One major factor missing from most debates on Arya and Lyanna's beauty is that they're being judged by their society's extremely patriarchal values. In both looks and personality, that context is essential to understanding how others perceive them. George explores the misogyny experienced by non-conforming women, especially with Arya, and it's interesting how he plays with that regarding their physical beauty.

Her mother used to say she could be pretty if she would just wash and brush her hair and take more care with her dress, the way her sister did. (The Blind Girl, ADWD) "You never knew Lyanna as I did, Robert," Ned told him. "You saw her beauty, but not the iron underneath. She would have told you that you have no business in the melee." (Eddard VII, AGOT)

These two quotes offer a nice summation of this idea. With Arya, her supposed lack of beauty is defined by her being a non-conforming wild child. Her hair is messy, her face is dirty, and she's often in "lower class" clothing while engaging in unladylike activities. None of this says anything about her physical beauty but it tells us everything about how she's perceived. Arya could be pretty...If she conforms to society's standards for a highborn Lady. With Lyanna, however, we get the opposite. Where Arya is judged based on her personality, Robert's romanticization of Lyanna is rooted solely in her looks. He doesn't know anything about the person she really was. There is an assumption that, because she looked a certain way, her personality must fit and Robert imagines her much softer and more passive than she actually was.

That Arya isn't pretty or Lyanna wasn't wild are two perceptions that George specifically pushes back against. This is where people miss the brilliance of them being linked as literary mirrors; it is largely about us learning more about Lyanna, but it touches on more than that. The significance of them being written as wild, willful, and with their own beauty is that George isn't writing his female characters around patriarchal expectations. When people debate their beauty, that's often the trapping they fall into. Beauty and non-conformity are treated as mutually exclusive factors when the story itself never makes that point; this is also the logic that leads people to the (incorrect) conclusion that Lyanna and Arya aren't meant to be similar. Arya's self-esteem issues around her looks and being a Lady make this a topic certain to be addressed in the future; George has made it a part of the story. The conclusion shouldn't be that "looks don't matter", but that looks aren't indicative of a character's value, personality, or morality.

i hope ruby gets a well-that’s-alright-then-style notdeath. on the one hand it will make haters mad because oh no not another companion with an impermanent end (and i like to see haters mad) on the other it would require creativity to depict this in a new way + i love all the implications i love the dark fairytale quality of these companion exits i love my un-undead schrodinger’s women

with the way the legend of ruby sunday is titled… legends aren’t usually told about living people. legends are stories of the bygone past, of an age long since over, fictionalised and overgrown with folklore like barnacles sticking to an abandoned shell. there is such a thing as a living legend, but they’re exceedingly rare. the unmistakeable raven’s call in the 73 yards teaser, the trailer’s cut to fifteen crying alone after promising to cherry he’d protect her daughter… the foreshadowing is clear as day…

and yet. there’s one massive HOWEVER. ruby appears in s15: millie’s been spotted on set filming it. which leads me to believe — the doctor isn’t one to take the time travel route and revisit companions that in his future are genuinely dead. that would hurt too much, it would cause unnecessary trauma and could break the timeline. that must mean ruby stays alive in some way. ish. she’s alive and a legend and a mystery. girl-ballad girl-song girl-paradox

here she is, fading out.

p.s.: thesis statement on moffatgirls from the tags i left on somebody else’s post about charley pollard.. well it belongs here since it’s basically the semiotic hurricane swirling around ruby at the moment :)

One element in Ed’s characterization that might be interesting to look at is him being related to the “fallen woman” archetype we see in a lot of romantic dramas and some comedies—the woman who is defined by her past (usually sexual, but sometimes not) and whom both the narrative and the male lead must either save or condemn.

This female archetype usually has two fates: she sacrifices herself for the good man, paving the way for him to join with the good woman (so Ed trying to take the blame for Nigel’s murder to save Stede, Ed getting between Stede and the firing squad), or the good man forgives her for her past and declares his love for her.

OFMD belies both of these. Ed does not actually sacrifice himself for Stede, and Stede does not "forgive" Ed for his past because there is nothing for him to forgive. The whole archetype is dismantled because the narrative argues both that a person’s past does not define them and that that past is a part of them—Ed is the man Stede loves in part because of his past, not in spite of it. Ed has to accept those elements in himself, rather than running from them or thinking they condemn him, and Stede’s love for him is never conditional.

Given that this is a queer narrative, putting the gay male lead into the fallen woman archetype and then dismantling the archetype is quite a fascinating move.

you talk about archetypes a lot and i’m currently obsessed with the entire concept. what do you know about the feminine archetypes and where did you learn it? xo 🎀

Hi love! I've read about Robert Greene's 9 Seducer Types, the 13 Female Seduction Archetypes (Women Love Power), and the 7 Female Archetypes (quiz). Ultimately, I think that all of these archetypes ultimately measure various degrees and combinations of the following qualities:

Passivity vs. assertiveness

Overt vs. covert self-expression (how they dress, speak, body language, etc.)

Dominance vs. submission in sexual, social, and professional contexts

High vs. low levels of neuroticism

Logical vs. intuitive (go with their head or their gut instinct)

Nuturing vs. leading energy

Tradition-oriented vs. free-spirited

While I think that understanding these pre-constructed archetypes can help you some truths about uncover your needs, inner world, motivations, values, and personality, it is unlikely that any full-fledged person fits perfectly into one of these boxes. I believe that it is best to use these archetypes as a way to understand your core motivations and to help you tap into your "emotional home" (the way you act and think when you feel no desire to perform for others and allow your "true self" to emerge).

Use the archetype models that resonate with you to create your unique-crafted ideal self or "dream girl archetype." by doing an intake of who you are now and the individual you strive to be. Consider your personal values, ideal lifestyle, habits, mannerisms, behavior, and how you generally move throughout the world. Therein lies the key to true self-discovery and mastery.

Hope this helps xx

Somewhat more controversially - beyond just well-written characters, I think a lot of people find themselves repeatedly drawn to particular Types of characters. And I think the frequency with which those types appear, and the particular flavor of those types, is often (unnecessarily!) gendered. (Sticking with the espionage theme: it’s pretty difficult to find clever, calculating, socially astute female spy characters whose tradecraft doesn’t hinge primarily or at least very heavily on their sex appeal). TL;DR even very well-written female characters are often (unnecessarily!!!) confined to a much more limited set of narrative roles and archetypes.

And while I’m definitely not saying this is something we should all just accept completely uncritically, I do think it’s a pretty undeniable factor in why a lot of people’s lists of favorite blorbos might be kinda dude-heavy.

Dark Feminine Energy: Avoid This Common Trap

Dark feminine energy is a hot topic in 2024.

Since the arising popularity of the femininity wave, awareness of its shadow aspects – dark femininity – followed soon after. This is most noticeable through social media trends like TikTok blowing up with #darkfeminine content and tips, followed by even Vogue articles on this topic that holds such fascination for so many of us.

I believe all women can benefit from tapping into their dark feminine energy. However, I’ve noticed a common misconception about what the dark feminine is about, and many creators (businesses, sites, blogs) are perpetuating this misconception because the toxic angle is more profitable than the self improvement angle.

In short, they’re giving dark feminine energy a bad reputation by claiming it’s all about “using dark psychology tips and tricks to manipulate men, get into their heads and get them to treat you right”.

There are many problematic things with the above. Let’s name a few:

Why it’s problematic to associate DF to manipulation

You can’t (and shouldn’t) waste your time persuading someone of your worth. It’s not your job to prove yourself. People either appreciate you, or they don’t.

I don’t recommend playing with dark psychology the same reason I don’t recommend playing with black magic. What goes around comes around. However, I support every woman’s freedom of choice, as long as you’re taking ownership for your actions.

It’s yet again male-centered. Instead of being about self improvement or self-discovery, it revolves around… yes, male validation.

Dark femininity is an incredibly empowering tool, and this misconception is leading a lot of girls and women to play games and chase men, instead of leading them into their own power.

A more accurate term for the above trend which revolves around revenge and manipulation is simply “toxic femininity” or the wounded feminine. Yes, the female equivalent of toxic masculinity, because mistakes can be made on either side.

There is nothing feminist or empowering in chasing an ex that mistreated you, and putting on an elaborate show just to convince him you were always his dreamgirl.

Understand that through this, you are giving away your power and relying on another person to validate your...

Read full article

The Maw makes much more sense when you think of it as an extension of the lady. She strips the kids out of their individuality and makes them all look like as she transforms them into working drones.

In a way it paralells what she did to herself , doesn't it?

(From my very sane Lady post [×75])

Yes! This is exactly what I think, but most importantly, it goes both ways. The Maw is an extension of her, but the Lady is an extension of the Maw. She's the symbol that rappresents it and everything that comes with it -- for better and for worse. And there is very little "better" to be had in these circumstances, if none at all.

Honestly, even considering the issues she does have, ultimately she's the one that got the most lenient treatment. It depends on points of view of course - I don't know how bearing the generational curse would be an ideal living condition in any other setting - but considering she has a roof over her head, constant feeding and revenue as well as the fame all around the Nowhere (in all instances of visual storytelling in the franchise there is at least one reference to the Maw and/or to her), you can't say she got the short end of the stick. She's a lot better off than even other adults.

So with this in mind, and knowing that she is someone who is able to form these reasonings (I cannot stress enough how peculiar that she's the only one who seems to understand genuinely that something in the outside world is wrong), I suppose that weighing her options and choosing to live on the Maw was ultimately what she thought was the better choice. She wasn't wrong, necessarely. She did survive a long time: but what point is there in surviving if you lose what makes life worth living along the way? If you don't have yourself, why should you keep pressing on?

I think this reasoning is what led her to form this attachment to the Maw, to the point that eventually she died for it even though her primary objective was survival, at some point in the past. Probably.

Mervik confirming that the Maw has existed before her was, at least for me, even a further look into just how futile - and interesting - this mindset of hers is because at the end of the day, the Lady as a person is... disposable. The position isn't, but the individual is. The Maw existed long before her, and it will exist long after if Six decides to stay. It doesn't matter whether or not she sees it as her home because to the institution Maw, she's just another chess piece - as expendable as a pawn in spite of dressing the clothes of the queen, if you will.

Considering this... only adds insult to injury, don't you think? She lost herself to a place that did not care for her at all, in the grand scheme of things. She is to the Maw what children are to her: a parasite. A useful one to keep the system running, but ultimately destined to be eradicated and forgotten. Faceless and nameless. It's like she - the person - was never even there to begin with.

the lonely princess

Ok but the parallel between Cersei absolutely terrorising the shit out of Littlefinger in the "Power is Power" scene and Alicent being sexually abused by Larys in order to get him to do what she wants is just.marvellous.

They are both Queen regents. That literally means they are like one of the 5 most powerful people in all seven kingdoms, not to say the most powerful people in all seven kingdoms after the king himself. They both happen to have a faithful servant/counselor that also happens to be a psychotic murderous piece of shit, no disagreement on that. Both these counselors try to exert power over the Queens but the Queens' reactions are totally not the same. Littlefinger tries to scare Cersei by saying that he knows everything that happens, implying that he can take her down at any moment. Larys terrorises Alicent by executing murder that she didn't order, but in her name, thus blackmailing her. Cersei kindly reminds Littlefinger that he can be the most powerful and unhinged Lord in all Seven Kingdoms but she is still the Queen, on top of that she is fucking insane and she will cut his throat on the spot if he defies her again. Alicent on the other hand has Larys masturbate to her feet so that hopefully he will do as she wishes. Alicent, the Queen regent. That could literally order his execution on the spot. He is a simple disabled Lord and she is the Queen and she needs to give him sexual favours so that he obeys her? What she could have done is negotiate, and blackmail back, in a power move that is worthy of real Queen regents in history who had political wit and ruthlessness and ambition. A power move that is worthy or book!Alicent herself. Imagine the dialogue and the character development that scene could have given us. But nope, wasn't meant to be. What we got instead is a disabled person being creepy and abusive and Alicent being a victim yet again.

And you are still wondering why this isn't an engaging character? You are still wondering why the general audience doesn't give a fuck about her?

But independence is not the sole preserve of widows and singles. It can also occur in the home itself, right under a husband's nose. This is indeed the symbolism of the witch's nocturnal flights, which lead her to desert the marital bed, escaping the sleeping man's vigilance, to straddle her broomstick and take off for the sabbath. In the demonologists' tirades, which betray the masculine obsessions of their times, the witch's flight, as Armelle Le Bras-Chopard describes it, represents:

“a freedom to come and go, not only without the husband's permission but generally without his knowledge (unless he is a witch himself) and even to his disadvantage. By picking up a broomstick or chair leg and placing it between her legs, the witch awards herself a simulacrum of the virile member that she lacks. And by artificially stepping outside her sex and giving herself that of a man, she is also stepping outside her female gender: the witch is able to accord herself the ease of movement that, within the standard social order, is the unique privilege of men. [...] Granting herself this autonomy, and thereby escaping the man whose principal freedom is manifest through his dominance over her, the witch spirits a portion of the man's power away from him: her liberation is also a larceny.”

Contrary to what today's "backlash" would have us believe, women's autonomy does not entail a severing of connections, but rather the opportunity to form bonds that do not infringe on our integrity or our freedom of choice, bonds that promote our personal development instead of blocking it—whatever lifestyle we choose, whether solo or in a partnership, with or without children. As Pam Grossman writes, "the Witch is arguably the only female archetype that has power on its own terms. She is not defined by anyone else. Wife, sister, mother, virgin, whore—these archetypes draw meaning based on relationships with others. The Witch, however, is a woman who stands entirely on her own." Whereas the example promulgated over the period of the witch-hunts, imposed first by violence and then, later, with the nineteenth-century invention of the housewife ideal, by a clever mix of flattery, seduction and menace, locks women into their role as reproducers and disenfranchises them from participation in the world of work. Thus, women are positioned in such a way that their own identity is constantly at risk of being muddled with others,' of atrophying, of being swallowed up altogether. They are prevented from living and fashioning their own lives, for the sake of representing an imagined quintessence of femininity. In New York, in 1969, the WITCH group caused havoc at a weddings trade fair by releasing mice into the main hall. One of their slogans railed, "Always a Bride, Never a Person."

-Mona Chollet, In Defense of Witches: The Legacy of the Witch Hunts and Why Women are Still on Trial

blorbo archetype: annoying men who know they’re annoying and can’t stop so they weaponize it

if i see one more person in the re tag try to claim that alex wesker is “accidentally implied to be trans” bc she mutates from the “women die but men mutate virus” i am going to start throwing bricks. y’all don’t know WHY the writers made that decision for the virus, is the fucking problem. the reason they write the virus like that is literally because people didn’t like shooting women in re4, so in 5 and rev2 they made all the unimportant body bag enemies men, and lazily threw in an in universe explanation that “uh actually the virus just kills women and children and mutates the men” and bc alex is the main boss of the game and the one overseeing the virus, narratively it makes sense for her to mutate bc of the virus you’ve been fighting all game. she’s not trans. and making a character who’s canonically a child abuser and has subtext that could be seen as csa into a trans woman isn’t fucking progressive, it’s transmisogyny that for once comes from the fans and not the writers of these games

What does it mean to speak less when trying to seduce someone’. Can you provide a conference example of how it would look like? How should one act etc?

Hi love! I would say that this concept boils down to two main principles: Not offering any more information about yourself than absolutely necessary to continue the conversation (nothing too personal, keep it light), and remaining interested to be interesting.

Regarding not offering any more information about yourself than absolutely necessary to continue the conversation (nothing too personal, keep it light):

Keep the conversation on a more surface level; avoid any sensitive topics or emotionally-charged topics (like a breakup, toxic ex, strained family relationship, financial struggles, workplace drama, or job/career difficulties)

Focus on conversational topics you would pitch to a magazine, post on social media, or take a quiz on vs. something that would be better saved for a close friend chat or therapy session

On remaining interested to be interesting:

Ask questions before sharing information about yourself. Initiate a conversation with a question. Ask relevant follow-up questions as a response vs. offering to disclose an anecdote or personal information about yourself

Use their answers or shared stories as a way to frame your reply. Volley the conversation back to your conversation partner by paraphrasing what they just said to you to show that you were listening and sought to understand what they were saying. After paraphrasing, ask another question that dives deeper into an aspect of their shared story, opinion, recollection of an event, etc. As an example, if they were telling you about a work presentation, ask about how they felt before, after, or during, what it was about, why the presentation mattered, what their colleagues and bosses thought, the next steps, where it was held, what they had for lunch after, etc.

Hope this helps xx

everything about hu tao feels like they brought in a guest to handle her, from her design to her writing