#like at a certain point it’s not the writers misogyny that I think is the biggest issue

[karouvas]

ya’ll be like: show Daisy is too much angrier than book Daisy, show Daisy is too weak/dependent compared to book Daisy, I don’t like that show Daisy thinks she’s better than Billy and challenges his decisions with confidence it makes her look too arrogant, show Daisy’s lines are too corny, she’s too much of a manic pixie dream girl, she’s boring compared to book Daisy, her character development is ruined because she said she didn’t regret a good day she had with her terrible spit marriage husband even though he was terrible (like it’s a bad thing to look back on your past actions and forgive yourself/not blame yourself for how things went???), her character development is ruined because Billy saved her after she ODed and I’m going to pretend I’m mad at this because I want her character to have agency and not shipping reasons (but then at the beginning of next ep they gave you the scene where she kicks Nicky out after realizing he left her to die just like in the book so argument completely moot I giggled), she’s too shameless about the emotional affair I could respect her in the book because she fought her feelings but in the show she’s too flirty with the man the story revolves around her having an intense emotional affair with and should be crucified for it, she isn’t doing enough substances or being chaotic enough, while complaining about how her addition is/isn’t portrayed I’m going to actively ignore how her being an addict is a part of her character writing in the show and effects her actions/how she responds to things because I’d rather just make fun of and have no sympathy for her, they made her too mean and messy, they softened her character too much and she’s not chaotic enough, I hate that they focused more on her parental issues and trauma because her character isn’t about that (which could be fair ig but what do You think it should be about instead?), she’s unprofessional, she’s way too good at everything too fast and succeeds too much, also I hate that the show is focused on her so much over other characters when she’s the mc of the story which is named after her, oh and she’s a pick me girl because of a funny little comment she made while she was high and a mess to the point of injuring herself without noticing while really really depressed and heartbroken.

Ya’ll: but the writers are misogynists who didn’t write her as a complex character and that’s the issue!

[korkorali]

The Misogyny of It All

So a lot of Della Duck Discourse is rehashed all the time, points are made again and again, but one thing that I almost never see people defend -and conversely, see people attack all the time- is The Line.

You know what I'm talking about. The Line from Glomtales.

"Your plans, your schemes, they only lead to bad things for your family. If you want to be a part of this family, you've gotta stop."

That one.

Now, what exactly Della was trying to get across with that line is a whole other can of worms that deserves its own post (basically she -and also the writers- horribly failed her Speech check).

What we're going over here is how that mimics a certain line from the last season, said by a parental figure to a child, that gets so much less flack. That, in fact, often gets paraded around as 'an interesting twist on a character.'

"You are not family!"

I have never seen people attack this line with the same amount of vitriol as they attack Della's, which is funny when they're the exact same line.

Actually, not even that- Scrooge's is worse.

It's more direct, it's literally yelled at Webby, it doesn't even attempt to address the issue Scrooge had (Webby blaming him for what happened to Della) and instead just straight-up attacks her as a person.

Now, to be fully honest- I like this line! I do genuinely think it's an interesting route for Scrooge to take, and is quite realistic to the grumpy old bastard. It's just funny that nobody ever comes to Webby's defense the same way they do for Louie.

Because the thing is- between Webby and Louie, one of these two has genuine, canonical issues with feeling like they're not a part of the family, like they're an outsider amongst those they love the most, like they don't belong.

And it's not Louie.

It is a consistent part of Webby's characterization that she feels like she doesn't belong. This gets touched on in all three seasons (and honestly, it could be argued that it gets worse after this moment).

Conversely, that just is not a part of Louie's canonical characterization. Even in the first episode of season 2, the one where Louie gets the closest to an 'I don't belong in this family' moment, it's less 'I don't belong here' and more 'fuck me I am terrible at adventuring'. And! It gets resolved in that episode!

(Of course, there is absolutely something to be said for how it's resolved- specifically by Scrooge encouraging him to be a scheming little bastard, which then thusly becomes the thing that threatens his family the most. Which would, logically, be a pretty big blow to his self-esteem. This isn't what I'm here to discuss right now but it is genuinely interesting.)

Louie never really shows an issue with feeling like he doesn't belong in his family. He shows a disconnect with his family at times, but in canon that never really evolves into a full-blown feeling of displacement. It does get close in Glomtales, but never quite reaches it.

So it's 'interesting' (read: not interesting) that Scrooge's fuckup here gets brushed away pretty easily. A lot of the time the line just straight-up isn't addressed, and when it is, often times it's about how "Oh he apologized to Webby offscreen, obviously."

Which.

Not he did not.

I mean, let me be clear: I don't mind it when that's the answer. It works for me to just brush it away if it's not meant to be the focus...

But Scrooge almost certainly didn't apologize for it.

As 'New Gods on the Block!' Showed us, Scrooge is downright awful at realizing when his actions have hurt people.

More likely than not, Scrooge would just assume that everything is fine and would avoid bringing it up at all costs because he'd feel awkward about it. Because he is, very importantly, not good at talking about things he doesn't want to talk about.

So why is it that Louie is always the one feeling like he doesn't belong? Why is it Della who is always a terrible parent for what she's said? Why are Webby's feelings of disconnect never really given the same gravity as Louie's? Why is Scrooge's blunder let off the hook super easily?

It just feels silly to me.

And, well.

Kinda like the fact that, since Scrooge is a guy and Webby's a girl, and Della is a woman and Louie's a boy, has something to do with it.

I'll happily give the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not deliberate, but quite frankly it is a double standard.

I think that people would be less upset with the Della Duck Discourse if Scrooge was held in a similarly critical position over what he's said and done. If it was acknowledged that Della isn't uniquely awful in what she says and does, and that a lot of the others have fucked up in extremely similar ways.

(I mean for fuck's sake, everybody goes on and on about how Della left her kids for ten years -which, for the record, wasn't what she wanted to do- but nobody ever criticizes Donald for taking the kids away from their family and never talking to them about Della- which is something he actively and deliberately chose to do)

TL;DR: The fact that Della gets intensely criticized for what she's said and done, but Donald and Scrooge are conversely celebrated as 'interesting' and 'complex' for what they've said and done, even when it brings harm to the kids, is a blatant double-standard. And if you don't think that this double-standard is bad or wrong for existing (or even that it Doesn't Actually Exist), instead of immediately claiming that it's a non-issue, maybe try to look inward and figure out why you really think that is.

[maxphilippa]

A lot of the neg claims about II are really just making a problem really big/treating it as , or taking things out of context, so let's talk about some of them, ESPECIALLY because of a certain someone(s) lately. Let me clarify that I know that II's writing ISN'T perfect, but nothing is perfect really, and most of these issues are misinterpretation, the choices of the fandom and/or even AE TRYING to fix the writing of a character because a certain SOMEONE was fired on early stages of the writing of said character.

So.

Let's talk about Inanimate Insanity Invitational, and the usual claims that come with it.

1. Cabby's Writing, Interpretations of Her Relationships, and ableism.

Cabby is one of the most... "controversial" characters when it comes to talk about III's writing, which it really shouldn't be like that at all, although I get where people are coming from expressing their concerns when it comes to the writing of her. Let me clarify something. Yes, I am aware that Cabby's writing changes A LOT and that it isn't perfect by any means, but I think that what people fail to understand most of the time is that Taylor was the one that started the Cabby-Test Tube storyline as a whole, and at some point as early s3 was being made, Taylor was fired from the team due to. Well, you guys know it. Pretty bad stuff. So of course, they had to figure out what direction they could go with Cabby as a whole, and to giving her character more depth than her just using her files for the game.

Now, it is obvious that they didn't plan from the start to have Cabby as a disabled character, but again, writing isn't always perfect. They had to somehow make things work. And even IF it wasn't planned, you guys have to remember the other factors that came with the writing on general. So of course her writing isn't as consistent as the writing of the other character on s3, but on later episodes it does get more better. I can see why people don't really like her arc, but those factors really matter when criticizing a form of media.

Cabby's writting and her disability isn't bad. Yes, it could've had better ways of execution, but it's not bad.

When it comes to relationships, I have seen someone seeing Cabby's relationship with Test Tube as a canonically sapphic thing because apparently Cabby's VA had that sort of intent, and therefore even claiming that Cabby suffers from lesbophobia(via claiming that she had a crush on Test Tube) and misogyny.

And that's not true. First of all, Cabby's and Test Tube's relationship is pretty much an example of friendships that don't work, and Test Tube pretty much exposed Cabby to the world and made her feel bad about herself for the rest of the episodes. A headcanon doesn't mean that the whole thing changes on canon, it's just that, a headcanon/interpretation, and claiming that what they did to her was lesbophobic is. Pretty weird. Since it is shown that Test Tube hurted Cabby a lot. As well, just because the Voice Actor had an intention, IT DOESN'T mean that the writers had said intention.

When it comes to the claims of misogyny, I still don't quite get why people try to see what isn't there.

The thing is that there isn't a lot of femenine characters on II and such, but Cabby isn't treated like that because "she doesn't do anything for men", she helps everyone on general, she cares about people. But she isn't put as a bad woman because of this. What you guys tend to forget is that. Cabby WAS kind of a prick on early s3. She DID commit mistakes and wasn't a great person, but that doesn't mean that misogyny is there just because for that. Just because people treat a fem character badly/not great BECAUSE OF HER PAST ACTIONS, doesn't mean that there's misogyny. The cast on general didn't like Cabby at all until she "redeemed" herself/changed/was true to herself. So that claim is. Pretty out of nowhere.

Now... with the ableism. I do get where you guys are coming from, but if you look into it deeply, they genuinely did have other intentions. The thing that people usually tend to forget is that the II characters aren't all white and black, they're gray. They do messed up stuff when they don't understand things. What the characters do to Cabby before she becomes more open about her disability is NEVER glorified and they always end up learning about it one way or another. Is it reasonable? Yes, was it ever justified on canon terms? Nope! People can be assholes without knowing that they're assholes and THEN learn! Things like that happen all of the time. Writers don't condone the actions of the characters.

