#but the people who share identities with these characters aren't

[ladygrey7]

.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

when you're looking for that info about "is there a possible phil/orville romance" and get "though there isn't a, quote, romance between the two men...it's a marvelous pairing and i'm totally happy with there being homosexual overtones between the two"

[creatingblackcharacters]

“Across cultures, darker people suffer most. Why?” Multiethnic and Multicultural Blackness

“Across cultures, darker people suffer most. Why?”- Andre 3000

Tell me what's wrong with this picture.

Hint: This is Miles Morales- from the video game depiction- canonically an Afro-Puerto Rican. Jefferson is Black American; Rio is Puerto Rican.

So why is the Cuban flag on their wall?

This is what happens when no one (with any saying power) in the board room is representative of the group being depicted! And mind you, this was produced under SONY and MARVEL, for the PS5, a product under two brands that combined churn out hundreds of millions in profit! And… No one on any level corrected them until the beta came out and fans saw it. That's how pervasive this sort of ignorance of other cultures can be. How are you writing a story about a character, and you don't even know how he identifies?

Multiethnic & Multicultural Blackness

Realistically, you’ve probably walked past many a biracial, multicultural, or multiethnic Black person before and assumed they were “just Black”. One example: Rae Dawn Chong- known as Mama du Pointe du Lac- is Afro-Chinese, but that Chinese background did not play into the role she played. A more personal example: my recent loctician was also Afro-Chinese, with very dark skin (she made jokes about how her eyes reveal it, but we can’t make those jokes here). I would have never known.

Point is, we reacted to what we saw, and that’s not an accident. Blackness is treated as a monolith, and an indicator of social level whether you realize it or not. You see a ‘Black’ person, and without wondering any further about their identity, you will treat them as you’ve been socialized to treat ‘Black’ people! But every Black person is not the same!

You don't have to write an entire essay with citations mid-story about how you learned so much about the Afro-Chicana or Afro-Iraqi experience for your main character. We didn't ask. But, slipping natural things here and there into the story of a character’s culture helps cement that yes, this character has this multicultural identity and it matters to them; it is who they are, it has an effect on their life and character in some way. It is how you deepen the character and show respect for the culture you are depicting!

I love using Miles as an example, so here’s a good example. In Across The Spiderverse, he goes to a party to celebrate Jefferson’s new position. In that scene, Rio walks through a mix of all his family members. Even when he speaks with his parents in this scene, they managed to incorporate his Afro-Puerto Rican identity without shouting to the rooftops “HEY! HE’S BLACK AND LATINO! SEE HOW I’M TELLING YOU?”

Race vs Ethnicity

The Black experience stretches as far as the African diaspora- worldwide! It's why it's frustrating when people assume "Black people" means "United States" and the West's perception of "Third World Africa" (especially when it comes to existing in media that people have strongly claimed is just White). Latin and Central America? West Europe? East Europe? Southwest Asia and North Africa? The Mediterranean? East Asia? Australia? You will find Black people!! Just because we aren't the majority doesn't mean we aren't there!

But just because we're Black doesn't mean we're all "African-American". Ethnicity is "the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent." Race is "a categorization of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into groups generally viewed as distinct within a given society."

"But I thought you said Black is an identity!"

It is! Black does not only mean “Black American”. The reason Black Americans identify as just Black (which is why I demand that you show respect by capitalizing it) is due to the loss of our specific heritages from the enslavement meant to scourge us of them, to make us property. To call us by our actual names would be acknowledging our equivalent humanity and culture. In order to enforce slavery without qualm, they had to be violently removed. Black Africans of numerous ethnic groups, now violently forced into this amalgamation, had to come together and forge something new. We had to find a common connection- our Blackness (and that experience as defined by whiteness in this society) was it. It also functions as a reclamation of our identity, of our presence in this world. We are a culture, we are an entire group of people, and we should be acknowledged as such.

Again: all Black people are NOT the same!!! This is like… anti-racism 101, but so many people continue to fall for it, even those ‘well-meaning’. You cannot ask one Black person to represent the ENTIRETY of the world's Black experience. Many other factors will come into play, and this includes their culture.

Keep in mind how being multicultural and/or biracial and Black will put many people at a crossroads that is complex and difficult to traverse. There will always be parts of incomplete acceptance, an extra layer of code-switching based on where you are and who you're with. A Black Kenyan is not a Black American, who is not a Black Greek, who is not a Black Colombian, who is not a Black Filipino. They're different cultures, that will treat each other differently. Society- from strangers to your own family- may try to pull multiethnic Black people one direction or another- are you ‘Black’ enough, are you ‘technically Black’, are you ‘technically’ something else, are you that ethnicity enough?

(I will discuss Black biracial people with whiteness in the next lesson, because I felt like the interracial and biracial White & Black topic needed its own talk, but this is relevant there as well.)

Where- In the world- Is-

Coming back from the opening of this lesson: keep in mind that you need to know specifically WHERE your character is from! For example, just saying they're "Afro-Latino" reveals very little- there's an entire chunk of the planet that falls under the "Latin America" category (as defined by U.S. standards).

A follower of mine- they identify as Caribbean Latine- sent me this in discussion about the topic:

"I wish people actually thought about where their Afro-Latino characters are from. It’s always very vague and it’s so reductive because an Argentinian Afro-Latino is very different from a Puerto Rican Afro-Latino. This is very subjective but I think this issue is pretty blatant in The Owl House. They flash the Dominican flag a couple of times, but when it comes to actually making her Afro-Latino…I don’t think they did a very good job. They barely made her Black in the first place. I don’t want to dog on the voice actors too much because there are a million factors that might have affected this but. When they make a point to have the characters speak Spanish, it’s really noticeable when the accent/dialect doesn’t align with their ethnicity. Dominicans have a really identifiable dialect in Spanish. When the Afro-Latino characters speak in Spanish, it’s the most neutral accent I’ve ever heard. This is such a me-issue, but this is to say that people should actually research where their characters are from instead of vaguely painting them as Afro-Latino. We are all SOOO different. Our dialects vary so much that sometimes an Afro-Mexican and an Afro-Puerto Rican won’t understand each other even though we speak the same language.”

WHO are we talking about? How does that factor into their identity, and the way the world- both in story, and how readers from around the world- will perceive them? Will an Afro-Dominican know that they're supposed to relate to your character if they're vaguely Latino?

Note:

While I was doing my research, I noticed that searching for “Afro-_” doesn’t always offer much, as it does the ubiquitous antiblack experience and roles in politics and resistance. And while I think that’s super cool and mandatory, I think another way to approach this would be to focus on the culture as a whole, and then go from there. So for example, if I wanted my character to be Afro-Mexican- maybe even from a specific location in Mexico, or their family is from that area- it would be easier to look up the cultures and activities of that area itself, and then inform with my knowledge of how Blackness is treated there.

As I am not a member of these groups, I thought it would be better for me to find resources that better explain, than to try to speak for them myself. Hell, just from doing this research, I learned that I have far more to educate myself on. There are so many good resources out there! People speak on these topics that y’all want to know about, and there are so many books and videos- find them and educate yourselves! This is a long section filled with links, so I'm going to put them under a readmore.

I also could not possibly sit here and name every single ethnic combo because that would be endless. So what I'm going to do is give some broad strokes of a few major groupings, that will hopefully start you on the path of how to conduct your own research!

The African Diaspora

This is such a good resource. There are short chapters going into the details and history of Black people in many regions, all around the globe. I’m honestly in love with how this is set up. It's a good starting point!

Black Africans

This one isn't specifically an example of multiethnicity; I just want to emphasize that there are many ethnicities and cultures within Africa itself! One is still multiethnic if they are Black American and Ivorian, for example! As the birthplace of humanity, there are plenty of ethnic groups in Africa with endlessly rich cultures, and all of them will come with different foods, fashions, languages!

Notable Figures: Nelson Mandela, Tobi Lou, Patrice Lumumba, Tems, Wizkid, Kwame Nkrumah, Chinua Achebe, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Wangarĩ Maathai, Agnes Tirop, Chéri Samba, Sheikh Abdullah Ssekimwanyi

Internalized antiblackness in African countries is due to the long and violent history of western imperialism in Africa. “The Carving Up of Africa” by European nations has long worn on the continent, its resources, and its peoples, and that includes remnants of their beliefs. Another pervasive idea in media is that all African peoples are ‘poor’, ‘living in huts’, and ‘starving’. There are people doing that all over the world, it is not inherent to being Black African. But even if that were the case- and it is not, every African does not live that way- it would still be the fault of aforementioned imperialism. Please do your research, and do not EVER write that if someone is African, they ‘must not be used to food’ or ‘have never seen such magnificent things as [what white character offers]’.

