fae-morrigan - Tumblr blog

fae-morrigan · 6 hours

Text

Horses: Since There Seems To Be A Knowledge Gap

I'm going to go ahead and preface this with: I comment pretty regularly on clips and photos featuring horses and horseback riding, often answering questions or providing explanations for how or why certain things are done. I was a stable hand and barrel racer growing up, and during my 11 year tenure on tumblr, Professional Horse Commentary is a very niche, yet very necessary, subject that needs filling. Here are some of the literary and creative gaps I've noticed in well meaning (and very good!) creators trying to portray horses and riding realistically that... well, most of you don't seem to even be aware of, because you wouldn't know unless you worked with horses directly!

Some Of The Most Common Horse + Riding Mistakes I See:

-Anybody can ride any horse if you hold on tight enough/have ridden once before.

Nope. No, no, no, no, aaaaaaaand, no. Horseback riding has, historically, been treated as a life skill taught from surprisingly young ages. It wasn't unusual in the pre-vehicular eras to start teaching children as young as 4 to begin to ride, because horses don't come with airbags, and every horse is different. For most adults, it can take months or years of regular lessons to learn to ride well in the saddle, and that's just riding; not working or practicing a sport.

Furthermore, horses often reject riders they don't know. Unless a horse has been trained like a teaching horse, which is taught to tolerate riders of all skill and experience levels, it will take extreme issue with having some random person try to climb on their back. Royalty, nobility, and the knighted classes are commonly associated with the "having a favorite special horse" trope, because it's true! Just like you can have a particularly special bond with a pet or service animal that verges on parental, the same can apply with horses. Happy horses love their owners/riders, and will straight-up do their best to murder anyone that tries to ride them without permission.

-Horses are stupid/have no personality.

There isn't a more dangerous assumption to make than assuming a horse is stupid. Every horse has a unique personality, with traits that can be consistent between breeds (again, like cat and dog breeds often have distinct behavior traits associated with them), but those traits manifest differently from animal to animal.

My mother had an Arabian horse, Zipper, that hated being kicked as a signal to gallop. One day, her mom and stepdad had a particularly unpleasant visitor; an older gentleman that insisted on riding Zipper, but refused to listen to my mother's warnings never to kick him. "Kicking" constitutes hitting the horse's side(s) with your heels, whether you have spurs on or not. Most horses only need a gentle squeeze to know what you want them to do.

Anyway, Zipper made eye-contact with my mom, asking for permission. He understood what she meant when she nodded at him. He proceeded to give this asshole of a rider road rash on the side of the paddock fence and sent him to the emergency room. He wouldn't have done it if he didn't have the permission from the rider he respected, and was intelligent enough to ask, "mind if I teach this guy a lesson?" with his eyes, and understand, "Go for it, buddy," from my mom in return.

-Riding bareback is possible to do if you hold onto the horse's mane really tight.

Riding a horse bareback (with no saddle, stirrups, or traditional harness around the horse's head) is unbelievably difficult to learn, particularly have testicles and value keeping them. Even professional riders and equestrians find ourselves relying on tack (the stuff you put on a horse to ride it) to stay stable on our horses, even if we've been riding that particular horse for years and have a very positive, trusting relationship.

Horses sweat like people do. The more they run, the more their hair saturates with sweat and makes staying seated on them slippery. Hell, an overworked horse can sweat so heavily that the saddle slips off its back. It's also essential to brush and bathe a horse before it's ridden in order to keep it healthier, so their hair is often quite slick from either being very clean or very damp. In order to ride like that, you have to develop the ability to synchronize your entire body's rhythm's with the rhythm of the horse's body beneath you, and quite literally move as one. Without stirrups, most people can't do it, and some people can never master bareback riding no matter how many years they spend trying to learn.

-You can be distracted and make casual conversation while a horse is standing untethered in the middle of a barn or field.

At every barn I've ever worked at, it's been standard practice with every single horse, regardless of age or temperament, to secure their heads while they're being tacked up or tacked down. The secures for doing this are simple ropes with clips that are designed to attach to the horse's halter (the headwear for a horse that isn't being ridden; they have no bit that goes in the horse's mouth, and no reins for a rider to hold) on metal O rings on either side of the horse's head. This is not distressing to the horse, because we give them plenty of slack to turn their heads and look around comfortably.

The problem with trying to tack up an unrestrained horse while chatting with fellow stable hands or riders is that horses know when you're distracted! And they often try to get away with stuff when they know you're not looking! In a barn, a horse often knows where the food is stored, and will often try to tiptoe off to sneak into the feed room.