Let's take an example at the scene with Bot and Cabby on episode 14. The main problem here was Bot giving fake information to Cabby, which yes, I agree that was a very bad move to do and you should NEVER do that to a disabled person (especially taking in count that Cabby suffers from a sort of memory disorder), but they didn't have an malicious intent whole doing so at all. Bot was still figuring out themselves and didn't want to be written down by somebody (because. THAT'S WHAT TEST TUBE AND FAN DID.), and Cabby doing the file thing was also easy to take on a bad light, but after Justin's explanation, it makes sense.

Could've it been treated on a better way? Yes. And YET, Bot apologizes for what they did to Cabby and DOES the disability aid themselves for her, and apologizes on EPISODE 15, just a few hours later probably or some days later. And on the same episode, Lifering tells Cabby that she shouldn't be ashamed of using her aids and that she shouldn't feel bad about those. Test Tube RESPECTS Cabby's space once she gets that she was wrong about her too. She knows she messed up too badly.

Later on, on episodes 16 and 17, everyone finally gets Cabby's files and respects them, because they finally saw that she actually needs those and that hey, she changed a lot. They treated her good. Characters can be human and can make mistakes, but they can also get better and learn. Although Cabby's arc is not flawless, it is still good. And all of the issues are easily explained just like that.

2. Bot's creation, and how it's never justified by them.

One of the main points that some people tend to bring on "III's poor writing" is the fact that Bot was pretty much built based on a parasocial relationship of sorts. However said people dare to say that AE portrays it as something good/thought that it was okay, and never did anything else to show Bot being uncomfortable by it, but this is NOT TRUE.

Ever since Bot found out that they were a replica of someone, they knew it was pretty fucked up coming from Test Tube and Fan. Meanwhile it is not explained the loss these two went through (The Shimmer egg probably does not count, since traces of "Bowbot" have been seen on early-mid s2), we know for a fact that what happened was pretty bad for the two of them. But, Bot never really forgave Test Tube. "What about the chat they have where Test Tube apologizes to them?", Bot is willing to give her another chance for the fact that Test Tube offered to help them to be themselves.

Even then Bot explains on their interview that the main reason they acted poorly towards Cabby, was because they got attached to Test Tube, the "only" person that could've helped them to change at the moment. However, again, III doesn't justify what Test Tube and Fan did. Sure, Bot considers them their parents, but they just created them and even when Bot was discovering themselves, Test Tube was. Still pushing the fem terms on them.

So, Bot is fully aware about their existence being fucked up, but they're just trying to live their life as well. These claims do not make any sense despite it being the easiest part to look into.

3. Invitational's writing. (And how The Bright Lights not being themselves is part of the fandoms fault, but also what happens when you try to expand an character who's arc is over).

Ah... one of the most... complicated points here. People tend to absolutely want to kill AE over the writing feeling weird or unprofessional on S3, but I think that all of you just kind of forget many factors at hand that came with it.

The reason as to why the most of the main Bright Lights were there IS because of viewer voting. The Bright Lights had their arcs finished on s2, and trying to have an story where something is going on with characters that are pretty much done in their stories is VERY difficult, and should not even happen at all. The only characters that did have something going on were Nickel, Balloon and Yinyang on s2 terms. Even OJ was just not having it.

So of course the viewer voting getting those 3 Bright Lights there kind of made things so much more mid on a building up relationships term. Other characters had a lot going on that needed to be solved, not them. I do think that AE should NEVER let the viewers do anything anymore because that's one of the weakest points of s3: most of the s2 characters. When you try to develop characters who's arc is closed, you kinda pretty much go nowhere with it. But you can't just have them sitting doing nothing till their elimination.

However... it's not bad when you forget those 3 characters (Fan, Paintbrush and Test Tube) and have the remaining s2 guys and the new characters. It isn't bad at all. In fact, their arcs are pretty consistent for the most part (except for Cabby's if we count the start of it), and the arcs of Nickel & Balloon AND Yinyang show some real growth and ARE proof that AE does know how to write characters. As long as they ACTUALLY HAVE something going on for them.

As well, something that people forget a lot when it comes to III's writing, is that it is more lighthearted on comparison to S2. Which I can get to an extent, but then, let's remember this: AE made S3 because they were burnt out from S2's writing.

They wanted to make something more fun, something that was more S1 like, and meanwhile I do get people not liking S3 at all because of this, please do remember that S3 is meant to be more silly. More funny. Less serious stuff. Until the last episodes dropped that is, but it is still it's main intention.

4. ...Transphobic? Allegations/accusations.

This point makes me feel so SO tired at this point and it's how people say "AE gets the trans characters out just when they came out" and get so SO tired of people missing the point with Bot's design, but also missing the whole Paintbrush thing.

The reason as to why they get eliminated is because they get closure to their arc, and they have to get growth off-screen. On both of Paintbrush's eliminations, they were gone as a way to have closure, because the competition wasn't a healthy place for them, and Paintbrush's growth off screen is subtle, but it is still there. Back on s2 they were scared of saying their identity, but after they got eliminated, they got comfortable enough to the point of having the non binary flag on their shared room with Fan, and are pretty respected by the whole cast afterwards.

On s3, their elimination is pretty much the same, but it's them knowing that they don't have it on themselves to keep competing in the show. They get closure with Mephone4 instead.

When it comes to Bot, I have genuinely seen people complain about AE getting rid of the "fem traits" because Bot is... nonbinary. But. That's. That's fucking dumb at this point. The pink and the EYELASHES are FROM BOW. Bot's whole arc is about finding themselves and showing their true self to the world, and Justin has confirmed that Bot still DOES like those things, but that they're trying to find themselves! Trying to be their own person! And them getting out was also them getting closure because they finally know who they are, and they know that no matter what, no one can change that for them.

And for the last part of this... it is pretty obvious that s1 and early-mid s2 had quite some poor humor regarding Painty's gender, but this can be explained by two things: 1- They were still quite young when these seasons were made, 2- Taylor was still on the team (and he was the main reason as to why there were slurs on II, please do correct me if I'm wrong), but they ended up getting treated with respect and decency despite all things. Again. It wasn't perfect. But they managed to fix it and make it work.

Now, are those factors worth pointing out? Yes, they are, but are they arguments to try and say that AE is transphobic on actual times? No. They showed growth and tried to fix their mistakes. And meanwhile it isn't flawless, it's still pretty good.

5. Nickel's Writing Is Actually Good, You Guys Are Just Too Convinced In Your Own Headcanons

Oh boy, now, if you are quite familiar with the plots I usually analyze here, you must know already how strongly I feel about Nickel as a character and his arc with Balloon as a whole. Because everyone gets them so so wrong and misses the whole point of it. You may know this but people complain a lot about Nickel's arc taking "too long" or "being way too rushed", and both of those takes are pretty much wrong. Some also say that Nickel was worthy of a big villain just because, oh, what was his crime? Sucking at communication and trying to protect his alliance from someone he saw as dangerous at the time? That's called being a complicated character. That's literally it. Some even complain about him "not getting what he deserves" but he pretty much does get called out on the series, but also yelling at him and telling him to die won't help.

That's now how it works. Nickel's arc makes sense and it was long because he had to solve a lot about himself and about learning how to be a good, genuine friend. He became soft because he ended up having people (ex: Box) that told him to get his shit together and to stop putting his petty feelings first to focus on the team. Nickel's whole arc is about knowing what you did was wrong, and wanting to become a better person despite all odds. Even if those who you care about might never forgive you. It was necessary for The Grand Slams arc to make sense and to keep on growing.

You guys want a character to get better, but then complain when one character does become a better person, a more genuine version of themselves. And no, Nickel's actions were never justified by the show or by himself, although he did excuse his actions with fear at some point, but even then, he fully recognizes that his actions were terrible and understands if Balloon won't forgive him.

Just because you hate a character it doesn't mean you can just mischaracterize them and or forget the whole point of their arc. Nickel's arc alongside Balloon's MAKES sense and it's pretty much the best arc on s3 all factors considered.

6. Is Invitational a bad season overall?

It isn't a bad season. Yes, I keep repeating myself, it is not perfect, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad season. It doesn't stand up to the point where s2 is, but that's the goal, it's meant to be a season made for fun and to chill, and meanwhile I can agree that there are things that can be better or could've been executed on different ways, and it got way better on later episodes due to better structure.

I can get people not liking s3 because of it's flaws but it's not the WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED AND A MOCKERY, it's genuinely just something made for fun. And people tend to forget that.

There is not a media that is perfect. Inanimate Insanity isn't by any means.

But man. Isn't it a good show anyway? Isn't it a show that made you feel for the stories and it's characters? Isn't it imperfectly perfect on it's own way? Isn't it made with care and love? Isn't the fact that it has flaws makes it feel more genuine?

I personally think it is. But that's just me.

Thank you for reading.

[alicentsgf]

why are people so pressed about how Alicent ends up this season??? Like hotd hasn’t been good since s1 people also criticized everything back then but tbh Alicent from s1 was always headed to where she ends up?? I thought it was common knowledge that her last choice would always going to be duty vs love and s1 stated very well that Rhaenyra is that freedom for Alicent???? I absolutely hated the things they put Alicent through (alicole sex and for what? All of her sons being a dick to her??) her arc this season was badly executed but to blame and think that the writers are catering to rhaenicents? seems a bit stretch when the ship is hated by the majority of the show. We can argue in the journey of how Alicent get to the point she is now but it was clear for the beginning that the head of TG?? She would never be, sometimes I think that thanks to most of the general viewers didn’t understand Alicent as a character the writers thought if we put her in these humiliating scenes the viewers would understand that she is a victim of the patriarchy and the men who surround her, but I guess not even with that the GA and fandom as whole could ever understand her character and honestly im good with it, she’s a walking contradiction and i have read her character like that since the beginning, good riddance tho to the obnoxious people that kept bad talking Olivia for only doing her job (this is not a dig to you but the extended fandom that are attacking Olivia again for her character)

Why are we upset now? Because we dared to hope lmao. And now we're realising theres absolutely no coming back from this (it was already mostly ruined i know).

