#like he's this wonderful liberal feminist

[klara-rosa]

honestly if these books weren't already utter nonsense and a piece of garbage, this one thing Rhysand says to Feyre in the last chapter of ACOWAR would make me ask for the bullet to end it all

"I couldn't let all you ladies take credit for saving us. Some male had to claim a bit of glory so you don't trample us until the end of time with your bragging."

Honestly...then and there. Then and there I would've stabbed him

[givemearmstopraywith]

yo! I’ve seen some of your posts around, so I figured I’d come to the source. I’ve been hesitant to engage with liberation theology as my journey moving away from of the evangelical faith I was raised in still feels recent, amorphous and short (I’m still in undergrad). I’m wondering how you’d present liberation theology to someone who’s wary but willing to engage with theology after a couple years of attempted cold turkey, but really interested in gaining consciousness of white supremacy in the way they might generalize the Christianity they reject

liberation theology is at its core not white theology. it's inceptors are all latino. its also catholic. i find it as antithical to evangelical christianity as you can get without actually going outside of christianity. evangelicalism is inherently capitalistic and protestant. liberation theology deeply marxist. it is the lived, rather than theoretical, preference for the poor and marginalized.

but liberation theology is hard. it's hard to live and it's hard to practice. it requires an exteriority that feels dangerous and vulnerable. it is vulnerable. liberation theology means liberation for everyone: not only those we like and can empathize with, but also those we do not like. our oppressors, our tormentors, our abusers. it is recognizing how everyone is in their own secret bondage and knowing that where human justice falls short, God's justice is eternal, infernal, and beautiful. it's generous. the world is not.

liberation theology also asserts the divine goodness of God, because a God who loves us is also a God who will liberate us. this is the whole thread that runs through the story of christianity when it is stripped of institutionalized bigotry and dogma. God's story is a love story. he is trying to break the chains we make for ourselves. the chains we are forced to wear by others.

my general primer for intro to liberation theology is gustavo guiterrez, leonardo boff (both latino liberation theologians, the father of the field), and james cone (black theology). also marcella althaus-reid and carter heyward (queer and indecent theology), naim ateek (palestinian liberation theology), and m shawn copeland (womanist, or black feminist, liberation theology). this isnt comprehensive, but they are the liberation theologians i've read and loved, as a person who felt disconnected from my faith after interactions with the evangelical church, when i was trying to find my way back to God just after i finished undergrad.

i will also add, you mentioned you're still in undergrad. you have God's whole messy eternity ahead of you to find him. he wants you: if you want him, he's waiting. you'll find him. you've got this.

[butchpeace]

I’ve been trying to sort out what affect being raised in a conservative and catholic environment had on my trans identification. It’s a tough thing to sort out, but I’m 100% sure I would never have wanted to be a man if I wasn’t raised in the way I was.

It seems ridiculous to imagine that there are parents out there who would prefer their child go through the hell of medical and social transition rather than just be gay and gender-nonconforming.

But it’s clear those parents are out there. And I have to reckon with the possibility that my parents are like that to some extent.

They tried. When I told them I wanted to transition, they finally told me that it’s okay to be a masculine woman. They finally asked me “Why can’t you just be a lesbian?”

It was too little too late. They had never, for my entire life up until that point, said anything positive about masculine women. They had been subtly homophobic my whole life. My mother was a judgmental person who only approved of herself and other women when they looked acceptably feminine, conservatively dressed, not weird, and not overweight. My parents used “just be a masculine woman” as a bargaining chip to prevent my transition, not because they actually meant it. Not because they actually valued me in that way.

My mom wanted me to be like her. She wanted me to wear the makeup and the bras and the dresses. She wanted me to cross my legs, act like a lady, go to college, meet a catholic boy, and spend my life having babies the way she did. It didn’t matter that I wanted short hair and to shop in the boy’s section. She wasn’t having it. After I hit puberty, it wasn’t normal to be a tomboy anymore. That’s what I was taught. My dad was a doormat. To his credit, he did try in some ways to raise his sons and daughters the same. But he also had misogynistic ideas from his religion about how his daughters ideally should be.

I think there are a lot of people out there who know deep down that life is better if you’re a man. That life is better if your kid can blend in, rather than stand out for being obviously gay. They know deep down that life can be shitty for masculine women.

Whether it’s conscious or subconscious, it’s clear that parents of trans kids know this, and part of their reasoning for supporting their child’s transition must be because they see how it would make our lives easier. Transition is a convenient idea. If you pass, it makes the family look good and normal when before they had a kid who was a black sheep. They also start to feel like they can understand or relate to you more easily when you suddenly “fit in” to the heteronormative world. Supporting transition makes them feel good about themselves in the current political climate. My parents went from homophobic conservatives to liberals practically overnight when I transitioned. Where was that support when I came out as a lesbian? Where was that support when I met my first girlfriend? Where were the pride flags and parades then?

But I also know that at the core, their intentions have always been good. They genuinely thought they were helping and supporting me in what I thought was the right thing to do. While they should have known I was too young to make the choices I did, and they should have been more involved in those choices, can I really blame them for being just as lost and confused as I was? Maybe, maybe not.

But I have to wonder, what would my life have been like if instead of my parents and that environment, I had been raised by feminists? What kind of woman would I be today?

[horse-girl-anthy]

beneath the cut is an essay I've titled "Ikuhara Fandom, Shoujo Manga, and Eroticism." it discusses potentially upsetting subject matter.

when I first encountered RGU in 2014, I was largely baffled, though I thought the ending was very good. after that, I didn't rewatch more than an episode or two of the show again until 2020. Ikuhara was inaccessible to me as a teenager, but I spent years studying media, so when I returned to RGU, it was like discovering a goldmine. by the end of 2020, I'd watched all of Ikuhara's original shows.

the thing is, I still found Ikuhara challenging. there were things about his works which were seemingly contrary to my value system. I would read interviews of his and he would say things which sounded alarming--to use cliche terminology, he wasn't very politically correct.

if we're being honest, there is a party line in a lot of left-leaning fandom spaces. I used to be a part of that more than I am now; I had rigid ideas of right and wrong. today in the Ikuhara fandom, I often feel like the elephant in the room is that his works aren't the kind of "queer feminist masterpieces" that people portray them as. now, by that, I don't mean that those words don't apply to his works: what I mean is that the way people frame them, the way they discuss their meaning, doesn't bear that much relation to Ikuhara and his oevre.

RGU gets this treatment more than his other works. in fact, certain fans want to claim it as the work which truly aligns with their values, while Penguindrum, YKA, and Sarazanmai actively subvert RGU's message. a lot of other fans just stick with RGU, claiming it as a work without critiquing it. by critique, I don't mean negative criticism: I mean critique as in actual engagement with the text.