Horses that get into the feed room are often at a high risk of dying. While extremely intelligent, they don't have the ability to throw up, and they don't have the ability to tell that their stomach is full and should stop eating. Allowing a horse into a feed/grain room WILL allow it to eat itself to death.

Other common woes stable hands and riders deal with when trying to handle a horse with an unrestrained head is getting bitten! Horses express affection between members of their own herd, and those they consider friends and family, through nibbling and surprisingly rough biting. It's not called "horseplay" for nothing, because during my years working with horses out in the pasture, it wasn't uncommon at all for me to find individuals with bloody bite marks on their withers (that high part on the middle of the back of their shoulders most people instinctively reach for when they try to get up), and on their backsides. I've been love-bitten by horses before, and while flattering, they hurt like hell on fleshy human skin.

So, for the safety of the horse, and everybody else, always make a show of somehow controlling the animal's head when hands-on and on the ground with them.

-Big Horse = War Horse

Startlingly, the opposite is usually the case! Draft and carriage horses, like Percherons and Friesians, were never meant to be used in warfare. Draft horses are usually bred to be extremely even-tempered, hard to spook, and trustworthy around small children and animals. Historically, they're the tractors of the farm if you could afford to upgrade from oxen, and were never built to be fast or agile in a battlefield situation.

More importantly, just because a horse is imposing and huge doesn't make it a good candidate for carrying heavy weights. A real thing that I had to be part of enforcing when I worked at a teaching ranch was a weight limit. Yeah, it felt shitty to tell people they couldn't ride because we didn't have any horses strong enough to carry them due to their weight, but it's a matter of the animal's safety. A big/tall/chonky horse is more likely to be built to pull heavy loads, but not carry them flat on their spines. Horses' muscular power is predominantly in their ability to run and pull things, and too heavy a rider can literally break a horse's spine and force us to euthanize it.

Some of the best war horses out there are from the "hot blood" family. Hot blooded horses are often from dry, hot, arid climates, are very small and slight (such as Arabian horses), and are notoriously fickle and flighty. They're also a lot more likely to paw/bite/kick when spooked, and have even sometimes been historically trained to fight alongside their rider if their rider is dismounted in combat; kicking and rearing to keep other soldiers at a distance.

-Any horse can be ridden if it likes you enough.

Just like it can take a lifetime to learn to ride easily, it can take a lifetime of training for a horse to comfortably take to being ridden or taking part in a job, like pulling a carriage. Much like service animals, horses are typically trained from extremely young ages to be reared into the job that's given to them, and an adult horse with no experience carrying a rider is going to be just as scared as a rider who's never actually ridden a horse.

Just as well, the process of tacking up a horse isn't always the most comfortable experience for the horse. To keep the saddle centered on the horse's back when moving at rough or fast paces, it's essential to tighten the belly strap (cinch) of the saddle as tightly as possible around the horse's belly. For the horse, it's like wearing a tight corset, chafes, and even leaves indents in their skin afterward that they love having rinsed with water and scratched. Some horses will learn to inflate their bellies while you're tightening the cinch so you can't get it as tight as it needs to be, and then exhale when they think you're done tightening it.

When you're working with a horse wearing a bridle, especially one with a bit, it can be a shocking sensory experience to a horse that's never used a bit before. While they lack a set of teeth naturally, so the bit doesn't actually hurt them, imagine having a metal rod shoved in your mouth horizontally! Unless you understand why it's important for the person you care about not dying, you'd be pretty pissed about having to keep it in there!

-Horseback riding isn't exercise.

If you're not using every muscle in your body to ride with, you're not doing it right.

Riding requires every ounce of muscle control you have in your entire body - although this doesn't mean it wasn't realistic for people with fat bodies to stay their weight while also being avid riders; it doesn't mean the muscles aren't there. To stay on the horse, you need to learn how it feels when it moves at different gaits (walk, trot, canter, gallop), how to instruct it to switch leads (dominant legs; essential for precise turning and ease of communication between you and the horse), and not falling off. While good riders look like they're barely moving at all, that's only because they're good riders. They know how to move so seamlessly with the horse, feeling their movements like their own, that they can compensate with their legs and waists to not bounce out of the saddle altogether or slide off to one side. I guarantee if you ride a horse longer than 30 minutes for the first time, your legs alone will barely work and feel like rubber.

-Horses aren't affectionate.

