#as if wanting to be in a relationship with someone. makes you anti feminist or something.

[saviourkingslut]

finally finished s2 of the alienist... uhmm why was this season abt everyone BUT the alienist. hello. daniel brühl turn on your location i just want to talk

[princesssarisa]

As I've read different people's views on Little Women, I've realized that for different readers, it's a fundamentally different book.

When I see someone describe the "universal" experiences of identifying with Jo, wanting her to marry Laurie, and disliking Amy, I remember all the proof I've seen that these are far from universal. The latter two weren't even my experiences: identifying with Jo, yes, but shipping her with Laurie and disliking Amy, no!

Even people with equal amounts of knowledge of the historical context and of Louisa May Alcott's life seem to come away with vastly different feelings about the story and characters.

I suppose there are a wide variety of reasons for this. First and foremost, which of the four March sisters you personally admire or relate to the most. Then there are other factors like your gender, your age when you first read the book, your relationship (good or bad) with traditional femininity, whether you read Parts I and II as a single novel or as Little Women and Good Wives, your relationships with your own family members, your religion and ethical values...

The list goes on.

That post from @theevilanonblog that I reblogged recently about the different interpretations of Frankenstein makes me want to write out a similar list of ten different views I've read of Little Women. Here it is:

Little Women is about the March sisters learning to be proper virtuous women of their time and place. With Marmee as their role model (a role later shared by Beth as she becomes increasingly angelic in her illness), they learn to conquer their flaws, give up their wild ambitions, and settle down as good wives and mothers. This is especially true for Jo, whose character arc is a slow taming from a rough tomboy to a gentle nurturer. It's a conformist and anti-feminist message, which Alcott probably disliked, but she wrote it to cater to public tastes. (This reading seems mainly to come from critics who dislike the book.)

Little Women is about Jo's struggle to stay true to herself in a world that wants to change her. She struggles with whether to stay a tomboy or become a proper lady, whether or not to marry Laurie despite not loving him romantically, and as an author, whether to write what she wants, write what earns the most money, or give up her writing altogether. In the end, she changes only in ways that make her happy, e.g. by learning to control her temper, and later by embracing romantic love. But in more important ways, she stays true to herself: always remaining slightly rugged, clumsy and "masculine," finding success as a writer, and marrying Friedrich, a man just as plain and "unromantic" as herself, but whom she loves and who respects her as an equal.

Little Women is about learning to "live for others." That phrase is used often and could well be the arc words. Beth is the only March sister to whom a selfless life comes naturally, but the other three master it by the end of the story (as does Laurie). They learn to conquer their moments of pettiness and selfishness, to live in better harmony with each other and with their friends and love interests, and to give up their self-centered dreams of fame and wealth, building lives that focus on service instead.

Little Women is about growing up. The first half is mainly about the March girls' maturing by surviving hard times and learning to be better people, while the second half is about reaching adulthood and bittersweetly parting ways to start new lives. At the beginning, Jo is a girl who doesn't want to grow up: she wants to always be a wild young tomboy with her family (and Laurie) by her side forever. But of course, she can't stop time or womanhood, and is eventually forced to accept the loss of Meg, Amy, and Laurie to marriage and Beth to death. After grieving for a while, she lets go of her old life and willingly builds a new one with Friedrich.

Little Women is about family bonds and the fear of losing them. We meet and become attached to the wonderfully close, cozy March family, which gradually expands through friendships, marriage, and new babies. But throughout the story, the family is in danger of breaking apart, whether due to conflict (Jo and Amy's sibling rivalry, Meg and John's marital problems), or separation by distance (Father going away to war, Amy going to Europe, Jo to New York), or death (the danger of losing Father and Beth in Part I, and the ultimate loss of Beth in Part II). But in the end – unlike in reading #4 above – the family doesn't break apart and never will. Conflicts are resolved, travelers eventually come home, the surviving family members always live near each other and stay as close as ever, and even Beth isn't really gone, because her memory and influence live on.

Little Women is about femininity and each March sister's relationship with it. Meg and Amy happily conform in different ways: Meg to "domestic femininity" as a housewife, Amy to "ornamental femininity" as a society lady. Beth pressures herself to conform to self-effacing domestic femininity, until sadly, it kills her – either because she's too selfless and nurturing when she cares for the fever-infected Hummels, or because she has anorexia, as Lizzie Alcott might have had. But Jo strikes a successful balance in the end, conforming just enough to fit into society, but only on her own terms, and otherwise living a happily unconventional life as a writer and schoolmistress.

Little Women is about Jo's unlearning of internalized misogyny. At the beginning, she's a "Not Like Other Girls" tomboy, who wishes she were male, disdains feminine girls (especially her sister Amy), doesn't care enough when "her boy" Laurie behaves badly toward women, and is afraid to be vulnerable. But gradually, and without losing her strength of character, she learns to embrace the sweeter and more tender aspects of herself, sees that Amy's ladylike manners have practical benefits, and learns to say "no" to Laurie when he turns his childish, unhealthy romantic attentions to her. Then after Beth dies, she realizes how precious Beth's utterly domestic, feminine life was, and embraces a more domestic life herself. Yet by doing so, she becomes a true feminist, as she enters an egalitarian marriage and devotes her life to teaching boys to be good, respectful men.

Little Women is only what US Americans know as the first half. It's just about the March sisters getting by and learning moral lessons over the course of the year their father is away at war. Nobody gets married and nobody dies. Everything else is in Good Wives, which is a sequel with different character arcs and different themes, and which should be published separately, as it originally was and still is outside the US. Trying to tie them together into one narrative never feels quite right.

Little Women is Alcott's idealized version of her own life and family, where no one suffers quite as much as they did in real life, everyone is slightly less flawed, and Jo ends up happily married to a man very much like Alcott's lost love Henry David Thoreau. She wrote the life she wished she had.

Little Women is just a semi-autobiographical slice-of-life that Alcott wrote quickly for money.

Which is the truest to Alcott's intent? I don't know. But while some of these readings I like better than others – and some of them I despise – I'd say they're all understandable and reasonably valid. Some aren't even mutually exclusive, but can be used together... although of course, other readings are mutually exclusive, like whether the story is feminist or anti-feminist, or whether the March family ultimately breaks apart or holds together. And they're all worth using as springboards for discussion.

Alcott wrote more books than she ever realized she did, because Little Women can be many different books to different people.

@littlewomenpodcast, @joandfriedrich, @thatscarletflycatcher, @fictionadventurer, @fandomsarefamily1966

[heavenlymorals]

what do you think if arthur’s partner was against/doesn’t follow a traditional relationship? would he not go through with that type of relationship at all??

Hi anon 🥺❤️❤️

Believe me, I want to say yes- I'm a feminist from a very anti-feminist culture, so I just want to say yes, he would stay with you and love you either way, but my heart says no.

And to be honest, I don't think it'd ever come to that point either because Arthur would never want to be interested in a woman like that anyways. He makes a lot of snide comments regarding Sadie in cutscene and in antagonizations/greets. He is VERY mean to women performers if you antagonize them ("This ain't ladylike!" "Go cook someone some supper! "Go back to the kitchen!"). Antagonize lines are just as canon as greet lines and it's honestly super clear what he believes because of these lines.

He believes in gender roles, point blank period and he gets visibly annoyed or even angry when both women AND men refuse to conform to it.

He makes fun of John for not taking care of his family and for making excuses for that and he gets pissy at Beau when he wasn't there to get Penelope from the cabin.

Note the women that he is or was CANONICALLY interested in. There is Mary, who is very much a lady of her time and wouldn't even bother trying more traditionally masculine roles. There is also Abigail. Abigail is a hard worker and in the epilogue, she helps out John in terms of making money and getting the ranch started but she was still mostly just a housewife, but in RDR1, she is ONLY a housewife as John knows what to do and Jack has grown up to take up his share of the work.

