#having characters - especially female characters - be flawed in media is so important

[nebucat]

elise critics annoy the fuck out of me tbh

[reikiajakoiranruohoja]

Second Inquisition WOW

I don't even know how to preface this, because this is some massive tonal confusion. I guess the best way to put it is that for all I love Werewolf and Vampire, I am not blind to the horror they are for humans. Though my go-to question for anyone writing monster hunters is why they hunt, I still feel hunters are extremely important to the narrative as a counterpoint to the monsters. So when I read the introduction text for the Second Inquisition book for V5, my jaw hit the floor.

"The theme of the Second Inquisition is determination – aimed at the player coterie. Like a certain killer cyborg from the future, the Coalition can’t be reasoned with, it can’t be bargained with. It doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Individual Inquisitors or soldiers or cops or nuns can be reasoned with and bargained with. Most feel fear, some feel pity, and even a few feel remorse. All those deviations and human moments make excellent stories, ripples in the flood. But the narrative relentlessly washes over those stories, replacing every flawed or broken foe with two more – ten more — out for revenge or salvation. The Inquisition as a whole – both as a conspiracy and a movement that enflames that conspiracy – will not stop until every Kindred burns. Conveying the impersonal, implacable determination of a gigantic bureaucracy to crush the player characters should not be impossible in the 2020s – but it should be very effective."

Why this made me stare at the screen, is how the Inquisition was introduced in an older book;

"The theme of The Inquisition is the crusader. The Society of Leopold sees itself as humanity’s last stand against the encroaching hordes of the World of Darkness. Inquisitors are the new Crusaders; all the Earth is their Holy Land. But theirs is a lonely struggle, bereft of the support of those whom they would save. The general populace does not know of the struggle, and would most likely think the Inquisitors are mad. Inquisitors are holy knights, alienated from their fellow mortals by their knowledge of what awaits. Some within the Inquisition are zealots, it is true, but it is better to err on the side of caution than to let slip the defences of humanity." The difference is stark, especially as they are talking about the same sort of hunters. The reason I find the newer book's take extremely strange, is due to the fact that the player characters in VtM are undead bloodsucking parasites that manipulate humanity and have magic blood powers that make them much stronger than an average human. Yet the V5 book chooses to introduce the inquisition as horrible people who will never stop hunting poor innocent vampires. It goes even as far as the art.

(Start ID; A mixed media picture with modified photographs. A bald man in a trenchcoat is scowling with his fists clenched. He is holding the severed head of a female vampire from its hair. The expression on the head is of wide-eyed horror. End ID.)

(Start ID; A book cover with the text Inquision as the title, with a crosshair symbol reading 'Year of the Hunter' on the bottom. The cover art is a painted picture of a bearded man in a trenchcoat and torn jeans wielding in one hand a large cross and in another a lit torch. There is a shotgun and spent shells on the tiled floor. Just outside the light of the torch, a horde of vampires with glowing eyes has surrounded the man, some shirking from the light. End ID.)

One treats the hunter as a threat overpowering a vampire. The other treats the hunter as a lone figure surrounded by a mass of vampires. Let me be quite frank, humanity in WoD are the mice that the cats (vampires) hunt. Hunters are the mice that fight back. A vampire in VtM, regardless of edition, has an advantage over a hunter. Vampires use humans as prey, the polite ones pay them for it but they don't HAVE to. In V5 you are given various methods to hunt for your blood, some which are cruel. Painting the people standing up to creatures that actively harm humans as the abusers and the ones in the wrong is extremely tone deaf. Vampires are not some oppressed minority trying to eke out a living, a vampire is creature that needs to drink blood to survive and human blood is the best. In V5's own lore, it is only recently that vampires are even put on the backfoot at all. Before that, humanity were pawns in centuries long grudgematches and at best a quick bite snack at wost fleshcrafted into sacks hung from hooks. Can there be good vampires and bad hunters? Of course, WoD is all about the shades of gray. It is when the basic set up of the setting is turned around like this that I have a problem.

[vergess]

sorry if this is an odd ask to send out of nowhere but i thought your mlp post was really interesting! could you go further into detail about what you think the show does wrong in later seasons? you don't have to, i'm just curious since i really like the show and it's been one of my hyperfixations for a very long time & you have really interesting takes/meta on things in general

thank you for your time!! :3

It very much gets "less about girls" as it progresses. People's background friends/family are suddenly almost always male, for example, with Fluttershy getting a brother, Rainbow Dash's other school friends being male, her dad being more prominently played than her mom, things like that.

This isn't even a bad thing!

While I would argue, and have before, that a show almost exclusively about women is an important thing for the media landscape compared to the glut of All About Men shows?

The reality is that any artistic lens that focuses exclusively on a single gender is going to be worse for it, if for no reason other than where are the trans people.

A truly "gender neutral gaze" would be the ideal, but to be honest I don't even know what that might look like. I can at least conceptualize the female gaze out from existing, limited examples of female led production for a female audience.

But in terms of, IDK, a trans-led production for a genderqueer/neutral audience, I don't even know it that kind of thing exists. It must, because well, trans people are everywhere in the indie arts, but I have never seen it.

Certainly I've never seen it around a kid's show. And one of the things that makes kid media so easy to analyze is, the "allowed" topics are fairly limited. When sex is off the table, you can devote that time to deepening friendships. When men are off the table, you can spend that time deepening female characterization. etc etc.

So anyway, while I would say a female gaze is preferable to a male one in this male dominated society, both have their deep shortcomings. The way MLP handled male characters in S1 by either not having them, or having them be kind of the butt of the joke (Spike) isn't actually a good thing, just a very different one than is common. And there are plenty of ways that the show mistreated Spike particularly for Being A Boy that would make me hesitate to suggest season 1 to, say, trans masc viewers.

But then there are some ways that I can safely say later seasons are just worse.

The fat jokes, for example, were Not A Thing in S1 and as a fat viewer that was a huge relief at first, which became a sharp slap in the face as characters began making fun of heavy eating or using obese background ponies as gross out gags, etc.

On the other hand, the racism very much was present from the beginning, as evidenced by Over A Barrel's portrayal of native americans as literally another species. And that's before we get into the sheer racism of pony colonialism in the first place. Also Zecora the Zebra's... situation. Which was okay as a one off bit in S1, trying if not succeeding at the message of "different=/=bad."

But, like many of these early flaws, the later seasons magnify the problem, especially when the show tries to approach real world issues. Just off the top:

Zecora becomes the magical negro whose mystic knowledge transcends that of the pony gods.

Gryphons become antisemitic stereotypes, obsessed with cash hoarding and isolationism.

Yaks live in technologically inferior wastelands of Yakyakistan, where they are loud, rowdy, and even dangerous.

Dragons are... just... really fucking bad, like by nature, with rare "good ones" going to live among ponies to become civilized.

The fucking saddle arabians apparently just Not Having Perfomance Art and needing to be taught by Trixie.

The kirin being very literally silent to show how zen they are, needing Westerners to give them back their voices.

The sheer audacity to bring Little Strongheart back in the fucking finale and "assign" her as Applejack's token buffalo friend (not even RD???) after AJ and her family nearly wiped the buffalo out and fully never fucking apologized

There's definitely more. Basically every single non-pony species shown to be sapient ends up some kind of a racist mess. At least cows are just like... white people from wisconsin so there's less racism inherent to their depiction but even then...

There are also ways in which the attempts to cater to a male audience weaken the show's overall presentation. Ponies with adult men's human meme images as cutie marks started popping up, for example, which is again not a bad thing, but weakens the overall fantastical world building.

Likewise, the attempts to modernize the setting are... um. Let's go with uneven.

In S1 technology is firmly pre-industrial Euro-Fantasy. I'd put it around 1770-1800 in the human western world.

By S2 there is an electrical grid even in "small" towns like ponyville, something which in the human world didn't take place until about150 years later, with another 50 years to roll out things like video games, which also start appearing.

But only for ponies.

Never for the other species.

I get why they did that. It's a "have your cake and eat it too" scenario where they can keep the pre-industrial fantasy tech level sometimes, but use a modern tech level at other times. It opens up more storytelling options. And it's not like the magical horse universe needs to obey our physics and timelines.

But then why only ponies.

All that does is deepen the racial division between ponies and other species. Which the later seasons LOVe to do. Deepen racial divieds.

After all, in S1 most other species (cows, gryphons, etc) were shown to live in equestria too. But in later seasons, are revealed to live in cloistered ethnostates nominally self ruling but in practical terms subservient to the equestrian state if they want basic rights like the fucking sun.

Which acts to retcon Spike's hatching and adoption from something very heartwarming into something very horrific.

Honestly, the "male gaze" is not the issue I have with late seasons of MLPFIM. It very much comes down to "this show got SO fucking racist SO fucking fast what the FUCK."

And that probably would have happened with all female writers and directors, too, if they were mostly white.

This all makes me sound like I hate MLP, but I promise you, all of this criticism comes from a place of utmost love. This show is really, REALLY good. It is charming, beautifully animated, excellently directed, with passion poured into every aspect of the visuals, the audio, the stories, the characters...

That's what makes these constant missteps so painful to encounter.

Because the highs are so high!

I mean, the movie easily constitutes the best 2D animation out of the western world in DECADES and every track on the album is a banger, and that's just the movie. Cartoon movies aren't exactly noted for their stunning quality, but MLPFIM sure as fuck stuns.

And when the highs are that high, oh man, the lows look lower by comparison.

[elijahs-dumps]

Cassandra and her villain arc; was it bad? Let's discuss... (Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure)

Just wanted to say before we dive in, I'm currently working on a piece about Gonzo from the Muppets and some Hazbin Hotel stuff too. So stay tuned;)

Cassandra was mainly portrayed as snarky, cold, and even a little rude. She's almost a perfect opposite to Rapunzel, which makes them interesting friends. And it's nice that Rapunzel has another girl she can rely on, since I personally believe female friendships are important in media. Within the TV series, Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure, Cassandra is often seen budding heads with Eugene or helping with Rapunzel's misadventures. And as the show goes on, we see Cassandra actively looking out for Rapunzel more and more.

Even though Cass states many times in the first two seasons that she loves and cares for Raps, their relationship is quite unstable through out the show even before she became a main antagonist. Let's take a look at their relationship pre-season two to get a better understanding:

For example, in The Challenge of the Brave (S1 E4) when Raps joins the challenge, Cass feels like Raps is being a bad friend by trying to win something that means so much to her. She's annoyed by Raps' ignorance, and jealous of the admiration Raps is receiving. Yet, Cass never even told Raps how much the contest means to her. So instead of communicating her feelings, Cass starts to act more snappy with Raps and actively tries to get Raps eliminated from the game. However, it's not unreasonable for Raps to be unaware of Cass' wishes, especially since she struggles with social cue. Regardless of the fact that Cass should've been more patient with Raps, I think this episode would've been nice foreshadowing to her change of heart in season three if they didn't try to paint Cass as the victim in this episode. I don't understand why only Raps apologized, when they both should've acknowledged their wrongs.

