#and in many cases they still feel connected to their jewish identity

[softness-and-shattering]

Speaking of shared experience across marginalisations, Ive been thinking for a while that in some ways, being Jewish has prepared me for being trans. Ive known near as long as I can remember that there are people who hate me and everyone who shares my identity for the best thing about us. Known that they'll hurt and kill us to try bully us into not being ourselves, and known that you never ever back down from them. You dont let them change you. You take precautions, you learn to judge danger, when things get bad you make sure you have a valid passport and the means to get away. Sometimes you have to hide your identity for safety. Sometimes you need extra security, sometimes you dont walk alone just in case. Sometimes its terrifying, but you cant let the fear rule you. Sometimes you go even harder become even more yourself, embody your identity more people try to make you lessen yourself, till they give up, till you feel strong till you face. You face things as a community. You share fears and security. And you feed people who need. You do things together when youre afraid so you feel the connection and the strength and your own power in who you are. And sometimes the safest thing to do is disengage, de-escalate, move. Dont get into a fight if you can help it. Ive spent my whole life learning these lessons.

And then I see trans people convinced only people exactly like them understand, are safe. And its frustrating to be the one theyre lashing out at but I mostly feel pity. Theres no need to live in this fear. There is danger and its important to be aware and act accordingly, but hiding away and driving away anyone who wants to help is ineffective and harmful to themselves. Fear is big but its not necessary to be alone in it. We have more in common than not, and what we dont have in common we can listen and learn and help each other. Our strength is in each other, as is our courage and our hope and our safety. And yeah people will make mistakes but that comes with humanity, whats important is shared values especially around handling conflict.

Cause Ive also had the experience of being terrified to step outside due to very real danger. But the important thing is to not let bigots or terrorists or whoever to change who we are and what we do. How we do, sure, re precautions and situational awareness and backup plans. Its ok if you need a minute to process the danger, and then you have to get back up and kicking because we're alive. Many many many people live with danger every day, and still live good meaningful impactful joyous lives. And it would be really shit to let bigots bully you into denying yourself your own fullness of life.

I also think that when I see people demanding a *unique* oppression, that they are asking for something impossible and also are very much misunderstanding intersectionality in the first place.

I don't believe any oppression is truly unique. I do think there are faces of oppression that change with the demographic, but more likely than not you as Oppressed Group X have way more in common with Oppressed Group Y than you might think.

But also, Crenshaw's original paper on intersectionality discussed a specific context: black women being skipped over for hire where black men and white women were both getting hired, making that specific context unique to the intersection of black womanhood.

People get skipped over for jobs they are more than qualified for all the time. Even within the paper itself, there is discussion about this happening to black men and white women at other companies, just that this specific company was excluding specifically black women from its pool of candidates due to their specific bias against black women.

Experiencing workplace discrimination and hiring discrimination is not at all unique to black women. The *context* was. It was not "just racism" because black men were being hired, and it was not "just misogyny" because white women were getting hired. It was the intersection of both that resulted in black women being excluded.

When a trans man states that he is being removed from, say, a reproductive rights conversation and it's happening specifically because he is a trans man, what's meant shouldn't be that no one else struggles with reproductive rights. It means that it's not happening to the cis women who are actively leading the conversation, nor is it happening to the cis men who are pitching in. It is, however, happening to anyone with a uterus who is deemed as too "gender devient" to count: trans men, trans women, intersex people, and nonbinary people. Albeit, for different reasons, and the face of which changes depending on the demographic of the person receiving it.

But the conversation around reproductive rights is also one that must include disability, must include race, must include sexuality, must include class, must include age, because these things also have a direct effect on discrimination within the medical field and whether someone truly has access to the autonomy needed to make reproductive choices of their own without others choosing for them.

Similar to how we can understand the context provided in Crenshaw's coining of intersectionality to examine how black women specifically were experiencing something that neither black men nor white women were victim to within that specific example, so too must we understand that these are contextual and circumstantial conversations that will not always be truly unique.

After all, black men and white women do both get rejected for jobs on account of race and gender. Cis women and other marginalized genders frequently must battle for their right to make their own reproductive choices.

But when someone says "this happened to me due to the combination of my race and my gender", we must understand that likely the combination, the intersection, created a unique scenario that cannot be understood by only examining a single piece of that person's identity. So, too, must we understand the same when someone says "this happened due to the combination of my transness and my gender".

So when I see a challenge to name something unique from someone also flinging around the "learn intersectionality" phrase at those who are trying to describe the things that happened to them that hurt them, all I can think is that clearly that person does not understand interaectionality. Nor have they ever actually read the words of the woman who coined it. She's still alive. Her TED talks are on YouTube. Many of her essays are online for free.

Finally, I must remind these people that Crenshaw is not the woman who coined misogynoir, and while both Crenshaw's and Bailey's theories do work in conversation with each other, being discussed by different people does mean there is not a 1-to-1 basis to compare them to. There will be disagreements and inconsistencies between the two because they are two different people.

[jewishregulus]

Jeee wonder why bunch of queer people look negatively towards religion lmfao also no shit there would be a lot of Christianity trauma considering the amount of followers it has

that sounds like a you problem ! other queer people looking negatively towards religion has nothing to do with me . not all queer people do and it’s insensitive as fuck to project that.

if ur this mad i want to talk more about judaism on MY BLOG you can just not look at my blog . and leave ur complex somewhere else bc judaism is more than just religion and i am allowed to talk abt it on my account!

[is-the-fire-real]

When I was last on tumblr, it was ten years ago and one of the biggest faux pas you could commit was incorrect tagging.

It was Literally Colonialism to use a tag that was For Certain Oppressed Groups. The actually-autistic tag was created because allistics "took over" the autism tag, and this/other tags became heavily policed by users to make sure they remained a "safe space".

I remember seeing countless posts about how autistics would never be safe if we didn't have a bubble to protect us from interacting with allistics. The same went for tags about transliness and queerness. The going approach used militarized and hyperbolic language to characterize and other folks who weren't in the community: autistics (the group I had the most direct experience with) were attacked by allistic invaders who violated and conquered autistic tagging systems.

The "Literally Colonialism" isn't a joke. I saw plenty of suggestions that to even use a tag which was perceived as being "not yours" was colonization of ideas and thoughts. To be allistic, have an opinion on autism, and tag it as "autism" was held up as being exactly the same as the behavior of empires and nation-states.

Obviously, I don't entirely agree, and don't think this particular hyperbolization is helpful for advocacy or for dialogue. But I do find it interesting how, in the decade since I was last here, it seems to (mostly) still be true that you should only use certain tags if you have a particular identity...

... unless you're not Jewish, in which case feel free to use any and all Judaism-related tags and break the system's meager functionality for Jewish people.

As someone who is using Tumblr to connect to online Judaism, it's daunting to see how many posts under "judaism" are by non-Jews screeching about Israel. Seeing non-Jews openly talk about they tag their posts with gore, rape denial, Holocaust denial, October 7 denial, and other deliberately-triggering material with Jewish-themed tags specifically to make Jewish users of Tumblr feel unsafe. Reading them telling each other about how this is advocacy, this will absolutely win the war for Gazans, and how anybody who blocks them (in order to make sure the tags can actually work as intended) is a genocidal coward. Using that self-same militaristic language to describe their activities, only instead of criticizing, they're bragging.

It's, uh, kind of fucked up.

Imagine going to the actually-autistic tag and finding nothing but a wall of allistics claiming that they've victoriously conquered the tag from those inhuman monsters pretending to have problems when other Real People are the ones who are suffering. I think we would all intuitively understand that this would be Wrong. Even if there was some supposed outward justification for being mad at certain autistics, we would understand that holding all autistics everywhere responsible for it is wrong. That breaking a community's ability to talk to each other is wrong. That trying to trigger people and then telling them to commit suicide is wrong.

And we'd also understand, or come to, that the very action of going "This community I'm not part of doesn't deserve to have this tag, I'mma take it back, or at least ruin it so no one else can have it" is an expression of privilege. It is wrong, and it is immature, and it is cowardice.

These smug, self-involved, active attempts at causing harm make no sense at all if seen as advocacy; they help no one, advance no cause, stop no Zionists (whatever that means) from expressing themselves online.

They only make sense when seen as Jew-hate.

[power-chords]

Often I feel very angry. It is hard to explain this even to my progressive Jewish parents – my Ashkenazi father, and my convert mother who frankly is more observant than I am – sometimes easier with fellow third generation millennials, depending on their milieu. My goyische husband, believe it or not, grasps it quite well because he grew up in Scarsdale. For the 18 years that we lived on East 70th our mezuzah was on the wrong side of the door. We never kept kosher. And yet I went to Hebrew school at Park Avenue Synagogue followed by Or Zarua which are both conservative congregations, a step up from reform and a step down from orthodox. We observed Shabbos, the high holidays; for a while I had a basic comprehension of the loshn-koydesh.

After I was bat mitzvahed I had no desire to see the inside of a temple again. This remained the case for many many years. You know what I learned about besides Torah? (Torah study, the ritual of Saturday morning services, was actually the good part.) Israel. At length. A country I felt no connection to whatsoever, that I had no desire to ever visit, that alienated me from my own Jewish identity as a diaspora New Yorker growing up in (what was, then, much more so!) a diverse neighborhood with kids from every ethnic and religious background imaginable.

You know what I learned NOTHING about? Yiddishkeyt. German expressionist cinema. Postwar American Jewish literature. Philosophy and psychoanalysis and dialectics and dialogics. Art, literature, theater, folklore. You would think that institutions theoretically devoted to the preservation of Jewish life in America would take a greater restorative interest in what the Nazis attempted to wipe from the historical record. You would be wrong.

The irony doesn’t end there. According to Dad my grandfather would not speak a word of German in the house – understandable after they've gassed your entire family to death – and he was resentful, for a little while, that on account of this he did not grow up bilingual. Why Martin refrained from speaking Yiddish around his American children had nothing to do with a rejection of Jewishness per se and everything to do with the guarantying of a more prosperous future. Metallurgy and manual labor sentenced him to a hard life and an early death. Despite chronic exhaustion and physical pain, he would bring my young father to public lectures at Yale on anything and everything related to the space program. He supported and cultivated his two sons’ every personal and intellectual interest. He ferried my grandmother to and from her performances along the Borscht Belt circuit, which back then was still a thriving scene. He was a state-raised orphan who lost everything and nevertheless managed to give everything. When she grew too old and infirm to do so herself any longer, he even cared for the cranky old bitch of an aunt who turned him away when he first washed up alone as a teenager on a totally foreign shore. I have tears in my eyes just typing this.

