#this is my internal response | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

exercise-of-trust · 3 months

Text

seemingly cool fiber arts person i followed a little bit ago just put radfem shit on the dash, anyway the blanket statement that the only contributions of men to textile production are capitalist/exploitative and the only contributions of women are household-centric/victimized is patently untrue. while less of a documented presence, women in medieval europe [1] absolutely participated in weaver's guilds and commercial cloth production [2], and men have been participating in household knitting in all parts of europe for as long as knitting has been a thing there [3]. like i'm not trying to say women haven't been deeply excluded from economic opportunities in the textile trade for centuries but you cannot be making sweeping statements like that about everyone in every part of the world through all of history and expect them to be true. do, like, a basic level of research and have a basic understanding of nuance, i beg of you [4]

footnotes/sources/etc under the cut, sources are a bit basic because i just grabbed whatever was nearest to hand but they should suffice to prove my point:

[1] i'm only referring to western europe here because that's the only region i feel comfortable talking about in any detail without embarrassing myself. systems of medieval cloth production in european guilds are not gonna look anything like the systems of hundreds of servants employed to do textile production for a household in china. don't make categorical statements about everyone everywhere all at once, you will end up with egg on your face.

[2] quotes from "when did weaving become a male profession," ingvild øye, danish journal of archaeology, p.45 in particular.

england: "in norwich, a certain elizabeth baret was enrolled as freeman of the city in 1445/6 because she was a worsted weaver, and in 1511, a riot occurred when the weavers here complained that women were taking over their work" + "another ordinance from bristol [in 1461] forbade master weavers to engage wives, daughters, and maids who wove on their own looms as weavers but made an exception for wives already active before this act" germany: "in bremen, several professional male weavers are recorded in the early fourteenth century, but evidently alongside female weavers, who are documented even later, in 1440" -> the whole "even later" thing is because the original article is disputing the idea that men as weavers/clothiers in medieval europe entirely replaced women over time. also: "in 1432-36, a female weaver, mette weuersk, is referred to as a member of the gertrud's guild in flensburg, presently germany" scandanavia: "the guild of weavers that was established in copenhagen in 1500 also accepted female weavers as independent members and the rules were recorded in the guild's statutes"

[3] quotes from folk socks: the history and techniques of handknitted footwear by nancy bush, interweave press, 2011, don't roast me it was literally within arm's reach and i didn't feel like looking up more stuff

uk/yorkshire dales: "...handknitting had been a daily employment for three centuries [leading up to 1900]. practiced by women, children, and men, the craft added much to the economy of the dales people." (p.21) uk/wales: re the knitting night (noson weu/noswaith weu) as a social custom practiced in the 18th/19th c.: "all the ladies would work on their knitting; some of the men would knit garters" (p.22) uk/channel islands: "by the early seventeenth century, so many of the islands' men, women, and children had taken up the trade of knitting that laws were necessary to keep them from knitting during harvest" (p.24) -> this one is deeply funny to me, in addition to proving my point uk/aberdeen: "the knitters, known as shankers, were usually women, but sometimes included old men and boys" (p.26) denmark: "with iron and brass needles, they made stockings called stunthoser, stomper, or stockings without feet, as well as stockings with feet. the men knit the legs and the women and girls made the heels" (p.32) iceland & faroe islands: "people of all ages and both sexes knit at home not only for their own use but for exportation of their goods as well" (p.35)

[4] actually? no. i'm not begging for shit from radfems. fuck all'a'y'all.

#fuck it maintagging because i'm genuinely deeply annoyed about this #eta: un-maintagging bc after a couple days' reflection - i stand by the substance of what i said but i don't stand by my tone or attitude #shoot-from-the-hip reactionary anger is seldom effective and more to the point it's not a response of grace or love & i should do it less #aggressive linguistic prescriptivism #<- personal fiber arts category tag #<- that tag can stay tho i think this is an internal use only kinda post

