#I think the 18th century is very gender

[meerawrites]

Rules: seven comfort films, seven people.

Interview With The Vampire (1994).

Belle (2014).

This beautiful fantastic (2017).

4 way tie between Amadeus (1984), Marie Antoinette (2006), Pirates of the Caribbean: curse of the black pearl (2003), and Barry Lyndon (1975).

Emma (1996 and 2020 versions).

Ram-Leela (2013).

Elvira, Mistress of the Dark (1988).

Borrowed from: @nordleuchten. 💕

Tagging: @tricornonthecob, @xxgothchatonxx, @malicious-compliance-esq, @no-depression-for-vampires, @rmstitanics, @iamthemaestro, & @musicboxmemories ~ if you want.

[mecania]

Before people say anything about bloodborne not having anything to do with women in the slightest I'm going to need them to an intense read up on medical history and then read Simone du Beauvoir's 'The Second Sex' and then like. everything else by Beauvoir, if you have not already, as a MINIMAL baseline. very, very bare bones reading, but it should be enough if you actually want to engage with discussions regarding the treatment of women in medical instituitions and the supposed ideal of the 'perfect, true female body' in actual good faith. (please take note... this is working off of the understanding that gender is not ontological and is not grounded in anything real. there is no reality to the idealised woman under the patriarchy, and there is no worth in defending it because it can only harm and makes no fucking sense. thank you)

Even if you do not think the subtext was intentional (which it very much is, i don't typically like stating 'if you want to understand the story watch this youtuber!' but charred thermos on yt delves into the inspirations behind hemwick charnel lane and that is proof enough that the writers did give a shit about the unique position of women in the world of medicine and religion. also he has multitudes more knowledge on 18th century european medicine as told in art than i do), that does not deny the fact that it can still be read in that lens and it makes bloodborne much more rounded out and meaningful in our current social climate. it is impossible to make a complete work of art about medical and religious institutions and the abuse they have enacted for years without engaging in discussions about how oppressed groups were treated by these institutions.

there is implicit reference to the treatment of 'foreigners' in these medical systems. notice how the patients in maria's lab, those who are not put in 'better conditions' (like adeline, who has her own space) speak in a distinctly different accent/cadence than most other characters you find. you are explicitly hit with xenophobia by the first few doors you knock on aside from gilbert's. this game is not 'vague', it is very, very allegorical and referential.

there are very good references to the idealisation of the 'woman', and how this construct works in reality, that i cannot think of it being anything but a discussion of this very concept and showing the truth behind it. a confusing part of sexism can be the utter difference between the treatment towards pregnancy versus the treatment towards women. it is, in truth, not a 'mistake' in the system, but rather an intentional facet. the woman is not substantial but a concept to be maintained for the sake of other ideologies like purity, heritage, and legacy (which is why the concept of 'womanhood' is so heavily disputed and even denied to those who you think should fit into it by these rules. it is simply plain bullshit). in the patriarchy the concept of the woman is divine, but the 'substantial' woman is believed to be dirtied by the nature of her existence. this is why we can abuse women's bodies while at the same time worship pregnancy; pregnancy is her saving grace in the system's eyes. this is what happens to queen yharnam, to arianna, and to get the point across even further so unbelievably clearly, this is what happens to kos. once a living god, an extraterrastial being that is the root of worship still now. in stark contrast to the immense pedestal she is placed upon, her physical body was discarded, maimed and brutalised for the sake of cutting her apart and taking out what was inside of her; her stillborn.

this is where we see the contrast between the worship of the conceptual woman versus. the treatment of the 'real' woman who has had this concept forced on her and what has been determined to be her physical body. the physical body of the determined woman will never meet the standard of the conceptual woman, because that is what it is; a false truth, an idealisation, and something to control, to detain. kos is trampled in death, her body is a tool, despite the passionate worship she received then and receives now. she is revered as a 'mother' yet at the same time it is this status and its claimed actualisation that allowed for them to dismantle and abandon her corpse. you hear her name praised and called upon for knowledge, yet when you find her, she is a pitiable corpse, blending in with the grey sand beneath her. the worship done in the name of the divine, holy, mythological 'female body' is not done in spite of the treatment of the supposed real woman. it is done in tandem.

[vincentbriggs]

i have a very different gender presentation to you generally but one thing that's transition goals for me is i hope when i bald it will be like you. don't see many balding people that still have the non-balding parts long so even tho im happy w the prospect of balding and fairly confident i will like how i look it's rly nice to actually see someone else doing it n looking swag

Thank you! I don't think my non-bald parts are particularly long, and I do need a trim, but yeah I wouldn't want to cut it super short. Nice to have some mad scientist floof on the sides.

I thought I'd be really upset about losing my hair, but then it started getting really thin on top and I just went "ehh, whatever. Worth it!!!"

I would absolutely still have it at shoulder length if it hadn't done that though.

The one thing that's kind of annoying is I can't do 18th century hairstyles with it anymore, and I don't have any wigs and haven't tried wig styling yet, so I haven't done a proper full historical look in a few years. Someday. When I eventually get around to making that extravagant 1720's suit I will have to tackle wig styling.

[k1ngdom-of-thieves]

Can I get a headcanon of the Pomefiore trio as vampires and Riddle as a Ghost Groom falling in love with y/n please? Gender neutral please and thank you!

I’m just gonna assume that the reader is human for this

Vampire!Pomefiore Trio and Ghost Groom!Riddle + falling in love with reader!

Vil Schoenhiet

Vil rarely goes out into the towns, there’s too many people and he would most definitely be noticed by someone. It’s fairly difficult being a famous vampire, either people flock to try to see you or people come for him with pitchforks and torches like it’s still the 18th century.

That doesn’t stop him from coming in from time to time. Which led to him bumping into you while you were taking care of a last minute errand.

At first, he was intrigued as to why you didn’t run away in fear when you saw who was in front of you. And when you looked directly into his eyes, he only grew more interested in learning more about you.

He started to come to the town more, and strangely enough he started to see you around more as well. Although his mind told him that you just happened to have a couple of errands to run, his heart hoped that you truly did want to see him.

“Oh hello there, I was hoping to run into you again. Would you allow me to walk with you to your next errand? I would love to talk with you a little more.”

Rook Hunt

Rook has always been one to watch and observe than immediately get involved right away. So when you catch his eye on a stormy night, he intended to do just that.

What he didn’t intend was for you to realize he was “observing” being a creep and started to ask him questions. Rook is a lot of things, but he isn’t a liar, he outright tells you that he’s a vampire when you ask.

He’ll be more surprised if you don’t run away screaming profanities and curses at him. Delighted, but still very surprised.

He’d love it if you’d walk with him during the nights, he rarely gets to speak with people other than vampires. He loves hearing what you think of life in the daylight.

“Oh mon ami, I adore it when you speak your mind! Please allow me to be in your presence once again soon.”

Epel Felmier

Epel never saw that many humans from where he lived. They often told stories of a “haunted farm” where the animals were fed and crops were grown without a person watching them.

These stories of course, were just ways to keep people from going to the Felmier farm. There was, as always, people who tried to get in for one reason or another.

One of those people was you. Usually Epel would just “take care” of any intruders but he was told to “have some more dignity and self-respect” by one of the older vampires so he’s been forced to trying to do that.

When he came up to try and scare you off, he noticed that you didn’t run or scream in terror. Instead you asked why he was alone on a farm. You were also petting one of his horses but he chose to ignore that.

“Oh y’know…just running the farm by myself. I could let you look around some more if you’d like.”

Riddle Rosehearts

Riddle never thought he’d be able to love again. You know, because of the whole “Being left at the altar and then forced to watch others get the happy ending that you’ve always wanted” thing.

That was until he saw you. He watched as you roamed the chapel that he is frequently spotted at.

He knew that he’d just be a creep to continue watching you without at least formally introducing himself. Unsurprisingly, you were terrified when he appeared a few feet beside you.

After that initial shock, you two became very well acquainted and the two of you started to see each other more often. Although he once detested the idea of falling in love again, he figures it won’t be so bad if it was with you.

“I haven’t felt this alive since- I can’t even remember when. I suppose it may have something to do with you.”

[dresshistorynerd]

Hi, while looking through extant garments in a museum collection for reference for a school project, I found several garments of different designs that were all labelled as "binder" without any other context or explanation. Obviously my first thought was the kind of binder I use, especially for the first one that looks elasticated, but I have to assume they're for something else like gynecomastia or compression..? Do you know happen to know anything about them?

This is interesting!

