#it's not that she just generally doesn't like herself it's that she thinks she's fundamentally incompatible with the things she wants

[musical-chick-13]

One of the...saddest? Most difficult? I can't make words right now. things about writing this fic is that from an emotional/characterization standpoint, a large part of it hinges on River (as in canon) thinking that she needs to be So Extremely Careful with her love because there's no way at all that this person could possibly actually love her or value her in remotely the same way she values him and I just want to shake her and go YOU ARE AN UNRELIABLE NARRATOR IN YOUR OWN STORY. HE DOES CARE. HE DOES LOVE YOU. OPEN YOUR EYES AND EMBRACE ALL THE PARTS OF YOURSELF PLEASE.

[copperhawks]

The funniest thing to me about Kel, and maybe one of the most interesting because of how understated it is, is that Kel becomes a good commander in the end, not by emulating Wyldon who was cold and implacable and insensitive, or by emulating Raoul who mostly only disobeys orders out of principle or because he has an issue with what the order says about his personal relationship with Jon, but by emulating JON.

Kel doesn't even LIKE Jon, she BARELY respects him as a person. He's a good enough ruler that she's willing to fight for him and swear loyalty to him and to at least mostly believe that he wouldn't work with Blayce to make his own killing monsters, but that's as far as it goes for Kel. If he's kind to her, she finds it uncomfortable and almost untrustworthy because she assumes he doesn't care about her and so his kindness and respect towards her must be fake.

But from the outside, as readers, we know just how much Jon fought for Kel. We know how much he does respect her right to be a knight. Jon is the sole reason that Kel DID get the opportunity to prove herself, if he'd capitulated to Wyldon completely, she just wouldn't have ever been allowed to join. Kel doesn't KNOW THAT, obviously, but we do. We know that Jon did everything he could to find a way to convince Wyldon to let Kel become a page. While Wyldon claims later that the reason he chose to let her stay at the end of the probation year was because his better judgment convinced him she'd earned it, I'd be willing to bet that part of that better judgment also included knowing if he couldn't prove to JON that she needed to go, then he'd be in trouble. Kel was training and working in front of plenty of other trainers and teachers who could easily contradict Wyldon's lies if he'd tried it, many of whom are closer to Jon than they are to Wyldon.

Kel's experiences and feelings about that experience are entirely valid, and she doesn't have the knowledge we do about how hard Jon fought for her, so it's not shocking that she's upset with him for a good portion of her series. She never even discovers this truth by the end of her series, even though she does get a lesson from Jon and Thayet (and Raoul to some degree) about how politics and compromises work in order to make changes happen. So her opinion of him by the end is boiled down to the quote from Squire: "good kings weren't always good men." It makes sense for her to think this, but because Kel's knowledge base is so limited (and her worldview so black and white for much of her series), it makes her an EXTREMELY unreliable narrator about this particular issue.

Kel believes that while Jon generally does his duty and keeps the peace, he doesn't actually care all that much about his people as individuals. But in their only meaningful conversation in Squire, Jon is able to point out that he (and Thayet, who is actually equal to Jon in power, something Kel either doesn't know which would be a failure in her education or just tends to ignore so she can focus her ire on Jon) has to make a LOT of compromises in order to get ANYTHING useful done at all. Sometimes, often, it means making deals with people he doesn't like or people he just fundamentally disagrees with, because it's the first step in a multi-step plan to help more people in the long run. He also points out that just throwing his weight and authority around in order to be able to change everything he wants to change immediately regardless of what anyone else thinks about it is a great way to get himself and his family killed. Because even if he had good intentions, that would be tyranny. It does make Kel think a little, but she doesn't tend to like him much still afterwards, her resentment from her page years will always color her opinion of him a little.

However, then she gets to Haven and she's suddenly tossed into a position of leadership over a lot of other people, many of whom disagree with each other or disagree with her or both. And all of the sudden, Kel has to make compromises. She doesn't LIKE the way the sergeants often treat their men, especially the sergeants whose men are convicts, but there's very very little she can do about it without really pissing off those same sergeants and that's not something she can afford to do. There's a moment when Neal starts getting frustrated about the treatment of the convicts and she takes him out to vent to her so he doesn't vent to the sergeants, something that the sergeants would then take out on their men. Kel's reasoning as she does this is that she "preferred to avoid battles with them now so she would have authority with them later if she needed to use it." Later, Kel is talking to Daine and she says "That's all this job is... Trying to please everyone and pleasing no one. And it will only get worse, not better."

Both of these moments showcase Kel choosing to make compromises. She may not like the way the sergeants treat the convicts, but she needs to stay on the sergeants' good sides because she doesn't have enough resources to butt heads with them nor enough authority to just force the issue, and even if she DID, it could cause the sergeants to become troublesome or take out their frustration with her on the men in ways she can't see as well. But staying on the sergeants' good sides might mean letting some of their maltreatment slide if it's not physically harming the convicts. And even setting that aside, she's dealing with nearly 500 refugees eventually, all of which are from different towns in the area and have different needs, not all of which she can accommodate. This requires compromise. Sometimes she can please some of them and not others, but mostly she probably just ends up not pleasing anybody because that's often how compromises WORK.

She never makes the active connection to Jon and his lesson on leadership from Squire while she's in Haven, but that quote up there about how this job (aka being a commander) is all about trying to please everyone and pleasing no one? It sounds a HECK of a lot like "good kings weren't always good men." You can try your best to help others, but often doing the right thing can involve making everyone unhappy. You can't be everybody's friend if you're going to get anything done.

Some of this she might've learned from Raoul's style of command, but Raoul commands a fairly small amount of people (at least in comparison to a King), and so we see him able to be pretty friendly to the people he commands in a way that Jon is perhaps unable to do. And she might believe that she learned some of this from Wyldon, but Wyldon had a tendency to be very unfair and biased due to his raging bigotry and conservative values, as well as the fact that he doesn't actually even LIKE being a training master and that likely impacted the way he treated the pages (he's almost never that kind to the pages, whereas we see him capable of being quite kind with the refugees later, which is where Kel comes to the conclusion that he hadn't enjoyed being a training master).

But Jon makes an entire speech about how he (and Thayet) have been working THEIR ENTIRE REIGN to change laws that help people. He explains how they have to consider the needs of merchants, nobles, farmers, street people, priests/priestesses, and mages. They have to consider not only what these people might need or want, but also what they could do when they feel sufficiently offended and how that could impact not just the royal family or the nobility but the realm as a whole. Jon points out that they HAVE made changes, for the better, and that just because they don't always succeed at everything or because they have to compromise sometimes, doesn't mean they aren't working at making changes or that they don't care about helping people. Not everyone you have power over is going to be your friend, they might not even be someone you like. But if you're going to take on the job of leadership, that's something you have to be willing to accept and work with, which often means making compromises with people whose needs and values are contradictory to your own.

Jon probably knows when he makes the compromise with Wyldon that it will likely impact a lot of people's good opinion of him. Alanna is right there and clearly angry, and we know Thayet doesn't like the decision, either. And it's entirely possible that Jon knows in the moment that Kel herself will put the blame on him because he's the King. But he also knows that if he insists on Kel being allowed to be a page without trying to compromise with Wyldon, Wyldon will quit over it and he'll end up with ten DIFFERENT problems that could cause a lot bigger issues to far more people than just one girl. So he makes the compromise. He sacrifices Alanna and Thayet and even Kel's good opinion of him in order to ensure that Kel gets the opportunity to become a Knight without turning all of his nobles against him which could ultimately lead to a civil war. Is it fair? No, and he knows it. But it's the best option he has in order to get the outcome they all actually want which is just for Kel to have the chance to prove herself.

Kel has to make similar choices once she's finally in a position of leadership of her own. And whether she realizes it or not, without ever even spending more than a few minutes with Jon, she ends up emulating his leadership style more than anybody else's because it WORKS and it works WELL. She'll probably never admit it, she might never even realize it herself, but she's so much more like Jon than any of the other men she sees as role models. And I love that. I love the dramatic irony of that, that the one person Kel only barely respects because of a compromise he made on her behalf that she'll never even know about, is the person Kel ends up most resembling. Jon is the reason she has the opportunity to become the Protector of the Small in the first place, Jon is the person who created that environment that allowed her to nurture those values, and she'll probably never even really be able to acknowledge that, because sometimes that's what being a good leader means.

[spif-lol]

People can hate on Chibnall's era all they want and while it's not without it's problems I will always defend it if ONLY for it's interpretation of gender in the change from 12 to 13.

