I just had to draw Morph for pride this year considering how much they helped me feel more comfortable with my own identity. It seems like its not that deep but its a lot for me 🥹 I relate to them on so many levels its honestly a little spooky. Enough of the corny stuff tho, happy pride month everyone, you are all very loved and appreciated!
Happy pride month specifically to folks on the asexual and aromantic spectrum who oftentimes feel isolated and left out of the conversation. You belong here as much as the rest of us and I hope that you are all loved in a way that is comforting to you.
Skaven in warhammer are amazing because not only are they just Silly Little Guys that are absolutely terrifying when you think about them, but the only thing that stops them is the fact they are so horribly incompetent and just bolt as soon as they are in any sort of danger.
A couple of people said go for it so go for it I shall!
*Below is a rant about how women are treated in literature and the media as a whole, beginning with the Epic of Gilgamesh, but leaks into modern day. It became far longer than I intended, no need to read.
Since beginning to write and especially being on this site, I hear a lot that male characters tend to be more well written, but I also think it's because literature is so focused on what motivates and drives a man to do something, that audiences are trained to do the heavy lifting and fill in the gaps.
Why would a farm boy leave the farm?
To seek his fortune, adventure, better life, etc.
We don't extend the same level of inference to women in literature. While we tell our heroes to go for and be brave my son, we measure our heroines by their sacrifice and contribution to others within the narrative.
Also, because women have been used so often as a plot device or motivation for the man at the center of the story, it is difficult for a woman to command space in the narrative and to also be perceived positively by the audience. Some of this is a writing issue, where a woman makes a choice, after doing very little, that harms others in the story. Now she must shoulder the ire the audience. But other times, the choice that is made simply contributes to the plot of the story, but is scrutinized more harshly because it evokes a trait that we abhor in women. (Selfish, vain, etc.)
I've watched and read far too many think pieces online talking about the issue with how women are portrayed in modern media blah blah. Or I've seen well intentioned pieces written, even here on this site, where people erase female characters from media, or even absorb the female character into one of the male characters, as if her actions could only be palatable if being done by a man.
But this isn't a new thing, in fact we can bring this back to an old interpretation of an even older story:
The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Quick rundown on the Epic of Gilgamesh:
Sumerian poems later referenced and combined in Akkadian. Heavily influenced antiquity, several arcs, features many of the literary elements we know today.
Gilgamesh is the titular character, a king that does whatever he wants, much to the irritation of the Sumerian Pantheon. Enkidu is his bestie that was created by the Sumerian Pantheon to stop Gilgamesh, but that backfired.
I would say they go on 'adventures' together, but it really is just havoc and devastation, just because they can. Divine punishment ensues.
But I don't want to talk about either of these two, at least, not as a focus. I want to talk about Shamhat.
Shamhat is a priestess tasked with making Enkidu, who was created to stop Gilgamesh from terrorizing the earth, a person. When Shamhat meets Enkidu, he is living as an animal and through the power and magic of coochie, with some talk about future plans in between, she makes him a man. After this process, animals flee from him and, unable to return to the wild Shamhat guides him to come with her to the city of Uruk. There, he meets Gilgamesh and boom, epic of Gilgamesh.
Except, remember I mentioned divine punishment and Enkidu's purpose being to stop Gilgamesh's antics, not join in? Well because of Enkidu's disobedience, he is struck down with illness. Who do you think he blames? Gilgamesh? No. Himself? Of course not. Shamhat. He blames her for civilizing him and basically giving him the life he has and curses her. A god intervenes and he apologizes and blesses her instead.
Now, with all of this in mind, it seems hard to understand how this epic, even excluding the overarching lesson Gilgamesh learns about humility, mortality, and what makes life worth living, is not also a great critique on how men and their wants can be prioritized to the detriment of others. A tale that features a woman lifting a man out of the mire, gifting him civilization, being his lover, teacher, and moral guide, then being set aside once he meets another man, and cursed for enriching his life and setting him on the path towards his purpose seems like it would be evident of that.
