I often wonder if those types of guys have golden dicks or something because imagine groveling beneath them to the point of contradicting your own child on something YOU know they're right about.
Because you're right. It's not like the cishet guys market is teeming with wonderful specimens but it seems like some women would rather endure the indignity of dating/marrying a known idiot than being alone I guess...
The times I've seen this happen IRL the guy in question wasn't rich, or good looking, or kind, or smart or even had a lot of money. I would rather think he's legendary in bed, so at least she's getting something out of it...But you're right. They often aren't.
These facts remind me why I am grateful my mother and aunts taught me that it isn’t a bad thing to be single because it isn’t worthy to stay with a guy whom you don’t have deep feeling for or men who don’t do even the most basic things fundamental for a relationship or think bare minimum decency or niceness is enough.
Series: Sora wa Akai Kawa no Hotori
Artist: Shinohara Chie
Product: 'Sora wa Akai...' Sound Theater CD #1 (12/1997)
Details: First press bonus sticker
Source: Scanned from my personal collection
I stand corrected! Zumurrud has parallel with Mimiguli because I just remember both have brothers and died in the story! Shira is Mujin because they are both working for the guy who pillage the city! I guess what made me think why Changge and Sitara are similar in a way is they want to return to their home in the beginning. Sitara miss her mom. Changge remember her Uyghur mom constantly then after surrendering a city, the fact she can't ever go back to her home hit her hard.
I agree with you and I add that both Mimiguli and Zumurrud show the tragedy of being slaves as both have been separated by their younger brothers because they are given different roles from them and miss their homelands from what they were taken away by force but they can’t return to them: the only difference is that Mimiguli never discovered her brother died and thus she thought her sacrifice wasn’t senseless, while Zumurrud saw hers being killed by the Mongols hence why she ended up in a state of shock that made easy for her to fall ill and to die (I think she is a realistic example of the trope “Death by despair” as it isn’t despair to kill her directly but it made possible for her to be victim of negative ailments that were worsened by the fact that the Mongol army didn’t consider worthy to cure an enslaved captive).
On the other hand I think that Mujin and Shira have in common only the fact that they are smart and can speak multiple languages, otherwise they are foils: Mujin is a former slave as Ashina Sun freed him when they were children and they have been best friends by then and thus Mujin is currently a free man with a good social position and is genuinely loyal to his leader, while Shira is a prisoner of war who works for the Mongols to avoid being used as human shield in battle and other awful fates and obeys his masters just for survival, for self-interest and desire of personal advancement: he would be ready to abandon them if they were to lose power.
I honestly think Mimi might be aware but she's just denying the fact her brother can't be saved as her coping mechanism.
Mujin might have more free will through Sun but in a way he and Sun are both prisoners because of Sun's political position. He want out of it but the Khans don't want him to be unscathed free especially after he found out that he's taken from Khitan, a child hostage and groomed to be their weapon. I guess what similar with Mujin and Zummurrud are they both found good masters to serve.
And oh yeah, aside from witnessing the tragedy, Sitara and Changge developed some hatred at some point but eventually have to overcome it. Changge later meet her grandma and uncle from her mother's side. Sitara meet Töregene who has strong resemblance with her mom figure Fatima.
Thought, the main difference between Changge and Sitara/Fatima is that the first one manages to put it aside while the second one ends up devoured by it.
Neil Gaiman is the devil and his influence on goth and nerd culture doesn’t fucking matter and anyone placing that as a priority above his repeated sexual abuse of his own servants may as well be in the same boat.
I’ve always gotten the ick from Coraline and Nightmare Before Christmas (despite liking them enough as movies), and I’m only just realizing that it’s because Neil Gaiman and Tim Burton are shit human beings. You can like Tim Burton movies, I’m not calling for a boycott, but it’s weird how I’ve been able to clock that something was off with both of them since I was 5. I’m not going to pretend like I could tell Neil Gaiman was a serial rapist, but we know that now and I think the fans are weird if they can look past that.
It is the reason why I am getting only copies one can find on shadow libraries or used ones on sites like Ebay because I recognize his influence on fantasy, hence why I am curious about his most important works, but I won’t give any money to a monster.
I might have to start making posts detailing the lives and hardships of various female characters in Medieval Literature bc people seem to think we’re more aware of gender inequality today than in the past and while that may be a comforting thought it’s not necessarily true. Plenty of Medieval stories acknowledged a woman’s dependence on male valor to secure her financially and protect her from physical harm and the threat of rape but then you read a modern retelling which throws a woman into the wilderness unprotected and we’re supposed to believe the most immediate threat is like. Wolves.
