#of people who were historically excluded

[booksdogsmagicandmore]

Saying “people with uteruses” is NOT erasing women any more than saying “all humans are created equal” is erasing men.

[bigshort2015]

i had to spend all of college getting smug, condescending warnings from comp sci people that my english major was “unemployable” and oh look how smart they are for choosing a major with such good job opportunities. and now graduation as come and gone and me and my strong humanities background, complex reasoning skills, and carefully honed writing ability have a living-wage, fulfilling job on a prestigious career track. and a lot of those comp sci majors are unemployed because the market has shit itself. its almost like the economic future is in some ways a black box and you should do what you like and are good at rather than hanging all your hopes on the assumption that the job market in 2019 will be the same as the job market in 2024

[daisywords]

One of my biggest nitpicks in fiction concerns the feeding of babies. Mothers dying during/shortly after childbirth or the baby being separated form the mother shortly after birth is pretty common in fiction. It is/was also common enough in real life, which is why I think a lot of writers/readers don't think too hard about this. however. Historically, the only reason the vast majority of babies survived being separated from their mother was because there was at least one other woman around to breastfeed them. Before modern formula, yes, people did use other substitutes, but they were rarely, if ever, nutritionally sufficient.

Newborns can't eat adult food. They can't really survive on animal milk. If your story takes place in a world before/without formula, a baby separated from its mother is going to either be nursed by someone else, or starve.

It doesn't have to be a huge plot point, but idk at least don't explicitly describe the situation as excluding the possibility of a wetnurse. "The father or the great grandmother or the neighbor man or the older sibling took and raised the baby completely alone in a cave for a year." Nope. That baby is dead I'm sorry. "The baby was kidnapped shortly after birth by a wizard and hidden away in a secret tower" um quick question was the wizard lactating? "The mother refused to see or touch her child after birth so the baby was left to the care of the ailing grandfather" the grandfather who made the necessary arrangements with women in the neighborhood, right? right? OR THAT GREAT OFFENDER "A newborn baby was left on the doorstep and they brought it in and took care of it no issues" What Are You Going to Feed That Baby. Hello?

Like. It's not impossible, but arrangements are going to have to be made. There are some logistics.

[thepersonperson]

Sukuna’s Loneliness Part 5 (Sukuna Did Nothing Wrong in the Heian Era, Probably)

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

Some notes before we start.

1) Big content warning for in depth discussion of historical slavery and the exploitation of minority groups.

2) I will be mainly using the TCB scans for the manga because of their accessibility. 

3) Raws are from Mangareader(.)to.

(Click images for captions/citations.)

Preface

This is another case of me making everyone suffer the consequences of my fic research. I finally got my hands on 100+ page THESIS on the lives of the lower class in ancient Japan that references multiple peer-reviewed sources. This is my holy grail. Please read all of it. (Thank you Mr. Breann M Goosmann!) Whenever I quote something, I am quoting this source. Most of what I'm summarizing is directly from this source.

Gege may have failed to write a proper backstory for Sukuna, but one was clearly set up using the actual history of that time. So I'm here to infer what's in those gaps using this document.

The Class System in Ancient Japan

During the Heian Era (794–1185) a social caste system called Ritsuryō (you can read more about its application here). The upper class was called 良民 or Ryōmin (good people) and the lower class was called 賤民 Senmin (low people).

The kanji 民 (Min) used for both of these classes can be translated as citizen instead of person. The Wiki page I linked uses the citizen translation. I have decided to change that to people because of 3rd group of people excluded from this system: The 非人 or Hinin (non-people).

Ryōmin included court nobility, citizens, professions that served the court, and tradesmen.

Senmin included servants and slaves.

Hinin included criminals, the deformed/disabled, and those working professions considered "unclean."

The most notable thing about this class system is the mobility between Ryōmin and Senmin. Committing crimes, selling oneself into slavery, aging, paying off debts, and doing good work allowed people to rise or fall from the ranks accordingly. Hinin, however, were confined to their class for the most part because many were viewed as innately "unclean".

Ironically, the best way to understand how this class system functioned is to understand what being "unclean" meant to it.

Uncleanliness (Kegare)

穢れ (Kegare) is a term that can be translated as the following: uncleanliness, defilement, pollution, impure.

晴れ (Hare) is a term considered the opposite for Kegare and can be translated as the following: to clear up, clear skies/sunny, renew, dispel, sacred, pure.

Both of these terms largely inform of how ancient Japan functioned and evolved over time. And though not a black and white dichotomy, it can be generally understood that society was organized in a way to minimize Kegare.

What's interesting about Kegare specifically is its complexity and its impermanence. Rather than being something only bad people have, anyone could acquire and dispel it through the proper rituals.

From the Kojiki, a Shinto document compiled before the introduction of Buddhism, and therefore before the Heian, separates Kegare into 2 categories:

1) Touch Kegare: Defilement through the physical contact with something unclean such as bodily fluids and the dead.

2) Transgression Kegare: Defilement through sinful actions.

"These versions of pollution appear as transient, exorcised relatively simply through misogi (cleansing ritual), seclusion from society, or expulsion of disorder causing elements."

This understanding of Kegare then evolved with the introduction of Buddhism to Japan. (This began in the Nara Era and extended well into the Heian.)

"As Jacqueline Stone explains in her study of deathbed rites and rituals, someone who had become enlightened was considered to have a “pure” mind, while those with a deluded mind were said to have a “defiled” mind. Monastic Buddhists also followed their own codes of “pure” conduct such as refraining from the eating of meat and killing of animals."

The old Shinto understandings of Kegare still carried over with the physical avoidment of unclean things such as dead bodies and blood. However, Buddhism introduced the idea that certain groups of people were innately impure. This includes the Hinin who were uniquely ostracized by this system.

"Hinin, like all outcast groups were bound to their “defiled” status. However, unlike other outcasts, they were also cast as blasphemers of Buddhist doctrine afflicted with karmic illness."

But despite being seen as this innately impure, the religious institutions were closest to them. Of the few places in society willing to tolerate and deal with Kegare, they offered outcasts "positions" where they could beg, display themselves as what happens to people who don't follow religious doctrine, and help with jobs considered "unclean". Since outcasts were considered permanently defiled for the duration of that life, they could touch impure things such as the dead, the sick, and blood on behalf of those avoiding temporary Kegare.

This is exploitation point blank. And though this suggests outcasts had some agency when it came to their survival, it doesn't remove the systemic coercion driving their situation.

Please keep this in mind as I explain why Sukuna did nothing wrong.

Sukuna is Hinin

Though there is plenty of debate on what makes someone Hinin, the general consensus is the following:

"All agree that hinin were considered defiled by others in society and looked at with some contempt. One medieval reference book called the Chiribukuro explains that hinin and other outcast groups “are alike in that they are shunned by human society.”"

But when trying to define Hinin more narrowly, this is the result:

"the term hinin indicated a very specific group of social outcasts isolated from the community and cast aside due to disease or deformation. In his description of hinin, Nagahara explains that those referred to as “kojiki-hinin” were of the lowest social class, physically isolated from their families and communities and therefore excluded from society and economic activities in the medieval period."

Sounds like Sukuna, right?

Sukuna does not refer to himself as Hinin of course, but he does call himself 忌み子 (Imigo).

To quote myself from Part 1, Imigo can be translated as "Abominable Child", "Unwanted Child", or "Shunned Child." None of these translations in my opinion get across how severe Imigo is. It's closer to meaning "child who should've never been born". Like the child's very existence is an affront to god. (If you play Elden Ring the Omen are called Imigo in Japanese for this reason.)

And since we know that Sukuna is canonically a conjoined twin, aka someone with a visible deformity, this all indicates he was considered afflicted with a "karmic illness" that would classify him as Hinin.

This means that from birth, Sukuna was designated as fundamentally unclean and non-human. Within that society, there was no route he could take to remove himself from this uncleanliness and be seen as human.

The following views of Hinin were considered controversial for their time (during the Kamakura Era aka right after the Heian):

"Although Nichiren believed in the karmic nature of certain diseases, he also understood that this kind of disease was not a hindrance to salvation."

"Undoubtedly, Eison envisioned hinin as the physical representation of the Bodhisattva Monju and advocated that compassion and charity were the appropriate response to karmic illness."

And since these controversial views of *checks notes* considering Hinin worthy of compassion and salvation were documented after the Heian, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume Hinin had less advocates during the Heian.

In other words, Sukuna could not exist within human society without being shunned or exploited. The manga itself suggests this has always been the case.

As you can see Sukuna is absolutely miserable performing a ritual someone of this lower class would be responsible for overseeing. All while the people he is helping regard him with disgust. (By the way there is a purification ritual in Nara called Yamayaki that involves burning an entire mountainside. Something Sukuna's flames would be very good at.)

