#fascinating breakdown

[sualne]

(wip) a comic about a haircut im procrastinating

[thegreenthepeacetheorange]

On Gale and patriarchy/toxic masculinity

I really want to do a reading and analysis of Gale's character as upholding patriarchal values and expectations of toxic masculinity because this stuck out to me as I listened to the CF audiobook before bed last night. From chapter 1 of CF:

I think of Gale, who is only really alive in the woods, with its fresh air and sunlight and clean, flowing water. I don't know how he stands it. Well ... yes, I do. He stands it because it's the way to feed his mother and two younger brothers and sister. And here I am with buckets of money, far more than enough to feed both our families now, and he won't take a single coin. It's even hard for him to let me bring in meat, although he'd surely have kept my mother and Prim supplied if I'd been killed in the Games. I tell him he's doing me a favor, that it drives me nuts to sit around all day. Even so, I never drop off the game while he's at home. Which is easy since he works twelve hours a day. 

Highlighted the part that really made my ears perk up. There's something to be said about Gale's stubbornness and his pride, which is very similar to Katniss's but he always takes it another step. Whereas Katniss learns to accept others' help, to forge these connections, Gale doesn't. It's giving "I'm the man and this is my job." For someone who wants nothing more than to help keep his family alive, it's weird that he refuses any help.

At first I thought maybe he doesn't want her money because it's from the Capitol and he despises it that much but she says it's hard for him to even have her bring meat in from hunting. Which points to his pride. He wants to be the provider. The one taking care of her. And it leaves Katniss in a kinda tricky place. It's like she's walking on eggshells around him here - purposely not dropping off game at his house when he's there.

Compare that with Peeta (which as a reader, like Katniss, you end up doing when either of these two guys come up) and it's so different. We know Peeta is strong and smart etc. He's not a hunter but he's also still a provider (of bread). And he has his own pride too. But going through the Games, Peeta and Katniss have a balanced push and pull. She helps him, he helps her. She takes care of him, he takes care of her. When he's hurt, he lets Katniss help him. He's not too proud to try and do it himself. Same with Katniss. She lets him take care of her when she needs it. And this is something they learn from the Games, particularly Katniss; how to accept help from others. And we see her development in this over the course of the trilogy.

Gale is interesting in that I really think he is one of the characters in the books who really doesn't grow as such. In my mind, he's rooted in place in many ways. From his ideals, to his thoughts, to his strategies, to his actions, he doesn't really develop much. He has moments - but a lot of those moments are tied to wanting to apologise to or be better for Katniss (and still he comes up short). I'm thinking of the moment where he makes her feel bad for defending her prep team in 13 and then later tries to smooth things over in the canteen by being kind. I believe that's something he did only for Katniss. She's his motivation to be different (but turns out that's not enough still.)

I'll maybe build on this another time but this passage made me think of what he says when he sees Katniss after Prim's death. "Does it matter? You'll always be thinking about it... That was the one thing I had going for me. Taking care of your family." Instead of apologising for helping to create such bombs, instead of asking for forgiveness, instead of crying with her, instead of expressing his sorrow and regret at what's happened, this is all he's able to say. Which is odd to me. To not even try to comfort your supposed closest friend at such a time. To say that's all you had going for you? It's this relationship of transaction. 'I take care of your family and hunt with you so you should end up marring me.' I really don't think that's far from what Gale expected.

I think there's even more to say about Gale as a patriarchal character but I've rambled on enough at this point. But his attitude and perspective throughout the book, while aligned with that of a traumatised young adult in the midst of oppression, also aligns heavily with patriarchal constructs. The way he thinks of war and people and human relationships, the way he thinks of fighting and death, and the way he thinks of doing whatever you have to do to achieve your end, no matter what happens or who gets hurt in pursuit of it. If anyone has any reading on Gale in these areas I'd be so interested in it!