Afro Latinos

Notable figures: Celia Cruz, Frantz Fanon, Zoe Saldaña, Colman Domingo, Lupita Nyongo, Gina Torres, Cardi B, MJ Rodriguez

Notable music styles- Reggaeton? Salsa? Rumba? A lot of the best music of the area has roots in Blackness.

Antiblackness in the Afro-Latino community

Colorism plays a huge role in perception, to the point of putting you into classes of people. From the same Caribbean Latine follower:

Also, they have to do research on racial groupings in LATAM. It’s unavoidable. A Latino that’s considered Black in the USA may not be considered Black in LATAM. This is because of Blanqueamiento. That is a LOT to explain, but TLDR: A big difference between racism in the USA and racism in LATAM is that white people aren’t focused on segregation. It’s racism through imposition. “Blanqueamiento” refers to whitening and it’s the belief that you can cleanse the bloodline by having children with white people. The lineage will get increasingly lighter. That is why whenever a child comes out lighter than their parents, people will praise the parents for “bettering the race” (mejorando la raza). So a light skinned Black person in the USA may have another racial classification in LATAM (prieto, moreno, mulato, etc)."

One example is 'pelo malo' (bad hair)- how afro-textures are deemed unwanted, as a holdover from Spanish colonization and ideas of whiteness being equivalent to purity. Another severe example is of the slur "mayate"- apparently, it means "f*ggot black bug". If you're Black, and someone ever calls you this, know that you are being severely insulted. If you are interested in more Afro-Mexican history, Colonial Blackness by Herman Bennett is a book that follows the stories of enslaved Africans and their descendants in 17th century Mexico, questioning the existing history told that often leaves out their presence.

Afro Indigenous

*Indigenous doesn't just mean "to America", though the links are to the Afro-indigenous experience in the U.S.

Notable Figures: Crispus Attucks, Lucy Parsons, George Henry White, Charlie Patton, Jimi Hendrix, Eartha Kitt, Lena Horne, Ausben Jordan

What’s interesting is that it was much harder for me to find solid evidence of people who are Black Natives, mainly because it seems this history was lost and/or never recorded, or due to Blood Quantum and antiblackness, not acknowledged. That is something worth thinking about, if you are writing an Afro-Native character.

Blood quantum: A system developed by the United States federal government to determine how much “Indian blood” an Indigenous person has and if they are qualified for Tribal enrollment. Blood quantum limits accessibility to citizenship and is designed to decrease enrollment numbers. Today, some tribes still use blood quantum as criteria for Tribal enrollment. As part of their sovereign status, every federally recognized Tribe determines its own criteria for membership and enrollment.

Further reading:

Young, Black Native activists say it's time to appreciate Indigenous diversity

Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage

Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma By Circe Sturm (2002)

We Refuse to Forget: A True Story of Black Creeks, American Identity, and Power By Caleb Gayle (2023)

Afro-Arab/SWANA

Notable figures: Bilal ibn Rabah, Fatima Bernawi, Layla F. Saad, Samirah Srur Fadel, Ahmed Osman, Sara El Hassan (known as bsonblast), Ali Jiddah, Maryam Abu Khaled

Here's an amazing resource cataloguing the history of Afro-Palestinians, as well as a timeline of the solidarity between Black Americans, Afro-Palestinians, and Palestinians!

I sat here and tried very hard to come up with a way to summarize this, especially given current events in our world, and I found that at this moment, I lack the skill to do it. Not because there’s nothing to say- God knows there’s plenty- but unraveling the intersections that comes with the SWANA experience would take me far longer than a summary. I think Maryam Abu Khaled can speak on her experience far better than I, anyway:

Afro-AAPI

Notable figures: apl.de.ap, Michael Ealy, H.E.R., Karrueche, Rae Dawn Chong, Naomi Campbell, Naomi Osaka, Chanel Iman, Anderson Paak

Interview from famous R&B artist, guitarist, actress for Belle, and Afro-Filipina: H.E.R.

There is a strain between Black and Asian communities, in the United States and beyond, white supremacy playing a major role. But that does not mean that we cannot move forward together, or have not shown one another solidarity.

One of my biggest pet peeves that happens often in fandom spaces is fans who claim that Asians- East Asians in particular, but Asians in general- don't know what Black people are and what we look like. It's racist to every ethnicity and background involved. Yes, there are Black East Asian and Black South Asian people. Yes, these countries have access to the Internet to look up what we look like. There have been plenty of well-drawn Black people by those artists. Just like every white artist isn't going to draw a caricature, every Asian artist isn't going to. It all comes down to practice, their commitment to their craft, and their commitment to not being racist. Being from these areas is not an excuse for not drawing Black people accurately- the same amount of effort they can be put into depicting a white person (that would also be a minority in these places), can be put into depicting us as well. Knock it off.

Conclusion

Antiblackness is unfortunately ubiquitous, yes, but that doesn’t mean the rest of every Black person’s life experience is going to be. We are everywhere on this planet, which means there’s a planet’s worth of experiences to be had. If you decide that you want to create a Black character with a multiethnic or multicultural background, you need to commit to that! Even by mentioning their music, or their food, or- if you’re going to get into it- how others might treat them due to their Afro-identity. Something that lets us as the viewers know that you didn’t just write a white person and then claim they were “Afro-Blank” for clout. If you mean it, do it, because as always, it’s the thought that counts, but the action that delivers!

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Regarding the post about Marinette being punished for trusting people and the response to it, this is something I always have trouble explaining because it sounds callous? But fictional characters aren't people. It's not that their lives just so happen to get in the way leading to something bad happened the writers decided that should happen, and it's important that you stop and ask WHY this happens. If the camera is "on" per se, people assume it's relevant and will tie into something larger. So like if the camera is on and all we see is Alya revealing her identity and then the result is she's outed in the same way she was in Heroes Day, the audience naturally concludes it's connected and thus realizes the lesson is either "Alya learns she shouldn't share her identity" OR "Marinette learns she shouldn't trust people" or both.

Secret identities are a great example of this phenomenon. We're NOT shown every time a villain's plan is foiled because they didn't know the heroe's identity, we ARE shown every time a heroe's identity causes friction in their lives. As such, large parts of the audience think of secret identites as inconveniences because that's what's shown (not just in Miraculous Ladybug, in tons of other shows)

Like you are supposed to make connections in Television about what's being shown to you that no one would make in real life (or at the very least no one SHOULD make in real life) because there's a limited space to tell the story and the audience is assuming the writers aren't wasting our time.

If these were real people it would be unreasonable to say because people have their own lives Marinette can't trust them, but in a story where Marinette is the main character who is explicitly always supposed that's. An accurate way to read the story!

And I also understand that this is a very boring construction if you're making headcanons or thinking about these characters! But that's a different lens, it doesn't make the broader writing lens invalid. You're speaking different languages at that point.

Anyway I hope that helps someone, that's my two cents

You summed it up perfectly! There's a ton of valid criticism to be had of Miraculous, but you can tell from the narrative framing that almost all of it comes down to writing choices and not things that are supposed to be seen as in-universe issues even though a lot of fans treat them as such. It's really weird to see things like people complaining about everything revolving around Marinette as if it's a personal flaw of hers and not the result of her being the main character in a fictional world. "Main Character Syndrome" literally pulls its name from the fact that this is how main characters work in a lot of media. It's a flaw when a real person does it, but in terms of story telling, it's extremely normal - and often good story telling - to have everything revolve around your main character or a core cast.

The issue with Miraculous is that they chose a lot of poor conflicts if they wanted Marinette to be the one and only main character, but that's not her fault. She didn't decide to have the rules around identities make no sense. The writers did. She didn't decide to make the main villain Adrien's dad while also keeping Adrien from being involved in the story. The writers did. The list goes on and on and, because none of it reflects badly on Marinette in the writers' eyes, the show doesn't act like Marinette is in the wrong. Remember, these are the same writers who think that Derision was a great episode that added depth to Marinette instead of destroying her character and making her look unhinged. Their judgement is clearly a little skewed.

While the writers love to make bad plot choices, they are generally using proper story telling language to make those choices, which is why I can tell you how characters' actions are intended to be read. The Rena Furtive and Nino example is a great one because it allows me to show that the writers do understand how to set things up. In fact, once they've decided that they're going to do a thing, they pretty much always set it up at a basic level. It's rarely spectacular and often frustrating, but it's never shocking.

