#because her character was not written as a black woman role. she was not stereotypical. she was a fully realised person who happened to be

[proudfreakmetarusonikku]

before i go to bed bc i have been doing a lot of research- it’s *intensely* funny people whine about “gene's vision” whenever star trek is mildly transgressive like. i mean for one the dude stuffed the series with as much sex as he could in the time periods he was alive if he saw modern star trek and what’s possible on the air nowadays he'd probably say it needed to be way hornier lol. but also like. gene was progressive in his time outside of his fucking ridiculous level of misogyny. and even with that people who were Not Gene because turns out multiple people are involved in production of a whole tv show were often progressive in that area including women who obviously didn’t share the nightmare sexism gene had. and the series heavily reflected that, even if it’s not obvious today (since progressive for the 60s is usually intensely bigoted now). if the series wanted to be accurate to that it should actually be way more transgressive to the point it makes blunders bc the writers are tired from arguing with network executives. where’s the equivalent of the first interracial kiss on television guys ur playing it way too safe.

[the-cat-and-the-birdie]

Are we ever gonna talk about how ATSV has the most SUBPAR representation of POC girls.

The three young POC girls are all written extremely flatly or poorly.

Margo is all but ignored by the movies. All other teens get full intros. All of them, EXCEPT Margo. Ben Reilly, a joke character, gets more lines than her, despite her being more important to the plot.

Peni is often stereotyped and boiled down to the 'Japanese magical girl' trope - to the point it effects her art style.

Gayatri hardly gets any lines. Her scene and plot line is good but like Margo, she's written to be a footnote in her make counterparts story (Gayatri to Pavitr, and Margo to Miles)

Then the other two POC women are relegated to mother roles.

Like.... There are no fully-fleshed out black women in the entirety of the series. Am I tripping? Am I forgetting someone?

The only POC woman that is completely fleshed out is Rio and that's because she's Miles literal mom.

There isn't a single POC girl that gets reoccurring lines and doesn't tie directly to a boy character.

We've never seen a universe of a POC Spiderwoman. When it comes to Jess and Margo we know basically nothing about their backgrounds.

It bothers be so much. That's why it bothers me when people hate on FlowerByte. Like.. that's what youre mad about? Not the fact that an entire gender of POC people are erased/watered down in both movies??? Really????

[pinkomcranger]

my thoughts on Saga Anderson and the lack of spotlight on her in fanworks

Hmmm…this has been bothering me since I waded into the fandom after AW2 dropped. WHY DOES 99.9% OF THE FANDOM SLEEP ON SAGA WHILE IT'S HALF HER GAME???

I DON'T understand the fixation on Casey (even though I adore him and he's the other half of my OTP), or Zane to the point that when Saga is in ensemble art, she's relegated to being the "bro". And for what purpose? She has just as much build up and storyline as Alan himself. She certainly has more screen time than FBI Casey. I see posts going "oh, I love Saga so much, she was so badass" and then almost nothing when it comes to fan work.

Do y'all understand, how, as a black woman, this frustrates me to NO end? I go to her tag on AO3, see new fics, get excited...just to see she's the bro or footnote to CaseyWake. I've literally been brought to TEARS over this. Saga was written with SO much love and care, and it's so obvious. She was not the stereotypical sassy, angry, loud black woman that we tend to get when we're even thought of at all.

And it's genuinely PAINFUL to see all of the love, all of that care, ALL OF THAT RESPECT, IGNORED by fandom because you want to focus on the white men. Because why? I get it, het is so icky for most of you, fine. But to not even give her fanart/fics just on her and her daughter? It's terribly egregious.

Saga Anderson is genuinely a role model. She's smart, warm, funny, dedicated, sympathetic and passionate. She will change REALITY just to save the ones she loves. She's NEVER had to deal with anything like the Bright Falls situation and she came through it with such GRACE. She saved the fucking day. She did what Alan couldn't do in THIRTEEN YEARS. And she gets no recognizance in fanworks?

And I know the majority of this fandom happens to be made up of women, at least for fanworks. You truly mean to tell me you can't, at all, even a little bit, relate to this woman? You can't make her the focus, instead of a background character? The white men are easier to understand and draw/write for?

I can't tell anyone who to like, or who to ship, nor would I ever try to, because on the internet, it seems like het is icky despite how amazing the woman is. But I've seen comments towards andercase fanart going "Saga, no, you're married!" But shipping CaseyWake in the same breath, despite Alan being married and getting back to his wife being the main motivation for Alan to do anything at all.

It comes off as hypocritical, it comes off a wee bit "I don't know what to do with this black woman...hmm, let's just make her root for CaseyWake" I'm left feeling that Sam and the team love Saga more than the fans ever do or will. And that fucking sucks. Because to put so much thought into a character and love the character, just to be ignored?

That hurts, really really badly. I genuinely enjoyed feeling like I was represented. I loved having a character I could relate to, one I could understand. But it feels like I'm in the minority. When she tells Alan he's not alone in this, this is THEIR story...well, that was the truth for me, and I wish others felt the same way.

I genuinely adore the works Saga has gotten that focus on her, and I see so much love and care put into them. It just somehow feels like fandom made this game into CaseyWake 24/7 and it's icky.

[ride-thedragon]

Part 1: Why is Nettles black?

TLDR: George subverts a bunch of stereotypes specifically tied to black women in media with Nettles, she's black, innocent, not practising magic, young, doesn't nurture or take care of anyone and her own sexual experiences aren't exploited in her narrative rather in a projection of someone. The closest she comes to any other race is when they call her a dragon lady at the end, which is an Asian stereotype but not something invoked to critique. Nettles is black.

So I said it before, but now again, this is a two part post because when it comes to this character, I think the relevance of her race is often lost because of what is percieved as a greater narrative purpose. But Nettles race and specifically her being black is important to her story. The next part will delve into her role in the narrative as a black girl, but this part is generally why I can say she's black with confidence using the written narrative.

STEREOTYPES/ TROPES

There are multiple stereotypes used to box black women in specifically from the inception of race in media. Some of the most prominent are the (in great reduction to the nuance):

Sapphire: angry, loud, and rude black woman

Jezabel: sex driven, lust bound, and seductive black woman

Mammy: nurturing, sexless and typcially bigger black woman.

Magical black woman: linked to some sort of witchcraft practice but not central to the narrative. Not to be confused with the magical negros trope which is different.

Tragic Mulatto: mixed raced stereotype that they belong no where.

Ghetto: I saw this recently, but this is basically the hood girl trope.

Grown black girl: this is when they treat black girls as older than they are, like adults when they are kids.

These concepts have smaller sub tropes, and there are more stereotypes, but even to this extent, there is a battle with media literacy when it comes to the way people see black female characters in media.

For the sake of Nettles, we'll be covering all in the next part. Along with the history, seeing as most if not all the origins for these tropes can be found in Slavery.

SUBVERSIONS.

With the sapphire trope, George manages to give Nettles these characteristics and add on to them, so while they are a part of her character, there is depth and nuance. She is rude, called foul-mouthed in the narrative, but she is also fearless and smart. She never gets angry in the written narrative, but she does cry and mourn and show an emotional intelligence we don't get from all her peers. She defies the expectation of a rude, lowborn character being crass, lusty or power hungry, and jealous alone.

