#(like it's still a bunch of misogyny and double standards)

[dying-offeels]

Me trying to recommend revolutionary girl utena: this is the best piece of media I’ve ever seen exploring the double standards of misogyny, for looking at cycles of abuse, and the deconstruction of fairy tales and what it means to grow up as a girl in our society. It’s stuffed with symbolism that makes it fun to analyze. And queer love saves the day in the end :)

Content warnings: incest, domestic abuse, underage sex, literal rape, and a girl getting stabbed like, a whole bunch.

Me: … I mean, it’s still a pg-13 show, so none of it’s *graphic*-

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

what the hell is the male or female gaze and why are zutarians obsessed with it

You know how some scenes in movies and shows, especially those from a few decades ago, have some scenes that exist solely to show off how hot an actress is, but in a really, really weird way that doesn't feel like a hot moment in a story, but a story suddenly being interrupted and turned into a cheap porno? You know, those scenes where there's a conversation going on, but the camera is practically up the actress's ass?

Some feminists starting pointing out how these scenes neither fitted the tone of the stories, nor were all that appealing, how many of the actresses were coerced into them, how many directors treated them like shit during said scenes, and how some of these actresses were MINORS, and how often times this was the only role of women in stories. "Look hot for the benefit of this male director and male audience members that think women are sexual objects, then disappear."

They also noted how, in some states of the US and in other countries, some set-in-stone rules about what things related to sex could or could not be shown to certain audiences had some sexist undertones. For exemple, a scene with no nudity of a male character getting a blowjob from his girlfriend was ALWAYS considered less inappropriate than him eating her out - again, even with no nudity or anything too explict. Violent rape scenes with the girl crying her eyes out for several minutes did not change movie ratings, while a quick scene showing a girl getting to orgasm did (but a guy having an orgasm wasn't a problem).

There was also the classic "Guy was in charge of directing a lesbian sex scene, made it look like a horny 11-year-old boy's very confused notion of how sex without a penis could even work."

They refered to that kind of thing by the catch all term" the male gaze".

Some people thought the term was great. I always felt it was unnecessary and a bit pretencious since we already had terms for those things: Misogyny, double-standards, exploitation of minors, abuse of authority, puritans seeing consensual sex/sex positivity as inherently more sinful/inappropriate than violence (even sexual violence), clueless men that think the experiences of gay women are the same as this fantasies, or just the regular crap movie trying to get the audience horny enough to watch it even though it has nothing to offer.

There was also a tiny, small, huge with problem with it: it implied men were always the bad guys, and women always the victims. No room to discuss women that abused their authority (look at the literal thousands of abusive "mom managers" of child/teen stars that gladly allowed hollywood creeps to perv on their children) or the men, and underage boys, that were also sexualized to absurd degrees (plenty of the infamous Twilight scenes of the werewolf guy constantly being over-sexualized happened when he was still a teenager).

And, it also led to a bunch of very stupid consequences:

1 - People claiming any kind of eroticism on screen was ALWAYS bad, inherently exploitative, served no purpose in a story, and could only be appealing to guys, not girls.

2 - People labeling ANYTHING they didn't like as "male gaze" or "male fantasy" - see Zutarians claiming Kataang is the writers' incel fantasy of the Nice Guy getting the girl that is totally not into him).

3 - Women labeling anything they personally liked "female gaze" as a way to imply their opinion was "superior" due to supposedly being "feminist" - see Zutarians claiming Zutara is the "female gaze", the "feminist ship", or that all the fanon content for it "by women, for women (and guys that are not sexist)."

These words are just like toxic, problematic, abusive, etc. It's the classic "There was a point to this at first, it got derailed pretty fucking fast, and now annoying, pretencious people on the internet will use this term incorrectly FOREVER because they think it makes their opinion objectively correct."

(The only difference being, again, I personally always felt like "male gaze" had some problems even without the internet watering it down to meaning "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm better than you")

[gascon-en-exil]

I am curious as to how Engage fare compared to its predecessor in terms of misogynistic writing (we should make a tier list)

Engage has female antagonists with awkwardly-handled sympathetic backstories coming out its ears, but to its credit it levels the playing field by giving all of its antagonists something like that. Granted that most of them get developed in the space of one scene apiece leaving them all feeling rushed and lazy, but at least it's Sombron is subjected to the same type of silliness that Zephia is.

As for a tier list? Hmm. Tellius is generally agreed upon to be the least misogynistic setting in the series, and easily the most even-handed with the fanservice courtesy of the hunky laguz (and Ike) that have broken containment and inspired all manner of porn by artists who don't know the first thing about FE. Both are these are quite surprising in light of the fact that this is also the setting with catgirls.

The GBA games aren't too far behind, having shaken off most (but not all) of the standard Kara misogyny and also being fairly light on fanservice. Both settings definitely still prioritize their male lords, but then so does Tellius in the end.

Engage probably slots in here, with overt fanservice designs at a midpoint between Awakening/Fates and Houses and the aforementioned equal distribution of silly backstory dumps. Veyle is pretty much Julia 2.0, complete with an actual personality this time.

I'm not going to try splitting hairs between them, so I'll lump the Kaga games and their remakes together in a group here. FE1 deserves props for what was a fairly revolutionary decision in 1990: making the lead's princess girlfriend a playable character right from the start and never a damsel in distress. On the flip side, Echoes is embarrassing for reinforcing and even doubling down on a bunch of misogynistic elements in 2017.

It's honestly hard for me to sort out the rest, but I'd most likely settle on Fates and Three Houses being about equally bad albeit in very different ways. The former's in your face about it, the latter isn't but can be just as insidious with the misogyny (one of the points I made in my latest video). Awakening might be worse than both, especially if we're also factoring in its homophobic humor and the SpotPass recruits and...Excellus.

Of course Heroes would be at the very bottom, and it continues to plumb new depths of sleaze nearly every month, but I'm focusing on mainline games here.

[mewtonian-physics]

Why I Like Puella Magi Madoka Magica (Yes, This Includes Rebellion)

I actually highly recommend people who haven't seen it but are shunning it based solely on what they've heard to read this. I'd say 'if they don't mind spoilers' but I get the feeling most if not all of them have already gotten all the spoilers without the proper context. Anyway, yeah. I have a lot to say about this show.

Let me just say right off the bat that no, I do not like Gen Urobuchi. He's done some truly horrifying things. I do not believe Puella Magi Madoka Magica to be one of those things; however, if someone is turned off from watching it due to his involvement I have no issue with that.

On to address the biggest argument I tend to see against this show.

"It's torture porn!"/"It's just a bunch of teenage girls suffering for twelve episodes!"/And so forth.

I feel like there's a double standard here. For example, there's another show I like called Hunter x Hunter. Hunter x Hunter has an extremely long arc generally referred to as the Chimera Ant arc.

Now, the Chimera Ant arc involves a lot of fucked up things. It's many chapters and many episodes of Gon and Killua, who are around 14 or 15 at the time, going through absolutely horrific trauma. This includes: all but watching a mentor figure die in front of them; fighting inhuman creatures, many of whom used to be human; being put into life-and-death situations by people who evidently don't care that much about their wellbeing; fighting amongst themselves; being driven to the brink of despair and becoming something truly horrifying and wanting nothing more than revenge; and almost dying many times.

These elements I listed... are some of the main things I see people complain about with regards to Madoka Magica.

Yet I have never once seen anyone call Hunter x Hunter torture porn. Not even the Chimera Ant arc specifically. I'm not saying that that never happens, but I've never seen it personally, and I certainly doubt it happens to the degree it does with regards to Madoka Magica. And the Chimera Ant arc is much, much longer. It is drawn out and horrible and gutwrenching and honestly, at some points, genuinely sickening.

So I can't help but wonder, why the double standard? To give people the benefit of the doubt, I tend to assume it's one or both of the following:

Madoka Magica is a magical girl show, which is not a genre you would typically expect such dark content. (Or, at least, it wasn't.)

It's because Gen Urobuchi is involved, and his other works cast a (fully justified) negative light on this one. Again, if this is your problem with it that is your prerogative and I do not blame you. But I actually rarely see people bring that up.

If I'm being less generous, I could say that perhaps it's some form of misogyny--that since the main characters of Madoka Magica are girls, it's worse and more unforgivable than it is for boy characters to go through similar things. (Because girls apparently can't handle trauma like boys can, or something? I don't claim to understand the reasoning behind it.) But I doubt that's actually the case in most situations, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was in a few.

Though really, if people want to complain about magical girl torture porn, Mahou Shoujo Site is right there. (God, I hate Mahou Shoujo Site.)

But that's enough with the rebuttals. I'm here to talk about why I personally like it.

Quality

I mean, come on. In terms of technical skill, this show has so much going for it. Outside of the occasional awkward moment (as showcased in the famous Meduka Meguca), the animation is stunning, particularly in the witch's labyrinths. The music is amazing and adds so much to each scene--some songs that played in particularly heartwrenching scenes still make me sad just to listen to. In my personal opinion, the voice acting in both the Japanese and English dubs is fantastic. (Though I know that's subjective for a lot of people.) The storyline is concise and does what it needs to do without padding things out or feeling rushed. Even the recap movies are worth watching for the new material they offer, to say noting of Rebellion. So much symbolism is packed into it without feeling forced (okay, except maybe for the 'Love Me Do' bit; that one felt a little excessive)--it's just something fun to think about. Hell, they came up with the runes system when they really didn't have to, and it's a great touch. On a purely technical level, I think Madoka Magica is amazing.

