#this is where i tell you my characterisation of simon is based on my own bf

[heavenbarnes]

What is older bf Simon’s love language? How do you think he best shows his love?

oh, acts of service- without a doubt in my mind our older bf!simon shows he loves you through acts of service

to him, love is stored in hot water cylinder- the one he fixed after you complained about it literally once

it’s stored in the grocery bags that he refuses to let you carry yourself- he’ll take 100 trips as long as you don’t have to take one

it’s stored in the petrol tank in the car- the one you never have to fill yourself, you just have to sit pretty

it’s stored in the plate of food and glass of water he’ll bring you- you never have to ask he’s just always thinking of you

it’s stored in the hot drink you always wake up to- he’s an early riser and wants you to wake up happy

it’s stored in the jacket he keeps in his car- just in case you forgot one, in case you want options

it’s stored in the outside rubbish bins at night- he’ll take it out your hands so you don’t have to make the three steps out the back door

simon’s love is stored in the fact you’re the first and last thing on his mind every morning and every night

[brw]

If they bring back Avengers era beast I’m not sure that’ll be a good thing imo. He’ll have lost >4 (I want to say more like 8+) years of his life, he’ll be so much younger than his old friends, and he’ll have lost a lot of newer relationships entirely. Will anyone want to be around him except Simon?

They could Tony Heroes Rebony him and combine the two versions but I’m not sure how well that’d work out.

No, it is something I do feel weirdly about. It's upsetting, but I can understand it–Percy has taken Hank in such a significantly ridiculous direction that I can appreciate that the amount of time, dedication, love and focus that would have go to fixing his image both for himself, in universe and to readers as a whole would take for a writer who Hank is their very favourite character, and I don't think we have anyone at Marvel currently who's favourite character is Hank. People like him, but they like the bouncing, fun blue guy, not the war criminal and less so the complicated, stodgy, often miserable Hank he was of late. So I think in terms of narrative and in terms of what writers want to do with Hank next, it does make sense, but it does make me a bit sad because I would be interested in seeing how a writer would tackle reconciling Percy's non-characterisation into something more believable.

My thought / theory is that while Hank will be based on his earlier self, Sage or someone else will fill him in on everything that has happened, or he will somehow get loaded up with Krakoa Beast's memories and will have to go through the motions of experiencing that, and what he can do going forward. Mind you, I do think there could be something interesting about a younger, more naive, starry-eyed Hank being able to tell that something is wrong, that people are keeping things from him, and going after to find what even at his own risk, sort of in a Oedipus Rex fashion, but I dont think Sophoclean tragedy is where they're looking to take Hank.

But yes, it is a decision I feel oddly about because I would genuinely prefer Hank actually having to make the decision to be a better person starting from rock bottom. I find narratives where people who cannot and will not be forgiven for what they've done genuinely improve and become good people more interesting than "evil guy either dies or tries to become good and canonises that 'goodness' by sacrificing himself, essentially avoiding doing any hard, actual work". And it does make me feel sad, having so much of Hank's interesting, nuanced history with Morrison or with Gillian or whoever getting erased, but again, I can also appreciate Percy has done so many preposterously ridiculous things with Hank while insisting it's 616 Hank all throughout, that at this point the easiest thing to do is to reset and call it quits. To be fair, it seems to be what they're doing with Krakoa as a whole, which feels a copout but that's showbiz for ya, I guess.

[viscountessevie]

“Yes there are brown villains and no these are not the brown people to villainise”

I am confused though. Are they not allowed to be villainised at all? Doesn’t that depend on how one views their character?

I get that you like them. And that’s fine! But… I don’t. I do see them as people who were unfair and unjust to Kate and highly mistreated her. Just as I see Anthony’s faults in this entire situation as well.

That post, while making a valid point about white saviour complex, isn’t applicable to all fics I have read (of course, I have no way of telling which fic(s) OP was talking about when they wrote that). For example, a recent fic that I read dedicated 7 chapters to Anthony grovelling for forgiveness, whilst also recognising the mistreatment Kate faced at the hands of Edwina and Mary. The author went a bit further, and made Edwina say some awful things that makes Simon banish her from his house (that is where the fic is set).

Look. I am a brown person. Indian, in fact. I have absolutely no reason to hate Edwina for being brown since a) I love Kate b) I am brown myself. I don’t like her because of her actions in the show, and I don’t mind seeing versions of her that a bit more negative than what we saw in the show. Not every fic can be a fix it. That is why your sentence - these are not the brown people to villainise - didn’t make sense to me. It’s possible that I didn’t understand it correctly, and I apologise if that is the case. And I also recognise that the characterisation in the dark au had problematic undertones. But I am not talking about that.

