#not wanting to discredit the misogyny in fandoms because i know that's a thing and there were definitely being weird about her

[torgawl]

fontaine and furina having this theatrical motif around them has always felt intentional. the way furina was characterised in the first two patches almost being the personification of the ostentacious nature of european, and more precisely, the french monarchy has always come across as aforethought. the same way furina was presented as not having her nation's sympathy and indulging in her own pleasures is very akin to marie antoinette, as we all probably know (and this makes even more sense now knowing she has a similar fate of being sentenced to death by the guillotine, which we can almost infer is also related to treason by acting against the security of the "french state" or genshin's version of it: fontaine). now, to make my point i want to quote a few characters and expand a little on what i have interpreted of them.

let's start with lyney who is introduced and has a bit of a monologue on magic in the teaser for fontaine.

"the essence of magic is getting people to believe a lie. and the most important part of this is what people see."

lyney tells us, the viewer, the interpretation of a lie depends enterily on what you see and how you see it. doesn't this resonate perfectly with the title for fontaine's last archon quest and the theme that was presented to us all the way back to toy teyvat's teaser narrated by dainsleif, "masquerade of the guilty"?

"people don't realize how much they expect their eyes to tell them the truth. but it's not real it's all a show. and every part of the show is carefully controlled. controlled how? by choosing the right time, the right place and the right people."

i pointed out how lyney talks to us as the viewers because i think we're very quick to exclude ourselves from being seen as a character. it's easy to infer that a major plan is taking place thinking of one character (or a group of characters) fooling the others. but i always thought it was curious the way these things and the emphasis on being part of a play was pointed to us (you and me, if that makes sense) like we were going to be the ones fed a lie so that the curtain could fall eventually at the end. you know what's curious about this specific lyney quote? how the camera pans to clorinde and neuvillette as we heard the words "the right people". specially after seeing the trailer for the last part of the archon quest, having neuvillette aknowledge he now knows his role and hearing furina say at the end she hopes he enjoyed his part in the play ties perfectly with this.

"but keep your eyes peeled, and you might be able to turns thing to your advantage."

weather you think of yourself as the viewer or not, this phrase feels like a presage for what the future might look like.

after lyney's monologue, arlecchino chimes in and the conversation stirs a little.

"in a nutshell, magic is what you see with your own two eyes. very fun, but it's not enough."

she seems to be indicating that having a trick inst enough, that making people believe the lie is what makes the show. this trick has to be so perfect and believable that it's impossible to see through which she then compliments with:

"let me make something clear. you think of yourselves as magicians. but when you're on the stage, you're first and foremost actors. good actors hone their craft to mesmerize the whole crowd."

arlecchino makes a distinction between magicians and actors and, this way, the narrative of being part of a play is introduced once again. which makes me think of her hand creeping out from behind furina in one of the posters for the next update. so it has me wondering what her part of the play may be. seeing arlecchino characterised as a wolf in sheep's clothing and someone who would betray the tsaritsa in a heartbeat almost makes me wish for that to be the case. but i also wonder if she is doing something in exchange for the hydro gnosis. theories apart, she's definitely weaving her threads in there somehow.

i could skip the next part since we already know the furina we meet is but a superficial layer of who furina actually is and her role as the hydro archon. but the way she is introduced in the fontaine teaser really ties with everything mentioned in this post, making it clear she's the main character in the play.

"ugh boring! why do I even bother? when are we going to finally see a real twist for once?"

she's described by dainsleif in the teyvat teaser as someone who "lives for the spectacle of the courtroom" as we all have seen through the first patches. it also correlates to the whole theme of justice as entertainment which many people have expanded upon. she asks to see "a real twist" and who better to do that if not the queen of flamboyance herself?

i wanted to point all of this out because, since the beginning, i think it's been obvious furina as a character was always implied to have people change their view on her. not only by other characters but also us, who are part of this big play by following fontaine's story. this was highlighted by the sheer difference in the way traveller is treated or used in fontaine compared to other regions, having other characters play the big important moments as if we were side characters (loss of protagonism), and the ammount of control we are given over (our influence in court and our role as a lawyer, for example). this change in opinion furina was fated to have has always beem hinted to be triggered by some sort of sacrifice. being so influenced by marie antoinette, having furina turn into a scapegoat or a martyr and getting people's respect after death (either real or metaphorical) feels to fit the narrative. this is why players not liking furina has never really bothered me. i believe furina was not characterised - when she was introduced to us - to be liked, quite the opposite. it was faux, a way to manipulate our own perception and opinion on her. i think part of our "role" was to be tricked, much like what we are hinted at throughout the narrative.

[etoilesbienne]

I try to be a fair person I try to be understanding. but I am sick and tired of having to read about the many sins of Léa for being a whistleblower. People are straight up putting words in her mouth for things she did not say.

Frankly I'm a little appalled that the MCYT community can have a huge moment about the heavy amount of misogyny present in the space and come away with the take she didn't actually experience hate from the fan community. No the other admins didn't not experience hate, but she didn't say that. She said she received hate for being the first person to come out. Or how she was discredited repeatedly and the "Jay" document was used to shame her pointedly and make her out to be unreliable and "a hater." Gee whiz I wonder where I've heard "she's just hysterical and took things too seriously and is a vindictive person out to get others projects to fail." That sure sounds familiar. Especially in CC spaces pertaining to women. Why would she be exempt from misogyny at the hands of the fandom?

Though the way people behave about former admins expressing frustration at the lack of internal translation is making me crazy. There is nothing wrong with Quackity speaking his native language in a stream for announcement. None of these admins ever said he was at fault for speaking Spanish, they were criticizing the lack of internal communication outside of the streams, and the fact the studios had no official translators on payroll to help with communication issues between languages. They aren't asking for him to speak English, tbf most of these admins don't even have English as a first language, why would they want a stream in a different language they aren't fluent in? I don't think Léa was expecting Quackity to suddenly start speaking French. They're asking for translations in the languages they do speak so they can understand these important announcements about their jobs, because they were not receiving the information about these announcements any other way. To be honest it still boggles my mind, even after all of this, that QStudios never even had official translators to relay messages between Quackity to other streamers and admins. Regardless, I feel like people are interpreting this pretty fair criticism of the complete lack of translation to non-English languages impeding the already barely existent communication to be as bad faith as possible from every side. On one hand you have people choosing to believe that is what the admins are saying and agreeing with it and then being racist toward Quackity over it, on the other hand you have people choosing to believe the admins are being racist toward Quackity and sending them hate over it. I'd be insane to deny racism toward Quackity wasn't also happening though.

