#It's... just...SO important to me that I write women as more than just a “caregiver” role you know?

[dootznbootz]

I'm moody and grumpy and sick so I'm going to be a freak about writing for a bit.

I fucking love writing PEOPLE. like as a whole. I love writing little imperfect messy living moments. People aren't perfect. Never will be. Never SHOULD be. And I fucking LOVE writing that. Even the "unnecessary details" feel necessary to me because they're HUMAN.

Spilling food on yourself. Getting food stuck in your teeth and maybe making funny faces while you're trying to get it out. Mentioning a silly moment from their youth in teasing. A disagreement. Putting on clothes and getting your arm stuck in your sleeve at first. "Ugly laughter". Losing your train of thought and saying nonsense while snapping fingers to try and get your thoughts back. Hugging someone taller than you and maybe having to change how you stand to fit together. Accidentally stepping on someone's foot. Bedhead, fixing someone's clothes, double chins, clumsy moments, Shifting, fidgeting, having someone mimic another's voice to make someone laugh, LIVING THINGS lksjdf ldskjf THINGS THAT MAKE US HUMAN!!!

And like?? A small thing, as I said I love just writing PEOPLE. But I see posts sometimes about how people "have a hard time writing women" and I'm just sitting here like??? "She's a person?? You've met another person before, right? Write the same way." and just get boggled and even, I don't know, disappointed? Even if she's not part of the main "cast" have her be, idk human?? Not just cardboard you know?? Don't "girlboss" her but also just?? simply have her have life!

Or then I've seen people literally admit "Well with canon there's not much to work with the women" WELL THEN MAKE STUFF UP!!! Use your big brain and have headcanons for her! See the potential she already has and fly with it!!! :D

How many times has she spilled food on her clothes and groaned because it's her favorite? How many times has she had snarled hair? She's probably had something in her eye at some point. She's probably tripped and skinned her knee once or twice. Does she swear? How would she react in this situation?

And sometimes I'll see people use history as an excuse or whatever but like??? Even IF systematically women weren't treated well, that wasn't the rule for ALL. For example, in the USA, Women usually couldn't go out in public in pants during certain periods. Yet I have photos of family from the 1930s where there are women in pants. Little girls and their mothers literally using a two-person saw and on the farm in pants. Just because the system is sexist doesn't mean that men in women's lives always enforce it. Just like nowadays. Reproductive rights. That's systematic. Daily life? I feel plenty safe with a lot of regular ass dudes. SAME BACK THEN MOST LIKELY!!!

Idk y'all. I'm just... disappointed by how many times I come across this type of stuff :/

[balkanradfem]

Do you ever think about how sad and messed up it is to grow up in this world as a little girl who likes to read. Because you are a child, and you don't get that there's a difference in who writes the books, you read everything you like, you read the adventures and the fantasy and the mysteries and the traumatic stuff and if you're also very isolated and lonely, these books build your worldview. Because why wouldn't they? They're written by humans, so they have the attitudes, opinions, perceptions, morals and spirits of human beings in them, they're telling you what humans think and feel about things, how they go about situations, what they imagine, what they desire. What your role in all this is, or what it could potentially be.

But, since you are not capable of differentiating the material, and you just read what is available to you, you end up reading a lot of books written by m*n. You also have to go thru the required reading at school - 90% written by m*n. And so slowly, since young age, without even socializing or learning it thru interaction, you find yourself in a world shaped by minds who do not have empathy for women, especially not for little girls. You find yourself relating to the male protagonists, but you also find out that girls only play a passive role in their stories. You find that m*n problems are centered, made important, their suffering and violence critical points in the story, while women are cast aside as helpers, servants, givers, caretakers, and generally just exist in the background, not a thought given to what they are going thru.

You learn thru books written by m*n, that your experience is secondary. Even if you cast yourself as the adventuring, immensely important and struggling protagonist, even then the other women in your mind end up being just background characters, caregivers who do not need a thought spared for their suffering.

Books written by m*n, even for children, will trivialize female suffering to the point where they shape the child's mind into one that looks at the world from a male perspective. Where women either don't matter, or are capable only of giving and aiding, to be cast aside for more important matters, such as male aspirations for their own lives.

Thinking back, I understand why I felt myself unimportant and trivial in any social setting - I understood my role from the written word, and I knew adults found me trivial, secondary, only a background figure to someone else's adventure or mission. As much as I could fight it in my fantasies, and make myself the main character, it felt like a pipe dream, like something that was incredible self-indulged and selfish and would never translate to reality.

I wish it had been different. I wish I had been introduced specifically and only to books written by women, for women. I wish I had found empathy for myself in those books. I wish I had found myself standing on high ground, equal ground, with other women, our desires centered, our lives translated into tales of epic importance - because that's what they are. I wish I had been born into a world where female perspective is available from the start, not after years of growing up and finding feminist literature and having to re-write my own role in my brain, from all of those years of reading male perspective as the default.

I don't think any little girl should be exposed to literature that shape her world as a place where she doesn't matter. I don't think books written by males and shaped by their worldview should be allowed into children's literature, or teenage or for young adults. Girls should not be learning from fiction that their most important value is empathy and understanding for male problems, and their second, to be desired and/or helpful to them, all while being treated as nothing but service and background noise until you're desired for something. We need to open books and find out that we matter too. That our lives can be the center of our existence, rather than being in the service of someone else's life.

[variousqueerthings]

Never be cruel, never be cowardly, and never ever eat pears!

WE DID IT! WE WATCHED ALL OF M*FFAT WHO (twice)! WE RATED ALL OF IT! WE FOUND SOME OF ITS VERY BRIGHT SPOTS! WE HAD FUN KVETCHING WHEN IT WAS BAD!

had a good time, yeah. I'll probably do a wrap-up post that takes a look at all the ratings and how they developed through the seasons, but overall woo! fun

sexism rank objectification (female character is ogled/harassed/turned into a sex joke by the doctor and/or a lead we’re supposed to root for and/or the camera): 2/10

sexism rank plot-point (lead female character is only there to serve plot, not to have her emotional interiority explored, or given agency to her emotional interiority): 2/10

interesting complex or pointlessly complex (does the complexity serve the narrative or does it just serve to be confusing as a stand-in for smart, this includes visually): 4/10

furthers character and/or lore and/or plot development (broader question that ties into the previous ones, at least two of these, ideally three should be fulfilled): 8/10

companion matters (the companion doesn’t always have to be there, but if the companion is there, can they function without the doctor– and overall per season how often is the companion the focus or POV of the story): 2/10

the doctor is more than just “godlike” (examines the doctor’s flaws and limitations, doesn’t solve a plot by having it revolve entirely around the doctor’s existence): 7/10

doesn’t look down on previous doctor who (by erasing or mocking its importance, by redoing and “bettering” previous beloved plotpoints or characters, etc.): 3/10

isn’t trying to insert hamfisted sexiness (m*ffat famously talked a lot about how dw should be sexier multiple times, he sucks at writing it): 9/10

internal world has consistency (characters have backgrounds, feel rooted in a place with other people, generally feel like they have Lives): 6/10

Politics (how conservative is the story): 5/10

FULL RATING: 48/100 (if I can count….)

Oh m*ffat. here at the end of all things (wrong reference) we return to tried and true standard, and by that I mean... a mess

OBJECTIFICATION: *sobs* I'M SORRY WILLIAM HARTNELL I'M SORRY HE'D DO YOU DIRTY LIKE THAT! I listed all the hamfisted casually sexist comments One says over the course of the episode, let's look at them

comment about how it'd be weird for the Twelfth Doctor to be a nurse, because he's a man

joke about how he misses Polly because she was good at dusting

another joke about women spring cleaning, aimed at Bill

"aren't all women made of glass in a way"

comment about having some experience with the "fairer sex" again aimed at Bill

also at Bill: "any more language like that you’re in for a smacked bottom"

a throwaway comment that Bill should be the person acting as caregiver to the random WWI soldier

a throwaway comment about not wanting to repeat himself about the smacked bottom

so that's a solid eight that run through a good part of the episode. lot of people have written about why this was bad, so I'll just say for this rating, honestly the gall specifically of m*ffat to talk about sexism of the past, when his era was taken to fucking task for that exact issue

PLOT-POINT: Bill is definitely Bill, because she has all of Bill's memories you see, and what are people but an amalgamation of memories, don't ask questions about where the Bill-with-Heather went... so Bill is dead I guess? (fuck off, she's with Heather, or maybe they had a dyke-drama falling out for a bit and they're travelling separately whatever floats your boat -- according to the giggle, her consciousness is alive and out there so!)

I note how much this episode functions for very similar purposes to Heaven Sent, but we'll get to thaaaaaat. but for one the companion is (basically) dead and functions solely for the Doctor's development in a way that feels like it wants to give a shoutout to the companion, but instead reads to me as the companion only matters for the sake of the doctor's development and not for their own story

COMPLEXITY: I like that this episode is fundamentally not about some terrible evil coming for the Doctor. there is no evil plan. I find it misses the mark on what the plan is, because it's a rehash of the idea of a big database, which m*ffat has done several time, and doesn't in any way interact with that in a way that recontextualises this idea, so clearly it wasn't an intentional callback to idk. do anything interesting with any of m*ffat's own ideas

I'm also (and yes yes I know I'm probably an outlier here) not a fan of the use of the Armistice for this plot -- which I go into down in politics, but the tl;dr is that the Armistice isn't plot so much as backdrop and politically suspect for the British tendency to completely erase why we still talk about WWI, but I shan't rehash (yes I do write these points out of order, as was probably obvious before)

and then, shocker, I also don't enjoy what this story did to Bill. I mean WEAT + Doctor Falls were messy benches in terms of Bill, but she was cool in them, and she was a character, and she did have a happy end, but this story is... hmmm

you know what this story is? basically Heaven Sent Pt.2 but less interesting or experimental, and the thing I disliked about Heaven Sent -- (gorgeous episode, beautifully acted, set, shot, Rachel Talalay who also directed this one is a fantastic director and this one looks good too, it's just... a not-very-good-script so what can she do?)

(sidenote: best artistic newness to come out of this era of who is Rachel Talalay, so happy she also directed for the specials, hope she continues on!) --

BUT the thing I disliked about Heaven Sent was that Clara was a non-entity. the idea of grief as a character just there to ask you questions, the sort of... retro-DW where companions suffered sometimes for not getting to do things other than prop up the Doctor (RIP Sarah-Jane's journalism career in her original run)... for an episode ostensibly going "ohhh look how sexist DW used to be," it sure did accidentally recreate one of the core issues with classic!who and undo m*ffat's own lore for Bill... one episode later???

ignore ignore ignoreeee.

the Doctor is once more talking with themself (and rusty and testimony) about themself, and fake!Bill is just there to help that monologue without saying anything about who Bill was

but yeah, this episode feels like a mix of m*ffat episode reduxes to me in construction, with Mark Gatiss thrown in there for... idk. something. he's not a bad actor in this, but it goes back to some feelings I have about the Armistice "plot" (see below)

CHARACTERS/LORE/PLOT: the Doctor regenerates! pretty big one. the other big thing is that the Doctor gets their memories of Clara back. (I've gotta be honest I was confused about the not remembering Clara stuff from the 9th season, but I'll rewatch it at some point and know a bit more about where it's going. m*ffat was never very good at clarity imo)

and that! is in fact it. actually, wait, kay, a little unfair, because I kind of like the idea of an era ending on a quieter character analysis and this episode is that in terms of the Time War and the War Doctor and all those titles that the Doctor gets (several of them... during m*ffat era + did anyone use "the imp of the pandorica" in that actual season??? but they mention the Valeyard and the Oncoming Storm too), I like that this episode parks all of that and says "and actually the point is that the Doctor tries to help everyone no matter how bad things get, including in war"

so a big lore Thing is that these ideas that have haunted this era of who are at their end. a new set of ideas are coming. I think that is quite good: "The universe generally fails to be a fairytale. But that’s where we come in"

also I've been bad at acknowledging the music of this era, but did they just fuckn bring back doomsday and the tenth doctor's final song, sung by the ood into this episode???!!! HALP!!!! it does make an explicit connection between the tenth doctor's story all the way through to this point!

COMPANIONS MATTER: lol nope. gooosh I hated the wait, hold on finding my notes: "A life is just memories, I am all her memories, so I’m her." M*FFAT SHE'S ALLEGEDLY NOT EVEN DEAD WHY IS SHE SUDDENLY DEAD???!!!!! THIS NONSENSE! peak "I can still hear her voice" nonsense

non

sense

“GODLIKE” DOCTOR: I mean, I can forgive a finale episode for being all about the Doctor, especially an era finale episode, but I do draw the line at the first doctor just existing to make m*ffat-era look good. I draw it! I am drawing it! gosh this has affected so many of the points lol

but yeah, the line about the fairytale again. I like that. I like Bill hugging the first doctor (out of the context of how the first doctor was written). there's a few lines here and there that go a tad too hard on "you're the only thing keeping all the universe in check" but it's not egregious like, say, s6 and s7 were about that

the Doctor deserves a monologue whilst regenerating. as a Treat

PREVIOUS DOCTOR WHO: I have a sneaking suspicion that this episode is one of the Main Reasons I made this exact point, because of course this is the episode where we've already mentioned that the first doctor gets SLANDERED!!!! ooh I'd be tempted to rate this one even lower for this, because it not only is terrible from a "what is this saying from a meta perspective and how does it let audience members and modern British society (and m*ffat) off the hook for the very real issues with misogyny we face today"

but in terms of this particular Point on the rating system, the general use of first doctor in this story attempts to have the first doctor interact with what is going on with the twelfth doctor and how the character has developed. while I like the idea of the first doctor briefly getting an insight into their future (and then, presumably, forgetting as is general doctor who canon), the main reason for the first doctor being there is soooo self-indulgent in a bad way

(I say, the things I like are ofc self-indulgent in a good way, but argh, m*ffat should never have been allowed to get his sticky fingers on this show, or indeed, any show)

I dislike the first doctor being rewritten to fear regeneration, because it just seems like an excuse to talk about how the twelfth doctor has mixed feelings about their regeneration. it's the same reason there's a bill potts type character, that clara shows up, heck it's the same reason they depict the armistice (we'll get to that down in politics), it's weak writing of characters who aren't the twelfth doctor in order to prop up how interesting the twelfth doctor is

why bring in the first doctor like that if you weren't going to do anything interesting with him, and for that matter, if you weren't, and it was just to have a bit of fun (fair okay, that is fair, see self-indulgent point above) then why was your take on the first doctor -- the character you're bringing in for this extra special appearance -- written so disrespectfully of the character??

how many times has m*ffat brought a popular character back just to fuck with what made them likeable in the first place and flatten them into the most surface-level version of their traits (when not just wholesale inventing terrible new ones): three times?

we do get some fun moments calling back to previous doctors but the big Thing just shows once and for all that m*ffat fundamentally didn't get a lot of the show he was supposedly such a big fan of. he liked the fanfare and the big plots, but the in-depth affection for the ethos of it just wasn't there for the most part

“SEXINESS”: I marked this down a point because I do not see any reason why Bill would bring up professor/student dynamics -- it does get immediately joked away, so it's not egregious in the way it might have been back in s5 or s6. but we do have a System, so it gets mentioned

I mention here that this point definitely got better after s7a, pretty consistently so

INTERNAL WORLD: okidoki, locations locations. Antarctica, no qualms there, that is icy. second location Testimony's ship... is a rehash of Gomez!Master back in s8 which itself was a rehash of the Library in s4. What is the greatest datebase m*ffat!!??? third location is Villengard, callback! um... is it another database, wait. I genuinely am unclear about some of this. I think Rusty just happens to have access to Testimony. but also the Doctor says that the Daleks have the greatest database. so what is the truth m*ffat why so many databases!!!???

