#WOMEN IN FICTION

[hacked-wtsdz]

You can’t win as a woman in fiction. Be too positive, you become a Mary Sue, have flaws and those flaws are why almost nobody likes you. Be moderate, you have wet-cabbage personality, be exuberant, you are an unrealistic example. Have strong morals, and you’re badly developed, be morally corrupt and you’re hated with such vigour fans will send hate mail to the actress who plays the character. Be kind and soft and in love, you’re a representation of sexism, be cruel, harsh and cold and you’re just a bitch. Be a complex, realistic, ambiguous character, and either your flaws or your positive traits will be ignored or blown out of proportion and into oblivion. There is no winning for female characters.

[artist-issues]

I have to stress: it is good to be in distress when there is someone to save you. It is a good thing, to be that character. It means someone noticed when you went missing or when something went wrong for you, and they stepped outside the sphere of their lives and intervened on your behalf, in yours. They didn't have to. They could've left you. But you were worth it to them. (You might have already been worth it, but what's wrong with someone proving that statement? What's worth if it's only for the self to enjoy?) Worth great risk, worth great pains, and they made a statement about your worth that they wouldn't have had an opportunity to make if not for the distress you were in.

It's like if Ariel saved the day in The Little Mermaid. All that would prove is that she can get herself into reckless trouble and then scrape herself right back out again. Big friggin whoop. But if Eric saves her? Oh.

Well, then, there's something worthwhile about her, to him, despite the fact that it would be fair if he just thought of her as "a mermaid, a thing, a creature." Well, then, she's right about humans being capable of caring for something other than themselves. Well, then, she's loved by someone.

Look at all these much-better statements we can make when the damsel is in distress instead of saving herself?

There's nothing weak about being in distress. You're not a goddess. You can't control everything. You're not even right all the time. Sometimes bad stuff happens and you actually can't control the outcome.

And what a delight, when that eventuality, that certainty that something bad is going to happen, is answered by a much greater truth that didn't have to be certain: you are loved.

Distress says: "Calamity befalls you, you aren't all-powerful, you can't control all the variables, and you are alone in me." And the Hero answers, "I love her." And that always wins.

[now-you-sound-like-a-jedi]

My favourite game to play in fandom spaces is the age old "is this female character actually awful or is she just a) outspoken, b) not designed to be palatable to a male audience, or c) the canon female love interest of a male character more popularly shipped with another man?"

[fancyhandsbakery]

My biggest ops are (in order)

Annabeth Chase bashers

Annabeth Chase haters

Annabeth Chase disrespecters

How are you going to type up the most interesting summery and then tag it as 'Annabeth Chase bashing'? Leave that little girl alone. Women can't have shit in fiction.

[deus-sema]

Having read these thought provoking posts in a row by @neyafromfrance95 and @anetherealpoetess , I racked my brain to remember when and how exactly did this drama over villain/heroine pairings start and how did it aggravate to such an extent?

But, before I begin, I want to get this out of the way: The intent of this post is not to generalize. Haters who hate everything fun without discrimination, those who aren't hypocrites, this post is not for you. You are the real deal. Hate and vent away and unless this hatred affects creators and fans adversely, which is when we would need to have serious conversations, we are good to go.

Where were we again? Yes. The heroine and the villain. The good girl and the bad guy. The M/F ship where the male character is not 100% morally upstanding and/or age appropriate. This dynamic goes by many names. Call it whatever you wish to.

Why this dynamic is enjoyed by many has been discussed often. Why it is disliked is also known. To each their own. Anyway, let's get straight to the point. This particular dynamic can result in the female character getting hurt at some point. Be it physically, mentally, or emotionally. It isn't mandatory but the possibility is always there. The villain/adversary with whom she shares a complicated entanglement that may or may not be 'officially' romantic is a challenge she must overcome. Be it by beating him, killing him, fixing him, smooching him or screwing him.

Preferences are one thing. But this vehement pushback specifically against stories that explore such a dynamic as well as against those who enjoy them is rather strange.

Now, why is it easier for some to separate fiction from reality when it comes to toxic m/m pairs as compared to similar m/f pairs? Aren't all these characters fake anyway? Maybe the belief that women are inherently fragile and, thus need to be protected and sheltered from any and all harm, genuine or perceived, still prevails. They aren't allowed to face so much as the slightest adversity or discomfort. They must be kept safe within the boundaries of propriety. If they are to have a partner then he must be a properly vetted 'green flag' who is safe for them in every aspect. Chemistry be damned. While it often stems from genuine, albeit misplaced, concern, it leaves the arcs of these female characters with limited scope.

