avatar216 - Tumblr blog

avatar216 · 23 days

Text

My Not Great View of Poly Pagans

I have had the unfortunate displeasure of encountering what I call Poly Pagans. I am a Norse/Kemetic Pagan and I've noticed an increase of promotion of polyamory in the community online, especially on different Discords and Facebook as well as a little on Reddit. The main reason I'm posting this is because it's kind of creeping me out that these people insist that certain historical figures didn't cheat on their wives they probably were just poly. They also seem to have a love-hate relationship with the concept of divorce. On the one hand they said it's a freedom that gets two people who aren't compatible away from each other but at the same time they also said that they wouldn't pay child support or alimony if they were ordered to. They also try to reinterpret mythological stories that are clearly there to point out why cheating is bad especially for children namely due to having to raise a child that isn't yours against your will and how that can affect the child because they will feel unloved. This particular person insisted that it was their right because it was their body, and well, their children will just have to deal with it. They also literally said that cheating is a derogatory word and that polyamorous people don't cheat because it's all consensual. They also literally said that cheating is a derogatory word and that polyamorous people don't cheat. They also like to reinterpret mythological and even biblical texts to support their lifestyle when they're not actively reframing a story about how cheating is bad and harmful that is. This is still nothing in the face of them trying to insist that certain historical figures were poly and not cheaters. I even saw one of these idiots try to do this with Henry VIII. They insist that because most marriages were not about love historically, that must have meant that polyamory was the norm and monogamy a diseased exception. What these people fail to understand is that this often mainly applied to the really wealthy and or to people who are really trying to get a leg up in society because people just married someone they knew whether that be for Love or not and yes Arranged marriages were common in a lot of places but that doesn't mean there wasn't love between those people. An arranged marriage is not necessarily a forced marriage because some people do want to have an arranged marriage because it makes their life easier since they don't have to be the ones to do all the hard work of settling things financially oftentimes among other things. What they seem to fail to understand is that marriages were for stability as well as status whether that be through social or economic means. Love was viewed as detrimental to marriage because they knew people would do stupid things in the name of love like running away with the stable boy, which would lead to the ruination of the whole family and even one's own future children and grandchildren. One's actions affected everyone in the whole family and even the whole community sometimes. Cross post from Reddit.

P.S: Edit to Add. I don't care if I sound hateful, but this is not rage bait or whatever the fuck the internet calls it. I experience this stuff on Ocean Keltoi's Discord and elsewhere. I'm not just going to assume that people know that the Hellenist YouTuber Aliakai is one of the people like this, which did not surprise me when I found out about her because she sounded sketchy in some of her stuff. She always talked about money and seemed to whine when she thought she deserved more.

#poly critical #Poly pagans #rant

0 notes

avatar216 · 7 months

Text

When I was outside the other day leaving an offering to the gods, I started really thinking about why I personally don't like/subscribe to thinking about the Æsir's conflicts with each other or the Jõtnar as order vs chaos or good vs evil, even though the former is a commonly accepted rebuttal to the latter in arguments. I've accepted that order vs chaos is still just another way to hold on to Christian dualism in some way and the classical model as @skaldish says in one of his posts. I agree with him that the Norse gods are characters first unlike the Greek gods in many ways. I usually look at Loki and the others as beings whose actions are just that actions and beings who have events happen in their lives rather than actions being viewed as aspects of the gods, like Loki's so-called world breaker aspect. I personally feel like this type of thinking can diminish Loki's reasons for leading an army of the Jõtnar and/or dead humans against his fellow gods. I don't think one can really compare Loki to say Eris or Seth who both really embody chaos in the sense that they love to confuse and make discord but yet are measured counter points to positively chaotic beings like Apep and Typhon. I know I'm not alone in thinking this way. It's just not something I see too often in online groups.

To me, Loki in the myths (and in my UPG) comes across as stubborn, impulsive, mischievous, easily made angry, willing enough to fix his or others' fuck ups, cunning, deceitful, a bit foolish, self-confident, down right brazen, quick on his feet, serious when shit gets real, and may be kinda lonely or at least he likes attention a lot but not praise. He doesn't seem to want power much either. I try to avoid using God of x terminology in describing him because for me it doesn't answer the who in the question but rather the what of the question. I could describe him as a god of theft/plunder, war, leadership, deceit, cunning, slander, treachery, and betrayal among other things but that doesn't really explain what he acts like in myth or in my experience with him in dreams. In those he's blond and weirdly serious. The reason I'm explaining this is because I don't think labels and categories like order vs chaos really fit deities like Loki who are complex, confusing, and nuanced and whose actions can't be neatly sorted into boxes. Labels don't seem to stick for very long, I've noticed, when it comes to Loki. A lot of gods could be associated with these same things but that doesn't mean Loki is an equivalent to them. I would say Seth is a chaos god through and through but there's a lot more to him. However, he loves to do the things that fall under the definition of chaos like being confusing and random hence why I and others call him a chaos god. The Ancient Egyptians also did have a clear concept of Order vs Chaos. This isn't a modern projection of dichotomy.