I think the issue is the choice between duty and love should have been made when she chose her children and grandchildren over viserys wish for rhaenyra to rule. Choosing love didnt have to and shouldnt have meant choosing rhaenyra. Like finally FINALLY she lets herself cast duty aside, because "what is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms", "you never love anything in the world the way you love your first child", "you imbecile (affectionate)", etc etc. That is what works in line with the original story AND the sympathetic sides of alicent we saw with in season 1. Sure motherhood shouldn't define women but this is a story abt a fucking lineage !! What do people expect. Of course its going to be about parents and children.

F&B might have been bare bones, but it at least had a strong political backbone to it thats been completely removed this season. That direction would have offered more oppertunities for alicent to be explored as a multifacted character. The problem is that because they angled this as a story primarily about misogyny rather than a story about the inevitability of the targaryen line imploding, they maybe thought they couldnt do that without making alicent look like an unsympathetic agent of patriarchy. (Most of the audience read her that way anyway so they did a pretty crappy job avoiding it). Rhaenyra represented a certain freedom for alicent in the story, sure, im not against that at all, but for the writers to suggest literally being with Rhaenyra is what alicent needs to do to achieve freedom from duty? To free herself from the shackles or patriarchy?? (🙄) Its so laughable. Alicents little grandson had to have his head sown back on for his funeral and Rhaenyras faction sent the assassin. Her daughter was traumatised. You dont just fucking come back from that. Really we should have known when viserys died how this was gonna go and I think in some ways we did because a big number of us were upset with the misunderstanding then, we just didnt want to believe what this signaled about where they were taking alicent. People are upset now because alicents character has become totally unrectifiable. We just never believed they'd diverge so much from the known plot points of fire and blood.

As for this bit you said:

" I think that thanks to most of the general viewers didn’t understand Alicent as a character the writers thought if we put her in these humiliating scenes the viewers would understand that she is a victim of the patriarchy and the men who surround her, but I guess not even with that the GA and fandom as whole could ever understand her character and honestly im good with it, she’s a walking contradiction and i have read her character like that since the beginning."

I have thought this myself and unfortunately I think you're right. In an effort to make alicent sympathetic they have created the most convoluted character i've ever laid my eyes on. Towards the end of season 1 we were already saying her being so forgiving after driftmark made no sense, but i was compelled enough by her because of olivias performance of that scene with the knife to be willing to wait to see where they took her this season. And its been an exercise in more of the same stupid shit. The issues in season 1 have just been amplified by the realisation that season 2 is just the same thing again and again and again for alicent. Shes just a punching bag and im sure thats in an attempt to get the audience to feel bad for her, because i cant see any other reason for it, but its just so badly written that shes no longer compelling or interesting or likeable really at all. Theres nothing to root for when you dont know who someone is. I have so little to say about her this season and that hurts honestly. Olivias performances deserved much better writing.

[ecoterrorist-katara]

Do you think that the gaang atla movie might make casual fans realize bryke are not the best writers? Like Everywhere they get praised but honestly if the writing in the movie is at the levels of the comics I could maybe see ppl turn on them a bit ( it also sucks bc I doubt katara and zuko will even interact in the movie)

Hi anon! I think people will almost certainly be disappointed in the new Avatar Studios movie, because nothing has even come close to the quality of ATLA after the original show ended. However, from what I’ve observed in the fandom, there’s always someone other than Bryke to blame. For example, when people rag on Korra, they blame Nickelodeon. When they rag on the comics, they blame Gene Yang (and incidentally I’ve actually seen a K/ataang shipper say that the reason the comics are so bad is because Gene Yang is a Zutara shipper — as if a grown ass professional would compromise his contract / reputation for a ship war). And when they rag on the first live action movie, they rag on M. Night. I’m not saying that Bryke are completely at fault for the shortcomings for these projects — collaborative creative pursuits are wonderful, magical things and it’s hard to know where credit and blame go when the whole point is that collaboration is beyond the sum of its parts — but the bottom line is that when certain fans are hellbent on not blaming Bryke, there are always other scapegoats.

I’m friends with many casual fans, and they were the ones who got me into the show. Honestly, I don’t think they even gave a second thought to Bryke until they left the Netflix production, which is convenient because now people can credit Bryke for the ingenuity of ATLA and blame Netflix for driving them away. I’m not sure casual fans will turn on Bryke for making a mediocre movie…BUT: if Zuko undergoes a character regression similar to his comics arc, people will probably get mad. Zuko’s redemption arc is widely considered one of the best on TV. You cannot find a Reddit thread about “best redemption arcs of all time” without Zuko being one of the top answers. From Bryke’s interviews, it kind of feels like they don’t really understand his appeal, and if they butcher his character in the absence of writers who got him more…well, I think people will be real mad about that. I mean, people got so mad about NATLA Katara, and she’s nowhere near as beloved as Zuko b/c misogyny and racism and many people found her annoying but that’s a whole other thing

And on a related note, I agree that Katara and Zuko will probably barely interact in the new movie, and it will seem kind of stilted and awkward. I remember an interview with Aaron Ehasz where he said that he’s not really a shipper and he doesn’t write stories with shipping in mind: what matters more is letting the narrative drive itself. That POV, undoubtedly shared by others in the writers’ room (including MVP Elizabeth Welch), is what was responsible for the development of the Katara - Zuko friendship in the original show in the first place. It’s very, very stifling to prioritize a ship war over the actual story. Antis claim Zutara shippers create convoluted fanfic plots where other characters and relationships are downplayed in favour of their ship, but that’s exactly what happens in the canon comics wrt K/ataang. I don’t know if it’ll seem so transparent to the casual viewer, but even if the motivations aren’t obvious, the decline in quality sure will be. For the sake of my love for all Gaang-related shenanigans I hope Bryke won’t go down that road for the new movie, but…well, they’ve done pettier things.

Thanks for your question anon, and please share any of your further thoughts!

[positivelybeastly]

Hey again, since you've once again brought up the idea of Hank and fatherhood, thought I'd try again to bring up his romantic history ( first comes love then comes marriage, Yada Yada and all that)

For a guy so down on himself and his appearance his got a pretty good dating history, and that's not even counting the people he's been teased with that the writers haven't pulled the trigger with yet

* cough*wonderman* cough*

How do you think Hanks romantic history in comics reflects on him as a romantic partner, both good and bad?

It's not my fault Hank's got such dad energy that people want to talk about how good of a father he'd make all the time. ;)

So, I think that Hank's romantic history is. Interesting. Because there's the surface level perception of Hank, and then there's the actuality of Hank as a romantic partner.

The surface level is largely dictated by the only non-comics source that ever bothered to give him a romance (no, I emphatically do not count the Mystique bullshit from the movies), which was the 90s animated series and the continuation of that theme in '97 this year.

Yep, it's time to talk about Carly Crocker!

Now, Carly is a completely original creation for the 90s show, and she doesn't quite fit any of the archetypes of Hank's other notable comics paramours, so I'd hazard a guess that they just kinda freestyled it here because, well, Hank's other romantic partners up to this point (Vera Cantor and Trish Tilby) wouldn't have fit the interracial romance/literal Beauty and the Beast angle that this episode is going for.

Carly's cute! I like her dynamic with Hank. They're very soft and tender with one another - she's not what I'd call frightfully complex, but she's a good woman with a nice dynamic that tugs at the heart strings a little, and especially given that the original 90s cartoon was aimed at kids, I feel like this is the right level of romantic interest to give a similarly relatively un-complex version of Beast.

Neither of them have any real negative qualities because if they did, well, it would detract from the tragedy of their denied romance and the unfairness of it all. It's very clear that the makers of the show want you to come away from this thinking that it's complete bullshit that Hank and Carly can't be together because other people are so small minded, and that would be muddied if Carly was, idk, kinda rude, or if we more faithfully transcribed some of Hank's neuroses to screen. So instead, it's very idealised.

This is where a lot of people get their idea of what Beast is like. He is a perfect saint who literally cures the blind on his time off from being a superhero, and his paramour is an angelic blind woman who is completely free from prejudice or rough edges. I think it's fine for what the show is going for, but it's not quite accurate to what Hank and his romantic history is like - to the point where I've seen some people (usually Redditors) say, UGHHHH, Beast was never the saint you think he was in the 90s cartoon, he's ALWAYS been morally grey, you fools! The fun blue uncle never existed in the comics!

And it's like, my guy. Yeah, the 90s show embellished a little bit, but this is not a million miles away from who Hank is. He's simplified, but Hank was absolutely a fun blue uncle jokester with a heart of gold for most of his existence. Maybe it wasn't exactly who he was in the comics, but neither is he what certain later writers think he is.

But. I digress.

We do, of course, have the '97 romance to consider, but we'll get to that, because that's a lot to unpack . . .

Comics!

Vera Cantor!

Ugh.

So, like . . . teenage Hank is just obnoxious. I don't enjoy him, tbh. He occasionally has good lines, but I'm basically just sitting around flicking his annoying head like

But in this instance, the 'do something' is turn blue. He's so much less obnoxious and annoying when he's blue . . .

Even filtering out the 60s misogyny, which isn't a particularly interesting flaw to try and give Hank, he's just not a great romantic partner because he's too stuffy and bookish. He's inattentive to Vera's needs and it really does read like he's only here because, well, it's something to do and Bobby needs a wingman. Vera states that she likes Hank because he's refined, which I suppose is true enough, but that's not enough to build anything more than a flirtation out of, tbh.

He's just. Not ready yet, for a fulfilling romance. The stuffiness and the blowhard vocabulary are all a smokescreen for a lot of insecurity, and that's just not someone who's ready to have a relationship.

