#'let women have flaws' etc etc

[buckleydiazmp4]

people in fandom are... illogical sometimes

[lucabyte]

🐮

[vamptastic]

while i am also put off by the insistence to at all times use the most inflammatory, insulting, and condescending language towards anybody who disagrees with their fringe beliefs, the primary reason i just cannot engage with T/ERF bullshit even for the sake of trying to break down why they believe the things they do is the utter and complete lack of unbiased sources. seriously, every single time its like, transwomenareevil.com and every article is talking about a crime some random trans woman committed using the most libelous language possible. they legitimately read like a list of crimes read out before a mob before someone is shot in the head. no statistics, not even unbiased analysis of anecdotal examples, the vast majority of scientific articles they do attempt to cite, usually regarding medical transition, are meta analysis that do not actually support their claims if you, yknow, fucking read them (as always its 'more data needed'). it's all based on kneejerk disgust reactions or fear stemming from personal trauma. not the kind of thing im inclined to humor as a basis for how i want to conduct my life or what laws i want passed. and the entire time they're all convinced they're the only real feminists and the rest of us are idiots who have never heard of systematic oppression before.

[youremyheaven]

Jupiter Dominant Women & Daddy Issues

TW: mentions of rape, abuse, suicide etc

Over the years of my studies, I have noticed that its Jupiter dominant women who tend to have daddy issues more than any other planetary dominance. Solar women (Uttarashada, Uttaraphalguni & Krittika) tend to benefit from positive male influence in their early life, so they have healthy Yang qualities (they're driven, self-motivated, critical thinking) whereas women who haven't had a healthy male influence in their early lives, either develop a heightened but fragile femininity (understood in a very traditional way, this means being passive and excessively reliant on others to get by, I know this is misogynistic but i am talking strictly about a traditional notion of femininity) or they cultivate inner masculinity.

Jupiter is a masculine planet and across the naks of Punarvasu, Vishaka and Purvabhadrapada, women tend to have a very unguarded, open, almost masculine presence. I mean this in terms of what they talk about or how self-assured they seem, traditionally women were expected to be more withdrawn or to talk little. I don't mean to say Jupiterian women are brash or aggressive, they're very poised, and elegant and put across their point eloquently. They're 9/10 times very well-spoken. When one lacks the security of a male figure early in life, one tends to cultivate inner masculinity because it's understood that you cannot rely on any man.

Caroline Polachek, Punarvasu Moon, has spoken about her difficult relationship with her father on numerous occasions. Here's a link to a post where she talks about it. Her lack of a father figure in her own words caused her to be "self-sufficient". Notice how in the post, she speaks about making amends with him later in life and even ended the post with "love you dad". This is the kind of generosity that you don't see from most other nakshatra types. To forgive someone who was never there for you/abused you/hurt you/caused you immense pain, requires a great deal of strength and maturity and not everybody has it. Punarvasu's innate nature is to absorb everything into its orbit and always be the bigger person. Due to the vast, abundant nature of Jupiter, they are ABLE to, accept these people for all their contradictions and see them as flawed, which makes it easier to forgive them. Most people let their traumas define their identity (im not saying traumas don't shape you, only about the kind of perception most people have about their own traumas) and spend their whole lives blaming others for who they've become or what they've done to them. To live a peaceful life, one has to take the high road, look beyond everything and see it as a part of life. It sounds very callous when I say it like that but that's what I mean. Not everyone is capable of being the bigger person or taking the high road.

Jupiter is the guru or teacher and how would one describe an ideal teacher? Someone who forgives the mistakes of their students as having risen out of immaturity and forgives them for not knowing better or being better. A teacher is forced to operate on a higher moral plane than others simply because chaos would descend if the teacher came down to the level of others. They are figures of wisdom, knowledge and higher learning, therefore their behaviour has to reflect the same. Jupiter natives are harshly punished for behaving in ways that are not fit for a "guru" because subconsciously society/those around them subject them to a different standard. Others can do the same exact thing and not suffer any consequences but when a Jupiter native behaves that way, they're ostracized. People kind of expect them to have it all together or be better. Any lapse on their part is judged harshly.

One of the biggest mysteries is how Jupiter natives emerge from often brutally abusive and neglectful childhoods into relatively well-adjusted adults. In the case of famous parent-child situations, there is public proof of their wrongdoing but in numerous other instances many do not believe Jupiter natives to have suffered the way they have or to the extent they have simply because on the outside they seem to have it all/seem so put together. This is yet another manifestation of Jupiter's duality and this not being believed/seen for who they are/how they've lived can be a source of pain/grief for some of these natives whilst others like to pretend it never happened and present a very positive view of their life. They don't hold grudges and often simply overlook the horrible nature of their loved ones, especially their parents and try to make amends with them.

Drew Barrymore, Punarvasu Moon, comes from a very famous family of actors but her father John Barrymore was a violent alcoholic and a drug addict who abandoned her & her mother when she was a child. She did not have any relationship with him and seldom spoke to him until he was diagnosed with cancer. She took care of him and even paid his medical bills until he passed away in 2004. Here's an IG post where she talks about her dad. It's so touching to see the compassion with which Punarvasu natives talk about people who've hurt them so much (in her memoir, Drew recalls how one time her father picked her up as a three-year-old and threw her against the wall). Truly, I don't see this level of kindness in any other nakshatra if I'm being honest. This is a photograph of her with Steven Spielberg who directed her in E.T when she was 7 years old, he's kind of a godfather figure to her and she apparently asked him to be her dad when she was a kid 🥺🥺

I also think Jupiter natives have a complicated relationship with their mothers as well, sometimes they're extremely close but other times, I think Jupiter natives feel the need to be their mother's saviour because they know how much she's gone through in her life. This manifests itself in a very complicated relationship. There is love but there is also a lot of bitterness.

Drew Barrymore has a very complicated relationship with her mother, who used to date the men Drew dated, pushed her into acting and exploited her as a child and admitted her to a psych ward when she was 12 among other things. Drew still takes care of her financially and has mentioned that her mother has even tried to steal money from her.

Charlotte Gainsbourg, Punarvasu Moon is the daughter of Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin. Her parents separated when she was a child and she lived with her father. In 1984, she did a duet with her father and starred in the music video for a song called Lemon Incest which describes an incestuous relationship between father & daughter. She was 12 years old at the time.

The music video is creepy, to say the least and features both of them half-naked in bed together. In 1986 when she was 14, she starred with her father in a movie called Charlotte For Ever which is about an alcoholic man whose only link to life is his daughter (Serge was an alcoholic). She has spoken about how difficult the filming experience was for her as he would push her to her extremes.

Here's a very uncomfortable clip of him kissing her on the mouth when she wins a Cesar. She is 16 years old.

Jane Birkin commented on the song saying "It never came as a shock or a surprise or even a worry [to her], knowing Serge's great love for Charlotte". Many believe that Birkin enabled Serge's abuse of their daughter since she left him due to his alcoholism and violence but left Charlotte in his care. She has also stated that her mother would always dress her up as a little boy when she was a child and that this complicated her relationship with her femininity.

Charlotte has only ever said good things about both her parents and denied any abuse.

She's also starred in multiple films directed by Lars Von Trier where she plays gruesome sexually depraved characters and Lars is well known for being difficult to work with. She has said that she sought fatherly approval from him ._. and again has only said good things about him.

Kali Uchis, Punarvasu Sun, Vishaka Moon & Rising has spoken about being abused as a child and that she no longer maintains contact with her family. She was kicked out of the house when she was 17 and slept in her car and worked at a supermarket for years to support herself.

Halsey, Punarvasu Moon. She grew up poor and has spoken about her difficult childhood, both she & her mother suffer from bipolar disorder and in her song Whispers she sings “Why do you need love so badly?/ Bet it's bеcause of her daddy." In the Armchair Expert podcast, she said that she has both "mommy and daddy issues".