(General) Lack of Sexualization

Magical girl series are scary because they are a haven of fun costumes but also at high risk of oversexualizing teenage girls. I'd say it's the second worst genre in that regard. Although it's not perfect, particularly in regards to some of Mami's portrayal, Madoka Magica tends to steer away from sexualizing its characters. (Magia Record, on the other hand, went full tilt into that, which is a major factor when it comes to how much I despise it.) It does have some troubling moments, and honestly whoever animated the opening for the original show should come meet up with me some time (I just want to talk, I swear...) but I appreciate its general avoidance of the problem. (Also, the long transformation sequence in Rebellion not having a single moment of that at all is soooo refreshing. I love magical girl transformations. Right up until they start making the characters naked. Looking at you again, Magia Record... and like ten thousand other shows on top of that.)

Characters

My god. My god. I adore the characters. All five of the main girls feel so real to me, and they subvert expectations brilliantly. That calm, collected mentor figure? She's horribly lonely and acts like that because it makes her seem a lot stronger than she feels. The 'hero of justice'? So focused on her ideals that she doesn't see the truth of the matter until it's already too late. The selfish rival? Traumatized from her own time trying to be a hero and the horrible consequences. The cool, mysterious girl? An anxious kid trying to protect her only friend (and/or crush). And unlike a lot of magical girl shows, the main protagonist isn't a leader at all--she's just a normal kid watching her life fall apart around her and trying desperately to figure out what to do even as everything seems completely hopeless.

The character development feels genuine, and not just that--this show's portrayal of mental health issues is something I'm never going to forget. I watched it for the first time when I was the same age as the main characters and hadn't yet realized just how bad my own issues were, and I felt seen in a way I didn't fully understand myself. The scene where Madoka bursts into tears at breakfast because she's just realized the danger she was in and is grateful to be alive to eat breakfast with her family is heartwrenching. Kyouko and Homura closing themselves off to the world because their painful experiences have left them feeling like they can't rely on anyone else is horribly believable. Mami hiding her loneliness behind the façade of a cheerful, cool big sister figure is painful. And Sayaka. My god, Sayaka. I'll get into her in the next section.

Witches as a Metaphor for Depression

So, this is pretty obvious. I mean, it's despair that makes a magical girl turn into a witch. The things a witch leaves behind are literally called Grief Seeds. But it feels so true to life even outside of that. Watching Sayaka's ideals, hopes, and dreams get crushed and her subsequent spiral is something I've seen multiple other people talk about relating to in the same way I did. Sayaka is perhaps the most relatable character in the show for someone with depression. She starts out as a confident, cheerful, idealistic girl, and then the real world hits her. The world where there are truly horrible people who do awful things for no reason (the men on the train, for example). The world where good deeds don't necessarily get rewarded and good intentions don't make everything turn out okay. The world where sometimes things just suck and no amount of ideals can change that.

As her Soul Gem gets corrupted, it becomes more and more similar to severe depression. She experiences fatigue and dissociation and hopelessness, and she lashes out at her best friend for not being in her shoes even as she knows what she's doing is wrong--she runs away crying in the rain afterwards beating herself up over it. And at the end, when she reaches a point of absolute despair and no longer holds any of the ideals she once had, having become disillusioned with reality, she implodes. She draws into herself and creates a world of the things she loves, and attacks Madoka and Kyouko when they try to bring her out of it. She gives up entirely on the world and on herself. And supernatural influences or not, that's something a lot of people with severe depression can relate to.

But it doesn't stop there.

Rebellion And Its Inevitability

I've seen people talk about how they think Rebellion was out of character and unbelievable, but I have to disagree with that perspective. Rebellion is horribly believable, and despite the relative happiness of the main show's ending for everyone else (Madoka's speech about how people should hold on to hope and keep trying even when things seem impossible still brings tears to my eyes), Homura never really got any closure, and it's honestly not a surprise to me that things turned out how they did. I mean, think about it. The girl she spent literal years trying to protect just disappeared in the end, leaving her little brother and Homura as the only ones who remember her. No one else is even aware she ever existed at all. Homura says it herself in the movie--it made her feel like she was going crazy. Like her most precious memories with the person she loved most were just things she made up. How is a traumatized teenage girl supposed to deal with that? And yes, Homura is still a teenager--no matter how many loops she went through, she never actually aged. Her brain is still at the developmental stage it was when she started--that of a fourteen-year-old girl. She's not an adult and expecting her to make perfectly rational adult decisions is unfair--hell, expecting even an adult to make perfectly rational decisions in that kind of situation is unfair! And even though she decided to play the role of the devil, on some level she really thought she was doing what was best for Madoka, because the amnesiac Madoka told her that what happened would make her sad. Homura still spent the whole movie trying to do right by Madoka, even to the point where she was desperate to die so that Kyubey couldn't hurt Madoka anymore. Sure, her actions were hardly selfless, but again--this is a scared, traumatized teen in a desperate situation making a split-second decision. Even if she thinks Madoka will hate her for it, on some level she thinks she's doing the right thing. Actually, that's how you can tell--if it was a purely selfish action, she wouldn't accept Madoka potentially hating her. She'd want to keep Madoka by her side forever. But she doesn't. She accepts the fact that Madoka might someday hate her for what she did. She wanted to save Madoka even if it meant damning herself. And she didn't go about it in the smartest way, but yet again--scared, traumatized teenager.

All in all I think Homura's despair was inevitable under the circumstances. Rebellion's ending makes sense to me. And I love it just as much as the main show.

Okay, I'm going to call it there since this post is stupidly long already. Hopefully it helped explain at least a little bit of my love for this show.

[youvegottohelpyourself]

The Hypocrisy of the Dissident "Right"

In my travels across the internet, I’ve come across the /snow/ board on lolcow.farm, a rumormongering hub where petty and spiteful women e-stalk an assortment of characters. Normally, gossip doesn’t really interest me, but one long running thread in particular caught my eye, “Post-Leftcows.” Now, the “post-left” is another group of people I don’t really care about, in fact I go out of my way to not mention them, because, being a bunch of fame whores, mentioning them even disparagingly is giving them exactly what they want and most definitely do not deserve. However, I will go on the record of calling them and their entire sphere a bunch of posers and talentless hacks. Anyway, what interested me about this thread was that “Moldbug” and “dissident right” were mentioned.

In the past, Moldbug would have been a guiding star for me intellectually, but I have since become much less fond of him for various reasons. Still, for all of his faults, Moldbug is a person worth paying attention to, so if something is going on with him I want to know. Unfortunately for me, there’s not much information about him in the thread, but the general dissident right is touched upon. I have a lot of problems with the dissident right, and that is because the dissident right’s most prominent leaders are not actually right wing despite professing right wing beliefs. The defining feature of the right, in my view as a rightist, is that the right aligns itself with reality and has integrity, a consistent set of beliefs. This is opposed to the left which cares more about not violating taboos and maintaining their social status than truth. The left as opposed to the right, frequently engages in hypocrisy almost as a matter of course. Not to say that what is viewed as "the right" today, like the Republican Party (which is hardly right wing) has integrity, because they obviously do not. I speak of the true right which has been dead for at least a century. I'm of the view that there is no real right wing today, aside from a few individuals.

Anyway, operating mostly on Twitter, the dissident right has spread its influence by courting the conservative masses and converting them to its cause. This was primarily done through unbearably trite tweets in which the hypocrisies and double standards of the left were called out over and over again. This worked for quite a while, but in the year 2023 it's quite obvious to all that leftists are hypocritical, so this recruiting strategy has hit the end of its natural life. The strategy is a bit different today. The idea seems to be to court the growing incel demographic (which statistically is actually leftist) and so, every major account now engages in nonstop, comically lopsided misogyny that makes even me, someone on the right, think that they are going too far.

Both of these developments are… quite annoying to me, as the entire intellectual basis of the dissident right movement was reactionary thought which emphasized an elitist aristocratic approach, one that certainly precludes “converting” people to a cause. This focus on quantity coincides more with democracy than monarchy or aristocracy, thus in my view, is a major turn towards leftism. It is actually probably a bit worse than this, as I suspect this shift is not entirely based on a changing ideology but also, just pure greed. Every single major account in the sphere has a grift, whether it be a podcast, book, or substack, so the more followers they accrue the more dollars added to their bank accounts each month.

While I do detest grifting hacks, the biggest problem is the hypocrisy. The entire sphere is full of people whose actions severely conflict with their professed beliefs, the list of hypocrisies is large, we will just focus on one group. A few key beliefs associated with the dissident right:

- That race is real and rooted in biology. - The “white” race, consisting of a collection of European races such as the English, the French, and the Germans is being disprivileged in their ancestral homelands, potentially becoming ethnic minorities in their own countries. - Family formation and marriage are integral for the survival of civilization. - There has been a gradual decline in morality and virtue, most notably sexual morality.

A particularly striking example of one whose actions conflict with the stated beliefs above is Delicious Tacos. Tacos is a sexpat whoremonger and extreme sexual degenerate. His name itself derives from his love of South American women and their “delicious tacos,” though he is also partial to Southeast Asians. Despite being in his 40s, Tacos is unmarried with no children to his name, though I suppose it’s possible he has a few mongrels running around Thailand unbeknownst to him. There are a litany of problems with Tacos, mostly relating to his comments about sexuality, but he has other questionable beliefs. It would really take too much time to cover them, perhaps check the lolcow threads? He has written a novel, essentially autofiction, that is relentlessly shilled on Twitter that I have not read and refuse to read (why read Tacos when I can read Dante?) I assume he is at least a good writer - though it is possible he is just mediocre, like most in the sphere. It is through this book that his presence is justified, if it is justified at all. “He’s an artist! Nobody is perfect!” I may be able to grant that to someone like Sam Hyde, another degenerate pervert, one with a clear—and not astroturfed—genius. Is Tacos really some great artist? His book is just a lurid collection of tales of his own sexual degeneracy. Is this what passes for art today?