The women he's interested in are women who believe in what he believes. Now, do I think Arthur wouldn't mind if you knew how to hunt, skin, shoot a gun, ride a wagon, and all that? Yea, he would feel very comfortable if you knew how to take care of yourself when he's not there and I doubt he would care if you occasionally do it, but all the time?

I just doubt that.

Also, let's look at it psychologically. Men being able to take care of their families by themselves was not only the standard, but men would also get punished socially by other men and women if they aren't able to do that. The woman would also get shamed too. Pride is a huge thing in American culture and back then? It extended to that too.

Arthur puts extreme value on a "man being a man" to the point where he'd call other people out on not being that even if it's none of his business, so that would extend to him too.

A woman having to work because the family and man are struggling like Abigail does? Sure, fine, but wanting to take on non-traditional roles just cause? Absolutely not. Arthur just doesn't vibe with that, even in canon.

Love back then wasn't like love now. Love back then was going into a relationship with the intent that you already know what you need to do for your partner in terms of the culture back then. Love now is about the person and working things out along the way.

Thank you so much anon, love dissecting gender roles 🙏🏼🙏🏼❤️❤️

[genderkoolaid]

I don't know if you know blue eye Samurai, but I hate how people talk about the protagonist.

I'm a non binary Trans man, and I actually identify a lot with Mizu (the protagonist), but I go here on Tumblr and I see a lot of posts that say: "I know everyone can see Mizu however they like, but I want everyone to know that the right interpretation is that she is a woman pretending to be a man... but everyone can think whatever they want, not forgetting that she is a woman of course."

And it's a bit annoying because when I see explanations of why is "wrong" to see Mizu as a Trans man, I see people going "Why can't there be representation of gender non conforming women!?" And "she wouldn't pretend to be a man if it wasn't for the society she lives in!"

The last one makes me especially angry, because of how many Trans men get erased from history with that same argument.

I don't know, I think it makes me mad because that fandom feels like a micro cosmos of the anti Trans masculinity a lot of Trans men have to face.

And it's not like I think it's wrong to see Mizu as a woman, but when everyone goes "of course she is a woman, why would she want to be a man for anything other than necessity?" I don't know how to feel.

I'm gonna steal my own words from that post about jeanne d'arc:

And the best part is, we can say all of this and also see her as part of women's history! Because women's history, too, does not have to be exclusively about woman-born or woman-identified women. It can be about a larger cultural experience. And Jeanne d'Arc suffered because of transphobia which is always fundamentally misogynistic. I would argue it even makes sense to say her death involved transmisogyny in a very literal sense. The thing about transfeminism is that it can free us from the need to view personal identification with the role of "woman" as vital to feminism. Being a woman, in whatever sense, is certainly not unrelated to feminism, but one can be a feminist and have any kind of personal or communal relationship with womanhood. Anyone can be inspired by the story of Jeanne d'Arc and her bold defiance of both misogyny and transphobia, no matter how she may have personally understood her gender.

People have this idea where if a character or historical figure (or even currently living person) is anything but a woman, then any kind of Feminist Story falls apart. Especially when it comes to misogyny! People act like someone being a trans man means all their experiences with misogyny are like. gone? Or the story is now, essentially, about a cis man being mistaken for a woman, and thus women are Not Allowed to feel any connection at all.

All of this on top of the fun hypocrisy that is "we can't say this person/character is a trans man because they wouldn't have that concept, but we can say they are a cis woman because those are both the only options and ciswomanhood is a natural and universal concept we can apply regardless of any other context :)"

& with Mizu its like. you literally can see her as a GNC woman. people calling him a trans guy or transmasc or genderqueer or anything else are not taking away your experience of her as a GNC woman. Transmasculinity is not just Negative Womanhood, the idea that transmasculinity is something which saps away representation/power/dignity/identity/value from (cis) women is like ATM 101.

But the whole way people treat trans men and misogyny really annoys me, I guess because the assumption is that for women, having to dress as a man to get respect inspires anger at one's position in society, but trans men are incapable of having any complex feelings about that. Like trans men must fully enjoy not being able to have sex with others, or go to a doctor, and having to live in fear of being outed and facing the brunt of transphobia and misogyny, and trans men also couldn't possibly be angry about misogyny that they experienced, and also nonbinary people don't exist and no transmasculine person could possibly be anything but fully comfortable being seen as a cis man all the time. Sure, some trans men are perfectly happy passing as cis men, but like. there is more than one trans man. & ignoring all other transmasc experiences besides The One is a form of erasure, it just passes as something else because technically you are acknowledging A transmasc existence.

[lorynna]

Can’t be a radfem and have a boyfriend just like how you can’t be anti-pedophilia and date a pedophile

Every woman dating a man who killed her thought he was a “good one”. You are not special. You are not smarter than those women. You are just like those women. You do not have a special ability to judge men that those women who died did not have. You are not special.

Your comparison to someone dating a pedophile while being anti-pedophilia is a really bad comparison. Me being a radfem has nothing to do with me hating all men just because they are male. Maybe you do, I don't, so first of all, don't project this onto me.

Me being aware of male crime statistics and what harm males in general are capable of doing does not make me believe that every man is inherently evil. I am not saying that it is a radical feminist action to date a man, if i was saying that you would have every right to criticise me.

I stopped trying to be perfect in every way and following every guideline, because things are never black and white. I am living my life the way it makes me feel the best and in a way it is not harming anyone else, which my choice of partner does not, so it should not concern you. I am labeling myself a radical feminist because it aligns with my set of beliefs. But even under radfems they differ.

I was already aware that radfems(?) like you might come for me, simply for revealing that I am in a het relationship. Instead of attacking me for my personal choice that I am not even trying to frame as a feminist action, you could just go outside and breathe a bit. Never have I said that I believe I am special or better than other women or "know how to pick a good man". I think you are referring to one of my reposts (I linked it down below) where I already referenced this. But I am convinced you read the first line of my repost and went straight to sending me this anon without reading any further.

You judged and assumed I must think I was better than any woman that had died through the hands of their male partner, simply because I love a man and I said so in a post? No offense, but please go outside and touch some grass. Nobody suspects that the person they trust will someday kill them, that is not exclusively about male partners.

As a radfem I first of all believe in helping all women and providing a safe space for them and I do not differentiate wether or not they are in relationships and with whom, wether they are brainwashed by gender ideology or if they are part of the pro life agenda (to name a few examples).

No matter their choices or how much I might not like them personally, I would still not wish abuse on them or rat them out to anyone for having an abortion/hiding from their abusive partner, whatever. I am for protecting and listening women in general, because they are women. And if a woman suffers from abuse by a man and tells me, I will not go up to her and tell her "I told you so, you thought you were better than the others, huh?".

Where should those women go if the general society rejects them for those, if her partner makes her feel unsafe, if her parents are conservative. I wanna make a space that makes them feel comfortable to talk and not feel like they are gonna get shunned. I don't have to agree with their choices but I don't want to shame them, because that does not help anyone.

Maybe you should too.

And in your eyes I might not be a radical feminist but I don't really care all that much about your opinion.

[themostradicalconceptussy]

Quick reminder in light of the recenent situation with Neil Gaiman

You can (and should) condemn Mr Gaiman without condoning TERFs. At the end of the day, regardless of if the report is biased by the nature of the political leanings of its reporters, we as leftist feminists (or what I see most of us self describing as anyway) preach about believing victims first and yet some of you refuse to because you disagree politically with victims. We have no evidence that this is a smear campaign, and you are all for believing victims until its a guy you have a parasocial Tumblr relationship with. Neil Gaiman is not your friend. He's not your buddy Neil, he's a random man in his 60s you've (most likely at least) never met in your fucking life. You do not know him, so don't delude yourself to think you do.

If you love or hate trans people, SA is SA, abuse is abuse. Whether he was, at best, an irresponsible BDSM partner who misused his status as a writer, or, at worst, an outright abuser, or something in between, he is not defensible here. It is of course a complex situation, and not clean cut, but we need to practice what we fuckin preach.

