#changing narrative only because they don't get what they want

[summertimesadnessirl]

Except it doesn't work.

This is actually a key concept in patriarchy!

Women are intended to serve as the civilizing force.

The morality police.

The moral compass.

Women allow, men test.

Men who are in the patriarchy will consistently value the opinions of their male friends and prioritize male friendship groups, their hierarchy, and their bonding rituals over the women in their lives while also consistently laying the responsibility for fixing the emotional wounds caused by those friendships.

The form that most abuse from patriarchal men takes is specifically either mobbing women by repeatedly exposing them to the same messaging over and over by groups of men or guilting women into thinking that they are being unreasonable or too demanding or that life is actually too hard for them.

It's not that men's lives aren't hard.

It's that when those men talk, all the complaints consistently circle back to the idea that the reason being a man is hard is that women will not take pity on them and consent to sex they don't want or relationships they're not interested in just to make them feel better.

The sense of aggrieved entitlement serves to shift the blame on women for speaking out about the things that they have experienced, or create the narrative that the job of society is to make ways to trick women into sex or relationships that they don't want in order to prevent depression, neuroticism, anti social behavior, etc. In men.

This isn't a secret. It's literally a verbatim narrative that men circulate in covert ways. The male loneliness epidemic is radicalizing young men. Not to volunteer at nursing homes or animal shelters. Not to call for more mental health support. Not to call for more paid time off so that the average person can spend more time with their loved ones. Specifically, the main thrust of the article is "if women don't fall back in line men will become violent predators." When I was younger, this was often presented with examples from ancient Greece and Rome? I forget the guy. There was a Roman historian who had this idea that young men were only interested in creating radical social change in ancient Rome because too many of the wealthy older men had too many wives and concubines. Jordan Peterson used to trot that guy out. It doesn't matter. The ancient Romans thought owls were vampires, bro.

But it's just the same thing. Last week I saw this thing on reddit where some guy was posting that the male suicide rate is higher for short men.

And I don't want that. I don't think that's a good idea. But is "Give me sex" or "give me a relationship you don't want or are not ready for" something I am going to be prepared to do with my entire life, potentially, because of the implication?

Part of rape culture is the idea that men can't control or regulate their own emotions and that women can. Women are supposed to be independent, mysterious, not ever seek attention, ashamed of wanting validation. Women are meant to find it easy to follow all social rules and to also covertly influence and help the people around them to follow social rules through hints that help them to save face. Women are supposed to avoid leading men on. They are supposed to avoid being too deceptive in their beauty regimen. They are supposed to avoid being too demanding of men and making it too hard for them to get whatever it is they want. They are supposed to completely repent and change their entire character if they change the type of relationship they want- the woman who has had casual sex is supposed to pretend to be ashamed and that all the sex she experienced was a sign of unhealed trauma and she's a good girl now and she knows that dating men who please her sexually or that she is physically attracted to or that is too nice to her or is too smart or too good to be true is a red flag, actually. She is supposed to buy into the idea that "a healthy relationship will be boring" because what makes relationships exciting is somehow abuse. She is supposed to settle down, not up.

There's this thing I notice a lot.

A thing where a lot of women who seek advice from other women for things like feeling exhausted and burnt out from doing too much of the household maintenance are asked if their spouse has adhd or autism, as if rather than getting those things treated or seeking self help advice for those things if they impact your ability to take care of yourself, the solution is just to ask your partner to do them. There is a form of this question that will be leveled when both partners are the same age and both partners are neurodivergent.

Yes, it is nice when you can be nice to people and help them get deradicalized. But the people who do that type of work professionally have support networks and professional training. And sometimes you can be nice to someone and it helps them. But the more you do that, the more likely it is that you will be targeted by people who want to hurt you or silence you or shut you up, or that this particular piece of the patriarchy where people use your desire to help people and be kind to them and give them the benefit of the doubt against you with the intent of making you believe their way of thinking.

It cannot be a social norm that women owe men sex, commitment, babies, etc no matter how they are treated in response to giving those things to prevent social collapse.

It cannot be a social norm that men get to abuse women by proxy by threatening to hurt other women or other marginalized people if women do not comply.

It also cannot be a social norm that people are expected to be kind to people who are exhibiting radicalized behaviors and also that people are constantly accusing one another in moral purity witch hunts as a way to isolate them from support networks so that if someone tried to help someone who attempted to befriend people in order to try to see if they could help them see another way results in creating a situation where they have no recourse if they are targeted by extremist groups in retaliation and agents provocateur who try to use their old support network against them.

There actually are a lot of male voices on the left including men who specialize in anti manosphere content, mentorship to men who feel like they need positive older men to talk to as role models, men who talk about why toxic masculinity hurt them in the past in ways that don't have to do with relationships, people who were amab and who aren't men talking about what that experience of growing up with people trying to force masculinity on them is like, and teams which include men and women as friends and colleagues and even some that are married or dating.

But this talking point survives because it helps to radicalize women into misogyny by trying to get them to take accountability for the behavior of misogynistic men and also encouraging them to doubt their own experiences or their own rights to their own story and to the community of other people with similar experiences by telling them that they are somehow poisoning men. They are responsible for taming them.

posts about the alt-right pipeline being compassionate towards young men while radical leftists shun and shame them are not fucking saying "the men are becoming violent because feminists are too mean!" and if that is your takeaway you need to get off tumblr until you've better honed your critical thinking skills.

those posts are talking about how effective the language and approach you take in your activism can be. this is literally cult deprogramming 101. if someone is being taken in by a violent or dangerous group, that violent or dangerous group is usually offering them compassion and solace while working hard to convince them everyone else in the world is their enemy. you are under no obligation to coddle or act compassionate toward these men and their violent ideologies, but if you have the means to try, it is something that you can do to make a tangible difference.

radicalized people are often only one loving friend or family member or external voice away from being de-radicalized. of course that is not always the case, but it very often is. a lot of y'all rightfully understand that you do not carry the burden of being that voice, but a lot of y'all also have a lot of internalized ideas about morals and punitive justice and have simply written off these people as deserving of only the worst and not worth saving.

ten years ago, my grandmother was a fox news watching republican who voted red in every election and very well could have fallen down the qanon rabbit hole if not for me and her daughter challenging her compassionately, walking her through hypotheticals that validated her feelings & proving why they were false, & being patient with her despite our extreme division in political ideology. it was frustrating fucking work! but i decided i wanted to do it, because i could see the horizon and i could see me making a difference!