I think anyone with a brain can see why someone like Delicious Tacos being such an important figure and above reproach in a “right wing” movement makes absolutely no sense at all. In a proper right wing society, people like him would be anathema to have around and yet today he is one of its leaders. If you view the “dissident right” as just a collection of racist/misogynist leftists it makes sense. Tacos is part of the “ingroup” the special group of grifters who run the show. To attack him is forbidden. His actions don’t matter so long as he mouths the right beliefs and sucks up to the right people.

In the end the only thing that matters are actions. Anyone can repeat a few slogans and say the right things. As mentioned above, I am on the right, I am concerned with the reality of the situation, not about how it might be perceived to attack certain figures. Words are not reality, actions are. This movement has long since been gutted by sociopaths who are right wing in name only, and cynically use their genuinely frustrated and demoralized followers as grifting fuel.

[souriisms]

i just wanna say, if you follow me and you’re a fan of gravity falls and you villainize mabel and think she’s the “true villain of the series” and think of her as a horrible, awful, selfish person for the decisions she made as a vulnerable and upset child, but you love ford and think he’s amazing and great and have no issues with the decisions he made as a fully grown man, please unfollow me

[longsightmyth]

Tbh I get lots of Daenerys vibes from Celaena.

Believing they're the rightful queen even though that's not the case? Check.

(The rightful rulers are the Baratheons. Just like Dany's family first took the crown through bloodshed, so did the Baratheons, so now they are the rightful rulers. Double standards much, Dany?)

White savior trope? Check.

(The trope is slightly analyzed/criticized in ASOIAF; not at all in TOG and GOT/the show)

Leaving people to starve to death in a room? Check.

And yet still believing you're better than your enemies and more compassionate? Check.

Throne of Glass was originally named Queen of Glass. The fact that sjmess switched to Throne makes me all the more suspicious.

It's been a while since I've read ASOIAF, watched the show and read TOG, but these are the similarities I remember most, I'm sure there are others.

Sjmess can talk about Tolkien and Pierce all she wants, but the tropes, sexism and misogyny of her works will always remind people of GRRM. OC sjmess can only dream about writing the same interesting, complex characters and plots.

Are we calling anybody rightful rulers here because. Not so much.*

What this ask tells me is that tumblr is hiding the many discussions on the blog about the Suspicious Similarities between ToG and GoT (show specifically).

*Also the now by and large deceased baratheons hold the throne 'legally' via two specific relations to the targaryens, the first being Aegon the conqueror's illegitimate half brother's forcing into marriage the last living daughter of the storm kings etc etc and the second being Robert's grandmother, the targaryen princess Rhaelle, daughter of Aegon V (...I think. There are a bunch of Aegons). There is no longer a way to separate the targaryens from the throne of westeros without burning the whole thing to the ground, something I am actually a proponent of, being anti monarchy and so on and so forth.

Anyway legally Dany is the 'correct' queen of westeros, yes even with (either) Aegon her nephew floating about, due to Aerys essentially disinheriting Elia's children and making Viserys his heir and Viserys declaring Dany his heir. Unless you want to take into account the precedent that there hasn't ever been a reigning queen of the seven kingdoms, in which case it's basically a free for all. Aegon son of Rhaegar is basically disinherited. Shireen Baratheon is also a girl (and depending on when this happens the only heir Stannis, the only legitimate Baratheon male descendant of Rhaelle still living, had). Jon is illegitimate and/or ALSO disinherited. If Rhaenys daughter of Rhaegar is still running around, she is both disinherited and a girl. Royalty is weird. It really shouldn't be the way anyone determines the running of a nation.

[itsclydebitches]

I’m utterly confused by that Twilight post. What does it even mean? Literally all the criticism it receives is for the legitimate reasons. Heck, it has been accused of misogyny, as well. It’s like 50 Shades of Grey, for all it’s accusations of misogyny and creepiness, it was written by a woman, and popular with them. If you want to say some of the criticism was misogyny, go ahead, I’m sure some were, but you can’t say most when I’m sure most people haven’t seen a single example of it.

We don’t see as much of it now because the focus has indeed shifted to legit criticism of the series - and that criticism did always exist - but there was a time (really kicking off around 2008 with the first film) when people simply tore Twilight apart. It was hated. It was reviled. Hating Twilight was an entire personality for some people and you didn’t admit to liking Twilight unless you wanted to deal with a truly horrendous amount of backlash. I honestly can’t think of anything we have today that’s comparable. Maybe something like Steven Universe or Homestuck where the mere mention can get you a side-eye of, “You like that?” But even then that response is often more along the lines of teasing and, if it’s not, it pales in comparison to what Twilight fans received. I’m honestly not sure how to summarize this if you didn’t live through it. It was really, really bad. When people bring up misogyny in this case they’re often referring to how the world reacted to the series, not saying simply that the series lacked women representation. 

“But, Clyde,” people may ask. “Homestuck and Steven Universe are both arguably excellent stories that tackle a lot of sensitive subjects. Not always perfectly, but they’re trying. How does that compare to a series with stalking, racism, and a character falling in love with an infant?” I’m so glad you asked! The difference is that at the time - more than a decade past - most people weren’t criticizing Twilight for those things. Many certainly were (as said, these criticisms have always existed) but the majority of attacks centered around how badly written the series was. How Bella is the worst role model ever. How incredibly stupid a sparkling vampire is. Yet when fans of the series pointed out, “Hey, this other franchise is just as badly written?” or “There are thousands of stories where women just act as eye candy for the men and are basically treated as slabs of meat, but you’re still praising them?” or “Yeah, it’s kind of silly, but lots of stories are silly. Have you seen some of the nonsense in Star Wars? Why is Twilight getting such an extreme backlash?” there were no answers. Because the answer actually boiled down to, “We hate this series because it’s explicitly geared towards young women.” It’s a female fantasy story, taking a previously badass, dangerous creature and turning him into a love interest. Making him sparkle. Giving us the woman’s point of view (unlike Harry Potter). Making that women more passive and romance focused rather than, say, a deadly archer whose romantic side is turned into another weapon (The Hunger Games). Then Twilight was sold to a primarily women-centric audience. Young women. Teenagers. Tweens. One of the most instinctively hated groups in Western media. Men want nothing to do with a “girly” series. Many girls reject it because they’re “not like other girls.” For a long time hating Twilight was the cool thing to do not because it has serious problems with racism, stalking, pedophilia, etc. but because a bunch of young, nerdy women unabashedly loved it and were expressing that love in what was deemed a “cringy” manner. 

A lot of people didn’t hate Twilight fans because they praised a problematic book. They hated Twilight fans because they were women (and many queer individuals) who refused to like the “right” kind of literature. It comes down to the double standard. There’s a lot of really bad movies and books out there. Like a LOT. Most of the time when someone says they enjoyed a “bad” thing people shrug and allow them to have that enjoyment: “Oh god yeah. That Transformers movie was horrible! Still fun to watch on a Friday night though.” However, when the story is written by, for, and primarily about women, suddenly it’s The Worst Thing Ever. It’s why Romance gets so much intense ridicule despite much Sci-Fi being equally ridiculous/“badly” written - Sci-Fi is considered an “art” whereas Romance is “trash.” It’s why (as I’ve discussed in the past) we can have a thousand absurd male fantasy films that make you question who green-lit this project even while you happily buy a ticket, but the second we get one in the form of Jupiter Ascending, “quality” is a necessary component for enjoying the story. People enjoy badly written and incredibly offensive literature all the time - we read a ton of them as Classics in our schools! - but when teenage girls enjoy a badly written, offensive series the whole world rises up to shame them for it. I think Princess Weekes put it well in her article about just this issue: having good reasons for hating Twilight while also acknowledging the double-standard that colored her younger, visceral hatred: 

What is the difference between Twilight moms who turn their bedrooms into shrines for Edward and Bella, and dads who do the same thing for Star Wars, Star Trek, or any other male-targeted franchise? The difference is that we have assumed that one has more value, even at its weakest points, than the other.

The fact that we thought that Twilight was the worst thing to happen to science-fiction/fantasy when Ready Player One exists is … yeah.

There are so many male authors who have done more damage to concepts of masculinity than Stephenie Meyer ever did to femininity. So while we should discuss the sexist, racist, and problematic themes in Twilight, dragging down women with it is neither necessary nor productive—especially considering all of the other things we give a pass to because the way they write sexism/racism is … better (coughOutlandercough).

I’m simplifying this situation a great deal. There was a lot going on that fed into the Twilight hate, but the takeaway is what the post I reblogged initially said. There are people who hate Twilight for specific, legitimate reasons that need to be acknowledged. There are also people who hate Twilight because they can’t stand the fact that a huge swath of women enjoy something they don’t. These two things do exist simultaneously and should be considered when discussing the series. Is someone criticizing it because they’re appalled by the horrific treatment of Native Americans? Do they think it’s the stupidest thing ever but are happy to let others enjoy it? Or are they ranting/attacking others because only men are allowed to enjoy stupid, shallow, “badly” written stories? It’s that last one that’s a problem. 

[i-cant-believe-its-v]

Captain Marvel

Alright I'm probably gonna piss people off with this so let's get this outta the way.

I am not the smartest person, so I don't usually get most details.

I'm not a hardcore marvel fanatic. I'm a casual fan that's only really watched the movies.

I do believe women should get equal rights and responsibilities as men.

I understand that all this coming from me, a cis male, is very likely biased to some point. I'll try my best to avoid bias but it's an opinion, it's most likely gonna be biased to some bit.

