#and all the ones I’ve seen the MOST discourse about Lol

[lady-tortilla-chip]

OK different poll.

[thestarlightforge]

TBOSAS Meta

This started as a couple-paragraphs-long Everlark & Coryo x Lucy Gray rant. It turned into an essay on the politics of systemic oppression and how we illustrate it in fiction, with The Hunger Games and Ballad as case studies. Regardless, I hope others enjoy, lol. This is where my brain lives, now, as I expect it will the rest of 2023. Cheers!

***

It’s been interesting, the last few days, some of the discourse that’s popped up around TBOSAS. FASCINATING political discussions, as I’ve come to expect for a Suzanne Collins release. (#1 in my heart.)

Personally, I always separate books vs. movie canon with her franchise. With the OG Hunger Games, sometimes I felt the films were better—like she got another pass at it and REALLY took advantage, and utilized the hell out of taking it out of Katniss’s first-person POV to develop other characters and the world (still without detracting from her narrative)—while for some details, I preferred the books.

With TBOSAS, though, the book and movie feel almost entirely different to me.

There are MANY shared elements, of course, and I feel either version gels quite nicely with the OG franchise. It’s not even that there’s that many continuity differences—some things cut or altered for time, sure, but the bones of the plot are the same. Both illustrate astute political commentary, Coriolanus’s descent into madness, Tigris’s shift in position on him (foreshadowing her full turn by Mockingjay), and Lucy Gray’s role in his life in both his initial downfall and his defeat by Katniss. The actors and creative team all did BEAUTIFUL work bringing it to life, and I honestly love both versions.

But fans who mainly like the book may be frustrated by the sympathy Coryo garners in the film.

Normally, I��d say this is because the book reveals more internal monologue—and it does. But honestly, one of the things I was most impressed by in this film was how legible the actors’ internal monologues were. It was clear, the amount of work they all did to that end. So I don’t know that it is just more. I think it’s also different.

Book Coriolanus devolves much earlier and more obviously. He starts from the same pressed circumstances and has moments of goodness, but he becomes the villain we know him eventually to be pretty damn fast.

Film-Coriolanus has a much slower descent. Ironic, honestly, given the film has far less time than the book does.

I think as a result of this, I’ve seen discourse comparing beats in his relationship with Lucy Gray to Katniss and Peeta. For example, that beautifully shot/choreographed/performed scene in TBOSAS with him and Lucy Gray on either side of the fence after the bombings that night, where they almost kiss and he asks her, “Is this real? If I’m going to risk everything?” being compared to Peeta’s long game of “real or not real” throughout Mockingjay. Everlark folks (rightfully) pointing out that for Peeta, the refrain is about shared trauma, especially between him and Katniss, and both of them grounding their relationship in mutual trust—while asserting that for Coryo, the same refrain comes from a place of selfishness.

I get where this opinion comes from: President Snow is probably one of the most violent, sadistic, genocidal dictators in modern popular fiction. His relationship with Lucy Gray started as transactional—even more acutely in the book. Nearly everything Book-Coryo does is for his or his family’s personal gain.

But to me, half the beauty and tragedy of the film is this delicious possibility—the hope—they showed us.

THG has always had a strong anti-war philosophy in general, with through-line commentary on showmanship, propaganda, surveillance and performance: The recurrent themes of cameras always bring on them, the arenas and entirety of Panem being a stage/game—and how those things impact authentic human relationships. Everlark hit for so many because of the ways authenticity bloomed out of that hellish, contrived pit. Coriolanus and Lucy Gray’s relationship started out similarly contrived: Thrown together by the politics of the Academy, the uprising, the districts, the Capitol and the Games—helping one another survive. Largely unlike Katniss and Peeta, they both played the game intentionally, to varying degrees. (Personality wise, these four really have almost nothing in common, lol.) Lucy Gray is a good person, both in the end and from her start (unlike the terrorist Coriolanus becomes). But she is a performer. He’s right about that.

So honestly, I don’t see much purpose in reading Peeta’s question as valid while Coryo’s wasn’t. I think that judgment is colored by dramatic irony—us knowing who they each become. But in theatre, we talk about living honestly in imagined circumstances. It’s used in a lot of acting techniques, but particularly for people playing villains. To stay grounded in the truth of it, you have to believe honestly in the imagined moment, not the gestalt; Leslie Odom Jr. was a great Aaron Burr because every performance, he believed in the whole journey, from hope to ruin. Tom Blythe was a great Coryo because he invested in the earnest reality of Snow as a young man, not the devil we know he becomes. And at that point in the story, at the cages that night with Lucy Gray, Coriolanus was honestly grounded in similar struggles as our OG heroes: Trying to provide for and protect his starving family. His family (and the Capitol at large) reeks of privilege, and his prejudices were obviously flawed. But in his developing love for her, he was steeped in starvation, the same political forces as lashed all citizens of Panem, and was clawing his way from beneath just as much Capitol propaganda as people from the Districts—perhaps even more so, given his Grandma’am and how his father died. Because of their given circumstances, politics bled into everything—but eventually, so did feeling, and they had several moments of genuine bonding, trust and connection which the actors invested in beyond their political need for each other. There’s a constant push and pull: Holding hands at the zoo for the cameras was political; her reaching for his hand in the arena visit was less so. The first “Stop treating me like I’ve already lost” in front of everyone was wit-soaked survival, while “Please don’t let me die in that arena tomorrow,” near-whispered and with hands held between them where the camera would struggle to see, bled into real vulnerability. Saving him from the other tributes in the cage-ride to the zoo was about survival; risking her life to go back for him when the arena was bombed was at least a mix. Her motivations for singing in her interview are complex—perhaps guilt that a “rebel” attack nearly killed Coriolanus, his advice she’d get the most money that way—but I feel strongly that a non-zero amount of her was motivated by wanting to demonstrate that she trusts him, which for her is even higher-prized than love. And I also feel that, after the hospital and her “final performance”—leading up to their near-kiss at the zoo—Coriolanus scoped out the arena (and ultimately took all those risks to help her cheat the Games) both because he wanted the Plinth prize, in theory, and because he increasingly desperately wanted her to live.

The waters between them were thoroughly, legitimately muddied—which I believe was intentional, that constant tension between authenticity and politics. And as much as he was falling for her, Coriolanus saw that Lucy Gray was just as clever and good at crowd-work as he was—maybe better.

So to circle all the way back to this Everlark comparison: Given the absurdly multilayered situation, is it really that selfish or unreasonable he would check in with her during that moment through the fence? That this child—wrapped in oppressive patriarchy, violence, starvation and propaganda—would ask for reassurance before he was willing to be vulnerable, or to potentially risk his family’s lives?

Some artists are hesitant to engage with the humanity of “villains,” their origins, because they feel humanizing them excuses them. In real life, I get this: Second chances aren’t always the answer, and people need to be held accountable. But isn’t it more powerful storytelling to demonstrate the corrosive nature of all systems of oppression in our fiction, to show how they can corrupt even those who try, than to condemn people before they’ve even had a chance? Isn’t the beauty of Lucy Gray’s whole thing that everyone starts out good, and it’s our job to choose to stay on the right side of that line?

And when President Coriolanus Snow finally chokes on his last rose, wouldn’t it be a more satisfying victory if we imagined him as a real-feeling person—full owner of sixty years of horrifying choices—rather than a cartoonishly evil cardboard cutout?

Book-Coryo has a more obviously manipulative/evil streak, much earlier on. To make it plain: He’s an ass, and his “love” for her reads more like obsession. But my favorite aspect of the film (and I feel one of the most compelling) was how it illustrated that these systems of oppression can make tragedies of almost anyone: All but those at the very, very top. Suzanne’s anti-capitalist politicking—how classism turns everyone below the 1% against each other, where the “upper middle class” (doctors/lawyers/actors) is vilified to the poor as a red herring while a handful of robber-baron CEOs amass almost all wealth on the planet—strikes again. She, Francis Lawrence, the film’s creative team and these actors came together to put tragically human faces on that struggle—how hard it is to stay a good person amidst intense, violent, systemic oppression.

But none of that sings quite as true if you go into it having decided that Coriolanus was evil in his bones. The stakes are so much higher, richer, otherwise. If his love—for Tigris, for his family, for Sejanus, and yes, for Lucy Gray—was, or became, authentic.

