#i just hate that that’s now a standard to strive for and it’s become so much more apparent since joining twt

[rayanlovestaylor]

.

[pixiemage]

I deal with ADHD on a daily basis, meaning I struggle with multiple (frustrating) things. There's one in particular that's been on my mind the most as of late: it's difficult for me to complete large tasks easily. For me, motivation, mental energy, and time are limited, and those rare moments where it all lines up so I can get shit done are often few and far between. This applies to both things I don't want to do, and things I do want to do. Even writing or cosplay construction or editing videos can become daunting tasks even though they're all fun and enjoyable hobbies of mine.

Recently, I've been trying to clean my room.

As anyone in my immediate family can tell you, this has been a big problem since I was young. My room starts clean, but then I put a few pairs of shoes by my bed, then don't have the energy to deal with the growing laundry pile, then can't find a place for the new mic stand I got for my birthday, then I start dumping jewelry on my bedside table at the end of the day when I'm tired, then - then - then. And then it builds to a disastrous tipping point and it has become this massive, incomprehensible task I have to tackle, and because my brain hates me, it's a frustrating and grueling process to even figure out where to begin.

But deadlines help (pressure helps) and I have found that working on it in the wee hours of the morning (from midnight to like 5am) is somehow a way to get my brain to focus on it. For some reason I work better then. Arguably, this isn't logical or useful every day because I need sleep and I have work, but I made MASSIVE progress two days ago by staying up way too late on a night when I finally found the drive to get shit done.

That's not really the point of this post though.

The point is that I've found that a majority of society (or maybe just the NT community in general) have a hard time seeing progress as worthwhile when completion is better.

"Did you finish your room?" "Not yet, but I dealt with that massive pile of crap on my couch! It's SO much better, and I can actually see the floor in front of my dresser now, and-" "That's not what I asked. Did you finish?" "Not yet." "The answer is no, then."

It doesn't matter how much I've done. It doesn't matter how proud I am of my partial progress. It doesn't matter that I fought tooth and nail to get to the point I'm at, because unfortunately, I haven't finished it all yet, so it's not good enough.

(And I know I have a deadline, and I know we have family coming over soon, and I know that being done is the goal, but the deadline isn't here yet. Give me time. I need time.)

I think we as a society need to award and praise ourselves more for the efforts we put in, whether we reached a finish line or not. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for completion, because at the end of the day that's often the goal of any task. But we should also let ourselves be proud of how far we have come as long as we're doing our best. I don't see that often enough. I continuously struggle to reach that finish line, but hey, I came this far today! I didn't reach Toad so he could tell me my princess was in another castle (because god knows there's always another task), but I did hit that checkpoint, and since I've been struggling through this level for as long as I have, that's still worth celebrating in some small way. It's still worth all the coins I collected and the goons I defeated to get to this point.

Don't reprimand your kids because their hard work thus far doesn't quite live up to your standards. Applaud what they've done and then help them find the right next step so they're motivated to keep going.

It takes a lot of work to save a princess. The journey has a lot more monsters than just the dragon.

[thatnarcissisticfeel]

Trying to construct "real" self esteem after having a fake ego for so long is one of the hardest parts about having NPD and trying to heal from it, especially because a huge part of it is actually letting yourself BE insecure, which obviously isn't fun for anyone, especially not narcissists.

Due to my NPD I’ve always needed attention and praise from people CONSTANTLY, and I would hate to see other people get positive attention, and I would do things I’m not proud of like lie or exaggerate or put other people down (usually in really passive aggressive and subtle ways rather than direct insults -- don't get me wrong, I'd be thinking the direct insults, but I'd rarely say them). It was an awful knee-jerk reaction that I'd have if someone did even slightly better than me on something.

I always needed to be #1. I needed people to care about me more than they care about anyone else. I desperately needed the love and positive attention that I never got.

For the longest time, I was the only one giving myself positive attention, and even THAT came from an exaggerated/fake ego. So I became hungry for genuine love, to not be so terribly alone.

I felt as if no one cared about me, no one needed me, no one would care if I disappeared or died. The reason why I felt this way ALWAYS boiled down to “well my friend gave someone else attention / didn’t give me enough attention / ignored me / whatever, so clearly this means they don't care about me at all.”

It's very much an "all or nothing" mentality - I'm either someone's favorite person in the world, or I don't matter to them at all.

Oddly enough, you know what helps me to heal? Realizing that it’s okay if no one cares, and that it’s ok if I only have myself.

You know that one meme that’s like “Nihilism, nothing in life matters?” Basically that’s how my NPD healing journey has looked. I started off with thinking "No one cares about me except myself :(" and now am striving to become "No one cares about me except myself :D" Ideally the final step in my healing process will be accepting that people DO care about me and that I CAN receive positive attention from people in a healthy way and that people WOULD be sad if I wasn't around, but oddly enough (and I know this makes no sense to non-narcs), before I get to that stage, I have to become ok with no one caring. And obviously that thought process may not work for all narcissists, but it's working for me, I think.

Because chances are there WILL be at least one instance where no one cares, or at least no one is around to reassure me that they do care, or no one can reassure me in ways that satisfy me...even if it's just in my mind/by my high standards, it is unavoidable that there will be several times when "no one cares about me". Even if it’s a disordered thought or a delusion, the best course of action isn’t always to convince myself that people actually do care, and the best course of action DEFINITELY isn’t to manipulate people into caring. The best course of action is to say “Ok, maybe I’m right, no one cares. Now what? I have to accept that and know that i’ve always got myself.”

Obviously that can't be my only coping mechanism, because then I might become too dependent on isolation, but it does help to self-sooth by trying to genuinely love myself and try to always be there for myself, even if I'm the only one.

[mist1e]

A Few Thoughts On Perfectionism, Or Why You Should Stop Hating On Your Art

I’m a perfectionist. A disgusting, self-abusing, heartburn-inducing perfectionist. And it extends to everything: if I like an artist, I download their entire discography. If I get curious about space, I dive into studying it like I’m training for NASA. If I promise to help someone, I’ll stay up all night to fulfil my word. If I do something, I either push myself to the limit or don’t do it at all — because what’s the point of half-efforts? Ah, how admirable. But, as with anything, moderation is key.

Over time, I’ve learned to tone down this fanaticism. But one thing never changed: I always expected myself to be the best.

I’ve tried countless hobbies in my life, joined dozens of clubs, and abandoned numerous pursuits because I couldn’t do them perfectly. Every time, I’d size up the competition, pick out the unfairly skilled veterans, and decide that among the rest, I had to be in the top 10%. If I wasn’t, I’d quit.

The same story played out with drawing. I started this endeavour a couple of times, always the same way: with academic painting — shapes, still lifes, the fundamentals. I tried to conquer every presented medium, striving for flawless strokes and works that met the impossibly high standards I set for myself. After short bursts of blind, intense effort, I would quit for years.

And then, I stumbled upon a PewDiePie video on YouTube. He’d been drawing for a year, just for fun. To be honest, he hadn't really progressed much, yet he was happy with the results.

One thought hit me like a brick: “Wait… you can do it like that?”

So, I decided to try it. I lured my inner perfectionist into a small, dark room, locked the door, and barricaded it with a chair. I started drawing, trying to find the fun. No goals, no benchmarks, no aim to become better and learn — just for the sake of pure, unadulterated enjoyment.

I had never drawn people before. Suddenly, I realised how exhilarating and emotionally charged it is compared to lifeless shapes and glass bottles.

I used to hate watercolour. Now, it’s my favourite medium.

I’d always feared the blank page. Now, I see every “ruined” piece as a chance to experiment and play.

I never even tried to draw because I thought I couldn’t contribute anything new or meaningful to the world. Now? I don’t care about that at all.

In just over a month of drawing almost daily, I’ve uncovered the reason behind my perfectionism:

High social expectancy on a false premise.

If you were an artist in a 19th-century town, your exposure would be limited to the works of a few selected geniuses in the local museum and perhaps your neighbour's sketches. That would be the standard against which you'd reasonably compare yourself. Today, thanks to social media, we're exposed to an overwhelming number of artists — far more than we could ever encounter in any other era. A social media feed is a museum of the modern day; every person who might have remained unknown in the 19th century, is now a click away from sharing their talent worldwide. As you scroll through popular posts, you overlook the years of hard work, countless attempts at becoming viral, or simply raw talent they have been blessed with, convincing yourself that everyone there is just effortlessly brilliant.

This skews your perception, creating the illusion that each person on the planet, in any corner of it, is a self-made prodigy, while you're the only one incapable of achieving anything remarkable. So you draw a conclusion that if you can’t match that, you’re a failure. If you mess up, you shouldn’t have tried. If your work is mediocre, it was a waste of time. And if you’re not as good as “them”, you must be worthless.

The world spins faster and faster, spiralling at a breakneck speed, and it feels like if you can’t keep up, if you don’t have some dazzling proof of your value, you’re nothing.

But it couldn't be further from the real picture.

In this endless chase for likes and validation, inflicted by this outside illusion of ubiquitous brilliance, we forget the simplest truth: the only real measure of success is our own happiness. And being happy is something only we can provide for ourselves, society can't be responsible for that.

Let’s imagine you’ve amassed thousands of likes and hundreds of retweets. But you’re miserable. You’re drawing characters you don’t even like, battling constant anxiety over dwindling attention on your posts. Instead of creating what truly resonates with you, you’re trying to predict what others might enjoy. You switch fandoms because your favorite one isn’t popular anymore. You live in fear of losing recognition — and with it, your sense of self-worth and value. Does that still sound like success, even though you have all those likes? Does it really seem like the right path for an artist?

