#but again. Grain of salt. take it liberally

[starpros-sunshine]

I still think the more I think about it that sanctuary at it's core is a perfectly understandable reaction on Eichis part I mean have you read blackbird imagine being Eichi and experiencing that. I would also go insane if the guy that's stuck with me through weal and woe — who's been a main motivation for me to keep on living by being kind of the reason I fell in love with idols in the first place which is a fact about me that proceeded to shape the narrative at it's very core and who I'm so close to it makes other people uncomfortable sometimes, yet I feel like I don't know him at all and like there's this chasm between us still — just disappeared without any notice for a few days at least and then I find out he's hypnotized himself to play around with some boring kid from his theater circle because he wasn't able to do that as a child. Shakes you there are so many layers to the Sanctuary thing when you think about it of course Eichi was being eaten up by jealousy I would be too for god's sake imagine thinking you're getting closer to someone and then they pull a stunt like that. Why would he rather toy around with this boring weirdo who doesn't even know him like Eichi does that should've been Eichi stuck in that construction area with Wataru not Tomoya! It's only logical because Tomoya hasn't been through what they've been through together. And Eichi is petty and a menace and I still think it was overly dramatic and a tad bit of an asshole move to just leave Tomoya there because he was angry with him while Tomoya was just some guy roped into this without his will or knowledge but I get it. In a way I understand it. I think it's over the top but what is Eichi Tenshouin if not over the top and a little (or very) dumb sometimes and you know what they say about how love makes blind yeah I think that also applies to common sense there.

[jh-newman-opn]

The Moscow Fiasco

At the prodding of @quonunc, here is a quick overview of the incident I fondly referred to as "the Moscow fiasco" in a previous ask about the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It's a subject dear and horrifying to my heart after I wrote my undergrad dissertation on it.

In short: this is to do with how the Moscow Patriarchate (Russian Orthodox Church, hereafter ROC) is entirely in bed with the Russian government, and how Patriarch Kirill (of Moscow and All Russia) has been responding to the ongoing situation in Ukraine (and former Soviet lands more generally). Picture will make sense lower down the post.

The slightly longer short answer is that Patriarch Kirill is entirely in favour of the Ukraine war, and the ROC clergy are under significant pressure to support that as an official church stance-- my dissertation topic started to germinate when, completely by accident, I came across a 10-minute video of a ROC priest explaining very slowly and carefully that when he met the Pope, he did not talk about Ukraine. Will link this video if I can find it again, but at present it's proving elusive. (EDIT: found it!!! It was the Metropolitan Hilarion of Budapest and Hungary. This video looks like a hostage video honestly £10 says there's someone behind the camera holding a gun to this man's head for legal reasons this is a joke).

The foundation for this belief is obviously completely political (and the history of how the ROC and Russian state are completely entwined is long and complicated to say the least!), but officially the ROC stance is that it's about reclaiming the historic Slavic spiritual unity founded on the Baptism of Rus' in the year 988 by Vladimir the Grand Prince of Kievan Rus' when Slavdom become Orthodox. Proponents of this "Russian World" theory (Russkiy Mir') basically argue that it's the influence of the West that has fractured the unified Slavic people into different, opposing nations, and that by "liberating" Ukraine of this alien ideology of nationhood, the Slavic Orthodox world will regain its historic unity under the common banner of Orthodoxy. All I will say on this is that these people have a very rosy view of Kievan Rus', but that's a post for another day.

This has obviously caused friction within the Orthodox world. Ukraine now has two Orthodox churches-- the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which is in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is in communion with the Russian Patriarchate. They are not in communion with each other, and Constantinople's decision to grant autocephalous status to the OCoU caused Moscow to schism with Constantinople. Constantinople is also accusing Moscow of heresy (specifically, ethno-phyletism). Moscow obviously denies this. Obvious question for the Catholics among us-- does this mean Russian Orthodox christians are no longer Orthodox? No, because schisms between Orthodox churches are not particularly unusual, and they remain within the general cloud of Orthodox communion links.

The whole mess is then immortalised in the absolute monstrosity that is the Main Cathedral to the Russian Armed Forces, which is what I wrote my diss on. The YouTube video linked there is promotional material from Russian military-themed TV channel Звезда, and is one of the better sources of info on it-- a lot of English-language sources contain a lot of incorrect information on it-- either because they don't understand the cultural background, or just straight up lies from the Russian govt propaganda arm--, so take anything they say with a grain of salt. Kirill then gives televised sermons from this cathedral in which he talks about the glorious Russian martyrs of the Ukraine invasion, does his best to harmonise Stalinism and Orthodoxy, and oversees military parades for national holidays. This cathedral has a huge amount of weird symbolism and imagery, and I am super happy to talk more about the mosaics and propaganda going on there, because it's a lot (to say the quiet part out loud: pLEASE ask me more about this cathedral because the more I think about it the more scream-worthy facts about it I remember).

You may have seen memes with this picture of the Virgin Mary (below). Yeah that's from this cathedral. And it's a really really fucked up image. Like, more fucked up than you may think. Could have written my entire diss on this image alone and how shockingly awful it is. western orthobro converts who keep reblogging it as if it's somehow cool and macho are just showing how little they know and it's embarrassing.

The militarism of the ROC since this whole thing has also gone bonkers and there's a huuuuuge amount of corruption and weird stuff going on. The tension between the clergy and the laity has been extremely high for decades, and has spilled over most notably in Pussy Riot's Punk Prayer stunt, an exhibition called Осторожно, религия! (beware, religion!), and some shenanigans in church-building more generally. On this particular incident I would point to the blessing of nuclear weapons and the canonisation of a patron saint of long-range nuclear missiles as key moments. The cathedral also has matching mosaics of Putin and Stalin, a fact that the Russian government very much wants you to think never happened (officially the mosaics were removed, but they absolutely were not-- muggins here found them and has the pictures to prove it).

The main takeaway from this topic is that situation is obviously complicated and the repercussions for everyone involved-- particularly Russian and Ukrainian laypeople-- are unpleasant to say the least. It gives something of a window into the Putin regime and its propaganda arm (Epiphany swim, topless horseriding pictures, Soviet-style policies, I could go on) more than anything else, because the situation inside the ROC is still quite obscure. From talking to people who know Kirill personally, it's not clear quite what he thinks is going on or why he's involved the way he is. Either way. Fiasco.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Barrister Law USA on Twitter has said the Harkles are living apart. We may be advised to take every post by accounts online ‘with a grain of salt’ but when multiple blogs and accounts are posting the same thing, something must be going on.