Related to the tags on this post, similar comments on these two posts: #1 & #2

Hey anon, thanks for taking the time to write this in respectfully. (Just an update from last night: I am okay, everyone! But I was at a funeral and wake for my family friend great grandma who I also grew up with so I took some time to focus on that before answering this) Anyways anon, I think you kind of answered your own question and laid out both sides of the argument very well! However, I still would like to answer your first two questions and give my two cents on why I am pretty sensitive about the show portrayal of The Sharmas in post S2 fics: 

I think seeing interpretations of The Sharmas being just godawful family members and how some writers push extreme & harmful tropes on them (will give more examples below) gets me upset. This is based on my definition/scale of what "villainising" is. Personally, the word villain has extreme negative connotations. When I think of villains - my mind goes to truly horrible people who have committed vile actions that actively antagonises innocent people and the protagonists. [I also think of antiheroes but that's besides the point of this ask and post.]

Whereas I think Eddie and Mary are fallible and flawed characters though they come off two dimensional on the show (thank you writers -.-) and when some fic writers add the 3rd dimension that come across as portraying Eddie or Mary as villainous people who are actively antagonising Kathony, it just feels iffy to me. Because while Mary ignored Kate (and most likely Edwina at some points) cos of her grief, and Edwina throwing deep cut comments out of anger (I say shitty things to my sibs too but never that awful - my brothers do that to me tho soo,,,anyways that's for another time but I ALWAYS apologise)

I said 'these' brown people in the original tags as reference to the Sharmas (Papa included) shouldn’t be villianised to the extreme I’ve seen them portrayed. They aren't the cartoon villains that some people are making them out to be! 

Do you guys remember that crack theory going around a while ago where Edwina comes back in S3 to kidnap Neddy like what the fuck is that?? And I know some of my mutuals took part in this ironically and I was just able to block the tags at the time (I do not respect the people who ran with it unironically tho)

 But I think something about Papa Sharma, sweet sweet Papa Sharma who reminds me of my dad from the way Kate describes him and also me imagining him as Sendhil Ramamurthy, I mean look at him: 

Just having THIS GUY being portrayed as a kidnapper and murderer in the Dark AU was not it! I know we aren’t talking about that in this post but I want to explain why after all this time I spoke out to Mimi’s anons about the portrayals of The Sharmas. This was me being pushed off the edge after turning a blind eye for months and the frustration just build up, accumulating into the ask I sent in the ‘#1′ post linked above. Hence, I brought up the portrayals of Edwina and Mary too. 

That being said, I will back up these sections of this ask: 

Doesn’t that depend on how one views their character?.... I do see them as people who were unfair and unjust to Kate and highly mistreated her. Just as I see Anthony’s faults in this entire situation as well.... I don’t like her [Edwina] because of her actions in the show, and I don’t mind seeing versions of her that a bit more negative than what we saw in the show.

You’re absolutely right that interpretations come from how people view them and of course, people are welcomed and allowed to have their own opinions. I did preface my original ask on Mimi’s blog saying as much that no one should be policing anything. I just wanted to point out how harmful the extreme ends of the Sharma portrayals in fics have been lately which is why I don’t read them at all. I only read authors who mesh Book and Show Sharmas well or Pre-S2 fics because I know majority of the S2 fics will make me upset.  

I think the fic you referenced sounds okay because of course Miss Edwina ‘Half-sister’ and ‘More kind hearted than you’ Sharma would make comments that would have her yeeted from Simon’s home. 

For me personally, I just need/will read fics that acknowledge that yes, Edwina and Mary fucked up but are trying to do better. Some people reducing them to one dimensional villains is just reductive to me. I agree not everything can be a fix it but I just feel robbed that we never got a full resolution on the show and everyone was just ‘okay’ so fix it fics fulfil that for me which is why I don’t read the ‘break it more’ fics as I call them ahhaha. But yeah they make me uncomfortable. 

Most of all, I think my frustration and sadness comes from missing the era before S2 where the main Sharma (well Book!Sheffield) fics in the tag were wholesome family ones and now I can barely find any in the flood of the S2 canon fics. 

Hope I got my view across and why I don’t think they should be villianised they way I define it in my head at least! Thanks to everyone for reading this and again to the anon for giving me their pov I appreciate it even if I don’t fully agree! 

[normal-thoughts-official]

Thoughts on rizzy 👀

jdndkdndidndidn ok so if u wanted a rizzy-positive answer...... avert ur eyes

the one thing positive (?) i can say about rizzy is that it really brought us some of the softest raphael moments, but i also lowkey hate that cuz wow, we really got him to talk about his sister, his past, see some of his interests, his softness, his pains, his smiles because of rizzy... so it's all related to rizzy 💀 which is why you might see some gifsets from rizzy scenes in my blog, i think this might have been what brought this on. i enjoy those scenes as scenes that establish raphael's character, but not as rizzy

and shoutout to sh as usual for only bothering with giving a coc depth, backstory, desires and etc when they were someone's love interest and then dropping them like a hot potato. like bro imagine if they had at least bothered with keeping raphael's characterisation consistent? id be over the moon already. if they had actually made him a person like when rizzy was a thing for the whole show on top of that?? fuck i think id explode in happiness

