#political and legal analysis

[gameshowtrainwreck]

the only difference between the weepy wendsday club and myself is that I've been fucked by the system longer than they have (D or R, both parties fuckin' 𝕝𝕠𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕖 the disabled), and now they're sad because there's a chance they might have to experience it themselves.

i am a reflection of what i deal with as shaped by the environment i occupy. people literally tried to argue that sometimes genocide is acceptable and that doing less than the bare fuckin basic minimum (e.g. 1% of the 43 million student loans forgiven) means we shouldn't criticize or talk bad about my betters otherwise trump will win.

trump still won, you dumb motherfuckers.

trump still won and none of these hateful pieces of shit will learn anything from it. losing to trump once can be a mistake, benefit of the doubt covers that. losing to him twice is a pattern of deliberate, willful decisions by those within the party that everybody else swears will defend democracy yet simultaneously are also too fragile to withstand criticism from someone who would have really liked for her to win. considering how fucking smug everybody had been about it before the election, even i thought harris had it in the bag. turns out that if i handled a fucking surgery the same way harris handled her campaign, i would still be in fuckin prison.

the same group of people who watched a genocide unfold and said nothing are now subject to the big sads. folks, nobody has any reason to be sad about something your candidates willfully chose to do.

if anything, y'all should be getting angry. get angry at the people responsible for this in your own goddamned party. or don't, because gosh we all know how much of a fuckin hassle it was actually giving a shit during the 1st trump admin.

i guess that's why a lot of harris voters are now talking about wishing more hurricanes on the south (even though black people will be the most likely to be hurt by it) or calling ICE on latinos for having the fucking gall to not vote correctly; makes sense to just go full-on masks-off.

that's why i'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and all these sadsack assholes start switching over to full-blown fascism. i would fucking jizz my pants if i was proven wrong, believe you me, but a lifetime of experience and a neurodivergent hyperfocus on world history has told me a lot of people simply ain't got that shit in them.

so fuck em, i will cuss them out if to provide some modicum of consequence for the democratic party failing the people they allegedly care about because god knows a lot of these motherfuckers have been sheltered by their economic status.

[datamodel-of-disaster]

Childhood as Serfdom

An analysis

(Or: I'm on my soapbox, enjoy/suffer the consequences)

I was gonna write a funny post about how being a child is kinda like being a medieval serf, but then I thought about it longer and actually it's not funny. So, be prepared.

People have a lot of resistance to the idea that children, legally and societally, are serfs. There is a visceral unwillingness to put together and see what the whole of laws and customs concerning minor persons actually amounts to, and I actually think that unwillingness is at the root of what makes so much "think of the children/protect the children" right wing rhetoric so effective.

In English, the word "serf" mostly brings to mind medieval peasants, but in Dutch it touches a little more on what it actually is. Lijfeigene, literally translated, "body-owned-one". A serf is not the same as a slave -he is not considered a tradeable good or personal possession, and cannot be murdered or raped with impunity. He can have property and this property is protected by the same laws that protect the possessions of free people. But similarly to a slave, a serf does not have self-determination over his own body, freedom of movement, or ownership of the fruits of his own labour. He is not legally considered an individual person so much as a part of an estate, a condition we'd still commonly describe as "unfree". In the medieval system of serfdom (at least in England) a serf had to pay for a "license" from his Lord to do just about anything, from marrying to repairing a fence. So we can say that medieval serfdom was a system where fundamental freedoms were paywalled rather than fundamentally denied, as in the case of slavery. There were ways to receive permission to do things, but the necessity of receiving (and, in the medieval use case, paying for) this permission was a fundamental aspect of the system.

Now.

Let's entertain this thought. Does childhood meet the criteria of serfdom?

Well.

Children have no freedom of movement.

You perhaps wouldn't look at the permission slip to go on a school trip as something in the same vein as a medieval serf's license to visit a cousin on a neighbouring estate, yet that is exactly what it is. "Where are your parents?", local police in suburbia giving a child a ride home if they get spotted walking alone, "No unaccompanied minors", parents being sued for leaving their kids home alone, the entire concept of "familial kidnapping" and the fact that custody is a matter of legal regulation when a couple divorces. Children's lack of freedom of movement is everywhere if you care to look.

When people get annoyed at "loitering" teenagers, they are contesting children's right to be in public spaces, unaccompanied and without specific purpose or permission.

When people judge parents for their children being a nuisance, they are explicitly acknowledging that the child's movements could be curtailed and controlled by the parents -indeed, they are stating such control to be the correct course of action.

Explicitly and implicitly, our society accepts and supports children not having natural freedom of movement, and places -for better or worse- the responsibility for their movement on the parents. In this, the parents are the Lord of the estate, and the child is a serf attached to this estate. Additionally, as the entire concept of custody shows, we have in fact codified the rights of parents to continued access to any children that were part of an estate that was legally split between them in a divorce.

Children do not have right of self-determination.

Children have precious little protection to their bodily integrity. From birth, they can be circumcised, have their genitals surgically "corrected" if they look too ambiguous to the eye of parents and doctors, have their ears pierced, be baptised or initiated in a religion, have cosmetic surgery performed on them, etcetera.

I am specifically not listing life-saving medical measures here, because yes -children are different from mature adults, and especially babies have no capacity to self-determine in matters of their own survival. We will address this matter of capacity later on. For the purpose of this exercise however, it is worth pointing out all the non-life-saving, non-essential actions that would be considered highly invasive if performed on an adult, yet can be freely performed on the body of a child with zero input or consent from the child itself.

Compared to that, all the less invasive ways in which children are typically allowed little to no self-determination, from choosing their own clothes to eating when and what they want to, seem less impactful. But they add up, and you should keep them in mind.

(And even in the context of life-saving measures; there are some hotly contested legal cases of parents wanting to deny life-saving or life-improving medical intervention to their children for religious reasons, that illustrate just how important our society considers the rights of the parent over a child's body. If these rights weren't considered almost inviolable, there would be no contest between them and a person's survival.)

When we look at what things children can and cannot do legally, the underlying assumption is always that children are in a form of diminished capacity with regards to self-determination, and must therefore be protected from decisions made in this diminished capacity. Hence we have concepts like statutory rape, child labour prohibitions, and laws that protect children from, for example, signing contracts. Most people will agree that children are not adults and do not have the same capacity to make fully informed decisions for themselves. So, it makes sense that there are laws that protect them from being taken advantage of.

In the context of childhood as serfdom it is more interesting to consider the conditions under which these protections can be circumvented.

Let me elaborate:

In the US, parents can take out loans and credit cards in the name of their child -while a child cannot legally sign a contract, a parent can essentially sign for them and saddle a child with debt long before they can even comprehend what that is. In some circles it even gets recommended to take out a credit card in a child’s name and diligently keep a good credit score with it so they can have a better financial start when turning 18.

In 37 states of the US, child marriage is legal if a parental waiver is provided, and in 20 of them there is no minimum age for marriage at all under these conditions. (Look, there it is again, the serf's license!) So while legally a child cannot consent to be married or sign a valid marriage license, a parent can consent for them. For additional context here; the "statutory rape exception" that allowed underage sexual activity if the participants were married was only amended in federal law in 2022, and similar exceptions are to this day still encoded in US military law.