In Rocketear, Alya promises Marinette that Nino will never learn about Rena Furtive. The episode then ends with her breaking that promise via the following exchange:

Alya: (sighs) I'm still Rena Rouge. (Nino gasps.) But now I'm in hiding and that's why Ladybug asked me not to tell anyone. Nino: But why are you telling me if no one's supposed to know? Is Ladybug cool with this? Alya: I can't hide it from you, because I love you, Nino, and we share everything.

Look at how this confession is presented. Look at what the dialogue focuses on. When Marinette confessed her identity to Alya, it was all about the confession and supporting Marinette. There was no discussion of this being a problem for Chat Noir or anything like that because - in the writers' eyes - that wasn't a problem for some reason. This is why Chat Noir almost instantly absolves Ladybug of blame once he finds out about the identity reveal (see: Hack-San.) The writers didn't want it to be an issue so it wasn't:

Ladybug: I'm really sorry, Cat Noir. I should've told you. I mean, if I found out that you told someone about your secret identity, I'd... probably be upset, too. I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. Cat Noir: You didn't hurt my feelings. You did everything right

But when Alya confesses her identity to Nino, the conversation is not just about her confession. It's about her confession and how she's not supposed to do this. That's why Nino's response is not loving support. Instead, he asks if this is a good idea and if Ladybug knows.

These things are getting focused on because the writers are telling you that this is a bad thing. It's supposed to feel ominous. When I first watched Rocketear, I assumed that the season was going to end with Gabriel getting the fox off of Alya due to Nino because that was an obvious way to raise the stakes and they'd just heavily implied that Nino knowing would be a bad thing. I was, unfortunately, right. The only on screen consequence of Nino knowing is that he outs Alya to everyone in an incredibly forced series of events (see: Strikeback):

(Ryuko successfully prevents the Roue de Paris from hitting them, yet, it flies to the direction where Rena Furtive is. This causes Carapace to panic.) Carapace: Rena! (takes out his shield) Shell-ter! (Carapace's superpower successfully prevents the Ferris wheel from hitting Rena Furtive on top of the Tour Montparnasse. But the information of Rena Furtive's active status shocks the heroes, as well as Shadow Moth.) The heroes: Rena?! Shadow Moth: (from the top of the Eiffel Tower) She's still active?

Of course the Ferris Wheel goes straight for Alya's hiding spot and of course Nino screams her name before casting his power and of course the villain overhears it. It's all so forced and unnatural, which should make it glaringly obvious how much the writers wanted this to happen. This wasn't something they were kind of forced to do because it made sense for the narrative and they wanted to tell a good story. Instead, they wrote an awkward series of events because they really, really, really wanted Nino knowing to be a bad thing that outs Alya so that Marinette loses all of the miraculous even though none of this makes much sense.

How the hell did Gabriel hear Nino's shout from so far away? Is he able to overhear everything the heroes are saying? How does Nino even know that Alya is hiding there? And since when was a Ferris Wheel a threat to these guys? Your girlfriend is a magical girl and she's in her magical girl form, dude. You could drop a building on her and she'd be fine, a thing you have to know because this scene literally goes on to have Chat Noir go flying into a building, hitting it so hard the cement literally cracks, and no one really cares. I guess it's fine if Adrien is a punching bag, but Alya must be protected at all costs...

Anyway, while the above series of events was annoying, none of it was surprising. In fact, it would have all be perfectly predictable even if Alya outing herself was that treated as a more neutral event. Her choice leading to bad things falls perfectly in line with a truly bizarre running theme in the show: outing your identity to the person you love romantically is a bad thing that leads to bad consequences. That's why Chat Blanc and Ephemeral ended the world and why Nino knowing cost Ladybug the fox and why the character they call Joan of Arc has to give up her miraculous to be with her love and why the Kwami's have this absolutely asinine dialogue in Kwamis' Choice:

Plagg: Sugarcube! Having to force them to choose between love and their mission is just awful! Maybe Master Fu was wrong to choose them. Tikki: No, they’re made for each other. Love is what gives them their strength. Plagg: But the impossible part of that love is destroying them, and I know a thing or two about destruction. Tikki: (sighs heavily) What can we do? Plagg: We must free them of that impossible choice. We must… free them of us.

This is the voice of the author telling you that outing the identities is not and never will be a good choice for the love square. Never mind that Alya is allowed to know Marinette's identity or that Gabriel finding out is what actually ended the world in the alternate timelines or that Felix outted himself in public but is still wielding or that freaking Gabriel was allowed to know half of the temp heroes' identities while they were still actively wielding. For some reason, those things don't matter to the narrative, probably because romantic love wasn't involved. The "identity reveals are a bad thing" rule only seems to apply when romantic love is a key element to the point where it's a reoccurring theme in this supposed power of love show.

[mylight-png]

A while ago I was listening to Dara Horn's podcast relating to her book, People Love Dead Jews. Within this podcast she discussed the fact that Holocaust museums tend to center stories that highlight ways in which Jews were just like anyone else, putting secular Jews on a pedestal of sorts.

The podcast went on to make the point that we shouldn't have to be like them to be liked. A Jew in a kippah is just as worthy of being accepted as a Jew in a baseball cap, and to position one, the more assimilated one, as "better" is antisemitic.

This made me think of how movies and shows portray Jews, and I realized a similar pattern of idealizing assimilation is deeply prevalent.

There are two main ways Jews are portrayed in movies/shows that I've noticed that are problematic. (For a narrower scope I'll be discussing American media as I am more familiar with that than most other countries.)

The first kind of Jewish representation is the token Jew. This is the character that the viewer wouldn't even have known is Jewish had the show not casually mentioned them celebrating Hanukkah in passing. This is the character who is entirely the same as any other character. An example of this would be in Ginny and Georgia, where a few side characters are revealed to be Jewish. This reveal occurred only for the purpose of making a Hanukkah episode, and immediately one of the characters says the beginning words to most of our prayers, adding "bitch" at the end. This sort of absolutely blatant disrespect towards the words many of us wouldn't even speak fully in casual conversation is meant to indicate that it's okay to poke fun at our religion. (By the way, it isn't okay. Don't disrespect our religion, thanks.) (And no the actress wasn't Jewish.)

Then there's Ben Gross from Never Have I Ever, a similarly extremely assimilated Jewish character. Instead of making fun of Judaism, however, the show plays into Jewish stereotypes. Ben's dad is a wealthy influential lawyer who works with Hollywood. Come on, there's three in a row there. Ben himself is frequently made fun of for being very short (to an extent not befitting the actor's actual stature), and some of his mannerisms could be described as effeminate. All of these traits play into anti-Jewish stereotypes. The protagonist even says she wishes Ben was killed by Nazis and other than a scolding this isn't made to be the big deal that it is.

These sorts of characters are meant to show how Jews are "just like you!" and pokes cruel fun at the few remaining things that do occasionally set them apart. Yes, secular Jews exist, but the way these shows make fun of their Jewish identities is where the issue arises.

The second problematic representation is meant to make goyim feel good about being goyim. This is specifically done through how Judaism is portrayed in these movies.

A major example of this is the show Unorthodox, in which the plot centers a young girl trying to escape her very observant community. This show directly demonized the Jewish religion, making it appear inherently oppressive and twisted.

While some may argue that the show was merely trying to portray the social issues within the community, there are better ways to achieve this.

The book An Unorthodox Match takes on a similar task with a vastly different tone. The book centers a protagonist joining an equally observant community, but not for a moment does the book, author, or protagonist blame Judaism. The book is very clearly written by a Jew who loves Judaism, and yet it manages to highlight similar social issues to the show without blaming Judaism. In fact, Jewish traditions have a fair share of appreciation in the book!

This sort of media is meant to make the goyishe viewers be grateful they aren't part of those communities, but as a Jewish viewer I felt deeply uncomfortable with the positioning of religious Jews as a negative part of society. This media makes the characters seem like they have nothing at all in common with the goyim around them or the goyim watching the show. It's the polar opposite of the previous example.

The first example is showing Jews as "just like anyone else" until they aren't, while the second example portrays Jews as entirely other. Never have I seen an Orthodox Jewish character side by side with the non-Jewish characters in any other context than the Jewish character envying their non-Jewish peers.

Why is the choice either to be assimilated or othered? Why can we not have an observant Jewish character remind their friends that they can't hang out on Saturday, or maybe they bring their own kosher snacks? Maybe a Jewish character muttering a bracha over their food? Why not make being Jewish an important part of their character without making them self-loathe because of it?

Media almost only ever shows two extremes and neither of those extremes has a positive impact on the perception of Jews.