other than that..... i hate everything about it. and like, it being based on addiction aside (which is already, like, bad, but i could maybe ship them in an alternate reality where the addiction wasn't a thing and they were fine if it was only that), the whole thing was literally Izzy Treats Raphael Like Shit And Then Raphael Is Villainized For It

im not even gonna get into the whole "raphael is blamed for the yin fen thing for some fucking reason when that was not his fucking fault and no one questions this" thing because ive done it before and i might explode with rage if i do, lol. that fucking plotline would have never been handled like that if raphael wasn't latino and therefore a predator drug dealer stereotype. but ANYWAY

those are the two things that i see anti rizzy shippers talking about the most, but those are actually not what bothers me the most. what really drives me up the wall and is just vomiting emoji is the way izzy treats raphael. that's the dealbreaker for me and something that never gets acknowledged

like, for starters, raphael was once again shown to be one of the most caring and selfless characters in this piece of shit stupid show, when he saved izzy's life when she was stupid enough to actually go to a vampire den. she had done nothing but be shitty to him and the vampires up to that point, mind you (which some ppl in this fandom treat as like #GirlPower or something) but he still saved her life for no reason other than that was the right thing to do

and then she immediately, the same second, tried to trigger him into drinking her blood. and he kept telling her no and pushing her away and she was literally GRABBING him and slitting her wrist and then he caved, at great personal cost, which she didn't care about

fine

then we get her going after him again, and raphael, again, being the caring and selfless bastard that he is, does something so monumentally kind and dangerous that it still blows me away: he tells her about his addiction

and i know that ppl in this fandom love to act as if every single thing raphael did for the sake of other characters, particularly the shadowhunters and simon, is just, like, expected and no big deal. but raphael didn't owe izzy that. he didn't have to tell izzy that. hell, he didn't even have to save izzy's life when she went to the den, for all he knew it was all a trick or something. and telling her, someone he doesn't even know, a shadowhunter, not only one of his greatest secrets, not only one of his greatest vulnerabilities, but the single hardest and most painful moment of his life, a whole can of worms about his past that he just bared to her just like that, was just. so much. it was such a huge thing that he did for her, okay. and let's not forget that raphael is a private person, both for survival and because he just is

he basically opened up his biggest wound and showed it to her only because it could bring her some sort of comfort. it wouldn't even help her greatly. it wouldn't even change anything about her situation. it would bring just maybe a little bit of comfort and advice, at great personal cost, way greater than the good it would bring her. and he still did it, because raphael cares, especially when he sees someone going through something he went through as well. just so he could tell her that it gets better, that she's not alone. that he understands

and she fucking!! immediately!!!! uses that against him!!!!!! and continues to try to trigger his addiction again and again and again and again!!!! may i just say, WHAT THE FUCK

EVERY SINGLE TIME she tries to get him to drink her blood, it's not consensual, it's forced. he always hesitates, always tries to push her away, always turns his head. and she just pushes him anyway. even after she knows that he's been through this before. that it almost destroyed him. she knows exactly what she's triggering and bringing on, and she! does! it! anyway!!

watching some of the rizzy scenes, particularly the one where they are cooking together, makes me want to cry for him, because it's so obvious that what he's looking for is a deeper connection, someone to trust, to love, and what she's looking for is someone to satisfy her need. and look, i know addiction is terrible. but he's ALSO addicted. and again, i've met plenty of ppl who struggled with addiction, and they were able of, you know, not treating others like this

it drives me crazy! raphael lets her into his home, teaches her how to cook, opens up about the SINGLE SECRET ABOUT HIM THAT NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT EXCEPT FOR MAGNUS, and generally tries to have a good time with her, and not only does she immediately make his attempt at having a meaningful bonding time about him drinking her blood, but does it RIGHT AFTER HE TELLS HER ABOUT HIS SISTER??? it literally goes "here is my deepest most important secret that pains me greatly and is destroying me inside. oh, i said too much. i should have kept my mouth shut" "i'd rather you didn't *slits own wrist and makes him drink her blood*". like, girl, at least a word of comfort first??? a "you can tell me whatever you like"? an "i'm fucking sorry for your loss" maybe???????????? SHE TREATED HIM LIKE AN OBJECT

and also SHOUT THE FUCK OUT to "i didn't take you for a community service kind of guy", which granted is a minor thing to be upset about in the middle of this shitstorm, but still makes me want to rip my hair off. girl!! he's been doing nothing ever since you first met but helping you selflessly and getting only PAIN in return. like is she for real??? he went out of his way SO many times to help her, when he had NO reason to, not a single one. and she's still like "oh wow raphael cares about others?? im shocked" UDBDIDNDKSMSOSNSOSNSISBSUSBDUDBDIDNDIDNDI ARE YOU SERIOUSSSS

it's really such a revealing moment to me because it really shows that she didn't give any thought about everything he'd done for her. all the endless kindness and care, in the literal sense of TAKING CARE OF, that he offered her without a second thought. she never stopped to think about what it cost him. the fact that he didn't OWE IT TO HER, and thus it says something about his CHARACTER, because he CHOSE to help her. over and over and over again!!! AFTER SHE BETRAYED HIM MORE THAN ONCE. it never even crossed her mind! she just took it for granted, like it's what he was supposed to do, or something