I think we're really influenced not by Christianity, but Greek mythology in the way we approach understanding the gods and myths so far as thinking of gods as having governing domains rather than as beings with certain interests, lives, likes, dislikes, and jobs they do voluntarily. I also wish there was more out there talking about Norse mythology's big thing with the physical and biological sides of things like the world being made out of the body. Different body parts representing the cosmos. Body parts and trees being used for divination purposes etc. I think I agree with Dr. Crawford that a lot of certain concepts probably wouldn't even make sense in Old Norse, because it's a strongly concrete language.

#ramblings #heathenry #loki deity #norse myth #order vs chaos #chaos vs order #norse paganism

10 notes · View notes

avatar216 · 11 months

Text

Roman women could get divorced and no, it didn’t cost them much money. I’m mostly talking about what the song says specifically. Also, the late 15th/early 16th centuries are not in the medieval era. It’s the early modern era by that point. Norse women {late medieval era} could easily just state in front of witnesses that they want to divorce their husbands and that was it. Underage marriage was not in fact very common in many places and times. The average marrying age was like 22 for women and 26 for men in England and America. People in general married younger back then because of resources and societal norms around having children and having a household of their own. Diseases like Smallpox, Scarlet Fever, TB, Syphilis, Plague, and Polio could and did kill a lot of people, so people would structure their lives around just living and starting a family because the chances were good that you could lose a loved one to one of these or something else, which of course contributed to the marrying age. It was way more common for royals and nobles to marry super young because parents wanted to make politically, economically, and socially advantageous matches for their sons and daughters, which could and did happen when both children were still in the cradle or even the womb. These children were heirs or spares who had a set role they were expected to fill, but they still usually didn’t actually have children until they were older. The medieval era lasted several centuries {470 AD-1450 AD] and encompassed a lot of different and verying places and peoples. Some of whom like the Anglo-Saxons and the Norse {Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, and Icelanders} did have legal divorce for both sexes. History is not a monolith. This only applies to free persons of course. Slaves still had no rights. In later centuries divorce became nearly an impossibility in England except for the uber rich because Parliament would have had to pass a new law everytime and getting one’s case heard in Parliament was nearly impossible. There were only like 314 divorces in England by 1850 or so and hence why wife selling was a thing. I’m likewise not claiming women were never the spoils of war. I’m mostly trying to point out that history is complicated because people are complicated. I’m tired of hearing people claiming divorce was not a thing historically, which is both true and false depending on when, where, and who. Rape was not super common at all and was punishible by death or public humiliation or even castration in a lot of places.

I’m not claiming every woman had an amazing life or was treated well. I’m saying her family would be the ones at fault because her parents would have had to agree for her to get married underage in the first place. The age of majority was 21 in England for a long time, so if a girl ran off with a man when she was underage the marriage could be dissolved and he could be charged with rape/pedophilia, but this whole thing would have brought shame and dishonor to both their families, which is why a marriage was preferred. These were collectivistic societies, where each person’s actions affected the whole family, village, or nation. Women and men were expected to think about how their actions would reflect on their kin first before making big choices like whom they should marry, hence why even now the Royals were not happy with Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle. It was Lady Margaret Beaufort {mother of Henry VII} who was the one who got pregnant at 12, not Margaret de Beaumont. Margaret’s case was unusual even for the time. Her husband Edmund was going off to war and did not want to die without an heir. It did seemingly destroy her fertility, however she was described as a fairly small 12 year old. They knew there were risks to her health and they ignored them because of power and money. I’m not trying to justify what he did, but rather just trying to put it in context. Also, she was under the age of majority {21} and had a legal gardian whom agreed to the marriage and consummation. Henry VIII was considered a douchebag in his own time.

Women would have had to do things the song lists, like fetching the water or serving someone regardless of having a husband unless she had servants, which is something I hear from my mom and other women a lot. They wish they had servants, a husband, or older children to do everything for them. “

For somebody that I thought was my Savior, you sure

make me do a whole lot of labour.

Is the line that made me think she thought she wouldn’t have to do anything, which is why I question why he would even marry her or why he doesn’t have a mistress. It says it’s a love match, but I honestly don’t understand how. He did not seemingly force her to marry him, so I don’t get why she would even marry, This line made me feel little sympathy for her because as she admits, it’s a mistake,

“So now I've gotta run, so I can undo this mistake.

At least I've gotta try”.

Unless she has money she either is going to have to live off of the charity of her family and friends or get a job most likely as a servant or governess, so she won’t exactly be escaping the servant part.