Drawing should make you happy. And it does make me so happy. Not because I’ll ever be a famous artist or because my work is groundbreaking. It makes me happy because I love the process.

Day 10-11 of me drawing for fun:

This realisation still feels fragile, like I’m holding onto a wisp of smoke. I haven’t managed to extend it to every part of my life yet — like writing, where my E-X-P-E-C-T-A-T-I-O-N-S still loom large. But I’m trying. Trying to turn my need for validation inward, to find elation in the journey instead of grinding myself down just to present the world with a laboured, joyless but “worthy” result.

I can't help but see the unpleasant truth: there’s no other way. Either we’ll come to this realisation now, force ourselves to see the reason, or... Or it will still happen, but too late, and we will be mourning the time we wasted torturing and self-flagellating ourselves. Or we’ll double down and let the agony of unmet expectations scorch our creativity to ashes, until there is nothing left but self-hatred and disgust for our art.

When I first started drawing, I didn’t even plan to share it. I wanted it to be just for me. But then, on a whim, I posted it on Twitter — and, well, just kept going.

So here I am, catching up on Tumblr too.

Days 1-9 are down there.

(the left one here is someone else's beautiful art that I used to try watercolours for the first time, I won't be able to locate the source now, apologies for not crediting)

[unrvlybutch]

I believe this to be especially true for TIFs, but I think a large part of thinking transitioning would save my life was due to a deep misunderstanding of what the trans community actually is.

The media portrayal is dissonant to the reality of how rife with depravity and sex-cultism it actually is. The preconceived idea going in is different than what you're going to see once you step foot into trans spaces..Mostly of course due to the TiM autogynophillic side of the equation, but also due to the high concentration of comorbid mental conditions that are frequently displayed and discussed within these circles.

There is a strong emotional aspect that many young women can connect to, that feeling of "you mean I can escape this?" And not having to face sex based oppression is something that resonated with me, the new unwanted male attention, the standards of what it means to become a woman, the performance we're expected not only to conform to but to enjoy. Seeing your friends who were boys change and become distant to you, like strangers. The change is isolating, jarring, and introduces prospects that children weren't made to comprehend. Add a crazy new mix of hormones and preteen angst into the equation and it's a perfect storm.

Trans ideology is such a dangerous thing to discover and the community will never be a safe place for children. It is harmful and self destructive by nature, it inhibits the path of true personal growth in development and masquerades as exactly what it is destructive towards.

I wish I had never learned about the vague concept of "transness." I believe dysphoria is real, I still experience it -- but it does not mean I am male, I am not trapped in my body, I do not have a male soul. I don't feel like a woman because there's no feeling associated with being your biological sex. You just are, it just is.

What I don't understand is how Dysphoria moved away from being a mental illness when it requires destructive, experimental surgeries, hormones, etc. to just get to the baseline of feeling contented in oneself.

But I understand also from firsthand that it is a beast that is never satisfied, I felt but a moment of peace when I got on testosterone and then all the worries about a mastectomy came into mind, but even if I got that...My body would still be so noticeably female...moving onto the next worry, body masculinization surgery -- is that even a thing? I hoped it was..and phalloplasty, and furthermore...but even then, it stands only as a barely passable approximation of what I wanted for myself. And the cost? Impossible.

The dream of transition is not, on a biological scientific and social scale, enough to satisfy dysphoria

I see my dysphoria now as something that exists parasitically alongside myself, it lives in the same space in my mind as my anorexia did -- both of those two things are something I fear I will never be free from in thought, but I strive everyday to put them away in order to live a healthy life. The difference in my treatment between those two mental illnesses was drastic. One landed me several times inpatient against my will, one was coddled and affirmed by every therapist I've ever had. I do not have to make the discernment of which one that was. They did not give me appetite suppressants for my anorexia, they did not give me weight loss surgery, they did not say that being emaciated and ill was really just who I was always meant to be. But, both impact my quality of life equally. Both have lead me to self destruct, self hate, ruminate on my insecurities and become obsessive over the parts of myself that I really could not change.

I don't know. These are just some thoughts I've been having.

[mysticstarlightduck]

OC Questionnaire

Thank you so much for the tag, @willtheweaver!!! (here)

MY QUESTIONS WERE:

Is there anything that would make you lose trust in others?

Do you think anyone could love you?

If you could relive one day, which one would it be?

YOUR QUESTIONS ARE:

Where is your favorite place in the world?

What food do you hate the most?

Do you like watching sunsets or sunrises?

The characters answering will be Corah and Scarlet from Of Starlight and Beasts, Renn from my still-unnamed fairytale fantasy WIP, and Sam Delaways from Enchanted Illusions!

1. Is there anything that would make you lose trust in others?

Corah - Betrayal, abandonment and dishonesty are pretty far up on the list, along with unwarranted cruelty, people who like to make others feel uncomfortable, or those with a just generally jerkass attitude.

Scarlet - Finding out that person works for the King, or is too buddy-buddy with the constabulary in the city usually sets off all of my alarms all at once. I also cannot stand cowards, liars and people who cannot be trusted to hide a secret.

Renn - Hmm. I guess that being lied to or used by someone tends to be what breaks the deal, but I also lose trust in people who are too indecisive, or whom I know would choose the set laws and rules over the wellbeing of individuals.

Sam - Trust is important, alright, but it ain't more important than staying safe. I tend to give people a lot of chances before fully losing all trust in 'em. I think what would make me lose trust really fast is finding out someone is sadistic or cruel to innocent people, or discovering someone I trusted had intentionally hid something important from me.

2. Do you think anyone could love you?

Corah - ... I sure hope so? Haha. Asking the hard hitting questions, are we now? But on a serious note, I think that almost anyone who is good - or willing to become good through effort - deserves love. I strive to be a good person and help others whenever I can - I just hope this is enough...

Scarlet - Yes, absolutely! I am a delight to be around. I think. I have lots of friends, and my sister and I have a really close bond. The love for one's family is one of the most special ties in the world, and I wouldn't ask for anything more.

Renn - I think so, if they ever get to know me beyond what the rumors and scare stories of the villagers will have you believe. Most don't. I don't really care - but some days I just wish more people gave me a chance.

Sam - Yep. I have two little brothers who say that I'm their hero! While in my opinion that is very flattering on its own, I'm very thankful to have them both in my life, despite most things not going as planned. Don't know what I would do without 'em.

3. If you could relive one day, which one would it be?

Corah - The day I met Arammys. I know its two days before my whole life was thrown upside down, but that day was perfect. Not only was it the day I met my closest friend, and current boyfriend, but everything was so perfectly normal - almost like everything was going to go exactly as I expected. Turns out they didn't, but that's not the point.

Scarlet - The day I taught Nimwen how to shoot the bow and arrow, and I stole a cherry cake from a shop in town that lasted us two whole days. That was a pretty great day given our standards. I'd love to relive it.

Renn - Hmm. The days before my Dad went on the voyage that got him killed. Before I had to figure out how to survive alone away from our land and villagers with torches and pitchforks became the biggest threat to my way of life. We were happy, and I was just a little kid having the time of my life with a parent cared about me. That was great! Or used to be.

Sam - I dunno. Days are all pretty similar in Strystead - an endless grind of work, survival and learning to stay out of trouble. My happiest moments are the ones where I get to just spend free time with my little brothers without having to work myself to the bone in the factories. Those days are rare though, and will likely keep getting rarer - because the Mayor sure ain't about to pay working folk a proper salary, but that's a whole other issue.

Tagging: @illarian-rambling, @kaylinalexanderbooks, @littleladymab, @little-peril-stories, @oh-no-another-idea, @rickie-the-storyteller, @lassiesandiego, @thepeculiarbird, @eccaiia, @late-to-the-fandom, @diabolical-blue, @writernopal, @mk-writes-stuff, @tabswrites, @winterandwords, @frostedlemonwriter, @clairelsonao3, @autumnalwalker and OPEN TAG

[thecoramaria]

I tend to be a perfectionist when it comes to writing my fics. My mindset is like: "either it's perfect or bad". So... How can I avoid this?

Well, aside from watching this video of mine, I think it also helps to remember that imperfections in fanfiction often add to the charm. Like I love when I read an author's story or work and I can see how they improved overtime. It's comforting and inspiring!

I think it's also worth interrogating why your mindset is "It's either perfect or it's bad." Like, is this a standard you only apply to your own stories? Or do you think that any story you enjoy is perfect and has zero faults? Because in the latter case, that's a sign that maybe you need to think about and analyse your favourite stories more, since there's no such thing as a perfect story, and when you realise that even your favourite stories aren't perfect, it's easier to believe that your stories don't have to be perfect either.

And if you already do see the imperfections in the stories you enjoy, then I want you to come up with an actual, logical, backed-up-by-compelling-arguments reason why only your work has to be perfect to be good. And even if you come up with a reason that sounds compelling to you, it also needs to convince someone else. Hell, convince me why you and only you are somehow the only writer in the world who isn't allowed to be anything less than perfect. (And on top of that, perfect to who, exactly? Because what is perfect to one person is trashy to another, and that's okay.)