Horses are extraordinarily affectionate toward the right people. As prey animals, they're usually wary of people they don't know, or have only recently met. They also - again, like service animals - have a "work mode" and a "casual mode" depending upon what they're doing at the time. Horses will give kisses like puppies, wiggle their upper lips on your hair/arms to groom you, lean into neck-hugs, and even cuddle in their pasture or stall if it's time to nap and you join them by leaning against their sides. If they see you coming up from afar and are excited to see you, they'll whinny and squeal while galloping to meet you at the gate. They'll deliberately swat you with their tails to tease you, and will often follow you around the pasture if they're allowed to regardless of what you're up to.

-Riding crops are cruel.

Only cruel people use riding crops to hurt their horses. Spurs? I personally object to, because any horse that knows you well doesn't need something sharp jabbing them in the side for emphasis when you're trying to tell them where you want them to go. Crops? Are genuinely harmless tools used for signalling a horse.

I mean, think about it. Why would crops be inherently cruel instruments if you need to trust a horse not to be afraid of you and throw you off when you're riding it?

Crops are best used just to lightly tap on the left or right flank of the horse, and aren't universally used with all forms of riding. You'll mainly see crops used with English riding, and they're just tools for communicating with the horse without needing to speak.

-There's only one way to ride a horse.

Not. At. All. At most teaching ranches, you'll get two options: Western, or English, because they tend to be the most popular for shows and also the most common to find equipment for. English riding uses a thinner, smaller saddle, narrower stirrups, and much thinner bridles. I, personally, didn't like English style riding because I never felt very stable in such a thin saddle with such small stirrups, and didn't start learning until my mid teens. English style riding tends to focus more on your posture and deportment in the saddle, and your ability to show off your stability and apparent immovability on the horse. It was generally just a bit too stiff and formal for me.

Western style riding utilizes heavier bridles, bigger saddles (with the iconic horn on the front), and broader stirrups. Like its name may suggest, Western riding is more about figuring out how to be steady in the saddle while going fast and being mobile with your upper body. Western style riding is generally the style preferred for working-type shows, such as horseback archery, gunning, barrel racing, and even rodeo riding.

-Wealthy horse owners have no relationship with their horses.

This is loosely untrue, but I've seen cases where it is. Basically, horses need to feel like they're working for someone that matters to them in order to behave well with a rider and not get impatient or bored. While it's common for people to board horses at off-property ranches (boarding ranches) for cost and space purposes, it's been historically the truth that having help is usually necessary with horses at some point. What matters is who spends the most time with the animal treating it like a living being, rather than a mode of transport or a tool. There's no harm in stable hands handling the daily upkeep; hay bales and water buckets are heavy, and we're there to profit off the labor you don't want or have the time to do. You get up early to go to work; we get up early to look after your horses. Good owners/boarders visit often and spend as much of their spare time as they can with spending quality work and playtime with their horses. Otherwise, the horses look to the stable hands for emotional support and care.

So, maybe you're writing a knight that doesn't really care much for looking after his horse, but his squire is really dedicated to keeping up with it? There's a better chance of the horse having a more affectionate relationship with the squire thanks to the time the squire spends on looking after it, while the horse is more likely to tolerate the knight that owns it as being a source of discipline if it misbehaves. That doesn't mean the knight is its favorite person. When it comes to horses, their love must be earned, and you can only earn it by spending time with them hands-on.

-Horses can graze anywhere without concern.

This is a mistake that results in a lot of premature deaths! A big part of the cost of owning a horse - even before you buy one - is having the property that will be its pasture assessed for poisonous plants, and having those plants removed from being within the animal's reach. This is an essential part of farm upkeep every year, because horses really can't tell what's toxic and what isn't. One of the reasons it's essential to secure a horse when you aren't riding it is to ensure it only has a very limited range to graze on, and it's your responsibility as the owner/rider to know how to identify dangerous plants and keep your horses away from them.

There's probably more. AMA in my askbox if you have any questions, but that's all for now. Happy writing.

571 notes · View notes

fae-morrigan · 7 hours

Text

me consuming any media ever: wow this is such a beautiful metaphor for the disabled experience

56 notes · View notes

fae-morrigan · 9 hours

Note

PLEASE share your thoughts on Gamorran/Parousian gender roles!!!

THIS IS GONNA BE A LONG ONE CAUSE IM GONNA REALLY GO FOR IT, OKAY OKAY

So first I want to establish some things about Gamorra/Parousia and its history for those who haven't read the absurd amount I have: Why do I call it both?