They could actually be the types of binders you use. I immediately thought of 19th century male impersonators - female (?) actors who specialized in male roles in Vaudeville and other similar forms of theater, in which drag was integral part of, and would also have their own one man impersonation comedy and music shows and male stage personas. Basically they were drag kings. (Similarly female impersonators, basically drag queens, were also quite popular.) They were known to bind their chest, and other actors, who didn't necessarily do the impersonation shows, but played male roles on stage, would also often bind their chest for their performance. Here's for example two successful male impersonators, British Vesta Tilley (first picture) and American Ella Westner (second picture).

Queer women and trans masc people, who dressed in masculine clothing, (which was pretty common) also sometimes bound their chests, but unsurprisingly that was not exactly celebrated like drag performances were, so there weren't binders made for queer people specifically. I'm guessing they either made their own binders or used binders made for actors. Often those actors were the same people as those queer people, since drag performance was one of the few socially acceptable ways to fuck around with gender. Not all of them were queer, Vesta Tilley looks excellently queer in her drag, but outside stage she was respectable member of high society and very supportive of her husband who became conservative member of parliament (after she had retired). And I think we can easily imagine what kind of political opinions about queer people she was supporting when he was conservative in the context of 1923 Britain. But many of them were known to be queer, like Ella Westner, who eloped to Paris with a very interesting woman, Josie Mansfield (pictured in the last photo above), who was mistress to an infamous scammer and the man who murdered him. Westner was also buried in men's clothing by their own request.

I couldn't find pictures though what did the binders used for chest binding looked like, so I decided to look into what kind of other binders were used in the era. I think the first binder or perhaps both of them could be baby/infant binders (first two pictures below). Apparently people in Victorian era (and in 18th century) believed that chilled abdomen could cause cholera and I guess other bowel issues, so they treated cholera and tried to prevent it by wearing binders and belts (last picture), which could be also made from flannel or wool knit for extra warmth. And babies are quite vulnerable to bowel issues and cholera, so they made binders for babies too. I've seen many different types for these (for both baby and adult use) with some of them like cloth wraps, and some of them kinda corset looking though not corset shaped. If the binders you found were indeed for abdomen warming purposes, I'm sure they are for babies, since those for adults would be so low there definitely wouldn't be shoulder straps like that. The proportions on the first binder especially seem to me fitting for a baby, like the straps feel a bit too wide for adult scale. The second one is harder to guess, it could be a baby binder, but it seems to have boning in the middle, which would make maybe more sense in a chest binder?

But yeah Victorian medicine continues to be... interesting.

[murfpersonalblog]

Thanks for tagging me @little-desi-historian! ❤️

YES, all of this takes me back to something I wanted to touch a lot more on in my original post when it comes to the historical male image, Percy, Lestat, and Matadors; because it truly does link back to how AMC is playing with dandyism and society's expectations about effeminate men.

Dandyism is a form of resistance culture. As I've said before, Lestat flouts gender norms because HE CAN do whatever he wants & get away with it. His androgyny's on a different level: effeminate or masculine, he's still a vampire, a SUPERnatural creature elevated beyond the bounds of social mores that determine what men & women could or SHOULD act/dress like. MANY people across social media have pointed to Lestat's limp wrists, long blonde "Barbie" hair and ESPECIALLY him dressing in drag in Ep7 as proof that he's the "wife/mother/woman/femme fatale" in Lousta's relationship, and THEN claim its either gender essentialism or homophobic/racist to say Louis is CANONICALLY female-coded one in BOTH the books and show (as AR said so). But no, Lestat in drag was a power move, because he doesn't care what anyone thinks/says/does--he'll just eat them. Mockingly eating the baby in a dress was a deliberate bastardization of motherhood/womanhood. Louis is called every homophobic name in the book by those expecting the black man to just take being insulted, but MARQUIS de Lioncourt DEMANDS being crowned KING of Mardi Gras, Krewe of Raj, & he'll show you exactly what he thinks about your silly homophobic hypocritical human society: You're just "the MEAT," let them eat KING Cake--you're his FOOD. Eff y'all, I'm dressed to KILL you, & laugh doing it.

Lestat's behavior is not only derived from the time period he was born & raised in (the Rococo era of so-called "effeminate" high class dandies--a la Percy Blakeney, etc). Lestat is the embodiment of PRIVILEGE: a powerful rich white male vampire, who leans into being foreign/French White to excuse anything he does that people find strange/off/unnatural/dangerous--all the red flags. 🚩🚩🚩

And red flags brings me directly back to matadors/toreros.

@toscrollperchancetomeme

😂 TYSM! Sam Reid dropped so many juicy deets; I couldn't resist! There's so much depth to the Matador outfit, beyond the gendered aspect of bullfighting that I discussed before. Let's go back to what Sam said about Lestat, and delve deeper into matadors:

The most iconic apparel worn by toreros ("bullfighters") / matador de toros ("killer of bulls") in Spanish bullfighting is the Traje de Luces, the "Suit of Lights." The colors are usually bright & vivid, as part of the showmanship & pizzazz. Darker palettes are less common, as shiny sequins (the luces/lights) became part of the standard fit.

However, Lestat's all-black Matador outfit from what Sam called the "villain sequence" in Ep5 seems to be loosely following the style of a different but very closely related outfit, the Traje Campero "Rural/Countryside Suit" aka Traje Corto ("Short Suit").

(These costumes are typically worn during ceremonial parades and a very specific festival I'll get back to in a moment, cuz it's important.) Unlike the Suit of Light's sequins & silk, the Rural Suit is made of suede, leather, or velvet, in dark muted colors. The pants can be light or dark, striped & patterned, with or without chaps (also found in gentleman's uniforms of military officers and cowboys).

The trajes originated from "the flamboyant costumes of the 18th-century dandies and showmen involved in bullfighting, which later became exclusive to the bullfighting ritual." (Wikipedia)

The ancestor of both trajes (luces/campero) is traditional 17th-19th century Andalusian clothing (Andalusia being the home of Spanish bullfighting), closely associated with a very particular type of masculine dandyism. (The campero/corto is also the costume worn by Andalusian male flamenco dancers.)

"Before the 17th century the profession of bullfighting did not exist as such, and the fighters did not wear luxurious & shiny trajes de luces, but instead normal clothes of the time according to the social class to which the bullfighter belonged. The first bullfighter trajes de toreros appeared in the 17th century, when professional bullfighters from Navarre & Andalusia wore characteristic garments with their gangs to participate in performances and thus differentiate themselves from other bullfighter bands." (translated/truncated from Spanish website)

In the mid-1700s, Francisco Romero revolutionized professional bullfighting by establishing the first matadors who fought on foot, heroically fighting the bull face to face with swords & the muleta (iconic red flag) in a dance-like performance, dressed in a suede/velvet coleto (jacket), a precursor to the traje campero. Romero (from a carpenter family) wanted to show off & stand out from the nobility, and changed the game entirely, through a form of social resistance-turned-innovation.

"At that time, bullfighting on horseback was more important, which was considered a sport and not a show. Bullfighting on foot was not yet widely recognized." (translated from Spanish website)

Bull-killing on horseback was practiced by Spanish noblemen, attended by lower class assistants on foot. Romero was the first to make on-foot matadors the stars of what was increasingly becoming a dandified show/performance/dance. Matador Joaquin "Costillares" Rodríguez introduced even more showmanship, competing against Francisco Romero's grandson Pedro Romero (famously painted by Goya--bottom right).

For his matches, Costillares (middle) dressed in flashy silks, threaded in shiny silver braiding; the precursor to modern traje de luces. Like Francisco Romero (left), Costillares wanted to show off & stand out; and revolutionized the male image of the bullfighter through clothes.

In 18th-19th century Andalusian Spain there were 2 types of dandy: the French-imported upperclass petimetre (effeminate dandy), and the indigenous working class majo (masculine/macho dandy).

