#it is simply male culture

[hadesoftheladies]

one thing the barbie discourse really highlighted for me was how men equate having humanity as being dominant, hence, whenever women are dominant and men subordinate, men insist that men are being persecuted, hurt, or oppressed.

that's why they think that matriarchy would be violent. that's why they're so offended and vitriolic when women dare to assert themselves in any way (or denounce femininity and subjugation). to be a human man is to be dominant. there can be no other definition. so if a man isn't dominant then he is suffering and his humanity is under attack.

women cannot suffer in subordination because that's what being a woman is. so if women are beaten, raped, humiliated, barred from education, women cannot feel injustice because to be woman is to be inhuman. like animals, we do not recognize or feel things like suffering. we do not crave things like dignity. so men haven't done anything wrong by subjugating us. not really. they can't do anything wrong because we don't have a developed sense of morality, so their morality cannot be applied or meaningful to us.

but what men fear isn't women dominating them, they fear men dominating them. because they know what dominance does to a man. it may complete him, but it also makes him dangerous to his competitors. that, and their entire world is male-centric. so when they view women in power, they view them not as women, but as women becoming men.

that's why barbies ignoring kens is egregious and the idea of matriarchy frightening. they cannot imagine it outside patriarchal and masculinist culture. they cannot believe that a woman would not want to rape or kill or pillage once in power. human, after all, means male, so if a woman became human, it would have to mean she thought, acted, dressed and behaved as men did.

they are too afraid to admit to what that would mean about themselves. if the woman, the animal, can feel and have a moral sense, if they can understand and experience suffering, then the humanity of the man is in question because as someone with a supposed moral sense and enlightenment, he has been the one oppressing them, cruelly cutting them down without thought (that is mind). he is the inhuman one. now the man must question god, he must question his integrity and sense of innocence and identity, he must begin to wonder if he or any man is truly even redeemable.

and then they'd have to face guilt. and with that guilt torment. and with that torment, they would see that the only way to begin to live with themselves is rebel against the system, side with women, and that would mean marking himself as woman, as animal, to other men.

as viable for the slaughter

for if he is rejecting dominance, he is rejecting male humanity, divinity and authority, he is forfeiting his right to be treated as human by other men.

and not many men in history have ever been willing or brave enough to do that. so instead, they insist that animals are bloody and violent and mindless (despite the fact that there are no animal-created human farms) and that women would be just as bad, just as wicked, once they had power, once they became human.

in other words, once they became men.

[cator99]

out of curiosity, would you consider yourself butch?

used to be a blonde underweight twink and now I'm a based jock still got the chanel bag and the sick albeit matured mind of a suckpig to prove it so I'm gonna let you decide whether you wanna call me that word just cuz I got a pussy and short hair. I promise you that there have been enough advancements made in the art of lesbian sexual dynamics in the past 50 years to broaden the vocabulary used to describe the plethora of types of masculine females.

[musical-chick-13]

Regarding the whole "Fandom Is An Escape, so why should I have to care this much about misogyny/racism/ableism/transphobia/etc." thing. Idk about the rest of you, but it gets kind of hard for me to "escape" when I keep seeing people say the same vile things about characters who share aspects of my identity that I hear all the time in real life.

[canichangemyblogname]

I watched all eight episodes of season 1 of Blue Eye Samurai over the weekend. I then went browsing because I wanted to read some online reviews of the show to see what people were thinking of it and also because I wanted to interact with gifs and art, as the series is visually stunning.

