#as if that stereotype doesn't do immense harm

[spider-xan]

Not tagging this bc it's outside the scope of the novel and getting into real life, but once again, I am frustrated with trying to explain the racial politics that complicate discussions of benevolent misogyny bc a lot of white women just won't listen to WOC who try to explain that white women are both harmed by AND benefit from - even enable - benevolent misogyny, at the expense of POC (including MOC), it just gets reduced 'But it's all equally bad for all classes of women', and I and other POC are sitting here thinking of all the times we've experienced white women confidently being racist bc 'I'm a strong, outspoken woman', and if we even so much as say, hey, can you please stop being racist?, these white women start crying and yelling for the nearest white men to save them from the ethnic~ bullies~, like, that is a VERY common way that white women are yes, being patronized and treated as lesser by white men, but also using it against POC, and that's not even getting to when it escalates to the racist police being called on Black people especially.

[sskk-manifesto]

(๑•́ω•̀)

[lesbiansforboromir]

Alright, I saw too many posts about DA4 and the pressure valve on dragon age opinions burst so I'm breaking my silence about mage discourse.

One day someone at bioware, can't remember who, made the worst possible PR decision and openly declared mages as an allegory for mental illness. It has all been downhill from there. Quite literally I could not be less interested in treating mages and mental illness as even tangentally related. Within the canon of DA, mages are people who literally have demons speaking to them, can literally become possessed by demons, and who are literally dangerous in extremely real and unavoidable ways even without the demon stuff. Lobotomies not only exist, but also work, the 'tranquil' are no longer plagued by the demons, nor do they have the powers of fireball anymore. It's like they called the 1300's and asked a witch hunter to write this.

And I am absolutely certain this framing is extremely cathartic for some people to relate too. Themactically speaking, turning all the dials up on a social issue for a fantasy world will always resonate with many of the victims of that issue. There is something impactful about taking all the insane stereotypes society has created around your lived experience, deciding they're real in an imaginary world and then playing out scenarios where you deal with them. God only knows gay people love vampires and werewolves.

But in that case it also has to be understood that others will not like it, or find it cathartic at all. The sticking point for me is probably the fact that mages are immensely powerful, something I find so egregiously unrelatable that any possible power fantasy it might be tempting me into just evaporates. And then of course there is Tevinter, which if we're following the allegorical logic is a state ruled by the mentally ill whom have 'embraced their demons' and so are now ruling an empire built on the enslavement of the 'pure' and 'untainted undemonic' population. Which I feel like, if we're weighing the mage narrative on the merit of it's being a cathartic themactic framing, is stretching the concept quite thin.

So I've always experienced mage based narratives as entirely seperate from their irl allegories at least emotionally, even if cognitively I do understand the parallels. And when you look at it like that, so sorry, it actually is a grey moral issue. If there were people in real life who could, without any additional equipment or technology, just create a fire/lightning storm from thin air, that on it's own would be a problem society would have to grapple with solving. You could not just let people with such power live under the same rules as everyone else. Like Wynne as a child nearly burned a barn down and scarred another child. These are not hypothetical issues within the canon.

And somewhat unrelated side tangent but I've seen people say, without an ounce of irony, 'magic doesn't kill people, people kill people' as an argument against the need for magic control. Which is just a fascinating framing all by itself, given the only difference between guns and DA magic is that one is an external tool and the other is built into select people. AND given that witholding gun licenses from the so called 'mentally disturbed' is an often advocated for policy... it's just kind of ironic is all!

Anyway the POINT is this is kind of frustrating to me because technically the mages COULD be a fun little play pretend thought morality experiment. This IS a difficult problem to solve, DA rightly engages with the fact that any institution created to control a subsection of people will create an environment of horrific abuse and dehumanisation. And that is only doubled with the introduction of religious control. When presented neutrally this is a 'do you sacrifice the few for the sake of the many' quandary with a lot of interesting caviates. IS it for the sake of the many? Would the actual number of people harmed by mages really exceed the number of mages themselves? Are we not just sacrificing the peace and freedom of many people for a hypothetical? But IS it a hypothetical since the slaver empire ruled by mages exists? But the hypothetical in the other direction isn't a hypothetical either, since the mage rebellion also exists and arguably did greater harm than free mages might have otherwise! But is that true? What about all the years worth of people in history hypothetically saved from harm by the strict control over mages? Isn't pushing for a more ethical circle a better plan than total abolishion? But is an ethical circle even possible given the cultural position mages hold? But in that case are free mages really going to be able to lead peaceful lives anyway? Doesn't the circle also protect them? But that is a situation the circle created and enforced right? Or is it? Since, once again, Demons definitely exist and mages have become possessed by them for centuries, and other mages have used their powers to dominate and abuse others in the past!