Noyes, Dorothy. “La Maja Vestida: Dress as Resistance to Enlightenment in Late-18th-Century Madrid.” The Journal of American Folklore 111, no. 440 (1998): 197–217. https://www.jstor.org/stable/541941

The majo, like many dandies, became the peak of Andalusian fashion, across all social classes; and torero/matador outfits weren't the only ones to take cues from them:

18th-19th century majos "distinguished themselves by their elaborate outfits and sense of style in dress and manners, as well as by their cheeky behavior. The majos outfits were exaggerations of traditional Spanish dress. The style stood in strong contrast to the French styles affected by many of the Spanish elite under the influence of the Enlightenment. Majos were known to pick fights with those they saw as afrancesados ("Frenchified" – fops)." (Wikipedia)

The majos' flamboyant/cheeky/saucy/exaggerated behavior was aggressively masculine; a lower/working class resistance to social mores imposed on them by (foreign) elites, whom they saw as more feminine, and FOUGHT against, to reaffirm their masculinity. These dandies were violent, brazen non-conformists; as beautiful & stylish as they were dangerous. And matadors/toreros knew that the bullfight was the perfect arena to exemplify the spirit of the majos through the dandified performance art/sport of killing bulls--a universal cultural symbol of masculine prowess & strength. Spanish bullfighting used to belong solely to the aristocratic equestrian sphere. Lowly pages/assistants like Francisco Romero (dressed in the precursor to the Rural/Countryside Suit), were the first to buck the system by killing bulls on foot--he likely didn't own a horse. The Romeros were from a carpenter family. Costillares was the son of a butcher. But through bullfighting they gained social status and became icons of masculinity--and dandies.

Lestat--the nouveau riche son of a poor country marquis--insists on being all the beautiful things he is without apology: masculine & effeminate alike. But like I said, it was no coincidence that Carol likened Lestat's Ep5 villain outfit with matadors--he's fighting Louis for dominance in their household, and reaffirming his place at the top of their very gendered social hierarchy, as a warning to BOTH "the housewife" AND "the prodigal daughter" he feels are threatening his authority as their Maker, so he defeats them BOTH.

Carol Cutshall initially designed Lestat's matador pants as pajamas--loungewear. (Lestat's CASUAL & comfortable in his ability to KILL--matador means "Killer" in Spanish--and remember what I said about Louis & Claudia being put on the same parallel level in Ep5, when Claudia's attacked by "Killer" aka Bruce.) Sam said Carol made several versions of the pants; and yup, they're foreshadowed in Ep5 when Lestat first starts arguing about Louis' depression, then they pop up again in Ep7 during the Murder Plot--two instances @dwreader brilliantly linked Lestat (& Stanley Kowalski) wearing wifebeaters. (Listen, Carol, I just wanna talk.... 😅🔫)

And here's my last points about Lestat's matador outfit. First there's the irony of Lestat (who grew up poor in rural France) wearing the something very similar to the matador/torero's Rural Suit, traje campero (aka Short Suit (traje corto)). But what's more interesting is that that type of Short/Rural Suit is usually only worn during special festivals called the Tienta ("trials"), not the regular corrida ("bullfights").

These Tienta are trials for young and immature bulls to be tested in the ring, to see if they're fit for breeding/fighting. 🤯 FLEDGLINGS. And who's Lestat's young bull? "Built-like-a-bird" Claudia. Who's the immature bull? The "biggest rat eater of them all," the under-developed "botched" vampire Louis. During these trials, veteran matadors can show off their skills; and novice bullfighters are shown the ropes and prove themselves. Like I said: the matador wins again.

God, even the way Lestat dragged Louis' bloody body out of the courtyard by the jaw/neck resembles the way the defeated bull--bled out & stabbed in the neck--is dragged by the neck out of the ring.

And remember what I said about Lestat and FOOD. Cuz what happens to the bulls after the matadors kill them? They're sent to the slaughterhouse to be butchered for FOOD. People EAT the bulls.

So yeah, my whole point in this post and my first one is not to sleep on guys like Lestat, Percy--or even other famous dandies like Valmont from Dangerous Liasions/Cruel Intentions (mentioned by both @little-desi-historian and @dwreader)--just because they're effeminate--especially when they're emulating mannerisms from a time period where the model of what made a fashionable gentlemen/good breeding/elite society did NOT match modern expectations about gender. People are getting distracted by Lestat's yaasified manner, not what the show itself is signalling through the relationships he has with others.

This show is deliberately painting Lestat as a villain through Louis' & Claudia's perspectives, as they were the ones who suffered under his Reign of Terror. The symbolism behind the matador-inspired costume used in Ep5 reflected gendered social hierarchies embedded within bullfighting culture (in Spain, women only started being allowed to fight in the 19th-20th centuries). Dressed in clothes resembling that of a matador, Lestat beating & defeating Louis mirrored the defeat of the emasculated bull, and the reification of the victor's masculine prowess at the top of the foodchain.

[theresattrpgforthat]

Hi! I'm on a regency binge at the moment and while Good Society is on my list, do you have any more regency games/systems to recommend?

THEME: Regency Games

Hello friend, I think I have a nice little selection for you to take a look at!

One thing to note is that some of these games are very gendered, providing roles such as “Matron”, “Nobleman” or “Countess” that is rather unavoidable. Sometimes this is simply part and parcel of playing in a specific era of history, and sometimes it is done purposefully, as games can often be commentary about certain issues that were prevalent at the time.

While I think you could likely make a non-binary character in these games if you really want to, I think that one of the appeals of playing in the Regency era is the strict social structures that created such rigid gender boundaries, and so I’m not surprised to see those boundaries enforced in these games.

Vicious, by Budget Versailles.

Vicious is a game set during the Regency period about scandalous gossip told via letters between three or more players.

Players roll dice to generate scenarios and gossipy twists to pass on to the next player until everyone has been deceived with shocking slander and hearsay.

If you’re a fan of the epistolary phase of Good Society, Vicious is probably worth looking at. Watch a piece of news twist out of your control as your letters get flavoured with gossip. You can roll for inspiration for various scenarios, as well as for juicy gossip to make those scenarios even better - but the game ends with one player sends out an invitation to determine how many of the accusations that have been sent around are true.

I think Vicious is also an excellent add-on to pair with another game of your choice, especially since it could be played in between sessions, cooking up drama for the players to hash out in an in-person confrontation.

Hazelwood Abbey, by stevehatherly.

Downton Abbey meets Hillfolk. Players play an aristocratic family in a player-led dramatic game of emotional needs and wants for 4-5 players.

Hazelwood Abbey uses Pelgrane Press' DramaSystem rules engine to create a story of high-stakes interpersonal conflict. During the session, you will create family members with conflicting needs and goals. And then you will find out what happens.

To play this game you’ll need a good understanding of how the DramaSystem works. The author recommends referencing a copy of Hillfolk, although you can also check out the SRD for free to see how you feel about the system.

The DramaSystem is all about relationships, and give and take. Your characters all need something from each-other, something tied to an emotional reward. When interacting with each-other in a dramatic scene, tokens will be gained or spent by following prompts specific to your playbook. In Hazelwood Abbey, your characters are split between the upstairs and downstairs, just like in Downton Abbey. The upstairs playbooks will wrestle with ties to family, tradition, and duty, while the downstairs playbooks commonly struggle with ambition, social inequality, and precious secrets. If you deny another person what they seek, too many times, they may force an emotional concession from you by spending tokens.

I think this is a great example of dramatic tension, and while I suppose Hazelwood Abbey might be slightly later than regency era, it might give you some of what you’re looking for.

Sense and Sensibility, by Armanda.

YOU ARE A DEAD GUY’S SECOND FAMILY IN 18th CENTURY ENGLAND. Your mission is to get one of your sisters to marry well, since you’re all women and can’t live without the favor of a man. You have no rights other than the right to marry and be a mother. In this game, you’ll explore the terrible vicissitudes of British bucolic countryside life and deal with neighbours and city people coming to visit the various families in the area, where gossip and marriage (and love, in the best of cases) are the order of the day. 

Since this game is built off of Lasers and Feelings, I’d expect it to also be fairly easy to pick up if you’re familiar with other works in the same system. You have two stats and a number somewhere between 2 to 5 that tells you how good you are at one of those things, and how bad you are at the other.

I think this game is more focused on family relationships than some of the other games on this list, because your entire family’s well-being depends on the success of finding a wealthy match. Battle gossip, defend your honour, and possibly even sabotage your rivals in an attempt to find some security for yourself and your loved ones.

The Season, by Rue.

It's London season and you're in for a ball! 

The Season is a GM-less RPG about elevating your status and keeping up your reputation during the fabled Regency Era social season. 

This is a competitive RPG that takes place over the course of 10 rounds. Each characters’ goal is the same: to end the game with the highest Reputation. To chip away at your rivals’ reputation, you’ll have to demonstrate your own social graces, spread rumours, or meet gossip with the perfect amount of composure. You just need 2d6 to play, although you’ll probably want a few roll-tables for inspiration if you don’t consider yourself that good at improv.

This is another game that might benefit from being played alongside something bigger, or perhaps using some established lore from another setting.

Teacup Masquerade, by Sam Scribbler.

A one-page cozy social game about getting revenge on your enemies. Inspired by Regency-era romantic dramas such as Bridgerton with a vengeful twist. Create a character, discover your rival's secret, and become the darling of high society.