Rusty's just vibing, I guess that's fine. fourth location Armistice day WWI. I have opinions on this down in politics, but I guess yeah, there's trenches, there's... no wait does this fit here who knows but those were definitely not Germans. I'm not rating it down for that, I just think it's funny. no germans in the trenches, just british guys with bad accents

not mentioning Tardis because always perfect in every iteration *MWUAH!* to all the Tardis

I guess the question is... do all these locations connect thematically? narratively? I guess? I know hbomberguy didn't like the plottwist that there was no evil plot, but actually I'm fine with that. it's... very loosy-goosy in construction but listen I've been rating m*ffat for a few months now, and a DW fan for a lot longer than that... loosy-goosy is not a dealbreaker for me. sure they're on Villengard now, Rusty the Dalek is there. why not? although it does show how m*ffat runs soooo hard on nostalgia and easter eggs, rather than doing something new a lot of the time... peak this episode

I do agree with his general points that this era (the m*ffat era) keeps throwing in weighty speeches and big Reveals with absolutely no proper build-up or ongoing context, and that is true, but I don't think this episode is the worst for that, it's just very noticeable because it's the last one

BUT... I can see the thread from s8 to here, I can see it. from not knowing why that face to now, I can see it. sometimes it is very difficult to find, but there's something there, and Rusty to me exemplifies that. I get it, I get what you're doing here (I think you should have been more than a cameo perhaps, but I can see it and while it's a larger m*ffat writing Problem I'm strangely more chill about it right now idk. it's the end. feeling chill)

"You are a good Dalek" never sat right with me though, if I'm being honest, but again... I can see what it's trying to do

POLITICS: IT'S WWI! and we're about to have the Christmas Armistice, a famous moment in time when the soldiers put down their arms on both sides and played football on Christmas eve. it's a moment in time that evokes a lot of understandable emotion and I understand it being used here

SO NOW I'M ABOUT TO BE A FILTHY NAYSAYER:

am I being a buzzkill if I say I wasn't sold on it being used here? it's guaranteed to evoke emotions, and so it doesn't need to actually be about anything in a narrative sense. yes it saves Lethbridge-Stewart sr's life, but what I mean is that the armistice itself isn't the story and I think it should have been if it were being used, and not just function as metaphor/backdrop for something else

so what is it doing here? two things, I'd argue:

another excuse to give the Doctor a Great Big Speech, and I wasn't a fan of it: "Never happened again. Any war. Anywhere." really? the factors that went into this particular war, where the soldiers involved were at least partly aware that they were being used as political pawns fed into a meat grinder never came up again in history? nobody ever refused for a second, sat down with people they'd been told to consider enemies, never in some small way objected to the fighting and the propaganda and the violence? not once, Doctor Who? It's just kind of a poor understanding to me of why the Armistice matters as a piece of history that could be a beautiful story in the world of Who, but instead feels akin to how England fetishises the red poppies. war becomes a sort of poetic necessity, and the Armistice was beautiful and then the war continued. Family of Blood did this better when it just out and out said that it was all bullshit and people died for nothing. the Christmas Armistice wasn't important because people learnt to get along for a second, it was important because it highlighted how stupid and pointless the whole thing was

there as a backdrop to the Doctor's development as The War Doctor and wanting to not be defined by that as they move into the next era of the tale, and that is technically fine, I liked that as its own story, but again, not so much about the Armistice itself. this could have been done with another story, why the Armistice, beyond the fact it's a Christmas episode and this happened at Christmas -- all this aside, there is also a general thing with especially m*ffat-era and soldiers. I'd have to track it, but it feels like there's a lot of stories about soldiers, about the Doctor as a soldier, that aren't necessarily about why war is... bad. why the culture that breeds and celebrates war is bad. some of them I think do actually do this (especially, interestingly, in s8 which I felt was very hit or miss), again, I'd have to check, but many of them just use soldiers as random characters because it seems to be a character Type that m*ffat era enjoys

that being said, I like the idea of the Doctor wanting to redefine themself as not the War Doctor or specifically the War Doctor meaning wanting to help just one person live if possible, no matter how bad the situation. I like that as a central thesis for Twelve's era, rounding out the narrative about the Time War

next up is the sexism... sigh, okay we covered it, but it's a mark down, because of how it lets m*ffat (and by extension the viewers) off the hook of examining everything that happens today, including on the show. bastard behaviour

FULL RATING: 48/100 (if I can count….)

gosh where to begin?

m*ffat you and I are not friends, do not pass go, head to jail for six years of messing up my favourite show. that being said, some of this story was good. a lot of the artists involved in making it gave it traits that mean that on this watch, free from the need for things to work, I could focus in on what did work without nostalgia keeping me down

I do feel like this episode is like m*ffat doing a last big "fck you" at people who thought there was real potential in this last season, like all the genderbending regeneration, having a black lesbian as our co-lead who actually feels very involved in individual plots, couldn't quite get rid of all the reasons m*ffat just... kind of sucks as a creator

is that our final statement on six seasons of doctor who? hmmm, doesn't feel so satisfying to me. I'll write out a proper thing about where I left it after all this I think, to get my feelings out properly

to narrow it in on capaldi: you were a great doctor, truly put in the work to elevate the show

gomez is iconic as the master (genuinely I think my favourite next to delgado), pearl mackie stole the show in the one season she was in and I desperately want some bill potts audio adventures, rachel talalay is a great director, and I enjoyed myself

the end

next story

[writingwithcolor]

Does my spoiled Black princess act “too white”? Plus possible forced caregiver role

Anonymous asked:

I just had someone on Discord complain that a black character of mine comes off as “too white” (Read: Whiny and immature). The thing is: I did that on purpose. She’s a princess, a sheltered, spoiled one at that, and much of her character arc revolves around her journeying into the outside world for the first time and learning to grow tf up. I explained this to the guy, but he stuck to his guns and said that even with that context in mind, it’s still an issue.

So I’d like another opinion on this: Is there anything I should change? Not her race, though. She has a very particular character design for which I want her skin to be as dark as possible.

And I’m not sure how important this last bit is, but I figure this is the kind of thing you’d want to know: She also has a little (white) kid tagging along with her, but she’s a massive jerk to him for the first quarter of the story because she doesn’t want him there. But she cut a deal with his brother to take him with her, and as insufferable as she can be, she has a strong code of honor.

I would like to start by saying that acting “too white” is not a thing. Her personality should be defined by how she was raised, even though that can be influenced by the culture in which she grew up. I know that many Black communities, from the Caribbean for example, tend to have a stricted education. Populations who once were subjected to colonialism or faced racism by immigrating generally have education views marked by trauma : we are held to higher standards to represent our community.

Does that story takes place in our world and or in a fantasy world ? If it’s in our world, depending on where she’s from, chances are high that she went through a not-so-spoiled education, even though I don’t know about African royalties. If you’re writing fantasy, you’re free to do what you wish and her being immature fits her education.

However I would be a bit more concerned about the White kid hanging with her. Your description makes me think of him as a… pet, kinda ? And it draws a weird parallel with European royalties a few centuries ago having Black servants, a bit like a reversed situation. Where is the kid from, is there racism in your world ? Is there a reason why the brother wants her to take him with her ? What is the thing with that kid. I’m more concerned about that part than the princess’ personality to be honest.

- Mod Lydie

This guy in your discord just sounds ignorant. Black people are not all assigned to a set descriptor of personality traits. A princess with a sheltered, spoiled and whiny personality is not reserved for only white people. BIPOC, and particularly Black people in this case, come from all backgrounds and personas. 

I would ask this person, “what would a princess who ‘acts Black’ act like to you?” Based on his mindset, I'm sure having a Black princess at all is a stumbling block. If your audience can’t envision a Black person who doesn’t act and think the way they envision that all Black women must, that’s their own racist bias to overcome. 

Let them feel uncomfortable as they get to know characters that are not caricatures who soothe their stereotypical assumptions.

White kid tagging along, forced to care for them

As for the kid: Like Lydie, I find this bit concerning. 

Questions I have:

What is the purpose of his presence?

Is she being forced into a caregiver role without her consent? Whether out of obligation, morals, or having been tricked?

Is this kid meant to teach her a lesson on being humble?

Forcing a Black girl who is arguably “too whiny, immature, and spoiled” into caring for a (white) child can feel a bit like forcibly humbling her into servitude for being too “uppity.” For context: Black people that have nice things and act proud of their lifestyle are often seen as thinking they’re better than other Black people, aka the uppity stereotype. Keep in mind that people who think Black people should not have these luxuries or be proud of their success love to see them “knocked them down a peg” in an attempt to humble them. But why do they need to be humbled?

Perhaps your princess does have some less than favorable traits. Ask yourself if they need to be “corrected” by servitude, if at all? Seeing character growth is a part of stories, yeah, but there are other ways she can undergo that process without going from princess to Mammy.

Here are some examples of ways to create character growth for the princess without servitude being involved.

Character growth without caretaker role ideas

Having a character tag along with her that doesn’t need her care, but building a real friendship (or romance) with them that helps her be more considerate for others.

Or this character does not fear her whiny attitude and challenges her throughout.

She sees how other people live, act and love. This makes her reflect on her own actions and / or long to be included.

Experiencing a life changing event or loss that makes her reflect on her own actions.

Overcoming real challenges, self-care and hard work that causes character growth and humility, without humiliation.

The child tags along, along with some else that does the caretaking. (Parent, sibling, servant). Even without having to do much for caregiving, she experiences growth as she starts to care or like the child.

So long story short: There is so much thing as a Black person who acts white. That’s simply people who can’t envision Black people beyond stereotypes, and that is a “them” problem, not your story’s. Carry on! We do recommend you avoid forcing the Black princess into servitude in an attempt to amend her personality. See the suggestions above.

~Mod Colette

[coldtomyflash]

I've seen your speech pattern analysis on Flash characters. I was wondering if you had any advice on how to create speech patterns for OC characters?

oh heck this is one of the coolest questions i’ve ever received.

i’m gonna try not to go overboard/overwhelming and just give a bit of advice, and then if you want more details please come back and follow up!

There’s a few things to think about up front with character voices / speech patterns. The biggest and most obvious is language and cultural background. The second is personality. The third is personal history. Fourth, briefly, is gender. And the final one I’d say is idiosyncrasies to avoid ‘same voice’.

Culture and Group Dynamics

Depending on the setting, there’s a decent chance you’ll be writing characters from different cultural backgrounds. Even if you’re focusing on a single culture, there will be subcultures. Even if you’re focusing on a single narrow group of people, there will be age and generational differences.

Think about where your character is from. If it’s a fantasy world, that’s still (and even more, in some ways) important. What country, what ethnicity, what mother tongue? Did they grow up urban or rural? High socio-economic status or working class? What sort of educational background and peer group did they have growing up (and presently) and how does that factor into their vocabulary and mannerisms, if at all.

All of these can influence how people talk. There are regional accents and different modes of speaking to signal your group membership. There is code-switching across groups, for those who have had to learn multiple linguistics codes to survive and thrive in society. 

How much slang does this group and therefor this character use? What references (modern, outddated, topical, etc) do the rely on? What kind of references (pop culture, music, academic, etc)? What colloquialisms and proverbs do they say? Are these the same or different to their characters, even within the same culture, subculture, or group, and is it because they’re from a different place/sub-group or because of their idiosyncrasies?

You can use these to help your reader get to know more about your character’s background without having to spell it all out directly. Speech patterns and style are a great way to show instead of tell when it comes to details that are hard to drop in organically in other ways.

An important caveat: don’t write a bilingual character who switches languages in speech unless you’re ready to do a bit of research on that. In AATJS I did an absolutely horrific job of this because I was thinking more about fronting the fact that character was Italian rather than thinking through how people actually talk, and it came out exotifying and embarrassing. It’s important to make sure that the way you use language to bring in a character’s cultural and/or ethnic background feels authentic and manifests is a way that respects that language and its users. You can write a character with a complex cultural history without using multiple languages if you’re unprepared to do research and talk to bilingual speakers.

Personality

Probably the most salient thing in a writer’s mind when they’re trying to write character voices: is this the funny character? the serious one? the brainy one? etc.

Don’t overuse stereotypes and archetypes for creating speech patterns (or characters in general) if you’re trying to make a rounded, 3-dimensional character. Instead, go about three levels deeper.

Think about whether they’re introverted or extraverted, whether they are neurotypical or neurodivergent, whether they are introspective enough to express their own emotions clearly or whether they stumble when asked why they did a particular thing or feel a particular way (most people don’t or can’t clearly articulate exactly why they did something or how they feel, and come at things a bit sideways to circle around their motives and interior realities when pressed to make them external and concretely verbal).

Is this character calm, is their voice soothing, do they speak slowly? Are they excitable and loud and is their speech free-flowing? Are they angry? Do they swear? Do they use references for humour or are they more into puns? Do they laugh at their own jokes? Do they talk with their hands?

This character has social anxiety: how does that manifest in her speech? Does she clam up and get very quiet when she gets nervous, or does she go rapidfire and a little too loud (does she process by turning in or by distracting herself by turning outward)? Does she get very careful and deliberate in choosing her words (is she a bit high-strung?)? Ask yourself which fits best with the other elements of her personality and what you want the reader to know/interpret about her. 

This character is incredibly smart and a bit awkward: how does that manifest in their speech? Do they tend to use 5-dollar words, or do they expend a lot of energy choosing their words more carefully (how considerate are they to their audience when speaking and does that influence their speech)? Do they stumble over their words and explaining things, or are they good at making points with clear language learned from a lifetime of tutoring and helping others?

This character is the bff, who tries hard to make sure everyone else is happy first: how does that manifest in his speech? How does he switch between his happy-mask versus his more authentic self, and what changes in tone, word-choice, and inflection come in when he does?

-

Personal History

I’m only drawing a distinction between this and personality (archetype, really) so that I can draw attention to ways to add simultaneously unique and shared layers to characters that are distinct but related to group dynamics.

Here’s sort of what I mean: the level of education of a mother (or primary caregiver) of an infant can determine that infant’s vocabulary size. While we can break down all the ‘why is that’ layers to this, the one I want to point is to the simple truth that the more education a person does, the more specialized language they end up learning over time. This doesn’t have to be formal education though -- the more you learn about something and the more you read and access new knowledges and perspective, the more and more words you learn, and then if you start using those words, they trickle down to those close to you.

So.

What’s your character’s educational background? Is it the same as their friends who you are also writing? Is the same as their family’s? How does this character’s family influence their speech? Are they formal, informal, warm, authoritative? 

If you’re writing siblings, they’ll have some shared things! But also some very different ones! Me and my sister talk nothing alike in terms of vocabulary, but a lot alike in terms of mannerisms whenever we spend a bit of time together!

If your characters grew up around each other, they’ll have a lot of the same references. People from the same cities or regions will have things specific to that region, either due to sub-culture effects or because of local references. 

The city of Calgary, Canada for instance has the Plus15 which are a connected pedway system between the buildings in downtown, so named because they are 15feet above the ground. Drive 3 hours north to the city of Edmonton, and you have an underground pedway just called the pedways, no special name. Go a few provinces east to Toronto and their underground pedway system downtown is called PATH. These are all known to locals and part of the vernacular, but are opaque to people outside those cities. And the whole idea of them is probably opaque to people who aren’t from super cold cities that don’t require building-connecting pedway systems for pedestrians to get around high-density areas like downtown (or university campuses) without going out into the cold. 

