avatar216

[avatar216]

It's my 10-year anniversary on Tumblr. 🥳

[avatar216]

My Annoyance With Norse God Loki and Thor Opinions

I know many other people have talked about how Loki has basically turned into an uwu baby in pop culture, but there is something when it comes to the mythology that I don't see anyone talking about, and watching a video about Thor and Wonder Woman made me want to revisit this. In this video the guy makes an argument that one could argue that Loki in the MCU takes on the same role as Thor of the myths in terms of killing giants, but I have a problem with this because I feel like this ignores the fact that the god Loki is in fact fairly pro killing jötnar to the point that he is the one reminding Thor to put Asgard above himself in several of the myths. I know people like to joke about the myth where Thor puts on a dress, but it seems like they forget that Loki was telling Thor to shut up and stop thinking about himself because the enemy was going to be living in Asgard if he did nothing. His argument also seems to ignore the fact that Thor logistically couldn't kill all Giants in the myths anyway and wouldn't want to because that would mean killing some of his very own relatives. Also, Loki was so dedicated to protecting Asgard, so much so that in the myths it is literally the whole reason he agrees to distract the builder's horse in the first place, because Asgard wasn't going to be able to be protected if he didn't. It's not just in this myth either because it also happens in a few other myths. I bring all of this up because I feel like a lot of people talking about Loki seem to be under the impression that he does and/or would have a problem with Thor killing giants because they're innocent, even though the only time he seems to have a problem with it in the context of myth is when Thor does something specific in Jotunheimr that Thor would never admit to humans because they would judge him for it. 

I mostly find this annoying because it feels like people are trying to justify depictions of Thor being a villain, like in Snyder's Twilight of the Gods, by saying that Thor kills giants, so of course he's terrible, even though by the standards of the mythology, which we should not be judging by modern-day standards anyway, Thor is doing his job, and if he didn't, humans and the other gods would be dead, as Loki basically tells him more than once. This especially irritates me because they act like Thor in myth is a particularly arrogant guy when Odin is arguably way more selfish than he is, and honestly, if Thor was being that selfish, Loki would have definitely let him know about it. Honestly, even Marvel has Loki yelling at Thor for being this way. Thor was very much a god of the everyday person, and this meant having to kill whatever was a threat to that, and if he didn't, he would have been called a coward. This doesn't even really work in Snyder's verse because historically Thor and Jesus were compared, not Jesus and Baldr, despite people and scholars liking to say that Baldr is a Jesus-type figure. Jesus was actually found kind of lacking and was, in one story, turned into a more warlike figure because he just wasn't seen as violent enough to be a real god. I feel like a lot of these arguments come with the modern-day baggage of thinking violence is always bad and that those who do it must be there for evil or a villain because they are simply being violent because that is their job, but back then, if you weren't violent or willing to fight, you were going to lose everything, including everyone you love and even your own life. I feel like this relates to Loki too because it's like people think that he would be such an innocent who doesn't like killing, and of course he's just a poor little victim who gets beaten up by all the other gods even though he's often the one ordering them to fight and to kill to protect Asgard. I feel like it shocks people, and I don't think it should, when I tell them that Loki actually orders other gods around in the myths when I thought that was obvious, and that is something that coexists with him getting beaten up a lot. Some of the kennings for him are things like "the leader of the troops" along with "the deep-minded, retaining God of plunder." I know people pay lip service to Loki being complex, but they don't really seem to get how that actually functions in the myths and how Loki's motivations are sometimes as plain as day and aren't as flip-floppy as Marvel would make you believe. He is not going around betraying the gods every 5 minutes and putting Asgard in danger because that is honestly more of an Odin thing to do because Odin is the one to let the enemies into Asgard if it means he would get something out of it. I would even go so far as to argue that Marvel kind of gave Odin a lot of Loki's traits in the myths when it comes to dealing with others because it's usually Loki who is the one yelling at others for not doing their jobs, whereas Odin just sits there and doesn't really seem to care unless it directly pertains to him. It's not that I'm arguing that Loki isn't wacky in his own way, but just that he's actually more serious and more straightforward than people seem to think he is. 

Loki doesn't really seem to accept bribes or even play around with the concept of greed because he doesn't really want anything in myth besides his normal motivations of saving his own life, food, alcohol, doing things for the LOLs, simply doing his job, and later on pure undivided revenge with the occasional sheer want of malicious intent for the sake of it. I feel like what confounds the issue with Loki in particular is that people confuse intent with outcome, and they are in fact different things because, yes, Loki's actions are often incomprehensible, but oftentimes his intentions are good or at least born out of a place of just simply doing his job because he was ordered to do it. I know people are going to say he only does what he does because he is threatened, but being threatened or simply being asked to do something doesn't seem to make a difference to him because the only things that don't seem to work are bribery and ass-kissing. Ultimately I'm just trying to explain that Thor is the way he is because of those around him, and Loki is not in opposition to Thor being this way but actually often the one encouraging Thor to be that way. If we're going to talk about Thor being the way he is, then we must acknowledge those who influence those very traits because those traits don't stand in isolation in the myths but are rather influenced by those around him who encourage him to be that way and discourage him from being any other way. I know it's fun to see Loki as oh so silly and his antics as wacky weirdness, but in myth they do serve a purpose, and I do wish people would acknowledge that Loki does what he does because it's a job, and this does impact others, including Thor. 

However, I do attribute some of this to Marvel, in making people believe that Thor is a very conceited god who only cares about himself and is ready to start a fight at any time. In reality, though, this doesn't happen as frequently as you might think in the myths because he frequently prefers to go home if given the option rather than fight. In regard to Loki, Marvel Loki is extremely avaricious and power-hungry, which doesn't, in my opinion, fit in with myth. Loki takes his work very seriously and doesn't really care about power because he already has it to a certain degree and doesn't seem to want much more of it because authority comes with more work. Despite the fact that gaining power necessitates both ambition and greed, Loki is not particularly greedy in myth, despite his somewhat ambitious nature. It's another instance of poor little Loki being hurt by the other guys, even though he was a major participant in everything the other gods did and never seemed to mind. I suppose I can also blame Snyder for this now. I don't want people to confuse not having a problem with killing the enemy with being okay with killing humans because that is another thing that Marvel actually ended up making people believe about Loki, which is that he's okay with killing humans when he's not normally outside of Ragnarok. However, that does not make him innocent and Thor the villain, nor does it make Odin superior or inferior.

[avatar216]

Norse Pagan here. It is clear that you are mistaken because neither the Snorra Edda nor the Poetic Edda refer to Angrboða as Gullveig. According to Völuspá hin skamma, neither of these two seems to be the unnamed witch whose burning heart Loki ate, as Odin does not mention this when discussing the mother of Loki's three monstrous children, Angrboða. I wish this particular idea would die because there’s no indication that Angrboða even died. This doesn’t even take into account the fact that we know almost nothing about Sigyn, except that she is Loki’s wife and remained loyal to him when he was chained. Apart from a possible association with incantations, we know very little about her. I genuinely don't understand why you people care so much about her, since the author has to invent an entire personality and backstory for her, given that we know nothing about her. They are essentially making up their own character and giving her the name of this obscure goddess. At that point, I would rather they create their own character, since that's essentially what they're doing; why give her the name in the first place?

I don't understand why Sif having a sister wife matters to Loki and his wife's marriage, as the myths clearly show that neither of these two gods are particularly loyal to their wives. Thor won't tolerate anyone speaking ill of his wife or Járnsaxa, whom he regards as his concubine or mistress. In Lokasenna, Loki essentially boasts about the numerous goddesses he slept with. Since he is explicitly described as a manwhore in the text, I fail to understand why you and others believe their relationship is special and that cheating may not have happened during their marriage. He claims to have slept with Sif and even Skaði while dealing with her father, and he was already married by then. Loki is definitely no innocent, and I don’t understand this desire that you people have to make him into this, like, essentially perfect husband when he’s not that, and this is coming from someone who worships him. I love him, but I acknowledge that he is not that great as a husband if we’re talking about cheating and the like in the myths because he also says that he slept with Týr’s wife and even claims that he had a child with her. I don’t think he needs to be abusive for them to not have a super great relationship, but I don’t suppose that he was an abusive husband, just not a very good one. In actuality, I would contend that he was more concerned with his work, Thor, and his children than he was with his wife.

