#except for the fact that i want the traditionally male role

[hertwood]

it does deeply bother me that my sexual preferences are seen as deviant or kinky bc if i was a man they wouldn't be!!! if i was a man who wanted to be in charge in the bedroom it wouldn't necessarily be treated as a bdsm thing, that's just what men want!! man wanting to penetrate women?? normal!!!! man wanting to penetrate other men???? gay, but still an expected normal gay sex activity!!!! but when i'm a woman its now a kinky freaky thing and its nearly impossible to navigate a dating pool because my desires are seen as something freaky to try. i don't like having to navigate kink dating sites/spaces to have what is in my mind, completely average vanilla sex that straight people have all the time!!!

[toastandjamie]

You know how in a previous post I talked briefly about how Mat is subversion of masculinity? Yeah that but now I’m also going to talk about how all of that and the contradicting nature of his character can all be traced back to him being Odin. Bare with me lmao.

So let’s start with the fact that Odin as a god covers a LOT of domains, and a lot of them contradict eachother. He’s a god of war and death but he’s also a god of healing and poetry. He’s a god of wisdom and knowledge but also frenzy and bloodlust. A god of royalty favored by princes and also a good of thieves and tricksters. The Allfather indeed! Odin is a god but very importantly he’s Mortal, he’s a god of wisdom because he seeks it out, he is a surprising Human god, with complex and often selfish motivations. Which is very perfect for a character like Mat. But this post isn’t just going to be me pointing out every single thing about Odin that parallels Mat because we’d be here all day and even though I can because everytime a mythological reference appears in those books and twirl my hair and kick my feet I will refrain lol

The main focus of this post is talk about one really interesting facet of Odin’s domains and myths. And that is his connection to magic, specifically the distinctly feminine magic tradition of Seihdr(and that in of itself is a whole thing that’s makes me scream and blather in reference to wheel of time). Odin stands out as a male practitioner of Seihdr, which is traditionally considered a ‘feminine’ craft. Seidhr is a type of magic related to telling and shaping the future(so no shock Odin as the ever curious god of knowledge practiced it) but according to Snorri in the Ynglinga saga the practice of Seidhr leaves the practitioner weak and helpless thus male practitioners were considered ‘ergi’ a designation for men in Norse society who were unmanly and feminine. Odin was no exception being called ‘ergi’ by Loki in Lokasenna.

This is really interesting when we view Mat’s characterization through this lens. Specifically he’s described in relation to other more traditionally masculine characters and his relationship to the one power specifically Saidar. Long before I did any research involving Seidhr and Odin I had noted to myself that Mat would’ve had an easier time channeling Saidar vs Saidine. I’ve always felt that Mat was better at embracing and submitting to power and change than he ever was at forcing it, which of course is mostly because of his adaptability and flexibility which make him such a great general in the first place. There’s a reason Mat never got a handle of the flame and the void despite both Rand and Lan trying to teach him in books 1 and 2. Mat also acts the most like the women in the series in comparison to say Rand or Perrin. jokingly I’ve mentioned how in Shadow Rising a big plot point in Rand and Elayne’s relationship is a miscommunication because Elayne was upset Rand didn’t ask her to stay when she left for Tanchico, and Mat practically has the same exact fight with Rand over Rand not asking HIM to stay when he said he was going to leave before the battle at Cairihan. I also want to point out that in the Wheel of Time, daggers and throwing knives are mainly used by women(see, Min, Faile, Berelain, Tuon) with Mat and Thom being the only men we see using throwing knives(something something the idea that subterfuge and caution are feminine traits) while swords and axes are mainly used by men or women specifically breaking gender convention such as Cha Faile and Elayne’s Queen’s Guard. interestingly spears(Mat’s other weapon of choice) is an androgynous weapon used by both men and women(this is solely because the entire Aiel culture uses spears and will fight with them), bows are also a relatively androgynous weapon in the context of WoT used pretty universally. There’s also something to be said about how the entire subplot with Tylin puts Mat in the role of the ‘pursued’ or as Mat himself puts it ‘the woman’ where Tylin takes the commanding and dominant role in their dynamic. There’s a whole different essay to be written about Mat’s romantic relationships and the vast power dynamic disparity in them and how the relationships with Tylin and Melindra primed him for the way his dynamic with Tuon works but once again that’s a different essay.

Mat’s relationship with the one power is also really interesting, because for a non-channeler he’s pretty heavily linked with magic. He’s effected by the magic inherent in the world despite for all intensive purposes being perfectly normal to start with. The Aelfinn and the Eelfin, the fact that he’s hunted by the Gholam who was created solely to assassinate channelers. Both of his sisters being born with the spark and him marrying a woman who was trained as a sul’dam(and in a prophetic vision said woman literally collaring him after we had just been introduced to the concept of a’dams). His medallion that negates channeling, the cursed dagger and him getting the first powerwrought weapon of the series in his Ashandarei. Mat’s practically rolling in magic nonsense despite wanting nothing to do with it. Not all of this was created by the one power, but he’s still very associated with it whether he wants to be or not. It’s also probably safe to say that between his sisters and being Ta’veren it’s likely he could probably learn to channel if he wanted to, of course he never would want to learn and as I established earlier I think he’d have a hard time channeling Saidine in the first place. Trying to wrestle a force of nature using brute force isn’t exactly his forte.

There’s also another essay about Mat and Elayne’s dynamic and how I think Elayne is a Freya parallel, and how that relates to Odin and Freya being the two patron gods of Seidhr- but I digress.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

missed opportunities

This isn’t meant to be a summary or a translation of the Sunset Savanna event!! I just wanted to share my thoughts surrounding the actual tournament and the characters involved in the overall story.

I felt like??? This event was originally meant to be much bigger and much more elaborate than what we got. Is that just me?? Don’t get me wrong, what we ended up with was… okay. It was serviceable. It worked. I just feel like it could have easily been more, but there had to be significant downsizing for some reason.

One thing that kind of confused me was the hyping up of the Catch the Tail tournament versus what we actually got?? (Loved the tourism part though, hearing about local foods, stories, and customs is fun!) I understand the cultural significance of the game, but a tournament arc doesn't work that well if we're only invested in one side; obviously, we'll be rooting for NRC to win because we know them the best and have spent the most time with them, but... They have no significant rival or opposition to go against (which is at least one thing episode 5 had going for it in the form of Vil vs Neige, and even in the Harveston event when the Seven Dwarves reappear). We don't even really have names or faces to think of as their foes. We aren't really given the chance to cheer for anyone else. Like???? NRC's first opponents get no artwork at all, and then we slip through ALL the other matches to the very end. Their last opponents are supposedly Cheka's usual trio of guards--except they're just beastmen mobs A, B, and C. What happened to the lore about "most of the important roles being fulfilled by female warriors"?? You really going to sit here and tell me that the people assigned to guard the person who is essentially the future of your country aren't roles traditionally fulfilled by strong lionesses? All three of the roles just happened be occupied by easily reused male assets? Even the replacement/temporary guards assigned to Cheka were women, and the way the originals were foreshadowed made it seem like they would later be a big deal or the "rivals" NRC had to overcome in their final matchup. They technically were, but they were just your typical run-of-the-mill mobs. (And what a waste, because they comment in the game that the leader of the guards is a HYENA. You could have easily made these three mobs twisted Shenzi, Banzai, and Ed.) They have some investment, being that Kifaji trained them and they are bitter about having won previous years but Leona stood them up for training. It’s basically one big ploy to circumvent Leona not wanting to give the warrior lessons to the winning team, a way to counteract his laziness. It makes sense for the story, but it isn’t very high-stakes.

The first team NRC fought against was even more unremarkable; they cheated just as much as NRC did and didn't even compensate for it with at least recognizable artwork or personalities. In fact, they got NO art at all. If anything, this team should have been the run-of-the-mill mobs from how generically mean they were.

It feels like this event had a handful of red herrings and cheeky lines thrown in to tease at the reveal of significant new characters, only to never follow through on them. I like Kifaji, and it's reasonable that Leona says tourists like the NRC kids can't possibly meet the head of state (Farena/Falena). However, I don't like that a lot surrounding Cheka's guards amounted to nothing?? They even mention they have a member to substitute in that's a retired imperial guard, but that ends up being of no real importance either… (he throws the match because Kalim showed him great kindness earlier by buying him a bus when his original breaks down.) It’s more like a convenience that lets Leona swap in and cinch the win for NRC even though he’s not able to formally compete). It's in-character for Leona to play dirty but it’s still so... anticlimactic????? Especially since the competition is supposedly for the best warriors to prove their wits and might.

Another missed opportunity is that??? The competition is supposedly open to anyone, even those from outside the Sunset Savanna. That may very well be just a writing loophole for Leona to easily shoehorn Kalim/Jack, Vil, and Lilia in as competitors, but there's so much more you could do with that idea!

Maybe there are other outsiders come to fight for the title. Maybe Rook shows up as a competitor to spook them if the devs don't want to design that many actual "rivals" with unique designs or new faces. Maybe there are your "non-traditional" fighters as well, people that are very young (just for the lols, imagine a kid Cheka's size kicking butt, using their small size and speed to their advantage) or very old (Rafiki weaponizing his wisdom and experience in combat, idk) but are still skilled enough in their own right to participate. Maybe show us more types of beastmen and how they use their specific animal’s physical traits to their advantage! I don't know how likely it is for merfolk or fae to join (since those races seem like recluses compared to beastmen and humans and merpeople don't do well in arid climates), but it would have been cool to see others throw their hats into the ring!

There were probably just limitations in place due to this being a hometown event…? It wouldn't be fair for the others to only feature one new character while this one features a TON of them, nor would it be fair for this hometown even to be significantly longer or more detailed than the others. Basically only the Halloween events are super extensive. In which case, I get it. I still would have really liked to see this concept more fleshed out and fully realized though!

[catofadifferentcolor]

Terrible Fic Idea #66: Targaryen Restoration, but make it queer

The other day I had the crazy thought: what if Robert Baratheon tried to pass a male Jon Snow off as his second wife? So naturally today I had the complimentary thought: what if it was Jon's choice to present as female?

Or: What if Jon Snow was transgender?

Aka: The Visneya the Victorious Fic

Just imagine it:

Everything follows canon - with one exception. It's not just that Jon Snow feels out of place in Winterfell, he feels out of place in his own skin. It gets worse the older he gets, until some point shortly before Robert Baratheon is set to come North Jon has the realization: she is a woman in a man's body, and the pretty features her half-siblings tease her about are the only parts of herself that she's comfortable with.

Jon (for she still thinks of herself by this name at this point), quickly realizes there's no place for her in the North. Perhaps if she ran away, adopted a new identity, and restricted herself to traditionally female activities she might get away with it - but, for all that Jon feels like a woman, she doesn't want to restrict herself to needlepoint. She wants to be a woman and to fight. Her role model in this is Queen Visneya.

In the chaos before King Robert's arrival, Jon runs away. Her escape is helped by the fact that the few people Ned is able to send after her do not know to look for a woman.

Jon manages to make her way to Pentos shortly before Daenerys is due to marry Khal Drogo. She's recognized by Jorah Mormont - not as a Stark, but as a Northerner recently come from Westeros, and presented to Dany during her wedding as a means of learning more about the country she is exiled from. Jon - now calling herself Jenny Snow - is very much an unwilling member of Dany's court, but has little alternative.

Canon proceeds apace, with the addition that many of the Dothraki are alternately amused and disgusted by a woman who wields a sword - though she gains the respect of certain factions for cutting the cock off any man found take a woman unwilling, free or slave.

Drogo dies. Dany becomes mother of dragons...

...and Rhaegal is absolutely taken with Jenny.

At this point some of the truth comes out - that Jenny is the bastard daughter of Ned Stark, now presumed to have a Dragonseed for a mother - but the fact Jenny was born Jon Snow remains remarkably hidden considering the Dothraki live largely out of doors with minimal privacy.

Canon continues to proceed apace, with Dany and Jenny becoming friends in a way they never quite managed while Drogo was alive. They do not become lovers until they finally sail for Dragonstone, and when King Robb - heavily scarred after surviving the Red Wedding - comes to plead for aid, he doesn't see his missing half-brother in Visneya Blackfyre (as Jenny Snow is now known as).

Visneya is sent with Rhaegal and some of their allies to defeat the Others, while Dany and the remainder of her army begins solidifying their position in Westeros.

With their forces divided, neither side is willing to take stupid risks, but with their fresh soldiers and supplies from Essos they can make several important, modest gains. Dany takes the islands of Blackwater Bay and the Narrow Sea - including the Stepstones - before moving onto the Stormlands and the rest of the Crownlands. Visneya, for her part, knows Northerners and how best to fight in Northern weather, and leads her forces to several great victories - including holding the Wall after the Night King tries to destroy it with magic.

Eventually the Night King is defeated - Visneya managing to destroy him in single battle after a fall from Rhaegal separates her from her forces - and she returns south with a portion of the Northern army to start retaking the Riverlands and the Vale.

By the time they turn their attentions to the Iron Islands, the rest of Westeros has already bent the knee and Dany has been crowned Queen of the Seven Six Kingdoms - but it's there Visneya earns her epithet. Not only does she free any salt wives she comes across, but she kills many locals for raping and reaving, and turns the castles of those who refuse to concede to slag, starting with the Greyjoys. It is in many ways a second Harrenhal, writ large over an entire kingdom.

Though pressured to make a political alliance, Dany never remarries. She claims her dragon Drogon as her second husband and continues her affair with Visneya behind closed doors, stating that a dragon is the only acceptable spouse for a dragon, and produces a handful of children with the Targaryen look over the years. One of their daughters goes on to marry Robb Stark's heir. (This goes on back and forth for a handful of generations until, a la James I, the closest male heir to the North is the King of the Westeros, and the kingdoms are reunited.)

As for Visneya, no one ever gets a clear answer who she is or where she comes from. It's largely believed that her mother was a descendant of Daemon Blackfyre who married an exiled Northerner, but no one really knows. Not even Visenya, who never learns she was born the only son of Rhaegar Targaryen and his second wife, Lyanna Stark.

