☆

☆ galaxy brain 25/8☆

[snowdin-stims]

💫 | source

[star-ocean-peahen]

After watching Cinderella (the original animated movie, which was my favorite as a child), it strikes me how it solves many common problems people have with this fairy tale. Like:

Why did they try to identify the mystery girl using her shoe size? Because the bullheaded king's only clue to her identity was the shoe the Grand Duke picked up off the steps.

Why didn't the prince recognize her by her face? Because his father wouldn't involve him in the process at all, and wasn't the one going around trying to find her.

Why did the prince want to marry a lady he only met that night? Because his father was going to force him to marry someone, and he genuinely liked this woman.

Why did Cinderella want to marry a man she only met that night? Because marriage was her best and most secure way to freedom. Fucked up, but you can't say it's unrealistic for the setting of a fairy tale. She also genuinely liked him.

If they're using the slipper to find her, wouldn't it be more sensible to search for the person with the other slipper? Yes. The King is purposefully nonsensical and the Duke is purposefully terrified enough of him to carry out his orders to the letter. Furthermore, they end up doing that in the end anyway, because the Duke's glass slipper is shattered, and Cinderella brings out the one she has to prove her identity.

Why didn't the stepmother and stepsisters recognize Cinderella at the ball? Because they were dancing too far away, and then left the party to dance in private, which was possible because the King wanted very badly for his son to hit it off with someone and tried to arrange the best conditions for that to happen.

Why didn't Cinderella save herself? Because in real life, abuse victims should not have to shoulder that responsibility, and usually can't. In real life, you need and deserve an external support system. Asking for help, in this kind of situation, is very important. She is saved by others because she is loved. Because she is not alone. Because she has friends who love her, and want her to be happy and safe and free. Because in real life, people who want to help someone who is suffering are like the mice. We can't pull out miracle solutions, but we can provide companionship and if we're in the right place at the right time, we can help the person find a better life.

Why didn't the fairy godmother save Cinderella from her abusive household, or try to help her sooner? Because she's magic, and magic can't solve your problems. Quote: "Like all dreams, well, I'm afraid it can't last forever." This (and Cinderella's dream of going to the ball) is a metaphor for pleasurable things in bad circumstances. An ice cream won't get rid of your depression, but it will provide you with momentary happiness to bolster you, as well as the reminder that happiness in general is still possible for you. Cinderella doesn't want to go to the ball so she can get away from her stepmother and stepsisters, or so she can meet someone to marry and leave with. She wants to go to the ball to remind herself that she can still have things she wants. That her desires matter. This is important because the movie does a very good job of illustrating Lady Tremaine's subtle abuse tactics, all of which invisibly press the message that Cinderella doesn't matter. While going to the ball and fulfilling her dreams may not be a victory in the material sense, it is still a victory against Lady Tremaine's efforts.

Why is Cinderella's choice to be kind and obedient framed as a good thing, when you are not obligated to be kind to your abuser? This one walks a very fine line, but I think the movie still makes it make sense. Lady Tremaine never acknowledges her cruelty. She always frames her punishments of Cinderella as Cinderella's fault. Cinderella is interrupting, Cinderella is shirking her duties, Cinderella is playing vicious practical jokes. Cinderella is still a member of the family, of course she can go to the ball, provided she meet these impossible conditions. Lady Tremaine's tactics are designed to make Cinderella feel like she must always be in the wrong and her stepmother must always be in the right. If Cinderella calls her stepmother out on her cruelty, or attempts to fight back, Lady Tremaine can frame that as Cinderella being ungrateful, cruel, broken, evil, etc. If Cinderella responds to her stepmother's cruelty defiantly (in the way she's justified to), she's not taking control out of Lady Tremaine's hands. Disobedience can be spun back into her stepmother's control. She wants Cinderella to be angry and sad and show how much she's hurting. So since Cinderella is adapting to her situation, she chooses to be kind. Not only because she naturally wants to be and it's part of her personality, but because it is a form of defiance in its own way, and it allows her to keep a reminder of her agency and value. Her choice to be kind is her chance to keep her own narrative alive: she is not obeying because her stepmother wants her to and she has to do what her stepmother does, but because she wants to. It's a small distinction, but one that makes all the difference in terms of keeping her hope and identity. (Fuck, I wrote a whole paragraph about how this doesn't mean you can't be angry at people who hurt you or that you need to be kind to deserve help, and then deleted it by accident. Uh. Try again.) Expressing anger and pain is an important part of regaining autonomy and healing. Although it is commendable to be kind while you are suffering, it is NOT required for you to get help or be worthy of help. If Cinderella's recovery was explored beyond "happily ever after" she would need to let herself be angry and sad to heal. Cinderella is not only kind because it comes naturally to her, but because it's her defense against the abuse she's suffering. Everyone's story and experiences are different, and one does not invalidate the other.