The Jezabel story is a perverse fantasy. A black woman is solely driven by lust and desire, nothing more than a sexual object. It's a trope that actively harms young black girls as well. So, in the books, whether or not you believe Nettles has sex, she isn't solely there for it. She isn't just there to have sex with Daemon, and when it is brought up, the men around her prioritise the innocence of her youth rather than the treason she is said to commit.

Nettles doesn't really fit the many trope as she is younger than the trope typically allows for but within the narrative of all the connections we could've gotten we got one with a Prince rather than with children to communicate the fact that she loves but she isn't a care taker.

The magical black woman stereotype or black witch stereotype is rooted in the both spirituality and abuse. White women would use both the Jezabel stereotype and this one to claim that the reason their husbands would sleep with the enslaved women of the plantation were because they were sexually deviant seductresses who ensnared the men basically.

This is the clearest stereotype George both evokes and subverts. He purposefully wrote that in to draw a real world parallel and subverting it in his book.

Lastly, the tragic mulatto stereotype is the trope of two white for the black side to black for the white side. Basically, they are sad because they have nowhere to belong. Interestingly, George doesn't use this at all. Which to me was an indicator that Nettles doesn't have this complex. All the people of colour, especially the brown skinned ones, have a complex relationship with the Valyrians, but Nettles doesn't.

ONE EXCEPTION.

This isn't really an exception, but more so a name he uses that is tied to a trope. Nettles is called a dragon lady out of context of the stereotypes in the books. The reason I brought it up was because a lot of people seem to think Nettles could be any kind of brown in the narrative, which isn't exactly correct. The dragon lady stereotype is tied to many Asain women, but the content of it isn't tied to Nettles past the name.

I think we have moved past the need for the Ghetto trope. It's basically someone who grew up in an urban, low income area and whose behaviour represents the culture there. I don't think Nettles is a victim of Reaganomics so I don't think she's affected by this.

Nettles is also purposefully treated as a young lady in the narrative. She's the Westeros equivalent of 18 and is treated by the men of her narrative as a girl. She's called a child, said to be innocent and freed from her sentence because of it. The exception to this is with Daemon Targaryen, who sexualises her narrative, but it isn't meant to be explotative AS IT IS WRITTEN. It's presented as love.

OVERALL.

George uses black women stereotypes and tropes in media and subverts them with Nettles. He specifically uses her appearance to justify it and allows him to communicate with race without saying it out loud. Nettles is a black character written in a story where she can defy the media conventions of her identity. She is back for a reason and none at all.

[gutfaced]

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐁𝐋𝐄𝐌 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐓 𝟏𝟏; 𝐈𝐍𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐓 𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐘𝐀𝐋 𝐎𝐅 𝐀 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐘

hi! this post has been on my mind for a very long time, and with a possible hunger games resurgence underway, i want to address the not-so savoury and digestable bits about collin's writing, including her characterizations of black individuals within the trilogy.

first of all; district 11 is described as a large district, with its population mainly being black, or at least people of color. this is shown in the movie adaptations, and the several characters we meet throughout the series.

(rue, chaff and seeder's descriptions, but thresh, too.)

(depiction of district 11's population in the movie adaptation of catching fire.)

𝐬𝐨, ���𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦?

genuinely? the characterization of these individuals, such as chaff and thresh (both black males specifically.) the portrayal of both characters being a threat in size and combat, which is also often a microaggressive stereotype tied to black men.

(effie's reaction to the 75th's reaping & her snide comment against chaff, catching fire + thresh killing clove/sparing katniss, the hunger games.)

of course, i won't downplay thresh's kindness in his sacrifice of sparing katniss, but the display of his brutality paired with his decent & race does not look good (considering that the hunger games is written by a white woman!) and to me, will always come across as uncomfortable. even his speech makes him seem uneducated, more brawn than any brain, and that's also a heavy misconception when it comes to black men/boys/etc. i can see where suzanne tried to balance it out, but it doesn't work well in the slightest.

furthermore, we have to talk about the state of district 11 as a whole.

agriculture/farming as the role for one of the largest districts if not THE largest, seems innocent by itself. but then you have the treatment of its citizens, the way the population is worked, and the overall uneasiness of it.

(rue's experience in 11, the hunger games + katniss’ description of the district, catching fire.)

public whippings, senseless cruelty towards again, a WIDELY black populated district and their continual work on fields/in harvests all speak to remnants of slavery and pastimes taken place within the era of slavery. if suzanne collins was trying to make a point, or mock the treatment of this minority through a portrayal in her book as a white woman, she missed the mark POORLY. having the BLACK citizens, including women, children and men all working out in the fields? disgusting. beyond incomprehensible.

hoarding a minority in one district is crazy work too, because we barely hear about any other black characters minus paylor, beetee, and potentially cinna. and the fact that in katniss' eyes, 11 is treated perhaps the worst? says a lot.

𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭?

truthfully, i'm bringing awareness to my discomfort as a black teen/general black individual because this isn't just something you should brush past. you should see the treatment of these characters and condemn it. i see next to no posts about the blatant racism towards black people/poc in the hunger games and also within the fandom. this has been swept under the rug over and over and blatantly, I'm tired.

collins perpetuates the suffering of district 11 in historical and supposedly educational ways, but that doesn't make it okay for her to do so. as a white woman, collins abuses the usage of racial stereotypes with examples of district 11 men, the culture, their work, but also a wider environment than just 11, such as district 12 too (with the perpetuation of gale.)

[sir-yeehaw-paws]

If you don't mind I'm going to be horribly demanding and request more delicious thoughts on Kaz and his female coded story. Sorry but I'm eating this all up!!

No sweat Anon! I will say it's a thought I kinda had offhandedly once and left alone for a long time, so I'm having to think way back a bit as I consider it.

As an obvious quick note too, it's sort of a random interpretation I had. It doesn't have any real bearing on canon anymore than my other random thoughts do. It was kind of like, at some point, I noticed that Kaz had a storyline and writing style I've gotten used to seeing but with women.

The jilted ex hellbent on revenge. Someone who is more well known in story for his emotional issues vs how physically imposing or strong he is or isn't. I don't know about everyone else, but when I first think of Kaz, the most memorable thing that comes to mind is his emotions. Being unable to manage ones anger is very 'masculine' a trait, but being beholden to those emotions is a 'feminine' quality.

I'll say too, revenge as a motivator is a common story theme. And its very present in films and the like. This is certainly not a 'female only' thing, and there's SO much nuance that has to be applied. And to be perfectly blunt, I can't fully articulate 100% why I especially have this feeling with him, but at some point in one of my nightly Kaz spirals, I had the thought of "Kaz is written the way I'm used to women being written", and, after mentioning it, I sat on it, never gave it really much expansion, and haven't given myself the chance to really put into words why I feel this way.

It's sort of like..

Kaz gets dismissed a lot. Kaz isn't taken seriously a lot because he lets his emotions get the better of him. (Which is largely his fault, if he could calm down for five seconds and take a breather, he'd be able to put his very honest, very intelligent thoughts into words). But he doesn't give himself that chance. He screams, shouts and acts impulsive instead.

Meaning he gets written off as being 'too hysterical' to take seriously. Which is something we see a lot in female characters. Who often get pushed aside in narratives despite being smart, or having a point, because "She's too hysterical right now don't listen to her."