Bonuses include: 1) a detailed exploration of gender roles - and gendered violence - in Westeros and Essos. This should include the many ways in which gender is a performance, and that toxic Medieval masculinity is just as damaging as female repression, and what it means to want to exist outside your ordained role; 2) a detailed exploration of sexuality in Westeros and Essos and what it means to defy - or conform to - those norms ; and 3) Robb and Arya being the only ones ever to learn Visneya Blackfyre's original identity, mostly through accident rather than intention.

And that's all I've got. As always, feel free to adopt this bun, just link back if you ever do anything with it.

Other Jon Snow Headcanons: Aelor the Accursed | Aegon the Adopted | Aegon the Undying | Aegon the Unyielding | Aemon the Adventurous | Baelor the Brave | Bastard of Winterfell | Daemon the Destroyer | Daena the Dreamer | Daeron the Desired | Dyanna the Defiant | Elia the Magnificent | Jon the Fair | Jon Whitefyre | King of the Ashes | Lady Arryn | Lady Baratheon | Lady Lannister | Lady Stark | Lord of the Dance | Prince Consort | Prince of Summerhall | Queen Mother | Rhaegar the Righteous | River Queen | Shiera Snowbird | Visneya the Victorious

More Terrible Fic Ideas

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form: Gender Neutral Names

I'm trying to name my characters.

I see there are plenty of baby name charts with gender breakdown popularity charts. But I have no idea why so many names listed as gender netural, one gender does not even appear on the chart or maybe just on the very bottom a year or two. Yet it's gender neutral? What makes it gender neutral if it's so far off. Very lopsided 95%/5% charts, I can kind of get, but to not even show up?

In fact any name can always have exceptions. I know some people both real and fictional with names that do not get listed as gender neutral but are in fact the opposite gender than listed.

How does a name become gender neutral when the occasional rare person just decides to go the opposite (which is inevitable) unless it's actually a trend and starts showing up on charts.

Is there any kind of sexism involved? I don't know but if I apply the same kind of reasoning with hair. People still keep calling long hair for females and short hair for males, instead of all gender neutral hairstyles. Yet there is way more instances of females with short hair and men with long hair than it seems for those names that are so lopsided the other gender doesn't make the chart. Yet the name gets called gender neutral and hair still gets divided.

Tex: Gender is applied to a name on the parent’s or individual’s say-so, and when the name itself is used for another child, the gendered connotations of the original bearer of the name carry over or not as a situation develops.

Sexism is an inherent, though unfortunate, part of gender as a role in society. This is mostly created as a means to make someone feel better about themselves, usually by denigrating someone easily identifiable as Different ™ than them. Sexism is as ideologically easy to adopt as racism, in that it’s usually the first thing someone’s eyes can find when they want to treat someone poorly due to their own perceived deficiencies.

Modern cultural perceptions aside, it seems as if you’re sourcing your worldbuilding and interpretations from a narrow band of sources. On tumblr and WordPress, which our blog is hosted on, there’s quite a few worldbuilding posts related specifically to names that are quickly accessible with a keyword search in your browser of choice. If you have particular cultures already in mind, those are useful additional keywords to help you, and can give you multiple perspectives on how gender may be variably defined.

Licorice: - Oh, names and naming is such an interesting topic! 

Since it’s your own world you are building, you can decide on the naming system they are going to use. Are you trying to create a naming system in which nobody can tell someone’s gender from the name alone? Some of the naming systems in our own world are largely gender neutral. I am told Punjabi is one language in which the majority of the names can be used for any and all genders. 

According to the Linguistics stack exchange, Chinese is a language in which names are not gendered. Bear in mind that I am not a Chinese speaker, and I’m happy to be corrected if this information is wrong, but apparently there is no set of words that are reserved for “proper names” in China. “​​In China you can use any word or words (max. 2 characters) you like as your name provided it sounds good and you find it meaningful.”

Unless I’m much mistaken, the naming systems for many First Nations follow the same principle. You could have a look at these different naming systems for inspiration. Several African countries I lived in gave children names that expressed their wishes for the child’s future - “Talent” or “Success” - or reflected the circumstances surrounding the birth - “No Money” and “Lonely” were two people I knew personally - or even the parents’ wishes for their own future. I knew a guy, the last-born of twelve, whose name was “No More.”

If you want to move away from names that in English are traditionally associated with one or other gender, you could

Invent names, as Tolkien and JRR Martin do. If you choose this route but want to avoid gendering your names, avoid ending sounds that are traditionally associated with the feminine (e.g. -a, -ia) for girls’ names or sounds traditionally associated with the masculine (e.g. -us, -ius) for boys’ names. 

Use ordinary nouns and adjectives as names. In this way you can also express the things your in-world culture values. Are they careful environmental custodians? Then they may give their children names associated with nature: “Summer Rain”, “Green Twig”, “Feathered Nest.” Are they warlike and aggressive? They may give their children names that commemorate weapons or martial qualities. “Fierce Helmet”, “Sturdy Shield” “Steadfast Courage” and so on.

(and that reminds me of the famous Puritan whose parents used names to express their faith: Praisegod Barebones)

The master of the use of names in worldbuilding is Ursula K LeGuin. If you like, take a look at some of her short fiction or novels to see what techniques she uses. 

Mod Miri Note: We also have a Master Post on Names Here. 

[perhaps-relax]

gender roles in the resident evil games are so funny. the way the early games were unique and maybe even transgressive for even having playable action heroes who are women, and yet so much of their in-game abilities and plot points were still designed to uphold the gendered expectations of their player base. ....Most of the time.

like... jill has better manual dexterity for lock-picking (beCauSe women have smaller hands and uhhhhhh were gatherers in early human societies. yep. yes, this all checks out), but cant take as many hits as chris. But the part where jill can hold more? i love that. no gendered explanation there. just a little bonus they gave her to balance out the gameplay between her and chris.

The first time I played the re2 remake (i have not are probably never will play the original), the difference between leon and claire's stories struck me as very gendered, especially given the way that claire's story is frankly easier, and that leon is the one who truly finishes birkin off while claire is relegated to a de-facto mother role. but I also think that the remake does a beautiful job of making both of their priorities, however different in scale, seem like the equally important and righteous pursuits. leon wants justice for all the wrongs he bares witness to. claire just wants to save one life. in this way, leon fails where claire does not. they are so different and thats so good and interesting, and yet I really do feel like there was no way gender roles didn't play a part when it came to writing these two.

rebecca is small. that is frequently her most useful feature in re0. but she's also the healer, a role often delegated to female characters but is, of course, essential. and i adore the part where the piano puzzle from re1 returns, but this time its the gruff masculine character who has the composure to sit down and elegantly play out the melody. like honestly what was that about. anyway, ashley is similarly useful because she is light and can be vaulted places. but she's feisty and also didnt ask to be there and frankly even in the original is handling her situation pretty well all things considered. agian, both super interesting characters, but its so painfully obvious that the writers had a limited imagination for what would make a woman useful in a survival setting.

and then re5 is so odd to me, too, because of the way capcom really doubles down on the whole streetfighter principle of "kicking is for girls, punching is for boys" with sheva and chris, despite the fact that leon roundhoused the head off of that trope in re4. and the way re4's ada and re5's jill are both suddenly acrobatic masters? even tho that was not at all part of their skill sets in their original appearances?

it just baffles me the way the games go to extreme lengths to give the girls all very distinctly "girly" skills and motivations, but on occasion allow their male heroes to deviate slightly from similarly gendered confines. billy can play piano. leon can kick and do flips. but with the exception of jill being a pack mule in re1, the girls rarely get to outshine the boys in any department that is traditionally relegated to the male skillset.

[liskantope]

I just read the whole Chapter 2 of the book linked to in the OP (titled "The Eternal Boy", which includes some of the excerpts quoted in the OP but not the last ones) and would find it fascinating to read the whole book if I can find a time when I'm not mired in already simultaneously trying to read several works. It's really remarkable how the author's ideas about letting boys live as girls (and vice versa) match up with those of the modern transgender movement.

But. But but but. Here is yet another moment that runs me into one (of several) of my fundamental causes of skepticism of some ideas in the trans movement: the blurring between (semi-arbitrary, once strict, but nowadays very amorphous) gender roles and the Actual Essence of being a certain gender. In my more charitable moments, I imagine that there's something I'm just not equipped to understand here; in my less charitable moments, I feel that this betrays a deep confusion within the collective set of beliefs of the recent movement.

The early 20th century exhibited a dramatically different severity of and degree of enforcement of gender roles from anytime in the lifetimes of most of us here, particularly the past twenty or so years. As forward-thinking as she is on certain aspects of trans identities, note that the author (1) shows a (by today's standards) conservative set of beliefs about innate gender differences (which I don't entirely disagree with, and which also shows a great deal of nuance in acknowledging that there are exceptions everywhere), and (2) seems to follow by default the prevailing beliefs about how gender roles should be enforced (e.g. disciplining boys and girls differently, molding boys into men whose defining feature is agency and self-sufficiency) until she makes exceptions for particular boys if they show strong evidence of being exceptions, who are then thrown into the category of girl.

For her, boys are by nature tough, loud, rambunctious, and risk-taking by default, and the "boys who are really girls" (which are implied by others in this thread to map to trans girls/women) are essentially the ones who defy most or all of these stereotypes. The text implies that being timid, not wanting to get into fights, or crying easily each make a boy less of a boy. (Not to mention having longer eyelashes -- yes, this author seems to believe that the physical trait of long eyelashes is an outward sign of a girl's soul inside a boy's body!) My childhood self, which was gentle to an extreme, hated sports, preferred quiet imaginative play, and had a number of other traits (including the long eyelashes thing!) was, according to people who talk like this author, already halfway along the spectrum to being a girl in a male body. (I didn't go as far as wanting to be considered a girl or have a feminine name, although in earlier childhood I had some interest in wearing girl things like bracelets and necklaces and I do sometimes wonder, if an authority figure had offered me the opportunity to "live as a girl", whether I might have been inclined for half a moment to take them up on it.)

I've always found it offensive to my anti-gender-role sensibilities to suggest that non- traditionally masculine traits such as being gentle and nurturing or crying a lot make someone "less of a man" (and the analogous idea for women). And the thing is, the progressive subculture that seems to promote the "gender identity = affinity for gender role" definition of transness among other definitions seems completely with me on the above sentiment when very directly dealing with it -- in fact, if anything, in my experience many seem to take it perhaps further than I do (going an even longer way than I might in actively encouraging men to cry and be more vulnerable, for instance). The fact that this thread has generated a 5-digit number of notes on Tumblr, which I would assume are mostly from people eager to hold it up as an example of how current models of what transness is about were Objectively True a hundred years ago to those with keen enough perception to see it, is not evidence that this subculture secretly thinks that traditionally feminine traits make a boy less of a boy. Rather, I think the level of excitement about the OP betrays muddiness and unnoticed contradictions in how certain strains of a social movement are moving through rapid changes in the concept of gender identity.

"But you're clearly not reading what is plainly explained there: that the ultimate defining characteristic of the 'girl-boys' is that they want to live as girls." Here's the thing: their wanting to live as girls is presented as being a direct result of their completely failing to fit into the stereotypes that were strictly enforced for boys a hundred years ago. Of course it makes sense that in an environment with rigid gender roles (regardless of which ones came about through arbitrary traditions, actual innate gender differences-on-average, or somewhere else), some individuals would feel violently enough incompatible with these roles that they would prefer to live entirely as the opposite sex if it was a ticket out of those roles. (I imagine this was most likely fairly close to the case for the indigenous cultures always being brought up as having developed the concept of a certain kind of nonbinary gender, where gender roles if anything must have dictated even more about hour-to-hour behavior than they did in the early-20th-century developed world.) It makes less sense -- or at least is much trickier to explain in a coherent manner, to my mind -- for this phenomenon to be seen to justify the claims of progressives driving the modern trans movement which lives in a liberated society where enforcement of gender roles has (fortunately) been rapidly deteriorating thanks in part to those very same progressives.

I'm reading a book named "A Guide to The Correction of Young Gentlemen Or, The Successful Administration Of Physical Discipline To Males, By Females" - essentially, a fantasy femdom BDSM book, written in 1924 by Alice Kerr-Sutherland but first published in 1991.

It has some genuinely fascinating stuff to say about gender, and I feel like it's worth looking at/thinking about in the context of Historical Gender Stuff. This 100 year old book has the following to say:

"The truth is that some young gentlemen would rather they had been born young ladies: they cannot admit this openly, because in the male world to confess as much would lead to instant ostracism if not worse; but they cannot conceal it either, and by preferring the company of girls, and soft, feminine clothing, and by flinching during the rough pursuits to which all boys, willing or no, are occasionally heirs, they attract opprobrium."

"Such boys weep too readily for their fellows' tastes - weeping is a great crime among boys unless it is generally admitted that circumstances left little choice - and are hounded for that reason."

"Just as there are girls who had rather been boys - we all know examples of the type - there are boys who, in a kinder world, would have been born into the gender more suited to their dispositions."

"Many young people of this sort are riven with a guilt they do not deserve but have been forced, by the conventions of society, to adopt; they are confused, ashamed and thoroughly unhappy."

"The ideal thing to do would be to treat these cases on their merits, send them to girls' schools, and so on. (The same thing should happen with those girls who would rather be young gentlemen.) Boys of this sort are girls in any case-in all respects save one."

"Most subjects of this sort have a secret name - a girl's name."

[kali-writes-meta]

I'm the Villainess, so I'm Taming the Final Boss 1-4 Challenges Anime Tropes

Last summer I went to the bookstore to check out the "light novel" medium. I wanted to buy the first novel of a series I hadn't yet watched in anime. Even in a cursory glance at the shelves _I'm the Villainess, so I'm Taming the Final Boss_ stood out as something new and fresh. It looked like a direct challenge to many of the tropes of Japanese pop fiction that I'd seen in 30 years of reading manga and watching anime. Taming the Final Boss challenges the tropes in two ways, by the complexity of its female lead and by being the first genuinely sexy romance.