Barrister Law is not credible. They’re a lawyer in the southern US who has a medical emergency every time they get called out or challenged by the twitterati. Someone who can’t handle the heat isn’t someone who has trustworthy gossip.

But a broken clock is right twice a day.

And, do you know why we always say “take with salt” when it comes to internet gossip? Because it’s all anonymous sources that cannot be verified from anonymous accounts that cannot be authenticated. We have no idea if everyone is using the same sources. We have no idea if people are making things up. We have no idea if the sources are legitimate or if they have a grudge or if they have actual connections or if there’s bias involved.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say this again: Just because multiple accounts and blogs are talking about the same thing, it doesn’t mean it’s actually happening. All it means is that those accounts and those blogs are in the same echo chamber and share many of the same users/visitors. That’s why it’s important to diversify where you get your news (or gossip) from, so you get out of that echo chamber so you can see what is really happening.

So for me, when I see the same stories on my spectrum of websites, that tells me something is brewing - because I know liberal publications and bloggers absolutely do not have the same sources as conservative publications and bloggers.

For the record, since many are asking:

CDAN and Enty do completely make things up themselves but they do have good connections to Hollywood PR

DeuxMoi also makes things up and has gone on the record saying they make things up. Not trustworthy at all.

Exposing SMG takes gossip and analysis from other blogs and websites and repackages it as their own.

I do believe that Lady C has sometimes-knowledgeable sources but she keeps moving the goalposts for The Big Sussex Takedown so her accuracy is doubtful. I think she makes some things bigger to keep her audience and viewers engaged.

BarkJack/TLF has bonafide journalism credentials but I doubt their sources are still in the know because everything they take credit for happened years ago and their scoops are so vague (to protect their sources, as they always claim) because it lets them take credit for everything no matter how it actually happens.

Astrology and tarot is all subjective based on the reader and the reader’s own biases and I don’t consider their readings to have any authority until after a prediction has come to pass.

But what I do note about astrology and tarot is that when several people on different platforms who I know don’t know each other are saying the same/similar things, that’s worth paying attention to. And so far, that “universal signal” (if you will) has only happened three times: in mid-2017 when many of these began picking up on a new baby for the Cambridges, in 2020 or 2021 (I’ll have to find my notes to double-check specific dates) when those sites noted a pregnancy loss for the Cambridges, and this summer when they were seeing big changes in store for the Sussexes October/November. While these sites are saying different causes (Sussex divorce/separation, the children and LOS issues, the children’s titles, Charles modernizing, Charles dying, Sussexes returning) they’re all citing October/November timeframe. That’s worth paying attention to, IMO.

I don’t watch any of the royal YouTubers so I can’t comment on any of them.

Reddit is kinda a crapshoot. It’s hit or miss. SMM gets good gossip but the channel and most of its commentariat have huge angry biases against the Sussexes so I always question how much of it is real and how much of it is exaggerated for engagement. The Royal Gossip sub is fairer but they also cover all royals everywhere and sometimes you may have to dig.

Quora is definitely a crapshoot. Christopher Jones/Jackson/Johnson (I forget his last name) started out credible but lately seems to be more fantastist and I’m not sure that he’s as credible or believable any more.

[npdclaraoswald]

Saw someone complain that people who way RTD's first era was racist just don't understand the text because Ten's "Just walk around like you own the place" was supposed to be an indictment of Ten in a "mocking colorblind liberals" kind of way, not in a "that's genuinely a fine way to treat a companion of color" way. So I'm gonna lay out why I think Russel T Davies' writing is racist. This does come with the caveat that I am white person, so you should take my analyses of racism in media with more than a few grains of salt because I do have some major blind spots.

While I'm certainly not a fan of it, my criticisms of RTD's eras are not limited to "Nine and Ten treat Mickey and Martha like shit," because yes, I do recognize that the flaws of the character do not inherently reflect the flaws of the writer. I think the narrative treats Mickey and Martha like shit.

With Mickey, it's easy to point to, especially in series 1 how he's written to be comically pathetic and undeserving of Rose's affection, particularly in comparison to the Doctor. This does get better as time goes on, especially after Pete's World, and I've heard that Mickey was cast with colorblind casting, so you could say that this was largely accidental. Especially since it does get better, it's easy to assume they let up on it once they had Noel Clarke. But RTD's black characters standing in the shadow of white characters is an ongoing theme. And that's not even mentioning the Doctor calling him an ape, because that is a Doctor character flaw and not something that I think is reinforced by the show itself. I just would be remiss not to mention it.

Similarly, Martha is held in constant comparison to Rose and we are left with no shadow of a doubt that the Doctor thinks she comes up short. Which again, you could say is a character flaw of the Doctor's, not reflective of RTD's opinions on the character. But it would have been naive at best for him to believe that doing so wouldn't make the fans hate Martha. She already set up for failure sheerly by being the follow up to the first companion of the revival- fans were always going to hate her for not being Rose. And maybe RTD was trying to criticize that impulse and make fans do some self reflection. But that's not remotely what happened and I do think it would have been stupid of him if he expected that to happen. As is, and as should have been obvious, the Doctor's attitude only reinforced fan impulses to the point that I to this day see people who hate Martha for "taking Rose's place."

But admittedly, the writer can't be held wholly responsible for the fans, he is not them. And if it were just Mickey and Martha being compared to the Doctor and Rose and being told that they're lesser by characters in universe, I might be able to let it go. But it's not just that. It's the fact that Martha has to- not just emotionally as most companions do- literally support the Doctor, having to get jobs to provide for them in both Blink and the Family of Blood two parter with no question of why she's the one that has to do that in Blink and he doesn't. That we the audience are supposed to give a single shit about Joan Redfern to the point that she gets a finale cameo a full season later. That her finale cameo tells us more about her life and wellbeing than Mickey and Martha's does. That Martha's family is enslaved by the Master with no acknowledgement of the different weight that that carries for them versus Jack. That Martha does all of the work to save the world in the year that never was and the Doctor gets all the credit.

And of course, there's Mickey and Martha together. The fact that they had barely spoken to each other previously and that Martha was engaged to a different man the last time we saw her. The fact that their relationship could easily work but there is no work put into it. That we the audience are supposed to just accept a major change in two major characters without question and just be like "of course they'd be together."

You can say other companions went through similar things, but that falls into the same liberal colorblindness that pretends that the same events don't weigh differently given the impact race has on people. Or you can make excuses for each one of these things and say that we the audience were supposed to criticize it on our own rather than being told to do so. But they add up.

