Avatar

@queenmiriamele

Cat lover. Unapologetic feminist. historian. Daenerys and house Targaryen Loyalist. Ravenclaw. ATLA is still the best show ever.MInisterica. This is a chaotic bunch of things I like. Art found in desktop nexus. https://abstract.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/2519174/
Anonymous asked:

to what degree do you think jaehaerys is supposed to have a good or bad legacy from GRRM’s point of view? like the books paint him as having this legacy of being a wise pragmatist, and the perspectives in fire & blood back that up superficially even if it’s not hard to see how his decisions directly led to civil war and oppression. is that intentional or just an accident of asoiaf being a good critique of monarchy in general? is the text saying that monarchy is bad because not every king is jaehaerys, or is it bad because even its greatest mythologized figures worked towards its corruption?

genuinely no clue. to me it is one of the biggest points of dissonance both plot-wise and thematically in the whole series. If i want to be generous id say that it’s clear that Jaehaerys is remembered as a Good King, like the best possible ruler in the monarchical system, and this is BECAUSE he is unambiguously just a terrible person to his family because that’s what feudalism mandates and that familial destruction causes the civil war? To me this SHOULD be the point, but somehow it is NOT because fire and blood and the main series don’t really draw any particular conclusions about the ethics of Jaehaerys’ rule.

You get to fire and blood and he is just not singularly a standout politician despite everyone saying he is? as a ruler he is not fantastically distinct from maegor the cruel other than their relationship to the faith. He built a bunch of stuff, but most of the reforms were his wife or his septon’s idea and he doesn’t really get enough to demonstrate competence as a ruler. One standout is that he’s so inexplicably terrible at making marriage alliances like he somehow seems genuinely surprised any time one of his kids comes of age and needs a spouse and the only logical explanation for the bonkers matches he makes for his children seems to be active malice against them. His actions specifically his misogyny against Rhaenys literally caused the dynasty destroying civil war.

and if the similarities between the two were the point, the book was making, I would be pretty interested. like yeah they both build all these things but their entire legacy is built on reproductive coercion and violent misogyny. Jae and Maegor both got their start by usurping Rhaena. Jaehaerys is actually worse in terms of how he treats his mother. Maegor actually named a female heir at one point while Jaehaerys refused to do so at multiple points. Like his uncle Jae was also obsessed with making children and forced his wife to have THIRTEEN of them even though she begged him not to. Jaehaerys had someone hold his teenage daughter down and make her watch as he chopped her boyfriend into small pieces with a sword to punish her for having premarital sex.

all of this is just the plot- not atypical for ASOIAF which really focuses on gender violence as a theme and condemning its entrenchment in the setting. except it’s just depicting a lot of violent misogyny without the commentary or making a point about it because Jaehaerys is Good which is really weird unusually shallow writing.

TLDR: there’s so much dissonance in how he is written: he is described as this fantastic ruler, but doesn’t do a lot of big political moves that maegor didn’t, he’s a terrible person, but is never really called out for this by anyone in the text in ways kings like Baelor are. What’s the point? What IS the text trying to say about Jaehaerys? I would also like to know.

Avatar
While every force available in the world is searching for the 5 people in the oceangate submersible, a boat filled with mostly Syrian and Pakistani refugees sank under still “unknown” circumstances off the coast of Peloponnisos, Greece (with the coast guard present). More than 600 people drowned but guess which of the two is making headlines

"We need to highlight the role women play in perpetrating and sustaining patriarchal culture so that we will recognize patriarchy as a system women and men support equally, even if men receive more rewards from that system. Dismantling and changing patriarchal culture is work men and women must do together. "

- bell hooks, "The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love"

um.

Yes. Thank-you Sansa for:

1) Lying to Jon for unknown reasons all season long.

2) Pissing off every house on-screen on that Northern tour.

3) Shitting on one (of two) people who got the Starks some of the only help for their army during that god-forsaken Northern tour which was 62 more people than you got, Sansa.

4) Trying to first a) strong-arm and guilt-trip a recently killed, newly resurrected, and freshly traumatized Jon into risking his life in a battle for a castle he was repeatedly reminded by Sansa's mother and society at large he had no place in; b) trying to make him force the wildlings he saved into forming an army for that battle; c) and then, when Jon told Sansa no, invoking saving Rickon to push Jon into saying yes; and finally, d) telling Jon on the night before that battle, to give up Rickon for dead* (when Rickon was the only reason why Jon is fighting at all).

  • Jon (a bastard) and Sansa (a daughter/married to a Lannister and then to a Bolton) just standing by and letting Ned Stark's trueborn son and heir getting murdered by Ramsay Bolton. That'll look good. Really politically savvy there, Sansa.

