#its my brand of girlhood weirdness

[mikuyuuss]

Mitsuri's weirdness is slept on me thinks. It's true that Mitsuri sorta represents normalcy in kny's bleak setting, despite being seen as unusual over something she can't control, but still, she's a weirdo <3 (affectionate) Maybe people forget that Mitsuri is weird because she doesn't have deceased parents (therefore isn't as unhinged as the other characters) and is girly(?) so surely, she must like normal girly things like makeup and shopping. I mean true! I'm sure she enjoys those, but I don’t think those are the only things she would like. (besides food ofc) Mitsuri is depicted as so stereotypically girly that it is unconventional in itself. She made the boys wear LEOTARDS in the hashira training arc. She's weird in a childish whimsey sort of way.

Mitsuri is a fangirl. She gushes over her colleagues at the most inappropriate times, but she compliments the things that are unconventional, like Sanemi's scars, Giyuu being quiet, or Obanai being snakey. (whatever that means)

Ya girl is also so obsessed with cats that her breathing style techniques are named after cats?? Complete with meowing sound effects too. Cat Love shower hello?!??.

Also I feel that aside from normal girly things, Mitsuri would LOVE magical girl things like sailor moon. There's so much magical girl motifs to her. She is like obsessed with cute things that her breathing in itself is super colorful and shiny, with bubbles and glitters. She also does a lot of unnecessary backflips, because she's just that. Extra.

She even has little hearts on her tsuka! Everyone else is regular looking or plain. I think she's the only one with that kind of design on her katana.

And I don't think these are a coincidence. Even in extra materials she literally has a ridiculous yet adorable OC named Big Hand Cat.

Look at her dragon even! Its so silly and whimsy I love it. It's like her cat oc in dragon form, complete with the big anime eyes. Again, Mitsuri would soooo love anime.

She even made a manga where the characters are based on FOOD

In short, Mitsuri is equivalent to THAT weird art kid. She's a weirdo let her be weird. 🩷

[lovelyrotter]

can ppl in this fandom like... stop... implying that transmasculinity in hcs or (especially) canon is shallow or misogynistic or even transmisogynistic on princible, like literally just by being prescent in someones mind or in the text. like that doesnt fuckin feel good. thats kind of really nasty to imply. if its not okay to say about other trans experiences, maybe dont say it about this one either. why is there a weird little exception here. yall KNOW how much that sucks to hear all day every day. what the fuck

[avatar-state-kate]

No that Barbie gendered criticsm post was in specific reference to a post where someone accused people—critical of the Barbie movie for being a commercial/just Not being indie arthaus groundbreaking cinema—of being misogynistic because “no one does this for transformers or marvel” (which seems misogynistic as well. Comic books aren’t “for boys” dolls aren’t “for girls” but the way these products are being marketed to us as freethinking adults is perhaps something we should question)

Oh, I got that, my tags were more in reference to the "consumerism seems girl-coded and military propaganda boy-coded" bit. That joke format implies that people are projecting gendered stereotypes onto something, except the idea of their being a gender link to these properties is by design - Barbie is being marketed to women and girls, and the cultural idea of what women and girls do/should like and Marvel is marketed to the cultural idea of what men and boys do/should like.

I'm not disagreeing with OP of that post, I'm disagreeing with the idea that there is no gendered level, especially with what is being marketed - consumerism is much more aggressively marketed to women ("women be shopping", the pink tax, women as responsible for household shopping etc.) and the military is marketed more to men. I think this level of analysis is being ignored in favour of calling anyone excited for the Barbie movie stupid for not knowing it's an ad. Which that's a case-by-base basis, definitely most people are going in uncritical but that's true of most media so I wouldn't call anyone out here for being especially stupid.

But yeah, people have always pointed out that toy brand shows are just ads, and we have been complaining about the military-industrial complex in film, but also with everything when its a "girl" (and like again this is marketing, I never liked barbie or girl toys as a child so like my girlhood isn't being represented here, and maybe the idea that brands get to decide what girlhood and boyhood is is a more interesting discussion) property the analysis gets weird - like you have good faith criticism and then people being much more aggressive then the conversation might need.