Strangely enough, the characters in question can belong to any background: Human, demon, alien, witch, elf, warrior, zombie. Their natures might differ. They can all have different backstories, undergo varying experiences, follow rules and belief systems distinct from one another. But, when placed in an equation with a man who has been dubbed 'unsafe', they are all clubbed under one umbrella of victimhood. As long as the link between them and the unsafe male character exists, victims they must remain. Until that connection is severed and they are taken back to safety, all other identities cease to exist. Any conversation with respect to that equation must abritrarily categorize them as victim and the men as their victimizers and there should be nothing more to it. Not even if the narrative wills it. Fans who have different readings of the relationship are to be silenced with slutshaming, accusations of romanticizing abuse, not getting the plot, yada, yada. And, in certain cases, when the female character happens to be a WoC, her entire existence gets overlooked.

As a side effect of this approach, the  commercial creatives who are in the business for the paycheck and want to avoid unnecessary hassle, do not bother to put in effort or  undertake risks while creating female characters, let alone put them in a relationship with the bad guy. They know all it will take to calm the online pearl clutchers with pitchforks is to keep the female characters secure on the sidelines to play a supportive role leaving them free to focus and work hard on male characters who move the plot. The female characters are remembered only when the men have to be depicted in a better or worse light. Afterall, someone needs to be the scapegoat to help move the male character's arc forward.

The general audience, most of whom are in for the entertainment, must definitely notice the difference in importance that female characters hold as compared to their male counterparts but do not give it much thought. Meanwhile, in the online realm, puritantis and incels pat each other on the back after belittling real people who disagree with them for female characters in 'safe' and, possibly, passive roles is what both parties ultimately seek, albeit with different intentions. If a fictional woman doesn't toe the line, then the narrative is expected to set her right by 'humbling' her. As for the real ones deemed 'improper', the Internet is always ready with their pitchforks like we see here in this case highlighted by @problematic-faves-appreciation) concerning the Brontës.

Patriarchy truly is no different from the Hydra. Cut one head off and two more appear in its place wearing faux progressive hoodies.

[karizard-ao3]

Anon who asked me my top 5 women in fiction, you are going to have to give me some time to think about this one because I'm not a natural ranker and I'm really having to think about this and what it is I like in a fictional woman.

[hadesoftheladies]

female protagonists aren't enough! i want more female-centric stories! i want to explore the existential dread a woman feels when she tests positive. i want to explore what it means to a first born daughter to be her father's hero, why she so desperately tries to save everyone in her family. i want to explore the thought-process of what it means to hate the being you bore of yourself. how something of your own flesh can feel so alien and how you can be scared of something you made, something so fragile. i want to explore what it means to pour your love out into someone you thought would eventually love you back and to keep pouring and die pouring into the void that is your husband, your boyfriend, your son. i want to explore life and death from a woman's eyes. i want to explore what it means to fight in a war for a country that treats you as a resource. to be willing to die for it and realize it is only too happy to sacrifice you. what kind of fear overcomes you when the war begins and it means the entire world is now as violent as your house. what it means when the war is over and now your countrymen expect you to recover the population. "as a woman, i have no country." constantly betrayed by your own home, the motherland that hates it's mothers. what fear must overcome you knowing what they expect of all your women now that they killed the previous generation. i want to explore what it means to be a girl parent, having to manage your father, mother and sibling's emotions. the mediator that everyone is grateful for secretly, but no one acknowledges. in family comedies and dramas, the reunions are framed as inventions of the grandfathers and grandmothers or uncles, but it's always the daughters trying to patch up shit. organizing christmas and managing fights. what it's like to be the second-sister and idolize your older sister, not realizing how eager she is to impress you, not realizing how you've both set her up to inevitably fail. how women try to be beautiful even when they're dying. how people congratulate girls for being sick, getting thin, applauding them as they kill themselves. what it means to be devoted heart and soul to a god who's intermediary is a man that detests you. what it's like to be a young girl and the only one enraged at the injustice going around, so you decide to spy, to become an enemy of the state, a smuggler, a rescuer and then you get caught. what it's like to be a child that tries so hard to be good at everything and gets nothing but derision, but instead of "going joker" just keeps people pleasing until she dies a shell of herself. how unrewarding is sacrifice for women. thinking "this time they'll like me. this time they'll appreciate me. this time they'll be glad they had me. this time they'll want me." how futile it is to perform. what it means to survive the worst and be treated like a villain instead of a hero. how winning makes you even more hated than losing. to be loyal and only betrayed in turn. the joy of wearing your first dress sweats, and realizing you didn't have to perform all the time. the joy of buying boy's clothes and finding pockets in pants, hoodies, etc. the relief of taking your heels and bra off. the maddening exhilaration of gaining muscle. kicking the ball into the net!