"misogynists have been saying feminists are too mean for years, get new material" that is not the fucking POINT. the point is that you, feminist, can be the compassionate voice that guides your brother, your father, your cousin, your grandfather away from fucking becoming or staying a nazi. you can show them compassion and companionship. you can be the woman they think of when their alt-right bros try to convince them that women are the enemy. and you can choose to crystallize that image of yourself so wholly in their mind's eye as worth protecting that they may very well choose to reject those harmful ideas.

it's not saying you HAVE to do it! it's saying you CAN do it! don't you 'firebomb a walmart' people all love taking change into your own hands? where the fuck is that energy right now, huh?

[noxiousgrace]

The funniest thing about cale going "i should have just let choi han beat me up" is that he could've just,,,, not said anything to choi han and let him bury the bodies and sent him on his way. It's a novel, the hero always ends up saving the world anyway, right?

That's the thing tho, the only reason tcf ended up going the route it did was because of Cale henituse as a person, this is his life and not just a narrative (if that makes any sense 😭). Sometimes characters get botched because of plot in other stories, but tcfs plot happens because of the characterization and that's beautiful

Tcf is a guidebook like TBOAH was

But it's not to save the world or something crazy like that

It's a guidebook to living and growing as a person

The characters learn to forgive themselves but take responsibility for what they've done

They experience loss and realize the importance of connection

Their ideals are different but they're still able to come together for an overarching goal

They respect who deserves to be respected, and return disrespect in kind

The characters value being alive, nobody wants to die unless they're in a situation like DBH where he thinks he don't deserve to be alive anymore

And even then DBH is given the right to live because his past doesn't have to dictate what he does for the rest of your life, he can change but he cannot erase his past.

GAHSHSHAUSJY i love this novel so much man

[hyog-blog]

I love how in this scene we see more of the wish-granting, but this time it is performed by Zhao Yuanzhou, free of charge, in his selfless manner that doesn't need anyone's sacrifices or murders or even someone else's energy - only their wish, and intent, the willingness.

And he grants Pei Siheng's last wish just like that, a stark contrast to Cheng Huang who was fooling around with humans collecting their energy trying to change his own narrative, to bring back the past that was no longer there, the goddess who has already died, because he couldn't let go of her even after his own death.

And we can talk as much as we want about Zhao Yuanzhou evading whatever he's done and not atoning for his sins in a grander scheme of things, but he actually does it all the time - but it's in the smaller details. In the kindness of his heart, in the attention to the people around them, in that little bit of help that usually either goes unnoticed or he simply doesn't even talk about it - he just carefully and casually does something good and only we as viewers can see and appreciate it (all those small instances of helping Bai Jiu or giving his cloak to Wen Xiao and Xiao Zhuo or taking the blow so the others don't get hurt).

His companions come a long way before acknowledging his true beauty and kind-hearted nature, and I believe that yes, some of it might stem from guilt over the things he has done in the past, but ultimately it doesn't matter why you do good things - you just do them and they become a part of you and they slowly change you, turning you into someone better, someone more than you were before. And what may have started as atonement for the wrongs he had done, effortlessly became part of nature because of how empathetic he has always been (I suspect, for a long while having to deal with malicious energy on a regular basis).

I love how his kindness is merely a whisper in the dark, a hidden secret not many people know about or even notice, but once they do - everything changes, and they give him all that love that he has never asked from them, but was probably yearning for, as well as absolution.

He didn't even know A-Heng personally, but he knows Pei Sijing and he knows and probably feels just in how much pain she is. So he creates this little bit of happiness for them, just like that, using his own energy. And it's so beautiful, and it tells volumes about his character.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hi nalyra hope you're doing well and happy new year!

I just watched Daniel harts interview. It leaves me with a sinking feeling I must say. Long face was fun, I just don't think the creators understand what they're doing with lestats character tbh. They all seem to be writing for a different character depending on what they want the scene to be. Now he's cruel now he's loving now he's funny creating a narrative dissonance in the meantime. I mean if the one who is supposed to write the music does not understand the core of the character and we have already had some serious red flags from hannah maybe we should just accept that this is what we're getting show wise.

... To be honest, I have been mulling over this as well.

Because.

I did expect the teaser to have substantial... planning. I did expect Long Face to have canon narrative ... impact.

That, however, does not seem to be the case.

If I interpret Daniel's comments correctly he had to write Long Face in a rush for SDCC, came up with the lyrics himself, and then Rolin told him he needed to be able to explain them because Sam would ask.

That... is not what I had expected. Or hoped for.

Long Face is a lot of fun. I love the song. But that is all there is to it, apparently. A fun teaser, which might not have much to do with what will hit our screens.

And this show has 1,5 YEARS in hiatus. WHY. Why does it all take so long if Daniel Hart only gets a few months to write that, for example. I know that they knew they were renewed, for a while before the announcement hit. They had the costumes and makeup ready, and there was obvious planning for the teaser.

But the lyrics and general timing comment makes me think they just grabbed certain costumes from stash, and the brilliance of everyone involved then made it what it is, more than any planning.

Apart from that it was sobering to realize that the aforementioned fact means that these things are thought out only because Sam will ask?! Like... okay. Thank god for Sam then.