and then!!!!!!! even after they go their separate ways!! and raphael is STILL caring for her and making sure she's okay! she decides to betray him one last time and have simon threaten his sister!!! and ill be honest i dont remember the reason for this, but i do remember that it wasn't fucking life and death, so like!!! it was just unnecessarily cruel and shitty of her and the biggest FUCK YOU to him and his trust. AND IT WASN'T NECESSARY AT ALL. like. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

and at this point izzy was recovering so it's just like. i get that before that we were literally seeing izzy at her ugliest, she even fought alec and said some shit that she definitely didn't mean at all and that was shitty and hurtful. so like obviously we were seeing izzy in her darkest, worst, most selfish, most hurt. which is why i can maybe cut her some slack for some shit (also i just realized i literally forgot that she straight up THREATENED HIM WITH A KNIFE god there is really So Much To Unpack Here), but at that point? at that point she had no excuse. she was recovering. this didn't even have anything to do with her addiction anyway. she was just proving that raphael's trust, his care, his fucking feelings, they meant nothing to her

like seriously! she could at least have the decency to go, after raphael was very obviously kind and considerate to me, maybe i should not conspire against him and bring forward his most important secret? i don't think i'm asking her for much here

and it also ends a circle of raphael opening up to her and trusting her and she betraying that trust EVERY SINGLE TIME! the literal single only thing he told her that she didn't use against him was his asexuality. which look, thank god, cuz that would have been way too ugly and uncalled for, but the bar is low here

(ok, maybe rizzy gets a shoutout for having raphael's asexuality be treated so naturally. especially coming from such an overtly sexual character like izzy. it was nice to have that. i also think that her whole line about how for the first time sex wasn't a big part of a relationship for her could have been explored in so many interesting ways. like it is obvious that izzy uses her sexuality as a way to gain confidence and prove her value and it would be cool to see that being addressed beyond throwaway lines, maybe talk a bit about hypersexualization of woc. but this is shadowhunters we're talking about so of course nah)

so like okay izzy gets a Not An Aphobe But Still Shitty badge for basically using raphael like he existed to provide her. and in short this is why i can't get into rizzy, not even in a very very alternate reality where it all went different and the way they met had nothing to do with addiction. because she really didn't care enough about him and he deserves so much better than this

and again, i know that izzy was at her damn lowest in that point, but i think that even if she weren't, ultimately their incompatibility still lies there - raphael is too selfless and izzy is not attuned to that. she would take what he offered and not really spare it a thought, even if she didn't mean to like, Use Him (cuz i dont think izzy meant to use him even in canon), like it was just expected. and he wouldn't point that out. and it would be. ugh

and yeah i think that summarizes my thoughts dudndjdn im sorry for the angry very long rant, i just started talking and it all was pouring out suddenly. i promise im not mad, i just...... have strong feelings about this whole thing

[hannah-buckley]

Running with Wolves, Somaticizing the Text: Revisionary Feminism and Contemporary Dance by Dr Catriona McAra

Below is a paper presented by Dr Catriona McAra, introducing my solo The Mountain and Other Tales of She Transformed as part of the Edinburgh College of Art ‘The Woman’s Work: A Kate Bush Symposium’ on Dec 13th 2019.

“There is an old woman who lives in a hidden place that everyone knows but few have ever seen” (p.27)

The Mountain and Other Tales of She Transformed is a solo by the Leeds-based choreographer Hannah Buckley. I want to position it in close dialogue with Kate Bush and the American Jungian psychoanalyst Clarissa Pinkola Estés, the author of the renowned cult classic and revisionary feminist study, Women Who Run with the Wolves (1992).

“I call her Wild Woman, for those very words, wild and woman, create […] the fairy-tale knock at the door of the deep female psyche… No matter by which culture a woman is influenced, she understands the words wild and woman, intuitively” (p.6)  

The bone woman fairy tale, which comprises Chapter One, ‘The Howl: Resurrection of the Wild Woman,’ has become something of an ur-text or blueprint for Buckley, a found script for her body, voice and gesture. She first read the book while a student at the Northern School of Contemporary Dance, and claimed that the book found her.  

This short experimental paper intersperses quotations by Pinkola Estés in order to get inside the theory/practice structure of her book. I interconnect Buckley’s research-practice alongside leading, iconic, cultural women that drive an investigative revisionist model. We are, therefore, specifically interested in how Kate Bush informs a new generation of contemporary practice:

“In mythos and by whatever name, La Loba knows the personal past and the ancient past for she has survived generation after generation, and is old beyond her time. She is an archivist of feminine intention. She preserves female tradition. Her whiskers sense the future” (p.29)

Kate Bush has certainly had an effect on a next generation of dream pop and folktronica. Journalist Laura Barton reveals that Natasha Khan of Bat for Lashes considers Pinkola Estés book to be among her favourites, and Barton goes on to link Khan with Florence Welsh as “wild wolf runners” – a particular style of singer-songwriter working through the legacies of Kate Bush (2011).

