#THIS IS NOT A DISCOURSE THING THIS IS JUST ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH HOW I LIKE TO TALK ABOUT MYSELF

[olasketches]

so because we have only three chapters left, I’ve decided that I’m going to wait for the official release instead of going through the leaks as I’ve been doing for… almost the past 2 years. I don’t want the leaks and the fandom discourse to ruin my last experience with jjk as a still ongoing manga… plus I thought it would be more fun and enjoyable this way... more special ig (I’m being so sappy ik) wish me luck guys!!

[thelaurenshippen]

genuinely think it's good and healthy to follow at least one person in each of your fandoms who reblogs good gifsets but has just...absolutely dogshit takes on the show, or who ships that ship you despise. keeps things fresh. keeps things grounded. you gotta stay humble

[screambirdscreaming]

I used to like saying "gender is a social construct," but I stopped saying that because people didn't tend to react well - they thought that I was saying gender wasn't real, or didn't matter, or could be safely ignored without consequences. Which has always baffled me a bit as an interpretation, honestly, because many things are social constructs - like money, school, and the police - and they certainly have profound effects on your life whether or not you believe in them. And they sure don't go away if you ignore them.

Anyway. What I've taken to saying instead is, "gender is a cultural practice." This gives more of a sense of respect for the significance gender holds to many people. And it also opens the door to another couple layers of analysis.

Gender is cultural. It is not globally or historically homogeneous. It shifts over time, develops differently in different communities, and can be influenced by cross-cultural contact. Like many, many aspects of culture, the current status of gender is dramatically influenced by colonialism. Colonial gender norms are shaped by the hierarchical structure of imperialist society, and enforced onto colonized cultures as part of the project of imperial cultural hedgemony.

Gender is practiced. What constitutes a gender includes affects and behaviors, jobs or areas of work, skillsets, clothing, collective and individual practices of gender affiliation and affirmation. Any or all of these things, in any combination, depending on the gender, the culture, and the practitioner.

Gender encompasses shared cultural archetypes. These can include specific figures - gods and goddesses, mythic or fictional characters, etc - or they can be more abstract or general. The Wise Woman, Robin Hood, the Dyke, the Working Man, the Plucky Heroine, the Effete Gay Man, etc etc. The range of archetypes does not circumscribe a given gender, that is, they're not all there is to gender. But they provide frameworks and reference points by which people relate to gender. They may be guides for ways to inhabit or practice a gender. They may be stereotypes through which the gendered behavior of others is viewed.

Gender as a framework can be changed. Because it is created collectively, by shared acknowledgement and enforcement by members of society. Various movements have made significant shifts in how gender is structured at various times and places. The impact of these shifts has been widely variable - for example, depending on what city I'm in, even within my (fairly culturally homogeneous) home country, the way I am gendered and reacted to changes dramatically. Looping back to point one, we often speak of gender in very broad terms that obscure significant variability which exists on many scales.

Gender is structured recursively. This can be seen in the archetypes mentioned above, which range from extremely general (say, the Mother) to highly specific (the PTA Soccer Mom). Even people who claim to acknowledge only two genders will have many concepts of gendered-ways-of-being within each of them, which they may view and react to VERY differently.

Gender is experienced as an external cultural force. It cannot be opted out of, any more than living in a society can be opted out of. Regardless of the internal experience of gender, the external experience is also present. Operating within the shared cultural understanding of gender, one can aim to express a certain practice of gender - to make legible to other people how it is you interface with gender. This is always somewhat of a two-way process of communication. Other people may or may not perceive what you're going for - and they may or may not respect it. They may try to bring your expressed gender into alignment with a gender they know, or they might parcel you off into your own little box.

Gender is normative. Within the structure of the "cultural mainstream," there are allowable ways to practice gender. Any gendered behavior is considered relative to these standards. What behavior is allowed, rewarded, punished, or shunned is determined relative to what is gender normative for your perceived gender. Failure to have a clearly perceivable gender is also, generally, punished. So is having a perceivable gender which is in itself not normative.

Gender is taught by a combination of narratives, punishments, and encouragements. This teaching process is directed most strongly towards children but continues throughout adulthood. Practice of normatively-gendered behaviors and alignment with 'appropriate' archetypes is affirmed, encouraged, and rewarded. Likewise 'other'- gendered behavior and affinity to archetypes is scolded, punished, or shunned. This teaching process is inherently coercive, as social acceptance/rejection is a powerful force. However it can't be likened to programming, everyone experiences and reacts to it differently. Also, this process teaches the cultural roles and practices of both (normative) genders, even as it attempts to force conformity to only one.

