#all because you're gone | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ratcandy · 2 months

Text

also am I interpreting Shamura as a follower correctly Have they almost completely lost their memories? With only brief glimpses coming through here and there?

because that is Devastating, right. Like, all around. Surely someone else has realized this right.

how is Kallamar going to reconcile for asking Shamura be killed first. how is Nari going to have any conversation about anything at all

Does Shamura even remember who any of them are?? I mean they remember Narinder to some extent (referring to him when Aym and Baal are revived) but what of the youngest like Leshy? Who they had the least time to know when they were still a Bishop?

and again with Nari . He definitely seemed to respect Shamura the most (as in his opinions on the rest of his siblings are not all that high), even going silent when brought silk from their domain rather than making any sort of snarky comment . Asking if they wept when they were slaughtered and now they're here. But they don't remember anything. Or perhaps only remember small things for brief moments

and it was THEM who influenced Nari, it was THEM who asked for him to be chained, it was THEM who led to ALL OF THIS. and now. Now what. Now there's nothing that CAN be said. There's no forgiveness that can be shared. There's no explanations to be given. Narinder is furious for the betrayal they cast upon him but what can he do. How can he express that when the Shamura he knew is barely there

(and not to mention HE was the one to PUT THEM into that state)

Like on one hand they now get to exist in an almost blissful ignorance, no longer weighed down by grief and regret for all they'd done, but on the other. like

They must be so confused. And to some extent maybe frustrated. They appeared in the middle of nowhere, dragged out of an eternal torment that they only remember through brief horrible flashes compounded with a tidal wave of guilt and sorrow that they can't. Remember the source of. and what?

They just live here. They work here. They worship a Lamb. They don't know why, but they suppose that's what they're meant to be doing. That's what everyone's telling them.

Save for these four strangers who keep approaching them and telling them otherwise. Claiming to be their siblings, begging for them to remember them, when all they can do is stare back because. Who are these people? Why can I vaguely feel a sense of comfort and warmth around them, as though they should mean something to me?

And sometimes they do remember. Sometimes a moment of clarity hits them and they laugh in fond remembrance of Heket's fierce temper, and how she was SO upset to no longer be the spoiled youngest when... someone else arrived, whomever that might've been. But then it's strange... Why can't they remember Heket's voice?

They swear they remember her so clearly. If they squint, the silent frog sat next to them looks a lot like her, but she would never sit in silence like this, surely. And she'd been so small back then; just a feisty little child.

Maybe they're mistaken. Maybe it's been a long time since Heket existed.

They're not all that certain. But they do know that they keep getting very obviously glanced at by a squid across the way. One who needs them to speak up, or else he can't seem to hear them. They're not sure why they knew that innately upon meeting him. Perhaps it was the sight of his tattered ears that gave it away. Of course, that must be it.

Regardless, his wary side-eyes are nothing compared to the bright red ones in the dark.

The ones that bore into them with such ferocity that they feel they should be burning beneath the gaze. But they can't tell with what emotion they're being perceived with.

All they know is that, when those three eyes cut through the veil of night to stare at them.

They feel somehow remorseful.

#like how do you begrudge someone who genuinely cannot remember anything. Not only about what they've done but even #who they are #you can get angry with them and tear them down for all they've done but what will that accomplish. they don't know what you're talking abou #all they can do is respond with empty apologies #and it's not like they're completely gone. They're not an empty husk devoid of personality #And that makes it harder because it's like nothing's changed but they can't. Remember you #Or what they've done to you #Or what they've done to anyone #and it sucks. It sucks for you. It sucks for the one who is at a loss as to who they even ARE #and you shouldn't be focusing on your own agonies here because THEY'RE the one with their MEMORIES GONE #and yet #clamtalk #ok. something came over me there. sorry #cult of the lamb #cotl shamura #watch me have completely interpreted them wrong somehow shGLKSJDGH

71 notes · View notes

franklespine · 4 months

Text

Lucifer telling Sam "you've gone soft" in 11.10 is soooooooooooooooo...