Rant: Labour By Paris Paloma

This might get me hate, but I’m not sure. So, I was listening to Labour by Paris Paloma and it just honestly rubbed me the wrong way. I think it’s because the video that shows a woman who is clearly upper-middle class in a historical setting where she would of most likely have had a few servants and even some slaves to take care of everything shown in the video is complaining. It feels disingenuous to me because all I can think is that the servants below stairs should be saying this to both of them. Like I said I doubt she or he gets the water or fixes the gables. Even if she wasn’t married she would still have to do menial labor. Life ain’t free. Also, why not leave and if possible get a divorce? I get that’s what she’s planning on doing, but why not sooner. Also, if they possibly already have a son, is she going to leave him behind with the husband who appears to be a drunkard as well as an abusive bastard?

I also think there is important context missing for the man because there is a huge difference between say working as a farmer/farm-hand or a gentleman farmer vs working in a trade like mining or millinery. I can definitely understand a guy coming home from something like that bone-deep tired and not wanting to do anything. Made worse if he came back from war and has trauma. A lot of men in England could not vote historically as well as women because they didn’t own enough or any land. Voting rights were dependent on land holdings. A day laborer could no more vote than his wife.

Most women were more focused on surviving and living to care about how they were treated. We honestly have to understand that they would really not have known any different. Homemaking was the norm and to deviate meant you were a spinster and thus a burden on your relatives. A single woman would have to rely on the charity of family and friends, if they did not marry and have their own household. Marriage provided women with freedom and security they wouldn’t have otherwise. They could of course work as a maid, farm-hand, or tutor/governess, but those would not have necessarily paid well. I don’t even want to know why this needs to be said, but it does none the less. Women did not work alone to do all these things regardless of having servants. Women would work together to complete tasks like cooking and looming, which could and would bring in income as well. Child rearing was a community thing. Grandparents, Aunties, Uncles, and older siblings would help look after the younger ones. Just look at William the conquerer and his wife Matilda, who had nine children.

The video would make more sense if set in the post-war years of the late ‘40s/early ‘50s where the white picket fence dream was more of a thing and where your stereotypical housewife would be found since this type of wife is in fact a recent phenomenon because most couples would both bring in an income either through a dowry or funds made in the above mentioned ways. However, war rationing was still happening during these years in Britain. It lasted fourteen years in total. Also, the dream is an American one, so it’s kinda weird a Brit would want it. Marriage was not about love historically. It was more of a contract between families for economic and social status reasons. Often neither party got a say in it. It makes me wonder why the woman/women are not blaming their parents instead. In fact, England made it hard for people under 21 to just elope, so they would run away to Gretna Green. If this woman did run away with this man because she thought he would save her and so she could seemingly just kickup her feet and do nothing but instead he treats her like Cinderella, well that’s somewhat her fault. It kind of reminds me of my sister who has a man-child for a boyfriend who doesn’t do shit but yet begs her for money and makes her do everything, but it’s still her fault she’s in that relationship, but not that she gets treated like that.

Why does it seem that people forget effective contraceptives are very recent things? So yes, a woman having sex historically would most likely get pregnant. A man pulling out is only about 80% effective. Condoms did exist but they didn’t really work well.

I honestly don’t get why people are using this song for famous women who were badasses or cruel like Katherine of Aragon or Queen Bloody Mary Tudor. No one cares about lesser known badass women like Yolande of Aragon, who acted as regent of Provence during the minority of her son. She played a crucial role in the struggles between France and England as well. She helped fund Jeanne D’Arc {Joan of Arc}. Some of these women over shadowed their husbands like Catherine de’ Medici, wife of Henry II of France. I’m sorry this was so fucking long, but I had to get this out. Cross posting on Minds.com.

#women in history #response #critical #Labour by Paris Paloma

9 notes · View notes

avatar216 · 11 months

Video

youtube

{Good Omens} Gabriel/Beelzebub - Flawed Design | Saint Asonia

#youtube #good omens #ineffable bureaucracy #gabriel x beelzebub

3 notes · View notes

avatar216 · 1 year

Text

Rant: Labour By Paris Paloma

This might get me hate, but I’m not sure. So, I was listening to Labour by Paris Paloma and it just honestly rubbed me the wrong way. I think it’s because the video that shows a woman who is clearly upper-middle class in a historical setting where she would of most likely have had a few servants and even some slaves to take care of everything shown in the video is complaining. It feels disingenuous to me because all I can think is that the servants below stairs should be saying this to both of them. Like I said I doubt she or he gets the water or fixes the gables. Even if she wasn’t married she would still have to do menial labor. Life ain’t free. Also, why not leave and if possible get a divorce? I get that’s what she's planning on doing, but why not sooner. Also, if they possibly already have a son, is she going to leave him behind with the husband who appears to be a drunkard as well as an abusive bastard?