This is a simple game meant to fit on one page. You have three basic stats, and a gradient scale of success. You gain a random social advantage and a random personal shame, which you’ll want to try to hide as you go about discovering the secrets of your rivals.

There’s not a lot of guidance for this one, which is pretty common for one-page games. It might be a good fit if you have an idea of the kind of story you want to tell, or if you have your own set of home-brew rules that you want to add onto an existing premise.

The Social Season, by Scott Sexton.

In this single page role playing game inspired by the works of Jane Austen, you and your friends play as high society characters navigating the treacherous London social season.

To save your family from ruin, you must land an advantageous marriage proposal by the end of the season. Will you outwit scheming rivals and jealous suitors to make a fortuitous match, or will you become embroiled in scandal and depart London in disgrace?

This is a Honey Heist hack, pulling you between the two extremes of Composure and Scandal. Since it’s built off of a familiar system (to me), I can expect this game to be rather light-hearted, pushing your characters to vacillate between following social graces or deliberately doing something considered… untoward. This is certainly a chance to put on your stuffiest airs, flutter your fans dramatically, and describe your attempt to kiss your beau on the back of their hand.

The London Season, by Stéphanie Dusablon.

The London season of 1874, a perfect time for the aristocracy to advance the marriage prospects of their offsprings, entertain themselves through various social engagements and, naturally, gossip to their heart's content.

We were also taught that once we attained marital bliss, our husband would take ownership of our wealth, property and body. They probably would have passed a law to ensure our mind became theirs as well, had it occured to them that we might actually have one.

Create your young lady, decide if you hope to secure or avoid an engagement this season and carefully navigate 8 fortnights of glamorous events, social engagements and secret messages. 

As a solo roleplaying game, The London Season is an examination of the social inequities present in the Regency era, as well as a love letter for a time of secret messages and glamorous events. You’ll mostly be drawing cards to answer questions, receive secret messages, and navigate both welcome and unwelcome engagements, journaling each step of the way. At the end of eight fortnights, your young lady will have either achieved or lost her goal. Whether that goal is marriage or something else is up to you.

Games I’ve Recommended In The Past

Le Bon Ton, by RobotFrancis.

Pride and Extreme Prejudice, by Grant Howitt.

Eyes on the Prize, by ira prince.

[my-deer-friend]

Hi!

I was just cleared by my professor to write a 35 page paper concerning the relationship between Hamilton and Laurens.

I've been following your blog for a while now and truly appreciate the nuance you approach 18th century relationships with homoerotic subtext. I was wondering if there are any sources or articles that you could think of that could possibly help? I'm trying to be as thorough as possible with this project and figured that the good people of tumblr would be a great place to start!

That's so exciting!

I've already shared a bunch of general/context-setting works here, some of which include mentions of the Laurens-Hamilton relationship. You especially want the Godbeer text.

Here are a few other articles that might be worth looking at:

Weir, R. M. (1976). Portrait Of A Hero. American Heritage, 27(3).

Lyons, C. A. (2003). Mapping an Atlantic Sexual Culture: Homoeroticism in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia. William and Mary Quarterly, 60(1), 119.

Haggerty, G. E. (2012). Gray Agonistes: Thomas Gray and Masculine Friendship. The Age of Johnson, 22, 331–XIII.

Richter, S. (1996). The Ins and Outs of Intimacy: Gender, Epistolary Culture, and the Public Sphere. The German Quarterly, 69(2), 111–124.

And then a few considerations from me (because I've never seen a soapbox I didn't want to climb on):

Context is everything. If you're looking to evaluate the relationship effectively, make sure you are consulting sources that cover the right social, cultural and temporal contexts (in this case, Anglo-American late 18th century). Male-male relationships underwent a lot of change during the 18th century, as did the socially-acceptable (or not) codes and expressions. They also varied a lot by culture, so a source about men in France in the 1720s is only going to be tangentially relevant here.

Be sure to consider adjacent topics like masculinity, virtue, family life, and the influence of antiquity. All of these helped to model what a man should aspire to be, and how he should engage with the other people in his life (and thereby, what would count as transgession).

Don't forget friendship! Whatever else Laurens and Hamilton were, or however else we want to label it, they were also close friends. This sometimes gets erased or overlooked and it's very frustrating. Friendships were the cornerstone relationships of young men's lives at the time - sites of companionship, values-building, intellectual stimulation and social support.

Good luck with your paper!

[amphibious-thing]

Geneviève d’Eon & Marie-Jeanne Bertin: Clothing and Gender in 18th Century France

"After being fully dressed by famous designer Rose Bertin for the first time, they ran to their room and cried for hours." ~ Kaz Rowe, The Chevalier d'Eon: the Trans 18th Century Spy

Kaz Rowe throws this story out there in their video on d'Eon as a part of their justification in using they/them pronouns for d'Eon who used she/her pronouns. Rowe never really explains the context for this story. It sounds dramatic on the surface, d'Eon spent hours crying over being forced into women's clothes. But did this really happen?

This story comes from d'Eon's own autobiographical writings that she never finished. Segments of her drafts were translated and published by Roland A. Champagne, Nina Ekstein, and Gary Kates in The Maiden of Tonnerre. The title comes from d'Eon who styled herself la pucelle de Tonnerre after Joan of Arc who was known as la pucelle d'Orléans.

Some things to consider before we start:

D'Eon's autobiographical writings operate under the pretence that she was afab and raised as a boy for inherence reasons. We have to remember that these writings are heavily fictionalised, a necessity in upholding the lie that allowed d'Eon to live as a woman. However that doesn't mean that there is no historical value in these writings. Instead of simply taking these stories as fact we must consider: Why is d'Eon presenting this story in this way? How does this story serve the narrative d'Eon is constructing for herself?

D'Eon in this story claims she had never worn women's clothing before. This is contradicted by d'Eon's own claim of infiltrating the court of Empress Elizabeth of Russia as a woman. While its hard to pinpoint the exact moment d'Eon first wore women's clothes I personally suspect it was much earlier than this.

D'Eon also includes a scene where she is bathed by Bertin's assistants. This scene is almost certainly fictional as if it happened in reality this would reveal that d'Eon had a penis, a fact she wanted to keep secret. This scene is almost certainly included to add to the 'evidence' that d'Eon was afab.

Considering these points we must consider that this story did not take place literally as d'Eon depicts it. Instead of taking this story as an accurate recollection of events I consider it a fictionalised story (based on true events). The goal in my analysis is to ask what is d'Eon trying to communicate though this story.

Some background information to add context:

D'Eon had prior to this incident signed a transaction with Louis XVI in which she was legally acknowledged as a woman and ordered by Louis XVI to wear woman's clothes. D'Eon agreed to "declaring publicly my sex, to my condition being established beyond a doubt, to resume and wear female attire until death," but then adds "unless, taking into consideration my being so long accustomed to appear in uniform, his Majesty will consent, on sufferance only, to my resuming male attire should it become impossible for me to endure the embarrassment of adopting the other". (see D'Eon de Beaumont, his life and times by Alfred Rieu, p174-182 for an English translation of the transaction)

We also must consider that d'Eon did not dispute the fact that she was a woman when signing the transaction, nor does she dispute this in her autobiographical writings. D'Eon was very much arguing that she, as a woman, should be allowed to continue to wear men's clothing (specifically her dragoon uniform) as that is what she was used to wearing and comfortable wearing.

Also mentioned in the following excerpt is the English trial over d'Eon's sex in which it was found that d'Eon was a woman. I'm not going to get too into the topic here as it's a whole other can of worms. However I think it's important to understand that while d'Eon had issues with aspects of the trial she would use the ruling to support her claim that she was afab.

The Maiden of Tonnerre: Chapter VII

Selections from the great interview between Mademoiselle Bertin and Mademoiselle d'Eon in Paris on October 21, 1777 Mademoiselle Bertin. I have come vary early in the morning to spare you trouble and embarrassment. But what else can I do? You must either go through this or through the gates of a convent. Mademoiselle d'Eon. It is easy to do otherwise. Just leave me as I am. I have lived for forty-eight years this way. I cannot live all that much longer. I am impatiently awaiting the great change that will transform us all making all of us eternally equal. Mademoiselle Bertin. The Court in its patience will never have the endurance to wait that long. Remember that it was a deliberate error on the part of your father, your mother, and yourself that resulted in Mademoiselle d'Eon's wearing men's clothing and a military uniform. But since that time things have changed considerably, and today by order of King and the law, the bad boy must become a good girl.