186 notes · View notes

dailywillwood · 9 months

Text

Made by @onyx-colony

#will wood #will wood and the tapeworms #wednesday is not only the greatest betrayal in television history #will wood Wednesday rant #wednesday #Wednesday 2022 #wednesday is not only the greatest betrayal in television history but the most maddeningly trite #disturbingly vapid #and internally confuse #d ideological train wreck I've ever had the deeply sorrowful displeasure of allowing to pass through my corneas may god have mercy on bburto #or whoever else was responsible while someone slapped his brand name on it #and on all of us who are fated to live in a world where something so culturally #socially #politically #and artistically noxious as this #Mary-sue-lead #transparently TikTok-targeted #phone-worshipping #vaguely bigoted #backfired virtue-signaling #fake leftist capitalist “my im #mortal“-esque fanfic earns a second season through what I can only be explained as manufactured consent. something must be done about #Netflix's Wednesday. This thing is a condescending insult #especially to young people #the socially conscious #and members of marginalized #and “outcast” groups who genuinely suffer from what this thing hollowly masturbates to while looking us dead in the eyes and saying “yeah #you like that #don't you?“ It is a Gatling gun of random buzzwords and empty references to social issues #grotesquely and impotently

167 notes · View notes

ingravinoveritas · 10 months

Note

How do you feel about the fact that angels and demons are non-sexual beings in Good omens?

Anon #1: Well, this is a great question and I appreciate you sending it in for me to answer. Including the other Anons here since they are relevant.

I actually have a lot of feelings about angels and demons being non-sexual beings in Good Omens, which I will do my best to explain. I think the first thing I have to do is make sure I understand what you mean by non-sexual. I know Neil has said that angels and demons do not have genitalia "unless they make an effort," so by that measure, we can say angels and demons are genderless beings (agender or genderqueer perhaps as well, depending on the angel or demon). That, to me, is distinctive and not the same thing as non-sexual, which I consider to be beings who--by design or choice--do not engage in sexual intercourse.

The other thing we have to consider is the distinction between book!Good Omens and TV show!Good Omens. I have not finished reading the book, but it is my understanding that Neil (and Terry, of course) established the angels and demons as genderless in the original text. When the show was adapted for television, 30 years had passed since the novel was published, and so much had changed in that time, so a lot of things were updated to have Good Omens more align with the sensibilities of the modern era (one example is Neil talking about Crowley's aesthetic as an early '90s "Wall Street" type and how they had to figure out what the equivalent of that would be in the present day).

One thing that hasn't changed very much, however, is the portrayal of gay/queer people in the media. For much of those intervening 30 years, gay and queer people were shown as stereotypes--flamboyant, one-dimensional caricatures who existed as "sidekicks" (the "gay BFF") or object lessons for the straight characters (I would say this was especially the case in the late '80s and '90s with the AIDS crisis).

By this time, gay and queer people could exist on TV, but only if they were non-sexual/sexless. One example of this is Blanche's brother Clayton on The Golden Girls. After he comes out to Blanche, he brings home his fiance Doug in a subsequent episode, which has Blanche indignant. "I don't really mind Clayton being homosexual, I just don't like him dating men." Another example is Will & Grace, which aired in the late '90s. Will was a gay man who was one of the main characters, but while we constantly saw Grace falling into bed with random men and all sorts of escapades related to her sex life, we were never shown Will in any sort of similar situation. He could be gay, and he could be Grace's BFF, but he couldn't have a sex life of his own. It was this idea that gay people could exist in abstract terms, but not in the concrete reality of what it meant to be gay. Homophobia disguised as "acceptance."

So when I see/hear the word "non-sexual" in relation to gay and queer people, this is what comes to mind. What I also think of is that the absence of gay male sexuality (as for the majority of the show, Aziraphale and Crowley are male-presenting) is not the same thing as the presence of asexuality. I think it's been remarkably easy for Neil to take credit for that when it doesn't seem to have been his actual intention, and it also removes from him the responsibility of portraying that specific aspect of a non-heterosexual love story.

One thing I want to be very clear on is that I am in no way trying to put down anyone's head canon or what any reader or viewer may see in these characters, and I will never say that anyone's head canons are not valid. But when we are talking about the canon--in other words, what is actually on the screen--I feel like there is a tendency to overlook what Michael and David are actually doing with these characters.