I would not fully trust Dr. Jackson Crawford's current translation—he is releasing a new one this year—because he sometimes presents his ideas as factual representations of the text, which is not always accurate. For example, in one of the poems, it says 'Óðr's girl,' referring to Freyja, but he translated it as 'Odin's girl' because he thinks the two figures are the same, even though the text does not support this. There are other examples, but this is the only one that immediately came to mind. In addition, there is a stanza in Lokasenna where Crawford translates Loki telling Týr that he cannot handle well with two, probably referring to the fact that he is missing a hand, but Crawford chooses to translate this as you cannot solve conflict between two men. He has changed his mind about this, but even after reading it, I was confused because Loki does not appear to care about resolving conflicts between people unless it involves killing one of them. Other scholars do not trust his translation for several reasons, including the lack of footnotes and explanations for his choices, which can only be found in his videos. He also tones down a lot of the insulting and derogatory language used, including Loki's, since he himself often insults people for things he does. I'm not saying Crawford is completely untrustworthy, but his translation should be cross-referenced with others, and sometimes his ideas slip through unintentionally.

As for why their relationship is often portrayed as abusive in popular culture, I believe it's because many writers simply copy from other works of fiction without reading the original mythology for themselves, a practice some writers openly admit to. This is why Hades and Persephone are often depicted as having a loving relationship, despite the myth explicitly stating that Persephone wanted to escape him, even going so far as to lie about his actions. I also believe that part of the issue lies in the fact that they want to portray Loki as a villain, which requires attributing more negative traits to him than he actually possesses. If he were simply neglectful towards his wife and didn't hate humans, never murdering them, he would be a rather dull character. It can be argued that him simply not really focusing on his wife and not being on a vengeful quest to murder humans because he wants them to bow down to him, and when they don’t, he murders them, does indeed make him harder to understand and like because he’d be too different from other villains and gods who are abusive husbands and who hate humans.

"Loki and Sigyn's relationship was abusive"

....

NOT IN THE EDDAS, IT IS NOT.

I am so tired of people pretending they've done the research or saying they read the Eddas and then they sprout such nonesense that SHOWS they NEVER read or listen to either of the Eddas.

PLEASE DO. Jackson Crawford's translations of both Eddas are on Audible and fantastic to listen to.

Anyway. A little reminder.

Loki never insults or humiliates Sigyn in the Eddas. He insults the Gods but never Sigyn.

Was he cheating on her? Well, we don't know. Loki did have lovers (male and female, canonically), but was it before or during their mariage, the timeline is unclear. However, let's remember that Sif has a kenning about sharing her "man" (Thor) with Jarnsaxa. SIGYN DOES NOT.

(Quite the opposite. Pagans have the cutest kennings for Loki & Sigyn's relationship)

And even if he did, I find rather hilarious that people are ok with Thor, Sif, Frigg or Odin cheating on their spouses, but it's only SCANDALOUS and proof of his evilness when it's Loki? ^^'

Also reminder that Angrboda - with THAT name and as we know her today- was only introduced after the 12th century. (Her part was most likely Gullveig's before that, which means that Loki had their kids after eating her heart). Kenneth W. Harl states in his course on The Vikings that the primary version of what will become the Norse gods were already there around 1200 BC. So they probably evolved and changed a lot before Snorri and the monks put those tales on the paper.

And it's heartbreaking to see that since writers have so much creative freedom, they STILL CHOSE ON THEIR OWN FREEWILL to depict Loki & Sigyn as abusive and toxic...

Haven't they suffered enough???

Media where Loki is depicted as an abusive husband towards Sigyn:

Marvel comics (old and NEW, i'm afraid ^^'), Sandman, Magnus Chase, Gospel of Loki, Norse mythology books with a pro-Odin agenda...

Media where SIGYN is a cheater and betrays Loki (and is blamed for Vali & Narvi's fate. And her holding the bowl was a lie): Melvin Burgess Lol. What?

But ACTUAL Norse mythology?? Both Eddas? NOPE. Not a sign of Loki EVER abusing Sigyn.

Please, guys, do your research.

[avatar216]

More Negative Opinions on Inside out 2

This is an expansion of my review of Inside Out 2. I still don't really like it, and after reading other people's reviews, I have even more reasons to think it's bad. I still think the plot resembles the first movie, with Joy and Anxiety undergoing a similar character arc. They both learn that they have to accept all the other emotions, and that they can’t just push other emotions away. I find it difficult to accept Joy's character development, especially in the first movie, as I struggle to believe she can overcome stronger emotions like disgust. I also find it hard to believe that Sadness and Joy wield so much control and power at headquarters, given that they are less influenced by external factors than the other three emotions. In her books on disgust, psychologist Susan Beth Miller notes that disgust, anger, and fear are emotions that are, to some extent, shared and require external stimuli, which is why people often want to share something they find gross with their friends.These books made me think about the movie's ending, where Riley appears to choose Joy, although this emotion cannot be easily controlled by the conscious mind and is not heavily influenced by direct learning, unlike disgust or fear. I dislike this particular scene in the movie because it suggests that people can effortlessly overcome emotions like disgust, fear, and anxiety by simply choosing joy, which is unrealistic, as these emotions often fight back or return with increased intensity. For those of us who've watched the movie, we've observed that opting to feel joy can actually amplify disgust and embarrassment, since disgust perceives the emotion as foreign and not part of oneself, and embarrassment is triggered by witnessing people engage in supposedly happy activities, which can be unsettling and even prompt us to flee the room. In this movie, I believe the disgust or embarrassment response to happy things would likely be depicted by Disgust being unable to acknowledge Joy as a legitimate emotion, a phenomenon not exclusive to disgust, as some individuals are actively fearful of their own emotions, especially Joy. Overall, I dislike the way this franchise handles the concept of emotions and their relationships to other parts of the mind and body.

I had an epiphany about the movie's message: suppressing memories and emotions isn't that different, since memories are only suppressed due to the strong emotions tied to them that Riley dislikes. I think that if the memory were just of a neutral event, like eating breakfast with her parents, it wouldn't be suppressed in the first place – unlike when you forget someone's name while talking to them. The only difference lies in past and present emotional suppression – one could argue that it's still a form of present emotional suppression, such as when she felt disgust or fear in the past, did something foolish, and now feels shame and guilt, immediately pushing the memory away. These are suppressed memories, not repressed memories, meaning that she is actively choosing to ignore them. As anyone familiar with psychology's history knows, repressed memories are problematic because attempts to recover them have not been entirely successful, and it's easy to create false memories, especially in young children. If something is repeated enough and attributed to a credible source, it can become accepted as true.

I'm not afraid to say that I think that part of this movie's appeal lies in people projecting their own emotions onto it, because when you really think about it, we know very little about Riley's friends Bree and Grace, as well as her parents. Honestly, I can't think of a single thing I know about them beyond their shared love of hockey and a particular band. When it comes to her parents, they share a love of hockey and a hatred of broccoli. Oh, and her dad works for a startup. That's really all. However, there's a significant difference between knowing facts about a character and truly understanding them as a fully fleshed-out person with their own life, personality, likes, and dislikes.

Many Pixar movies, except for Toy Story to some extent, struggle with this issue because we don't get to know Andy, his sister Molly, and their mother well, largely due to their limited screen time, which makes it harder to reveal their characters. Unlike Bree and Grace, these two characters have established personalities from their initial introductions. I also think this isn't as big of a deal in Toy Story because the plot doesn't rely on them being important to the main character, since Andy isn't our main character, but Riley is. Riley's personality, as portrayed, is largely defined by her supposedly happy-go-lucky demeanor and near-perfect persona, but the movie asks us to believe she's a good kid who's simply making mistakes, despite the fact that her actions constitute criminal behavior. I don't really care about her or her emotions regarding the loss of her friends, as we don't know enough about them to be invested in her relationship with them. It seems unnatural that she's developing anxiety over losing them after only two years, especially given that she seems to have forgotten about her friends in Minnesota, whom she knew for 11 years. I believe this is largely due to poor writing and overly restrictive world-building, which confines her character to her inner thoughts and emotions, making her uninteresting. However, a developing teenager would likely experience more intriguing emotions, such as disgust, fear, and the struggle to balance romantic love, lust, and risk-taking, which would have a greater emotional impact. Anger and sadness have to grapple with the big injustices, consequences, and failures in her life that might destroy joy to an extent or lessen her prominence and power.