Theoretically, two people with exactly the same humanitarian purposes could argue the opposite ends of this debate in good faith, which is a fantasy. Because in the real world no one is born with a body inherrently able to cause more harm than the majority of other bodies. In fact, the opposite is true, people are born with more vulnerable bodies than the majority and are oppressed for it, their vulnerability taken advantage of by the dominant states in order to further those state's agendas in some way or other. Oppression does not have a 'good reason' to exist that originates from the oppressed class, those supposed reasons are fabricated after the fact to justify oppression in the minds of the general populace whom hold themselves to moral standards that a State does not. So, inherrently, the mages in DA are a fantasy idea and should be thought of as such.

But, amongst many DA fans, this is not the case. We've all seen people argue without irony that NOT taking a moral stance on the side of the mages and against the circles reflects badly upon your actual IRL moral compass. And it's not just that you cannot be pro-templar, even being neutral about it or finding the pro-mage characters or the mage narrative uninteresting is treated as an immoral action. People will ask things like 'who would even side with Meredith?' or 'does anyone even save the templars in DAI?' as if the choices you make narratively in a game have to be a moral judgement! Which we all know is nothing new in terms of fandom discourse, but within the mage/templar discussion it is so pervasive and so volatile that it makes it worth noting.

And like, obviously 'people get too serious about fiction on the internet' is such a non-issue that it's barely worth talking about. But I do find it interesting nonetheless as it's been a major part of my experience of being in the DA fandom, which now spans longer than a decade of my life (screams).

People have told me that I shouldn't treat this narrative theme as debatable because they relate to mage struggles as an autistic. And at the time I was pretty young and didn't really have a response to that other than a vague but powerful sense of discomfort. Nowadays, when I'm pretty sure I'm also autistic, I realise I was made deeply uncomfortable by the idea that there was anything relatable for me within the mage narrative. I do not have magic powers and I can't blow people up with my mind, I can't even get out of bed most days. Most people feel like mages to me just for being able to work a job or take care of themselves without help. And narratives of oppression that surround people with inherrent powers that far exceed anyone else just do not resonate! Which ultimately is just a reinforcement of the concept that the way people engage with fiction is not equivalent to actual real social issues, and really should not be treated as such.

[bybdolan]

I watched Obviously Queer's video about the rise of mlm media yesterday, and while I think it was pretty good and insightful as a whole, I do feel like sometimes the women* and nonbinary people writing mlm fanfic and novels are let off the hook a bit too easily, if that makes sense. I myself am a writer of mlm stuff, and also not a beliver in strict Own Voices policies (duh), but I find it noteworthy that mlm-heavy fandom spaces tend to circle around very specific kinds of mlm works – namely stuff that was made with a non-mlm audience in mind – outside of the works they produce, which obviously colors their writing. (Look at the immense popularity of stuff like The Song of Achilles and Red White Royal Blue.) I like to think that it is universally acknowledged that when writing from a perspective that isn't your own, you should do research to try to be as accurate and respectful to the experience as possible, but I feel like that sentiment is not really Big when it comes to writing gay men. Part of me wonders if that is a result of the combination of the idea of "Own Voices" (understandably) mainly being used to critique writers who inhabit less privileged perspectives and insert their prejudice into their works while wanting to check progressive boxes, and the fact that people for some reason assume that gay men are the most privileged group within the LGBT+ community (as if you could make broad sweeping generalizations like that – i find this idea deeply troubling). People don't seem to feel the need to engage with mlm content that is actually aimed at gay men in order to better understand the experience they are writing. And it ... shows? Just because you yourself are queer doesn't mean that you automatically 100% understand the experience of people who are queer in a different way than you are. You are not immune to reproducing harmful stereotypes in your writing.

[zoobus]

What's your favourite entry on mangadex with a 6.xx score?