(There is also a pattern I've noticed with Jews and goyim being cast in Jewish roles and how that corresponds to the character, but that's probably another post for another time.)

[starlight-bread-blog]

How The Bond of Zuko and Katara Enhances the Themes of A:TLA

When a subplot is intertwined with a story’s core themes, it creates a more cohesive experience, resonating more profoundly with viewers. For this reason, a good writer must always aspire for a coherent narrative in all of its aspects. So, what are the themes of A:TLA, and how do Zuko and Katara fit into them? To answer that, I’m going to break down each theme and discuss how it relates to the pair.

On Destiny

Your destiny might be unexpected, controversial, but it’s yours. No one can take it away from you. In Lake Laogai, Zuko and Iroh shared the following exchange:

Even if people try, even if it isn’t acceptable to other people. Your identity will always be there, and you must make the choices that reflect your identity will always be there, because it’s your destiny. Near the series finale, in Sozin’s Comet Part 2, Iroh said:

“Sozin's Comet is arriving, and our destinies are upon us. Aang will face the Fire Lord.When I was a boy, I had a vision that I would one day take Ba Sing Se. Only now do I see that my destiny is to take it back from the Fire Nation,so the Earth Kingdom can be free again”.

In the end, everyone goes to their destinies. The destinies that they’re forging. Aang will spare the fire lord, Toph will use her metalbending to take down the airship, and Zuko and Katara will stand side by side against Azula. Who would have thought? Your destiny might be really surprising. No one could have guessed that Toph would invent metalbending, or that Aang would meet a lion turtle, or that Katara would stand by her former enemy’s side - by Zuko’s side.

Katara and Zuko’s closeness fulfill the show’s themes of destiny by being subversive and unexpected. They are fire and water, the daughter of the chief and the fire lord. Their friendship is rather odd, but it’s their destiny - not what was forced upon them. Moreover, their bond is subversive because it didn’t start as lovingly as it ended. Zuko and Katara were enemies, no one could have anticipated that they’ll grow close, but as I said, and the show said, destiny can come from an unexpected place.

On Diversity

Separation is an illusion as well as the four nations.

Zuko and Katara were not only enemies, from opposite sides of the war, but they were polar opposites – the Prince of the Fire Nation and the last waterbender of the small Southern Water Tribe, fire and water. However, all of these differences didn't matter for them to form a beautiful friendship. Because they're not actually separate, they're both kind empathetic people. They have much in common. The superficial predetermined differences aren't separation. They're one in the same.

Additionally, one will gain from learning about the other nations, or as Iroh put it:

Zuko and Katara leaning into their opposites ties into the theme. In fact, Zuko himself learned to redirect lightning from a waterbending technique.

On Redemption

Many characters in A:TLA were given a chance to redeem themselves. From Mai and Ty Lee redeeming themselves by betraying Azula near the end of the show to Iroh whose redemption has long ended before the story starts. A:tla firmly tells us that while the path to redemption can be long and hard, it’s a path worth paving and it’s yours to carve. Zuko’s redemption arc specifically is praised as one of the best redemption arcs in tv history.

A part of Zuko’s journey towards redemption is his interactions with Katara. Earning her forgiveness is his final step into integrating into the Gaang, and his final act of redemption is to jump in front of a lightning bolt for her. It’s significant that it’s Katara who represents these milestones in his arc. He redeems himself to everyone, but not in the same way as Katara. The path to redemption through Katara’s eyes is longer and ends with a bang.

On Morality

Black and white notions of the world are incomplete. The Fire Nation isn’t all evil, as seen in The Headband, their citizens are simply indoctrinated. And there can be band people on the other side of the war, such as Jet. Fire isn’t just destruction, it’s also healing and life. And the opposite of fire can be just as destructive, as seen in The Puppetmaster when Hama showcases her bloodbending. In 06×03 A\ang concludes the following:

“Anyone’s capable of great good and great evil.Everyone, even the Fire Lord and the Fire Nation have to be treated like they're worth giving a chance.”

When Zuko and Katara first met each other, they thought of each other as enemies and nothing more. Katara saw Zuko as his worst self and the manifestation of her hatred of the Fire Nation. In the Crystal Catacombs Katara described him as "the face of the enemy". She saw him as all black and no white, but then he opened up. They discover they actually have shared experiences despite being on opposing sides. When he betrayed her, it seemed to confirm that they're not similar, that everything Katara thought of Zuko was correct. Of course, he came back, but Katara can only forgive him once she lets go of some of her hatred of the Fire Nation. His connection to Katara proves that they’re both seeing the world as shades of gray.

—————————

In conclusion, the profound connection between Zuko and Katara enhances the themes of the show and their connection is a perfect example of the messages it’s trying to put out. Rather it’s about destiny, morality, diversity or redemption, Zuko and Katara’s relationship is remains one of the most relevant examples of these themes in the show.

[andthemoonsingswisely]

my pet peeve is when the asoiaf fandom does mental gymnastics to justify parallels between Lyanna Stark and any of the stark children besides Jon and Arya. Parallels aren't just the color of someone's clothes, or a hobby...they have thematic purposes and are meant to reveal things about the involved characters, conflicts, and motivations. Arya being Lyanna 2.0 in terms of appearance and personality is a parallel because it shows what Lyanna would have been like had she been alive outside of the few sentences said about her. Jon defending Samwell Tarly and Lyanna defending Howland Reed is a parallel because it establishes both of them as people who defend those who don't conform to society's standards, and lays the groundwork for R + L = J. Arya being the ghost in harrenhal and Lyanna being the KotLT in Harrenhal further add to the theme of history repeating and cement these two characters' shared motivation of justice, and their similar speech patterns and appearances which lead Bran to confuse Lyanna for Arya in the vision as well as their "wolf-blood" are parallels because these things are key in Arya reclaiming her identity as a Stark. Throwaway lines like Sansa "pleading" like Lyanna and being "dead before her time" aren't really parallels in the sense that they don't reveal any unique aspect to Sansa's character or how her motivations and conflicts are similar to Lyanna's; one could argue that Jon actually dying is as much of a parallel to Lyanna being "dead before her time" or that Arya, too, having her identity stolen and pretending to be "no one" is also her being "dead before her time" if that was all that was necessary to be a parallel. I'm not going to go through every Sansa-Lyanna "parallel" and explain why they're wrong, as there have been other posts doing the same thing. However, another "parallel" I've seen lately is between Robb and Lyanna: people claim that Robb and Lyanna both haunting the narrative is a parallel to which I have to say...if a character who was important to the plot died OF COURSE they'd haunt the narrative! the situation around them when they died, as well as their social position and personality + motivations are too different to make their deaths an actual parallel. Robb was a firstborn son who was a military leader who died as part of the Freys' revenge to him breaking an oath, Lyanna was a girl who couldn't openly practice sword fighting and who died in a tower after giving birth. Robb went into war after the Lannisters killed Ned, Lyanna didn't go into war, that was started by Robert after she went with Rhaegar. Personality-wise? It's not like they're nothing alike, but there are no significant similarities between them either. It's like taking any two random characters from the novel; if you tried hard enough, I'm sure you could find some similarity between them, but nothing that's enough to create a true parallel.

[ramayantika]

I woke up just now but in half asleep summer nap state I will roll for Heermandi

1. I felt that Alamzeb's casting could be better. The girl was pretty but yet I could not feel the budding romantic expressions on her face and body language. Like that sharmana and poetry narration felt very forced.

2. TAJDAR WHY WHY WHY SLB I WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU. No spoilers. Tajdar is very charming, amazing voice, very handsome.

3. Okay considering the history of tawaifs I was at times so mad at Alam and was about to hit the phone screen to say woman wake up to reality.

4. Lajjo and Zorawar's story. Why he left her, her addiction and Lajjo's story could have been explored more. You have such a brilliant actress and when SLB is noted for using actors and their character to their greatest potential, I felt he did not not do that with lajjo this time. We only see her enter in sakal ban, she is always drinking and thinking about Zorawar

5. Manisha was brilliant. The ruthlessness, the wit and slyness. And for a tawaif of those times whose existence and power is constantly challenged, by other tawaifs and rivals and then nawabs and British she has to be so clever, cunning and vicious. Yet her feelings for Alam especially by the end (spoiler free) did make me understand her stony heart more.

6. Aditi as Bibbo was charming, graceful and elegant. And goddamn the way she uses her skills to charm henderson so she may help her people to fight against the British.