Yet, in my search for opinions on the show, I came across several points I'd like to address in my own words:

Mizu’s history and identity are revealed piece-by-piece and the “peaches” scene with Mizu and Ringo at the lake is intended to be a major character reveal. I think it’s weird that some viewers got angry over other viewers intentionally not gendering Mizu until that reveal, rather than immediately jumping to gender the character as the other characters in the show do. The creators intentionally left Mizu’s gender and sexuality ambiguous (and quite literally wrote in lines to lead audiences to question both) to challenge the viewer’s gut assumption that this lone wolf samurai is a man. That intentional ambiguity will lead to wide and ambiguous interpretations of where Mizu fits in, if Mizu fits in at all. But don't just take my word for this:

Re: above. I also think it’s weird that some viewers got upset over other viewers continuing to acknowledge that Mizu has a very complicated relationship with her gender, even after that reveal. Canonically, she has a very complicated relationship with her identity. The character is intended to represent liminality in identity, where she’s often between identities in a world of forced binaries that aren’t (widely) socially recognized as binaries. But, again, don’t just take my word for this:

Mizu is both white and Japanese, but she is also not white and not Japanese simultaneously (too white to be Japanese and too Japanese to be white). She’s a woman and a man. She’s a man who’s a woman. She’s also a woman who’s not a woman (yet also not quite a man). But she’s also a woman; the creators said so. Mizu was raised as a boy and grew into a man, yet she was born a girl, and boyhood was imposed upon her. She’s a woman when she’s a man, a man when she’s a man, and a woman when she’s a woman.

Additionally, Mizu straddles the line between human and demon. She’s a human in the sense she’s mortal but a demon in the sense she’s not. She's human yet otherworldly. She's fallible yet greatness. She's both the ronin and the bride, the samurai and the onryō. In short, it’s complicated, and that’s the point. Ignoring that ignores a large part of her internal character struggle and development.

Mizu is intended to represent an “other,” someone who stands outside her society in every way and goes to lengths to hide this “otherness” to get by. Gender is a mask; a tool. She either hides behind a wide-brimmed hat, glasses, and laconic anger, or she hides behind makeup, her dress, and a frown. She fits in nowhere, no matter the identity she assumes. Mizu lives in a very different time period within a very different sociocultural & political system where the concept of gender and the language surrounding it is unlike what we are familiar with in our every-day lives. But, again, don’t just take my word for this:

It’s also weird that some viewers have gotten upset over the fact women and queer people (and especially queer women) see themselves in Mizu. Given her complicated relationship with identity under the patriarchy and colonial violence, I think Mizu is a great character for cis-het women and queer folks alike to relate to. Her character is also great for how she breaks the mold on the role of a biracial character in narratives about identity (she’s not some great bridge who will unite everyone). It does not hurt anyone that gender-fluid and nonbinary people see themselves in Mizu's identity and struggle with identity. It does not hurt anyone that lesbians see themselves in the way Mizu expresses her gender. It does not hurt anyone that trans men see themselves in Mizu's relationship with manhood or that trans women can see themselves in Mizu when Mama forces her to be a boy. It's also really cool that cis-het women see themselves in Mizu's struggles to find herself. Those upset over these things are missing critical aspects of Mizu's character and are no different from the other characters in the story. The only time Mizu is herself is when she’s just Mizu (“…her gender was Mizu”), and many of the other characters are unwilling to accept "just Mizu." Accepting her means accepting the complicatedness of her gender.

Being a woman under the patriarchy is complicated and gives women a complicated relationship with their gender and identity. It is dangerous to be a woman. Women face violence for being women. Being someone who challenges sex-prescribed norms and roles under patriarchy also gives someone a complicated relationship with their identity. It is dangerous to usurp gender norms and roles (then combine that with being a woman...). People who challenge the strict boxes they're assigned face violence for existing, too. Being a racial or ethnic minority in a racially homogeneous political system additionally gives someone a complicated relationship with their identity. It is dangerous to be an ethnic minority when the political system is reproduced on your exclusion and otherness. They, too, face violence for the circumstances of their birth. All of these things are true. None of them take away from the other.

