#The Jewish Publication Society

[gay-jewish-bucky]

On The JPS Tanakh: Gender-Sensitive Edition (2023):

JPS is excited to announce the publication of THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition. A ground-breaking partnership with Sefaria, the Gender-Sensitive Edition represents the first substantial revision of our landmark translation of the Tanakh.

What is THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition?

The first Jewish gender-sensitive translation of the full Hebrew Bible, THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition (RJPS or Revised JPS edition) renews and revises the iconic Jewish Publication Society Bible translation (NJPS or 1985 New JPS edition) to reflect advances in scholarship and changes in English while maintaining utmost fidelity to the original Hebrew. The Gender-Sensitive Edition offers gender-inclusive renderings where appropriate and gendered ones when called for historically and linguistically, incorporating the best of contemporary research into Israelite history and religion, literary studies, philology, linguistics, and the social sciences to offer a faithful and accurate translation. References to persons are gender-sensitive yet consistent with ancient gender norms, and the translation strives for inclusive language when referring broadly to people, ancestors, and humankind. References to God are typically gender neutral and generally avoid grammatically masculine pronouns and labels, with careful examination of each context yielding the most appropriate rendering. To enable the tetragrammaton (God’s four-letter name) to be encountered as a name and without masculine connotations, the edition typically translates it as “GOD” (in small capitals) rather than “the LORD”. Revising the venerable JPS translation, the Gender-Sensitive Edition empowers readers to experience Scripture with all the power of the original Hebrew. It is sure to become the new Bible translation of choice for readers who embrace biblical scholarship with reverence for tradition, and for communities and individuals who adopt an inclusive, egalitarian perspective in today’s world.

Why publish an updated Bible translation after four decades?

Since the iconic JPS Bible translation appeared in 1985, dramatic changes in the English language, biblical scholarship, and other areas have made a new English edition long overdue. Readers and communities across the globe have called for a translation that remains faithful to the original Hebrew and provides vital access to the Bible’s world and timeless lessons.

What does “gender-sensitive” mean?

Our translation is “gender-sensitive” in the sense of being attentive to how gender and language function in the Hebrew Bible. Going through the Bible word by word, line by line, verse by verse, the translators asked when gender-inclusive renderings are appropriate and when gendered language is called for historically and linguistically—for example, whether a term for a human being should be translated as “person” or as “man,” and whether a reference to God should be translated with gender-neutral language (for instance, simply as “GOD”) or with a male-sounding term (such as “King”).

What’s the result? How does the translation refer to humans and God?

As outlined above, references to persons are gender-sensitive yet consistent with ancient gender norms, and the translation strives for inclusive language when referring broadly to people, ancestors, and humankind. References to God are typically gender neutral and generally avoid masculine pronouns and labels. To enable the tetragrammaton (God’s four-letter name) to be encountered as a name and without masculine connotations, the edition typically translates it as “GOD” (in small capitals) rather than “the LORD.”

Is the translation faithful to the original Hebrew?

Yes! The translation empowers readers to experience Scripture with the power of the original Hebrew, providing access to what the Bible meant in its original historical context.

Does the translation make changes in areas other than gender?

Yes! The translation updates archaic or unclear English language and ritual terminology to provide a more accurate understanding of the Bible’s meaning.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Material wealth is worthless

Riches profit not in the day of wrath; But righteousness delivereth from death. — Proverbs 11:4 | JPS Tanakh 1917 (JPST) The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic text; Jewish Publication Society 1917. Cross References: Genesis 7:1; Proverbs 6:34; Proverbs 10:2; Ezekiel 7:19; Zephaniah 1:18

Read full chapter

Notes: Simply put, financial security means nothing to God when the calendar reads, “the day of wrath.” If a person is not forgiven in Christ Jesus, it won't matter what his net worth is. If a person dies in his sin the wrath of Almighty God abides upon him and no amount of money can pay God off.