1) The protagonist

Japan has a very narrow range of strong female role models, to the point where recently older Japanese feminists apologized to young Japanese women for not doing more to provide them with an expanded range of strong role models. In Japanese pop fiction a good woman is allowed to be strong only if she uses her strength to help others. If she uses her strength for personal or selfish reasons she must be a bad woman and she must meet a bad end, even if the "selfish" reason that motivates her is saving her own life.

In shonen anime the classic example of this is Inuyasha. Kagome always fights for others, so she is allowed to have a good end. Kikyo and Kagra all have to at some point fight for the selfish reason of saving their own lives, and thus are morally dubious and die. It's such a waste!

(This is also the reason I refuse to watch anime where the male protagonist fights to prove himself the best at something just to prove himself, because no female protagonist would be allowed do that without being considered bad for being so selfish. The mild exception of being allowed to be the best at a traditionally female occupation doesn't count.)

Shoujo is even worse. The shoujo heroine, in the words of @marithlizard "does not value herself, her survival or her boundaries". The classic example is Tohru from Fruits Basket, who is so utterly self-sacrificing she forces the men around her to grow up in order to protect her -- and even that story showed this approach didn't work with her own extended family who would have happily let her self-destruct.

So where are the role models for women who want to survive and do what they want to do?

That's where the villainess subgenre comes in. In otome romance RPGs, the villainess is a strong, intelligent, highly educated and well connected young woman who exists to get publicly dumped by the prince when he chooses the main character and ignominiously killed off at a later date. But what if you're a former gamer who realizes you've been reborn in the role of this strong, intelligent woman? Are you going to stick around and wait to die, or are you going to do something selfish but ultimately life-saving?

Villainess stories quickly developed two different routes for dealing with this challenge. The first is the Caterina route, (named for the protagonist of _My Next Life as a Villainess _) stop being a villainess. Turn into the most loveable shoujo protagonist that everyone will fall in love with and no one will want to kill you. This route is nice in small doses but hardly subversive.

The second route is to quit the game. Realize that the system is rigged against you, walk away, stop being a villainess, and go discover a better life for yourself somewhere else. That's a totally valid option that I can respect if its your choice.

But what if you want to win the game? What if you want to decide on your own prize and carve out your own path to victory? Can a Japanese pop fiction female character do something so outrageously self-centered and survive?

Aileen Lauren d'Autriche is just such a villainess. At the moment of getting publicly dumped by the prince, she remembers that her current life is an otome game she played to distract herself from the fact that she was dying of childhood leukemia. All that she obtained from her previous life was some vague game knowledge and a burning desire to live this time around. In order to escape her doom of being killed when the final boss demon lord goes postal, she plans to marry the demon lord and keep him from going postal. Said demon lord is also her ex-fiance's older, sexier, hyper-magical, hyper-emo half brother. Shenanigans ensue.

Through it all Aileen never stops being a villainess. She regards both her "villainess" traits and her "heroine" traits as equally valid tools in her tool kit to be used appropriately and shamelessly as needed in order to win on her own terms and create her own happy ending for herself and her chosen lover. In that regard, this heroine of a frothy romcom is one of the most complex female protagonists in Japanese pop fiction.

2) a genuinely sexy romance

Anime has managed to tell many kinds of story well, but romance has always been it's weak spot. It's traditionally either:

a) one person pursuing someone who doesn't really want them, or

b) two people with mutual goals and life experiences deciding to form a partnership.

There's not many cases of two people (or more, though that's trickier) realizing the other is mutually irreplaceable.

Likewise, there's not really a lot of sexy stories. There's cute stories, sleazy stories, and stories with sexy people in them, but a sexy STORY is about two people (or more, though that's trickier) mutually enjoying their growing physical attraction to each other. I gave up on seeing that in Japanese pop fiction over a quarter century ago. The romance protagonists are usually too pure-hearted. But apparently a villainess and a demon lord can fall in mutual lust as well as love.

More please!

[thechekhov]

Hi! I saw on a post that you're agender and I'm kinda questioning my gender (again) but what interested me more about that post was that you said you believe that gender is a social construct and I'm not really familiar with that theory. I was wondering if you could explain to me what the whole idea is? (bc I kinda only feel like a have a gender in social situations? In my head, my dreams and how I picture myself in the future, I'm genderless idjskahwksjejensj) Sorry for bothering you if I did.

This is a BIG topic and it opens a LOT of wormholes. 

We’re gonna do this in pie slice statements that will hopefully help explain what I mean. Please keep in mind I’m going to simplify many things for the sake of readability.

1) What is a social construct? 

Social constructs are ideas that are negotiated by social groups. Something being a social construct does not make it ‘not real’. 

For example, money is a social construct. Yes, we have cash - coins, credit cards - but these are physical props that are REPRESENTATIVE of the idea of currency. You have some form of credit to your name - the money is a socially agreed-upon idea of value being represented by bills in your hand, by numbers in your bank account. 

[Description: Two humanoid figures are standing side by side. The right-side figure is holding a rock in its hand. 

Right side figure: Let’s agree that this shiny rock is worth 2 sheep.

Left side figure: Sounds fake but ok.]

Technically, countries are also social constructs. We, as a society, negotiate what a country is, and this can be changed.

[Description: Two figures are standing on either side of a dotted line drawn on the ground. The left figure is pointing down at it while the right figure watches, its arms crossed.

Left figure: Let’s pretend that everything on this side of the imaginary line is mine.

Right figure: ...ok but my house is over there.

Left figure: ... for 3 shiny rocks you can come visit.]

Does that mean canada isn’t real? No. (I mean, obviously canada ISN’T real, but we all agree to pretend it is.) The thing that makes it real is that we are in agreement, and all follow the social rules of pretend to make it seem like the Canadian border, the idea of Canadian citizenship, etc... is an objective fact. (It’s not. These are in fact, negotiable limits and parameters. We have laws in place to define it in legal terms, but those laws can be changed, or may change in the minds of communities. That’s why it’s a construct.)

By that same token, I hold the view that gender, as we largely perceive it in modern society, is a construct. Why? Because it is not inherent; we, as a society, negotiate its meaning. 

2) What is gender? 

People will probably fight me on this and that’s fine, but here’s my (simplified) understanding of gender (from someone who personally has none)

Gender is a social category negotiated by cultures based on your assigned or desired role in your community that influences, among many other things, your physical appearance, your role in family units, your expected position in jobs, etc. 

How I think it happened:

[Description: Two figures are standing on either side of the panel, both holding children-looking figures. The one on the left is wearing purple. The one on the right is wearing green.

Green figure: Hey, I’ve got an idea. What if we separate the babies into two groups based on physical traits they have no control over?

Purple figure: Wh-- okay...?

Green figure: And then limit the jobs they can do and the community ritual involvement available to them based on that!

Purple figure: ... I feel like this is going to backfire on us someday.

Green figure: Nah, it’ll be fine.

The past panel is a dramatic closeup on the purple figure’s face - which is featureless - betraying a deeply doubtful emotion. It says nothing.]

Important points to remember: what gender looks like, what the limits are, what the expectations are... are not inherent to any human biology. We make up gender roles. This is evident in the fact that across the world, gender roles differ by culture. The positions people of a certain gender are allowed to take up are different. What is perceived to be ‘girly’ or ‘boyish’ is different across cultures. 

Simply speaking - currently the (western) model we have, dumbed down, is:

You are assigned male at birth because of physical characteristics

You are raised being told to ‘toughen up’ and ‘boys don’t cry’ and encouraged not to show emotions

You are taught to wear male-coded clothes and discouraged from female-coded fashion choices

You are given more opportunities to participate in sports, encouraged to engage in physical activity, etc

You are not expected to need time off for child-rearing 

Here’s where gender as it works in society breaks down into being not a real thing but instead something we thought up: 

Nothing about having a penis necessitates wearing pants. Nothing about having XY chromosomes means you need to keep your hair short. Nothing about your genome makes the experience of nail-polish different for any human being. 

All of these are arbitrary traits we decided were allowed or not allowed to a specific group of people based on entirely unrelated physiology. 

Even if we delve deeper, there is MORE variation among individuals of the same ‘sex’ than there are, on average, of members of the ‘opposite sex’ when compared to each other. 

Many people use the excuse ‘women are physically not as strong as men’ to say that this has an evolutionary aspect driving these cultural, historical, socially-constructed gender requirements. 

But if there was a physical reasoning behind the culturally-set gender-limited job expectations, then we actually WOULDN’T need a traditional binary gender system to sort ourselves into categories. It would simply be decided as a meritocracy - stronger individuals, regardless of gender, would be given physically-demanding jobs. (Also we know that many jobs thought to be ‘traditionally male’ are just the result of sexist bullshit, so this reasoning doesn’t fly any further than I can throw it which is, coincidentally, not very far. Politics is one such area. Doctors are another. We can go on but I think you get my drift.)

My own example of this is an anecdote when my grandparents came to visit my partner and I in Japan. While we were driving down to Tokyo, my grandmother - who has a PhD in entomology - began to say that driving is a masculine activity and women shouldn’t be driving as it was ‘un-woman-like’. My partner almost immediately fired back that in Japan, studying insects or having any interest in them whatsoever was considered a heavily masculine-coded activity. In Russia, there is no such assignment, and my grandmother was left silently blinking in confusion, unable to come up with any excuse except ‘well, all cultures are different, I suppose...’

Do either of these things inherently have a gendered aspect? Of course not! But we assign gendered ideals to them anyway.

3) If gender is made up and constructed by society, then does that mean trans people aren’t real?

No.

Even if you agree that gender is a social construct, trans people are still real. TERFs don’t get a pass. Why? 

Because gender - as a social construct - still affects our everyday lives, dictates our social position in our community. Transitioning is still a thing that has to happen. The fact that you are NOT easily able to decide your own gender and are ostracized for wanting to transition, abused for dressing the way you want to be perceived, and bullied for wanting people to refer to you with different pronouns - all those are the effects of a social construct that has very REAL impact on our lives.

This is also why I dislike defining trans-ness by dysphoria. Because transgender people are not only their suffering - the suffering is coming from the outside!! Many trans people remember not being concerned about their gender identity in their childhood, because they did not yet perceive the world as being hostile to their desire to fulfil a specific role in society. The issues and self-hatred and dysphoria begins when they express wanting to be themselves - a life which they are forbidden from pursuing based on physical characteristics they were born with.

Does this mean we should try to remove gender from society? If we constructed it, we can deconstruct it, right?

Realistically, I highly doubt this is possible. Gender is so ingrained in our daily lives that it would be difficult. Nor, I would say, would it be necessary to achieve world peace. 

Having social groups - having gender - isn’t inherently a bad thing. The bad thing is when we limit those social groups to specific basic human rights, like voting, or when we forbid them from transitioning from one to another based on things that are out of their control. 

Also, I’m not saying genitals and secondary sexual characteristics aren’t real. Please don’t bother sending me that angry message, I’ll ignore it, I promise. 

But the concept of gender IS something we thought up and maintain and negotiate with each other to this very day. It’s not granted to us by a higher power, nor is it a constant, unchanging thing. It’s a part of the human experience and like everything, it has the potential to evolve - as a concept in our communal memory, as well as on an individual level, for people who feel they want to be perceived differently. 

Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk!

[the-ghost-king]

the term malewife isn’t a very nice term to use...

A man who acts as a wife and is inferior to his #girlboss girlfriend.

Person A: I just got myself a malewife. He's gonna clean my kitchen and watch me download custom content for the sims.

Person B: Sweet! You must be such a girlboss

^^urban dictionary. It’s just confirming to the sexist stereotypes that perceive and expectation of what a wife should act like. It’s quite harmful

It's a parallel to girlboss which is conformity to the sexism within corporate America:

"it becomes inescapably clear that when women center their worldview around their own office hustle, it just re-creates the power structures built by men, but with women conveniently on top. In the void left after the end of the corporate feminist vision of the future, this reckoning opens space to imagine success that doesn’t involve acing performance reviews or getting the most out of your interns." (here)

The word girlboss comes from a book quite literally called #girlboss, in parallel to the negative aspects of this book people eventually rebranded the term "malewife" to parallel it (malewife was originally an nsfw type thing)

In the malewife/girlboss "system" it's essentially the swapping of the problematic aspects, expectations, and socialization of men and women within a relationship

"Girlboss, gaslight, gatekeep" was a meme started to pick on the idea that women should become men and enforce the sexism within corporate society, and I'm sure it was a jab at the book the word came from as well.... "Manipulate, mansplain, malewife" was created to parallel the original meme

So yeah, the whole concept is mocking sexism within corporations and and modern relationships and showing how ridiculous it is. Girlboss mocks the idea of 2014 (largely) white feminism within America.

In example the original meme (created on Twitter) is intended to make mockery of Karen-types:

On January 12th, 2021, Tumblr user missnumber1111 posted, "today’s agenda: gaslight gatekeep and most importantly girlboss," garnering over 43,500 notes in a month (shown below). On that day, Twitter user @CUPlDL0VE posted, "my agenda is gaslight gatekeep and #girlboss," the first instance of the phrase on Twitter.

And a day later on January 13, 2021 Tumblr user a-m-e-t-h-y-s-t-r-o-s-e reblogged the post along with a photoshopped image of "Live, Laugh, Love" wall art instead reading, "Gaslight every moment, Gatekeep every day, Girlboss beyond words" (shown below). On January 18th, the image was reposted to Twitter for the first time.

Malewife doesn't hold those same implications however... The term malewife which is now being used to parallel girlboss achieves it's origins from p*rn, now I'm not an nsfw blog or someone who blatantly discusses nsfw concepts on my blog so I'm not getting super into it but there's a few places it comes from: femdom, bdsm, and feminization kinks... All of which have a connection to queerness in their own right but I don't feel comfortable going into the complexities of that with so many younger people following me.

