Essay - Blog Posts
The Oscars & La La Land
Many passionate people were worried this year that Damian Chazelle’s La La Land would steal the award of Best Picture from the daring project, titled Moonlight. To their great avail, it did not happen but I was rather confused by the arguments they presented as ground for Moonlight to win. Surprisingly it never came up that it would be simply a quality film, worthy in its own right to win. The main reason was its theme.
While I myself am decidedly left-leaning, for me the Academy Awards are about excellence in film. Yet, I see a multitude of people, sharing my convictions, being completely biased toward or against certain artistic creations based on said convictions. For example, a loud outlet of ideas and opinions, Vox, made a video, which highlighted that the current voting system of the Oscars favors the films that have the highest general esteem, as opposed to other ones, which may be polarizing but have the most individual votes. While either way would be legitimate and fine, the preferential voting system might be a bit more precisely geared toward rightly selecting victors. The basic concept is key: we are looking for the best film of the year. If we get a polarizing winner, there will be a powerful minority--even more, since we’re not having a choice of 2 pieces but of multiple, so probably a majority that opposes the winning movie. Thus this system of selection can prove completely erroneous, since the largest minority deems a movie good, while the majority may say it is actually a product of poor filmmaking.
Now I am happy for Moonlight to have won the award but it has to be absolutely clear what its victory means: it is the best picture of the year from an artistic-commercial standpoint. As trivial as it sounds, most advocates of this film called it worthy and important for political, or human rights reasons. It seems progressive to award movies with politically progressive themes but Moonlight’s excellence cannot lie in the skin color of its actors. It can win awards for that but not by the Academy but by organizations or political agents.
In fact I posit a film’s political merits are unimportant details, when it comes to the Oscars. And if for many more decades we wouldn’t see black crews getting the award for best picture, it wouldn’t matter from the perspective of the legitimacy of the Academy or the prestige of the prize. It would and should mean that there are no good enough films made about this subject matter. Moonlight was this year’s best picture, according to the Academy, for its cinematic merits. Even so, were the case different, had they won because of the theme of the lives of people of color, their achievement would be nullified--their Oscar would become meaningless.
In my opinion La La Land was a rightful contender. The fact that it dealt with life in Hollywood was not a red flag of being Oscar bait. The truth of the matter is, most mainstream directors are actually passionate about the industry and the place, they wake up with it on their minds and go to bed with it--it permeates their everyday, they get their joy from it, even their bread from it.
Damian Chazelle is well-known for his love of films akin to his own creation, so its his genuine love-child. It, in a way, goes against Hollywood shallowness by depleting the idea of easy living presented by classic musicals and generic rom-coms in a witty, satirical way. It is an achievement. But that is just one facet of the movie, designed for people who breathe that in daily. On a deeper level there is a very unique, yet old idea explained to us in great fashion: the dreams and passions define people’s personalities.
Its truth can be argued but it hit a chord with many a viewers. The general expectation toward any musical is that it should be light and alleviating from the pains of the real world. In La La Land we get just the opposite: we have to face our internal conflicts and routine compromises that corrupt us and make our lives mediocre. Of course, there is a great narrative balance: we get something to learn and we get a little escapade. The profound idea and conflict is our lesson and the shimmering sets, combined with the ghastly beauty of the music is our break from reality.
La La Land reverberates the old American way of grand gestures and grandiose ambitions. It slowly died out from the everydays in the ‘60s but they are surfacing again in the works of this writer-director.
Finally, I cannot end without praising La La Land’s ending. There are almost as many interpretations as there were audience members. One can easily find convincing and intelligent opinions, which certainly seem to coincide with the creator’s vision. However, returning to the underlying concept of the film I think the strongest side of it is how it shows the characters’ humanity, idealized but torn down to the ruins.
The most obvious thought about the final sequence is that “it should have been” their story. At the end of the movie we have a lot of sympathy toward the protagonists and we are greatly saddened by the failure of their relationship. However, we should try to step outside from our perspectives, after all, that is what immersion is all about... From the characters’ point of view we find the same summary of “it should have been”, but it means more than from the mouth of someone sitting in a movie theater. It means “I have erred, I should have done it differently.” I think this is a great addition to the already intriguing basic concept.
The main characters have cultivated their dreams and passions and thus their personalities have become the amazing thing they always wanted--it is inspirational, yet not unrealistic. It is actually a viable route in life to develop ourselves in fields we are passionate about, people do not lose their fortunes because of their dreams or passions but because of external hardships or internal flaws. But this inspiring journey is contrasted with a personal failure. Love is undeniably an important part of life--it is argued against only by the cynics. On the forefront of human happiness we find both personal growth and love. These both determine our happiness and it is not a zero sum game, where we must choose one of the two. But it is true that we can be successful at one and lose tragically on the other.
An Essay Against Calvinism
As a premise to this essay I want to note that I write all this as a Christian, I go to a Baptist church but I was also greatly informed by many of the Catholic Church’s teachings on numerous matters. In this context it is plain to see that I don’t intend to negate the validity of a Calvinist’s faith, however I truly believe that there are some completely mistaken ideas that are either introduced by Calvin himself or held sacred by contemporary Calvinist cells. Connecting to this last sentence I must add that many of my complaints and reflections come from contact with actual Calvinist theologians and from current -- sometimes underground -- publications by them.
First of all I want to present the claims and concepts of the Calvinists that I’m going to argue against. (#1)Out of many articles of teaching they are most boastful of the center of their theology, which they say is God and they contrast it with other denominations’ different focuses -- or at least as they perceive that this contrast can be legitimately made. At the core of their Scripture interpretation lie two crucial elements: (#2)the Predestination “fact” derived from Paul’s letter to the Romans; and (#3)a very broad incorporation of the Old Testament’s teachings. There’s also the doctrine of (#4)“Total Depravity”, which states that men can do only bad things -- meaning all men at all times do only bad things. And lastly there is (#5)a contradictory stance held by Calvinists on the principle of “Sola Scriptura”.
#1: As it will be explained in the point about Predestination, Calvinists support and try to resolve the internal conflict of their theology by referring to God’s infinite greatness, his infinite power, and the infinite influence of his rulings. They use these attributes of Him to get rid of all logical counterarguments because, quite undeniably, He’s above all human intellect, so we cannot take up a fight against Him in any way, not even dialectically. This comes together with -- again from another point -- the faith that God decides about everything constantly. Predestination to them means that God actively makes unbelieving souls believe, by His own selective choosing. This is always irresistibly happening, but in fact this is the case with all things in the world: God makes everything happen.
Without spoiling my second argument too much, this, in a nutshell, is why they think the focus of their theology is God -- they refer to Him about everything. This is usually put in contrast with how other denominations treat the questions of faith and Christian conduct: all other schools of Christian faith believe there is an active human component in these matters. For example: when somebody is converted to Christian faith a generic Christian will say “He found God”, whereas a Calvinist will make the same assessment through these words “God made him believe”; another illustration is that in generic terms someone would “sin”, in Calvinist terms someone would “not be forced to do good things by God”. I hope this clarifies it: Calvinists do not in fact put God more at the core of their focus than other denominations, they only erase other words from their dictionary*. This trickles down to their theology in a peculiar way, as they find it arrogant of other Christian theology’s to involve positive action and human initiative in their tenets because those are not autonomous, instead made directly by God. Why would anyone mention something else, or explain something through other means than God’s work, when that is all there is? goes their argumentation.
I find it to be a serious misunderstanding of the contrasted denominations to say about them that they don’t put God at the center of their theology in the same exact way as them. In fact they say the same things with regards to God: He is all-powerful, all-encompassing -- the real difference is what Calvinists think about human beings. In a way they don’t believe in humanity. Not in the way that they don’t praise humanity or believe in its power to save itself, rather they don’t believe in its existence. More on this denial later, back to the point. As I’ve said, these theologies follow the same pattern, all believe there’s no salvation through actions, only through Christ but Calvinists laugh at the idea, when other denominations teach the believers about everyday conduct or talk about the search for purity. And they can’t avoid but laugh, since for them it is futile speech, men can do nothing on their own. Men’s every minute is ruled by God, if they be pure, God made it, if they be bad, God didn’t make them be pure.
This is an important mistake because all of Jesus’ warnings against pride and evilness fade in the shimmering light of denying the need for any Christian to strive to follow the teachings of the Bible -- after all, he’ll follow if God rules it, and he necessarily won’t if God doesn’t, he has no internal agency to act or remain inactive. Probably another point will bring more light on this...
#2: In Romans 8:29-30 Paul talks about how God has known and decided about His own before time to become like His Son. I was paraphrasing because I tried to both encapsulate the part that Calvinists base their teachings on and remain true to the text, not to accidentally bend it toward anything I might unconsciously prefer to be there -- I even tried to utilize the original Greek’s meaning for the most attainable truthfulness. The other bedrock of the Predestinarian Calvinist faith is the first part of the ninth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans.
It is an extremely dubious thing what the Calvinists do: they pose an interpretation of these scriptures and claim it is explicitly the content. I say it’s dubious because somehow non-Calvinists didn’t take up this mental and it’s never really been the canon interpretation. So they rely on one very revered source of the past: Augustine. His turn from Manicheism gave the Christian tradition one of its greatest theologians and philosophers, yet he shouldn’t be named as the one Calvinists will rely on. Augustine first championed the existence of free will, then, arguing against other schools of thought, went on more and more to shrink away from it. In The City of God he introduced the concept of God’s election for His salvation. It was much more moderate than Calvin’s but about near the end of his life, Augustine got to a point, where he, in a way, denounced free will and got to the point Calvin did. The reason he’s not an ideal theologian predecessor is that he never rested at any one state of opinion on the matter of predestination but kept it changing from work to work. Its evident reason is that he was continually arguing against others and in this fashion of reactionism were his interpretations born. Today we’re not having a discussion with the Plageans, there’s no actuality of his works, they should be inspected with a much more contextual approach and more analytically, not accepted as, well, Scripture. I want to note that I don’t intend to discredit Augustine, as there’s absolutely no way for me to do that, as he’s clearly my intellectual superior and I’d be a predestined loser in a sparring match, still, it’s important to see that there’s something forced in the Calvinist approach to legitimize their claims of predestination.
The Calvinist concept of predestination is as follows: God, in his sovereignty, elects certain individuals for salvation. Others He elects not, as everybody is worthy of damnation, which even further glorifies His loving kindness and goodness, since He does elect some by His grace.
First of all it is crucial to remember that, despite what Calvinists claim, only the Calvinist interpretation of the texts from Romans is the above one. Other denominations and schools of faith never taught that this is the meaning of Paul’s words. Mind you, despite the claim that this is explicitly what he says. This statement of mine must be amended because the Calvinist interpretation isn’t completely dissimilar to others, traditionally Christians have believed that God works in people to help them to get to faith and on their own people wouldn’t be able to find salvation. Even so, this is what the work of the Holy Spirit in us is most often credited for: He helps us to break free from our flesh and eventual death, in order to be resurrected. This I do not argue against. Yet, it’s not identical to the Calvinist version.
The reason why predestination isn’t an interpretation that Christians traditionally believed is that salvation has been connected to Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross, His resurrection, and faith in it. Even though Paul doesn’t speak of any of these things in these verses. His mention of the Pharaoh, of the Jews and Gentiles, seem to show God’s workings on Earth. Especially so, since in these cases there was no Gospel, at the time of Moses the Jews didn’t have a concept of any afterlife or salvation, yet they were elected. If this election means election for salvation, then God’s saving works used to be happening completely without the sacrificial death of His Son, which I think is blasphemy. If we make the step as to say chronology is irrelevant from the point of view of God, there still seems to be a problem with Evangelization: if people were saved unknowingly, why does the Bible put an emphasis on the spreading of the Good News? Why does it matter? The question of afterlife for people before Christ’s time is quite mysterious for us but the Calvinist answer is outright contradictory, to say the least. It seems that Paul could possibly mean something other than God would choose on His own accord to save some and damn others, and like most Christians believe, there likely is a reality on the part of human initiative with regards to faith, even if not achieved completely alone.
Now there are Calvinist responses to these:
Predetermination is argued against because it seems illogical, whereas it seems so only because humans are much lesser beings and what constitutes logic**? Human constructions, whereas God’s great works far exceed those. He wills what He wills, that is His sovereignty and we are not to understand it but to abide by it and make ourselves subjects to it.
This is problematic only because predetermination seems to reflect solely the Calvinist vision, and I suspect they refer to God’s sovereignty only in order to prove themselves, as His rulings are indeed inarguable. Traditionally this isn’t the interpretation, logically it isn’t the interpretation, there is no reason to accept it, other than Calvin and Augustine said it and that falls into the category of tradition, which proves weaker than the entire Christian tradition; whereas if someone claims to have come to the same conclusion about predetermination, they used their logic, which is again overruled by sounder logic.
God is great, in fact He is the greatest in existence. It is arrogant to assume He needs our assent, that is, our initiative, our, so called, faith, in order to save us. If He wills to save someone, He cannot be stopped with any obstacle and if He wills not to save someone, those cannot somehow get into salvation.
My answer to this is that God’s irresistible greatness is made evident in His work of Salvation through Christ. That cannot be undone by anyone or anything, it is done forever. It is superfluous to go as far as to assume He must decide for us. This is, of course, assuming that it is possible for humans to autonomously believe. I will explain this later but it is a crucial question because Calvinism tends to express its stance not dissimilar to disbelief in human existence. So the problem with the Calvinist argument is that they believe non-Calvinists think God needs us to repent, on our own, is because He couldn’t otherwise save us and that makes Him look incapable of overcoming our will. And yes, evidently He can harden and soften people, but were it the case that people could decide to believe or disbelief, He could let them. God’s all-powerful work is that we can be saved and if we believe there’s no circumstance that can take us out of salvation -- simply, Calvinists reject the notion of free will.
