The Male Chivalry fandom absolutely ruins their pants over the Defending A Woman’s Honor trope but cannot comprehend the Woman Defends Her Own Honor scenario and that’s why strong female characters get dumped on
Man punches a man who catcalls me on the street? A hero. A role model. I should marry him. I punch a man who catcalls me on the street? Overreaction. Crazy SJW feminist. It was a compliment. Why do we glorify violence. I’m the real bad guy
Kinda makes you wonder if my honor is really the motive here tbh
Alright, most people in the SPOP fandom agree that Entrapta is autistic, as her coding is extremely obvious. However, some of us also believe that our beloved protagonist Adora is on the spectrum as well. She comes off as quite the aspie, and while Asperger’s is no longer a diagnosis in the DSM-V (but is in other manuals), it falls under the blanket diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and its diagnostic criteria is still useful in analyzing people for signs of the disorder. In analyzing Adora’s character I will refer somewhat to both disorders, with the understanding that Asperger’s is a specific manifestation of ASD.
I would like to preface this by saying this is a headcanon and people are free to disagree with me. Some of these characteristics I’m going to bring up could also manifest because of her very sheltered upbringing in a cult-like atmosphere or mental illnesses such as anxiety and complex PTSD (both of which she arguably has). I am autistic myself, so obviously I am inclined to interpret these symptoms this way, but to each their own. It’s also worth noting that Adora has a lot of symptoms that cross over with AD(H)D, a cousin disorder to ASD, and it’s totally possible she has both.
In any case, there is now enough evidence hinting at Adora’s neurodivergence (especially now that the Rebel Princess Guide has been released) that I feel the need to explain this theory in detail instead of just occasionally mentioning it. So here goes…
Trespassing isn’t much of a thing in
Norway. The country has a law called
‘allemannsretten,’ meaning ‘every man’s
right’ or ‘the right to roam,’ that dates
back to ancient times and allows you to
freely roam and camp on all uncultivated
land- as long as you show respect for
nature and pick up your trash. SourceSource 2
It’s not just Norway, it’s lots of countries. And although it’s tricky to count where and to what extent it applies and where it doesn’t, I’d like to challenge the notion that it’s historically “normal” or “default” to privately own uncultivated land and legally prevent others from passing through. It very much depends on the culture.
In many places, uncultivated land is generally considered public/state-owned. (These two are practically synonymous today, though they carry a very different load. :p) And if it’s going to be privately owned, some conditions must be met. Perhaps you can’t own forests, mountains, or beaches, or if your land is close to the sea then you aren’t allowed to block access to it - things like that, depending on custom and geography. [Natural resources such as minerals or petroleum are also a huge concern, but we won’t get into that.]
In some places, not only passing through but also foraging in the wilderness is protected, so you either can’t own the wilderness at all (what qualifies as wilderness varies), or you can, but people can still come and pick berries and fish in the rivers and stuff. And if they’re not allowed, it’s a matter of environmental protection, not ownership.
The gist of it is that your farm and garden patch are safe, because you’re the one who cultivates them, so hey. All yours. But you didn’t put the berries and the fish there, now, did you? Historically, this simple concept was often taken as a given, unless/until a class of landowners had the will and the clout to challenge it. And in some regions (say, most Nordic and Baltic countries), no one ever did. So the right to pass through the wilderness and forage, no matter who owns the land, is completely ingrained in the local culture. In some cases, it’s not only legal to “trespass”, it’s illegal to put up a fence.
(Incidentally, the primary use of fences is not to block people. People can generally jump over them. It’s to block animals - wild ones from getting in and/or domesticated ones from getting out.)
Meanwhile, in England, the law would punish with terrible penalties peasants who strayed into enclosed land and hunted and gathered wild fruit and wood and such - because the landowners (including the king and the church) wanted it all for themselves. And these practices made people became outlaws en masse, and actually caused armed revolts. Because the peasants felt they HAD a right to all that, the right to the commons, and when the infringement of that right threatened their livelihood, they opted to simply defy the law.
…And that’s why I’m ranting about this. The history of bandits and outlaws is very much related with the history of land ownership, and especially with the concept of trespassing, and access to natural resources.
The enclosure of the commons was a tragedy and the artificial legal concept of trespassing as a punishable offense along with all other efforts to restrict the free movement of people including national borders is a violation of human rights which renders the guilty state devoid of legitimacy or right to exist the natural world is our common heritage and belongs to all of us.