Unlike DreamWorks or Illumination, I don't think Pixar will ever explore harder topics in their sequels, such as the consequences of breaking and entering, losing oneself, and facing repercussions as an adult, both legally and within one's friend circle, where being fake can lead to ostracism. As for the personified emotions themselves, as I mentioned in my first post, I didn't care about any of the new emotions, especially Anxiety. As someone who has experienced envy from others due to my possessions, I have no love for the emotion or the character. I strongly believe that envy should not be trivialized, and it's certainly not healthy; although it may provide some insight, it can be destructive to others when they sense envy in someone. It sours relationships even if the person doesn’t act on it.I don’t think anxiety needs to exist as its own character because fear could have literally just covered it, and by definition, it can’t exist without fear anyway. I found their arbitrary distinction between fear and anxiety utterly ridiculous because I find the distinction in psychology utterly ridiculous. I've always considered embarrassment, shame, and guilt to be closely linked with disgust, as they often work together; therefore, I find it confusing that embarrassment is associated with sadness. It was a weird choice, despite Disgust's reluctance, 'you want me to go up there.' I think it would have made more sense for Disgust and Fear to return to headquarters, as they would have a better chance of dealing with Anxiety, since she can't exist without them. Alternatively, it might have been better to have them join her, given Fear's concern for Riley's safety and Disgust's concern for Riley's social and bodily perfection. Ennui's character design is, ironically, unappealing to me because it breaks the laws of biology and physics too much.

[avatar216]

Part 1: Psychologists and Toxic Therapy Culture/Speak

This is the first part of a rant I've been wanting to write for a long time, addressing my frustrations with therapy culture and certain aspects of psychology that bother me in real-life, online discussions and fiction. A blog post by a psychologist, whose work I usually appreciate for its critique of positive psychology and the happiness industry, prompted me to write this post; however, I was disappointed to see that he, along with other psychologists I follow, have fallen into the trap of labeling people they disagree with as narcissists or claiming that there is a narcissism epidemic in society simply because they don't like their online opinions. I’m calling out the psychologist by name because I find their actions absolutely unethical, as they’re diagnosing people they haven’t met in person, and I wish psychologists would stop doing this. These psychologists, including James C. Coyne, Dacher Keltner, and others, some of whom consider themselves Negateers. Keltner is not one of these people. However, despite not liking his research, he is still one of the psychologists who frequently claim that random people are narcissists. The Post was on Substack and is called No, feelings don't need to be validated

Unfortunately, I've come to realize that psychologists and psychiatrists are encouraging people to label everyone they know as a narcissist or claim they have borderline personality disorder (BPD) or some other psychological condition like bipolar disorder, which particularly annoys me since I've grown up with people who have it, and the symptoms they describe bear no resemblance to the actual condition. Either type one or type two: what people often fail to realize is that not everyone with bipolar disorder experiences mania, as there is a second type that leads to hypomania and hypo-depression in some individuals. The use of psychological terminology in general really annoys me, as psychologists should stop encouraging people to use their invented terms as insult labels that can be thrown at anyone, like calling someone an asshole. In fact, the psychologists I mentioned above use the term narcissist in this way, and they are even starting to do the same with BPD, like you can just throw this label at someone you don’t like or get into an argument with on the subway.

The term 'narcissist' did not exist until the late 1800s and has only gained significant popularity over the past 20 years. A psychologist coined the term because the original phrase, 'Narcissus-like', has its roots in the 15th or 16th century. This word was not in common usage though, and even this term had only risen in popularity by the mid- to late 1800s. I’m saying this because I keep seeing people claim that the term 'narcissist' has always been around and wasn’t originally a psychological label, unlike the word 'crazy', but this is simply untrue. I don’t have much love for the field of psychology, as I enjoy critiquing it and reading about its fundamental flaws and methodological issues in many books and articles, but I think psychologists should stop using petty insults against people they dislike by labeling them with psychological terms if they’re going to treat the public. It feels like these psychologists lack professional and social integrity because they almost feel like they’re up in a high tower where they can just throw stones at people on the bottom without any care for how that’s going to actually cause harm in the long run, and as Dr. Jackson Crawford likes to say, when the people at the bottom don’t understand why you’re up in the tower in the first place, then they are likely to burn it to the ground.

This post primarily focuses on psychologists, and it also applies to psychiatrists who use terms from their field to insult people they have no business labeling, including those psychologists who diagnose people on TV, which I strongly dislike. It's frustrating when people like Kati Morton claim that Jake Paul is a sociopath, and they are called out for their actions, but yet other psychologists and therapists who do the same thing are just left unchecked. I struggle to respect these fields when professionals behave inappropriately and aren't held accountable, partly because critics are often misunderstood as implying that people shouldn't seek therapy or that therapy is ineffective, when in fact there are over 200 types of therapy, and not all are equal. For instance, I do not support ECT as a treatment, since it causes memory loss and can result in permanent brain damage. This is not something that Hollywood fabricated, as some psychologists might have you believe.It's not just the term 'narcissist,' but also terms like 'sociopath.' They claim there's an epidemic of certain mental health problems, but I don't know how they can be so sure, given that many people in the US wouldn't visit a therapist or take their surveys. Moreover, their statistics are often based on the WEIRD group – white, educated, industrialized, rich, and Democratic individuals who are primarily interested in psychology. In fact, as a psychology student, you're 400 times more likely to be in a psychological study than anyone else in the population.

Of course, they, themselves are aware of all these problems, but the people I specifically oppose are mostly just jerks who should not be in the field in the first place or whose research I respect in one way but completely disagree with in another because they have a bad habit of labeling everyone a sociopath, narcissist, and other psychological terms against anyone who even dares to question their field or point out a simple error. Overall, I wish they would develop some integrity, like biologists and other scientists, for the most part. They also need to overcome their physics envy and career insecurities, which they display everywhere.

[avatar216]

I completely agree, but I would just like to add that I don't like how this movie implies at the end that someone can just choose to feel joy, which to me comes off as incredibly dismissive of the fact that people can't just get out of a state of say misophonia induced disgust or anger. Wanting to feel Joy doesn't just make it magically appear, and Sadness coming up to Joy and saying Riley wants you literally makes no sense to me. This part of the movie treats emotions like they're at the beck and call of the conscious mind, which is a concept from positive psychology that I find deeply disgusting and angering and that might have led to the torture of so many soldiers and animals alongside them. The original movie and I guess this one was trying to imply that being told to just be positive and relax is stupid as is shown when Joy plans to do that exact thing to Anxiety, but then kind of goes back on it by implying that the conscious mind can control emotions. All you have to do is choose joy and voila anxiety will just be attached to a massage chair I guess. The only emotions that have been consistently and reputably shown to be even slightly controlled by thought and mere implication alone are disgust mainly and to a lesser extent fear because both of those can hijack your imagination and just by imagining things that make you afraid or disgusted can make those feelings just as strong as if you were literally going through them. Telling yourself that you feel joy does not mean that you do, but rather all it means is that you're deluding yourself into believing that you do and then actively denying if you are feeling disgust, anger, or sadness, etc.  

I hate how this franchise is basically a product of the neoliberal positive psychology industrial state insofar as it constantly promotes happiness, while simultaneously pretending to approve of and promote showing negative emotions, but that is only true for the negative emotions that a therapist would actually like, like sadness, and not more dangerous ones that could and did literally lead to revolution or genocide like disgust. Not that I expected a children's  movie to really touch on how dangerous disgust and fear can actually be in the face of overwhelming poverty and governmental mismanagement. I think the characters that represent joy and disgust in the Disney repertoire way better than these personified emotions are Judge Claude Frollo and Fix It Felix, Wander, or even Tow Mater. 

Inside Out 2 Review

Oh god I'm gonna get fucking slaughtered for this one. Oh hello! Inside Out is a pretty good movie right? Well, yeah. I wouldn't put it on my top ten list of animated movies or anything, but I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. The way it personifies aspects of our emotional states is pretty interesting actually, as long as you can swing with the metaphor. But Pixar and an... interesting track record with sequels, so I'd say a second instalment isn't necessarily a guarantee for quality here.

What's the Movie About?

Riley goes through puberty while going to hockey camp, and Headquarters gains some new emotions that kick out the old ones.

What I Like.

