#I'm just generally sick of people saying that the expectations placed on women by society is unfair and then turning around
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
I don't understand why people seem to dislike "Girl Dinner" and "Girl Math" so much.
Like, it's not about girls being unable to take care of themselves or make smart financial decisions. Girl Math is literally just about how under the capitalism small purchases that add up to a large number don't feel as expensive as one large purchase. It's the same phenomenon as being willing to pay $10 for a product but not $8 + $2 shipping. Or spending cash feeling different from spending on a credit card.
Or like why a bunch of people just started talking about how being a bimbo is just quirky sexism.
Yes, women can achieve great things, and they can be smart. We all support women's rights. But we gotta support women's wrongs as well.
After being told that you have to be smart and strong and do everything a man can do or you're a bad feminist and you're setting the movement back fifty years, the ability to just be dumb and carefree feels like taking off a bra.
Yes, women can be smart. But they can be dumb too. We can be weak and dumb and that doesn't make us "bad feminists" or "quirky sexists". It makes us human. And shaming women for their freedom to enjoy their life however they want is counterproductive. Men get to be as dumb as they want without shame, so why is it that when women are the ones who are dumb, you get offended and try to shame them into acting the way you want them to?
We can't have equality until you guys stop shaming women for every little thing they do. We can't have equality if we don't support women's wrongs.
#yes this is about that one post#I'm sick and tired of everyone acting like not knowing how to change a tire as a woman is “bad feminism”#Like if you can't understand complex historical concepts and code and do mental algebra and speak a dozen languages and lift your weight#then you're setting back the movement??#I'm just generally sick of people saying that the expectations placed on women by society is unfair and then turning around#and making women feel bad for not being exceptional#I don't have to get 3 degrees and a doctorate and also lift cars in my free time#Everyday I understand Marina's lyrics better#You want me to write a feminist anthem? I'm happy cooking dinner in the kitchen for my husband#that lyric used to make me so angry but now I understand#Enjoying something or not being able to do something doesn't make you lesser#And you don't have to feel guilty for enjoying things#girl dinner#girl math#Some of you need to listen to Gloria's speech again and it shows
40 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hello. I saw your post on tradwives and I wanted to ask a question. I am an aspiring tradwife and an ex-feminist. And I'm genuinely curious about what you said. I respect your opinions and understand you want the best for women and yourself too.
Do you believe that what you said applies to most tradwives or just white tradwives in first world countries? Additionally, in my personal experience, I did not have a working mother but I was pushed into university even when I knew I couldn't handle it. Isn't it better for women who cannot handle the competitive job world to become a tradwife? Particularly if they're naturally submissive, like housework and submitting to someone who can make their decisions for them? I have talked to really good traditional men who are good people and their masculinity consists of being strong and protective men instead of the abusive ones feminists think they generally are.
That's not exactly one question so apologies for that. I mean this all in good spirit and I genuinely want to know. Have a good day!
On the contrary, women who feel overwhelmed and scared by the world, who just want a nice protective man to look after them, and who have people pleasing tendencies and feel incapable to handle independence, are the women who are most vulnerable and susceptible to abuse. If your motivation for becoming a tradwife is that are scared of independence then what leverage do you have if the men you rely on to look after you fail you in some way? If you cannot handle independence you will find it so much harder to be able to leave.
What exactly do you think abusive men look like? Do you think they announce themselves to everyone in any given circumstance? You say you've spoken to really good traditional men, how well do you know them really? How well do the women who get abused by their partners know their men? Abusiveness is virtually never obvious and manifests in many ways across a relationship, as does negligence which is how so many women who are supposedly being 'provided for' end up bearing the full brunt of managing a household and finding that if they are ever sick or need anything, their husbands leave them.
I don't believe in 'natural submissiveness', especially in women. I myself am soft-spoken, have trouble asserting myself and often fall into people-pleasing patterns including a lifelong struggle with subconsciously and consciously pleasing and coddling the men around me. Many women are the same, is this a natural fixture of our personalities that we should just fall into and let men decide things for us? Or is it a response to social conditioning and a brutal world designed to undermine women's confidence in ourselves and our ability to participate in society as equals so that we rely on men? I encourage you to look beyond your fears and insecurities to see what you're really capable of.
What I've said about tradwives applies to places where women have more choices and expectations to participate in the external economy/workforce and are told they could potentially succeed in capitalism in their own right. Because it is a different thought process for women who are given no opportunity or expectation to be defined beyond wifehood and motherhood. The very notion of 'tradwife' is western centric, as its all about returning to so called 'traditional' roots.
90 notes
·
View notes
Note
Beth March for the 7 questions ask?
