#and tends to be alone most of the time

[miusato]

Ken, it's too early to give yourself a mid life crisis and worry too much 🙃

[caeslxys]

I’ve mentioned this elsewhere but it feels relevant again in light of the most recent episode. Something that’s really fascinating to me about Orym’s grief in comparison to the rest of the hells’ grief is that his is the youngest/most fresh and because of that tends to be the most volatile when it is triggered (aside from FCG, who was two and obviously The Most volatile when triggered.)

As in: prior to the attack on Zephrah, Orym was leading a normal, happy, casual life! with family who loved him and still do! Grief was something that was inflicted upon him via Ludinus’ machinations, whereas with characters like Imogen or Ashton, grief has been the background tapestry of their entire lives. And I think that shows in how the rest of them are largely able to, if not see past completely (Imogen/Laudna/Chetney) then at least temper/direct their vitriol or grief (Ashton/Fearne/Chetney again) to where it is most effective. (There is a glaring reason, for example, that Imogen scolded Orym for the way he reacted to Liliana and not Ashton. Because Ashton’s anger was directed in a way that was ultimately protective of Imogen—most effective—and Orym’s was founded solely in his personal grief.)

He wants Imogen to have her mom and he wants Lilliana to be salvageable for Imogen because he loves Imogen. But his love for the people in his present actively and consistently tend to conflict with the love he has for the people in his past. They are in a constant battle and Orym—he cannot fathom losing either of them.

(Or, to that point, recognize that allowing empathy to take root in him for the enemy isn't losing one of them.)

It is deeply poignant, then, that Orym’s grief is symbolized by both a sword and shield. It is something he wields as a blade when he feels his philosophy being threatened by certain conversational threads (as he believes it is one of the only things he has left of Will and Derrig, and is therefore desperately clinging onto with both bloody hands even if it makes him, occasionally, a hypocrite), but also something he can use in defense of the people he presently loves—if that provocative, blade-grief side of him does not push them—or himself—away first.

(it won’t—he is as loved by the hells as he loves them. he just needs to—as laudna so beautifully said—say and hear it more often.)

[canisalbus]

Vasco and Machete are absolutely adorable, your style is so lovely and you draw the softest beds I’ve ever seen in any art ever

.

[opens-up-4-nobody]

...

[megumi-fm]

.

[ftmtftm]

This is a long ask sorry. Recently I saw screenshots of some transmascs (usernames were understandably cropped out) saying that transandrophobia stems from “sex, which is immutable” and these screenshots were being held up as a reason why the idea of transandrophobia was stupid (and if this is the only encounter someone has had with the conversation around transandrophobia I don’t necessarily blame them because that is stupid)

I think in response to that post going around, I’ve also seen a couple people (who were transmasc themselves) accusing people that believe in transandrophobia of like, perpetuating radfem rhetoric and claiming “femaleness when it’s convenient, to victimize themselves”.

I was wondering if you had any thoughts or insight on navigating conversation about transandrophobia or antitrans masculinity when there is the occasional bio essentialist shithead, and that kind of person seems to be the most associated with the theory?

Okay so - I just want to preface this and say this is genuinely just my own personal course of action informed by a lot of my experiences having been on Tumblr for over a decade. I honestly don't know how helpful it is for others, but it's ultimately how I personally do it, so I'll share.

My go to response for the kind of people who seem to be self victimizing or who seem to be bio essentialist shitheads - and my go to response to the people who use that to say they're perpetuating radfem rhetoric by self victimizing - is honestly usually to just scroll past, sometimes block depending personal comfort, and move on.

Sometimes I do engage despite my better judgment and usually? I feel like shit afterwards because it ended up being pointless arguing. Most times I'll draft something that responds to concepts being brought up by those people and make my own post later or I'll reblog a relevant post that I've already made, but I do really try not to directly engage and I would encourage others to do the same.