(Re: #Everything on mangadex with a 6.xx rating is either a powerful contender for best of the year or extremely niche fetish softcore)

Ugh, this is a hard one because I haven't been reading a lot lately and I lost a huge chunk of my saves after mangadex was killed off for some months. (Also because I don't actually finish anything I read, lots of my "favorites" are a first volume I loved so much I couldn't finish it. That's how my brain works. I haven't finished anything on this list.) Also best of the year *for the kind of story it's telling.

TW, a good chunk of these have sexual assault and/or skeevy sexual themes

Manga about girl with strong signs of BPD using sex to self-harm, I don't remember the name, sorry - Extremely pathetic girl, desperate to not get bullied ever again, thinks she can fool her peers into thinking she's one of them but nahhh, you see the looks the popular girls give each other - it's like cats watching a wet and whimpering mouse wearing cat ears bite the throat of other mice, looking over her shoulder for proof that this is worth it, that they think she's a cat too. Made me understand how self-harm sex works.

I Would Die for Your First Time - Okay, it's sitting at a 7.09 *now,* but when I read it like five years ago it at 6.18. Guy who looks like a stereotypical fat faceless hentai man marries so far out of his league, it causes him immense distress. Even though his super hot wife clearly loves him, he's unnerved by the fact that she's had so many partners before him, while he only had her. She swears that if she could go back in time, she would make him her first and oh wow is that literally the worst thing she could have said.

Because he does go back in time, and he does try to hold the assurances of his 30yo wife to her 15yo self who doesn't have a clue who he is, and he does find himself ruining the life (and the original timeline they shared) of the poor woman who made the mistake of loving him over and over and over again.

Tamarowa/Who Wants to Marry a Billionaire? - I both get and don't get the hate for this one, harem stuff seems to make people very mad. Anyway, Tamarowa is like if Danganronpa was about Who Wants to Marry A Billionaire, uncut HBO version. And if Danganronpa was good. Great example of horny and good story. Whenever some cornball suggests good writing and fetishistic, hand in pants writing are mutually exclusive, I think of Tamarowa. "I need you to psychoanalyze one of the contestants in my place. Go do ageplay with the milf and deduce the odds she's trying to murder me."

His Favorite Idol Moved Next Door - A fan has a crush on his idol. The idol has a merciless and cruel crush on him back. 6.02 because god forbid we cater to actual female sadists rather than masochists for once 🙄

The Villainess Wants To Punish The Sadistic Prince - I will probably get around to translating the final volume. One day. Please see first paragraph about loving things so much, I don't finish them.

By the way, it might be my pride speaking, but I wouldn't include the last two entries in the niche fetishcore category. That's more for like "my childhood friend is annoying! and also keeps getting splattered with smushed bug goo every chapter" or those collection of pics titled stuff like "The women in your life flirt with you while insulting your gf's small boobs"

[sleepwithangels]

ive hated exercising since i was in secondary school (even since primary, probably) and ive come to the conclusion that it must be because ive had fibromyalgia way longer than i thought as there's no way playing fucking netball for example should have caused me immense pain for days after. i did also just genuinely hate the way it was structured and how we were forced into doing things. it was a real relief when the school's counsellor (who was cool as shit, btw) got it so i didn't have to do pe in years 10 and 11, so i would hang out in the art room working on my gsce art stuff during those periods (a blessing and a curse tho as ive always been fat so people just assumed i was being lazy which is such a harmful stereotype). anyway all this is to say that after finally seeing a doctor who seems to actually give a fuck, and has put things in motion for me to get support, ive felt comfortable to say about this and that has really helped me be able to start finding exercise that my body actually enjoys and doesn't cause such immense pain. it's been difficult more in the mindset side of it but really great as well, to be able to move in a way that feels good and not for any other reason than that.

[firstumcschenectady]

“Math for the Win" based on Galatians 5:13-21 and Luke 19:1-10

The math of the Zacchaeus story has always bothered me. Because if he gives half of what he has away, and then he gives back what he took inappropriately TIMES 4, he has negative income really fast. Right? Which would mean he can't fulfill his promise. But he is a tax collector so he can probably do math, so why did he say it?

For the first time in my life, this week, I let myself finish that thought. Because, despite the fact that math isn't usually a great source of Biblical insight, the decades of annoyance about the math just couldn't be silenced.