I remember being so excited for Jodie, but also so scared as to how they were going to handle her characterization as the Doctor. While Moffat did okay with Missy in the end, her original introduction was dripping with stereotypes and changes in personality which in universe boiled down to she's a girl now lol. Because of this I feared the introduction of a hyperfeminine Doctor, reinforcing sexist stereotypes that men and women are fundamentally different in some ineffable way. I feared jokes about boobs and hair, I feared a weak Doctor who had to be saved by male companions, I worried there would be a lack of personality entirely, with Chibnall trying to play it safe and make her just a blank slate. Or that she would be a rehash of an old Doctor but GIRLY with nothing really distinct to her personality beyond that.

I did not at all expect what we got. Even if the writing is in general lower standards than us fans had come to expect, Chibnall's handling of the Doctor's sudden gender change is phenomenal and I will explain why.

Top 13th Doctor gender moments:

It is so obvious that from the Doctor's point of view, she hasn't really changed. She still perceives herself the same way and finds it hard to adjust to a view of herself as a woman and often uses masculine words to describe herself out of habit. She doesn't dislike being a woman! She's just forgetful! Her regeneration is not special because of the gender change, that's just a quirk alongside the other changes every Doctor goes through when they regenerate

The way she still dresses in a distinctly Doctorish way, and leans towards flamboyant but practical masculine outfits like her suit in Spyfall in contrast to Yaz's more feminine presentation in the same situations. (Yaz isn't even that feminine either. But her dresses and blouses compared to the Doctor really stand out.)

I love how the Doctor's gender doesn't change anything about her, only how other's view her. And mostly people still treat her with respect and as an authority figure. I feel like chibnall struck a good balance between not acknowledging the gender change at all vs hitting us over the head with it. There are episodes where her being a woman is detrimental and she expresses annoyance, there are others where it causes confusion, and there's some where it opens her up to new experiences like the wedding party with Yaz's nan! But ultimately it doesn't make a difference in the Doctor's day to day

The introduction of the Fugitive Doctor as a previous regeneration but also as a female doctor with a distinct personality from thirteen! We got a multi doctor story with two badass female doctors years before it should have been possible! I hate the timeless child thing but the fugitive doctor is my beloved. Props to Chibnall for seeing the hate and people going oooh but the doctor has always been a man and responding by going nope she's been a woman before and a black woman too fuck you. actually iconic. #Season6B btw. if you even care

Idk i just think Jodie really captured the Doctor really well, while still having a unique twist on it and her portrayal really reads as a genderfluid alien in a feminine body. Like oh cool this is new but ultimately it dont matter she still the doctor

[anneapocalypse]

On Wuk Lamat, and Female Characters in FFXIV

The Thing with Wuk Lamat is you can tell me you think she had too much screentime; you can give me numbers on how many lines she had or how many scenes she's in relative to other characters or other expacs; you can prove to me "objectively" that she gets more focus than other main NPCs; you're simply not going to convince me that this is something I should be unhappy about. And not just because it's silly to think you can use numbers to prove a story is good or bad and make someone else go, "Wow, you're right, let me just throw away all the joy I experienced with this story and revise my opinion because you've scientifically proven to me that I'm wrong."

Because while I love Final Fantasy XIV and I have greatly enjoyed its story in so many ways, fundamentally one of my biggest beefs with this game has been how much female characters have been denied complex character arcs and growth and agency and interiority.

Minfilia gets treated as a sacrificial vessel who lives for everyone but herself and doesn't even get to have feelings about her own death because that entire arc is focused on a male character's angst about it instead. The game tells us in the Heavensward patches that Krile sees Minfilia as her best friend and then just forgets about that later and never follows up on what that loss must have meant to her. Ysayle is basically right about most of what she's fighting for but harboring a bit of self-delusion is apparently such a terrible sin that she has to pay for it with her life, while her male foil is deemed so worthy of salvation that there's a whole plot point about how important it is that we risk our lives and others' lives to save him. Y'shtola is a major character who's been around since the beginning, and the game keeps dropping maddeningly interesting things about her (apprenticed to a cranky old witch in a cave! saved her own life and the lives of her friends with an illegal and dangerous spell and it worked! reserved and undemonstrative yet regularly through her actions reveals herself to be deeply caring! disabled!) and then shows complete disinterest in following up on any of those things with the kind of depth and care shown to male characters with complex arcs like Urianger.

In general there is also a repeated thread of female characters being portrayed as weak or overly emotional: Minfilia is weak because she doesn't fight and needs to be eaten by a god in order to gain "a strength long sought." Krile is portrayed as not being able to pull her weight with the Scions (despite the fact that she actively keeps five of them from dying in Shadowbringers) and the only thing they could think of for her to do in Endwalker was be yet another vessel for Hydaelyn (hmm, that sounds familiar) and it's not until Dawntrail that she gets much actual character development in the main story and even that has to come alongside "Look, she can fight now so that means she's useful." (And I love Picto!Krile, I'm just saying, there's a pattern.) Alisaie, despite having very good reasons for needing to find her own path apart from her brother, is portrayed as having to prove herself when she returns, that she's "not the girl she once was," and "will not be a burden" (while Alphinaud is repeatedly given the benefit of the doubt and reassurance and affirmation from other characters even after he takes on responsibilities he isn't ready for and fucks up big time).

And if you follow me you know I adore Urianger, and I love Alphinaud and Thancred and Estinien too, so please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here! I'm not knocking those characters, or saying we shouldn't also love them. I just use them as a comparison to demonstrate how the female characters have been neglected.

Lyse has some of the stronger character development among the female Scions, and while she's still kind of portrayed as being too emotional and hotheaded in early Stormblood, I think it's actually explored in more depth in a way that I like; Lyse has good reasons for wanting to fight for her nation's freedom, but having been away from Ala Mhigo for several years now, she needs to understand the stakes for the people who've been there fighting for years, what they've lost and still have to lose. She grows as a person and rises to the challenge of leadership, and I'm even okay with the fact that she leaves the Scions afterward because it feels right for her to stay in Ala Mhigo, and at least she doesn't die.

And by all accounts she was, like Wuk Lamat, widely hated when her expansion came out.

Unironically I think the other female Scion with the strongest character arc is Tataru. She tries to take up a combat job, finds that it's not for her, and decides to focus on where her strengths are instead. In doing so, she both holds the Scions together as an organization in the absence of a leader by capably managing their finances, and also comes into her own as a businesswoman and makes international connections that benefit both the Scions and her personally. In contrast to Minfilia, she's not portrayed as weak because she doesn't fight, and is actually allowed to be an important character who's good for more than being sacrificed. Tataru is still distinctly in a supporting role for the player character, however, and her character arc happens as a side story that takes up a relatively small amount of screentime over several expansions, which I think is probably why she doesn't evoke such a negative reaction.

But there is a pattern of the game's writing showing disinterest in the interior lives of female characters generally, and in making their growth the focus of a story.

So yeah, I'm going to be happy about Wuk Lamat! I'm going to enjoy and celebrate every moment of her character arc, of her personal growth, of watching her put the lessons she's learned into action. I'm going to love and treasure every moment when she gets to be silly, embarrassing, emotional, scared, grieving, confused, upset, seasick, impulsive, and still deemed worthy of growing into a hero and a leader. I will love her with all of my soul and you simply will not convince me that it wasn't worth the screentime after such a profound imbalance for basically the entirety of the game. We've never had a major female character get such a strong arc with this much love and attention put into it and that means more to me than I can truly say. The backlash to it is disheartening, as this kind of thing always is, but I'm not going to let it ruin the wonderful experience I had playing it and how much joy it continues to bring me.

And for those of you who don't want any of that for a female character, thank goodness you have Heavensward and Shadowbringers and Endwalker and no one can take those away from you.

(And if you follow me you know that I love Shadowbringers and Endwalker and have very fond memories of Heavensward despite some issues with it, so not only can I not take that from you, I am not trying to!)

Some of us have been real hungry for a character like this with an arc like this, so, I think, y'know, maybe we can have that. As a treat.

[genericpuff]

What is the thing you feel like Lore Olympus failed at or did the worst. The comic has a magnitude of problems but what is one problem that you have the most hatred for or just flat out makes you angry?

(Just curious)

There are so, so many things I could point to as "the worst" thing that the comic did, because it has a LOT of worsts, but I think ultimately the failing of the original myth's messaging has to take the cake because it's ultimately the root of all of LO's problems.