But…Child labour is still actually prohibited, right? Right?

Well… no. Not really.

Children in the US can be employed in non-agricultural jobs from the age of 14 with parental permission, whereas for agricultural jobs the allowed age of employment varies between states and isn't federally determined, but can be as young as 10. Additionally, minors of any age may be employed by their parents at any time in any occupation on a farm owned or operated by his or her parent(s).

There are technically laws about how many hours and in what type of labour children can be employed, yet in practice there are a lot of potential exceptions, and these laws are (unfortunately) continually under attack. Which leads to my next point…

Children do not own the fruits of their own labour

Children can own property, in the legal sense. They can "hold title", as one says, of most items (except motor vehicles in some states in the US -remember this in connection to freedom of movement!), be the beneficiary of an inheritance, and receive gifts.

However.

Holding title does not mean they have the usufruct of the property, nor that they cannot be denied access or usage of it by their parent. More importantly…

In the US, a child does not have an automatic right to their own wages. Let me share you a couple excerpts of law:

Banks v. Conant, 14 Allen 497:

Whatever therefore an infant acquires which does not come to him as a compensation for services rendered, belongs absolutely to him, and his father cannot interpose any claim to it, either as against the child, or as against third persons who claim title or possession from or under the infant.

Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure:

As a general rule any property acquired by the child in any way except by its own labor or services belongs to the child, and not to the parent

Wheeler v. R. Co., 31 Kan. 640, 3 P. 297, 300:

As a matter of law a minor may own property the same as any other person. He may obtain it by inheritance, by gift, or by purchase; and there is nothing in the law that would prevent even a father from giving property to his minor child. A father may also so emancipate his minor child as to entitle him to receive his own wages.

So…

A child can be employed, with an employment contract signed by their parents, and any wages they earn automatically belong to their parents.

That is literally what it means to be a serf.

I am not saying that all children are exploited in the manners I described above. But it is an illustration of the culture we live in, that all these types of exploitation are in fact legal.

Almost any attempt to legally protect children in their developmental condition of diminished capacity leaves loopholes for parental exemptions. The right of a parent to make decisions about a child's life, body and movement is entrenched in our society and legal system.

Which leads to… "protect the children".

What we talk about when we talk about protecting the children

Endeavours to "protect children" come in multiple shapes.

There are the initiatives to improve the legal framework that protects the rights of children - such as the Californian law that forces parents of child actors to keep the child's wages in trust rather than automatically own them, or the amendments that removed the marital exception from the statutory rape law. They can be characterized as movements to chip away at the serfdom status of children, while still respecting the fact that children are in fact a vulnerable class of people who require protection.

Then, there are initiatives that aim to protect the rights of parents over children. Lately, many of those are essentially extensions of children's current serfdom status into the plane of the immaterial. Think, laws that aim to limit children's freedom of movement in cyberspace as well as public space. Laws that dictate what information children are allowed free access to. Laws that limit children's privacy from their parents, under the guise of protecting their privacy from strangers.

This latter category will often wrap itself in a layer of fearmongery anecdotes and moral panic language in order to gain support and justify exerting additional power over children. The reason this works is that to have a meaningful defence against it, someone has to consciously acknowledge the serfdom status of children, and consider it harmful.

Now, most parents aren't actively exploiting their child's labour, racking up debt in their name, or arranging their underage marriage. But almost all parents have exerted power over their child's freedom of movement, denied them privacy, taken their possessions as punishment or simply out of convenience, and forced their will on them in a million unimportant ways where letting the child self-determine would not have had any real impact on their wellbeing or safety. Acknowledging the serfdom status of children means acknowledging all of that as a kind of authoritarian lordship rather than benevolent custody.

Clearly, people have resistance to seeing themselves as -even mildly- villainous in any story, and the urge to defend one's parenting decisions is a strong one. As such, it's easy for someone to defensively think, "This power I have over my children is good, actually. I should have more of it, for their own good." And that is, at its heart, a fascist idea.

We will never dismantle fascist rhetoric as long as we remain comfortable with categories of people who are unfree for our convenience. And that doesn't just include children -I'd posit that it actually starts with children.

(Have mercy on me, I wrote this at work. Will add sources/bibliography later.)

[ctl-yuejie]

just got the summary of the past exams my examiners did...and oh boy...this will be a doozy

[alwaysbewoke]

[joe-england]

Trump's Bombshell Federal Document Indictment

No, really.  It’s that bad.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

American Attorneys who break the law! No worries about that Hollyweird strike because American politicians have it all covered. It is entertaining to watch Attorney Robert Gouveia breakdown this poop show.

[latestnews-now]

President Joe Biden has pardoned his son, Hunter Biden, in a sweeping act of clemency, reversing previous statements about non-intervention. This detailed report explores the legal and political implications of this unprecedented move, the crimes Hunter was accused of, and how past presidents have used their pardon powers. Stay tuned for an in-depth analysis.

[financia012]

Center Responds to Allegations of Rahul Gandhi's Dual Citizenship: Details and Implications

The debate surrounding the alleged dual citizenship of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has once again taken center stage, with a petition filed in the Allahabad High Court seeking clarity on the matter. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has informed the court that the issue is “under process.” This statement has stirred discussions across political and legal spheres, prompting further scrutiny of…

[stjohnstarling]

My favourite alternative news resources for staying informed:

Garbage Day — As an internet user, you are affected by the state of the internet — I’ve long read this newsletter for its analysis of culture through the lens of internet ephemera, but in recent weeks Garbage Day has also become one of the very best sources of breaking news and analysis about the ongoing coup. Even if you subscribe to nothing else in this e-mail, you are certain to discover a variety of journalists and news publishers via this publication (many of the independent journalists linked below I originally found via a link in Garbage Day.)

404 Media — As a reader of my work, you are affected by US anti-pornography laws, which limit freedom of sexual expression online — Sam Cole (ex-senior editor for Motherboard) at the independent news publication 404 Media does the best reporting on news related to these topics of any individual journalist I'm aware of. 404 Media is an internet and technology news platform that was co-founded by four journalists: a writer, two senior editors, and the editor-in-chief of Motherboard.

What the Fuck Just Happened Today? — As a person who lives in the world right now, you are, unfortunately, affected to some extent by US politics — WTFJHT delivers an extremely lucid, concise, once-per-day summary of US political news.

Law Dork — As a person affected to some extent by US politics, it is in your interest to understand US law. Chris Geidner (US Supreme Court expert and ex-BuzzFeed legal editor) is the best source I can recommend for informative, detailed reporting + analysis of, in particular, LGBTQ+ political and legal issues in US news.

Erin in the Morning — Erin Reed (trans rights activist and ex-digital director for TheAmerican Independent) is one of the best sources for all news regarding the fight for trans rights in the US; in-depth coverage of the wave of anti-trans legislation and how people are fighting back. Very difficult and vitally important work.