If the math is impossible, I started to wonder, does that mean that Zacchaeus is actually saying that he doesn't defraud anyone? Because if that is the case, then it would follow that he isn't actually a bad guy, despite being a tax collector! Which would mess up a whole lot of what I thought I new about this passage.

So, like you do, I did some digging in my favorite commentaries, and (shock of shock for those who listen to me regularly) the Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels had something to say about this that I found important. Namely that the Greek verbs that Zacchaeus speaks “I give” and “I pay back” are in the present tense, which indicates that even before meeting Jesus, “Zacchaeus is already practicing this kind of compensatory behavior. The trouble is that the crowd does not believe him. He therefore bristles a bit at the stereotyping behavior of the crowd and responds to Jesus with a description of his customary behavior.”1

As someone who heard this lesson in Sunday School and learned a very annoying little song about it that never quite leaves my head, this is kinda crazy to learn. Zacchaeus was a good guy all along! He didn't have some conversion experience upon meeting Jesus, what he actually had was a chance to be SEEN and KNOWN for the faithful human he already was- and the actions of Jesus in going to his house and in giving him a platform to speak were actions of HEALING between Zacchaeus and the community, because afterwards they could see him as he was and accept him as part of their communal life.

And, for the record, NOW it makes sense why he climbed that tree – if he was already a man who lived his faith, of course he'd want to see the guy whose live shined with God's light.

Thanks math.

All of a sudden, this story resonates with some universal truths. Because, who among us hasn't been misinterpreted, misunderstood, perceived in the worst light and desperately wished to be heard well, understood, and appreciated for who we are? I fear the answer is that no one has been excluded from that horrible human experience. The one where the good things you do go unnoticed or sometimes even are intentionally brushed away, and the mistakes you made are used to define you, and no space is given for you to talk about what your actual intentions were nor that you are sorry for the harm you caused. Everything you do or don't do gets interpreted as bad, usually without anyone even talking to you about it directly.

It is awful stuff, right?

And it is common.

And it feels terrible.

Oh how I wish this were one of those things that didn't happen in the church. However, this is a thing that happens in the church. (If you didn't know that yet, YAY!!!!!!!! And sorry to burst your bubble.) I guess, for me, it helps a little bit that Paul speak to this as well, because this being a universal human and church failing at least means it isn't just my own personal failure of leadership that this happens here sometimes too. I take what I can get.

Galatians, being one of the authentic letters of Paul, is a source of great wisdom and insight that still manages to annoy me immensely. In this case, I really hate that he engages in “body soul dualism” and attributes all the evil stuff to bodies. I pretty emphatically disagree. In my opinion, my worldview, body soul INTEGRATION is where it is at. Our bodies are full of useful information about who we are, how we are, what feelings we have, and what we need. Our bodies guide us to the fullness of our humanity, and as we make space for the fullness of our humanity we move toward the Divine as well. Which I think is really important.

Now that I've argued with Paul, I can move on and say that I agree with his opening point that being free in God should not be taken as a reason to bite and devour each other. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves – the ones near and far, the ones in the church and out of it. If you are being distracted by his long list of “bodily desires” and those have been used against you in the past, let me offer the words of Dr. Wil Gafney on this, “In this case the author is focusing on excessive desires and self-gratifying desires rather than condemning the care and ending of one's body and health. Mutual sexual gratification would seem to be beyond rebuke.”2

Now that we've de-escalated our responses to Paul, what we can do with his wisdom that people who seek to be loving to each other sometimes chew each other up and spit each other out – like people did to Zacchaeus? He recommends “walking in the Spirit.” I recommend staying in your body. Really. I recommend letting yourself be mad, or sad, or disappointing in another, and then checking to see if there are any other emotions around it, and then finding out what thing(s) you value are violated and then thinking about what might make those better – and then if you can thinking about what the other person may be feeling, needing, valuing – and then TALKING ABOUT IT WITH THE PERSON.

Yes.

WITH the other person.

Because the Bible is really clear that the best way to deal with each other is directly. Even though it is really hard. Can you imagine if someone had said to Zaccheaus, “Hey, you are in a really awful profession, but you claim to be a decent guy. That doesn't add up to me, can you help me understand?” Or even, “I think you took too much money from me.” Or, “You claim to love God, but you seem to love money. Does that seem true to you?”