I don't know what else to say than people who have been working insane hours for months on end to be exploited, and they're upset. This is a server a lot of people cared about as fans, of course the first person to come out and reveal the terrible conditions is going to receive the most amount of hate over this specific instance. It's not an unfounded claim. Have you seen the shit people say about Léa on twitter? It also doesn't mean the other admins didn't receive hate in their own regard, it's just the first person to come out is usually the biggest punching bag for it. Misogyny didn't magically dissipate from the fandom with the removal of a few problem CC. My god hear yourselves and the way you talk about a woman coming out as receiving workplace abuse.

[horizon-verizon]

https://www.tumblr.com/miss-dollette/751777149185376256/wake-up-call-for-ballistic-team-black-and-rhaenyra?source=share lol

Lucky for me, I never thought that Rhaenyra was Daenerys or Daenerys-like. (my "Rhaenyra and Feminism" tag) I have said these things about these two:

Rhaenyra is not a feminist because no one can be at this time and feminism as a movement began in the 18th century under specific conditions of a particular philosophical movement and under specific economic conditions whereas Rhaenyra, Catelyn, Alysanne, even Daenerys all live in a completely different world, a medievalesque/"ancient" own.....does that mean we shouldn't care how any woman before the 18th century (or those in fiction who would exist out of a feminist-minded/included society) or who aren't full blown feminists do to try to gain autonomy for themselves or to help others altruistically? Misogyny still exists, and it existed "back then"; we need to understand these women and the contours of the sexist conditions under which they live which both helps us to define and trace sexism as well as understand and connect ourselves to these characters to understand oppressive structures' effect on individual who then go on to affect and respond to their oppressive societies. And thus, some women, because they are people too (novel idea) are going to be more selfish than others, and partly bc they have been subjected to this double standard and the socially-justified abuse done against them since young (Alicent-Rhaenyra, esp in the show with how fans kept saying "Alicent is queen, se can demand to see thr baby all she wants, Rhaenyra didn't have to go up there", ignoring the fact that Alicent is trying to humiliate her and she herself knows that she wouldn't like it if someone did the same to her when she birthed her kids; in the bk, she turns against Rhaenyra when R is about 9-10, after Aegon is born and Viserys kicks Otto out for protesting against his choice to keep Rhaenyra as his heir) So yeah, she became more self-focused.

but that doesn't give us license to blame things that were not her fault or her doing or came form people who existed way before she was born; ignore the fact that she loved her kids and vice versa; that she died by femicide and bc of systemic sexism against overt female rulership; that she is one of the only woman and one of the last woman who actually had more political power than her husband and chose him (Rhaenys was the other one who got to choose); that after her death and fall, magic in the world took another hit and the dragons that could have been used to fight against the Others was lost before Daenerys Targaryen reawakened them and gave a reboot to magic in general; [🖇rhaenin-time] that after Rhaenyra's fall, after the fall of one of the few women who a Targ male relative actively supported in away unlike most men of her society instead of just abusing, sidelining, and using up, most if not all other Targ women--who never able to choose their husbands--were not protected from Andal patriarchy and its licens eof spousal abuse because the dynasty itself has fully assimilated into Andal patriarchy with the loss

that fans discredit Rhaenyra's victimhood and problems stemming from sexism how they discredit Daenerys' past victimhood; and then they go on to say Dany wasn't a revolutionary figure bec she's a Targ and a child of incest and can ride "nukes" and profited off of slavery -- people will move goal posts to for their anti-woman agendas and the Dance is coming from and centered around that -- these two women are dehumanized both in-world and the fandom/real life because those do not like they are women who have both acquired power over men or "equal" to what men are granted/obtain for themselves

talked myself to death about how "bastard" is a legal and sociopolitical term that can be "fixed" or argued agianst, how only a King/Monarch could legitimize, how Viserys decided--with Corlys--to accept Rhaenyra's kids into his household and thus include in the line of succession, etc. etc.

Some Master Posts with a List of Links Where I have Argued for Rhaenyra & Why We Should Care about Her

POST

POST

POST [esp against Criston Cole and the Idea that Show!Rhaenyra was Predatory]

🖇la-pheacienne's words:

This is a story about how even the "realm's delight" could not be considered worthy enough to live compared to her rapist scum of a brother, because even the "realm's delight" will always be just a woman so she will always be inherently inferior to any man however pathetic or incompetent he may be. This is a story of tragic irony because it is a woman, and Rhaenyra's descendant specifically, that is currently bearing the Targaryen name, it is a woman reconstructing the Targaryen legacy, it is a woman that brought back the music of dragons, almost two centuries after Westeros would rather have them perish and destroy everything in their passing than allow a woman on the throne, the very dragons that are now meant to save Westeros from its impending doom. And this feels like justice to me. I'm sorry that some people are so blind in their contrarianism that they prefer to make up a bazillion nonsensical headcanons than acknowledge that this is the actual theme of this story.

PRIME POST

If no one wishes to read from those links I give here, that's really not on me. It's be ironic, too, if they took the time to read all of that OP's long post anon' links, though.

