The Children Of Her Rage

Now that The Audience has had a good laugh about Alcent trying to force her daughter to get an abortion she doesn’t want will they stop pretending any impeachment on a woman’s bodily autonomy no matter the circumstances is a crime that warrants public death by torture? Because that’s the pretense which has been kept up to keep Mirri Maz Duur dehumanized for a couple decades now, and in light of the constant jokes - and general disinterest in the idea of Helaena having Alicent publicly tortured to death - I’m starting to think either 1. you people don’t actually see fetuses as babies whose disposal is akin to infanticide and were just putting on that hat for a minute to keep Dany’s ass clean, or 2. you do see fetuses as babies, but also only care about babies as much as the adults in their lives do, thus clearing the way to treat Helaena’s mother trying to force an abortion on her as a joke and one of Dany’s trafficked attendants actually forcing an abortion on her as The Crime of Crimes which instantly renders all of Mirri’s human rights null and void. Even though Mirri is objectively in a much worse position than Alicent has ever been in. Funny how that works!

Idk if HilMans intended for Henry and Jane’s relationship to be paternal but it was. So much of the way the author elucidated his affection for her was about perceived physical and emotional exclusivity which you would typically associate with a parent-child relationship. No one else has ever so much as kissed her cheek, she pays no other man as much attention as she pays him, she treats everything he does like it’s normal because she presumably just trusts him that much. He thinks she’s stupid. That doesn’t sound like a husband and a wife that sounds like a man and his daughter. The version of Jane invented for the relationship is childlike. Especially since Wolf Hall accepts the anachronistic account of Jane’s father sleeping with his daughter in law as true. Creepy, but not in a bad way!

Nother thing that gets me about the alicent ppl is their insistence that the idea of external factors contributing to the rate at which women abuse children is like, a new or even remotely uncommon idea. Lmao. You want to know what I’ve learned coming from four generations of abusive women and a community full of them? That no matter what your mother does to you everyone’s first response will be to go fishing for a reason why it’s not her fault. That there is not a single depth of moral depravity which women with children can sink to that will force people to question the way they view children as a group instead of blaming the world for not being nice enough to the women doing the abusing. A mother is someone who can repeatedly molest you and have other women react to that knowledge by asking if you were a planned baby or not. A mother is someone who can exploit her position to break every social taboo and still be treated like a hapless infant who knew not what she did. A mother is someone who is allowed to kill you, if she feels like it, but also to kill anyone else who might happen to kill you first, if she feels like it, because no one will be willing to blame her, lest they imply her fellow child-holders are culpable for their own ongoing crimes. How anyone can believe in bioessentialism when women are so eager to engage in male-patterned justifications for the violence they commit, I don’t know.