#this is as much a post for my own reference

[blyszczopies]

I’m now taking commissions for animated pagedolls like these for 80$!

Animated in a wobbly way, reminiscent if the Generation 5 Pokemon sprites. Perfect to use as a decoration for your blog theme or a personal website!

If you’re interested, please read the terms of service and how to contact me under the read more.

Terms of service:

I take payment through Paypal and I take it upfront; I will not sketch your commission unless you have paid at least half of the price. No refunds if I’m already past the sketch phase. Do not order a commission if you are not sure if you can afford one.

These are not first come first serve. I claim the right to decline a commission for any reason.

I do not work with deadlines. I will do my best to get your commission done as quickly as possible, but I can not promise I will get it done in specified time.

I will send you WIP images of your commission as I work on it, to make sure you’re satisfied with the final product.

The owner of the character featured in the commissioned drawing is allowed to use and repost their commission, preferably with proper credit. The commissioned image is only for personal use of the commissioner or the person who owns the character(s) from the drawing.

I claim the right to post a commission publicly. However, upon requests I can keep the commissioner anonymous or refrain from posting their commission online.

I will draw: Quadruped and anthropomorphic animals and fantasy creatures; Original characters and real-life pets; Characters based off a description, if no image is available; Complex designs and several characters in a single image (for an additional fee); Mature themes (blood, gore, nudity, substance abuse, etc)

I will not draw: Humans and highly humanoid characters; Artwork promoting bigotry; Pornography

I might draw: Fanart/fandom characters. Just ask if I would draw characters from a specific media you have on your mind! Same goes for anything not explicitly mentioned here.

By commissioning me you agree to my terms of service. If interested, you can contact either DM me here on tumblr or send me an email to timo666dlugiewlosy(at)gmail.com with everything I could use while working on your commission: reference images, descriptions, various kinds of inspiration sources. Feel free to ramble about the thing you would like me to draw! That will greatly help me get an idea of what I could create for you. ^___^

Thank you so much for taking your time to read this! Have a great day!

[evidence-based-activism]

Okay, so Anon sent a follow-up this ask a while ago, and I've been debating whether or not I wanted to answer it. Ultimately, Anon, since you sent this prior to my creation of an ask policy, I've decided to answer. However, I'm responding in a reblog and posting a screenshot of your as below the references cut because it is 1200 words long. (Mostly due to the astounding amount of repetition.)

---

Anon sent a follow-up before I posted this:

hey, a while ago I sent you an ask in response to your response in this post https://www.tumblr.com/evidence-based-activism/757742713997262849/individual-men-arent-equally-predisposed-to?source=share it’s been a while and I was wondering if you plan to respond? I gave quite a long rebuttal and I was curious and looking forward to seeing your response. I don’t think it broke any of your rules

As stated above, I have decided to answer this. However, this is very much in the category of "things you should post on your own blog".

---

So, without further ado, my response:

"Thanks for the detailed response. I will definitely look into all the statistics again to clear up misunderstandings, but first I quickly want to address a few things."

I'm glad my response helped you! But this it not quickly!

[My quote about what men are protecting us from] ... "The very fact that you can ask these questions is a stunning testimony to the sheer effectiveness of male protection."

No Anon, it isn't. The belief that men created society is a misogynistic myth. (I will expand on this as I respond.)

"A tribal woman living on the plains of Africa or in the jungles of the Amazon would never ask such a question. Women living in 17th or 18th century colonial America would never ask such a question."

Anon, you do not speak for the women of Africa or the Amazon. To presume that women in these communities don't desire equality with and protection from men just as much as an American white woman is incredibly racist.

Why don't we actually listen to these women?

The women in Kenya who established an all-female matriarch village to escape the patriarchal society and violent men. All the other women they inspired to do the same. [1]

The Amazonian women who are fighting to protect their homelands, who explicitly state that "We women unite because we have to, because we know that together we have more power and protection on multiple levels." [2] (And there are so very many similar examples, Anon. We know that women's involvement in conservation efforts improves their outcomes [3].)

The colonial feminists who fought for women's rights and against the patriarchy [4].

Women all around the world, at every point in history, have been resisting patriarchal control. All of us have always been asking these questions.

"It is protection from both the physical threats and the stringent physical demands imposed upon the human race by a brutal natural world."

Anon, worldwide (including all the non-Western women you are trying to speak for), the leading causes of death are noncommunicable and then infectious disease [5]. This is important since the patriarchy is directly responsible for women's greater risk from both noncommunicable [6] and infectious [7, 8] disease.

In fact, the patriarchy's negative effect on women's health care is substantial and ubiquitous. Consider how male bias in clinical trials has effected out understanding of both non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments for women [9]. Or the degree to which women's health is understudied and underfunded [10].

All of these are a direct effect of patriarchal bias and discrimination against women. As such, men have not "protected" us in any meaningful sense; they have instead made our outcomes much worse.

(And notably, this is all despite the fact that, biologically speaking, women are more likely live longer and survive extreme conditions [11]. Just imagine how severe of an effect the patriarchy must exert to challenge this natural fact.)

And men do not "protect us" from physical demands. In many cases they are purposefully excluding us from physically demanding jobs [12-14]. In some others, the most physically demanding jobs are "women's work" [15].

"Men are always protecting women either directly, as is done in more primitive societies, or indirectly by building barriers against nature around them, and an infrastructure that creates a far greater life of ease. Men also maintain that infrastructure."

Protecting women directly from ... what? Again, direct physical protection is from other men. (And this applies in more than just "primitive" societies.)

And again, men have been purposefully excluding women from infrastructure jobs. Moreover, why would you assume women have been passively accepting men's protection? Particularly given the common social emphasis on women as the caretaker of the home and family?

Also, I've cited this before, but men did not build infrastructure for women; it's built for other men [16]. For a recent case study, consider the gender gap in digital infrastructure [17]. The point here is that everything is built and influenced by a male-standard. Tell me: if men were generously building infrastructure for women, why are women's needs never so much as considered in said infrastructure?

"Men are virtually all (not all but the vast majority) of the mechanical engineers, materials engineers, civil engineers, electrical engineers,  petroleum engineers, construction workers etc. Men do almost all of the most dangerous jobs on the planet."

Yet again, Anon, men are purposefully excluding women from these positions. This is not a case of men self-sacrificially volunteering for dangerous work. Women have tried and are still trying to enter these industries. Whenever they do they face structural and interpersonal discrimination and harassment. And yet we're asked to feel grateful? As if we asked for this?

"And all of it is done to sustain and enhance this infrastructure which men have created in order to insulate and protect society and their families (which is to say, women and fellow men and children) from the hazards of the natural world."

Everything I've said above applies to this as well. But in addition to all of that, I'd like to direct you to the excellent post by @vexingwomen, copied below for posterity:

The fact that men are credited with advancing civilization, rather than condemned for critically stunting its advancement after they forbade half of humanity from contributing, is an excellent example of an androcentric analysis.

Later on, I'll also be listing a small fraction of the ways women have advanced civilization despite this omnipresent suppression by men.

"That is why when there is breakdown in that infrastructure and some kind of tragedy strikes, that is the priority for men  'Women and children first'. "

And this here, this is just wrong.

A study debunks the myth that men protect "women and children first" in maritime disasters (ship wrecks). [18]

Everywhere in the world, women and girls are disproportionately affected by disasters. Women are more likely to die in natural disasters, particularly in more patriarchal areas. Everywhere, "sexual assaults, physical abuse and human trafficking increase after a disaster". [19]

The UN has confirmed this, finding violence against women, particularly sexual violence, increases following disasters [20].

As has the World Bank [21] and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee [22].

Further, this study [23] concluded that eliminating the male head-of-household model is "crucial to speeding up overall household recovery" from natural disasters.

We also shouldn't forget that man-made disasters (e.g., war) truly are man-made [24, 25]

And you know that whole "men make infrastructure" and "men exclude women" things? Well it turns out it's a woman – Elizabeth Hausler – who has helped pioneer and advocate for disaster resilient infrastructure [26, 27].

"Men routinely protect women from rain, sleet, snow, starvation, hypothermia and animal attacks. When the virtually entirely male-created infrastructure of society is working well, the vast majority of women like you can go about their lives oblivious to the work being done behind the scenes to make their lives as comfortable and safe as they are."

Please see all of the above. And also consider the fact that women around the world do substantially – three times – more unpaid care work than men [28-30]. Imagine if women all stopped caring for children and doing housework and growing food and helping elders. This work is truly "behind the scenes" (i.e., unpaid, ignored, unpraised) and men are certainly oblivious (or at least unappreciative) of it. (They're comfortable with this status quo too.)

And this division has always been of benefit to men; granting them the time, space, and peace of mind to do so many of the things you praise them for.

"Once in the wild, or when society starts to break down, women go right back to urgently requiring men to perform these acts for them and their children. It is the same story now as it was a hundred thousand years ago."

See everything in the disaster section. When society breaks down, women receive violence not protection from men. When women are integrated into disaster response and recovery, the outcomes are much better for everyone. We don't "urgently require men" in these situations. Statistically speaking, we would be better off without them.

"'Men created the need for protection'… some men definitely do, but the amount of protection they have afforded us both individually and structurally far outweighs the harm that these men do. It may be hard to see, but as I explained above this just illustrates how effective so much of the protection is that we can take it for granted."

What protection Anon? We've established that men and the patriarchy are responsible for the vast majority of violence against women, for women's poorer outcomes in natural disasters, for the creation of man-made disasters, and for women's poorer outcomes in communicable and non-communicable diseases (the leading cause of death worldwide).

We've also seen that women's integration into disaster response/preparation and medical work/research vastly improves everyone's outcomes.

So where exactly is the protection? What are men doing that women can not, do not, or could not?

(How many more women would have survived without the men to create these problems in the first place?)

"I don’t say this to downplay the suffering of people who suffer at the hands of men, and I hope that comes across. "

I don't think you're downplaying the suffering you acknowledge. I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of suffering that comes at the hands of men and vastly overestimating the amount of support/protection they provide.

"'Men protect women from other men and then expect us to be grateful': Honestly..yes, if a man protects a woman from a violent or harmful man then it’s perfectly reasonable to expect some level of gratitude.

You appear to be interpreting this statement as if I meant it for individuals when I am talking about classes (hence the plurals).

It's reasonable for any individual person (of either sex) to be grateful for protection from another person (of either sex).

It is not reasonable to expect women (as a class) to be grateful to men (as a class) for creating the very issues they "protect" us from.

"Of course that doesn’t mean women should be subservient to men or whatever."

Great, on this we agree.

"If anyone protects anyone then it’s fair to expect gratitude."

Sure, as I said above. I should note, however, that many men use this expectation of gratitude to cover for their own behavior. Other women have said it better than me, but as an example, men will use other men's violence to discourage their wives/girlfriends from insisting on an equal share of housework. Women will feel grateful he's a "good one" and ignore more subtle sexist slights.

Moreover, any protection (from anyone) is not altruistic if they expect something (e.g., sex, children, emotional labor) in return. And if they're using an implied threat of force (or abandonment to some outside threat) then it's extortion and coercion. Much of men's "protection" fails in one or both of these categories.

"You understand that individual men are not equally predisposed to abusing women, yes."

As described in the original post.

"Then you understand that a protective man and a harmful man are not part of the same entity..."

Anon, they are both still men. This is, I think, another misunderstanding of the unit of analysis. We are talking about men and women as a class.

This is no more useful a claim than the "not all men" sentiment.

"...and aren’t equally as guilty for the violent man’s actions?"

Of course an individual man who has not committed any violent acts is not guilty for another man's violent acts. But you are again talking about individuals instead of classes.

Moreover, as I've discussed in the past there are a lot of violent men. And, unfortunately, there usually isn't a way to know if any particular man has been or will be violent until after it happens.

"[my Mozart quote] I don’t see how it’s hilarious."

It's hilarious because there has been a female Mozart. Not just a female contemporary who was equally as skilled (although there are many of those as well) but a literal female Mozart. An equally skilled female composer named Mozart.

"The point of Paglia’s quote is to illustrate the general differences between the sexes using historical icons to do so. The work is more poetic rather than a statistics sheet."

And it's wrong. It isn't accurate. The poetry of the line is irrelevant if it's based on falsehoods.*

(*A note: I actually really like poetry, and am not saying fictional poetry or even inaccurate poetry is inherently bad. I am purely saying that, when discussing historical differences between men and women, the construction of the phrase is irrelevant if the history is inaccurate.)

"As she says in another passage 'genius will overcome'."

The belief that women could escape patriarchal domination if they just tried hard enough (or, worse, were just inherently good enough) is incredibly misogynistic. Further, there is no proof that such a sentiment is accurate.

"Mozart’s sister was nowhere near as influential or subversive as he, this is a myth. the fact you have to search for these contemporaries is  simply illustrating the wider point"

Yeah, and that wider point is that men have erased women from history. Women throughout history have been forced (either directly or indirectly through social pressure) to sacrifice their careers for their families. Nannerl Mozart herself was forced to give up her musical career by her family [31].

Even beyond preemptive suppression, women's contributions have been erased and stolen throughout history. This is a ubiquitous phenomenon, so much so that it's been named the "Matilda Effect" for the sciences [32]. A favored example is of Rosalind Franklin, who discovered the structure of DNA, a discovery that was stolen by Watson and Crick who later won a Nobel prize for the work [33]. There are innumerable examples of this (and not just in the sciences); I won't be listing them all here because this post is already extremely long. Just search for "historical women in [field]" and you will get dozens of results (or more).