Those wouldn't be easy conversations, but they might have changed everything. I have been so grateful in my ministry for the people who say, “I see you doing this thing, and I think you should be doing that thing,” and say it to me directly so we can chat! I've also been grateful for those who say, “I was really offended by this thing you did.” Because we can figure out together what matters to us together and how to find an answer for the future that works for us both. And no one else is stuck in the middle, or pulled into drama, and no one is being maligned. It is a hard, beautiful thing.

I think that's the miracle of what Jesus did with Zaccheaus – he reconnected him to people so the people could talk to him again, ask him questions again, call him out even. He opened up the lines of communication. Because that's what it means to be in community – it means to be in communication with people, including in difficult communication.

Thank God Jesus called Zaccheaus out of that tree, and thank God his math SO CLEARLY didn't add up so he could become multi-dimensional to us, and THANK GOD other people have been misunderstood so we don't feel alone, and most of all thank God for the times when people are brave enough for the hard conversations. Those are the most holy ones.

Amen

1Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) “Textual Notes: Luke 16:1-16” p. 303.

2 Wilda Gafney, A Women's Lectionary for the Whole Church (New York, NY: Church Publishing, 2021), p. 278.

Rev. Sara E. Baron 

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady 

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

http://fumcschenectady.org/ 

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

September 3, 2023

[mack3030]

Imagine deciding that you want to make money off of people's mental health problems by creating paywalled "traits".

^ A post from the creator(s) "The Official Eunola".

I am 100% for mental health awareness and support, however there's a few things that should really be said: - If you do not have the illness in question, you'd better do your research and get input and support from people who DO have that illness. - You need to make sure that your traits/mod/etc do not play into or endorse/promote harmful stereotypes or imagery. For example, making "depressed" sims always sad is a stereotype. Just because you have depression doesn't mean you are always sad. Just because someone is "anxious" doesn't mean they are always scared or have irrational fears...etc. - People's mental health struggles should be respected and handled VERY carefully, and certainly should not be used to make a buck. Early access is well and good as it can be a great way to get input and make sure your content is respectful, but perma-paywalling something that is representative of people's real everyday struggles that have ended up with people very sick, and in some cases dead, is not classy. Do better. Also, as to the permapaywalled part of it, you claim that you can do this because your models were hand meshed by you. This tends to come from a post that has often been taken very out of context. Catsaar does a great job debunking it in THIS POST. Here's a great diagram that also explains this concept:

AND last, but not least: The only good thing about this being paywalled is the fact that at LEAST it might keep it out of the hands of the VARIOUS MINORS who play this game. Because they should not be exposed to any sort of content like this at all. The amount of disgust I feel towards these "creators" for not taking the (obviously well-deserved) flack they were getting and deciding to nix this whole project is immense. There are quite a few creators who do a very GOOD job with researching and representing mental health struggles in the sims without trying to profit off it, or adding harmful content. Your False Hope and @snowiii95 are two modders who do a very good job at this. :) If you can, please spread the word about this around. Because we do not need modders who are trying to profit off of mental health struggles in our community.

[gravedangerahead]

I would like to talk about the adultification of marginalized teenagers (and even children), and why you shouldn't claim that having being oppressed, abused, traumatized and/or having had adult responsibilities pushed onto them at a young age makes someone more mature, making it okay for adults in their lives to treat them like they're full adults too.

Preface: There's no such a thing as unproblematic media, something having problematic elements doesn't mean it should be yeeted into a trashcan and has nothing of value to offer. Liking a thing in fiction doesn't mean endorsing it in reality. Fiction can affect reality, and media aimed at young audiences will logically be held to different standards, but no single piece of media is gonna come into your home and brainwash you all by itself. It's more a matter of the work reflecting and then amplifying things that are already part of the culture. Real people are always more important than fictional people and you should treat them accordingly when discussing these things.

However, when arguments used to defend an aspect of a fictional work can be copy-pasted wholesale to defend real situations (and are in fact used for that already), that does bother me. What I'm addressing here is a specific argument I'd like to see retired, because I believe it causes real harm. This is not an attempt to condemn people's tastes, or use real life tragedies as ammunition in fandom drama.

