Me desperately trying to find this so-called "bias" it often feels like a solid two thirds of this fandom claim that the HotD producers/writers have towards Rhaenyra when literally every single change to other characters has fundamentally come from minimizing/obfuscating/or otherwise reducing her narrative and overall characterization and character.
Yes, I'm sure this woman who they have invented continual bad decisions, internalized misogyny, blatant disregard for the people closest to her, ineptitude, blindspots, and blatant, borderline unbelievable public disdain for in their adaptation of her character; who's background as a victim of child abuse, of continual misogynistic psychological and eventual physical violence, who's love of both other women and her own womanhood, infamy in her charm and popularity and continual attempts (and yes, often failures) to rise above the positions she was forced into they have also ERASED...is actually someone they're going out of their way to portray sympathetically?
Oh, but they favor her because...idk they haven't shown her being violently raped or repeatedly physically abused? Because you believe they actually think that making her seem like an idiot who never knows or thinks about what she's doing is somehow favorable?? Because it seems like ANY of these changes have actually endeared her to the fandom much less the show's general audience??? I literally cannot explain it most of the time, it baffles me.
I know I shouldn't be because why should any of us ever be shocked by misogyny in media anymore? By the portrayal of a woman for a mass-media (and heavily desired male) audience that's reductive and hollow?? But it's simply unreal to see how so many people somehow believe that this was done out of some sort of benevolence or favoritism. That so many people believe any of the changes made in the opposite direction of, and often active opposition to Rhaenyra's portrayal in Fire and Blood, were made out of some sort of desire to make her a tangibly more sympathetic or broadly understandable character, is something I'm not sure I'll ever be able to fully understand.
Except, of course, in the view that I really hope not everyone who says this sort of thing actually believes; that a self-confident woman who exercises her own agency is such an affront that even an unsympathetic, inconsistent, reductive, and idiotic cardboard cutout of a character is still a more respectable alternative.
25 notes
·
View notes
for about two years now ive struggled with relapses in self harm and have not really known how to deal with my desires for harm, health, and existing thoughts on antipsychiatry. ive been accessing psychiatric resources for well over a decade with a lot of trauma inflicted over that time. ive also dealt with really harsh approaches to reducing self harm that both began the problem in the first place and worsened it.
ive been working with my therapist to stop self harming but, to be honest, i have no desire to stop. i try my best to reduce risk where i can such as not self harming in an emotional state, using clean implements, and keeping it light. previously i didnt care about any of those things and self harm was mainly a dangerous coping mechanism. but now i see it almost as a form of body modification with a lot of intentionality to it.
i really dont know what to think. its objectively dangerous since i am harming myself but i also cant agree with the general aims of therapy and psychiatry to stop self harming as an ultimate goal. i want to be happy and healthy and for me that means living with self harm as a reality of something i will continue to do. and i think its my right as an autonomous person to choose what i do with my body, even if its harmful. yet i can feel the claws of psychiatry and feel so much shame and hatred towards the fact i cant stop. or more significantly, that i dont want to.
sorry for such a long ask, but essentially what im getting at is, how does one handle harm reduction when there is no desire to ever fully stop? i believe in my own right to bodily autonomy but ive also been told repeatedly that using my bodily autonomy to harm myself makes me undeserving of it and instead in need of carceral punishment. how do i even begin to navigate those contradictions of feeling like ive been horribly hurt and dehumanized and feeling like on some level ive deserved that dehumanization because of the pain i inflict? is self harm as body modification even a concept or idea that people have discussed? since i mainly just see it discussed as a coping mechanism.
content note: continued discussion of self harm and self harm methods.
Hi, anon. Thanks so much for reaching out.
I really resonated with so much of what you shared. It's really hard to try to navigate all our feelings associated with self harm when we are constantly hearing from society that our self harm makes us dangerous or unworthy or unable to live outside of institutions. For me, it honestly feels really violating when other people like providers try to push their narrative of what self harm means onto me. My relationship with my self harm is so personal and there's a lot of different meaning I attach to it, and I want the room to be able to talk about it in a way that actually makes sense to me.
Something that's helped me in trying to navigate all of this for myself is really just to come back to these values of bodily autonomy and harm reduction. A really important harm reduction value for me is that it is completely okay if people don't ever stop (whether we're talking about drugs, self harm, disorderly eating, etc). It's important to me that we can defend people's right to do all these things and recognize that harm reduction should not be just another method of coercion trying to convince people to stop. I strongly believe that people can have meaningful and valuable lives that also include self harm as a part of our lives. I want to build a world where we can say that we're not interested in completely stopping self harm and that statement is not reacted to with shame or blame, but rather with curiosity and respect for the fact that we are the experts on our own lives and choices. Part of encouraging autonomy is recognizing that we are allowed to make choices about our lives that might not be what the psych system wants us to make.
