#comic fandom sexism

[theflashjaygarrick]

After thinking about the comic fandom's prioritisation of white male characters I feel like it's a self fulfilling cycle.

Mainstream discourse around superhero comics is all about how white male centric the genre is. The general consensus in fandom is that women don't like female characters because they are badly written and 2-dimensional in most nerd franchises.

And if you go in with that mindset you'll fairly assume that the characters who have the best runs and most interesting stories are the white men. And if you look at fandom spaces and people are waxing poetic about characters like Jason Todd and Tim Drake and acknowledging that characters like Babs, Steph and Cass exist this only will reinforce this perception. So the person getting into batfam go and ask for the best stories about the Batboys or read summaries about their arcs, only seeing these women as background characters in male characters stories.

But the thing is that isn't strictly. I mean I 100% agree that comics are sexist and racist but that doesn't mean that there aren't phenomenal and iconic runs starring and entering female characters (including queer women, disabled women, and WOC). Cassandra Cain and Kate Kane probably have two of the best character bibles out of the entire batfamily in the form of Batgirl 2000 and Batwoman: Elegy. Selina and Babs both have more well received story lines/runs than Jason Todd does.

Great stories with nuanced female characters exist but the assumption they don't means that people don't look for them. So instead they draw upon stories with the Batboys (minus Luke Fox, JPV and often Duke) in their fan art and fan fiction and discussions and accidentally obscure the stories of female characters in the batman mythos even more.

And the cycle continues.

[elenorasweet]

Fanfic about "The Batfamily" that leaves out Cass, who has been legally Bruce's daughter longer than Damian has existed: oops i forgot i guess i just don't know much about her

Drawing of "The Robins" that doesn't include Stephanie, who WAS a Robin: lol okay but you don't count as a Robin if you didn't spend long enough in the role obviously

Fanart featuring "90s Young Justice" that leaves out Cassie, Greta or Cissie: yeah but like they were never as close as the others plus they're boring to me

I fucking see you and I see what all of these things have in common.

[wintersangelic]

female character: "hey i'm a strong, well-written character."

male 'fans': "okay, you're weak and useless though because you experience human emotion."

female character: "no i mean it. i'm not only the most powerful species in my source, i'm also a goddess and the literal incarnation of life energy itself. i canonically devour entire planets like they were popcorn kernels. i can explode the universe just by thinking about it. i also have more emotional complexity in my left foot than you do in your entire body."

male 'fans': *proceeds to reduce female character to 'weak'/'useless' for having any emotions or flaws*

male 'fans': "why don't we have any strong, well-written female characters?"

[fantastic-nonsense]

it's been like three days and I'm still thinking about the person who tried to defend Batcest by saying that in the 50s and 60s Robin was considered an adult man, Batman and Robin were "the most widely acknowledged gay icons in that time by gay men," and that DC "retconned Robin back into being a child" to demonize gay men who identified with them

[armed-with-a-waffle-iron]

One of my biggest issues with Bat Family posts that exclude the girls™ is that lots of these male-male dynamics are FUCKING BORING.

At least all the canon female-female dynamics have all this great spice, whatever the combo. (Babs-Helena, Steph-Helena, Babs-Cass, Steph-Cass, Kate-Renee, Babs-Steph, Helena-Renee, Babs-Renee, Kate-Helena…)

Damian and Jason don’t have anything interesting to say to each other, I’m sorry. BORING. Also not congruent with preboot and only ever revolves around like 3 common fandom tropes.

Let a woman exist pls, I beg. Your sexism bores me.

[salarta]

Comic Book Fandom and "Got Mine Fuck You"

There's a recurring situation I see way too often with X-Men comic book fandom. As I write this, I know what I'm saying doesn't apply to everyone, or to every fandom, or to every platform. It applies to what I've seen. And what I've seen is abysmal.

Back when the 2020 run of X-Factor happened, I saw a LOT of apologism for the way Polaris/Lorna Dane was treated on that book. Paired with trying to spin her being on the book as good for her.

"Oh hey yeah, the X of Swords issue didn't acknowledge Lorna surviving the Genoshan genocide because... uhh... it was all implied! They didn't just didn't say it explicitly."

Then when the Genoshan genocide took center stage in another comic's story arc a couple years later, with Kitty Pryde as the focus, Lorna acting like she has no history with it and just complaining about a lack of coffee gets painted as "Oh but there's only so much panel space! And they already told Lorna's story with Genosha anyway, this time they're focused on Kitty's story with it!"

Let's also not forget that during the X-Men vote, we had so, so many X-Factor fans arguing for her to lose the vote, and not get to be a mainstay on the flagship book, because "X-Factor is her book and she's getting good use there anyway." As if it would've been impossible for her to be on two books at once. Some of those fans were at least more honest about it, where they admitted the real reason they wanted her to lose is cause they thought the book would die without Lorna to exploit for other characters like Rachel.

And now, we have the current X-Factor. Where fans of Havok, Pyro, the name X-Factor, nostalgia for the 90s, etc have all insisted that forcing Lorna back into "Havok's girlfriend who acts stupid so he can be a big strong man about it" is fine actually. Perfectly cool. The sexism is satire so it's fine, everything's fine, shitty treatment of her is fine. Anything to promote Havok, or Pyro, or X-Factor, or whatever else.

Only for those same people to start crying the instant Havok and Pyro look stupid too. Because you see, they can excuse the sexism and making a woman look stupid and completely destroying her character and development to make her fit a sexist mold for their cis straight Aryan male self-insert.

But they draw the line at their woobie self-inserts looking just as dumb. Stupid and character assassination is for the womenfolk you see, not for men.

What I'm getting at is, I keep running into a brick wall called "Got Mine Fuck You" that's pervasive with too many comic book fans. And while I'm emphasizing this behavior on Lorna, it's not just her. They've also done shit like attack and badmouth another writer for daring to suggest their great golden god Writer Of The Moment could have plagiarized their work. Harassing her, changing her Wikipedia page. Because they care more about salvaging the reputation of their favorite things than about what's right.