Tw: sexual abuse, racism

Fantastic racism and fictional systems of oppression never have a one-to-one correspondence to real life, but authors necessarily draw from the society they're in and reflect that, consciously or not. If you ever heard that "dystopia is white people saying what if that stuff happened to us" that's why. That means that both the way it's treated in the work and the way we discuss it can have real life implications.

So, what is adultification?

Adultification Can Take Two Essential Forms:

1. A process of socialization, in which children function at a more mature developmental stage because of situational context and necessity, especially in low-resource community environments; and

2. A social or cultural stereotype that is based on how adults perceive children “in the absence of knowledge of children’s behavior and verbalizations. This latter form of adultification, which is based in part on race, is the subject of this report.

Girlhood Interrupted: The Erasure of Black Girls’ Childhood by REBECCA EPSTEIN, JAMILIA J. BLAKE and THALIA GONZÁLEZ- Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Inequality. Available online for free.

If you haven't read it or need a refresher, Vampire Academy is a YA series where the protagonist, Rose Hathaway, is a half-vampire, being trained to be a Guardian. As a dhampir, her society imposes on her the duty of protecting mortal vampires, the Moroi, against the undead evil vampires, the Strigoi. Rose's best friend, Lissa, is a Moroi princess and she very much wants to be her Guardian and protect her, but throughout the series it is made clear that the treatment of dhampirs is highly unfair. Rose is 17 for a large chunk of the series, and she's forced into a lot of tragic situations, she's an excellent fighter and kills a lot of Strigoi, but not without losing people and suffering trauma.

At a young age, Dhampirs take on immense responsibility, are taught to put their charges' lives ahead of their own, giving up their youth and autonomy. Dhampir girls and women are hypersexualized, exotified and disrespected, being mostly responsible for keeping their species going and looked down on for doing that at the same time.

Of course that specific system of fantasy oppression does not exist. But as you can see in the study quoted above, the phenomenon of adultification is not something that's exclusive to the VA universe. While it might seem very far removed from the reality of teens who have some level of privilege, particularly if they're first worlders, being forced to shoulder adult responsibilities, being denied the formative experiences of a carefree youth, being exposed to extreme violence and even forced to perpetrate it, having to leave home and take care of themselves, and many other traumas and oppressions are the lived reality of a lot of young people.

When those young people are perceived as more adult than they actually are, they are often denied the protection and nourishment they need and deserve due to the adult-like stereotypes assigned to them.

These stereotypical characteristics include sexual maturity, possession of agency to make important life decisions and the ability to be criminally responsible for their conduct.

(E)racing Childhood: Examining the Racialized Construction of Childhood and Innocence in the Treatment of Sexually Exploited Minors by Priscilla A. Ocen,also available online.

Minors who went through extreme circumstances are no less deserving of nurturing and protection than others, and neither are minors belonging to groups who have expectations of maturity pushed onto them, but they are often perceived differently. Trauma can come with a pseudo-maturity, but it doesn't rush you through developmental stages.

Adultification is a form of dehumanization that has very harmful consequences to real people.

One of the most dramatic ways that dhampirs were adultified in the books is the age law, an attempt to lower the age in which they become Guardians to 16, essentially hoping to use teens as living shields and cutting their youth short. Rose's experiences holding her own in fights against Strigoi at age 17 are used to defend the validity of this idea, even though she's horrified by it herself. Rose believes they should have a right to those last years of teenhood, both to prepare and to live.

The discussion around that law never seemed like a far-fetched idea completely detached from the real world to me personally, because around the same time there was an attempt to lower the age of criminal responsibility in my country to 16, which of course involveld a lot of biases around race and class. In fact much of what I expressed in this post comes from being exposed to a decade of debates against reactionaries while I was in school and later studying law, in which experts tried to convince the public that minors are a protected category for a reason, since they are at a different developmental stage, and that the extreme circunstances they might be placed in don't make them adults.

Another big way in which this type of bias harms minors is the perception of sexual maturity.

In the context of the commercial sexual exploitation of children, gendered and racialized biases against Black girls cast them as more mature and thus as possessing more agency over their sexuality than their white counterparts. They are viewed as “street smart,” less dependent on adults, and less vulnerable to adult manipulation or abuse. (Ocen)

While the fandom seems to mostly understand that the age law was wrong, there are some arguments that Rose's circunstances gave her the capacity to consent to a sexual and romantic relationship with her adult instructor that I've seen used by several people now.