Three facts about them from my personal headcanons.
She's on the autism spectrum, or would be if she lived today.
She probably couldn't put into words why she's so especially close to Jo out of all her sisters, when on the surface they're opposites. But deep down she knows the reason why, besides "opposites attract": it's because they're both misfits. Meg and Amy are much better at following the rules their society expects of young women; Jo and Beth never fit that mold, Jo because of her tomboyishness and Beth because of her shyness. This mutual sense of being different draws them closer together, even though they're different in opposite ways. (I headcanon them both as neurodivergent – ADHD or bipolar Jo, autistic Beth.)
If she had lived, she might have eventually and unexpectedly fallen in love and gotten married. I don't think that would have been impossible. But it would have to have been with a very unique, understanding young man. He might be the only Little Women OC I'd ever be tempted to create.
A reason they suck:
She doesn't think she was ever meant to live long, because she never wants to leave her family, get married, or lead a "normal" adult life. What does that say to those of us in the real world who have that in common with her?
A reason they are great:
She's one of the kindest, most loving, most unselfish and generous people you'll ever meet, and she shows just how valuable the most easily-overlooked person (sickly, shy, never leaves home, etc.) can be.
A reason I relate to them:
I'm also "young" for my age, don't have any grand ambitions, and just want a quiet, peaceful life near my family.
(what I consider to be) the top tier otp/ot3 for that character:
None.
Five things that never happened to the character that I believe should have happened:
Someone (maybe Jo) should have taken time to imagine what her life would have been like if she hadn't gotten sick. That someone should have told her, or at least spelled out to the readers, that even if she had lived with her parents until they died, and then maybe moved in with Jo and Friedrich to help care for the children at Plumfield, that even if she reached old age without ever marrying, having children, or "achieving" anything outside the home, her life would still have been happy and valuable.
Her musical compositions should have been published, even anonymously or under a pseudonym.
During her final months, she should have talked with Meg and Jo about a subject that's not even brought up again after Part I – the idea that the scarlet fever that started her decline was Meg and Jo's fault, because they wouldn't go to the Hummels in her place when she asked them to. She should have told them never to blame themselves, that she had been caring for the sick baby for a week and was almost certainly infected already when she asked them to go. Though it isn't mentioned, I suspect that Jo wouldn't have been so crushed with grief and depression after Beth's death if a part of her didn't still feel it was her fault.
She should have had more one-on-one interactions with Meg and Amy; even though she's clearly the closest to Jo, it would be nice to see more of her relationships with the other two.
After her death, someone (maybe Laurie in one of his ignorant moments) should have made a passing comment that she was "too fragile for this world," and someone else (either Jo or Amy) should have argued against that perspective. I'm just sick of seeing critics say that Beth has to die because she's too fragile for this world, and I wish the book spelled out that she wasn't.
Five people that character never fell in love with and why.
Laurie. He's a good friend; that's all.
John Brooke. Ditto.
Mr. Laurence; he's much too old and is more of an honorary grandfather.
Friedrich Bhaer. She sadly never meets him, but even if she had, he would just have been a good friend.
Frank Vaughn. Another friend, but not a love interest.
Fred Vaughn. Unlike Frank, he has nothing in common with her.
13 notes
·
View notes
Note
From what I've gathered reading your blog you seem to be very much pro-kink, even the ones most people would find 'gross' and until very recently this was something I agreed with. Fantasies are just fantasies and don't have any meaning on reality, right? But lately I decided to browse through some masochistic kink tags on Tumblr out of bored curiosity and what I found made me feel sick to my stomach. Teenage girls (that's what they mostly were) posting about being raped, made into sex slaves, being 'put in their place as women' by men, it all seemed like something out of a misogynist's wet dream. I don't know what I expected by checking in those tags in the first place, but I didn't think it would be that extreme. It just seems hard to imagine a young woman posting about being bred like livestock as is her place as a female and going back to having a healthy view of herself and others as women when she's done. Especially teenagers, since their minds are still growing and being molded by what they experience. It reminded me that I've been seeing a lot BDSM bleeding (heh) over into mainstream vanilla sex, like choking and beating. It just seems like maledom is becoming synonymous with sex and sexuality itself, and I don't think it's natural. Femdom is still and always was very niche, so unless someone wants to argue that women are naturally more masochistic than men I think a lot of female masochism is a result of living in and being influenced by a male-dominated world and should not be seen as healthy and encouraged. This ended up being a lot longer than I expected, but you generally have pretty good takes on things and so I was curious about your opinion on this.
--
Nonnie...
Uh...