It annoys the fuck out of me. Because in spite of all the fanfare about comics being progressive (when it's financially convenient), this is one of the big gaping dark sides.

I try not to be that guy. I can't say I don't fail, but I try to be better than these chucklefucks.

When season 1 of Gifted killed Dreamer off, I had no problem calling out how asinine and insulting their handling of her death was. I COULD have been That Asshole that tries to act like it was a genius decision, all because Polaris was being treated amazingly in season 1 and Dreamer's death could've been leveraged for Pain Points for Lorna. I didn't do that.

Secret Wars House of M also gave Quicksilver and to a lesser extent Magneto a raw deal in characterization. Even as AU characters, it hit very wrong for Pietro to be depicted as a mustache twirling traitor type when there were ways to keep him closer to his core without taking that route. Now I will admit, I had a moment of weakness with this because I loved what it was doing with Lorna. But in the end, I still recognized it was a problem.

Even with the X of Swords issue of X-Factor. There were many problems with Lorna's treatment there, but there were problems all around. Rockslide fans were very upset with it, for good reason. And Rockslide had actual people around who knew him and had closer relationships with him. Why did they get shafted, with Lorna used instead?

Fandom should really strive for better. For all characters. Not just their pet favorites. Fandom should not be eager to throw other characters, other fandoms, everything that means so much to them and resonates with them, under the bus just so their own faves can get a little benefit out of it.

Fans should not be eager to make excuses for shitty treatment just cause that shitty treatment makes their fave look good. Fans should not want to see another character's potential undermined and thrown away just cause keeping that character down allows a book they like to prosper. Fans should not be trying to make sexism out to be nothing but satire just cause they think a female character "deserves terrible characterization."

These fans try to say their fandom is great. But then they act in ways that tell the world it's not.

It would be nice if they had some fucking principles for once.

[meadow-mellow]

Man. I'm too old for ship fighting/discourse. I ain't 16 anymore, dunno how these ppl manage to remain so stagnated mentally cause you'd expect they'd outgrow this kinda thing.

[scarlettaagni]

oh? like this?

[somerunner]

Unfortunately I don’t have examples, and it’s been a while since I read the comics (except the last one); I’ll have to pass that buck to other commenters. Or myself later.

Most of the mercs (Engineer, Heavy, Sniper, Spy, to a much lesser extent Demo and Medic) are also “straight-man-like” or mostly normal people, minus a breathtaking casualness about definitely-not-casual subjects. Pauling is the same as them in that regard. Spy doesn’t make terrible investments and only goes along with Scout reluctantly; Heavy takes everything seriously and only is a little insane regarding his gun, iirc Engineer and Sniper are also as roughly-normal as them. Pauling is more serious about covering their tracks, but will still go along with (and help create) the initial insane plans the group comes up with.

And then the hetero adventurer couple is equally battle-crazy as each other, kind of like Soldier and Zhanna.

There are far fewer women characters than men in the TF2 comics, but I’d say they are all equally insane as the men characters (even if they’re not given as much narrative power to act on their insanity, but that wasn’t the point of the OP).

one thing thats so important about tf2 is that all the women are just as insane and stupid as the men. youd think miss pauling is the level- headed voice of reason, but don't worry, she's neither level-headed or reasonable

[purgemarchlockdown]

Kotoko's ideology

(Also Known As: Kotoko has fascist ideals and I read way too many wikipedia pages for this.) (CWs: Discussion centered around Prejudice, ableism, sexism, and other topics that are associated with right winged/fascist concepts)

(Note: I went on this rabbit hole because of This post from Gunsli that covers things I don't cover here. Go read it! Plus this post exists because of a lot of conversations from friends out of fandom, and in fandom, like 74n5n and the affermentioned Gunsli who also helped in proofreading!)

So Kotoko is one of my personal favorites of the cast. There's a lot of things I find interesting and intriguing about her and her characterization and her place in the story.

One of those things is her worldview. I'm obsessed with it to say the least. It's one of my favorite things about her characterization. I find it to be a complex and emphatic look at a specific worldview:

Fascism.

Vigilante Justice

Okay so, fascism as an ideology is something we tend to associate with conservative right-wingers and powerful political parties. In our stories, there's a bit of a mythical edge to the image of fascist dystopia. Something strong and uniform.

Like, a lot of cartoons and shows and comics have the alternate nazi dimension where fascism reigns supreme over the populace, for example. We got many films and shows of the heroes standing up against faceless images of Evil Nazis or Nazi-likes, with leaders who are powerful scientists or soldiers hiding somewhere scheming something.

We can tell if someone is a fascist, we say to ourselves. The aesthetic qualities of fascism are something we can all recognize. Right?

Kotoko Yuzuhira is a (notably afab, put a pin in this) college dropout vigilante.

This is immediately incompatible with how we tend to view it. She's not a faceless drone or general. She's someone working with limited resources trying to hunt down evil because The Law can't do it.

A Underdog Revolutionary, that's how she thinks of herself.

Kotoko: Yes. I hate evil. Hurting innocent people with violence, taking away from others, killing people… I hate all this evil behaviour! The law being unable to judge some sins, there's too many of these cases in this world. Having clearly bullied and torturing the weak, but exploiting loopholes in laws, there's so many sinners who still live in such a carefree manner! Even though I want to change this world, I alone only have this much power.

Kershaw argues that the difference between fascism and other forms of right-wing authoritarianism in the Interwar period is that the latter generally aimed "to conserve the existing social order", whereas fascism was "revolutionary", seeking to change society and obtain "total commitment" from the population.[47]

Robert O. Paxton finds that even though fascism "maintained the existing regime of property and social hierarchy", it cannot be considered "simply a more muscular form of conservatism" because "fascism in power did carry out some changes profound enough to be called 'revolutionary.'"[228] These transformations "often set fascists into conflict with conservatives rooted in families, churches, social rank, and property."