Rachel herself seems to have this disconnect between what's going on in her head vs. what she's actually writing. It's especially present in her Q&A's and interviews where she claims certain things about the comic / text that just aren't present in the slightest during the actual comic. One such example that ties into my answer is this response she gave to Girl Wonder Podcast:

"I feel like female characters in general, people will be a little harsher on them and sometimes way harsher on them, and I used to be like.. before I started writing the story and like making a story I was like yeah, sexism is not that bad, and [now] I was like oh it's bad. It's quite bad [laughs], so like, I don't know, I feel like the female characters in the story don't get so much of a pass. But this isn't consistent across the board, it's not all the time"

It's ironic at best and tone deaf at worst that she would claim that it's her audience being harsh on the female characters, when she's the one who wrote them into the characters they are that would get that reaction. Minthe had her BPD retconned so now she's just the abusive other girl. Hestia was turned into a cruel hypocrite when it was revealed she was a lesbian. Hera is racist to nymphs and cruel to the lower class and yet she's still rewarded in the end by getting to run off with a nymph girl who we've never seen her have any extended interaction with. And worst of all, Demeter was robbed of all of her agency all in favor of turning her into the evil Mother Gothel mom who's overbearing and cruel to poor Persephone. Some of these women deserve to be called out (Hera and Hestia), and others like Minthe and Demeter were simply used as props to do exactly what Rachel claims she doesn't like people doing and is labelling as sexism - to get harsh reactions and give the audience someone to hate on. Rachel desperately needs to learn to read her own work. Her audience is "sexist" towards these women because Rachel wrote them that way.

It fucking sucks and it's, ngl, extremely disrespectful to the messaging of the original myth that was written to comfort and empower the mothers who had lost their daughters to marriages back in the day. It wasn't some simple "aww the girl moved out and now she doesn't visit anymore!" girls who got married off were often literally never seen again and it wasn't by choice. Not only that, but in certain regions (such as in Athens) the women were isolated to their own section of the house upstairs (while the men lived downstairs) so that they wouldn't be seen by visiting guests or strangers.

It's why in some cultures the original H x P myth was considered a "golden standard" for marriages (at the time) because not only was Persephone given power over the domain alongside Hades, but she actually did get to see her mother - but it wasn't because Hades was just such a kind guy who would let her go willingly, it's because Demeter had to literally hold the world hostage and fight for her right to reunite with her child.

So for LO to not only twist Demeter's love and justifiable concern for her daughter into "helicopter parenting", but also rob her of her agency and power in fighting for her child, it fundamentally misses the entire point of the original myth and undoes itself as a retelling that's trying to be taken seriously in the discussion of Greek myth media. And for that, Rachel should be ashamed of herself.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Follow up to this post where I was asked about the "Autism presents differently in girls" myth, which is one of my many berserk buttons.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of reasons this concept makes no sense and you should stop saying it:

A. Autistic people are more likely than non-autistic people to be trans, nonbinary, or otherwise gender-non-conforming, so any attempt to group autistic people by binary, birth-assigned gender is even less likely to be accurate than the gender binary already is in the general population.

2. There is absolutely no evidence supporting the "presents differently" theory that could not be better explained by clinician bias.

iii. The alleged "presentation differences" between autistic "girls" and "boys" are just bog-standard gender stereotypes with "autism" plugged in somewhere. "Boys are better at math and science and logic and not having feelings and their dominant emotion is Anger, but girls are better at socializing and caretaking and brushing hair and their dominant emotion is Approval-Seeking." "Huh, that sounds like reactionary sexist hogwash." "No, I mean, autistic boys are better at math and science and logic and not having feelings and their dominant emotion is Anger, but but autistic girls are better at socializing and caretaking and brushing hair and their dominant emotion is Approval-Seeking." "Oh, okay, now it's Objective Science."

four. Sexist bias, including among clinicians, tends to frame "male" neurodivergence as essentially cognitive and "female" neurodivergence as essentially emotional, because, as we all know, Men Think, Women Feel. Psychology is obsessed with the idea that "girls" are universally and inherently self-loathing and self-destructive -- anything a "girl" has trouble with cannot possible be a skill she hasn't learned or an ability she doesn't have, let alone merely a different way of being; she must simply be self-abnegatingly denying herself the thing she cannot do. So a "girl" with the same traits as an "autistic boy" will have those traits attributed to something emotional, like depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or eating disorders. "Autistic girls" aren't being "missed" (read as neurotypical); they're having their exact same autistic traits as "autistic boys" being framed as mood disorders instead of neurodevelopmental disabilities.

cinco. Fundamentally, this premise gets completely backward what diagnosis means and why pathologization happens. People are pathologized and diagnosed, with any kind of disability, when they have traits that fall outside the range of traits considered "acceptable" for their position. "It's more acceptable for boys to have meltdowns, so autistic boys have more meltdowns than autistic girls, so the boys get diagnosed with autism" -- No, this doesn't make sense. That's not how diagnosis works. If it were more acceptable for boys to have meltdowns, then boys who have meltdowns would not be getting diagnosed with anything. Their behavior would not be seen as pathological. If "It's more acceptable for boys to have meltdowns" were to explain any kind of diagnosis differential, it would be "Therefore girls who have meltdowns are diagnosed, while boys who have meltdowns are just considered normal boys." And, to be clear, that kind of thing is absolutely a factor in gender differences in diagnosis, but in the opposite direction from how people mean it. Like, as a "girl," I wasn't really expected or pressured to be athletic, so my absolutely abysmal gross motor skills were just shrugged at and not seen as a sign of disability. Can't run or throw? Well, I was a girl, and a nerd to boot. What do you expect? A "boy" with my level of gross motor skills would draw a lot more Concern.

ζ. "Girls are pressured to mimic/mask more than boys are," even if true (debatable), elides over the fact that many autistic "girls" can't "mimic/mask," because they are disabled. They have a disability. Because some of the things their society expects them to be able to do are things that they cannot, in fact, do. "Girls don't have meltdowns because they're not allowed to. Girls don't forget to do essential tasks because they're not allowed to. Girls don't --" Okay but they do. Girls do in fact very much do those things. Because they are disabled. Because they have disabilities. Because there are things they are expected to be able to do, which they cannot, in fact, do. And it's weirdly disability-erasing (ableist) to claim that people simply develop the ability to do things they can't do just because they're expected to.

heptad. Circling back to point A., while I can't prove it, I really think a lot of this "gendered autism" stuff is a way to pathologize and also explain away queerness/transness/gender-non-conformity in diagnosed-autistic kids. "Oh, no, don't worry, the reason your son consistently Fails At Masculinity isn't because he's some kind of sissy; it's actually because he has this Masculine Male Boy Disorder where he just doesn't understand how boys are supposed to behave. Lots of boys have it. No, no, the reason your 12 year old son is kissing his male friend on the mouth isn't because he's gay; he just has a social skills disorder and doesn't know that boys don't kiss their platonic guy mate dude friends. It's a very masculine disability. Elon Musk has it." I know somebody who was told by an Autism Mom that all autistic people are bisexual because "They don't know the difference." Sure, keep telling yourself that.

8️⃣. In the past, when I was less Galaxy Brain Mad Radicalized, I conceptualized the phenomenon of "'Boys' are diagnosed with autism while 'girls' with the exact same traits are diagnosed with depression/anxiety/OCD/BPD/ED" as a phenomenon of "Autistic girls, who objectively are autistic, whose objectively, scientifically correct diagnosis is autism, are misdiagnosed with psych disorders instead." But what neither autistic nor Mad people really want to admit is that "autism" is as arbitrary a diagnostic category as any other. No two human brains are exactly alike. All systems of classification are made up. I happen to think that the proposed explanatory mechanism of "autism" (brain processes sensory input/information differently than average, results in wildly uneven skill development) is generally more accurate than the proposed explanatory mechanism of most psych diagnoses (people are weird somehow and that's bad somehow), but it's still fairly arbitrary. People with autism diagnoses get ABA and people with psych diagnoses get CBT/DBT, and you can argue about which is worse, but ultimately anything with a B in it is fundamentally abusive. Abolish psychiatry.

