#but we could have moved forward with her

[yukipri]

feelin kinda sad so eating an obscene amount of pasta

[synonymroll648]

headcanon that the reason sophie still has eyelashes to pull on the regular is that grady and edaline worked something out with the dizznees to get a tasteless formula to help eyelash growth specifically to put drops of in her bottles of youth. because there’s no way her ptsd-induced trichotillomania (oversimplified definition for those who aren’t familiar: hair pulling disorder) is gonna die down during the war, so they’re trying to make sure she doesn’t move from eyelashes to eyebrows or her Hair hair by giving her More Eyelashes

[stagefoureddiediaz]

Ohhhh.

I massively hate myself for putting this out into the universe, but what if Tim talking about a tree falling in relation to Eddie is actually a reference to Abuela dying? 😭😭😭

That this pillar of his life - someone who has supported him and loved him - the matriarch of the family - is going to die and leave him feeling uprooted and lost.

Narratively it would make sense as it can help Eddie and Chris reconnect and also play into the Shannon of it all at the same time - as well as helping build into queer Eddie and buddie!

[thorough-witness-enjoyer]

Haven’t been keeping up with Revenant, but seeing people hold Eramis to a similar level of villainy as beings like Savathûn and Rhulk to argue against her treatment in the story (or even the fact we haven’t killed her yet) is so… I’m tired guys

[haughttopics]

finally watched happiest season and i totally understand why people hated the ending.

except for Jane. she deserves the world.

[screambirdscreaming]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[satans-knitwear]

hi this might be weird or idk sad but... what kind of dog is sabine? my dog who was my best friend for almost 8 years passed so suddenly like 2 years ago (wow 2 years already...) and when I see sabine I am reminded of him. not that i want to replace him... but sabine seems like such a good pup. and you seem like such a good pup parent. when you got sabine I remember thinking "oh good for them 🩷" and I have been looking at all of your pup posts and feeling so happy for you! is sabine as good as she seems? is that breed easy to train? are they sociable? easygoing? how do you train her? is she going to get big? pls (if you want) tell me abt sabine

Replacing a best friend is impossible, I know that feeling ❤️

So, as you have so kindly invited me to do so... BEHOLD!! My precious baby Sabine (beanie baby, runner bean, baby bean, baked bean, magic bean, mean bean, beanington, my little Crème Brûlée, my fierce fluffy mandalorian)

She is such a wonderful little pup, so full of love and mischief! She is a cockerpoo just like my own late beloved baby belle, but her coat is growing to be more cock than poo so far, which is the opposite to how belles turned out so brushing her is easier but so is getting grubby!

Beanie gets so many complements on how well behaved she is, it helps that she really loves treats and attention! The six training classes I took her to gave her a big boost with socialising and redirecting her attention when necessary! Sabine absolutely loves a good cuddle and bringing me little rocks she finds and nibbling big baby Rosie's ankles for fun.

I keep a little pack of treats with me at nearly all times so I can make sure to reward her for any good behaviours or redirect any unwanted ones, it helps that I have plenty of time to focus on just her I guess!

She's just passed 6 months old now, so she's still got a bit of growing to do, but it's definitely slowed down! She's so delicate and small under all that fluff, I think she'll definitely fill out a bit at least!

Baby-on-baby violence, big baby Rosie lets Sabine win sometimes. Even though she could defeat her with one giant baby paw.

And Sabine has her own little sun tent because she refuses to go into the shade without me, just like baby belle did.

[0alix0]

that moment when everyone's hyping show for anakin cameo/thrawn/ezra/etc. and you're here only for an old tired fallen jedi and his little ukrainian chihuahua-looking daughter

[longagoitwastuesday]

I actually like the last chapter. I think the ideas are very good. I have my qualms on how some things were managed, as I always do, but I think shonen authors get tangled in the expectations of a shonen to the point it jeopardises their writing, often even when they're not lacking in skills

[persicipen]

totally normal behaviour of me trying to guess tamsy’s backstory from single panels scattered across over 100 chapters lol

[opens-up-4-nobody]

...

[harbingerofsoup]

oh so when any other iffy character choice gets made on supernatural it’s the writers fault and we can accept it, but when mary winchester—

[cahootings]

really reckoned with my nerves and was so brave and sent a followup email to the hr person who did my phone interview after not hearing back for two weeks, and was met with an out of office reply saying she won't be back until the 16th. so that's, you know.

[steviescrystals]

i seriously need to get a new job and start making money again asap bc i cannot keep living at home much longer it’s driving me insane

(wrote an entire essay in the tags without meaning to oops)

[randomnameless]

Doro and Edel sorta come off as "let me be evil" while also asking the audience to pity or validate their actions.

I actually disagree.

I think both of them genuinely think they are doing what they are doing "for the greater good" or "for the people" because they're convinced of the "goodness" of their goal - even if the means to reach that goal are a bit... more messy than breaking 6 eggs to make an omelette.