7. Star villain Fareedan. I was looking forward to her schemes. And it was understandable why she hates Mallikajaan (manisha). The power play, the constant challenging was interesting to watch. Also sonakshi really acted well, both as Fareedan and as Rehana aapa. I won't say much because the way her character changed at a point where mallika was violated (watch the series for that) like it made me get an overview of these women. Women who were wronged since birth, clinging on to their art and performance, carving a distinct identity for themselves and yet having pride over who they are, and despite all the politics, inner enmity and betrayals, they still did not wish the worst to each other and later come together for they all share one pain.

8. The women if heeramandi coming together to fight for the British got me goosebumps. They decide to use all their money and life to fight for the country. Aditi's (bibbo) dialouge ek baar mujrevali nahi mulkvali bannke sochiye and another dialouge which meant that when the country is burning one does not organise lavish gatherings (mujra mushayra)

9. Songs were pretty good. Sakal ban was trending and I loved the other songs too. Reminded me of Pakeezah

10. Sanjeeda Shaikh as Waheeda. Bhai I used to feel so bad for her. She was betrayed everytime. Poor girl wanted power too like her sister but I understand why she wasn't given. Tawaifs cannot be put into a box. They aren't your gentle shy lover girl type women like we see in pakeezah, the lovely shy, sweet, pure sahibjaan. Their world is a golden cage and to survive here is a war fought everyday.

11. Tajdar ka baap kya gadha egoistic aadmi hai

12. End thoughts: aesthetics = 100/10. I was still looking for slb to explore more of their emotions and life and not just their opulence. Summing up everything, heermandi: 7/10

[jordanrosenburg]

After watching the “Quiet On Set” documentary, I can’t help but feel like there are literally no good people in the entertainment industry. Even the “good” ones aren’t good. It solidifies that we don’t actually know anything about them. We only know who they present as to the media. 

I think like most people around my age, we grew up watching Nickelodeon during its golden age. I always looked forward to watching “All That” not only because it was funny, but because it was something I could watch with my older siblings. It was something the four of us could laugh together about. My sister and I still laugh over the bit from “Keenan and Kel” where Kel admits to dropping the screw in the tuna. So many iconic characters and television shows were created at the hands of Dan Schneider. 

What else was created at the hands of Dan Schneider were countless acts of abuse, harassment, manipulation, and much more. His sets were homes to child sexual abusers. Adults who are around children each and every day, taking advantage of their trust and innocence, grooming them and harming them physically and mentally. 

It’s not easy for victims of abuse to speak up. Many aren’t believed. Reliving trauma is a horrific experience, so I commend each and every person who shared their story for this docuseries. There were previous cast members who aren’t as well known who got to share their truths, there were crew members sharing stories about Dan’s harassment and sexism on set. There were many crew members that felt uncomfortable about the scenes they were shooting, but no one spoke up. Dan had so much power at Nickelodeon because he kept churning out hit after hit after hit. The parents weren’t much better, but I’ll come back to that. 

The docuseries revealed three adult men who were caught for child pornography, and for sexually abusing children. One man’s name is Brian Peck. He groomed Drake Bell for years. Joe Bell, Drake’s father, did everything he could to keep Brian away from Drake because he knew something just wasn’t right with how Brian acted around his son. Brian eventually convinced Drake to fire his father as his manager, and let his mother take over. This gave Brian the room to drive Drake to and from auditions, take him to Disneyland with him and his friends, and more. Drake Bell revealed in the documentary that Brian Peck sexually assaulted and abused him for years. Since Drake was a minor when it started, his identity was kept secret.

During the trial, many people wrote letters for Brian Peck, attesting to his character: James Marden, Taran Killam, Alan Thicke, Thomas DeSano, Ron Melendez, Rider Strong, and Will Friedle. Some of these names are extremely surprising, and others aren't at all.

Joanna Kerns saying, "there must have been some extreme situation or temptation exerted on him to influence is actions" at the time, and is now saying "I have now learned that my letter of support was based on complete misinformation.

Knowing what I know now, I never would have written the letter". For me, it's not even about her writing the letter, it's about her blaming Drake Bell, the victim, and child in the situation, as if Brian Peck wasn't a grown man who should have known better.

Kimmy Robertson also wrote victim blaming language in her letter of support for Brian Peck.

Rich Correll wrote, "it would be my pleasure to work with him again". And then he did! Brian was allowed to work on The Suite Life! Correll later said, they had no input or involvement in the casting". He also went on to say that, "Mr. Peck simply replied that 'the problem had been solved'".

The series went on from there, explaining how Dan’s behaviors just got worse and worse, and he “flew too close to the sun”. The inappropriate sexual innuendo bits on his shows happened more and more frequently. This included constant closeups on actors’ feet, many of the young female actresses being forced to be squirted in the face with various liquids to represent “money shots”. Ariana Grande probably had it the worst in that she had to film videos that went directly to YouTube, many of which included her biting her own toenails, squeezing a potato until juice squirted out of it, etc. Just absolutely disgusting things that do not make sense for a CHILDREN’S television show. These weren’t jokes for kids. This was Dan Schneider abusing his power, and seeing how much he could get away with. 

It wasn’t until Jeanette McCurdy’s mother died that Nickelodeon finally launched an investigation into Dan Schneider. Jeanette talks about this in her book, “I’m Glad My Mom Died”, which was a heart wrenching read, but well worth it. Jeanette returned to work a WEEK after her mother died from a long battle with cancer. Because of the backlash she got for that, Nickelodeon realized that it was the culture Dan created that probably made Jeanette feel like she had to come back, that she couldn’t take more time off. 

All Nickelodeon did was remove Dan from his sets, and made it so he could only watch from his office and give notes from there. Even though he wasn’t physically on set, the toxic and hostile environment was still alive and well because he was still watching everyone’s every move. 

Thanks to #MeToo, more and more women started speaking up about their experiences on set with Dan Schneider. And then in 2018 Nickelodeon finally kicked Dan Schneider to the curb after launching another investigation based off the new claims. The investigation didn't reveal proof of sexual abuse, but it revealed more cases of harassment of his actors and his crews.

Child stars are often made fun of and exploited by the media as they transition into adulthood. We watch their mental health decline until they’re caught having a breakdown. People point and laugh, and say it’s just another child star who couldn’t handle life as a grown up. But what I think a lot of people don’t understand is that many child stars are forced into the entertainment business. Parents put their financial burdens on their children, tell them they need to work to support the family. That’s a lot of pressure to put on a child. So, if something bad is happening on a set, a kid is going to be too afraid to speak up because they could be fired, and if they’re fired, then they’re not making money for their families. The parents are supposed to be on set and with the kids at all times. But so many turn the other cheek and don’t speak up because they don’t want to risk their kids getting fired. 

It just feels like no adults, not even the ones you’re meant to trust, are safe to be around. In some way, shape, or form these kids get abused. Whether it’s sexual abuse, racism, inflicted eating disorders, or other types of mental abuse, they’re not safe. No one is looking out for them. Everyone is more concerned with making money. 

The entertainment industry squeezes the youth dry and tosses them aside when they can’t legally control them anymore. And we wonder why so many of them have a tough time later on in life. The lucky ones are helped through therapy, and the not so lucky ones either turn up dead, broke, abused, or end up abusing others as they were abused. 

I am feeling very sad and heartbroken. And I’m not sure where to go from here. So many of these shows have brought me comfort and laughs over the years. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to enjoy them again. Is it okay to sit and watch reruns or should we be boycotting everything? I want to help in the ways that I can, but I also know that the world will stop caring about this in a week or so when the next big truth bomb about something else is dropped. 

People who have no moral conscious, people who are okay letting children be hurt for the sake of their own wallets shouldn’t have any power. And I hope everyone involved in hurting these kids, past and present, is forced to answer for what they did. I hope they’re shamed and cancelled and doxxed and everything else bad that can happen to people like them. I hope they go broke and become ruined. And at this point, I hope Nickelodeon just crashes and burns. They don’t deserve any salvation. 

[pippenpaddlopsicopolisthethird]

Write twins better in three easy steps!

I meet so many people who act so stupid about this to my face, and I basically never see a set of identical twins that are well written in fiction, so here's a couple tips about identical twins. Mostly as a reference for writing them, but also so you can tell people to stop acting like an asshole to any twins you might know IRL.

FACT ONE:

Identical twins are two separate people.

Not one brain in two bodies

Not a hivemind that can read each other's thoughts

They don't speak in unison all the time (but might answer together if you address them as a collective and not an individual)

If they date they don't share the same partner

Can't be counted as one person for the sake of entry admission, airplane seating, employment, school tuition, or voting

Have their own names, even, and would prefer you use them instead of calling them both by the same collective name

I am eternally mad about We-Go from Kim Possible

FACT TWO:

Identical twins don't struggle telling themselves apart from each other. Your difficulty telling them apart is not something they have ever experienced themselves.

