Reading the webtoon and…

Does this imply that Kim Dokja also tried to write a questionnaire for her to fill in since she wouldn’t speak to him, that either he 1) never gave her in the end (especially if he couldn’t find her after she was released) or 2) gave it to her and she STILL refused to answer?

Because that is so so so so awful. It was already bad but if he tried so many ways to get her to speak and she still gave him no response, regardless of her reasoning… isn’t that still directly choosing to cut herself fully out of his life? Why in the hell did she lie for his sake and allow him to visit her if she wanted to never speak to him again?

I know everyone claims Kim Dokja is just like her in sacrificing himself for loved ones, but at least he tries his best to stay with them and to keep them in his life. He still chooses sacrifice, but it’s not because he intends to never return. He always returns (even if much later than planned).

The only time this differs is with 51%, when he STILL tried his best to stay with them - at least as much as he could.

I sometimes like Lee Sookyung, but I am mostly still SO mad at her for completely ignoring her child since he was 8 years old. Especially when he must have looked like shit any number of times from being mistreated and bullied by family, friends, army, employers.

But maybe that’s just the fragment in me being eternally pissed with her. She DOES love him, but like he says in the webtoon in this chapter - maybe such truths are painful enough to be false anyways, because they’re just SUCH bullshit. That’s not how affection should work, if you actually care about someone and want them to be happy.

Hello There ! 👋😊

Can I request Bg3 characters ( particularly Zevlor and Halsin ) with a rebellious!S/O, please ? (rebellious in the sense Chaotic by Dnd standards) 🖤

Smooches ! 😘

ah! hello! absolutely!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zevlor:

Zevlor initially finds the rebellious nature of his significant other intriguing, though it also presents challenges in the relationship.

He admires their independent spirit and fierce determination to challenge authority, even if sometimes it clashes with his own beliefs in law and order

Zevlor may struggle to reign in his partner's impulsiveness and penchant for chaos, but he also sees the value in their unique perspective and willingness to question everything.

Despite their differences, Zevlor respects his partner's autonomy and encourages them to follow their own path.

Over time Zevlor learns to appreciate the unpredictability and excitement his partner brings into his life. He makes an effort to make a common ground with his partner.

Halsin:

Halsin is initially wary of his partners rebellious nature, fearing that it may lead to conflict as Halsin is very much a lawful person.

Halsin is a man who values order and stability, and his partners tendency to challenge authority and disrupt his order unsettled him at first.

Halsin, however, also recognizes the importance of questioning authority and he admires his partners courage to speak out against injustice.

Halsin may try to temper his partner's rebellious tendencies with wisdom and guidance, encouraging them to channel their energy into constructive pursuits rather than outright defiance.

Despite their differences, Halsin cares deeply for his partner and respects their autonomy, even if it means allowing them to make mistakes and learn from their own experiences. He believes in their potential to effect positive change in the world and supports them in their journey of self-discovery and growth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this was to your liking, i havent played much DnD in my time unfortunately, the place i live doesnt have a wholelot of places to do so but i did my best thank you so much for requesting!!!!!

𝐂𝐓  -  𝟕𝟓𝟔𝟕  :  𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐄𝐑  𝐒𝐓𝐔𝐃𝐘

this  interpretation  of  rex  is  strictly  cannon  divergent,  as  likely  many  of  you  might  have  noticed  through  the  verses  and  monologues.  there  are  perspectives  and  actions  that  he  takes  differently  than  portrayed  on  the  show  in  a  vastly  alternative  moralistic  sense  and  will  be  permanently  implied  for  his  characterization  and  study  —  majority  triggering  content  below  (  tagged  as  appropriately  )

this  interpretation  of  rex  is  not  some  generic  noble  hero  who  is  self  sacrificing  at  a  whim  for  a  brother  at  a  moment’s  notice.  and  he  is  certainly  not  a  “ good  man ”.  I  have  been  aiming  to  write  rex  as  more  of  a  morally  grey  character  who  strictly  does  as  he  is  told  in  parallel  to  authority  and  nothing  else.  others  may  rightfully  consider  him  a  respectable  man,  but  he  himself  is  nothing  but  loyal,  and  will  behave  as  such  in  the  position  he’s  placed.  this  is  his  standard  where  the  only  caveat  be  people  whom  he  is  close  with  to  seep  in  alternative  perspective.  but  in  realistic  sense,  he  has  no  autonomy,  and  is  completely  content  with  it.  yes,  he  is  just  as  human  as  everyone  else,  though  that  does  strike  out  the  cause  to  living  without  a  purpose  that  has  already  been  lined  up  for  him  —  that  is  an  honor  and  a  privilege  to  sacrifice  for  a  cause  that  is  greater  than  him  and  every  other  soldier.  realistically  to  him,  they  were  better  off  fighting  a  war  than  drafting  innocent  families  into  bloodshed.