Understanding that this is an opinion, I am very open to responses and I want to hear what people think, as long as it is civil and you respect my opinion and me as a person.

There are Endgame Spoilers, so scroll past if you haven't watched it yet.

Alright lets go.

In my opinion, Captain Marvel was very poorly written. Her standalone movie was purely about making her the focus of a "strong female character".

Yes, they got the toxic masculinity scene right, and she was justified in retaliating against the biker coming after her.

Yes, they showed how female figures are unfairly put down.

What I don't like is that there is no character development.

I'm gonna use other avengers as examples/parallels here.

From the very beginning, she is shown as having unfathomable amounts of power, cocky, and determined. Tony, Stephen, and Thor are also very much like this.

However, those other characters are put into very humbling moments, sometimes over several movies, sometimes in their own:

Tony gets shrapnel from his own bomb and he's forced to come to terms with the fact that he's only human. He stops being a weapons dealer and decides to do some good with his tech (Iron Man)

Stephen is a super cocky, critically acclaimed, award winning Neuro Surgeon. He even wants to pass up on saving a life to "keep his perfect record". An accident makes him lose his hands. Eventually he reaches the Ancient One, and he's extremely cocky, trying to figure out the science behind it, and calling her a scam artist, after which she promptly shows him how little he knows with that psychedelic sequence. After being humbled, he proceeds to learn as much as he can. He becomes somewhat cocky again, but then his character develops: he becomes more understanding, and even willing to do whatever it takes to save the Earth from Dormammu, even if it meant dying over and over and over and over.

Thor begins as an almighty God, rich with power and fame and charm. He swaggers on down to the frost Giants and fights them (foolishly, not considering other ramifications). Odin banished him to earth, stripping him of his powers. But in the end, he's grown as a character, sacrificing himself to try and save his friends. He becomes worthy of being Thor again.

Hell, even Loki. Would y'all have done so back when Thor first came out? No. He was the horrid villain, so manipulative and cunning. Double crossing his own family just to get power (Odin wasn't all that great of a father either but that's a different discussion). Yet here we are now. Loki is a hero. And he deserves to be called so because of everything the MCU has put him through, and how he turned out.

All the above are (yes, male) examples of well written characters

But there's also Wanda.

She's strong, extremely powerful, and an utter badass

But unlike Captian Marvel, she's empathetic. She's someone who the audience can relate to. She's lost her brother, her lover, and 5 years of her life.

She was able to fend off Thanos with ONE HAND in IW, WHILE HE HAD THE INFINITY GAUNTLET WITH 5 STONES

She single handedly made Thanos basically shit his pants in Endgame, where he was willing to sacrifice his own troops just to get Wanda off of him (he was able to easily punch away captain marvel).

Not only his Wanda a better "strong female character" overall, she's very arguably the strongest avenger, period.

She could have been written extremely well, even if it was just to make her the "standard strong female lead". Wanda had a solid background in the MCU, had emotional depth to her, and had a solid character arc.

Captain Marvel started strong, remained strong, went through some hijinks, solved some problems, reconnected with an old friend, made a new one, beat up a bunch of bad guys, and then left. When she came back, when asked how they lost to Thanos before, she simply says "you didn't have me".

Now, yes, captain marvel could have been written better. But snarky by itself is only a pleasant personality when being used for comedic purposes.

And yes, other snarky male MCU characters exist. And they were annoying. But that was not their only personality traits (unless they were written as a villain, like Ultron, or Loki in Phase 1).

Dr. Strange was insufferably cocky before being trained by the ancient one. Tony was insufferably cocky before getting blown up by one of his own bombs and being forces to craft a suit in a cave. Rocket is an asshole but underneath that it's shown that he does have compassion for his closest compatriots. Yondu undoes him in GotG 2 and he's emotionally there for Thor in IW and Endgame. Rhodey gives Tony a lot of sass but that's because that's how their friendship dynamic works. Tony is visibly heartbroken when Rhodes goes down.

All because they were all written well.

Captain Marvel (in the MCU) was not written well.

Her movie was good, in the sense that most action movies are good. But as a marvel movie, it left me wanting more character development from her.

Wanda was well written but she was squandered, being put aside as a supporting hero rather than a main hero.

And that is why I'm not quite fond of captain marvel.

Im hopeful for future movies (undoubtedly there will be sequels) to flesh her out better as a character, similar to what Taika Watiti did with Thor, Loki and Hulk in Ragnarok.

P.S. please don't confuse this with misogyny. I still think Brie Larson is a good actor, just fed bad lines.

P.P.S. The reason there are so many examples of male characters and not female characters is because that's all I could think of in the moment.

P.P.P.S. like I mentioned before, I am not a perfect person. Feel free to correct me, as long as it's civil. You can persuade me to change my opinion, but over civil discourse, not internet hate or shaming.

[nightcoremoon]

I wanna coin a term:

Cismisogyny

the misogyny that cisnormative people utilize is focused on "biological/natal sex" and birth assigned gender, as well as intersex erasure, and is basically just glorified genital supremacy. that people with penises have power over people with vaginas, and therefore people with a uterus are inferior. it's a very particular type of sexism that's a blend of transphobia and misogyny but from a cis lens.

transmisogyny is specifically prejudice against what they deem to be trans women (as they're unaware that "passing" trans women exist), so cismisogyny would be specifically prejudice against what they deem to be cis women (or what they would just say is women), and is a separate notion entirely from the misogyny that misogynist trans men and misogynist but not transphobic cis men (and brainwashed dumb white blonde haired blue eyed bimbo trophy wives for conservative men so think a cookie cutter carbon copy of tomi lahren) frequently feel.

so to clarify:

Misogyny: hating all women

Transmisogyny: hating trans women

Transphobia*: hating trans people in general

(*includes gender binarism and truscum)

Cismisogyny: hating people with vaginas, indeterminate of whether they're trans or not

...

It's a very specific term but it describes a very specific type of sexism, you see. As someone who does not have a vagina, is transgender, and has the benefit of viewing things from an objective standpoint due to autism, it's a very disturbing trend I see in many parts of society. Even here on Tumblr.

I just saw a take that was blaming trans men and dfab nonbinary people for the lack of trans women's voices in trans spaces, and saying that they are silent about it because the silent oppression of trans women benefits them. A very cold take indeed. Trans men and dfab nonbinary people aren't responsible for the transmisogyny. Cis people are. And the reason why is because cis people typically are usually also male supremacists. If what a cis person perceives to be a male tries to "become a female" such as trans women and dmab nonbinary people (because cis people and male supremacists typically are also binarists), that is them rejecting the privilege society awarded us for having the magic Y chromosome that allows humans to be treated with dignity and respect. If what a cis person perceives to be a female tries to "become a male" such as a trans man or a dfab nonbinary person (see my prior parenthical remark), that is them attempting to reject femininity and embrace the superiority of masculinity, which accepts them into their ranks.

So trans men and dfab nonbinary people are typically lauded by many cis male-supremacist people are socially acceptable, especially since many of them seem to be okay with tomboys and women wearing suits and just a general overall sense of women embracing masculinity and rejecting femininity. That's acceptable to a bunch of white christian post-colonials. And of course degenerates would feel it's an "added bonus" to ~get~ to see breasts and vaginas in the locker room because tHaTs sO hOt.

But dmab people who identify as anything but men? Absolutely loathsome, in cis eyes, because femininity is EVIL and BAD and INFERIOR.

Cissexism is of course a definition I've seen, but it seems to be basically a synonym for transphobia. But see, while cismisogyny as I am describing it is indeed rooted in transphobic ideology, it doesn't seem to be in and of itself explicitly transphobic. I'll have to explain that.

Like. All white people are racist. Every person with white skin color benefits from the privilege accompanying it, at the expense of the people who don't. We perform microaggressions that we don't notice all the time. We absorb all of the negativity and racism society forcefeeds us, subliminal propaganda, and it releases itself. Now, a white person could actively fight and campaign for black rights. They could respect black culture and art. They could listen to and understand wu tang clan without ever letting a slur pass their lips. They could date black people who don't find them racist. They could be the least racist person you've ever met. But they would still be at least somewhat racist because that's how human development works. But just because they're not republican or a 4channer, don't laugh at lynching jokes, don't use slurs, don't treat black people as less or inferior, don't literally murder black people, that doesn't mean they aren't racist at all. It just means they're not specifically that kind of overt explicitly violent antiblackness like the kkk. It's a different tier of racism. It's not as severe or as noticeable, but it's still racism.

And it's the same way with cis people. Many cis people are supportive of trans people on the surface. They'll smile and welcome you into their homes and hug you and walk you to the bathroom and respect your name/pronouns and go clothes shopping with you and be the shoulder to cry on when someone attacks them and fight congress for your rights and punch a transphobic asshole in the face. But they still can & do perform transphobic microagressions for no other reason than society instilled those ideals in their heads since birth when they put the M or F on your birth certificate or in slightly rarer cases performed surgery on your infant genitals without parental consent. They can sympathize, they can attempt to empathize, but they will never fully understand. And that's okay. If they try, that's good enough.

Just as there are many tiers of racism there are many tiers of transphobia. Cismisogyny is one such tier that intersects with binarism and standard misogyny. People who aren't typically transphobic could still be cismisogynist. Even I can admit to experience cismisogyny in my life through sexual exploitation. My orientation is bisexual with a strong preference towards cis women, trans men, and dfab nonbinary people. I don't want it to be like that. And it's not like cis men, trans women, and dmab nonbinary people are not attractive to me, because they are (unf chris hemsworth 👌🏻🤤), but due to the social conditioning in my being born and raised a "straight white christian red blooded hoosier man" and the cismisogyny accompanying that, the entitlement complex that manifested side by side with my "nice guy in the friend zone" complex, that I didn't unlearn until after I was already a fully grown adult, that's how my brain be like. I recognize it in myself, and that's how I know that it exists. And it took that ignorant shitty post for me to actually be able to put these thoughts in writing.