Simply put, its because Gamorra is actually the colonized name of the country. Though its origin varies from text to text and iteration to iteration, generally, the history of Jay's home country goes like this:

It was Parousia for a long time, with native Parousians occupying the land and particularly claiming home within the mountainous terrain of the island(s? its unclear what Gamorra's land mass is like)

During the early twentieth century, the Japanese clan of Gamorra, usually helmed by Kaizen Gamorra, takes over the island, renames it Gamorra after himself, and founds a dictatorship over the island. This involves the usual colonialism hallmarks of restricting Parousian land territory and a resistance movement (parousian liberation front) and eventually the island moves into becoming a democracy. President Yumiko Gamorra takes over after her father and welcomes American banks and financial influence.

Once the clan Gamorra serves their purpose, american-sponsored dictator Henry Bendix takes over and the island essentially becomes a colony for the west.

(Waller vs. Wildstorm, issue 1)

Obviously, their history very closely resembles the history of other groups that suffered under colonialism, namely people of the Korean peninsula and the Ainu people of japan. So, within this context- Parousia, and its people (The parousians or parou depending on how you'd want to singularize it), are likely considered and recognized as an indigenous group within universe.

I obviously headcanon Jay as being part of this group on his other parent's side, but that's another post! Right now we're talking about fictional cultures, baby.

So, what do we know? We know two things:

One, like I said in my previous post, women and men of the island tend to sort of uno-reverse the usual western gender roles around hair. Women keep their hair short, VERY short, and men are shown to be depicted with long hair: Its actually pretty apparent in the screenshot above that this at least generally true. Two: Birds. There's a thing about birds that Nicole Maines actively took the time to draw attention to.

So obviously this got me thinking: Okay, what if the hair thing is because they've based their cultural norms at least in part around birds?

It makes sense: Parousia is a warm climate, we're told it actively has jungles and what not, and in places like that there tend to be LOTS of birds. A lot of the colorful birds that have drastic sexual dimorphism tend to come from climates like that for a reason.

More than that, a lot of cultures tend to base their cultural and spiritual practices around whatever animal impacts their local ecosystems the most- not only do people everywhere be like staple crop and dumplings and what not, people also be like "hmm. Animal."

If birds are the most populous animal on the island, and they keep pests down, and they're both an available food source and an indicator of how well the environment is doing- it totally makes sense that Bird would be the Animal Of Choice.

Birds can have some really wacky sex dimorphism- Famously, their gender roles are pretty much entirely swapped from the "human norm" pushed by the west. Female birds tend to be dull in coloration. Male birds, famously, are extremely colorful and are the ones who are expected to pursue courtship. Notably, also, female birds will have shorter flight feathers in species (such as the quetzal) where they have long, flowy flight feathers.

So I'm thinking, generally, gender roles and tradition in Parousia reflect this. Men are expected to keep their hair long, women short. Clothing patterns and colors are brighter for men, while women wear largely browns, greys, and black. Jewelry and makeup is largely a male tradition, while any tattooing traditions are done for women before marriage. Men are the ones who are responsible for courtship, and perhaps even some aspect of homemaking/providing.

I have more specific ideas, but I'd have to draw it first!

#Sidenote: The bird thing is something I actually semi-predicted before the release of Dream Team and I am still unreasonably proud of myself #Idk why but Jay seems like hed lend himself well to bird symbolism and I kind of. Extrapolated that.#Also everything I said here is why I may draw Jay with big earrings and graphic eyeliner! The Culture #Jay nakamura #DC #Gamorra

5 notes · View notes

fae-morrigan · 9 hours

Text

12K notes · View notes

fae-morrigan · 12 hours

Text

On the topic of Jay Nakamura being the single most transgender character I've ever laid my eyes upon, I've got a lot of ideas and feelings about it so here we kind of go:

I think its incredibly likely that Gamorra/Parousia doesn't have the same gender roles as America. I've always thought, based on observation of what we see of the Gamorran people (namely Kaizen and Ro Rong, who have very long/very short hair respectively), they might have the kind of opposite gender expectations regarding hair that we're used to. Men typically keeping their hair long, women with short hair. That adds a bit of flavor towards Jay's hair not only getting longer as his appearances go on (he's rockin' a full mullet in the pride special for this year!) but also the fact that Bendix canonically forcibly shaved his head- robbing him of something that is likely a cultural gender signifier.

