#And how many more asks do I have left?

[triple-pupil]

For dice and only for dice. MAKE SURE THE DEVIL ISNT LISTENING!!!....

Are you guys planning on getting married?ARE YOU ALREADY MARRIED AND YOU HAVEN'T TOLD US???!!!

What would the wedding be like? I want to be a maid of honor.

"'scuse me, boss, need to check somethin' real quick"

"Oh, yeah, run away and leave me with ALL this fuckin' paperwork! Thanks, Dice..."

"Jeez, kid, hold yer horses a sec, yer gonna fly off the window with all that petty desperation!"

"... Oh, wait-"

"Hahahahahah!"

"Oh yeah! Damn, work really made me forget that! Hahah-"

"Oh, thanks so much, lil... Pipis? You made me remember somethin', so, as reward... I'll consider yer offer!"

"BUT for a price, of course..."

[faaun]

last night i got home kind of tipsy and very much in tears and my mother told me the force you exert to keep someone in your life is proportional to the force with which they will leave your life. if you have to fight tooth and claw to keep them, their leaving will be just as hard, just as harsh, and just as definite.

[ririsasy]

Varadha touching his nose ring while looking at Deva, remembering the time when Deva himself that put it there for him with his own blood in his hand, remembering the fact that it was Deva who protected and kept his "little honor" intact.

[winteriron-trash]

rdj the (whitewashed) electric boogaloo

This is a reminder to everyone who's excited about RDJ's casting as Doctor Doom that this casting is whitewashing. Victor Von Doom is a Romani character and has been a Romani character since his introduction in the 1960s. (Fantastic Four Annual #2 [1964]) Not only that, but his Roma identity and the persecution he and his family faced due to it is integral to his character, it is what forms his identity. (Books of Doom by Ed Brubaker) Even if on the off chance this casting is meant to not be Victor but instead be some variant of Tony or whomever else becoming Doctor Doom, it is damaging to the character to rob him of that important cultural background. Doctor Doom does not exist without that history. Fans have been pushing hard to cast Doom as a Romani actor for years, especially since the MCU has whitewashed other Romani characters. (Wanda, Pietro, etc) This casting is not a celebration moment, it's fucking heartbreaking that the MCU repeatedly ignores the important and nuanced cultural backstories of characters.

I know I can't change anybody's mind on whether or not you want to be excited about RDJ's return to the MCU. But I do think at the very least you should be mad that the MCU is baiting us all and destroying nuanced and interesting characters for the sake of self-referential easter eggs and nostalgia bait. Because that's what it is. Feel how you'd like to feel about RDJ's return, but personally, this is soul-sucking. I had such a deep love for the MCU as a teenager, it was obviously something incredibly formative to me, especially Tony Stark. This isn't recreating what I fell in love with the MCU for. This is turning a well-planned and artistic storyline of adaptations into cheap cash grabs and fan service. Because, I think we're past the point of being able to call the MCU an adaptation of anything. They can use existing characters' names and powers, but to say they're being properly adapted is laughable.

This is not an adaptation of Doctor Doom. This is RDJ the Electric Boogaloo because Marvel's fear of losing the interest of dedicated MCU fans overrides their willingness to tell stories that are genuine to the characters. I don't know what there is to be excited about that. The MCU has lost its authenticity and aside from a few projects, feels heartless. Every movie is a copy of a copy. This announcement isn't something celebratory, it feels like a death knell of a cinematic universe that's so desperate to cling to relevancy it's resorting to nostalgia for a character/actor who hasn't even been dead for a decade. We're not getting anything new, we're just rinsing and repeating the same song and dance.

I get it. I love Tony Stark, his death destroyed me and I to this day, rue the ending he got in Endgame. It misunderstood his arc and it robbed him of a satisfying conclusion. But the solution to that isn't dragging the corpse out of the grave five years later to whitewash an existing character with rich and interesting nuance, just to forcibly tie his existence in the MCU to Tony. Whether he is a variant or not. Why would you want someone else's fave's legacy to be destroyed simply so your fave's legacy can go on? Hell, if we were really all so hellbent on the return of RDJ and/or Tony to the MCU, we have the multiverse for a reason. There were other ways to do it that didn't whitewash and ruin someone else. This just. Isn't something to be happy about.