They understand the difference between looking at themself in the mirror and looking at their twin.

Yes, even as a young child.

No, they didn't have to learn the difference between a mirror and their sibling.

They never believe their twin to be themself.

They don't struggle to see themself as their own person.

They don't feel like they're looking at their own face all the time.

They don't have constant thoughts about how their sibling looks similar to themself.

The scene from The Parent Trap where one "twin" says 'OMG why do you look just like me??' just isn't realistic

FACT THREE:

Identical twins are, as a rule, not trying to actively deceive you and are sick of people assuming that.

Your difficulty in telling them apart does not mean they are trying intentionally to trick you or make you mess up

They also aren't trying to scare you or murder you and they won't like you if you tell them you're afraid of them

Dating a twin doesnt mean you're going to be parent-trapped (and if you can't tell your partner apart from their sibling, that's not a good look on you)

Some twins just go with the assumptions everyone else is making about them already and play into the stereotype, especially as kids

Literally every fictional pair of identical twins are tricksters already. Come up with something original.

Twins can still be compelling characters without leaning on these tropes

Writing a compelling pair of identical twins doesn't have to be hard if you either write them like other siblings, or understand that the stereotypes that circulate in fiction are some of the biggest issues they struggle against. Here are some good examples of compelling twin plots that I can think of, though not all of these characters are twins or identical:

Mabel's fear at the end of Gravity Falls that growing up meant that her brother would grow apart from her

Stanley Pines struggling to measure up to his parent's favoritism of his brother throughout childhood, but still dedicating his adult life to getting him back when he went missing

Ty Lee running away to join the circus so she could have an identity outside of her parents' curated "matched set" of siblings in AtLA

Vash and Knives in Trigun '99 experiencing the same childhood traumas and interpreting them differently, coming away from them with opposing ideologies in adulthood

Hikaru and Kaoru's trauma over being told they were interchangeable and their desire to find someone who would treat them as individuals in Ouran High School Host Club

[littlecrittereli]

Random WK Headcanon dump

Here's a silly list of headcanons I have about team Wild Kratts, in no particular order other than what comes into my head first:

Heights:

Martin and Chris are based off their real heights and I filled everyone else in based off how they look standing next to each other. I exaggerated Aviva and Koki's height a little bit, just for some variety.

Koki is the tallest at 6' (182.9 cm)

Martin is 5'10 (177.8 cm)

Jimmy is 5'9 (175.3 cm)

Chris is 5'8 (172.7 cm)

and Aviva is the shortest at 5'3 (160 cm)

Reference:

Ages:

Martin is definitely the oldest at 25

Aviva is 24

Jimmy and Koki are both 23, Jimmy being a few months older

And Chris is runner up at 21

The reason for the small age gap is because Martin was ultimately the person that put together the Tortuga team when he graduated college, and he picked students that were also close to graduation at the time. Chris would have just been starting college, but would join them upon graduation because of his connection through Martin. Other freshmen at the time would not have qualified for the research grant.

Birthdays!!!

Martin: Dec 23rd (he's a capricorn)

Aviva: Nov 4th (She's a scorpio)

Jimmy: April 20th (He's a taurus)

Koki: August 27th (She's a virgo)

Chris: July 19th (He's a cancer)

Identities:

(Disclaimer this is referring to the fictional Wild Kratts animated characters ONLY. Not the actual people they are based on.)

Martin: he/him, bisexual. But his preference is women.

He's probably had a handful of girlfriends and a couple of boyfriends throughout high school and college, but unfortunately had too big of ambitions to settle down with anyone.

Aviva: she/her, bisexual. She doesn't have a preference.

She has probably been on like... 2 dates max. She has always been much more focused on her education and bettering her inventions than dating. Her only standard for a partnership is someone who can keep up with her intelligence. Or at least someone she can learn from and grow with.

Jimmy: he/him, straight.

He literally does not care, but he would probably kiss a man if the opportunity arose. Had a girlfriend in kindergarten and they spoke twice, but since she moved schools and they never officially broke up, he's still technically off the market.

Koki: she/they lesbian. SHE LIKES WOMEN

tried to date a man. regretted it. Has probably been in a couple semi-serious relationships, but didn't work out for various reasons. She's content to focus on her career for now but someday would love to be a mom.

Chris: he/they aroace

only proclaimed to have a crush on a girl in high school because everyone else was talking about crushes and he didn't want to feel left out. Doesn't really like to be touched in general. Would rather cut off his hand than be forced to hold someone else's in a non platonic way. When someone has a crush on him, he does not know how to respond so he literally just ignores them.

Silly Stuff:

-As a zoologist, Martin knows more about animal behaviors, classification, and identification. Meanwhile, Chris as a biologist knows more about the anatomy and general science of animals. For example, Martin would be able to explain the reasoning behind a firefly's glow while Chris would be able to explain the chemical reaction that makes the glow possible. And they are constantly sharing and learning from each other as well.

-Chris has glasses, he just doesn't really use them very often. They would get in the way of creature adventuring so he only wears them if he's reading or something. They aren't super crucial, it just helps with small words.

-Game nights are VERY serious on the Tortuga. Jimmy is suspiciously good at card/board games. He pretty much always wins. It's to the point where everyone else is on a team against him. Sometimes he lets them win and it has sent the entire team into a fight. Sorry has been banned in the Tortuga because of this.

-Koki's a huge theatre nerd. She participated in plays recreationally throughout high school, and will often hum or sing while she's doing a task.

-Martin plays the guitar and has a mediocre singing voice. It's nothing spectacular but he can carry a tune. Sometimes when the Tortuga is parked somewhere remote for the night, they will make a campfire and sing a few songs.

-Aviva has roller skates built into her shoes (SIDE NOTE: This is something we see very often in season 1 but they seemed to have forgotten about it??? or retconned it??? BUT I HATE IT BECAUSE THEY WERE SO COOL PLEASE BRING BACK THE ROLLER SKATES)

-Martin is a terrible driver. (The oldest sibling curse) He knows he's a terrible driver, but pretends he's not. Chris will usually try to take the driver's seat to prevent Martin from driving, but sometimes Martin beats him there. Will deflect any evidence of him being a bad driver. "That curb shouldn't have been there" Someone please revoke his license, he's a danger to society.

-Jimmy is definitely the best cook out of all of them. He makes food for the team most of the time, unless they are on a longer flight and he has to pilot. Koki and Chris are pretty competent chefs "Just read the recipe it's not that hard". Martin's basically limited to ramen noodles and microwave mac and cheese. Aviva, try as she might, can NOT cook. She will BURN water. (she always overcomplicates the recipes by trying to utilize an invention or something)

-Koki likes to crochet. She likes to keep her hands busy so whenever she's doing a rather boring task, like monitoring for bad weather/villains while the bros are out, she crochets.

-Jimmy gets insane jet lag, and since they are bouncing from different time zones all the time, he can never really catch up. Not to mention he has to stay up for irregular hours to fly the Tortuga. This is why he's always napping, and why the others usually leave him alone to sleep unless it's important.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

Aita for not making any of my characters, that I have to crank out daily, pansexual/polysexual/omnisexual specifically and only making them bi?

🏳️‍🌈👶🏼 so i can recognize this later lmao also I'm not panphobic or anything, this isn't about the validity of the label, pan is fine.

So i (20snb bi) have a project I'm working on where I take all the characters from a specifc media I'm into and pair them up with each other to make every possible ship kid from every possible ship(excluding characters who are kids themselves or are related or something, that shit is gross). Basically taking every character and pairing them up with another and creating a kid I think they'd have. Its a big project with lots of characters and I'm easily over 400 at this point. I really enjoy this, even if I'm not even 25% complete.

However I set a schedule for myself that at least one ship kid needs to come out each day which, considering I draw them, color them and give them some development and some even have siblings, (The refs themselves easily take me an hour to an hour and a half) I have to make lots of them quickly to keep up with my daily grind. I've been doing this project for over a year and although it's stressful, I can get them out quickly with breaks for myself.

Their character sheets all have some pretty basic info like their name, gender, pronouns, personality and more but it also includes their sexuality/orientation. I have a pretty basic list of options for what their sexuality will be: straight, lesbian, gay, Enbian, bi, Aro, ace and aroace with a few random things like polyam, WLW and a good amount of the something-loving-something/juvelic terms. I did this because, well, there's not many entirely unique orientations outside of them and although I love mogai/xenogenders and complex identities, I dont want to potentially drag up discourse or bring problems to my budding art blog over it. Its just not worth it to me to turn something I really care about on its head, even if I like microlabels.

