#and I just want it to remain ours

[rabidlittlestrawberry]

I really did try to do this in the tags but I had too much to say.

I know this conversation has been had a lot recently, but I feel like it’s so sad, because it sours all the gorgeous work we are all doing here, because let’s be honest, nobody would have the connection they have to this media or these characters without us all here making beautiful queer media that is MILES better than the original. And that gives us all this deep emotional connection to it that we wouldn’t otherwise have. Which is beautiful, except when it is lining jkrs pockets, because we are not a small group, we are definitely large enough to be considered when making new media, when buying and selling rights, when deciding what merch to sell. And then it becomes something that is not ours but our fault.

When I joined fandom I thought there were some rules, like, don’t buy and sell fanfic, don’t critique/ rate fanfic, don’t give money to jkr. And sure, individual people do all of those things all the time, but we have to agree as a community what we are going to have conversations about to keep our space safe for everyone

And listen, we all do it. We’ve all done it, but with this reboot, I feel like we can change that. We can say no, we have that power, no matter how small.

So, let’s show them that they cannot buy us with the pretty white boys, that they cannot make something even half as good as we can make ourselves. and that we have no interest in lining the pockets of someone intent on taking people’s rights away. I will be so fucking proud of us

If you are still on the fence, I will leave you with this tweet from Joanne herself, because she doesn’t care if we are making her art queer, as long as we keep paying her while we do it.

As we are all being reminded recently, art is political, and none more so than this.

"andrew and ben are up to something!" "atj played atyd he's up to something!" "calling it now, they've been cast!"

well i would hope NOT actually, marauders fans stfu about the reboot challenge

[thatpunnyperson]

According to NBC here in the US, the missing titanic sub has been found. As debris. Off the bow of the Titanic wreckage.

And it looks like the sub suffered what we all suspected, and what was undoubtedly the more merciful of the two options: a catastrophic implosion from the pressure.

Also, more info has come to light about the fishing trawler with the hundreds of migrants that sank cataclysmically off the coast of Greece, indicating that the greek coast guard knew about the vessel AND how much trouble the vessel was in, and were towing it at a speed that made it capsize, at which point they unhooked the tow line and watched the trawler sink without helping the passengers to safety. Despite a bunch of other ships trying to help as well throughout the whole ordeal.

So a lot of people are dead, all because of regulations (and the lack thereof) regarding sea-faring vessels and rescue protocols. People shouldnt be allowed to make a business charging a ton of money for a ride on an uncertified, unsafe, un-seaworthy ship going deep into the ocean with no distress beacon or tether to the mothership. People also shouldnt be allowed to enact laws that criminalize the ferrying of refugees, which then force the refugees to hitch rides on fishing trawlers, and which also prevent people from helping those fishing trawlers full of refugees due to fear of legal consequences.

Hopefully BOTH of these events spark changes on an international scale in terms of what is legally allowed to be sailed, who is legally allowed to be the passengers, and what the rescue protocols are in the event of disaster for any seafaring vessel, illegal or not. It shouldnt be just the global 1% who get 24/7 search parties and remote-operated submersibles helping rescue them.

[egophiliac]

HELLOOOO HAVE YOU SEEN LILIA'S DORM CARD YETTTT

personally, what made me most gleeful about the update news is that the part 2 description implies that they forgot to invite Malleus to Lilia's farewell party. god yes rub that salt into the wound, Monday can't come soon enough

[sage-nebula]

Kristoph Gavin's black psyche-locks have remained unbroken for 17 slutty, slutty years.

[hal-o-ween]

Sweet Dreams <3

[niamhthefae]

ok just imagine: after the launch they post a compilation video of all the things they had to cut from videos because their relationship wasnt public yet. stuff from all the way back in the first few years they probably found on an old drive,going all the way up until stuff now, with blonde phil and a much happier dan, little comments,kisses, pet names, 'love you's, maybe even a recording of what was going to be the launch before they changed their mind and scrapped it. i think i would die.

[prolibytherium]

Somehow that ongoing 1,500,000+ word The Beatles Paul McCartney x John Lennon fanfiction I read includes like the most absolute minuscule details of the Beatles lore, like tiny little things where I was like "that can't be real" but I looked it up and it was (IE a guy claiming to be Jesus Christ barging in on one of their recording sessions). But it does NOT include the apparently real group masturbation sessions

[elllteo]

I haven't gone through most of the gamefreak leaks but I find it odd that people are going bonkers over the typhlosion thing in such a gross way bc like

1) its clearly mythos/lore? Based on concepts they decided not to lean into.

It is Not Canon / Cut Content for a reason - the reason being that was not the direction they wanted to take the series since it is very very very specifically geared towards a teen audience.

Could a teen audience have handled the themes? I would argue yes - but they disagree, and so it was cut.

2) Even if we ignore everything else implied by that story - it is literally not that different from like. Normal furries...??? Like.

The typhlosion was communicating in human speech. It was taking on a humanoid form. It clearly understood humanoid needs and ties and emotions.