“The archetype of the Wild Woman and all that stands behind her is patroness to all painters, writers, sculptors, dancers, thinkers, prayermakers, seekers, finders – for they are all busy with the work of invention, and that is the Wild Woman’s main occupation” (p.12)  

Pinkola Estés and Bush have much to say to one another; both use the motif of the she-wolf or hound to characterise a revisionary stance. Putting them into further dialogue with Buckley who was born the same year as Hounds of Love came out, creates a compelling sense of intergenerationality as we come to terms with the practical application of 80s feminist theory.  

Buckley has been using lyrics by Kate Bush since 2014 when she performed Woman with Eggs, an episodic narrative sequence which uses Eartheater’s ethereal and slower-paced cover of ‘Babooshka.’ For Bush, Babushka is a shield-maiden disguise, the inner world of a scorned woman externalised. Buckley playfully revises this costume or “pseudonym to fool him” to investigate female lifecycles and a safe space for women in an age of #MeToo.

Buckley begins her Woman with Eggs with a folktale: “long ago women got their children by digging around in the ground.” The choreography is then augmented with intergenerational audio interviews from Hannah’s nana, Elsie, and a child called Bo. Buckley then moves into a poignant sequence about a woman who chose not to have children. After reading this confessional, Buckley dances vigorously while trying to balance a clutch of delicate golden eggs in her palms, which quickly fall to the ground and smash, somewhat symbolically.

Again to quote Pinkola Estés:

“The modern woman is a blur of activity. She is pressured to be all things to all people. The old knowing is long overdue” (p.4)

The Bush ethos continues into Buckley’s duet ‘S/HE’ with Simon Palmer in 2017 where themes from ‘Running Up That Hill’ seem pertinent. Bush’s ‘Deal with God’ invites a switching of gender roles. Buckley develops this idea through her choreography, stressing the importance of gender fluidity and feminist men in making manifest such politics of equality. Here the pair are costumed, not in the blue iki-chic Japanese Hakama of the Bush video, but in peach-skinned, rubber birthday suits as if two newborns who have not yet assumed their gendered roles or identities. Laura Wallace compares Buckley’s costumes to the shapeshifting power of selkie skins (2019); the idea that we can throw off or temporarily stow our identities. Writing on the Bush music video, Roy Mon notes that the two dancers “coil around the musical text as well as [broach] the studio confines” (2007, p.100-101)

Buckley’s latest solo, escalates ‘Running up That Hill’ into a mountain wilderness. We begin with rebirth. Buckley’s wolfling feels into her own skin through a series of grounded, yogi movements, then gradually segues into a primordial chant that resonates throughout her body, scratching and crawling her way into Pinkola Estés’ text, and into the fantastical domain of the anima.

A summers wildlife weathers into a blustery, barren mountain side. Like Bush, this performance is self-directed. “I am the mountain” Buckley will tell us. There is a need for creative solitude. Here the mountain is a character as well as a bodily topography - Buckley’s practical research into 'feminism as the female command of space' uses the mountain in order to psychically expand and enable the possibilities of a feminist persona. There is grit and tenacity present. The megalithic is augmented by a visual component, a theatrical backdrop of chalk drawings facilitated by artist Nicola Singh, mimicking and articulating the outlines of the choreographic edgework: the bones of Buckley’s movements.

For Buckley, the wolf that dwells in such a landscape becomes the id, an inner force of unpredictability which rises to the convulsive, corporeal surface.  Peter Brooks and Anna Kérchy emphasize the “somaticisation of text” (1993; 2008) a visual and textual mode of embodiment, similar to Hélène Cixous’s nottion of écriture feminine (1975), which we can possibility best understand through the transformative and body-centric medium of dance.  

Pinkola Estés:

“My own post WWII generation grew up in a time when women were infantilised and treated as property. They were kept as fallow gardens […] Dancing was barely tolerated, if at all, so they danced in the forest where no one could see them” (p.5)

The iconography of wolves is worth dwelling on. For Jung, the wolf is a nightmarish presence that prefigures the death of his mother (1963). Pinkola Estés significantly revises this archetype into an arguably more positive, active, de-civilising force, yet she maintains the Jungian principle:

“women’s flagging vitality can be restored by extensive “psychic-archaeological” digs into the ruins of the female underworld” (p.3)

The she-wolf is an archetype but she is also necessarily slippery and unclassifiable – a trickster figure or category error patrolling the margins. The novelist Chloe Aridjis reminds us “There on the very fringes of tranquillity […] should be at least one or two pacing wolves” (2013). The wolf tales of the English writer Angela Carter are also interesting to ponder here; rewritten fairy tales from the same moment as Bush’s ‘Wuthering Heights’ which re-position female protagonists as active subjects dirtied and bloodied by their experiences (Kérchy, p.4). Rather than fearing the wolf in grandmother’s clothing, Carter’s Red Riding Hood jumps into bed with them. As for Jung, the wolf for Carter is a predominantly masculine presence, hairy on the inside, similar to Joni Mitchell’s “coyote in the coffee shop” (1976). Yet for Buckley and Pinkola Estés, wolves are very much re-coded as feminine and serve as the instinctual and unpredictable beings within us. Bush’s “fox caught by dogs” uses the male pronoun “his little heart, it beats so fast” while her “hounds of love” (1985), I would suggest, represent an all-encompassing force-field relevant to all sexualities. Her canine familiar is a polymorphous hybrid, difficult to pin down, yet one which is certainly a feminist-intertextual collector of culture.

