#it makes more sense to refuse to be involved because for example I'm a 100% merf

[radfem-polls]

do you think childfree women should help mothers/be part of "the village"?

yes, I'm childfree

no, I'm childfree

yes, I'm not childfree

no, I'm not childfree

Hi thanks for the submission!

I'm going to assume "not childfree" includes anyone intending to become a mom in the future. If you're unsure whether or not you'll be a mom in the future, pick whichever one you're leaning more towards.

[p-perkeys]

yes I 100% get what you mean!! and I feel like in animations and movies and stuff like that, Logan is portrayed to be a good dad/father figure and I wish it could be like that in the comics

and yes I do!! her first appearance was in tales of suspense (that was like in 1959) I think I started with black widow: web of intrigue and then read tales of suspense (again I love her)

and thank you so much!! it probably might take me some time to become comfortable with sharing my art 😭 and good, I hope the doctor does!! I’ve seen a lot of people have bad experiences where doctors don’t listen to them and they get a wrong diagnosis but I think it’s definitely best to check it out, you’ll never know if it might be something

andddd I also finished reading nyx and oh my god I was NOT expecting all of that

-🪽

Right! I get that at the beginning it would've taken a little time for Logan to adjust to having kids of his own, but he should be at lot more progressed by this point. It feels like they're beating a dead horse (for lack of a more poetic way to put it) and it also feels like they just refuse to make him a good dad because it's an easy trick to pull out of a hat for tension if they need it. Because it's inconsistent too! For example, in Laura's X-23 solo, Logan not being a great dad is a huge part of it. BUT, with Gambit's help, he seems to get the idea and put in the effort more towards the end. It sets it up nicely for an actual father/daughter relationship. He even legally adopts her in this solo. But then in subsequent stories, that seems ignored. I feel like he slips back into utilizing her as a weapon and letting other people do the same and they mostly bond over fighting together. As for Akihiro and Logan... oh boy. No idea what's going on there. Storytelling from Akihiro's perspective still paints a (rightfully) tense relationship. From Logan's perspective, everything seems fine with all of his kids. Despite Akihiro's entire existence prior to All New Wolverine and the INTENSE angst he had about Logan and the dramatic efforts he went through to express how he felt and what he had to endure because Logan wasn't around and wouldn't help him... when Akihiro finally completely reformed his life and started fighting on the good side and moved to Krakoa and got involved in his sisters life... there were no on panel developments between him and Logan and we never even see Logan's reaction to that. And it's not because they didn't plan on making a big deal about it *because* in Marauders #1, Akihiro is missing and they're searching his room for clues to his whereabouts and while looking at a picture of him and his sisters, Kwannon (I think it was Kwannon, I might be wrong on that) makes the comment that Laura had basically been vouching for Akihiro, saying he was really trying and doing well. SO. We just don't see anything from Logan. But that one comment on that one page in that one story was confirmation that Laura is one of the only supporters he had and she was one of the only ones (if not the only one) at the beginning who was hyping him up and encouraging him to keep trying, even giving others her word that he could be trusted and to give him a chance. I feel like they didn't *have* to make Laura be the one who made encouraging comments about him, it actually would have made more sense with those characters if Logan was the one they were checking with, but they picked Laura over Logan, even though Logan's word would have more weight than hers. Sorry for all this rambling, I have so many feelings :') I agree with you though, is what I'm saying! This ^ is ridiculous and there's no reason Logan shouldn't be a great dad (especially considering the great things he's done for other kids in the comics).

Thank you for the recommendation! I'll definitely check out Web of Intrigue!! Do you prefer her in the movies or comics more, or do you feel like she's the same in both? I always thought she was a really interesting character! I'm excited to finally start reading something of her!

Of course!! And I completely understand that! Post only when you feel ready and when it will be a fun experience for you <3 but I'm sure your art is absolutely amazing!! And thank you so much! <3 A woman I work with recommended this doctor and said she's been going to her for years so I'm hoping she's going to be the right fit for me too!

[writerslock]

chapter one- who he never was- introduction

I’m not sure how to start this off.

The doctors told me it would be better to write all this stuff down to help with my memory, but I've never been good with introduction paragraphs. or introduction thoughts in this case, so i’ll start with the basics. My name is Anastasia, and I'm 16 years old. I have a lot of personalities, but my favorite one has to do with the fact I love love. if that makes sense. I love the feeling of love, I love loving others, i just.. I love love love.

I'm inferring that at least, as almost all of the posters in my room have a quote about love. My assumption is confirmed after seeing that the lights that adjourn the first clump of posters are hearts, and after skimming through my white bookshelf covered in dust, 99 out of the atleast 100 books have to do something with love.

I was told that I suffered a concussion during a crash I was involved in during the summer. my mom refuses to let me know what happened, telling me it will come when it comes. i don’t remember a lot to be honest, which is why i’m snooping around my own room, like a creep, but i guess not a creep in a way? I mean, the person i’m creeping on is myself, and technically I have permission. or is it just the creep in me- you know what, i’m just gonna stop talking.

back to what i was saying. I remember some names, and only two people including my mom, and also some feelings associated with it, but other than that, I can't remember jack shit. However, I still know all of the bracelet patterns I learned at summer camp in 5th grade. camp chattanooga 1, concussion 0. After I scour the underside of my bed, I find a box full of letters. all addressed to PEOPLE. WITH NAMES! AND STORIES. thank god past me had a passion for writing. The only issue with that is, some of the things I've made up or changed for, you know, my stories.

for example, test subject one. Wait, I hate that name, it makes me sound crazy. crush 1? no, basic. I know! victim 1. eh, it sounded better in my head. Whatever, code names don’t matter right now

victim one, carmen-

my first boyfriend, despite his name making him sound like a girl. I know this is a code name , but I know why I picked it. He had a girly name. That also made him sound like a summer boy.I had boyfriends before, but he was the real one, the one that stuck. We dated for a month in 7th grade, but he broke up with me shortly after. He wouldn’t even tell me why, had to find out a year later (by also being nosy). in the letter, one of the main points is an argument.. that happened a year after we dated.

what.

I don't know what to do with this information.

It feels like it’s pointing me in the right direction, but also pointing me right to a dead end. Also note that his name is on multiple letters in this box, and I have a hunch that there’s other things leading to him hiding in this room. I'll take this letter to one of the only people I remember, my best friend steve. she’ll remember something.

our weather might be bipolar, but i feel like recently august has always been hotter than it should. I'm wearing leggings, my white sneakers that have turned off white because of how dirty they've turned, a white tank top that was way too overpriced but made my boobs look good, and to top it all off, a zip up gray jacket. a cliche august core outfit, but i'm somehow still crisping up like a marshmallow.

I wanted to walk to be more aesthetic, but immensely regretted it a mile in, forgetting that even though it’s considered walking distance, it’s still 3 and a half miles.

As I walk into the small, low key library she works for, the century old bell rings throughout the store, alerting all of the college students just trying to study and the prestigious book worms I've entered the area.

As I walk up to the counter slowly, I scope around for steve. tilting my head to get a better angle around the shorter bookshelves, I still can’t find her anywhere. I end up walking up to the counter for help.

average height, brunette is at the counter. He has a lot of cologne on, as I can smell it from far, but it’s surprisingly not suffocating. it smells like he just came back from the beaches of Florida, so what’s he doing here? for some reason, it feels like he fits it but is a total outlier all at the same time. He doesn’t even notice me, as he seems preoccupied with sorting the $1.25 bookmarks they sell by color on the counter.

“hello welcome to legre scriptum-

…

anastasia?..”

oh shit.

