Belonareyna

.

.

click for palestine (arab.org)

click for sudan (arab.org)

.

.

🇵🇸 🇵🇸 🇵🇸 🇵🇸 🇵🇸 🇵🇸 🇵🇸 🇵🇸

click on the link and then on the big "click to help" button. wait for the page to reload, it should read "your click has been counted" and you should see confetti

if you want to click more than once, you can use different browsers or devices, or open incognito mode, it seems to work (at least on the client side of the website)

I find it very interesting that since the very first scene of tlou they emphasize on the fact that it’s impossible to make a vaccine or a cure for cordyceps but somehow jerry thinks he can do it by taking the biggest dumbest risk to get there.

You have a mycologist tell u the only way to stop the spread is to bomb cities, and yet jerry over here is willing to kill a kid -without her consent- for a theory that he has -without running a bunch of tests first-

and for the fact that we know scientifically that cordyceps doesn’t infect the brain at all, yet the fireflies have not figured that out, so they’re about to fillet ellie’s brain for literally no reason at all.

Obviously joel doesn’t know that and he doesn’t save ellie for that reason which makes his actions immoral and yet he was right to save her.

Anyway..

I hope we get to see that come to life in the third game and have ellie fully comming to terms with it and finally completely forgiving joel and understanding that no matter joel’s intentions he DID save her from being doomed to no good outcome.

I think the whole point of ellie’s arc is not at all about being the cure, rather it is about her growing up to realize that this is not her main and only purpose in life and hopefully she can find her purpose and go on a healing journey.

in lieu of the announcement saying that supriya ganesh will not be returning for season 3, i really want to discuss noah wyle's absolute dismal "take" here on his character and her's.

i, of course, do not know the intricacies of the situation and what has transpired behind the scenes. there is rumor spreading that supriya herself made the decision to step back from the show due to the treatment of her character. like i said, i have no way of conclusively saying this is fact; however, i wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

something i've been internally tackling with for the past couple of episodes is if the writers/noah are aware of the way they are portraying robby; that is to say, as a racist and misogynist. as viewer, who is a brown woman as well, it is very obvious to me that the pressure robby is under is chipping away at his "shield of tolerance." like with most privileged individuals, he will exert said privilege when he feels as though he is losing control/needs to regain authority. whether or not he means to do this is irrelevant (and i'm tired of people using his ignorance as a way to soften the blow of his actions), what matters is that he actively berating and belittling a brown woman for doing the exact same thing as him. he is being hypocritical, he is being unkind, he is being a fucking dick. and perhaps if he exerted the same amount of malice he deserves for samira to the other people in this hospital, i wouldn't immediately dub him as a racist and misogynist. but the show specifically directs his more uncouth, inappropriate behavior towards the women of color. he is unable to envision al-hashimi as a suitable leader, he chastises samira for not unhealthily compartmentalizing her emotions, he displays gross jealousy/possessiveness towards collins despite them not even being together. this is not even mentioning his hair-trigger reaction to call CPS on the haitian siblings whilst not batting an eye to the white mother with a child suffering from heat-stroke. all signs, to me, point to him being a bigot; and yes, it is still bigotry even if it is done unintentionally.

i truly did not know if the writers were being purposeful and meticulous by extracting these hyper-negative traits in robby; i thought perhaps they trying to get some point across about the unchecked and toxic biases of white men in any profession. maybe they were trying to parallel langdon's arc by reaffirming to the audience that unfavorable actions done under impairment (whether this be drugs, declining mental health, etc.) still hold validity and are susceptible to scrutiny. i do not maintain this belief anymore, and it was the video above that really shattered it.

you can say "oh, maybe noah is just misreading robby's character/actions," but i think that's a pretty facile outlook. he is a director, writer, producer, and actor on the show; to proclaim he is unable to dissect the ideologies of his character is, frankly, childish. if the man so integral to the making of this show cannot look at his own character and recognize--or even name--his most glaring moral defects, then perhaps those defects were never meant to be seen at all. i think it's particularly interesting, as well, that he immediately jumps to excuse/rationalize robby's behavior rather than empathize with samira. "it's less aggressive than people perceive it" he says when talking about the diminishing and maligning of a WOC, an act that will always be seen as aggressive in my eyes. it doesn't matter if, internally, robby thinks samira is the cream of the crop; what matters is his actions, and his actions all but point to the complete opposite of what he is saying. i'm not proclaiming that an actor can't share their own examinations of their character and present it as fact, but noah is quite literally stripping away the essence of the show--which is to say, how people act in highly strenuous and morally exhausting situations--so that he can hammer this point home that robby is this ultimately good-natured guy.

