#feminism in media

[maxdibert]

The nickname “Snivellus” derives from the word “snivel,” which means crybaby. So, Snivellus was basically a way of mocking the fact that Severus might show his emotions—that instead of toughing it out like a stereotypical, macho, strong, hairy-chested man, he cried. I don’t think I need to explain why this nickname is problematic—any nickname used to bully someone is problematic—but a nickname that also references a supposed weakness, stemming from the expectations of a patriarchal society for men to display “unmanly” behavior typical of “weak” men, is not just problematic due to the bullying itself but also because of the misogynistic implications it carries. Because yes, misogyny and hegemonic gender roles also affect men by demanding certain traits from them to validate them socially. And I know the Marauders lived in the 1970s, and that Rowling is one of the worst when it comes to gender issues. But I find it quite ironic how Marauders Stans or Slytherin Skittles, who have built their trash fandom and constant Snape-bashing around the topic of LGBTQ+ themes, have the audacity to mock Snape using a nickname that directly attacks gender nonconformity and justifies a toxic, traditional masculinity that shames men who cry or show emotions, labeling them as less valid.

The Marauders weren’t social justice warriors, and James and Sirius, in particular, embodied the classic values of male success through the performance of stereotypical “macho” characteristics: as leaders, as “alphas” of the pack. Both are violent; both are cocky men who try to stand out and mark their territory. Both exhibit behaviors that have typically been excused in men just because they are men, such as abusive and reckless behavior. Their nickname for Severus stems from the idea that showing emotions—especially crying—if you are a man, is a reason for ridicule and mockery because men don’t cry. Men are supposed to be strong, puff out their chests, and keep going because that’s what men do. It’s a misogynistic and archaic mindset that continues to be perpetuated in social models and relationships to this day. And I find it incredibly hypocritical that certain people who claim to hate J.K. Rowling for being a transphobe then go on to appropriate the horribly sexist nicknames she created for a group of heterosexual men embodying toxic masculinity to bully another man for not performing the traditional masculine model expected of someone like him.

Because Severus wasn’t a “macho”. Severus was a studious introvert with a more passive character who didn’t fit into the masculine vision of the time. Everything about him, including his appearance, demeanor, and interests, is unmasculine from a hegemonic perspective given the historical context. But these people don’t care. They’re so limited, so ignorant, and so cynical that they not only ignore these kinds of nuances but even find it funny to reproduce insults that any real-life James Potter would probably have used against them.

Make no mistake: James Potter and Sirius Black wouldn’t have been your friends. They would have tortured you as much, if not more, than Snape. And that’s the most pathetic part of their fandom, unfortunately.

[alsmediadissection]

˗ˏˋ feminism in Wicked ´ˎ˗

!! i want to preface this by saying i'm not a professional critic, and this is not a 100% guide to anything either. do not take anything i type online to absolute heart, this is simply my personal interpretation of this piece of media !! (i also want to mention that i did not read the Wicked novel/series by Gregory Maguire)

! CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR ACT 2 IF YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED THE WHOLE MUSICAL !

Wicked is a deeply feminist narrative that centers on the lives, agency, and growth of its female characters in a world dominated by patriarchal systems and expectations. Through the journeys of Elphaba and Glinda, the musical critiques traditional gender roles, explores the power of female solidarity, and challenges the societal constraints placed on women. The feminist themes in Wicked resonate strongly, offering a nuanced exploration of women navigating oppressive structures while forging their own identities and paths.

Wicked is a piece of media which challenges traditional gender roles. Elphaba and Glinda are presented as multifaceted characters who defy conventional archetypes of women in media.

Elphaba:

Elphaba is an unconventional heroine. Her physical appearance—her green skin—sets her apart from society's standards of beauty, and her intelligence, ambition, and assertiveness mark her as an outsider. She resists the expectations placed upon her, refusing to conform to a world that demands compliance and superficiality.

Her defiance of the Wizard and her commitment to justice make her a feminist icon, embodying the refusal to accept systemic oppression. Elphaba’s journey represents the struggle of women who challenge patriarchal structures and are subsequently vilified for their resistance.

Glinda:

At first glance, Glinda appears to embody the archetype of the "perfect woman" in a patriarchal society—beautiful, charming, and eager to please. However, her journey reveals a deeper complexity. Glinda learns to question the value of her societal approval and embraces personal growth over external validation.

Her evolution from a self-centered individual to a leader who prioritizes empathy and justice showcases her feminist awakening, as she moves beyond the constraints of traditional femininity to assert her agency.