I don't mean to be rude here, but misogyny kink + rape kink is basic-ass stuff that's everywhere. Hucows are a staple of crappy image board porn sites full of anime art. If this seems shocking and extreme to you, I don't think you've explored freaky porn spaces very much. This is what I'm talking about when I roll my eyes at fandom wank about "extreme" fic within fandom.
When I personally was 14, I was reading snuff stories with dudes jizzing into bullet holes. The ones that weren't about shooting featured long, detailed descriptions of strangulation. Plenty of them also featured misogyny kink, but my favorite author and photo essayist was always writing about herself as a murdered corporate spy and shit like that without any particular misogynistic element. She'd make her husband cart her around and take photos of her playing dead.
My favorite movie was Crash. It just spoke to something inside of me.
I am far healthier for having been able to explore that through fiction without being yelled at and told I was mentally ill. Kinks develop early, and you cannot make teen girls not have rape kinks. They're one of the most common human sexual fantasies that exists!
We don't know where these things come from, but pathologizing them or imagining they come directly from art teens are looking at right then is shitty. Many people can trace the kinks they find sexual as adults back to things they were obsessed with in early childhood. I think it's possible that misogyny kink would decline somewhat if society got less misogynist, but rape kinks aren't going anywhere, and this kind of social change would be years too late for anyone who's currently a teen even if you could wave a magic wand today.
It just seems like maledom is becoming synonymous with sex and sexuality itself
Nonnie... Where have you been?
First of all, that's all of society for thousands of years. Second of all, as I always say, most people are bottoms:
Most people don't want to be the one doing the work. They want to be the one done to.
Many women are attracted to men.
Actual men expect a lot of babysitting.
Ergo, porn where a man does things to a woman while she lies there like a dead fish, needing to make zero decisions and zero effort to cater to him is very popular.
You see women thinking real rapists are sexy. I see women with a fantasy of finally not having to do all the work.
--
"Femdom is still and always was very niche"
This is straight up bullshit. Femdom is extremely popular, but it is popular among men.
Dude-oriented porn is full of this kind of thing, and it is a fantasy, yet again, of being done to. These dommes dress up in scratchy-sounding lingerie and spike heels and have their wicked way with nerdy, helpless dudes. I wish those dudes all the fun in the world, but their anatomically improbable erotica does not do it for me because it is, like so much else, about a kink dispenser providing for a deserving subject.
Women are not more naturally submissive. Everyone likes to be the pampered recipient rather than the one putting their back into it. You're just only looking at places full of women's porn.
If you hung out on gelbooru or rule34 or e621 or any of the sites with active comments sections, you'd find a very different picture. Try looking up Link. Dudes love Link. It's a handful of guys going "I'd show him what a real man is" and seas and seas of men who clearly identify with Link and want to watch him get dicked down by everybody from Ganondorf to dogs to dickgirls.
Dudes produce a ton of porn where big titty librarians and strict schoolteachers smack around little girly boys while insulting their manhood. Sometimes, they're futas with big dicks. Sometimes, they just use big strap-ons. It's a whole Thing. You just don't see it because you're hanging out here and on AO3.
--
Our kind of spaces always want femdom-for-women to be popular, like it's more self actualized to want to be on top.
This attitude is incredibly toxic. It ignores everything we know about healthy BDSM. It pathologizes bottoming. And it asks sexual fantasies to fulfill a representation quota.
This isn't how desire works.
I'm sorry if I sound testy, but what you sent me is bog standard kink hating. I've seen this exact song and dance so many times, right down to the total shock over kinks that wouldn't even register as unusual on a porn site.
762 notes
·
View notes
Text
Why do we like this clown so much?
Change the "we" for "I" and you get an usual tag I use whenever I post my content in Tumblr. And it sounds funny at first but whenever you start diving into that phrase, the deeper it becomes. So, I finally have decided to share my thoughts about this strange but wholesome attraction to this deeply flawed character. It's not something I usually do since I don't know how to write down my feelings properly and also in english so please forgive any typos (I'm from Chile so don't be surprised lol).
So...Why do we like this clown so much?
Why was it that a character precisely designed to scare and to disgust the fuck out of us ended up unchaining a series of feelings that shouldn't have taken place in a beginning?
Let's take a look at the background: Joaquin Phoenix was cast as Arthur Fleck/Joker in 2018. The first image of him as the aforementioned character revealed a deeply disturbed man. We knew the plot. A man driven to insanity after a brutal history of abuse, creating concern in people if the upcoming film would inspire real life violence. Incel violence and mass shootings, more specifically.