Friends, families, and groups are like that too. In-jokes, shared histories, speaking in references. What are your characters’ relationships to each other and how does that history influence the way they approach talking to each other?

-

Gender

I don’t want to spend too much time on this one because ugh, gender. What even is it?

But like it or not, it has an impact on our speech patterns. There are cultural and societal norms in how men and women are likely to speak, and breaking those norms will be noticed regardless of whether you’re trans, enby, queer, or not. There are norms that people who are queer may fall into as well, sometimes without even noticing at first. A lot of these aren’t about word choice per se but instead about mannerisms and tone and body language, but some overlap or are specific to language.

Speaking in broad generalizations here, women use more emotional language and tend to speak with more hesitancies/qualifications. So more “i think, i feel” and less “it is”. More conversations that front emotions and dig deeper into those, with longer sentences to explain in detail. The obvious caveat is that personality matters more (i.e., is this a person who likes to talk about their emotions in detail or not) but it is something to consider because there will be general but subtle differences that you can use to help further distinguish your characters’ voices. 

Sidenote: this can also be exacerbated by different cultural backgrounds and languages (a simple example is Japanese which has different words for “I” depending on your gender as well as your personality, familiarity with the other persons in the conversation, and situational appropriateness, so interesting ways that gender and social expectations intersect in language).

Anyway this isn’t typically a huge problem except that I’ve found that a lot of writers have a tendency to overgeneralize the speech patterns that fit with their ascribed gender due to early-life socialization, or conversely to overgeneralize patterns that fit with their gender identity (when not cis) either due to heavily identifying with their gender identity’s speech model (or sometimes possibly due to a knee-jerk sort of backlash). I say this as an enby who both struggles with it and notices it and tries to edit and correct for it. 

I could get into all sorts of examples of ways this can lead to voice issues, but in general i think the point here is to make sure you’re writing any given character in view of that character’s personality and history, with gender only as a modifier for how some of these might come out in subtle ways but which can be important to help tell us about your character (and if you’re writing queer characters, it’s all the more important to consider how their relationship with gender and socialization might impact which speech models and styles they identify more with).

-

Idiosyncrasies

So, you’ve got a character. You’ve got their personality and history down. You know how they manifest in their speech. And you’re still getting some ‘same voice’ issues.

People really are unique snowflakes. Let that be reflected in their speech.

This person uses contractions differently than that one. This one says “ain’t” and that one says “isn’t.”

This person makes Simpsons references and that one doesn’t like Simpsons, and makes Brooklyn Nine Nine references instead. That other one doesn’t use referential humour much at all. This one loves old movies and hasn’t seen any of the new stuff so they make references all the time but no one ever notices.

This one loves the word “excoriate” and that one doesn’t even know what it means because what the hell, who uses the word excoriate?

This one talks about food a lot, it overlaps with their interests. This one uses metaphors. This one grunts in response. This one exclaims. This one says “like” and that one hates it. That one refers to themselves in third person. This other one uses reflective language an usual amount (e.g., “love me some candy”). This other one keeps misusing the word inconceivable and that one speaks almost without contractions but still comes off as more charming and humorous while correcting him.

I have an aunt who says “girl” or “girlfriend” a fuck-ton and she has been my whole life and I don’t know why because none of her sisters do, but she does and it annoys me so much the way she says it. I swear a lot when I’m feeling casual despite never ever doing it in a professional or even slightly-less-than-relaxed space, so the idiosyncrasy of comfort levels has a massive impact on my vocabulary in ways which, I promise, almost no one who meets me first in a professional space expect.

Let your characters be individuals and try to make them as unique as possible without overdoing it, or over-relying on a single verbal tendency or habit. 

-

And ... that’s all I’ve got for now. Completely failed at being concise. I meant to give like 2-3 bullet points or examples for each, not paragraphs, but here we are. That’s one of my verbal tendencies: long flowing verbosity :)

Hope this helps! 

[sunflower-stella]

Hello there! I’ve seen a lot of posts going around, defining different terms and communities that you might come across while exploring the age regression side of tumblr. However, I’ve never seen an overall guide, so I’ve set out to make an easy-peasy guide to all the complicated terms you might encounter! This guide includes 1) Minor-Safe Age Regression Communities, 2) Kink Tags, and 3) Common ‘DNI’ Terms.

Please let me know if there’s a term I’ve missed, or a community I’ve misrepresented! This is a pretty basic introduction to a lot of complex concepts, so if you have more questions please feel free to get in touch with me.

Even if you know the basics, this guide is probably worth a scan to see if there are any terms that you haven’t seen before, and you can also fact-check my writing while you’re at it, helping out anyone else who reads this in the future.

With that said, let’s get into it!

Part One: Minor-Safe Age Regression Communities

Age Regression: The term ‘age regression’ as an umbrella term that is used to describe any experience where a person returns mentally to childhood. It can be a coping strategy to deal with stress, a reaction to trauma or mental illness, or just a natural part of someone’s life. In tags, ‘age regression’ is often shortened to ‘agere’. (Be aware: kink communities also sometimes use ‘agere’ and ‘age regression’ tags! They aren’t inherently minor-safe or non-sexual, so use caution and common sense.)

CGLRE: Stands for ‘caregiver/little regression’. Cglre is one of the oldest regression communities that exists on tumblr, as well as one of the most popular.  Cglre is controversial because it uses ‘littlespace’ terminology. (A regressor is called a ‘little’ and their caregiver is usually called ‘mommy,’ ‘daddy’ or similar parental titles.) Littlespace terms are used in cglre to describe regression, but they’re also used by kink blogs to describe submission. On the surface, this means that cglre looks similar to kink blogs, but most cglre members are very dedicated to being minor-safe, separate from kink, and discussing therapeutic, coping-related, non-sexual age regression.  

(Note: CGLRE subcommunities and tags are abundant! The tags ‘liltot,’ ‘agere society,’ ‘nsre,’ ‘dxlg,’ and others are all cglre-based communities. You can find huge lists of cglre subcommunities on this blog because there are too many to cover here!)

CHIRE: Stands for ‘child regression.’ Chire evolved as a response to cglre, as a regression community that doesn’t allow littlespace terminology, or interaction with blogs who allow it. Because of the harsh lines they draw between communities, they are also a controversial group, but many people have positive experiences with it!

Non-Comm Regression: Short for ‘non-community regression.’ Non-comm regressors don’t identify as part of cglre, chire, or any of the smaller sub-communities that exist under age regression. Often, they interact with multiple communities, as well as with other non-comm regression blogs.

Pet Regressors: Some people feel less like kids when they regress, and prefer to identify as animals! ‘petreg’ or pet regression is the word for people who regress as animals. This might be connected to otherkin identities (people who self-identify as something not human, possibly an animal or possibly something more abstract) or might just be their own way of regressing!

Age Dreaming: Age dreaming, which is sometimes shortened to ‘agedre,’ is a minor-safe community focused on recapturing childhood outside of regression. Age dreamers take comfort in childish and nostalgic things while not mentally regressing (or not fully regressing, depending on the age dreamer).

System Littles: The term ‘little’ has a different meaning when applied to someone in a system. A ‘system’ is formed from a variety of experiences, including childhood trauma and dissociative disorders, when a mind copes by developing rifts in their memory and personality, forming different people within one body as they grow older. This collection is called a system. System members may interact with age regressors for multiple reasons. Firstly, some systems have littles, which doesn’t refer to an age regressor when it’s used about a system member. A system little a system member who is a child, contained within an adult body. Some system littles find community in age regression spaces, but most prefer to keep separate from agere groups. Secondly, some system members are age regressors, or ‘age-sliders,’ which is an experience kind of like regression, but is specific to system members. So systems have all kinds of reasons to be part of the age regression community!

SFW Agere: This means ‘safe for work age regression.’ This usually means ‘non-sexual age regression’ or ‘minor-safe age regression,’ but not always! Please see the sections on ‘sfw kink’ down below.

Dual-Comm: Short for ‘dual community’. People call themselves ‘dual-comm’ regressors if they are sfw age regressors that also participate in kink communities in their adult headspace. People with sfw regression blogs might indicate that they are dual-comm regressors so that people can block them if that makes them uncomfortable, or because it is an important part of their relationship to regression, even if they don’t post about it on their regression blog.

Part Two: Kink Tags and Communities

(Note: I won’t go as deeply into kink communities because I’ve created this guide for age regressors, and want to mention kink groups mostly to raise awareness of what can’t be reblogged onto a minor-safe regression account.)

Cross-Tagging: The act of ‘cross-tagging’ is when someone tags a post with both minor-safe community tags like ‘cglre’ and kink community terms like ‘ddlg.’ This is bad because it exposes minors to kink communities, which is dangerous for everyone involved. It also might expose regressed people to sexual content, which can be triggering depending on their experience of age regression. That’s why it’s important to know which tags belong to kink communities, so you can block and avoid them if you want to have a minor-safe regression blog!

Age Play: ‘age play’ is an umbrella term for any kink dynamic in which one person consents to being treated as a child for the purpose of submission.

DDLG/CGL: Stands for ‘daddy dom/little girl’ and ‘caregiver/little,’ respectively. These are kink communities that use littlespace terminology to talk about sexual relationships. There is also ‘mdlb’ which stands for ‘mommy dom/little boy,’ and same-gender variants like ‘mdlg’ and ‘ddlb’. (If you run a minor-safe tumblr blog, it is very important to have all of these tags blocked so that you don’t accidentally reblog from an unsafe source!)

ABDL: Stands for ‘adult baby diaper lover.’ This is a kink community centered around diapers. They might also identify with the term ‘omorashi’ or use it as a tag on their posts.  

SFW Kink: Stands for ‘safe for work kink.’ This can be used to refer to non-explicit kink posts or to platonic, non-sexual kink. Either way, kink being ‘sfw’ does not mean that it is minor-friendly!

NSAP: Stands for ‘non-sexual age play,’ which is an approach to age play often (but not always) linked to coping with stress, rather than explicit sexual gratification.

(Note on non-sexual age play: There is a misconception in the age regression community that all kink is inherently sexual. Some people use age play as a coping strategy without involving sexual elements. That said, even non-sexual age play isn’t minor-safe because it is still a power-play dynamic that minors cannot (and should not) consent to. I say this because it is important to a) not cross-tag nsap with minor-safe communities and b) not bring power-play into sfw agere spaces. If you are an adult and you are more drawn to the rules and discipline of littlespace, please explore on the non-sexual kink side so that we can foster a safe space without power dynamics for minor regressors!)

Part Three: Common DNI Acronyms

Content Warning: mentions of transphobia, eating disorders, and pedophilia.

(Note: We’ve already covered a lot of the acronyms that you might see on people’s DNI in Parts One and Two. Here are some more you might see. As a general rule, if you’ve never seen the term before, it probably doesn’t apply to you, but it’s always best to Urban Dictionary an unfamiliar word!)  

DNI: Stands for ‘Do Not Interact.’ A list of communities that a person doesn’t want to interact with their content, usually for personal comfort. It is always important to read a person’s DNI and respect it. A person’s DNI can be on their post in the form of a banner/image, or in their blog description, their ‘BYF’ (Before You Follow) page, or linked in their blog description as a ‘carrd.’

TERF: Stands for ‘Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist’. TERFs are threatened by trans women in feminist spaces, and believe that womanhood is intrinsically linked to biological femininity (ie. having a womb).  

SWERF: Stands for ‘Sex-Work Exclusionary Radical Feminist.’ SWERFs believe that sex work is inherently linked to sexism and gendered violence, and that women cannot freely make the choice to engage in sex work. Some SWERFs believe that women who make this choice are encouraging sexist objectification.

Transmed/Truscum: These terms refer to someone who believes that being transgender must be linked to dysphoria and a desire to medically transition.

Anti-Mogai: The term ‘MOGAI’ stands for ‘marginalized other genders and intersex’ and refers to a community of trans/gender-nonconforming people who use very specific and personal titles to describe their gender. People who are anti-mogai are often part of the transmed community.

Ace Exclus: Short for ‘ace exclusionists,’ it means someone who believes that asexual or aromantic people shouldn’t be welcome in LGBT spaces.

REGs: stands for ‘reactionary exclusionist gatekeepers’ and is an umbrella term for all of the groups above: pretty much, anyone who ‘gatekeeps’ (limits) who gets to be part of the LGBT community.

Anti: I’m not sure what this is actually short for, but I always think of it as ‘anti-ship’. An ‘anti’ is someone who believes people shouldn’t be engaging with problematic media and ships (such as racist media, pedophilic ships, and fanfiction that romanticizes abuse).

Anti-Anti: An anti-anti is someone who doesn’t agree with the above people.

Endogenic Systems/Anti-Endogenic Systems: There’s big debate about whether it’s possible to have a system (see ‘system littles’ in section one) that isn’t formed in response to trauma. The term ‘traumagenic system’ refers to a system created by childhood trauma. ‘Endogenic system’ means a system that is not related to trauma.

Pro-Ana/Thinspo: Stands for ‘pro-anorexia’ and ‘thin inspiration,’ respectively. This is a community based on the encouragement and romanticization of eating disorders. Understandably triggering to a lot of people!

MAP: Stands for ‘Minor Attracted Person,’ which is another word for pedophile (adult attracted to children). Tumblr has an unfortunate community of pedophiles who choose not to seek treatment, and take pride in their identity. They use a miscellany of titles, which is important for people to research and block for safety, especially in age regression circles where there are a lot of vulnerable minors. (Note: If you experience persistent attraction to minors, please talk to a professional about it.This is not your fault but it is your responsibility.)

Littlespace: Some people list ‘littlespace’ or ‘non-system littles’ in their DNI to block kink blogs that use littlespace terminology, as well as CGLRE and related communities that use the same terms. These people aren’t always insinuating that the two groups are the same, but rather that those words make them uncomfortable. So it’s important to respect that if you use littlespace terminology on your regression blog!

18+: This confuses people all the time. Ninety-nine percent of the time, if a person has ‘DNI if 18+’ on their post, they mean don’t interact if you run a minor-unsafe, 18+ only blog, not ‘if you are over the age of eighteen’. (That said, there is a one-percent chance that they actually mean that it’s a minors-only post, so do check if you’re unsure!)

--

Congratulations if you’ve made it all the way to the end of this guide! I don’t expect you to remember everything you’ve read, but this guide will be here if you ever want to come back to it to check on a new and confusing term. I’ve spent years being confused by all of these different labels, and there are new ones coming out all the time, so don’t worry about screwing up every once in a while! We can only do our best, and correct ourselves politely when we make a mistake. I hope you have an awesome day, and I’ll see you around in our chaotic little virtual neighbourhood!

[commonplaceprojkelseyh]

Reflection!

Kelsey Harper

Professor Dr. Richards

(ENG-3298-01, WGS-3298-01, GBS-3298-01)

July 30th 2021

Individual CommonPlace Book & Reflection Paper

Feminism & Gender Equality

Did you know that eight out of the top ten countries have a larger female gender population compared to the male gender yet the percentage of women within the workforce was at 28% since 1959 up until 2020? That means for every 1 male, there are 7 females to that one male, making the population higher for women. It is sad to report considering I have been a part of that percentage since 2000.  To think that an entire race of extraordinary females for more than just one reason are not on the same working tier as man, even though woman represent a great deal larger within the population compared to men is astonishing. I know what you are thinking, it is due to our past ancestors that made the corporate world, “a man’s world” however, so much has changed in today's society to encourage women that they are just as equal to man in more than one way!