[sophsicle]

im not being mean or anything and not judging u at all but why don’t u like taylor??? im just curious bc there is some reasons why u could not like her

I MEAN okay. first things first. taylor swift is fine. like she is totally fine. i don't think she's a villain or anything. she has a fan base that is loud, and obnoxious, and currently dominating the public sphere and so if you are someone who doesn't WORSHIP her (hm hm *me*) it gets to be just a little annoying.

like there are t swift songs i bop out to. i don't have a fundamental problem with her. it is more the way she is spoken about that starts to get on my nerves.

and like. y'know. i don't think her winning album of the year again is something to celebrate. she's grammy bait. pretty lil blond girl who makes palatable pop music. im with jay-z on this one. in general i think she is someone of mediocre ability who has received praise far surpassing what she deserves which, is not her fault, but i find the god-like status she has acquired aggravating

the other thing is that taylor swift has a tendency to adopt political causes exclusively to the extent that they financially benefit her.

she presents herself, especially in her netflix documentary, as someone who wants to be an activist for causes, but she is quite frequently silent about things that she could clearly have a huge impact on *cough cough* Palestine*cough cough*

AND BEFORE someone comes at me with the whole "why do you need celebrities to speak about political issues blah blah blah" two things

like i said, taylor swift has specifically placed herself in this conversation

she doesn't HAVE to do anything, im not saying throw her in jail, but, you know, when you have all the power and all the money and you consistently choose not to use it (except, again, in very specific situations that benefit you) i don't respect you

taylor swift's carbon footprint just from her private jet, not her whole lifestyle, but just her private jet, is unconscionable and that is a specific her problem, like the negative impact she is having on the environment is extreme even when compared to other celebrities, which I’m so sorry, makes her an asshole

taylor swifts specific brand of uneducated white feminism that she tends to weaponize against, usually other women but, people in general, who she just feels are being mean to her is annoying and not helpful to anyone but her

her pursuit of a sexual harassment case as a spring board to launch a new album, just to several years later publicly associate with a man charged with aggravated sexual battery feels hypocritical

LIKE there are worse people in the world

but she does not have the talent or the moral fibre of someone worthy of the adoration she receives

[familyagrestefanblog]

Though, let me clarify something here: Nathalie is just as guilty in how this turned out, in a couple of things her blame significantly outweighs Marinette's. This is important.

But im right now bothered by Marinette more because while the narrative claims Nathalie is good now, the story has also never shied away from properly acknowledging that she's AT MINIMUM a morally grey character.

Marinette on the other hand is consistently glorified, praised, and martyr-ed for absolutely EVERYTHING she does no matter how much it hurts others and harms the story in the long run as long as they end up smiling at her. Her feelings and validation are put first and it is treated as a fundamental truth that Maribug is the greatest girlboss goddess of all time who is always entitled to support, control, and power because it's HER and she says so and if she doesn't get it she's being bullied and oppressed and must make sure she gets what she wants.

This is not the same, and its what consistently turns Maribug's characters into such a moral threat since the retooling of season 4 that makes her involvement alot worse than the involvement of other characters.

Nathalie absolutely is a major problem in this now forwards, but Marinette's long established entitlement to play god and prioritise her feelings over morality whenever she doesn't like something and just hope for the best is the main problem. And this isn't new.

And no, I don't see how gaslighting Adrien now believing that the 14 years of abuse he experienced weren't real and HE is the problem in everything cause HE got it wrong because MARIBUG lovingly says so and teaches him what to truly feel and think is a loving thing to do (as we see at the very end of season 5, Marinette's lies fucked Adrien UP)

This once again just feels like Marinette doesn't want to have a fucking conversation so she's taking the fucked up route that's nicest to HER if she gets through with it.

So she learned nothing. She's still doing what she claimed to have been sorry for and she's still making herself out to be the most generous and caring goddess over it because she has complex human feelings (like everyone else) and Marinette is so spoiled by the narrative that she still takes that as her being right she's just "misunderstood" and not catered to enough.

This is, as always, what it comes down to. The problem is always the same. Marinette may genuinely start out with good and caring intentions, but her execution always ends up priorizing protecting herself and making sure SHE is okay first and foremost.

The problem is Marinette's goddess framing and that she can't be just wrong about something anymore without a giant fuss being made about it that overshadows the actual victims and stops the necessary steps from being taken to just get over the moral problem because the show refuses to not always have Marinette be validated in some way which muddles the morality.

[aingeal98]

I think there's a misconception among some fans who mostly get their characterisation from ao3, that the reason Cass and Jason wouldn't get along is that Jason kills people and Cass hates murderers. And like. You're 50% right but the key context being ignored is that Cass would literally fight to defend the right of a serial killer to live and change like she believes desperately in second chances no matter how far gone the killer is. She'll knock a man out and break his hand so that he can never shoot and kill someone again but if she sees someone feel bad about their kill or even like. Hesitate to hurt a child. She is all over that like she will fight the world just to save this one kind of shitty assassin and give them a second chance at life where they can do better.

Whereas Jason believes that sometimes there are bad people that are simply too far gone, too much of a force of evil hurting and draining actual innocents. And the best way to deal with scumbags like that is a bullet. He feels that some people don't deserve to live, and he's comfortable ending their lives. Judge, jury and executioner. Because no one else is going to kill these people and they deserve to die so that they can never hurt any victims again.

Of course all of this is kind of irrelevant in current canon since dc basically skipped over the reconciliation and development and went yeah Jason is a batfam member and he doesn't kill anymore. So currently in canon none of this conflict of ideals is likely to be addressed. But a lot of people are interested in writing fics that actually detail the steps of reconciliation which is great and I love those fics. I've just also noticed a trend of fumbling a little when it comes to Cass.

Because the root cause as to why they wouldn't get along is not just because Jason kills people. If Jason was a random crime lord Cass would probably try to help him get free of Gotham and start over somewhere else. Killing people and having conflicting emotions about it is the easiest way to get Cass willing to be your number one sponsor at murderer rehabilitation anonymous. It's Jason being someone personal to the family, and someone who believes that some deaths need to happen, as long as the person is sufficiently repulsive enough to Jason. Or even just as a means to an end to prove a larger point, if they're pathetic and evil enough. That's what would make Cass see red, because she projects herself on every single killer and Jason dismissing the possibility of redemption for them, writing them off as deserving of death, clashes fundamentally with not just everything Cass believes in, but also her whole sense of self. Of course it's not that deep for Jason like he's not going to believe Cass should die because she killed someone as a child. But for Cass is simply IS that deep and you throw in the fact that they're both Bruce's kids and yeah. They can maybe be civil in a room together with the family right up until one of them actually talks. Because like 99% of what they could say is guaranteed to touch a nerve for the other.

It's like: Damian says something hilarious and rude towards Jason and Jason jokes about that time he shot him and Cass immediately connects that with him not feeling bad about shooting Damian and starts grilling him as to why. Because Damian's Bruce's son? Or because he's a killer? Or just to get to the rest of the family? And Dick, Duke and Tim are so tired like Alfred cooked a nice meal can we all just eat pie for one night without having to listen to you two go at it.

Tim: I've literally shot you before do you think maybe we can cool it on fighting about Jason's personal ethics tonight. Because generally that ends with me in pain even if I do nothing but sit here.

Cass: You shot me with consent. Different.

Jason: How are you even more obnoxious than Bruce? Do you ever get tired of being so exhausting to be around with your bullshit righteousness?

Cass: If you're tired I can knock you out. Nice nap for you and fun for me.

Dick: And that's ten minutes in a room together before any threats of physical harm start flying around! Great job you two, a new personal record.

