decadentparadisekitty

[decadentparadisekitty]

OK Tumblr Geriatric Ward, let’s talk about your posture-

there are things you should be doing now to prevent yourself from starting to look like 🥀

Why does it matter? Future you would like to avoid the pain, limited motion, and fall risk that goes along with worsening posture.

What’s the focus?

1. Keep the flexibility in your spine

2. Stretch the muscles in the front

3. Strengthen the muscle in the back

Here are some simple things you can do daily while sitting and when you get up to go into the bathroom or the kitchen

Keep the flexibility by doing these repeated movements: 10 repetitions several times a day

The goal is to give yourself a double or triple chin. Keep your nose pointing forward, don’t let it tip up or down

Thoracic extension- use a chair with a seat back that comes up to the level of your shoulder blades. Try to bend back over the top of the chair without arching away from the seat back and without extending your neck. If the pressure from the top of the chair is uncomfortable you can place a towel there

Stretch the muscles in the front by using a door frame. This one will feel good afterwards

If this isn’t enough of a stretch you can do one side at a time. If you have the right arm up step forward with the right foot and turn slightly to the left. Then do it on the other side.

Strengthen the muscles in the back by squeezing your shoulder blades together for a count of 10 and then repeating 10 times. You can do this several times a day Hint: Don’t lift your shoulder blades up

There are lots more exercises for strengthening your back muscles but this is a good starting point and easy to do. I like doing it while driving

Tips:

Do the best you can

If it hurts stop

Envision future you saying thank you each time you do one of the exercises

[decadentparadisekitty]

some ppl will be like im deranged. ooooooh i love fucked up media. did you know that im utterly insane. and you go to their blogs and it's 3 pages straight of dean and cas eating plain toast and raising a baby together or whatever

#OH MY GOD ACTUALLY #it is dissappointing

[decadentparadisekitty]

VARG AND DASHA FIGHTING ON TWITTER LMFAOOOOOO

[decadentparadisekitty]

if anyone should apologize for ranting, it's me sistah <3 but srsly i love people who talk a lot do it more.

The way I see it now, he's got this kind of split view of himself - the "good", powerless John, who never hurt anyone, and the "bad", powerful John that is so bitter and angry and enraged that he feels like he can't stop himself from lashing out at everyone who had ever pushed him down after he's made it to equal footing with them. He pretends to be a cripple because that way he can be the Good John who cannot be disruptive, because he has tied his trauma so thoroughly to his power that he cannot rationally concieve of anything else. When I wrote this post, something like around 100% of this nuance flew directly over my head skwhfhd

THIS SO MUCH THIS I WAS STRUGGLING TO FIND THE WORDSSSSS ON GOD

im totallyyy not going to stalk ur blog nooooooo

So... I have mixed feelings about this chapter.

On the one hand, everything’s been cleared up! Where everyone stands has been flat-out stated so that all readers can be on the same page. John is very clearly not a good guy anymore, no matter how sympathetic he was in the past, and trying to argue that he’s not is just wishful thinking at this point.

On the other hand... I’m not too happy with this new direction. John was quite clearly set up to be a sympathetic protagonist, powers be damned, and he was a good one. He had in the past fallen victim to an unhealthy mindset and become a toxic person, which he had recovered from to become more healthy and willing to work constructively towards a better society. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the flashbacks he shares with Sera - he singlehandedly convinced her to reject the trappings of a toxic society. That arc is extremely cathartic to read as a result.

All in all, John was great. He was easy to root for and feel for, and his struggle seemed so organic - he could have just shown off and become king of Wellston, but instead he recognised his weaknesses and played to his strengths, trying to create reform from the ground up, even if it mean he had to sacrifice a great deal of personal comfort and get socially ostracised and beaten up every day.

There’s a reason John at the beginning of the story we so compelling, and that was his motivation. He had recognised a failing and a shortcoming in society, and he was willing to do anything to fix it organically, rather than just jumping at it from a position of power like Rei did, and the superheroes did. These characters showed us why John’s organic approach was so essential in a society so opposed to change, and we respected John for his goals.