#labour by paris paloma #critical #rant #women in history

9 notes · View notes

avatar216 · 1 year

Note

Thanks. It's the admin Nathan Anderson of the NGDG who was saying this recently. He's claiming that there are "stories/versions of the myth like this, which is bullshit and he, of course won’t previde sources. He and others are using this to possibly make a bad faith argument that Loki is a terrible partner. I mentioned the fiction also because he’s writing books and then claiming the above to anyone criticizing his books rather than just saying he's making it up because yeh know it’s fiction.

Unfortunately people believe this crap and newbies don’t know who to trust. I don’t feel sorry for putting this dude and group on blast. As for the Lokean groups, people in those were saying that because yeah they want there to be more about Angie but also they want Loki to have two or three wives instead of having a wife, mistress, and many other lovers thus making him less of a rakehell/debauchee. I don’t care that Loki is like that because it makes for nice entertainment at the very least and because it kinda shows that he’s not so different from other gods, although in his defense he’s not eagerly and happily SAing women unlike some other gods {ahemm.. Odin}.

I know you've written about the Gullveig/Freyja theory but I keep seeing the equation of Angrboða with the witch whose heart Loki ate according to Voluspa hin Skama and both of them being equated with Gullveig. I want to know where this idea comes from. I mostly see it on FB in the Norse Gods Discussion Group and a couple Lokean groups {although, not as much anymore}. I honestly think this is just too much of a leap in logic. I know Genevieve Gornichec put Angrboða as Gullveig in her book, but I'm not sure if she equated them with the heart eating thing. I didn't read it.

I'm asking because I've been looking for good fiction about Norse mythology but keep running into the idea that Loki is an abusive husband but also that killed his mistress and ate her heart, which kinda doesn't make sense to me because why wouldn't he have just slept with her if he wanted more children or whatever.

I'm going to stick to Greek or Egyptian mythology based fiction like ENNEAD for now, whilst looking for good Norse ones.

The first author that I know of to describe Gullveig/Heiðr, Angrboða, and the heart into a single figure is the 19th century Swedish author Viktor Rydberg (he also included Aurboða and Hyrrokkin in this complex). Rydberg was convinced that there was a single original epic narrative that was shared by all the Germanic-speaking peoples, and that myths, legends, and folklore of Germanic Europe was made up of the decayed, corrupted fragments of it. He also believed that he knew how to put it back together, sometimes even borrowing from non-Germanic narratives.

In order to make that make sense, a lot of his work is very preoccupied with merging different figures together, because he can't really allow any loose ends. His work is also characterized by a fairly strict polarity between the gods (unambiguously good) and their enemies (unambiguously bad) which, to be fair, was not uncommon among scholars in his day. He had some things to say that were important for the 19th century, but his work should not be taken seriously today.

He does still have a small but very prolific following among modern heathens including the authors of the so-called "Asatru Edda" and whoever runs www.germanicmythology.com.

I'm not sure if more recent Lokean/Rökkratrú theorizing about Gullveig/Heiðr and Angrboða is related to Viktor Rydberg or not. I could imagine that the sort of Þursatrú/Nordic Satanism types might have some things in common with the Rydberg-inspired heathens, taking the same black-and-white, hardline good-vs-evil view, but siding with the opposing team, and being favorable toward the Gullveig/Angrboða/Aurboða/Hyrrokkin complex; and then this could filter into other Lokean or Rökkatrú spaces. To me, the burnt heart seems to point to Rydberg. I don't think that Völuspá in skamma gives an impression that the heart that Loki eats belongs to Angrboða. Rydberg only came to that conclusion by inserting Völuspá into the context of Völuspá in skamma, so that Angrboða is mentioned as the mother of Fenrir, then is burnt (as Gullveig), then the burnt heart is eaten before she's resurrected. I find this pretty unintuitive, and unlikely to be thought of twice independently of each other, but I could be wrong.

On the other hand, sometimes ideas just go into circulation without anyone knowing where they come from, not thinking to question it. It's possibly that Rydberg was the ultimate origin of this, but that nobody spreading the idea knows it.

There are also a lot of heathens who worship Angrboða, but since she's only mentioned by name once in all of Norse mythology (twice if you count Snorri, but it seems like he's working from Völuspá in skamma, so it's probably just the first reference again), it seems natural to look for traces of her elsewhere. Merging her with other figures like Gullveig/Heiðr might be a way of adapting other lore so that their goddess has more written about her.

As an aside, if a figure from Völuspá is to be identified with Angrboða, I would expect it to be the unnamed in aldna í Járnviði, whose children are "Fenrir's kind."

I'm not really very familiar with Lokean groups or even really Facebook heathenry in general anymore, so it's very possible I'm missing some things. I don't really know anything about Norse mythology-inspired fiction.