[yuukei-yikes]

Long as hell text post under the cut my guys

me when i wake up and talk every day about the same shit. heart <3 i could talk for days abt jin and the misogyny he writes with. it's everywhere of course lol but out of the female characters takane's like…. the most tragic, in my opinion, because she's the only female character to have absolutely 0 backstory. yes, there's Some stuff, such as her illness, but truly takane does not have that much angst surrounding her illness. everything about her is rather about haruka. takane's moment is yuukei yesterday, but yuukei yesterday is entirely about both haruka and takane and their relationship. yes it's takane's pov, but it's ultimately still about… haruka, and how she feels about him.

back then in the fandom, pre over the dimension specifically, there was a take going around i remember pretty well. "people write haruka and takane like there's nothing more to them than being in love with each other" like the only time we'd see haruka and takane specifically (in fan content), they'd just be there to be shippy. i TOTALLY agreed with this sentiment and i always have, especially because i've always been obsessed with them as characters and i was overanalyzing every little thing (when otd came out i was over the moon bc i got so much stuff right btw. if u even care)

HOWEVER. if u think about it. pre over the dimension, with the manga having covered yuukei yesterday already and the next time takane (and haruka) appear as themselves in the manga is A LOT later in volume 10 (by that time, otd was already out) (also i'll get to takane in 2nd manga route in a second), so what we had at the time, for haruka and takane's backstory, was manga&novel yuukei yesterday and what we got from the anime. if you consider this… truly, at first the only thing to go off really was. just their relationship. that was all there was to both of them, because haruka was described from takane's pov, and everything we got from takane was how she felt for haruka. that was IT. for everything else u had to read between the lines like i was doing bc 10 years later i'd still be here talking about it teehee

of course there are also the songs. takane's songs set in time before she's ene are yuukei yesterday and of course headphone actor, one of the Best kagepro songs dont even come AT ME anyways headphone actor as a song touches THE OTHER BIG THING we were offered about takane at the time. okay, she isn't JUST in love with haruka. the other thing about takane is… she wants to SURVIVE!!!

i've talked about this LOADS of times i know (about this entire thing actually but i just like talking about also it's my blog) takane gets opening eyes because she's so determined to live. ratio + this from novel 2 headphone actor

which brings me to. ugh. second manga route. takane….would not…. KILL HERSELF…. second manga route WHY. we finally get to see Takane again in the manga and she's just so spectacularly NOT HERSELF it's crazy. takane since her INTRODUCTION is presented as "selfish" and how her want for attention from haruka or in general gets the best of her. that's ene. THAT'S ene!!! that's also why ENE stays with shintaro!!! it is FUNDAMENTAL to her character. we were given miserably little about her and in the most simplified way to put it, those things are: takane 1. is an attention whore<3 2. doesn't want to die. so tell me. how do you manage to get these 2 very simple things so incredibly WRONG in second manga route.

where in the world would takane get mad haruka got another friend. it makes NO sense!?!? bro haruka and shintaro ARE ALSO BEST FRIENDS IN THE MAIN ROUTE, where takane ACTUALLY HAS REASONS TO ACTIVELY REALLY DISLIKE SHINTARO, and she doesn't give a fuck that they're friends, why would she randomly care so much now when she has no reason to even dislike shintaro? so basically because she doesn't have ayano she gets jealous and wants haruka all to herself?? erm ok?? let's say that's true (it's not), even if she was jealous of shintaro her desire to be by haruka's side WILL be stronger, she would NEVER just turn around and leave. absolutely NOT. one of the stupidest things takane does is want haruka to look her way so bad she doesn't realize HE'S DYING ON HER. this bitch is so insanely self centered she would never in her life walk out on haruka just for having another friend. REAL takane walks in there with that stupid basket and be like Everyone look at me NOW<3

ok. first trait: attention whore: second manga route FAILS. second trait: doesn't want to die. wonder what second manga route will do. (looks into the camera) takane kills herself in second manga route.

dude you're crazy. you literally get EVERYTHING WRONG. it pisses me off. and not only does she kill herself but she does it because haruka DIED!?!?!?!?!? OH MY GOD. i hate it it's so fucking fake it's not HER THAT'S NOT TAKANE ENOMOTO THAT'S A SHIT CHARACTER JIN AND MAHIRO SATO DECIDED TO SUDDENLY WRITE INTO THE STORY i already put it in this post but let me attach it again

dear lord. anyways i've talked about that loads of times but i needed to include it in this talk cuz. yeah. i dont even HATE the rest of second manga route i just hate how takane is written specifically but since she's everything 2 me erm. you get my thumbs down!!! anyways having acknowledged second manga route we can move on.

back to main route discussion. so takane's backstory. not super deep, especially compared to other characters. yes her backstory is basically that she's sad because her boyfriend dies. but as ene there's so much more to unpack, right?! a character who will 100% accept a HALF DEATH because she's so determined not to die, but she's also mentioned to be tirelessly looking for her body because despite everything she's got HOPE? that's SUPER interesting, i love her!! what will she- *is obsessed with shintaro* ene's obsession with shintaro again ties in with everything else, desperate for attention, finds kinship with shintaro because she (or rather, ayano) decided he's compatible with her, but most importantly, he's doing badly and she wants to help him. takane isn't a person anymore, she's alive only as a technicality, so… she spends time with shintaro! but we ignore, it's TWO YEARS. and only in one of those she is with shintaro. we tend to overlook she spends the WHOLE TIME looking for her body in that other year. of course ene talks a lot about how much she loves her power, how much she loves being ene and not having to take care of her sick body but it's a REALITY that she wants to get it back. if she really didn't want it, why would she look for it and later get back into it when she does find it? but that's in between the lines. ene's obsession with shintaro is super interesting and you KNOW i love everything we know about takane be it her obsession with shintaro or her crush on haruka. i just wish there was....more.... like everyone else gets more! like HARUKA, a damn side character, gets more!!

haruka gets so SO much, he even bonds with SETO!! he gets a really well developed friendship with shintaro, he gets a very long detailed introduction scene with ayano with funny younger mekatrio shenanigans, he gets yuukei quartet hangout moments, he gets a GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH KENJIROU (fundamental imo as he's very important both in general and haruka and takane's social circle back then) and not just all that, but super thoughtfully written feelings about his illness, views on life, wishes... and all takane's story gets is…. she's sick, but it's ok it's not deadly, HARUKA HOWEVER…. oh, HE'S the real delicate one….especially since she's in love with him ofcourse!! dont forget!! btw she's grumpy cuz of her illness. she wishes she just didn't need sleep. aaanywaaays did we mention it's not as important as haruka's illness and btw she's in love with him?

unlike haruka, takane gets no relationship with ayano, and all their interactions are talking about how in LOVE they are with haruka and shintaro. no relationship with kenjirou beyond comic relief of ugh useless ass teacher, even revealed later on she stays in the dark about kenjirou forcing them to participate in the festival ON PURPOSE and playing her like that so she would be determined and make haruka join. her dynamic to shintaro pre being ene is just pitiful, and if it wasn't for his behavior towards her shintaro would be…. erm normal?? yea he's cold to ayano but that vs the way he randomly treats takane without even knowing her. god. imagine kagepro where shintaro DIDN'T do that. he'd still be flawed and stuff like what was the need😭 like HUUHH. takane gets nothing!!!!! and if we're still on the shintaro subject, why she's the asshole for being a menace as ene? whatever. i support women's wrongs. bully him harder.

alright. later she's ene, bonds with the dan. wait!! look!! it's KANO!!! she has so much in common with him, to the point he chooses her to open up to and helps her get her body back!!! this is a GREAT character choice to pair her with and to develop a dynamic with!! uh. oh wait….. kano's just totally awful to her and then later leaves her to get her body back offscreen and on her own? (looks into the camera again)

to continue comparing haruka and takane. takane mentions grandma makes her lunch, grandpa is dead, and they're both SUPER worried about her illness. there's…. nothing about their personalities or their relationship to her. meanwhile, haruka mentions everything! he's all like my illness… when it killed my mother it was exactly when the doctors said it would. my dad is cold and a little strange and doesnt spend time at home. we have a live in helper who does chores. like that's already so much deeper!

u find out through another mention later on that takane's parents work overseas but you dont know ANYTHING else despite it being so specific. while haruka goes on about his relationship with his dad or rather lack of relationship, and there's even some stranger at home doing chores for him. and again HE GETS TO HAVE A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH KENJIROU, heavily written as a father/son dynamic. man.

anyways…. this is kinda all over the place and it's something i talk about very often but teehee. wanted to do it again. i was thinking about it again because i realized i don't tend to draw haruka in a context outside being takane's boytoy. which i don't particularly care about because i know that's not all i see him as and i do see him as a deep character of his own and i like analyzing him just as much… it's just in art specifically he's just always there to be in love with her and nothing else. and i was like damn does that suck of me?? but you know what. i dont care<3 thanks for coming to my ted talk.

[poorlemons]

My friends and I have been thinking of your Clear Image AU a bit more than is healthy.

Does Michael have any lingering identity crisis from the Distortion along with her egg cracking? like is there "Am I really me?" Teletransportation thought experiment crisis stuff going on there?

also does she change her name or still go by Michael?