I remember that there was a point when I was afraid to engage with more Ikuhara interviews/works, since I thought I would find something out about him that made it so that I couldn't enjoy RGU. after all, when I would hang around in RGU spaces, every so often I'd see someone say that Ikuhara was super problematic. then I realized I was ignoring one of RGU's main themes, facing the truth rather than trying to stay in an idyllic past, so I took the dive. I had my ideas challenged, my values changed, and my entire approach to media shifted by doing so.

it's been strange to be in the English-speaking fandom, where everything is taken very seriously and there's certain universal assumptions about RGU's meaning, when many of the things held as absolutes are simply not so in the Japanese fandom. equally, the creative minds behind RGU are often in conflict with the Western fandom as well. once or twice, I've seen someone point this out and say that RGU is actually problematic/patriarchal, but mostly, it is ignored.

for instance, the character Ruka is massively hated in the western fandom, while as far as I understand, Juri/Ruka is one of the most common Japanese doujin pairings. Mamoru Hosoda, who storyboarded many Juri episodes, claimed that Ruka was in love with Juri. turning to Ikuhara, he often phrases things in a way that could leave you wondering if he's as much of a "feminist ally" as people want to paint him as. of the women's liberation movement, Ikuhara said, "On the one hand you had this social movement, but then in their heads I think almost everyone was thinking: this is lame (laugh), I don't wanna do this (laugh)."

consider this exchange from the same interview for a demonstration of just how differently people in the western fandom approach media compared to Ikuhara and a contemporary of his, art critic Mari Kotani:

Ikuhara: Speaking of sexuality, after Utena I wrote a novel which features lots of hermaphroditic characters. It's a collaborative work, a book called Schell Bullet. Kotani: It is a fantasy world? Ikuhara: It's a future world. Humanity has divided into roughly two groups, Majors and Minors. Because of gene manipulation the Majors are hermaphrodites without male/female sexes, and they have a monopoly on good genetic material. The Minors are humans who have fallen away from the monopolized gene material, they look basically the same are present-day humans, and have two sexes. Kotani: Sounds interesting! Are the Minors kind of like slaves, like in The Human Livestock Yapū?

later:

Ikuhara: The boss is visually female, a Major with a very bold beauty. From the start I wanted the main character's boss to be a hermaphroditic woman. That's because, the way I see it, even the Major women in the real world, that is to say women who are competent workers, seem to have an intense male side. 

what I find most interesting in this exchange is how Kotani casually brings up the idea of sexual slavery as a fun angle for Ikuhara's hermaphrodite novel. it's not to say that this kind of attitude is universal in Japan, just as leftist fandom spaces aren't universal here in America. however, there is obviously a huge difference in values between these two worlds.

so, what world is Ikuhara occupying? where did he come from and what are his influences? exploring these questions is what helped me to come to peace with his works, and in the process, I changed my own thinking.

I'm not really qualified to speak in depth on Japan, its history, culture, or values. however, I have looked into specific trends which I know were influences on Ikuhara specifically, so that's what I'll focus on here.

Ikuhara was born in 1964 and became a teenager in the 1970s. it was a period marked by a lot of social movements. he describes in many interviews feeling completely disillusioned when, rather than change society, the movements were crushed or simply collapsed in on themselves. "oh, maybe there's no way to change the world after all." however, one way or another, he seems to have pulled himself out of that despair. his works are all designed to give modern people a way out of the end of history brought on by the failure of radical change and the onset of the neoliberal global order.

as a young creative, he was into the dramatist/director Shuji Terayama and other artists who were pushing boundaries. in the Kotani interview, he stated:

Ikuhara: Terayama's words are interesting too, but what I find the most kitschy and cool is his theatre. Suddenly a completely naked actress would appear, without even a genital cover, and this was in Kinokuniya Hall! The police might barge in saying "Hey, wait a second". I guess this is why they say it's a fine line between a hero and a criminal (laugh), but until then I had never thought that showing your panties or showing your willy could be anything but shamelessness, and now the Asahi Shimbun was treating it as superb culture. I found that gap extremely mysterious and fascinating, and personally I felt a cultural nuance there.

clearly, the libertine values of 20th century countercultures left their mark on him. more than that, he is interested in the conflict between sexual repression and sexual expression, which has only escalated in Japan and in the West up until today.

turning to the anime/manga sphere, I know that RGU has a reputation as being very triggering, but to be honest, compared to its predecessors, RGU is mild and restrained. J.A. Seazer, a musician who Tereyama collaborated with, wrote songs for both RGU and the the 1992 anime film Midori. the story is old, dating back to the beginning of the 20th century, and it's been adapted as recently as 2016. Midori is an exploitation film: full of child rape, set in a freak show, featuring countless horrors in its 40-minute run. I've watched it and would not recommend it unless you're interested in the ero guro genre.

I bring up Midori as an example of the media landscape Ikuhara began his career in. he was working on Sailor Moon, so obviously, there was less heavy content in the world of anime and manga, but Sailor Moon is represents only one side of shoujo. Ikuhara is more aligned with the Year 24 Group, who revolutionized shoujo in the 1970s. the group produced a wide range of works, many of which had obvious influences on Ikuhara.

I know that Ikuhara is often associated with lesbians, but in fact, I would say that shoujo BL is one of his largest anime/manga influences. the early work Kaze to Ki no Uta is an acknowledged influence on RGU, and Ikuhara did an interview with its mangaka, Takemiya Keiko.

many of the early BL mangaka were inspired by western literature. Demian is not only referenced in RGU but also in Kaze to Ki no Uta. most important for BL is the 1912 German novel Death in Venice, as well as its 1971 film adaptation. for those unfamiliar, the novel is about a man in his 50s stalking a young teenage boy, becoming completely obsessed with him and other underage kids. it is a sexual obsession, but there are other angles to it, and the story has been analyzed in various ways. the fascination seen in shoujo and BL with beautiful young boys, as well as pedophilia, can be in part traced back to this story.

taking inspiration from Death in Venice, shoujo's fundamental character dynamic was established, one that can also be seen in a film such as Midori: innocence versus experience. the ever-present theme is corruption, how abuse and exploitation corrode personalities and create societal damage.

how this is handled can vary from work to work. I understand that grotesque depictions of child abuse or failure to condemn pedophilia hard enough make some people not want to engage with these works at all. I will say, whatever one thinks of Death in Venice, Kaze to Ki no Uta, along with the BL manga of Takemiya's contemporary Moto Hagio, are certainly not child porn. I think there is no excuse for CP, and even if there are things in Kaze to Ki no Uta that I question, it is overall a work of artistic merit, beyond holding interest to me as an early work in the genre.

as I've said, RGU is mild compared to much of what came before it, as well as a contemporary manga like A Cruel God Reigns. however, the core of its character dynamics are in line with shoujo/BL. the twist is that the work focuses on relationships between women.

Kotani: ...Watching it, the relationships between women, including the dialogue, were very sexual, very vivid, right? Ikuhara: But I think what it is expressing is simply yaoi. To do that using shōjo "royal road"-like characters, and with two women, is somewhat rare I think.

Utena and Anthy are easy to compare to BL couples who came before them, like Serge and Gilbert or Ash and Eiji. rather than approach gender issues through projection on to pretty boys, Be-Papas chose to use women, creating their own version of a gendered social system. of course, other Year 24 Group members used lesbians or GNC women to explore similar themes, with Rose of Versailles being another major influence on RGU. however, Ikuhara claiming that RGU is essentially yaoi has fascinated me for years.

Anthy and Akio are experience, knowledge, and corruption, while Utena is innocence, youth, and purity. like many predatory shoujo characters, Akio is obsessed with innocence and purity while also seeking to destroy them. the drama centers on Utena's struggle with corruption, as well as Anthy's conflicted feelings towards her friend's naivety, as she both identifies her past self with Utena and resents her for her ignorance. the story also features intense power dynamics, which, over the course of the narrative, are upset. all of these elements are standard for BL and shoujo.

to dig deeper into the value sense behind these works, here is a passage from the Takemiya/Ikuhara interview:

Takemiya: What I wanted to ask is about “crossing the line” for a girl [implicitly losing one's virginity/sexual purity]. I thought Utena crossed it unexpectedly easily. Ikuhara: Ah, I’m not thinking very deeply, right? Actually, I just wanted to suggest that it doesn’t matter. Because a lot of people seem to get caught up in issues of purity, I wanted to show that it didn’t matter. Takemiya: But doesn’t it seem like more kids these days don’t care about those things? Ikuhara: Yes, and that’s another reason I did it. But I think there are still many people who would try to put it in a box and say purity is important because it is an animation. Takemiya: Actually I think it’s more likely a lot of people will try to use the purity as an index of understanding. I guess you are an adult if you can overcome that. Ikuhara: That’s true, there are a lot of people that want to put a line between justice and absolute evil based on purity. I didn’t want them to do that. Whether manga or anime, I think it can become a motivation for the viewers and the readers in real life. I don’t like when people draw lines, out in society, equating absolute evil with impurity - in an animation which is nothing more than fiction, drawing a line between those that are carnally pure and those that are not.