Between women's social suppression, men's intentional erasure, and society's emphasis on male-centric education it's no surprise that men appear to be the primary creators. But that doesn't make it true.

"Of course there have been SOME female serial killers, but no where near as many men, and lol, no “Jack the rippers” who become urban legends for their brutality and depravity."

I mean ... this is really not a favorable point for your argument. Further, Jack the Ripper was really just a standard serial killer. (He killed five prostitutes and then mutilated them postmortem. This is pretty much a standard serial-killer typology.) The cultural obsession with him is entirely manufactured.

It's also likely that the same historical-erasure has occurred for the (admittedly few) female serial killers that have existed.

"You’re missing the point by a wide margin but I admit that the looseness of the quote is partly to blame."

I haven't missed the point, I just contest the accuracy of the statement.

"[someone else's comment] Not once did I say 'men are more human', and that is not even implied anywhere. I can’t believe I have to say this. This is just this person making things up. Recognising the ways men have contributed to the world doesn’t mean I think they’re more human somehow."

Your original ask indicates you believe that men can achieve a wider range of human experience/emotion, which implies that you believe they (have the ability to be) more human. This sort of rhetoric is often used to dehumanize out-groups.

And maybe this wasn't your intention! In which case, that's great! But you should be aware of the way your rhetoric can be interpreted and abused.

"I’ll also leave you with the full quote as I think it touches on a lot of what I’m trying to get across. I don’t agree with everything said here to be frank but as I said before this is more poetic literature meant to make a point (that we should appreciate men’s contributions as well as their failures) than a data sheet. "

I've already explained why poetic literature – in this context – is irrelevant.

Now I'd like to take a detour into the originator of the quote Camille Paglia.

This woman, despite her claims, is not a feminist. The following quote should illustrate that on its own. But in addition to that, she has overtly supported pedophilia and attempted to associate them with the gay community [34]. She also supported "pornography, child pornography, snuff films" [35].

Now, she has since retracted those views – to an extent, and I think it's important to allow people room to grow and admit they were wrong. But the book you are quoting to me, is where she expresses these views. I would no more accept the views of a pro-pedophilia, pro-pornography, anti-feminist on woman, than I would accept the views of a white-supremacist on racial minorities. Indeed, I regard anyone who would accept such views with suspicion.

Finally, I'll address the quote from Paglia ("Camille Paglia, "Sexual Personae" 1990").

Her entire quote is profoundly anti-feminist. I've also addressed almost all of it in the above sections. So, most of this will be pointing you to the rest of the post. But I'll also have a few specific notes.

"Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. "

See above, men have not functionally protected us. Nor is there evidence that they have "crippled themselves" in any such pursuit.

"None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men only as oppressive and callous exploiters."

Men oppress women. This is the basis for feminist rhetoric because feminism is about freeing women from men's oppression. Would you expect a African-American advocacy group to celebrate European-American's great accomplishments? (Worse, would you implore them to be grateful?) What about Indigenous peoples? Disabled people? Gay people?

"Let us stop being small-minded about men and freely acknowledge what treasures their obsessiveness has poured into culture."

Acknowledging the pandemic of male violence against women (among all the innumerable other ways men oppress women) is not small-minded. It's truthful.

See above sections about obsessiveness.

"We could make an epic catalog of male achievements, from paved roads, indoor plumbing and washing machines, to eyeglasses, antibiotics and disposable diapers."

This here, this is a bad sign about the accuracy of her research.

We don't know who invented paved roads or indoor plumbing, since the original iterations were both invented thousands of years ago [36, 37]. To assume it was a man is sexist and unsupported.

A woman – Josephine Cochran – invented the washing machine [38].

Antibiotics are attributed to man, but as predicted by the Matilda Effect, many women were crucial to the discovery, development, and production of the drugs [39].

A woman – Marion Donovan – invented disposable diapers [40].

"We enjoy safe, fresh milk and meat, and vegetables and tropical fruits heaped in snowbound cities."

Not sure what she's getting at here, since women are responsible for half of the world’s food production [41]. (And 60-80% in developing countries.) For transportation of food, see the above sections about men's purposeful exclusion of women.

"When I cross the George Washington Bridge or any of America’s great bridges, I think: men have done this. Construction is a sublime male poetry."

Again, see men's purposeful exclusion of women. But also, even despite that, there have still been important female innovators in transportation [42]. In fact, one of the – arguably most famous – "great American bridge", the Brooklyn bridge was overseen by a woman, Emily Roebling.

We should also note that for the brief moment (in the USA) when men were no longer able to exclude women from these careers (World War II), women joined and did well [43]. (Remember, "Rosie the Riveter"?)

"When I see a giant crane passing on a flatbed truck, I pause in awe and reverence as one would for a church procession."

This is just very strange! But, again, see everything I wrote above.

"What power of conception, what grandiosity: these cranes tie us to ancient Egypt, where monumental architecture was first imagined and achieved."

Again, no. The first monumental architecture was probably Göbekli Tepe temple in southeast Turkey [44]. And there's a few dozen other examples that all predate the pyramids of Egypt. I won't list them here, but you can find them easily by searching "monumental architecture older than the pyramids." (Again, this is not a good sign for her research skills.)

There's also, again, no reason to assume these structures were the solely the domain of men. There's possible evidence to the contrary, as the earliest buildings may have been built by (at least mostly) egalitarian societies [45].

"A contemporary woman clapping on a hard hat merely enters a conceptual system invented by men. If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."

All the criticisms from above apply. Again, we have no concrete evidence that women were not involved in early architecture. We do have proof that women, when not impeded by men, can and will do just as well as a man. As such, we have no reason to believe civilization in "female hands" would not advance as well as civilization in "male hands".

Also, this is an incredibly misogynistic statement!!

"Male conspiracy cannot explain all female failures."

I am genuinely amazed that this woman considers herself a feminist. Suppression and oppression of women by men all across the world does not constitute "female failure". The fact that we have achieved outstanding accomplishments in spite of their interference is a testament to women's ability.

"I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant."

Pascal was a mathematician/scientist, so here allow me to redirect you to the Matilda Effect and this starter list [46] of female mathematician/scientists. Also try searching for "historical female mathematicians", there will dozens and dozens of examples.

I'm guessing she means John Milton? He was an author, so here's an article [47] about how women are responsible for the birth of language. And another article [48] about the earliest known author – a woman from Mesopotamia. Again, try searching "historical female author" or "historical female poet"; there are innumerable examples.

Kant was a philosopher, so have an article about female philosophers being written out of history [49]. Search for "historical female philosopher" for examples of those who remain. Consider how many have been successfully erased.

And now, for fun:

Women invented agriculture [50]

Women domesticated dogs [51]

Women created and are central to the textile industry [52]

Women created these beautiful examples of architecture [53]

Women, despite everything, greatly impacted transportation and mobility [54] including inventing traffic lanes, car heaters, the foundation for Bluetooth, GPS, and Wi-Fi, windshield wipers, turn signals, and other safety features/initiatives.

Women made even more safety inventions [55] including fire extinguishers, the fire escape, the life raft, the material used in bulletproof vests, and more

Women have always been involved in, and sometimes central to, health care [56, 57]

Women were the original midwives and child carers; they are still almost all midwives and the majority of child carers [58, 59, 28-30]

And more! So, so much more!

Pick a field Anon, search "women in [field]" and you will find examples. Remember the Matilda Effect and consider how many more you'll never know.

"Genius is not checked by social obstacles; it will overcome."

This is not just discriminatory towards women but racial minorities, the poor, the disabled, everyone who has face such obstacles. You cannot "overcome" poverty through force of will. You cannot "overcome" sex trafficking or religious abuse or domestic violence or slavery. You cannot "overcome" deprivation of necessities. Einstein and Mozart and Kant were not doing their own laundry or cooking their own meals. Even today, with all the efficiency technological advances have brought, there are still classes of people relegated to "menial" labor. Yes, people born to these conditions can be so prodigious – and supported by others – that they escape their circumstances. But what about those without support? Or those who could have done great things, but were forced – for whatever reason – to abandon such efforts. These are not failures of will power, they're tragedies of circumstance.

"What feminism calls patriarchy is simply civilisation, an abstract system designed by men but augmented and now co-owned by women."

This is so! incredibly! misogynistic!

Men were not the sole designers (see above) the assumption of "co-ownership" implies a state of sociopolitical equality that doesn't exist. The belief that patriarchy is inherent to civilization is a fatalistic anti-feminist assumption without basis in reality.

Finally, you linked a video: “The hatred of women”:

This is a sexist video overlaid by a sexist song. Men's self-pitying lament occur "having" to do dangerous jobs when they prevent women from doing them, over dying in wars they start, and the activism of women combating the problems they have created is tasteless, sexist, and pointless.

As another woman has said: the patriarchy backfiring on men, is not women's responsibility.

Conclusion

I hope this helps clear everything up, Anon. I also hope the audience gets use out of this research (even if it is not as complete as I prefer).

Anon, if you are female, I implore you not to rely on men for protection. More likely than not, it will end very poorly for you. And if you are male, then stop expecting women/feminists to solve men's male-manufactured problems. Feminism is – and should be – for and by women.

References under the cut:

The Village without Men - Umoja, Kenya. | Hadithi Africa. 4 Feb. 2019, https://hadithi.africa/the-village-without-men-umoja-kenya/.

“Indigenous Women Demand More Protection in Decades-Long Fight for Amazon Homelands.” Amnesty International, 5 Aug. 2020, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/impact/2020/08/indigenous-women-demand-more-protection-in-decades-long-fight-for-amazon-homelands/.

Leisher, Craig, et al. “Does the Gender Composition of Forest and Fishery Management Groups Affect Resource Governance and Conservation Outcomes? A Systematic Map.” Environmental Evidence, vol. 5, no. 1, Mar. 2016, p. 6. BioMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0057-8.

“Timeline: Women’s Rights in the Early Republic.” National Women’s History Museum, 29 Nov. 2018, https://www.womenshistory.org/exhibits/timeline-womens-rights-early-republic.

Dattani, Saloni, et al. “Causes of Death.” Our World in Data, Dec. 2023. ourworldindata.org, https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death.

“Women and NCDs.” NCD Alliance, 7 Mar. 2011, https://ncdalliance.org/why-ncds/ncds-and-sustainable-development/women-and-ncds.

Gerberding, Julie L. “Women and Infectious Diseases.” Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 10, no. 11, Nov. 2004, p. 1965. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1011.040800.

Pandemics Are Not Gender-Neutral, Gender Analysis Can Improve Response to Disease Outbreaks. UNIDIR. 6 Nov. 2020, https://unidir.org/pandemics-are-not-gender-neutral-gender-analysis-can-improve-response-to-disease-outbreaks/.

Jackson, Gabrielle. “The Female Problem: How Male Bias in Medical Trials Ruined Women’s Health.” The Guardian, 13 Nov. 2019. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/13/the-female-problem-male-bias-in-medical-trials.

Smith, Kerri. Women’s Health Research Lacks Funding – These Charts Show How. Nature, 3 May 2023, https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-023-01475-2/index.html.

Zarulli, Virginia, et al. “Women Live Longer than Men Even during Severe Famines and Epidemics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, no. 4, Jan. 2018. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701535115.

Zhavoronkova, Marina, et al. Occupational Segregation in America. Center for American Progress, 29 Mar. 2022.

Durana, Alieza, et al. “Sexual Harassment: A Severe and Pervasive Problem.” New America, 26 Sept. 2018, http://newamerica.org/better-life-lab/reports/sexual-harassment-severe-and-pervasive-problem/. Parker, Kim. “Women in Majority-Male Workplaces Report Higher Rates of Gender Discrimination.” Pew Research Center, 7 Mar. 2018, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/03/07/women-in-majority-male-workplaces-report-higher-rates-of-gender-discrimination/.

Simons, N. M. (1987). The female worker and physically demanding work. AAOHN journal, 35(5), 235-238.

Graham, J. P., Hirai, M., & Kim, S. S. (2016). An analysis of water collection labor among women and children in 24 sub-Saharan African countries. PloS one, 11(6), e0155981.

Perez, C. C. (2019). Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. Abrams.

Digital public infrastructure – blessing or curse for women and girls? (2024, March 5). World Economic Forum.

Elinder, M., & Erixson, O. (2012). Gender, social norms, and survival in maritime disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(33), 13220-13224.

Women and girls in disasters. (n.d.). Center for Disaster Philanthropy. Retrieved from https://disasterphilanthropy.org/resources/women-and-girls-in-disasters/

Disasters, crises and violence against women: Evidence from big data analysis. (2023, June 15). UN Women Data Hub. https://data.unwomen.org/publications/disasters-crises-and-violence-against-women-evidence-big-data-analysis

DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT BRIEF. (2015). The World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/937751468329371031/pdf/929670REVISED00ent0Brief0APRIL02015.pdf

Inter-Agency Standing Committee. 2015. Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action: Reducing risk, promoting resilience and aiding recovery.

Villarreal, M., & Meyer, M. A. (2020). Women's experiences across disasters: A study of two towns in Texas, United States. Disasters, 44(2), 285-306.

