#difference between demand draft and cheque

[jamiesfootball]

22 and 23 for the 2023 writer asks!

22. Share an excerpt from your favorite scene

23. Share the final version of a sentence or paragraph you struggled with. What about it was challenging? Are you happy with how it turned out?

Gonna be a little unorthodox and answer both in one go. But also since I know you have been a busy little bee, I will put it below the line for spoilers, in case you would like to read it later.

I'm talking about one of the twists! The moment somebody in the comments coined as 'the Sisyphus pull'

First, the excerpt:

The tension snapped. He shoved at Roy's shoulders, eyes bright with fury. Roy pushed him back. Hard. Between one second and the next they fell into grappling, shoving and pulling as they tried to knock each other down, the world slipping out from awareness— —and Roy was prepared for the pain he had coming to him— —he knew what he'd done to earn it, better to earn it now before it could circle back down the road ten times worse— —wasn't like he hadn't had his arse handed to him more times than he could count— —seventeen, minutes after his debut when running his mouth he learned the hard way how to write a cheque his bones couldn't cash— —eighteen, in physio, with the growing weight that he'd fucked up— —retired, in physio, pain and him on friendly terms— —his heartbeat pounded in his ears, lighting up his nerves and leaving a tang of iron in his mouth, and he hadn't asked for the itch under his skin, but it threatened to eat him alive if he didn't find a way to get it out of his system— He got in a lucky shove. Jamie tripped. One of his rings caught against Roy's shirt and a loud tear ripped through the air, deafening against the blood pulsing in his ears. Without thinking, Roy caught him by the elbow, steadying him before he could fall—only to realize what he was doing and shove him away. Jamie's arm pulled back, and with blood banging like a war drum in his ears, Roy did what instinct and years of training demanded and headbutted his opponent square in the fucking face. Something crunched. "Fuck!" Jamie swore. A poorly formed fist glanced off Roy's forehead, the sharp sting catching him off guard. Roy stumbled back into the lamppost, Jamie hit the ground, and that was it. That was the whole fight. Less than ten seconds, if he had to guess. Jamie's eyes gleamed up at him from the pavement. Blood dripped through his cupped hand and onto his new jacket, black in the dark like ink on a blot test. Weeks too late, the Red Bull commercial finally slapped him in the face. Sisyphus; that was the name. The guy on the hill, the one that didn't have any wings. The one who was doomed to keep doing the same thing over and over again.

The commentary

There are two things I want to talk about here: the fight itself and the Sisyphus of it all.

The fight:

This entire scene was difficult in many ways, many of them starting with the fact that I did not care for the fight scene in the finale. It didn't feel earned, it came out of nowhere, and it felt like a disservice to two characters who - yeah, have fought before - but not like this. They've never drawn blood. It's always just been pushing and shoving and getting in each other's face. So there's regression, and then there's hitting some level we've never seen them at.

But the whole point of this fic isn't to rewrite things to be different and better - it's to work around what canon gave us so that I could somehow make canon like. Work. At all. On a fundamental level that works in the narrative.

The actual craft of the fight I drafted out in very broad strokes. I had the beginning part of the scene very clearly, but then getting them to a point where something like trading blows could happen? Very difficult. 'Boys will be boys' / 'lol men are dumb' / etc got bandied about a lot after the finale, and even disregarding my innate hatred at those phrases, using pithy sayings to bandage narrative failings will never not appear to me like the laziest of writing decisions.

So it was important to me that the first half of the chapter really be leading to This Point, and equally important that when we got to this point that we would have a full grasp of how the fight wasn't just a one-off problem. It was a sign that something deeper had gone wrong. It was a gradual implosion - the building up of many highly emotional beats that Roy, at the end of the day, just didn't have the tools to process.

The parts that are in flashback, I wanted to use those to highlight the cyclical nature of pain-anger-violence in Roy's life. How it's taken over as the only thing he does understand how to process - the when 'you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail' of it all. He wants to fix things with Jamie, and in a fucked up way this is supposed to fix things, but it's not even inflicting pain on Jamie that he's thinking of here - it's the pain he's expecting to be inflicted on himself.

The other priority here with the fight was that while it's not good, it's not okay by any means, it actually never crosses much further into violence than we've seen from them before. We've seen them shove each other. We've seen Jamie, cornered, throw a punch. We've seen Roy headbutt. It's not that the actions themselves are worse, it's that the circumstances surrounding them are so fucked. It's supposed to hurt.

And then it does hurt. Roy lands a hit that does actual damage to Jamie, and that's what finally snaps him out of it. Or rather, that's what finally wakes him up, because....

The Sisyphus of it all:

I mentioned before in another post how Roy confusing Icarus and Sisyphus originally started as a joke (it's an old commercial, after all). The joke then became more serious the longer I thought about it - it made sense to me that Roy, with all his pushing Jamie to be better and seeing Jamie fall to pieces during Mom City, would worry that he'd made an Icarus out of him.

But then the Sisyphus thing was right there, and I thought that would serve as an excellent metaphor for Roy and how he feels about his life right now.