Kaz is known for being jealous. Manipulative and 100% ruled by emotions and impulses. He makes extreme decisions at the drop of a hat, but places fall apart without him managing the books and the records. He tries to overcompensate, and get taken seriously, but it leaves him getting underestimated and written off. Because for every serious thing he says, for every legitimate point he makes, its either screamed or shouted.

Or, full of biting sarcasm and snide remarks. He's a 'playboy' in Peace Walker. The man with a full hair care routine in a jungle. He's been 'caught' and brought in by a man more powerful and more respected than himself, and while he tries again and again to be on equal footing with him-and fully believes he ought to be, it falls short.

(This isn't excusing Kaz either, his entrance into the MSF is a rabbit hole I've gone down before, because it's very hard to put into black and white territory and victim/abuser territory. It requires deeper thought and more critical thinking).

Anyway.

I think another way to look at it, is that if I imagine Kaz as a woman, his story..really does not change that much to me? It's got all the elements of the supporting/leading lady role. And as a retroactive character (as in, a character that was originally very much a one note they build backwards by making him more meaningful in the prequels) he gained importance in the narrative, but backwards.

(I'm aware this doesn't make much sense, it's so hard for me to articulate this one properly sorry).

To be a tad crueler about it, think of the stereotype 'nagging wife'. Its not hard to imagine Kaz like that. At all. In my head. At the end of the day, it's something I'd probably have to think about more, but it kinda sits in the back of my mind occasionally.

[horizon-verizon]

You’re a whole coon, of course Rhaenyra hates women, especially Black women, she tried to murder a 16 years-old Black girl, slut shamed her, called her racial slurs, and linked Nettles “ugliness/attractiveness” to her Blackness. Rhaenyra literally acted like a pathetic pick me in regard to Daemon and Nettles. If given the chance, Rhaenyra would have enslaved her. TB must truly despise Daenerys to compare her to Rhaenyra, they couldn’t be more different. (The way Rhaenyra is never mentioned in Dany’s chapters and GRRM has never discussed them in conjunction with the other, finally y’all can thanks HOTD for turning her into a progressive and flawless Mary Sue).

And really an insanely privileged white woman dying after putting a bounty on a lowborn Black’s girl head should be a good thing right ? We just gon have to celebrate Rhaenyra death with Nettles.

If you say so, anon, I guess I'm a straight up coon. 🤷🏿‍♀️

I suppose arguing how no one can be a feminist in a medieval world is coonish. I guess that pointing out how unconstructive it is to go "she wasn't a feminist so we shouldn't care about any possible effect her coming into power like the men before and after her have been able to will have an effect on other noble women's power to maybe implement some pro-women stuff in their own domains" to us analyzing why/how Rhaenyra is important to the history of Westeros and Daenerys is coonish.

I guess it's coonish of me to flout so many non-Nettles arguments of Rhaenyra's supposed bad leadership and amorality not once, but TWICE (that I remember), where it clearly just veers into straight up sexism: HERE and HERE....thus coming into why I even bother defending Rhaenyra (in some points).

It's not like I haven't already wrote several time in several posts how Rhaenyra's trying to get Nettles' head reveals much about the Targ-Andal paradigm she grows up in and tries to use to bolster herself through her going after Nettles to the end. It's not like I don't see how essentially different Daenerys and Rhaenyra are as people through the Nettles event as well as how they grow up and come into their positions of power and how/why they desire those roles:

It's not like I haven't already written about the Black Jezebel stereotype at least three times, including on Twitter and here. It's not like I have defended Nettles not just from "dettles" stans but also from people who call themselves Rhaenyra stans while bashing on Nettles and Mysaria, totally misunderstanding both characters and what even a supporting character is.

But sure, I'm a coon bc I don't want to ignore the journey of Rhaenyra's downfall and make distinct where she decided to destroy another woman vs her being the victim. Sure, I'm a whole coon.

And for the last fucking time, "compare" does not always or only mean "these two things are exactly alike and I will show you how"! "Comparison" analyses means that you will list out what traits or developments two things have, what inspirations, and see how they differ and how they don't. And through such a process, you will find out how many and how well/or not these two or more things are alike and how.

For Dany and Rhaenyra, I never said these girls/women were the same person. I said that both women, as women in male-designated positions of power, have to deal with people in world AND out of world must contend with misogynist feelings towards of their not deserving power or leadership on account of their gender, no matter what sort of characterization either had BECAUSE even with the main series not being like F&B, not being a history book, PEOPLE IN THE FANDOM STILL TEND TO MISREAD OR TWIST DANY'S ACTIONS AGAINST HER CHARACTER AND GRRM'S INTENT. Rhaenyra is meant to contextualize that very experience into a real event of catastrophe, she was set against ever since she was 10 bc she was female and another, older woman wanted power denied to her directly bc she was a woman. This is a fact, you nor I can change that. There is a difference between what we learn from the events to make the conclusions of who should rule ideally and what we should shoot for VERSUS thinking of the situation at hand for what it would have been like for the character.

F&B (having been written after the main series) continues even this "analysis" phenomenon; what do people choose to believe when it's a woman at the center of their stories?! No matter her real circumstances or their knowledge of things not present in their understanding of the world and of history?

I also mention, several times, how it is here, Rhaenyra's end, where the Targs lose their dragons because they have assimilated into the intenser patriarchal paradigm already mentioned to the point where they weakened their women's positions by denying them their autonomy and political powers...which plot sequence wise leads to the end of the dynasty as whole and Dany's exile. I'm must be a coon to not want Nettles, a 17 year old, to fuck a 50 year old, esp with her being his bio daughter. No, anon, I am too repulsed with direct vertical incest (parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, etc.).

Then there is how the Bloodstone Emperor and the Amethyst Empress and how the former usurped tha latter and plunged the entire world into mythological "darkness"--thus leading up to the importance of the Azor Ahai, aka Dany, directly seems to reflect how another brother--Aegon II--usurped his older sister--Rhaenrya--and thus the world loses a strong magical tool against darkness "dragons". An obvious link....

In fact, I tend to repeat how different they are as people! There's this whole thread talking abt the very thing I despise abt some critiques of Rhaenyra. I even say many times that Rhaenyra couldn't have the throne after the Nettles letter, that at that point, there needed a "refresh". Up until then, there was simply more reason for us to not think her a real terror except for maybe Addam and Alyn. But I have my misgivings there and it comes down to timing and grief.

No, Rosby and Stokeworth do not count and why? I already wrote why, but for someone who doesn't stan Rhaenyra or is not a fan of hers but actually stans just Daenerys--the previous ozymalek says:

I have myself said several times how I disliked how they rewrote show1Rhaenyra to make her a much less assertive version of herself, and I agree with others how they made her female-friendless. No matter how amoral or moral she was, similarly to Dany, people have written her sexistly in the show. I believe that this is CENTRAL to the point of F&B, how people refuse to see the point of it.

Finally, I really don't see how the hell show!Rhaenyra even is a Mary Sue or a NLOG, bc for the first, she displays no skill she excels over others at. A Mary Sue is:

Show!Rhaenyra, for some reason, seems "perfect" to some people. Esp with Luke saying so in epi 8. I never felt that way, I always thought she (older, not younger) was too meek and that is her great flaw---due to the sexist writing, but if kept at face value, that's the great flaw. Other definition: Who is inserting themselves into her character on the show? you got proof?