I, for one, grew up in a “both my parents work” home situation, which ultimately left my brother and I with a lot of babysitters. For many other people like me, that can be normal right? Well, what I didn’t know for the longest, was that my mom was working as a Merrill Lynch Financial Advisor managing over 500 million dollars in assets which ranks her in the top one half percent of all females and more importantly males in her industry. Ironically she has been doing this for over 34 years and the percentage of women who are at her level in the investment business has never moved past 15%. Making her one of only 200 other women in the entire industry at her level(which made her job an everyday event to consistently prove herself to the men around her.) She picked a career that was based on meritocracy, so there was very little subjectivity to her advancement. Basically, she was responsible for her own success, the harder she worked, the better she did. This inspired me at an early age because my mom never seemed to think that whatever she was searching for, shooting for or hoping for was unreachable. If anything it never even crossed her mind to not work as hard as she could to be within her industry and have the reputation she has built up to today. She has made it her mission to bring up other women to follow in her path. Okay, so you may ask well how does this even relate to our class? Well, part of the reason I was so interested in taking the class in the first place was the title, which is, “Woman’s Writing Worldwide”, which stood out to me because of the first word. It stood out because of that five letter & two syllable word that can make or break a human coming into the world. For others, within third world countries, like the ones we have been reading about, that word defined one from the jump and almost pre-decided that female's destiny. As much as I would like to say it is different in the United States, it is similar in the way that being a woman in today’s culture is a huge ever-growing adjustment because men are only making it harder for us to speak our truths and claim our spots within the working class. Trust me, I may sound like a hater on the male race, but I am eternally grateful to a lot of them for making me the person I am today, however if men truly understood woman, like we do them, the world would be a much fairer place because it is not a competition all the time like men tend to make it to be.

One person that spoke volumes to this exact subject was Meghan Markle, in her speech that specifically dealt with her first encounter with being a woman’s right advocate at the early age of 11. In that speech, she essentially told the audience that she was watching a TV show in grade school, when a commercial came on for a dish liquid with the tagline, “woman all around America are fighting greasy pots and pans,” when two boys in her class quickly said after that commercial, “yeah that is where women belong, in the kitchen.” She was so bothered with this that she wrote to the first lady, then Hilary Clinton, Linder Elerby, Gloria Albred and the soap manufacturer, Proctor and Gamble to change the tagline to, “people all over America are fighting pots and pans.” When in fact, a month later they in fact did change the tagline and opened the doorways for Markle to really understand the magnitude of her actions within this topic. She then goes on to even say that, “women need a seat at the table, they need an invitation to be seated there, and in some cases when a seat is unavailable then they have to make their own. It is said that girls with dreams become women with vision. May we empower each other to carry out such a vision because it is not enough to simply talk about equality and it is not enough to simply believe in it, one must work at it. Let us work at it together, starting now.” I absolutely loved her entire story because it really hit home for me who was mesmerized by her willingness to stand up and say something. Without that willingness from women such as her, women as an entire race will never have a seat at the table. I am thankful to her and for the blessed opportunity to come across that story which inspired me to start a club chapter of CHAARG(changing health, attitude, actions to recreate girls) to encourage women to speak their truths, focus on themselves and be inspired by the powerful woman around them to step up and not only prioritize their mental health & wellness but their eating, their exercise, their self care, their mental health and overall happiness.

Another important factor to add, is that it has been observed in women's fight for equality in the workforce,  that there are a lot of women that fall into the category of being a part of the “sandwich generation.” This generation of professional working women have been tasked with both caregiving for their children and their aging parents. This has caused breaks within their career paths and deferred promotions. This is particularly felt within the wealth gap of income disparity between men and women. Recently, I have noticed a corporate trend towards improving this disparity. Corporations are offering more flexible work hours to accommodate these “sandwich generation” working mothers.

One speaker that really spoke volumes to this exact subject was the Msimang TED talk, where she described a time in her life where she had something taken from her by the opposite gender and felt for the first time the extreme difference between a boy’s perspective and a girl’s perspective. A great quote from our actual syllabus by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie was, “The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue but that they are incomplete. They make one story be the only story.” I enjoyed this quote because both the story by Msimang and the quote by Adichie, touch upon a common goal, equality in every form. Another element that really moved me within Msimang’s TED Talk was her inner passion for storytelling and really trying to capture what makes a good story. I also was really inspired by the TED Talk by Dalia Mogahed, a religious muslim that spoke heavily on the idea of Muslims within America. Although her topic wasn’t exactly about gender equality but more so about racism in general, she spoke about a time in her life when she felt embarrassed to not only be a muslim but also a female muslim. Her story about being scared for her life after the 9/11 attacks, was the first time in her life, she said, that she was afraid to be her true self. I felt for her in this way that I too, felt similar when walking down a city street by myself as a young adult female. Although the two are still very different, in the moment while watching her speak about her story, this was the first image that popped into my mind.

Most importantly, I enjoyed the TED Talk by Kavita Ramdas, with her extraordinary opener, which was: “ Given my TED profile, you might be expecting that I'm going to speak to you about the latest philanthropic trends -- the one that's currently got Wall Street and the World Bank buzzing -- how to invest in women, how to empower them, how to save them. Not me. I am interested in how women are saving us. They're saving us by redefining and re-imagining a future that defies and blurs accepted polarities, polarities we've taken for granted for a long time, like the ones between modernity and tradition, First World and Third World, oppression and opportunity.” This got me thinking more and more about gender equality as a whole and just how important and influential women are in society. Countries such as China, took a very long time to find this out, as many of new born baby girls were sold to the States for money because in their culture, “boys were the only ones that could work to bring the family up, girls are an embarrassment and are only here for one thing, reproduction.” However, after several years, they grew to know that they ended up needing more women because they were running out of women to bear children, hence the population drop in 2019 into 2020.

To combat that however, it has been proven through the last century that intellectually women are naturally more nurturing & emotionally smarter than men, just like the saying that “women develop maturity faster than men do”. So women tend to outshine men in industries such nursing.  However, men tend to rely more heavily on their physical strength in order to obtain certain jobs that are not typically where women fit into the picture such as construction and engineering. I, for one, have never viewed it like that because I have always believed that no matter the race or ethnicity, age, gender, religion, sexuality or financial standing, everyone deserves to work a job they love in any industry and that all judgement should be shoved out the window without reason.

In conclusion, I believe in the strength of women as a whole race to be able to one day never have to speak of women's rights. I envision a time within my life that women will have a seat at the table, they will be heard, understood and most importantly treated equal to men. I believe it starts with women empowering other women first and then men following that trend.

[ears-awake-eyes-opened]

Haymitch, Effie, and Hayffie

(Musings, character analysis, my headcanons about their backstories and forward stories, especially about their relating and relationships. I felt like I needed to think through some of these ideas before writing more fics. These reflections got incredibly long, and I considered just keeping this in my drafts for myself, but maybe something here will resonate with someone else too, so here we go.)

I’ve been writing about Hayffie for a month, and I have some thoughts about their relationships/sexual histories both individually and together. It’s film-Hayffie that I’m into, so some of my ideas might conflict with what’s canon in the books, which I haven’t read in nearly a decade. When I eventually reread the books, I may feel differently, but these are my musings for now.

Haymitch:

We know Haymitch had a girlfriend when he won the second Quarter Quell at age 16. Snow had her murdered along with Haymitch’s mom and younger brother, so I’m guessing Haymitch loved her, otherwise Snow wouldn’t have bothered to have her killed since Snow always kills with intention.

Haymitch I imagine has probably always been good-looking-enough, but not extremely handsome. (I say this despite the big crush I have on Woody). I can see Haymitch as a kid having been witty, reasonably athletic, reasonably popular, a class clown and fairly obnoxious. As a teen without a father present/alive, home would have been a place of hard work, so school was likely Haymitch’s primary outlet for fun. I figure that particular girlfriend may have been his first serious love (and probably his only love).

I think he and she had some experience with sex but not a lot. They probably explored each other and discovered things together. They may have had sex only soon before the reaping, just in case the worst happened and one of their names was pulled. I’m remembering the guy I dated when I was 16. I loved him, but I didn’t want to have sex with him. However, if it had been the feeling of the end of the world, I probably would have slept with him. So, logic tells me they did.

Fast forward. Traumatized post-Games Haymitch wouldn’t have been with anyone else for a long time. I think it may be canon that he refused prostitution because he had no loved ones left to lose, but even if Snow did prostitute him, it would have been maybe once when Haymitch was still a minor, like Snow’s last nail in the coffin of crushing him. But Haymitch would have ultimately proven himself to be too much of a loose cannon/liability for Snow to use in that way.

So I imagine Haymitch has some history of sexual trauma. First in the intensity of sex with his beloved girlfriend within the feeling of coercion (let’s do it now or maybe never). Then with being prostituted to likely some wealthy middle aged woman. Rather than being the prostitute of a man, I think Haymitch would have killed the man or killed himself, depending on his trauma state at the time. So I don’t see sex with men, forced or otherwise, in his history.

It’s canon that Haymitch is basically a loner/shut-in who doesn’t like people in his house and sleeps holding a knife (when he’s able to sleep). I see him having the potential to be quite desirable to women and the potential for being a player. But trauma put a damper on those potentials. I think he could have sex whenever he feels like it, but for a couple of decades after his Games he just doesn’t very often (on average over those years once or occasionally twice a month maybe) because women are too much of a hassle, and they aren’t the love he lost. Alcohol is strongly his drug of choice over sex.

When he does have sex, I believe it’s one-night stands or casual sex with women who are players themselves and probably who he mildly dislikes. He steers clear of relationships that seem at all likely to become emotional. He firmly does not want to get attached to anyone again. Liking people is something he perceives as risky. Loving people is something he perceives as suicidal.

Haymitch is perceptive. Over the years, he’s learned some basics about what feels good to women physically. Pleasuring women has never been his first priority during sex, but I see him as the kind of guy who gets off on them getting off, so he would have made an effort to experiment a little and pay attention to the results. Unfortunately, alcohol often gets in the way of really focusing on women while he is with them. Which is one of the reasons Effie likes him better sober...

Effie:

I like to imagine Effie in early life, 0-9 maybe, with a very old great-grandmother in her 80s-90s. This great-grandma had memories of growing up in a free-er nation before the dictatorship gained in intensity, before the first revolution, before tyranny. I imagine she told Effie folktales that Effie remembers as bedtime stories. Those appeared to be fictional but were filled with archetypes and the roots of humanity. Her great-grandma was careful to protect the family, so she never spoke openly against the Capitol, but she understood and communicated deeper truths which shaped Effie’s heart/unconscious mind. I like to imagine Great-grandma offered Effie a reflection of the girl’s authentic self and offered her a small taste of empowerment. “Never forget you’re more than a pretty, well-mannered girl. Your wit is sharp. You have the capacity to be so much more than a face and a body bending to someone else’s will.”

To Effie’s controlling parents, and even to Effie herself in time, the great-grandma would seem eccentric. I envision her telling Effie that a woman doesn’t need a man to please her or to achieve greatness, and teaching her that she can please herself in all ways including financially and physically. Those lessons sunk in. I see Effie’s great-grandma having possibly been widowed young and surviving on her own awhile, with kids including Effie’s grandparent. In many ways Great-grandma was a self-made woman in her time.

Effie lost most of that connection to antiquity and to her authentic self when her great-grandma died, and she had nothing substantial to shield herself against the tight control and will of her family and Capitol life.

I imagine Effie mostly complied with that control but claimed autonomy in subtle ways. I think she had sex throughout the second half of her teens and throughout her 20’s, always being discerning, discrete, and selective about partners, rather than *sleeping around.* She had an intention behind each conquest. These conquests often had to do with aspects of self discovery, the desire for validation, and facilitating what she wanted in life, especially the ability to project a certain image in order to get where she wanted to go.

Did Effie fall in love with some of those young men? Probably, because underneath her thick facade, Effie has a tender heart which the facade protects like armor. Did she ever have her heart broken? Seldom. For the most part, she inherited and practiced ways of staying in control of her emotions within relationships. Most men thought of her as a desirable pain in the ass, but worth the high maintenance because she knows how to pleasure a man, she gives that focused attention during significant times including sex.

Did she ever experiment with sex with women? Possibly at some point out of curiosity and in seeking validation, but I don’t see women as her jam. Pretty and popular in childhood, she got along with girls in school. Later in her teens and adulthood, women mostly resented her natural beauty, fashion sense, drive to achieve, ability to attract attention, and her perfected facade. I see Effie feeling wistful at times for the quality of connections she had in youth, but her understanding of survival in Capitol society dictated that image and career-based connections were more important than purely emotional ones.

By age 30, during her years as an escort, Effie is quite singularly driven. She knows her body well, but there’s a veil over much of her inner self. The facade she’s built up is so thick that she doesn’t know much anymore about the vulnerable self beneath it. Haymitch can see the softness in her, whether he’s sober or drunk. She is both terrified and thrilled by his capacity to see the self she hides.

Hayffie:

I picture Haymitch as one of the first crushes Effie can remember having. I think of her as 8-9 years younger than him, so she would have been 7, nearly 8, when he was in the second Quarter Quell. She would have been quite taken with the way he held Maysilee’s hand as she died. Just as Effie was genuinely touched by Katniss caring for Rue as she died.

I see Effie having only been an escort since maybe the 72nd Hunger Games — long enough for the District 12 folks to know and mock her, but not too long. She had ambitions to move up in the districts, and she was on her way to proving herself as an effective tool of the Capitol: looking, sounding, and acting the part she was playing, and keeping herself veiled to the injustice of the Games and of tyranny in general. She was brainwashed by a lifetime of coercive propaganda, not because her mind is weak, but because the propaganda was so prevalent and multifaceted, including coming directly from her primary caregivers.

I think she probably expressed interest in Haymitch early on in their work together, seeing him as his idealized younger self. I think he turned her down then, in part because there was something about her that he enjoyed too much, even though he may not have been able to pinpoint what it was, because in the beginning he perceived her to be mostly ridiculous.

I see Hayffie playing cat and mouse for a few years — teasing, taunting, holding each other at bay and not doing much beyond tormenting one another during games 72-74, and learning each other’s nuances along the way. Effie would find Haymitch’s uncoothness off-putting and his wildness tantalizing. He would find her poshness annoying and the woman underneath all those layers a sensual curiosity.

The third Quarter Quell effected a personal transformation for each of them. Haymitch accepted the reality that he was caring about people; he couldn’t stop those emotions, even with alcohol, and he really didn’t want to. Effie’s eyes were opened to the injustice of the Games through her deep affection for her team of victors. Her armor came down enough to experience heartbreak — a related heartbreak to what Haymitch was experiencing as he lost old friends, like Chaff and Mags, and as he cared for Katniss and Peeta and helped launch a revolution.

I see this as the vulnerable time for Hayffie when their personal games of cat and mouse would pause, and intimacy would creep in and feel scary. They’d banter it away for a while but by then they’ve seen each other’s heartbreak, and the contents of a heart once seen, can’t be unseen.

In the absence of liquor for him and in the absence of facades for her (i.e. in District 13), hiding authenticity from each other would be tough. The taunting chase would continue in spirit, but physically they’d be ready to catch each other and play with that physicality if for no other reason to provide distraction.

“Let’s keep this casual,” they’d say. “No strings.” But the tapestry that had been weaving so long would take shape nonetheless. Strings would be everywhere, drawing them together faster than they could cut them.

Sex between them, after years of avoiding it with each other, would feel easy and alive, like breathing. Their bodies would fit well, so neither would have to work too hard to pleasure the other. I can see that sex between them has the potential to be very rough at times, though always with mutual consent. They both would be this interesting mix of selfish and giving. Their parting and coming together I see going on for years with feigned casualness. Cat and mouse again. The lightness would become more and more of a lie. Sex with other people would eventually whittle to nothing without much discussion about it.

