the view that sexual predation is based on 'brain development' rather than life experience and social power is, like the common view that incest is bad because of 'inbreeding' rather than the control granted by the family structure, one where the issues of social power imbalance are replaced by an unhelpful bioessentialism - one that both makes permissions for these abuses (whether it's in the cases of non-blood relatives, or of an 18 year old being exploited by a 50 year old), and targets non-abusive relationships (if the reason for incest's immorality is that it might produce a disabled child, how does that logic continue towards people with inherited illnesses?). working within this essentialist logic, it's impossible to rectify these issues - neither extending the supposed 'undeveloped brain' to greater ages, nor simply deciding that there exists no real power a middle-aged man has over a new graduate, can fix the errors generated.
2K notes
·
View notes
Actresses being tortured on the set by male directors is a massive historical and present day scourge of the film and TV industries and it's really SO common when you look into it. like from Kubrick terrorizing Shelley Duvall (and only her) on the set of the shining to Tarantino strangling Diane Kruger until she passed out to Hitchcock replacing fake birds with real birds after Tippi Hedren rejected his advances (in order to scare and physically injure her as a punishment for not fucking him) to James Cameron almost literally drowning Kate Winslet to an actress on GOT being waterboarded ten hrs straight to get like a minute of footage to Brando improvising an unscripted rape scene on the last tango in Paris set with the directors permission that ended up traumatizing Maria Schneider (in fact quite a lot of the gratuitous, graphic rape scenes in film were included for the sadistic pleasure of the male directors at the expense of the actresses).
The list goes on and on and I could seriously talk for ages about how revolting it is that these men still have active careers bc the industry just tolerates it. No piece of art is worth inflicting this disgusting and unnecessary abuse on actresses (and it's ALWAYS the actresses isn't it, never the actors. Hmmm wonder why). We call these men auteurs and geniuses but they're really just pathetic abusive sacks of shit. I want to impale every male director who behaves like this and I want their rotting corpses displayed as a part of the universal studios tour.
2K notes
·
View notes
It was at this moment that she decided to assassinate Ambrosius.
She could have continued to protest Ballister's words, she could have tried to make an excuse or even sent Ambrosius back to his post. But no. She gives up extremely quickly and almost jumps straight to murder.
Is it only me who’s shocked that it’s happening so quickly?
She who does all this in the name of Gloreth has absolutely no problem killing her (as far as we know) only descendant. Which means if he dies, Gloreth's lineage is over.
Ambrosius is a Goldenloin, a noble, a knight, the very example of a knight! He's exactly what she's trying to "protect." And she kills him with her own hands. (If that's not a metaphor, I don't know what is)
But concretely, there are several reasons for this sudden choice:
She has no good excuse at her disposal, either because she had overestimated her influence on Ambrosius, or underestimated his trust in Ballister;
She realized that Ambrosius is too attached to Ballister, which means that not only will he try not to hurt him and will not accept him being killed or treated unfairly, but also that the first chance he gets, he'll take Ballister's side and not hers;
As Ballister's (only) friend, he is one of the only obstacles in making him out to be a heartless assassin;
If someone as important and influential as him were to get in her way, she will have great difficulty doing what she wants and may even risk losing her position and power;
She knows she will never be able to convince him of the "merits" of her quest;
She has a great alibi: Ballister.
This last point is very important. She can get rid of a nuisance as she wishes with complete impunity. No one is there and Ballister has already managed to sneak into the Institute without anyone noticing before then (it's not like anyone is going to accuse her instead of the 'Queen's Killer'). So she also has a golden opportunity to silence any doubt about Ballister's guilt. I mean, others could be like Ambrosius and question her again, and Ballister managed to obtain evidence that she had killed the Queen while he didn't know before that it was her, so someone else provided them to him, so the idea of him being innocent can spread. By accusing him of killing the most popular knight in the Kingdom, she ensures that no one questions his position as a monster and criminal.
It's the Institute, where knights are trained to defend the Kingdom, there's no chance that the Director didn't have access to another weapon than Ballister's. But she chose to use his sword.
But Ballister's sword was destroyed, no one will wonder about the appearance of a second?
No one asks questions about a man who decides to assassinate for no reason the person who allowed him to rise from his social condition, in public, surrounded by knights, right next to an armed man, and visibly without any plan to escape?
The more I think about it, the less sense this supposed assassination makes. It only worked because of media manipulation and because Ballister was the culprit. If the roles had been reversed with Ambrosius - in the event that they had exchanged swords (and the Director didn't notice the exchange and/or couldn't disable the attack) - it certainly wouldn't have gone that far because:
Ambrosius is loved by all and known for being trustworthy/kind/insert knightly quality. Ballister is a commoner, who, even after several years of working hard and being miles better than others, is not seen as trustworthy. People will be much more likely to make excuses for Ambrosius than for Ballister.
The Director has no interest in using the media to blame him. On the contrary, she will try to defend him and claim that he was framed.
Ballister had no excuse for having a deadly laser sword, he has no one to blame for him. Ambrosius yes. There's Ballister. Not only because it is the untrustworthy newcomer dirty commoner that his fellow knights despise, but above all it is HIS sword that was trapped. The Director and the population will accuse him of framing Ambrosius.
People will WANT him to be the culprit instead of their lovely and respected knight. They don't want the literal descendant of their hero to be an awful person who did something this horrible. They don't want the representation of the Institute, of their society to be shaken. (I'm a pro jedi fan. I know that when people want to defend their blorbos, they can go veeeeeery far, including putting responsabilities on other people, even complete innocents or victims)
In fact, this situation will be even more credible than the original one. Why he didn't plan his escape? Bc he didn't need to. Why he did that? Obviously to take revenge on better people in better situation than him, and on society itself, by targetting the Queen, leader of the Kingdom, and a Goldenloin, who's also the Kingdom's most prestigious knight and the descendant of the founder of the Institute.
575 notes
·
View notes