I think we can all agree that Akio was in the wrong for trying to make Utena feel guilty for sleeping with him in episode 38 of RGU. but going further, Ikuhara and Takemiya say that they want to reject purity as an index of understanding altogether. to me, what this means is not jumping to immediate judgments, not treating issues of sexuality as if they are so deep as to sully the soul.

this is NOT to make some kind of excuse for pedophilia or child porn. I know from my own life how harmful those things are. to close out this discussion, I am going to try to explain what I mean by touching on the use of eroticism in art.

years ago, I was watching Naoki Urasawa's Manben, a show which gives space to mangaka to show off their process. Junji Ito went on it, and I was troubled by the following moment from the episode:

before I got into Ikuhara, I didn't have a grasp on the erotic. when I watched this, my thought was, why are they talking about a toddler being erotic?

after having gained an appreciation for eros's place in art, I understand what they were saying here. eros is hard to define, but it relates to sensuality: a way of interacting with the world which is beyond the intellect. the erotic is not pornographic: it is evocative, a way to make any work of art touch its audience on a deeper level. it is related to sexuality but is not the same thing as it. for Ito, exaggerating the erotic aspect of this character helps him to create even greater horror. the point is not to make a toddler sexy.

RGU relies heavily on this kind of eroticism for different purposes, both within the series and in the promotional art. whenever I see someone trying to ban a specific kind of fan art, I roll my eyes for this very reason. it's not as if there's any significant numbers of people making RGU exploitation porn or anything; most of it is in line with the show itself. for instance:

official art of characters all 13 and younger

Anthy having sex with her brother in the series proper (episode 31)

I have seen RGU called exploitative and fetishized, though not as often as I've seen the same criticism leveled at later Ikuhara works. however, more often than not, the disturbing eroticism of RGU is left uncommented on.

to come full circle, the reason that I now have a lot of admiration for Ikuhara is that I've come to see that the "problematic" aspects of his work help him to tell meaningful stories. all of his anime are designed to spark self-revelation/self-transformation in their audiences. additionally, I now appreciate erotics for what they are, feeling them on the sensual level rather than intellectualizing about them. viewing the above images, various readings can be drawn, arguments made about the impact of their eroticism on the themes they express. however, there is a more primal appeal to them, something which draws the eye. that aesthetic quality, by itself, deserves to be defended. those who dislike it should probably not engage with Ikuhara works. from RGU commentary, episode 38:

Hideki Mori: Are you always trying to work in this type of erotic undertone? Ikuhara: Yes, well... if it doesn't have that kind of stuff... it's not very interesting! Either I'm doing it to make it interesting or maybe I just wanted to see that.

I will finish with two final points. firstly, I think that letting go of one's automatic response of moral judgment is essential when approaching Ikuhara anime. this is not the same thing as advocating for a laissez-faire, anything-goes approach; it is simply saying, before applying preconcieved notions, let the work's textual, aesthetic, erotic, and sensual levels wash over you. if you give the work time and find some aspect of it offensive, that's one thing, but I am glad that I didn't let my kneejerk reactions turn me off of Ikuhara. along with that, don't immediately apply some kind of feminist, queer, or leftist lens to explain everything either. just let the work breathe.

lastly, I want to share Ikuhara's words on what affect he thought RGU had on its audience:

Ikuhara: I didn’t want 'Utena' to become a nice story. A story can be pretty, but it feels like a lie. From the beginning, the story was going to be about saving a friend, so in that sense that was the goal, but it can easily become a nice story, so to break away from that I made sure that it was a foolish story. I think it’s this foolishness that makes ‘Utena’ so popular with adults. Not in a sexual way, but more that watching it at that point makes it more relatable. 

to re-emphasize, my point with this discussion was that much of Ikuhara's artistry is ignored because his approach and influences are considered problematic. that being said, it was never his intention to make a work about "sexy teenagers" who adult viewers can masturbate over. none of his works are that: they feature students because anime often features students, and because he has an interest in the threshold between childhood and adulthood. although I am now 26, I can see myself in all of his casts, and the eroticization of the art makes me more invested in the story and themes, not titillated.

[reboundttv]

Absolute Wonder Woman #1: Everything New is Old Again

Tl;dr turns out the easiest way to write “grimdark edgy Wonder Woman” is to just…write Wonder Woman.

Preface: This is spoilered, as it will cover both Absolute Wonder Woman #1 and Wonder Woman Historia: The Amazons. As such, you have been warned.

In interviews for this series, Kelly Thompson stated that while it wasn’t meant to be a direct sequel, that we the reader could (and probably should) read Wonder Woman Historia: The Amazons to get a sort of baseline for the inspiration, and what to expect from Absolute Wonder Woman.

Wonder Woman Historia is a re-telling of the history (natch) of the Amazons, and how they ended up on Themyscira. Diana herself doesn’t actually feature until her birth at the end of Volume 3, but her influence is felt throughout the book. Diana is, in a lot of ways, a feminist icon, and the story of the Amazons being liberators of women and girls from the yoke of Men is inspiring and moving. The big twist ending, however, is that in this story, their immortality and existence on Themyscira is meant to be a punishment. Apollo demands retribution for the death of a young boy in his temple, as well as the death of Zeus’ son Heracles (an inversion of his 9th Labor). The goddesses that conspired to create the Amazons are forgiven in exchange, as well as Zeus’s wife Hera, and the Amazons are seemingly destined to fade into obscurity, a forgotten people on a secret island. Of course, we know that doesn’t happen. Hera, because she had not directly been involved with the creation of the Amazons, is able to move behind the scenes, convincing Dionysus to lie to Apollo and say that exile is preferable to death (because the dead can become legends). Hera takes the soul of the first child Hippolyta loses (I believe), and with the other goddesses, grants her a blessed daughter, bringing the clay sculpture to life and giving her the name Diana.

In this universe (shaped by the energy of Darkseid), Apollo (as the warden of the Amazons) discovers baby Diana and takes her away from Themyscira, electing to bring her to Hell and leave her with Circe, who seems to have earned a similar punishment of exile. Circe susses out rather quickly that Apollo seems to be frightened of Diana, and wonders why. Especially when Apollo bans Circe from even being able to say the word “Amazon.” (Note: I wonder what it sounds like when she tries. I imagine it would sound like something jarring, like another harsh sound overdubbed on it). He seems to want to hide Diana’s heritage from her. And over the course of the issue, parallel to Diana’s first appearance on Earth fighting the creatures attacking Gateway City, we come to understand why.

Thanks to the blessings of the goddesses, Diana is a force. For compassion, and empathy, and love. We see how she affects Circe, who lives in a hovel; we see it turn into a simple, yet cozy home by the time Diana is an adult. There is a warmth that was not there before, and it’s arguably thanks to Diana’s influence. Despite not knowing Themyscira (because she was taken as a newborn), and despite never meeting her sisters, Diana even knows that she is Amazon. She knows the word, even though she’s never heard it before the moment she says it for the first time. And it culminates in that powerful final panel, where Diana names herself. “Diana of Themyscira, last of the Amazons, Daughter of Circe, Princess of Hell, Witch of the Wild Isle.”

I think of Bryan Hill, the creator of Ultimate Black Panther, where he discusses "major rules" (core principles and characteristics) vs. "minor rules" (meaning more flexibility with character designs, themes, etc.) when writing a character. For Diana, that means that she is an Amazon of Themyscira. Diana is a hero. Diana has compassionate empathy and love. Those are some of the major rules that I think Kelly Thompson has maintained for this version of Diana. The other stuff is mutable (She's a witch, she has a BUSTER SWORD, Circe is her surrogate mother). And Ms. Thompson nails it. 10/10 First Issue.