They’d meet themselves in time as free individuals, and they’d realize they had fallen for each other all along, despite everything and because of everything. They would keep trying to stop it, and they’d keep failing miserably until finally moving into acceptance.

I don’t picture them ever married. Haymitch would want no government or religious bullshit in their personal business. But I see them eventually sharing their lives with increasing intimacy, how ever that might show up. I’m not sure yet how it would show up, though I like to think that several years down the road, Effie will move to District 12 “as the place becomes more civilized,” and when she perceives that there is meaningful work for her there. I also believe Effie’s perception of “meaningful work” will shift in time, initially out of necessity and then organically as she reconnects with her deep self and reclaims it.

I don’t picture Hayffie with kids. Okay, that’s a lie. I totally picture them with a kid and would have a blast writing the humor, affection, and angst inherent for them within that choice, but I don’t think that choice is in character for them. If they conceived a child, that would happen inadvertently. They’d both be terrified of parenthood, given their histories individually and together. Most likely Effie would terminate the pregnancy, but she’d be conflicted. And the more opportunity Haymitch would have to think about it, the more conflicted he would be as well.

The Hunger Games takes a toll in both ways. Kill a fetus to keep it from being born into a world where they’ve participated in and witnessed the killing of children? Or let the fetus become a baby with traumatized dysfunctional parents and hope for the best? I think they’d see it as a lose-lose, but also would feel so much tenderness about the possibility, especially if it happens years down the line in the feeling of “let’s do it now or maybe never.” Sound familiar? There’s some trauma reenactment there.

Trauma bonding and secure attachment:

I think that Hayffie could fall easily into reenacting trauma with each other. Here are some ways I see that playing out...

Haymitch experienced severe attachment trauma while still in early life, losing his parents and everyone he loved. This was on top of the trauma of being hunted and killing and witnessing death within the Games. This trauma was inflicted directly or indirectly by the Capitol. Haymitch has a lot of unresolved anger at the Capitol. Without integration there’s no healthy way for someone to cope with that severity of trauma. Hence, his addiction/alcoholism.

From the perspective of dysfunction, I can see him drawn to Effie because she’s a Capitol girl, controlled/controlling and emotionally abandoning. She doesn’t show up all warm and fuzzy and “talk to me, honey.” She shows up with open criticism and disdain for him. On the surface, she has those fundamental qualities in common with the primary abuser throughout his life (Snow). So through the lens of trauma reenactment, it makes perfect sense that he’d want to fuck her.

I imagine Effie experienced early life trauma that was more subtle but still impactful. She grew up in a place where one misstep could lead to her family’s ruin. She grew up with parents who likely demanded no missteps and were emotionally unavailable, being so focused on achievement over emotional health. To keep her parents’ approval Efffie needed to do everything precisely: appearance, manners, attitude, performance. When she didn’t exceed par, I imagine she was criticized and chastised. When she exceeded par she was praised. (Intermittent reinforcement.) Throughout her early life, she marinated in rigidity with constant reminders of what happened to people who were imperfect. Effie became an attention seeker and a people-pleaser. She sought validation from not just the masses, but also specifically from people who were the most critical of her and dependent in some way upon her *performance.*

From the perspective of dysfunction, I can see her drawn to Haymitch because he doesn’t offer her consistent validation. Even his *compliments* are teases, taunts, and mocking sarcasm. His alcoholism makes him emotionally unavailable and at times intermittently reinforcing. In moments, he’ll look right into her with unmistakable genuine attraction, and she’ll feel high when he does. The high comes because the attention is intermittent and unpredictable. In that state of emotional drugs flowing through her, it makes total sense that she’d want to fuck him.

Their potential for trauma bonding will make their relationship at times explosive and volatile, not overtly abusive but with sharp tongues and intense physicality that at times borders on punishing. Their desire for each other grows like wildfire, their bond tightens, and sex between them is compelling and delicious in a way that I don’t think either of them has experienced before.

I like to believe their potential for trauma bonding is only part of what draws them together.

I think Haymitch’s compassion in the second Quarter Quell touched young Effie’s heart very genuinely, and her young heart was also shaped by her great-grandmother’s unconditional love. With that heart, she in time grows deep affection for “her victors,” not just as validations of her self-worth, but as people who are truly deserving because of who they are, not what they do.

I think Haymitch has the capacity to see through Effie’s walls of makeup, clothing, and attitude to the heart of the girl who has watched him kill but doesn’t regard him as a murderer, rather she sees him still as the boy who held his friend’s hand in death. I like to think of him seeing that core aspect of himself through her eyes. Each time he sees it, he forgives himself a little more for the responsibility he feels for the death of his loved ones and everyone he ever killed in order to stay alive, and evey tribute who died under his mentorship. Haymitch carries impossibly heavy burdens on his shoulders, hence the alcoholism. Effie’s regard for him as a victor, a victor who showed compassion to Maysilee, to Katniss, to Peeta, and so on, lightens more and more over time the burden he carries.

I think their relationship is an interesting mix of dysfunction and healing. It’s raw and messy, and Effie desperately needs raw and messy, even though she fights against that a long time. Their relationship also has the capacity for deep tenderness and connection, and Haymitch desperately needs tenderness and connection, even though he fights against it a long time.

I so want to see Effie raw and messy. I so want to see Haymitch tender and connecting. That’s the unfolding I write for them together. It’s tough not to rush it, because it’s so interesting, and I want to see it all so badly.

After all these years, I am adoring Hayffie in this unexpected way. This ship is surprisingly intricate and beautiful.

P.S. If you made it this far, wow, and thanks for caring about the characters enough to read my extended ramblings. Comments welcome. I love to hear other people’s thoughts about Hayffie.

[princesssarisa]

10 facts about Shana and her mother Darika. Plus the full OC interview with each of them :)

Here they are! Shanna, the “Beauty” of my wlw Beauty and the Beast retelling (which still lacks a definitive title, though I intend it to include the word “rose”), and Darika, her mother.

Shanna 10 facts 1. She is 14 years old during the story’s prologue, 17 when the main plot starts, and 19 by the end.

2. My facecast for her is the late Israeli singer Ofra Haza (best known to some of us for providing the voice of Moses’s mother Yocheved in The Prince of Egypt) when she was very young.

3. She’s mixed race. Her mother’s ancestors were white pseudo-Europeans, while her father’s came from a Middle Eastern-inspired culture. Both practiced the same Judaism- and Shamanism-inspired religion, though. She’s her world’s equivalent of a Jewish person who’s half Ashkenazi, half Mizrahi.

4. Her name is partly a variant of the Yiddish “Shaina,” meaning “beautiful,” and partly an abbreviation of the Hebrew “Shoshanna,” meaning “lily” or, more significantly, “rose.” It has nothing to do with the Hebrew “shana,” meaning “year” – they’re just almost-homonyms.

5. Unlike most traditional Beauty and the Beast Beauties, she’s the eldest of three sisters, not the youngest. Her two sisters aren’t wicked, but they are a bit of a handful because they’re so young, and she’s had to be their responsible caretaker. She plays that role well – her little sister Zuri sooner calls for her than for their mother when she needs help – but it’s kept her from fully exploring her own potential, which she finally does get to explore during her time with Liriel, the lady beast.

6. Her personality is very much like Disney’s original animated Belle: bookish, sweet, emotional, full of dreams, yet intelligent and strong willed too. She’s more socially awkward than Belle, though, and unfortunately, she also has the self-doubt of Robin McKinley or Megan Kearney’s Beauties. Unlike Belle, she’s internalized the idea that she’s odd and oversensitive, so she tries to act like a “normal” down-to-earth villager, until the year she spends with Liriel makes her realize her worth just as she is.

7. She’s an aspiring author and poet. At age 13, before her family fell into poverty, she wrote a play based on the popular story of the heroine Lady Yasfira, portraying her as more flawed and dynamic than in most retellings, giving more sympathy than usual to the “evil” queen who opposed her, and portraying them as having once been friends. (Think either The Prince of Egypt or Wicked, or both.) The play was never performed at the time, but years later, with Liriel’s encouragement, she fine-tunes it, and then they perform it together for Liriel’s animal servants – this plays an important role in their growing feelings for each other.

8. She rarely lets herself get angry, but when she does, she can verbally annihilate you.

9. She realized she was bisexual at age 11 when, after her first crush on a boy at her school ended, she developed a new crush on a girl. She probably realized this more quickly than most real-world bi girls do, because the setting, Zalina Island, has no homophobia. She never acted on her crushes, but only out of shyness, not because she saw anything wrong with liking girls.

10. Despite her gentle personality, she’s not especially femme: she’s more soft butch, or maybe futch. She dislikes dresses (fortunately, Zalina Island has no taboo against women in pants) and generally wears just one or two feminine articles, like a shawl or earrings, with otherwise boyish clothing.

Interview (as she would answer it around the middle of the story)

What did you want to be, when you were a kid? There were so many things I wanted to be at different times. A queen, a princess, a duchess, a prophet, a traveling bard, an actress, a shepherdess, a farmer, a lady knight, a prime minister, a priestess, an acrobat, a cook, a kitchen maid, a dressmaker like my mother, a merchant like my father, a doctor, a midwife, a goldsmith, a fairy… and eventually, I realized that the one way to be all those things was to be a writer.

When did you know you wanted to be a writer? As soon as I was old enough to realize that stories didn’t come out of thin air, but where written by people. I wanted to do it as soon as I knew I could.

Who inspires you? My mother, my father, and a wide array of fictional heroes and heroines.

If you got to choose, where would you like to live? With whom? I’d love to live in a castle. I try not to care where I live as long as my family is with me, but my dreams of living in some splendid beautiful place never seem to die. I wouldn’t want it unless my family was there too, though.

Which item would you never give away? My journal, where I write down my secret thoughts, poems and stories.

Tell us about the biggest mistake you made in your life. Until recently, I might have cited the time I forgot to write an important history essay for school because I got lost in writing my play Yasfira and Anefri. Or else the time I lost my temper with my three-year-old sister Zuri and hurt her feelings so badly that she ran away and was missing for over an hour. But now, there’s no doubt that my worst mistake was asking Mama to bring me back a unique flower if she could find one on her trip to the city. Who would have thought a flower would cost so much?

Did you ever fear for your life? Yes, the moment when I saw Lady Liriel for the first time, after I followed Mama back to her lair – half wolf, half dragon, and entirely terrifying – and even more so, when she sniffed the air and I knew she smelled me hiding there.

There’s people who say you’re strange. Do you have any comment on this? I’m afraid it’s true. So often my imagination feels more real than the real world, my mind flies off to places that no one else believes exist, my emotions swell and crash like tidal waves no matter how much I try to swallow them and put logic first, I’ve always asked too many questions, and I feel less alone with only my books, paper and pen than I do in crowds of people.

Tell us something about you that nobody knows. Well, not many people know how strange I am anymore. I’ve learned to copy Mama and pretend to be as sensible and down-to-earth as she and our neighbors are, instead of spewing my feelings and dreams the way I used to. If the villagers knew about my romantic fantasies or the stories and poems I write in my head, they would laugh or scold even more than the people in the city did when I was small. 

What would make a perfect day for you? A few hours spent reading, a few spent writing, and maybe a trip to the theatre in the evening, with people who understand me and let me feel free to be myself.

Darika 10 Facts 1. She takes on the father’s traditional role in the Beauty and the Beast story. Her husband was a merchant, but he died in the same shipwreck that destroyed his merchandise and left the family impoverished. But a few years later, she learns that one of his ships survived after all, has to travel to reclaim its cargo, but gets lost in a forest… and we all know the rest. Recent BatB retellings have put a lot of effort into answering the question “What happened to Beauty/Belle’s mother?” in interesting and poignant ways. To be different, I thought “Why not make her mother the living parent?”

2. My facecast for her is the New York City Criminal Court judge Rachel “Ruchie” Freier. Not that I know much about Judge Freier, but her face look right for the character.

3. At the beginning of the story, she’s 35 years old. By the end, she’s 40.

4. She was born in a small, poor village at the base of the White Pine Mountains. Her parents died when she was a baby, so she was raised by her grandfather and her older sister, who have since died too. 

5. She worked as a seamstress in the village until she met and fell in love with a wealthy young traveling merchant from an elite port city. Despite the disapproval of his social circle, they married. After his death, she took their daughters back to her home village to start a new life.

6. Her impoverished upbringing and family tragedies have toughened her. She takes a very practical, hardworking, no-nonsense approach to life, tries to teach her daughters to do the same, and is calm and resolute in the face of hardship, focusing on “What are we going to do about it?” She sometimes loses patience with her daughter Shanna’s dreaminess and sensitivity, which makes Shanna, who adores and idolizes her, feel inadequate and weak.

7. Inside, though, she feels just as deeply and intensely as Shanna does. Her love for her family is limitless and she’s actually very dependent on Shanna, who fills the role of the family’s nurturing caregiver more than Darika’s temperament lets her do.

8. One thing she and Shanna have in common, which Shanna learned from her, is strong integrity and deep compassion for others. For her, the best part of being rich was all the good she could do for the poor, while the hardest part of becoming poor again was having so little to give to those even poorer.

9. Her sewing is more than just her job – it’s an art. She embroiders the clothes and quilts she makes with all kinds of colors and unique designs. The vibrant images she creates are an outlet for the emotions she doesn’t express.

10. Her personality is inspired by assorted beloved literary heroines, both classic (Jane Eyre, Elinor Dashwood) and modern (Tamora Pierce’s lady knight Keladry of Mindalen). For all their differences, and though they’re much younger than Darika, all these heroines are quiet, practical, dignified, staunch in their integrity, deeply caring and passionate on the inside, and yet with masks of stoic self-control that they only drop when intensely provoked. I like those heroines and admire them, yet sometimes their popular role model status annoys me, because it’s hard for a highly sensitive, naturally effusive person to act like them. So Darika pays tribute to them, but the story will also emphasize that her daughters don’t need to be like her.

Interview (as she would answer it around the middle of the story) What did you want to be, when you were a kid? A forest sprite or a good witch. I had a wild imagination in those days, before the real world tamed it.

When did you know you wanted to be a seamstress? When I first learned that the flowers and birds on my childhood quilt hadn’t sprouted there by themselves, but were embroidered by my mother, and that the storytelling tapestries that hung on the village temple walls were sewn by other villagers in the same way. I wanted to create beauty like they had, and to tell stories through pictures, while at the same time creating useful things for others: clothes, blankets, handkerchiefs, etc.  I think I willed my own talent for sewing into being to do just that.  

Who inspires you? My older sister Shanna; the namesake of my daughter. We lost our mother very young, so she took on the role of mother for me, and every day her love and strength have inspired me as I’ve raised my own children.

If you got to choose, where would you like to live? With whom? I would live in a clean, elegant, comfortable house with my daughters, a servant or two, and my husband, if only I could bring him back.

Which item would you never give away? My wedding ring.

Tell us about the biggest mistake you made in your life. Three of them, one directly after the other. First, when I was lost in the Great Forest during a storm, I took shelter in what I thought was an ordinary cave. Then, when I found that the inside looked like a castle, I should have turned and left; even then I knew that such an enchanted place would be dangerous. But I was cold, wet, and afraid I would die if I went back out into the storm, so I stayed. Last but not least, when I discovered the greenhouse garden in that castle-cave, I crept in and picked a rose as a gift for my daughter Shanna. Who would have dreamed a single flower would cost so much?