A NLOG (not like the other girls) is a Cersei like character who goes out of their way to destroy/diminish most women who are competitors for their power or destroy any semblance of socially-defined femininity and socially-coded feminine "weakness" so as to appeal to the male authority and get privileges. Problem is that EVERY SINGLE FEMALE MONARCH AND WOMAN IN SOME SORT OF AUTHORITY OVER MEN IN EVERY SINGLE PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY had to convince their male supporters that they were the one they should follow to some degree more than any male heir or candidate--during a time where they had to either fight for their "birthright" or they were planning coups (Catherine the Great), came into power through some accident, or whatnot--that their rule was in it for them. There is no pattern of woman-hating or self-hating to define Rhaenyra as a NLOG, where she consistently tries. NLOGs tend to hate women even in their own "race" or group for perceived acts of upheaval and destabilizing their positions of power. Alicent was and she uses misogyny to do so, so Alicent is not Rhaenyra's victim; other way around. Rhaenyra has all reason to despise Alicent, justified even. It's more than the positions, it's the whole targeting since 10 deal and trying to espouse Rhaenyra's inherent unworthiness for power.

So Rhaenyra deciding to do the Rosby/Stokeworth bit is her seeing how her greatest ally, a sexist man, has basically all her ships during wartime and insisting she does not give those girls their father's seats is Rhaenyra choosing wrongly, yes, but something I don't think that you or a small number of women would bow under considering the other shit she was going through. Yes, even black/PoC women. Again, this is not about Nettles but about women vs women (yes with them all being white or white-adjacent) bc I know that this will be the next thing some will say as a counterargument to what I'm saying here.

You are correct, however, in how similar Rhaenyra's behavior abt Nettles is pick-me-ish and NLOG concerning her intent to turn Daemon back to her and how this was her seeing Nettles as competition for "control" over Daemon, who was one of her principal military commands as well as her romantic partner...and like i said once before, this is a reflection on how this Andal-Targ patriarchal paradigm makes its own female "terrors" through misogyny. To ignore the process is to endanger its justified repetition. Yeah, Rhaenyra ends up becoming like Alicent in that way after the consistent losses, and I mean defaulting back to destroying another woman for a simulation of power. This doesn't mean that she was a feminist or that she didn't intend on using the Black Jezebel reasoning to get rid of "competition" to feel more in control. It does mean that her behavior reveals her enmeshment in the xenophobic, aristocratic, patriarchal Targ-Andal feudalist paradigm that she chooses to use to, again, construct more feelings of power at a time where she seemed to feel she was losing more and more--after the betrayals and the deaths of her sons in that moment. And yet if there is anything to be extracted from her narrative it is how that built-in classism (the companion and parent of racism) can become the thing these women default onto to retrieve/gain the agency & power denied to them. I believe this is also where you can draw a core similarity to Cersei, who is rather the starkest extreme example of that classism making up for her internalized misogyny through her Lannister Exceptionalism.

The discourse has to include how we, the readers, over-blame Rhaenyra for things she has either very little control over or what she had no control over and for trying to, again, assert herself (before Nettles). She's a reflection of her times and situation; doesn't mean she isn't still a victim. You don't need to like her. I never asked for people to do so. I don't care if you do or not, I've never needed that. Just don't lie or twist information or ignore clear patterns GRRM establishes that are also important, or try to erase the lines of harm done to her and undo the work GRRM is doing to point out this pattern of misogyny that contextualizes one very key aspect of Dany's journey: sexism doesn't care how good or classist you are, you are a woman so you will be subject to disenfranchisement, distortion of facts, and destruction...if you are not like Dany, who intuitively and "rationally" discovers lanes of power while reintegrating her being to the natural process and relationships between herself and her dragons for the ecological benefit of the entire world (the Others, again). Unlike Rhaenyra, Dany doesn't fall into the ideological "trap" or the noblewoman's save-grace of exploiting of lowborn people AND dragons but intelligently seeks other non-exploitative ways to use her dragons and those inspired by he bravery. This again, does not erase or override the sexism and specific elements of gender politics that tie these two together.

It's a paradox, not a contradiction.

[isleofdarkness]

does Audrey remind you of Hera from Greek mythology / GODS' School ?

also Audrey and Sharpay do have simular vibes . but they are still different characters xd

I mean, kind of. Her anger is justified and understandable, she just reacted to that anger in the wrong way. That is a lot like what Hera does. Her boyfriend/husband cheats on her, she very understandably gets angry, but then, instead of taking it out on him, she takes it out on the poor woman who probably doesn't know what's going on or doesn't have a choice in the matter or was told by Zeus that Hera wouldn't have a problem with it. So with Hera, like Audrey, her anger is justified, she just acted on that anger impulsively.

I do know that both Sharpay and Audrey are the Mean Girl, but what'd different in Audrey bullying Mal vs Sharpay bullying whatever her name was is that Audrey was specifically written into this role to have the white protag get bullied by the one Black girl in all of Auradon, whereas Sharpay was a white girl bullying what's her name, who I'm pretty sure was a person of colour but maybe she was white. Yeah, Sharpay fills the mean blonde trope but to my knowledge, that trope hasn't actually hurt blonde girls. Audrey, however, is playing into stereotypes that Black girls are always the menaces and that in a conflict between a Black girl and a white girl, the Black girl is always the aggressor, always wrong, always bullying, always violent, and the white girl did nothing wrong or if she did do something wrong, it was justified and unworthy of "such massive retaliation." Audrey being Black and unsympathetic and evil while bullying Mal, who's white and allowed sympathy and nuance and to make poor choices, is something that happens in real life and it's something we shouldn't perpetuate as a good thing. I've known girls who got expelled over stuff like this. I knew one girl who nearly got arrested for it, and this was all in liberal California. The trope playing out here does have real-world consequences, whereas what Sharpay played out really doesn't.

So yes, they're similar, but it's different due to Audrey being Black because her bullying Mal continues to perpetuate real-world biases that hurt people.

[n3v3r-trust-th3-living]

And finally....the moment of truth...

So ive been working at a movie theater over a year now and used one of my movie passes to see Beetlejuice beetlejuice and my short review of it?

SPOILERS BELOW

3-3.5 out of 5 or 6-7 out of 10 so good/pretty good like slightly above mid.

But I still liked and enjoyed it a lot, it was fun and I liked the nostalgia fuel being a fan since childhood in the late 90's and 00's and I plan to see it 2 more times, once in 4DX (thank you employee discount). I also have merch put aside for me at work lol

The good

It was fun, well acted, practical effects were great, music was well implemented into their scenes and great choices of music, Catherine O hara stole the show as Delia, sets looked amazing, especially the netherworld iim glad we get to explore more of it.

I liked the jeremy twist (although the hints were kinda obvious to me At least to me). Their parallels to Beetlejuice and Lydia were good and i also felt a parallel between Jeremy and Beetlejuice's teen death rocker alter ego he used to trick lydia from the original unused script, Maybe iits just mee tho.

