Speeches to the Ñoldor

Sideblog for curufinwefeanaro. Here I house fandom posts, mostly Dragon age and The Silmarillion, lots of bunnies, occasional real life issues, and whatever else fancies me. I like Ñoldor and Tevinter. Enjoy your stay.

[hweanaro]

years later and the ways people write Feanor are still abysmally bad. 

[wavesheep]

Part II

（Part I→[link]）

（Part III→[link]）

You can buy it here:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/wavesheep/ealindale/hardcover/product-22437326.html

1.Iluvatar  2.Two Trees

3. Ulmo&Osse  4.the Fall of Fingolfin

5.Sun, Moon and Men  6.Ecthelion&Glorfindel

7.Maedhros&Maglor  8.Elrond&Elros

9. There and Back Again  10.The Fellowship of the Ring

[ryo-maybe]

@hweanaro

[ingvildschageart]

I started painting Maedhros and Maglor last night, inspired by the last kin slaying and the last attempt the two of them did together to get the Silmaril. That part really disappointed me, as I always saw the two of them as being better than their brothers and father, and I always forget about that last battle they initiate, so I felt compelled to draw them how I see them in that scene, most likely from the view of Elrond and Elros.

Still unfinished, but I hope to finish it soon, as it’s not the biggest drawing I’ve made in a while! 😊 let me know what you think! 😘

[yenyenyen19]

Ambush

[barcarole]

[glorthelions]

the fëanorians after a kinslaying: this is so sad maglor play despacito

[vauxhallandi]

it’s 2016, callout culture has gone on for more than long enough now, let it die, it’s time

[transmoondane-deactivated202501]

callout for this post wtf is “callout culture”

[vauxhallandi]

callout culture is falling out with someone and digging through their archive to compile a list of things they said five years ago to turn total strangers against them

callout culture is reblogging a callout post for a total stranger made by a total stranger out of a misplaced sense of moral righteousness

callout culture is overusing the word ‘problematic’ to the point where saying something out of ignorance thirty years ago is placed on the same level as assaulting children

callout culture is expecting people to disclose deeply personal information pertaining to their mental health, experience of abuse and other incredibly sensitive subjects before engaging in a discussion with total strangers

callout culture is bombarding people with accusatory messages as soon as a celebrity or tv show they like fucks up, as if it was their fault or they can do anything about it and as if it’s possible for anyone or anything to be perfect enough to be deemed worthy of fandom by those standards

callout culture is refusing to give people room to fuck up and then grow and learn and to acknowledge that people and media mean a lot to people for an enormous variety of reasons and expecting people to be able to (and to want to) just cut all emotional ties they have with something or someone when they fuck up is unreasonable and unrealistic

callout culture is claiming to stand for social justice, but driving young teenagers to the point of suicide because maintaining a sense of ideological purity is seen as preferable to remembering that we all used to be ignorant on various issues and educating those who just didn’t know any better

[rasec-wizzlbang-blog]

Remember when Leelah Alcorn committed suicide and people actually started digging through her blog for ‘receipts’ and making posts like “uhm just so u know she was anti-otherkin sooooo”

that’s callout culture.

[almighty-hail]

Callout culture traumatized then REtraumatized me.

The first instance happened in 2015. An acquaintance and I got into a fight about his behavior towards others. Instead of simply blocking me, like I’d done, he created an entire blog dedicated solely to making posts about things I’d said, then and before, and tagging people.

Sure you can say ‘just ignore them’ but they had more than that.

They brought up my fiance, saying “I’m worried about you being with someone so abusive.” I received hate from people I revered in the community. I lost friends. Trying to ignore it didn’t work. Trying to defend myself didn’t work. Trying to report them didn’t work.

People have emotional investment in the connections they make with others online. You can’t just unplug from that.

My fiance, for two months, had to watch me grow so out if control, I was forcefully checked into the hospital for suicide risk. I tried telling the psychiatrist what happened, but was too shaken. She diagnosed me with posttraumatic stress disorder. When I came back out they made me visit group counseling three times a week.

I met a woman who was trying for divorce after 20 years in a physical, emotional and financial relationship. She come up to me after sharing my story and said, verbatim, “the loss of identity and violation you feel, is exactly how I’ve been feeling for twenty years.”

I saw a therapist a year later for something else, and when I told her what had happened, she said I was absolutely justified to feel hurt. “That’s an absolute nightmare,” she told me.

In December 2016, on Christmas Eve in a different fandom, I was called out falsely for dating someone younger than me. They were not underage. But because I was “an adult” I was being abusive among a myriad of other things. Rumors flied fast and I left, but not before the police showed up on my front porch and I nearly downed two bottles of medication.