[felixbrainrot]

sarah z’s new video has seriously left a bad taste in my mouth and i’d like to kind of unpack it here. anyone who would like to discuss i am happy to! 

i don’t have enough time to go through every little thing she did, though there is a lot of material, so i am just going to touch on a few main points:  

first, i’d like to say that sarah z’s whole shtick is “quirky internet fangirl tells the normie web about obscure internet things.”  so for her whole attitude in this video to be “i’m a Tax Paying Adult this is stupid little internet drama” is super jarring to me. this is literally what her brand is built on. it seems very contradictory and condescending. you use the cringe of your own demographic to “dunk” on people you don’t want to associate yourself with. the whole tone of the video is very disturbing to watch honestly, as she laughs at the insanity of these Crazy Adult Women on the internet who refuse to grow up and bully children. and for her to say “its not that deep”..... it actually seriously is. you would know this if you had done your research. because proshippers and antis are not groups, they’re ideologies. it is a mentality! and that is the main thing she fucked up here. if she had taken the time to understand the people she was talking about, and maybe even interviewed a few of them, she could have made a seriously kick ass video explaining the cause and flaws of both sides. she could have talked about the trauma both of these groups have endured, the internalized misogyny intertwined with these communities, and the fear that drives both of them. how did they get this way? she spent the entire video talking about how crazy these people are, but she never thinks to ask why.

next i’d like to say this video is clearly biased, as she was hurt by a group of people she didn’t know she was offending because she inserted herself in discourse that did not involve her. she is completely allowed to state her opinion, but she poked a bear and then responded by making this video. it was rushed, ill-informed, and honestly clickbait. she titled the video “Fandoms Biggest Controversy: The Story of Proshippers Vs Antis” but it’s not the story of that at all. it’s about her. and she is not fandoms biggest controversy. 

i think her biggest offense in all of this is directly (unintentionally) spreading misinformation. because she did not do her research (and it is very clear she didnt), the whole thing lacks nuance and feels very out of touch, though i believe this is her truth. there *is* a bigger story than the one she laid out. she just wanted to discredit the people who hurt her, though i don’t think she realizes that’s what she’s doing. 

she spends a good majority of the video talking about proshippers. i agree, there are extremities on both ends of things, but i don’t think this is a story to tell if you haven’t lived it yourself. i have an irl friend who is an ex-anti, an og one, and seeing where it all comes from and the aftermath of leaving is something you cannot experience unless you have. 

also: 

-super not a good look to question the validity of someone’s su*c*de. and to use an example that has no correlation to the one shes taking about is....yikes. i get what she was trying to do, but just because it happened in one fandom doesn’t mean it’s true for this person. came off very victim-blamey. its also the only time she touches on actual anti-harassment, but it was to discredit the actuality of it. 

to me, this video has muddied the credibility of sarah z. she has become the very cringe-obssesed internet normie she intended to educate. i hope someone somewhere who has experienced this first hand makes a response. there is a story here, its just not hers.  

[ardenttheories]

To add another to the BS tally of HS2: what’s with all the political matters all of the sudden? ACAB Vriska (I don’t know how that happened and I don’t wanna know), facist Jane, rebellions... HS did have those political matters, sure, but it wasn’t scrubbed against your poor face with Equius levels of strength. Yet I swear the Epilogues and HS2 are half politics half misc fuckery. Whatever happened with playing a godly game and random shenanigans? Oh wait HS2 also has that! Badly done! Bluh.

I don’t think including political matters into fiction is an inherently bad concept; it can be one of the best ways to immortalise current events and to encourage discussion about them, and Homestuck has never really shied away from political discourse (such as Caliborn’s rampant misogyny, the facist dictatorship of HIC, both on Alternia and on Earth Alpha, and the entirety of the hemospectrum being an anaolgy for real life racism and classism, as well as the multiple rebellions against HIC in Alternian history). 

However, it was often handled a lot better, and wasn’t so fucking heavy-handed. Hussie incorporated these issues a little more naturally, explained them in much better and much more subtle terms. The hemospectrum is definitely something we can relate to our own world, but it’s also just a cool piece of lore for the trolls that makes them a completely unique species. Caliborn’s rampant misogyny is a fun prod at the type of men you find on the internet who are just... like that, and making him a villain was both fitting and making him childish about it was a good way to belittle the point of view he was presenting. And the rebellions on Alternia? Things like Feferi wanting to make things better, but also being morally grey about it herself? It was naturally integrated into the lore of Alternia and into Feferi’s personality as a whole.

Overall, it was just more palpatable because it flowed with the tone of Homestuck. It was presented as part of the lore, as part of the characters, in such a way that it won’t seem like Homestuck has a lot of politics in it unless you pick up on the IRL parallels. But the parallels are there, are intentional, and are firm - and it’s an amazing point of discussion in and of itself, really, when you dive into it. 

The Homestuck^2 team have... a lot less tact about it. They’re going less for natural progression and more for what will shock and horrify. They want it to be as much of a slog to get through as possible, as blunt and brutal as they can make it, which is okay, I guess, and gets the point across, but being so outright about it isn’t... the best way to do it. It doesn’t fit in with the rest of the themes of Homestuck; it’s clearly something that isn’t meant to fit in; it’s clearly something that has been crowbared in from our own world. This, admittedly, is just really bad storycrafting. It ruins the immersion of the text, which is why it’s now so obvious that it’s a “political text”; Homestuck has always had moments like this, but never so out of place. 

And, in general, while it’s good to include politics into media and to appeal more widely to an audience with genuine real life issues, giving them more traction and showing your solidarity with a point of view, you do still have to remember that, like... people read fiction to get AWAY from the world. Sometimes, shoving in harsh and clearly abrasive reminders of what’s going on in the world around your readers isn’t going to go down very well, and can come across as extremely tone deaf (especially since at least Kate seems to be focused more on ACAB as a statement and a non-race-related protest rather than part of the Black Lives Matter movement, which deeply diminishes the fact that ACAB because of the violence they commit especially towards people of colour). 

On top of this, in Homestuck, any negative political commentary wasn’t done with the villains being characters we loved. 

Like, there’s an inherent difference between recognising that HIC is, for lack of a better analogy, like Trump - someone who has always had power, was always born into power, and who got power and went too fucking far off the deep end because they were corrupt to begin with - and watching Jane just... go so violently against everything that we as fans love - which, while not perfect, would be a bit like if Obama suddenly turned around during his presidency and said “close off the boarders, get rid of health care, let the poor die”. It’s not shocking and deeply expected from someone like HIC. It’s deeply shocking and disturbing from someone like Jane. 

