shutupimscrolling:

welcome to tumblr

namisis:

brilliant-smallfish:

The gods know what you’ve done.

this is the funniest shit i’ve seen for like 3 years

(via conversationparade)

hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 

hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.

So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.

We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 

(via roachpatrol)

princesscharmont:

Siri is beyond the human concept of gender.

(via zoomalark)

darning-socks:

Additional stages preceding Stage 4 include, but are not limited to:
the scene phase
meme-loving fuck
incessant roleplayer
brainwashed democrat
darning-socks:

Additional stages preceding Stage 4 include, but are not limited to:
the scene phase
meme-loving fuck
incessant roleplayer
brainwashed democrat
darning-socks:

Additional stages preceding Stage 4 include, but are not limited to:
the scene phase
meme-loving fuck
incessant roleplayer
brainwashed democrat
darning-socks:

Additional stages preceding Stage 4 include, but are not limited to:
the scene phase
meme-loving fuck
incessant roleplayer
brainwashed democrat
darning-socks:

Additional stages preceding Stage 4 include, but are not limited to:
the scene phase
meme-loving fuck
incessant roleplayer
brainwashed democrat

darning-socks:

Additional stages preceding Stage 4 include, but are not limited to:

  • the scene phase
  • meme-loving fuck
  • incessant roleplayer
  • brainwashed democrat

(via impossiblevariable)

Q

Anonymous asked:

the gender equality thing in dragon age confused the shit out of me. you have text explaining men and women are viewed as equals but then you have oghren being all lecherous towards morrigan or leliana

A

covenmouse:

dreadwulf:

dragonagestudies:

dreadwulf:

millennium-fae:

dreadwulf:

Apparently having a female-lead religion centered on a holy woman makes no difference whatsoever to culture and society! Oh wait no.

It’s like they wanted to have female player characters, which is good, and female NPCs who are warriors and stuff, which is also good, so they felt like they needed to have an explanation for why it’s normal to have lady soldiers in this world so they developed their lore just enough for that (look over there! Andraste!) and STOPPED THERE.

As if it wouldn’t impact the entire society and the way different genders interact and attitudes towards sex and family and lineage. As if a female savior who was married to both a man and the Maker would somehow produce the exact same social mores about chastity and fidelity and heteronormativity. The entire origin myth of the religion is that Andraste’s husband got jealous and betrayed her. The original sin is not sex, it’s sexual jealousy! So why is there still slut shaming? Why is monogamy still enshrined? Why there no same-sex marriage, when there’s no proscriptions against homosexuality in their religion? None of this makes any sense!

Besides being a huge missed opportunity to imagine a more egalitarian society, it’s lazy writing. It’s not thinking through the implications of your own canon, which is a fatal flaw for worldbuilding.

Personally, I think the misogyny in the Dragon Age world is intentional, and not just the result of lazy writing. I’m not denying the fact that having such strong misogyny exist raises questions - like just how much power does a female-dominated religion have if misogyny exists on the level it does? What is the importance of women in the Chantry if women aren’t as important anywhere else?

But there are some writings that make it hard to believe that the Andrastian religion is intended to do anything beneficial sexism-wise. Anders in particular drove me to conclude that the Chantry’s strong female presence is just a pretty picture.

According to Isabela, the world of Thedas is “not kind to women”, and the male Templar Emeric doesn’t deny this claim. He only bitterly says “I hope you’re wrong, madame.” Isabela also describes her personal experience with what was probably an abusive relationship with a husband that only ended when the husband was killed. It’s possible that women in abusive relationships aren’t supported or cared for, even if they receive sympathy. 

Ser Aveline (Aveline’s namesake) was the first female Orlesian chevalier and was murdered because she defeated all her male opponents. This was 250 years ago, and is specific to Orlesian culture only. However, a female Warden in Origins will hear both skepticism and distain about their ability more than once. Origins takes place in modern Fereldan, which means that women in battle is still a relatively new/misunderstood  concept worldwide. Despite, you know, Andraste being a warrior.

If Isabela doesn’t come back to give the relic back to the Arishok and you take Fenris with you, Fenris will put you up to a battle to the death, the reward being that the Qunari surrender. If Hawke is female, the Arishok will say to Fenris that he cannot battle a woman, and Fenris will respond with “but she is no women, she is a warrior” (paraphrased.) This case is less nuanced, because it’s possible that Fenris is just playing to Qunari mentality, and doesn’t actually see Hawke as “powerful in spite of her gender.”

Anders interactions with a female Hawke are sometimes very different from a male Hawke, and he makes a couple of misogynistic remarks about women throughout Awakening and Dragon Age II; flirting with Velanna upon first meeting her and then sarcastically telling others years later that “all Dalish women are crazy” as a reference to her, snapping at Aveline by taunting her dead husband’s sex life, and sneering at female Hawke with “little girl" if Hawke threatens him upon first meeting, compared to just "boy" if Hawke is male.