[aussie-bookworm]

Quick question for my lovely readers!

I’ve started proofreading the final chapter of Going Through The Motions and realised I have ended up with 33k+ words (for reference Chapter Six was 19k+)

Whoops.

So my question to you is!

Also! Please share if you know someone else who reads the fic and might like a say! Thank you!

[screambirdscreaming]

I used to like saying "gender is a social construct," but I stopped saying that because people didn't tend to react well - they thought that I was saying gender wasn't real, or didn't matter, or could be safely ignored without consequences. Which has always baffled me a bit as an interpretation, honestly, because many things are social constructs - like money, school, and the police - and they certainly have profound effects on your life whether or not you believe in them. And they sure don't go away if you ignore them.

Anyway. What I've taken to saying instead is, "gender is a cultural practice." This gives more of a sense of respect for the significance gender holds to many people. And it also opens the door to another couple layers of analysis.

Gender is cultural. It is not globally or historically homogeneous. It shifts over time, develops differently in different communities, and can be influenced by cross-cultural contact. Like many, many aspects of culture, the current status of gender is dramatically influenced by colonialism. Colonial gender norms are shaped by the hierarchical structure of imperialist society, and enforced onto colonized cultures as part of the project of imperial cultural hedgemony.

Gender is practiced. What constitutes a gender includes affects and behaviors, jobs or areas of work, skillsets, clothing, collective and individual practices of gender affiliation and affirmation. Any or all of these things, in any combination, depending on the gender, the culture, and the practitioner.

Gender encompasses shared cultural archetypes. These can include specific figures - gods and goddesses, mythic or fictional characters, etc - or they can be more abstract or general. The Wise Woman, Robin Hood, the Dyke, the Working Man, the Plucky Heroine, the Effete Gay Man, etc etc. The range of archetypes does not circumscribe a given gender, that is, they're not all there is to gender. But they provide frameworks and reference points by which people relate to gender. They may be guides for ways to inhabit or practice a gender. They may be stereotypes through which the gendered behavior of others is viewed.

Gender as a framework can be changed. Because it is created collectively, by shared acknowledgement and enforcement by members of society. Various movements have made significant shifts in how gender is structured at various times and places. The impact of these shifts has been widely variable - for example, depending on what city I'm in, even within my (fairly culturally homogeneous) home country, the way I am gendered and reacted to changes dramatically. Looping back to point one, we often speak of gender in very broad terms that obscure significant variability which exists on many scales.

Gender is structured recursively. This can be seen in the archetypes mentioned above, which range from extremely general (say, the Mother) to highly specific (the PTA Soccer Mom). Even people who claim to acknowledge only two genders will have many concepts of gendered-ways-of-being within each of them, which they may view and react to VERY differently.

Gender is experienced as an external cultural force. It cannot be opted out of, any more than living in a society can be opted out of. Regardless of the internal experience of gender, the external experience is also present. Operating within the shared cultural understanding of gender, one can aim to express a certain practice of gender - to make legible to other people how it is you interface with gender. This is always somewhat of a two-way process of communication. Other people may or may not perceive what you're going for - and they may or may not respect it. They may try to bring your expressed gender into alignment with a gender they know, or they might parcel you off into your own little box.

Gender is normative. Within the structure of the "cultural mainstream," there are allowable ways to practice gender. Any gendered behavior is considered relative to these standards. What behavior is allowed, rewarded, punished, or shunned is determined relative to what is gender normative for your perceived gender. Failure to have a clearly perceivable gender is also, generally, punished. So is having a perceivable gender which is in itself not normative.