This is also from the same chapter where he's assaulted by Yorozu who assumes he's lonely because he's strong. She's wrong about this. Just like Kashimo who assumes Sukuna cares little for love for the same reasons he does.

Love from one person is worthless when compared to the nonstop ostracization that comes from institutional discrimination. At most, love can offer relief from that pain. It does not eliminate it. I'm saying this as a minority myself. I love my friends dearly and they love me as well, but I still wake up and go about my day with the soul-crushing knowledge that most wish for me to not exist.

Sukuna is not lonely because he's not loved. Uraume clearly does. It's that for circumstances beyond his control, he has been excluded from human society and forced to constantly be around people who exploit him for the very traits they scorn.

Sukuna pretty much confirms this himself when he talks to Mahito.

And you know what? Sukuna deciding to kill all the people exploiting him is completely justified. (Imo, he can even kill the non-sorcerers that discriminate against him as a treat.)

The Cannibalism was Justified too, for the most part.

Another thing to note about Sukuna. He was born starving and he died starving.

Famines and natural disaster were frequent and extremely hard on the commoner population during the Heian. The fact Sukuna was born starving indicates he was of lower birth to begin with since nobility hoarded the resources to avoid starvation for themselves.

One way for commoners dealt with famine was via foraging. We actually see Sukuna doing that when he meets Uraume.

Now there are several very interesting things we learn from this.

1) Sukuna hunts and eats elk/deer. Something massively taboo for the time. Especially since deer were considered sacred animals back then and even to this day.

2) He appears to wander around and owns very little. This is further in line with him being Hinin per the following:

"Clearly, welcome could be revoked at any time, which meant that hinin had to be prepared to leave any location at any given moment. This mobile lifestyle also meant that hinin could only afford to carry essential daily items, such as cooking utensils and begging bowls. The image also reveals that the hinin were never officially invited to stay in that particular area. Instead, they sought out their own locations to set up communities."

3) Despite Uraume being alive and fresh human meat, Sukuna does not immediately see them as food. Nor does he attack them. This, combined with him not taking the dead villagers for eating and preparing deer/elk instead, suggests that cannibalism is not the default for him.

Back to famines, it's also not unheard of for people to resort to cannibalism during them. The logic is simple: An outcast with no support network eats humans to survive.

And given the frequency of death from natural disasters of this time, there’s a real chance he never had to hunt humans in the first place. As Hinin, handling the dead is one of the few jobs he’s allowed to do. So it’s possible the worst thing he did was desecrate corpses in the name of scavenging.

Furthermore, if Sukuna is considered a non-human, is it even cannibalism to begin with? Is a hungry animal evil for eating a human?

I may consider Sukuna human because I refuse to partake in his dehumanization, but it needs to be understood that in the context of the JJK's story, there is not a single character that refers to Sukuna as a human. He's not even referred to as a man. He's either a curse, a monster, or at the very end, a sorcerer. Sukuna has been so dehumanized by others that he himself identifies as a "curse". This is also separate from "cursed spirit", leaving him in his own unique category of non-human.

Sukuna may not see eating other people as acts of cannibalism. After all, they are the ones who decided he was non-human at birth. (And since he is taboo, eating the deer/elk can’t make him more taboo than he already is.)

The following is an excerpt discussing the dehumanization of the starving:

"This strange image is from the Scroll of Hungry Ghosts and the huge emaciated creature depicted is just one of many of the numerous depictions of hungry ghosts or gaki. Invisible to humans, the gaki depicted are the spirits of greedy or jealous individuals karmically punished for their covetous thoughts with perpetual hunger for bodily excretions such as urine or feces."

"The protrusions of the stomach, the red-tinted hair, as well as the greying of the skin, are all genuine symptoms of starvation. In this light, our image appears significantly different. Instead of an invisible monster attacking a man, we have a disfigured and suffering human reaching out for humanity."

The phenomenon of hair during red or blond from starvation is called Kwashiorkor. Gege may be color blind, but Sukuna being depicted with pink or blond hair appears to be deliberate and in line with Kwashiorkor.

Sukuna was probably framed.

The only crimes Sukuna is accused of by Jujutsu Society is murder and cannibalism. As demonstrated by the previous section, there could be a pretty good reason for the cannibalism. But what about the murder?

Another thing that should be noted about Sukuna is how his destruction is largely retaliatory in the modern era. Every kill or kill attempt is made as a response to a challenge that was directed at him first.

When Sukuna first incarnates, Megumi says this to him:

Yuji may be Megumi's target, but remember that Kegare spreads through touch. Sukuna coming into contact with Yuji has made them both unclean. In other words, Sukuna has been informed that in this life, 1,000 years later, where he has yet to do any harm (Those comments about the women, children, and massacre are still sus, but they could've been about the Merger.), he will be attacked by sorcerers no matter what. It's not unreasonable for him to then attack them on sight.

But even when he does that, most of them survive until Shinjuku. During the culling games, Sukuna kills only 2 sorcerers—Ryu and Yorozu. Ryu is given a chance to walk away, but he doesn't. Uro flees and is spared. Yorozu is the sole person Sukuna seeks out to kill and that’s just for his Gojo plans.

And in that month Sukuna has before the showdown with Gojo? Nothing happens. He kills no one and just lounges around. Eating his own corpse is the only cannibalism. He absolutely could have eaten Tsumiki’s body to further crush Megumi’s soul, but he doesn’t.

Then when it comes to the actual showdown, Sukuna kills 3 sorcerers total. It's also very telling that after Sukuna is dead...no one blames him for what happened. They blame Kenjaku, hell even Gojo, but Sukuna isn't mentioned once. Higuruma is convinced that Sukuna was playing around. Kusakabe agrees that Sukuna’s manner of play isn't what they’re super worried about, it's Kenjaku.

The worst thing Sukuna does is Shibuya and that too has nuance to it. The twins aren't killed for fun. Sukuna punishes them for making demands of him. The citizens of Shibuya? Collateral from dealing with Jogo and Mahoraga. (He only really kills Haruta for the sake of it. And let's be real, he deserved that.)

And though the Shibuya civilian deaths are an objectively bad thing Sukuna has done, the fact they are not intentional gives credence to the idea that Sukuna didn't really target them in the past either. This suggests that the "murders" Sukuna did in the Heian were likely retaliation against people challenging him or trying to subjugate him. In other words, self defense.

And if he did wipe out a village, it was probably collateral. But that's kind of the thing. Did Sukuna even kill innocents by accident? The only confirmed kills of the Heian are those of the Subjugation and Military Squads. You know, people who may have attacked him for simply being "unclean".

Who am I kidding he absolutely was attacked for being “unclean”. This is how Angel talks about Sukuna and the incarnated.

She doesn’t care about saving the lives of innocents, all that matters to her are things that she deems evil are purged. Sukuna to Angel is ontologically evil and doesn’t deserve to exist. She targets him more than other incarnated players while ignoring Kenjaku who is responsible for this mess in the first place. She also quite literally did something she deemed wrong and evil so she could follow him into the future and make sure he died. (Move over Gojo Satoru we've got a new minority hunter.)

But it’s not like her attitude is new. Jujutsu Society is notorious for trying to kill things they deem "bad" such as Yuji and Yuta. The striking thing about the wanted executions of these literal children is that the higher ups giving the command make other sorcerers do it for them. Going back to the ideas of Kegare—spilling blood and touching corpses makes one impure so the outcasts are to deal with it. This is the logic driving their decision to coerce Yuta into a binding vow to kill Yuji.

("No matter how many cursed spirits you kill, it's proof of nothing!" <Please take note of how Yuta's good deeds do nothing to earn the higher ups' favor because he's seen as inherently evil.)

Yuta is essentially scapegoated through this manipulation and Yuji initially treats him like an enemy. In the same way characters like Kusakabe blame Gojo for refusing to execute Yuji. Despite the higher ups being responsible for the system functioning this way, the people they’re manipulating bear the brunt of responsibility to other characters.

Who's to say Sukuna isn't also a victim of this scapegoating? His power is comparable to a natural disaster. It would be very easy to blame one on him. After all, the higher ups of the Heian, the Fujiwaras, did exactly that to Uro.

Uro’s situation is much worse than Yuta’s however. She is a military slave. This distinction of military slave is important because unlike domestic slaves, they were allowed to rise through the ranks and be given awards despite their status.

And since Uro is a Sukuna parallel, there is a pretty good chance he was a slave at some point during the Heian.

Slavery in the Heian

A little detail I left out when discussing famine in the Heian. The asymmetrical wealth distribution was so severe during this time that commoners would sell themselves into slavery in hopes of not starving to death.