If that sounds like an impossible task, that's because it is. It's meant to show you just how impossible perfection is, and how even the best fanfics are never, ever the result of perfection. (And also anything that strives for "perfection" ends up sanding down its most interesting parts and becomes boring anyway, so please please give me the "imperfect" stories that have heart and soul and everything earnest in them over anything that strives to be as "perfect" for the largest crowd possible.)

Also, another thought I just had, but what does "perfect" even mean to you? Does it mean the best story ever written, or a story that is impervious to any and all potential criticism? Because those are two different things. In the latter case, why should one potential criticism mean that your story is automatically bad? Why should "This line of dialogue is so cringey" mean that suddenly all the dialogue is cringey, or the plot is falling apart at the seams, or you characters have all the personality of cardboard, or your worldbuilding has the depth of a puddle? Like why does one imperfection suddenly make the whole story "bad"? Explain to me how that makes sense. (Rhetorical question.)

I am well aware of the imperfections in my own fanfics, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm also immensely proud of how well I've developed my characters and relationships, how charming my banter is, how some of my prose flows, how hard I've worked to execute my fight scenes, etc. I've also gotten some hate/unsolicited concrit comments that have ruined my day and spent more time on than I should have, but I love what I do more than I fear/hate criticism, and I think that's why I haven't stopped. You're allowed to be scared of/angry about those things, even just as much as you are now, but you have to love writing even more!

Well, this got a bit more tough love than expected, but I hope it helps!

[tash-in-situ]

Big Fat Fear

When I was 17, I lost 17kgs in a 3-month span by consuming only 800 calories a day and striving to keeping my body in ketosis.

Going over old photos filled me with horror. I would use them for comparison making sure I was smaller than before. Every morning I would step on the scales and if the numbers hadn't dropped I was filled with disappointment. The compliments I received only made me want to become smaller and smaller, as it was obvious to me that being tiny meant I was worthy of praise and of love.

As a child, I was constantly reminded of my weight, teased at school and forced into exercise by family all while being fed the extra’s from their plates. Recently when I called my grandparents, my grandpa asked me if I had done anything to slim down, I felt he believed being overweight to be a flaw and a failure to my family.

I should be able to enjoy my body in any shape or size, however, the difficulty is how I am seen because of my body. As a fat person I am considered maternal, cuddly and a source of comfort (I never linked myself to the concept of youth) or I'm seen as a fetish and asked to smother guys on tinder.

By changing my diet and finding delight in physical activities to improve my health, I am scared that the result might be weight loss, which will start a cycle of self-dislike. I am aware that my insecurities will wane, yet the fact is that these insecurities only exist because I have been taught to be insecure about them.

My double chin, back rolls, wide thighs and tummy - I cherish and appreciate them as part of myself and equally wish they didn’t exist. I'm trying to be kind to the part of me that believes I should shed the extra weight to be deemed more attractive. This has been a struggle for me for over 18 years.

Throughout this period, my body has been through many stages all the while my main fear being that I wouldn’t be loved. If I could have a fresh start I would erase the idea that thinness equates, respect and good health, and that to be deemed unhealthy is sinful and amoral.

My aim is to prosper. I desire vitality. I want to be kind to myself. I don't want an external standard to determine my self-image or how I live my life. I want to be liberated from fear.I want to keep looking in the reflection and behold all of my Self, not only my physical form. Because I and all people are much more than just our bodies, more than flesh and muscle wrapped around bone.

Of course don't have to be constantly in love with your body, all the time. I find the Body Positive movement has become superficial and generic, pushing a message of 'You can also be attractive!' (As if beauty somehow makes you more of a valid human, rightful in your existence) when it's not even about that. Fat Liberationist theory states 'I deserve to be treated with respect, I EXIST, I am worthy of proper medical care, I am meaningful a part of society’

Instead of attempting to overlook and push away my insecure parts, I am now endeavoring to be kind to them and explore the reasons why they exist and why they cause me so much suffering. Most of the time, these insecurities are the result of a system that seeks to marginalize, degrade, and shame EVERY body. In doing this I can recognise my own programming and comprehend that I have been conforming to an ideal which is incompatible with my own values.

I try self care. caring for the injured parts, understanding the ache. Reassuring my inner child who is beginning to hate their ever changing body, becoming my own advocate. Recalling all the times I opted not to do something due to being embarrassed of myself, not wanting to be seen; and now running into those opportunities, smiling wide in photos, not caring because fuck’em I’m going to take up space and I AM going to have fun.

Love & Power,

Tash

Resources:

https://msmagazine.com/2019/10/18/the-feminist-history-of-fat-liberation/

https://www.dazeddigital.com/beauty/article/56384/1/the-radical-history-of-the-queer-fat-liberation-movement

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/healthy-bmi-obesity-race-/2021/05/04/655390f0-ad0d-11eb-acd3-24b44a57093a_story.html

[high-functioning-girlfailure]

Damn, tumblr media literacy strikes again. Let's go through this bad take slowly.

The thing that is actually bad about the Damsel in Distress trope is that it takes away the character's agency and ability to be a meaningful part of the plot. They just become the object over which the quest is fought. I'm explaining this because:

In Zelda 2, Alttp, Minish Cap, FSA and LBW, the reasons why Zelda isn't in the plot are functionally identical to if she was kidnapped. Being cursed or sealed away still makes Zelda not an actual character. Are these really supposed to be empowering alternatives to being kidnapped?

You forgot to mention Phantom Hourglass, where Zelda (Tetra) immediately gets turned to stone and kidnapped. Huh, weird how you forgot to mention that one, I wonder how that happened.

In OoT, yeah it's pretty rad that she gets to be a cool ninja that actually contributes to the plot. But it's pretty important to mention that as soon as you learn that Shiek is Zelda, she gets kidnapped and stops mattering to the plot.

In WW, yeah it's pretty rad that she gets to be a cool pirate that actually contributes to the plot. But it's pretty important to mention that as soon as you learn that Tetra is Zelda, she gets shut in a room and stops mattering to the plot.

In TP, she's just shut in a room the whole game not mattering to the plot. Her sacrificing herself to save Midna is a decent moment, but it's also a moment in service of motivating a different character. And of course, she stops mattering completely after this sacrifice.

In SS, Zelda doing prophecy stuff in the background is barely an upgrade to just being kidnapped. Link is still trying to rescue her, she's still just an object of the quest at hand.

At this point I should address a glaring omission that you're probably screaming at me for: in many of these games, Zelda comes in clutch with the Light Arrows during the Ganon fights. I do not count these as meaningful contributions to the plot, because "strong female character" does not mean the character needs to literally be strong. Zelda having cool magic powers that she gets to use against Ganon does not make up for the fact that she doesn't get to make decisions or get proper character development.

BotW is a good example of what decent writing actually looks like. Sure, Zelda here is weak as hell, she can't do shit for most of the plot. But she has, like, personality traits. I can actually describe what she's like as a person. She has struggles and growth throughout the story. She shows some proper emotion. She's an actual character here.

Now Spirit Tracks is what I'm actually looking for in a good Zelda. She's present for the whole adventure. Likeable personality. Grows throughout the game. Her contribution is essential. She truly shares the title of "Main Character" with Link here. The fact that her main skill involves wearing some huge ass armour and swinging a big sword is also great. There's so many fantasy stories where it feels like they give magic to their female characters as consolation, instead of the more practical (and narratively important) swords that the men get. So seeing Spirit Tracks Zelda get to be the shit brick house protecting her vulnerable little twink was very cool.

So yeah, Spirit Tracks and BotW/TotK Zelda are the only incarnations of this character that I feel amount to well written characters. I hate to be That Guyᵀᴹ who comes in and ruins a fun post, but we're not going to get better written women if we present damsels-but-girlboss-flavoured as the standard to strive for.

people get pissed that Zelda’s portrayed as this fuckin damsel in distress and they’re like “TROPES ARE DUMB NINTENDO IS SEXIST”

and i’m like… have you… actually… played a Zelda game???

when has Zelda EVER ACTUALLY been kidnapped by Ganon PAST THE FIRST GAME?

in Zelda 2 and I think Minish Cap she was in a cursed sleep

In ALttP she was hiding and I believe later sealed away in another world for a while

In OoT she was sneaking around as a ninja trying to help you

In Four Swords Adventures and A Link Between Worlds she was sealed away

in Wind Waker she’s a pirate who travels with you

In Twilight Princess she LITERALLY HELPS YOU KILL GANON AND PARTICIPATES IN THE FIGHT

in Spirit Tracks she’s DEAD (AND RETURNS FROM THE DEAD AS A GHOST TO HELP YOU ANYWAY.)

in Skyward Sword she’s training to unlock her potential as the LITERAL GODDESS INCARNATE

in Breath of the Wild she spent her days studying to unlock her power and then spent a hundred years using it to keep her kingdom safe while all her friends and family FUCKING DIED ALL AROUND HER

she’s sealed away and put to sleep so many times because she NEEDS to be disabled

YOU KNOW WHY?

BECAUSE NOT EVEN DEATH CAN STOP ZELDA FROM KICKING YOUR FUCKING ASS

ZELDA CRIED IN BOTW BECAUSE SHE FAILED TO STOP GANON AND LITERALLY ALLOWED A GENOCIDE TO HAPPEN SHE’S NOT CRYING BECAUSE “WAH I’M SCARED I NEED A MAN TO PROTECT ME” SHE’S CRYING BECAUSE SHE WAS TOLD HER ENTIRE LIFE IT WAS HER DUTY TO STOP THE LITERAL END OF THE WORLD. AND SHE FAILED.