“Collecting stories is a constant paleontologic endeavour. The more story bones you have, the more likely you will be able to find the whole story. The more whole the stories, the more subtle the twists and turns of the psyche are presented to us and the better opportunity we have to apprehend and evoke our soulwork” (p.17)

Despite the ambiguous terrain, Buckley’s practice finds firm footing in the universe of Kate Bush as a kind of psychic touchstone.  She stamps rhythmically to summon the animal within us. She fabricates sculptures by assembling the bone narratives she finds. This is The Mountain and Other Tales of She Transformed, and here is a final quotation from the intrepid Clarissa Pinkola Estés:

“I met a bone woman and have never been quite the same since” (p.27)

[mama-forum-ch-blog]

chinese dating

New Post has been published on http://mama-forum.ch/question/chinese-dating/

chinese dating

Can a strictly child be disowned

Can a mum or dad disown an adopted child?

if it turns out “Disown” Means the parent wants to discontinue his or her obligation to a minor child, Then it is frequently possible. The parent wanting to voluntarily give up parental rights can file a Termnation of Parental Rights petition in the probate court in the county and state their current address. there aren’t laws which force anyone upon their demise to leave assets or property to children or other persons. The exception being property that routinely reverts to a surviving spouse under state marital law. If you are asking this question I hope it’s and rightly. I found myself in the concern because I no longer had any say over what and how my child’s mother (tend to be ex) Was promoting him. Everytime I took one advancement teaching him the ways of the world his mother would bail him out making him take two steps back. At 16 he is almost an adult with his own views and I cannot change those at this point studying again can be not that I’m done trying. But he lives with his mom and he is getting into challenge with the law pretty regularly stealing etc. I’m afraid if gosh forbid he hurt someone or something I would still lead to that even though I have no say in his upbringing or day to day life at this point. I pay my child support and will continue to do so until he is 18 but I don’t believe I should be legally responsible for any chaos that may insue where he lives with his mother. She will probably? So can I disown him legally, A few of you must be in this [url=http://antiscam.chnlovereview.com/how-to-impress-your-chinese-girl-on-your-first-date/]sexy chinese girl[/url] concern, ( Full pick up )

Was Jackie robinson an only child?

in just 1919, Jackie robinson, The youngest of five children, was given birth in Cairo, Georgia during a Spanish flu and smallpox epidemic. in just 1920, His family who were sharecroppers moved to Pasadena, georgia after his father abandoned them. Jackie’s older brother was an efficient athlete. For the source and more in depth information concerning your request, go through the related links section indicated below. ( Full reason )

Your dad recently got a new girlfriend He has now disowned you and uses the money that should be your back child support to feed her and pay her bills what should you do?

Assuming any of this is true, As kids are often told this by their mothers, some money is still owed and must be paid. See link below for similar focus on Yahoo Answers. really should dad has disowned you, then you are better off without him. let him keep his stinking money. When my hubby adopted my daughter, The judge made it a simple fact that she was now his child in every way, Til death head for bankruptcy. part. the following came from an attorney in Ohio regarding a noncustodial father who wanted to disown his 14 daughter who was being somewhat of a handful; You account, at the very least, For your natural children until they reach age of majority (18). the theory is that, He could on your own terminate his parental rights, But I doubt any court would accept such a surrender of rights because the objective of termination is to protect children from unfit parents, Not or viceversa. Once they reach adulthood easier going with legally able to disinherit your adopted adult child the same way you would a biological adult child. ( Full product )

Was Jesus the particular sole child of Mary?

NO Jesus was not the only child of Mary. Mary and Joseph had other boys. Matthew 13:55 states that he had other bros named Joseph, Simon, as Judas. more, Than who his biological brothers were has to be that those who do the will of God, the father, Are Jesus’ kin (Matthew 12:50). Roman Catholic solve: yes,that’s right, Jesus was the only child of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This has been held as accepted fact since she had been alive. Many protestants today base their feelings that Jesus had siblings on the option that the Bible, following a Greek New Testament uses the words “siblings, The Greek word is Adelphos which indicates 1) Male children of the same parents OR 2) Male descendants of the same parents Acts 7:23, 26; Hebrews 7:5, or a 3) People of the same nationality, works 3:17, 22; Romans 9:3, or just 4) Any fellow, A next-doors, luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3, or perhaps a 6) Persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47, or even a 7) Persons united by called soft skills calling, revelation 22:9, nor 8) human beings, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17, or use the disciples, and consequently, By inference, All followers, Matthew 28:10, kim 20:17; Or believers click sex many references. In the King James style, Jacob is referred to as brother of his Uncle Laban (generation. 29:15; 29:10), it’s the same for Lot and Abraham (style 14:14; 11:26 27). additionally there are several Biblical references to Mary’s perpetual virginity. needs to be that “Firstborn” Is found in that sense only, Not characterised other children. lastly, throughout the cross, Jesus entrusts His endowed Mother to the apostle John, Which wouldn’t be the case if there were other children. a good sidelight: steve Calvin, And Martin Luther both vehemently advocated the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. anyway, The Church has definitively ruled to this: if the Blessed Virgin Mary was exactly that, And ended her life as a virgin totally specialized in God. ( Full reply to )