[multigenderswag]

Multigender Survey Results Dec 2023: Language (part 2)

Gendered terms

Participants were asked “What kind(s) of gendered terms do you prefer?” (multiple selection). The options provided were:

Masculine terms such as man, boy, etc: 599 (75.2%)

Feminine terms such as woman, girl, etc: 279 (37.6%)

General terms such as person, kid, etc: 489 (65.8%)

Nonbinary specific terms such as enban, enby, etc: 147 (19.8%)

Combined feminine and masculine terms such as manwoman, boygirl, etc: 323 (43.5%)

Nonhuman terms such as thing, creature, etc: 390 (52.5%)

I have no preference: 54 (7.3%)

Out of participants who answered “Combined masculine and feminine terms such as manwoman, boygirl, etc”:

142 answered both masculine and feminine terms (44.0%)

13 answered feminine terms but not masculine terms (4.0%)

120 answered masculine terms but not feminine terms (37.2%)

48 did not answer masculine or feminine terms (14.9%)

Gendered terms, pronouns, and labels

Masculinity

Participants were compared based on whether they answered “Masculine terms such as man, boy, etc” to the question “What kind(s) of gendered terms do you prefer,” “He/him” to the question “What pronouns do you use?” and “Man/boy/male” to the question “What are the genders you identify with?” and divided into the following categories 

Identify as a man/boy/male, prefer masculine terms, and use he/him pronouns: 366 (49.3%)

Identify as a man/boy/male, don’t prefer masculine terms, and use he/him pronouns: 40 (5.4%)

Identify as a man/boy/male, prefer masculine terms, and don’t use he/him pronouns: 46 (6.2%)

Identify as a man/boy/male, don’t prefer masculine terms, and don’t use he/him pronouns: 18 (2.4%)

Don’t identify as a man/boy/male, prefer masculine terms, and use he/him pronouns: 106 (14.3%)

Don’t identify as a man/boy/male, don’t prefer masculine terms, and use he/him pronouns: 53 (7.1%)

Don’t identify as a man/boy/male, prefer masculine terms, and don’t use he/him pronouns: 41 (5.5%)

Don’t identify as a man/boy/male, don’t prefer masculine terms, and don’t use he/him pronouns: 73 (9.8%)

Femininity

Participants were compared based on whether they answered “Feminine terms such as woman, girl, etc” to the question “What kind(s) of gendered terms do you prefer,” “She/her” to the question “What pronouns do you use?” and “Woman/girl/female” to the question “What are the genders you identify with?” and divided into the following categories 

Identify as a woman/girl/female, prefer feminine terms, and use she/her pronouns: 187 (25.2%)

Identify as a woman/girl/female, don’t prefer feminine terms, and use she/her pronouns: 87 (11.7%)

Identify as a woman/girl/female, prefer feminine terms, and don’t use she/her pronouns: 37 (5.0%)

Identify as a woman/girl/female, don’t prefer feminine terms, and don’t use she/her pronouns: 88 (11.8%)

Don’t identify as a woman/girl/female, prefer feminine terms, and use she/her pronouns: 35 (4.7%)

Don’t identify as a woman/girl/female, don’t prefer feminine terms, and use she/her pronouns: 71 (9.6%)

Don’t identify as a woman/girl/female, prefer feminine terms, and don’t use she/her pronouns: 20 (2.7%)

Don’t identify as a woman/girl/female, don’t prefer feminine terms, and don’t use she/her pronouns: 218 (29.3%)

Femininity+Masculinity

Participants were compared based on whether they answered “Combined feminine and masculine terms such as manwoman, boygirl, etc” to the question “What kind(s) of gendered terms do you prefer,” “He/him” and “She/her” to the question “What pronouns do you use?” and “Manwoman/boygirl/male+female” to the question “What are the genders you identify with?” and divided into the following categories 

Identify as a manwoman/boygirl/male+female, prefer combined terms, and use he/she pronouns: 156 (21.0%)

Identify as a manwoman/boygirl/male+female, don’t prefer combined terms, and use he/she pronouns: 66 (8.9%)

Identify as a manwoman/boygirl/male+female, prefer combined terms, and don’t use he/she pronouns: 112 (15.1%)

Identify as a manwoman/boygirl/male+female, don’t prefer combined terms, and don’t use he/she pronouns: 64 (8.6%)

Don’t identify as a manwoman/boygirl/male+female, prefer combined terms, and use he/she pronouns: 22 (3.0%)