Anyway, all of this is to say: I think it's okay if you're not interested in ever stopping self harming, and I know a lot of people who also feel similarly to you. You absolutely have the right to interpret your self harm in a way that makes sense for you. I've definitely heard other people talk about self harm as body modification (I think some of the harm reduction zines in this google drive might talk about it, but I haven't read through them in a while. Continued content note for discussion of self harm, self harm methods, and diagrams of anatomy and self harm). It makes a lot of sense why you might connect self harm and body modification, and that's something that would resonate with a lot of other people. You have the right to build a life that includes self harm as a part of it, and find a way to do it that makes sense for your body and life.
That feeling of dehumanization you described is so so real. I really just feel a lot of rage towards a psychiatric system that makes us feel so hurt and conflicted. Untangling that learned shame and hatred towards ourselves is so fucking hard, but just know that you are not alone in that and that we have the right to reject the ways the psych system punishes us.
And I want to be clear that none of this is to downplay the very real harm, pain, or risk that can come with self harm, but rather to point out that abstinence only methods, shame, and carceral psychiatry did not do anything to support me with that. Instead, it left me feeling trapped and like it was worthless to even try to figure out what I needed in really difficult moments. So I also really just want to acknowledge and celebrate all the stuff you listed in your ask--using clean implements, not self harming in an emotional state, and keeping it light. I'm really glad that you've found some steps to take that make self harm more manageable for you. Those are not lesser steps or a waste of your time just because you are not interested in stopping self harm, and those things are such a great example of how harm reduction doesn't require you to stop self harming in order to make some changes that reduce risk.
Just sending a lot of love and solidarity to you, anon, from another person who is not interested in completely stopping self harm, even as my relationship to my self harm shifts and changes over the years. There are a lot of us out here and we deserve to have the space to openly talk about these things without facing judgement.
💜💜💜💜
31 notes
·
View notes
Could someone tell me where the interpretation that, in book canon, the promotion Nie Mingjue gives Meng Yao made Meng Yao's life worse than it was before, came from?
I have seen that claim made multiple times now and I've looked at the text over and over trying to see where the basis for it is and I. Can't find it? Don't get me wrong, it absolutely spells out that it does not and cannot fix everything for Meng Yao, but the idea that it was actively bad for him?
Lacking other evidence, I kind of have to assume that it comes from cql canon being sort of projected backwards onto book canon. In cql canon, meng yao is suffering active and explicit bullying and abuse from the captain while under the nie, and does so because the capain believes he has risen above his station via nmj's promotion of him. (In book canon this... isn't happening. It happens with the captain in Langya instead) However, in cql canon he has also been with the nie for years and is openly close to both Nie Mingjue and Nie Huasiang, whereas in book canon he has only been working with nie mingjue for a few months (though has, in that time, apparently become close enough to him for Lan Xichen to explicitly state Meng Yao is able to calm nmj down in ways no one else can? Ofc he does this... Right after that stops being true. But. Food for thought. Not what this post is about tho.) So, if you project the much more explicit abuse from the nie sect captain in cql back on novel jgy who has a presumably much less stable position in the sect overall you get... a meng yao for whom the promotion only means a bigger target on his back and virtually no protection from nmj, who we must assume he can't trust to talk to his about because he never mentions it. (This also explicitly violates book canon when it comes to meng yao's general behaviour, we'll talk about that in a sec)
And look. We all do frankencanon in this house. I get it. And for fanfiction that is very fun. But for a serious reading of the character, his situation, and the actions that lead from that this... doesn't make much sense, in my opinion.
So. Why is that? Why did I say this was out of character for the novel? Because Meng yao spoke up about the jin captain mistreating him. Multiple times! It's just that none of it mattered because no one cared to listen to him. This is a pretty important line for his character because it flatly shows that meng yao is not and has never seen murder as something trivial. He's not trigger happy. He will only do it if he sees no other way out that doesn't end in himself being seriously harmed. (Whether he's right or justified in these cases is not the point of this post.)
If anything remotely similar was happening in the Nie sect, he would have said so. Cql Meng Yao doesn't do this because cql Meng Yao is a different character, and also the plot wouldn't work if he did. Cql Nie Mingjue, by extension, comes off as a fundamentally less trustworthy figure in cql Meng Yao's life because apparently for whatever reason, he cannot be trusted with the information that the deputy he has already publicly defended is still being harassed, and doesn't notice even when it is really blatant. The assumtpion the audience is given is that, like a middle schooler getting the principal involved when being bullied, it would only make the harassment more viscious.
