#rambling incoming

[torantuga]

stuff from a scraped emmk animatic i wanted to do

i try to run but emmk is faster

[ssweet-flowerss]

That whole assumption saying is really onto something huh..

[dippiesque]

on our way!!💚

[northopalshore]

‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧ Indicators of a less than well-off spouse &

the significance of the 8th house

<Img @ header source: pinterest>

This means they may have struggled with money, finances, and assets in their life. It can range from poverty stricken, an unhealthy relationship with money (i.e spending habits or addictions) to middle class or average life.

This post applies to the Juno, Briede, Groom persona charts & through derivative astrology. However, in the Groom or Briede persona chart, it manifests after the wedding.

☆ Saturn, Chiron, Mars, Lilith or Neptune in the 2nd house in the Briede 19029 (if you are interested in women), Groom 5129 (if you are into men) , and Juno 3 persona chart : means that your spouse will come from a lesser financial background than you. Money may have always been somewhat of an issue in their lives, so they spend much focus on obtaining it.

☆ If it's Chiron or Lilith in the Juno persona chart here specifically, they may be rather ashamed of it, or don't want to be a burden to you when it comes to money. This is most prominent when first getting to know each other. They may feel rather left out or seem like an outsider to your financial lifestyle.

☆ In the natal chart:

This is where we'll focus on the 8th house as it symbolizes the spouse's financial gain, shared resources and also their spending habits. That being said, it's also important to see the sign & degrees that they are in as well as aspects that it makes for more context. Please understand that these may manifest in their childhood or upbringing and their future may change. (See Beyonce's example on the bottom of this post. )

Note: If there are no planets in the 8th house, look at the 8th house ruler.

Stellium in the 8th house: It means that money is very important to your future spouse. They may attach a lot of meaning into their possessions. Money, as well as the things that they own have been a very integral part of their lives depending on what planet is there.

If Sun is here: than they may base their identity with what they have or what they wear. They could very much be someone who deeply values their aesthetics.

If Moon is here: they will have a strong emotional attachment to their money & belongings. They may have their natal moon in the 2nd house for example. They may like to keep collections of things, like figurines, trinkets, clothing from a specific brand or something.

If Venus is here: Their love language centers around luxurious attraction, they may enjoy spending money on beauty products A LOT. These are the type that will splurge for the sake of their looks or to raise their vibrations. All that glitters is gold to them. They also may earn a lot of money, or have always had what they want (or need) handed to them.

If Mars is here: They likely spend a lot of money, or have a habit of splurging or have zero impulse control when purchasing something. It may also mean that they are always looking for ways to earn money, and may have struggled to gain money i.e have multiple jobs, do a lot of hard work, physical labor.

Ex: See my post about Lana Del Rey's 8th house & her husband's career as an example in this post.

If Mercury is here: Their work may involve talking or communication, being quick witted, guiding people, teaching, etc. Your future spouse has money on their mind. This can sort of manifest in a multitude of ways, but they are very hard working. It doesn't really say definitively whether they are born wealthy or not, but it does give extra context on the sign or degree that it's in. They may talk about money or have a lot of ideas regarding how one can gain money.

If Jupiter is here: Most of you may have already read my rich spouse indicators post. You know how much Jupiter is raved to be the "wealthy spouse" indicator. Even if they did live a hard life, financially, they still had it much better than you did.

If Neptune is here: Similar to mars where they have no impulse control when it comes to spending or buying things. Being so entranced by the moment and ending up buying more than they set out to check out lmao. They may have an unreasonable or unrealistic approach to having money or towards their possessions at times.

If Saturn,Pluto, Chiron or Lilith is here: They may have grown up in poverty, perhaps their family has debt or are always struggling to make ends meet. Very common to see in spouses who grew up in broken homes, struggling because of the financial position they are born in.