Mariah Carey, Punarvasu Moon, has published a very revealing memoir about her life where she chronicles the abuse she experienced from her family. She had a moderately good relationship with her dad but was estranged from him as an adult. Her mother however continually exploited her for money.

Miley Cyrus, Vishaka Moon has a complicated relationship with both her parents. Currently, she's not on speaking terms with her father after he married a woman around Miley's age.

Beyonce, Vishaka Moon has been performing since she was a child and was in a girl group Destiny's Child which was managed by her father. She dropped him as her manager in 2011 and in the same year, his divorce from her mother was also finalized. He had apparently fathered a love child with another woman in 2009 and this was the reason for their divorce. Some speculate that they are now estranged but in typical Jupiter fashion, she has never bad-mouthed him in public. Jupiter natives do not air their dirty laundry in public ever. Their grace and dignity even in the face of extreme humiliation/shame/pressure is commendable.

Jennie, Vishaka Moon is very close to her mother but she's never mentioned her father in the 8 years since her debut. In the Blackpink documentary, she said that growing up it was just her and her mom. In this interview she spoke about living with her mother and how she never got a chance to spend much time at home as she was sent to boarding school at 8 years old. She remarks that she and her mom are like sisters but she's never said anything about her relationship with her dad, ever. I am not going to assume that they have a bad relationship but I thought it would be interesting to mention.

Demi Moore, Vishaka Sun

Moore was born to a 19-year-old mother and her biological father left before she was born. The actress' mom remarried a man who worsened her problems with alcohol, which led to violence and instability. The family moved many times throughout Moore's childhood and when she was 17, her stepfather committed suicide. In the early '80s, she embarked on her acting career and helped her mother stay in rehab throughout the years. In 1997, her mother was diagnosed with brain cancer and she reunited with her in the final months before her death.

Lily Collins, Purvabhadrapada Sun

Lily had a strained relationship with her dad growing up“Because my dad was often gone, I never wanted to do anything that would make him stay away even longer,” she wrote. “I became extra careful about what I said and how I said it, afraid he'd think I was angry or didn't love him"

She penned an open letter that said: "I forgive you for not being the dad I expected. But it's not too late”.

Alia Bhatt, Purvabhadrapada Sun has said that growing up she saw very little of her filmmaker father Mahesh Bhatt who is known in the media for being a very problematic figure. He once posed for a magazine cover in the 90s with his daughter Pooja Bhatt where they're kissing on the lips (Pooja is Alia's half-sister) and said that he would have married her if she weren't his daughter 🤮🤮Mahesh is known for being a very temperamental man (you'll be hard pressed to find a video of him not screaming) and it's quite well known that he and Alia's mother had a pretty rocky marriage that her mother could not leave as she was financially dependent on him. Her sister, Shaheen Bhatt has talked about struggling with depression and suicidal tendencies since she was a child.

Rekha, Purvabhadrapada Moon is the illegitimate child of actors Gemini Ganesan and Pushpavalli. Her father was already married to another woman when she was born. He refused to accept the paternity of Rekha and her sister Radha and she grew up in the same city that her father and his "legitimate" family lived in and attended the same school as her half-siblings where she occasionally saw glimpses of him dropping his other kids to school. She has stated that growing up she was called a "bastard" and that the only male figure in her life was "God". She made her debut as an actress when she was 13 against her wishes because her family had fallen on bad times and she had to work to support her 6 siblings and ill mother.

This interview of hers offers a glimpse into her early life. Regardless of what she's been through, Rekha has always been stoic and conducted herself with immense grace and dignity even when she received an award from her father who was never a part of her life. She said this in response:

“Why should I grieve for him when he’s so much part of me? Why should I grieve when I’m so grateful for his genes, his teachings, his rich life and his sheer existence? Grieve for what??!! I’m happy I didn’t have to share unpleasant moments with him. He existed for me in my imagination. And that’s so much more beautiful than reality. Everything I love is unqualified by worldly time constraints. I’m just a small link in the larger scheme of things. I’m not the first one to go through death, nor am I the first one to receive an award. I’m enjoying everything that comes my way…good bad or ugly. I try to make good use of what life’s experiences offer. I think I’ve done a good job of my life, whatever others may think.” 

The Jupiterean ability to always look at the bright side and forgive people who don't deserve your forgiveness is heart-breaking but enlightening at the same time.

Rita Hayworth, Purvabhadrapada Moon confided in her husband Orson Welles that she was sexually abused by her father as a child and had been repeatedly raped by him.

Elexus Jionde aka Intelexual Media, Punarvasu Moon has mentioned that she's estranged from her father.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Punarvasu Rising & stellium has spoken about being emotionally and physically abused by his parents especially his father who would beat him up. They also abused him because they thought he was gay due to his preoccupation with the male physique (he wanted to be a bodybuilder and would later become Mr World).

Keanu Reeves, Punarvasu Moon has been estranged from his father for the majority of his life. Charles Reeves abandoned the family when Keanu was 3 yrs old.

Kaia Gerber, Purvabhadrapada Moon has like most other Jupiter natives kept a low profile and seldom spoken about her personal life and has only ever said nice things about her parents. Her father Rande Gerber has been accused of sexual harassment by multiple women and there have been blind items about Cindy putting Kaia on a calorie deficit diet since she was a child to prepare her for a modelling career (this is awfully common among celebrities so I don't even think this is a stretch). When Kaia was 7 years old, her parents were threatened with a picture of her, barely clothed being gagged and bound. It was said that the picture was taken by a female babysitter during a game of cops and robbers because she wanted to prank the Gerbers by pretending to kidnap Kaia (sincerely, wtf) but there have been conspiracy theories that perhaps Kaia was abused by her parents and this picture was leaked from their collection. Anyway the matter has been settled and it feels wrong for me to speculate too much but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

Asia Argento, Purvabhadrapa Moon, is the daughter of filmmaker Dario Argento and has said that she never saw her father as a child and had no kind of relationship with him until she started acting in his movies when she was 16. She said "I never acted out of ambition; I acted to gain my father's attention. It took a long time for him to notice me. … And he only became my father when he was my director."

Her characters in his movies were undressed, raped and generally psychologically traumatised on screen. She once said:

"But I always had this feeling of never being a part of anything, not even of my family. My parents forgot about me. I did everything I could to get their attention."

Chyler Leigh, Vishaka Moon. Her parents divorced when she was 12, following which she was estranged from her father for many years. Her mother moved her to LA when she was a teenager so that she could pursue an acting career. At 15 years old she starred in a movie called Kickboxing Academy as her biological brother's love interest (he was 19). She is said to have been manipulated into doing so by her mother. She has said in a recent interview that she's been estranged from her mother for over 20 years and that like her mother, she too suffers from bipolar disorder. She said, "Because I was put in a position to support my mother, I didn't get the opportunity to speak about my own feelings when I was in my teens." She moved out of her mother's house to live with her then-boyfriend and now husband Nathan West.

Han So Hee, Vishaka Sun was in the news when her mother using her name to borrow bank loans and her debt became public news. Its very rare to hear about the private life of a celebrity in Korea but Sohee came forward to clear things and said her parents divorced when she was 5 following which she was raised by her maternal grandmother with whom she lived until she was in highschool. She's estranged from both her parents and only realized that her mother had been in debt after she turned 18. She found out that her mother had been borrowing money under her name illegally ever since she was a minor. She paid off this debt and apologized to everybody concerned.

IU, Purvabhadrapada Moon grew up in poverty. Her family fell into debt and she was raised by her grandmother who could barely take care of her and her brother. She saw little of her parents growing up. Its unclear how close they are now.