And finally... yes, we do have to take what we get here. There have been a few red flags before: the agency comments, Levan's comments, Hannah's take on certain things... Sam adding lines when he knows they cannot cut them, or professing to doing 45minute phone calls with Rolin and Hannah, or him having problems with 1x05 and wanting trigger warnings on it, but getting ignored.

Sam said it, in Autumn's video: this is not Anne's Lestat. They changed core traits in order to soften other characters. The changes they made need and will have repercussions on upcoming arcs.

But this is what we're getting.

I love this show, the way they dare, and the way they address things. The way they hold up a dark mirror, and apparently do not go the "Netflix" way. The scripts are brilliant, the show a huge puzzle, with more layers than an onion.

And I love the music, too.

I waited 30 years for this to be adapted.

Will it be perfect? No, nothing is.

But I will enjoy the hell out of it regardless.

And, nonny, I can only recommend doing the same.

[brunosaderogatory]

Hello.

So... What do you think of Daniela and/or Lorenzo?

Hello, and oh buddy don't get me STARTED /ref

Honestly, I do not know where to begin with these two. I love them. I hate them. I want to keep them in a controlled environment so I could conduct a study of them with a little microscope and also squeeze them until their eyeballs pop out as if they were a pair of Panic Petes. In other words, I like them a lot as characters in a narrative and characters in a world. My opinion of them as people differs from minute to minute, but that is because they reflect the morally ambiguous, and sometimes outright cruel--but equally often loving--world in which they exist.

That being said:

At first, Lorenzo seems to be a very two-dimensional character. He's just a goofy dad who is more concerned with his avocations than he is with his son or wife, a painfully overdone trope in the world of children's cinema, but a few key details (and a bit of useful input from Enrico Casarosa) reveal something more.

For starters, Lorenzo is a lot like Luca. Rather, he is Luca---or who Luca could have very easily become. Lorenzo is meek and lets his wife take the reigns when the situation gets tough. Lorenzo is often off in his own little world, not paying much attention to anything but his own interests and inclinations. Lorenzo is kind-hearted and seems to want change, but is too burdened by his own anxieties or past failures to work up the courage again. And, I do say "again" because the search for his son was not the first time Lorenzo was on the surface.

His older brother (and possibly twin) Ugo was not the only one in their family to have explored the surface world before; Lorenzo was, most likely, right along beside him. Now, we don't know what exactly happened that resulted in Lorenzo's parents sending Ugo to the deep nor Lorenzo to stop trying to get a taste of the human way of life, but Ugo was sent. And Lorenzo did stop. However, it is unlikely that any tragic event took place. Rather, I believe the conclusion to Lorenzo's explorations happened out of conformity to the rules and traditions of his culture because Lorenzo never once spoke ill of humans.

Daniela calls them bloodthirsty lunatics. She insists that Luca has a death wish, and, very explicitly, she insinuates that he will die trying to hang with the humans. On the other hand, Lorenzo only gawks at his son's audacity and tenacity. Lorenzo even tries to reel in Daniela as she threatens Luca with a trip to the deep, but, of course, it is a fruitless attempt because he is meek. He does not have his son's tenacity nor his audacity---those traits were derived from Daniela alone. And this impotence serves as his most abhorrent attribute.

No, he's not doing anything wrong, but he's being a willful bystander. He's compliant with the evils, and, when it gets down to it, he backs them up! He makes no decision for himself, but when he does, he either chickens out of it at the last minute or doesn't know how to bounce back from a failure. Despite being fully aware of what the deep sea can do to a person--despite very likely disagreeing with his wife--he allows her to almost put their son, his son, in a situation that will inevitably, undeniably, deform (translucent skin, eroded teeth, discolored eyes, discolored fins) and disable (cardiovascular issues) him with time.

I'm glad he changed his side for the brighter half in the end, but I didn't see any actual change happen. He's still following his wife around from the looks of it, and that isn't what's needed for him to grow as a person and as a character. Although he's a three-dimensional character that appears to have only two, he's a static character that's been played off as a dynamic for far too long. He was a meek follower in the beginning, and he was a meek follower in the end. The only reason he came onto the good side of things is that the person he was following changed paths, and that isn't enough for me to truly like him (but it sure as hell does give me a lot to work with as a fanfic author, so thank you, Luca crew!).

Now, Daniela. When I think of Daniela, I think of a girl that (for lack of a better metaphor) was raised in a church who could have very well turned out queer, but due to the teachings she was fed---and possibly a very messy lesbian breakup---turned into a very, very hateful woman who, years down the line, rediscovered her bisexuality after the boy she was raising to be a goody-two-shoes, god-fearing, church-going fellow come out to her as vivaciously gay. That is to say, if it wasn't for Massimo, Daniela would be the most dynamic character in the movie. And if it weren't for Alberto, Daniela would be the most complex character in the movie. This is because, like her husband, Daniela tried out the surface life before, but unlike her husband, Daniela is a cruel, unjust force actively working to destroy her son's hopes and happiness at whatever cost necessary--even if it means her son's mental, social, and physical wellbeing. However, the force is derived of only love, fear, and care.

Just as it was in Lorenzo's case, but now far more severe, we lack explicit information about Daniela's past. All we have are the behaviors and beliefs displayed in the movie and information graciously given to us by Enrico Casarosa. These behaviors, beliefs, and Casarosa-given information are: having previously been to the human world; calling humans "bloodthirsty lunatics"; believing humans only go out on the waters for murder; understanding the motions made with a harpoon; attempting to send Luca to the Deep; waiting for Ugo to arrive rather than confronting Luca when she first notices his whereabouts; helicopter-parenting her son; being aware of Luca's interest in the surface/dissatisfaction with the sea; ensuring that Luca stays "safer than safe" while still letting him run off to Genova.

Given these, we can begin to piece together the picture: In her youth, Daniela adventured up to the surface and explored the human way of life, but something went wrong. She was caught in some dangerous situation that likely involved harpoons, or she bore witness to the same thing Luca did as he walked into Portorosso---the statues, the wanted posters, the carvings, the propaganda strewn about, adorning every angle of the town. Regardless, she became terribly fearful of humans and never returned to the surface again.