Mizu is young-- in her early 20s-- and she has been hurt in deeply affecting ways. She's angry because she's been hurt in so many different ways. She's been hurt by gender violence, like "mama's" misogyny and the situation of her birth (her mother's rape and her near murder as a child), not to mention the violent and dehumanizing treatment of the women around her. She's been hurt by racial violence, like the way she has been tormented and abused since childhood for the way she looks (with people twice trying to kill her for this before adulthood). She's been hurt by state-sanctioned violence as she faces off against the opium, flesh, and black market traders working with white men in contravention of the Shogun's very policies, yet with sanction from the Shogun. She's been hurt by colonial violence, like the circumstances of her birth and the flood of human trafficking and weapons and drug trafficking in her country. She's had men break her bones and knock her down before, but only Fowler sexually differentiated her based on bone density and fracture.

Mizu also straddles the line between victim and murderer.

It seems like Mizu finding her 'feminine' and coming to terms with her 'female side' may be a part of her future character development. Women who feel caged by modern patriarchal systems and alienated from their bodies due to the patriarchy will see themselves in Mizu. They understand a desire for freedom that the narrow archetypes of the patriarchy do not afford them as women, and they see their anger and their desire for freedom in Mizu. This, especially considering that Mizu's development was driven by one of the creators' own experiences with womanhood:

No, Mizu does not pass as a man because she "hates women" or because she hates herself as a woman or being a woman. There are actual on-screen depictions of Mizu's misogyny, like her interactions with Akemi, and dressing like a man is not an instance of this. Mizu shows no discomfort with being a woman or being seen as a woman, especially when she intends to pass herself as and present as a woman. Mizu also shows the women in the series more grace and consideration than any man in the show, in whatever capacity available to her socially and politically, without revealing herself; many of the women have remarked that she is quite unlike other men, and she's okay with that, too.

When she lives on the farm with Mama and Mikio, Mizu shows no discomfort once she acclimates to the new life. But people take this as conclusive evidence of the "only time" she was happy. She was not. This life was also a dance, a performance. The story of her being both the ronin and the onryō revealed to the audience that this lifestyle also requires her to wear a mask and dance, just as the bride does. This mask is makeup, a wedding dress, and submission, and this performance is her gender as a wife. She still understands that she cannot fully be herself and only begins to express happiness and shed her reservation when she believes she is finally safe to be herself. Only to be betrayed. Being a man is her safety, and it is familiar. Being a boy protected her from the white men as a child, and it might protect her heart now.

Mizu shows no discomfort with being known as a woman, except when it potentially threatens her goals (see Ringo and the "peaches" scene). She also shows no discomfort with being known as, seen as, or referred to as a man. As an adult, she seems okay- even familiar- with people assuming she's a man and placing her into the role of a man. Yet, being born a girl who has boyhood violently imposed upon her (she did not choose what mama did to her) is also an incredibly important part of her lived experience. Being forced into boyhood, but growing into a man anyway became part of who she is. But, being a man isn’t just a part of who she became; it’s also expedient for her goals because men and women are ontologically different in her world and the system she lives under.

She's both because she's neither, because- ontologically- she fits nowhere. When other characters point out how "unlike" a man she is, she just shrugs it off, but not in a "well, yeah, because I'm NOT a man" sort of way, but in an "I'm unlike anyone, period," sort of way. She also does not seem offended by Madam Kaji saying that Mizu’s more man than any who have walked through her door.

(Mizu doesn’t even see herself as human, let alone a woman, as so defined by her society. And knowing that creators have stated her future arc is about coming into her “feminine era” or energy, I am actually scared that this show might fall into the trope of “domesticating”/“taming” the independent woman, complete with an allegory that her anger and lack of human-ness [in Mizu’s mind] is a result of a woman having too much “masculine energy” or being masculine in contravention of womanness.)