On February 15th, Tumblr user @relelvance posted, "Manipulate, mansplain, malewife" as a male-themed opposite to "gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss," garnering over 27,000 notes in four days. The post was screenshotted and reuploaded by Twitter user @nortoncampbell on the same day, garnering over 14,200 likes and 2,800 retweets in the same span of time (shown below).

Urban dictionary's explaination of "malewife" is not only harsher than what malewife was intended to mean, but also removes the context of origin from the word- making it something new, different, and erasing the history of who originally used this word.

Because of Malewifes origins vs Girlboss origins, malewife is a less problematic term than girlboss and is more "affectionate" because the term malewife and it's use (up until recently) involved the man acknowledging that he wanted to be the "wife" in his relationship. There's a variety of reasons someone might do this, but it can generally be summed up as a mixture of personality and also personal wants.

I do think it's important to also note that although these words are being "glamorized slightly" they're still intended and being used in a memeing manner, but they're also used to quickly denote arbitrary traits in an individual and categorize those traits...

Although there's lots of conversations to be had for a variety of reasons about the origin and use of the word "girlboss" in relation to sexism, up until recently the world "malewife" was something claimed by men, something men wanted to be called, and something that men who used the term wanted to reference them.

Malewife is about "stepping-up" to "take on" "female" social roles, and it's something that at least some women would be happy to see in society:

"...We have been told that we can have it all, but so far we have noticed that it is extremely hard work having it all, because you still have to do everything that your mother did but now you have to do everything your father did as well. Except that your father had your mother waiting at home with a gin and tonic and his slippers when he came home from work, and you have the washing up and the shopping and a few screaming brats as well as a bloke with his feet up on the sofa watching the football... " (via. Victoria Mary Clarke)

And I don't think that she's wrong at all. Women are still expected to do so much more than men in society without equal reward.

Malewife exists as a a sort of fantasy removed from the truth of society. It's an idea that a husband can be waiting at home to care for his wife, and in this instance it benefits the woman- unlike Clarke's situation above, the woman comes home from a long day and is able to relax without the pressures of society and her life.

Where housewife is a word that holds its origins in forced subservience, malewife is a term that is showcasing men "picking up the torch" in regards to housework- where housewife is socially forced, and girlboss is reversed social compliance, malewife is the rejection of social expectations.

Malewife is about men finding a place in their life's and relationships to make themselves more than a paycheck. To say "I can be emotionally there for my spouse, I can clean a toilet, and drive kids to school, and I don't treat my spouses wants as something expendable". In a society in which men are often demeaned, mocked, and scorned for picking up socially female roles (say hello to misogyny and gendered contamination!)

The Urban dictionary definition, is not only too harsh- but not the way in which the word is intending to be used, because that's ignoring the origins of this word, and the fact that men had a choice in becoming malewifes where women didn't have that choice. It should read more like:

Person A: Ah yeah, I have a malewife waiting for me, he's going to clean my kitchen because I've had a hard day at work and need a break, and then he's going to watch me download custom content for the Sims because I enjoy the game so much and it helps me take a break from life!

Women's wants were often ignored in favor of men's wants, so by the malewife saying he's going to watch his spouse play the Sims, he's really saying "I care about her interests" and by him picking up the kitchen cleaning after she's had a stressful day he's saying "I have a lower stress job so I can handle that for her and make her life a little easier" (because malewife doesn't mean he doesn't have a job).

In a society in which a man's worth is tied to his ability to bring home money and be emotionally distant, malewife is the rejection of this norm. Malewifes are going to be there for their spouse, they're going to step up and take on traditionally women's roles and they're doing it because they want to, because they like it, and because dividing chores into pink vs blue is wrong.

I also want to say, you can't flip a word around and say it does "this" because that's not how it works... Men and women are forcibly socialized in very different ways, the two binaries have very different treatment, and expectations within societies social constructs. If you could flip the forms of oppression that men vs women face (because yes, the patriarchy oppresses men) then you could also flip the forms of violence faced by trans masculine people vs trans feminine people- but that doesn't work either, because women will always be oppressed in the most public way to "make an example of them" while the patriarchy expects anyone who is male to "keep his mouth shut and fall in line". (I know that's worded poorly, but I've just written at least a couple hundred words and my brain is a bit fried already from various other things today- basically anyone perceived female or male will be treated in a certain way as a result of others perception of them)

Anyhow, all this isn't to say that the term "malewife" is inherently free of any form of flaw ever... Malewife is a newly mainstream word, it wasn't popularized until February 15 of 2021... So?? 5 days ago?? The origins of malewife and the social implications of malewife combined with the history of the word, don't make the word bad or impressive and it's not "upholding the ideals of a housewife" but instead a word which provides men freedom from male social expectations.

Can the word malewife come to be a word which enforces expected female social behavior? Yeah it absolutely can become a word to mean that, erase the history from the word, and give it to someone who doesn't know the history of the word, and someone who doesn't have an intimate understanding of gender theory, and you've got a recipe for hundreds more asks like the one you've sent me...

I can't find a single positive reason to use the word girlboss in an empowering way, but I can find more reasons to use the word malewife in an empowering way than not to do so.

So at the very least if all you come away from this with is that I don't personally use the word malewife to uphold female social expectations in a relationship but instead I use this word to provide space for guys to be allowed to be feminine, soft, caring, emotionally present, and worth more than their monetary value, then I guess that's okay.

[song-of-oots]

Fuchsia Groan: my (un)exceptional fave

A while ago a friend of mine was asking for people to name their favourite examples of strong female characters, and my mind immediately leapt to Gormenghast’s Fuchsia Groan because it always does whenever the words “favourite” and “female character” come up in the same sentence. In fact scratch that, if I had to pick only one character to be my official favourite (female or otherwise) it would probably be Fuchsia. There are not sufficient words in the English language to accurately describe how much I love this character.

The issue was that I’m not sure Fuchsia Groan can accurately be described as “strong”, and until my friend asked the question, it hadn’t even occurred to me to analyse her in those terms… 

Actually this isn’t completely true; Mervyn Peake does describe Fuchsia as strong in terms of her physical strength on multiple occasions. But in terms of her mental strength things are less clear cut. She’s certainly not a total pushover, and anyone would probably find it tough-going to cope with the neglect, tragedy and misuse she suffers through. In fact, this is something Mervyn Peake mentions himself – whilst also pointing out that Fuchsia is not the most resilient of people:

“There were many causes [to her depression], any one of which might have been alone sufficient to undermine the will of tougher natures than Fuchsia’s.”

Anyway, this has gotten me thinking about Fuchsia’s other traits and my reasons for loving her, going through a typical sort of list of reasons people often give for holding up a character as someone to admire:

So, is Fuchsia particularly talented?

No.

Is she clever, witty?

She’s definitely not completely stupid, and her insights occasionally take other characters by surprise, but she’s not really that smart either.

Does she have any significant achievements? Overcome great adversity?

Not really, no.

Is she kind?

Yes. Fuchsia is a very loving person and sometimes displays an incredible sensitivity and compassion for others. But… she can also be self-absorbed, highly strung, and does occasionally lash out at other people (especially in her younger years).

So why do I love Fuchsia so much?

Well, I’ll start be reiterating that I don’t really have the vocabulary to adequately put it into words, but I will try to get the gist across. So:

“What Fuchsia wanted from a picture was something unexpected. It was as though she enjoyed the artist telling her something quite fresh and new. Something she had never thought of before.”

This statement summarises not only Fuchsia but also the way I feel about her (and for that matter the Gormenghast novels in general). Fuchsia is something I’ve never really seen before. On the surface, she fits the model of the somewhat spoiled but neglected princess, and yet at the same time she cannot be so neatly pigeon-holed. It’s not just that her situation and the themes of the story make things more complex (though that is a factor); Fuchsia herself is so unique and vividly detailed that she manages to be more than her archetype. She feels like a real person and, like all real people, she is not so easy to label.

Fuchsia is also delightfully strange in a way that feels very authentic to her and the setting in general (which is particularly refreshing because it can all too often feel as though female characters are only allowed to be strange in a kooky, sexy way - yet Fuchsia defies this trend).

She’s a Lady, but she’s not ladylike. She’s messy. She slouches, mooches, stomps and stands in awkward positions. Her drawing technique is “vicious” and “uncompromising”. She chews grass. She removes her shoes “without untying the laces by treading on the heels and then working her foot loose”. She’s multi-faceted and psychologically complex. Intense and self-absorbed, sometimes irrational and ruled by her emotions more than is wise, but also capable of insight and good sense that takes others by surprise. She is extremely loving and affectionate, and yet so tragically lonely. Simultaneously very feminine and also not. Her character development from immature teenager to adult woman is both subtle and believable. She has integrity and decency – she doesn’t need to be super clever or articulate to know how to care for others or stand up for herself.

Fuchsia is honest. She knows her own flaws, but you never catch her trying to put on airs or make herself out to be anything other than what she is. She always expresses her feelings honestly.

She’s not sexualised at all. I don’t mean by this that she has no sexuality – though that’s something Peake only vaguely touches on – but I don’t really feel like I’m looking at a character who was written to pander to the male gaze (though her creator is male, I get the vibe he views her more as a beloved daughter than a sexual object).

Finally, I find her highly relatable. I am different to Fuchsia in many ways, but we do have several things in common that I have never seen so vividly expressed in any other character. This was incredibly important to me when I was a teenager struggling through the worst period of depression I ever experienced – because she was someone who I could relate to and love in a way I was incapable of loving myself. Her ability to be herself meant a lot to me as someone struggling with my own identity and sense of inadequacy. It didn’t cure my depression, but it helped me survive it.

What am I trying to say with all this?

I love Fuchsia on multiple levels. I love her as a person and also as a character and a remarkable piece of writing. I mention some of the mundane details Peake uses to flesh out her character firstly because I enjoy them, but also because it’s part of the point. Her story amazes me because it treats a female character and her psychological and emotional life with an intense amount of interest regardless of any special talents or achievements she happens to exhibit. She doesn’t fit the model of a modern heroine but neither does she need to – she’s still worth spending time with and caring about.*  To me the most important things about Fuchsia are how different and interesting and relatable she is – and how real she feels.

* To be honest, this is part of the point of the Gormenghast novels in general. The story is meant to illustrate the damage that society – and in particular rigid social structures and customs – can do to individuals with its callous indifference to genuine human need. Fuchsia is one of many examples of this throughout the novels. These characters don’t need to be exceptionally heroic in order to matter – they just need to exist as believable people. And despite how strange they all are, they often do manage to be fundamentally relatable.

Why am I talking about female characters in particular here?

The focus on “strong” female characters and the critique against that is pretty widely acknowledged. Growing up, I definitely noticed the lack of female characters in popular media and the ensuing pressure this then places on the ones that do exist to be positive representations of womankind – someone girls can look up to. It’s very understandable that we want to see more examples of admirable female protagonists, given that women were traditionally left to play support roles and tired stereotypes. The problem is that the appetite for more proactive female heroines can sometimes lead to characters who are role models first and realistic human beings second (characters who I mentally refer to as Tick-All-The-Boxes Heroines). It’s not a problem with “strong” proactive heroines per se, but rather lack of variation and genuine psychological depth (not to mention a sometimes too-narrow concept of what it even means to be strong).

Male characters tend not to have this particular problem because they are much better represented across the whole range of roles within a story. You get your fair share of boring worn out archetypes. You get characters who are meant to represent a positive version of heroic masculinity (and now that I come to think of it, having a very narrow and unvarying presentation of what positive masculinity looks like is its own separate problem, but outside the scope of this particular ramble). We don’t usually spend time obsessing over whether a piece of fiction has enough examples of “strong” male characters though, because we’re generally so used to seeing it that we automatically move on into analysing the work and the characters on other terms. And because there are often more male characters than female, they don’t all bear the burden of having to be a positive representative of all men everywhere. They exist to fulfill their roles, and often exhibit more variety, nuance and psychological depth. They are also often allowed to be weird, flawed and unattractive in ways that women usually aren’t (which is a damn shame because I’ve spent my whole life feeling like a weird outsider and yet this perspective is so often told primarily through a male lens).

Tl:dr; Fuchsia Groan is a character who feels like an answer to so many of those frustrations that I felt growing up without even truly understanding why. A large part of why I love her is simply because of how much I relate to her on a personal level. I admire her emotional honesty and her loving nature… But there’s also a part of me that was just so relieved to find a female character who exists outside of the usual formulae we seem to cram women into. She is unique, weird and wonderful (but non-sexualised). Psychologically nuanced and vividly written. She isn’t exceptionally heroic or talented or a high achiever – but she does feel like a real person.

Female characters don’t need to tick all the right boxes in order to be interesting or worth our time any more than the male ones do.

[inkmyname]

The Ember Island Players: performing toxic masculinity and narrative complicity in propagating misogyny

Initially I wasn’t going to respond to concerns about Katara’s racist/misogynistic portrayal in the Ember Island Players with anything more than snarky tags, but apparently I can’t keep my mouth shut, so I’m posting my response as a standalone meta about how the writers’ insistence on creating drama for drama’s sake leads them to--in lieu of actual character development--fall back on lazy narrative shortcuts whereby a performance of toxic masculinity against a gendered heternormative background is used to create tension in a romantic relationship, presumably with the goal of keeping the audience invested.

The Ember Island Players is problematic for a lot of reasons, not least of which is the pervasive tone-deaf misogyny, including racialized misogyny, directed at Katara. There’s a lot of meta on this, so I’d like to focus on something different: Aang’s relationship with gender and romantic attachments.

Aang seems so uncharacteristically chagrined the whole episode: “I’m not a woman!” Based on his previous characterization up to this point:

The Fortuneteller. This is the same Aang who makes a necklace for Katara when she loses her mother’s. Observe how he responds to Sokka’s jibe about jewelry-making, which can be seen as a feminine pursuit: Sokka: Great, Aang. Maybe instead of saving the world, you can go into the jewelry-making business. Aang: I don’t see why I can’t do both. Femininity isn’t presented as being mutually exclusive with narrative pursuits like saving the world which have traditionally centered male protagonists (especially if we take the entire canon of anything every written in any genre that’s not specifically, say, something like shoujo or jounen which are directed and young girls and women, the narrative focus on male personalities is overwhelming).