Gender regulates access to certain levers of social power. This one is complicated by the fact that access to levers of social power is also affected by *many* other things, most notably race, class, and citizenship. I am not going to attempt to describe this in any general terms, I'm not equipped for that. I'll give a few examples to explain what I'm talking about though. (1) In a social situation, a man is able to imply authority, which is implicitly backed by his ability to intimidate by yelling, looming, or threatening physical violence. How much authority he is perceived to have in response to this display is a function of his race and class. It is also modified by how strongly he appears to conform to a masculine ideal. Whether or not he will receive social backlash for this behavior (as a separate consideration to how effective it will be) is again a function of race/class/other forms of social standing. (2) In a social situation, a woman is able to invoke moral judgment, and attempt to modify the behavior of others by shame. The strength of her perceived moral authority depends not just on her conformity to ideal womanhood, but especially on if she can invoke certain archetypes - such as an Innocent, a Mother, or better yet a Grandmother. Whether her moral authority is considered a relevant consideration to influence the behavior of others (vs whether she will be belittled or ignored) strongly depends on her relative social standing to those she is addressing, on basis of gender/race/class/other.

[Again, these examples are *not* meant to be exhaustive, nor to pass judgment on employing any social power in any situation. Only to illustrate what "gendered access to social power" might mean. And to illustrate that types of power are not uniform and may play out according to complex factors.]

Gender is not based in physical traits, but physical traits are ascribed gendered value. Earlier, I described gender as practiced, citing almost entirely things a person can do or change. And I firmly believe this is the core of gender as it exists culturally - and not just aspirationally. After the moment when a gender is "assigned" based on infant physical characteristics, they are raised into that gender regardless of the physical traits they go on to develop (in most circumstances, and unless/until they denounce that gender.) The range of physical traits like height, facial shape, body hair, ability to put on muscle mass - is distributed so that there is complete overlap between the range of possible traits for people assigned male and people assigned female. Much is made of slight trends in things that are "more common" for one binary sex or the other, but it's statistically quite minor once you get over selection bias. However, these traits are ascribed gendered connotations, often extremely strongly so. As such, the experience of presented and perceived gender is strongly effected by physical traits. The practice of gender therefore naturally expands to include modification of physical traits. Meanwhile, the social movements to change how gender is constructed can include pushing to decrease or change the gendered association of physical traits - although this does not seem to consistently be a priority.

Gender roles are related to the hypothetical ability to bear children, but more obliquely than is often claimed. It is popular to say that the types of work considered feminine derive from things it is possible to do while pregnant or tending small children. However, research on the broader span of human history does not hold this up. It may be true of the cultures that gave immediate rise to the colonial gender roles we are familiar with - secondary to the fact that childcare was designated as women's work. (Which it does not have to be, even a nursing infant doesn't need to be with the person who feeds it 24 hours a day.) More directly, gender roles have been influenced by structures of social control aiming for reproductive control. In the direct precursors of colonial society, attempts to track paternal lineage led to extreme degrees of social control over women, which we still see reflected in normative gender today. Many struggles for women's liberation have attempted to push back these forms of social control. It is my firm opinion that any attempt to re-emphasize childbearing as a touchstone of womanhood is frankly sick. We are at a time where solidarity in struggle for gender liberation, and for reproductive rights, is crucial. We need to cast off shackles of control in both fights. Trying to tie childbearing back to womanhood hobbles both fights and demeans us all.

Gender is baked deeply enough into our culture that it is unlikely to ever go away. Many people feel strongly about the practice of gender, in one way or another, and would not want it to. However we have the power to change how gender is structured and enforced. We can push open the doors of what is allowable, and reduce the pain of social punishment and isolation. We can dismantle another of the tools of colonial hedgemony and social control. We can change the culture!

[skrunksthatwunk]

you go to a lesbian blog and find it says women only!! no men allowed!!! and go oh! excuse me, um, what about other lesbians? plenty of lesbians are genderqueer... and they go well, okay, go fuck yourself tim chop off your sweaty dick and stop calling yourself a lesbian. you do not have a dick, actually. you think about that fact often, even though it does you no good. you do not tell this person that.

you go to another lesbian blog and it says women only and you try again, and this time they change it to wlw + nblw only (non-men who love non-men :D). and you'll say hey i appreciate that but gender's not really that cut and dry for a lot of people. someone could be both a man and nonbinary, for instance. i just worry that you're looking at nonbinary as a generic third gender, or an extension of womanhood. i mean yeah you include nblw in your tags but all your posts are about pussy-havers exclusively. what's with that? and they say go fuck yourself you pervy man pretending to be a lesbian. you tried to sneak in but i won't let you.

