was a “safe resource” or commented on “safe space.” Never had to. At least two of the kids who approached me on the topic were in Frenchtown. They obviously had no idea what to do. So, I’m pretty grateful I could be that for people. For most everyone else, it’s still a good thing to have a visible (hesitate to call myself a “role-model”) adult in their school/non family who is an obvious source of support/info/encouragement/comfort. I think its really good for them to interact with people that way in a CASUAL manner, NOT implicitly for that reason. I’m not a novelty alone, I’m just THERE. Novelty, but it’s not WHY I’m there, or WHY I’m talking to them. Its not even discussed or mentioned. No need for (so this is trans person, be respectful, who knows what trans means? Be sure to treat her normally. Don’t single her out anyone, that would be passé….” The pretense is half of what makes it so damn perfect. Not SURE. Not talked about. Not special. Just….. there. No different. Esp. when I do teach gym. It shows them that its perfectly NORMAL, benign, and simply a fact of life. Nothing to make any kind of issue over. No different. Just real people. Professional adult. Not pointing it out or trying to bond over it. Just Being there is plenty educational.

It’s one of the main reasons I liked doing it. I was terrified at first. I’ve subbed before in great falls, pre-trans. I know I can do it, am good at it, respected for it by faculty. I know I’m good at my job. I was terrified they wouldn’t even consider hiring me for fear of “putting their neck out.” Not wanting to stir crap with the parents. (enemy of ALL faculty and admin). But they surprised me. Not even Frenchtown ever brought it up first. Ever. It was MY question about what policy was. I was never told I couldn’t or shouldn’t teach ANY subject by EITHER district. Even ftown gym. I was especially impressed by them, given their rep for history toward lgbt students. No student group of their own, not allowed, they’re lumped into “diversity group”. But it was never mentioned, not even during hiring or interviews. It was never truly a problem for anyone. So no real “bad” experiences at all. They’re trying to be better. “

- Shannon Sorensen

#lgbtq+#gay #trans #teachers #substitute

0 notes