#and don't let people sell you feminity

[lackadaisycal-art]

Not to go off on one but I can't believe social media has just repackaged the idea that women are unstable and thick and irresponsible and bad at maths and airheaded and pretty and spend all their money on clothes and make up but because they've slapped a fake feminist buzzword on it and a woman is making the video they've made everyone think it's a new wave of female liberation, I feel like I'm going mad

[doesnotloveyou]

swifties talk about her like she runs a cult. they discuss her lore and predict her future like she's a tv series. they read into every costume change like it's a secret message she's sending to them specifically. they are literally deciding her fate using numerology. touching grass isn't enough for these people, they think she planted the grass and made it rain too

[lemonhemlock]

I actually agree with your opinions on dany but don't you think that her fall arc wouldn't work well nowadays ? I think when Martin was envisioning Dany's story in the 90's, it was meant to be something groundbreaking in the fantasy genre and it certainly would have, had all the books been written and published back to back. But I don't think the backlash to her ending in S8 was just because of the execution. Most people just fundamentally believe that Dany as endgame villain is misogynistic.

hmmmm i actually think that having white saviour dany turn megalomaniac dictator is a message we desperate need in these times because it helps deconstruct whiteness and offer a more profound take on feminism than most media we get served today

as you can see from my recent anons, there is a very deep-seated refusal or fear or laziness or idek what to call it from dany/targ stans to engage with intersectionality even at the most basic level! i've brought up this concept so many times that i sound like a broken record (and i don't purport to be any kind of scholar on the matter) but so, so many of them (even when they're well-intentioned!) just cannot seem to surpass this "if also victim how can not 100% right" mentality in regards to dany.

you must be familiar by now with the never ending chorus of bemoaning girlboss feminism and wanting complex & unpalatable women on screen but not being able to stand it in practice when female characters are not perfect. in the books, dany would have the most slow burn downfall arc and a ton of pages devoted to her innermost thoughts and character progression so that you could see exactly how a combination of idealism and entitlement can turn valiant crusaders with a lot of power into authoritarians who need to impose their world view at all costs. how dangerous it can be to believe that you're the repository of truth and justice!

let's also put it this way: think back to the season 3 finale and remember detergent white daenerys surrounded by a sea of faceless brown people in awe of her and calling her mhysa....

... and then you'd have the author tell you that this was supposed to be played straight and there is no subversion at all? those silly monolithic ethnics just needed an aryan princess coming from a long line of blood purity inbreeding to liberate them! how could that be an up-to-date feminism message in 2024? for that reason alone it's supremely out of touch. when has this ever even been a thing? 'white woman bravely frees slaves'. are white women historically known to have fought for human rights concerning other minoritized groups? it would be a pretty condescending message to put in your best-selling book if you ask me

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

re your commentary on swifts feminism

her song the man has always bothered me particularly how it's been labeled and used as some "feminist anthem" when it's not about feminism. she literally says she'd rather replace the man on top and get to get away with all the bad behaviors men do, "if a was a man" means she'd be the one "flashing dollars and getting bitches and models", being a baller and not a "bitch", and referencing leo dicaprio also feels weird to me given his track record of throwing female partners away the second they hit age 25. if it was really about feminism it'd be a song about getting rid of that structure entirely, not having anyone in a position above someone else especially to abuse wealth and social power but instead it's over three minutes of her wishing she could be in that position instead

Hello! Apologies this took me a whole week to get to <3. I totally agree with on "The Man"(2019) though. This song is such a snobby, classless disgrace.

I always forget that people really believe that to be a feminist anthem… and I just don't understand how people think that?

It's not a song about disrupting the patriarchy. Taylor Swift is singing about climbing the corporate ladder, and wishing, simultaneously, that she was privy to male privilege.

Like she's already privileged, and yet she's singing about wanting even more privileges…. LOL

Swift is not a feminist and I will literally die on this Hill. She's not even a LGBT ally either- but that's a post/rant for another day.

She cares about exactly one thing- herself. Absolutely nothing in any of her songs that she markets as feminist music takes about issues facing women as a whole- or even extends empathy towards other women. All of it is so completely self-centered.

Especially, "The Man."(2019) I'm sorry, Miss Swift, but as a real feminist, I really have no desire to replace men at the top of the hierarchy- I want to destroy the hierarchy.

Also, since you're giving me the opportunity to talk about this, can we talk about how gross this line is: " and they would toast to me, let the players play/ I'd be just like Leo in Saint-Tropez" First of all, she's saying that if she was the man she would be applauded for sleeping around so much, and if she was a man she could be like Leonardo Dicaprio who famously refuses to date anyone older than 25?

Like she's really out here repackaging sexist power imbalances, ones that encourage the objectification of other people, in romantic relationships and singing about how she wishes she could do that without being called out? She's romanticizing Leo's creepy dating life, as perpetually single yet using young girls like accessories, and yet in all of her other songs she is crying about how much she wants to get married and be "pushing strollers." Make it make sense.

Also, uhhh… the men are also called out for being creeps? Why would we stop doing that if gender roles were suddenly reversed?

My aim with feminist activism is to destroy gender roles altogether…

Anyway. She's a fraud.

And you have brought up a remarkably good observation in her music- because this theme extends out well past just "The Man" (2019).

God this song makes me so mad- How does she get away with selling this shit as Feminism??????????????????? She's probably never read a feminist text in her life.

I have this ongoing theory that her idea of "feminism" is just being able to climb the corporate ladder. Like she's just so clearly only imaginative when it comes to business. She really should have just focused on becoming a businesswoman, because she's certainly not a poet or a feminist.

[lonelyspacedragon]

The one and olny thing I will say about this

as a brasileiro let me just give some context on some things

thoses jokes? yeah they were/are pretty lets say "normalisate" here, yes they are disgusting and horrible yes, but they are also very very common

FOR FUCK SAKE OUR SONGS HAVE "novinha" in them thats a way to say young girl, like 15 years young, in a sexual way, its disgusting YES, yes it is, but is so fucking common its almost normal, we have 14 years old boys singing, as in they’are singers sell music and stuff, about sex in a very heavy way

Lissen, my uncle he is like 50 something he has a daughter, (I didn't know this thill this christmas) and he was telling me about her, how she is so hot, and tall and when he goes out with her all the men (and he means men old men 30 something old men) keeps salivating over her and he is all like hey ehat u looking at, in a don't even think of getting close to her but also in a yeah thats my daughter she is hot, and I was like okay, I was envisioning a 18-20 years old by the way he was talking about her, and then he said SHE IS 11, ELEVEN YEARS OLD, I was in shock. It unfortunately is a very very common way of seeing and treating young girls, specially if they are "already all developed"

we have a culture of sexualising young kids, for fuck sake, we had a master chef kids here, one time and one time only, in 2015, and it was disgusting, the amount of men, commenting disgusting things about one of the participants that was 13 I think, and it was so fucking disgusting and bad that we didnt had another one till 2022, exclusively because of those behaviour, we grow up in a disgusting culture of sexualising kids and young teens

to be honest, it was shocking to me when I started accompanying Cellbit and Felps again after so so many years, to see that they are leftist

its a shock because I wasn't expecting that, because I watched those people when I was young and they were too and they said some shitty stuff back there

and yes he had already talked about wanting to delete his old tweets when people wanted to take Pierre out of the qsmp because of old tweets of his and cultural differences, he said the person he was years ago is not who he is now, he said himself that he wasn't happy with his old views on women and politics and lgbt people stuff like that when the stuff with Pierre happened,

He deleted 900 tweets, but did you guys stop to think about it? Would 900 tweets be all about making sexual jokes about minors? And no one would have seen those 900 tweets of him being creepy towards kids?