As to where the series could go…

It feels almost guaranteed that there will be a cliffhanger where Diana discovers the location of Themyscira and possibly arrives there. There’s no telling what would be there, or if the Amazons (and Hippolyta) are even alive, since Apollo says that “when their service to Zeus ends” they will be imprisoned for eternity. I imagine that, because the (male) gods of Olympus are bigger dicks in this than in Wonder Woman Historia, there could be a confrontation with them as well. But I think the easiest bet to make is that Diana is still going to be the purest of heart of the Trinity, just as she was in Rucka’s run (Wonder Woman Volume 5 Annual #1). No matter the universe, it is who she is, and was, and always will be.

"Can you love as the goddesses love you? Have you the courage to bear the pain that will surely attend that love? Of course you do. We know, because we recognize our own. We know you...you are an Amazon." - Wonder Woman Historia: The Amazons, Vol. #3.

[radfemsiren]

Im not sure how the discussion began but you and your followers might like this one video essay on the barbie movie called “barbie thinks women are stupid” that put a lot of my feelings into words. I was esp let down by the ken takeover portion because the barbies just being their servants was grossly triggering for me like the fact they think we dont exist anymore, girls who watched their mothers be actual “brewski beer” slaves. The movie was by and for rich suburban girls with mild democrat dads and mildly annoying brothers who think everyone lives like them. The escapism of the of cgi barbie movies felt like better feminism than this male pandering depressing stuff. He literally STOLE her home and the movie still ended w everyone feeling bad for him. When the public can twist this movie like this and men like it, its a bad movie.

I’ll check it out!

Yeah I was watching the movie and when the third act hit, I was wondering how they were going to go about this internalized misogyny plot. I was shocked they would address something liberal feminists usually shy away from: women who are brainwashed by patriarchy and accept subservience. “Will they actually show a women’s revolution in Barbie land? There’s not much time left, and that seems ballsey, so how will they solve this?” I thought.

I was imagining maybe a childish plot device to swoop in, a fairie dust like magical item that would snap the Barbie’s out of their slave mentality and would represent sisterhood or something else safe and apolitical…. instead they let the Kens play guitar for them and just played into the stereotype that men are dumb but well intentioned, and women are manipulative and must coddle and baby their poor male partners that “never meant any harm when they created and benefited from patriarchy 🥺” Ughhhh… terrible ending.

Me and my friend got into a jokey argument afterwords lol, she was mad that the black Barbie president was stupid and I was like, “At least you got one! They had a cross dressing male Barbie in there and no middle eastern ones 😂” We did both love the part with the old woman at the bus stop being told she’s beautiful, and when the Barbie creator was talking about her daughter :,) That was a cute moment! I criticize the movie a lot but I still wore pink and had a great time with the gals, it was fun and made men mad so it did something lol

[vintage-bentley]

"Fruity" isn't even the worst of it. They've graduated to calling themselves f*ggots now.

Every time I see that, I KNOW it's a larping straight girl, and I wonder if she knows that every gay person who lays eyes on her blog wants to slap her in her "he / they achillean transmasc" face.

I don't even care if it's not feminist of me to say so, at this point. I just want every one of these girls to know that we may not say anything, but every single actual homosexual she encounters is thinking "fuck you, you stupid bitch". We're too polite and / or sick of the drama to say it, but make no mistake, that's how we feel.

Beneath our silence is a deep, deep well of disgust.

I’ve seen that, and it upsets me so much. It’s so insane that “fruity” took off as just a funny word to say online. Even without the derogatory history, it would still be homophobic because to find the use of “fruity” funny, you have to find the idea of a man being gay to be funny and not just a neutral and natural thing. But nobody even stops to think about that! They just find it so fun to mock gay men every chance they get.

So because of the complete ignorance to the homophobia of “fruity”, I’m really not surprised to see more and more women throwing around the f slur like candy. It really disgusts me that so many straight people are so comfortable being openly homophobic, and get to hide behind “teehee it was just a joke! And I’m a nonbinary transmasc gay dude so it’s okay!”

Although some of them don’t even hide behind a trans identity. They think that identifying as “queer” gives them a pass to all homophobic slurs and derogatory terms. Even if “queer” to them means “greyromantic heterosexual�� or some bullshit.

This is probably an unpopular feminist opinion, but I really don’t care about being all kind and nice to homophobes. I don’t care if they’re women. If a woman or girl is running around calling every gay man—real or fictional—she sees “fruity”, and calling herself and others the f slur, yeah I do want to slap her. I do want to yell at her and tell her she’s a disgusting ignorant homophobe. I do want to shake her and tell her to stop treating homosexual oppression like a fucking playground.

I see a lot of feminists talking about how we have to approach these women/girls with kindness and patience because “oh, they’re just misguided and have so much internalised misogyny”…but the truth is that no amount of internalised misogyny results in homophobia. Maybe it results in internalised lesbophobia, which is why I feel less anger towards trans identified homosexual females. But it does not result in thinking it’s fun to use homophobic slurs as a heterosexual. Maybe it results in wishing you were a gay man, but it does not result in having enough ignorance and entitlement that you actually believe you are a gay man and demand that everyone play along.

Homosexuals are absolutely exhausted. We are tired of the constant homophobia from all sides of the political compass. We are tired of telling conservatives that we aren’t perverted sinners, and then having to turn around to tell liberals that we also aren’t weird quirky queers. We just want to be left alone. Many of us simply don’t have the patience anymore to take a deep breath and be nice to the people who are making being gay so tedious right now.

“Beneath our silence is a deep, deep well of disgust” is such a wonderful way to put it. I wish that every trans identified homophobe understood this. That gay people aren’t silent because we agree with them: we’re silent because they’ve forced us into silence with their power as the heterosexual majority. And we’re angry about it.

[diabolicalcunt]

I feel the need to pin this cause I’ve always been notorious for people loving me when they first meet me, and then finding out that my political views are not extremely liberal. So here’s all the reasons you will hate me once you get to know me. Or not. I honestly don’t care I’m just sick of the ‘You aren’t who I made you out be in my head!’ conversations.

So my unpopular opinions in no order-

1. They/them is something that’s being encouraged by big brother to see yourself as non or less human.

2. DID isn’t real and you just disassociate a specific way. I look like I’ve been drugged cause I fall down ‘inside’ myself like a well and have no reaction time and can barely speak. I’m like a sloth. You pretend to be a anime character. It’s just coping.

3. The concept of trans genocide is fear mongering by big brother and means to keep boundaries between social groups.

4. To build off 3, the push to medically transition underage children is a move by big pharmaceutical companies to create a permanent customer. Because whether you decide to stay transitioned or de transition, you’re going to be on medication for the rest of your life whether you like it or not. There’s also the whole issue with child exploitation. You’ll be judgmental against Dance Moms, but you won’t say anything about a mom who transitioned her child when they were two years old and made them a social media star.

5. Trans men and women who have been charged with a crime belong in LGBT prison wings. Because we have created a culture where male rapists can put on its dress and be rewarded with a permanent stay in the hen house where they can victimize more women and the system will just cry transphobia and call the victims liars. You got a problem with that? I have never seen a trans man pushing to get put in men’s prison. I wonder why… 😐

6. Blair White is queen.

7. I will fight Henry Cavill on sight. I don’t give a shit how bad you want motorboat him. He’s a fucking pedophile.

8. Same goes for David Bowie. When I get to the afterlife I’m gonna make him wish he could die again. Ask me if you want my full on sight list. 😂

9. I stand with Palestine. Yes I think Islam is a horrible religion that is anti woman. I still don’t think kids should die for the grievances of adults and I think it’s fucked up Israel is doing the same shit Nazis did to them and expect us to nod and smile!

10. Qu**r is just as much of a slur as f*g*t or n*gg*r. I don’t use it and if you do I will block you no questions asked. Say gay! Say lesbian! Say…bisexual! 😱

11. Butch women are valid as fuck and I adore y’all . They aren’t trans men, fuck your lesbian phobia.

12. To build off 11, the new LGBT movement has been infected by woke homophobia and the new trans movement is nothing but conversion therapy in a mask.