#3: Now it is universally true that for sound doctrine it is necessary to incorporate the entirety of the Bible, that is, including both Testaments. Why Calvinists differ from other Christians in their doing so is that they look at it normatively (not differing from all schools of faith, as fundamentalist interpretations usually follow the same pattern). This is problematic because in the New Testament it becomes quite evident that Gentiles are not required to conform to old Hebrew rules and patterns and in the light of the Gospel the Old Testament’s essence seems to be revealed to be something completely beyond normative texts: it is a narrative gradually moving toward the final revelation, which is Christ as the Son of God and as the Savior. Paul also talks about the role of the Law in the Christian life, and in addition to this, many texts of the Old Testament, especially the ones concerning normative parts, philologically seem dubious, as in attributing rules and laws to Moses whereas they were created much later. This makes it questionable in the context of usefulness as normative texts and it seems just more likely that they are included in canon for other reasons, namely for context, or helping to create the image of Christ throughout the Old Testament. Now this is not as elaborate as the previous arguments but I hope I have at least made this argument at least an inspiration for understanding the underlying problem with this trait of the Calvinist faith.
#4: Calvin introduced the concept of Total Depravity in Institutes. It’s based on several verses from the Bible and he concludes that all men at all times are doing evil things and they cannot help but do that.
I will present three counterarguments to this, the first one I consider a weaker one, the second one I consider a more powerful one, and the third as an auxiliary one.
Firstly, through empirical inspection it is quite visible it’s untrue. Not only in the sense that not all people are doing the most vial crimes imaginable at all times but also seen in how sometimes people perform completely innocent acts. There’s familial love and care, which isn’t universal but at least general and usually observable. To this can come a counterargument of selfishness. People can perform seemingly innocent acts but be, in their spirits, totally depraved while doing so. Selfishness is widely accepted as a manifestation of sinful nature and when a mother takes care of her child, she wants gratification, she wants some subtle pleasure in return. This is understandable and eerily similar to Kant’s moral criteria of the categorical imperative. Still, many idealists, who aren’t Christians, show self-sacrifice for the sake of a good cause, without any hope or desire to be remembered or praised for their achievement. It is a rare, noble behavior, but nonetheless observable. Of course, what is empirical evidence, when a man can be deceived, or can misunderstand what’s before his eyes? This is why it’s a weak argument, when dealing with higher things than base natural science.
Secondly, Calvin seems utterly and irreverently selective with regards to his choosing of Bible verses. From the time of Noah, when everybody was evil, yet a man truly just before God existed, through the Psalms, which describe evil and good people, to Paul, who was quoting the Psalmist, everywhere in the Bible there is a dichotomy of Good and Evil persons. It’s very important when dealing with this matter. Even outside of the community of generally accepted believers there seems to be, at least portrayed, gracious characters in the Bible and contrary to a selection of decontextualized verses, the Bible never categorically claims that people would be inherently incapable of doing anything but evil. In fact, it would be futile to call anybody to do good or resist evil, were it impossible for them. While sinfulness in nature is apparent, its totality is Calvin’s invention. Other schools of faith teach the doctrine of deprivation in the way that all men are sinful and cannot achieve salvation, therefore are in need of God’s mercy, realized in Christ and His work of salvation.
The reason I find need for an auxiliary argument is that with total deprivation comes the incredible doctrine of human-denial. The ultimate response to any criticism about total deprivation is that men can do only wrong and God can make them do good, when He decides so. He does that for the sake of His own children’s benefit. This means that humans are bound to take the course of evil, unless by God they are bound to do good. The horror in it is that for anything to be alive it must have agency, it must be autonomous but if we are truly not doing things on our own accord, as we cannot possibly alter our will to decide between good or bad, we are not in fact real agents, we are not in fact alive (in terms of soul or spirit). Also, this claim is self contradictory, as if men were incapable of doing anything good, the evil they do would not be their own responsibility. For, are we responsible for things we don’t decide to do? Are we responsible for things we are forced to do? This can’t be a true state, as God is just and righteous, He isn’t condemning people if they are not responsible but they are. In Romans 9 we see a seemingly similar line of argument, only that applies to the election and that has already been discussed above.
#5: The principle of “Sola Scriptura” is that faith is based solely on the Scripture. Yet, this is, illustrated by my previous arguments, far from realized in the Calvinist system. They have their own inventions, their own interpretations and they cling to it and often choose to change the scripture to fit to their doctrines. There are visibly higher authorities than the Scripture among Calvinists and not only Jean Calvin himself -- but he certainly is --, but Councils and texts declaring doctrines. Of course, many denominations utilize extra-biblical sources to base their rituals and modes of teaching on, what separates the Calvinists is the hypocritical nature of it. While a church may have an influential tradition, it is possible to remain true to the Scripture, theologians only have to know which is which; in contrast with the Calvinist way, where tradition and authority is said to be the Scripture or its only right interpretation.
In conclusion to this essay I’d like to add a few notes. Most importantly the reason behind writing this is twofold: on the one side I find a few great errors in Calvinism, especially the kind I encounter through certain theologians and their influence, and I am worried it would spread (evidently more and more people are impressed by it); and on the other side I haven’t seen any denomination in my life be as actively critical and hostile toward other churches as the Calvinists, and it’s important to see that the ones who call the Catholics non-Christians and non-Calvinists as lessers, do in fact comprise the greatest sect in Christianity. These last few words might seem very harsh and I only half-mean them but in light of the above arguments I find myself strongly leaning away from them. Ultimately, I mean no harm, I intend not to hurt any Calvinist’s feelings, I’d be thrilled to continue it as a conversation on faith, and, most importantly, I don’t think Calvinists can’t be saved by God because of their mistakes.
Before commenting consider the following: this is not a scholarly work; I have written it truly as a Christian, don’t try to mix into this essay any other religion or atheism.
NOTES:
*In James there is a lot said about acts and while they’re still no way of salvation, he points out they are necessarily part of a living faith. It is for this reason that non-Calvinists typically mention good acts and even include it in their teachings, since, according to James, a good conduct is inevitably paired with faith. (I wonder if Calvinists are ever puzzled by James’ words.)
**Logic is often associated with humans, as inherently flawed, just like them, whereas in reality logic is the formalization of the paths to right conclusions. In this way it’s easy to see logic can’t be blamed, as it, by nature, cannot err. Where there’s failure in the conclusions, there’s a lack of sound logic. It’s a little bit beside the point, that’s why it’s a note, nevertheless, I thought it important to remind us all that logic is never the culprit, it’s not human-like in any way, it is a precise way of formulation, much like language is a way of expression, yet we -- while language is often unable to fully express something -- don’t make it the Big Bad and reason of false ideas.
***”schools of faith” is a phrase here, referring exclusively to Christian theological teachings and nothing of other religions, nor pseudo-Christian ones
An Essay on Café Society
Woody Allen’s most recent film, Café Society, has been probably the season’s most anticipated piece in a few circles, as the old writer-director has unceasingly uphold his reputation in the past several years. He had many exceedingly and a few hardly memorable movies in his line of annual releases. This year’s film is simultaneously a worthy continuation and a surprising departure from the latest trend in the Woody Allen factory.
In numerous respects it’s a classical piece with all the usual themes: urban life, particularly the praise of New York; disillusionment; the overall pointlessness of life; being a Jew in America; neurosis and neurotics; unfulfilled love, and jazz. In some ways these were easily identifiable and fresh but at the same time they seemed to be somewhat rushed and stale--it is almost impossible to describe it without contradictions.
In this period piece we get to follow the life of a Jewish New York family and their several exploits. In the focal point there is a young, neurotic Jessie Eisenberg, who looks and acts quite similarly to the young Woody Allen. He falls in love with an unsuccessful, unspoiled Hollywood debutante, even has a chance at a short romance with her but his influential, wealthy and well-loved uncle takes the girl. As the protagonist returns to his hometown, he finds solace in high social life and a nicely growing success as a bar manager. The movie ends without many great twists and turns, with a few bitter moments of the once-lover couple meeting but never chancing at starting again together.
I think it’s unnecessary to go into details concerning the family, the why’s and how’s, as the real treasure that this film is is hidden somewhere else.
In the context of the last twenty years of Woody Allen movies he has arguably been creating more of essays than solid works. The characteristics of his films have been changing, from the surreal reality to more subtle ways. The incomplete list of his themes above is very well-known among the people who have seen at least three or four of his works and there seems to be a will to find a perfect body for a Woody Allen film. Evidently experimentation with tone, color, period, narrative tools and much more have been defining the writer-director’s approach to his work.
Firstly, the tone is now balanced and masterful. With Match Point, and Irrational Man he has gone down the path paved by Dostoevsky. The dark brutality that he has tried to grasp in humanity has been so refined now that he probably felt it burdensome to emphasize its graveness and made it as frivolous as is fit to someone, who grew up on classical film noires. But also the romantic and neurotic air, so typical, has been refined into a cynical calmness, beyond even the point of “I can only laugh”. We have all seen the disillusionment of Woody Allen but it seems the energetic overtone is now smoothing out, which is a good thing, since the things to replace it are subtlety, mastery and unpretended grandeur.
As regards the color and period of this film I must say this is the closest I have seen to perfection. Obviously these work as great reassurances to the subject matter of the movie but there is also an important subtle depth to them. His most successful attempts at these two have been Irrational Man and Midnight in Paris. The former with its rosy color foreshadowing violence, the latter being half-set in the most resonant period of American history. In some respect Café Society is an adaptation of The Great Gatsby, dwarfing Baz Luhrman’s--in comparison--cheap attempt. In the titular film several moments are highlighted and tainted with a golden shade--something not similar but identical to Fitzgerald’s work. At first it seems to underline the high hopes and dreams of the likable protagonist and it then gradually flowers into the color of death and decay, more and more disappearing from Jessie Eisenberg’s scenes and more and more coloring death around him. In the beginning he is hopeful, he is made golden but what it symbolizes loses meaning and moves into external things, for example originally he feels this golden color and loves a brunette, then in the end feels nothing close to that but his wife has golden hair. The period of the film is also evocative of The Great Gatsby: one will feel both a romantic feeling for that specific time and a detachment because of the overhanging horror.
In To Rome with Love we have seen a contemporary, yet clear narrative with multiple storielines to follow, hardly ever intersecting each other, connected mainly by the place but not limited by anything. Now Café Society is far more conservative but clearly shows the understanding that the creator has obtained through a daring project. It is subtle, it is a lot but it is enough--according to this blogger. Here it is the family members that create multiple dimensions, although they are pointing toward a final intersection inside our protagonist. To me it’s these simultaneously running stories that create the oh-so-familiar feeling of neurosis in Café Society.
A nowadays often looked-down-upon tool has been utilized in the film: voice-over. However there is nothing to be despised about it, since it is no more than semblance that it served the function of exposition--in fact it is subtle but continuous cynicism, magnified only by the past experiences with Woody Allen films. It speaks a language known only to the adepts but to them it speaks it quite comprehensibly.
Even the casting of this film is subtly outstanding. We have several savvy choices of returning actors from past Woody Allen movies, like our old Hemingway as the brute of the family, or pseudo-neurotic Jessie Eisenberg. What I think is the greatest decision with regards to the actors is Steve Carell, who is Italian enough to play a Jew--a joke a little too much on the nose...
Overall this film is one more step in the direction of at least my ideal of a Woody Allen film. It has so numerous merits, it looks so subtle, expensive, real and beautiful that I won’t stop praising it in a reasonable space of time.
Value v. Progress
Quite recently I wrote about how society is not getting better and just now I realized how easily that can be argued--not because it would be wrong but because of the pride society takes in itself.
There is a popular idea that is thought to be new, however it has always been the human approach to its communities: newer societies are better than the old ones (there are views, contrary to this but let us not discuss nostalgia now). It comes from the observation that new orders are set up because the old ones are mended or upgraded. But is it true?
It is, but only in the most technological sense. Society, as a means of something, as a very functional tool evolves into a better means, into something more functional. The structure enables us to do much more things and the new order, the new society can effectively react to many new issues. But it would be a folly to call the advancements good or bad.
Equality for women, the abolition of slavery and child labor, education--these are all huge steps forward but they do not necessarily fall into the category of good or bad because these things are progress and not values. Mind you that in retrospect it is always represented that old times were evil, when the oppressed suffered and died, when in fact the oppressed could sometimes be content and happy and feel satisfied--surely not because of the riches bestowed upon them but although their lives were hard it was not unavoidably a life they wished they never lived.
The difference between progress and value is not transparent because both are highly desirable. Still, they are not the same, although at times they may mix.
Progress is when something is being made. In sociological questions it may be assumed that progress is infinite, as there cannot be an ultimate society. It may be hard to accept, even so, almost impossible to accept because every step is very rewarding and needs to be served as an end in itself. So sometimes we are under the illusion that this or that change in the community will perfect the whole thing. Equality is the eventual goal and when that is achieved, we are done. However it just depicts how short-sighted we may be. Looking at history, putting ourselves in perspective, it seems like the greatest delusion to say that we would finish the work. For the people, who organized themselves into the first society, it must have seemed like agriculture is the greatest human feat, as it brings about a supply never before seen. And then the same happened with every new societal invention, its creators were so touched by their own grandeur that I imagine some of them almost cried. However, looking at those things today we just shrug and call it primitive. Even so, about agriculture we would say it is necessary for human existence but we would never take the extra step of saying agriculture is a value. Certainly it is in economic terms but it does not have a higher, abstract form. It is all about function.
In contrast with progress, value is an end. To be tender toward people, to save somebody, to sacrifice something, these can sometimes serve progress, but they are also satisfactory in themselves. And it also teaches a good lesson about the people of the past: everybody, throughout history, had the potential to live equally valuable lives or fill their lives with equal measures of value, as opposed to the social progress, which goes stage after stage.
So society does not convey an absolute value, however tempting to compliment ourselves with it. Societies can be advanced and complex and functional but goodness or badness remains in the life of the individual.
Optimism, Pessimism, Perspective and the Question of Society and Art
Recently I experienced an emotional antinomy in regards of how current technology and social media affect art.
My first observation was that it multiplies the art outlets and creates a vast stock of memorabilia about artists for the ages to come. How nice would it be to read Fitzgerald’s tumblr posts.
The second observation was that the increased outlets and the conservation of everything brings about a horrific picture about our age. As cheap horror flicks went down the sewers a hundred years ago and then disintegrated from human remembering, we cannot anticipate today’s trash to just disappear because it will haunt the internet forever.
But just today I woke up with a realization that alleviated my passionate opinions. I remembered that people read and watch and touch what they choose to. The internet does not change the people fundamentally, it is exactly the other way around. However the current society wishes to shape the world of art, it is not a danger on the bigger arc of things. The case has never been changed, not even slightly, dumb people have always been into dumb things and smart people have always been into smart things. Any alternation that has ever happened happened in the individual’s life. We, as persons, and not as society, move forward. It is because of each individual’s limited time on earth: we start from nil and run as fast as we can to get the farthest possible but it does not affect society, as it survives the individual. Unless people can somehow learn to give birth to children with a refined sense of society in their heads, society will not become smarter or dumber, just a mass of us.