This was also a reason why the twist that John was a high-tier was so good - reliably, one who is oppressed will be looking to fight oppression, but John is made so much more interesting because he very specifically isn’t one of the oppressed group. In fact, he’s one of the elite. Everything he suffers, he suffers out of choice and not necessity. Sure, he may have experienced oppression previously (whilst researching John, Isen found records that before his second-year in Bostin, John was very lowly-ranked, perhaps even a true ‘cripple’), but he was very quick to shed that and embrace elite life when his true ability became apparent. Invariably, John at the beginning was an altruistic individual who had grown from his mistakes and decided he would give up everything he could have based on his ability - a high social standing, a universal respect, and a comfy life - in favour of trying to combat the hierarchy. This is what made his friendship with Sera so powerful and great - he worked for it, and worked to help her break out of a toxic mindset like he had done. It’s why Arlo’s betrayal hurts so much - John offered olive branches, tried to make Arlo see that there was a better way, and yet Arlo still looked at him and saw someone to be taken down.

This is why I took such a dislike to the Joker arc. It took everything impressive and compelling about John’s character and took the tipp-ex to it like gritty live-action reebok would have done. The fact that John’s character was boiled down to “lol AGRESSIVE EDGY WHITE BOI” was in part frustrating because we’d specifically seen him grow past this, goddamn it, and because it took away everything that made him so compelling.

Now, we have other characters - namely Remi, Blyke, and Isen - stepping in to fill the role of Plucky Heroes Working to Better Society, with Remi specifically following a similar trajectory to John at the beginning of the story.

Just one problem.

If this was the story that wanted to be told, why did we spend 100+ episodes on John’s character arc, which was erased with the purchase of one (1) mask and some very bad decisions? If Remi was supposed to be the ubiquitous hero, then why didn’t we also start with her as the protagonist? If John was supposed to become an evil dickbag and a villain, why didn’t he start out as a thinly-veiled dickbag who played with others and manipulated them because he wanted to watch the world burn, instead of a sympathetic protagonist who suddenly does a 180?

I know it sounds like I’m bashing unordinary - and that’s not my intention, I really do love the comic, and Remi, Blyke and Isen, I would die for - but this complete butchery of John’s character vexes me to no end, precisely because he was so compelling.

Right now, it seems that the Joker arc is being salvaged, and things are being clarified after the muddle that had thrown the status quo into a cell and mangled it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great to shake up the status quo - but the way it was done here also twisted the characters, making it seem like the story was driving them instead of the other way round.

I feel this like from Isen sums it up.

If someone had told me this about John before the Joker arc, I’d have asked them which dark AU this was from. Now, it fits John’s character, but at the same time, John’s character no longer fits him as we knew him. He’s spiralled into anarchy and chaos with seemingly very little reason - sure, Arlo had him beaten up and Sera was picked on after she lost her ability - but given that he’d been taking this shit on the chin and wearing it, that shouldn’t have been enough to make him go full dark side!

However, I do feel the story has taken on a direction I’m more on board with; namely, that students are taking responsibility and trying to better their society. Even so, I still feel a little sad about what we lost. I enjoyed Remi’s line about John, and it’s satisfying to see her recognise that John’s not just some Edgy but Saveable Good Boi UwU (looking at you, Kyle Ron), but still, the wording was a little bittersweet.

I, for one, would have loved it if that were true.

[decadentparadisekitty]

far from being overly pedantic this is simply a thought-provoking observation about how our real-world ease of access to commodities pervades our thinking so deeply most would never even begin to ask themselves where certain 'exotic' foodstuffs or items in a fantasy setting come from. I mean they're not exotic... we can pick them up at the supermarket round the corner...

[decadentparadisekitty]

me personally i didn't feel that he grew past it in the first part of the comic.

Like, if he was capable of acting rationally due to growth, he would have NEVER pretended to be a cripple. That's not a position from which John could have effected any kind of change. it was a sign that all he knew how to use h is powers for was just to destroy, destroy, destroy.

I mean, he convinced Seraphina that cripples arent just people who she could control. But like...this coming from even a mid tier would've made a similar difference, and he would've been able to protect people who were messing with low tiers fr instead of a solid half of the time.