It is my parents and grandparents whose memory I hold sacred, the culture they swallowed or sacrificed in the hope of a new beginning – not for themselves, but for their loved ones. That a certain continuity could be transmitted and traced despite all efforts to either disguise or remake it, that there is an inextinguishable spark of recognition in language and expression and sensibility, is miraculous. It defies the nation state. And it will outlive the nation state.

[koshercosplay]

Hi!! I hope this isn't an unsolicited ask but I was hoping you might have some insight.

I'm currently speaking with the Rabbis of my local Reform and Liberal synagogues, hoping to learn more about each movement, because I want to become Jewish. I'm trying to figure out which movement I feel most at home with.

Thing is..I don't want to completely write off Orthodox, I do feel that Orthodox Judaism strongly resonates with me, just like the other denominations. I'm trans and queer and I know that there are some differences in how LGBTQ+ identities are talked about. I know there are probably many Orthodox communities out there that are 100% welcoming and accepting, but it's still something I'm scared of eventually confronting. I'm also afraid that if I do convert with a Reform or Liberal synagogue, I'll not be accepted as 'really Jewish' by Orthodox communities (I read that a non-Orthodox conversion isn't considered valid by Orthodox Jews).

I've been researching my socks off but I'm finding it hard to get any real info about how true this is. You seem to know more about Judaism than me. Is this true, will Orthodox Jews not consider me to be Jewish if I convert with a different movement? Or is that just a gross generalisation?

there are multiple layers to this ask, so I'll try to answer them one by one. This got long so I'll put it under a cut.

it is true that generally, reform and conservative conversions are not accepted by mainstream orthodoxy. there are individual orthodox communities that do accept them, but yes, it's not wrong to say that as a general statement.

if you do convert with another group other than orthodoxy, one would hope that you feel strongly about being a part of that group, and feel connected to that particular community. in that case, it honestly shouldn't matter or affect your life that much about whether or not orthodoxy will "accept" you, since you will not be a part of that community.

case in point: I was born jewish, raised orthodox, and am still religious to this day. many many orthodox jews don't accept ME as orthodox, simply based on the fact that I'm queer. and, of course, many other orthodox jews simply don't give a shit. the right community will accept you for who you are. I currently attend an orthodox shul with my partner, as openly queer people. it's relatively rare, but it's possible.

that's different of course than denying me my jewish identity entirely, but I hope you see my point in bringing it up. if you like, you can try to do research specifically for orthodox queer-friendly synagogues, and contact the rabbi to see if you'd be able to work on conversion with them.

lastly, and honestly this is my most important point: once you convert, your conversion is nobody's damn business. I don't know how aware you are of how strongly the torah insists that we do not ask converts for details about their conversion. it is entirely up to you whether you reveal information about your conversion to others. if anybody asks you if you're a convert, or who you converted with, or anything like that, THEY are the ones unequivocally in the wrong according to halacha (jewish law.)

I strongly recommend what I mentioned above: reach out to an openly queer-friendly orthodox rabbi/synagogue. Rabbi Mike Moskowitz might be a good person to reach out to about this, as an orthodox rabbi who does a lot of trans and queer advocacy. regardless of where you are located, he may have some excellent resources to help you.

I wish you luck in your conversion journey anon, and I hope you find a home in the jewish community. ❤️

[exploringaspec]

November Carnival of Aros Submission: Aplatonic vs. Loner

When I think of the term aplatonic, fear comes to mind. Do I really want to write about my feelings of being aplatonic (or more specifically grayplatonic in my case) in a book that my family, friends, or co-workers might read? The stigma of not having many friends is one that I fear. Once, someone asked me if I was a loner. The feeling of fear and not knowing what to say struck my heart. The idea of not having a lot of friends makes me feel like there’s something wrong with me, that I’m broken. 

In WebMD’s article, What is a loner?, it begins by stating, “Being a loner means that you would prefer to be by yourself rather than with others. Depending on the context of the situation and your personality and preferences, this could be a good or bad thing.” The first section continues by stating, “Loners display varying degrees of wanting to or needing to be alone. There are positive, healthy reasons for being a loner, as well as negative, destructive reasons.” While I appreciate the positive attitude that addresses the healthy reasons for spending time alone, I feel like the stigma against those who are not attracted to spending time building friendships is still emphasized. 

The creation of the aplatonic sprectrum as an identity is an attempt to step away from that stigma and accept that it is ok to not feel an attraction to the idea of being friends with someone. But can this spectrum ever breakaway from the stigma of being loners? Aspec people frequently write about the ability to form strong friendships and platonic partnerships as being just as important as romantic or sexual relations to allos. I have never identified strongly with these feelings. While I do have friends and make an effort to find friends when I move to new cities, I have rarely felt such a close bond with friends that I would liken it to being on the same level of importance as a romantic relationship. 

In May 2022, I wrote my first submission for Carnival of Aros on being non-partnering. I reflected on the bullying that I experienced, and how it was related to the selective mutism. Because of this experience, and others, I wondered if my experiences with mental health did affect my feelings and desires. For me, being someone who has experienced selective mutism and never sought counseling on it, I feel that the times that are difficult to speak are not just fear based, but who I am. It makes me feel neurodivergent in a way that hasn’t been recognized. This inability to think of things to say beyond the basic conversations of getting to know someone and my career or academic pursuits, makes me seem boring. It’s hard for me to connect with many people or be attracted to maintaining a friendship. I really only maintain friendships with others who are willing to be my friend without judging me, who have common interests, and don’t mind that I’m not going to want to chat with them on the phone regularly. I’ve made friends through board game groups, work, Jewish social events, Chicago’s AVEN meetup, and Meetup.com groups that have events that interest me. I’m grateful for the supportive friends that I have made over the years. So, I don’t really identify with the term aplatonic, but do feel that grayplatonic or noetiplatonic could be an appropriate identity for myself. 

Surprisingly, I wouldn’t consider myself non-partnering anymore. I never expected to meet anyone that I would want to date. Several months after writing about being non-partnering, I actually met someone who had a crush on me so much that he wanted to go on a date. After several dates, I realized he was so caring and accepting of my faults that I was willing to be in a romantic relationship with him. The mental connection that we had was similar to the one other time that I had a crush on someone, who didn’t want to date me, that I feel like the microlabels would be noetiromantic and recipromantic. After being in a relationship with him for nearly a year, I’ve definitely learned a lot about relationships with people that are alloromantic and allosexual, but I think I need to save some insights for the book…

[alatismeni-theitsa]

What really sucks is how, while many Greek Jews have been here for literally centuries, and even for the ones that came later on, still, our traditions are so heavily linked with the standard Greek traditions (Purim which is our Apokries, has been transferred for a long time, two weeks earlier and is celebrated during the Christian Apokries instead of the standard)and it sucks that people still claim that "jews are not truly Greeks" and how we don't belong here. Sadly I have been hearing that rhetoric even more lately to the point that I don't mention that I'm Jewish to people I don't know well, in case they are weirdos. And the way that the government is going (far right with the Spartans and everything) I don't see the situation getting better soon.

What's your opinion on this theitsa;

Hello! :) First of all, thank you for entrusting me with your thoughts! It means a lot!

It irks me when I hear "they don't belong here" about people who have been citizens of this country for a very long time! (it irks me regardless, but whatever) What the fuck "belong" even means?? And who the fuck decides that?? They are here, they are citizens, they are part of the Greek history, the end! Even more so if these people speak Greek, they have Greek education, they live the Greek reality every day, they fight for the same things as the rest of the Greeks, and so on.

It sucks that this country makes you feel like you have to hide, or explain yourself in case they learn you are Jewish. This shouldn't have to happen! And, to be fair, no one is 100% "pure" Greek (I hate the concept of purity but I mention it here for argument's sake). We all have at least ONE ancestor of Slavic (/Arvanite), German, Turk, Egyptian, Hebrew, Armenian, Persian etc descent. We don't live in a bubble! Markos Botsaris (+ his crew) and Laskarina Bouboulina were Arvanites!

For this reason, I think "How Greek" one is, shouldn't define how much respect they get as Greek citizens. We are all enclosed in the same borders under a common government and we will achieve shit if we give in to infighting about who is The Best.

At the same time, I don't mean to diminish your argument about Jewish Greeks having Greek cultural elements. It makes sense that Jews in Norway and Jews in Greece won't have the exact same culture, and that they will be affected by the culture around them. I imagine it's hurtful when this part of your identity is overlooked. I'm just saying that all people here are "allowed" to be here, since our law has allowed it.

I wish I could tell you "don't be afraid! go forth and be yourself!" but realistically you will be the judge of what's safer for you. At least from my perspective, most Greeks won't have an issue. They might be very interested, even. But one or two times there will be Greeks who will create an issue for you. And these bigoted Greeks might be even more than we think.

The "funny" thing about far-right parties like the Spartans is that, while they claim to be "for Greece", they seem to parrot USAmerican rhetoric (non-Greek rhetoric) which goes against how the locals historically viewed the Jews in Greece.

Correct me if I am wrong, anon, but I feel like the rise of antisemitism in our days is very connected to the US-Americanization of Greece? This type of antisemitism (the type of conspiracies) and the intensity is the exact same I see from people in the US who worry when Jews are in positions of power.

Now, it's a historical truth that certain Greeks worked with the Nazis for power, at the time Greece was under Nazi/Axis occupation. (The Greeks still hate these families that were Germanophille at the time, because these families also worked against the interests of the rest of Greeks) So antisemitic sentiments existed before. But the land of what is now Greece was under the Ottoman Empire for centuries and the Ottoman Empire was a haven for Jews who were heavily discriminated against and killed in West Europe.

Many Jews acquired power and influence in big Greek cities like Thessaloniki, owning factories, businesses, newspapers, and real estate. They were allowed to prosper and they were an important part of our societies. (The Byzantine Museum of Thessaloniki has an exhibition this year about the Thessalonian Jewish community. It's outside and left of the cafeteria, they have a new room)

At the same time, obviously, being Jewish didn't make you automatically rich and influential. Before the second world war, there were Greeks and Turks, and French who were very rich and influential, too. Traditionally the Greeks understood this was a Class thing, not an Ethnicity thing. (And, in any case, no people deserve a freaking genocide!!!) But my point is, in the Old Times I didn't see sentiments such as "oooo the Jews are here to control us!!" whereas I feel this is a big part of the Greek antisemitic rhetoric today.