A lot of this review could just be a review for the first Inside Out, so the things I like best about this movie are the same as the last. The various ways the movie explains different aspects on human psychology is really interesting. They introduce a mechanic of a self image that gets solidified by sending certain memories to a pool beneath headquarters and that was pretty interesting. The visualization of brainstorming and panic attacks were excellent. The characterization of Envy being really tiny and Embarrassment being the one to first turn against Anxiety was perfect as well. I like that one of Riley's darkest secrets was that she still likes Blue's Clues. (Me too Riley. Me too.) The voice cast is also top notch, just like the first movie. There were a couple moments where Amy Poehler and the animators really got to act as Joy and they were probably the best scenes in the movie. Inside Out (the first one) completely undid all of the negative effects of the plot at the very end, which I thought was annoying. And credit where credit is due, Inside Out 2 does not do that. I also got a dark laugh out of the scene where the thought animators riot against Anxiety, how'd the hell they slip that scene by the Disney Overlords?

What I Didn't Like.

Unfortunately the sequel does not improve my low points of the first. When the metaphor doesn't make sense, it really doesn't make sense. I can deal with the various emotions having their own emotions, but why can different emotions have crushes on each other? Or why does Riley has multigendered emotions with different hair styles when everyone else in the universe has emotions that all look very similar? There's a couple times where stuff jumps out at you or something suddenly makes a loud noise. And maybe I'm officially old, but I did not appreciate the jump scare. I kind of hate that the conflict of these movies is based on irrational behavior. I feel like it's kind of unavoidable based on the premise (even more than most comedies), but at least the first movie it felt understandable that Riley was acting out. She's 11, and her entire life got uprooted. The second movie is she's just trying to impress a clique. And yeah, they take pretty much every single awkward and irrational action every teen sitcom takes with this plotline. It got to the point where I was dreading the sections that flash back to headquarters. Also, this is kind of unavoidable with the personification I guess, but the fact that they portray negative states of mind seems a little shifty, right? As some one with mental illness, how am I supposed to take this movie? It's not my fault I have anxiety disorder and anger issues. Clearly my Joy didn't try hard enough to return to headquarters after being ejected!

My final complaint is certainly unique to the second outing, however. They retcon a lot of new things in the new movie, and the explanation is pretty much, "Oh yeah, we just didn't show you that before." or "It's new. Shut up.". I mentioned that there is a pool beneath Headquarters that they send memories to to create Riley's self image. Well that pool is in the Memory Dump. You know. The massive pit where Bing Bong died. Well now everyone has an elevator down to a nice lake where all the memories can go and sprout into a tree or some shit. And I guess nothing gets forgotten anymore? Also, and I've been saying this since the teaser came out, but the ending of the Inside Out implies that the more complex emotions are just combinations of the emotions we start out with. That's the point of the upgraded console at the end. Just because internet commentators were too stupid to get that and mentioning that "Inside Out ignores a bunch of other emotions humans have" made them feel smart, now the people who made the movies feel like they needed to prove a point and double the cast without a good explanation.

Final Summation.

Do you remember Salt Bae? He got internet famous for like two seconds because he sprinkled salt in a weird way and they used that to make a restaurant or something? Yeah, the restaurant with the gold plated steak. Inside Out 2 is the first bowel movement you take after eating there. It's got little flecks of something valuable in it, but it's mostly just recycled and shit. Jesus Roan that's pretty harsh for a kids movie. Is Inside Out 2 really that bad? Well here's the thing Buggnutz...

Inside Out 2 is Inside Out but worse. Without the context of Inside Out, is it worse than, say, IF? No, I wouldn't say so. I certainly have given worse movies passes. But usually that's because I appreciate the uniqueness of the concept, or it gives me something I can't get anywhere else. Basically, there is no better movie, so I enjoy what I have. But I have a better movie than Inside Out 2. It's the first Inside Out. The sequel doesn't expand on any of the first movie's concepts in ways that makes sense, it's doesn't do any of the beats of the first movie better, and it doesn't make me feel any emotions stronger than the first one did. It's passable kids fair, but when has that stopped me from trashing a movie?

[avatar216]

Not Every Fear And Experience Equal Anxiety

Can we please stop mislabeling basic human emotions like fear as fucking anxiety please? I'm saying this because I have been very afraid and downright paranoid recently because a gigantic oak tree fell in our backyard destroying a car and even hitting our house a little and it keeps making me jump every time I hear something loud but that doesn't mean I have fucking anxiety. I'm ranting about this because my uncle asked me if I have anxiety and I'm like no but I feel afraid and paranoid because we have yet more trees that could fall in our backyard still. This word angers and disgusts me so fucking much. I'm sorry to have to tell people that sometimes people just have terribly shitty things happen in their lives and that doesn't mean that it's anxiety that they're feeling. I'm also ranting about this because I constantly see people who reviewed the new movie Inside Out 2 claiming that everyone has gone through anxiety right and that's the main emotion that we all have to deal with even though as someone who has to deal with misophonia induced anger and disgust along with compulsively washing my hands and feeling uncomfortable if I don't bathe in the proper way, and the intrusive thoughts that come with them, I would say that anxiety and the way they describe it sounds like a fucking cakewalk. People please stop presenting your experiences as universal because they are most likely not. I don't know maybe it's because the disorders of anxiety actually give people a deluded sense of reality and that their problems are universal which is actually a part of these sorts of disorders. 

I also despise how the movies advertising people basically present the movie as though anxiety is the most overwhelming and frightening emotion as well as a universal Human Experience when going through puberty, when it's actually disgust, anger fear, and hate that have led to many problems and I knew this at the age of 10. Not everyone had a cushy life growing up like Riley where they weren't feeling constantly disgusted after having to touch people and not wanting to touch anything because even just sitting on a couch or letting someone else use a blanket of theirs disgusted them to High Heavens to the point that if it would be given back to them, they wanted it to be cleaned multiple times or if not just straight up throw it away. At least I know I'm not normal and never have been, but I've known this since I was 7, so I find Riley's whole realization in the movie wholly unrelatable because disgust would have slapped me and caged joy in a corner long before that. 

[avatar216]

Loki only borrows her falcon skin cloak in the beginning of the myth where Thor gets his hammer stolen and he does not actually do that when he turns himself into a woman in that very same story. Odin also says that Loki turned into a cow and a woman and bore children in Lokasenna. It does not mention him ever using any cloak or skin of an animal to do that because no cow skin is ever mentioned being used in this context ever. Give me the stanza of the particular poem or prose section of Snorra Edda where Loki's ever stated to use anything other than her falcon skin cloak and then we can talk. Also this says nothing about Heimdall or Loki being able to turn themselves into seals because there is never a seal skin cloak of any sort mentioned either. Odin is never mentioned to be using the skin of an eagle or snake ever, so what about those examples as well? Sure they don't see him have sex with the horse, but they do see him turn into one. He only uses the falcon skin cloak because he cannot turn into birds, not because he can't turn into any animal at all. You said he cannot shape shift. And yet there are many examples of him shape-shifting into a woman and fully biologically becoming one to the point of being able to get pregnant. Odin also turns himself into a woman to be able to rape Rindr. They are not described as dressing up like women but literally becoming them.  Also, you said that Loki cannot shape shift not that all animal-based shape-shifting in Norse mythology is done with animal skins. I just remembered about the story of Otter, where Ótr is actually a dwarf who turns himself into an otter and is never stated to have used the skin of an actual otter to be able to do that and in fact he doesn't turn back into a dwarf when he's killed either. He stays an otter and gold is placed on every inch of his pelt. Loki also turns himself into a salmon when he's trying to escape the Gods and he is never stated to use the skin of a salmon. Also, most translations I've read of that particular myth literally do state that he turned her into a nut not that he put her in one and I've never seen any actual scholar translate it that way. The only translation I've ever seen that described it that way was an amateur's translation

I've literally gone through arguably hundreds of papers by reputable scholars and videos that never ever implied that these Gods cannot shape shift and that they have to use some sort of objects to do it every single time outside of the context that Loki can't shape shift into a bird that can fly like a falcon. Remember that most of the jotnar can shape shift as well and they are definitely never implied to use any sort of skin of an animal. I would rather trust someone like Dr. Jackson Crawford or Dr. Matthias Nordvig than someone who is blatantly getting it wrong and can't cite their sources. Here's a link to a video by Jackson Crawford explaining misconceptions about Loki including his power set. https://youtu.be/icUElWDmFW8?si=IBC3cfrxOY1_82DK

My sources are as follows: Lokasenna (the poem where Loki insults all of the gods and goddesses and can be found in the Poetic Edda - stanza 23), the building of the Wall (which can be found in the Prose Edda), Þrymskviða(the story wherein Thor loses his hammer, which can also be found in the Poetic Edda), the myth of the theft of the Mead of Poetry (the story wherein Odin turns himself into an eagle and flies away with the mead of poetry and can be found in Skáldskaparmál in the Prose Edda.), the myth of Ótr (also found in the Prose Edda), The Rape of Rindr (The story wherein Odin turns himself into a woman and pretends to be a healer so he can force Rindr to sleep with him and can be found in the Prose Edda), and Húsdrápa (the story where in Loki and Heimdall fight as seals and can be found in the Poetic Edda). The translations I have available to me to use for citation are copies of Dr. Jackson Crawford's translation of the Poetic Edda, Carolyne Larrington's second edition translation of the Poetic Edda, and Anthony Faulkes translation of the Prose Edda. 