[shoezuki]

writing my final essay on the Beat Generation rn and that whole literary movement in america. and my essay topic is basically me arguing that bob kaufman Fucks and was the best beat. because tbh he was

but this also like. contains a lot of my distaste for the beat movement and that this course has really made me more.... like. i dont really like the beat movement much? i mean the biggest aspect of it, of the idea of freedom and no responsibility or consequences is somethin i dont like. most the other shit, bout sexual freedom and movement and anticapitalist n antimaterialist notions are all good. but the beats are just so inherently American. the underlying idea of freedom is SO inherently american in terms of like... the idea of it. its so very 'i can do whatever i want, whenever i want, and i dont care if it hurts other people because i value my freedom over the consequences or responsibilities i would be expected to assume.' its this idea of freedom in terms of absolute individuality and its far too self absorbed for me.

but another Issue i take w it was like. the movement was heavily inspired by black culture, and all about defying social norms and rejecting conformity. but there was still a major issue with norms in the movement itself or at least in terms of how media perceived it. like yes it was about liberty and freedom but also all the most well known beat writers are white dudes. many of them like kerouac held views of women as inherently lesser still.

and like. in that regard most of the most known beats who are like. THE beat writers. were kinda hypocrites. like kerouac didnt think women could write and when he met one woman who was a good writers he saw her as an exception. and with burroughs he was like, from an extremely wealthy family and was given an 'allowance' his whole life and never had to work and so his rejection of capitalism and the job market feels flat in that he can say all that from a place of privilege.

i mentioned it to my professor when we'd talk bout it but honestly the most authentic beats who didnt seem hypocritical or make the movement feel hypocritical to me were those who were marginalized and didnt have a choice in rejecting society. like allen ginsberg was one the Big Beats as well and to me he is the most Beat out of the main three of him and burroughs and kerouac. cuz ginsberg was an openly gay man in a long term relationship, he was jewish and lived on the fringes of 'acceptable' american society as an outlier.

it especially goes for bob kaufman. he was always left out of the beat movement and ignored and even in modern times doesnt really get the credit and recognition that he deserves. but holy fuck if anyone was ACTUALLY beat it was him! he was a black man with a jewish father. he created poetry without ever really writing it down besides on napkins and would 'perform' his poetry on streets and yelling out poems or sticking his head in peoples cars. he did not ever seek out publishing his work and he purposefully would confuse any publishers and would lie about himself and his life so even now some of the aspects of his biography is confusing. he wanted to be forgotten! he was never concerned with actually carrying on his work or creating it and there was something beautiful in that. he was constnatly accosted by police to the point that specific officers would harass and abuse him whenever they felt like it. he actually experienced a lot of the bullshit and hardships the beats rejected and criticised. many white beat writers chose to reject social norms, but he had no choice! theres something so much more authentic about the rejection of society when you by virtue of existing cant even exist within societal norms itself.

he was just. such an interesting dude. and the beat movement abandoned him because he was too far on the fringes of society that the public couldnt accept him. motherfucker wanted that, in a way, though. like he took back his silencing by silencing himself. he wasnt being forgotten or silenced or ostracized anymore, because he wanted to be forgotten.

[endusviolence]

Rowling isn't denying holocaust. She just pointed out that burning of transgender health books is a lie as that form of cosmetic surgery didn't exist. But of course you knew that already, didn't you?

I was thinking I'd probably see one of you! You're wrong :) Let's review the history a bit, shall we?

In this case, what we're talking about is the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, or in English, The Institute of Sexology. This Institute was founded and headed by a gay Jewish sexologist named Magnus Hirschfeld. It was founded in July of 1919 as the first sexology research clinic in the world, and was run as a private, non-profit clinic. Hirschfeld and the researchers who worked there would give out consultations, medical advice, and even treatments for free to their poorer clientele, as well as give thousands of lectures and build a unique library full of books on gender, sexuality, and eroticism. Of course, being a gay man, Hirschfeld focused a lot on the gay community and proving that homosexuality was natural and could not be "cured".

Hirschfeld was unique in his time because he believed that nobody's gender was either one or the other. Rather, he contended that everyone is a mixture of both male and female, with every individual having their own unique mix of traits.

This leads into the Institute's work with transgender patients. Hirschfeld was actually the one to coin the term "transsexual" in 1923, though this word didn't become popular phrasing until 30 years later when Harry Benjamin began expanding his research (I'll just be shortening it to trans for this brief overview.) For the Institute, their revolutionary work with gay men eventually began to attract other members of the LGBTA+, including of course trans people.