it's just a very "white male" way of assessing robby's flaws. it is so clear noah is not thinking about the racial and gender politics of the situation between him and samira at all. juxtapose this interview with any interview supriya has done, where she is CONSTANTLY discussing the sociopolitical commentary of the the pitt. i do not wish to speak for her or act like i know her, but i can tell that, to her, the brilliance of the pitt derives from the highlighting of marginalized communities and the various ways in which society and the healthcare system has failed them. it is not a stretch for me to assume that she saw the way in which samira was being treated by robby and immediately caught onto the power imbalance and exploitation at play. it, perhaps, is a stretch for me to assume that she saw the way her character was constantly being demeaned by a white male authority figure and was disgusted at the fact no one on/off screen seemed willing to name it as such.

to be the punching bag of a white man over and over again is a dehumanizing experience, one that i know WOC are familiar with. usually the most debilitating part of the experience is knowing that, when you walk away, there will be others out there who will try to excuse his behavior. this is all speculation, but i don't think it's outrageous at all to proclaim that maybe supriya was fed up with the side-lining and mistreating of her character for the sake of bolstering a white man's narrative. it would especially be jarring for her to witness the lack of integrity from those around her, those unable to label robby's "tough love" for what it actually is: race and gender based discrimination. that’s where it becomes eroding. not because any single moment is the most extreme thing imaginable, but because of the repetition and the plausible deniability. it mirrors a real-world experience where you are asked--implicitly or explicitly--to endure, to second-guess your own perception, to wonder if you’re “overreacting.” over time, that does something to you. it fractures your sense of certainty. it makes you hyper-aware, constantly scanning for tone, for shifts, for the next slight. it’s exhausting in a way that’s both emotional and cognitive.

i absolutely despise the fact supriya is leaving, but i can't really blame her in the slightest if her departure was of her own accord. i can’t imagine being asked to perform scenes that echo the realities she’s likely faced as a woman of color, only to then accept a narrative that frames a white man’s belittling as mere misguidance--or as care clumsily expressed, rather than harm plainly done.

First of all, if Eloise were to actually do something, considering she’s already hated in such an exaggerated way, people would immediately start saying that she should keep quiet, know her place, and that she’s ruining her family’s name.

Because let’s remember that in season two, Eloise did try to do something: she tried to educate herself and to understand. And because of a certain redheaded writer, she couldn’t continue. Throughout that time, while she was trying to learn and understand, you all were complaining that she was ruining her family, that she was stupid, that she wasn’t doing things the right way. Then, when she tries to adapt without giving up her beliefs, you say she only talks and does nothing.

Yes, I will always be the first to admit that Eloise is, in fact, a white, privileged feminist. I’m never going to deny it because it’s true.

But how do you think feminism started? Do you really think it was poor working-class women who started it? No. It was white, privileged women in positions like Eloise’s who began the feminist movement, because poor and working-class women were busy working just to put food on the table. They didn’t have the time or the space to question the system.

Women in Eloise’s position were the first to question things, to write, and to fight. But they didn’t start as fully formed revolutionaries: they started like Eloise, as misunderstood women, pushed aside, mocked, because questioning a woman’s role was something that brought punishment and ridicule.

Which brings us to the obvious: Eloise is in a social position where, if she were to say, do, or even think something radical and it became public, it wouldn’t just affect her. It wouldn’t only be a problem for Eloise, but also for her family. She has three siblings who are not yet married. Let’s say Benedict wouldn’t be as affected as Hyacinth and Gregory, but the mere fact that Eloise is known to have “radical” ideas would close doors for Hyacinth and Gregory: it would limit their chances of good marriages, invitations to balls, and access to important social circles. So no, Eloise can’t do much in her position without putting her family at risk. And isn’t that exactly what people keep accusing her of—not caring about her family’s reputation?