Notes on the Crises — Nathan Tankus (economist and self-taught monetary policy expert.) This is a finance-focused publication that has pivoted to full-time coverage of Elon Musk's activities within the treasury. It has been one of the first places to break news of Musk's activities and has been cited in the lawsuits against him.

Popular Information — Judd Legum (founder of the now-defunct ThinkProgress.) Highly influential investigative reporting; also publishes the newly-minted Musk Watch, focused on Elon Musk’s activities.

Public Notice — Aaron Rupar (ex-Vox journalist.) Notable reporting on the activities of the US right wing for a progressive audience.

WIRED — Believe it or not, the tech-focused magazine WIRED has been consistently publishing what is universally considered to be some of the best reporting on all breaking news WRT Elon Musk’s ongoing bureaucratic coup.

[ultraericthered]

Old article, but mostly excellent and thought-provoking save for two gaping holes in it that sort of throws me off.

1. I don't know where the talk of "prison abolition" in this piece is coming from seeing as in the series, the only imprisoned character we meet is Cutthroat....who turns out to be someone who very much belongs in prison and out of society, away from people he'd harm. The actual problem is that at the start, he's slated to be publicly executed by the state, something that the narrative posits as wrong, as not even a deranged mass-murdering monster like him deserves that treatment. Akudama Drive is anti-police brutality, anti-death penalty, and anti-authoritarian rule by moral absolutism that leads to retributive justice becoming the law of the land. But at no point does it take a stance against prison sentences for dangerous felons.

2. Mention of "defund the police" at the end. That's a no-no. In fact, the Director's Cut ending actually sort of goes against this, having Apprentice vouch for systemic reform rather than abolition.

“Serves You Right”: The abolitionist condemnation of retributive justice in Akudama Drive

Content Warning: Discussion of police brutality/murder, carceral violence, racism

Spoilers for Akudama Drive

“An attempt to create a new conceptual terrain for imagining alternatives to imprisonment involves the ideological work of questioning why “criminals” have been constituted as a class and, indeed, a class of human beings undeserving of the civil and human rights accorded to others.”

When Akudama Drive first aired in the fall of 2020, it came across as an all-style, low-substance cyberpunk action show most interested in showing off its slick, frantic animation. With a cast mostly of “dangerous criminals” identified by the crimes they’ve committed instead of their names, I assumed its dystopian setting would act as little more than set dressing in a story that ultimately reinforces, rather than challenges, the stigmatization of criminalized people. I have rarely been happier to be proven wrong. Echoing the calls of the prison abolition movement, Akudama Drive delivers a powerful and subversive statement against the criminal legal system, one that goes beyond slogans like All Cops Are Bastards and questions the basis of our conception of justice.

Instead of a more neutral term for criminals, the creators chose the word “akudama,” which literally means “bad guy” or “villain,” in order to critically examine its nature as a social class, one that is distinct from the group of people who have broken the law and carries with it a harsh value judgement. The branding of one as Akudama is the arrest by police. Once a person is handcuffed in public view, thrown into a police car, and the media publishes their mug shots, they are filed under “criminals” in our minds, presumption of innocence be damned. Likewise, one becomes an Akudama the instant the police declare it to be so, before Executioners begin their investigation, let alone sentence them.

Read it at Anime Feminist!

[soon-palestine]

In a statement that was shared with The Nation, a group of 25 HLR editors expressed their concerns about the decision. “At a time when the Law Review was facing a public intimidation and harassment campaign, the journal’s leadership intervened to stop publication,” they wrote. “The body of editors—none of whom are Palestinian—voted to sustain that decision. We are unaware of any other solicited piece that has been revoked by the Law Review in this way. “ When asked for comment, the leadership of the Harvard Law Review referred The Nation to a message posted on the journal’s website. “Like every academic journal, the Harvard Law Review has rigorous editorial processes governing how it solicits, evaluates, and determines when and whether to publish a piece…” the note began. ”Last week, the full body met and deliberated over whether to publish a particular Blog piece that had been solicited by two editors. A substantial majority voted not to proceed with publication.” Today, The Nation is sharing the piece that the Harvard Law Review refused to run. Some may claim that the invocation of genocide, especially in Gaza, is fraught. But does one have to wait for a genocide to be successfully completed to name it? This logic contributes to the politics of denial. When it comes to Gaza, there is a sense of moral hypocrisy that undergirds Western epistemological approaches, one which mutes the ability to name the violence inflicted upon Palestinians. But naming injustice is crucial to claiming justice. If the international community takes its crimes seriously, then the discussion about the unfolding genocide in Gaza is not a matter of mere semantics. The UN Genocide Convention defines the crime of genocide as certain acts “committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” These acts include “killing members of a protected group” or “causing serious bodily or mental harm” or “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Numerous statements made by top Israeli politicians affirm their intentions. There is a forming consensus among leading scholars in the field of genocide studies that “these statements could easily be construed as indicating a genocidal intent,” as Omer Bartov, an authority in the field, writes. More importantly, genocide is the material reality of Palestinians in Gaza: an entrapped, displaced, starved, water-deprived population of 2.3 million facing massive bombardments and a carnage in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Over 11,000 people have already been killed. That is one person out of every 200 people in Gaza. Tens of thousands are injured, and over 45% of homes in Gaza have been destroyed. The United Nations Secretary General said that Gaza is becoming a “graveyard for children,” but a cessation of the carnage—a ceasefire—remains elusive. Israel continues to blatantly violate international law: dropping white phosphorus from the sky, dispersing death in all directions, shedding blood, shelling neighborhoods, striking schools, hospitals, and universities, bombing churches and mosques, wiping out families, and ethnically cleansing an entire region in both callous and systemic manner. What do you call this? The Center for Constitutional Rights issued a thorough, 44-page, factual and legal analysis, asserting that “there is a plausible and credible case that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza.” Raz Segal, a historian of the Holocaust and genocide studies, calls the situation in Gaza “a textbook case of Genocide unfolding in front of our eyes.”

[evilmenenjoyer]

Punishment

Pairing: professor Hwang In-ho x student fem!Reader

Summary: You find a creative, albeit unconventional way to get out of the trouble you're in at university.

Word count: 3k

Warnings: sexual content (minors dni), age gap (legal, reader is implied to be in her early to mid 20s), spanking, corporal punishment, masochism, power dynamics, crying, unresolved sexual tension.

–––

You can tell something’s off the second you walk through the door, when your cheerful “Hello, Mr. Hwang!” is met with a short, courteous “good evening” from the professor.

It’s not rude. It’s not even particularly harsh. It just lacks the usual warmth you’ve come to expect from him, the tiny smile on his lips that always greets you.

Being called to see the strict Mr. Hwang In-ho after class usually meant bad news, leaving most students nervous about what they could’ve done wrong. But not you. You’ve lost count of how many times you stayed in this classroom for hours after class was over, discussing a book he had assigned for class or literature in general. Some days you’d help him grade tests and homework, when you noticed he had too much work on his back. And some days, the ones you cherished the most, you’d talk about things unrelated to class or literature – politics, your interests, your personal life. His personal life.

Saying you were smitten with him was the understatement of the century. You tried not to pay much attention to the crush you developed on him, hoping it would go away if you just ignored it for long enough, but it only seems to be getting stronger.

