Did you know?

Lorenzo Zurzolo has actually master in cuntology, double majored in slaysian studies and slutistical analysis, minored in babygirlism from the university of servington.

women's sports is one of the loudest and most successful anti-patriarchy campaigns in human history. what women's sports did and does is prove, over and over again, the excellence, the raw power and strength of the human woman. it completely disrupts ideas on gender.

you have big, powerful women in rugby. fast, endurable women runners. impeccably strong gymnasts. women with strong, large bodies that take up space. that are HEALTHY. they are not RESTRICTED or ladylike. they are free of the stillness/deadness that femininity demands. no corsets. no (aesthetic) thinness. no hourglass bodies for gawking. women's sports screams to society "we are fully human, not objects, not small men. we are not domestic dolls. we are hunters and foragers. fighters."

why do you think men are so vitriolic about it? why don't they want women in football? why don't they want it televized? why do they keep harassing female basketball players? why do they insist on dressing women in sexualized uniforms? why do they now make it taboo to exculde men from women's sports?

i firmly believe it's because women's sports tears patriarchal gender ideology apart so effortlessly. it completely spits in the face of patriarchal political propaganda and shows how null it is. it forces all of us to view women as full, as the beginning of human excellence, as central to human history. not as decorative sexual objects, no matter how men want us to be.

that's why there's so much aggression and derision when it comes to women's sports from men. because women's sports destroys the idea of femininity and depicts women as non-derivative. women must be monsters and cannot afford to play into the childlikeness that femininity demands. the arena of sports forces us to focus on women's physical performance rather than appearance. their strength rather than how attractive they are. their skill and strategy. their humanity. it is a form of entertainment where all female roles are agentive and active rather than passive.

women's sports events are also hotbeds for female and lgb solidarity like you have no idea!

y'all need to start watching women's sports. not only because it is exciting, but it deprograms the patriarchal bullshit out of you so fast. you realize how much is possible. how much we can all achieve right now.

Seatmate Dottore scribbling away in class, easily jotting down notes despite clearly understanding everything that was being covered in class while you were too busy staring at him (yes I am calling you out, Cal). At the end of the lesson you realise you're kinda fucked because you didn't catch anything and he just slides the notes over to you before getting up and moving on to the next class

a detective who has a partner🔍 and a partner💕 who are friends so the three of them end up doing a lof things together and the detective refers to them as "my partners" and doesn't realise this makes everyone think they're polyamorous (they do end up polyamorous by the end of the story)

Karasu and control

I've been thinking about this for a while, and this part of Hiori's novel (previous reblog) just brought it back to my attention.

Karasu really likes to control things. I'm not saying he's a control freak, of course, but he certainly likes to feel a safe base beneath his feet. You can see this in his play style (when he gathers all the available information and acts only after that; his choice of France) and his fear of water (if I remember correctly, the thing that scares him the most in it is the unknown). AND also from the whole Marisa (his childhood crush) story (assuming it's true lol) - he's not the type to rush into anything: neither in relationships nor hobbies. I don't think he would have chosen to join Blue Lock if he wasn't really sure in his abilities. He's really mature about things like that.

I was thinking in the context of him probably going to university (data analysis please!) in addition to his sports career, since he seems like a really rational guy when it comes to serious stuff? He gives Hiori some great advice about not wasting his time on something he doesn't like, Ego mentions that his greatest skill is his analytical ability - he never acts because-he-just-feels-it, he was the one who argued with the referee in the U-20 game about Rin's injury (so responsible!), and generally acts very logically (except for the whole Hiori and his legs theme lol). I don't think he would be able to fully relate on the sport, he certainly knows about the statistics of failures and broken careers.

He loves football, of course, but he is really right about "people who only play football can't become great players". But that's more because for Karasu, it's unrealistic to be stable (which is sometimes a deciding point in the game) when your whole life depends on it. When everything relies on you winning. Karasu really has a glimpse of Snuffy's philosophy in that, and it's great to see that in the character: Failing at one thing doesn't say anything about you. And you should always be more than one thing to have the right mental balance.