It's interesting that here d'Eon has Bertin distinguish between "men's clothing" and "military uniform". As women were not allowed in the French military at this time all French military uniforms were as such men's clothing. But d'Eon did not simply want to wear men's clothing she wanted to wear her military uniform.

Mademoiselle d'Eon. If I was a boy by mistake, one could inadvertently allow me to continue to be one. While you are correct about the substance of the matter, I am not wrong about the form. Mademoiselle Bertin. That is not possible now. Your trial created too much of a stir. Mademoiselle d'Eon. I am a reliable bugler in my squadron. I am not frightened by noise. The Court's behaviour, by its very decency, has wound up being indecent. I would have thought that the King would have been willing to allow me to wear the uniform of a former dragoon captain, Knight of Saint Louis, and plenipotentiary minister, since he was kind enough to allow me to wear the cross of the royal and military order of Saint Louis on my dress. Do you see how everything at court is so arbitrary? There one could say every day: Contraria contrariis opponuntur [A contrary opposes other contraries].

Again we see the focus is that d'Eon wanted to wear her dragoon uniform. She likens this directly to her cross of Saint Louis which Louis XVI did permit her to wear on her women's clothes. As the cross of Saint Louis was only awarded to men it is arguably also menswear. D'Eon is pointing out the arbitrary nature of this distinction. Why is she permitted to wear an idem of menswear, the cross of Saint Louis, but not another, her dragoon uniform. To d'Eon these both represent her achievements rather than manhood, she is arguing that she, a woman, should be allowed to wear them.

Mademoiselle Bertin. I concede that every day we see in the streets of Paris a tall young woman in the uniform of a dragoon publicly giving lessons on the use if arms. But remember that this girl was a mere dragoon and that she had no other way to earn a living. To do so, she had written permission to dress as a dragoon form the lieutenant general of the Paris police. But the Court would never grant such permission for a young woman from a good family who had been in France and in foreign courts as Mademoiselle d'Eon has been. Mademoiselle d'Eon. In a well-regulated country, the law must not allow preferential treatment to anyone. Mademoiselle Bertin. You can go to Versailles to argue with the Chancellor of France, your former schoolmate. But with Mademoiselle Bertin, it can serve no purpose to argue. Do not take this matter so far as to have a falling out with the King's ministers or the royal Treasury. Remember, Mademoiselle, that in France a maiden who obeys the law and the King must wear her dress and petticoat, whether to remain in this world or to spend her time in the convent. Mademoiselle d'Eon. Your advice is wise and prudent. I would rather follow you into the royal Treasury than into a convent. Mademoiselle Bertin. My honorable captain, don't think that you are dishonored by having been found to be a woman. The discomfiture is temporary, and the glory will be with you forever. But let us not wast uselessly the precious time needed to begin and end your outfitting before the return of Major Varville. Mademoiselle d'Eon. I see that Mademoiselle Bertin is correct about all that she says and does and that a lady-in-waiting to the Queen is thus wiser in her comportment and in her begetting than all the children of the Enlightenment and all the captains of the army. Without delaying further and having followed the instructions of Mademoiselle Bertin, the Dragoon was, in a short period of time, divested of his serpent's skin and transformed into an angel of light. Her head became as lustrous as the sun. Her whole outlook on things changed as much as did her face. No trace of the dragoon remained in her. Mademoiselle Bertin thought she was consoling me by saying: "The Queen doesn't despise bravery in a well-born maiden. But out of duty she prefers to find in her decency, honor, and virtue. If Louis XV armed you as a Knight of French soldiers, Louis XVI arms you as a chevalière of French women. And the Queen crowns your wisdom by commanding me to bring to you this new armor, which must accompany your coiffure and your demeanor so that you may become the leading general of all the honorable women of France. The time has come for us to be edified and not scandalized by Mademoiselle d'Eon's conduct. Why don't you offer up your uniform as a sacrifice at Notre Dame de Paris or in your holy anger throw it out the window in order to stand witness before the people of Israel, the Parisians, the Scribes, and the Pharisees that you are now following the letter of the law that Moses gave us in his commandments." While Mademoiselle Bertin had me get into the bath to be washed, soaped and scrubbed down by her companions, I told her: "Proceed as quickly as possible; do not waste time with the preparations so that I too may keep part of my own dignity as it is joined with yours and that of your seamstresses. Virtuous Bertin, honest messenger form the chamber of the Queen, I fully realize that the hour is at hand for me to follow the directive of the law and the King. As a victim, I am offered up in sacrifice since you do me harm in order to do me good. All women are going to point at me, and all the maidens are going to thumb their noses at me when they see me dressed in style and done up like a doll or at the very least like a Vestal Virgin who is led to the marriage altar."

We see in this excerpt Bertin acts as an authority ushering d'Eon into womanhood, the transformation is painful but ultimately positive for d'Eon; "you do me harm in order to do me good". But there is this real fear of being mocked by other women. At least part of d'Eon's trepidation to don women's clothes comes form the fear of humiliation. We see this fear also reflected in the transaction when she begs King Louis to "consent, on sufferance only, to my resuming male attire should it become impossible for me to endure the embarrassment of adopting the other".

Mademoiselle Bertin. Put aside your concerns about what other will say. Must what the mad say prevent us from being wise? Mademoiselle d'Eon. Alas, at court everything is beautiful. To please the court, does a former captain have to become a pretty boy [demoiseau]? Mademoiselle Bertin. Yes, absolutely, when the so-called "boy" is discovered to be in fact a girl by the systems of justice both in England and in France. Mademoiselle d'Eon. Speaking of justice, is Mademoiselle Bertin, the Queen's servant, also the enforcer of justice? Mademoiselle Bertin was stung. "Don't be angry," I told her, "I simply wanted you to acknowledge, for you are just in all matters, that I cannot fit into the dress you brought me." Mademoiselle Bertin remained disconcerted for a moment. But she soon regained her composure and said to me: "If you are a patient girl, the dress that I made for you in the name of Justice will soon be taken out to fit you. And I predict for you that the certainty of happiness will come form the alleged abyss of your unhappiness." Then, looking pleased with herself, she said to me: "I am glad about having stripped you of your armor and your dragoon skin in order to arm you from head to toe with your dress and finery. In you I have found the power to possess the benefit of simple tonsure without a papal dispensation. Give thanks to God. You can assuredly double your chances of attaining eternal life, for which all of us search amidst this life's sorrows, troubles and suffering. Tomorrow you will suffer less, and the following day you will not suffer at all. In a little while, you will enjoy the relaxation and the joy that are the natural prerogatives of a Catholic girl who loyally follows the breviary of Rome and Paris, which was annotated, revised, and made available to the Daughters of Holy Mary and the Queen's women. You are not yet canonized, but soon you will be beatified when your upcoming marriage is canonically approved. Better this for you than a cannon shot."

D'Eon at this time was considering joining a convent. Bertin is referring to d'Eon's marriage to Christ.

Mademoiselle d'Eon. You can even say that regarding a hail of cannon shots. ... But when I reflect on my past and present states, I will never have the courage to go out in public dressed as you have me. You have illuminated and brightened me up so much that I dare not look at myself in the mirror that you brought me. Mademoiselle Bertin. A room is not lit up in order to hide it or to keep it in the dark, but rather it is placed beneath a chandelier so that those who enter can see the light and be edified by your conversion. Mademoiselle d'Eon. I know that there is nothing hidden that should not be revealed or anything secret that cannot be known. Therefore, I will not seek my own willpower but that of the King who sent you here to Mademoiselle d'Eon to change what is bad into something good. Since he obliges me to choose the best way, it will not be taken away from me. What is worth choosing is worth maintaining. When you came to me, I thought you were bringing me death. Now I go to you in order to be alive, because I am no longer chasing after the false vainglory of the dragoons, but after the solid glory of maidens of pease. I am no longer looking for my own glory. There is another who is seeking it for me and is judging it. This order is the most Christian King following the opinion of his Council and his apostolic Sanhedrin, who grants me glory so that I myself might experience that God's will is perfect, that will of the law is just, the King's will is good, and that of the Queen pleasant, decent, and proper, because the Son of Man came to save what was lost. After this conversation, I quickly left the room and hurried to my bedroom, where I wept bitterly. Mademoiselle Bertin closely followed me and uselessly proposed both a drink and smelling salts in order to console me. I stopped crying only when my tears naturally dried up. Mademoiselle Bertin, as a crafty member of the Court, took advantage of my weekness by saying: "You are certainly not unaware of the joy experienced by the public in Paris when they heard sung the verses about the Heroine from Tonnerre, which were recently printed and are being sung throughout France." That was the only thing that calmed me in my distress, for when a heart is not entirely dedicated to God it is partly attached to this world. Only vanity can console such an individual because this world prefers human glory to the divine.