so you go to a lesbian blog with a dozen or so posts about queer people needing to be more weird about it and you sigh in relief. but you still see the men dni. that's odd. hoping for the best, you say hey! i know you mean well but please maybe don't put men dni at the end of the lovely posts on your lesbian blog bc some lesbians are men. and they'll be like ok!! well you're allowed ;) and you say no that's not. no. some men are lesbians not just me. you think about your own dicklessness and wonder if that's why you were given entry. and you add that even if male lesbians are allowed, there's no indication of that. how would anyone know without asking? and they're like ohh gotcha gotcha well men dni + this is for sapphics only!! and you'll be like ok well that treats the concepts of men and sapphics as mutually exclusive identities and i just told you that's not true and you agreed with me so.. i don't think that solves our problem. and they're like. ok. fine. men dni but genderfluid and multigender people are allowed! and you're like no see that's. that's still the same thing.. you're saying the same thing just with different words. if you don't want men to interact but you're fine with multigender/genderfluid/etc ppl interacting then you either don't see them as Real Men (because they don't reach a standard of Full Manhood) or Complete Men (because they're only Part-Time Men), both of which suggest that they are, in some way, not men or less-than men, which is invalidating and defeats the point of the exception in the first place (accommodation) OR that you don't really mean the dni which is confusing and inconsistent and makes guydykes feel weird and uncomfortable and excluded from the lesbian space you're trying to cultivate. and they're like um. ok. so. cishet men dni? and you're like well i think that makes more sense, but what if someone identifies as both a cishet man and a sapphic? again, if we're trying to accommodate the genderfucky populace then that has to be a possibility that is considered. and they say god you people are never happy. what do you want me to do? what am i supposed to say to keep the right men out? and you pause. you empathize with the need for a space free from dudes trying to fuck you straight and feminine. dudes who watch lesbian porn and joke about what they'd do if they were allowed into girls locker rooms. who look at you like a piece of meat, and like someone who looks at women like pieces of meat in the same way he does. you get it. you know. you want a space where you can be sapphic, too. that's why you came to these blogs in the first place. you brace yourself and you say well i don't know that there are "right men" to keep out. i don't know that there's any single label that would accomplish whatever it is you're trying to accomplish. you could go for "sapphics only" or "queers only" and i think that might be the closest thing to what you want, but it's never going to be perfect. creating any exclusive space is going to shut out people you didn't account for, and the broader the label, the more people will be shut out that you didn't want to shut out. and what about people who don't know if they're allowed? what of questioning transbians, where are they supposed to go? and, frankly, i think i might rather my dykey posts get read and appreciated by a gay guy who sees me as a man than a woman who only sees me as a sacred womb, pure from male perversions or violence or whatever. i think community might just be more complex than a dni can handle. and they look at you and say i don't want to not have a dni. i think you're too permissive. you can't just "what about" or microlabel your way into everything. go fuck yourself, i bet you're not even a lesbian anyway. go find a real problem to get mad about.

you go to a lesbian blog. you ignore the men dni because you know you probably don't even count to them. or maybe you do count and, out of respect for your manhood, they'd shun you accordingly. you try to feel okay about that. you scroll past dozens of posts about mediocre men and gagging at straight friends' boyfriends and how gross and undeserving men are of the beautiful women they couple up with and how all women should be gay so they can get treated right and and and and and. you finally find a post about curling into someone you love and feeling at peace and try to lose yourself in it. you know that feeling is what unites you, what makes you belong. you try to focus on it. you think about carding your hands through a butch's hair or lacing fingers with a femme and feeling warm and loved and more yourself than you ever have before. like this is who you're meant to be. you read about lesboys and butch boytoys and genderfucky dykes and big hairy deep-voiced wonderful women (like you want to be someday, like you wish you could make yourself) and you try to ignore the men dni underneath each and every post. and you daydream about meeting someone kind and earnest at a lesbian bar even though you don't think any such bars exist within three states of you and you can't drink and don't want to drink because you need to be in control of yourself at all times so you don't fuck up like you're always about to and here in the nonexistent lesbian bar you feel wanted and safe and in good company. you picture your ideal, happiest self. it is a mistake. ideal-you has a goatee. not the mascara one you smear on and call drag even though you know it's not drag, not really, the beard you call drag because you think everyone would look at you sadly if you told them it was just to pretend you had something out of your reach. a beard that's soft and that you grew and that cannot be smudged away if you get too comfortable with it. the dream shatters. your people pull away from you, their scoffs mixing with the mind-numbing gay girl bedroom pop you learned to settle for just to have something that almost resembled you, they all pull away and turn their backs and do not look at you. you're too close to being a man now, even though you're the same amount of man as before. and they know you're not supposed to interact with men, not as you would with dykes, at least. and it sours. it's all your imagination, all in your head, but it sours.

