My thoughts,
I feel like the biggest disconnect with all the discourse going around is that, (mainly twitter) users automatically assume that combining two peoples names is 'shipping' when that's really not why.
!EXPLANATION!
If you were looking for content surrounding 2 certain people but only tagged their names separately you would be getting EVERY single post. Posts that could have other people in it, and not be the two you were looking for (if I were to look for posts about Ian and Anthony, I would trust the Ianthony tag more than just looking through their regular tags, because people tag them in a lot of other Smosh related content)(same thing for Damien and Shayne, if I was looking for them as a duo I would look through the Shaymien tag)(it simply sorts posts better)
They don't seem to grasp the fact that tagging 'Damangela' is because that's how the tagging culture works over here, and not because we're 'shipping' them.
I thought it was common practice, everyone understands in the fandom world that when you combine people's names it's at it's CORE, a 'Duo Name' before ANYTHING ELSE.
I'm just going to automatically assume that most people getting their feathers all ruffled, just haven't been in fandoms spaces as much, AND THAT'S OKAY!!!
But please, if you take anything away from this, most people doing a lot of shipping is young people, so keep that in mind.
42 notes
·
View notes
Wake up babes, new chapter of mallrats just dropped <3
Mallrats (23114 words) by QueerCodedVillains
Chapters: 3/9
Fandom: Naruto, Naruto (Anime & Manga)
Rating: Explicit
Warnings: Graphic Depictions Of Violence
Relationships: Deidara/Sasori (Naruto), background kakuzu/hidan
Characters: Sasori (Naruto), Deidara (Naruto), Hidan (Naruto), Kakuzu (Naruto)
Additional Tags: SasoDei Week 2023 (Naruto), 90'S, Akatsuki - Freeform, Alternate Universe - Modern Setting, Claire's AU, Mafia AU, If You Squint - Freeform, we are taking liberties translating the akatsuki into a modern setting here, Drug Use, Drug Dealing, Blood and Violence, POV Alternating, Bottom Deidara (Naruto), Top Sasori, BDSM, Impact Play, Praise Kink, Edging, Orgasm Control, Overstimulation, Sasori is still a puppet master but only in the loosest terms, if you catch my drift, Shibari, Suspension, Fucking Machines, Porn With Plot, Hurt/Comfort, Bratting, brat taming, Dom/sub
Series: Part 1 of Mallrats Cinematic Universe
Summary:
In which the Akatsuki are 90's mallrats by day, crime syndicate by night. All the best criminals have a day job to launder their rent money, but the real fun only starts once they're off the clock.
10 notes
·
View notes
Cynthia Lennon: abuse and historiography
So today Im thinking about this quote, which discusses Cynthia Lennon's historiography, and specifically the discourse surrounding Johns physical abuse. The author writes:
“[Cynthia] in no way sweeps [Johns] bad behaviour under the rug in her first book [A Twist Of Lennon], but she saves the details — namely, the scene in which John follows her down a hallway and slaps her hard enough to cause her to hit her head on a pipe—for the book she would write several years later.
It’s possible that she felt like she couldn’t publish those details without being dismissed—or blamed—until the world better understood the nature of domestic violence. It’s also possible that her own understanding of domestic violence shaped her view for her second book…The evolution of the Western world’s view of relationship violence is key to evaluating Cynthia Lennon’s historiography.” (A Twist Of Lennon Revisited by Elizabeth Snowden)
Though I do think the varying social contexts that would have influenced each of Cynthias memoirs is important to understand, in terms of why she would have left out the detail of physical abuse in her first work—another thing I take away from this, is that its not inconceivable that she would have continued to downplay Johns physical acts of abuse in later life. [more below the cut]
For whatever reasons that may have possessed her, she did neglect to mention the physical assault in her first book (perhaps she felt embarrassed about it; perhaps she wanted to protect Johns reputation; perhaps there were legal concerns; perhaps, as was mentioned in the quote, socially 1978 just wasn’t a time in which she would have garnered an empathetic response from the vast majority of people).
But the question this begs for me is: can we really say, with confidence, that this assault was definitely a one time occurrence only? Ive always struggled to accept that John would have only hit Cynthia once, in part because it just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t understand why he would write a lyric such as “I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved” if this was a one-time, isolated incident of physical assault that happened in 1958/59. Do I believe that John was genuinely remorseful about the assault? Yes—Cynthia details him being such in her book [“He apologised for hitting me and said it would never happen again…” “He was deeply ashamed of what he had done…” pg. 38], and as well, John did tend to feel guilty and self-hating over his hostile behaviours [see: I Know (I Know) as an example of this]. But I struggle to believe that he would have continued to have felt this remorse over hitting her one time when he was 17 for the following 8/9 years of their relationship. And even more-so, while you could argue his lyricism in Getting Better was hyperbolic or fictitious, its clear that he was being serious in his 1980 interview, stating:
“It is a diary form of writing. All that ‘I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved’ was me. I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically...any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn't express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace. Everything's the opposite. But I sincerely believe in love and peace. I am a violent man who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence. I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster.”