It is sad to see Lydia become a shell of herr self over the years not tto mention addicted to pills but i think its an interesting way to go especially with her ptsd from beetlejuice, I can see it. (I just wish they used this more as an explanation on her current state and the rift in her relationship with Richard and Astrid as well as as lydia's powers)

I enjoyed the parallels too the musical seeing lydia sort of adopt Charlie's role and astrid be in the shoes that musical Lydia was interesting. Not sure how intentional it was with that or if it was intentional at all tho.

the not so good

The begining slogs a bit, and once we pick the pace up it feels rushed especially during the wedding after the musical number (which Was good), other parts seem rushed too, it feels like a lot going on at once like they pushed multiple ideas for sequels all together which also gave a lot of new characters barley anything to do and made me feel liike they're kinda useless.

I love Delores, im absolutely self shipping with her but it feels like shes just there for eye candy and to be the ficy "other woman" trope.

Willam Defoe's character is fun in theory especially a cocky actor/stuntman playing a cop who died from a scene and is a wannabe cop in the afterlife but in execution he feels pointless.

I wanted to like Astrid more, im glad she wasn't like horribly written, I LOATHE when activist characters especially young ones are written by people who make them unlikable and obnoxious but she felt kinda .... boring sorta like a bit of a rehash of movie and musical lydia (with a dash of cartoon) in one but we only get glimpses into her interests and a lot of it is similar to Lydia even the activist part. And yeah obviously she can share interests with her parents I get she probably got it from them but i wanna know other stuff about her. Although a thing i do like is she is a sceptic while Lydia knows the paranormal exist.

Sorta related to that above there's a bunch oof cool ideas i wish weren't rushed through or they'd explore more.

we also get more netherworld lore which is cool and good but some of it leaves more questions then i had for years with the original.

lastly because this is my biggest Tim Burton beef is that there was still racial stereotypes in the film, he has learned bit over the years with Wednesday but it's still obvious he has some way to go with the Asian dry cleaner and the Soul Train scenes where we see most of the black characters in the film mind you probably the most black people we've seen in any Tim Burton film LOL (speaking as a black fan)

WOW uh I wrote way more than expected lol i have more thoughts but that's it for now, hopefully I will be posting here more in the near future.

[wodania]

honestly no i don’t think it’s weird at all to be upset about the exclusion of satin in the show.. if anything though as a gay guy im pretty glad they didn’t have him if loras is any indicator.. imagine them with a fairly effeminate gay coded character? no thanks 🫣

Loras was a sign of the end times 😭 I think I’ve made a joke before that if JonCon had been included he probably would’ve been written like one of those modern family dads and I feel more and more right each passing day.

Gonna rant a little (a whole shit ton like it’s really long I’m so sorry I got carried away) about gender and sexuality in ASOIAF/GoT here because I’m a lesbian and obsessed with analyzing these things :

tldr; D&D set up gender roles/rules where there weren’t previously any, and removed and added character traits as they saw fit (especially looking at feminine = gay and masculine = straight). If a character did not fit their perceived mould, such as Qarl the Maid, Jon Connington, and Satin, and could not be altered to fit that perceived mould, they were cut entirely. They also, in a possible attempt to be more relatable to a gay audience, introduced systematic religious homophobia where it was not previously, brutalizing their gay character. They wrote them as stereotypes and ignored them if they could not possible be shaped into one of their stereotypes.

GRRM obviously plays with gender roles and dynamics with his characters, yet D&D makes it so black and white. Gay people are all effeminate men. Hell, even Asha/Yara falls into this. She and her lover Qarl are a major fuck you to westerosi gender roles and expectations. He’s an effeminate man and she’s a masculine woman in a dominate powerful position. Yet he’s removed from the show. Absolutely no hate to queer “Yara”, but it is interesting in hindsight how that ended up working out. Had she been written differently, I’d argue that bisexuality compliments her character - if it weren’t for the history D&D has. When they do play with gender roles, it’s so tacky and one dimensional and ends with weird, nonsensical scenarios of female badassery with none of the development present in the books. Then, on the other hand, any vulnerability or deviance from societal expectations that male characters experience are wiped clean. Jon Snow is made into a generic fantasy hero type. Men who are seen as “weaker” or more “submissive” are brutalized on screen as torture p/rn, as shown with Theon Greyjoy. And men who are gay must be effeminate or promiscuous in one way or another. Loras deviated from that, so he had to be stripped of his defining traits and turned into fan service. Satin deviated from that even more, being a sex worker, and was stripped from the show entirely. Loras didn’t sleep with men enough, and the show writers wanted to change that. But Satin slept with men too much, and was in too close of proximity narratively and physically to fantasy hero Jon Snow. They wanted gay sex depicted in an easily digestible way for their perceived cishet audience, and found the idea of a boy selling his body to survive abysmal and not appropriate for such an audience, though they had no problem exploiting female prostitutes for the pleasure of the viewers . And in a weird attempt to be “relatable” to modern audiences, d&d introduced a self imposed barrier: homosexuality being illegal. Likely thinking that gay audiences would love to see their favourite gay Loras Tyrell brutalized and spat upon, D&D did exactly that, failing to realize that gay audiences would much rather see a queer character existing in a dark fantasy without their sexuality being what puts them in danger, compared to seeing something they already witness every day (religious-motivated violence and persecution) thrown into the show. Like it’s such an insult to the source material, especially considering that the 1990s book that hardly makes explicit references to the relationship of Loras and Renly does a better job at making them likeable, well developed characters than the “modern” 2010s tv drama. The flower crown, rainbow, cutesy edits dating back to the early days of Game of Thrones is a far cry from the depiction of politically savvy Renly and brutal and bloody Loras in the books. And the show just kind of encouraged that view of the two, as the cutesy gay boy fan service, hairless as a newborn baby and scared of blood. On the topic of JonCon, it would have been near impossible to introduce him and have him fit this set rule of “effeminate men = gay” and “masculine men = heterosexual”. JonCon is an intimidating, stone faced character who’s demeanour is hinted at being similar to that of Tywin fucking Lannister, as Tyrion almost accidentally refers to Jon as “father”. Aka, Jon is scary af. He’s older, grey, potentially dated the ugliest man in Essos who was also significantly older than him, and is also a father. Hardly a character that can be put into the set limiting roles of the show.

I’m honestly going to stop myself right here this is getting too long and I should just sit down and write an essay 💀 like genuinely I should write a paper

[vintage-bentley]

OMG, I didn’t know you loved Falsettos!!!

Honestly, I’m still waiting for someone in the GO fandom to make a Nina/Maggie video with «Look, look, look, it’s a lesbian from next door!»

I do!! It holds such a special place in my heart because it was not only the first place only saw positive representation of homosexuals, but also positive representation of lesbians specifically. To see lesbians in a happy and healthy relationship, who have hobbies and interests and aren’t walking stereotypes, and who proudly call themselves lesbians…that meant so much to me as a kid who was still struggling to even use the word “lesbian” for myself because of how tainted it is by lesbophobia and porn.

I’ve been meaning to make a post about how good Falsettos is and try to recruit people to listen to it, so I’m going to use this as an excuse to say that it’s SO GOOD. It’s a concept that could’ve easily been done really poorly, considering the plot is a gay man divorcing his wife to go off with the man he’d been having an affair with (pretty similar concept to OFMD, for those who are fans). It could’ve easily demonised Trina (the ex-wife) and turned her into the evil overbearing ball and chain wife, and it could’ve easily demonised Marvin (her ex-husband) for being gay and leaving his family for a man. It also could’ve easily demonised Whizzer (Marvin’s partner) for being a “home wrecker”.