you sigh. you think about how small you are. how short, how narrow, how feeble. how your voice pitches up when you talk to strangers because it's easier to speak quietly when it carries more, and because you're nervous. because it's a chore to talk, like everything is. you think about testosterone. you think about how your family would look at you, the questions they would ask, your answers they would only pretend to accept. the uncomfortable glances and whispered questions they'd try to hide from you. you think about how small you are, and how small you will always be. how you don't know of a way to fix it, but even if there was one, no one would want you anymore. you'd be the only one thinking it made you a cooler dyke. you think about how you don't even want a T-voice all the time, how you'll never be able to switch it at will, because you don't know how and can't bring yourself to figure it out. you think about how your throat closes around every hint of your own attraction. how wanting is perverse, how wanting is invasive, how wanting is embarrassing and too vulnerable so it must stay anonymous, as an online witness, and how you can barely manage to form or maintain friendships because your brain makes you pull away, always spinning out and struggling to recover from the simplest of interactions. how they'll all leave you and you won't chase after them at all and how that will hurt them. how stuck you get. how it looks like nothing's holding you back, how that frustrates everyone who thought you were going to be more than you were. the people you love who understand except when it comes to being ghosted, being shut out. how you don't want to hurt them. how you can't tell them that because you're stuck. how you turn to stone when touched, how you never reach out, how you lose your speech and can't look at people, how your autism is fun and sexy until it becomes real and you never see them anymore, how much you longed for someone who knew everything without you having to explain, and who loved you anyway. how unreasonable you know that is to expect of anyone. you think about that not-even-real lesbian bar. you think about how you still can't drive. how you can't leave your home on your own, without dragging somebody into helping you. how you can't leave your body. how you can't leave your manhood behind.

you think about finding another lesbian blog and ignoring everything. about skimming it for the parts you can juice some meaning from. the parts men ignore and don't understand, and how typical of you it is to do so. or the parts where you're not welcome and you should accept that, because it's for lesbians only. how you are a lesbian anyway. how you're meant to choose lesbian or man, how each is a betrayal of some kind to yourself or your people, your family, your lovely strangers, your rare friendly acquaintances. about the parts that tell you you're not wanted, that you're ugly and lazy and gross and insert yourself everywhere without even asking. about the parts that tell you you are hated, and how lesbians are above it all by rejecting men. how lesbians are each blessed miracles. about the parts that say you should be ashamed of being whatever twisted confused freak you are, of everything, of looking and wanting or not looking or not wanting, of picking and choosing instead of taking it all in with a smile. after all, shouldn't you take it? or is your ego too fragile, as men's so often are? aren't you tired? good. we're not here for your consumption. and we sure as hell don't want your company or "community" or whatever. didn't you read the sign? no boys allowed. and if you want to come in you have to make up your mind. as if you haven't told them the only answer you have. you're both. you're both.

you know you broke the rule by interacting.

but it gets lonely sometimes. you wonder if they know.

[flufflecat]

happy pride month, im so glad to see people doing fun new varieties of ace discourse this year -_-

[blujayonthewing]

extremely important to me that my satyr is completely sweet and naive and gentle and innocent and is still a satyr who loves to drink and do drugs and have as much sex as possible, likewise extremely important to me that my goofy little kooky mad scientist archetype wizard with a silly voice and funny eccentricities is also unironically beautiful and desirable and capable of sincere attraction and love, extremely and equally important to me for different reasons that are the same reason

[moe-broey]

Random small talk event at the yard sard set-up, very nice lady, but ESP when asking "Oh are you still in school? ☺️" I literally never know how to say "Oh I graduated a long time ago. Yeah. I mostly do art now" and she says "Oh to sell?" and so far I'm having a reasonable and effective small talk conversation, when I hit that pitfall and lock up and I worry I'm becoming unfriendly bc I locked up. Because I REALLY don't know how to say, "Nah, I kind of do fuck all. I'm 25 and I do fuck all. For nothing." Like I can see the conversation tree in real time and I know that's the worst dialogue option. And there are no other dialogue options there's just Press B to get the fuck outta there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jazzmckay]

i finally finished the fallout show, so here are my thoughts. i will talk about both things i enjoyed and things i didn't enjoy. be aware that i'm one of Those west coast fallout fans so this will be bethesda-critical, although it's never my goal to be a hater or make fans of bethesda games feel bad for enjoying them.

spoilers for not only the show, but most fallout games ive played, which includes: fallout, fallout 2, fallout 3, and fallout: new vegas

lets start with the positive!