But that's not what happened. What happened was, a behavioral therapist made him realize that he used his powers for shitty things, and then traumatized him to never want to use his powers ever again. How John was affected was thinking that he should've never been given powers, because all he's capable of using them for is controlling other people.

The fact he pretended to be a cripple from the start is proof that he doesn't have a healthy relationship with his past, and once Arlo beat any sense of trusting most people out of John, John fell apart. He no longer viewed the concept of protecting other people from himself to be of any value.

So, he started using his powers again, not for justice for the weak, but to punish the strong.

I don't think anything about uru-chan's characterization of him felt like an ass-pull for that reason. It's easier to root for pre-exposed john because he never did anything outrightly morally wrong really. But I honestly think even after he starts being a shithead, he's still really sympathetic.

The only two characters in this story with little to no moral blemishes during John's crazy arc are Remi and Sera. Even then, Remi and Sera are prone to violence to get their way, like they're high tiers to their core.

For me, it's incredibly easy to sympathize with someone who's experienced the evil tendencies of a human who thinks he's superior. To just want to throttle everyone who's treated you like dirt, to just be ANGRY and not putting change for the better first because you're just so rationality erasingly ANGRY.

How could anyone in John's position not be absolutely enraged. He gave high tiers a fucking CHANCE, on repeat.

Remember he's viewing them as a group, not individuals. Remi didn't deserve John's wrath, (you wont get a defense of blyke and isen from me im sorry, it's incredibly hard to sympathize with people who changed right when shit started affecting them personally.), but John hated her anyway, because she's still a high tier who still deals with things as high tiers do - shutting people up with raw power if things get bad enough.

Not to say there's something wrong with Remi for that - power should only be used when necessary, and Remi is quite careful. But the fact she can, it just changes dynamics considerably.

HE ALSO HATES HIMSELF FOR THIS

john always felt sympathetic to me in ways the other high tiers just weren't, because he's damaged. He knows what it means to stand at the very bottom, and not just from Wellston.

So... I have mixed feelings about this chapter.

On the one hand, everything’s been cleared up! Where everyone stands has been flat-out stated so that all readers can be on the same page. John is very clearly not a good guy anymore, no matter how sympathetic he was in the past, and trying to argue that he’s not is just wishful thinking at this point.

On the other hand... I’m not too happy with this new direction. John was quite clearly set up to be a sympathetic protagonist, powers be damned, and he was a good one. He had in the past fallen victim to an unhealthy mindset and become a toxic person, which he had recovered from to become more healthy and willing to work constructively towards a better society. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the flashbacks he shares with Sera - he singlehandedly convinced her to reject the trappings of a toxic society. That arc is extremely cathartic to read as a result.

All in all, John was great. He was easy to root for and feel for, and his struggle seemed so organic - he could have just shown off and become king of Wellston, but instead he recognised his weaknesses and played to his strengths, trying to create reform from the ground up, even if it mean he had to sacrifice a great deal of personal comfort and get socially ostracised and beaten up every day.

There’s a reason John at the beginning of the story we so compelling, and that was his motivation. He had recognised a failing and a shortcoming in society, and he was willing to do anything to fix it organically, rather than just jumping at it from a position of power like Rei did, and the superheroes did. These characters showed us why John’s organic approach was so essential in a society so opposed to change, and we respected John for his goals.

This was also a reason why the twist that John was a high-tier was so good - reliably, one who is oppressed will be looking to fight oppression, but John is made so much more interesting because he very specifically isn’t one of the oppressed group. In fact, he’s one of the elite. Everything he suffers, he suffers out of choice and not necessity. Sure, he may have experienced oppression previously (whilst researching John, Isen found records that before his second-year in Bostin, John was very lowly-ranked, perhaps even a true ‘cripple’), but he was very quick to shed that and embrace elite life when his true ability became apparent. Invariably, John at the beginning was an altruistic individual who had grown from his mistakes and decided he would give up everything he could have based on his ability - a high social standing, a universal respect, and a comfy life - in favour of trying to combat the hierarchy. This is what made his friendship with Sera so powerful and great - he worked for it, and worked to help her break out of a toxic mindset like he had done. It’s why Arlo’s betrayal hurts so much - John offered olive branches, tried to make Arlo see that there was a better way, and yet Arlo still looked at him and saw someone to be taken down.