to  brothers  :  alike  how  rex  did  not  believe  fives’s  inhibitor  chip  suspicion  until  the  moment  his  own  chip  activated,  he’s  not  naïve  to  throw  the  trust  he  had  to  the  very  question  of  a  clone’s  state  of  purpose  over  a  theory  in  which  he  personally  had  not  experienced  to  prove  a  truly  outlandish  conspiracy,  and  will  not  dare  question  the  leaders  he’s  with.  this  is  something  to  understand  that  even  between  brothers,  logic  still  exists.  yes  of  course  there  is  guilt  in  knowing  that  fives  actually  did  die  with  a  silent  truth  with  rex  respecting  enough  to  file  a  classified  grievance  report,  but  during  that  entire  time,  there  was  legitimately  no  reason  to  dig  up  anything  if  there  was  nothing  to  dig  up.  post  66  era  he  still  holds  this  mentality,  despite  how  he  will  admit  fives  was  right,  but  was  too  far  ahead  of  his  time.  a  tragic  timeline  that  was  going  to  occur  regardless,  rex  just  happened  to  be  the  ear,  not  the  eyes.  

any  soldier  who  experienced  the  horrors,  tortures,  traumas  of  war  were  expected,  and  thus  not  phased  by  the  aftermath  of  any  conflict  nor  what  it  entailed  for  those  around  him.  this  was  what  his  brothers  were  literally  made  for,  and  thus  conditioned  in  the  prime  way  to  swallow  it  all  down  with  ease  and  take  the  warfare  without  the  unnecessary  questioning  to  the  meaning  of  it  all.  yes,  he  can  be  empathetic  should  particular  situations  make  him  so,  but  it’s  rare  as  it  is.  he  in  fact  expects  every  soldier  to  do  the  same  for  their  own  sakes.  rex  would  also  go  as  far  as  executing  soldiers  should  they  compromise  his  authority  and / or  the  republic / empire  by  any  means  necessary.  he  wouldn’t  even  go  out  of  his  way  to  try  to  “ save ”  other  soldiers  and  remove  their  activated  chips  after  the  purge  —  because  why  try  to  fix  a  problem  that’s  impractical  to  solve  on  a  galactic  scale,  its  efforts  are  absolutely  futile.

from  the  past  of  krell  :  rex  still  continues  to  not  question  his  superiors,  this  is  NOT  his  place  and  never  will  be.  this  again  goes  against  the  very  core  values  he  holds  true  to  practice  on  a  daily  basis.  again,  regardless  of  verse  he  understands  that  life  has  hierarchy  and  will  not  “  rebel  ”  against  them.  krell  only  proved  the  gains  to  an  end  through  strategic  manipulation  against  the  loyalty  of  clones,  and  the  loyalty  of  rex  out  of  everyone  —  and  noted  by  jesse  that  krell  needed  his  loyalty  to   sabotage  republic  information  and  their  fronts.  that  fact  continues  to  remain  true  because  that  is  the  nature  all  leaders  need,  to  navigate  the  median  in  between  and  not  jump  ship  because  of  change  of  leadership  for  a  plan  so  dire  in  need  for  execution.  though  clearly  by  the  end  since  there  was  no  other  option  after  the  fact  that  there  was  evidence  of  a  criminal  offence,  it  was  only  logical  to  take  out  the  chain  of  command  for  the  better  of  the  republic  and  for  no  other  reason.  this  arc  still  does  not  necessarily  changes  his  perspective  on  the  treatment  of  leadership,  not  everyone  is  the  same  and  shouldn’t  be  expected  to  be  treated  the  same.  some  may  forget,  rex  holds  that  balance  of  responsibility  between  his  superiors  and  his  brothers,  and  often  times  that  requires  sacrifice  for  the  greater  good.

to  skywalker  /  vader  /  palpatine  :  anakin  skywalker  and  vader  in  regardless  of  any  canon  verse,  is  someone  whom  he  respects  highest  against  anyone  else.  even  against  his  own  brothers,  his  general  takes  priority.  should  he  throw  caution  to  the  wind,  rex  is  right  along  side  him.  should  rex  remained  activated  he  would  follow  vader  without  question.  ethics  is  basically  thrown  out  the  window  and  does  not  care  if  he  is  ordered  to  commit  a  massacre  or  take  out  innocents  if  ordered.  again,  if  there  is  hierarchy,  orders  must  be  followed.  this  also  goes  for  the  chancellor / emperor  regardless  of  any  verse,  rex  respects  the  chain  of  command  and  thusly  the  ruler  of  rulers.  rex  himself  would  see  the  tyranny  as  the  end  result  of  the  purpose  in  clone  production,  and  ultimately  something  else  to  simply  be  content  with.  he  is  not  known  to  be  loyal  for  no  reason.  if  every  order  had  to  be  questioned,  what  kind  of  soldier  would  be  possibly  be?