The ending directly said that the lesson they learned was that Typhlosion are more humanoid than initially suspected. This is leaning more into the "monster" / yokai aspect of pokemon that has Always been there.

3) These themes are really common in real world mythology in pretty much all places in the world, and they are typically used as teaching moments to warn (in this case...) Young Girls from wandering into the woods alone, lest a predator Of Some Kind take advantage of their isolation.

Another thing I find fascinating is that they didn't really do Away with some of these concepts - they just moved it onto Zoroark (and other pokemon) instead. Many canon pokemon still behave this way, just sith the more adult or worrying themes omitted.

From what I've seen and experienced with Pokemon growing up, there's always been the backbones of something darker and more "grimms tales" underneath. I just don't understand the Disgust and Surprise when realistically, the world has always had a pretty strong undercurrent and ties to Yokai, Demonology, Religion and Monsters - the notion that SOME lean more humanoid than others is the very reason we have a humanoid egg group to begin with, and why ditto, mew two, etc exist.

Also. Like. I get wishing we had more of those dark themes in the games. But us adults who grew up on Pokemon haaavvvree to remember that despite growing up and still loving the game series, us adults...are not their target demographic. At least we DEFINITELY weren't at the time mush of the Typhlosion stuff was being written. Whether we think thats stupid or not doesn't change that.

The changes they made are a direct result of going "okay guys maybe this is a little too much for 10 to 14 year olds..." And that's their narrative choices to make.

[lovesodeepandwideandwell]

how come I love leading class and reading groups and small groups and lectures and conference papers and book clubs

and I HATE leading Women's Bible Study

[biblically-accurate-dca]

KILL!!!!!!!!!

[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!

[anjasitdown]

hands on my knees screaming crying thowing up FINALLY WE GOT THE STORY WE DESERVE

[curiosity-killed]

i love my sister and for the most part, we are very close and genuinely like each other a lot but the one place where i'd just really, really, really like to see inside her brain is the part where she is still incredibly comfortable and cheerful—and even thinks it's really funny—talking about how much she didn't like me as a child while I'm like. yes. I am and was aware. and it sucked so so so much

[wifegideonnav]

tbh when mitski said “you’re my best friend/now i’ve no one to tell/how i lost my best friend”

[mean-scarlet-deceiver]

I personally believe that Awdry's original intention was to make "the fat director" a character who was somewhat out of touch with the railway world, and that the Hatt depicted in 3 railway engines who's "doctor has forbidden him to pull/push" and abandons Henry is very different from the Hatt who drives percy to his new home and puts on coveralls to test drive Henry and see his problems for himself. It would almost seem like character development if it weren't for the fact that we know that the latter Hatt is Swindon trained. And, of course, even in book 2 he seems to be much more involved in actual on the ground operations.

Oh yeah, yeah! 'Out-of-touch dumbass' is 100% what "the fat director" was for Awdry originally. The shenanigans in "The Sad Story of Henry" are fully in line with the kinda stories Awdry liked to write — you see it all again in The Little People — he really does just like to make up some guys, put them in situations, and have them ineffectually try to idiot their way out of things (and make an even more bizarre situation in the process).

Actually so based of him to be like, "This is a book about trains. Trains are great. They're big and stupid and emotional, but great. The guys who run the trains are cool too. Btw kids, you know who on a railway sucks? The directors." Wilbert A., in that moment you were kind of an icon.

The anti-fat and ableist tropes ('he's making it up, he doesn't need accommodations, he's just too lazy to try and pull a train') are not so chill but I do love this anti-top-hat energy he was bringing to the table in the early game.

The publishers were honestly right to make Awdry bring all three engines onto the same railway and to make a happy ending for the stories... but, Fat-Director-wise, the result is hilarious. I don't think "some people be hardasses sometimes," even "some of these hardasses are useless themselves but still have the power to destroy your life and they will use it without thinking twice," is nearly as off-color a message in a kid's story book as "and sometimes that terrifying hardass is just this nice, kindly, fair paternal figure :) who was justly pissed off at you for your ignorance :) but who will be nice to you later :) and you should be grateful to them really :)" Such is almost always the way with clumsy attempts to sanitize — the result is worse.

Book 2: "The terrifyingly clueless hardass is your enginesona's dad now, kiddos! :)"

To be fair, I don't think it's certain that Hatt's Swindon training guarantees he'd be any nicer — we don't know that — though it is undoubtedly weird that "the Great Western way," with all its implied efficiency, would result in an apprentice who grows up to brick up a gauntletted line and bore a new tunnel rather than just get a few engines to drag Henry somewhere out of everyone's way before abandoning him. The stupidity of it is harder to explain by "he undergoes some character development :)" But the dropped over-the-top harshness could be explained that way.

Anyway it would be so cool if someone rewrote the RWS but with the Fat Director/Controller maintaining his original characterisation. I just want to see what that would look like.

[percyjacksonfan3]

Honest question, what the fuck is going on with Buttons this season??