Like the movie hasn't come out yet and we have already gone from the over-praising the thing to backlash/hatred of the thing - again both phases have genuine and reasonable arguments to them - be excited for a movie with practical sets in a CGI cinema landscape, to see some of our biggest stars together, to see a movie that looks fun- be critical of a film that is a 2-hour long commercial for a doll brand, be critical of a film that supports rampant consumerism and the beauty industry - but the intensity is...a lot already, again for a movie we haven't actually seen yet

TLDR: I don't think it is sexist to critique this movie, or the existence of criticism or a backlash is wholly sexist, however, like with most things parsing out where the genuine feelings stop and sexism ramps them up is an impossible thing to parse. I can believe this while also feeling like anyone trying to say there is no gender element is wrong - like it's Barbie, a toy that even girls who don't play with Barbie are told is representative of their childhoods - like gender analysis is called for but just maybe not the one that is happening.

[dimdiamond]

tbh I feel cynical as well about the Barbie movie because of the level of brand marketing that this has been able to do and present some watered down 'feminist' idea packaged in commercialism, enabling more films like this already being set up because of companies like Mattel. I feel weird, because these are two tentpole films that I feel just REALLY iffy about in different ways and I don't like it. but it's always like...being asked which one you would see. neither thanks. them and their popularity don't feel right. it's either pink brand feminist marketing film vs tortured white guy making a bomb that doesn't feature Jewish actors film made by a white guy. neither of them feel remotely appealing to me.

I completely understand your feelings on them. I do. They're feelings I have for years for Hollywood movies and shows etc. They want to sell hot topics in a marketable neat package following "aesthetic" moodboards instead of actually putting in the centre of the scene the real issue and make a decent criticism.

But I can't expect the perfect representation and the perfect movie that talks about an issue in a perfect way. Frankly, I want people to use market and trends to talk about things that matter. People MUST use any mean to show their truth. Even with the restrictions and exclusions and whatever limitations producers and companies apply on their media, people will still find a creative way to pass their message and I believe for these people it's worth watching them.

You feel weird supporting projects like that? Good. That doesn't mean you have to guilt rip yourself and you can watch them with a way of not giving them your money. You don't want to watch them? Great. You should not feel forced to do so. Honestly there are many other movies you can watch and support (indie productions for example but you probably know them better than me).

Regarding these two movies I feel more comfortable with watching and supporting Barbie than Oppenheimer. One reason is because the first looks fun but the biggest reason is that Barbie feels genuine, like an honest effort to talk about feminism and more, even if it's in a more marketable package baiting you with nostalgia of your childhood. But even the audience it targets it's not the usual, it's for girls and now women who played with them, who got through the girlhood and its struggles and what society demands on them. And that's why it can resonate with anyone, regardless gender and sex, because it talks about patriarchy from the perspective of the "victim". I have my doubts about Greta's view of feminism in general but I do think it's worth to be shown because, honestly, how many big budget movies will talk about this issue? And if more movies like them are made then that's good, we can talk about this issue more instead of ignoring it.

But Oppenheimer? For who is Oppenheimer? It talks about nuclear weapons and the danger of science and what is humanity from the perspective of whom? The one who caused it? And it's not like we should not tell stories from this perspective but what does it mean when it's in a big budget movie of Hollywood? We already see the message of "necessary evil" from the trailer and I honestly felt uncomfortable watching it , especially knowing that it wasn't even a necessary evil story in reality.

Now I don't want to be unfair for those that worked in these movies and whoever is eager to watch them or already likes them but maybe we should consider what it means talking about violence and other issues and from which side of the matter. Especially when we're talking about movies that will be marketed and distributed to most of the world. Especially when they are marketed in a certain way and in the end we have to ask if they were honest to that.

In the end I believe that if even one person watches a movie and makes them question and see a side they never considered then it worths it, even if one reason that was made was to advertise a doll company.

