#because that's just such a common misogynistic fantasy

[longing-for-rain]

I think it’s funny how people point to the existence of female kataang stans as proof that kataang isn’t written for the male gaze when every female kataang stan I’ve interacted with has said something to the effect of “but he’s so nice, he wouldn’t have done something like that” to dismiss his blatant violation of Katara’s boundaries on screen. It is unfortunately not uncommon for women to flock to the defense of male interests.

[llycaons]

second fic ever written was xxc/xy. first fic ever written was *squints* what if wwx was an abused woman person escaping LP with his two kids (a-yuan and xue yang) because he wants a better life for them and lwj worked at...the battered persons home...

[sarasade]

One of the most generally useful things to come out of Hbomberguy's plagiarism video and Todd in the Shadows' similar video on misinformation is how they bring transparency to the internet phenomenon of "I made up a guy to get mad at".

Seriously, I've seen people make up a lot of stupid shit on the internet over the years and it's often just a manipulative attempt to paint a group of marginalized people in a bad light.

That's the TL;DR version of this post. 

ANYWAY here is the long version

Those videos are mostly about James Somerton's plagiarism of other queer people's work. However I'd like to talk about that 20-30% of Somerton's original writing- and oh boy. It's mostly about complaining about White Straight Women and misgendering well-known trans creators such as Rebecca Sugar and calling Becky Albertalli a straight woman while it's pretty common knowledge that she was forced to out herself as bi because she received so much harassment over "being a cishet woman who appropriates LGBT+ stories".

One thing that irks me especially is how in his Killing Stalking and Gay Shipping videos Somerton brings up how straight women/ teen girl shippers exploit gay men for their personal sexual fantasies. This gets brought up several times in his videos.

Being all up and arms about Somerton being a "White Cis Gay Who Hates Women and Queer People tm" is not that useful because the kind of rhetoric he's using is extremely common in fandom and LGBT+ spaces on Tumblr, TikTok and Twitter. We really don't need to bring Somerton's identity to this since he is in no way an unique example.

It's hypocritical to make this about an individual person when I've seen A TON of posts, tweets and videos where queer people talk about these Sinister Straight Women who are supposedly out there fetishizing and exploiting queer men. It's pretty clear to me that this is just an excuse to shit on women and queer people for having any sexual interests. At worst these comments are spreading misinformation about BL, a form of media that has been excessively studied by both Asian feminists and Asian queer women.

This all sounds really familiar and I think it's good that people are calling it out as what it is: misogyny and transphobia. I'd also point out the potentially racist motives behind being this hypervigilant about Asian media.

People can absolutely be misogynist regardless of gender or orientation. I really don't know why we need to create some kind of made up enemy to get mad at. I actually think it's almost sinister how "anti-fujoshi" people call Slash shippers and fujoshi misogynists or claim that they have internalised misogyny while being dismissive about women's interests and creative pursuits under Japanese obscenity laws, China's censorship, book bans in American schools and various other disadvances that are part of being a queer and/or female creator.

I think we shouldn't be naive about the bad faith actors who want to turn queer people against each other. For example Fujoshi.info mentions anti-gender (TERF, GC etc) movement using this kind of rhetoric as well.

Anyway if you want to read more:

- about the false info around BL fandom fujoshi.info

-There is the scholar Thomas Baudinette who studies gay media in Japan. Here is a podcast with him and the scholar Khursten Santos

-James Welker is a BL scholar as well. Here is a podcast interview about the new international BL article collection he edited.

-I've already talked about this Youtube channel by KrisPNatz and his great Killing Stalking video that actually engages with the themes of the manhwa

- There is also HR Coleman's thesis DO NOT FEED THE FETISHIZERS: BOYS LOVE FANS RESISTANCE AND CHALLENGE OF PERCEIVED REPUTATION where she interviews 36 BL fans and actually breaks down why fetishization has become such a huge talking point in the fandom discourse. Spoilers, it's mostly about young queer people and women being worried that they will get judged and pathologized for their interest in anything sexual.

-Great podcast about Danmei and censorship with Liang Ge

[cinnamonest]

With this whole 'rape fantasies are a result of misogyny as they allow women a guilt free sexuality cos they have no autonomy'

Surely that means your writing and fantasies are contributing to misogyny? Adding to it and normalising it?

Like isnt the answer to write and encourage fantasies of empowerment? Not abuse and rape?

Just seems crazy to me like 'we do this because of misogyny. And we'll keep doing it'

Obviously some behaviour come from misogyny and exist to combat it. This... really doesn't

I just don't think it's a feminist win when your writing is indistinguishable from that of a misogynistic man's.

This isnt an attack on you it just really seems like common sense that if something exists because of misogyny the last thing we should do is feed into those ideas

(I assume this is coming from this post, so I might reference that a bit here)

No worries, I fully understand how this can come across negative to those who do not have the same experiences and I appreciate you approaching the matter in a non-attacking way with genuine desire to have dialogue on the subject. I'll do my best to address these points individually.

>Surely that means your writing and fantasies are contributing to misogyny? Adding to it and normalising it?

In the past few years fandom culture has become a bit obsessed with the idea of "normalization" to the point that the definition of the term has been a bit skewed, which creates issues with these discussions.

There is no concept of which existence of content containing it alone constitutes normalization, by the actual definition of the word. Normalization is the process by which it is distributed and way in which it is presented, and intent of its creation.

Normalization via fiction is a process in which a creator, generally intentionally, creates content that presents a concept as, well, normal. That is, not reprehensible or problematic to replicate, and presents this to a population with the intent of them accepting the idea as something acceptable in reality. Generally it also necessitates that the creator will try to ensure the media is viewed by mainstream general audiences who would not normally seek the content out, since the purpose of normalization is to make an idea acceptable amongst a population.

That is the opposite of what I am doing, which is creating a private space filled with warnings. I am going out of my way to ensure that people who do not want to see this content, have the foreknowledge to opt to avoid it.

By definition, if you’re creating content and ensuring that it is heavily warned, and marketing it as such that only a niche group who likes such content seeks it out, that’s not normalization by any reasonable metric.

>Like isnt the answer to write and encourage fantasies of empowerment? Not abuse and rape?

For some people, I’m sure that would help them, and in that case, that is a great solution for them.

