#history vs women

[pettyprocrastination]

so sorry but bridgerton!Simon Riley where he was the son of a butcher but then became a soldier and rose through the ranks with help due to his (incredibly) wealthy captain John price that left him sitting comfortably when he returned home but still looked down upon because of his status as "new money" in the aristocratic society. Just as grouchy and rude as he was before, but now with the money to gamble as he wishes and a grand estate to spend his days alone on.

but then his captain is pulling him out into the public eye by force because the season is arriving and all the eligible debutantes are looking for a husband and "I wont have you drink yourself to death completely alone, Riley" but low and behold all the motherfucker does is stand in a corner with a drink and stare all goddamn night. On the off chance that some poor woman comes up and strikes a conversation with him she's left less than pleased with his one word answers and walks away with a sour face when he inevitable says something foul mouthed. The night goes the same until he sulks off when price is busy dancing with his wife-

imagine his surprise when he slips outside to find you, one of the eligible noble ladies he found particularly enticing sneaking a cigarette in the garden, who doesn't turn up her nose in judgement when he rolls up his sleeves and asks if he can bum one off of you.

[doll-elvis]

the way the feminism would leave my body at lightning speed as soon as Elvis asked me to do something…

like cut your toenails? let me go get the clippers sir

[haggishlyhagging]

For many young women [Emma] Goldman came to be viewed as the symbol of liberation. That Goldman herself was not insulted by some of the views of her admirers demonstrated the extent of her misunderstanding of her own appeal. One woman compared a Goldman speech to "a glass of fine, old wine," under the influence of which the listener grew "more and more excited and stimulated . . . until finally I feel I can sit quietly no longer, but just must give expression somehow to the surge of thought and feeling she awakens." Louise Bryant likened Goldman to "the other good things that come to us, like the spring and the rain and the sunshine," and referred to her lectures as "inspirational messages" of "healing and life-giving qualities.

These women might have substituted with equal results a sermon of Billy Sunday, or a concert or play, for all the difference it made to the creation of a revolutionary movement. Goldman provided entertainment; perhaps her young admirers expected little more. Nevertheless, the relationship between Goldman and these young women had a more serious and more disturbing aspect. Goldman was a remarkable figure who may have given these women a sense of being included in "the Cosmic secrets of nature," but they misinterpreted emotional experience as revolutionary commitment. In return for their admiration, the young bohemians expected Goldman to shoulder for them the burden of the consequences of political activism. Nearly the whole of anarchist philosophy was reduced to hero-worship of those few individuals who were willing to do the things that others were prepared only to imagine—to endure the unwelcome attention of the authorities, to accept prison, to act as surrogates for those who wished to have something in which to believe but not necessarily to emulate.

-Margaret S. Marsh, Anarchist Women, 1870-1920

[resplendentoutfit]

Robe à l'anglaise (between 1720 and 1780)

Robe l'anglaise

There are two main characteristics that distinguish the robe l'anglaise or "tight-back" gown from the robe à la Française. First, while both have a silhouette focused on expansion at the hips, it was achieved with the use of delicate gathers, not panniers. As a result, the English gown has a less extreme silhouette.

The second attribute that differentiates the robe à la Française from its English counterpart is that the robe l'anglaise had a fitted bodice and back, rather than the 'sack back' of the robe à la Française with its box pleats, sometimes referred to as "Watteau pleats" .

Both styles featured skirts that opened in front to reveal a petticoat. Both also featured a funnel-shaped bodice. The English gown sometimes showed variations of the bodice as shown in the yellow and green gown below.

And speaking of "Watteau pleats", below is a painting detail from a work by the Rococo master himself, featuring a pink robe à la française. See my post on the robe à la française here.

L' Enseigne de Gersaint (The Shop Sign of Gersaint) • detail • 1720-1721

Robe à la française • Brocaded silk and linen • 1765-1770 • Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Robe l'anglaise with a same fabric pettycoat (with funnel-shaped bodice)

Robe à l’anglaise with a solid jacquard-woven petticoat in a complimentary color (without the funnel-shaped bodice) • c. 1775

And because I cannot resist, here is one more!

Silk brocade robe l'anglaise • 1735, altered 1765

[andrewckeeper]

LIDMF AI "Predator, asistiendo a un acuerdo planetario junto a los representantes del planeta tierra en Flandes, 1412. Este acuerdo implica la libre circulación de Predators en el planeta tierra, así como la obtención de trofeos humanos de cantidad limitada y estipulada en este contrato. Los Predators prometen no destruir el planeta tierra a cambio, con la posibilidad de suministro propio de tecnología alienígena en un futuro"

[ryukisgod]

TRAs talking about how history will judge us poorly reminds me of that quote “isn’t it an amazing coincidence that the good guys won every war?”

[bidotorg]

Do you know the #bilarious Aubrey Plaza?

[tremendously-crazy]

"i'm sorry i committed the crime of being born this way," says michael, fourteen year old cisgender heterosexual male after a teenage girl says she'd pick the bear

[prolibytherium]

Absolutely death gripped clenched trying not to comment on reductive posts on ancient greek homosexual relationships

[wcters]

i know this is not what i usually post on here but i just want to share this quote from margaret atwood on writing the handmaid’s tale:

“I made a rule for myself: I would not include anything that human beings had not already done in some other place or time, or for which the technology did not already exist. I did not wish to be accused of dark, twisted inventions, or of misrepresenting the human potential for deplorable behavior. The group-activated hangings, the tearing apart of human beings, the clothing specific to castes and classes, the forced childbearing and the appropriation of the results, the children stolen by regimes and placed for upbringing with high-ranking officials, the forbidding of literacy, the denial of property rights—all had precedents, and many of these were to be found, not in other cultures and religions, but within Western society, and within the “Christian” tradition itself.” taken from this article.

atwood also mentions this in why she decided it was time to write a sequel: "People had been asking me to write a sequel for a long time, and I always said no, because I thought they meant the continuation of the story of Offred which I couldn't do," she says. "But then I thought, what if somebody else were telling the story? And what if it were 15 or 16 years later? And it was also time, because for a while we thought we were moving away from The Handmaid's Tale. And then we turned around and started going back toward it, ominously close in many parts of the world.” taken from this article

these quotes say a lot. if you know what the handmaid’s tale is then you know what i mean. it is absolutely sickening that everything in that book is based on something true happening at some time in history. i haven’t read the book (i really want to) but i have watched the show.

yes, we have come a long way in terms of women’s rights, but we haven’t come far enough, and now we’re going backwards, and some countries are even getting closer to becoming the handmaid’s tale. you can see this backward movement almost everywhere, but it is extremely visible in women of colour and minorities. we need to help each other, not just us women, but men too.

i recommend watching this video because this man is amazing and everything he says is true. as well as the “man versus bear” debate correlates.

i was just watching some random youtube video when an ad with margaret atwood came up saying the quote from earlier and that got me hooked. the idea of that was in the back of my head but still. she is a genius. and she speaks the truth. we need to listen and we need to work collectively to stop this.