[heddagab]

Honestly one reason I can never talk to the Ouat fandom (generic) is because I see Golden Queen so clearly and I see exactly how it was supposed to be and how it would interconnect with so many themes AND also serve themes they already introduced into other relationships so much BETTER that I genuinely can't converse with someone who's not on that base.

Example:

GQ carried the themes of Hades & Persephone and Beauty and the Beast with a twist so well. The Disneyfied version would work with Red Beauty, 100%, the Belle version that could be promoted as a selling point while ACTUALLY being Belle's HE and having her as the protagonist (not the shitty LI who destroyed the protagonist). But GQ carried the theme so well, Regina loving her father the most just like Belle loved Maurice? But in this version, she ends up killing him and not saving him? Or Hades & Persephone being the story that Cora and Rumple initially thought they were playing out, only instead it was actually Regina and him while Cora -even if she had the name- basically refused the role because fate plays strange games and became Demeter (in a vague retelling because the actual myth and the actual gods had different implications). And then Zelena got jealous and tried to steal the story until she met actual Hades? (well, the Disneyfied version)

I can't unsee that OQ being soulmates is pure bullshit and that the one person that suits that role is Rumple. I can't unsee that Regina would actually make more sense if she was the one that urged Rumple to change, not because she was nagging him or didn't love him as he was, but because she was changing herself and he either felt he was losing her or he felt inspired by her (or both)

I can't unsee that Regina would be the one who could be really mad at him WITH GOOD REASON if he did something that threatened Henry's safety by breaking her trust one too many times (which canonicaly has happened and even then she forgave him on the spot because she actually loves him *cough*) or if she wanted to purge the bad blood they had between them as she was healing. She'd be justified. Belle was just petty.

I can't unsee how Zelena raping Rumple by deception while he was her captive is such a better narrative for everybody involved than her doing it to Robin who she just didn't care about one fucking bit. Her saying he'd choose her? Him being so adamant about always choosing Regina? Her transforming into Regina and seducing him in his haze? Please. Rumple then being in the impossible position of fathering that child when all of them know very well that Rumple's number 1 motivation is his children?

This is actually high stakes, this has actual grave impact. Not the absolute watered down BS they showed because they just didn't have the guts to not insert random love interests in the picture.

Even the archetype that Gideon portrayed would be more realistic and more impactful if it was Rumple's and Regina's child, it could spring questions of nature vs nurture for both characters and shake Regina up about her success towards her road to redemption (not her taking Hyde's potion. Like sure, the Split Queen was awsome etc etc but narratively that was as if Regina was brain damaged, I'm sorry but godamn, s5 Regina especially was losing IQ by the minute). Rumple saying that she was the best mother he knows and that he had faith in her would not only be a counterparallel of their earlier relationship but also absolutely proven true and not just subjective hearsay since we've seen Regina's journey with Henry for years. It is earned. Not a mandatory throwaway line existing solely for ship pandering.

This got long and I'm still certain that I have probably more to say but damn, it's sad, it's just absolutely sad.

[kira-ani-mcgrath]

I'm too bored and have too little time to spend on Frozen 2 (not to mention that my Disney boycott is still in effect)...what happened, and what were your gripes with the movie?

[I will preface this by saying I have not actually seen the movie (I refuse to), but I kept up with all the spoilers and have seen enough clips, gifs, and recaps that I know the plot of the movie and most of the script.]

My involvement in Frozen-related things hinges on Hans (if he didn’t exist I’m sure I wouldn’t be as invested in the franchise as I am). And I, a Hans fan, spent six years waiting for a Frozen 2 through the nonsense that was his heel-turn in Frozen, the demonization of his character and his fans by the fandom, the insult that was his Frozen Fever cameo, the pettiness of the Easter egg digs at him in other WDAS movies (BH6, Zootopia), and the cold shoulder that was his absence from Olaf’s Frozen Adventure. Then Frozen II finally comes along… and it figuratively gives Hans fans the middle finger. Twice.

Frozen II didn’t have to include a charades scene. But it did. The charades scene didn’t have to include Anna trying to mime the word “villain.” But it did. Olaf didn’t have to guess “Hans” (and from the clip on YouTube, I can’t see any reason why that would be even a remotely logical guess). But he does. The following dialogue didn’t have to be: [ELSA] “Unredeemable monster!” [KRISTOFF] “Greatest mistake of your life!” [OLAF] “Wouldn’t even kiss you!” … [ANNA] “Villain!” … [OLAF] “We all kind of got it.” But it was.

When Elsa goes to Ahtohallan (a water memory glacier place (don’t ask :\)) there didn’t have to be a memory of Hans there. But there was. And it didn’t have to be a memory that was near enough for Elsa to walk past (it could have simply been in the background). But it was. Yet it could have been a memory she would be genuinely horrified by, such as Hans’ betrayal of Anna or Hans on the fjord with his sword. But it wasn’t. Instead it was Hans introducing himself to Anna, an innocuous scene in and of itself. Yet Elsa turned up her nose and destroyed Hans’ snow sculpture.

The first incident is the more reprehensible of the two, since fans have been asking for Hans’ redemption since Day 1. This scene feels like it was included specifically to metaphorically flip off these fans (myself included) due to the writers twisting the word “redeem” (expressed in requests and wishes such as “Please redeem Hans,” “Hans is redeemable,” and ”I want to see a Hans redemption,”) into Elsa’s line of “Unredeemable monster.”

The second incident, while not quite as overt as the first, is still insidious. The obvious angle is that it simply was not necessary. It adds nothing to anyone’s characterization nor does it add anything to the story. It is merely included for Hans’ haters to cheer at (just like Anna’s punch in F1). The more subtle angle is that, as I stated above, Hans introducing himself to Anna is a harmless scene in and of itself. That means Elsa destroys his image for events unrelated to what’s currently happening before her. (I’m sure that sounds familiar to you, as it does to me.) Yet if this moment had never happened, it’s entirely possible Elsa’s powers would have never been revealed, and she and Anna would have stayed separated. So even Hans’ role as a catalyst for the sisters’ reunion is ignored in favor of the “Hans is 100% bad and deserves only bad 100% of the time” narrative.

Unfortunately, these things go hand-in-hand with the original Frozen’s lackluster morals, but that’s another essay in and of itself.

Putting that aside, the rest of the movie is not good either. Granted, I’m not invested in the other characters anywhere near the level I am invested in Hans. However, the problems that plagued F1 are evident again in F2. The writers were too focused on 1) forcing the narrative to fit their predetermined ending, 2) being “realistic” to the detriment of the plot/characters and 3) subverting audience expectations to the detriment of the plot/characters.

Example for #1: In F1, the Kristoff/Anna relationship was endgame, so they got Hans out of the way by making him a villain. In F2, Anna becoming the queen of Arendelle was endgame, so they got Elsa out of the way by making her decide to leave Arendelle.

Example for #2: In F1, they wanted to go against the “fairytale cliche of ‘love at first sight’” since that’s not “realistic,” so Anna gets ridiculed for her decisions regarding Hans. The audience is supposed to side against Anna despite the narrative simultaneously attempting to make the audience approve of Kristoff and Anna’s relationship. In F2, it’s more “realistic” for siblings to move out of their childhood home and live in different locations, so Elsa leaves Arendelle even though there’s no real reason for her to do so.