Gender is taught by a combination of narratives, punishments, and encouragements. This teaching process is directed most strongly towards children but continues throughout adulthood. Practice of normatively-gendered behaviors and alignment with 'appropriate' archetypes is affirmed, encouraged, and rewarded. Likewise 'other'- gendered behavior and affinity to archetypes is scolded, punished, or shunned. This teaching process is inherently coercive, as social acceptance/rejection is a powerful force. However it can't be likened to programming, everyone experiences and reacts to it differently. Also, this process teaches the cultural roles and practices of both (normative) genders, even as it attempts to force conformity to only one.

Gender regulates access to certain levers of social power. This one is complicated by the fact that access to levers of social power is also affected by *many* other things, most notably race, class, and citizenship. I am not going to attempt to describe this in any general terms, I'm not equipped for that. I'll give a few examples to explain what I'm talking about though. (1) In a social situation, a man is able to imply authority, which is implicitly backed by his ability to intimidate by yelling, looming, or threatening physical violence. How much authority he is perceived to have in response to this display is a function of his race and class. It is also modified by how strongly he appears to conform to a masculine ideal. Whether or not he will receive social backlash for this behavior (as a separate consideration to how effective it will be) is again a function of race/class/other forms of social standing. (2) In a social situation, a woman is able to invoke moral judgment, and attempt to modify the behavior of others by shame. The strength of her perceived moral authority depends not just on her conformity to ideal womanhood, but especially on if she can invoke certain archetypes - such as an Innocent, a Mother, or better yet a Grandmother. Whether her moral authority is considered a relevant consideration to influence the behavior of others (vs whether she will be belittled or ignored) strongly depends on her relative social standing to those she is addressing, on basis of gender/race/class/other.

[Again, these examples are *not* meant to be exhaustive, nor to pass judgment on employing any social power in any situation. Only to illustrate what "gendered access to social power" might mean. And to illustrate that types of power are not uniform and may play out according to complex factors.]

Gender is not based in physical traits, but physical traits are ascribed gendered value. Earlier, I described gender as practiced, citing almost entirely things a person can do or change. And I firmly believe this is the core of gender as it exists culturally - and not just aspirationally. After the moment when a gender is "assigned" based on infant physical characteristics, they are raised into that gender regardless of the physical traits they go on to develop (in most circumstances, and unless/until they denounce that gender.) The range of physical traits like height, facial shape, body hair, ability to put on muscle mass - is distributed so that there is complete overlap between the range of possible traits for people assigned male and people assigned female. Much is made of slight trends in things that are "more common" for one binary sex or the other, but it's statistically quite minor once you get over selection bias. However, these traits are ascribed gendered connotations, often extremely strongly so. As such, the experience of presented and perceived gender is strongly effected by physical traits. The practice of gender therefore naturally expands to include modification of physical traits. Meanwhile, the social movements to change how gender is constructed can include pushing to decrease or change the gendered association of physical traits - although this does not seem to consistently be a priority.

Gender roles are related to the hypothetical ability to bear children, but more obliquely than is often claimed. It is popular to say that the types of work considered feminine derive from things it is possible to do while pregnant or tending small children. However, research on the broader span of human history does not hold this up. It may be true of the cultures that gave immediate rise to the colonial gender roles we are familiar with - secondary to the fact that childcare was designated as women's work. (Which it does not have to be, even a nursing infant doesn't need to be with the person who feeds it 24 hours a day.) More directly, gender roles have been influenced by structures of social control aiming for reproductive control. In the direct precursors of colonial society, attempts to track paternal lineage led to extreme degrees of social control over women, which we still see reflected in normative gender today. Many struggles for women's liberation have attempted to push back these forms of social control. It is my firm opinion that any attempt to re-emphasize childbearing as a touchstone of womanhood is frankly sick. We are at a time where solidarity in struggle for gender liberation, and for reproductive rights, is crucial. We need to cast off shackles of control in both fights. Trying to tie childbearing back to womanhood hobbles both fights and demeans us all.