SO YOU CAN TAKE YOUR DAMSEL ACCUSATIONS AND GLUE THEM TO ZELDA’S FOOT

SO THEY GET SHOVED UP YOUR ASS WHEN ZELDA KICKS IT

[delia-loves-death]

This is what happens when you have to finally grow tf up.

Let me explain. I thought I was doing good on my exams and then I was told no, because you will never be someone with that attitude. I need to grow up. I need to stop talking to my imaginary friends. So I stopped. I took down everything from my walls. All of my posters. My Lana shrine. There's only one Depeche Mode picture from the 101 album on a wall next to the window and a paper of summer readings for college. And a college sticker to cover up a hole in the wall. And the sticky residue from everything I stuck on my walls which didnt involve just tape. It feels like I have decluttered my brain. I write in a journal. I used to have a bunch of toys on my bed frame but I put them in a trash bag. Except for the teddy I used to sleep at night with. It's in my dad's room. I changed my laptop's wallpaper to a standard Windows 7 logo. I haven't talked to any imaginary friends. It feels better now. But when I go to sleep at night I feel lonely. I hate it. But that's life. I need to accept my internal solitude no matter how much it hurts. I have to accept that I need normalcy. That I won't be able to say everything out loud. I need different outlets. Because pondering over whether you should kill yourself or not out loud is not ok. Breaking down in public pretending to be on the phone with nobody listening on the other line makes you feel worse. Using depression as an excuse to never strive for being better is not ok. Pretending that you know better only keeps you in the wreaths of delusion.

Perhaps I'll still be single. I'll still be introverted and I'll still have the same interests as before. The only difference is that I need to force myself out of this childish box where I've locked my brain and my heart for so long in order to become better.

I'll still write poetry. I have bigger plans. But I have to change myself permanently in order to accomplish them. No matter how much that hurts.

[staticseasons]

Just some proof that I'm legit and I wasn't lying about the creation of Static Seasons. My characters pre-date some other indie characters. So if anyone claims that I stole characters concepts, they are wrong. Especially when my characters came first, I just didn't show them publicly until now.

Why did I wait until now to show off my characters? Well.. The earlier models were kinda derpy looking and were not up to my standards. I knew I could do better at the time and nowadays I have more experience under my belt. Read more to learn about the inspirations behind Richard Pandora.

Fun Fact: Richard is actually based off of the phantom of the opera. That's why he has a mask in the first place. It wasn't a thing that I made on a whim, most of my writing and character designs is thoroughly thought out.

As for the ringmaster idea I probably got that from Set it off, Panic at the Disco or Dagames. Two bands I love and listen to pretty frequently and one artist I've been following for years. I wouldn't be surprised if one of those songs embedded themselves in my subconscious and I just made a character out of those songs. That's how inspiration and creativity works. Isn't it wonderful?

I took heavy inspiration from the song, As The Lights Go Out by Dagames. It is such a heart-wrenching song, I always wanted to do it justice. Then I thought to myself, why not make a character using some of the lyrics and the rest was history. I love Richard's character and won't be changing his characterization any time soon.

Sorry I had to peel back the curtain and reveal some of the magic behind my characters but I kinda have to be truthful about this. Though on the other hand, I love showing the process behind a character. I have no problem giving credits or props to the artists I love. Without their songs my characters wouldn't exist, what I'm doing isn't special. Anyone can create characters and I encourage creativity.

My talents shines though my hardwork and dedication. I'm confident in my work and writing, It will speak for its self. It has merit without me having to advocate for it. I know my work and talent will stand on its own, I don't need to push down others or bully them. People who do bully others are deeply insecure themselves.

If there's one thing I hate most, it's people accusing me of things I didn't do and smearing my character or reputation. I have the foresight of seeing this character concept issue becoming a problem in the future. So I'm nipping this in the bud to prevent unnecessary dramas later on. ( and future headaches for me. )

Great minds think alike, that's what happened here. I never want to become egotistical or holier-than-thou when it comes to my writing. Some writers in the this community think because they are some big shot that gives them the right to belittle others. When people become like this, they go on to bully smaller artists and writers for having similar ideas. Vanity and entitlement is poison for the soul, it makes people rotten from inside. Which is exactly why I don't subscribe to that notion.

This is not me saying I'm better than anyone else in my field, far from it. I'm glad that my peers are finding success, they deserve it and earn that success through their talents. It's good to have healthy competition, it makes us strive to do better creatively. If you are reading support others and what they create. It takes a lot of guts and courageous to putting your work out there, Especially on the internet.

This video is just to prove that 1. I'm not copying and 2. I'm not stealing. In the grand scheme of things, It doesn't matter who came first, I don't care if I did or not. Let people create what they want to create. This is video is to pervert that one person saying " You stole this design from [ insert popular show here ] "

Well I'm sorry to break it to you friend.. but I'm not the first person to come up with a clown character design, I doubt I'll be the last. My point is I don't own the idea of clown characters in their entirety, I just own my specific character. Will this stop people from making comparisons between the characters? No, of course not. This is the internet after all. Sometimes people just suck, that's life unfortunately.

Hey on the bright side, It gives me peace of mind knowing I addressed it fully and to the best of my abilities. This to prevent further speculation and spreading of rumors. To put it bluntly, I had some crappy friends in the past try to claim ownership of my characters, so this isn't my first rodeo when dealing with this subject. Which is why I'm hitting this issue dead on this time around.

This is why it's always a good idea to save your work and creative process, for cases like these. Hope this helps and always stay creative. This is always going to be pinned, just in case.

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

While we're here, I just want to add an example of a good response to Harris' video.

In the first half of the video, Harris briefly mentions a creator called Lukeypoo (who now goes by Luke Stephens) who had plagiarised Harris' Bloodborne review, and his response at the time was to deny it, signal to his alt right buddies and insult Harris.

After the video came out, Luke Stephens made a post on his community page regarding it:

For those, who can't see the screenshots, it reads:

A video went up on YouTube last night that showed something I did 6 years ago in early 2017, of which I'm very ashamed. I've talked about it on stream plenty since then and try to be very open about it, but I know a lot of people haven't been watching me since 2017 or have not heard me discuss this before. I don't want to hide from my mistakes or deflect, so very plainly here's what happened:

I was just starting on YouTube and I ripped off a phenomenal video on Bloodborne. It was a fantastic video by hbomberguy and after finding it through a Reddit post I tried to take his 1.5 hour masterpiece and make my own suckier version at around 7 minutes. I copied the premise, jokes, structure, and then pretended like it was all just a coincidence that they were so similar. I was a 19 year old idiot who thought it didn't matter because "he's a bigger creator so it's fine" and "it's just the internet." When I was rightly called out for copying his video I dodged, lied, and even attacked and insulted the appearance of those holding me to account, including hbomberguy himself. I copied someone's video, in parts word-for-word, and I pretended like *I* was the victim and *they* were being unreasonable. Unbelievable. There is no question at all: I was in the wrong, fully.

Let me be very clear: I whole heartedly disown who I was back then and what I did. Politically, religiously, and even morally/ethically I was a person that I hate today. I was an extremist, a bully, a religious zealot, and above all, a prick. This event sparked a spiral in my personal life that I didn't document online, but that has led me to who I am today. Someone who tries very hard to respect my fellow creators, audience, and to uphold a high ethical standard for myself. I strive every day to be a better man for myself, my family and kids, and for the community around me. And that's why I'm writing this, because I don't think we should hide from our mistakes or pretend they didn't happen. I screwed up, big time, and I stole the hard work of an incredibly talented creator and for that I'm incredibly sorry. I was 19, hard headed, and above all arrogant and unwilling to acknowledge I had screwed up. It took a couple years after that before I could openly admit what I had actually done, and that it took that long is all the more shameful.

I don't expect a response or certainly forgiveness, but for what it's worth, I am truly sorry for everything, @hbomberguy

For the last 6 years I've been working my butt off to be someone I can be proud of being and I hope you all can see that the man I am today is not the shameful excuse of a person I was back then.

I've never watched a video or stream by Luke Stephens so I can't attest as to his content, but this is one of the best responses I've seen to any kind of accusation, and so I lean towards believing him to be a better man than he was six years.

I thinks it's important to highlight the good response/s to Harris' video, to remind ourselves that plagiarism is not such an immoral action that from which you can't redeem yourself (though in Somerton's case, I'm less sure of that) if you take accountability for your actions, and to remember that in most cases, we should give people space to grow and become better.

The swiftness and brutality of Hbomberguy’s complete evisceration of James Somerton’s career cannot be overstated.

[ladala99]

Stardew Valley 1.6 Planning

I've played a little bit of Stardew Valley (mostly on my mom's console - just got the game myself last week!) and I'm definitely more of a roleplayer than anything else.

Wall of text below as I brainstorm my next farmer.

My first and current file, my farmer is bi and may or may not be a dragon in disguise. She's got purple hair, loves fishing and collecting animals, especially dinosaurs. She wants to turn her farm into a complete dinosaur farm once she has the flexibility to specialize. Dating-wise, she started befriending Penny and Elliot, but wasn't really into the sensitive types. So she started befriending Alex and Maru. She's officially dating Alex now and got 10 hearts - I still need to get there with Maru before making the final decision. I don't have the Community Center complete or any of the postgame unlocked, so I could have a ways to go.