Ex: Beyonce has Chiron (°22 Capricorn) in retrograde in her Taurus 8th house. Everyone that has heard any of Jay-Zs old songs knows that he did not grow up in wealth. He grew up in poverty, living in a public housing complex. His father left his family, which left his mother being the sole breadwinner of the family. At some point he had to sell cocaine to survive.

Though since it's in 22, he has struggled to turn his financial situation around i.e to get stacked lmao. The 8th house is in Taurus, which normally would mean that the spouse will have stable or good income. 22 as you know is "kill or be killed", and in this scenario he has come out extremely successful. Granted, Beyoncé also has the starr (4150) asteroid here in an aquarius degree. He is considered a legend in the industry for the unique contributions that he had made through his music. He's extremely influential.

If Part of fortune is here: Your spouse was likely born into a wealthy family, generational wealth. If not then they are very blessed in their career i.e always have a way to gain money or get a job. If they have a brand or business, it's likely that they can make a lot of money through that.

Materially stable signs in the 8th house:

Taurus, Libra, Sagittarius, Leo, Cancer

Somewhere in the middle:

Gemini, Capricorn (goes both ways), Virgo

Not as stable:

Aquarius, Scorpio, Aries, Pisces

(the sign it's in just gives more context, it's not the sole indicator.)

<< Important notice ✋🏻 ⚠️>>

If you have more than one planet, you have to combine their energies together, even if they may be contradicting. It doesn't "cancel each other out", but rather give you a progression or a clearer scenario. Please think wisely! Make sure to compare your Juno, Groom & natal chart together as well.

Thank you for reading ♡

@northopalshore

@northopalshore spouse finance 2024 all rights reserved.

[wiggly-round-worm]

I think being possessed by Bill has permanent side effects, actually.

[syrupsyche]

Les Mis characters as pasta types/shapes

Disclaimer: Not Italian, not a chef, just a girl who's procrastinating way too hard on her assignments right now.

One can also blame @combeferres-mothematics for starting this train of thought...

Myriel: Cappelletti, really only bc they look like little bishop hats to me.

Valjean: Spaghetti. A classic, everyman pasta to suit his average, everyman name/persona.

Fantine: Mafaldine, also known as Riccia. Looks like an unfurled ribbon, named after Princess Mafalda. Reminds me of Fantine's curly golden hair (Riccia, too, means curly!)

Cosette: Orecchiette. The "little ears" pasta, to match her nickname "little thing".

Javert: Penne lisce. Commonly disliked because its been too smoothed out and can't hold onto sauces as such. Would be much better if it still retained its rough edges like the penne rigate. (Penne is one of my favourite pastas so don't kill me Javert lovers)

Marius: Elbow Macaroni. A little goofy, but like Valjean, its very much a classic, everyman pasta. Suits his self/reader-insert persona.

Enjolras: Angel hair. Sorry this was too easy to not grab at it.

Grantaire: Lasagna, solely because he's very Garfield-core to me

Bonus:

All of Les Amis de l'ABC: Alphabet Spaghetti. They're friends of the ABC after all!

Tholomyès: Dick pasta. Quite literally self-explanatory. Idea courtesy of @calico-cows .

Part 2 coming soon.....?

[somnimagus]

My page for @kairizine. It was such a huge honor to be part of this wonderful book with everyone, I had so much fun!

[id in alt!]

[amateurvoltaire]

For the past six years or so, this graph has been making its rounds on social media, always reappearing at conveniently timed moments…

The insinuation is loud and clear: parallels abound between 18th-century France and 21st-century USA. Cue the alarm bells—revolution is imminent! The 10% should panic, and ordinary folk should stock up on non-perishables and, of course, toilet paper, because it wouldn’t be a proper crisis without that particular frenzy. You know the drill.

Well, unfortunately, I have zero interest in commenting on the political implications or the parallels this graph is trying to make with today’s world. I have precisely zero interest in discussing modern-day politics here. And I also have zero interest in addressing the bottom graph.