Contrary to what Anon says, sex reassignment surgery was first tested in 1912. It'd already being used on humans throughout Europe during the 1920's by the time a doctor at the Institute named Ludwig Levy-Lenz began performing it on patients in 1931. Hirschfeld was at first opposed, but he came around quickly because it lowered the rate of suicide among their trans patients. Not only was reassignment performed at the Institute, but both facial feminization and facial masculization surgery were also done.

The Institute employed some of these patients, gave them therapy to help with other issues, even gave some of the mentioned surgeries for free to this who could not afford it! They spoke out on their behalf to the public, even getting Berlin police to help them create "transvestite passes" to allow people to dress however they wanted without the threat of being arrested. They worked together to fight the law, including trying to strike down Paragraph 175, which made it illegal to be homosexual. The picture below is from their holiday party, Magnus Hirschfeld being the gentleman on the right with the fabulous mustache. Many of the other people in this photo are transgender.

[Image ID: A black and white photo of a group of people. Some are smiling at the camera, others have serious expressions. Either way, they all seem to be happy. On the right side, an older gentleman in glasses- Magnus Hirschfeld- is sitting. He has short hair and a bushy mustache. He is resting one hand on the shoulder of the person in front of him. His other hand is being held by a person to his left. Another person to his right is holding his shoulder.]

There was always push back against the Institute, especially from conservatives who saw all of this as a bad thing. But conservatism can't stop progress without destroying it. They weren't willing to go that far for a good while. It all ended in March of 1933, when a new Chancellor was elected. The Nazis did not like homosexuals for several reasons. Chief among them, we break the boundaries of "normal" society. Shortly after the election, on May 6th, the book burnings began. The Jewish, gay, and obviously liberal Magnus Hirschfeld and his library of boundary-breaking literature was one of the very first targets. Thankfully, Hirschfeld was spared by virtue of being in Paris at the time (he would die in 1935, before the Nazis were able to invade France). His library wasn't so lucky.

This famous picture of the book burnings was taken after the Institute of Sexology had been raided. That's their books. Literature on so much about sexuality, eroticism, and gender, yes including their new work on trans people. This is the trans community's Alexandria. We're incredibly lucky that enough of it survived for Harry Benjamin and everyone who came after him was able to build on the Institute's work.

[Image ID: A black and white photo of the May Nazi book burning of the Institute of Sexology's library. A soldier, back facing the camera, is throwing a stack of books into the fire. In the background of the right side, a crowd is watching.]

As the Holocaust went on, the homosexuals of Germany became a targeted group. This did include transgender people, no matter what you say. To deny this reality is Holocaust denial. JK Rowling and everyone else who tries to pretend like this isn't reality is participating in that evil. You're agreeing with the Nazis.

But of course, you knew that already, didn't you?

Edit: Added image IDs. I apologize to those using screen readers for forgetting them. Please reblog this version instead.

[unlovablereject]

New Torah! Had to get a smaller one to take with me. I thought having it on my phone would work, but, nah. It's not the same.

I love this Torah so far, JPS' newest version, I believe.

My favorite is still the Torah's from my Shul. I guess it's just comfort, maybe?

[kafkaesquetwink]

the thing about antisemitism that offends me the most (outside of, you know, horrific violence) is the sense of *ownership* over judaism from non-jewish, especially (in my experience) christian, society. it’s the evangelicals holding seders and the atheists casually joking about “YHWH”. it’s the sense that to them, jews are nothing but a prequel. we are irrelevant, and therefore in the public domain. in more overt examples, it’s holocaust inversion and jokes about “the goyim”. they look at us and say, “all that was yours now belongs to me.” it’s the assumption that our life and culture is open to all, and that we are somehow greedy by not letting them have it.

when we do exist to christian society, it’s as a means to an end: “good thing the jews are still around, otherwise how would they all be gathered in zion?”, or its being treated as a relic, as living replicas of the Old Times: “those silly jews, they’re stuck living in the past!”

it’s dehumanizing, and frustrating, and i hate it.

we had avraham first. we had yaakov and sarai and it is. still. ours. you shouldn’t get to pretend like we don’t exist anymore. we aren’t extinct, no matter how hard some people wished we were, and that isn’t going to change.