But people are different, and certain things that help some, don’t help others. The types of fantasies that would probably be called “empowering,” personally do nothing for me but make me uncomfortable, in the same way that the sort of content I write makes some people uncomfortable. It does not have the same positive effects on my mental health that this form of content does.

>Obviously some behaviour come from misogyny and exist to combat it. This... really doesn't

That's fair — but it doesn't have to.

It is not intended to directly combat misogyny in any way, there are other ways to do that, and this does not have to be one. It's primary purpose is catharsis and the ways in which it benefits me and, as is my hope, those who choose to consume it.

>I just don't think it's a feminist win when your writing is indistinguishable from that of a misogynistic man's.

Again, I never had any intention for it to be a "win" — misogyny is the reason for why I have these desires, but in making what I make, my purpose is to provide catharsis for myself and others.

But also, I would heavily contest that it is indistinguishable from male fantasies. As someone who has seen actual men's misogynist fetishization fantasies, they are very different.

Female disposability and the complete worthlessness of women’s very being — that is, women being non-human objects that are interchangeable, and made to be used temporarily and replaced — is the core defining characteristic of male fantasy/sexuality. Male fantasies almost always involve multiple women to one man, largely because he does not have any actual bond with women, they are items to be collected, no interpersonal relationship actually exists.

The lack of interpersonal connection and lack of personableness itself is fetishized by men, what men get off to is the power they feel from completely disregarding the woman as a person in any way. The very act of the woman being thrown away after being used is fetishized.

In male fantasy, there is no interpersonal connection or affection of any kind, whereas that is one of the defining themes of content like mine.

Tl;dr — while misogyny impacts all women, the severity and form of it in different upbringings, environments and cultures can create misunderstandings and strong reactions when different people react so differently to the same content and thus form misconceptions about each other's perceptions and intentions, but I believe both sides of this argument are usually coming from a place of good intent.

While I fully understand how it would be difficult for those who do not have the same experience to grasp mine, I just ask for mutual understanding that some forms of content help some people, in the same way entirely different forms of content help other people.

[reblogandlikes]

Self insert Fandom

I've come to realise that most of the toxicity within the acotar fandom is often rooted in a ridiculous amount of self insert. They see a character as them, therefore their actions are absolved. They see another character in their abuser, or worse, 'as' their abusers and so they can never be impartial towards them, thinking the worst because in real life they've dealt with a lot.

I get it. Art can sometimes mimic reality, but they are indeed forgetting that this is a whole fantasy fiction book about human women turned fae getting dicked down with a hint of war and political intrigue. These characters are not, in fact, you or your abusers. Making the series so personal to themselves can then lead to a lack of introspection of the work as a whole made to be enjoyed and critiqued to the readers' preference, whether shallow or in depth.

But because this fandom in particular seem to make these books so personal than reading it as a piece of fiction, they're inflicting real world scenarios onto fictional characters and if their characters face any backlash or reasonable questioning, they take it as a personal attack which for some reason leads to insults and wild assumptions of very REAL people.

"No, no one is saying you should forgive your abuser mum, boyfriend, sister, because this literally isn't about you. I dont know you or your situation. Im talking about *insert character*."

"No, I don't think reactive abuse is OK, though I also don't believe lying about SA is OK either, let alone condoning SA."

"What do you mean it's abusive to lock someone up and then make an excuse to say it's not abuse to lock someone else up?"

The mental gymnastics is truly outstanding. If they're so called morally grey, let them be just that.

Speaking for myself, it's easy to find some commonality in a characters personality. It's written by a whole human who has a personality too, after all. But I do not attach myself to these characters as if they are my family members or those dear to me. They are, in fact, not real, and I will talk about them in the context of a fantasy text, generally.

Now the moment you take their actions out of a fantasy text, every character, and I mean, every character, needs to be dealt with the same scrutiny. Your faves will be called out and dragged. You cannot call real people names, but then think highly of yourself when your faves have done worse. What does that then make you? A racist? A misogynist? An AS denier? An abuse apologist? Someone who endorses apartheid? Someone who's OK with controlling the female body? A war criminal?

You see how absurd that all is?

Honestly, it's not that deep. But again, it's not bad to see yourself in character. Just realise that when people have some reservations about them, they are not calling YOU out. They are strictly talking about that character and that character alone. But maybe if you find so much offence, perhaps you should think about why that is. Look deep and figure out why it troubles you so much. Perhaps they're holding up a mirror, and you simply can not bear to look into it, seeming that that character represents you so much.

I think this is the only fandom I've been involved in where simply daring to disagree with the main MC and side characters can lead to online prosecution and just so much hostility. I've seen some truly nasty comments, and it's boggling. I can imagine how off-putting it may seem to newer readers.

I long for the days when people can talk about the characters and narrative alone without feeling the need to make disclosures about what they support in real life because it's truly unnecessary. I thought reading fiction was meant to be a form of escapism, not defending my moral standpoint.

If I said I enjoyed Katherine Pierce, Klaus Mikaelson and Kai Parker from TVD, what then? They're despicable, but fucking enjoyable. Don't get me started on Game of Thrones characters.

Alright, I'm done now 😅

[punkeropercyjackson]

The thing about Jason is that he IS a feminist and racially inclusive character but because he treats the women and poc in his stories well,not because he's 'female-coded' or a substitute for canon poc.Now i do support transfem readings of Jason or Lina as i like to call her and consider him canonically afrolatino but that's because i love trans women fictional and real and am afrolatino myself so Jason reads as afrolatino to me from personal experience.And a big part of the latter is the diversity of his cast!!