It also lessens the point you’re trying to make with ruined character development. People are so lost and confused over Jane suddenly being a fascist that anything they could be trying to say ABOUT facism is being talked over by fandom feelings of betrayal. The joke they made out of Karkat being a Solid Snake ripoff gives no credit towards anything they’re trying to make out of the rebellion. 

In fiction, it’s almost always better to parallel real life issues with clearly defined traits; a villain and a hero. HIC is a villain. Jane is a hero. You can add in morally grey characters, of course, especially those in positions of power, because things aren’t always so well defined - but for something like politics, we’re well aware that there are Good Guys and Bad Guys, or at least Bad Guys and Even Fucking Worse Guys. And we know, for instance, that these people are almost always RAISED to be racist, to be xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, abelist, classist, murderers - it’s in every ounce of their blood to continue white supremacy because it benefits them most. 

So the fact that Jane is now suddenly a villain, for no actual reason - without a full character arc, without any real justification, she just takes over and all of a sudden she’s paranoid about trolls and being incredibly xenophobic from the start - is what people are going to focus on most. They’ve upheaved so fucking much, it’s almost impossible not to look at the upheaval and to make that the point focus of attention. Like, how much clearer could it be that they’re making Jane a portrayal of white people in power despite the characters supposedly being aracial? And where the fuck did any of this come from? Why are such important and VERY close-to-home topics being thrust onto a character that we used to associate with? Why are they putting Jane up onto the rung of fucking Trump, when they could have chosen a completely new character for this to have been and actually gotten their point across away from the hurt fury of “what the fuck did you do to Jane?”

When you do something like this, you seriously run the risk of detracting away from the point you’re trying to make - which is exactly what’s happened. 

Unless, of course, there’s no fucking point at all. A lot of HS^2′s writing focuses on the “nitty gritty of being an adult”, so there’s a fairly big potential that this... isn’t meant to reflect on anything in specific. It might just be what the writers think are “adult issues”, which, again, almost completely discredits the entire fucking point they’re trying to make. They might be doing this just to be shocking, to be upsetting, because they know ruining Jane will piss a lot of people off - and how much does that undermine the very real issue of facism when a lot of what’s going on in HS^2 is happening in our world right now? 

This isn’t the sort of climate where you just turn someone into a fascist to be shocking. Not when real world fascism is on the rise and becoming more violent. That goes beyond shocking - it’s upsetting and tone deaf and horrifying, actually.

But, yeah. Homestuck has always has politics involved at its very core, like you said. It’s just that it was handled a damn slight better than whatever the fuck’s happening in HS^2 now.

[camelotpark]

http://thisdiscontentedwinter.tumblr.com/post/182179304312/in-which-camelotpark-falls-in-a-whole#notes

These are just some of the terms under your dumb as a box of scotts

"because Stiles isn’t a fucking idiot." (when directly comparing him to Scott and thereby calling Scott a fucking idiot)

"You have to be smart to be at Peter Hale levels of villainy. I’m not sure Scott could think his way out of a paper bag if someone gave him a flashlight and a map, TBH."

"But you know what else is brainless, and also as canonically smart as Scott?

A box of rocks."

Each of these quotes go far beyond just his academic success and instead talking about his intelligence as a whole so you're "I'm just calling him academically challenged" is bullshit. You are calling a latinx character "dumb as a box of rocks" when canonically he was shown to outsmart men I'm sure you consider his superior in every way. Just because you didn't like how he did it doesn't take away it took intelligence and skill to do it. Something the show clearly acknowledged he had and something you have worked hard to strip him of.

"And given that Scott’s bad grades are being mentioned as early as the first few episodes, how do you account for that? "

“Second verse, same as the first!"

Once again your tag goes far beyond his academic intelligence and into you thinking he is as dumb as a bag of rocks (your exact words) as a whole so trying to pull the "he failed classes" tactic now is a weak attempt to save face. A stereotype that most latinx deal with is assuming that they are stupid because they aren't "as smart" as their white counterparts and "because Stiles isn't a fucking idiot" shows you sure as hell think that despite canon showing Scott is more than capable of holding his own

I'm sure instead of just saying "Okay,maybe he had academic troubles,but that isn't a measure of his overall intelligence" you'll just dig you'll heels in more and swerve to prove this latinx character is stupid because you (a white woman) judge Scott (a brown latinx) for not knowing what every single english word means. And yes, that stupid bestiary thing comes up in the tag a lot so you use a latinx's grasp on the english language to call him stupid. You know he speaks english (as you often complain that him not speaking spanish can prove he's not a latino in canon) Yet you used him not understanding one word to prove your point, I would ask if you know that's a racist stereotype too (latinos not speaking the english language well), but it's clear you lack a lot in understanding racial bigotry beyond just hating someone for their skin color or calling them a slur.

Of course trying to attack my own intelligence because I misspelled words is tactic you used and clearly show a pattern so I'm not surprised. It's a easy lazy way to try and discredit someone because your defense for your actions are paper thin.

"I know that you never said fandom wasn’t an open place for self-expression and that we all have different tastes. Because clearly you don’t believe that, right??"

You damn right I don't believe that,not for a second. I'm a poc in fandom and have been for a long time. Teen Wolf is not my first dealing with this culture and I've seen poc fans driven from fandoms in droves because their "open-place for self-expression" was attacked. Because they dare challenge the racially bias way a poc character was treated. See, when you say "Open place for self-expression" what you mean is "Let me do what I want, let me paint this poc how I want, and I don't care if it hurts poc fans to see the characters that look like them judged more harshly by fandoms then their white counterparts. You don’t like it,don’t read it."

Then of course those poc go to safer spaces and we have people like you and StickeyKeys and the rest of your crew going "I can be here and say what I want because this tag isn't just for you to celebrate your character it's also for me to let you see how awful he/she is" See, the problem is that you don't want poc to have their space just for them. You want to be in every single part of it and eventually it makes poc fans leave the fandom completely.

An article that dared to celebrate Scott and put him in a space of queer-coded that moc are hardly ever in with fandom was attacked mercilessly and his character was demonized once again. The article never once bashed Stiles or any other character,but of course a place to celebrate a poc had to have people tell everyone exactly why that support was wrong.

A “they do it so I can do it too” is not a reason, it’s an excuse.