Unlike Lorenzo, Daniela is not simply abiding by the rules and traditions of their underwater society. Her evasion of humans is born of a completely justifiable fear. Humans hunted sea monsters. Humans put up wanted posters worth $4.5k in today's money for sea monsters captured, dead or alive, and fishermen armed with harpoons lined the waters for a children's race. I feel this is an often forgotten fact when the topic of Daniela's control over Luca comes up: Luca was in real, mortal danger going into Portorosso. Daniela might have been wrong to send Luca to the Deep, but from there, it becomes a discussion of which is worse: possible disability or possible death. Such a discourse grows even more complex when you call to mind that Daniela might not have even been aware of the physical and physiological changes the Deep has on a sea monster before Ugo's arrival.

Daniela's attempted actions are cruel, no doubt, but they are not at all unwarranted. She wants Luca, who she adores and deeply cares for, to be as safe as possible. If she has to be the bad guy to keep her son alive, then she will be the bad guy.

However, Daniela does not stay the bad guy. When she realizes Luca is safe in Portorosso (rather, when Portorosso becomes safe for Luca), she becomes open to the possibility of allowing him to continue living on the surface. She even, after a bit of convincing from Alberto and Libera, allows him to attend school in Genova for nine months out of the school year. At the end of the movie, she is assured of Luca's safety and the humans' ability to change for the better---to stop all the killing, hunting, and fear and begin a peaceful coexistence. This stability allows her to relinquish control over her son and support him in his dreams, even if it means she'll only see him in the summer months.

Daniela is an intensely dynamic and intensely complex character. She's a beautiful foil to her husband, and, quite frankly, I'm obsessed with her and desperately wish to see more of her growth and her past.

Also, Daniela and Lorenzo are peak malewife x girlboss material and I will not be hearing any slander toward their relationship. no idea how Lorenzo managed to bag her, but so glad he did. beautiful. love it. 10/10.

[sparklyfaerie]

Great characters don't have to be good people. How many people love a good villain? Or a morally grey anti-hero? People love dynamic, interesting characters. That doesn't mean we ignore or condone their acts of evil; it just means that they're entertaining to watch.

I'm a Spike fan and a Xander hater, myself, but I don't ignore Spike's badness or Xander's goodness. It just so happens that where I fall on my opinion of the characters depends largely on their narrative treatment, rather than their actions.

Xander has a habit of talking down to and slut shaming a lot of the female characters in the show. Buffy in particular. He weaponises his jealousy in the early seasons. He's a bad boyfriend to both of his girlfriends (puts down Cordelia consistently and cheats on her, which he is never shown to have any remorse for, and constantly talks down to Anya), and is weirdly obsessed with Buffy's sex life.

He lies to Buffy about important things (remembering the SA attempt when he was possessed, Willow trying to curse Angel again, told Buffy that 'no one said anything [to him]' about Buffy and Riley's relationship imploding when Riley had actually come to Xander with concerns that Buffy didn't love him beforehand) and is never held accountable for it.

He gets away with bespelling the whole town when he tried to use magic to get back at Cordelia when she spurned him. That it was unintentional that it affected all the women in town is irrelevant; he still attempted to take Cordelia's free will away in order to humiliate her, which is kinda evil of him, ngl. Yeah the way she treated him kinda sucked at that point, but a) the narrative treats it as such, and b) he was just as bad if not worse.

But like, he bespelled the women of the town into throwing themselves at him and at the end Buffy thanks him for not taking advantage of her??? Nuh-uh, sorry, you don't get a thank you for being a decent human being after already doing something so incredibly fucked up.

What really, really gets me in season 5 though is that he scolds Buffy for letting Riley go, even though the man just cheated on her (and in a way that was really dangerous, he could have gotten turned) and attempted to gaslight her into thinking it was her fault, and then proceeded to give her an ultimatum that she had to fix the relationship or he was gone. Buffy initially saw through his BS, but Xander was the one who convinced her that Riley was in the right??? And then lied to her that no one told him anything about the relationship not going well??? To make her feel stupid or like a bad partner or something??? Riley was the only one of Buffy's love interests that Xander approved of, and that was only because he was the epitome of Xander's masculine ideal and he could project onto him.

(Actually no one but Buffy even attempted to hold Riley accountable for any of his BS in season 5 but that's a whole other rant.)

There's more reasons I hate Xander, but they're mostly in season 6, and I won't be That Guy™ and spoil it. The point is, the narrative never, ever holds Xander accountable for any of these things. He's always framed as being in the right, or if not, then the incident is just ignored entirely. He's even occasionally rewarded for his bad behaviour, like when Cordelia publicly took him back after the aforementioned bespelling of the entire town.

He never grows in any significant way. He's still essentially the same person in season 1 as in season 7. And I hate that.

Spike on the other hand goes through a ton of changes and very rarely gets away with anything bad. I want to say 'never', but I'm not 100% confident about that and may be misremembering. Point is, given how hard it is to remember if he does get away with anything, that says something about his narrative treatment. Hell, he's punished simply for being non-human by a literal torture device inserted into his brain.

He's a problematic character, to be sure. He does a lot of fucked up and morally questionable things; no one is denying that. The stalking is... yeesh. Crush is just an entire cringefest. The bot is gross. To say nothing of the 120ish years of mass murder behind him. But he's punished for all of these things. He was wrong and the narrative treats him as such, and this will continue as the show goes on. Again, I'm not going to spoil, but Spike does some really fucked up things and his character really goes through a lot punishment and changes as a result in the later seasons.

The reasons people love him are many and varied. He's a little pathetic. He's a romantic (even if it's a twisted, fucked up kind). He has sensuality and sex appeal. He's funny. He's a great character to watch because he's so different from the main cast that it's always interesting to see what he'll do.

