#sociology major

[xceridwenx]

There’s something about getting a good grade in something I half-assed that makes me never want to full-ass anything! Ever!

[socstudies]

｡･ﾟﾟ･ Socstudies: Sociology 103 ･ﾟﾟ･｡

.⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡

Due to unexpected demand, I'm picking this series back up! Today's post is: Why study sociology?

.⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡

｡･ﾟﾟ･Why choose any subject?･ﾟﾟ･｡

I think first of all it's important to think about why you would choose to study any subject, as prioritising your criteria can be really helpful. Here are some examples, but you will likely have your own too:

it leads to a high paying job

it's interesting / you enjoy or will enjoy studying it

you have to study it to get the job you want (high paying or not)

you have the pre-requisites (unfortunately sometimes this will rule out a subject)

Now that you've ranked these let's walk through them.

1x Luke's coffee cup earnt for making it this far!

｡･ﾟﾟ･Can sociology lead to a high paying job?･ﾟﾟ･｡

It depends! Sorry! Sociology is quite broad which means it can be applied to other fields that aren't directly sociological. For example, having a good knowledge of people and how they interact can be helpful in jobs such as a consultant or PR manager, but you don't need a sociology degree to do these.

1x Luke's coffee cup earnt for making it this far!

｡･ﾟﾟ･Will you enjoy studying sociology?･ﾟﾟ･｡

Of course as a second year sociology student I'll say yes but this is up to you! Our classes cover literally anything (one of my highest grading essays talked about kpop and stan culture) so you can really tailor your classes and assignments to what interests you, since absolutely anything involving people can be related to sociology. This means that class discussions get really interesting since people bring all sorts of examples and case studies to the table. An added bonus: if you're shy or not a lover of group discussions, you'll definitely have something to say in sociology since you're a part of what is being studied - you can just relate your own experiences or observations to the class material! You're like a walking textbook!

1x Luke's coffee cup earnt for making it this far!

｡･ﾟﾟ･Do any jobs require sociology?･ﾟﾟ･｡

The most obvious one is a sociologist but other jobs list sociology as part of potential entry requirements, such as social worker or teacher. To be honest, a lot of jobs just require you to have a degree (other than lawyers, doctors etc, but you can always to conversion courses or postgrad to do that, and having a sociological background will help with that!). It's all about transferrable skills. As you're studying such a wide scope of things, you will likely discover a certain area that you're super interested in (such as me with criminology and internet culture).

1x Luke's coffee cup earnt for making it this far!

｡･ﾟﾟ･Are there any other reasons to study sociology?･ﾟﾟ･｡

Most people probably say this about their subject, but I do genuinely think it should be a requirement to take at least a few sociology classes. There's been so many times when people have said something that they would have a completely different view of if they had studied sociology; it completely changed my whole perspective of things.

1x Luke's coffee cup earnt for making it this far!

.⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡

Review Questions!

1x Luke's coffee cup earnt for each correct answer! (and half a cup for attempting!)

What jobs could sociology potentially lead to? (Doesn't have to be from this list - could do your own research!)

What topics would you like to explore from a sociological perspective? (No right answer... unless you're lying....)

What are four possible reasons to keep in mind while choosing a subject?

.⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡⋆｡˚☽˚｡⋆..⋆｡⋆☂˚｡

Thank you for taking part! Exchange your cups here, view the previous lesson here, and view the syllabus here!

[animentality]

[loserdudelover]

i love doing course evals bc it lets me talk MAD SHIT about the professors i hate, while I get to absolutely GUSH about the professors i love !!  🥰

[livi008]

Probably no one is gonna really read this and in any shape way or form is this an attack on the OP, i just wanna share my view.

Yes, sometimes, it’s annoying to find political subjects in an app (example Tumblr) when you just wanna escape from reality and enjoy just gushing over a character or show you love.

And I’m not saying this is what OP meant, I just wanted to add: is it annoying? Yes. Does it still need to be said? Also yes.

In his book Liquid Modernity, Zygmunt Bauman explains the following:

“In the liquid phase of modernity, the call of moral responsibility is often drowned out by the noise of consumerist desires and the relentless pursuit of personal security. When something horrible happens, the silence that follows is not due to ignorance but to a deliberate turning away—people retreat into their own private concerns, finding solace in the belief that it is not their responsibility.”