I would put it up to Anders having difficulty seeing women in a professional, non-romanticized perspective, which might be a direct result of the female-dominated Chantry.

For example, flirting with a female Hawke will prompt Anders to cheekily snark back (“Sweetheart, I’m not letting anyone lock me up - you included.”), but with a male Hawke, he’ll speak with a more equal, less detached manner (“They’re not so much interested in destroying me as destroying my kind and all I represent”).

This detached way of interacting with women also exists in the way he talks about his past relationship with Karl to a male Hawke, but not a female one. His writer claimed that she didn’t think a bisexual man would bring up the topic to a women, but why not? Loosing Karl was devastating to Anders, why wouldn’t he share his grief with someone willing to listen, female or not? This, along with his attitude towards women in general, makes Anders a man who doesn’t trust, rely, or communicate with women as much as he does men. 

Alistair has much the same problem, except less antagonistic. He’s not quite as comfortable interacting with a female Warden compared to a male one, and at points it’s clear he’d rather consider the Warden the ‘cute girl next door’ rather than a fellow soldier. EDIT: I just remembered that his disposition towards the female Warden will actually drop if you respond to his itty-flirt of “there has never been many women in the Grey Wardens. I wonder why that is?” with the response of “I would prefer that you stop thinking of me as a women”. This tells me that heteronormality is common amongst the Andrastian religion, and that a man is expected to see women in romantic lights, even if they’re your fellow soldiers.

In Dragon Age II, seven years later, he’ll jokingly refer to being reprehended by Meredith as being ‘emasculated’ and his marriage to the Warden as the ‘ball and chain’, also joking with Teagan in the flavor of the Warden being the ‘man’ in their relationship. So, you know, the misogyny is there, just not aggressive or violent.

To me, both Alistair and Anders being followers of the Andrastian religion is no coincidence. The way I see it, the strong presence of women in their religion is nothing more than having all female Saints, still governed by a male-associated higher power. Fans of Dragon Age sometimes like to think that Andrastians appreciate or even revere women because of their religion, but I don’t see any evidence to prove that this is the case. Maybe some people do, but it wouldn’t be because of their religion.

Overall, I think that the Andrastian religion is a male-focused religion with multiple female figureheads. Women aren’t appreciated or communicated with, but the statues and paintings will portray their likeliness for the sake of culture.

To me this only further highlights the inconsistencies of this world. Because yes, Anders is enormously sexist, and the entire Alistair storyline is dripping with patrilineal nobility crap. But I feel that your examples are all things that should not exist in this world, given the lore we have. Except maaaaaybe in the Qunari tradition, but even there it’s presented pretty inconsistently.

Anyway. The Divine, the head of the Chantry, is a woman. The Grand Cleric is always a woman. ALL of the priests in non-heretical branches of Andrastianism are women. Per the religion women are the ones who make doctrine, the ones who appeal to Andraste for guidance (because the Maker, if you’ll recall, is gone, he’s an absent father figure and Andraste acts in his place) and female authority figures are the ones who call an Exalted March,

And yet for some reason men in the story can’t picture a woman in a position of authority. Where did that come from? From thin air? Why would that seem at all outlandish when they see it literally every day?  Because in a Chantry-dominated society all of these characters were surrounded by women running things from birth, and yet they go around acting otherwise. Is there some other cultural tradition that states that women are naturally inferior? Which one is it then? Where is it? We never see one.

There is no plausible reason for this, it’s just this free-floating thing that makes no sense, unless you happen to think of the inherent weakness of women as a biological necessity that requires no explanation.

Then you can act like this sort of behavior just naturally happens anywhere that people are, because sexism is normal and just going to happen independently of the history and culture of a people.

I do not believe that this is how things work. I think this is a normalization of sexism not to mention heteronormativity and the gender binary and thinking that’s the natural way of things rather than a cultural construct. I don’t think ideas just appear everywhere simultaneously without explanation or origin and I don’t think these ideas in particular reflect any kind of natural law.

What we have here is a pretty spectacular failure of imagination. To still be leaning on male chauvinism and the rape and abuse of women for storylines when it flies in the face of the world you’ve created is to me the very definition of lazy writing, when you could be creating something completely new and different instead. It’s really too bad.

What about Orzammar though? They don’t have Andraste, they have paragons, most of which are men. Right from the start, it’s not an equal society if apparently 90% of the paragons - the perfect examples of dwarven excellence - are men. 

There’s also just the matter of how the women are treated. The two women in the Diamond Quarter of the Dwarf Noble origin are noble hunters; women looking to join families as concubines so that they may rise up in class in exchange for bearing a child (hopefully a son). They’re basically just breeding stock, and are regarded as such given how Rica is treated. Beraht is basically using her so that he can join the noble caste in claiming he’s a “distant uncle” of hers. Which, when that plan falls apart, cuts ties from her immediately and tells his companions to go for it if they’re interested in her (implying rape?)