An example from the Kamakura Era (after the Heian):

"As the article shows, during the three years of the Kangi famine (1229-1232) and several recovery years following, various common people sold themselves, their relatives, and their retainers into slavery in exchange for sustenance. Not only would an amount be given to the seller, but also presumably whoever now owned the sold individual would be responsible for feeding and providing shelter for that individual. In this way, the common populations of Japan created a strategy for survival. There was no certainty that a new owner would fulfill this obligation, but the promise of reprieve from daily struggles was impetus enough for the sale."

Another example from the same era:

"A didactic tale from 1283 tells the story of a small family consisting of a mother and son, who after experiencing severe famine, came to the realization they would soon starve to death. In the hope of saving his mother, the young boy offers to sell himself into bondage, and although the mother disagrees, he goes ahead with the plan."

Yes this is as bad as it sounds, but there is one thing I would like to get out of the way—this slave system did not function anything like the chattel slavery during colonialism. Strangely enough, these slaves had some rights they could fight their owners in court over. They could pay off debts and be set free. They were allowed to be married and have children with those outside of their class. They were not kept in cages or in chains like animals. (Silver linings! /s)

The term used for these slaves was 奴婢 (Nuhi) which roughly translates to “bonded person”. This is more in the contractual sense rather than the physical sense since most were slaves by contract or debt.

This kind of sounds like something binding vows could do, right? Well binding vows share no kanji with Nuhi using 縛り(Shibari) instead. However, Sukuna introduces the concept of binding vows with chains and a handshake.

Sukuna was also born unwanted to a starving mother during a time when starving people sold themselves or their relatives into slavery to survive. This can mean a lot of things for his upbringing and none of them are pleasant.

Here is a summary of what jobs Nuhi did:

"As stated previously, wealthy households frequently obtained slaves and assigned them to various domestic tasks. However, sources further illuminate trafficking of women into the sex trade of Kamakura Japan."

If you noticed, Sukuna's Cursed Technique is perfect for this. He can chop up veggies, butcher fish, till farmland, slash and burn farmland, light fires, and every other non-violent thing a knife and fire can be used for. If he wasn't exploited for exorcising curses, he absolutely would've been exploited for domestic tasks.

And to get to much more depressing line of work Sukuna could've been subjected to as a child, I'd like to discuss why someone as masculine as him would be associated with women's work in the first place.

The Treatment of Women in Ancient Japan

"In Japan prior to the Heian and Kamakura periods, women played prominent roles in religious activities as miko, which was akin to a female medium or female shaman...Since miko functioned as a sacred and integral part in religious communities, issues of impurity did not appear to be an issue. Instead, it was Buddhist ideas that linked the female form to impurity."

With the introduction of Buddhism, women began to be seen as innately impure due to the blood and fluids associated with childbirth and mensuration.

"In the Heian period, Buddhist temples such as such as Enryakuji and Tōdaiji, began barring women from entering the premises due to their defiled nature."

"prominent Buddhist discourse painted women as innately defiled and therefore unable to achieve enlightenment in their own female bodies."

"To be born as an innately defiled female was considered a karmic punishment for past actions."

Though not ostracized as much as outcasts, women were seen as innately unclean in a similar vein to Sukuna. Women were expelled from religious institutions but not the courts, while outcasts were tolerated by religious institutions and barred from the courts. (The courts and temples operated independently of each other, which is why it was possible for noble women to hold power despite being designated as unclean.)

A few months ago I made a joke about this panel:

"Sukuna’s two options were helping Uraume transition or becoming a girl himself."

This is still mostly a joke, but I do think Sukuna identifies more with women than with men. Not that Sukuna is a girl, but that he relates to them and their struggles better. (Keep in mind he does wear a women's yukata and a men's obi at the same time as Yujikuna.)

It's important to note is that this mystery woman here wears the clothes of a Miko or Shrine Maiden/Priestess—the main group of women that was displaced and persecuted because of the new religious doctrine. And like every other group without a proper social safety net, selling themselves into slavery became a survival strategy. They did have other options of course. In the case of Asobi, the Priestess that used to serve the courts, turned to entertainment and sex work after their exclusion.

"Either riding in boats or setting up shop on busy routes to the capital and religious sites, Goodwin argues that these performers were part of independent, possibly female-run organizations, which were not stigmatized until the later part of the Kamakura period. However, as Wakita Haruko has examined, at least some women involved in sexual entertainment were female indentured servants, serving as security on a loan issued by their parents."

In this way, the exact identity of the Miko in Sukuna's path may not matter. She might be a representation of those who accepted their exclusion and did their best to survive on society's terms. If the South choice is meant to represent returning to who Sukuna used to be, then it can also mean the types of struggles Mikos faced are his as well.

However, there was a temple that continued to accept women as followers—the Muroji Temple in Nara. Interestingly enough, this temple contains an inner sanctuary devoted to the founder of Shingon Buddhism, the type of Buddhism Tengen brought over. The mountain this temple is located on is also associated with a dragon spirit. Since there is historical precedent of at least one temple accepting a group of people seen as innately impure, a place like this may have also been a sanctuary for Sukuna.

With the information we have, it's not really possible to know exactly what awful thing happened to Sukuna. The most important takeaway from this is that the suffering he experienced was systemic. He didn't get unlucky with a few ignorant and bad people. This was the direct result of the Heian class system dehumanizing people. In other words, his choices were severely limited.

Sukuna's Other Choice

Going North with Uraume appears to be very similar what he did back in the Heian—taking in an abandoned child and looking after them. What makes this choice slightly different this time around is that the class system that oppressed him no longer exists in the modern era. Yes, he’ll absolutely face discrimination for being deformed, but the complete denial of his humanity at every turn for his appearance is gone. He won’t be treated as untouchable and inherently evil. Legally speaking, he has drastically more rights. Violence won’t be his only option moving up in the world.

I will always loathe that Sukuna had to die to obtain this. And that the “reformed” modern Jujutsu Society refuses to acknowledge the systemic failures of their institution. Kusakabe makes it very clear he still believes the immediate extermination of anything deemed “evil” is a valid way to go about things, even if it means the death of a child…as long as he doesn’t have to do it. (Hence him blaming Gojo for it, just like the higher ups.) After the fight, everyone passes blame around, absolves themselves of any wrongdoing, and decides no one is really at fault.

There were people at fault for this. There are institutions at fault for this. But their failure to confront those things directly is probably why Sukuna rejected Yuji’s offer so viciously. Instead of trying to understand Sukuna on his own terms, Yuji showed him the value of a simple life he was never allowed to have, then told him to die or go back into the cage.

Yuji offered Sukuna pity but no autonomy, which is exactly the way Hinin were treated by the religious institutions of old.

"However, Hosokawa argues that even in veneration of hinin as representations of Manjusri, Buddhist monks continue to discriminate against this outcast group and further perpetuate their low position in society. Hosokawa explains that although activity involved in charitable works towards hinin, Eison cared little about the salvation of hinin because he saw outcasts as divine only within the context of the ritual of assembly. Therefore, all charitable works directed at hinin were merely ceremonial. Hosokawa advocates the view that Eison believed hinin lacked ‘nature,’ meaning they were unable to study or practice Buddhism. Essentially, without nature, they had no ability to escape the cycle of re-birth through the study of Buddhism."

Sukuna even thinks of modern sorcerers like the ones of old. Why would he ever want to return to that?

His goals are simple; eat, play, and pass time until his dies. That’s not really evil now is it? But the people attacking him don’t know that. None of them ever stopped to asked because they assume him existing freely will bring evil.

But what does Sukuna do when he’s given a month-long truce a body he completely controls? He does what every minority group does when they are no longer being actively oppresed—he rests. He doesn’t go around killing or tormenting for fun. With his newfound freedom he secludes himself and lounges.

The fight in Shinjuku is essentially a group of well-meaning people from a corrupt institution beating an outcast that was ostracized by it into submission. Albeit for very good reasons.

Why did this fight change his mind?

If Sukuna is basically reliving past trauma via the Shinjuku fight, why did he decide this group of sorcerers was worth listening to? The simple answer of course is he lost to them. Sukuna believes the strong impose their will and the weak follow suit.

I don’t think that’s quite right. Sukuna used to be weak too. He was a child once. He used to controlled by others stronger than him. By his own logic he should’ve stayed like that, but he trained to get stronger and eventually rebelled.

Since Sukuna is a known liar and hides his feelings under several layers of repression, I’m inclined to believe this statement is also smokescreen. And after reading the Uraume Epilogue I am certain of this. But for now let’s revisit the Shinjuku fight, starting from the battle that made me realize Sukuna is indeed a pathetic sopping wet cat underneath it all—Sukuna vs Gojo.

Sukuna vs Gojo

Something fans picked up on during this fight was how Gojo dogwalked Sukuna when it came to Hand to Hand (H2H) combat. During their fight, Sukuna fails to land a single punch on Gojo’s face. It takes Yuta possessing Gojo’s body and fumbling around in it for Sukuna to finally punch that face. But it’s not just Gojo he sucks at with H2H combat. It’s everyone. Here is a compilation of Sukuna getting hit in the head or face.