Or are these 900 tweets also his old views on politics, queer people, feminism? Thinks he had already said he wanted and was deleting because of stuff like this?

lissen almost everyone that is 23+ right now was banging pans for what was basically a coup in ixi 2014 i think? when Dilma was in power and they impcheamented (i don't know how to write this shit in portugues I don't know how in english either) her over something that they(the politicians that wanted her gone - right wingers) made legal a month later, and now those same people are leftists

so yes those are shitty jokes yes, those are shitty views yes, they are, but they are also from 8 years ago, he already said stuff about that, about how his views had changed, and how he was scared that people would do exactly this, get his old tweets and use it to cancel and judge him for it, for views that he no longer has

just think people, does this say anything about who he is now? does he still do this kind of jokes? say those types of things?

if you guys go after all of the qsmp members old tweets and content, I'm sorry to disappoint you but all of them will have things that people will want to cancel them over, if you have to go dig more than one year to find bad things to cancel people over, its that not indicativii that that person no longer thinks like that? that thats no longer who they are now?

Does your tweets from 8 years ago reflects who you are now?

does all of this means you have to forgive him, ignore, watch his stuff, interact with his content? fuck no, do whatever you like and feels better for you, but also have some critical sense for fuck sake

yes if he did something he deserves to be held accountable for it, and if is something worth of being in jail he should be, if he did something criminal he should be dealt with it with the justice, deplataforming him will do jack shit if he did something thing and still walks free, what will this have accomplished?

but if its just old tweets, old jokes, bad jokes at that, but still old, old views that unfortunately are ingrained with cultural context, and that that person no longer has and no longer behaves like and believes they no longer hold, lets just calm the fuck down please

all this to say people change, lets calm down, and wait to see what will happen

[dukeofankh]

There is this bizarre little premise that i keep seeing people accept in the wake of the US election: that a politician can either appeal to men's economic anxieties or defend women's reproductive healthcare rights. This concept says we can appeal to men's anger about not being able to afford housing and about not being able to afford to have a family, but to do so is to fundamentally betray queer people. I can't blame people for that, in a lot of ways that problem is one being pushed by the Democratic Party as a core part of their platform. Since the right are misogynistic, if they make their whole platform about how they are the party that protects women and queer people, it means that they don't actually have to radically alter the economic circumstances their donors benefit from.

While under the Democrats things did meaningfully improve, they are not at their core actually capable in their current form of truly addressing a lot of economic issues. They're just too entwined with business interests. They can tweak, they can offer incentives and disincentives,but at its core, the Democratic party is the party of "this is great, the way things are is awesome, vote for us or the Republicans will make it worse."

And people will no doubt point out the serious work that they did while in office--the work out of the FTC was particularly satisfying--but they cannot at their core actually allow themselves to let that become part of their identity. They can't run on that. They can't rile people up about that. They can't go even further, they can't get radical about that. They need the corporate money too much. When presented with the chance to run Bernie Sanders, they physically gagged. They refuse to move further left.

But the Republicans have moved--in many cases against their will--further to the right. They promise to change things. They make it worse, lets get that clear. Any working-class man who votes for the Republican party because he thinks it will materially benefit him does so because he is fantastically ignorant about the actual forces that affect his life. But if you are a man, they are actively willing to break things, and they are claiming that it is because they want to help you.

I can hear people say (correctly) over and over again that leftist principles are the ones that actually help men, be it feminism, socialism, you name it. But that's a non sequitur, because the Democratic party is not leftist. Its major selling point for the past decade or so has been "if you vote for us, things will be normal," when normal for most men looks like being an exploited cog in a machine that no longer even feels the need to compensate them past pure subsistence. Those men are angry. That anger is a resource. There is nothing antifeminist about using it.

There is a natural counterargument here that these men don't actually want to be financially stable. They want to be financially superior to women. They want control over women. And hey, the Christofascist elements of the right cannot be understated. I am not telling you that there are not huge chunks of the Trump electorate that are deeply misogynistic. They clearly are. But that doesn't make every issue they push as part of their platform evil by association. You don't have to surrender this issue to them and let them falsely claim to champion it. The support doesn't disappear if you aren't insulting women while you're fighting income inequality and making housing more affordable.

I've seen people discuss the economic hardships of Americans on here daily. How everything keeps getting worse. How the country was building towards technofeudalism just as much as it was careening towards fascism. How nobody can afford rent or medical bills or student loans, how workers rights and status as anything more than disposable contractors is being eroded.

All of that affects men. Any sane man is going to feel powerless and furious in the face of that. Channel it. Use it. Don't view it as a threat. It's a resource.

[flowers-in-your-basement]

nobody asked for this but yet I deliver, not unlike a pregnant person giving birth at the worst time in the movie.

Anyways, wincest kink list time. (This is a long post) (Also after a certain point this is just stuff I want them to do...) I could continue this list and I might. Also I left out so much.

dean:

I meannnn, the classics, feminizing Sam like refering to his pecs as tits, calling him a girl, commenting on his pretty princess hair and stuff like that.

Also foodplay, even though I'm not a fan, Dean has full blown relationships with burgers and would take any excuse to make Sam eat his foods.

Blood kink but light, maybe only when somebody is already hurt (kissing it better, mayhaps?)

Knives... I mean... knives.

Guns, those are their lives and dean spends more time fondling guns then he does sam. Also (hot)

Cheating- hear me out! That all those girls that he's had short things with, just so he can get laid consistently. They might think that he's for them, but he's actually going home to his brother every night.

Also like providing pleasure for people without any in return, like sucking Sam off but not touching himself or cumming. Which ties back into all those other girls because with them he was just there to get his dick wet, now he has a long term thing.

Dare I say scent kink? The dirt and grime and sweat that those two live in... They've def fucked in an open grave at least once.

Some other smaller stuff too, obviously the incest.

Sam:

I feel like he'd match up with most of his kinks, maybe except for the food, I don't think he'd get it in the same way.