And of course, there is the shitshow that is the Fourteenth Doctor. We were told Ncuti would be Fourteen. I was so excited to finally have a main black Doctor. And then out of nowhere, that title was stolen from him and given to yet another fucking white guy. A white guy who had already had a turn. Two turns if you count Tentoo! Before we could let a single black person lead the show, we had to let David Tennant know that he's the most special little boy on the planet. And then even after sucking Tennant's dick for an entire year, RTD still could not let Ncuti have the spotlight to himself. He had to redefine the way one of the basic facets of the show works specifically so he could let the world's most special white boy continue to keep playing the Doctor. Ensuring, just like he did with Martha, that fans would never let our black character just exist on their own, they would always have to contend with clamoring for their white counterpart to return and take back the mantle. And while we're at it, let's not even let Ncuti wear proper clothes in his debut. Those go to Tennant as well.

So yeah. Dot and Bubble was a good episode. I do think his textual treatment of race has improved. I however think his subtext still is, and always has been shit, whether he consciously realizes it or not. Regardless of his trying to criticize racism, he is still absolutely influenced by it.

[brown-little-robin]

You ABSOLUTELY do not have to answer this if you don’t feel comfortable doing so, but what is a “side b” Christian? I tried looking it up but the results were kinda vague :/

Hey, thanks for asking! (this ask is in reference to this post btw)

Okay, so, "side B" is a term that some Christians use to describe how they fit into the wide debate of how the Church should address same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria—basically, how the church should deal with LGBTQ+ issues. The term "side B" is used alongside the terms "Side A" and "Side X", which I'll explain to the best of my knowledge in a moment.

Before I start, though, I'm not an expert on the history of these terms. Here's one source that might get you started, but I have not done extensive research on this, so take this with a grain of salt! <3

Also, note: The topic of transgender people is a little bit blurry in these frameworks, with some people agreeing mostly with one "side" on attraction but agreeing mostly with another on gender dysphoria.

"Side A" Christians (the typically more liberal side) believe that the Bible (and/or God, in cases where people don't believe the Bible is the arbiter of truth) supports LGBTQ+ people acting on same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria. So, according to this worldview, same-sex attraction is not a sin; same-sex marriage and relations are not a sin; and so the Church should speak publicly about and embrace LGBTQ+ relationships, transitions, and/or lifestyles. In my experience, Side A Christians usually point out that the Greek word translated "homosexual" in the New Testament refers to pedophiles (instead of?) (as well as?) people living in homosexual relationships. Again, though, I haven't done full research on that one. "Side X" Christians (the typically more conservative side) believe that same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria are sins, and that therefore the Church should not speak about and/or should completely denounce same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria. They may believe in what's sometimes called "Pray the Gay Away": the belief that if you have enough faith in God and/or pray hard enough, He will take away your same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria. "Side B" Christians believe that the Bible says that all people struggle with temptations to sin, including, for some, sexual attraction to the same sex and/or gender dysphoria, and so the Church should not deny that these struggles exist or act like the people who struggle with them are any worse than anyone struggling with heterosexual lust or any other sin—but that the Bible also has a clearly stated framework that Christian marriages should fit into: one man and one woman, having sex only in a marriage. Side B Christians typically believe that the Church should not ignore the fact that there are LGBT+ Christians, nor should it embrace same-sex relations. Instead, it should acknowledge the struggle of having same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria and provide compassion, give life direction that is toward God and not toward the world, and just... you know... not isolate and whisper about such Christians like they're any worse than anyone struggling with, like, selfishness or jealousy or gambling or addiction or any other desire of the flesh. EDIT: A Side B perspective typically does not state that attraction or dysphoria themselves are sins. Those are temptations (and/or struggles), and like the post linked here (this post) says, temptation is not the same as sin (acting on temptation). Yeah, personally, I agree most with the Side B perspective. It seems the most Biblically sound perspective to me.

"Side A" and "Side B" are usually descriptors used only by Christians who identify with LGBTQ+ attraction and/or gender identity. So, people may call themselves "Side B bi", for example, as a shorthand for saying "I'm attracted to both genders, but I believe that it is only okay to have sex under the Biblical marriage framework". But I find the terms "Side A" and "Side B" a useful framework to describe worldviews in general, even for heterosexual people who identify with their biological sex. Use your own discretion about that one. I personally sometimes call myself "Side B" out of convenience, although I don't have same-sex attraction, but I strive to be respectful and compassionate to those who use "Side B" to indicate that they personally struggle with same sex attraction, and so I don't go throwing the term around willy-nilly. By the way, I do technically fall under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella: aromantic asexual here (although I hold those terms loosely) with a history of mild gender dysphoria.

"Side A", "Side B", and "Side X" are simply convenient terms for broad views on sexual morality and Christian perspectives on LGBTQ+ issues. I use them when they're convenient, but strive to meet every individual person and converse with people, not broad "sides", learning how each person interprets the Bible and what their individual church history and personal context is in order to learn how they think about Biblical, Christian, social, and LGBTQ+ issues. I find that the individual conversations are far more productive and less divisive than arguing along "party lines".

[brilliantfantasticgeronimo]

66.7512 meters episode!!!

i think i broke his heart! oh well!!!! ÑLKÑLK ruby y are u so happy about this all the time skfljdks1 (waiting for the karmic writing where someone breaks *her* heart....). tbh also very doctor-like. they are *so* unhinged

i was looking for some Spin-off foreshadowing in this war between land and sea business but best i've got is that... it will probably be set in wales ksdlfj

nuclear war is hilarious. fiften u are not all right.

That's the most bizarre "circle" ive ever seen. if anything is the orthogonal projection of a geodesic dome.

"A pee around the back"…….. dr pee foreshadowing

AESOP #1: children, when u are doing "off the road tourism", don't disturb sacred sites

susan twist's "thing" is just gonna be: "take revenge from being killed so many times". like she's just red-shirting all over the place (maybe it's gonna be a bit of meta commentary of the high body count of this show? that it's all for our sadistic pleasure but doesn't always have real significance skfldj)

I guess inflation is a recurring theme this season?

liminal spaaaace

"and then there's the blood""w-what blood?" i laughed ngl sksksk

the different color fonts in iplayer are a bit distracting tbh…...

ah yes. welsh racism...

hmmm… runy sitting in the chair... to wait in front of the tardis... "The one who waits?"

Thats' what men do skdksk love me some "Intergalactic fuck boy" subtext being voice and made text

Poor ruby ):

it's about the [metaphor for being stigmatized]!!!

Ohh the doctor was the first to disappear by the curse, maybe?

"even ur real mother didnt want u" Bro this monster is so mean wtf Kate!!!