If we don't believe or value the experiences of victims of abuse, or other forms of crime, based on their political beliefs, that is discrimination, and contradicts everything that the community he had cultivated on Tumblr claimed to stand for. If a conservative woman was beating abused, she's still a victim and we, even as staunchly leftist progressives should listen to her, no? You don't have to agree with everyone's opinions to acknowledge their plight.

At the end of the day, what has happened is wrong, and his response was half arsed bullshit that reflected the reality presented in the allegations, and did nothing but serve to make him look worse, much like the earlier situation this year with Wilbur Soot that you may have seen me reblogging about. Bad people are bad people, and the proof is in the pudding, in this case the half arsed responses that serve only as unintentional admissions of guilt.

As for the nature of the publication, I imagine as a heavily radfem anti-trans page, it was more than happy to be the first to break the news of the bad character of a prominent trans activist in television/literature, as it fits their "TRANS = ABUSER" narrative. I do not deny that. However, the victims themselves, as far as I can tell, are evidently former fans, who present actual evidence as confirmed by Mr Gaiman's statements, and thus we know this wasn't, at least on their end, done as a TERFism motivated career assassination. If the publication took this under the guise of causing ill repute for TIRFs and progressive politics, we cannot prove that, and it does not negate the nature of what has occurred.

I'm not here to argue with TERFs, or anyone else, about the nature of gender. That's not what I want to incite, I simply want to acknowledge the glaring hypocrisy from certain people in this online space. A victim of abuse that is a radfem is still a victim, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. I can acknowledge that, because guess what? Me disagreeing with someone doesn't make them subhuman dirt that doesn't have rights. What I'm really saying in this part is, don't bring gender politics into the reblogs, I do NOT want that and I will simply block anyone trying to incite needless arguments with me or anyone else.

TLDR; BELIEVE VICTIMS AND DONT BE SELFISH DICKHEADS WHO PRIORITISE THEIR OWN ENJOYMENT OF MEDIA OVER REPERCUSSIONS FOR ARSEHOLES AND CRIMINALS BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT THE WANKER IS YOUR BESTIE AFTER HE REBLOGGED YOU ONCE. WHERE THOSE INVOLVED STAND ON GENDER POLITICS DOESNT CHANGE THE NATURE OF UNRELATED IMMORAL/CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR THEY INSTIGATED/WERE VICTIM TO.

[oneforthemunny]

ok but most to least likely to cheat? please? i love angst!

i really don't think any of them actually would. i think they're just not gross like that, and they're all lover boy coded to their core. it's webbed in all eddie dna, even the worst of them.

i can tell you why each of them wouldn't??? a fair compromise?

janitor!eddie- self explanatory. i mean this and i know it's gonna sound insane and fake and silly, but i really don't think he could find another person attractive once he met you. it's just not in his dna, no one else exists type thing. he loves you for so many reasons, and he's gonna fuck that up?? yeah, right lol.

mafia!eddie- genuinely is annoyed by most people's presence. he's busy babes, and he doesn't trust very easily. he's never been a big relationship guy, not even casual really. he's just been incredibly tunnel visioned with his own shit, that it just not a necessity. then he gets hooked once he does. really, wouldn't want to bc he doesn't trust anyone but also bc he's found the best.

older!eddie- truly is too old. too old and tired to be fucking around and playing games like that. even if he wanted to, that's embarrassing to him. being old and a fuckboy? he did that when he was in his twenties. now, he wants to settle down. wants something real.

modern!eddie- he's too pussy whipped for that. genuinely. he might think someone's pretty or nice. i think the thing with him, is he's a little too trusting sometimes, so when he meets a girl and she's nice to him he's like "oh a friend :)" when... that's not the case. that would be the closest thing to him actually cheating is she asks him stuff about the relationship and he tells her, and it's obv the other being malicious about it. then once you pointed it out, it's shut down. truly, he's just a moron, but a lover boy at heart. very much so the type if a girl flirted to say "i have a girlfriend and she's crazy. please don't touch me, she'll scalp you."

hockey!eddie- surrounded by puck bunnies, and he giggles at them when they try because??? hello??? he's clearly got you??? silly girls, you're right there! sunshine boy, he would never. you make him so happy, i don't even think he would consider it a possibility. some of his teammates cheat (obv they're hockey boys and gross) and he's so disgusted by them. even more than that, he's shocked. he genuinely thinks so lowly of them, especially if they're married and have kids. the foulest thing to him.

rockstar!eddie- i mean... once you guys are in, he's all fucking in. that's the thing about him, is he does everything so intensely. he's also had everything, all kinds of kinds, seen the world, experienced all it has to offer. and when he thinks about you compared to it, it's just not even close. he chooses you every time. i mean, you have three wedding ceremonies because he's just that into it. that into showing the world how you're together. then once the babies start coming, forget about it. he's locked in long before then, but after that? call him anti-feminist or whatever, but no other woman, person, anything on earth is better than you. it's why in the sex dungeon, he gets you a high priestess costume, because truly that's how he sees you.

cowboy!eddie- barely sees anyone anyways bc he's kinda a recluse. not the most romantic either lol, especially pre-you. he's more of like a "you can come over here" and then he's ready for you to leave after he's done. he likes his space, so once he meets you and wants you in his space? alters his routine for you? accommodates you into his life? plus you're a little kinky freaky wild and exciting like him? he's in for life. i think he can be a little bit flirty still at the beginning, just years of being a bachelor, but he'd never fuck or kiss or really engage romantically with anyone else.

dom!eddie- the closest he'd come is a threesome maybe. MAYBE. but truly, i don't think he'd want them in any other way than for his own twisted kinky fantasies with you at the center of them- like the other person involved could genuinely be anyone, he doesn't have someone in mind. but really, truthfully? everyone else bores him. he would be so bored if he was with someone who did everything he said (even tho he mocks you and tells you that's what he wants). if he was with someone who blindly obeyed without a fight, he'd be bored after twenty minutes. plus, you're his best friend, genuinely, outside of the kinky part of your relationship, you're his person. when something happens, good or bad, you're the first person he wants to tell. the first person he wants to do things with, never gets tired of doing things with, genuine best friends.

boxer!eddie- similar to those before, that he's anti social but he's mean too. like he comes across as an asshole, and is one, and he was very lonely before he met you. someone who can keep up with him, give it as good as they take it. quick witted and a little cynical and snarky, but not utter doom and gloom. he really was convinced he'd die alone, george clooney and remain an unmarried bachelor for the rest of his life, hopping from whoever to whoever (if he didn't die in the ring first) then he met you. it took him so long to build that up, get the relationship to a relationship, that he's not cheating and fucking that up. couldn't fine someone he'd want to cheat with even if he did because you're one of a kind to him.

bouncer!eddie- ok, i know i said he would, and technically he does-ish, but it's really not super intentional. he's actually stupid and thought he was being cool. anyways. he wouldn't cheat once he actually communicated and there was confirmation he was in a relationship lol. i think he'd be down for threesomes, but that's it. not genuine cheating bc he doesn't actually feel anything towards the other person other than in the moment, he's horny. especially if they're touching you, or your touching them, but that's the key right there. you have to be in it. plus, who else is gonna be freaky with him like you are? no one. and you're funny and sweet to him and exciting and like to listen to his music? in his eyes, it's a match made in heaven.