The other thing I'm proud of - the thing I really wanted to accomplish and based on feedback I DID accomplish - was the 'pull' aspect of it. That it was something off to the side, just out of notice of both Roy and the audience, and that bringing it back into the narrative at just the right point would have a whiplash effect.

THAT is the bit I struggled with. I knew I had to work it in gradually. I knew I had to bring it up in a way that the audience would go on this Icarus journey with Roy, while at the same time having the same lingering feeling that something wasn't quite right. Getting the narrative to reflect the repetitive pattern of the Sisyphus struggle without putting it together themselves that that's the conclusion that was waiting at the end of the line.

I now feel like I rambled a bit without answering your question straight on, but the short of it all is that writing this fight was a STRUGGLE and YES I'M PROUD OF IT. I think it paid off. I hope anyone who reads it feels like it did too.

[discyours]

Could you make a list of ur opinions?

I can try, but I never really learned how tumblr works so I don’t know how to make this an actual page on my blog. Once I do figure out how I’ll definitely link to this. I’ll go off the top of my head for most frequently asked/what I think is most relevant, but if there’s anything you’re missing feel free to ask. 

Gender: 

Gender is, in short, the roles that are ascribed to sex. This includes the idea that anyone who is born female is bound to be docile, caring, or even just more likely to like pink. But gender identity also falls under this. Defining a woman as someone who wants to be female is referring to something - an action, a personality trait, a feeling, a thought - beyond sex as what “makes” a woman. Gender is not fake, but it is a social construct and in my opinion it’s a harmful one. Whether deliberately created to oppress women (like is the case with women being expected to be submissive) or originated as a relative accident like with certain fashion trends, gender roles end up restricting women’s freedom. Believing in female liberation means being against, or at least critical of that. 

Gender identity: 

Again, falls under gender but I think it deserves its own answer. I don’t think gender identity is necessarily “fake” either. When people say that they “feel like” a woman rather than a man I don’t think that they’re lying. I may take issue with the wording just like I may expect people to be critical of their own reasoning when they explain that their gender identity is male because the idea of being a man feels right to them whereas being a woman doesn’t, but I do understand how they feel. I relate to the feeling myself and I do think that the average trans man feels differently about this than the average cis (meaning non-trans) woman, however I’m not convinced that this feeling is rigid or innate. 

So I don’t think gender identity is “fake” or complete nonsense, but I don’t think it’s a particularly useful category either. There’s no reason I should be sharing bathrooms with people who have an internal sense that they should be male rather than female over people who lack the ability to use urinals and require trash cans to dispose of menstrual products. There’s no reason for me to share changing rooms with people with similar genderfeels rather than people who have similar bodies to mine and are statistically far less likely to sexually assault me than people with a different type of body. 

In the context of feminism we need to recognise that sex is the category in which women are being oppressed when they suffer FGM, when they’re put into menstrual huts, when they’re denied reproductive freedom, when they’re kept out of government positions because of their unreliable, hormone driven female emotions, when they’re missing out on jobs that an equally qualified man would be accepted for because their employer doesn’t want to risk having to deal with them getting pregnant. Sex, not gender identity. 

Egalitarianism: 

I actually don’t get asked about this much which is a shame because I know that people are thinking it; if it’s just about wanting women to have rights then why not be an egalitarian? Why, unless you hate men and want them to be below women rather than being equal? 

There’s multiple reasons. For one, feminism started as a women’s rights movement and women do not owe it to men to change that as soon as they decided they were done fully opposing it. There would be something inherently disgusting to me about denying women their own movement for their own issues regardless of where I stand on egalitarianism. 

But beyond that, I oppose the idea that we just draw a line at men’s current quality of life and decide that that’s the standard women must be judged against. The idea of it is misogynistic but in practice it’s harmful too; we’ve all seen those “if you want equality then women need to join the draft” and “if we’re equal then can I punch you in the face?” statements. This form of “equality” is still just letting men control the standard for women’s lives. Is still forcing women to fit into a system built by men. 

A lot of egalitarians seem hypocritically focused on equal outcome which I also disagree with. The ratio of men to women that die during physically taxing jobs is hardly any more of an issue than the ratio of men to women that die during child birth. There are biological reasons for these discrepancies (one moreso than the other, but there’s still never going to be an effective way to have a 50/50 sex split in every single job) and compensating for them for the sake of some vague concept of “equality” is pointless. The inadequacies in female-specific healthcare are a big reason to have a movement specifically for women’s rights, to have a movement that can advocate for improvement. Likewise if a lack of health and safety regulations in manual labour disproportionately affects men, that’s a good reason for a men’s rights movement to advocate for improvement (not that either of these can replace non-sexspecific advocacy groups which are also very important). I just don’t believe that women have any responsibility to merge with or be involved in men’s rights movements, considering women have historically always been oppressed by men and men still hold the majority of political as well as financial power. 

