#need him in a way that is frankly offensive to feminism

[marley-manson]

Do you have any petpeaves regarding the M*A*S*H fandom?

lol sure i'll take the opportunity provided to express a few, ty for the ask!

Overall Mash fandom is pretty awesome imo, and I actually don't have many compared to a lot of fandoms I've been in, and the ones I do have tend to apply to most fandoms anyway lol, they're staples of fandom in general.

-- The biggest one is probably the common take that Hawkeye is insecure, self-loathing, emotionally repressed, thinks he doesn't deserve love, yadda yadda yadda. This isn't really Mash specific because the bad-self-esteem-ray hits every bottom in fandom at some point lol, but it's extra grating in Mash fandom for me because to me it feels more blatantly OOC than most versions of this.

Now to be fair to fandom there are a few scattered lines throughout the series you can take out of context to justify this take, and one bad episode that provably contradicts the rest of the show (Who Knew), but I feel like you have to stretch like a gymnast to justify it and ignore 99% of the rest of the show and Hawkeye's behaviour.

And it's boring and flattens Hawkeye to a caricature of someone else imho.

-- Generally, and again this applies to all fandoms lbr, I dislike the way a lot of people need to jump to accusations of bigotry to justify their personal preferences. One example I've seen a couple of times that's absolutely bizarre to me is the take that if Klinger gets dicked down and/or feminized in fic it's because of racist fetishization. That's Maxwell Q. Klinger, the dude who wears dresses throughout most of the show and canonically grows to genuinely enjoy it. And even if he was 100% masculine, that's what a lot of fandom does to every single dude they love ever lol, all it means is that Klinger has a fanbase, which is a good thing. imo attitudes like these help contribute to non-white characters getting less fanworks about them, and while I don't think it's prevalent enough in Mash fandom to have a negative effect, I've seen it destroy other ships featuring characters of colour.

Another example is the classic bad take that if you don't ship women in het or interpret a heterosexual relationship as doomed/not romantic/etc, it's because of misogyny lol. It's not hugely common in Mash fandom but I've seen it occasionally from BJ/Peg shippers and the very occasional Margaret enthusiast.

Oh and another example is that depicting Hawkeye as effeminate is homophobia. Again, this is Hawkeye, the dude who proudly calls himself unmanly in various ways every episode and makes 50 jokes about wanting to get fucked in the ass. Frankly it's a bigger stretch to me to assume he wouldn't easily and happily adopt actual effeminate body language/phrasing and tone if he's, say, at the bar and wants to pull a top. Or maybe even just if there are no straight people around, yk? Why not? The take that writing unmasculine men is offensive is a fandom classic and usually strikes me itself as homophobic, gender essentialist, and basically just someone's masc4masc kink masquerading as an issue.

Like to be clear there is certainly bigotry in the Mash fandom, as in every fandom, and it's worth discussing, and sometimes depending on context it can even apply in the above cases (eg if a fic about Klinger getting dicked down earnestly described him as idk exotic or something, or if people who 'feminize' male characters take it to silly extremes and start writing meta about how these men are woman-coded/victims of misogyny lol) but this ain't it chief, this is people repackaging their own pet peeves in social justice language to win perceived arguments, and it's a bad vibe.

-- This one IS fairly Mash specific lol, and to be clear it's 100% harmless and just something that makes me roll my eyes sometimes because I'm not into it myself and it strips away the things I do like about the ship: the way a lot of Hawk/BJ fans headcanon BJ as much more supportive and sensitive to Hawkeye than he actually is, by taking various things he does and assuming he does them for Hawkeye, like he's constantly aware of Hawkeye's unexpressed needs and catering to them.

Yk, he wears pink shirts for Hawkeye! He grew the moustache for Hawkeye (never mind that Hawkeye hates it)! He stole Hawkeye's joke to give Hawkeye enrichment because Hawkeye loves... being upset I guess. Joker Is Wild? All for Hawkeye because Hawkeye loves being paranoid and alienating people. (The reasoning I've actually seen is that Hawkeye loves having an excuse to throw a tantrum lol). He totally comforts Hawkeye when Hawkeye is upset, they just never show it. He is devoted to Hawkeye, he'd do anything for him, ignore the episodes where he calls him crazy and ditches him while he's facing adversity. He's Hawkeye's emotional support!

I've seen it in serious meta and casual headcanons and fic where BJ just falls into role of tender, emotionally intelligent emotional support like it's an assumed part of their dynamic despite not only never seeing that in canon, but Hawkeye actually pointing out multiple times that BJ is not very supportive.

It's also a misreading of Hawkeye who is actually the emotional support of their friendship, rather than vice versa, and tends to go hand in hand with my first pet peeve: Hawkeye as an emotionally insecure, repressed mess lol. BJ goes to him when he needs a shoulder to cry on, something consistent to the point of it being a way to manipulate Hawkeye in Picture This. Not vice versa. Hawkeye goes to Margaret or Mulcahy or Sidney. The only example I can think of where BJ provides emotional support (by which I mean listening to Hawkeye's emotional concerns and offering supportive input) to Hawkeye is the end of Comrades in Arms, and it's like the bare minimum of fulfilling the typical best friend on tv role.

(I like that BJ doesn't fulfill that role tbh! It's more interesting that way, it makes their dynamic feel more unique and intriguing.)

-- Also people who think Mash got more progressive in the later seasons. I think it demonstrates a shallow understanding of the political implications of the show. Getting rid of the character with a slur for a nickname doesn't automatically equal less racist, it's just an easy thing to point to that doesn't require much critical thought. And the growing feminist concerns go hand in hand with depicting republicans, patriots, and racist imperialistic military commanders as good people.

And to be fair I sympathize with this take, I've seen it everywhere from fandom to grumbling republicans complaining about mash getting preachier to professionally written retrospectives and academic analysis lol, so it's not like I hold fandom to higher standards. The ways Mash grows more regressive are more insidious, and the problems in the early seasons are much more obvious and in your face than in the later seasons. And there will always be some debate on whether eg rampant womanizing is worse than pro-imperialism messages, though I know what side I fall on there.

But imo it still sucks that it's such a popular opinion.

-- The emphasis on found family, especially in a 'the war brought them together' sense. Any hint of gratitude that the war let them meet people they love in fic, or whatever. This is something I can't completely blame on fandom because the show itself veered uncomfortably close to this a few times too in the later years, but yeah I'm not a fan. To me the most important aspect of Mash is the fact that they all hate it there, the war is worse than hell, they're virtually prisoners trapped in a nightmare, and any of the draftees would absolutely trade those relationships for an end to the war or just a ticket home. Their friendships are less a silver lining and more a painkiller that just barely takes the edge off. I think this vibe is clearer in the first half of the show, but that's yet another reason the first half is better and more progressive politically lol. And it doesn't disappear in the latter half either, just gets a bit more muddied.

-- This kind of goes hand in hand with the above points, but I feel like it's more of an older Mash fandom issue that I encounter when archive diving moreso than a thing currently (though I do occasionally still see it these days): fans who actively like the military stuff lol. I've read fic where dog tags are kinked on/romanticized, fic that depicts draft-dodging as bad, etc. These days it's more stuff in line with the worst parts of canon, like taking Potter at face value as a Good authority figure who deserves respect because of his military experience, but yeah. Don't like that.

-- Okay that's all I got off the top of my head. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to whine lol

[bisluthq]

hi nat! i wrote in a few months ago about a situationship/fwb that i’d fallen for that was driving me insane, and even though it’s stupid and you’re not a romance column i think my friends will kill me if i bring it up again and i’m losing my mind so this has to get out SOMEWHERE i’m sorry.

we’d had a minor spat over something stupid and never got back on good terms, but despite the fact we were hardly speaking he was insanely flirty whenever we ran into each other—rubbing my back to say hi, prolonged staring from across the room, offering to visit me at work, sharing songs he knew i liked—and his friends kept alluding to something on his end i didn’t know about. which was frustrating and weird, but not nearly as weird as when i found out he was dating a girl who looks EXACTLY LIKE ME (to the point my close friends got us mixed up at a party & thought a pic of her was a pic of me) despite the fact i was the opposite of his usual (very consistent) type. so now he’s going out with a literal clone of me down to style, voice, mannerisms while liking selfies w/ my tits prominently featured and watching me at parties as she’s talking to him, and just… i’m reeling from all the mixed signals of whether he cared or not and feeling guilty about my petty resentment of this girl who’s done nothing wrong but i still hate in a “what does she have that i don’t?” way. she unironically thinks rupi kaur is deep / that the tramp stamps are punk / writes bad music & constantly posts catty "she ain't me" shit but i hate that i’m fixating on these things as if it’s a competition or it makes her a worse person! it doesn't matter! i'm sure she's lovely but i cannot see past my resentment and envy and internalized misogyny. over a boy with a weird chin. i hate college.

anyways sorry for making you read all of this, i'm just going fucking crazy and need a reality check. i love your blog and hope you're having a great day!

Dude, my suggestion is block them both on socials for a while because this is driving you bananas and you don’t need that. As you say, this chick’s done nothing wrong except be mildly annoying (and fwiw she does sound annoying and that’s okay to acknowledge like you don’t have to force yourself to think she’s cool for feminism purposes) and date this dude that you’re not dating (she is allowed to do that and he’s allowed to date whoever he wants since he’s not dating you). I always find it mildly flattering when people move on to girls who look/seem like me. I’m like “lol so clearly that made an impact” 💀💀 and frankly I don’t find it offensive if I look like girls someone dated in the past because that’s evidently the type and idk those girls made an impact 😂💀 I also think college is way too young to establish what his “consistent” type is yk like maybe he liked girls who were different and then hooked up with you for a while and realized he likes that aesthetic. Fair.

as for if he cared or not, I mean he realistically did but he’s with this other girl now so it’s a moot point? Like do you want to have her leftovers if they break up? Probably not lol. It doesn’t even really sound like you want to be his friend. I’d just block them both for a while and let it go.

also college does suck in that way but the depressing thing is all of life sorta sucks in that way. Life is full of trying to figure out if someone likes you and if you like them back lol and if you like them enough. I was complaining about this to my old (in terms of age) friend recently and that’s basically what she told me - that it doesn’t ever really get that much better. We can try hand it over to the universe and disengage but a lot of things are going to just… bother us. Which is okay. It’s okay to be a bit bothered and a bit sad, just don’t let it govern your life or make you do crazy shit. I think that’s the part that does get better lol because when I was younger, a lot of my crazy thoughts would manifest into crazy actions - like showing up places hoping this other person is there or sending essays to them or talking to their friends about it and whatnot and now I’m like “okay well this is a crazy thought I had” and I maybe wallow in it for a spell but then I go and do something else and distract myself from it and most of the time things kinda work out.

also, and I firmly believe this, things ought not be Super Hard™️ - and that’s something I struggle with in my current relationship because we do have serious ups and downs and sometimes I feel like we have too many downs. Like I enjoy the ups but I think the number of downs we have isn’t altogether super healthy and fwiw there are reasons for that (we both have issues lol) but it’s like… things shouldn’t be Hard™️. They can be challenging in a way that helps you grow, but they shouldn’t be super difficult. And then in my case, I also think like even if it’s hard I really LIKE this person as a person and evidently he likes me so maybe it’s worth it but 🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️ I do wonder if the amount of drama is a problem. And that’s in a very committed, adult, stable relationship - so what hope is there for complicated FWB scenarios 😂😂😆

[casually-slips-into-coma]

An Essay (sort of) Explaining the Many Grievances I Have With Debbie Gallagher

Once again, Debbie is the fucking worst.

I’ve been wanting to write out my feelings towards her character for a fucking minute now just so that I have a full concise list. Now, I can talk about how Debbie has a constant need for attention, or how her character has become someone unrecognizable in the past few seasons, or how she’s a terrible mother, but what I really want to focus on is the center of my issues with her: her sexuality. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t about to be a homophobic rant or anything. I just think her queer development has been written terribly and that should be addressed.

Too often I see people praising queer characters or relationships based solely on the fact that they are queer, and as a member of the community, I get it. I am also starved for representation. This, however, does not mean I’m going to settle for annoying, poorly written characters.

Why Make Debbie Queer?

The first thing I want to address is why suddenly develop a WLW storyline for her. Given that Debbie started as a little girl on the show, this gives the writers a lot of opportunity to give a character like that interesting storylines because she does not yet have a solid personality. It gives writers the liberty to take her story anywhere they want to without the constraints of established character because she, as a person, is still developing into adulthood. The show runners unfortunately dropped the ball with this.

From season 4 and onwards was when Debbie began showing interest in dating, sex, and romance having just turned the corner to puberty. From then up until season 9, she has shown exclusive interest in men. It isn’t until Alex the welder that Debbie deviates from this path. Alex is portrayed as a stud who confuses Debbie. I am inclined to believe that Debbie was originally attracted to her because she was masculine and therefore close enough to the people Debbie had previous experience with.

This arc was treated very much as Debbie experimenting with her sexuality, something that Alex also ends up realizing after Debbie tells her that having sex with a girl is “not that bad” and “like having sex with yourself” (S9E4). Once this storyline wrapped up (with Debbie shouting “you make me want cock again”) the writers powered through, adamant about Debbie now being a lesbian.

I have two theories as to why they’ve been fighting so hard for her queerness.

1) This was around the time that Cam was leaving Shameless. This obviously didn’t end up happening, but I was under the impression that the writers were freaking out at losing their token gay character and needed to fill that position. When Cam ended up staying, they were stuck with a queer Debbie storyline and decided to just go with it.

2) Shameless was planning on doing a WLW storyline regardless of Cam’s choice to leave and were originally going to give it to Fiona and her lesbian tenant that she had a close relationship and a lot of chemistry with, but Emmy Rossum wanted to move on from Shameless, and so they pivoted and gave the arc to Debbie, a character that was not supposed to be moved in that direction and so her new sexuality seemingly came out of nowhere. Fiona as a bisexual character would have made sense. Debbie still does not.