Third time, September 2017. I had been dating him for a month (not my ex fiance, someone else). His parents were paranoid, and paid a “private investigator” (which in the end turned out to be a scam) and had discovered my family’s names and phone numbers, my residence, my online accounts, my school, where I’d attended previously, and more. And, supposedly, they’d found enough evidence to threaten to take to the authorities. They wanted me to answer their questions, or else I’d be reported as a potential predator.

I didn’t question. I answered, then hung up, then called 911. I shouldn’t have because the hospitals I ended up staying at were hellish and still haunt me. When I got back, most of my friends had fallen for his lies, and had I not been able to provide evidence of my innocence and lack of any actual criminal record, I would have lost them. He’s gone but my friendships and mental health still suffered.

Callout culture ruined my psyche, my friendships, my school career (yes that was affectes too), my relationships, my safety, my peace of mind, and even reached my family members directly. It’s disgusting. It’s monstrous. And it will never, EVER, be effective the way people think it will be.

[spacegothprincess]

In honor of Transgender Day of Visibility, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute and acknowledge all the trans people who have chosen not to be visible, and remind you that your identity is still valid even if no one knows about it, and you are no less brave for choosing to remain invisible especially if that means it’s safer for you in your current living/ working situation.

[stirringwinds]

I should also add that European Muslims or people from the Middle East and North Africa kind of get similar treatment as European Jews in terms of how they are Othered- it doesn’t quite always work on skin colour alone.

The reason I get wary when people use colourist terms like “brown people” to refer to European Muslims or anyone from the Middle East and North Africa is because it is forcing it into the US colourist race paradigm in a manner that distorts the issue. Because although many of people from the MENA are darker skinned, many of them actually also look quite indistinguishable from Europeans because they are light-skinned. The shared genetics between Europe and the MENA owes a lot to ancient human migrations, not just the Roman era. So yeah. But yet, they can be light-skinned but once people find out their real ancestry and religion, they still are subject to racism.

Why? Because again, privilege in Europe is constructed a lot around ethnicity. Being light-skinned may confer you more privilege but ethnicity matters a lot in Europe and most places outside the Americas for that matter. Light-skinned French Algerians don’t get seen by the far-right National Front as “one of us”. If they are also Muslim (as many, like French footballer Karim Benzema are)? That operates to further reinforce their Otherness, just as how dark skin does that too- darker skinned French people of African ancestry like Justice Minister Christiane Taubira got called a “monkey” by the National Front.

Ethnicity + culture + language operates as a criteria for exclusion in Europe, besides colour. So this is why I do find it kind of frustrating when people boil down racism here against European Muslims from the MENA in colourist terms. When it’s plainly obvious they are ostracised based on ethnicity + religion rather than colour alone, as much as colour may make it easier to spot the “Other”. It also erases the discrimination against other European ethnic groups who are “white” by US standards but also Muslim like Bosniaks, Chechens, Albanians etc. These groups have been in Europe for centuries and some of them converted to Islam due to Ottoman influences, and are distinct from recent migrants. Chechen Muslims are stereotyped as terrorists in Russia due to the separatist movement (which is itself also because they have been marginalised).

The “white/POC” dichotomy breaks down very much in Europe and is not at all the sum of racism and oppression there. In my opinion, framing and reducing things to colour terms when talking about a diverse group of people facing a coherent phenomenon of discrimination- like European Muslims are- is not helpful.

[discoursecatharsis]

being a gay man in gay ship fandom I'm just sitting here watching anti drama like: ninety percent of y'all are fujoshi yelling at other fujoshi for being fujoshi. get a grip and just watch your fucking porn, karen. stop acting high and mighty because you jerk off to something you think is more soft and pure than other peoples' jerk off material. christ. do these people even have fun or are they just here to revel in misery?

I’m screaming, this anon just dragged all the antis with the hardcore truth

A+ statement anon, thank you

[antis-delete-your-blogs-pls]

I’m inordinately pleased with this post. Even the people antis are supposed to be “protecting” are done with their shit.

[hweanaro]

@ilsa-fireswan (the post was getting long so I’m making a new one) > (from here)

TL;DR in the tags. If anyone else wants to know my reasons for choosing Nerdanel/Fëanor, big rambling thing under a cut. I am pulling purely out of the Silm (as my reading of HoME is sketchy and sporadic though I hope to remedy that in my imaginary free time and I have no idea what it might say about them.) And I am couching it in words that indicate that this is my feeling about them.  I don’t think this is a hill worth dying on, it is just what I always see.  

In general, there were no really obvious choices for any of the examples I used.  I can give my reasons for any of them but I wouldn’t be upset to be corrected.  