OKAY, so with Sam's constant insistance that he's inherently unclean, he'd want Dean to hurt him bad, especially once he knows that it's demon's blood. I'm saying scarification, stitching Sam up, some light wound fucking but like anything that hurts.

guns... I mean...

Also matching with Dean's service thing, he'd definitely enjoy being able to just zone out and let Dean make him feel good without needing to worry about giving back.

incest kink 10000% Sam would have Dean calling him baby brother every single thrust, and he would probably do the same with big brother. Also to a more extreme level, introducing themselves as brothers and really selling it, then getting caught on purpose fucking in an alley.

He would def have a monogamy kink, he'd make dean tell him about all those other girls while fucking him just so he can tell him that he's never gonna have that again cause he's all Sam's.

Roleplay, just roleplaying that theyre younger and that Dean's taking advantage of him (yes this is something that gets me going too, what of it?)

BONUS ROUND JOHN!!!

I don't actually have a ton to say on this topic but I still wanna talk about it to my dear captive audience.

Gun play... I mean, it's hot as fuck and also fits so well with how they handle guns so much.

Pet play OKAY HEAR ME OUT puppy Sam and dean have my heart and also have you seen Sam's puppy eyes 👀. But like his boys caring for him and obeying his every order, complete subservience.

[thesunfyre4446]

I tend to be more of a fandom spectator, since I am team neutral and I like to look at everything from an external perspective and analyze the motives of each team, but in recent times I have been observing a lot of hypocrisy from team black, who deny that we ,the neutrals, exist, yes, they can be that arrogant. But without a doubt what catches my attention the most is that they believe they are feminist activists when at the first opportunity they disregard Helaena's pain because unlike Rhaenyra she "only" lost one child (apparently it is a small matter). They call her a useless depressed woman who abandoned the rest of her children, and honestly I find it a disgusting way to address a woman who is going through something like that, they ask for respect for Rhaenyra in her pain (with which I agree) but they don't extend the same courtesy to Helaena, each person faces things in a way that Rhaenyra didn't let herself sink should not serve to belittle the pain that leads a person to commit suicide.

The girl literally saw how her son's head was cut off, her being depressed is not strange at all. They also think that they are the defenders of house Targaryen, calling Alicent's children mudbloods when their candidates for the throne are illegitimate boys that have no real right given the social context of the time and who would still reign with the surname Velaryon (because in the book they would not change the surname to Targaryen upon ascending, this is an invention by Condal that makes no sense, at that time there were no such levels of feminism, and also the importance of political alliances lies in this type of things, Corlys was also lying about the boys paternity just to put his name on the throne an his blood through Baela). They criticize the bond between Sunfyre and Aegon when they have Rhaenyra in the opposite position, we do not see a real connection with her dragon, she was the youngest rider but it was of no use and Syrax's death was not a big problem for her.

And I say that I am neutral because I am happy that Aegon III was king, but they say that they are so they can say oops the blacks won, but the truth is that they hate this boy and also his brother Viserys and they criticize them constantly, from what I have seen they use them only to serve their half-brothers and feel guilty for them. They try to impose the idea of the united family when that is far from true, the same Corlys they sell as grandfather of the year as soon as he was able to legitimize Addam and Alyn as Velaryons discarded Joffrey as heir and at that time Jacaerys was still alive, because they love to think that Corlys did this because since Joffrey would now inherit the throne he could not also rule driftmark, because of course if this child was actually his grandson and he saw him as such Corlys would renounce the power that this position brings to his house ( Apparently this man was stupid and I didn't know), I suppose it's normal to prefer the bastards you've had with a girl from Hull than the boy your son had with a princess. In the end what they wanted is for the Strong boys to reign over all the legitimate heirs that already existed, they have not achieved that.

And the thing about usurping and breaking the law too, because in my humble opinion, Rhaenyra was Visery's legitimate heir, but her first children should not be heirs, they immediately call you bastardphobic, obviously I don't care about anyone's origin, nor do I think that that makes you less worthy, but it is a fact that in the universe of Westeros it is illegal to pass bastards as legitimate children (which is not in itself an insult but an adjective to designate people born to people who are not married).

Then it can be stated that the claim of these boys was a usurpation of all the boys and girls of the family who were legitimate and bore the Targaryen surname, including all of Daemon's and Alicent's children. But this is not interesting to talk about. It is better to sell that it was essential that they exist because there were no more heirs available for either House Targaryen or House Velaryon when both things are not true, it is simply a question of power and the path to obtaining power is not always fair and that is seen on both teams.

thank you so much for this lovely ask! sorry for taking forever to answer.

i really don't know why team black hate people who say that are natural. i've said it before and i'll say it again - being natural is the best way to watch this show.

the double standards with helaena and rhaenyra is my villain origin story. i hate hate hate the way team black talks about helaena. and i'm sorry, the psychological torture helaena suffered in B&C, in additional to her son's death - is, thankfully, not something rhaenyra ever had to endure.

yeah i don't get TB using the fact that the targtowers are only half targs & at the same time saying that blood doesn't matter wrt the strongs.

and the aegon and sunfyre antis? please. sunfyre was able to sense aegon and return to him. they have one of the strongest dragonrider \ dragon bonds ever. and for those who say that aegon wanted to replace him??? he tried to hatch a dragon because rhaena had morning. he knew that if the blacks have a dragon and the greens don't then it's over and him & his entire family will be killed. so what was he supposed to do? let everything he and his family and loved ones (including sunfyre) suffered and died for be for nothing? of course not.

and rhaenyra and syrax? i mean we really don't know much about their bond. syrax didn't fight at all during the war, killed her riders son and died. syrax sucks lol (never beating the secret TG agent allegations).

the idea that the blacks are this big happy family is hilarious. corlys and rhaenys literally believe that daemon and rhaenyra killed their son. corlys supports rhaenyra to get his "blood" (name) on the throne. rhaenyra is loyal to herself and her children. corlys has his own interests. rhaenys is there for her granddaughters, and daemon's also doing his own thing. there's so much distrust and hate between the TB "family".

[idontreallyknow26]

"I choose Rhaenyra cuz she's the feminist option" Oh bless your heart.

Rhaenyra is these second-coming of that white lady in the mall screaming to "TAKE HER PHONE AWAY!!"

Rhaenyra CHOSE to have three bastards. You heard Alicent; Jace she could've gotten away with, but she had two more. She willfully put her children's lives in danger. She knows how Westeros treats bastards, and she had them anyway.

Just because you wanna act like the Dornish are a part of the Kingdoms doesn't mean Westeros agrees with or puts to use any dornish customs.