This seems to conflict with Sukuna’s ability to learn anything visually. He sees someone do something and he can copy it immediately. This contradiction can be explained by him being Hinin.

Sukuna was considered an untouchable. Educated people were of a higher class and believed unclean things like him were to be avoided at all costs. This means that whatever education Sukuna obtained for himself was always at a distance. Aka watch and copy. And since H2H is mostly taught through body to body contact, Sukuna wasn’t allowed a proper sparing partner outside of the attempts to kill him.

In Part 2, I go over Sukuna’s fraud allegations for his copying of Gojo in particular. This is what lead me to realize that Sukuna spent 6 months plotting to kill a guy he met for 10 seconds. This insane level of pre-planning is also shaped by him being Hinin.

We know for a fact that Sukuna hunts deer/elk and that it’s safe to assume he driven to this because of his Hinin status. If you know anything about hunting, it’s that most of it is playing psychological mind games with creatures that are somehow complete geniuses despite having 2 brain cells. You don’t chase after a deer with a gun, you become obsessed with them. You study every little habit of theirs; when they hunger, what they eat, and where they defecate. Using this information, you set up the bait and wait in hiding for the perfect opportunity to kill them.

This is pretty much what Sukuna does to Gojo. He’s got a hunter’s obsession with him. In Part 4, I explain how this obsession might actually be unhinged courtship, but I don’t lay out why Gojo of all people seemingly means this much to Sukuna. This too can be explained by him being Hinin.

I’ve said it over and over, Gojo and Sukuna are twin flames. They are the strongest, isolated, dehumanized, exploited, self-taught, and really bad at showing affection. Part of this obsession is driven by Sukuna seeing himself in Gojo. He's being ordered around by others weaker than him in the same way Sukuna used to be.

But take note of this “I owe you a debt.” It’s easy to assume he means payback for punching him in the face. However…Gojo did actually do Sukuna a massive favor. He suspended his execution, even if it was primarily to save Yuji.

As I discussed before, Kegare was infectious. You touch something unclean and you become unclean yourself. By laws of Jujutsu Society and by social stigma around Kegare, Sukuna made Yuji equally as impure as himself. And Gojo went screw that, I’m going to look after you. He gave Yuji direct lessons, made sure all his basic needs were met, and treated him like a human. Behind everyone’s backs he hid the final finger, intending to let Yuji live for the duration of his natural life.

To Sukuna, Gojo is someone who would have taken him in and advocated for his humanity under different circumstances. Gojo is someone Sukuna would’ve loved to have as a teacher. And so he copies him. He learns and improves his own sorcery as if Gojo had intentionally taught him.

Through the Shinjuku fight, his experiences within Yuji, and Megumi’s memories, Sukuna gets a taste of what could’ve been. With Megumi in particular, he also gets to see what it’s like to be raised by someone who actually cares. Though not intentional, this is how Gojo teaches Sukuna love. This is why when Sukuna looks at Gojo, he thinks about love.

Sukuna choosing to go with Uraume is him copying Gojo one last time. After seeing that even if you’re isolated, exploited, and miserable, there’s still fulfillment in using your power to make sure someone else doesn’t go through what you did. It may not remove all that pain, but it makes it easier.

And bringing back Kegare’s opposite Hare (晴れ). The kanji used are in the Appare Da (天晴れだ) when Sukuna tells Gojo, “You cleared my skies.” (The Da at the end of this statement means it was pretty heartfelt too.) With this additional context, I think it can be taken to also mean that Gojo made Sukuna feel like he wasn’t impure.

Sukuna vs Yuji

Yuji and Megumi are the ones who ultimately make Sukuna realize that it's worth pursing guardianship regardless of marital status or blood relation. They are the two of Gojo’s students/children that are directly compared to Uraume.

Yuji who is also the same as Sukuna, fills the role of Gojo when he first chooses to look after Megumi. When he prevents Megumi from being sold by his father. Sukuna has seen both versions of this memory.

Since Sukuna is a twin to Wasuke and they are also the same, JJK 265 is Yuji showing Sukuna an entire alternate universe of the normal life he could've lived if he had been seen as human.

And even if he can’t ever be seen as human or live normally, Megumi tells him it’s ok to be improper and cherish someone anyways.

None of these 3 realize how greatly they’ve affected Sukuna. He barely admits to it even in death. But Sukuna had secretly wanted this from the start. The cracks started showing when he first tried to teach Megumi in his special little tsundere shark way.

There's also something to be said about Uraume making it to adulthood in a time where famine was rampant and parents would sell their children into slavery just to eat. Their cursed technique manifested around the age of 6, just like Megumi. The fact they survived means Sukuna was already doing a pretty good job as their guardian.

Other Things this Changes

I'm also looking at Sukuna's fondness towards Jogo in a whole new light. I thought that Jogo wanting nothing of him was the main reason he was favored. But there's more to it that that. It’s that he regards Sukuna’s life as inherently valuable. Jogo believes in a world where Sukuna has the right to exist as he is and how he wants. No one will try to control him or condemn him for something he had no say in.

He also stands out in his devotion to curses of any background. Mahito basically looks like a human, Choso and his brothers are half human, Sukuna is fully human, and Jogo accepts them all no questions asked. He’s willing to fight for people who exist differently than himself.

There's also that added “wanting to be seen as human” element. Jogo’s world is one where Sukuna would finally be seen as human. It’s the same logic that drove Choso to side with the Disaster Curses. He knew how difficult human society would make the lives of his brothers (both of which have 2 faces like conjoined twins), so he chose to fight for a world where that kind of discrimination no longer existed. (Which is why it's really sad he died and no one mourned him properly.)

And yes we can condemn the mass slaughter of humans as the wrong way to go about this. But the core problem is that Jujutsu Society branded them as taboo and in need of extermination or containment. They were driven into a corner and believed violence was the only way out. The only reason Choso was able to change was other sorcerers giving him a chance despite the hurt he caused. Something Sukuna didn't get outside of the offer to be caged.

Am I being too lenient with Sukuna here?

Absolutely. I am extremely biased.

To me at least, the type of "evil" Sukuna is has a lot nuance. It is very significant that someone as strong as him, who could basically do whatever he wanted (theoretically), took one willing servant in a time where slavery was widely practiced. (If you read the linked document, it's kind of up for debate how legal slavery was at the time.) It's also significant that the Heian crimes he was accused of were limited to cannibalism and murder. He's clearly got rules about his evilness and I really like that about him. I wanted to find the logic driving them and I think I've finally struck gold.

This didn't fit anywhere nicely. But consider the following:

"Earthly sins, on the other hand, were those that only affected individuals or forbidden actions, such as rape or cutting living flesh."

Sukuna's CT cuts living flesh. His very CT was considered impure in the Heian. The flames however, are more aligned with purification. It's just a neat little thing that shows Sukuna's duality imo.

He's also really good at archery. And though this is likely because his flame CT is a bow, he probably got good at it to hunt deer/elk on top of temple duties. (Just another way he enjoys corrupting the divine.)

But please remember, the only reason I've done all of this is because of Umineko's...

Without love, it cannot be seen.

[girderednerve]

this post is old but i saw it going around again & it's driving me nuts. this is an extremely bad historical summary? parts of it are outright wrong & the framing is nonsensical, multiple people have chimed in to add "more" information but no one seems to have taken issue with the content of the original post. anyway it's somewhat strange to say that the church 'began forbidding' christians from participating in moneylending (pawnshops are also moneylenders; banking didn't really exist in europe until the latter middle ages), because the text of the bible itself treats loans as a form of charity which should not bear interest between community members. there are a bunch of patristic commentaries to this effect, but there are also a bunch of rabbinic commentaries to this effect! because it was a moral rule for both groups of people, and indeed for muslims! however, to lend money at any sort of scale, you need to charge interest to cover for the risk that you won't be paid back, so there's friction between practical exigency & ethical doctrine. it turns out that there was a centuries-long moral crisis about the expansion of a market economy & the development of finance, which cannot be usefully boiled down to the idea that money was 'unclean' (extremely vague term; also, if the church simply thought that, why were there so many lavish churches & well-heeled priests?). it is broadly true that medieval european jews were excluded, often violently, from fully participating in christian society & that several engaged in moneylending, using the out-group loophole to lend at interest to gentiles. however, a bunch of christians just lent money anyway; actually, most moneylenders in medieval christendom were christians, and most jews did other work. the idea that jews were substantially engaged in early finance was first an antisemitic myth, propagated by christians who were trying to resolve the moral & practical conflict of moneylending by displacing it; then it was a philosemitic myth, recuperated by late nineteenth century scholars who saw in jewish moneylenders evidence of a unique jewish contribution to the development of europe. but it never reflected the daily lives of most medieval jews & we can do better than this, guys, come on

[phoenixcatch7]

Something that always bugs me is that the way fanfic authors have it, there's absolutely nothing between 'beloved son treated and raised precisely the same as the two blood siblings in the blood based ruling lineage' and 'despised and excluded indentured servant psychologically manipulated into having no self worth cut off from any emotional support'. This is, historically, a very, VERY recent binary, as the fostering system outgrows things like orphanages and the idea of the nuclear family is cemented.