I find that very troubling due to the real life implications of these arguments. I'm sure these people are very well meaning, and obviously I don't think anybody was defending all of this, but I don't think there's any way to say "she's mature for her age because she went through a lot" or "her society makes girls like her shoulder a lot of responsibility, and therefore she has a higher ability to consent to sex than other girls her age" that doesn't validate these harmful biases in some way.

Compared to white girls of the same age, survey participants perceive that • Black girls need less nurturing • Black girls need less protection • Black girls need to be supported less • Black girls need to be comforted less • Black girls are more independent • Black girls know more about adult topics • Black girls know more about sex (From the Georgetown Law study)

Some of the people making this argument seem to think that the fantasy racism, adult responsibility and exposure to violence that this character suffers are very far removed from reality, created wholesale for the sake of world building. As exposed above, that isn't the case, there are very real counterparts. And in fact, some other people were directly making the argument using real life examples.

Marginalized or abused people are aways forced to grow up faster and shoulder too much responsibility for their age, and that in no way makes them adults. It makes them more vulnerable to manipulation not less. They not only don't require any less protection, they are the ones who are most likely to be victimized.

Perpetuating the idea that those kids who are in the most vulnerable positions in society, and are forced to somewhat give up their childhood, are more mature and therefore it's okay for grown adults to take advantage of them is a problem.

If anybody actually read all this, thank you very much, and I hope I didn't sound aggressive. It's just a subject I find very important. And I truly don't think shipping something means you endorse it in real life, I just don't like to see that argument spread. Ship what you ship.

Of course fantasy racism isn't the only type that is pertinent to analysis of Rose's character, the word exotic is used to describe her and directly linked to her Turkish heritage quite a lot, but that's a whole other can of worms.

For English language sources those articles I cited are quite good, and there are some good videos I could rec.

[taylastudio2022]

'MICRO-WAVE FEMINISM WITH SHANIA' - PODCAST

The Micro-wave Feminism Podcast hosted by Jasmine

"To be a woman is to be a Human Being"

Notes:

Cultural intersectionality

- intersectional lens - a woman of colour, the importance of that

- the term "woman" - constantly evolving - although social construct - being aware that experiences vary

- learning about a wider experience

- how you find your own identity - within being a woman - it's so different and personal - different stereotypes - some people may reject - some might resonate within them

- culture - feminism has been birthed in this western ideal - that sometimes doesn't meet up

- feminist doesn't have to be someone who' trail blazing' or intentionally being super political - mother - huge icon for me - looking up to my own mum

- culture plays into it immensely - homemaking - lesser valued - not roles is the issue - but the value of the roles is the issue - bot shying away from that domestic "house-wife"

- "feminism was first introduced to me by a pakeha woman" - didn't connect/relate well- until seeing the Ted Talk "We Should All be Feminists"

- Speaking on lived experience

- finding more experiences - intersectionality - not just one narrow white definition of feminism

- growing up - putting beauty on a pedestal

- " what you choose to do with your body decides how much of value/attractive you are"

- found that women more interested in connecting

- human rights - predominately woman - not paid as much, more caring role - than that of corporate law - more assertive - paid more - male-dominated.

As a Pākehā woman - this podcast further reinforced the importance of making sure I don't subscribe to "white feminism" - although my work stems from autobiographical places and personal narratives - I don't want to in any way be harmful towards feminism - for everyone. Definitely want to look outside of just white women precedents and ideas of feminism - without of course appropriating. Think that the main takeaway from this podcast for me is again - there are many many varying lived experiences of women and I have only lived these privileged white women's experiences.

I also liked how Shania spoke on the fact that her mother was a huge feminist icon for her - whether she knew it or not. This resonated with me - as my mother has been a huge inspiration for me - and I feel like that speaks to this generational - matriarchy sort of themes that I am starting to flesh out from knitting.

There was also a discussion surrounding bringing value to traditionally feminine roles. In many cultures, women take pride in being homemakers and enjoy things such as cooking and cleaning for their families. It's important to value these roles as much as we do traditionally masculine roles. Similar to how knitting should have the same value as something like playing football.