I realize just how many of them are nepo babies lol but I'm kinda glad because it means so much of their life is on public record. Its really unfortunate to see that so many of these natives had absent fathers or fathers who were present in their lives and very abusive.

[knightsickness]

Rhaenyra being a good person and ruler is not boring. Ned was boring?

was considering answering this with ‘lose the question mark’ but that felt mean i do like ned i think hes a good character. and the thing is ned is a boring guy on a personal level all characters agree but he isnt a boring character nice ≠ boring i dont need everyone to be evil. i dont dislike rhaenyra just bc shes soso nice and i only like villains

i dont know when ‘a character having strong motivations and flaws makes them more compelling than a character who is inoffensively nice’ became controversial i would consider it character writing 101. hotd fans leap down your throat about it bc of the teams discourse. ‘aegon was more interesting than rhaenyra in season 2’ isnt an aegon rules rhaenyra drools team green argument it is objectively true aegon is more motivated and he does more

it is not compelling character stuff and an insult to emma’s abilities that they wont let rhaenyra do anything or have any motivations apart from a) peace shes a pacifist and doesnt want to be in the war she is a de facto leader in except maybe she does want to be in the war? (dragonseeds) b) the stupid prophecy c) the throne but she refuses to have a war about it bc see point a). and she states these motivations every episode but theyre actively contradictory so as a result she just doesnt do anything shes almost entirely reactive. if she really cares so much about not having a war and harming her people there are many actions she could take to change that and make a peace but she wont do that bc she wants her father’s throne (far more sentimental and niceys than anything as selfish and crass as her ugh just wanting the throne) and believes she has to be queen and is the chosen one bc of the prophecy. but she doesnt want a war bc women are wise and war is bad so so so she got main character screentime and did almost nothing in eight episodes. end of season 2 even though the war has been literally happening around her people are still talking about when rhaenyra is going to recognise this and start acting like it. a goalpost that has been moved from lukes death to jaces death bc lukes death affected her and her policy veryy little considering how confident everyone was that this means WAR get ready for a NEW DARK RHAENYRA a mothers RAGE. and that just didnt happen at all

baela and to a lesser extent rhaenys also get hit w this really hard theyre a blandly inoffensive Strong Female Character slurry being smeared on my face like im a baby and id get scared if they had any selfish desires. and this does work at pleasing people who are already tb fanatics yayy girlboss imagine liking the creeps on tg over these characters who are women who are nice but it makes for dull characters and plotlines it insults the ability of the audience to like women unless theyre completely sandblasted of anything potentially controversial. i have no idea what motivates baela to fight for rhaenyras cause other than ‘shes jaces nice girlfriend’. and thats really bad !! ned cat brienne sansa dany etc wanted and did things characters can be nice and morally good and motivated and compelling

[lintwriting]

I was here when mouthwashing was just a demo. here are some things I noticed.

I caught on to the fact that Curly was likely innocent and that Jimmy was an unreliable narrator based on the "Take Responsibility" word scramble and Jimmy's asshole behavior. Because of this, I also did not think there would be supernatural horror, I thought it’d be man-made and psychological, which I was right about.

What I did not expect was the subtle depiction of how workplaces fail victims of rape and misogyny.

What I did not expect was how backgrounded the late stage capitalism critique ended up being.

late stage capitalism: a red herring

From the Demo, you focus a lot on the corporation as the main antagonist, probably because Wrong Organ devs were hiding the villain protagonists.

Ominous posters, a Polle monster chasing you, those ominous TV commercials glorifying working for a corporation, the fact that all this horror was over fucking tooth-rotting mouthwash. Really paints the picture of a corporate horror or conspiracy a la “Time to Orbit: Unknown,” where every chapter unveils a new corporate conspiracy for money and power.

but instead, in mouthwashing, the capitalist aspects are merely plot devices to explore the horror surrounding mismanagement and its consequences.

A power tripping coworker and an enabling manager who got him the job. An eager-to-please kid and an established supervisor willing to take advantage. Flaws in how the hierarchy is decided, leading to the one person who shouldn’t have had power getting the power. Lack of sensitivity training (or whatever that’s called) surrounding things like Title IX concerns, such as the uneven gender dynamics or what to do in the event of a crime or the fact that the person doing the psych evals isn’t getting any evals.

Notice that none of these things are unique to capitalism, they’re issues you’d have to plan for in any workplace/organization, whether that be socialist or capitalist or whatever. The capitalism exacerbates the issues or catalyzes the consequences of them like a plot device, but the issues don’t originate from there.

For example: the lack of any woman other than Anya.

Yes, this was most likely exacerbated by late stage capitalism understaffing to cut corners, leading to skeleton crews, but that the crew we DO have is mostly male is more related to misogyny or gender roles.

Perhaps women don't want to work on these freighters because of the danger of being trapped in a confined space with men. Maybe the jobs required for these freighters, like mechanic or pilot, are male-dominated. Or maybe the hiring manager had a bias where they viewed men as more competent, etc. The fact of the matter is that the cause is the same when you dig down deep into it: misogyny.

Or the layoff. The laying off of the crew is its own form of evil, but its consequences aren’t the ones being explored within this story. Most of the crew die of the horrors within the ship before they ever have to face it. In fact, the horrors within the ship don't really even have anything to do with the layoff at all. It’s a bit of a red herring.

Rather, the actual cause of this game’s horror is the mismanaged fallout of Jimmy’s assault. Most obviously in that scene where we see Curly for the first time, wherein Curly doesn’t take Anya’s safety concerns seriously, even when Jimmy is actively threatening to make everyone disappear so neither of them have to face the consequences of the assault.

I initially misread that scene as Curly evilly conspiring to let Jimmy crash the ship so neither of them would take the fall, hence us finally seeing Curly's “true face.” Because I read what Jimmy said as inherently threatening and serious, I thought Curly had agreed to that awful plan and only got cold feet at the last minute.

It’s only from reading other comments that I realized Curly had most likely assumed Jimmy was blowing hot air and needed to cool down in that scene. Or that he was making an inappropriate joke akin to his 'sexually attracted to cartoon horses' thing and wasn't being serious. Curly didn’t realize Jimmy was actually talking about a real plan until it was too late stop it (makes me wonder if Jimmy was actually attracted to the horse, too).

Thus, it goes from a story about corner-cutting late stage capitalist megacorps to a story about cartoonishly evil, power-tripping men to a story about how we enable these men with failures in our system.

Much like how the beginning of the game, when Jimmy crashes the ship, a failure in the safety systems is what allows the crash to happen (Seriously? One pilfered key is all you need to send your ship into a crash?), a series of social safety nets had to have failed to let him into the cockpit in the first place. The true face is not Curly conspiring to crash the ship out of cowardice and greed, but his inability to face what his friend has done.

[princessbakarina]

seeing 'new' female isekai-ed characters like katarina, yumiella, aileen and etc get dunked on online by twitter and reddit is so disheartening. dudebros making fun of them for being dumb, dense and idiotic when the male isekaied characters that they like are blander than white bread yet the most gorgeous women still fall on their feet for them. yeah so realistic. sure katarina and co aren't perfect characters but at least they have flaws and faults unlike their op conqueror bland ass printer paper looking male mcs. let women enjoy their female fantasies without being needlessly mocked by men who aren't even the target demographic. give me a break and a gun

[cowboys-tshot]

Circe and Odysseus in Epic: The Musical

EDIT: DO NOT TAKE MY WORD AS THE 100% TRUTH!!

I took some classes and wrote a paper about ancient Greek culture, but I am in NO WAY an expert. Please read through the reblogs to see some good criticisms and discussion about this topic further. My point overall stands that you can't apply modern rules and standards to ancient stories, but my evidence is undoubtedly flawed! This post has been edited to try and better reflect this.