[shulkatze]

I bought this book on thriftbooks and I think it was a gift to its previous owners by the co-author of the book 😳

[boreal-sea]

This is why I do not call for the destruction or dismantling of countries. This is why I am wary and judgmental of those of you who do.

You sound like my right-wing father. You sound like the worst of American society.

I grew up in the 90’s. I grew up during a military operation called “Desert Storm”. To most people, they know it as the Gulf War. I grew up with a military father. I grew up with right-wing rhetoric. I grew up with someone who called for the destruction of countries.

“Glass the Middle East and turn it into a parking lot” was a very common sentiment at the time, and not just from my father. By “glass”, people mean to bomb these countries (many of which are deserts) so brutally that the sand itself melts into glass.

It is a call for genocide. It is the call for the dismantling of entire countries because their governments were “too evil”.

(Of course, that’s just the line the public was fed. Behind the scenes, it was also largely about access to oil, and we all know that)

The Gulf War was specifically about Iraq, but let’s be clear: Americans did not give a fuck which country it was, “The Middle East” was talked about as a single entity that was evil because it was Muslim. The civilians of these countries were simultaneously evil guerrilla combatants (because they were Muslim) and victims needing “liberation” by Americans. American soldiers were described as bringing “freedom” to the poor oppressed ignorant people of the Middle East. My father still hates all Muslims to this day.

10 years later, 9/11 happened.

Time will never erase the stomach-clenching fear I felt. Not fear of Saudi Arabia. I was 17 by then and I knew better. No, I was afraid FOR them, because I knew what America would do, and I hated it. I saw the people all around me once again calling for the destruction of a country, a government, and deciding America had the right to do it. I watched people froth at the mouth and pound their chests the chance to attack another middle eastern country. Islamophobic propaganda was absolutely everywhere, and life in America for anyone even suspected of being Muslim was a living hell.

So do excuse me when I side-eye you as you call for Israel’s destruction. Excuse me if I roll my eyes when you claim Hamas are “freedom fighters”. Excuse me when I hear you spreading blatant antisemitic propaganda like it’s truth. Excuse me as I see you blocking Jewish students on campuses, attacking synagogues, and screaming antisemitic slurs at Jewish school children.

Because at the end of the day, all of you calling for Israel’s destruction sound like my father.. It doesn’t matter what your justification is. I just see the same hatred that has consumed Americans since the 90’s aimed at MENA countries. You’ve just moved on to the next target. I grew up with this hateful rhetoric and I REJECTED it.

Why have you embraced it?

“But this time the country we’ve chosen to hate and that we’re saying deserves to be glassed actually deserves it! This time the civilians really are evil!”

Yeah. Sure.

[jewish-sideblog]

I think people forget that the Nazis never said they were the bad guys. If someone says, hey, I’m evil! You don’t let them take over your country. They presented themselves as scientific, not hateful. By their own account, they were progressives, and the superiority of White Europe over the other races was a proven and immutable fact. They had scientists and archaeologists and historians to prove it. They didn’t tell people they wanted to kill the Jews because they were hateful. They manufactured evidence to frame us for very real tragedies, and they had methodological research to prove that we were genetically predisposed to misconduct. Wouldn’t you believe that?

Hollywood has spent the last 80 years portraying the Nazis as an obvious and intimidating evil. That’s a good thing in some ways, because we want general audiences to recognize that they were evil. But we also want them to be able to recognize how and why they came to power. Not by self-describing themselves as an evil empire, but by convincing people that they were the good guys and the saviors. They hosted the Olympics. Several European countries capitulated and volunteered themselves to the Empire. There were American and British Fascist Parties. They had broad public support. Hollywood never shows that part, so general audiences never learn to recognize the actual signs of antisemitism.

People today think they can’t possibly be antisemitic, because they’re leftist! They abhor bigotry! They could never comprehend Nazi ideology coming from the mouth of a bisexual college student wearing a graphic tee and jeans. How could they? The only depiction of antisemites they’ve ever seen have been gaunt, pale, middle-aged men in black leather trench coats with skulls on their caps.