#heathenry #angrboða #gullveig #norse mythology

48 notes · View notes

avatar216 · 1 year

Text

Get Your Shit Together With Negativity

Negative thoughts are not “toxic” if they’re true. Positivity (self confidence/esteem) is far more damaging; if you walk around thinking you’re intrinsically a good guy you’ll probably alienate a lot of people while you keep banging your head against the wall. Only with negativity can you find flaws in yourself (and the world) that require urgent fixing. Other people won’t provide that information to you out of 1) politeness 2) fear of getting their own flaws exposed 3) indifference towards your existence. Grow up and hate thyself every single day.

2 notes · View notes

avatar216 · 1 year

Note

Is it any weirder than Loki having sex with a horse?

Okay, here's what I hate about that misconception, Loki DID NOT willingly have sex with that horse in the mythology, it was either do that or have a horrible death handed to him by Odin and the gods.

Here the actual story if you would like to read it:

9 notes · View notes

avatar216 · 1 year

Text

More Tropes and Things I hate

Daddy issues. Yup, I’m really starting to hate characters who have daddy/mommy issues. I don’t get why so many MMCs need to have them, especially in romance novels. I feel like cheering everytime I find a book where the MMC doesn’t care about their dad’s opinion of them to the point of whining every couple chapters in their head or to someone else. I won’t lie this is something I find irksome about MCU Loki and Netflix Lucifer sometimes. I know both Odin and God suck as fathers but it doesn’t stop me from sighing at the characters’ fruitless efforts. I more so hate when creators give God Loki daddy issues and other insecurities when he’s farely self-confident, down right brazen arguably, perhaps has less self-preservation than MCU Loki, and definitely isn’t as emotionally vulnerable besides showing anger. I know people say that this trope is common because a lot of people don’t have a good relationship with their fathers, which I do get but I still prefer drama steming from others like not agreeing on certain things or getting over their shared bad history. I rowl my eyes when the MMC tries to seek approval from A-hole daddy by trying to be the perfect son or trying to rebel against AD by being reckless and stupid and having a Pikachu face in response to having to be saved. Nevermind the ones who try too hard to be the opposite of AD. I honestly mostly hate the whining consistently in their head or otherwise to someone usually the FMC. I see you Farrendel Laesornysh from the Elven Alliance series.

FMCs have to hate wearing dresses/skirts/no talk of why dresses might be favored practically. This is a bit complicated but let me try to explain. I’m someone who prefers wearing dresses and skirts to pants. I’m not small chested/waisted, so pants/shorts often ried down and that’s just uncomfortably embarrassing, so in warmer months I wear dresses/skirts. Nevermind it makes going to the bathroom somewhat easier. I’m mentioning this stuff because I see a lot of books shitting on dresses and women who wear them. Women can kickass in a dress. I read a book where the FMC used her heel to stab somone while running in a skirt and I loved it. I know people say we need more tomboy characters and I understand why, but I want to find more books where the heroine isn’t comfortable in pants because they just don’t fit her butt right to stay up, she actually has to go to a bra store or online because she doesn’t wear a size or style easily found at Walmart, thinks skirts and dresses fit and hide things better than pants and they don’t go around their whole leg comfortably. Dress wearing isn’t all about dressing up since there are casual dresses and not all women wore dresses that went to the floor historically, which I sometimes hear people saying in movies, books, and online. When I say I hate FMCs who hate wearing dresses I mean I hate this i’m superior to women who prefer wearing dresses and their just lying about not liking pants attitude I see sometimes in fiction and online.

Casual/inappropriate {incorrect} use of the words Narcissist and Codependent. I’ve seen this in a couple books and some fanfics and I can say I hate it every single time without exception. I find it to be a DNF worthy offense too. The Duke Sebastian in the Duke and the Lady by Jessie Clever just casually labels his mother a Narcissist when it makes no sense for someone in that time period to use that word like that, let alone a Duke. It took me right out of the story. Nevermind all the other inaccuracies like useing the words hello, okay, horse back riding, and mate among others. In other media I think creators and audiences confuse NPD with the casual usage which is more so based on the Greek figure than the disorder, which is unfortunately named after him. That’s why we get Loki being described as a Narcissist because he fell in love with a female version of himself I think. I honestly wish they would change the name of the disorder. I hate people using this word casually and I do and will continue to unsob from and DNF anything tasing around psychological labels like they’re lollipops without any consideration to real people even if it’s a psychologist doing it because I’ve begun really not liking certain psychologists over the past few years of researching positive psychology among other things on my own. As for codependent I hate this term because it’s not actually a clinical term. It’s a term that comes out of addiction recovery circles originally. Melody Beattie originally used the term to describe enablers of addicts who would “sacrifice” themselves in helping their loved ones usually by giving them money and spending maybe much of their time driving around looking for them in crack houses or bars to the point they were losing sleep, time, and other relationships in an effort to save/keep that person around. By doing all of these things among others they were considered co-DEPENDENT. Addicts are/were considered dependent, so a spouse/family member giving them resources that would enable them to get their stimulus of choice which would by extension be basically partaking in the SOC so they would be essentially counted as an addict/dependent themselves, which would be to their own detriment of course since much of their own resources would go to the SOC. They would be an addict/dependent by proxy, which is what codependent basically means. Codependent does NOT describe two people who would die for each other or are obsessed with each other to the exclusion of everyone else. That would be toxic INTER-DEPENDENCE. I’m looking at you Loki-Thor centric fandom for both words being used incorrectly in fanfics and meta. On page 35 of For Butter or Worse by Erin La Rosa, the heroine Nina uses this word to describe herself when there are no addicts around her and I just cringed and DNFed because I suspect the author did no research. Please people do your research before using these terms and others.