Liberal feminism: 

Liberal feminism is often what people refer to as mainstream feminism, but I don’t think it’s right to write off liberal feminism as a whole just because I disagree with the direction that mainstream feminism has gone. In simple terms liberal feminism is just feminism which seeks more individual freedom for women within the current system, whereas radical feminism is focused on class freedom and radically changing the system if not creating a new one altogether. I don’t fully disagree with liberal feminism and in fact I don’t believe any form of feminism that doesn’t at times utilise more liberal solutions has any way of succeeding. Getting more women into our current government without actually overhauling our political system and changing the reasons that women are kept out of government positions is liberal; I still only vote for women when I can, and encourage other people to do the same because when we’re unable to change things completely, it’s better than nothing. 

The reason I lean more towards radical feminism is because I ultimately don’t find liberal solutions to be good enough. I don’t want to regulate the porn industry, I want to abolish it. I don’t believe any amount of regulation or “reclamation” can ever make the sex industry ethical and while completely eradicating it is never going to happen, having that as the end goal at least means that you never stop pushing. The same thing goes for just about all other systems which oppress women; I fundamentally disagree with liberal feminists that giving individual women more individual freedom about whether or not to participate in these systems is ever going to be good enough.  

Sex work: 

I don’t believe that consuming or procuring sex work (ie being a john or a pimp) can ever be ethical as I don’t believe that consent can be bought. If somebody would not have sex with you without being paid, I don’t see that as true consent. There is something inherently coercive about having to choose between not having the money you need or having sex with someone. Coerced sex is not consensual and we all know what non-consensual sex is. 

There may be some people who don’t need the money but do it regardless because they enjoy it/want extra cash, especially in “milder” forms of sex work like camming or stripping. But the reality is that the vast majority of people (90% of prostitutes) who do “sex work” do not want to and would be doing something else if they had the option. Their suffering is more important to me than the enjoyment of the select few who do want to be “sex workers”, and that of the johns they “service”. 

That being said, I support the Nordic model which criminalises the consumption and procurement of sex work but decriminalises actually being a sex worker. This model has been shown to reduces trafficking as it reduces demand, and it doesn’t harm sex workers (who are the ones we’re trying to protect). Sidenote, I hate the term “sex work” as it already goes along with the idea that sex can ever be a job and should be held to the same standards as one when it comes to the ethics of being indirectly coerced by a need for money - however I’ll use it when I need to to explain my stance to people who do use the term. 

Surrogacy: 

I view surrogacy similarly to sex work; as an unethical and unnecessary commodification of women’s bodies which puts their health and safety at risk, and is often indirectly coerced through financial needs. Viewing parenthood as being primarily about who “claims” a newborn rather than who actually carried and gave life to it is inherently patriarchal and sets a terrifying precedent. Pregnancy puts a huge strain on women’s physical as well as mental health, and ending the process with a cheque or a sincere thank you rather than a baby can be mentally devastating, even if you knew from the start that you wouldn’t keep it. It is morally inconsistent that surrogacy is often legal in places where it’s illegal to receive money for giving away an organ or your blood; policies that are in place to avoid turning the poor into a class of kidney-suppliers. The idea of consent magically justifying everything falls way short when the same concept hasn’t been applied to blood donations for aforementioned reasons, and when you’re stuck to a contract. If we’ve agreed that consent to sex does not count if it’s irrevocable, why is surrogacy treated differently? 

Much like with sex work, the demand always far outweighs the supply which means that the few women who sincerely and genuinely want to do this don’t just justify the whole thing. I believe a system similar to the Nordic model should be in place, where there’s no legal repercussions to being a surrogate but where attempting to recruit one is illegal. 

Communism: 

I’m definitely a leftist and radical feminism itself has marxist roots. I recognise that capitalism plays quite a big role in women’s oppression through the barriers that women experience to enter many forms of paid labour, and the unpaid labour that is expected of them. Capitalism also leads to the commodification of women’s bodies through sex work or surrogacy. That being said, the inherently authoritarian nature of communism simply can’t be justified in my opinion. People who are corrupted by power exist under every system, which is why authoritarianism can never be safe regardless of the ideology it’s attached to. Even a “benevolent dictator” will die eventually if they don’t get overthrown first. 

Transmedicalism: 

I view transmedicalism as a harmful ideology. The brain sex studies transmedicalists often link are extremely flawed; incredibly small sample sizes used to draw overreaching conclusions, and a failure to account for neuroplasticity (the fact that your brain’s structure can change over time). Their insistence that transition is the only option for dysphoric people is harmful to all dysphoric/trans people, and often worsens dysphoria while also discouraging the development of alternative treatments. Their claims that all detransitioners were never really trans in the first place and every person who transitioned must’ve secretly been dysphoric regardless of their insistence otherwise are based on no actual fact, just a need for their ideology to make sense. 

[banksforyou]

5 unbelievable differences between cheque and demand draft

Banks are playing the most significant role in today’s modern world from money transactions to transfer of money to different parts of the world. 

There are several ways including cash to transfer the money to other user’s hand but we gonna discuss the main highlights on the major difference between cheque and demand draft.

https://banksforyou.com/difference-between-cheque-and-demand-draft/