I'm seeing everyone pointing out the possible issues with Epic the Musical's deviation from the original story of Circe and Odysseus, and as someone who's studied Ancient Greece/ancient Greek myths a bit, I wanted to say some stuff about it. This will be a bit of a long one, so apologies for my rambling!

Note that I'm not trying to shit on SA survivor's perspectives and (completely valid) arguments. I'm just trying to offer some context surrounding the original myth and how it fits (or rather, doesn't fit) with a modern audience. If I'm wrong with any of this, feel free to call me out! Criticize the shit out of me! I like learning about Greek culture and myths and would 100% love to hear other perspectives on this.

So, a few points about Ancient Greek myths to kind of explain the context around Circe and Odysseus:

Greek myths often did not have good views/depictions of women. Women were very often depicted as conniving, selfish, sexually insatiable creatures. There are a few deviations from this trope, the most prominent of which being Penelope herself—she's basically the ideal Greek wife, staying loyal to her husband for 20 years and all that.

Adultery often only applied to women. Husbands cheating on their wives wasn't merely tolerated, but kind of expected. Men often cheated on their wives with various kinds of prostitutes, concubines, mistresses, etc. Although, sleeping with unmarried women (that weren't specifically prostitutes) or married women was still looked down upon. Women didn't have this same standard. They could only sleep with their husbands—hell, their husbands (and family) were pretty much the only men they could even interact with once some really sexist Asiatic practices were brought to Athens.

The original myth has Hermes very plainly lay out how Odysseus' confrontation with Circe will go: Odysseus will eat the moly, draw his sword at her, she'll proposition him, and Hermes directly tells Odysseus to accept. Basically a "sleep with her if you want your men to live" situation. (See this post for more specifics on this).

So, let's apply this to Epic: The Musical. Here's some reasons I think may explain the Circe myth being changed:

The Greek "women being evil" stereotype is... problematic. While I 100% understand that it's important to acknowledge male victims of SA, I don't think the original myth was focusing on Odysseus being a victim—I saw it more of an emphasis on Circe being a sexually selfish woman, as women were often believed to be. Changing Circe to be less conniving and evil deviates from the concerning Greek stereotype.

The SA in the myth is not actually very clearly SA. Yes, with a modern perspective, it absolutely is sexual coercion, but for ancient Greeks, not so much. It made sense to them that sex could be transactional, especially when gods were involved. It's already been established that Epic, while still generally accurate to the original myth, does change things relating to morality/themes in order to better align with modern Western ideas (i.e. OG Odysseus not being as remorseful and merciful, as that was expected of a Greek hero, but Epic Odysseus having more empathy because that's more modernly heroic). If something from the original myth doesn't translate well into modern culture, then it's understandable to want to change or omit it.

In the case that the original Circe myth wasn't SA (I'm not saying one is more right than the other, I'm just covering all the bases), then it wouldn't even constitute as cheating. Like I described earlier, men often slept with women that weren't their wives. Plus, being a goddess, she's already kinda exempt from being blamed if Odysseus slept with her—only women are ever really blamed for sleeping with (or being SAed by) gods, and even then, their husbands sometimes don't even give a shit. But modernly, we would not see it that way. To us, it's not societally acceptable for a married man to sleep with another woman (without his wife's consent, at least). While Ancient Greeks viewed Odysseus as a good (or at least okay) husband, a modern audience wouldn't. Making Odysseus loyal to Penelope and not sleeping with other women (assuming this wasn't SA, but again that's one interpretation) makes him the good, loyal, empathic, modernly heroic man that Epic is clearly aiming for. Repeating my last point: If something from the original myth doesn't translate well into modern culture, then it's understandable to want to change or omit it.

Applying modern perspectives on Ancient Greek society and mythology isn't worth it. Like, we all joke about Greek mythology/Ancient Greece being super gay, but it was often just what we consider pedophilia (it's called pederasty if you'd like to know more). Y'know the Hades and Persephone story? Like, the original one with the kidnapping? Yeah, that was kinda normal in some areas. The myth of Demeter and Persephone is tragic, yes, but it was so normal that a lot of wedding ceremonies included references/recreations of it! Girls got married off ASAP after their first menstruation to men of at least 30 years old. We don't tolerate that shit today (for the most part, at least)! But it was normal in Ancient Greece. Applying modern rules and standards to ancient culture just does not work.

Anyways, I'll shut up now! I'm gonna go keep listening to The Circe Saga lmao

[menlove]

hmmm I've made posts of these types as well so I get the sentiment but the more I see posts along the lines of "not being transphobic/sexist/antisemitic/racist/homophobic/etc is easy" the more I do think we should be careful w that

bc no, it's usually NOT easy. and I'm not saying that as an excuse. rather the exact opposite. when we constantly insist that not being bigoted is "easy," it lets people believe that they don't need to do any work to examine their implicit biases. unlearning racism/transphobia/sexism/antisemtism/etc is neverending work and when you think you're done, there's always going to be something else to work on. that's why, for example, we use the term "anti racist" rather than saying "I'm not racist." anti racism takes action, it takes learning, it's a constant effort that you have to work at. it's not a one and done. you don't learn that racism exists and is bad and then immediately wash your hands of everything you were taught growing up. and the same applies to everything else

it's not easy! it's not easy to confront bigoted parts of yourself and keep doing that long after you thought you had gotten rid of every bigoted belief you held. it's not easy to always listen when someone is challenging an implicit belief you hold and don't want to let go of. it takes work. but it's VITAL work.

you don't just get rid of your racism by knowing it's wrong. you don't just get rid of your antisemtism by saying "yeah fuck nazis." you don't get rid of your transmisogyny by saying "I love trans women." all these things take constant, consistent work and effort

what IS easy is compassion. you can always decide to do your best every day to be a kind person who's open to change and compassionate care for other humans. but that doesn't mean you suddenly aren't impacted by the beliefs and norms of the society you grew up in. you can be the nicest person in the world and still be unintentionally bigoted. it's not a character flaw, it's something we all have in one way or another. it just matters how you face it and deal w it.

[taradactyls]

The full Bennet Family Finances endnote from Ch33

I’ve been doing some more maths (ch26 has the initial discussion) on the savings that our characters might do/should’ve done since it’s fascinating to me and some of the comments I’ve been getting have been making me think more about it. One of the common themes is surprise at just how negligent the Bennets were at saving, instead of merely being stretched thin by expenses. I understand this completely, as it isn’t something that’s explicit in an easily recognisable way for modern audiences.

So, where could they have been more economical? They don’t go to London, no one has a gambling addiction, all travelling (which was EXPENSIVE) is done cost effectively, and they certainly didn’t spend all the money on tutors and the like for their daughters. I’m sure there’s actual academic papers by historians on this (I miss my uni access to those so much) but I can take some educated guesses.

We know Mrs Bennet is just bad with household management. Part of which might mean ordering too much food (it’s mentioned she keeps a good table, so this is as close to canon as we can get) and perhaps not being efficient with what she does order, ie wanting different meats from night to night, instead of having the leftovers served as stews or whatnot, not keeping an eye on the prices of sugar, salt, etc to buy when they’re cheap, making special orders instead of purchasing what’s readily available, etc. We know none of the Bennet women assist in the kitchen (as the Lucases do) so that’s more work for servants and thus likely to contribute to the need of an extra servant or higher wages. Household management could also be more innocuous things like always buying the expensive bees-wax candles, instead of using tallow when guests aren’t around or in out-of-the-way rooms. And being inefficient with candle usage (this is likely a Mr Bennet flaw too, if he enjoys reading in his library at night) in order to have a room better lit than strictly necessary. There was a reason families all tended to gather in one room after dark, and the Bennets notably don’t. Also having fires in all the principal rooms instead of just the ones likely to be used that day. If there’s ways to be inefficient with funds when it comes to cleaning, I’m sure they found a way there, too. Basically, anything that requires forward planning to help with economy would be lacking.