I grew up with/was raised by addicts, so I find the term Codependent to be insulting to my grandparents, my uncle, my mom, my sister, and myself because we should not be blamed and shamed for trying to help our family members. Hitting rock bottom is not the end all-be all of addiction recovery. Most people don’t have to fear every phone call wondering if someone is dead, especially if it came late at night or early in the morning but when I grew up this was normal,

#tropes #tropes i hate #daddy issues #narcissim #codepency #marvel fandom #rant #vent

1 note · View note

avatar216 · 1 year

Text

I agree. This is something that bothers me to no fucks end. Historical presentism and reductionism is ever so irksome regardless of which side is using them in arguments. I barely can stand what I like to jokingly call mythological presentism/too much wishful thinking either that a lot of left leaning Heathens/Lokeans like to indulge in. I now flat out refuse to label historical figures like William II or Frederick the Great as gay or whatever because these words didn’t exist with their current meanings or at all BACK THEN. The identity behind the word simply didn’t exist before the last century or so. Both gay and queer used to be synonyms for happy/cheerful/bright. When we throw around words like feminist or queer we’re not just describing what people did/do, but importing and emposing the weight and baggage of these words onto those who never used them and who would probably not really understand them. I like learning about historical people to understand how they saw themselves and the people around them on their own terms and in their own words when possible. When it comes to the stories they told the same applies. I’m growing to despise psychologizing historical and modern people and slaping them with baggage laden terms like PTSD, Narcissism {which I might write a rant about}, and self-loathing among other things more and more everyday as well. All that being said the Norse people were not left wingers or right wingers because their society was just as if not more complex than ours. Slavery was most certainly an integral part of their society hence it was a big deal to be called one, but at the same time they were people fighting to survive everyday and take care of their own. I gather most of them probably didn’t really think about it in a philosophical/ethical manner. They just lived and didn’t think about much outside of what they needed to/wanted to do that day much like a lot of people today. Things get even worse when we conflate actions with mental states and identities.

[repeated mentions of nazism in this post]

i think there's often a huge lack of nuance with regards to asatro and the viking age as they relate to politics, at least on the internet. like whenever there's discussion about the links between far-right sympathisers and asatro revivalism or the like, a very common response from believers and from others interested is to just treat nazist appropriation of norse history and beliefs as an absolute absurdity and to go "actually the vikings were progressive/anti-racist/feminist/whatever". and i get where this comes from yeah, the intention is probably to delegitimise and rhetorically oppose far-right use of norse symbols, religion, and history, which is admirable obviously. but at the same time this leads to extremely reductive and problematic historical statements being spread around as if they are absolute fact.

it is true that vikings did not conceptualise themselves as part of some sort of superior "race", whether that be a aryan, white, germanic, whatever "race", but it's also true that vikings frequently abducted foreigners from lands they had raided and used them as slaves. it's true that the norse social structure had properties we could call democratic, at least in comparison to their southern christian european neighbours, but it's also true that this form of ting democracy was not extended to the numerous slaves. it's true that the myths and sagas concerning loke do not paint a portrait of what we would now call traditional masculinity or sexuality, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't what we would today call homophobic tendencies within norse society during the pre-christian viking age (not that we actually know all that much about that in the first place but that's another discussion i suppose).

this seems like such a obvious statement but the viking age, norse society at the time, and the accompanying religious practices, were complex and multifaceted, and cannot be boiled down to simple anachronistic interpretations stemming from modern conceptions. the norse were not feminist and anti-racist, nor were they anti-feminist and racist, because feminism and racism literally did not exist yet. i think the usefulness of applying these modern terms to societies that existed more than a millennia ago is severely limited, at best.

i obviously wholeheartedly support making pagan spaces (and all spaces) as hostile as possible to nazists, and i also support the right of neo-pagans to draw inspiration and meaning from what we could call "progressive" elements of norse religion and society. however, i don't think that they should pretend that their religion is incompatible with far-right beliefs (and as such they need not worry about it), and i also don't believe they should spread incredibly reductive understandings of history around for the purpose of public relations. often it seems more like a knee-jerk defensive reaction rather than anything well-thought-out, but i don't want to speculate about other people's intentions and stuff too much.