His adoptive mom is an arab-chinese woman,his love interests are a wasian/half cambodian woman an egyptian woman and a darkskin black woman,his brothers he gets along with are that mom's bioson and his eldest brother on his dad's side who's romani and the remaining brother he's on good terms with is THE FIRST EVER BLACK ROBIN who is also the ONLY one he's always liked and been nice to and the only white character he actively likes is also a girl and has a completely platonic relathionship with him.This along with Jason's personality and other individual traits is why i have such a black view of him,because he feels afrolatino to me

That's what gets me about fanon Jason being claimed as a minority!!!Canon Jason actually works as one with a design update only but it CAN'T be just him!That's not representation or good writing!Instead of Talia bashing or some random ass white woman replacing her,she should have her pre-Morrison history employed and act like a typical brown/asian mom in a positive relatable and accurate way.Instead of sweeping Jason's girls under the rug for BEING girls and acting like it's not misogynistic because you're shipping him with Roy as if og Rhato dosen't have racialized misogyny fused into it's formula,explore their romantic dynamics with him and how they diffenterate and have in common and fucking care about Rose,Artemis and Dana as their own characters too as they're much,MUCH more than just 'DC's failed attempts to make Jason straight'.Instead of infantilizing Dick and animalizing Damian,make Dick Jason's cool reliable older brother he was close to as Robin but never mollycoddles him as Red Hood which JASON dosen't want as seen by his dislike of Roy and give him and Damian equal respect if not Damian way more since he's done way less bad fore more understandable reasons.Instead of lying about their age difference,aknowledge that Stephanie in current canon is 19 at the oldest while Jason is 23 at the youngest and in pre-reboot he was 19 when she was in high school and very specifically NOT a senior so yeah,it IS a minor x adult ship in almost every scenario they meet in the ship content

And for fuck's sake,STOP LEAVING OUT DUKE!!!!!!!The blue eyes Batkids rule isn't real,it's never been brought up in canon or joked about in official sources,it's segretation y'all made up!'Honorary Batkid' my ass,he's so literally Robin-coded the writers gave him light powers and 'The Signal' as his mantle!You know NOTHING about superheroes if you actually think Duke's not a core Robin,a Batboy AND a Batkid-Or if you think Jason's supposed to be a normie,a power fantasy or an abuser!He's a tragedy and commentary and an adventure and a comedy and same goes for Talia,Rose,Artemis,Dana,Dick,Damian,Duke AND Stephanie!Jason wouldn't wanna be Jason without them and they also do NOT exist just for him because they're his loved ones,not his tokens!Y'all want Jason Todd?Ight,then you want the Red Hood cast too because they're a package deal.You don't?Then keep that shit to yourself and invest in a dating app since you clearly can't write anything except white ass porn

[damnfandomproblems]

Fandom Problem #4385:

Its' something where I'm sure the intentions are good, but there's something sort of subtly points to a more twisted worldview -- is that the for a story to be considered "feminist" or "modern" the female lead must renounce romance altogether, or if there is a romance it must be with another woman.

Definitely "settle down with a man" shouldn't be the end all be all of every female protagonist's story, that's not at all what I'm getting at. And yeah no shit there are a ton of hetero romances that are downright misogynistic. This shouldn't be the norm either, but it is unfortunately way too common.

But, when it turns into "the idea of a woman being treated well with both love AND respect by a man is too unrealistic even for fantasy, or centuries into the future. Just be single or if you MUST date someone date a woman." is just pretty....abysmal. That men will ALWAYS oppress women and that this will never change, that he will NEVER see her as an equal partner, that he could NEVER respect a woman he's also dating, that he will ALWAYS see his romantic interest as being inherently beneath him....why? Why is this positive messaging? Why is this framed as progressive?

And DEFINITELY there should be more WLW and more aro / ace rep, (Or, people who don't have a romantic arc not because they're aro/ace but for a multitude of other reasons) I'm not trying to degrade the importance of either. But I hate the framing of "dating women because men are bad" just being accepted as positive lesbian rep instead of "dating women because you like women".

I hate when gayness is portrayed as SOLELY a side effect of sexual inequality. "Men who are gay only because they hardly view women as people" or "Women who are lesbian only because men are oppressive". (Or, the inverse where "ONLY gay men have respect for women because it's impossible to be attracted to someone and respect them at the same time.")

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

Mad Queen Misogyny

All the mad queen Dany takes, from both D&D and the audience, are just plain misogyny. They are literally just repeats of common misogynistic ideas. D&D have given a few reasons for why they wrote the mad queen ending for Dany, and all of them are the same old misogynistic tropes of fantasy and mythology.

The Mad Queen:

I'm going to start this off by going into how the mad queen trope itself is rooted in misogyny. This is one of the oldest tropes in fantasy/fairytales. Whether it's Snow White's evil step mother or the Queen of Hearts, literature is riddled with mad queens.

The idea of the mad queen is informed by the desires of men to keep women out of power. Yes there are historical women who were horrible people and unstable when in power. However, those examples are not enough to justify the amount of times the trope occurs, especially since some of the examples occur after many stories have already been written (ie, Mary I and medieval fairytales). These fictional women were written as cautionary tales of what happens when a woman is placed in power.

By writing the mad queen Dany arc in GOT, D&D are perpetuating an old trope rather than "subverting" anything as they claim. The most powerful woman in the world turning out to be a war mongering and mass murdering tyrant isn't subversive in any way. The only reason it was surprising was because it came out of nowhere narratively.

ASOIAF fans who constantly try to justify this turn for Dany's book character are attempting to do the same thing D&D did. They want to employ an ancient trope to justify their dislike for her in name of being "subversive".

The Violent Woman:

A trope that stretches back all the way to the Ancient Greeks is that of the angry, homicidal woman in power. From Hera to Medea, the myths are full of women who commit atrocities simply because of anger. This trope isn't just about avenging a slight or retribution on the guilty; it's about a woman taking out her anger on innocent parties.

Daenerys has fallen into the role of the avenger many times throughout both the show and and book. She killed Mirri Maz Duur for the murder of her son and husband. She killed the Undying for attempting to trap/kill her. She kills Kraznys mo Nakloz and many other slavers for the atrocities they commit constantly on the people they enslaved.

In the show, she imprisoned Xaro Xhoan Daxos and Doreah in a vault for killing Irri and helping the warlocks steal her children. She killed the Khals who threatened to rape her. She kills the Tarleys for rebelling against the Tyrells, thus getting them killed, and refusing to bend the knee.

Every time Dany killed up until season eight, it was purely because those she killed harmed her or her allies/children. That is why none of her past kills justify her burning KL. The people of KL did nothing to her; it's not an established part of her character to harm innocents out of anger. She even outright condemns the killing of innocents in earlier seasons.

The inconsistencies show how D&D chose to blatantly ignore the complexities of Dany's character in favor of a sexist trope. They perpetuated the idea that a woman in power who is angered will ultimately commit injustice and atrocities.