And for Supreme Leader, I never thought she was the one asking the audience to throw a pity party or to validate her actions - it's the games themselves that twist themselves in a pretzel to completely dodge - and by dodge I mean jump to another continent levels of avoiding - all the obvious implications her actions lead to -

Sure, Supreme Leader was written by those devs and put in those games, but imo, with the way she was written, the character never asks for forgiveness or uwu - it's the game that serves it on a platter, Crust system? You have to piece tidbits of backstory and hear it from a DLC character that Miklan wasn't kicked out bcs no crust, but bcs he tried to kill his younger brother and has been busy "seducing" women with his merry band of dudes. Ditto for foreign royalty that will never be mentionned in relation to the "crust = nobility, if no crusts no nobles anymore" paradigm.

Which leads to really interesting stuff when Supreme Leader is in a game where she can be challenged (not counting Engage bcs for some reason no one knows, it's Dimitri who talks to Zelestia about a place where people can live together regardless of their race), Supreme Leader doesn't make excuses or brings the pity party, she's too stubborn (or too determined) to reconsider her path.

(Supreme Leader inherited Poor Dumb Willy's fierce will?)

The only time she sorts of tug at the player's heart string, imo, is with the revelation she had siblings and her infodumping her backstory to Billy - iirc in the C+ support, just when Billy got the SoC - but as some people theorised, Supreme Leader's supports are unlocked at key moments, and I really like how - if following this theory - some characters try to fool/manipulate/"gaslight" as young people say nowadays/trick the player -

I've said it enough times regarding the Nabateans and Fodlan in general, but i don't think I've said it regarding Supreme Leader : the worst character hit by the uwu hammer and Hresvelg Grey is Supreme Leader herself - if Supreme Leader has been able to be a "traitor" character à la Tales of you can side with in CF for a vilain route, or like Togame in Katanagatari - her goal first her feelings second, and her feelings are a means to reach her goal but then she falls in her own trap - or even Baten Kaitos's Kalas, I think she would have been one of the best and most memorable characters in the franchise.

But the waifu and uwu hammer hit her, and all those opportunities fell on their faces because the devs wanted a waifu first and foremost, controversial maybe, but at the end of the day, a waifu to pander to a certain demographic and plays on the usual and tiresome "only u can defrost the ice queen" trope.

As for Doro...

It's a bit more nuanced, I think Doro genuinely wants to help people, but Doro, due to her backstory (and maybe experiences in Mittelfrank?) wants to help herself most - securing a successful marriage to a wealthy "noble" (tfw Ignatz, who's from a super rich family, isn't on her list) and become the "friend" of the Emperor - who should represent - status wise - everything she hates about nobles, if Ferdie was so hated, then why isn't the Hresvelg Heir, the Imperial heir, isn't as hated? Because Supreme Leader didn't see her bath in a fountain? Did Supreme Leader tone down her "if the weak remain weak it's because they are too used to rely on the strong to survive" discourse around Doro, one of those "weak ones" who only managed to make a name for herself through bribes, heavily implied prostitution and countless hours of hard and gruesome work that will be ruined anyways when she gets "older" so that's why she tries to find a noble and rich husband asap?

I love messy characters, I hc Saias as someone who will see the world burn as long as he can serve his younger brother, and he has to reconsider everything when he learns 1/lil bro dgaf about him and would rather kill him himself + 2/lil sis is actually alive - but the Fodlan games refuse to do anything interesting with the BESF members, in FE8, Ephraim gets a wake-up slap by Seth about what is expected of him now, and what was expected of him then, so he has better polish his father's armor because playtime is over, there's work to do, and Ephraim realises how much of a fool he has been.

Doro will never reconsider (her support with Lorenz is very good in that sense - much like Supreme Leader, Doro is sure her pov and way are the only ones that work) her POV, her most ridiculous takes about "y church never helped people like me in Adrestia" or "military academy makes us fight real fights and kill bandits i thought we weren't in a fire emblem game :(" or even "why is the goddess making us fight like this sure i joined the imperial army who conquers the world and tried to kill you many times but if you attack us it's only bcs of the goddess :(" are never tackled, compare them to Lorenz thinking the church promotes isolationism and Claude correcting him by remembering Dedue and Petra exist(ed?) in Garreg Mach...

TL;Dr : I wouldn't say those characters spend their time going "sad uwus about my life" or ask the audience to validate their action - but that's what their games did, just count how many times (maybe only 1?) people vow to take down the mole people "for Supreme Leader bcs she was manipulated too :(" or the lol-tastic "can't we walk with her (and trample Fodlan)?" ; Supreme Leader doesn't even need to "pity" herself, the game does it itself by giving those "pity" lines to multiple other characters.

It can sound like it's the same thing, after all both Supreme Leader and Doro are characters designed to fit in that game, but it's a bit more nuanced, and it's that nuance - the game severing one of its limbs to prevent them from being seriously challenged about their opinions - that's actually really, imo, annoying. When characters like Dimitri or even to a point, Rhea herself, are dissected and held accountable/are challenged for the weather, the double standard really stings, and that's what pisses me off with these characters.

[bumblingbabooshka]

A Star Trek Novel called “Pocket Full of Lies” really has NO business going so hard.