things i enjoyed:

the aesthetics: it just plain looks good. it matches the games pretty accurately, it brought the world of fallout to this new medium very well. visually, it definitely looks like fallout, and i thought it had some nice cinematography and shot framing. i like that it was never too dark to see what was going on, i like that it was fairly vibrant even with the unavoidable Brown Wasteland, Metal Grey Vault palettes. the costumes were great. i liked how the people looked realistic for the world they're living in. i would have liked cooper to be more standard ghouly, but after having seen the full show, i'm fine with it. the ghouls have a lot of range, physically, and it does make sense for cooper to be more human-like because he's actively preserving himself, and probably did so pre-war as well. all in all it was visually great

the main characters: lucy is a fantastic main character. i love how shaped she is from living in vault 33 specifically, with her moral compass, view of the world, social uniqueness, and relationship with sex. i adore that she's such a positive person, always wanting to see the best in others and make the best of any situation, but that doesn't mean she can't get hurt and angry, can't fight when she has to. she's fun and badass, i really like her. maximus is just as complex, shaped by the brotherhood instead of the vault--again, moral compass, view of the world etc all coloured by where he's spent most of his life, just in a different way from lucy. more grey, more skewed, more manipulated, in my opinion, even though of course vault 33 was quite manipulated as well. his struggle with identity is awesome. i like how both of them are a little weird, a little socially unhinged, and majorly biased about the world. i enjoyed maximus' struggle and journey with coming into his own. i'll be eager to see that continue in s2. cooper took me almost the ENTIRE season to warm up to. at first he was the kind of character i found interesting, but difficult to like. right from the start, you know he wasn't always like this, and 200 years in the wasteland has understandably changed him, but i was still very "fuck this guy, hes a prick and he annoys me" for most of the show. the final episode finally tipped me over onto the "okay yeah im properly into this character now" side. he's definitely layered, just takes a bit to see more than the outer one that makes him just look like... a major piece of shit. i love a dark character as much as the next guy, but i prefer if it Makes Sense, and i didn't fully get him until the last ep. eager to see how he develops going forward as well. don't have a lot to say about norm, i just really like him. hell yeah fuck shit up, little bro

the side characters: betty and stephanie fascinate me, especially after learning who they really are. moldaver is SO COOL and a milf for real oh my god i'm a little obsessed. thaddeus surprised me with his depth. ma june was really cool and felt sort of quintessential fallout to me. even just the one-off people of the wasteland were really interesting to me. they were real people with a place in this world, no matter how small. (you'll notice i havent mentioned dane, even though being nb myself, a nb character should be a big deal to me. well. i still dont entirely know how i feel about dane, unfortunately)

the vault lore: from start to finish, i was HOOKED on everything to do with the vaults. the concept of 3 vaults being connected and able to trade with each other when necessary was interesting. i liked the concept of vault 33 and how it gave the characters a different culture about relationships and sex. then i enjoyed the suspense of the lie unravelling, of following norm's arc of defying what he'd been raised with to figure everything out. it was very tense and mysterious.

vault lore part 2: historically, i've not been a fan of pre-war society actually being shown. didn't like that they did that in fo4, though part of that could be that i just massively dislike the choices they made for it, including how it locked the player too much into an unchangeable (heterosexual) backstory. i guess i'm not fully against the pre-bomb time being shown as long as it's lore-friendly, and i'm pleasantly surprised that the show was pretty lore-friendly indeed. not entirely. i have some major gripes that i will get into later, but i liked the tension and intrigue of the big corporations doing their gross capitalism shit, and cooper finding out just how fucked up they are. the idea of the vault ownership being split up between different companies and therefore different ideals so "the best ideas of how to continue civilization can win" was interesting! i think it's more grounded to say that most vaults were trying to make something viable for the future, not just fucked up experiments for the sake of it, but the ideas were extreme and many doomed to failure. i wouldn't even say this is a retconn, a lot of the vaults, even the ones that got really messed up, can be viewed as an attempt at making something good, just with amoral methods

how the brotherhood was portrayed: FINALLY bethesda has written the brotherhood in a way more reflective of what they're supposed to be. the brotherhood are not the ultimate heroic knights in shining armour. they're not just a grandstanding military faction. caveat that i don't know the fo4 brotherhood personally, but fo3!brotherhood was so incomprehensible. in fo1, the brotherhood is reclusive and focused on technological / scientific information. they are a force to be reckoned with when convinced to take good action, but they're on the insular side. in fo2, they're a destroyed shadow of what they were, with barely any presence. in fnv they're even more reclusive, entirely xenophobic to anyone outside of the brotherhood and further stuck in their ways. you can help them improve, but there are cult vibes. and the show? i am impressed by how they focused on those cult vibes! the brotherhood doesn't have to be 100% the same every time when there's a lot of geography between chapters and different points in the last 200 have different needs, different goals and enemies, but the brotherhood should, imo, always be a grey area. when lucy asked "this is good right, the brotherhood are the good guys?" and maximus and thaddeus were like....... eh... it's. a complicated organization. THATS THE REAL SHIT. complex. a bit uncomfortable because they're reclusive and teach their people biased ideas of the wasteland. an ideology that makes sense in-verse, but isn't a simple dichotomy of good or bad. some parts of it were uncomfortable for me in a "well thats an odd writing choice" but most of it was uncomfortable in the way the brotherhood is SUPPOSED to be uncomfortable, and i am here for that