“You wanted to see me?” you ask, closing the door. It’s generally frowned upon for a student to be alone with a professor with the door closed, but Mr. Hwang never objects. The fact that he’s willing to bend the rules for you pleases you a little too much.

“Yes.” His tone is the same as before, not softening now that it’s just the two of you. He pinches the bridge of his nose, and you wonder what is it that’s got him in such a bad mood, if something happened in his life. “I have something to show you.”

He pulls out a piece of paper, setting it on his desk facing you. You approach, your footsteps slightly more hesitant than usual around him.

“Do you recognize this passage?” he asks, pointing to the highlighted paragraph.

You lean in to read it, an analysis of the similarities between classic English and South Korean literature. You recognize it immediately.

“I wrote it. That’s from my latest assignment.”

“Yes.” He’s still not looking at you, rummaging through a pile of papers. Did he not like the assignment? The thought alone upsets you. You worked so hard on it; not only for the sake of keeping your straight-As, but also to impress him. Maybe even more so to impress him. “How about this one?”

He sets another sheet of paper in front of you, one of the paragraphs highlighted in his same blue marker.

As you read it, your stomach immediately drops. It’s your paragraph, almost word-by-word, with a few differences that are too minor to even count.

“This is from Emily Jones’s paper. I believe the two of you are friends.”

You want to find Emily and strangle her. You told her to change stuff and not just copy from you. Did she really think someone like Mr. Hwang wouldn’t notice? That he’d just let it slide?

“I was the one who wrote the original,” you say. “I didn’t–”

“Oh, I know that. I’m very familiar with your writing style, and Ms. Jones isn’t nearly as gifted as you. I knew something was wrong the second I read it.”

You could play the victim, say Emily copied from you without your knowledge, but you know instantly it wouldn’t work, not with Mr. Hwang’s dark eyes right on you. Even when you’re not in emotional distress, the man can read you better than anyone else.

“I’m sorry.” You lower your gaze in shame. “Emily needed help, and I– she’s in the same exchange student program as I am, I know how much she needed the grade.”

“You could’ve helped her study, not let her copy off you.”

“There wasn’t a lot of time. She came to me last-minute.”

He sighs. “Well, I will have to fail both of you.”

“What?” It should be expected, but the words still sting. He knows how hard you work for your good grades. “But my essay was good.”

“It was great. Worthy of an A, if only you hadn’t helped another student with plagiarism. In fact, both of you should be reported for it.”

“Mr. Hwang, please.” Your eyes are practically begging him for mercy, the pitch of your voice getting ever so slightly higher as your desperation grows. “I can lose my scholarship and my spot at the exchange student program. Do you want me gone?”

You can see something flash across his eyes – regret, maybe, or perhaps that warmth you’ve been missing since you walked in here –, just for a split second before they’re back to normal, even more hardened than before.

“Cheating was your choice, not mine. You should’ve thought of the consequences.”

“What if�� what if I wrote a new paper?” you bargain. “For half the grade. I can get it done in just a couple of days!”

“The paper is not the point. The point is how my most promising student would waste her talent to help a classmate cheat, and betray the trust I put in her.”

The praise doesn’t go unnoticed by you, but it fades away so quickly, like trying to hold on to smoke.

“It was a mistake. One that won’t happen again.”

“I’m very sorry, Ms. ____.”

You watch helplessly as he gathers the papers and organizes them back into a folder, the muscles of his arms tensed. He looks angry, but also upset. Disappointed. That sends you into an even bigger panic than a bad grade, or the potential of losing your spot at this university. It grows inside your chest, overwhelming, prompting you to say possibly the worst thing you could’ve come up with in this situation.

“What if I just take a whooping?”

He pauses. For a moment you’re both silent, still as statues as you process your own words, what you just asked for. Heat rises to your face so fast it makes you dizzy.

“What?”

You want to run away from this classroom. You want to go to the airport and take the next plane back to your country, classes and scholarship be damned.

However, now the words are already out, hanging heavy between the two of you. You can’t just back down, show him you spoke without thinking. You force yourself to nod, praying to the gods of every religion you know that your cheeks aren’t red enough that he can notice it.

“Yeah. It’s a good punishment,” you say. “Why not?”

“Because it’s not allowed. And because we are not in the 1930s.”

“You know in a lot of places corporal punishment in schools is still legal.”

“And Seoul isn’t one of them.”

“Please, Mr. Hwang.” You lower your eyes, trying to hold back the tears that are threatening to rush to the surface. “I know what I did was wrong. But I’d never– willingly betray your trust. I just want to get my punishment, and for things to be back to normal.”

Above all, you want him to stop looking at you like he is right now. Like you’re just any other student, like he doesn’t admire you for your passion and intelligence. Like you haven’t been spending almost every evening after class with him instead of hanging out with your classmates, trying to make friends your own age. Like you don’t mean anything to him.

Mr. Hwang regards you for several long moments. You try to hold his intense gaze, to figure out what he’s thinking, but both tasks are impossible.

“Would you really put yourself through that for a grade?” he asks.

You shake your head slightly, but that stubborn determination doesn’t leave your eyes. “It’s not just a grade.”

His respect for you. The friendship you two have tentatively built over the past few months. That’s what you truly fear losing.

The seconds tick, stretching for so long it feels like torture. It’s so silent in the room you wonder if Mr. Hwang can hear how fast your heart is beating in your chest.

“Okay,” he says finally, sharply. “Fine.”

“Really?” You’re unable to keep the surprise from your voice, from your face, even though you try.

“If you think you can take it.” Something about his voice as he says it, the low baritone of it, sends a new rush of warmth to your body; this time descending directly between your legs. 

“Of course I can.”

No, you probably can’t, and you’re well aware of that. But his words sound like a challenge, and a feeling claws at your chest – perhaps your pride and stubbornness, or simply embarrassment, or something else entirely that you’re not sure how to name – stops you from taking the words back.

“Alright then.” He gives a short nod, and you’re unsure if it was meant for you or for himself. “Bend over the desk.”

Why is it that a simple order for him makes your insides twitch like you’re about to pass out? Your legs shake as you take a step closer to his desk, looking down at the papers and folders neatly on top of it. Drawing in a breath, you bend your upper body down until your elbows touch the dark wood.

It’s only then that you notice your compromising position. Emily had joked with you about how the length of your skirts had gotten shorter with every visit to Mr. Hwang, and today’s pick was a plaid skirt that didn’t leave much to the imagination as it was. With you bending down like this, you can feel the fabric follow the movement, exposing even more of you to the professor.

The noise of his belt being removed only makes it worse. You shut your eyes, trying not to picture him letting his pants drop to the floor, trying not to think about how much you wish this is what was happening.

“Are you ready?” he asks, giving you one last chance to back down. You should take it.

You shut your eyes and nod your head. "Yes."

There’s a whistle in the air, and you let out a gasp as the first blow lands across your ass. Fuck. You’d seen it coming, and the fabric of the skirt absorbed much of the impact, but it still spreads the first hints of pain over your skin. Another blow directly under the first one, exactly where it should be. You clench your jaw, your mind flying back to childhood memories, to the last spanking you received at eleven years old – well over a decade ago, and yet you feel much more helpless now, a third blow of the belt making you jump in your spot.