Example for #3: In F1, Hans’ twist was obviously only because the writers wanted to pat themselves on the back for shocking the audience by “subverting” the “Prince Charming” trope, even though, as other excellent posts have pointed out, Hans’ character goes beyond that trope and his heel-turn was not honestly foreshadowed (not to mention the narrative cheating by having him give a genuine smile for no one but the audience’s benefit). In F2, it’s almost like the writers went out of their way to not develop the characters the same way the fandom has developed them (not in a “the writers should have listened to the fandom” sense but in a “the writers wanted to make sure no one had ever thought of anything remotely like this before so they took the characters in a completely different direction than logic would dictate” sense). For example, just from being around the fandom and reading a bit of fanfiction, I’ve seen that something people loved about Elsa was her combination of humanity and otherness. She has these amazing powers, yet in F1 she (sort of) learns she can’t just run away from her responsibilities and focus only on her powers. She has to balance her magical aspects with her human aspects, which is demonstrated in her using her powers for her subjects’ benefit in the ending scene of F1. Yet what does she do in F2? Basically the same thing as F1, only this time she ends up choosing to leave Arendelle permanently since her character is now permanently lopsided toward her “otherness” aspect. (I’m aware it can be argued that she was doing what was best for Arendelle, but the problem I have with F2 is that it presents the aforementioned lopsidedness as the natural, intended completion of Elsa’s character. This doesn’t jive with F1, which gave us a character who, at the end, was just starting to learn the balance she needed for herself yet was finally happy. Instead, F2 tells us she was never supposed to have that balance as she was never supposed to rule Arendelle and was always destined for the “Fifth Spirit” role. It would have made more sense if Elsa had to sacrifice her humanity and her right to rule Arendelle in order to become the “Fifth Spirit” and save Anna and Arendelle while unknowingly yet simultaneously saving herself. This would have been a fitting parallel to Anna’s sacrifice in F1 that ended up saving both of them.)

There’s other criticisms I’ve read, such as the pacing is terrible, the plot is confusing, the new characters are pointless, and instead of the characters driving the story with a good rotation of baseline-conflict-growth, the characters merely react to plot contrivances plopped before them. Based on what I know, I’m inclined to agree.

So, to recap, an implied “F*** you!” to Hans fans (particularly those who wanted his redemption) and a mess of a movie means no Disney products for me.

Except the new Broadway merchandise has me in a conundrum. On the one hand, no money for Disney as per the reasons above. On the other hand, money talks. If new Hans-themed merch sells well, Disney may decide it’s profitable to do something positive with the character. As of right now, I’m leaning toward buying the Hans merch but not buying anything else Disney-related.

[serenagaywaterford]

5) Honestly, imo it would made a lot more sense if Serena got involved with the Resistance after 2x08. She's a writer and a good propagandist, June's an editor, they could carefully go behind Fred's back. Also, Commander Lawrence is there. They could have brought down Gilead from within. Maybe I'm being simplistic, but I think it would have given a nice msg. An instigator (and impassioned supporter) of a misogynistic (and homophobic) totalitarian regime becomes a victim herself, but decides to

6) to do sth about that monstrous situation she created, even if that means that she will go down with Gilead. Then again, I do understand why the creators didn't go there. This is the handmaid's tale, not the redeemed fascist's tale. Regarding 2x10, oof. I pride myself in having a hard stomach, but that scene made me REALLY, REALLY uncomfortable (and ENRAGED). (A lot more uncomfortable than the previous ceremonies, which were terrible enough on their own, AND Eden's death* .) And given that

7) Serena has the gall to tell Fred that June hates him, because he raped her. Like bitch, stfu, it was YOUR idea! You raped her and used Fred for the penetration. And not only that, but she manipulated Fred/played him like an instrument. She knows at this point that he's a serial rapist/abuser AND in love with June, so ofc he wouldn't decline the opportunity to abuse her once again. It really is telling that June was screaming Serena's name, not Fred's. I wonder wtf was going on Serena's mind

8) to put the baby's life in danger. She could have punished June after the birth if she really wanted to. That being said, I personally think that Serena was kind of OOC in that episode. Not because she's an angel that is not capable of such hideous things. But, after taking under consideration 2x08 and 2x09, I felt that her 180° change came out of nowhere. Especially, since she took a small taste of her own medicine. She knows what abuse/domestic violence feels like. As for the marital rape,

9) it may have been clichéd, but it would also have made sense. A person that repeatedly rapes a woman, beats his wife and is okay with mutilations draws the line at forcing himself on her? Since when do creepers have standards? One last thing, because I've spammed you enough. *I mentioned Eden's death (which made me cry like a baby). How do you feel about her? Bc was disappointed that the fandom blamed a 15 year old child that was forced to marry a man twice her age. Not only that, but she

10) forgave him and kept Nick and June's secret? // END OF RANT // My apologies.

---------

I think I have to put a read more here! Eep!

“Then again, I do understand why the creators didn't go there. This is the handmaid's tale, not the redeemed fascist's tale.”

I had to laugh IRL there. Cos, it’s true. It’s June’s story, technically speaking, not Serena’s. And I dunno but I feel like I suspect that’s where they eventually want to take the show. But S2 is too early for that? I personally don’t know why. There’s no law an American programme must go one for 14 seasons. It could easily be a 4 season series. Or 3! But I’ve read things that Hulu wants to keep it going as long as possible. Huge mistake, imo. Organically speaking, Serena changing course after 2x08, or even, at a push, 2x09 would have made much more sense than this “will she? won’t she?” BS they keep doing with her. I think she’s come around in a way she hadn’t before by the finale (or Eden’s murder). But it still doesn’t seem like it’s something she’ll carry through with--especially without June. It’s interesting how much Serena relies on June for incentive/encouragement. Basically everything Serena’s done in resistance since mid-S2 has been because June has done or challenged her or said something to prompt her. I feel on her own, she would be ~meeker. Even things like, “Hey, so I know this way to possible save the baby... what do you think?” is clearly her going “Please say what I want to hear!” It’s like she can’t just do it herself. She needs June’s input. June was calling almost every shot in 2x08. In 2x09, when left to her own devices, Serena folded. It took June screaming at her in 2x13 for her to do anything about reading. So, without June around I feel like Serena will just go back to old ways. Which is ridic cos she is an intelligent, powerful woman when she actually has the balls. The only thing Serena manages to do on her own is assault, hate speech, and war crimes lol. The easy shit.

That said, I kinda like how they ended 2x08. I loved Fred seeing the rose on June’s bedside and putting all the pieces together and seeing that as the true threat: Serena and June as friends/partners in rebellion. The beating scene was horrific too, mostly cos I’m not one of those weird fans that was sitting there cheering, “YAY I’M SO GLAD SERENA GOT BEAT! SERVES HER RIGHT!” (I just... want to throttle every single person who’s said that. Not necessarily cos I wuv woobie Serena sfm but because way to miss the point of the entire series.) but the aftermath was even worse, imo. June reaching out and attempting to maintain the bond, but Fred managed to break Serena really easily. Like it’s just so awful how easy it was for him to snap that bond, cos he knows his wife and her pride, etc. It was ... so manipulative and evil genius. (Although it doesn’t take a genius to figure that out, Freddie boy.) It was just such a prime example of exactly how they maintain power in Gilead and how they managed to get it working: estranging women from each other. And it was just such an apt way of visualising the concepts June talked about in S1 about keeping women at arm’s length of each other, suspicious, etc. in order for men to keep power. So, in that sense, I thought it was well done. But then... I was like, “OH FUCK THIS. NOT AGAIN. FUCKING SERENA. WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT. WHY CAN’T SHE BE STRONG LIKE JUNE. UGH.”

I dunno.