The reason I think this sentiment is brought by the US is that in the US there are many Jewish communities and many have acquired wealth or they had generational wealth. But in Greece there as soooo few Jews and they don't hold the same amount of wealth. Like, the bigoted conspiracies of the far right don't even make sense in the Greek reality 😂

For those who don't know: Despite the efforts of Greek Jews to escape the holocaust and the efforts of many Greeks to help them escape in the Επαρχία (rest of the country, outside of Athens), like in Zakynthos, an extremely large number of Jews in Greece got killed by the Axis powers in the Second World War. Hence, the large Jewish population of Greece has dwindled, and the community is really small nowadays. The community (at least in Thessaloniki) is also cautious to open their culture to other Greeks because they fear antisemitic sentiments might hurt them again. (Which is understandable to me. Btw I heard this cause a friend writing her thesis needed access to the Hebrew records in Thessaloniki)

Sorry for the long response, anon! My thoughts were many, as you can see. I would be very happy if you could tell us more things about Greek Jewish culture, if you don't mind! (how it's similar or dissimilar to the more frequent version of Greek culture) I could not find many things online, or even in museums, about it and I am genuinely curious.

Feel free to correct me on historical stuff, if you have different info! I am sure we would all be better for learning it because so much culture and historical perspective was lost from the collective average Greek consciousness with the holocaust. I hate that this gap gave rise to the rhetoric of far-right parties. I would also like to be more equipped to speak against their antisemitism by knowing more facts.

I also wonder if it's any awkward celebrating Hanukkah as a Greek Jew? 😅 I think it's not awkward (because the Greek Seleucid Empire was a looong time ago), but I am really curious if the Greek Jews think some way about it.

[lennart11412]

TORAH COMMENTARIES

Parshat Vayigash: A Tale of Two Brothers

This Torah portion opens with a passionate exchange between Joseph and Judah, two brothers with distinct personalities.

BY JONAH SIMCHA CHAIM MUSKAT-BROWN

In Parshat Vayigash, we encounter two brothers who each embody distinct personalities. Though we’ve met all of Jacob’s 13 children in previous Torah portions, and will continue to learn more about them in the weeks to come, in Parashat Vayigash it is Joseph and his older brother Judah who engage in one of the Torah’s most emotionally charged and passionate conversations.

The previous portion ended at a moment of high-drama. Joseph, the second most powerful man in Egypt, has purposefully engaged in an act of deception, falsely accusing his younger brother, Benjamin, of stealing his golden goblet. Joseph’s identity is still unknown to his brothers, who attempt to make amends for the “theft,” but to no avail. Joseph sends them back home to their father, Jacob, and retains Benjamin in his palace in Egypt. 

In Parashat Vayigash, Judah boldly, yet intimately, approaches Joseph, recalling their family history and the sad state of their father since the passing of his wife and Joseph’s disappearance many years earlier. Judah passionationately explains the oath he took to his father to guard Benjamin’s welfare and requests that he remain a prisoner so Benjamin can be allowed to return home to their grieving father.

Our sages teach that Joseph was born a righteous person, and his merit lay in not succumbing to society’s many temptations. He resisted several attempts at seduction by the wife of the Egyptian official Potiphar. He didn’t lose his connection to God while sitting in Egyptian prison on false charges of rape. And he didn’t abandon his Jewish identity upon becoming Pharaoh’s second-in-command, despite having every reason and opportunity to do so. 

For Joseph, the Torah had transformed his existence beyond the realm of choice; he became a vessel for containing God’s infinite light and no longer felt torn between choosing holiness or its opposite.

However, not everyone is born so righteous. There are those – many, to be sure – who find themselves lured by the physical and mundane world into which they were thrust. This is the case with Judah, who doesn’t excel spiritually in the ways his brother Joseph does, yet still maintains his connection with God despite his continuous mistakes. 

Judah participated in the sale of his brother into slavery and he had an affair with his daughter-in-law Tamar. But he knows that while he has made mistakes, it’s not because he genuinely desired to, but because he is consumed by the material world around him. To be human is to lose control sometimes and become distracted from how great we can be.

For a righteous person like Joseph, there is no middle ground between the holy and the mundane. Joseph would sooner give up on life itself than feel distant from holiness. But Judah knows he can stay connected with his source even when he reaches the bottom and all hope for connection seems lost. For him, life is a journey meant to treaded forward. It may not always be a direct route, and it will likely consist of ups and downs, but God can be found along the way amidst the chaos and the darkness. Judah knows that there’s no such thing as true failure in life because anyone can always learn and rise higher.

Parshat Vayigash opens with the words vayigash eilav Yehuda — “And Judah approached him.” On a literal level, Judah is approaching his brother Joseph. But Hasidic philosophy teaches that Judah’s frequent use of words such as “my lord” and “your servant” suggests that not only is he speaking to Joseph, but more so he’s figuratively speaking directly to God, pouring out his heart and his entire life’s narrative. He is confessing all the mistakes he made earlier, both when he and his brothers initially tried to murder Joseph and eventually sold him as a slave, and later when he promised his father he would return Benjamin safely if he allowed him to accompany his brothers down to Egypt — a promise it now seems Judah will be unable to keep. Judah tries to do the right thing, but repeatedly seems to fall short.

This act of confession is core to the process of teshuvah, the Jewish act of returning to the core of who we are. Teshuvah isn’t so much about changing who we are, but more about returning to the point before we went astray. The holiness of Judah isn’t that he changes who he is, but that he finds godliness within the life he currently lives. Our sages explain that Judah spoke directly into Joseph’s ear, conversing with God in a whisper, as if to teach us that relationships aren’t about how loud or visible we are, but about hearing that still small voice within the raging storm: real, raw, intimate — and lasting. 

Spirituality isn‘t about waiting for the right moment to tap into holiness, but about creating them even when they aren’t called for. It’s showing up at God’s door unannounced, not waiting for a formal invitation. It’s doing acts of kindness without being asked and loving another when our intellect tells us to do otherwise. In the Jewish context, holiness is a protest against the life one has grown accustomed to living in in the name of how great life can be. 

Judah had that courage then. Let’s cultivate that courage together now. 

Read this Torah portion, Genesis 44:18 – 47:27 on Sefaria

[maxwell-grant]

You have done an (excelent) post on how to reinvent Batman as a Pulp Hero. Do you think you could do one to Superman as well? Or do you think it is impossible to do this with the progenitor of the Super Hero genre without transforming him in a totaly diferent character?

Well, you saying it as impossible only makes it seem ever more tempting of a challenge, but yes, it is a bit harder. I'm gonna link my Batman post here as a reference point.

Partially because Batman's a franchise I've thought extensively about for a long time in regards to what I like about it or how I'd like to approach if given the opportunity, which is not something I can really say for Superman until more recently the Big Blue to start orbiting my brain. I don't have years worth of redesigns or fan concepts saved on my galleries and files to comb through to pick and choose here, and my experience with Superman as a character is considerably different, in some aspects more deeply personal, and not really something I'd like to go into in this blog, at least not now.

Part of the reason why it's harder is also because Batman and Superman have very different relationships with their pulp inspirations. Batman was, ostensibly, a pulp character adapted to comics, a dime-a-dozen Shadow knock-off who picked up and played up diverging traits from other characters and gradually ran with them to gradually forge a unique identity. Superman right from the start was rooted in a much stronger conceptual underpinning: the Sci-Fi Superman and Alien Menace who, instead of being a tragic monster or a tyrannical villain, becomes a costumed adventurer and social crusader. Even the name Super-Man was taken from an early story of Siegel and Shuster about a telepathic villain who ends the story lamenting that he should have used his powers for the good of mankind instead of selfishness. I hesitate to call what Siegel and Shuster were doing “subversive” because that term's picked up a real negative connotation, and it's not like Siegel and Shuster were out to upend their influences (they were pulp aficionados themselves), but rather putting a more positive, new spin on them.

Which is why it also becomes a bit harder to do what I did with Batman and align Superman with some of his pulp-esque inspirations, like John Carter, Flash Gordon or Hugo Danner, without just making it "Superman but he's John Carter", "Superman but it's Flash Gordon", and "Iron Munro / Superman but everything sucks" respectively. It's harder to create a character that wouldn't feel reduntant and derivative at best, and actively contradictory to Superman at worst.

I guess if I had to come up with a "Pulp Hero Superman" take I liked, well first of all I'd have to take steps to distance it from the likes of Tom Strong or Al Ewing's Doc Thunder, those two are as good as it gets in regards to Pulp Supermen. I stipulated for Batman a "No Guns, No Murder, No Service" policy partially to distance my takes on Batman from all the "Pulp Batmen" that just add guns and murder and take Batman back to the barest of basics. Likewise, I'm adding a "No Depowered Science Hero" rule here, which means it's a take that's likely going to veer off a lot more into fantasy and probably enough tampering with Clark's character that it does risk becoming a different character.

Frankly I don't think I'm gonna succeed at doing these without just making it a new character entirely, because with Batman you can get away with just upending the character's aesthetic and setting and even origin and still keep it recognizably Bruce Wayne (in fact Batman does that all the time), which isn't really the case with Superman, who needs those to remain recognizably Superman as he goes through internal changes and character shifts. I guess what I'm gonna do here is more taking the building blocks of Superman/Clark Kent and see a couple new ways I can rearrange them to create a Pulp Superman

Perhaps something we can do is to scale back or recontextualize the "superhero" parts without diminishing Superman's role as a superpowered fantasy character.

One way we can start is by picking on that connection between Superman and the sci-fi supermen/alien monsters of pulps I mentioned earlier and play it up further, to create a Superman who's deeply, deeply alien in a way that no mild-mannered disguise or colorful outfit can really disguise, something so dramatically powerful and alien, that instead you could get tales about the kinds of ensuing changes and ripple effects this has on the world upon the The Super-Man's arrival. And for that I'm gonna have to quote @davidmann95's concept for Joshua Viers' absolutely stunning Superman redesign on the left side of the image above

The red, the goldish-orange and white, the alienness, the angelic, sculpted feeling, the halo, that innocently curious expression: it’s genuinely beautiful. Superman as a redeeming science-angel from beyond our understanding, as much past the uncanny valley of limited human comprehension as a Lovecraftian monster but tuned to the opposite key - you could spend an endless procession of human lifetimes trying and failing to understand this being, but all you’ll ever know for sure is that it is beyond you, and it knows you, and it loves you.