Masculinity and war–let’s talk about it more. (2018, March 15). Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2018/03/15/masculinity-and-war-let-s-talk-about-it-more/

Micheletti, A. J. C., Ruxton, G. D., & Gardner, A. (2018). Why war is a man’s game. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1884), 20180975. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0975

Ashoka. (2020, April 23). Build change: Rethinking housing after the crisis. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2020/04/23/build-change-rethinking-housing-after-the-crisis/

Build change | every home is disaster-resilient. (2024). https://buildchange.org

Seedat, S., & Rondon, M. (2021). Women’s wellbeing and the burden of unpaid work. BMJ, n1972. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1972

Hanna, T., Meisel, C., Moyer, J., Azcona, G., Bhatt, A., & Valero, S. D. (2020.) FORECASTING TIME SPENT IN UNPAID CARE AND DOMESTIC WORK. UN Women.

Not all gaps are created equal: The true value of care work. (2022, May 25). Oxfam International. https://www.oxfam.org/en/not-all-gaps-are-created-equal-true-value-care-work

Gordan, J. (2019, May 30). The quiet genius of maria anna mozart . All About History | All About History Magazine. http://www.historyanswers.co.uk/people-politics/the-quiet-genius-of-maria-anna-mozart/

Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The matthew matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023002004

Magazine, S., & Sullivan, W. (n.d.). What we’re still learning about rosalind franklin’s unheralded brilliance. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved November 3, 2024, from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-were-still-learning-about-rosalind-franklins-unheralded-brilliance-180982058/

Stanley, T. (2014, March 5). Allen Ginsberg, Camille Paglia, and the literary champions of paedophilia. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20140306014809/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100261734/allen-ginsberg-camille-paglia-and-the-literary-champions-of-paedophilia/

Duffy/Philadelphia, M. (1992, January 13). The bete noire of feminism: Camille paglia. TIME. https://time.com/archive/6719385/the-bete-noire-of-feminism-camille-paglia/

Longfellow, R. (2023, June 30). Building roads: Back in time. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/general-highway-history/back-time/building-roads

Dennemeyer – The IP Group. (2021, February 12). Everyday IP — Flushing out the facts: When was indoor plumbing invented? Lexology. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx

Magazine, S., & Eschner, K. (n.d.). This time-saving patent paved the way for the modern dishwasher. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved November 3, 2024, from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/time-saving-patent-paved-way-modern-dishwasher-180967656/

Women in the history of antimicrobial development. (2024, March 15). ASM.Org. https://asm.org:443/Articles/2024/March/Women-in-the-History-of-Antimicrobial-Development

Marion donovan. (n.d.). MIT. https://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/marion-donovan

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Fact Sheet: Food Security and Gender. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnadr706.pdf

Hecox, D. (2020). Female innovators in transportation: Yesterday and today. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/spring-2020/female-innovators-transportation-yesterday-and-today

(Citation list forced to start over because of character limit, add 42 to each of the below numbers.)

Women of the wwii workforce: Photos show the real‑life rosie the riveters. (2023, September 15). HISTORY. https://www.history.com/news/women-world-war-ii-factories-photos

Curry, Andrew. “Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/.

Hirst, K. (2019). What are the characteristics of ancient monumental architecture? ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-monumental-architecture-types-167225

Magazine, S., & Dominus, S. (2019). Women scientists were written out of history. It’s margaret rossiter’s lifelong mission to fix that. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/unheralded-women-scientists-finally-getting-their-due-180973082/

Poole, S. (2021, August 28). Passing the ‘chimp test’: How women were key to the birth of language. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/aug/28/passing-the-chimp-test-how-neanderthals-and-women-helped-create-language

The earliest known author was a woman from mesopotamia. (2023, June 16). HISTORY. https://www.history.com/news/the-earliest-known-author-was-a-woman-from-mesopotamia

Hinz, A. (2023, March 2). The forgotten half of history: Why women philosophers matter. De Gruyter Conversations. https://blog.degruyter.com/the-forgotten-half-of-history-why-women-philosophers-matter/

Oregon State University. (2021). The origins of agriculture. In History and science of cultivated plants. https://open.oregonstate.education/cultivatedplants/chapter/agriculture/

Chambers, J., Quinlan, M. B., Evans, A., & Quinlan, R. J. (2020). Dog-human coevolution: Cross-cultural analysis of multiple hypotheses. Journal of Ethnobiology, 40(4), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-40.4.414

Press, S. (2023, March 8). Unraveling the thread: Why women are the backbone of the textile industry. Smartex. https://www.smartex.ai/post/why-women-are-the-backbone-of-the-textile-industry

Magazine, S., & Billock, J. (n.d.). Six wonders built by pioneering women architects. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/six-wonders-built-pioneering-women-architects-180977099/

Women of transportation and how they shaped mobility. (n.d.). https://www.fluidtruck.com/blog/revolutionary-women-of-transportation-and-how-they-shaped-mobility

Article | Queens of safety inventions. (n.d.). Fleming. https://fleming.events/articles/queens-of-safety-inventions/

Wynn, R. (2000). Saints and sinners: Women and the practice of medicine throughout the ages. JAMA, 283(5), 668–669. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.5.668-JMS0202-4-1

A history of women in healthcare. (2024, March 25). Prolink. https://prolinkworks.com/perspectives/history-of-women-in-healthcare

ICM. (2022, January 30). The origins of midwifery. International Confederation of Midwives. https://internationalmidwives.org/the-origins-of-midwifery/

State of the World’s Midwifery 2021. (2021). International Confederation of Midwives. https://internationalmidwives.org/resources/state-of-the-worlds-midwifery-2021/

Screenshots of Anon's ask:

Individual men aren't equally predisposed to committing rape. men are approximately 49% of the population and commit 80% of violent crime. The correlation to testosterone to physical aggression is indisputable -- this correlation between masculinization and aggression exists even in women.

These antisocial behaviors are the subverted, shadow aspect to the more predominant masculine (even in masculine women) urge to provide and protect, which entails necessary and selective objectification and aggression.

“There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.” is what Camille Paglia said. Genius, she argues, takes obsession, which produces good and bad talents and skills. Women fall in the middle of the IQ spectrum and men on the ends.

Social forces are certainly at play, but I want to stay focused. trauma or other external factors may serve to explain, but not excuse behavior. Feminine crime is more likely to be focused on family -- children, partners, elders, and others in the immediate family.

https://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/

Women are at least equally as likely as men to initiate DV. 40% of victims in a DV study in America were men. Women are at least as likely as men to abuse their children and are the perpetrators in at least half of child maltreatment cases. Lesbian couples also have the highest rate of DV -- 44%, compared to 35% of straight women and 26% of gay men.

Anecdotally speaking, I was abused physically and psychologically by my mother, who was abused physically and psychologically by both her parents. I was also SA'd by a man. Both sexes have their share of degenerates who harm others. Whether their personalities or social experiences are masculine, feminine, or somewhere in between likely has an effect on how they express their violence. Everyone who commits a crime against another should be held accountable, I just disagree with the dichotomy that men are assumed to be perps and women are assumed to be victims.

I'm going to respond to this in parts.

"Individual men aren't equally predisposed to committing rape."

No, no one is ever equally predisposed to anything since that would require the confluence of innumerable, mostly unknown, factors. I have never made this claim; I don't of anyone who has ever made this claim.

"Men are approximately 49% of the population and commit 80% of violent crime."

This technically true in the USA [1]. However, it also leaves out the fact that men account for closer to 90% of homicide offenders in the USA and closer to 95% of homicides worldwide [2]. And those statistics don't even consider the fact that many female homicide offenders were acting in self defense. Men also account for closer to 90-95% of all sex offenders [3].

That is to say, a greater proportion of women's offenses are "simple assault" than men's [4]. (Simple assault is generally defined as either a threat of physical harm without any actual harm or minor acts of assault without resulting injury like slapping someone, grabbing their arm, or spitting on them.)

All in all, men commit the vast majority of violent crime and an even larger proportion of serious violent crime.

"The correlation to testosterone to physical aggression is indisputable -- this correlation between masculinization and aggression exists even in women."

No, no it is not, and no it does not.

This meta-analysis [5] found a correlation of 0.08 between testosterone and aggression. To be clear, a correlation score can range from -1 to +1, with -1 indicating a perfect negative correlation, +1 indicating a perfect positive correlation, and 0 indicating no correlation. A correlation of 0.08 is an extremely weak correlation.

Another, more recent, meta-analysis [6] found a 0.05 correlation between aggression and testosterone and no statistically significant causal effect of testosterone on aggression. Changes in testosterone were weakly correlated with aggression (0.16) and this was only in men. Importantly, this result may have been influenced by publication bias (see the study for details). Again, to be clear, they found no evidence of a causal connection between testosterone and aggression.

The lack causal connection is important, as some research as presented in this review [7] and meta-analysis [8], suggests that behavior/external events (like winning a competition) can increase testosterone. This raises an important question: can acting/being aggressive independently raise testosterone? If so, (and it does appear likely) then men who choose to act aggressive may be raising their testosterone levels; when recorded in a correlational format this results in the positive (albeit weak) correlation discussed above.

Here's some other, single study results:

In women, performing (acting out) a performance of power, whether in a traditionally masculine or feminine way, increased their level of testosterone [9]

In men, testosterone increases both pro-social and anti-social "status enhancing" behaviors [10]

Testosterone is associated with both "socially dominant [note: not necessarily aggressive] behavior among high-status persons, but strategic submission to seniority among lower-status persons" in men [11]

Testosterone is associated with greater pro-social behavior in women [12]

In an animal (male gerbil) model, testosterone caused prosocial behavior depending on "current social context" [13]

All in all, the correlation between testosterone and aggression is (1) not indisputable, (2) extremely weak, and (3) doesn't appear to apply to women.

"These antisocial behaviors are the subverted, shadow aspect to the more predominant masculine (even in masculine women) urge to provide and protect, which entails necessary and selective objectification and aggression."

Anon ... no. First of all, you appear to be treating "masculine" behavior as if it is biologically innate - for which there is no evidence - rather than socially determined.

You act as if women have not been "providing" since women existed. As if women haven't been involved in growing and domesticating plants and animals, haven't been taking care of children, haven't been growing and giving birth to all the children in history. Even the traditional "feminine" role emphasizes "providing" and "nurturing" the family.

I have the exact same comments for "protect", but more importantly: protect from what anon? From the weather? Bears? Disease? No. It's men. Men protect women from other men and then expect us to be grateful, as if it isn't men who have created the need for protection.

Beyond all that: even if the "masculine urge to provide and protect" were a real thing (and not something women have always been involved in), it still would not necessitate the "selective objectification and aggression". This argument isn't even logical ... why would "providing" need objectification? If there were no aggression what would be left to protect?

"There is no female Mozart ... "

Absolutely hilarious example to choose, anon. Meet, the female Mozart: Maria Anna “Nannerl” Mozart (his sister) [14].

And here's some other female contemporaries of Mozart [15]. I suggest Google as a resource to find more.

"...because there is no female Jack the Ripper."

While it is true that the number of male serial killers does outnumber female serial killers (and the disparity is even wider for those who kill specifically for sadism), there have, in fact, been some.

"Genius, she argues, takes obsession, which produces good and bad talents and skills. Women fall in the middle of the IQ spectrum and men on the ends."

I find the argument that obsession -> genius to be very concerning, and don't expect there are any sources on that. In particular, serial killer IQs tend to follow the same range as non-serial killers (source in last linked post).

And no, the idea that women fall in the middle of the IQ spectrum is not supported by high quality evidence.

This extensive multi-country review [16] on math performance found that the "variance ratio" (the measure for what you're describing) varies widely between countries and is related to social inequality. This suggests the differences in variance are a result of environmental not innate differences.

This longitudinal study [17] claims to find differences in girl's and boy's IQ scores, but the differences found are within the margin of error of the test. This means that a sex difference is unlikely to exist, and is, at the very least, not reliably measurable. It also suggests that any difference in the variance of IQ scores, is very small. (And see above for possible alternative explanations of this difference.)

"Social forces are certainly at play"

Yes, as indicated above.

"but I want to stay focused."

Focused on what??

"trauma or other external factors may serve to explain, but not excuse behavior."

Agreed (mostly). They may serve as a partial explanation yes, but people can experience trauma or other hardships without engaging in violence.

"Feminine crime is more likely to be focused on family -- children, partners, elders, and others in the immediate family." + [The link]

Correct, most crime by women is aimed at people they know. See above posts (when I spoke about homicide) for further discussion on this.

The link is an anecdotal source on this topic, again, refer to my earlier discussions.

"Women are at least equally as likely as men to initiate DV. 40% of victims in a DV study in America were men. Women are at least as likely as men to abuse their children and are the perpetrators in at least half of child maltreatment cases."

This is completely false. The idea that women perpetrate domestic violence or child abuse at similar rates as men, is a misogynistic myth.

See this post for an explanation. Also, this source [18] discusses the topic of women and domestic violence perpetration; I plan to eventually make a post on this topic, but in the meantime that source is an excellent place to start.

"Lesbian couples also have the highest rate of DV -- 44%, compared to 35% of straight women and 26% of gay men."

This is also a myth. A misogynistic and homophobic myth.

