AhsokaLegend

A lover of kpop, Star Wars, figure skating, and all things animated | Catholic | reblogs and thoughts from the abyss

[ahsokalegend]

One of my favorite choices the Apothecary Diaries made was making the Emperor a “normal guy” (as far as I know as an anime-only). He’s not evil. He’s not hindering Mao Mao’s journey. He respects the concubines.

If anything his lack of autonomy and presence as the most powerful person in the country further enhances the show’s themes of working within the confines of class and gender inequality.

The previous emperor was a horrible, horrible pervert. Okay, then this emperor only weds women of age… Until he’s forced to take his father’s precious wife due to politics. The current emperor reasonably avoids her.

Eunuchs exist? Bam! now the surgery is outlawed, but this will create a reduction in male labor around the palace.

The emperor clearly favors few women. Well, now he must recognize a concubine with a powerful politician father playing the system.

He supports Mao Mao toeing the line of social expectations for women, but hasn’t removed the law against women preparing medicine. It makes one think, if he wanted to, could he make the change at all? For every two steps forward, he’s forced to take one step back.

In this universe even the Emperor is limited by social pressure and the expectations of his station. His life and that of his children is out of his control, and if that isn’t such a compelling piece of world building I don’t know what is.

If that’s how the author twists the narrative of the Emperor you better believe her female characters dealing with women’s issues in this society are even better written.

[ahsokalegend]

My boyfriend is making me a computer so we can play Minecraft❤️❤️❤️

[exitwound]

Girl you need to get out of bed faster than this

[lesbianredpanda]

I'm giving it all she's got boss

[leesvnkyu]

i.o.i » 260522 'suddenly' ending fairies✨

[shenzi-hemlock]

Touching grass is not enough, some of y’all need to touch the hem of His garment.

[thegothicalice]

Happy World Goth Day to those who observe 🖤 Corset top by Nuit Clothing Atelier, necklace painted & assembled by me, boots Demonia, dress thrifted.

[avadaniels]

these guys haven't seen goncharov

[geurujam]

shomarin ★ press conference // 260522 (₁ ₂ ₃ ₄ ₅)

[greater-than-the-sword]

I think what older generations don't understand is that Zillenials and below are the first generations that didn't choose the smart phone as consumers. They don't have the same relationship with it. They didn't shape its development. Zillenials kind of did, but also their parents bought it for them. For older generations the smartphone is about convenience, progress, and possibility. They accepted its drawbacks for its advantages. For Gen Z, the technological capacity of the phone is a given, with no glamor or sparkle to it, and the societal demands of the phone are their chains from birth. "But you're young! You're supposed to love Phone!" All the advertisers cry.

But just because you can't truly concieve a world without Phone doesn't stop you from resenting Phone. I don't think that anyone from Gen Z actually wants to abolish Phone, but they absolutely want to abolish the chains of the phone. And they are right to say it, too.

[thegaymertrainer]

Ribbon dancing I was not aware of your evolution 🤯

[storybookprincess]

so today a group of 8-9 year old kiddos approaches my desk and goes “hey. we want to go to the downstairs part of the library.”

i’m like “you can totally go downstairs, but just so you know, right now the only thing down there is the genealogy department. that’s like the history of this area and the people who lived here a long time ago.”

i’m expecting them to lose interest, but to my surprise, they go “we want to see the genealogy department!!!!!!”

so i’m like “alright let’s do it!!!!” and lead this group of maybe six elementary school kids across the library make way for ducklings style and downstairs to our extremely not kid friendly genealogy room. our genealogy librarian is super cool, though, and he pulls out a few interesting things for them to look at & they ask a lot of questions and try to find where they live on maps from the 1800s

after about fifteen minutes, their curiosity has been sated, so we go back upstairs and over to the children’s department in that same duckling parade style

truly wish i could render this little scene artistically for you all it was a delight

[vamptits]

they want you to make fried rice

[memser]

who is "they"

[vamptits]

the wok left

[solongandthanksforallthefish42]

how am I supposed to make fried rice if the wok left

[manicpixiedreamkiller]

how many sharks does a tornado need to be considered a sharknado

1

2

3-5

10 ????

more ??????

other ????????????

