victor frankenstein does not have a medical degree
@maidenvault
Sara, she/her, 40-ish, ace, intersectional feminist. I write about superheroes kissing and other stuff. Constantly rotating Lord John Grey in my head like a rotisserie chicken. Also into Lupin III, DC and Marvel, Tiger & Bunny, and agreeing with nobody about Star Wars anymore.
As it isn’t for a lot of people, writing isn’t exactly free for me, because tl;dr accessibility tools. If you’d like to support my fic by throwing a little tip my way, I appreciate it. 💜
And I don't just mean "oh, my little work mistake is actually nothing compared to a fiery crash that kills people," either. The reason commercial flight is so many orders of magnitude safer than any other form of transportation is because after every accident and incident, an independent regulatory body investigated it with the express goal of figuring out exactly what happened, why, and how to prevent the same thing from ever happening again—not to root out which person deserved the blame or the liability.
It's a simple, shockingly effective idea. It's also worlds away from how most people approach their own mistakes and the mistakes of others.
Because it’s never just one person’s fault. And even when it is, it still isn’t.
The sharpest, best-trained pilots make worse decisions when they're tired or sick or stressed out, so there's two of them. The most dedicated and experienced air traffic controllers garble an instruction over the radio sometimes, so pilots are trained to always repeat clearances back to catch misunderstandings quickly. The best and brightest maintenance mechanic still overlooks a screw or misconnects a wire once or twice in her career, so aircraft systems are built with two or three or four layers of redundancy, and pilots are exhaustively trained to deal with failures safely.
Everyone eventually has a bad day. Every component breaks down. Every computer gets a bad a Windows update and spirals into a reboot doom loop. If it’s possible for one person’s mistake to domino into a mushroom cloud of a fuckup, then that task is too critical to be one person's sole responsibility. The accident sequence starts with the design of the system—so how do you improve the system to keep it from happening again?
oh yeah. The “modern commercial aviation is the safest form of transport” thing only applies to planes, btw. A helicopter is a beautiful metal horse that wants to break its legs and die so so so badly
here's two articles about how JK Rowling just posted on X an upskirt photo of Freda Wallace, a transgender woman, after deadnaming her and misgendering her repeatedly online.
The wealthy author escalated a social media spat that resulted in posting a photo from a 2023 event at the Institute of Economic Affairs in
Rowling posted the picture taken from below because the trans woman, she said, was "refusing to debate me."
I been somewhat following the "Argentinians being Extremely Racist during the World Cup" saga, and like... BONKERS lmao. How do you manage to purge an African population of 30% without some true hate 😭
It does explain that mindset that I have always found odd about Latin American racism, which is that (valid!) resentment of the US for being part of the Global North and Imperial Core, while simultaneously sharing so many of its racist, white supremacist beliefs. It's like... So you don't hate the racism portion? That's not the problem to you? 😅
And obviously, again, not all Argentinians. But systemically... That is a Problem.
wow that's extremely ignorant. argentina did not PURGE its black population. this in fact is a white supremacist myth. and by reproducing it, you are reproducing white supremacist rhetoric. the population got mixed very early on. most of argentinian people (outside of the city of Buenos Aires) are what usamericans would call brown. if you are truly interested in knowing more about argentina's poc and aren't just a performative left leaning imperialist, maybe you should look for the voices of argentinian activists and not the voice of a tourist.
PDF | While visiting what is considered the most European and White country in Latin America, I often asked Argentines, “What happened to th
Hi, biracial colombian here(making this clear since I’ve noticed one of the most common things people like you do is assume people on her talking about racism are always white and either from the usa or from europe). It is absolutely not a white supremacist myth to acknowledge the fact that Argentina did very much try to purge its Black population. Cut that “hiding my racism behind the facade of anti-imperialism” bullshit for two seconds and try to think on why the fuck did we latinoamericanos ended up having a lot of multiracial heritage. It wasn’t just something that happened on a whim, it wasn’t just “population just got mixed early on,” it was a result of trying to whiten the Indigenous (and later on the Black) population. Blanquiamento. A term that is still nowadays extremely important to our relationship with race as latinoamericanos, due to it still taking place in the context of individual and family settings. Yes, brown people in Argentina exist, but if we want to look at say, statistics, then you’d have to admit that the majority of Argentinians are white and of european descent.
Source
And yes a lot of them do very much believe themselves to be europeans lol ask anyone from any other country in latinoamerica, ask argentinians themselves, a lot of them will agree on the a reason why for a lot of us they’re not considered part of latinoamerica. Because they. They don’t really want to be.