Yes it's all a manipulation tactic, but Lucifer walking Sam through his memories, things that seem a lifetime ago, saying this is how you were before: bold and decisive - this is the Sam that saved the world, this isn't you anymore - when Lucifer is the reason why Sam is the way he is now. Insane. There are rare moments of gold in supernatural and one of them is when they play on the psychological horror in the fact that Lucifer; his torturer, tormentor, abuser and other half of his soul is the one that knows him best. He knows how powerless Sam feels - now that he's got lifetimes of trauma from the Cage that have skinned and flayed him on every level. His rigorous, borderline obsessive routine he keeps in his daily life through exercising and healthy eating - all to maintain a semblance of control. Yet deep down, it's like he told Rowena in s13:

"It’s not going to change anything. You’re still going to feel helpless."

Just as Lucifer knew that playing on Sam's desperate faith in religion and scramble to achieve purity (to be saved - as he said in s2) would be the only thing to get him to even go near the Cage, Lucifer knows that throwing back in his face his increased docility as time goes on as Sam's true failure and the reason why he will fail everyone around him is the only thing that could make Sam let himself be Lucifer's vessel. The way he spins it to sound like Sam not letting Lucifer out is proof of his weakness and helplessness. What if that was my last straw?

This scene, this whole episode, was so good and it made me want to claw my eyes out.

Lucifer calls him prissy. He says I never liked you but at this point - when you made the hard choice to save the world and condemned yourself in the Cage to me in holy matrimony, I respected you. You're not that person anymore. You're soft and placid and weak and that's something to be ashamed of. You're going to doom the world now because you're too screwed in the head. Look at you and your first romantic affairs when you were younger - Solid B on the tongue action - yes I know that about you too.

Lucifer being all righteous in saying that its the fact that Sam and Dean would do anything to save each other that is the problem that keeps dooming the world. And it's horrible because Sam knows he's right, the viewer knows he's right - their codependency is their moral pitfall, but it's all spiraling to the worst conclusion.

Tell you what - the second half of s11 can shove it's sympathy for the devil routine down my throat all it wants, but I will never stop hating that slimy bastard. The potential of s11 was unmatched in reaping psychological warfare on Sam, and it was a shame that it played out in such a... goofy... unnuanced... cheap semblance of a redemption arc... way that it did. But still, it is scenes like this one that pull through to make the season worth it.

119 notes · View notes

klanced · 11 months

Note

Keith walking into the holding cell greeting all the regulars by name while Lance is sobbing lamenting that his life is over and his future is ruined (they were like. Trespassing or some shit he’s going to be fine)

lance: (actively dry heaving in the corner, on the verge of a panic attack as he imagines having a permanent record)(actually what does a permanent record even look like?)(omg is he going to have to go to COURT? like in JUDGE JUDY?)

keith: remy, this is lance. lance, this is remy, she’s my favorite alcoholic :)

#voltron #klance #honestly I imagine they got caught trespassing while ghost hunting #if they’re in Texas then they will most likely get a full on misdemeanor on their record. Texas is very big on property rights.#trespassing can quickly elevate to criminal charges in texas it is actually very serious. do not trespass in texas.#meanwhile in Maine trespassing can be just an infraction & not added to your record #like sure they're teenagers so they could get their records sealed or expunged when they're 18. but like. the garrison would know. not good #sorry i just like talking about the law #speaking of which let me go on a tangent #i do think keith frequently gets charged with trespassing. at his own shack in the desert.#and so now he is Really good at juvenile law specifically because he is constantly arguing with cops #keith: this is not trespassing. my dad owned this property & he died unmarried without a will.#keith: i am literally his child and i inherited this land after his death YOU CAN'T ARREST ME FOR TRESPASSING ON MY OWN PROPERTY.#cop: okay well the house is all burned down it's a safety hazard #keith: I AM NOT IN THE HOUSE I AM IN THE SHACK WHICH MEETS MINIMUM SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. GET FUCKED.#cop: okay but you're out after curfew--#keith: is this a game to you? drag me in front of that judge i DARE you. you want to take the ORPHAN to court over CURFEW?#keith: you want to arrest my parents? WHAT PARENTS? everyone in this county knows me as the son of a hero firefighter.#keith: a hero firefighter who died in the line of duty btw. in case you forgot. since i'm an ORPHAN who has no one who CARES about CURFEW.#keith: my dad is dead my mom is gone my brother disappeared in space im 0 for 3 parents-wise. drag me before a judge. make my fucking night #sometimes i answer an ask or make a post specifically so i can do my own separate thing in the tags #i just like talking about law. i'm so excited for law school u guys #keith #lance #lance: (freaking out)#keith: (relaxed because he knows a really good lawyer who specializes in juvenile law)#shitpost #ask #anonymous #otp: we are a good team