And that's what she...is. I'm not going to say Kotoko is part of a secret evil organization or anything like that. She is an underdog, at least at the start of Milgram. She's a single individual up against society and social order. A Heroic individual standing up against erroneous social structures.

Really, Kotoko presents as very classically heroic, she's directly acting to save people, confident, doing real research, actually finding those who deserve punishment and bringing it upon them.

She's determined, she's strong willed, even when she's suffering she doesn't stop.

T2Q6: Don’t you feel scared of killing people?  A: If it’s for the world. How I feel about it is completely irrelevant.

It's sad and tragic, but she knows that if no one does it then nothing will actually change.

Kotoko: If you brag about hating evil, act against it! Carry on the belief that your actions can change this world! If you only brag about it from afar, the world will just continue to rot no matter how many of you are there!

She holds no attachment, no qualms, no second guesses. She does what is good at the cost of her own self, she's a heroic ideal in that sense. A hero so willing to do what is right even at the cost of their own self.

T2Q14: Don’t you feel a sense of isolation in your current situation?  A: It feels like nothings changed. If the world gets even a little better just by me undertaking this isolation, then that is the role the strong play.

Someone who actually has the strength and intelligence to do the things that no one else can do.

T2Q7: Why did you choose law school?  A: Because I have my suspicions. That’s the majority of my reason to why I chose to study it. Cause it’s unsightly to spout complaints without having proper knowledge T1Q4: When did you start learning martial arts?  A: In elementary school, perhaps. Without enough power, you can't enforce justice and do the right thing, can you?

Who actually acts instead of just waiting around for the world to fix itself.

Kotoko: You keep asking for it, but as soon as it happens near you by your own choice, you all start complaining and evading your responsibility... You're always like this... Always such idiots!

Able to actually handle the problems thrown at her, instead of running away like a coward.

T2Q20: What would you have done if you weren’t forgiven?  A: I’d despise it all. To compromise justice just because you’re unable to withstand the pain that comes with it is unbelievable

Fascism supports the creation of a New Man who is a strong-willed, dynamic archetype, a figure of direct action and bellicose violence. An anti-individualist, he is characterized by a sense of confidence and masculinity, quiet dignity and self-worth, determination, and authoritativeness. With a detachment from romantic love, family background and schooling, his worldview is romanticized, passionate, serious and realist, preoccupied with the honoring of fallen heroes, a strong belief in personal responsibility, national rebirth and renewal.

And there's something genuinely admirable about that intent of hers. It's sincere. She's disgusted at the state of the world, at how horrible it's become. Even implying that this isn't the Normal version of the world, but a distorted, corrupted one.

Becoming light-headed again, it all becomes crazy The normalcy sought for, Fading away, Everytime death comes The soul moves forward

1. The mythical past—used to invoke a nostalgia for a fictional time when the nation was great as it was not yet sullied by the “Other.”

Kotoko's ideology is built on an idea of the world's Unnatural Impurity. The idea that there is something corrupting and poisoning it. That Whatever is causing harm to the world is an External Thing. One that can be beaten if she puts enough pressure on it. At least for a while.

T2Q5: How do you deal with evil that can’t be bested by strength?  A: Force it so that it can. No matter how long it takes, no matter what means I’ll need to use.

So I ask the question, what Does she consider evil?

Sinners

Okay, so she already answered this question, in her T1 interrogations she describes evil as:

T1Q20: What do you think is evil? A: Oppressing innocent weaklings.

Which is a pretty cut and dry answer that she elaborates on in her VDs:

Kotoko: Yes. I hate evil. Hurting innocent people with violence, taking away from others, killing people… I hate all this evil behaviour! The law being unable to judge some sins, there's too many of these cases in this world. Having clearly bullied and torturing the weak, but exploiting loopholes in laws, there's so many sinners who still live in such a carefree manner!

Case Closed! We don't have to think more about this! Everyone go home! The post is done!

... Okay so it's not as simple as that. It's pretty clear that Kotoko's opinions on evil and how it should be treated is a bit...

Kotoko: Treat you like a child? Hah, you’ve got to be kidding. Back when I was your age, I was already the person I am today. I don’t have any plans to let you get away with something just “because you’re a child.” ……remember that.

Extreme, to say the least. She's very "Violence First." Because:

T2Q16: Do you think there are the ‘weak’ among the other prisoners?  A: I’m sure there’s a lot. Those with weak wills will easily turn to evil. The only thing we can do is firmly instil the risk of turning to it.

Which- There's another contradiction! She just defined evil as the ones who oppress weaklings, yet right here she shows her disdain for the weak for so easily turning to evil.

And again, in the same trial, she refers to the prisoners as:

T2Q11: Is there really no chance to start anew for wrongdoers?   A: No way. Once a beast gets a taste for human flesh, it will always come back for seconds.

And continues to discuss the matters of the strong, and how there oppressing the weak.

T2Q10: What is your ideal image of a hero?  A: An ally of the weak. Someone who helps the weak and crushes the strong.

These are two very conflicting ideas. It's almost like:

Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.

And not only that- Kotoko casts herself as an underdog, and the assumption of that role is presuming one as "weaker than" or "having less opportunity/power/skill" than the one above, the elites above her who are stronger and more powerful than her. The Beasts who roam the land. Who will always win, because, in her own words.

T2Q18: What would you do if evil disappeared from the world? A: I see where you’re getting at. But I believe it will never truly disappear.

"Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.

Kotoko: How amusing! Are you really a warden?  Es: Shut up...  Kotoko: You let their sins off just because they're close to you? You're making the punishment less severe just because they get along with you? What's next? Going to give them leniency for their looks? For their personality? For how long have you known them?  Es: I told you... to shut up...  Kotoko: Why would I? I'm trying to tell you the truth. In MILGRAM, a warden with mindset of yours is just usele-  Es: Shut the hell up! [slaps]  Kotoko: [catching breath] "Violence"... you call it? Being angry at hurting your precious prisoners... [laughs] Ha... It's not even violence at all.  Es: ?..  Kotoko: Weak... You're too weak. With that fragile body of yours, you can't stop anyone. You can't protect anyone. You can't even do your justice. All imperfect.  Es: Imperfect?..  Kotoko: In order to stop someone, you have to squeeze their throat. Without mercy.

