notsosilentsister

[notsosilentsister]

“The fear of being fat is the fear of joining an underclass that you have so readily dismissed, looked down on, looked past, or found yourself grateful not to be a part of. It is a fear of being seen as slothful, gluttonous, greedy, unambitious, unwanted, and, worst of all, unlovable. Fat has largely been weaponized by straight-size people — the very people it seems to hurt most deeply. And ultimately, thin people are terrified of being treated the way they have so often seen fat people treated or even the way they’ve treated fat people themselves. In that way, thinness isn’t just a matter of health or beauty or happiness. It is a cultural structure of power and dominance.”

— Aubrey Gordon

[notsosilentsister]

[notsosilentsister]

Katja Oxman (German,b. 1942)

In Transition. 2004

aquatint

[notsosilentsister]

God's grace wanders at night among the fields of the soul

[notsosilentsister]

The discussions about the “gaze” and Jaime fans is interesting.. like as a gay man who loves him I suppose the way he’s described physically helps but I think another big part of it at least to me is the subtle themes of gender roles in his story. The whole dressing as Cersei thing for one thing is.. interesting but also how he’s this seemingly perfect Westerosi man at first but after he loses his hand he has to learn other skills not usually ascribed to masculine men in Westeros and is made to feel less of a man due to his disability. At least from my own experience and hearing from others we tend to have a complex relationship with our masculinity thanks to society. It makes his relationship with someone like Brienne who has a complex relationship with gender herself really interesting too. Anyways sorry for the rant lol just wanted to add my two cents.. btw love your takes on him!

thank you so much for sharing, this is really interesting! I think one of the problems with the whole 'male gaze v female gaze' is that the definitions can become over-reliant on interests and experiences typical of cishet men and cishet women. I find these parts you've mentioned of Jaime's story really interesting as well, and I guess it's just about what those parts mean to you based on your experiences w gender & sexuality and what they mean to me based on mine??

but I do think gender is a big part of the appeal to both female fans and the LGBTQ+ community more broadly, because it makes the experiences of a cishet man, supposed paragon of masculinity, more accessible and engaging.

I suppose it's also worth clarifying again that the 'gaze' doesn't purely mean whether one feels attracted to a character or not but rather it's about whether the framing of a character/theme etc feels accommodating to that audience based on their own views and experiences of the world, whether that's with gender, sexuality, family, culture, power, pain, whatever. really not easy to define and I think it's easy to just slap a 'gaze' label on something w very little justification cos what does it really truly mean but. sometimes. u just feel it

#in terms of romance I suspect the crippling of Jaime has a similar function as the crippling of Rochester

[notsosilentsister]

Friday Evening

[notsosilentsister]

[notsosilentsister]

I really like dungeon meshi, so take this bit of propaganda

#favs

[notsosilentsister]

If you're lamenting the fact that you used to be able to shoot through a 500-page novel in like a day when you were in middle school and now you can't, it's worth bearing in mind that a big part of that is because when you were in middle school, your reading comprehension sucked. Yes, mental health and the stresses of adult life can definitely be factors, but it's also the case that reading is typically more effortful as an adult because you've learned to Ponder The Implications. The material isn't just skimming over the surface of your brain anymore, and some of the spoons you used to spend on maximising your daily page count are now spent on actually thinking about what you're reading!

[notsosilentsister]

My mom has very easily spotted yet another AI-generated paper, because all AI does is vomit out grammatically-correct garbage about a given prompt. Essay-writing is a skill computers can't do successfully yet! And my mom actually reads the texts she assigns in her courses, so obviously she's going to know if AI shits out something completely made up about Foucault or whatever lol.

Anyway, if you can't even be bothered to write your own work at a university, you should fail the course 🤷‍♀️ You're not entitled to an A or a degree if you won't even do the work assigned to you lol. My mom chewed out her students this past week like "you're really going to risk getting a 4-credit F over fucking ChatGPT???"

#you only get out what you put in #cheating is fine if all you want is the piece of paper #but sometimes you might want to obtain the actual skills #because the piece of paper might get your foot into the door #but the skills will see you through when the chips are down #lots of people have apparently given up on the idea that college might teach actual skills which might be useful later #but that really hasn't been my experience #it's about certain intellectual habits #a systematic way of using your brain #you'll never practice if you outsource the brain-part to the A.I.