Yeah. 2x10. I was “lucky” to have seen that scene ahead of time... so I was prepared when it happened during the episode. But it was still repulsive. Aside from the nonsensical writing of the whole thing, it was just gross. And I think maybe you’re the first person that when talking about this has mentioned how grossed out you are by the other Ceremony scenes. So many people just... don’t really mention them. I remember the article about 2x10 and how the showrunners were saying something along the lines of “Is it really that big of a deal when the same thing has been happening the entire time?” Nobody reacted the same way those times, because the Handmaids are quiet and well-behaved during their rapes, even though, on some level I think Serena and some other wives (IIRC) are completely aware of how terrible it is (Serena even admits as much...but does it anyway uuuggghhhhh.) This is the only time June ever fights back and suddenly not only are Fred and Serena faced with the brutal reality of the act but as the audience we are as well. It’s easy to look the other way when nobody is crying or struggling but WHAM. Fuck that. This is gross and horrible and here is what it REALLY is. And it’s hard to swallow.

June crying Serena’s name was probably the absolute worst part, cos it just makes it crystal clear that everyone knows exactly who is responsible for that rape. June knows who has the power, whose idea it was, and she knows the only one to stop it is not Fred. (God, I fucking hate Fred but like you said, he was totally played by Serena. I don’t let him off the hook for it but really it was her idea, 100% and he just thought “Hell yeah! Sounds good!”)

I feel like as much as Serena understood the Ceremony is pretty bad generally, I don’t think she recognised it as “real” rape until that moment. I feel like a lot of those Gilead people are just so willfully blind and selfish and horrible that they actively refuse to see things. Like Serena’s weird ass enthrall about child brides. I know some of that was to get back at June but she seemed genuinely awed by how beautiful it all was. NO BITCH IT’S NOT. IT’S CHILD ABUSE AND SEX TRAFFICKING. 

I just have given up trying to understand why Serena would do such a monumentally STUPID and DANGEROUS thing if she honestly cared about the baby--which, incidentally, I do believe she truly loves Nicole and babies. As crazy as that is. Even if her love of Nicole specifically is totally a self-centeredness. But she loves babies. Babies above all else apparently, including other women. And she’s not an idiot. Baby health aside, that is a HUGE crime in Gilead to rape a pregnant Handmaid for any reason. I’m supposed to believe Serena is just so massively upset about June’s false labour that she goes mentally insane, even after being subjected to the similar treatment like a week earlier? It’s a huge, nonsensical risk on basically every single level. 

I’ve come to the conclusion, considering all those things you did, it was just bad writing. Her 180 just... is bonkers. I give up. I don’t think there’s any way to logically get from 2x08/09 to 2x10 without taking some leaps. Do I think Serena would punish and abuse June for humiliating her? Absolutely. That’s her MO. She lives for that shit. But rape? It... I dunno again. Fucking weird. I don’t know if it’s on purpose or what, but I do find it interesting that after that Serena never raises a hand to June again, when she had some opportunity. She still punished her by separating her from Nicole but she never physically assaults her again. (Not that I’m saying she’s a changed person or anything. I just thought it was curious but I don’t know if it was deliberate on the show’s part or just a symptom of lack of real opportunity.)

ITA re: the marital rape too. I see no reason Fred wouldn’t escalate to that. It’s all Joseph Fiennes fault. Which is probably what pisses me off the very most. He decided that was just too much for his character? C’mon. That’s too much but what Fred does in the next ep is peachy keen? Oh, right, because in 2x10 we can blame Fred’s behaviour on his evil wife. It’s not really his fault. I see. But you can’t blame Serena for him raping her. Ugh. So, cos, Fiennes doesn’t like it, we lose way more context for Serena--who, lbr, is the more important character in this whole series out of the two of them.

EDEN. OMG BB EDEN.

I’m with you. I was actually pretty disgusted at fandom’s response to her. SHE IS A CHILD. But all these Nick/June shippers were going hogwild attacking her for getting inbetween their precious self-insert fantasy relationship. (I have a particularly low opinion of Nick/June shippers primarily because of their reactions to Eden, tbh. Before that, I was like whatever, each to their own.) This is a story about women and girls in a horrible society, and the focus seemed to be on tearing apart this female child for something she had zero control over. I never got the “Eden is evil and gonna fuck shit up for Nick (and June)!” vibe. She seemed to be a regular girl caught and raised in a misogynistic awful place and just lost. I absolutely ABHORRED the way Nick treated her the entire fucking time. (I honestly hate him so much, and most of that again is due to him since the forced marriage, both in the way he was with Eden and with June. And the number of fangirls fanwanking away all his shitty fucking behaviour and throwing Eden under the bus didn’t help my attitude.) 

She’s a KID. FORCED TO MARRY A GROWN MAN. A man who it wouldn’t kill to just be straight up with her and a little bit kind. Fuck. (Serena’s grooming certainly wasn’t good either. Like, seriously lady, shut up. Stop pressuring the kid to fuck an adult man who hates her by telling her “Well maybe you can like it too!” AHHHHH.)

To me, aside from the babies/children, Eden was the most truly good character on the entire show. She was patient, kind, caring, FORGIVING, loving. Completely innocent bb girl. And then she gets fucking murdered for kissing a boy she actually likes and wants to be with. Which, was ........... wow. Gilead’s hypocrisy killing a pious young girl, presumably fertile... Yikes.

And that little girl was more brave than ANY other character. And maybe some of that is teenage thinking but still she was staring down death and refused to back down. Sure, it’s unreasonable, and an adult likely wouldn’t have made that decision... but also what was her option? Repent... and become a Handmaid? That would have been her fate since she’s an adulteress and fallen woman. And since she truly believes in goodness, and God, and Heaven (presumably), she sees it as a way for her and Isaac to be together. Meanwhile, it took a literal death sentence for Nice Guy Nick to actually recognise he could have maybe been a bit kinder to her. Then she’s asking for HIS forgiveness. AH. Eden bb.

I have a lot of feelings about Eden, and the way fandom treated her. Even when she was killed, fans were still calling her stupid and annoying for her choice--likely the ONLY real choice she has EVER had for herself. (I think that concept gets forgotten.) Like WTF sort of world do you live in that you watch a show about fascism and female oppression and turn around and bitch out the YOUNG GIRL strictly for being a young girl in a fascist society?

But hey, this is the same fandom that calls Janine annoying and crazy, and says Serena deserves to be beaten and mutilated by her husband/Gilead. Way to miss the point of the entire show. But that’s a totally other rant for another time, heh.

Also, anon, NEVER APOLOGISE FOR YOUR RANTS. They are so wonderful to read cos I completely agree! And it’s just such a relief to see reasonable people around these parts. 

[getoffthesoapbox]

Hello! Many questions anon again! You turned off your anon questions before I could send another message lol. I hope you don't mind but I'm back with more questions. So I saw one of your asks about Zero being almost too accepting of Ai, and I was just wondering how much of a role Zero really played in Ai's life? What I mean is, after Zero is attacked and Yuuki warns the vampires to leave him alone, she says that they stopped seeing each other and only met at the bench. (1)

(2) And this was whilst Ai was maybe 4 years old? And then by the time she’s about 8, she says that Zero doesn’t come round the house a lot and she stops seeing him as a father and starts seeing him in a romantic light? I guess what I’m trying to ask here is, how much did Zero really raise Ai? Because I’m not sure he was there much, and it feels like a lot of the fandom try to paint him as the perfect step father just to make it seem like he was 100% okay with Yuuki having a child with Kaname?