In Under Raps (S1 E9), Rapunzel tries to make Cass feel better about being single by making her things and showing her appreciation for Cass. When this happens, Cass sort of gets annoyed for no reason even though Rapunzel's intentions are sweet. She doesn't even really verbalize if Raps is pushing boundaries or not, she's just... frustrated?

This doesn't relate to Rapunzel directly, but in Great Expotations (S1 E8) Cass uses Varian to get what she wants. Even though she does make up for it, it's still a testament to her character. Cass often acts without thinking about how others might feel or think, and the way she treats Raps in season one is a prime example of that. She does take into account how naive and ignorant Raps can be, but she refuses to show any patience for it as Raps recovers from literally being isolated for eighteen years. And Cass is supposed to be Raps' best friend! It's the same with Varian. You see, Cass isn't really a bad person. She just wants her moment in the spotlight, her moment to prove herself. In these episodes, that's often what drives her to make these mistakes towards her friends. This would be a great character flaw, and an interesting writing concept. But this show keeps having Cass in this same situation again and again, and she never grows from it. It gets old very fast.

Not to mention, Cass also tried to force Raps not to tell Eugene how she got her hair back when it first happened. All because Cass "doesn't trust Eugene". I thought this was strange, because I don't really know what kind of friend asks someone to lie to their significant other.

In the flashback episode, Beginnings (S3 E6), we learn that Cass never wanted to be friends with Raps to begin with, and there was a lot of guilty undertones on Cass' part of the relationship at least in its early stages from what we can see. Raps clearly latched onto Cass way too fast, because she was still fresh out of the tower when they met. And Cass wasn't ready to be what Raps needed (which was therapy). Cass was Raps' first friend besides Pascal, and I don't understand why Cass would take on that role if she wasn't going to put in the effort to at least try and be compassionate and understanding with Raps.

Moving on to season two, Cass didn't really do anything of substance until The Great Tree episode (S2 E14) which is a little weird in hindsight. But I thought her insecurities about needing to prove herself and how she always feel second place to Raps were pretty justified. We saw a couple times through out the series that people preferred Raps over Cass, or gave Raps opportunities when Cass worked harder for them. Still, I don't feel like that's Raps' fault. Waiting in the Wings did a perfect job of illustrating Cass' feelings on this subject, and it even made me like her more as a character because it gave her so much more depth. Still, the song talks about how Cass is going to keep waiting until her moment in the sun arrives no matter what, which contradicts her villain arc quite a bit considering the fact she did not wait at all. Anyway, I think Cass trying to insinuate that Raps doesnt trust her judgement anymore in these episodes was BULLSHIT. Raps clearly loves and values Cass, and trusts her completely. All Raps did was mkae a call that Cass didn't agree with, I dont think this meant that Raps wasn't listening or wasn't trusting Cass. The two of them simply disagreed on it, which they do all the time.

Technically, the thing that pushes Cass off the edge is the fact that she finds out she's Mother Gothel's biological daughter. But there was one other incident that set this villain arc into motion before the episodes within the House of Yesterday's Tomorrows. Cassandra's hand wound from Rapunzel.

When Cass injuries her hand during the final fight within the Great Tree, she blames Raps for it even after they talk it out and apologize. I didn't understand this at all, because yes Cass warned Raps not to use the decay incantation. But it's not like they had any other choice! And Raps was not in control of herself or the tree when Cass got injured. Not only this, but Raps also told Cass to leave before anything even happened. Why is Cass upset with Raps for not listening to her when she wouldn't listen to Raps either?

The season three opening episode, Rapunzel's Return (S3 E1), shows us exactly what Cass saw in the House of Yesterday's Tomorrows. We learn that Cass is Gothel's real daughter, and this is a huge turning point in the series. Because in this episode, Cassandra's entire villain arc stopped being about her own struggles and insecurities and how she's felt second place to Rapunzel this whole time, it became about the fact that Gothel chose Raps over Cass. I felt like this was a lazy writing choice, to make it seem like Cass' feelings of being inferior to Raps are more justified. But honestly, I think her villain arc could've stood well on it own if they just planted to the smaller seeds of doubt earlier on, and didn't involve Gothel in it. Of all people. Gothel is a naturally selfish woman who would never do anything that doesn't serve some kind of purpose for her. I find it hard to belief she kept Cass around simply to do house work around her cottage instead of just dumping Cass at an orphanage of some kind.

I also feel the need to mention the fact that Cass was absent for almost 12 episodes in a row, during what is supposed her season as the antagonist and her moment to have the spotlight, probably has something to do with why her writing in season three came out so half-baked. Combining this with the fact that her change of heart was only really hinted at in maybe five out of the forty-five episodes, episodes in which the conflict involving Cass' character is always resolved by the end, makes her entire villain arc seem out of character at first glance.

This season went to great lengths to make Cass' actions and attitude as nasty as possible, especially by having her show no remorse or doubts after Be Very Afraid (S3 E9). This is on of the reasons her redemption arc fell flat.

In A Tale of Two Sisters (S3 E14), we see the last bit of Cass' doubt be outweighed by her need to blame someone for the way Gothel abandoned her. So, she blames Rapunzel. But Cass knows Gothel was sick and abusive towards Raps, and she also knows it's not Raps' fault she was kidnapped. After all their years of friendship, I didn't buy the concept that Cass would let her anger manifest in a way that would blame Raps for a traumatic event that happened to both of them.

While I'm well aware that Zhan Tiri has been manipulating Cass since the House of Yesterday's Tomorrows, it still didn't make Cass's villain arc anymore believable for me. It felt like the show's way of trying to excuse its own crappy writing.

Once a Handmaiden (S3 E16) is when Cass realizes Zhan Tiri has been manipulating her since the beginning, and begins to regret her choices. So Cass disguises herself as Rapunzel's current handmaiden to try and find a way to extend some kind of olive branch. This gives us a little more insight into the headspace Cass has been in these past few months, and it gives the audience more room to sympathize with her (especially in the play scene). Yet, when Zhan Tiri reveals Cass to everyone and the guards start attack her, Cass is quick to become incredibly angry, even though Raps was trying to call off the guards. Cass literally takes over the entire kingdom, almost killing hundreds of people after spending the whole day bonding with Raps like old times. While I have issues with the amber-firing machine Varian made, I feel like the switch up with Cass in this episode was absolutely insane.

Cassandra's redemption arc, if you can even call it that, completely fell apart because it was so rushed. It was similar to Varian's redemption arc in that sense, but even though Varian's redemption arc had flaws he was able to sort of get away with it. Varian's villain arc was shorter than Cass', his crimes weren't as bad as Cass'. and he served at least a year in jail anyway. Cass served no punishment for her actions and got to leave Corona scot-free. This also plays into the constant contradiction Cassandra goes through this season of soul-crushing remorse vs homicidal rage.

Considering Cass was one of our main three characters for the entire show, I just think she deserved better when it finally came time to give her some more depth and complexity. But what do you guys think? Do you think Cassandra's time as an antagonist was poorly executed? How do you think they could've fixed it? Feel free to let me know!

[kitkatopinions]

Sometimes I think of how people will see the most shallow bit of feminism and girl power in media and then treat it like the height of progressiveness and act like that piece of media is now incapable of being misogynistic.

Like I don't actually have a problem with some of the obvious girl power stuff - things like girls standing up to people who say they can't fight, or girls being confronted by guys who are like rating the attractiveness of them and their friends, or 'you should smile more' stuff, or things like that. Every time I see someone post about how 'we should be past that' and how 'everyone gets it' I also see both women expressing how it helped them and also terrible men talking about how they think it's overdramatic and lying and anti-men, so like... Yeah, we do still need some of this kind of obvious girl power, no we haven't actually progressed past men out and out saying they think women belong in the kitchen or should serve men or something, it actually is totally realistic and empowering to many real life women to see a female character openly stand up for herself and show up men and stuff.

But also that sort of on the nose shallow level stuff is often used in a very performative way, and there's often deeper levels of misogyny at play that writers usually don't seem to bother to deconstruct. And the willingness to only pay attention to shallow level stuff and call that good enough is in my opinion actually detrimental, especially when that's then used to try to shut up the women that are rightfully trying to criticize deeper misogyny.

A female character standing up to a male character that says girls can't fight might be and often is still not given a narrative outside of a love interest.

A female character being the main protagonist might still be shuffled to the side to give more attention to a male character, or not be allowed to be really flawed and therefore less of a real relatable character.

A confident and feisty female character might still be objectified and made specifically for male audiences to sexualize, designed to be sexy for men or just written in a way that's meant to be palatable for them (such as stripping femininity from a female character who is involved in action.)

A female character in a position of power might still be treated like a jealous power hungry bitch or a sad cat lady who secretly longs for a husband and babies, or be 'in a position of power' in name only and not actually be that big of a threat, or do nothing, or be propped up as the important bad guy only for the media to reveal that really, she's nothing compared to this new eleventh hour male threat.

A female character who stands up to one male character might still be written to wind up in a relationship with a male character that treats her like crap and acts entitled to her and yet it's still framed as romantic, or will be pressured into a romantic relationship with no one acknowledging it as weird or bad, or just is written to never really challenge her male friends.

A female character might be allowed to be non-feminine and dismiss beauty standards but she might then be portrayed as having no female friends and being not like other girls and meanwhile women who are more traditionally feminine are put down and men who aren't traditionally masculine are mocked and treated like they're weak and lesser. A female character might be allowed to be non-feminine and dismiss beauty standards, but she might be confined to not going over a certain line, like a female character who is portrayed as strong but not allowed to become muscled, or a female character who doesn't like make up and fashion but is still designed in an 'appealing' way and might have a 'oh no she has to dress all girly and hot against her will and the men will exclaim over her' moment.

Female characters might be given any of the above only for it to feel like the writers punish them for it. Brutally murdering them, having them tortured, having their friends turn against them, or even just the writing around them feeling snarky and pointed. Like a writer making a female character say something right and having a different character be like 'uh-huh, you're probably right like always.' Or a writer making a female character show up the boys in her combat training class only to then have her get brutally beaten on the field like her confidence must be destroyed or proven wrong or something.