(Just cuz he called Daren don't mean he belong to Daren)

And even Rhaenyra herself doesn't thunk women have the right to rule by default; in the scene where she's asking Rhaenys to betrothe the twins to Jace & Luce, she says "Baela will be queen, and her sons will rule after." So she still buys into the Andal succession shit. She is the fucking Caitlyn Jenner of women.

I'm F&B/ROTD, she starts taxing the smallfolk for HAVING BASTARDS. As if not even a year prior she planned to put her bastards on not one but two thrones... Very much entitled white woman move if I ever saw one.

She's also fine with the plan to sell Alicent & Helaena to brothels & watch them be raped and impregnated.

Oh wait, one more thing, SHES A RACIST TOO. (All the Valyrians are, they hold the same racial ideologies as Hitler but she was very obvious about it) She call Nettles a CREATURE and said she must've used her magic on Sheepstealer because if you take one look at her you'd know she's not Valyrian. Considering her first three boys were brown haired, I highly doubt she was talking about her hair. She also uses this as a reason Daemon wouldn't fuck her- Honey a child's a child he's gonna fuck it.

And these same people will turn around and blame Alicent for Aegon ii being a rapist...Congrats, you're blaming a woman for a full-grown man's actions. How feminist of you.

But yeah let's just keep acting like you're choosing Rhaenyra for feminism.

I wrote & posted this at 2 am and I'm aware that I get off topic multiple times but I'm still right lmfao 😭

[balkanradfem]

I get where most of the anons are coming from, your followers know your health and financial situation isn't ideal and want what's best for you and sadly in our current society everything comes down to money, so it's only natural people would want you to have more money even if it's just the smallest increase for a limited time.

But on the other hand, I respect your desire to stick to your principles and not increase the price. Just because society is set up this way doesn't mean we need to play by those rules, if nobody ever did things differently then nothing would ever change.

Being forced to play along with capitalism when I just want to share things with people has definitely taken a toll on my mental health as well, but ultimately only you, the person in this situation, know all the variables that affect this decision and if you think you can afford to not play along with capitalism in this situation then you should go for it.

But I will repeat what some others have said anyway because I do think it's something most of us need to hear more often - don't feel guilty about putting yourself first!

I will also mention though, when it comes to friends and those at least somewhat privy to your financial situation, I think they'd be happy to get chestnuts while also being able to help you a bit more financially especially in a way (in their eyes) that makes you feel less gulity about receiving their money. It reminds me a bit of the anons that occasionally ask if there's some way they can donate money to you.

Despite the capitalist structure we live under, humans have a desire the share and help each other.

Thank you for the nuanced and detailed explanation! Oh I hope I'm not stressing people out with my situation, I'll figure it out, I only mention it when it's relevant to the topic, I'm not complaining.

It's soothing to know my principles and ideals did get trough and people understand what I'm about! If a lot of people did things the way I do, we would all have cheaper food, more emphasis on human life and forming connections, and less concern about money, as it would not be the primary object that everyone's after. I understand that failing to play the capitalism game means you lose by default, but I've quit that game a while ago, I'm playing my own thing.

I feel like you're implying I sell chestnuts to my friends or to people who know about my financial situation - and I have to disappoint here, anon. All my friends get loads of chestnuts for free. When I forage them, I sort them into size categories, and I can usually only sell the largest ones. So about a third of them is un-sellable, and ends up being gifted to various friends and acquaintances. Even if they're not the most huge ones, everyone likes the gift of free chestnuts! I usually eat the smallest ones on my own. But! I keep some of the large ones for a chestnut cake.

I feel a little bad about all the people offering money because it's not polite to reject! But connecting this blog with financial gain would feel extremely wrong. This is what I believe in, my passions and stories and feminism and human rights, and environment, I come here to say what I need to, and see what other lovely women are saying too. It's such a social thing it would feel weird to bring money in!

And I'm also, deeply compelled to try and figure things out on my own. I guess it is a flaw but I can't let go of it.

Thank you for the lovely message, anon, I've enjoyed reading it! I'm going to sleep now, so if I get more messages, they'll wait until tomorrow, and I might not want to spam them all across people's dashes.

[thesinglesjukebox]

KATY PERRY - "WOMAN'S WORLD"

Laughter is not an essential component of satire; in fact, there are types of satire that are not meant to be "funny" at all.

[2.15]

Joshua Lu: The prevailing narrative around Katy Perry has transformed: not just about her being a bad artist making bad music, but also about her being a bad person on top of it all. It's easy to justify every mark. "Woman's World" is dated in concept (empty feminist dribble), sound (plodding synthpop that would fit into any of her past three albums), and execution (scatterbrained music video rationalized via "it's just satire bro"). Choosing Dr. Luke as the song's producer was not only morally questionable but also marketed as her executive decision. There are bad artists who are bad people making bad music and still hugely successful; Katy Perry's inability to join those ranks is weirdly comforting, in almost a cosmic sort of way. [3]

Andrew Karpan: Rarely do songs flop by sounding so purely evil: a collage of bad taste arranged in a way that scans as faintly ominous, weird and off-putting, the sound of a dystopian future nostalgically looking back to the past.  [2]

Alex Clifton: Katy Perry is trying so desperately to have it both ways, and it muddies the message she wants to send. If we are to take “Woman’s World” as earnest, the song might’ve fueled teen feminist awakenings back in 2011 but now comes across so dated. If we are to take it as satire, then it’s a disaster as there’s zero bite or personality on display. Say what you will about Taylor Swift and her complicated relationship with feminism (and I will), but at least “The Man” had her fingerprints all over it with a few snarky zingers. There’s nothing in "Woman's World" that I can laugh at (and that’s not even considering the Dr. Luke of it all). I was rooting for Katy, I really was, but someone girlbossed too close to the sun.  [2]

Brad Shoup: A pale stick of factory-engineered cheese, where all the laughs thud and all the flexes result in pulled muscles. Perry used to be one of our very best pop panderers. Now what? [1]

Alfred Soto: Bet some of y'all want to hear her Kate Bush cover. [4]

Jonathan Bradley: She's a winner, a champion; she's a flower, she's a thorn. She's a bitch, she's a lover, she's a child, she's a mother, she's a sinner, she's a saint. But shouldn't she feel a little ashamed about failing to clear the low bar of discount Dua Lipa? [2]

Nortey Dowuona: Katy's flat, nasal soprano is produced by Kalani Thompson and Ryan OG. Both are experienced hands, but clearly they could only do so much with the take they got. The melody Katy sings in the first verse is so flat and thin that when she ramps into the chorus, she barely resolves the melody, the "it" a jarring cut before the chords resolve. Thompson and Ryan try to multitrack her voice to give it the power it doesn't have -- a trick he's learned from working with Kim Petras and The Kid Laroi, both of whom have weak yet distinctive voices -- but it doesn't work. During the second verse, the multitracked echoes below just remind the listener of the lack of depth in the main vocal, pitch corrected so noticeably that it sounds even more inhuman. Since the first and second verse play the same barely moving melody, there's very little else the producers can do. And while the hook is where their work shines, the abortive chorus and warmed-over chords prevent Katy from selling anything. If only Thompson and OG had a better vocal to work with, or a less rapist producer. [0]

