#do i want this to be rebloggable...

[silverwarewolf]

bpd, also known as "i would enjoy this new activity I signed up for under normal circumstances, however there was no one to fixate on so my brain now classifies this activity as rewarding and safe as cutting myself open in front of a den of lions, let's drop the activity"

the other side of this thought is that sometimes I end up having really mid people as fps. shudders.

fortunately the narc supply can act as an emergency cushion sometimes.

[14dayswithyou]

HAPPY VARENTINES DAY, ANGEL ! I've been facing some tech issues recently, but!! To celebrate Ren's birthday and Valentine's Day, I'll be releasing Day 5 (the Early Access version) for all the Beta Testers in a few days!

And for those who aren't part of the 14DWY Discord server, don't worry! The public version will be available for everyone to play once the beta testing period is over ^^

[thatdiabolicalfeminist]

just to be completely clear, the amount of military power and political influence Israel has has NOTHING to do with its settlers being Jewish. Israel is a force for American & European interests in the region and they're just doing what America does and allows/encourages its close allies to do.

war crimes aren't considered war crimes when someone America finds useful is doing them. european and american pushback against anyone criticizing Israeli apartheid & genocide is 100% because these crimes are useful to American & European hegemony.

Governments that are deeply antisemitic, like France, aren't suddenly caring about Jewish people. Jewish people, persecuted the world over, don't hold some kind of hegemonic power outside of Israel.

The state of Israel and its attendant brutal treatment of the locals are both incredibly useful to the US, and American hegemony means we're expected to celebrate both.

not bc they're Jewish. this isn't a break in the pattern of western antisemitism and it's not evidence that antisemitism doesn't exist.

it's just like how you could get fired for saying shit against the US war in Afghanistan when i was growing up. it is 100% about US military and political interests (ok slightly western europe too but lbr)

[twixted-spoon]

The Final Parley.

[ID: art of John from The Adventure Zone, smiling and extending a hand to the viewer, with a white chess king resting in his palm. He's saying: "Hi, Merle. You got a minute?" John is slim and humanoid, with pale gray skin, and veins of iridescent corruption running through his face and hand. His hair's slicked-back, and he's wearing a suit and tie. End ID.]

[tothelasthoursofmylife]

Countess Cloudia Phantomhive and Victorian Inheritance Customs

With the snippet of the Phantomhive family tree now having been shown in the anime, I decided to make a little post to hopefully answer some of the questions that might come up!

Could a 19th-century English noblewoman...

... inherit her family estate? Yes, she could.

There was no law that stipulated that someone had to bequeath their possessions (estate, wealth) to a male relative. The rich and the noble wanted to protect their possessions, of course, and created wills that ensured that their estates and wealth would not fall into just anyone's hands but remained securely within their (close) family. If there was no close male relative (or none they wished to make their inheritor), it was not uncommon for people to will their possessions to a close female relative instead.

In Jane Eyre (1847), she famously inherits her paternal uncle's entire wealth of 20,000 pounds (the book is set sometime during George III's late reign, making the last possible (full) year 1819; this would make her inheritance 2,32 million pounds nowadays (she only keeps £5,000 = £580,000)) because he chose to will it to her, overlooking, i.a., a nephew simply because he once had a terrible fight with said nephew's father (his brother-in-law/his sister's husband). In The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (1848), Helen is the heiress to her uncle's fortune, not her brother (who inherited their father's estate already). Wuthering Heights' (1847) Catherine Linton (Catherine Earnshaw's daughter) was the heir of Thrushcross Grange.

Female heiresses were not restricted to fiction though:

(Women and Marriage in Nineteenth-Century England by Joan Perkin; Ch.3)

The rich and the noble had access to a private law system that was administered by the Court of Equity. This allowed noblewomen to have their own estates and incomes, albeit secured by trust funds/trustees. This system protected their inherited family wealth from their husbands even under coverture. (While single women, feme soles, could possess their own property, they would usually lose all rights to it to their husbands upon marriage because of coverture laws. The trust system prevented this.)

Marriage settlements (marriage contracts that, due to their complexity, could only be afforded by the rich) could also protect the daughters of noble and/or wealthy families as they, i.a., stipulated how much money she would receive monthly or annually (pin money), and how much money she would receive upon her husband's death.

(Courtship and Marriage in Victorian England by Jennifer Phegley; Ch. 1)

This was the best case scenario for women of the upper classes (and the wealthy middle class).

(Feminism, Marriage, and the Law in Victorian England by Mary Lyndon Shanley; Ch. 1)

Nevertheless, the rich knew how to protect their wealth, then as now. The aforementioned private laws also helped to pave the way for women of all social classes and statuses to have their own possessions.

Little excursus:

Their vast fortunes also granted certain freedoms to rich heiresses, i.a., the freedom to choose a husband as they pleased. After all, they did not have to think about "making a good match" anymore. They were themselves filthy rich already after all! The fact that their wealth was protected also kept them safer from vultures.