Aahhhh essay after easy after eassyyy!!!!! When will it enddd!!! Pleasee summer take me away from this place already!!!! I wanna be online more pleaseee (T^T)
A Mirror Too Full and a Plate Too Empty
Hunger gnaws at me from within, piercing my insides and programming my senses. It makes its way from my stomach to my heart, passing through my muscles and leaving my bones cold, but it can't reach my mind. I have walls defending my purpose, with cracks that allow my sanity and health to spill out.
It's impossible to move forward; my steps slow down every day, and my body, despite being thinner, grows heavier every day. The tape tightens ever tighter around my waist, holding my breath in a way it shouldn't, but it's gratifying. My ribs stick out and my wrists are weak, and yet the reflection in the mirror remains the same as before; every insecurity surfaces the moment eyes fall on me, like a phantom pain that haunts my thoughts.
I've noticed looks of pity and expressions of concern, all directed my way. Why aren't they happy to see me now? Could it be that they don't notice how much weight I've lost? Or perhaps they've noticed too much?
They've noticed my hair loss, my dark circles under my eyes, the skin sticking to my bones, my weak steps, or perhaps my lack of appetite.
My throat aches to expel every taunt, every comment, every opinion... But they don't go away: the taunts are replaced by questions and interrogations about my health, the comments, in murmurs around me, and yet every thread in my mind connects in the form of a mirror too full and a plate too empty.
And while the bile rests on the toilet, the scale escapes from its corner and into my hands, a daily routine that leads me to nothing: breakfast, fasting, vomiting, weighing... But what was my goal?
I've forgotten it along the way, right next to my old self. That me who didn't attach more importance to the number of calories I consumed than to my own vitality, that me who didn't feel pure disgust at a simple apple, that me who didn't live in misery...
The scarcity of food comforts my pain and my lament, but at the same time it is the burden that weakens me.
My compassion for myself ended when the pain became pleasurable.
Un reflejo demasiado lleno y un plato demasiado vacío
El hambre me carcome desde dentro, atraviesa mis entrañas y programa mis sentidos; recorre su camino desde mi estómago hasta mi corazón, pasando a través de mis músculos y dejando mis huesos fríos, mas no puede llegar hasta mi mente, tengo murallas defendiendo mi propósito, con grietas que permiten el derrame de mi cordura y de mi salud.
Es imposible seguir adelante, mis pasos se ralentizan más cada día y mi cuerpo, a pesar de ser más delgado, se hace más pesado cada día. La cinta costurera se aprieta cada vez más alrededor de mi cintura, conteniendo la respiración de una manera que no debería, pero es gratificante. Mis costillas se asoman y mis muñecas son débiles y, aun así, el reflejo en el espejo sigue siendo el mismo de antes; cada inseguridad sale a flote en cuanto unos ojos se posan en mí, como un dolor fantasmal que acecha mis pensamientos.
He notado miradas de lástima y entregas de preocupación, todos dirigidos hacia mí, ¿por qué no se alegran de verme ahora? ¿Será que no se dan cuenta del peso que he perdido? ¿O, acaso, se han dado cuenta de más?
Se habrán dado cuenta de mi caída de pelo, de mis ojeras, de la piel adherida a mis huesos, de mis pasos débiles o, quizá, de mi falta de apetito.
Mi garganta está angustiada de expulsar cada burla, cada comentario, cada opinión… Pero no desaparecen: las burlas se cambian por preguntas e interrogatorios sobre mi salud, los comentarios, en murmullos a mi alrededor y, sin embargo, cada hilo de mi mente se conecta en forma de un espejo demasiado lleno y un plato demasiado vacío.
Y mientras la bilis descansa en el inodoro, la báscula escapa de su rincón hasta mis manos, una rutina diaria que me conduce hasta la nada: desayunar, ayunar, vomitar, pesar... ¿Pero cuál era mi meta?
Se me ha olvidado en el camino, justo al lado de mi antigua yo. Aquella yo que no le daba más importancia a la cantidad de calorías que consumía que a su propia vitalidad, aquella yo que no sentía puro disgusto ante una simple manzana, aquella yo que no vivía en la miseria...
La escasez de alimento es reconfortante a mi dolor y a mi lamento, mas es al mismo tiempo el lastre que me debilita.
La compasión por mí misma terminó cuando el dolor se volvió placentero.
Me writing a thesis about the topic I chose
What Space Patrol Luluco meant to me, as an aeromantic middle schooler
H hhiii everybody, this is an essay I wanted to write. I know this is an art account, but the last time I wrote a half assed paper about Osomatsu’s 24th season two episode you guys like it? So maybe, just maybe, you guys would be ok with reading another, this time something more personal, about what I beleive is a completely underrated show and how it changed my life! :D
WARNING!! THERE ARE HEAVY SPOILERS IN THIS ARTICLE FOR SPACE PATROL LULUCO
Space Patrol Luluco is a 13 episode shit post about a 13 year old girl name Luluco (fuckadoodle doo) who take her father’s place in the Okikubo division of the Space Patrol after he’s turned into a frozen brain splinter by her Space Pirate Mother. (more on that later)
What the series is most known for is being one huge fucking inside joke for fans of Studio Trigger. The 13 episodes are divided into 5 mini seasons, each ending on the third episode so that that there’s never a fourth episode, since Trigger is known for their infamously bad fourth episodes. The show even confirms that all Trigger properties belong in the same universe just on different planets, Luluco even meets some notable characters from other shows. It’s a really neat show for fans of the studio.
But for me, I’ve always seen the show as something much more personal than that, especially as an aeromantic middle schooler.
The show throughout seasons 1-3 carries this subplot of Luluco’s crush on this apathetic good looking boy name Nova; and to be honest when I was first watching it I found this subplot cringey and unappealing.
As a bit of a disclaimer, my aeromanticism was a coping mechanism due to some bad experiences involving being stalked and manipulated by a boy I knew for seven years. (i’m not joking, fourth grade to tenth grade) For most people aeromanticism isn’t a phase, and I’m not trying to imply in anyway that that’s what it is, but for me, it was a phase. Romance made me incredibly uncomfortable, because I was convinced that all love is shallow especially premature teen age love. I believed the standard of love we had created for ourselves was impossible to actually achieve. Especially impossible, and pointless, for middle school love.
And that’s how I felt about Luluco’s crush for Nova. It wasn’t special, it wasn’t deep, it wasn’t love. But it all changed in the series's climax, because my outlook on Luluco’s crush was the exact intention of the writer’s. The audience was meant to view her love as insignificant, because that was the exact view of the series's main antagonist too.
Another thing I’ve always loved about all of Trigger’s properties are their insane plot twists. (or at least the ones I've seen have plot twists) In episode one of season four of Space Patrol Luluco it’s revealed that the commanding chief of the entire space patrol force is a Blackholien, an alien species that only finds joy from stealing everything the universe has to offer; but because he’s so bored of stealing things of value, he sets about trying to steal the most worthless object in the entire universe- a middle school crush. Nova, the boy Luluco loves, is revealed to be a Nothingling, a being incapable of having a personality or feelings. The Blackholien humiliates Luluco by showing everyone that she only loves Nova for his looks, because that’s all he is. Then, Nova steals Luluco’s love from her body and the shock of this kills her.
Now, watching this for the first time, this really got my attention. In the next fucking episode, Luluco isn’t even in the opening anymore, because she’s dead. She spends the whole episode in hell, until she realizes something. It doesn’t matter to her that her love seems immature and shallow, because to her, it’s real.
Pulling back from the show for a moment, I’d like to say that we live in a society where we hate little girls. We do. If something is fucking stupid but is geared toward boys we withstand it. But if something is fucking stupid and geared toward little girls we hate on it, relentlessly. I felt that pressure alot as a child. Until I reached high school I was a tomboy, because I didn’t want to be seen as feminine. Subconsciously, I saw it as weak and something to outgrow. But it wasn’t until freshmen year that I realized that I’m ok with being girly. I can be feminine and powerful at the same time.
I got a little off topic there but what I’m trying to say is that these themes are very present all through out the show Space Patrol Luluco, except it focuses less on gender expression and more on age but still it’s kind of the same. There are arc words within the series, such as how instead of stealing people only use the term “shoplift.” And how the Blackholien at every chance he gets calls Luluco a worthless middleschooler, belittling her for her age and her optimism.
I rewatched the series recently, and seeing it from a different perspective, with a romantic partner in my life, I’ve really come to understand Nova and Luluco’s relationship. Back in season one, after spending sometime with Nova Luluco experiences this big bang, and it’s meant to be this metaphor for the emotions blooming within her. Later, after Luluco comes back to life and confesses her feelings to Nova he experiences a big bang too, and for the first time ever he can feel emotions, and he falls in love with Luluco, and to me, that is the most romantic beautiful thing I’ve ever seen.
As someone who has personally experienced what it’s like to feel incapable of love to finding my soulmate, it’s incredibly empowering. And that’s the real purpose of Space Patrol Luluco. Good art shows people different perspectives of the world, and years ago that’s exactly what it did for me. And I don’t care if love is stupid anymore I just know what it is I feel, and that’s what Luluco is for. To teach little girls like me that it’s ok to have dumb middle school crushes.
24/100 days of productivity
Today I've been put through 3 tests for physics, calculus, and English. I am just a tad upset that I got a B on one of them... oh well, that just means I have to practice it more! Expecting the weekend schedule I set up, it will be productive but somewhat difficult since I get distracted easily... but it is best to work through the weekend to have the week cleared out! Preparing my response to the discussion for speech and documents for my essay, needless to say I am worried about them but I will prevail! Hopefully... Keep Positive vibes~~~
I need this!!!
french linking words 🌿
Ainsi – Thus, In This/That Manner
La fée transforma ses jambes en queue de poisson, et ainsi, la princesse devint une sirène. The fairy transformed her legs into a fish tale, and thus, the princess became a mermaid.
C’est Ainsi Que – It’s This Way
Elle a travaillé dur pendant dix ans. C’est ainsi qu’elle a gagné la compétition. She worked hard for 10 years. She won the competition that way.
Alors – Then, So, Hence
Jean Noël ne pouvait pas supporter le bruit dans le club, alors il est sorti. JN couldn’t bear the noise in the club, so he went out.
Alors Que – While, Whereas, When
Alors que Sophie aime le jazz, Marie déteste ça. Whereas Sophie loves jazz, Mary hates it.
Aussitôt Que –As Soon As
Aussitôt que la chatte s’est endormie, les souris se sont montrées.
As soon as the cat fell asleep, the mice showed themselves.
D’autant Plus – All The More
Il partageait sa passion de la danse. Elle l’aimait d’autant plus. He shared her passion for dance. She loved him all the more.
D’autant Plus Que – Even More So Since
Je suis vraiment déçue. D’autant plus que je lui avais dit de venir chez nous. I am really disappointed. Even more so since I told him to come to our house.
Bien Que – Even Though (*Followed By The Subjunctive)
Elle l’a fait, bien qu’elle n’en ait pas eu envie. she did it even though she didn’t feel like it.
Si Bien Que – Hence
Ils parlaient à demi-voix si bien qu’elle ne pouvait pas les entendre. They spoke softly, hence she couldn’t hear them.
Cependant – Nevertheless, Meanwhile, However
Je ne suis pas de son avis. Cependant je le suivrai. I don’t share his opinion. Nevertheless I will follow it.
Dès – Since, From
Dès ce moment, il a refusé de parler d’elle. From that moment, he refused to talk about her.
Dès Que – As Soon As
Je te téléphonerai dès qu’elle arrivera. I’ll call you as soon as she gets here.
En Tant Que – As (A)
En tant qu’ingénieur, elle est très précise. As an Engineer, she is very precise.
Lorsque – When
Ils ont cueilli les cerises lorsqu’elles étaient mûres. They picked the cherries when they were ripe.
Malgré – Despite
Malgré son effort, cela n’a pas suffi. Despite her efforts, it wasn’t enough.
Même Si – Even If
Il ira même si elle n’y va pas. He’ll go even if she doesn’t.
À Moins Que – Unless (*Followed By The Subjunctive)
Vous ne pourrez pas voir la directrice à moins que vous ayez un rendez-vous. You will not be able to see the director unless you have an appointment.
Néanmoins – However, Nevertheless, Nonetheless
Elle avait peu d’argent néanmoins elle lui a tout donné. She had little money, but she gave all to him nonetheless.
Pendant Que – While, As
Marc étudie la chimie pendant qu’il écoute la radio. Marc studies chemistry while he is listening to the radio.
Pour Que – So That (*Followed By The Subjunctive)
Il a couru pour qu’elle ne l’attende pas trop longtemps. He ran so that she wouldn’t wait for him too long.
Pourtant – Although, Still, Nevertheless
La femme a plus de quarante ans, mais c’est pourtant une beauté. The woman is over forty, but she is nevertheless a beauty.
Puisque – Since, Because, As, Seeing That, For That Reason
Puisque sa maman ne voulait pas jouer au Monopoly, le petit garçon est sorti jouer dehors. Since his mother didn’t want to play Monopoly, the boy went to play outside.
Quand Même – Even Though, All The Same, Nevertheless
Ce n’est pas lui qui chantait le mieux, mais il a gagné la compétition quand même. He wasn’t the best singer, but he won the contest all the same.
Quant À – As For
Quant à lui, il préfère ne pas discuter de ce sujet dangereux. As for him, he’d rather not talk about this dangerous topic.
Quoique – Though, Although (*Followed By The Subjunctive)
Quoiqu’elle ne sourie pas beaucoup, en réalité elle est très contente. Although she doesn’t smile much, in fact she is really happy.
Quoi Que – Whatever, No Matter What (*Followed By The Subjunctive)
Quoi qu’il dise, elle ne le croit pas. Whatever he might say, she won’t believe him.
Sinon – Except, If Not, Otherwise, Except That, Unless
Ne sors pas sans manteau, sinon tu vas attrapper froid. Don’t go out without a jacket, otherwise you’ll catch a cold.
Tandis Que – Whereas, While
Il préfère aller à la plage pour les vacances, tandis qu’elle préfère aller à la montagne. He likes to go to the beach for vacations, whereas she prefers the mountains.