I know my choice of Nerdanel/Fëanor is subjectively interpretive and I don’t have a well developed meta (because I’ve never needed to discuss their marriage before.)  But this is the impression I get every time I read the marriage of Nerdanel and Fëanor.  And I skimmed again today to see if maybe I was remembering things incorrectly, but I didn’t change my impression.

I have always had the impression that he married her for her father.  As in, what he could learn from Matan because he was a great smith who learned directly from Aulë.  The marriage was early in Fëanor’s youth, so it could have easily been one of those arranged marriages.  My impression is that they were compatible of feä, they did like each other (obviously), and that there was a love between them.  None of that is incompatible with the idea that the marriage was formed because they worked well together in the forge, because he respected her father as a craftsman, because they were of compatible social status, etc.  (As opposed to being formed because they had emotions about each other or because they enjoyed spending free time together.)  

So why did I choose it as a negative example?  Because I don’t see the respect or love that they did have as something that grew over time.  It was something that faded the longer they were together.  (Again, there were no clear, unalloyed examples for me to use.)

I do believe that at the beginning (’beginning’ being a subjective word measured in Elven timeframes) there was great respect between them and that a love was there.  (Though I have never seen love as the motivation for their marriage.)  Or, to say it another way, I think they started out loving each other but I am not convinced they were ever “in love” (using the current media picture of “in love” as the definition.)  I actually feel grief when I think about them because I think they could have been a delightfully loving power couple and I adore real historical stories of “we married for practical reasons but do love each other.” (Also because I want people to be happy in general.)

I know they had a large personality difference (which can be good or bad for a marriage) and I feel like they always had philosophical differences that would have grown over time.  I can’t fully support that with the text but the fact that he was making secret forges and no longer listening to her advice tells me that he knew (from experience?) she would not agree with what he was doing and suggests that she might have done something to stop him.  The fact that he was able to keep his work a secret indicates that either they were not spending enough time together for her to notice OR that she simply didn’t care what he was doing.  Neither one are indicative of a companionable relationship.  (I suppose he could have said “it’s a surprise, trust me,” but I find that unlikely.)

It seems to me that they had a marriage that started promising but ended badly.  It might have been because it was an arranged marriage.  It might have been because they were young and didn’t know each other well enough.  It might have been because circumstances brought unexpected changes.  That last one would have been a major factor no matter the presence of any other factors, but I don’t see it as the only factor.

I will admit to a bias against Fëanor that makes me wonder if he married Nerdanel primarily because it was the best way to get Matan to teach him the secrets of Aulë’s forge.  But I also know that can’t be supported by the text so I try not to to let that totally arbitrary emotion have undue sway.  

I am also aware that I have personal experience that makes this my instinctive reading.  But I do not believe that makes it an unsupportable reading.

I DO like that Nerdanel/Fëanor feels realistic.  No marriage is all good or all bad.

  I feel like I might have spent too much time making sure I was clear that I don’t see it as purely negative. But I hope I was able to explain why I don’t see it as successful for reasons deeper than the fact that, in the end, they chose to live on separate continents.

I didn’t want to say “you probably hate Feanor so you might fabricating stuff that is nowhere to be found in canon just to make everything about him worse than it needs to be” but you pretty much put it black on white for me. So at least I know that you’re acknowledging the bias.

And look, your headcanon, not my business, but there is stuff that I just... I just have to address.

Because Feanor marrying her so that he has a chance to get into Mahtan’s graces? Sorry, but I’m just... I don’t want to say that it’s ridiculous, but it is. Are we honestly forgetting the part in which Feanor is, in every conceivable canon source, the greatest craftsman ever spawned by the elves, in general, ever? (You can make arguments for others like Eol, Maeglin, and Celebrimbor, so let’s say one of the greatest, because I’m feeling generous.) I honestly have no idea how it’s even remotely logical that he’d need to marry the daughter of a smith who works under Aule to become that smith’s apprentice. It’s just? It’s completely bewildering to me that this interpretation could even be vaguely possible or sensible in any iteration of the Legendarium. I’m sorry, it’s?? ?????? ???? Besides, he’s the High Prince of the Noldor, actual son of the King? In what world would his apprenticeship be refused, even if he weren’t as skilled as he is?

“ While still in his early youth Fëanor wedded Nerdanel, a maiden of the Noldor; at which many wondered for she was not among the fairest of her people. But she was strong, and free of mind, and filled with the desire of knowledge. In her youth she loved to wander far from the dwellings of the Noldor, either beside the long shores of the Sea or in the hills; and thus she and Fëanor had met and were companions in many journeys.”  I literally have no idea how this can be interpreted as anything other than “I married her because I love her”.