Did you ever fear for your life? I feared for my life when I was lost in the storm, but even more so when I came face to face with Lady Liriel. I’ll never forget the sight of her matted fur and vampire-bat fangs as she glared down at me.

There’s people who say you’re cold and stony. Do you have any comment on this? They don’t really know me.

Tell us something about you that nobody knows. Very few people fully know me, not even my daughters. I play the role of the calm, practical peasant woman, but it’s only skin-deep. Shanna thinks all her wild passions and romantic dreams came from her father, but really she inherited them from me too. My grandfather knew the secret me, and so did my sister, and my husband. But they’re all gone, and as I’ve buried each of them, I’ve buried those aspects of myself more deeply.

What would make a perfect day for you? A quiet day of embroidery by the fire at home, with my daughters all near me and all happy.

[jamesvanriemsdyk]

tell me more(if you want to ofc)

ok so originally i was gonna write this whole long thing with my sources cited but then i got depressed and exhausted so a basic summary of all that is: 

the nhl should offer paternity leave because, frankly, long term parental leave in general should be offered for every profession across the board. the first few years of a child’s life are vital for their general growth and development (the habits you have now you likely developed when you were as young as two or three years old. yes, really) and a big part of emotional development is this thing called attachment, which is exactly what it sounds like. if children dont have adequate relationships with their caregivers, whether its because of abuse or neglect or whatever (the circumstances here are hopefully not that severe, and this is just an example. ill get to the point in a moment), it can lead to dire immediate and long term consequences. like, obviously nhlers are rich and mostly their partners stay home with their children, and guaranteed they’ve got ext family and nannies and shit but like: parental bonds with infants are super important for both parent and baby, and professionals of any kind deserve the chance to create that bond.

more than that, it really helps the other parent. being at home, alone, constantly, after youve just given birth (which is traumatic to the body definitely and can sometimes be emotionally traumatizing as well) is not a fun experience, to put it likely. both parents being home with the infant allows both parents to rest, and to form healthier habits in the relationship than they might have before (ie, sharing the chores, sharing child-rearing duties - the former of which is especially important considering that most women (in het relationships specifically) are working now and the “second shift” phenomenon is so common now).

but yeah like. tldr: infants and parents deserve to be given time to bond and the people doing the actual birthing dont deserve to be left home alone with their infant babies with no immediate help/backup yknow

[c-ptsdrecovery]

Mate maintains that people who have a chronic illness of any kind—from cancer, multiple sclerosis (MS), rheumatoid arthritis, or inflammatory bowel disease—often fit certain personality profiles. These include paying a lot more attention to the needs of others than to their own; getting caught up in their job or role as a caregiver rather than looking after themselves; and suppressing the so-called negative emotions, such as sadness and anger. In fact, they try not to acknowledge these emotions even to themselves. And, finally, they tend to think they are responsible for how other people feel and are terrified of disappointing others who are important to them.

... “The emotional patterns we learn as small children,” Mate says, “live on in the cells of our minds and come back to us as adults.” And the pattern that tends to characterize the chronically ill is an overwhelming sense of responsibility and self-suppression.

... Infants automatically learn to suppress pain and stress as they sense their mother’s distress. I liken it to a Code Red that goes out in the infant’s survival program, alerting it to the possibility of over-burdening the mother and therefore risking possible reprisal or rejection. But what begins as a coping response in an infant or child becomes a source of illness in the adult.

...Anger was the prerogative of parents (in which my dad had the monopoly), and not the prerogative of obedient, nice girls. And so we resorted to the only other coping mechanism seemingly available: internalization.

But of course, there are other factors that disadvantage women by promoting internalization, such as cultural expectations that women always be pleasant and oriented toward others, rather than themselves. In the talk to caregivers, Mate shares some obituaries that exemplify the values that we esteem in our society, which reinforce self-suppression. In one obituary, the husband of a 55-year-old woman, who died of cancer, praises her by writing:

“In her entire life she never got into a fight with anybody. The worst she could say was ‘phooey’. She had no ego; she just blended in with the environment in an unassuming manner.”

Blended in with her environment? Maybe if she had been able to say “F*ck” instead of “Phooey” she would still be alive today! Noting that repression of anger is a major risk factor because it suppresses the immune system, Mate quips, “I worry about really nice people!” In fact, in his book, he elaborates the profile of those diagnosed with ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease, and notes that the outstanding trait—without exception—is an extraordinary niceness and suppression of emotion.

... I wish somebody had told me at a much earlier age that the role of “good girl” could be detrimental to my health. And by “good” I mean what society has, for so many generations, expected a woman to be—polite and nice, pleasing and agreeable. Though we’ve made progress in terms of acknowledging that women have needs beyond their assigned roles as mothers, wives, and help-mates, as the #MeToo movement revealed, much progress is needed in terms of women being permitted to speak up for what they want and to feel safe in setting boundaries.

It should be more widely known that over-identification with duty, role, and responsibility are major risk factors for illness. Maybe it’s time to question why so many more women are diagnosed with auto-immune diseases. For example, women are now three to four times more likely than men to get MS. Mate suggests that this is related to the increasing stresses faced by women who are still expected to fulfill their typical role of stress absorber in the family, as well as their additional roles in the work place, in the face of declining support networks and community.

...On top of this pressure, women are still largely trained not to express their “negative” emotions. Yet, as Mate points out, “The role of emotion is to keep out that which is dangerous or unhealthy and allow in that which is helpful and healing. So we have anger and revulsion, and we have love and attraction.

”Perhaps it’s time for a Surgeon General’s Warning that says: Excessive niceness is dangerous for your health.

As I’ve been making my way through Mate’s book, I have been accessing some of the anger—as well as grief—that has been so tidily buried for God knows how long. It’s caused an existential crisis: Where does the real me begin and the social mask end?

It’s also provoked me to wonder if I would have developed thyroid cancer if a doctor could have told me at age 25 that repression of anger suppresses my immune system. I might have attempted to express–or at least coax out of hiding–the deep betrayal I felt at life for stopping me in my tracks in my prime. I might have been encouraged to yell out to God/Universe what I felt: “How could you let this happen at such a young age? Didn’t you know I had plans to save the world? To contribute to peace and justice and intercultural understanding?”

In fact, I’d been a “good” girl: I’d chosen service to world over service to self. I’d eschewed my interest in writing and literature, deeming International Relations to have more world-saving potential.

I wish I’d known at age 19, when being chased around the kitchen table of my university apartment by a man triple my age, that anger and the immune system have the same purpose: to protect boundaries. The immune system does its job of attacking foreign particles, while anger does its job of keeping out human invasions. In the throes of an outdated survival program, I was still trying to find a polite way to get this man out of my house.

Now multiply that scenario a few dozen times in my life, and just maybe it adds up to a very repressed immune system. Especially in light of the fact that suppressing responses to boundary invasions causes physiological stress.

Thanks to Mate’s book, I’ve made some amendments to my healing regime, which include:

1. Shamelessly venting to friends. 2. Buying a megaphone and arguing with God. 3. Saying “F*ck” as often as I like. 4. Absolutely, under no circumstances, blending in with my environment.

And of course, I haven’t forgotten the f*cking gratitude list. Because I’m a good girl.

[letterboxd]

Common Language.

With her third feature, Lingua Franca, now on Netflix, Filipina filmmaker Isabel Sandoval talks to Valerie Complex about undocumented immigrant workers, sensual cinematography, taking narrative risks and Steven Soderbergh’s sexiest film.

“I’m not the type of filmmaker that is into crowd-pleasing and I think that resonates with audiences.” —Isabel Sandoval

Isabel Sandoval’s films have an auteur, European appeal; they take their time. Inspired by cinematic film legends including Chantal Akerman, Wong Kar-wai and James Gray, Sandoval is pushing forward in an industry reluctant to change, creating narratives that speak to her existence, and her experience.

After making two feature films set in her native Philippines (Apparition, Señorita), Sandoval relocates to her adopted hometown, New York City—or at least a small seaside corner of it—for her third film. Lingua Franca follows Olivia (played by Sandoval), an undocumented Filipina trans woman who is looking to secure a green card so she can continue to stay and work in the US. Olivia knows the only way to legal status in present-day America is through marriage, but struggles to find the right person to accept her offer.

Green-card marriages also cost money. Olivia takes a job as a live-in caregiver for Olga (Lynn Cohen), an elderly Russian woman living in Brooklyn’s Brighton Beach neighborhood. She soon finds a love interest in her client’s grandson Alex (Australian actor Eamon Farren), and her future seems solidified. Or is it? As anxiety about deportation mounts, Olivia strives to maintain autonomy in a world that continually rejects her.

The slow, meditative nature of Lingua Franca has already found fans on Letterboxd. “Trans narratives are so often couched in dramatic twists and turns, but here we get something so much more gentle,” writes Connor. Sandoval’s turn as a woman searching for her truth while existing at the intersections of marginalization is also hitting home. “This is the hardest I've been struck by a performance since Jeon Do-yeon's masterful display in Lee Chang-dong's Secret Sunshine back in 2007,” writes Joshua. “I really cannot believe this is Isabel's first performance and I certainly believe that it won't be her last.”

Sandoval instinctively injects concepts of immigration, loneliness, and displacement throughout Lingua Franca in a way that doesn’t overwhelm, but does force deep empathy. “Artfully plays with a lot of themes at once,” agrees Letterboxd member Oluwatayo.

Merriam-Webster’s definition of ‘lingua franca’—“something resembling a common language”—can be interpreted in various ways. For Sandoval, she aims to create her own common language of passion, pain and new beginnings. With migrant workers sharing a common language of homesickness in every corner of the world, I had to ask why she chose New York to be the setting for this emotional drama.

Isabel Sandoval (as Olivia) and Eamon Farren (as Alex) on Brighton Beach, New York.

Letterboxd: What is it about New York that made the setting work for you and Lingua Franca? Is it the diversity of the environment or…? Isabel Sandoval: You know, growing up in the Philippines, New York was seen as romantic. I wanted to put my stamp and unique views of life in New York City. I wanted to do two things with Lingua Franca: I wanted to do my own New York movie from the perspective and the gaze of a foreigner and an immigrant, and I wanted to make a different kind of film that was quiet and patient. I wrote the script around the time when Trump got elected president, which painted a perfect storm for the premise, story and view of the film. I was also influenced by the James Gray film Two Lovers, which was filmed in Brighton Beach.

That’s not an easy thing to accomplish in a New York movie, yet you manage to do that with such patience and quiet and subtlety. I was shocked. But, you know, New York is not all crazy. There are places that are quiet. Exactly! Especially in Brooklyn. I wanted to capture the different worlds that exist block to block in the film.

Your movie deals with a lot of themes: family, immigration and romance… I’m always drawn to stories with a socio-political point of view about women who are marginalized and forced to make intensely personal decisions. French filmmaker Jean Cocteau once said: “Filmmakers make the same movie over and over”. As you progress and make more films, and you’re being involved as a storyteller, you’re beginning to polish; your style becomes more evident and sophisticated. That’s just the story I felt attached to because it was one I was passionate about and it was the right time to create it.

How do you feel about being embraced by the film community, both domestically and abroad? Tribeca, Locarno, SXSW and Venice are among the festivals that have premiered your films. It’s vindicating to me. My first feature film shot and produced in the US screened internationally, but, with Lingua Franca, it’s come full circle. I think critics now embrace and know that I have a voice and a sensibility that’s worth exploring more. They want to involve a filmmaker with different views, especially in an industry where you need to conform to certain formulas and certain group things in terms of how we approach certain issues or certain things or certain ideas. It truly makes me feel independent.

Art-house film and cinema has long been associated, or at least for the last fifteen years, with really gritty, social-realist drama. I’ve received reviews of my film that criticize it for not being romantic enough. My film captures emotions that are not easy, obvious and straightforward. I’m not the type of filmmaker that is into crowd-pleasing and I think that resonates with audiences.

You are the director, the star, the editor, and the producer of Lingua Franca. How did you stay organized enough to manage all of those tasks? I have one job and that is to make a film and tell a story. I had a clear vision of what I wanted to accomplish, and honestly, it’s me being a stubborn auteur.

The camera work is really sensual and intimate. What conversations took place between you and cinematographer, Isaac Banks, and what, if any other films, were the inspiration for that look? He and I discussed patience and sensuality often, so that’s why Wong Kar-wai had quite an influence on my work with In the Mood for Love and also Christian Petzold, the German director, who directed Transit and Phoenix.

Lingua Franca places a particular lens on the fragility of Filipino, migrant culture. In the film, Olivia exists at the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, ICE and Covid-19—and you lay that all on the table here. What do you hope the audience will see in Olivia’s story at this time? She’s a trans woman, she is a woman of color, she is an immigrant, but she’s also more than the sum of these individual parts. I know my film demands a lot of intellectual and emotional labor, but it’s important that viewers think deeply and critically about Olivia’s motivations, which may seem contradictory and complex. I want Lingua Franca to be an emotional experience, even if it’s not the most comfortable to watch. If I get one audience member to do the emotional legwork of trying to understand where the main character is coming from, I will feel complete as a filmmaker.

What do you think is the must-see Filipino film, classic or new? [Peque Gallaga’s] Oro, Plata, Mata, which came out in 1982. It is a multi-generational tale set in central Philippines. It’s just a sprawling, dramatic epic, and it’s one of the films that made me want to be a filmmaker. It’s not the most technically polished film, but it takes risks narratively. At the end of the day, it’s not about how big the production is. It’s your willingness to be expansive and explorative as a filmmaker that counts.

What do you consider the sexiest film you’ve ever seen? Out of Sight by Steven Soderbergh.

Out of Sight?! I did not see that coming. Yes! That film doesn’t have any sex scene, but it’s the level of seduction for me. I think sensuality is not necessarily a physical encounter between bodies, but the patience and longing of the moment.

What is your all-time favorite comfort film? A League of Their Own by Penny Marshall. That was the first movie that I saw where I bawled in the last ten minutes of the film.

If I were doing a triple feature with Lingua Franca, what two films would you recommend to watch before or after? I would recommend Ali: Fear Eats the Soul by Rainer Werner Fassbinder, which is another interracial love story between a German woman and a Moroccan immigrant. The other one would be Two Lovers by James Gray, which is set by the beach.

Isabel Sandoval (as Olivia) and Lynn Cohen (as Olga) in ‘Lingua Franca’.

[Spoiler warning: The final two questions concern aspects of the film’s ending.]

I thought the ending of your film was powerful, because we’re right back at the beginning of Olivia’s journey. Sometimes things don’t work out and you have to pick up the pieces and move forward. Exactly! I also wanted to make a point that even though we are focusing on Olivia, I pulled the camera back to highlight bigger sociological themes. She is one of many immigrants in the script and their fates are not resolved by the end of this movie. I wanted that to be a subtle reminder this type of thing becomes cyclical. Life goes on, it’s just another day. Olivia is a displaced immigrant woman in America where Trump is president. Whereas Olga, who’s Ukranian-Jewish, left her home country fifty or sixty years ago in the aftermath of the Holocaust. I wanted people to see this connection.

Based on the meaning of ‘lingua franca’, was that your original choice or for the title? The definition really fits the story. The film is an invitation to the audience to really pay closer attention to language—the language of things said and unsaid. That probably was also a big point of decision for me to open and close the film with words in Tagalog, which is my native language. A lot of people have asked “why didn’t Olivia accept the marriage proposal?” at the end of the film. Sure, that would’ve been practical, but I invite the audience to look at the language between Alex and Olivia. I challenge them to look beyond Olivia as just an immigrant without papers or as a trans woman looking for love, but this is a woman who is taking her agency back and her ability to determine her life moving forward.