[olderthannetfic]

I think the discussion about if loli guys are into actual children misses the point tbh. Even when they’re well aware that it’s not actual children and they don’t WANT it to be and they’re specifically into the non-realism of it…. A lot of loli (and moe, which is not unrelated since it’s rooted in the aesthetics of it but applied outside the specific genre) in anime is still about this fantasy of women as helpless and innocent and needing to rely on you and, above all, not having real world problems. Granted, a lot of romantic fantasy is like that, arguably especially stuff about women aimed at men…. But I think that is what personally makes me not really want to deal with guys who are super into it that in my own personal life. Like, let’s not pretend that a certain kind of guy getting used to expecting women to be like that in anime and video games hasn’t had some real consequences for women in nerd culture who insist on being full human beings over like, the past decade and a half lol. Like it’s just hard to imagine that being the fantasy of a guy who specifically wants a take-charge, dominant, independent kind of woman over like…. Idk, lady villains stepping on his face or something, lol

I’m hardcore anti-censorship and don’t believe that preferences in romantic or sexual fantasy in fiction has an exact relationship to what we want in real life…. But it seems strange and anti-intellectual to argue that media *never* has that influence. Like, just divorce this from arguments about porn and “problematic shipping” for a second. There are a ton of people, of multiple genders but especially over age 20 or so they’re more likely to be men, who seem to think that if they’re friendly enough to someone of their preferred gender (or really, opposite gender, since this is based on an “everyone of my preferred gender is a potential partner” norm that people into the same gender just can’t assume) they’ll eventually reciprocate their feelings, or they *should*. The Nice Guy thing. Do you really think that the numerous romantic comedies that have that as a dynamic, or the video games whose “romance” mechanic is “give them gifts and talk to them enough and they’ll eventually be a love interest possibility,” doesn’t play into that at least somewhat? Like, we’re all smart enough to know that Stardew Valley and Harvest Moon aren’t like real life romance, I think…. But did you know that yet when you were 13? Do you think *everybody* who plays those knows that?

Take it out of the context of romance at all. If you’re a lawyer, how many times have you heard people who have misconceptions about what you do based on legal dramas? Or for doctors, about medical dramas?

And that doesn’t put any responsibility on the creators to change stuff (I mean, the “reward = romance” thing is just a very easy video game mechanic for instance, and programming in something that more closely resembles actual romance would be impossible, and it’s not like it’s any less realistic than like, how you fish or mine or farm in those games), it’s still on consumers to think critically (again, that the video game that has you fighting slime monsters in mines or where you grow broccoli in just a few days and harvesting crops is just one click isn’t going for realism perhaps. People wring their hands about the general popularity of farming games like it’s yearning for some political/cultural thing, and forget that the specific fantasy is it without all the toil. Just like plenty of people love playing restaurant games who work(ed) in restaurants irl and hate(d) it). But like, we talk about “society” influencing people in terms of stuff like racism and sexism. Mass media is part of society. This is why a lot of feminist criticism over the years has focused on critiquing broad patterns that recur in media, to the point that they become societal trends — and a lot of people take this in *unconsciously*.

I think what that one earlier anon meant with “especially with porn” is that porn shouldn’t be like, an exception to this. It’s kind of weird how people who are all for media analysis of problematic patterns in other kinds of media think it suddenly doesn’t apply if it’s media designed for the purpose of getting off. And sure plenty of us are into things in porn we have no desire for IRL (I love mpreg and I love kidfic, I have less than zero desire to have kids and especially be pregnant irl, to the point that it’s actually a squick for me in *het* fic), plenty of people are into specifically the fantasy version minus the Issues they have with that stuff in the IRL version. But… that’s not everyone. Some people’s porn preferences do match up with what they’re into irl. Even when they don’t, as with the loli example there’s often some other particular reason they like that

I don’t think it’s right to go around asking strangers to go around explaining their porn preferences to you, but I think it’s fair to think about it yourself (in the interest of introspection if nothing else), and to critique broad patterns in fandom, same as we would for any other kind of media. Why is porn the special exception for which all the other rules about 101 media analysis don’t apply?

--

[prickly-paprikash]

Don't you just hate it when one of the biggest grifters online decides to like a piece of media you like?

Gatekeeping is wrong. Forcing someone to like something in the specific way I interact and consume a piece of media is wrong. Art is meant to be viewed through a multitude of lenses, and each individual will have their own way of interpreting that creation. And that's good. That's fine. That's human.

But when an Anti-Woke Grifter who thinks alcoholism is a really cool personality trait and decides to brand everything about themselves as that; who has historically engaged and criticized films and shows and games and books in bad faith; who has put down women and POC's and Queer representation in media; who is one of the biggest dicks in the online space decides to actually pay attention to an art that is pretty much dipped, coated, laminated, and injected with fucking GAY, ANTI-PATRIARCHAL ENERGY—that's when I get mad.

For those not in the know, Critical Drinker has posted a review for Blue Eye Samurai, saying he likes it.

You know... Blue Eye Samurai?

The show that oozes Queer Wrath? Feminine Rage? Curb-Stomping Toxic Masculinity and the Patriarchy whenever and wherever it can? That Blue Eye Samurai?

See, he's done this before with Arcane.

He says he likes it. Him and his ilk say that, "Finally, the wokies have done something actually good!" and point to Vi and Jinx as strong female characters written well!

But they also say, dang, feels like all the men in that show are idiots and that they had to be dumbed down to make room for the rainbow-haired girlies brigade. Who have all remarked that Vi and Caitlyn's relationship is forced and being shoved down our throats because god forbid women like women!

I got sick of watching his Arcane review halfway, and this was before I knew what a douche Critical Sucker was.

So I ain't watching his Blue Eye Samurai review. Why?

His Glass Onion review was done in bad faith.

I didn't like She-Hulk, but that's because that show was a byproduct of abused VFX animators, creatively bankrupt executives, and writers desperately trying to manage a convoluted shared universe that continues to buckle under its own weight. Political Stinker over here thinks that it's pandering, stupid, feminist garbage. He is one of the biggest Anti-Feminist voices in Youtube.

Him and his incel brigade have an obsession over hating Captain Marvel and Brie Larson. These basement dwelling cucks rant and rave over a mediocre duology and an actress that just lives in their tiny heads rent-free.

He says that they are removing men from leading roles and roles of great importance!

So why would I want to listen to an inebriated libertarian's opinions on a show that has become the show for lesbians, trans mascs, and other lovely brands of gay and feminism that he oh so despises? He'll most likely praise the action and violence and shit like that, then probably say that Mizu and Taigen's homoerotic rivalry isn't gay actually. Or that Mizu and Akemi's narrative foils don't scream enemies-to-sapphics. Or that Mizu, WHO'S NAME MEANS WATER AND HER ENTIRE CHARACTER REVOLVES AROUND FLUIDITY ISN'T IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM FLUID IN HER GENDER AND SEXUALITY.

Fuck. I'm sorry. I don't even care if he doesn't say that. He's made so many disgusting, disparaging remarks about any piece of media that shows an inkling of progressive themes that what else am I supposed to expect?

If anyone watches it and sees this, lemme know. Watching an Anti-Woke bullshit video with just myself is just straight up wading through the desert without proper protection. No thanks.

Anyway watch Blue Eye Samurai again. Because I know you watched it. Watch it again. And again. And when you're done, watch Arcane. Watch She-Ra. Watch Dragon Prince. Castlevania. Watch anything "woke". Consume trans-positive shows. Make all the haters and even the ones who like it but have no ounce of media literacy irrelevant. Let them dry out and die, please.

[joesalw]

All of Taylor's albums were tailored to the most popular aesthetic at the time. She didn't make shit popular, she just adapted. Especially when she made the transition into pop music.

True. She's currently jumping fences with rep as well. Making it out to be a goth punk moment and using trendy words like 'female rage'. The album has the most romantic songs she's ever written. C'mon now. The whole record is electropop with some R&B elements thrown into the mix.

She portrays 'Lover' as her social justice warrior era. 'If I was a man, then I'd be the man'. Yeah, we've seen it Taylor. Miss 'me becoming a billionaire is good for the world because I'm a woman'. She makes herself out to be this 'feminist girl's girl' when in reality it couldn't be further from the truth. She's not a feminist and she doesn't want to be the woman that's advocating for women's rights and leads the path for the future generation of women. She wants to be the man at the top. Her motto is literally 'gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss, greenhouse gases'.

Another thing is her queer allyship. She's mentioned it when and only when it was profitable to her. During her tour she hadn't said a thing when the number of states signed anti-trans bills and the state of Tennessee where she says she lives *according to her own documentary* banned drag. I don't think she said anything about the anti-abortion legislation either. Her activist era started and ended in 2019.