Leah Isobel: I honestly don't feel anything when people work with Luke anymore. Maybe that makes me a bad survivor, or a bad feminist; I'm sure that if I said that on Twitter a bunch of transphobes would immediately jump down my throat and call me a rapist. But it's the truth. If there was a true window for accountability -- and I'm not convinced there was -- it closed when "Say So" hit number 1 and the industry was like, cool, let's toss a bunch of other young women into a room with this guy. Or maybe it closed earlier, when Kesha performed "Praying" at the Grammys and seemed to collapse into herself after the song ended, to which James Corden responded with a blank, ineffectual "Wow" before moving the show along. Maybe it closed even earlier, when Bonnie McKee compared him to the devil and said that "Dr. Luke's deals are famously bad, everyone knows that," but still credited him with launching her career; or maybe it closed when, that same year, "New Rules" became Dua Lipa's breakout hit, earning Luke's publishing arm money via the songwriter Emily Warren. Maybe it was earlier than that, when Max Martin took Luke under his wing and made some of the most beloved pop hits of the form now known as "recession pop." But honestly, it was probably earlier: when capitalism took the place of feudalism, when some British guys sailed across the Atlantic Ocean and established a society built on the exploitation of people and nature, when the music industry was built off of vaudeville and the systems of domination it valorized. When artists choose to work with Luke, they are thinking like record executives; they are often rewarded. (Quoth the prophet: "As long as everybody getting paid, right?/ Everything gonna be okay, right?") Kim Petras is the first openly transgender woman to have a #1 single, and she only got there because she signed a contract with Luke. Nicki Minaj earned her first solo #1 with "Super Freaky Girl," a Luke production. Joy Oladokun performed at the fucking White House. That's not to excuse Katy's decision, but to say that these kinds of decisions are often papered over as "compromises" instead of sacrifices. This single's anodyne synths and bland, dated uplift smack of sacrifice. Any interesting perspective is filtered out of the song and redirected toward the video, with its blunt satire and strange pops of body horror. (If I had a nickel for every time a Katy Perry video's visual metaphors made me wince, I'd have two nickels, etc.) The oddity of the whole package suggests a certain helplessness in the face of doom. If it is truly a woman's world, it's in the sense of Andrea Long Chu's edgelordy Females: "The self is sacrificed to make room for the desires of another." [3]

Aaron Bergstrom: If the erstwhile Katy Hudson never actually broke with her fundamentalist evangelical upbringing and has in fact been working as a deep cover operative trying to discredit godless feminism and destroy it from the inside, how would that look any different from what she's doing now? [1]

Jackie Powell: Katy Perry is doing a lot. She’s doing too much. She’s straddling trying to be relevant, putting out an earworm, honoring her on-brand silliness that worked over 10 years ago, all while attempting to embody the current moment where rights in America are being taken away. “Woman’s World” has been discussed alongside “Chained to the Rhythm,” which Perry put out after Donald Trump was inaugurated, but while "Chained to the Rhythm" wasn't great, it at least had some sort of message and substance. “Woman’s World” doesn’t answer why this is a woman’s world that we’re living in. It is just a list of adjectives. There’s an argument to be made that Perry is still functioning in a pre-November 8, 2016 world where Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to make history but was too polished, calculated and apologetic to do so. But the name of the game in 2024 is being unapologetic, a little silly, and authentic. That’s why Kamala is Brat and not living in whatever suffocating universe Perry is in -- I can tell you she's not living on Chromatica, amid all of the comparisons to Lady Gaga’s “Stupid Love”. There’s one mashup on YouTube where Perry’s “Woman’s World” vocal is smashed on top of the Gaga “Stupid Love” instrumental, and the chord progressions and family of synths are indeed similar. But as usual with a Lady Gaga song, "Stupid Love" had more dissonant sounds that gave the track some intrigue and punch. I’m a firm believer in the concept that being an artist involves a certain amount of thievery. But instead of stealing like an artist—there’s a book written about that—Perry is stealing like a manufacturer or corporate bigwig without a soul, just like the incredibly flawed person who produced the track.  [3]

Katherine St. Asaph: It feels reductive. [5]

Hannah Jocelyn: There’s no incentive besides the moral one to side with the abused, and who needs morals, especially when the abuser and their enablers are this powerful? That’s why Dr. Luke came back, and why he never left, depending on who you ask. Katy sounds good here (we’re not in straining “Daisies” territory anymore), and the beat is serviceably in-your-face and refreshingly loud. If this wasn’t Luke, I wouldn’t really care about it. In any other context, I'd even like the chorus line “we ain’t going away”; post-Roe it reads as hope that societal progress won’t be entirely reversed to the '50s and/or before. But if we are, in fact, “going away,” that’s partly because of power-hungry, entitled men much like Lukasz Gottwald. It's a predator's world, always has been and maybe always will be; he's lucky to be living in it, and Katy Perry’s happy to enable it. Neat harmonies on the word “celebrate," though.  [3]

Ian Mathers: We live in the stupidest fucking dystopia, don't we? [4]

Will Adams: A failure of a lead pop single by almost every conceivable metric (sonically: uninspired; lyrically: dated; visually: contradictory; contextually: yikes), "Woman's World" deserved its intense backlash from the moment its ill-fated snippet dropped. But the dust has settled, and my impression of the song now is mostly boredom and mild fascination. It is beyond me why Perry, whose career-long brand has been cartoonish kitsch -- sharks, furniture, toilets, oh my! -- thinks she's at all equipped to deliver message music. And this was after Witness. [3]

Isabel Cole: Sometimes I feel bad for hating so thoroughly on Katy Perry, America's living embodiment of what the Madonna/whore complex does to a mf, for having not one real thought in her big empty brain, but then she'll do something like reuniting with Luke in a pathetic attempt to rewind the clock back to when the two of them were still relevant. The lyrics are giving something between "Olympics-themed sportswear ad" and "studio exec who has never had a conversation with a woman his own age discussing his vision for a female superhero project." There are pop stars in the world who can take dumb lines and make them sound like they mean something, but possibly nobody is less suited to that task than Katy Perry, whose musical identity, insofar as she has ever had one, has mostly rested on taking dumb lines and making them sound even dumber. It's not just that her voice is grating, or that she's never once in her career displayed any kind of musical intuition or finesse or really any quality one might associate with an ostensible professional singer beyond "loud"; it's that she sings like she's doing a bit. On something gleefully stupid like "California Gurls," that served her well, or at least decently: it's camp! On a song pretending at genuine sentiment -- well, arguably it's also camp, in Sontag's formulation of "failed seriousness," but it's mostly just annoying. Luke, too, apparently has had not one single idea in the decade and a half since Teenage Dream, or else maybe he thought that putting out a track that would slot neatly onto the back half of that album would subliminally fool us into thinking it was 2010 again. But it's not, and rather than nostalgia the utter banality of the sound invites incredulity: was it really worth it, for this? [0]