But for 1.6, ConcernedApe suggests to start a new file, so I'm brainstorming her character. The things I already had in my wishlist for a second playthrough were: 1) Marry Elliot. He didn't fit with my first farmer's personality but I like him, so I'm going to build a character that likes him. 2) Get the dog as the pet since I got a cat the first time.

Springing from there, the next farmer is a girl again because I'm a girl and prefer to roleplay as one if given the choice. She likes books, and her favorite ones take place on a farm. Is there a genre for that? I don't know but she does.

Her life so far has been stressful. Her legal name is Embursleigh Cleopatra [lastname]. Naturally, she hates it and goes by Em or occasionally E.C. Her parents divorced when she was young, and the crazier side of the family got custody. She escaped as soon as she could and staked it out on her own, getting a decent job at Jojacorp to pay the bills while she figured her life out.

Grandpa is from the side of the family Em barely knew. I can't say why Em was chosen to inherit the farm - perhaps Grandpa knew of her predicament? Maybe she was the only grandchild? Whatever the case, the letter ended up in the hands of the crazy parent and was not sent along until her half-sister, who was in light touch with her, found it and forwarded it.

Em, of course, jumps at the chance to start her dream life.

On the farm, Em is a decorator. She loves plants, especially flowers and vines. She loves the cottagecore aesthetic. She's not huge on animal husbandry, but really likes chickens well enough to raise several.

She's also pretty contrary, and will become close to Shane and Hailey first, taking their standoffishness as a challenge. She'll even date Shane, but will recognize some of the patterns from the bad part of her family and will break up.

Outside of Shane/Hailey, I'll be having her naturally meet the others. She won't go out of her way to talk to anyone else, but will integrate herself into their friend groups as they meet up. I'll see how naturally she ends up meeting Elliot, especially since he doesn't really hang out in town.

I don't know how much I'm going to stick with this, but I intend her to focus on farming, foraging, cooking, and decorating and less on manual labor and fishing. She'll keep her farm clean and clear, but won't go out of her way to gather materials. She'll prefer to buy raw materials from the shops than to get it herself. She will inevitably have to branch out to complete her goals, though. Especially since I think I'll strive towards Perfection. And the fact that she likes nature and greenery so she will absolutely go the Community Center route rather than Joja.

I am still deciding which farm she should be on. It's between Standard, Forest, Four Corners, and the mystery new one introduced in 1.6. Leaning towards Standard at this point, though. The clean slate, and the fact that Em's aesthetic is pretty homogeneous so I don't need the separation of Four Corners. I did Hilltop for my first file.

Mechanically, I am also disallowing myself from reading the Wiki until I am at least on year 3. I don't want spoilers for what's new in 1.6. I will be taking notes where the game doesn't, such as making a fishing log and monster/material manual to figure out where/when I got things and can find them again if necessary, as well as taking notes on what the library books and other hints let me know that I haven't explored yet.

Unsure if I want Em to have kids. I think it's within her character, but I don't like that they're just walking hat stands. Maybe 1.6 adds more to them? It's not been hinted, though.

Am I overpreparing? Maybe. Will I actually stick to this and not do my normal messy whatever? Who knows! But I am looking forward to 1.6 and especially when it comes to Switch, since that's where I have Stardew Valley.

[baeddel]

discussion on this post, @horatiovonbecker asks @otatma their opinion about extended families as an alternative to the nuclear family. @otatma replies that it is “a good thing to strive for” but “depends hugely on the family being nontoxic.” true enough!

as it’s my activity feed and they can’t stop me i’ll butt into the conversation. i grew up in an extended family. i lived with my mother and my maternal grandparents, and my aunt would live with us some days out of the week. all of this was accomplished in a 2-bedroom bungalow. i had very little privacy and i hated it; when i was 15 i ran away. my mother pleaded with the council and we managed to secure a terraced house in a socialized housing estate with a bedroom for each of us, plus a spare room (almost unthinkable today). we live near our grandparents and they visit every day.

when i was 16 i met my absentee father. he had been homeless in England and imprisoned in Scotland and when he returned to Ireland that year i found him living in a rhizomatic extended family scenario spanning four generations and three households. they were always being chased out by landlords or paramilitaries and relocating and, in any case, one could never predict who would be living in which house at any time; children would live with grandparents one month, parents the next, aunts and uncles the next, and so on. even husbands and wives did not always share a home.

[long post: 3k words, on the historical development of family structure in Ireland and England and what it means for monogamy, the family and anarchy]

based on this i believed the extended family to be an Irish institution. this is an assumption i shared with most sociologists and historians until about the 1990s (Seward et. al., 2005, pg. 2). the standard narrative was that, world-over, families historically lived in large, three-generation households and that thanks to the industrial revolution this was deteriorating. “Max Weber himself implies in his magisterial way that the rise of capitalist organisation was associated with 'the household community shrinking' ” (Laslett, 1974, pg. 7). Ireland was traditionally conceived of as an exception to this process of deterioration as, on this account, the extended family remained dominant while the rest of the world was going nuclear. it turns out to be the reverse in both cases: the extended family was never the dominant family structure anywhere (ibid. pg. 2-3; Vann 1974, pg. 3-4), except for in Ireland beginning in the 19th century, where over the course of the 20th century it did deteriorate (Laslett, 1974 pg. 34; Gibbon & Curtin, 1978).

the reason for this is embarassingly obvious once you realize it. the fact is that not all families in a society can be extended families. if all children remain in the family home along with their children into perpetuity this house will soon have the population of a small town. this is actually the origin of society proposed by Filmer in Patriarcha (1680), where parental authority becomes the “fountain of all Regal Authority” as their progeny multiply, until humanity is scattered about in the Confusion of Tongues (pg. 11-15). without a Confusion of Tongues to interrupt the exponential increase (and millions, rather than thousands, of years to account for) we have to imagine another sort of family structure. the 19th century sociologist Frédéric Le Play proposed that a new family structure emerged out of ancient patriarchy which he called the Stem-Extended Family. on this account one son was selected to inherit and he remained at the family’s residence; the other siblings were dispersed (Gibbon & Curtin, 1978 pg. 2-3).

to the extent that this form of family organization did exist, it could not have been the dominant form. in a family with three sons, two of them would have to go and form nuclear families with their spouses. they might go on to build their own extended family, or they might not. in many societies the extended family was indeed considered “a good thing to strive for”, and this was the position adopted by the conservative Catholic Le Play, and later accepted by the Catholic Church, who lobbied for policy interventions that would stem the tide of nuclear proliferation in Ireland, particularly by limiting employment opportunities for women. For example, women were barred from civil service positions until 1973 (Seward et. al., 2005, pg. 7).

if this is the case, how could the extended family become the dominant form of family structure in Ireland in the 19th and early 20th centuries? the most significant factor was the reorganization of agriculture carried out by English colonial interests; after the infamous Potato Famine the population of Ireland almost halved (after already more than halving after Cromwell’s genocides), as well as the almost constant state of war that Ireland was submerged in (continuing into the 90s in the occupied North). in the aftermath it was necessary for families to consolidate (Seward et. al., 2005, pg. 3). on top of this, fertility was exceptionally low and emigration was exceptionally high (in the North it remains very high, especially among Catholics). as a result, more generations could live together, and children were more likely to leave the country than disperse elsewhere in Ireland (Seward et. al., 2005, pg. 14). throughout the 20th century, as industry and free secondary education were introduced to Ireland, more children began to move from country to town and nuclear families rapidly replaced extended ones  (Seward et. al., 2005, pg. 6).

my family tree more or less follows this narrative along. in the chaos following the Land War my great, great grandmother was the head of a large intergenerational family involving aunts and uncles, as well as an adopted street orphan. my great grandfather met a homeless woman possessing a child out of wedlock and fell in love with her; they moved to this town and rented a house while he sought work as a street sweeper, starting a new nuclear family. in the 40s my grandmother worked in factories until she married my grandfather, a sailor, and they began their own nuclear family in the same town, renting different little apartments until, thanks to the state of the housing market in the 80s, they purchased the modest accomodations aforementioned. by the 90s this arrangement threatened to become a new Stem-Extended Family (with my mother and i playing the role of inheriting sons), but it proved inoperable in the new context of the 21st century’s mechanized Ireland, and we spilled over into our own single-parent home. given that both me and my aunt are infertile, the maternal line terminates here.

does it follow that we ought to give in and admit that the nuclear family is the natural unit of human society, and that the extended family is possible only in the middle of an ongoing genocide? despite what we’ve just said, there doesn’t seem to be good evidence for this either. while Gibbon & Curtin characterized a debate where Laslett “advanced the iconoclastic [proposition] that there had been little essential historical change in family structure” (1978, pg. 3) this doesn’t seem to actually be Laslett’s position. Laslett argued that family size has not changed considerably throughout history, but on the very first page of his landmark Household and Family in Past Time (1970) he emphasizes that he is “not concerned with the family as a network of kinship” and instead defines his area of research in terms of “coresident domestic groups”, which might bear little relationship to kinship structures. in the past the household very frequently involved not just blood relatives but “lodgers, boarders and visitors” (Vann, 1974, pg. 5) as well as slaves and servants. Vann quotes Etienne Hélin's caution that “[a]rithmetic means, although they varied so little covered a whole series of different situations” and describes how post-industrial English households had twice the number of blood relatives per house as pre-industrial ones, but fewer lodgers, and thus about the same mean. the difference between historical and modern families might not be one of size but of an increasing emphasis on blood relations.