Wicked is as well a beautifully written representation of female solidarity and rivalry. The relationship between Elphaba and Glinda is central to the narrative and serves as a feminist counterpoint to the trope of women as adversaries. While their initial dynamic includes elements of rivalry—largely rooted in societal expectations and misunderstandings—they ultimately form a bond based on mutual respect and love. Their relationship highlights the power of female solidarity. Elphaba inspires Glinda to think critically and challenge the status quo, while Glinda supports Elphaba in moments of vulnerability, such as during “Defying Gravity.” Their bond transcends their differences, emphasizing the importance of women lifting each other up in the face of shared struggles. The love triangle with Fiyero, while present, does not define their relationship. Instead of becoming bitter rivals, Glinda and Elphaba prioritize their friendship and growth over romantic competition, subverting a common narrative trope (finally escaping the trope where bffs fight over a guy).

Wicked as well challenges and critiques the patriarchal systems (patriarchy). The oppressive systems in Oz—embodied by the Wizard, Madame Morrible, and the societal discrimination against Animals—serve as allegories for patriarchal power structures. Elphaba and Glinda's struggles within these systems highlight feminist themes. The Wizard represents patriarchal authority, using charm and deceit to maintain control. He manipulates both women, attempting to co-opt Elphaba’s power and using Glinda as a figurehead to perpetuate his rule. Their eventual resistance to his influence underscores their feminist rejection of patriarchal control.Although a woman, Madame Morrible serves as a tool of the Wizard’s regime, perpetuating oppression rather than resisting it. Her character reflects how women can internalize and enforce patriarchal values, contrasting sharply with Elphaba and Glinda’s journeys toward liberation.

Equally importantly, Wicked has themes of female agency and voice. Both Elphaba and Glinda grapple with finding and asserting their voices in a world that seeks to silence or commodify them. Elphaba’s refusal to be controlled or silenced is a powerful assertion of agency. Her iconic song, “Defying Gravity,” is a feminist anthem of self-empowerment, as she embraces her identity and takes control of her destiny, regardless of the consequences. Glinda’s journey from superficiality to activism reflects her growing recognition of her own agency. By the end of the musical, she asserts herself as a leader, using her platform to work toward justice.

On a more complex note, Wicked also has the intersection of feminism and intersectionality. Elphaba’s green skin serves as a metaphor for discrimination, highlighting the intersection of feminism with broader struggles against racism and other forms of marginalization. Her experience of being ostracized for her appearance parallels the experiences of women of color and other marginalized groups, underscoring the need for an inclusive feminism that addresses intersecting systems of oppression.

OH AND NOT TO EVEN MENTION THE AWESOME RECLAIMING OF VILLIANY AND POWER?? A feminist reading of Wicked also involves reclaiming the concept of the “witch,” historically a term used to vilify and suppress powerful women. Elphaba’s transformation into the "Wicked Witch of the West" reflects how women who challenge societal norms are demonized, yet she reclaims this label as a badge of empowerment. Her story critiques the societal tendency to villainize ambitious, outspoken, and unconventional women.

Wicked is a profoundly feminist work, celebrating the complexity, agency, and resilience of its female characters. Through Elphaba and Glinda, the musical critiques patriarchal systems, challenges traditional gender roles, and highlights the transformative power of female solidarity. By centering women’s voices and experiences, Wicked offers a timeless message about the importance of resistance, empowerment, and redefining what it means to be a strong and “good” woman.

thank you Wicked for giving us well written women.

[trolltitan]

If you’re fighting the patriarchy but live in a country with free speech, property rights, and zero forced marriages… congrats, you’re not oppressed, you’re bored.

[atla-recluse]

It's crazy to think that Ozai...

...might be the first (proto-?) feminist of the Fire Nation.

Now wait, hold on. Hear me out.

Ozai IN-SHOW (and in written media):

Favors his second-born daughter over his first-born son.

Does not care enough about having a first-born son to succeed him to keep that son with him in the Fire Nation or create another son to succeed him.

Allows that second-born daughter, for a time, to be his new heir/successor.

Allows that daughter to be in charge of very important , gender non-conforming duties, including controlling her own personal army on her journey.

Allows said daughter to be in charge of capturing the first-born son and his first-born uncle (Ozai's brother and rightful heir). An uncle who, mind you, is more well-renowned than her due to past accomplishments and likely in part due to gender, because of the "hyper-masculine" expectations of their culture.

Allows other females besides his daughter to join his military. Sees no issue with allowing women to fight for what is also their homeland (in other words, no issue with female warriors here, Pakku).