Bonus round for answers that aren't part of the movie:

Why didn't Cinderella run away? Where would she go? Genuinely, in hundreds-of-years-ago France, where would she go if she snuck out of the window with a change of clothes? With her step-family, she's miserable and abused, but she's fed, clothed, and in no danger of dying or being taken advantage of by anyone other than her stepmother and stepsisters. Even if she escapes and manages to find financial security, her stepmother might be able to find her and get her back.

Why didn't Cinderella burn the house down with them inside it/slit their throats in the night/poison their food/etc.? Because that's a revenge fantasy, and this story is a fantasy about being saved. There's nothing wrong with making Cinderella into a revenge fantasy. That's perfectly fine, as long as you acknowledge that the other type of fantasy is also a valid interpretation. (I mean, the original fairy tale features the stepsisters getting their feet mutilated and all three of them getting their eyes pecked out, so go for it.)

Why isn't Cinderella more proactive in general? Because she's a child who has been abused for the back half of her life, who has had to be focused on survival because. you know. she's an abused kid.

How did she dance in glass slippers? Gotta agree with you there man, that's weird.

[madamtrashbat]

OP I hope you don't mind but

Cinderella's kindness is her armor. Her kindness is her keeping safe against Lady Tremaine. Because in the movie, when Anastasia finds Gus under her cup, Cinderella tries to defend herself. She tries to tell Lady Tremaine that she can't possibly think she did this on purpose, and Lady Tremaine sharply cuts her off, which is one of the few times she's actually sharp at Cinderella. It's only ever when Cinderella is not obedient or contrite that Lady Tremaine is even sharp at all.

Cinderella defending herself is met with a quick, "Hold your tongue." Cinderella saying she's already cleaned the thing she's ordered to clean is met with a biting "Do them again." And then in that scene when Cinderella finally relents and says "yes, Stepmother" is when Lady Tremaine relaxes and speaks softly again.

The only other time in the movie Lady Tremaine yells at Cinderella is when Cinderella interrupts the music lesson with the invite to the ball. Somehow, Cinderella has learned that aggression begets aggression, that emotion begets emotion, and so in being kind and quiet she keeps Lady Tremaine kind and quiet (on the surface, anyway).

When Cinderella speaks up that she wants to go to the ball, Lady Tremaine allows her to speak because she's presenting it calmly. "I'm still a member of the family, and an eligible maiden." She's not angry, just matter-of-fact, so Lady Tremaine is matter-of-fact about it. Of course you can go, provided you finish your responsibilities. Toe the line and we'll allow you to go.

Cinderella allows herself to break and cry only when Lady Tremaine leaves the house. It is after that door closes that Cinderella finally cracks and cries and has this flood of emotion as she runs through the house to the yard and allows herself to let it all out. Because she will not allow herself to give that emotional ammunition to Lady Tremaine. She will not give Lady Tremaine an ounce of emotion to play off of.

And when Lady Tremaine locks her in her room and she breaks again, crying and begging, Lady Tremaine bounces it right back by cruelly and smugly walking away to keep Cinderella away from her one chance at leaving. Because saying anything at all is unnecessary at this point; the action is crueler than anything Lady Tremaine could say.

Cinderella stays kind and calm through the movie because she has to, otherwise she is diminished and belittled and scolded.

[that-catholic-shinobi]

I love this analysis. I cannot express to you how much energy an abuse victim, trapped in an abusive situation, puts towards pacifying the abuser. They make sure things are good so the abuser doesn’t lash out at them.

You don’t lash out at your abuser. That just escalates and then things get out of hand and worse and it’s a whole mess. But if you walk on eggshells, if you do what you’re told and just nod along for a time being, then it’s like tucking a child into bed for a nap and you can get some peace and quiet until they start crying again.

[aflyinghamster]

in the original French version of Cinderella, the glass slipper was a "pantoufle de vair" which actually means that the slipper ("pantoufle") was made of "vair", which refers to the fur of grey and white squirrels. Because it sounds very similar (like... literally exactly the same) in French to "verre", which means "glass", it slowly became a... glass slipper. When it was supposed to be made of fur. So yeah.

[heartnosekid]

tiny jars!!! by averiverastudio on ig

[nthandrake-deactivated20240909]

As a rape survivor, I understand the need for safe space together – free from sexist harassment and potential violence. But fear of gender variance also can't be allowed to deceptively cloak itself as a women's safety issue. I can't think of a better example than my own, and my butch friends', first-hand experiences in public women's toilets. Of course women need to feel safe in a public restroom; that's a serious issue. So when a man walks in, women immediately examine the situation to see if the man looks flustered and embarrassed, or if he seems threatening; they draw on the skills they learned as young girls in this society to read body language for safety or danger.