[schlock-luster-video]

Remembering Lucha Libre and cult film icon Rudolfo Guzman Huerta -- better known as El Santo -- on the anniversary of his death.

R.I.P. (1917 - 1984)

[horizon-verizon]

This is about the show only:

Viserys, as the King, is the patriarchy, and Rhaenyra is only able to get away with rebelling against it because Viserys lets her. Viserys expects Alicent to be a dutiful childbearing wife but let’s Rhaenyra do basically whatever she wants because he feels guilt for what he did to Aemma. And Rhaenyra is okay with that. She doesn’t care about other women suffering. She only wants to bend the rules for herself.

Instead of being angry at Viserys for marrying Alicent she is angry at Alicent, who had no choice. Alicent has been maritally raped by Viserys for years. She dutifully bore him three sons and daughter. They even all have the Targaryen look and ride dragons. She did her duty, and he still doesn’t give a shit about his kids with her and clearly favors Rhaenyra. Still, Alicent took care of Viserys for years when she could have just let him rot. She may not love him romantically but she clearly cares about him, despite what he did to her.

Alicent has been a saint, because if I were her I would have poisoned both Daemon and Rhaenyra and also Viserys to protect my children. Alicent, as a victim of Viserys has every right to advocate for her children and put them first. She has every right to want Aegon to be king, not because she’s some woman hater like y’all think, but because she’s simply a mother who wants to protect her children and frankly deserves to have her bloodline on the throne after everything she went through.

She doesn’t even want Rhaenyra dead, she still cares for her despite everything. Alicent isn’t perfect but neither is Rhaenyra. You can support and root for Rhaenyra while acknowledging that Alicent does have a point and that the story is not black and white. I understand why Rhaenyra wants the throne but I also understand why Alicent thinks crowning Aegon is necessary.

Special Note: Since the show's world is the same as the ASoIaF canon's, the cultural, legal, and political laws and situations and contexts I will bring up are all valid. Plus, I've made several posts as to how this show is garbage in terms of writing and characterizations & basic consistency. This post will put that aside (for the most part) to be Watsonian.

*EDITED POST* (4/7/24)

Can you do something for me, anon? Point out to me a single scene or family that is actively preparing to usurp Rhaenyra before any of the greens did. We see Borros shout at Lucerys, but did you actually see him with troops and supplies stored places in preparation to usurp Rhaenyra BEFORE Aemond arrived?

Alicent's kids were always safe. You, like her, took Otto's words for granted, and for why?

I explain how Otto and Alicent were wrong about the lords rebelling (w/o green interference) all in my points below.

A)

Let's take a breath. Imagine what having a female Queen Regnant--not just a Queen Consort, Queen Dowager, or Queen Mother--would do for any other woman seeking power in a male-dominated society that frequently abuses its own women from noblemen to common blacksmiths (Megelle).

There is now a precedent (since people shout "what about precedent?!") of a female leader. Such that would socially justify and legitimize further other female claimants of noble seats across the realm.

Jeyne Arryn is an example of a woman who would have benefitted even more from Rhaenyra ruling, even w/o Rhaenyra being Aemma's daughter and thus Jeyne's cousin. Her rule of the Fingers, Vales, etc. would have had much more confidence and power than if Rhaenyra hadn't had an unencumbered reign as a woman in her own right.

("The Blacks and the Greens") -- the greens looking over list of those who could support them:

("A Son for a Son") -- Jeyne's reasoning for supporting Rhaenyra:

But because Rhaenyra not ruling, what happens? For years, women/girls like Arianne Martell, Sansa and Seren Stark, and Jeyne Poole (Arya Stark, if she hadn't gotten out) are even more abused--physically and emotionally--by power-seeking/misogynist men.

You bleat about how Alicent is abused. Well, by her participation and actions in usurping Rhaenyra, she made life worse for all women in Westeros. Because the idea that women should not be leaders and that men should always have power over them became stronger (posts and reblogs by brideoffires).

If Rhaenyra had been allowed to rule, would any of what happened (during the Dance) to the common-born or any noble person in and out of King's Landing have happened? NO!

B)

Rhaenyra had been heir for at least 12-13 years in the show and Lord Caswell was killed for trying to escape and alert her. I'll bring up the book once here just so my point is supported: those oaths that Viserys had the lords make for Rhaenyra? Most followed through and supported her throughout the actual war...that the greens started. Many of them enthusiastically did so. (Frey, Blackwood, the Arynns/Jeyne Arryn). Even a Stark, Cregan, kept fighting for her.

And a quick note: Also, do you know another person who plunged Westeros into war based on their anger at a handful of people for merely personal AND unjustified reasons (I will explain how Alicent is unjustified to be against Rhaenyra way below)? Aegon IV against Naerys and Aemon for their possible affair and Naerys birthing Aemon's child. It was said that Aegon believed Daeron, his official son, to be the bastard son of his siblings Aemon and Naerys.

In this case, Aegon IV was the type to prefer everyone suffering if he had no control, instead of doing as Viserys I did (if it was true or not, that part really doesn't matter politically) and kept hypothetical non-bio-son as his protected heir. I say "protected" because by naming all his bastards legitimate on his deathbed, Aegon IV endangered Daeron II's body and claim.

Yet this show will have us think that Alicent thinks always or mostly in the favor of "the realm" and unselfishly. And a huge reason why I that Alicent presents as "unselfish" more than hypocritical by the show's wriitng rather than her own hypocrisy is because Rhaenys--the resident supposed "wise" woman--has named Alicent as "wise" depsite immediately following that up with Alicent only making "windows" in the "prison" their patriarchal system shoves her into.