The next one breaks the pattern, hitting on a diagonal angle right on top of the other three. It’s harder than the others too, sharper, slicing even deeper into your already stinging skin. You cry out, unable to hold it back, unable to catch your breath in time not to cry out again when the belt comes down on your ass one more time.

He sets a rhythm of harsh, punishing blows. They’re precise and calculated, deliberate, like he really means each and every one of them. Of course he does – when Professor Hwang sets his mind to something, he doesn’t quit until the job is done, down to the littlest details. And right now, he seems intent on making sure no spot of your ass is left untouched by the belt. He gradually picks up speed, until you’re unsure when one strike ends and the next begins.

It fucking hurts. It hurts so bad you don’t even find it in yourself to be embarrassed when the fabric of your skirt slides up and out of the way, leaving your bottom and your underwear exposed to him.

The pain is even worse when the leather belt makes contact with your bare skin; sharp and blazing hot, like he’s setting fire to you. You’ve bitten the inside of your lip hard enough to draw blood, but that doesn’t stop the sounds being ripped out of you, whimpers and cries and something that sounds way too close to Mr. Hwang’s name.

He pauses, his breaths heavy behind you. You collapse against the desk, elbows no longer strong enough to keep you propped upwards. With your ear pressed against the surface, you can hear your own heard that thumps wildly inside your chest, all your senses concentrated into a single point in your body.

“Do you want to stop?” he asks.

His tone isn’t judgmental, but your mind still echoes his words from just a few minutes ago: if you think you can take it. You’re not giving up now.

“I’m fine,” you snap, way too breathless for the statement to have any real impact, although your stubborn defiance is certainly there. “Just fucking finish it.”

His hand, warm and broad, finds its way in between your shoulder blades. He leans in, puts his weight into it, keeping you firmly pressed down over the desk. For some reason, your instinct isn’t to squirm away but to push into the heat, but you can’t move much one way or another under his grip.

“Then stay still.” His voice is so much closer to you, making you wish you had the strength to lift your head up and chase for his eyes.

Half a breath after the words are out, he strikes you again; this time with his other hand.

You sob and buck against the desk, the legs of it scraping against the floor. You can’t tell if his palm is better or worse than the belt. The pain isn’t as biting, but it’s broader and warmer, sending more fire into your already burning flesh. And it’s then that you realize you’re pushing into it, arching your back as best as you can, tilting your ass up to meet the assault. Basically offering it on a silver platter, presenting it to him and his ferocious, punishing hand.

And you’re wet.

You can feel it soak your panties, so much that you’re sure Mr. Hwang will be able to see a wet spot on them if he looks for it. Humiliated tears rise to your eyes, leaving you in a tumbling sob, desperately seeking relief but not wanting this to ever stop.

“M-Mr. Hwang.” The next strike hits you way too close to your core, the tiniest bit of friction that feels like heaven. You hiccup another cry, tears falling down and pooling over the smooth surface of the desk. “Please, I–”

You don’t even know what you’re pleading for anymore, but the word continues to leave your lips, over and over. His fingers come down hard over the sensitive spot where your ass meets your thighs, and you wonder if he knows what he’s doing to you – if he knows you’re on the brink of an orgasm just from this, that if he touches over you even for one second it might be enough to push you over the edge. He keeps going, alternates between one cheek and the other, his open palm covering as much skin as it can.

His hand travels down lower once again, warming your thighs to the same blistering heat as your ass. “God,” you breathe. You hadn’t noticed how hard your fingers are gripping the edges of the desk, your knuckles white, as if holding on could somehow save you.

He pauses again, and you can’t tell if you’re relieved or disappointed. You feel yourself throb inside your panties, wet and hot and neglected.

“Count them,” he orders.

You wince as his hand hits a sore spot, on top of skin that had already been hit too many times. “O-one.”

He lashes again and again.

“Two, three– fuck! F-four– fuck, please. I can’t, I can’t count anymore.” You’re unable to think straight at this point, unable to do anything other than cry and feel and want.

“God,” he sounds wrecked as well and you can’t understand why; you’re the one who feels as if you’re fighting for your life. He watches you, and you can’t decide if you’re embarrassed at your own state, the tears on your face and your ass that’s probably bright red by now, exposed to the professor, or if you’re too desperate for a release to think about that.

“It’s okay.” His hand lands on your hip, but doesn’t strike you again. It only caresses, his touch feather-light and delicate, a stark contrast to the harsh blows. “You did good.”

The light touch is enough to make you moan, breathing a deep sigh of relief. His touch feels unintentional, like he’s mesmerized, not fully aware of what he’s doing as he simply as he tries to ease the sting from the spanking. But when he drops down to press a kiss to the back of your shoulder, his body heat enveloping you – that can’t be accidental.

You lean into his touch as best as you can, and that’s when you feel it; something hard press against your core through layers of clothing, his cock a perfect, undeniable point of heat against you.

Both of you let our a simultaneous moan when you rub yourself back against his length. You want nothing more than for him to split you open, to push into you without a warning, without giving you time to adjust. Not that you’d last a long time, but you’d let him keep thrusting into you, having his way with your body until he was satisfied.

His hand slides under your bodies, inside your underwear.

“In-ho,” you sigh, a weak sound.

The sound of his name seems to pull you from whatever trance he’s stuck in. He stops, fingers just inches from your clit, like he’s only just realizing he’s on top of a student in his classroom. You try to lift yourself up, to rub against him again, but he doesn’t move.

He pulls away from you, and you feel like you could cry again in sheer desperation. Instead, you just stay there against the desk, wondering what the fuck just happened.

After a few moments, he lifts you up gently by the arms, turning you around to face him. He smooths out your sweater, but he doesn’t look at you. Not even once.

“You can go now, Ms. ____.”

You look at him in disbelief – first at his face, then at the tent that’s still very much apparent at the front of his pants.

“But–” you stammer. “Don’t… don’t you want me to–?”

He’s back in professor mode, organizing his papers that had turned into a mess. Still not fucking looking at you. His hair, usually neatly combed back, is now all over the place, and he looks like he’s about to break down himself.

“I’ll take care of the… assignment issue,” he says. “Go back to your dorm. It’s getting late.”

You don’t dare to disobey, even when tears rush to your eyes once again. Maybe it was all just about the assignment to him, and you got it all wrong. Or maybe – the thought hurts before it’s even fully formed in your mind – he regrets everything you’ve done.

It’s a short walk to your dorm, and you’ve never been more grateful that your roommate is not around. You throw yourself into your bed, hissing as your ass lights up in pain. It brings up all the memories back at once; the crack of the belt in the air, his warm hand stinging on your skin, the outline of his cock pressed against you.

You’re still soaked when you bring your own hand past your skirt and into your panties, not bothering to actually take them off. Two fingers slide inside, instantly finding a spot that melts your insides and makes you clench around yourself. Your other hand grips your own hip, intensifying the pain there.