This is why I took such a dislike to the Joker arc. It took everything impressive and compelling about John’s character and took the tipp-ex to it like gritty live-action reebok would have done. The fact that John’s character was boiled down to “lol AGRESSIVE EDGY WHITE BOI” was in part frustrating because we’d specifically seen him grow past this, goddamn it, and because it took away everything that made him so compelling.

Now, we have other characters - namely Remi, Blyke, and Isen - stepping in to fill the role of Plucky Heroes Working to Better Society, with Remi specifically following a similar trajectory to John at the beginning of the story.

Just one problem.

If this was the story that wanted to be told, why did we spend 100+ episodes on John’s character arc, which was erased with the purchase of one (1) mask and some very bad decisions? If Remi was supposed to be the ubiquitous hero, then why didn’t we also start with her as the protagonist? If John was supposed to become an evil dickbag and a villain, why didn’t he start out as a thinly-veiled dickbag who played with others and manipulated them because he wanted to watch the world burn, instead of a sympathetic protagonist who suddenly does a 180?

I know it sounds like I’m bashing unordinary - and that’s not my intention, I really do love the comic, and Remi, Blyke and Isen, I would die for - but this complete butchery of John’s character vexes me to no end, precisely because he was so compelling.

Right now, it seems that the Joker arc is being salvaged, and things are being clarified after the muddle that had thrown the status quo into a cell and mangled it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great to shake up the status quo - but the way it was done here also twisted the characters, making it seem like the story was driving them instead of the other way round.

I feel this like from Isen sums it up.

If someone had told me this about John before the Joker arc, I’d have asked them which dark AU this was from. Now, it fits John’s character, but at the same time, John’s character no longer fits him as we knew him. He’s spiralled into anarchy and chaos with seemingly very little reason - sure, Arlo had him beaten up and Sera was picked on after she lost her ability - but given that he’d been taking this shit on the chin and wearing it, that shouldn’t have been enough to make him go full dark side!

However, I do feel the story has taken on a direction I’m more on board with; namely, that students are taking responsibility and trying to better their society. Even so, I still feel a little sad about what we lost. I enjoyed Remi’s line about John, and it’s satisfying to see her recognise that John’s not just some Edgy but Saveable Good Boi UwU (looking at you, Kyle Ron), but still, the wording was a little bittersweet.

I, for one, would have loved it if that were true.

[decadentparadisekitty]

So phrases like "people with uteruses" or "people who have periods" never really bothered me as much as more overtly dehumanizing phrases like "bleeders" or "birthing bodies", but I saw a post today talking about the abnormal symptoms women experienced after getting tear gassed protesting, that ended with something like "we don't know the full effects of tear gas on people with uteruses". And what struck me about that is that's not really correct, because female people without uteruses (either bc they were born without one or bc they had a hysterectomy) will still experience different symptoms after being tear gassed than male people. Women metabolize substances differently than men, our immune systems are different, our hormonal cycles are different, our skin has different thicknesses, etc. All of those things have potential effects on tear gas reactions, and are not dependent on whether or not we have a uterus. They're dependent on whether or not we're female. So saying "people with uteruses" when what is meant is "female people" is not really accurate. And I realized that a lot of times when people use those kinds of phrases, they aren't being accurate.

For example, I'm sure we've all seen people say things about how the repeal of Roe v Wade will harm people with uteruses/people who can get pregnant/etc. And while yes, it definitely harms those people, the full truth is that abortion bans harm *female* people, *regardless of if they can get pregnant or have a uterus.* Because female people who don't have uteruses can still get pregnant, and in those rare cases will 100% of the time need an abortion. Female people who deal with infertility and can't carry a fetus to term can still be jailed for miscarrying. Female people who are completely sterile (for whatever reason) can still be denied medications/medical treatment on the grounds that the treatment could theoretically harm a fetus. Female people who may currently have no uterus/no longer be able to get pregnant but who have had an abortion in the past will face increased stigma.