There is a whole range of different statuses that exist between those two extremes just in Western society, and more than that outside of what I already know. Wardship, for example. Fostering without adoption. Room and board apprenticeship.

Wwx is older than jc. Him being adopted and legitimised, despite not being jiang, would cause a succession crisis. By rights, as the eldest male (and prodigious and well liked besides) he would be first to inherit in some people's eyes. Being adopted formally in this way would cause those rumours of bastardry madame yu was always banging on about (though I'm never convinced those rumours were as prevalent as she believed). Jfm would lose reputation and status, yzy would take a tremendous hit to her reputation, jc's place as heir would suddenly be cast into uncertainty, coming under intense scrutiny as people suddenly feel as though they had a choice in who to support, and wwx would be forced into a role and potential future he has absolutely no desire for. And by putting him in a position where he could become head of jiang, there's the risk that he might assassinate jc to become the undisputed heir, something impossible if he isn't brought into the family officially. Would wwx ever dream of doing so? No! Not even slightly! But it is a valid fear of the time and culture, jgy just proves that worst case scenario.

Instead of being the child prodigy coming out of nowhere, the son of respected rogue cultivators so generously taken in the jiang and well trained, suddenly he'd be 'proof' of infidelity, both families involved would become scandals, even post-humeously. As jgy and mxy prove, being a bastard is a lower social status than the right hand man of the sect heir, head disciple of a major sect. Now wrapped in gossip and scandal, they would no longer be called the prides of yunmeng.

And then of course that kind of divisive succession would backfire horrendously when lotus pier is burned and jc tries to rebuild the clan while wwx goes demonic cultivator! It would be DISASTROUS for the jiang, jc having lost a lot of his legitimacy and political support, wwx's now filthy reputation being tied even tighter to the clan, reflecting on them so much more. Worst case gossip would be that the jiang as a whole are turning to demonic cultivation. People who wanted wwx for heir would be in a very dangerous position! People who disliked jc as heir would make it even harder for him! Not that the jiangs would/could have predicted the war and the burning of the sect but fr it would have made an already nigh impossible situation even harder and more volatile.

And it's not like wwx is treated purely like a servant! He isn't going round fetching tea and carrying jcs sword and keeping one step behind. He eats every meal with them, he gets pocket money from them, he is openly and pretty universally considered siblings with the other two, and nobody except yzy acts like it's weird, or he's acting above his station for it (though people like the wens and jin aren't above trying to use that 'son of a servant' thing when they're targeting him to get their own way).

Yes, yzy is deeply insecure and blames him, yes during their goodbyes jc gets hugs and wwx gets orders. They're far from perfect. That's the most affection jc ever got from either of them. Jyl got nothing, she wasn't there. Which is pretty representative of her treatment from her parents, ngl. But wwx had support from jc, had sorta paternal support and a safe authority figure in jfm, had maternal support and care from jyl (though she shouldn't have had to, but that's a different conversation). There are actual family servants (yzy's twins) who grew up with her and were trained for it and they act very differently to wwx. For all yzy throws her weight around and jfm is a bit of a doormat, wwx grew up well cared for and well loved.

The fact that the family as a whole was pretty messed up and his part in it made it worse? That's on the family members themselves. His never arriving would not have fixed that family. For wwx, genuinely, there really wasn't anywhere else he could really go once he was orphaned. If he hadn't died on the streets perhaps he could have made it as a civilian working for someone else, dabbling in cultivation because we know him.

The wen and jin would have eaten him alive. The lans? Don't make me laugh. I love a good 'wwx gets betrothed to lwj as teens and he moves to gusu and Fixes Everything' as much as the next person but let's not kid ourselves, canon wwx would have ended up whipped to death or expelled with the way he is. As a visiting disciple he got so many punishments and kicked out not even halfway through the year! Him living there with lwj as adults is due to him 'redeeming' himself through mystery solving and lwj being fully, openly ready to ditch the sect for him. Even then they're constantly on the road night hunting and lwj being the lightning rod of all of wwx's trouble making tendencies (and being 100% down to breaking the rules with him without enacting punishment). They might accept him now but it would not have happened without lwj doing it first (and the juniors all loving him lol).

The nie? Maybe, but that would have left NHS in pretty much the exact same position as jc: inferior second fiddle, unskilled, constantly compared to him. Wwx would be in the exact same position of being pressured to tone himself down and keep his dangerous ideas to himself, and NHS would have double the fear of inevitably losing both his brothers. And of course, the nie aren't exactly as patient and laid back as the jiang sect as a whole, with their hyper aggressive murder resentment swords. The first sign of wwx acting 'outside' of the clans best interests and getting risky and he's going straight down those stairs the same way as jgy.

Tldr: there's more options to raise a kid than full adoption or abused servitude, even today, and though officially adopting wwx would have made everything SO much worse, his other options would not have survived him. He deserved better with the jiangs but frankly so did the blood kids (and the mother and the father). All three were emotionally neglected and adoption would not have fixed that.

This is why I believe that if wwx had been even a day younger than jc everyone would have been so much happier.

[specialagentartemis]

Hey, would you be willing to elaborate on that "disappearance of the Anasazi is bs" thing? I've heard something like that before but don't know much about it and would be interested to learn more. Or just like point me to a paper or yt video or something if you don't want to explain right now? Thanks!

I’m traveling to an archaeology conference right now, so this sounds like a great way to spend my airport time! @aurpiment you were wondering too—

“Anasazi” is an archaeological name given to the ancestral Puebloan cultural group in the US Southwest. It’s a Diné (Navajo) term and Modern Pueblos don’t like it and find it othering, so current archaeological best practices is to call this cultural group Ancestral Puebloans. (This is politically complicated because the Diné and Apache nations and groups still prefer “Anasazi” because through cultural interaction, mixing, and migration they also have ancestry among those people and they object to their ancestry being linguistically excluded… demonyms! Politically fraught always!)

However. The difficulties of explaining how descendant communities want to call this group kind of immediately shows: there are descendant communities. The “Anasazi” are Ancestral Purbloans. They are the ancestors of the modern Pueblos.

The Ancestral Puebloans as a distinct cultural group defined by similar material culture aspects arose 1200-500 BCE, depending on what you consider core cultural traits, and we generally stop talking about “Ancestral Puebloan” around 1450 CE. These were a group of people who lived in northern Arizona and New Mexico, and southern Colorado and Utah—the “Four Corners” region. There were of course different Ancestral Pueblo groups, political organizations, and cultures over the centuries—Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, Kayenta, Tusayan, Ancestral Hopi—but they generally share some traits like religious sodality worship in subterranean circular kivas, residence in square adobe roomblocks around central plazas, maize farming practices, and styles of coil-and-scrape constructed black-on-white and black-on-red pottery.

The most famous Ancestral Pueblo/“Anasazi” sites are the Cliff Palace and associated cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde in southwestern Colorado:

When Europeans/Euro-Americans first found these majestic places, people had not been living in them for centuries. It was a big mystery to them—where did the people who built these cliff cities go? SURELY they were too complex and dramatic to have been built by the Native people who currently lived along the Rio Grande and cited these places as the homes of their ancestors!

So. Like so much else in American history: this mystery is like, 75% racism.

But WHY did the people of Mesa Verde all suddenly leave en masse in the late 1200s, depopulating the whole Mesa Verde region and moving south? That was a mystery. But now—between tree-ring climatological studies, extensive archaeology in this region, and actually listening to Pueblo people’s historical narratives—a lot of it is pretty well-understood. Anything archaeological is inherently, somewhat mysterious, because we have to make our best interpretations of often-scant remaining data, but it’s not some Big Mystery. There was a drought, and people moved south to settle along rivers.

There’s more to it than that—the 21-year drought from 1275-1296 went on unusually long, but it also came at a time when the attempted re-establishment of Chaco cultural organization at the confusingly-and-also-racist-assuption-ly-named Aztec Ruin in northern New Mexico was on the decline anyway, and the political situation of Mesa Verde caused instability and conflict with the extra drought pressures, and archaeologists still strenuously debate whether Athabaskans (ancestors of the Navajo and Apache) moved into the Four Corners region in this time or later, and whether that caused any push-out pressures…

But when I tell people I study Southwest archaeology, I still often hear, “Oh, isn’t it still a big mystery, what happened to the Anasazi? Didn’t they disappear?”