Female characters might have everything technically right on paper, and yet be written in thin, spiritless ways that give them no real growth, dismiss their personal narratives, or are just dry like you can tell the writers don't actually want to be writing for the character and don't really care that much about them. Sometimes the misogyny is in the fact that other characters are allowed to have growth arcs and learn and change and go after their goals and make mistakes and forge important connections that are actually relevant, while the female characters that are meant to be important/badass/feminist icons are just a lot thinner and aren't given that same attention and just feel like they're around because the writers feel like they have to be.

I need people to understand that misogyny in media is rampant and that writers rarely seem to be interested in deconstructing their biases, and I need people to understand that the only types of misogyny in media aren't 'women characters only exist to be nameless sexy club girls' and 'women characters only exist to be teary damsel princesses in need of saving.' There's much deeper forms of misogyny in media.

And it's really very frustrating to try to talk about misogyny in various pieces of media and have people hold up shallow level performative stuff and be like 'But if they were misogynistic, they wouldn't have done this, checkmate.' Like, no, that's just the profitable bare minimum people think will get women off their backs. Even when it's meant sincerely (and again, I'm not saying it's always inherently bad) it's most often accompanied by some form of deeper level misogyny.

(Also radfems and terfs leave me alone, DNI, you guys are also really fucking terrible at writing women characters and I swear you've all got misogyny that leaks into that shit too.)

[pink-strawberry-kissess]

ppl be like “i just want leon to be happy” then continue to shit on the woman that makes him happy (arguably the only thing that does) and ship him with someone that doesn’t actually care that much abt him

YOU KNOW YOU'RE TOTALLY RIGHT

the way that a lot of people and other shippers are like

"I WANT LEON TO BE HAPPY" and then SHOVE HIM WITH A CHARACTER THAT WANTS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM

here's another thing that i find interesting is that a lot of male characters usually have their romantic interests stripped away from them if they're deemed "unworthy" of them, but female characters are shipped with arguably HORRIBLE MEN ALL THE TIME.

"i can fix him" - normal and acceptable

"i can fix her" - no. you can not.

male characters have so much of their agency and characteristics stripped away from them if they're not "with the right girl"

but female characters have to BEND THEIR WILL, THEIR LIFE, THEIR MORALS TO BE WITH A MAN.

it's just something i find interesting a lot.

you see this in media with any female characters that are "not stereotypically good," or have some sort of flaw or "unappealing" characteristic.

if there's like a "good man" - EVEN IF HE'S WRITTEN TO BE WITH this "flawed girl," he will end up being shipped with the "good girl."

now this isn't always the case, especially since it's a lot more recent in media that we have more "realistic" women written. women that have more characteristics, background, flaws, even just straight up abrasive women.

"you want an evil woman?" you can't even handle morally grey women.

i think language is important, and understanding gender roles and how we interpret media is interesting. (also side note, i do not agree with gender roles, but i think they're important when discussing how people are written)

OKAY SORRY RANT OVER LOL

yes

i agree with you.

SORRY SDHKBFSDKJ

[ayakh03]

"Arcane: Mastering the Art of Authentic Representation"

Representation in media has come a long way since the 20th century, there has been a massive shift in the way people are represented and of course the amount of representation, in spite of the level of accuracy. Nowadays, we see many movies with diverse characters and protagonists, sexually, racially, etc… Their stories are developed and their cultural background has an important impact on who they are. As great as these initiatives are, they may feel a bit performative. The inclusion of LGBTQ+ and people of color can sometimes give the impression that the creators added them in just to avoid criticism. Another problem is the obvious lack of familiarity with any of the issues the writers try to address. How can one make a show about diversity, or that addresses diversity issues, without having experienced the hardships, which make the story authentic? 

The visible growth and improvement of representation is amazing, but it's nonetheless important to start seeing real change that doesn’t feel performative. The main factor responsible for this feeling is the underdevelopment of the “inclusive” characters. Too often has underrepresented groups been superficially included. Their character is primarily based on their identities, rather than them having solid personalities. This flaw in writing makes the characters feel like their presence, and who they are as a person, doesn’t actually serve any purpose to the story whatsoever, giving an unnatural feel to them. An example of forced integration is the movie “The Prom” (2020). The Prom is a lesbian protagonist-led movie, with the purpose of showcasing representation and inclusion. However, that inclusion felt unnatural, as the portrayal of LGBTQ+ characters was cliche, stereotypical, and borderline offensive, as one of the problems was a gay character being played by a straight man.

 The Prom (2020), Ryan Murphy, DOI or available on Netflix

A counter-example to this movie is the very famous series, Heartstopper. It’s a Netflix series adaptation of a comic, following the story of 2 teenage boys who become friends and fall in love. It covers the hardships and troubles of being a part of the LGBTQ+ community and the obstacles one has to go through when facing society, family, and friends. The creator, Alice Osman, is a British illustrator. She created the comic to bring representation to the mainstream world, with the hope that others may see themselves in the characters and the story. In a VOX article, she says: “I want Heartstopper to inspire young people — especially LGBTQ+ young people — to be whoever they want to be, and to believe that they can find happiness and find love and find friendship because it is a joyful story … everyone can get something out of it.” The illustrator has been open about her struggles with being asexual and aromantic, and the lack of representation she experienced growing up, which she believed would’ve helped her understand herself much earlier. The impact of Heartstoppers has been so important, as the series also addresses bullying, mental health, and friendship issues. it’s one of the best, most well-executed pieces addressing diversity and identity.  

Oseman, A. (2019). Heartstopper. Volume 1. New York, Ny: Graphix, An Imprint Of Scholastic.

Heartstopper falls under the category of a series that directly focuses on representation and inclusivity. however, there are also series that do not focus on those topics, and yet are able to include them naturally, one of them being Arcane. 

Arcane is a series that follows the origin story of two characters, Jinx and Vi, from the game League of Legends. The main couple of this show is a lesbian couple. Their relationship is a bit of a tragedy, not because of their sexuality but rather because of vulnerability problems. The writing of the show is so well done, it adds representation without making it a focal point and handles LGBTQ and female representation in an amazing way.

In fact, they modified Vi's original character design. In the game, she is visibly designed for the male gaze. She has very prominent curves, tight clothes, a seductive look on her face, and very feminine features. On the contrary, the character design for the show made her more realistic, given her background. They made her masculine with developed and defined muscles, a more realistic body shape, loose-fitting clothes, and a shorter, sharper-looking haircut.  

Additionally, no one in the series commenting on Vi’s muscular masculine look is a small detail that tells us a lot about the kind of universe the show is based in, which was well explained by one of the writers of the series under a Reddit post: "if there is no perceived norm for masculine or feminine expression, how would you even think to make some comparative or contrasting statement?".

Nowadays, when the media wants to represent strong female characters, they portray them as unstoppable forces, unable to do any wrong. However, Arcane does a great job of representing strong women in different styles, and appearances, with different goals and motivations, while showcasing their weaknesses and strengths. They’re defined as good, bad, feminine, masculine, strong, and weak, the same diversity usually given to male characters. Therefore, even with a “badass” look, the show shows that Vi often has poor judgment and a soft spot. Her depth as a character humanizes her and makes her more approachable, relatable, and likable. 

Furthermore, the series covers class representation by portraying the conflict between the modern and technologically developed city of Piltover and the undercity of Zaun. It vibrates with real-world issues, economic exploitation, and system inequality.  

The show also covers mental health, portraying Jinx's fall into psychosis, and her struggles with borderline personality disorder and PTSD. Even if not labeled, her challenges show how her trauma and abandonment molded who she became. 

To conclude, Arcane excels at representation by prioritizing character depth and development. The series integrates complex relationships, real-world issues, and diverse identities, allowing the story to resonate with the audience and giving them a more authentic experience. It shows how the best way to normalize representation isn’t by drawing too much attention to it and not highlighting how much a character is different but rather making it organic and natural.

References:

Anon, (2023). Diversity Is Finally Here, But Why Does It Feel So Performative? | Rock & Art. [online] Available at: https://www.rockandart.org/diversity-is-here-why-it-feel-so-performative/.

Dutta, L. (2023). WP2 part 1: History of Representation in Hollywood - Lena Dutta - Medium. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@ldutta_61771/wp2-part-1-history-of-representation-in-hollywood-af95eb3e7fe6.

Katz, L. (2022). Why this show about queer teens appeals to all ages — even if it stings. [online] Vox. Available at: https://www.vox.com/23188131/heartstopper-netflix-lgbtq-alice-oseman.

‌

‌

[storycraftcafe]

SO what’s your process for creating characters? Especially supporting cast who are important but not influential in the plot? Walk me through it!!

Hey Buddies!

Hokai so Character Creation is a big big ass subject and a very important one. To quote Chuck Wendig: “Stories are soylent green, they’re made of people”. And if you take even a glance at fandoms you’d see how important characters are to readers and fans. Characters are how we step into story and these wonderful worlds writers create, they’re what we connect to, empathise with and so on.

I like to break character’s down into three groups: Main Characters, usually our hero, main villain, any POV characters or live interests. Side Characters, the protag’s friends, allies, love interests, smaller antagonists. And supporting characters, everyone else that fills up the world and makes it feel alive and gives it depth. 

So if we’re gonna focus on side and supporting characters, there’s a few key things to remember:

Characters aren’t just people, they’re tools in our storytelling kits. While we should seek to make them feel alive, we need to remember their purpose and function in the story. 

All characters save for the once and done ones you make up on the fly like that barista with a bad attitude or the kindly bus driver should have some depth, positive traits, flaws and at least a suggestion of change, if only in how readers and pov characters see them. 

Draw from life but don’t copy from life. 

It can be so easy to slip into cliche and offensive stereotypes so it’s vital to be mindful about what kind of character’s you’re putting on the page and how you’re using them. Some stories are not yours to tell and that’s okay.

Finally to be perfectly honest, a lot of this for me is kind of instinctual. Some of my favourite side characters popped up out of nowhere and had at most a sentence in my outline telling me their purpose. But I’ll try to explain my thought process.

When I’m planning or writing a story and the need for a Side character comes up (a protagonist’s friend or neighbour, coworker, boss,) someone that’s gonna have some influence on the pov character, that we’ll see more than once I try to settle on their purpose.

Are they an ally? A friend? A helpful neighbour? Are they this asshole down the street that has conflicts with the pov character? A henchman of the bad guy? Are they there to help or hinder or be a foil or a mirror?

Say we have a protagonist who is kind of isolated and withdrawn. She’s gone through some shit, has trauma from before the story but their character arc isn’t about struggling through the dark alone but learning to make bonds, to finding their own people and community. They’re gonna need some nice side characters to help with that. Someone she can bump into a lot and form those beginning connections with.