This is not going to be one of those "the [insert random group of people] à la lanterne” (1) kind of posts.  If you’re here for that, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed.

What I am interested in is something much less click-worthy but far more useful: how historical data gets used and abused and why the illusion of historical parallels can be so seductive—and so misleading. It’s not glamorous, I’ll admit, but digging into this stuff teaches us a lot more than mindless rage.

So, let’s get into it. Step by step, we’ll examine the top graph, unpick its assumptions, and see whether its alarmist undertones hold any historical weight.

Step 1: Actually Look at the Picture and Use Your Brain

When I saw this graph, my first thought was, “That’s odd.” Not because it’s hard to believe the top 10% in 18th-century France controlled 60% of the wealth—that could very well be true. But because, in 15 years of studying the French Revolution, I’ve never encountered reliable data on wealth distribution from that period.

Why? Because to the best of my knowledge, no one was systematically tracking income or wealth across the population in the 18th century. There were no comprehensive records, no centralised statistics, and certainly no detailed breakdowns of who owned what across different classes. Graphs like this imply data, and data means either someone tracked it or someone made assumptions to reconstruct it. That’s not inherently bad,  but it did get my spider senses tingling.

Then there’s the timeframe: 1760–1790. Thirty years is a long time— especially when discussing a period that included wars, failed financial policies, growing debt, and shifting social dynamics. Wealth distribution wouldn’t have stayed static during that time. Nobles who were at the top in 1760 could be destitute by 1790, while merchants starting out in 1760 could be climbing into the upper tiers by the end of the period. Economic mobility wasn’t common, but over three decades, it wasn’t unheard of either.

All of this raises questions about how this graph was created. Where’s the data coming from? How was it measured? And can we really trust it to represent such a complex period?

Step 2: Check the Fine Print

Since the graph seemed questionable, the obvious next step was to ask: Where does this thing come from? Luckily, the source is clearly cited at the bottom: “The Income Inequality of France in Historical Perspective” by Christian Morrisson and Wayne Snyder, published in the European Review of Economic History, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2000).

Great! A proper academic source. But, before diving into the article, there’s a crucial detail tucked into the fine print:

“Data for the bottom 40% in France is extrapolated given a single data point.”

What does that mean?

Extrapolation is a statistical method used to estimate unknown values by extending patterns or trends from a small sample of data. In this case, the graph’s creator used one single piece of data—one solitary data point—about the wealth of the bottom 40% of the French population. They then scaled or applied that one value to represent the entire group across the 30-year period (1760–1790).

Put simply, this means someone found one record—maybe a tax ledger, an income statement, or some financial data—pertaining to one specific year, region, or subset of the bottom 40%, and decided it was representative of the entire demographic for three decades.

Let’s be honest: you don’t need a degree in statistics to know that’s problematic. Using a single data point to make sweeping generalisations about a large, diverse population (let alone across an era of wars, famines, and economic shifts) is a massive leap. In fact, it’s about as reliable as guessing how the internet feels about a topic from a single tweet.

This immediately tells me that whatever numbers they claim for the bottom 40% of the population are, at best, speculative. At worst? Utterly meaningless.

It also raises another question: What kind of serious journal would let something like this slide? So, time to pull up the actual article and see what’s going on.

Step 3: Check the Sources

As I mentioned earlier, the source for this graph is conveniently listed at the bottom of the image. Three clicks later, I had downloaded the actual article: “The Income Inequality of France in Historical Perspective” by Morrisson and Snyder.

The first thing I noticed while skimming through the article? The graph itself is nowhere to be found in the publication.

This is important. It means the person who created the graph didn’t just lift it straight from the article—they derived it from the data in the publication. Now, that’s not necessarily a problem; secondary analysis of published data is common. But here’s the kicker: there’s no explanation in the screenshot of the graph about which dataset or calculations were used to make it. We’re left to guess.

So, to figure this out, I guess I’ll have to dive into the article itself, trying to identify where they might have pulled the numbers from. Translation: I signed myself up to read 20+ pages of economic history. Thrilling stuff.