it may come as a surprise that, as a matter of fact, Old English has no word for family. they have a word for relatives in general (sibb), for tribes (cynn, the root of Modern English kin), but the basic social unit known to the Anglo-Saxons was the hiw (and its many compounds), which might be translated ‘household’ (or, indeed, ‘coresident domestic group’). who belonged to a hiw? it was somewhat nakedly a property relation. it was not only a man’s wife and children but also his servants, his slaves, as well as his animals (Stanley, 2008, pg. 1). the Textus Rofensus makes only one distinction between members of a household, that they be “slaves or free” (ibid. pg. 7). it could also refer to a monastic group, involving the whole cloister. Stanley notes (and it seems true to me) that there is a virtual absence of family relations in the corpus of Old English literature. in fact i cannot think of a single example, except perhaps for the monster Grendel and his mother. in the mournful Wife’s Lament and the passionate Wulf and Eadwacer the emphasis is on completely personal affections and seductions, and in any case both depict forbidden relationships outside of the hired.

correspondingly, we find that the average Anglo-Saxon home was a large one; typically they were a single room which measured about 50 square meters and “could have accomodated up to about a dozen or so people” (Hines, 2003, pg. 139). there is no reason to suppose that this was to accomodate several generations of blood relatives; the Anglo-Saxons had many, now very unfamilliar, relationships to populate their houses with. there was husband, wife, and concubine, along with their children; there was slave and hostage (Lavelle, 2006), including many orders of slaves with different status (such as the relatively respectable title of bryti, a sort of ‘head slave’); and indeed guest, visitor, boarder, and in the case of lords and aristocratic thegns, perhaps retainers. in Beowulf about thirty thegns sleep with their lord in Heorot, pulling aside the bench-planks and replacing them with straw beds at night (and when the Geats arrive they incorporate them as still more visitors). we know that at least some beds were placed in recesses in the walls and had curtains (Wright), perhaps to accomodate private intimacy between husband, wife and concubine or, indeed, guest, retainer, hostage, slave, or (why not?) animal. even when husband and wife are the only kin relatives in residence we would hesitate to call this arrangement a ‘nuclear family‘, or indeed an ‘extended family’ should it include a grandparent.

why has industrial modernization corresponded with the narrowing of the productive unit of society to the nuclear family (or, increasingly, the single parent family)? why have non-blood relations become so systematically excluded from the household? these seem like open questions to me. our own experience leads us to suspect conditions placed on family structure by the labour market together with city planning. until the 70s in Ireland, as we discussed, it was typical (and indeed lawful) for wives to stay at home and husbands to work; today very few workers could afford to keep their wives at home, even without children. houses are also too small to sustain extended families (nevermind concubines, hostages and the rest). old council houses such as ours have two bedrooms, one for the parents and the other for the children, along with a room for guests. today they do not include the guest room. there are, in addition, only two common rooms: a family room and a kitchen. it is not only difficult to accomodate three generations in these houses (the small guest bedroom is a poor substitue for the reitrement room of many 19th century Irish houses), it is difficult to accomodate even two generations. teenagers will already complain about sharing a bedroom, and one sibling might take up the guestroom. but we know of women with six, seven, as many as twelve children who live here. as adults they could fill at least three of such houses. all of this is possible only on the theory that as the children grow up they will move out into their own homes.

so. it is tempting to analyze the family situation abstractly, counting up the merits and dysfunctions of different systems and comparing them. for example, using Hirschman’s well-known framework of “exit” and “voice”, we might ask how effective the different forms of family structure are at responding to dysfunction (abuse, neglect and so on). the extended family, we might say, gives a child better access to “voice” - they can turn to parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and siblings for help. your mother might answer to your grandmother who is therefore well poised to address parenting issues, while your father can probably smoothe things over with your uncle if you quarrel. this means that you actually have to worry less about “toxicity” in the family compared to a nuclear family where parents aren’t accountable to anyone. however, in case of a family wide problem, you may have much less room to “exit” compared to a nuclear family, where exit is expected.

which one is better? you might reply that the extended family sounds better. it very well might be; but in reality you’ll never get to act on this exercise in judgement no matter how much striving you do. the nuclear family does not predominate because of the tyrannical thirst for the awesome power of parenthood (no matter how much we do find this thirst satisfied), but because of the given conditions of labour, housing, inheritance and so forth. this is why @horatiovonbecker can reply that all of this is “fair enough” but that they ”don't think it follows that discouraging monogamy will help.” no, surely it does not follow. especially now that we know that family size and kinship relations are not essential features of domestic organization. why was monogamy ever implicated in the first place?

now it seems like a curious slip of the tongue that when Goldman and Parsons disagree about monogamy they do so by attacking and defending the family by turns. but at that time monogamy was not so easily separable. free love was not really polyamory. it was this and also the abolition of both marriage and parenthood, as they understood both as property relations: “marriage slavery”, as even Parsons called it, and parental ownership of children. it was also the abolition of sex work, which they understood as the "public” expression of the subjugation of women which finds its “private” expression in marriage (Marx & Engels, 1848, pg. 24-25), ie. that women are dependent on men’s property and must acquire it by marriage or by sexual labour. as a corrolary they advocated for divorce (which became an immense priority to later Soviet planners who designed mobile, modular homes which would allow couples to separate and cohabit arbitrarily). it was also access to contraceptives and to abortion, as well as, believe it or not, very often the advocacy of eugenics (on the account that with abortion, contraceptives and the freedom to select partners, the previously blind and mute force of sexual reproduction would become domesticated to the rational will; see the anarchist journal Moses Harman founded in the 1880s, Lucifer the Light Bearer, later renamed the American Journal of Eugenics).

this constellation of problems no longer appear all together. after most women entered the conventional work force we could no longer as easily see monogamy and marriage as a relationship of slavery. as we say in the previous post, for many women the struggle is that they are too independent, saddled with childrearing and wage labour and housework with only the cold comfort of the day-care for assistance. for this reason sex work no longer appears as anything special compared to the other forms of labour women do out of necessity; “sex work is work” is the guiding catchphrase of militant sex workers. contraceptives and abortion still appear as a leading issue in feminist agitation but we no longer imagine they have the power to transform the everyday life of the household (nevermind summon forth the genetic Ubermensch). all together the abolition of marriage was replaced, as @birlinterrupted​ reminds us, with its extension: gay marriage. as of right now monogamy and marraige are still inseparable (i can now marry one of my girlfriends but not all three), but we think it need not always be. all together the program fragmented as its success was realized in pieces and none of them were actually irreparably fixed by the property relation (even if they did emerge from it).

Engels actually believed that a true equality of the sexes would, “according to all previous experience,” result in monogamous men and polyandrous women (Engels, 1884, pg. 43), but he admits that we can only conjecture about “the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production.” he finishes this thought with this remarkable little statement:

[W]hat will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.

the straightforward correspondence between property, economic dependence and monogamy is still here, and which to us now seems insufficient to the problem (ie. the problem still persists after these given conditions are eliminated). broadening the question from questions of marriage, sexual access and economic dependence to the more general question of the organization of the household in general and the necessary social and economic conditions proper to it would clarify what’s really at stake in domestic oppression, the organization of reproduction, and so on. but it remains true that we can only remain sensitive to trends, to those of us organizing new experiments with the household, and where new opportunities might open as the present conditions dig their own grave.

Let’s give the final word to an old friend. What is the Family, Renzo Novatore? Why, nothing but “the denial of life, love and liberty.” Nevermind his entry for Love, which is a “deception of the flesh and damage to the spirit, disease of the soul, atrophy of the brain, weakening of the heart” and so forth.

[itsclydebitches]

I kinda wonder, what could bakugou do (hori write bakugou to do) to make him less popular with the "anti" crowd. Like He was a horrid child no doubt and people who try to put blame on Deku or lessen the terrible shit bakugou did aren't great. But as we don't rly see it, we have to assume bakugous behaviour wasn't stopped, we only ever saw his mum "punishing" him when he was being rude after getting kiddnapped. Nothing will excuse what bakugou did, but he has stopped? He's overall a harsh person but he's not harrassing and bullying people anymore, specifically not deku, he's trying to attone for what he did to deku and has now apologised for it. His behaviour was never viewed as justified or good in the series, he's a scary figure in middle school, we're not meant to like his behaviour, so the series itself hasn't justified his actions.

As someone who relate to both bakugou and deku more than I'd like to admit (never told someone to jump tho, that's fucked lol) so I can 100% understand not liking or even hating bakugou but as someone who's not 15 anymore, looking back I also made a lot of really shitty decisions and like bakugou have tried to make up for it, and like deku I was 'friends' with people who hurt me.

Is there anything he can do for the "antis" to just dislike him rather that be "anti"?

(I'm very sorry if you've talked about this somewhere, you can just tell me to look for it if you have, I'll continue to look for your posts on the subject)

Hey there, anon! I think I’ve spoken about this only tangentially and/or in my main Bakugo meta, which is too big for anyone sane to read. So yeah, let’s chat here!