13 . Radical feminists are women’s last hope.

14. Marvel movies always sucked, we were just kids and ate up the pretty colors.

15. Dune is a white male savior story.

16. Your fave is not autistic, trans, gay or whatever. You just need validation cause you have no confidence.

17. The Boys should have never cast Jensen Ackles and the Supernatural fandom needs psychological help.

18. Too many of y’all try to primp and posture as the gods of your fandom and yes I say that as someone who did the same and stepped away when I realized how cringe I was. Lording over autistic adults and actual children is pathetic. Get therapy and a real hobby.

19. While gender neutral fanfiction has its place. The trend that all fanfiction needs to be gender neutral is literally killing the creativity and frankly the spice to fanfiction. I hate this trend where piece of media needs to be sterilized so it can be consumed by anyone, even people just passing by. It goes against the concept of creating at its core. Sometimes things are made for specific groups. Sometimes it’s made just for you. The things you create do not need to be sanitized to the point there’s no substance, just a hollow consumption. Think of it this way. Would you rather have a hot pizza of your preference or would you prefer to just drink a bowl of water because someone on the other side of the world might not like pizza?

20. The WWE Divas belt was iconic. I get the whole take women wrestlers seriously movement and I agree! But god damn it, it’s a Bratz belt!!! Gimme!!!!!

21. I fucking HATE koalas. They literally only exist because humans have dumped millions of dollars and keeping them alive. If natural selection were allowed to take his course, they would’ve died off 100 years ago. The food they consume has so little nutrition that they have evolved to have the smallest brain to cranium capacity of any animal to create a built in helmet!! Why? Cause they are so stupid they literally fall out of trees and drop their infants!!! They shit on their young and have permanent diarrhea due to the 0 nutrition thing. They carry chlamydia. They’re so fucking stupid they can’t fuck and have to be artificially inseminated to continue the population. If I couldn’t get laid on my own, the government would not drop millions of dollars into making sure I do!! So why did koalas get it? Literally a waste of resources that could be going to feed thousands of hungry children and instead we’re keeping a fucking retarded (I’m on the spectrum fuck you) animal alive who should have gone extinct hundreds of years ago cause it’s supposedly ‘cute’!! God! I hate koalas!

[beesmygod]

Actually interested to hear that poor things might be better than I had been lead to believe lol. All I had heard about it was mostly positive reporting saying how it was “so feminist” because there’s a lady with a baby brain who has Liberated Sex and how it “Made The Story Of Frankenstein Feminist For The First Time” and went “wtf lmao” and wondered if you had heard about it or had any thoughts on it. Unsurprised to hear that it may just be movie reporting that is bad lol

i think its fair to side eye a premise like that esp in these dire times, but hes one of the few directors where id be like "well, lets see what hes cooking first". sometimes its not so good (the lobster) and sometimes its pretty good (the favourite) and sometimes its dogtooth. thats the only one ive ever seen. i dont know how i feel about it lol.

[fiftysevenacademics]

Television producer Norman Lear died today, which prompted me to put into words something I've had rattling around in my head for a long time now. I grew up in a very Republican family in the 70s-- communism = bad, welfare = bad, everyone but white people = lazy, hippies = bad, non-European immigrants = bad, you don't deserve anything if you can't work for it, etc. etc. I've often wondered how my sister and I turned far away from those views and became the bleeding heart liberals we are (and brought our mother along with us, thankfully). In an extended family that moved into crackpot conspiracy theory Reaganism (later, Trumpism) and/or morally bankrupt "libertarianism," we are the only ones who have moved farther to the left as they've moved farther right.

Speaking for myself (can't speak for my sis!), I can think of quite a few experiences I've had combined with a natural curiosity and sense of fairness but I've always felt like Norman Lear shows played some important, invisible part in this process.

My family watched All In The Family, Sanford and Son, Maude, the Jeffersons, and One Day At a Time religiously. Surrounded by conservative white people in the small, rural logging towns we lived in and in my own family, these shows were the main exposure I had to people who lived very different lives than my own: urban, multigenerational households, single women and single mothers, people of different races, different social classes, and so on. Just seeing someone live in an apartment in a city felt almost like seeing aliens on another planet!

On these shows I saw the kinds of people who were routinely referred to as "problems" or mentioned disparagingly in my little world, portrayed as interesting, full people with feelings and problems that from my sheltered perspective seemed strange and exotic but also, very human. They were cranky or funny or goofy or sassy, but all the characters on these shows were fun to watch and their struggles placed me in the midst of a world I knew reflected how people elsewhere must live. It allowed me to imagine myself as a person living in a world filled with racial, class, gender, and political diversity that was very different from how such a world was portrayed in my Cold War Era conservative family. 

How would I live in that kind of world? What kind of person would, or should, I be? Definitely not one like Archie Bunker.

All In The Family probably had the most influence. My grandfather adored Archie Bunker because, as the family joke went, they were basically the same person. By allowing me to see our family patriarch in this awful character who cannot accept how the world is changing, it gave me the critical distance to see myself as part of that changing world. I definitely know that this show also gave me my first inkling of what patriarchy was, though it would be a long time before I knew that word.

I was embarrassed to watch Sanford and Son with my grandpa because he watched it like he probably watched old timey minstrel shows back in the day: Sanford was an object of ridicule, entertaining because my grandpa could scorn him. Though it was obvious to everyone in my family but him, Sanford and Archie were similar characters and it was clear he loved the white one and looked down on the Black one solely because of their race. I remember him also refusing to even watch The Jeffersons, as if the existence of a Black man wealthier than him (he was a plumber) was a sheer impossibility. It's kind of funny how much he hated George Jefferson.

Then there was Maude and One Day At A Time. In my world, where women were primarily housewives, married mothers, still living a 1950s version of femininity, these shows were truly formative for me. I've always held, and still hold, Maude as a kind of role model for an older woman (even though she couldn't have been nearly as old as she seemed to me at the time). She was the only feminst I "knew!" She made feminism look so cool and I knew I was a feminist. Divorce was still kind of exotic and scary back then-- I didn't know anyone in a divorced family and certainly knew no single mothers. One Day At A Time normalized the single mom family just at a time when women were becoming more independent, and I thought about the show often, many years later, when I got divorced and became a single mom myself.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Norman Lear's shows made me turn out as I am. But they did offer a liberal interpretation of the changing world I was living in, and gave me the space to imagine possibilities, relationships, and ways of being in the world that were simply not present or actively despised in my everyday surroundings. 

Maybe these TV shows created a little empathetic space that grew as I continued to engage with new people, places, and ideas throughout adolescence until there was no room left for the stinginess, bigotry, cruelty, and paranoia of Republicans.

[philosophicalconservatism]

hi, how are you? 😊 just for the fun of it, i'm throwing a random question at you: are there things which you think people shouldn't be able to buy or sell or do you think there should be no restrictions? like buying/selling e.g. organs, babies, weapons, drugs, sexual favors, etc. i follow some radical feminist blogs who are very much against surrogacy and oppose people (mainly sexual minorities) who say they have a right to surrogates and that it should be covered by insurance. i was wondering what a conservative thinks about these issues. i'm just curious & eager to hear different perspectives.

Thanks for the question, and once again for following.

The phrasing of your question cries out for drawing a basic distinction between Conservatism and Libertarianism. Yet the very moment we proceed to do so we come to an initial realization. If Libertarianism is only distinguishable from other ideas of government by the fact that it embraces an “absolute” ethos of liberty, then the only genuine Libertarianism is something called Anarcho-Capitalism. This is a scenario within which every voluntary transaction is permissible, which necessarily means that there can be no political state. Every element of order within such a society is to come about as a consequence of voluntary contracts between individuals at specific moments in time (including policing and enforcement).