217 notes · View notes

willowser · 11 months

Text

i want to write this fic that's like — cowboy bakugou, late 1800's style LOL

with him as a leeeeetle bit older, spent his life in cattle drives, wanted to be a marshal at some point, but his health and injuries from his younger days made it hard 🥺 he doesn't settle down, doesn't have any kids though he's in his mid-30's, and — one day he gets a letter that toshinori dies.

it's really supposed to be deku's responsibility, but only god knows where he is. probably got the news and can't accept it, too chicken-shit to face it. yeah, it tears katsuki up inside, too, but someone has to stick around in musutafu and help figure out his estate, the ranch.

help figure out you.

toshinori married in his late age, an ad he put out on the paper. bought you, as katsuki has always said, though the older man would always just smile wryly at the comment, look around at his extensive acreage, his horses and cattle, and he'd say,

"i only want someone to share this with, young man, do you understand?"

and he didn't. he really, really didn't. especially because you were younger than even bakugou, fresh-faced, hardly knew how to cook anything decent or how to ride a horse. waste of money, in katsuki's eyes.

but when he arranges his feelings right, he meets you on the ranch and — you're scared, because you're now a widowed woman and everyone and their mama wants a piece. you have the money, now, to upkeep the place but you've never done it by yourself. have learned more in the few years you've been married but it's a big place, a big responsibility.

and when katsuki hears that the bank wants to take it all from you, he's all, "over my dead fuckin' body."

it's really all deku's responsibility, since he and toshinori were closer, but you need someone now. and if bakugou has to stay in the house with you and help with the ranch, make sure no one comes to bother you—

then he'll do it. because that's what the old man would've wanted.

160 notes · View notes

nyxofdemons · 7 months

Text

this was going to be like a mile long essay but i just realized the most concise way to say it is that "it feels like a retcon that blitz has been so resentful and hostile towards fizz all this time since he was supposed to feel guilty" is simply not a good criticism when we have been shown, time and time again, that blitz's number one defense mechanism when he feels guilty or judged or attacked is to lash out, to deflect and ignore all his responsibility, and to shift the blame to someone else. that's like. his defining character flaw

#- and that's WHY it was such a major THING for his arc!! that he apologized to fizz and accepted responsibility for what he did!!!#like. the fact that he said; EXPLICITLY; the words 'you're right; it was all my fault; i should have done better; i am so sorry' IS #SO BIG!!!! LIKE THAT IS SUCH A HUGE THING FOR HIM!!!!!#mine #helluva boss #blitzo helluva boss #helluva boss blitzo #blitz #e: oops #analysis #also its entirely reasonable that blitz would have gone spiraling down the thought process that maybe fizz always hated him if he could #blame him so easily when fizz was probably the one blitz was MOST counting on to hear him out #and the fact that fizz went on and got SUPER famous and successful after he was no longer performing with blitz - who i'm SURE had #only been given more and more shit for not being as good as fizz as they got older (by his dad and by himself) - he probably assumed fizz #blamed him for that too - holding fizz back with his own poor performance #which is why his insults towards fizz had always been 'overrated sellout' and insisting he slept his way to the top with ozzie.#he'd tear down fizz's quality as a performer because BLITZ feels insecure about his OWN quality as a performer #these tags have gotten so fucking long but that's the gist of the essay i was gonna write about this fjfdjjfghf #MEDIA ANALYSIS IS MY PASSION