AGAINST HIM, SOMETIMES!!!!!!!!! Antagonist kate be coming!!!

"well, that's classified"

This timeline might be suspended along ur event???

WE INVENT THE RULES AND MAKE THEM WORK!!! THEMES!! YOU HAVE TO COUNT EVERY GRAIN OF SALT!!! IT'S THE GAME THEME CONNECTING TO THE SUPERSTITION THEME!!!!!!!!

theeeemes

the more unit gets competent the more sinister they become

her going "cheers!" to her personal satan. i love u ruby

FUCK YEAH. ICON. GO KILL THE PRIME.MINISTER

...only guys in ruby's little montage ]: im heartbroken T.T rip the x5 times wlw companions streak dream it seems

"except the bed thing that was u" narrator voice: it wasnt

"Which is what?" KILL THE PM KILL THE PM DO IT ICON

Rtd connected to the universe skskdk oh beautiful synergy

[also literally how Y&Y starts... ]

"No more" feels loaded/intentional here, considering how it's been used before as an Important Phrase is War's arc.

the emo advisor guy intrigues me

Ruby having to solve this whole thing + cold war vibes.... mmm very ace coded

[lol @ soc dem / liberal writers being so scared of "populism" and "the dumbness of crowds". peak soc dem / liberal] [what is a "political allegory story" by a soc dem without the punchline being that "I think The People are really fucking Stupid actually"] [i do enjoy the side point of british politicians being so desperate for relevancy that they fire nuclear missiles for the fun of it. yeah… that tracks]

[lol becoming independent from nato being a bad thing. lol #"fucklybia!!"#signed:thisepisode]

the directing is very fun in this

Ruby get on your feets and make it happen

She's gonna say u forgot to say hi to this lady

ruby's asking to be shot again sksks

Iris u say…........ eyes emoji

[ok but also. lol not to go " ah, peak liberal again!" but lol. this resolution is peak liberal [ie. fundamentally antidemocratic, a few 1% technocrats (obvs, privileged and from the global north) with the answers "know what's best"]. this lad may have been crazy but they voted for him for a reason that "the system" wasnt providing.but in typical soc dem fashion they can't ever fight the fascists on The Real Deal ie. strength of a proposed political project + material gains resulted from those political projects + committing to real system change, so they have to scramble for antidemocratic solutions like [timey wimey prisons] to ""fight facism""" (ie not fighting it at all and by proxy, just making the fucking cockroaches stronger each "election cycle" because they can't fight them in a meaningful, political sense) bc the people are just too stupid!!! and this is why democracy was a mistake!!!!!!! ... sigh rtd. oh well good thing i didn't expect more on this front tbh sdlkjfdsd in that sense the s1-s4 rewatch prepared me well lol]

clara vibes in this ep in a lot of moments (old!ruby, sort of "mausoleum tardis", etc)

"i didnt travel with him long..." "but it felt like a lifetime" became literal…

"Everyone has abandoned me my whole life" T_T

AESOP #2: kids u are never alone <3 u always have ur inner demons :) and the unrelenting spectra of death~

There's always something a bit unsatisfying about self closing paradoxes... kinda like "oh it was all a dream so it didnt matter". but i think in this one it was crunchy enough with other things that i think it was balanced.

Very turn left-y ending! CONCLUSIONS!! people kept saying in the press this episode was gonna be "super scary" tbh i just found it.... profoundly sad sdxkljflkfj ruby's life just *screams* "missing the important bits by focusing on the unimportant" and "obsessing over things that don't matter" and "companion becomes detached from real life to the point they become super unhinged and callous" ("im sorry i couldn't help you marti")

(c+p some stuff i put on a discord): tbh i rolled my eyes at the political stuff but i don't think im even mad about it this time lol (too tired irl to get properly angry at doctor who these days ig)

anyway i dont think the political stuff is what it was really "about". i found this story very moving on what it was (imo) rlly about: ruby's fear and experience of being abandoned and also the general "fear of approaching death"

and obvs a bit of other emotional beats that are more specific to doctor who's long running stories: like the doctor "always does this" ie leaves everyone of his friends behind and there's the lingering tragedy that this will happen, as well, to ruby inevitably, then also both ruby and the doc becoming 'detached' from real life (ruby basically never investing anything in those relationships w/ those guys bc she was 'absorbed' by this mystery /clearly a parallel to her being absorbed by her parental origin) and also how tourists cant watch where they step / the doctor and co arent always respectful to the 'silly traditions' of the places they visit (tbh excellent bc to overcome my "this show has the white man's burden' engraved in its dna" meta... the show is gonna have to keep making story like and like Demons of Punjab for at least 3 more decades lol) (basically tldr i think it fumbled the politics stuff but it was rlly crunchy where it mattered. also, ....... i think this pretty much confirms that ruby isn't her own mother / the person who let herself at the door step in Christmas, right??? like rtd had said was the short story he had concocted years ago, and was the insp for this... but he kinda used up that trick here… so it must be something/someone else, right?) (another thing: ruby going "i used to be able to make it snow" made smth click....... ---> if ruby's whole focus rn seems to be about "the mystery", and this quest seems to be not only something she *needs* but also something that like... means joy and adventure, and traveling with the doctor... when she finds out the Truth,,, that probably means all the whimsy in her life will go away? (so she may come to a point where she Doesn't want to know Actually (which would be very "thirteen regretting throwing away the watch" realness mirror again)

[kebriones]

I do not understand why you think he was trying to become a tyrant, it seems like he was just scandalized by others and scapegoated, but enjoyed life and fled, because he had lived and wished to live on. and then all the later ones like plutarch wrote to make him seem parallel to some roman (making his account highly skewed using anecdotes just to fit the ”parallel”), so all scholarship is basically biased by noncontemporary sources, because it appears those doxographers did not have access to scientific thinking (like thucydides) for some reason. and then modern scholarship experts STILL appears to trust gossip that plutarch relies on more than empirical fact, instead of demythologizing the gossip like thucydides did. for example the one you cited some time earlier about alcibiades helping the playwright by wiping off the name is seen as a ”threat to democracy”; however, what about the democracy’s laws in the first place which made the playwright come into such legal trouble, suggesting that the laws were hostile to artists—a form of censorship. so alcibiades was ultimately only going against censorship for artists and helping them, but people scandalize him as a tyrant for it when in reality the playwright accuser was the tyrant and censor, and alcibiades the liberator.

1. I am not saying he was trying to become i tyrant, I said there are specific reasons why the Athenians thought he wanted to become a tyrant.