Dany antis in the ASOIAF fandom are no different from D&D. A common argument used by Dany and Targaryen antis is that they are bound to be corrupt and tyrannical because they have dragons. Essentially saying that Dany was doomed to be the villain the moment she hatched her children.

They point to her dragons' existence and her conquest in Essos as reasons for her "villain arc", despite the fact that none of her actions reflect the things they claim. Dany is simply being condemned for being a woman with power; it's expected of her to be a tyrant for those reasons alone.

The Woman Scorned:

This reasoning given by D&D in a behind the episode interview is probably the excuse that I hate the most. They said that one of the reasons for Dany's descent into madness was because Jon Snow refused to kiss her back once he found out they were aunt and nephew. This is an insanely misogynistic trope.

Used time and again by writers (mostly male), this trope is about a woman who becomes an antagonist due to rejection, unrequited love, or betrayal from a lover. In the case of Dany and GOT, it's Jon refusing to continue their romantic relationship.

For some reason, this is seen as a breaking point for Dany. A woman who has endured poverty, homelessness, sexual slavery, a traumatic miscarriage and death of a spouse/protector, and the stresses of war was broken by a man refusing to kiss her. Doesn't that sound fucking stupid? Well that's because it is.

Dany has never felt entitled to people's love (with the exception of shitty writing from D&D) let alone someone's sexual/romantic reciprocation. It's out of character and flat out insulting to women to believe that is enough to make Dany into a mass murdering tyrant.

Once again, there are members of the fandom who espouse this reasoning into their own theories and metas. Jonsas especially are guilty of this; some claiming that Jon's rejection of Dany in favor of Sansa will be a catalyst for the "mad queen".

An offshoot of this thinking, is the idea that Dany went/will go mad because she was rejected by the realm.

In the show, the Northmen are dismissive or outright hostile to Dany when she arrives (even after she saves them). Due to this rejection by the Westerosi people, Dany decides "let it be fear" and chooses to burn KL to the ground.

Once again, this idea isn't grounded in her past actions at all. Dany has always known she needs to earn people's love and respect as a ruler, why should she change her mind the moment she steps onto Westerosi soil? The answer is simple: she's a woman, so she can't possibly be able to deal with rejection.

Fans theorize constantly that Dany is going to go mad and destroy KL and Westeros because the people will definitely reject her in favor of Young Griff/Jon Snow/any other king they can think of. This theory is simply clinging to misogynistic ideas about women and it's disgusting in every iteration (it also dismisses the fact that there are people in Westeros excited about the idea of Dany and her dragons in the books but that's a different post).

The Woman Bereft:

This argument is probably the least outright in its misogyny. The idea that a woman who has lost everything will lose her mind isn't a new one and it can be played in a non-sexist way. However, GOT played it completely in the sexist roots of the trope.

Throughout seasons seven and eight, Dany loses basically everything. All but one of her children, her closest advisor and best friend Missandei, Ser Jorah, a massive chunk of her army, her other advisors, most of her allies, and is rejected by Westeros and Jon. That's a lot of loss to endure.

However, Dany has endured severe loss before and never reacted by murdering a city full of innocents. Again, this decision and descent isn't backed up by anything else in her storyline.

The sexism of this idea, that loss produces mad women, is that it's rarely applied to men in the same situations. For example: Tyrion lost everything he cared about, yet he's never written by D&D to be in danger of becoming a mass murderer. He even outright says he wishes he'd poisoned the whole court, but is never portrayed as a mad man by D&D or fans.

Dany is expected to go insane after enduring loss because she's a woman. She's perceived as being fundamentally weaker, mentally as well as physically, so she must be more vulnerable to madness than the male characters.

The Foreign Seductress:

The idea of the foreign seductress is a xenophobic and racist stereotype. For Dany, her antis use the instances of her exercising sexual autonomy and her life in Essos as fodder for this disparaging trope.

In the books and the show, Dany pursues sexual and romantic relationships outside of marriage. This is something that doesn't fall in line with the medieval setting of the world. In Westeros and Essos, it's common for men to do that, but not women, due to systematic misogyny. Because of this, Dany's antis often feel free to argue that because she doesn't act "pure", she is wrong and evil. Dany's bound to become a villain because she isn't a chaste and "good" woman.

In the same way, Dany is painted as wrong for wanting to take her family's throne purely because she wasn't raised in Westeros. She's perceived as a foreign invader by both her antis and D&D.

D&D wrote many scenes of outright xenophobia from the Northmen, Sansa, and Arya towards Dany and her forces without ever condemning those ideas. In fact, they justify them by writing the mad queen ending. The fact that Dany isn't "one of them" is used as an excuse for her descent.

Dany antis also employ this rhetoric, especially when people compare Dany's conquest for the IT to the Starks' desire to retake Winterfell. It's good for the Starks to want to retake their throne because they were raised in Winterfell, but Dany has no right to her ancestral home because she wasn't raised in Westeros.

However, this idea is never applied to Young Griff, who was also not raised in Westeros. Despite this, people will talk about how excited they are for his story and how sad it is that he's totally going to be murdered by his evil aunt. Once again a double standard is applied to Dany.

All this is because Dany is a woman who refuses to conform to patriarchal standards and was raised in a foreign country.

Never Good Enough:

Dany antis and D&D thrive on applying a different set of standards to Dany than other characters. They do this an a way that's reminiscent of the double standards set for women even today.

No matter what Dany does, it's never good enough for them. She dealt with Viserys and his death in the wrong way. She didn't protect her people in the right way. She tried to abolish slavery in the wrong way. She saved the goddamn world wrong. Like nothing Dany does is right in their eyes.

In their minds, Dany should've died in AGOT being a perfectly passive woman. She refused to submit to those (men) around her, and for that they punish her.

She's wrong for fighting the slavers, she's wrong for trying to avenge murdered children, she's evil for killing to protect herself. D&D used each of her actions throughout the show that they seemed too aggressive as justification for what they wrote. Dany's antis do the exact same thing in their theories.