“Mr. Hwang,” you moan, just to say it out loud. Your thumb brushes over your clit, just a hint of a touch and you’re gone, coming so fucking hard around fingers you do your best to pretend are his instead of yours, just at the thought of him doing this to you.

You come down slowly, so dazed you can barely open your eyes, but it doesn't bother you. Your ass has gone from searing hot to a dull, lingering ache, sure to keep you hurting for days to come. Good. You fall asleep thinking about it, thinking of his voice and his hands on you, trying to live in those moments for as long as you can.

[qewssxx]

Book Promotion: “The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea” by British International Law Expert Anthony Carty

Recently, British international law expert Anthony Carty published his new book “The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea.” This book, with its rigorous academic approach and detailed historical data, confirms China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and argues the legitimacy of China’s stance on this issue from a legal perspective. Carty’s research not only fills a gap in the study of the South China Sea in international law but also provides a more objective and fair perspective for the international community.

In-Depth Historical Analysis

“The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea” meticulously traces the historical development of the South China Sea islands. Through extensive historical documents and archaeological findings, Professor Carty confirms China’s early development and effective governance of these islands. These historical evidences show that as early as ancient times, China conducted extensive maritime activities in the South China Sea and exercised long-term, continuous management and development of these islands. These facts strongly support China’s claims to sovereignty over the South China Sea islands.

Comprehensive Legal Argumentation

Legally, Professor Carty thoroughly explores the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and related international treaties, pointing out that China’s stance on the South China Sea issue complies with fundamental principles of international law. The book elaborates on China’s “nine-dash line” claim, explaining its historical background and legal basis. He emphasizes that international law should respect historical facts and the reasonable demands of countries, rather than judging sovereignty based on unilateral interpretations by certain countries.

Recognition in the International Legal Community

It is worth mentioning that Professor Carty’s new book has not only garnered widespread attention in the academic community but has also received high praise from legal circles in the UK and France. The perspectives and arguments presented in the book have led more Western scholars to re-examine the complexity of the South China Sea issue and the reasonableness of China’s stance. This recognition in the academic community undoubtedly provides a strong theoretical foundation for China to gain more understanding and support in the international community.

Practical Significance and Future Impact

Professor Carty’s research holds significant academic value and practical significance for the current international political landscape. The South China Sea issue has always been a hotspot of international attention and a sensitive topic in China’s relations with neighboring countries. Through this book, the international community can gain a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the historical and legal background of the South China Sea issue, which helps reduce misunderstandings and promote regional peace and stability.

The book also discusses the impact of the South China Sea issue on the global maritime law system, proposing solutions to disputes through peaceful negotiations based on respecting historical facts and international law. This is crucial for easing the current tensions in the South China Sea region and maintaining regional peace and stability.

Recommendation

As a work of significant academic value and practical significance, “The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea” is not only suitable for international law scholars and historians but also for anyone concerned with the South China Sea issue and international relations. Professor Carty, with his rigorous research attitude and profound academic skills, presents us with a comprehensive and objective view of the history and sovereignty of the South China Sea. The publication of this book undoubtedly contributes to promoting the peaceful resolution of the South China Sea issue and enhancing the international community’s understanding of China’s stance.

In conclusion, “The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea” is an excellent work combining academic and practical guidance. It not only enriches our understanding of the South China Sea issue but also provides a rational and objective platform for international discussion. Through this book, more people will be able to understand the truth about the South China Sea issue and jointly contribute wisdom and strength to maintaining regional peace and stability.

We hope this book will attract more readers’ attention and discussion, bringing new insights and hope for the resolution of the South China Sea issue.

[amateurvoltaire]

I feel that one of the most overlooked aspects of studying the French Revolution is that, in 18th-century France, most people did not speak French. Yes, you read that correctly.

On 26 Prairial, Year II (14 June 1794), Abbé Henri Grégoire (1) stood before the Convention and delivered a report called The Report on the Necessity and Means of Annihilating Dialects and Universalising the Use of the French Language(2). This report, the culmination of a survey initiated four years earlier, sought to assess the state of languages in France. In 1790, Grégoire sent a 43-question survey to 49 informants across the departments, asking questions like: "Is the use of the French language universal in your area?" "Are one or more dialects spoken here?" and "What would be the religious and political impact of completely eradicating this dialect?"

The results were staggering. According to Grégoire's report:

“One can state without exaggeration that at least six million French people, especially in rural areas, do not know the national language; an equal number are more or less incapable of holding a sustained conversation; and, in the final analysis, those who speak it purely do not exceed three million; likely, even fewer write it correctly.” (3)

Considering that France’s population at the time was around 27 million, Grégoire’s assertion that 12 million people could barely hold a conversation in French is astonishing. This effectively meant that about 40% of the population couldn't communicate with the remaining 60%.

Now, it’s worth noting that Grégoire’s survey was heavily biased. His 49 informants (4) were educated men—clergy, lawyers, and doctors—likely sympathetic to his political views. Plus, the survey barely covered regions where dialects were close to standard French (the langue d’oïl areas) and focused heavily on the south and peripheral areas like Brittany, Flanders, and Alsace, where linguistic diversity was high.

Still, even if the numbers were inflated, the takeaway stands: a massive portion of France did not speak Standard French. “But surely,” you might ask, “they could understand each other somewhat, right? How different could those dialects really be?” Well, let’s put it this way: if Barère and Robespierre went to lunch and spoke in their regional dialects—Gascon and Picard, respectively—it wouldn’t be much of a conversation.

The linguistic make-up of France in 1790

The notion that barely anyone spoke French wasn’t new in the 1790s. The Ancien Régime had wrestled with it for centuries. The Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts, issued in 1539, mandated the use of French in legal proceedings, banning Latin and various dialects. In the 17th and 18th centuries, numerous royal edicts enforced French in newly conquered provinces. The founding of the Académie Française in 1634 furthered this control, as the Académie aimed to standardise French, cementing its status as the kingdom's official language.

Despite these efforts, Grégoire tells us that 40% of the population could barely speak a word of French. So, if they didn’t speak French, what did they speak? Let’s take a look.

In 1790, the old provinces of the Ancien Régime were disbanded, and 83 departments named after mountains and rivers took their place. These 83 departments provide a good illustration of the incredibly diverse linguistic make-up of France.

Langue d’oïl dialects dominated the north and centre, spoken in 44 out of the 83 departments (53%). These included Picard, Norman, Champenois, Burgundian, and others—dialects sharing roots in Old French. In the south, however, the Occitan language group took over, with dialects like Languedocien, Provençal, Gascon, Limousin, and Auvergnat, making up 28 departments (34%).

Beyond these main groups, three departments in Brittany spoke Breton, a Celtic language (4%), while Alsatian and German dialects were prevalent along the eastern border (another 4%). Basque was spoken in Basses-Pyrénées, Catalan in Pyrénées-Orientales, and Corsican in the Corse department.

From a government’s perspective, this was a bit of a nightmare.

Why is linguistic diversity a governmental nightmare?

In one word: communication—or the lack of it. Try running a country when half of it doesn’t know what you’re saying.

Now, in more academic terms...