It’s not a descent into madness if he’s already mad. Or, as he put it in the original Hunger Games film: “Hope. It is the only thing stronger than fear.”

[redeclipsee]

This is just going to be a little rant about Galadriel, Haladriel, Celeborn and other thingies I've seen discourse about lately. And this is by no means discrediting people's opinions. I just wanted to talk about it lol

I've always been pro-ship. Ship whatever the hell you want. "Problematic" ships, morally wrong ships, just whatever. As long as you're not being an asshole to other people.

Which led me to Haladriel. Haladriel is easily the most popular ship of the show, and with the end of S2, I've seen people attacking the ship, but I've seen more people demanding for Haladriel to become "canon" and absolutely shitting on other characters, plots and fans who enjoy other parts of the show that don't revolve around the ship. And it's quite embarrassing.

In the show, Sauron and Galadriel are foil characters to each other. I don't think hoping for them to face each other each season is unrealistic or even bad. In fact, it's expected. Whenever Sauron chooses darkness, Galadriel will choose light. It's a dance with those characters. 

BUT demanding the romantic ship to become canon and being mean to everyone who says otherwise is bad. You don't need canon to ship them or read them as romantic (because let's be real, the show left it to interpretation, and it's fantastic). Sauron and Galadriel being canon makes absolutely no sense with the lore, the world and the characters. We already know what the characters end up like, so being childish because they won't kiss is embarrassing.

Which leads me to some people hating the character Celeborn. We haven't even seen him in the show and yet, top 5 hated characters. I've seen more people attacking people who want Celeborn and Celeborn and Galadriel giving the most absolute insane takes; "he's boring", "you want Galadriel to be a tradwife", "you just hate Haladriel shippers“, among others. Which all of them are insane. How can you say he’s boring when we haven’t even seen him on the show? Galadriel can be happy, have a loving husband and be badass, be for real. And well, people can ship whatever. If people like Celedriel more than Haladriel is their right? Just as people can dislike Celedriel and like Haladriel, just be kind to each other idk.

SAURON & GALADRIEL

For me, there was a little romance between Galadriel and Sauron on S1. I think Sauron fell in love with her light and her power. I think Galadriel fell in love with the understanding that Halbrand gave her that she couldn’t find in anyone else, her “darkside” was understood. But Sauron’s idea of love can’t be anything but twisted and Galadriel could never really love Sauron. So yes, for me, there was love, but it was twisted.

Sauron is obsessed with her light. He wanted her power just as he wanted Celebrimbor’s art. And he won’t ever renounce it, so he’ll chace it and tempt her at every occasion he can, because he wants her light. Sauron, who thinks he needs to control everyone on Middle Earth to “heal” it, naturally has an obsession with the Lady of Light.

But that’s all there is. Because Galadriel could never truly love Sauron even when he’s the only one that could understand her darkest desires the most. 

GALADRIEL'S JOURNEY

I’ve seen people saying that her speech of “all peoples of Middle Earth will always resist you” is bad because it makes Galadriel abandon her personal goal of hunting Sauron for the greater good, not allowing a woman to have her own agency and advocating for everyone else. And well, I would agree if we weren’t talking about a Tolkien adaptation.

S1 Galadriel is galloping alone. No one believes her, no one understands her, and she can’t stop her quest. She’s prideful and selfish to an extent, and it’s her choices alone, her own internal desire to bring Sauron down that, unaware, brings him back to Middle Earth. She fucks up monumentally. 

S2 Galadriel is about the consequences of her actions, but also, realizing she’s not alone. Her letting go of Finrod's dagger at the end of S1 was a beautiful way of letting go of her quest. Gil-Galad and Galadriel’s relationship in S2 shines because Gil-Galad is harsh on her as much as he believes in her, and he tells her that. S2 Galadriel has no company and has to deal with the tables turned around by being part of Elrond’s company. Elrond, who was also acting stubborn like a mule and refused to listen to anyone (just like her S1 self). S2 Galadriel is about her finding that she’s not alone and that Finrod’s quest is over, and it’s time to fight for Middle Earth, all of it.

Going forward is about her becoming the Lady of Light that we know in Lord of the Rings. And yes, she’ll always have a darkside, she’ll always be prideful and ambitious, and I’m so excited to see hints of that in the upcoming seasons, but I don't think saying her putting aside her personal and prideful quest is bad is fair to the story the show is trying to tell. This is Tolkien, and it makes complete sense for it to be like that.

So yeah, in resume… I love Haladriel, but I don’t want them to ever be canon. I can’t wait for Celeborn to show up, and I can’t wait to see how the show develops Galadriel’s journey in the upcoming seasons! Just remember to be kind to other people, even if they don’t like your ships.

[gffa]

I made the mistake, after episode 7 of the acolyte, to look through the tags (I’ve given up on Reddit for sw discourse lol) and there are so many bad takes out there. It’s like people watched a different episode. I’m glad there are some good meta takes from people like you, or I’d be lost! I think nuance is dead in fandom and people just can’t see things as more than “Jedi Bad!” When there’s so much more nuance than that. Were the Jedi perfect? No! Of course not. That would be so boring. If all Jedi were always perfect, SW would be dull. It’s because they aren’t perfect that they are so compelling. That they try to do the right thing, even if it doesn’t always work out.

A quote that came to mind by Teddy Roosevelt: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Anyways, thanks for your continued good meta and cultivating a nice pro-Jedi space!

Hi! I hear you, it can be tough going into the tags sometimes (and I've given up on both Reddit and Twitter for any kind of discussion, I just do not have the time/energy for that when sometimes I still have to fight for my life on Tumblr) but I will say that the best remedy I have for that is to start posting the content you want to see! It's so satisfying to write down your thoughts just to have fun in your own space, I don't need other people nearly so much because I'm having a great time just making myself laugh or cry over my faves or nerding out over worldbuilding. It's a bonus that I've collected a bunch of really great people around me, both ones I vibe with and ones who are chill when our vibes don't match and we disagree on stuff. I've been having an absolute joy of a time after episode 7 of The Acolyte because I've seen some great posts, I've had some hilarious conversations, etc. And part of that is just. Letting go of a lot of fandom. I'm a lot more relaxed about the Star Wars media I consume because it's not Lucas' Star Wars, I can take or leave it as I will and, most importantly, I don't need the Jedi to be perfect to be good. So much of my need for the Jedi to be perfect once upon a time came from that any little mistake they made, ones that were completely reasonable, ones that were simply just "didn't solve everyone's problems instantly", ones that were present in other characters who were allowed to just be instead of being raked over the coals for it, and how fandom would use those as a bludgeon against the Jedi. And that wasn't fun! So, instead, yeah, the Jedi are flawed, because any character ever is allowed to be flawed. The most cinnamon roll character ever is flawed and that's okay. Luke Skywalker is flawed. Padme Amidala is flawed. Bail Organa is flawed. Yoda is flawed. Obi-Wan Kenobi is flawed. Mace Windu is flawed. Ahsoka Tano is flawed. Leia Organa is flawed. Han Solo is flawed. Lando Calrissian is flawed. Ezra Bridger is flawed. Kanan Jarrus is flawed. Hera Syndulla is flawed. And on and on and on. If those characters can have flaws and be seen as good, well, then that's how I'm going to proceed with my Jedi faves, too. Oh, Mace wasn't bending over backwards to smile and be soft when he was having the worst day ever? That's what you're bringing me to show that he was bad actually? Babe, please, Luke started out as whiny and annoying and he's amazing, so Mace is amazing, too. The Jedi were in a no-win situation, not fighting would mean people would die, fighting meant compromising themselves, they had to make a choice, there was no third way out, there was no secret magical answer in Star Wars, so they did what they could to the best of their ability. And it's not on them to fix everything in the galaxy, they're peace-keepers who were drafted into a war, they're not the whole of the government, they're not there to be social service agents, that's not who they are or what they're equipped for. And yet they still tried to help whenever they could. Everyone fucks up sometimes and that's okay, it doesn't suddenly mean they're the real villain all along, because otherwise they would have to be literally be perfect to be "good" and that's just bad writing imo. Ultimately, just take a break from scrolling through the tags if you can and join me in writing your own stuff, it's hard at first to get the words to come out the way you want them to, but with some time and energy put into it, I've found it to be so much more rewarding. <3

[gloriousburden]

A few types of MCU Loki fans I’ve encountered/noticed being in the fandom for over three years now:

DISCLAIMER: DON’T TAKE THIS TOO SERIOUSLY PLEASEEEE IT’S LIGHTHEARTED!! Some of these things apply to me as well, and some don’t lol. Doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone it’s all just for giggles.