Don’t identify as a manwoman/boygirl/male+female, don’t prefer combined terms, and use he/she pronouns: 83 (11.2%)

Don’t identify as a manwoman/boygirl/male+female, prefer combined terms, and don’t use he/she pronouns: 33 (4.4%)

Don’t identify as a manwoman/boygirl/male+female, don’t prefer combined terms, and don’t use he/she pronouns: 207 (27.9%)

Nonhumanity

Participants were compared based on whether they answered “Nonhuman terms such as thing, creature, etc” to the question “What kind(s) of gendered terms do you prefer,” and “It/its” to the question “What pronouns do you use?” and divided into the following categories:

Prefer nonhuman terms, use it/its pronouns: 218 (29.3%)

Don’t prefer nonhuman terms, use it/its pronouns: 172 (23.1%)

Prefer nonhuman terms, don’t use it/its pronouns: 57 (7.7%)

Don’t prefer nonhuman terms, don’t use it/its pronouns: 296 (39.8%)

Abinary

The answers to “What kind(s) of gendered terms do you prefer” from participants with one or more abinary gender were compared to answers from participants overall.

Participants with one or more abinary gender were significantly less likely to prefer

Nonhuman terms such as thing, creature, etc: 110 (25.6%)

26.8 percentage points lower than participants overall (p < 0.001)

Feminine terms such as woman, girl, etc: 134 (31.2%) 

6.3 percentage points lower than participants overall (p < 0.01)

and significantly more likely to prefer

General terms such as person, kid, etc: 306 (71.3%)

5.5 percentage points higher than participants overall (p < 0.05)

Nonbinary specific terms such as enban, enby, etc: 266 (62.0%)

42.2 percentage points higher than participants overall (p < 0.001)

[kingofattolia]

"Do you miss it? The Order?" "I miss... the idea of it. But not the truth, the weakness. There was no future there." OKAY, THIS MAN MISSES THE ORDER SOOOOOOOOOOO BAD IT MAKES HIM LOOK STUPID

I'm serious. He's carrying the husk of his long-ossified grief so obviously. It is evident in everything he does and says that he was a young knight absolutely ripped to shreds by Order 66 and its lonely, dark aftermath. He allowed despair to be his comfort, convincing himself there's nothing to mourn because it's easier than dealing with the loss.

[resssistance]

Doctor Who VFX Showreel

[butchratchettruther]

Kittails fic where Surge persuades Kit to start seducing Tails in order to defeat Sonic because Tails has an “I can fix him” crush on Kit but it works a little bit too well and Kit maybe isn’t dating him for the plan anymore and also Surge DOES NOT have a crush on Amy

[pastelpaperplanes]

Omg the kobd couple is so cute, wildbreak too. What was Op and Megs reaction to them ? :3

ah, I’d imagine after both of them woke up after being patched up they’d surely be grateful, but dazed and confused as HELL

kinda like, whomst the fuck attacked us and how the fuck are we alive. WHAT the fuck is that little thing, where the fuck are we and why the FUCK are we all the way in the isles???

Give them a break, they are in pain 😂

[transingthoseformers]

OK here are my thoughts on the world building with Megatron insisting on fusion cannon weddings for the bitties.

While Megs is the Champion of Koan, Megatron of Tarn was D-16 long before he was a gladiator and god of war.

So I'm thinking he has some cultural biases from being a Tarnian Miner. And I'd imaging with the danger of the mines and the Functionism very few low caste sparklings had both parents. And they suffered for it. both in terms of being orphaned and lacking legal protections including inheritance rights because their parents weren't permitted to be conjuxed without permission rarely given to miners.

Worse laws came into place that single parent sparklings and sparklings who's parents weren't conjuxed could be taken by the state at any time for any reason under the sun. Clearly non-Forged Sparklings need stable conjuxed families so they could receive the light of Primus not coming from his spark. And Tarn already had a strong taboo about not having a sparkling outside of being conjuxed.