102 notes · View notes

maize-is-lost · 8 months

Text

Pikmin 4 au where instead of landing near the S.S. Shepard you land near wherever Leafling Olimar hangs out and instead of developing your fun little found family with your crewmates you're out in the wilderness reenacting Survivor with every castaway you pick up and this Leafling guy who wakes you up everyday at 4 am like "Wake up kid it's Dandori or Death" and keeps trying to convince you and everyone you rescue to embrace the leaves

#maybe I'll elaborate on this when my pain is gone and I'm feeling coherent #to elaborate Olimar isn't so much a bad guy as a mentor figure who is both an inconvenience and a menace.#the rescue crew is still around trying to do their job though. because it's funny. like imagine you're Erma Shepard and you go out into the #wilderness on this disaster planet and oh hey there's that intern you just hired what are they doing here- WITH THE LEAF CULT GUY WHAT?#anyway all I've seen of Pikmin 4 so far is scruffys playthrough so.aybe I'll revisit this once I've seen more #pikmin 4 #leafling olimar #pikmin #updating the tags for no particular reason #four riders au

144 notes · View notes

soracities · 9 months

Note

Hi! So I tried not to say anything about some anti makeup posts I saw on your blog but I need to say this. I think you're very wise and I agree it's very important for us to love ourselves as we are. But some people like myself doesn't care about 'empowering' of makeup or whatever but we just have fun with it and we just love it. I say we because I know there is a lot of people like me. Yeah, we are feeding capitalism or whatever, but world is beautiful and it's also terrible so people trying make themselves feel good, have fun, ect. I see a lot of people who don't wear makeup and i'm happy for them! I didn't wear makeup until i turned 20 i think and felt good.

One thing I wanted to add is in response of post about feminine girls. I think everything needs balance and sometimes people tend to overreact in their opinion and divide everything in black and white. Personally I never cared how women around me looked and what they were wearing. But I would like to have same treatment, and not to feel silly for wearing pink or feminine clothes.

Sorry, I don't know English very well so maybe I can't translate my idea entirely. What I'm trying to say i think everyone should do what they like and leave each other in peace.

Sorry for this essay, just wanted to share my point of view.

Hi, anon! I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this, but I appreciate you writing this (and your English was fine, don't worry)

I think the main argument of those posts (and my own feelings about this) is not about makeup on its own, or even judgement about who does and doesn't choose to wear it--what they are criticizing is a particular part of the society we live in which puts a huge emphasis on women's beauty and appearance in order to fulfill an idea of what a woman "should" be, and the role that makeup plays in that as a result. Because whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not, whether we feel pressured by them or not, these expectations do exist. How we personally respond to them does not change that.

I personally don't have an issue with makeup or the concept of it (in almost every culture on earth, humans have been using makeup of some kind for literally thousands of years)--but what I do have a problem with is when we treat makeup, or other traditionally "feminine" forms of expression as neutral things when they are not. A comb or a hair tie is neutral--it's just a thing. Lipstick and eyeliner are also just things, but only when they exist by themselves--and in reality they don't exist by themselves: they exist in a world where we value women on their physical appearance before we value them for anything else--lipstick and eyeliner exist to emphasise parts of your appearance, to make you look a certain way--and in a society where we put so much importance on women looking a certain way, they aren't just ordinary things you toy around with for fun. You can have fun with them, but it doesn't change their role. They can't be treated as exceptions from the world they are used in.