Related content

Leonora Anne Mint’s list of Films by Transgender Writers and Directors.

The Top 100 Filipino Films on Letterboxd.

Jojo Kuneho’s lists of Tagalog movies.

Philippines: The Ultimate List.

Follow Valerie on Letterboxd.

‘Lingua Franca’ is distributed by ARRAY Releasing and is available on Netflix.

[nijohirjesyho]

If Square Enix won’t give me Miqo’te lore I’ll write it myself. AKA I decided to flex my Worldbuilding muscles and try to flesh out the Miqo’te. This is just for fun but if you like it feel free to use it!

Miqo’te biology

Catnip

Keepers very likely to be affected by it, Seekers largely unaffected, 1/5 Keepers will be unaffected.

Exposure to catnip leaves results in giddiness, restlessness, high energy, possible drooling (particularly if chewed). Relatively mild and passes quickly. Occasionally dried leaves are used to make teas to help with colds or drank before long hunts for the energy. As dried leaves are less potent than fresh leaves the side effects are lessened.

Tails

Miqo’te tails are used for balance, allowing Keepers to crouch for long periods of time and aids in their tree climbing. For Seekers tails aid with maintaining balance when running on sand or scaling rocks.

Types of tails

Regular tails – standard

Lion Tails – Common among Seekers, rarely seen among Keepers

Fluffy tails – occasionally occurs among Keepers and occasionally occurs alongside ear tufts, it’s rarely seen in Seekers

Ears

Both Keepers and Seekers have very sensitive hearing and while Elezin outclass them in hearing most Miqo’te tend to actually rely on their hearing over eyesight, meaning they will react to sounds before other races

Jacobson’s Organ

Miqo’tes have fully functional Jacobson’s organs which mean they are capable of smelling pheromones and other scents that other races cannot. This aids them largely in hunting and tracking. Their sense of smell is unrivaled by any other race.

This also causes them to occasionally have a flehmen response which often confuses other races. Miqo’te will curl their lips back, stick out their tongues and stop breathing. It is often mistaken for disgust by those who don’t know what they’re doing. The advantage of such a pose is it forces the air and scents into their mouth where they can ‘taste’ it better.

Biological differences between Seekers and Keepers

Eyes

Both Keeper and Seekers have tapetum lucidum, which can startle unwary adventuring companion when their friend’s eyes glow in low light. This gives them an advantage over other races when it comes to seeing lowlight (such as in the forests of the Black Shroud). This has also been used by some who accuse them of being beast clans by claiming this proves they are ‘like animals’

Sounds

Keeper are capable of purring and have been known to terrify Wood Wailers with the blood curdling screams they’re capable of making

Seekers cannot purr but instead express pleasure by chittering, chuffs and humming. Seekers are capable of roaring

Teeth

No one can point to a clear reason for Keeper’s canine/eye teeth to be measurably longer and sharper than Seeker’s

Society

Keepers

Keepers live in a highly gender segregated society, mostly divided in two categories

Family Units

Family units are traditionally made up of women and children. This will usually be one to three mothers, often some older daughters and they may also have children of their own. The children are communally raised with responsibility being shared by the community, older siblings are as likely to teach younger siblings as parents. This has the advantage of almost always having at least one adult able to hunt while older children or fellow adults care for the children at home.

Children typically leave this community between 18 and 20 though this can vary its rare a child would leave before 16.

Some of the communities serve as trading posts to cities they’re located close to.

‘Solitary’ Males

Keepers will often tell you that males are best in small doses and that male Keepers wander on their own. This is not entirely accurate. You will occasionally find males on their own but when they first leave home many young Miqo’te will often leave in groups. Usually siblings close in age and with a close bond will set out together, maybe parting ways eventually but male siblings often stick together (though due to how rare males are male siblings rarely end up close enough in age to stick together). Older males may find and take in younger males as hunting is easier and they miss the feeling of family from childhood. It is more accurate to say the males are rare and nomadic.

Seekers

Tribes

Tribes are less visibly divided among gender lines than the Keepers but there are still divides, obvious in naming and social structure.

Children with a father in one tribe and a mother in another will belong to the mother’s tribe. Female children will still take the father’s name

Nuhns

[Square Enix: Nuhn is simply breeding male of a tribe! Also Square Enix: *treats Nuhn like the rank of leader in game*. So in game is what we’re going with.]

Nuhns are the male that distributes traits most valued by the tribe. While yes, a healthy physique is often valued, in Clans that value cunning, forethought, strategy or hunting prowess one might rise to the rule of Nuhn not via a fight to the death but a contest of cunning or proof of their ability to stalk and bring down dangerous game.

Tias, Splinter Tribes, ‘Bachelor Tribes’

Tias are commonly found enthusiastically doing squats. Tias serve an important function in most tribes, often in their attempt to prove themselves worthy of being the next Nuhn they will be doing tasks and take leadership roles that the Nuhn needs delegated to someone else. The women are the hunters but the males often serve in organizational roles as well.

Tias that want to be Nuhn but cannot earn the respect of their original tribe will occasionally form splinter tribes. This can also happens if a tribe becomes overpopulated or there are two popular choices for Nuhn but neither will share the role. One will form a splinter tribe with an additional letter as per custom and they typically die off or are reabsorbed into the original tribe.

Bachelor Tribes are made of multiple male Tias, sometimes even from multiple tribes. Rather than seeking to be Nuhn they have banded together to form an unofficial tribe of males only. They’re often nomatic and males from them may be invited to be a Tia or Nuhn of a tribe that needs new blood.

The treatment children born of a Tia father can expect varies from Tribe to Tribe. Some tribes demand they leave the tribe when old enough, (some of them making the Bachelor Tribes). In other Tribes they are treated as no different than any Tia. Some allow them to stay but they can never be Nuhn without working twice as hard to prove themselves to the tribe as Nuhn-fathered Tias.

Queer Miqo’te

Same Sex

General

Same sex couples are far from unheard of in a race that has a birth race skewed to one sex. It would be impossible to not.

In both Keeper and Seeker culture the idea of couples is a bit different than in other races as a large part of their culture focuses more on reproduction. Romantic loyalty is often separated from sexual loyalty.

Keeper

Among Keepers WLW couples or groups often form to raise children. If one of the couple happens to be trans and comfortable with such an idea, they might not even need one of the nomadic males to father a child.

The Males that band together and travel together are not always only siblings or close friends but sometimes MLM couples or groups.

Seeker

Any Nuhn that would force a women to mate with him is going to quickly find himself replaced so it is fully possible for a woman in a Seeker Tribe to find a partner and live in bliss with them without the tribe objecting in the slightest.

Some Bachelor Tribes are ‘Confirmed Bachelor Tribes’ if you catch my drift.

Trans Miqo’te

General

With such strict and gendered naming conventions names become very important to most who transition or fall outside gender binaries entirely.

Keeper

A Trans Male Keeper will usually take the name of the youngest son as he has been ‘reborn’. He will be expected to wander the same as any other male Miqo’te.

A Trans Female Keeper will be given a new name entirely, while any brothers she has will keep their old names the suffix she previously had will no longer be used. She may be welcomed among any family group as she is still a valuable hunter and caregiver.

Non-binary Keepers may chose a new name, to keep their old name, or some use whichever name feels most appropriate for the gender they feel closest to that day. What role they chose to fulfill in their society may vary from Keeper to Keeper and even day to day.

Seeker

A Trans Male Seeker will be granted a new name by the Nuhn with the last name Tia. He will be expected to begin performing roles similar to his fellow Tias quickly though the Nuhn may give this Tia specialized training to catch him up to his fellow Tias if necessary. Trans Male Seekers are capable of becoming Nuhn, some use a fellow Tia as the sperm donor while he runs the Clan, others have given birth themselves, how they chose to be Nuhn depends on the Seeker and the Tribe

A Trans Female Seeker will be granted a new first name by the Nuhn that fathered her along with his name as her last name. Her fellow huntress will often organize a hunt in celebration and to begin teaching her hunting skills. Trans Female Seekers are not considered viable candidates for Nuhn more than any Cis Female Seeker would be.

Non-binary Seekers may chose a new name, to keep their old name, or some use whichever name feels most appropriate for the gender they feel closest to that day. However they occasionally find trouble from Tias who feel them a possible challenger regardless of their desire to be Nuhn.

City Miqo’te

City Miqo'te culture varies on whether they are Keeper or Seeker and what city they’re in.

Gridanian Miqo’te are typically Keeper and may face hostilities from those that see them as poachers as best. However recently they have begun to see better treatment, though some women decide to join the Coeurl King and his crew.

In Ul’dah cities it is easy to find Seekers, be they Tias unable to become Nuhn or women who simply felt that Tribe life was not for them. They make their living the same way most do in Ul’dah,though a few might be found among the Ala Mhigo refugees resenting their native kin or clinging desperately to what remains of the community they had before the fall.

Limsan Miqo’te are less common than the other regions but almost no crew sails without a Miqo’te. Some consider it lucky to have at least one, others have a far more practical reason. Miqo’te’s keen sense of smell often detects storms before their fellow crew members. Additionally, their lean and dexterous forms make them adept at climbing rigging. They are primarily Seekers though Keepers are becoming more common.

In the Grand Companies

General

One might expect that due to the number of female Miqo’te to males they would surely outnumber the males in the grand companies as well. However the numbers are closer to even (still favor the females however) as many male Miqo’te sign up to the grand companies.

Keepers

Keepers are quite common in the Twin Adders as they seek the feeling of family and camaraderie that they had growing up. Males in particular as they may be inclined to find the idea of wandering alone as unbearable. The bow skills shown by Miqo’te hunters leave little to be desired and they can often find their place in the Adders. Notably three of the Gods’ Quiver’s eleven garrisons are led by Miqo’te. Miah Molkot leads the White Rams, Ragu’to Zhwan leads The Quiver’s Scales and Dhebi Polaali leads The Quiver’s Ewers.

Seekers

Seekers are mostly found in Maelstrom, finding themselves outnumbered by Hyur and Lalafell in the Immortal Flames. Some are Tias that could not make it as Nuhn or women that left the tribes either because they could not fit into that lifestyle but more still are city Miqo’te that grew up in the ports of Limsa and are more familiar with the rigging of a ship than the sand of a desert. However some have made their way to Gridania out of curiosity about the archery to be learned there. G'pakibah Dora leads the garrison of the Twin Adders known as The Quivers Virgins and she is far from the only Seeker in their ranks.

Culture Shock

Keepers and City life

The largest culture shock for Keepers is perhaps the lack of physical contact. Those who grew up in the shroud are often very tactile and become confused by their new friends lack of physical affection or startle them by what is seen by some (typically Elezen) as being overly affectionate.

The other most obvious source of surprise and confusion is in relationship. While romantic relationships are far from unheard of among Keepers they are not seen as the norm which can lead to confusion about the level of commitment expected in relationships. Older siblings or friends more familiar with city life may be useful when explaining these concepts to Keepers unused to other races’ relationship expectations. However this has done Keeper’s reputation no favors in some parts of Gridania with them being seen as loose and unreliable in relationships.

Seekers and City life

Seekers might be confused by what they consider to be a very unclear hierarchy of duties among other races. Used to the Nuhn’s clear leadership and the communal hunting and providing they can struggle to adjust to trade at first.

Seekers get quite the double edged sword attempting to date as men might be suspected of sleeping around and some will claim women don’t mind you sleeping around on them, and will often be taken for heterosexual by default. These miscommunications are more common in Ul’dah than Limsa, who is exposed more to City Seeker culture.

Keepers and Seekers

Keepers and Seekers are often confused by the other’s culture on first contact, with the Keeper’s matriarchal family-centered lifestyle confusing to the Patriarchal Tribe-centered Seekers who are unused to such tight knit groups. Similarly Keepers often come away with the impression Seekers have gotten thing backwards, those familiar with the Coeurl King’s cruel grip on the women he brings into his group in particular will often react with horror.

Hybrids

Rumored and likely possible, until recent times the isolation shown by both Keepers and Seekers has prevented such hybrids from being common but with Keepers beginning to integrate into cities and Seekers beginning to explore Gridania it is likely if such hybrids exist they will become more common in upcoming years

[notgoing]

mother-baby-art-monster reader

I look at pictures of myself before I became a mother -- all slouch boots and absent of worry lines -- and wonder who I was? Wonder what the fuck I think I was doing? Wonder where my children are? How did my former self become so genuinely unrecognisable to my mother self? How did I write back then? What did I do with all that ‘free’ time? How did I have the audacity to think my pen mattered on any page? Without my children? As they are the ones who have given me this monstrous courage! To assert myself creatively! I understand that their dreams are valid and conclude that by osmosis mine must be also! They reassure me that I am clean hearted enough to be in possession of this much ambition!

I once wore my son while I wrote a paragraph about Daniel Day-Lewis. Letting him nap in his sling on my body -- his sweet breath whispering on my chin -- was the only way I was going to get the time and space to put those words down. It ended up being a very good paragraph, I believe the warm demand of the 17-month-old, him pressing into me, it being that bit more difficult to reach the keyboard, made me work harder, faster, sharper, stronger.

Can a mother be a writer? is a question that leads to gross debate that can get nasty and rapidly prescriptive. I feel incredibly defensive about the possibility of it all. Also, the necessity! We need to hear from mothers! They are in and of this world! Their art has stuff to tell us! So I have collected things that inspire me, console me, provoke me, into dwelling on the hows, whys, and shoulds of motherhood and creativity. 

Here is my mother-baby-art-monster reader [to be frequently updated]:

HOW MOTHERHOOD AFFECTS CREATIVITY // Erika Hayasaki “Diaper changes might cut into the time spent on creative work, but they don’t cut out the drive to do it.“

THE THREAD: ART MONSTERS // Marissa Korbel

“Children, not women, define motherhood. Our cultural obsession with raising perfect children has eclipsed our interest in women as a class, and mothers in particular.”

A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MOM: IS DOMESTIC LIFE THE ENEMY OF CREATIVE WORK? // Kim Brooks

“…it feels like the kids gave me that by remaking me.”

ZADIE SMITH

Comment left under an article by Lauren Sandell. One that is so cynical about how a mother should be if she wishes to write that I do not want to link to it.

“I am Zadie Smith, another writer. I have two children. Dickens had ten — I think Tolstoy did, too. Did anyone for one moment worry that those men were becoming too father-ish to be writer-esque? Does the fact that Heidi Julavitz, Nikita Lalwani, Nicole Krauss, Jhumpa Lahiri, Vendela Vida, Curtis Sittenfeld, Marilynne Robinson, Toni Morrison and so on and so forth (i could really go on all day with that list) have multiple children make them lesser writers? Are four children a problem for the writer Michael Chabon — or just for his wife the writer Ayelet Waldman? The idea that motherhood is inherently somehow a threat to creativity is just absurd. What IS a threat to all women’s freedoms is the issue of time, which is the same problem whether you are a writer, factory worker or nurse. We need decent public daycare services, partners who do their share, affordable childcare and/or a supportive community of friends and family. As for the issue of singles versus multiples verses none at all, each to their own! But as the parent of multiples I can assure Ms Sandler that two kids entertaining each other in one room gives their mother in another room a surprising amount of free time she would not have otherwise.”

A WOMAN’S GREATEST ENEMY? A LACK OF TIME TO HERSELF // Brigid Schulte

“It’s not that women haven’t had the talent to make their mark in the world of ideas and art. They’ve never had the time.”