I'm not sure where you got those specific numbers, but I believe the origin of the myth started in the one of the CDC's reports on "Victimization by Sexual Identity" [19]. See this post for an explanation on why you shouldn't use this data to try and estimate perpetration. (Short version: it isn't weighted to be representative of the perpetrator population.) For the intimate partner violence portion in particular, it shares the same issues I describe in my post debunking the last two myths (i.e., reliance on the CTS and issues there within.)

More importantly, they don't report on the sex of the perpetrator for domestic violence, so we also have no idea if the lifetime prevalence rate of domestic violence is a result of prior relationships with a man. Data on other forms of victimization support the possibility, with 73% of lesbian victims reporting only male perpetrators of any contact sexual violence and 90% of lesbian victims reporting only male perpetrators of rape. In addition, 52% of lesbian victims report only male perpetrators of stalking.

This BJS report "Violent Victimization by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 2017–2020" [20] shows a similar rate of intimate partner violence for homosexual and heterosexual individuals. Importantly, however, this combines male and female homosexual individuals into one category, so we don't know the specific rate for female homosexuals.

"Anecdotally speaking, I was abused physically and psychologically by my mother, who was abused physically and psychologically by both her parents. I was also SA'd by a man."

This is terrible, and I hope you are safe and able to heal.

"Both sexes have their share of degenerates who harm others."

Sure, I mentioned the female serial killers. Notably, however, if you take a random sample of "degenerates who harm others" the vast majority are men.

"Whether their personalities or social experiences are masculine, feminine, or somewhere in between likely has an effect on how they express their violence."

I do not know what you mean by this. Socialization definitely plays a significant role in why men are so much more violent than women, but "feminine" men can and have been as violent as "masculine" men and "masculine" women have been as non-violent as "feminine" women.

"Everyone who commits a crime against another should be held accountable"

Yes.

"I just disagree with the dichotomy that men are assumed to be perps and women are assumed to be victims."

Anon, you started this ask by acknowledging that men commit 80% of violent crime (and I clarified that men commit 90+% of serious violent crime). This disparity is significant enough that it is perfectly reasonable to treat violent crime as a gendered phenomenon.

There are always exceptions and outliers. The existence of these cases does not invalidate the trend, nor should they deter the generalizations needed for meaningful class analysis.

Now, if you want to advocate against violence in general, draw attention to "male-on-male" violence and work to reduce it, that's also reasonable, and I wish you luck with your endeavor. (In all likelihood, feminist activism will - and already has - reduced male-on-male violence, even when it wasn't a specific target.)

But you still need to acknowledge that violence is primarily the domain of men. You also need to recognize that feminism is a movement by and for women. Our focus will always be male violence against women.

References below the cut:

Alexandra Thompson & Susannah N. Tapp. (2023). Criminal victimization, 2022 (307089; Criminal Victimization). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/criminal-victimization-2022

Homicide and Gender. (2015). UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

McCartan, K. (Ed.). (2014). Responding to Sexual Offending. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137358134

Lawrence A. Greenfeld & Tracy L. Snell. (2000). Women Offenders. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/women-offenders

Archer, John, et al. “Testosterone and Aggression: A Reanalysis of Book, Starzyk, and Quinsey’s (2001) Study.” Aggression and Violent Behavior, vol. 10, no. 2, Jan. 2005, pp. 241–61. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2004.01.001.

Geniole, S. N., et al. “Is Testosterone Linked to Human Aggression? A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Relationship between Baseline, Dynamic, and Manipulated Testosterone on Human Aggression.” Hormones and Behavior, vol. 123, July 2020, p. 104644. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2019.104644.

van Anders, Sari M., and Neil V. Watson. “Social Neuroendocrinology.” Human Nature, vol. 17, no. 2, June 2006, pp. 212–37. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-006-1018-7.

Geniole, Shawn N., et al. “Effects of Competition Outcome on Testosterone Concentrations in Humans: An Updated Meta-Analysis.” Hormones and Behavior, vol. 92, June 2017, pp. 37–50. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2016.10.002.

Van Anders, Sari M., et al. “Effects of Gendered Behavior on Testosterone in Women and Men.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 112, no. 45, Nov. 2015, pp. 13805–10. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509591112.

Dreher, Jean-Claude, et al. “Testosterone Causes Both Prosocial and Antisocial Status-Enhancing Behaviors in Human Males.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 113, no. 41, Oct. 2016, pp. 11633–38. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608085113.

Inoue, Yukako, et al. “Testosterone Promotes Either Dominance or Submissiveness in the Ultimatum Game Depending on Players’ Social Rank.” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, July 2017, p. 5335. www.nature.com, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05603-7.

Casto, Kathleen V., and David A. Edwards. “Testosterone and Reconciliation Among Women: After-Competition Testosterone Predicts Prosocial Attitudes Towards Opponents.” Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, vol. 2, no. 3, Sept. 2016, pp. 220–33. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-015-0037-1.

Kelly, Aubrey M., et al. “Beyond Sex and Aggression: Testosterone Rapidly Matches Behavioural Responses to Social Context and Tries to Predict the Future.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 289, no. 1976, June 2022, p. 20220453. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.0453.

Walker ·, Karla. “Who Was the Female Mozart?” Colorado Public Radio, 18 May 2022, https://www.cpr.org/2022/05/18/who-was-the-female-mozart/.

Hidden Herstory: Mozart and His Female Contemporaries - Women’s Philharmonic Advocacy. 22 July 2022, https://wophil.org/hidden-herstory-mozart-and/.

Kane, Jonathan M., and Janet E. Mertz. “Debunking Myths about Gender and Mathematics Performance.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 59, no. 01, Jan. 2012, p. 10. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1090/noti790.

Lynn, Richard, and Satoshi Kanazawa. “A Longitudinal Study of Sex Differences in Intelligence at Ages 7, 11 and 16 Years.” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 51, no. 3, Aug. 2011, pp. 321–24. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.028.

Michael S. Kimmel. (2001). Male Victims of Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review. The Equality Committee of the Department of Education and Science. https://vawnet.org/material/male-victims-domestic-violence-substantive-and-methodological-research-review

Chen, J., Khatiwada, S., Chen, M. S., Smith, S. G., Leemis, R. W., Friar, N., Basile, K. C., and Kresnow, M. (2023). TheNational Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2016/2017: Report on Victimization by Sexual Identity.Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Truman, Jennifer L., and Rachel E. Morgan. Violent Victimization by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 2017–2020. Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2022, https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/violent-victimization-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-2017-2020.

[mythalism]

on solavellan becoming andraste and the maker, and applying the concept of mantling to dragon age

for the uninitiated, mantling is a concept from the elder scrolls series that refers to the process of a mortal becoming a god by becoming so much like them that they become indistinguishable, and thus, the same. its synonymous with the use of the term "apotheosis" within the same universe, but also distinct, because it specifically involves "re-enacting the Mythic patterns established by the [Gods] until their power is surrendered to the mantler. In the process, the mortal and the deity become metaphysically synonymous with one another, allowing the mortal to claim the office and sphere of the mantled diety for themselves, reshaping them in the process." (x)

sound familiar?

but first, there are several examples of how this works narratively in the elder scrolls universe. one of the best is probably the mantling of sheogorath by the player character in the shivering isles DLC of the elder scrolls IV: oblivion.

at the climax of the DLC, the god of madness, sheogorath, for whom you've been doing quests for for quite a while now, basically reveals that he molded you into someone who could take his place as the Mad God, as his time is running out due to a long running divine cycle of order vs. chaos called the greymarch. its all very mythological and confusing and not really relevant to this but im including these quotes from re-watching the quest (x) to refresh my own memory and give you an idea of the general vibe:

the realm is crumbling, the cycle of destruction is imminent, and its god bemoans the loss of the world he loves but cannot stop his own demise. the only way to save it is if someone else becomes him - takes the throne, assumes his office, sacrifices their individuality and mortal desires for what the realm needs and mantle it's god...... this is literally solas mantling the maker like cmon!! and if i was in charge at bioware you can bet your ass that rook would've been mantling the dread wolf as thedas' new trickster god as solas took on a different godly role considering how he literally molds rook in his image and TELLS THEM THAT.......... but thats an essay for another day.

the player character of oblivion begins as sheogorath's champion and eventually becomes him, lavellan begins as andraste's herald and eventually becomes her as she walks her path, culminating in her decision to join the maker in the golden city for eternity, effectively uniting their mythology so that they become indistinguishable.

the player character of morrowind also goes through a similar process that the inquisitor does, as a prophesied savior navigating the role that has been thrust upon them. in the elder scrolls III morrowind, the story revolves around you being the prophesised "nerevarine", the second coming of the hero, indoril nerevar, who will cast down the false gods and expel the empire from their homeland. in reality, the game makes it very clear very quickly that no one has any fucking clue if you are actually the nerevarine, but the empire is going to MAKE you into the nerevarine by making you "walk the path" laid out in the prophecy. and thats what the entire main quest is; you re-enacting the prophecy to literally become the prophet that the world needs. the game never answers whether or not you actually were the nerevarine, but at some point, the distinction ceases to matter. you've become them.

you can see how similar this is to an inquisitor walking the path of andraste, to solas being forced to walk the path of the dread wolf and later the maker. whether or not they are one and the same is irrelevant, when you become mythologically indistinguishable, when you become what the world needs you to become, who you were ceases to matter.

in my original post about this i mentioned CHIM as well and CHIM is a very unruly, not even fully canon concept within the elder scrolls. so i dont really want to delve super deep into it because its fucking insane for one but also because it doesn't fit quite as well as the framework of mantling does, but there are a few things said about CHIM in elder scrolls that just feel soooooooo similar to what we see in dragon age that i want to share them because i truly think there is a thread of inspiration to be followed here.

CHIM is basically enlightenment in the elder scrolls universe where someone within the games reaches a state of divine lucidity. its been compared to lucid dreaming by one of the tes devs, or "divine hypnagogia", and the final state beyond CHIM, called Amaranth, allows a character to realize they exist in a video game. LMAO. so when i say solas and lavellan achieve something akin to CHIM i do not mean it literally, i do not think they are breaking the fourth wall and realizing they exist in a video game, nor would i want that. i would actually hate that as a writing decision. but whats interesting is the language that is sometimes used to talk about CHIM, and the way solas and lavellan's ending involves them reaching a sort of peace and acceptance about their place in the world as mythological figures instead of individuals.

i wrote this in response to an ask once and i've reposted it several times and i'm doing it again now because honestly it was the best way to articulate this and i dont think i can recreate it LMAO; "solas and lavellan are at once both finally free of the burdens of the myths and expectations that follow them as the dread wolf and the herald of andraste because they have left the mortal world that forced them into those roles and stripped them of their personhood, but they have also completely submitted themselves to those roles by submitting to the logical conclusion of the myths that they could not escape. for the dread wolf, it is earning his redemption through his willing submission to his own trap. its the logical, full-circle mythological conclusion to the trickster who trapped the gods, now trapped for eternity himself. for the inquisitor, it is andraste's herald finally sharing andraste's fate, choosing to leave the mortal world behind to ascend to the golden city alongside the god that she loves. both (presumably, for a lavellan) have tried to reject the myths attached to them over and over and over, but in the end they choose them willingly, and that choice at once binds them to those myths forever while simultaneously freeing them from the burden of them. its giving oedipal greek tragedy of attempting to outrun your fate and it finding you anyway, just when you thought you were finally making your own choice, but with a hopeful and bittersweet spin."

this is what i mean when i say they have achieved CHIM, as "a state of being which allows for escape from all known laws and limitations" (x) the laws and limitations from which they have escaped are not the confines of a video game, but rather the confines of the mortal roles that they were both thrust into against their wills and stole everything from them, as the herald of andraste and the dread wolf. for solas, i think you can even extend this to him being able to escape the literal physical confines of the body he did not want by returning to 'heaven' (the fade), a place of mutability and possibility, without the laws and limitations of the physical world. for lavellan, we see her make a choice to pursue her own happy ending, regardless of what the world needs (though there is an argument for this being the best decision for the world considering how it will help solas heal the blight, but i think the implication is that she's doing it for herself) after losing her agency, individuality, life and freedom to the role of the inquisitor. as ameridan says, "take moments of happiness where you can. the world will take the rest." and she does. she ascends past the bounds of the physical world, the title of inquisitor, the world that took so much from her, and finds her happiness in transcending those limitations and literally fucking off to heaven. its so great.

so when i refer to lavellan as andraste or solas as the maker, it is in this context that i mean it. i dont actually think lavellan is literally andraste reborn or something, or that solas was literally the maker. i think the maker was probably slightly inspired by solas's deeds like the creation of the veil and black city, but theres plenty in the chant of light that also does not fit him or the two of them at all. dragon age has very intentionally not disproved or proved the existence of the maker, and i think that is a good choice and its far more interesting that way. solas is already responsible for like half of the problems in thedas, connecting EVERYTHING back to him is a bit lazy in my opinion. i think the idea that the concept of a creator borne out of a bunch of different myths across time is far more compelling. so i dont think they are 1:1 the same or a reincarnation or anything, and thats why the concept of mantling works so well in this context.

solas is not the maker, but he has functionally become the maker by walking the narrative path of his own story. lavellan is not andraste, but she has functionally become andraste through walking the path of her own story. its about a sort of narrative and mythological apotheosis, where the world sees you one way to the point that you become that way. it works perfectly in the context of dragon age's focus on storytelling, propaganda, and how belief creates reality.

these two are bound to a sort of narrative inevitability in a way that most dragon age characters are not (except perhaps morrigan. honorable mentions to hawke, varric and alistair) but i think its a large part of why they are so compelling. they are inseparable from their own stories. they are bound by this sort of narrative destiny to serve both the overarching story of the dragon age games, but also the mythological stories within thedas in a way thats almost in contrast to the medium of a video game based on player choice- but i think its intentional, and i also think this sort of narrative destiny functioning as its own trap or prison is part of the reason their story is the strongest part of veilguard. from an essay on fatalism, something that solas himself ascribes to by his own admission "Destiny is not so much a necessary outcome as it is an outcome that is necessary given some larger sense of purpose” (x).

in conclusion: ✓ re-enacting the mythic patterns of andraste and the maker's story via their roles in the world and their decisions, such as leading the armies of the faithful as andraste's did, or shaping the world the way it exists presently and creating the veil and the black city as the maker did ✓ become metaphysically synonymous, via becoming virtually indistinguishable in terms of their role in the world ✓ take their office - by finally reuniting within the black city ✓ reshape it for themselves - by healing the blight and making it golden

:D

[coralchoral]

honestly thinking about the sonadow twitter takeover and how the plummeting to earth thing very much affected Sonic a lot more than it affected Shadow. like in a previous takeover Shadow even made it a positive memory about Sonic trying to save him.