The Warriors of Kyoshi. Oh, and this is the same Aang that dressed up in full Kyoshi gear, kabuki makeup and all, without complaint. Why would he? After all, she was him in a past life. (There’s a whole meta here about gender-critical analysis of kabuki productions where male actors typically assumed female roles and how Avatar both takes inspiration from this real-life kernel and subverts it in Rise of Kyoshi where Kyoshi’s signature look is not only an homage to her parental heritage but also a reimagining of who can inhabit what roles. Her legacy, though imperfect, is also notably feminist, taking face paint worn typically by men IRL and expanding it into war paint for women warriors.) (There’s also great headcanon-adjacent meta here about gender non-conformity and non-binary identities in Avatar. Avatar was not overtly explicit about its feminist or gender-progressive mindset outside of episodes like The Warriors of Kyoshi or The Waterbending Master, but it was still way ahead of its time. If anyone was to be presented or headcanoned in such a way, it would be the Avatar who’s lived a thousand lives, inhabiting a thousand skins and a thousand identities, including gender identities. There’s also cool crossover meta here about the Legend of Korra depicting a female Avatar in Korra with masculine tendencies and visible muscle vs Aang as a male Avatar with a gentler pacifistic spirit and gender nonconforming tendencies.)

The Cave of Two Lovers. Aang wears a freaking flower crown and is generally wholesome and adorable, even leading up to the “let’s kiss lest we die” scene with Katara. He’s not pushy or overly concerned with appearing masculine and it is in fact Katara who suggests the kiss and Aang makes a fool of himself. From the transcript: Katara [Shyly, blushing.] Well, what if we … kissed? Aang [Very surprised.] Us … kissing‌? Katara See? It was a crazy idea. Aang [Dreamily.] Us … kissing … Katara [Fake-jokingly.] Us kissing. What was I thinking? Can you imagine that‌? Aang [Fake-jokingly.] Yeah. [Awkwardly laughs.] I definitely wouldn’t want to kiss you! [Beat.] Katara [Insulted.] Oh, well! I didn’t realize it was such a horrible option. [Angrily.] Sorry I suggested it! Aang [Realizing his mistake.] No, no, I mean … if there was a choice between kissing you and dying … Katara [Disgusted.] Ugh! Aang [Desperately.] What? I’m saying is I would rather kiss you than die - that’s a compliment. Katara [Enraged.] Well, I’m not sure which I’d rather do! [Slams the torch into his hand and storms away.] Aang [Miserably.] What is wrong with me … Aang, sweetie, this is not what you say to a girl you want to kiss, but generally, this is Wholesome™ and narratively, this is Good™. Eventually, they do kiss and that’s perfectly acceptable because there’s a whole conversation beforehand with humorous romantic framing. There’s consent and communication and initiative by the female protagonist. So solid A on the sensitive writing.

General Air Nomad culture. We don’t get a lot of Air Nomad culture in the show (and what little we do get what presented in such a misguided way, especially the whole commitment to forgiveness/pacifism which was handled in such an amateur black-and-white way from a writing perspective in season 3). But I digress. I really, really don’t think that Air Nomads who were so concerned with the spiritual side of bending and general existence had stringent notions of gender and romantic relationships–at the very least, they had very different notions of these issues compared to, say, the Northern Water Tribe. Canonically, even though AN philosophy emphasized detachment, Air Nomads practiced free love. Same-gender romance was freely accepted unlike in the homophobic Earth Kingdom (which even Kyoshi, a bisexual woman, wasn’t able to change) and the militant Fire Nation (Sozin outlawed homosexuality after declaring world war, essentially). And though the temples were gender-segregated, it seems that the burden of raising children fell to the entire community instead of just the women. Both male and female Air Nomads are revered. In the case of the former, Guru Laghima who unlocked the power of flight through achieving complete detachment from the material world. And in the case of the latter, Avatar Yangchen, who has statues everywhere because she came to be revered as a deity not just among Air Nomads but in the physical world in general. Nowhere in Air Nomad philosophy is the concept of gender, romance, love, sexuality, relationships etc. etc. tainted with jealousy and possessiveness (especially towards women) or rigid binary heternormativity.

So this was Aang for the better part of the first half of the series. Not overly concerned with gender roles. Pretty much fumbling his way through his first crush like a lovesick puppy and it’s all very wholesome. Supposedly a classic product of Air Nomad upbringing.

Meanwhile, Aang in EIP:

Checks out Katara’s butt as she’s sitting down.

Gets mad at being portrayed by a woman.

Accuses Katara of being the racialized misogynistic version of herself depicted on stage ([sarcastically]“Yeah, that’s not you at all.”).

Nods in agreement when the misogynistic stage production of Katara presents her as the “Avatar’s girl.”

Unable to differentiate between fiction and reality and puts the onus on Katara to do the emotional labor to justify something she never said (”Katara, did you really mean what you said in there? On stage, when you said I was just like a … brother to you, and you didn’t have feelings for me.”)

Assumes they would just… fall into a relationship… just because he forcibly kissed her at the invasion and again pressures Katara to do the emotional labor to justify why their relationship is not how he wants it (“But it’s true, isn’t it? We kissed at the Invasion, and I thought we were gonna be together. But we’re not.” / “Aang, I don’t know.” / “Why don’t you know?”)

Forces a non-consensual kiss on her even though “I just said I was confused!”

So, there’s so many things wrong with this, most of which are a laundry list of behaviors typical of toxic masculinity:

Ogling

Outdated misogynistic humor (what’s wrong with being a woman?)

Verbal abuse

Offloading emotional labor

Gaslighting

Pressuring a potential romantic partner

Lack of direct communication about romantic desires

Lack of sensitivity

Lack of active listening

Lack of emotional intelligence and empathy

Lack of consent and sexual assault

I could go on and on.

My question is Where and when did he learn these toxic behaviors? What happened to the wholesome boy making necklaces, wearing flower crowns, and generally being adorable in a kid with a first crush kind of way when it comes to romance?

Now, you can argue that EIP players Aang has been through a lot, including being shot by lightning and actually dying, and after the failed invasion, he’s stressed out with the weight of the world on his shoulders and maybe not expressing himself or his desires in the best way and taking out all of his frustrations on Katara.

Except… that is all just conjecture because the actual writing of the show doesn’t put in the hard work and make those connections. Instead, they fall back on misogynistic tropes and toxic heternormative romance tropes and a forced love triangle subtext and they just, to put it politely, fuck it up, two and a half seasons’ worth of work, gone, in the space of one episode. And even if it weren’t conjecture, it would still be wrong of Aang to act the way he did.

Let’s list Aang and Katara’s interaction in relation to each other in season 3:

The Headband. “Don’t worry about them. It’s just you and me right now,” Aang says as he pulls Katara into a dance. I have qualms about the writing of this episode: the creators wasted a golden opportunity to flesh out the Air Nomad genocide because they were too busy playing footloose in a cave, they wrote Katara–the same Katara would said fuck you to Pakku, freed enslaved earthbenders from a Fire Navy prison, and became a spirit goddess ecoterrorist to help a village in an enemy nation–as uncharacteristically shy just so Aang could sweep in and pull her into a dance. But like fine, whatever. It’s cute and really well-chreographed and there’s actually appropriate romantic framing here for once and at the end of the dance, look at Katara’s face–she’s happy! Positive Kataang interaction, and I don’t actually mind it. 7/10.

The Day of Black Sun Pt.1. He forces a kiss on her on the mouth, taking her completely by surprise. A chaste kiss on the cheek and a wistful pining last look and “Be safe” might have been acceptable, but given Katara’s shocked and uncomfortable body language, the kiss on the mouth was not. Worse yet, the show just… forgets… to follow up on it for several episodes and when it’s brought up again, it’s used as a sledgehammer to punish Katara for not magically being with Aang. 0/10.

The Painted Lady. Let’s look at the transcript: Katara [Using a disguised voice.] Well, hello Avatar. I wish I could talk, but I am very busy. Aang Yeah, me too. I hate that. [Looks at Katara’s face from behind the veil.] You know, you’re really pretty, for a spirit. I don’t meet too many spirits, but the ones I do meet, not very attractive. [Looks at Katara suspiciously. Tries to look under the hat.] Katara [Giggles nervously.] Thank you, but- Aang You seem familiar too. Katara A lot of people say that. Aang [Suspicious.] No, you really seem familiar. Katara Look, I really should get going. [Covers her face and runs, but Aang uses his airbending and blasts her hat up into the air, exposing her.] Aang Katara? Katara [Guiltily.] Hi, Aang. Aang [Shocked.] You’re the Painted Lady? [Pointing at Katara.] But how?Katara I wasn’t her at first, I was just trying to help the village. [Takes her hat off.] But since everyone thought that’s who I was anyway, I guess I just kinda became her. [Drops her hat on the ground.] Aang So you’ve been sneaking out at night? Wait, is Appa even sick?Katara He might be sick of the purple berries I’ve been feeding him, but other than that he’s fine! Aang I can’t believe you lied to everyone, so you could help these people. Katara I’m sorry, I know I shouldn’t have … Aang [Happily.] No, I think it’s great! You’re like a secret hero! Katara Well, if you wanna help, there’s one more thing I have to do. Aang gives her a curious look. Cut to the Fire Nation factory. Aang and Katara run along the river’s edge toward it. Aang looks at the polluted water. Aang You wanna destroy this factory? Katara Yes. Sokka was just kidding, but he was right. Getting rid of this factory is the only way to help these people permanently. He helps her blow up the Fire Nation smelting plant! Yes, he does call her pretty, but more importantly, this is one of the few times he acknowledges her faults (lying, deception, putting the mission at risk to help the enemy nation etc.) and still thinks she’s so fucking cool. He calls her a secret hero! There’s a lot of admiration and support here from Aang. He’s raising up Katara (instead of putting her down as in EIP) not because he sees her as a potential love interest but because he admires her and her compassion! This is great. Solid wholesome Kataang interaction. 10/10. But all good things must come to an end…

The Southern Raiders. I’m not going to spend too much time on this because there’s a million pieces of meta on this episode. He’s completely out of line asking Katara to be forgive her mother’s killer, the source of her greatest trauma as a victim of targeted ethnic cleansing. Given that he’s a victim of ethnic genocide himself, although he personally wasn’t there for it/didn’t actually witness it unlike Katara, he should have understood. He does say “You need to face this man,” which is good and supportive and he should have stopped there, because he continues on to say, “But when you do, please don’t choose revenge. Let your anger out, and then let it go. Forgive him.” Stop. Stop stop stop. No one should tell a traumatized victim of ethnic cleansing how to deal with their trauma. By the end of the episode, Katara doesn’t kill him–but she crafts a third path as the conclusion to her hero’s journey and it is not the path of forgiveness that Aang preaches. Ironically, it is Zuko, who also confronts Ozai, the source of his greatest trauma, who never tells Katara what to do but follows her lead instead: even though he redirects lightning at Ozai and could have killed him, he doesn’t go through with it. He understands Katara and he understands that she needs to this. Kataang interaction rating: 0/10.

So that’s where we are with Aang and Katara in Ember Island Players. Some positive interactions that are appropriately romantically framed and some that are just wholesome and good… but all ruined by forced kissing and moralizing about Katara’s trauma instead of offering understanding. So that still doesn’t answer when Aang would have learned all of the toxic masculine/heternormative behaviors he displayed in The Ember Islands Players.

The only answer, I’m forced to conclude, is bad fucking writing, where the creators were not only tone-deaf in portraying Katara in a racist/misogynistic way or, you know, in writing solely for the male gaze because fuck half the audience, I guess, but they just wanted to create drama for drama’s sake. They completely disrespected their female lead and I would argue they disrespected Aang’s character too in making him a stereotypical self-insert Gary Stu who displays toxic masculine behavior without consequences because that’s what’s expected of a toxic heternormative romantic plot device.

And worse yet, they never follow up on this, just like with the kiss at the Invasion. In the last five minutes of the finale, Katara looks up at him with admiration for saving the world and then kisses him. This is not only a missed opportunity for character development for Aang, but also a big fuck you to the female audience because the message is clear: the guy gets the girl as a trophy for saving the world, and fuck input from the female half of the partnership because that’s just not important and is not worthy of screentime. But I guess screentime dedicated to displaying toxic masculine/heternormative behaviors without ever condemning such behavior as a follow-up is just fine! :)))

If the EIP was supposed to make an argument for Kataang, then it failed. but more important:

By the show’s own high standards, The Ember Island Players is a failed episode, full of bad writing and worse characterization. For a show that was so ahead of its time, this episode is a narrative black mark, a failure of progressive representation and a disservice to its main characters.

There’s some wholesome Sukka and Zuko/Toph interaction, but even that doesn’t manage to save this episode, especially given there’s no resolution to the central conflict: the relationship between Aang and Katara. The entire unnecessarily OOC and forced Kataang drama drags it down.

We know Aang is capable of lifting up Katara and being supportive of her, as he was in episodes prior. We could have had honest, supportive, and open dialogue between Aang and Katara that actually followed up on the Invasion kiss, with Aang clearly expressing what he wants, Katara expressing that maybe she didn’t want that right now, and Aang completely respecting that and them hugging at the end because their friendship/connection is much more profound than pre-teen romance. This is an instance where Aang could have chosen to center Katara’s feelings, for once, instead of his own out of selfless love. If this happened, I would have been okay with a Kataang ending. But that isn’t what we got, obviously.