(the image in question)
As 2019 arrives, the two trailers generated so much hype that media needed to fuel its concern about it. Since it wasn't your typical comic book film, media basically bombed our minds making us believe this film was going to be a total disaster, an excuse to cause harm to others among other nonsense, as if the film would justify everything Arthur would do in the film, eventually. As the release date is closer, the film receives thunderous applause and unanimous praise from critics. At this, fans rejoiced and expressed impatience to watch the film.
October 5th.
People left the theaters amazed, shocked and genuinely moved by the inhuman treatment Arthur received in the film. The fear media tried so desperately to infuse in us with all the incel bullshit and such turned out to awake one of the most positive, best feelings in humans:
E M P A T H Y
The word that so gloriously cleared away any dark thoughts or actions not only proves media was wrong but it turned out to ridicule it in way nobody will forget: Hundreds of people advocating for mental illness, calling out to the kindness that could change a person's bad day and questioning how politicians and rich people are indifferent to social problems proved how much as a society we have changed in comparison with the one shown in the film.
However, since we are on Tumblr, I'll get straight to the point and try to explain why the fuck does this clown has us dying out of love and compassion (and lust).
I. Background.
As nurturing as we women are for a biological matter, we see a man deprived of a good job, is on seven different medications, working like a slave to sustain his ill mother, putting aside his own health and well-being to look for her, struggling to make his dream of being a comedian despite everyone stepping on him, underpaid and treated like a freak for a disorder he did not ask to suffer, which makes it impossible to be indifferent to all the horrible ordeal that eventually will reach the limit of what he can tolerate without going insane. It is impossible to not say or think, at least, that someone (even if it's just one person) should stand for him just as it is impossible not to feel the need to throw ourselves at him to shield him from people who hurt him or simply offer him our shoulder whenever he has had a bad day, specially when he learns he was sexually assaulted by his step father.
This horrid behaviour terrifies newer generations because they get a taste of what being a social outcast was like more than thirty years ago in comparison with today, where there's more acceptance and treatment for mentally ill people like Arthur. We see in him someone who could have been saved with a proper education and emotional support instead of descending into madness as a criminal. Others simply saw themselves being treated like him at some point in their lives and couldn't help but put themselves in his shoes.
II. Personality.
TRUTH BE TOLD:
There's something called "attraction by proximity". It is the explanation to the eventual love you feel whenever someone doesn't catch your eye at first terms of physical attraction but his/her personality does attract you. This happens to be the base of this situation. His shyness, introverted nature, tenderness and innocent desire to make people laugh and put on a happy face awake some kind of tenderness we cannot resist. This combined with the gloomy background increases our understanding (but not justifying) of the bad decisions he'll eventually take during the course of the film. This traces a line of harsh, almost hurtful contrast of the violence he shows later on the film. Once again, it is not justified in any way but it is certainly understandable.
III. Appearance.
Arthur Fleck is unconventionally attractive.
This happens to be a plus for most women. He is out of the male beauty standards (no abs, not too muscly or particularly tall), which makes him even more unique. It is precisely the fact that he's not a model one of the reasons women love him. He could easily be your man next door or your colleague or the guy you always see but never dare to talk for fear to bother him Because it's about proximity. Arthur looks like your common neighbour. He's not meant to be your typical desirable male protagonist at all.
... And yet.
Jesus Christ, he's so fucking hot I can't even---
It's not about how beautiful his green eyes are, his long slender fingers, his hair or his smile only. It's the charm behind it.
Another "magnet point" is the way he dresses. I know he's impoverished and his wardrobe tend to be repetitive but it is so unpretentious, so simple that is hard to not fall for. The modesty of the shirts, ironed trousers reminds us of a mature man deeply withdrawn into himself, love starved and longing to be seen and loved by others, like a war veteran who still fights the most important war: with himself. Is someone who needs to be listened and understood.
AND OF COURSE WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE ABOUT IT?
He's also brought back the old gentleman outfit, white shirts, red/yellow vest, red suit and elegant dancing moves and the retro style of the film boosts this attractiveness.
People keep comparing him with the previous interpretation of Joker (Leto's) whose costume appealed to young women with a tattooed, gangster, mumble rapper crazy-guy wannabe which didn't connect with the audiences (young people in general). This supposedly was to match or even have a sexy, tormented and desirable villain like Marvel's Loki. We all know how that story ended but it's the link for the next point below.
IV. Transformation
This is a particularly strong point considering how much we loved to watch the process of this weak, powerless, forgotten caterpillar into a beautiful and visible butterfly that will gracefully stir its wings for everyone to see its colours.
When Arthur transitions to the Joker, it's so cathartic to see taking revenge on those who wronged him (even when we're not supposed to root for him) like seeing his shyness fading away into a vivid confidence when dancing half naked in the bathroom, or witnessing him making way to make his name known to people in Murray Franklin's Show:
Adding to this newly gained confidence, there's another turn on: the way he walks.