Some also seem to forget that once Mama and Mikio are dead, no one knows who she is or where she came from. They do not have her background, and they do not know about the bounty on her (who levied the bounty and why has not yet been explained). After their deaths, she could have gone free and started anew somehow. But in that moment, she chose to go back to life as a man and chose to pursue revenge for the circumstances of her birth. Going forward, this identity is no longer imposed upon her by Mama, or a result of erroneous conclusions from local kids and Master Eiji; it was because she wanted people to see her as a man and she was familiar with navigating her world, and thus her future, as a man. And it was because she was angry, too, and only men can act on their anger.

I do think it important to note that Mizu really began to allow herself to be vulnerable and open as a woman, until she was betrayed. The question I've been rattling around is: is this because she began to feel safe for the first time in her life, or is this part of how she sees women ontologically? Because she immediately returns to being a man and emotionally hard following her betrayal. But, she does seem willing to confide in Master Eiji, seek his advice, and convey her anxieties to him.

Being a man also confines Mizu to strict social boxes, and passing herself as a man is also dangerous.

Mizu doesn't suddenly get to do everything and anything she wants because she passes as a man. She has to consider her safety and the danger of her sex being "found out." She must also consider what will draw unnecessary attention to her and distract her from her goals. Many viewers, for example, were indignant that she did not offer to chaperone the mother and daughter and, instead, left them to the cold, only to drop some money at their feet later. The indignity fails consider that while she could bribe herself inside while passing as a man, she could not bribe in two strangers. Mizu is a strange man to that woman and does not necessarily have the social position to advocate for the mother and daughter. She also must consider that causing small social stirs would distract from her goals and draw certain attention to her. Mizu is also on a dangerous and violent quest.

Edo Japan was governed by strict class, age, and gender rules. Those rules applied to men as well as women. Mizu is still expected to act within these strict rules when she's a man. Being a man might allow her to pursue revenge, but she's still expected to put herself forward as a man, and that means following all the specific rules that apply to her class as a samurai, an artisan (or artist), and a man. That wide-brimmed hat, those orange-tinted glasses, and her laconic tendencies are also part of a performance. Being a boy is the first mask she wore and dance she performed, and she was originally (and tragically) forced into it.

Challenging the normative identities of her society does not guarantee her safety. She has limitations because of her "otherness," and the transgression of sex-prescribed roles has often landed people in hot water as opposed to saving them from boiling. Mizu is passing herself off as a man every day of her life at great risk to her. If her sex is "found out" on a larger scale, society won’t resort to or just start treating her as a woman. There are far worse fates than being perceived as a woman, and hers would not simply be a tsk-tsk, slap on the wrist; now you have to wear makeup. Let's not treat being a woman-- even with all the pressures, standards, fears, and risks that come with existing as a woman-- as the worst consequence for being ‘found out’ for transgressing normative identity.

The violence Mizu would face upon being "found out" won’t only be a consequence of being a "girl." Consider not just the fact she is female and “cross-dressing” (outside of theater), but also that she is a racial minority.

I also feel like many cis-het people either ignore or just cannot see the queerness in challenging gender roles (and thus also in stories that revolve around a subversion of sex-prescribed gender). They may not know how queerness-- or "otherness"-- leads to challenging strict social stratifications and binaries nor how challenging them is seen by the larger society as queer ("strange," "suspicious," "unconventional," even "dishonorable," and "fraudulent"), even when "queerness" (as in LGBTQ+) was not yet a concept as we understand it today.

Gender and sexuality- and the language we use to communicate who we are- varies greatly across time and culture. Edo Japan was governed by strict rules on what hairstyles, clothes, and weapons could be worn by which gender, age, and social group, and this was often enshrined in law. There were specific rules about who could have sex with whom and how. These values and rules were distinctly Japanese and would not incorporate Western influences until the late 1800s. Class was one of the most consequential features to define a person's fate in feudal Japan, and gender was quite stratified. This does not mean it's inappropriate for genderqueer people to see themselves in Mizu, nor does this mean that gender-variant identities didn’t exist in Edo Japan.