That's all I can really say about him without talking about seasons 6 and 7. Of course, you may despise him, and that's your prerogative. There are a lot of people who hate Spike for completely valid reasons. But no one can claim that he's boring or doesn't grow and change.

ok I’m only on season 5 but can someone explain to me how Xander is the universally hated one for, from what I can tell, some bad choices and worse jokes, while Spike, the fandom’s babygirl and beloved heartthrob, literally stalks Buffy, holds her captive, and then commissions a robot version of her when it’s made clear he’ll never have her. like someone please explain it because the math is not mathing.

[ifonly1]

Hypocrisy towards jikook's bond

Whenever i see ppl getting mad at this moment saying "of course jm will do that because cam are filming" but when i tell you that they were drunk at night, jk picked jm bridal style the exact way like this video then he left a mark on jk's neck after biting him cause jk wouldn't put him down lol. the difference between their off cam nd on cam moments is their off cam goes more wild than on cam it seems lol. like that's literally what they do off cam so why would it be anything different if the cam filmed them??

Mind you the SS in this tweet had 2k+ likes....where they're clearly shading jikook

Then this moment....saw antis loosing their shit saying "of course even their workout is for cam nd fanservice" but if i tell u that jm and jk told us they have been working out together, taking walks together, jk visiting jm's room 3 times a day for hrs all happened off cam then what? if out of 10 days being together and working out the comapny filmed one day how is that fake or for cam??

Jin called jk jm's cook years ago which means he cooks for jm nd has been for yrs so how is one time the comp showing it turns into fake?

Then saw this post where the implication is that jm and jk would never be loud about eachother if they were dating in a homophobic country cause it means seeking attention but all this showed me is people are simply mad that jm and jk are loud for eachother. cause i do remember tkkrs saying jk not going live when tae's album dropped means the biggest form of support and they dragged jk watching jm's content on his TV as company forced things idk how that is 😶 saying gcft wouldn't have been uploaded when it was jk's choice to upload it and comapny let him do what he wants cause either way later his hobby was used for company content too. Using gcft as an example yet religiously waiting for gcf Taekook and hoping it would happen soon. Years of them using the namsan taekook hangout pic showing jk's cam claiming the company didn't let him upload it when he never said he made one in the first place?? He carried the same cam when he went to hiking with jin but there's no gcf (although i cam across the same narrative as tkkrs from jinkookers too), Then he carried the cam with him when he was having outing with hobi too (i got pic limits or else would have uploaded the pic) but i also didn't see any gcf?? point to make here is just because he's carrying a cam doens't always means he's making a gcf. He loves filming has been filming jm too for years to the point the staff themselves ask him why he's always filming jm and the staff who works for BTS telling how jm and jk are always together and they both take pictures or selfies together alot. Then jk himself saying the last thing he filmed in his phone is "jiminsii being happy" when asked what's the last thing he filmed, but all this doens't always mean he's gonna make it or convert it into a gcf. Wanting your fav focused gcf is not the problem here it's cute with but then having the audacity to claim gcf is some comapny content when the whole video has been filmed, edited and uploaded by jk. Even the staffs, members, jimin himself didn't know he was going to make something like that cause it was his first ever gcf (made on a trip he planned when they were going through difficult times), he was happy, must have paid for the copyright of the song used, the only video he said wasn't work like other gcfs (doens't take away his admiration for his members or his hardwork of course), the only gcf that wasn't linked to other officials company sns accounts.

Then for years they been crying calling every jikook interaction that is filmed by comapny as fanservice or fake yet they were celebrating the same comapny content cause it had tk clip.

They say that the company is making money out of jikook by feeding jikook content yet they say that they get taekook content in paid comapny content lol the contrast. Do check the video I'll link below so you can see how many times they said that they get the taekook content in paid comapny content yet use it as a drag when it's jkk in DVDs, cancelling dvds.

Trying to make the comapny villain where it doens't concern when that's literally how the company has been posting every members' visit to other members. they post it days later in bangtab bomb or promotion videos. but they were also calling jk's visit to jm's practice as company content yet yesterday it was sign or pure love.

They were saying they don't believe media cause they make clickbait posts when someone uses jkk # for their arrival or departure yet proudly flaunt when dispatch used taekook #. They believe dispatch is hinting them for their ship mind u the same media which makes ckickbait posts but will surely ignore the same dispatch asking people what they think of v and Jennie's relationship or the same dispatch reporting on tae and Jennie breaking up lol.

Taekookers and their narratives chages purely based on what's benefitting them. this whole comapny promoting jikook wouldn't have existed in the first place if it was taekookers getting more content of taekook than jikook. not the company's fault of these two are together most of the times. The company doens't just cut taekook moments but every Single memebr's cause you don't expect them to post everything of everyone right?

years of them begging taekook to enlist together and now it's "gay couple won't enlist together in homophobic country" only because it's jm and jk. Were happy getting every update of jk from taehyung but if it's jm who's giving then he's leeching off.

They should have understood one thing that no matter how many times they try to drag jm and jk's bond they ain't giving shit and will do what they want. just like nothing stopped them from enlisting together doens't matter who's mailing ministry.

[maegalkarven]

The "You have ruined me" Durgetash but with a twist.

Gortash ruined Durge for Bhaal, making them desire something over than death and destruction, making them want something (someone) for themselves. Making them lower their defences around him and inevitably providing Orin an opening to strike (I'm a firm believer Orin shifted into Gortash to get close to Durge).

And Durge ruined Gortash for Bane, making him...dare I say a little bit soft, making him wish to SHARE power and not hoard it all in his steely grasp. Making Gotrash seek an alliance, wanting an equal. Wanting the things for himself, things what contradict what Bane tells him he should seek or want.

In the end they both are worse by that, but in the unexpected way.

Neither Gortash nor Durge are what their gods want them to be. They're traitors, if merely in thoughts, of their goals, their paths, what they were meant to be.

In the end The Absolute plot falls because mortals do what they always do: act by their own will, compromising carefully constructed plan of the gods.