With a story like this, we would see many women identifying with Shamhat, recognizing some of the men in their life as Enkidu, and maybe even finding comfort that Enkidu was rebuked.
Yeah, we don't really see that because the main focus is shifted to the bond between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Shamhat is a tool. Her body is a training ground. She can make a man, but will not hold the same place as one. Not in the narrative and not in the mind's of the audience.
To understand why that is, we could look at a lot of things. We could look at the plain fact that this is Gilgamesh's story, so of course his bonds are going to take precedent. We could look at how misogyny, including internalized misogyny work their way into our interactions with art. We could even look at the historical context, not of the original text, but its reentry into pop culture after WWII. So emphasized is the bond between Gilgamesh and Enkidu, that a story that wouldn't transpire without sex between a man and a woman, is considered a landmark of queer literature. (I am not condemning this interpretation, but pointing to the erasure of women.)
This is not the only place we have seen this. When people speak of Achilles, they speak of Patroclus, not of Briseis or Deidamia. There is a verse in the Bible in which David states, at the death of his friend "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me. Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
There have been many interpretations about that, but one thing I notice is that often we expect love from women, making a woman's love common and a man's love precious. A man's love comes with protection and meaning and while a woman's love can be used as a measure, it seems like it doesn't count.
Keeping in the vein of biblical quotes, there is the Proverbs 31 woman, who is worth more than rubies, and works, and is kind, and pious, and runs the household and all of these things. She is said to be deserving of adornments and praise.
I hate to say it, but it is no wonder that love between men seems to be idealized in recent years, mainly because it features a love amongst equals in a way, not that of a person and a devoted servant. And that is truly sad, that we sometimes look at sex and love as low or cheap when a woman is involved. (There is another conversation to be had about the language around sex, and terminology, both colloquially and legally has been used to make sex into an act of domination and something that is done to someone and not with them. But I'm stopping myself!)
This is not an attack on queer literature or interpretations. I understand that some of these interpretations stem from trying to create representation where there is very little and not all pleasing. But often in these stories, women serve as a comfortable, yet smothering entity. A love that you can have, but do not want, and that can never mean as much as your relationship with a man. She is the manifestation of all that stands between a man and his true self, his true love. I would argue that this is just as damaging as when a woman is used as a set piece, reward, or tool in a story.
All of this is to say, interpretations are one thing, but as we fixate on the men in these stories, from Gilgamesh to Batman, I think we should be more conscious of why our interpretation erases the women in them. Is it the writing? Or are we subconsciously co-signing on the idea that a woman's love, motivations, actions, existence, is inherently less than a man's.
Also, one more last thing!
The Epic of Gilgamesh is not a woe is me tale about two guys just trying to be besties in ancient Sumerian mythology! Enough of the star crossed portrayals. Gilgamesh was a whole tyrant and Enkidu was dumb, ungrateful, and they both did Humbaba so dirty. I'm glad they face a consequence. I've seen some people do the whole, "Oh Enkidu was his bride, oh doomed from the start," thing with them. No! They were the equivalent of two delinquents demigods. Ugh.
*On a very related note, this rant has been in my head for years, but bubbled to the surface while writing a scene with Eualia, Merikh's sister and Phaedra, Diomedes's wife. I noticed that if there are parallels between Enkidu and Gilgamesh's relationship and that of Diomedes and Avith, then there are also other parallels. Anyway, look forward to seeing more of Eualia in the future, she's a very fun but sad character to write.
strap ons always get assigned to femme fatales big confident sexy women what you guys r never down to get dicked by a shy girl who can barely look at her strap dead on?
Apparently linktree is not just shoveling all your stuff into AI, they’re making you responsible for ensuring that the AI features you didn’t ask for are producing legal output.
Linktree sent out an email letting everyone who uses their service know that they're adding AI features and that THEY'RE not responsible for
gummygunk
romaincrisis
turnnoffyourmind
origamiaround
pixelskylines
stormborns