Off the top of my head that means neighbours, either immediate or down the street/hall, people that frequent the same places she will like the cafe on the corner, wherever she works, etc. Let’s go with neighbours. Maybe… Older nosey neighbours, the kind that’d chat over the fence or bustle by to say hi and welcome and offer something baked.

Right off the bat, I get a bunch of ideas, my brain throwing at me examples I’ve seen or read of before either as they are or recombined into new ones. I see Wilfred from Dr Who, Carl from Up, a bunch of Karens (male and female) from social media, people that I’ve known in real life, including my own Grandmother. And I think about this character’s purpose.

 I want them to be an ally, someone that helps my protag along their personal journey. That’d mean they’d have to be friendly, warm, good hearted, but a bit nosey and probably very stubborn to get past the walls my protag has thrown up. My mind clicks onto the archetype of a grumpy old man, all bristle and hot air but caring. No nonsense, no bullshit, calls it like he sees it but not tactless.

I like this idea but I don’t stop here. I keep poking at it like I’m building something from lego without a plan, putting things on, taking them off. Maybe this guy is a widower and just as lonely as our protagonist. Maybe a grandfather estranged from family but wishing he could have done better. Maybe his wife is still alive but they never had kids.

Eventually, I settle on this idea of the two old love birds, no kids but they like to take in strays. Meaning they keep an eye out for anyone alone and offer a welcome. Nothing pushy, just the ‘neighbourly thing’ to do. Then it’s just what they look like (He’s broad and blocky, strong in his youth, and she’s small and petite with eyes magnified by thick glasses), what their basic personality is like (he’s a grump but sincere, she’s sweet but mischievously sassy and they bicker for fun), maybe things like heritage(Italian-American, Irish, maybe Eastern European), health concerns(he has arthritic knees and a replaced hip and uses a cane, she maybe had breast cancer), habits, etc and that’s enough for me to go off.

I only really understand my characters after I’ve written them for a bit, so try them out in a few scenes and see how you like them.

This is also where I double check my work for stereotypes, especially when working with identities and so on beyond my own experience. I highly recommend you double check with people belonging to those groups, or refer to one of the blogs on tumblr that act as a point of reference like WritingWithColor. Be humble and open to learning with this.

If you really want to go further, you can give them an arc of their own.  Maybe they have their own struggles you wanna touch on that could flesh out the story, give your protagonist a chance to do something in return. Maybe a problem that reflects the main conflict but on a micro scale. But the trick here is the audience doesn’t need to see all of it, just the changes that matter and serve the greater story.

And of course as always, sometimes my plans explode in my face and I have to adapt. I’ve made these characters up on the fly when I realised I needed one, I’ve also cut them from the story or combined two or even three into one, or I realised I needed a friend to be an enemy. I’ve even had to take really minor supporting characters and upgrade them, or downgrade side characters.

To create very minor supporting characters, I do the same just with way less detail. 

Maybe my protag is taking the train and there’s another passenger that’s kind of a rude entitled business guy and we get to see some tasty petty revenge or he just makes a bad day worse. Or there’s a cafe our protag always goes to and there’s this barista she maybe says hi to and shares compliments with who notices a change for better or worse.

These super minor characters I really just make up as I go and as I need. They’re really simple and I like to use them to emphasise a mood I’m going for, to break it up or to highlight just how my POV character is feeling or in denial about.

Like any part of writing , character creation is a skill you can practise and develop over time. 

And one part of this skill I am constantly mindful about is making these characters diverse, but respectful. With these simple ideas it’s so easy to slip into harmful stereotypes and I feel writers have a responsibility to be as mindful as we can, to constantly learn and try to do better.

If you made it this far, go get yourself a treat, have some water and feel free to ask more questions if you have any.

 Good writing!

[callonpeevesie]

Do you mind if I ask your top 10 favorite characters (can be male or female) from all of the media that you loved (can be anime/manga, books, movies or tv series)? And why do you love them? Sorry if you've answered this question before.....Thanks...

Hi, thanks for the ask! It's hard to pick top 10 because my feelings about characters keep fluctuating and I'm also kind of out of touch with fandom these days, but here are 10 characters I've blorboed in the past or recently.

Pyala from tenida - I have posted about him before, he's my childhood fave from a series that's very dear to me. I grew attached to him when I first read the stories when I was about eight. I was quiet, constantly zoned out, chronically sick and couldn't Maths, and I really saw myself in him. But what sealed him as my favourite character is his sort of quiet courage,, he's scared of many things but he has this integrity and is brave enough to be honest with himself. I've had so many other favourite characters since, but that connection never really went away. As I grew up and reread the stories I discovered more layers to his character and unpacked just how much he had impacted me in my childhood. He's just really important to me.

Héctor from coco - I was absolutely obsessed with coco for a very long time, this blog even started as a coco blog. It's a beautiful movie and héctor was always my favourite character. He was understandably very popular and I love him for his adorable personality and angst potential, but another reason I'm attached to him is the pushover aspect of his personality. It's something I myself struggled with and it was super cathartic to see him stand up to ernesto. I used to wonder a lot how things would have gone if he had lived longer and got to grow more.

Mia from ace attorney - she's just *chef's kiss*. I got into aa a couple of years back and fell in love with her from the beginning. She's so beautiful and badass but also so much more. She impacts the story so much even though she was present for such a short time, it's fascinating to think about. And she feels more and more layered and flawed and interesting the more I think about her. I'm very normal about her

Grover from pjo - it's safe to say my pjo phase has completely faded, but I have a sort of nostalgic attachment to Grover. He's so soft but brave and adorable and grew so much over the series. I do feel his potential was underutilised in the books. But in a way I like that his backstory and personal journey is left so vague, it makes him more intriguing to me. Part of the reason I like him so much is because his bravery and potential are so overlooked in the fandom and I guess I'm defensive of him, lol.

Sokka from atla - tbh I only watched atla for the first time as an adult, during the pandemic, and sokka just grew on me during my first watch. He's just such a guy, the way he's shaped by the protective role he took on as a kid, by growing up during a war, how calculative and ruthless he can be in spite of his goofiness and how much he cares about Katara, I just,,,, ughhhh. I love chewing on him so much and I find it fascinating how well he was fleshed out even though he's not the most narratively important character

Matsuda from death note - another more recent favourite, got into death note a couple of years back. I enjoyed how silly and goofy he is and he grew on me, how he feels worthless compared to everyone else and wants to prove himself. He's also such a madlad for his yotsuba stunt (and telling mello he was L. wtf was that). His conflicted position and eventual reaction to light's betrayal make him an interesting one to figure out, but what stands out to me is how he seems to use humour to cope and tries desperately to liven things up. It's especially obvious to me that he puts up a facade in the epilogue of the manga

Anne shirley from Anne of green gables - this one is a childhood favourite. She's!! So good!! I became obsessed with her when I first read the book because I related so much to her imaginativeness and her way of admiring beauty, I felt like she was putting into words things I've always felt deep down. As an adult I've ceased to relate to her so much, but I still love the way she interacts with the people and environment around her and how she deals with her flaws and strives to be better. Also demiromantic icon fr

Shen from kung fu panda 2 - truly one of the villains ever. A++ design, actually compelling story, how his struggle with his past and identity reflects and contrasts with Po's,,, it's thematically so GOOD. I just love how he never truly gets over the past even though he claims to tend to the future and he's always terrified of the prophecy even though he acts confident that he's escaped fate. And how po succeeds where he feels,, I think shen can only be fully appreciated in relation to po and that makes me a little insane. I love my drama queen genocidal freak birb

Hobie from across the spiderverse - i think he's my favourite thing to come out of atsv, he's such a guy <33 everything from his design to how well he was executed in spite of so little screentime is top tier. There's a lot to say about his narrative significance, but what i love the most about him is that he embodies the idea that kindness is punk. He's not punk just for the aesthetic, although it seems like he is and that's probably at least partially on purpose; his beliefs are punk and he does not believe in the conformity and suffering that Miguel encourages. He watches out for gwen and miles not just because he doesn't agree with the spider society but because he cares about them. And his kindness doesn't take away from his punkness, compassion and caring IS resistance and I think that's beautiful

Obelix from Asterix - Asterix is one of my all time favourite media I've loved since childhood and it's hard to pick one character because I love all of the main cast so much, but I have to go with the autistic king. He's Wonderful, he's genuinely so funny, his thinking is so straightforward and he feels left out because no one bothers to explain things to him but he cares about Asterix and dogmatix so so much I just. I could cry. And the backstory in how obelix fell into the magic potion adds more to him and his bond with Asterix, like,,, yes

Once again these are 10 characters I thought of now, I might have a different answer later because my feelings about my favourite characters change a lot. But that's my answer for now and sorry for answering so late. Thanks for asking!

[sasubaeuchithot]

what do you think about sakura? i've always been very conflicted or even indifferent to her. i feel like i've either wanted to really like her, but she falls short on every expectation, or i've wanted to really hate her, but she's too bland even for that. i've seen one half of the fandom raise her on a pedestal that i feel she doesn't deserve and the other make her absolute rubbish and that you're supposed to loathe with all your heart.

when it comes to naruto and sasuke, i do think both of them have love for sakura (even sasuke, even though it seems almost blasphemy to say this out loud), as both of them have love as their core characteristic, especially sasuke. i think sakura loves them both too, but i also think she's shallow in her feelings but is capable of reflecting on them. but i also think, often giggling to myself, that she's a smelly sweaty nervous girl when it comes to sasuke and it takes time to grow out of it.

all in all i think people in this fandom often seem to forget nuance and context when talking about her.

i enjoy you writing her, because she has dimension and she's capable of self reflection, but you don't put her on a pedestal.

sorry for the rant, i need other things to think about than my life right now. hope you're doing good and beating your writer's block with a stick!

sakura is very complicated for me. as a character, she enrages me- but not because of her actual personality. it's important when watching any form of fictional media to remember that these are characters, characters who were created by a real person to try to tell a story. all of her unlikable flaws for me all stem from the fact that she was created specifically for the male characters around her. even as early as her character introduction, which was the first plot device we are ever given to paint the rivalry between naruto and sasuke; we are introduced to sakura by naruto proclaiming he has a crush on her, only to see her brush him off and shallowly fangirl over sasuke. this continues throughout the entirety of the story in ways you don't necessarily notice at first, but become glaringly obvious the more you understand the misogyny in kishimoto's writing.