Welcome back, my friend! Sorry for turning my askbox off for a bit–I was getting a little tired of passive aggressive hate asks, so I thought a cool down period would be good for everyone’s collective mental health. ;) 

As for your question, my personal take on the story is that Zero seems to be fairly seriously involved with Ai’s life up until she’s around five years old. We can tell this based on inference from several small scenes: 

Zero’s close enough to the family to be drinking from Yuuki in Ai’s bedroom in VKM 2, not something uncles/friends do

Ai is comfortable and close enough to him to insist he’s her dad (rather than than something more distant, say, an uncle or brother) despite Zero correcting her in VKM 2 

Ai “ships” Zero and her mother together in her diary entry in VKM 3 and she writes diaries to him period which indicate serious closeness (she tells him things she doesn’t tell her mother too, as we see from her leaking the story of Yuuki’s underwear in VKM 3)

Zero is the only character we ever see actually playing with Ai (VKM 5), a prime feature of father figures–this would be different if we saw, say, Aidou playing with her or Takuma (uncle figures), but only Zero gets this privilege

Ai is excited to move in VKM 6 because she’ll be near Zero’s work 

It bothers Ai when Zero stops coming around as often as he did formerly (which indicates there’s a serious difference between his current visits and his previous ones)

Even after Yuuki “benches” their relationship, Zero is still involved enough in the family life to be driving Yuuki and Ai to balls and back (VKM 7) and to be taking Ai to visit Yori and Aidou on Yuuki’s behalf (VKM 8). So despite his presence in Ai’s life diminishing slightly, clearly he was still involved enough to be an important factor if her life. Her feelings don’t shift for him until she encounters “other men” at the ball in VKM 8 (and Zero being “safe” with no sexual interest in her–unlike the other young men perhaps–and not “claimed” by her mother becomes attractive to a young girl just hitting vampiric puberty). 

In short, I believe Zero was very involved in Ai’s life as a parental figure in all ways but in name up until VKM 6. After VKM 6, he’s still a parental figure, but it’s more like a divorce scenario–he only gets “custody” of Ai under “approved” circumstances. That doesn’t change the fact that for most of Ai’s early life he was basically a live-in boyfriend who helped raise her (VKM 2 implies he was part of the typical bed-time routine). 

Obviously how much he was involved is speculative at best, but given that he’s Yuuki’s main source of blood throughout her pregnancy and also afterward, and given that he and Yuuki seem closer during Ai’s early years on a romantic level (Zero openly speaks to Yuuki about love in VKM 2, but stops talking about it by VKM 9), it’s likely he was fairly seriously involved with Ai’s growing up years–if not, it makes no sense why she would call him “Dad” rather than “Uncle/Zero.” 

To give you an example, I was heavily involved in helping to raise my friend’s child, my soul-niece. However, my soul-niece has never once “confused” me with her real mother–I am her auntie and have always been her auntie. Children, especially children like Ai, are too smart and perceptive to make mistakes like calling an uncle figure “dad.” The fact that Ai wanted to call Zero “dad” implies he held that role in her life, even if Yuuki and Zero themselves wouldn’t acknowledge it at the time.

I personally do think Zero was a perfect step-father to Ai especially given the circumstances, and that he is the very reason she grew up as stable and functional as she is (her inbred genetics certainly didn’t contribute to that). I don’t think Yuuki’s worth beans as a mother, especially not for a precocious and intelligent child like Ai, and so I would never take away the role Zero played in Ai’s life, despite her ridiculous parentage. Zero certainly loves her too, as we can see from his response to her touching his face in Yuuki’s memory from VKM 10–even if his feelings are complicated, I think his love for Ai is real (otherwise why would he plan a world for her in VKM 8′s forge memory, rather than for Yuuki?). 

It’s quite possible given how little we know from the time period between VKM 9′s teething scene and VKM 9′s confession scene 50-some-odd years later that Zero’s feelings as a parental figure toward Ai may cool the longer Yuuki refuses to acknowledge his role in her life and Ai’s, and this might be contributing to the idea that he wasn’t much of a stepfather–a distance grows between him and Ai once she confesses her love in VKM 8, and then Zero hardly talks to Ai at all in the chapters from the later years like VKM 3 and VKM 9. I suspect some of that is due to Zero trying to be respectful of Ai’s feelings, and some of it is due to Ai trying to keep herself in check, and some of it is due to Yuuki trying to separate Zero and Ai because of Ai’s feelings, but none of that has any bearing on the fact that up until she was 8, Ai held Zero as a father figure and for all intents and purpose he was her father figure. 

Long story short, I feel like Zero’s experience regarding Ai is more nuanced than the story lets on and than fans admit. He has a real parental relationship with her that’s complicated by a.) Yuuki’s refusal to allow him to take his proper place in the family, b.) the source of Ai’s existence (Night 89), and c.) Ai’s own feelings changing to a romantic focus thanks to the confusion Yuuki’s created by not clarifying his role in Ai’s life, all of which contribute to making his situation more of a quagmire than it might otherwise have been. 

These are just my thoughts on the matter, though. =) Obviously since we aren’t shown every day of their lives, we can’t know how much or how little Zero was involved. We can only go by context clues. =)

I hope that addresses your question…I feel like I went off on a tangent. XD If I didn’t, feel free to clarify your thoughts. =)

[thelegendofclarke]

I'm not sure that the Undercover Lover Jon thing is true, even though I get why people believe it. If it isn't true tho, what is the third treason that Dany's going to suffer? I thought it was pretty much agreed that it was going to be Jon.

Hokay I know I said I wasn’t going to talk about this, but I am nothing if nothing contrary af. SO anon I am going to use your ask as a kind of like ~general layout~ of my thoughts on the potential of UCJ.  I’m going to maintain though that I would prefer not to discuss any potential consent issues for personal reasons. 

I am also gonna shout out to the other few anons as, well as @ladyanyawaynwood and @lyanna-mormont, who also sent me asks on this topic. 

SO all right folks *drum roll* It’s the new favorite fandom Disc Horse! Either you love it or you hate it! Either you want to have its babies or want to kill it with fire!… It’s THE UNDERCOVER JON THEORY!

Before I start rambling, you should all totally check out the bottom part of this really excellent post by @him-e about some of the details and possibilities of this theory, because Claudia is so much better at words and explanations and life than me. There’s also this post by @blindestspot, whose no nonsense approach I always really appreciate.

Ok, first of all: I would like to go on record once more in saying that God I really dislike the name Undercover Jon. I primarily hate it because I feel like it’s misleading, at least in terms of what I personally would consider this theory to be. I feel like “undercover” implies deliberateness and ill intent and malice aforethought that I generally don’t really think is involved here. Also, I guess I don’t really subscribe to the Undercover Lover theory at all, because I don’t think Jon’s feelings for/sexual relationship with Dany have anything to do with it (i.e. I do not think Jon purposefully and deliberately seduced Dany for the sole purpose of manipulating her, nor do I think he is merely pretending to have feelings for her for the sole purpose of personal/political gain). 

I truly don’t believe Jon is in any way maliciously gaslighting Dany as part of any Grand Scheme. Personally, I feel that would be too much at odds with the Honorable and Noble character and narrative established for Jon. But that’s not to say that I don’t think the general theory is totally with out merit. I actually think some elements of it could definitely make up a potential plot line. I have explained my take on it as more Flying By the Seat of His Pants Jon- I think “scheme” would be way too strong a word, I think “plan” would probably even be too generous. It’s probably more along the lines of “ok so this is what we are doing now.”