Shameless’s Awkward Relationship With Bisexuality

One of the biggest issues I have with Debbie is her insistence on being a lesbian. Lesbianism doesn’t come out of nowhere. Bisexuality, however, can. When you grow up being told that you are supposed to feel attraction to men, and you genuinely do feel attraction to men (which Debbie has expressed in past seasons/episodes) it’s easy to ignore your attraction to women and write it off as something that either isn’t a big deal, or something that isn’t there. It’s a lot more confusing than being strictly at one end of the spectrum. It would have been so much more believable if they had simply made Debbie bisexual. Unsurprisingly, they didn’t because the show has a history with bi erasure.

Bisexuality has been treated badly all throughout Shameless, used as a vengeful plot device back in the earlier seasons where Monica was only ever with women when unmedicated. Then in Season 7 when Ian’s boyfriend Caleb cheated on him with a woman (enforcing the stereotype of bisexuals being unfaithful) Ian, possibly acting out of anger or ignorance, said things like “only women are bisexual. When a man says he’s bisexual he’s really just gay”. The only semi positive bisexual representation on the show was Svetlana and Vee when they were in a poly relationship with Kev (though I also think that storyline wasn’t handled as well as it could’ve been).

This fight against the bisexual label in media is not a new one but it is also a harmful stance to take when writing a sexually fluid character. Debbie declaring that she is, in fact, a lesbian after waxing poetic about how Matty had a big dick and Derek had a great body and knew what he was doing is not the way to go. 

You could argue that Debbie, like many other queer women, is an unfortunate victim of compulsory heterosexuality, but frankly I don’t think the writers are well versed enough in queer theory for that to be a possibility.

Debbie as The White Feminist

Debbie is the pinnacle of white feminism. It’s an unfortunate thought that has occurred to me a few times throughout the show. She talks a big game as a man hater and someone after the equal treatment of women but she herself participates in a lot of problematic and anti feminist behavior.

For one, she r*ped Matty back in season 5 when he was blacked out and unconscious. This was a point in the story that was glossed over and one where she suffered no repercussions other than Matty no longer wanting to be around her. It was explained in the show that Debbie didn’t realize what she did was wrong until after she was explicitly told so because she was maybe 14 when it happened (not 100% on the age Shameless is very inconsistent about timelines). It was treated as somewhat of a punchline, something that Shameless has unfortunately done more than once when referring to male sexual assault (Mickey’s r*pe, Liam in season 10 ((i think??)) and in this latest season, Carl) but that is a different topic. 

There was also the time in which she lied to her boyfriend about being on birth control so she could trap him into a relationship with pregnancy (which also counts as r*pe!!) Good on Derek for getting out of that.

Debbie has also been pro-life in the past. Now I understand this was when Fiona was pressuring her into aborting her pregnancy, and as a pro choicer myself, I believe that Debbie was fully in her right to have bodily autonomy and go through with the pregnancy. This isn’t where the issue lies. It’s when Fiona finds out that she too is pregnant and tells Debbie that she wants an abortion that Debbie accuses her of “killing her baby”. Again, her behavior could be explained by her age given that Debbie was still a young teen during this time.

When her actions as a White Feminist become less excusable is mostly in the latest season. Her relationship with Sandy is one that I’m not really happy with because Debbie doesn’t deserve her.

Recently, it has been revealed that Sandy is actually married to a man and has a son. It’s explained that she was basically married off against her will at the age of 15 to a man twice her age. This implies that the product of the marriage, her son, was most likely conceived through dubious consent (or worse) at the hands of an adult when she was just a kid. Just because Debbie thinks that Sandy’s husband “seems nice” does not give her the right to try and make a victim of grooming feel bad about not wanting to be with her abuser. While I understand that Sandy’s son has no fault in how he came into the world, I’m still gonna side with Sandy when it comes to having to take care of a child she didn’t want and who is most likely a source of trauma for her. It’s not difficult to sympathize with Sandy and see that she’s clearly gone through something fucked up and Debbie, despite claiming to love and support her, AND despite her dumb white feminist arc about wanting equal pay and all that jazz, turns her back on the girls supporting girls aspect of feminism.

This isn’t even mentioning how shitty it was to just leave Franny by herself and assume that one of her siblings would take her to school and pick her up and stuff as if they don’t all have separate lives. She talks a lot about being a good mother but decided to “let off some steam” by fucking off to a gay bar to get loaded on coke and fuck a gay man (which wtf thats not a thing that really happens with casual coke but whatever I guess). Once she realized she fucked up, instead of taking responsibility she decided to paint herself as the victim as well as spew offensive bullshit about how she “probably has AIDS now” because of her sexual encounter with a gay man. No lesbian in their right fucking mind would ever say that because as members of the LGBTQ+ community, you are at least a tiny bit informed as to how devastating and tragic the AIDS crisis was for queer people.

(I also have an issue with how Debbie capitalized on her felony as a sex offender and her sexuality to start her Hot Lesbian Convict business but I think that’s enough said.)

Blame the writers

The show got almost an entirely new cast of writers after season 7 which is why the show feels more like a sitcom with low stakes and no consequences rather than a drama, but if there is a queer writer on the team it’s not very evident. Even the better half of the queer relationship story, Ian and Mickey, I don’t feel has really been done justice since the change in writers. It’s just become painfully obvious that the actress is a straight girl playing a gay character (not to mention I have never seen any chemistry between her and all of her female love interests). I don’t fault Emma Kenney (the actress) for this. I actually really like her as a person and I like the videos she makes about the cast and such, and I think she does her best with the script she’s given. My complaints with Debbie are targeted entirely towards the writers.

This brings me to my final point. I need them to let Debbie be alone. Her whole thing for the second half of the season has been that she clearly has abandonment issues and is afraid of being alone. It’s why she’s so adamant about keeping the house and fighting with Lip about it (I’m actually on Debbie’s side for that one but that’s besides the point). They had her and Sandy break up which leaves Debbie to spiral further into her loneliness. From a writing point of view, it makes sense to take this opportunity to give her an arc in which she can overcome that and feel comfortable with herself so that she can move on as an adult instead of jumping into a new relationship. This is especially true since this is quite literally the last season ever of the show and any character development needs to be wrapped up. Introducing a new character out of nowhere does not give the viewers enough time to actually get invested in the new relationship. It’s also unfair to Debbie’s character because her arc is going to feel incomplete.

Anyway,,,,,,uuuhhhhh,,,,,feel free to add on if u want lmao

[mexicancat-girl]

Ok guys, I can't take it, I’m seriously at my limit here.

Uraraka vs Bakuboi was a sham of a fight and none of it makes any goddamn sense.

Uraraka deserved her win, for multiple reasons.

Shout out to @bnhasalt, who’s post reminded me how indignantly furious this arc makes me.

More under the cut over both how salty I am, and how Uraraka losing against Explodo Kills makes absolutely no sense, even narratively.

(Warning ahead for a discussion on sexism, misogyny, forced fanservice, the blatant favoritism towards That One Specific Character even if unearned in the narrative, and the general incompetence on how to write female characters.

I call B/kugo “Bakuboi” in this analysis bc I don’t want to write his Actual Name out and have it pop up in his character tags. Also, heads up, I’m sorry for how messy and long this rant is )

First, can I just say that Horikoshi is uhhhh Bad at writing female characters?

Which I’m sure many female fans already have an inkling about, but goddamn is it never more obvious than in the Sports Festival Arc. Because hey, at least the female characters are THERE and PARTICIPATING and have their own time to shine! This ISN’T one of those arcs that just stars THE BOYS, so that MUST mean this arc is equal opportunity! Right...?

God, I wish. I wish...

See, the girls are the minority of the Sports Fest in general. It shouldn’t be this way. And quite frankly, the fact that the classes (and UA in general) isn’t closer to being a 50/50 gender split also makes no sense, considering all children are raised in a society that values heroism EQUALLY and almost half the population is male and half female.

But, okay, let’s say I actually believe in the most illogical character ratio imagineable of there being a 2 boy to 1 girl, like this is another round of Naruto But It’s Superheroes So It’s Different I Swear.

We all know that there is going to be an emphasis on Izuku, since he’s the protagonist and he wants to make All Might proud during the Sports Festival.

Pre-Festival, there’s the reveal that Uraraka wants to do her best, with her main motivation of becoming a hero to give her parents a good life. Iida also wants to make his own family proud, specifically his brother, because of his family legacy. 

Since these three are a trio, you’d think they’d all get some time to shine, right? Since they’re Izuku’s friends? And Izuku considers them his equals?

Yeah, no. Wrong.

This arc is dominated by Izuku, Shoto, and Bakuboi. That becomes clear very quickly. 

I knew I shouldn’t expect much, since these three are powerhouses and also the most popular characters of the entire franchise (just look at the popularity polls) but still. I’d thought at least Uraraka would get a chance to shine! Since we get some character development and motivation revealed from her!

But the female characters in general get done so dirty this arc, despite it being first set up as a perfect arc to let the girls have just as much opportunity to participate as their male peers.

The most significant part of the female characters all getting an ‘equal time to shine’ is when He Who Must Not Be Mentioned and Kaminari trick the girls into dressing as scantily-clad cheerleaders. Which is both Tiring and Unncessary.

(This scheme also shouldn’t have worked because Momo is Vice Rep and she is an intelligent girl, top of her class. She would be smart enough to go to a teacher and actually double-check to see if Class 1-A girls really needed to cheer in the activities portion of the Sports Festival. 

But noooo, Horikoshi can’t pass up a chance for FANSERVICE and forcing his underaged female characters to be uncomfortable for The Funnies! Thanks! I hate it!)

The female characters that move onto the final round of the Sports Festival, and thusly have the most attention, are: Uraraka, Mei Hatsume from Support, Momo, Mina, and Shiozaki from 1-B.

Wow, I sure wish these girls could like...show their worth. And maybe NOT get steamrolled and easily tossed aside in their matches because they’re facing Boys and Boys Have Strong Offense-based Quirks, That’s The Rules Folks.

(Before you come at me, I know that isn’t a rule that applies to every single male character in the series, but the strongest and offense-based Quirks tend to go to the male characters, while the female characters tend to get more support-based Quirks. It’s both sexist, but also an inherent trend in media in general. Please Just Let Women Punch Shit To Smithereens And Control The Elements.)

Yes, Mina and Shiozaki won their first rounds easily! And that’s great to see! But then we turn right around, and they're eliminated just as quickly in their second matches! Without even a fighting chance!

Good God, Shiozaki is literally PUSHED OUT OF THE RING. That’s it, that’s how she lost. Same thing with Momo in her match! And Mei straight-up forfeits because her character is based more on advertising her inventions/babies, so she doesn’t even fight.

So essentially, the female characters are shucked away if they’re not used to make the male characters look good, or there for fanservice, or there to show a shallow form of ~feminism~ so Horikoshi can pat himself on the back and say “See! Girls strong! I can write girls!”

And now we get to the meat of things: Uraraka.

Oh, poor Uraraka. Out of all the female characters, your potential was the greatest, and also the most squandered...

As a reminder, at the start of the arc, Uraraka speaks with both Izuku and Iida about how she wants to do well in the Sports Fest. They all promise to do their best. Izuku’s friends admit that they want to face him in later matches, because they want to be his equals.

Uraraka wanted to stand on the same level as Izuku and Iida, but she's the only one that doesn't move on past her first match!

And man, what an absolute bogus match it is.

Is it emotional? Yeah. Did I tear up when I watched it? Sure, every single time! But that's more because Uraraka is one of my favorite characters and I feel empathy for her and thought she deserved better.

The match gets to me because I also hate how Bakuboi is so fucking entitled and gets everything handed to him on a silver platter.

Bakuboi himself is written as, essentially, a Gary Stu. He always wins. ALWAYS. And even when he ‘loses’, he still manages to beat his opponents to the point that they need to be hospitalized (see Izuku vs Kacchan pt 1) or he makes his losses ALL ABOUT HIMSELF by twisting logic to fit his own narrative.

Remember how Bakuboi won against Todoroki in the final match? And was so pissed at him he was ready to Physically Assault Todoroki for him not being able to Get Over His Trauma to go 100% during their match? And even though Bakuboi LITERALLY won the entire Sports Festival, he’s so entitled that he demands a rematch because he feels like he “didn’t actually win”?

Not wanting a rematch for Todoroki’s sake, because Todoroki has been through a rough time and Bakuboi overheard Todo’s Tragic Abusive Backstory. Oh no, that would make too much sense and show too much character growth, we can’t have that! Bakuboi, even when winning the Sports Festival, demanded a rematch because he wanted to beat the shit out of Todoroki AGAIN to assert his dominance.

You see, Bakuboi is always rewarded in the narrative. Even when he loses it’s not seen as his fault. He’s never really punished for it, and he never learns any lessons from his losses.

Ah, and let’s not forget, Katsuki Bakuboi has the Best And Strongest Quirk Ever. Strong enough to even do the impossible and work to his advantage when it shouldn’t!

Like how he SOMEHOW manages to ‘beat the odds’ by breaking the laws of physics to win in Round 2. He manages to PUNCH THROUGH A QUIRK THAT CREATES A SOLID WALL from 1-B’s Tsuburaba in order to get back his team’s headband and move on to Round 3.

Or hey, his finishing move, Howlitzer Impact? Doesn’t make any sense either. It shouldn’t work as a...cyclone? Tornado? Drill thing? 

Look, the logistics of it shouldn’t work. Yes, this is anime, but do you HONESTLY think that a teenager YEETING himself in a fast spiral will somehow accomplish anything more than spreading out some explosions in a circle around him? You honestly think any other character would be able to pull that bullshit off WITHOUT upchucking their entire lunch?

But because it’s Bakuboi, it works somehow. Because Bakuboi’s Quirk is The Shining Beacon Of Quirks. 