The Lokius shipper Series Fan:

- Usually younger Gen Z. Can be anywhere from 14 to 23 years old. They’re younger teenagers most of the time.

- Heavily on TikTok but also on Pinterest/Twitter.

- Got into the MCU/Loki more recently. Either from the Series, or from Ragnarok.

- For some reason, wholeheartedly believes that one Tumblr post from like ten years ago that states Loki is 16/17 in human years. Even though that’s not canon at all and it does not work like that.

- Favorite depiction of Loki tends to be the Variant/Ragnarok. Sometimes Avengers.

- Almost ALWAYS a fan of Good Omens or OFMD.

- Obviously… Ships Lokius.

- Very anti Sylvie/Sylki, but LOVES Mobius.

- EXTREMELY anti Thorki, even though not a lot of people ship them anymore.

- Spreads a lot of misinformation. Such as taking the fact that Marvel confirmed that the Scepter influenced Loki, and mistaking that with them 100% confirming the theory of Loki being brainwashed by Thanos.

- Thinks Loki’s eyes are green???

- Newer to fandom in general.

- Doesn’t talk a whole lot about the series outside of the ships/fanon discourse.

- Making Loki tree/Yggdrasil jokes CONSTANTLY.

- Either thinks that Loki before the series was completely evil, or an angel. No in between.

- “For you, for all of us 🥺” / “Your savior is here!”

- Often forgets/doesn’t remember the fact that Loki/OG Loki are two different characters, and groups them together.

- Either a Swiftie who likes to constantly joke about when Taylor and Tom dated for 3 months like 8 years ago and also associates a lot of her Songs/Lyrics with Loki, or is someone who has a bit more of an Alternative taste in Music/Fashion.

- Doesn’t really talk about Thor that much, or really wants him and Loki to reunite.

- They’ve probably seen other movies including Tom like Crimson Peak, Skull Island, and High Rise. The more popular ones.

- Owns a lot of TVA related merch.

- “He’s not Odin’s son, or Laufey’s son… He’s Frigga’s son 🥺” or insists on calling Loki by “Laufeyson.”

- In Fanon, sort of treats Loki as a very normal, modern human, and not a god from an entirely different realm.

- Has either dropped the Series/their love of Loki a few months after the Series ended for the “next best thing”, or is currently still raving about all of it.

- Quite immature about other’s opinions/perspectives on Loki/or even people who ship the opposite ship from their own. This is mainly because they’re younger or because they really like their Fanon idea of Loki/Which ship should be Canon.

- Has some questionable headcanons/opinions of their own on Loki.

- Loves Frigga.

- Hates Odin.

The OG Loki fan who’s been a fan of him since 2011/2012, but is a bit more casual about his characterization:

- Usually a Millennial/in their late twenties or mid thirties. May even be in their fourties.

- Has been here for a good while, and saw just about every movie featuring him as well as other MCU movies in the theater when they first came out. Was probably a younger adult/older teenager when Avengers came out.

- Fanfic writer!!

- Favorite depiction of Loki tends to be Ragnarok, TDW, or Avengers.

- Mainly reside on Tumblr/AO3 but also on Twitter from time to time.

- “The Sun will shine on us again.” / “Love is a Dagger.”

- Some depict Loki in their Fanfics in a Smutty/BookTok YA Fantasy Novel style. Some in other ways. They also have a lot of fun with their Fics! So many AUs.

- They are carrying the Loki x Reader tag, I won’t lie. 🫡

- Doesn’t necessarily love the Series, but also doesn’t necessarily hate it. Does prefer the OG Loki they know and love over the Series and had a few disappointments with the Series, though.

- MAJOR Hiddlestoner. Some may like Tom more than they like Loki. Have watched his entire filmography and then some.

- A lot of them have really cool Loki related tattoos.

- Collects a lot of merch. Both from the Series, as well as more OG Loki merch. Also owns about fourty Tom magazines.

- Probably has met Tom/owns an autograph or something signed by him.

- Usually ships Loki with Sigyn, Jane, Tony, or an OC they’ve had since 2013. Honestly, I don’t personally see them that often anymore, but may ship Thorki. Does not really ship Lokius/Sylki whatsoever, or uses Sylvie as a bit of a self insert in Fics.

- Sometimes also a huge fan of Bucky/The Winter Soldier or Sebastian Stan. Associates Bucky and Loki a lot especially in Fics.

- Some are also fans of Star Wars who love Kylo Ren.

- Actually they like a lot of other morally grey characters.

- Probably has a pet named after Loki.

- Feels deeply for Loki, and relates to him in certain ways. Really likes humanizing him in their fics. Loves the more vulnerable side of him.

- Loves Frigga.

- Hates Odin.

The Loki purist/“He’s literally me” Fan:

- Anywhere from 16 - 28 years old. May be a bit older than that. Usually Mid/Older Gen Z, or younger Millennial.

- Has either grown up loving Loki, or became a fan a bit more recently.

- Favorite depiction of Loki tends to be TDW, but obviously can be any of the three OG depictions of him.

- LIVES on Tumblr. A bit of an extinct species elsewhere, but some may also be on Twitter.

- #1 Loki defenders. Very protective of/sensitive about how he is depicted not only in Canon, but also in Fanon. Usually deemed as harsh by series fans/non series haters whenever they criticize the Series or Ragnarok, but in reality, deeply relates to Loki and takes it very personally when he is depicted inaccurately. They see themselves in him, and are so, so, SO tired of seeing him mischaracterized. But also can be genuinely harsh at times. I’ve been guilty of that.

- Either heavily believes the “Thanos Brainwashed Loki” theory, or completely rejects it.

- “I never wanted the Throne. I only ever wanted to be your Equal.” / “Trust my Rage.”

- Very creative. Creates Art of Loki, Fanfics, Edits, Cosplays him, etc…

- Sometimes weirdly resembles him in ways??? LOL. Taking “He’s literally me” literally

- Has a more Alternative taste in Music, Fashion, Aesthetics, etc..

- They either see Loki as their bff, their life partner, or as an enigma to observe. Or all of the above.

- Pretty into Norse Myth, and likes incorporating aspects of it creatively, or when talking about Loki.

- Has a good amount of Fandom experience, and does not tend to argue with other Loki purists/OG Loki fans over petty things. Because at the end of the day… it’s just Tumblr. And we usually all have a common middle ground. Or, is constantly arguing with others.

- They don’t really ship Loki with anyone, but if they do… it’s usually Sigyn or Thor. Or someone really random.

- Either really enjoys depicting Loki in a more Feminine/Neutral form, and wishes his fluidity was depicted in the MCU, or doesn’t talk about it all that much.

- Single handedly keeping the memory of Loki (prior to Ragnarok) alive. 🫡

- Loves the comics, or hasn’t touched a single one.

- Disliked Taika Waititi before it was cool.

- Lost complete trust in the MCU after the handling of Loki’s characterization in Ragnarok, and had no hope in the Series when it was first announced. Or… really hoped it would be our last hope.

- Either deems Thor as the origin of all evil, or actually likes him.

- Wishes it was still 2013 everyday of their lives.

- Either respects/likes Tom to a certain extent, or really does not like him.

- Has a few really cool merch items, or has a lot of everything and anything they can find that doesn’t include Ragnarok/The series. Usually, they DIY their merch.

- Needs to emulate him at any given moment and in any way possible.

- Likes Frigga, but acknowledges that she has messed up in ways. Or really does not like her, period.

- Hates Odin.

The… Male MCU casual/dudebro who strictly lives on TikTok/Instagram/Twitter and did not really like Loki that much until the Series finale came out and thinks Loki is a Sigma Male who dropped everything in order for his friends and his… “Girl” to live:

- ????? Wtf

- Okay I added this one more as a joke because obviously they’re not Loki fans, but…

- Anywhere from ages 15, to 24. No older than that.