People in the past did not use the same language we do today to refer to themselves. Example: Alexander The Great did not call himself a "bisexual." We all understand this. However, there is a very weird trend of people using these differences in language and cultures across time to deny aspects of a historical person's life that societies today consider taboo, whether these aspects were considered taboo during that historical time period or not. Same example: people on Twitter complaining that Netflix "made" Alexander The Great "gay," and after people push back and point out that the man did, in fact, love and fuck men, hitting back with "homosexuality wasn't even a word back then" or "modern identity didn't exist back then." Sure, that word did not exist in 300s BCE Macedonia, but that doesn't mean the man didn't love men, nor does that mean that we can't recognize that he'd be considered "queer" by today's standards and language.

Genderqueer, as a word and as the concept is understood today, did not exist in feudal Japan, but the people did and feudal Japan had its own terms and concepts that referred to gender variance. But while the show takes place in Edo Japan, it is a modern adult animation series made by a French studio and two Americans (nationality). Mizu is additionally a fictional character, not a historical figure. She was not created in a vacuum. She was created in the 21st century and co-written by a man who got his start writing for Sex in the City and hails from a country that is in the midst of a giant moral panic about genderqueer/gender-variant people and gender non-conforming people.

This series was created by two Americans (nationality) for an American company. In some parts of that country, there are laws on the book strictly defining the bounds of men and women and dictating what clothes men and women could be prosecuted for wearing. Changes in language and identity over time mean that we can recognize that if Mizu lived in modern Texas, the law would consider her a drag performer, and modern political movements in the show creators' home country would include her under the queer umbrella.

So, yeah, there will also be genderqueer people who see themselves in Mizu, and there will be genderqueer fans who are firm about Mizu being queer to them and in their “headcanons.” The scene setting being Edo Japan, does not negate the modern ideas that influence the show. "Nonbinary didn't exist in Edo Japan" completely ignores that this show was created to explore the liminality of modern racial, gender, class, and normative identities. One of the creators was literally inspired by her own relationship with her biracial identity.

Ultimately, the fact Mizu, at this point in her journey, chooses to present and pass as a man and the fact her presented gender affects relationship dynamics with other characters (see: Taigen) gives this story a queer undertone. And this may have been largely unintentional: "She’s a girl, and he’s a guy, so, of course, they get together," < ignoring how said guy thinks she’s a guy and that she intentionally passes herself as a guy. Audiences ARE going to interpret this as queer because WE don’t live in Edo-era Japan. And I feel like people forget that Mizu can be a woman and the story can still have queer undertones to it at the same time.

[kindheartedgummybears]

you wanna know what??

I am

TIRED

of overmasculinized werewolves!!!!

I WANNA SEE A

WEREWOLF

WALKING AROUND IN A CVNTY LITTLE OUTFIT!!! WALKING THE STREETS!!!! DISEMBOWELING CREATURES!!!!

I WANNA SEE WEREWOLVES COVERED IN BLOOD AND GORE WHILE WEARING A SHORT SKIRT AND CROPTOP WITH HELLO KITTY ON IT!!!!

I WANNA SEE A WEREWOLF WALKING AROUND IN COTTAGE AND FAIRY AND PRINCESS CORE OUTFITS!!!!!! WITH A DEAD MANGLED RABBIT IN ITS MOUTH!!!!

AND MAKE THE WEREWOLF

D I S G U S T I N G ! ! !