Now, what happens when butches walk into the women's bathroom? Women nudge each other with elbows, or roll their eyes, and say mockingly, "Do you know which bathroom you're in?" Thats not how women behave when they really believe there's a man in the bathroom. This scenario is not about women's safety – its an example of gender-phobia.

And ask yourself, if you were in the women's bathroom, and there were two teenage drag queens putting on lipstick in front of the mirror, would you be in danger? If you called security or the cops, or forced those drag queens to use the men's room, would they be safe?

If the segregation of bathrooms is really about more than just genitals, then maybe the signs ought to read "Men" and "Sexually and Gender Oppressed," because we all need a safe place to go to the bathroom. Or even better, let's fight for clean individual bathrooms with signs on the doors that read "Restroom."

And defending the inclusion of transsexual sisters in women's space does not threaten the safety of any woman. The AIDS movement, for example, battled against the right-wing characterization of gay men as a "high-risk group." We won an understanding that there is no high-risk group – there are high-risk behaviors. Therefore, creating safety in women's space means we have to define unsafe behavior – like racist behavior by white women towards women of color, or dangerous insensitivity to disabilities.

Transsexual sisters are not a Trojan horse trying to infiltrate women's space. There have always been transsexual women helping to build the women's movement – they are part of virtually every large gathering of women. They want to be welcomed into women's space for the same reason every woman does – to feel safe.

Leslie Feinberg, Transgender Warriors: Making History from Joan of Arc to Marsha P. Johnson and Beyond

[prinnay]

Vorpal Blade + Lucid Blade

[animentality]

[randalltier-deactivated20230711]

[dumpy-dump]

[princeescaluswords]

Perfect metaphor is perfect.

[quasi-normalcy]

I find it personally offensive how many bad writers can get published so easily.

[quasi-normalcy]

I used to find it reassuring, like, "Haha, wow, if THIS can get published..." but now I take it to mean "It doesn't matter if your book is good or not, all that matters is if you're in the right social circles (and you're not)"

[littlemissmanga]

As someone who used to acquire for an indie publisher ... it sucks on the other end, too. We don't WANT to work on shitty books with shitty writing. But bossman wants to make money, and shitty writer has marketing clout/knows the right people/is already published (even if it's only online/ebook).

I used to read the most AMAZING submissions I'd be forced to pass on. Like, there was one, a literary fantasy featuring a bi deaf protagonist who learns how to navigate a spectrum of relationships while discovering herself (I don't want to give too many details out of respect to the author/don't want her concept stolen) and I couldn't get it acquired no matter how thorough my proposal and marketing plan was because she was a debut author with fewer than 10k Twitter followers and we needed that advance money for another Fifty Shades knockoff (this was a few years ago lol).

BUT PLEASE DON'T LET THAT DISCOURAGE YOU! If you're a writer, and you're trying to get published, don't give up!! If your first novel isn't getting traction with either a house or agency, publish it yourself on amazon. Get that "debut" moniker away from your name. Prove you can sell your shit and keep working.

A good agent will work with you to come up with a marketing/publicity proposal. That will be huge in getting houses to notice your work - makes the acquisitions team's job easier as they can point to it and tell bossman "we have a plan". Look online for titles that have high ratings/are on the NYT list that can be compared to yours. That helps give acquisitions an idea of what they're getting into - and how to represent your book to their ED/publisher.

A good agent will also help you target editors/imprints whose lists match your book, increasing your odds of getting positive feedback or even constructive feedback. If I had a submission that just wasn't quite ready for publication, I'd give detailed notes of what I wanted and ask them to revise and resubmit.

Keep writing! Even if a book isn't picked up, start your next. It's so attractive to see an author with several unpublished works ready to be polished if you already like the work that's submitted. And more writing only refines your skills.

Yes, bad writers get published. And too many good writers, even when published, go unrecognized (if you like southern gothic fiction a la Where the Crawdads Sing, go read The Past is Never, which came out four months earlier and got NO national attention but is BEAUTIFUL). Be such a good writer that you break those odds.

Because you can. I've read your stuff on Tumblr. On Ao3. On Fanfiction.net. On Wattpad. You can do it.

[quasi-normalcy]

This is actually practical advice; thank you.

[thememedaddy]

[suinicide]

I need a link to this

[nutsacktorturer]

This is how the Resident Evil developers see Europe

[psychotrenny]

o conselho tribais

[headspace-hotel]

This sounds completely insane but I swear just fucking around on Google Earth street view all over the world will cure you of whatever problems you have going on in this regard

[frawgs]

life actually gets better when you leave the house consistently btw like im serious

[dykecosette]

if you don't know where to go, just wander! go to the store and don't buy anything, go to the library just to sit and do whatever you were going to do at home, go to a park and just walk around/sit outside for a bit (weather permitting, of course)

just put some headphones in and walk around the block a couple times if you really have nothing else to do, just getting a bit of air and change of scenery is so good for you

[anderswasrightt]

me the first few weeks of forcing myself to go on daily walks (it gets better tho)

[spacelazarwolf]

i really need tumblr to learn the concept of “if you physically cannot do this then this post is not talking about you” because jesus christ.