Part of what appealed to me about Aang as a male protagonist in media aimed at young audiences is that he–at least initially–did not start out as a toxic self-insert Gary Stu lifted from every problematic heternormative romance film ever. In fact, given his playful trickster archetype, general kindness/gentleness, and his stance against violence (a typically masculine trait), he both subverted expectations of and expanded the boundaries of what a male protagonist in children’s media can look like. Unfortunately, the creators don’t go all the way with Aang. In fact, they took a step back with his portrayal in The Ember Island Players, where the creators not only rely on misogynistic tropes to create drama but also make him complicit in propagating said misogyny. And that’s just a damn shame because we could have had a wholesome Kataang storyline and a sensitive male protagonist who cares not about your outdated gender roles and respects his partner’s autonomy!

[strawberry1212]

Kdrama female leads eating a ton is not quirky or progressive?

Ah yes, the mysterious, bottomless, pit that is the Kdrama female lead’s gullet. Even from Kdramas dating back to the 2000s, female leads have had the superpower to eat inordinate amounts of food, usually shoveling it into their mouths before the male lead who shakes his head in wonder and teases her about it. And yet, despite this teasing, this scene is always used as a way to impress upon the viewer that this ability to eat tons of food distinguishes the female lead. She is Not Like Other Girls, who are dainty and stupid and care about how much they eat. No, our female lead is qUirKy. Somehow, eating a ton (usually chicken, beef, and other animal foods, which are tied to masculinity), is treated as a real personality trait that makes her more “real,” more boyishly cool, and unbothered. 

But what purpose does this truly serve?

Overvaluing Masculine Qualities over Feminine Qualities

One issue with this trope is that it falls into the category of women being simply cooler for doing traditionally male/masculine things. This is not real empowerment of women to make their own choices, or for an appreciation of all types of women (women who like pizza and beer AND women who like salads and cute cakes). Instead it puts down other women for being “too feminine,” and places women on a hierarchy, with the most man-like women being at the top.

“She’s like one of the boys, [and therefore worthy]” leaves many women behind, as well as resulting in an under-appreciation of typically feminine qualities. Although this is a simple case of eating choices, this type of pseudo-feminism is the same force that makes society look down on girls who wear “too much makeup,” do plastic surgery, wear girly clothes, like pink, and have traditional feminine interests.

Gillian Flynn in the famous Gone Girl monologue states it better than I ever could:

“Men always say that as the defining compliment, don’t they? She’s a cool girl. Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want.”

Movies and tv shows only pretend to subvert societal expectations by having a girl that loves pizza, when in fact they are giving into the societal expectation/male fantasy of the cool girl that is worthy because she is like a guy.

Beauty Standards

This trope is more infuriating in the context of the harsh beauty standards towards women, especially in Asia. Perhaps if the female lead was constantly gulping down calorie dense foods, and then actually gained weight, I would find that relatable. That would make her more “real.” But because she does not eat to be more real, but to maintain a male (and societal) fantasy, she maintains her wasp waist and thigh gap while eating away without any care in the world. That is the opposite of relatable. It is downright harmful, because it perpetuates this expectation on women to both be beautiful, but to not care about being beautiful. To be gorgeous, but to be effortlessly gorgeous. If you care about being pretty you are shallow, but if you don’t put effort into being pretty you are worthless. There is no winning for the 99% of us that weren’t born with perfect genes.

I am continually shocked by how tiny these female leads are, and for a long time, I thought they were naturally that way. I assumed that they, just like their characters onscreen, were effortlessly beautiful. However, Youtube channels like my favorite one here, which documents various Korean celebrities’ journeys with eating disorders, shows that that is not the case. For example, IU, one of my favorite idols and actresses, was iconic in her Hotel Del Luna role; her enviable proportions and doll-like features and figure were a centerpiece of the drama’s aesthetics, and her costumes contributed to much of the drama’s buzz. But IU, while being naturally small, not only continuously talks of having to lose weight, but has been one of the few idols to honestly talk about her history with eating disorders. Most other actresses aren’t so honest, but I suspect many are not, in fact, effortlessly beautiful, and put immense work into, and undergo immense emotional duress and eating disorders, to maintain the figures that their characters then pretend to have so effortlessly.

So these actresses are forced, through extreme dieting, to present a perfect vessel of a beauty, that is then passed off in dramas as the result of no effort, and thus the cycle continues in society of women both being expected to be perfect, and also effortless. Kdramas are simply de-stigmatizing eating, when they should be de-stigmatizing having different body types. So women eating a ton is not quirky, it is not progressive, and it does nothing except reinforce impossible expectations upon women. I would prefer a female lead that is constantly worried about dieting and eats little--maybe then we could explore societal beauty standards on women. But as long as we pretend that the issue is not allowing women to eat, when the issue is actually not allowing women to be comfortable and confident in body types that are not stick thin with curves in all the perfect places, we will make no progress.

[nightswithkookmin]

What you think of fetus V who said in front of everyone "You seem to really like men" to Jimin? Youthful ribbing? Or a moment of insensitivity ? FWI saying you like girls or guys? Or calling close same sex friends u a couple? is actually common where am from. This has happened in my friend circle too actually. Except all of us are hets so no one take it seriously. Cant think a closeted person would find it that funny. Jimins lack of denial or even laughing it off always stood out to me tho.

What do I think of that comment?

I think we both know very often when people say they think a man likes men, they mean to say they think that man is Gay and very often when the g-word is used in a sentence, it is not meant as a compliment- imma give it to you straight, no bs. Lol.

The parlance gay and variations of it, in my opinion, is often used ubiquitously and traditionally as a slur slang among ignorant, non-progressive, anti homosexual individuals and is often rooted in malice.

And when malice isn't intended, ridicule is. The sad fact is, people adopt the terminology as ammunition to blatantly attack, dehumanize, belittle and strip away the dignity of queer folks and when the term is used in reference to non queer people it has a similar effect. It degrades them as well through the irony and humor of comparing them to gay people.

Gay jokes, if you will, is a subtle art of passive aggressively slurring gay folks if you think about it. I mean let's be honest.

Personally, I don't think Tae's intentions in that moment were malicious at all. I don't think he blurted out those words with the intension to ridicule Jimin either- stay with me. It will make sense in a bit.

But he called Jimin gay nevertheless. His comment if a joke, I'm afraid, reinforces these bizzare stereotypes of masculinity and promotes toxic rhetorics prevalent especially within Kpop shipping communities where every Male idol interaction is hyper sexualised and romanticized thus, suggesting a man cannot love another man, be affectionate or be fond of them unless they secretly lusted after them and harbored a desire to lay down pipes in their behinds- which, honestly is crazy coming from a guy with a cultural background such as the Korean culture where kinship is commonplace but more on that later.

I think whatever which way we want to look at it, it was an insensitive comment especially if you believe he meant it as a joke. It was definitely not his most woke moment, socially and culturally- and that's putting it lightly.

That 'gay' comment to me is right up there with all the problematic statements some, if not all, of the members have made over the years- the colorism, racist jokes, the ' eww, you too black,' 'akekeke- you too tanned shoo,' implying if you're black or tanned you are ugly. The fat jokes, the misogyny and misogynior- please don't ask me to give you examples of these. I don't want to ruin BTS for you. Lol.

There are commentaries on these out there on the internet. You can look it up for yourselves- You welcome. Lol.

For the record, BTS have since retracted, acknowledged and apologized for most of these questionable moments throughout the years and so we cannot hold it against them, forever- not to make excuses for them but they are human too. They learn, they unlearn, they make mistakes, they correct them, they grow and as NamJoon said, they really were a bit 'unsophisticated' and rough around the edges in their earlier years- even if it was just five years ago from now, chilee. They is a mess. Lmho.

I think it's all part of the human process honestly- don't worry BTS, I have a lot of space in my heart for y'all to be human and still love ya. Keep going sweeties. Y'all's doing greatness de la grande kind!! Bless y'all.

In V's case he was, since that incident, put as a judge on a show that allegedly featured queer folks and he seemed more welcoming of them than the other judges on the panel, excluding RM of course.

A year later, he would make a song that the LBGTQ plus fraction of Army would rally behind as a highly pro gay song- Stigma, which I find debatable but whatever. I mean, just because JK has stars, clouds and the sky in his lyrics don't make him an astronaut or an environmentalist fighting the good cause for the climate but to each his own.

Stigma was still something, I'll give him that.

Flashforward to five years later, and he would be recommending songs by gay artists, appreciating and promoting gay art and the artists behind them, sporting rainbow outfits, designing a BT21 character that is genderless, incorporating sign language in his speeches- he polished up. Woke the hell up. Politically correct. Yadda yadda yadda.

I think, like some of the others, he too learned his lesson. It's not ok to trivialize the oppression of others or make light of it-

Now that we've gotten the woke bit out of the way, on to our shipping business. Follow me, chop chop. Lol.

Firt of all, I don't think that moment is a big deal. But I find it interesting nonetheless.

Do I think Tae was teasing Jimin in that moment when he made that statement? It's not quite easy as yes or no.

Personally, I think he was clocking him.

This interview was conducted at a point in the timeline where I feel Jimin was shedding his image as the Maknae obsessed hyung in the group. He was coming into his own and embracing himself for who he is and that I think included his sexuality.

Prior to, he had in my opinion, since debut, slipped into the role of the queer jest of the group supplying queer humor and entertainment for listeners at radio shows by offering himself up for ridicule as the 'gay guy' within the group- I hated every bit of it. Lol.

You'd often hear the members refer to him as the one good with the guys, the boy in love with the Maknae- There is still a fraction of Army that see him as this persona but he has since outgrown that label and that phase.

RM was basically the Black jest of the group, offering himself up for ridicule for his darker skin tone right down to his blaccent. Can you do your black accent? They will ask him at interviews and he would proceed to deliver a walmart version of the Black American English. Sigh.

Compared to the previous year where he literally gasped and panicked when the members hinted at his sexuality or made statements that put his sexuality into question, Jimin seemed more in control and mentally prepared during this interview.

When the question was asked of him, the question of why he liked JK, his instincts it seemed was to steer the conversation away from his sexuality- a tactic the rest of the members would employ to avoid discussing Jikook a few months from that interview...

I mean, when Tae asked Jimin on JK's birthday that same year what he wanted to give JK, RM cut in before JM answered. Jimin had done the same thing when in an interview JK was asked if Jimin wasn't his style and JK was stuttering not knowing what to say in response. JM asked him not to answer the question.

When interviewers ask these questions, they do so for entertainment purposes- because who doesn't like gay jokes, amirite?

For heterosexual idols I assume it's not slippery slope for them to engage in these kinds of humor. They can play gay without risking exposing their heterosexuality and when they do play gay it's for jest.

It's not the same for queer idols I think.

Jimin was basically done being the butt of the gay jokes in 2015, he was done selling himself as the JK shit rainbows and I'm the unicorn fixated on him kinda person and it reflected in that conversation.

'I don't like everything about this boy. He ain't all that. But he is the Maknae and he cute so whatever' lol.

Like I said, I think Jimin was steering the conversation away from his sexuality but Tae's comment steered the conversation right back to it. 'I just think he likes men.'

Most South Koreans I've met in person and on the internet spend a considerable amount of time and energy trying to dispel the western notion of gayness projected on to Korean men for their skinship culture.

We like to glamorize gayness in these streets but in reality gay is stigmatized especially in places like South Korea. People don't readily read gay in Male interactions unless they were being homophobic or socially unaware.

To me, Tae's statement was more of an observation about Jimin, one which he felt a need to contribute to the discussion they were having, perhaps to provide insight into the inner workings of Jimin rather than as a joke or jest- or may be he did both.

Jimin managed to avoid opening himself up for the gay jokes and to this Tae then responded, I just think you is gay sir- The emphasis has been mine. Lol.

The thing about Tae is, in the earlier days he used to have a habit of 'exposing' Jimin whenever Jimin told half truths and what not.

For example, in 2014 during an interview when JM was asked what he wanted to do on his free days he had said he wanted to spend time with his family or something and Tae immediately checked him saying he was lying. Jimin then said he wanted to be with Jungkook which had JK fuming.

Was he teasing JM when he called him out for lying about his true desires? May be but I think he meant it too. Know what I mean?

He did the same thing when during their Paris VLive, Jimin got nervous when JK was singing 'know you love me boy, so that I love you,' in the background and Tae asked Jimin if he was nervous. Jimin snapped out of whatever whipped trance he was in and asked 'why would I be nervous' or something along those lines.

Why would Tae assume JM was nervous listening to another man sing? And why would Jimin be nervous in the first place?

And if at an interview Jimin is asked, why don't you like listening to the Maknae sing and JM responded that he is cute but he can't sing and Tae says well I think listening to Jk sing makes him nervous- would that be youthful ribbing or tea? Do you see where I'm going with this?

I see Tae as very observant- If not more observant than Jk. Their jokes are punchier because it is rooted in truth. He is stating his opinion, his observations and when he felt JM's answers were dishonest or inconsistent of his general notion of him, he called him out on that.

It's like him saying JM likes to pretend to be drunk in order to tell Tae he loves him- allegedly. Was it funny, yes. Was it a lie? I don't think so.

Jimin likes to pretend, we been knew. His boyfriend don spilled that tea already. I mean Jk said JM faked being asleep when he noticed the cameras filming him. He said also JM knows he is cute so sometimes he intentionally acts cute.

Tae used to tease Jimin a lot- hell he still teases him a lot to this day. Lol. Had Jimin looking at the back of his head like he wanted to quick punch him in the throat in the recent run, chilee. Lmho.

But you gotta ask, where is the lie in all those jokes?

The question I ask myself, and I think we ought to ask ourselves as shippers is, what about Jimin gave Tae that impression of him in the first place?

What made Tae, coming from a culture and background where 'gay' is a taboo and skinship is prevalent assume that if Jimin liked JK then it was because he liked men or was gay?

Even if Tae meant it as a Joke- no one laughed. Lol. That awkward silence that ensued... now that's how you know he had deadass made a 'gay comment' for real. Lmho.

They were all silent, waiting for JM's response and only laughed when JM responded to Tae- isn't that how it usually goes when you are the one queer person at the het dinner table? The tasteless jokes, awkward silences and stares? Just me? Oh, never mind then. Keep reading. Lol.