Doesn't baby or coddle his first-born son AT ALL and is at least somewhat likely to not be responsible for any sense of entitlement that the son grew to have.

Believes in power, ability and prestige above all else when it comes to judging others. Thinks these traits are what rulers truly need to possess to be able to rule. Everything else is of lesser or no importance, including gender. This does not contradict the tenants of most brands of feminism, and actually mostly or fully supports them.

Keeps his daughter at his right (or left)-hand side when they are actually together.

Clearly greatly respects his daughters skills and insight as both a fighter and heir to the throne.

(Although he still kept a higher position) Gives his daughter his title, throne and crowning headpiece so that she may now rule in his place.

Is implied to have given his wife a lot of agency in raising and disciplining their two children, as opposed to doing it all himself with the help of docile servants and refusing her any say in that regard.

Knowing that all this happens, it's very telling in my view, that the show goes on to make both him and his daughter the "pure evil" super villains of the show. No acknowledgment of feelings, understanding (giving or getting), military/personal rights or sympathy are allowed to either by the narrative, even at times when we see the opposite on screen.

Makes me wonder what message the creators/writers were really trying to send to young viewers. Maybe it was "You should always be the bigger person by being at one with yourself, kind and considerate AND pro-traditional roles and anti-gender apathy! (Unless it leads to a man on your side getting laid by his ex! Then you can bend the gender/tradition rules a bit for your and especially his sake!)

[lieutenant-teach]

Watching a Russian comedy show ‘Female Stand-up’. I should’ve known it wouldn’t be feministic!

‘All women prefer to be called beautiful, not smart’ – am I the only one woman in the world who doesn’t believe cheap compliments to my appearance, esp when I know I’m not beautiful? I believe lots of women want to be seen as personalities, not ‘pretty’ which is poised as the greatest and the most important achievement for a female. In fucking 2020s!

‘We’re not feminists’ – says one of the comedians, probably to cater for male audience. ‘We’re normal women’ – implied. Honeybun, thanks to feminists you have an opportunity to perform at all, nevermind wear jeans and talk freely about your sexual life. Vaguely paraphrasing Don Corleone, ‘You use feminists’ achievements, but you use them without respect’.

‘We wear make-up, beautiful clothes and lose weight only for men’ – speak for yourself, sweetie. I consider myself beautiful wearing a Star Wars T-shirt with a Jedi Order pendant. And pray tell me, how many women lose weight when they get rid of a man?

A transvestite also made an appearance, claiming to be more feminine than women. You know, these absolutely non-feminine women, born women, with XX-chromosomes and vaginas. Unlike a man, who in the end of the day takes off his wig and fake boobs and goes to his wife and kids. Apparently, femininity is reduced to wearing heels, short tight dresses and bright exaggerated make-up.

Female misogyny is blooming! Slutshaming is thriving. Calling women (esp friends) ‘whores’ – every one of these comedians does it. Am I the only woman who never calls her friends ‘whores’, even as a joke?

The show happily reinforces stereotypes that women are dominated by hormones. As if men are not. Again, 2020s! And of course, if a woman is angry/aggressive, she is just not fucked enough.

A specific moment grossed me out in one more way. The comedian talked about the ‘Viva la vulva’ commercial and said: ‘Women should love their sex organs like men love theirs. The video is very useful and good. But I can’t eat all these fruit anymore’. And immediately after this – a short sketch of this comedian walking along the shop aisle, cringing at cut in half avocados, peaches, etc, and then choosing a bunch of bananas. Mmm, so much about ‘women should love their sex organs’… I suppose it was – again – playing to male audience. And it’s gross from ‘Female Stand-up’, whose target audience is supposed to be women.

‘Who dislikes men more than patriarchal women?’ – a good and very true rhetoric question from feminists. All the men from comedians’ stories drink a lot, drunkenly piss into lamps, and when sober, discuss how they shat, comparing the turds. Either I don’t know men, or this is a very particular type of men the show’s comedians are talking about. I’m repulsed by this image of men this show paints – baboons, no more. Probably even less than baboons. Where do you find such men??? The show makes it seem all men are like this. And then ‘feminists don’t like men’. Seriously? :/

Can anyone suggest any feminist comedy shows?

[c0ck4ndb411t0rtur3]

Janeway in THIS fit

[secretly-a-catamount]

actually all four kinds of can be considered feminist characters, look I even made a chart

[the-ethereal-lorestar]

I think about the creator of Naruto. I don't know for sure, but I heard that he had an arc for her and threw it away. He listened to his fans (I don't remember what they wanted exactly) and gave less time on Sakura—or something decremented Sakura's character in some way—and it resulted in Sakura being hated.

