#But they're fundamentally on opposite sides at first & consider each other someone they | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

outisgivingpac · 8 months

Text

Pick-a-card: What kind of lover you are attracting?

Hello everyone, I'm back (kind of?) to deliver my first love reading ever! 👀🔥 This PAC will look into what kind of romantic (but also platonic) relationship you are inviting to your life with your current energy. Basically, we will see what personality traits you like about each other and what makes your relationship work. Be mindful that your energy changes over time, and with this collective reading, only take what resonates 🍀✨

If you want to book a personal reading with me, check out my pinned post. There you will also find the masterlist of all my free PAC! Enjoy~ 🌞

🐱Pick a pile/image you feel most drawn to🐱

Pile 1. Pile 2. Pile 3.

Pile 1: Queen of Swords, 6 of Pentacles, 4 of Swords

First of all, the kind of lover you're attracting are drawn to you by your sharp wits, as well as your fierce and independent nature. Where others find your rough exterior difficult to deal with, this person finds charm and wisdom. They like how argumentive and opinionated you are, like you won't be afraid to speak up for the underdogs and can be real protective around your loved ones. In turn, you might like this person for their generous and forgiving nature. Though their ways of living might trigger your protective instinct at first, like how could someone be so comfortable laying their heart bare? What if someone take advantages of them?? (Lol) But soon enough, you will learn their kindness didn't come from naivety, but their rich life experiences; they are someone emotionally mature and capable to give and receive love from a healthy headspace. As someone who had to navigate through life with careful calculation and always on alert, you will grow to trust this person to mean what they say and be genuine with you throughout your relationship. Fundamentally, you both see each other as a sanctuary. You know the other got your back in the end of the day, and got to "recharge" just by spending time together. Platonic or romantic, this seems to be a wholesome connection that helps you stay grounded during turbulent time.

Pile 2: 4 of Cups reversed, Page of Swords, The Moon reversed

The first thing came up when I read your cards is how it feels like you guys meet/interact with each other in a highly specific environment. Meaning, you don't neccessarily have access to each other's personal life or have constant communication, but just expect to see each other at particular time and space. You could easily be classmate or colleagues, or are sharing a mutual friend. I hear some of you would refer to each other to a third person with a really specific nickname, for example "that guy who takes double expresso" or sth like that. You like this person because they're a social-butterfly with a lotta energy. They often poke fun with you and are fairly successful. On their side, they find you interesting, despite the first impression of you being quite standoffish. You managed to take them aback several times with some witty/funny remarks. They think you have a lot to offer, long as others put effort to help break the ice. This relationship seems to be of a casual and light-hearted nature. It sounds strange but, it just works when neither parties know where they are going, nor do they try too hard to stir the boat somewhere specific. It's the kind loose committal relationship that deepen slowly overtime, like the sediment at the bottom of a river.

Pile 3: 2 of Swords, Strength, Temperance reversed

The person you're attracting seems to be someone you would usually consider as "out of your league". Unlike you who always strike for a harmony in a group, this person has a strong and upfront personality, though I won't describe them as unkind or selfish. Quite the opposite, they are incredibly wise and have a big heart of an advocate. In your eyes, they have accomplished a lot of admirable goals with their talent second to their tenacity and hard work. Comparing to them, you might find yourself too indecisive and easily flustered to step out of your comfort zone. On the other hand, they see you as someone with many contradictions and complex inner world. In conversation with you, they can tell how you have many different interests and potentials, yet more often than not surrender your choices to the circumstances or other people. On the surface, it seems like a "I can fix them" kind of attraction, but at the same time I don't sense a strong desire to force themselves in your life from this person. In other words, they are not someone who would force others to change in order to match them. But they will wait and see if you will break out of the comfort zone, or from the harmony of "how things should be", with your own conviction. If anything, they want to be one of your conscious choice, not an convenient option due to the circumstances.

