#historical misogyny

[cordycepsfem]

Play With It

So I'm reading this book, Crap: A History of Cheap Stuff in America, by Wendy A. Woloson, mostly because I'm fascinated by collectors and how things like Beanie Babies and Precious Moments figurines became huge in the market. I just started the chapter on novelties, gag gifts, joke things like exploding cigars - you know the stuff.

And I was not expecting genuine exploration of "gendered stuff" in this book, but there it was, and damn, was it a punch in the chest. It made me realize exactly why I'd always hated pranks.

In the 1883 book Peck's Bad Boy and His Pa, George Peck argued that the "best" boys are "full of tricks." He explained, "Those who are the readiest to play innocent jokes... are most apt to turn out to be first-class businessmen." Pranking showed a high-spiritedness, a willingness to take risks, and most important, the drive to show oneself as top dog. Perpetuating practical jokes on each other was a way for the best and the brightest to establish hierarchies within bonded groups in the guise of good-natured fun.

The pranks themselves were violations; the "conspiracy" that brought about public embarrassment made them doubly so. The point of performances with theaters of aggression was to distinguish the people who were in on the joke - witnesses and collaborators - from the humiliated, who were not... Likewise, boys could have fun "scaring your mother, uncle and aunts and the neighbors" with the Tarantula (a.k.a. Mexican Spider). Just when the "victim" was starting to smile, a button on the Royal Novelty Company's Squirting Camera could be pushed, releasing "a good squirt of water." "Boys, this is the very best joke and causes no end of fun and laughter," the company promised... The "fun commenced" with the Girl Catcher only after a girl inserted her finger into one end: "No matter how hard she pulls she cannot get away! The harder she pulls the tighter it holds. When you are ready to release her she can get her finger out easily, but not before." Jokes and gags of this sort created "disruptive" and "provocative" situations that ultimately reinforced the status quo... many jokes and gags involved a distinct gender component. Jokes like Girl Catchers and Squirting Cameras gave boys license to dominate girls as they would later dominate women. What was more, these jokes made girls complicit in their own humiliation, since perpetrators needed ready victims who, because of habits of politeness and deference, would have to be good sports. Although there was nothing preventing girls from buying and deploying novelty goods, they were told in so many ways that this was not their world. Humor and play belonged to boys more than them. Despite the promise of "fun for all," joke and gag articles were in truth a boy's (and man's) game, and pranking reinforced gender hierarchies. Boys (and men) did things while girls (and women) looked on. Further, boys (and men) had the power - physically, culturally - to do things to girls (and women)... pranking reinforced the widely held assumption that the fairer sex did not possess an innate sense of humor; women didn't even have a legitimate reason for engaging in humorous activities in the first place.

These small consumables opened boys to expansive worlds of limitless possibilities far beyond the confines of the home and its stifling domesticity. Merchandise evoking wonderment, curiosity, and acquisitiveness put within boys' reach, often quite literally, fun, exciting, new, and unapologetically frivolous experiences. In contrast, the toys available to girls prepared them for the domestic work they would be performing for the rest of their lives. Advertisements in girls' magazines dutifully promoted toys offering only inward-looking experiences... meanwhile, boys' literature... promoted toys and games that looked outward, toward adventure, the frontier, and anything else that might seize the imagination.

More sophisticated jokes and gags were predicated on the prescribed roles of girls and women as domestic and domesticated caretakers. Doubly cruel, they not only reinforced women's inferiority but also exploited their submission for a laugh. Women's caretaking sympathies made them susceptible to gags like the false ear bandage and the false chipped tooth. Likewise, their charge to maintain a clean household provided the fodder for many fake ink spills on fine linens... Because an imitation cigarette pretended to obliterate a woman's careful work and ruin her furnishings, it was, apparently, hilarious. The humor of novelties was not just "transgressive" and "subversive." It was also mean-spirited and corrosive, used to demean and embarrass, "at the expense" of someone else. ... perpetrators of jokes needed not just gag and pranks but also victims to serve as the "butt" of the joke.