Everything that you cite re: how and why the marriage goes badly happens after the at least 2 hundred Valian years of marriage that I mentioned in my previous reply. LIke all the “bad” signs happen after the release of Melkor and the birth of all seven sons.

Then again... as I said, your headcanon, trying to change it is not my job but I had to say these few things because it just seems pretty logic-contradicting. That said, I’m not looking for meta or in-depth conversation --- if you want to remain on your position, entirely your right. It was just hard to keep my mouth shut.

[vmae]

Valinorian (traditional) Elven marriage

1. Okay so In LaCe, it says “elves wedded….for love or at least by free will upon either part”

So this means

Elves were not always “soulmates”

A lack of love does not prevent the marriage

Elves could marry for reasons other than love

Social stuff? (Ect, two high class families) Arranged marriage? Money? Just want a kid?

I’m getting that “disney princess is told to marry a prince but instead wants to marry for love rather than social expectation” (I’m looking at you, Jasmine) kinda vibe

2. Marriage is the “natural course of life” and “might choose one another early in youth, even as children.”

I get the impression that there is a high social pressure here

Sort of like how in the olden days, a 30 year old woman was considered hopeless at getting a shot in the marriage world

Children don’t know shit about romance so??

Elves marry their friends occasionally even without romantic love

Elves marry who their parents pair them off with

3. “The desire for marriage was not always fulfilled. Love was not always returned”

This directly contradicts the earlier statement. Before, lack of love does not prevent marriage. Here, lack of love can. So perhaps it depends on the situation.

If your parents arranged something, lack of love won’t stop you from obeying the social expectation

If a maia wants to marry you, you don’t say no just because you don’t love them

If you’re just two random kids outside of big social expectations and customs, go marry whoever the fuck you want, love is the only factor

4. Maglor, Curufin, and Caranthir were canonically married but, unlike Turgon, they did not bring their spouses with them. Girls were not discouraged from joining (ect, Aredhel, Galadriel) but merely came by choice. Why did their wives not come? The reason for at least one of these three, likely Curufin (the favorite!) would be a social arrangement thing. Probably married some suitable noldo Feanor found for him, but there wasn’t really much love. 

5. I think some of the more “romantic” elves would have shunned the concept of marriage completely. Not because they want to remain single, but because they don’t want to follow the “marry off in your youth at age 18, come on lets go” custom/procedure. They hope that they’ll meet someone that they love, of their own accord, later on. Some elves are lucky enough to be able to find and wed someone they love early on (Feanor and Nerdanel) but not all are. Some would rather remain unmarried, but hopeful, rather than give up and just marry someone they feel neutral about. 

6. I think maiar married elves plenty often. Remember Melian and Thingol?  Melian just saw Thingol and went “yep, I like that one. Alright. Imma enchant him. Lets go” before even talking to him and Thingol just. Went with it. Combine this with “you marry who you are paired with because it is socially expected even if there is no love” thing, and I think the concept of maiar just seeing and selecting an elf they fancy would be very common. What family would say no? It fulfills that social rank need that elves love so much. A huge honor on the family. Love doesn’t matter. What matters is that the elf is with someone who can take good care of them forever. So yeah I think this would definitely be a thing. We know it’s canon that ainur ARE very attracted to elves. Melian + thingol, Melkor + luthien…they’ve got a thing for elves plenty. It was also canonically noted that the ainur really had a thing for how pretty the vanyar and their fancy hair was. I think there was a specific line that said maiar liked to have elves around for their beauty. So really I see no reason why maiar wouldnt just go “Oh, I like how that elf running the perfume shop looks, dibs on that one” and just marries them. 

7. This is still weird to me

[ilsa-fireswan]

I really enjoy looking at this through the lens of historic views on marriage, rather than purely modern (American) assumptions.  I think that Tolkien was probably working toward some kind of “ideal of marriage” (similar to how the Elven governmental structure reflects a kind of “ideal of noble kingship”) but since this is not something he finished I won’t speculate on how it might have turned out. (1)  (Since you hit a lot of the points about social expectations, I will mostly ignore that factor.)

The other lens that I use is, of course, personal perspective.  I recognize that my taste/preference has a big influence on what I see as important for marriage, but I, personally, have never been outraged at the idea of marrying someone I don’t have overwhelming emotions about. (2)

Up until roughly the past century, marriage was for the purpose of working together.  Raising children, running a farm/business/estate/having a self-sufficient household - and especially the three of those combined - are all matters of partnership.  Forming a useful partnership was of primary concern.  Love/compatibility matter, but not as much.  It was understood that love would come (assuming two good people.) 