in the beginning of the land of waves arc, kakashi has all three students practicing tree climbing. Sakura, we see, excels at this. this seems great for a female character, right??? look, she's better than her two male teammates!! except that when you take into account that that is basically the one of the like. two times in the entire story we ever see her do better than either Sasuke or Naruto. this moment does more than just fall short due to never being supported again in the narrative once you realize that in actuality, kishimoto wrote her to have excelled so well at controlling her chakra because he wanted to write her out of the scene. that is literally the only reason he wrote her being adept in that moment. he needed naruto and sasuke to bond over training, and he didn't want sakura to be a part of the sentiment. narratively in his mind, she couldn't be! her entire existence was about the OPPOSITE; she was created to show the divide between the other two, so she can't be there to assist in showing their bond.

this is also where the concept of "Sakura is useless" comes from. her character was not created to showcase the world building of ninjutsu, nor was she meant to be the one saving the day. kakashi's character was about worldbuilding; he is the teacher-character who dialog dumps all of the information about how this ninja world operates. and at the beginning, saving the day was largely sasuke's job- to display the incapabilities and shortcomings of naruto- and then that moved onto Naruto's job- to show how far the protagonist has worked and to push the story forward. sakura's purpose of being the representation of how sasuke is Wanted and naruto is Unwanted does not fit in battle, so she is sidelined. for the entire first part of the story, she doesn't even have a jutsu she specializes in!!!! in a show about ninjas!!!!!!!! she is never allowed to display her own adeptness, because it would get in the way of her male counterparts' story. and then in an effort to keep her character relevant later on (and to placate fans I'm sure), kishimoto decides to make her. a fucking medic. a caregiver.

the misogyny of it angers me. she's the main female in your story, and her sole purpose is to support male characters both within the narrative and on the paper. but if i choose to watch/read the story as most other viewers do, devoid of my knowledge of writing fiction, I start to like her come Shippuden. i love the balance she has between her strength and her feminity. i love loud, determined women who show their gentleness selectively. i love her "headstrong combined with arm strong" (I'm quoting myself lmaoooo). but i despise how ALL of that disappears around Sasuke. it's so hard to focus on what I do like about her when kishi takes every opportunity he can to display the fact that she is very much Written By A Man™.

one super frustrating challenge that i had was the fact that I had to start out sakura's character in my own fanfiction complying with these awful character traits for her. my goal of kizuna hikari was to have everyone as canonically in-character as possible- which includes inheriting sakura's misogynistic character purpose. but i refused to keep her that way. so her character arc for me was shedding off her male-centric character traits. it took the whole fucking fic to undo kishi's work lmaoooo. i had to really gnaw away at her dependency on Sasuke, which involved keeping her narrative unfortunately still centered around him. but now i feel like now I'll actually be able to write her as her OWN character for the sequel, thank fucking god.

what you said about Naruto and Sasuke loving her is so true, and I see it the same way. their core character traits are both about loving deeply and intensely, so it's difficult for me to see either of them NOT caring about her. Sasuke at his heart is gentle and kind, rude as he can outwardly be. he naturally craves love. Sakura for sure is delusional, and a lot of her infatuation with Sasuke is rose-tinted, but I don't think ALL of it is. she does care for and love Sasuke- she's just lost in her own fantasy with it.

i really enjoyed writing her finally coming to terms with her delusions, realizing what parts of Sasuke she had been glamorizing and finally seeing him for himself. from where I've left off with her at the end of the povs, she did not fall out of love with him even though she came to terms with sasuke and naruto's relationship, which tells me that I think that she does harbor real love for him in canon. i can't wait to expand on her in the sequel and see how that develops.

[mttbrandgender]

ATLA Netflix thoughts

Okay, I am going to break down my very strong feelings about what little information we have on the ATLA live adaptation because I cannot physically keep this to myself. I am throwing this together pretty last minuet so it is less structured than I would like but this is what I’ve got time for right now.

A few things that I feel are important to know about me before we start. Firstly, I do not believe that any visual media should be adapted to another visual media, especially animated media into live actions. There has never been anything animated that has been made better in a live action adaptation. Animation is a sacred media to me, specifically 2D animation. Secondly, I adore Avatar: The Last Airbender. I watched it as it aired when I was super young and have rewatched it countless times since then. It is legitimately my favorite show. Thirdly, I am a hater, I love to tear into things and dissect them so this will be a lot of that. There will also probably be a lot more when the show also comes out. Alright, anyway!

As soon as I heard there would be a live action remake, safe to say I was not excited. I heard the original creators of the show were involved and I still did not feel good about it. ATLA really was perfect in my eyes. It was done in a perfect medium and was a perfect story with characters that felt REAL. How would remaking it in live action add to this nearly untouchable show add value? My partner has urged me to keep an open mind and not hate it entirely before we could watch it. So, I put it in the back of my mind and didn’t think about it too much for a while.

Until, suddenly, articles started to come out about what liberties the new showrunners decided to take with the show. I knew I should probably not have read them, usually I don’t even watch trailers for things I want to watch but I decided I had to know what was being said, I was painfully curious.

The first thing that I saw was that Sokka’s sexism was ‘iffy’ and ‘didn’t hold up’ so they decided to take it out of their version. I was completely shocked. Sokka’s sexism in the series WAS iffy but it was called out as such WITHIN THE NARRATIVE. That’s how they found Aang in the first place, Sokka was being sexist and Katara got angry about it. We are introduced to Sokka as a flawed character who holds these misguided beliefs about women because of the circumstances he was raised in. It is not a glorified concept within the show. Throughout the three seasons, we as an audience not only get to watch him unlearn these concepts but we also get to watch strong female characters speak out against sexism without being brushed off. It is essential to the plot and instills in its audience that it is okay to have to unlearn these ignorant beliefs, it doesn’t make you a bad person. Sokka is not a bad person or a bad character because he holds these beliefs. We get to explore why he feels that way while also watching him learn to be better. Why would you want to take that out? Because sexism is problematic, and we don’t want our show to be problematic! Look how progressive it is! You are robbing this character of the ability to change and grow because from the jump they are not flawed.

This leads to the next issue. They are writing Aang to be more responsible and ‘driven’ leaving less time for fun side quests. What? I’m sorry I must have misread that; you want the 12-year-old boy who froze himself in the ice originally because he did not want to do Avatar stuff to come out of it and immediately want to get straight to business?? That just rubs me the wrong way. In the original show, we get to see Aang slowly come to terms with his responsibilities while also acting in a way that is realistic for someone who is 12. I also saw someone say that nearly every shot of Aang in the trailer was him with a serious face. The charm of the show and Aang as our main character is that he’s a kid! He acts like a 12-year-old kid and matures as he goes through more experiences with his friends. Where is the integrity of these characters? It seems like these showrunners are so afraid to showcase any of the characters as flawed and how can you have perfectly responsible unproblematic characters that are also children?

At this point, it feels like what they need is a character integrity team to help them make these decisions because they are striking out so far. Why are we robbing these characters of their arcs? By taking away any issue or flaw, you’re taking away so much potential. This takes me back to my original thought which is why the hell would you want to take something that is so highly acclaimed and beloved and remake it? You are setting yourself up to fail no matter what. This is not a story that needs retelling in my opinion. I would much rather they take all this creative energy and resources and use them to write something else in this world. Why retell the story when you could write a new one with new characters that people haven’t spent nearly 20 years watching and loving?

The most recent thing I read was that they wanted to ‘solve’ some of the ‘gender issues’ Katara faced in the original show. Like the earlier bit with Sokka’s sexism, I take huge issue with this. These two things play into each other. Katara is not nurturing and motherly because she’s a girl. She and Sokka lost their mom when they were very young and almost immediately after, their father left for the war. Sokka and Katara were made to take on these roles at a super young age because of this conflict. Sokka is attempting to be the man of the house, trying to imitate his dad as best he can in order to fulfill that role. We know from The Waterbending Master that the water tribes hold some sexist beliefs, as Master Pakku will not instruct Katara because she’s a girl. From that, it’s not a crazy notion that Sokka might hold some of those beliefs from his upbringing. It is also critical to Katara’s character because she was fulfilling that motherly role after her mother passed. She doesn’t do it perfectly; she has a lot of control issues and can have a bit of a temper. Neither of them are bad nor outdated character because of these things. It’s a realistic reaction to the situation they found themselves in. Through their experiences in the show, they learn and grow into better and better versions of themselves. Why would the showrunners want to take that all away?

There are also so many bigger pictures issues I have thought about as well that we don’t have an answer to yet. The pacing, what they plan on fitting into the first season, how long are the episodes, etc. I am still attempting to stay open, but it is really getting hard the more I hear about it. Thank you for reading my rant and I’ll see y’all in 20 days for the premiere, I will be taking notes. :)

[aaronymous999]

Overview of my thoughts on all the main movies/movie franchises/tv shows of the MCU, also a ranking on what’s worth watching:

Ironman: Tony Stark is an awful guy and these movies reek with some weird propaganda and odd writing choices, but if you like Robert Downey Jr’s acting and the funny quips? Enjoyable enough films.

Captain America: 2/3 of his movies are pretty good once you look past more propaganda, although I think after the first movie it’s not as big of an issue for him. He’s a bit boring but his first movie, propaganda aside is pretty alright. I was so fucking tired during the second one so I barely remember it but I’ll trust everyone else’s judgement, it’s probably good. Civil war is god awful.

The Incredible Hulk: Half this movie is retconned, they recast Bruce Banner, they don’t really bring up this movie ever again and it’s awful don’t watch.

Thor: ALL of his movies are aggressively mediocre, yes even Ragnorok, that movie is only enjoyable because of Hulk. Thor is a boring character, his first movie is an alright one off but pretty boring and he has no need to have four movies like c’mon. His villains are not enjoyable and honestly I’d recommend skipping all but maybe the first ( if you already like Thor ) and Ragnorok, because that movie has important plot stuff.

Avengers: All pretty alright movies, especially Endgame that’s a great movie ( Scott Lang my beloved, tbh he makes it great ) and all of them are plot important would recommend.

Guardians of the Galaxy: All bangers left and right, amazing movies, hilarious, can be watched separate from the MCU spare for the third. The characters are wonderful and the only weak members of the bunch were post Guardians 1 Groot and Drax, but even then they were alright.

Ant-Man: His first movie is fucking amazing and it doesn’t even feel like an MCU movie which is my HIGHEST praise. Only watch the other two if you REALLY liked Scott Lang and the first movie.

Doctor Strange: Boring character, first movie was just alright, second was only fun because of Wanda and America. Other than that both his movies are kinda boring.