no one can understand any of it. no one knows the horrors of any of it like women and girls. there's a whole universe of human experience that no one ever sees. that few ever explore. you don't know, you don't understand, like can you even? everything changes when it's a woman. quests for power in male centric stories are about greed and selfishness. but a woman going on a quest for power would be virtuous, justice. sacrifice for a man is glory. sacrifice for a woman is mundane. to a man, beauty is a gift. to a woman, beauty is a curse that damns you to the sharks. every story, every theme changes when it's a woman. because women and girls live in a society with very different rules for them. every philosophical question transforms when it's a woman it's being asked to. that's asking. even the morals change. "forgiveness and mercy heal society" NO! the moral for little girls should be "don't ever fucking forgive or forget. justice at any cost!" "power corrupts" NO! YOU AS A GIRL MUST CHASE POWER FOR FREEDOM IS INFINTELY MORE VALUABLE THAN BEING LIKED. "love conquers all" NO! love should only be trusted to the worthy! NEVER give your love to someone irresponsible with it! "selfishness is bad" BE MORE SELFISH GIRLS! BE SELFISH WITH YOUR TIME AND ENERGY ESPECIALLY! "violence is never the answer" VIOLENCE IS OCCASIONALLY THE ANSWER. GET A FUCKING GUN! "blessed are the meek" FORTUNE FAVORS THE BOLD! "family is everything" FREEDOM IS EVERYTHING! You are not bound to any blood, build or find the community you deserve! That actually helps you prosper!

we live in different worlds! what men tell the boys does not apply to you! THEY AIN'T US AND THEY AIN'T BEEN US AND THEY CAN'T FATHOM THE STRUGGLE.

you wouldn't get it.

[maxdibert]

To comment further on your and anon's take on the problematic of female characters in JKR:s writing, I find Nymphadora Tonks an interesting example because she was this cool, a bit tomboy character in OOtP, but suddenly, in HBP she was depressed until Lupin apparently "accepted" her love -- for me, it has always felt like Tonks and Lupin was coming out of nowhere, like that JKR desperately wanted (in her own weird standards) to make Tonks "one of the good women" who found themselves a man and was with child. But yeah I 100% agree on your take.

I totally get what you're saying, and I think you're spot-on in pointing out how Tonks is another example of Rowling falling into stereotypical depictions of women, even when they’re “not like the other girls.” Tonks is initially introduced as this quirky, rebellious, and independent adult—a colorful-haired, cool "older sister" vibe with her clumsiness and confidence. But, like you said, she isn’t allowed to just be that. She’s an adult, so Rowling shoehorns her into this rigid framework where, apparently, the only way for her to be a "good woman" is to fulfill traditional roles of being a wife and mother.

What’s especially frustrating is how Tonks’ storyline revolves almost entirely around Lupin once they’re paired up. Suddenly, this competent Auror—someone who’s been through training, fights in the Order, and clearly holds her own in battle—becomes this desperate, pining character whose personality shrinks down to whether or not Lupin reciprocates her feelings. And then, as soon as she gets pregnant, her entire narrative becomes about her role as a wife and soon-to-be mother. It’s wild because, while Lupin is allowed his internal conflict and angst about being “too old” or “too dangerous” for her, Tonks isn’t given any real depth to her own feelings. She just waits for him, forgives him, and keeps chasing after him even when he abandons her while she’s pregnant.