Meanwhile in Prime, Sonic has a moment of saving Shadow from falling into the void that's very reminiscent of that other fall (in the same way Prime has a lot of motivations and references that only make sense from a fandom insider perspective).

Sonic also gets repeatedly tilted, loud and anxious, (which I'm pinning more on RCS's/whatever writer's sense of humor, as is all the voice acting gags) and is coping badly any time Shadow comes out ahead. I think Sonic's insistence on his ability to grow chest fur is as big a Cope as floaties=fashion statement.

But really, Sonic's repeat date suggestions and Shadow's own descriptions of Sonic's behavior (dragging out their races, etc "just to annoy me") reads, whether romantically or platonically, that Sonic just really wants to spend time with Shadow.

He feels he needs to justify it, though, insisting that he and Shadow have something other than occasionally getting in each other's way ("two sides of the same coin") (friendly competition being "why you keep me around-" seemed like odd wording to me).

Needing to make it meaningful, because that's what Shadow wants out of a relationship- Shadow /says/ he dislikes Sonic for being frivolous and inauthentic, that (for instance) his hugs don't mean anything, and that he doesn't want "(Sonic's) kind of hug."

Sonic really wants to spend time with Shadow because he's also intimately aware that that time is limited. Either Shadow's patience (and/or social battery) is limited and he's liable to make a batman exit if he doesn't want to be somewhere (not that we've ever seen Shadow do this in canon, he seems to awkwardly/quietly hang around as if he doesn't realize he can just hit the bricks (or he likes being there and has no idea how to express it re: smiling at Big the Cat) ), Or Sonic and Shadow will get caught up in their own lives again and not see each other until Fate Deigns to Allow Them to Cross Paths Once More.

And Sonic misses him.

(This ties in with my Sonic Frontiers is the Saddest Game Ever posting from a while back, too. Sonic is lonely AF and Needs Other People to Talk To or he'll start talking to the walls and robots, and Shadow will almost always either talk back or groan in exasperation, which is as good a reaction as any.)

All this, plus Sonic's opinion flip-flops (shopping with Amy vs shopping with Shadow, opinion on Orbot) could be either (Sonadow Optimist) Sonic is Down Bad and not even conscious of his mirroring Shadow/trying to appeal to Shadow, or (Sonadow/overall Pessimist) Sonic trying to appeal to the Most Popular Character Right Now and getting increasingly desperate as he is rebuffed.

A few of these Twitter Takeovers have had moments of Sonic in particular getting thrown off and not really able to recover. (which makes me question what the writing is like, if there's any at all and these VA's aren't just riffing on an outline. Considering they don't talk over each other constantly, there must be something like a script, but it also does occasionally feel like a bad roleplay (and I've been a bad roleplayer).) It leads to a Something Is Wrong feeling in the "We're doing this for fun" question-answering joke show. Sonic needs therapy. (We all need therapy.)

Meanwhile, Shadow really is pulling out all the grunts, groans, and whines with Sonic that, if scripted, would be egregious as hell to read or write. He doesn't make these noises in the games (or shows, really?) mostly because there's a sort of efficiency necessary to production that cuts out that interpersonal realism and partly because it's annoying? Shadow, you're the annoying one?

Unrelated, everybody latched on to Sonic's "Go off, King" but nobody even noticed Shadow's "Deal With It."(sunglasses drop) How soon we forget the sacred texts and/or the deep magic, I guess? (It's an old meme, but it checks out!)

[mercy-misrule]

mouthwashing spoilers, mentions of fictional sexual assault, discussion of fictional neglect and abuse of a disabled person, the many nuances of the patriarchy and capitalism

Let's have a chat about how Swansea and Daisuke failed Anya as crewmates!

Thank you everyone for your very lovely and thoughtful responses to my previous Mouthwashing meta pieces, here and here.

Let's have some more thoughts! Again, I'm examining the text from the perspective of a sexual assault survivor, a survivor of a life threatening accident, a domestic violence survivor and a person who grew up in poverty.

I love this game for giving me enough meat to sink my teeth into, for fodder for thought.

I've written about how supremely vulnerable Curly is, post-crash, the real true horror of being reliant for every aspect of your survival on an abusive person.

I'd like to look at another aspect now, the fatigue and isolation of the carer under a profit driven patriarchy!

Being a carer for someone who is entirely reliant on you is tough, is stressful and supremely isolating. The best and most dedicated carers in the world get burnt out, and not because they are bad people who don't truly want the best for the person in their charge.

You see it happen. Their friends and family disengage with them, not wanting to be asked to help, not wanting to confront the difficulty and reality of disability. They'll start to ask why the carer doesn't give their charge up into permanent care, they'll make snide comments about how much easier it would be if they weren't a carer....and if a carer cannot provide for their charge, and does get professional support or their person does go into care, they get met with judgement for 'not trying hard enough' or bewilderment that they might be upset.

The disabled are seen as a burden, and when anyone tries to challenge that, the system is set up both at a macro and micro level to fundamentally quash that challenge.

And at home carers? Over proportionally, they are women.

So look at what happens to Anya. Anya is a medical professional, yes. But there are many tasks that could be done in Curly's care that don't require specialised skills. Swansea or Daisuke could have stepped in at any minute and offered her help.

Instead, she asks Jimmy, the man who abused her, who is abusing Curly to help, because as awful as it is, he's literally the only other person interacting with Curly.

He's the only person who talks to Curly post crash. Anya doesn't say a word to him, only talks about him.

Anya is not a cruel person. She's not revenge driven or malicious. She actively does not want to hurt Curly, his pain is extremely distressing to her, and she is put in the position where she has to cause it, either by her own hands or Jimmy's by proxy, because she has no other help.

Swansea is very dismissive of Anya. He refers to her as our so-called nurse, that woman, and that rickety elbow of a woman. Swansea also shit talks Daisuke, and we know he has affection for Daisuke, but actions, or inaction speak louder than words.

This is a game where taking responsibility is a core theme, and Anya is forced to take sole responsibility, where she could have been supported and helped, if Swansea or Daisuke could have stepped up as her crewmates.

Daisuke is a grown ass man. Is he a young man? Yes. Is he a full grown adult capable of making his own decisions and responsible for his own actions? Yes.

So his choice, to actively ignore Curly and Anya, is just another decision.

The way this mirrors the way society isolates carers is such a good piece of storytelling to me. The way it causes Anya so much stress, the way it causes the quality of care she provides to Curly to degrade because she is the only person helping...it's a mirror of real life.

Is it because Anya is the nurse? Sure. Is it because she's the only woman? Maybe. Is it because both Daisuke and Swansea are mired in different versions of toxic masculinity? Absolutely.

Daisuke's indifference and pleasant disengagement, while being tolerated by everyone, handwaving away criticism is the prerogative of a rich young person, especially a rich young man. It'll all be alright! and no one expects anything of him. It's not the same thing, but there's that tinge of learned helplessness in there.

Swansea's unpleasant, grinding negativity, his self focus, the way everything is a burden to him...if you haven't had to work with a man like this, you're doing well in life. You never ever want to ask them anything because it's like being rubbed by angry sandpaper.

If i seem like I'm being very harsh against Daisuke and Swansea, I am. I am purposefully pointing out their worse qualities, not just as people but as crew.

There is no unity within the crew, and the company prefers it that way. No one unionises after all, if they can't stand or trust one another. They force Curly, a chronic people pleaser to hold himself above them, which spirals his anxiety, which leads into him failing as a captain in a myriad of ways.

Daisuke is introduced too late and underprepared. The crew is automatically going to be against him, frustrated with him, and he has no incentive to work against that, apart from his own easy going nature.

Anya is under immense self pressure. She's failed to get into medical school 8 times. She's got no savings. And then she is in close quarters with her abuser, and the only person she tells about it believes her AND THEN does nothing, and seemingly then crashes the ship.

Swansea has that inbuilt, boiling pressure of a life lived like he feels he's supposed to. But he's supremely unhappy, lashes out at everyone. And not in the way that Jimmy does, but in this unpleasant background radiation way, where everyone is already under so much stress.

Jimmy was barely keeping himself together under Curly's command. Without it, he's a whirlwind of aggression, negativity, threats and delivered acts of violence. There was no unity with him, previously, and there certainly isn't any now.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and inaction. But the company set them up to fail before they set off, and then the social desertion of Anya dooms the crew.

Anya doesn't need to be rescued, no one needs to get revenge for her. What Anya needs is support, in the actual physical sense.

Swansea could talk to Curly, to distract him. Daisuke could be there to talk her through giving Curly his meds, keeping her panic at bay.

Literally the least they could do, it could have changed everything. If Jimmy was denied access to Curly, if there was a sense of solidarity between the crew, something, anything. If there was any trust at all.

But instead Daisuke gives into apathy, Swansea into secrecy, Anya into despair and Jimmy into a frothing frenzied need for control.

There is no win solution for the Tulpar crew. This is a hopeless crisis.

But if there had been a sense of community, of reciprocity, they'd have options. But it becomes the loudest voice in the room, Jimmy's voice, and just like that, the options disappear.

Being a carer takes community support. It's how carers are kept accountable too, because a disabled person who needs that level of care exists at the whim of the carer. A carer has to be supported to be supportive. Anya receives nothing.

[faorism]

im feeling real the call is coming from within the house vibes rn, so im going to be kinda nasty for a hot minute because you actually were the reason i came across this post in the first place. my friend and i were so aghast at your racializations of hardison in a fic, that they had to see who the fuck you are. and your own ignorance highlights why this response is kinda bullshit.

incorporating race is absolutely something that fandom needs to be better about doing. absolutely. but up your attempts at doing so show how stomach churning poor follow through can be, where i would have preferred you not give an attempt at all. because in the fic in question, you use the wildly outdated term "ebonics" to refer to hardisons exaggerated speech that he codeswitches into occasionally. my friend and i spent fifteen minutes trying to decipher your implications in the line: "He’s young, or maybe (hopefully) just black, is the first thing."

i did not read your evil!hardison fic, because i didnt trust your ability to write an entire fic focused on him. that said, i felt like a got enough out of this hc post:

so! i think there's some good points here (perhaps!) about what hardison would look like with a possessive god complex, as opposed to him being a thoughtful provider building homes for the people he loves. and yes, "ownership" is a very contentous topic in the Black community, given how white supremacy has subjugated Black capital. but whatever analysis i would give you credit for—and any brownie points you could get from naming the racialized aspect—is immediately wiped when you fucking compare hardison to a goddamn overseer. you know, like an enslaver overseeing enslaved people? you imply here hardison, a Black man, would be a kind master to his employees. which is just so vile to be casual about.

attempts were made, i can say about your posting and writing. but i don't at all respect it, because you still have so much to really pull together to not be offensive about things.

which gets back to this post. you say your saw weirdness. why the fuck didn't you name it? no, really. did you actually see it or are you trying to save face now? you're not welcome for the labor i (nonblack latinx) and my friend (Black) had to go through to process this post. don't rely on others to do the work of naming racism and antiblackness; do the work yourself, or just don't reblog if you can't give commentary.

and, because i have been nasty and might as well be petty: honestly, there's just so much more work you need to do if you want me to trust you with handling race in fandom when you out here posting shit like this:

you're the fucking issue here too.

Well, a realization just hit me. Don't know if this is true of not, I don't remember the timing.

Eliot said he didn't hit cops in the OG show. Well now that makes sense. His dad is Black. What do Black parents teach their kids when it comes to dealing with the cops? Part of The Talk. Just do as they say, not that that always work.

He would have at least heard that talk with other foster kids, or teammates, if not given it himself.

And why would he stick to that? Because his dad was upset with him and he was still trying to be a Good Boy in one way.

[mirensiart]

I saw someone playing Twilight Princess and it got me wondering.

Does Chain have a horse or an animal companion? If so, what do they think of Key being around?

If not, what's Chain's and Key's thoughts about animals? (Are seen they pets, for working, or beings in their own rights?)

Are there any animals that hate Chain or Key on sight?