I think sometimes people assume that being anti-makeup is the same as being anti-women-who-wear-makeup, which misses the point (and also suggests a very dangerous idea which I think, sometimes, is why people respond so angrily to these criticisms: because if we believe that being anti-makeup = being anti-women, then therefore makeup = womanhood, and this is simply not true). Whether you wear these things just for fun and to enjoy yourself isn't what is being talked about because these criticisms are not about you on a personal level: they are about looking at a society that is as image-obsessed as ours, and asking why makeup has the role that it has when 1) it is almost exclusively aimed at women--women who, as a group, have been historically marginalised, and whose value, historically, has almost always been measured in terms of their beauty before anything else and 2) the makeup that is emphasized, the trends and styles that come and go, are often not so much about self-expression (if they were, people would be freely wearing all sorts of wild colours and styles: when we talk about "makeup culture" it's not the same kind of makeup used in the goth, punk, or alt scenes for example where makeup plays a very different role) but almost always about achieving or aspiring towards a type of beauty that is valued or expected: to make you look younger, to make your eyes brighter or larger, to make your lips bigger or sexier, your cheekbones more prominent etc--again, on their own, these things may not be a big deal, but they exist in a world where having these looks means you are valued in a certain way as a woman. And when this exists in our kind of world, where the power dynamics we have automatically mean women's perceived power is through beauty, and where we insist so much on women being a particular kind of beautiful (and this starts in childhood) we have to ask and investigate WHY that is--why this type of beauty and not another? why (almost only) women? who benefits from this? who suffers as a result?

The argument of "not all women" wear makeup for empowerment misses the point of these criticism, because it is focusing on a person's individual choices in a way that suggests our choices can define the world we live in, and they can't. We are deeply social animals. Therefore, how we appear to each other and to ourselves is a socially influenced phenomenon. This applies for race, for sexuality, and for gender. How women are perceived at large, in different social structures, is a social phenomenon influenced by the societies we exist in and the values of those societies. These criticisms are about the society we make those choices in and how that can affect us. For you, makeup may be something fun and enjoyable and that's fine. I'm not saying that's untrue or that people don't feel this way or that you are wrong for feeling this way. It's also not saying that you are brain-washed or oppressing yourself for it. But it doesn't change the world we live in. Someone feeling perfectly happy to go out with makeup or without makeup, and feeling no pressure to do either, is great--but it doesn't mean there aren't a lot of women who do feel pressured into wearing it, and that pressure is a social one. It doesn't change the inequality that exists between how women's physical appearances are judged compared to men's. It doesn't change the fact that almost every childhood story most kids hear (that aren't about animals) have a "beautiful princess" (and very little else is said about her except that she is beautiful) and a "brave" knight/prince/king/whichever: the princess (or maiden or whatever young woman) is defined by how she looks; the male in the story by how he acts.

It also doesn't change the fact that so many young girls grow up hearing the women around them criticize various parts of their bodies and that they carry this into their lives. It doesn't change the fact that we expect (in Western countries at least) for women to have criticisms about their appearance and they are "stuck-up" or "full of themselves" if they don't. It doesn't change the fact that magazines photos, red carpet photos, films, tv shows etc., feature actresses who are beautiful in a way that is absolutely above and beyond exceptional (and who either have had work done cosmetically, or are wealthy enough to be able to afford to look the way they do through top-class makeup artists, personal trainers etc) but who we think are within the "normal" range of beauty because faces like theirs are all that we see--how many famous actors / entertainers can you name who look like they could be someone's random uncle, or "just some guy" (writing this, I can think of 5). Now how many actresses, equally famous, can you think of that are the same? Very, very, very few.

The point of those posts, and why I feel so strongly about this, is that we have a deeply skewed view of beauty when it comes to women, because, as a society, we place so much on how they look in such a way that it is not, and was never meant to be, achievable: therefore anything that contributes to how women look, that markets itself in the way that the makeup industry does in this day and age, needs to be questioned and looked at in relation to that. No one is saying don't wear eyeliner or blush--what they are trying to say is that we need to be aware of the kind of world eyeliner and blush exists in, what their particular functions as eyeliner and blush do in the world that they exist in, that we exist in, and how this does impact the view we have on makeup as a result. Your personal enjoyment may be true to you and others, but this doesn't change the role of female beauty in the world because, again, our personal choices don't define the world in this way. Often, it's the other way around. And we cannot deny this fact because, while it may not affect you negatively, it does affect others.