[socialistfashionblog-blog]

American Apparel

I wasn’t sure if it was sufficiently timely to write anything about the downfall of American Apparel, specifically the very weird tone that has been present in every article I’ve read about the brand’s closure, but then I read the smuggest slice of smug that’s ever been smugged out of a Guardian writer’s pen so I suppose there's still time for me to respond.

Firstly, it feels strange, to me, that writer Eva Wiseman feels the need to call out American Apparel for marketing an image of “girlhood” and “tired vulnerability” as if every other fashion brand on this planet uses their advertising space to unequivocally celebrate and empower women. In Bristol’s Cabot Circus there is no more American Apparel but there is a Victoria’s Secret PINK store which has lots of pictures of inappropriately young girls looking coyly sexually available all over its windows. So it’s fine, it’s cool, someone else will always be on hand to use exploitative imagery to sell clothing. Don’t worry, you won’t run out of thinkpiece material now that American Apparel is over!

So despite Wiseman’s obvious disgust at women and our “beaches of cold, tanned flesh”, her disgust at “junkies”, sex workers “selling ... virginity online”, teaching assistants (?????), and drummers in regional punk bands (??????) she is trying to make a point about feminism and how American Apparel is terrible for women. Because I am not some kind of monster I am not going mock women for looking unfashionable, having disgusting bodies, working in retail, being teaching assistants, or  to use the word “alleged” to describe Terry Richardson’s “shittery behind the camera” (a hilarious and not at all euphemistic way to call him a rapist! It’s good to invoke funny words like “shittery” and “scrunchies” when you write about rape (this is a sarcastic reference to the appalling Guardian piece, I don’t actually think rape + scrunchies is like, the highest form of wit)). Because I am not a monster I will take time to point out that there were several reports of Dov Charney sexually harrassing and attacking employees at his factories, because garment workers are equally as human as journalists!

It’s reminiscent of the downfall of Kid’s Company which was followed in particular by Buzzfeed with a distasteful sort of zeal. Let me make it clear: I don’t think Dov Charney’s sexual harrassment and assault of women is comparable to anything Camila Batmanghelidjh may have done. (And for what it’s worth the charity has been cleared of anything abusive or criminal.) Yes, it is precarious territory to put both those names in the same paragraph, but I only do so to point out that an entire company is more than just its leader. In the case of Kid’s Company, staff throughout the UK were left without jobs very abruptly. And there are thousands of vulnerable children who needed that resource and what, exactly, has filled the gap?

Similarly, in rushing to gloat (so vulgar!) at Charney’s failure, bourgeois journalists are mostly happy to overlook the loss of up to 3500 jobs in factories, with many more in retail across the globe. Again, Charney is clearly not a nice man and as much as I want to defend certain policies that American Apparel tried, like paying employees a living wage, much of what the company was falls to tatters under scrutiny. What’s that thing they say about ethical consumption under capitalism? Charney and his company were never dark blots on a flawless industry. Eva Wiseman will carry on buying cute dresses produced in factories where there are no fire exits and no unions, and bras stitched by women doing 13-hour days, and so will I, and so will you and so will we all until there is genuine revolutionary change. 

Fashion writing has to do better, and it has to stop eclipsing the labour and the craft behind the clothes. Journalists may dismiss the trends that American Apparel all too frequently capitalised on as ridiculous with hindsight, plenty of AA’s clothes were sturdy and exceptionally non-disposable compared to the likes of H+M, Primark or Mango. No, American Apparel probably could never have turned the tide on abusive labour practices, not on their own. But what if the progressive aspects of their business went further? What if the workers had sufficient agency to remove Charney and elect their own replacement? (Although he was replaced in 2014, it doesn’t seem this is how Paula Schneider, his successor was chosen.)

I actually like American Apparel’s clothes, but then, I used to be a teaching assistant and I wore my fisherman’s jumper nearly every day to a job where I got compliments from other teaching assistants. I will probably keep searching for their jeans and riding pants on eBay. There are lessons we can learn from the company’s collapse that are more important than making lazy jokes about trends from 2008.