Gender is baked deeply enough into our culture that it is unlikely to ever go away. Many people feel strongly about the practice of gender, in one way or another, and would not want it to. However we have the power to change how gender is structured and enforced. We can push open the doors of what is allowable, and reduce the pain of social punishment and isolation. We can dismantle another of the tools of colonial hedgemony and social control. We can change the culture!

[sportsthoughts]

.

[termagax]

re: "good girl" i think they say it once randomly as a joke and its just one of those things that gets him wayyy more than they expected it would. so now its their secret weapon and they use it very sparingly and every single time he gets super embarrassed about it but it works ill tell you what.

[my-thoughts-and-junk]

i have to think about chilchuck and laios forever

[dairyfreenugget]

(Going insane boinkinh one AU in my head)

Hey hey hey

May I interest you in

(Slowly slides my FaaF AU towards you but void just Disappears without a trace one day before the accolade)

Teehee

[melverie]

Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh today I've been constantly experiencing the urge to un-private today-in-the-devildom & start writing for it again

[ambersky0319]

New Employee aquired today

My manager: Hey Grace maybe you can show NE some things, but don't overwhelm her

Me:

Me: so like. make sure it's not a repeat of my first day???

[valasania-the-pale]

do you have any galadriel brainrot rattling around that you want to share? I'm especially fascinated by any/all galadriel & maglor ideas either in the third age, or otherwise...chiefly bc of your portrayal of them in "the final verse" is so interesting ...Or just, brainrot in general? Always love hearing your takes on things <3 <3 <3

Always.

If I'm focusing on her relationship with Maglor however, I think it may be funny to share that I don't think Galadriel likes Maglor much at all, but rather pities him. He is, arguably, the most wretched elf alive by the end of things, and a decent reflection of what she could have been had she made different, probably tempting choices in her life. Maglor chose something over goodness (whether that was family, pride, loyalty, or whatever, it kind of depends on your reading of him, but whatever it was, he prioritized that thing over being a decent person), while Galadriel was faced with the choice of her ambition and pride over goodness - and in her case, where it mattered, she chose right. She knows how that temptation can feel, however, and I would imagine that Maglor (and Maedhros, back when he was around) were and are very personal cautionary examples of where personal desire can lead when not tempered by wisdom and care.

You know, I like to think that it would be Galadriel to drag Maglor back to Valinor? Not because she likes him, or because she thinks he deserves it, but because my picture of Galadriel is someone who has seen so many loose ends left untied, between Morgoth's escape, the Valar leaving Middle Earth and its people in the lurch of Morgoth's hatred and warring, and the aftermath of the War of Wrath (e.g. Sauron was left unaccounted for, enabling all of the sorrow to come). Leaving Maglor behind means that the story isn't done, the elves will never fully leave, he'll just fade away into a vague sea-voice, an unending, quavering note, held past the point of breaking, never finished. I think that, where Elrond would honor Maglor's grief and choice, Galadriel would be just unimpressed and impatient with it all. "No, we're not doing this again, get on the damn boat. Mourn in Lorien if you must, but I'll be damned again before I leave you here."

I think it also stems from the idea that, by the end of the third age, I think Galadriel is tired of almost everything, tired enough that old grudges - however deserved - are just not worth clinging to. He's done awful things, but depending on how you read her, hasn't Galadriel also? She's either a bit player in the Silmarillion or she abandoned her family entirely - for someone so skilled, and who later (in her fading years) demonstrates such will and power, it implies a personal history of just generally keeping her hands off. And if she was hands-on, then she failed like everyone else. She's connected to everything intimately, so no matter the reading, there's pain and failure there. Maglor has obviously done more, but understanding doesn't come from equivalence, it comes from kinship.