The mad queen Dany theory is rooted completely in misogyny. It has no true justification in the narrative and every argument conjured up is just as sexist as the trope they want to perpetuate.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Inspired by the visual language of old Ray Bradbury and Stephen King paperbacks, Justin Metz created this illustration, which may be the first cover without a headline or typography in The Atlantic’s 167-year history. :: The Atlantic

* * * *

Trump suffers emotional break; media pretends it didn’t happen

September 9, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Something remarkable happened in American politics over the last two weeks. A major party candidate for president suffered what can only be described as an emotional break or medical emergency that resulted in a sudden acceleration in the deterioration of his already deteriorating cognitive abilities and further loss of control over his delusional impulses. But you wouldn’t know it from reading the stories in the major media outlets—that are obsessing over horse-race polls and debate prognostication.

No, this isn’t just another rant about media coverage. We are at an inflection point: Either the media will meet the moment, or it will abandon the very democracy that creates the conditions that allow it to flourish. Whether the media meets that challenge is no longer our problem. It is a waste of emotional energy and precious time to worry about it. We have real work to do: That of convincing other Americans of the profound unfitness of Donald Trump and his unique threat to democracy.

Against all logic, decency, and common sense, the presidential race remains effectively tied (although Kamala Harris has the momentum, which is a good sign with less than 60 days until election day). Sadly, many Americans will vote for Trump because he is unhinged and out of control. He is an avatar for their anger. It is not a productive use of our time to focus on those voters.

But a substantial portion of the electorate remains undecided. Many say they don’t know enough about our current vice president to vote for her—although they are open to persuasion. Our target is the persuadable undecided voters and those who can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump but aren’t sure they can vote for Kamala Harris.

The media would be sounding the alarm with unremitting urgency in a world with a functioning press. But the media has concluded that it can generate more revenue by keeping the presidential race close. The believe that declaring one candidate to be an unfit megalomaniac at every opportunity would grow tiresome.

So, it is up to us. We must be warriors for the truth. And that means understanding what we have just witnessed over the last two weeks. Yes, it is unpleasant and enervating. We want to look away. That is what Trump wants. He wants us to be weary to the point of numbness and surrender. We cannot let that happen.

As soon as Kamala Harris became the presumptive nominee, Trump began racist and misogynistic attacks unparalleled in the sordid history of American political campaigns. He questioned Kamala Harris’s racial identify and accused her of engaging in sexual acts to succeed as a politician. And then it got worse.

Heather Cox Richardson’s column on Saturday describes the increasing velocity of Trump's descent into madness over the last week, especially his speeches over the weekend. See September 7, 2024 - by Heather Cox Richardson. HCR’s column moved many readers to post Comments in the Sunday edition of this newsletter. HCR writes, in part,

But today’s speech struck me as different from his past performances, distinguished for what sounded like desperation. Trump has always invented his stories from whole cloth, but there used to be some way to tie them to reality. Today that seemed to be gone. He was in a fantasy world, and his rhetoric was apocalyptic. It was also bloody in ways that raise huge red flags for scholars of fascism. [¶¶] [Trump said,] “I better win or you're gonna have problems like we've never had. We may have no country left. This may be our last election. You want to know the truth? People have said that. This may be our last election…. It’ll all be over, and you gotta remember…. Trump is always right. I hate to be right. I’m always right.” [¶¶] Whatever has caused it, Trump seems utterly off his pins, embracing wild conspiracy theories and, as his hopes of winning the election appear to be crumbling, threatening vengeance with a dogged fury that he used to be able to hide.

I urge you to read HCR’s entire column for an exposition of Trump's weekend speeches.

But it gets worse.

After his Saturday speeches, Trump posted the worst fascistic, ugly, megalomaniacal threat ever made by an American politician. He threatened to prosecute his opponents if he wins the 2024 election:

CEASE & DESIST: I, together with many Attorneys and Legal Scholars, am watching the Sanctity of the 2024 Presidential Election very closely because I know, better than most, the rampant Cheating and Skullduggery that has taken place by the Democrats in the 2020 Presidential Election. It was a Disgrace to our Nation! Therefore, the 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again. We cannot let our Country further devolve into a Third World Nation, AND WE WON'T! Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.

To be clear, Trump is threatening—in advance—to impose “long-term prison sentences .. . . never before seen in this country” on lawyers, election officials, donors, voters, and politicians whom Trump views as opponents.

We must pause on the madness of Trump's threats. They are delusional. The election hasn’t occurred, and he is planning to jail people over fictional cheating. He is using fascistic threats to dissuade eligible voters and election officials from engaging in the election process by suggesting that they will be “sought out, caught, and prosecuted”—as if the legal system is his personal instrument of revenge.

The combined effect of Trump's speech and post on Saturday should have been a watershed moment for journalists covering politics in America. For most of Sunday, no major media outlet commented on the deranged nature of Trump's speech or his post. Mid-afternoon on Sunday, both the Times and WaPo had posted stories about the threats—in the politics section of their coverage. Apparently, neither outlet believes that overt threats of retribution over non-existent election fraud rise to the level of “general news.”

What did rise to the level of “general news”? New polling by the NYTimes, which claimed the race is effectively tied. Although the Times’s results put Trump slightly ahead in the margin of error, its results were an outlier. How did the Times respond to the fact that its results were inconsistent with the trend of polling? It declared that its poll was “high quality,” while other polls taken since the convention in the race were of inferior quality. “There simply haven’t been many high-quality surveys fielded since the convention, when Ms. Harris was riding high.”

So, on a day when Trump's preemptive threat to jail election officials for non-existent fraud should have been the lead story with 48 POINT FONT, the Times placed itself at the center of the universe by highlighting its poll and declaring that its outlier results were correct, and all other polls were inferior.

The Guardian, as usual, distinguished itself by calling out Trump's deranged behavior as its lead story. See The Guardian, Trump threatens to jail adversaries for ‘unscrupulous behavior’ if he wins.

Perhaps Monday will bring a wave of condemnation and attention that was beyond the capabilities of major media over the weekend. That would be a welcome development. But regardless of whether that happens, it does not excuse us from the task of raising the alarm about Trump's threat to democracy. While we cannot limit our message to the threat to democracy, neither can we normalize or dismiss it or look away.

If we do not convince Americans that Trump is the greatest danger to democracy our nation has ever faced, then every policy proposal designed to improve the lives of all Americans will be meaningless.