And so that it. Thats the moment that d'Eon "cried for hours" after being dressed by Mademoiselle Bertin. So what is d'Eon trying to communicate to the reader in this excerpt?

"When you came to me, I thought you were bringing me death. Now I go to you in order to be alive" is a key part of d'Eon's speech to Bertin, it mirrors an earlier moment in chapter VI where d'Eon says to Bertin "You have killed my brother the dragoon. That leaves me with a heavy heart." In order for d'Eon to become a woman the man or more precisely the dragoon must be killed. D'Eon tries to hang onto both womanhood and her identity as a dragoon but she isn't allowed to.

She cries in morning for the loss of the dragoon she once was and is only cheered by Bertin reminding her that she is now a Heroine. However the d'Eon who is narrating this story criticises her past self for vanity. We see this thought continued in the next chapter:

There is no doubt that it would have been preferable, for my happiness in this world and my salvation in the one to come, had my investiture taken place forty years earlier, because the dragoon disease is so deeply rooted in me that I greatly fear that our saintly Madame Louise will unite with our holy Archbishop, the good Marquis de l'Hôpital, and his pious spouse to have me put away in a hospital for the incurable.

D'Eon presents her transformation into womanhood at the hands of Mademoiselle Bertin as a painful experience but ultimately a necessary and good one that brought her happiness in the long term. I'll leave off with d'Eon's words:

That was all I could respond to Mademoiselle Bertin's questions, whether they were hers alone or form on high. I answered them in a satisfactory manner according to my system of moderation, so appropriate to my position and to the disposition that heaven has inspired in me, and not that of the dragoon, which I drove out of my clothes and away from the wardrobe that the honorable messenger of the Queen had brought me. Thus I can say without flattery that Mademoiselle Bertin is the best of the women who can be found at the Court, in the city, in Picardy, in France, and in the world. My dear Mademoiselle Bertin, it will soon be midnight return to rejoin your forty Virtues as if it were midday.

[maironsbigboobs]

re: elf servants

I think generally there are servants in royal/noble households simply for practical reasons and they generally fall into 2 categories: specialised servants (think, stewards and messengers and scribes, masters of horses or kennels, that kind of thing) and servants who help with the upkeep of the household (cleaning, repairs, cooking and also the apprentices and assistants of specialised servants)

specialised servants are probably quite prestigious roles and fields of industry in their own right, and they are considered full members of a household, and probably are closely linked to the person they serve - it's as much a political and social statement to be Finwe's chief scribe as it is an economic one

but the second category are more associated with the house than the family living in it - for example, Finwe's palace in Tirion would function both as a home and a diplomatic and administrative centre, it would be impossible for him to rule and keep up with chores himself. But Fingolfin's personal home would probably not have any full-time servants - when there more people than usual to feed or house then professionals might be hired, but for the most part I imagine the day to day is done by the family (made possible by the fact elves sleep and eat less than humans)

IRL domestic service (at least in the 18th century) often functioned as a kind of prep stage for adult life (for women in particular, but gender is probably not as big a factor for elves) and I could definitely see this in Valinor - domestic servants being 80% elves between 50-100 who haven't chosen an apprenticeship or similar in another field who are earning extra money to set up their own households, getting experience outside of the family, meeting others in their own ae cohort, learning independence etc. It's a job that comes with the offer of room and board + the wages a king/prince/lord can provide. Not glamorous, but not terrible.

The other 20% is made up of professional servants - experienced elves who are genuinely like the work and are contracted workers as much as a builder or gardener might be. Some of them might be independent and others part of businesses set up by other elves who are really into cooking/cleaning etc.

In Beleriand the situation (for the exiles at least) is probably very different, though I think there would be attempts to adapt the system - but there aren't as many households that need servants and there aren't as many young elves.

[pub-lius]

Hey, so recently I saw a post about the misogyny of hamilton, so I wanted to ask you if it was true. Not the part of misogyny (because in that time it was normal, I guess), but rather how much was? (does make sense?), did it affect the relationship with eliza or with her daughters?

Thankyu!!! (Muak)

hm okay so im not completely sure what you mean but i am going to do my darndest

So, in the time period which Hamilton was alive, which is the latter half of the 18th century, there definitely was a profound attitude of misogyny, but it was very different from what we know today. Most of our idea of sexism comes from the religious revivals of the 20th century (and people who know me know how i feel about the godforsaken 20th century when it comes to history). This is yk your typical idea of a housewife being at home, taking on the burdens of homemaking and child rearing and basically keeping everything together at home while the husband worked a stressful 9 to 5 and didn't do shit at home and weaponized incompetence and implicit biases and yadayada

This was not the case in the 18th century! 18th century gender roles are very different from what we're used to, and even more different than what the Victorians and Edwardians considered the norm. This is especially visible in Hamilton's relationship with women, so I'm quite excited to talk about this.

Firstly, I want to talk about the joker to my batman: Ron Chernow. A major theory he supports in his biography of Hamilton is the two sided nature of Hamilton's perception of women. He says that there is a clear distinction between two "types" of women in Hamilton's wife-- the good, Christian mistress of the house and the stupid, mentally unstable skank. These are his terms. I want to hit him in the head with a brick.

"Together, the two eldest [Schuyler] sisters formed a composite portrait of Hamilton's ideal woman, each appealing to a different facet of his personality. Eliza reflected Hamilton's earnest sense of purpose, determination, and moral rectitude, while Angelica exhibited his worldly side- the wit, charm, and vivacity that so delighted people in social intercourse." -Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, page 133

Yeah, this is horseshit. It gets worse when he compares Elizabeth Hamilton and Maria Reynolds on page 367, but I'm not going to get started because I won't stop. And this isn't about him anyway.

Instead, I want to talk about WHY this is horseshit. First of all, even Alexander "thinks with the wrong head" Hamilton didn't have this fucked up mindset, because it is heavily based in 20th century evangelicalism that didn't even exist in Hamilton's world.

Yes, obviously there was religious attitudes that condemned certain actions from women, but this was not as intense as in later periods. In the 18th century, an upperclass woman, such as Elizabeth Hamilton, would be responsible for maintaining the household, but this meant being in charge of the servants rather than doing the work herself. The work she did do would be maintaining the finances and the family's reputation.

Reputation was everything in the 18th century, and this especially applied to women. Not only did they have to maintain their own reputations, but they had to raise their children to have the skills necessary to do the same, and often had to fill in for their husbands in this department if they held public office. It's very difficult to maintain your reputation if you're beating people with walking sticks in the Continental Congress.

When it came to lower and middle class women, their jobs weren't different in that they carried an equally important role in the family. They would be doing household chores just as well as their husband, and these weren't easy chores that made women "feeble". They very often took a lot of physical strength and endurance, and it wasn't considered unladylike for women to do "men's" chores while their husbands were away. This isn't to say that women in later eras didn't do the same, but it wasn't as publicly frowned upon.

Hamilton had a very unique perspective as he was witness to both sides of this coin. His mother, a single, working class mother would be juggling both the man and woman's role. I think it was really this background that allowed him to have a much more informed perspective on womanhood. He was one of the few men in this period that I've seen write from the perspective of a woman, specifically a grieving mother.

"For the sweet babe, my doting heart Did all a mother's fondness feel; Careful to act each tender part And guard from every threatening evil. But what alas! availed my care? The unrelenting hand of death, Regardless of a parent's prayer Has stopped my lovely infant's breath-" -Papers of Alexander Hamilton, volume 1, page 43.

Chernow attributes this to Hamilton's deeply empathetic nature, which is fair, however I think it also shows that he was able to understand a woman's experience specifically.

I say this because Hamilton does tell us a little bit about exactly what was expected of women in the time during Elizabeth's first pregnancy in a letter that is usually used to call him a sexist, but I think it's a little more complex than that. Here's the excerpt:

"You shall engage shortly to present me with a boy. You will ask me if a girl will not answer the purpose. By no means. I fear, with all the mothers charms, she may inherit the caprices of her father and then she will enslave, tantalize and plague one half [the] sex, out of pure regard to which I protest against a daughter. So far from extenuating your offence this would be an aggravation of it." -Alexander Hamilton to Elizabeth Hamilton, October 12, 1781

In this letter, Hamilton isn't telling Elizabeth that he wants a boy to inherit his fortune, to carry on his name, or the other reasons that were given by his contemporaries for preferring sons over daughters. He specifically states that his reasons are his fear that his traits will be passed onto his children, and that if its a daughter, she will be more discriminated against than his son because of her sex. Essentially, it was easier to be a gay son in the 18th century than a thot daughter. In that question, Hamilton would choose gay son because he knew that men were generally less criticized than women.