In addition to what I mentioned above about gay characters on TV in the '80s and '90s, the other thing you absolutely could not do as a gay or queer person was fall in love. This is alluded to more in the example above from The Golden Girls, where Blanche is horrified that her brother wants to marry a man, until Sophia finally helps her understand:

Blanche: "Oh, look, I can accept the fact that he's gay, but why does he have to slip a ring on this guy's finger so the whole world will know?" Sophia: "Why did you marry George?" Blanche: "We loved each other. We wanted to make a lifetime commitment. Wanted everybody to know." Sophia: "That's what Doug and Clayton want, too. Everyone wants someone to grow old with. And shouldn't everyone have that chance?"

Here we are now, over 30 years later, and some people still don't want everyone to have that chance. Some people think two people of the same sex can't love each other the way a man and a woman do. Because queer love--and especially love between two men--is still looked at as "less than" and inferior to straight love.

This is the world Michael and David grew up in. This is the social and cultural climate they saw and navigated their own sexuality and identity in--'80s Britain, Margaret Thatcher, Section 28. Where being gay or queer wasn't just immoral, it was illegal. Your very existence alone was stigmatized, pathologized, and criminalized. And they are bringing that lived experience into the roles of Aziraphale and Crowley, albeit in different ways.

To me, Michael is playing Aziraphale as a repressed gay man. A man who--much like David--grew up in the faith and was made to believe that his natural feelings, attractions, and desires were wrong, shameful, and disgusting. We see this with Gabriel deriding Aziraphale for eating sushi and enjoying other Earthly pleasures, and it would be logical to think that it's taken a long time for Aziraphale to feel comfortable with the foods/drink/books he likes and the pleasure they bring him. Similarly, it's taken Aziraphale a millennia to find the one being who makes him feel comfortable with the desires he has. The being who is the exception to every rule Heaven ever laid out, who encourages Aziraphale to be himself in every respect. And that's Crowley.

In this scene in the Bastille (which I know has been analyzed a thousand times and a thousand ways), when Aziraphale looks at Crowley like this, the desire rising up in him is more than obvious. The wide eyes, the heaving bosom, and of course the smoldering up-and-down glance all speak to this--he is, quite literally, checking Crowley out, without shame, possibly for the first time ever. Even though that desire is not outwardly expressed in GO season 1, it does not mean it doesn't exist--only that Aziraphale letting himself feel this (and Crowley being the one entity who allows him to feel this) is the first step in a very long journey away from that lifetime of repression.

In terms of Crowley, I feel that David is playing Crowley as a gay man who is afraid of commitment because he has been hurt in the past. There is a feeling of impermanence to Crowley--that, despite being a celestial, immortal entity, he doesn't like to hold onto things because deep down, he believes they will eventually be taken away. He knows who he is, but is all too aware of the consequences that come with it. So he does not get attached, because to him, attachment equals pain, and he believes nothing is worth that risk.

In the church scene in 1941 (which, again, so much has already been said), Crowley saves Aziraphale's books from the wreckage. It's been said by many that Crowley fell in love long before this (which I do think is true), but for me, I feel like this was where we saw that Crowley was truly "attached" to Aziraphale. He rescued Aziraphale from the Bastille, and he saved Aziraphale from the bombs of the Blitz, but in grabbing the books, Crowley isn't just saving Aziraphale's body--he's holding onto a piece of his soul. For the first time ever, Crowley has found something that isn't temporary, and after a millennia of cynicism, Aziraphale is the one entity who makes him feel fully and wholeheartedly ready to commit to something.

This is what I have seen and perceived in the portrayals of Aziraphale and Crowley that Michael and David have given us. I absolutely do 100% believe that asexual folks deserve representation--representation that is clear and specific, not just a side effect of Neil not wanting to show these characters expressing outward sexual desires--but I do not believe that is how Michael and David are playing the characters. It's not enough--or at least it shouldn't be--to have characters of marginalized backgrounds just standing in the room, or to say, "This one's gay," "This one's nonbinary," "This one's asexual." Including these identities in the fabric of the story means doing what Michael and David have done, which is showing these people or beings as three-dimensional, as fully realized characters who happen to have that identity, rather than as ticked boxes representing a certain identity on a checklist.