Drawbacks? Sure, he SUPPOSEDLY has them. They’re noted in his character profile and everything. But very rarely do those supposed “drawbacks” ever actually come into play and actually, like, stop him. Or slow him down. Or, yknow, ACTUALLY WORK LIKE DRAWBACKS ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK.

Because apparently, human limits don’t exist for Katsuki fucking Bakuboi, nope, not at all!

One of Bakuboi’s "drawbacks" is supposed to be that he can't overexert himself or he can fuck up his wrists/his forearms will start to ache. 

Cool cool cool, except...This rarely slows him down or effects him at all. 

It’s actually astounding he hasn’t given himself Carpel Tunnel, because that would be a natural consequence to over-using his Quirk. Hell, he should be fucking up his arms almost as much as Izuku does to his own arms with a destructive Quirk like OFA! Explosions are dangerous and cause massive destruction, and that should be fucking up his arms SOMEHOW!

But, nope. Bakuboi is as fresh as a goddamn daisy. He can Never Have A Weakness.

(Another drawback is cold weather/Winter season is supposed to weaken his Quirk. Makes sense, since heat would help him produce more nitroglycerin sweat, and the cold would make it hard to sweat. But that sure as hell didn’t stop him during the Joint Training Arc in the future, and he didn’t struggle whatsoever to almost singlehandedly win that for his team.)

Not ONCE does Bakuboi’s Quirk ever effect him negatively and forces him to weaken! He keeps using his Quirk like it's nothing!!

And that’s the crux of the entire problem with Uraraka vs Bakuboi’s match.

Bakuboi apparently has “drawbacks” and “limits”, but he keeps somehow managing to break them without a sweat (ha) and without consequence, essentially PULLING WINS OUT OF HIS ASS.

Bakuboi was using his Quirk LITERALLY NONSTOP during Round 1, and kept using it to throw himself around in Round 2. Logically, he should’ve fucked his arms up and been at the very least SLOWED DOWN by the third round of the Sports Fest because he went past what were SUPPOSED to be his Quirk’s canonical limitations and logic!

It would've taught Bakuboi that he can't fucking steamroll through all his problems! He has limits! There are consequences to over using his Quirk! He’s a human being and he doesn’t have endless stamina like some sort of God!

Hell, every other character has these limits very clearly shown and outlined with their Quirks! Uraraka throws up when she over-uses Zero Gravity. Shoto, before using his fire side, would get frostbite. Iida’s Engines will stall after using Recipro Burst.

The other characters have limitations to their Quirks that slows them down, shows consequences for their actions, but Bakuboi NEVER HAS ANY.

THIS is why he’s a Gary Stu. THIS is why he won his match against Uraraka.

Not because of any logic. Because HIS QUIRK HAS NO FLAWS. And on top of that, THE NARRATIVE KEEPS REWARDING HIM, EVEN WHEN HE HASN’T EARNED IT.

Bakuboi SHOULD have been weakened from using his Quirk non-stop. Bakuboi SHOULD NOT have managed to pull out that “one final big explosion” that ruined Uraraka’s final attack.

Bakuboi was literally hissing about his arms hurting earlier, before their match started. And Uraraka forced him to use his Quirk so much that she managed to amass a ton of debris to knock him out and win the match. HIS EXPLOSIONS SHOULD HAVE SPUTTERED OUT, AND NOT SAVED HIM WITH THAT LAST-SECOND ASSPULL.

Like, I’m preeeeetty sure the entire reason Horikoshi wrote Uraraka vs Bakuboi in the first place was because he was attempting at writing Feminism.

See, Bakuboi Hates Everyone Equally, he’s not a violent misogynist for beating up Uraraka! It’s a Match, he Respects Women And Sees Them As Equals! The Crowd of Pro Heroes are the ones being Misogynistic and Judging The Match Early!

And look at Uraraka, she’s a Strong Woman! She keeps getting back up! That’s the Shonen Spirit! And she’s smart, too! Look at her amazing plan to win--

Oh, wait. Wait, nope. She didn’t win at all! :) Because our shining beacon of perfection Katsuki Bakuboi never loses!! :)) Look at all her hopes and dreams being blown to literal smithereens, because of Bakuboi’s ass pull, even though he shouldn’t have had enough time, sweat, and strength to muster up that last explosion!!! :)))

Can ya’ll feel my incandescent fury right now?

Because Horikoshi can NEVER write Bakuboi losing, Uraraka COULDN’T HAVE WON, even if her winning makes THE MOST LOGICAL SENSE.

This scene was supposed to show Uraraka’s strength. But it feels like Uraraka is being literally spit in her face, for even DARING to TRY to win against Katsuki fucking Bakuboi.

How much more impactful would Uraraka’s breakdown have been, if she had moved onto the Second Round with Izuku and Iida? How she would feel ashamed that she couldn’t keep up with them, with how Powerful their Quirks are? Especially after seeing Izuku and Todoroki’s amazing match, and seen how destructive and close a match it had been?

How DEVASTATED she would have felt, beating BAKUBOI--one of the strongest of their class!--and then STILL managing to lose the Sports Festival?

That would have been SO much more interesting! And even SADDER!! C’mon!

Uraraka SHOULD have won her match! It would’ve provided both character development for herself, and for Bakuboi! Bakuboi would realize he has limits to his body and Quirk, and realize not to underestimate his opponents! Uraraka would realize that she’s strong in spite of her Quirk not being necessarily combat-oriented, but still has a long way to go in being a Pro Hero!

But, nooooo. We can’t have CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, can we? We ESPECIALLY can’t have THE FEMALE CHARACTERS IMPACTING THE PLOT IN SOME WAY, either! Or--what’s this? FEMALE CHARACTERS ACTUALLY HAVING THE SPOTLIGHT FOR ONCE? Perish the thought!

The only good parts about this godforsaken arc are 1) Mei Hatsume 2) Hitoshi Shinso and 3) Izuku vs Todoroki fight and Todoroki’s Tragic Backstory Reveal. Everything else is hit-or-miss, if not completely hot garbage.

Anyways, thanks for coming to my TED Talk, and for reading this entire thing! Four for you, reader. You go, reader.

[communistsans]

Bi/pan lesbian is not a term you should use.

Let me be clear, I think the experience you're describing is real, but the term is offensive to bi, pan, and lesbian people. Bi, pan, and lesbian are separate sexualities. They cannot be put together because they are directly contradictory. And before you say "what about x sexuality and ace," that is different, because the terms bi, straight, pan, lesbian, and gay all define the romantic and sexual parts of attraction. Ace only describes a lack of sexual attraction, leaving the question of who they are romantically attracted to. So if someone says they are ace and bi, it works because from that you know that they are attracted to women/men, but only romantically. You wouldn't say, "I'm aromantic, asexual, and bi," because all those things overlap. You can't be attracted to no one romantically or sexually AND be attracted to men/women. Lesbian describes a sexuality that means women/fem aligned people who are EXCLUSIVELY attracted (romantically and/or sexually) to women/fem aligned people. Bisexual describes a sexuality that means someone attracted (romantically and/or sexually) to 2 or more genders. Pansexual describes a sexuality that means someone attracted to others (romantically and/or sexually) regardless of their sex/gender.

So that's why the term is nonsensical, but why is it offensive to lesbians and bisexuals/pansexuals? I'm bi woman, so take my lesbian commetary with a grain of salt.

I believe every sexuality has a bit of wiggle room, and also that that doesn't mean that a person can't use the term gay/lesbian. I don't think a straight man being attracted to one guy makes him gay/bi, I don't think being a lesbian and being attracted to one guy makes her bi/straight. I'm bisexual and people often ask me if they are bi because they are attracted to x obviously attracitve celebrity, and the answer is usually no. It takes more than being attracted to a couple of people of the opposite sex to be bi/pansexual. What makes you bi/pan is being able to be genuinely attracted to, date, fall in love with, and be intimate with people of the same and different sexes/genders. I think straight and gay people alike can have genuine attractions that do not align with their sexuality and still be that sexuality. However the key here is that those are exceptions. When 99% of your experiences are exclusive to one gender then yes, you are gay/lesbian. I don't think that genuinely liking your high school boyfriend because he was a sweet guy and you hadn't figured yourself out yet makes you not a lesbian. And I think to say that it does is also lesbophobic. Just to get the whole "sexuality is fluid" out of the way.

Relationships between women are so often devalued, and lesbians often suffer from people erasing their sexualities, or people assuming that somehow they must be attracted to men in some way. This is a fucked up and lesbophobic way of thinking, and it's stupid that they have to deal with that. Lesbians shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of personal experiences for fear of having their sexuality questioned/invalidated. Politically speaking, it is critical for lesbians to ensure the term lesbian means a sexuality of women exclusively being attracted to women, please do not interfere with this term. It is important to their communities that it stays that way. However I know what is politically convenient isn't always what is personally true. On a personal note, I think the distinction should be this: if you HAVE BEEN attracted to a couple of men in your life but could never see yourself being with a man and being happy, and can easily say that 95% or more of your attraction has been exclusively to women, you are a lesbian. If you ARE attracted to men and could see yourself being happy in a relationship with a man, you are bisexual or pansexual. As a bisexual person, I don't experience or see my attraction to either men or women as exceptions, they are both natural and part of my sexuality. I also want to note that it is unfair and lesbophobic to assume that because someone has liked one guy in their life it somehow discredits the rest of their experiences, especially when we dont hold gay men to the same standard. In fact, its usually the opposite! If a straight man has one experience with another guy everyone assumes he must be gay/bi, even though he has only ever been attracted to women. Ultimately, if someone says they are a lesbian, they like women and just women. End of story. Yes there could be different personal anecdotes, but lesbians are attracted to women alone. To say otherwise is lesbophobic. If you are attracted to men, you aren't a lesbian.

Implying that lesbians are attracted to men is lesbophobic, so why is the term "bi lesbian" also biphobic? Well because in addition to erasing the meaning of lesbian, it also erases the meaning of bi. Bisexuals are often believed to secretly be straight or gay. We are not gay or straight, we're bi. I get the term is trying to say that you have a strong preference for women; many bisexuals have a preference, however you are still bi. If this "preference" is that strong to the point where you basically are near exclusively attracted to women, then you are probably a lesbian. You are either a bi person with a preference for women, or you are a lesbian. You cannot be both bi and a lesbian. Substitute bi for pan here and the commentary is the same.

I've also seen people who say they call themselves bi/pan lesbians because they are attracted to women and also to nonbinary people. And okay, I see where you're coming from here, but that doesnt mean the term isn't offensive. Gender non-conforming and nonbinary lesbians are a thing and I'm not about to police nb lesbians; they have always existed and been important parts of the lesbian community. But if the only nb people you find yourself being attracted to are nb lesbians and other fem aligned people, you're still a lesbian. If you aren't comfortable with that because it erases some peoples identity, then use bi/pan, because those are the terms to describe attraction to 2 or more genders. Or use queer! I knew a couple in college who were a lesbian couple until one of them came out as trans masc. To not invalidate them, their partner said they were queer instead of lesbian.

Another person I have seen using this term is women who are basically bi/pan or even straight who for whatever reason have stopped dating men permanently, despite being attracted to them, and this actually has some historical precedent. During 2nd wave feminism these women called themselves "political lesbians," giving up dating men in order to free themselves from misogyny. If this is your experience, do what you want, but again, the term bi/pan lesbian is harmful to lesbians and bi/pansexuals and please call yourself something else. I think it's fine to call yourself a lesbian or gay for convenience sake if you really do never plan on dating men again. Please just understand that the lesbian/bi/pan communities need to have the integrity of these terms for political reasons. Lesbian is not an umbrella term the way gay or queer is. On a personal level, yes there is wiggle room, but on political level these terms need to have definitions.

Ultimately if you identify as a bi/pan lesbian, please stop using that term. It's problematic for lesbian, bi, and pan communities and frankly makes no sense. If you want a fluid term, you can always just say "queer" or "queer with a preference for women." Normally I don't care about what people identify as and I against gatekeeping, because in the end it doesn't hurt anyone. But this isn't about gatekeeping. The term bi lesbian is harmful, which is why I'm asking anyone defending that term to please reconsider. If you identify with this term, I'm not sending hate your way and I'm not trying to invalidate you. I'm just saying this term is harmful and there are plenty of other non problematic ways to describe your sexuality, like wlw, nblw, sapphic, or queer.

If I got something wrong here please tell me! I just think there is a lot of really hateful debate going on here and it's extremely unnecessary. But my final stance is that the term bi lesbian/pan lesbian is offensive, biphobic, and especially lesbophobic, and we should do better by the lesbian community, who are constantly being erased.

[arilkang]

Hello everyone, it has been a long time since I have written a long text here where I expose my personal considerations regarding some themes and today I thought well to do it. I'm reading Boku no hero academia for some time now and being on par with the manga, I would like to talk about something that some (especially on twitter) continue to say. No, it is not Dabi's theory - which I am sure he is what the theory says but Horikoshi doesn't want to tell us - but about a plague of fans of any work: the hatred for the main female characters and a sort of battle for the "ship".

I don't go into fandoms for this very reason: you are toxic, let me tell you. You are among the most toxic people in the world, together with those mythical Renee Young haters with whom I screamed some years ago because they actually don't know what human dignity is.

Speaking of BNHA, I have noticed the greatest hatred lies in Uraraka Ochaco, which is seen in these following ways:

1) she's useful only as Midoriya's "love interest"

2) useless because it doesn't do anything really important, Tsuyu is more active.

3) She has no real ambition

4) she's the same as Sakura and therefore useless.

5) other things I don't remember.

Now I analyze point by point, just because I want to talk about it. Let's assume that this hatred towards almost exclusively a female character denotes a profound misogyny also because, I would like to tell you, why don't you say something about Aoyama? I don't think he's so useful. Or Mineta. Or other male characters who aren't that useful.