[veatomis]

It’s so refreshing to see someone also sharing the same sentiment that Veilguard really just felt like smth for solavellan’s or even ppl who are huge fans of solas and not for other ppl (especially ppl who romanced Dorian)

Yeah... they gassed up the solas arc so much for this game and then it was. so nothing if again you didn't make the choices the devs obviously wanted you to make. And the game isn't even for huge fans of solas really, i'm personally a big solas fan, I think he was an incredible character and i loved his friendship with my inquisitor but because i wanted to explore choices that it seems trick weekes was just not interested in writing i got fucked over. Like i'm still reeling from the fact that if ROOK. NOT EVEN THE INQUISITOR. decides to not redeem solas the inquistor/solas relationship (whether antagonistic or friendly) just never gets resolved. I wanted a 20 min argument where my inquisitor after 7 long years of turning around that last interaction he had with solas in his mind got to ask him VERY important questions like "did our friendship ever really matter?", "did you ever really stop seeing me as subhuman?" and what i DESPERATELY needed "if the qunari hadn't forced you out of hiding, would you have come to save me from the anchor?" but they stuck varric into the role that should've been the inquisitor's so i got nothing 😐

+ What they did to us dorianmancers was so insulting my blood boils every time i think about it again. The inquisitor is in minrathous. Dorian is in minrathous. We never get a proper reunion with those two and they also have the audacity to dangle that shit in front of our faces with the "yes i know u will be in minrathous" line in dorian's letter. The inquisitor doesn't even MENTION dorian to rook when he's in the city, the city can be overrun with venatori, half of it can be destroyed and we don't even get a voiced concern over the man he loves???????? sick and fucking twisted the way this game actually had me missing dav*d gaid*r's writing but it did.

[galedekarios]

[source]

i had not seen the "durge/astarion is canon!" post until earlier today with that discord screenshot and honestly ... a writer being like "i managed to shove in all this extra content for astarion/dark urge, but then we simply ran out of time for the other characters" is not good, actually. that doesn't mean your ship is the most canon. it means that astarion kept getting extra attention and other companions kept getting neglected. that other companions simply do not have the amount of content astarion has is not a good thing, it is a bad thing.

and like i'm saying this as someone who really loves astarion/durge. it's unplatable to me and that larian writers are sitting in fan discords going "yeah we just didn't do that for other characters but somehow i found the time for this!" is kind of gross to me

[shidoukanae]

Went and read the TME prologue on the official site to see if i could trigger something COME ON NOW and then-

"And that person that I wanted to change the most...who is also the most precious person...that person..."

*shows a picture of Helene*

THE ENGLISH TRANSLATED PROLOGUE CHEATED ME OF THESE LINES ARE YOU KIDDING ME

[aizenat]

There is this girl I went to hs with and the nicest way I can say this is this girl was smart but not particularly so, and had a high sense of self despite being remarkably average. Again, that's the nicest way I can say that. She also got very triggered whenever I was better at her than something (in all fairness, she was like that with anyone better than her, but my friend caught her shit talking me once when I was the only person in my English class to get an A on my Catcher in the Rye essay--something I expected simply because I'm a writer, was then, and I never once got anything less than A on an essay my entire hs career--and that pissed me off particularly because my writing is the ONE thing in this world I can truly say I do better than most people).

Anyway, I learned a while ago that she moved to Boston, and she was associated with Harvard in some way. Without getting too into it, she works there in the weirdest and most random department (not as a professor or anything meaningful or prestigious, which will make sense in a second), doing basically admin shit it seems. I was curious because she's still listed on their site and it says she's been there for like eleven years. I was wondering if she ended up going there as a student in something, but without a linkden or something, I couldn't see. But every time I googled her name and the school, the only thing that came up was her staffing position. No information to indicate she was a student.

Which is funny. I looked up to see if you can go to Harvard for free if you work there, and the do have a reimbursement program, but you'd only get like 75% of fees back, so you'd still have to come out of pocket. And this is an IVY, so that's going to be pretty. And considering what she does, I can't imagine it paying that much where she could easily afford it. Maybe she does take classes and is slowly working her way to some kinda degree, but I doubt it. I feel like she'd at least be able to brag by now given how long she's been there (the site fucking says when she started lol).

Either way, the reason this is funny to me is because she was never even close or talented or impressive enough to anyone let alone college admissions to get into a school like Harvard (I know for a fact she didn't get in in hs lol), and transferring into schools is typically easier, she didn't get her degrees from there according to the site. So I just lowkey find it funny because the closest she'd ever get to Harvard is not as a student or even as someone brought in to teach, but by getting some admin job and sticking around long enough to get her picture on the school's site. She looks so proud in her Harvard shirt, thinking she finally "made it" but never in a way that would actually impress everyone.

It just all feels very fitting for her. In the right spaces to be around more impressive people while being overwhelmingly mediocre her own damn self lol.

[charminglygrouped]

For the past several years (and perhaps longer) in the P&P fandom I've seen a lot of people who want to rehabilitate Mrs. Bennet: like, sure, she's uncouth and seems greedy, but it's because she cares so much about her daughters' futures; her situation is actually really stressful and uncertain and she's powerless to change it and her husband makes fun of her, and so it's natural that it would cause her to be anxious all the time; maybe she doesn't have the intelligence or social awareness to understand that her behaviour is actually harming her daughters' prospects, but at least her heart is in the right place.

I'm usually not the type of person who argues that fandom is actually being too nice to a female character, but in this case I don't buy the counter-narrative (which I think is popular enough at this point to be fanon / a narrative in itself) about Mrs. Bennet.

For one thing, she was never really powerless in this situation. These people are rich even for gentry. Mr. Bennet's income was always good, at 2,000 pounds per annum (even though I can't believe he isn't neglecting some practices that could raise it higher). Mrs. Bennet had 4,000 pounds from her parents and a further 1,000 from Mr. Bennet. Invested in the 4 per cents (for example), this is 200 pounds per year in pin money that Mrs. Bennet could spend without touching the principle of her dowry, and without affecting Mr. Bennet's income. This is more than some people's entire yearly incomes.