Superdoomsday from Earth 45, healed and transformed into the savior it was originally envisioned as? Some descendant of his, or a future of the man himself? An alien who picked up on a broadcast of Superman from Earth, and so inspired reshaped itself in his image to spread his ‘gospel’ to the stars?

Alternatively, to come back to Earth a little, many, many pulp characters and series were built off the antics and personalities of real people, celebrities getting their own magazines or serials or fictionalized takes on them, so perhaps one way to make a "pulp" take on Superman would be to emphasize a bit more of Superman's real-world roots, trends that inspired his creation directly or indirectly at the time. The Jewish strongman Sigmund Breibart and Shuster's interest in fitness culture, Harold Lloyd's comic persona, the rising "strongman" film genre in the early 20th century, actors Clark Gable and Kent Taylor that supposedly named his secret identity, Clark Kent being a socially-awkward journalist based of Siegel's own school experiences.

Maybe one start to an authentic Pulp Superman, who would still be Superman, would be to just ask the question "What if Superman was a real person and/or a celebrity, and they started making pulp magazines and serials dedicated to him? What would those look like?". You wouldn't even have to restrict it to just a story set in the 1930s, in fact you could even play around with the rise of new mediums over the decades.

This third one is a little closer to some plans I have for my own take on a Superman character, not necessarily what I would do with Superman proper but one of my ideas for a Superman analogue. Superman's a character I'll always associate strongly with childhood and childhood fantasy, and to tap into that I would emphasize the other end of the fiction that influenced Siegel and Shuster: comic strips, in their case specifically Little Nemo and Popeye.

In my case I would bring additional influences from some of the comic strips I personally grew up reading like Monica's Gang and Calvin and Hobbes, and I already talked a bit about Captain Fray in terms of how he’s a Superman character despite being a villain. I guess you could call this one "What if Superman was a public domain comic strip character, stripped of the importance of being the founding figure of a super popular genre or extended universe, and also was kind of ugly?".

He's not "Sloth from the Goonies" ugly, I swear I didn't actually have Sloth in mind when typing out this idea, I've never watched that film nor did I know until now that he actually spends the film in a Superman shirt. That's not really what I'm going for. Visually I was thinking of modeling my take on Superman heavily after Hugo from Street Fighter and his inspiration Andre the Giant, to really emphasize the “circus strongman / freak wrestler” aspect of Superman’s inspiration, particularly in regards to how Hugo’s SFIII version strikes a really great balance in making Hugo ugly and both comedic and fearsome in battle, as well as lovable and even a little dopey (without being outright stupid, like his IV self) in his victory animations and endings.

He's still Superman, he still goes on fantastical adventures to help people, he's still a deeply loving and compassionate soul whose face beams with joy and affection and who's got wonderful eyes and a great smile. It's just that this smile has a couple of mismatched stick-out teeth or some missing ones, and he's got a crooked smile some people take as smug or malicious, he’s got a strongman’s gut instead of a bodybuilder’s abs, his nose is a little busted (maybe he’s had too many crash landings), and his hair is a little wild or greasy, and he doesn't exactly have very good people skills because of how others usually react to him and, y'know, he doesn't get the kind of publicity Superman would get despite doing ostensibly the same things. He’s not deformed, he’s incredibly intelligent and capable, but in comparison to how superheroes are usually allowed to look, he might as well be Bizarro in the public eye.

It becomes a running gag that people tend to assume some nearby fireman or cop was the one who rescued the hundred orphans out of a burning building single-handedly, meanwhile he's getting accosted off-panel by police officers who think he set the building on fire, or think they can bully this weird man dressed funny. He goes to rescue old people in peril and occasionally they yell at him that they don't have any money. He doesn't get asked to lead superhero meetings or teams even though many in the community advocate for just how much he does for the world, he gets censored out of tv broadcasts or group shots (even his face is sometimes pixelated when they do show him), people invite him on talk shows and don't really let him talk or assume they got the wrong guy. He goes to rescue a woman dangling off a building, and then he gets attacked by like three different superhero teams who assume he must have kidnapped the poor damsel. He was the first superhero, he is the strongest of them all still, but he never really gets credit for it, it nor does he even want to. None of this at all stops him or deters him, except for some occasionally funny reactions.

This never really changes for him, he doesn't really earn people's approval nor does he have to, instead the stories, outside of the gags and adventures you’d expect from a comic strip, veer more towards others learning to be less judgmental and him learning ways to better approach people. He isn't any lesser than Superman just because he doesn't look like most people would want him to look and he doesn't have to look like Superman. Really I think we could use more superheroes that don’t look all so uniformly pretty.

Again, probably not a take that would work for Clark proper, but it’s one way I would take a shot at doing Superman with my own

I have other stuff in the works for this character but I'd like to keep them to better work on them for now, but yeah, these are three of my shots at developing a Pulp Superman.

Alternatively here's a fourth idea that's more pulp than all of these: Join up Nicholas Cage with Panos Cosmatos again, or whatever weird indie director he decides to pair up with next, and let them do whatever the hell they want with Superman. Give us Mandy Superman. Superman vs The Color Out of Space. Superman vs Five Nights at Freddy's. Superman’s quest to find THE LAST PIG OF KRYPTON. Anything goes.

[st-just]

Hey, Cuba-anon again with a slightly different question. Less about Cuba, more about foreign policy and ethics in general. I am interested to know what you think about Nationalism and it’s place in the modern world. How should one view their relationship to their country versus their relationship to the global community?

To give my point of view, I think I am a pragmatic nationalist? I am not gung-ho about America because “it is the best nation ever and the president is never wrong, uwu”, but rather because I live here, my parents and grandparents live here, and if something in the world negatively impacts America it will by extension negatively impact me. I don’t think other countries are beneath me or anything, but I also know that the feeling is not always reciprocal. So, to me, putting the well being of Americans first and everything else second is similar to putting on your air mask first before helping others in the event of a plane crash.

Either way, would love to hear your point of view and see how others tackle the question.

(sorry for the delay in response, got halfway through writing this then saved it to drafts and completely blanked on it)

But okay, interesting question, and worth breaking down.

So, you know how through the '90s and early 2000's there was this just utterly overpowering narrative where the last chapter of every history textbook ended with a chapter about how national borders were less and less important and how through the magic of The Internet young people were more connected and cosmopolitan than ever, with the strong implication that the weight of history was pulling us inevitably towards a post-national utopia of frictionless exchange and understanding. Call it the Star Trek ideal.

Hasn't exactly worked out, of course. And to a large degree was bullshit even at the time (or the optimism of academics expecting all of humanity to think like they do, being charitable). But in my heart of hearts, that's still how I think things should work.

But okay, to get a bit less abstract, a bunch of barely connected thoughts-

- Nation-states (and states generally) are, at best, convenient administrative divisions of humanity. They have no value outside the services they provide to their residents, and certainly no rights or moral worth outside that. America doesn't deserve your loyalty or life anymore than the state of Ohio or city of Baltimore do (replace with wherever you live.)

-If you accept the basic idea of humans having equal moral worth (or anywhere close to it), then the entire idea that someone's entire life should be defined by what side of an imaginary line on a map they were born on seems obviously absurd as soon as you start thinking about it?

-Nations - in terms of borders, whose included, what characteristics are 'national', etc - are also both contingent and a great extent artificial, defined by state and cultural elites via a standardized language, a mythologized national history, patriotic holidays, nationalizing and creating traditions and rituals, national education and entertainment, etc, etc. There's nothing primordial or inherent there.

-Unfortunately, people really, really like having teams to identify with, and like excluding people from those teams and/or treating them like shit for not belonging to them even more. (People talk a lot about x or y horrible thing being fundamental to human nature, but I really think this is one of the places where human nature really lets us down.)

-Nationalism is an extremely easy and powerful way of dividing the world between us and them, and across the world there has been massive success using it as a locus for identity formation and to organize populations around basically every sort of project imaginable, from funding public education and welfare to genocide.

-Nationalism is, as mentioned, inherently exclusive - and no matter what it's proponents say, in practice there's always someone within the borders of the nation who doesn't quite fit (in the European context, Romani and Jewish people are the most obvious examples). Cases where the nationalist imagination doesn't perfectly overlap with state borders, or with the identity of some subset of the 'national' population also tends to go, uh, badly.

-However, within the national population, appeals to national solidarity or theoretically shared ideals can often be (to a limited degree) useful in transcending or working to ameliorate regional, ethnic, class, etc divides.

-While it's true that large chunks of the American (Canadian, British, French, Japanese, etc) populace benefit quite a bit from their position in the current international system, it's almost universally the case that what foreign policy elites consider 'the national interest' extends far, far, far beyond anything that provides concrete benefits to the average citizen - I'll just gesture vaguely towards Afghanistan, here. Or World War 1 - and quite a lot of death and misery is inflicted for the sake of a narrow slice of the elite's material interests and entirely meaningless concerns around national glory and prestige.

-To be frank, in specifically America's case, putting the interests of co-nationals first and everyone else second is less putting your own air mask on first and more launching a life boat at half capacity to make sure you have leg room.

-But, again, the fruits of pursuing the national interest really, really aren't evenly spread. Does the US government's tireless and vicious championing of stringent IP laws, regardless of how many needless deaths result from the constraints on the drug supply they create, really do much for the average American?

-Which, to go back to the air mask analogy, brings up the awkward point that very often it's not so much putting your own mask on first as tearing the masks off people around you so you have extras, just in case. How much less is the life of someone on the wrong side of the border worth? Half as much? A tenth? A thousandth? The pursuit of America's national security and national interests has a death toll well into the millions.

-Honestly, even if you don't care at all about foreigners, in terms of domestic policy it's just a useful heuristic to instinctively distrust anyone who relies too much on nationalist rhetoric to justify themselves. I mean, the music's almost always bad and anyone who actually gets invested in the symbolism of their flag is reliably a complete killjoy, but even beyond that - they're just very reliably the worst people. This is admittedly unkind and not always true. But, well, see that quote about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel, which applies wonderfully to both people and organizations. If someone's trying to sell something by wrapping it in the flag, that usually means they don't want you looking too closely.