Don't get me started on her position regarding the BLM movement. She only posted something because her own fans started calling her out and then declared that she's 'ferociously anti-racist'. She positioned herself as an advocate *by herself* and then immediately dipped when it stopped being as profitable. If you don't want to be dragged for your silence about social and political crises, don't proclaim yourself as an activist. Simple as that.

I've also seen the video on Youtube about TS being a narcissist (someone posted it on your blog earlier I think). And the guy in the video brought up her guitar teacher. So I looked him up and found an article where he talks about his experience with the Swifts which he got sued for later. According to the man, Taylor's mother was interested in him teaching her daughter how to play country music and was just a stage mom in general. And TS says that she'd been begging her parents to allow her learn how to play guitar and that she's self-taught. She wants her success story to be a rags to riches so bad I can't even.

She's a woman with an extremely fragile ego where millions of people could be praising her and a single negative comment would set her off. She can't handle any form of criticism, break ups or inconveniences like a grown woman simply because she doesn't have enough emotional intelligence to do so. Her being surrounded by yes men also doesn't help the situation. If i were her, I'd rather invest in a good therapist rather than 2 PJs. She drowns herself in work and relationships so she doesn't have time to go inwards and sit with her thoughts.

I kinda feel bad for her, honestly. She's been in the industry since she was 15 and her success was almost immediate. She doesn't know what the world's like because she's been sheltered her whole life and then had other people do things for her. I don't think she has many real friends as well. By real I mean people who aren't afraid to tell you the truth and are able to call you out in your face. Instead she has a bunch of people who appease her afraid of pissing her off and ending up on her bad side and as a result her vanity grows and she completely loses any sort of perspective whether in her friendships, romantic relationships or maybe even her own family.

I also wonder what she thinks about her fandom pirating her concert film instead of paying to rent it. I sort of hope that her fans are starting to wake up to her conning schemes. I mean, you've already made a shit ton of money from the theatre release, why charging 20$ more to RENT IT?Not even buy it. Or is it another narrative about how 'no one can own my work but me'?

This woman sells well but her cultural impact is almost nonexistent. She hadn't done any good for the world causes or inspired several generations of performers like Michael Jackson has with his philanthropic endeavors and incredible performing skills. The artists like Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Justin Timberlake (bleh) and The Weeknd were hugely influenced by MJ. These artist create their own unique legacy and impact on their communities. Especially the ladies. Gaga's been an avid LGBT+ advocate since the beginning of her career and created a foundation that focuses on issues like self-confidence, well-being, anti-bullying, mentoring and career development. She also participated in anti HIV and AIDS campaigns, spoke against immigration laws in the US, contributed to 2011's earthquake and tsunami relief campaign in Japan. Beyoncé's a huge advocate for the black community and black women especially which always finds its way in her work and visual art in particular. She's been platforming black culture and history for her whole career (2016 Superbowl and Coachella performance are the brightest examples of black american culture and releasing her Lion King album to showcase African artists' excellence). She also has a foundation where she provides black youth scholarships, clean water for communities abroad and housing to families in need in her home state.

What exactly makes Taylor Swift's cultural impact? Thousands of tons CO2 emissions? Music labels putting a clause in the contract so the artists can't re-record their material for 10 years now instead of 5? Making several versions of the same CD or vinyl so the sales are bigger? Mind you, that's all excessive plastic and paper. Some countries and US states are banning gas stoves. Her position regarding artists being paid during the early days of streaming (when the platforms were launching with a free period tial) was right but no one really benefited from it but her. She was shitting on Apple Music, then they offered her money, filmed an ad and released her 1989 Tour DVD exclusively on their platform. She shat on Spotify, then when LWYMMD came out, she was all over their biggest playlists all of a sudden and recorded Spotify Singles later on. Spotify's always promoted her every release like a motherfucker shoving her in every corner of the platform. Especially for the past 3 years. She doesn't have any memorable outfits or unique style to be called a fashion icon either. She's not a trailblazer she thinks she is. She is only popular because a lot of people *mostly ww* who peaked in high school see themselves in her. She's average in everything she does, her writing topes are also the same (only now she started using compound or uncommonly used words to mask it) but she's extremely commercially successful so that those people can see themselves in her. She doesn't have unique music style or chameleon-like discography like Gaga, Bey, MJ, Madonna, Shakira, Kelly Clarkson, Miley Cyrus or Nelly Furtado. She doesn't have a unique singing voice like Bjork, David Bowie, Freddie Mercury, Janis Joplin, MJ or Bob Dylan. She's no instrument prodigy either. And swifties say that 'Michael couldn't play any instruments'. Well, he was an exceptional beatboxer. She can strum 4 guitar chords and play basic piano, that's it. She doesn't have an outstanding dancing and/or vocal skill.

What is she gonna be remembered for? Her numerous relationships with famous men? While that might be misogynistic or sexist to some degree, she's the one who makes her relationships the centre of her music and public persona and brings them up even 10 years after they ended. Her public feuds with men and women that she can't get over years after? This woman is certainly can hold a grudge and is extremely vindictive. The leader of a parasocial cult that blindly defends her bigotry? I believe so. I don't think I've ever seen a fandom as toxic and as hive-minded as swifties. And again, it's Taylor's own creation. She's the one that constantly says 'look closely for the easter eggs' in her content making her fans theorize on every aspect of her life, or 'if you're very loyal I might invite you to MY HOUSE and you can listen to the new album early, we'll take pics and I'll bake you some cookies'. Of course they'll follow your any order. I'm glad I escaped.

Oof, I'll stop here. That's a very long one already

sorry hehe

.

[girl4music]

So I’ve been spending these passed couple of days off work researching cast/crew interviews about ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’ and a good few of them I’ve found have been Renee O’Connor interviews where she talks about the significance of Gabrielle as a character and how she relates to Xena. How she personally perceives the nature of the relationship between them. Renee has always perceived it as definitely romantic but not necessarily sexual. She’s always perceived Xena and Gabrielle as best friends in love rather than an actual official couple. Rather than sexually involved lovers. And it’s interesting to read her views of the characters and their relationship together through this lens because she - like me - seems to come at it from a much more profound and spiritual perspective. It really does make me wonder what she would think and tell me if she ever read my character study thesis because I think she would agree with it to be honest. She’d resonate with the theory that the characters were so intertwined with each other emotionally and intimately that they were one soul inhabiting two bodies that became each other at the conclusion.

It’s just the way she talks about the characters and their relationship together makes me think that way. Take for example this interview from way back in 2010. The way she expresses her views about both Xena and Gabrielle here and their love relationship.

WVM: “As I wrote on my blog today, to a true Xena fan, I’m probably the nightmare, because I’ve never seen the show. Now I’m intrigued, and I want to catch up on the series. So tell me: who is Gabrielle? What should I look out for as I watch?”

ROC: “In the beginning, she is very naïve, with an intense desire to search for who she is. Then she starts to be the counterbalance to Xena’s pragmatic warrior, so she becomes more of the peaceful, compassionate, loving partner to Xena’s person-seeking-redemption. Xena the Warrior Princess is looking for redemption, and Gabrielle is guiding her there in some profound way. I think that if you thought of the whole arc of the series, that’s what you could say. Xena discovers true love in Gabrielle. What else should you look for? In the beginning, she’s one of those people who can get herself out of any situation through fast talking. By the end of the series, she actually gets herself out of situations by using her own physical strength, fighting alongside Xena.”

WVM: “She’s also a bard. What does that mean, in Xena terms?”

ROC: “Gabrielle is a great storyteller. She loves to meet the poets along the way. Even at the end of the series — she admires Sappho’s poetry, and so Xena gives her this gift, a poem to her from Sappho. Gabrielle is the person who writes down and archives the adventures of Xena all along the way. Then she puts them in these scrolls, which are her prized possessions, and she carries them on all their journeys. So one great piece of humor is when Xena discovers that she can’t find any paper in the forest, so she uses one of the scrolls, rips off a piece of one.”

