alpaca-clouds

[alpaca-clouds]

Hands cold? We’ll share!

Total Loser + Total Wreck💀 I’ll never get tired of these two idiots💖

Considering trying to redo Unchosen Children💀

[alpaca-clouds]

koushiro

[alpaca-clouds]

It is also simply not correct. Anthropologically speaking hunter-gatherers did not divide labor based on sex or gender. They lived by what we would today call more anarcho-communist rules, including "to each what they need, from each what they can give". Meaning, that the roles were divided by talents. Most people did much of everything, but some people did one thing more of one or the other. But we have ABSOLUTLEY NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that there were no men involved in gathering or child rearing and no women were involved in big game hunting. In fact, it is the opposite. We have evidence that there were women warriors and women big game hunters and men who were known for their gentleness and maternal traits.

The entire "men hunter/tool maker" and "women gatherer/mother" BS is just some evidenceless bullshit that was literally made up whole cloth by male anthropologists more than a century ago, because they could not face the very clear evidence that gender roles are a super modern development.

In hunter-gatherer times, both men and women had jobs, corresponding to acquiring different types of foods with different skillsets. In modern times, many people have jobs that don't directly involve getting food, but instead doing other labor in exchange for money that is used for food and other neccessities. Thus, it would make sense to still have both men and women working.

So, what about the idea that men should have all the paid employment and women do all housework and childrearing? This is not just a division of labor.

I think that is quite unreasonable and unstable in today's world unless you have a lot of money saved up, because one day something could happen to the father (e.g. he could die or get laid off, or abandon his family) and now there is no working adult with income in the family. Besides, the hunter-gatherer separation of labor is supposedly based on differences between men and women, such as men being physically stronger and thus better at hunting. But, with the wide variety of jobs available today, and since the advent of civilization, how can you say that men are better suited to all of them? And/or worse suited to housework and childrearing? One could argue that women have more of a "maternal instinct", or at least a closer bond with her kids due to creating them and breastfeeding them. However, we are a very social species who evolved to care about each other, especially family. Surely, fathers should care about their kids too and be able to help raise them, yeah? Isn't that why monogamy evolved, to make them stay behind and raise the kids? I mean, unless it was only to make them provide meat and be bodyguards. I doubt that. At the very least, men should be able to do household chores like cleaning and cooking.

In short, a better and more economically stable modern equivalent to the hunter-gather division of labor is not working dad and stay at home mom. It is both parents working and doing housework and raising their kids together. And before you go "if they both work 40hr a week then they won't have time for everything else," lemme say this: 1. I know from my own life that is not true because my parents both worked fulltime and yet, the chores got done and my sister and I were raised well. 2. If 40hr a week for each parent is too much, that is capitalism's fault. I mean, did hunter-gatherers even work that much?

Nah, they worked only 20 hours a week, apparently.

According to this source, an article titled "Work-life Balance" by James E Gangwisch 1, "their workloads were relatively modest, requiring only about 20 hours per week to acquire and prepare food, and to make tools, clothing, and shelter."

If you think about it, if one parent working 40hr and the other working 0hr is enough to support a household, then it should be the same if each works 20hr a week, right? Except, in the usa at least, having healthcare is often based on having a full-time job, so one full-time employed parent could provide healthcare for themselves and possibly their spouse and kids, but two half-time employed parents probably couldn't🥲. Idk if that is the case in countries with free healthcare, though.

I suppose, through writing this post, I've come to the conclusion a nuclear family should be able to be supported by 2 parents each working halftime and sharing household responibilities, with healthcare from the government (that is ultimately paid by their tax dollars anyway, but they can keep it if they get laid off or don't work full-time).

So, basically, patriarchy and capitalism are bad. I already knew that though. We should learn more from the hunter-gatherers. That source I found makes them seem pretty based.

"Hunter-gatherer band societies were pretty egalitarian, had little social stratification, and ascribed equal status to hunters who were typically men and gatherers who were normally women.² They received abundant social support by working within groups with strong kinship ties."

CITATION

Gangwisch JE. Work-life balance. SLEEP 2014;37(7):1159-1160.

[alpaca-clouds]

Science refers to the two main clusters as "3G" by the way. The majority of humans are 3G males or 3G females. The Gs refer to the main attributes of the social construct of "biological sex":

genes (XX or XY)

gonads (ovaries or testies)

genitals (vulva or penis)

But actual science acknowledges that there is a lot of folks who fall outside of this.

There are people who are born with one set of genes, but gonads and genitals fitting with the other sex. There are people being born with genitals that appear outwardly as one sex, but their genes and gonads are that of the other sex. And there are people who have a set of gonads that does not line up with the expectation.

And that is outside of the stuff that people very classically think of in regards to intersex: genitals that do not perfectly align with one or the other. But that is not even half of it.

Furthermore there are a lot of people who note that technically human sex has two more variables: a neurological one and an hormal one. While the human brain is largely the same across sexes, there are a couple of little aspects that differ in very minor way - and there is a good bit of evidence that this might be connected to being trans. And of course hormones. Men who have little testosterone, and women who have a lot of it - at times then with the estrogene going the other way. And that is actually very common, and at least intersex people tend to count it as part of intersex.

But yeah, Rowling is dead wrong and Rowling knows nothing about fucking medicine and biology.

Trans women usually are not born with ovaries - but they are women. Trans men often are born with them - but they are NOT women. And then there is a lot of intersex people who might identify one way or another (might even be cis, as in: their gender lines up with what was determined at birth) and still do or do not have ovaries despite what Rowling claims here.

Sex is a spectrum. Not a binary.