Spider-Man: If you like Spider-Man, these are great and still really fun despite the- MCU-ness. But if you don’t like Spider-Man the hype kind of disappears and it’s easier to notice the flaws, honestly I’d just watch No Way Home if anything.

Black Panther: First movie is good and solid! No complaints, haven’t watched the second although tbh pretty fucked up what Marvel has done to Tchalla after Chadwick Boseman’s death- mini rant but do y’all know that in like every Black Panther media right now even outside of the MCU they just killed him off?! Like imagine playing an iconic character and you die, and like it’s cool the movies are honoring your legacy! But then they kill off your character in comics, upcoming video games, etc like what the fuck?

Captain Marvel: It’s alright, not feminist at all the alt righters have lied to you. Biggest flaw of the film is the military stuff, the Kree and Captain Marvel’s actress because she does not emote the emotions she is supposed to in scenes so she just ends up visually looking like an ass but the writing wants to make her out as a playful girlboss???

Wandavision: GOOD!! Underrated honestly, Vision and Wanda are both wonderful characters and the filming techniques and storytelling is amazing. The pacing is off like all MCU shows but I think Wandavision makes up for it!

The Falcon and the Winter Soldier: Boring. Falcon becomes Captain America at the end, boom all you need to know not worth watching, they don’t even explore cool characters like Issiah well and it sucks.

Loki: BAD SHOW. First 3 episodes are fascinating but then it becomes a shipping show all about Loki wanting to shag the female version of himself and it’s like dude WHAT. I never really liked Loki, but the TVA is a cool concept but it’s barely explored because of the Loki and Sylvia crap. The ending also sucks and explains nothing and the villain is boring.

Black Widow: It’s okay. Skippable.

What If…?: Eh it’s alright. Managed to make Thor more funny though than he’s ever been in his movies!

Shang-Chi: Pretty boring. Skippable.

Eternals: Boring and horrible and awful don’t fucking watch it it makes you brain hurt and oh my god was that harry styles at the end or was I hallucinating

Hawkeye: Haven’t watched it yet, I have a feeling it will be awfully boring.

Moon Knight: GOOD AND INTERESTING AND FUN!! MOON KNIGHT IS COOL! The depiction of DID isn’t. The best. They do show concepts in a more realistic way in terms of how alters are formed often as a survival method but it plays into some evil alter tropes and stuff so justified if you don’t want to watch. If you can enjoy the show despite that it’s a good watch! Steven Grant is precious I love him <3

Ms. Marvel: It’s? Alright I suppose? Middleground for MCU shows but ultimately skippable.

She-Hulk: I am. Mentally preparing myself to watch it okay I’ll do it later.

Werewolf by Night: Haven’t watched but I severely doubt it will be relevant to the overarching plot.

Secret Invasion; Haven’t watched. I hate Nick Fury.

[traumatizedbymay2016]

So I'm a recently out transgirl (happy pride!), and as a result I've been thinking a lot about intersectionality recently, and I think I've had something of a meaningful insight.

I've seen a lot of discourse about whether or not it's ok to sexualize female characters, and, if it is, when/where/how is acceptable. It's something I've avoided talking about because, as someone who experiences that objectification as "proof I'm a real girl" a lot of the time, I felt like I was contributing to the problem. However, I've started to think that entire discourse is a red herring of sorts.

Let me explain.

It's important to be aware of how you do or don't sexualize your characters in media because there is a very fine line between that and sexualizing your audience. A large part of the question is if your audience is being sexualized in a way they appreciate or not --- this is why discussions about sexualization of super heroes tend to go do poorly. Men like being sexualized as "big and strong and in total control" and so miss the nuance of women disliking being sexualized as "dainty and fragile and performing femininity flawlessly even when it is unreasonable (or even impossible) to do so." Carol Danvers shouldn't have to be fragile to be beautiful, etc.etc.

However, the knee jerk reaction of never sexualizing female characters has the potential to stray back into puritanical policing of womens' bodies, which isn't ideal.

So, what then? Are female characters just limited to choosing between "Sex Object" and "TradWife"?

Well, no. And I felt a little dumb when I realized the actual problem.

Sexualizing female characters is a problem largely because it is consistently happening to the only female characters on the cast.

When you have one token female character and choose to have her be sexualized, you're taking a shortcut, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in the question we started with about sexualizing your audience. When you say "This is our character who represents All Women; she's a size zero d cup with perfect makeup in spite of being actively in a torture style interrogation sequence" what you are saying us "A high enough portion of women are (or should be) like this that this is a representative sample." Or, in other words, "If you are a woman and aren't like this, you're a deviation from the norm." You are sexualizing your audience. Of course, changing this solitary woman character to any other archetype is equally lacking in effective representation, it's just moving in a different imbalanced direction...

...so, like, just have more women in media, fivehead?

Like, I'm not going to say that it's perfect, but Iron Man 2 Black Widow feels way less egregious than Avengers Black Widow (at least to me), and I feel like a massive portion of that is that also on cast is "Traditional Ambitious Career Woman Pepper Potts," so "Sexy Secret Agent" feels less entirely isolating there than it does when she's the literal only woman in the room. Obviously there's flaws in both --- IM2 is still pretty male gazey toward her --- but you can see the point.

Every time you add a woman to the narrative with a distinctive personality and characterization and level of sexualization lessens the death grip any single characterization will have on your viewers' perception of female characters as a whole.

If you add just a little meaningful thought into why you're having one or two characters out of a group of several be sexualized (as opposed to "Oh she's gonna SEDUCE MEN so she can KILL THEM oOoOoOoh EMPOWERMENT #feminism), especially if they have different reasons from each other for doing so, it starts to become obvious that the problem has always been the combination of sexualized characters along with not enough characters, not the mere concept of a sexualized character.

Tl;dr: Write more female characters per story and give them real depth/put real thought into them, and having one of them be sexualized is not an issue. Having women be a very low percentage of your characters but having a very high percentage of them be sexualized is the source of the problem.

P.S.: While I'm not a part of many other minority demographics, I have a sneaking suspicion that this idea applies to a lot of problematic stereotypes, considering that it feels relevant to both my experience as a trans person and as a woman. I would be interested to hear thoughts from other groups. After all, that's the point of intersectionality, right?

[lala-blahblah]

ok reblogging to add my Media Analysis Feminism thoughts just for @paroxysmaljune because this was too long for a comment. MY THOUGHTS ARE SCATTERED I'm sorry.

Anyway hiiiii, so I'm not going to track down any sources for this so you just gotta take my word for it and understand that I am widely condensing this and thus missing out on a lot of important history stuff. But basically I've done a few papers throughout college focusing on pieces of media and the year they came out and how their representation of women mirrors the wave of feminism at the time. American feminism has had 4 waves as of now, you have the suffragettes with the right to vote, you have the 60s and seventies with women aiming for job equality in the work place and free sex/birth control, you have the 90s early otts which has never been explained well to me but it's the riot grrrl girl power movement with female punk which had some good stuff but also some weird stuff with gender roles being pervasive still. It was kinda the "not like other girls" era, where women tried to empower themselves by pushing down certain forms of femininity, but still frowning upon women who strayed too far from the feminine ideal. Also there was an effort to include more women of color (I think of bell hooks but I'm sure there are so many more). And then you have fourth wave which people say was started by the me too movement. Academia is like a decade behind current events so fourth wave was never taught to me in school, but my understanding is that it is about how the internet has impacted the reach of feminism AND a large focus on intersectionality, especially with queer folks and I would say we are still very much in the midst of this with fighting for bodily autonomy alongside trans folks with right to abortion and everything. So for example, the first comics with Peggy Carter came out in the 70s and she is in a comic book where she is on the front lines in the war effort, which is when there was the big push for women to have the right to getting the same jobs as men. And Percy Jackson came out during the early 2000s where Annabeth was really cool and powerful and smart and she didn't like makeup or wear dresses. These were both feminist at the time even though today we can see some of the flaws (Peggy Carter's life focuses on a hetero romance plot and men do all the big fighting, Percy Jackson makes fun of women who care too much (aphrodite campers) and not enough about their appearance (clarisse)). But we have to still acknowledge what it was doing at the time, because these are important stepping stones to where we are today.

Ace attorney is something that is both not feminist now AND not feminist at the time. Ace attorney came out between 2001-2008 (AND to be fair this is a game in adaptation so Japan's culture would have had a big impact on the characterization and plot of these characters. AND I never studied feminist movements in Japan so this is not actually gonna be the most in depth analysis but I'm not in school anymore so it's whateverrr). But it is sooo palpable to me that we are in the space between second and fourth wave. Because yes Mia is a woman studying law! She is up there amongst the men having the same job and she is just as capable as Nick is (maybe more so because she doesn't get nervous and seem to bluff as much as Nick does). So ok, second wave, check. But there is zero self awareness about the treatment of Mia (which is so dumb because Legally Blonde addressed the issue with overlooking women in law in 2001. So why are we still here... maybe they didn't watch legally blonde in japan). The me too movement was important in that it brought up the concept of calling out behavior from men that had been swept under the rug and ignored (also bigger themes of acknowledging the prevalence of SA of course that's just not relevant here) and NOBODY IS CALLING OUT THESE MEN!!! All the men in positions of power are engaging in this behavior! And nobody is saying anything so they're just getting away with it as a joke. So Mia may have the same job that men do but she is not being treated as an equal. Gumshoe the detective comments on how hot she is while on the stand in front of everyone. Miles and Armando both insult her by calling her young and stupid and inexperienced but they do so in a way that calls out her femininity. Miles uses bimbo, a term specifically associated with women that are stupid, and Armando asserts his masculinity over her in a weird paternalistic way by calling her kitten and emphasizing how young she is (even though there's only a 3 year gap) while also kind of flirting with her??? And it's like! Ok yeah the court rooms are ALWAYS insane in this game. Everyone ALWAYS makes fun of the defense attorney and the prosecution gets away with crazy stuff for comedy reasons. BUT NOBODY CALLS NICK KITTEN!!! Nobody flirts with him on purpose to make him uncomfortable while exercising power over him. Nobody is like "wow you've got a great ass Nick"! Ok I don't know if anyone actually calls Mia out on her boobs explicitly I think that would be too much even for this game but you get it! I think the closest comparison to make my point would be, what if every time they demeaned Nick they made a comment about his race. Like instead of being like "wow you sure are dumb nick" if they went "Wow you sure are dumb Nick which is weird because you're asian aren't you supposed to be smart hahaha". Likeee that's a microagression baby. In that same way, all the jokes suddenly get very pointedly about her femininity when Mia comes on stand! Yes it's not meant to be taken seriously but if we don't have anyone shutting down that behavior or being admonished for it in the narrative, then like... you don't see the gravity o f the situation. This is a real thing that happens in male dominated fields and it's awful! And it shouldn't happen! And it's not actually funny because it's too real. You can tell that this game happened during third wave because although it doesn't do anything noteworthy as far as empowering women, it DOES explicitly make markers of "good" and "bad" femininity. Specifically when women go on the stand with a lot of cleavage they are BAD because they're being SEXY and PROVOCATIVE which is a sign of BAD MORALS and they deserve to be MOCKED! But not before we objectify them!