And the answer is. They didn’t disappear. Their descendants simply now live at Hopi, Zuni, Taos, Picuris, Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, Nambé, Ohkay Owingeh, Pojoaque, Sandia, San Felipe, Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, Tamaya/Santa Ana, Kewa/Santo Domingo, Tesuque, Zia, and Ysleta del Sur. And/or married into Navajo and Apache groups. The Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloans didn’t disappear any more than you can say the Ancient Romans disappeared because the Coliseum is a ruin that’s not used anymore. And honestly, for the majority of archaeological mysteries about “disappearance,” this is the answer—the socio-political organization changed to something less obvious in the archaeological record, but the people didn’t disappear, they’re still there.

[darlingofdots]

One of the first things I teach new students in my intro to literary studies class is that there is no definition of "literature" that includes everything you want it to but also excludes the things you don't want, and that no definition is ideologically or intellectually neutral. I use a specific text to teach this because I have to give them an exam at the end of the semester and need specific information for them to recall, but my secret agenda with this lesson is to dismantle the (conscious or unconscious) hierarchy we all have in our heads about what is Good Art. I also find that students tend to have very narrow expectations about what kind of literature they are going to encounter at university, and I don't blame them for that! But it's really important to me that they at least start to understand that every text is worth studying with the same amount of attention you would give to a Shakespeare play. The point of literary studies isn't to make some sort of judgement about quality, it's to understand how we tell stories and process our lives and communicate and how everything we do and experience influences everything else. On this website we sort of make fun of the "his wife has filled his house with chintz" post and of people who read "too much" into kids' TV but we should do this unironically! My main research focus is historical romance novels and people ask me all the time why I think they matter enough to write a book about, and I have to tell them that everything matters. I know a scholar who has worked on Sunday comic strips around the turn of the 19th century and we can learn so much about what people's lives were like from those! Nothing is too small or silly or "bad" to analyse. Understanding how a text works, what it does, where it comes from are all important and incredibly rewarding questions to ask! Every piece of writing is the result of a series of experiences and circumstances and choices that shape it and just being able to understand that is genuinely one of the most important things I hope my students learn from my classes.

[juniperpyre]

misconceptions about real world history and how they affect interpretations of wizarding world history

misconception of magic and witchcraft in western europe pre-modern era

application in HP world building a: inconsistencies in the text b: what this means for magical history (feat: Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco)

1: misconceptions of magic and witchcraft in western europe

there's a huge cultural misunderstanding of how western europe thought about "magic" and "witchcraft" pre-modern era, including the function of the witch trials. laws against magic were specific, and usually involved the practicer causing certain harm or worshipping pagan gods.

folk magic was practiced across cultures and across the centuries by the lower classes. ritualized chanting, amulets, prayers to saints, rituals of protection (sometimes from witchcraft), and medicine all contained elements of knowledge beyond the observable.

most people would have considered something condemnable and witchcraft if the power came from the Devil. other practices that we lump into that specific version of witchcraft would have been miracles, or cunning, or maybe a prayer answered.

it went against church doctrine to believe magic existed in any form for much of this time, but we know that doesn't mean it wasn't still part of the cultures.

the witch trials, which peaked in the early modern era, were simply targeting women. there was a rise in unmarried women, women were marrying older, and nunneries were being shut down due to the protestant reformation. i've spoken before about how the conception of what a woman is was changing rapidly in the early modern era.

2: application in HP worldbuilding

a: inconsistencies in the text

this is why i get irritated when i see people take the persecution of magical folk as presented in HP text at face value. there is no historical basis for this until the early modern witch trials, which is stated in the text to not have a big impact on magical folk's safety.

to quote a history of magic:

"Non-magic people (more commonly known as Muggles) were particularly afraid of magic in medieval times, but not very good at recognising it. On the rare occasion that they did catch a real witch or wizard, burning had no effect whatsoever. The witch or wizard would perform a basic Flame-Freezing Charm and then pretend to shriek with pain while enjoying a gentle, tickling sensation. Indeed, Wendelin the Weird enjoyed being burned so much that she allowed herself to be caught no less than forty-seven times in various disguises."

so, which is it? Muggle suddenly turned on magical folk and scared them into hiding with their persecution, or they were no real threat. we know jkr just needed a reason for the magical world to be secret, but for those of us who choose to take this way too seriously, this is an inconsistency.

b: what this means for magical history

an inconsistency that reminds me of two components of fascism as described by Umberto Eco. one is "obsession with a plot", an obsessive fear that some outside enemy is trying to harm your group, and two, the creation of enemies who were "at the same time too strong and too weak".

not to say the WW is fascist. i think this comparison makes it clear that the mythology around magical history is a way to maintain power and control over the population. the mythology creates a justification for the SoS and later the development of pureblood supremacy, which i view as a form of nationalism.

i don't think we really know what happened to cause the SoS. i suspect it was due to the witch trials, sure, but also because of the same anxieties and upheavals that caused the witch trials. like all things, it was fucking complicated.

we have pureblood propaganda in the supplementary text in the form of the sacred 28. this was published anonymously in the 1930s. no sources. meaningless. who was included and who was excluded was arbitrary. i don't think it's a stretch to say there is more historical myth-making going on in the text. we'll never know bc jkr hates history and is horrible at writing it!

overall, headcanon what you want, world build what you want, but it is useful to identify authoritarian and propagandist elements in the text you're analyzing. people seem to fall for the WW in-universe propaganda often, in pursuit of making blood supremacists more sympathetic. i'd rather we not.

[cynassa]

Why I think the Outlaws were a good idea, if frequently terribly executed and Task force z wasn’t although parts of it were well-executed:

One distinct difference between Bruce and Jason or rather the difference between Bruce and Red Hood is that Jason requires absolution from society for whatever he’s done, whether it’s attacking Cobblepot or the 8-heads-in-a-bag, whatever wrongs he has done is to society as a whole and possibly to the families of whoever he killed. Bruce’s faults are against his family and associates (and he should be atoning to them specifically but we all know that won’t happen).

Jason’s fault is in destabilising society (there’s an argument here that vigilantes do that anyway, but I have points for why it’s different the way Jason did it, I’m not going into that here). I personally think he’s better off trying to make a difference out in the world than in jail (call it community service) which is why the concept of the Outlaws is good. He is atoning to society for what he did while hopefully acknowledging that it’s not zero sum, that he has to get up and keep doing it anyway.

Finally, Red Hood was the moniker he took to take power away from the man who sinned against him. It can now be understood as the moniker he carries to acknowledge his own sins, he does not drop it and simply vanish into a new identity so that he is identified with what he is done and his past - it is saying, to everyone he meets, “this is who I am and what I’ve done, and I acknowledge that you might dislike or mistrust me, and I give you the power to do so.”

Bruce, on the other hand, behaves unforgivably to his family. For a very long time, the narrative seems to behave as if Jason’s transgressions are the same, but by and large Jason’s transgressions are not against the batclan, bftc excluded. Even more so are his transgressions not against Bruce.

Jason should not be atoning to Bruce or to the bat clan. Him wanting their trust and atoning to them (Bruce specifically historically) sets them up as something they are not: capable of forgiving him on behalf of society. It is a travesty to act as if Bruce could or should, and as if once Bruce forgives him that makes him worthy. It doesn’t, as long as Gotham’s people don’t trust him again. AND it is a further travesty because even if they do, they who he has sinned against can’t, and whether or not he believes he was correct to kill them, or even if society agrees that it was okay (because they needed to be stopped) he should know that no one else can forgive him on their behalf. He would probably be okay with that, pragmatically, but he should be aware of it.

The fact that Bruce also seems to be behaving as if Jason’s offences are against him personally, something that he needs to correct, is ALSO a travesty of bad writing. Neither Batman nor Bruce are capable of redeeming him and it's practically a god-complex for him to think he can.

[etz-ashashiyot]

I'm sorry, but actually I'm not over that comment whining about how several of the JVP ritual, uh, practices and bastardization of Judaism are being excluded and how we can't police people's identities.

Actually yes we absolutely can.

[Rant incoming]

Listen, I hate exclusion, alright? Inclusion is always the answer when it comes to people knowing who they are. Every obnoxious identity policing thing in the queer community that has divided us and ripped apart communities has been cruel, counterproductive, given platform to bigots, a distraction from the real issues bearing down on us, and honestly just dumb as a box of rocks. Okay? Okay.

But Jewish identity works differently, because it isn't about YOU. Becoming Jewish is about taking on Jewish culture and religion, a closed ethnoreligious culture, through the narrow path consented to by the collective Jewish people. There IS a path, but it is a highly supervised one. Otherwise it's just appropriation and cultural theft; something Jews have been subjected to for millennia. And if you do legitimately convert you do so because you love the Jewish people - the whole Jewish people - and want passionately to be a Jew for its own sake. You want to join our nation-tribe. You want to join our family.