This ties into a broader problem with Rowling’s portrayal of women throughout the series. Female characters who are independent or rebellious—like Tonks, or even Ginny in her early days—are either eventually folded into traditional roles (wife, mother) or dismissed entirely. Meanwhile, male characters, no matter how flawed, are given space to grow, mess up, and be forgiven. Lupin is painted as a tragic hero even when he tries to run away from his responsibilities. His actions, abandoning Tonks and his unborn child, are treated as a moment of weakness for him rather than the profoundly selfish act it is. But Tonks? She just has to deal with it, accept him back, and ultimately sacrifice herself in battle because, of course, Rowling couldn’t even let her live to raise her child.

The infantilization of male characters and the way their flaws are excused is a pattern in Rowling’s writing. Think of how Severu's problematic traits are sided away at the end not with a good explanation but just because he “loved” Lily, or how Dumbledore’s manipulative behavior is seen as wise and noble. With women, there’s rarely this kind of nuance. Women are either maternal and nurturing (Molly Weasley, McGonagall in her own way) or they’re sidelined, mocked, or villainized (Rita Skeeter, Aunt Marge, Umbridge or even more "positive" characters like Fleur Delacour, even Hermione to some extent when her intelligence is played for laughs or dismissed by others).

Tonks’ trajectory is particularly tragic because she starts as such a promising character. She could have been a beacon of what it means to be a strong, independent woman in Rowling’s world. But instead, her storyline reinforces the harmful idea that women’s worth is tied to their relationships with men, that they must forgive and accommodate even the worst behavior, and that motherhood is the ultimate measure of their value. It’s frustrating and frankly depressing, especially considering how much more room Rowling gives her male characters to screw up, grow, and still come out as heroes.

Tonks deserved so much better. She deserved to be more than a plot device in Lupin’s arc. And it’s not just her—it’s a pattern that runs through the whole series, where women’s stories are often sacrificed or diminished to prop up the men around them.

[crownspeaksblog]

Currently absolutely losing my GODDAMN MIND over this edit!! Like I'm genuinely so fucking giddy watching this! They did NOT have all of this!

[physalian]

This is absolutely going to be taken in some horrible, misconstrued way, but I talked about this elsewhere and can finally articulate what I want to say with less rambling, and here I have more reach so I’m curious if anyone else sees it. I’m aroace and this probably explains a lot but I’m saying the rest anyway:

I recently was recently paid to beta read a sapphic romance novel, and these are not books I would ever read otherwise. I’d much rather read a novel with a romantic subplot over a straight-up romance novel, genders regardless. They just don’t appeal to me.

This is the third one I’ve read by different authors, and something I’ve noticed in this category specifically is how much gender is packed into the subtext, specifically when it’s a woman writing women loving women.

What I mean by this is that I can read—and write—a gay romance between two men, and I’ve read plenty, and the author doesn’t wax poetic about how manly they are, in whichever way they’re romanticizing manhood. Neither is it about how unwomanly they are.

Protagonist isn’t love-struck over his crush and how not-a-woman he is. He’ll probably gush over the guy’s physique and features, but it’s never in comparison to what the man isn’t, it’s always what he is and, more importantly, who he is, even when it’s lust-at-first-sight. It’s also more of a bonus feature than his defining characteristic.

In these three sapphic romance novels, I could not escape the creep of these characters existing relative to men. She’s curvy, unlike a man. She’s got such a pretty voice, unlike a man. She’s so kind and nurturing and empathetic, unlike a man. Fuck the patriarchy, men are trash, women love women because women are superior.

And it’s alienating as fuck. First, because it unintentionally makes it seem like lesbians only exist because they’ve had bad experiences with men and are traumatized into wanting women. Secondly, because these novels take an extremely narrow lane of what it is about womanhood that they’re romanticizing.

I have not read every sapphic romance novel that exists, but it is very strange that these three books are nearly identical, by different authors, in their messages, their mindsets, and the assembly line attributes they emphasize as being attractive.

In these books, they’re all physically fit, skinny, proportioned for a magazine cover, like a bunch of barbie dolls with zero flaws. There’s no women with trade jobs, there’s no weightlifters and bodybuilders, there’s no flat-chested butches or manic pixie dream girls.

Again, it’s only three books out of thousands, I know. They’re making a horrible case for me to ever want to try another one.

But beyond their physical features, it’s the concept of womanhood that is also being romanticized. She’s a girlboss, she’s a caregiver, she’s empathetic, she’s nurturing, she’s kind-hearted unlike a man… as if these are attributes baked into being assigned female at birth and something the other side is incapable of ever achieving.