There's this sort of...self victimization to it? If that makes sense.

6. Victimhood—casting “Us” as victims of “Them”, who are taking resources from “Us” and demanding special rights.

A sense of frustration and anger at herself and the world for being so weak and pathetic.

A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood

And that these feelings of weakness and shame are real reasons to attack who she views as enemies. No matter if they are strong.

the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external;

Or weak.

Because Kotoko holds a lot of genuine anger at who she considers "weak." As shown above and in Many other instances. She literally calls them "Useless weaklings" in her T2 voiceline. She has this Deep Anger and Bitterness at those who she considers not doing enough to help. To those who are failing to actually do anything of actual substance.

Kotoko: How ridiculous... It's always like this... All of you weaklings always act like this... All of you enjoy seeing someone getting hurt... (...)  Kotoko: You keep asking for it, but as soon as it happens near you by your own choice, you all start complaining and evading your responsibility... You're always like this... Always such idiots!  Es: I acknowledge it. You're the strong one, and we're weak. You're right. But that's how we are.  Kotoko: You have no power, and yet you make no effort to gain it! You're talking about justice, but it just doesn't make sense! You're invested in people's disasters, yet you take a position of "I have nothing to do with it"! You can't even face your true selves!

"Contempt for the weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.

So, if the words strong and weak just refer to the enemy, and those descriptors of the enemy can change depending on which one is more suitable for the situation. Thus making the idea of the evil that are "oppressing innocent weaklings" be more a subjective concept.

Then...what else can we search for when it comes to determining how Kotoko views who is "evil."

Cause, it's not just because they don't agree with her. It wouldn't have mattered if they agreed with her or not really. Yuno says it outright:

Yuno: Really? If you ask me, Kotoko is someone I would never want to make my friend, though. She’s the type who picks a conclusion from the very beginning and won’t actually talk with you.

Kotoko has stated that she has been tracking Mikoto Kayano since the start. Even though at the time she was semi-amicable with everyone. With Mikoto even being rather insistent that he did nothing wrong at all.

Kotoko: Like me being suspicious of Kayano Mikoto’s actions, carefully tracking his actions, it's all under your permission.

And she's said this again in the interrogation! Saying that she had "her suspicions."

T2Q17: Why did you choose law school?  A: Because I have my suspicions. That’s the majority of my reason to why I chose to study it. Cause it’s unsightly to spout complaints without having proper knowledge

Suspicious about what? About who? She says it's the evil, the sinners, but who is this? Who is this evil? Criminals? That's just the terminology she uses. If it really was just criminals shouldn't she be against MILGRAM? Es? They did kidnap her and she has no Knowledge of their true intentions, and yet she doesn't trust her fellow prisoners but the Guard who locked them up.

"Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's "fear" of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also antisemitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.

And so, I ask again. Who does Kotoko believe to be evil?

"Your Existence is a Crime"

Chauvinism (/ˈʃoʊvɪnɪzəm/ SHOH-vih-nih-zəm) is the unreasonable belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak, unworthy, or inferior.

Kotoko Canonically Holds Ableist Beliefs.

This isn't up for debate.

22/12/15 (Kotoko’s Birthday)

Kotoko: Hm. The border between the two is getting a lot vaguer. Your entire existence is a crime. And I will see you’re punished for it. That is what Milgram, and Es, and I have chosen.

“UNDER” Doltish “001 Parasite”

Kotoko: “Fufufu, fufufufufu.You’re thinking some outrageous things.To be frank, it’s abnormal. But I don’t dislike it. If only all sinners were like you.”

Kotoko Also Canonically Holds Sexist Beliefs.

This also isn't up for debate.

Futa: Isn’t that obvious? What a stupid question. There’s no way a girl could win in a fight against a man. This is real life, not a manga. There’s too big a difference in body size. And that’s what determines the weight of your attacks.  Kotoko: ……Futa’s not entirely wrong there In a lot of martial arts, they specifically split up divisions based on body weight for that reason. I’m bantam, and he’d probably be either cruiser or heavy.

“UNDER” Obscene “002 Slut”

Now, as much as the phrases "Obscene Slut" and "Your entire existence is a crime" is Loaded. Let's pretend, for a second, that this doesn't necessarily mean that Kotoko, to some extent, believes that mentally ill people are evil/wrong and that women are weaker than men.

For a moment, let us pretend that Kotoko didn't just tell us and go into the finer details of how she views strong and weak.

Cause, there is a bit of consistent framing Kotoko uses when she's talking about "the enemy." Those who contribute something meaningful to society (in her eyes) are ones who "contribute" something meaningful to society mainly through the usage of direct action, physical strength, and physical/mental durability.

T1Q4: When did you start learning martial arts?  A: In elementary school, perhaps. Without enough power, you can't enforce justice and do the right thing, can you?

Kotoko: Es, look. Someone who committed a crime can only realise its severity through losing something. I've seen many criminals, but none of them would give way without pain.

Kotoko: Weak... You're too weak. With that fragile body of yours, you can't stop anyone. You can't protect anyone. You can't even do your justice. All imperfect.

Kotoko: You have no power, and yet you make no effort to gain it! You're talking about justice, but it just doesn't make sense! You're invested in people's disasters, yet you take a position of "I have nothing to do with it"! You can't even face your true selves!   Es: Whatever you say.  Kotoko: If you brag about hating evil, act against it! Carry on the belief that your actions can change this world! If you only brag about it from afar, the world will just continue to rot no matter how many of you are there! If you don't have strength on your own, let me take care of it, Es! I can do it in MILGRAM!

T1Q: What is your ideal image of a hero?  A: An ally of the weak. Someone who helps the weak and crushes the strong.