[notsosilentsister]

Anatomy of a Fall (Justine Triet, 2023)

I find myself wanting to talk about this film like the characters in it are real people, which can be the mark of a story that has accomplished its aims. So the question is, did she do it? What do I think, what are we supposed to think?

I think we're supposed to think it's ambiguous. The climax is all about the son making a choice - it's clearly not an easy one for him. He isn't just telling the truth. He's - if not inventing entirely - embellishing, at least. The testimony might not provide much admissible evidence, but emotionally, it's too neat of a resolution, fits too well with the lawyer's characterisation of the husband. So well that at first I thought, sure, this has to be true, how could a kid have come up with this? But of course this is the kid of two writers. He cannot know if his mother is innocent, but he decides to save her anyway.

Sandra herself doesn't agree with her lawyer's characterization of her husband. She tells him right in court, where others might hear, when that's the pillar of his defense, undermining her own best shot at being exculpated. (Are we supposed to think she is at a real risk of being found guilty? I don't know enough about French courts to evaluate that, but I would normally assume there's not much of a case, the accusation is based on too much conjecture. But that's not truly what's at stake here, isn't it, the real stakes are about losing her child's trust and love. The suspense of the court's verdict might be taking artistic licence to dramatize the suspense of the child's verdict.)

Sandra has enough of a self preservation instinct to lie about the bruise, but she hesitates to support the suicide theory. She still doesn't seem to be entirely on board even after she herself has disclosed her husband's first suicide attempt. She's muddling her own story, and it does seem like a mark of counter-productive honesty. It could be manipulation - maybe making her lawyer think she's innocent is just as, if not more, important to her as proving her innocence in court? But it does seem genuine to me. Sandra is presented as someone who almost can't help her honesty. She's straightforward, blunt, she won't smile at her husband's friends, when she's not feeling it, she's showing her true colours, even if it costs her.

I declared Sandra innocent in my mind pretty early in the proceedings, I just couldn't buy the motive. A fit of rage? I kinda never buy that as an explanation, killing seems often like a fairly drawn-out-affair, where you have to commit to see it through, and it certainly does seem so in the scenario presented, where she would have to lift his legs over the windowsill. Like, I could sometimes see someone inadvertently killing a victim they just intended to scare, because they misjudged their power, but it's also hard to see that as a strategy Sandra would use in this scenario. My guess is that fatal domestic violence (without financial motive) is usually either habitual intimidation with miscalculated impact, a honor killing, or the last resort of a cornered animal. And those other options also don't seem to fit Sandra, whose honor doesn't rely on controlling her husband and who always seems to have plenty of agency - if she's unhappy in her marriage, she speaks her mind, she takes a lover; if she's unhappy enough, why wouldn't she just get a divorce?

But isn't that just the textbook mistake? To believe that a strong woman like Sandra would not get trapped in an abusive relationship? (She always seems to have plenty of agency - except when he's ruining her interview with his awful music, and she can't just tell him to shut it off..). Because that husband sure is a piece of work. I'm immediately predisposed against him, before he's even shown on the scene, with his first aural emantion. I grieve for him, when I see the grief of his child. And then he's on my eternal shitlist again, when he accuses his wife of always forcing others to meet her on her own territory, when he's just roped her into moving to his home-town. Because he has to speak English with her instead of his native tongue French, when she doesn't get to speak her native tongue German to him either! The gall of it! Shit's so transparent, it's adding insult to injury.

So the husand certainly _tries_to trap her, in isolation, in guilt, but doesn't she see through it, when she reads him for filth in that climactic altercation? Shouldn't that be enough to break the spell? Would she have to resort to violence to escape?

For what it's worth, I think the laywer's theory is much more likely. Husband tries it, and fails, and sees that his guilt trips won't work on her much longer. He's the one who's cornered. And I wouldn't put it past him to pull a Gone Girl and choose his exit in a way that frames the wife he blames for all his miseries. Vindictive self-destruction. Also fits well with the injuries to his knuckles and the holes in the walls, for which we do, after all, see objective evidence. But maybe I would believe any theory presented by Swann Arlaud (who, since we're talking about imagining animals' heads on people's bodies, obviously looks like a stoat. A beautiful stoat. I've been keenly waiting for Sandra Hüller to say it in that last scene they have together, when she cradles his head and looks deep into his eyes. But this film is really all about witholding resolution.)