But hey, someone has to do it. The things I endure to fight disinformation...

Step 4: Actually Assess the Sources Critically

It doesn’t take long, once you start reading the article, to realise that regardless of what the graph is based on, it’s bound to be somewhat unreliable. Right from the first paragraph, the authors of the paper point out the core issue with calculating income for 18th-century French households: THERE IS NO DATA.

The article is refreshingly honest about this. It states multiple times that there were no reliable income distribution estimates in France before World War II. To fill this gap, Morrisson and Snyder used a variety of proxy sources like the Capitation Tax Records (2), historical socio-professional tables, and Isnard’s income distribution estimates (3).

After reading the whole paper, I can say their methodology is intriguing and very reasonable. They’ve pieced together what they could by using available evidence, and their process is quite well thought-out. I won’t rehash their entire argument here, but if you’re curious, I’d genuinely recommend giving it a read.

Most importantly, the authors are painfully aware of the limitations of their approach. They make it very clear that their estimates are a form of educated guesswork—evidence-based, yes, but still guesswork.   At no point do they overstate their findings or present their conclusions as definitive

As such,  instead of concluding with a single, definitive version of the income distribution, they offer multiple possible scenarios.

It’s not as flashy as a bold, tidy graph, is it? But it’s far more honest—and far more reflective of the complexities involved in reconstructing historical economic data.

Step 5: Run the numbers

Now that we’ve established the authors of the paper don’t actually propose a definitive income distribution, the question remains: where did the creators of the graph get their data? More specifically, which of the proposed distributions did they use?

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to locate the original article or post containing the graph. Admittedly, I haven’t tried very hard, but the first few pages of Google results just link back to Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and Tumblr posts. In short, all I have to go on is this screenshot.

I’ll give the graph creators the benefit of the doubt and assume that, in the full article, they explain where they sourced their data. I really hope they do—because they absolutely should.

That being said, based on the information in Morrisson and Snyder’s paper, I’d make an educated guess that the data came from Table 6 or Table 10, as these are the sections where the authors attempt to provide income distribution estimates.

Now, which dataset does the graph use? Spoiler: None of them.

How can we tell? Since I don’t have access to the raw data or the article where this graph might have been originally posted, I resorted to a rather unscientific method: I used a graphical design program to divide each bar of the chart into 2.5% increments and measure the approximate percentage for each income group.

Here’s what I found:

Now, take a moment to spot the issue. Do you see it?

The problem is glaring: NONE of the datasets from the paper fit the graph. Granted, my measurements are just estimates, so there might be some rounding errors. But the discrepancies are impossible to ignore, particularly for the bottom 40% and the top 10%.

In Morrisson and Snyder’s paper, the lowest estimate for the bottom 40% (1st and 2nd quintiles) is 10%. Even if we use the most conservative proxy, the Capitation Tax estimate, it’s 9%. But the graph claims the bottom 40% held only 6%.

For the top 10% (10th decile), the highest estimate in the paper is 53%. Yet the graph inflates this to 60%.

Step 6: For fun, I made my own bar charts

Because I enjoy this sort of thing (yes, this is what I consider fun—I’m a very fun person), I decided to use the data from the paper to create my own bar charts. Here’s what came out:

What do you notice?

While the results don’t exactly scream “healthy economy,” they look much less dramatic than the graph we started with. The creators of the graph have clearly exaggerated the disparities, making inequality seem worse.

Step 7: Understand the context before drawing conclusions

Numbers, by themselves, mean nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I could tell you right now that 47% of people admit to arguing with inanimate objects when they don’t work, with printers being the most common offender, and you’d probably believe it. Why? Because it sounds plausible—printers are frustrating, I’ve used a percentage, and I’ve phrased it in a way that sounds “academic.”