How many of these things are still with us today? The notion that "women aren't funny." Or "she just can't take a joke."

The toy stores with their gendered aisles, providing dolls and toy houses and pretend kitchens with very obvious marketing to girls, while the aisles geared towards boys have cars and sports equipment and robots and spaceships and building blocks. Girls' toys are still made for them to "look inward," and boys' toys are still giving them the chance to "look outward." Even "girls" versions of Lego are pink and purple, because apparently we wouldn't want those girls to build anything too serious like a car or a rocket; their sporting equipment is covered in flowers or made by Mattel and rarely holds up to adequate sporting interaction.

I worked at a toy store for a period of time and only once did I have a parent specifically ask for, then purchase, a toy version of a pretend home good for a boy. It was a woman who wanted to buy a toy vacuum cleaner for her son, who was obsessed with the family's vacuum cleaner and wouldn't accept that he couldn't run it all the time. The general idea I got from her was that instead of being a normal adult who owns a vacuum and enjoys keeping their home tidy, she was hoping that her son might grow into a vacuum cleaner retailer, maker, or repairer. Even the "girls' toy" was "looking outward," simply because it was for a boy.

I had a lot of parents ask me for toys for girls that were "less" or "more" in many ways. Where are your dolls with more clothes on? With less makeup on? Do you have a doll that's not wearing a dress? Do you have it in a color that's not pink?

We haven't grown out of this since the 1880s. And I'm tired of the periodic regression that happens with toys. The Lego I used in the 1990's and early 2000's didn't have a purple or pink version. Every kid who bought Lego in the 1990s bought a bucket full of mixed colors. The ads looked like normal kids in their play-clothes - I'm sure you've seen them, because there's been a lot of talk about how the girl in them is dressed "like a boy." No, she's just dressed like a kid.

I looked today for that image and found something actually really amazing. My jaded heart thought that I would see ads from 2023 that had girls playing with the "girl" Lego only when I looked for recent content. Wow, was I wrong.

Lego took the original 1980's ad (bottom center) and used it to create the new ads for International Women's Day this year.

It's not as hard as it looks. We can have gender neutral toys that are still fun for all kids. Toys can just be toys. And if that appeals to you, there's a fantastic group in the UK begging toymakers and book publishers to do just that: Let toys be toys.

This was a whole mess of a ride, and I'm grateful if you got all the way through. It's important for me to know that in some way we've grown beyond gendered novelty, and that we'll continue to grow beyond gendered toys.

[animanightmate]

[Image description: Screenshot of two tweets by Suzannah Rowntree 🌻 (@suzannahtweets) posted on 13 Sept 20 with 259 Retweets, 8 Quotes, and 1211 Likes. Text follows:

Medieval gender inequality in the movies: you are forbidden from training with weapons or stepping into the library

Medieval gender inequality IRL: Salic law forbids you inheriting land. instead you send your husband to the Holy Land and terrorise his vassals while he's gone.

after your death, your pet archbishop writes your biography in which he calls you a great ruler, "singularly free of female levity". he agitates to have you canonised. End image description.]

Original here, complete with interesting additions in the replies.

all RIGHT:

Why You’re Writing Medieval (and Medieval-Coded) Women Wrong: A RANT

(Or, For the Love of God, People, Stop Pretending Victorian Style Gender Roles Applied to All of History)

This is a problem I see alllll over the place - I’ll be reading a medieval-coded book and the women will be told they aren’t allowed to fight or learn or work, that they are only supposed to get married, keep house and have babies, &c &c.

If I point this out ppl will be like “yes but there was misogyny back then! women were treated terribly!” and OK. Stop right there.