Then again, when has that ever stopped a teenager?

They survive for longer than they should have done, honestly, given that Hank and Bobby are literally ALWAYS being called away to do X-Men things, which naturally puts a damper on dates, and they're on decent enough terms when she shows up again in Amazing Adventures, needing his help in dealing with Mimic's whole deal in Incredible Hulk.

It's a comic book romance (derogatory). It is what it is. Not really all that complex, not a lot to write home about.

Where it gets interesting is when J.M. DeMatteis enters the picture.

There's something very . . . performative, about Hank's romance with Vera, under DeMatteis. And I don't say that analytically, I mean that completely, utterly literally.

Silence. Uncertainty.

Guys, if I have to tell you that this is a bad foundation for a relationship, then I'm worried for you and your significant others. You can't be with someone because they're safe. That's part of a good reason to be with someone, but if you look at someone, and the best you can think of when you look at them is, you remind me of when my personal life was a little less scary because it was being dictated by a stern Professor Xavier, that's. Probably a sign???

It's also not great that Vera hasn't discovered feminist literature yet, so she keeps falling for being lovebombed because Hank is a bad boyfriend.

And this scene is just a big fuckin' WOOF.

Kid? Is that . . . really how you want to talk to your girlfriend, Hank?

Like . . . in the end, this is not the worst relationship in the world. Hank, when he's around, is charming. He's a good man. He writes good poetry, he'll take you dancing, he's handsome, he's great in bed, and he's a goddamn superhero. He is a fundamentally good man.

But.

He is inconsistent. He is prone to making decisions without consulting you. He is prone to showboating and revelling in attention from his fans because he has self-esteem issues. And, in the end? He's just not that into you, Vera. The base problem is still kind of the same - he's immature. He hasn't grown up yet. He's working on it! He's showing some self-awareness! But it's gonna be a bit before he's really good for anything beyond a fling.

Thankfully, Vera grew up and out of it quickly. Good for her!

The fact that they're still friendly means Hank didn't completely fuck this one up. I think both of them realise they had a lot of growing up to do, and I think that's the kind of sin you forgive people for a lot more when they're actually working on it, which Hank did.

Now, let's compare and contrast . . . with Jennifer Nyles.

I fucking love Jen.

Introduced in 1991's Marvel Presents as a flashback character who was Hank's first proper girlfriend (there's a character called Mindy that appears to have been a less serious relationship before Jen), Jennifer is a clever clogs like Hank, and even more feisty.

Hank remarks multiple times that if it hadn't been for his choice to join the X-Men, he likely would have stayed with Jen for the rest of his life, and I can see it. In a world where Hank didn't go with the X-Men, he lives a quiet, happy life with Jen in Illinois. Maybe he wins a Nobel Prize for biophysics. They have kids. They're good.

But, instead, Xavier wipes her mind of Hank's existence, and it shifts her entire world's axis - she commits her genius to the task of working out what the gap in his mind is, and becomes an expert in the field of techno-organic cybernetics.

As you do.

They find each other again. They have their moments together. And then, because Hank is a superhero, and they live dangerous lives, and Jen is reckless enough to get involved in dangerous endeavours to try and work out what was stolen from her, she nearly dies.

Nearly.

Hank and Jen are incredibly compatible, to be honest. They're a great match, and it's interesting to compare her to Vera, who is identified as a librarian, an 'intelligent' profession, but whom Hank seems disinterested in, whereas Jen, who is explicitly on Hank's level, enraptures him, and in the end, he's forced to let her go for her safety.

In the end, Hank doesn't want someone who'll just hold his hand, he wants someone who can challenge him intellectually, someone who will hold him to account, who can match his wit, and Vera . . . can't.

Not really.

It's partly a foible of when they met, partly a case of Vera being who she is and Hank who he is, but in the end, it all comes down to how Vera reacted when she received those flowers and poetry. She folded. She was charmed. She fell for Hank's charming exterior. And that's. Kinda. Not interesting to him? I don't even think he realises that's what's going on, but it is what happened. She showed him that she would put up with his shenanigans, and that's not what Hank wants. Not really.

You could almost see it as a game that Hank plays, a challenge to see if you can scratch the surface and get at who he really is, under the surface, if you're dedicated to getting at him. Maybe that's unfair of him to do, but again, I don't think it's something he even realises he's doing. He has walls up for a reason, and if you break through them, then you clearly want him - he can believe that, because you just fought him, to get to him. It all comes back to that insecurity . . .

It's also worth noting here that Hank and Jen have another encounter in X-Men Unlimited vol. 2 #10, in a way that contradicts Marvel Presents. It's hard to reconcile, since she remembers Hank here when she shouldn't, but I like both stories too much to really fight over which one I have as canon, so I kinda just don't think about it too much.

"What would you think of me if I was to tell you how terrified I am of everything right now?"

"You've never been scared of anything in your life. I think we should both be brave and go take a look at what might be hiding in the cemetery."

That touch, that tenderness . . . ouahhghhhh . . . the timelines are screwy, and these are all written years apart from one another, but I do think it's significant that Hank spends entire issues of Amazing Adventures and Incredible Hulk hiding his beastly appearance from Vera under a mask, and yet, he willingly unwraps his bandages for Jen.

I think that tells you all about how willing he is to be his true self around Jen versus Vera. Hank literally says he doesn't know who he is sometimes around Vera, and she tells him, I'll help you find out if you let me. Helpful, but it doesn't fix the problem. Meanwhile, Hank is in the midst of the worst depression and fear of his life, reeling from his worst ever mistake, and Jen tells him that she'll be brave with him, and they'll confront the unknown together. He finds catharsis that way. Vera is supportive. Jennifer is proactive. Hank appreciates both, of course, but only through one can he achieve growth.

But, that's no real surprise, because . . . she's the one who tells him this, too . . .

Jennifer Nyles, you have, like, 9 appearances in all of Marvel Comics, but I would die for you. Genuinely one of the most influential characters in Hank's life, tbh.

. . . SPEAKING OF INFLUENTIAL CHARACTERS.

So . . . in the interests of a fair analysis, Trish is an interesting character. She believes in transparency, the democratisation of information, she is eminently heroic, she is self-sacrificing, she is intelligent, and she is strong.

You can see why Hank would be attracted to her. She can cut through the flip attitude and get at the Hank underneath. If we're going with the theory that Hank is playing keep away with his real feelings so that the only people who get close to him are the people who work to get there and he can believe that they're there for him, then Trish will succeed, because she'll put in the work.

But, the problem is, the Hank she met was human Hank, and even though she claims not to have a problem with the fur - and maybe, at this point, she doesn't! - we know that Hank's mutation becomes a problem for her.

Man, if I had a penny for every time I posted these panels, I wouldn't have to work.

But. In the interests of fairness. I have to point out that the problem here is not that Trish found it hard to get used to Hank's changing face - I've talked about this before, that it's understandable it would become an issue for her, in a romantic relationship, faces and bodies and the tangible aspects of a person are more important than ever - but that she thought this was in any way an acceptable way to do it.

Trish's insecurity made her lash out and 'fix' the problem in a way that saved her career and severed the tie that would drag her down. That is. An understandable reaction. It's hurtful, but in the end, she's prioritising herself, and that's. Understandable. That being said?

She had no fucking right to even try this.

Like. No??? You don't get to do this??? Fuck off??? You exited from his life in a way that saved your career and your reputation, you do not get to try and dip back in because you feel bad - and, I'm going to be incredibly fucking honest, that's if that's even the reason she's doing it. I suspect, maybe maliciously, but maybe not, that she had ulterior motives, because of past behaviour.

Because do you want to know what the worst thing Trish Tilby ever actually did was?

Meet Dennis Hogan. He is a mutant. His power is to look like a lizard. That's it. He also was infected by the Legacy Virus, making him incapable of controlling those transformations. He is a perfectly harmless, innocent young man, who is trying to find medical help for a disease that he had no way of avoiding contracting.

Trish Tilby is directly responsible for his death in a hate crime.

And Trish's response, when Hank brings this up?

Just throw the whole fucking woman out. She's septic garbage.

How does this reflect on Hank? It reflects badly that he ever took her back after this. After she sold out his fucking race, got an innocent man killed, deflected blame, physically assaulted her partner, and acted as if she, somehow, were the wronged party in this.

"If you were doing your job as well as I'm doing mine, there'd be one less dead mutant to mourn!"

Hank is currently working on a cure for the Legacy Virus, Patricia. Thank you for implying that he's not doing enough, while you sit around, hocking news stories that will tangibly improve your position at your job, that directly lead to hate crimes, because you have decided that people just NEED TO KNOW things that will make them act irresponsibly, hatefully, and cruelly.

Yes, there is such a thing as freedom of the press. There is such a thing as the democratisation of information.

And then there's this asshole, who was storming into Angel's hospital room with a camera, recording him with his ruined wings, chasing a story because it was the right thing to do, and damn the consequences.

Who cares who gets hurt, so long as Patricia Tilby gets her story?

It reflects badly on Hank that he ever went out with her. it reflects badly on Hank that he ever took her back. It reflects badly on everyone involved that they didn't have the heart to tell Hank to just fucking NOT.

This is who she is. It's who she's always been, since her first appearance, and it is stark how awful a woman she is.

The X-Men '97 adaptation of her was kind. Think about that for a moment. Think about the fact that turning this woman into a fucking Prime Sentinel couldn't make her do as much damage as she did with her own free will and bad judgement.

. . . Blech.

So, this is an incomplete history, because I've run out of images? Heh. If you want to hear more about Hank's other relationships, most notably Cecilia Reyes, Abigail Brand, and Simon Williams, feel free to send another ask, and I can link them together. Hope you found this informative and not as rambly as it feels.

Also, if I remember correctly, Cerebrocast is gonna do an episode on Trish Tilby soon? I have no intention of listening/watching to it, but keep all of this stuff in mind and see if it gets mentioned when that episode happens. Because that podcast's hate boner for Hank McCoy means I genuinely think they'll find a way to excuse Trish's poor behaviour just because it's Hank. It honestly wouldn't surprise me.