In this passage, he emphasizes the link between the structure of modern society, individual self interest and the silence or inaction in the face of atrocities.

When I bring him up, I am simply putting that if you acknowledge that something is wrong with the current system you are involved in, if you just keep silent to not disturb your own peace, you may be even contributing to the horror and you can’t expect change for a better world if you don’t act on it (in a respectful manner as always.)

To sum up, though I agree that politics has come to be a very hostile place where liberty of speech is very questionable, it’s still not right to keep quiet and wait for someone else to risk their safety in order to improve our current state.

Again, this is absolutely no hate at all to this creator. I understand it’s frustrating to encounter politics where you least expect it. But it’s also a matter that has to be spoken about, especially when actual human lives are involved.

Can everyone keep politics out of the FANDOMS. No one cared if you voted for kamala or trump. No one cares that you hate Trump or Kamala.

It's sad to see people telling each other to kill themselves over who they voted for. And everyone should be ashamed of themselves, we are supposed to be a united front.

Just keep politics out of fandoms please. I don't want to read about trump or kamala while I'm trying to read some good publishing.

[daydream-studyblr]

to-do list | 25 • 10 • 2023

Read urban sociology texts

Start writing the theorical framework

Survey someone

Write about phenomenology

[ed-recoverry]

THERE ARE NO USELESS MAJORS!!

Learning about theater is important! Learning about art is important! Learning about sociology is important! Learning about history is important! Learning about anthropology is important! Learning about philosophy important! Learning about music is important! Learning about English is important! Learning about dance is important! Learning about photography is important! Learning about art history is important! Learning about ethnic studies is important! Learning about theology is important! Learning about performing arts is important!

Usefulness does not equal high income!

All education is important!

[autisticsociologymajor]

Who Would Best Represent Your State - Based on Demographic Data

Note: scroll to the bottom of this post to see how I came to these conclusions and notes on terms/definitions.

Note (pt 2): this is based on demographic data I researched just for fun, this isn’t anything definitive of scientific. I compared numbers and/or found the highest % of certain categories to find a basis for what the most basic generalized population of each state is. Whatever the outcome was = the answer to who would best represent that state (generally)

If your state doesn’t list any “has an interest in,” it’s because your state didn’t rank higher than the national average in disabled population, population without health insurance, or poverty, and didn’t rank lower in employment compared to the national average. 

Alabama: A young, White, Republican woman with an interest in disability, health insurance, poverty, and employment. 

Arizona: An older, Native American, bilingual male Democrat with an interest in disability, health insurance, employment, and poverty.

Alaska: A young, Native American, bilingual male Republican with an interest in health insurance and disability.

Arkansas: A young, White female Republican with an interest in poverty, employment, disability, and health insurance

California: A young Latinx male or female Democrat who is bilingual, comes from an immigrant background, and has an interest in poverty.

Colorado: A middle aged White male Democrat.

Connecticut: A young to middle aged female Democrat who is bilingual and comes from an immigrant background.

Delaware: An older White female Democrat with an interest in disability and employment.

Florida: An older White female Republican who is bilingual, has an immigrant background, and an interest in employment, health insurance, and poverty.

Georgia: A young Black female Democrat with an interest in poverty, employment, and disability. 

Hawaii: An older male Native Hawaiian or Asian Democrat who is bilingual, has an immigrant background, and an interest in employment.

Idaho: A young White male Republican with an interest in insurance, disability, and employment.

Illinois: A young to middle aged White female Democrat with an immigrant background who is interested in poverty. 

Indiana: A young White female Republican with an interest in disability and poverty. 

Iowa: A young to middle aged White male Republican.

Kansas: A young White male Republican with an interest in disability and insurance

Kentucky: A young White female Republican with an interest in disability, employment, and poverty. 

Louisiana: A young Black female Republican with an interest in disability, employment, and poverty. 

Maine: An older White female Democrat with an interest in disability and employment.  

Maryland: A young Black female Democrat with an immigrant background.

Massachusetts: Any age White female Democrat who is bilingual and has an immigrant background

Michigan: Any age White female Democrat with an interest in disability, employment, and poverty.

Minnesota: A young White male Democrat

Mississippi: A young Black female Republican with an interest in disability, health insurance, poverty, and employment.

Missouri: A young to middle age White female Republican with an interest in disability, poverty, and health insurance. 