[Note: Also, I don’t tend to like to look to deeply into the semantics of interviews, since I think people are a) prone to being inarticulate and unable to express what they really mean, and b) are often just making off-the-cuff remarks—but I do think its significant that John describes himself through the noun of being “a hitter”, rather then saying “I hit X…” which would have suggested it was an isolated incident.]
Again, I just don’t really understand why John would still be feeling remorse over physically abusing women, if it was an isolated incident. It again suggests that there was more than one occurrence of physical abuse. Furthermore, we also have descriptions of physical abuse detailed by both John and Cynthia in Hunter Davies’s book, which are highly suggestive that there were other occurrences of physical abuse in their early relationship:
‘Molly, the cleaning woman, once caught John hitting me, really clouting me. She said I was a silly girl, to get mixed up with someone like that.
‘I was in a sort of blind rage for two years,’ says John. ‘I was either drunk or fighting. It had been the same with other girlfriends Id had. There was something the matter with me.’
‘I just kept hoping he’d get over it, but I wondered if I could stick it long enough to find out. I blamed his background, his home, Mimi and the College.’
You can read a collection of his instances of violence towards women in the top comment of this reddit post; I feel its a fairly good piece on this, since it cites sources (some of which you could argue are dodgy, but sources nonetheless), and also details them pretty objectively.
Now, I don’t know the extent of Johns physical abuse towards Cynthia, but if you want to hear my speculation on the subject, this is it: I think it happened more then once, especially during Johns “2 year blind rage” (from ages 17-19), although I don’t get the impression that it occurred much (if at all) following their marriage and Julians birth. If it was regular during that period, then it seems as though it would have gone noticed by Cynthias friends/housekeepers. Based on Johns behavioural history of being a ‘mean drunk’, I would assume too that the physical abuse would have mostly occurred while John was under the influence of some kind of drug/drink. I also think it probably stopped relatively early on (perhaps ’61-ish? Just a guess though)—in part because John had obviously recognised that his behaviour had to change by 1967, as we know from the lyrics of Getting Better; but also, because it seems to me that a large part of their marriage often involved just ignoring one-another, I suppose. A massive conflict within the relationship was the issue of negligence*, and so I imagine that arguments would be deescalated simply because they didn’t address the problem in the first place.
[*“Negligence” by the way doesn’t mean I think John didn’t want to be more emotionally-present within the relationship; he neglected Julian in some ways too, but I don’t doubt that he loved him; and theres plenty to suggest that John did want and try to be a good father and husband. What the negligent aspect really indicates to me is that he was just struggling with mental illness and trauma, and due to this he found it difficult to establish these connections with his loved ones, and to consistently maintain emotional stability].
But ultimately, I admit that this is only my speculation. Im sure others would disagree—after all, there is room to do-so: you could argue Cynthia left him after the first instance of physical abuse, which indicates she would not have put up with it again. You could argue that, at the end of the day, the most we have is Cynthias word, so perhaps we should just run with it. And theres a level of rationality to these objections, which I do recognise—but what Im really trying to address with this post is just that, if we want to understand John Lennon fully, then we shouldn’t try to dismiss or downplay the reality of his abuses, and that means understanding accounts of them in their full contexts, which means considering an element of historiography.
If you're wondering what the actual purpose of this post is, I can promise you it's not an attempt to purely disparage Johns name; nor am I actively searching for objectionable things John did throughout his life for the sole purpose of shitting on him (unlike this Vice article). I just think that questioning Cynthias historiography, and asking ourselves if it is possible—and likely—that she would have dispelled other instances of physical abuse from her own narrative, plays an important role in our attempts to understand John Lennon at his fullest. And while I don't love hearing That One Guy at a party cite that "John was a wifebeater”, I also don't like seeing fans get too evasive with this subject. From what I typically see on Tumblr these days, most people seem pretty good at discussing subject, and so Im hesitant to even post this (concerned I may be coming off as patronising or with an ‘Im Moral, You’re Not’ attitude). But at times I see people make points that either seem misguided and/or misinformed—a good example of this is when I see people remark that John was drunk when he hit Cynthia (as detailed in her 2005 memoir), despite her not noting that in her telling of the story—and so I feel writing this may be beneficial for a few people.
Discussing the fact that John had a history of abuse doesn’t mean you have to perceive him as a Terrible Person, or that we cant still empathise with him, or that we cant recognise his emotional growth and maturity across the years. All it means is that, we shouldn’t ignore the contexts, and should strive for as comprehensive an understanding of him as a person as we can: hence why Ive brought this topic up.
[Final Note: since I want people to have the full contexts on this, here’s the extracts from Cynthia Lennon’s second book John (2005), found at the end of chapter 3 and beginning of chapter 4:]
118 notes
·
View notes