But no, Uraraka is worse. Uraraka is not only a "love interest" but she is much more, she is a character that makes such an important and strong growth that it is only to be admired. If she was just a love interest, in theory she had to follow Midoriya wherever he went but hey she doesn't. Furthermore, the relationship that they have is very healthy and constructive, therefore reducing it to a simple "love interest" is disparaging. There is mutual trust, mutual respect and affection between the two and this is more important than you think.

On her "uselessness" frankly I don't even talk about this because in each arc Uraraka proves important and necessary for some dynamics. Re-read the manga.

True ambition, she is said to have no ambition. "I want to help my family", "I want to help other heroes." these are not valid ambitions? I think they are extremely valid and concrete compared to those of Midoriya himself or Bakugo (one who wants to be a hero like All Might and smile like him and the other for purely personal ambition and affirmation).

But now I want to talk about the most important point: the comparison with Sakura. And I also add Orihime so you can understand better (and more people will criticize me I know). This is connected to the "uselessness" point.

Sakura Haruno (Naruto) had crazy potential in the first part of the manga, especially when she became aware of having to improve so that she would not be continuously protected by Naruto and Sasuke. Huge potential of an emancipated woman who defines herself... That Kishimoto has not been able to manage. She become a medical ninja, she become strong but not strong enough because she still needs to be protected regardless. Maybe only in the last part of the manga but not much. From a woman with enormous potential she becomes the violent one who speaks only fundamentally. And now let's talk about violence. She is violent against Naruto. Only against him. Why didn't she have the same attitude with Sasuke who, in truth, abandoned her and then attempted to kill her? In Sakura there was absolutely no growth in feelings, admitting how wrong Sasuke was and condemning him, going to him and punching him (I know she tries but she remains with the thing that "I'm in love with you" but how can you be after what he does?) and let's not forget how she faked a confession to Naruto because she wanted him to stop following Sasuke. This is the thing that makes Sakura fundamentally toxic: if Naruto said "okay okay, I'll be back with you." she would lie to him and herself practically for her whole life and I don't think this is a healthy behavior. Rightly, at the end of the manga she manages to assert herself a bit, but she had a great potential not managed well. Don't mention me Hinata and the "is worse than Sakura and at the end of the manga she has become a housewife" because I would say that in the meantime Hinata has been strong and important in her being a secondary character and now I will reveal one thing: if you go to search on the internet for feminism in Japan, you will see an interesting thing. Now things are changing, however, basically a woman, if she works and she will marry someone and have children, she quits and stays at home. There are several researches that talk about it - but they also underline that this dynamic is changing - so Hinata's is a cultural heritage. Present in all women (including Sakura anyway, Temari ect.). If you know something about this, or you want to correct me, you can but in a polite way.

I also put Orihime in the middle, just to make people understand how badly certain female characters have been handled. Orihime is a cute girl, adorable and to be embraced continuously but... But everything she does revolves around Ichigo. She continually thinks of him, the continuous "Kurosaki-kun" which when I followed Bleach was a kind of ironic mantra. Her powers, obviously only healing and this irritates me, however extraordinary they were, they do not evolve while we have the great protagonist that is all him (shinigami-hollow-fullbringer-quincy and 400000 things). She doesn't evolve, or rather Tite Kubo doesn't make her evolve much. And if you notice, the only character who deals with these things is Rukia (she's violent too unfortunately but she's not toxic towards someone) in my opinion the only female character built well. Orihime is truly totally influenced by Ichigo without changing that much. By the way, why are healing powers associated only with women? Why can't they have an offensive power?

And from here we move on to Uraraka: she is not violent towards Midoriya or others but sje respects and supports them, she grows continuously and she wants to improve (ex. those traineeships that she does with Gunhead and Ryukyuu), takes inspiration from Midoriya to improve, not to stay with him on Sakura/Sasuke or Orihime/Ichigo style. She continues to evolve and improve and with her all the female characters and this gives honor to Horikoshi both for the realistic and strong construction of women and for the representation (we have a bisexual character if you remember well) then all the criticisms, in the face of this reasoning, they fall and they are really childish because you are not denigrating a character, but the whole work of a mangaka that, apparently, you have not understood.

With that, happy reading 💫

[cinna-wanroll]

Embrace It

Ending racism/sexism/discrimination isn’t about ignoring the differences. It’s about noticing and embracing them.

You want me to call my friend a ‘person of color’? Because that’s more respectful? Well then how can I pay respects to their beautiful black skin, their frizzy, curly dark hair that I find so beautiful? When saying that could mean the same thing as a wonderful Latino person, or a Mexican, or an Indian?

You say that we’re all the same, but then what do we do when our physicality and genetics aren’t taken account of when we go to the doctor because that’s ‘racist’?

You say women are the same as men, but then how are women’s brains proven to be different? How can we embrace the miracle of childbirth?

And how can you do unto men as some of them have done to us in past and present; categorize our entire sex simply because of the impression left by a few.

‘Women are emotional and soft, they belong in the kitchen.’

‘Men are selfish, sexist pigs who are lazy and think every job belongs to them.’

And then you want to turn and fight for the gay man’s rights? Because that’s the wrong difference to be embracing in that situation. That gay man is still a man, the same one you called a pig when you typed that Tweet last week.

Feminism isn’t about revenge. It’s about being seen as a normal human being, regardless of gender.

It’s proven that women will never have the same physicality of men, but why is that treated as a negative thing? Our bodies were built for different functions, but that’s what makes us amazing. Of course a woman can do almost anything she puts her mind to, but it might take some extra practice before a woman can lift the same weight of a competing man. And that’s okay. That’s not sexist. That’s just the way things are, and that’s no ones fault.

How can you ask me to ignore my brother’s background and culture, when his ancestors’ ways of life were so incredible and entrancing? I can’t call him a Latin-American. When his accent is gorgeous and stands out? But then you still want me to be respectful. I’m sorry, I didn’t know that calling him what he should be proud of and asking questions about his unique ways of life would be offensive.

Yes, I understand some people take it too far, but that’s not what I’m trying to address.

People who are racists or sexists are saying that these differences make the people in other groups less of human beings, but ignoring their differences doesn’t help the problem, it’s practically te equivalent of ignoring it.

Why yes, my black friend is just as intelligent, just as determined, just as kind as I am. But I’ll tell you what- I sure as heck cant stand out in a crowd like they can in their beautiful midnight skin.

[specifically towards Americans]

I don’t care if you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or something in between. In our minds, we’re all trying to do whats best for this country. We want to protect our home and we want to love our people.

Please don’t comment saying ‘Republicans only want violence and discrimination’ or anything like that because first of all, that’s discrimination. And second of all, I know plenty of lovey, kind, generous Republicans. And please don’t comment ‘Liberals are confused and overly-sensitive cowards’ or anything like that because that’s not true either, for the same reasons, and is also discrimination.

Frankly, I’m tired of hearing all that. It sometimes feels like everyone’s so extremist that they’ll do anything nowadays to insult or put down the other side.

That doesn’t mean you always have to agree, it just means that sometimes a little bit of empathy and understanding- the acknowledgement that the other side(s) are people too- helps create that better world everyone’s talking about.

[For everyone]

If you find that you might be saying or doing some of the things I’ve said here, ignoring instead of embracing, that’s alright. You were trying to help the cause for equality in your way, but maybe try this instead. Because this way, we can all support each other. Love, don’t ignore, right?

We are all humans (unless you’re a potato or a magical cat or an alien, but then this also applies to you). We are all different. Embrace that, and never forget it. Because somewhere along the line, we are all just souls trying to make our way through this crazy world, and we all need to show a little kindness, wouldn’t you say?

You, reader, are unique. In your own ways, you are special. And I love you. You should too, because you’re amazing.

[Authors Note]

Hello there! Wrote this little diddy a little late last night, I hope you enjoyed! If I’ve offended anyone, I’m sorry but this is the way I feel, and I hope you can understand that. To anyone wondering, yes I am a white female living in the US in case that wasn’t obvious enough lol. I won’t disclose my political party, (whether I identify with one or not), because that’s dangerous grounds to tread lol. I hope you enjoyed, and may the force be with you, always.

[migleefulmoments]

Once again, ccers have labeled some of their favorite fairytale tropes as indisputable facts.

Cassie: 

**************************************************************************************

Anonymous asked:  Okay I’m trying to figure out why people believe C/C is a thing. Not saying you are wrong, I just have 0 context to go on and you seem to have an interesting outlook. Would you mind telling me the background to this? Or why people believe D is in the closet? (Also I’m curious why nobody uses their names and instead letters).

Cassie: Nonnie, that’s a tall order. There’s SO much that absolutely indicates M is a beard and CC is most definitely real (not true. There is NOTHING to prove Mia is a beard or that cc is real).  Not the least of which is the absolute adoration on D’s face whenever he looks at or talk about C. (Wait, so your biggest and best evidence is that Darren looks at Chris with love and adoration? That isn’t proof of anything except for your own bias, your Harlequin Romance ideas about love and that you don’t understand what constitutes “proof”).  I’ve never once seen him look at M that way and usually when he is forced to speak about her, he does it in an almost offhand way and I don’t think it’s EVER in a complimentary way (”Ever” was her typo. This statement is not only NOT proof of a relationship but it isn’t even untrue. The cc fandom picks and chooses the evidence that confirms their bias and proves their point. Darren has looked at Mia with love and adoration and has said sweet things to her.  He also married her which trumps all of the goo-goo eyes they imagine he’s given Chris over the years). He’s said she’s a big girl when told people were bullying her, referred to her as a ball and chain (NO he referred o himself as a “ball and chain”), and frankly, he treats her badly (NOT TRUE. If it was true I don’t understand what you guys even like about him.  A man who treats his wife badly is a dick). He’s repeatedly slammed car doors in her face, walks as far ahead of her as he can, (Both of those scenarios were to avoid paparazzi photos of them together. It’s impossible for us to understand what it is like to have people taking our picture and making up stories about us so we can't compare this behavior to our lives.) got in the car for the sham mockery and left her to fend for herself in that monstrosity she called a wedding gown to try and get into the car (Yes, that is what all grooms do.  That is why the bride has attendants), and shook her hand at one of the first big events they attended after they had supposedly been dating for over a year (This is another flat out lie. As I debunked- Mia and Darren were photographed standing together before the red carpet and he introduced her as his girlfriend to another person standing near them. See what I mean they pick and choose to prove their point even if it means lying)   Contrast that with how reverently he speaks about C and how conscious he always seemed to be when they were in public together and there’s no contest (He tells the exact same story every time. Wonder why?)  The love sick puppy with his whole face lit up like a Christmas tree appears whenever C is mentioned (What are you 12? Nobody who is over the age of 12 and mentally sound believes that puppy dog eyes are proof of a relationship).  Paying attention to background moments is important (In other words slow it down, gif it, add music, repeat lies and notice the small stuff while ignoring the big stuff and maybe you can find cc in all the proof that Darren and Mia are happily married. Hear with your eyes because you will never find cc if you don’t). you will never If you need more, I suggest going through some of the bigger CC blogs and reading them.

As to why we use their initials and not their names means it doesn’t appear when their names are searched.

Anonymous asked: Okay more questions! Didn’t M and D start dating before G/lee? During their college years too right? And I assumed it was to avoid it being searched but it it for reasons? Maybe to avoid rude fans that disagree?

Cassie: Nonnie, if you believe the current version they are spinning, they met pre G/lee, as for when they started “dating,” well, it’s changed so many times I’ve lost track. I think the latest is 2011, but I’m not sure. (There are photos o them lying on next to each other one what is clearly a date with Darren’s pre-Blaine haircut so they have been dating since early- to mid-2010)  They tried to say before G/lee, but D blew that outta the water when he said he had never been committed to anything as long as he had G/lee during one of the interviews he did near when it ended (It is not rational to throw away all of the evidence that they dated before Glee- photos, comments from Darren and MIa and from friends in exchange for one offhand comment he gave to a reporter. This is a perfect example of how the fandom uses confirmation bias t  guide their beliefs)   Honestly, if anyone can keep the ever changing timeline in order, they deserve a reward. D sure as hell can’t. (Just because Darren isn’t. sharing dates with the fandom doesn’t mean he doesn’t know. This is a silly analogy Cassie if one of your students used this type of argument, I know you would shut it down)   They went to college in different parts of the country and M is older than D. 

I could give two shits less about fans that disagree. I don’t use their names in case THEY (or D’s collection of dumbasses that make up his team) search things here (Wait, so you hide the names so that if Darren’s team can’t find it but Abby has said many times that Darren reads your blogs daily and his team does as well? They even change their plans based on what you say.  This is confusing Cassie). The “fans” that don’t agree see everything we post, as they incessantly stalk our blogs and respond directly to what we say. I stopped bothering to see what they were saying a LONG time ago. It’s always the same old crap. But hey, hope they enjoy spending all their time writing epic posts about my fandom that get three notes, maybe four (You should DEFINITELY read my blog, it would keep you from making a fool of yourself believing something that is so obviously untrue because you would see could read about how your “proof” is all untrue. I have debunked the majority of the cc lexicon and  provided evidence to back me up) 

Hi is it okay if you could tell me when WS came into C’s life as a person who’s seen more than a friend? Like when and how long before the hand holding crap. I have no motive or am trying to start any fight, I am just really curious.