the scene where maximus comes clean to lucy and she accepts him, because she's learned how complicated the surface world is, and she has been travelling with him enough to see who he really is

the fnv theme cue when the ncr flag was shown. got me emotional fr

lucy is down to fuck and i LOVE that for her. it's great to see a female main character be so into sex without it being for any reason other than... she thinks sex is good and fun

the lucy/maximus ship. im officially on team "people who say its boring and lacking in chemistry might be not giving the black character the consideration he deserves because of internalized racism" sorry

i can ALSO get behind the lucy/cooper ship, after the last episode. it feels like theyre on somewhat even ground now. i can go for a begrudging allies pair. they should have rough, angry sex and remind each other it doesn't mean anything after and then they both go and pine and/or brood about the people they wish they were with, or wish they were with but in a happier story

the music in general

cx404 my beloved <3

things i did not enjoy:

the biggest issue is, of course, the way the show completely fucked with and/or retconned fallout: new vegas. in my opinion, it was very disrespectful, to the point where it's hard to see it as anything but maliciously intentional for mr. todd 'liar' howard to literally nuke the center of west coast fallout's world. it feels scummy. it feels tone deaf. it feels like a kid stomping on another kids sand castle at the beach because all they understand is destruction and coming out on top. and it also makes NO sense. the show says shady sands was bombed in 2277, which is the year of the first battle of hoover dam, and 4 years before the start of fnv. it renders everything in fnv void. the thing is that shady sands is just one small part of the ncr--in fo1, its a small farming village just getting started and a couple generations later in fo2, it isnt even recognizable as shady sands anymore, its just. The New California Republic. it's huge! it's sprawling! bombing a single city wouldn't have wiped out the ncr--and even the show acknowledges this with vault 4 and moldaver's people--but it's still too significant a calamity that fnv could have happened the way it did proceeding it. you can't just add an event like this and think it'll work when no one in fnv mentions it, when it can't retroactively impact the ncr's future that is already shown. and even though the show does allow that remnants of the ncr have survived, they didn't do it in the way that makes sense, in my opinion. what would make sense is having an entire nation losing its capitol, but the rest being able to continue on. it doesnt make sense for them to become what they did in the show, nor having it be a non-issue during fnv. the ncr could not have had a continued presence in the mojave if that nuke really happened. ive seen pieces of articles and such about how they were careful to follow the timeline and "dont worry, fnv still happened!" but.... they most certainly did not follow the timeline, and what they did utterly fucks up fnv's narrative

the answering of the question "who fired the first bomb". while i enjoyed the backstory, i did not enjoy this question being answered. the point of fallout is not who was right and who was wrong. the point isnt about there being a good side, a bad side, a justification for anything. the point is that nuclear bombs are horrific and what happened to the world is the ultimate tragedy. and it's about communities still being able to rise from the ashes and make something real. it's about people being able to survive and thrive. yes, conflict persists, but the world has not ended, and in west coast fallout, entire cities have grown up from nothing to take on a way of life all on their own, different from the pre-war days, but no longer weighed down by the tragedy, either. east coast fallout is post-apocalypse. west coast fallout is post-post-apocalypse. it's supposed to be post-post-apocalypse, and who dropped the bombs does not matter. the point is that war never changes--but people do. the old world is gone, what happened happened, and society has to move on. answering the question of who dropped the bombs serves no narrative purpose

and if america dropped the bombs on themselves--what does that mean for the rest of the world? of course, we have never known if the rest of the world is still out there continuing as normal, but making the bombs in america an inside job has new implications for china's part in everything. i do wonder if the shift away from the american-chinese conflict is a sensitivity issue. i'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic to speak on it further

robert house's potential/likely character assassination: the best way i could possibly read it is that house was being reticent about his true feelings because it wouldn't have been very tactful to oppose an entire room of capitalism moguls. but his part in planning the bombs is, if taken at face value, utterly opposed to his actual goals as stated in fnv. i want to believe he was just flying under the radar to get information. but it either doesnt make sense, or we dont have the full story yet, because house's intentions were to save new vegas from the bombs, and he wasn't able to save the entire area, which he should have been able to do if in the know, and he also would have been able to get the platinum chip on a better timeline if he was in the know. i'm trying to reserve judgement in case they elaborate on him in s2, but s1!house is.... not fnv!house

needed more pre-existing rad creatures. i'm guessing the bear was supposed to be a yao guai even though they didn't name it, but the gulper was new, and i wouldve liked to see geckos, maybe nightstalkers or cazadors if possible, just... anything properly reminiscent of west coast fallout. based on the final scenes, i'd like to think we'll see deathclaws in s2. please.