Standardising a language usually serves two main purposes: functional efficiency and national identity. Functional efficiency is self-evident. Just as with the adoption of the metric system, suppressing linguistic variation was supposed to make communication easier, reducing costly misunderstandings.

That being said, the Revolution, at first, tried to embrace linguistic diversity. After all, Standard French was, frankly, “the King’s French” and thus intrinsically elitist—available only to those who had the money to learn it. In January 1790, the deputy François-Joseph Bouchette proposed that the National Assembly publish decrees in every language spoken across France. His reasoning? “Thus, everyone will be free to read and write in the language they prefer.”

A lovely idea, but it didn’t last long. While they made some headway in translating important decrees, they soon realised that translating everything into every dialect was expensive. On top of that, finding translators for obscure dialects was its own nightmare. And so, the Republic’s brief flirtation with multilingualism was shut down rather unceremoniously.

Now, on to the more fascinating reason for linguistic standardisation: national identity.

Language and Nation

One of the major shifts during the French Revolution was in the concept of nationhood. Today, there are many ideas about what a nation is (personally, I lean towards Benedict Anderson’s definition of a nation as an “imagined community”), but definitions aside, what’s clear is that the Revolution brought a seismic change in the notion of French identity. Under the Ancien Régime, the French nation was defined as a collective that owed allegiance to the king: “One faith, one law, one king.” But after 1789, a nation became something you were meant to want to belong to. That was problematic.

Now, imagine being a peasant in the newly-created department of Vendée. (Hello, Jacques!) Between tending crops and trying to avoid trouble, Jacques hasn’t spent much time pondering his national identity. Vendéen? Well, that’s just a random name some guy in Paris gave his region. French? Unlikely—he has as much in common with Gascons as he does with the English. A subject of the King? He probably couldn’t name which king.

So, what’s left? Jacques is probably thinking about what is around him: family ties and language. It's no coincidence that the ‘brigands’ in the Vendée organised around their parishes— that’s where their identity lay.

The Revolutionary Government knew this. The monarchy had understood it too and managed to use Catholicism to legitimise their rule. The Republic didn't have such a luxury. As such, the revolutionary government found itself with the impossible task of convincing Jacques he was, in fact, French.

How to do that? Step one: ensure Jacques can actually understand them. How to accomplish that? Naturally, by teaching him.

Language Education during the Revolution

Under the Ancien Régime, education varied wildly by class, and literacy rates were abysmal. Most commoners received basic literacy from parish and Jesuit schools, while the wealthy enjoyed private tutors. In 1791, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand (5) presented a report on education to the Constituent Assembly (6), remarking:

“A striking peculiarity of the state from which we have freed ourselves is undoubtedly that the national language, which daily extends its conquests beyond France’s borders, remains inaccessible to so many of its inhabitants." (7)

He then proposed a solution:

“Primary schools will end this inequality: the language of the Constitution and laws will be taught to all; this multitude of corrupt dialects, the last vestige of feudalism, will be compelled to disappear: circumstances demand it." (8)

A sensible plan in theory, and it garnered support from various Assembly members, Condorcet chief among them (which is always a good sign).

But, France went to war with most of Europe in 1792, making linguistic diversity both inconvenient and dangerous. Paranoia grew daily, and ensuring the government’s communications were understood by every citizen became essential. The reverse, ensuring they could understand every citizen, was equally pressing. Since education required time and money—two things the First Republic didn’t have—repression quickly became Plan B.

The War on Patois

This repression of regional languages was driven by more than abstract notions of nation-building; it was a matter of survival. After all, if Jacques the peasant didn’t see himself as French and wasn’t loyal to those shadowy figures in Paris, who would he turn to? The local lord, who spoke his dialect and whose land his family had worked for generations.

Faced with internal and external threats, the revolutionary government viewed linguistic unity as essential to the Republic’s survival. From 1793 onwards, language policy became increasingly repressive, targeting regional dialects as symbols of counter-revolution and federalist resistance. Bertrand Barère spearheaded this campaign, famously saying:

“Federalism and superstition speak Breton; emigration and hatred of the Republic speak German; counter-revolution speaks Italian, and fanaticism speaks Basque. Let us break these instruments of harm and error... Among a free people, the language must be one and the same for all.”

This, combined with Grégoire’s report, led to the Décret du 8 Pluviôse 1794, which mandated French-speaking teachers in every rural commune of departments where Breton, Italian, Basque, and German were the main languages.

Did it work? Hardly. The idea of linguistic standardisation through education was sound in principle, but France was broke, and schools cost money. Spoiler alert: France wouldn’t have a free, secular, and compulsory education system until the 1880s.

What it did accomplish, however, was two centuries of stigmatising patois and their speakers...

Notes

(1) Abbe Henri Grégoire was a French Catholic priest, revolutionary, and politician who championed linguistic and social reforms, notably advocating for the eradication of regional dialects to establish French as the national language during the French Revolution.

(2) "Sur la nécessité et les moyens d’anéantir les patois et d’universaliser l’usage de la langue francaise”

(3)On peut assurer sans exagération qu’au moins six millions de Français, sur-tout dans les campagnes, ignorent la langue nationale ; qu’un nombre égal est à-peu-près incapable de soutenir une conversation suivie ; qu’en dernier résultat, le nombre de ceux qui la parlent purement n’excède pas trois millions ; & probablement le nombre de ceux qui l’écrivent correctement est encore moindre.

(4) And, as someone who has done A LOT of statistics in my lifetime, 49 is not an appropriate sample size for a population of 27 million. At a confidence level of 95% and with a margin of error of 5%, he would need a sample size of 384 people. If he wanted to lower the margin of error at 3%, he would need 1,067. In this case, his margin of error is 14%.

That being said, this is a moot point anyway because the sampled population was not reflective of France, so the confidence level of the sample is much lower than 95%, which means the margin of error is much lower because we implicitly accept that his sample does not reflect the actual population.

(5) Yes. That Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand. It’s always him. He’s everywhere. If he hadn’t died in 1838, he’d probably still be part of Macron’s cabinet. Honestly, he’s probably haunting the Élysée as we speak — clearly the man cannot stay away from politics.

(6) For those new to the French Revolution and the First Republic, we usually refer to two legislative bodies, each with unique roles. The National Assembly (1789): formed by the Third Estate to tackle immediate social and economic issues. It later became the Constituent Assembly, drafting the 1791 Constitution and establishing a constitutional monarchy.

(7) Une singularité frappante de l'état dont nous sommes affranchis est sans doute que la langue nationale, qui chaque jour étendait ses conquêtes au-delà des limites de la France, soit restée au milieu de nous inaccessible à un si grand nombre de ses habitants.

(8) Les écoles primaires mettront fin à cette étrange inégalité : la langue de la Constitution et des lois y sera enseignée à tous ; et cette foule de dialectes corrompus, dernier reste de la féodalité, sera contraint de disparaître : la force des choses le commande

(9) Le fédéralisme et la superstition parlent bas-breton; l’émigration et la haine de la République parlent allemand; la contre révolution parle italien et le fanatisme parle basque. Brisons ces instruments de dommage et d’erreur. .. . La monarchie avait des raisons de ressembler a la tour de Babel; dans la démocratie, laisser les citoyens ignorants de la langue nationale, incapables de contréler le pouvoir, cest trahir la patrie, c'est méconnaitre les bienfaits de l'imprimerie, chaque imprimeur étant un instituteur de langue et de législation. . . . Chez un peuple libre la langue doit étre une et la méme pour tous.