2. If Alcibiades wanted to live a peaceful life after athens fell to sparta, he would've disappeared and lived his life somewhere quietly. Of course he wanted to live, but he also still had ambitions, which is why he went to pharnabazus, even though he knew pharnabazus had relationships with the spartans.

3. Of course Plutarch has a ton of anecdotes that we must take with a grain of salt. However, Alcibiades' excesses, his need to show off and his lawless behavior is mentioned in so many sources, including Thucydides.

4. The anecdote about Alcibiades erasing the lawsuit is literally the least known anecdote about him you can imagine. It doesn't exist in Plutarch, and it doesn't exist in almost any essay or study or article or book about Alcibiades that I've read. I found it by accident, reading a very detailed analysis of the functions of the buildings of the ancient agora in athens.

5. I don't know how else to put this so I'm sorry for how i will word this: your point about laws being hostile to artists and censorship doesn't make sense. We don't know what type of lawsuit that guy was facing. It could've been literally anything. It had nothing to do with his job or censorship as far as we know. Alcibiades wasn't trying to save an artist from censorship, he wasn't liberating anyone. And it's an anecdote as much as the one about him tossing eupolis the poet in the sea because he was mad eupolis made a whole play making fun of him. (The Baptai), so we yet again have to take it with a grain of salt.

It is also very important to remember what a tyrant was in ancient athens. A tyrant could be benevolent, a tyrant could be loved and supported by the people, a tyrant could offer services to the city. The problem was that a tyrant dissolved democracy, which the Athenians tried to preserve. Alcibiades did threaten democracy with his behavior, whether he himself wanted to become a proper tyrant or not, that's how he was perceived, and that's why his fellow citizens were weary of him.

The problem with what sources we can trust for Alcibiades is certainly there. If we want to only look at what's as close to absolutely true as possible, we can only look at Thucydides. But there's a huge amount of other writings about him, from orations to plato, from Xenophon to Plutarch, and there's merit in looking at all of them and getting the overall image of who and what Alcibiades was for his contemporaries and the people of the following centuries, who had access to more sources about him than we do. So we shouldn't trust the specifics, but his overall behavior and character is too consistent across sources for it to not reflect what his actual behavior must have been.

[1yyyyyy1]

Why is the endless empathy for women who continue to make choices that uphold patriarchy but none is ever shown to women who are tired and want to escape that? Infact when the latter is frustrated with the actions of the majority they are called misogynistic or fake feminists

Many reasons. I have my own biased opinions as to why they behave the way they do, so take this with a grain of salt.

I do believe that most male-attracted women are aware that their life choices will ultimately lead them down the path of marriage and childbearing, hence creating a social padding through guilt tripping and manipulation is a sensible course of action in their case. The male-aligned female figure is easier to empathize with for the average crowd; it is their own unaddressed subconscious. It would not be a stretch to expect the compassion they preach and pride themselves on to be reciprocated yet they routinely fail to do so. There's a misconception that their dismissive attitude is contradictory when it isn't, you simply have to stop believing their words about prioritizing female liberation and women. Factually, their behavior is fully in line with their beliefs, which is maintaining their personal comfort by any means necessary.

It is telling that you say 'frustrated', as in you are reacting to some kind of action on women's part. Women having enough agency to terrorize the women around them is a far cry from the image of a hapless victim they are presented to be. It is true that women's actions can be both self-serving and abusive, making reaction to said abuse imminent. Most people are ignorant when it comes to psychology and either lack the necessary knowledge to come to an appropriate conclusion or refuse to reflect on the nuance out of malice. Inflammatory behavior can be a consequence of prolonged emotional abuse and requires the exact kind of understanding these women demand. I know what an outburst looks like and I have had people confirm to me that my assessment of their behavior was correct. Women seem to fall into a similar 'victims do not behave that way' mindset when presented with vitriol and tend to be dismissive of whoever it is they consider too outspoken to have suffered plenty. In their mind, there is an idea of a petty privileged girl who has no compassion for fellow women out of wilful ignorance. In that sense, there is nothing to have compassion for.

I see a similar point being addressed time and time again without a semblance of resolution, leading to frustration from both sides of the argument. Whether separatism is an effective strategy or not is irrelevant. The point is that you are allowed to recognize that the women who partner men endorse men as a class, and to assert boundaries should you find it to be a conflicting value. That can involve excluding male-partnered women from your social circle and feeling entitled to it. Anything else is abuse.

[willpapilio]

Minos Prime, Soul Survivor Monologue, Latin Translation

More than zero people liked the last one I did for ol' Gabe, so why not recycle another old translation of mine for free serotonin?

This one wasn't verified by my teacher, so take it with a big fat grain of salt. It is also, however, a much simpler monologue, so this time I'm actually reasonable confident in my prattling. Again, I'll be justifying my choices after the translation.

Latin Translation: Ah… liber tandem. O, Gabriel, nunc dilucescit rationem(1) tuum, et cruorem tuum fulgebit ante templa hominum! Animal ferri, gratias meas in te(2) liberandi me. Sed scelera genus tuus contra humanitatem admiserant non obliti sunt. Et poena tua… EST MORS.

Liberties:

1: This was honestly the most fitting word I could find. It does mean "reckoning", but take great joy in that it also means "ratio".

2: I'm like 83% certain this works for "upon thee", but who's counting? It's not like Caesar is gonna come back from hell to tell me I'm wrong.

Yeah, only two notes this time. Pretty good for me, I think. Again, feel free to bark this at your friends and loved ones, if you don't want them to keep being your friends and loved ones.

[spicybylerpolls]

AO3 Stats

Here are some very basic stats on AO3 regarding E-rated Byler fics posted/updated before and after this account was created: (assuming it was created 23 days ago, as per the pinned introduction post)

Important note I only spent about 5 minutes looking at AO3, so I’m sure some of these numbers will be wrong, but the point is just to show the trends. I’m also rounding the final numbers a bit more liberally, just so the numbers and changes are visibly clear. Also, again, I only spent about 5 minutes doing this, so I didn’t check for whether or not Byler was the main or minor ship, or whether or not it was E due to sexual reasons or due to other reasons (such as violence or other explicit themes). Take these numbers with a grain of salt. If I have time later I’ll do a more thorough analysis (unless someone else wants to do it first). I also know that fics take a long time to plan and write, so the numbers are probably off by quite a bit. I’m assuming these numbers will only get higher. Remember that I am not a statistician, I’m just bored and commuting to work.