To help move away from summary and toward ANALYSIS, it’s important to incorporate strong verbs into your writing when discussing the writer’s rhetorical choices. Below is a list of verbs that are considered weak (imply summary) and a list of verbs that are considered strong (imply analysis). Strive to use the stronger verbs in your essays to help push yourself away from summary and toward analysis: ex “The writer flatters…” NOT “The writer says…”
Weak Verbs (Summary):
says
explains
relates
states
goes on to say
shows
tells
this quote shows
Strong Verbs (Analysis):
Argues, admonishes, analyzes, compares, contrasts, defines, demonizes, denigrates, describes, dismisses, enumerate, expounds, emphasizes, establishes, flatters, implies, lionizes, lists, minimizes, narrates, praises, processes, qualifies, questions, ridicules, suggests, supports, trivializes, vilifies, warns
Powerful and Meaningful Verbs to Use in an Analysis (Alternatives to Show):
Acknowledge, Address, Analyze, Apply, Argue, Assert, Augment
Broaden
Calculate, Capitalize, Characterize, Claim, Clarify,Compare, Complicate, Confine, Connect, Consider, Construct, Contradict, Correct, Create, Convince, Critique
Declare, Deduce, Defend, Demonstrate, Deny, Describe, Determine, Differentiate, Disagree, Discard, Discover, Discuss, Dismiss, Distinguish, Duplicate
Elaborate, Emphasize, Employ, Enable, Engage, Enhance, Establish, Evaluate, Exacerbate, Examine, Exclude, Exhibit, Expand, Explain, Exploit, Express, Extend
Facilitate, Feature, Forecast, Formulate, Fracture
Generalize, Group, Guide
Hamper, Hypothesize
Identify, Illuminate, Illustrate, Impair, Implement, Implicate, Imply, Improve, Include, Incorporate, Indicate, Induce, Initiate, Inquire, Instigate, Integrate, Interpret, Intervene, Invert, Isolate
Justify
Locate, Loosen
Maintain, Manifest, Manipulate, Measure, Merge, Minimize, Modify, Monitor
Necessitate, Negate, Nullify
Obscure, Observe, Obtain, Offer, Omit, Optimize, Organize, Outline, Overstate
Persist, Point out, Possess, Predict, Present, Probe, Produce, Promote, Propose, Prove, Provide
Qualify, Quantify, Question
Realize, Recommend, Reconstruct, Redefine, Reduce, Refer, Reference, Refine, Reflect, Refute, Regard, Reject, Relate, Rely, Remove, Repair, Report, Represent, Resolve, Retrieve, Reveal, Revise
Separate, Shape, Signify, Simulate, Solve, Specify, Structure, Suggest, Summarize, Support, Suspend, Sustain
Tailor, Terminate, Testify, Theorize, Translate
Undermine, Understand, Unify, Utilize
Validate, Vary, View, Vindicate
Yield
Working on an essay or a paper? Looking for feedback, help or editing support but have no idea where to turn for unbiased, constructive criticism and professional advice? Here are some great resources to help get you going!
General
Harvard’s Strategies for Essay Writing
Queen’s University Online Thesis Manager
How To Write A Great Essay About Anything
How to Write Dazzlingly Brilliant Essays: Sharp Advice for Ambitious Students
University of Cambridge - How to Write a Paper
Purdue OWL: Writing a Research Paper
Microsoft Research - How to write a great research paper
Georgetown University - How to Write a Research Paper
University of South California - Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Guide
Abstract Writing
Berkeley - HOW TO WRITE AN ABSTRACT: Tips and Samples
Purdue OWL - Writing Report Abstracts
University of Toronto - The Abstract
How to write a good abstract for a scientific paper or conference presentation
Introductions and Conclusions
Columbia University - Writing a Good Introduction
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - Introductions
Birmingham City University - Writing Introductions
University of Toronto - Introductions and Conclusions
Purdue OWL - Writing a Developed and Detailed Conclusion
Harvard - Ending the Essay: Conclusions
Editing
Paper Rater
Ginger’s Essay Checker
Hemingway Editor
ProWritingAid
editMinion
After the Deadline
Slick Write
Grammarly
GrammarBase
Citation
Citation Machine
BibMe
EasyBib
RefMe: APA
RefMe: MLA
Cite This For Me
University of South California - Citation Guide
Word Counter - Not only does it count the number of words you’ve written, it tells you which words are used most often and how many times they appear.
Tip Of My Tongue - Have you ever had a word on the tip of your tongue, but you just can’t figure out what it is? This site searches words by letters, length, definition, and more to alleviate that.
Readability Score - This calculates a multitude of text statistics, including character, syllable, word, and sentence count, characters and syllables per word, words per sentence, and average grade level.
Writer’s Block (Desktop Application) - This free application for your computer will block out everything on your computer until you meet a certain word count or spend a certain amount of time writing.
Cliche Finder - It does what the name says.
Write Rhymes - It’ll find rhymes for words as you write.
Verbix - This site conjugates verbs, because English is a weird language.
Graviax - This grammar checker is much more comprehensive than Microsoft Word, again, because English is a weird language.
Sorry for how short this is! I wanted to only include things I genuinely find useful.
To help move away from summary and toward ANALYSIS, it’s important to incorporate strong verbs into your writing when discussing the writer’s rhetorical choices. Below is a list of verbs that are considered weak (imply summary) and a list of verbs that are considered strong (imply analysis). Strive to use the stronger verbs in your essays to help push yourself away from summary and toward analysis: ex “The writer flatters…” NOT “The writer says…”
Weak Verbs (Summary):
says
explains
relates
states
goes on to say
shows
tells
this quote shows
Strong Verbs (Analysis):
Argues, admonishes, analyzes, compares, contrasts, defines, demonizes, denigrates, describes, dismisses, enumerate, expounds, emphasizes, establishes, flatters, implies, lionizes, lists, minimizes, narrates, praises, processes, qualifies, questions, ridicules, suggests, supports, trivializes, vilifies, warns
Powerful and Meaningful Verbs to Use in an Analysis (Alternatives to Show):
Acknowledge, Address, Analyze, Apply, Argue, Assert, Augment
Broaden
Calculate, Capitalize, Characterize, Claim, Clarify,Compare, Complicate, Confine, Connect, Consider, Construct, Contradict, Correct, Create, Convince, Critique
Declare, Deduce, Defend, Demonstrate, Deny, Describe, Determine, Differentiate, Disagree, Discard, Discover, Discuss, Dismiss, Distinguish, Duplicate
Elaborate, Emphasize, Employ, Enable, Engage, Enhance, Establish, Evaluate, Exacerbate, Examine, Exclude, Exhibit, Expand, Explain, Exploit, Express, Extend
Facilitate, Feature, Forecast, Formulate, Fracture
Generalize, Group, Guide
Hamper, Hypothesize
Identify, Illuminate, Illustrate, Impair, Implement, Implicate, Imply, Improve, Include, Incorporate, Indicate, Induce, Initiate, Inquire, Instigate, Integrate, Interpret, Intervene, Invert, Isolate
Justify
Locate, Loosen
Maintain, Manifest, Manipulate, Measure, Merge, Minimize, Modify, Monitor
Necessitate, Negate, Nullify
Obscure, Observe, Obtain, Offer, Omit, Optimize, Organize, Outline, Overstate
Persist, Point out, Possess, Predict, Present, Probe, Produce, Promote, Propose, Prove, Provide
Qualify, Quantify, Question
Realize, Recommend, Reconstruct, Redefine, Reduce, Refer, Reference, Refine, Reflect, Refute, Regard, Reject, Relate, Rely, Remove, Repair, Report, Represent, Resolve, Retrieve, Reveal, Revise
Separate, Shape, Signify, Simulate, Solve, Specify, Structure, Suggest, Summarize, Support, Suspend, Sustain
Tailor, Terminate, Testify, Theorize, Translate
Undermine, Understand, Unify, Utilize
Validate, Vary, View, Vindicate
Yield
What I Wish I Knew When Walking Into Retail as an Adolescent
I started working at age 18 and had a lot of difficulty with social cues. If I could teach you anything, it would be that being in public is going to be awkward and that is okay.
My first job was at a grocery store. I was so nervous entering my first shift that I remember my whole body shook with anxiety.
It felt like the entire town was in my line for the sole purpose of watching and judging me. My very first customer was this petite old lady wearing a red bandana in her hair.
Her words seemed to instantly soothe me, "Don't be so nervous; you are doing great!" I swear she could read my brain, and while this did not completely dissipate all fears, it was what I needed to hear at that moment.
Just as finding a comforting anchor is important, so too is the ability to have fun through social interactions. You will have so much more fun at your job if you can find ways to be friendly with potential customers.
Acting as a patron, I have had several grocery store checkout encounters that followed the tune of,
"Hi, how are you?"
"Oh I'm fine, and you?"
"Living the dream."
I cannot stress how boring and nuanced this exchange is.
To step up your retail game, I would highly recommend trying one of two things; either learning to recognize returning customers or learning more about the products of your store.
One of the best moments I've had in retail was when I recognized a customer having to come back in again that same day for something they forgot to grab for a holiday dinner and was able to immediately point them to the right aisle. When you greet each person that enters the store, you have a great chance of improving someone's mood. It's amazing how a simple acknowledgment can make a customer feel more comfortable in your store.
Equally important is being able to talk about a true admiration for a product or manufacturer. You would be surprised how a couple of deep debates about which M&M's trial flavor Mars should choose to make a permanent product can make 8 hours fly by in a wink.
Having a genuine love of a product can foster enthusiasm not just for your customers, but for you as well.
On the other hand, I have to advise you of one terrible social faux pas I once made.
I once picked up a tall cylindrical container on a lone night shift and inquired to the customer, "I have not tried this sauce. Is it any good?"
It wasn't until I flipped the bottle over and read ‘Personal Lubricant’ on its label that I understood what I was scanning. My customer did not answer and I never saw her again, understandably.
Finally, this last point is the heaviest and details a specific example of sexual harassment. If this is a sensitive topic for you, I would love to encourage you to jump to the last paragraph.
I continuously struggle with recognizing the difference between flirting and being sexually harassed. The only guidance I can give you is to ask yourself if you are feeling comfortable in a similar situation. If you are not, try to find your voice and speak up. If the other party can't back down after you request they stop, this is textbook harassment (of any form.)
Without further ado, here is my experience. When I moved from my first job as a cashier, I became a sales associate at a tech store.
I once dealt with a man who drives semi-trucks for a living. Anyone reading this who has been in retail or food service may know exactly where this is going already.
I can still recall his slicked-back greasy hair, backwards ball cap and terrible breath. The week leading up to this moment, I had decided to cut and brightly dye my hair. Immediately, my hairstyle seemed to attract sordid attention.
For over an hour, I remember explaining a product, setting it up and troubleshooting any issues that may come up. In between words, this driver made multiple crude remarks about his wild imagination involving me, him and my purple pixie cut. A friend that he had brought along with only encouraged him by laughing at each comment made. These varied from asking me on nasty dates to probing for my cell number.
I felt trapped by the long product setup and sales process as he made passes toward me. He thought that my eccentric hair meant that I was 'easy.' When I pointedly told him I had a boyfriend, he retorted with, "I know you would love to take a ride on my hairy bush."
I felt so sick about this last comment and was grateful when the sale was finished. I had tried so hard to handle a 'tricky customer' and deescalate the situation. It was only after he and his friend left the store that a coworker came over and told me how she wanted to scream at him to get out and couldn't believe how he was treating me. We then told our boss about the situation.
That same day, the truck driver came back in for product help. I was working in the back of the store when my boss came and told me, "Hey, your boyfriend came back. He's waiting for you." I could have strangled him.
Years later, I still have so much anger over this situation. I am disappointed in myself for not having self-respect or even recognizing the vulgarity of that particular sale. I held a longstanding grudge against my employer for treating me like fodder. And I held a strong hatred for this truck driver (and I'm sure this translated to an extreme hesitance when interacting with all semi-truck drivers in the future.)
In the final analysis of these events, I would like to reassure you that even though the public school system can't socially prepare you, you won't drown if you can remember to find peace, make genuine connections, and respect yourself.
Please let me know if this was helpful and if you would like me to write about more of my retail experiences!
22/3/19
Real studying is messy
Also if you haven’t heard Lewis Capaldi’s “Grace” I THOROUGHLY recommend you do because it is amazing
Happy Friday folks! Enjoy your weekend x
18/3/19 Essays in the fading light
So my mental health is struggling but I am self-aware enough to know that and I am actively getting some help because I don’t want a second bout of severe depression HOWEVER I know that my stress is transient and I will have the summer to recover. It isn’t worth destroying my brain and wellbeing for A Levels!
I decided to just write a plain old paper essay for German but then quickly remembered I can’t double tap the pen to erase my mistakes sooooo Tippex is my friend!
A little life hack from my time in high school: Copy and paste every factual statement from a Wikipedia article into Google and cite the first webpage that agrees as your source.
CERTIFIED laziest essay writing technique!
Similarities between TLOU 1 & 2 and Arcane.
Beginning first with plot elements and environment, then to overlaps between characters.
Potential spoilers for season one and two of Arcane and The Last of Us Part One and Part Two. But I did my best to skirt around them.
The QZs and Piltover.
The quarantine zones of the TLOU are the remains left of the United States government after martial law was declared in response to the outbreak. And they are run in the same way as martial law, where force is used to control the population.
Food rations are controlled and hoarded. Resources are scare. But your option otherwise is to risk roughing it on your own against infected and nature.
It is a terribly repressive system, which sparks the emergence of the Fireflies.
Similar, to Piltover. Mostly through the lens of residence of the under city.
Enforces stomping through the streets, imprisoning your neighbors, breaking up families, using violence as a tool for control.
Furthermore, Piltover ignores the lack of resources in the undercity, has no member of the council who’s from the undercity to represent them (until the end of the series), and exploits there weaknesses for profit.
The Fireflies and The Firelights.
Both the Fireflies and the Firelights exist to do the same thing: challenge an oppressive government and bring hope for the future. And they both use any means necessary to achieve their goals.
Although, the Firelights also have the added challenge of Silco’s control of the Undercity.
Additional, they’re pretty much named the same things. Firelights are just the Arcane universes version of fireflies (or lightning bugs, whatever your preferred name for them)
“When you’re lost in the darkness, look for the light.”