#tarot #tarot community #tarot reading #intuitive readings #pac #pick a card #pick a card reading

567 notes · View notes

lovegrowsart · 2 months

Text

tui & la, yin & yang, and zuko & katara (+aang)

okay. i'm not interested in shipping slapfights, but i came across a specific pro-k/a argument and my mind simply won't let me rest until i write these thoughts down, so here's some meta about zutara symbolism and how, even if it was bryke's intention or retcon or whatever tf, symbolism related to complementary and interconnected opposites and balance, simply doesn't work with k/a's canon relationship dynamic.

first of all, the argument i saw that tui and la in the show are somehow not meant to be taken as yin and yang (or at the very least a representation of it) is... a very interesting one, considering they're designed to look exactly like the yin yang symbol, and koh literally describes them as such. he isn't just bringing up yin & yang because tui and la are, like, similar to them? but because that's what they are.

koh says tui and la are push and pull (the literal translation of tui and la from chinese) to describe what they are, and then says they are good and evil, life and death, yin and yang, to furthur describe the inherent nature of their relationship. this is a kid's show. the symbolism is meant to be this easy to parse. who is watching the koi fish merge into the literal yin yang symbol, quite possibly one of the most recognisable symbols in the entire world, and thinking "oh, but they're not really meant to be yin & yang!"? some k/a shippers, apparently.

now, you might say, but yin & yang aren't good and evil? isn't that a simplification or misconception of the concept? and yes, actually, i would agree with you, good and evil isn't exactly how i would describe yin & yang to someone (though there are schools of thought that do assign a moral dimension to yin & yang!), but if i was writing, again, a kid's show and wanted to get my point across with simple yet evocative language about the relationship between these two spirits symbolised by an complex and abstract real life spiritual and philosophical concept, i can see how "good and evil" works to explain yin (la) as negative and yang (tui) as positive. the text and visual language of the show intentionally links the ideas inherent to yin & yang to tui and la. you can't just retroactively separate them because you want tui & la to represent k/a, but you know that doesn't work if they're yin & yang because canon k/a just doesn't fit with that kind of symbolism.

the k/a argument that tui & la represent katara and aang just fundamentally doesn't work with how both are presented in the show. tui (the moon) is the white koi fish - the light side, representing yang, which is active, masculine, postive, fire etc. la is the black koi fish (the ocean) - the dark side, representing passivity, feminine, negative, water etc.

katara as the moon and aang as the ocean just doesn't map onto the specific symbolism evoked by how tui & la are presented visually and thematically in the show. tui & la are specifically described to balance each other, which just... isn't how k/a's canon dynamic is written. "aang gets angry like the ocean spirit and katara as the moon spirit pulls him back and calms him down" isn't how i would write or describe a balanced relationship, it's what i would call katara being aang's emotional crutch for three seasons with little support in return to "balance" them. k/a's canon dynamic is notably imbalanced, so if even symbolism pertaining to balance was meant to represent their relationship, bryke and the writers did a pretty piss poor job of making that symbolism present in their actual relationship. it's also a complete mischaracterisation of the yin & yang symbolism that is, again, explicitly tied into tui & la per the text and visual language of the show. not only is "katara and aang balance each other and when they're apart, they act recklessly and have to pull each other back from the brink" a reading of their relationship not particularly supported by the text of the show, that's also just... not how tui & la/yin & yang are actually characterised in the show or in real life.

furthermore, the argument that "good and evil" as it relates to tui & la and yin & yang doesn't work for z/k because "zuko isn't evil in the end" or "katara isn't evil at all" completely misses the forest for the trees in how the symbolism ties into the show's overarching themes and z/k's relationship specifically. the storytelling here is much more metaphorical and psychological than it is literal.