And the crazy thing to me, the thing that still blows my mind, is that this is allowed! Even after millennia of appropriation, oppression, violence, expulsions, and genocides, Am Yisrael still accepts genuine gerim. It would be so understandable if they had closed the path entirely and tried to shut out outsiders who might bring in danger on their heels even if they themselves were not dangerous.

But they didn't. We didn't. To me this is a miracle, a blessing, and sign of true faith and hope. It is a privilege to be here.

Yet in the same turn, you gotta respect the process! You can't just declare yourself a Jew simply because you feel like it — it doesn't work like that. You can't just declare yourself an Argentinian one morning either without becoming a citizen first, even if you have Argentinian ancestry. And sure, if you do have some of that ancestry, you are connected to the nation, but that's different from being given a vote y'know?

Using a totally unsupervised, totally unsanctioned, brand-new neo-pagan ritual to unilaterally declare your membership in a tribe does not make you one of us. If anything, it proves why you never will be.

Now! Let's assume for a moment that we are referring only to the provably halachic Jews whose connection and backgrounds are beyond reasonable questioning.

You can never really leave the tribe, but you absolutely can apostasize. Plenty of Jews do it. There are plenty of Jews who find that Judaism is not spiritually fulfilling for them but something else is, and they convert out. There are halachic Jews who have walked away from Judaism in order to practice any other number of religions: Christianity, Islam, Neo-paganism, Hinduism, etc.

That is their prerogative, but by doing so they turn away from their people in a serious way and cannot be said to be practicing Judaism. There is of course room for many different types of Jewish practice, but conversely, there are practices that are too far removed from Judaism to meaningfully be considered as such. Otherwise, it's no longer a coherent group identity. And because Judaism is a collective identity, that actually matters.

The Jews as a people have decided that worshipping gods that are not Hashem is not within the realm of Judaism, which is why messianic "Jews" are not practicing a valid form of Judaism even if they are halachicly Jewish and/or have Jewish ancestry. Worshipping Jesus makes you a Christian or at least adjacent. That is a hard boundary.

And yeah — if you change the basic meaning of holidays, if you bring in lots of practices that are brand new and have no halachic or even historical basis, are often highly individualistic, and would not be accepted as Judaism by the vast majority of Jews, then it absolutely falls outside it. If I started practicing a religion that made little icons of Muhammad to pray to once a day and celebrated my ingenuity with pork roast and a nice glass of wine, I don't get to say that I'm practicing Islam.

These people are doing the Jewish equivalent. It is something else entirely. Especially because so many of these practices spit in the face of major tenets of Judaism and go against Jewish values.

To treat it otherwise is to treat it as an absolutely meaningless aesthetic rather than a living breathing ethnoreligious tribe of people who get to decide our own community's boundaries and practices collectively.

And for the naysayers who still disrespect Judaism and Jewish identity and peoplehood so much that they think that they get to define Judaism more than actual rabbis? Look, we can't physically stop you from calling yourself Jewish, but by the same turn, YOU can't force US to recognize you as one of us. You can be mad, but that's the thing about group cultural identities — that cultural group gets to decide whether they claim you or not.

[To be clear: this is not about politics — there are plenty of Jewish non-Zionists and anti-Zionists who are 100% Jewish. This is about this one specific shitty organization and this particular type of behavior.]

[howtofightwrite]

Most traditional boxing instructors will tell you that if the opponent is taller than you, has longer arms than you, or is heavier than you, you're fucked and you need to stay extremely aware and work really hard to compensate for all the advantage he has over you.

In a recent forensic survey, it was determined that most traditional boxing instructors who get into real world altercations die when they're shot in the head.

This is the problem with a lot of these kinds of arguments. No one practices traditional boxing. At least, no one does so publicly. How do I know this? Because traditionally boxers fought in the nude. Yeah, we're not seeing that, are we? Now, maybe they meant bare knuckle boxing, but really no one does that either, these days. Boxing without safety equipment is not a particularly good idea, for fairly obvious reasons.

The only reason the word, “traditional,” is in the ask is to lend their statement unearned credibility. It's an attempt to make their statement sound more authoritative, without offering any evidence to support the statement.

Who said that?

“Traditional people did.”

Okay, but, 'traditionally,' people cleaned shit off their ass with a stick. So, maybe appealing to Hellenic sports isn't the best gauge of how a fight will play out.

Also, I know I just said it, but, who are these authoritative sports guys? Because they're not named. We're simply told, “most,” of them agree. Which starts to sound a lot like “four out of five dentists agree.” Who are these instructors? What do they teach? Why are the currently in prison for indecent exposure? And how much did you pay them to get their uninformed opinion? Salient questions which may need to be answered, if the original question wasn't invalid on its face.

Why do I say it's invalid?

Because boxing isn't fighting.

Boxing is a sport.

Boxing has rules.

Kick your opponent in the groin, or shin, and you're punished.

Step on their foot, push them, and watch them tumble to the ground before you start stomping on them, and you'll be punished.

Throwing your opponent will be punished.

And of course, as mentioned at the top, pulling out a gun and expanding your opponent's mental horizons is extremely frowned upon.

These are all things that can happen in a real fight.

These are all things that do not benefit from increased height or reach.

There is one genuinely accurate statement. In a fight, you do need to be very aware of what's going on around you. Everything else is the product of someone who's been punched in the head repeatedly until the CTEs got them thinking that boxing is analogous to a real fight in any way. (And, statistically, will probably end their career sitting in a jail cell over an aggravated assault charge, because their emotional self-control was completely destroyed by those same head injuries.)

The rules that boxers need to follow are designed to (somewhat) protect the participants. It reduces the dangers of a boxer being killed in the ring. In an observation that I would hope to be self-evident, those rules don't exist in actual combat.

It's also amusing, because the original Asker had to go so far as to single out an ill-defined, “traditional” boxing, because no other martial art they checked gave them the soundbite they wanted.

And, of course, women box. Historically, you could say, “traditionally,” there were even boxing matches between men and women. It wasn't until the 1880s that women were excluded from competitive boxing in the UK. (I'm not sure of the exact date when women were banned from boxing in the US, though that prohibition lasted for less than a century, before the modern return of women to the sport.)

So, either these “traditional instructors” don't know the history of their own sport... which doesn't sound particularly “traditional” to me, or they're full of shit.

My advice to everyone would be, maybe, don't take the advice of a sports coach about how he's secretly an absolute badass in all the delusional fantasies he's cooked up about how he'd like to inflict violence on others because they wouldn't date him.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[unsettlingcreature]

I think Delphine is so interesting because I've always seen her as a character motivated by fear. When we first meet her, she's the last member of the Blades (at least in Skyrim, excluding Esbern who she believes to be dead) in a small town trying to avoid getting found by the Thalmor. There's a chance that if the prophecy of the Last Dragonborn hadn't come to pass, she could have been the last of her order in the province if she couldn't find someone to pass her knowledge onto. And even then, all her knowledge is secondhand.

Until Kynesgrove, she'd probably never seen a dragon. Her predecessors probably hadn't seen a dragon either. All she'd know is what they taught her - so of course, when she finds out about Paarthurnax, she's going to apply the limited knowledge she has. Historical records, the other dragons roaming Skyrim, all of that will combine with what's been drilled into her head - the Blades are dragonslayers and dragons are the enemy, regardless of if the Dragonborn says otherwise.

As for the Thalmor, there was the constant threat of being caught. She's in her fifties now. While she may still be capable, she's not the same 20-30 year old that fought in the Great War or killed an entire group of assassins after her. If the Thalmor came for her now and cornered her, would she still be able to fight them off? If they decided to raze Riverwood to the ground, could she protect the people she's lived the last few years around? Being caught by the Thalmor could be the end not just for her but anyone who is too close to her, as it's likely they'd be questioned or tortured to see whether they were associated with her (and punished/executed if this was found to be the case, regardless of how true it really was).

So of course, when things go to shit, she connects the Thalmor to the dragons. Is it not the most obvious thing for a scared person in the throes of paranoia? The current enemy and the past enemy combined into one. Yes, Delphine is jumping to conclusions and is also completely wrong. Yes, there's probably some hatred and anger bundled up in there. But at its core, I think Delphine is a character that is very, very afraid and her way of dealing with it is to try and find out why it's happening and how to stop it at all costs.

[rosecrystal]

do you think feminism is still needed in 2025? like the word has completely lost its meaning. now it is toxic and all about hating men instead of doing something for women who are truly suffering. i am also a woman who knows how terrible the world is, both men and women are horrible. tbh we can't make our world a better place by hating men, this new wave of feminism is just misandry. ive been listening to candace owens lately and she's absolutely correct about how women's victimisation is harming our society. she talked about how women have taken advantage of the me too movement and put false allegations against men to make tons of money. these women are actually harming real victims who suffer in real life because these women don't care about having morals or anything. this radfem believe all women & kill all men nonsense is whats truly radicalising men to hate all women. most women don't even take accountability for their actions bc modern feminism and girls girl nonsense are influencing them in a very wrong way.