I don't blame trans men and dfab nonbinary people for my social isolation and distinct lack of friends who are also trans women. I don't blame this new wave of drag kings and bio queens. I blame cissexism, cisheteropatriarchy, transphobia, transmisogyny, and cismisogyny. I blame the people responsible for the situation of our society. I don't blame my brothers, my siblings, my friends and family. I won't throw them under the bus, just as they didn't throw me under. We're all in this together, and I'm glad that they're having less difficulty than I am in that specific situation. Especially because due to my aforementioned objectivity, I've also noticed all of the hatred and vitriol hurled towards them, especially by dudebro gamer culture. I've seen it. I know it's there.

So I know I'm not really popular online. Very few people know me. My only claim to fame is the "aliens: [slide $40 to nasa] nasa: lmao what aliens" post and even then they don't know the individual URLs of the three of us involved. In fact I'm pretty sure the number of people I'm blacklisted by and blocked by is double my follower count. Even with the bots. Maybe even triple. Things I've said taken out of context have in the past made me look like I'm racist, transmisandrist, a sexual predator, a fucking rape apologist, and worst of all a person who "didn't get a joke" that I ignored heaving pile of religious intolerance that hates jews, muslims, christians, and... everyone else (people who weren't judeochristian didn't seem to care). Certain circlejerks herald me as a king of clowns of a sort (I'd say queen but they were mostly transphobic lmao). So I know that this post will get ignored. Maybe two or three people will like it. Maybe one person will reblog it... like that one crimson lady monarch, or the mildly irked homosexual wyvern, you two know who you are. Maybe nobody will. And looking back it's much more likely for a bunch of dumb uglyass terf cunts taking my sexual preferences bit out of context to make all trans women look like evil sex predators, than any people will see my vocabulary suggestion. But there is a reason why I'll hit post and not delete.

Cismisogynist trans women don't speak for me. Despite the problematic microaggressions my shit tier bad brain development perpetuates, despite what any ignorant cis tries to tell me, despite all of that shit... if you try to talk shit about my family I will obliterate you.

[dazaiapologism]

1: Hey so totally shoot me down if I’m misrepresenting what you’re saying but like I def have had tv shows I enjoyed where like. I recognize there are a bunch of shitty things the writers included but there are so many and the writings just so comically bad in the first place that it’s not even worth it for me to point out and critique everything about it even tho I recognize it cause where would I even begin.

2: And it is kind of an unfair double standard to hold some media to a higher bar than others. But like I have no hope that a show written by a bunch of mediocre white men (in my case) is going to be #woke or whatever, and I don’t go in expecting otherwise. Like I’m not going to be critiquing riverdale or some shit in the same way I would something like killing eve cause at some point the entire core of the show is so #problematic that it becomes pointless

nah i think you mostly get what i was saying! i would disagree specifically with the idea that by doing this you’re holding media to double standards, because you’re always going to see and recognize problematic aspects of what you’re watching. what changes is the productiveness of calling out and talking about it. like you said, its not as valuable to critique Known Bad Shit as it is things people are still processing and formulating opinions on. articulating criticism takes a non-zero amount of effort, even if you know in your heart that you’re right.

ok to pull a horrible example out of my ass lets talk about game of thrones and sarazanmai. because those are two things in my brain rn.

how much value is there in calling out and talking about the misogyny in the last game of thrones season is there? who has gotten through eight seasons of game of thrones believing it is not fucking bad, but will still read what you have to say and think “damn.. they might be right after all.” maybe im cynical but i feel like that is a very small population. 

if we talk about sarazanmai though - let’s take enta cuz he’s nice and controversial. i think its reasonable given what information we have to ask whether his portrayal is homophobic. people are still discussing it, its WORTH talking about because you might say something that changes how someone else understands it. (btw im withholding judgement until its over)

as always thank you for attending my long rambly ted talk its been a pleasure

[buffythedragonqueen]

Why do they keep telling us we should stop dreaming of a better world? The Game of Thrones Finale

I will not lie: I am a nerd, and I had really studied before the last season started. In addition to that, for full disclosure, I had already bent the knee to Daenerys Targaryen in book 1, I stand by her, always will, and wanted Daenerys and Jon to rule together (I know, they are related, but it is the Middle Ages in Europe, it does not matter). However, the ending of Game of Thrones has been ... confusing. Confusing for me as a human really. 

I shall be forever grateful to the actors and the crew: all aspects of the show (but the writing)  were unbelievable, glorious, and should be covered, showered, with awards, but the writing ... should not.  MIND THE SPOILERS Aside from what was already said - the rushed plot that made no sense (so all the studying I did went out of the window), the trashed 10-years-long character developments, and countless wasted opportunities for potentially amazing dialogues (e.g. Daenerys and Cersei, Sansa and Cersei, etc.) - I was left bewildered and angry, with many questions about society, and the role of art in changing the world. Isn’t the role of art to remind us, and teach us, how to fight for ideas? For freedom, for equality, for justice?

I will be even more honest. I was triggered by the last 3 episodes, yet I kept watching, in the hope that the ending would have showed me what I had hoped to see. Eventually, to cope with the loss of Daenerys Targaryen (which never happened in my head, denial is always the way),

 and the disappointment, and the anger, and for the sole purpose of catharsis, I even dared to start writing what I would have wanted to see as conclusion of the show, which I linked here. And probably I will write myself a season 9 as a sequel for the show:  I am no writer, no psychologist, so this is merely my attempt to overwrite that last season in my brain, with the messages I would have wanted to see delivered by the end of the show, as opposed to what I saw.  I am mildly ashamed of what I am writing, it is maybe sentimental, possibly derivative,  maybe poorly written, but that is not the point here: I  had to express somewhere the ideas for which I wanted this show to fight, instead of perpetrating restraining and negative cliches. Watching the finale, I was left with many questions:

Why do they keep showing us toxic masculinity, instead of nice men?

Why are sex addicts sold as “average men”? The final all- males-council discussing brothels was appalling, not funny, appalling!

Why did they have one of the most powerful glorious female character in the history of literature gaslighted and killed by her boyfriend, who until that moment was one of the best positive male character ever written in the history of literature; he was courageous and sweet, generous and just and non-ambitious, a non-macho positive nice man. Why did they turn a perfectly nice guy into a murderer? Is there no way out? Why did they need to ruin Jon Snow, and leave us with Bronn and Tyrion? Seriously, Bronn? Seriously….Bronn? Jon, previously lovely Jon, left the stage to these sex addicts, for a spiral of hopelessness: should I infer from this that men are spineless, murderers, rapist, sex addicts, gamblers, liars, otherwise women put them in the firendzone (e.g. Jorah, Daario). 

So gents, those of you who are nice, will never be loved. Ladies, pets (cats, dogs, ferrets,…) are the solution. Pets.  

Why do we keep seeing sexism, instead of feminism? Specifically:

 Why do we keep seeing double standards: if a male ruler executes traitors is acceptable, but if a female ruler does the same thing it means she is mad? Daenerys had executed a bunch of enemies, as any king would do, yet in her case these were clues of madness. Oh well, we women are too emotional, aren’t we? (sense the sarcasm there) Sit still, look pretty, ladies. And do not forget to smile.

Why do we keep seeing that men judge women for every. single. thing. even though they are not really in a position to talk? Why did we see Tyrion and Varys (two men) discussing whether Daenerys was fit to rule, after she gathered the biggest army ever seen, saved everybody from the dead, actually fought into battle (while Tyrion and Varys were hiding in the crypts)? And why did we see a male character suggesting a man is more suitable than a woman to rule? It was one of the most appalling misogynist scenes I have ever watched in my life. Until a man told a man to execute a woman, without a trial, which brings me to my next question;

Is it ok that if man kills a woman, if he thinks it is right? Why was it represented as a heroic decision? She could have died in thousands of ways, yet the manipulated boyfriend, the only person she trusted, that killed her when she was vulnerable, with no explanation at all, no discussion aside from some ambiguous questions, seemed like a good idea; why?

Why did we see Brienne of Tarth, a warrior, writing about the man who had dumped her. in her nightgown. for his sister. after a superfluous-for-the-narrative one night thing. Why didn’t she write about herself? Why was she crying? Why did Cersei Lannister die crying? And of a death by brick, of all deaths? Why were all the women - warriors, mind- crying, pouring their hearts to undeserving men?

Between us, I was already angry at the conversation Daenerys had with the King in the North Jon, when he decided to bend the knee after Daenerys flew beyond the wall to save him (7thseason, episode “Beyond the Wall”). Daenerys says “I hope I deserve it”. OK. You raised 3 dragons, endured starvation, violence, gathered armies and fleets, freed cities from slavers, and lost a dragon to save him from his idiotic decisions: You bl**dy fu***ng do deserve it! Why did we see her asking for his approval?

Why are people with mental health issues feared and abandoned, instead of helped and supported? The mad-queen-twist was justified by the writers with a “there were clues” chorus. In my opinion it was not justified at all: there were clues she had occasional, and rare, anger management issues, and, in season 8, depression and anxiety; these could be a result of her PTSD, since she was sold and raped, and starved, and had to dodge people who wanted to kill her in many occasions, and not necessarily it had to be a hereditary trait. The people around her, and also the man who was supposed to love her, instead of building a support network around her and helping her, killed her. Too often individuals with mental health issues are ostracised, and treated with contempt, rather than sustained, so to me it would have been interesting to see a resolution of her problems (assuming she had any), rather than her impending doom.