sometimes there were bouts of confusing / weird writing. episode 6 in particular had me a bit "what the fuck is going on and why are certain characters acting like this????". the scene where maximus reveals himself to thaddeus was also lackluster in my opinion. i think it should have been drawn out at least a bit. maximus trying to explain, thaddeus being conflicted--not just an immediate flip. it's hard to believe maximus would injure thaddeus THAT badly without trying something else first. whiplash for real. maximus was a little weird in vault 4 and i genuinely don't know what vibe they were going for. at first i thought he'd been drugged and the people there were going to experiment on him. (also how did cooper NOT SEE the "test subjects" over the door when he was doing the vault-tec ad? i dont remember if the name plate was shown in the commercial itself but i sure hope not or, uhhh... people would have known something bad was up). it was just a bit ??? for me, that whole damn episode. what was with the ncr remnants acting Like That? i don't get it and it was never addressed again? am i just supposed to believe that a couple decades or whatever separated from the ncr society has turned them into a cult? what association do they even have with moldaver anymore? its all so weird and unexplained. and if moldaver opposed vault-tec, how did she end up in cryo with them? i guess she didn't actively walk away from it? maybe im missing something here

on that note, the portrayal of the ncr: moldaver and her people end up being ncr but they were played the whole time like raiders. only for the end of the show to have moldaver's settlement be totally normal people just living their lives. what the hell? and the vault 4 people, again, were unsettling and confusing, i don't understand what i'm supposed to take away from this. i suppose the point is that time has changed both groups, and moldaver's been pushed to extremes, but the framing was just.... weird and iffy for me. it's a far cry from the ncr i'm used to

final thoughts:

i did overall enjoy the show, but i suppose, as they say about games like fo4, "it was a good show, but it wasn't a good fallout show". i was pleasantly surprised in a lot of ways, but the fact remains that bethesda misses, or disregards, the whole point of fallout. often they go directly against the original message of fallout. most modern fallout just isn't what it was when it started or what it is when created by people who were there at the beginning. it's painful being a west coast fan specifically, sometimes, because todd is always finding new ways to massacre my boy. but if i pretend this isn't canon and that it has no bearing on one of my favourite games, if i look at it just as it is instead of something that hinges with a bunch of other stories... it was surprisingly enjoyable. i just have to turn off the part of my brain that wants to fight mr howard in the dennys parking lot at 4am

[grimark]

not that anybody asked but i do think terms like "cis+" or "cisn't", which i've seen thrown around in relation to the prev post, are a bit unnecessary. to me, it just seems like excessively atomising a fairly common experience, which is the desire to not be subject to the more uncomfortable and restrictive aspects of socially constructed gender roles. and sure, it might never even occur to a lot of cis people to do this kind of introspective analysis of their gender identities, and they might therefore be lacking some of the additional perspective of someone who has, but i don't think we necessarily need need a special new category for it. when you get down to it, "cis person who has previously questioned their gender" and "cis person who has never felt the need to question their gender" are both still cis, which in theory is a value-neutral description and a perfectly fine thing to be.

[gothic-chicanery]

I just realized if I want to write about Oppenheimer for my final paper for my west class I probably have to rewatch it and it is So Damn Long. I’m also writing about it in comparison to a production I saw of Doctor atomic (the Oppenheimer opera (yes there’s an Oppenheimer opera)) but that will be a little bit easier bc I’m pretty sure no footage exists of that production so like at least I don’t have to rewatch that

[clubpenguist]

friendly reminder that even if youre open about something on your blog, even if you think its so obviously right in your about/description/pinned/whatever, most of the people who will interact with you are not even looking that far at your blog. they dont know your name or your pronouns or your disabilities or your interests or your credentials or whatever you think is just *so obvious* that they *must* be intentionally ignoring it just to hurt you. ESPECIALLY not if theyre a random stranger who youve never interacted with once before, has never interacted with you once before either, and has absolutely zero reason to care about you. its not a personal attack, its just a fact. this is literally the internet

[penwrythe]

Just want to put this out there.