[saucerfulofsins]

Same anon as before, and wow, you really get it.

And I know we can’t really say for certain what he was meaning in those interviews…he seemed pretty scattered, and maybe he was coming off a certain way and we’re just reading it wrong. But I really don’t think so.

Judging from the stuff people found from his older social media days, he seems like a pretty misogynistic guy, and that typically goes hand in hand with being homophobic and a bigot. That’s just a fact.

I think it’s shitty for him to take a job playing a character that he in his real life would most likely want nothing to do with, but I guess if the money is right someone like that will do whatever.

My husband clocked it immediately and said, “oh this man is way too much of an asshole to play a gay man, he’s hating this.” And I was like, so you see it too??? I guess it wasn’t just my Buddie obsessed brain running into overdrive.

I think it’s a shame because Oliver clearly put so much care into playing a bi character and that meant so much to me as a bi person. Oliver did everything perfectly and is so sweet and gentle about it, and he got stuck with such a creep to do his scenes with. I just hope it’s over soon.

Yeah, so... like I said in the tags on my previous response, I know a lot of guys who aren't homophobic. Like, "will kiss other guys for fun" and "are open to the possibility of being attracted to/falling in love with a man" not-homophobic. (Also, these men are distinct from bicurious because they know they aren't into men).

And LFJ's interview read as the opposite. You know how sometimes people with no knowledge still sound like they're at least accepting, in their own way? This sounds like someone with minimal knowledge trying to pass as accepting. And he's failing.

Even if things are coming off wrong, I think it's pretty egregious that someone who is a professional actor doesn't interview well at all, as well as nobody who wants him portrayed positively stopping the release of this interview. I don't think ABC needs him to be a shining light of representation (I don't think they WANT him to be at this point, the interview matches the vibes in the deleted scene), but his agency not taking measures here is fucking weird.

But yeah. It's the while package isn't it? The egocentrism, the focus on masculine masculinity and being cool, the misogyny he doesn't even CLOCK (sorry but why did Hen have to prove herself BECAUSE shes a woman?), the whole "lgbt spectrum" thing (huerk red flag), the trump support, racism etc etc on top of the uhh nepo baby vibes all of which just fucking send me. So much of this ISNT difficult!

And like yeah, actually Oliver is the opposite end of the... for lack of a better word, spectrum. He uses the word bisexual! He's doing this with a very clear intention, he's very open about Buck, and I'll be honest, I find it VERY refreshing. I know some younger actors (late teens/early 20s) have been cool about queerness, but having someone my actual age have these takes is... very healing, I won't lie. Because there definitely is a big difference in those 10 years and how we grew up?

But yeah, I can't imagine Tommy staying on the show. The fact he was meant to stay for 4 is kinda telling to begin with, and I personally wouldn't be surprised if they leaned into LFJ's creep vibes to aid Tommy's characterization. That's interesting because LFJ doesn't seem to realize any of that which... very telling! Very limited!! Tommy and Buck aren't very close, but for me, his absence during Chim's bachelor party is VERY telling. There's no reason Tommy had to leave, from a writer's perspective. That emergency was fake. It wouldn't have taken much of LFJ's time to be at those shoots, especially considering he was there for some of it anyway. And the party was important to Buck!!!! (Eddie looked so bitchy! The Buddie couple costume to hammer their pairing home! Etc).

So yeah. I fully believe it will be over soon, because there's just nothing there and besides LFJ and a handful of fans, I haven't seen any full support for the pairing... least of all from the show. He's as flat as flat characters come, a complete stereotype, and that for a show that rests predominantly on its characters! It's pretty damning, actually.

I guess what I'm hoping for is Tommy showing up a couple more times, Buck realising Tommy's hella toxic AND recognising his own patterns, breaking up with him, and figuring out not just what bisexuality really means to him but also the kind of relationship BUCK wants (versus someone else prompting Buck/falling for ONE aspect of him and never seeing the rest). He deserves that much, above everything else, and I don't think Tommy is leaving ANY room for that (possibly the least of all his relationships) .

[foolishlyzephyrus]

The big difference between Clara and Ruby at least so far is that a lot of people don't seem to get it but Clara was a subversion of a mystery girl because the whole point was the Doctor was wrong to treat her that way and his grief for the Ponds made him see a mystery that wasn't there, they'd have gotten along better sooner if he had treated her like her own person and she was normal, just doing what she did because she was a normal companion defending her friend the Doctor she jumped into his time stream just as Clara Oswald the person who cares for the Doctor it wasn't some big mystery. She was this manic pixie dream girl in the Doctor's eyes (because he needed her to be, to distract from the pain of losing Amy and Rory) but that was never actually who she was. Ruby seems, at least for now, to have this big mystery gimmick but played completely straight. She has a mysterious backstory and snow powers and a song in her DNA. Clara was like a normal person who just happened to be split into different parts of the Doctor's timeline. For all people say Clara was this special mystery girl, she isn't that remarkable in Season 7 when you REALLY think about it.

hello anonymous ask. i appreciate your insight into clara. i will admit i was making a tongue and cheek comparison, drawing on the surface level similarities. i enjoy both characters so it wasn’t meant to be any sort of diss on them, just a passing observation.

while i agree that clara can absolutely be read as a subversion of the manic pixie dream girl trope, i feel like it gets muddled in the weird misogyny of eleven’s era. moffat is a solid writer but series five through seven really suffered with the characterization of certain female characters. characters i adore like amy pond and river song ended up overly sexualized and at times reduced to vessels for the doctor’s growth rather than their own. their stories both relied on something needing to be solved about them from our titular male character, with amy’s crack in her wall and river’s true identity. eleven ends up at the crux of their storylines, actively entrenched in their personal histories and driving their stories rather than being a facet of them. i believe that clara was somewhat affected similarly if not to the same extent. i think the subversion would have played a lot better had there not been the earnestness in the “inherently mysterious sexy characters” reinforced by previous seasons.

eleven was riding the coattails of ten’s “he’s so young and hot and how could women not be interested in him” deal so i won’t place the blame solely on moffat but i also think the fact that romance as a potential aspect of their relationship (one-sided or not) being so strongly implied may have also inhibited the understanding that clara wasn’t playing into the archetype. that particular era of the show was dominated by male writers, so i would not be surprised if that anything to do about the lack of clarity regarding clara’s character.

i think you are absolutely correct, there is nothing special about clara from an objective perspective. however through the narrative framework (i.e. oswin/victorian clara, leaf falling at the right time and place to bring her into existence from the rings of akhaten, etc.) it implies a certain sense of destiny, where one could draw up the mythologizing of her character. since we ultimately are viewing the show part ways through the doctor’s perspective (and subsequently through the lens of his grief as you pointed out), this is kind of where we get the weird overlap. it’s paradoxical in a way where a mystery does in fact exist, yet by the doctor acting on investigating it he is also bringing it to fruition in the first place. like you stated, clara acts reasonably according to her circumstances rather than intentionally generating intrigue.

as mentioned, when clara is treated as a normal person is when she truly thrives with the doctor. my favorite of her moments are when she’s at her most mundane. her run with twelve is super compelling for that exact reason, she is intriguing not because she is some cosmic mystery but because of her similarities to the doctor.

with ruby currently, we don’t know all that much about her. it’s unfortunate how close we are to the end of the season and there still seems to be a gap in the information we know about her whether intentionally or not. because of the lack of exploration of her character, she becomes inherently reduced to the mystery surrounding her. however, in this case, the doctor is less actively involved in solving that mystery, it’s more latent curiosity. as opposed to series 7, i don’t think it’s meant to be the main overarching plot of the season or it is at least is tied into the susan twist plot line rather than just standing alone. she appears on a lot more of an equal footing to the doctor too. ultimately, while the whole mystery surrounding her is more genuine, hers is still unresolved.

my comparison between ruby and clara wasn’t meant to be too serious, just noting on the shared tropes that surround them. because in the end, while they both appear to be seemingly normal people affected by some much deeper mystery, that’s where a lot of the similarities stop. clara’s happenstance as you said vs. ruby’s bordering on supernatural traits. eleven thinks clara is deliberately hiding something while fifteen understands ruby to be just as clueless as he is. more can be said. different stories are being told and equating them was perhaps a little reductive.

i hope this make some sort of sense and isn’t too incoherent. all this to say, i agree with you for the most part and i think regarding clara especially certain outside forces ended up in her characterization rather than just narrative purpose. i hope you don’t think i am attacking you for this or anything, i really enjoyed your thoughts.

[kcrabb88]

ok I'll bite. what are your thoughts on stewjoni biology?

Been waiting for a time when my frustration at the use of this trope (more than the existence of the trope) built up enough to be brave enough to answer. The usual disclaimer applies: people can write what they want. I'm not an anti. This is not a moral debate. People can have whatever kinks they want in fic. It's just my observations on how I'm seeing queer characters written in Star Wars fandom and how gender roles is being put into things based on what parts people have. Which, I thought we were not doing that anymore?

For the uninitiated, Stewjoni biology is a fanon concept where Obi-Wan is dual sex (he has a penis and a vagina and associated internal workings). The concept on it's own is fine. It's Star Wars! There is probably all kinds of biology and coming up with something for a planet with like, zero lore cause it was made up on the fly by George Lucas is creative! However. It's the execution and sameness of this concept that has started to uh, get under my skin.

So, I have a lot of thoughts on this, and they are two-fold and related. I think, likely without meaning to do so consciously, people are starting to assign personality traits to certain genitalia, and, in larger ways (due to other trends in Star Wars fandom) are re-inventing gender roles under the guise of queerness (which is, you know, kind of the opposite of the point of queerness!) Most fics I see with this concept (I said most, not all) simply ... have it there. There's not really an exploration of it so much from an intersex and/or trans point of view. How does this impact Obi-Wan's love life? Does it at all? How does it impact his life generally? What are his thoughts on his gender? Are dual sex people discriminated against in any way? I'm sure that is in some fics! But a lot of the time it pretty much goes down to "oh look he has a cunt!" Which I mean, that's not a mortal sin! I just think there could be things that are explored with it that aren't being explored. It's largely there to simply be another place for Obi-Wan to be penetrated.