You know, it kind of pisses me off when someone’s perception of norse mythology is based on Marvel/MCU. And it’s so easy to spot because they get basic facts wrong. No, Thor and Loki are not brothers, Loki is Odin’s blood brother. Loki’s last name is not «Laufeyson», Lauvøy was a Æsir maiden, and Loki’s father was a jotun called Fårbaute. Sif is not a goddess of anything, she is Thor’s wife. Loki can’t shapeshift, he and other gods borrow enchanted animal skins from Freya, goddess of love and magic.

[avatar216]

Some of these things are just actually wrong you stated here. Sif is in fact called a goddess in the myths, and yes, she may be Thor's wife but that does mean she is considered a goddess by marriage. Really none of the Norse gods and goddesses are really considered the gods and goddesses of anything, but some of them do have titles that would suggest that they are associated with some things and you could say technically they are the god of that thing like Odin is called Raven God and Loki is called the deep minded retaining God of plunder. Also, yes Loki can shape-shift without Freyja's falcon skin cloak. He turns himself into a woman in þrymskviða{the story where Thor gets his hammer stolen} without using her cloak and likewise he turns himself into a mare in the building of the wall story. He also changes Iðunn into a nut.  He also lived for 8 years on Midgard as a woman and as a cow according to Odin in Lokasenna. So yes Loki can absolutely shape-shift without using her cloak or any other objects and so can Odin since he turns himself into an eagle and a woman among other things. Heimdall also can shape shift since he turned himself into a seal when he and Loki fought in one story. 

You know, it kind of pisses me off when someone’s perception of norse mythology is based on Marvel/MCU. And it’s so easy to spot because they get basic facts wrong. No, Thor and Loki are not brothers, Loki is Odin’s blood brother. Loki’s last name is not «Laufeyson», Lauvøy was a Æsir maiden, and Loki’s father was a jotun called Fårbaute. Sif is not a goddess of anything, she is Thor’s wife. Loki can’t shapeshift, he and other gods borrow enchanted animal skins from Freya, goddess of love and magic.

[avatar216]

I agree because sometimes these people frighten me whenever I come across their posts. I swear sometimes it seems like they have a view of Loki in their heads that doesn't make any logical sense no matter if you look at Marvel or mythology. It almost seems like they confuse him with other gods like Hades or rather their perception of Hades anyway. I don't give one rat's ass about his wife and their relationship because he does cheat on her, and no, he does not hide it despite what Neil Gaiman and other writers would have you believe. I sometimes, when reading the myths, think that Loki only has sex so he can have as many kids as possible. I do think that they have this image of her in their head that is kind of an idealized image of themselves and they want to make Loki their perfect dream man but that unfortunately involves him basically becoming their creepy fetishized version of Hades where his wife is his whole world and nothing else matters to him; arguably including his own kids. Like it seems almost as though they want someone very aloof and uninterested in the matters of other people like it is with Hades outside of his own kingdom. Unfortunately for them, Loki is nothing like that and is almost always involved in stuff regardless of if it is his fault that it's happening or not. I sometimes call Loki willing but not eager to help because he would absolutely help a person if they asked him or ordered him to do it, but he is rarely willing to volunteer unless he thinks Asgard or Midgard are in danger.

They make her like an amalgamation of Sif, Freyja, Gefjun, and their precious Persephone as well, insofar as they make her as willing to let a man take care of her as Sif is, but yet they want her to be independent and badass like Freyja and Gefjun. They also give her the personality of Gefjun insofar as being sweet, charming and super nice to Loki despite all the douchebaggery he does, but independent and scary enough to frighten the s*** out of Odin as well as someone he respects as well because she knows magic of the future just as well as he does. Sig's also made to seem similar to Freyja in the way that she just constantly weeps and mopes when her husband's not around sometimes but yet is supposed to be this bad ass Valkyrie that works with Odin and someone who Odin is so fearful of that he has Loki actively go after her when he doesn't want to. They also seem to throw a touch of Persephone in there as well in so far as her supposedly being madly in love with her husband even though in the hymn to Demeter, Persephone is actively stated and described as being sad about not being with her mother and she does not want to be with Hades at all. Honestly I feel like they just truly want an amalgamation of the above three goddesses and not someone like Persephone who loves her mother a lot and doesn't really want a husband. Not that Gefjun is married or wants a husband because she doesn't, but she did have a few children. Speaking of valkyries. Sig is not one according to the mythology and I honestly question why she would even be one given Loki's seeming dislike of Odin's treatment of humans on the battlefield. Can these people please explain to me why he would ever marry a valkyrie given that? 

 As for the MCU and the comics, they either think she got done dirty or just don't like his current love interest in the case of Sylvie in the MCU. I'm not defending Marvel's choice in making Loki's love interest a version of himself because I do think that's creepy as s*** and I don't like that they claim that he's a narcissist, so I'm not defending that by any means but I do think they're whining is definitely annoying. I don't even like most adaptations of Norse mythology when it comes to Loki because I think they do him dirty but that's not because he doesn't have his wife or whatever. It's because they make him an abusive shit bag with no redeeming qualities at all and then pretend that he wouldn't acknowledge that he isn't nice or an a****** because as this one author said no one would actually openly admit to not being a good person, right? No honey, you are definitely wrong on that because Loki does acknowledge that he's not nice. That's literally the whole point of his argument in Lokasenna. That author is Cat Rector who authored the book The Goddess of Nothing at All, if anyone is curious.  

This is a wanky post of mine so ignore if you don't wish to deal with it. I just saw some complaint in the Loki tag about a certain love interest from Norse mythology not being adapted to Marvel.

I understand not liking a Loki adaptation because it's too different from the source material, but judging it based on whether or not a certain love interest from the mythology is present is just not a good way to assess a Loki media depiction (and in my even wankier youth where I courted war I saw condemnation from a-particular-blog-I-beefed-with towards a wonderful CHILDREN's BOOK (Loki: A Bad God's Guide to Being Good) for "erasing" said mythological wife and normal children in the family tree doodle *eyeroll*. It's a children's book where Loki's forced to have a childhood, FFS!!).

I also think adding a secret family changes a lot of the intended life stages and dynamics of say Thor (2011). It's perfectly fine when people do it in fics that are tagged as being inspired by the myths and have the pairing. But sometimes it's treated like cannon and I end up accidentally reading some fic of it in an unrelated pairing involving some Avenger or GOTG; and it gives me whiplash.

[avatar216]

Inside Out 2 Is Just Not Great in My Opinion

I finished watching inside out 2 yesterday and I can say I really did want to like it but I just didn't. I honestly think it suffers from the same pacing problems as episode 1 of season 3 of the Orville called Electric Sheep in the way that after a while it just started to feel like we were just jumping from scene to scene without an actual full consistent follow through of each scene. I didn't give two s**** about any of the new emotions in fact I thought all of them were kind of insufferable. I think anxiety is just a more tyrannical version of joy and joy did not in fact seemingly understand nor fully go through her character Arc of the last movie in understanding that other emotions matter namely anger, disgust, and fear. There were many scenes in this movie and in the last one where I just kept going why isn't disgust responding to this and why isn't anger responding to this instead of sadness or joy. I won't lie I've never suffered from anxiety and though I definitely had to deal with intensely strong anger and disgust to the point that I've actually done terrible things because I couldn't escape the triggers when I was younger but then again who can escape the trigger of someone singing happy birthday to you and you wanting to tell them to go die because the sounds of their and others voices is like a knife to your eardrums. I do realize that I have misophonia and misokinesia now, which this movie ironically actually set off because of some of the dialogue.  