But instead, everybody is cast in a neutral light. Trina’s struggle with the thing with Marvin is acknowledged and she’s not written as a horrible homophobe for it. But at the same time, it’s acknowledged that she’s having difficulty getting with the times yet is trying her best to come around. I just think she’s a surprisingly well-written female character considering the writer is a man. I mean, just listen to this song. And huge props to Stephanie J. Block for bringing so much emotion to it.

Then Marvin is obviously struggling because he’s a deeply closeted gay man…but that doesn’t ever excuse his misogyny and abusiveness. He’s villainised for both of those, and it’s deserved, but he never gets the homophobic “evil gay man led on a woman for years and then leaves her for a man, gross!” Treatment.

And Whizzer seems to struggle with guilt over being a factor contributing to Marvin and Trina’s divorce (in a song he says “I’m sure his divorce was a tribute to me”), and Trina really does not like him at first…but never once is the audience led to hate him.

This is probably an oversimplification of things, because it’s a 2 hour musical and it’s been a while since I’ve watched it…so it’s hard for me to fully sum up my thoughts. Basically, I just really love how all of the characters are complex. They’re not written in black and white, and they’re allowed to have flaws without being hated for it (Marvin’s abusiveness and misogyny being the deserved exception). And with such a sensitive subject matter, this is such an important thing to have. It’s the same praise I have for OFMD, where Stede’s assholeness is acknowledged, but his “discomfort in a married state” is never demonised. And Mary gets to be a complex human who isn’t just shoved into the role of The Wife.

In short, Falsettos is really really great and the music is amazing. So if anyone managed to read this far, go listen to it!

Or watch it. This totally isn’t a professional recording of the 2017 revival on YouTube.

Anyways. Part of me does want a “lesbians from next door” edit of Nina and Maggie. The other part of me wants the GO fandom to stay far far away from Falsettos, because I know damn well they would not Get It. I remember being in the fandom in middle school and a lot of people would give Whizzer the Fanon Crowley treatment: transing, feminising, sexualising, woobifying, etc. the feminising in particular always bothered me because Whizzer explicitly states that he hates that kind of treatment when Marvin tries to shove him into a housewife-like role. I do not trust the GO fandom to listen to him.

[sierraheipp]

Tumblr Post #1: Diversity and Multiculturalism in Jane the Virgin

Jane the Virgin, a hit Netflix TV series following the life of Jane Gloriana Villanueva, a 23-year-old Latina who finds herself pregnant after an accidental artificial insemination by her doctor. The episodes show Jane and the baby’s father Rafael Solano as their lives change with drama and heartbreak. The telenovela is narrated by a seemingly unknown narrator, however is later revealed to be Jane and Rafael’s son, Mateo. Directed by Justin Baldoni and starring Gina Rodriguez, Justin Baldoni, and Yael Grobglas, this TV series strikes the heart of many and shows the struggles of parenthood, as well as the importance of their Hispanic culture.

Jane the Virgin directly displays many of the course topics in ART 150, including the idea of multiculturalism and application of White perspective on a non-white family. For example, in “What is Multiculturalism” written by Gregory Jay, he states, “The concept of ‘multiculturalism’ also has a history rooted in theories of human rights, democracy, human equality, and social justice” (Jay 2011). This is extremely applicable to Jane the Virgin as one of the show’s most important themes is the importance of heritage, maintaining one’s culture, and being proud of where they came from. Jane’s grandmother, Alba Villanueva, was an immigrant who came to America to follow her dream, and she constantly is expressing their Hispanic culture, as well as speaks in Spanish to help remind her daughter and granddaughter who they are and where they came from. Additionally, Richard Dyer in “On the Matter of Whiteness” writes, “The media, politics, and education are still in the hands of white people, still speak for whites while calming and sometimes sincerely aiming to speak for humanity” (Dyer 2003). In the TV series, there are many times where Jane or her son Mateo are discriminated against or underestimated because of their race. It is made obvious to the audience that oftentimes white people overgeneralize and stereotype certain races for the entire population, and Jane’s family activity combats this through their careers and writing.

Continuing, Jane the Virgin also displays intersectionality in the two main characters- Rafael and Jane. In a later season, Rafael discovers his biological parents are from Italy and are not Hispanic, changing his entire identity. Similarly, in the article “Black? White? Asian? …” by Susan Saulny, she explains, “Multiracial and multiethnic Americans… are one of the country’s fastest-growing demographic groups” (Saulny 2011). The struggles and highs of having an identity in more than one race is shown as Rafael learns to accept and redefine himself as an Italian and Latino, a concept recently discussed in ART 150. 

Another way intersectionality is displayed is through Jane, who struggles with balancing her identity as a Latino woman, mother, writer, and daughter. Rather than dismiss some of her identities and prove others to be more important, this TV series allows Jane to realistically and sustainability balance her life in a way where she can be proud and active in her culture, as well as succeed in a career and as a mother. This is very important because there are many stereotypes displayed in popular visual culture, such as feminism dismissing maternal roles, or Latina stereotypes within immigration, religion, low income, criminal activity, etc. Jane the Virgin shows that Jane is an active and brilliant Latina whose grandmother is an immigrant, but has been able to provide for her family. This series disrupts the ideas closely related between ethnicity and negative assumptions, specifically assuming that migrants will be involved with criminal activity or will have a low income. There is a great importance in displaying the beauty and power of a Latina woman who has access to just as many opportunities as anyone of any other race (specifically white).

Furthermore, many discussions held in ART 150 are applicable to Jane the Virgin, specifically in the diversity that the TV series intertwines effortlessly into the plot. From having the main character be a Latina woman, to breaking stereotypes about Latina motherhood, Jane the Virgin displays multiculturalism and intersectionality in popular visual culture in a unique way. Rather than using humor to gloss over cultural struggles and discriminations, or having colored characters “not fit in” to ease the awkwardness, the series uses empowerment and raw emotions to convey its characters in all dimensions- identity, culture, age, and history.

Work Cited:

Dyer, Richard. “On the Matter of Whiteness” International Center of Photography, New York. December 2003.

Jay, Gregory. “What is Multiculturalism?” University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee. July 2011.

Martinez, Diana. “‘Jane the Virgin’ Proves Diversity Is More Than Skin Deep” The Atlantic, October 19, 2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/10/jane-the-virgin-telenovelas/409696/. Accessed 12/2/23

Perez, Lluvia. “Jane the Virgin’s Impact On American Viewers and Latinx Storytelling” Teenvogue, August 1, 2019, https://www.teenvogue.com/story/jane-the-virgin-impact. Accessed 12/2/23

Rose, Lisa. “‘Jane the Virgin;” The CW.

Saulny, Susan. “Black? White? Asian? More Young Americans Choose All of the Above” The New York Times. 29 January 2011

Torres, Rae. “‘Jane the Virgin’ Cast Guide”. Collider, October 2, 2021, https://collider.com/jane-the-virgin-cast-now-where/. Accessed 12/2/23

[semper-legens]

136. Man vs Beast, by Robert Muchamore

Owned: No, library Page count: 295 My summary: Help Earth is back, and trying to save the world again. This time, it's animal lives which are the focus. There's an extremist group planning something big, and time is ticking before their plans come to fruition. Enter James and Lauren, undercover spies working to smoke them out. But with no clue what their plans are, can the kids save the day in time? My rating: 3.5/5 My commentary:

Back to CHERUB for some environmental extremism! This one seems topical, almost, given the climate disaster we're currently enjoying - granted, the extremists in this book are more about saving animals than saving the planet per se. Once again, James and Lauren are posing as siblings (easy for them, given that they're real siblings) along with Kyle. They're out with senior mission controller Zara, who's shown up a few times before, and a member of this vegan group who has turned police informant to try and weed out the violent members of the group. So…ready for a mid-2000s view on militant veggies?