Voting ended onMar 27

[manicpixiedreamkiller]

this is the level of analysis we’re looking for here people

[timberwind]

you can post on tumblr even when you're trying to take a break from social media it literally doesn't count. it's like pepsi max, or pescatarianism

[feliz-navidad]

"What if my friends secretly hate me?" What if they pray for you before bed? What if they hear a song come on and it makes them immediately think of you? What if when times are hard for them, they close their eyes and think of the memories they've shared with you? What if they study your face closely to see how you're feeling? What if they listen to your stories? What if they smile when you text them first? What if

[fictionadventurer]

One of my biggest literary pet peeves is when historical or history-inspired fiction pretends that "courting" is a synonym for "dating". Usually it's just a one-to-one word swap--in a modern context, these characters would be dating, but this is olden times, so they call it courting instead. Sometimes they'll pretend there's a shade of difference, and that courting is a more serious exploration of marriage or something. But I read a lot of fiction that was actually written during these historical eras, and the word "courting" is never used like that.

Two people do not decide that they are "courting". One person decides to "court" someone else. It's an action, not a stage in the relationship. A man decides to court a woman because he wants to encourage her to have romantic interest in him. He's trying to win her favor. It's not an exclusive relationship--a woman could be courted by multiple men at once. She'll spend time getting to know the guy who's interested in her, but they won't officially define their relationship as one where they only show romantic interest in each other. If they reach a point where they want it to be exclusive, that's when you propose.

There's no middle ground--either you're getting to know each other, or you're committed to marrying each other. This idea of a period where you kind of commit to each other until you decide you definitely want to get married is a modern one, and it occurs in eras where they use the word "dating" to describe it. The closest equivalent I can think of are times and places where they'd talk about a couple "stepping out together", but they're still not calling it "courting". Words have meaning, and the word "courting" has never meant that, so stop using it that way!

[starfieldcanvas]

the other mild historical disjoint i run into is when people talk about dating in the fifties like it automatically meant exclusivity. the whole reason we have the expression "going steady" is because the default was to or "go around with" or "go out with" multiple people. not in the sense of being in a stable polyamorous vee, but in the sense that archie is actively "seeing" both betty and veronica during the entire time the two girls are competing for his attention and they're both seeing other guys to make him jealous, and nobody involved considers this "cheating."

bizarrely, America has in many ways gotten more conservative about dating since World War II.

[chocolatepot]

People like to tie the shift from courting to dating to the 1920s, but it's actually a bit older than that. (Caveat that everything I'm about to write is about the United States; the same thing may have happened elsewhere, but my sources are about American social history.)

Courtship was something that happened semi-publicly, in large part because women tended to live with family until they married. A man would come to pay a call and sit in the parlor with the woman he was courting ... and usually members of her family, like her parents or siblings (or uncles/aunts and cousins, if she was living with more extended relations). It was about pleasing all of them, and proving to all of them that he intended to marry her.

In the late 19th century, young working-class women started to move out of the family home for work, and not just to the other side of town — to cities across the state where they didn't know anybody. They usually stayed in boarding houses, where the landlady wasn't interested in hosting chaperoned evenings of courtship in front of the fire. As a result, they spent time with men in dance halls and bars, something akin to modern dating. On the positive side, this gave women the independence to make romantic and sexual choices away from their parents' influence. On the negative side, the women taken on dates (disparagingly called "charity girls") were frequently pressured to have sex in exchange for the money spent on them, money they were unable to spend on themselves due to their low wages.

Dating practices then spread to college students around the turn of the century. Among these upper- and middle-class young people with , the idea that the male party was owed sex in exchange for the date was not as much of a thing: dates were public courtship, held without the direct involvement of family members but still under the eyes of the community. This eventually spread out to become an ordinary part of teenagerhood in all classes. And yes, there was no assumption of exclusivity: teenagers were expected and encouraged to date widely, because going steady was a precursor to engagement, which they were too young for. (It was also the norm prior to WWII for couples attending dances to dance with other people at them. It was in fact the male partner's duty to find other people for his date to dance with! And he couldn't leave whoever he was dancing with unless she had a new dance partner.)

[marzipanandminutiae]

Similar to the non-exclusive 19th century courting, 19th century balls were also considered social events and it was thought rude (and sometimes even scandalous, for young unmarried women) to only dance with one person. Even married couples would not be together the whole night, that would spread themselves around to make sure everyone enjoyed the amusement equally

[20thcenturystarlet]

New York City ballet production of Midsummer Nights Dream

[thepeelingrenoir]

The fact this isn't a painting is a testament to one of the greatest feats of set design and production I've ever seen.

[thepeelingrenoir]

My god just look at this! The lighting, set design, photography... I've just never seen anything like it.

[sisaloofafump]

This is from 1966 and you can see over a hundred photos on the NYPL digital collections website. It is absolutely gorgeous. These are just a few of my favourites.

Plus Puck's face here: