In which I write things.

22 Jul

7 Things I Wish Parents Would Stop Teaching Their Children:

this-selfish-war-machine:

goddess-river:

  1. That nudity is inherently sexual
  2. That people should be judged for their personal decisions
  3. That yelling solves problems
  4. That they are too young to be talking about the things they’re already starting to ask questions about
  5. That age correlates to importance
  6. That interacting with someone of the opposite sex is inherently romantic
  7. That the default for someone is straight and cisgender
  1. Nudity is OFTEN sexual, often enough to be concerned about children seeing it
  2. Personal decisions that are judged by those who are unprejudiced and trustworthy are probably bad decisions
  3. If the argument escalates to yelling in the first place, then there’s an obvious reason for it that you’re not seeing.
  4. I’m not going to explain sex ed to a 5 year old, sorry come back in 8 years or so
  5. It doesn’t correlate to IMPORTANCE, but it does correlate to EXPERIENCE, which a young person doesn’t have much of, decreasing the value of their “wisdom/knowledge”
  6. Fair.
  7. The majority of people are straight and cisgender; That literally makes it the default/standard

Tumblr needs to stop acting like it has all the answers/has it all figured out when they’re still in the process of learning and growing.

  1. The main reason that nudity is often sexual is that our society is so weirded out by naked bodies that basically the only time we allow them is for sex.  The concept that nudity is inherently sexual is part of why so many people are opposed to breastfeeding in public—they’ve been trained to think that women’s nipples are pornographic.
  2. How many people do you know who are unprejudiced?  Yes, some decisions are bad decisions and people should be shunned from polite society for making them.  However, getting a tattoo, dying your hair blue, or having sex before marriage are examples of things that don’t make you a bad person but can lead to a large portion of society assuming that you are.
  3. Yes, yelling usually happens for a reason.  But also sometimes it is part of an abusive relationship and it shouldn’t be normalized to the point that people don’t recognize when it’s a problem.
  4. The original point was about answering questions that the kid is already asking about.  Usually, this doesn’t mean explaining all of the details of sex to a five-year-old.  And you can answer questions in age-appropriate ways.  (Also, are you really going to wait until a kid is 13 to answer any sex-related questions?  They’re going to look things up online before you ever get around to talking to them if that is your approach.)
  5. Age does correlate with experience, but that doesn’t mean that the experiences of younger people are inherently less valid.  People who came of age in the 1980’s genuinely do not understand how impossible it is for a recent graduate to earn a living wage these days (or even to get a job).  If your philosophy is that anyone under the age of 30 doesn’t have enough experience to have an opinion on politics, you end up ignoring a lot of people who are directly affected by the decisions their politicians are making.
  6. We don’t disagree on this one.
  7. "Default" would mean that these are the factory settings and any deviation from that is abnormal.  "Common" and "Normal" are not the same thing, and all it would mean to not treat cishet as the default is that you don’t talk about people in a way that assumes they’re cishet when you have no information about that and you don’t treat it as weird when someone isn’t cishet.  It’s as simple as changing "Are you going to ask a girl to the dance?" to "Are you going to ask someone to the dance?" and "Ooh, that’s a fancy valentine.  Is it from a boy?" to "Ooh, that’s a fancy valentine.  Is it from someone special?"

I know that tumblr doesn’t have all the answers, but when people on tumblr are complaining about things like this, it’s often because of shit we’ve had to put up with our real lives.  People are allowed to be upset that their parents dismiss their opinions based on their age or treat their identity as unnatural or nonexistent.

Reblogged from guardian-of-heart
Originally from goddess-river

(Source: goddess-river)

  • 185288
22 Jul

characterandwritinghelp:

profuseponderings:

Which English do you speak?

Take this test, guys! It determines what dialect you speak (if your native language is English) and which country you are from (if English isn’t your first language!). 

It is an algorithm which maps out the differences in English grammar around the world. 

Extremely cool, and a correct guess on my dialect.

What.

(My native language is English, and my dialect would be New England…)

It would probably be interesting for them to compare their results to information about what types of media people consume (are anime fans more likely to lean toward an Asian dialect?) and the online communities people participate in (I remember seeing a post a while ago that said that black people were more common on tumblr than on other online communities).  Because your dialect is shaped by who you interact with, and that interaction is no longer necessarily determined by geographic proximity.

Reblogged from guardian-of-heart
Originally from profuseponderings

(Source: profuseponderings)

  • 23898
Asker's Avatar21 Jul

chiwandering asked:

On the Stalka scene: it's a game changer to consider Val had deeply hurt and betrayed both Hiccup and Stoick with her choice to play dead. Her defensive and pained actions were classic signs of a guilty mind. She knew she was wrong to stay away. Stoick's silence in that respect was frightfully forgiving--why not rage at her? It's scary when someone loves you despite your (incredibly damaging) mistakes.
Answerer's Avatar

liz011 answered:

My issue with this interpretation is that you would expect her reactions to Hiccup and Stoick to be similar if guilt over abandoning them were the main emotion controlling her reactions.  With Hiccup, she obviously felt guilty for having abandoned him, but nothing about her reaction conveyed fear.  She told him she was his mother (with a steady voice) and then led him into the dragon nest to introduce him to the world she lived in and to welcome him into her life.  She told him the story of the night she was taken and she apologized for not coming back.  She still had her weapon, but she was holding it the way Rafiki holds his staff, rather than preparing for a fight.  If feeling guilty leads to her running away from Stoick, why would that same emotion lead her to make an effort to include Hiccup in her life?

Also, look at the differences in how Valka initiates physical contact with Hiccup and how Stoick initiates physical contact with Valka.  Valka stays at arm’s length and reaches toward Hiccup gently.  When he’s not shying away, she touches his face, and he tilts his face toward her hand to indicate that he is comfortable with this, and then they hug it out.  Key points here are that she keeps her distance until she knows he is comfortable with her and she is careful to not touch him in ways that might make him uncomfortable.  Stoick, on the other hand, backs Valka into a corner and then kisses her when she is obviously afraid of him.  Stoick doesn’t seem to have ever considered that physical contact might be unwelcome, whereas Valka seems not only aware of this but also aware of how to attempt physical contact without making people feel unsafe.  Even if Valka had never experienced any kind of abuse (which, again, I think she probably had), Stoick’s behavior was selfish and insensitive.

chiwandering:

There is no reason to expect her reactions of guilt to Hiccup and Stoick to be similar in the slightest. Valka was married to Stoick. She knew how he worked, and had more than enough experience with him to develop a predisposition of what his reactions would be (anger, frustration, our typical httyd1 Stoick stubbornness) and found him reacting entirely differently (softness, slack, awe; he’s changed since httyd1, Valka did not expect it) in a situation where anger was actually the more than justified response. 

Valka did not know Hiccup. She abandoned him before there was anything to know. He remembered nothing about her and she came to him as a blank slate — even less so, I’d go as far as to say that Valka manipulated her vision to him to be impressive (at least I’m not boring, she scoffs when Hiccup shows upset. She presents him the dragon nest, something she knows he’ll like — do you like it?, she asks as she creeps closer. When Hiccup demands explanations initially, she runs from him and distracts him with beauty and things of his interest. Her defense for leaving him is even selfish, “it broke /my/ heart to stay away.” Hiccup is young, trusting, forgiving, and responded to her rare positivity, lacking the sense of bitterness /typical/ and (and rightfully so) of a abandoned child. She had no prior idea of how he would react, as she had with Stoick. She had no experience with him. She took his love and embraced it. Even disregarding the possible interpretation of Valka’s initial presentation to Hiccup as manipulative, their /relationship/ is still different at a very core level. There was not even a relationship to /speak/ of before they met in httyd2. All this extends to her sense of guilt, apology, treatment and physical contact with Hiccup.

Personally, I was under the impression that when Valka met Stoick, was she /overwhelmed/ rather than afraid. She could have run from him, fought. She didn’t. She was facing a man she loved (still loved) that she had also (knowingly) hurt and betrayed. She admitted she regretted her actions. He approached her slowly, in awe, with his helmet off, defenseless. Valka thought she deserved fury and instead she got softness. It moved her to tears.

Of course, this^ view of Valka’s reaction is my personal interpretation. I can see the possibility of viewing this scene in the context that perhaps Val’s overwhelmed response was, instead, fear. If you interpreted her reactions as /afraid/ rather than largely motivated by guilt, I could certainly see the domino effect of deducing that Stoick would be the cause and how the entire scene would change in meaning from here (but in any case, her relationship with Hiccup still has nothing to do with that in comparison)

Interesting viewpoint! I see where you’re coming from on your side. (and I’m a little curious if you viewed Dancing & Dreaming in a different way too? Or if it felt out of place? It’s actually an interesting take on their backstory that I hadn’t considered) Thanks for sharing and discussing with me! :D

What Valka *did* know about Hiccup was that he had been raised by Stoick.  If Hiccup’s reaction to being reunited with his mother is “This is awesome and you are awesome and I’m so glad we’ve found each other again,” it would make sense for her to assume that this was because Stoick spoke about her affectionately.  If her past experience with Stoick leads her to believe that he might lash out when they’re reunited, that to me would indicate a history of abuse.  (And again, I am NOT necessarily accusing Stoick of being abusive.  If her father had been abusive and in that moment Stoick was reminding her of her father, that would be enough to trigger the same reaction.)

How I view Dancing & Dreaming varies by whether I am currently leaning toward “Stoick was abusive” or “someone else in Valka’s life had been abusive.”

When working under the impression that Stoick had been abusive, I see Dancing & Dreaming as part of the honeymoon phase of the abuse cycle.  It’s an announcement of love and a promise to protect her and cherish her, and she remembers how good things can be when they’re not fighting.  In that moment, she is reassured that he really does care for her, and he really will make the effort to keep her safe.  Accepting that and enjoying the happiness while it lasts is easier for her than flat-out walking away, because she wants to believe that he loves her and on some level she worries that she’s not worthy of love.

When working under the assumption that someone else in her life had been abusive but Stoick hadn’t been, Dancing & Dreaming is Stoick recognizing that she’s scared and doing everything he can to reassure her.  If, for example, her father had been abusive, she would have spent at least the first several months of their marriage worrying every time she messed up that this might be the time that he lost his temper.  If he was paying attention, he would realize that this was a thing she worried about and learn to recognize the signs of when she was feeling particularly apprehensive about it.  He would come up with ways to reassure her when this happened (possibly with her help by having open conversations about it).  He moved away from her before starting to sing, which could have been because he recognized that she wasn’t feeling safe and she needed her space.  The song is still an announcement of love and a promise to protect and cherish her, and if she had escaped an abusive home by marrying him then this song would remind her of how safe he always made her feel.  During the song, she was able to approach him on her own terms when she felt comfortable, because he understood that pressuring her would just make her feel worse.

I prefer the second interpretation, especially since I doubt the writers were intending to imply an abusive marriage, but I can honestly see evidence for both in the movie.

Reblogged from chiwandering
Originally from liz011

(Source: liz011)

  • 6
21 Jul

Romance in How to Train Your Dragon 2

purplerose128:

liz011:

I just got home from seeing this movie.  Overall, I really enjoyed it.  I may or may not have actually cried at least once.  But I’ve got some thoughts about how romance was handled in it, below the break because spoilers.

Read More

Wow, you raise a good point about Stoick and Valka.  Like… I’ll admit that I was too caught up in “The Dancing and the Dreaming” all three times I saw the movie to even pick up on that.  I could see that she was scared and shied away whenever he touched her.  But I chalked it up to the whole “I haven’t seen him in 20 years” thing and went on with feeling the feels again.

I don’t think I’d accuse Stoick of abuse either, since he does genuinely care about her and love her.  I mean, once he was reunited with her, he didn’t put on his helmet, which was made from her breast plate, again.  In the first movie he said that he wore it to keep her close and, perhaps not just in Hiccup’s case, a bit of security.  

But I can definitely agree with him not listening to her.  I mean, that was the plot of the entire first movie.  He didn’t listen to Hiccup and it led him to temporarily disowning his own son because of his viewpoints.  We know Valka’s opinion on the dragons was uncommon and it’s definitely possible that Stoick didn’t support her ideas either because of his stubbornness and upbringing in a world where dragons are the enemy.  I see Stoick as a man who is very much a black and white kind of man.  He only sees something as good or bad and there’s very little room for something to be somewhere in-between.  Maybe the Haddock house was one with a lot of argument in it because of these differing views (me and my dad get into our own shouting matches when our opinions don’t match up).  

Although, part of me also sees Valka’s original fear as a bit of desperation.  As if her husband saying something, anything, to her would calm her.  Because then she’d at least know what he thinks of suddenly seeing her as the dragon lady after 20 years.  And maybe she was afraid of that reaction.  Valka might have been fearing that the worst case-scenario would come to reality and Stoick would hate her for not coming back to him and Hiccup in favor of living with dragons.  But that kind of gets thrown out the window come “The Dancing and the Dreaming” scene, where she’s still hesitant and shy around him.  

Just, wow, how did this not cross me at any point during my three visits to the theater to see this movie?! 

I think it’s dangerous to say that he wouldn’t have abused her because he genuinely loves her and cares for her.  Many abusers do claim to care about their victims.  They’ll claim that the yelling or the hitting is because the other person provoked them, refused to listen to them, or had hurt them deeply by trying to leave.  And abusers can often appear gentle and caring from outside the relationship, so that when the victim tries to get help the most common reaction is something like “But he’s such a nice guy and he takes such good care of you and he loves you so much!” which can make the victim question the validity of their feelings and feel guilty about trying to escape the situation.

Reblogged from purplerose128
Originally from liz011

(Source: liz011)

  • 36
Asker's Avatar21 Jul

chiwandering asked:

On the Stalka scene: it's a game changer to consider Val had deeply hurt and betrayed both Hiccup and Stoick with her choice to play dead. Her defensive and pained actions were classic signs of a guilty mind. She knew she was wrong to stay away. Stoick's silence in that respect was frightfully forgiving--why not rage at her? It's scary when someone loves you despite your (incredibly damaging) mistakes.

My issue with this interpretation is that you would expect her reactions to Hiccup and Stoick to be similar if guilt over abandoning them were the main emotion controlling her reactions.  With Hiccup, she obviously felt guilty for having abandoned him, but nothing about her reaction conveyed fear.  She told him she was his mother (with a steady voice) and then led him into the dragon nest to introduce him to the world she lived in and to welcome him into her life.  She told him the story of the night she was taken and she apologized for not coming back.  She still had her weapon, but she was holding it the way Rafiki holds his staff, rather than preparing for a fight.  If feeling guilty leads to her running away from Stoick, why would that same emotion lead her to make an effort to include Hiccup in her life?

Also, look at the differences in how Valka initiates physical contact with Hiccup and how Stoick initiates physical contact with Valka.  Valka stays at arm’s length and reaches toward Hiccup gently.  When he’s not shying away, she touches his face, and he tilts his face toward her hand to indicate that he is comfortable with this, and then they hug it out.  Key points here are that she keeps her distance until she knows he is comfortable with her and she is careful to not touch him in ways that might make him uncomfortable.  Stoick, on the other hand, backs Valka into a corner and then kisses her when she is obviously afraid of him.  Stoick doesn’t seem to have ever considered that physical contact might be unwelcome, whereas Valka seems not only aware of this but also aware of how to attempt physical contact without making people feel unsafe.  Even if Valka had never experienced any kind of abuse (which, again, I think she probably had), Stoick’s behavior was selfish and insensitive.

  • 6
Asker's Avatar21 Jul

jackalope-wrangler asked:

I know my opinion or headcanons don't matter, but My whole thought of Stoick and Valka's relationship is that there wasn't any direct abuse (as in physical), but more arguments (Emotional Abuse). Val was very against the way vikings treated the dragons, it's no doubt they argued constantly. I can see Stoick as yelling and screaming at her about how dumb she is to think that. Smashing pots, knocking pots over, etc. I've seen this kind of relation in real life, and in their case it's possible.

No worries, I enjoy discussing things that I am interested enough in to have written something about them.

Not all arguments involve emotional abuse, but I definitely agree that a history of emotional abuse would have caused the same type of reaction in Valka.  And it is definitely possible that that emotional abuse came from Stoick in the way you describe.  The main reason I say that I’m not necessarily accusing him of abuse is that if someone else in her life was abusive (her father or an ex-boyfriend, maybe) then behaviors from Stoick that remind her of the abuser could trigger the same type of reaction.

In either case, I feel like him backing her into a corner when she was obviously scared was the wrong way to handle their reunion, and personally I would be very cautious about getting back together with someone who doesn’t respect my space in that kind of situation.

20 Jul

Romance in How to Train Your Dragon 2

I just got home from seeing this movie.  Overall, I really enjoyed it.  I may or may not have actually cried at least once.  But I’ve got some thoughts about how romance was handled in it, below the break because spoilers.

Read More

  • 36
19 Jul

littlemsmj:

send me a ship and I’ll tell you who:

  • shops for groceries
  • kills the spiders
  • comes home drunk at 3am
  • makes breakfast
  • remembers to feed the fish
  • decorates the apartment
  • initiates duets
  • falls asleep first

Reblogged from professormcguire
Originally from aromanticemmafrost

(Source: aromanticemmafrost)

  • 37066
18 Jul

Peace garden part 5 (the final part): The fence has missiles transforming into doves, and then there’s some shots to let you see what the garden actually looks like (rather than just the signs in it).

  • 2
18 Jul

Peace garden part 4: More signs from around the peace garden.

  • 1
<< Newer - 1 of 62 - Older >>

About

In which I write things.I'm a 24 year old math teacher, feminist, and nerd. My blog will involve all of these things, and probably a smattering of random nonsense.