Also your Helen is really pretty

oh these are good questions!! makes me think, yknow?

ok identity crisis. I think something of the sort definitely lingers with her, those sorts of doubts that rear their head during her worst moments when she's exhausted and confused. It does come back then. The confusion and the weird out of body experience and memories of her body doing things but it wasn't her, even as bits of her bled into it and fed its anger. Its definitely something that's there when she first escapes the distortion. But i honestly don't think it would be this ever present feeling. Her existence is so fundamentally different than the Distortions that it is so clear to her that she is not It, and that entity doesn't linger in her. I think she'd find it laughable (but not in a fun laugh sort of way) if someone were to suggest its still with her. She's free and she can feel it in her very being. Well, i guess she might have a different brand of identity crisis. She is Michael Shelley, but who is Michael Shelley anymore? Michael Shelley was a man who lived, was lied to, and whos truth was ripped from his very being and replaced with some fucked up fear entity. But now she's not, she is alive, and she has to pick of the pieces and rediscover what it means to be Michael. She's herself again but god is that a disorienting experience when you spent so long being anything but.

something something the eyeopening, beautiful experience of rediscovering yourself as you transition. She's like a butterfly finally reemerging from her goo state. And no I don't think she changes her name. I'm bad at picking out names and i just like Michael!! I think it fits her, she's always Michael to me. Maybe she gets a nickname or something but like, i think she likes it. The Distortion may have tainted it but she doesn't want to let it win, she's Michael. Not it. Because I think she does have that fire of anger still buried in her chest, and she can and will be petty about it. (thanks :) I love Helen so much, I haven't really posted any of my doodles of her but she's very dear to me. silly lady, absolute queen)

I think, one of her big issues that's a direct byproduct of housing the Distortion for so long is like... physical struggles. Remember that thing about the Distortions bones and them all being either non existent or in its hands? I think that'd leave her feeling very strange and achy. Her joints click and hurt and are both too stuff and too loose. Her hands are constantly shaking and generally she can't walk straight very easily anymore. Plus, her vision has only gotten worse and she has a pretty bad astigmatism now, that girl is getting chunky glasses. Michael has people around to to help her as she adjusts, though, and I've been pondering ways for her to manage it. It probably won't ever go away but she has ways to live around it.

Get her a T-shirt that says "i survived being the Distortion and all I got was chronic pain"

[fumifooms]

Hi hi! I'm sure you have loads of asks to get through. But if you may, we talk a lot about Chilchuck and Marcille (as we should 'cause they're great!), but since you've mentioned that Laios is your fave char, I would love to hear if you have any takes on Laios and Izutsumi's dynamic. I feel sometimes like she doesn't really like him...? It's funny but I also feel bad for him sometimes. ^^;;

You can’t ask me this and expect me to not drop everything else I’m doing. Little did you know they are my brotp. They are so special. Izutsumi gets along more with literally everyone in the party, but their relationship was so narratively important. They’re a really underrated and overlooked dynamic! I’ve had them as a topic at the back of my mind for a while, seeing someone else interested was all the push I needed gdbdg. This isn’t super long though, their issues with each other and lil arc is surprisingly brief and easy to summarize.

Laios & Izutsumi : what’s their deal with each other

For me one foundational train of thought for Izutsumi & Laios is, well. I read this awesome smart post deconstructing how Izutsumi’s beef with Laios is because she only just broke free and wants freedom without having someone ordering her around, and that’s sort of her whole character arc, isn’t it?

Isn’t Izutsumi’s picky eating a reflection of just that? In a life where she was a slave, she could at least control what she chose to eat and not eat. But then you might wonder, why did the narrative want her to grow out of that? Simply put, Izutsumi has a contrarian streak, one that is often extremely counterproductive. We saw that especially near the beginning, with how hard it was to make her work with them as a team. The issue is that now that she is free, she needs to not block out others by habit, to not lash out and refuse the healthy things in life, the people who want good for her. And that’s something that’s addressed in the succubus chapter as well as the fight against the ice golem, that she shouldn’t insist that she can do everything alone and fight against any team effort.

I love how onesided the Laios izutsumi dynamic is. He stays away from her generally, like doesn’t interact much, but he wants the cat pats… Which Izu made clear she did NOT want. And Chil is the only one in the party to not really see her as a cat for most of the story really, as shown in the relationship chart. He’s well meaning and wants the best for her, but he crowds her and doesn’t understand her at all. But he reallyyy wants to get along with her.

On the other hand, Izutsumi’s very existence and identity gave Laios an immense amount of hope that Falin could be brought back and still be herself and live well, even if she still had part of a dragon’s soul in her. I think that’s a lovely way to contrast the way that Izutsumi hates herself as a beastkin and her body, while Laios is like "Thank you, your existence as you are is the answer to all my worries" AND he super likes monster bodies and beastkins so it’s like. I think part of her hostility to him, besides feeling like he doesn’t understand her perspective and is maybe dismissive of what his party members want (which would remind her of Maizuru to some degree probably), is that he says all these good things about her being a beastkin, and it’s so jarring with her own version of herself that it raises her hackles and she reacts negatively, especially with how flippant and eager he is about it. But yes like, this is their first meeting!! Beyond his interest in her as a beastkin because of his monster hobby, Laios is just so very grateful for her and chooses to put his trust in her.

That’s interesting too, how one of the first things she asks about upon meeting them is why the hell they would want to rescue Falin even if she were to stay as a chimera-beastkin and still have the dragon soul in her. It’s her asking "Who would want to stick with a beastkin?" thinking that there’s something fundamentally wrong with having two souls and it making you unlovable. And their differing views on monsters do make them clash

But ultimately he chills out about her, which ironically enough shows in the way that they don’t interact much- He gives her space, and accepts that the beastkin may not like him. BUT at the end of the day they have an incredible bond of trust- Laios asks Izutsumi to kill him if something goes wrong with the Winged Lion. Not only is that sort of an intimate request and act, but that means that he leaves it up to Izutsumi’s judgement as well to know if it went wrong and when to act. He doesn’t only trust her skills but also her decision making, despite how tough they’ve been on each other in the past. He’s giving her the ultimate role, the go ahead to make or break their plan and be the difference between saving or destroying the world. And the last tidbit of info we get on their relationship in canon is when she hides behind him because she’s shy- Certified having befriended the cat moment. She trusts him and sees him as a safe person! And by saying that she’s shy, he’s showing that he did end up understanding her and how she is.

No matter the rocky parts of their relationship, they still have a strong foundation to it and were great allies and road companions, one of the few persons that had each other’s back when it mattered the most, both for the world and for their personal arcs. And post-canon, well…

He’s accepted that she needs space and whatnot, and meanwhile she’s accepted his interest in monsters and taken it in stride 😌 They end up having this familiarity with each other and even if there’s still a bunch of emotional distance imo and they never really got into the nitty gritty with each other not like her with Chilchuck or even Marcille, they see each other. They nod in greeting and respect each other from afar……. But also still tease and chat familiarly up close and if she offers him the opportunity for cuddles he will take it. You know, if it’s not her just falling onto him because she’s sleeping she has no respect.

Siblings behavior… If you know my take on the general party dynamics, I love thinking of Laios & Izu’s dynamic as him being an older brother figure where they have a love-hate relationship. Siblings rivalry. I have a bunch of funny little doodles I’ve wanted to make with them for months, the prompts for which are in the screenshot put below. But yeah like you know, they’re protective of each other but in that very critical way as well, truly forged by being stuck with each other for a while and having to come to understand and accept how the other is. Strife with conflict, but ultimately sticking with each other through thick and thin… Siblings siblings SIBLINGS SIBLINGS SIBLINGS. Sigh I just want them to cuddle on a couch and she purrs while simultaneously being snide and mean to him, they are so… Izutsumi is the character ever

Oh, which! While I’m here, I always recommend this fanfic about the two of them interacting and Laios treating her like a cat, it’s just fun and lighthearted. They’re suuuuch an underrated duo

If I find more Laios & Izu moments I think are worth sharing I’ll just add it onto this I think. We shouldn’t be too hard on him he was raised by dogs so cats are a whole other language to him but also, so wild to me that he never tried to engage with her on a cat level properly like where is the hissing at the catgirl and the cat taming moments, he sucks at socializing with cats smh smh.

I want to do an analysis of queerness in Dungeon Meshi with relationships and social norms and stuff and Izutsumi’s arc is gonna be central to that too. Her relationship with EVERYONE is SOOO GOOD AND IMPORTANT AND COMPELLING. But I guess this is where I leave it off for now, I hope I’m not forgetting any point I wanted to make hmmm

[darlingofdots]

I usually read historical romances, but I've been branching into contemporaries more recently especially because I want to read more f/f and the offerings in the Regency/Victorian section are kind of grim. But I did pick up The Duke's Sister and I, a Regency-era f/f romance published by Harlequin (!) and while I am having a perfectly good time with it, something stood out to me about this particular book's target audience and who books are for in general.

