#(just don't make me talk about scholars and critics and stuff)

[shadow-pixelle]

Today I made a terrible mistake. This mistake was starting my Literature essay.

It's due in three weeks. It's 3000 words. Ok, not bad, I can do 1k a week and have it done for the deadline.

I had a word breakdown, telling me exactly how many words I needed per text to hit the minimum so that I could be comfortable getting it done. My word breakdown was putting it at about 1250 words per text, giving me 2500 total after the texts, and then needing only about a hundred for the introduction and conclusion to hit the minimum (10% leeway, so 2700).

Then my introduction was a bit over 200 words.

Ok, no problem, I think to myself. Means I either have less to do, or I'll be more comfortably in the limits in case I need to take things out. This is a good thing. So I move on to my first text, of which I'm talking about two characters; Carmilla, with my focus being on Laura and Carmilla. I'm expecting to spend most of it on Carmilla but start with Laura anyway.

I end the Laura segment at 1263 words.

And then wrote another 400 on Carmilla.

So my essay is now at around 1800 out of the required 3000, I've still got three characters of my second text to do (which is Dracula, for which I'm doing Lucy Mina and the three vampires in the castle), and then my conclusion, all in about 1000 words.

And then it gets worse, because I don't know whether I'm supposed to count quotes or not. Or footnotes. Because I think the teacher said footnotes count, but I don't remember, and since it's the holidays I'm not going to get an answer from the teachers any time soon. But if I do count both quotes and footnotes I'm at 1968 words, which means I've got the Dracula bits, the footnotes from those bits, and my conclusion in 1300 words (because my absolute maximum allowed wordcount is 10% above the 3000, so 3300) before I need to start actually cutting things out.

Not bad for about five hours of work, though.

[pr0cyon-lotor]

Au where it was all a ✨dream✨

A collective dream specifically, sorta....

Okay, we're dropped in a scene Shen Yuan is dying. He sacrificed himself to save Binghe from idk a demon attack or something. But he's Shen Qingqiu's husband because there was a previous courtship full of drama, misunderstandings, and eventually love.

So he's being held by Shen Jiu, and as Shen Yuan finally drops. The system pulls up for everyone saying something about how they had completed an exercise, before anyone can even blink all plot relevant characters just drop to the floor.

Anyway PIDW isn't important anymore, let's go to the modern world.

Shen Jiu wakes up in a hospital bed, his memories rushing back. He's... A historian— no, a modern day scholar?... he's renowned for his research papers... Ugh, the voices.

Shen Jiu is told he was in a plane crash that had hospitalized most of its passengers, which is better than the alternative. He asks if there's a Shen Yuan in the hospital, the nurse hesitates and asks why. Shen Jiu got that Shen Yuan is in the hospital but is probably either in bad condition or his family isn't allowed the staff to talk about him.

Shen Jiu says that they're married. The nurse hesitates and then says he is and he's doing worse than before and is in critical condition. Shen Jiu is left to stew over the information.

He is forced to go into physical therapy and all that stuff. He meets the other passengers and can clock each of them. From his Qi-ge to Mobei Jun. It was strange, to see them like normal people when he has a memory of them being greater than that.

They all talk and Shen Jiu takes note of their professions and connections. Once he recovers, he tries to visit Shen Yuan and is told he needs a proof of marriage.

And Shen Jiu being the spiteful and conniving motherfucker he is uses his recently made connections to gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss some legalized falsified documents of his and Shen Yuan's marriage, which was a year before the plane crash and their anniversary landed on the day of the crash. How unfortunate truly :,( (he totally didn't pick that day because that was the day they met so in his brain that was they day that led them to be together or anything)

So he shows the documents and then visits Shen Yuan each time he can. He does try to avoid his family and got good at remembering their schedules of visits. He always keeps his hand over Shen Yuan's chest, just so he can feel his heart beat so he knows he's still alive aside from the mechanical beep of the heart monitor.

The day Shen Yuan wakes up, it was during one of Shen Jiu's visits. He wakes up with Shen Jiu . He's still half delirious and still mixing things from his coma "dream" and real life. So he says:

"My husband will get upset if he sees you touching me like that on my chest."

Shen Jiu is amused and puts Shen Yuan's glasses on his face softly and says that he is his husband. Shen Yuan stares at his demure beauty of a husband, mouth agape. The heart monitor picks up and he just says "sup" which confirms to Shen Jiu that he is still the nerdy man he fell in love with.

Shen Jiu tells him they've been married two year by now and kisses his forehead. A nurse bursts in to make sure no one is like y'know dying and sees that Shen Yuan is up. She is shocked because for all intents and purposes he shouldn't have woken up yet. She shoos Shen Jiu away and tells him to wait outside.

The Shens are notified and they finally meet Shen Jiu. He manages to gaslight and charm his parents and siblings. He convinces them that Shen Yuan totally mentioned him and they were totally going to meet if not for the plane crashing. (Shen Jiu remembered when Shen Yuan and him were talking in the plane that he mentioned that he was visiting family. Shen Jiu was flying to speak in a convention or something but they don't need to know that.)

Once Shen Yuan fully awake, his family start worrying over him and then ask why he didn't tell them he was married. Shen Yuan, who did realize his husband was lying is going along with it, said he was going to but things (the plane crash) got in the way.

Anyway new Shen in the family. He probably likes Shen Yuan's little sister and mom.

[eerna]

Hello! This is incredibly random, but as a fanartist, enjoyer of critically examining media, and critic of capitalist corporations (*cough* Disney), do you have any thoughts about fan art being a form of unpaid labour?

Context is I’m writing an essay about digital labour and how fan creation is basically kind of like free PR for big corporations… and now whenever I do fanart I can’t get that thought out of my head uGH. I want to believe that drawing fanart is my own form of creative expression and way of showing love for the media, but at the same time I’m like “am I being exploited???” since I’m helping advertise smth for free and these corporations are just capitalizing on my love for said media??? and I can’t reconcile these thoughts 🥲🫠

Also I’m struggling with the essay LOL my eventual conclusion is that we as fans do have agency but we kind of still are being exploited… so it’s not a very optimistic outlook haha. Doesn’t help that the scholars’ articles I’m reading are all very negative about this digital labour thing. Help.

Sorry if this is unexpectedly deep!! 😅 just really curious to hear a fellow fanartist’s thoughts, and I respect you a lot for being unafraid to criticize media 🙏🙏

Hi! First of thank you for your kind words~ Second off, what a cool concept to discuss. Your message is pretty much how I feel. It is very frustrating to remember that so much of the media I love is so closely tied to the harmful cycle of capitalism. I grew up in a country that didn't have access to merch or much in the way of official media so piracy was my go-to most of the time. This means I was introduced to the concept of consumerist aspects of fandom via the Internet as a teenager and started feeling bad about "not supporting" stuff I love, but I told myself "Well I pay back by doing fanart and talking about it online". And then I found out about the way capitalism shapes the media landscape and started feeling bad for playing into it, the same as you. It gets even more conflicting when I am talking about something I dislike made by a company I dislike - yeah, I am probably preventing some people from interacting with the media for themselves, but I am also probably making others interested. What makes me feel better about the entire thing is that the "digital labour" I do is that I'm doing it for other fans like me, and to express myself. I love things so much that it makes me feel like I am going to explode, but pouring it out onto paper helps with it! Of course, I don't have to post it online for it to be worthwhile, but sharing it with others who feel the way I do makes the feelings even better. BUT one of the most important aspects of the issue is how willing those companies are to let me gain something monetary from the relationship. Are they ignoring fanworks being sold as fan merch, as commissions? It is illegal, but I feel like it should absolutely be allowed as a sort of unmentioned perk of being a fan worker, and the companies that don't allow that are evil. My audience gets bigger, I sell more prints, and so do they. (This is also why I never accept money for fanworks made by small creators, such as webcomics)

There's also the fact that lately I've been seeing the rise of "If you REALLY love this piece of media, it is your DUTY to consume it as much as possible and spread the word about it as much as possible and make the company as much money as possible if you want to see more things like it!" takes. These are utter bullshit and where enjoyment of media goes to die. The moment you reduce your love for something only to how much money it can make the evil capitalist overlords who allowed it to grace your eyes, you completely deny any kind of artistic worth. Media should exist because we deserve to have our hearts touched by stories, not because it makes someone money.