Nothing says entertainment like fight or flight and anticipatory response, which are not necessarily anxiety and I think that's something this movie doesn't really get. I still think Joy is an absolute dictator and as someone who had to deal with a friend absolutely trying to force positivity on me along with his belief in happiness I can tell you I still despise her as a character because all she does as a character is remind me of my years of pain of researching positive psychology and psychology in general and realizing a lot of therapists and psychologists are just out of touch with Society. I do understand the movie is not trying to represent a childhood like mine of absolutely being enraged because I was basically treated like a slave who was expected to give my money to my family every single time I got any and when I finally stood up for myself I ended up with bruises. Happiness was the thing they used to control me and when I met friends who did the same thing I told them to go f*** off. So no I don't really approve of movies spouting this rhetoric that happiness and joy are the greatest thing when they are the things that people use to subjugate their family members. As I see it where there are happy smiling faces there is Darkness behind closed doors.  

Getting back to the actual movie: like I said I think Joy along with anxiety this time around are basically just tyrannical to all the other emotions. I also think Riley is a vapid and shallow person who could easily just be called follower in bold letters because that's what she is at the end of the day a meek weak pathetic follower. I know what people are going to say, but she's a 13 year old girl and I can tell you when I was 13 I wasn't that much of a follower even though I wanted to fit in in the online Pagan community. In fact I was 13 when the first movie came out, but I don't know maybe it's because I already went through puberty way before I ever turned 13.  When I went through puberty I just cried a lot and felt very alone because honestly I didn't have anyone since I was homeschooled besides my cousin and I 100% did not feel like I could talk to my mother because she just constantly invalidated my feelings of any pain and would call me a hypochondriac and still does which is one of the reasons I've snapped several times over the years. 

I wish anger and disgust had more to do because as I said above I think they are the ones who should be reacting in certain situations and in fact I don't understand why disgust didn't just use anger as a blowtorch like she does in the first movie to get them out of the bottle because that's what actually happens when you bottle up your emotions; anger and disgust come out first. I honestly see no reason why they're needed to be new emotions when it seems like fear and disgust actually covered embarrassment and anxiety in the first movie. In fact disgust is still the most socially aware one and cares a lot about what's happening socially. I feel like if they wanted to choose new emotions they really should have chosen what you would actually expect if you were going through puberty lust, romantic love, shame, and hate. I get not wanting to cover lust because this is a family friendly movie and you wouldn't probably be able to take a child under the age of at least 9 to it. However, my sister took my niece to see this movie and they just said it's very sad.  I would definitely agree but that's because it's a movie about a girl basically developing an anxiety disorder, which just turns her into a vapid and shallow follower as I've said. I don't think the movie actually handled that plot very well because her friends just forgive her for ditching them as if she wouldn't do that again in the future when she makes other new friends at her new school. I don't really like that this movie just gets wrapped up with a nice clean bow in that regard. I also don't really think any of the other new emotions had anything to do especially ennui and embarrassment. Envy just honestly made me cringe because what Riley was about to do is basically gross/creepy at best and downright illegal at worse. It's not funny if someone wants to touch your hair without your consent since this does actually happen to people like me who have curly hair all the time. People think it's okay and they're prerogative to just touch us because they like the way our hair looks or feels. No honey, that's assault.  

Overall, I think the movie was okay and I would say that disgust and anger were my favorite characters as always. I just wish that they would have shown Riley actually suffering some consequences for treating her friends like crap. 

[avatar216]

My Not Great View of Poly Pagans

 I have had the unfortunate displeasure of encountering what I call Poly Pagans. I am a Norse/Kemetic Pagan and I've noticed an increase of promotion of polyamory in the community online, especially on different Discords and Facebook as well as a little on Reddit.  The main reason I'm posting this is because it's kind of creeping me out that these people insist that certain historical figures didn't cheat on their wives they probably were just poly. They also seem to have a love-hate relationship with the concept of divorce. On the one hand they said it's a freedom that gets two people who aren't compatible away from each other but at the same time they also said that they wouldn't pay child support or alimony if they were ordered to. They also try to reinterpret mythological stories that are clearly there to point out why cheating is bad especially for children namely due to having to raise a child that isn't yours against your will and how that can affect the child because they will feel unloved. This particular person insisted that it was their right because it was their body, and well, their children will just have to deal with it.  They also literally said that cheating is a derogatory word and that polyamorous people don't cheat because it's all consensual. They also literally said that cheating is a derogatory word and that polyamorous people don't cheat. They also like to reinterpret mythological and even biblical texts to support their lifestyle when they're not actively reframing a story about how cheating is bad and harmful that is. This is still nothing in the face of them trying to insist that certain historical figures were poly and not cheaters. I even saw one of these idiots try to do this with Henry VIII. They insist that because most marriages were not about love historically, that must have meant that polyamory was the norm and monogamy a diseased exception. What these people fail to understand is that this often mainly applied to the really wealthy and or to people who are really trying to get a leg up in society because people just married someone they knew whether that be for Love or not and yes Arranged marriages were common in a lot of places but that doesn't mean there wasn't love between those people. An arranged marriage is not necessarily a forced marriage because some people do want to have an arranged marriage because it makes their life easier since they don't have to be the ones to do all the hard work of settling things financially oftentimes among other things. What they seem to fail to understand is that marriages were for stability as well as status whether that be through social or economic means. Love was viewed as detrimental to marriage because they knew people would do stupid things in the name of love like running away with the stable boy, which would lead to the ruination of the whole family and even one's own future children and grandchildren. One's actions affected everyone in the whole family and even the whole community sometimes. Cross post from Reddit.

P.S: Edit to Add. I don't care if I sound hateful, but this is not rage bait or whatever the fuck the internet calls it. I experience this stuff on Ocean Keltoi's Discord and elsewhere. I'm not just going to assume that people know that the Hellenist YouTuber Aliakai is one of the people like this, which did not surprise me when I found out about her because she sounded sketchy in some of her stuff. She always talked about money and seemed to whine when she thought she deserved more.

[avatar216]

When I was outside the other day leaving an offering to the gods, I started really thinking about why I personally don't like/subscribe to thinking about the Æsir's conflicts with each other or the Jõtnar as order vs chaos or good vs evil, even though the former is a commonly accepted rebuttal to the latter in arguments. I've accepted that order vs chaos is still just another way to hold on to Christian dualism in some way and the classical model as @skaldish says in one of his posts. I agree with him that the Norse gods are characters first unlike the Greek gods in many ways. I usually look at Loki and the others as beings whose actions are just that actions and beings who have events happen in their lives rather than actions being viewed as aspects of the gods, like Loki's so-called world breaker aspect. I personally feel like this type of thinking can diminish Loki's reasons for leading an army of the Jõtnar and/or dead humans against his fellow gods. I don't think one can really compare Loki to say Eris or Seth who both really embody chaos in the sense that they love to confuse and make discord but yet are measured counter points to positively chaotic beings like Apep and Typhon. I know I'm not alone in thinking this way. It's just not something I see too often in online groups.

To me, Loki in the myths (and in my UPG) comes across as stubborn, impulsive, mischievous, easily made angry, willing enough to fix his or others' fuck ups, cunning, deceitful, a bit foolish, self-confident, down right brazen, quick on his feet, serious when shit gets real, and may be kinda lonely or at least he likes attention a lot but not praise. He doesn't seem to want power much either. I try to avoid using God of x terminology in describing him because for me it doesn't answer the who in the question but rather the what of the question. I could describe him as a god of theft/plunder, war, leadership, deceit, cunning, slander, treachery, and betrayal among other things but that doesn't really explain what he acts like in myth or in my experience with him in dreams. In those he's blond and weirdly serious. The reason I'm explaining this is because I don't think labels and categories like order vs chaos really fit deities like Loki who are complex, confusing, and nuanced and whose actions can't be neatly sorted into boxes. Labels don't seem to stick for very long, I've noticed, when it comes to Loki. A lot of gods could be associated with these same things but that doesn't mean Loki is an equivalent to them. I would say Seth is a chaos god through and through but there's a lot more to him. However, he loves to do the things that fall under the definition of chaos like being confusing and random hence why I and others call him a chaos god. The Ancient Egyptians also did have a clear concept of Order vs Chaos. This isn't a modern projection of dichotomy.