This... actually has a somewhat solid basis in the book. Because after nmj yells at the bullies in question Wei Wuxian says this.
And it is important to keep in mind that this is Wei Wuxian saying this. Not Meng Yao, not an omniscient narrator. Wei wuxian is drawing on his own experiences, likely from the Jiang family, to conclude that if someone is angry at you and thwarted by someone defending you, this generally does not make them less angry at you.
This is leaving out two crucial things, though.
Firstly, this worry isn't about the promotion at all.
The promotion hasn't even been brought up. In the novel it doesn't ctually happen immediately, it takes another few battles where meng yao continues to do his job well and nie mingjue continues praising him for him to eventually go "yeah, you deserve a raise."
This is another aspect that is being projected from cql canon onto book canon I presume, because it does happen quite quickly there, and it's a throwaway line in the books so it's easy to miss. I can't be mad about anyone forgetting the difference, but it is important to mention for this particular analysis.
Which is the second point: change in status
Wei Wuxian couldn't exactly change status within the Jiang family. (And if he could, that would just fuel rumours that he was jfm's bastard even more and make madam yu even angrier at him, etc etc.)
This isn't comparable to Meng Yao. The worry Wei Wuxian is talking about is explitly about Nie Mingjue's initial very loud defense of him. Before he has any idea Nie Mingjue is going to promote him.
Promoting him would likely decrease his chances of cultivators coming after him because now he was in a higher standing in the sect than they were. If applied to that earlier metaphor of middle school bullying it's like if the bullied kid suddenly got hired as a teacher. Which. Doesn't work with the metaphor at all. Touché. But what I am trying to say is that any payback they would have planned for him relied on the fact that they could make sure that Nie Mingjue wasn't going to be within very convenient earshot a second time, and as a random disciple Meng Yao couldn't just go complain to him every time.
But as his right hand man? Who spends most of his time working directly alongside him? Lmao. Good luck. Oh, sure, it is very likely that they feel offended a son of a whore has been raised in status above them, and many will continue to do so as jgy rises through cultivation society (in fact, Wei Wuxian's observations are absolutely on point for how Madam Jin will be treating jgy later on). But as we can also see from the way jgy is treated and how he treats others throughout the story: you can be upset all you want, but if that person is higher than you in status there's jack shit you can do about it.
If I am correct and Wei Wuxian is basing this on his experiences with the Jiang family, it makes sense why he'd miss this. Madam Yu gets to be way angrier at Jiang Fengmian as his wife than some random disciples can be at Nie Mingjue. Insulting Meng Yao, suggesting that he didn't deserve his promotion or that he earned it through less than proper means (you know who is mother is) is also an insult to Nie Mingjue and the way he chooses to run his sect. They can't do that.
Another thing I see brought up in this regard would be the tea scene. There may be no explicit harassment like in the show, but cultivators still don't respect him! The disrespect is just quieter and more subtle.
Tiny detail: these are actually not Nie cultivators
They're cultivators Lan Xichen is escorting with him, making a pitstop in heijan.
The book confirms this by basically outright stating that this is the first time they see his face, and recognize him as Jin Guangshan's bastard son.
Now, just because there is no proof that it happened doesn't mean it definitely never happened. Mdzs is a novel that often leaves stuff out or up to interpretation. Similar stuff to the tea situtation could very well be happening in the background. But I do think it is pretty significant that there is no mention whatsoever of Meng Yao having any negative treatment from Nie cultivators betwen him and Nie Mingjue meeting and him executing them while spying for Wen Ruohan, and the most we get is Wei Wuxian's personal speculation, after which he immediately goes to wax poetic about how surprised he is that Meng Yao and Nie Mingjue are getting along super well.
And, again, novel Meng Yao would have said something. He doesn't say anything about the tea scene. - Or? Does he? Notably 3zun have some very long in depth conversations that Wei Wuxian zones out from because he's busy thinking about Lan Zhan again. But let's not rely on what-ifs. Let's say that neither he nor Lan Xichen find it worth bringing up. Major reasons for that would be that a) these are not nie cultivators, nie mingjue wouldn't really have the authority to scold them. Especially because b) it's such a subtle offense it could easily be handwaved as coincidence. "They just always brush their cups clean like that!! It's wartime you know, and they were traveling! They're used to drinking from vessels that aren't thoroughly washed everytime! It's just a habit!" And would therefore not be worth reporting.