I don't have a clear answer or feel like my approach to the issue goes entirely along with my morality. But I don't think we can find a way to feel good about the entire situation as long as our media is dictated by capitalism. It's the sad reality of loving something in a system that will squeeze any money out of you that it can. But we gotta march on, remember that we are the ones allowing them to survive and not the other way around, and love while we do it. Good luck with your essay, stay positive!

[hell0mega]

so i finally watched the Barbie movie, and it was... good. like, i really enjoyed myself, it's very funny, it's acted well, it LOOKS amazing.

but... am i the only one who feels like the script should've had, like... another good month or two to cook?

and i don't mind the lack of explanation. like, it never explained why Barbieland is this, like, weird demiplane connected to Earth and the Barbies are real and not only can they go to the real world and function basically as people, but real people can also travel to Barbieland. it was one of those things where i could easily go, yeah, sure, whatever. like, maybe they could've fleshed that out a bit, but it didn't distract me enough to say that would be necessary

but I'm talking about the actual plot, and the message of the film. it felt... clunky. I've seen people criticize it for being "intro feminism" but i don't even think it's that. i want to watch it again and have a more detailed and in depth analysis, but i remember a few things that bothered me. the idea that the deconditioned barbies used their wiles to make the kens jealous and turn on each other in order to defeat them felt... bad. the way the film said "manipulative women win" felt SO icky, especially how that was just kind of accepted and worked just fine and wasn't called out. and the way that Ryan's Ken was like "i thought it was all about horses anyway" yet the concept of men finding community with each other over common interests was never seen as a positive topic to explore, and it just all came down to oppressing the Barbies.

the whole movie implied that this is what the world would be like if the roles were reversed, right? if women were the one in charge and men were put down and subservient. yet all the kens were dumb, and ignorant, and only cared about the attention from their Barbies. and at the end, president Barbie said "maybe things shouldn't go back to the way things were" and the film recognizes that the kens were bad off... but then made the joke that they were "not ready" for equal representation? "maybe someday" a ken can be in the supreme court, but for now, they have to learn, and they're gonna have to work their way up. if we flip that metaphor and apply it to real life, flip the roles... that feels disgusting. you can't have a reverse metaphor and put down men at the same time. the reason why women haven't had equal rights is exactly this narrative, that they weren't "ready," that they were ignorant or dumb, that they wouldn't use their rights or power "correctly," and that's exactly what the film said about the kens. and it was a joke! funney!!!

it felt like they had this basic idea for the movie and did the worldbuilding centered on the fact that they're dolls and ken is just There while they're a million barbies with a bunch of different careers. and then when they tried to come up with a story, they had to shoehorn in the feminist stuff... and it just did not land for me. if they wanted this to have been a feminist piece for the ages, they should've started there.

I'm actually surprised at the lack of analysis and criticism I've seen of the actual story of the movie. I'm sure it's out there, but i haven't done across it. i know this was written just after covid, and it was written during the worst time to be a writer if we consider the timing of the strike. but... i still wish it had been edited. i think it would've fared much better had they've consulted with feminist and gender study scholars. i think it would've led to a much better lesson and a much tighter script.

[margridarnauds]

Sleepover ask time! I give you permission to rant about shit on main

That's an ungodly amount of power to give me, let's go.

This is going to be unpopular with some people, and I totally get why, but...every once in a while on this site, there's a lot of furor raised over "You CAN'T call the Aeneid/The Divine Comedy/Arthuriana fanfic, you don't UNDERSTAND, they're MEDITATIONS on fate/divine will/mortality, they're DEEP." Many outraged posts made, blood spilled, lives lost on Tumblr as the most unlikeable people that you know on both sides write bad faith thinkpieces that wildly miss the point. And...I get it. I do. I emphasize that I get it. These texts are, overwhelmingly, being manufactured in a time before copyright protections, as we know them, existed. (Though Cervantes, in the 17th century, provided an early example of an author...very firmly asserting his own exclusive ownership of the characters.) These works, rather than being fanfiction in and of themselves, are part of a cultural tradition of transformative borrowing and exchange that fanfiction is ALSO a part of.

...but that being said. Lads. Lighten up.

People who actually work with stuff day in, day out don't care as much as randos on Tumblr, or self proclaimed English Majors™ who couldn't hack grad school and have decided that, in retribution, they're going to subject us to complaining about YA, fanfic, pick your poison here (mandatory "Education =/= intelligence or critical thinking skills, especially given the RIDICULOUS cost of a degree in the States, but if you're going to promote yourself as an English Major™, and play into that hierarchical system, I reserve the right to call you on it and pull rank.) I've sat at tables filled with medievalists who will gleefully call Arthuriana fanfic (we also had a lovely discussion on MPreg, Omegaverse, and protecting curious senior scholars from the former two when they go on their regular sojourns across the internet.) I've read articles from respected medievalists that will adopt a transformative approach towards reading texts, arguing that they are, essentially, fanfiction. (Matthieu Boyd's paper on Mesca Ulaid, for the interested.) I've talked to tenured Ivy League professors who will compare respected medieval literary traditions to fanfic. (Three, actually.) As a soon to be published Arthurian scholar myself, *I* don't care, and I'd like to think that, at this point, I've earned my laurels enough to have an opinion.

Like, I just think we have to consider what our goal is here -- is it to educate people on the way that pre-modern literary cultures worked, or is it to make ourselves feel superior? Is it because we want to clarify that our own situation re: copyright is the exception rather than the norm historically, or is it because we feel somehow threatened by the comparison between something that we hold to be significant to something that we hold insignificant, especially since the latter is something that is something that can be written by anyone as opposed to a specific literary elite that overwhelmingly consisted of men? When we're here, in our capacity as ambassadors for our fields, are we doing more harm than good by trying to puff ourselves up? Are we actually ENCOURAGING people to engage with this stuff, or are we making them think that we're all Like That?

When I was younger, 17-18, I was terrified of interacting with people who did this sort of thing specifically because there was one person on here, back in the day, who was SUCH a prickly asshole that I was scared. And if I hadn't, I wouldn't have entered grad school for this, I never would've gotten my MA, I wouldn't have gotten into my PhD program. God knows how many other people might have had similar experiences. That matters more to me than whether Arthuriana technically counts as fic.

...also this is the funny meme website. The reason why a lot of people aren't giving the most nuanced takes on medieval literary networks is specifically because, besides being laypeople...this is the funny meme website. None of us are making any of this into a conference paper, it isn't going on our CVs, so I'm not going to focus on getting all the nuances down right because. This is the funny meme website. I go here. To make funny memes. And to escape my program. And if you have enough time and energy to get angry, wonderful, fight the good fight, but, ala the Cervantes example above, you might find yourself tilting at windmills that you've mainly created.