And to the Anons mentioning the Radio Times article (which seems like it came out a hundred years ago now)--Anon #4 particularly--I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me, but I could not disagree with you more.

First of all, I have no idea where in the world you got that Aziraphale and Crowley's romance was explicit in season 1, because it was absolutely anything but. Three days after they posted that, RT posted another article seemingly backtracking on everything they'd previously said (as if we'd all somehow pulled a Gabriel Jim and forgotten everything about the first article). The phrase "Could romance be on the cards after all?" is in the bloody headline of article #2, which to me says that RT is going to go in whichever direction the wind blows--to create engagement and generate clicks--but also that it is very clear what they meant by "conventional" in the first article. I do not get the feeling that Radio Times--a mainstream publication that seemingly publishes any story they can farm from social media--was thinking of ace or aro identities or relationships when writing that. Even a tiny little bit.

Even a queer-centric media outlet like Pride today published an article saying the first season of GO lacked LGBTQ+ representation. Obviously, I do not at all agree with this or with several other things mentioned in the article. But what I am challenging folks to do is think about what this is really saying. By the end of GO 1 season, everyone accepts and assumes that Madame Tracy and Shadwell are a couple. She makes eyes at him, they have dinner together, and no one questions them being a couple, even though they are not shown being physically affectionate. Aziraphale and Crowley do exactly the same things, but no one (speaking of the larger public, outside the hardcore fan base) assumes they are a couple.

Maybe what that means, then, is that "representation" that requires you to squint and turn your head in order to see it--like Aziraphale and Crowley holding hands on the bus--isn't really representation at all. And by Neil "not wanting to label" something, it seems to suggest that committing to a label or embracing that gayness is something he is not comfortable with--for any number of reasons--and is why we could have a meaningless love scene with a straight couple that does not have a real connection (Newt and Anathema), but couldn't have a meaningful love scene with a gay couple that does have a devastatingly profound and powerful connection.

So yes, those are my thoughts on the angels and demons in Good Omens being non-sexual, and what that means in a larger cultural/societal sense. I know that when GO season 2 comes out in a week, I could be proven completely wrong about everything I've just said, and I will have no problem with that at all. I fully trust what Michael and David will bring to the roles of Aziraphale and Crowley, but my hesitation stems from the limitations they will potentially be up against, in terms of the script/storyline (and is something I have felt from the interviews we've seen with them this past week).

I'm hopeful for the best, though (as always), so we'll just have to see what happens...

#anonymous #reply post #good omens 2 #good omens #aziraphale #crowley #ineffable husbands #michael sheen #welsh seduction machine #david tennant #soft scottish hipster gigolo #creators are not perfect #I think Neil may have some internalized homophobia he is still dealing with tbh #but people are afraid to call him out in any way #and this was me trying to keep my response short #probably going to have to turn off anons for a bit while i answer the rest #dealing with RL stuff at the moment so a bit backed up #discourse

165 notes · View notes

communistkenobi · 6 months

Text

I’m watching a documentary my friend recommended to me called the law in these parts, which is about the history of israeli military law in palestine, and like. jesus christ they were literally just doing lebensraum. the same low density suburban development that plagues north america, the same plan of fascist expansion eastward done by nazi germany was done in palestine, with the justification that these residential settlements built for settler civilians were actually military outposts and therefore legal under international law. it’s literally just lebensraum

#I wonder about the context of the justification as like a strategic exception to international law #like is this an essential strategy of fascism (/colonialism) or rather one we see emerge through the context of history #the nazis obviously did this prior to international law but those laws were written in response to nazi strategies iirc #I’ve seen people make the connection that suburban development in settler colonial states in general is a fascist practice #and like I was inclined to agree but didn’t fully get the scope of the argument #but this is making it click into place for me #again premised on the foundational argument that fascism and colonialism are synonymous processes that cannot be separated from one another #which is the strongest definition of fascism I’ve encountered so far in all of my readings

68 notes · View notes

quiescentdestiny · 7 months

Text

Neil just never shutting up about the fact that Andrew is solid, a wall, something to hold him up when he needs it, etc.

and at the same time never shutting up about the fact that there is not a goddamn thing on the planet that could get him to stop running at full force, as quickly as possible.

only for him to not at all recognize that, in fact, Andrew is an immovable object to him, even though he says it 15 times a day, right up until he slams into that wall at 60 miles per hours and goes oh.