Cassie: To the best of my knowledge W first appeared with C in December 2011. (Wrong December 2012) The super awkward hand holding was June 2013, on the 12th, if memory serves. (Sure, I will beleive you) The day D was confirming M as the ball and chain. Never forget that France has super strict paparazzi laws to protect celebs. Everything released has to be with approval, unless something has changed. (We have photographic proof that Chris sat on Will’s lab at Naya’s party 12/7/12. We have a pic of Will kissing Chris at Coachella 4/13. The fact that you believe it happened on “confirmation day” is only because that is what Abby repeats but it isn’t true)

Anonymous asked: Thank you for responding to my WS question, so that means the tame bearding started when C said that stuttering thing implying there’s someone on An/dy’s show. Not surprising tbh. Kinda sad CC literally had to hide from like day 1, hope they won’t have to one day.

cassie1022 answered: Nonnie, you’re exactly correct about when it started with C. He definitely didn’t mean W when he made that comment on AC’s show. It is sad that they’ve had to hide for so long, but I’m hopeful that won’t always be the case. (The Andy Cohen interview was on April 2014. How in the hell Cassie can agree that the “bearding” was tame after that interview when we have Chris on Will’s lap 12/7/12 and a kiss in April 2013 at Coachella. Darren and Mia had been dating for at least 4 years by the time Chris did this interview It’s ridiculous that you can claim that it “definitely wasn't Will” The truth is you have no insight into who Chris was speaking of and all evidence points to Will.  Stop living in your imagination).  

***************************************************************************************

Whenever i see anything m related…Anon

ajw720 Hi nonnie, I am not posting your ask because i can already see the hate coming my way, but i need to make a comment. M’s job is to beard for D, her job, for which she is compensated well. Part of that job is to hide his sexuality. And as part of it, she is supposed to enhance his public image, it is literally her job to look good on his arm and to not embarrass him. (Abby, you know that you have no proof of this and to surmise that “It is literally Mia’s job to look good on his arm and to not embarrass him” is you once again embellishing your own fabricated stories about a man and woman you know nothing about.  It’s really not healthy for you to be living this deep inside your fantasy.  You are getting too specific Your theory that Mia is simply Darren’s arm candy and nothing more proves that YOU have no idea what a feminism is). 

And frankly, aside from her deluded stans, she does the complete opposite, constantly and all the time. It is not badass to vomit on stage and boast about it.  It is not woke or feminist to have offensive, derogatory, and misogynistic themes and decor at a bar she owns and that D is publicly attached to, I would imagine it is against the CA health code to have naked women gyrating on the bar where they serve drinks. (You would imagine? Come on Abby, you're a lawyer, you know you're full of shit. They weren’t naked and people step on the bar all the time. I have never seen you rage about that. You have no understanding of what “woke’ is or what feminists believe.)    It isn’t cool to wear a boob shirt to a professional event your public partner created that is marketed as family-friendly (Are you scared of boobs Abby? You have been to Elsie and it isn’t full of 2 yo’s. Darren has a potty mouth at Elise and I’ve never seen you be upset that his mouth isn’t family-friendly)   It is completely insensitive to be mad that a young man tragically died because it interfered with her interview (This is so overblown.  That wasn’t what she was doing and it’s time you stop using this to rally your troops, it’s a low blow and it isn’ true).  It is frankly criminal in my opinion to raise money from fans and then not use it for the stated cause (another untrue “fact” you keep repeating.  The money was for the project they completed).  And I could go on all day (yes becuase you’ve made most of them up yourself).  She is harmful to his image and becomes increasingly more so every day (This is untrue- she is his wife and Darren is about to have his best professional period in the next 6 months.  I have never seen one bad work about MIa that wasn’t directly tied to the cc fandom, in other words, nobody outside the fandom dislikes Mia and she isn’t negatively impacting his image.  Their wedding was extensively written about and on several best wedding lists without one bad word about Mia which also proves she isn’t hurting his image. You have also been saying this since 2015= of it got worse every day it would be 1,825x worse than when you first mentioned it)  And any team that cared about their client would have removed him from the situation years ago.  And if they needed him to be straight, get him a beard with ambition beyond being a beard.   

*************************************************************************************************

Anonymous asked: What happened with Mia, why everyone hates her? I'm new at this :(

chrisdarebashfulsmiles answered: A/non this is a long story. A lot of us tried to ignore her as much as possible for years (Bwahahahah the lack of self-image is overwhelming)  You of course already know that she’s a beard ( honestly not an opinion but a fact proven by a lot of things, public and not (NOT TRUE) - let’s talk about her living with her real bf “and D” for example) (Again I have disproved this trope, They don’t even comprehend that Ben has a live-in girlfriend and has been with her for a while now) and this wouldn’t have been a problem if she wasn’t the daughter of a powerful couple (jealous much? This wouldn’t be a problem if her parents weren't rich? WTF?)) and she was kind enough to truly love other people than herself (This trope is so untrue. Mia’s friends adore her and comment on how great she is.)   Because in that case she would have been a perfect beard and a wonderful friend for D. (It’s hilarious that she believes this is a valid argument) But unfortunately for D mostly the reality is way different (and yet Darren has never made one comment that suggests Mia is a beard, he is with Chris - in fact they have both denied they were in a relationship- or that he’s unhappy. This trope is 100% cc fabricated).

I can say to you, while suggesting to keep an eye for some posts about her here, that we have public video and post reporting how much awful she could be with D and his fans (I’m curious about this-anybody know what she is talking about?)  Or we wanna talk also about her fans? With the excuse of going full bearding following D everywhere every time ( obviously she talked about grueling work and heavy travel schedule in 2015) she and his group stole the money asked with a fundraising for a new video. And don’t forget: She’s rich AF. (Again, so jealous that her parents are rich-her parent’s money is not her money. She’s an adult. She didn’t steal the money for the video-they made the video Gorilla.  I’m going to write another post about this lie) 

Our despising is mostly related to the shit she does to D, tho.(Which the cc fandom has completely fabricated.  How would they have any info on what she. does to Darren? He’s never said one negative word about MIa) 

leka-1998 It’s been 2 years since they forced the encagement. Almost 1 year since the sham mockery and not even 1 month since everyone and their mother included it in their 2019 recap (Leka morphing into Abby.  As for posting -that is what friends and loved ones do. However, most of the “Recaps” were Top 9′s on Instagram and people don’t choose those pics, they are literally the TOP 9 liked posts of the year). And would you look at what’s happening, there are still people coming here wondering if something’s wrong.(Not a logical conclusion, they are reading your lies and then coming for answers) 

Archives here are a good place to start. Let me just say one thing. She’s mocked Cor/y’s death because an interview had to be rescheduled and she was not happy about it. She’s an all around bad person and the complete opposite of what D stands for. (And what exactly does Darren stand for? IT seems to me that he loves his wife and their life. His potty mouth and love of sex puns fit nicely with her).

Anonymous asked: Not the same anon, but for someone rich, M dresses really really badly. You would think rich people could dress themselves especially since they can actually afford a stylist lmao

chrisdarebashfulsmiles answered: I’m for the people right of choice of wear whatever they want tbh, anon (I stand for freedom of choice except if you are Mia....then I can trash everything about you).   Sometimes she is dressed by AW, sometimes by Lu/lu. The point is that most of the time she chooses the wrong dress alone because of her desire to be a ‘90 badass woman 20 years late. Something that I can understand because of my age but I also have to say that if you have to walk on a red carpet… You need to do it in the right way. She seems unable to understand this fact.(Everyone is free to be you and me except Mia who has to follow the patriarchal rules set forth by society 100 years ago: women are to be seen and not heard, should look pretty but be modest because it’s her responsibility to make sure men do not get boners when looking at her.She is supposed to wear new dresses according to Abby and they should be designer so as to look at Darren’s level. She has to look beautiful as defined by the ccers’ beauty standards or she is a labeled a bad person whom they are then free to bully).   

[thelightofthingshopedfor]

so, okay, I meant to do some looking back/looking ahead posts a week ago, but one of the things I’m trying to do this year is spend way less time self-flagellating about things that genuinely don’t matter, so I’ll just say that years and decades are basically human constructs and move on.

it’s been a weird decade, in general. in 2009, depending on the time of year you’re looking at, I was either finishing undergrad or starting grad school. I hadn’t really gotten into the MCU fandom because it basically didn’t exist yet, and the Loki aspect definitely didn’t. I was still living in a nice house and I don’t think my dad had moved out yet; at that point I had some idea that my parents could get their shit together. I got Scully about halfway through that year. I was just starting to get into video games, but I wouldn’t start learning console games for another year. I had just barely begun to question my conservative, evangelical upbringing, because in college I learned that gays and liberals weren’t just Bad People and then that feminism was maybe, actually, a reasonable point of view describing the world as it really was, instead of perpetual victims looking for things to take offense at. (when I say I was raised conservative...) I think I was identifying as a “conservative feminist,” at that point. I still basically didn’t swear, even if I’d at least gotten more okay with hearing it. I can’t remember exactly when I first encountered the idea of asexuality, but I think I was tentatively identifying as “demisexual but still basically straight” when I finished grad school two years later, and it took even longer to realize how Not Straight I am and to start identifying as queer in general.

in 2009, if someone asked me to imagine where I’d be in 10 years, I probably would’ve assumed I’d be married to a dude and I might even have kids, so like...there’s that.

there are other things I assumed/hoped I’d do that still disappoint me, mostly in relation to finishing and publishing some original fiction, but...honestly, I did do a lot. I graduated from college and then grad school (and wrote a thesis for both, plus a paper I’m still proud of about Tess of the D’urbervilles that represented my early understanding of rape culture), and I learned from teaching freshman English as a TA that I absolutely do not ever want to teach. I spent a long time trying to get a decent job and finally ended up with one that actually makes use of my education, and I’ve had it for five years. I did some freelance editing and I was pretty damn good at it, even if it was also kind of miserable. I got majorly into a new fandom and met a lot of great people because of it (and wrote a decent amount of fic). I went to several conventions and got into cosplay. I did some more international traveling, some of it completely by myself. I played a whole bunch of video games, which was a great new hobby. I got into customizing action figures and opened a little Etsy shop. I started collecting Loki stuff. I got a tattoo. I had a seizure and was in a car accident (unrelated and several years apart, but they were both...alarming). I dealt with my parents’ protracted divorce, which is also the biggest thing that made me recognize the fundamental hypocrisy of what I’d always been taught. I loved Scully with all my heart for almost the entire decade, and when he finally got really sick, I made an incredibly hard decision because I wanted to do right by him and said goodbye to my furry little boy. I adopted Hazy probably too soon after, so the transition was a little tough, but pretty quickly I discovered I loved her with all my heart too. I did a lot of work to manage my depression and anxiety; I also spent several months feeling much more actively suicidal than I ever had before, and I survived it. I gradually made an 180° shift in my convictions about--well, politics, but really everything else too, and I got a lot more politically engaged because of it. I woke up to a whole lot of realities about the world, basically. I started regularly calling my representatives, wrote at least a couple hundred postcards to voters, and volunteered with a couple local campaigns (one was unsuccessful, but I also spent some time working to defeat a nasty bathroom bill, and we won that one). I gradually realized I was super asexual, and then that I was also aromantic, and then that I was hella queer in general. I went to Pride for the first time. I started realizing I probably have ADHD and trying to get help for it (no luck so far, but...I’m working on it).

aside from not publishing anything, the one really negative thing about the past decade is...I feel like I’ve lost a lot friends. nothing dramatic happened, but it was easy to drift apart from people I knew in college and grad school after I graduated and I wasn’t with them all the time. the part that bothers me more is the friends I originally met online. a few of them stopped talking to me entirely and I never knew why; others have just kind of drifted even though I’ve tried my best to keep them, and I miss them, and I really...don’t know what to do about that. (I mean, is there any possible way a conversation that boils down to “why don’t you talk to me much anymore” or “do you still care about me in general” is going to go well? because I figure there isn’t.)

in general, though--it’s been a weird, long decade. waking up to the realities of injustice has been tough because it means I spend a lot of time trying not to despair about those realities, and in some ways it was a lot easier when my views were more black and white and I didn’t realize just how ugly life could be. I’m a lot angrier, to be honest (and a lot more existentially exhausted). but...between recognizing my own queerness and gradually shedding the toxic beliefs that informed the first 2/3 of my life, I feel like...I have a much better idea of who I am as a person. I am far, far more fully myself than I was when I just believed what I’d always been taught about the world and about the supposedly default states of being, and I like that person a lot more. I’m really, really proud of myself for how much I’ve changed over the past decade, because frankly that was a lot of work and it’s hard just getting to a point where you can realize that maybe everything you’d always taken for granted was wrong, especially when nearly everyone else in your life still believed it and didn’t understand why you’d reject what they’d always taught you. so that’s really not bad, in terms of things I accomplished, and that’s something I need to remember. 

[stopqueeringthebible]

Hi. Here are some actual answers, from a physically disabled person.

The relatively tiny number of people you're talking about are mentally ill in a way that affects their perception of their own bodies. The mismatch causes genuine distress, and can make it difficult to use the body parts that they perceive as impaired or missing. I do have mixed feelings about the way some of them approach the entire subject, but I'm not going to pretend these are just... perfectly healthy people who want to be disabled for fun. There is something actually wrong, and I would hesitate to even call the body parts themselves "healthy" at that point.

Transgender people choose to "cut off healthy body parts" for multiple reasons. The two most often cited are debilitating depression/anxiety stemming from having the "wrong" body parts—some of which actively produce hormones that intensify gender dysphoria, so again, the word "healthy" is extremely subjective—and literal physical safety because they cannot pass without surgery, and they're being harassed.

Both of these types of people would be much less notable if society improved in the relevant ways.

A person who doesn't physically need a wheelchair but uses one anyway is offensive because wheelchair-accessible spaces and resources are so limited. Parking spots, event seating, public transport options, housing, scooters for public use, etc. In a world where that's not an issue, I honestly don't care if the guy behind me on the well-maintained, appropriately sloped ramp is using his chair for physical or psychological reasons.

Similarly, if society wasn't so aggressively gendered, trans people would not stick out, and frankly far fewer of them would even bother with physical changes.

Maybe Susan didn't particularly want facial feminization surgery, but she was fired from two previous jobs because of her appearance before she decided to get it. Maybe Jeff didn't particularly want top surgery, but people kept staring.

And let's not pretend the intended targets of this kind of scrutiny are even the only ones who end up suffering for it.

Maybe Max is just a butch lesbian who likes to wear suits, maybe Beth is a cis woman who had a double mastectomy because of breast cancer, maybe Andrew is just short and can't grow a beard, maybe it's none of our business.