Ok, I was kind of exaggerating at the end. I still really enjoy a lot of it and I've talked before about how I think Ace Attorney is kind of iconic for the range in acceptable forms of masculinity that they include, specifically for having Nick being a caretaker who saves the day by being in tune with the emotions of others as the male protagonist. And we DO see Mia held up as a super capable and smart lawyer who Nick relies heavily on. Nick always shows respect for her, which holds weight because he is the protagonist and the one whose eyes we are meant to see the world through, he is supposed to have the morally correct opinions. And Maya is really cool with her powers! But then again Maya is constantly getting kidnapped or something and needs a guy to save her, and Nick never stands up for Maya when people like Larry who is 7 years older than her try to flirt with her, he just silently stands there and thinks "wow Larry sure is weird". So it does some cool stuff! But not enough cool stuff! And most importantly, we as the audience aren't told that the bad stuff is bad in a strong enough way for it to feel like commentary. So in my ideal world, when people make comments about Mia, Mia would have one guy character on her side who supports her and they both say wow you guys are weird freaks and that's not ok! And ideally they would make fun of Mia for dumb things like her asymmetrical bangs instead of her womanhood. And also ideally Nick would slap Larry for being weird to Maya. And also Miles Edgeworth would reference Judith Butler to show how much he supports women. And also -

"ace attorney trials and tribulations turnabout beginnings" more like "ace attorney and the numerous instances of workplace harassment", why is literally everyone oogling Mia or demeaning her for being a woman GET ME OUT OF HEREEEEEEEE!!

[star-anise]

Ok, I'll bite. What *is* the difference between Bridgerton and Jane Austen in relationship to their skirts?

Oh! Not in their costuming, just in their general *waves hands* everything. It's a comment I see a lot about Bridgerton: "Well, it's not much like Austen, is it?"

That's because there are 200 years of literary history between the two, and they have not been empty!

This ended up being 1.5k words, but when I put stuff under a readmore, people don't actually read it and then just yell at me because of a misread of the 1/10th of the post they did read. Press j to skip or get ready to do a lot of scrolling (It takes four generous flicks to get past on my iPhone).

First I'll say my perspective on this is hugely shaped by Sherwood Smith, who has done a lot of research on silver fork novels and the way the Regency has been remembered in the romance genre.

The Regency and Napoleonic eras stretch from basically the 1790s to 1820, and after that, it was hard to ignore the amount of social change happening in Britain and Europe. The real watershed moment is the 1819 Peterloo Massacre, where 60,000 working-class people protesting for political change were attacked by a militia. The issues of poverty, class, industrialization, and social change are inescapable, and we end up with things like the 1832 Reform Act and 1834 Poor Law.

This is why later novelists, like Charles Dickens and Elizabeth Gaskell, are so concerned with the experiences of the urban poor. Gaskell's North and South has been accurately described as "Pride and Prejudice for socialists."

So almost as soon as it ended, people started to look back and mythologize the Regency as a halcyon era, back when rich people could just live their rich lives and fret about "only" having three hundred pounds a year to live on. Back when London society was the domain of hereditary landowners, when you weren't constantly meeting with jumped-up industrialists and colonials.

Jane Austen is kind of perfect for this because she comes at the very end of the long eighteenth century, and her novels show hints of the tremors that are about to completely reshape England, but still comfortably sit in the old world. ("The Musgroves, like their houses, were in a state of alteration, perhaps of improvement. The father and mother were in the old English style, and the young people in the new. Mr and Mrs Musgrove were a very good sort of people; friendly and hospitable, not much educated, and not at all elegant. Their children had more modern minds and manners.")

Sherwood Smith covers the writers who birthed the Silver Fork genre in detail, but there's one name that stands out in its history more than any other: Georgette Heyer.

Georgette Heyer basically single-handedly established the Regency Romance as we know it today. Between 1935 and 1972, she published 26 novels set in a meticulously researched version of London of the late 18th and early 19th century. She took Silver Fork settings and characters and turned them into a highly recognizable set of tropes, conventions, and types. (As Sherwood points out, her fictional Regency England isn't actually very similar to the period as it really happened; it's like Arthurian Camelot, a mythical confection with a dash of truth for zest.)

Regency Romance is an escapist genre in which a happy, prosperous married life is an attainable prize that will solve everything for you. Georgette Heyer's novels are bright, sparkling, delightful romps through a beautiful and exotic world. Her female characters have spirit and vivacity, and are allowed to have flaws and make mistakes without being puritanically punished for them. Her romances have real unique sparks to them. She's able to write a formula over and over without it becoming dull.

And.... well. The essay that introduced me to Heyer still, in my opinion, says it best:

Here's the thing about Georgette Heyer: she hates you. Or, okay, she doesn't hate you, exactly. It's just that unless you are white, English, and upper class (and hale, and hearty, and straight, and and and), she thinks you are a lesser being. [...W]ith Heyer, I knew where I stood: somewhere way below the bottom rung of humanity. Along with everyone else in the world except Prince William and four of his friends from Eton, which really took away the sting. But my point is: if you are not that white British upper-class person of good stock and hearty bluffness and a large country estate, the only question for you is which book will contain a grimly bigoted caricature of you featuring every single stereotyped trait ever associated with your particular group. (You have to decide for yourself if really wonderful female characters and great writing are worth the rest of it.)

So Heyer created the genre, but she exacerbated the flaw that was always at the heart of fiction about the Regency, was that its appeal was not having to deal with the inherent rot of the British aristocracy. I think part of why it's such a popular genre in North America specifically is that we often don't know much British history, so we can focus more on the perfume and less on the dank odor it's hiding.

And like, escapism is not a bad thing. Romance writers as a community have sat down and said: We are an escapist genre. The Romance Writers of America, one of the biggest author associations out there, back when they were good, have foundationally said: "Two basic elements comprise every romance novel: a central love story and an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending." A strong part of the community argue that publishing in the genre is a "contract" between author and reader: If it's marketed as a romance book, there's a Happily Ever After. If there's no Happily Ever After, it's not romance.

It's important for people to be able to take a break from the stresses of their lives and do things that are enjoyable. But the big question the romance genre in particular has to deal with is, who should be allowed to escape? Is it really "escapist" if only white, straight, upper class, able-bodied thin cis people get to escape into it? In historical romance, this is especially an issue for POC and LGBTQ+ people. It's taken a lot of work, in a genre dominated by the Georgette Heyers of the world, to try to hew out the space for optimistic romances for people of colour or LGBTQ+ people. These are minority groups that deal with a literally damaging amount of stress in real lives; they are in especial need of sources of comfort, refuge, community, and encouragement. For brief introductions to the issue, I can give you Talia Hibbert on race, and KJ Charles on LGBTQ+ issues.

Up until the 1990s, the romance genre evolved slowly. It did evolve; Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan's Beyond Heaving Bosoms charts the demise of the "bodice-ripper" genre as it became more acceptable for women to have and enjoy sex. The historical romance genre became more accommodating to non-aristocratic heroines, or ones that weren't thin or conventionally pretty. The first Bridgerton book, The Duke and I, was published in 2000, and has that kind of vibe: Its characters are all white but not all of them are aristocrats, its heroines are frequently not conventionally beautiful and occasionally plump, and its cultivation to modern sensibility is reflected in its titles, which reference popular media of today.

This is just my impression, but I think that while traditional mainstream publishing was beginning to diversify in the 1990s, the Internet was what really made diverse romance take off. Readers, reviewers, and authors could talk more freely on the internet, which allowed books to become unlikely successes even if their publishers didn't promote them very much. Then e-publishing meant that authors could market directly to their readers without the filter of a publishing house, and things exploded. Indie ebooks proved that there was a huge untapped market.

One of my favourite books, Zen Cho's Sorcerer to the Crown, is an example of what historical romance is like today; it's a direct callback and reclamation of Georgette Heyer, with a dash of "Fuck you and all your prejudices" on top of it. It fearlessly weaves magic into a classic Heyer plot, maintaining the essential structure while putting power into the hands of people of colour and non-Western cultures, enjoying the delights of London society while pointing out and dodging around the rot. It doesn't erase the ugliness, but imagines a Britain that is made better because its poor, its immigrants, its people of colour, and the foreign countries it interacts with have more power to make their voices heard and to enforce their wills. Another book I've loved that does the same thing is Courtney Milan's The Duke Who Didn't.

So then... Bridgerton the TV show is trying to take a book series with a very middle-of-the-road approach to diversity, differing from Heyer but not really critiquing her, and giving it a facelift to bring it up to date.

So to be honest, although it's set in the same time period as Austen, it's not in the least her literary successor. It's infinitely more "about" the past 30 years of conversation and art in the romance genre than it is about books written 200 years ago.

[just-another-frender-blog]

Would you call Futurama a feminist show? I probably would with some exceptions. Leela and Amy are strong women, but it's so obvious that men are writing for these characters. They're nice to each other 90% of the time, but Amy makes occasional digs at Leela to remind us "haha lolz women hate each other for no reason!!" I hope the revival drops that bullshit. Also, they've been obnoxiously sexualized, and we've all seen the misogyny in "Amazon Women in the Mood" and "Neutopia" (admittedly, those episodes were misandrist, too.) In fact, "Neutopia" was one of the episodes that sexualized them, lmao. What tf was Leela wearing in that photoshoot?

But they're still strong female characters with their own agency and storylines. Amy is silly and goofy but in an endearing way, not in a "lol girls are so dumb" way. I feel like one of the Comedy Central revival's strengths is that it gave Amy more to do? She had multiple episodes centered around her. And Leela is obviously the badass starship captain. The way she defies Zapp's bullshit is hilarious, lmao. "Our love has had to endure your constant hatred!" The show never acts like she should "give him a chance" or whatever.

Leela also never takes any shit from the guys, and the joke is usually on them for being lazy idiots. I actually saw a guy on a Futurama forum (this was back in 2013) complaining that some episodes basically said "Women are better than men at everything." I wouldn't go that far, especially with the issues that I mentioned above, but Leela's definitely above it all, lmao.