You likely wouldn’t even pause to consider that I’m claiming 3.8 billion people argue with inanimate objects. And let’s be real: 3.8 billion is such an incomprehensibly large number that our brains tend to gloss over it.

If, instead, I said, “Half of your friends probably argue with their printers,” you might stop and think, “Wait, that seems a bit unlikely.” (For the record, I completely made that up—I have no clue how many people yell at their stoves or complain to their toasters.)

The point? Numbers mean nothing unless we put them into context.

The original paper does this well by contextualising its estimates, primarily through the calculation of the Gini coefficient (4).

The authors estimate France’s Gini coefficient in the late 18th century to be 0.59, indicating significant income inequality. However, they compare this figure to other regions and periods to provide a clearer picture:

Amsterdam (1742): Much higher inequality, with a Gini of 0.69.

Britain (1759): Lower inequality, with a Gini of 0.52, which rose to 0.59 by 1801.

Prussia (mid-19th century): Far less inequality, with a Gini of 0.34–0.36.

This comparison shows that income inequality wasn’t unique to France. Other regions experienced similar or even higher levels of inequality without spontaneously erupting into revolution.

Accounting for Variations

The authors also recalculated the Gini coefficient to account for potential variations. They assumed that the income of the top quintile (the wealthiest 20%) could vary by ±10%. Here’s what they found:

If the top quintile earned 10% more, the Gini coefficient rose to 0.66, placing France significantly above other European countries of the time.

If the top quintile earned 10% less, the Gini dropped to 0.55, bringing France closer to Britain’s level.

Ultimately, the authors admit there’s uncertainty about the exact level of inequality in France. Their best guess is that it was comparable to other countries or somewhat worse.

Step 8: Drawing Some Conclusions

Saying that most people in the 18th century were poor and miserable—perhaps the French more so than others—isn’t exactly a compelling statement if your goal is to gather clicks or make a dramatic political point.

It’s incredibly tempting to look at the past and find exactly what we want to see in it. History often acts as a mirror, reflecting our own expectations unless we challenge ourselves to think critically. Whether you call it wishful thinking or confirmation bias, it’s easy to project the future onto the past.

Looking at the initial graph, I understand why someone might fall into this trap. Simple, tidy narratives are appealing to everyone. But if you’ve studied history, you’ll know that such narratives are a myth. Human nature may not have changed in thousands of years, but the contexts we inhabit are so vastly different that direct parallels are meaningless.

So, is revolution imminent? Well, that’s up to you—not some random graph on the internet.

Notes

(1) A la lanterne was a  revolutionary cry during the French Revolution, symbolising mob justice where individuals were sometimes hanged from lampposts as a form of public execution

(2) The capitation tax was a fixed head tax implemented in France during the Ancien Régime. It was levied on individuals, with the amount owed determined by their social and professional status. Unlike a proportional income tax, it was based on pre-assigned categories rather than actual earnings, meaning nobles, clergy, and commoners paid different rates regardless of their actual wealth or income.

(3) Jean-Baptiste Isnard was an 18th-century economist. These estimates attempted to describe the theoretical distribution of income among different social classes in pre-revolutionary France. Isnard’s work aimed to categorise income across groups like nobles, clergy, and commoners, providing a broad picture of economic disparity during the period.

(4) The Gini coefficient (or Gini index) is a widely used statistical measure of inequality within a population, specifically in terms of income or wealth distribution. It ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates perfect equality (everyone has the same income or wealth), and 1 represents maximum inequality (one person or household holds all the wealth).

[amuelia]

How do you think Roose is going to go out in Winds, will he be killed by Ramsay like in the show (in a very different style, obviously) or is it something a bit unexpected?

Not fond of it being similar to the show version because it implies he's not gonna get a lot of screentime in tWoW; it's also kind of a cheap way to give him "karma" for killing robb by just reversing the roles and having roose be at the receiving end of a murderous betrayal. Note also that Theon is absent from this storyline now (since he escaped), and i'd assume Roose as an important tertiary character would have at least one more big chapter in tWoW, so he probably escapes the Winterfell situation alive at the very least until another PoV crosses his path (Asha?).