Maybe that man stood up from his wheelchair in the grocery store because he has a complex medical condition that lets him stand for short periods of time, and it's easier than asking a stranger for help. Maybe the woman hurrying out of the handicap stall needed the handrails to stand back up. Maybe the person with the dark glasses and white-tipped cane has enough residual vision to see when someone is waving at them, and so they waved back.

Please, at the very least, do not double down on policing disabled people who you assume are "faking" because of this connection you've made. We get enough of that, and it's not because of the absolutely minuscule number of people who have encountered actual fakers. It's because people make the assumptions they've been taught to make, and there's a part of the human brain that would rather believe someone is faking than that they're actually suffering.

My coworker just said she heard about this concept of "trans-abled", where a healthy person identifies as disabled and uses a wheelchair, acting like they are actually physically impaired.

And when I pointed out that yes, that's crazy offensive to people with an actual disability, she agreed. Also about the idea of cutting of healthy body parts because you want to be an amputee being very unhealthy and a psychologically significant event that should be treated.

Now I'm fighting so hard not to ask her "so since you agree on the above. Why would a man identifiying as a woman not fit into the same pattern? He's trying to identify as something he's not, offending the people whose reality he's trying to emulate, and he's potentially seeking to damage his healthy body since he has delusions about it. What's the difference?"

Demanding access to services and spaces that are reserved for the group you're trying to "identify" as not even mentioned.

But in this atmosphere, even asking is seen as hateful.

[cherry3point14]

ALONE | BUMPED HER HEAD AND BRUISED HER SOUL

DESCRIPTION: You can’t begin to believe how close you were to death, or how much you wouldn’t have cared to go. 

SERIES MASTERLIST

[Chapter One takes place before EP5 of S9. Eventual Dean x Reader. Characters: Dean, Sam, Reader, OFC (Readers Sister) Warnings: light violence I guess. Also, there’s talk of a butt for one whole line]

It might be the drinks you've been sipping for the past few hours or the fact that you haven't eaten much of the meal in front of you, but either way you wink at your little sister and mutter under your breath as the waiter walks away, "bounce a nickel off that thing, right?"

She wrinkles her nose at you but there's laughter in her eyes, "you're such a perv."

You both suddenly dissolve into fits of giggles, like you have since you were kids when forming an in-joke or planning a masterful prank. You have matching laugh lines around your eyes as you laugh, and it ends with you both falling back against the leather booth seats and waggling your eyebrows at each other. You're not sure there's a better sound in the world than you both laughing together like this.

Even though you've spent the last few days with your sister, while you visit her and her new apartment, it feels like it's been years. It feels like long enough that your heart aches for seeing her again and you want nothing more than to soak up every second. When you'd first seen her, you'd felt like something was off, but you'd ignored it just as quickly because she was there in front of you. Her eyes sparkling, her hair wet from the shower and her sweatpants as ragged and worn as they had always been.

Now you're sitting in this tiny restaurant days later and nothing had changed. You were still constantly struck by the need to greedily hoard every joke and memorize every expression. It was a weirdness she had been constantly calling you out on, but you had no explanation. You'd just stare at her all doe-eyed and tell her you'd missed her.

"So this guy…" you begin almost feigning indifference. Almost.

She rolls her shoulders like the question might roll off her back with enough effort, a habit of hers you'd forgotten, "I'm just not ready for you to meet him and give him the third degree is all."

You scoff into your glass, hiding a grin, "I am not that bad."

"Not that bad? Not that… you do remember what happened to Scott, the poor schlub who actually dared ask me to prom?" She eyes you suspiciously like you're planning a repeat performance.

You remembered well enough. You, being five years older than your dear sister, had shown up at school to pick her up the following day, found the boy in question, and then proceeded to give him a very detailed lecture that touched on feminism, respect, and your sisters right to choose her prom date. But that also included your right to choose where to bury him if she came home upset or assaulted in any way. What Sophie hadn’t understood at the time was you weren’t just her sister, you were as much her mother and father too. 

You held up your hands in mock defeat, "so I was… overprotective. I'm practically a different person now."

And the strange thing was you were different, but you couldn't explain why. All you knew is that there was an insufferable gnawing in the pit of your stomach, like an itch you couldn't quite reach. You were older and wiser, but your sister? She was just the same as she had been years ago. It should have been off-putting that she'd remained a snapshot of a personality frozen in time while you had changed with the years, except you refused to see it. Instead, you allowed yourself to be convinced her new charmed life was the same as growth. The job she always wanted, the decent sized apartment not far from work, and now the so-called perfect guy. Well, the perfect guy she wouldn't introduce you to.

You reached out your hand across the table, like so many other times this weekend, suddenly needing physical contact with her. You ran your thumb over her knuckles drawing her in for a serious moment, "but promise me, next time I'm in town? I swear I'll be nice, I just want you to be happy."

"Yeah, yeah. Don't worry. I can't keep him away from my best big sister for too long."

"I'm your only big sister," you reminded, acting offended by drawing your hand back and placing it over your chest.

She raised her glass to your mocking, "wouldn't have it any other way, sis."

After a little more teasing about her mystery man, asking if he was the one and making sure he was treating her right, you decided to call it quits on the evening since it could only last so long. There was no way you were going to finish the food in front of you. The thought of eating it and letting it bloat you any further made you feel sick to even consider it. Not when you could feel the alcohol in your system buzzing away and, along with your sister's presence, it all made you feel light enough to float away if no one held on to you. It was one of those perfect early summer evenings. Warm enough that you didn't need a jacket but not so humid that everything felt sticky. How you'd got this lucky to be spending an evening like this you didn't know and frankly, you didn't want to question it.

You lured over the waiter again with what you thought was a charming smile but likely looked ridiculous on account of the alcohol in your system. "Can we get the check please?" you hummed. 

"You're already paying for a hotel room instead of staying with me, at least let me buy you dinner!" She whined suddenly giving you a flashback to her as a child. All pigtails and high-pitched squeals.

"Nah uh, short stack." You teased as you waved your card at the returning waiter.

It was after signing the receipt when you stood up and reached for your bag, that you noticed the hazy quality of the street lamps you could see through the windows. They were almost blurry and not in the you've-had-too-much-to drink way. Like there was something wrong with them like they were made of the wrong stuff or…

"Move it, some of us have work tomorrow." Sophie bumped your shoulder with hers snapping you back from wherever your mind wandered to. It was just the glass distorting the light, you decided. Although you made a conscious effort not to look at the lights again when you got outside, instead slipping an arm into Sophie's and hurrying her in the direction of the waiting taxi. Like you didn't want to risk finding out something wasn't right about the evening.

In the back of the cab, you laughed a few more times and made rushed plans for the 4th of July before the car stopped outside of an impressive apartment building, "text me when you're home," you insisted as she slipped out onto the sidewalk.

She pulled a face at you as you rolled down the window, and grandly gestured behind her, "erm, it's right there."

You rolled your eyes, "you know what I mean. When you're home and the door is locked. You know, when you're inside your home dummy."

"You're such a weirdo."

"Your favorite weirdo. Love you!" You nodded to the driver that he could carry on to your destination.

"Yeah love you too. Text me when you're inside your LOCKED hotel room, freak!" she called after the car as it pulled away. 

Your lips stretched into a grin as you sunk back into yet another seat, comfier than any taxi you remember but then again this was the city, maybe things were just nicer here. You lived outside of a small town across the country so you probably couldn't compare expectations for public transportation.

The breeze from the window you'd left open whirled about you as the cab rounded corners and avenues. You couldn't help smiling to yourself, amused by the cool air whipping your hair around your face, as a child might be.

"Do you want me to close that?" the driver asked into his rear-view mirror, unable to see your face and gauge if it was bothering you.

"Nah, I'm good." And you were. Really good. Comfortable. Happy and—

Cold. Why were you so cold?

Why was everything so much darker than you remembered? Your arms were heavy above you and your wrists stung from keeping your body suspended above the floor. The toes of your boots barely able to reach the concrete below. And that's when it happened. The flood of realization that you weren't, in fact, sitting in a comfortable cab on a warm summer evening but you were surrounded by darkness and a world of monsters. Something sharp was buried in your neck and you could hear movement. The weight of stormy footsteps and muffled voices.

That's when they appeared. One of them, the offensively tall one, immediately started working on the ropes that bound you to the ceiling while the shorter one, although still taller than you, lifted your head with the crook of his finger to take note of your fluttering eyelids while he gently pulled the IV needle from your neck. They were all sharp jawlines and strong eyes the pair of them. Close enough to be the only things in focus among the blurry world that was still coming back to you.

"She's alive, must have snapped out of it when we killed the son of a bitch. We've gotta get her out of here." He commanded his friend.

Your throat felt like it was burning, like sandpaper against a stone, and you rubbed at your neck to try to ease the feeling once your arms swung free from the ceiling, "both of them?"

"What?" they snapped in unison, surprised that you were even speaking.

"You killed both of them?" you croaked again but you didn't need to wait for their answer because you could see it now. A flash in the darkness, two glowing blue eyes appeared from nowhere and began approaching the three of you bringing on waves of Déjà vu.  Flashes of the hunt, finding the place, the dead girls, and nearly killing one of them only to be caught in their trap.

But both the men in front of you were seemingly unaware of the approaching danger while they focused on your face.  

You were weaker than normal. Drained of not just your blood but a vast amount of your strength, still your reactions were no less impressive in the face of impending danger. You yanked the blood-soaked knife from the man who had cut you down and elbowed the guy in front of you before launching yourself forward with every possible ounce of energy you had left. A grunt echoed off the walls for your effort, the noise catapulting you forward as much as the adrenaline until you felt the satisfying contact. The Djinn's face frozen in shock as his meal turned into his demise.

The blade dug into his chest but burrowed deeper into his heart as you fell forward, the weight of your body landing on top of the parasite with your hands trapped between you, still wrapped around the handle of the knife. For a moment you didn't breathe. You were motionless enough laying on top of him that you might be dead. Watching his face closely with your own, waiting for any sign that you hadn't killed the bastard.

When you were finally satisfied you rolled sideways off of the now dead Djinn and gasped for air or hope, anything. Reeling in the truth that nothing had been real. Not your well-adjusted sister with her hopes and dreams or your arguably boring life as a mildly popular newspaper columnist, hidden in a cabin away from the world. No. She was still as dead as she had been before the Djinn sent you off to wonderland and you were still living a lonely and dangerous life hunting the scum you didn't even want on the bottom of your shoe.

That’s when you realized you were shaking. You'd almost allowed it. You'd been so happy to stay there watching her grow up that you ignored every red flag. There had been no fight in you, nothing tethering you to this reality full of violence and hard decisions. And now you'd been dragged back here, forced to carry on living, knowing what you could have had back there. You don't need to say it out loud to know the truth, you'd have happily died there, just like those girls before you.

But there was no time for the tears that threatened to spill over your cheeks, there was never time. You felt two pairs of strong hands lift you up as gently as possible. Gripping you and barely touching you at the same time.

"So you're a hunter?" the shorter one asked.

All you managed to grumble before the blood rushing to your head made everything dark again was, "good guess Columbo."

Continue to Chapter Two

[radfemetc]

When Bindels speak*

Fourteen years ago, in an opinion column in The Guardian provocatively entitled ‘Gender Benders, Beware’, lesbian feminist activist Julie Bindel wrote that:

“I don’t have a problem with men disposing of their genitals, but it does not make them women, in the same way that shoving a bit of vacuum hose down your 501s does not make you a man.”

I vaguely remember reading this at the time, slightly bemused both at the piece and then at the subsequent outraged public reaction to it. Fast forward to a few months ago, and I’ve just published some blog pieces which, though not reaching Bindelesque proportions, have proved moderately controversial in my discipline, academic philosophy. As I discuss and defend my views on social media, and watch others discuss them, the name of Julie Bindel comes up repeatedly, as an example of company which, it is presumed, I absolutely don’t want to keep. A well-established male philosopher intones repeatedly about Bindel’s ‘offensive, transphobic’ comments in the past. Another describes her to me as a ‘loopy extremist’, and ‘potty’. I go back to find the article online and rather disbelievingly check whether it’s the same one I vaguely remember. It is.

Now, to attempt to mitigate against such perceptions, which perhaps you share, I could tell you about Bindel’s frankly stunning track record of effective activism, working on behalf of natal women and girls world-wide with an energy and bravery which borders on heroic. I could tell you that the context of her Guardian piece was partly a discussion of an attempt by trans women Kimberley Nixon to sue Vancouver Rape Relief for not allowing her to work with traumatised natal women fleeing male sexual violence: a case which rumbled on for another three years before Nixon lost, costing the shelter thousands of dollars to defend against. I could point out that the idiom of the piece was clearly intended to be comic, colourful, and frank, and was pretty funny in several places; for instance:

“When I were a lass, new to feminism and lesbianism, I was among the brigade who would sit in the women’s disco wearing vegetarian shoes and staring in disbelief at the butch/femme couples, mainly because they were having a better time than me”.

I could tell you that even so, she later apologised ‘unreservedly’ for writing the article. I could point out that many of the things she says in the piece are prescient, and over time have only got more troubling: worries about how trans ideology often essentialises wholly sexist gender stereotypes about masculine and feminine behaviour; about the development of a culture apparently in favour of cutting off parts of healthy bodies if one is ‘unhappy with the constraints of .. gender’; and about the harmful implied message sent by this culture to butch lesbians and camp gay men. And I could also easily manifest the anger I felt, as I read these online comments from middle-class heterosexual males, typing smugly and contemptuously about one moment fourteen years ago in the life of a working-class lesbian, who has devoted most of the rest of that life to addressing issues such as child grooming, sex trafficking, prostitution, and cross-border surrogacy; doing activism in the field, and not just from the armchair.