It is a tough task to focus on the threat of Trump and the promise of Kamala Harris. But here we are. We must do both. And we aren’t going to get the help we deserve from the media. We must be bold; we must be willing to step outside of our comfort zone; we must speak the truth in words of one syllable (or shorter, if possible).

It seems improbable that the media can continue to ignore Trump's descent into madness and megalomania. But it seems improbable that they have done so to this point. But let’s not invest emotional energy worrying whether they will. It’s up to us. It always has been. But the stakes are higher than they have ever been.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[emiliosandozsequence]

Tell us about sjm. Spill the tea.

oh man there really is SOOO very much of it that idk how i'll fit all into one response, but i'll do my best 🫡

so sjm or sarah j maas is a very popular fantasy writer (she is the origin of 'feminist' romantasy as a genre because her writing has just been THAT influential (in some good ways, but mostly in bad ones for reasons i'll get to in a minute). she's jewish and has white skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes (this also is relevant i promise).

anyway, despite her writing being so influential it...is really not that good (it has the potential to be tho which is one of the (many) reasons why reading her stuff is so frustrating) and she has a HUUUGE problem with putting her biases in her writing, in particular her racism, misogyny, and ableism.

her racism is at a level that i truly find unbelievable. in every book of hers, every character that is seen as good/smart/beautiful/brave, is a main character, or, at the very least, starts out that way in the story and doesn't have a redemption arc later after the narrative has already taught you to hate her (because it's always female characters this is done with too), has fair hair and light colored eyes (and almost always light skin too); on the opposite end of the spectrum, every single (female) character that either is in the story for not very long, isn't a main character, starts out a bad or undesirable person in some manner, or isn't considered good/smart/beautiful/brave has dark hair, eyes, and/or skin.

this is a tame tho in comparison to the fact that in the first two throne of glass books (one the series she's written), the only black character is considered a manipulative liar (she's even described as such on the wiki lmao) despite being the main character's best friend before she's summarily killed off in an extremely violent manner all for the development of that main character. she also has an asian character in the acotar series that is considered rude and emotionless, despite, again, being a best friend of the main characters. oh and of COURSE the asian character doesn't have dark eyes lol. because...can't have that in a sjm book!!!! no one can look like an irl person of color AT ALL!!!! g-d. and then, ofc, there's the illyrians, which are 100% coded as people of color and are a violent and misogynistic group of people lmao. as if htat weren't bad enough, she also tried to trademark illyria/illyiran even tho (and this is what made me make the post this morning) that's a REAL PLACE with REAL PEOPLE LIVING THERE.

and even THAT is tame to the fact she posted a promotion for her own book on the same day breonna taylor was killed and, not only that, but used her death to promote said book because she mentioned the murder in one (1) line of the post. to this day she has STILL NOT taken down that post.

compared to that, her misogyny in her novels (the main character constantly competing with other girls and always thinking she's better than they are and 'not like other girls teehee') and her glaring plagiarism (she uses terminology not only directly pulled from asoiaf (wolf in the north; the queen who was promised; oathbreaker; breaker of chains) but is used in exactly the same context as asoiaf too as well as some pretty significant plotlines of dany's (in particular her freeing the slaves of several cities and gathering up everyone on her continent to support her claim to the throne and unite in defense against a common foe that will turn all of them into walking zombies basically....SOUND FAMILIAR??????)) is a pretty tame offense, but imo it all adds up to just one disgusting whole of a person to me.

oh and, to top it all off, she's a zionist. there's a video essay about her i watched on youtube that explains the proof for this, but i do Not remember what it was she said now, so i'll link it here.

she's also ableist too, which expresses itself in how nesta archeron is treated throughout a court of silver flames (g-d forbid a traumatized woman be hypersexual and an addict and get sick of being treated like shit by the peope around her or she deserves to get thrown out of her home to a place her 'loved ones' know is going to be openly hostile to her lol). i don't think sjm even realizes how ableist she is throughout this book bc she claimed it's a healing journey and like...lol. lmao even.

also (i'm 100% being petty here) i hate how fake she comes across. in every time i see a picture of her, and the one interview of her i saw, she reminds me so much of my mother to the point it makes me physically ill.

i'm almost certainly forgetting something because there's just SOOO much about this woman to dislike, but this is everything that immediately came to mind.

anyway her fans are also rancid and believe she's some sort of goddess of writing when she's not even that good and is 100% a fake and shitty person that doesn't truly care about them at all whatsoever.

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

Your recent post touched upon every issue I have with the Zutara fanbase. When it comes right down to it: Zutarians (the cult-like weirdos, not the ones in the fandom that just enjoy the ship for what it is) antipathy towards Kataang really does seem to be rooted in a hodgepodge of thinly-veiled bigotry, sexism and projection. I mean, their primary argument against Kataang is because "It's weird for a slightly older girl to like a slightly younger boy, but it's perfectly fine for her to be attracted to an older man." Yeah, that certainly doesn't sound hypocritical or based on extremely outdated/idiotic notions on attraction and gender dynamics that don't jive with how it works in reality; It really does make me wonder if they live in a freakin' bubble and were all homeschooled or something. And when they talk about how "empowering" it would be for Katara to be with Zuko (a member of a dynasty of ruthless colonizers and racists that oppressed and killed members of her tribe) and become his royal consort, they paradoxically proceed to constantly ridicule her for not being more sympathetic/nicer to Zuko despite the fact that she had valid reasons for being hostile towards him. Like, y'know: Threatening her home, kidnapping and blackmailing her with a precious keepsake from her deceased mother, consistently trying to capture/attack/kill her and her friends, betrayed her trust when she offered him sympathy, being an accomplice in the murder of her best friend/true love…

Yeah, I think she had plenty of justifiable reasons to tell him to take a flying leap.

Yet, they go "but poor Zuko…"and none-to-subtly imply that she should defer to him and disregard her own trauma and hardships associated with him because his feelings are more important than hers. Yeah, the "pro-feminist" vibes are really on display with those sentiments, Zutarians. Meanwhile, they tell the innocent twelve year old who happens to be the sole survivor of a genocide orchestrated by said-family of colonizers that he should "get over it" and proceed to call him a rapist every chance they get because of an ill-timed kiss (that he immediately reproached himself for), while their entire ship is based on an imagined scenario straight out of a trashy erotica involving their favorite "bad boy" taking advantage of a young girl while she's tied up, defenseless and unwilling.