As ever with CHERUB, most of the veggie group doesn't actually come across too badly in this. There's a clear distinction drawn between the non-violent protestors, who do things like picketing labs that experiment on animals or rescuing animals from captivity. They're also explicitly stated to be mostly middle class white old dears, the kind of people who've retired and don't really have much else to do but stand around holding placards about saving the bunnies. The real extremists, the militants, are younger and angrier…but once again, I have to take issue with how black and white the morality is. The extremist group attacks and nearly blinds a woman who seems to just work in admin for some lab and doesn't have much to do with animal abuse. The climax revolves around them kidnapping a TV chef who also sells cleaning products. Their objection to him is that he tested them on animals to see if they were toxic…but also a kid drank it and the chef's people are trying to cover it up which, while obviously bad, seems out of the animal people's remit? Almost like it's a device so the audience isn't too sorry when he gets forced to drink the same cleaning products. But it just seems like Muchamore was going out of his way to make a clear good guy/bad guy dichotomy, without much thought into the complicated issues and morality around the idea of animal abuse. Especially since James and Kyle, 2/3 of the author's mouthpieces, don't rate the veggie lifestyle at all.

Actually, let's talk characters now. I have to side-eye Lauren being the one who really gets on board with the veggie thing, as opposed to James and Kyle who just laugh it all off and don't seem to listen to a word anyone's saying. That's Lauren's primary role in this book, because she doesn't really contribute to the mission much, it's mostly the boys. And I can't help but think she gets that role because she's the Token Girl. It's not badly portrayed or anything, it's a nice little arc for her, but it does feel a little stereotypical. Meanwhile, James continues to be a pain - he's so obviously written to be a stand-in for the Typical Teenage Boy, and that's to the detriment of his character sometimes. In this book, his h0m0phobia rears its head again, as he finds Kyle's boyfriend's sock on his bed and flips because that's gross. Kyle points out that James hasn't had problem with people making out on James' bed back on campus, and that James just has a problem because he's gay. And James comes round, but it's such a bizarre little cul-de-sac. I guess the function is to tell young readers that being gay isn't a bad thing, which is fine in and of itself, but it's not particularly well-handled. Give me a solo Lauren series! I'd be way more into that.

Next up, back to webcomics, for a young fawn getting stranded in a mysterious land.

[squidneytrinh1]

The First Female Avenger! (But there are rules)

Black Widow was the first female avenger introduced in a long series of films, her first appearance as we recall being “Iron Man 2”, and her next was one of the biggest box office hits, “ The Avengers” (2012 Joss Whedon). She plays an integral role in this film as she has been recruited to stop an alien invasion that takes place in the film. There is little known about the background of her character, other than she was previously a Russian spy turned U.S. spy who works with her partner, Clint Barton or Hawkeye. Throughout these films there are pieces of her life that become uncovered as we go through her character arc, however, among the many, it is one of the most criticized as well. In the following post, I am going to examine some key components of her character and how they all tied into how the MCU failed Black Widow. 

Now I get what you are probably thinking, how could they fail Black Widow? She is a superhero who embodies “female” power throughout the films by being so “badass”. In the article, “Hot, Black Leather, Whip”: The (De)evolution of Female Protagonists in Action Cinema, 1960–2014” written by Caroline Heldman, Laura Lazarus Frankel, and Jennifer Holmes explain women and cinema and the veiled way in which media portrays powerful women. They describe how traditional female characters were portrayed as the love interests, sidekicks, and tomboys, but with the new character of violent women comes a new set of restrictions when it comes to the female character. They explain how if a female character is meant to be seen as strong or tough, “She is often shown in disguise, as though her toughness is just another masquerade (Inness, 1999); her physicality is presented as comedic (Tasker, 2004); she is fetishized as a phallic woman (Dole, 2001); she fits existing Western tropes of Whiteness and heteronormativity that relegate women of color to stereotypes of being exotic, oversexualized, and criminal (Tung, 2004); (2014 Heldman, Frankel, Holmes) 

We see this example throughout the movies and the Black Widow character. Her very first scene in “The Avengers” (2012) shows her in an interrogation scene where she is tied up on an assignment for an unknown reason. However, she is not dressed in any uniform but a fitted black dress being her literal disguise for her “toughness” you could say. The running joke in this scene would be that she's a small feminine woman who just beat up two men because that is supposedly funny. The “sexy, feminine” woman is used to portray a “violent woman” or a  “strong female character” because it creates a scenario in which this woman is strong but still non-threatening at the same time. The article details women in cinema, and how specifically how the "violent" women is portrayed, “Wendy Arons (2001) argues that hypersexualization diminishes the symbolic threat posed by the violent woman character:” (2014 Heldman, Frankel, Holmes)

[hybbat]

This is all really good stuff, yeah. I think a big factor into it is that, while the modern movies are brilliant and the allegory/applicability is all very much there, its primary goal is a good character story much more grounded in their character's reality, while the original movies were what-if scifi, similar to classic star trek, that altered one aspect in order to examine its implication and the philosophy and morality of it.

The movie is specifically about human's cruelty being self-destructive, and thus explicitly and loudly about racism, sexism, xenophobia, animal cruelty, warmongering, religious discrimination, environmentalism, ageism, ableism, classism- basically every issue you can think of. (About the only thing they don't overtly touch on is queerphobia and fatphobia, but you could make arguments for certain characters and conversations being coded.) And this isn't dropped even as the stories become more involved with their own lore. The most obvious is the racism and xenophobia. Not only are there prominent POC characters, but black characters openly talk about racism and compare the situations to slavery, among many many other both very unsubtle and surprisingly subtle coding (Zira talking about the shape of Brent's skull being unique to try and save him from the guards.)

And they address sexism almost just as much through its few female characters. Zira is most obvious, she's a strong-willed modern woman who's brilliant in her work to the point of climbing as high as society will let her, but she is arbitrarily kept from climbing any higher as a woman, minority, and revolutionary. It's not just a sign of the times that she pretends Cornelius hit her for being disobedient and no one bats an eye, even approves of it, but patently ridiculous. We know soft-hearted wife-guy Cornelius would never dare, but we also know Zira would never take it, but she plays into the stereotypes of their genders and questionable societal norms to hide from a bigot who knows them both well and should have known better.

She even, as a pregnant woman, gets targeted as the 'weak link' by a bunch of men who don't take her seriously in the third movie specifically with alcohol and smoking and removal of her bodily autonomy. She's addressing sexism simply by being such a strong-willed and active woman in a leading role. The plot moves primarily because of her. There's entire essays that you could write and have been written on her.