If the Nazis time-travelled from the 1930s and wanted to take power now, they’d change their original tactics, but not by much. They would target countries suffering from an identity crisis and an economic collapse. They would portray themselves as the pinnacle of what that society considers progressive. Back then, it was race science. These days it’s performative wokeness. Once they’d garnered enough respect and reputation, they’d begin manufacturing propaganda and lies to manipulate people’s anger and fears at a single target— Jews.

If the Nazis made an actual return, they wouldn’t look like neo-Nazis. They wouldn’t be nearly as obvious about their hatred. Their evil wouldn’t give them yellow eyes, and no suspenseful music would play when they walked in the room. They’d be friendly. They’d look like you. They would learn what things your community fears and what things you already hate. They would lie and fabricate evidence to connect the rich elites and the imperialists you revile to a single source of unequivocal Jewish evil. It wouldn’t be hard— they already have two-thousand years of institutional antisemitism they can rely on to paint their picture.

If you’re curious why antisemitism today is coming from grassroots organizations, young, liberal college campuses, suburban neighborhoods with pride flags and All Are Welcome Here signs? That’s why. It’s because, as a global society, we’ve forgotten that the world didn’t used to see the Nazis as bad guys. And what is forgotten about history is doomed to be repeated.

[rotzaprachim]

I think a lot of people - both Jews and gentiles - need to reckon with the fact that not only are Zionism and antizionism terms that are pretty damn ambiguous in practice, they’re ALSO essentially, not only words, but collections of syllables that have been given the social power to destroy the entire public conception of a persons’ morality. Like people can just say words. They’ve been given so much social power that they can just be used to destroy a whole person, a whole Jewish person, no matter what that person actually thinks about the issue. You don’t like Joe with the ✡️ in his profile? Call him a Zionist. You hate (((Rachel))) Literally just say that, despite her avowed identification as an antizionist Jew, she’s actually a secret liberal Zionist. Jews may hold all sorts of complex opinions about the issue, but to an extent their own personal feelings and moral view on this issue don’t matter within the external Zionist/antizionist dichotomy because of the extent that society has tapped into the millennia long tradition of viewing all jews as sketchy liars to no longer allow us the grace to define ourselves and allow for more nuanced conversations. Like. There’s no irl moral purity exam or card for determining if a Jew is an antizionist or Zionist or not.

every “I hate Zionists not Jews” gentile on the internet, no matter their own ethic or religious background or their own feelings on the issue, NEEDS to account for the power they’ve given the word “zionist” to indicate a bad and untrustworthy, even murderable person, and the fact that literally any Jew can be Labelled one NO MATTER WHAT their actual opinions on the matter are and for basically any reason. What does it mean when the entire morality of a member of a group can be destroyed by a single word? and every Jew who has taken part in this needs to consider that they, too, can be ruined by a word

[fem-lit]

In the current epidemic of rich Western women who cannot “choose” to eat, we see the continuation of an older, poorer tradition of women’s relation to food. Modern Western female dieting descends from a long history. Women have always had to eat differently from men: less and worse. In Hellenistic Rome, reports classicist Sarah B. Pomeroy, boys were rationed sixteen measures of meal to twelve measures allotted to girls. In medieval France, according to historian John Boswell, women received two thirds of the grain allocated to men. Throughout history, when there is only so much to eat, women get little, or none: A common explanation among anthropologists for female infanticide is that food shortage provokes it. According to UN publications, where hunger goes, women meet it first: In Bangladesh and Botswana, female infants die more frequently than male, and girls are more often malnourished, because they are given smaller portions. In Turkey, India, Pakistan, North Africa, and the Middle East, men get the lion’s share of what food there is, regardless of women’s caloric needs. “It is not the caloric value of work which is represented in the patterns of food consumption” of men in relation to women in North Africa, “nor is it a question of physiological needs…. Rather these patterns tend to guarantee priority rights to the ‘important’ members of society, that is, adult men.” In Morocco, if women are guests, “they will swear they have eaten already” or that they are not hungry. “Small girls soon learn to offer their share to visitors, to refuse meat and deny hunger.” A North African woman described by anthropologist Vanessa Mahler assured her fellow diners that “she preferred bones to meat.” Men, however, Mahler reports, “are supposed to be exempt from facing scarcity which is shared out among women and children.”