I absolutely agree with you because I don't care how other women around me choose to dress or express themselves, either--that's their freedom to wear what they want and enjoy themselves and I want them to have that freedom. But my view is not the world's view, and it's certainly not the view of a lot of other people, either. I don't care if another woman loves pink and wearing skirts and dresses--but, like makeup, pink, skirts, and dresses, are not neutral things either. They're tied to a particular image of 'femininity' which means they are tied to a particular way of "being a woman" in this world. I'm not saying, at all, that it's wrong to wear these things. But I'm saying we can't treat them as though these are choices as simple as choosing what kind of socks to wear, because they aren't. They are choices that have baggage. If a woman is seen as being silly, childish, or treated unequally because she enjoys cute tops and ribbons and sundresses, that's not because we are demonizing her choices, or because being anti-makeup is being anti-woman (again, it is absolutely not): it's because we as a society demonize women for any choice. That isn't because of anti-makeup stances--that's because of sexism.

You mentioned that you want to be treated the same as anyone else for wearing feminine clothes--but the fear that you wouldn't be isn't because of the discussions critiquing makeup and other traditionally "feminine" things--it's because we live in a society where women are constantly defined by how they appear on the outside, and no amount of our personal choices will make this untrue. Whether you are a girly-girl or a tomboy, you'll always be judged. And, in reality, when women follow certain beauty standards they do get treated better--but this doesn't mean much in a society where the standards are so high you can never reach them, and where the basic regard for women is so low to begin with (not to mention the hypocrisy that exists within those standards). This is what all those criticisms towards makeup and "empowerment" are about: it's about interrogating a society that is built on this kind of logic and asking why we should insist on leaving it as it is when it does so much damage. It's saying that that if we want everyone to truly feel free in how they choose to present themselves we have to go deeper than just defining freedom by these choices on their own, and look at the environment those choices are made in. And that involves some deeply uncomfortable but necessary conversations.

Also, and I think this important to remember, views on makeup and the social place of makeup will also depend on culture and where you are, and the beauty expectations you grew up with. And when it comes to the internet, and given American dominance online, a lot of these posts criticizing makeup and the way makeup is being used to sell an idea that wearing it is "empowering" to the woman (which is basically saying: you are MORE of a woman when you wear it; you are stronger and more powerful because, in our society, beauty is portrayed as a form of power: it tells you, you can battle the inequality women face by embracing the role beauty plays in our lives but it doesn't tell you this emphasis on beauty is part of that inequality), are based on the way makeup is portrayed in mostly English-speaking Western countries. My views are shaped by what I grew up seeing, and while a full face of makeup (concealer, primer, foundation, mascara, highlighter, contour, blush, brow tint, brow gel etc) may not be daily practice or even embraced in a place like France or maybe other places in mainland Europe (but that doesn't mean they don't have their own expectations of feminine beauty), they are daily practice in places like the US and Britain, and this is what most of those posts and criticisms are responding to.

We can argue as much as we want about makeup, but when you grow up in a society where women feel the need to put on makeup before going to the gym there is something seriously wrong. Embracing makeup and enjoying makeup is one thing, but it cannot be a neutral thing when so much of it is about looking like you're not wearing makeup at all, or when we assume a woman is better qualified for a job or more professional when she wears it. It cannot be a neutral thing when a singer like Alicia Keys goes makeup-free for a red carpet event and it causes a stir online because people think she looks sick (what she looks like is normal--I would argue above normal--but wearing makeup to cover up "flaws" is so normal now that we genuinely don't know what normal skin is supposed to look like because the beauty of these celebrities is part of their appeal: they are something to aspire to). It is absolutely very normal for me, where I am, to see young girls with fake lashes and filled in brows: it's not every girl I pass, but it is enough. I'm not saying they are miserable, or brain-washed, or should be judged. I can believe that for them it's something enjoyable--but how am I supposed to see something like that and not be aware of the kind of celebrities and makeup tutorials that are everywhere on TikTok and YouTube, and that they are seeing everyday? How am I not supposed to have doubts when people tell me "it's their choice!" when the choices being offered are so limited and focused on one thing?