Instead, I try to contribute in the ways I'm personally good at like via academia/original posts/answering asks. I feel very confident in my own opinions and my ability to back them up in response to accusations of Radfem ideals and self victimization because I know myself and I know my understanding of both Radical Feminism and Intersectional, Black, Decolonialist Feminism. I pretty constantly try to do a lot of self examination, but ultimately I'm confident in my core ethics and morals and I try to reflect that out to others in a human way. That carries a lot of weight for me personally.

That's all really important to me because this is ultimately still Tumblr and there's a lot of people in a lot of pain here. It's the piss on the poor hellscape webed site full of extremely traumatized people that have been at each other's throats over the worst faith readings of every opinion possible for longer than some users have even been alive.

When you've been here and in discourse spaces specifically for awhile - it becomes pretty obvious when a hurt person is lashing out and not actually engaging with an idea in a way that isn't focused on their own pain. I can do what I can, but those conversations specifically tend to devolve into nothing good real fast. So? It's just genuinely not something I try to dedicate a lot of time to engaging directly with. Especially because it gets really exhausting and honestly bad for my own mental health at certain points.

Hopefully that's helpful in some way? I'm genuinely not really sure if it is, but I hope so.

[thebaffledcaptain]

Been thinking about historical beauty standards lately and the fact that being rounder and heavier was, in fact, considered fashionable for a very long time, and then the fact that people will always interject with the “it’s because weight meant you were wealthy and able to afford food and leisure,” which, sure, is true to some extent, but it’s not like… the only reason that was desirable? Like, is it that hard to believe that people genuinely found that beautiful? That both men and women would rogue their cheeks to make them look more lively and full? That men would tailor their waistcoats to give the illusion of a potbelly because it was the fashionable silhouette? That to be soft and plump was considered lovely and attractive? Honestly, I feel people’s insistence on the whole “weight meant you were wealthy” thing can quickly become a kind of backhanded fatphobia, this assertion that being fat meant something else desirable, and thus became the Desirable Thing. People have had fat and been fat all throughout history and been found beautiful for it, period.

[wonder-worker]

Margaret of Anjou’s visit to Coventry [in 1456], which was part of her dower and that of her son, Edward of Lancaster, was much more elaborate. It essentially reasserted Lancastrian power. The presence of Henry and the infant Edward was recognised in the pageantry. The ceremonial route between the Bablake gate and the commercial centre was short, skirting the area controlled by the cathedral priory, but it made up for its brevity with no fewer than fourteen pageants. Since Coventry had an established cycle of mystery plays, there were presumably enough local resources and experience to mount an impressive display; but one John Wetherby was summoned from Leicester to compose verses and stage the scenes. As at Margaret’s coronation the iconography was elaborate, though it built upon earlier developments.

Starting at Bablake gate, next to the Trinity Guild church of St. Michael, Bablake, the party was welcomed with a Tree of Jesse, set up on the gate itself, with the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah explaining the symbolism. Outside St. Michael’s church the party was greeted by Edward the Confessor and St. John the Evangelist; and proceeding to Smithford Street, they found on the conduit the four Cardinal Virtues—Righteousness (Justice?), Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. In Cross Cheaping wine flowed freely, as in London, and angels stood on the cross, censing Margaret as she passed. Beyond the cross was pitched a series of pageants, each displaying one of the Nine Worthies, who offered to serve Margaret. Finally, the queen was shown a pageant of her patron saint, Margaret, slaying the dragon [which 'turned out to be strictly an intercessor on the queen's behalf', as Helen Maurer points out].