Here's another example:

It seems pretty straightforward- menstruation stigma is experienced by people who menstruate. But again, that's only half true. Period stigma is experienced by all female people, regardless of if they menstruate. Think about the fact that we are told female people should not hold political leadership because "what if a female president has PMS and starts a war", despite the fact that almost all female presidential candidates are old enough that they would have experienced menopause. Female people have their feelings dismissed because "it must be that time of the month", regardless of if they're too young to menstruate or too old or if they have a condition causing amenorrhea. Female children grow up seeing periods- a natural function of their bodies- portrayed as disgusting, dirty and gross, as making them unclean, as something to dread and fear. This affects them before they experience menarche, this affects them even if they never experience menarche. It affects all female people.

I could come up with more examples, but you get the idea. Reducing female people to singular body parts and organs inherently denies the reality of femaleness. All parts of us (both biological and social) interact with all other parts of us to form an experience that can't be understood by chopping us up and putting our individual functions under the microscope. In order to get an accurate picture you need to look at the whole (female) human.

[decadentparadisekitty]

people today with access to more raw information than any other period: the earth is flat

german artilleryman in 1916, who barely washes his own ass: I need to account for the curvature and rotation of the earth when plotting my firing plans

[decadentparadisekitty]

I hope gnc little girls know that their options are not "become a man" or "grow out of it". They can go from a gnc girl to a gnc woman. That's an option, too.

[decadentparadisekitty]

Why date someone you clearly hate?

#appreciate the hatred but let's not encourage the sale of woman #the problem is men view women as objects. buying a woman wont solve the societal issue that causes all women pain

[decadentparadisekitty]

1. anti-hero, taylor swift / 2, 19. “taylor swift’s ‘sexy baby’ lyric is more than a ‘30 rock’ reference,” sophia june for nylon magazine / 3, 4, 12, 22. taylor swift ages 14-16, photographed by andrew orth / 5, 23. dominique swain age 15, photographed for lolita (1997) / 6, 17. “the fetishization of girlhood,” m.c. easton / 7. lolita (1962), dir. stanley kubrick / 8. red (mv), taylor swift / 9. anti-hero (mv), taylor swift / 10, 14, 18. nothing new, taylor swift ft. phoebe bridgers / 11. “2008’s country lolita: taylor swift,” gavin edwards for rolling stone / 13, 21. lolita (1997), dir. adrian lyne / 15. okcupid dating chart: age preferences by gender / 16. all too well (ten minute version), taylor swift / 20. university of pittsburgh 2021-2022 undergraduate catalog / 23. would’ve, could’ve, should’ve, taylor swift

apologies for this ridiculously long megathread, but i found a ton of these photographs of taylor from when before she was famous, around ages 14-16, and ooh boy, did they get me thinking…

sometimes i wonder if she just really lucked out with the mostly desexualized “innocent girl-next-door” persona becoming her brand throughout her early career, because it looks like things could have gone in a very different direction for her in another universe.

like you can literally see taylor being de-aged between her debut and fearless era as her public image cemented…the posing, the makeup, the hair, the clothing…it’s all very deliberate and sinister.

and now, all these years later, no one knows better than taylor herself that the most desirable thing a woman can be is not a woman, but a girl…a sexy baby, if you must.

her heart-shaped sunglasses, nothing new, the ten minute version of all too well, would’ve could’ve should’ve…she knows all about society’s sickness, its simultaneous fetishization and destruction of girlhood. she knows because she’s lived through it.

we don’t often categorize her or think of her as one, but she was a child star, and she barely escaped its curse. just barely. but unlike so many other child stars, unlike dolores haze, she survived with her voice and her pen, and she can see it all now, it was wrong.

[decadentparadisekitty]

POV: The space void is stealing your sandwich with his blackhole of a stomach ✨⭐

And in case any homophobic bigots missed my last 2 pride posts: you see this cat? He's gay. That sandwich? Also gay. The plate? Extremely homosexual. The table? It's made of vashwood.

[decadentparadisekitty]

insane how many people just have these incredible artists in their families who get no recognition outside of crocheting circles because this art form is devalued for its association with women

[decadentparadisekitty]

Women HAVE the same exact rights as men:

education with so many scholarships/grants given for simply being female

property ownership

career choice

marriage/divorce choice

with benefits for child custody for simply being female

voting

abortion

running for office

You have equality. You are not oppressed. It is not the “patriarchy's” fault for your unfortunate experience. You are not the blunt of a discrimination conspiracy theory—you’re simply blame shifting. If you come across discrimination TAKE ACTION. You have the legal right. You can’t be stopped, as you are not oppressed.