#andreil #Neil Josten #Andrew Minyard #aftg #the man is literally the most unreliable narrator lmao #like he is straight up already thinking about Andrew holding him up when nicky and him talk in the library #LIKE Nicky goes on a rant about how romance is important and how Erik saved his LIFE by existing #and Neil's response is to be like “huh andrew's sorta like that....” and then proceeds to fucking internalize that #for ANOTHER WHOLE BOOK #the man really just says “yeah but he's ANDREW” and throws it in the back of his head lmao #R U KIDDING ME #my posts

69 notes · View notes

havegaysex · 1 month

Note

Why are you telling people to vote for the guy committing genocide :/

because voting is not an endorsement it's harm reduction.

Trump is going to be at best doing the same as Biden and likely much worse for Palestinians and all the countries suffering from American Imperialism than Biden is.

Republicans want to bring back child labor and get rid of social security, medicare, Medicaid. As someone who is surviving on Medicaid and social security I don't want those taken away. The Republican majority house already put a lot of limits on food stamps in this past term and I don't think we'll still have food stamps if we get a republican Congress and a Republican president.

They've made it pretty clear that if they get a republican Congress and a Republican president they're going to enact project 2025 and call a conference of states and try and take our rights back to the days when only wealthy white men had any rights when women and racial minorities had no rights, they want to make it illegal for LGBT+ folks to safely exist in public and get lifesaving healthcare.

In short

Do I support every single thing Biden has done as president?

No.

Do I like him?

Not particularly. But I'm still voting for him because apathy is not a choice.

Do I think that Joe Biden having another term means that we can actually make more progress for labor rights, trans healthcare, abortion access, advancement of the rights and protections for disabled people and so much more?

Yes absolutely.

Do I think that the genocide in Gaza needs to end and the United States needs to stop sending weapons to israel?

Yes, I think that un restricted flow of humanitarian aid into Palestine needs to happen, the siege needs to stop, and the country of Israel and the United States need to be held accountable at an international level. I think that the soldiers of the IDF/IOF need to be held accountable for their war crimes and pillaging that they continuously post evidence of on social medias. I'm trying to put a read more here so ce I've put a few linked articles and quotes from them.

A quote from the article below:

"While our map focuses solely on high school aged youth (age 13-17), some states, such as Oklahoma, Texas, and South Carolina, have considered banning care for transgender people up to 26 years of age. "

I've seen lawmakers in some states try to make it felony punishable by life in prison to get your trans child healthcare to keep them alive because they want to make it illegal for us to exist and a legal for anyone who helps us exist.

some quotes from the article above:

"Led by the long-established Heritage Foundation think tank and fueled by former Trump administration officials, the far-reaching effort is essentially a government-in-waiting for the former president’s second term — or any candidate who aligns with their ideals and can defeat President Joe Biden in 2024. With a nearly 1,000-page “Project 2025” handbook and an “army” of Americans, the idea is to have the civic infrastructure in place on Day One to commandeer, reshape and do away with what Republicans deride as the “deep state” bureaucracy, in part by firing as many as 50,000 federal workers. “We need to flood the zone with conservatives,” said Paul Dans, director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project and a former Trump administration official who speaks with historical flourish about the undertaking. “This is a clarion call to come to Washington,” he said. “People need to lay down their tools, and step aside from their professional life and say, ‘This is my lifetime moment to serve.’” The unprecedented effort is being orchestrated with dozens of right-flank organizations, many new to Washington, and represents a changed approach from conservatives, who traditionally have sought to limit the federal government by cutting federal taxes and slashing federal spending. Instead, Trump-era conservatives want to gut the “administrative state” from within, by ousting federal employees they believe are standing in the way of the president’s agenda and replacing them with like-minded officials more eager to fulfill a new executive’s approach to governing. The goal is to avoid the pitfalls of Trump’s first years in office, when the Republican president’s team was ill-prepared, his Cabinet nominees had trouble winning Senate confirmation and policies were met with resistance — by lawmakers, government workers and even Trump’s own appointees who refused to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals. While many of the Project 2025 proposals are inspired by Trump, they are being echoed by GOP rivals Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy and are gaining prominence among other Republicans. And if Trump wins a second term, the work from the Heritage coalition ensures the president will have the personnel to carry forward his unfinished White House business. “The president Day One will be a wrecking ball for the administrative state,” said Russ Vought, a former Trump administration official involved in the effort who is now president at the conservative Center for Renewing America. Much of the new president’s agenda would be accomplished by reinstating what’s called Schedule F — a Trump-era executive order that would reclassify tens of thousands of the 2 million federal employees as essentially at-will workers who could more easily be fired. Biden had rescinded the executive order upon taking office in 2021, but Trump — and other presidential hopefuls — now vow to reinstate it."