-Viewing the world through a nationalist framework and caring about zero-sum issues of national prestige also make it incredibly hard to coordinate around issues that don't care about national borders, or are going to disproportionately hurt people without rich and powerful nation-states defending their interests. Like, I don't know, global pandemics. Or climate change.

-Anyway, in conclusion, borders bad, nationalism bad, and also any officially codified 'Patriotic' culture is instantly cringe. Hopefully some of this makes sense.

[maxdemianfangirl]

So...Lilith

So I did not think my responses would be reblogged by @veiledlight-blog and @ohmourningstar but I want to continue the discussion on Lilith which isn’t a reblog chain but instead a full post.

So, why not use Lilith in your practice?

Because you’re not Jewish. Lilith is Jewish. You are not. Judaism is a closed practice for a reason. You aren’t supposed to use the stuff there if you aren’t Jewish. Maybe I have to explain why it’s closed.

Anti-semitism is a big issue. It’s everywhere all around the globe. Closed practices are closed to keep the practice how it is without being colonized, and Judaism is no exception. The Jewish people are often discriminated against. I could go on a full rant on how.

My Sunday school classmates have found nazi symbols spray painted onto walls near their homes. My Jewish friends have been made fun of for being Jewish. I’ve personally been threatened with violence and possible death for being Jewish. It’s caused a long issue with my self identity and my religious beliefs which I still struggle with now. I have often not wanted to be Jewish because I felt so ashamed and bad about it. I didn’t want a Bat Mitzvah in case others found out because I knew telling my friends might bring up a side of them I had no clue about or letting others who would also harm me know about my Judaism. It worsened my mental health which was already not good. And guess what? I was a kid. Not even thirteen when this all happened. No kid should go through that. No kid should hate who they are and what they believe because of others and their hate.

Judaism at its root is meant to protect its people from those who want to harm those who practice it. The whole book of Exodus was about escaping the Pharaoh who enslaved us and finding a new home. We have countless stories about it (the Prague Golem is an amazing one). We have the Holocaust. We’ve been taught by the world to keep closed to ourselves. Its figures like Lilith are not for those who are not Jewish. 

Now, Lilith has become so popular because her whole concept has been changed from what it once was. Lilith was a high figure, not to be messed with and a literal demon who could and would harm babies and their mothers. Now she’s all succubus queen empowering women. While I am very happy that women, especially young witches, can feel empowered, there’s many, many ladies in other pantheons who are more appropriate for goyim (those who are not Jewish). Honestly, if i were a non-Jewish witch I would love Eve and even as a Jewish witch I still love her. Like your free will? Thank her. Stay away from the lady who was written to eat babies. 

Also, young witches are also a big problem when it comes to this. You're naive. Hell I’m still young I’m definitely still naive. But I’m learning. You should be too, learning what you shouldn’t use in your practice because it’s appropriation. 

And I mentioned before in my responses that some people have deities and entities come to them, not the other way around. I’ve dealt with this situation with another involving Lilith as said deity/entity before. Let’s have a hypothetical situation. You see Loki in your dreams. You’re not a Norse Pagan. He talks to you. When you wake up you feel this connection between you and him. You research. You find out about Norse Paganism and since you feel so connected to one of its deities, you study more of it and eventually become a Norse Pagan. People can get involved in certain religions or practices because of such experiences. Why can’t the same be done with Liltih and Judaism?

Now, Norse Paganism is an open practice. With closed ones it’s different, especially with African and Native American practices. But I say the underlying concepts and ideas still apply in concerns to Judaism. You’re free to join us. If you actually really feel connected to her, then I bet you 9/10 you’ll feel connected to Judaism and its concepts as well and end up converting. It’s a long process and yes, it’ll require a lot of work. But if you really want it you’ll do it. Getting into studying magic in itself is a massive undertaking. If you want it, you can do it. And if you want to become Jewish you can do it if you really want it.

I know many young witches who want to work with Lilith will say “but I’m too young I can’t convert!” Well guess what? If you really want it you can sit down and wait and when you’re 18 you can convert. Study Judaism in the meanwhile. Help out your local Jewish community. Be an ally to us. We’ll greatly appreciate it and it’ll help with the conversion. If it’s too much of a hassle to wait, hopefully you’ll learn you made a mistake as your young naive self and have more wisdom for your practice, because we all make mistakes and we all should learn from them. And definitely still stand with us as an ally against anti-semitism! And if you still work with and worship her after all that without the conversion, then you’re just an approperiating asshole. Why she would want to work with you is beyond me. Even being “against anti-semitism” is a futile effort because clearly no you’re not. 

Also, please do not work with Lilith while you’re converting. Wait till after. You made it so far doing it all right only to ruin it by doing that. Plus by doing so you’re honestly just showing 1) you only converted for Lilith 2) you don’t actually respect the rest of Judaism and 3) Honestly you’re just an asshole trying to cover your tracks.

For any witches who do fully convert or those thinking on it: you can still be a witch and do pagan things as a Jew! Look at me. Look at my mom. Look at @will-o-the-witch. Nobody will judge you for it (you’ll find we’re a very open-minded and accepting community). Even rabbis will be open to it and might give you resources! So don’t be scared. We’ll welcome you.

One big thing, don’t just do nothing when you are officially Jewish. Attend services at a synagogue. Help out at your local JCC. Celebrate the holidays. Don’t just turn Jewish because some kid on Tumblr told you to if you wanted to work with Lilith. If you’re just going to ignore all of it when it’s done, then why even bother? It makes you another asshole just covering their tracks. If this is what you’re gonna do, don’t do it.

Also, please note my whole ramble on conversion is meant for people who genuinely feel a powerful connection to Lilith which should extend to the whole of Judaism. Don’t convert or even consider it if you’re only vaguely interested in her and the religion. Research is fine but active practice is a whole new bucket of worms. You’ll waste your time and everyone else’s time with a conversion if you’re not fully involved and into it. Attend or watch (with the pandemic and that) a service or two and see how you think of it. Research research research as well and decide after you’ve done the two. It’ll likely be a no at the end if you are not genuinely interested. Or you may end up genuinely interested in Judaism by doing those things. Just always make sure you’re 100% confident in your choice for this if you’re going to actually convert. It’s a big move and not one to be taken lightly. 

So, TLDR for the whole conversion thing: you either end up realizing your mistake and growing as a person and witch, you reveal yourself as a true asshole, or you end up in a community you’re happy in. Think hard and long. Question your interest and connections. Don’t not get involved in Jewish things if you do convert.

I didn’t expect this to end up mostly about conversion at the end but oh well. I hope this helps or provides some insight. For any questions please just dm or send me an ask. Any anti-semitism or hate will be ignored because I don’t have time for your shit.

[evilwickedme]

ok so to sum up my feelings for leverage: redemption, season 1(a): (long post warning, there’s a tl;dr at the end)

I knew that Hardison wouldn’t be in most of the season due to Aldis Hodge being a busy bee nowadays, but I didn’t realize that meant he’d only be around for the first two episodes. He was sorely missed, not only because of my attachment to him, but also because he’s usually the grounding factor in the group dynamic, and his role as info guy and tech guy was split evenly between two characters who had their own issues.

That said, Hardison is absolutely a highlight of the two episodes he’s in. his speech about redemption was everything I could’ve hoped for (plus, more evidence for the Jewish!Hardison pile...). I wish we’d gotten to see more of his dynamic with Breanna because what we saw was funny and sweet and we don’t generally get to see Hardison taking care of somebody who so desperately needs taking care of. I hope that Aldis Hodge is around for more episodes in 1(b), because what we’re left with feels a little hollow.

Sticking to original leverage characters for now, for the most part the leverage crew still felt true to the original series as characters, even if the show itself was a little bit confused at times. The actors understand their characters and embody them so well that I think one could give them the trashiest script ever and they’d still sell it. Sophie is a particular focus in 1(a) because of Nate’s death, and she’s particularly well written as a result.

That said, I’m super bitter that we saw little to no mastermind!Parker. Parker’s character being given the mastermind role was a big deal and it feels like they’re walking it back because they feel uncomfortable with it. It is eventually given an in-text excuse, but literally in the last episode, and it was not a particularly convincing reason, and in fact contradicted moments from previous episodes (Sophie leaving for a client meeting and ignoring Parker in ep3 comes to mind). It’s frustrating, it makes the end of the original leverage feel pointless, and letting Parker make a decision once in a while is not the same thing at all. The original series repeatedly showed us that while everyone in the team had their strengths, Parker works problems and solves them in unique, interesting ways, and other characters’ days in the limelight tended to be comedic or even failures. It’s a broken promise, and a pretty major broken promise at that.

On a more positive note, Parker’s dynamic with literally everyone was fantastic. She’s possibly the best written character this season. They’ve taken the autism out of the subtext and into the text (although obviously still undiagnosed), and given her coping mechanisms that were taken seriously in the text even when they were played for laughs, which I appreciated. Her attempts to mentor Breanna were sweet, her friendship with Sophie was electric and at times (CRIMES) hilarious, and as usual, she has a fantastic dynamic with Eliot that makes my heart burst. If you don’t think they’re romantically involved, at least acknowledge there’s a life partnership here. They’ve spent the last decade together.

(We’ll get to Harry.)

Eliot isn’t given much arc-wise, which is frustrating since he’s my favorite. He’s being presented as the goal at the end of a redemption arc, ie to keep working at it every day until your soul heals or whatever, and it doesn’t reflect the message they’re trying to convey via Hardison’s speech and our two new characters. He’s got his moments, but I think they under utilized his potential.

Breanna!!! Breanna’s my new favorite, except for Eliot. She’s hilarious, she’s insecure, she’s nerdy and excited in a way that’s similar to Hardison but still distinct in its inherent teenage-girl-ness and I LOVE IT. Unlike the previous series, where Hardison’s “age of the geek” was often a joke played on Hardison, we’re at the point where Eliot and Parker are both right there with him, and so they accept and even appreciate Breanna’s nerdiness. Also, canon gay character? In YOUR Leverage? It’s more likely than you think.

(No, I never thought they’d make ot3 canon on screen. I hoped, but I didn’t think it would actually happen.)

I think Breanna’s the character that will be the most interesting to see grow. She’s got a lot of potential and a list of crimes a mile long (or more). I adore her with all my heart. I want to see her tiktok account.

Harry. Oh, Harry.