So, I'm not saying Hamilton wasn't sexist, because, by definition, he was. He was taught that women were fundamentally different than men, but he didn't look down on women for that, because that simply wasn't normal. You wouldn't be a gentleman if you looked down on a woman for being physically and psychologically different from a man, you'd be an asshole. While their interpretations of these differences don't align with what modern medicine has determined, they weren't the same as in the later eras in American history. Women were, most certainly, oppressed because of these perceived differences, but it was a different system of oppression than what typically defines our idea of sexism.

It's hard to say if it affected Hamilton's relationship with his wife and daughters, as there isn't any real written proof, but I imagine Hamilton's attitude specifically towards women did make their relationship different than other fathers, daughters, husbands, and wives of the time. We do know that Hamilton was a very hands on father who dedicated a lot of time and care towards his children, and he did not treat his daughters any differently than his sons. He put the same amount of energy into their education, though they weren't educated in the same thing, and he seemed to be equally close with all his children.

Hamilton and women is a very interesting topic, and it gets more complicated when it comes to Rachel Faucette and Maria Reynolds and those parallels, but that is a topic for another time. Good thing its women's history month! Hope this helped :)

[danieandflars]

What's terra ignota?

It's a science fiction series by Ada Palmer about a 25th century Earth which thinks itself a peaceful utopia, and its descent into chaos as the cracks in that utopia start to appear. It is somehow both deeply profound and the most bonkers, complicated thing to explain and I love it so much, it's my favourite series.

Features:

18th century larping

Magic 13 year old with Toy Story powers

The worst and most pathetic guy imaginable

Extremely serious discussions about religion, gender, freedom, peace, politics etc. etc.

Pokemon are real

It's definitely not for everyone and very stylistically weird, which some people are going to love and some are going to hate. I recommend taking the first chapter at face value, I find it a pretty accurate snapshot of how the story will feel to read, and if you're offput by it from the beginning, it's probably not going to get better for you.

But if you *like* that shit. :) get ready.

[saint-jussy]

I know I've been in your asks before but I need a lecture on the ship "Saintspierre". I don't know the historical context behind it and why they get villanized so much. I'm a newbie when it comes to history. Thank you! :)

Hello again! So Saintspierre is the ship between Robespierre & Saint-Just of the French Revolution, who are often depicted as queer-coded villains in adaptations of the Revolution to serve as a counterpart to the Straight and Manly ™️ Danton. This happens because reactionaries are eager to push the narrative of 1789 being "the Good Revolution" and 1792 as "the Bad Revolution." Danton represents the Good Revolutionary, who advocates for change but is against offending too many moderates, while Robespierre is the Bad Revolutionary who brought on the Reign of Terror. They make Danton out to be a tragic victim who heroically tried to stop the Terror (even though he had a major hand in starting it and was corrupt af) and Robespierre out to be a gay psychopath who killed him out of jealousy. You can see this in La Revolution Francais (1989), Danton (1983), the BBC documentary, and many other adaptations.

For example, LRF goes out of its way to depict Danton as a loving family man, with a frankly excessive number of scenes of him making out with his two wives, while ignoring how he was a creep who sexually harassed women and that his second wife was 16. His close ally Camille is also depicted as very loving with his wife Lucile. Meanwhile, Robespierre is never shown being affectionate toward any women. The only person he has multiple close interactions with, besides his childhood friend Camille, is Saint-Just, who struts into his attention in part 2 and ruthlessly replaces Camille at Robespierre's side. Literally, Saint-Just's only character traits in this movie are being pretty and zealously urging Robespierre to kill Camille specifically. They even made up a scene where Saint-Just sends thugs to beat Camille up while making Camille think it was Robespierre who did it, so he can cause an irrevocable break between them. They give him no backstory, no explanation for his motivations, and completely erase his military accomplishments. He's just an homme fatale who lures Robespierre to the dark side with his pretty hair. This is a common tactic in works that struggle to reconcile the fact that Robespierre was on record being a pacifist who opposed the death penalty, opposed the war, and fought for the rights of the poor, with the propaganda that he was a monster responsible for the Terror. They blame his fall on Saint-Just.

Another tactic they use to villainize Robespierre is exaggerating his vanity. There is ALWAYS a scene where Robespierre gets his wig pampered. I mean, yeah, he DID care a lot about his appearance and never stepped out of the house looking like shit...but Danton wore a wig too. 99% of Danton's historical portraits have him in a wig, yet these works have him conveniently ditching it in most scenes to rock his Messy & Manly Natural Hair, and you will NEVER catch them showing Danton caring for his wig. No, only fops like Robespierre do that...even though it was just the norm at the time for lawyers to wear wigs. They put shady emphasis on Robespierre following 18th century fashion norms that have now become feminized, like wigs, lace cuffs, and stockings, to further queer-code him.

THOUGH, it's true that even historically, Robespierre was seen as a strange man in many ways. There are many contemporary accounts that rail on him for repeating things, being socially awkward, being blunt and callous, hating physical contact, having no emotions, being incapable of love--when from a modern lens, it's clear to me that he was just autistic. Like omg, leave the man alone. But when people want to villainize someone, they latch onto the traits that make them seem odd, that stray from typical societal expectations. When it comes to Robespierre, his villainization thus becomes very gendered, homophobic, and ableist, because he was 36 and unmarried and didn't abuse his power to sexually harass women and cared about his appearance and had a large female following and was most likely autistic. Meanwhile, Saint-Just gets exaggerated as a breathtakingly handsome twink who wore an earring and has a fancy bathroom that Camille roasted him for. Like omg, how dare a man have running water in his bathroom and not look like shit in the 18th century!!

Personally, I ship Robespierre & Saint-Just as a form of rebellion against this villainization. If they were gay, so WHAT? It would be cute. Fuck the homophobes. They did have a very touching relationship with each other. They shared many similar ideas and complemented each other's personalities and Saint-Just chose to defend Robespierre to the end even though he could've easily saved himself on the basis of his military merits by staying out of the drama. The fact that he was prevented from finishing his last speech, in which he defended Robespierre, is one of the saddest things in the whole goddamn Revolution.

Is there historical basis for their relationship being explicitly romantic? Most of their correspondences have been burnt, so we don't have much, but I ship it regardless in a historical fiction, What If? kind of way. Robespierre and Eleonore aren't romantically confirmed either, but nobody bats an eye when mainstream media or even historians treat them as "canon." I think that is very heteronormative, so I am ride or die for Saintspierre as protest. Some historians have pointed out that we have no records of any warm interactions between them, but I think they understood each other in a way that didn't require pleasantries, and that's what makes them so compelling to me. There's Charlotte Robespierre's infamous casual revelation that Saint-Just was Maximilien's 2nd favorite revolutionary, just after his own brother and OVER Camille. Then the Duplay testimony that Saint-Just would go up to Robespierre's room without saying hi to anyone else. It's these little things!!

Anyway, I'm leaving out a lot of details about precisely what Robespierre & Saint-Just were and weren't responsible for in history, but just know that they were two of the only clean, honest political leaders of the time. Never took a bribe, never embezzled, meant everything they said, were genuinely committed to the ideals they spouted. It's incredibly unfair that they, along with the other leftist paragon Marat, ended up with the worst reputations.

[straightbaittournament]

may the best bait win! propaganda under the cut:

alec and ellie:

They're your classic workplace enemies to lovers. Alec takes the job that Ellie was meant for, they're forced to work together on a devastating murder case, they bond. Over three series Alec becomes more human and lets his walls down around Ellie, and she begins to respect and trust him as a colleague and as a friend. Its a Big Deal when they hug. In most cases, especially when it's an m/f detective duo, they would end up together. But yet. Thee David Tennant and Olivia Coleman did not even have an aborted kiss or feelings confession. Neither of them end up with anyone else but they don't hint at anything at the end either. Queer Ally of all time David Tennant does straightbait ironically.

oscar and andre:

Okay, so this might sound kind of weird but bear with me because I really think they should count. Oscar was afab but her father gave her a boy's name and raised her as a boy (by 18th century standards) because sexism and he had 5 daughters and decided she was going to be a son because they were a noble family and he wanted a son to become a high ranking military official because they're rich so they can just do that. Oscar joins the army and becomes Marie-Antoinette's personal guard. Her and childhood best friend Andre are very close through out the series (he supports her throughout the many scandals that she has to deal with because she works for the royal family) and at the end of the series it is revealed that they are in love, but they are both killed in the war before they can actually get together. The dying before they can be together might fall into the buried straights category but they relationship also has really queer energy because throughout the series it becomes apparent that Oscar usually Does Not Vibe with only the gender she assigned at birth. She sometimes refers to herself as a woman, sometimes refers to herself as a man, but her attitude is usually basically 'I'm a man, I'm a woman, I'm both, I'm neither, stop asking'. So I think they should count as straightbait because we find out that Oscar is nonbinary and Andre loves her no matter what her gender is (and then they die before they can get together).