Somewhere along the line I feel like this whole thing turned into something VERY black and white and moralized. I also think that somewhere down the line this turned into a VERY polarized and mutually exclusive theory, which I don’t think would be the case in the event that the theory ends up being true. I have seen a lot of comparisons being made to LF and Ned Stark. It’s either that Jon is Ned Stark’s son and he would NEVER act in this type of morally dubious manner, OR that if Jon were to be acting in this morally dubious manner that he is just as bad as LF. @blindestspot summed up this polarization kind of perfectly imo:

Hyperbolically speaking, either Jon is a cruel cad or he is a faithless idiot. If you step away from the hyperbole, his pragmatism or naivety might actually make him less of a righteous cookie-cutter hero and more like a flawed human being. But it’s the internet and ideas are quickly distorted into their most hyperbolic versions of themselves. If Jon isn’t wholly good, he has got to be evil. If Jon isn’t smart, he eats crayons for breakfast.

Likewise, I disagree with the idea that Ned Stark and LF are the only two applicable points of moral comparison, that just seems awfully restrictive imo. Also, both Ned Stark and LF are dead. This implies that in order to survive the game of thrones, you have to fall somewhere in between. I guess the best way I can think of to explain it is that I kind of view this theory and it’s different variations on a sliding scale… The more deliberate and manipulative the version of the theory makes Jon out to be, the less likely I think it is to happen in that manner. 

Jon is one of the heroes of the show; and not only that, he has often been used or portrayed as the Moral Compass Character. (And example being just this season when he refused to punish Ned Umber and Albs Karstark for the sins of their fathers). The show runners have never had any story line that explicitly and intentionally places Jon in the wrong or in an extremely negative light. There has been story lines where he has acted in a morally ambiguous manner (see: Ygritte and the Wildlings), but he has never done anything purposefully malicious or outright evil or immoral. Also, there has been no indication in the narrative that he is heading toward any kind of downward spiral. I just can’t see the show going the dark!Jon or evil!Jon or morally corrupt!Jon route in the final season when he has been consistently portrayed as the Knight in Shining Armor, Savior, and Hero of the story.

I am a lawyer… So my basic approach to things like speculation is to look at the evidence. Honestly, for this theory, imo the defense for both sides have created reasonable doubt.

Arguments for UCJ

Potential Evidence from Jon’s character:

Through the Wilding plot from s1-s3, the narrative has established that Jon is capable of deception. He is capable of having genuine feelings for someone while not being completely honest. 

Sansa told Jon he needed to be “smarter,” which he could have taken to heart. A plot like this, similar to the the Sansa and Arya vs. LF plot, could be part of the general theme of “I learn” and the Starks going from pawns to players.

Kit Harrington has said this about Jon Snow’s character in s7 and s8: “But this year, I think he becomes a politician… He starts manipulating people in a Jon Snow way - in a kind way, but he has a job to do.” (x) This not only confirms that Jon IS operating as apolitical actor, but could also imply that Jon has a strategic goal or purpose. However, Jon having real feelings for Dany is not necessarily at odds with him having a second agenda. The two things are not at all mutually exclusive.

Jon steadfastly maintained through out the season that he would not be bending the knee. He even went so far as to tell Dany “I am a king.” It could be difficult for people to see how he would make such a complete 180, and a seemingly needless and unnecessary one given that Dany agreed to fight the NK before he bent the knee.

Potential Evidence from the Show:

There have been story lines, like the Sansa and Arya vs. LF plot, that were dishonest on their face. The way they were portrayed was intended to mislead the audience. So D&D are capable of using this kind of plot device.

The way I see this kind of story line going, it would also essentially be a pretty significant parallel to the Jon and the Wildlings plot, where Jon had real feelings for Ygritte but the situation was complicated by duty and circumstance. However, this would mean that it’s material D&D are familiar with.

All of the finale was full of subtext about lying and lies and honor. They laid it on so thick. Thick enough, I felt, that it could imply that Jon is hiding something or that part of him is overcompensating and/or being motivated by guilt.

Arguments Against UCJ:

Potential Evidence from Jon’s character:

Obviously, Jon’s honor code and strong senses of morality and duty are huge parts of his character. It’s totally reasonable to think that he has no ulterior motives beyond forming an alliance to ensure Dany and her dragons will fight with the North.

I think that Jon knows The NK will probably have a dragon how (he has seen the NK raise people from the dead, and he knows from the wight hunt that the NK can also raise animals from the dead). He knows without the dragons, they do not stand a chance. So he is doing everything necessary to ensure the dragons are on their side.

Jon has been consistently portrayed as a Hero and Moral Compass type character. There would be no reason for them to do anything that had the potential to  turn the audience so vehemently against him in the final season.

Potential Evidence from the Show:

There have been some incredibly stupid story lines (jfc that wight hunt). It’s fair to be suspicious that a story line of this manner is beyond what D&D have the tendency to produce in terms of complex details.

There are only 6 episodes left. I have a really hard time imagining how they would pull this off in 6 episodes ON TOP OF everything else that has to happen before the series ends.

In regards to the plot device of characters using seduction and emotional manipulation as a tool, D&D have consistently been typical dude bro’s insofar as it has been largely female characters who have done so (Cersei, Margaery, Shae, Osha, ect.) It might be completely beyond them to think to have a male character utilize those techniques in such a manner.

I see valid arguments being made on both sides here to constitute a generally sufficient case for it going either way. I think that anyone who would argue “yes the is 100% going to happen” OR “no there is a 0% chance this is happening” would be willfully disregarding evidence from one side or the other. Obviously it’s natural that people will find one side or the other more persuasive, everything about speculation is subjective. But I just don’t feel like it would be possible to make any definitive statements at this point. 

All the reasons I have for thinking this could be possible or impossible have nothing to do with me shipping Jon/Sansa. They actually don’t really have anything to do with Sansa herself at all in any different way than they have to do with everyone in the North that Jon’s decision affects. I know there are some people who might not believe me when I say that, but I supposed there is nothing I can do about it. But that’s the thing about speculation: it’s always subjective, there can be arguments made for both sides. While some people may say “Jon has made promises to Dany and he wouldn’t break them and betray her,” the flip side is “in making these promises to Dany, Jon has betrayed his duty and promises he made to all of his subjects as their king whom they trust.” For every argument, there is a counter argument; for every action, there is a reaction. For every person who can’t believe Jon would betray Dany, there is another person who can’t believe Jon would betray his family. For every person who believes Jon was right to bend the knee, there is another person who can’t believe he would do it. For every person who thinks Dany deserves to rule the Seven Kingdoms, there is another person who believes the North deserves their freedom and independence.

All things considered, I do feel there could be some potential conflict in regards to Jon’s intentions and motivations. I think there are various events and ambiguities in the past and present plot, as well as in Jon’s actions and in Jon and Dany’s relationship, that support said hypothesis. My best guess is that Jon definitely has some guilt about bending the knee because he either: a) knows the north will NEVER go for it, or b) was being genuine and feels guilty for having unilaterally made such a huge decision that effects so many people, including his own family, with out their input (which he should because ffs dude come on!) .The only thing that I believe Jon has been outright dishonest about is telling Dany that the Northerners would bend the knee accept her as Queen. The North has a very deep seated rhetoric against the Targaryens. Whether it’s true or not is essentially a moot point, it’s just something that is deeply embedded in their history. In 7x02 they went out of their way to make a ~big deal~ about how “Targaryens can’t be trusted.” The North also has a historic distrust and disdain for Southern rule and the Iron Throne, going all the way back to Torrhen Stark, the king who knelt. I don’t think there is any way that Jon could reasonably believe that Dany won’t be met with opposition from the North… All the rest of it, including Jon’s feelings towards Dany, kind of falls into a gray area of words vs. actions vs. intent vs. motivations. Which makes sense, because this would be a morally gray plot; and it wouldn’t be the first time one of those was featured on Game of Thrones. 