But to cite these facts as exculpatory of Bindel would suggest that an ordinary woman who had said roughly the same thing as her– that is, that trans women aren’t, in fact, women — and yet who was not already a heroic feminist defender of natal women, or who wasn’t partly talking about an odiously selfish individual such as Nixon, would be at fault. I deny this too. That is, I reject the near-pathological zeal with which trans activists, ‘trans allies’, and ‘woke blokes’ generally, seek to monitor and control natal women’s language in this domain: not just with respect to discussing whether trans women are actually women, but also in uses of particular names and pronouns, and gender attributions.

The statement “transwomen are women” has become a kind of mantra for so-called progressives. To understand what it is meant by it, we need to distinguish the use of that phrase, in those mouths, from two other contexts. One of those involves a claim about the law. Since 2004, those in the UK with a Gender Recognition Certificate are counted as having had their gender ‘reassigned’. This is not, and was never intended to be, any pronouncement on a biological fact. It is in fact impossible for a child or adult to biologically change sex. (I’m prepared to offer arguments for this, if needed, but most readers will, I hope, accept it as true). Nor was this law supposed to pronounce definitively on the question of whether a trans woman with a GRC ‘really is’ a woman. The Gender Recognition Act was at most intended to allow for a legal status — that of ‘gender reassignment’ — for the purposes of access to certain protections under the law.

A second version of the claim “trans women are women” is uttered for therapeutic reasons. One basis for self-identifying as a trans person is the condition of gender dysphoria. It is assumed by many medical practitioners that, on diagnosis of this condition, treating a person ‘as if’ belonging to their self-identified gender is helpful to their well-being; whereas confronting them with their ‘birth-assigned’ gender, or the biological facts of their sex, is not. We might easily interpret this as a kind of benevolent role-playing or method-acting, extending from the medical practitioner out into the wider community: act as if a trans woman is a woman, in most social contexts. But this is completely compatible with denying that trans women really arewomen, in a more committed sense.

Somehow, though, in recent years, a respectful concern for the well-being of trans people has supposedly morphed into a literal claim about category membership: trans women really are women. That is: trans women belong unambiguously in the category of women; the concept of woman literally applies to them. For most trans activists, this is supposed to be true whether the trans woman is a post-operative transsexual, or a trans woman on hormones, or whether she belongs to the significant proportion of trans women who are neither. She ‘is’ a women, whether she transitioned in her teens, or in middle-age; whether thirty years ago, or yesterday. Moreover, for many trans activists, not only are trans women literally women, but if they have children, they can be mothers. If they have female partners, they can be lesbians. They can be victims of misogyny. And so on. One by one, the familiar words women have used to describe themselves tumble like a chain of dominoes.

Such claims are usually unargued-for. They are presented more as self-evident truths; the outcome of revelation, perhaps, or as some article of faith which it would be downright evil to try to deny or complicate. As this description suggests, agreement with such claims is ruthlessly socially enforced by trans activists. Not only are you not supposed to refer to or imply, in front of a trans person, any fact about their natally-bestowed gender or biological sex; you aren’t suppose to mention these, even in their absence. To do otherwise is sometimes called a form of ‘violence’. Even on a massive UK discussion forum like Mumsnet, in a thread about trans people written by gender-critical feminists and directed towards fellow gender-critical feminists, you aren’t supposed to mention it. Even on a Whatsapp group chat involving natal women working at the BBC, you aren’t supposed to mention it. It doesn’t matter if your subject matter is Labour party all-woman shortlists, what to do about children who think they are trans, medical discussions, biology teaching, or presumably, your own relatives; you are never, ever, eversupposed to describe trans women as men or male, ‘deadname’, ‘misgender’, or use the ‘wrong’ pronouns out loud. Even trans women themselves aren’t supposed to do these things: see the bullying treatment that trans women in the UK such as Miranda Yardley, Kristina Harrison, and Debbie Hayton get, when they deny that they themselves are ‘really’ women, and seek a different narrative.

This is in itself quite striking, as for other false claims about category membership, people are normally socially permitted to assert them. Take the claims: “Elton John is straight”. “Marvin Gaye is white”. Those claims are obviously false, but there was, presumably, no inward gasp of horror as you just read them. Now contrast with: “Caitlyn Jenner is a man”; “Lily Madigan is biologically male; he is a man”. Even though I mention these as exemplary sentences, rather than assert them myself, I assume that at least some readers think I just wrote something awful. Moreover, this is presumably not just the feeling that I showed a lack of respect for the addressee’s wishes; for if I tell you that the composer of the song ‘Rocket Man’ is Reginald Dwight, presumably you don’t think I just committed ‘violence’ against Elton John by ‘deadnaming’ him.

Writing down those phrases about Jenner and Madigan just now, but without quotation marks, would be enough to have me banned from Twitter. Articles have been removed from Medium for less. This is not, despite what opponents have sometimes suggested, because such statements are obviously morally equivalent to denying the personhood or humanity of those who are racially different to oneself. (Again, I’m happy to offer arguments for this — it won’t take long — but I leave it aside for the moment, on the assumption that most readers aren’t so sophomoric). Nor is it reasonable to think that hearing such statements will generally cause trans people to have thoughts of suicide, as is sometimes dramatically suggested by Owen Jones, in a way that means we should never utter them.

A better explanation seems to involve the thought that, should a speaker X publically refer to a trans person Y by their natally-bestowed name or pronouns, even out of the earshot of Y, Y might later find out about it; or at least, some other trans person might find out about it, and by extrapolation to their own case, be caused to experience a distressing episode of dysphoria. Equally, presumably, it is worried that if a trans woman overhears a general claim such as “trans women are men/ males”, she will be caused great distress; perhaps too, a trans man might be caused great distress, again by extrapolating to his own case.

However, this reasoning clearly has limits. If gender critical feminists are talking to each other on a discussion thread clearly advertised for the purpose, or in a Whatsapp group, then it just seems too demanding to require they talk a certain way, just in case a trans woman or trans man reads or ‘hears’ them. The trans woman in question would almost certainly have to be specially looking. Quite often trans activists will equate misgendering along the lines of going up to a trans person and screaming ‘you’re a man!’ in their face(always ‘screaming’, of course). Obviously this isn’t what is happening in the contexts just mentioned: this is natal women talking to other natal women, about matters of great importance to them, as such, and with no reasonable expectation that they will be accidentally ‘overheard’.

In any case: even if one can foresee that trans people will overhear when one denies that trans women are women — is that a compelling reason not to say what one thinks? It rather depends on what is at stake. It was part of the original argument of my blog pieces that rather a lot is currently at stake in the UK with respect to this matter. There are several conflicts of interest that arise between trans women, as a category, and women, as a category, competing for the same spaces and resources. Trans activists seem to think that natal women should accede to all their demands. In that context, I think natal women should be allowed to speak freely in a critical way about the underpinnings of trans activist views. If natal women conclude after consideration that trans women aren’t women, they should be able to say so, whether or not they’re ultimately right.

Partly too, though, I think that the moral horror which unconsciously accompanies ‘misgendering’ in particular is, perversely, an artefact of sexist normative stereotypes for natal women and men. We tend to frame statements like “Caitlyn Jenner is a man/ male” in terms of insults launched at ‘butch’ or ‘manly’ natal women. The combination of a woman’s name and the epithet ‘man’ or ‘male’ sounds insulting, automatically. Compare: “Kathleen Stock is a man”. Were you to hear someone else saying this, perhaps you would empathically imagine me hearing the same thing and finding it distressing or embarrassing; you might assume that as a woman, I must aspire to the norm of a feminised appearance, and must suffer if I miss the mark. But — of course — to say e.g. that “Caitlyn Jenner is a man” isn’t an insult, in many contexts in which it is uttered. It is, in the mouths of many, a descriptive fact, not a slur or insult. Indeed, arguably it could only be an insult in the way just indicated, if in fact the speaker already assumed that Caitlyn Jenner was a woman. And this is, precisely, not assumed by those that tend to say it.

What else might underly the reaction to Bindel, in particular? I’m sure that part of it is to do with another sexist assumption: that women cannot be bawdy, frank, or colourful in their language; they must be sober, measured, cautious, responsible, kind. At this point we might as well also revisit Germaine Greer’s statement from the Victoria Derbyshire show in 2015:

“Just because you lop off your penis and then wear a dress doesn’t make you a fucking woman .. I’ve asked my doctor to give me long ears and liver spots and I’m going to wear a brown coat but that won’t turn me into a fucking cocker spaniel.”

This is a vividly Rabelaisian way of making the basic claim — which I have argued that natal women should be freely permitted to make, whether or not it is true — that trans women aren’t women. It caused an enormous fuss at the time, and is still regularly cited, along with other such statements, as evidence of Greer’s ‘transphobia’. Yet in her brilliant and funny seminal work of feminism The Female Eunuch, published in 1970, it is clear from Greer’s discussion of April Ashley that she held the same position then as she does now. Greer expresses herself frankly about many things, and always has. See also, for instance, this brutal passage, also from The Female Eunuch, about female students in Universities:

“Their energy is all expended on conforming with disciplinary and other requirements, not in gratifying their own curiosity about the subject that they are studying, and so most of it is misdirected into meaningless assiduity. This phenomenon is still very common among female students, who are forming a large proportion of the arts intake at universities, and dominating the teaching profession as a result. The process is clearly one of diminishing returns: the servile induce servility to teach the servile, in a realm where the unknown ought to be continually assailed with all the human faculties: education cannot be, and has never been a matter of obedience”. (p.75)

Now, you very possibly disagree with this, and so do I. And the style may not be to your taste. You might prefer your lady writers hedged, scholarly, sympathetic, and so on. Myself, I find it refreshing, like a bucket of cold salt water has been chucked over me after days of humid air. That is of course, compatible with saying that I disagree with a lot of what Greer says: as I have a mind of my own, this is hardly surprising. But whether Greer is to your taste or not, it is simply obvious that we don’t police colourful derogatory male speech in anything like the same way, whether the males in question are talking about natal women/ females, or even trans people.

The constant harping of progressive men on supposedly salutary examples like Bindel and Greer sends a message to natal women. Don’t say what you think. Don’t express an opinion on what women are; leave it to trans women to decide that. Don’t be assured. Don’t be bold. Don’t be whimsical or linguistically playful. Don’t try to be funny. Watch your mouth. Given the typical circumstances of female socialisation, natal women are already highly susceptible to such messages, and to feeling shame as a result. So here’s a task for any progressive males reading. Next time a natal woman expresses herself in a way you find unattractive, unseemly, unkind, or downright rude about trans people, then, assuming they aren’t “screaming it in a trans person’s face”: why not shut the fuck up and keep it to yourself.

Kathleen Stock 

[femnet]

Abuse:

1. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way

2. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly

07:26 a.m., a random house, this world

The wife swirls in the kitchen, preparing her children’s lunch for school. Despite the never-ending list of things she has to do, she still finds the time to worry for the others, so it is with a sweaty forehead that she glances at her watch for the tenth time in ten minutes. How come her husband is still in the shower? She wants to warn him of the time, but she’s afraid of being told to mind her own business. After all, he’s never late, so he must have a good reason to not be on the doorstep by now like he usually does.

The woman does not even have the chance to go back to her occupations before a scream comes from their bedroom. An angry scream.

Her husband storms in, dishevelled, clumsily tucking his shirt in his pants.

“Why didn’t you tell me what time it was!”

He is so furious he cannot find the right hole of his belt.

The woman is taken aback. He has a watch on his wrist, why does he sound like it was her duty to tell him the time? “But your watch-”

“I was not paying attention to it! You should have told me I was late! It’s impossible to count on you!”

Without any more words, the front door slams, abandoning the woman and her shock in the middle of the entrance. She only reacts when the car’s wheels screech, and she directs her steps back toward the kitchen.

Her eyes drop to the table, where the breakfast she had prepared for her husband seems to glow with misery, untouched.

She starts to sob.

Morning recess, a random school, this world

The 8th grade students stand in a file, ready to be allowed in the building. They are all mixed up, boys with girls, girls with boys. They laugh, shout, play like early teenagers do.

Somewhere in the line, a group of pimpled young men snicker, exchanging some soft punches and other stereotypical manifestations of virility. At some point, they nudge the tallest of their group, gesture toward a lone girl in front of them, and hide their laughter in their hands.

Under the hushed encouragements of his friends, the tall youth steps forward, just enough to be close to the girl. His proximity is such that she feels his heavy breath against her hair, on her neck. She freezes.

It is a question of seconds before the big hand of the boy finds its way to the pants of the girl, right where feminity is beginning to draw some curves. Then, as soon as it had come, the hand is pulled back.

The girl hears badly suppressed hysterical laughter coming from behind her, and she can guess the tall boy’s smile of victory. All she feels is a growing shame and a burning spot where his skin came in contact with her clothes.

It only lasted a moment, but she will be marked forever.

Lunchtime, a random dining room, this world

Today, the siblings eat alone with Mom. It’s Sunday, but Dad will probably come home late. Later than lunchtime, anyway.

The boy, who is roughly fifteen years old, and the girl, who is around ten, seat as far as their mother could place them around the table: frankly, she does not need any disturbance at the moment.

However, this does not stop the boy from stretching his leg and reaching for his sister’s foot to nudge it. At first, she smiles: lunch is boring, and this is something new. She does not expect anything more.

But her brother repeats the motion, intensifying it until it becomes annoying and slightly painful. She protests, and the mother glares at his son. The calm is back.

A few minutes later, the little girl is drawing a spoonful of peas to her mouth when a jolt of her leg makes the round vegetables scatter on the floor. The mother is bothered, and angrily tells her daughter to pick the green balls up.

With tears in her eyes, the little girl does as she is told, but still tells Mom what happened: her brother kicked her foot again.

The boy, despite knowing he will be reprimanded, displays this irritating smile of somebody who did something he should not have, but is proud he did.

To answer his mother’s furious admonition, he simply grins,

“We were playing. She was enjoying it, she smiled.”