Actually I'm gonna make a post abt this, justice for Hareton and Heathcliff's twisted father/son bond!!
"If he were the devil, it didn't signify; he'd stand by him"
This is a not-actually-unrequited familial love story. How many times does pretty much every other character in the story call Heathcliff the devil?? To Hareton it wouldn't matter if he were (implying that he doesn't believe he is), he would "stand by him" I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, I think if ur reading WH then u really have to put morality on the shelf when it comes to how these characters feel about eachother. Hareton loves Heathcliff, as far as he's concerned that is the closest thing he has to a father figure.
And when it comes to Heathcliff's feelings towards Hareton, he tells Nelly that he would have loved him if he weren't Hindley's son (or something to that effect). Now we could take him at his word, but I think we know that Heathcliff is actually 4 out of 5 stages of grief in a trench-coat and wouldn't recognise compassion if it smacked him round the head with a steel chair, let alone perceive it in himself. U cannot convince me that he didn't love Hareton in his own incredibly twisted, awful way.
And also, I don't know what people think Hareton's life would be without Heathcliff. (Correct me of I'm wrong cos this is like just my interpretation): We are told by Hareton as a child that Heathcliff protects him from Hindley.
(As an aside, I'm obsessed with the fact that it's implied Hareton said more than this but Nelly couldn't make it out. Emily Bronte u get back here right now WHAT DID HE SAY?!?)
So Hareton was left with an abusive father- who we have already seen almost kill him while inebriated. Hindley seems to already be in the process of gambling away their estate before Heathcliff even gets there, he just makes it worse (revenge ppl revenge) Otherwise there's Joseph... Who suffers from the unfortunate condition of being Joseph.
U think Hindley was going to pay for Hareton's education? U think he was taking his future into consideration??
The way I see it, while Heathcliff's return was the ruin of pretty much everyone around him, it was the rescue of Hareton. And not to say this was foreshadowed butttttt...
To destroy Hareton would be the perfect revenge but out of instinct, Heathcliff saves him.
basically every illuminated manuscript has got everyone from nobility to regular fucking guys in colorful clothing that frequently gets over the top like this guy’s helmet and his fucking horse’s outfit, but every recent medievalism is like hey let’s desaturate it all and make it grey for no fucking reason
This tendency proves the point why it is important to do proper research about a time period one wants to set a historical work in or to use it as inspiration for a fantasy one: there is always the risk of falling for pop culture ideas that are false if someone remains ignorant about actual history.
The first woman ordained as a minister in the United States, Antoinette Brown Blackwell (1825–1921) was a pioneering advocate for women’s rights and the author of the first feminist critique of Darwin’s theories.
A powerful calling
The seventh of ten children, Antoinette was born in Henrietta, New York, and enjoyed a happy childhood in a loving family. She loved reading and writing and preferred them to domestic chores. After working as a teacher for a time, she enrolled at Oberlin College in 1846. She graduated from the Ladies’ Literary Course and later requested admission to the theological program.
Antoinette felt a profound calling to become a minister. After persistent efforts, she was allowed to attend the course and accept invitations to preach. She knew she would face considerable obstacles. One evening, while walking with her future sister-in-law, Lucy Stone, she shared her ambitions.
Lucy replied, not because she believed it was wrong for a woman to preach, but because she knew the system was stacked against her:
“You will never be allowed to do this. You will never be allowed to stand in a pulpit, nor to preach in a church, and certainly you can never be ordained.”
Antoinette simply answered:
“I am going to do it.”
Lucy’s prediction proved partly correct. After completing her studies, Oberlin refused to include Antoinette among its graduates and denied her a license to preach.
Fighting for women’s rights
Antoinette refused to abandon her dream. To earn a living, she delivered lectures on women’s rights and abolitionism. On one occasion, when a stagecoach was too full to take her to a speaking engagement, she walked seven and a half miles through a snowstorm. In 1850, she gave a speech challenging biblical passages that forbade women from speaking in public.
Facing a hostile male audience in 1853, Antoinette remained steadfast. She later recalled:
“There were angry men confronting me, and I caught the flashing of defiant eyes; but above me, and within me, and all around me, there was a spirit stronger than they all. At that moment not the combined powers of earth and hell could have tempted me to do otherwise than stand firm.”
A preacher for the people
On September 15, 1853, Antoinette was finally ordained as a minister by the First Congregational Church in Butler and Savannah, Wayne County. She nevertheless encountered difficulties in her ministry, particularly because of health problems.