I would consider Nerdanel/Fëanor to be a negative example of marriage-as-business.  I feel like their choice to marry was made for advantage (on both sides) and that it could have (even started to) grow into a beautiful love story, were it not for circumstances choices that separated them on a fundamental ideological level. 

Estë/Irmo(Lórien) or Vairë/Námo(Mandos) might be a positive example; there is not a lot of information but they have complimentary powers and seem to be content in their marriages.

Nowadays, marriage is for the purpose of having fun together.  You marry someone you want to spend your free time with rather than someone who offers a lifestyle advantage (money, skills, social advancement, etc).  “Marrying for love” falls under this broad heading.  It does not negate the need for a strong partnership but the definition of partnership has changed. 

I would put Aredhel/Eöl here as the negative example.  The marriage appears to have been made because of attraction (no comment on if that attraction was magically forced) and isolated from other factors that falls into the “fun” category.  Obviously this didn’t work out for them. 

Arwen/Aragorn, Lúthien/Beren, or Elwing/Eärendil might fit as a positive model.

Both ways of choosing a spouse are ethically neutral and both have good and bad in them.  There is a patriarchal benefit in the historic marriage-as-business model, but the idea itself is not fundamentally broken.  On the other side, marrying someone who is fun only works when you can also work together toward mutual goals.  I would say that having an eye on both together is the way to choose a spouse.(3)

I would put most of Tolkien’s good marriages (even the ones already mentioned) into this combined category: Varda/Manwë, Galadriel/Celeborn, Éowyn/Faramir

Noteworthy stories of Tragic Marriage seem to be deviant from the expected norm of marriage. (4)

So taking these ideas and applying them to (a couple of) your points:

1 - Of course you should marry someone you choose!  And maybe that choice was made with your brain and maybe it was made with your heart.

Just remember that your reason for choosing and your neighbor’s reason for choosing might be different.

Romantic Love (the emotion) is fun but in and by itself might not not a good foundation for marriage.  (For example, two emotionally immature and selfish people can love each other but still spend most of the relationship hurting each other.)

Love (the emotion) can grow when love (the action) is performed.

The same paragraph that this came from says “seldom is told any deeds of lust” so I would assume that “for love” might not equal “for sexual attraction” (though it could still be a factor)

2 - Since choice was often made in youth (before the 50th year) I would expect that the “deep feeling for kinship in mind and body” was a motivating factor in choosing a betrothal (and of receiving a positive “judgement of the parents of either party.”)

I note that many of the marriages that are actually mentioned in the stories seem to have been made “late” in life.  I’d need to double check on these but coming to mind as past that 50-year mark are Galadriel/Celeborn, Lúthien/Beren, Celebrían/Elrond.  The above speculation as to them being of a more romantic mind is one explanation.  “Focused on my work” might be another good one. What is said to be the custom vs what is actual common practice is also a good option.

It is noted that betrothal can be broken but was seldom done because “the Eldar do not err lightly in such a choice” and that their choices are made for reasons other than “desires of the body.”

I expect to find attraction/compatibility of fëa as the motivating factor, even when I consider Youth to be choosing.

Again I need to double check for exact ideas but I think we err when we assign human maturation patterns to Elves.  Expectations of maturation (physical and mental) are vastly different.

3 - I agree with @esper-aroon’s analysis and I automatically read “unrequited love” into those statements.  I think LaCE supports this reading. 

Even if I choose you, if you don’t choose me then the marriage doesn’t happen. (see Lúthien/Daeron or Finduilas/Gwindor)

It is not a contradiction of #1, simply another factor that would influence marriages to happen or not

Unrequited love is indicated as the only cause of sorrow in Aman (though that could be argued as a propaganda or a romantic bias of the LaCE author)

It’s also interesting to note that the only requirement for a marriage is “blessings exchanged and the naming of the Name” and “the act of bodily union.” Translation, an oath made by naming Eru and then consummation.  It is stated that a union so made is indissoluble.  Everything else is customary trappings that would be rude to ignore if you have the ability to use them but not actually required.

6 - Rambling here. I note in the comments that there are a number of people who are squicked by Maiar/Elven marriage.  I think I have an intellectual understanding of why that is, but on a more basic level I don’t get it.  (I’d love anyone to talk about it, if they want!) 

Again, this is coming out of my personal feelings but I found myself saying “they aren’t biologically incompatible, so what’s the deal?” 

I assumed mutual consent and started speculating.

I asked myself “well, would you marry an alien?“ and answered “maybe, are they a good person that I enjoy being with?” 