The second, and likely more controversial part of my thought process, is that I find it. Kind of odd that it's Obi-Wan in particular this has been assigned to. Obi-Wan has what society might consider as more "feminine" traits. He's kind and he's patient and he prefers diplomacy over fighting. Now, this is not inherent to women, but society (and socialization) assigns these traits to women. So, I see a fic. It has this dual sex trope. Said dual sex trope LARGELY focuses on the fact that Obi-Wan, has a vagina. These fics are usually smut fics. Obi-Wan is usually a submissive in them (the conflation of "prefers to bottom" with submissive is a whole other rant and so is my Obi-Wan is sexually versatile agenda). Usually the other characters are, most of the time, a bit Super Masculine. The Super Masculine Man has a penis. The Less Masculine Man, Obi-Wan has a penis too but that's in the background. The focus is on the vagina. So it comes across as These Traits Are Assigned to These Genitals. It comes across as gender roles 2.0. The "feminine" one is the one who's submissive and has the genitals that are associated with cis women. He's the one who "takes it" as I've seen it phrased one too many times. Dirty talk in fic is fine! But the constant emphasis on that kind of phrasing in this situation has kind of off-putting implications as far as writing queer men goes, and kind of has some accidental misogyny in it to boot.

I will express again, these are deeply my opinions. No one who does this is bad or wrong and I have fic writers whose work I enjoy that use this trope. I just think that sometimes fandom picks A Thing To Do and then doesn't do it differently from each other, or take a step back and be like, huh, maybe we could examine this. I think it's one of those things that started off interesting and got flat over time. I'd love to see this concept explored! I'd love to see more trans Obi-Wan stuff! I just am not a fan of how this concept has been executed.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for not wanting to writing a positive review of my brothers moral character?

(🖌️ to find later)

TW for drug use and misogyny

My (24X) older brother (26M) recently ended up getting arrested and charged with some very serious charges due to his distribution of fentanyl. I’m not going to get too into the legal stuff for obvious reasons but he could end up in prison for up to 30 years. I’m not any type of fan of the legal system (US, for clarification) and am not a fan of the situation but can definitely see some silver linings to him being in there. I wish there was an actually system of help he could get but with the rate he has taking drugs and the way his circle of friends was dropping (4 funerals in 6 months) my mom and I were fairly certain he was going to over does soon and he showed no signs of wanting to seek help. So ya know, at least he’ll be alive.

But that’s not fully the issue. My mom and I talked and she said his public defender wanted letters from people to prove his good moral character to read in court and, as his little sibling, figured of course I would provide one. But I truly have nothing good to say about the man’s ‘moral character’ the last time we had a conversation was before I moved out over two years ago. When I moved out my roommates I was moving in with said they didn’t want him to know our address as they would be living there too and didn’t want him bringing his violence into their lives. He blew up called me a bunch of homophobic slurs and that was pretty much it.

Before that he was my biggest reason for wanting to move out. He regularly calls my mom a bitch and a c*nt. He never cleaned up after himself because ‘there was two women in the house and we were f*cking (r-slurs) if we thought he should have to do anything.’ Lovely things like that. He punches holes in the walls, says slurs like they’re the only descriptive words he knows, steals anything not locked up (and smashes through doors and windows even then to get to it), and hounds my mom for money non-stop, usually until she gives in. In short I have nothing positive to say about his moral character.

Now my mom is a very loving mom. Far more than I could be at this point and is in denial about the man her son is. She would say she’s spent the last decade living with the personification of meth and heroin and she will get her son back some day if he could only get clean. But none of that has actually been him. I just can’t have that kind of optimism or denial towards the situation. She’s going to be very upset if I don’t submit something because she (fairly, again fuck the prison system) doesn’t think he should be locked up for upwards of 30 years.

I’m a good writer. I could come up with something. None of it really true but it can sound nice. Make my mom feel better (gods know she needs a break) but just thinking about it makes me feel gross. I don’t even know if it will matter much in court, but I don’t know how awful of me it would be to abstain.

There’s obviously more nitty gritty to the situation but this is long as it is. I just hope I didn’t make my mom sound bad because I do want to say she’s a loving woman in an abusive situation and I hope it’s not to much to ask that no one be too cruel to her in the notes, thanks.

What are these acronyms?

[potterandpromises]

the LA plot for omitb has the trio in hollywood bc a movie is being made about them and based on the onset pic with their actor counterparts (they were wearing what the trio was wearing in the pilot ep), part of the movie theyre making is set during s1 which theo is an integral part of so most likely there might be a character based on him in the movie too. do you think they'd have theo in s4 in any capacity? id honestly be upset if theyd drop theo the way they dropped oscar

*Spoilers*

I am at least 95% certain Theo will be in at least one episode of season 4. Mostly because they wouldn't have brought him back in season 2, fleshed him out, then brought him back and fleshed him out again in season 3 if they didn't want him around for the long haul. They especially would not have had Mabel move in with him. In other words, the writers seem more invested in his character then they ever were in Oscar's or Lucy's.

The ≈5% is in case there was a scheduling conflict/other issue with James Caverly (which I think is unlikely, just based off of interviews and what I know of his career.) My understanding is that they wrote Oscar out at least in part because of a scheduling conflict, though I'm not actually sure. Or I could maybe see Theo skipping a season if they star-packed the cast so tightly they decided they didn't have time for him. But season 3 had a similar set up with a bunch of new faces and they still made time to have him come in, help out the with case, sweep Mabel off to his apartment and then peace out, so I'm expecting season 4 will likely be similar in that regard.

Side note: I don't think we'll get a Theo and Will story line this season, because of the aforementioned star-packing. Which is too bad! I'm predicting James Caverly and Ryan Broussard will be in another One Killer Question together where they'll talk about being brothers and I will have to silently scream about how we're deprived of seeing them together in the show. One day!

Anyway, as to whether Theo will get a doppelganger, I'm agnostic. He is an important character in season 1, but I don't know that the in-universe OMITB movie will end up getting made, and thus get to the point of the story where Theo would need to be cast/shown (wow, this is getting too meta, I don't know how to write that sentence.) The script leak I saw indicates that the counter-trio will be following our trio to New York, for research, I'd assume. In real life, many adaptations start pre-production and don't end up getting made, so we won't definitely be seeing that adaptation. It's also possible the plot will diverge significantly from the podcast, like the Brozzos reboot, and he won't even be a character. Though the clothing and method acting would suggest that's probably not the case, at least not at first. Again, I'm agnostic as to where that whole thing will end up.

I'm expecting lots of meta comments on Hollywood and writing. Like aging-up Mabel's character so there isn't such an age gap between her and the guys (because audiences "won't believe" their friendship otherwise? for romantic possibilities?) but still not casting an old women, because misogyny. If they do have a Theo in the movie, I wonder if they'll address disability erasure when it's seen as too difficult or not narratively interesting, or the issue of casting abled actors as disabled characters.

Also, and this is a side note to the side note: Selena was seen filming as Mabel in the courtyard while the wedding set was up, wearing a baby blue sweater and mini skirt similar to the one she worn in 2x07. Mabel only wears blue in (or directly before/after) episodes where she's with Theo. Climatically it's about matching his color scheme/apartment, emotionally it's about getting closer to him. Now, this could be a stretch. I've tried to think of ways it could be stretch, like it could be to match someone else's color scheme, I guess. But the pattern is real. So that might put your mind at ease a bit, too.

The too-long-didn't-read of it is that while I think we had real reasons to worry last season, the writers keep committing to keeping him around and Theo has multiple storylines set up for the future. So I wouldn't worry. As for an OMITB movie counterpart, I have no idea, but wouldn't hold my breath.

[thesonicpunk]

youre so right that the way kishimoto limits sakura bc of his own misogyny reflects the things girls often face irl. based on what ive seen from interviews, kishimoto is the kind of male writer who thinks women need inherently be written differently from and have different types of stories than men, and it creates this weird self-fulfilling prophecy whereby believing he's not good at writing girls, he ends up being bad at writing girls. but somehow it sometimes circles back around to making him good at it? the struggle of always feeling like you're second-best to the men in your life...but by focusing only on trying to surpass them you just end up centering yourself around them even when you've forged your own path...shes so girlhood to me

aaaa anon ur egging me on ahah (i love it, let's discuss euehuhehu, or not u can just ignore me lol) I'm sorry it took me so long to reply, I had a deadline and halfway through writing this i realised i wanted to do it properly and so I had to come back when I had time It does kinda circle around to Kishimoto crafting a portrayal of aspects of girlhood that's, well, maybe not good since its not intentional or well explored/resolved, but definitely accurate in a lot of ways.

I've always thought Sakura's crush on Sasuke being a big chunk of her focus in life is a great example of this. Kishimoto writes it in because that's how he sees women: what else could they want other than a man? And he needs to show how desirable Sasuke is because his audience wants to see it, they're teenage boys after all and Sasuke's the cool anti-hero (Naruto's too goofy and the underdog at this point in the story for her to like him) so of course Sakura's in love with him. But, at the same time, Sakura's crush being so central in her life is quite accurate because, as a girl, you're socialised since you're very young to desire a certain type of man: the man all men want to be, because men want you to desire them. In this case, this is Sasuke: the cool, aloof, powerful shinobi from a prestigious clan, the strongest, top of the class guy.* You're told by all the media you consume, the stories you read, the comments your family makes and the relationships that are modelled for you in society in general that you exist to love a guy, to take care of him, that your biggest dream should be being worthy of that guy's love, because what else is there for a girl to aspire to? And as a girl you don't just accept it, because it's deeper and more ingrained than that: you actually want your life to look like that. Because all the other girls who already have that are so pretty, and when you smile people compliment you, and you're told that's where your worth lies, and you want to have worth and you want people to pay attention because it feels good. (That's why going after a guy like Sasuke, who is emotionally unavailable, is also very realistic: it feels better when it's hard won. it's like, "he isn't affectionate with anyone, so if he is affectionate with me, i've really got worth!" which is something we see Sakura feeling well into her marriage with Sasuke in Boruto, and it's very sad that she still accept such a behaviour after growing up.)