[bijoumikhawal]

"historically polygamous societies loved to wage war and slavery to dispose of excess men and emphasize female conversion" okay all those things are true of monogamous societies too. Western Europeans are famously probably the best at war and slavery from the current standpoint and they're monogamous. And from the way you wrote that I can tell you were thinking of the middle east so what the fuck

[satoriberry]

complaining about radical feminism bc even though it has a lot of good points, a lot are also very bad part idk what!!!

what the fuck is up with radfems literally seething when they learn that a member of their ideology has a GASPPPPP boyfriend!!! even worse A HUSBAND???? and oh my god can you imagine!!! A CHILD!!!! like what the fuck?? and yes i knowwww its bc blah blah blah inspirations taken from the 4B thing that came out of china and south korea, where the fundamental principles of their feminism is not having any sort of relations with a man nor having any children with one because marriage is a patriarchal institution (when it's a hetero marriage), and giving birth will systematically subjugate a women as mothers ar every handicapped societally and aren't treated fairly.

see im not denying that straight marriage has some dicey elements and that moms get a LOTTTT of shit from society. but why is it that women are shamed for their heterosexuality when it's not something they can control?? like i'm sorry but if a lady wants to marry a dude and have children with him it's literally her choice and if she doesnt thats fine too?? like they start calling her "male-centered" and justify the criticism she's facing which is nuts bc what the fuck do you mean she's male-centered do you hear the words that come out of your mouth?? what the fuck do you mean straight women need to be critical of their attraction to men!!! my brother why are you creating comphet 2.0 but for straight women!!!! this idea that women will be defiled with patriarchy germs if they come into any sort of romantic/sexual contact with a man genuinely feels like the flipside of purity culture but for "feminist" reasons and also it's like the cousin of political lesbianism which is the antithesis of "sexual orientation is uncontrollable".

"participating in male culture" and it's having a boyfriend BE FOR REAL!!! this is such a western concept to me as well bc in many eastern cultures young women have like little to no say when they're faced with the prospect of arranged marriage, and so the fact that you degenerates are complaining about VOLUNTARY marriage in modern societies whereas young girls in other countries don't have that kind of choice is!!! insane!!!! i have so much more to say about this but that's enough for today ig :333

[eclipsecrowned]

not merel and kaz's tax fraud wedding and tax fraud widowing.

[j-emini]

everyone coming for f1toni for pointing out straight facts about that quadrant vid lineup is the wildest take, and ppl ignoring or denying it are just plain ignorant to the situation. 

p.s. this is not to hate on lando, i know it’s not all on him to promote women in motorsport. but given the platform he has it would be nice for it to be used to drive positive change for all genders

[hauntedraggedyanne]

small flaws to give to characters

These aren’t anything super game breaking that turns the character into a psychopath, but they can foreshadow bigger, more important issues down the line.

—always making the conversation about themselves

—lying about something incredibly stupid but they refuse to back down from

—expecting others to pay for them at every store, restaurant or hotel

—subtle jabs at other people that they always respond with ‘I wasn’t SAYING it was bad! YOU’RE the one making ME look bad!’ (Watch one of those ‘alpha male vs modern feminist’ videos or clips for inspiration if you are brave enough)

—messy, except this time they have other people in their space (like a dorm, shared apartment, or any kind of shared living space) so their messiness makes everyone VERY upset

—refusing to understand or learn another friend/teammate/partners culture or background to even slightly understand then

—loud obnoxious voiced people who physically can NOT make a subtle entrance or just simply exist in a room without yelling or eating very loudly

—asks for permission to do absolutely anything even with people who are on the same or even a lower level than they are

—doesn’t listen to music with headphones on in a crowded space so EVERYONE has to listen to them

God I hope the last one isn’t just a me-thing because I actively want to strangle anyone who does that

[neverendingford]

.

[transfemstarscream]

this post was made in derision to the suggestion of male characters being inherently more complex simply by virtue of being male. it was made in frustration to the suggestion of female characters being inherently less complex simply by virtue of being female.

it was not an invitation to discredit, dissect or detract from m/m works, nor suggest the dominating percentage of it in fandom culture was solely a result of misogyny. it was not an attempt to shame creators, more of whom are women, for their sexuality i.e. exclusive attraction to men (which would be hypocritical of me) or for not creating works centered around f/f.