 But that’s all ‘essentials’ just done inefficiently, what luxuries might they have had? They have the income to warrant their carriage, horses, and it seems Mr Bennet does hunt, but that’s also a standard expense for his wealth, so let’s focus on what might be pushing them to their limits. Other than the over-provisioned dining table, which we’ve mentioned, nothing about their socialising habits seems excessive. Mrs Bennet’s love of fashion could be pushing her wardrobe bill up, Mr Bennet’s love of books could be a VERY expensive hobby, and of course – five daughters out at once. Having five daughters out (especially unnecessarily as Lydia and even Kitty were quite young to be out) cost a LOT of money. Lady Catherine was rude as anything, but her surprise at the fact was warranted. Other than money, it also meant the daughters were in direct ‘competition’ for the same limited amount of suitors, which theoretically might hurt the elder girls’ chances. Five distinct wardrobes for young women which needed gowns for all occasions, going through dance shoes and gloves very quickly, bonnets, etc, all added up. At the start of the book multiple hundreds of pounds a year would be going to keeping their daughters looking the part while mixing in society.

But Jane’s only twenty-one or twenty-two at the start of the novel, and came out at fifteen at the earliest. Yet the Bennets still never saved money, and never overspent their income, so there were other expenses they were able to drop which had been preventing them from saving money for the first sixteen or so years of their marriage. I think it’s fair to assume there’s random, one-time bigger expenses that were undertaken with any substantial spare money: perhaps the hermitage Mrs Bennet mentions is a newer addition, was the coach (which are normally ordered around the start of a marriage) refitted more recently, how often is the décor of Longbourn updated (and on that note, are things like the sofa reupholstered or completely replaced), do they impulse buy vases and sculptures, make sure whatever alcohol they do buy (which appears to be a reasonable amount for their class) is the expensive stuff, etc. Whatever it is, it’s a both parent problem. Mrs Bennet is bad at money management and instead of changing her habits or preparing her daughters for financial hardship puts pressure on them to marry (preferably rich, but she doesn’t seem to have a complaint about Wickham in that regard). Mr Bennet is smart enough to see that there is a problem and how to fix it, but after his first idea fails (have a son to break the entail and thus provide for his widow and other children – which doesn’t even necessarily mean the girls would get a dowry, just that they would never live in poverty) does nothing to reassess the issue or find a solution. He essentially shrugs his shoulders and lets his daughters shift for themselves. One parent is too stressed about money and only addresses it negatively, and the other isn’t stressed enough and doesn’t address it seriously at all. Neither do anything productive, even though changing their habits would be enough to fix it. I love them, but MASSIVE parenting failure on their end; and hinted to occur because the parents were too used to comforts and different themselves to be able to work together and act on a solution.

Now for some actual MATHS! Which, yes, I realise I am strangely excited about.

The idea that most of the Bennets’ money is spent by having so many daughters out at once seems to keep popping up in my time on the internet. So, I thought it would be interesting to see what their dowries could be if that five-daughters-out-at-once money wasn’t spent on other things before any daughters were out. Costs of this could vary a bit between families, and though we know Lydia’s expenses were almost £100 per annum that includes board and food as well as little gifts from Mrs Bennet, so we can’t simply multiply that by five and be done with it. But, given Mrs Bennet’s desire for fashion and the poor financial management we see from her and some of her daughters, it’s quite possible clothes were being bought new rather than pulled apart and remade more than they ought to be, so spending £50 to £60 a year on each daughter being ‘out’ seems reasonable. For the purposes of this, let’s look at a total of £250 and £300 a year for all five, and in the 4%s because that’s where the money settled on Mrs Bennet apparently is. After sixteen years of marriage (when we will assume Jane comes out) that’s £5,456 or £6,547. Meaning that just doubled their dowry, even if they save nothing else after that. If the interest is left alone, that’s more than £1,000 that’s added to it before the novel even begins. Suddenly Mr Bennet dying at the start of the novel would leave his widow and daughters with between £11,500-£13,000 instead of the meagre £5,000 they actually have.

And the girls didn’t all come out at once, so just to put some numbers to it for math purposes, let’s say Elizabeth came out one year after Jane, Mary two years after her, Kitty another two years later, and Lydia the following year. For simplicity, each girl coming out is going to remove the same amount of money (when realistically it’s likely Jane, who needs everything new, and Lydia, who’s spoilt, would have cost the most). With the lower estimates of expenses, that’s £8,062 saved at the time of the novel, taking the total for Mrs Bennet and the girls to £13,602 or £2,612 each, assuming nothing else is saved. At the higher cost for the girls being out, that’s £9,676 saved and £14,676 that they’ll eventually inherit a share of. Still below what they should have as dowries, but a vast improvement, and proof of why having five daughters out at once was an additional strain but not THE strain. It was just another element in a mountain of problems.

“But what if it was in the 5%s?” asks no one but me. I think they would stick to the more stable bonds Mrs Bennet’s dowry is in, but if they didn’t, the same situation as above would save £9,243 (or £14,243 total) or £11,090 (£16,090 to share or £3,218 each).

For pure funsies, the numbers if Mr and Mrs Bennet had also saved the interest of the £5,000 settled upon her (which by itself would grow to £12,324 in the 4%s) in addition to these savings are:

£20,387 (£4,077 each at the start of the novel) with the £250 expenses estimate. At £300 for all five daughters out, we get to £21,998. Both of these numbers suddenly mean the Miss Bennets would never have to fear poverty when Mr Bennet died and they would individually each be as rich as their mother was, and though they wouldn’t be counted as rich themselves, would at least have something respectable. They might not cost their husbands money to marry.

AND THEN if everything is in the 5%s but that original £5,000, and the interest it gains is also moved to the higher interest account, the grand total would be either £22,528, again assuming the £250 expenses, and £24,376 at the £300 estimate.

I’ve been doing some equations for Darcy, too. So, let’s talk about that next chapter, to give me time to really figure it out.

[alwaysbewoke]

our entire political system is flawed, but

you're not going to change it in one election to perfection; what you can absolutely do is make everything worse in one election. also, you can acknowledge that the system needs work and that you want more without lying and pretending as if it has produced nothing positive for you. the problem right now with many people is that you guys want an instant solution. you want an instant fix. however, there is no such thing. there will not be one election or one candidate or one bill that's going to fix this. this is going to take long-term, strategic, methodical work for us to make it right, and i can tell right now that many people are not up for the task. they're too weak, but they won't be weak enough to complain, make videos, tweets, ig posts, reels, tiktoks, blog posts and whatever whining when shit hits the fan. they'll be the first ones howling at the moon and gnashing their teeth without taking responsibility for the part they played in the shitstorm.

here's some simple advice: pack the senate and congress with hardcore progressives. hardcore progressives. and then go to your local election and pack that with hardcore progressives again. but by no means should any of us accept any talk or strategy that gives the republicans power. at some point, you've got to stop playing checkers in a chess game.

however, the problem is this point of view should have been adopted in 2016. i fear that it might actually be too late because people played checkers in the chess game knowing full well that whoever won that election was going to have at least one supreme court pick. that winner actually got three and now has set this country back for the foreseeable future. generations are going to be feeling that pain. we missed out on critical years to address climate change. the voting rights of black people have been completely undermined. the educational opportunities for black people have also been undermined. discrimination against gay people has been affirmed. we saw the death of millions of americans at the hands of a global pandemic that was profoundly mishandled, and yet having seen and experience all of this people are willing to entertain the idea of allowing those in power who did all this to get even more power again. UNBELIEVABLE! people like that deserve ridicule.

if you actually care about black lives, people of color, trans rights, gay rights, healthcare, education, palestine, dr congo, police brutality, child poverty, climate change, restoring democracy, voting rights, equitable access to all levels of education, ending the prison industrial complex, women's rights, and etc do not entertain any talk about taking actions that will give republicans power. not in the short term. not in the long term. don't let your anger and your disappointment force your hand into making things worse for yourself and others. there's already been widespread voter suppression so if you think you're going to give republicans all that power and then vote to take it away from them down the line when everything is more to your liking, you are delusional. if you really want to change things (like for real, you're not just talking shit about "progress"),here are some insightful videos:

#FuckBidenButHellToTheNoOnAnyRepublican

[olderthannetfic]

Really wish that female characters weren't held to such extremely high standards.