For the 3 months prior, the average number of E-rated Byler fics per week was ~ 5.5, while for the past 23 days, it’s been ~ 8.3. That’s an increase of ~ 50%

Within the same time period (the past 23 days compared to 23 days prior) it’s also an increase of about 42%

Just looking at single chapter fics over the same time periods, the increase is lower, at 20% (that was literally only a 2-fic difference, so take that with a grain of salt)

There’s been an overall increase in Byler fics in general, I’m assuming due to the fact that they’ve started filming season 5. So within the same time periods, proportionally to all other Byler fics posted/updated: E-rated Byler fics / total Byler fics went from 11% -> 13%, and E-rated single chapter Byler fics / total single chapter Byler fics went from 11% -> 19%

As a poll: Are you more interested in engaging with, or writing, more E-rated Byler fics since this account was created? Yes/no

Please note that the purpose of this blog is not to be creepy or to make anyone uncomfortable. That's why I created the #spicy byler tag (I will tag all polls with this). If you don't want to see this blog or anything related to it on your feed, please block that tag. Not everyone is comfortable with this sorta stuff, and that's okay.

[jerzwriter]

I think anon is referring to that *one* confession about Ethan. Because in the rb and # people were saying that it was because he's white and "that says a lot about us" 🥲

Hey there.

Like I said in my previous answer, unless it is someone whose opinion you value, and who you would go to for advice? Take it with a grain of salt and move on with your day.

I could say everyone who favors (insert character) has crabs. It wouldn’t make it true. Same with these assertions. It is crazy talk. Don’t let it bother you.

I am not saying it doesn’t sting when people say nasty, false things about you. It does. But take Elsa’s advice and let it go.

They don’t know you, and have zero right to judge you. The fact that they do says a lot about THEM, and that’s based in fact, not fantasy.

Oh, and again… use unfollow and block liberally. Protect your own peace.

Chin up. 😊

[theshoesofatiredman]

I'm going through a crisis of faith and I'm terrified of losing everything. Do you have any advice?

My heart goes out to you. We shouldn't have to risk losing everything when we change what we believe, but extreme losses are too often the norm for those who question and change their religious beliefs. I'll try to give some advice, but not knowing any details of your situation take it with a grain of salt.

Having a crisis of faith is to some degree a fairly typical part of being a person of faith. It's happened to plenty of famous faith adherents, people who would be considered theological giants. I say this because when I would tell Christians that I couldn't hear the voice of God anymore, they would blame me. I did something wrong. It was my fault. And I needed to repent of the sin that caused it. Anon this is not a helpful nor do I think it is a true lens to look at your situation through. You have every right to doubt and question and every right to receive answers. And many faith adherents experience periods of silence from their god(s).

Know that it is possible to live a good and fulfilling life apart from your current faith system. There are so many ways to be happy, to find meaning, to have purpose, to enjoy community. Faith and its adherents don't have the sole claim to a joyous and rich existence. I found this to be true after I left my faith in evangelical Christianity behind and still saw love and joy and meaning in my life. In some ways, even more than I did before. Wherever you end up, even if you stay in your faith system, I think it's possible to live a good life filled with wonder.

Find safe people / spaces where you can be in crisis. I would have been so much worse off without the therapist I had in 2021. I got extremely lucky in that she was a liberal episcopalian who had deconstructed from an evangelical upbringing so she was familiar with the shit I was going through. But even a therapist without that background can provide a safe space where you can share what you're experiencing without judgment. There also do exist religious deconstruction communities, online and offline, where people can share their journeys. I took to Tumblr (obviously) but if you can find something in person I think that would be helpful. I started really deconstructing in the height of the pandemic so something in person would've been really hard to find but I encourage you to look for a group in your area. There are people around you walking the same path.

Music was a big part of dealing with the emotional experience of losing my faith. I think probably because music was such a big part of my faith as well. If you can find some music that resonates with your experience, it can help you feel less alone I think.

Prioritize your physical safety. If you become an apostate, don't tell anyone who would be a danger to you. If you could lose your home or your job if they knew you no longer believed, I would recommend keeping that to yourself until you have other options lined up.

As you go on this journey, try to find a variety of perspectives to listen to. Critics, apostates, people in deconstruction, religious leaders, adherents to your faith -- feel out your beliefs with input from across the spectrum.

Here is something I believe, and feel that it's been true in my life so far: you can rebuild. If there's time left in your lifespan, there is probably time to rebuild your life into something new. The losses can be great, but so can the gains. Also, and again I don't know your situation, but you might not lose as much as you think, and there's probably more to gain than you think as well.

That said, I don't want to minimize the real suffering that comes with both the preemptive feeling of "I'm going to lose everything" as well as the actual experience of losing everything. My relationship with my very evangelical family is horrifically fractured because I both embraced being gay and eventually became an atheist. And I still feel the pain from that loss. But I also daily get to experience the joys of my new life as a gay man and the remarkable freedom from the shame that once weighed on me daily.

I hope this helps. Wishing you the best on your journey.

[the1975attheirverybest]

Why do you think latino and black people voted for trump?

obviously take what I say with a grain of salt since I’m not a Latino or black person who voted for Trump. But my understanding (from the analysis I’ve seen and from the social media posts that voters tend to make justifying their choices) is that Trump makes bold declarations. Ones that make people feel like he’s going to “topple the system.” Lots of people say that he was more effective in 2016 when he was viewed as an “outsider” who’s going to “drain the swamp.” But after his first term, it seems libs were banking on the idea that he’s not as convincing since we’ve seen what he actually stands for and he didn’t deliver on any of the promises that he made. now what SHOULD happen and what actually happened/happens aren’t always the same. Sadly. The truth is that he just says bold things and you hear monitories justify it with “well yeah he may he racists BUT….” part of the issue is also that dems don’t offer a viable alternative. With respect to the Latino vote, Kamala’s immigration policy was downright right wing. Biden put off the conservative agenda for two years but then he went and applied it. The stories coming out of detentions centers are horrible and the restrictions Kamala promised were even worse. I think psychologically people tend to feel like “what’s to come can’t be worse than what we already have” (even if it reality it can and will be). something similars going on with the arab American trump vote. Saw a guy give a speech at trumps victory announcement. That trump “promises peace” or whatever.

That’s how Trump gets people. Simply says vague and empty words like “if I was president this wouldn’t happen” or “when I’m president I will fix it.”

dems should’ve ran on a Tim Walz like platform. He’s proof that even in contentious / battle ground areas, bold policy is a great option. In Minnesota he managed to pass better gun laws, free lunch for all public schools, protections for queer kids, etc.

it’s always about how you make people feel about your presidency. Fuckin Trump still has sway, sadly. Especially amongst uneducated voters or people who feel unrepresented. My friends dad is Pakistani-American. When you speak to him, his views could very well be counted as liberal. And he’s experienced racism in the country as a first gen immigrant. BUT guess who he voted for? Trump. I know it doesn’t seem like it SHOULD go that way. But it DOES. again that’s how I understand it so take that as you may. Could be wrong.