Worse, the right to be conjuxed was something that was slowly being striped from everyone but the elite. The process by Megatron's youth became something you had to pay heavily for. Upper middle cast could still afford it with much saving or borrowing but imagine the cost for the Marriage license instead of being $60 USD the license itself costs the full average price of a wedding $30,000 USD. And the equivalent of a Justice of the Peace wedding cost instead of $120-150 cost $75,000. The lower cast and the lower middle cast are priced out of being able to get conjuxed. For Disposables not only did they need to find the cash, they also needed permission from the one/company who owned their contract and sponsorship/vetting form a Priest of the Thirteen. Said Priest could choose to waive the fee if he felt the applicants were worthy. In theory it's possible but in reality impossible.

All of Prima's Priests have to come from the Priestly Caste. Most of the rest had to as well in practice even if it wasn't forbidden in the holy texts but there is one Priesthood that accepts Mechs outside of the Priestly Cast. Megatronus, god of War only accepts Warriors for Priests. And in Megatron's stint in the Pits of Kaon, some bright spark thought Megatron becoming a fake Priest of Megatronus for publicity would be a great idea, kinda like a preacher gimmick for pro-wrestling. Megatron refused because while he's not overly religious, it gives him bad vibes. Just spiting on the culture of his city and playing into so many stereotypes. Gladiators like all athletes are superstitious. Megatron is able to insist his adamate refusal is to not risk offending his names sake and his city's patron. He doesn't want his streak at the top cursed.

This old Tank, the priest of Megatronus, is nearly offended as Megatron by the idea of presiding over a fake religious ceremony for the Pit. Even if his temple he can't afford to refuse. the Wheels and gears on Meg's head start turning. Being a real priest even of the Fallen would grant him more social clout and freedom of movement. It would also give his nacient Cause a touch more legitimacy.

So when the Priest coldly rises to stalk out, Megatron rises and state he has no intention in taking part in a religiously themed farce, he also has all the qualifications for being an acolyte aspirant to the priesthood which doubles the insult to Tarn and it's patron. Which gets the Priest's attention. Megatron's manager is chased out of his own office while the Priest and Megatron have a very intense talk about Megatron's motivations.

Megs is a silver tonged bastard and the old priest recognized he has a potential brilliant general on his hands. The youngster has given him a chance to maybe eventually put Prima's priesthood in it's place. The manager is being permitted back to his office so the Priest can inform him Megatron is now in training to be a priest of Megatronus and a dispensation is granted for him to do so in Kaon. The Major Rites of course are to be publicly witnessed and broadcast but only in full. This is when Megatron realizes the old mech in front of him is actually the High Priest of Megatronus.

Megatron becomes a priest of Megatronus and is actually, to his embarrassment, the High Priest by both seniority and military rank by the time the cons get to Earth.

So Megatron through a mixture of spite, using the Autobot code against the Autobots(their own laws force them to return the sparkling to their creators or their designated next of kin,) and lingering Tarnish cultural baggage is enforcing you get someone heavy you gotta marry them. It doesn't happen often because sparking is rare any how and baffles are mandatory, but it does happen. Megatron's point on this is absolute. This has resulted in Autobots and Neutrals being taken prisoner so they can "make an honest mech" out of someone, or be "Made an honest mech" if the Deceptacon sparked them up instead. One of the practical reasons why Fraternization is frowned upon by Autobots.

O yes

Let's break tgus down

Makes sense in a dangerous environment growing up Megatron wouldn't see many dual parents and he saw a lot of bullshit, and how this manifests into mandated shotgun weddings

Also I'm biased but a wedding for 30,000 is very ouch imo

This is fascinating because yeah i can totally see this happening in an au, and i can see why it profoundly affected how he wishes to run things

jesus fucking christ megatron as technically priest, technically, is not something i ever expected to read

Megatron:

Megatron: projects childhood onto his faction

Megs is trying, i can see the gears turning and see what he means, but fuck this is a funny way to go about it, that there is a recipe of a person

Like just fucking imagine getting kidnapped and finding out it was because you got someone pregnant, which you didn't know beforehand. Delightful.