I asked myself if the power dynamics would be a problem and answered “as long as they are good people then there wouldn’t be abuse of the power disparity,” (and adding in the idea that we love each other strengthens that position) so that doesn’t bother me. 

I considered the “age difference” but since I can only imagine myself on the young side, I still don’t have an issue.  They are obviously ok with it.

The only thing that makes me think of it as a negative is if I consider it as a form of bestiality.  But that idea doesn’t really work for me since both parties are sentient and can give consent.  And since I don’t have a problem with the inter-species romance in Fifth Element or Galaxy Quest or superhero comics, I feel like it would be a double standard to have one here.

If there was some kind of prohibition from Ilúvatar, that would also stop me.

Your comments seem to reflect the idea that that the Elven party might not have a choice, that the Maia would use that power disparity to force the marriage (via enchantment/clouding the mind, I assume.)  I’m not sure if that’s what you intended?  I would think that holding that belief would also prevent you from holding the romantic Melkor/Mairon view, since there would be that same power disparity.  I haven’t really thought far down this path, but on the surface I would guess that even if sometimes there was a “seduction by force” (as you indicated for Melian/Thingol) that does not mean that was always the case.

(1)  This seems like a reasonable thought since he was a romantic as well as steeped in historic lore, with its sagas of both arranged marriages and epic loves.  He would also be influenced (willingly or no) by the matrimonial expectations of the society he lived in.  While I know that authorial intent isn’t the only (or even best) way to interpret a work, I do find it helpful when understanding why something was written.

(2) I’d be happy to talk more about personal opinions on marriage if you want some perspective on my authorial intent.  I suspect you’ll get a bit of a picture anyway.

(3)  Marriage is hugely personal and while neither aspect can be ignored, what one person judges as fundamental another might consider peripheral.  Personal opinion, most sensible people already chose with both factors in mind.  Disagreements over whether or not someone chose well tend to be differences in fundamental vs peripheral (with a nice dose of “I have more life experience that you” thrown in.)

(4) Even when there are large blocks of text associated with Níniel/Túrin, Aredhel/Eöl, etc., it is because the bad parts of the marriage are important to the story.  They are still written as unusual in their tragedy.

LaCE PDF

[hweanaro]

Like, I’m really all for the debunking of the myth that elves can only possibly marry for True Love and nothing political or arranged ever happens (most notable example Finarfin/Eärwen. Prince and princess daughter of old friend fall head over heels in love and conveniently marry in an advantageous union is a cute concept and I don’t begrudge the headcanon, but when it comes to my headcanon... I have a hard time believing it. It’s not to say that they did not grow to like each other or anything, but you get my point.)

So I’m here for the general deconstruction of LaCE.

But I literally cannot fathom in what world, in what form of Tolkien’s legendarium, Nerdanel/Fëanor is a “bad example of arranged marriage”. Or rather, marriage-as-business. It’s pretty much the only marriage that is ever described as not happening because of “luv at first sight” or “because she was hot”. They meet in the wild and travel together often. They share interests (Fëanor is apprentice of her father), “many wondered” at his choice of wife because she wasn’t beautiful enough to others. Their marriage lasts at least two hundred (Valian) years (that would be I think like 2 thousands in normal years) before literally anything goes awry, and I know it might sound weird but marriages based on love and respect and compatibility might also fall apart due to whatever new circumstances. Especially I don’t get this comparison to marriages that have little to no canon about them but are presented as positive examples in an entirely arbitrary way.

[shipping-isnt-morality]

So, real quick:

“Power gaps are inherently abusive / lead to abuse” is a dangerous mischaracterization of abuse.

Power gaps are a natural part of human relationships. Parents have power over children, bosses have power over employees, political leaders have power over citizens, military leaders have power over their soldiers. Even within relationships between apparent equals, money, education, life experience, social status, family or community relations, mental or physical health, even things like personality can create power imbalances.

These power imbalances are natural and unavoidable, and can frequently be beneficial. It allows parents and teachers to guide children; allows larger social institutions to function; allows partners to bring different strengths to a partnership.

And every single thing I listed up there can also be used for abuse, but isn’t inherently abusive. Because abuse is power being misused.

It is not, it is never, merely the presence of a power differential, but the use of that power differential to systematically harm, coerce, threaten, or manipulate. It’s not merely one partner being rich; it’s that partner using that money to bribe their partner into doing things they don’t want, or making them feel obligated. It’s not one partner being older; it’s the older partner using their age to mislead or manipulate the younger. It’s not one partner being physically stronger than the other; it’s them using that physical strength to harm or threaten the other.