Sorry if this has already been asked. I looked through the blog but I was fast scrolling so I could have missed it.

(Also, I'm pretty new to LoZ so I'm not sure how common having animal companions is in the series. I've only got pieces of BoTW/ToTK and Twilight Princess as a reference point so my bad if it is pretty uncomon.)

Sooo, in loz almost all links have partners/companions and then there's only a few of them who have animal companions too, who are mostly used for transportation

From what I remember, the only ones who do have animals are sky, time and twilight.

Wild is an outlier since he can have horses but they're optional and he doesn't have an emotional bond with his horses lol

So, Key&Chain are post wind waker and post spirit tracks

Anyway, in the wind waker, since the land was flooded to the point of everyone living in islands on a great sea, there aren't many animals, just seagulls and pigs mostly

And then in spirit tracks, since it's post wind waker there aren't many animals either, there are rabbits though, that I remember lol (if anyone remembers more animals from spirit tracks let me know pls)

I suppose that by Key&Chain's time comes along, there could be more animals around, like cuckoos, but I like to believe horses and cows are completely extinct by that time

Travel in land is done via train, like in spirit tracks, so horses and carriages aren't necessary at all for normal life

Anyway this was a long way to say that no, Chain doesn't have an animal companion since he doesn't need them for transportation lol so like most links, he just walks around

In wind waker pigs can get pretty mad and charge at u if u bother them too much, so maybe pigs would attack them randomly lmao and well if there are cuckoos then those too

[shinigami-social]

This is probably going to be massively controversial, but I just feel like it needs to be said at this point. I desperately need people to read this very carefully and approach this in good faith. General blanket warning for intersexism, transphobia, and intersectional misogyny with both of these I just wonder how many people in the intersex community just like… fundamentally don’t understand the way being intersex impacts your gender. I know that sounds fucking wild because obviously being intersex impacts your gender but like… it feels like a lot of people reach for comparisons to the binary over just, like, the label intersex itself. The thing on my mind in particular is the stark difference in what transfemininity seems to mean inside and outside the intersex community. This isn’t to refer to AMAB and/or CTM intersex transfems, but in particular people who were AFAB and/or CTF.

I want to clarify before I get into the main body of this post that I fully believe people can be AFAB and/or CTF and be transfem. This post isn’t to say that this never happens, no one ever experiences the combination of these two* things, or that people who identify this way are wrong for it. I just want to open up a discussion about why people are identifying this way, I guess. It’s not about invalidating anyone or their experiences, on the contrary, I really want to discuss the varied nature of the intersex experience.

I was AFAB, and I would generally consider myself CTF. I have simple virilizing classic CAH. I experienced many of the events which a lot of people talk about as why they relate to the transfem experience or consider themselves to be transfem. I grew up with a tenuous connection to girl/womanhood at best, I had the locker room harassment, I was widely rumored to be a hermaphrodite and transgender (no one could decide in which direction), I was put into situations specifically to attempt to uncover my “real” sex/gender. Even when I was seen as a girl/woman, I was Wrong about it. When I was seen as a boy/man, it was before I had ever come to terms with that identity for myself, and it was instead something thrust on me against my will for being a girl/woman Wrong. I was, for much of my life, locked out of womanhood in various ways.

I can very easily understand why people with experiences such as these would relate to transfemininity (and on a “relation” basis, yes, I would say I relate), and perhaps even identify with it based on how these sorts of things impacted them in particular. That being said… I have never understood why people think this is somehow not just being intersex. I’m not trying to say it can’t possibly be both, but sometimes it feels like people just refuse to acknowledge that this is a very common experience of the intersection of misogyny and intersexism. There are certainly transmisogynistic elements to it, I think transmisogyny and intersexism are deeply intertwined and always have been, but like… to act like this is solely transmisogyny feels like a denial of the intersex experience. For intersex people who were AFAB, are CTF, and/or likely some other types of intersex people depending on their circumstances, this is entirely par for the course because they are intersex. The things I described are, above all else, intersexist in nature. They happen to people for being intersex. There are aspects reminiscent of transmisogyny and perhaps even motivated by transmisogyny in many cases, but this distinct experience that I see many, many intersex people have experienced, it is to me such a classic experience of growing up intersex.

This is to say nothing of the appropriation of the transfem experience (no, I’m not accusing you or anyone else specifically of doing this, if it doesn’t apply to you, it doesn’t apply to you, but yes some people are objectively doing this). I am not focused on that. It is its own separate issue, but the thing I am trying to communicate here is why people struggle to find themselves in the word intersex when the thing that caused them these traumas is being intersex. The denial of intersexness and intersexism as explanations for the experiences directly caused by being intersex. The need to use terms broadly conceived of within perisex communities to describe perisex experiences of sex and gender to describe experiences inherently outside of the perisex view. To me, it seems like there is a very clear difference between using intersex transfem to describe “I have Klinefelter and also I am a trans woman” and “due to my experiences with PCOS, my relationship with femininity is deeply complicated and I use transfem as a sort of code for reclaiming my womanhood that I feel has been denied to me.” And like. I am not saying that these couldn’t possibly both be transfem experiences! I am not the decider of what makes people transfem, and it’s not really my business at the end of the day, but these are still just like, objectively different concepts being described. This is what I meant at the beginning of the post by the inside-outside usage of the term. It feels like transfem, in intersex spaces, is often used as a shorthand to describe a specific relationship to femininity and womanhood and this relationship is not necessarily “transitioning to femininity.” At the same time, it feels like it is being used this way because in some way, perhaps, the community is lacking in language that adequately communicates “my being intersex locked me out of womanhood, even though womanhood is what I was assigned and expected to conform to” which is, to me, a fundamental difference between most (not all, I’m aware we cannot ever make absolute statements when it comes to intersex experiences) AFAB/CTF and AMAB/CTM transfem experiences.

To me, I feel that intersex does adequately express these sentiments. Or, at least, it can if you let it. Intersex people pretty much inherently experience a complicated relationship to their sex and gender, and I wish we were allowed to talk about this without there being an obligatory comparison of how every intersex experience is always analogous to some equivalent transgender experience. Intersexism is intersexism, and intersex people experience it because we are intersex, and maybe we should fucking talk about that sometimes.

[theriddleskeeponriddling]

Rambling : Riddler : Empathy And Riddler’s View On Relationships

I was speaking with my friend about how my Crowverse version of riddler handles friendships, empathy, disorders, ect. I really enjoyed voicing it there, and now I wish to voice it here so I can look to it for reference and whatever. Thank you @a-sxft-chaotic for helping me by psycho-analyzing my Riddler, Much love to you silly Crane2.0. This post may be updated tomorrow when it’s not late and I can think better. Suggestions to anything mentioned here are welcome

Edward has several disorders. Autism, maybe Ocd, Npd ect. He is already born with lower levels of empathy, but with added traumatic childhood experiences, it has only gotten worse. He rarely had any friends has a child. He was too honest. Blunt. And stood out for not expressing sadness or care like other kids. After elementary school, he never made any more friends.

E (Age 7): “Did you not see the sign?”

(A kid, at an indoor pool, sitting with family and crying from a bad knee scrape after running and slipping on a puddle)

L: “Eddie! Just go and ask if he is okay..”

E: “Why are you mad? I told him there was a no running sign. It’s a pool. I told him, so he can be more aware”

L: “I’m not mad, I understand that Eddie just- It’s his birthday I think he would appreciate people checking in on him.. Not telling him he should look for signs next time”

The first closest sort of friend he makes, is a girl named Destiny. A girl often bullied for being of color, and requiring a wheelchair. She is similar to Hannah in the ways of being very empathetic and supportive, traits that Edward finds foolish but admirable in a way. He doesn’t make much effort to be her friend, giving her schoolwork anytime she is away for surgeries; Lending her books that she sees Ed reading; and whatnot. Destiny views Edward as a close friend, and believes he is nice for his treatment to her and the several times that Edward ‘mysteriously’ got her bullies to back away. (blackmail) He slowly starts to get used to her, but the girl, so morally righteous, finds that Edward bought a laptop using money stolen from his father and tells Mr. Nashton, Unaware that Edward would receive a bad fracture to his leg the following night.. This is the first point in which Edward truly starts finding friendships as an inconvenience.

Riddler calls everyone ‘friend’ even after saying how much he despises every person in the Rogues Gallery. He jokes about not having friends, and always claims it as his biggest strength. He doesn’t have anyone to be used as blackmail, He doesn’t need to worry about anyone other than himself, he doesn’t need to worry about losing anyone.. It sounds easier to him. It is a mix of pushing people away, and being overly egotistical that causes Riddler to have no real friendships. Riddler grew up accidentally appearing rude and emotionless to everyone around him, So now he believes it himself. He believes he doesn’t care for anyone, and refuses to make any real connections or offering genuine kindness. His common response to being asked why he is how he is.. “I have always been like how I am today. I’ve always been the best, so why would I change?”

Jon: You think you are the best thing on this planet. That you’re better than everyone else. You say you are too good for relationships but really Edward, you are just a scared man. You want attention. You love it. But if you care for those giving it to you.. you back away. You don’t want the people you care for to leave you Ed. You are scared of being alone, but you think that because you are so much better than us all, you would rather choose to be alone, than have friends leave you just so that your fate is your own doing and not ours.. What? You think that’s some advantage? Choosing to not have friends? Because all I see, is you screwing yourself over the assumption that nobody could possibly care about you.

Riddler is rude for three reasons.

1) His autism prevents him from understanding why he should change his blunt and honest mannerisms, which appear as insults to anyone who is faced with them.

2) He thinks he is better than everyone else, and as such, his opinions matter more than anyone’s emotions. He has so much pride, that he refuses to change anything about himself for the benefit of others. He also sees that caring for others is a weakness. It means putting emotion over strategy and logic, and in his line of work, there is no room for such a risk. Edward believes that nobody should even like him. That he is so rude and emotionally absent that anyone who cares about him, is foolish and makes no sense.

3) He refuses to keep anyone he cares about close.. Caring for himself alone is easier, and if he thinks everyone will leave him in the end, why risk the relationship at all? He is already well disliked, but if he starts becoming fond of anyone, he starts pushing them away with more negativity in the hope that they will leave him now, instead of leaving him later when he is more attached. Choosing the lesser pain.

Riddler’s sisters, Hannah(2-) and Lydia(6+), are the only two he has consistently cared for. After leaving for Gotham at 18, he cuts ties with them, thinking to reconnect again only once he makes a name for himself.. But when the name happens to be for a well known costume criminal, he further refuses to speak with his sisters. He figures they are safer in their hometown, and it means that he doesn’t have to think or worry about them at all.. When he finds out his older sister Lydia moved to Gotham as an officer, Riddler can’t handle the concern that he has avoided, and begs her to leave so that he can forget about her more and so she isn’t at risk. If she is in danger, Edward knows he would risk himself to help, but because he loves himself so much, he hates the idea that he could ever consider sacrificing himself for anyone else..

This is the end of this Rambling session, for now. I do plan to change the little speech for Jon, I need to flesh his character out more, but other than that, this is pretty much all I have going for Edward.

Edit: This Riddler Is Asexual or Demisexual. That form of relationship hasn’t existed for him. Romance is being thought of story-wise, but hasn’t happened for him at any point before age 27

[mumms-the-word]

Yet another Veilguard update with the usual good, the bad, the ugly, and the me freaking out about minor references and callbacks haha

This one is very long sorry

So since the last update I have done as much side content as possible before heading to the Hossberg Wetlands and later Weisshaupt (which I just completed last night) which included, briefly, unlocking all of the solas regrets murals

And uh WOW was that whole deep dive a doozy. I definitely should have spaced out the murals over time rather than movie-marathoned them back to back. But the things I learned about Solas…it’s insanity

In a good way

In a really horrifying way

I loved that our theories about Solas being a spirit of Wisdom first were confirmed, and I lost my mind over the fact that the first elves were spirits who gained physical bodies by taking Titan blood (aka lyrium). And the fact that Solas CREATED THE BLIGHT by essentially making the Titans Tranquil?? And that’s why Dwarves don’t dream????

Losing my mind. Solas what have you DONE.

I still ahev to process it all haha but I do have a few thoughts

So far, I wish there was more engagement with these elements and the Chant of Light. The companions react and say that these reveals basically dismantle Andrastianism but the Chant has several allegorical parallels to what, apparently, really happened. The Maker’s first children were spirits, and all that…so I kind of wish the Chantry had a bigger presence in the game with more reactivity

But that’s a post for another day. For now, I reloaded back to only 3 murals unlocked so the team only knows the story up to Solas creating the Veil. I’ll rewatch the others later.

I got worried about being locked out of stuff so I went ahead and did as much side content as I could with a couple of exceptions. Turns out, I probably didn’t need to do that and it would have made more sense narratively if I hadn’t. More on that in a minute

The Siege of Weisshaupt mission was SO GOOD!! Like…the main missions are really where this game shines, I think. I have gripes with some of the companion conversations, but in the actual story missions, the action, the intensity, all of it is so good. And I thought Ghilan’nain turning her archdemon into a many-headed hydra creature was *chefs kiss* so cool. I love fighting big/unique stuff like that!