By & large, what we as a culture think of as misogyny & patriarchy is the expression prevalent in Victorian times - not medieval. (And NO, this is not me blaming Victorians for their theme park version of “medieval history”. This is me blaming 21st century people for being ignorant & refusing to do their homework).

Yes, there was misogyny in medieval times, but 1) in many ways it was actually markedly less severe than Victorian misogyny, tyvm - and 2) it was of a quite different type. (Disclaimer: I am speaking specifically of Frankish, Western European medieval women rather than those in other parts of the world. This applies to a lesser extent in Byzantium and I am still learning about women in the medieval Islamic world.)

So, here are the 2 vital things to remember about women when writing medieval or medieval-coded societies

FIRST. Where in Victorian times the primary axes of prejudice were gender and race - so that a male labourer had more rights than a female of the higher classes, and a middle class white man would be treated with more respect than an African or Indian dignitary - In medieval times, the primary axis of prejudice was, overwhelmingly, class. Thus, Frankish crusader knights arguably felt more solidarity with their Muslim opponents of knightly status, than they did their own peasants. Faith and age were also medieval axes of prejudice - children and young people were exploited ruthlessly, sent into war or marriage at 15 (boys) or 12 (girls). Gender was less important.

What this meant was that a medieval woman could expect - indeed demand - to be treated more or less the same way the men of her class were. Where no ancient legal obstacle existed, such as Salic law, a king’s daughter could and did expect to rule, even after marriage.

Women of the knightly class could & did arm & fight - something that required a MASSIVE outlay of money, which was obviously at their discretion & disposal. See: Sichelgaita, Isabel de Conches, the unnamed women fighting in armour as knights during the Third Crusade, as recorded by Muslim chroniclers.

Tolkien’s Eowyn is a great example of this medieval attitude to class trumping race: complaining that she’s being told not to fight, she stresses her class: “I am of the house of Eorl & not a serving woman”. She claims her rights, not as a woman, but as a member of the warrior class and the ruling family. Similarly in Renaissance Venice a doge protested the practice which saw 80% of noble women locked into convents for life: if these had been men they would have been “born to command & govern the world”. Their class ought to have exempted them from discrimination on the basis of sex.

So, tip #1 for writing medieval women: remember that their class always outweighed their gender. They might be subordinate to the men within their own class, but not to those below.

SECOND. Whereas Victorians saw women’s highest calling as marriage & children - the “angel in the house” ennobling & improving their men on a spiritual but rarely practical level - Medievals by contrast prized virginity/celibacy above marriage, seeing it as a way for women to transcend their sex. Often as nuns, saints, mystics; sometimes as warriors, queens, & ladies; always as businesswomen & merchants, women could & did forge their own paths in life

When Elizabeth I claimed to have “the heart & stomach of a king” & adopted the persona of the virgin queen, this was the norm she appealed to. Women could do things; they just had to prove they were Not Like Other Girls. By Elizabeth’s time things were already changing: it was the Reformation that switched the ideal to marriage, & the Enlightenment that divorced femininity from reason, aggression & public life.

For more on this topic, read Katherine Hager’s article “Endowed With Manly Courage: Medieval Perceptions of Women in Combat” on women who transcended gender to occupy a liminal space as warrior/virgin/saint.

So, tip #2: remember that for medieval women, wife and mother wasn’t the ideal, virgin saint was the ideal. By proving yourself “not like other girls” you could gain significant autonomy & freedom.

Finally a bonus tip: if writing about medieval women, be sure to read writing on women’s issues from the time so as to understand the terms in which these women spoke about & defended their ambitions. Start with Christine de Pisan.

I learned all this doing the reading for WATCHERS OF OUTREMER, my series of historical fantasy novels set in the medieval crusader states, which were dominated by strong medieval women! Book 5, THE HOUSE OF MOURNING (forthcoming 2023) will focus, to a greater extent than any other novel I’ve ever yet read or written, on the experience of women during the crusades - as warriors, captives, and political leaders. I can’t wait to share it with you all!