[nickgerlich]

Grrrl Power

It’s funny-sad to watch old television programs and movies from the mid-century. Art truly imitated life, and we saw on our screens the depiction of what was the social norm. American values were what we would call ��traditional” these days, often built upon religious doctrine.

Men wore pants, women wore dresses, and gender role expectations were pretty rigid.

When we look back on this today, we may think it was quaint. I’m not going to be dismissive and say, “Well, it worked,” because we may have survived in spite of them, not because. It would also be easy to conclude that, because changes did come, maybe the old ways weren’t so good after all, or at least had lost their relevance.

At the risk of my students retorting with a snarky TL;DR, I’ll cut to the chase: Things are very different now, and women are free to pursue the life they want to live. It’s not perfect, mind you, but much better than before. Take what I say with a grain of salt, because I’m in mansplaining mode right now.

But if you’re in this blog for the long haul, lend me your eyes and ears. For the second time in recent years, there is a distinct possibility we may elect a woman President in seven weeks.

The division of labor within American homes has changed considerably. The notions of “man’s work” and “woman’s work” have blurred considerably, replaced by clearer thinking and a move toward task specialization. That’s another way of saying that the most-qualified person in the household does specific tasks, without regard to tradition or gender.

The change has been refreshing for me, even though I grew up in one of those traditional families. Dad brought home the bacon, and Mom cooked it. She also laundered, cleaned, mended, and did all the domestic things you could think of. Dad mowed, changed the oil, and customized the basement in our first house. They were raised to do just that.

Although I grew up surrounded by the traditional dyad, I was also afloat in a sea of change. Today, I have found myself in love with cooking, something I desperately had to learn after first wife left. I find it therapeutic, much like I don’t mind doing laundry. For that matter, as much as I want the grass to quit growing right now, I rather like spending a few hours on my tractor completely disconnected from everything else. These are jobs that need to be done, regardless of whether a man or woman does them.

I remember when—there’s my catch phrase again—I attended freshman orientation at my undergrad, which was a private Christian college. We met one evening for the Freshman Hike, which amounted to the boys lining up on the left, girls on the right, and then walking toward the huge cemetery across from campus. We had to take the hand of the girl beside us, and then proceed through the usual “What’s you name?” and “What’s your major?” After a minute or so, the leader of the event would yell, “Switch!” The first man would then drop to the back, and we all moved up one, meeting another young lady.

The big joke back then—this was 1977—was that most of the girls were there only to get a coveted “Mrs” degree. You know. A husband, thereby fulfilling her womanly mission. Kids would follow, as well as homemaking. If you picked up a few tidbits of knowledge along the way, good on you.

The liberation of women, though, is not just about career advancement and meaningful jobs. It is a necessity, when you consider that nearly 50% of all marriages in the US will end in divorce. Women, often with primary custody of children, wind up fending for themselves. It’s hard to make ends meet on dead-end minimum wage jobs.

The best way to try to insulate yourself from divorce is to wait a bit to marry. Those marrying after the age of 25 have the least incidence of divorce. Oh, and if you do divorce, be careful remarrying, because second and third marriages have a much higher rate of divorce than first marriages.

Putting this all together—and you knew I had a method to my madness—we see that the composition of American universities has changed considerably. Beginning around 1980, women started outnumbering men on campus. Today, about 58% are women, and only 42% men. At WT, the ratio is 59 to 41.

All of which means, guys, if you came here to find the spouse of your dreams—assuming you are straight—then the odds are stacked highly in your favor.

It’s a very different world from when I was a kid. About 46% of the US workforce is women, seven percentage points higher than the global average, but still only enough to put us at #71 of 180 nations. It’s getting better, and our economy has managed just fine accommodating the influx of new workers. Women have broken through numerous glass ceilings, but there is still room for improvement.

I have seen the changes since I was in grad school at Indiana University. Back then, women wore female versions of a man suit to job interviews and the office, meaning a skirted suit. Today, they can express their femininity with dresses, slacks, and other apparel. And men, don’t be surprised when you find yourself with a female boss. It is increasingly common, and if you have issues taking orders from a woman, you might just want to check yourself. These aren’t the 1950s, you know.

As the father of two daughters with good jobs and even better professional outlooks, I for one am happy to see the change. I raised my daughters to have this mindset, as did their mother. No woman should be subservient to men, in spite of how you interpret the Apostle Paul. His admonitions were written in a very different place and time. This is the 21C, and were he writing epistles today, I bet he would change his tune.

I know I have. And it’s a tune I kind of like.

Dr “You Go, Ladies!” Gerlich

Audio Blog

[flango87]

Non-reformist reform

I’m almost done reading It’s Not That Radical by Mikaela Loach, (which is a great read by the way, specifically if you are struggling to get involved in climate justice and the fight for liberation. Would recommend) In chapter 6, she talks about the concept of ‘non-reformist reform’. This term was coined by theorist André Gorz.

While I’m no expert on theory and can’t give an in depth explanation of reformism, (and because of that what I say should be taken with a grain of salt, im just here to share my thoughts please do your own studying lol) it’s used to refer to the ideology that we should gradually change, or reform, our system, rather than dismantling the system and rebuilding a new one. Reformist ideology is generally harmful because it is often used to advocate for ‘better’ capitalism, instead of advocating for the dismantling of capitalism. We can’t have ‘good capitalism’, because capitalism is inherently built off the of exploitation. Your only options in capitalism are to exploit or be exploited. Capitalism cannot be reformed into a non-oppressive system because it is oppressive by design.

But the system cannot be dismantled overnight. So what is the difference between reform, and understanding that we can only move in steps? This is the idea of non-reformist reform. As Loach says in her book, ‘Unlike pragmatism or reform that maintains the existing status quo, non-reformist reform refers to the gradual and more immediate wins that must be made on the path to a fully transformed and liberated society.’ I feel it can be seen as an arbitrary difference, but it’s important to consider how the actions we are taking fit into this. Are we maintaining the existing status quo? Or are we taking the steps necessary on the path to a liberated society? The way I look at it is this: if our system is a house, is our action switching out a brick for a different material, so it’s the same house with different characteristics? Or is it taking a brick out, a small step that is necessary to dismantle the house. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it made this idea clearer in my mind.

(Once again, I’m not an expert on theory and I’m not claiming to be, I just thought this idea was important, so we can be conscious of if our acts of resistance and protest may be unconsciously upholding the very values we are fighting.)