All that said the follow up scene with the team at the table leaves…a lot to be desired

Listen, DA games pride themselves on bringing together a team of companions that players adore and fall in love with. Naturally we enjoy helping out our companions because we like them. We don’t have to be told to help them because we just generally do that…and if we don’t then, rip, suffer the consequences

So I got a bit annoyed when the scene suddenly turned to a very overt “fix our problems” narrative

I don’t know, that feels so…forced to me. Varric literally tells me I have to solve everyone’s problems. Which is like…I was going to! Because they’re my friends! But being straight up told like “hey you have to solve everyone’s problems and stop their distractions or this team isn’t going to function” is like…I’m sorry are we adults or aren’t we? Why am I being told to babysit the team? Can you guys not pursue these distractions on your own rather than wait for me to give you permission? Did we all forget that two gods are out there rampaging? That they’re strong enough to destroy a fortress that stood against the blight and various conflicts for over 900 years? That they haven’t stopped and show no signs of stopping anytime soon?

But no, by all means, tell me in very obvious terms that my job is now to reconcile all your differences before I face the gods again. That doesn’t feel very handed at all.

Let me be clear. I love to help my companion. I love the idea that you build a team that works well because you have shaped them via your leadership skills. I love the idea that your team works well because you have invested in them. That’s really the heart of any DA game—gather your team, earn their loyalty, and see how well the friends you’ve made along the way assist you in the big battles to come.

But…that scene around the kitchen table could have been so much better, so much more nuanced, and far less “Solve their problems.”

To me, that scene should have been everyone fighting, calling out everyone’s distractions and mistakes, and essentially devolving into outright arguments over the table until Rook yells at everyone to shut up. Everyone is mad, everyone is upset. And then maybe the companions are like “sorry Rook, listen, I have a lot on my mind. I’m still going to help with the Big Problem but I’m also going to pursue this Other Thing whether you like it or not.” No suggestion that it’s now your problem to solve, but a heavy hint that it might get done more quickly if you help (which also gives you room to be an ass and not help). In this scenario, everyone ends up being very disgruntled with you, but you still have your hint that you need to pursue companion questlines if you want to see their cool abilities or special items or get them to be a Hero of the Veilguard or whatever…but that’s just my opinion

Basically I wanted subtly and tension. So much more tension.

What we got instead was a couple of annoyed comments and then Emmrich being like “oh dear we’re all distracted by the things that bother us” and everyone offering up distractions that, yes, need to be resolved…but it’s very easy to be like “hey bud the Hand of Glory and the Nadas Dirthalen can wait until the gods aren’t threatening to destroy the world I think.”

It’s not the worst scene in the world, but it could have been reframed better. Either frame it as “Sorry Rook but none of these factions trust you enough to aid you in the fight, you have to prove yourself to them” (and loop in the companion questlines that way) or show your team literally unraveling because they can’t get along or agree with you—now you see the evidence of what you need to fix, and nobody has to outright tell you to “solve everyone’s distractions.” It’s just implied. Because you saw them fighting. A lot.

Like duh I knew I’d have to resolve everyone’s problems if I want them to like me or stick around! That’s just what I’ve come to expect from RPG games like this. It’s an expectation of the genre. But I don’t want to be told that’s my job now. If anything it triggers my contrarian nature and now I want to see what bad ending I get when I don’t listen to the game’s extremely heavy push for me to deal with everyone’s issues

I won’t, but I’m tempted

I just…wanted it to be better. I want see everyone bitching at each other until everyone leaves in a huff and Rook just sits at the table, head in their hands like “oh my god everyone hates me and they hate each other and we’re going to die if everyone can’t get their shit together”

Then maybe Varric sits down next to them and goes, “Hey kid, did I ever tell you about the time Hawke tried to convince a Rivaini pirate, a weird abomination, a Dalish blood mage, a stiff-necked captain of the guard, a broody elf who glowed in the dark, and a few other friends besides to all agree to fight as a team to stop a qunari invasion in Kirkwall? It worked, more or less. By the end of the night, everyone had worked together enough to end up with one dead Arishok and an entire city’s gratitude.”

Maybe Rook looks up and says, “And how’d they manage that little miracle? Without everyone trying to kill each other in the process.”

And maybe Varric smiles and shrugs. “They had their differences, trust me. Half the time you couldn’t put two of them in a room together without a fight breaking out. But they all believed in one thing. They believed in Hawke.”

Then maybe there’s a pause, as he lets Rook consider that for a moment, before he stands up and says, “It’s a good bedtime story, in any case. I’ll let you sleep on it.”

Sigh. It just would have been cool…

Now in all fairness the scene felt even clunkier because I had actively been doing side quests and helping out my friends so it was like…it felt weird to have this implication that I’m not already helping them. It makes me think I shouldn’t do any of their side quests until after the Siege of Weisshaupt but who knows

I keep pendulum swinging back and forth between moments of brilliance and moments that leave me baffled and wondering who made some of these narrative/writing calls. I don’t hate the game by any stretch of the imagination. Like I said the Siege of Weisshaupt was amazing! And I loved the callbacks to precious games! You should have seen me live reacting and screaming about codexes in the Weisshaupt library haha But it’s like whiplash when something that good is followed up by a scene that feels excessively more hamfisted in comparison.

Anyway I am very busy this weekend and dunno when I’ll get to write another update soooo if you’re following for more, hope to give you more updates in the near-ish future!

[sonkitty]

Okay, I read all 8 posts and then I went back to this one first post. I have gone over every cut for this scene. I have made my own images with their own brightness and increased saturation. I have logged notes for my own sake and general curiosity.

This puzzle is one of the most intense ones I've found shared by other fans, and it was incredibly difficult.

You have clearly put a lot of thought, time, and energy into this theory.

But you were the one who was tricked from the start, right here. You were set up. You found a very elaborate red herring, and it was definitely thoroughly set out to trap you or anyone with this line of thinking.

The irony, the joke on you, is that you were the one who was misdirected, and this puzzle even told you that.

I don't blame you in the least because I am very used to being tricked by the games in this story, so I knew to be wary of this idea and why. I also know what to look for and what questions to ask because of how many times I've been tricked.

I will break it down because this puzzle is just way too good to pass up. Solving it is an excellent learning experience on how to solve the really advanced puzzles in this story. This thing is top tier. Bravo, Crowley. I cannot believe it was solvable, but I should know better by now.

That person is definitely not the Metatron. It is almost certainly the same person the whole time, and the story did make sure to give you clues on how to determine that while very much deliberately misleading you to your conclusion, except the chess thing. The story wants you to find and play its own original game, Earthly Objects, not chess.

This puzzle requires checking things cut by cut, not just frame by frame. It is extremely advanced.

Let's start with where you started because the clues are there if one knows what to look for. Here is my version based on the first image you provided:

Here is part of the text you provided: "White hair."

White hair?

Let's check that a bit closer, shall we? Look closely. Really, really closely.

There is a little bit of white hair at the bottom, and as you go up, you can see that the hair is darker on top. That is a darker gray. It is not white.

Here, let's compare this exact cut with my estimation of the exact frame you captured with similar angles for the Metatron:

And just in case we think the lighting is too favorable even in the bookshop, let's darken the Metatron portion:

You know something? I'll try and match the original better. I'll crop them all and brighten the original some. Then for the Metatron versions, I'll lower the scale, cut off the left ear, and try to get a decent match on the darkness of our brightened person in the coffee shop.

If you don't see it, the Metatron's hair does not progressively darken from the bottom up to the top. His white hair is white so it rather follows where the light itself hits the hair. That was a lot of effort to even make the comparison.

The Metatron's hair is also very slightly longer just above the neck, yes, even if his head were bowed slightly. Here, we can find the slightly bowed down look as he and Aziraphale make their way to the pub doors for the elevator:

Oh, now we can also see more clearly that the white collar would have to be much more defined to match the person in the coffee shop.

Let's take a look at the human you refer to as the "slim man" from the initial cut with his phone lit:

In this lighting, his hair does look more white at the bottom and darker at the top.

He doesn't always look like that.

This guy has a blue bag, and because I do play Earthly Objects, I happen to know where to find him shortly before this scene.

In this particular screenshot, he is near the post and obscuring Justine.

Here he is with the screenshot now cropped:

Well, his white hair doesn't look like it darkens either. We're seeing him from the right profile. We just saw from his left profile that in the lighting of the coffee shop scene itself, that's what his hair looks like in that setting.

If you look really hard in episode 5, you can find him without his bag here:

You might still have trouble seeing him, so let me emphasize where he is:

If you watch the whole cut, you'll see that he is in Crowley's and Aziraphale's line of sight. That means it is plausible they know what he actually looks like already.

Now if you zoom in, you can see that while you might be able to find a patch of lighter hair from the back, there is enough of a gradient that it's like what we see in the coffee shop. The hair is lighter at the bottom than at the top in this lighting as well.

Another super subtle difference in the hair is that the Metatron's hair is a little wavy in the back. This human's hair is straight in the back and on the sides, not wavy.

The main reason this coffee shop scene provides this hair clue is so that you don't start making excuses once you figure out the other clues based on his apparel.

Speaking of apparel, here is the next part of the text you provided: "dark overcoat."

You can find that is not a dark overcoat in the image below with the white box I've placed below the credit card stickers and to the left of the OPEN sign:

The Metatron's coat reaches to his knees. The human's jacket reaches below his butt and above his knees. You can tell through that blue inside the coffee shop and near darker colors that the upper clothing is the human's jacket, not the Metatron's overcoat. You are seeing the separation of the jacket from the pants, and it will come up again later.

You also say "rounded shoulders."

I disagree and think overall, he looks slender here, but let's move on because there is still more to be found.

For the blue area near where one can find out that the jacket is a jacket, is that blue then the blue bag? No, it is not. We can actually then find the blue bag because we now know where it is not.

Here is the cut in motion:

Watch the area above the judo sticker.

If you can't see it because it is too dark, here is the a picture shown earlier for the part I want anyone interested to notice:

This time, look at the white box near the judo sticker. That is the blue bag. We have now confirmed that we are indeed seeing the same human we saw before this supposed switch.

It was never the Metatron during this entire cut.

You were most certainly set up to believe so if you didn't check the earthly objects that could be used as clues more closely.

Note the red shoes on his back during this cut.

...

The entire scene is like that. It is constantly testing you every step of the way.

For example, here is more text from the original post: "Well, how come we never see the slim cell phone guy again?" you may wonder.

I see someone already noticed the same thing I'm going to note. If one checks the scene very thoroughly, I don't have to wonder at all. You actually circled it for us even if you didn't realize it.

Again, it helps to watch the clip in motion:

Now here are a few cropped screenshots for me to show you where to find it in the exact same cut you circled it for us:

It is no longer lit, but it is still there. You can find it by its darkness over the shirt of the human with the orange shirt and that darkness extending out from the clothing.

This cut is also the one being referenced with the following text:

"Because he's facing sideways, we can tell that this man is not slender like the man with a cell phone and blue bag. The man we see now, in this photo, wears a long coat that comes straight down in the front. It's not a jacket, it's an overcoat."

Nope. You were tricked. Quite deliberately.

The sticker on the door just below the cell phone we just found is obscuring where the front of the jacket shows its separation from the pants.

Look further down near Nina's elbow, and you can see that the person in the coffee shop is stepping forward, so yes, his pants would meet his jacket behind that sticker.

In the next cut where you can see this person is when this puzzle shows you how you were just tricked.

This cut is for Nina saying, "You and your partner?"

That's why I said it's a cut-by-cut puzzle.

Let's take a closer look at this person:

You still might not see it, so I'll tell you what's happening and that you really do have to look extremely closely yourself, even with enhanced effects to clarify the image.

At the start of the cut, there is a small pocket where the jacket is meeting the pants just above the blue part of the door. As the person we are watching slides over to their left during the cut, this pocket is obscured by Nina's arm and so it ends up looking like an overcoat instead of a jacket. That's to help you know that if something is visually in the way of the jacket meeting the pants, it will look like an overcoat due to the limited lighting available and color of his clothing.

I'll box it from a video frame early in the cut, but I know you might not be able to see it because it's small and difficult to see, but I have checked quite thoroughly that it is there:

That's a jacket, not an overcoat, and the right side of the jacket is still obscured, this time by the door side panel. Crowley is giving us a clue here because we can see Crowley's jacket taking up a lot of space in the screenshot while also showing the red of his collar.

Still yet the next cut of this person in the coffee shop shows it more plainly:

After that, the clues shift to showing a gap between the legs above the knees.

The legs near the shoes are visible enough that you can see that the legs align with that gap.

But there's still more to this trick.

Here is the cut in full motion where you are declaring that is not a jacket, it's an overcoat. It's the part I said the jacket separating the pants was hidden by the sticker. Nina says, "You been together long?"

Did you notice the shoe moving over by Nina's left elbow? That's another clue. The Metatron wears baggy clothing. His pants run down to nearly his heels. This guy wears pants with cuffs rolled up above his shoe. You can't really tell the colors easily, but you can actually figure out that this pant leg over this shoe is a better match to the human than to the Metatron because it's too slender and tight near the ankle to be the Metatron.

Here is an image I made for reference:

I won't go over the rest of the cuts of this person in this setting where this trick is happening, but I hope you get the idea.

To close out the whole thing and even tell you that you were dealing with a red herring, here is part of the last cut of the trick:

That is a red light on one of the passing vehicles in a reflection passing over the red shoes on the door.

I didn't get the whole thing because it's long.