If Stannis takes Winterfell, i'd assume Roose would be a prisoner for the moment, maybe saved for a Stark to judge over as a show of goodwill; and whatever "northern conspiracy" payoff there is would probably mean that the northmen distance themselves from him as much as possible and make him the fall guy for the entire red wedding + fallout events (which are mostly his fault anyways). Barbrey as a character likely has been added to the story in aDwD to give a bit of diversity to the northern politics, as someone who is not a stark loyalist and has some closer feelings towards roose but also isnt guilty of the red wedding. I think her role might be that she is a bit of a thorn in the otherwise likely clean consensus on what to do with the Bolton problem and she might argue somewhat in Roose' favour politically (maybe arguing against him being executed or otherwise buying him some time).

And the best sword is the one that cuts both ways, he might tell you. Take the Battle of Green Fork. Had his night march taken Lord Tywin unawares and won the battle, he would have smashed the Lannisters and become the hero of the hour. While if it failed... well, you see what happened. The only way he could lose there would be if were captured or slain himself, and he did his best to minimize the chances of that. - GRRM, SSM Feb 3 2001

Roose' storyline so far has been about how he tries to maximize his profits, while also keeping out of harms way and not getting caught. He acts in ways that are morally reprehensive as long as the result is favourable to him and he can get away with it scot free. Yet come aDwD, we start to see that it is getting harder and harder for him to keep this up:

Roose Bolton said nothing at all. But Theon Greyjoy saw a look in his pale eyes that he had never seen before—an uneasiness, even a hint of fear. - a Ghost in Winterfell, aDwD

Ned Stark tried his best to act like a decent person and showed a spine acting openly as such, and after a lifetime of integrity his legacy lives on in his children and people are willing to go to war in his memory. Roose is his foil; he acts morally badly, and spinelessly so as he tries to avoid consequences - so likely as an inversion to Ned his house will go to ruin and the consequences of his actions catch up to him as his modus operandi made him liked by few. So i'd personally find it interesting if he has a fair trial and gets judged the way he deserves, with no way for him to weasel himself out of it again.

My dream tWoW direction would be that he then gets sent to the wall (which also was Ned's initial sentence, another foil moment) and becomes the epilogue PoV and faces an Other - it would be a cool way to hand off the torch from the last big human villain of the wot5k storyline to the center antagonistic force of the war for the dawn storyline (it would also complete the set of Red Wedding architects being epilogue PoVs as the first epilogue in aSoS was a Frey, and the second in aDwD a Lannister). It would also really showcase how inhuman and alien the Others are by taking the coldest and "least humane" human character that everyone jokes is a vampire, and showing that in contrast to them he still is one of us by giving us a view inside his brain and his very human reaction to them.

The real enemy is the cold.  - Prologue, aGoT

Reek wondered if Roose Bolton ever cried. If so, do the tears feel cold upon his cheeks? - Reek III, aDwD

He looked deep into the heart of winter, and then he cried out, afraid, and the heat of his tears burned on his cheeks. - Bran III, aGoT

[foldingfittedsheets]

Got my wife some Legos for Chrismakuh. Delighted with my stocking.

[happypartytrain]

(despite my language i cannot stress enough that this is non-ship) (i am on 2-4 and these are my thoughts as of right now. i am so sorry if susato, like, shoots runo in 2-5.)

this is quite the take but i think that (platonically) ryunosuke and susato are soulmates. it’s like they’re destined to be together one way or another. it’s not romantic, hell no — but it’s not exactly familial? they’re friends, but in a more profound way. it’s……. probably a trauma bond, actually, but the point is that they’re sticking together after it all.