[97-liners]

i liked this bit from my response to the last anon who tried to tell me off by saying "half the time its stuff that you have literally no say on anyway." "Stick to talking about shit that relates to you and maybe, just maybe, people wouldn't hate on you so much." so i'm going to separate it out here:

the main thing i have to say here though. i don’t have to be black to think that anti-blackness is bad and speak out on it, and i don't have to be fat to speak out about how fatphobia is bad. in fact, it's actively harmful to try to say that only people who are directly affected by a given power structure are allowed to speak on it at all. my saying "equating thinness with health and beauty is not good" is not anything radical, and it's kind of fucked up to think that a thin person should never say that.

this goes beyond whatever this anon is talking about — the problem with the mindless emphasis on “listen to x voices” is that, while it’s important to put oppressed viewpoints and lived experiences in the forefront of discussions, it’s not a free pass out of critical thought. ppl forget “listen to x voices” started out in academic study. it's not about the ppl you choose to defend or the viewpoints you hold publicly. and it’s not about x voices saying “xyz isn’t harmful” taking precedence over established theory to the contrary. i think this is something ANY poc understands acutely and painfully because it’s always the conservative and white supremacist sellouts that get put to the forefront.

it also gives people an out. if you believe that only x people should talk or care about x issues, then that lets you just sit back and say “well, i’m not x so i’m not involved”… and more irritatingly, it gives you the perceived right to say “well I’M a minority so my opinion is right !!!!”. being a person of color doesn’t make me an expert on racism and i don’t pretend to be an expert. there are white anti-imperialist scholars who have a better understanding of racist global power structures than i do and i’m not arrogant enough to just write that off because they’re white.

[foolish-fitz]

rain wild chronicles thoughts (mostly negative ones)

warning for me being a hater - if you liked this series, I'm happy for you!!! feel free to click away from this criticism with the knowledge that it's okay to like and dislike different things.

that being said, this was by far my least favorite Hobb series. there are some things I really liked, but I feel overwhelmingly "meh" about this series. it feels like there's a lot of missed potential and it's a significant dip in quality from what I know Hobb can do.

I think this review is best formatted with a list of things I liked, and things I didn't.

things I liked:

I really enjoyed and related to aspects of Thymara's arc. her struggles with the model minority idea was super interesting, and her issues with sexuality hit home for me in a weird (but good) way.

the Rain Wilds :) they are so cool! tree cities yes please!!!

Malta in book 3. this deserves another post and I've already ranted about it on Discord, but I'm continually amazed by Hobb's skill in developing characters. we pick up with Malta after a significant time gap, and she is clearly different, but it's so clearly still her and she's been informed by everything that's happened to her and it's just amazing.

also the scene where she gives birth to Phron and kills the Chalcedean. good for her. it was extremely disturbing to me but also extremely badass

also her relationship with Reyn is very sweet

the Hest/Sedric flashbacks to the start of their relationship

learning more about the ancient Elderlings and their city was cool

things I disliked:

Malta in book 4. "but Eve you just talked about how much you love her" yes but she got fucking boring in book 4 ok. she did nothing.

this actually hits on a bigger issue with RWC to me, which is that none of the characters really had a character arc worthy of four books. most of them had a pretty simple thing (in terms of story) to overcome - ie Sedric and Alise realizing Hest was a horrible abuser and finding self-worth without him, Thymara embracing her sexuality and choosing a partner, etc - but once they did that, or if the story wasn't allowing them to make progress at that point, their arcs just kind of... stopped. which could have been workable, except Hobb was committed to giving characters POVs even if nothing interesting was happening with them.

this is my main frustration with Alise - it feels like her arc pretty much ends when she has sex with Leftrin. yeah there's the stuff about being a scholar and accepted into the Elderling community, but it's boring and not impactful to me and doesn't feel satisfying. but even when she's a very static character, she still has POVs, and they're repetitive and boring.

WHY HAS PARAGON BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH ANOTHER CHILD. WHAT THE FUCK. this better get addressed in F&tF or I riot. (no spoilers please)

WHY DID WE NOT GET ALTHEA AND BRASHEN'S KID'S NAME. i have been waiting for so long!! (again, no spoilers)

Selden's arc ends with him being dragon pilled again!! whyyyy. it could be interesting if it was showing the futility of trying to build a life without the dragons, and how he's destined to be a slave to them and that's tragic, but nope! he's just a happy minstrel again! yay /sarcasm

the dragon and Elderling plot in general kind of went nowhere... it was cool to see the Elderling development but the books ended without most of the dragons changing in any significant ways, and the new Elderling society really wasn't explored to the extent I was expecting.

THE WAR AGAINST CHALCED IS LIKE FOUR FUCKING PAGES LONG. it's one battle and the resolution isn't even on screen!!!!!! the narration of the dragons flying to Chalced is longer than the ENTIRE WAR WITH CHALCED. girl.

I could go on but I don't want to.

TLDR: I was really disappointed in RWC. I thought the characters were pretty shallow and boring and didn't deserve four books of POVs, the plot was... fine but not exciting, and the resolution was rushed and not impactful.

[qqueenofhades]

I’m really curious, when you read books by historians do you read them straight through or do you pick out the chapters that are the most relevant to the topic you are interested in? I’m mainly asking because I picked up a very interesting book from the library but it’s been difficult to read it straight through. In college my professors actually told me that it was best to pick out the chapters or sections that were relevant to my research and not get bogged down trying to read the entire book. I guess it just feels unnatural now trying to read a book straight through.

Aha, this is absolutely fine. I'll tell you a dirty little secret, which is that no academic in existence can possibly actually read everything that they cite, in full or sometimes even in part. The good academics are also supposed to write their stuff in a way that makes it possible for you to read the abstract, the introduction, the chapter headings, and the conclusion, and know essentially what they're talking about, the conclusions they're drawing, and what they're contrasting it against. The middle chapters are there to demonstrate their scholarly work in detail, and meticulously explain how they analyzed the material to reach the conclusion that they did, but not necessarily crucial to understand their overall argument or what the piece is about.

Showing cites to other work is a crucial part of demonstrating that you're engaging with your field, you're aware of what other people are writing on the topic, and of course, where you're drawing the critical threads and other commentaries that you've used, which is why reading a popular-history book with no footnotes or endnotes always gives me hives. This, however, is not a concern for the average layperson, and you shouldn't feel obliged to read ALL of the book, because even literal actual professional historians/academics don't do that. We read free summaries and Academia.edu copies, we take shameless advantage of what we can read over the paywall cut, we do Google Scholar/Books searches just to make sure we're getting a good sense of what's out there, but there's no way we can actually read every single page. Besides, as you point out, some of it is more relevant to your particular interest than others, so yes, focus on what you want to learn and not the rest, especially if it's bogging you down.

[peaceofthespirit]

Dr. Chrissy Stroop (an ex-evangelical atheist writer I follow on twitter) often makes such great points about how we can't just say "oh those people aren't real christians!!!" when fundies do something regressive in the name of Jesus. Those people have arguments that still use the bible and Christian tradition, whether we like it or not.

Melissa Florer-Bixler, a Mennonite pastor and writer, also recently brought up that "Christian" is pretty much a broad sociological category unified only through members' self-identification.