- Definitely disregarded Loki’s character before the Series. Also due to him having a fanbase where Women/Girls are the majority. Now Loki is the best MCU character and has the best arc out of everyone else. 🤦🏻‍♀️

- Wholeheartedly believes that Loki was a narcissist/was overreacting about everything he’s been through, or believes that Loki is an angel now because he had a “Redemption Arc”.

- Has never picked up a single Loki comic.

- Jokes a lot about Loki “loving” himself (Sylki kiss).

- Calls the Series “Peak Fiction” just because the rest of the bullshit the MCU has been putting out was absolute garbage, and also because they haven’t really watched anything else.

- If you as an actual Loki fan correct them on any of their bullshit, they act like they know more than you because they loved the series. How could anyone hate it?

- Makes self insert memes/tries to project onto Loki in the absolute worst ways possible.

- Worships the ground that Michael Waldron walks on. Though, they all hated Multiverse of Magic..

- “Let time pass…” / “I know what kind of god I have to be. For you, for all of us.” (Once again.)

- Similarly to our Lokius shipper Series Fans… they do not realize that Loki/the Variant are literally two different people.

- Loves Mobius JUST because he is portrayed by Owen Wilson.

- Also very annoying about Loki being confirmed bisexual in the Series.

- Really wants not only Thor and Loki to reunite, but also Hela.

- Hated the earlier Thor movies, loved Ragnarok, hated Love and Thunder.

- Probably thinks the treatment of Thor in Endgame was funny af.

- Who’s Frigga?

- Loves Odin probably. (Hehe)

[starlightseraph]

stream-of-consciousness regarding fandom discourse here:

i really don’t understand some of the posts i’ve seen lately.

david and michael are obviously drawn to each other like magnets, but such wild speculation about their most personal relationships is really just in bad taste. i know that if someone was saying these things about my private life, i’d be incredibly disturbed and honestly disgusted by it, no matter how untrue or ridiculous the claims were.

i’m really not sure how people can come up with such an expansive mythos from the tiny bits of their lives that we see. lots of the “evidence” i’ve seen really doesn’t add up. people get dates wrong and mismatch timelines, are missing (or deliberately ignoring) things that counter their beliefs, and completely misinterpret (i think) behavioural patterns to work in their favour.

now i’m not saying these claims are wrong. they could be completely correct, but people really have to be reaching to get to these conclusions with this information. i’ve half the mind to call it wishful thinking, that people want georgia to be messed up because she’s married to david (which might make her both the object of envy and an obstacle to other relationships) and try to antagonise anna because she’s “stifling” michael. i’d be lying if i said that anna has the best chemistry with the others, but that is no reason to make these assumptions.

while i find all of this unfounded, i’m not gonna tell anyone what they can write on their blog, but i will say this: spreading these ideas about people can hurt them. even if everything theorised about is true, david and georgia and michael and anna will tell us if/when they want to. their identities, motivations, and dynamics with each other are theirs and theirs alone, and they do not need us to be scrutinising their every move and dissecting their relationships. we have no place in their lives other than to support their work and admire their accomplishments. if they don’t share something, it’s no one else’s story to tell. no matter how used to the rumours they are, no matter how many people are gossiping, why would you pile on? why would you say things that might be upsetting to someone that you admire? i’m certainly not naïve; i fully acknowledge that these people could be in the most convoluted and difficult relationships in all of britain (really saying something lol), and i’m not going to be all happy-smiley and act like they can’t possibly have imperfect lives, but it’s not my place to say. i can talk about whatever i want, but i simply don’t want to do something that might be hurtful to (or, at the very least, uncomfortable for) people that i look up to.

anyways, i hope i’ve stayed civil and level through this random rant; i’m not even irritated by this stuff, just genuinely baffled as to how people reach these conclusions lol

[dyelwi]

I’m not on Twitter so I don’t see a lot of negative things about Athena. How exactly are people ableist to her? /gq (I don’t doubt it, I’m curious though 😅)

Hi, yeah I feel like going on that rant now lol. Gonna clarify first that this isn’t some Big New Discourse, rather it’s just an observation I’ve personally made from seeing the way people talk about Athena, especially on Twitter but here to an extent as well. Putting this under a read more because it got VERY long. It’s sort of a character analysis and sort of a fandom analysis??? Idk lol.

Athena is mentally disabled. This is heavily implied at LEAST, though I’d say it’s straight up canon. Even if you don’t subscribe to the common interpretation of some of her experiences (sensory issues, trouble communicating especially when young but even in the present to an extent, her relating to robots more than people as a child) it’s clear that these things actively disabled her at the very least as a child. There’s some bigger posts going more into how autism coded she is but that’s actually not even what I see people being ableist about!

Even if you look at her and think that the autism is just a headcanon, it’s pretty undeniable that she has severe trauma that presents much like PTSD, especially with how the main symptoms she displays are flashbacks and repressing memories of the trauma, which I wanted to note are actually real things that happen but are used in fiction especially often to portray severe trauma. PTSD is a mental disorder that most agree on as a disability from what I’ve seen (phrased this way because there’s no real list of what disorders are and aren’t a disability, it matters more how it impacts an individual, but PTSD often impacts people in ways that are disabling) and sure enough we see that it disables Athena.

Athena has trauma specifically surrounding murder and court trials. And she works as a defense attorney!!! This is important because it means she is frequently around things that trigger her (in the way the word is meant to be used, not the meme-y way people sometimes use it). It’s like if Edgeworth became an elevator repair guy or something. And sure enough, we see her struggle because of her trauma being triggered. This is something that happens not only in ace attorney 5, the game which most explores her trauma, but also to an extent in ace attorney 6 when Nahyuta basically tries to bully her out of defending Bucky (I love Nahyuta but this is not his nicest moment lol). She begins to question if she really can do a case by herself. She hears the feelings of everyone in the room (if you want to bring the likely autism into it, this is a point for that as she’s having some sensory overload), and she reaches perhaps one of her lowest points in the case. She is struggling, due to her disability(-ies if we include likely autism) because Nahyuta and the gallery (more so their emotions she heard but same thing) triggered her. You could argue she doesn’t like go into full panic flashback mode here but to me at least, this doesn’t mean she isn’t struggling or that she isn’t triggered. She’s probably been able to start healing after aa5 after all. Regardless of that, even Simon specifically says that Nahyuta is using her hearing abilities against her to try to win, so if you’re considering the autism as an aspect of this that feels like more than enough. And so, Simon Blackquill, who sees one of his closest ever friends struggling in protecting something he cares about, steps in to help as her assistant.

People hate this. And I was surprised when I learned that. Simon is one of my favorite characters and one of my favorite parts of this case. But people apparently blame misogyny for him coming to help her, when if we’re looking at this from the perspective of the ace attorney writers they clearly just wanted to give Simon some (deserved) screentime and use the typical ace attorney setup where there’s a character assisting the defense attorney. It was weird going into this that Athena was alone, quite frankly, as that only happens on rare occasions in the ace attorney formula. Athena is not being treated as a pathetic woman that needs help when other characters wouldn’t. The other defense attorneys in this series need help rather often actually. And Athena is a defense attorney in an ace attorney game. And in-universe, she is a disabled person working in an environment where she is constantly at risk of her disability, well…. Disabling her. And I think most people would argue that disabled people needing help isn’t a bad thing! But for some reason, people refuse to give Athena the same grace they’ve given other characters in the past who weren’t even in as triggering of situations as she was in this moment.

And so people talk about their dream Athena-led cases, where she needs no assistant. I understand where they’re coming from, if you can’t tell I’m a HUGE Athena fan and I want to see her character grow and develop, I want to see her get her own game. But often people really like to talk about the idea of her not needing help, being able to do a case on her own. Not only is this rare and difficult for the average ace attorney defense lawyer, but it begins to feel a lot like when, in the real world, people try to convince disabled people to work through their disability or push the idea that growing and being their best self doesn’t involve accommodations. This is generally accepted to be a pretty shitty and ableist way to look at disabled people that is often tied to what people mean when talking about how people can treat overcoming disability as a sort of inspiration porn. When people say that Athena should be able to defend on her own and imply that this would make her better somehow, it feels like they’re saying that in order to be better at their jobs disabled people should just get over their disabilities to be stronger. Which I know is not something a lot of people that say these things about Athena would actually agree with! I don’t think people are doing this maliciously. But I wish people understood that this is what I hear when they say these things, as someone with multiple mental disabilities myself.