Your blog has literally condemned Scott for switching out a white man's cancer pills as evil and cruel when that white man has attacked him repeatedly. Has stabbed him and plainly said he would kill Scott's mother. Scott was painted as non-heroic for potentially killing a man who has tried to kill him before and would have gladly killed Scott's mother. Let's ignore that Donovan telling Stiles he’ll kill his father and attacking him is all the justification you need to say Stiles was not at fault for what he did.

You love to use the word hypocrisy without realizing you are literally the biggest hypocrite there is.

Of course I can hear the excuse now "Heat of the moment!" "Stiles didn't plan it!" "Scott’s was premeditated!" I'm sure if Scott had just slashed Gerard's throat you would back him up and defend him against accusations he's unnecessarily cruel. I'm sure if Scott somehow got the upper hand on Derek on that ice rink and ripped his heart out you would be the first to defend Scott against people saying his safety doesn't excuse his actions. He should have been “better”

I'm sure to you it means absolutely nothing to put a white man's life over a poc's and paint that poc as bad for taking actions against it, but it means something to people like me because this behavior isn't confined to just fandom. So yes, when a poc brings this up it is amazing how fast that "Open place for self expression" disappears.

"And I’m calling Scott not academically smart because that’s what his teachers say. That’s why he had to go to the parent teacher night."

Once again you literally called him no smarter than a bag of rocks.

"We could also talk about how stereotypes are different all around the world, and that your US-centric worldview isn’t the universal experience and that people from different countries and cultures aren’t ingrained with the same racial biases from birth as Americans are."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

"Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content."

The same goes for racism and stereotypes. Just because you are unaware racial bias exist with certain stereotypes does not give you a pass for using them. You learn it, you acknowledge it, and you stop doing it.

"That’s called a metaphor."  "And disagreeing with another woman’s opinion is not misogyny"

I'm glad you know what a metaphor is,but nobody said your disagreement with another woman is misogyny (or your disagreement with a lgbtq man is homophobia) The language you used to defend yourself is. You attacked their sexuality to one up them and saying that a woman or lgbtq man is "sucking someone's dick" when all they are doing is defending a character you don't like is key misogyny and homophobia, metaphorically intent or not. And don't think I didn't notice that you didn't mention your homophobia in your reply. You could have went a million different ways to defend your stance. It is disgusting and you were disgusting for doing it. There is absolutely no defense for that action.

See, you say people are moving goalpost when they dismantle your argument and you try and swerve. It's not. I'm saying what I always said "Scott McCall is not as dumb as a bag of rocks and you trying to prove that true is racial stereotyping"

One last thing. I have never said you can't speak on racism, if you see it by all means call it out. What I said was you can't tell other people (especially poc) what is not racist. That is not your right.

[neverforpickles]

Hiii, i’m sorry to add instead of the tags: but I find your tags very interesting.

See, that’s the issue comes from with being a fan of something. More specifically, being a female and a fan of boybands, musicians or anything that’s football. It’s the stigma and misogyny that comes with it. As a female fan of the listed variables, we are always look down upon, called all sorts of things from “obsessed, brainless and just being a female teenager that’s always onto the good looking guys”. But you never hear that with the football fans who goes to the stadium, packed it and being rowdy and having the time of their lives sans the aggressive nature when their team loses. You never see that during concerts, fansigning or anything that involves just fans having the time of their lives when their favourite musician performs. It’s organize because like these football fans, we’re there to just enjoy the music, like they do with a bunch of sweaty men running in shorts.

It’s the unfair and unjust treatment we get as fans especially when you’re female and you like boybands. It somehow downgrades your interests and your opinions are suddenly not worth a penny. We’re treated that way. We’re made fun of, degraded for liking boybands, having posters and all that and they completely ignore and look the other way when men, young men are doing the same with these sports individuals. Equally “obsessive” to put it in their words. It is like it’s somehow makes our interest lesser of value, insignificant and just a phase. I have, personally, experienced being told that liking One Direction is just a phase…what’s worse, coming from a male. That somehow devalued the effort and time I have invested in this fandom. It discredited my experience and everything I have gained, gave and taken in this fandom. And yet, they’d never heard of me speak against their interests on sports no matter how boring it is.

What they do not know, is how fun being in this fandom. How fun liking boybands, musicians we genuinely find interests and have these community that we’ve built together as a bunch of strangers. I do not understand where that notion that our interests are somehow less of value, but it completely disregarded how they’re also doing the same thing we do — just on sports. It’s an insult to me, to us, to my fellow fans to be labeled as a fan who’s just liking these incredible talented musicians because I want to have sex with them, it’s such a predatory mindset.

They just do not know how passionate we can be and that’s where they’re lacking, I guess. They do not know how much of a force to be reckon we are and how many lives of many musicians we have changed, given a chance to be seen and heard, and put them in places they could have only dreamed of. 🤷‍♀️

regarding the article about it being the fans making the movie about sex, i'm actually surprised no one talked about it yesterday. cause it's exactly what flo implied in her interview. of course she knows it's not our fault the pr is focusing on those scene and she couldn't well say that the director and the studio made a mockery of this movie and the actors involved although to us it was heavely implied. still i think the higher ups want a shift in focus cause they saw all the backlash for this pr campaign and they latched onto that so when people go see this movie and it's not what they were expecting they can blame it on the fans for focusing on the wrong thing. it sucks that us fans are always to blame when the pr teams have no clue how to do their jobs

Hello 🌸 I tend to take fans side, usually.

Now I speak as someone who hasn’t watched a single trailer and I don’t want to psychoanalyse every bit of this drama (from the high to the bottom decisions) bc at the end of it all it’s just a movie and it’s all fake and not that deep.

I just wonder how they can blame it on fans if the first teaser was just harry and flo mouthing each other or whatever that was. You gave them that content. They’re gonna use it. You spread the poster of Harry e Flo in a bed covered in sheets, not me. They are gonna use it.