They’re always “women” first, whatever being a woman means to this author, and then people, second. The heroine falls in love with her lover’s femininity, first, not her personality, her hopes, her dreams, her flaws, her misgivings.

It’s not very feminist of these authors either to limit the scope of their female characters by how well they succeed in being good love interests in comparison to their hypothetical male competition.

This does not include books with lesbians in a romantic subplot—those are just fine and I enjoy them greatly. This is a romance novel dedicated solely to lesbian romance where all the gender comes in.

And, as a woman, every time I have to sit through this, I sure don’t feel like one, and I’m a woman who likes women. I read these books and think both “this is not what I find attractive in other women” and “this is not what I want you to find attractive in me as a woman”.

The gender box that the narrative is trying really hard to sell me is limiting and I’m more than curves, lipstick, and perfume. All women are.

And I think it bothers me in particular because these are women writers, presumably, hopefully, lesbians themselves. They, above anyone else, should get it. These books sure boast about feminist values, and yet, beyond sexist male authors with very obvious reasons for being shit at writing women, I only ever feel like I’m failing to meet the standards of femininity and womanhood when I’m reading these books. A sexist male author will diminish her to a sex object. A... I don't even know what to call it, sexist female author(?) will narrow her to conventional femininity as if it’s both her crowning achievement and something she was born with that took no effort to obtain.

There is probably heavy bias here in me not seeing men treated this way because I don’t identify as one, I’ll readily accept that. If there’s men out there alienated by how manhood is romanticized in gay fiction written by men, let me know—we’ve all seen manhood romanticized by women. I mean a man writing men loving men in such a way that alienates their gay audience.

In sapphic romance, not straight romance or even sapphic characters in either a background relationship or in a romantic subplot, the sound of gender is defeatingly loud.

I’m not the target audience. I don’t like romance novels. I only read these for a paycheck. Anyone who writes this stuff, it’s not a condemnation, like I said I'm aroace. This is personal taste and things I’ve noticed whenever I’ve read these books, and they sure have their audiences and followings.

I write and enjoy romances about people who love people, gender regardless. I write and enjoy romances where people love what their lover is, not what they aren't, and not in comparison to what they could be. This is the only sub-genre I’ve come across where that’s not the case.

[hacked-wtsdz]

Sorry to all girlbosses but I hate the ‘woman is physically stronger than man’ trope. A trained woman will lose to a trained man 9 times out of 10. More so an untrained one. And trained men is who most of these strong female girlbosses are fighting in their circumstances. They wanted to portray strong female characters and chose the most direct way and the most blunt strength disparity between men and women and just started lying with it. Instead of exploring all the ways in which women irl may be as strong or stronger than men. And now I meet real untrained women who genuinely believe that they could take a man on in a fight. It takes exactly one fight, even play, with a grown guy to realise that it’s not true, and that if such a situation becomes real, you should run. I hate this trope with my whole heart because 1) it’s partly responsible for giving women dangerous delusions and 2) instead of exploring interesting power dynamics it just shows unrealistic and unfulfilling situations in which strength is taken at its most basic. Dumb and annoying.

[so-many-ocs]

i don’t think people get that when i say i love fictional characters that are evil women i mean it. “she’s completely irredeemable” that’s the POINT, babes!!! it adds FLAVOR!!! PIZZAZZ!!! INTRIGUE!!!!

[neyafromfrance95]

loved babygirl 2024. it perfectly delivered on what it set out to achieve. reminded me of mrs. fletcher 2019 and love and leashes 2022 a bit. we live in puritan era where ageism against women is at all times high so no wonder it made many people uncomfortable, but that's exactly why we need more female leads over 50 in the media and the dynamics that have been dominated by men for as long as patriarchy has existed.

generally speaking, i will always advocate for the stories that center women over 50, especially the genres that have historically excluded older women from their narratives - erotica, romance, fantasy, adventure.

our culture is overwhelmingly dominated by the narratives that dictate women over 50 to be invisible, expired and forgotten and this has an impact on every facet of our experience in society. ageism against women is the final boss of (often internalized) misogyny and is deeply engraved in the very foundation of patriarchy, conditioning us to have biases against stories centering older women. unfortunately, it's no surprise that internalized ageism in gen z women coincides with the rise of the tradwife movement and recently... the fertility contests on social media.