“Third World countries provide examples of undernourished female and well-nourished male children, where what food there is goes to the boys of the family,” a UN report testifies. Two thirds of women in Asia, half of all women in Africa, and a sixth of Latin American women are anemic—through lack of food. Fifty percent more Nepali women than men go blind from lack of food. Cross-culturally, men receive hot meals, more protein, and the first helpings of a dish, while women eat the cooling leftovers, often having to use deceit and cunning to get enough to eat. “Moreover, what food they do receive is consistently less nutritious.”

This pattern is not restricted to the Third World: Most Western women alive today can recall versions of it at their mothers’ or grandmothers’ table: British miners’ wives eating the grease-soaked bread left over after their husbands had eaten the meat; Italian and Jewish wives taking the part of the bird no one else would want.

These patterns of behavior are standard in the affluent West today, perpetuated by the culture of female caloric self-deprivation. A generation ago, the justification for this traditional apportioning shifted: Women still went without, ate leftovers, hoarded food, used deceit to get it—but blamed themselves. Our mothers still exiled themselves from the family circle that was eating cake with silver cutlery off Wedgwood china, and we would come upon them in the kitchen, furtively devouring the remains. The traditional pattern was cloaked in modern shame, but otherwise changed little. Weight control became its rationale once natural inferiority went out of fashion.

— Naomi Wolf (1990) The Beauty Myth

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The Great Flood

1 And the LORD said unto Noah: ‘Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation. 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean two [and two], each with his mate; 3 of the fowl also of the air, seven and seven, male and female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.’ 5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. 7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. 8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the ground, 9 there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, male and female, as God commanded Noah. 10 And it came to pass after the seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 they, and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God commanded him; and the LORD shut him in. 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh perished that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and cattle, and beast, and every swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth, and every man; 22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, whatsoever was in the dry land, died. 23 And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days. — Genesis 7 | JPS Tanakh 1917 (JPST) The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic text; Jewish Publication Society 1917. Cross References: Genesis 1:21; Genesis 1:25; Genesis 2:7; Genesis 5:32; Genesis 6:7; Genesis 6:19-20; Genesis 6:22; Genesis 8:1-2; Genesis 8:3-4; Matthew 24:37,38 and 39; Luke 1:6; 2 Peter 3:6

Genesis 7:1-24 "The Great Worldwide Flood"

[marzipanandminutiae]

Why I fucking hate "The Handmaid's Tale" comparisons to real life (ie "this means THT is going to come true!!!")

that was not an elected government in the story. it was a fringe group that slaughtered the entire US government and took control by force. which makes little sense if you think about it, but that's because it doesn't matter HOW the dystopia happened; it just had to be there for the fiction to make a comment upon the author's present.

Dystopia is never a future prediction. see above: it's always a comment on the present in which it's written

That is massively fucking insulting to women who have actually lived with systemic oppression. They don't have to take away your name or your ability to read and write or put you in a color-coded costume. That's not what violent systemic misogyny looks like, because we KNOW what it looks like.

Sarah Emerson (1762-1784) could absolutely read. Based on what was expected of wealthy girls in her era, she probably spoke at least two languages- English and some French -as well as having knowledge of household accounting, basic first aid, history, literature, drawing, music, etc. She was still married to a man in his twenties when she was fourteen, because he wanted the inheritance her parents had left her (property she owned because, yes, women COULD own property back then). His family disapproved- they called her "the child bride" -but it still happened.

Women in the 19th century who couldn't vote, were discouraged strongly from public speaking (as in, speeches, not conversation), who sometimes had no control over that property they could in fact own, if they married, did normal things. They laughed and cried and petted cute animals. They spoke their minds. They wore what they wanted, albeit with societal constraints. They had names and voices and they still had so few rights under the law.

Women who died from backalley abortions as late as the 1960s could read and write. They had jobs. They dressed in ways we wouldn't consider remarkable today. They voted. They had access to the fucking pill, for gods' sakes. And yet that still happened to them. And yet they still died because the government didn't care about their lives as much as clumps of cells inside them.