#historical presentism #reductionism #heathenry #norse paganism #wishful thinking

5 notes · View notes

avatar216 · 1 year

Text

https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2017/4/05/habit-making-historical-figures-gay-or-trans-problematic

#historical presentism #lgbt history

0 notes

avatar216 · 1 year

Text

Just Me Gushing over the Elf Tangent with Spoilers

Like the title says this is mostly going to be me gushing over the Elf Tangent by Lindsay Buroker. I love this book especially the side characters Setvik and Theli. I won’t lie. I thought Theli was an idiot at first but she grew on me. Setvik was just the kind of character I was looking for, which is to say an assholish elf with a superiority complex. I really hope the author gives him his own book in the future.

I’ve unfortunately been sick again for the fourth time in the last 2 months and with the holidays, it’s only now that I’ve had the energy or time to listen to this book. It was good and I do recommend it to anyone who wants a good clean elf romance besides the Elven Alliance series without the MMC having PTSD. The FMC Princess Aldari is good at math and solving puzzles, which is why the MMC Hawk kidnaps her to help his people find away to stop the cursed beings his people call the Twisted. Aldari was a fun character to follow as was Hawk who gets hurt later and gets cared for by Aldari for a little bit. Their banter was definitely better than the sometimes meh conversations of Essie and Farrendel in the Elven Alliance series. I appreciate that the characters didn’t just end up married by the end. I also appreciate that Hawk didn’t get handsy with Aldari, but that doesn’t mean no one got handsy with anyone. Theli gets groped by an elf mercenary and later has her shirt ripped open by a pirate. Hawk tried his best to be nice to Aldari despite having to unfortunately kidnap her on the way to her wedding to a Prince of a neighboring kingdom.

The plot had a lot of tension and action with a sense that the Twisted were very much a threat. The Elf Princess Hysithea was turned into one, which is partially why Hawk is so desperate to stop them. This character actually has her own book, which I’m not liking to be honest. She’s too impulsively reckless and boarderline TSTL.

Theli and Setvik end up shacking up despite the fact he’s probably 20 something years older than her. I’m actually quite happy they seemed to end up together. I just want them to have their own book or even a book following Setvik and later the other mercenaries on missions over the 20 years they spent away from their kingdom and in the human kingdoms. He likes her singing and even is okay with her portraying him as a villain in her ballads, which is cute.

If anyone can recommend more elf romances that would be great or if anyone wants elf/other fantasy romances you’re welcome to ask.

My posts are usually about whatever I want to write about but I’m now trying my hand at writing about the books I like or don’t and maybe about the Irish language I’m trying to learn. Dia daoibh. Go raibh maith agat.

#The Elf Tangent #books #elf romance #fantasy romance

0 notes

avatar216 · 1 year

Text

True. There are so many things the god does/doesn’t do that just don’t apply to Marvel. Myth-Loki does what he does for a reason {usually because his life was threatened by someone}, not because he felt like doing so bc fweelings.

can people please realise MCU loki and Myth Loki are two completely separate people/beings ?? MCU Loki as far as we know doesn’t have kids, never did the deed with a horse or any of that which by the way Myth Loki did do. So please stop using “oh loki fucked a horse” to somehow make a point or an excuse as to why MCU loki is bisexual, genderfluid or to ship him with Slyvie, thank u. MCU Loki was INSPIRED by Norse Mythology Loki. MCU Loki is bisexual because he is, not bc Myth Loki might have been. (This isn’t talking about comic mcu loki this is like movies/series mcu loki)

81 notes · View notes

avatar216 · 1 year

Text

The “Loki fucked a horse” “jokes” aren’t funny.

If people would take the time to read the myth they would find that Loki was assaulted by the horse while trying to distract it from its job because of a deal the Aesir made because of Loki.

It’s not cute and frankly using it as a “of course Marvel Loki is genderfluid, he slept with a horse” is not doing what you think it’s doing and is rather insulting.

I’m so tired of seeing people think it’s some haha funny moment. It’s not. Stop using it. There are plenty of actual funny moments within the Norse stories, literally anything else would suffice. Stop bringing up the horse.

