a girl & her monster

really losing my patience for any 'feminist' statement to the tune of 'we need feminism because women fill a fundamentally different and necessary role than men and will be better at doing x y or z'. like actually i think we need feminism because it is an unbearable death of the spirit by inches to exist in a world where you are not seen as a fully realized human being because of a single cultural determination, and because a world that enshrines such things creates systems that are fundamentally sick to the core

there is Something in stratt pressing bob redell to confront that he was actually negligent, admit that his negligence lead to seven of his workers getting instantly killed, and then specifically saying that she won't let him act like "an innocent scapegoat;" and how she refers to herself as "the world's whipping boy" and, later, how sixteen of her workers end up getting instantly killed because the project she leads lacks sufficient safety protocols. is she being hypocritical and making the exact same internal justifications as redell, or does this mean she knows what she's doing is wrong? does she brush off the tornadoes in southern europe as not really her fault, or does she accept that, yes, she caused them? when grace calls her a murderer, does she agree or disagree? and, perhaps the million dollar question, does she act more distressed and vulnerable about sending him off to die because she just can't minimize it or push it down when her trusted friend and advisor is telling her "whatever lets you sleep at night"?

affirmations they will not kill me at work today. it is not in my job description to get killed. if they did kill me at work that would be weird and probably not worth it for them

The thing about Ryland Grace and Eva Stratt's dynamic is that they're very much "leopard who eats peoples faces" x "guy who claims not to endorse this but has hung out with the leopard for years and when she eats people's faces he's like 'ah yeah she does that ☺️💫✨'."

the thing that bewilders me about a lot of fantasy readers is that they read about settings and plots featuring imperialism, war, and slavery and then call the inclusion of violence, abuse, and sexual exploitation "edgy" and "gratuitous" and it's like what did you think was happening. why were you under the impression that you were going to get a cozy story about fascism or something. far be it from me to criticize anyone for not wanting to read about torture in their spare time, and there are certainly cases where heavy subjects are poorly executed, but is it not equally insulting to sanitize them for a feel-good adventure.. like no one put a gun to your head and forced you to give your fantasy novel an enslaved protagonist. sometimes writing is supposed to make you feel bad

[ID: a white lace curtain with the words "I DIDN'T ASK TO BE BORN / BUT I CERTAINLY DIDN'T / ASK TO DIE / EXCEPT FOR WHEN I DID / AND I THANK GOD / HE NEVER LISTENS" added with white interfacing just above a flower motif border /End ID]

not every mutual fits neatly into an archetypal medievalism but there are some mutuals that im like yeah addressing you as “my liege” would come strangely naturally