Gi7979 - ☔gigigi

every moment of every day i am thinking about this tiktok

eu tentando saber se o twitter caiu entrando no twitter sendo que ele ta fora do ar A

dunmeshi manga spoilers //

falin is very attractive. thank you for your time.

you guys ever think about how trigger turned one singular panel of chilchuck and laios walking and talking into chilchuck implicitly trusting laios while also being cute as hell at him

i think about it sometimes

Crazy how so many feminist readings of Frankenstein are consistently so heteronormative and lowkey sexist in it of themselves.

Like, the whole “the women of Frankenstein are boring and docile” argument, while has its amount of merit, feels more like an excuse to just further ignore and over-generalize the women in the book instead of actually trying to analyze them. Elizabeth especially is the main victim of this reading because she’s always read as the subservient woman that doesn’t have much say in the book, yet one of her most defining instances is her standing up for Justine in front of a court of law when others were too frightened to.

She literally dropped “They call this retribution. Hateful name! When that word is pronounced, I know greater and more horrid punishments are going to be inflicted than the gloomiest tyrant has ever invented to satiate his utmost revenge” and people still want to dumb her down and define her solely through her “reliance on men”.

And the whole “Victor usurped the biological/feminine power of women to give birth.” I’m sorry, but I kinda really hate this reading so bad. Not only does it read as incredibly transphobic, but at the same time it further pushes the idea that the only power/purpose a woman has is to give birth. How can you condemn Elizabeth for being “docile and subservient to men” but then turn around and say she and women are powerful through their ability to give birth and be mothers/wives? Does that imply Victor should’ve just married and impregnated his sister/cousin? Would that have “preserved Elizabeth’s power”? because it seems to me her marriage to Victor destroyed whatever power or autonomy she had. And what about how Mary Shelley herself was struggling with pregnancies and childbirth before and while writing Frankenstein? Was she a weaker woman for not being able to give birth properly?

The women in Frankenstein are obviously less active than the men, and that is a point to be made, but at the same time, we do such a disservice by making broad and disconnected assertions without actually giving the women the time of day for what they do do.

Can we talk about how Elizabeth was groomed into the role of a mother/bride since she was four? How she had dreams and wanted to “people [the world] with imaginations of her own”? How she lost hope in those dreams following the wrongful execution of her “more than sister”? What about how Caroline Frankenstein haunts the whole narrative; how her death influences Victor’s obsession with the dead and how she forced her children into an incestuous, (mutually) non-consensual relationship? Why is it so common that people will read Justine’s existence as solely a character to bring Victor guilt rather than looking deeper into how her conviction and execution affected Elizabeth’s perception of the world? Why is there so much focus placed on what these women aren’t instead of what they are?

Ok sorry for the messy ranting. Just had a burst of energy. As usual, I’m sorry for coming off as hostile and kinda confusing but at the same time I’m just a bit frustrated with the common interpretations of Frankenstein and wanted to yap. Feel free to add more ideas, I like talking abt this kinda stuff.