#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.

[grrrlwiththemostcake]

Saw this on Twitter and this is sooo true I see it a lot on here

[dearmistermuse]

So let me get this straight;

Poison Ivy or any woman who shows slight hatred for men gets ridiculed for being a "misandrist" and shouldn't be forgiven

but when it comes to male characters who are a full MISOGYNIST they are often forgiven and babyfied like okay

[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!)

[c0ck4ndb411t0rtur3]

Janeway in THIS fit

[pandesouth]

Fictional characters I would terf out with:

Starting with the obvious:

1.) The coach from that one Disney show that I never actually learned the name of. How do you make a strawman caricature and she ends up being pretty?

2.) Zarya from Overwatch. You already know the deal. World famous female athlete is not about to have males compete in the woman’s category. Makes they/them’s knees buckle.

3.) Daria and Jane. These two definitely created a lesbian commune somewhere after high school. Big separatists. Refers to men as testicular demons.

[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?

[cubistemoji]

[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.

[grrrlwiththemostcake]

Everyone is too male-centered nowadays... WE WILL NEVER BE FREE!!

[celtyradicalfem]

@maria-scariotes @emofthewired I partially disagree because this episode showed Marge as ambitious and politically aware but agree with the overall point is correct

She met Homer in detention because she was punished for protesting stating she was a  “political prisoner”

The Simpsons narrative often hints that she did not make the right decision marrying him

Selma and Patty hated him on sight as a running gag and their viewpoint is often validated by the narrative

I’m going to rewatch this episode to see how it holds up today

[dearmistermuse]

Notice how a lot of horror movies show women characters full on naked while the men are fully clothed??

My biggest critique of horror films is that they always sexualize women. AND OF COURSE ITS ALWAYS DIRECTED BY A MAN. Women in horror are always subjected to sexualization and it disturbs me how actresses have to put up what these men do to them. Why is it always like that? Well, the short answer is: Misogyny!

I wished misogyny in horror are tackled more in the fandom, it's really a huge problem. It doesn't help when horror male directors still use SA as a shock factor. I'm not saying SA should never be included in forms of art, however they have to be careful when it comes to this topic.

Nevertheless, these women will always do a great job for their role. To me they outshine the male characters more in the film.

I hope we ever see a day where women are not used for their body, but for them as a person. Horror or any kind of genre have to do a lot of accountability for the way they've treated women characters for decades.

That's all. All hail queens of horror 🙌

[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.

[c0ck4ndb411t0rtur3]

Tank Girl Comic Covers