It took me a while, but I do like Harry. It took a while, because the narrative positioned him at the same level as Nate back in episode 1 of original Leverage. But in episode 1 we didn’t know the other characters. We had Nate as the POV character, and so we cared about him because we were seeing the world through his eyes. (This is TV Studies 101. I know this, because I took TV Studies 101 in 2019.) In Leverage: Redemption, we no longer have a POV character, for several reasons:

Nate, previously the POV character, is dead.

As it is, by mid-season 3 of leverage Nate was no longer a POV character. This is, coincidentally, the point where the leverage writers realized they had four other characters in the main cast they could do something with, and in-universe, Nate accepted that he was a thief, not a special Good Man.

Sophie is sort of a POV character for the first episode of the revival, but only for the first few minutes. Afterwards, the series settles into the groove of seasons 3-5, i.e., the entire crew is our POV. We know our crew, and we love them as is.

Narratively, however, Redemption insists on positing Harry as the POV character, because it is his redemption we are pursuing most vehemently. And I think they really relied on us already knowing the actor - I’ve never seen him in anything before, so to me he was a completely fresh face and they put almost no effort into selling him to me. Beyond being competent and consistently mildly baffled by the antics of the leverage crew, I honestly don’t know who this man is by the end of EIGHT episodes with him. I have a much better handle on Breanna by the end of 1(a), and I can tell you I knew all five of the original leverage crew better by the end of the first episode of the original series than I do Harry. What’s the name of his daughter, John Rogers. Is he still married. How old is the daughter. Why is none of this worth mentioning. Give him a sense of humor that isn’t reacting to other people’s shenanigans. I’m so frustrated. It’s bad writing.

I did manage to grow to like Harry by the end, but I’m pretty sure this is down to Noah Wyle’s charismatic portrayal of an under-developed character, at least partially. And I never stopped being frustrated at not knowing who this man is at all.

The two highlights of the season are undoubtedly episodes five and six. Episode five was the first time I felt like the episode was more than a collection of good moments between the main cast and mediocre moments between the main cast and also the main plot. The issues with pacing and tone that I suffered through for most of the season were mostly non-existent in ep5 and 6, and at least in episode 5 I attribute that to the pared down cast. They had time to focus not only on our actual characters - Sophie, Parker, Breanna - but also on the case. This is the only client from 1(a) I am going to remember next week without googling it first, mark my words.

Episode six worked for the exact opposite reason - it completely disregarded the client and plot and immersed itself in the characters. Breanna gets a moment to shine, but everybody else gets their bits and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the script that was most fun to write. The characters felt natural, real, and captured the found-family dynamic that’s been missing all season for the first time.

While episode 2 is the weakest episode, I don’t actually have much to say about it. I am disappointed in episode 8. For a mid-season finale, I really expected them to do something. Instead, it was an episode about Nate Ford that copped out of being about Nate Ford (both with fake-Nate and with the new version of him being relayed to us). I would have told the writers to give that energy back to episode 1 and write an episode that’s about anybody who isn’t Harry, oh my God. I know I said I grew to like him but so many episodes were about Harry. He’s the newbie! Why didn’t Hardison get an episode that was actually about him, considering he was only around for two episodes? Why does Eliot have to be the butt of the joke when the theme of the series should directly tie back to him in a much more meaningful way? The last episode parodies their own tagline by saying Eliot isn’t just a hitter, but it deftly avoids noticing that they’ve turned him into nothing more than very muscly comic relief, including in that very episode!

Also, I hated the Marshal. Eliot actively looked uncomfortable around her.

tl;dr

The season took a while, that’s definitely true. But it did find its footing eventually, and by the halfway mark of 1(a) it finally felt cohesive again. The characters were played fantastically even when they weren’t well-written, and if nothing else, the humor landed every time. It still has its kinks and problems to work out, but if you look at it as a brand new show rather than a continuation of one that went off the air over eight years ago, it’s actually doing rather well. I’m choosing to judge it in both lights - according to its own standards, it establishes its identity in episode five; according to Leverage standards, it establishes its connection to its roots in episode six. Either way, I thoroughly enjoyed 1(a), and continue to have high hopes for 1(b).

fic writing will commence in three, two, one...

[justonecitizenoftheearth]

Why the ending of Supernatural is problematic - the meaning of storytelling

Originally, I wanted to write a full essay on this and I still might, but since the university libraries are closed and I have three other big writing projects at hand, one of which is my final thesis, this might take a while. I still want to share my thoughts about this. A lot of this has been said before, but not yet by everyone. Trigger warning for mentions of suicide and homophobia.

The thing that bugs me most about the whole discussion about the ending of Supernatural is people saying ��why do you care so much? It´s just a story.” Storytelling has been a part of human culture for thousands of years, it is something that everyone does and to think that telling stories doesn´t have a function in society that goes beyond entertainment is just plain wrong. Every part of storytelling, be it the actions shown, the words used, the characters involved or the connotations connected with any of the above, have the power to influence the way that the recipients of the story perceive reality. Now let that sink in for a moment. 

To borrow some words from a text about gendered narration: “Narration is understood as a cultural practice that spans genres and media and it is of great significance for gender constructions and gender relations, because stories don´t simply reflect on the perception or imagination of ´gender´, but they create them. From this perspective, storytelling seems to be one of the performative acts that produce and establish identities and gender constructs in the first place.” (Nünning/Nünning (2006): Making gendered selves; translated from german). The important thing to take from this quote is the last bit: Storytelling is an act that produces and establishes identities. And from here, we jump directly into the ending of Supernatural.

I don´t think I have to explain a lot about what happens in the last two episodes of Supernatural. But I want to go into the potential impact. So, in the ending of episode 15x18, we see a male presenting character, Castiel, declare his love to another male presenting character, Dean Winchester. It is made very clear, both by the actual show and the comments of Misha Collins, who plays Castiel, right afterwards, that this is in fact meant to be romantic. Right after that scene, Castiel dies. He not only dies by coincidence, but confessing his love is the thing that makes him happy and therefore, because of a deal he made with the empty, is the thing that kills him. It is not explicitly said if Dean loves him back. In the next episode, this confession is never mentioned, but Dean shows some signs of wanting Castiel back desperately (begging Chuck to bring him back, running up the stairs because he thinks that Cas will be there), but these signs just stop at some point during the episode. In the series finale, Castiel is mentioned twice, but not once by Dean and always in a fleeting manner. It never becomes clear if Dean loves him back and life apparently just went on without him. Not to mention that death has never been a permanent or undefeatable state in the show. But Castiel never comes back, his feelings are never mentioned and neither are Dean´s, although it has been clear in previous seasons that he usually takes it very, very hard to lose Castiel, to a point where he becomes reckless and suicidal (see early season 13). 

There are a few things to address here, but the main thing for me is that it seems like Castiel loses his status as a friend who will be dearly missed as soon as he comes out as in love with Dean Winchester, which is perceived by the audience as being gay (angelic gender discourse aside). And this is a bad message. It´s a really bad message both for people who struggle with their sexuality and see all their fears come true, and for people who have prejudices about LGBTQI+ people and get the message that they are less valuable as human beings. Which is not true, but again: Storytelling is an act that produces and establishes identities. The death of Castiel was only one of the problematic messages. Dean Winchester, who has been coded and perceived as bisexual and who has been a beacon of light for many who struggle with mental illnesses, dies too. Worse, he basically chooses death, which completely destroys the hopeful message of never giving up. Eileen Leahy, a deaf character who represents a group of people who are seldomly represented in media in a positive and empowering way, disappeares from the narrative, too, without an explanation and takes that empowerment with her. There are more examples, but the general idea is clear.

And this is, for me, the main problem with the Supernatural finale. The ending of Supernatural helps to establish hurtful tropes and assumptions. It transports messages that can be very harmful both for people who identify with those characters and see their own very real and important hopes and dreams fall to pieces, and for people who could use to see good representation of diverse characters to question their own values and opinions. 

I hear you asking: “Okay, so bad media representation is bad in an abstract, cultural context. But how big can the impact of such media representation actually be for individual people? And how do you prove that?” So let me ask back: “Have you ever heard of the Werther effect?”

In 1774, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe published the novel “The sorrows of Young Werther”. In this book the main character kills himself after being rejected by the woman he´s in love with. After the novel had been published, a number of young men committed suicide, following the example of the book character Werther. This is not the only case where the depiction of the suicide of a character inspired people who strongly identify themselves with the character commit suicide: “There have been other such “epidemics” [meaning suicides in imitation], such as the rash of suicides in young Jewish females after the publication of Otto Weininger´s Sex and Character in 1903. However, an earlier recorded epidemic occurred in the early 1700s in Japan.” (Krysinka/Lester (2006): Comment on the Werther effect. S.100). 

Long story short, it is a known phenomenon that media has a huge influence on the lives of recipients, especially if they can identify strongly with the characters, all the way to existential decisions like suicide. And in the case of Supernatural, that´s an extraordinarily relevant question.

The character Dean Winchester has battled depression, trauma and suicidal thoughts and tendencies in his journey. Many people who battled the same issues could identify themselves with this character, which is a known fact in the fandom and has been said multiple times on conventions and on social media. Showing that this character accepts death, even though it is questionable if that was necessary, and implying that the only way that he can find peace is by dying is highly problematic. Combined with the number of people who identify as LGBTQI+ and who have a strong connection to the character Dean Winchester, and considering the high suicide rate among LGBTQ+ individuals, death as the conclusion of his character arc is a dangerous message.

To summarize my point, storytelling is an insanely powerful instrument to shape the collective social memory of a culture and it has direct influence on how we perceive the world and other humans. Bad media representation causes real life issues and can be very harmful, both on a personal level and in society, for those who are affected. It lets hypocrites, homophobes and racists stay in their bubble of righteousness and fails to call them out on their bullshit. It is a lethal threat to some. Bad media representation and thoughtless storytelling is dangerous. And this is why I care so much. Because it´s not just about a story.

So, that´s it for now. I would love to hear your thoughts about it! 

And I send love to all of my mutuals, everyone who loves Supernatural and hates the finale because of it, all of my rainbow siblings and everyone who needs it! <3 

[pynkhues]

Hi ! I just wanted to say that I love your writing and I wanted to ask how you go about doing research for all your au's. Thanks!

Hi! Thank you so much, anon! And what a fun question! I could talk about researching all day, haha. My undergraduate degree is actually in history too, so research is something that’s sort of fundamental to my education in a lot of ways. 