Montana: An older White male Republican with an interest in disability and health insurance. 

Nebraska: A young White male Republican

Nevada: A young White male Democrat who is bilingual, has an immigrant background, and has an interest in health insurance and poverty.

New Hampshire: An older White female Democrat.

New Jersey: A middle aged to older White female Democrat who is bilingual and has an immigrant background. 

New Mexico: A younger Latina female Democrat who is bilingual and has an interest in disability, health insurance, poverty, and employment.

New York: An older White female Democrat who is bilingual, from an immigrant background, and has an interest in employment and poverty

North Carolina: An older White female Republican with an interest in disability, health insurance, employment, and poverty. 

North Dakota: A younger Native American male Republican with an interest in health insurance.

Ohio: A middle aged to older White female Republican with an interest in disability and poverty.

Oklahoma: A younger Native American female Republican with an interest in disability, insurance, employment, and poverty. 

Oregon: An older White female Democrat with an interest in disability, employment, and poverty. 

Pennsylvania: An older White female Democrat with an interest in disability, employment, and poverty. 

Rhode Island: An older White female Democrat who is bilingual, has an immigrant background, and an interest in disability. 

South Carolina: An older White female Republican with an interest in disability, employment, and poverty. 

South Dakota: A younger Native American male Republican with an interest in health insurance and poverty.

Tennessee: A younger to middle aged White female Republican with an interest in disability, insurance, employment, and poverty. 

Texas: A young Latina female Republican who is bilingual, has an immigrant background, and an interest in health insurance and poverty.

Utah: A young White male Democrat with an interest in health insurance. 

Vermont: An older White female with an interest in disability.

Virginia: Any age White female Democrat

Washington: Any age White male Democrat with an immigrant background

West Virginia: An older White female with an interest in disability, employment, and poverty

Wisconsin: A middle aged to old White male Democrat

Wyoming: A younger White male Republican with an interest in disability and health insurance.

Terms I Used:

“Young”; older than 18 but younger than 50

“Middle aged”; older than 40 but younger than 65

“Older”; older than 50

“an interest in”; what they plan to improve the current condition of within the state

“Disability”; disability rights, advocacy, accessibility, benefits, representation, services...

“Health insurance”; access to health insurance and/or health services

“Employment”; economy, financial opportunity, unemployment, career assistance, etc. 

“Poverty”; public assistance, ending poverty, homelessness, etc.  

“White”;  For purposes of this experiment and based on the fact that some of these states wouldn’t make sense without this exception, assume “white” means only skin color, not culture or ethnicity. Ex. Florida calls for a bilingual White person with an immigrant background. This can be a Latinx person who’s skin tone and features meet the generally accepted societal definition of “white,” but this person is still Latinx. 

“Latinx/Latina/Latino”: population who reported “Hispanic or Latino” in the census

How I Came to These Conclusions:

I looked at the US Census data for each state. The data shows population percentages. Here’s how I calculated each: 

Age: the national population percentage of people younger than 18 is 22.2%, for people older than 65 it’s 16.8%. For example, Hawaii’s population is 21.1% under the age of 18, lower than the national average, but the population for people older than 65 is 19.6%, higher than the national average. For that reason, an older person best represents the overall state of Hawaii since there’s more older people than younger (in this method)

Why: age and generational interests matter, politically. If a state is overruled by a younger generation that’s ran by older politicians, it’s not representative of the state’s population and will likely lead to a bad time.

Sex: if the population is more than 50% female, a female best represents that state. If it’s lower than 50%, a male best represents that state. 

Race: the race that has the highest population percentage, with one exception. For racial minorities, if the population % is double that of the national average, that race best represents that state. For example, the national population % of “American Indian and Alaska Native alone” is 1.3%. In Arizona, the population is 5.3%, far more than the national %. In another example, the national % of "Black or African American alone” is 13.6%. In Mississippi, it’s 38%, more than double the national population %.

Why: there’s a disproportionate amount of White American’s compared to any other racial classification, that’s why we use the term racial minority. Every state aside from maybe 1 or 2 would’ve been White if there wasn’t an exception. Whether doubling the number for minority populations is statistically equitable is uncertain, I just kinda made it up since this isn’t official research. 

Immigrant Background: the national population % of “foreign-born persons” is 13.6%. If a state has a higher percent, a person with an immigrant background best represents that state.