That is the biological truth - and it is a biological truth for abou 8 to 10% of humans.

x(.)com/StrewthQueen/status/1953734582488248340 here's the link where I saw it, sorry for taking time I was having connection issues

Tweet in question for the benefit of my followers:

Yeah, I literally don't see what's wrong with acknowledging that ovarian disorders exist. Like c'mon, we can criticize her transphobia and racism and everything without trying to demonize literally each and every little thing she says. The issue here isn't that she's mentioning ovarian disorders, the issue is that she's being a transphobe.

[alpaca-clouds]

CTF = close to female

CTA = close to androgynous

CTN = close to neutral

CTM = close to male

[alpaca-clouds]

I decided to watch a movie today I had not watched in 15 years or so: Pleasantville. And oh boy, the movie sure does hit different today.

[alpaca-clouds]

Closure - Chapter 54

And I also realized that... Uhm, I have not updated in a bit. Oops. But here is a new chapter.

Closure Chapter 54: Cooking Questions

Fandom: Castlevania (Netflix) Shippings: Trephacard + DracuLisa Genre: Hurt/Comfort

Lisa enjoys her son taking over cooking duty.

[alpaca-clouds]

Summer Spice: Anticipation [Hector/Isaac]

I finally get around to uploading something new for @summer-spice as well. This time around my OTP once more.

Anticipation

Fandom: Castlevania (Netflix) Shipping: Hector/Isaac Genre: Smut

Hector has made a bet with Isaac...

[alpaca-clouds]

Sisters [Aoi & Saki]

A bit late once more. But here I go. @rewatchingdigimon's DigiMemorial August. Today with Digimon Survive.

Sisters

Fandom: Digimon Survive Relationship: Aoi & Saki Genre: Mild Hurt/Comfort

Aoi is cooking for her friends - and Saki decides to help.

[alpaca-clouds]

Round five! Strip that priest 😈.

I think the lady doth protest too much.

See yellat.money for contact information, and https://stop-paypros.neocities.org/ for some example scripts and other info! Any extra points will carry to the next round 💖

[also see bsky (18+) if you want to see people's experiences calling etc]

(19 points carried over from last round!)

[Here's an article about what's going on. We're calling/mailing to overwhelm them, to make bad press for them and to force them to take note- we've already gotten statements from them, and made lots of news sites!]

[alpaca-clouds]

sorry to be a sheeple or whatever but that twitter trend is literally them

[alpaca-clouds]

I'd like to believe they were complete PDA menaces in their day

[alpaca-clouds]

So there's gossip about some version of kinktober over on twitter adding a bunch of nonsensical rules this year, and I am fascinated. Studying this like a bug.

Like, what the hell.

(context link)

[alpaca-clouds]

Something I find Interesting...

I will say it again: I will probably never manage an evil playthrough in BG3. It already took everything I had to not metagame and safe Alfira in my Dark Urge playthrough, so no, I will probably not play the evil playthrough.

However, I have watched evil playthroughs by others, and one thing that stands out to me: the evil playthrough is a lot harder than any good playthrough. You have less companions, you have less support, you have limited restocking options and so on and so forth. The game makes it actually surprisingly hard to be evil. Darker playthroughs that verge more into the "chaotic neutral" territory? Harder, yes, but not that much.

But the good playthrough where you save everyone and help everyone... It is objectively easier.

And that is interesting, right? Because most videogames that offer you a good and bad path actually make the evil path easier. Usually if you do the evil path you have more ressources, more options, more powers, more access to ways to defeat the enemies. Games tend to ask you to make the decision: "Do you want a bit of an easier time especially in boss fights, or do you want the ending that gives you the warm fuzzies?"

I find it interesting, because I know very well why normally the evil route is easier. It is trying to be a commentary on how basically doing evil is chosing the "easy path", and how people who are shitty usually are this way, because they were cowards looking for the easy way out. A strange mixture of condemning the lack of backbone, but also somewhat understanding for the evil.

And here comes BG3: "Being evil is shitty, but also it takes so much more effort from you!" And I cannot help but think: this is so noticable... this was a very active decision, wasn't it? Larian really made that decision.

Especially because... you know. They are not wrong.

Because, yeah. Being evil makes your life a lot harder.

Sure, making little morally grey decisions here and there - especially if you are poor and lack options - might be easier than the alternative at times. But being actually evil? Like, actually behaving in a way that harms a lot of people... It actually makes your life harder and worse. Because us humans... Sure, we long for power. But more than anything, we are very social creatures. And the vast majority of us will reward kind behavior more than it will reward riches and powers.

And before someone argues about this naming some asshole billionaire, I ask you this: do you think those people are happy? Sure, they do not fear going hungry or being unable to pay their rent and what not - and for those of us who fear those things constantly (believe me, I know!) - but still... they live in constant fear of losing all their money and influence, while not having a single true friend in the world, because they never can be certain with anyone they know whether they actually like them or just want money/power.

... So, yeah. I find BG3 very interesting there.

[alpaca-clouds]

They're jamming out

[alpaca-clouds]

See, I originally thought the same. And then I started writing for this ship and especially about Gortash and then I got it. See, people are not into this despite Gorts being a grimy, bastard loser with a strange fashion sense, but BECAUSE he is a grimy, bastard loser with a strange fashion sense. That is a feature, not a bug. Folks like him, because he is an asshole - but everyone seeing the text can also understand HOW he ended up an asshole. Does not make him any less of a shithead. Which is why a lot of folks do adore torturing this man in a million different ways. He makes for an excellent stress toy. Durge probably agrees.

Listen. I respect all y’all durgetash fans out there, everyone needs to be a little delusional sometimes. But also, holy shit, are we playing the same game??? The man looks grimier than Orin, and she spends hours every day bathing in the viscera of her murder victims 😭

[alpaca-clouds]

I finished playing Re:Digitize Decode last month and I knew right away I had to draw something for it! I had trouble choosing which cracter to draw, but I ended up going for Rina.