To talk about researching is kind of hard though, because while the steps are more or less the same, the approach is really different depending on what it is that I’m writing. For instance, the answer’s pretty different if I’m writing a modern day au where I can shorthand certain things because my readers know what I’m talking about vs an historical au where I really have to think pretty deeply about everything if I want to submerge a reader in a storyworld. 

So I thought it might be fun to answer this question using my two biggest au’s as sorts of case studies! This is probably an extremely nerdy answer, I don’t know, haha, and it talks about both researching and incoporating research into the creative process while writing, so I hope that’s okay! 

Generally speaking, all my writing starts with a question: 

What’s the story that I want to tell? 

This is always a process that tends to vary for me, but I rarely actively ask the question to myself prior to getting ready to write it? Usually it ends up as me sort of thinking over a concept then getting to a point where I know I’m going to write it, and it’s only when I really start to think seriously about that that I ask myself that question. 

In both of these cases, it was pretty typical for me, haha: 

And well, then we get to the next question.

What background do I need to know to be able to tell that story? 

While this question might seem AU specific, it’s something that’s actually a step in everything I write. I was working on the second part of the Christmas fic today, which is technically canon divergent, but has made me think a lot about Beth and Rio’s canon cultural backgrounds. 

I’ve always liked the headcanon that Beth and Annie are Jewish, but disconnected from their heritage (Marks is a traditionally Jewish surname, Annie’s used some yiddish slang before), and Rio’s obviously Latino, but of Mexican heritage if we apply Manny’s background, and wears rosary beads on the show which indicate that he’s Catholic. I wanted to embrace both of those things, so I’ve tried to thread them through the story where it’s appropriate to do so. For instance, there's a scene of a Las Posadas celebration at Sainte Anne de Detroit which required a LOT of research on my part and hopefully reads well! 

The point is that those things felt important to me to include in a Christmas fic about Beth and Rio in the C&C ‘verse because the entire series is about their lives entwining and getting to know each other fully. I want to include detail that feels specific to what we know about them and embraces and (with any luck) deepens our connection to the characters in my fic. 

What I’m getting to in a really roundabout way is that once I have a story idea, I start to think about what I’m going to have to understand if I’m going to do the story justice.

In the case of the pornstar and pirate aus, this couldn’t look more different: 

Annnnnd so on, haha. 

As you can see, sometimes that background research is really clear and straight forward, as it was with the pornstar AU. I looked up how it worked, and because I knew that I wanted it to steer clear of the seedy and toxic parts of porn, I basically researched ideal environments and best practice, put those in place, and then focused on how to get Beth from her suburban home into a legitimate studio. 

The pirate AU was extremely different and much more of a mutable process. Without a clear sense of the era from the get-go, I had a much wider scope to explore when and where the story could take place, and when I realised that dating the story would inevitable force me to contend with parts of history I might not want to (i.e. the lead up to The Civil War), it let me re-shape a world around an era, but not feel entirely beholden to it. 

In that sense, the research process for both of them involved me choosing fantasy over reality – I negated certain realities to focus on the things I wanted to write (I highly doubt you will find a porn set anywhere near as ethical as Thank You Ma’am after all) – but if I can’t do that in fanfic, where can I? The aim still is for there to be enough that is real that you feel grounded in the story even if I’ve taken certain creative liberties for the sake of telling the story I want to tell.

That’s the beauty of research. Once you know enough about it, you can make informed choices about what you use to shape your storyworld, and make it feel authentic even as you’re fictionalising it.

The point of that though is that this background research is so fundamental to the DNA of the story itself, that it can’t even begin to exist without it.

Loose plotting

It’s usually around this point that I’ll put together a loose plot. This is generally pretty thin, but I’ll start to put pieces into a bit of an order. 

The pornstar au is, again, a really easy example of this. Three parts felt right for it, the shooting of the porno itself was always going to be in the final part, which gave me two chapters to get Beth there. I knew she was going to submit herself through an amateur talent callout which I’d discovered in my background research, so the question of it was more around why would someone like her sign up? Canon plot points help – Beth needs money! Fantasy kicks in again, haha – because she and Dean are finally divorcing.

On the other hand, the pirate au is pretty much unrecognisable from it’s first loose plot.

In it, I’d pencilled in Beth travelling on a ship with Dean and the children, pirates boarding, and Rio kidnapping Beth as collateral to help him escape. 

My loose plots change a lot and usually grow in detail, evolve and change shape as I start to ask myself why, and there are a lot of reasons why the pirate au changed so much, but I’ll get to that a bit later. 

The point is, once I have a loose plot, I’ll usually throw some more words down, see what I’ve got, and then get to the part of the research process I like to call: 

Question time

With background research done and a loose plot and some draft scenes written, I hit a much more specific part of the research process where I don’t need to know broadstroke background detail, I need to know the answers to really specific stuff. I usually write a list and try to do it all at once so that the writing process isn’t too much stop-start. I bullet point the answers in my creative doc then too, so the information is right there when I need it.

Again, the questions I asked of the pornstar au and pirate au were pretty different (although there were a few similarities, haha). Some of the questions I asked were: 

This is actually a case where the pirate au was, in a lot of ways, easier. History is well documented and fact checked after all, but current porn industry standards are, y’know. Not quite as transparent, haha. I’ve mentioned it before, but I actually started to fill out an amateur porn application (with a false identity of course, haha), so that I could see the full form and get a genuine sense of the questions they ask, which is hilarious, annnd brings us to sources. 

Sources

In researching, there are definitely things I’ll just Google, but I also like to utilise sources pretty widely. In particular, Google’s not really going to give you a great sense of what - say - the life of a pornstar’s like, but there are some great podcast series where performers talk about their lives in their own words. Similarly, Google searches are great for the cliffnotes of an answer, but don’t hold a candle to era-made drawings, letters and newspaper clippings. 

For the two, I’d probably say my sources looked something like this: 

How do the answers to these questions affect the story that I want to tell? 

Annnd of course, the answers to these questions frequently end up re-shaping and re-framing my story, both directly and indirectly. Originally for instance, I wasn’t going to have condoms at all in the pirate au, because I naively assumed they wouldn’t be invented yet in a loose 1800s-set fic, only to discover that some version of a condom has been around since Ancient Rome (it was made using the bladders of animals! Gross!). 

Other times it’s indirect. The idea for instance in the pirate au to have Beth realise the houses that the men had robbed through certain items they were wearing came really from looking a lot at antique store sites and image archives and seeing how much was custom made for families and individuals. That in turn made me think how for someone who’s ability to think on her feet and observe are her strengths, that could really come into play as a plot point. 

Re-Plotting and Writing

It’s usually around this point that everything comes together and I start to really map out a fic in a firmer, more meaningful way, and also just throw myself into the writing of it. I generally feel like I’ve got the tools at this point in the process, and start to talk to the story in a bit more of an informed way. 

It’s also really where I start asking myself why? and what does this mean for the next scenes? a lot. 

Jumping back to the original pirate au plot, this was really where it pivoted as drastically as it did. There were too many tropes in that premise that I didn’t like. I didn’t like that Beth had no agency in the act that connected her to Rio, I didn’t like the trope of the MOC kidnapping a ‘helpless’ white woman, I didn’t like that Beth would be taken from her children by force and how that would impact any connection her and Rio formed and ensure that a major part of the story would have to be devoted to Beth trying to get back to them.

Immediately that made it a case where Beth had to choose to go with Rio, but why would she leave her family? And why would Rio let this upperclass lady onboard his ship? So she snuck on. So she had to, because Dean lost everything again. Okay, but would Beth just leave the kids with Dean after he’d done that? No way, not with the implications of the time, so who would she leave them with? Annie or Ruby - no, I want Ruby on the pirate adventure. Annie. But what on earth could put Annie in a secure enough position that Beth would willingly entrust her children to her? 

Thus the subplot of Greg wanting to legitimise Ben was born! Which I doubly liked, because it kind of mirrors canon, haha. 

In that case, the research really helped me flesh out a story world that let me explore character storylines in a way that I wouldn’t always do, which is insanely fun to me, haha, so I forever am left hoping it’s fun to read too. 

But yes! In a nutshell, that’s my research process. :-) 

[theprettyinthemundane]

Who’s right about the myths and what does it mean to be culturally Christian? (using Pan as an example)

Thanks to @will-o-the-witch for looking over the part on Judaism!! : )

Disclaimer:

The ancient world was incredibly diverse and ideas about the gods themselves and the myths varied a lot across space and time, which is something I’ll be mentioning again later. I feel like it’s important to have a better understanding about the myths since they’re so prevalent in culture. Essentially, while many people today may tend to think there’s only one “right” way to see the myths or a god this was and is not the case for many faiths. To show this, I wanted to use Pan and his parentage as an example. This also connects to a broader idea: cultural Christianity (which isn’t “bad” or “good”, it’s just something to be aware of). This isn’t about Christians either, just about how cultural Christianity can affect peoples’ perception of other faiths. Whether or not someone is Christian themselves, growing up in a Christian place can incorrectly inform how they learn about other faiths which can lead to misinformation being spread. Sometimes it can (even accidentally) reinforce very harmful ideas that can contribute to bigotry like antisemitism, which we have to fight against!  (Seriously, bigotry sucks! Also I hope the way I word all this makes sense because it’s something I care a lot about!)

So, who are Pan’s parents and who’s right?

Pan is often known as Hermes’ son, even the Homeric hymn to Pan says so (1). Hermes is widely known as the “second youngest Olympian”, which would make Pan among the very youngest if this genealogy is considered (2).

           However, that isn’t the genealogy everyone in the ancient world used to describe Pan. There are many variations on his parentage, and I think it’s worth going over because of how interesting it is. Who Pan’s parents are often changes depending on who you ask or where you ask it. For example, at times he has been called the son of Hermes (1, 3: pg90,151), if you ask 5th century Athenians he is the son of Chronos (3: pg42, 88), he was also known as the son of Zeus and twin of Arcas’ (3: pg43), the great grandson of Pelasgos who was a mortal, bother or foster brother of Zeus (3: pg113) and in Thebes he was believed to be the son of Apollo (3: pg180). He was also called Son of Aix (the solar goat too bright to look at, equated with Amalthea nurse of Zeus) (3: pg100). There were likely other variations too that were lost to history.