Another way is the effect of the Nymeria page she sends to Rhaenyra to try to dissuade her from war and just accept Aegon's rule...reminder, this page is of a woman nonDornish Westerosi would think a woman abnormal for her being a ruler onto herself AND Nymeria was a woman who while had to flee her past home and war with many lords for her people to survive....like Rhaenyra in this situation, aso had to fight wars (even when they were of conquest) to ensure her people's survival. She changed Dorne not for any noble reason, but for necessary self-oriented reasons of survival. And she's remembered as one of the most influential, important figures of Westerosi history, having created an entire different and lasting society in Dorne. Nymeria being framed as abnormal or cautionary--like Rhaenyra & Alicent have been in the in-world document of Fire & Blood--is par for the course and if Alicent was trying to be cautionary to Rhaenyra through the cautionary example of Nymeria, it would make sense for Alicent to do that. But it doesn't, really for Rhaenyra to fully & sincerely accept that line of persuasion. In other words, we shouldn't be validating--if what I said abt Alicent trying to use Nymeria as a cautionary note to Rhaenyra and not something like "remember when we used to be friends?!" way--and saying her reasons AND her way of ending a war are justifed or good...because she's still stealing something, one of the only things Rhaenyra has had that a man is allowed in this world.

MOST of the Westersi lords were in support of her and her "bastard" son Jacaerys. There were no real, substantive pushback or material war preparations against her for a real rebellion. Helaena was safe to marry Jaecaerys and become Queen herself, but Alicent refused why exactly? Because Jaecaerys was, to her, a bastard unworthy of her daughter...

C)

AND because she was still angry with Rhaenyra for...what exactly? Because Rhaenyra lied about "losing her virginity"?

Why does this matter to Alicent, when it is the fault of her father for making this public news? Why couldn't this be kept secret, as all the other times a noble girl/woman has had affairs and bastard children? (I get into real-life scenarios of kings actually allowing their wives to birth bastards and have lovers way below). Hint: Otto wants Rhaenyra to be replaced above him doing his "duty" to Viserys and actually being a good Hand. To pretend otherwise is a delusion.

Let's review the context of Rhaenyra's lying to Alicent (scroll down to "The Context of Rhaenyra’s Lie in Episode 4").

D)

You: "Viserys, as the King, is the patriarchy, and Rhaenyra is only able to get away with rebelling against it because Viserys lets her."

1.

Did you witness episode 6, where Alicent nearly lead most of the council meeting while Viserys sat close to her?

We are meant to understand that over the years, Viserys lets Alicent do more and more. He also allows her to demand Rhaenyra's children be brought before her every time they were birthed or not long afterward, knowing that Alicent wants him to call them bastards and declare them as such.

Customarily, Queen Consorts don't sit in councils unless their husbands allow it. Otherwise, they aren't included. Alysanne was involved because Jaehaerys allowed it.

But do you hear of any Queen Consorts joining the council After the Dance? Was Naerys involved when Aegon IV ruled? What about Daenaera and Aegon III? Shaera and Jaehaerys II? What about Rhaella and Aerys II? Cersei and Robert?

No, again, it is after the Dance that women are customarily excluded from substantive politics even as a Queen Consort. (Queen Dowagers or Mothers do not count because the king is usually their son/stepson who is either too weak to rule independently or officially too young like Alyssa Velaryon was for Jaehaerys).

You need to remember that Alicent is trying to force Viserys' hand and reveal the boys' parentage to everyone so her own sons get support, knowing he did not want this, knowing that he is king.

Like Rhaenyra pointed out about Otto tailing her, questioning the heir/princess about their business and especially the parentage of their kids is treasonous (without concrete proof, and honestly she has none because one can never prove another's parentage at this point in history AND they had room to claim that the boys could very well have inherited darker features from their Baratheon kin).

In this light, we can say Alicent acts "treasonously". Yet Viserys lets her get away with it instead of putting his foot down. Doesn't really matter that he was ill and rotting, he was able to muster the strength later when he was sicker so that anyone who questioned Rhaenyra would not be left alone to live. Why couldn't he do this earlier, when he was healthier and stronger?

Yes, Viserys ignored her about the Velaryon boys...what did you expect him to do, renounce and abandon his daughter just because she birthed kids, not Laenor's? And make Corlys' ire worse? The guy who WANTS Luke to inherit Driftmark? Not only that, ruin his daughter and the house's images more than if he did as he did and allowed them to be legitimate? Then wouldn't Viserys be a worse father? Alicent was suggesting trash "advice" on that, both politically and personally.

So really, it seems you want him to be evil to Rhaenyra alone, rather than actual fairness.

2.

I don't think you watched episode 4 well.

I agree that HotD!Young Rhaenyra is freer than Jaehaerys I's daughters of the book. But what Viserys gives Rhaenyra is actually not much choice or room at all. unlike Jaehaerys' daughters, who have both parents one of whose problems were that there were too many children,

Rhaenyra's mother's death by Viserys mission to get a son AND her immediately being named his heir gave her new unique anxieties and burdens.

Her distance and rebuttals are all results of Viserys taking her friend as a wife and breaking one of those few bonds left to her. Because you can't be your stepmother's/Queen Consort best friend when she will birth other competitors (at this point, show!Rhaenyra was in deep doubt).

In that episode, we see how much choice he actually gives Rhaenyra:

Not letting her speak, not working with her to shut down Otto

dismissing her concerns about Otto until she gave him an ultimatum, which only seemed to work because he already suspected or disliked Otto

Not considering how it would rather benefit her claim to marry her uncle, as was the point of all those incestuous marriages between cousins and siblings and uncle-niece/aunt-nephew both in Valyria and Andal/FM Westeros.

*not in the episode, but still a part of this* marries her only friend, knowing that she is literally her only friend, all so he can avoid marrying another younger girl and have his cake/eat it too--attracted...knowing that they would never be the same again

He wanted obedience, anon. "You are my political headache!" Meanwhile he doesn't see how it would be politically better for her to marry Daemon.

3.

Laenor is gay. We already know that he and Rhaenyra tried but nothing came of it. There were never going to be any kids from that union.

What did you expect Rhaenyra to do exactly? Rape Laenor? Get a Lysene sex slave to impregnate her? You'd be the first to call her terrible for either of these.

Not have kids? That is even worse than not birthing her husband's children. For someone like her, the heir to the throne, to be called "barren" and unable to produce heirs herself. A thing Otto can use against her and promote Aegon the Elder as heir, which would give Otto more power over Rhaenyra.

Find another Valyrian-descent-male noble or blonde guy? And what guarantee do we have that he wouldn't try to take advantage of Rhaenyra though his blood link to any children he would sire and endanger her--plus those kids'--lives and reputations and positions?! We see how men in Westeros and beyond reach for power through even those children they do love...Rhaenyra was with Harwin bc he didn't demand anything of her nor looed for advancement through their kids. He was there just for her.

Do you want that, maybe because you already have a deep hatred for Rhaenyra that is irrational?

4.

Viserys got Rhaenyra into the mess that she was in with Laenor for his own ends and by his own cowardly need to have Alicent/someone that he thinks he chose as freely.