The Philosopher’s Flight by Tom Miller

In which magic, history, flying sports, romance, science, heroism, and women’s rights combine in glorious fashion

The Philosopher’s Flight is a delightful, fantastical, and magical coming of age story.  In Miller’s version of the world, “empirical philosophy” is a practice dominated by women that is a mix between magic and science; these “philosophers,” or sigilrists, as they’re often called, use powders and drawn “sigils” to let them “hover” or fly, carve smoke, transport from place to place (like teleportation), freeze human motor functions to put people in “stasis,” and much more. Narrator Robert Weekes grew up the son of one of the best hoverers in Montana (and probably the country), and since he was a young boy, he had dreamed of following in his mother’s footsteps and becoming part of the U.S. Sigilry Corps’s Rescue and Evacuation team, where only the best and bravest philosophers have flown.  As a male, however, this is viewed as impossible; men just can’t perform empirical philosophy like women can.

But as in any patriarchal society, the philosophers are not without opposition.  The Trenchers, groups mainly of men who believe that empirical philosophy is against God’s word and should be made illegal—and that the woman’s place is in the home—are riled up and out for blood as our story begins, and it is because of a tragic event involving Trencher terrorists that Robert Weekes becomes a hometown hero and is given the chance to get a scholarship to Radcliffe, a women’s college and a premier school for sigilrists. Robert finds opposition everywhere he turns at Radcliffe, but he does not give up on his goal to become a part of Rescue and Evac.  To even earn the recognition that would get him an interview with R & E, though, he must find a way to compete in the inter-collegiate General’s Cup, an Olympics-style competition for philosophers.  And of course, what would a coming-of-age story be without a love interest?  Over the course of the school year, Robert falls for Danielle Hardin, war hero and transport sigilrist extraordinaire, but will their love survive the political turmoil surrounding Danielle and Robert’s impossible dreams?

I absolutely loved reading this books and learning about how history would be different if empirical philosophy were a real practice.  There are such great little details that you pick up—like women already having the vote in the 1800s, for example—that it’s impossible not to be absolutely floored by the insane amount of time and research it must have taken Miller to put this whole book together.  Robert is a darling narrator who is so easy to empathize with; I honestly don’t think the story would have worked half as well from any other character’s perspective or if it had been written in third person.  And the quotes from characters and excerpts from textbooks and articles created for the beginning of each chapter are ingenious.  Not only do they immerse you in Robert’s world, they let you see into what the future holds for Robert and empirical philosophy as a practice. Similarly, the inclusion of pages at the end f the novel taken from a “textbook” of sigils that Robert helps to write is incredibly fascinating, finally giving the reader visual representations of the symbols sigilrists use for their different tasks.

For me, the most interesting aspect of the novel was the thought put behind how gender dynamics would work in this alternate universe.  The dedication page is great—apparently one of Miller’s friends or colleagues had asked why his stories never feature women, and this novel, though told from a male perspective, is all about strong women and the struggles they face in early twentieth century society, which, despite the respect most people have for the philosophers, is still a world run by men, where women and their “witchcraft” are often feared.  Miller does an excellent job of thinking out the nuances of how a society where powerful women are given a chance to take charge would differ from our own.  It’s also a very interesting way to look at how, for most of Western history, women were seen as the inherently inferior sex; if you were a woman, you just couldn’t compete with men.  In Robert’s world, he is seen as naturally inferior because men just are naturally worse than women at empirical philosophy, and Miller hits the nail on the head of how, for example, women who fought and flew in the World Wars must have felt trying to break into these fields dominated by the opposite gender who saw them as naturally incapable.

However, Miller is also not blind to how these situations would obviously be different as well. Robert’s roommate, another male at Radcliffe, Unger, has a younger sister who wants to go to Harvard, and after he and Robert are targeted in the cafeteria on their first day at school, Unger shudders to think of the kind of treatment his sister would get being the first woman at male-dominated Harvard.  The threat of sexual violence and the way that people like the Trenchers use the Bible to remove women’s autonomy and classify them as the submissive sex are still very real for the women in the novel, and I appreciated Miller’s effort to show that while Robert can metaphorically stand in for the women who had to break into the public sphere in a patriarchal society, he enjoys privileges as a white male in a country that still holds the white male as the standard, making his transition into the female-dominated world of empirical philosophy much easier.  

The only thing about the novel that is left ambiguous that I wanted to explicitly see happen was Robert ending up with Essie, another first-year at Radcliffe who aspires to become a part of the Rescue and Evacuation corps as well.  She was obviously so into him the entire time. And they had the same interests! And there was definitely a spark near the end!  I guess I just identified more with Essie—she seems quiet and is easily embarrassed, but inside, she’s strong as hell.  Ugh. You know it’s a good story when you want the author to tell you exactly what happened after the novel ended.  All in all, I absolutely loved falling in love with these characters myself.

Ripley’s Believe It or Not: Women Can Be Leaders?

Michael Dormer

2/22/17

The Alien quadrilogy is unique insofar as it portrays several female characters, including the protagonist, Dr. Ellen Ripley, in positions of power and strength. These women are repeatedly shown to be entirely capable, courageous, tough, and, in the words of Hudson in the movie Aliens, “badass”. They regularly display their fighting prowess and their ability to fight, kill, and be overall dominant and intelligent on a battlefield. Despite all this, the female characters have to repeatedly and purposefully act in accordance with typical male gender roles in attempts to be taken seriously by their male companions, but they still ultimately fail to stop these male companions from attempting to pigeonhole them into different traditional female roles in an attempt to keep the women in a place where they can understand them. These attempts to squeeze women into gender roles that they are actively attempted to defy mirror some of the challenges that women politicians face when trying to gain power in the real world. Two prominent examples of this phenomenon can be seen in the character of Vasquez in Aliens and in the character of Ripley in Alien 3.

In the movie Aliens, the character of Vasquez is introduced as one of the only two women soldiers in the military squadron assigned to descend onto and eliminate the threat of the large Xenomorph nest on the same planet as a thriving human colony. In the first interaction shown between her and the other soldiers, she is shown doing pull-ups in a locker room with the other male soldiers. Hudson asks her if she has “ever been mistaken for a man”, to which she replies “No; have you?”  This interaction displays Vasquez as a physically strong, tough, dedicated soldier, but the male soldiers casually attempt to disenfranchise her as a woman in an attempt to make sense of her incredible ability as a soldier; something outside of the traditional role for a woman. However, immediately after she disavows the notion that she is somehow less of a woman due to her strength, Private Drake, draws Vasquez close, locks eyes with her and states that she is “just too bad”.  The sexual tension is palpable. After insisting that she identifies as a woman, in spite of her strength, the male soldiers make sense of Vasquez by making her the object of their sexual desire. The only ways in which the male soldiers are able to make sense of a strong, capable female leader is either through understanding her as actually a man or through reducing her to a sexual object desiring attention. 

Dr. Ripley experiences similar issues in Alien 3, when she is trapped in an all-male prison after crash landing on the planet following the events of Aliens. Despite her intelligence, her ability to lead and fight, and her experience with the danger threatening to kill every member of the prison, Ripley is viewed as nothing more than a sexual object whose sole purpose is to tempt the other men into violating their vows. Unable to freely move about and ensure the death of the Xenomorph and subsequent safety of everyone on the planet, Ripley takes action to camouflage herself as a normal male prisoner in this society. She shaves her head and wears a baggy prisoner’s uniform to hide her figure. After sacrificing her feminine appearance, she is awarded a place in the prisoner’s community; but not entirely. Soon after entering into the community as subtly as she could, a group of the prisoners attempt to sexually assault her.  Like Vasquez, despite her attempts to disavow her feminine side, Ripley’s male colleagues in the prison are entirely incapable of accepting her as a vitally important, equal member of society, and instead insist on viewing her as nothing more than a sexual aspect.