WVM: “That kind of paper? Toilet paper?”

ROC: “Yes! There was a wonderful lightness in the series. There were feminist themes, anti-war themes. But also humor. I still remember that scene: “Scrolls? You used my scrolls?”

It’s still the ultimate buddy movie, too. [Gabrielle and Xena] could always rely on each other. We always loved each other, too, so whenever a tragic flaw came over one of us, we always came through to the other side still loving each other.”

WVM: “But it’s my understanding that they were never depicted as lovers outright.”

ROC: “That was asked today. Someone said, “Do you think they ever basically made love,” is what the question was. That’s been the question of subtext for all these years. There was an incredible intimacy between Xena and Gabrielle. I don’t know if I said, “Yes” or “Probably.” If so, Lucy [Lawless, who played Xena] and I never defined that in playing the characters.

It’s a relationship I don’t think I’ve ever had: it’s best friends, it’s maternal, it’s combative — such as in warfare when you have to rely on your partner to think quickly.”

WVM: “There’s also an element of big sister/little sister, isn’t there?”

ROC: “Yeah, and yet I felt Xena was quite maternal, too. Xena defended Gabrielle. I don’t know if she sacrificed herself. It’s more than just a sexual intimacy. But that’s what people saw, so that’s what they could resonate with the most.”

WVM: “We don’t often get to see women’s friendship treated in this kind of depth. Usually the depictions are pretty superficial, or they don’t take up much screen time. And men — myself included — are always certain that there’s more going on and much more said between women when we’re not in the room.”

ROC: “Interesting. That’s the mind of a man!”

Renée recalled a scene between Xena and Gabrielle that demonstrated the characters’ closeness.

ROC: “We were around the campfire talking about a recap of what happened in the episode, some sort of change in the character had happened, and it was an intimate, vulnerable moment, and it happened around the campfire. I think there’s a moment of intimacy when people are vulnerable and open and loving, and I guess that’s where the “dot dot dot” comes in.

It’s funny you say that [about women’s friendships], because I think women are probably more threatened [than men] by seeing someone they love in an intimate relationship with someone else. Women feel that way. As opposed to something that looks — something that might just be a lustful projection. Isn’t that true?”

WVM: “I think guys tend to congratulate each other, rather than feel threatened. Maybe they’re hurt when feeling left out, like “I can’t hang out with my buddy because he’s out with his girflriend.”

While Renée reflected on this, I observed that, at the convention, it was clear that a number of the women present at the convention considered Xena and Gabrielle as models for their own loving relationships with other women. Renée cautioned that her perspective shouldn’t be taken as authoritative, merely because she played one of the characters, but she does understand the interpretation.

ROC: “I have to embrace that, because truly the lesbian community is still our most loyal following, definitely, after all these years. So if that’s what they want to see, absolutely, go for it, sure.”

WVM: “Is it flattering to be viewed this way by a community, that you’re telling their stories?”

ROC: “You know, I come at it from the other angle. I’m almost worried — and I’m not a worrisome person — but I worry about misrepresenting the community, because I don’t expect to be iconic. I can’t represent them in a way that is truly truthful, and so I don’t know that I should be the spokesperson. [That is to say, because she’s a straight woman in real life.]

I think people resonate with me personally because of the person I am. I care about the fans, I really do. I want them to be happy. I want them to feel like they can stand up and say, “I’m gay,” and be fulfilled in so many ways and never be discriminated against. That’s what’s important in what they see in me. I don’t want them to feel isolated or feel like they have to hide or feel ashamed. And I think the young girls feel that way because they don’t have anyone to talk to and they don’t know what to do. I have felt that in my life, and so I feel like I want to say to them, “You don’t have to do that, you can stand up and be who you are.”

WVM: “A lot of people identify very closely with Gabrielle’s spiritual journey.”

ROC: “I don’t know that she meant it to be a spiritual journey. I think she was trying to search for her individual way. There was an element to the spiritual quest there, but I don’t think it was isolated around spirituality. You know, there are just some people who feel incongruent, they have different aspects and they don’t line up. They feel conflicted. [Gabrielle] was in love with someone who was a warrior and was killing people, and yet Gabrielle wanted the life of a compassionate pacifist. So how does she do that? That was how I came at it.”

WVM: “I should probably use the word “meaning” rather than “spirituality.”

ROC: “Yes, yes, looking for meaning, sure.”

Left the link to the original source if you’d like to read the whole interview. I’ve just transcribed a small part of it. But isn’t it interesting though that Renee views the characters and the way they relate to each other in their friendship romantically but not sexually. I obviously perceive Xena and Gabrielle as a couple so I do think they have sex - it’s just not for us to see on-screen - but I do think they focus more so on the emotional and spiritual connection between them - which I do believe is what makes them an epic romance/love story as opposed to any other WLW ship that there is that is represented to be explicitly sexual.

Xena and Gabrielle really are a very special WLW ship in that you can either view them just as friends and completely platonically if you like… or not. At the end of the day what matters is the love they have is so real and deep and strong that it goes beyond sex and romance. It’s not just Renee that will tell you this out of the cast/crew of ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’ regardless of how they personally perceive the characters and the nature of their relationship together. They all will. But I just think Renee is the best at explaining this because she really gets down to the core of who the characters are and how they relate to each other which is why I think she would agree with my thesis.

SOURCE: http://billmadison.blogspot.com/2010/09/interview-renee-oconnor.html?m=1

[the-chemist-1138]

Disney's Frozen is a testament to how many ideas were wasted. And how little in common it has with the source material.

If you read it's inspiration, "The Snow Queen", by Hans Christian Anderson, you can see just how little in common Disney's Cash Cow has with that fairy tale. The fairy tale had so many elements that for some reason, Disney either removed, or changed so much, it might as well been removed...

A grand adventure, worthy of The Hero's journey, not just through the snow. We Start out with our two protagonists. Two youngsters named Kai and Gerda. A Boy and a Girl.

A grand scope of different visuals. A working class village, a vast and colorful flower garden, a grand castle with moving shadows of dreams, a golden carriage, a decayed Robber fortress, a reindeer ride under a sky lit up by northern lights. An Ice Palace.

You already have two characters of equal importance that Disney could have used to appeal to both girls and boys.

Plus, with Kai loving Roses and not being bothered with being best friends with a girl, something taboo in 1844 when the original fairy tale was written, Disney could have been bold and encouraged boys and girls to be platonically intimate, and they could have told boys that it's okay to have feminine interests, to be softies and that you don't have to see every girl as only a potential romantic partner.

For Gerda, you could show girls that you aren't forced to see boys as only romantic partners, and you could have made Gerda a Tomboyish Disney Princess, given her adventurous spirit, determination, and her willingness to get her hands dirty, while also contrasting previous princesses by having her be working class, and not being the damsel, but instead the rescuer, for someone she knows well and loves platonically already, instead of a prince.

Although if Disney decided to make them a couple in adulthood, you could at least make it a "Childhood Friend Romance", not unlike Simon and Nala.

If Disney wanted to poke fun at the "You can't marry a man you just met." You can counter it by having Gerda and Kai, as mentioned before, be adults that know each other well from being childhood friends, thus knowing each other and having a healthy relationship.

In the original fairy tale, Kai gets kidnapped by The Snow Queen. Gerda is the girl saving the boy in this case. You could show boys that it's okay to need saving, and it's not a weakness to need help. Plus Disney could have made jokes where they point out the gender reversed damsel in distress scenario.

For Gerda, you could also show her receiving help, to show a woman being helped out by OTHER WOMEN, and that it's okay to not be perfect and that you don't need to be a lone wolf.

Disney had a great roster of female characters from various walks of life, all of whom have their own goals and agency. More detail is made on another person's blog here. In short, Frozen ends up ber much LESS feminist friendly than the source material.

Plus, the fairy tale had a lesbian coded robber girl! Whom Disney could have made into their first openly gay female character.