In this case, I'm using bi as an umbrella term as most of the other terms share the same definition with slight variations in wording or action but not much difference in practice. We all like everyone, it's basic stuff. However, apparently this is a problem.

I've gotten one or two anons asking me questions about my guides asking some kind stuff like is this lesbian ship kid a butch or femme or Is this picture of them now or just at the age you put on the ref and other harmless stuff. Then things got rude with some Nbphobia but thrice now I've gotten asks:

1. Asking snarkily if im a panphobe

2. insulting me for not specifically writing pan or Omni and just writing bi.

3. Saying that I "clearly dont care about pansexual representation." Then brought up how my primary oc is native american so i clearly care about representation but that oc used to be a sona and I'm native?? Its confusing. (And Lowkey racist shit to just assume any native character is a "diversity quota" character instead of just a person existing but I digress-)

Im not pan, im bi so ig these people assume I'm not cool with pan people which isnt true? I have nothing aginest them, they are just pretty similar and I dont feel like it matters if they are specfically bi or pan or poly or any other label. I don't go into details like that for any other sub-group, not even pronouns and I included combinations and some common Neopronouns. I understand the importance of representation but my project has less than 50 people looking at it every day, Im not netflix or something. I'm one guy on the most LGBT blogging site with a big project and very little audience, I'm not showing people who wouldn't already know what pan is that pansexuality exists.

This project isn't that deep considering the characters in question aren't human/dont have human characteristics.(no it's not hazbin/helluva) Also ive never spoken about lgbt discourse or stated anything remotely close to it beyond the guides just passively having characters who are an LGBT identity. I've not even mentioned all the potentional orientations they could have so I'm not sure where/why this came up in the first place. The most politcial things ive said are calling out a creator in my fandom who outed themselves as a transphobe and mentioning im pro-palestine. That's it.

I mean this is pretty low stakes, I can just block these people and be done with it and this some seriously online shit but I just wanna check.

Am I being an asshole for just writing bi instead of specifying their mspec label because I have to produce characters quickly and I don't see enough of a difference to warrant a change/specification that would ultimately slow and clog an already stressful and complex project?

I dont think I am but idk lol

What are these acronyms?

[funnier-as-a-system]

sorry for the possibly dumb question

what the fuck is a system

Don't worry, anon, this isn't a dumb question at all! Systems aren't very well-known, so I'm happy to explain them to you. I'll start by explaining what a system is, then go more in-depth about systems in general.

So, you know how most people are one person? Or, rather, you know how when you meet someone, you assume they're the only person in their body? You don't really think "I wonder if this person shares their body and life with other beings." or "I wonder if this person I know is actually multiple people all sharing the same body.", but that's how it is for systems!

In simple terms, a system is any collective group of self-aware entities that share the same body (which is, I fully acknowledge, a complicated definition, but basically we have multiple selves whereas most people would have just one, and each self has their own identity). We may not specifically consider ourselves individual people (some systems see themselves as separated parts of one whole person, for instance), but it'll probably help you understand if you think of us as people that happen to share the same body. We each have our own sense of self, ideas, feelings, personalities, and on and on, just like anyone else.

Although this probably sounds very strange and surprising, it's likely that you've heard of systems before – just not with that language. Many people have heard of "multiple personalities" or "Multiple Personality Disorder", which is how systems used to be known. This sort of understanding of systems is especially common in horror movies, which tend to depict systems as serial killers or monsters. Of course, systems are no more likely to hurt others than anyone else is, but the stereotype and stigma persists, and can lead to harassment or even violence against systems.

However, you may have also come across more positive depictions. Body sharing is a common trope, for instance. People with Dissociative Identity Disorder, who often describe themselves as systems, are being more often portrayed as regular or kind people rather than serial killers, such as Uendo Toneido from Ace Attorney. I've often seen systems point to characters and series like Venom, Sense8, and Moon Knight – which depict systems or situations and characters that resonate with systems – to describe what their lives are like. We often find characters that are rather like systems that may not have been intended to be read as such and have a laugh about it; you might be able to spot the same, now that you know what you're looking for.

So, systems can be understood as when a single body is inhabited by more than one person, or being, or entity (whichever term you prefer). We may share the same body, but we each have our own selves, and often, our own names and identities, too.

That's the essence of it! I'll put more under the cut about systems in case you're curious.

For starters, if you're looking into systems, you'll probably run across the term "plurality", which is an overarching term that refers to all instances of someone sharing a body/brain; it is the state of being more-than-one, not just an individual collection of beings in a single body (the latter is what the word "system" specifically refers to). There's also the word "plural", which can be used either as a noun to mean the same thing as "system", or as an adjective to describe things that involve or exhibit plurality. For instance, I am plural. I very much enjoy talking about plurality and plural characters in fiction.

(As a comparison, you may think of video chats/group calls. Plurality, here, would be video chats in general. Meanwhile, a specific video chat – called a webinar – would be a system. And the people in a webinar would be the members of a system. Or, for another example, plurality would be education, a system would be a class, and the members of that system would be the students.)

Speaking of, beings who share a body – who are part of a system – are called many different terms. Two of the most common are "headmate" and "alter", although I also see "system member" a lot. I could say that my headmate was rather helpful today, or that my alter was fronting yesterday. Alter is more medical of a term, but it's more standard, especially in some other languages outside English.

But, wait, you might be wondering what fronting is! Well, since we all live in the same body, we've got to share control of it too, don't we? Fronting is what we call controlling the body, and switching is when we change who is in control. Some systems switch often, while others switch rarely, or only under certain circumstances, and some systems never switch at all. Switching may be involuntary, or it may be a voluntary skill a system has picked up. There's a lot of variety across systems.

Plurality is most often known in the context of DID, or Dissociative Identity Disorder, which often involves a lot of involuntary switches. P-DID, or Partial Dissociative Identity Disorder, meanwhile, involves very few switches, but these are likely to be involuntary, as well. There are other disorders that plurality may be a part or symptom of, but plurality can also exist as its own non-disordered state, so long as there's no attached or related issues causing problems for the system (ex. memory issues are another frequent problem in DID, and these memory issues come from the members of a system not remembering what the others did when those alters were fronting).

You may be wondering, how does this happen? How does someone become a system? There are many different ways. Sometimes, it's a part of someone's culture, religion, or spirituality. Sometimes, it's the brain's response to trauma, trying to protect itself. Sometimes, someone is simply born this way. Sometimes, someone may become a system out of the blue, or cause their own plurality somehow. Some systems have a multitude or mix of origins. Most studies on systems currently focus on systems that originate from trauma, as these systems most often have issues – including the trauma in question – that need to be looked into and addressed, but there are some budding studies into systems with other origins, such as the few current and ongoing studies on created systems (the aforementioned systems that cause their own plurality).

I'm simplifying some things here; identity such as this gets increasingly nuanced and personal as you learn more and more (for example, as said before, not all system members identify as individual persons, even if it can help understand them to think of them like individual persons that just happen to share a body). But I hope this helped you learn at least the basics about systems!

[the-other-art-blog]

I cannot deal with one more Benophie fan complaining about the lack of Benedict's artistic side in s3.

Aren't you guys supposed to like this character and understand him?

Everyone complains about the show's lack of accountability, continuity, and consequences. But here it is Benedict's artistic plot going through ups and downs for 3 seasons and fans complain!

That was one of my main wishes for s3: NO ART FOR BENEDICT. It had to be this way.

Benedict thought he had entered the Academy by himself, for his talent. He was so happy to have received external validation and Anthony's interference destroyed that. He destroyed his confidence. Of course, he abandoned art. He felt like a fraud.

If Benedict had resumed painting in s3, this scene would have lost meaning and weight:

What would have been the point of this dramatic moment if he would have been fine next season?

In the book, part of Benedict's arc is growing confident in his art. He has been hiding his talent forever (even more than in the show) because he's afraid and Sophie helps him realize he's an artist. The show found a way to show his art since s1, and still follow the book.

This was not the final season, we still have to see HIS season where all of this needs to be resolved. His season is when he needs to regain confidence and share his art with everyone again, thanks to Sophie.

Yes, it was sad to see Benedict holding a newspaper instead of a sketchbook, BUT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR HIS CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!!!!!

That brief exchange with Paul said everything the audience needed to know about his art in s3:

Paul asks him if he paints (Paul was being a bit of a jerk here, too judgemental just because Ben is part of the ton, but I get it)

How heartbreaking this was!