What should you do when I am an Asian man and are only sexually drawn to black women and I am dating a black woman but if my parents knew they would disown me?

If you are living in an Asian country then you definately know your own culture well and that sons in Asian families are highly regarded; Should be well educated and successful if possible and marry for their own race. at the same time, Asians do not think kindly of black people it is necessary nice they are. You said you are just dating black ladies and not once mentioned love. not a single thing wrong with anyone dating a black woman especially if they are no longer a minor and not under the control of their parents. anyhow, you’ve got to be more honest with yourself and ask yourself why you feel the need to always date black women and why you don’t date Asian women or even Caucasian women. Are you riding on the myth that black women are more sexual than other races or there are some other reason. You have two choices for everybody who is Westernized; Be sure you love a black woman before hurting your parents and if you are in love then take the risk and tell them you love her and hopefully they will agree to meet with her and if they do not then you have got to walk away from your parents and hope they come around in the future or, 2 make positive changes to habits and start dating Asian women. lovely far more acceptable now regarding mixed marriages. There is nothing your parents can do now that you are a man, But disown you really. ( Full help answer )

Is it common for a narcissist to disown children?

really, I would say it is prevalent for a child to work hard to try to please the narcissistic parent, shedding their own dreams, Development and dignity in the deal. If a child insists on being an impartial person who will not pander to the childish needs of the narcissist, Then the narcissist will fight to win them back or disown them. so, The narcissist will always be looking for an opportunity for the child to come crawling back and give the parent the idolization the parent “should get, in fact, there must be many other situations, elements, or outcomes. You have to objectively view the factors in your state before coming to any real conclusions. all the best,good luck! ( Full response to that question )

What may happen legally to a parent or parents who disown or threaten to disown their child greatly assist sexual orientation?

Disowning is not lawful gift term. Once the child is adult it’s up to either part whether to have contact or not occurring all legal. When the child is a minor however it would be child abandonment to kick them out which is illegal and the oldsters can be charged for it. The CPS will put the child in foster care until he is 18yo and the parents will be charged and pay child support. ( Full reason ).

[stellahendomakers]

WEEK 10

TEXT BASED INVESTIGATION:

A QUEER HISTORY OF FASHION: FROM THE CLOSET TO THE CATWALK (VALERIE STEELE)

2. Fashion and style has played an important role within the LGBTQ community, both pre and post stone wall, and even as early as the 18th century. (pg 7)

Not much has been published about high fashion as a site of gay cultural production. (pg 7)

2.Aethetic sensibilities and unconventional fress choises made by LGBTQ people, we see how gay culture has been to the creation of modern fashion. (pg 7)

3. Even Though a vast majority of designers are gay, they do not want to be labeled as such because they don’t want their work to be stereotyped - or their own accomplishments minimised. (pg 8)

3. Robert Schankle and Kim Marra argue that “sexuality permeates peoples beliefs, actions, and social relations.” If sexuality is “a historical force”, as they suggest, then it’s “far from irrelevant”, it is, in fact, entirely legitimate to ask why homosexuals have played such an important role in fashion. Indeed, not to write the history of gays and lesbians in fashion “is to be complicit in what has been called ‘inning’, the perpetuation of systemic denials that foster the climate of shame and risk surrounding same sex eroticim. (pg 8)

3. William Mann’s book on gay and lesbians in Hollywood, we believe that, by seeing these fashion “pioneers” not only as designers, fashion professionals, and trendsetters, “but also as gay men and lesbians,” we can “cast new light not only on their experiences but also on their very history” of fashion itself. (pg 8-9)

3. It is important to be open about the sexualitites of the decessed, since there is nothing to be shameful about variant sexuality. (pg 9)

3. In later decades, of course, as homosexuality was legalised and became increasingly accepted, more designers have came out publicly. (pg 9)

1. Fashion history cannot truly be understood without taking account of the creative contributions of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, and other “queer” individuals. (pg 9)

1. “ the word queer has often been used in a derogatory sense. However, in recent years it has increasingly been appropriated by many LGBTQ people. (pg 11)

2. By “performing” fashion, often in such a way to convey “signs of gayness” to other gays, LGBTQ people, whether fashion professionals or not, have been instrumental in creating queer subcultural styles as a queer sensibility that have profoundly influenced mainstream fashion. (pg 12)