I've been thinking about all this a lot. One thing I went through as I began deconstructing was my relationship to the Bible and Christian tradition. In some ways, tradition didn't matter for me as much, since I grew up non-denominational in a church that wanted to get rid of "idolatrous" traditions and get back to the spirit of the "early church." But when it came to scripture, there was apparently no valid questioning of it in their eyes (which is hilarious considering that the biblical canon didn't exist in the early church?) Anyways, after I began to read the Bible more critically (and keeping in mind historical or cultural context/differences), I began to realize that I sometimes just didn't like what it was saying. I typically have never felt that way when I read teachings ascribed to Jesus (at least in terms of the basic meanings), but other parts of the new testament? Sometimes I just disagree (same goes for the old testament too but I'm talking about the explicitly Christian texts here). And many critical, biblical scholars assert that a lot of the new testament disagrees with itself in many places anyway (letters and texts written by different people who probably didn't agree on every detail?? hello??). So for me, I continue to identify as Christian because I see myself as a follower/disciple of Jesus, or at least someone in constant dialogue with his teachings (not to say one can't ever go further or find new insights). But while the evangelicals I grew up with claim that they are Christians because they affirm specific things about the person, death, and "resurrection" of Jesus, their Christianity is more than just that. No matter how much they love to claim that you don't need "works" for salvation (that's a whole other can of worms), they still follow so many rules and take the whole Bible extremely seriously/literally (at least their specific interpretations) and refuse to "disagree" with the canon texts.

So I then I see people say stuff like "how can I stay Christian? Especially when Christians are so terrible?" Well first of all, what matters first and foremost is your actions and well-being. If you don't want to engage with Christian texts or traditions anymore, or don't want to call yourself a Christian, that's totally valid. In fact, I think that Jesus himself would totally understand. Just go be a good person and take care of yourself.

However, I personally have no issue identifying as a Christian, largely because what I believe is so different from what the fundies believe. Maybe I would struggle if I was still holding the text in a similar regard to them and sticking to fairly "orthodox" church teachings/canons/etc. Because while one can be progressive and still take the Bible somewhat literally, you get the same issues of how tightly you are holding on to certain interpretations, presuppositions, historical pictures, and etc. You see how someone who has a strong allegiance to a specific church/understanding in a way that parallels your own convictions can turn out to be so un-progressive.

So what I say to that is, let go of certainty, and hold on to what you love about Christianity (which is typically the essence of Jesus's messages). Don't be afraid to be someone who others wouldn't really consider "Christian" because you are willing to eschew the hierarchies that have made their way into the church and traditional theologies.

[softlyfiercely]

im sorry i couldn't let this go, i've seen this come across my dashboard THREE TIMES NOW and you all need to grow some critical thinking skills, please, i am begging you...anyway i just screenshotted this cause i really don't wanna get into it with anyone but this is the stupidest most ignorant thing i've read regarding religion in a long ass time.

placing this under a cut to be polite and save everyone's dashboards - I'm a Jew who converted to Christianity, so i guess my Jewish desire to be polite and considerate managed to override my christian religious mandate to be an asshole on this day...you're welcome everyone

first of all, judaism is a culture and faith that is six thousand years old, and christianity is two thousand years old, and both have spanned entire continents, so it is impossible for any quick rambly tumblr post to be able to remotely capture the reality and nuances of either one.

for example! claiming that in "judaism," divorce is totally accepted and acknowledged and women are free to just up and leave their man and it's some kind of feminist utopia is laughably bullshit! structures of patriarchal oppression use Jewish divorce law to control women - there's even a word, agunah, which means "chained woman." there are currently, as you read this, Jewish women in America who are trapped in this system, and it often leads to all sorts of violence and other nonsense!

also...the story of Leah and Rachel and Jacob is part of Jewish scripture and it isn't exactly a "rah rah women aren't men's property" moment, is it? it's almost like this is a complex subject with lots of nuance!

what about christianity? this brilliant theological scholar claims that divorce is a sin in christianity, just, flat out, period, end of sentence. it's good and allowed in judaism but bad and forbidden in christianity. is that true? of course not!!! most contemporary branches of christianity currently recognize divorce and accept divorced members in their congregation. Jesus is cited multiple times in the Gospels making statements about marriage and divorce that are, let's say...open to interpretation (see Matthew 5, Matthew 19, John 4). hell, we have an entire branch of christianity that partly started because some dude really, really wanted to divorce his wife.

so it makes no sense to say that judaism is totes cool with divorce but christianity is super mean about it. in reality, both religions have believers who use their laws/traditions to oppress women and uphold patriarchal structures, and followers of both religions have found their way to more progressive understandings of marriage and divorce.

also, love the citation of "puritans" as an example of what "christianity" is. puritanism was a small, radical offshoot of christianity - they were run out of entire countries, as you may remember, for being weird and extra about stuff. plus puritanism only appeared in the 1500s, so christianity had been bopping around developing some other theology for a while until then. and while much of american christianity can be traced back to puritan roots, you won't exactly find many practicing "puritans" running around in the 21st century.

so using "puritans" as the platonic example of What Christianity Is just makes no historical sense. if you want to talk about puritan ideas, go ahead. if you want to compare puritan thought to a specific era or sect of Jewish thought, that would be interesting! but you can't just say "some dudes in the 1600s did stuff, and that's what all christians do and believe"

it is also absurd to claim that christian faith makes no room for questioning. again, this person seems to be either citing very specific contemporary evangelical attitudes, or ahistorical caricatures, as a broad strokes representation of a 2000 year old, global religion. in fact, there's been a LOT of excellent christian thought and writing about wrestling with God, struggling with doubt, and asking questions. don't believe me? check out this overview in a popular contemporary christian publication.

also, it's silly to say that asking questions or challenging one's faith is 100% encouraged and accepted at all times "in judaism." google "off the derech" or check out some of these sources. Neither christianity or judaism, as a whole, is a pure perfect innocent cinnamon roll uwu of a religion.

the thing is that people use religion and religious institutions for their own purposes. power, wealth, control, etc. they will use the one most convenient and relevant to their purposes. it is not a feature unique to christianity.

and i can't even TOUCH that last bit. the notion that everything we find yucky about various historical iterations of christianity were nowhere until a bunch of jesus freaks just thought them up? what??? the idea that the entirety of christian thought and belief came about because some Very Nasty People just woke up one day and decided to be cruel and destructive? are you for real???

that's not...how things work. that's not how anything works. you are not "stating the obvious" because you are making such an absurdly false statement that it just...have you ever read, like, a book?

the history of western christianity is thousands of years long, and it includes hundreds of different influences, from plague epidemics to corrupt rulers, and there have always been a ton of people writing, thinking, talking, and arguing about what it means to follow Jesus.

there is a LOT of christian thought and history that does exactly what this person claims never happens in christianity - celebrates the body, honors the dignity of every person, upholds joy and pleasure as sacred, etc. OP i think is referring to the ideas of thomas aquinas who was JUST ONE DUDE in the 1200s and does not represent everything that every christian has ever believed, done, or taught. check out the writings of St. Teresa of Avila, Gerard Manley Hopkins, or Julian of Norwich.

there are some christian practices and beliefs that arose from people's good faith efforts to follow a loving God. there are some that arose from people in power trying to cling to their own privilege. and most of them come from a combination of both! guess what - this is also true of judaism! turns out, both christianity AND judaism have really messy, complicated, nuanced backgrounds! one is not just a bunch of people saying Let's All Be Cool And Make The World Nice And Good vs. a competing bunch of people going Let's All Be Dicks And Ruin Everything. that makes no sense! think about the things that you are saying!!!

if you're curious about this, or if you want to be able to have a more nuanced opinion about whatever you think "christianity" is, i'd recommend a book called Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. It's a great place to start for an in depth, heavily sourced study of exactly how christian thought about a specific issue changed, developed, and solidified. there, you'll see that there is no way to summarize what "christianity" does, believes, or says, because it's wide ranging and ever changing. you'll also see that certain problematic attitudes or beliefs don't just spring up because Christians Are Assholes, but because of competing pressures and influences from inside and outside the church.

if you want a free copy of that book, PM me and I will send you one. seriously. even if you hate christianity, had terrible personal experiences with a contemporary church, etc. it's a great read. there are sexy love letters between gay monks. im serious.