The meanings here are complex and have been variously interpreted. An initial reading of the programme found a message of messianic kingship: the Jesse tree equating royal genealogy with that of Christ had been used at the welcome for Henry VI on his return from Paris in 1432. A more recent, feminist view is that the symbolism is essentially Marian, and to be associated with Margaret both as queen and mother of the heir rather than Henry himself. The theme is shared sovereignty, with Margaret equal to her husband and son. Ideal kingship was symbolised by the presence of Edward the Confessor, but Margaret was the person to whom the speeches were specifically addressed and she, not Henry, was seen as the saviour of the house of Lancaster. This reading tips the balance too far the other way: the tableau of Edward the Confessor and St. John was a direct reference to the legend of the Ring and the Pilgrim, one of Henry III’s favourite stories, which was illustrated in Westminster Abbey, several of his houses, and in manuscript. It symbolised royal largesse, and its message at Coventry would certainly have encompassed the reigning king. Again, the presence of allegorical figures, first used for Henry, seems to acknowledge his presence. Yet, while the message of the Coventry pageants was directed at contemporary events it emphasised Margaret’s motherhood and duties as queen; and it was expressed as a traditional spiritual journey from the Old Testament, via the incarnation represented by the cross, to the final triumph over evil, with the help of the Virgin, allegory, and the Worthies. The only true thematic innovation was the commentary by the prophets.

[...] The messages of the pageants firmly reminded the royal women of their place as mothers and mediators, honoured but subordinate. Yet, if passive, these young women were not without significance. It is clear from the pageantry of 1392 and 1426 in London and 1456 in Coventry that when a crisis needed to be resolved, the queen (or regent’s wife) was accorded extra recognition. Her duty as mediator—or the good aspect of a misdirected man—suddenly became more than a pious wish. At Coventry, Margaret of Anjou was even presented as the rock upon which the monarchy rested. [However,] a crisis had to be sensed in order to provoke such emphasis [...]."

-Nicola Coldstream, "Roles of Women in Late Medieval Civic Pageantry," "Reassessing the Roles of Women as 'Makers' of Medieval Art and Culture"

[shallowrambles]

So I've been thinking. It's funny how enjoying meta is somewhat embedded with trust.

Like, if you're "friends" and have followed a person for a long time, you have more a sense of their values, and it's easier to read their difficult meta because you trust more that they're being charitable/nuanced.

If you don't know them, it's harder to trust that they're not funneling difficult topics into rationalization of liking/supporting gross shit.

[dengswei]

deffo on me for going into dangerous romance blind but the bullying took me off guard

[dogearedheart]

8i've been thinking about the last asks i got today. and i think it's better for me to take a step back from this account. i know the anon didn't mean anything by it, but i still feel like i am being a negative presence on here and weirding people out with who i am is nothing i want. so, i am not deleting or anything. i am just gonna be less present with sharing personal things or leaving tags. I'll probably be more active on my second account where i don't have that many followers :)

[wanders-in-stars]

!!!!! Gore 1.5 is here let's fucking go bitches !!!!!

[piplupod]

i will make a few random posts and dm one mutual to say smth nice to them and then sit here feeling like i've just ruined my entire life and everything is about to come crashign down around me. HGELP.

[cyanide-latte]

Managed something difficult last night. Not sure if I'll see major repercussions or not, but for the moment I'm relieved and can breathe easier. Hope all of you lovelies are doing well~.

[lostsoulau-ask]

Fylass: Er... Do you like hugs? Shard or Buddy, it doesn't really matter to me!

Buddy: W-we are not r-really used to hugs. (B-beside eachother... Y-years alone d-does things to you.) B-but if you want, i-i can give one. J-just be carefull with the spikes. Shard t-tends to easely tense up w-with other peoples h-hugs. I-i gess todays Knight aren't v-very used to this.

[arolesbianism]

Wendy and Abby fuck me up so bad just like in general but what keeps coming back to haunt me is wondering how long they had to go through it all just them two. How many times did Wendy die, how many times did Abby watch the light fading from the eyes of her twin. How many times was it slow, how many times was it in a split moment, how many times were they together when it happened, how many times did Wendy die completely alone. It's just like god damn no wonder Wendy talks Like That not only did Abby die but poor kid has been forced to become accustomed with death in a much more direct way than even adults are built to handle