They know where the problem comes from. I’s just easy to blame teen fans. Especially when young girls make a large proportion of your fanbase and historically have been always called out as obsessed with sexual fantasies with their fave actor/singer. They promoted the movie in the old fashioned way: pr stunt - sex - teenage obsession (and I think that’s partially what Flo was referring too when she talked about hiring a famous pop star in the movie). Zero effort, best results (this harry’s team motto for basically anything lmao). Personally, I don’t like the choice but I don’t like a lot of things and I’m not part of their targeted audience I fear!

Just yesterday I told my sister “you know Rolling Stones has been very quiet on Harry lately”. I called that article into existence im sorry hahah

[falafel14]

Jasper in ‘I Am Become Death’

Man, it’s not normal for me to feel this disappointed with a @metastation podcast. I guess I’d been waiting for them to analyze this episode and I’d really been hoping for something more than the same “Let’s take the LOW HANGING FRUIT line out of context and ignore everything else that Jasper says and does in the episode” interpretations that I have already read all over tumblr. Maybe I should let it go. I’ve been out of The 100 fandom for months now but listening to the Meta Station is my last connection to the show. I really respect the girls that do this podcast and while I don’t necessarily hope to change their minds, if they read this post, I hope they may at least expand their perception of Jasper’s story in this episode. This isn’t going to be me arguing that Jasper is not acting like a dick in this episode or defending his use of anti-feminist language. It’s going to be me arguing that Jasper’s dickish behavior has other motives besides being an entitled nerd who wants reward sex with hotter chicks.      

This scene in the tent is actually one of those moments where I feel like fandom exaggerates Jasper’s flaws while completely ignoring Monty’s behavior. Notice how Monty doesn’t scold Jasper for the infamous “low hanging fruit” comment? No, Monty scolds Jasper for not using Harper for reward sex when he had the perfect opportunity to do so. It’s also only Monty who suggests that Jasper is still expecting something from Octavia, not Jasper himself. It was shown in Jasper’s reaction to Octavia/Lincoln hugging on the bridge that he’d accepted, however heavy-heartedly, that Octavia was unavailable. @metastation talk about Jasper being an example of the nerd fantasy of becoming more popular, being seen as the hero and getting hot chicks, etc, but throughout this episode there are more examples of Monty projecting this nerd fantasy onto Jasper and Monty wanting to experience this popularity vicariously through his friend.

It was Monty who was enjoying Jasper being the hero, getting them a bigger tent and having a hot girl offer herself to his friend. But was Jasper really enjoying it? Watch the tent scene again. Jasper isn’t mean to Harper when she tries to get him alone. He looks squirrely for a moment, then rebuffs her with an impersonal “I’m busy later”. When Monty questions Jasper about his disinterest in hooking up with Harper, Jasper puts on his macho persona. Meta station were right that Jasper puts on an act of false bravado throughout this episode, but I think they are wrong about the purpose of this persona. They claim that Jasper uses this persona because he wants to get hotter chicks as a reward for his heroism. Yet there are no examples from this episode of Jasper trying to use his fake persona to score with girls. Harper comes to him, Jasper does not go to her. Neither does Jasper go to Octavia who it’s assumed he is still holding out for (again, we only get this as Monty’s take on why Jasper rejected Harper). Jasper himself never suggests he’s still pursuing Octavia in his own words or actions.

Also a quick word regarding Harper’s motivations in approaching Jasper. I personally didn't feel like Harper wanted to get close to Jasper purely because he was a guy who’d suddenly got popular and cool. I think that's a discredit to Harper and not the story they were telling. She may have had little personality when first introduced but the main thing she keeps saying in this episode was she was scared. I think she may have been looking at Jasper as an example of somebody who had (seemingly) overcome their fear of the Grounders, thinking she could overcome her own fears too if Jasper was with her. Of course, if we look at this in light of later seasons then this is consistent with the Harper who lured Monty away from his computers to seduce him in S3 (which was also partly because Harper wanted a distraction from her fear). This motivation for Harper seems far more believable than her being a shallow girl trying to score with the new camp hero because his social status went up.

Moving onto this Jasper and Harper moment (pictured above) from later in the episode that most fans ignore. IMO, this is the real scene where Jasper is a dick to Harper but for reasons that contradict the typical readings of his “low hanging fruit” remark. During this scene, Jasper puts on his heroic persona to tell Harper “Don’t worry, I got your back” and Monty tuts, knowing that Jasper is showing off for a girl he’s (supposedly) not attracted to. But here’s where typical readings of Jasper in this episode fall apart for me - if Jasper really thinks that Harper is not hot enough for him then why is he publicly showing off for her? If Jasper’s real goal was to capitalize on his newfound popularity, I think he’d be behaving in the opposite way, i.e., Jasper would sleep with Harper privately then reject her and act like she wasn’t good enough for him in public. Instead Jasper puts on the pretense of being interested in Harper in front of other people while in private he has no intention of following through with anything sexual.

Which brings me to the real purpose of the Jasper Jordan asshole/hero persona. IMO, he doesn’t use it for popularity, status or sex. Jasper uses this persona to hide. Because Jasper shooting the Grounders at the bridge wasn’t a moment of heroism but a moment of “sheer pants wetting panic” as Octavia puts it. It was a PTSD episode. And that’s why Jasper wants to hide, using his hero persona as armor. I think the reason Jasper didn’t want to be alone with Harper (especially sexually) was because he didn’t want his hero mask to slip and his fear and trauma to be exposed. I think this is the reason Jasper tries to banish Monty from his tent also. When Jasper gets deeper into his PTSD during S3 he mostly wants to be alone. In S1 he can’t be alone. They are all trapped in that tiny camp with Grounders beyond the walls that want to kill them. So Jasper must resort to pushing people away (Monty, Harper, etc) and pretending to be cool in front of everybody else. In fact it’s telling that Jasper stays away from Octavia in this episode, because Octavia was the one who saw through his persona and was prepared to call him out on it. Monty wasn’t at the bridge summit and seems to think that it’s a good idea for Jasper to showboat this unhealthy heroic ideal of himself. In this sense, both Jasper and Monty make mistakes this episode (yes, even perfect cupcake Monty is a dick sometimes!).