T2Q14: Don’t you feel a sense of isolation in your current situation?  A: It feels like nothings changed. If the world gets even a little better just by me undertaking this isolation, then that is the role the strong play.

Those who cannot do that and are "unable to contribute" or somehow disrupt the stable world, thus causing it's normalcy to "fade away" are parasites.

“UNDER” Doltish “001 Parasite”

Obscene

“UNDER” Obscene “002 Slut”

An existence that is disruptive to the world at large.

Kotoko: Your entire existence is a crime. And I will see you’re punished for it.

Who are Weak due to a issue in there mental state and need to be warned against the consequences of "turning to evil."

T2Q16: Do you think there are the ‘weak’ among the other prisoners?  A: I’m sure there’s a lot. Those with weak wills will easily turn to evil. The only thing we can do is firmly instil the risk of turning to it.

Or be treated as irrational beasts that need to be firmly put down because nothing else will get through to them.

T2Q11: Is there really no chance to start anew for wrongdoers?  A: No way. Once a beast gets a taste for human flesh, it will always come back for seconds.

Fascism emphasizes direct action, including supporting the legitimacy of political violence, as a core part of its politics.[264] Fascism views violent action as a necessity in politics that fascism identifies as being an "endless struggle";[265] this emphasis on the use of political violence means that most fascist parties have also created their own private militias (e.g. the Nazi Party's Brown shirts and Fascist Italy's Blackshirts). The basis of fascism's support of violent action in politics is connected to social Darwinism.[265] Fascist movements have commonly held social Darwinist views of nations, races and societies.[266] They say that nations and races must purge themselves of socially and biologically weak or degenerate people, while simultaneously promoting the creation of strong people, in order to survive in a world defined by perpetual national and racial conflict.[267]

Social Darwinism is the study and implementation of various pseudoscientific theories and societal practices that purport to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology, economics and politics.[1][2] Social Darwinists believe that the strong should see their wealth and power increase, while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease.

"The only thing we can do is firmly instil the risk of turning to it."

Kotoko's ideological view is, at the very best, biased against those of marginalized groups or of "degenerate" thoughts and actions, and at the very worst, actively targets them because she personally believes that they Do Not Contribute to Society.

But we aren't done there yet.

Werewolves

Let's take that pin out now.

Kotoko has gone on record that she views Femininity as:

T1Q10: What do you think about the word 'feminimity'?  A: It's one of the means you can take. It's something you can freely choose depending on the scene, so it's not something to cling onto.

Now, as I have shown. She's kinda sexist. Which throws into question how she perceives herself.

Since, I have just asserted the idea that Kotoko does, at the very least, hold some concerning ideas about Women, and I think most people would notice that this is a bit contradictory when she herself isn't really the feminine ideal as decreed by the patriarchy either.

Now, just to be clear here, no, I do not think women should be baby machines. I am a cat who cannot perceive it properly.

However, if we are going by the strict gender binary and the stereotypes associated with it. Kotoko is pretty masculine. She puts focus on physical strength, she's mentally strong in the face of ills, she doesn't show much emotion, so on.

However, as Utena and also The World has proven to us. Just because you present or act in "non-traditional manners" doesn't mean You've Deconstructed the Gender Binary and the Patriarchal View of the World we Learn from the Society around us.

You can be the butchest girl the prison can handle and still hold traditional gender roles.

And the way Kotoko interacts with the world indicates that she still Holds these ideas, even if she has deconstructed them a bit, and since we are talking about her ideology...

Fascist Italy promoted what it considered normal sexual behaviour in youth while denouncing what it considered deviant sexual behaviour.[271] It condemned pornography, most forms of birth control and contraceptive devices (with the exception of the condom), homosexuality and prostitution as deviant sexual behaviour,

Sexual anxiety—as the “Other” embraces non-traditional approaches to sexuality,

But, going further into the way she views masculinity specifically...

"Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality".

Machismo, Exaggerated pride in masculinity, perceived as power, often coupled with a minimal sense of responsibility and disregard of consequences. In machismo there is supreme valuation of characteristics culturally associated with the masculine and a denigration of characteristics associated with the feminine.

Futa: Isn’t that obvious? What a stupid question. There’s no way a girl could win in a fight against a man. This is real life, not a manga. There’s too big a difference in body size. And that’s what determines the weight of your attacks.  Kotoko: ……Futa’s not entirely wrong there

"Without enough power, you can't enforce justice" is what she said, isn't it?

Road to Hell

Okay, there was 700 more things I wanted to talk about but because I haven't even gotten into:

Through all of that, there would be one great leader who would battle the representatives of the old system with grassroots support.[1][2] In the fascist utopia, one mass of people will supposedly appear who have only one goal: to create their new future.[1][2] Such a fascist movement would ideally have infinite faith in its mythical hero who would stand for everything the movement believes in.[1][2] According to this utopian ideology, under the guidance of their leader the country would then rise like a phoenix from the ashes of corruption and decadence.[1][2]

Or her ideals of heroism or her view of violence in detail or-

But I think I can leave that to the people reading this. This post is getting really long and I'm trying to still keep it structured. I know all my links are Wikipedia and one Britannica. I had the energy to transcribe my dad's books on this I would.

However, we also do need to ask, where does this leave us?

Y'know, since Kotoko is the Audience Parallel and Milgram is a Social Commentary Webseries.

Well, Kotoko is a character in fiction, and fiction is the safest place to explore this. Kotoko Yuzuriha is a familiar character in the sense that a lot of people are like her actually.

Gunsli has brought up the idea that Kotoko was radicalized by news, and I personally think All the characters in Milgram have underlying right wing ideas and violent views on the world. It's not something...unique to them even. We call them conservative and traditional because to a lot of people it's "just the way the world works." Kotoko’s not special or unique for believing in these things.

She’s asserted multiple times that she’s had a “normal life” and whether or not you doubt the validity of that statement. There is nothing inherent about Kotoko that makes her more susceptible to this. 