I'm saying this mostly for me to avoid possible triggers with this discourse in the future, but I don't feel comfortable interacting with people who have the following in their blog or carrd:

Don't follow/Don't interact if you believe bi/pan lesbians exist.

I understand why people use it if they have disagreements with the label, but I really do not feel comfortable with denying the existence of someone because of their sexuality or gender. I feel the phrase is enbyphobic as it hearkens back to a time when most people back in the 2010s used the same phrasing around non-binary people, such as "non-binary people don't exist" or "non-binary people are transtrenders or trans fakers". I'm also against any phrasing that tells those who use mspec good faith labels to die or to kill themselves. I do not support that at all.

In saying that, way too much of the anti-mspec crowd comes off as enbyphobic and biphobic with their arguments against good faith mspec labels, even when they are arguing for protecting lesbian, pansexual, and bisexual spaces. There are some labels I don't agree with (I prefer to keep my opinions private, please respect this), but I refuse to perpetuate harm against innocent people.

[vraska-theunseen]

sometimes i misgender myself for a joke like i was talking to my friend the other day and i was like "i'm going to adopt your mom so i can become your grandma" and she was like "but you can't be?" and i know that when my friends do that it's in confusion or good faith based on what they know about me but like. why are you correcting me about Myself. i am fully aware that i am non-binary and i don't need you to correct ME on that when i make a joke about myself. like i've told you what you can call me and now im calling myself something because i am me. it's not as if im not aware of what im saying. just strikes me whenever it happens as incredibly absurd lol

[frogsdocrimes]

augh. google search how to explain that i specifically identify as either just aromantic/aro with nothing else or as aroace but don't describe myself using just ace or asexual even though i mostly dont experience that type of attraction either because my aromanticism is such a central part of my identity and existence that any descriptor that does not specifically include it feels insufficient

[thealphaaxolotl]

It’s shocking to me how quickly people forget that their experiences are not universal

[ihavenomouthandimustmouth]

It seems like a lot of the anti-transmasculinity/transandrophobia discourse revolves around the ideas that either this does not occur, does not occur in real life, or is just transmascs viewing criticisms of transmisogynistic transmascs as oppression, so here’s a story.

I live with some other people around my age, and I stopped using my deadname with them earlier this year. it hasn’t been that long, about 3 months, but generally, they use my correct name with an occasional mistake, usually followed up by a correction. one of them, however, just cannot seem to stop deadnaming me, often without correcting afterwards. when they do notice they’ve gotten it wrong, it’s usually followed up by a big thing about how they don’t know why they’re so bad at it or blaming it on being drunk if they’re drunk, but often not an apology.

an additional piece of this—my partner, who is a trans woman, changed the name they use around the same time, but this person almost always gets her name right. this person knows me a bit better/longer than they do her, but not that much better/longer, and generally, when I am around them, my partner is also there. (adding a cut here because this is gonna be long)

I talked with my therapist about this at my last session. I was seeking advice on how to handle it, but I also spent a lot of time just complaining and running through different incidences of this happening. I ended up telling her about some of the weird things this person said to me when I first started socially transitioning, including them saying that they were sad when I came out because they (direct quote) “didn’t want to stop seeing me as a genderless elf” (???!?) (I had previously identified as nonbinary and used any pronouns) and followed that up by saying that they hated men, which they then followed up by saying “not trans men though” (which like okay but then why bring that up in this conversation).

In talking my therapist, I circled back to the deadnaming issue and said that I thought this person was doing this to me and not my partner because my partner is more feminine than I am masculine (in social behavior and the way we look as two people that have not started medically transitioning). my therapist pushed back on this and said that, based on all the things I said, it seemed more like this person just didn’t want to see me as a man.

this blew my mind a little because I, a transmasculine person who spends way too much time on trans and transmasc internet, did not put the situation in this context while my therapist, a cis woman who is supportive but not super aware of the trans experience, did. it made a lot of sense though, and fit into the context of my other experiences and interactions with this person.

this person is a nonbinary person who has never identified as or been seen as a man. they are supportive of trans people generally and of their rights. they are also someone who believes that woman are inherently better than men. this generally doesn’t have much of an impact on the cis men we live with—for them, this more comes as being around for jokes that might make them a little uncomfortable, but doesn’t stop them from being seen as men. for me, this means I have to deal with the fact that this person doesn’t want to see me as a man and deadnames me accordingly, seemingly because they see me transitioning as a loss.

my point here is that when transmasculine people say that there are issues they face specifically related to them being transmasculine, that’s not a lie or a hypothetical. there is a stark contrast between the way this person treats my transfem partner and myself (and, after talking with someone who’s lived here with this person for longer, other transmasculine people who have lived in the house). they are supportive of trans people as a group, but not of transmasculinity, and I have to deal with the consequences.