I think we're really influenced not by Christianity, but Greek mythology in the way we approach understanding the gods and myths so far as thinking of gods as having governing domains rather than as beings with certain interests, lives, likes, dislikes, and jobs they do voluntarily. I also wish there was more out there talking about Norse mythology's big thing with the physical and biological sides of things like the world being made out of the body. Different body parts representing the cosmos. Body parts and trees being used for divination purposes etc. I think I agree with Dr. Crawford that a lot of certain concepts probably wouldn't even make sense in Old Norse, because it's a strongly concrete language.

[avatar216]

Roman women could get divorced and no, it didn’t cost them much money. I’m mostly talking about what the song says specifically. Also, the late 15th/early 16th centuries are not in the medieval era. It’s the early modern era by that point. Norse women {late medieval era} could easily just state in front of witnesses that they want to divorce their husbands and that was it. Underage marriage was not in fact very common in many places and times. The average marrying age was like 22 for women and 26 for men in England and America. People in general married younger back then because of resources and societal norms around having children and having a household of their own. Diseases like Smallpox, Scarlet Fever, TB, Syphilis, Plague, and Polio could and did kill a lot of people, so people would structure their lives around just living and starting a family because the chances were good that you could lose a loved one to one of these or something else, which of course contributed to the marrying age. It was way more common for royals and nobles to marry super young because parents wanted to make politically, economically, and socially advantageous matches for their sons and daughters, which could and did happen when both children were still in the cradle or even the womb. These children were heirs or spares who had a set role they were expected to fill, but they still usually didn’t actually have children until they were older. The medieval era lasted several centuries {470 AD-1450 AD] and encompassed a lot of different and verying places and peoples. Some of whom like the Anglo-Saxons and the Norse {Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, and Icelanders} did have legal divorce for both sexes. History is not a monolith. This only applies to free persons of course. Slaves still had no rights. In later centuries divorce became nearly an impossibility in England except for the uber rich because Parliament would have had to pass a new law everytime and getting one’s case heard in Parliament was nearly impossible. There were only like 314 divorces in England by 1850 or so and hence why wife selling was a thing. I’m likewise not claiming women were never the spoils of war. I’m mostly trying to point out that history is complicated because people are complicated. I’m tired of hearing people claiming divorce was not a thing historically, which is both true and false depending on when, where, and who. Rape was not super common at all and was punishible by death or public humiliation or even castration in a lot of places.      

I’m not claiming every woman had an amazing life or was treated well. I’m saying her family would be the ones at fault because her parents would have had to agree for her to get married underage in the first place. The age of majority was 21 in England for a long time, so if a girl ran off with a man when she was underage the marriage could be dissolved and he could be charged with rape/pedophilia, but this whole thing would have brought shame and dishonor to both their families, which is why a marriage was preferred. These were collectivistic societies, where each person’s actions affected the whole family, village, or nation. Women and men were expected to think about how their actions would reflect on their kin first before making big choices like whom they should marry, hence why even now the Royals were not happy with Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle. It was Lady Margaret Beaufort {mother of Henry VII} who was the one who got pregnant at 12, not Margaret de Beaumont. Margaret’s case was unusual even for the time. Her husband Edmund was going off to war and did not want to die without an heir. It did seemingly destroy her fertility, however she was described as a fairly small 12 year old. They knew there were risks to her health and they ignored them because of power and money. I’m not trying to justify what he did, but rather just trying to put it in context. Also, she was under the age of majority {21} and had a legal gardian whom agreed to the marriage and consummation. Henry VIII was considered a douchebag in his own time. 

Women would have had to do things the song lists, like fetching the water or serving someone regardless of having a husband unless she had servants, which is something I hear from my mom and other women a lot. They wish they had servants, a husband, or older children to do everything for them.  “

For somebody that I thought was my Savior, you sure

 make me do a whole lot of labour.

 Is the line that made me think she thought she wouldn’t have to do anything, which is why I question why he would even marry her or why he doesn’t have a mistress. It says it’s a love match, but I honestly don’t understand how. He did not seemingly force her to marry him, so I don’t get why she would even marry, This line made me feel little sympathy for her because as she admits, it’s a mistake,

“So now I've gotta run, so I can undo this mistake. 

At least I've gotta try”.

Unless she has money she either is going to have to live off of the charity of her family and friends or get a job most likely as a servant or governess, so she won’t exactly be escaping the servant part.  

Rant: Labour By Paris Paloma

This might get me hate, but I’m not sure. So, I was listening to Labour by Paris Paloma and it just honestly rubbed me the wrong way. I think it’s because the video that shows a woman who is clearly upper-middle class in a historical setting where she would of most likely have had a few servants and even some slaves to take care of everything shown in the video is complaining. It feels disingenuous to me because all I can think is that the servants below stairs should be saying this to both of them. Like I said I doubt she or he gets the water or fixes the gables. Even if she wasn’t married she would still have to do menial  labor. Life ain’t free. Also, why not leave and if possible get a divorce? I get that’s what she’s planning on doing, but why not sooner. Also, if they possibly already have a son, is she going to leave him behind with the husband who appears to be a drunkard as well as an abusive bastard? 

 I also think there is important context missing for the man because there is a huge difference between say working as a farmer/farm-hand or a gentleman farmer vs working in a trade like mining or millinery. I can definitely understand a guy coming home from something like that bone-deep tired and not wanting to do anything. Made worse if he came back from war and has trauma. A lot of men in England could not vote historically as well as women because they didn’t own enough or any land. Voting rights were dependent on land holdings. A day laborer could no more vote than his wife.  

Most women were more focused on surviving and living to care about how they were treated. We honestly have to understand that they would really not have known any different. Homemaking was the norm and to deviate meant you were a spinster and thus a burden on your relatives. A single woman would have to rely on the charity of family and friends, if they did not marry and have their own household. Marriage provided women with freedom and security they wouldn’t have otherwise. They could of course work as a maid, farm-hand, or tutor/governess, but those would not have necessarily paid well. I don’t even want to know why this needs to be said, but it does none the less. Women did not work alone to do all these things regardless of having servants. Women would work together to complete tasks like cooking and looming, which could and would bring in income as well. Child rearing was a community thing. Grandparents, Aunties, Uncles, and older siblings would help look after the younger ones. Just look at William the conquerer and his wife Matilda, who had nine children.    

The video would make more sense if set in the post-war years of the late ‘40s/early ‘50s where the white picket fence dream was more of a thing and where your stereotypical housewife would be found since this type of wife is in fact a recent phenomenon because most couples would both bring in an income either through a dowry or funds made in the above mentioned ways. However, war rationing was still happening during these years in Britain. It lasted fourteen years in total. Also, the dream is an American one, so it’s kinda weird a Brit would want it. Marriage was not about love historically. It was more of a contract between families for economic and social status reasons. Often neither party got a say in it. It makes me wonder why the woman/women are not blaming their parents instead. In fact, England made it hard for people under 21 to just elope, so they would run away to Gretna Green. If this woman did run away with this man because she thought he would save her and so she could seemingly just kickup her feet and do nothing but instead he treats her like Cinderella, well that’s somewhat her fault. It kind of reminds me of my sister who has a man-child for a boyfriend who doesn’t do shit but yet begs her for money and makes her do everything, but it’s still her fault she’s in that relationship, but not that she gets treated like that.  

Why does it seem that people forget effective contraceptives are very recent things? So yes, a woman having sex historically would most likely get pregnant. A man pulling out is only about 80% effective. Condoms did exist but they didn’t really work well.  

I honestly don’t get why people are using this song for famous women who were badasses or cruel like Katherine of Aragon or Queen Bloody Mary Tudor. No one cares about lesser known badass women like Yolande of Aragon, who acted as regent of Provence during the minority of her son. She played a crucial role in the struggles between France and England as well. She helped fund Jeanne D’Arc {Joan of Arc}. Some of these women over shadowed their husbands like Catherine de’ Medici, wife of Henry II of France. I’m sorry this was so fucking long, but I had to get this out. Cross posting on Minds.com.                                   