Why was rape described as an occasion to become stronger? Why are we afraid to say what rape actually does to women? To victims? Why do we need to think that women recover and become stronger? Some do not recover at all. Some kill themselves. Why are we afraid of saying it?  It is not true that all that does not kill you makes you stronger: if it does not kill you as a whole, sometimes it has killed a part of you. As for the strength, I think that pain makes you impervious. It is love that makes you stronger. 

Why do they keep showing us competition between women, instead of sisterhood? Seeing Sansa and Arya fighting Daenerys for no apparent reason, was very disappointing. Seeing Sansa plotting against Daenerys, after the growth her character had in season 7 (”I am a slow learner, but I learn.”) was really sad: I was looking forward to team Dany-Sansa-Arya-Missandei-Brienne against the world, with packs of wolves and dragons as weapons.  That did not happen. Of course.

Why did we see weird racist scenes? The only woman of colour of the show died in chains. In chains. I do not think I have to add anything. 

Humans came out destroyed in this finale, as, apparently, one cannot change, ever: one is stuck with the hand one was dealt in the beginning, no matter the experiences, the fighting, the hopes, the work one has done on oneself; if one is born a slave, will die a slave; if born with anger management issues will not stop until everybody is dead (even though one had a spoiler about it years before, at the House of the Undying); there is no way out from toxic relationships; if born alone, even if technically the king, will still die alone; love does not conquer all, if one gets manipulated  well enough; and men can judge a woman, and, even without a trial, sentence her to death.

To me, the misogyny, the emotional and physical abuse, and toxic masculinity represented in the last three episodes of the show, represent the culture we are trying to fight, not the one that I would have wanted to stream to 60000000 people, including young adults, abused women, and people that hoped to see a message of hope, giving the dark times we are living: brave, sweet, courageous, honest, generous, smart, and mighty women and men, that work together for a better world; a world where there is redemption, freedom, diversity, and where people fight for what is important. 

For some reason, at some point, happy endings have started to be considered derivative. But people need hope. Young people need to be inspired, people who suffer need role models to help them overcome their pain. “Then they should not have watched Game of Thrones.” you say? I disagree. The show left the classic dichotomy between good and evil, and had complex characters that lived in the spectrum in between. The characters had the complexity of life into them.  

The greatness of the show, to me, was that most characters had overturned their destiny. If the final season had been written differently, GoT finale could have been the script for the resistance against violence, injustice, sexism, toxic relationships, defeat. It was not. 

I just want to add this: what they showed us is not true. Never stop fighting for what is important, even if it seems silly (like  getting angry for the last episode of a TV show): it does not mean one will necessarily win, it does not mean there will not be pain, but we can change this world into a better one. We can change ourselves, we can be kind to one another, we can support people who suffer, we can support  minorities. We can defeat the monsters, the ones in others, the ones in ourselves. We can break the wheel.

“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?”  Robert Browning

“Our fathers were evil men. All of us here. They left the world worse than they found it. We’re not going to do that. We’re going to leave the world better than we found it” – Daenerys Targaryen

[amphtaminedreams]

The Misogyny of Game of Thrones and its Treatment of Daenerys Targaryen: A Tale in Two Parts

TW// Discussion of Rape and Sexual Assault

The best way to sum up the majority of the Game of Thrones fan population’s relationship with Daenerys Targaryen is-

Daenerys: *breathes*

Game of Thrones fans: *insert Kermit trembling with anger GIF here*

You see, whilst every other character on the show can get away with anything short of rape and still be lavished in praise, Daenerys Targaryen only has to assert her claim to the throne and people are up in arms. 

And this tirade, courtesy of series 8 episode 4 of the show, isn’t just aimed at the fans. It’s aimed at the writers too. I’ve spent pretty much all day on Reddit criticising the way her character arc is clearly headed and desperately trying to make all those I-like-Arya-Stark-so-I-can’t-be-sexist fans see why I am so vehemently pissed off about it. Almost as pissed off as I am about the fact that every time I go to tweet something about Thrones on twitter, the most popular hashtag has multiple spelling errors. 

It’s hard not to notice that in an episode where one of the other female characters basically says that she needed to go through the abuse that she did to be the smart woman she is today (I mean, her just existing in King’s Landing and travelling alongside Little Finger would’ve been enough to explain Sansa’s political smarts and talent for manipulation but you know! Gotta throw a bit of rape in there too!), we also had Dany’s 2 male aides sit around and gossip about how the woman they’re supposed to be advising is out of control. Of course, forgetting the fact that part of Daenerys’ current state of mind is to do with her losing the majority of her army thanks to said advisors’ god awful advice; funnily enough, one of the most tired criticisms of Dany is that she doesn’t listen to anyone else but, like, I WISH that was true, if ONLY she would stop listening to the naive, dumbed down version of himself that Tyrion has become. Anyway, although it probably seems I’m writing this a bit prematurely, since we haven’t actually seen Daenerys go full “mad queen” yet, with all the mentions of her father (nicknamed the mad king after his enjoyment of roasting innocent people alive) and the way other characters have been speaking about her, it’s pretty obvious what’s to come. Not to mention that this episode’s final moments delivered what we are most likely supposed to see as the final trigger of Daenerys’ descent into “madness”, which was the wonderfully tasteful slaughter of the show’s only prominent woman of colour. I’m not even going to go into the symbolism of Missandei of Narth, previously liberated from slavery, dying in chains and how blatantly fucked up that is.

Imagine, the arc of a woman we’ve watched build an army, build followers, build self-confidence for 8 seasons, a woman who has been through abuse, rape, the death of her husband and child, the death of her best friends, the armies she built up, all of it, reduced to her ending up as the “mad queen” within the show’s universe. We know she won’t get a Jaime, Theon or Hound-style redemption arc either, she’ll end up dead, probably killed by one of the fandom’s more beloved characters. Because we all know her supposed madness justifies that, right? And lately on this show, everyone not protected with a hasty coat of plot armour and/or favouritism is dropping dead. 

I’m not saying Daenerys has to sit on the Iron Throne for me to be satisfied. She just deserved better than this. And in a show where Jon Snow can come back to life and Arya and Gendry can end up together and Sam Tarly can survive the Battle for Winterfell, surely, that isn’t so much to ask? She deserves to die without having her name dragged through the mud, without people acting as if her actions are inexplicable, without her being portrayed as if she’s just as bad as Cersei. She deserves to die that heroine that she is, the breaker of chains, the mother of dragons, the Khaleesi of the great grass sea and all that jazz, not another “crazy” woman.

She especially deserves to die without the fandom celebrating her demise as well, which they almost certainly will. The same fandom that cheered on Stannis Baratheon (up until the, ahem, daughter burning incident) for his ambition, ruthlessness and pride have long been calling Daenerys Targaryen a crazy, unreasonable tyrant for exhibiting the exact same qualities, albeit probably to a less cruel degree. Daenerys kills two traitors and she’s beyond redemption whilst Stannis burnt his own followers and was still rooted for by the masses. Jon Snow, The Hound, Jaime, they all cut down man after man after man and charge into battle without thinking, no big deal, they’re “good people at heart”, but Daenerys Targaryen is a psycho bitch, apparently, for using the weapon at her disposal to deal with enemies whilst at war and to punish slave masters. Double standards all round. It’s fine to dislike Daenerys Targaryen, but when criticisms are inconsistently applied to female characters versus male characters, I can’t help but think it’s rooted in misogyny, especially in a show with superfluous amounts of violence against women, a largely male audience, and since season 3, not a single woman in the writer’s room. If Dany does go on to burn down King’s Landing, it would be in a desperate attempt to wreak revenge on Cersei, a motive that usually spawns calls of “badass!” and an action movie trilogy when it’s a dude doing it (funny how women doing the same thing always gets them called vindictive and spiteful, isn’t it?). It would be an act of grief and an understandable outcome of having everything you’ve worked for all your life slip through your fingers to someone who doesn’t even want it, whilst in a foreign land, everyone you care about either turned on you or dead. If it was true that the woman who liberated thousands of slave men, women and children didn’t care about sparing the lives of the people living in the Red Keep, she would've burnt down King’s Landing and taken it the moment she arrived in Westeros, you know, back when she still had a huge army and 3 living dragons. Before she sacrificed them to save the lives of people she could’ve easily gone back to Essos and let perish, and wait for the winter to kill off her enemies. 

Yes, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of Game of Thrones ending with two “crazy women” facing off against each other whilst inadequate men, who’ve had a whole host of opportunities to stop things from getting to this point, sit around and get praised for doing the bare minimum. I’m uncomfortable because so many people with both conscious and subconscious misogynistic biases will delight in slagging off a bunch of female characters for being unreasonable and not fit to rule (don’t get me wrong, this definitely applies to Cersei but I will not stand to hear this about Dany, who did a fine job in Mereen when not having to deal with the Sons of the Harpies WHOM SHE EVENTUALLY DEALT WITH ANYWAY), whilst still patting themselves on the back for being inclusive just because they fanboy over the two female characters who refuse to associate with anything remotely feminine. Who excuse one character becoming a super assassin off screen but can’t excuse her pretty, dress wearing sister picking up some political know-how whilst spending her teenage years observing small council members and studying under Little Finger. Yes, as much as I love them, I’m talking about Brienne and “other girls are stupid” Arya Stark. In all of this, god do I want to apologise to Emilia Clarke and Nathalie Emmanuel for having to put up with their characters being decimated in such a way. They deserve better. We all do.