He is not only responsible for Alicent's misery but Rhaenyra and Laenor's as well. He also was responsible for Rhaenyra having to have kids whose parentage would always be doubted since it was an open secret that Laenor was gay.

Again, what do you think Rhaenyra was supposed to do? Demand an annulment and risk insulting the already ruffled Corlys? We already saw how Viserys was determined to have her marry Laenor to ensure a Velaryon alliance and smooth over his rejection of Laena. Do you really think that she could have done much there, when she already depends on Viserys for the said inheritance for the throne, as you have stated WHILE battling her other feelings of grief, anger, etc.?

So no, Viserys doesn't give her much choice or many allowances.

5.

In real-life medieval, Tudor, and early modern history, kings, lords, etc, there are many examples of husbands and fathers (latter less occurring) actively encouraging or allowing their wives, daughters, etc to have their own lovers or even children with said lover that the husband then names as his own.

Whether because:

the lover is an accomplished politician who takes the burden of rule off of him

wanted to stay married to said wife because of her dowry, other inheritances, or political connections

because the husband is infertile

because the husband is gay and unable to impregnate his wife

or because they already have kids and the king/lord/husband/etc do not want to jeopardize or draw suspicion of their kid's legitimacy -- better to claim all than to risk some

Sometimes it is even the court and territory's nobles and courtiers who want the queen/lady/wife to have lovers and children outside of her legal marriage just for the heirs, to avoid the madness of said king/husband, or to obtain a more competent politician/commander. The open secret if you will.

This means that Viserys sees many benefits in Rhaenyra having any sort of kids, which explains how he was willing to claim her sons as legitimate. I also have to remind you that Corlys also accepted these boys because he also wanted an heir.

Yes, Viserys loved his daughter in some capacity and wanted to protect her, but we can't ignore the political benefits that come with her having children within the cover of a legal marriage to a gay man.

In this way, Rhaenyra is further trapped in marriage, popping out sons and kids that while she comes to love, are also there to be heirs for another man. Does this sound familiar?

You should take read of Eleanor Harman's Sex with the Queen to learn more. Here's an excerpt:

With regard to royal children, the only consideration more important than their kingly blood was the monarch’s self-interest.  Many kings acknowledged children they knew had been fathered by someone else. Often, kings did not want to cast doubt on the paternity of older children they knew to be their own. In the case where the king could not father children, sometimes court factions heartily desired the queen to bear bastards in order to stabilize the throne and cement their own interests.

Fortunately, the queen’s complete and utter disillusionment with her husband usually set in after the birth of the heir.  And so it was not deemed worthwhile to lose international prestige, throw the nation into tumult, and question the paternity of all royal children, simply to deny the one cuckoo in the robin’s nest. In the early nineteenth century, the last son of King John VI and Queen Carlota Joaquina of Portugal was extremely good-looking and slender - unlike either of his parents - and happened to be the spitting image of the handsome gardener at the queen’s country retreat. Other than a few snickers behind painted fans, no one said a word.

E)

You: "Viserys expects Alicent to be a dutiful childbearing wife but let’s Rhaenyra do basically whatever she wants because he feels guilt for what he did to Aemma. And Rhaenyra is okay with that. She doesn’t care about other women suffering. She only wants to bend the rules for herself."

Already explained the little-to-no choice for Rhaenyra aspect.

Yes, Viserys does expect Alicent to do this, because, unlike Rhaenyra, Alicent is not facing 10% of usurpation or pushback that Rhaenyra--as heir--would/could.

She is Queen Consort, not soon-to-be-present Queen Regnant. Alicent is not his heir. She is his wife and the person who bears him other children, his "spares". Unfortunately, that is the way of feudal, monarchial patriarchy. Of which Alicent wants to use it for herself and uses it to judge/make Rhaenyra seem unfit...the very system and principles that oppress her, Alicent.

This does not mean Alicent had no right to pursue power for herself by principle, even though I want Rhaenyra. Show!Alicent, however, lives to give up power for conformity's sake in comparison.

And Viserys should be held accountable for sleeping with a teen girl who clearly didn't approach him with full willingness. And if not Alicent, it would have been any other girl or woman. Because girls are socially eligible to become wives as soon as they get their periods in Westeros, even if the practice is that parents and guardians usually wait until the girl is in her later teens (16-19). That's a societal problem that both he and Otto can and did take advantage of.

But again, anon, what exactly did you expect Rhaenyra to do? The girl was also 15, like Alicent!!!!

You seem to give the mantle of responsibility if Alicent's suffering to her. I said this already in another post, but Rhaenyra just lost her mother a few months earlier (something Alicent has experienced) and she has taken to her duties as heir. Alicent is the one who was more available for her than she was to Alicent. Can Rhaenyra read minds, now? Why didn't Alicent let Rhaenyra at least know that Otto was forcing her to do this? That, at least, was within Alicent's power.

What is Rhaenyra supposed to have done when Viserys and Alicent both explicitly told each other (episode 2) they'd keep their meetings secret from Rhaenyra, thus keeping Rhaenyra totally out and in the dark whilst she was mentally preoccupied?

NOTE: I want to clarify that I don't think Rhaenyra would necessarily become Alicent's savior and stop Viserys from choosing her and use chess moves against Otto, or that Alicent should have thought Rhaenyra would 100% deliver her from this situation. Rhaenyra may or may not have been at least able to bring them together to think of how they could Viserys to know of Otto's plans, but that is not the point I make when I compare Alicent and Rhaenyra during this time. Alicent seems to have lived her entire life pressured into suppressing her desires for the sake of obeying her overbearing father, and it would be terribly hard to overcome that and see through those teachings instilled in you. But just by these statements alone, Rhaenyra proves to not be her actual enemy nor the cause of her suffering.

I could flip it around: If we say they were truly friends, why not say something--if we presume that they always talked about Otto's suffocating expectations of Alicent and their supposed many years of close friendship? The show--by not letting us see how they actually related their relationship with their families to each other (the jump cuts and lack of any flashbacks)--refused to allow us to better qualify the character of their communication habits. (I already answered this in the paragraph above). How close were they really? We only get their relationship through the lens of Rhaenyra's family's succession crisis. Before the events of episode 1, did these two girls tell each other a lot of things that they wouldn't tell others, and I mean the most private things--or do they hold those back and why? Would Alicent tell Rhaenyra about her father sometimes drunkenly bemoan her mother's passing if Otto did that? Would Rhaenyra tell Alicent any of her crushes? Would she tell her what she thought about the Faith, and if so, where did she stop if ever? Either way, with what is presented on-screen, the onus of their relationship did not/does not rest fully on Rhaenyra, esp when she didn't even know and could not spare time or thought to Alicent while going through shit herself.