Why: if a state has a high population of people who weren’t born in the US, the state should best represent their interests, culture, background, experiences, etc. 

Bilingual: the national population who speaks a language other than English at home is 21.7%. If a state has a higher number, a bilingual person who speaks the common second language of that state best represents the state. 

Why: if a politician is representing the people, they should speak the language(s) of the people who they represent. If a state has a high population that doesn’t speak English at home, “the people” are people who speak a different language. 

Disability Interests: The national population of people who report being disabled and/or receive disability pay is 8.7%. If a state has a higher %, the state needs a representative with the interests of disabled people.

Why: if the state has a high disabled population, they should be represented by somebody who a) is disabled, b) has experiences with disability, or c) is educated in relevant subjects that will allow them to best represent and advocate for the disabled population of their state.

Health Insurance: the national population without health insurance is 9.8%. If a state has a higher %, they need to be represented by someone with this interest. 

Why: if the state has a high % of people who don’t have health insurance, they should be represented by somebody who is willing to fight to give them access to health insurance or, at least, at the bare minimum, health services. 

Employment: 63.1% of the nation is in the “labor force,” if a state has a lower number, they need to be represented by someone who has this interest

Why: employment boosts the local economy, which, in this system, is good on the broad scale of things. If the state lacks in an employed population, it should be the state’s job to find out why, what the effects are (or will be), and how they can improve it. 

Poverty: 11.6% national poverty was reported on the last census. If the state has a higher %, they should be represented by someone with this interest

Why: poverty is bad. We don’t need to be represented by people who want to wage war on poverty, we need to be represented by people who want to wage rescue on poverty. Not just financially. There’s a lot more to poverty than just money and housing. 

Political Party: based on results of the 2020 presidential election

[ssruis]

Wrt the people talking about the new set as fan service: my initial reaction was also “oh cute” & moving on, but after carefully reading the full arguments of the people who found it distasteful, I agree with their points. I’d normally link or post screenshots of the points made, but since the Prsk fanbase apparently is jumping people over this on twt I don’t feel comfortable doing that. To summarize and add some of my own explanation:

> everything in gacha games is fan service, which doesn’t have to necessarily mean it’s sexual - ode for the pure of heart featuring rui/touya (popular with female audience) looking very princely was fan service. The white day knight/fantasy theming is fan service (popular & well loved aesthetic). Fantasia squad was fan service for the players who like the male characters, etc etc.

> I don’t feel like arguing about all of the cards, so I’ll just point out what bothers me about the most egregious example (Rin’s card)

When considering art, you have to consider the deliberate choices the artist made, and what messages they are trying to get across with the atmosphere they have created.

Why choose the maid aesthetic? Why make these cards a player pov? Why choose framing that (using the grid composition, contrast and lighting from the window, the way lines direct the eye) makes the points of interest and emphasis Rin’s face *and* butt? Why choose that pose, with Rin looking over her shoulder, with a surprised expression and prominent blush? Why is the posing reminiscent of art of vintage pin up girls (or any other similar art movement)?

It’s male gaze. The answer is male gaze.

The male gaze is often just associated with overt sexualization, but that’s an overly simplified definition. The male gaze can also be portraying women in positions of servitude (most often within the home), emphasizing body curves (even through clothes), voyeuristic povs, emphasizing cuteness/demure-ness/shyness, etc. It’s about the (assumed male) viewer having power over the female subject.

Rin is cleaning, the light from the window heavily highlights her butt, the framing of window itself specifically draws the eye from her head to her back to her butt using contrasting colors/light/point of interest, the parallel lines in the piece direct your eyes down her body (Japanese audience, reading image from right to left). If the emphasis was on the action she is doing, rather than her body, the light source and brightest colors would be on the other side of the image, the duster would be brighter, as would the objects/set pieces she’s interacting with.*

Sexualization/male gaze isn’t restricted to the very obvious “woman sexy posing in a bikini” image, and having that viewpoint will only serve to limit the ways you understand art and artist intention. It’s similar to taking “all art is political” to mean “all art is either republican or democrat” and responding “well that’s stupid and you’re stupid.” You’re missing the point.

I’m a little disappointed the knee jerk reaction here seems to be “you’re wrong and you’re actually a freak who sexualizes minors for pointing this out” here, especially because the point of calling this out is to say that it’s distasteful to do a card like this for a character who is, despite not having a canon age, pretty much portrayed as younger than the main cast (making her 15 or younger).