Spores and Toxic Gas (The Gray)
I also can’t help but draw parallels between airborne spores from TLOU and the gas from the mines in Arcane.
Both result in coughing and choking initially. Spores lead always to infection and death, unless your Ellie. The Gray, as it’s referred to in the show, is shown to have numerous side effects, if you don’t suffocate from exposure to its gas form. Most notable examples, Viktor and Silco. The disease Viktor has, I’d guess leukemia, seems to be a result of exposure to pollution in his childhood. And Silco’s left eye is left in a constant battle of corruption after a wound he receives there is exposed to polluted river water. Both of which would lead to death if treatment wasn’t possible (Shimmer).
Violet and Ellie
I’ll start with a silly point first before the heartbreak: both are gay. Neither give a specific identity, but for generally purpose, and because of only seeing romantic relations between them and other woman, lesbian is what we’ll call it.
Here we have too powerful, strong willed, quick witted, lesbian woman as main characters in a narrative about overcoming hardships and heartbreak.
Now the overlaps in those hardships and heartbreaks.
Both are orphaned at a young age. Vi after an uprising gone wrong. Ellie’s is never revealed in the games. And then both are adopted by a new father figure. Vander and Joel respectively.
Both are taught survival and fighting techniques from them. Both see the adoptive father as their real father. Then both of them lose said father. Both of them feel responsible for that death.
Vi eventually heals from this loss by the end of the series, and while she definitely carries the grief of that loss through the show, she doesn’t follow the same kind revenge plot that Ellie does. What Ellie does belongs in a completely different post.
Abby and Jinx
I almost didn’t include this because at first I thought the only narrative similarity between the two would be the responsibility of the previous mentioned death of the father figures. Abby kills Joel. Jinx (Powder) (accidentally) kills Vander.
Especially because I consider Vander Jinx’s father, too. Regardless of her relationship Silco after his passing.
But then I thought about Lev and Isha. Abby and Lev relationship in the game exists to mirror the relationship between Ellie and Joel.
And while I could see an argument that Isha is meant to help Jinx heal, especially heal the relationship between herself and Vi, I still place her in a role of motherhood or caregiver for Isha.
Jinx learns so much about love, forgiveness, and hope from Isha. Similar to how Abby found forgiveness for Joel actions once she finally experienced what it means to live for someone else.
Jinx sees herself in Isha, just as Abby saw herself in Lev.
Joel and Vander
As you could probably gather from the previous two points, both these characters are father figures.
Joel takes Ellie under his wing after circumstances lead the to travel across the country in hopes Ellie’s immunity will lead to a cure. But at the end of the game, when complications arise, he saved Ellie, leaving body after body in his wake.
Vander, friends with their mother and father, already knew Violet and Powder. He in fact lead the uprising against Piltover that would result in the death of their parents. He adopts them then, and shifts focus into making the holding the Undercity together the best he can, even alliancing himself with enforcers to try and keeps his daughters as safe as he can.
I’m not gonna spoil anything, but the point is these two men would do anything, and I mean anything, for the safety of their daughters.
Bombs
Maybe a dumb point, but bomb mechanics in TLOU is one of the most fun aspects of the gameplay. And Jinx’s most infamous for her bombs.
If I missed anything or got something wrong, please let me know!
Also, enjoy an tik tok edit of them. @violetswifes.
Back to when I put a Lana Del Rey's song into my school essay
Lights From A Distance An essay I wrote about my father, ancient navigation, and Tahiti. Thank you author, activist, actor, and poet Leslie Stuart Tate for your beautiful presentation of my essay. Thank you Francoise Holozet-Howan for this wondrous photo.
Self-Protection or Self-Sabotage?
Red Flag Culture as a Reflection of Gen Z’s Avoidant Behaviour
From 'icks' to instant cut-offs, from ghosting to job-hopping—Gen Z is a master of raising a red flag and disappearing. Red flag culture is a trendy social practice wherein people actively identify traits from others that could be a warning sign of potential problems, and they then either proceed with caution or disengage entirely. This is essentially the practice of being wary of “red flags” to avoid a toxic situation. However, with its widespread practice through social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, red flag culture has evolved from a tool for identifying genuinely toxic situations to a justification for disengagement at the slightest discomfort. Rather than fostering open communication or conflict resolution, it often encourages avoidance—an instinct deeply linked to avoidant behavioral patterns. This tendency to cut ties at the first sign of imperfection reflects a broader psychological inclination: the preference to withdraw rather than confront challenges, a hallmark of avoidant behavior. This trend of instant labeling of red flags reflects a broader shift in how Gen Z interacts with relationships, workplaces, and social connections, where digital culture normalizes avoidance over confrontation. Red flag culture, then, is not just a trend—it is a reflection of the avoidant behaviors and tendencies Gen Z has developed.
Avoidance behaviour refers to the actions people undertake to cope with uncomfortable or distressing situations, thoughts, or feelings. This can take the form of ignoring calls or messages, avoiding conflict, or cancelling plans at the last minute (Saxena, 2024). In 2024, Powers discussed with clinical psychologist and attachment styles expert, Dr. Morgan Anderson, about attachment styles and discovered that avoidant attachment style is on the rise, particularly with the younger generation. Avoidance behaviour is often attributed to be a sign of avoidant attachment style. An avoidant attachment style is characterized by strong discomfort with emotions, emotional intimacy, and a strong desire for independence (Cleveland Clinic, 2024)(Gould, 2024). Signs of an avoidant attachment style includes: an avoidance of complaining and preferring to sulk or give hints as to the problem, having feelings of high self-esteem while having a negative view of others, being overly focused on their own needs and comforts, feeling as though their partners are being clingy when they simply want to get emotionally closer, having a strong sense of independence, and withdrawing, or tuning out, from unpleasant conversations or sights (Haghighi, 2023).
This tendency toward avoidance is not just limited to attachment styles but is also closely linked to mental health concerns. Research by Struijs et al. (2017) indicates that increased avoidance is prevalent in people with anxiety disorders and depression, conditions that have been rising among Gen Z. As anxiety and depression become more widespread, many young people may adopt avoidance behaviors as a coping mechanism, steering clear of situations that could trigger distressing emotions and exacerbate their symptoms. A 2019 study conducted by Twenge et al. found that depression rates increased significantly among adolescents and young adults, highlighting a possible link between declining mental health and the rise of avoidant tendencies within this generation. Moreover, anxiety creates heightened sensitivity to stress and uncertainty, leading Gen Z to avoid situations that may trigger emotional discomfort. Due to this, Gen Z seems to struggle with presentations and job interviews—A New York Post divulges that one in five employers that are hiring Gen Z found Gen Z to be unprepared, facing issues with making eye contact, dressing inappropriately, and demands of unreasonable salaries. This could cause them to exhibit avoidance behaviour such as procrastination and dropping commitments.
Beyond individual mental health struggles, social media plays a critical role in reinforcing avoidance behaviors among Gen Z. Online platforms encourage quick judgments and disengagement through red flag culture, where individuals are more likely to immediately cut off relationships instead of working through conflicts. The emphasis on identifying ‘toxic’ traits, while sometimes necessary, has also led to an increased tendency to avoid uncomfortable but necessary conversations, mirroring the avoidant behaviors shaped by anxiety and attachment styles. Furthermore, social media has made avoidance more effortless than ever. Cutting people off no longer requires confrontation—it is as simple as clicking the “block” or “unfollow” button. The rise of ghosting culture reflects this shift, as individuals can now disengage from relationships by simply ignoring messages or calls, avoiding uncomfortable conversations altogether. Further, the rise of the red flag culture has also evolved to a tool of avoidance.
With the popularization of the term “red flag” through platforms such as TikTok and Twitter, the overuse of the term started to encourage avoidance rather than open communication. From minor flaws to valid red flags—the line starts to blur as people start labeling minor incompatibilities as dealbreakers. There becomes this fine line between healthy-boundary setting and avoidance disguised as self-protection. While recognizing red flags is crucial for one’s mental and emotional wellbeing, however, red flag culture sometimes exaggerates these red flags—often as an excuse to avoid emotional effort. Valid red flags are based on consistent patterns of behaviour that indicate potential harm, toxicity, or disrespect. Frequently, they involve violations of boundaries, displaying manipulative behaviour, dishonesty, infidelity, etc.
But calling red flags becomes avoidance when people: overgeneralize past negative experience and believe that people who exhibit the same tendencies will be exactly like their past experience; b.) hold their partners at impossibly high standards wherein any imperfections are deal-breakers; c.) use red flags as an excuse to avoid emotional intimacy and possible hurt; d.) project their own flaws or red flag traits on others and pin the blame on them. An example of an exaggerated red flag is “he/she texts dry.” People may end a relationship over dry texting, stating that their partner lacks communication skills and/or they need better communication; rather than genuinely and effectively communicating their needs to their partner, they choose to end it to avoid putting in the emotional effort.
Of course, this extends beyond romantic relationships. It affects even the workplace and platonic relationships. In friendships, a single perceived red flag can justify cutting someone off immediately. Likewise, red flags can be spotted in the workplace in co-workers or employers. They may quit at the first sight of a pet peeve in a coworker or their employer. Instead of working through workplace struggles, Gen Z could opt to disengage fully. Employees could quit via emails or ghost employers, as long as they can avoid confrontation and in-person conversations. Due to this trend of disengaging and identifying red flags, some members of the Gen Z may forever seek out the perfect job, never settling for anything as they view every hurdle as a deal-breaker. This pattern of premature disengagement fuels job-hopping, workplace instability, and weaker conflict resolution skills, as every hurdle is seen as a deal-breaker rather than an opportunity for growth.
At its core, red flag culture serves a protective purpose—raising awareness of genuine toxic behaviors and rejecting the tolerance of unhealthy dynamics that past generations often endured. Gen Z, with its heightened focus on mental health, may have embraced this mindset as a way to break the cycle of normalized toxicity. However, in prioritizing self-protection, they risk self-sabotage, disengaging from situations that require emotional effort and resilience. In some cases, avoidance serves as a necessary mechanism to protect individuals from harm. For example, young people may choose to distance themselves from family members exhibiting abusive or toxic behavior to safeguard their mental health. Conversely, the normalization and glamorization of toxic relationships in media consumed by Gen Z can lead to the acceptance of unhealthy behaviors, potentially perpetuating a cycle of maladaptive coping strategies.
In an era where red flag culture dominates online discourse, Gen Z has embraced avoidance as both a protective mechanism and a social norm. While the practice of identifying red flags initially aimed to safeguard individuals from toxic relationships and unhealthy environments, its widespread use—especially through social media—has blurred the line between valid caution and excessive disengagement. Social media platforms amplify this tendency, making avoidance effortless through ghosting, blocking, and instant cut-offs. Consequently, what once served as a means of self-preservation has evolved into a habit of sidestepping discomfort, emotional effort, and conflict resolution.
This avoidance pattern is deeply rooted in broader psychological and societal trends. Rising levels of anxiety, attachment insecurities, and workplace dissatisfaction contribute to Gen Z’s reluctance to engage in difficult but necessary conversations. Whether in friendships, romantic relationships, or professional settings, the impulse to disengage at the first sign of imperfection fosters instability, weakens resilience, and hinders personal and emotional growth. The normalization of avoidance, while sometimes a justified reaction to past generations’ tolerance of toxicity, also risks promoting unrealistic expectations and an inability to navigate life’s inevitable challenges.
Moving forward, Gen Z can benefit from shifting red flag culture toward a more balanced approach—one that distinguishes between legitimate boundaries and avoidance disguised as self-protection. Media literacy and emotional intelligence play crucial roles in fostering this shift, encouraging individuals to engage in open conversations, practice constructive confrontation, and critically assess whether disengagement is truly necessary or simply a reflexive response to discomfort. Red flag culture, when wielded thoughtfully, can serve as a tool for empowerment rather than an excuse for avoidance. By embracing a mindset of growth rather than retreat, Gen Z can transform avoidance into an opportunity for deeper understanding, stronger relationships, and lasting resilience.
Cleveland Clinic. (2024, December 13). Is Avoidant Attachment Style Getting in the Way of Your Relationships?. Retrieved on February 22, 2025, from https://health.clevelandclinic.org/avoidant-attachment-style.
Gould, W.R. (2024, September 19). What Avoidant Attachment Looks Like in a Relationship. Verywell Mind. Retrieved on February 22, 2025, from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-avoidant-attachment-in-relationships-8600201.
Haghighi, A.S. (2023, November 16). What is avoidant attachment?. Medical News Today. Retrieved February 22, 2025, from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/avoidant-attachment.
Power, C. (2024, October 16). The attachment style that's growing faster than all the others. Mamamia. Retrieved February 22, 2025, from https://www.mamamia.com.au/attachment-styles-dr-morgan-anderson/.
Saxena, S. (2024, September 20). Avoidance Behavior: Examples, Impacts, & How to Overcome. Choosing Therapy. Retrieved on February 22, 2025, from https://www.choosingtherapy.com/avoidance-behavior/.
Stabile, A. (2024, January 6). Gen Z grads are tanking job interviews, struggling to find full time positions: study. New York Post. Retrieved on February 22, 2025, from https://nypost.com/2024/01/06/lifestyle/gen-z-grads-are-tanking-job-interviews-struggling-to-find-full-time-positions-study/.
Struijs, S.Y. et al. (2017, October). Approach and avoidance tendencies in depression and anxiety disorders. Psychiatry Research, 256, 475-481. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165178116309003.
Twenge, J.M. et al. (2019). Age, Period, and Cohort Trends in Mood Disorder Indicators and SuicideRelated Outcomes in a Nationally Representative Dataset, 2005–2017. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(3), 185–199. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/abn-abn0000410.pdf.
Take the Blame Off of My Shoulders
Reclaiming Eve and Battling Misogyny
The story of Eve is common knowledge. She originated from a piece of a man to serve as a helper, then became the ultimate cause of humanity’s downfall. Many believe Eve is the villain—she acted as the temptress, fell victim to deception first, and committed the first sin. Because of her incompetence, naivety, and gullibility, people interpret the story of Adam and Eve as the primary source of gender roles, stereotypes, and even gender wars—especially misogyny. This essay re-examines Eve’s story through a feminist lens, challenging the narrative that she is solely responsible for humanity’s fall and exploring how this interpretation has shaped gender roles and misogyny.