[tanadrin]

by far the most interesting part of the latest You’re Wrong About on homosexuality in the animal kingdom is the account of how science missed it for so long. the guest, lulu miller (of radiolab fame) basically divides the reasons into three categories: ignorance, self-suppression, and what you might call “official” suppression.

essentially, since the days of thomas aquinas when it had been simply declared that homosexuality was inherently against nature, you had a lot of observers of the natural world, even once the enlightenment got underway, who simply didn’t know what they were looking at. many animal species are very sexually dimorphic and thus easy to sex; but many more are not, and if your background assumption (because the background assumption of society in general) is that homosexuality does not occur in nature, if you see two animals of unidentified sex mating, you will assume one is male and one is female. or you might simply assume what you are seeing is an aberration, with no real systemic significance, and not pointing to any kind of underlying phenomenon, and simply fail to note it down--or talk to any other naturalists about it.

and this blends into self-suppression, which includes all researchers who might have noticed homosexuality among animals in the wild, but didn’t write about it. this includes researchers who might not have thought it was significant, or who might have thought nobody was interested in it--miller offers the example of a guy who died relatively recently who spent his life studying mountain rams, who omitted mentioning from his quite detailed survey of their behavior that about one in twelve males mate exclusively with other males, because it seemed to him (at the time of writing) an aberrant and unpleasant fact about an otherwise majestic creature.

“official” suppression we might apply to any time a researcher noticed and wanted to write about the phenomenon, but who simply couldn’t get their data published, including researchers who might have pressed the scientific community at large to recognize this phenomenon, only to be greeted with hostility and suspicion--i.e., what kind of pervert is so obsessed with this topic?

and out of a combination of all these factors you get centuries of a bias being confirmed, because anybody who might care to ask, “well, homosexuality clearly occurs in humans, have we observed it in other animals?” would have been confronted with a vast lacuna in the scientific literature, not because it did not occur, but because multiple intersecting cultural biases prevented anybody from actually talking about it. and it makes it hard to have a conversation about natural phenomena from an empirical and rational perspective when a bias that irrational runs that deep! and i cannot help but wonder what other biases we have in our culture, that might be producing similarly irrational lacunae in our apprehension of the world.

[johannestevans]

it's honestly wild talking to like. random liberals about sci fi sometimes because they just don't... think about the ramifications of their random beliefs and what the end points of their ideologies are

"gene roddenberry's vision was that by the time of star trek, earth had moved on from the need for religion!"

and it's like. i get it. you forget that every religion exists except american christianity. or you think that all religion basically is american christianity.

but when you say to me, "hey, in my utopian future, jews and muslims and their cultures have simply been eradicated <3"

that. doesn't strike me as very utopian. it sounds very, funnily enough, christofascist

"it's the 24th century and these lads are literally doing bits from hamlet, but don't worry, jews have ceased to exist"

like there's constant quotes from shakespeare or dickens or conan doyle or countless other authors from the literary canon, and that literary canon is predominantly made up of white male christian authors, most of whom are british or american

and all of the human culture in star trek is predominantly defined by white american christian mores and cultural ideals, slightly modernised, but not by that much

it's a desire to treat an ultra modern culture as inherently homogenous because for a certain kind of xenophobic liberal, they genuinely internalise the idea that multiculturism is the cause of strife and conflict rather than lack of tolerance for other cultures, and frankly, they've never truly been comfortable in any sort of multicultural environment

and it's just. gross. and it's honestly wild to me that people will spend like. days and days thinking of the "ethical ramifications" of their like, transporter clone plot, but won't think for a second, "hey, i've created a world where jews, muslims, sikhs, hindus, buddhists, and countless other religious and ethnic groups No Longer Exist, and that's go-- um. wait a second--"

[boxingcleverrr]

Popular Hades & Persephone "retellings" are, rightly, getting dunked on all over the socials right now and, as a Pagan who has an altar to the Queen, I could not be happier. But also, I feel like a lot of people miss WHY they're bad - aside from just plain bad writing and lazy tropes. Which are, yeah, also REALLY bad.