And when you call them out on it? "It's just fiction, guys. None of it is real." *Snorts* Yeah, okay. So, you can suddenly use common sense to differentiate fiction from reality when it comes to justifying why *your* ship involving *your* favorite male character performing non-consensual acts with the heroine you *allegedly* respect in your fantasies is perfectly acceptable because you acknowledge that the characters and situations aren't real. But when the protagonist innocently mistakes a moment for one of intimacy with his canon kinda-sorta girlfriend (whom he shared mutual kisses with on two separate occasions) and realizes that he messed up? "Shit just got real, fam! He's 100% a sex offender and a horrible influence on our children! So are his creators! And anyone who supports him and Katara as a couple are misogynists, pedophiles and rape apologists."

>_>

Like, do they ever stop to think how terrible this makes them - and by extension, their ship - look when it's being enforced by such putrid rhetoric and double standards? It honestly makes me feel bad for the Zutara fans who just want to see Katara and Zuko together because it appeals to them and think they're compatible. It's a shame that it's become a ship mired by idiotic, pseudo-political garbage and baseless conspiracy theories all because the zealots desperately seek validation that they weren't wrong. Or more honestly, because they just can't admit that they're simply horny over fictional cartoon teenagers getting it on together, regardless of any evidence (or lack thereof) of attraction between them. Which is hilarious because you have the VAs themselves admitting to their own fetishes when it comes to ships like Zutara or Azula x Zuko, but you don't see them spewing this crap to justify why they like what they like.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant. Your post just resonated with me and I felt like I needed to get it out.

Venting is what this blog is for, make yourself at home

[st-just]

ngl I always at least kind of laugh a bit whenever I read some post/review from someone without much grounding in the genre calling something romance-adjacent well, to quote, 'a misogynistic self-insert fantasy' and then getting all flustered when it's pointed out the author is a woman. Like not because I've got any interest in the books or defences thereof it's just funny.

(You really wouldn't think it'd be so common, and yet-)

[olderthannetfic]

I've been thinking about what exactly it is I hate so much about this new round of fandom-as-activism, even though I'm a Black person, and I think it's the same reason why I avoid online book circles--doubly so, if they mostly push YA. There is this constant use of passive voice that assumes the speaker is helpless and completely without agency, as though the act of reading a book, playing a game, or watching a movie/show is the same as an attack on one's person if you don't like the media. "This game depicts a route wherein one of the love interests is a stalker!" Okay, turn off the game. "This BL manhwa depicts a stalker and a serial killer/misogynist being in a toxic, maladaptive relationship! It's not a romance! The fans are sick, evil people" Okay, this manhwa isn't the first of its kind, nor will it be the last. There's dark romance that's M/F, M/M/, and F/F., and they're extremely popular. You clearly don't like it. Stop reading. "This danmei shows the two main characters as awful people who abuse and lie to each other over and over again! How could people like this?!" Yes, that's why the core fanbase likes it. Stop reading it since it's not your thing. "This YA novel has a love triangle with an older, toxic ML who is controlling to the main character and seemingly forces himself on her! Inappropriate and pedophilia!" Ravishment fantasies are extremely common across races, ethnicities, nationalities, genders, and sexualities. Young people should have ways to engage with their sexualities without harm from the real world and older people. Stop reading it. "This fanfiction depicts instances of racism that I don't like! It's harassment!" It's not harassment, and it's not mainstream media that's everywhere. You have to go out of your way to read it. Just stop reading it. "This HBO show and its predecessor shows incestuous relationships, the most popular being an uncle-niece relationship! They're promoting incest." It's just a story. incest is common in monarch/noble-centered stories to symbolize the decay or decline of said family or noble class, as well as being common practice in real life nobles because of blood purity. You clearly don't like it. Just stop watching.

A book, fanfiction, movie, show, manga/hwa/hua is just a text, of sorts. It is an object. It cannot perform action. It cannot hurt anyone (unless we're talking about propaganda, which is something different). Everyone engages with and interprets a story differently because we all have individual experiences that we bring with us that results in specific dislikes or triggers. Engaging with media is not the equivalent of someone hitting you in the head with a sledgehammer because that will universally hurt. Someone being offended by a book or show is not universal because of the previous explanation. I'm not sure if these people actually like these things but want to prove their moral purity, so they complain and attack or whatever other reason. It always just comes across as extremely performative, unnecessary, childish, and American (pejorative). They act as though the world is constantly testing them with temptation via media, and they must pursue the path of penance and flagellation or risk going to hell. Grow up. This is so embarrassing.

--

[necrotic-nephilim]

for the ask game perhaps 25 or 22? :]

-searchforahero from the main blog <:

for the choose violence ask game!

22. your favorite part of canon that everyone else ignores

i've answered this one a couple times so hmm lemme think. OH i think the Pre-Crisis relationship between Jason and Nocturna <3 i'd do ANYTHING to have more fanon content for Nocturna being Jason's maternal figure and how their bond could be explored. i think about her a lot and i wish we got more of her, it feels like fanon just glosses over it. which is understandable given it's Pre-Crisis and all, *but* a lot of fanon Jason takes pull from his Pre-Crisis comics so i feel like we should see more of a Nocturna presence. like she seems like the type of character fandom woud love to sink their teeth into. mysterious love interest of Bruce's fights Bruce for custody of Jason? that's PEAK fanfic material. i would like more of her <3

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

i was going to say the obvious one of antis crying about having to filter out Batcest content bc how dare Ao3 not entirely consist of content that caters to their sensibilities. but honestly? a bigger one? any complaints about Devin Grayson as a writer. most information about her is incorrect (she did not change her last name bc of Dick, Tarantula is not her self-insert, she did not write the rape scene as a personal fantasy, she is not in love with Dick) and the information that is correct and genuine criticism of her writing (how she handled the aftermath, how she wrote Dick's Romani heritage, etc) applies to *every* male writer in the industry. it's always *just* her though, that this fandom harps on to the point she's this boogeyman that somehow is responsible for every bad comic plot ever. i'm begging people to move on. complain about *literally* anyone else i'm begging. the genuine criticisms of her have been exhausted and all the other things about her are straight up misogynistic lies. because a woman in this industry will always be more scrutinized. i don't think she's perfect, nor do i think her writing is without flaws, but i do think most ppl complaining about her haven't even read her work. they just want to make a woman into a scapegoat. it'. truly irks me one day I'll write a long thinkpiece about it-

[trillscienceofficer]

I just thought about how Seven didn't have her own quarters and the show didn't address it, there were only hints that it's because of her Borg chamber. But it's basically an equivalent to a disabled person being forced into living in a garage because no one was willing to make their room accessible for charging their prosthetic limb, and said garage wasn't even changed into a room and was still a functional garage and storage space. If they couldn't give her crew quarters for some reason, they should have at least make a divider in the cargo bay for some semblance of privacy.