This makes me wonder if anyone was actually banking on this in order to marry the love of their live officially looks at kobd

[pinacoladamatata]

something something down by the river

yeah i could draw something other than two characters gazing at each other with utter heartsick longing but I know what i'm about son

[divinekangaroo]

I clipped this from your post because it’s easier than trying to inaccurately summarize! But I was wondering what you think about this dynamic. Whether you see it as a core part of his characterization and what you think it says about him, or whether you see it as kind of a visual shorthand in the series that isn’t indicative of anything about his approach to sex? It seems to me to be very consistent over the years and I’m curious about your take.

Yeah I think the repetition/consistency in how they show this makes it a super deliberate and very core part of his character, at least in how I read it – wouldn’t be nearly as fascinated with the story if it wasn’t.

And I don’t think it’s an accidental visual shorthand because of that repetition. I remember reading somewhere CM said that in S6’s TxL hotel sex scene they actually filmed two full sex scenes, one on the sofa and one in the bed – but in the end they only showed the last few seconds in the bed focused on the faces, as better articulating the purpose of that scene. I think they are very particular about how and what they show about Tommy having sex.

The particularity does add to this sense of overly-performative sex (EVERY sex scene feels performative and slightly contrived to me, even Tommy with Grace, even him using passionate sex with Grace in S3 to distract her XD, even him drunkenly/passionately sealing the ‘transaction’ with Lizzie in S5’s My Property scene) but I think they manage to stay on the side of the line that it feels like Tommy being consciously performative/contrived, rather than feeling like I can see the director’s hand. It’s the same sense when looking at Tommy’s various desks: yes his desks absolutely reek of being a contrived stage, but it’s *Tommy* being conscious about setting the stage, not the set designers/directors.

My reading / what I think the sex says about his character:

his ‘thinking mind’ constantly tries to frame sex as a transaction because he sees himself/his labour/his work/doing killings/offering sex – basically any act of his body as the fundamentality/essentiality of labour – as a unit he can trade for something else he wants. There’s some kind of less thought-out complex/trauma background thing here, where he believes that his worth is only what he can bring in and do for the family – labour, killing, smarts, sex, whatever. Mostly that’s his intelligence/schemes/business smarts, or his ability to push through risk/stress for high stake outcomes (stretching to do things they won’t out of fear), but sometimes that’s also his body (if combined with intelligence - trade your goods smartly, not stupidly, for advantage worth more than the momentary loss of bodily boundaries).

his ‘unthinking mind’ does actually want sex physically because it feels good. Physical release/oxytocin/endorphins etc? libido? I assume this, because otherwise they just wouldn’t bother showing him seeking out prostitutes; he’s not doing that for ego because he was satisfied in S1 that people thought he wasn’t having sex even though he was. But he is also sort of scared of sex because it leads to an intimacy that he can be used or hurt through it, hence why he defaults to prostitutes (S1, S2, S4 - or even the Zelda fling/no possible relationship) when he’s most wounded. Could theorise this is due to actual sexual abuse, but seems more like it’s because he hurts so deeply every time he’s connected deeply with someone – he loved Greta and was broken when she died, he loved Grace and was broken when she died - so, this supports his transactional approach because transactions are conditional, negotiated up front, well defined and ‘safe,’ they can’t get intimate or personal. He can use the transactional approach to justify himself seeking sex, while at the same time netting him something which feels good.

But whatever’s in the middle of the above two, is actually madly desperate for personal connection and intimacy. Despite him trying to apply sex transactionally or as a feel-good-only thing, he falls into some kind of intimacy and connection with the people he has transactional sex with, so frequently it’s a definite pattern. (I could write absolute buckets about May right here)

Even when he tries to avoid intimacy/connection – prostitution - returning from war, he sticks with one prostitute and has a very intimate connection with her? All right that's not typical?? And between S3 and S4 when the family’s shunning him, instead of just being promiscuous and anonymous, instead he has a relatively small rotation of regular prostitutes, knowing their names by preference to anonymity? Even the scene we see where he insists on someone new that he doesn’t know, this sparks from Lizzie pushing him about family/intimacy/connection. I read that almost as a “look at me Lizzie I don’t NEED connection stop pushing me” in front of her to try to make a point (to her, who used to be his intimate sexual connection, in a way that hurts her too to put her in her place? to himself?), immediately followed by him handing Lizzie cash/emphasising transactional approaches.  And this is then followed by that absolutely hysterical fail of a sex scene with the ‘someone new’ prostitute, which I swear is filmed to show Tommy did not, in fact, have any sex, or if he did, it was so lame they didn’t even muss the bed.