[papakhan]

Since you know a lot about the Khans and are not afraid to be critical of the games more... problematic elements (I have not looked through your blog yet in detail but I bet there are some things about the way a group like them is portrayed) what do you think of the possible Khan-Follower alliance ending? Are there problems, do you think it likely or something else? What I have seen from your blog shows interesting insight and I'd love to hear your opinion on this. (Apologies if something like this was asked before)

I've mulled over this ask for a little while and personally I really like the Khan-Follower alliance ending! It's my favourite end for the Khans and basically the only Good end for the Followers because I don't count them getting reabsorbed in the NCR as a "good end"

I think part of it is that it suggests major changes for both factions. Like, the staunch pacifists teaming up with the rowdy former-raiders? Very fun concept AND they have history together already

Like would the Khans and Followers be fully integrated with one another? Leather jackets over labcoats type deals? Are all these weedy nerds expected to pass the initiation? Or would Khan war parties be supplemented by map makers and botanists? It's interesting to me as well that the Khans were inspired by the Follower's old world knowledge of "governance, economics and transportation" and not anything to do with war, did the Followers withhold that knowledge from the Khans knowing what happened to the Legion or did the Khans turn it down themselves? All very interesting questions to consider.

Personally I think that the Khan-Follower alliance leads to more of a spectrum of people, with hardcore warriors on one end and top surgeons on the other, but around the middle are people like Jack and Ezekiel where the lines are more blurred. Followers going through the beatdown and taking up weapons, Khans giving up theirs to become scholars. Things are a little tense on the far ends and it feels like it could pull either way depending on the leadership of the empire as a whole. Stuff like that.

Though I will say one issue I have concerning the past Khan-Follower alliance is the Followers treated the Khans like shit. Now I've gotten shit for saying this before but I don't really care, my criticism is more to do with how the writers treat all the drug addicts in the game, which is just reflected in how the Followers treat drug addicts. I'll continue under a cut tho since i've already talked alot

Basically um resorting to dealing in drugs is a very common result of a group of people being landed in poverty and the Followers were absolutely in the wrong for dropping the Khans when the Khans resorted to it. Additionally it's highly likely that the Khans were locked out of selling medication in the NCR (under the guise of "you need X unachievable for anyone outside the republic permit to sell Y") and the Followers only take "donated" medication implying that they wouldn't be able to buy medication from the Khans. The Khans were in a place with no food no water and no tradable goods, what else were they supposed to do? Dropping a desperate group on the brink of collapse because "we tried to teach them to make medicine but they only wanted to make drugs" is not a thing a real lefty medical group say or do, it's something a group like the Salvation Army would do.

Obviously the Khans relying on and making money off of other people getting addicted to chems is an issue, but there's an obvious root cause to it like. The Follower's initial response should have been "help the Khans find a stable way of generating income by introducing a pharmaceutical branch on their behalf / help them become self-sustaining in other ways so they stop causing harm to wastelanders by proxy" and not "abandon them knowing they have no food or water and hope they die off soon so they stop selling chems to wastelanders" which was always the impression I got off Julie Farkas when you asked her about the Khans and she was like "Great Khans? Oh, you mean those raiders? 🙄" like girl. those are people and you. you especially. should care about them

Another thing I'd like to see the Followers drop is the whole. missionary thing. idk i wouldn't say i'm really qualified to talk about it but something just doesn't sit right with me, maybe it reminds me a little too much of christian missionaries. I know the Followers are just offering things like reading and writing and medicine but like idk. idk. just as long as they're not trying to ""civilize"" people

which brings me to my last point which is. I know it's called an Empire in the ending and Papa says that they're gonna Conquer but. can you guys not fucking colonise Wyoming please? I'm not gonna pretend that I know shit about building nations and i've talked enough as it is but. [me smacking papa away from being cringe] BE NORMAL ABOUT IT PLEASE. I'm sure the Followers wouldn't help them if they weren't but.

so yeah as long as they drop that type of behaviour I can see it working quite well! and anyway it's like I said, it's more to do with the personal biases of the writers rather than like anything i think the followers would Realistically do if they were actually a group. that being said In my personal Wyoming lore I do have it as a running joke that Julie Farkas just kinda hates Papa Khan and Papa is just. completely oblivious.

The Khans are going in the right direction tho, so long as whoever takes over after Papa Khan continues to go in that direction. Which is like. the entire plot of my Fallout: Wyoming idea lmao

[bokettochild]

There isn't a single doubt in my mind that many bibles have lies and many mistranslations, and I belive most, if not all, versions aren't the real Word of God. I'd love to hear what your dad's found so far on the Bible stuff, though! I feel slightly guilty that I don't fully belive in many copies of the Bible.

Don't feel guilty!

I'm honestly not great at understanding everything he tells me, since he rambles a lot and my brain is always Very Full when he does talk to me about it, but!

I consulted my parents to see if my dad might give me a quick rundown or something of his research, and my mom would like me to tell you that you are very smart for questioning and double checking. God calls us to be discerning in what we are taught, and many Bibles do not teach the pure and unaltered Truth of God

As for my dad, I asked him if he’d be willing to give me a quick rundown of his research, and this is what he sent me (sorry about the length, like I said, he tends to get a bit carried away and ramble <3)

To be extremely concise, scholars all agree that the original God-inspired manuscripts containing Scripture no longer exist.  All that exists are copies, and every existing manuscript copy of Scripture has errors in it.  The human (read: limited and flawed) method of textual criticism attempts to re-create what the original God-inspired manuscripts “may” have said, based upon human-established criteria.  Adherents of textual criticism agree that no existing version of the Bible is perfect and without error.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV) says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”  Man cannot be perfect and throughly furnished unto all good works unless man has access to a perfect book of Scripture. It is written in John 17:17 (KJV) that God’s only begotten Son Jesus Christ, who is Himself God incarnate, is recorded as praying, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”  Thus, every person is faced with this question:  When Jesus Christ (God incarnate) declared that God’s word IS truth, was He speaking situationally (i.e., only applicable for that moment in time) or eternally?  If God’s truth is not timeless truth, then at what point in time did it cease to be truth?  Is God, as Creator of everything (including time), limited by His creation in any way?  The answer, quite simply, is “no”. 

 Thus, God’s truth is just as much truth today as it was when Jesus Christ declared it to be.  Jesus Christ declared God's word IS truth, not "was" truth, or "will be" truth, or "is currently, but won't be truth later". This means that in spite of human reasoning and error, God has ensured that the sinful humans who are in need of His truth indeed have access to it.

  Thus, there must be at least one Bible that contains this perfect truth. Textual criticism is opposed to there being one authoritative Bible, because if there is, then textual criticism is not necessary.  If textual criticism is not necessary, then finite sinful humans must relinquish the self-designated position of determining what an infinite sinless God inspired to be written. 

 Worse, if there is one version that is acknowledged as God's truth, all of the other versions have to be acknowledged as not being so, and that textual criticism was wrong all along.  Better to declare none perfect than admit that textual criticism is an exercise in human vanity.  There are over 100 English versions of the Bible, and they all have different words in them, yet Jesus Christ declared that God’s word is truth.  Hence, at least one of the existing versions must be the truth that Jesus Christ declared God’s word to be.