[luminouslumity]

Speaking of Bridgerton—and again, I say this as someone who's read the books and really liked WHWW—I really feel like the hate has been overblown.

The only thing I can kinda agree with is feeling like Francesca already being attracted to Michaela invalidates her feelings for John, especially when she just got married, so if anyone had to be tongue-tied, I honestly would've preferred it if it had been Michaela. On the other hand, obvious outcome aside, it is important to acknowledge that attraction doesn't always necessarily equate to love and we're also still talking about an introverted eighteen year old Regency woman who not only got married after knowing her charming husband for what had to have been only a month or two at most, but also just got introduced to his equally charming cousin.

I don't know, I guess I'm just looking at this scene with a kinda "it is what it is" approach if that makes any sense, but I do hope it gets addressed in one way or another. I absolutely love John, and even though I'm very excited to see Michaela again and see how the show further adapts her story, I still want him and Francesca to be happy together, for however long they have.

As for the rest, I'll be delving into book spoiler territory (yes, even more so than the above), but basically the whole point I'm trying to make here is that I think it's far too early to judge, especially since Michaela has only had a few seconds of screentime, so I'm willing to wait, but my overall opinion will really all depend on the execution.

Okay, so in WHWW, we know that Francesca suffers from infertility issues, and if losing John wasn't bad enough, she also miscarries. This is, of course, an important plot point and one that resonated with many and I think that's beautiful. What confuses, however, is why some people think they'll get rid of this plotline now that the two leads are the same gender, as though those in queer relationships don't have these same problems as well. And maybe it's just me, but I really think there's a lot you can do with a story about a young woman who suddenly loses both her husband and the child she'd so longed for, tries to look for a new husband years later for the sake of wanting to try for a baby again, only to end up falling in love with her husband's female cousin, therefore causing both internal conflict on the woman's wants (a child of her own), as well as external conflict in terms of what would and wouldn't be considered socially acceptable for the time (being in a same-sex relationship).

And as for the inheritance, how can Michaela inherit Kilmartin if she's a woman? After all, inheritance laws at this time strictly favored men, right? Well, not necessarily. Noblewomen gaining their own lands and titles isn't exactly a new concept per se—though it is obviously a rare one—and this especially applies to Scotland, where Kilmartin is located. For example, during the 18th and 19th Centuries, Mary Hay succeeded her brother and became the Countess of Errol after his death, while the Earldom of Orkney had three consecutive generations of countesses: Anne Hamilton, Mary O'Brian, and Mary FitzMaurice.

Furthermore, we know that PoC being ennobled is still a pretty new thing in this universe, and as we see in Queen Charlotte, there was a genuine concern for what would happen next, especially in terms of succession. It's why Danbury interacts with Sophia Augusta at all! So, either there's going to be an entirely new character to inherit the Earldom, Michaela has to get married before the title can go to her, or the Earldom of Kilmartin was created "with remainder to the heirs whatsoever of [the first ennobled Stirling's] body" so as to prevent a potential crisis, thus leading to Michaela to inherit the title in her own right, with or without a husband (maybe give or take some artistic liberties). That said, I certainly won't be surprised if there's a lavender wedding anyway, or at least a Gretna one.

[radfemfox5]

What do u think about the arguments of the brains on transgender people? I have seen that the standard response is "brain sex is not a thing". But I have seen that there is a great discussion between scientists about this and there are proofs that brains between men and women are different in some little ways. I also see this through autism lens, because I'm autistic and females are underdiagnosed and there is a discussion about it too: socialization or brain differences that make more easy the masking and faking neurotypical behaviour.

But of course, even if the brain argument is correct, I don't see how transition is the logical next step to take then. Like, is ur brain, u can take therapy and be gender nonconforming if that's the case anyway. Brain can be trained due to neuroplasticity and kids with gender dysphoria can be treated in a way to become more comfortable in their bodies.

Sorry for my poor english, I'm chilean.

Hi, thank you for your question. Don't worry, English isn't my first language either.

So, this is hard to answer. The short answer is that no, brain sex isn't real. If brain sex is not real, then trans-identified males cannot be born with a "female brain." I feel like this has been retired as an argument for transgenderism, as it's not only a nebulous concept but also goes against the concept that you can identify as anything you want (ie: no biological component to gender).

The long answer is that it's complicated. We don't know enough about the brain to fully understand which part does what, let alone what minute differences there may or may not be between the functioning of a male and a female brain. It's been proven that men and women use different parts of the brain to process the same information, so while there are no structural differences, there could be functional differences that we simply don't know about yet.

@woman-for-women has an excellent post about brain sex here (archive), and I'll use the sources she links as references for my next points. Go check out her posts, seriously, she's incredibly thorough and condenses difficult subjects into easy-to-digest infographics.

I'll first go over brain sex, why it's not real / not proven, and consequently why a male having a "female brain" is impossible. This turned out to be very long, so more under the cut.

In my opinion: the myth that males and females behave differently because of innate differences in brain structure comes from 2 things:

Logic / Common sense. If you present a man with a stressful situation, he will not react the same way a woman would. In our everyday lives, it's easy to assume that men and women are simply wired differently, since we have unique behaviours and thought patterns. Contrary to popular belief, most of this doesn't stem from innate biological differences, but rather from gendered socialization. It's hard for us to gauge what portion of our gendered differences is nature (innate) and which portion is nurture (socialization).

Anecdotal evidence and misconceptions about brain function. In the 18th century, it was discovered that a woman's brain weighs on average 5 oz lighter than a man's. This would lead the general public to assume that, since a woman's brain is smaller, this has an impact on her overall intelligence, which is not true.

Assumptions are often made in the general public and even in neuroscience when it comes to which part of the brain does what based on preexisting notions of what a man is and what a woman is. The study I just showed, for instance, was misconstrued in order to strengthen sex-based stereotypes.

What a surprise, my personal interpretation of my results just coincidentally happened to match gendered stereotypes that I was taught. How bizarre.

In all seriousness, this study and its methods have been ripped to shreds by people much smarter than I.

"As Gina Rippon, author of The Gendered Brain and outspoken critic of neurosexism shows, the hunt for proof of women’s inferiority has more recently elided into the hunt for proof of male–female ‘complementarity’. So, this line goes, women are not really less intelligent than men, just ‘different’ in a way that happens to coincide with biblical teachings and the status quo of gender roles. Thus, women’s brains are said to be wired for empathy and intuition, whereas male brains are supposed to be optimized for reason and action."

In reality, according to more recent studies with bigger sample sizes, men and women don't have significant differences in brain structure to conclusively say that brains are sexually dimorphic.

If you're a more visual person, here are the graphs from the first study, showing overall brain matter volumes and volumes for specific brain structures. The second study's visualizations are less easy to understand, as they're brain scans and brain tissue images.

These graphs are called bell curves, and they're used to demonstrate a distribution. Basically, the peak of the "bell" shape means that this is the most common value for a certain demographic, while the extremities are outliers or rarer values.

As you can see, "considerable distributional overlap" means that these bell curves are nearly identical in most brain structures. However, white matter, grey matter and total brain volume are different in men and women, with women in this study typically having lower numbers. This doesn't affect overall intelligence, as we saw earlier, or affect the overall proportional volumes of different brain structures. This is just a result of women having smaller skulls on average.

So, if there is so much overlap between the sexes, then why can't a male have a female brain? The graphs do have overlapping sections, don't they?

The thing is, brain structure is nearly identical in both sexes. Therefore, there is no typically "female" or "male" brain, but rather "unique mosaics of features" which aren't uniquely male or female.

A good analogy that woman-for-women gives is this: if a man's height is closer to an average woman's height, does that mean this man is now a woman? No, he is a short male. Being in the overlap of this graph doesn't mean that you aren't a part of your own bell curve.

This is a complex topic that was very interesting to look into. If you have more questions about this, feel free to send another ask or look into the sources:

Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic (archive)

The human hippocampus is not sexually-dimorphic: Meta-analysis of structural MRI volumes (archive)

Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants (archive)

Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. (archive)