"There’s a “top to bottom overhaul” of the Department of Justice, particularly curbing its independence and ending FBI efforts to combat the spread of misinformation. It calls for stepped-up prosecution of anyone providing or distributing abortion pills by mail."

Personally I think that voting for Joe Biden is better than someone who wants to enact this stuff on day one. It's like they read handmaid's tale and want to make that the reality of this country.

"Chapter by chapter, the pages offer a how-to manual for the next president, similar to one Heritage produced 50 years ago, ahead of the Ronald Reagan administration. Authored by some of today’s most prominent thinkers in the conservative movement, it’s often sprinkled with apocalyptic language." Ronald Reagan is a big reason we have a lot of problems we have today with our economy and with a lot more things. The people that supported Ronald Reagan do not need another term in office.

A quote from the article linked below:

"Trump has given no indication that he would be more sympathetic to Palestinian claims, nor that he would place more pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire. “The approach of the United States would be that Israel needs to win this war, it was attacked brutally,” Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, describing how Trump would act. Friedman is now a campaign surrogate for Trump."

Personally I think Trump telling Israel to finish the job is indicators that another Trump presidency doesn't mean that weapons would stop being sent to Israel from United States

I fail to see how another term of Donald trump will be any better for the victims of the ongoing genocide in Palestine than President Joe Biden.

i think our system is absolutely messed up and broken but I don't think abstaining from voting is going to actually help.

#I don't support the genocide happening but I don't think that a republican will improve the situation happening in Gaza #I think that there needs to be a lot more grassroots effort for any third party candidate to be viable on the presidential level #We have two choices this election another term of Biden or another trump term #(if by some miracle the republicans managed to elect anyone else for their party nomination I still don't believe that a republican will #Improve the situation of Gaza or anything the United States is doing in the international level)#Asks #Mutuals #Im open to having further discussion about this #Also since this wasn't a DM or marked for private response I'm assuming you're fine with me posting my answer publicly.#I tried to pick out decent articles to link sorry if there not the best #None of my responses above are me trying to be hostile or combative #I'm genuinely trying to answer this question and I am not great at proofreading before posting but I did try here #vote blue no matter who #vote biden #vote democrat #vote blue #voting #us elections #election 2024 #trump 2024 #2024 election #biden 2024 #biden administration #president biden #joe biden #2024 elections #kamala harris #palestine #Israel

22 notes · View notes

carefulfears · 10 months

Note

And my girl Scully figured out that Diana and Phoebe were abusive to him and that’s why she was ready to disintegrate them with whenever they breathed Mulder’s air iktr. (Also to me that’s part of the reason Mulder was oblivious and defended them, people who are in abusive relationships are not always aware of it)

YUPP you’re literally dead right, anon, in my opinion. it really bugs me when people talk shit about mulder for “trusting” both phoebe and diana, as though that’s not like…the only thing he’s been taught to do.

i’ve been thinking a lot about the difference between scully’s reactions to phoebe vs. diana. when phoebe showed up, scully had only known mulder for a few weeks. and still she knew almost instantly that something wasn’t right.

i didn’t notice until i rewatched fire the way that she never leaves him alone with her. if mulder and phoebe are working on something, you can see scully. against the wall, peeking around the door, pacing in the hallway. he tells her that she’s “off the hook,” that he’s not going to “put her through this” with “phoebe’s little mind games,” and she takes it upon herself to investigate phoebe’s case herself, until she solves it and phoebe can go the fuck home.