At the beginning, his pace is hunched and limping, displaying his submission to violence, which makes the viewer more satisfied to see his broken yet beautiful soul turning the past pain of his existence into art: he lets music guide his moves as a way to tell the world he's a new man by cutting most of the sick, evil roots that harmed him, that he's invincible, that no one can stop him. Watching this cathartic display of euphoria was the most iconic scene in the film, following his speech at the TV and the inevitable meltdown that caused Murray's death.
Going to further appreciation, even his clown make up is beautiful. Why? Simple. The combination of colours, shapes and the intimidating glare just embellishes even more the character.
The dark blue triangles in his expressive eyes makes the light green colour to highlight, specially in dark backgrounds, giving the impression he's piercing your soul whenever he stares directly at the camera. Same can be said about the red smile and emerald green hair. They boost an already intimidating look.
The cold and warm colours paint a picture of a man full of intense emotions, mirroring it in a simple yet masterful artistic way.
Another interesting point is the way Joker dresses. Usually we had almost every single live adaption of this character in purple coat, hat, etc. But this particular version is not following any comic, which gives more freedom to creativity and once again, out of the standards of what we could have expected.
Red is a colour related to passion, action, love, strength, motivation and excitement. As for yellow, it indicates freshness, happiness and enlightenment and finally, green. Green is renewal, growth and regeneration. Colours that represent a new stage in his life, a mirthful chapter at last. We finally get to see our battered, always humiliated protagonist (or hero) descending into madness, but finally free from his repressed man who held his soul captive like a bird to fly away, to never come back. An insanity that despite being his downfall, turned out to be his ticket to freedom as he walks to the light in Arkham Asylum dancing at the end.
Ladies and gentlemen: behold the film nobody asked... But the film we fucking deserved.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk
❤️💚💛
#joker movie#the joker#joker film#joker 2019#2019 joker#joker joaquin phoenix#joaquin phoenix#joaquin is so hot omg#dcedit#dc comics#he's so beautiful#arthur fleck imagine#arthur fleck#Arthur Fleck is I C O N I C#clown daddy#why do i like this clown so much?#i love this clown so much#hes baby#hes so pretty#omg hes so cute#protecc him plz#plz protecc#plz hug him#lol sorry#i had to#this movie gives me life#this man will be the death of me#i can't get enough of this dude#i can't get enough of this babe#arthur fleck x reader
428 notes
·
View notes
Note
1) Hey, it's me again. The idiot rambling anon. I wasn't gonna spam you again, but then I read your responses. At this point, I'm convinced you're my alter ego, lol. My thoughts are all over the place, but I'll try to organize them. So, about Nick. I've purposely avoided talking about him so far, but why the hell not? Let me make one thing clear: I'm NOT of of those thirsty fangirls. But even if I was? I wouldn't get offended or butthurt, because another person likes different fictional
2) characters (of all things) than me. I mean, big fucking deal. Each to their own, no need for apologies. ;) (My tone is a little aggressive, I know, but I’m sick and tired of some people on social media –in and out of fandoms– acting holier-than-thou and sending hate messages and even actual death threats (!) to creators or people that express unpopular opinions*. It’s reached a point where many people feel the need to put disclaimers in their posts so as not to be attacked.)
3) Back to Nick. I liked him just fine back in early S1, when he was all mysterious and his background story was unknown to us. When we did learn about it and the fandom started acting like he’s that pure, handsome angel uwu? Nah. Obviously, he’s no Fred/Serena/Lydia,but he’s not a “cinnamon roll” either. (Imo, the only decent dude on that show is Luke.) I mean, if Nick was SO altruistic, he wouldn’t have joined this job. Or even after everything went down, he could have tried to help other
4) handmaids without expecting anything in return. But no, he only helps June and that’s because he’s in love with her. I’m not blaming him for trying to survive under such circumstances, but I won’t idolize him either. Now, in s2? I’m kinda neutral about him. I don’t hate him, but I can’t say that I’m a fan either. Not gonna lie, he bores me at times, because he’s just… there. No sparks, no fireworks. Not sure if it’s the writing that doesn’t do the actor any favors, but his acting hasn’t
5) really drawn me in yet. A counterexample to this? Aunt Lydia. Her personality is despicable 98% of the time and yet. Dowd’s captivating performance makes me want to know so much more about her character.) On the other hand, I’m glad that June has someone (besides Rita) to back her up in that hellhole. She needs comfort and allies. But the whole ‘tRu Love 5eva" fanon thing? No, thanks. Not only it doesn’t fit the tone of the series, but I also believe that sharing an intense, forbidden love/
6) during such a shitstorm is not the same thing as keeping it alive after all is said and done (post-Gilead). Maybe they’ll stay together (as long as Nick doesn’t die), maybe they’ll fall apart. I can’t really see June romantically reconnecting with Luke either. After everything she’s been through… She’s a completely different person now. Unfortunately, the same things goes for Emily and her wife. Even though I’d love to see her interact with both her wife and her child in S3.