If you watch the whole cut, you'll even see the red of Crowley's collar again, more red lights, and red clothing on nearby humans.

I then checked the entire scene to be sure that such a red light was avoided on that window pane the whole time otherwise. It was indeed. The scene waited for an audience player to check the whole thing all the way to the end of the trick to notice this clue.

If you go through the present day scenes where you expect to find humans on the street, you'll only find this human this easily in this episode. He's not one of the more easily findable repeats. He was absolutely set up for this trick into misleading someone that he might be the Metatron shown at this time.

...

But anyway, speaking of misdirection, let me leave you with a joke I found through trying to solve a different puzzle.

How do you trick an elevator? With misdirection.

The Metatron Misdirection: Nina's Magic Trick (A New Final 15 MetaTheory)

Part 1 of 8 in the Chess Moves Theory Set by @wistfulnightingale

**I believe it is new -- I haven't found it anywhere else.

Misdirection is a key element in the most skilled magic tricks. It's more than mere distraction, wiggling one hand while the other hides the ace. Misdirection in Magic means that the magician isn't "hiding" the trick; they are allowing you to think that you are looking at exactly the right moment, while convincingly focusing your attention away from the moment when 90% of the trick actually happened. Magicians Penn and Teller are quoted as saying, "The strongest lie is the lie that the audience tells itself."

This article on What Is Misdirection in Magic tells exactly how it's done. Check out the 7 Types of Misdirection in the article, or in my Chess Moves Theory Master Post. They're used easily and often in the final episodes of Season 2.

I think there might be a major misdirection in Episode 5 that set up the events of the second half of Episode 6, and makes sense of some of the crazy-weird scenes and out-of-character behaviors we see, both in that scene and later. But, it'll seem absolutely bonkers... so please, keep breathing, and hear me out, and please check out all the interconnected 8-Parts that help support my reasoning.

I include photos below, and I admit they're not clear enough to be "proof" on their own. But the idea itself would explain why Azi abruptly left Nina, and why Crowley babbled. Some of the other parts of my overall theory add some additional possibilities as well. (Interestingly, the photos are from videos that used to be available free on YouTube Prime Video, but have been removed from the Good Omens playlists in recent months.

In E5, while we were watching Crowley stammer, and listening to Nina puzzle out relationships, and when our belief in the Ineffable Marriage was shattered by Crowley's answer -- Nina was (without her knowledge) participating in the biggest Misdirection of Season 2.

I suspect The Metatron was already in the Coffee Shop. I know it sounds nuts, but I strongly suspect that Episode 6 was not his first visit. I believe that I can show you reasonable evidence (added up from here and from other parts of my Chess Moves Theory-series) that the Metatron made a "trial run" the day before, during this scene in Episode 5. Crowley and Aziraphale were each shocked to spot him through the window behind Nina. Misdirection made him almost impossible for us to see.

Almost. But I think he's there. At least, there's a guy in a long dark overcoat, who looks like he's talking to another customer. Possibly a coffee-confused celestial gentleman getting help from a good samaritan? Let me explain how I think it was done, and I'll show you what I think is the Metatron.

This screenshot (let's call it Photo #1) is untampered, basically what we see in the episode. Aziraphale was happily chatting with Crowley about the nonexistent pen of his nonexistent aunt's nonexistant gardener... Then Nina emerges, has "things to say" about Neighborhood Christmas lights (that's the moment in this screenshot)... and Aziraphale abruptly hurries away. Within minutes, Crowley is stammering as if he'd never had a moment's thought that he and his Angel could have a committed, romantic relationship.

How...? What...?! Crowley, really, dude, what the...??! (Please refer to An Old Married Couple for my thoughts on this!)

But when we take that same moment, come in closer, brighten and sharpen it, make it more vivid --

Photo #2. There. In the red oval. The white hair, the dark overcoat, rounded shoulders. The Metatron. We didn't expect to see him there. So we didn't.

Hold on! -- I don't expect you to be convinced yet. So I went through moment by moment. There are more photos. (I recommend that you also check the brightness of your own viewing screen -- it helps!)

Nina is used in the scene to perform a concealment and switch, a replacement (magician's call it a Change), and then a distraction -- A Magic Trick. Nina is a huge part of why we're not easily able to spot the Metatron.

Magic Trick Step 1: There's magical sleight of hand going on, even once you know what to look for. We are visually warned. When we first see Nina, as our Ineffables are talking about impossible French, she literally emerges from the shadows (see photo below). Remember, this is significantly Before talking about "Christmas lights" in Photos 1 & 2.

Magic Trick Step 2: If we do happen to look at the customers in the shop as Nina emerges, there's a white-haired man in line who is NOT the Metatron. Note his height compared to the orange-shirt guy. He's taller, and he's fairly slim. We can see his pants or denims, so he's wearing a short jacket, not an overcoat. He's also holding a lit cell phone and carrying a blue bag. I didn't brighten this photo at all. We're supposed to see this particular fellow. He's part of the magic trick, planted there for the switch, just in case we do notice a more significant white-haired man later.

Here's the same photo, brightened. You can more easily see that he's wearing a short jacket -- we see his legs as he steps forward.

(Pay attention to the man in the orange shirt. He's very visible with that bright color. In later shots, he stays near the Metatron, and helps us visually track them both, when both are blurred by distracting window reflections.)

Magic Trick Step 3: Next, Nina steps into the light. As she steps forward, she says, "Bravo! Just enjoying the show." Again, we are given cues that there's a show in play. She bends over to wipe a table, completely blocking our view of the slim white-haired man.

Magic Trick Step 4: The camara cuts to Azi, and that's the last we see of the slim man with the cell phone and bag. Presto-Change-o, Abracadabra! Like a disappearing act with a magician's silk cloth, or like Azi's trick for Nefertiti with the 3 cowry shells, the switch (in magic, called "the Change") has been made! The slim man is gone.

Magic Trick Step 5: When the camera returns to Nina, it's the first photo I showed you, with the Metatron in it. The man in orange isn't at the front of the line anymore. (Was he undecided about his order, and stepped aside?) We can see a sliver of his shirt to the left of the doorframe, just inside the oval, but he's almost entirely hidden. Nina's talking about the Christmas lights. "I have things to say."

It all happens in less than 30 seconds.

"Where, then, was the Metatron?" you may ask in disbelief. There's a big rectangular pillar in the middle of the floor behind Nina, just to the right of the line. There is a mural on it, so it's camouflaged. On the walls behind the pillar are menu boards -- we see them in the "How's your naked man friend" scene in E1. It's likely that the Metatron was behind the pillar, looking at the menu options.

"Well, how come we never see the slim cell phone guy again?" you may wonder. The tables at the far edges of the shop are never seen. If he sat down, especially at our far left, he'd be out of view.

Here's that "I have things to say" photo again --

That's when Aziraphale sees the Metatron. He's suddenly distracted. His response is brief, and odd. Just --- "Yes." We don't often see our Angel speechless. He walks away without another word. That. Is another out of character moment. He's gone from his "I'm having so much fun doing this" smile to the fake, nervous mask he puts on for the Archangels.

His eyes are wide and his expression frozen, until it fades into worry as he walks away. Azi nervously checks behind him for Crowley. Hoping he'll follow, away from danger.

Crowley hasn't spotted the Metatron yet. It's not until he starts to follow Azi, then stops for Nina, that he's at the right angle to see him. When Nina says, "You been together long?" Crowley's completely distracted. He just noticed the Metatron.

"Who?" he ridiculously asks. This made zero sense -- Azi was just here! However, on our far right, over her shoulder, we can see the Metatron, facing sideways towards our right. He and the orange-shirt man are on the far right, positioned as if talking to each other (maybe he's asking how this coffee-selection-thing works?).

Because he's facing sideways, we can tell that this man is not slender like the man with a cell phone and blue bag. The man we see now, in this photo, wears a long coat that comes straight down in the front. It's not a jacket, it's an overcoat.

The Metatron is almost the same height as the orange-shirt man. His dark coat nearly makes him invisible as the reflections in the window break up his outline and blur the orange-shirt man. The two have stepped back from the counter, closer to us. We can see his rounded back, white collar and hair.

Short height, rounded back, long overcoat, white collar. NOT the same as the first man we saw. That's why I believe we're seeing the Metatron. That, and Aziraphale and Crowley's strange behaviors.

When you look closely at Crowley, he's staring intently into the coffee shop window as Nina asks her question. His head is not at the same angle when he returns his focus to her. It's not just the cute little neck scrunch -- he literally turned his head slightly to his right to look at her and answer her question. Crowley is concentrating on what he saw inside, and is mentally scrambling.

After Crowley says, "Who?" the camera returns to Nina. "You and your partner," she clarifies. Meanwhile, the Metatron has turned and is now standing at the end of the coffee line.

You can see three men in line, facing the counter, with the orange-shirt man in the middle. He's the colorful backdrop to frame the padded shoulders of the Metatron's dark coat.

Nina does a lot of "patter" here, a classic magician's Misdirection technique. Lots of rapid, distracting questions. They keep our own minds as occupied as they do Crowley's -- we struggle to keep up, and share our demon's outrage about Azi as "a bit on the side!"

I had to do a lot of reduced videoplay speed, constant pausing the frames, and careful photo brightening and sharpening to make these images somewhat clear. There are also frames where the reflection of vehicles and passersby’s obscure our view. The distractions come and go. It's all designed to split our focus.

So I was astonished when I discovered that, in the moment where the Metatron is standing alone, not clustered with anyone else, Nina is almost looking DIRECTLY AT THE CAMARA. It's only a moment. It's the only shot I had, of Dozens(!) of micro-moments, where the Metatron is in full view, although still difficult to see. This is how it looks in the episode.

Here's the same photo, brightened and sharpened for definition.

There is almost nothing on the right side to reflect or distract in this moment. The lighting effects allowed a much clearer view.

Nina goes back inside, and has to deal with a busy line and a new customer, a posh older gentleman in an overcoat. One who doesn't know about human coffee shops or how to place an order, and who probably consulted orange-shirt guy for coffee-selection advice. He's confused, he's asking odd questions... She doesn't have time for this...! So when he comes back the next day, she warns him not to do it again -- "Order accurately and fast..." (For more thoughts on this, see The Metatron's Second Coming)

Meanwhile, Crowley stands there bewildered as worry sets in. The Metatron is dangerous. Why is he here? This could be very bad for them both, but especially for Aziraphale. Crowley's main concern in the conversation was to SAY NOTHING that gave away their relationship. "Just... an angel... I know."

(**There's interesting implications about the Final Fifteen if Crowley is concerned that the Metatron has the ability to hear him from inside the shop. Azi often gestures as if the Metatron could hear them from outside.)

Crowley leaves in the opposite direction. I wonder if he hung around near the cafe, monitoring where the Metatron was. That's why he's morose and worried when Azi returns to the cafe (see more in my post Ineffables In Check). Crowley is also now worried that Gabriel is actually NOT memory-less. Is he there to spy on them for the Metatron? Crowley aggressively tries to find out.

He'll do Whatever It Takes to protect his Angel.

Please check out the rest of my 8-part Chess Moves Theory Set at @wistfulnightingale to see how I believe all the moments fit together in this Life or Death Chess Game. The 8 Parts support each other -- I broke a massive idea into parts, and you'd need to read all 8 before you can decide for sure if I'm wrong, or totally bonkers! It's a crazy ride, and I'll be happy to have you along for it!

The 8 Chess Moves MetaTheory Set:

1 - The Metatron Misdirection

2 - The Metatron's Second Coming

3 - Ineffables in Check

4 - A Hefty Jigger of Death

5 - Nothing Lasts Forever

6 - The Circle Kiss Theory

7 - The Nightingale DID Sing

8 - Aziraphale's Jubilant Smile (Not the crazy elevator grin)

Also: The Chess Moves Theory Set, Why Chess & Magic?

[keii]

no sense of personal space

[thatfaerieprincess]

WATCHED C3e99 DOWNFALL PART 1 AND UHHH I HAVENT DRAWN FAN ART IN YEARS BUT THE MUSE REALLY SPOKE TO ME THIS TIME

Step 2 figure out how the Emissary actually looks

[g1rlb4it]

guess who got around to making refs and definitely did not put off making them for a year!!!!!

[britts-galaxy-brain]

You keep talking to me like I'm stupid.

I know exactly what you're referring to. You're using a single instance of Sai *possibly* being wrong about Taffer being the one sending racist messages (which no evidence exists to refute either so you insisting it's misinformation is just as much of an assumption as what you're accusing Sai of), and because I reblogged it and had my own reasons to believe Taffer was the culprit, you have used that singular incident as "proof" that absolutely nothing I say is trustworthy, and you're unwilling to even take five minutes to check in to anything I say before jumping in to tell others to dismiss me.

That is tunnel-visioned, lazy, and in the case of the post you were just commenting on, potentially dangerous.

Thank You so much for calling out my abuser for lying.

Much as I would like to claim as much, I do not know you nor your situation and thus cannot make a confident statement in good faith in either direction; mine own words were for a specific case of which I am much more knowledgeable.

That said, I am glad you are able to take some solace in what support you can and sincerely hope that all parties involved are able to grow and recover.

[snek-eyes]

Queen instrumentals playing in Give Me Coffee or Give Me Death

(instrumentals arranged by Eos Counsell)

(insp. / template / BoRhap breakdown)