He couldn't have said 'yes' even if he talked in past tense because Paul would have asked more. 'Why did you give it up?' And what was he supposed to say: 'My brother paid my way into the Academy'? Of course, he said no. The writers did not forget about s1 and s2, they simply were writing a coherent storyline. Benedict's still not over the betrayal and hurt he felt at the end of s2.

In the meantime, Ben has been filling the hole art left in his heart with work during Anthony's honeymoon. Once that is gone, Ben becomes a jerk (I've talked about this in this post after seeing part 1: x) He's extra grumpy and out-of-character but it makes sense narratively because he's frustrated.

It only gets better when he meets Tilley. She is a temporary solution to his frustration. Once he began his affair with her, he went back to his normal, charming self at balls. This is what he does, what he did for 3 seasons. Sex is like a palliative treatment for whatever turmoil he has inside (see how amazingly appropriate this is for Benophie?)

Moreover, Benedict's sexuality needed to be addressed BEFORE his season. Or would you have preferred to do it while Sophie was there?

Thanks to CVD, who refused to address this matter in s2, Jess had to do it in s3. Honestly, Jess did a lot of fixing this season.

This way Benedict is at peace with that part of himself that had been causing so much anxiety since he met Granville. Not only did Tilley offer a momentary escape valve for his frustration, but she helped him accept a part of his identity AND encouraged him to find love. Honestly, the hate she gets from the Benophie fandom is shameful. She did nothing wrong and only helped and supported Benedict. (Plus Luke Thompson loved those scenes, so 🤷‍♀️)

I shouldn't get so upset about other people's opinions, but honestly. These comments come from people who declare to be stans and queens of the fandom. They also have been in a 2-year tantrum and hate campaign against s3, so not really surprised.

It's so funny because if there's one character that has been written exquisitely, it's Benedict. He's the writers' favorite, 100%. Everything he has done makes total sense and prepares him for Sophie.

[multbasa]

The Sonic community has an issue with calling every relationship a "sibling" relationship when the relationship is literally just friendship or companionship.

Like, I don't even know if a lot of people really understand what it is like to grow up with siblings by the way they slap the label on everything.

Take it from me: I'm an identical twin, so for my entire life from even before birth I was sharing a space with my twin. As adults, we have chilled out considerably and I consider her my closest connection now, but there was a LOT of growing pains with a lot of fighting before that.

There were times that we didn't even want anything to do with each other which was difficult because other people kind of treated us as a match set. The point is that we sorted out our differences and conflicts because we had to since we shared a home and even shared a room for many many years. People see us now as insanely close but they never saw the biting, hitting, yelling and tears that preceded that.

For people around the same age, I would consider a sibling bond as those who sorted out their differences in time.

As for siblings with larger age gaps, there's a bit of a different dynamic. Sometimes older siblings have to act as parents to their little siblings for instance, but there is still a difference between them and a simple friendship or companionship.

Yes, there are siblings out there who never really had much conflict growing up, but it is more likely than not to have conflict due to the situation of sharing a space for many years. There isn't often much opportunity to have time apart when you have to share a home.

So to me, a good sibling bond is one built on past tension that has resolved simply due to time. We laugh about our past spats because we see them as insignificant now and sometimes we can't even remember what the conflict was in the first place.

Even if a friendship or companionship appears similar in shape to a sibling bond, that doesn't mean that it is a sibling bond. There will always be overlap among good platonic and sibling relationships simply because they are not romantic.

It's fine to hold headcanons about characters where you consider them like family to each other, but it is absolutely unacceptable to go around imposing that headcanon on others who see the relationship differently. You have all the control you need to curate your online experience through blocking people or content you don't want to see and simply not engaging with it. To do otherwise and whine at people minding their business is incredibly infantile, and I have to wonder if those who do this have nothing important going on in their lives.

Even for stuff that really rubs me the wrong way like "twincest", I don't engage with people who post content like that because I just do not want to see it and I have more going on in my life to spend time obsessing over it. Yes, I find it gross, but I can avoid it so I don't have to see it. I'm sure people who are getting twisted over ships that aren't even incest can learn to curate their online experience so they simply don't engage with or even see what they don't like.

[misscammiedawn]

Ok but like aren't you just promoting further dissociation by treating DID like your own personal character sheet of online personas? Can you explain why that's a legitimate thing to support people doing instead of seeking professional help to stop the dissociation in the first place?

(Edit: we never implied people should not seek treatment. Do not understand why you thought this. We are heavy advocates of mental healthcare and write about that often)

That is a fair and valid question and one that is personal to every person who receives care and treatment.

The ISSTD guidelines specifically caution against treating parts/alters as individuals in the very first words of their section on treatment and care:

Although the DID patient has the subjective experience of having separate identities, it is important for clinicians to keep in mind that the patient is not a collection of separate people sharing the same body. The DID patient should be seen as a whole adult person, with the identities sharing responsibility for daily life. Clinicians working with DID patients generally must hold the whole person (i.e., system of alternate identities) responsible for the behavior of any or all of the constituent identities, even in the presence of amnesia or the sense of lack of control or agency over behavior (see Radden, 1996).

This is often quoted in support communities as a way of invalidating alters/parts and imply that treating the parts as individuals is unhealthy.

The unhealthy thing is not acknowledging that we are the same person. As the writing above states, we have collective responsibility for our shared life.

There is only one name on our driver's license.

In fact with our own treatment it took over 3 months of consistent work for the parts in denial to accept we had the condition. The first step was acknowledging that there was a divide.

In Janina Fischer's book Healing the Fragmented Self there is an entire unit on befriending dissociated parts that covers this important step in the healing journey:

“Befriending” one’s parts is not simply a therapeutic endeavor: it also contributes to developing the practice of self-acceptance, one part at a time. When Learning to See Our “Selves” clients pause their reactions to “befriend” themselves, to be curious and interested rather than dismissing and reactive, they slow time. Autonomic arousal settles; there is a relaxing of the sense of urgency to do or be anything different. They feel more at peace because their parts can be more at peace. Self-alienation, that is, disowning of some parts and identifying with others exclusively, does not contribute to a sense of well-being, even when it is absolutely necessary in order to survive. Self-alienation creates tension, pits part against part, communicates a hostile environment (often much like the traumatic environment), and diminishes the self-esteem of every part. Befriending means that we “radically accept” (Linehan, 1993) that we share our bodies and lives with these “room-mates” and that living well with ourselves requires living amicably and collaboratively with our parts. The more we welcome rather than reject them, the safer our internal worlds.

In a therapeutic setting for recovery one needs to accept that the parts exist and that contradicting desires and impulses are happening within the patient. Accepting and acknowledging parts is essential to that and getting to know them, or befriending them as Fischer puts it, is part of understanding these desires.

We are a fairly neat and tidy system as far as many dissociative systems go. Over the course of our therapy and in allowing our parts to have agency, autonomy and individual expression we have come to learn that as a single unified being there are aspects of our personality which we cannot accept as part of who we see ourselves or allow others to see ourselves as.

The big one that many people know is Dawn. We are terrified of erotic intimacy to the point of pre-diagnosis shutting down completely if we were touched in certain areas. We still had our drives, impulses and intrigues though and so Dawn was a version of us that would create online accounts and exist in kink communities and frankly push us beyond the point of comfort which caused us to have meltdowns, delete accounts and try to deny our sexuality entirely. The same is true of our gender expression.

We were married for 11 years and there is not a single erotic encounter that Dawn did not handle for the body. We have no memory of any of it.

As we accepted Dawn and made space for she has simmered down, no longer needing to tug on her leash in order to act and have her needs met. As a symptom we have evened out and are much more comfortable presenting as a sex-repulsed asexual, even when she is front.

The reason is, again, we are one person. Dawn is just a version of us that is not impacted by the terror we have towards eroticism.

Every part of our system exists for a reason. Forcing ourselves to accept the extreme reactions of our parts as "who we are" is as unhealthy as rejecting it outright.

There is nuance and gray.

Integration is finding where the lines are. What is combined and accepted behavior for the system and what is unique to individual parts. Finding these little bits of individuality has been healing. Particularly when each individual trait is something we have rejected and hated ourselves for at a point of our life.

We are healing by accepting the differences.

If we ever get to the point of Functional Multiplicity versus Final Fusion we will decide what to do next.

We are not at the point where we are willing to make those decisions. For now we are one and we are many. We are comfortable with that. Rejecting that and hiding under the knowledge that we are one is denial in another form.