[zenosanalytic]

DS9: Season 2 Doldrums

DS9 S2E 5-7(Cardassians, Melora, Rules of Acquisition) are Infuriating.

Their Premises aren’t actually bad:

Cardassians is about Cardassian war-orphans left on Bajor because 1)Cardassian culture takes a “fuck ‘em” approach to anybody unfortunate enough to lose/get separated from their parents and presumably 2)they’re interspecies children; this doesn’t get mentioned in this ep, but I can’t imagine the Cardassians would have taken half-Bajoran kids when they withdrew

Melora is about a scientist from a “low gravity” planet(that idea bugs me because it assumes life-bearing worlds are generally earth-sized, and thus, earth gravity is “standard”, but idk what else you’d call it |:T) assigned to DS9 for a survey mission in the Delta Quadrant.

Rules of Acquisition is about a female Ferengi masquerading as a male to escape the misogyny of Ferengi society and pursue a life in business who happens to be working for Quark when the Nagus brings him a unique opportunity.

And their execution isn’t universally terribly, either, but each has something about it that’s so frustrating/off-putting that it soured whatever was enjoyable about the episodes for me.

Caradassians is probably the best of the bunch. It’s built around this Cardassian boy named Rugal, who was left during the withdrawal and adopted at a very young age(4-6 it seemed like) by Bajoran parents, who raised him as a Bajoran(aside from the obvious Talks about how he looks different and how to deal with people who are mean to him for his heritage, obvsl). In summary, Gul Dukat plots to have him brought to the station to create a diplomatic incident to be used as an excuse to repatriate the boy as a way to embarrass his Cardassian “father”, Kotan Pa’Dar, of the Civilian government, thereby short-circuiting an investigation into crimes committed during the Occupation and discrediting the Civilian government in general. The plot’s very convoluted, but Bashir and Garak get to be sleuths and that’s super-fun to watch. It ends up being the case that Rugal was kidnapped by Gul Dukat from his family’s home after a resistance attack on it(raising the question of what, exactly, Dukat knew of that attack, and if it was carried out by Bajoran resistance at all or simply made to look as such; there’s an implication that Pa’Dar was opposed to the Occupation even when he was part of the colonial government there. Questions never examined further, unfortunately) and placed in a Bajoran orphanage, leaving Pa’Dar to think he had also been killed. Since he wasn’t dead, Pa’Dar leaving without him would be considered abandonment in the eyes of the Cardassian public given how much they care about Family(who, again, don’t give a single shit about all the Cardassian kids with no living relatives willing to claim them they left on Bajor), and that’d end his political career.

What annoys me about it is the transparent insincerity of the Starfleet officers’ concern for Rugal‘s opinion about the whole thing. There’s alot of platitudinizing that what ultimately matters is what Rugal wants, regardless of what the inquiry discovers, but the ep literally ends with a voice-over of Sisko saying his Cardassian “father” is “obvsl the real victim in all this”, and Starfleet handing him over to Pa’Dar with zero input from Rugal. Rugal’s real parents, the Bajorans who raised him, are nowhere to be seen and, iirc, don’t even speak at all in the second half of the ep. The Bajor government has zero input in any of this. So yeah, it’s just really offensive.

The thing is, if this was presented as Sisko just coolly making the politically expedient and strategically correct choice(save the moderate’s career by preventing the case from going public while doubling his debt to you by handing over the son he thought was dead and wanted back) regardless of what Rugal wanted, it wouldn’t bother me as much; It’d be a good early example of the cold-blooded political and strategic savvy Sisko would become known for. What really bugs me is that the sheer duplicitous sanctimony of their protestations to care about what Rugal wants are never presented or treated as such, even as they, in the end, hand him over like a poker chip. Oh, and also there’s this scene about O��Brien’s hatred of Cardassians and Keiko’s wrong-headed awkward do-gooderism ham-fistedly squashed in there that they really didn’t need.

Melora presents Melora’s natural lower-gravity biology as a disability and illness, which right off the bat was annoying. She’s not sick, she’s just from a different density planet from everyone else. Usually she uses a servo-harness and anti-grav chair to get around that won’t work for some McGuffiny reason so they have to put her in a wheelchair instead. But here’s the thing; why wouldn’t she just be in an anti-grav harness? The Fed uses Synthetic gravity Fields, so one could imagine a harness which generates a “filter” field around her, lessening the gravitons she’s exposed to to natural levels for her and thus allowing full mobility. Hell, depending on how Synthetic Grav fields work, I wonder if one could not simply program the central computers to weaken the field as it applies to her or her surroundings, keying the reduction to her comms badge or lifesigns. Or, given that there’s at least one whole planet of Federation members for whom low-grav is natural(and realistically if there’s one there’s gotta be more low grav worlds), why don’t they, IDK, have low-grav-exclusive crews? I mean, they clearly have the tech to not have to segregate like that, but it’s another solution that the writers choose to avoid by just deciding Melora’s species generally has no desire to leave their homeworld(so how’d they become warp-capable, DS9 writers???)

The show does a good job, for it’s time, presenting ableist-induced frustrations(from Bashir modifying her chair without informing her or asking her consent, to Jadzia implying Bashir knows “her condition” better than she does, to Sisko treating her desire to have her agency and opinions respected like those of any officer as essentially ridiculous, to stupid unnecessary frames jutting out every-goddamn-where in the station due to absurd Cardassian architectural tastes in Bulkhead design, to people assuming she must be sheltered and ignorant of galactic cultures because she’s “fragile”, to people babying her for the same reason, to random do-gooders wanting to “fix” her, to ect ect ect). The problem is, almost invariably, the show comes down on the ableists’ side, presenting her objections as unwarranted acts of rudeness meant to keep the world away(again: she grew up in a frigging low-grav culture where EVERYONE IS JUST LIKE HER! YOU GUYS ARE THE WEIRDOS TO HER!!! WHY WOULD SHE HAVE THESE PERSONALITY TRAITS!X4). It even has this weird pixie-dream girl element where she’s super-agile and strong and able to “fly” in low-G(which, if everything on her planet is evolved for low-g, why would they have the muscle mass to fling themselves into the air and stuff as Earth-G people do on the moon? Idk, maybe this makes sense scientifically, but it bugged me), which she teaches Bashir how to do because, of course, he immediately starts hitting on her and she totally goes for it once he proves his “brilliance” by jerkily eviscerating her distancing techniques. So you can see why I disliked it.

Then it ends with the survey being accomplished in a single ep(like, 3 or 4 days at most), which is stupid. And there’s this sub-plot about a partner Quark betrayed seeking revenge, which inevitably ties into the main-plot and I’m meh about that. And, of course, Bashir never mentions this deeply intimate romance, for the sake of which he developed an entirely new “treatment” for gravity intolerance off the discredited theories of an obscure medical researcher -which insultingly locates her physical difficulties in her brain rather than lower-density bones and muscles, a low-grav body plan, and a metabolism, equilibrium, and body-chem adapted for lower-g- ever again. Yeah.

Rules of Acquisition, of course, makes the female Ferengi, Pel, fall in love with Quark. This is the first ep she’s ever been in, and no reason is ever given for why she’d feel this way about him. Everything she does is, of course, driven by her love for him, and not a desire to gain profit, or prove herself, or any other personal ambition. The ep is filled with lines written for Jadzia to say justifying, excusing, or treating as a joke, misogyny.

Just: either get rid of Jadzia’s excuse-making for Ferengis, or make Ferengi misogyny less pervasive, as they do in much later eps with Rom and(to a lesser extent) Quark.

Pel really should have been intro’d earlier and been a recurring character for a time, with her gender being revealed in this ep. I also don’t get why Ferengi women would have such softer, more melodious, non-scratchy, non-nasal voices compared to the men. Having her natural voice BE her Male!Pel voice, or at least very close to it, would have made the point about gender equality far better.

If there was going to be a romance in it that needed to be developed(preferably over many eps); Pel needed to have a reason for being drawn to Quark, even if it was just “I think he’s sexy”. Personally, I’d like it if -behind his sleazy bluster- Quark(and Rom) was actually less misogynistic and creepy towards women than most Ferengi men as a result of his mother(though still with lots of room to grow), and willing to take hits to his business to stand, in evasive ways, for those principles, and that this was at least in-part why Pel found him endearing.

Pel’s primary motivation ought to be that of any Ferengi -making profit to achieve social status and personal power- with any attraction to Quark coming second, though still personally important enough to prevent her from betraying him.

Pel is responsible for nearly every success they achieve in this ep and Quark really needs to be written as less hapless, which is honestly a problem with his characterization in general. In one ep, Quark is dealing hard-nosed and unflinchingly with the worst kinds of galactic scum(though he hates violence and tries to prevent it, which is a consistent characteristic I love for him, and which Shimerman does a wonderful job of both presenting, and presenting Quark’s attempts to hide and feelings of ambivalent pride/shame over it), and the next he’s grovelling and incompetent before the merest aggression and resistance. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be a physical coward(that’s an important bit of his character and it works), he just needs to have a tolerance for menace appropriate to the line of work as a black-market Fixer and Mastermind that he’s chosen for himself. Plus, I don’t really buy that Pel as presented, with her intense dedication to the Rules of Acquisition and business acumen, would find someone as out of his depth as Quark in this ep attractive. Of course she shouldn’t have to, since Quark is SUPPOSED to actually be a good entrepenuer, hampered by his occasionally quixotic bouts of ethical behavior, but the writers just can’t help writing in these “funny” scenes of Quark being useless.