In 1856, she married Samuel Blackwell, the brother of pioneering physician Elizabeth Blackwell. Together they had five daughters. Preaching remained Antoinette’s true calling, and she resolved to become “a preacher for the people.”
She seized every opportunity to travel and preach. Later, she served as a supply pastor for a Unitarian congregation that met in a rented hall. She delivered her final sermon there in 1915, at the age of ninety.
Science for and by women
A prolific writer with a curious mind, Antoinette developed a deep interest in science. In 1869, she published Studies in General Science, followed by The Sexes Throughout Nature.
Antoinette strongly disagreed with Darwin’s claim that evolution demonstrated the superiority of men over women. She believed that his conclusions about male intellectual and artistic superiority were fundamentally flawed. Rather than responding with moral arguments alone, she sought to challenge his reasoning on scientific grounds. Although she had no formal scientific training, she was widely read and carefully studied the available research. She even sent Darwin a copy of her book.
She argued that male scientists were inevitably biased, describing them as:
“a learned masculine eminence, looking from their isolated male standpoints through their men’s spectacles and through the misty atmosphere of entailed hereditary glamour."
She therefore insisted on the importance of women studying women:
“Only a woman can approach the subject from a feminine standpoint; and there are none but beginners among us in this class of investigations.”
Antoinette believed that scientific methods could advance women’s rights if women themselves took part in producing knowledge. Science conducted by men could not provide an accurate understanding of women. To understand women properly, scholars had to listen to women themselves.
In The Sexes Throughout Nature, she compared males and females across numerous species and concluded that each sex possessed different strengths that ultimately balanced one another. Lions, for example, might be physically larger, but lionesses performed many of the more complex and essential functions.
The right to vote
As a lifelong advocate for women’s rights, Antoinette lived to witness one of the movement’s greatest achievements. She was among the last surviving leaders of the American women’s suffrage movement when the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920, guaranteeing women the right to vote. At the age of ninety-five, she was finally able to cast her own ballot.
If you enjoy this blog, consider supporting me on Ko-fi!
Further reading:
“About Antoinette Brown Blackwell” - Antoinette Brown Blackwell Society
Hamlin Kimberly A., From Eve to Evolution: Darwin, Science, and Women's Rights in Gilded Age America
Rubin Rebekkah, “The Woman Who Challenged Darwin’s Sexism”
Zink-Sawyer Beverly, From Preachers to Suffragists: Woman's Rights and Religious Conviction in the Lives of Three Nineteenth-Century
I stand corrected! Zumurrud has parallel with Mimiguli because I just remember both have brothers and died in the story! Shira is Mujin because they are both working for the guy who pillage the city! I guess what made me think why Changge and Sitara are similar in a way is they want to return to their home in the beginning. Sitara miss her mom. Changge remember her Uyghur mom constantly then after surrendering a city, the fact she can't ever go back to her home hit her hard.
I agree with you and I add that both Mimiguli and Zumurrud show the tragedy of being slaves as both have been separated by their younger brothers because they are given different roles from them and miss their homelands from what they were taken away by force but they can’t return to them: the only difference is that Mimiguli never discovered her brother died and thus she thought her sacrifice wasn’t senseless, while Zumurrud saw hers being killed by the Mongols hence why she ended up in a state of shock that made easy for her to fall ill and to die (I think she is a realistic example of the trope “Death by despair” as it isn’t despair to kill her directly but it made possible for her to be victim of negative ailments that were worsened by the fact that the Mongol army didn’t consider worthy to cure an enslaved captive).
On the other hand I think that Mujin and Shira have in common only the fact that they are smart and can speak multiple languages, otherwise they are foils: Mujin is a former slave as Ashina Sun freed him when they were children and they have been best friends by then and thus Mujin is currently a free man with a good social position and is genuinely loyal to his leader, while Shira is a prisoner of war who works for the Mongols to avoid being used as human shield in battle and other awful fates and obeys his masters just for survival, for self-interest and desire of personal advancement: he would be ready to abandon them if they were to lose power.