And, I think the last reason she'd do it, is because Galadriel almost certainly knew Nerdanel. After having to endure Celebrian's situation, after Luthien's departure (and presumably the grief that caused Melian), and now having to face telling Celebrian that she'll never see Arwen again, I don't think Galadriel would just accept Maglor's self-imposed exile knowing it would harm Nerdanel as well. It would be one last, unnecessary tragedy to pile onto an exorbitant pile (and, in my headcanons of Galadriel's history, I like to imagine that she and Nerdanel had a connection of friendship for various reasons). There's a whole sub-narrative about mothers having to just accept the loss of their daughters in the Silmarillion (Earwen joins the list, and Anaire, and--), and if Galadriel has shown anything, it's that she strongly defies convention.

[arolesbianism]

Just realized I forgot to post these

[daisybell-on-a-carousel]

Jason, especially in that one Teen Titans comic, often complains about the lack of pants he has. And I'm haunted thinking about that at all times

[p1x1x]

asking out of curiosity, you describe your headcanon for saya and vitas relationship as a mostly one sided crush, right? do you also hc saya and vita around the same age or does saya not reciprocate at all because she's older

saya’s definitely older, i read her as an adult… doesn’t reciprocate in the same way vita feels, but still cares for her. if you want whatever’s running around my head though… its delusional

vita -> saya: a “crush” of sorts happens as a result of saya being the only other person that shows a semblance of care for her. with the feeling of “missing connection” and not wanting to be alone (somewhere in 12-4 and 12-5), she wants to be with saya in a way? she confuses these feelings as just “romantic” simply because she cant remember wanting such things before (a given since memories gone and all) and not knowing any name for them other than romantic since she’s young. then there’s just the simple fact that saya is pretty (lol), but in a world with so few, saya’s really reliable and… basically a pillar in vita’s life here? (first meetings in arcaea are always significant tbh)

how it develops later? honestly i’m fine with vita’s crush being laced with actual romantic ideas, childish curiosity and perhaps having seen love shown in a couple memories. but i like thinking the root of it all is just a desire to be cared for really, relating to the whole “missing connection” with others aspect. though she can’t remember her guilt and what she’s done, those last few moments of her life definitely had an impact (maybe enough to carry over as a part of her personality, given the way everyone in arcaea has their personality in tact despite missing memories). combine that with waking up and being alone for a month’s time, it makes sense for her to be more sensitive and clingy than a normal child. so even though she can’t find/remember the reason why, she’s afraid of losing saya, which inadvertently makes her want to be closer : P

saya -> vita: saya doesnt reciprocate those types of feelings exactly, but she isn’t as much of a jerk as she might appear to lethe. she chalks up vita’s clinginess as her just being a sensitive kid, and not wanting her to cry, she doesn’t outright push vita away. but i do think she does grow very fond of vita at the very least, with the way vita is an earnest assistant and just a cute kid. saya doesn’t really show it in any words or anything, but just… actions. still letting vita blow her nose with her cape (other hc, even though vita has her own cape lmao), implied to have carried vita (probably got tired on their travels), letting vita cling to her in her sleep (leading into another hc of vita having nightmares (probably of losing saya or something related to World Goes Wrong whatever), in which saya might hold her closer as comfort)…

headpats are cute. in the case of vita growing clingier or wanting more affection? just solve with headpats really… cuddles are super rare but that’s probably just times where vita remembers being alone or stuff like that and decides to be a little prickish. saya kinda finds comfort in it as well, it’s cute. human contact and connection here is rare after all, saya’s not as cold as she seems and lethe isnt giving her any in this moment of time unfortunately

the way i like lethesaya working kinda depends on vita and saya having a close relationship so yeah i think they Care about each other. and it also means lethe has to reevaluate her opinion of saya lol (and end up learning how saya really is…)

but i do think divorced lethesaya and adopted kid is hilarious so you could kind of throw some parts of this out .i kinda just hold different configurations of them in my head. everything’s subject to change anyway… idk i think they can be sweet at least… i just like seeing vt happy and cared for tbh

i dont think you were asking for any of this but i yapped because i think theyre both neat. now imagine how long lethesaya post could be if i typed here instead of twitter…