For me personally—and that’s all I can ever do: speak personally. I think it’s important to keep in mind that there is no single solution to please the “anti” crowd. Each fan will be looking for something slightly different in Bakugo’s character, much of which might contradict what a “stan” is currently enjoying. Given how charged a character he is, I'm not sure it's possible to get the entire fandom to like him—what I’m looking for hinges on having a different reading of the story than you seem to. Meaning, I think the series does justify his behavior. Not in any overt, super obvious way like having all the characters go, “Wow, Bakugo! I sure do love how you threaten people all the time. That’s super cool and heroic!” Things are rarely that straightforward. Rather, it’s in a more subtle, but consistent manner that paints a rather conclusive picture across hundreds of chapters.

Simply put, Bakugo is continually rewarded for his actions. Or, if not outright rewarded, his actions are ignored in a way that implies silent acceptance. Characters may not always like what he does... but they're willing to let it slide because Bakugo's heroism was always treated as a given, not something he had to earn and prove.

With the ever necessary disclaimer that I’m not fully caught up yet, here’s a list of some of the things that stood out to me in the first half of the series:

Bakugo’s bullying made him the most popular kid in school.

Bakugo’s bullying was ignored by/outright supported by the teachers.

Bakugo’s bullying did not hinder him from getting into U.A., one of the most prestigious hero schools around.

Despite acting horribly throughout his time at U.A. too, this behavior was continually ignored by the teachers and other authority figures around him.

Bakugo’s struggle to realize that other people aren’t “trash” doesn’t hurt his achievements in any way. He still gets top scores, still wins the tournament, etc.

Bakugo’s behavior gets him special attention from All Might, the greatest hero and Bakugo’s personal idol.

His behavior doesn’t make others dislike him in any manner that’s taken seriously. Everybody is still willing to not just put up with Bakugo, but—in time—start treating his behavior as a quirk (no pun intended lol) that they’re secretly fond of, rather than something he should legitimately be striving to change. Kirishima is the most overt example of this.

This is compounded by his behavior constantly being framed as humorous. Much like with Mineta’s perverted actions, characters might superficially go, “No, that’s bad!” but the story never demands any significant development because then we’d lose the “joke” of Bakugo screaming in rage at the slightest inconvenience, threatening to murder someone over nothing, constantly belittling everyone around him in a “funny” manner, etc. When fans talk about development of a manga character as archetypal and extreme as Bakugo, most don’t really want to see significant change to his base personality. Because then that would result in someone who doesn’t look like the “real” Bakugo: someone nicer, more even-tempered, more mature, etc. But for those of us who were never drawn to that personality in the first place, the continued acceptance of his rude, egotistical, and violent behavior is discomforting. The easiest comparison I can draw is between this and Bakugo’s mother slapping him. That slap is meant to be another “joke”—we see it constantly in shonen anime, something "humorous" you shouldn’t take too seriously because haha, it's just an overprotective mother—but many fans do take it seriously, using it as the basis for a whole “Bakugo was abused and this explains his behavior” reading. Well, I take the “joke” of Bakugo’s threats and insults seriously, especially in a story that starts with something like telling Izuku to jump off the roof. In the same way that many fans want others to treat Bakugo’s mother as a serious topic that has had a negative influence on his development, I want the series to take Bakugo’s everyday actions seriously as a negative influence on… well, everyone around him. But it doesn’t. His base personality is grudgingly adored.

The above two points are seen most overtly in Izuku, who never wavers in his respect for Bakugo despite how Bakugo treats him. Not just prior to U.A., but during their training too. Izuku, as the protagonist, is the emotional heart of this tale, so when he talks about how inspiring Bakugo is, it encourages the reader to see his behavior as inspiring too. Rather than, as said, something that needs to change. Izuku's continued friendship with Bakugo, his adoration of him, and his acceptance of the way he's treated has severely warped how the entire story sees Bakugo's actions. After all, if #pure Izuku can see the good in Bakugo, why can't everyone else? He must not be that bad after all.

I could get into detailed analyses of all the above—like how Bakugo was the one comforted after attacking Izuku outside the dorms at night and how the messed up relationship he has with Izuku is upheld as something to nurture; how the remedial courses he had to take were made to be rather silly, thereby undermining their supposed importance to his development; how Bakugo’s kidnapping had nothing to do with his flaws, but much of the fandom uses it as a way to dismiss any appropriate consequences because, “Hasn’t he suffered enough?” etc.—but in the interest of keeping this within a readable length, I’ll leave it at that. The point is that Bakugo has always been privileged when it comes to his behavior, resulting in others either outright praising it, ignoring it, or demanding that he change a miniscule bit, which always keeps him far below the standards of both his peers and the expectations of a hero. Everyone in 1-A must learn to be even better than the good people they already are... Bakugo needs to learn that other people aren't dirt at the bottom of his shoes. It's never been a particularly impressive development when pit against the rest of the class. All of which can make something like an apology feel pretty hollow. Yes, he’s apologized and I say with all seriousness that that’s great! But how does that apology stack up against 300+ chapters of content? As Bakugo’s words highlight, he's been a really awful person up "until now": he was consumed by Izuku being “miles ahead of [him],” he “looked down on [him]” because he didn’t have a quirk, he “didn’t want to recognize that,” he “hated that,” “grew distant,” “tried to beat you down,” “opposed you and tried to show my superiority over you,” and ends it all with, “it probably doesn’t mean anything telling you all this” before finally getting to the “I’m sorry.” This is basically a laundry list of how horrible a person Bakugo has been for the entire series, with an acknowledgement that this apology is coming really, really late. This is the moment where I could START to like Bakugo, depending on how he acts form here on out, but that pivotal moment arrived after six years of content and in the final arc of the story. It’s too late. Bakugo needed this kind of self-reflection and positive action 250+ chapters ago so he could (hopefully) grow into a better person across the story, not at the story's end. What we got instead is 322 chapters of him being a really horrible person, but the story going out of its way to excuse or even praise that behavior the majority of the time.

As a quick comparison to end on, I think what Bakugo needed was what Soo Jin got in True Beauty. You don’t need to have seen the drama to follow along. The tl;dr is that she has a lot of the core qualities of Bakugo: an all-consuming drive to win that was created due to abusive parents with high expectations, resulting in her bullying a peer to a pretty horrific extent. The difference between them is how the story frames their actions. When Soo Jin becomes the bully she loses everything. Rather than succeeding academically, her grades plummet, making it clear that this anxiety and self-doubt (things the fandom keeps insisting Bakugo is struggling with, but that rarely ever show up in the text) is actually impacting her day-to-day life. Her best friend drops her because she’s not going to support her choices. The boy she likes rejects her. She’s eventually forced to start over somewhere new - which importantly separates her from the girl she was bullying - and get some distance from her parents, resulting in the growth needed to become a healthier, happier, good person again. So when Soo Jin apologizes to the girl she hurt, it feels earned. The story continually recognized how horrific her actions were and put her into a place where she either had to change, or continue losing at everything else that was important to her. Bakugo? Bakugo doesn’t lose. Oh, he claims he does because he’s comparing himself to Izuku constantly, but that’s just him thinking in extremes. He still wins academically. Still wins many battles. Still wins at having friends. Still wins by maintaining the prestige of being a U.A. student. Still wins by getting All Might’s attention. Still wins by receiving Izuku’s respect and an agreement to maintain this rivalry that Bakugo is so obsessed with. Bakugo comes out well 99% of the time, he just thinks he's "lost" because he can't stand not being the absolute best.

For me, the story needed to have Bakugo face consequences for his behavior, not receive rewards and/or have others ignore it, and that revelation/apology needed to come way, way sooner. For me the issue is not a specific action that Horikoshi can have Bakugo do in the next chapter and them bam, I like him now. The problem is Bakugo’s entire concept, how he’s received by the entire cast, and his run across this entire series. "Entire" is the key word there. Which is why the “But he’s apologized. What more do you antis want?” reactions don’t sit well. What we wanted is a better written redemption arc across those 300+ chapters, not a single scene that’s meant to have us forget all the other problems inherent in the story. At this point it’s a far more complicated situation than, “Bakugo just needs to do X, Y, and Z and then we’re golden.” At the end of the day, Horikoshi failed to make me like him as a person and I’m pretty sure he isn’t going to change Bakugo enough to make him likable to me. Bakugo was never the sort of character I’d be inclined towards without a serious, nuanced redemption arc, but sadly, a core, crucial part of that redemption arc took six years to arrive. At this point there’s no way to change the problems in Bakugo’s writing for that huge chunk of the series and not enough time left in the series, it seems, to do the work we should have seen across the entire run. Honestly, idk if the Bakugo we'll get going forward is someone I can just dislike as opposed to being really uncomfortable with, but my money is on there being too little story left and too much investment in upholding Bakugo's base personality for that to happen. I could absolutely be proven wrong! But I think the problems are structural and needed to be better dealt with from page one, not hastily patched over in the final hour.

[scarfdyedshadow]

The Unveiling of Ibaraki-Douji’s Character Across FGO (1/2)

I should start with the disclaimer that this isn’t specifically intended to be an analysis of Ibaraki as character, or so to speak an analysis of her narrative arc, character development, and growth over the course of Grand Order. For that, I extremely recommend reading the meta posts of @xenodile​. They are very thoughtful, insightful, and nuanced analyses of her.

This is more or less a consolidation of my thoughts on the reveals made about her character over time, the slow meting out of tidbits about what lies under her surface and what her true basis is. In short, the deciphering of her puzzle. In that regard, this post won’t go into Ibaraki content irrelevant to that, such as the relative low points of her treatment over time.