Do we need feminism in 2025? I don’t know in what kind of world you live in, but in mine every woman I know including me has been sexually harassed by a man at least once in their lifetime, according to the statistics around 91% of sexual assault victims are female with nearly 99% of the perpetrators being male, and this is just keeping in consideration victims who have actually come forward with it, because the majority of women who experience sexual assault do not report it to the police (about up to 20% of them do) . As a matter of fact, sexual assault is considered an underreported crime, even though there is a widely held belief that false rape accusations are common. An Irish prevalence study found that 40% of people believed rape allegations were often false, even though international research shows false rape accusations are very rare (with only about 2% of allegations being proven false).

Do we need feminism in 2025? When child brides still exist and women are still lacking basic rights throughout the world? When it’s going to take up to 134 years to fully close the gender pay gap in the most “developed” countries? When women in the U.S. who are pregnant or who have recently given birth are more likely to be murdered than to die from obstetric causes? What about medicine, where historically, medical studies have excluded female participants and research data have been collected from males and generalized to females? (And I’m not even getting into gender + racial bias when it comes to medical malpractice, or obstetric violence, which would need a whole chapter) Where most vaccines and medicines that are in circulation today have only been tested on the average white male? Where even pads, a female product, were tested on with water instead of menstrual blood and only recently were tested with it, revealing they’re not as effective as thought to be? When trans women face disproportionate violence and “honor” killings in the streets and their homes, and even at the hands of healthcare providers?

Do we need feminism in 2025, when a lot of people, you included, think that women speaking out against the mistreatment we have historically received and having higher standards, whether romantically or socially, means hating men? When even women “hating” men means avoiding men altogether or making online jokes, but men hating women translates in sexual and domestic violence and murder? Do we need feminism in 2025 when men getting radicalized by other men & the patriarchy to hate women is still blamed on the women?

While I’m not about “girls girl” privileged woman tiktok feminism, I will never discredit the war women fought and are still fighting all around the world in order to reach liberation and gender equality. I also ask you to look beyond superficial stereotypes and form your own opinions through studying and learning, it is never too late. The women who fought and got killed in fighting for their (our) rights, it is thanks to them that you and me can vote or study or work or have our own bank accounts today. At the very least we should do the same for future generations and keep the movement alive through activism today instead of falling into these superficial thought patterns. I agree about not agreeing with a lot of mainstream tiktok bullshit, then get educated and do something about it, join or create a club or movement instead of staying online philosophizing whether the type of feminism you see around is good or not. Do better. At the end of the day, none of us is free until all of us are free (and I mean every woman from every corner of the world, regardless of race, sexual orientation etc)! And that’s what I stand for and will always keep believing in.

[cipheramnesia]

Right so, a good lot of social theory and practice in the USA, and elsewhere but I'm speaking from the USA, has both historically and in the present granted a privileged position to white voices and experiences, and downplayed or ignored or suppressed black voices and experiences (and a good deal of others, but a significant amount of the work on this whole thing comes from black scholars, activists, etc and we're simplifying a bit for brevity). Classic example is white feminism, probably because it's one where the favoring of white perspectives over black perspectives is pretty easy to notice once you look for it. But the USA being steeped in racism for its whole existence and having an extra special hate-on in the form of anti-blackness, it means being white generally leaves a person with less awareness of privileging whiteness over blackness in theory and practice. Being white means you have to consciously look for your own bias and assumptions, because in the USA you're drowning in the message that whiteness is normal and correct. There's more to it because the forces that make up and drive society are complex and social theory and practice can come from a billion directions, but as a kind of handy dandy self assessment for someone like me, I can try my best to look at what I'm missing and listen to black voices and incorporate that into how I see the world. It's the kind of thing you wish would be taken as given from scholars and activists (although time after time we find it isn't).

Okay, so the point here is like if you say "white feminism" it's referring to a situation where a progressive idea didn't interrogate its own innate racism carried over from people who have white privilege in a society which created white privilege and black oppression as one of several means of keeping power et al to one group and keeping another group disempowered. Like, it's pretty general, but there is a particular purpose in pointing out whiteness in progressive ideas, practices, etc.

What it's not for is slapping "white" into a debate about theory and practice as some sorta argument winning bonus damage, which isn't to undercut the importance of recognizing it as something that affects behavior, but more that when two or more white people are having a fight over something, and they keep calling each other "white" as shorthand "you are white so your argument is invalid" instead of "you have unexamined bias that excludes important parts of society," it kinda... takes away from the whole reason that thing exists. This is not to say "stop pointing out white privilege in theory and action," more to think a second about what it's doing when you use it. Me also being included in You here.

But anyway for anyone who read this far, the issue I've noticed with "white" as a debate pejorative is that white people have so thoroughly incorporated it without understanding it, they'll be arguing over other forms of systemic oppression and straight up tell a black person they're white. Because they didn't stop to examine the other person's perspective or consider their own biases, they just wanted to win, to be the most right. White people, white progressives, have so deeply incorporated "white" as a pejorative that it's almost automatic, unexamined point scoring. Learning that whiteness continues to be used as a way to impose the existing social systems of power and control onto forms of theory and action that are trying to generally resist power and control is a big thing that most activists in the USA need checked. We all do once in awhile. Throwing it around, because you're pissed at someone on the internet, is not doing that introspection, it does not signify someone has made an effort to listen to and/or uplift black voices - it's turning something that has a reason and purpose into an empty pejorative.

It's like, I don't know, like black people were pointing out white privilege in activism and related progressive movements, and then white people got ahold of that, and then turned it into something that they didn't need to include black people's perspective in. Somehow, white people turned calling people "white" into something that privileges white voices.

I am aware that sounds absurd, but when white people call black people "white" to discredit a black perspective, that speaks to the white co-opting of "white," which at its most simple is a request to slow down a single fucking second and consider if you're being racist. I feel pretty weird writing this because I'm white, I try to take time to think about what I'm saying, but there's definitely some things I left out to make a long essay less long, and I know I'm probably missing some things specifically because I'm white. However, when I see discourse that's a parade of white people accusing one another of being white, I have to wonder how they wound up with zero black people involved in the conversation to begin with. Maybe stop passing "white" around like a hot potato and do the introspection and talk to some black people and listen or something, I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there.

[gatheringbones]

[“Trans women are extra. Trans femininity is too much. The first mistake of any trans-inclusive feminism is to confine itself by flattening what makes trans femininity and womanhood different from the generic standard. Championing the inclusion of trans women by saying they are indistinguishable from non-trans women is the product of a scarcity mindset. So, too, is claiming that trans femininity has a stable definition or that trans femininity fits neatly into the trans umbrella, or even the LGBT umbrella. Their assimilation into a whole is always a concession to the fear there isn’t enough to go around, whether it be money, power, language, or even gender. To make trans-feminist demands smaller in unifying through sameness with non-trans women, or with all trans or LGBT people, is a mistake.

In the face of misogyny and the long history of trans-feminization this book has investigated, trans-femininity’s positive value calls for a different accounting. Straight men, gay men, nonbinary people, and non-trans women not only share the world with trans women; they rely on trans femininity to distinguish their genders and sexualities, including through overlap. Gay men’s sexual cultures were forged out of the same historical dynamics and urban spaces as trans womanhood. Non-trans women have long shared experiences of downward mobility under marriage and capitalism with trans women, especially in sex work. Many non-trans women have been disqualified from womanhood on anti-Black or racist grounds in ways that make passing for “cisgender” as laughably irrelevant for them as it is for trans women. Straight men, too, depend on the validation of their desire for trans women’s femininity to consolidate their manhood.

Getting too close to trans femininity, despite its obvious allure, reminds people of their fundamental social interdependence with trans women and trans-feminized people, who have been consigned near to the bottom of most social hierarchies. To hate or dislike trans women, to exclude them, or to attack and scorn trans femininity are all anxious attempts to establish a boundary that violence itself admits never existed in the first place. The trans misogynist constantly confesses her, his, or their inability to escape being in the world with trans women and trans femininity by wishing they could enforce segregation. That’s why trans-misogynist violence is so often cruel or subservient to despotic authority. Trans misogyny must hide its fraudulence through overwhelming force. In truth, trans women are not a discrete, separate group of people. Trans femininity is produced out of the collective social body, and like all manifestations of gender, it cannot be isolated and removed from the whole. For those attempting to avoid that inconvenient truth, not much is left other than to accuse trans women of being exceptions: too feminine, too sexual, and too dangerous to live with everyone else.”]

jules gill-peterson, from a short history of trans misogyny, 2024