[avatar216]

{Good Omens} Gabriel/Beelzebub - Flawed Design | Saint Asonia

[avatar216]

Rant: Labour By Paris Paloma

This might get me hate, but I’m not sure. So, I was listening to Labour by Paris Paloma and it just honestly rubbed me the wrong way. I think it’s because the video that shows a woman who is clearly upper-middle class in a historical setting where she would of most likely have had a few servants and even some slaves to take care of everything shown in the video is complaining. It feels disingenuous to me because all I can think is that the servants below stairs should be saying this to both of them. Like I said I doubt she or he gets the water or fixes the gables. Even if she wasn’t married she would still have to do menial  labor. Life ain’t free. Also, why not leave and if possible get a divorce? I get that’s what she's planning on doing, but why not sooner. Also, if they possibly already have a son, is she going to leave him behind with the husband who appears to be a drunkard as well as an abusive bastard? 

 I also think there is important context missing for the man because there is a huge difference between say working as a farmer/farm-hand or a gentleman farmer vs working in a trade like mining or millinery. I can definitely understand a guy coming home from something like that bone-deep tired and not wanting to do anything. Made worse if he came back from war and has trauma. A lot of men in England could not vote historically as well as women because they didn’t own enough or any land. Voting rights were dependent on land holdings. A day laborer could no more vote than his wife.  

Most women were more focused on surviving and living to care about how they were treated. We honestly have to understand that they would really not have known any different. Homemaking was the norm and to deviate meant you were a spinster and thus a burden on your relatives. A single woman would have to rely on the charity of family and friends, if they did not marry and have their own household. Marriage provided women with freedom and security they wouldn’t have otherwise. They could of course work as a maid, farm-hand, or tutor/governess, but those would not have necessarily paid well. I don’t even want to know why this needs to be said, but it does none the less. Women did not work alone to do all these things regardless of having servants. Women would work together to complete tasks like cooking and looming, which could and would bring in income as well. Child rearing was a community thing. Grandparents, Aunties, Uncles, and older siblings would help look after the younger ones. Just look at William the conquerer and his wife Matilda, who had nine children.    

The video would make more sense if set in the post-war years of the late ‘40s/early ‘50s where the white picket fence dream was more of a thing and where your stereotypical housewife would be found since this type of wife is in fact a recent phenomenon because most couples would both bring in an income either through a dowry or funds made in the above mentioned ways. However, war rationing was still happening during these years in Britain. It lasted fourteen years in total. Also, the dream is an American one, so it’s kinda weird a Brit would want it. Marriage was not about love historically. It was more of a contract between families for economic and social status reasons. Often neither party got a say in it. It makes me wonder why the woman/women are not blaming their parents instead. In fact, England made it hard for people under 21 to just elope, so they would run away to Gretna Green. If this woman did run away with this man because she thought he would save her and so she could seemingly just kickup her feet and do nothing but instead he treats her like Cinderella, well that’s somewhat her fault. It kind of reminds me of my sister who has a man-child for a boyfriend who doesn’t do shit but yet begs her for money and makes her do everything, but it’s still her fault she’s in that relationship, but not that she gets treated like that.  

Why does it seem that people forget effective contraceptives are very recent things? So yes, a woman having sex historically would most likely get pregnant. A man pulling out is only about 80% effective. Condoms did exist but they didn’t really work well.  

I honestly don’t get why people are using this song for famous women who were badasses or cruel like Katherine of Aragon or Queen Bloody Mary Tudor. No one cares about lesser known badass women like Yolande of Aragon, who acted as regent of Provence during the minority of her son. She played a crucial role in the struggles between France and England as well. She helped fund Jeanne D’Arc {Joan of Arc}. Some of these women over shadowed their husbands like Catherine de’ Medici, wife of Henry II of France. I’m sorry this was so fucking long, but I had to get this out. Cross posting on Minds.com.                                   

[avatar216]

Thanks. It's the admin Nathan Anderson of the NGDG who was saying this recently. He's claiming that there are "stories/versions of the myth like this, which is bullshit and he, of course won’t previde sources. He and others are using this to possibly make a bad faith argument that Loki is a terrible partner. I mentioned the fiction also because he’s writing books and then claiming the above to anyone criticizing his books rather than just saying he's making it up because yeh know it’s fiction.

Unfortunately people believe this crap and newbies don’t know who to trust. I don’t feel sorry for putting this dude and group on blast. As for the Lokean groups, people in those were saying that because yeah they want there to be more about Angie but also they want Loki to have two or three wives instead of having a wife, mistress, and many other lovers thus making him less of a rakehell/debauchee. I don’t care that Loki is like that because it makes for nice entertainment at the very least and because it kinda shows that he’s not so different from other gods, although in his defense he’s not eagerly and happily SAing women unlike some other gods {ahemm.. Odin}.           

I know you've written about the Gullveig/Freyja theory but I keep seeing the equation of Angrboða with the witch whose heart Loki ate according to Voluspa hin Skama and both of them being equated with Gullveig. I want to know where this idea comes from. I mostly see it on FB in the Norse Gods Discussion Group and a couple Lokean groups {although, not as much anymore}. I honestly think this is just too much of a leap in logic. I know Genevieve Gornichec put Angrboða as Gullveig in her book, but I'm not sure if she equated them with the heart eating thing. I didn't read it.

I'm asking because I've been looking for good fiction about Norse mythology but keep running into the idea that Loki is an abusive husband but also that killed his mistress and ate her heart, which kinda doesn't make sense to me because why wouldn't he have just slept with her if he wanted more children or whatever.

I'm going to stick to Greek or Egyptian mythology based fiction like ENNEAD for now, whilst looking for good Norse ones.

The first author that I know of to describe Gullveig/Heiðr, Angrboða, and the heart into a single figure is the 19th century Swedish author Viktor Rydberg (he also included Aurboða and Hyrrokkin in this complex). Rydberg was convinced that there was a single original epic narrative that was shared by all the Germanic-speaking peoples, and that myths, legends, and folklore of Germanic Europe was made up of the decayed, corrupted fragments of it. He also believed that he knew how to put it back together, sometimes even borrowing from non-Germanic narratives.

In order to make that make sense, a lot of his work is very preoccupied with merging different figures together, because he can't really allow any loose ends. His work is also characterized by a fairly strict polarity between the gods (unambiguously good) and their enemies (unambiguously bad) which, to be fair, was not uncommon among scholars in his day. He had some things to say that were important for the 19th century, but his work should not be taken seriously today.

He does still have a small but very prolific following among modern heathens including the authors of the so-called "Asatru Edda" and whoever runs www.germanicmythology.com.

I'm not sure if more recent Lokean/Rökkratrú theorizing about Gullveig/Heiðr and Angrboða is related to Viktor Rydberg or not. I could imagine that the sort of Þursatrú/Nordic Satanism types might have some things in common with the Rydberg-inspired heathens, taking the same black-and-white, hardline good-vs-evil view, but siding with the opposing team, and being favorable toward the Gullveig/Angrboða/Aurboða/Hyrrokkin complex; and then this could filter into other Lokean or Rökkatrú spaces. To me, the burnt heart seems to point to Rydberg. I don't think that Völuspá in skamma gives an impression that the heart that Loki eats belongs to Angrboða. Rydberg only came to that conclusion by inserting Völuspá into the context of Völuspá in skamma, so that Angrboða is mentioned as the mother of Fenrir, then is burnt (as Gullveig), then the burnt heart is eaten before she's resurrected. I find this pretty unintuitive, and unlikely to be thought of twice independently of each other, but I could be wrong.

On the other hand, sometimes ideas just go into circulation without anyone knowing where they come from, not thinking to question it. It's possibly that Rydberg was the ultimate origin of this, but that nobody spreading the idea knows it.

There are also a lot of heathens who worship Angrboða, but since she's only mentioned by name once in all of Norse mythology (twice if you count Snorri, but it seems like he's working from Völuspá in skamma, so it's probably just the first reference again), it seems natural to look for traces of her elsewhere. Merging her with other figures like Gullveig/Heiðr might be a way of adapting other lore so that their goddess has more written about her.

As an aside, if a figure from Völuspá is to be identified with Angrboða, I would expect it to be the unnamed in aldna í Járnviði, whose children are "Fenrir's kind."

I'm not really very familiar with Lokean groups or even really Facebook heathenry in general anymore, so it's very possible I'm missing some things. I don't really know anything about Norse mythology-inspired fiction.