[spacelazarwolf]

@a-spectacular-pigeon you get it.

[bigskydreaming]

Is the designated fandom favorite ACTUALLY smarter than everyone around him or does he just get to star in fics, headcanons and canon interpretations that conveniently hand him all the answers while the narrative refuses to let anyone else draw the right conclusions before him?

[alrightbuckaroo]

culture around fanfiction has just gotten so...weird? not necessarily on the writer's side, but it seems to really be showing on the passive reader's side. not every writer is writing something to be the "next big thing" in a fandom, and hoping it's seen as a "staple" of fandom culture.

they're not writing it with the hope it going the way of "the love hypothesis" and becoming a published piece of work. they're not writing to compete with other writers, especially those that they're genuinely friends with.

most of us, in my opinion, are writing because, well, we just love to write and have a story we want to share! we care about these characters just as much as you do and just want to tell a certain type of story with that same amount of care; no matter how many kudos, hits or shares it gets.

we don't see stories as "content" that need to a certain metric; we see them as a way to celebrate something we all love.

[robotpussy]

not to go over this again but you literally cannot be a environmental activist and not be against settler colonalism like you are not a environmental activist of you think that shit is ok. every part of settler colonalism is environmental and ecological destruction....

[minxundertone]

Addition to the “you literally cannot be a(n) environmental activist and not…” Eat Vegan. Yes the vast majority of the world’s environmental destruction is carried out by major international evil-corps, but if you are focused on personal steps to help stem the actual fraction individuals cause, then eating vegan helps eliminate one of the biggest sources of greenhouses, Factory Farming / Industrial livestock production.

Plus you’re addressing the other two main reasons behind vegan living: moral and health.

[blackfilmmakers]

Unneeded addition that was very much rooted in the settler colonist mindset OP was talking about, hope this helps

[missmayhemvr]

Veganism is no more moral than eating meat, and is far more a sign of wealth and privilege than anything. Indigenous people the world over were not destroying the world by eating meat, the people of Alaska who still hunt whale and seal (usually only a few times a year to feed whole villages) aren't destroying the world. The maasai are less destructive to lions than shell.

And your vegan diet is based on slave labor full stop. Poc have been saying for generations at this point. Imperial core veganism is predicated on slavery and slave labor, and thats before I bring up how it's currently one of the causes of massive clear cutting, destruction of indigenous land rights, food production, arts, crafts, I could go on. Corn production is horrid for the soil, the volume of fertilizer that used that ends up in water sources is one of the reasons theres no more clean water on earth. Industrial agriculture is absolutely fucking killing us on the veggie and the meat side. Climb off your high horse and maybe ask a follow up question of yourself when you think you found an answer to a large question and you'll make less an ass of yourself and come off much less as "enlightenment prick"

We could switch the whole world to vegan diets and it would help not a thing.

[radiofreederry]

[wholeheartedsuggestions]

practice forgiving yourself as often as possible. it does wonders once you really learn to move past things you dislike about your past actions that cannot be redone.

[thepeacefulgarden]

Remember: Beating yourself up doesn't help whoever you wronged, and it doesn't help *you*.

[literallyaflame]

a person online: i hate it when adults act like childish little freaks in public, smh. you’re an adult, you should be able to order your own food without help. get over yourself. also, why are some people, like, waaaaaaay too into the stuff that they like? omg, and the people who CLEARLY can’t even have one (1) normal conversation without acting Weird??? it’s embarrassing, u guys are embarrassing, get help

the same person five seconds later: we gotta remember to love and support the autistic community u guys <3

[literallyaflame]

you know, in hindsight this reminds me of something

when i’m at work, people get mad at me for not hearing them the first few times. like, openly agitated. they’ll assume that i’m stupid, or rude, or careless. sometimes they will indirectly chastise me for ‘not paying attention.’ at which point i say “i’m sorry, i’m hard of hearing. you were on my right side and i’m severely deaf in that ear,” and they go “oh my god i’m so sorry i didn’t know.”

yeah. you didn’t, did you? the only available information you had about me was… that i didn’t hear you say something. the thing you hated enough to comment on was that i couldn’t hear you. you don’t get to backpedal once you find out that i have can’t-hear-well disease. i shouldn’t need to present a diagnosis to expect decency from you

if you attach negative characteristics to “didn’t hear what you said,” that will affect how you treat d/Deaf and hard of hearing people. if you attach negative characteristics like “weird and childish” to utterly harmless and well established autistic traits like “doesn’t make eye contact,” that will affect how you treat autistic people. it’s not rocket science

[anexperimentallife]