[marzipanandminutiae]

Of course, the burkini ban is messed up on grounds of religious freedom and racial discrimination. But also

Under any other circumstances, people would be HORRIFIED at a government mandate that women have to show a certain amount of skin. Like. That’s fucking dystopian, and the absolute opposite of feminism. If a government tried to pass a law that all women had to wear tube tops and miniskirts to go outside, people would rightfully be up in arms demanding blood

But because it’s targeting a marginalized religious group, many folks are lauding the blatant forced sexualization of women. Appalling

(apparently the ban also outlaws things like sun – protecting bathing suits if they cover too much skin. Which like. Yes, let’s give everyone skin cancer just so we can spite a religion we’ve decided to hate. Sounds like a good plan </s>)

[enbycrip]

So this meme about “spinster originally being a word for a woman so good at weaving she was financially independent” seems to have made it into pretty much every group I follow, so after the best part of a week biting my hands not correcting it so as not to undercut the broader point, I’ve now been *forced* to correct it (badly) and write a screed of additional context just for my own sanity.

“Spinster” is indeed a word for women who became financially independent through the cloth and garment-making trade, but by SPINNING, ie making thread from fibres, rather than by WEAVING, which is making cloth out of thread. You can tell by the title being SPINster, not WEAVEster!

The “-ster” suffix indicates that the title is feminine; you can see it in other surnames like “sangster” and “brewster”.

This actually points to one of the traditional points about female-dominated practices; while weaving within the household to make cloth for members of the household was traditionally almost entirely done by women in the house, when weaving became a well-paid trade regulated by guilds, men began doing it and rapidly pushed out the women weavesters or websters who had started the profession and originally trained most of the male weavers.

This never happened with spinsters because spinning was never as lucrative as weaving and thus it never became a guild-regulated profession; it remained a trade women in the household practiced to supplement household income.

Single women could habitually manage to support themselves on their earnings from it, including single women living in lodgings in urban centres as well as single women living in their own cottages in rural places, which was incredibly valuable to them.

This points to one of the ways trade unions, the more modern and proletarian-focused version of guilds, are not *simply by their existence* a solution for worker liberation. Trade unions, like guilds, have frequently enforced societal misogyny by favouring male and male-read workers over female and female-read workers, often actively undercutting the needs of female and female-read workers, because of the societal trope that “men were supporting a family” and “women were working for pocket money”. this kept on applying even when many female and female-read workers were primary wage earners.

Men, especially cis men, in trade union spaces have a responsibility to keep your union intersectionally-aware and actively seek female and nonbinary delegates, officers and activists to fill roles.

As everyone who is privileged in any axis - male, white, cishet, abled - has a responsibility to actively seek representation from marginalised folk, and to actively canvas marginalised folk you represent to make sure you are fighting for needs you may not perceive. It’s easily possible for instruments of liberation to end up marginalising and oppressing marginalised folks unless there is an ongoing commitment to inclusive and liberating practice in them.

[alwaysmej]

Wow!!! it's almost like women are domestic slaves, giving free labor in exchange of food and shelter, shocking.

Source details and larger version.

If the plural of “Uncle Sam” is “Uncles Sam,” you’ll find some bizarre Uncles Sam in this gallery.

[watermelinoe]

people will try to treat transgender as if it is a material class of people but it functionally is not

[starwikia]

suicide cw

look i have been in this area before mentally. it sucks and i wouldn’t wish this on anyone. but, and this is going to sound callous, but i don’t feel any sympathy for james somerton. even if i hope he’s like. not dead. But thats all the amount of goodwill im willing to give him. The more i think about this really, the more angry i am. 

ngl this entire situation is another example of how white people weaponize their mental illness to avoid consequences. Im seeing it in real time.