First of all, I have gotten into the habit of coding romances while I read them because that's what I do for my academic work, and it's interesting to me that the protagonist dynamic in The Duke's Sister and I is clearly still rooted in the more traditional "he's a playboy and she's a virgin" setup that has gotten a bit less popular generally but was part of the submission guidelines for Harlequin/Mills & Boon until fairly recently: Charlotte has had lots of female lovers while Loretta doesn't even know that that's an option, and Charlotte is the one who will have to overcome her #issues to accept that love and happiness are even an option.

Secondly, this adds a bit of a twist to the usual arc of sexual awakening for the "heroine" but still echoes that exact dynamic: one character being the other's first ever sexual relationship, which means they are also the one to teach the "virgin" how sex and pleasure work. I am personally not a huge fan of this simply because I don't find that first unsure and often insecure exploration very interesting, and I much prefer to read about characters who know their own bodies and what they want from a partner. But with The Duke's Sister and I, we have a specifically gay awakening, which I am much more receptive to in the context of a historical setting.

This book also discusses how the patriarchy controls what women know and even how we see ourselves, through the lens of Charlotte as a painter specifically of "realistic" portraits that depict female bodies as they are. There's a lot of messaging about how women don't see representations of normal faces and bodies in art and how it affects their self-image. I am not knocking this book, to be clear, this is a perfectly good theme for a romance novel and I think it pairs with the gay awakening really well! For our baby gay protagonist Loretta, a whole new world is opening up that she didn't even know could exist before, and for the first time she is able to see herself and her life without the filter of what the patriarchy wants her to think, do, and see.

But here is the question of target audience: of course there are romance readers who are just discovering that they're queer and books like this can support the process of re-understanding themselves. HOWEVER for a reader who is not currently having that specific experience, this messaging is unnecessary. I do not need to be reassured that women can be in love with women! I know! So who is this book for? The playboy hero/virgin heroine dynamic this riffs on is deeply rooted in patriarchal conceptions of female sexuality even as it attempts to liberate from them, but the socially-motivated mechanisms behind the trope kind of don't work when you remove the gendered power differential. It's so interesting to me how The Duke's Sister and I is in many ways a really conventional and straighforward historical romance that sets up the protagonists in the well-established roles of heterosexual hero/heroine romances, but also is fundamentally about breaking out of the constraints of heterosexuality.

Queer romance novels constantly have to grapple with wanting to play in the romance novel sandbox, which sits in a firmly cisheteronormative playground, and using similar tropes and telling similar stories because it's fun, while also confronting how much of the genre runs on cisheterosexuality. How do we tell queer stories in this environment? How far can we bend the rules to our purposes until we realise we have either broken the sandbox or left it behind? And some novels very deliberately and thoughtfully engage with these questions and try to queer the romance as much as possible, but others just want to tell familiar stories with queer characters, and both of these are perfectly fine and fun! But that tension is always there and, in my opinion, really draws attention to how the genre is constructed and all the ways it relies on intensely gendered assumptions about love, sex, and happiness.

[robinmage]

It's curious to me, how the general consensus among others when it comes to Chise's curses are "bad; we need to get rid of it (we just don't know how.)" Which, considering they are both curses made of pain and suffering, makes sense why someone wouldn't want to keep those around.

We (the audience) know vaguely how the curses interact with each other. The dragon's curse: made from strong emotions of anger and despair, provides Chise with her strength and durability against both magical and physical elements, at the cost of her own strength one day tearing herself apart. Cartaphilus' curse prevents her from dying, but offers no protection against injury or decay. Together they "keep each other in check"-- Cartaphilus will keep her alive, the dragon will keep her strong.

A lot of things have happened in the past arc that make it easy to forget the fundamentals of the first season. When the series started, Chise was a few steps away from walking off a roof. Even after she arrived in England, it took a long time before she decided that maybe life wasn't so bad. Her entire life up until that point had been nothing but misery; abandoned and alone, she had no one to protect her from the constant targeting and harassment by both fae and humans alike. She believed that the only way to escape her torment was through death... I think its a facet of her character that goes unfairly unrecognized a lot (especially after the first arc).

When she's in England and is going through her mental/psychological character development, she is still facing the imminent threat of her weak sleigh beggey body constantly failing her. Using magic exacerbates her condition, causing her to be sick and/or incapacitated for significant stretches of time. It's painful, it's uncomfortable, it's frustrating. By the time she realizes she wants to live, her clock is already running quite short.

Her solution is handed to her on a rusted platter. To be "just like everyone else", for once. Finally.

Going to school, hanging out with friends, using magic without it killing her-- all things shes never been able to do before. All thanks to the curses trapped in her. These things that should be considered a horribly tragic fate have now become her salvation. Both physically and mentally, she's the strongest and most resilient she's ever been. Yet, when faced with the idea of liberating herself from her curses...

The curses only work the way they do because they're in sync with each other. Taking away either curse would leave her vulnerable to the other-- the dragon's curse would slowly overwhelm her into a brutally agonizing death, while Cartaphilus' curse would leave her to live and suffer through the constant breaking down of her sleigh beggey body.

When told about the reality of her curses and just how severe they are (not just to her, but to the people around her), she doesn't seem to completely understand what that may mean for herself and her future. Or perhaps, she just doesn't care. After a life where pain and suffering was her "normal", she finally has the means to create something meaningful and positive out of herself. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

She understands on some level that these curses were only ever meant to be temporary. Elias' original goal, to keep Chise alive in spite of her sleigh beggey curse, has not changed. Tacking on two more curses was not a part of the plan, and though they've offered a temporary solution and some time, curses are called curses for a reason. They cannot be relied upon. They've got to go.

But getting rid of those curses (both, or either) essentially puts her back at square one. Back to the pain, discomfort, and illness. She probably won't be able to use magic without hurting herself, too. She's gained freedom in both mind and body for the first time in her life. Sure, she encounters a few hiccups, but considering what she's used to, this is a big step up.

Something has finally given her the power and freedom to spread her wings and fly. Would she be able to clip her own feathers just because that power is "supposed" to be "bad"?

Could she? Could you?

Through it all, everyone she's come across has appointed her curses as a problem. Everyone, except...

[lilietsblog]

the patriarch

So I saw on my dashboard a question someone asked someone else along the lines of "who is patriarchy? who is doing the oppression"?

The answer was basically "patriarchy is not a who", which is of course semantically correct, but. Yeah there is actually a "who" figure involved! The person noun patriarchy is derived from or derives from itself: The Patriarch, literally "the father who rules". I'm sure this word is familiar to most of the audience, though I've seen "matriarch" come up more, recently, Encanto and all. That means "the mother who rules", and it's actually a very simple riff on the same basic patriarchal concept, though I'll get to it. Who is the patriarch?

Let's start from the top: the ultimate patriarch is, of course, the Christian God, our Father who is in Heaven*. He's in charge of the universe because he made it, and he's the ultimate moral authority. He decides what's good and what's bad, what's right and what's wrong. Disagreeing with him is heresy; saying mean things about him is blasphemy; holding someone else as a greater authority is idolatry. All of these things are bad, not because of some consequence they have, but definitionally, in themselves. Obeying God is what "good" means, disobeying God is what "bad" means. When you're Christian, you argue about other things being good or bad on the basis of whether you think they go against the God's plan or are an indelible part of it. It's not up to real discussion whether or not God's plan is good, like you can discuss why some parts of it suck, but all of it comes with the understanding that the fundamental axiom is that the plan is good, it's what good is.

*obviously other cultures with other gods exist, but I'm not familiar enough to weigh in, so let's just take this as an example, ok?

The next level down we have the Divine Right of Kings. A king is in charge because God said so; authority flows top down. A king being in charge is definitionally good, disobeying the king is definitionally bad. An usurper or pretender to the throne is bad not because of what they did in the process or once they have power, they're bad because they're defying the order of the rightful king being in charge, which is again definitionally bad, in itself. Restoring the rightful heir to the throne is definitionally good and doesn't require any justification, it's right there in the word "rightful". It's just right.