I'm a writer and I follow a lot of writing advice blogs and no one really gives a shit how you write male characters (unless it's relevent to them being a minority, which is understandable) but whenever they talk about writing female characters, following their "advice" feels like I'm trying to defuse a bomb at gunpoint.

They can't be GNC or a tomboy or hate makeup/dresses/etc. or else they're a "pick me" or "NLOG" and they have internalized misogyny and that's bad. Unless of course at the end they overcome this horrible "character flaw" and get put in a dress and learn how to be a real, Proper Woman™. (And let me tell you, this one is really fun to see as a GNC woman. 🙄)

They can't be too polite, softspoken, or weak, because then they're a damsel in distress and submissive. But they also can't be rude, loud, or aggressive because then you're doing the "mean girl" trope which is bad and evil.

They can't wear skimpy clothing or be sexual at all. They should never seduce anyone, sleep around, or god forbid want to get naked in front of people, because if you do that you're sexualizing women for the male gaze and you're bad and unfeminist.

They can't fight with other female characters because then it's a "catfight" and it's misogynistic, because I guess women always get along and support each other (lmao).

And fandoms are no better. If a male character has ten thousand flaws people go "I don't care this is my babyboy blorbo man" but if a female character has a single negative or "problematic" attribute people go absolutely apeshit. But then if she doesn't have any flaws, she gets called a Mary Sue.

Women (and female characters) cannot do anything without someone hating us, huh?

--

TBH, it's not really more or less understandable about minorities. "Don't write extremely basic and egregious stereotypes with no depth" is a good rule. "Only write Good Rep" is not.

[gonzo-rella]

Headcanons: Being Wallace Wells' Trans Boyfriend

MASTERLIST | AO3 | KO-FI

EDIT: Although this fic was written with a more binary trans reader in mind, I'm hoping this fic will also be suitable for AFAB nonbinary people who are masc or male adjacent, which is where I might be at. I'm currently working dating hcs for Wallace with a nonbinary reader (which will be suitable for both AFAB and AMAB readers).

Relationship(s): Wallace Wells x transmasc!reader (romantic)

Warnings/info: Trans typical stuff, like dysphoria, transphobia etc. etc., sexual remarks, he/him pronouns for reader, headcanons were written in one sitting, when I was feeling not great. (Let me know if I need to add any)

(A/N: I've been reading a lot of Succession fics over the last few days. Last night I read a Roman Roy fic and for some reason it gave me this overpowering wave of dysphoria that I still have yet to fully recover from. Annoyingly, I have yet to actually watch Succession so this could have been avoided; I just think Kieran Culkin's hot and very gender so I couldn't resist pretending that someone with his face was my boyfriend. Reading about Roman made me think 'oh shit. Maybe I'm a flawed and pathetic little guy on the inside. But I just look like a woman who likes to kiss women and everyone treats me like a girl and uses my girl name and girl pronouns and that feels super gross and makes me want to live in a hole. Now I'm going to feel bad about that for the next few days.' So, yeah, I'm having another transmasc crisis that I'm using fanfiction to get me through. I figured Kieran Culkin started this, so I might as well write something featuring a character of his that I can actually write for. This is a self-indulgent and self-explorative treat for myself, but I hope that transmasc readers can enjoy this, too. If you'd like more Wallace stuff, trans stuff or Wallace AND trans stuff, feel free to send in a request. I really want to provide more fics for transmasc readers because you guys are super underrepresented (and, y'know, Papa Gonzo-rella wants to explore his gender a little more). Also, I swear that I will get around to watching Succession, and I more than likely will end up writing for it when I do.)

Respectfully, Wallace does not give a shit that you’re trans.

Of course, he doesn’t flat-out ignore it, because it’s part of who you are, but it isn’t an obstacle in your relationship by any means, and it doesn’t bother him in the slightest.

If you’re feeling dysphoric and/or otherwise insecure about yourself, he’ll pinch your cheeks and tell you how handsome and sexy you are.

If you’re feeling especially bad, like ‘not getting out of bed and hiding from the world’ bad, he’ll keep you company and say what he can to reassure you.

Being mushy and sincere truly isn’t his thing, so whatever he says will sound either slightly insensitive (but still pretty sensitive as far as Wallace goes), facetious or like he wants you to get over how you’re feeling so he can fuck you.

But, he genuinely doesn’t want you to feel bad and you can tell he cares, because otherwise he wouldn’t be there for you when you're feeling your worst.

Wallace is very affirming, but in his own Wallace way.

He lovingly refers to you as his lameass boyfriend.

If Scott ever compliments you about anything, Wallace will call him gay.

He will shout ‘gay’, like the Senor Chang meme.

"Hey, man, I like your shirt-"

"Ha, Scott's gay!"

"I-I'm not gay! I just like his shirt."

"What's wrong with being gay, Scott?"

"Nothing! There's nothing wrong with being gay!"

"You really need to work on your internalised homophobia, Scott. To think, my gay lover and I share a bed with a bigot."

If you’re doing anything that he knows will make you dysphoric or exacerbate your dysphoria (for example, scrolling through social media and looking at cis dudes that give you gender envy) he’ll shut it down.

Using the aforementioned example, he’ll snatch your phone off you and close the app, saying: “Nope. Make better decisions.”

And, while you’d initially be annoyed at him for grabbing your phone, you will appreciate it in the long run.

If you have testosterone shots but you’re not a fan of doing them yourself, he’ll begrudgingly help you with them.

He will make a very Wallace comment, though

“Stabbing? I didn’t know you were that kinky.”

If anyone’s a dick to you about being trans, Wallace is always ready to go with a snide remark about the other person, because of all the things you could possibly mock his lameass boyfriend for, being trans is at the bottom of that list.

(He should know, as the person who makes fun of you the most.)

Also, he cares about you very, very much and he doesn't want people being transphobic to his boyfriend.

If you’re cool with it, he will make trans jokes, but nothing ‘attack helicopter’ or ‘attack helicopter’ adjacent, because he’s too clever for that and he can come up with better material that isn’t just derivative, transphobic garbage.

If you get your period and it makes you at all dysphoric, be prepared for this exchange:

“Don’t worry. Scott pissed blood last month and cried about it and he’s still a man.”

“Did-did he go to the doctor?”

“I don’t know. He seems fine now, though.”

If you still have boobs and don’t mind them being touched or otherwise acknowledged, he will use them like a pillow.

If you decide to get top surgery, he will make the following request:

“Well, if you’re not using them, can I have them? I need a pillow that Scott won’t steal. And, he wouldn’t steal your tits, because he knows I’d call him gay for it.”

“Why are you like this, Wallace?”

“Selfish.”

Being trans doesn’t make your relationship much different from any of Wallace’s other relationships.

You’re just, for better or worse, another one of Wallace’s boyfriends.

[hotvintagepoll]

Welcome to the HOT AND VINTAGE MOVIE STARS poll blog! The Hot & Vintage Men Tournament and The Hot & Vintage Movie Women Tournament are now wrapped—congrats to Toshiro Mifune and Eartha Kitt! If you are here for the Dracula Daily polls, those will be posted regularly following the progress of the Substack newsletters.