Taylor Alatorre: "If we ended all collaboration with Dr. Luke tomorrow – and I will, if he deserves it, if the allegations against him are proven in a court of law – would that end sexism? (Crowd: No!) Would that end toxic masculinity? (Crowd: No!) Would that end record industry gatekeeping against mold-breaking female artists? (Crowd: No!) Would that protect other artists from those predators and abusers whose careers have continued unscathed? (Crowd: No!) Would that make the public any more receptive toward a stubbornly dated electropop stomper that misidentifies ‘girl power’ as a key ingredient of Teenage Dream's success, but whose uncompromising Moroder pulse and surprisingly diva-esque vocal turn are almost enough to override its intrinsic cheugy-ness? (Crowd: confused murmurs, smattering of applause)" [4]

Wayne Weizhen Zhang: I can’t write anything more clever or devastating than what the internet has already written. Katy Perry has been so completely and rightfully been savaged—for her aesthetic, singing, taste, and existence—that I almost feel sympathetic toward her. Just not quite.  [0]

Jacob Sujin Kuppermann: Defies even post-post-ironic enjoyment — no thinkpiece, no stannish counterfactual interpretation, no attempt to toss this into a running playlist or daily mix will survive exposure to this complete void. It's hard to even discern what she was trying to do here. [1]

Will Rivitz: Was she satirizing chart success too? [2]

Kayla Beardslee: I want to weigh in with my score, but everyone has already roasted this song so thoroughly, I don’t have anything left to say. Just like Katy Perry! [0]

[Read, comment and vote on The Singles Jukebox]

[cottonundiestf]

🕶️

Hmm...was worried that the program was broken for a moment; Glad to see the changes come through. As for the results, though...hmm...I have a few ideas...

Let's start with that libido of yours. The office is making you unbelievably horny? Good. You should be feeling horny at work; Hell, you should always be feeling turned on. Your arousal is only getting STRONGER by the day, and it just never shuts off. Your libido should be beyond supercharged, it should be superHUMAN.

And speaking of superhuman, what about your body? You're already so tall, so voluptuous, so irresistible...but what if you had more? What if you got even taller, even bustier, even curvier, even prettier, even more feminine? Gain two (2) points of Strength, two (2) points of Dexterity, four (4) points of Constitution, and six (6) points of Charisma as your body gains an additional five (5) cup sizes, an additional nine (9) inches of ass, and an extra six (6) inches of height. Oh, and add in some extra feminization, to really sell your gorgeous looks to those around you.

You're going to tower over the rest of the office. They'll have no choice but to look at your tits and ass, and you are going to love it. After all, those little girls and boys, they basically look up to you like an office mommy - complete with your mommy milkers producing more than enough milk for all of your bosses and co-workers~.

Of course, that's not to mention how your body keeps exuding more and more of those sweet, intoxicating, mind-numbing pheromones that make it all the easier for you to just smother and suffocate people in your motherly embrace...it's no wonder why you're making more and more money each month off of your OnlyFans. All you have to do is dress up like the slutty maternal figure you've always wanted to be, and those simps start falling over themselves, desperate to buy every last bottle of your own self-produced milk that you put up onto your own store page.

All those nerdy pastimes, that time spent trying to be a writer, that time pretending to be a smart woman going through college? None of it matters now. In fact, all that stuff never even happened in the first place. Sure, that means you're even dumber now than you were before, but a loss of three (3) points of Wisdom should be more than a fair trade in exchange for this towering motherly form that's only getting more and more good little boys and girls simping for you by the day, right?

Now then, it should be about time for mommy Layla to go pump her breasts again~. After all, you're getting milkier and milkier by the day, and all your co-workers and fans need their fill of mommy's addictive milk, don't they~?

I don't even remember what I was actually hired to do at this office. I don't think I've done "work" in a long time. It's like I'm just here for people to admire—and for some milky refreshments, of course! I mean, with a fertility goddess body like this, who can blame everyone for calling me mommy, despite being one of the youngest in the office! Everyone does look up to me, after all; literally.

Honestly, with my low level "skills" and education, I'm lucky to be so adored by everyone. This job and my OF work are such a blessing~

(Thank you for playing! Though be warned, it might be a challenge to find images if I go much bigger haha!)

[djuvlipen]

Can't believe I'm being cancelled for disliking gypsies, one of the most misogynistic groups out there who sell girls as young as 10 for gold and money, don't let them get education, etc. Unless you've lived close to them and experienced the whole extent of that culture, stfu

This is a tweet said by a ‘radical feminist’ known on radtwt and this is exactly why I only follow Black, Asian, Indigenous and Roma feminists now. White radfems will excuse their racism under the guise of feminism yet when it comes to actually being feminist and helping Roma women? They’re silent. I can’t believe someone would say this and not think to themselves ‘this is even more reason why I must ally with Roma women against oppressive aspects of their culture’ but instead she goes full nazi and later on says how Roma are ‘forever condemned to be lower caste’ and lives a ‘cringe’ existence without ever thinking about the racism they experience that makes their existence so ‘lower caste’ and ‘cringe’. I’m sorry to bring this to you, I know it could be triggering, but you are the most active Roma radfem I follow right now (the few I follow on twitter have been on hiatus or either suspended :/) and I needed to get this off my chest. I’ve been so annoyed at radfem spaces lately because of bs like this, where white radfems will go on about how they can’t be oppressive because they’re women and all women are oppressed only to turn around and be oppressive racist assholes.

I know the user you are talking about, I'm going to include screenshots for context:

She was first called out in early June by a Romani feminist and another feminist on Twitter. Unfortunately many of the reactions are like this,

I think some of those users are actual fascists, because some feminists would rather ally with the far right than support Romani women.

Then you've got the usual jokes about Europeans being just like Hitler because it would kill Gadje to actually take anti-Roma racism seriously for once instead of turning it into an Internet meme,

Tbh I have seen this sentiment echoed in many radfem spaces, not just on Twitter. A few months ago I received an ask that said "why should I care about Romani women when their culture is so sexist in the first place". A woman commented on one of my posts about racialized misogyny against Romnia with "stop playing the victim, if people don't like you it's because your culture sucks". (I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to find those posts rn)

I totally understand why you'd only follow radfems of colour, I think I follow only a few white radfems as well. White feminists always try and undermine their white privilege because they think being a woman means they can't be oppressors. It's a very one dimensional way to understand how oppression works. I could go on and on about this but I think you summed it up pretty well. They're not only ignoring their race and class privilege, they are also being actively bigoted against woc.