(Women and Marriage in Nineteenth-Century England by Joan Perkin; Ch.3)

"Love" emerged as a reason for marriage in the late 18th century and became more common and popular throughout the 19th.

(Love as Passion: The Codification of Intimacy by Niklas Luhmann; Ch. 14)

However, that never stopped matrimony from being a serious business. No matter what, many people put a lot of care and thought into deciding who to marry. After all, divorces were an expensive hassle until 1857 (previously, one needed a costly Act of Parliament to obtain a divorce, and the process of obtaining a divorce was particularly difficult for women too: between 1827 and 1857 only three divorces that were petitioned by women were granted; the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 established a civil divorce court and expanded the rights of women). It was easier for rich women to choose to marry for love; still, many opted to remain cautious nonetheless.

(For example, what about the children one might have within a marriage? Upon a wedded union's dissolution, women had difficulties getting custody of their own children. The Custody of Infants Act 1839 allowed women to petition for custody of their children if they were 7 or under. It took until 1873, with the Infant Custody Act, for the age to be lifted from 7 to 16. It also removed the 1839 Act's stipulation that she would not be given custody if she had committed adultery. Before 1839, the father always got full custody. Caroline Norton believed she made a "good match," only to get stuck with an abusive husband who, i.a., beat her and did not let her access their children upon their separation for years.)

... keep her surname?/give her surname to her husband? Yes, she could.

The nobility and the rich, naturally, were very attached to their surnames. After all, it was their family marker, and they were proud of their family history, may it be because they came from a long line of nobles and/or because their ancestor created the family business that gave them their wealth.

When there was no (suitable) close male heir and a female one was chosen instead, the question arose, "what of the family name?" Women often took their husbands' surname upon marriage after all; in this case, however, it might mean the "end" of their old, history-charged and/or important family name.

So, people simply decreed in their wills that, whoever their heiress married, would have to take her surname upon marriage.

Further, men who wanted to marry rich heiresses, of course, thought the wedding to be an honour and did not want to offend their powerful and wealthy in-laws. They, thus, often chose to hyphenate their surname with their wife's. (And the more important surnames you can show off, the better too!)

(Women and Marriage in Nineteenth-Century England by Joan Perkin; Ch.3)

Some examples:

Charles William Stewart took his wife's surname Vane (not even hyphenated!! it fully "replaced" his) when they got married in 1819 because Frances Vane was a rich heiress and her father stipulated in his will that her future husband had to take her surname, period.

In 1811, John Ward changed his surname to Ward-Boughton-Leigh after marrying Theodosia de Malsburgh Boughton-Leigh. "Boughton" is the maiden name of Theodosia's mother, "Leigh" her father's surname. She was the only heir to the fortunes of both her parents, so all families had to be honoured.

The marquessate of Salisbury belongs to the Gascoyne-Cecil family. Up until 1821, the family name was just Cecil. "Gascoyne" comes from Frances Gascoyne who married James Cecil; James hyphenated his surname with hers. She brought a considerable "Liverpool fortune" into the family. The Cecils were (and are!) very powerful and they still changed their surname.

Men also retroactively changed their surnames to their wives' maiden name if she suddenly received a great inheritance. (This could lead to some fun names like "Cresswell Cresswell.")

... hold a noble title in her own right? Yes, she could.

Henrietta Godolphin was the Duchess of Marlborough in her own right (suo jure) because of an act of parliament in 1706. (Her younger brother was meant to inherit the title but he died before their father and it went to her instead.) Henrietta's eldest son William became heir apparent to her dukedom (and his father's earldom, but that would only have been a "secondary" title because dukes > earls). Unfortunately, her son predeceased her, and the title went to her nephew instead.

This was not the first or last case of a woman holding a title in her own right. The Wikipedia article on suo jure lists more such cases.

Also: Vincent and Francis are full siblings! (Yana's tweet/Ducky's translation)

No matter whether Cloudia was married to Cedric or not, Vincent and Francis would never be bastards and always legitimate children in the face of the law.

*Note: Laws on women's property rights/custody/divorce/etc. changed multiple times throughout the 19th century; their effects on women also differed amongst the different social classes. As this post is about Cloudia's (possible) situation, it mostly deals with laws and such that would have applied to her as a noblewoman (late 18th to mid-19th century/1866).

A chronology on English marriage law:

(Courtship and Marriage in Victorian England by Jennifer Phegley)

[agirlking]

Leaving these here for no particular reason.