19 notes · View notes

avatar216 · 1 year

Text

I agree. I'm a "POC"{I hate this term, which is why I put it in quotes}. I guess. I'm sick and tired of the double standards of these people. I want to face-palm every time I hear/see this shit. I'm a shame to be considered POC. I love my gods but that makes me want to see them depicted respectfully and accurately if possible. My unknown dad was black, Puerto Rican, and white, and my mom is white and Filipino. I hate the term white too because what does that even mean really? Russians are different from say the English or French. I've talked to people from many countries online via video chat. They don't all act the same, and that reinforced for me the fact that we, Americans have our culture that is definitely different from these other places. I wasn't happy with Loki being played by an Indian guy in Valhalla: The Legend of Thor, to be honest, because I feel like Loki would and should fit Norse male beauty standards, which is like someone who works under the sun but isn't really tan but ruddy. He's supposed to be quite handsome after all. I'm a Norse/Kemetic Pagan in particular, which is why I often find it frustrating to deal with this bullshit. Let it not be understated that they are in fact creating and maintaining a double standard. Black people as well as Native Americans are capable of being racist. Racism doesn't just apply to the system because if it did you wouldn't be able to call Neo-Nazis racists since most of them don't have the power to in force their racism. It is fiction, which is why I often just ignore it or criticize in places where that's welcome. As for accents, no one natively speaks Old Norse or Ancient Greek, so I don't care about that specifically. I care more that ancient beings are using modernisms with no problem, especially Thor in Marvel since he doesn't spend much time with humans.

I don't much like PJO or Rick Riordan given he's never apologized for what he said about Pagans, and because I don't like how he portrays the gods, however, I do think it's okay for fans to want their favorite characters to be portrayed accurately. I will not watch Mr. Malcolm's List or Bridgerton because of this. These types also justify making Anne Boleyn black even though she was a real white queen in history, for the sake of diversity. Don't even get me started on Hamilton.

Dear people who say it’s fine for non-Scandinavian people to play the Norse gods in Marvel (and for all of them to have British accents for some reason) or that it’s okay for non-Greek people to play the Greek gods in PJO:

Is it okay, then, for a cast of non-Indigenous people to play gods in an adaptation of Mesoamerican mythology? Or for non-Africans to play the gods in an adaptation of Bantu mythology? Since it’s just fiction, yknow, don’t be so sensitive!

45 notes · View notes

avatar216 · 1 year

Text

I’m not sure who needs to hear this but it has to be said.

You cannot use Norse myth/religion as a way to justify Marvel Comics use of the deities.

“This is fine because in the myths…”

Well this isn’t the myths. It’s a fictionalized take on the deities that is in itself it’s own thing. They share no relation to the stories and myths of the Norse religion. They only share name and title and on occasion retellings.

Trying to justify anything Marvel Comics does with the Aesir or even stupid ass fandom disputes with “well in Norse myth” your argument is already flawed and invalid. Stop pulling my deities into your fictionalized world to justify stupid shit.

It’s like using Percy Jackson as a definitive source for Greek myth. No. That’s not how this works. Fiction takes on mythology and pagan religion are just that. FICTION. Percy Jackson did not actually return Zeus’ lighting bolt in the Greek Myth just like how Loki didn’t turn people into pigeons in Norse Myth in order to get back at Thor.

“If people actually read the myths they would see…”

Question, have you actually read the myths? Also, what does that have to do with Marvel Comics? Loki in Marvel Comics is not Loki in Norse myth and I’d appreciate it if you would not try and compare the two.

I am a Marvel fan, my favorite comics are Thor comics, but I’m also a Norse pagan who worships the Norse pantheon in my religious practice. Yet, I am still able to draw a clear line between the two and treat the differently. Something that I think many people need to realize. When I pray to Odin or leave offerings to Loki, I am not praying to Anthony Hopkins and Tom Hiddleston. I’m praying to MY gods who predate anything that Marvel has ever done.

Essentially what Marvel has done is taken these figures and placed them into their own universe and world. They share names, titles, and on occasion retellings. But they are not the Norse gods at all. They are retellings in and of themselves, a tool for Marvel to give their own spin on things regardless of what happens in actual myth. Not to mention there are several changes made so they really can’t be comparable. (Laufey being Loki’s father and not his mother, entire gods and goddesses not even existing, not plausible proof of certain events in the myths even happening, etc.)

Now, if it were to be something like, for example, Loki being Genderfluid. It is completely fine to cite the Norse myths as a way to say that Loki being Genderfluid in Marvel is sensible. That is something that can be used. “Loki being Genderfluid in Marvel makes sense because in the Norse myths Loki is a shapeshifter and takes different forms, something that Marvel has also showcased in their works.” That’s different. That’s more of a comparative outlook on the two works rather than justification of one Vs the other.

Make sense? (I am willing to happily clarify if anyone would like 💚)

So please, I’m asking nicely for people to stop trying to justify Marvel fandom stuff by using the Norse myths. It’s in no way comparable or justifiable and is annoying to see a religion and it’s texts brought up against a fictionalized version of it that has no solid standing on anything that happens in Marvel Comics.

6 notes · View notes