Now, if you actually gave a single flying fuck about knowing more of us biracial, brown, and Black latinoamericanos, you’d listen to the voices of afro-argentinians, and afro-latinos in general, before jumping at Black people on tumblr.com for talking about the racism within our communities. Because it is there, and it is rampant, and pretending like calling it out is just “imperialism” is hilariously stupid and racist.
i agree with your point about blanqueamiento (thank you for the sources btw) considering that theres 2 recent examples of it in my own family, but those percentages of ethnic composition are just wrong.
argentina is still majority white but not That much
Writers cannot watch a movie normally. we are sitting there going "oh that's the inciting incident" and "they introduced that object too early it's obviously coming back" and "this dialogue is doing three things at once good for them" while everyone else is just. watching the movie. having a normal experience. feeling feelings without labelling them. i envy that so much and i would never give it up.
wish there was a way to be like, hey I didn't want to pay for your streaming service subscription for this show so I watched it free on a shady pirate streaming site, I liked it so here's a one time payment of ten bucks, consider making a season two (which I'll also be watching free on a shady pirate site)
There literally is a way to do that, subscribe to their service for just one month and stream that thing you liked all the way through a couple times or more. You can just leave it on while you do something else. When you unsubscribe (which you can always do in advance if you’re worried you’ll forget) they will often ask why and you can say “I subscribed specifically to watch this one thing and I’ll be back if there’s more.”
It was definitely cooler when we could just buy the DVD, though.
not everything in a story has to or should be "realistic" but in my opinion there's a level of illusion that should be maintained, and I think that's the actual problem that many people try to pinpoint with the "unrealistic" criticism. Dialogue shouldn't be written like an actual transcript of human speech, but should contribute to the illusion of a real person speaking. A character is a tool of the story, not a narrative, but we're trying to maintain the illusion that they are a person. Worldbuilding should exist to serve the story, not to be a perfect simulacrum of how every aspect of nature/society etc. would actually play out for real. But there should be the illusion that it could be real, that organizations and systems would operate in such a way, that people might behave in such a way.
in conclusion: "Is this realistic?" <<wrong question. "Does this serve the illusion or disrupt it?" <<now we're talking
Internal consistency matters more than whether something is accurate to real life or not.
If you establish something as a hard rule, it will be glaringly obvious when you start breaking that rule, especially when the ramifications of that break are never mentioned or explored.
everyone wants their self-indulgent romantasy to be considered high literature and whatever new mainstream pop boy/girl to be treated as the next beethoven and their gay fluff show on streaming apps to be revolutionary art changing the world and like, they're not. and that's okay. i'm literally watching the stupidest show right now and it's fine. it doesn't have to be more.
revenge of the sith is still so fucking funny, because, like, the separatists invade coruscant, and kidnap the head of state. that’s a war-winning action. at that point, they just motherfucking won the war, unless a miracle happens. and then you have half the jedi council and a bunch of other jedi just chilling in the jedi temple, on their fucking doomsday, feet propped up and relaxing, and the council still chooses to call anakin and obi-wan from the other ass-end of the galaxy in the “outer rim sieges” to come fix this shit, like yoda wasn’t right motherfucking there. yoda was sitting on the fucking couch! and they STILL called obi-wan and anakin from the OTHER END OF THE GALAXY. in no ways was anakin spiritually prepared to be a jedi master, but motherfucker i kind of get why he was pissed. i kind of understand that. if i got called into work to save the day and i walked in and the rest of the staff was just sitting, and i still saved the day, and then they denied me a promotion, i’d have fucking quit. he’s not spiritually ready by any means and in fact he’s deeply turbofucked, but i understand where he was coming from. i understand, man.