Nobody is saying “this set sucks you can’t like it if you like it you’re problematic and project sekai should be cancelled forever”, it’s just something to keep in mind. You don’t have to agree with the argument, but acting like anyone pointing this out is insane isn’t fair or justified.

> also just as a side note: maid cafés have a pretty long history of sexualization, with the emphasis/appeal of having power over the workers and them being your servant while dressed cute. I don’t entirely think this set was going for a maid café look, but I do think it’s something to be mindful of.

> *it’s a little hard to articulate/explain this, and my knowledge on how much the average person knows about stuff like this is skewed due to my own education in art/art history/design/etc. If you find this confusing, I’m willing to explain more in detail and specifically point out what I’m talking about.

> I have a different post on the taisho/daisho romance elements, which is an entirely different discussion, so I’m not bringing that up here.

[diyasgarden]

Every time i see someone hate on @girliism ‘s post about how Tashi hate is rooted in racism, I feel the urge to write an essay on why she is right. Citations and everything.

[cto10121]

how is jk rowling closer to dickens than donna tartt?

Rowling, like Dickens, is supremely devoted to social realism, which includes comedy, satire, and commentary. So naturally she also uses his techniques (significant character names, child POV with adult sensibility, etc.) and sometimes even tropes (abused orphan boy, mean relatives, relative and abject poverty, snobbery and classism, etc.). This is most glaringly apparent in the Strike series, to the point where they are more like sociological tomes than mysteries, but Harry Potter also fits the Dickensian mode very comfortably.

The difference is that Dickens was not really a mystery writer, whereas Rowling is, at least in plot. Also, Dickens had a much more visceral experience with poverty and institutional injustice than Rowling; there is a lack of that both-sides centrism in Dickens. He was also more influenced by Shakespearean psychology and tropes than Rowling. Rowling, however, was much more aware of white supremacy than Dickens could ever be—her understanding of class struggle includes colorism (Voldemort and some of the Death Eaters especially are aristocratically coded to the extreme - all those Anglo-Norman names! Revealingly, none of them are POC).

As for Donna Tartt, from the two (very popular) books I’ve read by her, she only uses Dickensian tropes for quasi-mythic and romantic journeys; they are largely empty of their political and social commentary, almost serving as mere literary allusions. Above all, she seems mostly concerned with the power of art, literary or otherwise.

[hilacopter]

*on the floor trembling through gritted teeth* this made me grow as a person. this made me change for the better. good things have come out of this.

[kaeyapilled]

kavetham different meeting au where theres a sort of fair for people who want to study in the akademiya to get to know each darshan, yknow those college fairs? where they talk to you about universities and courses? like that. and the kshahrewar and the haravatat booths are next to each other and kaveh and alhaitham are responsible for them and despite having just met they bicker with each other all. day. every future akademiya student that passes through one of their booths might as well have passed through both because they will not stop arguing about which darshan is better and which one the people talking to them should go to. its a very amusing experience to all involved except for kaveh and alhaitham themselves. and anyways. nuisances to lovers

[aro-but-not-ace]

Being in relationships as a romance neutral/favorable aro (for alloro readers with aro partners)

I’m romance neutral* and greyromantic*. I have been in romantic relationships. I don’t believe I was attracted to my partners as much as people thought I was. But I chose to be in those relationships and stayed with those people until other factors didn’t work out (ie unfixable communication issues or different long term goals).

I’ve had some of my partners ask “so you don’t love me?” when I opened up more about being arospec with a sad tone in their voice. Or I’ve had friends say “why would you be someone’s partner if you don’t love them?” with a hint of judgment and disdain as they say it.

Here is how I look at it, and keep in mind, this is most likely NOT a universal aro experience. BUT I know that some alloro people worry that since their aro partners don’t “love” them, they can’t be sure about their relationship at all.

Aromanticism is the lack of romantic attraction. In my personal experience, this generally means I have equal attraction to everybody in a romantic sense (side note, this is why I thought I was biromantic for a long time). So, imagine, baseline I just feel neutral about everyone. My relationships are largely based upon experiences and connections I have with people, not solely on attraction.