And I think those are themes that are worth exploring.

[penny-anna]

definitely like. a lot of interplay in the Batfamdon between fandom racism & sexism and the fact that there's a lot of people who haven't actually read that many batman comics. 'ppl like Jason bcos of his trauma' fair but like not only is Jason not the only batkid to have major trauma, he isn't even the only batkid to have been murdered by the Joker specifically

[thisweekinfandomhistory]

Argh, DC... This week, V and Emily take another frustrating look at how DC Comics just loves to kill off Robins, this time with added explicit misogyny toward the fanbase as well as the character they've doomed to the gallows. On the bright side, V got an amazing primer from listener katieiscunning, who loves the character of Spoiler AKA Robin AKA Batgirl AKA Stephanie Brown, and made V and Emily love her, too! Plus, author Mary Borsellino began a comics accountability website known as Project Girl Wonder in reaction to Steph's awful death, and fans have been taking DC to task for their sexism ever since. Are you a DC girlie or a Marvel gal? 

Sources

Death of a Robin Fanlore Stephanie Brown @ Fandom.com Listener @katieiscunning -- thank you!!

This Week In Fandom History is a fandom-centric podcast that tells you… what happened this week in fandom history!

Follow This Week in Fandom History on Tumblr at @thisweekinfandomhistory

You can support the show via our Patreon at http://www.patreon.com/thisweekinfandomhistory. 

If you have a fannish company, event, or service and would like to sponsor or partner with TWIFH, please contact us via the Tumblr link above.

Please remember to rate the show 5 stars on your listening platform of choice!

[fancyfade]

Ok out of a conversation w/ @antifa-terra

I think that fandom often likes to focus on panels they can post on tumblr to prove why something is good or bad, and generally ignores broader narratives.

Liek I know I see people acting like Simone's BoP is super misogynistic* because there are things you can grab and see "oh the characters are slut shaming this is obviously super misogynistic"

which. It is misogynistic. I don't deny that that's a misogynistic thing. But. overall, less misogynistic than many other comics, because fans just. don't care if female characters don't have any narrative significance. or only have narrative significance that relates to a man.

like compare Dinah's treatment in Simone's BoP to Grell's Longbow Hunters and Hunter Moon. a lot of BoP interacted specifically with the misogynistic writing of Longbow Hunters, but it's hard to grab a specific moment from Longbow Hunters and say "oh see how awful this is" because like... it's just. in general her narrative is about making a man sad. she's treated as not competent to go out alone and gets tortured to make a man sad, and then the recovery is about reassuring the audience she still feels comfortable having sex with Ollie while she has no agency herself and is hypnotized. how do you screenshot that?

Same thing with the way fandom generally tends towards like "oh look at Damian baby misogynist". you can grab some panels of him calling women harlots, which yes, is misogynistic. But generally Tim's treatment of female characters is ignored, because he doesn't have one or two panels** but rather a general trend of treating them as if they are less capable of making decisions, less competent than him, in general lesser. hard to grab one panel that perfectly encapsulates that.

anyway very frustrating to analyze, especially when single panels can be treated as like "call out" posts for a certain character or run. Like comics can have plenty of flaws, and I talk about them a lot. and characters can have plenty of flaws. But the ones that are embedded in the narrative are oftentimes more relevant than the ones that are easily screencapped

*when like. there are so many other issues you can take with it? Why not the racism? the ableism?

**Well I mean he does have some panels but I guess people ignore them?

[casscainmainly]

op complaining about not curating your fandom experience to ignore racism while not curating their own fandom experience and ignoring people who enjoy canon 😭 although yeah not gonna ignore prevalent racism in fandom is a good thing I think

Yeah this!! Also I'm not sure if OP knows that fanon is nearly inescapable? So many canon fans won't even look through character tags anymore because it's flooded with fanon. OP also tagged Cass, Duke, and Steph, were they expecting Cass/Duke/Steph fans to prefer fanon to canon??

This is the last I'll say about this discourse for a while, but honestly it shouldn't even be fanon vs. canon. It should be fanon + canon fans vs. racism/sexism/ableism. There's nothing inherently harmful about fanon fans, some are great and engage with POC and women, but a lot don't. There's a difference between having comics-inaccurate headcanons, and actively perpetuating racist/ableist stereotypes and excluding women.

Frankly, 'just look away' is not an appropriate response to people calling out fandom prejudice. Fandom should be an inclusive space, but inclusivity means examining and interrogating our biases. Whether or not you like canon, whether you've only read WFA or have read 1000+ comics, this holds true for all of us. I know the conversation is old at this point, but honestly I'd prefer people complaining and being annoying one thousand times over people ignoring the problem.

[kalinara]

Hello! New to the X-men fandom, drawn here by Scott Summers (I love your blog so much!) Two questions, if you don't mind:

1. What would you consider essential reads for Scott specifically? There are so many starting points it seems.

2. I did finish Whedon's run of Astonishing X-Men (at the recommendation of reddit) and was wondering if Scott (now?) doesn't need his ruby quartz glasses/visor? Sorry if that's a run-specific question!

Hello!

The first question is surprisingly difficult, only because Scott's such a staple throughout the entirety of the X-Men. So let me kind of give you a run down of your options.

--

The 60s comics are really fun, if you want to see where things began. It is very 60s though, and the style may not be to your taste. There's also some period sexism that's not great (though surprisingly less than I expected. Possibly because Jean's meant to be a fairly liberated teen, as opposed to older ladies like Sue Storm or Janet Van Dyne.)

The Claremont Era (Starting with Giant-Sized X-Men, which introduces staples like Storm and Wolverine) is probably what will be the most familiar to folks who became used to the X-Men from other sources, like the cartoons. The Animated Series and X-Men '97 adapt a lot of Claremont era stuff, so it'll be pretty familiar.

It's also soapy and dramatic, and Scott (and Jean) feature very heavily. You'll also meet Rachel. Rachel is fun.