Pretty much all retellings try to wave away, or excuse, or twist the whole kidnapping bit. And I actually do have sympathy and understanding for why, when speaking from a modern perspective.

But honestly...you gotta get over it. There are other stories to play fix-it with, not this one.

The Abduction is The Thing.

Were I a little more sober I could bring up chapter and verse of the Hymn to Demeter but frankly, if you know even the middle school mythology curriculum version of the story, you SHOULD know the themes. The story of Persephone was one mothers and daughters in the ancient world held dear, because it was a reality: you will, one day, be swept away from your home to go cleave to a man you most likely know nothing about. You will miss your mother, but chances are very good that he will be a good husband, once you get to know him, certainly better than Zeus or Ares, and he will make you a queen of his home.

Leaving home to marry was often scary, and violent (look up the history of the tradition of Bridesmaids, if you don't already know it - they were originally decoys on the marriage road). Centuries later we'd have tales like Beauty & The Beast serving the same function: comfort, hope, you are leaving your safe loving home to figure life out with a (often older, powerful) stranger. Your trauma over this sudden ending of your childhood made manifest in a Beast, or a God of The Underworld.

It's wonderful that we don't NEED stories like this anymore to comfort us (here, at least, in this culture). But if you try to force them into modern vernacular it just will not work, not really, because you're gutting out the whole point just to have a more tidy romantic male hero.

I have read MANY very good ...novelizations? fanfic(? however you would frame them, but they're certainly not "retellings"), etc. that simply take advantage of the blank spaces in the myth, and there are many!

It's not explicit that sexual assault happens - "The Rape of Persephone" as a title was coined in much earlier eras, when the word was just as often used to simply refer to abduction.

"She was starving!" the gods didn't need to eat. So it's easy to read her eating the Pom seeds as a deliberate choice on her part. Like, shit, people, scholars have written whole papers on the symbolism of this moment, between marriage rites and even yeah, Seph choosing both worlds with her husband's knowing consent.

And that, I think, is the real heart of the thing. People want an utterly mundane, spelled-out story here, as opposed to what it really is, has always been, just like any other myth or religious parable: IT'S A METAPHOOOOOOR.

They don't need to be destined, or meet at a goddamned BALL and then CONSPIRE to fake her kidnapping, or shit, I once saw one where Hades got MIND CONTROLLED by Zeus?! Jesus.

Persephone was yoinked into the Underworld against her will.

That's how it went.

I don't mean this in a "stay out of my belief system!" way, shit I'm a white American chick with delusions of witchery. I mean this in a "stop stressing yourself out trying to make things palatable" way:

This is a very real, very precious myth to many people, BECAUSE for at least that one event, Persephone had no autonomy, BECAUSE for thousands of years most women had no autonomy. Erasing that, sanitizing the fact that a girl is ripped out of the spring, from her mother's arms, is erasing the thing that gave comfort to women for centuries. And people can and should still find power and healing in it now!

Fill in the blanks the story leaves in whatever manner seems fit to you, there's plenty of room, but. Come the fuck on.

[sisterfhood]

Men like to frame their most apathetic tendencies as a natural result of their superior logic, frequently positing that women are too emotional to make rational decisions. Let me make this clear: empathy makes people smarter. Compassionate people make smarter decisions. Humans evolved to feel strong emotions because THEY ARE NECESSARY FOR HIGHER LEVEL COGNITIVE PROCESSING. If we didn’t feel guilt, rage, sadness, love, and every other feeling we quite simply wouldn’t have come this far as a species. The human brain would never have evolved. We have this in common with other highly intelligent animals such as apes, whales, and elephants. They grieve powerfully, and form significant social bonds that affect their decision-making. If anything the cultural restriction of male emotional development and the encouragement of male rage, jealousy, possessiveness, etc, just makes them (males) closer to beasts operating on the most animalistic of instincts.