#charles!!!

[alexturntable]

ScuderiaFerrari Lewis’ time to blame it on the buttons 🤣 Full video drops tomorrow!

[il-predestinato]

That *sideways glance* 😏 at Max as he vows to “do everything” to prevent the Max Verstappen era! 🤭

Charles Leclerc | post-race press conference | 2022 United States Grand Prix

🎥: F1TV

[smashing-pierre]

[opossum-the-burr]

How many hoops does a hoop hoop how does hoop hoop?

I asked this question in gym today and it was left unanswered. Probably because it doesn’t make sense but I need opinions on it.

well it all depends in the hoops the hoop hooped yesterday and the honeynut cherreos it ate before it began to hoop. as to how youd have to ask the hoop

[il-predestinato]

At this point, I’m pretty sure he keeps that Ferrari cap on in the shower. 😅

Charles Leclerc | questionable head gear | 2022 United States Grand Prix

📸: Jim Watson

[unrealcities]

WHAT IS HAPPENING

[oldshrewsburyian]

nineteenth century patriarchy, girl. its so interesting that so many men back then and NOW assume that to be a head of a family means to be a petty tyrant who is entitled to have everyone bent to his will. while char-char is what a being head of a family was SUPPOSED to be about, strong, empathetic, protective, SACRIFICIAL

Oh mysterious but thoughtful anon, I am in agreement! (I can't bring myself to call a fictional 19th-century man by an abbreviated form of his name, though.) As you observe, this is a model of 19th-century patriarchy easily to be found in, say, the works of Louisa May Alcott (Rev. March, John Brooke, Professor Bhaer) or Charles Dickens (most conspicuously sweet Bob Cratchit, who loves his children so tenderly and supports the growing independence of Peter and Martha on the cusp of adulthood.) So: yes.

Moreover! I think the series is doing something very interesting with parenthood and gender when it comes to Charles. In contemporary conservative circles, in my experience, what patriarchs tend to mean when they say they would "sacrifice" for their family is very closely aligned with performative masculinity. With Charles, however, we learn by the midpoint of the series that he would be ready not only to die to protect his children (respectable,) but to die by his own hand in order to do so (not.) We see him in the figure of a mother (the mother, in western art) in a pietà tableau, and later in the position of the dead son, in another reversal. I also think that there's a deliberate allusion to the entombment of Christ in the final episode but that's a different topic. While the beginning of the series, I think, sets up the classically Gothic possibility of Charles' male sexuality as a threat to himself and others, the conclusion shows us something else. Charles is willing to be consumed and hollowed out by/for his family, a role usually given (much less literally) to literary wives and mothers. And I would argue that what we see in the final episode is nothing less than a sort of reverse childbirth. Anyway, "Heredity, Inheritance, and Perverse Generation in Chapelwaite" is the title of a paper I would be under-qualified to give at a Victorian studies or pop culture conference.