I relate to Athena a lot. I have, since her introduction, seen myself in her more than I have almost any other fictional character. And I wish people understood that what they imply when they talk about her like this can hurt a bit. I worry a lot about being able to do my future career effectively (I’m a college student rn hence the future part) and so to hear people imply these things about Athena?? I feel it by extension. You can say I’m just projecting or whatever, I don’t care, but I think people need to understand that disability is a big part of Athena’s character and that how they think about her can reflect some subtle, unconscious thoughts and feelings they may have about people like her that exist in the real world. I know ace attorney is just a video game series. I know that it’s typical of writers to treat things like this as something a character will push past to become stronger. But it’s a bit disheartening to hear so many people agree all the time, especially when the game itself hasn’t even done that with Athena’s arc, at least not yet.

tldr Athena is a victim of fandom ableism more than writer misogyny in this specific aspect surrounding her capabilities as a defense attorney who is written as a disabled character and who exists within the ace attorney setup

[ozimagines]

The Trouble with Robson…

So… I’ve seen some discourse on this site about James Robson… and I want in lol.

I’ve got a lot of thoughts about this man, and based on everything I’ve read from other Oz fans, I might have an unpopular opinion.

Please don’t get me wrong! Season 2-Season 5 he was a tremendous piece of shit. Like in every way possible it is to be a piece of shit. But that said I have two points: 1) that’s what makes him an good CHARACTER, not a good person, and 2) a redemption arc doesn’t mean that person is automatically forgiven, but are going down a better path and MIGHT be forgiven for their actions at a later date. It is with this, your honor, that I submit that Robson’s redemption arc was actually one of the better plot lines in Oz. (Please don’t hate me lol)

Okay, so Robson season two, pretty easy to characterize. He’s a Nazi. He’s violent. He’s a rapist. Very easy to hate. Season three, he’s lieutenant to Vern Schillinger in the Aryan Brotherhood. He boxes and such. In season four, he’s a menace, coming into his own character. He threatens on his own and has his own plot lines now. Season five is more of the same, at first, he rapes Peter Schibetta, he tries to ruin Beecher’s life, etc. He commits one of the more heinous of his crimes in my book when he kills the young Muslim man in the store room. A long, drawn out process that James is smiling through. He LOVES violence. More than anything he seems like he was made for prison. Then he learns about his gums, makes racist remarks to the doctor, one thing leads to another, he has black man gums and gets kicked out of the brotherhood.

He’s destitute and alone, which is all he deserves. But even Kareem Said finds pity for him and says “God is trying to teach you something. Please be smart enough to learn.”. What can even God attempt to teach someone like James Robson? He does what he needs to survive. He joins Cutler and agrees to be his prag. Here’s where some views from other Oz fans and I start to diverge. You look at videos on YouTube, many of the comments you’ll find say “good, he deserved it.”. The best argument I heard for this was actually from Funky Frog Bait on YouTube talking about misgendering murderers. Many people misgendered the nonbinary Nashville shooter. Why would you respect the pronouns for a person that horrible? Because, as Funky Frog Bait said in their video, it revolves around your opinion of gender as a whole. If you can just revoke someone’s preferred pronouns when they’re bad people, how “bad” does a trans person have to be to not have their pronouns respected? People of differing “politics” (morals) say different things, but if we apply this argument to Robson’s situation, I think it has to do with one’s overall view of rape. How “bad” does someone have to be before being raped is considered a reasonable punishment? For me, it’s never. For me, just as in never revoking someone’s right to their preferred pronouns, I also think it’s never justifiable to rape someone. So, no, I don’t think Robson deserved to be raped, even though he was a serial rapist himself, because there’s no situation where I think rape is a justifiable response. People may disagree with me, but I think it’s a slippery slope when you can deem someone as deserving of rape.

We learn during this time, as he’s being beaten and abused sexually by Cutler, that James was beaten and abused by his father as a kid. He confirms that this occurred while he was only five years old. His first introduction to life and sex was violence. Maybe this gives you sympathy for him, as it did me, but maybe you say fuck him, it doesn’t excuse anything. But I don’t think that it was meant to be an excuse, I think it was meant to be an EXPLANATION. I think we were learning how he became James Robson of unit B, not justifying his actions as James Robson of unit B. He was a child and the person he was supposed to trust most in this world gave him very harsh lessons very early on: no one cares about you, and do what you need to do to survive. He becomes demure and pitiful in Sister Pete’s office. One line that stuck with me was “here I am, 35 years old and I have nowhere to run.”. He’s been running his whole life. Running away from an abusive father and running away from his own actions. “I shame to think of what I’ve done. Look on it again, I dare not.” Is Cutler’s line as MacBeth in the play. It is an apt line for James. He’s been running from his own actions for as long as he could remember. Like I said, none of this justifies the lives he’s ruined and taken, but it does explain the inter-workings of a character that was pretty static for four seasons. That he survives. He tells Sister Peter Marie that all he does is run from things. I truly believe that some of the reason he was able to be as ruthless as he was is because he doesn’t let himself think about his own actions.

Finally season 6! He kills Cutler with some kinky play, joins the brotherhood, and it seems like he’s back, right? Only when he sees his wife, we see some of the shame come back. Some of the embarrassment of being taken in that way. If he feels this way now, he felt this way for however long his dad was abusing him. He loses it with her for calling him a “cock sucker”, which CLEARLY he’s embarrassed/ashamed about. He hurts her, and immediately, instantly, feels bad about it. I love learning the morality of immoral characters. With everything he’s done, why was hurting his wife crossing a line? Because she trusts him, just like little James trusted his dad. I think, personally, that he sees himself as her personal protector. Since he couldn’t protect himself, he became the protector for her, and then for Vern, but James isn’t stupid enough to think Vern can’t take care of himself. I think hurting his wife tore him up so much because he remembers when he relied on his dad for everything, and his father took advantage of his state.

Then he finds out he has AIDS. He joins a support group for rape survivors. They talk about their experiences and James listens to all of them. He thanks them towards the end, saying it was good to “hear it from both sides” which we know is something he knew already since he was at least five. But hearing those stories, all of which are upsetting but some are straight gruesome, puts FORCES him to face his actions. He can’t run anymore, his lifestyle caught up with him. Am I saying he deserves AIDS? 🤷‍♀️ Chissà. Who’s to say? He has it though. There’s a deleted scene where he lets Clarence rape him (I understand “lets” and “rape” don’t make much sense together but I don’t think coerced consent is consent at all so it’s still assault), and it gives Clarence AIDS. Robson says something interesting, with his classic smile on his face. “Retribution. It’s all about retribution.”. That’s what Oz is about. Retribution. It should be about Rehabilitation, but it’s all about Retribution. This is where James’ story ends on the show. With him moving to unit F, the AIDS unit. Finally, even if only physically, is he forced to face his actions.

This is why I think his story was beautifully written. He’s just a meathead in the beginning, but we learn about his morality -because he does have a code, even if it’s not a good one-, his past, and his future. They took a character that was frankly very flat and gave us a wide enough view on his life and character to confuse our anger into sympathy into more anger and into sadness. I don’t know if anyone else felt this way but my heart just dropped when he mentioned his dad. James Robson never stood a chance. He was a monster in training since he was five. But no one deserves to be raped. (A good reference is Adam Gunzel who was a BIG prick… but never deserved that shit.) Anyway these are just some of my thoughts on one of the most interesting characters in Oz (to me at least) and gave us an actual character out of a plotless muscle man.

One thing I think we can all agree on:

Retribution. It’s all about retribution.