———
My inbox is so beautiful right now! Never, ever call yourself an idiot, my friend. (If you are, then so am I!) Brain twins, you see.
(Also sorry about this being out of order lol.)
I was trying not to talk about him too cos generally I just … I prefer not to think about him much. The fangirls, just, *sigh*. I try to avoid as much as possible in this fandom, esp on tumblr. Just hang out in my quiet little, not-Serena-hating corner. I always feel a need to put disclaimers these days cos as much as I don’t really care about random hate, I’d prefer not to have to deal with dogpiles or to look at it lmao. Like people can go around just hating on any character here–especially if they’re women–but say one critical (not even hateful) thing about their male fav and things just go off.
I’m more than aware the majority of people don’t like Serena and think she’s the worst thing ever. And fair play! (I get it… cos I’m not delusional. She’s awful.) Each to their own. I don’t go around bitching at people who say shitty things or stuff I don’t agree with, or blocking anybody who doesn’t like her. (There are a few posts I do engage with cos normally they seem like they want to go deeper in The Discourse but most Serena/Lydia/Eden/Janine/June-hate I just ignore.)
ITA. S1 was, like, okay. That’s Nick. What’s he up to? What’s his deal? (I don’t really care but I’m not opposed to him either. Just like I didn’t care about Luke’s backstory/escape.) He’s trying to be good to June and she needs that.When we did learn his backstory I was not pleased cos he seemed like a twerp but whatevs. Grey characters are grey. It wasn’t until S2 that I started to get irked by him (and the hypocrisy of his fans but that’s a whole other issue).
I can’t agree ANY more with your assessment of Nick. Like that’s EXACTLY what I’ve been saying! Firstly, he was RIGHT THERE when the Handmaid/Ceremony thing was first suggested and was like “Oh, yeah, great idea!” to Fred. I get that perhaps he was pressured to go along to keep his job but that’s a stretch imo, and if you can give him that sort of leeway, why can’t characters like Eden, Serena, Lydia and June get the same benefit of the doubt for certain things? Why is Nick’s pressure to keep his job more important and forgivable than anybody else’s pressures? It’s like that entire scene doesn’t exist to fangirls and Nick is so precious and in love and wonderful. Then there’s the rape of June. Like I know it’s pretty controversial to look at it that way, but that first time, with Serena overseeing it like a fucking creepy pimp (YUUUUUUCCCKKKKK I HATE IT THANKS) was rape. June barely knew the guy and I’m pretty sure if she wanted to have sex with him it wouldn’t be like that! And sure, after that, it was totally consensual but that first time was not. And I’ve heard the justification and excuses of “Well, Nick didn’t have a choice either!” which I call bullshit on, cos Nick is not some powerless delivery boy.
He’s a fucking Guardian who is tight with the top Commanders. He’s a man, if nothing else. Serena can act all high and mighty but she’s still a woman in a highly misogynistic society. I’m not convinced Fred would take his wife’s word over Nick’s tbh, especially if it was like “Dude, your crazy wife asked me to fuck the Handmaid you’re obsessed with”. If he really didn’t want to do it that badly, he could have taken that chance to report Serena. Even if Fred wanted to keep it hush hush away from other Commanders, he would have gone after Serena. Men are far more likely to turn on women than each other, esp in THT. But that’s just my take. Maybe I am missing something about Nick’s status. To me, it was like double rape. Neither of them wanted to do it, like that anyway. But Nick also did fuck all to stop it when IMO he did have some power to do something. He is not a helpless victim in that society, imo. Again, probably not a well-received opinion.
Don’t even get me started on his “Poor me!” routine in S2 when June tells him to have sex with Eden. I’m glad she called him on that bullshit. (But again, over the fangirls heads. Enough about them!)
Basically, everything Nick has done wrong isn’t his choice; he’s just a victim. In a story about women, Nick’s victimhood at the hands of these nasty women and men is the real issue. Blah. Whatever.
I just find Nick lacks total self-awareness about being part of the shitty ass system. He kind of just floats around thinking nothing is his fault and he’s blameless for it all, and he certainly can’t seem to see it from anyone’s perspective except his own. He’s upset about Fred & June’s Jezebel trips, not for her own safety or well-being but mainly he’s jealous. Of course he’s concerned about her safety but I believe it takes a backseat to his jealousy. He just seems to never take any responsibility for anything.