Jasper’s mistake this episode was putting on a dickish attitude to push people away (something that correlates with later seasons!Jasper in a way that the nerd fantasy reading does not). It was Monty who was a victim of this more so than Harper. Jasper is nice to Harper’s face and whatever sexist thing he said behind her back whilst in his asshole persona is not a reflection of how Jasper really feels about Harper. In later seasons Jasper is shown to be close to Harper and other girls like Raven who he clearly respects. But aside from Jasper being a bad friend to Monty in this episode, Monty is also a really bad friend to Jasper - encouraging his traumatized friend into pursue an unhealthy ego-trip because Monty himself was enjoying the benefits of big tents and nerd glory. Monty came through as a better friend later on in the episode when he supported Jasper at the bridge by essentially saying “Okay, so maybe you’re not some hot shot hero but you’re still capable and I’m here for you”. At that point, Jasper was willing to admit his vulnerability to Monty and stopped pushing his friend away, literally holding Monty close as they return to camp.

That’s what Jasper’s story in this episode is about - him and Monty being bad friends to each other but restoring their friendship by the end of the episode. I feel like that core Jonty story gets ignored by feminist analysis that simply feels obligated to denounce that one line separately from its context within a larger storyline. And maybe I sound like a bad feminist by saying that the misogyny implied by that single phase is not the sole point of this story, but fuck it. I’ve said it. Misogyny is not the point of this storyline.                          

[nostalgicphile]

Okay.

It has been a LONG year on the old Tumblr. Can you believe it’s been almost a YEAR since the Page Six story about Gillian and Peter broke? A brief recap:

- A few folks, including myself, believed the story and were widely persecuted for it, death threats and all.

- Lots of the fandom chose to ignore the story - even as it became abundantly clear through various public appearances that Gillian was NOT hiding her relationship with Peter - and instead chose to focus on vilifying and harassing members of our fandom because you know, it’s better to hate on someone than accept what you hoped to be true actually was NOT true.

- Then we got the infamous “Marketing Theory” that so many eagerly latched onto. The “Marketing Theory” was utterly ridiculous, has since been shown to be an obvious, insulting, inaccurate, and desperate concoction to discredit Gillian and Peter’s very real relationship, but was doled out and eaten up by many because you know, it’s better to believe a bunch of nonsense than accept what you hoped to be true actually was NOT true.

- When it became obvious through hideous tabloid photos that all of this was UTTER bullshit, those who had been responsible for feeding the frenzy of false hopes instead blamed Gillian - because you know, it’s better to make her the villain than accept what you hoped to be true actually was NOT true. Also, let’s victim-blame her in addition to the humiliation of personally violating photos being taken and sold to journalists.

So here we are. And every, fucking time Peter and Gillian appear together, here is the result: (continuing under the cut for those uninterested in this saga)

- The pathetic, angry, deluded now-fringe portion of the fanbase must sourly distribute vitriolic comments about Gillian and Peter’s relationship, Peter’s looks, etc., etc.

- Those in the fanbase - particularly those who were targeted for months for merely (and correctly!) believing Gillian and Peter were together - post angry rebuttals to the hatred spewed by the fringe group.

So where does that leave us? For me, I’ve unfollowed anyone who posts or reblogs ugly comments about Gillian and Peter. Check. Leave the fringe to talk at themselves. Because they do not have the ear of the majority of fans. They are just very active and they are very loud.

Which brings us to the rebuttal group. There is a time to fight. I get that. When the hatred momentum picks up and the face of this fandom is so completely, repulsively cringe-worthy, I understand the need to divorce oneself from that. I understand how unfair it is that so many people talk shit about Peter, Gillian and other members of the fandom (including myself) without being called out for it. I get all of that. But here is the thing:

It doesn’t change anything.

Calling out the misogyny, vague-posting about their ugliness....these extremists are not waking up one day and declaring, “I see that I’m being hateful to some dude I don’t even know! I see that Gillian is just happy and I’m going to be happy for her! I was wrong. I’m going to move on.” They are not reasonable and they are not going to change. And because of that, they will remain fringe extremists. Snoggers are nothing new, you know? They have been banned from places like the Haven from the beginning of fandom time. So why give them airplay through rebuttals? I wouldn’t even know they were blathering if I didn’t see people fighting against it. Which is to say: such posts merely broaden exposure to their hate. The fight is over. It’s time to move on. You don’t see Gillian railing against the backlash, right? Do you want to know why? Because responding to it would legitimize it.

I’m tired. It’s been almost a YEAR. I don’t want to see the lectures, the hatred, the bullshit anymore. I’m going to do my thing. When I see David and Gillian together, I will flail without guilt because I love them. I miss believing there could have really been something there - not that I can EVER talk about it now because it aligns one too closely with the fringe. Nope, I gotta be all careful now. I’m also going to be happy for Peter and Gillian. I will reblog pics of them. Does it get me really excited to post about them? Not really. But I accept them and am happy for Gillian, the same as I was happy when she found Mark. Kind of dull, but good for her. 

So if I stop following you, it’s not personal. But I don’t want to read the rants anymore. It sucks enjoyment from my fandom experience. I just don’t support that there is a need for it anymore and I refuse to subject myself to the nonsense and messaging of that hateful, angry group any further. Until Gillian herself feels the need to rally us against it, I’m going to follow her lead.

[animemisogynist]

The End of Anime Misogynist?!?!

I’m writing to you from a secret underground bunker somewhere in North Dakota, not far from the Canadian border. I have only 7% battery left on my Kindle Fire, and getting this post out in time may be my last hope. Any moment now, the forces of the Matriarchy are going to break down the door. I’ve eluded them for over a year, but they’ve hunted me like an animal, determined to make me pay, both for my heinous crimes against all womynkind and questionable use of semicolons. When they find me, they’ll probably strangle me with one of my many dakimakura covers, hopefully the Hestia one--

--Oh, right, I was supposed to end this now.

Hi, I’m Karen, and I’m the Anime Misogynist. Normally, I blog about otaku stuff and other fun things over at Otakusphere. Now, I can’t be absolutely certain, but I’m pretty sure I’m not really a misogynist. I do however take issue with feminist criticism, both of anime and pop culture more generally, when it’s ill-informed, illogical, and myopic. There is good feminist criticism out there, but unfortunately, the type that seems to be popular online right now-- particularly on major anime websites-- is the ill-informed, illogical, myopic type. I created this site to illustrate why this is a poor way to critique anime…or, well, anything.