So it doesn't look like Alicent gave Rhaenyra much of a choice either, to even attempt to help her out or give room to process information and respond, choosing to keep it close to her chest. Maybe to not lose her friendship sooner than she liked, it being due to obedience to her father and Viserys keeping it secret, or afraid of Rhaenyra not believing that she wasn't being overly ambitious and disrespectful towards Aemma's memory, etc. Once again, the point is that Rhaenyra had less ability to anticipate all this happening, so there needed to be just one person who told her all this. And in friendships & any relationship, one has to know when the ball is in their court, and in this instance, it was Alicent and Viserys. But both chose to keep Rhaenyra out of the loop completely until the last minute bc neither wanted to deal with what they both knew would be very hurt & angry feelings from her.

Meanwhile, before Viserys announced his marriage, Rhaenyra was actually being very helpful and "obedient", performing her tasks/duties. If you think ignoring Otto and choosing a capable fighter, specifically saying that "my father needs a worthy fighter with experience" and choosing Criston is her not following the rules or thinking of Viserys, you'd be dead wrong. This also goes for her suggesting they use dragonriders to join Corlys in the Stepstones, to which, once again, Viserys refuses and makes her look dumb, all because it was an interruption in "adult", manly matters. (Yes he allows her on the council later, but first events matter and he allowed a bad image to be made that day of her. Stupid of him.)

Finally, Rhaenyra is ranked lower than Viserys, THE KING, despite being his daughter. It appears you want some grand gesture or a big power play from Rhaenyra to protect Alicent from soemthing she doesn't even know is happening. What would you want her to do? To repeat myself, demand an annulment or a cancellation after it's already been announced? Again, if she had known prior, maybe something could be done and she could persuade him otherwise, but we'll never know, will we? And risk insulting Corlys? Again?!

So really, you should be angry at Otto and Viserys more than anyone. They are the ones with the power to put Alicent into the position that she is in. That's the patriarchy talking. That's not Rhaenyra's doing.

As for Rhaenyra's anger:

mother just died

Alicent's silence/keeping such secrets from her

Viserys' public dismissals

feeling some self-hate and disappointment for not having a male's value in her society

If you are going to advocate for Alicent finding fault in Rhaenyra's ability to find holes in the patriarchal mold made for her, we should keep in mind that Rhaenyra was deliberately kept out of even knowing what would happen to her and what she'd be up against later on in the first place. Would this not sting at least? Especially after she's told Alicent, presumably, about her fears for Aemma, her disappointment in Viserys' disregard for her before Aemma died, and her fears of being discarded once a male child arrives? All those years of friendship and thinking Alicent would tell her such important information? If we can forgive Alicent for thinking Rhaenyra would literally kill her kids or endanger them bc she fears her father and believes everything from him, why can't we "forgive" or cut Rhaenyra some slack for being angry that her best friend didn't tell her anything that could determine her future?!

When you've been doubted and sidelined all your life, it would take a lot of ability to compartmentalize (certainly more than anyone in this show has) to see past the nail in the coffin before it came down, which is not necessarily a good thing bc you risk repressing too much of your own emotions and thus debilitate yourself from making more rational decisions or debilitate your own ability to process information and get to conclusions as fast as you could.

Honestly, both girls are beleaguered and have much in common in terms of suffering from patriarchal authorities. Both are forced to have children for the sake of politics, one sexually abused and denied sexual exploration alrogwthwr before she hit 18, and the other totally shut down in any participation in politics as well as trapped in a position more vulnerable to others machinations if she hadn't had kids.

Their fathers both are the ones truly trifling.

F)

You: "Alicent has been maritally raped by Viserys for years. She dutifully bore him three sons and daughter. They even all have the Targaryen look and ride dragons. She did her duty, and he still doesn’t give a shit about his kids with her and clearly favors Rhaenyra. Still, Alicent took care of Viserys for years when she could have just let him rot. She may not love him romantically but she clearly cares about him, despite what he did to her."

1.

I wrote a post about feudalism, Queen Consorts, spares, etc for Alicent and Viserys, and the claim that just because she birthed him, children, doesn't mean he customarily owes her anything, much less making her kids heirs. Because this show's world still has the same sexist circumstances, same as what I said there for the show.

Anon, it's misogynist to go "Alicent did her duty by bearing four 'obvious' Targ children" when Rhaenyra's kids also ride dragons while not looking "typically" Targaryen.

You're saying that Alicent's kids are "worth" more than Rhaenyra's because she was a good girl and birthed heirs. You also fell for the court idea of "trueness" being "obvious" in appearance--blood purity.

Finally, are Alicent and Rhaenyra only worth their wombs, now? Is that what you want from your (assumed) fav, to just be a pawn spawning out "true" heirs for her father to take advantage of? Whose fault is it that Alicent is put into her position? Viserys is obviously partially at fault for choosing her at all, but who put her there? Otto. For purely selfish reasons. Why are you so devoted to hating a girl for mourning and being busy, whilst the true perpetrator of Alicent's suffering is Otto?

Why do you think that suffering for doing your "job" of being a baby factory and enduring marital rape = having "good morals"?

2.

*Disclaimer*: I do recognize how show!Alicent was sexually abused, as she was obviously unwilling.

My point is that why does sexual abuse have to be or is a requisite for respect and a tool of exchange for power? Why is it characterized as a thing that Alicent "let" happen to her, instead of just socially forced onto her? You do this when you argue that she "did her duty" and consented to give Viserys children without it being a problem about how Otto put her there in the first place, a place where she had little to no options. You don't mention this.

Children trump wives/husbands/spouses/SOs, as you argued that Alicent's love for her kids trumps whatever she feels towards any hypothetical husband/Viserys.

Why are we asking him to emotionally abandon Rhaenyra altogether for Alicent's kids? Romantic love is a nonfactor. Romance doesn't get top priority when we're talking politics, nor is it always or should be the final authority on who gets more favor. I mean, if we're talking about the characters only, Rhaenyra is Viserys' daughter. You're revealing that you'd prefer if Viserys gave his political favor to his wife over his daughter, which is pretty crazy considering that Rhaenyra is his heir and his eldest child, the child he's known and emotionally engaged with far longer than he's known Alicent. And this is coming from a person who agrees wholeheartedly that he was a terrible dad to any/all of his kids in different ways but was worse towards the green kids with his comparative neglect.