IT IS BOTH CREATIVELY AND POLITICALLY NECESSARY FOR WOMEN TO BE ALONE // Rosin Agnew

“Aloneness in a woman’s life is more important and enriching than it is in a man’s life because she is naturally inclined not to offer herself the luxury of it – socially and culturally women are conditioned to not engage in the narcissistic and selfish behaviours that are often necessary for work to flourish, develop, and for careers to advance.”

WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO BE A WRITER? // Stewart Sinclair  

“It is not a system that rewards artists, or writers, or even mothers or caregivers or social workers or anyone else who forewent the maxim of optimal fiduciary efficiency because they saw a higher value in a calling of lower profitability—i.e., a labor of love.”

DEPARTMENT OF SPECULATION // Jenny Offill

A novel. The novel! Foundational text. Part of what kicked off the recent round of CAN A MOTHER WRITE!!1!!111!!!? articles. Offill is responsible for the glorious/terrifying term ‘art monster’ thus understood:

“My plan was to never get married. I was going to be an art monster instead. Women almost never become art monsters because art monsters only concern themselves with art, never mundane things.”

TONI MORRISON PROVED THERE’S NO TIME LIMIT FOR SUCCESS // Janelle Harris Dixon

“She told an interviewer that once, as she was working, her toddler threw up on the page and instead of interrupting the flow of an inspired sentence, she just kept on writing right around it”

Morrison’s exact words: “I mean every woman knows, that you know, they spit up all the time. That I could take care of. But I might not get that sentence again.”

[pope-francis-quotes]

27th March >> (@RomeReports) #PopeFrancis #Pope Francis’ full homily from extraordinary Urbi et Orbi blessing

“When evening had come” (Mk 4:35). The Gospel passage we have just heard begins like this. For weeks now it has been evening. Thick darkness has gathered over our squares, our streets and our cities; it has taken over our lives, filling everything with a deafening silence and a distressing void, that stops everything as it passes by; we feel it in the air, we notice in people’s gestures, their glances give them away. We find ourselves afraid and lost. Like the disciples in the Gospel we were caught off guard by an unexpected, turbulent storm. We have realized that we are on the same boat, all of us fragile and disoriented, but at the same time important and needed, all of us called to row together, each of us in need of comforting the other. On this boat... are all of us. Just like those disciples, who spoke anxiously with one voice, saying “We are perishing” (v. 38), so we too have realized that we cannot go on thinking of ourselves, but only together can we do this.

It is easy to recognize ourselves in this story. What is harder to understand is Jesus’ attitude. While his disciples are quite naturally alarmed and desperate, he stands in the stern, in the part of the boat that sinks first. And what does he do? In spite of the tempest, he sleeps on soundly, trusting in the Father; this is the only time in the Gospels we see Jesus sleeping. When he wakes up, after calming the wind and the waters, he turns to the disciples in a reproaching voice: “Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” (v. 40).

Let us try to understand. In what does the lack of the disciples’ faith consist, as contrasted with Jesus’ trust? They had not stopped believing in him; in fact, they called on him. But we see how they call on him: “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?” (v. 38). Do you not care: they think that Jesus is not interested in them, does not care about them. One of the things that hurts us and our families most when we hear it said is: “Do you not care about me?” It is a phrase that wounds and unleashes storms in our hearts. It would have shaken Jesus too. Because he, more than anyone, cares about us. Indeed, once they have called on him, he saves his disciples from their discouragement.

The storm exposes our vulnerability and uncovers those false and superfluous certainties around which we have constructed our daily schedules, our projects, our habits and priorities. It shows us how we have allowed to become dull and feeble the very things that nourish, sustain and strengthen our lives and our communities. The tempest lays bare all our prepackaged ideas and forgetfulness of what nourishes our people’s souls; all those attempts that anesthetize us with ways of thinking and acting that supposedly “save” us, but instead prove incapable of putting us in touch with our roots and keeping alive the memory of those who have gone before us. We deprive ourselves of the antibodies we need to confront adversity.

In this storm, the façade of those stereotypes with which we camouflaged our egos, always worrying about our image, has fallen away, uncovering once more that (blessed) common belonging, of which we cannot be deprived: our belonging as brothers and sisters.

“Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” Lord, your word this evening strikes us and regards us, all of us. In this world, that you love more than we do, we have gone ahead at breakneck speed, feeling powerful and able to do anything. Greedy for profit, we let ourselves get caught up in things, and lured away by haste. We did not stop at your reproach to us, we were not shaken awake by wars or injustice across the world, nor did we listen to the cry of the poor or of our ailing planet. We carried on regardless, thinking we would stay healthy in a world that was sick. Now that we are in a stormy sea, we implore you: “Wake up, Lord!”.

“Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” Lord, you are calling to us, calling us to faith. Which is not so much believing that you exist, but coming to you and trusting in you. This Lent your call reverberates urgently: “Be converted!”, “Return to me with all your heart” (Joel 2:12). You are calling on us to seize this time of trial as a time of choosing. It is not the time of your judgement, but of our judgement: a time to choose what matters and what passes away, a time to separate what is necessary from what is not. It is a time to get our lives back on track with regard to you, Lord, and to others. We can look to so many exemplary companions for the journey, who, even though fearful, have reacted by giving their lives. This is the force of the Spirit poured out and fashioned in courageous and generous self-denial. It is the life in the Spirit that can redeem, value and demonstrate how our lives are woven together and sustained by ordinary people – often forgotten people – who do not appear in newspaper and magazine headlines nor on the grand catwalks of the latest show, but who without any doubt are in these very days writing the decisive events of our time: doctors, nurses, supermarket employees, cleaners, caregivers, providers of transport, law and order forces, volunteers, priests, religious men and women and so very many others who have understood that no one reaches salvation by themselves. In the face of so much suffering, where the authentic development of our peoples is assessed, we experience the priestly prayer of Jesus: “That they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). How many people every day are exercising patience and offering hope, taking care to sow not panic but a shared responsibility. How many fathers, mothers, grandparents and teachers are showing our children, in small everyday gestures, how to face up to and navigate a crisis by adjusting their routines, lifting their gaze and fostering prayer. How many are praying, offering and interceding for the good of all. Prayer and quiet service: these are our victorious weapons.

“Why are you afraid? Have you no faith”? Faith begins when we realise we are in need of salvation. We are not self-sufficient; by ourselves we founder: we need the Lord, like ancient navigators needed the stars. Let us invite Jesus into the boats of our lives. Let us hand over our fears to him so that he can conquer them. Like the disciples, we will experience that with him on board there will be no shipwreck. Because this is God’s strength: turning to the good everything that happens to us, even the bad things. He brings serenity into our storms, because with God life never dies.

The Lord asks us and, in the midst of our tempest, invites us to reawaken and put into practice that solidarity and hope capable of giving strength, support and meaning to these hours when everything seems to be floundering. The Lord awakens so as to reawaken and revive our Easter faith. We have an anchor: by his cross we have been saved. We have a rudder: by his cross we have been redeemed. We have a hope: by his cross we have been healed and embraced so that nothing and no one can separate us from his redeeming love. In the midst of isolation when we are suffering from a lack of tenderness and chances to meet up, and we experience the loss of so many things, let us once again listen to the proclamation that saves us: he is risen and is living by our side. The Lord asks us from his cross to rediscover the life that awaits us, to look towards those who look to us, to strengthen, recognize and foster the grace that lives within us. Let us not quench the wavering flame (cf. Is 42:3) that never falters, and let us allow hope to be rekindled.

Embracing his cross means finding the courage to embrace all the hardships of the present time, abandoning for a moment our eagerness for power and possessions in order to make room for the creativity that only the Spirit is capable of inspiring. It means finding the courage to create spaces where everyone can recognize that they are called, and to allow new forms of hospitality, fraternity and solidarity. By his cross we have been saved in order to embrace hope and let it strengthen and sustain all measures and all possible avenues for helping us protect ourselves and others. Embracing the Lord in order to embrace hope: that is the strength of faith, which frees us from fear and gives us hope.

“Why are you afraid? Have you no faith”? Dear brothers and sisters, from this place that tells of Peter’s rock-solid faith, I would like this evening to entrust all of you to the Lord, through the intercession of Mary, Health of the People and Star of the stormy Sea. From this colonnade that embraces Rome and the whole world, may God’s blessing come down upon you as a consoling embrace. Lord, may you bless the world, give health to our bodies and comfort our hearts. You ask us not to be afraid. Yet our faith is weak and we are fearful. But you, Lord, will not leave us at the mercy of the storm. Tell us again: “Do not be afraid” (Mt 28:5). And we, together with Peter, “cast all our anxieties onto you, for you care about us” (cf. 1 Pet 5:7).

[thepapalcountandcountess]

Pope at Urbi et orbi: Full text of his meditation

“When evening had come” (Mk 4:35). The Gospel passage we have just heard begins like this. For weeks now it has been evening. Thick darkness has gathered over our squares, our streets and our cities; it has taken over our lives, filling everything with a deafening silence and a distressing void, that stops everything as it passes by; we feel it in the air, we notice in people’s gestures, their glances give them away. We find ourselves afraid and lost. Like the disciples in the Gospel we were caught off guard by an unexpected, turbulent storm. We have realized that we are on the same boat, all of us fragile and disoriented, but at the same time important and needed, all of us called to row together, each of us in need of comforting the other. On this boat… are all of us. Just like those disciples, who spoke anxiously with one voice, saying “We are perishing” (v. 38), so we too have realized that we cannot go on thinking of ourselves, but only together can we do this.

It is easy to recognize ourselves in this story. What is harder to understand is Jesus’ attitude. While his disciples are quite naturally alarmed and desperate, he stands in the stern, in the part of the boat that sinks first. And what does he do? In spite of the tempest, he sleeps on soundly, trusting in the Father; this is the only time in the Gospels we see Jesus sleeping. When he wakes up, after calming the wind and the waters, he turns to the disciples in a reproaching voice: “Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” (v. 40).

Let us try to understand. In what does the lack of the disciples’ faith consist, as contrasted with Jesus’ trust? They had not stopped believing in him; in fact, they called on him. But we see how they call on him: “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?” (v. 38). Do you not care: they think that Jesus is not interested in them, does not care about them. One of the things that hurts us and our families most when we hear it said is: “Do you not care about me?” It is a phrase that wounds and unleashes storms in our hearts. It would have shaken Jesus too. Because he, more than anyone, cares about us. Indeed, once they have called on him, he saves his disciples from their discouragement.

The storm exposes our vulnerability and uncovers those false and superfluous certainties around which we have constructed our daily schedules, our projects, our habits and priorities. It shows us how we have allowed to become dull and feeble the very things that nourish, sustain and strengthen our lives and our communities. The tempest lays bare all our prepackaged ideas and forgetfulness of what nourishes our people’s souls; all those attempts that anesthetize us with ways of thinking and acting that supposedly “save” us, but instead prove incapable of putting us in touch with our roots and keeping alive the memory of those who have gone before us. We deprive ourselves of the antibodies we need to confront adversity.

In this storm, the façade of those stereotypes with which we camouflaged our egos, always worrying about our image, has fallen away, uncovering once more that (blessed) common belonging, of which we cannot be deprived: our belonging as brothers and sisters.

“Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” Lord, your word this evening strikes us and regards us, all of us. In this world, that you love more than we do, we have gone ahead at breakneck speed, feeling powerful and able to do anything. Greedy for profit, we let ourselves get caught up in things, and lured away by haste. We did not stop at your reproach to us, we were not shaken awake by wars or injustice across the world, nor did we listen to the cry of the poor or of our ailing planet. We carried on regardless, thinking we would stay healthy in a world that was sick. Now that we are in a stormy sea, we implore you: “Wake up, Lord!”.

“Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” Lord, you are calling to us, calling us to faith. Which is not so much believing that you exist, but coming to you and trusting in you. This Lent your call reverberates urgently: “Be converted!”, “Return to me with all your heart” (Joel 2:12). You are calling on us to seize this time of trial as a time of choosing. It is not the time of your judgement, but of our judgement: a time to choose what matters and what passes away, a time to separate what is necessary from what is not. It is a time to get our lives back on track with regard to you, Lord, and to others. We can look to so many exemplary companions for the journey, who, even though fearful, have reacted by giving their lives. This is the force of the Spirit poured out and fashioned in courageous and generous self-denial. It is the life in the Spirit that can redeem, value and demonstrate how our lives are woven together and sustained by ordinary people – often forgotten people – who do not appear in newspaper and magazine headlines nor on the grand catwalks of the latest show, but who without any doubt are in these very days writing the decisive events of our time: doctors, nurses, supermarket employees, cleaners, caregivers, providers of transport, law and order forces, volunteers, priests, religious men and women and so very many others who have understood that no one reaches salvation by themselves. In the face of so much suffering, where the authentic development of our peoples is assessed, we experience the priestly prayer of Jesus: “That they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). How many people every day are exercising patience and offering hope, taking care to sow not panic but a shared responsibility. How many fathers, mothers, grandparents and teachers are showing our children, in small everyday gestures, how to face up to and navigate a crisis by adjusting their routines, lifting their gaze and fostering prayer. How many are praying, offering and interceding for the good of all. Prayer and quiet service: these are our victorious weapons.

“Why are you afraid? Have you no faith”? Faith begins when we realise we are in need of salvation. We are not self-sufficient; by ourselves we flounder: we need the Lord, like ancient navigators needed the stars. Let us invite Jesus into the boats of our lives. Let us hand over our fears to him so that he can conquer them. Like the disciples, we will experience that with him on board there will be no shipwreck. Because this is God’s strength: turning to the good everything that happens to us, even the bad things. He brings serenity into our storms, because with God life never dies.

The Lord asks us and, in the midst of our tempest, invites us to reawaken and put into practice that solidarity and hope capable of giving strength, support and meaning to these hours when everything seems to be floundering. The Lord awakens so as to reawaken and revive our Easter faith. We have an anchor: by his cross we have been saved. We have a rudder: by his cross we have been redeemed. We have a hope: by his cross we have been healed and embraced so that nothing and no one can separate us from his redeeming love. In the midst of isolation when we are suffering from a lack of tenderness and chances to meet up, and we experience the loss of so many things, let us once again listen to the proclamation that saves us: he is risen and is living by our side. The Lord asks us from his cross to rediscover the life that awaits us, to look towards those who look to us, to strengthen, recognize and foster the grace that lives within us. Let us not quench the wavering flame (cf. Is 42:3) that never falters, and let us allow hope to be rekindled.

Embracing his cross means finding the courage to embrace all the hardships of the present time, abandoning for a moment our eagerness for power and possessions in order to make room for the creativity that only the Spirit is capable of inspiring. It means finding the courage to create spaces where everyone can recognize that they are called, and to allow new forms of hospitality, fraternity and solidarity. By his cross we have been saved in order to embrace hope and let it strengthen and sustain all measures and all possible avenues for helping us protect ourselves and others. Embracing the Lord in order to embrace hope: that is the strength of faith, which frees us from fear and gives us hope.

“Why are you afraid? Have you no faith”? Dear brothers and sisters, from this place that tells of Peter’s rock-solid faith, I would like this evening to entrust all of you to the Lord, through the intercession of Mary, Health of the People and Star of the stormy Sea. From this colonnade that embraces Rome and the whole world, may God’s blessing come down upon you as a consoling embrace. Lord, may you bless the world, give health to our bodies and comfort our hearts. You ask us not to be afraid. Yet our faith is weak and we are fearful. But you, Lord, will not leave us at the mercy of the storm. Tell us again: “Do not be afraid” (Mt 28:5). And we, together with Peter, “cast all our anxieties onto you, for you care about us” (cf. 1 Pet 5:7).