this man has a continuous habit of using self-harm as a get-out-of-jail-for-free card. in both of his apologies, he has worded his supposed attempts in ways that were clearly meant to guilt people who displayed his plagiarism and overall horrendous history of racism and misogyny. i say supposed because, while i’m not saying those are lies and this would he such a fucked up thing to lie about that i don’t want to think he has, unfortunately, it’s been proven again and again that his word can’t be trusted, as he’s known to lie to try get out of consequences. Hes a proven liar. him lying about this is actually the best case scenario, because no one should go through this entire situation, wouldnt wish this on anyone, but you can only do this so often before people stop sympathizing with you. is this callous? Yeah, but like. I’m actually fucking angry he cant straight up take no as an answer. that this is how he reacts realizing he cant be one of the Cool Kidz™️ on youtube anymore. he acts like he DESERVES a career, like its not a privilege hes lost due to his own actions.

He lied about apologizing and forgiving people, he lied about giving the money to hbomberguy to give to ppl he ripped off (yknow, instead of doing it himself), he lied about the jessie gender situation and rewrote the narrative to make it so he isnt the bad guy, and hes the victim all along actually!

you can’t tell me that supposed last message of his isn’t meant to be a 13 reasons why esq attempt to deflect the blame “look i’m going to kill myself and it’s all YOUR PEOPLES FAULT for not letting me achieve my DREAM of being filmmaker IN PEACE!!! I just wanted Nick’s (the guy who I have thrown under the bus again and again) portfolio up!! Im just being a good friend dont you all FEEL BAD” he refuses to take ANY ACCOUNTABILITY of any of his actions and he IS STILL trying to shove the blame over to other people again.

it’s also pretty ironic people are like “uhhh well hbomber’s fans harassed him!!!” like hbomber outright told people NOT to HARASS JAMES!!! ALSO acting as if james doesn’t have a very real documented history of STRAIGHT UP sending his fans to harass and threaten smaller creators, more notably women, trans, and bipoc creators. especially after he’s stolen typically very personal anecdotes so he could profit from them. so why can he do it but the second people are like “hey this guys an actual piece of shit.” and he can’t handle it suddenly people are trying to white knight his shit? like no he doesn’t get that. he doesn’t get that at all just because he couldn’t handle the consequences of his actions. 

what? were supposed to stay quiet about a man profiting off of other minorities because he wanted to be the spokesman for all gay people? people tried to solve this on a smaller, more private scales for YEARS and he kept doing it. it was clear that the giant public video was the ONLY way to get people to notice. HE WOULDVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH STEALING 87 FUCKING THOUSANDS WORTH OF DOLLARS. HE CANT HANDLE THE FACT HE CANT GET AWAY WITH IT. 

am i supposed to feel bad for the guy who basically threatened a trans woman with the police? i don’t care what anyone says, it’s so fucking obvious that he threatened jessie by implying he was getting the police involved in their conflict. what am i supposed to act like that didn’t happen? are we supposed to pretend like he didn’t glorify nazi’s and outright said that gay people made up a good chunk of the nazis? That he didnt say america joined ww2 bc they were jealous of the NAZIS. WHAT WOULD POSSESS YOU TO FUCKING SAY THAT. but then? He gives women (not even women most of the time, he misgenders nonbinary ppl constantly) shit for writing mlm. are we supposed to act like he doesn’t straight-up sees himself superior and better than people of color and steals their works to put himself on a pedestal? Are we supposed to act like he didnt spit on our elders by saying “only the boring gays survived aids” like man! Fuck you! He BLANTANTLY MAKES UP HISTORY TO PUT HIMSELF ON A PEDESTAL!! HE ACTIVELY TRIED TO REWRITE LGBT HISTORY TO SUIT HIS FUCKED UP NARRATIVES!

yes this sucks ! no one deserves this but no one should be making him a martyr. Thats what he fucking WANTS! He wants to be immortalized as a victim!! (again, supposedly, it was reported hes alive but its not confirmed).