I seen a video talking about Naruto with this exact premise as well. No wonder people shipped Naruto and Sasuke over Sasuke and Sakura.

It just kills me when writers create franchises where like 95% of the speaking roles are male, then get morally offended that all of the popular ships are gay. It’s like, what did they expect?

[maxdibert]

Lily’s not selfless because she didn’t want her baby to die. Anyone who isn’t a psychopath doesn’t want their baby to die! Defenceless Petunia also throws herself in front of a wand for her baby! Narcissa lies to Voldemort’s face and goes behind his back to Snape for her baby! Both of these women are selfish creatures! By book 6, JKR has firmly made the point that Lily’s actions were admirable but unexceptional in this universe. Joining the Order out of school is arguably her most selfless act (yeah, she’s personally affected, but she could’ve run to Australia).

Lily’s attraction to James is pure ego. She’s flattered the hot rich elite publicly validates her by desiring her. An actually selfless person would think of James’ victims (and I’m not just talking Severus here). Her condescension to Severus is ego (she enjoys having a worshipful puppy who won’t call her out on anything until he finally snaps and bites back - neither of them see each other as a person). We know a lot more about her than ‘she was selfless’ through her relationships, and not all we know is flattering. Which is good! Because the angelic figure the fandom makes her into - when JKR gave us more than that even in the little page time she has - is so fucking boring.

Absolutely, I couldn’t agree more. What I find especially interesting is how so many Lily fans insist that pointing out her flaws is misogynistic, when in reality, they’re the ones preventing her from being a fully realized, three-dimensional character. By reducing her to nothing more than a morally flawless young woman and a sacrificial mother, they’re stripping her of the very things that make characters compelling—nuance, contradictions, and the ability to make mistakes.

It’s ironic because these same people will often argue that female characters should be treated with the same depth and complexity as male characters. But if we’re unwilling to analyze and critique female characters the way we do male ones, then we’re falling into the same trap we claim to oppose. What’s the point of demanding better female representation if we’re just going to infantilize female characters and refuse to engage with them critically? If we want true narrative equality, we have to be comfortable with the idea that women in fiction—just like in real life—can be selfish, can make questionable choices, and can sometimes just be plain unlikable. And that’s not a bad thing. That’s a good thing.

Lily is an interesting character because she isn’t just a saintly martyr. She clearly had an ego, she was flattered by James’s attention, she tolerated Severus’s bigotry for far too long, and when she finally did cut him off, it wasn’t out of some grand moral reckoning but because it affected her personally. That’s not a bad thing—it makes her human. And as you said, her sacrifice, while undeniably tragic and moving, is not some uniquely selfless act in this universe. Plenty of characters put their children before their own survival, and many of them—Petunia and Narcissa included—don’t get the same moral pedestal that Lily does. The difference? Lily is framed by the narrative as an untouchable paragon of goodness, and fans have followed that lead uncritically.

The reality is, if we actually want better-written female characters, we need to stop being afraid of giving them flaws. Otherwise, we’re just trading one kind of misogyny (women as lesser) for another (women as perfect). And neither of those is real progress.

[lackadaisycal-art]

I'm getting so sick of major female characters in historical media being incredibly feisty, outspoken and public defenders of women's rights with little to no realistic repercussions. Yes it feels like pandering, yes it's unrealistic and takes me out of the story, yes the dialogue almost always rings false - but beyond all that I think it does such a disservice to the women who lived during those periods. I'm not embarrassed of the women in history who didn't use every chance they had to Stick It To The Man. I'm not ashamed of women who were resigned to or enjoyed their lot in life. They weren't letting the side down by not having and representing modern gender ideals. It says a lot about how you view average ordinary women if the idea of one of your main characters behaving like one makes them seem lame and uninteresting to you.

[c0ck4ndb411t0rtur3]

Tank Girl Comic Covers

[crescentbea02]

Barbie literally changed me as a person

[alethianightsong]

"I miss when movies weren't political-"

ALIEN is about a megacorporation coercing some salvagers into transporting a dangerous creature without telling them what it is, all because the creature could be a great bioweapon for them. When a survivor of this failed transport mission wants reparations, they screw her over to avoid a scandal.

ROBOCOP is about another mega-corporation experimenting with a cop's body and declaring him their property, trying to reduce him to an obedient killing machine who can maintain the status quo for them.