The plot is actually sort of decent for this one, though Rom’s rather immediate jealousy doesn’t make any more sense than the other things which needed long-term building up to work in this ep. Maybe the discovery of her gender could be accomplished some other way? Perhaps have the Nagus screw them at the end of the deal and have Pel throw her lobes in his face out of rage as he’s compligloating at them about their acumen in realizing his true objective and brokering the meet? Or maybe have Quark accidentally discover her gender in this ep, decide to keep it quiet, then have them both present in a later ep for the Dominion negotiations and have the Dominion agents reveal it out-of-hand half-way through, without realizing the difficulties they’ve put her in(maybe as bred merchants, they have an acute sensitivity to biochemistry or something and can just smell that she’s very likely female). I really like that possibility, because it’d put the Nagus in the position of having to keep her on to finish the negotiations, both for her aptitude and the chance that kicking her off would offend the Karemma, and it’d set up an exit for the character that would be a clear step-up for her; maybe the Nagus, to avoid personal embarrassment and because the Karemma connect with her so well during the negotiations, decides to make her his Delta-quadrant-side silent factor, working through Quark; an effective exile that hides the importance of a female to one of his greatest deals, but still leads to huge profits and a notable position of importance for her. This would also give a good reason for her to pop up as a guest character in later episodes.

[darkelysian-blog]

Stydias and Stereks

This is the only post I’ll ever be making regarding teen wolf simply because I don’t care enough to be associated with the toxic fandom. I’m making this post because it’s something I've noticed when it came to the two big ships, Stydia and Sterek. Don’t take it personally and don’t say, I’m not like that because I’m speaking in general. 

Okay, the first thing that bothers me is that Sterek and Stydia shippers like to point fingers, they like to whine and complain that one side is ridiculous and crazy and disgusting, but what they don’t realize is the extreme hypocrisy. 

Let’s start off with Sterek. When Teen Wolf first started, Sterek was the biggest ship. It’s what brought in viewers every week(sadly, since the show had nothing to do with Sterek), and it’s what kept the fandom alive and thriving, I guess you can say. With popularity comes with a bunch of bad apples that turn the fandom rotten. A lot of people now love to forget or act like the extreme racism within the fandom never happened. They love to forget that the Sterek fandom had harassed the cast constantly, especially the lead actor, Tyler Posey. The Sterek fandom went as far as asking Jeff to kill off his character so Stiles or Derek could be the main character, sending Posey death threats, making fun of his depression and even made disgusting comments regarding his mother who was struggling with cancer at the time. A lot of this hatred stemmed from a comment Posey had said about their fictional pairing, his exact words being,”I think Sterek is, um, a bizarre, weird, twisted thing, and I think anyone who pays more attention to Sterek than the show, uhm, isn’t watching the show for the right reasons.” Might I add, Sterek had already been harassing Posey beforehand and had treated him with lack or respect, so my point is, if you want to earn respect, you have to give it, and in this case, the Sterek fandom hadn’t given that respect so they sure as hell don’t deserve it from Posey. The Sterek fandom is what the Stydia fandom is now, mean and callous and whoever doesn’t agree with your ship, then they’re wrong. A lot of people perceived his comment as homophobic when it isn’t. It’s an opinion on a fictional gay ship, and I would say that Posey could’ve been nicer, but they were never too kind to him. Maybe that’s petty on my part, but people shouldn’t expect respect if they can’t give it themselves. Part of the reason why Posey had gotten so much hate is that of racism, because before this comment was even made he had faced extreme hate from the fandom and was often compared to his white co stars, Dylan O’brien and Tyler Hoechlin. Now I went on about this fandom long enough, I think it’s time to go on to Stydia.

As Teen Wolf comes to an end, Stydia happens to be the biggest ship, (or loudest ship) within the fandom. The Stydia fandom had become loud, rude and somewhat overbearing. They constantly harass the cast members, wanting any information that has to do with Stydia, often disregarding the storyline and other characters itself. There’s a disgusting amount of misogyny within the fandom, the shippers sending death threats and hateful comments towards Shelley Hennig when she first joined the show. Her character, Malia, was often sidelined and many of the shippers hated both her and Shelley simply because of a fictional pairing. One of the writers of the show, Will Wallace, was even attacked simply because he preferred Stalia’s storyline over Stydia, which is wrong. I can’t stress enough how disrespectful that is. And let's not forget the amount of homophobia I’ve witnessed, one person going as far as saying, “homophobia is okay if it’s against Sterek shippers.” That is utter bullshit and the worst thing a person could say about someone. And yes, I will not ignore that this fandom is racist as well, shippers going as far as wanting Scott killed off just so their fictional ship could rise. This fandom constantly sidelines Posey as well as the Sterek fandom and often disrespects other cast members and/or characters they feel as though they get in the way of their ship. And let’s go back to the point of misogyny since this is the fandoms biggest issue(other than them hating on anyone who doesn’t ship Stydia). I often saw Stydia shippers hating on Malia because of the rumored romance between her and Scott simply because Malia was Kira’s friend. The double standards within the fandom are absolutely ridiculous and quite embarrassing. I have hardly seen any shippers speaking up about the fact that Lydia will now be dating Stiles even though Malia and Lydia are clearly friends(And I really don’t care that Kira was written out of the show, she was still an important character). I have hardly seen anyone call Scott out for dating Malia even though he dated Kira who happened to be Malia’s friend(I guess it’s the cool thing to share boyfriend and girlfriends within the show). The number of times I’ve seen Stydia shippers praise Stiles for being in love with Lydia all while dating Malia is through the roof and it’s wrong on so many levels. 

Anyways, I think Stydia and Sterek shippers wouldn’t be so bad if they just owned up to the fact that their fandom is not perfect, and call out the unfairness of both sides because while you guys continue to fight, you’re not even realizing the hypocrisy that you’re spewing out. Stop pointing fingers and whining like children over a fictional ship and point out the very real issues that almost every fandom faces, which is misogyny, racism, and homophobia. (And no, I am not hating on these two groups and I think everyone is allowed to ship what they ship and love what they love, but I wanted to call out the issues that I feel are very real)

[freespeechfandom-blog]

Cassie: judgment vs. bias

@overlycaffeinatedwarmage wrote:

You have put into words everything I feel about Mircea in general and Mircea and Cassie as a couple. I like him a little more in the Dory books, but only a little. He’s still really heavy handed with her. He is an interesting character and needed foil, but I will probably never *like* him.

I like that this reaction was posted because it is in great contrast with many mistaken claims and misrepresentations, and it allows to explore the topic of having preferences (which is fine) and making judgments based on cognitive bias (which is not). Because that’s just it, nobody has to like any character. In the many years of the Cassie series, nobody has been asked to like Mircea, nor called out for not liking him. Pretty much all the ‘controversial’ topics are simply about people basing their hate on belief, not reality. Because if a claim can not stand up to scrutiny and can’t endure in the face of a counter-argument, then that claim just isn’t all that good.

For instance, It’s perfectly fine to dislike Mircea because of his dubious motives regarding Cassie. But repeating the same nonsense that the geis was to control a child’s emotions is just not true, and thus undermines the whole point (which on sound foundations could actually have merit). It’s fine to dislike Cassie’s relationship with Mircea because the dynamic is unsettling due to differences in age, experience, and feelings if we want to presume he’s not honestly into her (hasn’t been confirmed or denied). But hating it because it is toxic and Cassie should get away from huge red flags is just plain wrong (there’s a checklist). It’s fine to hate Cassie’s relative youth and naivete and inexperience, but wrong to presume that these are related to her gender (that’s internalized misogyny).

This is also where double standards come in. Claiming that the dislike for Mircea is because of the way he treats Cassie also loses all pretense of objectivity when paired with all the far worse things Pritkin did to Cassie, which get forgiven very fast. Same with Mircea avoiding Cassie or keeping secrets from her, which Cassie does in equal measure but gets forgiven for very fast again. Or him trying to ‘tell’ Cassie what to do in RtW, when Cassie was giving orders right back at him, with far less useful ideas, but that too gets forgiven very fast. To use ‘consent issues’ as an excuse against a character who when driven out of his mind by lust and imprisoned in a snare to endless madness still asks the heroine if she’s really really sure, while at the same time the heroine can make out with unconscious people for whom sex is a traumatic topic, or can slap people in the face and can order them around, and be forgiven for it. These are not valid arguments - the basic idea behind them might be, but if the same standards do not get applied to all other characters too, they have no place getting brought up in evaluations.

And that’s the ultimate difference, isn’t it, between an informed opinion and emotional bias pretending to be reasonable judgment. Preferences are free to have, to each their own, but allowing them to cloud evaluation results in flawed arguments, inconsistencies of logic and undermines the very point that was going to be made. We know people like to skip Mircea scenes and are thus more likely to ignore several positive Cassie-Mircea actions, and we know people like to skip or at least forget about negative Cassie-Pritkin actions, which only reinforces this cognitive bias. That’s why echo chambers are so detrimental - without scrutiny to weed out mistakes, without counter-arguments to broaden one’s perspective and strengthen one’s claim, observation is overshadowed by fallacy-riddled belief.

KC’s books have an unfortunate history of people projecting irrational preconceptions into them rather than basing their evaluation on the books objectively. A while ago, a bunch of ideological fanatics complained about the alarming “white-washing” in the books, the same way romantic fanatics incite outrage about a character KC keeps saying is not supposed to be one, or smack the label of sexism on everything despite all evidence to the contrary.

I’m aware that the people who would benefit most are the least likely to read this, but if anybody does, please, as a little experiment in upping one’s debate game, take a step back from behind Cassie (and behind Pritkin) and consider which viewpoint is the more objective and thus more valid point. Because overswinging and constructing unsubstantiated claims only results in missing the mark, and hurts one’s own side by appearing irrational, short-sighted and ridiculous.