The Snow Queen could have been a mysterious anti villain whose goals are intentionally made unclear. To contrast with previous Disney Villains.

Nobody dies in the original fairy tale, so you don't have to alter it much.

You could still emphasize the importance of platonic love. in this case, between a boy and girl, without them being related.

How did Disney reject all of those ideas? How did it take them since the 1930s to try and adapt this story? It was like they were presented with a bottle of high quality vodka... That they proceeded to water down, until the vodka gave up and turned itself into lukewarm water. Why Disney? Why didn't you use any of these ideas?

[absolutebl]

Hi.

I was watching TharnType for the first time. I started wondering why people have issues with gay for you and wifey and other things like that. From what I'm seeing it isn't intended in a harmful spirit. It's not received badly in the show in context. I'm not just specifically talking about TharnType but just these tropes in general. I was wondering if someone, the writer/screenwriter, director, any actor or someone else said that they'd intended it as demeaning or in a bad way... I don't know if I phrased that correctly. But I guess I'm wondering what people are basing this on. Even UWMA's Pharm's entire demeanor. Before I watched it I'd read that he is too feminine and damsel in distress-y. But watching the show made me realize that he is traumatized. I noticed similar patterns with other shows as well. Is it audience interpretations?

BL Is a Mess of Really Damaging Stuff & You Probably Shouldn't Just Accept it

Because, if you do just accept it without thought, you're also being damaged. If you're gay, you're being taught a type of gayness that doesn't exist and will fuck up your expectations. If you're straight you're misinterpreting what an entire group of people are like (that's prejudice, FYI). And if you're somewhere in between you're learning really bad behavior patterns for your coming out and self actualization journey.

And no, I don't think you're capable of distinguishing fiction from reality, because you've just asked a question that patently demonstrates a burgeoning parasocial tendency. (And yes, parasocial relationships can and do form with fictional characters. Why do you think I am so terrified by KinnPorsche fandom and shipper culture?)

Here have some education, first one is free:

Imaginary Friends & Real-World Consequences: Parasocial Relationships (YouTube video)

But also, if you don't want me to rant about this, and you just wanted to justify your questionable taste, you should stop reading right now. I get it, denial is great! Go sail that river.

Here I am talking about the good BL can do. That doesn't mean I'm blind to its flaws.

Still reading?

Okay, well, now you asked for it.

And guess what, I'm not gonna sugar lube coat it.

Consider yourself Drunk Type lying in a bed and I'm Tharn's c*** shoving some dry BL reality into your a******.

Oh, don't like that image, do you?

Tough nuts.

Put yourself in my position. I don't wanna have to do this either.

Consider this a "BL narratives made me do it" post.

I'm not responsible for anything, I'm just an archetype.

I'll be your seme for today and you were all just "too cute" for me to resist and now you have to take some tumblr dub con...

But first:

Seme uke when it specifically conflates seme with "the man" and uke with "the girl" is old fashioned, anti-feminist, and anti-queer. Here's some of where I talk about it, but I talk about it a lot. Too much, some might say.

Pharm is a blushing maiden archetype character, I talk about it and what that means here:

It's sex negative. And a lot of it stems from internalized misogyny and ties to something called benevolent sexism. It's pretty rampant in BL.

Yes I think Pharm's behavior can be perceived as traumatized, but that trauma is brought about by In's past actions and the fact that In was punished (BY THE NARRATIVE) not just for being gay but for being a self-actualized pro-sex uke character.

There is a distinction being made between critical discourse over narrative versus how the characters behavior makes an audience feel (within the immersive experience of the drama). Some viewers care about this distinction, others do not.

I very much get why someone might like TharnType (I did) but actually also, you might want to think about why you like it despite the messages the narrative is sending... You might want to think about not just the characters in their little perfect romance world together, but consider if you were in the position of either of those characters how you would feel or behave.

And NOW the Dub Con Portion of tonight's BL party

Okay I was trying to be my usual semiseme-welcoming snark self but ya know what, let's be VERY FUCKING CLEAR HERE because I am jet lagged and tetchy....

We (the collective of BL critics here on tumblr) aren't always talking about WHAT is depicted so much as HOW it's depicted, and whether that HOW allows the WHAT to skate by without encouraging the audience to reflect on the damage the WHAT does to their own perception of what is romantic. Or what is queer. Or what is morally acceptable for decent human interaction.

Like thinking, for example, that it's okay for Tharn to RAPE Type while he is drunk.

Why on earth is that okay? It's NOT OKAY. It's just NOT!!!!

Did Type ask for it?

Did he dress too sexy?

Was his skirt too short?

Was he too much of a jerk?

Did he want it anyway?

Did he not protest enough?

Did he protest too much?

You gonna make that call for him, are you? You read his mind (apparently the way Tharn can?)

But SERIOUSLY.

What if you were actually in Type's position? Roommates with someone you didn't like who molested you when you were drunk. At home. In your own bed. What if that roommate didn't look like Tharn? What if your roommate were the wrong gender or body type or age or familial relationship (!) for your preferences? How would you actually feel?

Because if you're okay with this, really okay for yourself, you have a strong kink and you need to seek out the appropriate community or you are signing up for a very abusive relationship and likely an early death.

Can't put yourself in Type's shoes/bed?

How about Tharn?

Are you the kind of human who would molest a drunk person just because you desired him? Her?

Because they're homophobic and you want to punish them with your queerness?

Because they were a jerk to you?

You always get back at people by raping them?

You an old white dude putting your hand down secretary's shirts because they're just "too cute to resist"?

Why should you have to resist taking what you want? Who cares that there is a whole other human involved?

Grabbing ladies by the pussy any chance you get and bragging about it, are ya? Or is it somehow different or less damaging because TT is dude on dude?

So, are you gonna justify taking what you want and violating another person because they're the same sex?

Now who's being "gay for you"? This is going all the way into DL closet case "it doesn't count if it's with a man" territory.

Because if you are any of the above 8, please block me right tf now. (And... do I have a world leader to recommend for YOU to get into a car with.)

GAH!

Fucking TharnType.

Anygay...

I talk about dub con here:

My initial post about TharnType is here, but more recently here's us having a whole ThanType discourse unpacking Mame among other things as part of the BL movement both as a genre and as a fandom:

and here's an important article on rape culture in Thailand

Gay for you talked about here:

Wife language talked about here:

I'm gonna go watch some BL trash that, hopefully, doesn't have any rape in it. (You never know tho...)

Fuck me (consensually) I am so tired.

I'd drink but I did too much of that already this week.

Maybe I need to eat something.

Don't troll m,e just block me.

For heaven's sake please.

(source)

[marshbarks]

In theory I would enjoy stendyle but the anti-cartman attitude in that circle of fandom ruins it for me. I'm also just very picky with how Wendy is betrayed. I think she's more of a tomboy than the fandom wants to admit

HONESTLY. you're not wrong. i enjoy the ship only when im looking at it and applying the mental notes of my Own headcanoning and whatnot.

like any area has a really loud "cartman bad no ifs and or buts" and i'm such a fan of Nuance so its SO SAD. i cannot deny, as a teenager i was also NOT a fan of him- but as an adult with media literacy im like. obsessed with the idea of analyzing him.

which. i got outta hand. adhd and stream of consciousness, y'know how it goes sometimes haha. lemme read more this.

and the stendyle stuff SUCKS bc its so like yeah. fuck that guy. but ???? why. i don't think thsoe three dating WOULD really change their opinions on him as a whole. kyle and stan ARE his friends. even if theyre always at each others throats, they ARE friends. and wendy and cartman aren't like. besties. but i think that their competition towards each other can be really fun bc shes not afraid to stand up to him- like even less nervous about it than kyle is. and i think she sorta seems to revel in having someone who she CAN get into little picky bitchy moments with because its something she's not offered often.

so YES. i do think that those three would hang out on a date and someone would bring him up and they'd be bitches for a minute bc he gets on their nerves, but i don't understand why so much of the fandom is like yeah fuck cartman all my homies HATE cartman. he is ten years old + heavily abused + has an unhealthy relationship with basically everyone who should have raised him. that's not even TOUCHING on his actual trauma. but we've been shown, TWICE, canonically, how he can grow up into a better person- not perfect and not 'fixed', but he can be better, so i don't get why everyones like yeah. that thing is the worst in the world forever with no room for discussion.