I never wore makeup as a teenager and I still don't, but a lot of that is because I grew up surrounded by people who just didn't. Makeup was never portrayed as anything bad or forbidden (and I don't see it like that either)--it was just this thing that, for me growing up, was never made to be a necessity not even for special occasions. I saw airbrushed photos and magazines all around me, for sure, and I definitely felt the beauty pressure and the body pressure (for example, I definitely felt my confidence would be better if I wore concealer to deal with my uneven skintone, and I felt this for years). But I also know that, growing up, I saw both sides. No makeup was the default I saw at home, while makeup was the default I saw outside. And that does play a part, not just in the choices you make, but in the choices that you feel you are allowed to make. No makeup was an option for me because it was what I saw everyday, even with my own insecurities; but if you do not see that as an option around you (and I know for most girls my age, where I grew up, it probably wasn't) then how can we fully argue that the decision you make is a real choice?

If I wanted to wear a cute skirt outside, for example, and decided to shave my legs--that isn't a real choice. And it cannot ever be a real choice, no matter how much I say "this is for me" or "I prefer it like this" because going out in public with hairy legs and going out in public with shaved legs will cause two completely different reactions. How can I separate what I think is "my choice" from a choice I make because I want to avoid the negative looks and comments? And how can I argue that choosing to shave is a freely made choice when the alternative has such negativity? If you feel pressured into choosing one thing over another, that's not a choice. Does this make sense?

This is how I feel about makeup most of the time, and what I want more than anything else is for us to be able to have a conversation about why we make the choices we do beyond saying "it makes me feel good" and ending the conversation there. Again, I'm not saying people need to stop wearing makeup or stop finding enjoyment in wearing it, but I think we tend to get so focused on our own feelings about this and forget that there is a bigger picture and this picture is a deeply unequal one. That is what this conversation is about. I hope this explains some things, anon, and if I misinterpreted anything please feel free to message me again. x

#i think in essence what i'm trying to say is that #some things are true in a microcosm but you cannot make a universal application for them bc the microcosm isn't representative of the whole #and it is dangerous to assume that it is or that it can be bc you're erasing the bigger picture when you do that #it would be like a poc saying they never felt the pressure of skin-lightening creams which is amazing but it doesnt change the fact that a #whole industry exists selling skin-lightening products BECAUSE there is a demand for them and that demand exists BECAUSE there is an #expectation that they SHOULD be used and this is because there is a belief that lighter skin = more beautiful. regardless of how messed up #and damaging that logic is that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the world #and therefore those industries exist to maintain that belief because that belief is what drives their purpose and their profits #and we are doing no favours to the countless poc who DO feel pressured to subject their skins to these products or who come away with #a deeply damaged sense of self-worth (not to mention the internalised racism that's behind these beliefs) bc of constantly being told they #are less than for being darker than a paper bag which is RIDICULOUS #saying its all down to choice is not far off from saying you can CHOOSE to not be affected by the pressure but like....that's just not true #you can't choose to not be the recipient of colorism any more than you can choose to not be the recipient of sexism. and its putting a huge #amount of pressure and responsibility for an individual to just not be affected by deeply ingrained societal pressures and expectations whe #what we SHOULD be doing is actually tackling those expectations and pressures instead #they are leaving these systems intact to continue the damage that they do by making everything about what you as an individual think and #believe but while we all ARE individuals we dont live in separate bubbles. we are part of and IN this world together. and it acts on us as #much as we act on it. but like.....i think i've gone on enough already #ask #anonymous

103 notes · View notes