the whole point of yin & yang is that they are interconnected opposites, simultaneous unity and duality - zuko is as capable of bad as he is of good, and in turn, so is katara. this is true of every other person and character, of course, but zuko and katara specifically have important story beats in their respective arcs where they are shown the "light side" (zuko learning from the dragons) and "dark side" (katara learning bloodbending) of their respective elements (and their elements only compound their yin & yang symbolism, since fire and water are regarded as physical/natural manifestions of the yin & yang cosmological cycle). one of the most notable story beats of katara's arc is when she explores her "dark side" by going after yon rha (ymmv on how "dark" that really is, but i'm going with how the show presents this part of katara's journey), which is something the other members of the gaang (besides zuko ofc) don't really go through in their arcs - aang, sokka, and toph aren't written to confront the duality of their nature, their worldview, their moral character, their bending, the way that zuko and katara are.

part of me is struggling to even explain this because it's just, idk, really obvious to me. zuko and katara are fire and water, "evil" and "good" (they literally face off in the b1 and b2 finales! either of their literal and actual morality isn't actually all that relevant to how the symbolism works), of course they're yin & yang? and since tui & la are how yin & yang in the atla universe is presented to the audience, then that means they are tui & la too (symbolically, obviously, not literally).

yin & yang fundamentally transform each other the way zuko and katara do. for every advance, there's a retreat; for every rise, there's a fall. book 1; zuko falls, katara rises. book 2; katara falls, zuko rises. book 3; zuko falls, katara rises. you rise with the moon, i rise with the sun. an eternal dance as the both of them learn and grow and confront their own false dichotimies, learning how a world of seemingly opposing and contrary forces is, in fact, interconnected and interdependent.

like. c'mon.

#zutara #antikataang #i guess lmao i just don't think this argument holds any water re: their relationship #and i frankly don't care whatever bryke have said or retconned i haven't cared abt what those men have said about their own show for years #i care about what is actually presented in the text and visual language of the show #meta*#atla critical #just to be safe again

128 notes · View notes

cult-of-artemis-and-athena · 12 days

Text

youtube

I agree with Kayla Shaye's fundamental point: you do not owe anyone your health, you do not owe anyone your body. The issue of whether women have self-ownership, and to what degree, pre-dates feminism to the dawn of civilization. The nature of human reproduction is at the heart of this. Especially in a tough ecology full of war, enslavement, starvation, disease, etc. the success of a civilization depended on the ability of that civilization to out-breed those around it.

I can empathize with the mind-frame of some bronze age chieftain who's hyper-focused on strictly the bottom two layers of the hierarchy of needs. Self-ownership - for men and women - is subjugated to the needs of the tribe. The idea of Christians' bodies (IIRC Islam and Judaism also have this) belonging to Yahweh/Allah mirrors the very-common idea at that time, that commoners' bodies belong to the ruler.

If the civilization didn't use all (non-ruling-class) male bodies for economic production and warfare, and all female bodies for making more people, their alternative was that someone who was better at making people do those things would kill all their men and enslave all their women.

The Enlightenment made men sovereign individuals, all created equal, and with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness granted by their creator - the basis for the American and French revolutions - but there was some debate during that time whether that concept also applied to women. If men were no longer the property of the king, applying the same logic to women would lead to, depending on your view, either first wave feminism or a new form of proto-feminism (in my view, there's been cross-cultural proto-feminism for all of written human history).

You take the second wave of feminism, and you have feminists going up against the persistent idea that women exist for society, whereas men exist for themselves, and everyone in society has a responsibility to provide guide rails for women in a way that they don't for men. Men aren't off the hook entirely, since they can be drafted - an ideological fossil - but when a man fucks up his own life, it's framed such that he unilaterally made the decision and comprehended and accepted the consequences. When women fuck up their lives, it's like she ignorantly blundered, or was mislead by some opportunistic rapscallion, into being a victim of a tragedy beyond her comprehension..if only someone had done something *staples hand to forehead* the poor angel would be safe and sound.