While it's fair to say Viserys should pay more attention to his other kids, I don't think that's all you want. I think that you want him to just name Aegon heir, that he can only express true love for his other kids by giving the heir title to Aegon and removing Rhaenyra. Because you think that the throne is Aegon's birthright. And you think it is his birthright just because he has a penis and Andal male-preferred primogeniture exists. Meanwhile, if you go through Westerosi history and read carefully, you will see that while girls are not as preferred to boys, you will see examples of girls leading houses even with male relatives available. Jeyne Arryn is one, who had male cousins and uncles by no brothers after they and her father died. You may counterargue and say either Jeyne had to take power to have it and/or that in Westerosi tradition the girl can only inherit if she has no nuclear-male relatives, and you would be correct.

Problem there is that you would be defending a patriarchal setback for women, and are therefore misogynist because you do not want women to have real autonomy. Autonomy is the power of self (it's in the word). Power that comes from and is practiced from the self, exists by itself and is generated from the self. It is the ability to make decisions for one's self, by oneself, as far from others' always-biased-and-never-fully-understanding-of-you's perspectives or abilities. More substantial power is not when a woman/girl only gets power when all other male options are unavailable, is that actual autonomous power or a pure autonomous claim the same as a man's? No.

So if you, anon, are upset with the idea that a woman seeks power for herself or ways to shape her life how she wants it without a man or man-lead/filled/prioritized institution making decisions against her, then you yourself prove to be misogynist and hateful of women seeking autonomy.

3.

What about when she grows older? Do you suggest that Alicent remains powerless then? Again, what I pointed out about Viserys letting her have a lot of power for years from episode 6. You should be troubled by how it's told how the Queen consort's only true job is to be a fertile womb, not congratulating her fertility under this context. Why is passive "power" the only power you want to afford a woman?

Once again, Alicent is Queen Consort. Not a Queen Regnant as Rhaenyra would have been.

After Viserys gives her that power and she gains much more in episode 8 in his illness, she is the next in the show's hierarchy/authority, as we saw by her giving orders to the Kingsguard. At least next to the King's Hand. She is also in charge of the running of the castle in that she dismisses servants and makes sure that whoever is in charge of collecting and organizing accounts of food, supplies, etc. (usually a castellan or a steward). Servants including those who dress and take the king's piss/poop out. Those who are literally close to Viserys. We see it in episode 3, where Alicent sends the servants away and cleans Viserys herself.

She has more influence or power than she or some fans think bc she is closest to the King. Not official policy-making, law-making, war-waging power, but a lot of social court power. Power that does not come from Otto.

In Westeros, it appears the heir officially outranks the Queen Consort because we haven't seen a Consort boss around the heir on their rank alone [a parent can do do with a child, but what about if the Consort isn't the parent of that child?] but in the show, they try to reverse that in episode 6. This doesn't track at all unless the writers do what they should have done and show accumulations of moments where Alicent gains more unofficial power as Viserys deteriorates and lets her go off to the races OR/AND she more and more gets him to feel that he needs to give her such power. Queen Consorts don't sit at council with the King, once more, it's a privilege granted to them and is actually an anomaly. Therefore, it would have been that much more meaningful to show how Alicent got where she got in at least 3 episodes preceding what we get in episode 6, even though it still wouldn't b match what happens in the original story. This is an example of the writers creating a new lore point but not sticking to their own invention or being logically consistent abt it.

Yes, her main and defining "job" -- by those patriarchal more she herself is trying to enforce -- is to give Viserys children and be the model of female chastity that Andal tradition dictates to her (alms, faith to the Faith, only having sex with Viserys). Plus run/oversee the royal inner household (its resources [ex. food] & the royal offspring), and possibly arrange marriages. She is even expected to bear with her husband's bullshit because he is her husband and she is a woman. (You'd be surprised at what Queen Consorts had to put up with in real-life history.) But she is not completely helpless & she doesn't have 0 agency. She just doesn't have any imagination and is resentful of Rhaenyra instead of the real perpetrators. Mostly because her imagination or independent thinking has been stifled by her social role as a female noble.

No, she could not have let Viserys rot with no (at the very least) supervision because that would put a social mark against her and her public image as a merciful Queen--the customary standard for a Queen--and be seen as her neglecting her husband. And Alicent had no intention of inviting that sort of censure. I recognize that she grew to have some sort of care for Viserys enough to be upset at his suffering and death, but that is something that is unequally expected of her as a wife and Queen Consort. the pressure is more on her to fulfill her duties to her husband than it is on Viserys to his wife, and he does not have the same duties as her, thus less pressure. He can take a mistress all he wants if he's adamant or sexually seeking enough. This is a world that is harsher and more expectant on the wife than the husband, even placing conditions of legal treachery into the mix. What do you expect as a "reward"? You don't get power or respect by complying or submitting to already oppressive systems/individuals' oppressive actions. Do you think that if you are a "good girl", you get to be happy and safe and compensated? That's not how hierarchies work. As a commentator below states. No, you get crumbs that you are taught to "enjoy" or have no other choice but to swallow.

So, it is not black-and-white "pure" & "free" devotion that she just wanted to take care of Viserys. She's also motivated by what she thinks she has to do to be a good woman/Queen/wife, which is all patriarchal bullshit. She thinks she has to be so accommodating towards Viserys because she knows that is her feudalist role as a Queen/woman/wife and that that will somehow give her peace. She thinks being perfectly chaste and caring will bring her some sort of satisfaction with how her life turned out, but suppresses her anger and probable feelings of shame that she seems to ignore.

Shame for having been spent to Viserys at all while having been above reproach before then (there should have been court gossip, but that's another thing).

Shame or guilt for not letting Rhaenyra know.

Shame for replacing her friend's mother when she listened to her speak about her family drama AND lost her mother herself.

All works as a paradox for living as a Queen Consort.

4.

It is by Andal tradition (not Valyrian) that the husband has nearly full power over his wife's life and that a wife obeys her husband. Rhaenyra is Viserys' eldest and Alicent gave birth to Viserys' "spares", which by the Widow's Law, we very well can make a strong case for how these kids do not go before Rhaenyra in the line of succession:

To rectify these ills, in 52 AC King Jaehaerys implemented the Widow’s Law, reaffirming the right of the eldest son (or daughter, where there was no son) to inherit, but requiring said heirs to maintain surviving widows in the same conditions they enjoyed before their husband’s death. A lord’s widow, be she a second, third or fourth wife, could no longer be driven from his castle, nor deprived of her servants, clothing, and income. The same law also forbade a man to disinherit the children by a first wife in order to bestow their lands, seat or property on a later wife or her children.