A lot of my partners thought that this means I feel less about them or that they were just like everyone else. But here’s the thing—I literally chose them out of everyone else to be partners with. In a broader sense, take how alloplatonic* people view friendships: you may be closer with some friends, you may trust some friends with certain things more, or you might have just become friends and are learning more about each other. These people are all friends, and the friendship dynamic isn’t always built on platonic attraction. It can be extremely circumstantial.

If you worry about your aro partner leaving you because they’re aro, I assure you that they will not just up and leave at random just because they’re aro. If they do, there is a very different reason for that. It’s a very personal and complex topic. It ties into factors such as commitment, communication, life goals, and relationship satisfaction and compatibility.

So if anyone is alloromantic and questioning if they can be in a relationship with an aro person, think about it this way: the question shouldn’t be “do they love me?”, and try thinking about it as “do they care for me?”

Glossary* and footnotes after the break

Just some disclaimers so I don’t have to explain later:

1. Yes, some aro people can feel love in other ways. Yes, some aros are loveless. We are all different. I mostly think that alloro people associate “do they love me?” directly with “do they love me romantically?”, which is understandable, but personally I think that in any relationship, CARE and ACTION are the most important aspects in any relationship. Even in an allo relationship, two people can love each other but not properly care for one another.

2. Also, love is not easily defined, so “do they care for me” presents a much more concrete and observable question that is much less stressful than “do they love me?” And I say this as someone who ended up in abusive situations because I told myself “well, they love me, so this must be fine.” I am mostly making this post to tell alloromantic people that being aro does not directly affect how someone may act in a relationship. Yes, it might be a factor, but saying aro = unloving partner is not true and extremely harmful.

3. I wrote this while sleep deprived and I talk a lot when sleep deprived so sorry if this all made no sense or was very rambley.

*GLOSSARY:

Romance neutral - feeling indifferent to romance, whether it be romantic coded actions (ie kissing, hugging, cuddling, etc), romantic situations (ie dates), or the general idea of a romantic relationship

Romance favorable - desiring to engage in romance despite being aromantic, generally the opposite of being romance repulsed

Greyromantic - feeling romantic attraction but less frequently or intensely as alloromantic people. Also an umbrella term for other microlabels in the aro community

Alloplatonic - people who feel platonic (friend) attraction, as opposed to being aplatonic (lacking platonic attraction)

[icewindandboringhorror]

I've referenced before how I have a big google document to keep track of every media I've ever seen in my entire life (just for reference because I like to track everything possible lol… I am the Data Collector), but recently as I was updating it, I thought of actually evaluating them to find out random percentages (like for example, out of Total Shows Watched, what percentage did I finish vs. stop watching, what percentage did I like or dislike, etc.)...

Evaluating these things is made easier by the fact that I already place everything on each subsection of the list into 6 broad ranking categories, so I don't have to go back and guess to figure out how I feel about them or anything. The categories are: Ranking 5 - overall best* (despite some criticisms of course because I'm too much of an Analyzer to ever find anything Perfect lol) Ranking 4 - more positive than neutral, but not good enough to be 5 Ranking 3 - either the good + bad negate each other, OR it's just not memorable/interesting in any way enough to be ranked higher or lower (this is the Default category ALL things are placed in if no other rank applies) Ranking 2 - maybe a few redeemable elements but largely more negatives than positives Ranking 1 - So bad that it circles around to being fascinating to observe in some way (not necessarily Funny, or Good, but just interesting somehow) Ranking 0 - Bad in a genuinely frustrating or obnoxious manner

*("best" primarily defined here as most interesting, rather than most good in a technical sense, or some other measure. I tend to value more highly whether there's something novel or thoughtful about the worldbuilding, tone, writing, base premise, etc - than about whether it's actually executed perfectly.)

And here's the amount of shows that have so far been placed into each category -

TV shows ~ Rank 5 (highest) - 20 shows ~ Rank 4 (mid-high) - 28 shows ~ Rank 3 (neutral/default/meh) - 114 shows ~ Rank 2 (mid low) -33 shows ~ Rank 1 (low low but intriguingly so) - 14 shows ~ Rank 0 (iredeemably low) - 2 shows

This would make for a total of 211 TV shows overall. However, there are 57 shows within these list marked as "didn't finish" (typically meaning I quit on the very first or second episode - but log them still to keep a record that I at least had a brief view of them).

So my total of genuinely fully watched shows would be more 154. 211 Total, but a More Accurate Total of 154.