Granted, some power differentials are larger and more likely to lead to abuse than others. Boss-employee and commander-subordinate romantic relationships are banned for just this reason; not because those relationships would 100% always be abusive, but because the potential for it would be quite high and the chances for the victim to admit to it without serious harm are quite slim.

But merely demonstrating that there is a power differential isn’t demonstrating abuse. You have to show that it was used to harm, coerce, threaten, or manipulate the other person.

Otherwise it’s just a relationship.

[animals-lovers]

[ashk00]

I’m watching b99

[skullguysforhire-deactivated201]

DA:2 Sketches

[freedom-of-fanfic]

an unfunny joke about antis

the funny thing about bullies - especially self-righteous bullies that travel in packs, such as antis - is that 99.8% of the time they come out on top of any conflict they get into. 

and holy hell, it’s fucking infuriating when it’s not completely exhausting. we all like to see clapback at people who don’t play fair and treat others like shit. when someone is really nasty and abusive - when they’re chronically mean and dangerous and seemingly untouchable - it’s easy to yearn for their comeuppance and want to see them know they’re beat. we want the fear and shame and guilt bullies and abusers spread around revisited on their own head so they understand how awful a person they’ve been.

but realistically: you’ll never see a bully/abuser/anti doubt or question themselves. you’ll never see them backtrack with sincerity. you’ll never successfully shame them out of their behavior or devastate their confidence with your logic and consistency, because successful bullies - by definition - will always be less empathetic, more shameless, and more self-serving than anyone they have the power to abuse.

you will never beat a bully at the shame game. bullies live that game. shaming others is the source of their social power; they know (at least subconsciously) that flinching is game over. when someone points out their behavior is something shameful, they have to excuse or deflect or dismiss it: else, they lose. They deserved it. they hurt me first. who cares what you have to say? 

and if you don’t have the direct authority to punish a bully, why should they care? abusers thrive in this world because they’ve decided the ethics and empathy that guide social rules don’t apply to them. Ethical people have lines they cannot cross without violating their sense of what’s right: abusers trample those lines, doing whatever serves them best, because they’re not obligated to care.

maybe it seems unthinkable they’d get away with it … but in general, our social networks have an inbuilt ‘get out of jail free’ card for abusers. we have to trust others are following the same social rules we are. when we don’t trust that, it’s actually worse. (we get … well, present-day tumblr, probably.) but that very trust makes society blind to behavior that crosses lines - it’s too unthinkable that anyone would do that. innocent until proven guilty. and that doubt protects abusers who are willing to pretend they too are trusting, caring people who follow the rules.

in fact, bullies care more about setting down social rules than anyone because they limit the behavior of everyone other than themselves. Rules set boundaries for ethical people. trust that those rules will be followed blinds people to all but the most blatant rule-breaking behavior. and when bullies lay down the rules, the rules themselves are often designed to encourage and shelter abusers.

I believe this is why the worst abusers so often turn out to be the most vocal activist, the most upright churchgoer, the politician with the anti-abuse platform. Such bullies do, in fact, truly advocate for everyone following the standards of behavior they support … except themselves.* These abusers are free to jump in and out of bounds whenever it suits their needs, making them all but impossible to call out. They harass and threaten and torment their targets, exploiting the victims’ trust and sense of obligation to protect the bully from exposure. but the moment a target retaliates, abusers are the first to call them out for bad behavior, damaging the victim’s reputation and improving their own without compunction, sympathy, or remorse.**

Perhaps the most ironic part is that the higher the standard of behavior the bully advocates for, gatekeeps, and regularly violates, the more powerful and invulnerable they become and the more blatant and open their two-faced behavior can be.  Their hypocrisy is only remarkable to people who know what standards they supposedly uphold and demand of others. To everyone else the standards themselves are absurd. so what if a person falls short sometimes? why do you care? why are you surprised?

This is the social loophole that bullies and abusers in the anti-shipping movement exploit - and there are a lot of abusive anti-shippers. As the self-declared fandom/shipping police, tasking themselves with creating rules of conduct and aiming to enforce them by shaming, guilting, and threatening dissenters, anti culture by nature attracts the best shame game players - bullies and abusers - and draws them into its ranks. 

unhampered by social obligation or a need to play fair, abusers rapidly rise to the top of policing communities like anti-shipping. already governed only by their own convenience, an abuser will never suffer from concerns of going ‘too far’; therefore, the loyalty of an abuser to a cause that gives them licence to abuse will never come into question. their gleeful eagerness to punish, lack of sympathy for their targets, and their willingness to come down hard even on other antis is both admired and feared. everyone wants to be their friend to insure their inevitable slip-ups due to self-conflicting rules are forgiven, unwittingly putting themselves in debt to a person who will never let them forget it.

so who’s left to call a hypocrite out, even when their hypocrisy is open and blatant? at least subconsciously aware that the the only real tethers on behavior in spaces where authority is nonexistent - tumblr, twitter, etc - are empathy and shame, abusers do their level best to evoke those feelings in everyone around them while being completely free of those feelings themselves. they cannot be shamed by anyone; they don’t play fair and they don’t show sympathy if it doesn’t serve their needs.