[wernerherzogs]

the thing is. i can't even fully make fun of bucktommies for their tommy takes given what continues to be done to my man eddie diaz. like at least tommy's a canvas blank enough that even batshit insane headcanons with zero basis in show's canon are like. eyeroll worthy to me at most. because that man does not matter longterm at all. but with eddie it's like some of you can't envision gayness if it doesn't fit a Recognizable Media Stereotype. so he's been repressed his whole life and hasn't lived a single genuine experience ever yet and everything he does is a performance and he doesn't know how to be A Man because he's secretly an elder sister. despite nothing in canon even remotely indicating that as he's been perfectly normal about being a man who's a single parent all this time. he literally only worries about the emotional side of him not meeting the societal/parental standards of Being A Man Who's A Single Father. his ptsd is a not mental or canon enough a canon mental illness you guys are now forcing an entire dsm-5 on him. he secretly longs to be a weho fag who wears cashmere sweaters and has a purse dog or a cat and he's only overcompensating with his truck because god forbid his fashion sense or current hobbies were genuine. meeting kim was a psychotic break instead of a network procedural character dealing with seeing a dead copy of his late wife in a genuinely the most normal way possible under the circumstances. like why are you twisting this guy into shapes he's not because otherwise you just can't buy him being queer/gay like... do you only know bi sluts and formerly repressed broadway gays in real life with no in between? is that it. because buck is another fascinating part of this. his characterization seems fairly consistent no matter where on the top-bottom spectrum people put him. is it because bisexuality has a smaller amount of stereotypes associated with it so you don't feel the need of implying he's been performing everything his entire life like what's going on. and being a Bi Slut has actually canon room to exist here, so it's naturally never been an issue. but he can be a late bloomer bi and yet no one accuses him of only overcompensating with his truck or being a passenger princess despite tommy driving him around and he can be your dom top while still regularly displaying an affinity for things stereotypically viewed as female-coded (as cooking/baking, even for his girlfriend taylor, or cooing after newborn babies like a fic-worthy omega in heat). those specific things either get ignored or dialed up to eleven in fic but he's still ol' good fun buck who aches and wants to be loved and has his abandonment issues and sex issues and so on and so forth but remains fairly recognizable and mostly true to canon every time in the eyes of bajillion different writers. why is he immune while eddie isn't why are you respectful of canon when it comes to buck but eddie's suddenly in a hbo show and not a network procedural when transported into the fic realm can someone explain this.

[queer-omens-in-the-archives]

Does empire!Near need a sword? Not particularly. Would it be convenient for him to use a sword? Most of the time, no. Am I giving him one anyway? Well,

[black-quadrant]

as a cosplayer and longtime amateur model, I’ve always seen my body as “average” — in the best way possible. I like to think of it as Anybody’s model. I vehemently believe (and have done the grueling mental work to get there in my early days and demonstrate it), if I can do it, you can too. body positivity is a message I’ll always stand behind, both in what I say and in what I create. I will always advocate for empowering “the average,” because every one of us is uniquely beautiful.

[humanmorph]

I step all around the pieces on the floor / Wires and cords, and records, and tapes

[statementlou]

.

[kelocitta]

"But if we dont get reblogs and likes than why bother creating at all" Did you never doodle in your notebook in class. Did you never have a notebook of cringe doodles you never wanted people to see but got filled anyway. Was this never something you did because it was a tool of personal comfort.

[thatgoddamngingerundercut]

2020 MAMA 'Dynamite' Dance Break

[fereldanwench]

I'm not really sure why this is being brought up after almost three years, doubly so given that I haven't had any interaction with PinkyDude in probably just as long, but since he saw fit to vague about me, I'm going to address this:

I feel this is a misrepresentation of my actions and motivations during this entire situation.

I never made a call-out post specifically against Pawel. In fact, I didn't even mention him by name. I made this post because I saw history repeating itself:

As I said in the notes here, this was also largely informed my experience with the Dragon Age fandom: I witnessed how David Gaider's interactions, including responding to headcanons in a way that could be read as confirming them, contributed to a lot of fanwank. I think Pawel started the streams with good intentions, but he was clearly not trained in public relations (at least when he started), and I did have concerns with how things like the "meme review" were contributing to parasocial relationships.

I also had concerns because Pawel contributed to some misinformation that other writers had to later correct, like saying Goro had never been considered for a romance, which also caused a huge outcry in the community and necessitated another dev to come forward to set the record straight. He was straddling a fine line between being an expert/professional and being a buddy, and that can be problematic when you're interacting with 100s of people hanging on to your every word.

I have no problem with devs doing streams and interacting with the community when they have the tools and information to do it in a way that fosters healthy community interaction, which requires training. I never believed he shouldn't do them at all, and as PinkyDude noted, I enjoyed some of them when he had guests on that I was interested in. However, I did believe that he needed to be far more cautious about how he was interacting with the community, and I did express those concerns.

Mentioning this also seems to be framed in a way to insinuate that I had anything to do with any sort of spite reporting or flagging of any of his posts, and that's just false. I will admit to getting caught up in the throes of some of the drama during 2022, and I regret that and I have made a point to not repeat those mistakes, but I'd never falsely report anyone just because I didn't like them.

[risingsunresistance]

this post except it's all the same guy

[randomseacucumber]

Since I just had to listen to a pretty dumb presentation: Self-disgnosis is not evil, and those who self-diagnose are not automatically just looking for attention. There are a variety of reasons that someone might self-diagnose. That's not to say that there are no issues, bit it's not inherently bad!