In addition to reducing her individuality and autonomy as a human person and leader, male characters of the Alien movies also oppress Ripley through actively forcing her into the role of the traditional woman.  Amy Taubin argues in her article “The ‘Alien’ Trilogy: from feminism to Aids” that the first three Alien movies display Ripley’s gradual growth into maternity, and that her impregnation with the Xenomorph Queen in Alien 3 is the final step in her journey. She comments on the injustice of this situation, stating that “The Company wants an alien prototype brought back to earth ‘for use in its biological warfare division’… it has ‘a compelling state interest’ in the foetus Ripley is carrying. (In other words, no abortion rights for her.)” This can also be seen as another instance of men forcing a knowledgeable, capable woman to act in accordance with the gender norms that she is inherently defying. The Company, represented by Bishop, the man whom her trusted android companion in Aliens was modeled after, demands that Ripley carry the Xenomorph fetus to term, in spite of Ripley’s experience and knowledge of the danger that it poses to humanity. Without research or any outward display of care towards Ripley’s informed opinion of the matter, The Company decisively violates Ripley’s bodily autonomy in order to force her into motherhood, one traditional role in which men are generally able to understand a woman having some form of power.  

The tactics that the male characters of the Alien movie franchise use to disparage their competent female counterparts are in no way exclusive to the fictitious Alien universe. They are often seen in the real world as reactions to women utilizing political power, which is inherently an action that is in conflict with traditional societal roles for women. A study, entitled “the Prince of Power: Power Seeking and Backlash Against Female Politicians”, published by the Harvard Kennedy School in 2010 found that even though voters tended to find male and female politicians about equally power-seeking, they tended to experience “feelings of moral outrage” toward female candidates. In the authors’ own words,  “…power is broadly seen as anti-communal and inconsistent with the societal rules for women’s behavior…” and that “…women’s power-seeking will evoke emotional reactions of contempt and disgust and therefore voters will be less likely to support their candidacy.”  

Given this information, it should be of no surprise to learn that the Alien movies, and Ripley herself, were created at a time during which a female politician rose to occupy the highest office of a major world power. In Pamela Church Gibson’s article “You’ve been in my life so long I can’t remember anything else”, she discusses the fact that the first Alien movie was made during the same year that Margaret Thatcher rose to power as the first woman British Prime Minister, and that she “wrought profound and irreversible social and economic change.” Gibson goes on to state that, under Thatcher, “The Welfare State was dismantled…” and that Thatcher and her American counterpart, President Ronald Reagan, were “famously xenophobic” and had “an abhorrence of ‘deviant’ social and sexual behavior.” A powerful, unique, independent woman rising above traditional gender norms to take power in a way never seen before in history bears immediate resemblance to the character of Ripley, a unique woman protagonist in the Science Fiction genre, but it becomes more apparent when taking into account Taubin’s comparison of the Xenomorph to “a favourite scapegoat of the Reagan/Bush era – the black welfare mother”. Ripley, a strong, independent, white woman who doesn’t easily fit into female gender roles, and who fights against this “scapegoat” of society, is in many ways comparable to Margaret Thatcher. The action of the male characters throughout the Alien movies in relation to Ripley, as well as other female characters, represents the confusion and “moral outrage” that many actual people felt in dealing with a woman in an objectively important position of power.

In conclusion, the characters of Vasquez in the movie Aliens and Ripley in the movie Alien 3, despite being highly skilled fighters and leaders, must act in accordance to traditionally male gender roles in an attempt to gain the respect of their male colleagues. They must act with a tough exterior, sometimes change their appearance, and show absolutely no emotion in order to gain any form of respect from their male colleagues. In spite of all their efforts, the male characters of the Alien movies repeatedly try to force these strong female characters into traditional roles that they feel more comfortable with. They do this through treating them like sexual objects, dismissing them as emotional and therefore unfit to lead, or through forcing motherhood upon them. All of these tactics are regularly applied in attempts to disparage modern day female politicians, most recently Hillary Clinton. Like Ripley and Vasquez, she showed nearly no emotion to give off a tough exterior, and despite being incredibly qualified and capable for the position of President, the American people were so radically uncomfortable with the idea of a woman occupying a position of such power that they instead chose an underqualified man for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. Like Ripley and Vasquez, Clinton was actively disparaged simply for being a qualified, capable woman.

Word Count: 1510

Works Cited:

Taubin, Amy. “The Alien Trilogy: from feminism to Aids.” Women and Film, A Sight and Sound Reader, vol. 2, no. 3, July 1992, pp. 95–98.

Okimoto, Tyler G., and Victoria L. Brescoll. “The Price of Power: Power Seeking and Backlash Against Female Politicians.” Gender Action Portal, Harvard Kennedy School , July 2010, gap.hks.harvard.edu/price-power-power-seeking-and-backlash-against-female-politicians. Accessed 22 Feb. 2017.

Gibson, Pamela C. “"You’ve been in my life so long I can’t remember anything else” Into the Labyrinth with Ripley and the Alien.“ (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 1 Feb. 2017.