Rhaenyra can use this law to argue -- not that she should be put on trial, she's made heir by her father and since it was his will/word that's the definite LAW -- and strengthen her monarch-given right to ascend.

Your wife/Queen Consort can be good to you all she is. If you, the king, say that the heir is a specific person, they are that person regardless of who his wife is or how dutiful she is. State matters can and have been influenced through marriages and interpersonal care, but it can just as well not be because it all depends on the king's/monarch's disposition and the political context. That was the risk Otto took and used his own daughter to try and manipulate. Not Rhaenyra's fault at all.

That Alicent failed to see that until the 9th episode (the show itself, for all its flaws, is telling you this, anon!) shows how intelligent/narrow-minded/unrighteous Alicent has been from the time she set herself against Rhaenyra in their conversation of episode 4. And even before, when she never told Rhaenyra Otto's instructions to her and for years pushed that burden of responsibility on Rhaenyra..

When she's yelling about "having one child like that", she's referring to children born out of wedlock to a girl who doesn't act within her patriarchal sexual restrictions. Said restrictions are that women/girls should expect to only sleep with the man/boy their authority figure designates for them while their husband sleeps around and fathers bastards indiscriminately.

So, yeah, Alicent is a misogynist towards Rhaenyra.

G)

You: "She doesn’t even want Rhaenyra dead, she still cares for her despite everything. Alicent isn’t perfect but neither is Rhaenyra."

1.

Anon, you really don't get human psychology. A parent's love and care for their kids is such a visceral thing.

How is it in any way feasible that 8th episode-Alicent's behavior is realistic or consistent with how real people behave toward what they think is a threat to their kids? It doesn't make any sense how Alicent changed her tune after Rhaenyra apologized in episode 8. By:

calling Rhaenyra's sons bastards, endangering them all (whether by social shaming/ostracism [which can and has caused mental deterioration in human history], exile, or actual execution)

humiliating Rhaenyra by demanding that Joffrey be brought to her right after Rhaenyra birthed him to show the entire court that she doubts his parentage

by dismissing all her concerns and demands to deal with the Stepstones problem in a much more substantive way than just leaving it up to Daemon to stave off the Triarchy

There was no coming back from the years Alicent spent antagonizing Rhaenyra. She herself broke that connection based on false notions. Alicent has shown malice before episode 8. HERE is my past post about how Show! or Book!Alicent was never going to be a woman I rooted for when a possible Queen Regnant was available.

2.

Rhaenyra is the rightful heir and has always been so. Therefore, what Alicent was doing was usurping her.

...Usurping means killing people 80% of the time (an arbitrary number, but you should get it). And of the two sides, the greens were the group who'd be more willing to carry out unprovoked assassinations (Aegon after Jaehaerys' death [book, who knows if the show will include this], Aemond killing Lucerys, all the ploys Otto made behind Viserys' back, Aemond firing on the riverlands and killing all the Strongs, etc.)

To quote a lot of green stans and flip it: looking back in real history, people killed for thrones and power more often than they did in imprisonment, and even with imprisonment, it's usually not long before the person mysteriously dies in prison. Know your history and upgrade your understanding of human behavior and motivation. If any person who seeks to usurp someone else truly-duly thinks they can do so without killing them or having one of their supporters kill them (unprovoked), they are delusional. Or at least if you use this argument for why Alicent should act as she did, why isn't this the same for Rhaenyra/the blacks' end?!!

As I've said, Rhaenyra had several supporters who even fought for her after she died.

Watching episode 9, how could you think that Alicent actually had any influence and power over Otto and the councilors, who plotted behind her back to kill Rhaenyra? That she had to give her feet up for Larys to masturbate to in order to just get verbal info? (This is all after Viserys dies, so do not try to use me saying she had power under Viserys above when she loses much power after he dies, which is my point and which HotD exaggerates).

She couldn't use her brain to figure out Otto was behind her suffering all along? Until episode 9?

Show!Alicent never claimed power, so she was in a worse state than book!Alicent was. Your fave is an eroticized doormat for the male gaze (xenonwitch's reblog), not a powerful, self-driven woman.

3.

Their friendship never made sense anyway. From a Doylist standpoint. And show!Alicent herself is a terribly constructed character; Rhaenicent doesn't make sense (article in Polygon).

4.

Sure, Viserys supposedly treats Rhaenyra well and lets her get away with a lot of behavior that these other fathers of ASoIaF would never, BUT he also doesn't:

[book & show] give her enough political training, or equal to that of an male heir--though he does makes her his cupbearer and allows her to sit in council to hear said council (passive learning), he does seem to properly engage, quiz, test, etc. her in decision-making for economic, political, etc. stuff; he does not seem to ever ask for her opinions of certain laws or policies, existing or currently considered; he does not let her make many decisions without lecturing her or ignoring her in front of others (episode 3 with her suggestion about taking dragons to meet Daemon); NOR does he get some sort of tutor through some sort of training, military-wise--likely strategy, not actual combat training (a tutor even from Essos, there would have been many businesspeople and wealthy business families available and eager to work for the royal Targaryens)--that Dany in the main series had to herself must learn and continue from her earlier exilic education on the go. Rhaenyra herself must learn most of what she knows by herself when she heads to Dragonstone! If you can give your heir/child the material to help advance their understanding of certain things even in ordinary education, why are you holding back for this specific instance when the stakes are higher?!

[book & show] he does not firmly, properly, and publicly denounce Alicent's harassment and accusations

[book & show] make one or more of her sons his cupbearer/transition him into being a part of the council as well

[book & show] he does not try to prevent other's talk of Rhaenyra's sons until much later when it is way too late

[show] he doesn't question Alicent's asking for baby Joff at all or pursue why Rhaenyra was even there and bleeding apart from how she shouldn't be there--he quickly moves on, too

[show] In the book, he does send her on a "meet-and-greet" tour or "progress" of the realm to: put a face to the woman in her oath-bound lords/houses' minds -> amplify her "Realm's Delight" image, and reinforce her attractiveness/desirability/sexual purity -> make her more real and appealing. Show!Viserys sends her out on a point-blank marriage-tour where she hears marriage suits after her. The book version explicitly has Viserys/his council at least make Rhaenyra meet her subjects and hear their desires, concerns, and what they think of her. There is less of the kind of formality and distance than what the sho made in changing it into a straight-up marriage tour, so the ladies and lords seeing Rhaenyra for the first time only get to see her under the more stressful (for them as well as for her) and less emotionally engaging context of a mere business exchange. Also, Laenor was always both show!andbook!Viserys' final choice for Rhaenyra. Book!Viserys is just a little bit smarter and more careful than show!Viserys.