The shit he got isnt near the amount of fucking callous behavior hes done again and again. Again, to drill this point, EVEN IF HE DIDNT CALL THE POLICE HE THREATENED A TRANS WOMAN INTO THINKING HE DID!!! The fact he tried to use a head injury to justify years of the outright ghoulish shit fucking astounds me. Why the fuck did anyone in his life thought it was a good idea to let him TRY to come back. in the end, he had options. he didn’t need to try to make a comeback. HE DIDNT NEED TO FUCKING LIE OR IGNORE THE SHIT HE WAS CALLED OUT ON the reality is, he wanted to come back thinking he could shove it under the rug, was told that no dude, you’re not allowed to be a youtuber anymore. you’re done. you need to move on and went full nuclear. it’s not on anyone’s hands but his own. HES BEEN DOING THIS TO HIMSELF!! But nah man we cant call his shit out bc hell may or may not kill himself. Fuck the other minorities who have the same issues but worse and sometimes BECAUSE of him. This is going to SUCKKKK so bad when other ppl, specifically white gays, are going to weaponize this shit to get away with their stuff.

[lgbtlunaverse]

For all the discourse and sordid history of feminine clothes in period fiction or period-inspired fantasy and action stories– from endless misconceptions about corsets to the backlash where people will now complain if a female character has anything negative to say about skirts– I'm still starved for a character that crossdresses because she actually likes the way men's clothes look.

Like. In basically all the cases I've seen over the years, the reasons given for the characters' distate for feminine fashion are purely practical. "Corsets are restrictive, you can't move freely in skirts, feminine fashion is all form no function!"

And while writers often get it wrong and exaggerate how uncomfortable these clothes really were to a sometimes comical degree– you know what? Sometimes it's true! Cycling in a skirt is hard and inconvenient which is why victorian women started wearing split skirts or cycling breeches. (Which was hugely controversial to the men of the time) But like... that was, in fact, feminine fashion. Female cyclists weren't dressing like men they were just wearing a new kind of women's fashion.

Indeed, none of these characters seem to actually like masculine clothes, they give the impression that what they really want to wear is... modern women's fashion. (Which is why this kind of writing often feels anachronistic)

More than that, there is the underlying assumption that while historical women's fashion is governed by aesthetic, men's fashion is governed by use. Caring about how you look is a silly girl thing, unlike rational men who only care whether something works! Which is just... complete horse shit. Men care a lot about how they look, always have, and most masculine fashion trends cannot be explained by practicality any more than women's fashion can. It's a complete lie, based in misogynistic gender roles, that I wish wasn't repeated by media trying to be feminist. (Especially since these heroines always just happen to still be conventionally attractive– and, surprise, feminine– because everyone wants a woman who doesn't care if she's beautiful, but no one wants a woman who... actually isn't beautiful.)

If you talk to any real life butch, they love the way masculinity looks. They think they look hot! They think other butches look hot! There is a real love for masculine style there, that's just completely fucking... absent in most fiction. Because caring about your appearance a feminine trait, duh 🙄

There's an article I love in dressing dykes about Anne Lister, a real life historcial butch. And the way she incorporated masculine fashion didn't involve pants at all. It was in things like leather straps on her umbrella (customary only for gentlemen at the time) wearing men's braces, and dressing entirely in black as was fashionable for menswear but not womenswear. All of these are stylistic decisions. She did it because she liked masculinity.

If all your medieval-inspired fantasy heroine wants is practicality she'd probably start by mimicking the style of working class women. Because you know. Women worked. Women have always worked. And so they had to wear clothes suited for manual labour. There's a lot of interesting things you can do with class there, and she probably will be accused of being 'unladylike' by her environment anyway! But if she's gonna wear men's clothes, please consider letting her like them.

I'm just want an actual goddamn butch main character (or even a genuinely masc straight girl) and I'm tired of repeating the myth that men's clothes are these neutral canvasses of practical use with zero elements of style. (I have eyes! I can see that that's untrue!) Or that it's preposterous that a woman might... genuinely like these stylistic elements. That she might want to look like a man.