But anything worse than that? A "price tens or hundreds of times greater" like wwx mentions? He'd report it! I do understand that "well if it was happening why didn't he say something?" would, in real life, be victim blaming. This is not real life, and I am not talking about this in a matter of blame. If Meng Yao was being mistreated in the Nie and stayed silent about it, it would still not be his fault. I am talking about this in a manner of character consistency.
His admission of seeking help in the Jin sect shows that at that time and prior to it (a very good argument can be made that he loses faith in this idea) he believes that if he is being mistreated and someone with the authority to say something about it takes his side, things can improve. If Nie Mingjue standing up for him in Qinghe only made things worse, he would not have tried to ask for help in an even more hostile environment. You can call Meng Yao many things, but naïve isn't one of them.
Meng yao's later habit of completely isolating himself and lying to everyone around him comes from the fact that revealing his suffering would mean explaining several horrible things he's become complicit in and he does not feel safe admitting to that. But he's done nothing wrong here!
The reading where he says nothing would imply an either correct or incorrect belief in Meng Yao's eyes that Nie Mingjue did not much care for his wellbeing or safety. Oh sure he defended him once but doing so again multiple times would be such a bother. This also contradicts his later behaviour, where he banks solely on Nie Mingjue's protective instincts to seal his qi and escape during the confrontation in Langya. After having been caught murdering a man, he is still convinced Nie Mingjue will immediately try to help him when he is in serious danger.
And even if you very badly want to characterize Nie Mingjue as a blundering idiot who is apparently less trustworthy in Meng Yao's eyes than the jin cultivators who had already resoundly rejected him by the time he tries to ask for help with the langya captain. He doesn't say anything to Xichen either! Lan Xichen, who has explicitly and exhaustively been portrayed as kind and understanding to Meng Yao's circumstances and very willing to talk to Mingjue if Meng Yao wants something from him he doesn't otherwise think he'd get. The conversation Mingjue overhears where Meng Yao's new position in the Nie is explictly brought up would be kind of the perfect time to go "yeah I've been promoted but I'm not treated well by other soldiers" aaaand. Nothing. So unless you come to the conclusion that Meng Yao trusted the Jin he told about the captain's abuse more than Lan Xichen you kind of have to conclude that Meng Yao's treatment after his promotion improved significantly. And that even if people still disliked him they could not openly do anything about it because he was high enough in status for that to be socially inappropiate. Which is, explicitly, one of his main motivators over the entire course of the story: Avoiding mistreatment by getting high enough on the social ladder it doesn't matter what people think of him, they can't hurt him.
And I'm not sure how to reconcile that character journey with the idea that he would, at any point, have preferred to keep his head down and stay where he was. When he was so desperate to crawl his way out.
26 notes
·
View notes
I have seen one too many very bad urbanism takes on my dash from people who seem to think that this is an all-or-nothing zero-sum game, so I am about to get OPINIONATED here. This is probably going to be long. I might include diagrams.
America's car-dependency is harmful to the development and growth of communities and localism. If we can all agree that Being In A Community is a good thing (we might not be able to agree that, I don't know), we should address this issue somehow. Building walkable communities is a good step in this direction. Transit ideally connects walkable communities together with ease.
As someone on the anti-car-dependency side of this discussion, what I want to say very loudly is the option for good transit, especially in metropolitan areas both major and minor, should be available. This is NOT saying "everyone should live in cities" or "rural folks must all take buses or transit everywhere." This is saying "people who live in a dense area should have the option to take reliable public transit." Fewer people in cars will mean less traffic for buses and less traffic for people coming into the urban area from outside it. The goal is car reduction, especially in everyday errands or commutes. Think about the routes you drive every single day -- usually to work, right? Maybe dropping your kids off at school? What if you didn't have to drive it but could instead take a bus or a train?
To be clear: I'm not dunking on people who live in rural areas. I reiterate that people in rural areas should not be forced to only take buses or transit and suddenly give up their cars. (That is outrageous.) I am not even saying that city-dwellers shouldn't have cars -- I'm saying that cityfolk should have the realistic option to not have a car and be able to do all their necessary life things on foot, bike, or transit. Safely. Which means moving those big highways out of city centres and forcing more walkable communities in places which can absolutely handle a slight increase in density (looking at you, Syracuse and Milwaukee, among others).
Also, density does not and should not only look like New York City or Chicago. It is eminently possible to create an environment where pleasant single-family or small multi-family homes exist on small plots of land and there is an easily-accessible area containing commerce (including a grocery store, among other things) and local parks and so forth. But this sort of development doesn't lend itself to speculation and therefore doesn't make big money fast, so people don't want to plan it.
18 notes
·
View notes