Love them acting like there’s holofootage of the Council “sitting on their asses” while the Republic capital is under attack and the Temple is there. Attacking Coruscant was a bold move by the Seps but it wasn’t stupid and almost worked because most battle-trained Jedi and Republic forces were currently deployed elsewhere throughout the galaxy. They had no choice but to call in some help and obviously Anakin and Obi-Wan were close enough to make it in time. Assuming Yoda was actually on Coruscant at that moment, if he made the choice to leave the Temple almost entirely undefended just to go save Palpatine’s shady ass these people would tear him tf apart for that as “playing politics,” too. 😂
Every bit of supplementary media says every able Jedi present on coruscant was fighting for their lives during the battle along with multiple others called in from wherever they could to help, and that was still only enough to contain the separatist fleet because-and I cannot stress this enough-this was the largest armada assembled in the entire war
Anakin and Obi-Wan weren’t called in to fix this, they were called in to perform a precise surgical action while everyone else was handling the other stuff
I’m just annoyed with how disingenuously anakin glazing this post and the reblogs are (not you @maidenvault or @ahsoka-in-a-hood )
Aside from acting like anakin is the only one to show up and deal with situation (it even ignores Obi-Wan), but it and several reblogs act like it was some great service anakin did and not just yknow, his duty, what is expected of him as a minimum
He’s a Jedi, sworn to protect the Republic, and this is the Republic’s hour of greatest need, this is what would be asked of any Jedi, Anakin (and Obi-Wan) just happened to be the ones asked to do this specific job in a bigger job, while they were rescuing the chancellor, other Jedi were protecting the temple, senate, the civilians, wiping out the Droid ground invasion, preventing the separatist fleet from escaping, destroying as much of the largest gathering of separatist ships in the entire war as they could
And thinking Anakin’s understandable for being upset over not being promoted for this is weird, because Anakin himself doesn’t seem to think he should be promoted for this, he never cites this as why he should be promoted, he certainly wants the promotion, but he also does know he hasn’t earned it, fucking anakin is the more reasonable one here
Right, it’s so unhinged when people talk about everything Anakin has done for the Order in general (his job?) without any real appreciation uwu (even though TCW shows the Council may not approve of everything he does ever but they generally respect him, and sending him on this job and so many other important missions is a pretty big demonstration of their trust in him). Fandom also loves to talk like Anakin hated leading a clone army and fighting in the war and resented being expected to do all these Jedi things for years, based on nothing in canon.
Palpatine is his personal friend, and pulling off the impossible is the kind of thing Anakin loves doing. Being called to Coruscant also means he can see his wife. These are Anakin’s pretty simple priorities much of the time, lol. He never shows any bitterness over not being recognized enough specifically for rescuing the Chancellor. Like you say, even he in the reasonable part of his brain knows that he shouldn’t be considered for a “proportion” (as if any Jedi rank comes with considerable privileges or any pay) just for his heroics in battle and never argues that.
"Deconstruction" does not (necessarily) mean "Adding a bunch of sex and violence and drug use and suicide to a work to make it grimdark"; it means, essentially, "foregrounding the implicit contradictions in a work by making them explicit in the text to showcase and critique their ideology in the wider culture."
So, for example "Watchmen" was deconstructive because superhero comics up to that point had, by and large, not really interrogated their own role with respect to things like the military-industrial complex or the rather sordid real-life history of vigilantism in the United States or the sexual psychology of an individual dressing up in (essentially) bondage gear and going out to beat people up on the street. The sex and the violence serve a thematic purpose. It doesn't become more deconstructive by adding *more* sex and violence to it; it depends on what was in (or left out of) the original work.
That's why the best superhero deconstruction in the last 20 years was Lego Batman.
I just saw a comment on fb that ran off the misconception that dowries were a sexist subjugation of women for the purposes of buying and selling them like objects, and since this morning I would rather die than engage with a stranger on fb I'm going to talk on here instead about dowries as they were around Jane Austen's era/regency England.
Basically: dowries were an inheritance. It was a way to give a daughter what they would need to live comfortably at the time when they were most likely to need it - leaving their father's care and support and beginning a home elsewhere. In Austen terms we're generally talking about a sum of money, but dowries can also include items for a household like linens and China (goods like this were called a trousseau from at least the 1830s onward). Dowries very materially improved the life of a woman as they were meant to.
Some of the ways they did this were actually before marriage. We tend to call every inheritance a woman was to receive a dowry but that's incorrect, most of Austen's heroines don't have a dowry, though we know how much they'll inherit upon the death of their father and/or mother. Fortune =/= dowry. The Bennets of Pride and Prejudice, the Dashwoods of Sense and Sensibility, Anne Elliot in Persuasion, and even Emma Woodhouse in Emma all will inherit a little to a great deal of wealth but not as a dowry. This means that even Emma, who will one day have the staggering amount of thirty thousand pounds, would not be bringing wealth immediately into a marriage (though in her circumstances she has a father who would hardly let her live impoverished if she had chosen to marry a penniless man).
For women as poor as the Bennets in Pride and Prejudice (though they should've had more money each, if their parents weren't useless, as has been discussed) the distinction between dowry and eventual inheritance didn't mean much: a max of fifty pounds per annum in interest was literally less than what some servants were paid so couldn't alleviate the need for their husbands to have an independent income. But what money a woman could bring into a marriage definitely increased the likelihood of her preferences being realised. Northanger Abbey's Catherine Moreland, who "would have three thousand pounds" means she has enough of a fortune to "smooth the descent of [General Tilney's] pride" and make him consent to the marriage of his son to her. She certainly would've been glad her parents saved this money for her, instead of feeling that she was an object being bought or sold. It empowered her choices, rather than reduced them.