To analyze her story, society must examine the root of these beliefs. How did humanity develop the idea that women should submit to men because God created them as subordinates? First, two accounts of Adam and Eve’s creation exist. In Genesis 1:27, the passage states: “So God created mankind in His image, in the image of God he created them; male and female, he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’” The second account, found in Genesis 2, provides a more detailed version of humanity’s creation. Genesis 2:18 recounts, “the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’”
Both narratives portray God as creating Eve as Adam’s equal and companion. However, over the years, people have interpreted Genesis 2:18 to mean that God created Eve as a mere helper—a “little woman,” so to speak. However, a closer look at the Hebrew text offers a different perspective. The word “helper” translates from the Hebrew word “ezer” (pronounced ay-zer). Ezer means “to assist” or “to help” without implying a hierarchy between the helper and the helped. Biblical texts often associate ezer with God assisting His people. By using this word to describe Eve, God Himself elevated her role rather than diminished it.
Ezer frequently appears alongside “kenegado”—ezer kenegado—which means “a helper suitable for him.” This phrase suggests that God designed Eve as Adam’s equal partner, not his subordinate. Nowhere in the text does God specify what kind of aid Eve was meant to provide. Genesis 2:18 states that God created Eve to alleviate Adam’s loneliness and to rule alongside him. This interpretation implies that women were created as companions to men, without suggestions of subordination.
Some argue that Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib symbolizes interdependence rather than hierarchy, implying that Adam and Eve were meant to share an equal partnership rather than a master-servant relationship. Furthermore, both were created in God’s likeness (Genesis 1:27). If God had established a hierarchy between them from the start, this structure would contradict their shared divine image and undermine the idea of their equality.
Furthermore, some interpretations of the creation story emphasize the order of creation, with Eve coming second after Adam. This sequence has been used to suggest a hierarchical structure, where Adam is the primary creation and Eve is secondary, positioned as subordinate. However, the mere fact that Eve was created second does not inherently imply that she was inferior to Adam. In other parts of the Bible, there is no explicit hierarchy between humans and animals based on the order of creation, and the order itself should not be used to justify gender inequality.
If Eve had been intended as inferior, the narrative would contradict the idea that both were created in God's image, as outlined in Genesis 1:27, which states that both male and female were created equally in God's likeness. The idea of Eve's creation as a complementary partner to Adam challenges the assumption that her creation from Adam’s rib is a sign of subordination. The act of Eve being made from Adam’s rib can be seen not as a symbol of her secondary status, but rather of the intimate connection between them, pointing to interdependence rather than dominance.
This misunderstanding of Eve’s role feeds directly into the narrative of the Fall. Traditionally, Eve is blamed for the first sin, depicted as the one who succumbs to temptation and leads Adam astray. However, Genesis 3:6 contains a critical detail: Adam was present during the entire interaction between Eve and the serpent. While Eve may have taken the first bite, Adam’s passive presence and subsequent participation are equally significant.
His failure to intervene or resist complicates the popular narrative, yet Eve is the one to be held overwhelmingly responsible. By placing the blame on her alone, society perpetuates a harmful stereotype that women are inherently weak, gullible, and morally inferior to men. This narrative has historically justified patriarchal structures that place women under male authority, framing them as incapable of making rational decisions on their own. Men, in contrast, are depicted as passive victims of female influence, absolving them of responsibility for their actions.
By portraying Eve as the primary culprit in humanity’s downfall, women have been framed as weak, gullible, and prone to sin. The spread of this belief reinforced the notion that women needed men—specifically, male authority—to be guided and to control them lest they commit sin or crime. This entire belief fortifies patriarchal structures; most of society, especially in previous eras, establishes male dominance, habitually limiting women’s autonomy, such as removing women’s rights, etc.
The archetype of Eve as the seductive temptress has been a persistent and damaging cultural trope. This portrayal of women as inherently deceitful or dangerous has had profound social implications. The “Eve as temptress” narrative served as the basis for centuries of legal, religious, and social policies that restricted women’s rights and independence. Women were often excluded from intellectual, political, and devout spheres, and viewed as a threat to male authority.
The idea that women’s emotional and moral nature was inherently flawed was used to justify their exclusion from leadership roles in society, education, and the church. This view also fed into the stereotype that women are driven by irrational impulses rather than reason, which continues to affect the way women are perceived in professional and personal contexts.
Furthermore, the notion of Eve as a femme fatale has persisted throughout history in the form of notorious women who were blamed for men’s downfalls. Figures like Cleopatra, Anne Boleyn, and Mata Hari were often depicted in historical narratives as manipulative and dangerous, echoing the same tropes found in the story of Eve.
In modern times, this archetype still influences societal views of women, particularly in the context of victim-blaming. In cases of sexual harassment and assault, women are often held responsible for men’s transgressions, just as Eve was blamed for Adam’s fall. This ongoing pattern reflects how deeply ingrained the “Eve as temptress” narrative is in our collective consciousness.
The Fall itself marks a pivotal moment in the relationship between Adam and Eve. After the transgression, Adam names Eve, a significant act of control that reflects the shift in power dynamics. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve share a relationship of equality, but after the Fall, Adam exercises dominion over Eve by naming her, thus asserting male authority in a manner that establishes a new, hierarchical structure.
God’s punishment of Eve, which includes pain in childbirth and subjugation to her husband, has been interpreted as the establishment of male dominance. This divine pronouncement became the basis for centuries of patriarchal systems, with women positioned as subservient to men, both in marriage and in society. The punishment also reflects the introduction of suffering and inequality into the human experience, as the once-egalitarian relationship between man and woman is fractured by the consequences of the Fall.
Feminist theologians have long argued that the traditional reading of Eve’s actions has been misinterpreted. Rather than seeing her desire for knowledge as sinful, feminist scholars emphasize that Eve’s quest for wisdom is a courageous and necessary part of the human experience. In Gnostic texts, Eve is portrayed as the first to gain knowledge, and her actions are celebrated as a step toward enlightenment. In texts such as the Apocryphon of John and the Gospel of Eve, Eve's actions in the Garden are not seen as a fall from grace but as a deliberate quest for knowledge.
The Gnostics viewed Eve as the one who, in seeking the forbidden knowledge, transcended the limitations imposed by the material world and the patriarchal structures. She is the first to awaken to the truth of her divine nature, acting as a bringer of enlightenment for humanity. In these texts, her decision to partake of the fruit is not viewed as an act of rebellion but as an important step toward spiritual awakening, illustrating the Gnostic ideal that knowledge, or gnosis, is the path to salvation.
This interpretation presents Eve not as the villain of the Genesis story, but as a courageous figure whose actions challenge the conventional narratives of sin and subjugation, offering an empowering alternative view of her role in the creation myth. This perspective in Gnostic thought helps to reshape Eve's image, aligning with feminist reinterpretations of her story as one of agency, wisdom, and a pursuit of self-awareness that goes against the patriarchal readings.
The cultural legacy of Eve’s story has had a profound impact not only on religious doctrine but also on social and legal structures. By framing women as the originators of sin, the Genesis account justified the subordination of women in nearly every aspect of society. Women were denied access to education, leadership roles, and even basic legal rights, as they were seen as inherently flawed and incapable of moral decision-making.
The legacy of Eve’s story, therefore, extends far beyond theology, shaping laws and societal norms that have marginalized women for centuries. In modern times, these lingering beliefs continue to affect women’s opportunities, particularly in political, academic, and corporate arenas. Women who express ambition, assertiveness, or independence are still often viewed with suspicion as if they are somehow transgressing traditional gender roles.
Reinterpreting Eve’s story offers a vision of gender relations that is more inclusive and equitable. By seeing Eve not as a passive victim of temptation but as a proactive agent in pursuit of knowledge, we can shift the focus from blame to empowerment. This reinterpretation invites a more balanced understanding of gender, where both men and women are equally capable of moral agency, intellectual pursuit, and leadership. Furthermore, a more nuanced understanding of Eve’s story can help dismantle the stereotypes that have long confined women to subordinate roles, creating space for women to participate fully in all aspects of society without fear of judgment or exclusion.
In conclusion, the traditional narrative of Eve as the origin of sin has deeply influenced the way women have been viewed and treated throughout history. By reevaluating Eve’s role through a feminist lens, we can see her not as the cause of humanity’s downfall but as a symbol of wisdom, agency, and the pursuit of knowledge. Reclaiming Eve’s story offers a powerful challenge to the patriarchal systems that have long restricted women’s rights and opportunities. By embracing a more inclusive and egalitarian interpretation of the Genesis account, we can create a future where both men and women are seen as equals, free from the constraints of harmful gender stereotypes, and able to participate fully in the moral, intellectual, and spiritual life of society.
That Which Marks the Future (of Literature)
The history of literature has been lined with technology, giving us the copious amount of literary works influenced by technology and the imagination of people who’ve taken fictional technological systems to new heights which offered readers a fresh idea on how technology could advance. The contents of works aren’t the only thing impacted by technology, as the medium of writing and reading are also affected by it. With every passing year, technology’s impact on literature and its future only continues to grow in numerous ways, most of which I find beneficial.
The rise of technology within our society opened the doors for people to have the ability to write through blogs, social media platforms, etc. and spread their ideas to a wider extent. With technology, knowledge is easier to access. Everyone with the means uses the internet to scour for news and information for various reasons. Technology could help people with learning disabilities by aiding them in reading. People with dyslexia might be more inclined to use e-books as it helps them read better because of the more dyslexia-friendly formatting which you can also change.
Though technology isn’t always available to everyone and the access to information isn’t always easily accessible. In fact, there is an estimate of 37% of the world population who have yet to even access the internet. Furthermore, studies show that people retain more information when reading from a printed medium rather than e-books. Not only that, but using digital methods for literature erases the use of books which have certain aspects that make people love literature.
However, a study by Melinis (2011) showed that students’ motivation and engagement increased with e-books and strengthened comprehension skills. Furthermore, a study by DeGroot (2019) states that there is an implication that e-books are as effective for learning as printed versions are. Similarly, audiobooks also help people with learning disabilities and those that have problems reading chunks of texts for several reasons. Moreover, audiobooks are more engaging and entertaining due to their nature which is more likely to hook.
As our world continues to advance with technology, it seems that technology’s impact on literature is immense. Digitized methods of reading and writing literature will only continue to rise in popularity. Even in current times, technology’s impact on literature is already vast as it is, with blogs being popular, and online sites wherein writers can post their works to be accessed by a wider range of people. Due to that, there may even come a time where the hardback and paperback books we’re fond of disappearing to be replaced. As we see it, technology marks the future of literature
crowd sourcing my final essay?
Some essays have Introductions, Body Paragraphs, and Conclusions. but do they need to?
my essay is about what makes an essay an essay. i already know what im going to write, but I'd love to see what others think.
Everyone's Feelings are Valid Regarding Mando Season 3
As a neurodivergent teacher whose students are on spring break, I finally have the time to weigh in on the Mando Season 3 debate after seeing how divided the fandom is. This mini essay is meant to be a logical and safe middle ground for everyone, to remind everyone that your feelings are valid regardless of what they are, and that even if your opinions/feelings are valid that doesn't meant they're fact or justifiable to police how others think and feel.
This contains spoilers for Mando S3, Rebels, and Clone Wars and is written while I'm high on benadryl so approach at your own risk! I may go back and edit this and edit out/rewrite points to make them more succinct or add points others may have that should be included and don't want anyone to feel gaslit if they see any changes they don't recall seeing before.
1. More Than Two Ways to Feel
From what I gather, the two main opinions on this season are either it's a great season and anyone who disagrees is what's wrong with Star Wars, or that this season is a disappointing let down after waiting so long for Din to return. Both are valid, but since Star Wars fans tend to see outcomes in extremes, I want to point out that those aren't the only two options available, you can also:
be disappointed with this season while continuing to be a huge fan of the show
and
enjoy this season while recognizing the writing and quality isn't up to the standards the show had set in previous seasons or even the promises it made with this one.
The Mandalorian was the first piece of live action media since the Clone Wars that sparked the interest of even non Star Wars fans because it offered something new and exciting to a world and lore we're all familiar with that doesn't demand you to know 50 years of Star Wars history nor does it jeopardize characters and storylines long time fans are protective of.
Because of this, it's easy to forget that Star Wars fans are now sharing The Mandalorian with casual Star Wars fans or even exclusive fans to the show without having any interest in exploring the SW universe further through other forms of media.
I'd argue the first instance of this being taken away from casual fans was in The Book of Boba Fett by requiring them to view it to stay i in the know for Season 3 along with the return of Cad Bane who, for fans of the cartoons, flipped out seeing his live action form. But for those who only watched BOBF as fans of Mando, a lot of viewers were like:
Bo Katan, Ahsoka, Luke, and Boba Fett's resurrection in Mando were written in smoothly that excited long time SW fans familiar with them while allowing casual fans to enjoy the story because said characters stood on their own as supporting roles without taking away from their their origins. But throwing in characters like Cad Bane and even other Rebels/Clone Wars characters into Season 3 of Mando, it doesn't give casual fans a reason to stay or feel satisfied if they're not in the know with these beloved niche of characters.
And because of this, it's easy to unintentionally police said fans with how strongly you may feel as someone with deep rooted knowledge of the franchise.
Casual fans of the show shouldn't have to be spoiled or talked down to for not sharing the same enthusiasm as other fans because they don't know who a character is/their importance to the SW universe or for having differing opinions and feelings over a show that wasn't originally built on any previous Star Wars lore. And older fans who love all SW lore who are disappointed are allowed to feel let down after 3 years for this season to not be how it was advertised just as fans who are loving this season shouldn't be mocked for enjoying the ride regardless of where it goes. We're all valid here.
2. Mando Has Always Had Side Quests, but Not Without Plot
If I had a dollar for every
"Mando has always been about side quests! Why are people complaining about this format NOW?"
comment I read, I'd have enough to maybe... have a nice meal somewhere.
Has the Mandalorian been told through side quests? Yes and no. It's been 3 years since the last season aired and I think a lot of people will look back at the previous 2 seasons with vague memories of Din and Grogu traversing through time and space as father and son while helping wayward future friends and getting their asses handed to them by alien animal species when it wasn't quite like that.