It’s the same reason why, for example, Benedict can’t just marry Sophie without consequences: the family’s reputation would suffer, and the “purity” and dignity of the Bridgerton family would be seen as compromised. That would make Eloise’s, Hyacinth’s, and Gregory’s situation even worse—especially for the girls—because let’s remember that, at that time, the main way for a woman to survive socially and economically was through a good marriage. Gregory could at least hope for a respectable job in the future, but that wasn’t an option for Eloise and Hyacinth.

And to anyone who says that Penelope “did something,” I swear I want to smack them on the head. First of all, let’s remember that Penelope ran a gossip sheet, not a radical political movement. Second, she did it in complete anonymity. Her entire arc is about how she feels more seen when she’s anonymous and how no one can ever find out—there’s a reason she hid it from Colin before marrying him. So no, Penelope didn’t really “do” anything publicly. Lady Whistledown did. Yes, Penelope was behind LW, but when you don’t put your face to it, it’s not the same thing.

And even putting aside the fact that Penelope dragged half of the Ton, including the queen—if we don’t focus on that part—what Penelope did wasn’t actually dangerous in a political sense. She mostly reported gossip that happened in public places (not always, and she didn’t always verify it, but let’s not get into that now). She wasn’t promoting radical ideas or going against the system itself. Penelope wasn’t at risk of being considered a traitor or a dangerous figure for having radical beliefs. Eloise was.

So yes: talking, complaining, and voicing her opinions was pretty much the only thing Eloise could safely do without putting herself and her family in danger. Because you all love to pull the “it was historically accurate” card to defend Anthony, Benedict, Colin, or Penelope, but then you apply a very modern mindset when judging Eloise. That’s hypocritical. Why not judge all the characters by the same standard?

On top of that, people talk about how Hyacinth “called out” Eloise because Eloise was supposedly mean and inconsiderate to her sister. Sure, Eloise shouldn’t have been rude or harsh with her sister—that wasn’t fair. But do you know what else isn’t fair? Demanding that Eloise always understand and respect other women and their choices, while never offering her the same understanding in return.

And honestly, I understand Eloise. She’s incredibly frustrated. Her mother supposedly understood that she shouldn’t pressure her, promised to go at Eloise’s pace and to accept her. Then, one season later, she tells her it’s not enough to just form friendships with women and parades her in front of men, forcing her to smile and flirt, as if Violet were showing off livestock. And if Eloise doesn’t want to be paraded around like cattle, then she’s forced to spend time with her 14-year-old sister and attend etiquette lessons she already went through when she was younger—and that she has been very vocal about hating—while also having to listen to Hyacinth chatter endlessly about the very topic Eloise despises and wants to avoid: marriage. And then she gets attacked by her sister for not celebrating her desire to marry and become the “proper lady” that high society demands Eloise herself to be.

Yes, Eloise could have chosen a better attitude at times. But people also weren’t giving her any space not to be frustrated. And Hyacinth is also behaving in a very childish, entitled way—like when she got mad at Eloise for taking her out of a ball she was literally too young to attend.

And I get Hyacinth too. She’s frustrated and lonely: all her older siblings are married, her playmate Gregory is away at school, and the only sister she has left doesn’t care about the same things she does. So she takes that frustration out on Eloise. But why is Hyacinth allowed to dump her frustration onto Eloise and be cruel to her, while Eloise is expected to endure it and still be endlessly considerate?

Even this season is acting like her disinterest in Hyacinth’s etiquette lessons is her being selfish. Eloise is older than Hyacinth. Eloise has already taken these lessons.

Eloise wants to learn science and philosophy and math and history and economics. This is like watching all your brothers go to college while you have to sit in on your sister’s high school Home Ec class that you’ve ALREADY TAKEN as punishment for not wanting to marry.

Eloise is constantly treated as though she’s an immature self centered brat for not wanting to talk about dancing and hosting and fashion and marriage. The show and the fandom punishes her for feeling constrained by her life.

How is it that the show gives more sympathy to Anthony for the constraints of being the head of family, sympathy to Benedict for feeling like an outsider (which Eloise does too! He’s just allowed to pursue alternate lifestyles and SHE IS NOT), sympathy for Colin for feeling purposeless (when Eloise ALSO feels purposeless because she doesn’t WANT to just be a wife and baby machine), but little to no realistic sympathy to Eloise???