In short: as long as a bully’s opponent gives even the slightest fuck about playing fair, being kind, and giving the benefit of the doubt, they will never out-bully a bully.

the point of this long-winded post is this: 

if you’re hoping for some creator to smack antis down; if you’re sitting in front of your computer, jaw dropped, as antis flock to the dmcb fandom and set up their absurd rules despite the source material being in conflict with everything antis supposedly stand for; if you see anti-shipper victims sharing how they were driven to suicide attempts and think ‘surely this time antis will be conscience-striken’: the reality is that anti-shippers will never apologize, will never admit to hypocrisy, and will never take ownership of the consequences of their actions. 

bullies always come up smelling like roses because they know social rules are actually nigh-unenforceable. They only apply to the abuser if the abuser chooses to abide by the rules, and why would they limit themselves like that?

and if you don’t like it, there’s nothing you can do about it. 

that’s the joke. (i’m not laughing either.)

*and the louder bullies support the cause of vulnerable people, the more unthinkable it is that they would ever exploit vulnerability themselves. 

**this is a wildly successful technique abusers use for self-protection. it accomplishes many things at once:

it feeds the abuser’s deluded worldview wherein their target is the badguy and the abuser is their hapless victim. (this is how abusers justify abuse most of the time: they have to act outside the rules to protect themselves!)

puts the spotlight on the victim, magnifying their errors and minimizing/erasing the effect of the abuser’s provocation

the victim feels ashamed for their behavior; even if they realize they wer provoked, they are ethically bound to acknowledge what they did was wrong (and the abuser will hold it against them for eternity)

the victim may be successfully gaslighted into doubting that their actions were provoked or warranted

if the victim attempts to act against their abuser’s interest in the future, their credibility is now damaged/doubtful

if the abuser can’t pull off looking squeaky-clean to others, tarnishing their target’s reputation makes outsiders less likely to come to their aid, excusing the abusive dynamic as ‘mutual.’

[doegred-main]

I believe this is why the worst abusers so often turn out to be the most vocal activist, the most upright churchgoer, the politician with the anti-abuse platform. Such bullies do, in fact, truly advocate for everyone following the standards of behavior they support … except themselves.

This is sadly true. Th worst bullies I have met were people utterly unable and unwilling to admit to their faults, which is exactly the reason why they needed to cast themselves in the role of the Saint, the Protector of the Just, and the Good Person.

I have had interactions, times and again, when I admitted to my possible faults, I doubted wether I had done the right thing, expecting to see a similar behaviour on the other side. Yet my hopes were methodically disappointed. Because that is the crux of the matter, the (maybe even unconscious at times) mechanism that made the bully into what they were.

Still: I do not regret having done so. Having double questioned myself. If you are looking for victory against such a bully, for them to get their comeuppance, you are missing the point, in my opinion. There is and should be only one force able to change people and their behaviour radically: the people themselves. I know it is unsatisfactory, but the world is no Hegelian historic cycle going towards perfection, merely a complex system that balances itself. What I think is that by seeing when I made mistakes while interacting with bullies (because I did), when my opinion was wrong, I did not “let them win”. I improved myself. I made my opinion, ideas and so on clearer to myself. I didn’t let something become a dogma, even when the apology tasted foul in my mouth.  Not every time, naturally. I, like all other humans, have my pettiness and my flaws, but by acknowledging them, at least, I am a bit more aware of their origins and maybe a tad closer to making myself better.

This particular brand of bullies thrives on people doubting themselves, but I think that the worst defeat they can be dealt is not an insult or a clap-back.  They will never acknowledge it. They are Right™ by definition. The worst defeat is when their target is able to employ the mechanism they would have used to destroy their confidence to become stronger.

I am not advocating for a laissez-faire, not at all. One must be able to double, triple, question themselves but not capitulate immediately.  Learning this balance is a hard task, sometimes impossible perhaps.  Still it is, in my opinion, the best possible answer.  Which doesn’t make what bullies do any more acceptable or right.  Yet letting them drag you to their level, make you into someone unable to doubt and apologise is their victory, not yours.  

“Winning an argument” is not the point of debates, analysing one is, and if one is unable to do so they have already lost much more than the argument.