The first season starts with Din being hired after a particularly easy job to hunt down a difficult quarry. Din requires the help of a moister farmer to get to the kid since he can't land the ship close enough to the mark without setting off security, and discovers said quarry is a child. He spends the rest of the season getting the kid back to the Imps, saving him from the Imps, blacklisting himself from his job, unintentionally setting up his covert for a massacre, trying to lay low and find a safe place for the kid to grow up so he can go back to his old life only to realize he can't as long as the kid is wanted, and proceeds to take on a few jobs to feed them and avoid the Empire until he's called back to deal with Karga's ambush and getting sucked into a trap intended for Grogu and the season ends with Grogu now being Din's foundling and his new mission is to bring Grogu home.
The second season focuses on Din trying to hunt down fellow Mandalorians to help him reunite Grogu to the Jedi, the first episode while on a job reveals that his quarry had seen a Mandalorian on Mos Pelgo which led him to meet Cobb Vanth. The only reason Din stayed is to take back the armor and agreed to earning it back by killing the Krayt Dragon for them and the Raiders. The second episode has Din playing Taxi in return for information about Mandalorians seen on Trask (where Frog Lady was heading). Din agrees to help Bo and her clan to raid an Imperial ship and her information leads him to Ahsoka two episodes later. Because the Mon Calamari's repairs were inadequate, Din goes to help Karga destroy an old Imperial base in return for repairs. He finally finds Ahsoka and helps her confront Elsbeth in exchange of training Grogu (again, I'll circle back to this as a Season 3 plot point that fell through). She decides she won't train him due to Grogu's attachment and anger in his heart for what he went through and points Din to a temple where Grogu can contact other Jedi for training and from there, he's capture, Din loses his ship, he finds Grogu's location with the help of his newfound friends, and saves Grogu only to give him over to Luke while now being the proud owner of a weapon and defunct planet.
So is Mando ALL random side quests with no point? No. Each episode interwove into the next effortlessly while being a self contained episode that never failed to remind you the importance of each mission, side quest, and character that Din interacted with. And it's hard to miss the overall theme of honor, identity, and religious guilt that Din faces and questions each episode up until the end when he chooses to show Grogu his face as an ultimate act of love.
But with Season 3, I can't tell you how any of the episodes connect or what they hint at to the overall season plot and we're six (seven, if you're reading this after the episode drops) episodes into an 8 episode season. Even if by the final episode things all tie together, it didn't have the same smooth transitions as the previous seasons had nor did they remind you of what we might've forgotten information wise in these three years and that's why a lot of these episodes feel pointless compared to the urgency that Din and Grogu faced leading up to his departure with Luke. Which brings me to...
3. Season 3's Plot Failed in Season 2 and BOBF
Yet two other comments I've seen that could buy me a second fancy meal somewhere or just a fancy ass desert for a family of 4 by myself is:
Season 3 has no plot! It's pointless! It's boring!
and
Season 3 has a plot! Just because it's not about Din anymore doesn't mean there lacks plot!
And to this, yet again, I say... yes and no to both. Season 3, as I mentioned in my previous point, hasn't woven in an overarching plot like its previous two seasons and so the urgency is not only not there, but it doesn't remind you of why you need to care or stick around for Din's redemption arc (whichever that may be) or whatever is going on with Bo and the Armorer and the Empire. But I don't fault Season 3 for having bad writing necessarily, but rather throwing out their best plot point for Book of Boba Fett and (as I mentioned before) not recapping what was mentioned in Season 2.
No one can convince me that The Book of Boba Fett wasn't a ploy for Disney+ to keep Mando fans happy and excited while they figured out Season 3. I will die on this hill. It's been 3 years and I already heard fans losing hope and grumbling about it before I even joined Tumblr. No matter how loyal a fanbase is, you still lose them to other media when what they crave isn't available in a certain amount of time and BOBF was the balm to that ache for many of us despite us also simultaneously being disappointed in how they handled BOBF. Boba and BIPOC characters deserve better. But that's for another essay.
Season 3 failed the moment Din and Grogu were reunited in BOBF along with Din's new ship. This broke what made Mando so unique and special as stated in my first point where fans could casually get into Mando without needing decades of SW lore to enjoy it, and now those fans are left behind because they didn't realize they had to invest in The Book of Boba Fett to be included in the Members Only Season of The Mandalorian and that's being reflected in its ratings.
I genuinely believe if they had opened Mando Season 3 with his entrance in BOBF and led the first two episodes with Din tracking down his tribe after delivering his bounty for said information, was made an apostate, and rejected to see Grogu all in one episode... that would have given the season far more possibilities for plot than what this season has offered us in the last 6 episodes. And especially so if they recapped the important plot details that Season 2 set up but expected fans to remember after 3 years and tied those plot points in in a way that upped the urgency Season 3 has lacked so far.
In Chapter 11: The Heiress when Din is saved by Bo and her clan, he only agrees to help them with their raid in exchange for where he can find a Jedi teacher for Grogu. But what did they need that raid for? To steal weapons in order to take down the Imperial remnants that still plunder Mandalore that will help them retake their planet. Aside from Bo's castle getting blown up by TIE fighters, we're not reminded of this fact at all during this season. Din and Bo were able to get to Mandalore with ease and stroll around like it was nothing. There were no ships hovering around the planet, no secret bases, no symbols, not even recently defunct battle droids. Mandalore was painted as a planet that was free real-estate that they could've moved in to that day the moment they realized the planet had breathable air and just some old robots and troll species to worry about. There was no reminder of this being a potentially dangerous planet as an Imperial wasteland.
But Bo's castle got blown up by TIE fighters! Where do you think they came from? The threat was obvious!
...Except it wasn't. Bo was moping around that castle in broad day light, not attempting to hide. Why didn't they blow her castle up sooner if she was a threat? And even if it came out later that Bo was part of the siege to free Gideon, they should have made it less obvious because yeah where DID they come from? Sure as shit not Mandalore, and why when she's united with Din the second time in this episode? And if this threat is linked to Thrawn, as we see his return in the trailer for Ahsoka, they should have recapped Chapter 13: The Jedi where Ahsoka shook down Elsbeth for information regarding where Thrawn's location is (which leads to Ahsoka's spin off series).
So yes the plot IS there, just not written in a way that reminds fans of what was at stake leading up to Season 3 and expanded upon those threats even within just opening scenes. The Mandalorian had brilliantly made whatever the opening scene was as foreshadowing the rest of the episode's plot. Season 3 could have used those recaps, flashbacks, or even a bonus scene to something we already saw in the previous season as that reminder audiences need after 3 years to remember what the stakes are and why it still impacts Din and Grogu regardless if Bo is now going on either a redemption journey herself or is secretly the season's antagonist.
And even if Bo is meant to be a central character, Mando has glossed over the fact that she was responsible for Mandalor's downfall TWICE and was considered a traitor, a terrorist, and the reason why her sister was murdered. It's possible they didn't reveal that for specific reasons, but it feels lazy not to hint at it in some ways that let the audience wonder if Bo is meant to be an antagonist or hero this time around, especially as an established selfish, morally gray character. And it's unfair that her redemption is this easy when her laundry list of sins she committed never properly held her accountable, and even with genuine remorse and empathy, Bo still is willing to make choices that benefit her in the long wrong over the benefit of others.
Which leads me to...
4. The Mandalorian Has Always Been About Din and Grogu
"The show is called The Mandalorian, not The Din Djarin and Grogu Show. Anyone can be The Mandalorian, and besides, it's plural!"
First off, The Mandalorian isn't plural. I just want to make that clear. The Mandalorian is a singular person and, although yes it can be anyone, it's explicitly about Din he is THE Mandalorian who walked the surface to bring back money, food, and goods to his tribe while everyone else stayed underground, hiding. Din made a name for himself as the best Bounty Hunter in the Parsec in a world where everyone believed Mandalore was a dead, unlivable planet and that
The Mandalorians, much like the Jedi, were extinct. This was reiterated in dialogue throughout the show by multiple characters, and is why Din was so special. Because when they heard about a Mandalorian it's always Din. Even gaining that land for his people, everyone will still turn to Din because he's THE Mandalorian to them. He's the one who has united people, saved towns, been the diplomat, and the reason why many characters and even Nevaro exist. He's the Mando people will recognize and hold esteem for, not anyone else even if Bo does try to take the mantle and that's because she's The Heiress, even to the likes of the Armorer, and The Armorer is the Armorer. Din will never shake that title even if he wanted to, because he's the one who's left a mark on the galaxy he lives in along with his green son, and Bo nor anyone else will be able to take that from him because they'll have their own titles in that universe to live up to whether they like it or not.
"But Din doesn't even want to be the main character in his own show! His story is over, let him and Grogu be at peace!"
That's the other problem, their stories are far from over. We already know that Thrawn is alive, Dr. Pershing doesn't understand how his science is genocidal, and Gideon is walking around with potentially his own Mandalorian bodyguards or is setting Din up. As long as these men exist and the Empire is a problem, they will hunt down Grogu for their cruel science projects and kill Din in order to achieve that. But this season hasn't reminded us of that at all and has given people a false idea that Din and Grogu's stories are over when they absolutely are not. And even if Bo is intended to take the torch from Din, that doesn't wrap up his story or Grogu's it just makes it second fiddle for Bo to either redeem herself or make everything worse again. Time will tell I guess, but do not for a moment think that Din and Grogu are safe. They absolutely are not. Lastly,
5. Strong Stories Have Reluctant Protagonists
"Who wants to watch a show about someone who's a reluctant leader? Mandalor the Reluctant? I don't think so!"
Um... you do. That's literally the hero's journey. Bilbo Baggins never wanted an adventure. He wasn't confident in his abilities and he wasn't interested in helping the dwarves succeed. He was tricked by Gandalf by a false sense of duty. Luke Skywalker was content with his life on Tatooine until his childhood home an aunt and uncle perished and he physically couldn't go back even if he wanted to. Joel was a reluctant father figure to Ellie after his own losses despite his journey starting on greed. There's so many beloved characters that don't even want to star in their own stories but that's what makes them strong characters. They're forced to go on journeys they don't want to help them come to terms with their own inner termoil or even achieve the greatest version of themselves that they wouldn't have risen to if not for their inability to go back to their normal lives before the call of the journey. So even if we're all okay with more Din and Grogu adventure stories or even okay with Bo taking over, it feels unsatisfactory for Din to just hand the darksaber over to Bo after years of trying to get ride of it and handing his son, whom he spent at least a year apart from, to whoever is available to go on unrelated missions with Bo. There's a reason why people feel unsatisfied and disappointed with this season, and it's valid regardless of what you're okay with. Mando was built on strong writing and they've forgone simple solutions to cut corners in order to spit out a mediocre season when it had the potential to be not just fun but an incredible return of Din, Grogu, and introduction of Bo if she's meant to take the mantle down the line.
One more thing!
6. Bo Isn't a Worthy Leader (added 4/12/2023)
I know this may ruffle some peoples' feathers, but hear me out. I want to remind everyone once again I genuinely like Bo and have nothing against her, and my beef is with how the writers treated her this season and have mislead non Clone Wars and Rebels fans.
Bo deserves the title! The darksaber chose her! She wields it so well, and after all that she's gone through she deserves her redemption!!
A lot of fans of the show who haven't watched Rebels don't realize that Bo at one point couldn't wield the saber, either. It was Satine who taught her how. As far as I'm aware, the darksaber requires the wielder's thoughts and actions to flow into the Darksaber to fuel its energy, which then affects the weight and has nothing to do with being the chosen one like Excalibur. Anyone can learn to wield it if Bo was willing to teach them, hell even Gideon seemed to have a good grasp on it. Din even said in episode 7 that the saber doesn't dictate who is a worthy leader, it's based on principles and honor (which Bo conveniently chose not to inform Din on how she doesn't fit that bill).
Bo, this whole season, has shown time and time again she's not a worthy leader. At least, not yet. Bo has MANY sins to make up for. As I said earlier: Bo was a terrorist, she led to Mandalore's downfall... twice (now potentially thrice), led an incursion that got her sister killed, was openly racist towards Boba Fett and others, sexually assaulted Ahsoka, and burned down villages just because she could. None of these were ever brought up in Mando and it not only made Bo an innocent woman who lost everything and just needs her people and planet back, but also erases her history without ever fully holding her accountable.
Bo has fantastic military leadership (as shown this season alone), but when it comes to diplomatic, she falls short. All of her choices have led her to losing the darksaber, losing Mandalore, getting many people killed, and her prejudices have gotten in the way of true diplomacy where Din had to step in when she was ready to give up or use force to get what she wanted. She didn't even bother to try to win her people back or make a plan to take back Mandalore, she was content staying at home and crying on her throne until Din and Grogu forced her to finally do something productive.
All of this circles back to my point on why Din being a reluctant character is important to the overall story. For someone who doesn't want to lead, he's shown the most leadership skills all season by putting others before him and communicating on everyone else's level instead of expecting them to rise to his which is a stark contrast to Bo's actions this season. He's multi-lingual, finds ways to speak to other species to make them feel seen and heard, and consistently gives up his own food and resources to those in need even if it's with a grumble at first (Frog Lady comes to mind). Everything Bo lacks or doesn't attempt, Din jumps head first in. Which is why I think there's such a divide on Bo's character this season and it's easier to say she stole the show from Din when, in reality, her desire to lead but having no leadership skills is what has drawn out the frustrating aspects of Season 3's storyline that's hard to put your finger on but might've given you anxiety regardless. Her role as Mandalore doesn't feel earned and her character feels cheated, again regardless of how you personally feel about her as a character and if you want what's best for her.
I think I had more to say but I'm running a blank now. I'm tagging @yourcoolauntie cause I know I promised to talk to you about all of this and I still plan on messaging you but figured this confined space would get everything out in one go rather than getting lost in the sauce in a tiny little chat box on here. Everyone is welcome to DM me over this, comment, challenge me, whatever you need to feel better regardless of what your stance is over the show. This isn't meant to dismiss anyone or make anyone feel invalidated as I said, just a safe space with facts that you can do what you please with to either validate how you feel or recognize where that discomfort or frustration is coming from regardless if you're enjoying this season or not. You're seen, you're heard, and I'll see you on the other side after this upcoming episode tonight.