The picture of Mr. and Mrs. Bennet that we get in P&P is not of people who are helpless against their circumstances, but of people who are extraordinarily neglectful. We're told that:

Mr. Bennet had very often wished, before this period of his life, that, instead of spending his whole income, he had laid by an annual sum, for the better provision of his children, and of his wife, if she survived him. [...] When first Mr. Bennet had married, economy was held to be perfectly useless; for, of course, they were to have a son. This son was to join in cutting off the entail, as soon as he should be of age, and the widow and younger children would by that means be provided for. Five daughters successively entered the world, but yet the son was to come; and Mrs. Bennet, for many years after Lydia’s birth, had been certain that he would. This event had at last been despaired of, but it was then too late to be saving. Mrs. Bennet had no turn for economy; and her husband’s love of independence had alone prevented their exceeding their income.

We also know that the "continual presents in money which passed to [Lydia] through her mother’s hands," plus her allowance and food, amount to about 90 pounds per year. Rather than saving up from the beginning in case the entail is not broken, rather than beginning to save once it's clear a son will not arrive, rather than making Jane's dowry the full 5,000 from her mother (which would be something) and saving up for the younger girls' dowries thereafter—which is what would be typical, and that's why Lady Catherine was so shocked that all the girls were out at once—Mrs. Bennet's housekeeping, dress, the girls' allowance, presents of money over and above their allowance, plus whatever Mr. Bennet is spending money on (and other expenses relating to servants, carriages, maintenance &c. which are unavoidable), add up to their entire income. The only reason why Mrs. Bennet doesn't overspend even that is that that's where Mr. Bennet puts his foot down.

Mrs. Bennet is actively harming her daughters' prospects, not even of marriage, but of living respectably if they don't marry, because she doesn't have the temperance not to spend all of the income that is allotted to her. It is the role of the woman in a marriage to take charge of the housekeeping, servants, cooking, furniture, and all expenses relating thereto (plus certain attentions to her tenants and any living in genteel poverty in the area, though presumably this will depend on her income and whether there's a parish church with a parson's wife who's doing some of these things). She's an adult who should be competent to manage these things in a reasoned way without needing to be dictated to.

It is supposed to be the role of the woman in a marriage to take charge of her daughters' education—and yet Mrs. Bennet did not hire a governess, and Elizabeth says that she didn't spend much time teaching her daughters anything (it's not clear to what degree she's educated herself). Granted, the girls did have masters—but, from the sounds of things, that was only if they requested them. No one was required to learn much of anything, which will probably further harm the marriage prospects of the girls who "chose to be idle."

I think the "point" of Mrs. Bennet is that she is one half of one type of bad marriage which the novel illustrates, in contrast with the Gardiners' marriage. These marriages are two possible models for the Bennet daughters to look to. At one point, Elizabeth's prospective marriage is explicitly compared to her parents', with her in the role of her father: Mr. Bennet says "My child, let me not have the grief of seeing you unable to respect your partner in life" (emphasis original).

We might wonder whether Elizabeth saw herself potentially in the role of her father, in a marriage that was very intellectually unequal, when she rejected Mr. Collins; or whether she also saw herself in the role of her mother, married to a man who insults and doesn't respect her, when she rejected Mr. Darcy. Ultimately, she accepts Mr. Darcy after she realises that he is nothing like her father; that he is diligent in attending to his responsibilities, and that he does evidently respect her mind.

This isn't me defending Mr. Bennet, who is also a bad parent and a bad spouse. I do, however, find it a little disturbing when people suggest that Mr. Bennet is at fault for not controlling or curtailing his wife. His wife is a grown woman. Surely we don't actually believe that a situation where a man is legally in complete control over his wife, merely because he is a man and she is a woman, is in any way natural, moral, or just? (This also goes for people who suggest that Mr. Bingley needs to get his sister 'in line' 😬😬😬.)

Mrs. Bennet should be competent to manage her household and her daughters. Given that she's not, yes, Mr. Bennet, according to Georgian and Victorian ideas of the role of a man in a marriage, "should" have stepped in and started dictating to her. But I don't really think that's what Austen is suggesting went wrong here. The models of good marriages we have—the Gardiners, the Bingleys and Darcys after their weddings—are all ones in which the women were basically sensible people to begin with. In the latter two cases, we are told of particular ways in which the men stand to benefit from some mental quality of their future spouse (Elizabeth's good humour and ease in company; Jane's steadiness and determination).

The ideal which some Georgians had of a husband's role being to shape his wife's intellect doesn't seem to be what's being advocated here. If Mr. Bennet made a mistake, it was in marrying a silly, selfish, ill-tempered woman to begin with, not in failing to browbeat her into submission once he found out that she was silly, selfish, and ill-tempered. The idea is that you should choose your spouse carefully. But that message doesn't work if Mrs. Bennet is just a woman in a difficult situation who has her heart in the right place.