The King James Version makes no claim to have used textual criticism when it was being written, which is one of the reasons that textual criticism is opposed to the KJV: the KJV didn’t use their proscribed method.  All modern versions have used textual criticism in their production, and they all vary in what they say.

Long story short:  flawed humans use flawed methods in their attempt to mimic the flawless word of a flawless God, who is more than capable of preserving His word so that every sinful person has access to His saving truth.  The KJV is the only version today that wasn’t created using the flawed method of textual criticism.  1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (KJV) tells us exactly what that saving truth is: 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. God’s word is truth, thus, it is not just a conglomeration of human-authored metaphors, myths, or allegories.

[yamayuandadu]

Wikipedia troubles, or “Father Enlil, (...) don't let your precious metal be alloyed there with the dirt of the underworld“

clarification regarding my post about troubles with a certain site i’ve been contributing to a lot for the past few months. To preface this with a mythical metaphor: in Inanna’s Descent, when Ninshubur pleads with the other gods to save Inanna, she uses the formula “don't let anyone kill your daughter in the underworld. Don't let your precious metal be alloyed there with the dirt of the underworld. Don't let your precious lapis lazuli be split there with the mason's stone. Don't let your boxwood be chopped up there with the carpenter's wood.” Currently this is what is happening to the Inanna article, I am afraid.

So, long story short, as most of you probably have noticed I am contributing relatively often to wikipedia as of late, starting with the creation of a Matara-jin article a few months ago. Among other things I wrote, rewrote or at least significantly improved the following:

articles about Mesopotamian medicine goddesses:

Ninkarrak from the western frontier, Nintinugga, who was associated with funerary offerings, Ninisina, who took over Inanna's gimmick in Isin, Bau, who became a healing goddess by chance, Gula, who eclipsed her peers - as expected from someone named “the great” articles about Inanna's courtiers and associated goddesses:

Ninshubur, her sidekick (my best work overall imo, the one article I wrote which I think fully deserves the “good” badge but I am not vain enough to apply myself), Ninegal, a goddess turned into her title, Nanaya, just the horny part distilled (bought a book just for this one!), Irnina, inexplicably cthtonic personified victory

articles about Mesopotamian gods too insignificant for anyone else to care about them:

Tishpak, a god so foreign nobody knows where he came from, Sebitti, seven warlike brothers, Enmesharra, Enlil's evil uncle, Urash, not the earth goddess – there are two... Urashes, Ningishzida, Dumuzi but with a snake gimmick, Zababa, a war god who's NOT Nergal, Ninimma, Enlil's court scribe, Gatumdag, popular as ersatz mom among kings of Lagash, Manzat, the rainbow

articles about Mesopotamian goddesses whose main trait was being someone's wife: Marduk's wife Sarpanit, Adad's wife Shala, Shamash's wife Aya

articles about Hurrian gods: Alalu, primordial vanquished king of gods, Kumarbi, his son, divine Saturday morning cartoon villain, Ninatta and Kulitta, a pair of divine musicians who always appeared together, Allani, oddly joyful queen of the dead, Šauška, who was so firmly genderfluid there's two of them in the most famous image of the Hurrian pantheon, Lelluri, a mountain goddess, Kubaba, who isn't Cybele, Goddess of the Night, who has no proper name despite being a case study in important religious rituals, Belet Nagar, who was like Ashur before Ashur got popular, Nupatik, who was important but we don't know why

articles about Eblaite gods: Ishara, “independent lady of love associated with scorpion and cannabis” popular everywhere where she went, Aštabi, a war god who really wanted to be like the weather god, Hadabal, who used to be famous but vanished out of blue, Kura, whose mask had to be renewed each year, Adamma, who left her husband to hang out with Kubaba

articles about Elamite gods: Pinikir, sort of like a bootleg Ishtar and an international sensation, Jabru, who exists only in Mesopotamian texts about Elam, Humban, mandate of heaven personified, Ruhurater, oddly obscure creator of mankind, Inshushinak, the underworld judge and his Akkadian helpers Lagamar and Ishmekarab, and Simut, the “strange star”

articles which were borderline unusable before due to low quality of sources:

Astarte, who was much more than vintage Bible scholars might lead you to believe (but not a fertility goddess), Dagan, who wasn't a fishman, Qetesh whose existence proves that Egyptians were fond of making ocs for their favorite foreign franchises

assorted articles about general topics pertaining to Mesopotamia:

Sukkal,  Hurrian religion (ongoing project), List of Elamite gods; also a much needed overhaul of List of Mesopotamian deities (ongoing project)

and, last but not least, a solid chunk of the Inanna article.

Two guiding principles of these ventures were the following:

people who cannot access academic resources or don't know how to use them and as a result rely on wikipedia aren't any less deserving of receiving up to date, credible information

Wikipedia's mode of operation isn't flawed in itself and the only problem is lack of will to edit it

I think I did a pretty good job at these two things, honestly. I made sure to rely on rigorous, credible, and, if possible, easy to understand sources, and removed the horrors which sometimes were hidden in bibliographies: a book written by a hate preacher who believed Bush didn't start enough wars; 1930s race science; what I can only describe as a hybrid of Woman's Encyclopedia and a bdsm manual; a fringe book asserting that Minoan palaces were graveyards and that Egyptians only learned mummification from superior Minoans; etc. Of course, it’s a thankless job, but as long as I could make the site more credible undisturbed, that’s fine by me. I even got some help in a few cases, most notably that of the god list, indicating that the work was on some level appreciated. The only problem I've encountered prior to today came from editing the Ereshkigal article – I've removed the claim the Burney relief depicts “Lilith”; this edit was however undone. I left a message on the editor's page, complete with links to articles about the Burney relief AND about the possible Mesopotamian forerunners of Lilith (who are undeniably not depicted on the Burney relief). They're responded rather dismissively to it, and asserted that even if unproven, a connection existed, so I pretty quickly gave up, as they relied on sources which were outdated or fringe. I focused on fixing two long, important articles instead: the god list, and the Inanna article. Some parts of it were alright, but there was much work needed: fringe theories trying to assign greater antiquity to relatively late myths, and frankly insane hyperdiffusionism, had a prominent place in the article, while well attested association between Inanna and similar deities from cultures closely associated with Mesopotamia wasn't, much of the info was outdated, scandalous hot takes about Dumuzi's treatment were all over the place, the section on Inanna's descent favored Jungian confabulations over credible research, etc. My progress on fixing that had been slow and steady. However, today the aforementioned person intervened when, in between editing the Inanna article and the god list, I reverted a dumb, brief , unsourced edit – made by a third party - which asserted that Inanna's descent is “similar to Persephone” which it isn't – if anything is similar to Persephone in Mesopotamian mythology it's Nergal and Ereshkigal. They pretty clearly didn't take it well: not only the unfounded speculation went back up, but they also added a “source” affirming it, from a controversial -medical- author, not an Assyriologist. They also added Persephone to the list of Inanna equivalents in the infobox, removing any credibility whatsoever from it. The author of the claim this is all about relied on sources so antiquated that they interpreted Inanna's sexual character as her being a child-snatching boogeyman. Inanna's primary connection to boogeymen is that she was invoked, alongside Nanaya whose sexual connection is even more blatant, to -ward off- child-snatching boogeyman Lamashtu (whose character was not sexual, because sumerians and akkadians weren't victorian aristrocrats and weren't paranoically afraid of sex - and why would a demon representing death in infancy be sexual in nature, anyway?). Simply put, the book in mention is worthless as a source. Of course, I reverted that; when it went back up (despite a justification being included in my reversal) I edited the Inanna article to remove this outlandish claim (you have a limited number of possible reversions per day for some arcane reason), also adding other information about Inanna I had prepared: a few tidbits on Assyrian royal inscriptions which involved the warlike and erotic aspects at once, suggesting that transgressors should lose both potency and bravery in battle, some info on love poetry about her and Dumuzi, that sort of stuff. The weird person reverted my edit – removing valuable info – and reinstated the claim. For a moment I lost my cool and reverted this edit, which sadly put me in the reversion overuse danger zone, but which was a necessary sacrifice to save the credibility of article I put weeks of work into. See the edit history here. As you can guess HaniwaEnthusiast is me. I left messages critical of this decision on the talk page of the article and on the talk page of the outlandish editor. Sadly, they responded rather rudely, and basically declared Wikipedia isn't meant to be credible, and that favoring academic sources over random crap is an “ivory tower” approach and should be discouraged; they also insulted me but that's much less relevant and much less hurtful than their desire to spread lies. If you ask me it's more of an ivory tower attitude to say people who cannot access or don't know how to use academic sources do not deserve equally credible info and need to be at the mercy of weird wikipedia editors. What's the main problem here, though? That person is a mod. Not a random user. They have 16 years of Wikipedia experience. They spread fringe, pop-spiritual claims about Lilith and the like, so I assume they have an ulterior religious agenda of some sort, which they seem to actively encourage judging from these ventures. I'm not sure if the Inanna article is a lost cause yet but I do think the weird addition of Persephone they made is a step into some hellish direction, and I am entirely certain I cannot win this conflict. Simply put, I think that if this is the sort of staff the site has, this is a lost cause. I am not sure if I will go back to editing.