(I am skipping, like, the church hierarchy, the noble hierarchy, all that good stuff, because they are basically more of the above echoed further down, not a separate thing to look at)

Then we have the original in terms of human history, the most fundamental unit: Family. Patriarch means the Father who rules, and if there's any justification behind God being in charge, it's that he's all of our father: and so, the father rules definitionally. "Head of the household" has historically been a legal concept: there's one person that the rest of the household belongs to, literally as his property that he can do with as he sees fit. Slaves have historically (occasionally?) been counted as part of the family, because they also belong to the head of the household, and while there's legal distinctions in what kind of property they are, it's still really under the same umbrella. This is why there's a group of conservatives absolutely incensed about the idea of a wife voting differently than her husband in secret: under patriarchy, a wife is not a separate legal entity who belongs to herself, she's beholden to the head of the household, and if she has things of her own that's his wealth, extended.

Note that in a family, the patriarch isn't every guy. Each household has one head, no matter how many people are living together. The oldest living man of the seniormost generation, occasionally delegating to the next seniormost guy (his brother or son or son-in-law) if he's incapable or doesn't want to deal with it - but ultimately still holding the cultural + legal authority to contradict and punish this second guy if he's not living up to expectations.

You get to be a patriarch when all of the elder generation dies, or when you move out and start your own household - though depending on how far away you've moved and the exact influence/wealth/title dynamic you might still be ultimately beholden to the patriarch-er patriarch, in much the same way kings are beholden to god. The patriarch-er patriarch isn't really supposed to interfere with what's yours to be patriarch over, but he can absolutely order YOU around, and of course he can interfere with whatever he wants if he's really cross with you.

If you're a younger brother, a son, or god forbid something like a nephew, you're not a patriarch. You're a minion. You're a minion who will one day probably be a patriarch in his own right, which puts you in a different position than the women of the household, but this doesn't put you in charge except insofar as the actual patriarch authorizes.

Hey, remember when I mentioned slaves? There's yet another patriarchy-derived fundamental unit: the workplace. See, "companies" and "legal entities" and "corporations" are actually fairly new as a concept, historically speaking. In a more traditional view, any sort of business is associated with one specific household and one specific person who's in charge of that household, aka, one of the patriarchs I'd already brought up. The business and the family are not fundamentally distinct: sure they strictly speaking are, but your apprentice depending on the culture might literally be considered one of your children / a sibling to your children (Ace Attorney fans, shoutout to the von Karma family, hey!), and you probably want to marry them (him) to your daughter to secure the connection. Anyone who's working for you, be they a maid cleaning your floors or a hired worker striking metal in your forge, are subordinate to the same you the patriarch. If your son has his own independent business, that means he's moved out - if he has one while still in, that's something under your authority that you're just graciously allowing him to handle. The boss and the head of the family are the same concept.

(Meaning, once again, that "the patriarch" is not every man working in the place, but the one very specific guy, even if they might be patriarchs of their own families outside of the workplace)

(And then we have the concept of serfdom, where the boss owns you and your family actually in a literal way, with variedly little distinction from slavery proper. I'm sure you can follow the patterns)

Where does the matriarch all come into this? Well, patriarchy involves choosing who rules based on two criteria: gender, and generational seniority. And sometimes the two come into conflict! If there's a mother and a young son, of course the mother is in charge. If there's a mother and adult daughters, of course the mother is in charge. What if there's a mother and an adult son, what then? Well, that's going to depend on the legal system of wherever this situation is taking place, but culturally, this is going to hugely depend on the personalities involved. A sufficiently bossy woman who doesn't have a husband or father to override her decisions with the cultural authority of the actual patriarch (even if he's cowed and emotionally abused and under her heel, if there's a conflict the rest of the family is going to recognize his authority to override her on a technical level) - a sufficiently bossy woman who doesn't have a man to override her becomes a matriarch.

A matriarch still benefits from the fundamental ideas of patriarchy: it's wrong to contradict her because it's wrong, definitionally. Creating you / being your parent means having a legal and ethical right to you. If you're a serf or a slave or a hired worker, you belong to her household and she has a mother's authority over you to whatever degree you fail to hold on to your boundaries or to whatever degree she's actually legally entitled to it. Depending on the exact culture and time period involved, the legal system may well privilege the matriarch to the same degree as the patriarch, in absence of an actual local patriarch to hold the authority. The only truly independent woman is a widow, I'm sure you've gotten some cultural echoes of this over your life.

And depending on the exact patriarchal culture, it might well be possible for a woman to be culturally recognized as the head of a particular household even while married. Some cultures' patriarchy is more weakly gendered, and is more about the core concept: parents rule. Someone is fundamentally, definitionally in charge, and gets to decide what is good and what is bad for those in their authority. Going against them is definitionally wrong. They are entitled to you and everything you own.

(Ukraine, both modern and historically, as far as I know, has this more weakly gendered version. It's just as wrong to go against your mother as against your father. A woman beating her husband with a cast iron pan or rolling pin because he's drinking is a core cultural image, and not portrayed as necessarily wrong - it's more of a comedic image, which ties back into sexism and "women can't hurt men meaningfully", because while sexism and patriarchy are closely related they are ultimately two different things about two different questions: sexism asks "what are men and women's differences" while patriarchy asks "so who's in charge here". A woman may well be in charge here; a large, muscled, tall woman who is physically stronger than her husband is a reasonably accepted idea. This actually boils back over into sexism and invisible household work: a woman in charge of the household holds a job (thanks soviet union) AND cooks, cleans, handles finances etc (thanks soviet union's fundametal failure to dismantle the concept of family and handle everything communally instead, because that's not how humans work no matter what communism as a philosophy says) (seriously, they tried, there are apartment houses to this day where the kitchen is combined with the bathroom in the floor plan because nobody's supposed to cook at home, you eat at work / in the age-appropriate looking-after-children institution) and yes of course she's the ultimate authority over the household. Russian and Ukrainian have two gendered versions of the word meaning "master / host / owner", male and female, where both have give-or-take equivalent authority over household matters. It's complicated and really interesting in a comparative analysis to US's culture)

tl;dr, the intended takeaway: under patriarchy principles, not all men get to be patriarchs.

(This is why "men are also oppressed under patriarchy" is fundamentally true, not as some sort of weird exception or unintended blowback. Patriarchy is the older generation having morally fundamental, unquestionable authority over the younger generation. That's not gendered, just the exact consequences are)

[branules]

Why do you like aeriseph, sorry if this comes off as rude but I'm generally not too involved in any fandoms so I can't figure out for myself why ppl like this that's just my dumbass lmao

ok i've sat on this one for like a week debating if i should answer or not but sure. i'll preface this by saying that there is no canonical basis for aeriseph in ffvii. like i can't stress enough how much i am making shit up because i like to have fun. but anyway.

the short answer is:

1. sephiroth and aerith are my two favorite fictional characters. 2. i like to draw my two favorite characters lezzing out, because i am a lesbian, and because my sephiroth is transfem. it makes me smile.

as for the longer answer:

i like how much aerith and sephiroth parallel and contrast each other. i like the idea of aerith of having a secret affair with the evil dead woman she is duty-bound to save the world from. not to mention this evil dead woman's ties to zack and the incident that took him from her. i like the idea of the planet's steward and calamity's child going against their natures because they can't resist each other, and it becomes haunting and tragic knowing aerith's eventual fate and the sort of eternal damnation that waits for sephiroth afterwards for doing something so unforgivable, considering she goes from godhood to immortal planet parasite unable to pass on. i find it soooo compelling to think that despite their feelings for each other, aerith ultimately loved the planet and her friends more, enough to do everything in her power to stop sephiroth with Holy, and that sephiroth chose an extraterrestrial brainworm masquerading as a mother over a kind-hearted woman who offered her genuine love. i like the idea of aerith drawing out all the human parts of sephiroth that sephiroth tried so hard to exorcise herself of. i could go on about this for forever but basically i just like doomed yuri.

some necessary addendums:

first, a lot of people like to imagine aerith and sephiroth as siblings. that's fine and cute and i totally get it, but that's not what i'm trying to do. i don't interact with a lot of aerith and sephiroth content that views them with that angle, even if it's cute, precisely because i don't want to cross those wires or make anyone uncomfortable thinking i'm trying to come at this from an incest or underage angle.

second, i want to add that i really don't fw the other aeriseph content i've seen out there lol. i just think i'm into aeriseph for fundamentally different reasons, considering i have no desire to depict them as a het pairing or create gooner noncon content and the like. it isn't that i'm better than anyone, i just don't want to be associated with what goes on in that pairing tag on ao3, and i can't blame anyone who doesn't like aeriseph for that very same reason. i have yet to see someone go about aeriseph in the same l way as i do (sighhhhhh </3) so until then i'm just going to continue playing with my barbie dolls in my locked ivory tower. i am delusional but i am free. hope this helps <3