Jon is soooo supportive. Maybe a little too supportive. Jay's going to do his T shots in the morning and Jon's hovering over him like "Babe. Careful. Careful, babe. Babe- BABE CAREFUL-"

I think Jay socially transitioned young but took forever to pick a name. He told Sara he was a boy at age like, six, but then was like "ah goddamnit i need a name now" and dragged his feet for ages. His family called him a gender-nonspecific nickname for a long time as a result.

On that note, I think much like Jon was named after his grandfather, Jay named himself after his grandfather, too. Little bit of parallels.

Jay doesn't make it a secret he's a trans guy but for some fucking reason NOBODY notices. Jon found out on accident and was deeply apologetic for invading Jay's privacy, but Jay was like, THERE IS A GIANT TRANS FLAG HANGING ABOVE MY BED.

T hit him like a truck- his voice is deeper than even Jon's. Its actually kind of jarring to hear.

As is law with all trans guys, every lesbian takes one look at him and decides they're responsible for his safety as long as he's in their proximity.

#Someone ask me more about parousian/gamorran gender roles. I HAVE HEADCANONS #Also this is mostly unrelated but I think Sara Nakamura is a big ol lesbian so that last hc was like his birth right #It was destined or whatever #Jay Nakamura #jayjon #dc #soke #aosjk #superman #gossamer

8 notes · View notes

fae-morrigan · 12 hours

Note

I'm pushing you to talk about what you wanted to say in the last post as I enjoy reading your thoughts, so..... And actually, for me also, the similarities between Jay and Lois may speak to the fact that he will be a canon Jon couple and in the future, let's pray he gets his own comic as well as Lois. And I don't know if you're versed in Damian and Flatline's pairing, but she's somewhat similar to Talia, actually. Well, that's just my guesses and thoughts

Definitely! Flatline in particular has a lot in common with Talia, especially her new connection with Ra's. oOoOOooh ghooOOoOooosts

Okay, as for what I said in my last post: "There’s a side rant in the above about how what defines a character trait is not its existence but rather in what contexts the trait manifests, but that’s a different post I invite somebody to ask me about." I've talked about before in previous analysis, characters aren't just characters. Right, so, Jay's not just a guy, Jon's not just a guy, they exist in the narrative. They serve purpose in the narrative as a vehicle for story, which conveys shit like themes and ideas and what not. So like, for a basic example, Gatsby from The Great Gatsby. He's not just a guy who exists, he exists within the context of a story of a wealthy guy who is deeply unhappy and ends the story DEAD, which conveys the THEMES of yknow, how american capitalism sucks and wealth and class and decaying moral values yadda yadda that book was really gay for whatever reason So if you grant this to be true, which it is because there's been decades of literary study on this principle of fiction writing lol, then a character trait isn't just a character trait. It exists within the context of how it manifests in the story and how it adds to the narrative. Right?

Which makes sense, because if you're like me (autistic) and you've ever looked at a list of character traits to give your OC or whatever, you've probably gotten frustrated at how vague they all are. Like. "Quick to anger" Okay, at what, what makes them get angry fast? "Ambitious" In general or is there something specific they want? WHAT DO YOU MEAN???? Well, people, like you and me, we contain multitudes. We may be one thing in one situation, and another thing in another situation. This is also true of characters.

And this is true of Jay and Lois, too. They respond very differently to the same things, and the same way to different things. Because they're different characters, and they have different roles in the story. Different people, even if they may have shared traits.

I think, actually, Jon is a great example of this. Mainly, he has the same 'general' traits now as a young adult as he did when he was a kid, but because they manifest in different ways, it makes him feel like he's grown up. Like, he's still quick to anger, a bit brash and impulsive, BUT THE CONTEXTS IN WHICH THAT HAS TRUE HAS CHANGED! He's no longer getting angry at being told no he can't do something, he's thinking his way through fights and situations which used to be VERY untrue, he's not throwing hands with Damian anymore, BUT he's doing reckless shit like GETTING ARRESTED ON A WHIM and KIDNAPPING A U.S AMBASSADOR AND DRAGGING HIM INTO THE SKY because his anger now manifests primarily in situations of injustice.... which makes total sense considering he's now an abuse survivor. What contexts makes those traits come out in him have changed!

This principle coincidentally is kind of why I generally recommend, when you're discussing media with ANYONE, you should be a bit weary if they don't discuss the PLOT of what you're discussing at all and how it may impact a character. Because that shit matters, and neglecting it impacts your understanding!

#dc #analysis #asks

2 notes · View notes