You are only hindering yourself. No one is controlling your destiny except for you. So, stop simplifying your façade of an enemy—men—into a straw man argument. It’s detrimental to an already rising male suicide rate. It’s detrimental to your own success. You will gain nothing by continuing a first-amendment-silencing movement. 

??????? are you under the impression that every woman in the world lives in the United States, or just that only the women I should care about live there?

•

Education:

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, estimates that there are 130 million girls globally aged 6-17 who are not in school. Women also constitute over two-thirds of the world’s illiterate population, or people who cannot read or write. Only 39% of rural girls get to attend secondary school. Though progress has been made towards gender equality in education, the problem is still prominent in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. [X]

Property Ownership:

Nearly 40 percent of the world’s economies still limit women’s property rights, according to the World Bank. Even in countries where women constitute the majority of small farmers and do more than 75% of the agricultural work, they are routinely denied the right to own the land they cultivate and depend on to raise their families. [X]

Career Choice:

The gender gap in pay has remained unfortunately stable in the United States over the past 20 years or so. In 2022, women earned an average of 82% of what men earned, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. These results are similar to where the pay gap stood in 2002, when women earned 80% as much as men. This gap is worse in undeveloped countries. [X]

Marriage/Divorce:

The majority of countries in the world do not allow no-fault divorce. Many others require joint filings, or a judge can deny a divorce. The are countries in which divorce is illegal. In the United States, GOP politicians are coming for no fault divorce.

Child Custody:

Interesting enough, fathers are actually favored over mothers in custody cases in the U.S.! Fathers Are Favored In Child Custody Battles, Even When Abuse Is Alleged. Family Courts and Child Custody Are Biased Against Women, Not Men: Abusive men are more likely to win custody, and men win up to 93% of custody cases

Voting:

In much of the middle east, women need permission to leave their houses, or need male escorts, to vote. In parts of Africa, women have historically been attacked when visiting polling stations. In many countries, women are expected to vote in alignment with their husband's, or else they face harsh, sometimes lethal, punishment. While there are still places where it is illegal for women to vote, many places have legalized womens voting in the last 20 years.

Abortion:

Access to abortion is a massive barrier to women worldwide. In cases of rape or incest only 61% of countries allow abortion, and in cases of fetal impairment, 61%. Performing abortion on the basis of a woman's request is allowed in 34% of countries. That means the majority of women worldwide cannot receive an abortion on the basis of wanting one. Access to abortion is decreasing, not increasing, recently, with the U.S. passing restrictive laws and outright bans in some states. [X]

Running for office:

This whole UN Article breaks everything down and is too much to paste.

•

Not to mention all the things that are happening in the U.S. - decreasing abortion rights, the loss of sex based protections, the rise of porn usage - which correlates to the rise in child on child sexual assault (guess who is doing the assaulting 98% of the time). Rapes on campuses and in highschools and in the world force and the military and the lack of support or prosecution when these occur. Men asking for 50/50 Financials while still representing under 40% of domestic labor and child rearing tasks. The rise of bdsm, of grooming, of young girls targeted by men. In the USA. All over the world.

So don't throw me the softball of a male suicide rate comment. You won't like what I have to say.

[decadentparadisekitty]

[decadentparadisekitty]

it does more harm than good to prop up the myth of the ‘neurotypical’ who completes tasks cheerfully with no issues. this person is a capitalist fantasy. the more you define yourself in comparison to this myth the more you justify social structures staying the same with minor accommodations to the ‘exceptions’ and the continued pathologizing of discomfort under hostile conditions

[decadentparadisekitty]

musings

The Origin of Misogyny: It is not Men’s Socialization or Men’s Nature, but Men’s Ability

The Origin of Misogyny II: Men’s Inability to become Pregnant is a Source of both Superiority and Inferiority

Counterarguements to “The Origin of Misogyny” 

tags 

Reading List 

anon ask