2. By the 1880s, Lebsians in Paris were iften depicted as wearing mannish, dark, woolen jackets and white shirts with starched collars and bow ties. (pg 24)

2. Tailored clothes of upper-class men were also experienced as liberation for many lesbians (pg 24)

2. It was not simply that many lesbians had a “mannish” style of self-presentation. (pg 26)

2. They style garconne in the 1920s seemed to blur the traditional boundaries between men and woman, this new style was deeply controversial. (pg 26-27-28)

2. It is not only as fashion professionals that gay men and lesbians have influenced the world of style (pg 28)

2. In the early 20th century, gay men and lesbians were visible in large cities, such s Berlin, New York, and Paris. In New York, many gay men “boldly announced their presence by wearing red ties, bleached hair, and the area’s other insignia of homosexuality.” (pg29)

3. Many predominantly homosexual men were married (sometomes to lesbaians) and some had children. (pg35)

4. 1947 Dior launched the New Look, an ultra-feminine style, characterised by voluptuous curves and longer hemlines. (pg 41)

2. After ww1, the structure of fashion business changed, and men became increasingly visible as designers. (pg43)

3. “so those who have power must [be open about] their homosexuality and do everything they can so that it will be considered just like being left-handed or right-handed.” - Berge, Out magazine (pg44)

1. After the relative tolerance of the early 20th century, the postwar paranoid was characterized by savage reaction, which has been called “the 1950s Kulturkampf, or state-sponsored culture war, against homosexuals and other gender-benders.” (pg44)

1. During the postwar period, many homosexuals became in effect, “invisible men” because they experienced a “very real fear of exposure and arrest”. (pg44)

1. Lesbians dressed to “pass” in a vaguely androgynous style. (pg45)

2. 1960s “Peacock Revolution”, involved a lot of gay men. (pg45)

2. John Stephen played an important role in bringing  a “queer” look to a hetrosexual market with the ride of mod fashion. (pg45)

1. One year later after the stonewall riot of june 28 1969 the first pride parades took place in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. As LGBTQ people increasingly asserted their rights, variant sexualities became more accepted in the 1970s. More people lived openly gay lives, and fashion reflected this. (pg46-47)

2. A bunch of new styles arose, such as Clone, macho, gym-toned and other elaborate sexual codes. Middle class lesbians adopted a more “anti-fashion” androgynous style. (pg 47)

2. Woman fashion designers flourished during the 1920s and 30s, after ww2, male designers became much more numerous and influential. (pg53)

4. Calvin Klein’s advertising, then (1981) and later, was widely perceived as homoerotic, it also clearly appealed to hetrosexual men and to woman of all sexual orientations, reinforcing what would become a long-term trend for the use of homoerotic imagery, especially in fashion advertising. It is sometimes forgotten that gay sexuality is widely “considered extraordinary,inviting as well taboo.” (pg55)

3.  “There are many gay men in fashion”, says John Bartlett. “I know I was drawn to this career knowing that I would be welcome there and encouraged to be creative and expressive. Fashion is one of the rare industries that accept gay men.” (pg 62)

3. “The otherness of being gay informs our eye in a very different way from a young age. We relate to both men and women and therefore have a unique perspective on both sexes. We also identify a lot with our sexuality, so we think a lot about what defines gender.” (pg 62)

4. By the late 1990s, a fertile period of fashion innovation =, many of the world's most famous designers were gay or bisexual. But they were not always comfortable with having their sexuality labeled. Heralded as “Gucci’s Gay Superstar” on the cover of The Advocate (june 10, 1997), Tom Ford (b. 1961) was pressed to discuss his sexuality. He said that he was “very happy” with his long-term partner, and admitted, “i’m certainly gay at this particular moment in my life,” (pg 62)

3. Karl Lagerfeld - “that’s one of the good things about the fashion world. Those things [sexual orientations] are nonexistent subjects. You are never strange enough, bizarre enough, or different enough… It’s not a question of political correctness. Be correct, ,but don’t feel the need to tell the world.” (pg 62)

3. “The marginalised status of gay men produces the freakish, anarchic bursts of creativity and daring which are fundamental to fashion innovation,” argues Simon Doonan (pg 66)

3. “Gay men's lives have always been oriented around fantasy and disguise and transformation. They desire to escape from the negativity in their situation. Fashion is a ticket… The sad thing is both gays and straights continue to disdain effeminacy in men. Many gay men still have tremendous ambivalence about their proximity to fashion. They remain evasive about their sexuality and they suffer as a result.” (pg 66)

4. “The psychological struggles of Alexander McQueen and John Galliano are traceable to their working class homophobic roots. Their huge success only increased the unresolved conflicts and dissonances.” (pg 66)

This text talks about how queerness has influenced fashion pre and post stone wall. It brings up views about big designers and their reluctance to speak upon sexuality, the article also goes into to detail the evolution of queer style and where it stemmed from. This helps me to answer my key questions in my investigation surrounding queer fashion.