[teamfreewill56-blog]

Oh, I wanted to say something about the origin of mono no aware! It originated from Heian era literature, and was later picked up and used by Edo period Japanese cultural scholar Motoori Norinaga in his literary criticism of The Tale of Genji, and later to other germinal Japanese works. Despite this though, I think it still fits with Kyojuro because he got it from Ruka, who wasn’t a fighter. And it is associated with Japanese culture tradition, including the sakura tree!

That's cool! Thanks for sharing! I have looked into it more since the last anon ask I got about it, as well as discussing it with a friend who knows more about it than I do. After talking with them and looking into it I feel like Ruka and Kyojuro fit it a little less, because Kyojuro actively fights and is a protector and Ruka encouraged him towards that which makes it less Mono no Aware. (If I'm still understanding this wrong please let me know in the comments). I do feel like there's some ties to Kyojuro and the sakura tree, it was pointed out in the other ask regarding the background of his Gaiden cover. And sakura blossoms are also blooming in the end of his Gaiden where it's out of season but I don't know much about it's symbolism or the different symbolisms in the different Japanese media. I just know it's shown a lot.

Also, if the Mono no Aware concept interests any of you check out "The Heike Story" anime, it has a lot of Mono no Aware-esque stuff in it and is just a really fantastic story with amazing art.

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

Normally I don't like to ask stuff but I feel distressed. My mom is arguing about a preaching that she heard where it says that the antichrist will be gay. She quotes the book of Daniel, particularly Daniel 11:37. Her argument is that Daniel is a prophecy book therefore it must be true. It just really hurts that she'd say this to me and keeps making remarks about my faith. That I'm not a good enough Christian for not believing like her. Is what Daniel say true or is the interpretation wrong?

Hey there. I’m sorry to hear you’re distressed, and especially that your mom keeps making remarks about your faith. It is not right for any of us to judge another person’s faith like that! 

This is gonna get long, so for a tl;dr, after studying Daniel 11 and its surrounding context I can say pretty confidently that your mom is indeed wrong about how to interpret 11:37. If you want to explore just why with me, read on!

______________

So to start with, I disagree with your mom that everything in the Book of Daniel, or in any “prophecy book” of the Bible, must necessarily be “true” – or “come true” as if it were fortune telling. Biblical prophecy is not fortune telling or future telling. As I say in this post, biblical prophets were actually much more concerned about the present, about how the past had shaped that present, and about how the present could be used to shape the future! This is just a fact of how ancient Israelites viewed prophecy, regardless of how one interprets scripture (whether more fundamentalist / literal as I imagine your mom probably is, or more historical/contextual, etc.). 

Christians who get really into all the biblical visions of “the end times” and the rapture and stuff don’t want to hear this, because they want it to be somehow directly relevant to them and their futures (and that’s understandable), so the following paragraph is just some information for you rather than anything that’s likely to convince your mom:

Most biblical scholars say that most of the biblical prophecies aren’t about “The End Times” the way we conceive of it. The Book of Daniel’s prophecies do include some talk of the actual end of the world, but – like the Book of Revelation in the New Testament – the majority of his prophecies actually refer to kingdoms and intrigue going on in Daniel’s own time (or not so long before or after his own time). 

I have not studied Daniel’s prophecies, like, at all besides reading through them, so I can say more about how the Book of Revelation is less about “the end of the world” and more about “the end of the Roman Empire;” but Daniel follows a similar trajectory of being more about the fall of the empires that have oppressed his people than about the end of the whole world. If you have a Bible that offers footnotes about the historical context going on in any given passage of scripture, it will tell you all about that – that Daniel’s prophecies discuss the sequence of Babylonian, Median, and Persian rulers that oppress his people and criticize those oppressive kings. 

Thus when you go to look at Daniel 11 (and 10), you see that Daniel isn’t talking about “The Antichrist” in this passage – indeed, that title “Antichrist” is not used at all in this Book, or in any book of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) at all! – but rather he is talking about a Persian king who is going to arise and oppress his people. The New Interpreter’s Study Bible suggests in its footnotes for 11:37 that the specific king Daniel’s talking about is Antiochus, who “grew exceedingly arrogant: He abandoned his ancestral gods and imposed the worship of Zeus Olympus” – hence 11:37′s statement that he “shall pay no respect to the God’s of his ancestors.”

Now that we’ve reached the verse itself in our discussion, let’s have a closer look at Daniel 11:37. The New King James Version reads, 

“He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all.”

The part of this verse that is used by some to claim that “the antichrist” (if you interpret this passage as even being about the antichrist, despite the context pointing to it actually being about a Persian king) is gay is, of course, “nor the desire of women.” 

But along with that seeming like a very random tangent for the prophet to mention in a verse that otherwise is about this king abandoning all gods, the issue with biblical Hebrew is that sometimes getting a precise meaning out of it is hard. Thus “nor the desire of women” is not the only translation into English that one can make from the Hebrew. I’ll list some other translations that have been made (and you can see tons more here):

KJV: “nor the desire of women”

NASB: “or for the desire of women”

NIV: “or for the one desired by women”

ESV and NRSV: “or to the one beloved by women”

New Living Translation: “or for the god loved by women”

CEB: “and the god preferred by women”

Now, there are many conservative Christians who believe that the King James Bible is never wrong, and therefore they’ll insist that the translation to “nor the desire of women” is the one “correct” translation. But even if that is the case, what exactly does “the desire of women” mean in English? Does it mean: 

that this guy doesn’t desire / isn’t attracted to women, as your mom believes? 

could it also mean that he doesn’t care if women desire him? aka he might still desire them, and doesn’t give a damn about whether they like him back

or does it mean that he doesn’t care what women desire/want – i.e., that he won’t listen to them about what they want, perhaps in regards to what gods he respects, since that’s what the rest of the verse is about?