Viserys is better than most Westerosi men in how he treats Rhaenyra--book and show--, at least those fathers we get to hear about or get to know. Better, but not still not enough to meet the demands of his daughter's actual needs.

(8/21/23):

THIS is a great post by mononijikayu about medieval queens, female rulers, the history of how women in leadership positions were made and seen as threats to the very structure of social “order”, and contextualizing Rhaenyra thru Empress Matilda. I didn’t even know about Matilda’s husband being comparable to Rhaneyra’s Daemon! PLZ READ!!!!

Excerpt:

just as much, along with these fictitious portrayals, more lies are depicted. these women are considered vixens that cause havoc to men by shifting them into desires and danger. through the written word, we see how women are cast in roles of villains in men’s lives. it is because by their conclusive thoughts, women are the only creatures that are able to turn ‘good honorable men’ into despicable creatures who do shameful, deplorable acts for the sake of women’s pleasures. […]  it is within this narrative that ancient chroniclers declare that women were in fact the doom of men. if they were not able to control the dangers posed by the wiles of women, then the foundations of the mighty society they had built would be up in flames.  [...] as i mentioned, these factors of community are written down and preserved. and with that, the example of the ancients were the foundations by which medieval society built itself. the same concepts continued to cause the same issue within society and that was the exclusion of women from participating in the bigger picture of community and state, much so with governing states in their own right—without judgment or disapproval. 

[hecatesdelights]

She's not dressed like a slut, you just think like a grapist.

[space-opera-slays]

My history teacher has designated me the science representative for our class, a stem student in a sea of humanity students.

[is-this-really--life]

The complete opposition to umbrella terms for bi women and lesbians is becoming transparent. I think some of you don't like umbrella terms because you don't like to admit we have anything in common as women that love women.

[luminalunii97]

The reason I post on Tumblr is that I'm trying to spread the news about the Iran revolution and my targeted audience is non-iranians around the world. It's a fact that people of different nations mostly know each other by nationalities and not subgroups and ethnicities. For example, I know people from China or Russia or Argentina as Chinese and Russians and Argentines, but I have very limited knowledge about the cultural and linguistic diversity within different countries. I know about some ethnic groups through media or documentary programs, and I know more about the people of neighboring countries because of proximity and common grounds, but you can't expect me to know the demographics of every country around the world, and in return, I don't expect citizens of other countries to know the details of existing ethnicities in Iran, a country that has been isolated and pushed out of pictures for decades. With all these said I like to give very basic information about the ethnic structure of Iran's population.

Ethnic map of Iran

Iran has always been a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-culture, and multi-lingual nation. Iranian is the nationality and not an ethnical or racial identity. Persians, Kurds, different branches of Turks, Balochs, Lurs, Arabs, Gilaks, Mazanis, etc, etc, are the racial or ethnic identities that have made Iran's body. These ethnic groups have their own language or dialect, their own culture and food, costumes and urban legends, and in some cases particular religion. This makes Iran a very colorful country, which obviously can be a place of wonder but also trouble.

Some of the Folk Costumes in Iran

The relations among these ethnicities and their relation with the capital and the ruling system through history is complicated and differs from region to region, dynasty to dynasty. As you might know, the country you know as Iran today is the remains of an old empire that has gone through many uprises and downfalls, wars and invasions, and rebordering. Here's a quick video of how Iran's borders have changed through history; got bigger, shrank in size, and moved east and west.

The trouble with having so much variety within a country is the unpleasant manifestation of racism, favoritism, and discrimination. This problem has gotten a lot worse under the islamic republic regime. Even though favoritism and racism by the government have existed to different degrees in previous dynasties, the Islamic Republic took it to another level and since it's a theocracy, they added the element of religion stronger than ever to the discrimination mix.

Currently, in Iran, the uneven distribution of wealth and resources, and the government's neglect in many provinces and cities have made a huge gap between prosperity levels in crucial cities like tha capital, Tehran, and everywhere else. Tehran currently is the most populated city in western Asia. It's actually overpopulated, and this overpopulation is causing many environmental problems like air pollution in the city. The main reason is immigration because of the concentration of facilities and opportunities in the capital in contrast with non-existent facilities in other areas. Many people, including my family, have moved to Tehran, temporarily or permanently, to get a better chance at education or finding a job.

Apart from financial fairness, the islamic republic has been dead set on destroying ethnic identities in Iran. Banning the writing, reading, and learning of native languages at schools is one example. In many cities around the country, Persian is not the first language of daily communication. Persian as the official language is the mediator language that makes it possible for people from different regions to communicate. Different accents of Persian are the main and only language in many cities. Some cities are bilingual, but in others, Persian is like English in European countries, just a mediator, not the main native language. Almost everyone can understand and speak Persian, but native languages are the preferred language of daily life in cities with the majority of that ethnic population.

Another example is the restriction on wearing native clothes. In this one, the Islamic Republic hasn't been completely achieved, but they've been able to pale the usage or change the original form of most ethnic styles. For example, to make all the Iranian women uniformly dressed, they successfully changed the colorful veiling of Baloch women to a Black chador.

The original colorful clothing of Baloch women vs the black chador Islamic Republic has forced on them

Last but not least, based on religious beliefs, cities with the majority of non-shia muslim populations face discrimination times and times worse. Lots of Kurdish and Baloch cities have a majority of sunni muslim people. In the recent protests, the level of oppressing violence these cities have faced is far worse than in other states. Where in Tehran they shoot us mostly with shotguns, they only use battle rifles in Kurdistan and Zahedan. In only one day, Bloody Friday of Zahedan, they killed at least 96 Baloch people. Baloch people are also the first group of arrested protesters the regime has started executing. They're being murdered by the regime everyday now. These were only discriminations they're faced during the protests. A region with many metal mines like gold, and various industries is in so much poverty you'd think it's a war-struck place. Poverty, lack of clean drinking water, and identity paper restrictions are some of the examples of problems in Sistan and Baluchestan province.

In Kurdish cities the regime brought Tanks and DShK to suppress people, as if a foreign army has striked. People of Kurd never accepted the Islamic Republic regime and have been fighting its authority for decades now. Mahsa Amini, as you probably know by now, was from a Kurdish city named Saqez. The protests started in front of the hospital she passed away in, in Tehran, but it turned into full on revolution at her funeral, in her homeland, where Kurd women took their headscarves off and chanted "jîn, jîyan, azadî".

Fighting regional and racial discrimination in the free democratic future of Iran will be another obstacle our nation should deal with alongside women's rights, children's rights, LGBT rights, and working group rights.