Even when you have other aspirations (becoming a ninja, in this case) you are just confronted with the idea that you will never be as strong/good/powerful as the men in your life (like you pointed out). The system has it in for you in the first place: it hasn't been designed for you to thrive. Your teacher doesn't push you as hard as he pushes the boys, he doesn't pay as much attention to you as he pays to the boys, and everyone always acts like you're defenceless in the batter field, not giving you a chance to prove yourself. So why shouldn't you feel like you maybe are less than the guys? If your teachers and your teammates see you that way, then maybe that's what you are. Can you really fault Sakura for believing that when so many women irl struggle with this immensely too? You're already taking a caretaker/disciplinarian role within your team because you're the girl, and you're only 13, so maybe you should stick to that, because that you're good at, and Kakashi praises you for not being difficult like the boys, because "boys will be boys" but Sakura-chan you're so easy to deal with!!! And then you find your niche, something you're good at (tho, ofc, it's not by coincidence that kishi's strongest women in Naruto are healers - tsunade and sakura - that in itself is already an essentialisation of female nature, but i won't get into it here, even tho it adds to everything) , and you work your ass off at that: you're not from a special clan, you have no special powers like Naruto or Sasuke, but you've become the strongest medic ninja and yet. That doesn't seem enough for the fandom to see your worth, you routinely get called weak and useless because subpar writing didn't give you enough chances to shine (even tho you have all the potential) exactly because your writer is misogynistic. yay When Sakura goes after Naruto to convince him to back down so they can kill Sasuke, of course she uses her womanhood as her weapon. Of course she tells him she likes him instead. It's desperate, it's flawed, it's even misguided, but she's been told all her life that's all she's got to offer, she's been told all her life that's what men will respond to and she's tried to keep up with them but she feels like she can't on her own terms (tho she can!!! she can she can she can), so she succumbs to the default way society tells her she has value. And Naruto defies a lot of things by saying no here, he defies even the patriarchy/comphetness he himself partook in as a child (by crushing on her, by wanting to be like Sasuke), and further solidifies himself as an extremely compelling male protagonist IMO (Kishimoto misses a lot but he didn't miss here, but anyways i'm not analysing naruto rn ahah);

This is just another way Boruto (the show) actively tarnishes Naruto's characters. Unfortunately, there was space for things to be resolved differently. With the ending of Naruto, we could have imagined something else for Sakura: she could have grown out of her crush on Sasuke, realised her worth, that her life doesn't need to revolve around him and invested her time in becoming whatever it is that she wants to become, but instead..... Sakura becomes a housewife who abandons her own aspirations as a ninja to be a sometimes-useful-prop in a narrative about another boy, she's gotten married to an emotionally unavailable man that doesn't really love her and is never around, and yet she still pines over him after years of neglect and pretends to be satisfied (but isn't really, who would be?) by the tiniest slither of affection and of course, A CHILD. Because that's all women are for, and all that they should aspire to in the next stage of their lives: why wouldn't she be happy now that she has a kid with Sasuke? She even says it herself.

Tbh it's all a bit gross! But in a way, realistic, since unfortunately this is the life of a lot of women out there. Also don't come for me for this take, the things i'm saying are informed by my own experiences growing up as a girl. Ofc there's nothing wrong with choosing a more domestic life as a woman, that's clearly not what i'm critiquing here.

TL;DR; She is so girlhood !!!!

*this is damaging to Sasuke too, as we know, because it incentivises a flat, superficial, unkind view of who he is as a person that overlooks his traumas, pressures him to play a role and limits who he is/what he needs and deserves in a friend/partner too. That patriarchy is damaging to men themselves is not news tho, it's the same for men in real life.

[roguestorm]

I made this post a long time ago (don’t remember if it was this blog or an earlier iteration) about Reed Richards and how the fact that I hate Reed Richards really has less to do with Reed Richards and more to do with me.

I can say “Reed is a terrible husband” or “Reed locked people up without trial during Civil War” and I can pull panels to prove my point but like ultimately. Reed being a terrible husband is one interpretation of a range of events that happen over several decades and several writers, and it’s ridiculous to act like “he’s a terrible husband” is somehow fact.

And while “Reed locked people up without trial during Civil War” is fact, almost every big two comic book character has done unforgivable things at the hand of some writer or another and which ones you extend grace to or acknowledge the real-world circumstances of is going to depend a lot on your own biases. I’m biased against Reed because he reminds me of an authority figure/archetype I don’t like, so I’m gonna hold it against him. But if you tell me that Emma Frost was literally a supervillain who manipulated people’s minds, imprisoned them, and had some fucked up racist stories, I’m going to start explaining the real-world circumstances and why you can’t judge the character based off of it, etc. Because I like Emma.

I don’t really think there’s a cure for this or a way around it, and I don’t think that there always needs to be. Me hating Reed Richards doesn’t actually hurt anyone, as long as I’m not in the inboxes of Fantastic Four fans being mean. I think the only thing we can do as fans is remember that we all have our biases and acknowledge that they’re gonna color the way we interact with certain characters.

Sometimes, biases are rooted in larger types of bias, like ableism or misogyny or racism. I used Reed as an example because I think that it illustrates that not all biases are based in larger issues; I’m definitely not being secretly misogynistic in hating the guy. So I think there are more or less harmless ones; some guys you just don’t like. But sometimes you will have a bias that’s motivated by larger structural forces and in that case, you might want to start thinking about how you could overcome or correct that bias.

[alicentsgf]

Let's talk in depth about book Alicent. because even though i read the book 3 years ago I didn't engage online about it until the show's release and um. wow. some people have a very different interpretation of her to me. and also... some of those interpretations show a fundamental misunderstanding of the text, a tendency toward indulging the misogyny present in Fire and Blood, or both.

People are saying the writers changed Alicent's story to 'make her a victim'... they didn't. It was always possible to read the book and perceive that she was in many ways a victim. Honestly the biggest thing they changed was her age, probably to assist the interpretation they'd chosen, but the larger elements all stay the same; in both versions she's worked in service of the crown since she was young (as a type of companion either to Jaehaerys or Rhaenyra) and she and Rhaenyra initially have a good relationship (according to one source in F&B - this supposedly changes when Aegon was born and not named heir). So making it Rhaenyra we see her close with just makes the emotional tethers that might have been there anyway more visible. After all, Rhaenyra Does spare Alicent's life in F&B, and whilst she says it's for Viserys sake, Alicent at that point had been at the very least complicit in the deaths of most of Rhaenyra's children. Rhaenyra having such a strong former bond with Alicent is going to give this event in the show a lot more weight. It's not hard to see why they made this change, because it adds to the existing tragedy of the story.

The fact is everything we see of Alicent in F&B is up for debate to some extent. Like, for example, did she seduce Viserys? of course certain sources tell us yes, but Fire and Blood is brimming with asoiaf-typical misogyny; it all reminds me somewhat of the story of Anne Boleyn, her story molded into something unrecognisable by history in order to make her the instigator. In truth, we have no way of knowing if Alicent wanted Viserys or not, but we do know she probably didn't have to seduce him. She was widely regarded as being the most beautiful woman - it wouldn't have taken a lot for Viserys to notice her. People, characters and readers alike, assume that because she wasn't the best political match he must have been persuaded, but Viserys was a selfish man, (that is indisputable, we see it in many of his provable actions), so it fits with his character to choose a slightly unsuitable wife on the basis of his own lust. The age gap in the show only serves to demonstrate visually the power imbalance that was at least somewhat present in the book anyway. And yes, this like most things in the book is up for interpretation, but I will say this: I seriously do not respect people calling her 'evil'.

The text never presents Alicent as evil. Even in the worst of her actions she is never legitimately shown to revel in the pain and suffering of others. At most you could argue she was ambitious, but I don't even believe that on the basis of one specific thing: it was her, not Otto, who asked Viserys to betroth Aegon to Rhaenyra. This was not a crazy suggestion in the book, as it was presented in the show; they were only a decade apart, and it was the Valyrian custom that the eldest son would marry his eldest sister, as Aegon the conqueror married Visenya. Alicent wanted this without stipulating the expectation that Aegon would rule instead of Rhaenyra. Viserys reportedly dismissed Alicent on the basis of believing she only wanted Aegon a step closer to the throne, and it can be read that way, but personally I don't think so. I think she was exhausting options to try to protect him after she realised Viserys was never going to name him heir.

Ultimately, Alicent would have been stupid to ignore that her children's lives were at stake. Especially in Fire and Blood where she was much less familiar with Rhaenyra. Nothing in Rhaenyra's actions suggested she wouldn't be capable. She reportedly had no affection for her brothers where she was kid enough to Helaena, suggesting she already saw them as threats. She had demonstrated herself willing to accept physical harm to them in favour of her own sons. She was later thought to be at least complicit in the death of her husband Laenor, who had by all accounts been a good, kind husband to her… and then she married Daemon. Even before this he had been an obvious threat to Alicent's children; a violent man who'd always lusted after power, with a known hatred for Hightowers and who'd never been kind to his nephews by Alicent. Even if Alicent didn't believe Rhaenyra capable of murdering her sons, she would have been stupid not to believe Daemon able.