And BINGO about the previous Handmaid. Nothing we’ve been shown has given any hint he cares about any other woman’s plight in Gilead other than June, and only cares about her cos he had a crush/fucked her/is in wuv wiv her. Basically, she’s HIS so suddenly he cares about her. Look how fast he dumped that Martha as soon as he got brooding about June. He’s done fuckall for anybody except himself and that alone makes me dislike him. He’s no better than Fred in that way for me. But where Fred can occasionally be an interesting villain, cos Fiennes is nasty good, I find the actor who plays Nick just… not engaging. And he’s not SUPPOSED to be a villain! He’s meant to be a good guy! It’s crazy. He’s not compelling, he’s not interesting. He’s bland. He’s not even good looking, lol. I was watching with a friend once and mention I thought Fred was way better looking than Nick and she just stared at me and said, “You shouldn’t say that. But me too.” So, count me in the camp that just does not get the appeal of the character OR the actor.
I don’t hate Nick generally. I am just totally indifferent to his existence. If he left the show tomorrow, I’d shrug and probably be a little glad I don’t have to see that bland moping anymore. If he stays, oh well. Shrug. And I just don’t want his and June’s star-crossed romance shoved down my throat. It’s so… I dunno. I’m not opposed to June finding solace and hope but making it some beautiful forbidden romance, I’m not buying it. Like you said, it’s all well and good in Gilead–but it doesn’t strike me as something that can be sustainable outside it. To borrow from you last time: It’s the Handmaid’s Tale, not The Guardian + the Handmaid’s Tale.
Okay, enough about that pipsqueak. I don’t even like talking about him, tbh. He’s not worth it when there’s so much else going on.
ITA about Luke/June too. I feel like the level of disconnection and trauma that they’ve sustained, especially June, they can try to reconnect but it’s pretty difficult and I think especially with June having a sexual/romantic relationship with Nick pulls that really tight. It’s just two different planets they live on now. I don’t doubt that she still loves Luke, but actually reforming the relationship they previously had seems like an impossible task considering everything both of them have been through. It’s sad, but … sadly true for many people. Relationships can fall apart for far less.
And on the same page about Emily/Sylvia too. She is just soooooo fucking broken, and hopeless, that if they have them just rekindle with no issues, it’ll be bad writing. (I dunno if you see spoilers but there’s one about them.) She needs therapy so much more than a cutesy feelgood storyline.
Back to Lydia: Exactly! There’s a character we know very little about and who is a horrible person, yet the performance by Dowd makes almost everyone go, “TELL ME MORE!” With Nick, it’s the opposite for me. I’m just like, “Please, less of this.”
1 note
·
View note
Note
lol no idea about b/ellarke but i'm soo sick of seeing the platonic argument for jb too like even on the show season 6 had ONE b episode but it was so shippy that all my show-only friends who don't even care about the ship were like "such eye-sex, omg" and YET some will say it's platonic lol. that reply was a++
no listen I have a serious, serious, serious problem with the term platonic being attached to a lot of ships in order to deny that they’re romantic but especially with jb I really can’t stand it for a number of reasons and sorry but you touched on a sore point so I might rant at you but:
I’m sick tired of this idea that platonic relationships are inherently *purer* than romantic ones or that two people who are romantically in love with each other and have been written as such should be *platonic* because they somehow work better as friends. now, that’s brought up with m/m ships too, but with f/m ships - where the romance is maybe more expected because it’s the norm - there’s the really irksome habit of saying it when it’s not your typical couple. b/ellarke is an interracial couple with the male lead being half-filipino which is not a typical combination and guess why most of the bashing goes to him, but with jb we go to what is my serious fucking problem with it.
as in: it’s a hot guy and an ugly woman who happens to not be the kind you can turn beautiful with make-up and who is, actually, the stereotype deconstruction of a lot of things with her character type.
what I mean: usually ugly women who aren’t feminine in appearance or manners or who have *male*-coded jobs are lesbians or trans or hate being women and/or have gender issues and if they aren’t they usually go back to their feminine-coded jobs/appearance later (ie, I love eowyn to pieces but she’s hot regardless and her story ends with finding the man of her life and giving the sword up, and mind I ship it with the force of a thousand suns and I love how that story goes because it’s one specific trope tolkien knew what he was doing). brienne is ugly, and she’s also not lesbian or trans nor she hates being a woman nor she has issues with her gender - she happens to dress like a guy and do things guys do (ie: being a knight) because that’s what she’s good at, but she doesn’t resent being a woman, she only resents not having fit into society’s standards to give her father a heir that was either one or the other. she fell for renly because he danced with her without laughing and I have a feeling she wouldn’t have a problem wearing dresses if no one gave her shit for it. brienne is a woman who’s NOT pretty which makes her undesirable by society’s standards (and westeros’ tbh) but at the same time she’s the kind of seventeen year-old who irl would probably write mrs jaime lannister on her diary without realizing jaime writes mr brienne tarth on his, but never mind. and sorry but it’s not a model that’s very popular.