All polls—including ongoing polls, previous rounds, old tournaments, the various shadow brackets, the Dracula Daily polls, and fun mini polls—can be found in the #hotvintagepoll tag.

FAQs:

"What is the next tournament?" We'll either do the scrungly little guys contest or the Ultimate Hotties tournament.

"When is the next tournament?" Sometime later this summer. I need to take a break, but then I'll be back.

"I want to find my favorite hottie!" Try a tag search for them (ie, use a hashtag in my search bar to find every post I've tagged them in). If you still haven't found your hottie, they either did not fit the criteria of being a movie star from 1910-1970 or they did not make it past the prelims.

“Can I start submitting for the future tournaments? I have guys! I have propaganda!” Please wait for me to post a submission form or otherwise formally announce a tournament before submitting anything.

The views expressed in the propaganda are not my own. I don’t submit my own propaganda, and I don’t change what’s submitted beyond fixing obvious spelling mistakes. If you hate a poll bio or a pic, let me know and send me something I can use instead.

I don’t post or boost negative propaganda about any of the hotties. If you really hate that someone is winning, send me positive propaganda for their hot opponent instead. A lot of these hotties were flawed or problematic in some way—or straight up garbage—but for reasons I go into here, I don't boost anti-propaganda.

If I see repetitive, trolling, and/or bigoted remarks in the comments, I may block you from this bracket. If you want to point out a competitor's problems in the replies, that's fine, but if I see consistent bad-faith trolling or targeted harassment of anyone, you will be blocked.

"Tel me again who won the major tournaments?" Eartha Kitt was crowned the hottest Hot & Vintage Movie Woman, and Toshiro Mifune won the Hot & Vintage Movie Man Tournament.

"Tell me more about this shadow realm?" There is too much lore.

“My FAQ isn’t on here :(” send me an ask! I love hearing from you guys—just please check these basics first.

Tournament schedule post-hiatus:

Ongoing: Dracula Daily casting polls

Possibly next: Scrungly Little Guys contest (gender neutral)

Possibly next: Ultimate Hottie Tournament (top brackets of the hot men & hot women competing together)

TBD: Horror Hotties (Frankensteins, Draculas, Brides, etc.)

TBD: Dandy Detectives (Marples, Sherlocks, Nancy Drews, etc.)

fun mini polls that pit sets of characters from the same movie together, like the Philadelphia Story or Seven Brides for Seven Brothers ones (these can be found in the #minis tag)

Thank you for being here! Enjoy the polls.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

There's this weird thing going on Reddit right now where people are claiming that legally, Rhaenyra children are not bastards. And I was wondering if you agree or disagree. I think that people are just making up their own canon lore at this point.

Hi anon,

I think what gets kind of muddled in this discussion is what "legally" means in the context. Generally speaking, children born within wedlock are considered legitimate until proven otherwise. Now in the medieval world, it's not like you were issued a birth certificate that you could whip out and say see, it says right here who the father is! There were no DNA tests, it was all a matter of word, and by and large a woman's virtue was her word, and it was what kept her and her children protected within the framework of medieval marriage. But the reason why bastardy matters in this context is also important. It's not like Rhaenyra is trying to collect child support here, nor is she a common merchant's wife whose husband has decided just to roll with it. She's the heir to the throne and the parentage of her children is a matter of inheritance and dynastic succession, so it's not a situation where a legal loophole is particularly helpful as a gotcha. There is not at this point in history a comprehensive codified law that clearly defines what these terms mean and defines the rights and obligations of parents and children legitimate and illegitimate, mostly you have combinations of precedent, tradition, oath, and a healthy dose of might makes right.

(I saw another reply to this question in which the responded basically goes, "free yourself from the shackles of this construct! Marriage isn't real it's an oppressive institution and the idea of bastardy is made up, so let it go," and while it's true that marriage, legitimacy, etc. are all social constructs and not absolute states of being, they started off as having a functional purpose within a certain social framework. And this is a basic problem a lot of people have with George's world, it's not that we have to have the views of a 12th century French peasant, or that everything has to be historically accurate, but George chose the medieval world as a setting for a reason, and it's not just an aesthetic one. Characters in even a quasi-historical setting have to act within the constraints of that setting. We have to understand that people don't know what they don't know. The medieval world doesn't have any framework for the introduction of feminist ideals. Westeros hasn't even had a Christine de Pizan yet. You couldn't walk up to a medieval peasant woman and say "marriage is a tool of patriarchal oppression and bastardy is a social construct," they'd look at you like you had two heads. And so we have to acknowledge that you can't simply start dismantling existing social structures if the framework doesn't exist to replace them with something better that offers more protections for a broader group of people, and at this point it definitely doesn't. Making an exception for one very privileged woman does not mean progress for all women, instead it often means destabilization of the flawed system that does exist, and even more violence against those less powerful in order to enforce the exceptional status).

So from a medieval point of view, marriage was pretty much a non-negotiable for a woman. And women weren't simply getting married because they were pressured into it by their families or because their fathers were opportunistic assholes, they got married because unmarried women had no legal status or standing. In most places they could not sign contracts or own land. A woman could join the church or get married (or become a prostitute, but it's not like sex workers had freedoms or protections either). Divorce wasn't a thing, and annulment was hard to get and usually available only as a tool for men to set aside their wives. So, for all intents and purposes, once you were married, that was generally it, you were stuck for life (the upside is that widows did get a lot more freedom, so marrying an older guy and waiting it out was not a bad option sometimes, all things considered). But what marriage did provide was assurance that you and your children would be protected and provided for. Marriage was a practical agreement, involving dowries, inheritances, and alliances sealed in blood. And this is one of the reasons why bastards could not inherit. Inheritance for once's children was one of the few perks of a marriage for a woman (this is, incidentally, why Alicent is so pressed about her children being effectively disinherited. There is NO reason for her, as an eligible maiden of good standing, to marry a man who will not provide for her sons, king or not). And of course, a man's bastards are obvious and are disqualified from inheriting (setting aside legitimization because it is not nearly the easy out that people think it is). You can't really pass them off as legitimate because your wife clearly knows which children she gave birth to, whereas a man might be told he is the father of a child when that child's father is in fact someone else.

In a dynastic marriage, all of this becomes even more important. Marriages were made as alliances and to strengthen the ties between kingdoms or houses. A child seals the marriage agreement by binding two bloodlines and creating kinship bonds that will last beyond the current generation. Those kinship bonds can ensure peace between kingdoms at war, trade agreements, and military aid. Passing a bastard off as trueborn breaks that agreement; it violates the very principle by which the agreement was made. And in this context, it doesn't actually matter if the father claims the children as his, because in a dynastic marriage inheritance is not just a personal matter, it's a matter of the state. The truth matters to a great many people, more than just the immediate family. A lie doesn't become the truth simply because the liar isn't caught, and there's no statute of limitations or court ruling that will ever put the matter to rest for good. Passing off a bastard as trueborn destabilizes the succession and breaks the dynastic bonds that the marriage was meant to establish. When the bastard heir in question attempts to take the throne, it won't be a smooth transition.