[sansevierias]

re: lrb i’m probably alone in this, but one of the changes that i hate the most, is the one they made with the qithyanki egg. at release i don’t think there was anything in lae’zel’s writing hinting that she would be interested in having children. quite the opposite actually, when visiting the hatchery she says how lucky she is that she doesn’t have to worry about possible pregnancy.

but fans begged online, and larian gave them exactly what they wanted. and now out of all of the romanceable female companions, i believe minthara is the only who has no mention of possibly having kids with the pc. and she actually at one point had a storyline, that luckily didn’t make it into the game, where she would get pregnant by the pc(!!*).

like i’ve seen so much discourse about whether astarion or gale would like to become dads, but zero mention of how sexist it is that almost all of the women now have lines hidden somewhere confirming that they would be ok with becoming mothers lol.

also personally i just hate this stupid storyline, where stealing an unborn child from people you consider evil is somehow morally correct and rewarded. especially when the egg already has a person who has gone out of his way to care for it and protect it. i just feel like most players’ motivations for taking the egg are quite similar to that of the society of brilliance, minus the sped up experiment part.

anyway, what i was trying to say is that by catering to the loudest part of the online fandom, larian actually managed to make the game more sexist than what it was at release lol. and that's the risk you have when catering to the fans uncritically like this, you will end up also adding the negative parts of fandom to your work, like racism, sexism and heteronormativity.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/728886929370857472/httpswwwtumblrcomolderthannetfic728767139305

Agree with this. I mean I’m an academic who in grad school was often in discussions with people who were Terminally Online, but the dumb ways they applied tumblr discourse in class were usually the least of their problems (as in they were often awful people in their ACTIONS outside of class. That said I’ll never forget the person, who was not a gay or bisexual man himself but was a straight trans man who acted like that identity meant he could speak for the entire LGBTQ community based on stuff he read on Tumblr and never doing the actual class reading, claiming that the way Wayne Koestenbaum described gay man’s attachment to female opera divas in The Queen’s Throat had “consent issues.” This was a guy who later got investigated by Title IX for graphically discussing his sex life with other grad students, including female TAs when he was a student instructor).

But I think where I saw the most obnoxious and insidious ways that Tumblr discourse shit infected irl academic discourse was you’d have some older academic who wasn’t super online but cared a lot about social justice and wanting to do the right thing, and would hear about some concept third hand and think it sounded good and not have the broader context a regular Tumblr, Twitter, etc. person would have to know why it wasn’t, or that the person behind it was abusive or didn’t really know their stuff (I’m thinking about stuff like Medieval POC being promoted by academics who just liked the idea of highlighting more instances of POC in pre-modern European history, didn’t know that the person behind it was a racefaker with a history of deeply racist statements, and weren’t specifically art historians or really digging all that deep into her posts to know that she was getting some basic stuff wrong). My frustration a lot as a grad student who is familiar with Tumblr, and with the feminist blogosphere of the late 00s/early 10s before it where a lot of “Tumblr social justice” first developed, was trying to explain that there were people within that culture who were pro-SJ and feminist and antiracist and so on, and from marginalized groups themselves, who had legitimate objections to these concepts being applied to academia that didn’t come from unfamiliarity or “college students just need to grow up” style thinking that you saw in Jonathan Chait style thinkpieces.

For instance, I objected to and continue to object to “mandatory trigger warnings” because I’ve read about and seen in action how they’re often used by students to box in female and POC faculty — already disproportionately hurt by student evaluations — for not running their class or discussing issues of race, gender, etc. in a way that perfectly fits their ideas from Online Discourse. They’re harder on us for this than similar white male faculty, especially older ones, and older white male allies need to be more aware of this when they extrapolate from their own experiences. (Also students IME will get way angrier if a film by or about marginalized people is “triggering” even though it’s impossible to show some aspects of systemic misogyny or racism on screen without doing that — think movies like Do the Right Thing — than they will a similarly “triggering” film by and about white dudes that has no larger Social Point to Make with its triggering content. And I say this as someone who always gives students a heads up beforehand, but some really think that those movies shouldn’t be shown AT ALL and I’m increasingly getting students asking me to accommodate trigger warning requests for vague Tumblr stuff like “unreality” and I’m so tired.)

Thanks for letting me rant about “Tumblr SJ” and academia in your inbox lol

--

[jyndor]

Hi, saw your post on liberation movements and the ideology behind them - especially Palestine.

As a Ukrainian, you’ve had one of the most rational posts I’ve seen. It’s very disheartening to see the very same people and countries who rightfully call out Israel as a colonialist state which needs to be condemned simultaneously justify or overlook what Russia does to us, and has been for hundreds of years.

All liberation movements should be supported, and it should be of consistent standards. South Africa as you said, should bring Israel to justice, but it’s immoral for them to simultaneously engage in exercises and trade with Russia the same year Russia blockaded and starved Mariupol and raped and tortured women and children in Bucha.

Freedom to all people, from West Papua, to Myanmar to Palestine and Ukraine

Thank you, and I am sorry for what you are going through at the hands of Russia - anyone who denies Russian imperialism is wildly off base.

I've talked about the reasons why I think people who otherwise care about liberation in general are not as supportive of Ukraine as imo we all should be, and I think there's reason for the west to reflect on why it "cares" about Ukraine (the west does not really care about Ukrainians though ofc smdh) and not Palestine or Sudan or Congo or Armenia or West Papua etc etc etc, and it is obviously racism. but that does not mean Ukrainians are not fighting an imperialist aggressor. It is morally just for all to fight their occupiers and colonizers period.

now when it comes to less powerful/global south states aligning with Russia, Iran and/or China... this is where I'm going to kindly push back a tiny bit, or at least maybe give some perspective on this support even though I don't feel good about it and I don't like it lol.

A lot of these countries are getting aid and investment from Russia and China. It's neo-colonialism imo and no one has ever been able to convince me otherwise; sorry weirdos Russia and China (and to a lesser extent Iran) are not supporting these global south countries because they believe in anti-imperialism and resistance (lmao) but because they want to shore up support against the west amongst nations that have been oppressed and brutalized by the west. I'm not going to condemn them for accepting money and not wanting to sour relations with them.

I mean we could say the same about Ukraine accepting aid from the US and other European nations (all of which have that power and aid to give because of stolen wealth through colonialism, slavery and imperialism - and have had the most negative impact on the world). That CLEARLY has informed the government of Ukraine's support of Israel in the past few years, even with the caveats that I am aware that Ukraine's large Jewish population does tend to support zionism and Israel, and that of course there is a large Ukrainian population in Israel, as well as Zelenskyy personally supporting Israel. But in general that doesn't explain why Ukrainians support Israel at least according to the polling I've seen.

This Kyiv-based KIIS poll of just over 1000 Ukrainians from December is stark - 66% of ukrainians support Israel, 1% support Palestinians, 18% support both sides equally and 12% weren't sure. Now this poll or organization is clearly biased in favor of Israel, from this... interesting (lol) takeaway:

I mean obviously one poll is not really indicative of anything, but I'm not terribly surprised. This is why I stress the importance of liberatory politics, because anyone with eyes can see that Israel is the aggressor here, same as Russia in Ukraine. But I'm also gonna give some grace to people currently fighting off an aggressor of their own. Doesn't excuse it, I wish world leaders would be more consistent, but it is what it is.

I see more support from Palestinians to Ukrainians than vice versa, and of course there are Ukrainian Palestinians and Palestinian Ukrainians, and idk how they feel about the idiots discoursing on tumblr dot com but hopefully they don't bother with it lol. You all - Ukrainians, Palestinians - have way more important things to deal with and don't need us internet weirdos getting on you all about this shit.

The rest of us? We can and should reflect on why we support various liberation movements and not others. Everyone should be free - I don't care if Ukraine gets funding from a totally cancelable #problematic shithole country like the United States of Hell, I'm happy we are on the right side of this... and I'm furious that politicians here are trying to tie Ukraine aid to fucking Israel genocide money and so-called border security funding (although my understanding is that got dropped thanks to Republicans being unhinged lol thank god). I am not going to blame Ukrainians for being mad about the holdup here, but also... idk man it's a good thing Israel didn't get more aid, and it's very good that our stupid border hawks didn't get their way either. I think it would be horrible if Ukrainian liberation had the cost of aiding a genocide. And I hate that preventing more genocide aid to Israel in this case meant preventing Ukraine from getting aid.