I have heard that misandristlana was Afghan (but living in the UK), I can't find a proof for it because she has been suspended though. In any case it's a huge no hope for women moment but I am really not surprised by this, non-Romani women typically never show support to Romani women so I stopped expecting anything from them. We can only count on ourselves to liberate ourselves. That's why I prioritize fellow Romani women before other women

[hologramcowboy]

https://startefacts.com/news/ready-set-aww-danneel-ackles-reveals-how-she-knew-jensen-was-the-one_a136

This whole article is actually gross. Romanticizing her forcing an unscripted kiss to shoot her shot it gross.

Being the confident woman that she is, she decided to kiss Jensen in one of the scenes, even though "that was not scripted."

The scene in question is the one at the end of the movie where Tish (Danneel's character) walks up to Priestly (played by Jensen) and gives him a kiss.

According to the actress, Jensen knew that the kiss was not in the script. No wonder Priestly looks so (pleasantly) surprised in that scene! Who wouldn't be?

Danneel said that the reason for her girlbossing was that she just understood that she "had to do something else, or it would be too late." This is a clear example of feminism working for you, folks!

Kissing someone when they aren’t expecting it and you aren’t sure if they want it while you’re on camera doing your job is not “girlbossing” and it defiantly is NOT feminism. It’s the exact thing men do to women all the time and people point out how wrong it is. There is nothing cute about this story. What makes it worse it that it’s not even completely factual. I mean, maybe that was their first kiss, I don’t know, but the fact that this gross story is what they have chosen as their lie? Tells you all you need to know about them as individuals and a couple.

I can debunk her claim easily and so can anyone in touch with the industry:

As an Actor/Actress there is no universe in which it is okay to make any type of intimate move towards your co-star prior to setting boundaries during rehearsal and asking for their clear definite permission and limits. I repeat, invading personal space, suddenly touching, kissing etc your scene partner by surprise is strictly forbidden and the #metoo movement has plenty of stories that prove my point. Again, no professional actor will EVER invade their scene partner's space or boundaries. Unless they are a creep or lack balance. Even if your co star likes you or is your friend, spouse, whatever, when it comes to acting boundaries are everything and everything is talked about prior during rehearsal and most of the time in the presence of an intimacy coach. So, not sure why these people are publicizing this story, all it shows is that Jensen got harassed on set. That poor man gets objectified and preyed upon so often he ended up thinking that's what love is. This is endlessly sad.

Secondly, this script was written by a woman for a woman centered audience, in which universe do you all think the kiss was not written? Please find a copy of the script.

Thirdly, if the kiss was unplanned why did the camera perfectly frame and capture it? 🤣 Were the crew men psychic? 🤦🏼‍♀️ I mean, I get wanting to level up the Ackles image because they have zero credibility, affability and chemistry but Danneel, if you are going to lie about something to make yourself look good once again at Jensen's expense, at least do your research. Any coach, director, casting director, etc. etc. will tell you straight off that touching, insinuating, kissing, etc all gestures, choices that invade personal space and boundaries are a huge no no without consent. I am so appalled that people are publicizing this. Do you all even realize the negative message you are sending to Actors everywhere? They already have very little to feel safe about, please don't add to it and instead of buying into whatever crap Danneel tries to sell, do your research. Research is King.

Let me reinforce this once more: If you overstep boundaries of your fellow actors (I don't f* care if they are your spouse, brother, cousin, etc), you should get professional help before ever stepping unto a stage/set/audition room floor again. You are what is deeply wrong with this industry. Finally, while Jensen is endlessly beautiful, he does not deserve to be treated like a fish you are trying to catch, Danneel, you are just like any other obsessed fan girl, you view him as an object so much so you kissed him forcefully. ( Yet again you prove you have no love in you). Also, you were set to marry Riley so if YOU chose to forcefully kiss Jensen you chose to willfully betray the man that was the supposed love of your life at the time without a second thought, without scruples. IF the kiss thing is true, because, as stated above, I highly, highly doubt it was not scripted and have very valid reasons to think so.

Moral of the story is: next time you feel like lying, remember there are professional people who have experience in your field, that will see you for the pitiful impostor you are.

[flower-zombie-rob]

Dearie you are the dense one for still pushing the lie that J.K. Rowling compared all transgenders to Death Eaters. If you bothered to actually listen to her, she compared the violent and autocratic behavior of people sending her death threats to the Death Eaters. You have some real nerve saying that radical feminists are thick-skulled when you cannot think critically and let your hatred of J.K. Rowling allow you to hear what you want to hear.

I would, once again, like to reitorate that in what context is conparing people to nazi allegorys correct in any circumstance?? If you give me an example of why this is an appropriate comparison in any context, ill listen, but as far as im aware a woman who spends her time actively hating transgender people and spreading false information about them comparing gay rights activists on twitter to fictional eugenicist murderers should be given this benefit of the doubt that you give her.

Also, she had done a plethera of things that her fans are ignoring and giving her this same benefit of the doubt idea of. She actively encourages the dead naming and outing of transgender children to their abusive households by supporting the british governments choices on that matter, in the past she has supported small businesses that sell anti-trans propaganda pins and merchandise, She has attempted to retcon her characters to be gay in an attelpt to be "progressive" while saying that there werewolf curse in her books(a thing that is pretty damn awful and that the antagonist werewolves try to spread among people) is an allegory for HIV(do i even have to explain what that is a bad thing to say??).

I call JK Rowling fans dense because they constantly choose to ignore and deny the fact that she makes her beliefs about transgender and gay people very clear constantly. People who hate her are not making things up, theyre taking what she says and the ways that she says and recieving it in the way that JK means it.

She did not compare all transgenders to death eaters. That is not what I said. Read some more and get that comprehention up "dearie." I said what was accurate, which was that she described lgbt rights activists who attack her as death eaters which are allegories for nazis and that is something she has openly said in the past. She could have said people who attacked her and she could have said people who sent her death threats but she did not. She chose the word's "trans rights activists" and "lgbt rights activists" to describe the people who attack her which actively antagonises all people within that bubble who fight for their rights and disagree with her points.

As with normal jk Rowling fans you believe that every valid criticism of hers is someone spreading a rumour because they simply don't like her but I think you fail to realise why people don't like her.

People do not hate jk Rowling because she fights for womens rights. People hate JK because she is attempting to tear down the trans and gay rights that people have fought for their entire lives for and she is a middle aged straight cis white woman using her massive fanbase to do so. If you really This have the reading comprehension that you are assuming you do in this ask I would please inform you to go and educate yourself on the ways the ways that JK Rowling's actions strongly affect not only trans youth but queer and even poc ans jewish youth today. Also, please stop reading JK rowlings twitter as your source for feminism information, people don't write genderist theory essays every day so you can ignore all reason and listen to JK rowlings version of feminism.