-

as far as wendy's portrayal by the fandom i gotta agree. she's always been the fish out of water of the girls canonly, and i think too many people just sorta boil her down again to like. pretty. smart. awkward. they bring up that time she fought cartman and enjoy it but like. she gets treated like either Girl Kyle or.. Pretty but Shy or something??

she's never doing the Trends with the other girls at first, and i know she's the like "awkward" girl out of everyone, so she's used as an offset for Whatever Shit the other girls are getting into. but she's NOT shy and awkward or anything! she's loud and proud until she's beaten down. she's opinionated and chooses not to engage with trends and i think a lotta ppl see that she's a very feminist character and theyre like yes! thats the Girl™

but i think. personally. that wendyl was a really really awesome move. i wish more people would play with that idea, of wendy being ABLE to be less of a Girl for a while, even without bringing the transgender stuff into the picture. she can be boyish and wanna be crude and weird. she's educated and smart, but that doesn't mean she isn't ALSO a sorta tomboy? like she's so cool. i love wendy. so much.

and so many ppl also sorta just make her Girl Kyle which. don't even get me started. i think that drawing comparisons between them as "stan has a type" can be VERY FUNNY but too many people push it too far? so they basically treat her like she's just a stand-in for kyle. but she literally isn't. she's so fucking COOL by herself.

AND like you pointed out- her reaction to stans cvs!! yes she goes "ew!" "gross!" but she. listen. the girl still kisses him while after he finishes spitting the last of it out. i think if she was allowed to just be boyish and no one stopped her then she'd have so much fun hanging out with The Guys.

[lovemyromance]

Sometimes I genuinely question the sanity of this fandom. Like I think some people have gone so extreme in one direction ... they've landed right in the same spot again, if that makes sense.

I'm sure regardless of who your favorite character is - we all read these same books so we all love a strong, powerful FMC. We love the chosen one long lost princess who kicks ass, has a bit of a mouth on her, and goes toe to toe with some "my job is sword" Ken.

We love it. Eat that shit up.

But I think the frequency - and bear with me bc imma make this word up - and tropefication of this romantasy genre has really made people lose their grounding, forget our roots and common sense, so to speak.

For example, let's take the enemies to lovers trope. Of course there's something so hot and exciting about two enemies who hate each other but fall in love. I love it. That's arguably my favorite.

But I think people are forgetting that despite the over saturation of this trope in the current market - It doesn't make any "non" enemies to lovers books any less romantic, any less exciting. Love is expressed and can be written in many different ways. Love can and will be written in the way that is most honest to people, and that extends to even fictional characters.

People are just so caught up in what has become the new norm that they are forgetting everything about real life, real people. They've adapted a "if it's not like this - I don't want it" attitude that might be doing more harm than good.

And I say that because I just witnessed all the drama that was Elain week when people were defending fictional abusers with their entire lives instead of just respecting a boundary set by a real person to respect others.

And I say that because I still see the stupid "pliable bones arguement"

And I say that because I mentioned once that I'd rather wait for Gwyn to show interest in someone romantically before claiming all these theories about her since she has very recent SA trauma - and then instead of people saying that makes sense, I had all these people saying I was anti-feminist and disrespectful to SA victims.

In what world is giving someone the time and space they need to recover from SA suddenly a bad thing? It doesn't even have to do with ships - it has to do with a character clearly being not ready to go out into the real world at the end of the book and deciding that maybe she needs more time to heal. Nobody's out here saying SA victims in general can never be in romantic relationships - all I've said is that specific character does not seem ready. When she shows interest in someone, I will take it as she is ready. I personally do not feel comfortable shipping someone with such recent trauma with someone-especially someone who is supposed to be her trainer and someone safe - unless they show me something that signifies actual interest.

And I understand the whole "empowering women" argument. But I want to ask - is that what we're doing?

Are you really empowering women? Or are you being disrespectful and a faux-activist under the guise of "women's empowerment?"

I don't care that these are fictional characters. The minute people start disrespecting real people over these fictional characters means that these characters mean more to those folks than actual people. And therein lies the problem.

These are real people that are getting called such ugly, rude names. And for what? To defend someone's "rights" to draw pictures of abusers? To defend someone's womanhood by disregarding her SA trauma?

It's tasteless. It's not just "fandom behavior". Fandom is not some lawless land where you can be a heinous human being and interact with real people disrespectfully. I've never seen it this bad and I'm genuinely shocked at what it's become.

[dykesbites]

“i haven’t heard anything about feinberg and radfeminism.” = “i don’t listen to transbians.” typical tmebian, but i will help you. check out adrienne rich’s contributions and support to transsexual empire and her relationship with feinberg. you may also want to read these posts:

https://www.tumblr.com/gatheringbones/760796977955995648

https://www.tumblr.com/plaidos/760581707849203713/i-wonder-what-you-make-of-leslie-feinbergs

https://www.tumblr.com/plaidos/761892639272468480/how-could-xyz-be-a-terf-if-theyre-literally

when i got that ask i searched for evidence on tumblr and the internet and found just that third link, which doesn't actually give any evidence that feinberg associates w terfs. i didn't find anything else online, so i responded asking for clarification.

first link doesn't work. regarding the second link, i haven't actually read sbb so i can't speak on how trans women are treated in it.

here's the description from the post by plaidos: "transfems are treated in Stone Butch Blues in very much the same way cis women would be by a misogynistic writer who still “loves & appreciates” women; they exist to give emotional support to the Real Main Characters whilst reminding us how hard and complicated it is to be a transsexual, whilst ALSO reminding us how we exist to be rewards for other people’s self-improvement journey".

i'm not going to dismiss that assessment. if that's how it comes across to plaidos, and other transfems agree with her opinion, then i'm sure its accurate. but it's probably not something a tme person would be able to detect, and it seems like the sort of fumble a well intentioned ally would make. that doesn't make it okay, or make sbb/feinberg immune to criticism, but i think it's a stretch to consider that as evidence that s/he was a transmisogynist? it's fairly common to make mistakes or have an inaccurate view of people you're attempting to ally with. again, that doesn't make those mistakes okay, but it also doesn't make you a terf. if feinberg wasn't friends with many other transfems/tma people and didn't fight for their rights, i'd be less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt

now when i looked up adrienne rich, this came up

Wikipedia text: Janice Raymond, in the foreword of her 1979 book The Transsexual Empire, thanked Rich for "constant encouragement" and cited her in the book's chapter "Sappho by Surgery." "The Transsexual Empire" is considered by some LGBT and feminist critics to be transphobic, and many have criticized Rich for her involvement in and support of its production. While Rich never explicitly disavowed her support for Raymond's work, Leslie Feinberg cites Rich as having been supportive during Feinberg's writing of Transgender Warriors. End transcript.

yeah, this sucks. i haven't read transsexual empire so again, idk. i don't have a lot to go off here so it may be worse than this wikipedia article makes it out to be, but from what i can tell, feinberg mentions having talked to someone who contributed to someone else's transphobic book. this again, seems like kind of a stretch? its entirely possible feinberg didn't know, or that feinberg was under the impression that rich could be persuaded to understand the trans perspective on transsexual empire. this also doesn't imply anything about their relationship, there's nothing here or anywhere else i can find that suggests they were anything more than acquaintances.

here are the three citations next to the last sentence from the wikipedia article: Diving Into the Wreck / "What Kind of Times Are These?" / Was Adrienne Rich Anti-Trans? first and second links are written by trans women. none of them make a solid connection between rich and feinberg

i appreciate you taking the time to provide links and follow up when i asked for more information, and im absolutely open to further discussion (other tma people are encouraged to weigh in!)