That the inheritance of a woman is presented as a dowry also reduces the chances a woman and the man she loves will need to wait to marry until either of them inherit something or he makes a living. If Anne Elliot of Persuasion had had a dowry, instead of a future inheritance (a "share of ten thousand pounds which must be hers hereafter"), would she have broken off that original engagement? In ch23 she tells Captain Wentworth she would've been engaged to him when he had only "a few thousand pounds" and the likelihood of more thanks to an advantageous posting. If she would receive her own few thousand pounds upon marriage would that've been enough to remain engaged from the first, and perhaps even marry once he had added a few more thousands to that instead of needing to wait for Wentworth to build their shared fortune himself?
We can also see that a dowry was an inheritance parents provided for their daughter's benefit, rather than a sale price, by how carefully marriage articles were drawn up. This could legally define pin-money (how much money a woman would receive for her private usage and upkeep from her husband), and often specified that the husband couldn't diminish the bulk sum of his wife's fortune, only use the interest it generated, so that there would always be something to support the wife and her children no matter how spendthrift he was. Think of it like an old-fashioned pre-nup or family trust.
This is a huge reason why eloping was so bad, it meant there hadn't been articles drawn up beforehand and so the legal default of 'everything the wife has is now the husband's in full' applied instead of the chance to preserve her rights to her own fortune. If Wickham had succeeded in eloping with Georgiana Darcy in Pride and Prejudice her thirty thousand pounds would've become his in full when she turned twenty-one, though her guardians could've withheld it before then, and he could've spent it all and left her penniless without legal consequence.
There are plenty of historical examples of husbands without the regulations of marriage articles squandering the fortune and selling off assets, leaving the wife eventually destitute. Marriage articles are a response to that as father's wanted to protect their daughters and her future children. It actually limited the power of a husband in favour of preserving the comforts and rights of his wife, so was opposite of misogyny (though the society and laws which required these extra protections was undeniably sexist and male-centred)
Nor was receiving an inheritance upon marriage a specifically female-only practice. Eldest sons would generally receive the bulk of their inheritance when their father died, but it was common in this time and for centuries beforehand for them to be confirmed as heir or given a set income from their father (or one of their father's lesser estates, if we're talking nobility and the ultra rich) as part of the marriage articles (which would generally benefit the wife for the remainder of her life, either as a jointure or dower). Younger sons, if not already provided for, could also be given something upon their marriage and may have a commission in the army or a church living bought for them, to give them some independence. In Sense and Sensibility, after accepting the engagement of Edward and Elinor, Mrs Ferrars gives her son ten thousand pounds "towards augmenting their income" and this allows the marriage to occur. No one accuses Mrs Ferrars of selling Edward off in matrimony, even though what she's doing is so similar to a dowry that the narration points out it's exactly what "had been given with [her daughter] Fanny".
Fortune hunters and those marrying purely for money and a comfortable lifestyle definitely existed, as they do now, but dowries were not a socially and legally mandated way to give women to men to benefit them financially. 'Mercenary' marriages were frowned upon, and women were taught to look out for fortune hunters (like Wickham). Nor was it considered only men who might marry primarily to benefit from their spouse's wealth (Charlotte Lucas being a sympathetic female example). That both men and women could have inheritances gifted upon marriage, and were represented as seeking to marry for money, helps show that the practice of dowries wasn't a sexist practice which reduces women to little more than livestock.
In fact, there's an argument to be made that the very existence of large dowries being a cultural norm indicates that daughters were valued and loved. Instead of leaving everything they could to the sons (which would be expected if daughters were worthless objects to be given away at any price) these daughters were considered worth saving for, worth drawing up legal contracts to protect the living standard of, and worth leaving an inheritance often equal or greater than what younger sons would receive (as they could earn their own income). A dowry didn't reduce the humanity of a woman, it empowered her choices and protected her future. It was the women without dowries or an inheritance that were in danger of needing to marry whomever would take them.
My mind is still numb from all the ways the screenplay for Disclosure Day was so dumb. But I feel like it’s my fault. I’m cursed. Every time I go to a movie with my brother and sister and we end up seeing what my first choice is, the movie is a letdown.
victor frankenstein does not have a medical degree @maidenvault - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
blakekathryn
baratheonpilled
discoholicmusic
germansingergirl
kianamaiart
jacobvanloon
tangentwithtanner
amandla
pixelskylines