When he looks down at his plate, the grin is still there, stretched on his lips.

Afternoon, a random park, this world

A grandfather is playing with his grandson. They are laughing like crazy, the adult because he finds the game funny, the child because his Grandpa does. It’s a habit of theirs, roleplaying some interviewers and tennis players. Grandpa is the journalist, and makes sure he asks the most impossible questions, and the child is the sportsman, answering as well as he can being only three years old. They really have a lot of fun.

While they are in the middle of a giggling crisis, a girl, who could not be older than five years old, arrives running. She wants to join them.

“Grandpa, can I play too?”

She is ignored.

“Grandpa?”

The man wipes some tears from his eyes, considers her, but turns toward the little boy.

“I am interviewing men,” he snaps. “When this interview is over, I’ll interview the women. Now go play.”

Nodding eagerly, the little girl turns her back on the pair, but she prefers to sit not so far from them, to be ready as soon as her grandfather is ready to play with her.

But she does not know the interview will, apparently, never end.

07:47 p.m., a random parking lot, this world

“Do you think I should lose some weight?”

The girl turns toward her boyfriend after gazing at her reflection in the window of the car, concern all over her face. He’s texting to somebody, and absentmindedly mumbles a no as a response. The girl feels a bit hurt: all she wanted was to be reassured. Or to have an honest opinion.

“Do you think I should?”

Her hand gently comes to a rest on the boy’s forearm, and he does not appreciate it.

“I already said no, you’re fine like this. Stop bothering, I’m talking to someone.”

He steps a foot away from her, subtly hiding his screen from vision.

The girl sighs. She does not know it, but he’s writing to another girl. It will hurt her when she discovers it. Still, it’s not the problem now.

“I just wanted,” she stumbles, but decides to pour her feelings out, “to know if you still like me.”

Again, just some mumbling, and her arm stretches to receive a hug. He accepts her, concealing his conversation from her sight.

“She never asked me. I like girls who are sure of themselves.”

She is his ex-girlfriend. The girl he’s texting. The girl he’s seeing. The girl that will shatter his actual partner's life when she’s revealed.

If any of these scenes seem  unreal to you, consider the fact that I have witnessed them all, some as the girl herself.

[luanna801]

Look, we can have all the arguments we want about whether Dick being Romani is a good thing or a bad thing or how connected he needs to be to his culture or what exact percentage he needs to be to qualify as a PoC or blah blah blah, but here is the thing: According to DC’s current canon, he is Romani. His current writer and his current canon have made reference to it multiple times. Badly, for the most part, but that’s not the point. As far as DC’s concerned, we’re supposed to consider him Romani.

So with that said, I find it highly suspect that the character who gets chosen for “Oooh, let’s objectify him the way creepy dudes objectify female characters! It’s so progressive!” just happens to be one of the very few characters from an ethnic group that’s been historically fetishized, exoticized, and sexualized like nobody’s business.

Literally, “sexy mystical free spirit” is all Romani characters ever get to be in pop culture. They’re either wizened crone types or there to be hot and exotic. How many Romani characters can you think of who don’t fit one of those stereotypes? Because I damn well can’t think of many.

Like frankly, “Let’s objectify this male character Because Feminism” is not a brand of “feminism” I’m ever really gonna be into. But if you wanna do that with a white dude, and that makes you feel empowered somehow, sure. Do your thing. It might irk me sometimes, but it’s pretty much harmless.

But there is literally nothing progressive about reducing a Romani character down to his sex appeal. That is how Romani characters are almost always treated. It’s the exact opposite of progressive. It’s stereotypical and reactionary. It’s unimaginative. It’s arguably extremely offensive. You cannot just take that context out of the equation and reduce it down to I’m Sexualizing a Dude So It’s Feminist. Doing that to a male character from an ethnic minority without thinking about how said minority is sexualized or desexualized in uniquely racialized (often outright racist) ways is a huge failure to keep the intersectional perspective in mind. 

And of course, I know most of the people doing this aren’t coming at it from a racialized perspective. They’re just not thinking about his race at all, most of the time. But it doesn’t matter. Dick’s ethnicity exists whether a person happens to be aware of it or not, and I don’t think it can just be left out of this discussion.

[tellywoodtrash]

People aren’t to happy with the idea of Omkara walking away from Gauri because that’s what she’s asked of him. But it is in character for him, isn’t it? Having not watched all of IB pre DBO, I still know with his drug issues and generally non-confrontational personality it makes sense. Also why is it always expected of men on screen to just push and shove their way into the girl’s life in general? If anything in this case it would’ve made more sense than usual because they’ve both confessed?

Hi anon!

Not only is it completely in character for Omkara, who is non-confrontational and commitment-phobic and runs from any kinda relationship unpleasantness as a person (remember how resentful he was of Riddhima for the pink cushions, yet unable to ever say anything to her?), it’s also so icky and gross that the viewers (mostly female) think this thing of a male character NOT pushing and shoving their way into is a “lack of him feeling deeply” or loving her “enough”. People need to get it into their heads that CONSENT and RESPECT FOR THE WORD “NO” are a really important part of any relationship. If a grownass adult woman says NO, for whatever fucking reason, it may well be for “the wrong reasons”, like ego or revenge or whatever the hell, who the fuck is this guy to decide that his “reasoning” matters MORE than her refusal and that he has to “save her” from herself? It’s downright patriarchal and barbaric! People have the right to make these decisions for their own lives, and if it’s a wrong decision, they’ll deal with the consequences later. Tum apna dekho na bhai?????? 😒😒😒

But at this point, this zabardasti waali shaadi trope (which my phone fortuitously and correctly autocorrected to “tripe”) and all its associated fuckery, has been so normalized and romanticized by Tellywood over the last few years, that I think it’s practically seen as “the ideal romance” now. The abusive fuckboy who doesn’t stop imposing himself and his decisions about the relationship’s fate is seen as “Wow, he’s so take-charge and strong! Such sexy alpha male!” 🙄🙄🙄

In this case, when I think of it, what’s really irking me is how Shivika decided that they have to stop this wedding and reunite Rikara. Full offense, you two don’t even know the whole story - you don’t know the full extent of what Omkara did to Gauri, starting from Bareilly. When HE HIMSELF is saying he’s unworthy of her forgiveness and love, which he absolutely is, who the fuckkkkkk are Shivika to decide “oh no, but ISHQBAAZI!!!!” Gauri may be deciding to marry Ajay for all the wrong reasons (she isn’t even really planning to, but run away instead after Richa-Mukesh get hitched), but even so, she has allllllll the right to move on in life after the crap Om put her through. Om seems to understand this, but Shivika are so high on their nonsense relationship working out despite their rocky start, that they think they know what’s better for Gauri than Gauri herself. This basic lack of respect for her NO and putting a premium on romantic love over the real important things in a relationship - trust and respect for each other - is frankly really offensive and anyone who understands baaaaaaasic feminism should be against this kinda fuckery.

[kamalkizehr]

Thoughts i wanted to unload xp

I understand the view points of many of those in america at the moment republicans and liberal alike but how is having trump any way helpful and is an actual ban on people from different countries or a wall between one neighbour actually that helpful i mean illegal immigrants arent good but a fucking ban a wall loud public statements That are controversial questionable can be taken offensively (dude come on if shoe was on the other foot a lot of republicans would have been offended and go on a gaint Facebook comment section war

Again )

But another question why has the rise of triggerers risen like

There are more republicans who would post or say something offensive just to plain see people react and act like a troll rather than defend their stance on the politcal matters

Which in my opinion the clashes wouldn't have happened if more people (democrats ) went forward with ideas and stances after making sure everyone was on the same page though because frankly if they did i think not everyone would be having so many disagreements

Sure its not offensive, illegal or bad for a guy to wear make up many men have been employed in cosmetics for years eventually they we're gonna wanna show off the skills on themselves for once instead of models or maybe a lot of people are coming out have every right to and but why not try and keep it pg or at least understand not every parent wants their children exposed to something thats hard to explain for a certain amount of time and later when the child is mature or adult enough to understand the topic give more info and allow that freedom so he or she can decide for them selves but at the appropriate age because frankly does anyone else not find 12 year old bisexuals weird

Dude come on this stuff needs a limit everything needs a limit and more education thats key but get on the same page and teach kids math and let them graduate at least before he or she decides to become a weed addicted demi sexual pan romantic traveling artist in Nebraska i mean like

YOU DONT NEED THAT SHIT TO BE SPECIAL

NOR TO BE AN ARTIST

OR ANOTHER SEXUALITY

AND IT DOENST MAKE YOU SUPERIOR OVER ANYONE NOR DOES TRYING TO BECOME A MINORITY

THE MINORITIES WILL ALWAYS NEED TO BE IMPORTANT SO THAT THINGS REMAIN FAIR

BUT MENTAL, PHYSICAL DEASES NEW SEXUALITIES AND GENDER IDENTITIES GIANT ARGUMENTS OVER WHOS WORSE WHOS BETTER AND WHY PEOPLE OF A RELIGION OR A RACE OR CAST SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN A COUNTRY

for one sorry i was shouting but like

I am gonna bring up the stupid over used facts all Americans are immigrants and that not all of them had great lives back in europe which is why they moved isn't there hypocrisy in saying middle eastern people don't get to do that

But again some should stay but why not give elderly, parents and children a pass sure europe has many other options aswell but is it so awful some people choose America fine if its a ban And no dont we dont want more immigrants

Fine just be nice to the ones you have than frankly is that so hard

And dont start Ohhh but feminism is just bitchs wanting to be better

It isnt like that man i mean like moms should get maternal leave

And dads should have time off too to help out

If a woman hits a man or falsely accuses him of abuse or rape should get punished obviously but for God's sake if there weren't so many perverted idiots and guys who think its ok to just go invading a woman's personal space isn't cool and the fear of it is something that is a main reason that's basically help create the giant following

Is it unfair and used extremistly at times ofcourse everything and anything will be misused this is humanity we're talking about not saints or prophets those A**holes left a while ago

(Getting to religion)

But is it so bad to be a feminist really man

Come on for gods sake it isnt its just wrong when it turns biased and in the favour of the other gender which is basically just sexism not feminism

(Can we please agree on the fact there might be a fucking difference!)

And true western countries dont need it as much as middle eastern or south Asian African or south American even might need it but feminism isnt a bad thing (PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE IT NEVER STARTED AS A BAD THING IT WAS FAIR THEN AND THOSE WOMEN STARTED IT OUT OF JUSTIFIED REASONS AND IT DID BENEFIT BOTH GENDERS LOOK IT UP DO SOME RESEARCH MALE RAPE CASES WERE FINALLY OPEN BY THE FBI THANKS TO THE MOVEMENT IN THE 60'S ITS A THING THAT CAN BE BOTH GOOD AND BAD JUST LIKE REPUBLICAN IDEALS OR LIBERAL AND NEITHER STARTED AS BAD THINGS! )

As well for religion why must everyone use the term not all Muslims are terrorist but all terrorists are Muslims like the liberals have points for that thatsoffensive man seriously AND THAT IS SO NOT HELPFUL AT ALL MAN LIKE

I swear the amount of adults ive seen and met who think their religion is being destroyed and their customs as well because their children have become internet addicted assholes (like myself inculded ) who want to disrespect them their Morals and values and become foreigners and American ofcourse because theyre so cool blah blah blah

(Personally fuck it i kinda like being Pakistani but i do enjoy the internet ) which for some reason has become a the main reason why I get lectured more than i think i really need man i mean my language can turn vulgar and i can be socially a little awkward if uncomfortable but like why is me liking rock music and youtube and having a accent a reason to assume i would rather be American i do love my home and where i am from i am proud of my family and where we come from but why enjoy every thing else in the world aswell and not be considered a traitor or something

(Ok too personal )

Alright maybe what i am trying to get is how come no one can just elect a decent a leader or agree to disagree about things but still respect each other stay open minded but have your morals close by and principles uncompromised biasness is human but why no agree to disagree and leave it at that

The insecurity increasing and old facade of wanting to be rich and famous and not work for it has come back

Help me on patrion, like my video post photo blah blah blah dude just get a job why is it so necessary to work in entertainment for hells sake

I mean its valid you wanna sure go ahead maybe you are worthy but like stolen content and fake stories and new sexualities for gods sake please

(No longer about politics i suppose )

Here's my mind on it i guess

LGBTQA community has every right a straight white male or female would have no more no less but gender and sexuality identification maybe kept a simple (memorable and easier to define on fine paper and print during adoptions divorce marriage leavint the country or not etc ) and that being hetreo, homo, bi, A and pan because that makes sense

Its simple

And works

And as well for gender identification

On fine paper

if you are Male to female m to f

Female to male f to m

Something less explainable just keep it trans

Because frankly leave it at that why not just like why not?

Its simple makes sense justified fair and but isnt over done for some petty individuals looking for attention to take advantage of (ofcourse no guarantees but why not just keep some faith ? )

And no one gets to chose all on paper until after 18 because thats fucking fair

(Come on its not like its illegal to come out say it in public )

And yes none of that would be applied in most countries especially not mine but it would be a good start in my opinion

Any way i think i am done venting my thoughts anyone who is annoyed can ignore (why did you read this much of it and not justgo three lines and decide nah boring lets bail )

Anyone who has an opinion or would just like to talk is welcomed BUT CAN WE PLEASE KEEP THIS CIVIL I MEAN NO DISRESPECT TO ANYONE OR ANYTHING BY THESE STATEMENTS

i was just venting some thoughts

And not trying to force them on anyone or anything but i just wanted this out of my head and see if others agree or not (no not for the purpose to be right or wrong ) but because i can't be the only one who thinks all the political maddness right now was all avoidable and that people are becoming

Weirder

Not in a good sense

Not because of religion race or anything like that just like

Mind sets

I feel like its like the key to harmony and at least balance or peace is right there no one wants to take it

I am probably going to regret posting this but i am gonna anyway not like people actual read my blog or anything