X-Factor's first run is something I'd recommend only after you've gotten into the character more. It's actually really good, IMO, and an amazing deconstruction of how much of a trainwreck the poor guy actually is. It's not always a flattering portrayal though, which is part of what makes it interesting. (It is good though to read the Madelyne stuff for yourself eventually, summaries tend to ignore the aspects that make Scott's side of things a bit more understandable, if not sympathetic.) Baby Cable is here too.

The 90s X-Comics are pretty fun too, like the earlier Claremont era, this is likely what folk are familiar with if they remember the cartoons. Costumes, characters, and so on. Scott is one of a very large cast, but he tends to have some really good arcs here and there. The art takes getting used to it. This is where you'll start seeing adult Cable as a major character. And another AU Summers child, Nate Grey. He's complicated.

the 2000s-2011 era of Comics have a lot of upheaval and events. Scott is still an idealist, but he's been jaded by a lot of events (and will be jaded by more). You'll see him get darker here, but not evil. It's pretty sad though. SO MANY big events though, Scott pulls off a lot of wild shit.

In 2011-2016, we have two Scotts basically. Avengers vs. X-Men is a massively huge event that changes Scott's role for a long time. For our main Scott, the next few years are going to read a lot like whump fic. He's going to suffer, people are going to blame him (unfairly, imo!) for a lot of things, and he'll be treated like a monster at times. That said, there are people who do see the truth and end up even joining him.

But also around this time, through shenanigans (read: Hank McCoy), the timeline is disrupted and the 1960s era Original Five (specifically circa issue #8) are brought to the future. They have their own adventures in lines like All-New X-Men (v1. and v2.), X-Men Blue, and Scott specifically has a solo series early on and then joins up with Kamala Khan's Champions and it's darling.

Eventually older Scott "dies" (it happens in comics). Young Scott continues though. When Young Scott goes to the past again, older Scott comes back (unrelated reasons).

For 2019-2020, there's a short run by Matthew Rosenberg, starting at issue 11 or so. The original team of X-Men is presumed dead (really they're dealing with some multiversal nonsense. Possibly Nate Grey's fault), and a returned Scott starts gathering new X-Men. It's intense, angsty and kind of bleak. This isn't about saving the world anymore, just maybe going out doing what they should.

From 2020-2023, we get a massive, amazing change in direction called the Krakoa arc. Scott's not featured as prominently here (It's Xavier's show), but he's solid in any series that he appears (Adjectiveless X-Men will always have him somewhere. He's very prominent in Teen Cable's book too.) Krakoa is something very different than anything the X-Men series(es) have done before and it's definitely worth reading. Though for my own taste, I like the return to form that comes with...

Our current era is "From the Ashes" and it's not actually a bad place to jump on. Everyone's a little scattered and out of sorts since the fall of Krakoa, but Scott, being who he is, has already pulled his own book together for the kind of mutant-rescuing heroics that he is wont to do.

As to where to start? Honestly, I'd go with whatever seems the most fun to you. Eventually, I think, you'll find yourself branching out and it won't be nearly so confusing. (There are also wikis, podcasts, and annoying pedants like me who like explaining everything.). Fans will often have their favorite special books (Children of the Atom, for example, is probably my favorite version of the O5 origin. It came out in 2001 and has a truly horrifying Jack Winters), and we'll always leap on the opportunity to share those things.

-------------------------------------------

as for 2. I don't know if you read the Giant-Sized finale of Astonishing X-Men, but they do have a scene where Scott's eyes start glowing again and Emma places the visor on him. It's a nice, quietly somber scene.

In current X-continuity, Scott does still need the visor. The inability to control his blasts may have a psychological component but there's also physical brain damage. (In the Krakoa arc, there are mechanisms where he might have repaired said damage, but it actually does come up at some point, and he specifically chooses not to. I hope I can find that page again, because I feel like there's a lot of interesting potential meta in that choice.)

I don't think they ever really revisit why Emma (or Cassandra, possibly) had been able to neutralize Scott's blasts/restore temporary control over them, but I tend to go with the interpretation that a powerful enough telepath could force a bypass with his powers, but it's an incredibly traumatic, potentially damaging, and ultimately temporary solution. Hence, what we see.

For her part, Jean Grey (at least in the modern era) is able to psychically block his powers. And that's always fun. (And sometimes a little kinky!)

[writing-for-life]

Nuance in (The Sandman) Fandom

Send me asks about everything Sandman-related!

I thought a lot over the past few days, partly prompted by discourse on here, partly due to a couple of “interesting” asks and messages I received (the type you don’t answer). I *think* they might have been prompted by engaging in discourse on topics like anti-blackness/racism, misogyny/sexism, TERF characters etc in The Sandman.

Fandoms are always getting super sensitive if someone shines a critical lens on their favourite works, authors and characters. So to make this clear (in case it isn’t already obvious from my brain-rot blog):

I love The Sandman. I love Neil Gaiman. I have an extremely soft spot for Dream (and Desire btw, who deserves a lot more character analysis than just being summed up as “villainous, sexy bitch”. One day, perhaps ;)).

I can read The Sandman and just get lost in the story, even after decades and many rereads. 

But I can also view it through a critical lens—these things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Not critical enough or too critical?

As fans, we can get trapped in certain thinking patterns, like:

“My blorbo can do no wrong”-syndrome 

“Characters with flaws are inherently problematic and imply authorial endorsement of those actions” 

“Characterisation and problematic subtext are one and the same” (aka overanalysing and looking for problems where there are none is the death of every story, but failing to see problematic patterns where they are clearly visible is a problem, too).

Don't say anything bad about my favourite character

I think this doesn’t need much further exploration. It’s not my personal way of looking at stories through permanently rose-tinted glasses (I always feel it stalls my experience, but my experience is not everyone else's). Some people prefer that type of escapism, and I’m good with that (although the downside is of course that by not willing to engage with issues, we can unwillingly perpetuate them). Live and let live, ship and let sail. But please, for the love of god: Don’t insult people via their inboxes or messages just because their opinions and preferences don’t align with yours. I’m not going to sugarcoat it or phrase it “nicely”: It’s infantile (and a form of bullying btw), end of.