as in: I have weird issues when it comes to personally relating to brienne because I know I’m objectively a lot better looking but I never felt like I was and is2g in every single affc chapter of hers I read there was one flashback where she’d remember something that was the westeros version of shit that happened to me at some point in between elementary and high school. at some point it was creepy how accurate it was. and thing is: it was the first time in my life I actually related to a fictional character that way because at the ripe age of twenty-two I had never run into a female character who was UGLY, straight and not belonging to a romantic or sexual minority and who was never gonna get any prettier and who was also, incidentally, the person with the straightest moral compass in the series pretty much. wow. amazing. and guess what -
she’s also the tangible/possible love interest of a guy who’s a lot hotter than she is, who respects her greatly for her skills, who trusts her because of them and with whom she has a thriving relationship and who doesn’t give two fucks that she’s ugly and who, on top of that, even had not so platonic boners when seeing her naked. now, on her side it’s pretty much canon that she’s in love with jaime and honest I think it’s gonna be clear on his very soon, but like, the thing is that it’s not a dynamic that usually gets this kind of treatment. ugly guys tend to get hot girls, but hot guys always are with ugly girls who suddenly turned beautiful or weren’t really ugly in the first place or have one part of their body that doesn’t look good but are hot regardless, or who are ugly for someone’s standards but not for others. and honestly, I don’t care if people don’t ship it - you can dislike it how you want, no one is obliged to - but going like ‘ah but they’re friends WHY CAN’T THEY BE PLATONIC’ or the everlasting ‘but she’s too ugly for him’ (rotfl jaime is the one person who didn’t give a fuck about his brother being disabled/*ugly* for westeros standards you think he cares about brienne’s looks) is basically denying all over again that if you’re a woman who doesn’t look hot or attractive then you can’t be seen as a romantic or sexual desire object by someone who’s actually hot.
and I’m really fucking tired of that. I mean, I see that shit everywhere also with famous people (like I’ve seen people being shocked that hugh j*ackman’s wife is very average when they’ve been together since forever and they obv love each other??, same as m*isha collins’s wife like ‘oh I’m so surprised she’s really plain couldn’t he do better’) and honestly, from the point of view of someone who really has trouble seeing themselves as as such (because as stated before I really don’t see myself as good looking), having a canon romance where the girl isn’t hot and will never become such and it doesn’t fucking matter because the guy wants her regardless of her fucking attractiveness factor would be really, really refreshing.
but no. they’re friends. they’re comrades. it has to be platonic. can’t be that it’s romantic. you know what, no. it doesn’t have to be platonic. if you see it as such fine, but it can be romantic, there’s literally no reason for it not to be since on brienne’s side it’s basically canon and jaime certainly doesn’t think of her in platonic terms regardless of what he likes to tell himself (I don’t get boners for people I have no attraction to, and given that jaime in general doesn’t feel attracted to people that aren’t his sister maybe that means fucking something) and denying that it can be romantic in this case to me sounds dangerously like ‘but she’s ugly and he’s not so it doesn’t make sense’. yes, because in order to partner with someone you have to be the same level of attractive. yeah, nope.
anyway sorry for the rant but since as stated I have *personal* investment in the ‘can we stop saying ugly girls can’t be sexual or romantic partners’ issue I just really can’t stand this stupid argument especially for jb. especially when they treat it like a romantic relationship is somehow cheapening it. because, spoilers, some of us actually WANT romantic relationships and enjoy the idea and would also not mind some X-rated activity thrown in the mix and saying that this whole thing is somehow less noble than some crappy purity-based relationship where you’re supposed to have deep affinity but be just *friends* and love the soul and all that jazz is frankly a thing that should be deleted from existence.
especially when platonic in theory and in the beginning didn’t even fucking mean that and the sexual component was fundamental in the concept, but never mind that.
ugh, sorry I went on that rant but I really have Issues TM with jb attached to platonic love from people who want to deny at all costs that they have romantic potential rather than just say that it exists but they don’t care for the dynamic.
#janie writes meta#sort of#otp: i dreamed of you#blergh sorry you got me started on the one thing that gets my inner hulk going#Anonymous#ask post
17 notes
·
View notes