I really want Day to get big mad at everyone.
I want Day to blow up at his Mum and Night and Mhok. I want Day to realise his power and his strength and his right to make his own decisions, to choose his own path, make mistakes, take risks and have secrets.
I want Day to get completely fed up with people using his disability as a way to keep him close, to keep him in check, to keep him reliant on them, to keep him scared.
I want Day to tell them all to get fucked. He might still need assistance with his disability but that doesn't mean he needs THEM. I want Day to up and go stay with Aon.
I want to see the different stages of realisation in Night, Mhok and their mum. Night knows Day is right and he's already acted on this understanding. Their Mum has to know that Day doesn't need her as a carer - she's never home. But Mhok will be oblivious, completely blindsided by Day's words and behaviour.
Mhok who hides from any internal study by focusing on what's outside. He focuses on Day, puts everything into Day. He attaches himself to Day's vulnerability, but he carefully keeps his own vulnerability behind sky high walls.
He kissed Day in a moment of Day's vulnerability, he took strength from it and did the scary thing (but perhaps Mhok's fear was tempered by the imbalance of power that always exists between them). Now Mhok needs to tear down the walls. He needs to make himself more vulnerable than he has ever seen Day. And he has to do it with the knowledge that Day doesn't need him, and Day might not want or choose him. Mhok has relied on his position of power in their relationship, he has keep secrets and made decisions that benefited him whilst telling himself that it was all for Day.
Mhok needs to be scared and alone, he needs to feel the threat of abandonment. He needs to feel like Day did when Mhok pranked him at the beach.
He needs to do the big scary thing, and he needs to do it from a place of powerlessness and respect.
16 notes
·
View notes
one thing that I think is interesting about Aurora: given what Elijah did, the horrors that she knows compulsion can be, you would think she would shy away from using compulsion, and yet she uses it very frequently
3 notes
·
View notes
i keep getting dragged into the snow white discourse and it's starting to irritate me. like idc if rachel zegler was scared/didn't like the 1937 adaptation as a child, but she needs to do her homework because the prince was not a stalker--and that's the tip of iceberg. but on the other hand, i don't particularly care that the prince isn't going to be in the remake either, and i get that snow white can "choose both" (i.e., being a leader and being in love), but i feel like everyone forgets other details of disney's snow white.
like, of course, snow white has a wicked stepmother who wants her dead because of the queen's jealousy and vanity against her stepdaughter. and while the huntsman advised her to run away, snow white ultimately made the choice to run into the forest. but then snow white realizes she needs to support herself, and she eventually finds friends and creates her own little community of support (i.e., the forest animals and the seven dwarfs)! and sure, i get where some people have issues with snow white cleaning and cooking for the dwarfs and see it as a gendered role, but cooking and cleaning are important skills for fostering independence. so, after saying all of this, i think a lot of people miss the themes of community, support, and independence. all of these themes, along with themes of vanity and jealousy, are still applicable today.
also lol i'm sorry but the prince discourse, again, is so funny to me. like he's only in the 1937 movie for about five minutes but he does have an established relationship and reciprocated feelings with snow white. and when he appears at the end of the movie, the prince wasn't expecting to wake snow white up with "love's first kiss"--he was there to say goodbye to her. he didn't know that "love's first kiss" was going to awaken snow white--only the audience did, which is dramatic irony, a common literary device. anyway the prince is fine but if andrew burnap's character takes over that role and provides something fresh, i'm willing to watch that.
TLDR: snow white discourse is wild. i think people forget or feign ignorance about the details in disney's original snow white film. and while it's totally fine to want to offer a new twist on the tale, don't completely disrespect the original work or completely dismiss ideas on why the original work is so popular in the first place.
10 notes
·
View notes
terfs when a study shows literally anything positive about trans people/transitioning: 'hm i think this requires some fact-checking. Were those researchers REALLY unbiased? Because if they were biased this doesn't count and if they weren't knowingly biased they probably were unconsciously biased, woke media affects so much these days. Have there been any other studies on this? Because if there haven't been this could be an outlier and if there have been and they all agree that's a bit odd, why aren't there any outliers, and if there have been and any disagree we really won't know the truth until we very thoroughly analyze them all, will we? Were there enough subjects for a good sample size? Did every single subject involved stay involved through the whole study because if they didn't we should be sure nothing shady was going on resulting in people dropping out. Are we 110% sure all the subjects were fully honest and at no point were embarrassed or afraid to admit they didn't love transitioning to the people in charge of their transition? Are we 110% sure none of the subjects were manipulated into thinking they were happy with their transition? In fact we should double-check what they think with their parents, because if the subjects and their parents disagree it's probably because they've been manipulated but their cis parents have not and are very unbiased. How many autistic subjects were there because if there weren't enough then this doesn't really study the overlap between autistic and trans and if there were too many then we just don't know enough about what causes that overlap to be sure this study really explains being trans and isn't just about being autistic. How many AFAB subjects were there because if there weren't enough this is just another example of prioritizing AMAB people and ignoring the different struggles of girls and women and if there were too many how do we know sexism didn't affect the results. Was the study double-blinded? We all know double-blinded is the most reliable so if this one wasn't that's a point against it even if the thesis literally physically could not be double-blinded. Look i'm not being transphobic, i want what's best for trans people! Really! But as a person who is not trans and therefore objective in a way they cannot possibly be, i just think we should only take into account Good Science here. You want to be following science and not being manipulated or experimented upon by something unscientific, right?'
terfs when they see a study of 45 subjects so old it predates modern criteria for gender dysphoria and basically uses 'idk her parents think she's too butch', run by a guy who practiced conversion therapy, 'confirmed' by a guy who treated the significant portion of subjects who didn't follow up as all desisting, definitely in the category of 'physically cannot double-blind this', completely contradicted by multiple other studies done on actual transgender subjects, but can be kinda cited as evidence against transitioning if you ignore everything else about it: 'oOOH SEE THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKIN BOUT. SCIENCE. Just good ol' unbiased thorough analysis. I see absolutely no reason to dig any deeper on this and if you think it's wrong you're the one being unscientific. It's really a shame you've been so thoroughly brainwashed by the trans agenda and can't even accept science when you see it. Maybe now that someone has finally uncovered this long-lost study from 1985, we can make some actual progress on the whole trans problem.'
5 notes
·
View notes