I suspect that, like with Operation Wildling, Jon has no real escape plan or exit strategy here; I honestly don’t think that he has thought about it that much (also implying that any deliberate, premeditated manipulation or ill intent on his part would be minimal or non existent). Honestly, I think that Jon believes he is not going to survive to see the extended repercussions of and reactions to his bending the knee. I think that Jon truly believes he is going to die fighting the NK. He already showed that he was willing to die when he told Dany to leave him behind in 7x06. Like the rest of us, his he is probably wondering how in the ever loving fuck his ass has somehow managed to survive this long. (Honestly being like, “I’ll bend/pretend to bend the knee and then just die so I don’t have to face Sansa” would ABSOLUTELY be a Jon Snow thing to do.) I think Jon made what he saw as the best decision in the present, and isn’t concerned about the future or the fallout. Which, if true, could lead to a couple possible conflicts for next season:

Possibility 1- Jon dies in the BftD and Dany lives, leaving Dany to face the North and Cersei on her own.

Possibility 2- Dany dies in the BftD and Jon lives, leaving him to deal with the fallout in the North and Cersei alone.

Possibility 3- Both Jon and Dany survive the BftD and the North makes it clear that they will not accept his as queen, leaving Jon to decide who’s side he will be on. His decision then would obviously be complicated by his feelings for Dany and his loyalty to his family ect. ect.

Possibility 4- The White Walkers win and everyone dies so it doesn’t even matter!

(*Disclaimer: Obviously this list is just me speculating and is in no way comprehensive or exhaustive.)

And like Anon said, if Jon is going to be the third reason that Dany suffers, then Possible Conflict #’s 1 and 3 could definitely play into that. In #1 Dany would not only be dealing with Jon’s death, but also with the knowledge that he was dishonest to her. And in #3 if Jon ends up siding with the Starks in a potential conflict, that could possibly be a major betrayal.

I also think subjectivity comes into play big time here with regards to which parts of the story people prefer or find more compelling or are more interested in. Game of Thrones has SO MUCH going on and there are so many different lenses through which people can view it. Who are the most important characters? What is the most important plot? Who is The Hero™? Who is The Villain™? What is the ideal endgame? I would bet you pretty much anything no two people would answer all those questions the exact same way. We as an audience have been waiting 6 seasons for BOTH the Stark Restoration/Northern Independence AND the Dany Getting to Westeros plots to play out. I’ve kind of talked about it a little bit before, but for me personally (and I think for others as well), it was extremely narratively frustrating to finally get the narrative pay out from the Stark story line, only to have it be given up and taken away such a short time later. 

I also think that if Jon’s storyline is 100% completely honest, straight forward, and genuine as it stands, then like 90% of the major, climactic events of his arc will seem to have been pointless and he will have learned nothing from them. It would also seem that Jon bending the knee and unilaterally making such a huge decision for such a large number of people so easily would go against a lot of what he has supposedly learned. I’m not even saying that it was the wrong decision or that he didn’t have the authority to make it or even that it would be completely ooc. However, such a seemingly single minded action would show an alarming and annoying (imo) lack of character development… Which, again, is entirely possible. This is D&D after all.

In sum, I honestly don’t have that strong of a stance on this tbh. I guess mine is kind of like a Moderate View on the theory or like, “Undercover Jon Light.” I think some variation of it could definitely be possible and would be an interesting potential plot so I won’t rule it out completely. But I also won’t be surprised if it doesn’t happen.

[fuckyeahdwarffortress]

Your reverse racism response doesn't make much sense to me. First off the definition if reverse racism I have found tracking other sources, includes acts of prejudice as reverse racism. After all, if I'm black and I murder someone for being white, you wouldn't say that's not racist. Second, the idea and scale of an institution is vague in your post. A group of friends? 10 kids? A 100 man gang? Thirdly your logic assumes that an institution comprised of white people cannot oppress o (continued)

Cannot oppress other white people. My question is, why call it reverse racism to begin with? Why isn’t there just ‘racism.’ I think all that’s been mentioned and discussed is racist, it just varies on scale. Individual, group, institutions.

Okay so this is going to be my Big Long Sociology Student Post, and that will be the end of it on this blog. Any responses can be directed as asks at my personal; replies or reblogs to this post will be ignored.

“The Institution” is a fairly basic sociology concept. It is an organization of some kind that has power over others. Government is an institution, whether on the local or national level. Police are an institution, a school is an institution, banks are an institution, a workplace is an institution. Institutions can often be represented by buildings, but just because it doesn’t have an associated building doesn’t automatically mean it’s not an institution. For instance an online forum is an institution, and the admins are the ones with the power.

Your example of a hypothetical black person murdering a white person is actually a really good one of how racism is institutionalized. So you’ve got your hypothetical black murderer who killed someone because they were white. So they’re in the courtroom facing a jury of their “peers” who are probably most if not all white (jury selection in the US is its own clusterfuck, not just in regards to race), and the white jurors are looking at this black person who killed someone for being white and probably going, “Holy shit this guy is scary put him away forever.” And you’ve got a probably white judge going, “Yes this is scary I will throw the book at him.”

Now let’s say it was a white person who killed a black person because they were black. While I can’t think of any cases where a black person actually killed someone because they were white, there are loads of the reverse. And their sentences? Super lenient compared to white on white murder and especially black on black murder. This is largely because of, like I said, a jury that is probably mostly if not all white, and a judge who is also probably white. Yes there are probably examples of this not being the case, but a few examples does not buck a wider trend. It’s Spiders Georg.

You’re right, an institution comprised of white people can oppress other white people. It’s just on a different axis of oppression than race. There’s something called the oppression wheel, which I would insert as an image but you probably wouldn’t be able to make it out in this format so I’ll put a link instead:

Oppression Wheel

Using the wheel, I know that I can oppress people on the basis of racism, Eurocentrism, elitism, ageism, politics of appearance, class bias, language bias, colorism, and pro-natalism. But I am oppressed on the basis of genderism, androcentrism, heterosexism, ableism, and religious oppression.

As you can see, the only axes that directly relate to skin color is racism and colorism. Everything else could be an example of white people oppressing other white people. The fact that both racism and colorism are different axes is the cause of a lot of confusion on the part of laypeople.

For instance, when you think of India, what kind of person do you think of? It probably looks something like this:

Less so like this:

Dark skinned Indians like this are way more common than media would have you think. This is an example of colorism, not racism. Even in specifically Indian media, this is prevalent. It’s colorism that is the cause of the skin lightening industry, which is huge.

Meanwhile how racism manifests is something that can be dependent on location. For instance, I had a professor whose great grandparents were Muslims from the Caucasus region. Muslims from the Caucasus region look like this:

According to Russians, these are black people. If you’re reading a Russian folktale and it refers to a black person, this is what it means. They are oppressed on the basis of racism (and probably religious oppression too, but I don’t know enough about that). Meanwhile this professor is from Los Angeles, but moved to Washington state. In Washington he’s considered white, but in LA he’s considered a person of color - the kind that gets people asking where he’s from, even though he was born there. But even though he’s considered white in Washington he’s still a person of color because of the place and context that he comes from. He’s not actually white, he just has passing privilege.

