Who Blogging with Clara Oswald and Friends

[toptony]

THE THICK OF IT ∘ Sn 3 Ep 8

[noahkhn]

waitress (who obv isnt Clara): this Clara person, you must really like her lolll (x)

[winterswake]

DOCTOR WHO — The Zygon Inversion

[viktasha]

[marsinvaders]

[thewisewill80sbyers]

Clara Oswald you suicidal queen you'll always be my wife

[taran-wood-beast]

[everybodygoaway]

[eternal-clara-oswald]

If all you can see in Clara is a collection of unflattering traits then you aren’t engaging with the character in a balanced way. Because she does have an abundance of positive traits like courage, compassion, a constant desire to help others, intelligence, a sharp and witty sense of humor etc etc, and grounded well-contextualized motivations for her human frailties but people who’ve decided they don't like her want to roll around in their hatred and ignore inconvenient complexities.

[gayleafpool]

sometimes i think love triangles should be resolved by polyamory but badly like everyone’s still mad

[eternal-clara-oswald]

Maybe someday when people say “gay panic” we’ll all think of cute freak-out moments of gay self-realization, but as of right now it still refers mainly to the victim-blaming legal defense that’s been used to dismiss the murder of LGBTQ people and that’s what comes to mind when I see otherwise cute posts about quasi-closeted gay characters panicking about gay attraction

[eternal-clara-oswald]

While undoubtedly a lot of the Franchaela hate is lesbophobia (and racism, though Franchaela isn’t unique in representing Black-White interracial love on Bridgerton), I think it's also very likely just pure old-fashioned misogyny. Gender-flipping Michael resulted in a net loss of one male character, specifically a male romantic lead. And I think some of the hetero female fans of this show can't deal with that. If Michael hadn't been gender-flipped, but Franchesca had (into a hot guy, of course), would these fans be just as upset? The ship would be just as gay, but I dare say some people wouldn't complain about the addition of romantic male eye candy even if that eye candy happened to be gay. Tbc, there's nothing wrong with enjoying eye candy in any form, we are all adults here. I just think it's the lack of a sexy guy that offends some heterosexual female viewers when it comes to Michaela.

[eternal-clara-oswald]

Francesa & Michaela. Just posting this picture on my blog so I can look at them.

[eternal-clara-oswald]

Rate Bonnie (aka Zygon Clara’s) (left) hotness compared to Clara (right)

I know what you mean op, she’s somehow even hotter than Clara

I get it op, but after much consideration: she’s the same hotness as Clara

Good question op, she is sadly less hot than Clara

What’s wrong with you op? They look exactly the same. Did you hit your head?

I just want answers

Voting ended onApr 13

GIFs taken from this blog: https://stellagibson.tumblr.com/

[astronomyofwords]

i haven’t seen anyone talk about it yet but as always, i love bridgerton’s use of colours in costumes to tell a story. the bridgerton family colour is blue and as couples form, you can see their love interests wearing more blue. and we see it for franchaela this season.

at first they are fighting and their dresses represent that: a more calm blue for francesca while michaela is wearing a fierce red. (a red and blue ship!! lesbians stay winning as always)

but the next morning, they are friends, their relationship has evolved and now, michaela is wearing blue! still bolder than francesca's as a reminder of their differences. slowly but surely, michaela is becoming a bridgerton.

[weirdloverwilde]

how come violet wants to let her wild younger self, the part of her that isnt a wife or mother, out, to be free, but cant see that she should let eloise do the same?

[eternal-clara-oswald]

Exactly.

But let’s be honest, the unspoken reason she doesn’t want to marry is because she doesn’t want to give up her power as the matriarch of the Bridgerton household. It doesn’t matter how kind and deferential her husband ends up being; the moment she marries, she concedes ultimate control of her freedom, wealth, and children’s lives to her husband. A husband, even if a kindly stepfather, is still a man who could take all that away from her if he wished it. (And narratively, a stepfather would disrupt the dynamic of Mama Bridgerton being the sagacious sole broker of life lessons for every child.) Violet knows this. Which is why it boggles my mind that she won’t even consider her daughter’s wish to retain her autonomy over marrying. Violet’s hypocrisy would be interesting if I thought it were intentional, but I think it’s about convenience for the narrative. It’s convenient for the narrative that Violet remains unmarried. It’s convenient for the narrative that Eloise’s established views on marriage get pooh-poohed to clear the path for her predestined Regency romance ending.

[weirdloverwilde]

i think in some ways that might be the case, but her new husband wouldnt become head of the bridgerton household, or most of her children. anthony is and that doesnt change if violet marries - i think at most hyacinth would move but most of her children are adults and just fine under anthonys care. marcus wouldnt move in with the bridgetons, violet would move out with him. which like you say would be extremely inconvenient for the narrative. violet basically needs to stay single at this point

[eternal-clara-oswald]

Okay, I definitely don’t know this time period well enough to disagree and think you’re probably right, though it seems to me that he would be a stepparent of the minor children. But good point

[weirdloverwilde]

how come violet wants to let her wild younger self, the part of her that isnt a wife or mother, out, to be free, but cant see that she should let eloise do the same?

[eternal-clara-oswald]

Exactly.

But let’s be honest, the unspoken reason she doesn’t want to marry is because she doesn’t want to give up her power as the matriarch of the Bridgerton household. It doesn’t matter how kind and deferential her husband ends up being; the moment she marries, she concedes ultimate control of her freedom, wealth, and children’s lives to her husband. A husband, even if a kindly stepfather, is still a man who could take all that away from her if he wished it. (And narratively, a stepfather would disrupt the dynamic of Mama Bridgerton being the sagacious sole broker of life lessons for every child.) Violet knows this. Which is why it boggles my mind that she won’t even consider her daughter’s wish to retain her autonomy over marrying. Violet’s hypocrisy would be interesting if I thought it were intentional, but I think it’s about convenience for the narrative. It’s convenient for the narrative that Violet remains unmarried. It’s convenient for the narrative that Eloise’s established views on marriage get pooh-poohed to clear the path for her predestined Regency romance ending.