Shirley Jackson (1916-1965) was a popular author with a rapier wit that she wasn't above using freely, living once again in a time we'd recognize many features of today. she married a Jewish man over the objections of...well, most of society back then, really. the nurse still wrote "housewife" for her career when she said "writer," during hospital admission to deliver her daughter Sarah

and that's all without getting into the double-damnations of women who aren't white, who aren't Christian, who aren't straight or cisgender. women in non-western countries where some of those things- like clothing laws or movement restrictions -have come to pass, but still not all and not in that way precisely

It doesn't have to be The Handmaid's Tale. In fact, it usually isn't, historically speaking. It's Call the Midwife. It's Harlots. It's Hidden Figures. it's Carol. It's astonishingly normal, among normal women living relatively normal- even happy lives, many of them.

Don't insult their memories by implying that it has to be speculative fiction to be real.

[funkopersonal]

Im quite literally so done with this shit. i keep on going back and forth between hiding all the i/p related tags, but then I realize that its seeped EVERYWHERE. It's in the motherhood tag, and jewish history tag, and everything else. I can't fucking escape it. I opened tiktok yesterday to see one of my favorite characters (iron man) weaponized to support the one group that wants to see me dead, the user saying that iron man would support palestine, and be an antizionist because he "spoke out against the public" and he wasn't like the sheep. It frustrates me to no end this horrible cycle of fucking misinformation that exists.

As a Gen Z, I simply do not understand how its reached this point? I can't even write all my feelings and information about how shitty this is in a single sitting because 1) it'd be too long and 2) my joints wont let me write that long. But how did it reach this point?

How did it reach the point where jewish/isreali stores are fucking marked to notify the public. Their windows are being broken and the stores are being robbed. How did it reach the point where jewish students on some campuses are told to stay home? how they're harassed out of specific areas, and campuses have been made unsafe? How did it reach the point that people literally have written "I ♡ Houthis & Hamas" and "no mercy for Jews."? How did it reach the point that there are nazi symbols, and hanging deadmans, and communist symbols being drawn on college campuses? How is it possible that students are calling for the end of jewish student unions and hillel international on campus? that'd be like calling for the end of the fucking muslim student organization, or disbanding an african-american affinity group. Which would never be acceptable, but apparently its fine when its jews.

I'm sick and tired of all the horrible conditions of palestenian cities being blamed on israel. Palestine is its own country. They had their own government until they elected Hamas to lead them. Hamas, who diverted all their funds to the military. Hamas, who uses hospitals and public spaces as their bases. Hamas, who built miitary tunnels under cities so that when they're invaded, the cities will collapse on itself. Hamas, who steals all humanitarian aid from its citizens. Hamas, who controls palestenian media and teaches hatred to its children. Hamas, who wants their citizens to become martyrs for their country, to die for their goal. Hamas, whose number one goal is to eradicate all jews. Hamas, who denies the existence of the holocaust. Hamas, who enlists children as soldiers and suicide bombers. Hamas, who has has never expressed an interest in a 2 state solution.

Is this the organization you consider freedom fighters? because i dont think they should ever, in any context, be called that. Hamas is nothing but terrorists.

Yes, the deaths and treatment of palestenian citizens is horrible. but no, this is not a genocide. Israel is trying to rid them of Hamas, because quite literally, no country should ever be forced to live in "harmony" with a terrorist group. Especially one who denies their existence and actively wants to kill them all. Israel has been letting palestenians get jobs in the country, has let palestine use their resources and water, all for years. They've let hamas continously bomb them, they've gotten used to a life of bomb shelters in every residence. Hamas has done nothing but crippled their country's own economy and society.

None of the surrounding coutnries want to let in palestenians, or live with palestenians. Egypt wants to annex Gaza, and Jordan wants the West Bank. In fact, they did own that land for a part of history! Yet Israel has let palestenians govern themselves for years, even when Hamas originally came into power, they didn't interfere. Not until they were provoked.

Yes, Israel has flaws. But welcome to the fucking real world, princess. Every country has flaws. Even America, you dipshits. This is not a little fandom for you to play sides on. its not some fictional world that has a black and white solution. Yes theres going to be deaths, just like in any other WAR. But you really can't call for the destruction of a country on the basis that they're trying to make sure they're allowed to stay a country? Because guess what honey bunchkins? "from the river to the sea" really doesn't mean what you think it does. It just means that you want to kill all jews, or at best, forcefully remove them and scatter them around the middle east. (to countries that have killed them in swaths in the past. To countries that have emprisoned jews for helping others escape. To countries that avidly hate jews and want them dead). I don't understand how that would mean peace in any way shape or form?