           One thing worth noting is that Pan originated in Arcadia and before the Battle of Marathon in 490 BCE, his worship was mainly preformed here and it was only after that battle that his worship spread widely to the rest of Greece (4, 5). So, the myths of Pan from Arcadia are typically older and reflected older views that worshipers held of him. One example is that Pan helped Zeus in the war against the titans and these myths point to Pan’s father being Chronos (or at least placing him before Hermes’ birth):

 Pan has been described as “the source of that "panic" fear with whose aid he helped the gods in their war against the Titans …” and the son of Cronos and a she-goat (3: pg42). In fact, Aeschylus believed Pan to be two gods: both of which had the power of panic and one of them fought against the titans with Zeus (3: pg42) this is interesting because in other myths Pan was able to split up into a swarm of pans, so Pan being a multiplicity  of gods and also a single god isn’t unheard of (3: pg100). Overall, most people understood him to be one god (like we do today), but this just shows how much diversity there was in how people saw him.

And in Egypt he was viewed similarly to the Pan who fought in the war with the titans (as one of the oldest gods):  

“…the Egyptians Pan is considered very ancient and one of the eight gods said to be the earliest…(6)”

Here he was identified with the Egyptian god Min, which may seem a bit problematic to some because otherwise they were revered as different gods (6). However, the practice of identifying gods with other gods (aka syncretism) was not uncommon in the ancient world; Hekate-Artemis, Selene-Hekate, and Selene-Artemis were identified with each other commonly (7, 8). Other syncretisms were between Isis and Demeter, Isis and Persephone, Isis and Aphrodite, and Isis and Venus (9: pg 20). I am not a classics student, but what I have taken away from this is that the identity of the ancient gods is somewhat fluid and many worshipers could have differing and even contradictory views without either of them being “wrong”, even though some likely did argue or disagree to some extent (6). I’m not claiming there wasn’t debate in the ancient world about the gods, there definitely was. What I’m saying is that people did not fight to discredit new or different ideas just because they conflicted with already established ideas. There was a great deal of variation in how people worshiped and most weren’t interested in a one “right way” to do things.

           This isn’t only an ancient practice: it still happens today in Shinto in general and with the kamisama* Inari Ōkami (稲荷大神), who has been portrayed as a group of kamisama, as masculine, androgynous, and feminine (10). So in general this practice of seeing kamisama (or supernatural beings, or gods) in many different ways with acceptance is more common than one might expect (10, 11). This also happens today in Judaism, where debate is very common:

“Nevertheless, the general trend throughout Jewish history is to value debate and not to stifle it, and the history of Jewish texts supports that trend. (12)” Some examples of this are how many Jewish people debate the Talmud (a religious text) and how there are many different sects of Judaism.

          One important thing for people who are interested in this subject and were raised in a Christian culture (even if they aren’t religious) is to not overextend the characteristics of Christianity onto other religions ancient or modern (this is often accidental, which makes it even more important to be aware of it). This is relevant to both ancient and modern religions such as Shinto and Judaism because misunderstanding these faiths can contribute to terrible things like antisemitism and xenophobia (more so with Judaism). So, we need to guard against bigotry like that by being open to learning and changing our opinions when they are wrong both for learning and fighting bigotry. 

          In fact, one scholar noted that even in Arcadia Pan’s cult and myth were not standardized although what I have mentioned before was certainly the more popular (13: pg 63) So, even though Herodotus heard from people in Egypt who worshiped Min, it is not unheard of or unreasonable to understand that some people did understand him that way. To answer the question I asked earlier: each myth about Pan’s parentage has some element of truth to it and none of them are completely “right” or “wrong”. For example, Hermes being Pan’s father echoes the fact that both of them are liminal deities and usually are shown being close to mortals (3: 178).

Conclusion:

          Pan is commonly considered the son of Hermes, however there was immense variation in how others saw him, both across space and time. One specific idea- that Pan helped Zeus in the war against the titans and that he is among the eldest of the gods- would contradict the Hermes genealogy and was prevalent in some areas. This is the case in Egypt where he was conflated with the local god Min. While this could seem confusing to modern readers (both the Min thing and the various genealogy thing), many faiths both ancient and modern do not push for one “right way” of seeing things and this is important to understand when learning about these things.

              Another way of looking at this concept is the idea of cultural Christianity. It does not matter if a person is religious or even Christian, by growing up in a culturally Christian place their assumptions about other faiths are automatically informed by Christianity, which does not reflect most other faiths. This is not good or bad, it’s just something to be aware of and work around so that we can better understand these other faiths. It is especially important to keep in mind today as misunderstandings about religions can contribute to dangerous bigotry like antisemitism, which we must stand against!

*In Shinto kami (or kamisama) are supernatural beings who inspire awe, they are the main object of worship in Shinto. Please don’t call Shinto kamisama “gods”, it’s inaccurate and doesn’t represent how people see them. Due to how Shinto and Japanese mythology are different from Western mythology we need to take care when talking about it to keep it in its original context.

Citations:

1: Hymn 19 to Pan Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Ed. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=HH+19

2: da Costa Martins, P. A., Leptidis, S., & De Windt, L. J. (2014). Nuclear Calcium Transients: Hermes Propylaios in the Heart. Doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.010675

3: Borgeaud, P., & Atlass, K. (1988). The cult of Pan in ancient Greece. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 13: 9780226065953

4: GARTZIOU-TATTI, A. (2013). GODS, HEROES, AND THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, (124), 91-110. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/44216258

5: Haldane, J. (1968). Pindar and Pan: Frs. 95-100 Snell. Phoenix, 22(1), 18-31. doi:10.2307/1087034

6: Griffiths, J. G. (1955). The orders of Gods in Greece and Egypt (according to Herodotus). The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 75, 21-23. Doi: 10.2307/629164

7: MANOLEDAKIS, M. (2012). Hekate with Apollo and Artemis on a Gem from the Southern Black Sea Region. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 62, 289-302.

8: E. Hijmans, S. (2012). Moon deities, Greece and Rome. In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (eds R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine and S.R. Huebner). doi:10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17276

9: Witt, R. E. (1997). Isis in the ancient world. JHU Press. ISBN-13: 978-0801856426

10:  Smyers, K. (1996). "My Own Inari": Personalization of the Deity in Inari Worship. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 23(1/2), 85-116. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/30233555

11: Lya. 2015. Interview with Gary Cox - Inari Faith International (VO) https://www.equi-nox.net/t10647-interview-with-gary-cox-inari-faith-international-vo

12: Mjl. Conversation & Debate. www.myjewishlearning.com. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/conversation-debate/

13: Ogden, D. (Ed.). (2010). A companion to Greek religion. John Wiley & Sons. Print ISBN:9781405120548 |Online ISBN:9780470996911 |DOI:10.1002/9780470996911

[saybees]

Okay, so I’ve struggled with my gender identity literally since I was a kid. I always used to wear boy’s clothes and I would play with the boys and I had only boys as friends and I was A Boy, okay. But I wasn’t.

Once I hit teenage-hood and my best friend came out as a lesbian I started to learn more about sexuality and gender and it was not too long after that that I realized I was not straight and I eventually came out as pan.

Then when I was in uni I was taking a course called Religion and Sexuality. My prof was a Jewish rabbi (he was one of my fave profs and I adore the man and the class was bomb). One day we were talking about gender stuff and the prof had pulled up that comic that went around here for a while about gender. I can’t remember exactly what it was right now, but it was a popular post here and when he put it on the big screen I recall that I had seen it before on tumblr, but I hadn’t really connected with it like I did that day. I shed tears in class that day, quietly, by myself. I realized, at that moment, that I’m not cis.

I had mostly ignored a lot of those feelings, or I tried. One day I decided I was going to go to the mall and I was going to dress like a boy. My at-the-time boyfriend was all for this. He had come out as bisexual in highschool (after we broke up a year later he came out as gay). He took me clothes shopping and I bought two pairs of men’s jeans that I still have to this day, but am too self-conscious to wear. I had bought a cheap binder off the internet and I wore that to the mall. My boyfriend was extra clingy to me that day (because I looked like a boy and he was gay, in case you hadn’t put those things together, but I digress).

Since then I have not played much with my gender identity. I pushed those feelings down because I didn’t think it mattered. I dated another boy for 3 years who treated me like garbage and I never talked to him about gender stuff. He would never understand and he would be nasty to me about it. So I continued to pretend that Yes I Am A Woman.

I have told my current partner that I do not identify as a woman. He is not concerned with it. We don’t talk about it much, but I think about it a lot. I think about what it might be like if I transitioned to male. I think about what my face might look like if I was on T and what my voice might sound like. I think about the body hair I might gain. I think about being free from the constraints of being a woman in society.

My whole life I have pushed these feelings aside as best I can because it would do me no good to come out as trans and transition. My family would disown me and my parents would tell me all kinds of horrible things. They are so painfully Christian and old fashioned and closed-minded. My sister would support me and perhaps some of my cousins might, but overall I would lose a lot more than I would gain. I would never be able to afford a transition anyway. It would be more time and money and energy than I can afford to spend.

Sometimes I hear about how much happier a person becomes after they transition and that losing their family was a price they were willing to pay. Those people are more brave than I will ever be.

It does break my heart that I will forever be stuck in this female form and never get to know what life might be like if I could be the man that I want to be. When I was a child I often wished I could shapeshift into a boy. I had dreams about being a boy. I still have dreams about being a boy.

I don’t know if I will ever be willing to pay the price that transitioning will cost. I don’t know if I could risk losing almost everyone in my life. I don’t know if my partner would stay with me, and I know that if he wouldn’t then I’m better off without him, but still, the thought of possibly losing the man I love is more than I can bear. I don’t particularly like my parents and I know they are not really very good people because of the many biases they hold, but I do still love them and they are my parents and to lose them would hurt more than I care to admit.

I don’t think about all that I might gain from transitioning, but instead think about all that I might lose. Not that I have much to begin with, but that’s exactly it. I already don’t have much. If I lose even more than I already have then I’m even more alone.

I don’t know. I just feel very alone and lost and frustrated. I don’t know what to do or who to talk to. I’m afraid to reach out to anyone about this because I fear judgement. I fear what they might say to me. I don’t know who is a safe person to talk to. I have talked to my bestie Ryan about it a little and he’s an angel and is incredibly supportive of me. I adore him to the moon and back. I just don’t feel super great about the future. Or the present. I hope I can learn to accept myself and accept the gender I was born with, but right now, and for years, it has felt like such a burden.