Any professed Libertarian that adheres to anything less than this standard does not in fact embrace a genuine Libertarianism but some specific shade of Conservatism. How can I say this? Well, let us consider why someone who calls himself a Libertarian would reject an Anarcho- Capitalist model. How would he explain himself? In explaining himself he would begin to sound very much like a passage from an Edmund Burke pamphlet. He would begin to talk about abstract ideological speculation having to give way to practical human realities, and concrete social precedent. He could not exclude something like Anarcho-Capitalism in principle, as a future possibility, but he would insist that human societies as we presently know them cannot practically assume this form.

Now once he begins to reason in this way on political matters he cannot later on decide to appeal to some “absolute” Liberal ethos to settle every political question. He must continue in his confessed understanding of the fact that politics is actually a convergence of abstract ideals and (historically grounded) practical social realities. Without abstract ideals politics is morally blind, but without practical consideration and historical orientation, it is in applicable and useless. Attempt to establish a Jeffersonian Democracy overnight in a place like Saudi Arabia much less Afghanistan and see how far it gets you. On the other hand, you can take small practical steps toward gradually liberalizing such countries over time. The Conservative is a believer in freedom, but freedom is a thing into which societies must continually grow and develop.

So this brings us to your question of exactly what should and should not be permitted within the so called ”liberal” societies of the West. The answer is that we must determine on a case by case basis what we can realistically sustain as individual societies in this stage of our growth and development. We must carefully examine each issue with a close eye on the law of unintended consequences. Some professed Libertarians for example, like to talk about the legalization of drugs; but what would absolute drug legalization mean? It would consist of the right to freely dispense and use for recreational purposes, every single pharmaceutical and street drug in existence. We have absolutely no idea what an America like that would even look like.

We presently have a nationally crippling epidemic that revolves around a single strictly controlled substance (Fentanyl). One could not even begin to predict the vast sea of long term social consequences that would be created by the kind of policy referred to here. It would not even be guaranteed to eliminate the black market sale of these drugs. For example, there is still a multi-billion dollar international black market in tobacco, a legal drug. Now I made reference specifically to America here for a reason. Because in the end, every individual society must assess these issues for itself, on the basis of its own unique characteristics and national experience. Prostitution may be handled in one way by one legislature but differently by another (including within the same nation, as it is in the U.S.). One of the unintended consequences we must always consider is how the legalization of something complicates the prosecution of the illegal (or unregulated) versions of that thing.

The issue of surrogate motherhood could potentially yield some unique unintended consequences which cause it to stand apart. I do not have a problem with it in principle, but I think it must retain a certain character. If surrogate motherhood becomes a market exactly like any other market, then childbearing becomes the production of a commodity, and human beings can become articles for sale. But a child is not the “possession” of their parent, and therefore an unfettered market model is wrong for this kind of issue. There is a vast difference between parental discretion, and property rights. This topic is somewhat different from the others we have discussed so far. Those issues had to do only with how human beings dispose of their own person and property. This issue has to do with one party’s (or more than one party's) power over another (the future baby). For this reason it must be regulated even in the freest context.

In conclusion, the approach that I take on most of these question is to outline how we need to think about them rather than to try to answer them directly. Some of them are tremendously complex questions that do not necessarily have any uniform answer that is fit for every single society. We should act in a way that tends toward the maximization of freedom within the constraints of the present development of each society.

[lemonhemlock]

"I wonder if they changed that because they wanted to show Rhaenyra as more in charge and independent, entering a relationship with Daemon because of her free will, not because she felt compelled in some way." You see that's where I start to get into it with Daemyra stans who claim that Rhaenyra is a sexually, liberated, independent woman when she isn't. It's like you said she got with Daemon because she was made to feel like she needed to be with him. Which makes her story all the more tragic. She's not a liberated feminist who has an enviable sex life. She's a young woman whose been taken advantage of since she was a child by her creepy uncle, who made sure that he ruined her ability to have a functioning healthy relationship with other men. It's because of him that he almost causes her to be disinherited and sullies her reputation, which in turn, she's forced to marry her gay cousin. As a result, neither of those 2 knuckleheads can at least try to conceive a legitimate heir. This leads to her having a not-so-secret affair with Harwin, and it's because of her daddy's protection that is the only reason why Harwin hasn't been executed and she hasn't been disinherited. But sure she's an independent woman.

Let's backtrack to her and Cristion's little rendevous. If it weren't for Daemon's grooming she wouldn't have been so bold and inconsiderate to even sleep with Criston. Nor even think that it was a good idea to ask Criston to be her side piece. Nothing about Rhaenyra's character screams independent woman because her entire world revolves around toiling in service to men in order to be "free" to do what she wants. Her stans need to stop acting like she's a Dornish woman because she isn't. Nothing that Rhaenyra does or thinks truly even comes from her own mindset. It's either something that Daemon has taught/instilled into her or it's something that her father has pressed upon her to want. In other words, her and Alicent are in the same boat.

Yeah, I don't think Rhaenyra is a sexually liberated feminist by getting together with Daemon either.

I suppose you could argue some of that in regards to her relationship with Harwin, that she pursues love and sexual gratification for her own ends, within the confines of her station and sham marriage, and that's not a conversation without merit. Of course it is unfair that a woman (or anyone else) has to marry for political reasons and that she can't engage in sexual exploration on her own terms, according to her own needs and her timeline. But, in this context, the consequences brought about by her selfish actions shouldn't be glossed over either: she brings three innocent children into the world that now have to suffer from her indiscretions, as they are actively put in danger by their mother's lies. She is so deep in the hole she dug for herself that she has to alienate another noble house's entire patrimony in order to cover up for herself.

This is certainly something she took from Daemon - his whole speech about how marriage is a political arrangement and that dragons take what they want, exemplified by him trying to take her maidenhead in a brothel. Certainly, I agree with you that she never would have pulled that shit with Criston if she weren't feeling frustrated and horny and under his influence, taking in the "teaching" that giving into your impulses can only be a good thing.

But, at the same time, I would argue that, while Daemon definitely fucked with Rhaenyra's psyche, she didn't really do herself any favours either. Daemon is shown to be a wanderer, he never stays that much in one place. In ep. 1 it is implied he has been gone for some time now. Then he leaves again. Realistically, he is not spending all that much time with Rhaenyra either. Surely he has great influence over her, but she is not completely without agency either. After her wedding, there is a 10-year time jump and she does not seem to do any self-reflection during this time. When they finally reunite, Daemon is not really pursuing her in any way, so what happens next is completely put in motion by her.

So this is not to say that she's a liberated independent thinker deadset on exercising her sexual freedom, but more like... she recognizes she is in deep shit and doesn't know how to get out of it. Note how everyone keeps pointedly staring at her bastard sons in Driftmark; Rhaenyra recognizes this and sends them to bed so that they'd be out of sight. She sees Daemon and thinks "oh, he is scary enough and seems to know what he's doing, so, if HE would be my husband, I wouldn't have to worry about the consequences of my own actions". Basically her modus operandi of appealing to the men in her life to help her out.

Anyway, I find it interesting, because, on the other hand, I also receive asks like this (from this week):

Anonymous asked: It's funny how the show made everything revolve around Rhaenyra even Daemon's character is just him being a simp for Rhaenyra and not the dangerous ambitious man he was in the book.