Thank you.

Also for someone who claims to be a radical feminist you certainly aren't against the idea of addressing someone is dearie in a patronising sense, a traditionally feminine patronism uzed against women by older men regularly. Thank you for making me uncomfortable too!

Also also, for someone so passionate about this "dearie" youre very shy in telling me your blog name and url with anon on. Almost like you dont want people to know youre a radfem. Almost like youre ashamed of it. How quaint. I on the other hand am not in any way afraid or ashamed of disliking JK and working to tear down the lies and rumours she spreads about an ultimately marginalised community of people who are attacked from all corners by the influence of people like her.

If you follow me, god help me, please unfollow because i dont want a supporter of a woman who refuses to even acknowledge and be held accountable for her transgender discrimination anywhere near my blog, which is a safe space for all. Please promptly and ploitely get off my blog, thank you.

[quantumfizz]

Completely Uneducated Internet Opinion after seeing Oppenheimer and Barbie

The Barbie Movie focuses on a very specific lens of misogyny that doesn't show just how pervasive and horrific it really is, and it's painfully obvious that it's selling a brand of feminism that isn't too alienating to the status quo and is very "Oh well! The Kens will have as much power as us girls do in the real world ig. Get it? 😜" It just leaves a sour taste in my mouth, but it's about as politically aware and active a multimillion dollar Warner Brothers film based on a Mattel IP can really be. I appreciate it more as a celebration of embracing all the terrible flaws and aspects of being a woman in a misogynistic world, and an abstract being deciding that it's all worth it because of the joyful and meaningful experience of being a woman and not just an idea.

It's also funny that Ken as a character eclipses and overshadows a lot of the film, since the whole thing is about feminism and the name of the film IS Barbie. But much like feminist causes in the real world, the audience focuses more on the men involved lol. A lot of that comes down to Ryan Gosling's fantastic performance though. This man understood the assignment like no actor ever has before.

Also, the costuming and set design are god tier and exactly what we need to see more of in a media landscape dominated by shitty looking CGI from un-unionized and poorly treated sweatshop artists. If you like good looking movies, watch this movie.

Ken does take over the screen whenever he's there, but Margot Robbie shines in this thing. The comparison can't NOT be made between Barbie and The Truman Show (Gerwig iirc says it was one of her main inspirations and it shows), and her performance as Barbie discovers the world she's lived in and her existence itself is a flimsy ideal is so moving. Because like Truman, she chooses personhood and freedom over certainty and safety. She chooses to become a real woman not despite the many disadvantages and pain that comes with it, but BECAUSE of the experience. She learns that there is beauty in cellulite and stretch marks and wrinkles, there is beauty in aging, there's an entire world of experiences and emotions that as a doll she could never achieve and truly feel. And seeing someone CHOOSE humanity is such a wonderful thing.

The film also indulges in the kind of campy silly shit we expected, and I can see how some viewers view it as inconsistent and jarring when it's juxtaposed with moments like America's speech. But despite how half-stepped and steeped in a very specific advertiser friendly brand of Hollywood/corporate liberal feminism this film is, I appreciate Greta Gerwig even trying to do this in the first place. If even one woman or girl comes out of this being more critical of the world around them and the ways misogyny affects us, then I'm happy. If even one man or boy comes out of this being more critical of the world around them and the ways misogyny and patriarchy affects THEM and how they view and treat others, I'm happy. You are Ken-ough (sweater now available via Mattel for $86.99 while supplies last btw).

Oppenheimer is...what you'd expect of a Christopher Nolan biopic of Oppenheimer. It looked nice on 35mm film but it's also got the sound quality issue every fucking Nolan film has, where if you don't have the exact setup he wanted for the film then so many bits of dialogue will be drowned out by music or be otherwise unintelligible. The effects showing one woman with radiation burns were so laughably bad, it was like she let a bunch of Elmer's glue dry on her face and it looked so goofy that it ruined the weight of the scene.

For a film that really tries to show how paradoxical and complicated Oppenheimer was, it doesn't exactly sympathize with him to the extent I've seen people say it does. The film shows he's a dramatic, dismissive, egotistical asshole that refuses to explain his convictions and at times you (and other characters) wonder if he even has any. And his hypocrisy is constantly pointed out by many characters. The prosecutor in the security hearing asks how and why he suddenly decided to have moral qualms about nuclear bombs when he was eager on the Manhattan Project and outright helped decide which city to drop the first bomb on. Strauss's belief that Oppenheimer wants to be a martyr seems true, whether it's (as Strauss believes) out of pure ego or (as his wife says) that he honestly believes that receiving every punishment possible will somehow lead to him atoning and being forgived.

Also if you're watching a Nolan film you're already coming in with low expectations for women characters and this is no exception. Florence Pugh's character exists to show tits, talk briefly about communist ideals only to be talked down to by the more well-read Oppenheimer, fulfill a "methinks she doth protest too much" shtick with her always tossing his flowers, show tits again, break down when he says he can't see her anymore, and then kill herself to add to his sorrow. I do like that his wife immediately looks at him and says that he can't do things like have an affair out of selfishness, disregard other peoples' feelings, and then be surprised when his behavior ruins peoples' lives and fucks him over. His wife is incredibly based and Nolan does a good job portraying how miserable she was as Oppenheimer's wife.

The film showcases his lack of empathy or regard for others until it comes back to fuck him over outside of the affair. He builds Los Alamos knowing that local indigenous tribes come up there for burial rites because they're less important to him than The Big Picture and building the bomb. The civilian lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are something he's prepared to destroy for the sake of this experiment and usher in a new era of scientific discovery (again, nothing is more important than that Big Picture). The lack of regard for the Japanese people, the indigenous tribes of New Mexico and the other civilians in the area is (imo) intentional because the film is about Oppenheimer. It's about how he put them, his family, and everyone around him aside to follow what he's worked in his entire life: theory. Real tangible lives were something he did weigh, and ultimately decided were worth the cost if it meant a) proving this theory b) furthering scientific knowledge and c) ushering humanity into a new era of understanding. And as disgusting as it is, it's interesting to see a film trying to dissect why and how one human being made that decision and seemingly came to regret it.

Anyway while both films are completely different animals in different universes, I think I prefer Barbie because when I cringed, it was during parts I was meant to cringe. And Oppenheimer has the scene where Floremce Pugh (naked obviously) asks him to read the Bhagavad Gita and they start fucking as he says the "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" line and thus robs it of its actual historical context AND cheapens not just Oppenheimer as he originally quoted it...as well as cheapened the Bhagavad Gita as a whole bc. Dude. Now I want a Bollywood movie where a character reads the Bible while a woman rides him and shows tiddy for superfluous bullshit reasons.