It's crazy that people still uphold show!Sansa as a well-written character and pretend that liking her is the pinnacle of feminism when it would be infinitely more impactful to acknowledge her terrible and misogynistic writing. This is the same character who, while written by two men, was thankful for the abuse she suffered because it allowed her to grow. The same character who we had to be told was smart because the writers were too lazy to develop or show her intelligence. The same character who had to rely heavily on the men surrounding her and ended up accomplishing nothing on her own merit ( and no, thinking that she deserved to be Queen doesn't mean that she earned it). She is not well-written, she is not complex, and she is not a feminist character. Which is fine! If you enjoy her then good on you, but please stop pretending that she's something she isn't just because you feel the need to justify liking her character
98 notes
·
View notes
i love Tumblr Mythology and its spread. someone on Reddit just tried to assert that the oldest definitive version of the myth of Medusa is Ovid.
890 notes
·
View notes
ik people like to act like sex and imbalanced sexual dynamics are uniquely traumatizing (moreso than any other kind of power imbalance, abuse of power, or just flat out abuse period) but from personal experience not really. there's nothing inherent to sex and sexuality that makes it traumatizing. there's nothing inherent to sexual trauma that makes it more traumatic than any other trauma.
and chiefly trauma is never really about the intentions of any party who made or let it happen. someone who wants, intends, and tries to hurt you might bounce off you just like that; because they simply failed to psychologically damage you, because what they did didn't bother you a lot whether it be mental physical or sexual. conversely someone who does not want, intend, or try to hurt you may scar you for life with something either they don't understand is harmful or isn't even inherently harmful and is uniquely that way to you.
i just. i'm annoyed at the narrative of trauma being taken away from the survivor themself. if i say this was traumatizing and you think it's not a big deal, too fucking bad, listen to me. if i say that wasn't traumatizing at all and you think it's the worst thing in the world upon hearing what it is, too fucking bad, you don't get to tell me what my trauma is. i'm sick of seeing people put words in each others mouths and tell someone's story for them without that person's consent. idk like? it makes me so angry that whenever i used to talk about things people would blatantly disregard the most horrific times of my life and instead focus on stuff i was neutral or even positive toward as a big terrible thing that ruined me.
nowadays i'm very grateful to have people who are chill and don't jump to conclusions no one asked them to. people who listen when i tell them "i know this sounds bad but it wasn't actually" or "i know this sounds stupid but this was world shattering." people who i get to laugh with. the RIGHT people who extend me the same kindness of knowing their strange "good bad things" and "bad fine things."
life just isn't as simple as "this is always terrible for people" and "this is always fine for people." PEOPLE aren't a monolith. yes, even that thing that you think must be the worst thing possible. yes, even that thing that you think no one could possibly be hurt by. it's hard to involve myself in serious discussions about abuse because there is a very clear Narrative people want to follow and if you as a "victim" don't follow it then either it didn't happen or you're wrong about your own experience.
hopefully I can consult my therapist about this phenomenon in discussions of abuse and trauma. and also about the specific thing that made me think of this. it irritates me quite a lot when others pity me for something that i knowingly chose-- and in retrospect never hurt me either. like what are you fishing for. why are you looking at me like that. i'm fine, maybe you're the one that needs counseling if my talking about this creates such a visceral reaction in you.
19 notes
·
View notes
The thing is I am definitely not happy or chill in the Immediate Sense lately but I am, big picture, so fucking happy with the person I am.
It's like. My brain was made by and for consistent trauma and since that trauma stopped about 5-7 years ago, it is incredible what the amount of resilience and cleverness and flexibility and thoughtfulness I developed to survive can do when it's not being all spent on surviving. like I had a hundred ton weight on me so I had to get REALLY STRONG to stay in the same place and not get 100% crushed, and when that weight came off I found I can use the strength it used to take to stand up and I can leap tall buildings in a single bound.
I was talking to my mum the other day and she said, "you've got the 'fuck it' energy at 30 that most women don't find until their fifties at least" and I'm like yeah man. Imagine how unstoppable I'll be in 20 years.