5) Withholding an offer of an entire f*cking army from Jon and his forces who'd be risking their lives on the battle field against far greater forces than their own. They develop a strategy because their army is so small and believe this is their best viable move against their enemy. Sansa huffs and puffs angrily in the background over not being sent an engraved invitation for her exalted opinion ("Don't do what he wants you to do!!") despite never not needing said invitation before during previous war councils (6x05) or the Northern tour (6x07) where she led talks. OBVIOUS SEXISM HAPPENING HERE OBVIOUSLY. Jon asks Sansa, "When will we have more men?!" Sansa says nothing: not of the offer Littlefinger made of the Vale army, not that she had written to accept said offer, nada.

Thousands of wildlings and likely a big chunk of Mormonts die. Rickon lays smashed and dead on the ground. A bloodied and battered Jon is suffocating under a crush of bodies. A spotless and fresh Sansa and LF ride in together atop clean white horses as the Knights of the Vale crush the Bolton host.... you know, after loads of damage has already been done.

THANKS SANSA.

Personally, I think Jon should have thanked Sansa by revealing her season 6 activities that occurred behind his back to his new Northern vassals when he was crowned king, the contents of their pre-battle conversation (ie. Sansa urging Jon to let Rickon die) and then let the Northern lords yell it out before deciding the loudest voice chooses her.... uh, "reward".

so theres a lot of posts going round about the titanic wreck and the missing submarines; all of them that ive seen have made very good points about how shoddy the submersible seemed to be and how the company decided to wait eight hours before reporting it, and how this is a play stupid games, win stupid prizes for the ultra-wealthy who paid like 250grand a ticket for this thing.

but what i havent seen any posts about is how the titanic wreck is a gravesite and this tourism is disturbing the graves of over 1500 people.

sometimes its kinda hard to remember that those on the titanic were real people; it was over a century ago, the story has been romanticised in so many ways (like the movie), theres conspiracies theories galore that cloud everything with misinformation, but at the end of the day, those who died were real people.

their bodies are long gone and their lives long forgotten. all we have to remember them and honour them is the wreck itself. its all we have of them and it is their gravesite. its their tombstone.

caitlin doughty/ask a morticians video on the great lakes discusses the topic well, and why we should leave these shipwrecks alone because again, they are the gravesites of all the souls who died aboard those ships. we rarely have bodies to recover so we really are left just with the wreck.

and what really upsets me about titanic tourism is how the majority of those who died that night were not the ultra-wealthy rich folks you might picture when you think of ocean liners.

  • 61% of the first class passengers survived
  • 42% of the second class passengers survived
  • 24% of the third class passengers survived
  • 24% of the crew survived **

the majority of those who died that night were regular folk; not to be cliche, but they were just like us. titanics wreck is not only a gravesite for over 1500 people, its also a majority working class gravesite.

and look at us now. look at what were doing. the ultra-wealthy can pay the equivalent of peanuts to them to disturb a mass gravesite of the exact kind of people they exploit today to hold onto all their wealth. 

its easy to point and laugh at these dumb idiots in their playstation controller submarine, seemingly held together with super glue and duct tape, but its also important to remember that what they were doing was simply disturbing a gravesite for fun. though the company does research, these guys werent down there to conduct research, they were there so they could brag about it to their friends. its like “climbing mount everest” while your sherpa does all the work.

if you cant tell, i have a lot of feelings about this. shipwrecks and ocean liners are one of my special interests and im currently building a (beginner’s) model of the titanic, for fucks sake. but i would never go down to see that wreck because its a fucking gravesite and we should not be disturbing their final resting place.

Sorry but this post is kind of nonsense. People died defending the walls of european castles, people died at Pompey when the vulcano erupted, the valley of the kings in Egypt are tombs, like the pyramids, like Paris catacombs. Lots of soldiers died pointlessly at the battle of Somme and some people visit the space just to see where it happened.

You can be respectful of the víctims of an event and still visit the site. No peace of anyone is being disturbed. The dead are dead.

The whole point of writing fascist characters as human beings is that real fascists are also human beings. If you think of fascists as somehow less than human you are falling into the trap of letting their mentality frame your worldview, thus legitimizing their course of action!

When you start looking at fascists as subhuman the debate becomes 'which group is actually subhuman and which is being unfairly maligned?' And personally I'm not fucking comfortable with that question being on the table ever.

Imagine that you have been taken slave during a war and wish to escape. But how can you? You are a slave. A prisoner. Those in charge can do whatever they wish with you. You do not want to remain in this jail of yours. But you know you cannot just walk out! you are not important enough to have your wish granted. You are a slave!! So you hatch a plan and that involves the murder of the guard in patrol. Your story here is just like a sequence out of a film of every other action hero. But there's a catch!

You are a girl!!

No, but the "Jon and Catelyn" discourse in this fandom is absolutely nuts.