This one is quite contradictory, actually. In this view, Daemon is the one constantly trailing after Rhaenyra and her being the one calling the shots. Perhaps this is a reaction from having Daemon appear declawed, so to speak, after the time jump. Whereas before the time jump, he would do all kinds of chaotic stuff when he appeared on screen. After 10 years, he seems rather mellowed out and I think this is one of the reasons the general public started to think of him as a malewife and were quite shocked at the choking scene. They must have thought that the years took some of Daemon's edge off.

and this one

Anonymous asked: I completely agree what you said about Daemyra. The chemistry between young Rhaenyra and Daemon was off the roof plus the whole forbidden aspect made them very shippeable to a lot of people (as opposed to forced incest like helaegon). Then it just fell off after the timeskip and I don’t think its the writers’ fault entirely (although they REALLY could have tried to write a better sex scene befitting the two) - the chemistry is just not there. The way Daemon looks at Rhaenyra now makes me think of a man who settled for a woman because of some promise or gain, not love. Like it literally feels like Daemon ticked off marrying Rhaenyra from his checklist, like it’s a duty, to finally put an end to the pinning and unresolved sexual tension but in such an unsatisfactory, dull way that it just fell flat. Daemyra has potential to be a badass duo, encouraging each other’s awfulness, a true force to be reckoned with. But alas no, because Rhaenyra is a lost puppy in a big castle, an eternal victim to everything whilst Daemon stands around, mentally pocking a stick into her saying DO SOMETHING! They became pathetic. At least if they were pathetic in love or something, but no, it’s just pathetic. Young Daemyra worked because young Rhaenyra had a spunk in her, spirit for adventure and risk taking that present Rhaenyra lacks. So why is Daemon attracted to her now?

There's a reason young Daemyra took off so much and people became enamoured with them. For as awful as the grooming implications were, they had the potential to be this fascinating Cathy-Healthcliff pairing that, while destructive and unhealthy, had that arresting trainwreck quality, a petri dish of heightened human emotions, an exploration of our darkest impulses and indulgences.

But adult Daemyra kind of fell flat at that. Now they were just a regular couple only with occasional choking thrown in (lol). I don't fault the actors for being confused. Some of it is writing choices, some of it is, yes, the lack of chemistry. 🤷

[seoness]

Do you think Modern!Sandor is a virgin? This is aimed at the book version since his facial scarring is wayyy worse. 😭

I didn't think this would be the question that liberated my writing block, but here we are. Would a Sandor Clegane of our age be a virgin?

Most likely...

but that answer is far too short, so let's break this down!

Sandor would be tied to the Lannisters. In the books and show, their wealth comes from the gold mines of Casterly Rock. In our society, their wealth would still come from mines, just not any close to Tywin's family estate. It would be blood diamonds. They would gain wealth through investing in the American railroad, and much more. Sandor's family would still work as their muscle in some capacity, and I am more privy to imagine them as mercenaries than policemen.

Like in the books, work saved Sandor's life. He's a personal driver for Joffrey and somewhat of a bodyguard. The all-in-all so to speak. Constantly near Joffrey, but never in any photo snapped by any paparazzi or walking Joff down the red carpet or escorting him through a banquet. His scar wouldn't be as severe as in the books simply due to modern medicine, but it would certainly affect how others treated him and how he viewed himself. He could buy sex, but I think he'd more take to viewing porn than going to a sex worker in person. Not because he'd be a prude or look down on them, but rather be reminded of the insecurity that the only attention he could get from a woman would be bought.

Views on women

Now, more often than I dare admit, I wonder if he'd be an incel? In the books, he's hostile to girls. However, I don't think he has the time to really get into that pipeline or any pipeline for that matter. Neither would he be some feminist icon or outspoken ally of any cause. I don't think he'd try for a relationship, simply because he doesn't think it an option. Frankly, I think the Sandor of our society would be more jaded than in ASOIAF. His strength and fitness aren't much put up against a bullet much less a nuke. Our society is equally, if not more, vain.

He'd not thrive, he might not even live

I question if he'd even survive. Sandor lacks in attributes our society values. The Hound isn't charming, he's threatening. He'd have no social support. An insane brother that wants him dead and the feeling is mutual. Like the Mountain with artillery? Maybe Gregor would have been sent to an institution or Sandor would have been the one to go... The more I think about this question, the less his cock becomes involved. Like Gregor killed a lot of people when he was young... wouldn't the FBI or NATO or anyone get involved?! He'd be more liability than worth at that point. Sandor in ASOIAF is clearly a functioning alcoholic, but maybe in our day and age, he'd be more into hard drugs like cocaine. If he still is a functioning alcoholic, does he drink and drive? He certainly did drink and ride. Maybe the body positivity movement influenced him, but I don't think so. He could totally cut himself off from his family though and flee to a remote area. A hermit in the woods? Maybe live on a boat and take a page from the actor that plays him in the show? Like what would his views be on technology even... Another Unabomber? Would his fondness for horses really translate over to cars? I mean, I know plenty of horse girls, and they HATE cars...

Okay... I... He most likely would be a virgin. Maybe dead. Probably dead. Emotional baggage the size of Neptune? 100%

[bellamysgriffin]

I was anti Moffat until I got on DWTwitter they softened me to the guy. He's still undeniably flawed and I'll never like Sherlock it is pretty bad to me but I realized a lot of what's on here about him was pretty bad faith. I fear I've become a light defender. And his Douglas is Cancelled joint is pretty damn good, shockingly feminist.

well I don’t think he’s a monster I just think he’s a bad writer lmao. i know he has liberal/feminist ideals but i do think some of his storylines have some sexist and offensive undertones, esp when it comes to characters like missy.

but my main beef with him is truly just the fact that I dislike what he did with multiple storylines on the show, the way he messed with the lore, the insane plot holes, reframing the doctor as a dark antihero instead of what he usually was, writing inconsistently for his characters, missing the point of the show several times, having everyone be so exhaustingly Cheeky, and always undoing the stakes he set out for his characters. some sins are bigger than others in my opinion and of course he has one offs that are truly wonderful (I think he writes better in a more limited sphere, weeping angels are the best but then became a joke immediately when he started fucking around with their lore as did river song). he’s not a worthless writer, I like a lot of what he did, but in general I thought he was a pretty bad show runner and a bad writer for doctor who lmao.

so I can see how the takes that he’s like a super offensive man might be some bad faith stuff, like he seems like an alright guy I suppose, but I just don’t think his writing is up to snuff

[inmyhorrorsera]

S5E7 "Hybrid Creatures" thoughts

That's it. Those are my thoughts.

.

.

.

Kinda...

I'm kinda used to the writers putting Nadja in situations and see what it sticks, but (un)holy shit its so obvious that they don't know what to do with her character. What we do in the shadows learn how to write women challenge.

I don't know if the Guide even appeared. My stream stopped a couple times and I have to refresh so maybe I missed her (if not see previous point because it also applies to her).

LOVED Nadja's kitty hair buns, love to see that at least the hair and costume department still cares about her.

The line about burning the school made me roll my eyes, not only because that story doesn't make sense with what we learned about her childhood, but also because I can FEEL when tv shows throw lines with the specific expectations of them being gifed, become memes, etc.

I know it's stupid to discuss about the ethics of Laszlo's experiments on the dick and balls show but in this episode I was all 😬😬😬 about it. Like, I don't give a shit if it was done with comedy purposes, animal experimentation is one of the subjects I will never find remotely funny or make jokes with, specially if we start thinking... How much consent Guillermo gave for Laszlo to straight up play with his DNA in this way? He has nothing to say about it except for a confused frown or looking panicky at the sight of the creatures?? More important, if Nandor did this exact same thing the past season and created the hybrids with a Djinn wish or whatever, how would the fandom have reacted??? (spoiler: waaay more angered than when everybody's fave Laszlo does it).

The work of puppetry and digital effects was good as always, nothing bad to say about the team behind the cameras that puts all their hard work and craft on this, sadly, mid storyline.

Despite how little I care about mAd ScIenTiSt Lazslo plot, the moment when Guillermo believes he won't help him anymore was truly heartbreaking just by looking at his face. You can see he really has all his hopes in Laszlo finding a 'cure'.

I wish the whole thing about Guillermo being incapable of killing the hybrids hit me harder (as if we didn't saw him luring innocent teenagers so they can get killed in the literal pilot).