girlbosses catch serial murderers singlehandedly to get their best friend’s shitty ex away from them.

when phoebe was around, scully is passive aggressive as hell. constantly hanging around and making little quips and mocking her accent.

when diana shows up? five years later? she’s just aggressive.

she said nah, we aren’t doing this again 😭😭

(one of my favorite scully moments is when she snaps “and not just because i think that woman is a….well, you know what i think that woman is” and mulder is just like “no you hide your feelings sooo well” lmfao)

i really do think meeting phoebe so early in their partnership informs a lot about the way scully reacts to his exposure and relationship to other people throughout the series. she really doesn’t trust a soul around him.

i always think of this line from madness by kittenscully (a post-syzygy fic, addressing the detective white incident):

“A surge of righteous indignation at the notion makes her sit up straighter, and she bites her tongue to avoid a very unpleasant comment from slipping out. As always, she thinks of Phoebe, of his wide, trusting eyes.”

diana was scary levels of manipulative and violating. but diana loved mulder, scully knew that and used that to plead with her in the end.

phoebe didn’t care about anything but playing with fire. she got off on scaring him, crossed state lines just to fuck with his head and hurt him, just like in their relationship a decade earlier. mulder knew this, he knew from the start what she was doing and what she wanted, and he helped her anyway. he praised her anyway. he connected with her and invested in her anyway.

y’all know i’m always thinking about the script note about phoebe’s coldness “eliciting some old need in him to have her affection.”

by the time diana came back around, scully had sat on the floor of a hotel and watched phoebe smile and shake hands with bureaucrats while mulder couldn’t breathe.

scully had stood in the next room when his questions to his mother got him little more than a slap to the face.

it’s different with diana because there’s a lot more history and connection there, and because at that point there is heartbreak and jealousy on scully’s side (when phoebe was in town, she hung around in doorways. when diana reaches for mulder’s hand, she turns around and holds back tears in the car.)

it’s a difficult position for both of them. he doesn’t know how to do anything but appease and trust and be loyal, to help whoever asks. he doesn’t care if it hurts him, he’s been groomed his whole life for that, to feel like he deserves it.

it makes scully crazy. he’s her best friend. she can’t believe anyone would look at that kind of softhearted hope and want to exploit it or crush it, rather than look up to it, follow it, nurture it.

and it hurts!! it hurts to watch him fall back into these traps, and especially with diana, it hurts to feel that your input and relationship doesn’t matter enough to have influence. to not be listened to, to feel like you’re not being chosen.

she doesn’t know that he went to search diana’s apartment after she told him not to trust her. she just heard, “i know her. you don’t. scully, you’re reaching.” and watched him leave.

it’s just this perfect crossroads of each of their most vulnerable spots. scully wants to protect him, always, and she also wants to be chosen.

mulder has to stand by his allegiances, to seek ‘affection’ in cruelty, to play his role in the larger scheme. this is what CSM knew when he recruited diana into the conspiracy, and he knows because he “created” it.

you can’t judge either of them, they’re both following their natures, and furthering the narrative they were chosen for.

(until scully stands in front of diana and begs, “i just want you to think…stand there in front of me, look me in the eye”…and breaks the whole thing down.)

#TLDR children weaned on poison etc etc #LOVE WON IN THE END!! always. scully’s ferocious devotion won in the end #asks #scully baby i hope you got your bubble baths that year #it’s hard. because he Does listen to her and internalize her input #but he also Needs to not lose these last connections and these last people who ‘cared’ about him and to please them and to be what they want #i mean he was like 18 when he met phoebe. ‘she was brilliant. i got in over my head.’#he and diana were together (married) (to Me) for like 5 years #during one of the most vulnerable periods of his life. and his transition into discovering the files and doing therapy and leaving the VCU #Sigh #i know scully would zip him safely in her pocket if she could but like she also feels so insecure and disregarded when diana is around #so it’s like both her Constant protectiveness and her own intimate emotional response. it’s just a lot.#i love season 6 #‘bum a cigarette agent fowley?’#👌👌👌#Diana

115 notes · View notes