Like listen matey, I will be the first to roll my eyes when someone goes "They are privileged nobility so they should keep their mouth shut about having any other problems ever!!" about female characters in this story, but CATELYN?? Within the 15 years timeframe in which she's harbouring this bitterness against a mere boy specifically??

She's had hard times before that, she would have hard times ahead, but aside from the whole "literally at the top of the world, rich and privileged and if anyone in her family is kind of sad about something at any point then every man (or old enough boy) bellow her has to leave their own wives and kids and elders and go die for them, no choice about it", she doesn't even have any other problems that we might still pity women in her position for, still.

- Her husband loves her and she loves him back.

- He is a good man, too. She is respected, she has a voice in the house. She speaks over him when she thinks herself more in the right, at this stage in their marriage. She literally has the last word in the matter of "Jon and the Wall" for one.

- She is healthy and beautiful and thriving in her 30s. Hardships such as fertility issues, miscarriages or other typically female struggles others of her peers go through have evaded her.

- Her children are healthy and beautiful. No infant death, no grief until the Bad Things TM start happening because the story needs to start. If things kept being normal, it would never have been an issue.

But, hear me out, Jon being there means her life is not perfect-perfect and people should cry themselves to sleep over the hardship of (guiltily though!!) kind of wishing a child were dead or disappear through some other means idk rather than the (controversial!!!) "this is not the best thing ever and a character flaw I think :/?"

For real???

"But it kind of hurts her feelings because what if he is the son of a woman he loved in the year 11th of dragonfoot before Jesus Christ was born, even though he's definitely loved her for the last over a decade, what then :/?"

Listen, for Arya, a little girl, it makes sense to say silly things like "Nooooo, how dare you imply daddy ever liked any other girl than mommy ever in his life, take that back!!! (⁠T⁠T⁠)" but as far as I'm aware most people reading ASOIAF would be grown adults or something close to it - Catelyn for one definitely is. And, yes, feelings can make us irrational, but that shit is irrational.

(Nevermind that she suspects it's a dead woman so the whole "must be the greatest of loves, too!!" is also dumb - like, that child supposedly just doesn't have anyone else in the world anymore, where is he to go?)

I’ve seen people accussing Dany οf paranoia at ACOK because she’s worrying that Westerosi politicians will make another attempt to kill her. According to them, it’s a sign of falling into the same madness with Viserys because at the beginning of the first book she seemed to question the existance of hired assasins while on the second one she worries over it.

In my opinion, the way those people read Dany’s chapters is so biased and narrow minded. The reason  Dany changed attitude towards the issue is simple: at the end of AGOT, she was nearly poisoned by a person send by Robert and his supporters. In my opinon Dany being wary of possible assassins send from enemies who has already done an attempt to kill her in the past, isn’t a sign of paranoia. It’s a sign of common sense and caution.

zutara with their precious steambaby

belated happy zutara month! here's a quick sketch/lineart (that I had lying around...incuded Katara as a last-minute addition) and a colorized version (done by my drawing program because I am exhausted lol)

A study in creating great characters, by Aaron Ehasz (head writer of Avatar the Last Airbender). A lot of animation lead characters are forced to fit the far right criteria, but think of the many classic characters that are better described by the left: Tony Soprano, Frank Underwood, Jamie Lannister, Walter White, etc.

Anonymous asked:

What would you say is the dumbest argument people have used against Zutara as a ship that you’ve seen/heard?

can i say all?

that isn't even a joke; in all the time i've spent in atla fandom, i've yet to see a convincing anti argument for why zutara shouldn't be canon. it's always [false claim entirely unsubstantiated by canon] [zuko/katara would "insert bad thing that is already very much present in their canon romances"] [zutara bad but zu.kka good because obviously being fruity is a magical fix-all cure] [some straight up racist/misogynistic bullshit].

that being said, the argument against zutara i personally find the dumbest is the idea that people only ship zutara because they find zuko hot and want to self-insert into katara.

even leaving aside the fact that it's not just straight women, or even primarily straight women who ship zutara (most zutara shippers i know are queer and many of those are acespec), or the blatant misogyny of assuming the only reason a ship could be popular amongst women is because they find the male lead attractive instead of using critical thinking skills... how on earth do you watch zuko and katara hug each other at sunset and see each other through their lowest moments and bond over their trauma and see zuko throw himself in front of fucking lightning for katara, and still think the only reason people could possibly want them to be together is because they find zuko hot?

besides, if i really wanted to self-insert there are already two other eligible female characters zuko is actually romantically involved with, both of whom have barely any character depth and development, and thus provide the perfect blank slates for self-insertion. picking katara, who doesn't even get to so much as kiss zuko, and who has a far more distinct and unmalleable personality than both jin and mai, makes not the slightest bit of sense - but then, that's probably too much to ask from zutara antis.

Avatar