Relating this tangent to body positivity, I don't think the body positivity movement has progressed anything. If anything - considering there's people getting very emotionally invested and indignant over what other women are doing with their bodies - I think it's just horseshoed the same idea of women's bodies being communal property to the opposite ideological side, instead of abolishing the concept entirely. Conservative men getting upset that some women get tattoos, and leftist women getting upset that some women lost weight, are not the opposite of each other.

For a while I thought body positivity just lost the plot, because I had assumed it was about not feeling unworthy of basic dignity because you don't fit society's ideal to a small or large degree, and promoting the idea that people shouldn't be dehumanized based on their appearance. Who in the world would disagree with that? That, however, is the unproblematic public persona of something that is actually revolutionary Marxist theory applied to weight and attractiveness. When someone who's down the body positivity iceberg, who actually knows what they're talking about, speaks with apparent animosity against thin people, pretty people, etc. "thin" and "pretty" are dynamically equivalent to "bourgeoisie". If you understand Marxism 101, the animosity is completely intentional and ideologically correct. People who understand this position also understand that people who think normally have a problem with the idea of making an enemy out of a whole class of people, so when recruiting, activists can't say that up-front at risk of alienating people. Instead normies are initiated with ideas no one in their right mind would disagree with, and then they're given breadcrumbs that move them further down the iceberg without them really noticing. When women who were doing body positivity activism lose weight, they've essentially become counter-revolutionaries. Whenever someone defends them like, "If they're allowed to be fat, they're allowed to be thin. They can do what they want, it's their body," that's a Liberal point of view.

By viewing women (or other classes as people) inherently as victims, I don't view this as a rejection of a Fascistic view of them as a subhuman class. It's just a different view of the same dynamic, and that's why I don't think body positivity is progress. Another commonality between Marxism and Fascism is collectivism, so both require individuals to dedicate their bodies toward ideological goals while condemning individualism where it doesn't further the ideology. Any movement that advocates women to make objectively unhealthy lifestyle choices, or shames them from getting healthier, is inherently misogynistic. I think any ideology that claims to be pro-woman should prioritize women's health. There is a large component of feminism that are very concerned with women's health issues which is really good, but there is also some strains of feminism that seem to have an idea of "Become as unattractive as possible to own da menz." "I thought you said no one owes anyone else health or their body." Individually, people should be able to do what they want - and be reasonably assumed to have agency, regardless of sex - if they're not harming other people with it. However, getting your eyeballs tattooed or being 400 lbs and living your life for yourself is different from intentionally organizing a religion or ideological movement where you use coercion (making an "us vs them" narrative, using social shaming, encouraging people to cut off anyone who questions their decision) and misinformation (saying something risky is actually totally safe or actually-healthy, only using sources from the same ideological group, forbidding engagement with opposing views) to influence other people to do the same thing.

Here's an example that comes from the right -- a number of men's fitness/lifestyle grifters use steroids while promoting an image of idealized masculinity, often with socio-political baggage, like "Buy my Product so you can be a Real Man like me and not a beta cuck contributing to the fall of Western Civilization." It's arguably worse when they say they don't use steroids because it makes these men think, "I'm doing everything Liver King says and don't look like him. I must be a low-T beta physiquelet." Rich Piana, on the other hand, while also idolized by a lot of men, had the balls to say "I use steroids and know it's destroying my health, but this is what I want to do even if I die doing it." (spoiler: he died)

In a similar way, the body positivity movement preys on people's (women's, mostly) insecurities, and makes them worse by constantly exposing them to a victimhood narrative while sabotaging things they could actually do, in most cases, to relieve the insecurities. There's actually a lot of money being made off selling body positivity -- is it at all sus that Unilever promotes body positivity with Dove while also owning brands that sell cereal, ice cream, and soda, but also selling Lynx deodorant with sexually objectifying commercials. Body positivity also sells well in the attention economy, and it does better the more people (mostly women) identify with the content.

#feminism #gender equality #body postivity #grifters #camille paglia #modernity #extremism #classical liberalism #self-ownership #personal agency #Youtube

0 notes