Imagine if JM hadn't responded or had gay panicked like he did a year before that interview, when RM revealed JK had been sneaking into JM's bed at night?

Dude was legit ready to throw JK under the bus had it not been for the shady camera guy behind the cameras. Deadass, Jimin was pointing accusing fingers at JK and everything- so much for gay love. Lmho.

The question still remains, what makes you look at your heterosexual friend and go- hey, that's gay. Think about it.

If Tae thought Jimin liked men, even as a joke, it's probably because Jimin had been giving him a reason or reasons to believe he actually liked boys beyond the usual daily doze of gay prevalent within K-culture.

It's similar to JK feeling uncomfortable when Jimin in 2014 described their relationship as one between love and friendship. Jimin responding with male friends can love eachother too without being gay would imply JK was interpreting his words and actions towards him as laced with romantic and sexual subtext or intent.

Now why would JK assume this if men touching men and feeling up on eachother in their culture was a normal thing?

There are gay men in Korea you know?

Tae and Kook were both hyper aware and curious of Jimin's sexuality in that period- for different reasons of course. In my opinion.

Not sure if Jimin's androgynous features played a role in these suspicions and assumptions they had of him in the early days because androgynousity in men is often ignorantly profiled and stereotyped as queer.

Tae seemed convinced JM was queer at least and JK was projecting his own queerness on to Jimin a lot- cough, cough.

It seemed to me also that Tae for whatever reason had the impression JM had a thing for him? I'll save my VMin agenda for delulu Fridays but chilee I don't know, Jimin has been on an agenda to friendzone that man since those manly mans thawed off his chest. Lol.

VMIN... ok.

I mean Jimin's response to Tae was more to deflate Tae's ego than to deflect or evade the issue and I wonder why. 'You are so full of yourself' 'I may like men, but I don't like you' and Tae responds with 'really' as if he's been challenged or dared- ever had your straight friends assume you like them just because you are queer?

Anywho, for whatever reason, Jimin seemed to be the only member in the group around the early days whose words and actions were put through the queer litmus test.

Also, I think a distinction ought to be made between calling two same sex friends a couple and calling them gay.

Calling two friends a couple is inconsequential- except when their sexuality is on the line. Calling two same sex friends you know are straight a couple is nothing but a gay joke.

BTS do this all the time. Jimin called Namjin a couple, Tae kook a couple, himself and Suga a couple, himself and JK a couple.

Jk has equally referred to others within the group as a couple, made heart signs above them, and have even held his chest and said he never thought he would fall for a guy.

In none of these instances did he or any of them imply that they or the persons they were referring to were queer or liked men and I wouldn't make much of such comments.

When JK was called out for gifting a present to Jimin and not the others, Tae teased JK as well and his gestures implied to me, 'it's ok to like him, I know you like him, you like JM don't you, uWu' and other variations of these.

But he in no way hinted at the sexuality of JK explicitly or implicitly- not in a way that prompts a response or rebuttal from JK like it did in Jimin's case.

I guess what I'm saying is that, that moment is nothing but something at the same time. You look at Tae's personality and his reputation within the group as the one with no filter who blurts out things that often has BTS running helter skelter- that 'I want to see your children" comment at Festa almost gave RM an aneurysm. Lmho.

Then they had to literally take his mic away from him when he started talking about meeting a pretty chick or something at a fansigns.

You consider the history between him and Jimin, the context behind that comment and the things that was said after that comment- the interviewer said 'well JK is really handsome...' which means he took the 'joke' Tae had made to mean JM had romantic interest in JK- something I feel JM was trying to avoid.

I don't think Tae meant anything by it. I don't think he knew at the time JM was queer but I do believe he suspected he was.

Hope this helps,

Signed,

GOLDY

[andhumanslovedstories]

Recent country songs that have made me literally gay gasp as a gay woman, in order of how much they make me want to write an essay on gender and queerness

HONORARY MENTION BUT JUST BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS TECHNICALLY AMERICANA NOT COUNTRY (but genre is fake) AND THIS SONG ISN’T RECENT (2014 and I’ve been listening to it faithfully since then) BUT I ONLY RECENTLY LEARNED IT’S A COVER AND THAT’S MADE ME RECONTEXTUALIZE IT: “Murder in the City” by Brandi Carlile, a cover of The Avett Brothers where she changed the words “make sure my sister knows I loved her/make sure my mother knows the same” to “make sure my wife knows that I love her/make sure my daughter knows the same” which fucking. fucking gets me. Especially since the first time that I heard this song, I assumed it was from a man’s point of view because of that line, and then I learned that Brandi Carlile is a lesbian and I was caught up in my foolish heteronormitivity, and then I learned it was a cover and thought oh okay I guess the song is originally from a man’s pov and it’s cool she covered, and then I learned she changed those lines to make a song that already feels deeply personal to her to explicitly include her love for a woman and the family they’ve made together. And that’s just. It’s all just a lot. 

3) “Fooled Around and Fell in Love” by Miranda Lambert featuring Maren Morris, Elle King, Ashley McBryde, Tenille Townes and Caylee Hammack, because the first time it came up on my spotify, I saw the title and was like “hey dope I like this song” and then I heard the first line was still “I must have been through about a million girls” and I realized none of the words or pronouns were getting changed and I was getting the song I’ve always wanted and deserved: a high production value, high energy, big girl group tribute to being a lesbian fuckboy who Fooled Around And, oops can you believe it, Fell in Love. 

2) “If She Ever Leaves Me” by The Highwomen, sung by Brandi Carlile who is, as mentioned, lesbian, but since I’m apparently still chugging my comp het juice, I was still trying to figure out if this song--a classic “hey buddy keep walking, she’s my girl and she’s not interested” song with an interesting element of the singer being aware the relationship might not last anyway--was gonna be explicitly queer. And then there’s the line, “That's too much cologne, she likes perfume,” and I was like OH HOHOHOHOHOHOHO!!! 

This is immediately followed by the lines “I’ve loved her in secret/I’ve loved her out loud” which is also deliciously queer in this context, with this singer and that juxtaposition, but the line that really fucking got me is my favorite of the song: “If she ever leaves, it's gonna be for a woman with more time.” This is two women in a complicated relationship. This isn’t just a “keep walking, cowboy” song, it’s a song that uses that framework to suggest a whole ass “Finishing the Hat”** relationship, and that’s so interesting to me. Like a song that isn’t just explicitly about two women in love but one that conveys very quickly a rich history between the two of them. And in a genre where the line “Kiss lots of boys, kiss lots of girls if that’s something you’re into” was revolutionary representation.

(Fun fact, “Follow Your Arrow” was partially written by Brandy Clarke, another country lesbian! Another fun fact, so is basically every other good country song. Brandy Clark, please write a big lesbian country anthem, I know it will immediately kill me on impact.) 

To quote one youtube comment, “”lesbians how we feeling??” and to answer by quoting some others, “As a closeted baby gay in the 90s, who was into country, this song would have changed my life”, “I just teared up.  So many happy tears, as a gay woman raised on country music,  this is something that's definitely been needed.  Thank you Brandi. Thank you highwomen”, “This song means more than I can say in a youtube comment”, and “Lesbians needed this song :)”

It’s me. I’m lesbians. 

**ANOTHER HONORARY MENTION EXCEPT IT ISN’T RECENT AND IT ISN’T COUNTRY SO I GUESS THIS IS JUST A MENTION, BUT I AM INTERESTED IN THIS SONG--“Finishing the Hat” by Kelli O’Hara. A very good Sondheim joint, that’s about making art, the costs of its obsessive and exclusive nature and the incomparable pleasure of putting something into the world that wasn’t there before. It’s such a traditionally male narrative that I’m thrilled to find a wonderful female cover of it. I’m not even fussed about her changing the gender from the lover who won’t wait for the artist (except that the shift from “woman” to “one man” sounds so clunky) because there’s value turning this song into a lament of the men who won’t love artistic women. But I do also wish she’d also recorded a version that kept the original gender so it would be gay. OKAY BROADWAY TANGENT OVER, BACK TO COUNTRY. 

1) “Highwomen” by The Highwomen, ft. Yola and Sheryl Crow. I can’t even express the full body chills the first time I heard this. Like repeated, multiple chills renewed at every verse of the song. This really closely parallels my experience with “Fooled Around and Fell in Love” up there, because when I started it I was like “oh dope I know what this cover will be” and then the lyrics started and I was like “OH MY GOD I DIDN’T.” In the case of “Fooled Around” it’s because I was amazed that they kept the original words. In the case of “Highwomen” I fucking transcended because they changed them. 

So I grew up on Johnny Cash, obsessed with a couple of his albums but largely with a CD I had of his greatest hits. (Ask me how many times I listened to the shoeshine boy song. Hundreds. Johnny Cash told me to get rhythm and I got it.) And my FAVORITE was “Highwayman” from the country supergroup he was in, The Highwaymen. The concept of the song is that each of the four men sing a verse about a man from the past and how he died. It’s very good. The line “They buried me in that grey tomb that knows no sound” used to scare the shit out of me. I didn’t expect to have a song that targets so specifically my fear of being buried alive in wet concrete. 

(If you haven’t heard the song, by the way, listen to this version to properly appreciate it as a piece of music. If you have, watch the fucking music video holy shit this is a work of art oh my GOD.) 

So I was predisposed to love this cover before I even heard it. But then I heard it. And they rewrote the song to be about historical women. And it’s like. There’s layers here okay. 

Neither the Highwaymen nor the Highwomen are signing about famous people. This isn’t a Great Man tour of history, it’s about dam builders and sailors and preachers and mothers and Freedom Riders and also Johnny Cash who flies a starship across the universe, as you do. 

In the 1986 version, it’s a song about the continuity of life--the repeated idea is “I am still alive, I’m still here, I come back again and again in different forms.” The highwayman is all the men in the song. He reincarnates. The song is past, present, future. The title is singular, masculine. The same soul, expressed through multiple voices, multiple lives. 

In the 2019 version, the title is plural, feminine. Highwomen. This song is about women. Each verse asserts the same motif as the 1986 version--“I may not have survived but I am still alive”--but there is no implication of reincarnation. Each woman is her own woman. This version has a final verse that the previous versions lacks. The singers harmonize. It’s not a song where one voice replaces  another, the story of this One Man progressing through time. It ends in a chorus of women saying “We are still alive.” 

We are The Highwomen Singing stories still untold We carry the sons you can only hold We are the daughters of the silent generations You sent our hearts to die alone in foreign nations They may return to us as tiny drops of rain But we will still remain

And we'll come back again and again and again And again and again We'll come back again and again and again And again and again 

Another fun fact! The first time I heard them sing “We are the daughters of the silent generations” I died! But luckily I came back again and again and again.  

This is a song about the continuity of history. It asserts that women’s historical lives matter and that they continue to matter, long after they died. This is a song about legacy as well, the legacy of nameless women who worked to protect the ones they loved and make the world better. They don’t die by chance. They are all hunted down by political violence, by racism, by misogyny, for stepping outside their prescribed roles. But, as Yola (who btw fucking CRUSHES THE VOCALS ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????? HOLY SHIT MA’AM) sings as a murdered Freedom Rider, she’d take that ride again. And at the end of the song, she joins the chorus but does not disappear into it. Her voice rises up out of crowd. And the crowd calls itself “we”. These women are united but not subsumed into being One Woman. This is about Women. 

And then, outside the song itself, there’s the history of this song about history. It’s originally by Jimmy Webb and was covered by Glenn Campbell. This cover inspired the name of the supergroup that covered it, the group with Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, Waylon Jennings, and my man Johnny Cash. And it’s like holy shit! What an amazing group to collaborate! Hot damn! 

Then, it’s 2019 and here’s The Highwomen with Brandi Carlile, Natalie Hemby, Maren Morris, and Amanda Shires. The name is obviously riffing on The Highwaymen. Shires set out to form the group in direct response to the lack of female country artists on the radio and at festivals. And they name themselves after a country supergroup, and they put out this song, a song connected to massive names in country music, and they center all of this on women and womanhood and the right of women to be counted in history and to make history and to talk about the ways we have mistreated and marginalized women, in a group that started because one woman was like hey! we’re mistreating and marginalizing women! 

I just think this is neat! I think there’s a lot here we could unpack! But this post is 100 times longer than I was planning and work starts in a bit so uh I’m gonna go get dressed and listen to The Highwomen on repeat for the next hour, “Heaven is a Honky Tonk” is another fucking bop that improves on the original, it would be dope if they’d collab with Rhiannon Giddens, okay byyyyyyyye 

[sol1056]

wuxia: a general yet probably too verbose introduction to the genre, pt2

and now we get to the actual conventions -- although more accurately, these are just the ones that I either noticed the strongest or had the most difficulty adjusting to, when I was first getting into wuxia. 

Not all stories have these elements, and of course in a genre as varied (and as old) as wuxia, there are twenty exceptions for every rule. What’s more, one story’s mild admonishment (”well, X is frowned on, but I guess if you’re just low-key about it”) can become the next story’s worst taboo (”omg you did X, you must be shunned! SHUNNNNNNNNNNed.”). 

Like any other living genre, authors will shift/tilt convention as needed to drive a story’s conflicts. 

btw, it’ll probably be a few days before I can do an introduction to MDZS, which should give time to @guzhuangheaven, @atthewaterside, @dramatic-gwynne, @the50-person, @drunkensword (and anyone else) to point out everything I misunderstood, over-emphasized, misinterpreted, or just plain missed. 

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

1. Hierarchy still matters. A student’s respect for their teacher, a child’s respect for their parents, younger siblings/students to elder. You’ll see this in how people are called (ie 3rd uncle, elder sister, 2nd brother), but this doesn’t mean everyone goes around dutiful and obedient. Err, wuxia is actually more of the opposite. I mean, a good story requires conflict between characters, and what better way than someone overturning (or at least appearing to overturn) the hierarchy?