I’m no expert on dwarven society though, so maybe there’s something I’ve missed that paints Orzammar as having been about equality at some point. But from what I’m going on, Ozammar is about the only society that makes sense as being sexist. Which isn’t necessarily bad if it was used as a foil to bring attention to said sexism (perhaps by creating a gender equality Ferelden). By itself, it just falls into the backdrop. Going from Ferelden to Orzammar is basically going from one patriarchy to the next.

A note about Anders. He mentions in a dialogue with Velanna that it was always the same templar who brought him back to the Circle; the templar being a woman (Rylock). Perhaps that also ties in with his sexism?

good point re: dwarves. I guess if we see a new dwarven city in Inquisition it could turn out that this varies from one area to another. But yes, pretty much all of the societies in Thedas show roughly the same attitudes towards gender with really very few cultural differences, which is ridiculous.

The only society that sounds like it could be different is Rivain, which is of course completely off-screen and we rarely meet people from there.

It’s a really interesting conversation here, the only thing I’d like to point out about Rivain is what little information we have about it is equally jacked up.  On the one hand, I remember codexes and the like listing Rivain as a female-dominant society, basically like the Thedas Amazon equivalent…but then Isabela is from Rivain and specifically says that her mother literally sold her to her (abusive shitbag of a) husband, as was customary.  so…well done bioware i guess.

I just got done with the Paragon of Her Kind quest in Origins, and I have to say: for a society that seems obviously set up to be more socially conservative and restrictive than mainstream Ferelden, Orzammar has a hell of a lot more women in positions of power. It’s not perfect by any means (90% of the Paragons are male, the weird emphasis placed on female “Caste Climbers” even though write-ups say there’s as many men as women trying to sleep their way up the social ladder), but two of the main antagonists of that arc are women and both of them (Jarvia and Branka) have a level of autonomy that is almost literally unmatched by any other woman in the game, including a female Grey Warden. Half of the generic NPC Deshyr lords are female, at least a third of opponents in the Proving are women. It would have been nice to have more women in the very highest ranks of the dwarven leadership, but no reacts to the notion of a queen as unprecedented.

It also bugs me that most of your options for calling out sexism as a female Grey Warden are to say, “I’m not like other girls!” You can’t even respond meaningfully or non-shittily to the misogyny. :I

I feel like a lot of the sexism in Origins at least stemmed from laziness, but I feel like it was more deliberate in II. Obviously, I wish there wasn’t any sexism present in-universe, but I have to say, I prefer the more measured, considerate treatment in II, where we see more women in power and more thought given to the consequences of sexism and its effect on the characters and plot. In Origins, it just seems like 80% of the sexism you encounter is just there because DUH why wouldn’t it be???

omganaleya:

when your friend brings up something embarrassing that you did
image

(via impossiblevariable)

thebrokenheartedthatstillsing:

maxkirin:

"This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony. I use short sentences. And I use sentences of medium length. And sometimes, when I am certain the reader is rested, I will engage him with a sentence of considerable length, a sentence that burns with energy and builds with all the impetus of a crescendo, the roll of the drums, the crash of the cymbals—sounds that say listen to this, it is important.” - Gary Provost

Reading this was so satisfying woah
thebrokenheartedthatstillsing:

maxkirin:

"This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony. I use short sentences. And I use sentences of medium length. And sometimes, when I am certain the reader is rested, I will engage him with a sentence of considerable length, a sentence that burns with energy and builds with all the impetus of a crescendo, the roll of the drums, the crash of the cymbals—sounds that say listen to this, it is important.” - Gary Provost

Reading this was so satisfying woah
thebrokenheartedthatstillsing:

maxkirin:

"This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony. I use short sentences. And I use sentences of medium length. And sometimes, when I am certain the reader is rested, I will engage him with a sentence of considerable length, a sentence that burns with energy and builds with all the impetus of a crescendo, the roll of the drums, the crash of the cymbals—sounds that say listen to this, it is important.” - Gary Provost

Reading this was so satisfying woah
thebrokenheartedthatstillsing:

maxkirin:

"This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony. I use short sentences. And I use sentences of medium length. And sometimes, when I am certain the reader is rested, I will engage him with a sentence of considerable length, a sentence that burns with energy and builds with all the impetus of a crescendo, the roll of the drums, the crash of the cymbals—sounds that say listen to this, it is important.” - Gary Provost

Reading this was so satisfying woah

thebrokenheartedthatstillsing:

maxkirin:

"This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony. I use short sentences. And I use sentences of medium length. And sometimes, when I am certain the reader is rested, I will engage him with a sentence of considerable length, a sentence that burns with energy and builds with all the impetus of a crescendo, the roll of the drums, the crash of the cymbals—sounds that say listen to this, it is important.” - Gary Provost

Reading this was so satisfying woah

(via theivorytowercrumbles)