Even S6 and the prostitute in America, it’s fascinating they make the effort of showing that having happened, but then focus so much on all the intimacy/connection in the phone call with Lizzie/kids. He needs sex but he's hungry for connection and made vulnerable by intimacy.

(And I could go on about the number of ‘woman on top’ scenes and why that particular position, or specifically the filming/dialogue with May which is one of the more fascinatingly filmed and verbalised transactional relationships because of her class, or why I think Lizzie, the actual prostitute, has the least amount of flesh/nudity showing at all from all his women while he's often MORE naked/exposed in their scenes -- I’ve only been able to watch properly the once through, but had so many thoughts on how they dealt with the framing/camerawork.)

But all up, it feels like it’s trying to show him as a character who performs sex to get something out of it that’s not sex (transaction/treats self as a fundamental labour unit of exchange), but still needing/wanting/enjoying sex (because otherwise why would he pay for prostitutes/why even put sex on the negotiating table men don't do this??), but also constantly he cannot shut down this tendency/urge of his to more softly want/need personal connection almost more than the sex.

It’s just not a common way to portray a guy ruthlessly heading a gang, and that’s why I think it’s so deliberate. They take the expected image of how a guy heading a gang would approach sex (prostitutes, seduction, sexual prowess etc) but it feels like they’ve turned that expected image/action well on its head (cares for prostitute/s, suffers the Mosley-threat and Diana-rape, sexual prowess is mostly in service of women, attempts to depersonalise himself to a unit of trade), and then they use camerawork and the pre-post conversations to show this intriguing drive for intimacy instead of sex.

I hope that’s answered the question? It’s tricky; some of these thoughts more suited to a conversation/branching dialogue than a single post or I get repetitive XD

Tangentially, there’s more thoughts too on how they weave prostitution through as a theme, or the way he’s often in conflict between those motivators of ‘transaction/physical/intimacy’ -- he trips himself up; he gets hurt by trying to lean into one or two of those, and forgetting the other/s, and can’t really ever get them in balance.

[kingofmyborrowedheart]

Thinking about how “I Can See You” touches on the sense of excitement that’s only in the first verse of “illicit affairs,” as well as the secrecy throughout the rest of the song, and “Foolish One” covers the feelings of loneliness, emptiness, hurt, and anger that are present in “illicit affairs.”

[fadedapparition]

william e. stafford, "brother" | sophocles, antigone (tr. f. storr) | david kaczynski, "missing parts" | igor levchenko, bhelen aeducan, prince of orzammar I | | stefano rebeggiani, "theban myth in virgil's aeneid: the brothers at war" | "missing parts" | wikipedia, "cain and abel" | cormac mccarthy, the sunset limited | "missing parts" | igor levchenko, bhelen aeducan, prince of orzammar II | john steinbeck, east of eden | virgil, the aeneid (qtd. stefano rebeggiani, "theban myth in virgil's aeneid: the brothers at war") | "brother"

[fellhellion]

The way Miles accidentally hits what seems to be - given the severity of Miguel’s reaction - such a huge fucking bruise with the “Are those claws? Dude, are you sure you’re spiderman?” and it’s this trigger for Miguel just fucking. Exploding with everything he’s kept under lock and key like. Resentment over the way he seems to feel deeply isolated in the emotional burden of what he does, blaming Miles for what he believes was the catalyst which led to him being in this position (RIPeter’s death), hitting back (verbally) to hurt with the anomaly comments when it’s like dude. If they keep your origin intact, you’re both the so similar, and because this kid is living proof of every doubt you’re trying to suppress.

[actual-changeling]

.

[homoeroticgrappling]

There is so much to unpack here, but him putting himself and Piper is so real

(also shout-out to all the AEW talent for commissioning artists publicly and showing the art off, it's so cool to see people supporting artists)

[symbioticsimplicity]

That ace vibe of "I know this person is incredibly attractive, but they're also saying something interesting could you please stop screaming I want to hear what they're saying."