[katerinaaqu]

I am really happy you liked this and thank you so much for your sweet reblog! Yes I think so too! I mean sure imagination is one thing but at the same time people abused this to the point of a fan joke spreading like a wild fire and blasting out of proportions

And the funny part was that there were some other nasty Athenean comments if i recall correctly, that Spartan women were not liberated at all and that men who were old could sell these women to some young man to have children for them to have strong children and such. Obviously there is little to no evidence such thing happening and mostly it was just Athenean speaking that "ha ha Spartans are all bastards" which of course is the other end of the spectrum and doesn't bear much more truth than the others and needs to be taken with plenty of grains of salt. (Need to track all these sources down once more by the way because boy oh boy these are subjects on their own to discuss)

And yeah people take down to the tee the general idea that Spartan women had some more freedom compared to other Greek cities and then they make it sound as if all Spartan women were somehow the feminists of their time like no binary roles or society rules at all which again wasn't true

And as you brilliantly stated even if we take the Lycurgean reformation (and that set of rules had some strict as hell situations there!) That most likely had nothing to do with Sparta of Homer's weiting which was the mycenaean Sparta and all

Hi! Love your takes and all! What do you think of people talking about Penelope being all buff and strong physically as she was "Spartan?" or that she find Odysseus more attractive with blood plaster on his body as she is "Spartan" or such?. Is it true in the Epics? I read something about a Lykurgus or something..I just want to have a nuanced answer to that, also sorry for the silly question.

You are very kind Anon and I am glad you find them useful

Okay for starters I think this whole thing is a massive stereotype in regards to Sparta that "they are all sexually aroused by blood and violence". I mean yes Sparta as we know had an extreme military outline but it is not like they all just killed around to have fun like a twisted version of Asterix village or something. They valued war and the strength in war of course and they took pride to their warfare and all but yeah I think the whole thing of "oh gosh! Blood! Foreplay for Spartans" is just a joke that goes too far sometimes (although we DO have some exaggerated sources about the Spartans but, surprise surprise, they come from their main rival, Athens so yeah one needs to consider that too. So yeah although the Spartans were strictly military I do not think it is actually realistic to say that they all went like:

lol XD

Two this "Sparta" that they mostly mention is at least 100 years if not more away than the "Sparta" mentioned in the epic cycle. You see the Epic Cycle might have been synthesized at the 8th century BC but the events taking place in it, reflect on the Bronze Age or the Mycenean kingdoms which existed before. These "Spartans" everyone speaks about is usually referring to the Doriean Spartans. The Dorieans were a Greek set of tribes with their own dialect that came down from the north at the year around 1100 BC, around 100 years after the estimated date of the events of the Trojan war and they got to remain to the areas such as Macedonia or Lacedaimona aka Sparta thus we have Macedonians and Spartans speak Doric Greek dialect while Atheneans speak Attic Greek dialect and the Asia Minor greek cities speak Ionian etc Either way as I said the events of the Trojan war happened around 100 years before this Doric Tribe descend much less till the strictly military spartan system to be fully crystallized. So we need to think of that. And even then it is not like the Spartan women were some sort of body-builders who didn't have any sort of binary roles to their society or being active warriors in armies etc (don't mistake them for Amazons guys! Hahahaha!). They did actively excersize more than most Greek cities at that time and they did take part in athletic events more than let's say Athens (Athenean women by n large seemed to participate in sports such as running and those were exclusively for Hera's celebrations) so we can imagine they would be more athletic than the average Greek lady but that doesn't mean they were soldier-trained or anything. The military training was for boys at the city of Sparta. And women still had their own binary roles in their respected society, they just had some more freedom as compared to their Athenean counterparts.

So even if Myceneans DID have a more military form of society or at least based on the findings they did focus on warfare to their art and such and the building of their walls and all they still wouldn't be the same as the doric Sparta that were exclusively military. Could perhaps mycenean Sparta have the basis for the future doric Sparta? Perhaps but I doubt we have sufficient evidence to say they are identical.

Three. I believe that people who wanna desperately depict Penelope as some buff lady, misses the concept of Penelope's strength in the Odyssey. Penelope was not strong because she could fight with the sword. She was strong because she was mentally steadfast, clever and resourceful and enduring and she managed to hold the kingdom of Ithaca steadfast by herself for 20 years. It wasn't about her being buff lady. Homer does seem to imply she was tall and stoutly buillt; see my other post where I mention her physical description in Homer:

but not buff as "I'm gonna kick your ass" buff and all. Homer doesn't mention that any of the Spartan princesses have some specific training (Helen Clytemnestra or Penelope) but later literature implies that they have basic knowledge on weaponry (for example in later 5th century dramas and above Clytemnestra not only is seen wielding a weapon but knowing some basics as to how it was made) but it needs to be said that the posthomeric sources were also influenced by their contemporary Sparta aka the doric military Sparta. Homer doesn't imply that this strict military doric way of life was part of his lore but he does imply that Sparta relies more to its military (as compared to Ithaca or Pylos for example) so maybe he attempts to create the illusion of historical continuation but either way no this whole "300s-like" Sparta was not crystalized yet to the times that Homer synthesized his poems much less to the time of Bronze Age.

And there is no hint that Penelope goes "WOW BLOOD!" that seems to me one of the overused jokes on the internet, again emanating by the whole series of Sparta stereotypes used for comedy. It was in fact Euryclea the one to almost welp in happiness seeing Odysseus covered in blood and that was because Odysseus had killed the men she hated. Penelope doesn't show such a thing. Odysseus also washes himself up to be presentable to her. And even in posthomeric sources Penelope was not linked to physical strength but rather with the strength of her mind and the purity of her intentions (well...except maybe from Parthenius narrative if I recall correctly. There Penelope is pictured as scheming in jealousy against one of the sons Odysseus ellegedly produced and manipulated her husband to kill his illegitimate son)

As for the last part I am not sure what you are referring to? Are you referring to Lycurgus that is mentioned in some later sources as king? I did find for example the reference of Plutarch (who lives much much later) that he implies that Lycurgus lives at the same time as Homer or possibly had met him personally but is that what you are referring to? Either way I assume you refer to the historical person rather than some mythical figure because in homeric realm we do have rulers such as Tyndareus (the king of Sparta father to Helen and Clytemnestra) and Icarius (father to Penelope). It seems that Homer with the mention of the two rulers, even if not directly mentioning it, seems to be winking at the later but still ancient custom of doric Sparta to have two kings but I am not sure if that truly was his objective (and therefore creating an anachronism most likely)

I hope that answers your questions a bit