Unfortunately geopolitics are very, very messy and every country that isn't a global power depends on powerful countries for something. It's not about morality. Which is why states suck and should be abolished lol but that's another topic for another day.

Thank you for sharing anon, sorry for being wordy. I would love to hear what you think about any of this or of course anything.

[drbased]

i’m kind of a baby radfem and im learning about being gender critical and i definitely agree with most of it, the only part that i have thoughts about is the nonbinary identity. i believe that a gender non conforming woman and a nonbinary woman can mean the same thing. in that, i believe that you can be a nonbinary *insert sex here* and it basically just means you’re gender nonconforming. and then it’s like well why do we need two different terms to mean the same thing and we definitely don’t, but i think it’s dangerous to conflate being nonbinary with being agender bc it’s not the same thing and it just makes gender rhetoric even more stupid & ridiculous lol. i’ve seen plenty of people identify as nonbinary and still identify with their sex-based gender. i also believe you can be female and see yourself as a woman and still use they/them or even he/him pronouns. what do u think??

(Bear with me on this, this is a long response but I hope you find it illuminating)

People regularly accuse radfems of being nazis/right wingers and I take those accusations incredibly seriously, and as I result I regularly take time to doubt my position. But the thing I keep coming back to is that:

There is no proof, and perhaps there cannot be proof, that gender exists: it is fundamentally metaphysical, spiritual, soul-like, a product of mind-body dualism, the belief that there is some nebulous internal sense of self that happens to share some labels with sex classification but also happens to completely subsume it in modern leftist discourse, despite that

Regardless of whether or not 'gender' is real, it does not form the basis of the male class oppression of women as a class, and the moment you engage with any feminist theory this fact becomes impossible to ignore. There is no true biological backing behind race and yet we are (in theory, anyway) comfortable with being able to identify and codify the oppressor and oppresses classes in that scenario; however, arguments from the mainstream left will vaguely gesture towards sex being 'fluid' as justification for the dissolution of classic feminist arguments. It's important to be suspicious of why this is and who might benefit from it;

To build on point one, due to the fact that gender has no material basis in the real world, the only 'signifiers' for it are ones that already exist as cultural schemas - and these are, naturally, taken from existing sex roles designed to uphold misogyny and, more broadly, patriachy itself. 'Gender fluid' people are at this point infamous for their tik toks of when they're male or female, and the way they demonstrate this is through short hair and comfortable clothes vs long hair and feminine styling.

Occam's razor + feminist analysis will inevitably point towards women 'identifying' with nonbinary, agender etc. simply being women who are uncomfortable with the misogynistic connotations of femaleness, and who naturally wish to disassociate from them. When you see things under that lens, you can immediately notice patterns of behaviour and language that signal the belief system they hold. To 'identify' as anything is fundamentally meaningless, and signals nothing to both yourself and others except perhaps language. As a person recovering from depression, I have been detaching myself from all rigid concepts of classifying myself and instead focussing much more on being who I am in the moment. It it much healthier to be this way (and a lot less stressful, too)

When we call ourselves 'women', this is nothing more a neutral description of our biology. And due to our status as an oppressed class, especially one based on our biology, it is of paramount importance that we retain language that succinctly names us as such. Dworkin states in Pornography that one of the powers that men have is the power of naming. We still live under patriarchy, and the language we use cannot be separated from male ideas and male thought. Men had, and have, no problem naming us as the oppressor class when it benefits them (especially in the case of prostitution and pornography), but as it has become less, let's say' popular to be seen as a man in recent years, we have seen an explosion of transgender rhetoric enter the popular consciousness. Without the ability to recognise ourselves as women, we lose statistics, we lose safe spaces away from the oppressor class, and we lose class consciousness.

As for using 'they/them' and 'he/they' pronouns - well, I'm a straight woman, but I'm aware that there is a certain lesbian tradition of using masculine pronouns. But that's in a very different context to what's being described here. I've already addressed language but let's put a laser-sighted focus on pronouns for a second:

As a culture, we default to 'he' pronouns for a reason. For a long time, we were 'mankind' and everything akin to humanity is given masculine pronouns. Cute little critters are assumed to be male, probably all your soft toys are male, the most basic of doodles are assumed to be male and only allowed to be female once they are given a dress. It should be no surprise that women who want to escape the shackles of femininity want to be called he/him - they want access to the percieved full humanity of men. Meanwhile, the only times we attribute she/her to things other than people are to things like cars, ships, and natural disasters (with the exception of mother nature, of course) - tools of warfare, accessories of masculinity, and symbols of 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'.

There is a study somewhere that shows that when you use 'they/them' as a neutral pronoun, people assume male - especially if you're referencing a prestige profession. If I were to say, I went to the doctor yesterday, they were great - you would automatically assume a male doctor. This is no accident - as already stated, maleness is the default. Women who want to use they/them are dissociating themselves from femaleness but in doing so they are accidentally using language that signifies maleness. This is why feminist analysis is so important, and why 'identifying' as something holds little water in the real world. In an ideal world, perhaps they/them could be genuinely seen as neutral - but we don't live in an ideal world; we live in a world where women are oppressed.

So to answer part of your question, no, I do not believe that 'nonbinary' and 'gender non-conforming' are the same thing; nonbinary is an attempt at classifying someone according to some nebulous, unprovable sense of internal identity that has no real material impact - and any attempt to 'express' this gender are simply taking existing sex roles and mashing them together. Gender nonconforming has a different meaning in radfem circles as it does in transgender ones - TRAs take it to mean that someone is indentifying with a different gender than they were 'assigned' at birth, but radfems simply use it to describe the physical act of being a woman (or man) who doesn't conform to expected sex roles. I am 'gnc' but that's just a neutral descriptor of my dress-sense - and it's a loose descriptor because in many ways I'm definitely not gnc in my behaviour, although I am working on my self-confidence, especially in contexts such as physical fitness and DIY. Gnc is useful shorthand for 'not conforming to sex roles in some major capacity enough to be noticeable by others' - and the only reason it's important, especially for women, is because femininity (our expected behaviour) is designed by the patriarchy to dissociate us from our bodies and keep us decorative, fragile, weak and sexually vulnerable to men.

[superfallingstars]

24 and 25?

heehee thank you for the ask!

choose violence ask game here!

24. topic that brings up the most rancid discourse

EASILY the snape vs. marauders discourse lmfaoooo it always devolves into the most inane shit and it’s NEVER ENDING!!!!! i am of course hopelessly fascinated by it even though it’s terrible and exhausting, i just think it’s so interesting what parts of the characters different people focus on. like, we all are kind of projecting onto the characters and seeing different things in them because of our own life experiences, no? and it’s SUPER interesting to me to see which actions people can justify and which ones they can’t (and their reasoning for each... which is often inconsistent...!). i feel like people who argue that snape is a terrible horrible irredeemable person for the actions he took in his youth are sometimes extremely thrown off by the fact that he's also obviously much less privileged than the marauders, and that the marauders pick on him for no other reason than that they can. i've seen people bend over backwards to try to make it sound justified, that uh nooo child snape was a bad person who just so happened to be poorer and less connected than the marauders, and see he said a slur which is Bad sooo actually the marauders were doing the morally correct thing by bullying him before that happened, and i find this whole thing very funny. i love endless arguments about ethics this is just who i am

THOUGH I SHOULD ALSO SAY. there are ways in which this discourse is also a putrid festering pile of shit that makes me want to crawl into a cave and live there forever. imo the absolute worst of it is when people start debating whether or not james levitating and exposing snape’s underwear “counts” as sexual assault (i’ve seen this debate happen multiple times and have made several posts about it) which is just. i’m not rehashing it now but. deep sigh

25. common fandom complaint that you're sick of hearing

i’m actually quite unsure… this fandom is so big and sprawling and i’m in such a small part of it that idk what a “common” complaint would even be. maybe just the what i already said lol – the classic, "snape is a creep and a fascist and is therefore irredeemable even though the narrative pretty clearly redeems him," if only because it’s such a boring take. oh this person is "bad" let's put them in a box in the corner labeled "bad" and never speak of them again unless it is to make them unequivocally evil and ooc lest we cross the line of rigid moral purity into the slightest bit of ambiguity. booooring. like literally i get it if someone doesn't like snape (you don't have to like every or even any character! aka read my pinned post), but when someone dislikes him for the flimsy reason of "he's bad" i do indeed get pissed off. if an anti-hero has no defenders then i am dead