Does Anime Misogynist seem like mean-spirited trolling? I hope not, because that was never my intention. I believe that a viewpoint should be able to stand up to mockery, and if it can’t, people should be given the opportunity to see that (yes, I am one of those tedious “the best remedy for bad speech is MORE speech” people.) I also believe that critics should avoid using terms cribbed from academia that they don’t fully understand, which is perhaps the biggest problem with current feminist criticism of pop-culture. Most of these critical pieces make the same couple of mistakes over and over again, hence I find myself making the same jokes over and over again; that’s why I’m closing up shop.

Still, before I go, I’m left with the concern that some people misread Anime Misogynist to be a mockery of the very idea that misogyny exists in media, which it isn’t. I myself have found certain shows misogynistic at times; I don’t then make the leap to calling all fans of said show misogynists, but that’s bringing up a separate issue. No, some media is sexist or misogynist (they are not the same thing), and there isn’t anything wrong with sharing your opinion on that. However, you know what is wrong? Constantly using terminology that undermines your goals right from the start.

Why would you use the term “male gaze” when it’s completely heteronormative? Not only does it ignore the existence of lesbians, it also ignores the fact that even straight women sometimes enjoy looking at images of attractive women. The repeated use of that term assumes a male-centric worldview that’s probably more harmful than whatever the show in question is doing.

Why would you use the term “Objectification,” when it clearly doesn’t work in practice the way it does in theory? The alleged problem with objectification is that once someone becomes an object to you, you cease having sympathy for them as a human being. Putting aside the fact that anime characters aren’t real human beings to begin with (which has always seemed like a pedantic argument to me), if you’ve ever talked to an anime fan, you should know this isn’t how most fans operate. Fans have incredible passion for their favorite characters, and can simultaneously enjoy looking at sexy images of these characters, while still caring a lot about their storylines and character development. I’m sure there are instances where objectification does work as advertised, but why would you bring that concern to anime fandom, where it’s completely out of place? If anime fans are objectifying characters, wow, we sure are TERRIBLE at it.

Why would you use the term “male fantasy,” with its implicit criticism that men shouldn’t have (or perhaps, do not deserve) a fantasy life? Are only women entitled to fantasies? That makes it seem like we must need them more than men do, because we’re less engaged with reality; a firmly anti-feminist position to take.

Why would you talk about “oppression,” without acknowledging that it’s highly context-sensitive; the same person is likely an oppressor in one scenario, the oppressed in others. If you label women (or any group) as an oppressed group without further elaborating what you mean, you’re engaging in such a gross oversimplification of how the world works that it makes anything you say on any topic appear suspect.

Why would you use the term “Patriarchy,” unless you’re writing some kind of paranoid conspiracy thriller…in which case, why are you wasting your time on anime crit? You have a novel to write, let’s see some ambition!

Why would you use the word “problematic” for anything ever? It is the most useless word.

In addition to all the other problems with them, the constant use of these kinds of terms in anime criticism makes it all seem very cookie-cutter; like people are cutting and pasting from a template rather than forming their own thoughts. Even if I was more inclined to agree with the points these critics make, I would still find this approach boring as shit. We don’t need even one article that complains that an erotic anime is catering to the male gaze; we certainly don’t need 300 of them.

Do you want to actually talk about sexism and misogyny in a given work of fiction, without resorting to using your standard issue Third-Wave Intersectional Feminism Magnetic Poetry Set? Please do! Please talk about how a given show makes you feel, using your own words, your own logic (although try to refrain from the “this show is so misogynistic it made me cry for 17 hours” school of doing this; it becomes a game of perverse misery one-upmanship that doesn’t do anyone any good.) Talk about why specific creative choices appear to be promoting misogyny, as opposed to examining or undermining it; sometimes, the shows that are the most insightful in their critiques of misogyny get labeled as misogynist, simply because they address it, which is just unfair. Write about your own experiences, without speculating on what other fans must think, especially if you’re not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

If a critique comes from a place of sincerity, without the need to kiss the ring of any particular ideology, then I respect it, even if I strongly disagree. Everyone is entitled to have their own unique take on what they watch; even if you think that Revolutionary Girl Utena is the most misogynist anime ever made, then by God, that is your right as a viewer. But don’t lecture me using language you don’t understand, don’t promote the very ideas you claim you’re trying to discredit, and don’t claim to know what’s going on in MY head when I watch something; that’s for me to know. I care about your opinion, not your opinion of what you think my opinion would be if I were a very dumb person.

And if you feel the need to talk about how you think a given show effects society at large, then acknowledge that you’re engaging in something extremely complex, where there are about a million lenses to look through and each have their own limitations. Broad assertions like “Big boobs in anime condition men to hate women” are an insult to everyone’s intelligence, pure and simple.

I’m not the criticism police; it’s not my job to tell everybody how to do their anime criticism, and I realize I’m being a hypocrite right now, since that’s basically what I’m doing. However, if you write really poor, illogical criticism, I probably won’t take what you say very seriously. If you write really poor, illogical criticism and then act extremely pompous and condescending on top of that, then I’ll probably mock you for it, because it’s comical. This site exists because so many of the people who write bad anime criticism are also pompous and condescending to other fans; I don’t know why that is, but it’s true at the moment. I don’t know if my efforts have any chance of changing that, but it seemed worth a try, at any rate.

So, what’s next for the Anime Misogynist? Well, “he” might pop up from time to time on Otakusphere, when a show needs to be examined through a rigorous, misogynist lens; it’s a service I rather enjoy providing. I’ll leave this site up for the time being, although I doubt I’ll be adding more to it. To all of you who were in on the joke and enjoyed my posts, thank you; to those that weren’t in on the joke, or were just confused, I hope reading this post has at least shown that I’m not a horrible, woman-hating slimeball who deserves to burn in hell.

I mean, hey, maybe I do deserve to burn in hell (no sense in ruling anything out), but not for that reason.

Love,

Karen