The truth is even in the book this crisis was set in motion by Viserys. Once he'd refused to marry Aegon to Rhaenyra the bomb was built and ticking away, it was only a matter of time. Even if Rhaenyra's heirs had been indisputably trueborn, Aegon and his brothers and any descendants they had would have been symbols for those who wanted to oppose the Crown to rally behind as soon as Rhaenyra or Jacaerys disappointed them, no matter if Alicent's sons had personally bent the knee. The situation only became more dire when it was clear that Rhaenyra's heir was not trueborn.

Fire and Blood isn't even really quiet about Rhaenyra's first three sons being bastards. To me it read like Rhaenys' Baratheon blood allowed those who wanted to believe otherwise to delude themselves, as Viserys does in both versions. After all, in the book Laenor being gay is an open secret. But the thing is… it doesn't even really matter if they were or not. With so many people believing they were bastards, they were pretty much as good as. Eventually, and most definitely after Rhaenyra's death, there would have been some form of conflict. Because if Jace, an assumed bastard, ascended the throne it would throw into question the claims of almost every lord in Westeros, many of whom would have older bastard brothers. and if a bastard who didn't even look targaryen could sit the highest seat in the realm over a trueborn silver-haired son of a king like Aegon, what's to stop the bastard brothers of any lord from laying claim to their seat? Aegon would have become a rallying point for that dispute whether he liked it or not, and Jace would have been forced to dispose of him if he wanted to maintain power.

In light of this, it's really no wonder Alicent repeatedly voices her animosity over Rhaenyra's sons questionable births. It's very telling that in F&B every cruel comment she reportedly makes about or to Rhaenyra references it. and I say "reportedly" because one of the worst of her quotes, her saying 'mayhaps the whore will die in childbirth' about Rhaenyra, people quote as fact… if you do this I will laugh in your face and ask if you read the book. because Alicent did not say that. or rather, if she did, Fire and Blood would not be able to tell us either way because the quote is attributed to her by Mushroom, one of Rhaenyra's supporters who (apart from being a famed liar) was with Rhaenyra on Dragonstone at the time.

The other two quotes used to argue her supposed evilness are from slightly less questionable sources, and honestly, yeah, it does seem likely to me Alicent implied to Rhaenyra her bastard sons' blood was worth less than that of her own trueborn sons'… but at that point, with the horror she'd experienced on account of Viserys upholding Rhaenyra and her sons' questionable claims, her reacting in this way is perhaps cruel and prejudiced, but not evil. And almost justifiably cruel in my opinon; for all she knows the woman she's talking to directly ordered for her six-year-old grandson to be brutally murdered in front of her, her daughter, and her other grandchildren, directly leading to her daughter's madness and later suicide. Was she going to be respectful? Is it fair to expect that from her? This focus on the term 'bastard blood' overshadows the rest of the quote: “Bastard blood shed at war. My son’s sons were innocent boys, cruelly murdered. How many more must die to slake your thirst for vengeance?” Why is Alicent being a bit of a bitch treated as a worse sin than Rhaenyra ordering the brutal murder of a toddler, or at the very least excusing it.

The last quote mentioned to back up claims of alicent's 'evilness' is her telling her granddaughter Jaehaera she should slit the throat of her husband Aegon III in his sleep. By this point it seemed to me Alicent was no doubt consumed by bitterness and would have attacked Aegon herself given the chance, but even without condoning her words or actions we can see how she became like that; all of Alicent's sons are dead and she wants all of Rhaenyra's gone too. Wasn't it "an eye for an eye, a son for a son"? - Rhaenyra's side set the precedent - the idea that it is justifiable to take one innocent life in exchange for another, no matter if its the life of a child who just happens to have been born on the other side of a war.

Alicent by the end of her life had certainly been driven to cruelty in her grief, twisted into something ugly by the world and locked away to rot.

And yet her final words weren't steeped in bitterness or violence. When the fever sets in she accepts death, even welcomes it. She speaks of seeing her children again, and King Jaehaerys. So doesn't that say she was never driven by hatred at all? That there was never any kind of innate evil nature? At least that's my interpretation. This is the same girl who spent her youth reading to a dying king for no clear reward, and felt such affection for him that she mentioned him at the end of her own life, perhaps pining for the time before her marriage. (No doubt in the show she will mention Rhaenyra instead). This is the woman whose daughter and grandchildren visited her with such reliable frequency her grandson's killers knew to wait in her rooms for them.

So what was so evil about her? That she quite understandably saw Rhaenyra and her sons as a threat, and preemptively acted to protect her own? As much as people like to project ideologies onto these characters, neither Alicent nor Rhaenyra's motivations were ideological, that much as clear.

I may have many reservations about House of the Dragon's execution of it, but the decision to present Alicent as a victim of the world she inhabits was not only the right choice, but also kind of the only choice. HotD is presented as objective truth, where F&B is a collection of biased accounts dripping in the misogyny of the men relating them, and so HotD had to be a critique of its own source material. I admit to having my own bias, and my analysis is at least slightly skewed in Alicent's favour because I'm responding to the most negative interpretations of her. And they are all just interpretations. But in my opinion, those adapting the text looked at Alicent and asked "what if this woman is misunderstood?", "what if this woman had no real choice?", "what if the men of this world just chose to ignore her complexity, because she was a woman?" and those were absoutely the questions to ask.

[limeade-l3sbian]

That anon you got about straight women liking m/m content while ignoring m/f or f/f pairings... Where to even start...

First of all, I'm a straight woman who doesn't like yaoi/slash/bl/whatever it's called now and never have so I see where you're going. But I understand why so many women prefer m/m overall.

Many women say they enjoy m/m content because it's devoid of gender roles and misogyny. I understand this. I've consumed straight romance (sometimes against my will) and there's so much bullshit in it like I'm sorry. My sister asked me to watch this period drama with her and literally pretty much every pairing starts with the man being sexist or rude in some way to the woman. And they literally bicker most of the time but it's supposed to be "sexual tension" or whatever until at some point they kiss and I guess everything is forgiven. Yay? I don't know what's exciting or good about any of this. This drama somehow managed to make 1800s europe devoid of racism but not sexism, so pretty much every male love interest is sexist in some way. I don't get why women don't write more romance where the males are actually respectful of their gender as a whole. Or perhaps I do and here's comes my other point: many women cannot conceptualize a world where men are actually women-loving.

Seriously, have you ever seen the weird trend of refering to fictional male characters that are actually loving and respectful towards their gfs as male lesbians, or their het relationship "lesbian-coded"? When I was younger, it used to piss me off when women would say they didnt write or draw m/f pairings because they didnt want to deal with sexism and gender roles, I was like "then write a world where men and women are seen as equals!!" But then I started writing myself and it's incredible how fake it will appear to write a male character respectful and loving of his gf AND her gender as a whole. Now I write and draw for myself so I do whatever I want no matter how silly or fake it is, but I would never publish any of that because I don't wanna deal with people telling me "men really don't act this way, you dont know how to write male characters :/" or "Oh I love the male love interest, he's such a malewife!!".

And yes, many gay male romance has them dealing with homophobia, but that's basically them against society/the world. You can tell they are still in it together, and they will choose each other any time even if that means getting ostracized by everyone. With het pairing and sexism is more like man against woman. She has to deal and fight for this man to see her (and perhaps her gender) as capable and worthy of respect so they can have a better relationship. It doesn't seem like they're in it together and the woman has to put all the effort so her man can see the error of his ways.

Why do you think there are many people who joke about how a male character seems to have more chemistry and rapport with another male character (usually a friend or mentor) than his supposed female love interest? Because they're written as equals with interesting traits and a relationship that surpasses many trials, while the female love interest is written as "the woman" - writers will avoid giving female characters interesting traits because they dont think they look good on female characters or believe women dont or shoudnt act a certain way. And believe me, i'm saying this as a woman that's very attracted to female characters - the majority of shows and movies I consume have (a) female main protagonist(s) and I prefer shows that have a bigger female cast. I also get attached to female characters even if they're "badly written" or whatever the fandom says idgf. Ive even watched a lot of those animes and manga that only have female characters, because I have a preference for women in fiction (and real life I guess)

The f/f stuff is another whole issue that it's not very related to this. Most women producing m/m content are straight so they will want to see at least one male in their pairing. F/f can't provide that for obvious reasons. This is like asking straight guys why they don't consume gay male porn if they like lesbian porn so much. It literally makes no sense. These men give the answer of why they like lesbian porn usually as "one woman is hot, two women is DOUBLE the hotness". Think about it like that with women; now they have two men to ogle at.

I had much more to write, specifically about the sexual part (since fanfiction is usually very romance/sex centered) and m/m vs m/f and f/f, but this got too long. Perhaps i'll write a second part.

.

[ae-neon]

Sjm was never getting a free pass from me, I knew acotar was bad from the get go, but I don't think I would have taken to making a blog centred around my grips if something like nezriel or any other Nesta ship, happened instead of Nessian

I say this as a point of shame btw. Like I'm not proud of it. It's scary how accepted and normalised she is, not just as a bad writer, but as a person with blatant racist, ableist, sexist and homophobic narratives

A lot of people are anti sjm because of a character assassination or a ship fumble

Sjm should be as shamed and shunned as other authors with bigoted undertones in their series but she isn't

She gets away with it

For me, unfortunately I think there was this resignation behind this because it's so hard to watch or read anything that doesn't have underlying racism especially

and when you're on the receiving end of it (as a bw especially, but also as poc in general) again and again and again you can get tired and worn down and try to distance your feelings from that so that you can enjoy things in general

But I think for that same reason, that being that so many people are anti sjm for more "petty" reasons, racism, ableism, misogyny and homophobia exist within this sector of the fandom too.

People fall under the anti banner because they prefer certain ships or character narratives and are often allowed to just use the actual problems in this series as additional or supplementary material for their arguments where they would basically let the racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia slide if canon went their way

Edit: all this to say, I've recently been more aware of racism, misogyny, ableism within anti sjm discourse and it's so disappointing but it's not surprising in the least because of the nature of this fandom

Anyways, idk, just a bit of introspection in regards to anti sjm