Ibaraki: “Kuha, kuhahahaha! Woman, woman, woman! Is this the first time you’ve seen something like me? Then engrave it within that body. Cram it in in place of the organs that’ll be devoured by insects after death. Violent like a rampaging beast, terrifying as a god, miserable as an insect! Knowing neither human weakness nor a warriors’ pride, lowly so as to wield one’s rotting arm as a weapon! That is an Oni. One who terrifies humans with all they have, a man-eating demon!”

When we’re first introduced to her in Rashoumon, Ibaraki is an intimidating presence, speaking of the depravity of the oni and how she is the embodiment of it. Right off the bat, there’s something to be said about her being fixated on what an oni is and how she fits the bill, rather than her own individuality.

Ibaraki: “Kuha, kuhahahaha! How nice, how nice!”

Kintoki: “This isn’t nice at all! Your eyes aren’t laughing at all, damn you!”

Ibaraki: “….mu, don’t insult me. I’m not used to laughing. Laughter from the bottom of my heart, huh… I can’t do it like Shuten.”

And only just a bit later, it already becomes clear she’s forcing herself a bit. She’s not used to laughing, to be able to do it fully and genuinely. And again, shortly thereafter, her weakness is called out.

Kintoki: “Can’t you tell? Bah, whatever. Hey General, can you tell her?”

Protagonist: “It’s because you haven’t eaten Shuten.”

Ibaraki: “Y-you human! Don’t say such a cruel thing! Eating Shuten was just a manner of speech! That... like hell I can eat her! I would never injure the Shuten that I respect so much, you fool!”

Kintoki: “See? She’s like that.”

Protagonist: “…a chicken.”

Quite contrary to her initial impression, Ibaraki’s fundamental nature is that of a coward. Certainly she has some capacity for fierceness and fighting, but she doesn’t truly live up to the violent, miserable, and terrifying image she projected at the beginning. And as for why she did that?

IbarakI: [Blushing] “C-can’t help it, this is an Oni’s custom! An Oni must always put on airs! That’s what Mother taught me!”

At this point we learn that the airs she puts on are an ideal she tries to live up to in order to be a proper oni, as taught by her mother. That’s someone that will come up later, but for now we learn from her debut event that Ibaraki feels compelled to hold herself to a particular impression, to appear as a fierce inhuman oni, due to her mother’s teachings.

There’s nothing in particular I want to highlight in her profile and lines, wherein she mostly presents as she does at the beginning of the event, as an imperious and deadly leader of oni. It certainly can be gleaned from her lines though that she puts a particular emphasis on her being an oni as opposed to a human. Throughout her various appearances in this interim period, she continues to insist on being a true and vicious oni while generally in practice being a big dork, though she never truly acknowledges this.

And indeed, throughout all this, her esteemed mother she seems to hold in veneration, perhaps even fear, continues to come up. It’s evident that even if she isn’t physically present, her influence is felt every time Ibaraki pushes herself to be a proper oni, to hold herself to that standard.

And then we get to her mats profile.

Ibaraki isn’t just upholding that image with words and to a mild extent actions, she’s literally pushing her own body to adhere to that particular image. It makes what we’ve known about how she forces herself pale in comparison.

Her personality section, as much as it understates what she went through because this game isn’t the ideal of taking things as seriously as they should be, explicates why she is how she is quite clearly. Her mother of noble birth, devoid of love, literally beat her into the mold of a proper oni. The reason she acts the way she does is because she was forced to every single day act as a proper scion to the oni, assume responsibility as a leader of oni. She was left with no choice but to mutilate her own heart and strive to act as a prideful monster, and she is constantly self-conscious of maintaining that image.

This then would seem to be the final word on how Ibaraki’s character came to be, but there are some additional wrinkles, first alluded to here as well.

Watanabe no Tsuna is a hunter of oni, the man who put an end to her grief stricken rampage and humiliated her by cutting off her arm. It’s only natural that she should hate him and want to kill him. But why then does she feel the conflicting impulse of wanting to talk to him? Why does she feel strong curiosity about him? What is there to be curious about, when he did what any human would do if possible and put a stop to her destructive rampage? Shuten only offers a cryptic answer, and Ibaraki is left with the lingering question.

Dialogue 9 I am an oni from Hell, but from the looks of it, that one's an oni of the present world. I can sense the blood of a high-class god from Shuten Douji, but Ibaraki Douji has a smell similar to mine. ...She must have been a human, originally. (If you have Shuten Douji and Ibaraki Douji)

The sparrow Beni-enma, soon to release in FGO NA, has a line for Ibaraki Douji, and it is a truly absurd place to receive such a major revelation. Ibaraki was not born as an oni, but as a human. It’s a detail that contextualizes why her mother of noble oni stock was so unrelentingly harsh on her, why she was so particular and forceful about making her into a proper oni. Such is doubly necessary to make up for the deficit of having once been human, of being so impure. It contextualizes as well why she didn’t take to that traumatic teaching easily, why she still lapses into a sweets loving coward. Her fundamental nature isn’t quite that of an oni, and that’s why she has to push herself so hard.

But then, how has this not especially come up before? Ibaraki’s basically never alluded to having formerly been a human, something which you would think impossible, even if she has an image she works hard to maintain. Likewise, she seems a certain degree too casual, too unaware, when it comes to what her mother put her through, even if she bears fear and awe.

Of all the places to do it once again, the tail end of Beni-enma’s interlude answers the matter, and once again contextualizes all of Ibaraki as a character prior. She was so thoroughly traumatized, so thoroughly indoctrinated, so thoroughly broken, that she repressed the memories of what she endured. She only remembers it as a distant emotional impression of having to crawl towards an impossible goal, of having to smile even as if she was in agony.

And Shuten maintains that illusion. Ibaraki has always been how she is. She’s never been through anything like that. She’s always been an oni’s oni, the ideal oni everyone wanted, and there’s no need to dwell on anything else.

Ibaraki is able to maintain her current self by burying her trauma deep inside of her, clinging to a reality of a stern but teaching mother that never existed. Of course she’s full of pride. She’s an oni, so she should act like an oni. There’s no need to think about difficult things, or be moved by uncomfortable sentiments.

Of course she doesn’t remember being a human. She had her past torn away from her by what she was forced to become, her memories ripped to shreds by the unsentimental abuse of her so called mother. To acknowledge what came before what she is now would be to undo her entire self.

And Shuten reveals she maintains this lie so that Ibaraki can remain happy. She fears Ibaraki will fall apart if the delusions she clings to are torn away. To simply allow Ibaraki to be carefree and pursue her desires is all she feels she can do.

But why does Tsuna come up? What bearing does he have on Ibaraki’s trauma? He’s nothing more than a sworn enemy that put a stop to her rampage and disgraced her by cutting off her arm. Certainly his presence stirs up some feeling, but it should have no bearing on her past, her pain, what she was and what she forces herself to be. Why does Shuten believe that if Ibaraki were to meet Tsuna, she might break down?

Tale of the Beginning and the End

― And just like that, it was all over. Grisly claw marks, destroyed houses, shattered household belongings. And a single woman nearby, close to the brink of death. I may or may not make it in time. It seems like I was wrong from the start.

I never expected us to come in contact with one another. The last thing I wanted to do was to even look at you. However, as long as you were alive. As long as you were happy. I thought that would be enough. But look, this is the reality.

she's dead / it's your fault she was killed / it's your fault that oni escaped / you must kill her don't avert your gaze / look away i'll carve out those golden locks of hers / you're not done yet decapitate her / kill yourself who should I blame? / no one is to blame

― And just like that, the man ceases his delusional thoughts. Oni are meant to be killed. I will slay her...that's all, nothing else to it. No, think. I have to keep thinking. Even if I die, until I die, even if I become corrupted.

I remember that look in her eyes, like bubbles that floated away and vanished.

Quietly, without a hint of any intense emotion, I stared back at the girl who had fixed her gaze on me. Everyone is a sinner. Oni are sinners, people are sinners, the girl is a sinner, I am a sinner. They are not just sins, but responsibilities as well.

I tightly grasp the hilt of my sword. I have no intention of giving it up to anyone. Having it even be stolen would be absurd. "Slaying that oni, is my duty."

― Tsuna, Tsuna, TSUNAA!

......the oni's claws approach. Something, whatever it is, swells within my trembling heart. I rotate my body, turn my arms, and swing my sword.

The truth of this fight, along with its conclusion, will soon disappear to the passage of time.

No one else can understand, will be able to understand this fight to the death between the two of us.

Watanabe no Tsuna’s profile paints the picture of a man unmoved as he slew countless oni. He is without hatred and without joy. He is akin to a robot.

And yet In his Bond CE this man who is even uncertain he has emotions to begin with, when it comes to Ibaraki, is left questioning everything he is. He is wracked with self loathing, desires even his own death, and condemns himself as a sinner. He berates himself and rages at himself.

He never expected to come into contact with her. The last thing he wanted was to ever see her again. It was enough that she was happy and alive. And yet it had come to this. No one but him can understand the truth of this fight.

The picture is perhaps of having come home to ruination. A doll lays discarded. Why is it that Ibaraki-Douji wishes to talk with a human she has only known as a sworn enemy in a single encounter? Why is that she has such a sheer curiosity about him? Why is it that to meet him again might break down the illusion of what she is? Why is it that the machine of a demon slayer breaks when it comes to encountering her and her alone?

Ibaraki-Douji, despite everything she pushes herself to be, was once human. She had a human family, and a human past. And perhaps that past is not quite as dead as her heart makes it out to be.