JURASSIC PARK is about a rich billionaire going all out to make a dinosaur-themed amusement park, not caring about the real-world implications of resurrecting giant lizards. He also underpays ONE guy to maintain the entire park's security systems so predictably, that one guy betrays him at a crucial moment.

The best movies weave their politics with plot & character, so you can enjoy them as entertainment but can also notice the themes. Movies without themes wind up being all spectacle and no substance, just noise and color like Michael Bay's Transformers franchise. Yeah, they make money, but they'll be forgotten in 2 generations.

[everafteruniversity]

Alright, I've done some pretty extensive research into feminism in children's media, so I've got a lot to say about this one. This basically boils down to trying too hard to have a good message. EAH was always fundamentally about strong, smart, independant women, and Mattel really came in and said "what if our targeted audience of young girls/women isn't smart enough to figure out that we're saying they can be smart. We better tell them directly." This was huge in media, particularly in the 2000's and 2010's. (See also: Disney's live action B&tB adding the scene where Belle randomly teaches a little girl to read, and it adds nothing to the story other than announcing that the movie is inherently feminist.)

EAH always had its very obvious moments like this (such as Cerise not being allowed to play bookball in Thronecoming) but it became a lot more obvious with the Power Princess marketing.

This is also heavily rooted in the idea that making a "strong woman" somehow involves making her more masculine. (To use Disney as an example again, they gave Cinderella, a famous pacifist, a sword in the early 2000's sequal.) EAH did something very similar when they had their soft reboot. Even the intro sequence became less dainty, with a heavier focus on showing the characters' physical abilities.

I truly believe that the reason EAH didn't last (even more than any comparison with Descendants) is because something very important about it changed when they rebranded. It started as a mature show that trusted its audience to draw their own conclusions about complicated themes that other shows were afraid children wouldn't understand. The shift marked a change in how they treated the audience. They started telling us the morals instead of letting us decide them. Whether we knew it as kids or not, this is often what was attractive about this particular show, and then they took ir away.

The Power Princess branding appealed to parents because they didn't have to know much about the show to know their kids were getting good messages. This also changed what kind of messages it was telling. It started out with very serious (and often political) ideas about oppression and propaganda, but switched to generic morals about how women can do things too. This was far less controversial.

It's important to remember that catering children's media to what children want will almost always lead to it lasting longer than catering it to what parents want. Children will be their own people, no matter how hard we try to control them. (Which was one of the original main ideas of this particular story, making the irony all the more biting.)

These aren't the only factors at play, but they're certainly some very important ones.

I did not like or get the " power princess " thing. that Mattel was trying to do with ever after high.

That is valid. I do wonder everyone else's thoughts. Let me know through reblogs and replies.

[maxdibert]

if rowling disapproves of gender dissidence then surely she'd disapprove of masculinity in women and only value feminine women? what you said is self-contradictory

Incorrect. What she actually likes are women who fit into male fantasies. Her favorite teenage female characters embody classic stereotypes that appeal to the male gaze: Ginny, the pick me girl; Luna, the manic pixie dream girl; and Hermione, the ever-loyal friend who doesn’t have time for “girly” frivolities. Beyond that, the adult women who are treated positively by the narrative are either self-sacrificing mothers or have to become self-sacrificing wives and mothers in order to escape Rowling’s relentless bashing. Even young, single women eventually get reduced to being someone’s wife rather than remaining independent characters (Fleur becomes the devoted wife to Bill, Tonks pathetically chases after Lupin).

There’s a huge difference between gender nonconformity and the male gaze. The male gaze can make a female character seem nonconforming at first glance, but if you look closer, you realize that all that supposed nonconformity is just part of the male fantasy about what makes a woman desirable and acceptable. It’s a way of turning female characters into the perfect embodiment of the average geeky hetero guy’s erotic fantasy.

[falafels]

pt.25!! <pt.24 pt.26>

french translation (please correct me if you know better as my french has got holes in it):

-can we do it again soon?

-get a grip, kevin. yes.

tag gang!! @andrewsleftarmband @blurryhour @you-know-i-get-itt @notexactlythatgirl @strangeoffputtingrat @tessasilverswan @minyard-05 @carbon-dated-gal @bisexualchaosdemon @stormiiflies @watercoloureyes01 @vampire-overlord @iron-sides @azure-wing @buffalo-fox @ohgodnotagainplease @pink-hydrangea @jaywalkerss @ohmynoggin-blog @cosmic-marauder @min-getoutofmy-yard @plazybones @disastersappho @leestars13 @the-witch-forever-lives <333