In that vein, creating new relationships that take precedent over old relationships is anywhere from disrespectful to a full-on violation of natural law. As in, learning from someone other than your teacher, joining a new family in lieu of your birth family, running away to get married -- hell, just running away! -- are all potential sources of trouble. At the same time, wuxia has a really strong comedic streak (all the martial arts also make for great slapstick). Squabbling families with headstrong, misbehaving kids who break the rules, well, that’s a classic that can be played for melodrama, comedy, or both.

2. Swordsmanship is the pinnacle (or the most prevalent) of martial arts. The protagonist is either going to be (or end up) the best swordsman (or swordswoman) ever, or they’re going to use a weapon that’s unlike any other -- and if the latter, they’ll either be reviled for it, or lauded.

3. Despite the fact that swords are heavy and a real pain to carry around, characters carry their swords. All the time. Everywhere. In historical dramas, swords hang from belts, but not wuxia. Plus, characters will place swords on the table, across their lap, lean them against chairs, put them on the floor, and it doesn’t seem to map to whether they’re among allies or enemies, on guard or relaxing. The sword goes with them everywhere, and is always within reach. (And again, this general convention can go strict in some stories, like MDZS, where the failure to carry a sword is seen as a major breach of etiquette.)

4. The general term for ‘members of a sect’ or ‘people who study martial arts’ is ‘cultivators’. To cultivate is to grow something: cultivating [internal or spiritual] fields to gain a [skillset] harvest. Cultivation isn’t just going to the practice hall and swinging a sword three hundred times; meditation, study, even copying out texts are also ways to cultivate. 

5. Wuxia characters may also be called swordsmen/swordswomen, wandering heroes, or martial heroes. If the story pivots on getting into a sect (or achieving some rank in a sect), then the characters will be considered cultivators (of a given path). If they’re introduced as just swordsmen, that seems to indicate it’s a story where sect politics plays less of a role. Or both terms may be present, to differentiate between sect-members/students versus people who defected (or are self-taught). 

6. Wuxia as a genre is remarkably egalitarian. Expect women martial artists to throw down with (and hold their own against) male opponents. Learn to fear the older women in wuxia; they’re often the most dangerous. Not to say there aren’t damsels in distress in wuxia, just that there are usually as many female warrior characters, too.

If the story has multiple sect leaders, usually at least one is a woman -- and if not, one of the men is married to a woman that everyone knows is the truly powerful/skilled one. Near-equal cast percentages are common, too, both in the foreground (and not always for the sake of pairing off for romance), and in the background, when you catch shots of the rank-and-file sect members.

Basically, you can expect the average wuxia to pass the Bechdel test with flying colors. It may not always pass all the other gender tests, but conversations (and deep friendships) between female characters are usually on-screen (not just implied), and often a strong part of the storyline.

7. The super-hero-like skills -- leaping from or to an extreme height, tossing someone a great distance, getting thrown far and getting up again -- are a good map to things like gunslingers who can shoot a playing card at eighty paces blindfolded. Or Robin Hood getting a bullseye through the arrows of someone else’s bullseyes. Wuxia tends to expect even superlative skills at a beginner’s level (so you’ll see student-characters doing such), but it’s all just ways to say, these characters have studied the sword while the rest of us were waiting for the translation team to release the next episode.

8. Those skills are not magic, which occupies a different category. Whether shown or implied, wuxia’s ‘martial arts’ (if exaggerated and unrealistic) are still studied. When magic shows up, it’s often derided, because it’s a shortcut. There’s an insincerity, a kind of bad sportsmanship. The reaction in-story is much like real world reaction to athletes using performance-enhancing drugs. It’s cheating, and it’s disrespectful towards your opponents, that you refused to match their efforts with equal effort of your own.

9. Every story has its own definition of what is, or is not, ‘magic’ and thus a shortcut. Wuxia is usually pretty good about making clear what the story considers ‘orthodox’ or ‘right’: look for characters introduced as authoritative voices in the story’s world, and what they do is probably a good indication of accepted skills (that is, not-magic). Well, unless the character cackles a lot, in which case they’re probably an example of magic/unorthodox approaches.

9. Qi -- energy -- is the root of a character’s power (or lack thereof). Plenty of wuxia only reference this concept in passing, but some codify it into a necessity -- as in, some people have the ‘right’ kind of qi, and some do not. Or that it takes years to develop so the hero is permanently behind until they finally get to doing the work. Whether nature or nuture, this qi is how a cultivator can leap high bounds while the background farmer or merchant characters must scramble to find a ladder.

10. Over the years of television, ‘manipulating qi’ -- shoving energy at someone through the hands/feet, a sword, a musical instrument, something else -- has developed its own set of stylized movements. It’s a lot of arm-waving and finger twirling and whatnot (often circular). I think of it like riding an invisible bike to charge the generator; releasing it means the TV has the juice to kick on. Or the tazer can release, or whatever.

11. There are a bunch of virtues being promoted by wuxia, from a tangle of daoism, buddhism, and confucianism -- things like loyalty, sincerity, honesty, humility, respecting one’s parents (or teacher), benevolence, and justice (or righteousness). Plus a disregard for wealth or glory for personal gain.

The good (or enduring) wuxia stories seem to be the ones that find a way to make a virtue into a point of conflict -- as in, loyalty to what/who, questions of what it means to be righteous in this circumstance or that, and so on. The virtue is still at the heart of things, the conflict lies in how it’s interpreted or applied.

12. Wuxia predates Confucianism and Buddhism (and possibly Daoism), so it’s got a long history of cherrypicking to mix and match as it pleases. Some things you might see, and the influencing source:

horsetail whisks, used for purifying a space and removing evil influences, traditionally carried by Daoist priests as a sign of their rank. 

an emphasis on Yin and Yang as driving opposing energies (sometimes good and bad, sometimes required to be balanced), also a Daoist concept.

most mystical elements are also Daoist influence: like qigong (coordinated posture and movement to increase/improve health, spiritual strength, and martial prowess), alchemy, astrology, etc.

mudras (hand gestures, cf Naruto) are predominantly Buddhist, meant as a way to focus oneself. When these show up in wuxia, the origin is still ‘to focus oneself’ but being wuxia, the result is usually a burst of visible power.

if a story revolves around learning to forgive/forget and to have compassion (over vengeance), that’s the Buddhist influence showing.

if filial piety, the observance of rites, or questions of ethics/morality are significant themes, that’s probably confucianism’s influence.

The lines are way blurrier than I’m going into, here. After all, the three perspectives have competed and coexisted for hundreds of years. There’s a fair bit of cross-contamination, as it were. 

13. A lot of wuxia -- and I mean a lot of wuxia -- can be boiled down to coming-of-age stories: a young hero faces trials and tribulations on his (or her) way to finding a place in society. Sometimes it’s working their way up through the levels to claim the top spot; sometimes it’s being rejected from the school they wanted, and continuing to fight that fate until they’re accepted and demonstrate they deserve to be there.

This focus on younger heroes also means that wuxia is rife with idol dramas, where the majority of the cast are young/first-time actors, chosen for their looks and their similarity to the character (so as to not require too much of a stretch for them, acting-wise). On the other hand, this does often mean the pretty is almost overwhelming, since it’s looks and not long-time acting experience that set the bar.

14. Compared to other Chinese literary genres, wuxia is somewhat unique in its emphasis on individualism, but this isn’t to say you should expect full-throated american-style rugged individualism. I’d say it’s less about the individual breaking free of social rules, and more that the individual must find a way to interpret those social rules and forge a compromise between what they’re required to be vs who they want to be.

The best illustration I can think of is a parental dictate of “I want you to marry and have a family,” that sets off the story’s conflict. By the end of the story, the now-adult child realizes the message wasn’t meant literally so much as a way to say, “I want you to grow up, have a place in this world, surrounded by people who love you.” The error wasn’t in the parents’ blindness to the child’s needs, but in the child’s interpretation of the parental message. 

(Unlike historical or modern dramas, which often have a lot of daddy issues -- thanks, Confucius -- wuxia is relatively free of that. Child-parent conflict is common, but truly dysfunctional on the level of modern melodramas, not quite so much.)

15. The fights are balletic and acrobatic; they’re meant as an abstract representation of a fight. You want reality, go watch an HK or Korean action movie/show. Wuxia is where you go for the twirling, the leaps, the spins, all the kinds of moves that no decent fighter would ever do, ‘cause turning your back on the enemy gets you killed -- but wuxia isn’t about that, it’s about the cool visual factor.

16. Historically and aesthetically, the costumes are closest to the Ming dynasty  -- layered and belted ankle-length robes with long, flowing sleeves. Partly because the Ming dynasty seems to be a favorite setting (for whatever quality of actual time period a story even bothers to identify), but also (at least, my theory is) because those big sleeves make for dramatic gestures when swinging a sword.

17. There are newer wuxia that show some Game of Thrones influence (or, in the movie adaptations like The Four, some grimdark-slash-steampunk influences) but for the most part, wuxia is rather brightly-lit. My theory is that it was traditionally designed to be visible on (literally) smaller TVs, out in rural villages and whatnot. Frex, the darkest things get in wuxia, visually, is a day-for-night blue, since filming at night for real makes for an awful dark screen. 

This is changing -- I’ve seen a lot more wuxia that are genuinely filming at night -- but the same show may also do day-for-night just cause they’re on a tight schedule and can’t sit around until it’s dark again to shoot the next scene, so they make do. 

18. Older filming styles still dominate in wuxia, and the one you may notice the most is a particular move where the speaking character turns away from whomever they’re talking to, walks towards the camera, and speaks in the direction of the camera. It’s just not something people normally do, but it happens all the time in wuxia.

I think it comes from the days of only having one camera, so either you took the time to reshoot to get reactions (not really possible on shoestring budgets with tight deadlines), or you made sure the frame could include the speaker and the listeners. (Or it might be coming from the stage, where the actor must face the audience to be heard.)

The basic blocking, lighting, and so on sometimes reminds me of afternoon soap operas from the 80s, done with videotape rather than film. Not cheap so much as lower budget. 

19. If you want historical authenticity, this is the last place to look. The costumes will be flashy, especially for the hero and his love interest: layered and embroidered, with modern fabrics in bright, sometimes neon!, shades and combinations (Nicholas Tse, I see you).

Older wuxia, the characters rarely got dirty, a wound from a fight was represented by a streak of clearly-fake (and somewhat diluted) pink syrup, and plenty of times a character will go through an entire battle and not even be sweaty or dirty. (Game of Thrones is changing this, too, though -- I’m seeing more dishevelment, though it’s still relatively minor compared to post-battle LotR or GoT.)

20. You can tell the budget from two things: how many costumes and how many wigs. A lower-budget wuxia (or one made at rapid pace) means characters go to bed in their day-clothes, with headpieces still on. Wigs are expensive, and a quickly-made wuxia means you get one wig, and that’s what you’re always wearing, rather than a wig for sleeping and another for waking. Same goes for showing characters in their day-clothes versus what they’d wear for night, or when relaxing, or whatever. (Or having two versions of the same costume, one pre-battle and one post-battle.)

21. About that historical bit -- at least up to the Qing dynasty, Chinese men usually wore their hair in a top-knot once they reached adulthood. Wuxia’s aesthetic is for everyone -- including elderly men -- wearing their hair mostly down with only a small top-knot to pull back their bangs. This just isn’t how anyone wore their hair, but it’s a massive visual clue that the story takes place in the jianghu, where normal society’s rules don’t apply.

22. I think I mentioned the Ming dynasty -- not sure why, but it seems to be the most favorite target. (You’d think it’d be the Qing, since they were outsiders, but nope.) The literary precursors of wuxia had a strong streak of ‘the government is corrupt and/or full of idiots, we’re better off doing our own thing over here,’ which led to various dynasties cracking down on wuxia as a kind of rebel literature.

It’s kind of ironic that wuxia’s history of overturning the natural order confucian principles (that is, treating individualism as an equal virtue, and elevating commoners to hero-status for *gasp* leaving their place of birth to wander around and do good deeds) is what made wuxia immensely popular during the cultural revolution, when China was busy deconstructing (often violently) so much of its cultural past. Wuxia stood apart, as something that had been quietly deconstructing all along, and thus shot up in popularity for finally being in tune with the zeitgeist.  

(Wuxia in all its forms has always, perhaps unsurprisingly, been massively popular among the common classes. Wuxia is not, never has been, a high literary form; watching wuxia means you’re watching the latest iteration of an ancient yet truly pop-as-in-popular-as-in-common culture.)

I get the impression the chinese authorities have an uneasier relationship with historical dramas (which can walk a fine line of implying that imperial past as a good/positive), whereas wuxia’s place in the mythical jianghu diminishes its ability to threaten via social commentary. This isn’t to say wuxia isn’t in dialogue with the social and political environment in which it’s made; all literature is, by virtue of being of its time. It’s just a bit more coy about it, and its loudest political-type trait -- of dismissing the imperial system/capital as corrupt, evil, or otherwise contemptible -- fits with a desire to see the dynastic past as something to be discarded and/or dismissed, not emulated.  

23. Oh, and one last thing: wuxia is very, very, very chaste. A lot of the romantic relationships are almost entirely implied -- a lot of longing looks, maybe the exchange of a significant gift, I mean, we’re talking a genre that considers holding hands to be pretty daring. I’ve seen entire series where you know those two will end up together, but if you can’t read the visual cues, you’d think they were just close friends (if not socially-awkward acquaintances).

That said, when wuxia breaks that so-chaste rule, it’s like having a table dropped on you. There’s a drunken makeout scene in The Legends that had my jaw on the table because holy smokes, that was unexpected. Mad passionate wild abandonment just isn’t a thing in wuxia.

[ETA: don’t get me wrong, wuxia in general is hugely passionate. Just not on a sexual level; it’s on the emotional level that wuxia will go to eleven, repeatedly.]

...okay, that wasn’t even in the neighborhood of brief. hell, it wasn’t even in the same state as brief, but I did warn you. Wuxia’s a huge genre, after all. An entire book might still only scratch the surface, but hopefully this suffices as a general introduction.