30 notes
·
View notes
I'm sorry but the moment Alicent decided to obey her father she knew what was going to happen she knew she would have to have sex with him and have heirs. It's the only reason viserys remarried
"decided"????
what else was she meant to do? this was a day and age where women, especially young girls were controlled by their fathers, to some if not a great extent until they were married off (children of nobles typically betrothed for political reasons not love, these betrothals arranged by their fathers to whoever they pleased and saw fit, no matter what it could mean for the daughter). was she supposed to say no? was she supposed to disobey? what could have happened to her if she did? there was no point in which she could say no, when she could disagree. she was a girl, a child, all she could do was bite her tongue and pray for a miracle, pray for Viserys to not take to her, that at the very least he would wait to get her pregnant (the fact a 14 year old had to worry about that is sickening)
she was 14, she was grieving Aemma and reliving the pain of the loss of her mother, her father gave her an order, though disguised as a suggestion, one she could not deny. it didn't mean she wanted to, it didn't mean she wanted him to marry her, it doesn't mean she would have been forced to bear heirs as a child herself (especially because Aemma died because Viserys tried to get her pregnant to young and cause long lasting health issues that eventually lead to her fatal pregnancy), it doesn't mean she wanted any of it. but she didn't have any other choice, she didn't have a choice when her father sent her to his chambers, when Viserys claimed her hand, when Viserys assumed her consent and raped her in their marital bed, when she bore multiple children before she was 18, when she had to take care of him in his illness, when she had to practically rule in his stead. women didn't have choices at the time, nine of it was s choice she could have said no to, she just had to take it, all of it, cause her father told her to and it's her duty to obey him, and then Viserys married her and it was her duty to serve him.
y'all are so quick to blame a CHILD for the actions of her father and the king himself and forgetting the time and place she was in. nothing she could have done would have spared her fate, if not bringing her a worse one.
38 notes
·
View notes
It’s very insane to me just exactly how quickly people are turning on Gypsy Rose. I’ve seen tweet after tweet with millions of likes talking how she’s untrustworthy and manipulative and she “convinced some poor boy” to murder her mum for her and how the fact that she’s going on a press tour to finally actual talk about her own story without show producers and the suchlike makes her a bad person. Li,e it’s actually insane. I’ve seen so many stories about people who’ve killed their abusers and rapists and everyone supports them so why is she so different? This literally can’t be how you all would seriously treat victims of abuse who were so desperate that they had to kill their abusers,right?
17 notes
·
View notes
Saying that non-conforming female characters don't face as much misogyny as their "feminine" counterparts is so funny cause literally the misogyny in their treatment is more overt because they aren't staying "in their place" like men think they should. The disdain for women + misogynistic societal ideals are so much more blatant in male characters interacting with these women. Countless times they are, in essence, told they need to sit down, shut up, and know their place but somehow that translates into them having "masculine privilege". I can only assume that people with this take haven't actually read the books and only get their information from second-hand sources.
136 notes
·
View notes
samuel richardson, clarissa; or, the history of a young lady // anne brontë, the tenant of wildfell hall
some notes on this:
i've already posted one of the penguin edition's notes where stevie davies describes this scene in tenant as helen defending herself with the tools of her profession. well, i'd argue a similar thing is happening in clarissa: it's an epistolary novel, she's one of its most prolific writers. a penknife is as emblematic of her ability to assert herself as helen's palette-knife, albeit on an interpersonal level that allows her to battle against the forces trying to silence her narrative voice, rather than on a professional one which will actually empower her to escape abusive men.
i don't think it's unreasonable to read a rape-y undertone to hargrave in this scene ("say i overcame you and you could not choose but yield"). the penknife scene in clarissa takes place after lovelace (who narrates this section) has raped her; he's now trying to trick her into granting him access to her again. imo what's partly happening here is her reasserting her personal integrity in the face of his idea that she should already be sexually 'fallen' and indifferent to further violations after what's happened to her. and yet the scene also plays into that old old idea that death is the only option a woman has to avoid being raped and she should thus naturally be willing to choose it when she's threatened with rape. helen says fuck that and threatens to cut a man instead (as she tells hargrave, she has no interest in dying, of a broken heart or otherwise). to be fair i think she has a bit more of an out than clarissa at this point - the fact that the only power clarissa has to exert is against herself is deeply sad to me - but man there's something i find incredibly moving in anne brontë's assertion that women aren't doomed to resort to self-destruction when they're threatened with an assault
they both describe the woman in the scene as resolute! this is possibly just a coincidence but it's a neat connection
8 notes
·
View notes