what is so important to me is the fact that ryunosuke respects susato to high hell and back. there are times when we remember she is a woman fulfilling a role — like how sholmes and ryunosuke let her and iris handle the cooking while they sit back — but he kept her desk completely clean in her absence. he, a walking tornado, did not put anything else on it. he personally cleaned it and waited for her. he kept the prawns and anemones alive despite disliking their care. he never once went into her room, even when it was empty. she is home to him. she is his culture, but also his friend and assistant.

and susato is brave around him. she isn’t excusing herself in a place she isn’t allowed (1-1). she isn’t “just a lady” around him. they banter, she teases him, she scolds him, she keeps him working, she aids him, but god oh god she does not baby him. she is unafraid to throw him over anything. i don’t think susato will ever marry a man (sorry, yujin! no grandchildren, she like-a da books!) but i can just imagine men having to go through ryunosuke’s (of all people) approval. every other man is going to treat her like she is a woman without much else but service to do.

there will surely come a day when they live apart, but for now they’re raising happy little prawns & bounce off of each other like they’ve known each other for life. they’re each other’s home away from home. ryunosuke probably spoke next to no japanese while she was gone and, to his horror, found he was slowly forgetting words — so i just imagine susato quizzing him with vocab on random whims and looking dangerously ready to throw him when he gets it wrong. she forces him to write kanji the RIGHT way and never lets him forget his roots. (not that he wants to — he wears that same uniform every day!)

(oh, imagine sholmes and iris picking up on a bit of japanese. sholmes greets them like “Konnycheewa!” and then iris says it perfectly. oh, baker street, you make me sick.)

[kk-iki]

it's been a long time coming, but. . .

enough is enough. i think i've moved in relative silence when it comes to some of the more odd things that occur in this fandom, but one instance in particular is giving me pause. this honestly feels like something better suited for a substack essay, but i'll hold off on that since i think everyone in this specific sub - tumblr ( ? ) should hear this first.

i feel like so much of the call of duty fandom is trapped in a constant woman - hating epidemic.

and i don't just mean 'oh, there's barely any female character x reader content, there's nothing for the girls who like girls'. that's an entirely different issue i may or may not bring up later.

i'm talking about how a good majority of the writing i read in this fandom is so geared towards men. and i don't mean that there's a surplus of male reader content, because there really isn't. i mean that there's so many fics i read that are drenched in the light of 'doe - eyed, pouty, submissive woman who is always eager to please her man, and the idea that the man may be eager to please her in return is such an incredibly radical concept'.

i click on any 'x reader' tag in this fandom, and i'm met with a tidal wave of two specific archetypes;

the doe - eyed, pouty, submissive fem reader who is always eager to please her man and gets off on him essentially treating her like property, or. . .

a reader who has no character. no structure. no personality. a reader who is meant to be vague enough to where the actual reader can neatly insert themselves into their shoes, but at the cost of any innate substance or realness. a reader who is essentially just a placeholder in words.

somehow, inexplicably, it's more often than not the first.

write and read for this fandom long enough, and you'll see what i see in droves. the attention that is lavished on writing within this fandom is relegated to the specific archetype of the tradwife who knows nothing but to cook for her husband and be a willing conduit for his post - deployment stress relief.

and what truly infuriates me the most is that it will be these kinds of writers who are so adamantly against the idea of tradwives. yes, you say you're against it, but can your words hold up when your writing is essentially tradwife propaganda in disguise?

and it just irks me so badly when these mentalities infiltrate the characters themselves. today's specific instance of this was when i was scrolling through the könig x reader tag and i came across this one headcanon list that advertised itself as "loser!könig". nothing innately malicious, of course, but then i saw the tags.

'but also, he's a sucker for the wife, which makes him a loser. say it with me now.'

i want to make it known that i mean no ill intent towards the original author of this specific headcanon list. i don't want any vitriol to be directed at them because i'm speaking my mind about this fandom as a whole. it most likely was meant to be an affectionate, "haha, he's such a malewife loser"-esque endearment. but this set of tags just. . .baffled me.