Sorry but that lady character didn't work for me and the "Helen the Magic Johnson" joke was unfunny and kinda old :/ i wonder if half of the wwdits fandom even got the reference (also lmao shameless product placement, you can tell they needed the money to pay for the cgi used on the creatures).

Colin was like his season 1 self. I bet the wwdits reddit ate up that shit.

See also: Laszlo calling Guillermo 'Gizmo' again. Hated it.

Colin becoming the stereotypical 'cool' white liberal teacher was hilarious specially when he said the cliché "history is written by the oppressors" line because that's where the parody becomes too obvious. This is the guy whose dna results on s1 were "100% white" after all. AND YET some people here are still celebrating and repeating it as this 'so true bestie 😔✊' moment without realizing the show's laughing at you, not with you. But hey, this is the we don't get satire even if it bites on our ass site. Imagine fans celebrating when Kendall Succession shouted "fuck the patriarchy!" in front of the paparazzi for being a #feminist. That's how wooosh the moment went over some of y'alls heads.

Nandor and Colin at the museum felt a little tackled on, but at least Nandor annoyance at his personal items being displayed was fun.

And Colin being friendly (dare I say…sweet?) with him at the end again gave me a happy smile. I'll never guessed this season was all about the Colin and Nandor (Condor??) era but I'm all for it.

Biggest Mild laugh of the night: Nandor mannequin having male and female lovers on the display, the dude is wearing Calvin Kleins!

I can't say much about Guillermo leaving the hybrids at the senior home because it's a overused ending for wwdits at this point. Seriously, when this show doesn't know how to end an episode they always do the same shit: Leave the characters that are a problem in a different place. It happened with: Topher at the zombie sweatshop, Jim the vampire as the volleyball coach in Tucson, familiar Benji in a different city/state (forgot where), The Baron and the Sire in the countryside, Derek working at Sean's MLM, Freddie!Marwa in the Uk. They have done this ending 👏🏼lots 👏🏼 of 👏🏼 times👏🏼already!!

Having a wank?! The setup and payoff for this joke really worked.

Next episode seems interesting.

Anyway, I am once again asking for the Djinn...

[quantumfizz]

Completely Uneducated Internet Opinion after seeing Oppenheimer and Barbie

The Barbie Movie focuses on a very specific lens of misogyny that doesn't show just how pervasive and horrific it really is, and it's painfully obvious that it's selling a brand of feminism that isn't too alienating to the status quo and is very "Oh well! The Kens will have as much power as us girls do in the real world ig. Get it? 😜" It just leaves a sour taste in my mouth, but it's about as politically aware and active a multimillion dollar Warner Brothers film based on a Mattel IP can really be. I appreciate it more as a celebration of embracing all the terrible flaws and aspects of being a woman in a misogynistic world, and an abstract being deciding that it's all worth it because of the joyful and meaningful experience of being a woman and not just an idea.

It's also funny that Ken as a character eclipses and overshadows a lot of the film, since the whole thing is about feminism and the name of the film IS Barbie. But much like feminist causes in the real world, the audience focuses more on the men involved lol. A lot of that comes down to Ryan Gosling's fantastic performance though. This man understood the assignment like no actor ever has before.

Also, the costuming and set design are god tier and exactly what we need to see more of in a media landscape dominated by shitty looking CGI from un-unionized and poorly treated sweatshop artists. If you like good looking movies, watch this movie.

Ken does take over the screen whenever he's there, but Margot Robbie shines in this thing. The comparison can't NOT be made between Barbie and The Truman Show (Gerwig iirc says it was one of her main inspirations and it shows), and her performance as Barbie discovers the world she's lived in and her existence itself is a flimsy ideal is so moving. Because like Truman, she chooses personhood and freedom over certainty and safety. She chooses to become a real woman not despite the many disadvantages and pain that comes with it, but BECAUSE of the experience. She learns that there is beauty in cellulite and stretch marks and wrinkles, there is beauty in aging, there's an entire world of experiences and emotions that as a doll she could never achieve and truly feel. And seeing someone CHOOSE humanity is such a wonderful thing.

The film also indulges in the kind of campy silly shit we expected, and I can see how some viewers view it as inconsistent and jarring when it's juxtaposed with moments like America's speech. But despite how half-stepped and steeped in a very specific advertiser friendly brand of Hollywood/corporate liberal feminism this film is, I appreciate Greta Gerwig even trying to do this in the first place. If even one woman or girl comes out of this being more critical of the world around them and the ways misogyny affects us, then I'm happy. If even one man or boy comes out of this being more critical of the world around them and the ways misogyny and patriarchy affects THEM and how they view and treat others, I'm happy. You are Ken-ough (sweater now available via Mattel for $86.99 while supplies last btw).

Oppenheimer is...what you'd expect of a Christopher Nolan biopic of Oppenheimer. It looked nice on 35mm film but it's also got the sound quality issue every fucking Nolan film has, where if you don't have the exact setup he wanted for the film then so many bits of dialogue will be drowned out by music or be otherwise unintelligible. The effects showing one woman with radiation burns were so laughably bad, it was like she let a bunch of Elmer's glue dry on her face and it looked so goofy that it ruined the weight of the scene.

For a film that really tries to show how paradoxical and complicated Oppenheimer was, it doesn't exactly sympathize with him to the extent I've seen people say it does. The film shows he's a dramatic, dismissive, egotistical asshole that refuses to explain his convictions and at times you (and other characters) wonder if he even has any. And his hypocrisy is constantly pointed out by many characters. The prosecutor in the security hearing asks how and why he suddenly decided to have moral qualms about nuclear bombs when he was eager on the Manhattan Project and outright helped decide which city to drop the first bomb on. Strauss's belief that Oppenheimer wants to be a martyr seems true, whether it's (as Strauss believes) out of pure ego or (as his wife says) that he honestly believes that receiving every punishment possible will somehow lead to him atoning and being forgived.

Also if you're watching a Nolan film you're already coming in with low expectations for women characters and this is no exception. Florence Pugh's character exists to show tits, talk briefly about communist ideals only to be talked down to by the more well-read Oppenheimer, fulfill a "methinks she doth protest too much" shtick with her always tossing his flowers, show tits again, break down when he says he can't see her anymore, and then kill herself to add to his sorrow. I do like that his wife immediately looks at him and says that he can't do things like have an affair out of selfishness, disregard other peoples' feelings, and then be surprised when his behavior ruins peoples' lives and fucks him over. His wife is incredibly based and Nolan does a good job portraying how miserable she was as Oppenheimer's wife.

The film showcases his lack of empathy or regard for others until it comes back to fuck him over outside of the affair. He builds Los Alamos knowing that local indigenous tribes come up there for burial rites because they're less important to him than The Big Picture and building the bomb. The civilian lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are something he's prepared to destroy for the sake of this experiment and usher in a new era of scientific discovery (again, nothing is more important than that Big Picture). The lack of regard for the Japanese people, the indigenous tribes of New Mexico and the other civilians in the area is (imo) intentional because the film is about Oppenheimer. It's about how he put them, his family, and everyone around him aside to follow what he's worked in his entire life: theory. Real tangible lives were something he did weigh, and ultimately decided were worth the cost if it meant a) proving this theory b) furthering scientific knowledge and c) ushering humanity into a new era of understanding. And as disgusting as it is, it's interesting to see a film trying to dissect why and how one human being made that decision and seemingly came to regret it.

Anyway while both films are completely different animals in different universes, I think I prefer Barbie because when I cringed, it was during parts I was meant to cringe. And Oppenheimer has the scene where Floremce Pugh (naked obviously) asks him to read the Bhagavad Gita and they start fucking as he says the "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" line and thus robs it of its actual historical context AND cheapens not just Oppenheimer as he originally quoted it...as well as cheapened the Bhagavad Gita as a whole bc. Dude. Now I want a Bollywood movie where a character reads the Bible while a woman rides him and shows tiddy for superfluous bullshit reasons.