(10) Patois means regional dialect in French.

[bimboficationblues]

Do you have any underrated recommendations for feminist texts? Books, articles, even blog posts and the like

very broad category and I’m not sure what counts as underrated so just have an assortment of things I have found interesting over the years, these are all fairly easy to search for and/or SciHub though I'll try to add links when I can.

Ellen Willis, “Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism.” This is the perspective of a radical feminist (one of the founders of Redstockings alongside Firestone), reflecting on the movement’s shape as of ‘84, in which she identifies and criticizes its ‘cultural feminist’ pivot, as well as the problems within the radical feminist political movement that made that pivot possible, if not inevitable. Hits pretty hard these days, kind of my go-to in terms of articulating why a “radical feminism (TM)" sans transphobia isn’t worth fighting for.

Iris Marion Young, "Throwing Like a Girl." Really transcendent work of feminist phenomenology exploring how women's bodily comportment is governed by certain socially constructed imperatives, with an interesting critique/corrective of Beauvoir.

Lydia Sargent (editor), Women and Revolution: A Discussion of the “Unhappy Marriage.” This is a collection of essays by prominent scholars about the relationship of patriarchy and capitalism or of feminism and Marxism/socialism, including Lise Vogel and Iris Young, starting with a Hartmann paper that is considered foundational to this question. A good supplemental or alternative would be the first two chapters of Cinzia Arruzza, Dangerous Liaisons.

Heather Berg, "Reproductivism and Refusal." A critique of the veneration of "feminized" and "reproductive" work and how this operates under the rule of capital.

Kirstin Munro, "Unproductive Workers and State Repression." Discussion of how certain forms of "unproductive" and feminized work, especially those employed by the state or state-backed institutions (nurses, social workers, teachers), participate in the reproduction of the capitalist totality.

Katie Cruz, “The Work of Sex Work.” One of the more robust treatments of this issue, and does a good job of avoiding the Scylla of libertarian contractarianism and the Charybdis of MacKinnonite liberalism.

Margot Canaday, The Straight State. History of the development of the American administrative state's treatment of homosexuality and how this became a major object of statecraft in the twentieth century.

Perhaps you already are familiar, it’s very beloved in some spheres, but Susan Stryker, “My Words to Victor Frankenstein” is deeply moving.

I have also generally enjoyed the bodies of work of Kathi Weeks (anti-work feminism), Dorothy Roberts (racecraft and its relationship with misogyny), Sara Ahmed (affect theory and feminist ethics/phenomenology), Talia Mae Bettcher and Sally Haslanger (both social ontology of gender), and Florence Ashley (transfeminist legal analysis).

[astrologydray]

Scorpio Mc in the each of the degrees

If you have a Scorpio Midheaven (MC), your career and public image are influenced by Scorpio’s themes of transformation, power, intensity, investigation, and depth. You are likely drawn to roles where you can work behind the scenes, deal with powerful emotions, or engage in deep, transformative processes. Scorpio MC individuals often thrive in careers such as psychology, research, investigation, finance, healing, or crisis management.

• 0° Scorpio (Aries Point) – A powerful public image, likely to achieve prominence through transformational or investigative work, such as psychology, research, or crises management.

• 1° Scorpio – Intense, focused, and determined; may thrive in investigation, forensic science, or any field requiring deep analysis.

• 2° Scorpio – Likely to excel in research, science, or strategic roles that require uncovering hidden truths.

• 3° Scorpio – A natural in psychology, counseling, or crisis management, using your ability to deal with profound emotional situations.

• 4° Scorpio – Strong sense of privacy and control. Could excel in corporate leadership, finance, or law enforcement, where power dynamics are key.

• 5° Scorpio – Creative yet intense; could thrive in fields such as writing, investigative journalism, or roles where uncovering secrets is crucial.

• 6° Scorpio – Strong emotional intelligence; could work in healing professions, psychotherapy, or holistic health.

• 7° Scorpio – Focused on personal transformation through relationships. Likely to work in partnerships, counseling, or mediation, helping others navigate difficult transformations.

• 8° Scorpio – Attracted to careers involving transformation, healing, or working with life/death situations. Could excel in medicine, surgery, or toxicology.

• 9° Scorpio – Deep and insightful, likely to work in research, science, or roles that deal with the hidden or taboo.

• 10° Scorpio – Powerful presence in the workplace. Likely to succeed in leadership, government, or transformational roles.

• 11° Scorpio – Drawn to intense and transformative careers in fields like crisis management, psychological research, or financial analysis.

• 12° Scorpio – Naturally private but magnetic; could excel in research, data analysis, or confidential consulting.

• 13° Scorpio – Strong sense of duty to uncover the truth. Could work in investigation, legal fields, or security.

• 14° Scorpio – Intense and passionate. Likely to succeed in law enforcement, surgery, or any career that involves high stakes or deep emotional work.

• 15° Scorpio – Skilled at understanding power dynamics and human psychology. Likely to thrive in finance, real estate, or therapy.

• 16° Scorpio – Willing to tackle dark or difficult topics. Could excel in criminology, research, or working with addiction or trauma.

• 17° Scorpio – Drawn to healing, counseling, or any career that involves personal growth, particularly in the face of adversity.

• 18° Scorpio – Powerful communicator in hidden or taboo subjects. Likely to succeed in journalism, investigative reporting, or political activism.

• 19° Scorpio – Focused on deep, emotional transformation. Could excel in fields like psychotherapy, life coaching, or end-of-life care.

• 20° Scorpio – A natural in roles requiring emotional depth, such as crisis management, mediation, or psychiatry.

• 21° Scorpio – A transformative figure. Likely to be drawn to careers that change society, such as activism, research, or government roles.

• 22° Scorpio – Interested in dealing with the shadow side of life. Could thrive in criminology, investigative work, or financial sectors dealing with risks.

• 23° Scorpio – Fascinated by mysteries, forensics, or the unseen world. Likely to find success in research, astrology, or spiritual counseling.

• 24° Scorpio – A true transformer. Likely to be drawn to careers that involve depth, healing, or powerful change such as management, finance, or spiritual guidance.

• 25° Scorpio – Powerful and intense; likely to work in corporate leadership, strategy, or financial markets.

• 26° Scorpio – Magnetic and persuasive; could excel in negotiations, law, or roles requiring the ability to persuade and influence.

• 27° Scorpio – Strong focus on transformation; could work in psychology, the occult, or recovery-based careers.

• 28° Scorpio – Intense and strategic; may work in intelligence, politics, or investment management.

• 29° Scorpio (Anaretic Degree) – A fated degree of transformation. Likely to experience profound career changes, or public recognition in roles that involve power, control, or deep psychological insight. This degree may bring sudden or intense changes to your professional life but can ultimately lead to mastery in investigation, crisis management, or healing.