chumbalumber @ chumbalumber @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts

7

Comments

468

Joined

2 yr. ago

You may find Niteworks a cool band to listen to if you're looking for songs in Scots Gaelic :)

Lube

It's banging; the texture and flavour are both great.

Some people just have no taste.

Source

They could be friends? Or maybe they heard about it through a mutual friend? Or they're both in a small town where news travels fast? Doesn't have to be the worst.

Bender_awww_yeahhh.gif

Pour it straight onto the body pillow, as God intended.

Yummy 😋

Bisexual 😱

Gen Z is lazy and will die really quickly

At least we're not too lazy to type our sentences in full.

👉👈💀

Bri'ish memes 🤢🇬🇧🔥

Google how share image lemmy

share this image

Ok googliri share this image

That's some cute pixel art :)

Don't smoke weed kids. Bong --> bong.

Also big up Vic n Bob. I'm gonna go listen to tiny eyes again.

My personal view is that you should always be wary of people asserting "this is how it is". We're in a science sub; we know that the purpose of a hypothesis is to rigorously attempt to disprove it and find counterexamples.

To discuss an area that I know some specifics about and can be more confident on: the historiography of the French revolution. Starting with George's Lefebvre, the Marxist historians had a clear idea of what the revolution represented: a movement from the feudal mode of production to the capitalist, and so while their work is incredibly important and academically worth studying, they also tend to go into their work with a clear idea of what they wanted to find. So when the revisionists (starting with Cobban) come along, they find a lot of inconsistencies; the facts of the period don't directly align with what the Marxist narratives wanted it to be (e.g. Cobban's disagreement is that he thinks the feudal mode was near extinct by the time of the Revolution, and that it was more a political conflict than social).

Bringing it back to your question: I disagree with the narrative I put because I think reductive narratives aren't helpful, and cause us to miss a lot of nuance. The nuclear family was dominant in England from the 13th Century onwards, but to leave it there misses a host of interesting social structures and changes (e.g. the role of the church and monasteries as social institutions that exist wholly separate from the family). Moreover, I don't think it's helpful to use the past as a suggestion for how we should build our future. The 'return to tradition' that's suggested often has an idealised view of the past that misses all this nuance. The narrative around 'ancient greek masculinity', for instance, conveniently misses off their ideas around pederasty, which we perceive as abhorrent today.

As for reading, Foucault on how we like to categorise everything is quite interesting. If reading isn't your cup of tea, the Thinking Allowed podcast from the BBC has an episode on Foucault that covers him that's worth listening to.

It's a very interesting article. I broadly think its argument is sensible, but there's a couple of places I'd offer some dissent:

1. I think the idea of greater socialisation of child raising is framed as avoiding turning back the clock to a time when the nuclear family was stronger. I'd disagree with this framing of the suggestion; in many ways this is a return to tradition. Capitalism and the autonomy it represents has led to a loss of the kinds of community the author is describing. It has allowed the destruction of the 'village' in the idiom 'it takes a village to raise a child'. There is now enough wealth for parents to leave the extended family and the local community to form their own, isolated nuclear family, which I personally think can be damaging for children's socialisation.
2. I think the author makes a good point about 'gay' and 'lesbian' as identies having the space to exist as subcultures with the greater autonomy afforded under capitalism, but I would take issue with the suggestion that queer identities are only able to exist as a result of capitalism. There are numerous examples of historical transgender and homosexual identities, not just behaviours (e.g. two-spirit people in Native American culture).

Overall I think it's an interesting narrative and a good point about the distinction between homosexual behaviour and desires, and queer identity.