One of the common misconceptions about the Regency era is that women lost all their property when they married but no, they didn't always. Things could be kept in their name despite their losing their legal identity and it actually shows up in several novels from the time, as we see here in the fragment of Sanditon by Jane Austen:
Lady Denham had been a rich Miss Brereton, born to wealth but not to education. Her first husband had been a Mr. Hollis, a man of considerable property in the country, of which a large share of the parish of Sanditon, with manor and mansion house, made a part. He had been an elderly man when she married him, her own age about thirty. Her motives for such a match could be little understood at the distance of forty years, but she had so well nursed and pleased Mr. Hollis that at his death he left her everything—all his estates, and all at her disposal. After a widowhood of some years, she had been induced to marry again. The late Sir Harry Denham, of Denham Park in the neighbourhood of Sanditon, had succeeded in removing her and her large income to his own domains, but he could not succeed in the views of permanently enriching his family which were attributed to him. She had been too wary to put anything out of her own power and when, on Sir Harry's decease, she returned again to her own house at Sanditon, she was said to have made this boast to a friend: "that though she had got nothing but her title from the family, still she had given nothing for it."
How was this possible since women were not a separate person before the law? It was done through trusts:
family lawyers set up what was called "separate property" and/or a "separate estate" for brides, especially if they were heiresses. This was basically a trust overseen by the Chancery Court which gave the women access to all her property and money upon application to a trustee, but kept it out of control so her husband couldn't "kiss or kick it" out of her, nor his creditors take it to pay his bills.
What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew, Daniel Pool
Now was this common? This I don't know, and I doubt it was super common, but if a woman was extraordinarily wealthy, she could get lawyers just as good as her husband's and make it happen. I think it's telling that Lady Denham is older and very well off, she has the money and the knowledge to keep her wealth protected.
This is also probably exactly what Darcy set up for Lydia, with the £1000 settled on her. That is her protected dowry and jointure, kept in trust so Wickham can't burn through it:
You know pretty well, I suppose, what has been done for the young people. His debts are to be paid, amounting, I believe, to considerably more than a thousand pounds, another thousand in addition to her own settled upon her, and his commission purchased. - Pride & Prejudice
I like to think that Sophia Grey from Sense & Sensibility kept a lot of her fortune in separate property and she uses that to keep Willoughby in line. The way the narrator talks about his wife "not always being out of humour" makes me think she was holding something over him, and we know she was filthy rich. I also feel like Mrs. Ferrars might have had a lot of separate property, since she is the one controlling all the wealth after her husband dies, instead of it going to her eldest son.
Anyway, this is why marriage articles and not eloping was so important!
Do you think there's any symbolism in ajax the greater killing himself with Hector's sword?
I think that rarely ever is there something on chance in these ancient tales much less to amazing writers such as Sophocles who seems to show deep sensitivity in certain matters.
I definitely see that it has a symbolism. Ajax feels dishonored before his own people, at a war against the Trojans. It is a tragic irony that he shall regain his sense of honor by using a sword belonging to a Trojan and the pride of Trojan army no less. In one way it also seems that he dies by the honorable weapon of an honorable man such as Hector, in a death he chooses, just like Hector chose to die to fight for his own country
I also detect several parallels between Ajax and Hector with the most prominent one that both leave a son behind, an infant they said goodbye to and an infant that seemed initially scared of them; Astyanax of his father's helmet and Eurysaces of his father's dreadful appearance as he was drenched in blood. Both figures say goodbye to their son by playing with them or holding them. Both seemed to have terrified their child, child born in the middle of a bloody war, because they have an appearance that links them to war and violence (armor, blood)
The parallels between these tragic characters are not random there and I believe it is this the reason why it is only by the sword of an honorable man like Hector that Ajax can make peace with himself and die
Also on a symbolic level it seems that Ajax WANTS to die by a sword belonging to an enemy or a rival (illusion of honor dying in battle that will overshadow the shame of his suicide and sin) and at the same time a friend (emotional support and courage at the time he might hesitate)
Another thing that I forgot to add here and I am ashamed of it is that there is the symbolism of something we say even now in Greek;
Δώρον Άδωρον = gift not really a gift
There seems to be a symbolism in gift-giving that can be good when given by some friend but when given by an enemy it beads a de facto "curse" to it. Which is also why in some commentary on that moment I read that the belt that Ajax gave to Hector was used by Achilles to tie him to the chariot and drag him along the plains of Troy while the sword given to Ajax by Hector was used for his suicide.
So in one way the gifts of an enemy to another are not really gifts and that eventually they would turn bad on you. Of course it doesn't need to be like that for every occasion but it seems that at least in this context this is another theory that can be added to the symbols list.
yousharknotpass
turnnoffyourmind
kaledo-art
andulkaphoto
jacobvanloon
theartofmadeline
jbbartram-illu
janainaart