[turnwashingtonsbaddies]

i completely agree with everyone who’s expressed that one of the things they love most about the turn fandom is its lack of drama/discourse. i’ve been in the fandom since 2020, and i seriously don’t think i’ve ever seen a single instance of genuinely mean-spirited or aggressive discourse lol. imo it really says something good about us that the most intense we’ve ever gotten is during the sexyman poll and the hot bracket - which, apart from that one anon, i think we pretty much all view as unserious, all in good fun “debates” about an objectively silly topic.

honestly the main reason why i’m proud to have created the sexyman poll (and why YOU should be proud to be running this one!) is because it revived and energized the fandom, which as someone else said, is an impressive feat considering how small it is and the fact that the show ended years ago. so rather than feeling negative for some reason about all the hot bracket propaganda, i LOVE seeing it because it’s exciting when this fandom gets excited about something! for me, it’s never been about whether or not my favorite character wins, but about coming together to enjoy the process and having fun defending our faves regardless of the results. and personally i find it hilarious to say exaggerated things like “i’m storming the capitol because john andre is the rightful winner” LMAO, but obviously i’m just joking around.

anyway once again, thank you so much for doing this!! you’re doing such a service to this fandom!

awww thank you so much for this!! the sexyman poll and all the fun we had with it was a huge inspiration for this event, so this really means so much coming from you!!

all of the support for this bracket and the active participation has filled me with such a deep appreciation for this fandom. thank you so much to everyone who is having fun with this!!

[beautifulpersonpeach]

Hi BPP

Apologies in advance if this ask is haphazard. I am not as deep in the kpop world as I’d like to be. I think I actually only know about Hybe groups and maybe a few songs from other groups due to Instagram and kdramas.

In the 1.5 years I’ve followed BTS, I’ve been absolutely wowed by them and their performances. I’ve not felt the need to check out other group performances as much.

Being on tumblr, naturally, one comes across discourse or opinions on other groups. And I’ve seen some people comment about BTS fans being entitled or harsh towards other groups. This was most apparent when Taemin came out with Guilty. Now, I’m not going to take away from his artistry but guilty is not my type of music. The only reason why I even know of Taemin is because of the dance challenge he did with Jimin. And to be honest, I find Jimin a better dancer. For all the videos I’ve seen with the two of them dancing togerher, Jimin always comes out top.

I know Jimin has said before that Taemin inspires him a lot. And it probably is very true. From what I’ve read, Taemin debuted at a very young age and was the stand out performer in Shinee. I will give credit where due - the concept for his Guilty music video is very boundary pushing and speaks of an artist who isn’t afraid to experiment his/other darker sides, afraid of pushing the envelope. But that doesn’t make him the most amazing dancer or performer?

But it also doesn’t mean that BTS fans should call him a cheap Jimin copy. Whilst I do think Jimin is a superior artist, I think the fact that he respects Taemin and has been inspired by him should be enough of a reason for his/BTS fans accord the same to Taemin.

In your opinion, BPP, do you think Taemin is a better dancer, performer, artist than Jimin and are his fans right when they scoff at comparisons with Jimin (whom they may or may not love but consider an inferior performer)?

***

Lol fun fact: I’d seen SHINee in concert a couple times before BTS debuted.

Also, I find your ask interesting because reading it, you seem like a fan of Taemin and his music despite you saying “guilty is not my type of music.” Or at least, more accommodating of the ideas you’ve picked up about him.

That said, yeah I agree with you that some ARMYs view BTS (and Jimin) as being the best there is when it comes to performing, and they are critical of other performers in comparison. On one hand, it’s understandable given BTS are the best performers around. That was literally BTS’s claim to fame and they outshot every group while they were active, including SHINee that’s also a very good group when it comes to performing.

A second reason you see this dynamic is because it’s constant across all fandoms in k-pop. Every fandom has a superiority complex on account of their favourite groups/idols. Shawols and SM stans will tell you SHINee/Taemin is better; Stays will tell you Stray Kids is the better group; YG stans will tell you Big Bang/GDragon is the better performer. Most stans have this weird chip on their shoulders on account of the groups they stan. ARMYs just happen to be the fandom that has the results and critical acclaim to actually back it up.

Taemin is a remarkable artist and he’s improved a huge lot since debut, especially in terms of performing. It’s also true that his friendship with Jimin is enduring and they’ve both shared that they inspire each other. In a perfect world, stans would consider these facts when they discuss the idols and hopefully, they’d do so with respect. In reality, people like what they like and hate what they hate regardless of anything else. Why do you expect people who like Jimin to view Taemin positively when those same people don’t even view Namjoon positively, Namjoon who is closer to Jimin, Namjoon who Jimin has repeatedly said has inspired him over the last 10 years, Namjoon who is in the literal same team with Jimin.

Regardless of what Jimin has said about Namjoon’s character, skill and artistry, many of his stans don’t care, so why should Jimin’s connection to Taemin have any bearing on whether they like him if they genuinely think Jimin is better anyway? This whole space would be better if people were marginally respectful when discussing idols they might not like, but that’s not what happens - whether Shawols discussing Jimin or ARMYs discussing Taemin, and so we get the dynamic you’ve observed.

Personally, while I can appreciate Taemin’s dancing skillset, Jimin for me is the more dynamic dancer. I also prefer Jimin’s vocals the best as I’ve said several times before. SHINee’s choreographies in general have limited appeal for my tastes for several reasons, but Taemin’s individual stuff is really good even though over the years I’ve been watching him, I’ve noticed a pattern in the sorts of routines he gravitates towards and as I’ve said before, my tastes for choreo are… less refined. For better or worse. It’s hard to explain but Taemin is viewed as the more explicit performer, often leaning into themes exploring sexuality and sensuality, but it’s actually Jimin whose performances feel more raw, and give me more of an edge, regardless of the theme.

Anyway, I’m team Jimin if that’s what you’re asking. If seeing k-pop stans and/or ARMYs peacocking on account of either Jimin or Taemin bothers you, then I suggest curating your timeline. It’s likely not ever going to change in wider k-pop fandom lol.

[oscconfessions]

no offense are you supposed to be a confession blog? aren’t confessions supposed to go up judged by the blog owners (at least in public.) i mean that’s kinda the whole point of confession blogs but yeah

well, you're lookin for me, hon! but no, that's not the point, you misread the meaning of the word (once again proving the reading comprehension here LOL)! it's a confession blog, not a mods react to your crazy asks blog. i dunno what fandom you're from where that happens so openly, but i have quite literally never seen a confessions blog do that.

the whole point is to say shit and have no judgement immediately attached! where's the fun in saying crazy shit when the mods condemn you to a certain fate automatically? we're not here to be biased, we're here to let you be heard! (besides, i don't like judging people.) no offense -💥

hi i’m here to give the logical answer.

It would be far too time consuming and exhausting. We get so many asks a day that it is often hard to keep up just tagging and queuing them. it would be SO DRAINING to add on to every one as well.

Of the confession blogs i’ve seen be successful and active, they didn’t respond.

The mods don’t have an opinion on every ask you guys send in. I know i don’t care about most of these asks.

osc-confessions did that at the end of the blogs lifespan and it was a far worse environment than when it was without responses. This blog was kind of me going “i could do better” and i’m not falling into that trap

I made this blog with the intent of it being a neutral space. A third place where all sides of fandom debate are welcome to make fools of themselves get things off their chests. The intent is to have an anonymous posting service, and the mods are only here to keep the machine running.

You’re looking for a discourse blog. Those are cesspits and don’t have funny asks about soaking a yin yang plush in milk. We’re unserious here.

And sometimes the mods DO respond in the replies or reblogs! When i feel compelled i will write ESSAYS on some confessions. It’s also why i sometimes livestream clearing the inbox. it’s not hard to find out when a mod has a strong opinion on an ask, when we yap we yap.

also when i saw “isn’t this supposed to be a confessions blog” i thought it would be about my tendency to run this place like an askblog about my ocs, which is a far more viable criticism imo -🫒