. . .because when did it become loser - like or a loser - adjacent trait to be a sucker for your wife?

this isn't even the first instance of this. i've seen it before, the way this fandom—sometimes subtly, sometimes unintentionally—pushes this narrative that has been setting us back decades. the idea that there is not only a beauty standard that women must live up to in order to be considered desirable by men, but there is also a mentality that a woman must have in addition.

there's another fic that i read, a 141 x reader one if memory serves me correctly. it featured a reader who was insecure about her appearance, which is absolutely nothing to frown upon. what startled me, though, was the fact that the author themselves referred to the reader as 'ugly'.

the reader is a single mother. she is stated in the fic to have love handles, breakouts, and a thick waist. she has messy hair and wears baggy clothes and has dark undereye circles. she required the love and special attention of four conventionally attractive men who moved in next door in order to feel beautiful.

she is said, by the author in the precluding note, to be meant as a way to 'show some love to readers who feel ugly, instead of petite girly readers'.

as if people with these traits should feel ugly. as if people with these traits cannot be girly.

i understand i may be reading too much into this. i may be making a mountain out of a molehill. but i'm angry about this and this is my blog and you've read this far, so clearly you want to see where this goes.

and this is where it's going.

i spoke about this briefly in a server i'm in and am extremely fond of—shoutout to the shitheads.

i said, quote: "are you nothing but a slave to the whims of a patriarchal society’s dictation on how someone must present in order to be considered desirable? or are you willingly feeding into this at the risk of the self image of so many beautiful people who cannot recognize their own enchanting presences because of people like you howling at them in your sweetest voice that they are anything but?"

i also said: "have you considered the reason for that might be because she’s a recluse and doesn’t go outside apart from making sure her child is getting sufficient vitamin d and is thus making assumptions about what people will think of her on the basis of one bad man’s words to her?"

maybe she doesn't feel ugly because you think the traits she has are ugly. maybe she feels ugly because she doesn't socialize. maybe, instead of just leaving that in the subtext, you should have started with that.

the writer, if i recall correctly, was a woman. by the way. which makes this worse.

it is so difficult for me to understand how the women in this fandom can be so cruel to each other, even implicitly. from the way we're written in reader - insert fics to how we react to each others' ocs and creations. . .it's just so disheartening.

more than anything, it makes me wonder how someone like me—a lesbian who exclusively writes women for women and tries to veer away from the reader and the character falling into any one archetype—is going to find any sort of platform in this fandom.

the bottom line is that there is so much casual misogyny in this fandom. frankly, i'm a little sick of it.

one might think i'm making a big deal out of this. i know. i'm being a killjoy, i'm being a hater, i won't let anyone have any fun. but we need to remember a couple of key points here:

art is always political because there is no way to create something without a modicum of bias.

the politics promoted by the art in this fandom—specifically, the writing—are pushing an agenda that has been consistently used to strip women of their rights and needs for decades.

most of these writers are women themselves.

obviously, there's nothing wrong with a submissive woman. obviously, the characters in call of duty that are most featured in reader - insert content are canonically framed in a lens that makes it seem like they would be the kind of men to only enjoy this kind of woman. obviously, not everyone in this fandom indulges this.

but it occurs enough. and it sets us back.

and i'm sick of it.

thank you for reading this far, and for hearing out what i have to say. i promise i don't do this often—but i also promise that i absolutely should. i love you.

kiki x

[agtavio]

who we really are

[a2zillustration]

We lived.

| First | | Previous | | Next |

[[ All Croissant Adventures (chronological, desktop) ]]

[[ All Croissant Adventures (app) ]]

[northopalshore]

I forgot to mention but Saturn being in the 8th house or 2nd house in the Juno Persona chart (as well as natal chart) usually indicates that your future spouse might've struggled financially i.e not financially stable/well-off. They could come from a lower income area or country, but also born into a low to middle class income household. Money has always been an issue or a hard aspect in their life.

[supmaww]

any tips