The Power of Intention over Purpose and Goals
Recently, I became frustrated again with my seeming inability to declutter my life from the usual distractions. Reaching for my phone to scroll endlessly, putting Youtube on as background noise, constantly listening to random playlists, the usual suspects. When I reached my peak in frustration a thought came to me: I want to live my life with intent. I want to make conscious decisions and act accordingly. I want to focus on one thing at a time, as often as possible. I know I'm not reinventing the wheel here. Mindfulness and conscious living isn't a foreign concept to me either. But for some reason when I started framing it with the question "What is my intention?" Meaning, what is my intention, in the first place, towards myself, I realized that it seemed easier to shift my behavior. So now when I instinctively pick up my phone out of boredom I ask myself: "What is my intention in doing this?" For some reason it helps me shift my attention towards better options, like reading or just drinking my coffee in silence while looking out of the window, without feeling like I'm forcing myself to. Of course I don't just only do that though. I'm not one of those people that believes all social media is inherently evil. But the way that I consume things on there changes when I ask myself what my intentions are. When I do go on Youtube for example, the end result is I spend less time on there, but consume more high quality content that I'm actually interested in, rather than senseless short-form content. Before, I used to always try to set myself concrete goals like "No scrolling in the morning" but often failed to actually reach those goals because my mind immediately registered it as another annoying task I have to do. The cool thing about finding out what your intentions are in doing certain things, is that it can be applied to a lot of different aspects in life, or even just life in general. Rather than asking myself what my overarching goal or purpose in life is, I just ask myself "How do I intend to live?" Goals and purpose are terms that can feel heavy and burdensome to us, as they are intricately tied to our usefulness to the system we live in. That isn't to say that we should only think about ourselves and never be useful to others, but the societal pressure that comes with "finding your purpose" or reaching certain goals that everyone deems to be standard things you have to achieve (getting a good job, buying a house, starting a family, etc.) often doesn't actually help us achieve those things in a truthful and intentional way, even if we really want to achieve them. And of course it doesn't help at all, when we have dreams that are completely different from the "standard" way of living. (Some people don't care about being successful in their job, some people don't want families, etc.). By focusing on our intentions, we ask ourselves what we want out of life, not what we think we should want. The more we become familiar with our intentions, the more easy it becomes to navigate life in a way that is suitable for our particular selves, and the easier it becomes to live in line with those intentions, because it becomes easier to reinforce positive behaviors that enhance our life experience.
da capo obwohl nervt...
über die Auflösung der Bürgerlichen Klasse der BRD im 21.Jahrhundert (Essay vom Rande des Prekariats, 07-2013 )
Am Ende der letzten Dekaden des 20.Jahrhunderts betrachtete sich die bürgerliche Mitte der deutschen Bevölkerung als mächtigste bzw. bestimmendste Bevölkerungsschicht, durch ihre Funktion als Garanten der parlamentarischen Demokratie durch ihre Stimmenabgabe an eine der im Bundestag vorherrschenden Volksparteien bei den Wahlen . Ein unsicherer Fakt, da zwar die Deutungshoheit über die Macht eindeutig den Bürgern zuzuordnen war, diese aber durchaus in weiten Grenzen, die durch den Grad der Bildung und Intellektualität der “Bildungsbürger“ mitbestimmt werden, manipulierbar war/und ist. Obwohl den Bürgern durch ihren Status (Oh, ah, ich bin grundrechtsberechtigt!) von der Verfassung die Grundrechte garantiert werden, ist das hervorstechende Merkmal des furchtbar gemiedenen Begriffs „ Bürgerlichkeit“, daß niemand aus der herkömmlichen Bevölkerung sich mit ihm gerne identifiziert. Dies erklärt sich vielleicht aus der Tatsache, das der Begriff Bürger assoziiert wird mit der Französischen Revolution und mit ihrer zu Zustimmung und Opportunismus verpflichteten Bürgern. Mit diesem Begriff scheinen historisch Gleichschaltung und unbequeme, ja existentiell bedrohliche politische Unwahrheiten verbunden zu sein. Die Medien als sogenannte vierte Gewalt im Staate repräsentieren wie kaum eine andere Institution die Bürgerlichkeit, da sie hauptsächlich von den Bürgern konsumiert und ebenso von Ihren Vertretern produziert werden, (siehe z.B. die SPD-Ikone Rauchender Helmut und seine langweilige ZEITschrift, die modernlivingathomeHochglanzYellowPressGazetten und die größte Tageszeitung des dt.sprachigen Raumes Blid loten die Grenzen aus, die die Pforten des Faschismus beherbergen. Niveaulose konsumfachistoide Privatsenderformate die für die Lieferung der Spiele, siehe panem et circensis, verantwortlich sind und deren Produzenten bzw. mindestens deren Dienstleister und Lieferanten im Prekariat zu leben scheinen, mitten unter „uns“.
In der Medienbranche kennt man sie nur zu Genüge, die Parallelwelt der subventionierten Medienschaffenden, die an ihren Sets alles ausblenden, was Wirklichkeit ausmacht und dieses sinnentleerte Schaffen riefenstahlgleich überhöhen; um sie herum das Nichts. Der Bürger verschafft in der Branche Medien der „Arbeit“ eine Form der Identifizierung der Angestellten mit der produzierten Ware; sie produzieren, was sie selbst benötigen, nämlich eine ständige Beschreibung Ihrer Welt, sei sie verlogen, unwahr, schön oder in seltenen Fällen authentisch. Dies verschafft ein Gefühl von Sicherheit.(daher ist in diesem Akkumulationsbereich eine grosse Akzeptanz von Scheinselbständigkeit zu finden). Wir bestimmen grundsätzlich mit(durch Beschreibung, ein Art visualisierter Monolog), wie und was wir sind und wie unsere Welt beschaffen ist. Der Warheitswert dieser Anschauung ist gering, da kaum soziale Reflexion stattfindet(Klassengesellschaft ist bequem). Aber es verschafft Luft, um die Marx´sche Entfremdung von der Arbeit einstweilen noch negieren zu können. Mit diesen Instrumenten scheint die Bürgerlichkeit Macht ausüben zu können. Diese Illusion der Machtausübung ist wiederum Teil der Herrschaftsprinzipien der herrschenden Klasse. Denn wichtig für die Macht ist das Gefühl der Bürger. Und nichts ist dem Bürger wichtiger als das Gefühl. In diesem suhlt er sich gerne und ausgiebig aufgrund seines tendenziell kindlichen Gemütes, das daher rührt, das die Kindheit erst verdient werden muss, sozusagen nachgeholt wird, da sie im ständigen Prozeß des Funktionierens und Aufrechterhaltens des status quo wegrationalisiert oder kleinfunktionalisiert wurde. Erwachsene Bürger sind oft seelisch im Zustand eines 4-6jährigen Kindes stecken geblieben. Diese Kinder üben gern Macht aus; kann man im bürgerlichen Milieu beobachten, hinter verschlossenen Türen und/oder subtiler an Vertretern der rechtlich schlecht gestellten Dienstleistungsbranche. Die kindlichen Bürger haben selbst Schwierigkeiten damit, Eltern sein, da sie die Aufmerksamkeit, die Kinder fordern, selbst absorbieren. Gern wird das Elternsein delegiert oder outgesourced. Wohlstandsverwahrlosung der Kinder ist eine typische Folge davon. Fakten sind Bürgern eher unbequem, sie machen sie sich pragmatisch und profitorientiert zu nutze, daher ahnen sie ihre eigene Manipulierbarkeit und vermeiden gerne, Konsequenzen aus Fakten zu ziehen, wenn diese zum Handeln, oder, etwas weniger unangenehm, zum Nachfragen aufforderten. Wenn Handeln im politischen Bereich jedoch unumgänglich, gesamtgesellschaftlich gefordert ist, z.B. dadurch, das der eigene status quo oder Teile des Vermögens gefährdet sind, reagiert die Bürgerliche Mitte, sich selber überraschend, mit aller ihr zu Verfügung gestellten Macht und Härte. Diese wird Ihr suggeriert bzw. zugeteilt von der herrschenden Klasse, die diese Unumgänglichkeiten voraussieht, da sie meist die Ursache der Bedrohung liefert. Das Objekt ihrer Begierde ist das sich in der bügerlichen Klasse ansammelnde Kapital, das es sich mit der ewigen Herrschaftstechnik divide et impera, Teile und Herrsche, kreativ erobert. Gerne wird hierfür die Täter-Opfer-Dynamik benutzt. Die Sanktionierungshoheit wird dann verbürgerlicht und die Klasse des Prekariats zum Objekt der Bestrafung gemacht. Dies kostet die herrschende Klasse wenig ; einige Köpfe der eigenen Klasse rollen (eindrücklichstes Beispiel : H.M.Schleyer), systemimmanent, die Körper bzw. Angehörigen werden dafür entschädigt, dafür dürfen die Bürger die Illusion Ihrer Macht behalten und stellen dadurch nicht die illegitime Macht der herrschenden Klasse in Frage.
Der König ist tot- es lebe der König. Sic: Ist es nicht peinlich entlarvend, das ein dänisches Regierungsoberhaupt anno 2011 die Königin um Erlaubnis fragen muss, wenn er die Regierung für Neuwahlen auflösen will?
Dieses scheint in allen parlamentarisch-konstitutionellen Monarchien die Vorraussetzung für die Auflösung bzw.Neuwahlen des Parlamentes zu sein(JeanCleaude, der alte Junker, musste gerade beim Grossherzog(!? noch nie was von dem vorher gehört) von Luxemburg dasselbe wie sein dänischer Schwager machen, kruzifix) - lachhaftes Indiz für unser digitales Mittelalter.
Nach oben wird geschaut, nach unten getreten(vgl.Monotheismus). Kapital häuft sich oben an, da es aufgrund seiner Eigendynamik nach oben fließt(´s schon schwer zu glauben wg. der widernatürlichen Metapher). Die sozialen Ausgleichszahlungen landen sehr schnell bei den Habenden, da das Prekariat sich genötigt sieht, sein monatliches „Einkommen“ unmittelbar, z.B. für Lebensmittel,Kleidung und Drogen auszugeben. Da die billigsten Lebensmittel etc. von den Industrie-Discountern angeboten werden, wandert das Geld von ganz unten am schnellsten die Treppe herauf in die Taschen der Herrschenden, hier : Industriellen. Diese häufen es an, vermehren oder vernichten es an der Börse, geben es aber kaum oder ungern zurück in den sozialwirtschaftlichen Kreislauf . An dieser Stelle wird der Bürger wieder über Steuern und Sozialabgaben zur Lohnsubventionskasse gebeten, da sonst der Industrielle aus seinem Haifischbecken, in dem er mit dem Rücken zur Wand steht, droht, die halbe Welt zu entlassen und auszuwandern. Dies schreckt den Bürger ab. Der Industrielle gibt ihm über die Medien die Gelegenheit, fingerzeigend treppabwärtsSozialgeldmißbraucher anzuklagen, oder weist meist ablenkend auf Politiker, Minister und deren Institutionen. Aufgrund seiner abwägenden, sich selbst überlistenden Dialektik hat der Bürger(an dieser Stelle auch mal Grüße an die BürgerIn) Empathie für die herrschende Klasse, deren Mitglied er morgen sein zu können zu hoffen wagt. Ein ergänzendes beliebtes bürgerliches Muster: Keiner will den Millionären etwas wegnehmen, da er ja hofft, morgen selbst zu den Millionären zu gehören.Dies sind Phantasien von dem Geld, das er denen nicht gönnt, die es existentiell dringend benötigen und anderen, die es vor dem Hunger oder Hungertod bewahren könnte. Äh, bevor wir zu den Folgen der Bürgerlichkeit und ihres sehr menschlichen Verhaltens gelangen, lassen mich Euer Hochwohlgeboren bitte noch kurz resüm-u.raisonnieren: Es ist in diesen Zeiten für den Bürger eine äußerst anstrengende Tatsache, das allein in Deutschland das Geldvermögen der privaten Haushalte 3,97Billionen (fast 4000 Milliarden) Euro entspricht . Dieses Geld entspringt überwiegend ererbtem Vermögen aus industrieller sogenannter Wertschöpfung. Die Klasse der Wohlhabenden, sozusagen fast-Reichen gilt den Bürgern immer als fatamorganisches Sprungbrett zum Reichtum. Ein großer Teil dieses Reichtums stammt(BRD-West) von im II.WK und III.Reich in deutschen Raubzügen erbeutetem Besitz aus überfallenen Ländern, unter anderem von ermordeten und/oder zwangsenteigneten europäischen Juden, aus Besitz der durch Arbeit von Zwangsarbeitern bzw. Sklaven und dessen finanzieller Verwertung in den Jahren nach dem Ende des Krieges. Weder DDR/BRD noch das wiedervereinigte Deutschland als Rechtsnachfolger des Deutschen Reiches haben je versucht, den Besitz den Eigentümern oder deren Erben zurückzuerstatten.
Eine angemessen Entschädigung der Zwangsarbeiter scheiterte nach der Wiedervereinigung unter der Führung des vorbestraften Grafen Hackstock.
So kann man davon ausgehen, daß das heutige sogenannte Deutschland zumindest in ökonomischer Sicht(und wohl auch im Sinne des Rassenwahns) paradoxerweise den WK II gewonnen hat. Ein schweres Erbe für das Gewissen bundesdeutscher Bürger – es war enorm viel Biederkeit nötig, um dieses unrunde Untergrundbrummen zuzudecken.
Selbst die sogenannte 68erGeneration war dem Charme der elterlichen Bourgoisie und derem rotem Bordeaux erlegen, und machte es sich in den anvisierten „Institutionen“ bequem, der Joint kreiste solange, bis der eigene Widerstand in Rauch aufgelöst war. Der terroristische Rest hatte dem Staat genügend Gelegenheit gegeben, sich aufzurüsten und sich hübsch zu machen. Dann, endlich, Birne hat´s gegeben, die Gnade der „späten Geburt“ : Wohlstand ist cool und Holocaust Vergangenheit. Wenn nur dieses zumindest für Intellektuelle nie enden wollende Untergrundbrummen nicht wäre, äh, zur Vergangenheitsbewältigung (geht das eigentlich?) anregen würde, aber der große Schlaf und seine Kunden lassen weiter brummen. Brummen da nicht auch gleich die Maschinen der Rüstungsindustrie? Teile und Herrsche, wie lässt dies sich besser demonstrieren als mit einem Krieg? Die anfangs scheinbar allmächtige Atomindustrie trieb das Teilen mit der Kernspaltung auf die Spitze und ist mit dem Herrschen noch immer nicht ans Ende gekommen.