[hussyknee]

The book covers of Regency romance novels are an absolute crime, but in Cecilia Grant's case they're nothing short of absurd. You could maybe excuse some of these half dressed gym bros in breeches cradling heroines either swathed in satin sheets or off-the-rack prom dresses if the contents are some kind escapist erotica in a setting that could pass as the Regency era on a porn set, à la Bridgerton. But when it's something like Grant's Blackshear Family novels, the covers go from ordinary crime to war crime.

Grant's writing is beautiful, very introspective, slightly antiquarian and almost literary. The Blackshear novels are very touching mediations on love and desire and social injustice within the dictates of respectability and vulnerability of the landed gentry, not the aristocracy, travelling everywhere from the tenant homes and farms of country estates to the gambling hells of London to field hospitals crammed with the dead and dying of the Battle of Quatre Bras. The sex scenes are well done, but they're slower burn than a beeswax candle and definitely not the point of the stories at all. They're about how people in history lived and loved.

The covers for the books?

What, I say, the fucketh?

The treatment of this entire genre and its writers by the publishing industry is a study in misogynistic contempt. It doesn't matter whether they're queer or het, or fantasy or mystery or historical or all of them. Anything tarred with the brush of romance and a feminine readership is considered "chic lit" and therefore not worthy of proper editing or halfway respectful or even relevant covers, much less critical recognition.

[langernameohnebedeutung]

I love that Gentleman Jack as a show is advertised as Anne Lister being this swashbuckling womaniser who just seduces the ladies left and right with her rake-ish charmes. And then you watch the show and really her secret is that she sincerely and deeply loves all her girlfriends and treats them like human beings and listens to them and that her heart breaks a thousand times when she loses one of her partners to obligatory marriage and she tells them their opinions are important to her and has deep conversations with them about serious topics that men would find unsuitable and she makes it clear that she is interested in what they tell her. Like...that's her entire secret here. She cares.

[fluentisonus]

guys I'm going to be honest with you I don't think this is a fair comparison at all

[gothamcitycentral]

I don’t see much point in entertaining the idea of pure evil or full villain Lilith not only because it doesn’t line up with her established characterization but mainly because it goes against the show’s concept. Like the whole idea is taking traditionally villainized figures (demons, sinners, and the devil himself) and tying that treatment to the unethical dehumanization of real people and thus portraying them in a sympathetic and understanding light. So why take the historically villainous figure of Lilith and… keep her evil?

[prolibytherium]

Reverse is like when a (historical-ish or not) fantasy setting kind of implies itself to have a homophobic or misogynist societal outlook where like you get characters talking About being isolated or unaccepted for their romantic/sexual interests or how they're meant to be more than a housewife or etc, but you never really see much societal enforcement of these norms whatsoever beyond the broadest strokes of 'marriage is between men and women and women are supposed to be housewives, probably?'. Like it's just a vast open space for readers to project homophobia and misogyny on, but lacking in any real exploration or engagement.

Like I'm not saying like 'put in a gaybashing' and it doesn't have to be (and probably Shouldn't be) 24/7 pain and suffering and anguish, but if you want arcs about characters struggling with their sexuality or marginalized gender roles there should probably be more than just a loose implication of something they have to struggle Against.

[ardenrosegarden]

Our uncle could move you away, yet he could do nothing on this second occasion. With every letter I write, not only does my ink wane, but also my hope. Every time, I wish that my words reach you. I believed that you would be the hero who would rescue me, but now I just hope my sister comes back to me. If you happen to read this, please help me, Naoko.

[newspecies]

"the vast majority of legal persecution against early queers was focused on men" ARE YOU INSANE

[neechees]

I've done only 2 goodreads reviews & both of them were of bad books fbfjcg