Would I call Futurama a feminist show? That's an interesting question, and I don't have a straightforward answer. I know that Futurama mainly had male writers, though it did have a couple of female writers. I don't know if any of them returned for the Comedy Central reboot. There is only one episode where a woman is credited as the head writer: "Leela's Homeworld." It was written by Kristen Gore (Al Gore's daughter), and she did not return as a writer for Futurama when it was brought back. Disclaimer: everything I say in this essay is my personal opinion and my personal takeaway from the show. 

I see male writers say that they can't write female characters well because they don't understand the "female heart" or some bullshit. That's not true because there are plenty of male writers who can write them well. Hell, a lot of female authors are shit at writing female characters too. The majority of shows, movies, books, etc. have terribly written female characters. To the point where it's a big deal when I watch something that doesn't have terribly written female characters. I also see people praise shows they like for the bare minimum.

The problem with female characters that writers of all genders seem to have is that they write them as women first and characters second. Male characters are written as characters first; they are allowed to be complex. They are not defined by terms such as "strong male character" or "male love interest." There are a number of reasons why this is an issue when writing women, but the core of it all is that many people do not view women as being human, or as unique individuals. This has been a problem with gender constructs throughout history, and it affects the media we watch.

For a feminist show, the most important thing to me would be well-written female characters. There are a number of things that need to be considered when defining a well-written female character:

Does she have a defined personality?

Does she have flaws? What are her strengths?

Does she have a character arc with character development?

Does her character arc revolve around her relationship with another man (usually romantic)?

Is she written consistently? Is she written out of character to suit the plot?

Does she have meaningful relationships outside of her male love interest?

Does she have meaningful relationships with other women?

How often is she sexualized? Is that deconstructed or commented on in any way?

Does she have agency? Does she have control over the plot?

I think a lot of people get confused about this and think "oh physically strong female characters who beat up the bad guys." With these types of female characters, you get very bland "sexy, strong" types who end up with an unremarkable male protagonist. This is defined as the "girlboss and malewife dynamic," which is often handled very poorly in my opinion. With this type of dynamic, I generally see the male character get meaningful development, while the female character is there to be the love interest (but disguised with a feminist coat of paint). The issue with dynamics like these is that they are written to be power fantasies for male viewers at the expense of quality.

Movies and shows in more recent years have a problem where an unremarkable (but secretly really special) male protagonist is handed a femme fatale or a manic pixie dream girl on a silver platter. Think Emmet from the Lego Movie or Johnny from Hotel Transylvania. Thankfully, Leela and Fry's relationship tends to avoid this for the most part. I think the biggest reason is that David X Cohen said he really didn't want Fry to end up with Leela initially, but reconsidered later in the show. Leela was not created to be a female love interest for the male protagonist; as such, she was allowed to be her own character.

Let's talk about Leela, who really surprised me as a character. I didn't know anything about her before I watched Futurama other than her having one eye and that she ended up with the MC. When I started watching the show, I found that I really liked Leela; I liked her character design, I liked her voice, I liked her friendship with Fry and Bender, and I loved her personality. I was impressed that Leela had a very meaningful character arc that wasn't defined by her relationship with a male love interest (the bar is on the ground), and instead focused on self-discovery.

Leela is written to be a deconstruction of the "strong female character" archetype. She's the pilot, she's level-headed, she's intelligent, and she's talented. In addition to being Fry and Bender's boss, she's generally the one rescuing both of them from danger. She's the only one out of the trio who can fight, and come up with escape plans. The show also respects this aspect of the status quo; Leela's job is never taken over by a male character, whereas this would be the case in other shows.

Despite Leela's tough exterior, she has a soft side. She cares deeply about protecting the innocent, particularly animals and children. She cares a lot about fighting for the rights of oppressed groups and gets involved in politics. Out of all the characters, Leela fits a classic heroic archetype the best, a role rarely given to female characters. However, she's a flawed individual as well; she has a temper and a darker side. She can make bad decisions that occasionally harm others. This is why I think Leela is a deconstruction of the strong female character archetype because you don't often see these complexities with such characters.

Leela's character arc and character development are great. She's been made to feel insecure about her appearance and status as a non-human her entire life. Throughout the show, she learns to accept that part of herself and even embrace her uniqueness, learning not to change who she is (especially for shitty men). Leela unraveling her past, the circumstances of her birth, and finally reuniting with her parents is beautiful and is one of the strongest moments in the show. Leela struggles to develop a familial relationship with them as an adult and make up for the lost time.

I think my biggest issue is that I wanted more of this. I wanted more episodes about Leela's past, her childhood, her parents, her struggles, etc. because she is such an interesting character to me. In the CC revival, we got a couple of interesting Leela episodes but didn't get enough. And I noticed a lot of episodes about Leela weren't written with the same amount of care as the earlier episodes. Another thing I noticed about Leela's character in the CC revival is her relationship with Fry. She was written out of character to create relationship drama, and I personally never got a sense of what she really wanted out of that relationship until the very end of the show.

In the Fox era, a lot of episodes about Fry and Leela's relationship are very well written. In episodes like "Love and Rocket" or "The Sting," you get a sense that Leela does reciprocate, but she's not ready for a relationship with Fry, who seems to respect that. I really liked this a lot because Leela had a traumatic past, maybe needs to work on herself, and doesn't need a partner as immature as Fry. In the CC era, their relationship felt more one-sided on Fry's end. I wanted to know more about how Leela felt; I wanted her to have more agency. The CC era started slipping into the issue where Leela started to be written less as a character and more as a plot device for certain episodes.

Now, I want to talk about Amy. I really like Amy as a character as well. You get the sense that she is feminine, yet tomboyish. She's very intelligent but dorky and clumsy. In addition, she seems to be very comfortable with her sexuality, which is a welcome choice. She's adorable and I've always liked how she seems to be a foil for Fry. Amy is the second most prominent female character after Leela, and I think she has a lot of potential as a character. The problem is that potential is never utilized. I’ve noticed it’s common for authors to write female characters (a lot of minorities as well) with a lot of potential, only to waste that potential. 

I started showing one of my best friends Futurama right before I started writing for it. Amy quickly became her favorite character and she asked me which episodes were Amy-centric episodes. I had to tell her that there were barely any of them in the entire show despite Futurama having 140 episodes. Many episodes where Amy is centric to the plot are barely about her and barely develop her as a character. They are mainly about her relationship with other men as well. “Put Your Head On My Shoulders” is about her affair with Fry and “Proposition Infinity” is about her affair with Bender. “Where the Buggalo Roam” is about Kif’s insecurities. 

“Kif Gets Knocked Up a Notch” is also about her relationship with Kif, but it’s still a fantastic episode for Amy. It’s actually quite progressive for the time (and for being an mpreg episode), and says quite a bit about how women are pressured into motherhood. We see how Amy doesn’t truly want that, and the show doesn’t demonize her. Instead, it sends the message that women should wait until they’re ready, or they don’t need to have children at all. I think Kif being the one to get pregnant is a nice touch in my eyes, rather than forcing the burden of pregnancy onto Amy. 

“That Darn Katz!” is a very mediocre episode, and it made me wish that there were more episodes about Amy like the one where Kif gets pregnant. I really enjoy Kif’s relationship with Amy a lot because he really respects Amy as a person. And then Amy truly loves Kif even if he isn’t a “conventionally attractive” guy. Their relationship feels queer to me due to the interspecies aspect and that Amy and Kif aren’t defined by rigid gender roles in their relationship. It’s honestly quite refreshing, even though the CC reboot messes up their relationship from time to time.

For the final part of this analysis, I really want to address Amy and Leela’s relationship with each other. I also think their relationship has a lot wasted potential, especially because we see how well this show writes male friendships. There are a lot of episodes about Fry and Bender’s relationship, and a great episode about Zoidberg and Farnsworth’s relationship. There is only a single episode about Amy and Leela’s relationship, and it’s a writer’s poorly disguised fetish episode: “The Butterjunk Effect.” This episode does a huge disservice to Amy and Leela’s characters by fetishizing them and turning them into abusive people.

Amy and Leela are at each other’s throats for petty and shallow reasons. Amy is constantly making fun of Leela’s appearance (something that Leela is very insecure about as I noted earlier), and Leela is incredibly jealous of the fact that Amy can get guys easily. Leela also makes some... interesting comments about Amy being more sexually active, as well as Amy’s race. I think it’s clear that Amy and Leela are both jealous of each other for one reason or another, which could be explored and developed, but it’s not. It’s merely used as a gag that gets old over time.

Instead, the audience is told that this is just what female friendships are like. Women are mean to each other and constantly fighting for the attention of guys, and are naturally shallow. The nature of to Amy and Leela’s relationship is not true to their characters at all. Amy isn’t a shallow woman, as shown through her relationship with Kif. Leela is gentle and strong-willed at heart, showing kindness to others even if it’s against her better judgement. See what I mean by female characters being written as women first and characters second? Amy and Leela’s relationship was the most disappointing thing to me when I watched Futurama.

I know that Futurama is older, but it’s not insanely old. There are plenty of ways Amy and Leela’s relationship could’ve been given a lot more depth. They could’ve had Amy look up to Leela. Leela is an older, cooler career woman who doesn’t take shit from anyone and outperforms her male coworkers. However, Amy is so starstruck around Leela that she constantly says the wrong thing, or she’s too flustered by Leela. Thus, Leela just assumes Amy hates her. Amy eventually overcomes her shyness and slowly forms a bond with Leela, who starts to mentor Amy in return. Leela begins to appreciate her relationship with Amy, as she didn’t have many close friends growing up due to the constant bullying. 

I’m not saying that’s the right way to fix their relationship, but I personally think something like that is more accurate to them as characters. And it’s not a perfect relationship at first, but they start to develop nice chemistry during the show's runtime. So my answer to the initial question about Futurama being a feminist show: it could be worse. Amy and Leela are great female characters and enjoy quite a few of the minor female characters. However, I also think that Futurama really fails its female characters as well, which is a shame. I’ve seen far more misogynistic shows, but I also think people settle for the bare minimum when it comes to female characters because it’s so common for them to be poorly written.

I have faith that these issues can get fixed in the revival. First, both Amy and Leela need individual episodes. Second, maybe they could actually examine Amy and Leela’s relationship, and help them come to terms with one another. Matt Groening’s current project, Disenchantment, has a great female lead. My other favorite adult cartoon, BoJack Horseman, has wonderfully written female characters. I resonated so much with Diane; it’s very rare for me to be able to relate to a female character. All of this gives me hope for future adult cartoons and Futurama’s revival episodes. They already have the groundwork laid out with Amy and Leela, they just need to be written with the proper care they deserve.