Zimbabwe was brought up earlier, and I’ve since received context. Racism is involved in that situation, but not where it was assumed to be. According to a reblog with a Wikipedia link, white farmers composed 1% of the population of Zimbabwe but owned ~70% of the farmland. The racism is in how that situation came to be. Those white farmers are the descendents of colonists. Those colonists felt that they could come to Africa and do as they pleased due to racism and Eurocentrism, which has led to the white people who have remained in Africa being hugely privileged over the native black population; see Apartheid South Africa. The redistribution of land was decolonization, which is indigenous populations who were colonized taking back what is rightfully theirs. Decolonization has had huge, positive impacts wherever it has taken place, which is best illustrated by where it hasn’t taken place.

Best example: who initially refused to sign the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Those countries are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, all countries that were formed by white people on colonized land and have never gone through any sort of decolonization process.

One last note on your black person murdering a white person for being white example. Going back to the oppression wheel, while there are fourteen major axes of privilege shown, only two would be relevant to the “being white” part of the example. If a black person were to kill a white person, it would be far, far more likely that it was more influenced by one of the other twelve axes than racism and colorism. An abled black person killing a disabled person is ableism, a black man killing a woman is androcentrism, a gender-conforming heterosexual black person killing a queer person is either genderism or heterosexism, etc.

This got really long and at times tangent-y, but I hope it’s given you a lot of food for thought. Like I said, please direct any response to my personal’s ask box, paladin-katie-holt, so that this blog can go back to being all dwarves all the time.

[habibialkaysani]

okay, let me preface this with a little note about my identity. I am a queer, mentally ill muslim british cis woman of colour. specifically, I was born in britain and my parents both hail from bangladesh. I am not white or black or latinx. so my opinions will - understandably, I hope - be from the perspective I am offering based on the intersecting parts of my identity.

so, let’s start with that. as a nonblack woc, I think it’s pretty patronising to be told that you don’t have to be black to be a person of colour. I know that. I don’t need that explained to me when I am literally not even black to start with. nowhere in my post did I say a mixed race pairing requires a black person. of course it would be interracial if someone was latinx. rene/thea is interracial. so is cisco/caitlin, and amy/jake, and those are just off the top of my head. pairings involving asian people are also interracial - wally/linda, for instance, and lena/jack. and while not latinx myself, I am aware of the issues latinx people face, enough for me to know that of course they are people of colour. I never said that latinx people face the exact same struggles as black people. I know they don’t, although they do overlap at least insofar that they’re groups that deserve far better.

my focus on black people in this post, btw, was partly to address the antiblackness I see in my own racial community. but also, me making the focus on antiblackness in my post does nothing in and of itself to dismiss other poc or, as you’ve suggested, throw other poc under the bus.

and that brings me to my main point. as far as I was aware, for a character to be considered racial representation and thus a person of colour onscreen, I thought the person portraying that character had to be, at the very, very least, a person of colour also and preferably also at least the same race as the character purports to be.

let me put this another way. as a desi woman, I would not have considered jack spheer to be desi if he was portrayed by a white actor who’s a bit tanned, calls himself bengali onscreen and calls his mother “amma” and, idk, eats rice and curry every day, and thus I would not consider him bengali representation because he was whitewashed. I was under the impression that a similar logic could be applied here, because, yes, maggie calls herself nonwhite and andrew kreisberg called her latina and she spoke spanish to her father, but floriana lima is still white. if you personally feel like whitewashed representation counts as representation, fine. but to me, sanvers is just another white wlw ship that the racist white non straight fandom flocked to because god forbid they give an interracial ship, irrespective of genders, a chance. I listed it because I was trying to make that very point - and, absolutely, if maggie were portrayed by an actual latinx actress, I would never suggest that sanvers is the same representation wise as clexa, wayhaught, cophine, avalance, etc., because there would be a person of colour who could potentially make the pairing important and groundbreaking and different. but she’s not. floriana is white. chyler is white.

now, I don’t know a lot of latinx people on here, so I’m not sure what the general consensus is on this. but I have seen latinx people speak out against maggie being whitewashed. at the same time, I fully acknowledge that I am not latinx myself, so if you think that representation that is so watered down and in your own words flawed is still adequate, fine. but put simply, me slighting maggie sawyer or sanvers with regards to racial representation isn’t me slighting latinx people at all. because maggie, to me, at least, and to a fair few others, isn’t truly latinx when she is portrayed by a tanned white actress. just like an ~exotic-looking white woman does not desi representation make. *coughamyjacksoncough*

I feel like poc should be in solidarity with each other. and if I said anything against samantha arias, rosa diaz, amy santiago, cisco ramon, rene ramirez or any of the other latinx characters on tv who are genuinely portrayed by actual latinxs, I do apologise. but in this instance, I can’t in good conscience consider maggie a woman of colour when the actress portraying her is white and she is clearly whitewashed, and therefore, I don’t see sanvers as a truly interracial relationship when they clearly are not in reality.

fandom racism is a huge problem, I agree. but you pointing this out doesn’t help. in this instance, I’m pretty sure it was supergirl and floriana lima who whitewashed a character who was meant to be a woc, not the fandom. the fandom whitewashing actual poc played by poc is what you should be calling out - zari tomaz, for instance, is often whitewashed in edits, and people assume sameen shaw is white even though she’s persian. people lauding chyler leigh and caity lotz, two straight white women, for being lgbt ~allies when maisie richardson sellers and keiynan lonsdale, two non-straight black people, are right there being as straight and white as a rainbow, is fandom racism. the 100 fandom practically starting a riot over a fridged white lesbian who wore brownface and a bindi and then staying radio silent or, worse, defending poussey washington’s death is what you call fandom racism.

I get that you mean well, but I did not say anywhere in my post that I felt nonblack poc were in any way less important than black people. me focusing on one race of people in no way diminishes the importance of other (nonwhite) races. if you truly consider maggie sawyer a woman of colour, good for you. I don’t, and I won’t until they decide to recast her with an actual latinx person (which is highly unlikely). so please don’t assume all other poc share your view, and don’t label my behaviour as ignorant or careless. 

- same anon as before, that's understanable. and i'm sorry for the racism that you do get. i'm glad you're able to just ignore it, and that most people respect you. (and for the a*dena,l*xa,s*ra thing) that makes sense. i like them all as characters. but the fandom saying that l*xa is wearing the helm of awe? (not sure if that's what they call it, but it is a bindi, that's just awful. s*ra being shipped with only white women, makes sense. i haven't watched lot for awhile. - p1

p2. but i did hear about the fandom shipping her with “new” character called a*ya? ev*? i’m not sure. and i was a bit confused, if they had like 5 lines together. (if ev*) now that i think about it, she is white right?

yeah, her name is ava, and they’re clearly building up to it and that’s - whatever, but just. five white women and one fleeting poc (leonard) and one woc who isn’t even mentioned by name this season does not diversity make. 

it’s sad that that more subtle racism exists, but what’s sadder is that fandoms on the whole don’t want to admit that it’s a thing and that we’re complicit in that racism. and I say “we” because I’m guilty of it too. I remember when I was watching poi and I was for some reason reluctant to ship carter with reese. just like how I was initially reluctant to ship sara with jax romantically. even tho in both cases the ships had wonderful dynamics. I’m not saying that everyone who brotps them is racist. but this refusal to view black people as love interests for white people is definitely a worrying trend - look at finn in star wars, for example, or even iris west with barry allen and to some extent amaya jiwe with nate heywood. it’s this less blatant racism that most if not the vast majority of us are guilty of to some degree that I think we need to recognise in ourselves and try to do better with. and that doesn’t mean you can’t ship sara with ava, or kara with lena or cat, or, hell, even maggie with alex, but I just think we also have to recognise that that racist bias exists and is a real thing, and, I don’t know, just try to do better by taking a step back and seeing where that racism inherent in all of us is manifesting itself.