#anatomy of a fall #justine triet #sandra hüller #swann arlaud #film #film review #journal

[notsosilentsister]

one of the more valuable things I’ve learned in life as a survivor of a mentally unstable parent is that it is likely that no one has thought through it as much as you have. 

no, your friend probably has not noticed they cut you off four times in this conversation. 

no, your brother didn’t realize his music was that loud while you were studying. 

no, your bff or S.O. doesn’t remember that you’re on a tight deadline right now.

no, no one else is paying attention to the four power dynamics at play in your friend group right now.  

a habit of abused kids, especially kids with unstable parents, is the tendency to notice every little detail. We magnify small nuances into major things, largely because small nuances quickly became breaking points for parents. Managing moods, reading the room, perceiving danger in the order of words, the shift of body weight….it’s all a natural outgrowth of trying to manage unstable parents from a young age. 

Here’s the thing: most people don’t do that. I’m not saying everyone else is oblivious, I’m saying the over analysis of minor nuances is a habit of abuse. 

I have a rule: I do not respond to subtext. This includes guilt tripping, silent treatments, passive aggressive behavior, etc. I see it. I notice it. I even sometimes have to analyze it and take a deep breath and CHOOSE not to respond. Because whether it’s really there or just me over-reading things that actually don’t mean anything, the habit of lending credence to the part of me that sees danger in the wrong shift of body weight…that’s toxic for me. And dangerous to my relationships. 

The best thing I ever did for myself and my relationships was insist upon frank communication and a categorical denial of subtext. For some people this is a moral stance. For survivors of mentally unstable parents this is a requirement of recovery. 

#reblogging again because it bears repeating

[notsosilentsister]

i cannot tell you anything yet but i've been sitting on something for AGES and it's VERY exciting and i'm DYING because all i've wanted to do is gossip about it with you, my closest & best friends that i only sometimes throw a reblog at and then come in hot with a story about meeting BTS so everyone is like "wait, that bitch is STILL ALIVE?" well i am, and something very cool is happening, and i'm excited to tell you all about it in [checks notes] TWO DAYS AND SIXTEEN HOURS

[notsosilentsister]

So I watched Office Space (1999) tonight and honestly? Twenty-five years later, its take on what makes corporate drone life so horrible is sort of quaint. As though the height of corporate fuckery is uniforms, vacuous repetitive tasks, depriving you of a view, and subjecting you to the absurd, arbitrary whims of middle managers.

Quite frankly, that’s just a random Monday.

Comedy Central’s Corporate (2018-2020) is much more accurate—it taps into the sense that, in exchange for a steady paycheck, you buy into an enormous churning machine that grinds you down even as it takes huge bites out of the rest of the world. You can do nothing to stop this machine, just hope that you  wring some sense of meaning from it before it swallows you whole. Or even Apple’s Severance—which is about what someone else, someone you don’t know and will never know, agreed to on your behalf. There is no escaping from it or winning at it, no matter how many squeeze-balls or cozies they offer you. (What would “winning” even look like? You can’t even formulate an answer to that question, when your whole life is labyrinthine corridors and inexplicable mythology about the company’s founder.)

But really, I think of Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism—the idea that what we want, desperately, is someone to step up and take responsibility. Someone we can point to, blame, and till under with the new corn, etc. etc. But the center cannot hold and there is no falconer, there is no one. We orbit a gaping maw and it just won’t shut its jaws, let us go, and even if we murder the people shoving us towards the teeth it won’t help.

It’s not about company-mandated “flare.” Jennifer Aniston can pick another restaurant with a less prickish boss, of course she can—but she won’t escape. Neither will her manager. Neither will her manager’s manager, or the cattlefarmer, or the workers slaving to pick tomatoes, the workers at the factory that manufactures the buns, or the copywriting intern who gets coffee for the asshole who writes a flimsy knockoff of WHERE’S THE BEEF. The maw is hungry forever, it will demand to be sated forever, it will never die. There is no escape.

[notsosilentsister]

when will they make euphoria for girls who were depressed and never went outside and also never had sex in secondary school and were just obsessed with weird niche subjects

[notsosilentsister]

[notsosilentsister]