Moving to look at those translations that translate it “the god loved/preferred/beloved by women,” some suggest that this meaning: just as the guy has no regard for “the god of his ancestors,” likewise he has no regard for the god[s] of his wives/concubines. There are examples in the Hebrew Bible of women having different gods from their husbands – Jacob’s wife Rachel takes her household gods with her into his house; Solomon’s many foreign wives convince him to worship their gods with them. So if the Hebrew here, hemdath nashiym, is translated something about “the god loved by the women,” that’s what it could be about – this guy won’t be swayed to worship any god, whether his own family’s gods or his wives’ gods. 

That above reasoning makes much more sense within the context of the verse than it being like “So this guy won’t care about his ancestors’ god, oh also by the way he’s gay or whatever, and back to the god thing, he’s gonna exalt himself over all gods.” It would be such a random tangent! 

_______

So that’s all the language and history stuff. Now let’s get hypothetical: 

so…what if your mom is right? So what if the verse is saying “this guy isn’t attracted women”? (and for the purpose of this hypothetical, let’s say the verse is about the antichrist though as I discussed above I do not believe that it is.) 

First off, just because he doesn’t desire women doesn’t necessarily mean he does desire men. He could be asexual and/or aromantic. That wouldn’t be much better, of course, because we’d be moving from homophobia into aphobia. Asexual and aromantic folks get vilified enough with the stigma that “oh you can’t ~~love~~?? you monster!” So I definitely do not like the supposition that the antichrist is ace/aro; that’s just as icky as him being gay.

But again, we’re in hypothetical land: so let’s say the antichrist is gay, or is aroace. ……..So what??

Gay people, aroace people, aren’t all perfect and good people. We can be badguys too, ya know? If the antichrist were cishet, it wouldn’t mean that All Cishet People Are Therefore Like The Antichrist – so if the antichrist were gay, why would it therefore mean that all gay people are like the antichrist? 

He’s just one person. A big bad person – but his sexuality isn’t necessarily a part of that. He’s not evil because of whatever his sexuality is or isn’t. 

I will close by offering some counterbalances to a supposedly gay (or aroace, or otherwise LGBTQA+) antichrist: there are also LGBTQA+ heroes in the Bible.

Daniel himself may well be one of them!!

To start with, Daniel is most likely a eunuch: after all, he has a position in the Babylonian court, and as David Bayliss notes, “it was customary for Mesopotamian kings in the first millennium BC to surround themselves with eunuchs as servants.” The Bible itself attests to this fact, in places like Isaiah 39:7 that talks about youths being taken from Judah to serve Babylon’s king as eunuchs. Along with those two facts, Bayliss continues with more evidence that Daniel was a eunuch:

Third, the fact that Daniel and the other captured Israelite youths were entrusted to the “chief eunuch” suggests that they were to become young eunuchs themselves.

Fourth, boys to be made into eunuchs were usually selected for their beauty, which is mentioned at the top of the list of selecting criteria in Dan 1:4.

Fifth, there is no mention of Daniel or his companions ever marrying (or having children).

Sixth, Daniel showed no interest in returning to Jerusalem after Cyrus the Great came to the throne (who allowed exiles to return to their homelands), which may have to do with his physical humiliation and the Deut 23:1 ban.“

Now, why’s it matter if Daniel’s a eunuch?? What’s that got to do with being LGBTQA?? Many queer scholars, myself included, have argued that biblical eunuchs share many similarities to gay people, or trans people, etc. I talk about the connection between biblical eunuchs and contemporary trans people in the section of this webpage titled “ ‘Better than sons or daughters’: Isaiah 56″.

(For other resources on eunuchs’ link to LGBT folks, see here, here, here, here.)

On top of that, some scholars have suggested a romantic/sexual relationship between David and the head eunuch under which he served, Ashpenaz. According to Daniel 1:9, Daniel enjoyed “the favor and tender love” of Ashpenaz. This could be a totally platonic thing, or it could be physical; the Hebrew is ambiguous. 

You might not be able to stop your mom from making her awful comments, but maybe being able to respond in your head to her “the antichrist is gay!” with “no, Daniel was gay” will help you a little. 

Please keep safe, and do what you can to keep your mom’s crap from getting to you (I know that’s much harder said than done). You are beloved by the God who made you, friend. And scripture is much queerer than hateful Christians want to admit. 

[dagwolf]

Thanks for offering to talk about teaching. A few things I'm concerned about, and I realize these probably vary a lot by region and I don't live near you - 1) Part of the reason teaching appeals to me is because I miss the kind of discussions I had in university, but I realize that academics is a nasty, nasty road. Is that something that can happen in the classroom? How does your anarchism play into it?

My politics definitely played and plays a part of why and how I teach. I studied a lot of critical pedagogy (you know, routine academic stuff to bell hooks and Paulo Friere) and theory on rhetoric. In conjunction with the theory, philosophy, history, and literature I studied in grad school, I took extra classes that insured I’d learn how to teach the basic skills in reading and writing so that I would be able to be useful as a teacher. I had experienced some growth in thinking about academia while in grad school, the result of teaching, and I felt encouraged to dump the uni classroom for high school classrooms. I became more interested in the liberatory potentials in literacy than the rather banal facts of daily life in a lecture hall.

A classroom is a form of social space that must be composed and decomposed, constructed and deconstructed, each time we enter and leave class and/or begin and end a unit. Classrooms are hierarchical spaces because of the way we implement state and other apparatuses within them by law and custom. As an anarchist, class struggle is key.  I’m opposed to oppression. Thus, I have to do two things well: I must differentiate instruction and assessment in a useful manner (a lot of teachers feign differentiation) and I must permit the students to direct the course of the class in a manner that remains focused on the skills work I’ve set as an objective or the school demands. Also, I must always lesson plan in a manner that makes sure the formative work is much more important than the summative. Grading is oppressive, but we have to submit to it. I think about this all the time.

As far as regaining the feeling you had in university, I find that the state is always creating ways to replace creative intellectual work with common sense recognition. Look who’s in power in the US. People who want you and I to be obedient to authority before we’re to consider our own interests and people who wish our comradery to be subjugated to policing and surveillance. (Furthermore we’re asked to consistently and persistently compete against one another in order to disrupt the possibilities for useful cooperation.) The only lessons they give a shit about are those we can memorize and repeat when asked. This is why they routinely dump on “the liberal arts” (and also why we have such a weird view of maths and sciences). The bureaucrats want to be able to calculate the value teachers and students add to schools, communities, town or cities, states, and the nation, after all. 

Academics doesn’t have to be a nasty road. Some of our comrades out here are brilliant and trustworthy academics. Just because I quit the academy doesn’t mean I don’t miss it. In a very significant way, economics and social class kept me (keep a lot of us) from succeeding in academics. It’s a very elitist venture to undertake. For every spot in good grad programs, there are hundreds of capable students. One thing we come to terms with as scholars who succeed in higher ed is that as much as we want to believe that we made it on our own, we are the fortunate recipients of patronage. Everyone of us. (Again, class struggle is important. Context matters.)

I treat my students they way I want to be treated by them, so very much as colleagues cooperating on a social project. I remember this cooperation when lesson planning and when grading. It can be tough because institutional pressure prefers a teacher to stand in front of students rather than in the middle of the classroom with them. The pressure encourages lessons students can more or less memorize and repeat during exams. I constantly struggle against those demands.