So what does it mean that Laenor and Corlys agree to pass Rhaenyra's children off as trueborn? It means that their bastardy cannot be proven at the moment insofar as the legal father, Rhaenyra's husband, is playing along and covering for Rhaenyra, and Viserys is backing them up by giving this his "legal" stamp of approval. But again, our view that it's no one else's business but Laenor and Rhaenyra's and that Viserys "legalized" their status is very modern. Jaehaeyrs and Alysanne were not considered married in the eyes of the Westerosi until they'd had a bedding ceremony, that is, the consummation of their marriage was witnessed. Royal marriages and the children that come from them are a public matter because the succession affects everyone in the realm. Laenor, Corlys, and Viserys can protect those children in the short term, but Laenor and Corlys and Viserys won't live forever, and they could withdraw their support for those children and renounce them as bastards at any time. Harwin could admit to fathering them, Rhaenyra and Harwin could get caught in the act, or someone else close to them might confess. Sure right now the black faction are all one big happy family, but 20 years down the line when bastard Jace takes the throne over trueborn Aegon III? There are multiple people in the family who could confess to knowledge of the bastardy, including Aegon III himself. The bastardy is too obvious and there are too many legitimate heirs of both house Targaryen and house Velaryon getting pushed aside in favor of bastard born children for it to be an issue that simply disappears because Rhaenyra and Laenor say so.

So "legal bastardy" is a pretty meaningless concept when it comes to royal succession because it's not a matter that's going to be settled by some neutral third party in a court of law. What matters in the long run is not whether or not Laenor claimed the kids, what matters is whether or not the situation is questionable enough that people with the power to challenge it might challenge it. And we see even within the actual narrative of the Dance that this is indeed the case. There is already a situation brewing with the other branches of the Velaryon family who are rightfully pretty pissed to see their ancestral seat pass to someone with no blood ties to the family (and as an aside, people will say Vaemond was self-serving, and of course he was, but that doesn't make him wrong, and maybe Baela or Rhaena should have inherited instead, but neither they nor their father were pressing their claims because they were backing up the bastard claimants, so was Vaemond supposed to do that for them?). And yes the king and Rhaenyra can cry treason and they can kill Vaemond and cut out tongues, but using force to silence people for telling the objective truth is by definition tyranny, and that's exactly the sort of situation that would get the nobility nervous. Because if Rhaenyra has to silence people already and she's not even queen yet, what will Jace have to do when he takes the throne? That's the real problem, not the "legal" status of Jace and his brothers, but the practical ramifications of hiding the truth.

[lucky1013]

Cancelling, Public Accusations, and Manipulation of Fans

Good Person/Bad Person Labels

Are you better off knowing if a celebrity has hurt someone? Done something objectionable? Do you write off an artist who is "problematic?" How bad does behaviour have to be to repulse you? 9/10? 6/10? 4/10? Do you sort celebrities into "good guy" and "bad guy" buckets?

Think of the people you know in real life. Are they sorted? Have any of them ever said something stupid or racist? Have any been hated by an ex? Have any hurt or mistreated someone? Have any gotten drunk and had sloppy one-night stands that everyone regrets? Have any of them been accused of anything? Have you ever done anything shameful, hurtful, regrettable? Now honestly -- do you label these people from your life as entirely good or bad?

I don't, and I bet you don't either. And there is a reason for that. These are people you know. We all have opinions of the people we know, but it's rarely yes or no, pure love or pure hate. It's a nuanced opinion because people are nuanced. And life and relationships are difficult. And we know that everyone grows and changes for better or worse. We accept flaws. In real life, we tolerate far more bad behavior than we admit we do or think we do. Come down from morality mountain and take an honest look.

My brother-in-law is both a verbally abusive jerk and a good husband, albeit never both at once. He's at times an awful father and at times a great father. He is a far better man than he was ten years ago. I loathe some things about him and ultimately accept and love him. And I support my sister like a warrior. I accept that humans are complicated. So does she.

So do you -- in real life.

There is a different standard for famous people. Why don't we accept that they have faults, mess up, are works in progress, and do both shitty and great things - just like our real life friends?

Accusation by Public Announcement

What does an accuser get from airing grievances publicly instead of privately?

Me Too was about men in positions of power using that power as a form of coercion over artists or underlings whose careers depended on them. The power imbalance and public stature of the accused person was a factor in their ability to coerce. I think most people would agree that part of the calculation in whether a public accusation was appropriate in these instances was the boss/power/public figure aspect of the abuse itself. Women did not accuse publicly because the men were famous -- they did it because these men used the power and celebrity status as an instrument of the abuse.

Shelby and Wilbur are a different situation. Her accusation is against an ex-boyfriend about private conduct and relationship dynamics and is wholly unrelated to their celebrity status. They are both semi-public figures, but that is not an instrument of abuse here. It just means she has an avenue for reaching fans and he has fans to lose.

Let's set aside the question of whether the term "abuse" is fair for Wilbur's conduct. It's an important question about which we viscerally disagree, but we don't need to litigate it. It’s not relevant to the point.

This should have been about HER and about HIM. They should have fought this out in real life in any manner that would meet Shelby's needs. With support from real friends. With private demands for apologies. With private debates about harms, intentions, consent, etc. It could have been civil or embattled - doesn’t matter - but it certainly did not need to be public.

If you had and experience like Shelby's, and you came to the same conclusions after your breakup, what would you do? Would you go to his employer and get him fired? Would you tell all of his friends and neighbors? Put signs in front of his house? Make sure the school, the town, any future customers and future employers had every detail? You wouldn't. You would think it was a bridge too far and worry there would be legal or civil reppurcussions. After all, you would think, since he hasn't been legally convicted of anything, doing something that messes with his livelihood and reputation is for sure not allowed.

Who is Manipulating Who?

When Wilbur poked his head up to say "I'm back" and said he did not want to speak further about the matter for now, Shelby said he was doubling down and manipulating you. Does she know what that means? He looked dreadful, asked for nothing, and stated he was not going to speak on it. That was the full extent of it. (Her petty response solidified my distrust of her ability to correctly characterize Wilbur’s actions. But that’s a tangent.)

From Webster's Dictionary: Manipulate: "to control or play upon by artful or insidious means especially to one's own advantage." Use: "to carry out a purpose or action by means of"

What did Shelby want in February 2024? She said she found her peace and wanted to end his. Did she end his peace? No, YOU DID. And then some. You did it for her, like an offering. His own fans disrupted his reputation, his friendships, his Minecraft legacy, and his festival summer. One of the most vibrant, effusive fan communities was annihilated because she didn't think he deserved to have it.

Do you feel used? Do you feel manipulated? Look at those definitions. She didn’t have to end his peace because you did it for her.

There are so many CCs (and MCYTs in partular) accused of something, often by a person who is at least marginally part of the community. They've dumped their messy, personal grievances with varying levels of merit on the public to adjudicate. THIS IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. You are being inappropriately involved. You are being USED. How dare they place the burden of their problems upon the fans, and look to the fans to end someone's peace on their behalf.

Everyone has problems and personal life drama. Everyone has been mistreated, to varying degrees of course. Some of us have endured terrible things. The only difference here is that YOU are being made to address their problems. They are using you to achieve personal objectives.

You've likely heard the story floating around the internet about the 12-year-old Melanie Martinez fan who purportedly killed herself amidst blowback from the "support victims" shame police. The veracity of the story is unknown to me and totally irrelevant. I've chosen to regard it as a parable because to find out that it's true would make my heart explode. IT WAS A PERSONAL MATTER. That young fan did not need to bear the burden.

Some of you will say that fans "need to know the truth about who their beloved artist really is." Public accusations do not accomplish that. Truth and fact are a mess in these cases and "who someone really is" is a changing, subjective, complex thing.

Next time someone calls on the public to deplatform someone on their behalf-- DON'T ACCEPT THE JOB. Remember that believing and supporting women doesn't require participating in public shaming. They are manipulating the fanbase, even if not maliciously. They are capable of handling it in real life with support of family and friends, just as you would. Respectfully decline to participate. Don't let them disrupt your fandom; don't let them disrupt your peace.

____

[Fun fact - just found out that it's spelled "cancelling" in British English and "canceling" in American English. I'm going with the Brits on this one :)]