Not only that, but half of "protestors" and "activists" for palestine, haven't even done basic research. They dont know what river or sea theyre talking about. They dont know that "palestine" was not a palestenian state in 1948, but it was instead a BRITISH MANDATE, that was NOT fully occupied by palestenians. In fact, "palestenians" weren't a thing. Palestenians are just muslims and arabs from countries like syria, who lived alongside jews and christians in the same land (which was largely uninhabited for the most part). Yeah, you heard me right.

Honestly my thoughts on this issue are so scattered its so hard to make a solid points when I can just keep on going forever.

Fact is, Israel deserves to be a country. No one should be supporting Hamas. Everyone should be supporting the eradication of Hamas (and I mean Hamas not palestenian citizens). I don't get how these are debated, and seriously don't understand how citizens of america are so quick to support a terrorist group, to resort to antisemitism.

Im so done with this all. I cant believe we have to tell you gentiles that stoning a 13-year old kid for being jewish is horrible. That throwing a brick through an israeli-owned cafe in New York is horrible. That students not being able to be on campuses because of their religion or ethnicity is horrible.

This has to end.

Do your research, or don't speak (and terrorist-controlled propoganda channels don't count).

[jellybeanium124]

being a white passing american jew is a perspective worth talking about, I think. because on the one hand I'm not a person of color. I've been treated as if I am white by society my whole life. I have access to white privilege as long as I keep my true ethnic identity a secret. and because of all this I internalized racist ideas same as white people did, which are now baked into my head, and I have to unlearn them. on the other hand, I am part of a racial/ethnic minority that is on the receiving end of a lot of bigotry, especially right now. so I know how it feels to be on both sides of this.

and as I'm sure everyone knows bc white people love being guilty and crying in public, unlearning racism is uncomfortable. catching yourself thinking something racist is uncomfortable. you want to believe you're a good person but then you think or say or do something that really isn't okay (and if you say or do something, you fucking apologize, because you're a grown up). it's that squirmy feeling in your chest, that guilt in your stomach. and something a lot of white people have trouble with is the fact that your discomfort is 10 million times less important than being antiracist. it's human to put your comfort first, but it's wrong, and as long as a white person values their personal comfort above being an antiracist ally, they aren't an antiracist ally.

the thing is most white people on tumblr are at least... vaguely aware of this. at least aware that they have internalized racism they need to work through. but for some ~magical~ reason goyim do not seem to realize that they maybe just might have some internalized antisemitism to work through. so when they get that squirmy feeling that comes from being called an antisemite, they lash out (not that white people don't lash out when they're called a racist, because of course they do). I think a lot of goyim on here just straight up aren't thinking that there's any possibility they may have internalized antisemitic ideas.

so to any goy reading this: you grew up in an antisemitic world. you have antisemitic ideas baked into your head that you need to unlearn. you might have to apologize for something you say or do. and as long as you prioritize not feeling uncomfortable over being a jewish ally, you're not an ally to the jewish people.

[wiisagi-maiingan]

There's apparently some claims coming out about Christopher Columbus supposedly being Jewish. Now, I'm no geneticist but everything I've seen has made it evry clear that if this isn't just an outright lie, the science and methods of the researchers are EXTREMELY dubious and the genetics community has, overall, made it very clear that they do not recognize these claims as legitimate because there is no actual evidence being offered and the researchers involved have not released any papers or been peer-reviewed before they made these claims public.

I firmly see these claims as a form of antisemitism and another part of a very, very long history of trying to make horrible historical figures out to be Jewish to allow white society to wipe their hands clean of responsibility. I wanted to talk about this real quick though because I've seen A LOT of antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracy theories in Native communities and I'm once again making it very clear that that shit will not be tolerated on this blog.

Christopher Columbus was not Jewish. Colonialism of the Americas cannot be blamed on "the evil Jews." We are being pitted against each other and we can't afford to fall for it.