Counting them all and using the Total Number Of The List (211) -- that means roughly 9.5% of all total shows I have ever watched (or at least attempted to watch) have been Mostly Good, 13% have been Moderately Okay, 54% have been either entirely Forgettable or some mix of good + bad that lands them right in the Neutral Middle, 15.6% have been Mostly Bad, 6.6% have been Bad (but in an interesting way), and 0.9% have been Terribly Bad.

Additionally, I didn't even get past the first two episodes of about 27% of the total.

Sooo, discounting ones I didn't finish, my total TV shows ever watched in my life would be about 154 (maybe give or take a few, assuming I might have forgotten some from very long ago).

But instead of entire life, let's just say this is the total for 'About 20 Years' (so, not counting very early childhood when I likely wouldn't remember things I saw/have no detailed recollection of them (like for example, I'm sure at some point when I was like 4yrs old I must have seen an episode of Spongebob or something, but I have zero distinct memories of it, can't quote anything of it, and barely recall the premise - so I don't count it on the list, etc.)).

In that case, 154 divided by 20 would be roughly 7.7 shows a year.

Which is actually surprisingly low considering that I often have stuff on in the background for hours whilst I make sculptures and do costumes and stuff (maybe I should have also marked some distinction between 'things I fully paid attention to' and 'things I kind of half listened to whilst sculpting', but that would further split the categories too much probably lol), but I guess a lot of that is youtube videos or random documentaries, so .. eh.. maybe I get it being lower.

Now, doing the same thing for movies-

Movies ~ Rank 5 (highest) - 4 movies (3.4% of total) ~ Rank 4 (mid-high) - 12 movies (10.3% of total) ~ Rank 3 (neutral/default/meh) - 91 movies (78.4% of total) ~ Rank 2 (mid low) - 8 movies (6.8% of total) ~ Rank 1 (low but interesting) - 1 movie (0.8% of total) ~ Rank 0 (irredeemably low) - none in this category (0%)

That makes 116 for a Total (Actually Remembered) Movies Watched In Lifetime (Or At Least In 20 Years).

116 divided by 20 is roughly 5 or 6 movies a year (I feel this has probably been skewed though by adding everything since like elementary school onwards, as I remember a lot more movies from child/teen years.. Whereas, the past 3 years I feel like I've barely seen maybe even 5 movies?? lol). I also have "Didn't Finish" marked on 18 of them. Which means I quit halfway through about 15% of the total movies.

So, a for broader summary stuff..

I seem to be less forgiving to movies than tv shows, by far. Which makes sense to me, I guess, because I love elaboration and details, so "short form" things that only last an hour or two are often lost on me a bit. My biggest complaint with movies is indeed usually walking away just wishing there had been more exposition, more scenes where characters are doing nothing, more "mindless bantering" conversations, more Quiet Downtime and Lore Elaboration and so on lol, so... of course most 1-2hr films end up feeling a bit Not Enough To Draw My Interest/Nothingy to me.

If you count 5 and 4 as "like" and rankings 2 to 0 as "dislike", then for TV shows I at least somewhat liked 48 of them, and at least somewhat disliked 47 of them.. So it's almost exactly the same lol. I'm just about equally as likely to find something bad as I am to find something redeeming about it. But overall, the largest chance is that I just won't really care much for it at all and it will be tossed into the 'neutral' pile, forgotten forever. Movies have a bit better of a balance, "liking" 16 of them, and "disliking" only 9 of them. So I'm slightly more likely to enjoy a movie than to find it annoying - though still VASTLY more likely to just not find it anything in particular, possibly not even finishing it.

ANYWAY.. this is vague and literally pointless, but like I said, I just really find information fun. Like my document where I've rated every apple flavor I've ever tried (like 40 of them now?), or reviewed every oreo flavor (32?), or ranking data from my entire 10 years of Trying To Make Friends process (out of 100 people, roughly 8% chance of a moderate compatibility, 3% chance of high), or etc. etc.. I love to have random pointless things to analyze I suppose lol.