That's what makes him so strong - not that he'll never fail. Of course one day he will.

But rather the knowledge that he has done everything to be stable in case of failure; that any possible failure will not ruin his life. 

Because he has made sure that his back is covered.

herbert west request pleaseeee

Him <33

elituli but lesbians

real as fack

the hannibal franchise fucking sucks <- is enjoying the hannibal franchise quite a bit actually <- is just very mad that clannibal is a thing that exists

not the kind of thing I usually share, but I came across the CDC's national intimate partner and sexual violence survey and their 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation, and some of the statistics for women are really shocking (tw for rape and assault)

anyway I wanted to share these because I hear vague stats about queer women and sexual violence being thrown around constantly, but we rarely take a step back and look at the actual numbers these days. direct pdf download of the report here: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation

Anyways Atsushi (bsd) and Byakko (yohaji) outfit swap

the fact that almost every character in ofmd is specifically a gay man is seriously so fucking special like usually a show will have 1 character from a minority group and then that character has to be every single thing - a person the straight/homophobic audience can accept and even like, someone that deals with their issues the way they "should" be dealt with, someone who's not too much of anything but simultaneously everything because every expected trait has to be displayed at some point or another.... versus this show with its massive cast of characters who are all able to embody specific (and extremely varying) ways to be a gay man where all of their journeys and personalities and approaches to their sexualities are so unique to them but so true to people that exist in real life........ i wish i could express this better coz it's such an incredible thing to see it genuinely makes my chest hurt with how much it means to me

Now that I am mostly over the Absolutely Feral stage of my Radiant Emperor Obsession and can think again, I want to do a proper write up on how the series handles colonialism. I need to get my sources together and make it all pretty and stuff, but the gist of it is this.

I actually really respect SPC for not making it A Thing. Like, the colonialism is an inherent part of the serting, and a lot of important moments hinge around it, but there's also a pretty clear refusal by the author to turn it into A Statement. I think they do a really good job of walking the fine line between aknowledging it and making it clear that its an important part of the setting, without turning the book into a political thesis on Why Bad Actually.

I think a lot of fantasy authors that frankly have no business making their books into political science treatises try to be super philosophical about it, and inevitably have almost all their points ring flat bc the main character almost always ends up perpetuating the system they spent the whole book critiquing. The classic example being, of course, "We've destroyed The Evil Empire! We will now replace it with The Good Empire, which is functionally identical to The Evil Empire except Good bc our Main Character is in charge! This will totally change the systemic issues we've spent the last three million words exploring! How? Don't worry about it, absolute power only corrupts you if you're A Bad Person!" (atla. atla i am looking at you. my love for you does not mean I am letting you off the hook.)

The Radiant Emperor books interact with and aknowledge the colonialism. The empire canonically falls at least in part because of one guy's willfull ignorance of the differences between his culture and that of two of the people he loves the most, because his culture supercedes theirs to the point where he does not even consider the posibility of this difference truly existing as a real-life power imbalance. And still, these books are not about that! That is not the main theme! It is important. It is handled pretty well, it is aknowledged, and it is not The Point. I really appreciate that more understated approach that SPC takes, because ironically by refusing to partake in dramatic philosophical grandstanding the media often ends up making way better and more nuanced points, because then their point actually fits into the story they are trying to tell.

Men who view women as their intellectual equals 😍

ik you've talked about it before but tumblr blog search on mobile sucks ass so if it's not too much of a bother could you redirect me to your posts on why you dislike emily wilson?

i've never made a post on it. but, here you go:

as a translator? i have no issues with her. her translations are pretty good. so her 'work' i don't have a problem with. don't get me wrong, sometimes i think she toes that dangerous line of 'women good. men bad. feminism.' black and white line very finely. it's a lot more subtle than most modern classicsts but yKNOW.

my issue comes from her introduction to the odyssey. so it's her introduction. her own thoughts. not a translation of something. or outside influence. HER introduction. she says:

The second is piled high with newly acquired treasure, brought by blustering, self-pitying Menelaus. As Menelaus pompously declares ... we meet the beautiful and frighteningly intelligent Helen back home in Sparta, with her wealthy, blustering, and rather less intelligent husband, Menelaus. ...and the rich, narcissistic, uxorious Menelaus.

she then, in book 4, translates the original text in which menelaus is NONE of these things. the only thing he's guilty of really, is the rich thing. cause telemachus is all like 'damn bro ur loaded'. but menelaus is not arrogant about it. he's not smug. he's not narcissistic. he literally says like 2 lines later that he would give away most of his wealth if it meant those who died at troy could come home.

'self-pitying' WHERE?! he cries because he feels GUILTY. the tears are not for him. they are the for the men who died at troy. i'm not getting quotes because it's literally in book fucking 4. he is NOT feeling sorry for himself he is MAD at himself for troy. the only thing i can THINK where he even links his tears to himself is because he says something like, 'every time i think of them i cry because i miss them all' or smth like that. he's not crying for HIM.

'rather less intelligent husband' - you know my feelings on this. menelaus is not stupid. helen is just very smart. and THATS FINE. i love helen being the brains, i'm not against a smart woman and her husband not being as smart. but like. because he doesnt recognise telemachus straight away? or the bird omen? he's stupid? really. we're gonna measure his WHOLE intelligence on that?

'uxorious'. menelaus loves his wife and that's pathetic and funny apparently? tell me. does she describe odysseus this way? hektor in the new iliad translation? i dont think so. 'excessive love their wife' that's what uxorious means. oh im sorry. forgiving ur wife and building a relationship with her and trying to move on together and being nice to her .... that excessive now??? thats??? bad???????

she literally takes menelaus' shining moments in the odyssey. him feeling guilty and remorseful. him showing how haunted he is by the war. him caring and loving helen despite everything. the fact that he is a compassionate. kind. loving man (in comparison to most homeric men) ----- and uses them to insult him. and it just GENUINLEY baffles me. because she wrote that introduction. and then four books later is ENTIRELY proven wrong? im so-----

dont get me wrong. some of this is just very pettty 'you're wrong about menelaus' anger. but some of it is BAFFLEMENT at the fact that she has this in her introduction, those are HER thoughts. and then when you actually get to the text of the odyssey from homer. she is wrong. cause she can't change those greek words too much. translation is a tricky mistress, sure. but she cant go and say 'then menelaus didnt care for those men' because that's just outright WRONG. she has to translate, as faithfully as she can, whats there. and whats there is NOT what she claimed in the introduction.

okay. i need to rewatch the episode probably but i think my current feeling is that i like most of it a lot (rome, ken, the siblings not getting ceo, etc), think the tom ceo makes sense from a logical/character perspective but not sure how i feel about it from a broader more thematic lens (altho i'm leaning towards fine with it), and am very mixed on shiv's ending because i think it's well-conceived and meaningful from a broader thematic lens (shiv becomes her mother, the cycle always repeats, etc) but doesn't quite make sense to me from a logical/character one -- it could've worked, it could've worked brilliantly, but it was far too rushed and forced. it makes sense as an ending for shiv, but not her next step. i'm largely talking about her decision to return to tom, not her decision to vote against kendall (which i think should've been executed better and given more space but can understand given her character, mostly). i'm fine with it as an ending for shiv, but what i'm struggling to stomach is the way it played out -- it didn't feel like a choice the shiv we know would've made. it's an ending that makes sense thematically and for her character arc, but not a decision that makes sense for her character at present. that's kinda where i'm at right now

BBC Ghosts: This is the Captain. As a former commanding officer in WWII, he has a need for control humorously juxtaposed with the inherent impotence of being a ghost. His buttoned-up nature also serves as a metaphor for his repressed feelings as a gay man, masking a sensitivity that comes through in his gentle kindness toward others.

American version of Ghosts: Remember Tobias Fünke from Arrested Development? Imagine if he was constantly shitting himself.

Posted with permission from a text my partner sent me.