But Nova, Stevie, Albina, and Heloise also address sexism, though. Stevie goes by a masculine nickname. In their time together she reads Zira much better than the men read Cornelius; Cornelius gets put into a tailored suit that doesn't quite fit him and taken to a boxing match he finds 'beastly' simply because he is a man, while Stevie much more successfully helps pick out a suit Zira will like and has her arranged to speak at a women's society and visit a museum, her actual interests. While Lewis mostly verbally fights for the apes and Stevie is made to be a silent background character in courtrooms and such, it's her the apes think of first and she's the one who is most active and risking her life during the hunt.

She's another woman confined by the restraints of her society, very much Zira's human counterpart despite their very different personalities. Notably Lewis is also incredibly respectful of her and while you could read them as romantic if you want they are never actually shown to be anything other than friends, and he comforts her and asks for her expertise without comment. Steview is a woman respected by the men in her life but still restricted by society as a whole, so she gets to shine when in personal situations and her rebelling.

Nova is harder. She is indeed kind of just a ball of all the most problematic aspects of the movie. But given the respect and sympathy it presents all its other female characters with it is mostly intentional. She's physically controlled by everyone against her will in a society where she cannot communicate with anyone. Taylor explicitly projects onto her because she is a mute woman. She's shown to have her own desires and feelings but nobody around her takes them seriously because she can't communicate how they deem intelligently. She strains herself and speaks the very first words humanity has spoken in 2000 years at the end of the second movie to show her affection and connections, that she did in fact actually care for Taylor. Despite everything she learned how to ride a horse and how to navigate to Zira, and she saves herself from the mutants after the men constantly go on about not hurting her and worrying but never rescuing her themselves.

The second movie in general makes the more subtle characterization and victimization of Nova much more overt. In the end she was an innocent woman killed simply for associating with the wrong man. Despite everything Taylor never actually gets intimate with her and the only time someone is was when a man was being forced to by other men who still looked down upon him for doing their dirty work they made him perform.

There is one woman on the mutant council, like there is one POC, and she does so by conforming to their societal norms and victimizing another woman considered lesser. aka Albina as her name and appearance implies, is an allegory for white feminism in particular, and is the least sympathetic female character in the original franchise specifically due to her lack of solidarity with other women. Even in her small villainous role, though, she manages to stand out. Unlike the men who go on to perpetuate more violence, the only violence she enacts is on herself, taking her own life rather than involve herself in the destruction of the world. This also ensures with Nova and Ongaro's death that there are no women or minorities at the final confrontation, it's all just powerful men fighting to kill each other over what little scrap of bigotry they can muster for one another and humanity as a whole now that there is no one else to target. Albina isn't a big character but she is narrative important.

And Heloise is the least among them being a literal chimpanzee who can't talk or even act but even in her few scenes she manages to bond with Zira and show compassion enough to sacrifice her child to save Zira's. There's not much to her but even in this super tiny role she is narratively important, not to a man but another woman and without needing to die, and has enough character to be active and develop emotional bonds than mean something on a thematic, story, and character level.

All this to say, while numerically there is more women int he new movies, they don't have anything to say besides being incidentally female and don't have nearly as much personality because of it , since they aren't the main characters. Their themes are more in the allegory than the originals and have a narrower scope, and sexism isn't among the touched on topics anymore.

It's only when we get Mae as a main character do we get a character again, and it more so just leads to the question of why there haven't been others until now if the narrative no longer considered them one of the groups victimized by humanity's cruelty and treats them equally. Except they only do so on a surface level. Mae is a good embodiment of how the new movies supposedly see women, being completely equal and only incidentally female with gender-neutral writing, she's a complicated morally gray character you can both understand and still disagree with and none of her story has to do with being a woman, but she's also the only one so she's very much the exception that proves the rule.

Basically they both tackle female characters differently based on the genre and goals of their narratives, but even interacting with them separately on those levels the original movies are more successful and created great female characters because of it. while the new movie only recently succeeded and only fully once and we're all holding our breath to see if they actually follow through with it.

I love the new planet of the ape movies a lot, but it has always bugged me that it manages to have basically no prominent female characters until the 4th film, and especially no important female apes, while being in a franchise whose original deuteragonist and most memorable character was Zira. Like, I feel like it says something that, of all the call back characters, the one female character they chose (twice!) To call back to was Nova, the mute that exists as a morality prop. (And despite it, she still has more personality and story than every female character in the new series except Mae) and two other characters were legacy named after male characters, and both the names get reused for male characters anyways also.

Like Zira is such an iconic character and the only problem is that she's the only one and stuck in the sexism of her time, you would think a movie series made 40+ years later would do better.

[queen-breha-organa]

So the first two episodes of Kenobi are out and I just wanted to make a quick post with my overall thoughts so far.

I had to put most of it under read more, but I just needed to discuss a few things right away.

First, I wanna say that so far, I am enjoying this show much more than other recent Star Wars projects.

That being said, it’s still far from perfect and definitely suffers from the Disney echo-chamber. Star Wars projects have been getting a bit stale, and a lot of that comes from a lack of diversity in the writers room. You can kinda tell all these recent projects have been overseen heavily by Kathleen Kennedy, Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni. They all have a very similar production style, and it ends up making shows very bland and predictable, not to mention white centric.

The main place this is apparent is in the characterization of Reva. Reva is a former Jedi turned Inquisitor, and is written as the youngest of the group.

She’s portrayed as hot headed, impulsive, loud, brash, reckless and is called The Lesser of the Inquisitors by another member.

Now, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having characters with these traits, HOWEVER, this is where the white centric and tone deafness play a role.

Reva is the ONLY main Black character so far, and seeing these traits on the only Black woman in this show feels very much like playing into stereotypes. She’s overaggressive and hated by the Empire and the Rebels alike. Shes a shallowly written villain that only serves as a writers room punching bag.

We’ve already heard that Disney warned actress Moses Ingram about fan backlash, but writing her into this role reeks of racial ignorance and internal bias. The other inquisitor’s constantly talk down to her and are seen as the calmer and more rational ones, often holding Reva back from killing characters.

This characterization and display is ignorant at best and malicious at worst, and I’m very unhappy with it.

The other inquisitors are sorta nothing characters, with no motivations or anything really. They’re sort of blank slates and uninteresting. I know this is only because Vader is the main villain and they’re simply minor antagonists, but the writing falls flat.

The shallow writing is also seen in many other places, including Kenobi himself.

The character motivation is murky and the timeline itself seems convoluted. Though this series takes place a decade after Revenge of the Sith, the world doesn’t feel “lived in”. The Empire still seems new and unsteady, and Kenobi’s motivations and arcs don’t fit a man who’s been at this for ten years. He still seems very uncertain and uncomfortable in his new persona.

I think Jedi: Fallen Order executed this idea much better, as those characters genuinely seemed like they were in hiding and adapting.

Kenobi just feels like he’s only been at this a few years. And I understand his compassion plays a huge role in that, but I wasn’t really sold on his new character arc.

The cameos were fantastic and I really enjoyed seeing Breha and Bail again, both those actors are phenomenal and very believable as a family. I think their delivery and lines felt natural and their roles felt lived in. It is strange however that the side characters feel more natural than our main character.

This isn’t a slight at Ewan, I genuinely think he’s very good and I’m super interested to see where this show goes, but the plot and writing do fail him at times.

Overall, I am hesitantly enjoying this series, but It needs vast improvements, mainly in the case of Reva.

I’m hoping perhaps the show will get better as it goes on, but we’ll see.