I doubt anyone tracks things in their life in this same exact way, but I'd be interested in hearing any at least somewhat similar data !!! (like, how many TV shows you watch a year on average, and what percentage of those you like vs. dislike (if you keep track of that sort of thing), etc.)). I guess it might be easier with movies, since I think some people use those websites where you curate a list of movies you've seen and you can rate them or something, so maybe the numbers are already available on those places. :0

[luckycharms1701]

got a response to my last post and fuck if i didn't pull my computer out at one in the morning so i could do this particular topic justice

my "time to talk about family dynamics in tmnt" button was pushed real hard, and i don't get enough opportunities to talk about this

So let's talk about Leo's position in the family in the Bayverse movies. That's right folks, we're pulling out capital letters for the leader in blue, because this is a topic I am super serious about. Full college paper levels of serious. Gonna need to know how you want your sources cited.

This is a fascinating take tbh, and I would love to hear more about how you came to this conclusion. Allow me to show you why my position is different.

First:

I think this image says a lot. Leo's a daddy's boy long before anything like parentification could possibly come into play. Also it's really cute, look at him loving his dad!!

Second, let's talk parentification. Boiled down to its basics, parentification is when a child, usually the eldest, acts like a secondary or replacement parent. This is the part that really gets me, because I just don't see any evidence of it in the movies at all.

We do get to see some scenes from when they are kids, and no where is it suggested that Leo is anything other than another one of the boys.

Sure, Mikey hides behind him when play-fighting with Raph after the buck-buck scene, but that's just younger sibling behavior. No where is it implied that this happens because anyone expects it of Leo. That, I think, might be the closest to "parentification" that occurs in the movies.

The thing is, I don't think Leo has been the leader very long at the beginning of the 2014 movie. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it's a move Splinter made just before or even as the movie starts. Leo's and Raph's argument really solidifies that for me:

Raph: And who put you in charge?

Leo: You know who did.

This smacks, on Leo's part, of someone borrowing another's authority to shore up their own. That tells me that Leo at least does not feel that he has this authority on his own merit, that he's new to leadership. Raph senses this like a shark in bloody water, and he pushes because there's vulnerability there. (more on this later *rubs hands together in glee*)

I think that there is evidence in the 2016 movie that Leo is relatively new to a position of authority as well. His struggle to maintain the delicate balance of his brother's personalities and the fact that he allows his own personality to get in the way of being a good leader are prime examples.

These are pitfalls that a parentified person would already have experienced and would be able to avoid, and so they wouldn't have happened if Leo was parentified.

Third, let's talk about Leo and Raph.

So, my position here is that Leo and Raph DO have a normal sibling relationship, at least as normal as it can get when you are turtle mutants living in the sewers with only each other for company.

Anecdotal, I know, but I have a bit of experience with a similar dynamic to the one you assigned to them. I am the oldest of three, and my sister (middle) and I did NOT get along as kids. It got to the point where I thought as teens that once I left the house we would never talk to each other ever again.

Perceived favoritism was definitely an issue in my and my sister's relationship. Is it an issue with Leo and Raph? I honestly don't think we get enough time with Splinter in the movies to determine that concretely. It's definitely possible, but I believe something different is, either concurrently with or instead of favoritism, at play here.

I know it's easy to forget because they look Like That, but the turtles are teenagers. They are immature and don't always know how to express themselves. And Raph in particular struggles because he feels so strongly. It can be hard to control it when your emotions are strong like that, don't ask me how I know.

However, he gives himself away at the end of the 2014 movie. "Every time... I pushed you beyond your limits, it was because I believe in you! I believe in each one of you!"

Remember when I said that Raph sensed Leo's vulnerability and pushed on it? We've come back baby! I am firmly in the camp of 'both Raph and Leo are good leaders in their own way', and I think this is part of what makes Raph a good leader.

Sometimes Raph is actually annoyed at Leo for whatever reason, being told what to do the most common I think. But!! Remember, Raph also believes in his brothers, Leo included. So he puts Leo on the spot in a mostly controlled environment to help him learn how to be a leader. There's a lot more I could say here, but that's a Raph post, and this is about Leo.

So is it favoritism, Raph's need for independence, or Raph pushing Leo that causes tension in their relationship? I think it's a bit of all of that and more.

There is a fourth section to this post, about Splinter, but it is now almost four in the morning, I have to get up in like two hours, and I already fell asleep once while writing this. But know that in this iteration at least, Splinter is a decent single father of four boys, he did not parentify Leo, and any favoritism is unintentional.

Anyway, in my house we spend a lot of time talking about how much Leo loves his dad.