How can you even like a character who's so horrible? And that author must be equally horrible, too

We have to separate flawed characters, even those who are written to be really problematic, from real-life endorsement of these actions. 

Author, narrator and character are three fundamentally different things, and don’t overlap as much as some people seem to think. 

We can write vile, despicable characters to make a point (for me, Thessaly was always a prime example for this, and I explained why here). We probably hate them as we write them. I don’t know what else to say, but this facet of writing seems to get more and more lost on people, and it’s a worry. Crying for sanitised characterisation is one step away from censorship. We explore what is problematic about people and humanity through story. That’s how we process and learn. It’s nothing new, but it becomes impossible if we can’t write flawed and even disgusting characters. 

Face value…

Since I’m mostly in The Sandman fandom, I often read that its ending is hopeless, and that’s supposedly the entire message. 

It is agonisingly sad, yes. But is it truly hopeless? I personally see it as quite the opposite, but of course that’s my opinion, coloured by my life experiences.

I also get that show-only fans often haven’t read the comics, or at least not the whole arc. And as such, their outlook from what they’ve seen so far (and choose to focus on) has to be different by default. I also understand that many people are quite new to the comics, even if they have read them in their entirety. I’ve sat with them for 30 years, and I still find new things on every reread (and I read it more times than anyone should 🙈), and I still don’t feel like I’ve understood it all. Perhaps because I still haven’t fully understood myself (and it’s unlikely I ever will). If there’s one thing The Sandman isn’t, it’s one-dimensional and easy to grasp in its whole depth.

I just wrote a ginormous meta on it, if you’re interested, it’s here:

Subtext, (not so) glorious subtext

This is where it gets complicated:

We shouldn’t mix up characterisation and story subtext. Overanalysing every line to death will always make us find something that’s “problematic”, when it really isn’t in the wider context of the story.

Zooming in is NOT always a good thing. Sometimes, we actually need to zoom out. 

But subtext *can be* (accidentally) problematic. Even in stories we love. And none of this negates what I previously wrote.

Stories have real-life implications of sorts, and we need to be able to talk about it. That’s where those slightly flabbergasting, hostile inbox messages come in, and I want to expand on that "topic of contention" a bit:

Neil himself confirmed that the Endless basically warp reality, and that this is why, after Dream’s failed relationship with Nada, many black women in his vicinity suffer terrible fates (Ruby and Carla in particular). And that this spell is only broken when he dies, and that it is the reason why Gwen doesn’t suffer the same fate. And said Gwen then gets used as a plot device to basically absolve Hob (who canonically really is a problematic character, whether show-only fans like it or not) from his slaver past. Once again, very clearly: No one is making this up. Neil confirmed it (for the comics, and that was over 20 years ago. It remains to be seen if his stance has changed as we move into that arc in the TV show).

I don't think it is correct to imply that Dream as a character is racist (I've read that, too) because he logically can’t be. He holds *all* the collective unconscious. He is also, strictly speaking, not white. He is everything and nothing, and he shows up in many different ethnicities throughout the whole arc, depending on who looks at him. But Neil played with a subtext here (reality warping due to a bad relationship which then affects everyone with similar physical traits) that will read very differently to a black person than it reads to a white person, and we have to understand why that is an *extremely* slippery slope.

Plus, we are supposed to see Hob, who *was* a racist at some point (you can’t not be if you’re a slave-trader—it’s impossible by default) as redeemed. And yes, he *does* regret deeply, good for him (and if I were saying this aloud, you would hear the sarcasm in my voice, because it is indeed all about him. We are to sympathise/empathise with him and his character growth while there isn’t much mention of the people he maltreated). But also: it was a black woman who basically forgave him (with dialogue that personally makes me cringe). And that black woman who offers forgiveness is not truly a black woman—she is a character written by a white man. And as much as author and character are not the same (see above), there is an inherent sensitivity in that power imbalance that we can't brush under the carpet.

I don’t think Neil is racist. Probably quite the opposite, and I can even see that his intentions were good from a storytelling point of view. BUT intention and impact are two fundamentally different things, and telling the story this way (comic version) betrays blindspots only white people have. Just like women have blindspots when they tell stories about men, and men have blindspots when they tell stories about women (and there are a few of those in The Sandman, too). And and and…

As storytellers, we can’t always speak from lived experience. It’s impossible. And that also means we occasionally make mistakes that look bad in hindsight, even if our intentions were good.

I guess the proof is in the pudding: What do we do when people who *have* that lived experience tell us it looks bad? If they inform us why it is hurtful, plays into old stereotypes etc?

Are we willing to listen and yield (both are the foundations of allyship btw), or are we insisting that our viewpoint as someone *without* lived experience is right? That lived experience extends to all lived experiences (sex/gender, sexual orientation, age...), and from all we’ve heard from Neil so far, it seems important to him to rewrite what he sees differently today. Whether they’ll always get it right for the show—we’ll see. At the moment, it looks a lot better than in the comics, and certain issues are already being handled with a lot more sensitivity, but a few problems remain.

Pushing back on criticism that comes from people with lived experience is problematic—I’d encourage us to think about what it looks like if a white majority in the fandom is basically saying that the opinions of POC are essentially “overreactions” (and yes, that happened).

It’s complicated. The Sandman was written in a different time, and I think we have to distinguish between things that weren’t really problematic at the time but have aged poorly (again, Thessaly springs to mind, and I have lived experience as a queer person during that time, so I can see it in context while at the same time acknowledging that I would make changes to bring it to the present day), and things that were always a problem due to blindspots. They were a problem in 1990, and if they don’t get changed, they are still a problem today.

This fandom is generally so much more open and nicer than others I know. But that doesn’t mean it’s infallible, because it’s full of humans. 

Nuance is sorely needed, in both story interpretation and interaction between said humans.