it all comes down to patriarchy reducing women's value to their beauty and allowing women to be beautiful only in their youth bc that's when they are fertile, reduced to being a means to fulfilling their sole purpose - reproduction.

this has never been the case with men. and this double standard is also deeply engraved in the foundation of patriarchy and systematic misogyny.

susan sontag's essay is still relevant:

for women, only one standard of female beauty is sanctioned: the girl.

the great advantage men have is that our culture allows two standards of male beauty: the boy and the man. the beauty of a boy resembles the beauty of a girl. in both sexes it is a fragile kind of beauty and flourishes naturally only in the early part of the life-cycle. happily, men are able to accept themselves under another standard of good looks — heavier, rougher, more thickly built. a man does not grieve when he loses the smooth, unlined, hairless skin of a boy. for he has only exchanged one form of attractiveness for another: the darker skin of a man’s face, roughened by daily shaving, showing the marks of emotion and the normal lines of age.

there is no equivalent of this second standard for women. the single standard of beauty for women dictates that they must go on having clear skin. every wrinkle, every line, every gray hair, is a defeat. no wonder that no boy minds becoming a man, while even the passage from girlhood to early womanhood is experienced by many women as their downfall, for all women are trained to continue wanting to look like girls.

older women have been relegated to the role of the mothers in the background. we have been brainwashed into feeling revulsion at the idea of older women leading our stories, but if we open our minds and allow some curiosity in, we will see that there is a great potential in placing older women in all the roles beyond motherhood and exploring this uncharted territory.

[thinkingofausername]

Ah yes what I should do instead of sleeping— but this is a response to ur latest post that made me remembered some things

We can see that Anya was not afraid of Jimmy (both before and after the assault) how she confronted Jimmy alone, far from everyone but after the crash she’s more meek, jumpy

I think the reason why is because of Curly, bc of his status above Jimmy and gave her reassurance bc of anything escalates Curly can diffuse it—again bc he’s the captain, and also why she was hiding behind his seat in the cockpit.

While I don’t like the idea that she’s all damsel in distress, but with curly holding the most power, and how she sees curly as a friend; it gave her some sense of stability and he’ll help her (we saw how that turned out)

Then after the crash, and curly lost his status, Jimmy gained the status; any confidence left in her is shattered bc now her abuser holds the most power, the gun, the axe. At that point, it doesn’t matter if her true personality is a confident woman anymore bc her abuser has access to the gun, the passcodes. No wonder she had gone meek. There’s no others left in her corner anymore. Of course she’d be afraid 😭

— 🐚

I'd honestly love for someone to analyze Anya in depth, factually, cause she's been driving me crazy

I can't say anything against her cause she's the fan favorite and she's been turned into a saint but I'm really struggling to figure her out

99% of what I've seen to be the reason why fans love her so much is that she's a woman who suffered and had a tragic end and although I respect that and love for women is always needed (fictional or not) and to each their own I, for the current lack of better words, need more. She's tragic but what else

However hard I try to define her all I see are contrasts - she's brave (she confronts Jimmy on her own) but she takes no action to defend herself. She's resilient (keeps Curly alive and herself composed with her abuser on the ship) but is the first to go, by her own hand no less. She's responsible (took care of Curly) but she let Jimmy give him pills (enabling Jimmy's abuse of Curly) and she wouldn't do Jimmy's eval and she kills herself with Curly's pills, in front of him no less. She hid the gun from Jimmy so he wouldn't get it but she didn't use it herself. She asked Curly for help but confronted Jimmy alone even though she and Curly were supposed to do it together. She knew what Jimmy was like and how unstable he was and she still cornered him (unintentionally causing the crash). She has to have a different personality from what Jimmy sees cause he's her abuser and Curly sees her differently but we know that Curly's perspective on things isn't accurate or detailed. She isn't quite weak and she isn't quite strong (don't attack me, I'm just going with the facts, she couldn't complete her tasks and she couldn't defend herself and she died first) so at the end of the day I can't for the life of me figure her out

If anyone has enough Mouthwashing brainrot and energy to add to this or deconstruct this I'd be really glad to read it cause I've hit a dead end here

[harrowitzer]

"you neglect women for m/m ships" nah fam. the women are the ones getting shit done while the men slut it up. they're heroing, they're villianing, they're the brains and/or brawn of the operation. they're not loafing about having angst and overanalyzing everything and poorly communicating.

(or they're slutting it up with other women)