I am LITERALLY always thinking about how a couple of dividers... with a door... that Seven could lock if she wanted to regenerate alone... would've been so easy to set up in Cargo Bay 2, even if the Borg alcoves couldn't be moved!! I understand the idea of there being a logistical problem in trying to mess with Borg tech that even Seven doesn't seem to be able to manage by herself (and, on a production level, that the Borg alcoves had been built in the Cargo Bay set) but it could've easily been solved just by giving Seven control over the Cargo Bay 2 doors and moving elsewhere the really necessary stuff that the crew needed to have access to at all time.

I think the issue is that privacy, especially surrounding medical practice and treatment, has never been thought through on Trek, partly for plot reasons (it makes for better drama if everyone knows about everyone else's medical issues), and partly because the times have changed and some narratives have luckily gone out of fashion. When I was a teen in the early 00s it was still pretty common to find an instance of 'watching over someone while they sleep without the sleeping person knowing' as a romantic trope, or at least as something that denoted care. Imho these... misguided ideas about access and control are behind Seven's living situation too, another one of those terrible misogynistic clichés she's subjected to. Obviously no one on the show thought that it was a problem for her to be in Cargo Bay 2, with everyone in the crew still coming and going, although from what I can tell the fandom did notice the issue pretty much immediately—I've read older fanfics that tried to address it at least. And when Seven is shown having her own quarters is basically only as a part of her fantasy of 'becoming more human', as if before getting to a certain threshold of human-ness she wasn't entitled to said quarters or any kind of privacy?? I can understand that at first the Voyager crew was really wary of her but the fact that things stayed that way for years without ever changing... In hindsight it's a really bizarre choice.

In general I explain this diegetically with both Voyager being constantly in emergency mode and having other priorities to always tackle first and Seven not realizing in those four years that she might even want that kind of privacy (she used to live with tens of thousand of other drones!), and therefore never making an explicit request to move somewhere else, or at least restructure the alcove area. I think that the Cargo Bay 2 situation would re-emerge in Seven's mind, though, once in the Alpha Quadrant, and by then she'd be more firm about boundaries—and hopefully have the technology that allows her to regenerate however she wants, which may not be a given at least for a few years post-return.

[youryanderedaddy]

Yeah some obssesive men can be misogynistic bc they think a girl is theirs and they shouldn'r reject them bc they are nice to them?

However i think some obsessive men would act possesive,regardless of gender and non-patriarchal ideas..

Anyways. It's hard to find smut or just one shots with yandere boys without misogynistic traits :( or if they plant the idea of one,ppl would still labeled as misogynistic.

But with female yanderes (bc sexism thinks girls can't do no wrong and aesthetic,romanticizing mental illness) they make sadistic girls look more appealing and cutesy gaze.

Like I just want enjoy my sadistic boys in peace and them to have some cutesy :(

Oh you just made me drop an essay. I have a lot of thoughts about this actually.

Tw for discussion of misogyny, rape, stalking, lots of incoherent talking too lmao

Most yandere characters in mass media are female. I have this theory that (mostly) men like yandere women in fiction because it's a reversal of the socially accepted gender dynamics where women are seen as weak, fragile or submissive. We need to take in account that the trope started in Japan where those gender roles are still very prevalent to this day, and to a male Japanese audience seeing a dangerous, powerful, dominant woman is a power fantasy. It's unusual, you know? For the "prey" to be the predator. In retro horror movies the victims are usually women while the killers are men. So it's absolutely shocking (revolutionary even) to see the roles reversed. Female stalkers, villains, obsessive women, in a way they're all reclaiming themselves in cinema and media, and allowing themselves to be possessive and jealous the way men have been for centuries IN REAL LIFE. I have nothing but respect for media that chooses to engage with that, be it horror or even romance. I think it's easier to have a nuanced discussion on female yanderes than on male because of the physical difference and the way society views criminals based on gender and appearance.

Society keeps telling us that women are to be desired, they're always the center of the desire (and objectification/sexualisation). With female yanderes this is reversed too - men get to be desired (obsessively so), they become the center of someone's sexuality, which is rarely the case in real life where male sexuality revolves about being the dominant figure in the relationship. It's a way for men to be submissive without having to face a society that emasculates and mocks them for this submissiveness. Or at least that's the way I see it. It's a very interesting topic.

With male yanderes, the conversation is entirely different. It's hard to write about them without engaging in some way with misogyny. You can't write possessive men without thinking about the very real life implications of those behaviors. 200 years ago women were still considered property, they belonged to the highest bidder. Even today hundreds of women are murdered because they reject men who can't handle rejection, or who view them as property. Of course there are cases where women kill their male partners out of jealousy or paranoia, but the reverse are much, much more common. It's very important in those topics to be able to distinguish between fiction an reality.

There is the other side of it all. Fiction is fiction. It can be anything. Fiction of course doesn't exist in a bubble, but it doesn't need to be realistic or even engage with the real world. You can have possessive men who aren't misogynistic or rapey. But I choose to look at all perspectives. I enjoy working with some realistic traits from time to time, and that often means dealing with unpleasant, sensitive real world topics like misogyny, rape, inceldom, assault, rape culture etc. I look at the yandere genre as a horror trope first, and as erotica second. I don't consider it romance - although some slight yandere traits can be used to create perfectly healthy male yandere characters, my writing isn't an example of that at all.

Those are my two cents, sorry for the rambling, but as a writer (and a feminist) I really find this topic intriguing. There are so, so many aspects to it, social, cultural, etc