[inkskinned]

i was raised by a catholic deacon so as a kid - maybe ages 7 to 14 - i would have told you that abortion was only okay in exception cases like rape. i didn't even really understand any of the terms at play here, only how to parrot that there were "few and far between" exceptions, but abortion-as-a-whole was irresponsible and evil. i believed it was a bad form of birth control.

for context's sake - i still had a flip phone. google wasn't really a thing back then. the whole narrative was akin to the apostle's creed: i don't know that i ever thought about what the words meant, only that this was what i was supposed to say when asked. i remember being in 4th grade and having it down pat - abortion is evil, except in cases such as rape. my father wasn't insensitive, after all - he acknowledged there might be medical necessity to end a life.

what changed was that at 14 i learned how hard it is to prove that a rape has happened.

it was a boy, actually. and his piano teacher. and him telling me, crying, that nobody believed him that he didn't want it. and what if she gets pregnant?

this is the mark in a lot of our lives: at some point, someone will confide in you, and then you see exactly how often it happens. how it happens so fucking loudly, and nobody says anything. how often your friends, nervous, will shakily admit that while they love their partner, there are a few times that they didn't really consent, that they didn't really want it. for others, there are nights half-remembered in bars. for others, they married their partner at 15, so now it's "fine", legally. for others, there are yes moments that felt like a no. there were no moments that were never acknowledged. you say no but are told you actually said yes because of what you were wearing or because he is good at swimming and his life would be ruined or because he's a nice guy or -

in the last 8 years, my father has become radicalized. he now believes in "no exceptions".

but the truth is that there was never going to be a true "exception" clause. there was never going to be a grey area. i am not even really sure they believe in the concept of rape. and if they did - how would you ever prove it? in the six weeks you have to state your case - when it takes years in a court of law - the "rape exception" would simply evaporate under the continued pregnancy. you were never going to have a moment where you could privately tell a doctor - it's because of a rape. there was no box you could check. there was no form you could file. it was always going to be assumed consensual until proven malignant. it was always going to be your fault.

they also knew they couldn't actually sell the rest of us on this idea of it's always blessed. they knew in their hearts that every pregnancy should be wanted. they knew going in that plenty of us - even raised catholic, even having had this shoved down our throats - plenty of us still had too many questions about what ifs.

it's just they just didn't want to come off as monsters. they patted our heads and taught us they weren't insensitive. they just had these beliefs. and then they put their hands on our bodies. and said if you don't listen, i'm going to force them.

[passive-t-u-m-b-l-r-user]

God forbid Kairi have to find a new dream that isn’t being with Sora

[homo-house]

hey uh so I haven't seen anyone talking about this here yet, but

the amazon river, like the biggest river in the fucking world, in the middle of the amazon fucking rainforest, is currently going through its worst drought since the records began 121 years ago

picture from Folha PE

there's a lot going on but I haven't seen much international buzz around this like there was when the forest was on fire (maybe because it's harder to shift the narrative to blame brazil exclusively as if the rest of the world didn't have fault in this) so I wanted to bring this to tumblr's attention

I don't know too many details as I live in the other side of the country and we are suffering from the exact opposite (at least three cyclones this year, honestly have stopped counting - it's unusual for us to get hit by even one - floods, landslides, we have a death toll, people are losing everything to the water), but like, I as a brazilian have literally never seen pictures of the river like this before. every single city in the amazonas state is in a state of emergency as of november 1st.

pictures by Adriano Liziero (ig: geopanoramas)

we are used to seeing images of rio negro and solimões, the two main amazon river affluents, in all their grandiose and beauty and seeing these pictures is really fucking chilling. some of our news outlets are saying the solimões has turned to a sand desert... can you imagine this watery sight turning into a desert in the span of a year?

while down south we are seeing amounts of rain and hailstorms the likes of which our infrastructure is simply not built to deal with, up north people who have built everything around the river are at a loss of what to do.

the houses there that are built to float are just on the ground, people who depend on fishing for a living have to walk kilometers to find any fish that are still alive at all, the biodiversity there is at risk, and on an economic level it's hard to grasp how people from the northern states are getting by at all - the main means of transport for ANYTHING in that region is via the river water. this will impact the region for months to come. it doesnt make a lot of sense to build a lot of roads bc it's just better to use the waterway system, everything is built around or floats on the river after all. and like, the water level is so incomprehensibly low the boats are just STUCK. people are having a hard time getting from one place to another - keep in mind the widest parts of the river are over 10 km apart!!

this shit is really serious and i am trying not to think about it because we have a different kind of problem to worry about down south but it's really terrifying when I stop to think about it. you already know the climate crisis is real and the effects are beyond preventable now (we're past global warming, get used to calling it "global boiling"). we'll be switching strategies to damage control from now on and like, this is what it's come to.

I don't like to be alarmist but it's hard not to be alarmed. I'm sorry that I can't end this post with very clear intructions on how people overseas can help, there really isn't much to do except hope the water level rises soon, maybe pray if you believe in something. in that regard we just have to keep pressing for change at a global level; local conditions only would not, COULD NOT be causing this - the amazon river is a CONTINENTAL body of water, it spans across multiple countries. so my advice is spread the word, let your representatives know that you're worried and you want change towards sustainability, degrowth and reduced carbon emissions, support your local NGOs, maybe join a cause, I don't know? I recommend reading on ecological and feminist economics though

however, I know you can help the affected riverine families by donating to organizations dedicated to helping the region. keep in mind a single US dollar, pound or euro is worth over 5x more in our currency so anything you donate at all will certainly help those affected.

FAS - Sustainable Amazon Fundation

Idesam - Sustainable Developent and Preservation Institute of Amazonas

Greenpeace Brasil - I know Greenpeace isn't the best but they're one of the few options I can think of that have a bridge to the international world and they are helping directly

There are a lot of other smaller/local NGOs but I'm not sure how you could donate to them from overseas, I'll leave some of them here anyway:

Projeto Gari

Caritás Brasileira

If you know any other organizations please link them, I'll be sure to reblog though my reach isn't a lot

thank you so much for reading this to the end, don't feel obligated to share but please do if you can! even if you just read up to here it means a lot to me that someone out there knows

also as an afterthought, I wanted to expand on why I think this hasn't made big news yet: because unlike the case of the 2020 forest fires, other countries have to hold themselves accountable when looking at this situation. while in 2020 it was easier to pretend the fires were all our fault and people were talking about taking the amazon away from us like they wouldn't do much worse. global superpowers have no more forests to speak of so I guess they've been eyeing what latin america still has. so like this bit of the post is just to say if you're thinking of saying anything of the sort, maybe think of what your own country has done to contribute to this instead of blaming brazil exclusively and saying the amazon should be protected by force or whatever