#racialised misogyny discussion

[tabby-shieldmaiden]

Reading through the propaganda on the victims of yaoi and the canon misogyny polls is harrowing in the sense that like. Firstly, the fact that we have this many characters spread out throughout multiple pieces of media to have the polls in the first place is bad enough (and I know that this isn't even all of it, or even possibly the worst of these phenomenons). But even besides that, when you read the propaganda I am struck by how similar all of it sounds after a while.

"This character was viciously hated on by the fanbase for being an emotional teenage girl." "This girl was set up as someone cool and promptly got ignored by the writers/fandom in order for them to focus on the development of male characters." "This woman chronically gets sexually assaulted for a joke." "This woman of colour was thrown under the bus in favour of a white m/m ship." "This girl's only purpose is to prop up the male characters at the expense of her own development." "This woman's contributions to the story were all for naught and she ultimately was there to play damsel or die developing someone else." "Here's an awful racially charged portrayal." "Here's a blatantly transmisogynistic writing decision." "Here's a story where all women except for some special girl who is different from the others are all either cruel, idiots, or cruel idiots." "Here's a girl who just... kind of exists I guess? What did they even do with her?"

So much of it is all like that. Bad enough that when people talk about 'media and fandoms treating female characters poorly', it seems like almost every one has some sort of story to tell. But when you really look at it from a big picture perspective, so much of it is so banal. It would be bad too if it was all "interesting", don't get me wrong. But perhaps it does say something about the nature of oppressive systems if so much of it ends up looking so nauseatingly cookie cutter.

[mithliya]

Man that one girl talking about “interracial rape against white women” needs to get a grip. All one needs to do is to read some news from the past decade or so to see that white men are consistently doing horrific shit to women and pushing a super misogynistic culture. I mean Marilyn Manson, Johnny Depp, Harvey Weinstein, just as examples. And that’s just relatively recent things that have come to light. I’d be typing all night if I went into historical examples. Men of all races and cultures can be raging misogynists, it just is often expressed in different ways due to these factors. A lot of gendies definitely act like white women don’t experience misogyny, but for one that’s not a reason to act like MOC don’t experience racism. And two, just like how MOC can and do perpetuate misogyny against white women (and obviously WOC, but specifying white women to make a point clearer here), white women can and do perpetuate racism against MOC (again, obviously WOC also but clarifying to communicate my point). This coming from a white woman who is a rape victim by the way, so I don’t want to hear about how I don’t take white women seriously or whatever (@ them not you).

i just find it so odd that the argument now is like. pretending anyone said moc are so above misogyny and its ok if they rape or that they don't rape at all when all ive seen anyone say is men shouldn't be ranked on the basis of their race

Men of all races and cultures can be raging misogynists, it just is often expressed in different ways due to these factors.

literally,,, and not just that but it depends on what environment theyre in frankly. its not a coincidence the Amazing White Men From Superior White Cultures are going to countries where they can get away with misogyny more and then being the most depraved misogynistic freaks there. its not a coincidence that rich, powerful white men (like the ones u named) are often exposed for being abusers and rapists and pedophiles, and they get away with it there too. they're not "better" men, they just know when & where they can get away with their misogyny and use it to their advantage.

i dont think anyone in their right minds would argue that a man raping is ok if that man isn't white, nor that they would argue that moc never rape. the issue is that on the other side those people are saying that white men are safer and better and less misogynistic and that moc are more prone to rape and less safe and worse etc. i haven't seen anyone on here respond to ideas of female-only spaces with "but what about moc? maybe we should include them since they would never harm any woman?" for example, like its pretty clear to me no one is arguing that moc are somehow not misogynists. the racist side of radblr is extremely dishonest and keep changing goalposts to make it seem like the people disagreeing with them are saying something insane when its actually pretty simple that all we're saying is misogyny is bad regardless of what colour of man is doing it and to pretend its worse bc the man doing it is a certain colour is racist.

[pumpumdemsugah]

Remember that white person that had a melt down when different Black women told her it's inappropriate to use " say her name" for a white person, as it's an awareness movement that came about because when a Black woman was shot to death no one came to her protest and the deaths of Black women and girls often do not generate immediate outrage or action UNLIKE the immediate vigils and protest that were made in honour of the white trans teen that was murdered in the UK so of course something about racialised misogyny makes sense on a white person and if you disagree the fascists win and the Black women and girls Say Her Name was about are somehow less dead than this trans teenager so shut up it's " solidarity" because whites said so

All this lecturing but doesn't seem to know anything about Black Americans, especially Black American women beyond how useful they are, for a hottake.

This was the reaction:

Would you be surprised that the same white person didn't like when another Black woman pointed out that framing the lynching of Black Americans as anti-rape instead of white supremacist violence reinforces the ideas lynch mobs used to kill Black people

If you try to reblog my commentary, even without adding tags, an anon told me you'll be blocked

Here's a Black American woman that has read about prison abolition talking about Black Femicide and her concerns about prison abolition especially given the history of how rape impacts Black American women

The self righteous meltdown about say her name, was walked back but it's obvious she didn't actually mean it. When online white people call something " infighting" and race is involved it often means some Black person disagreed with them and the implications of what they were saying and instead of being normal they call you "aggressive", which is famously something Black women are never called when we don't sycophantically agree. They don't see their behaviour as identity politics, whiteness is never identity politics, it's natural and neutral.

Black women are tools to these white "leftist" and you're not meant to disagree because they always know more even when they don't. It's crazy how easily these people will bring up Black people especially women into discussions that aren't about us but if you ever disagree, then fascist win

This is the standard behaviour of whites that always have Black women in their mouths. They don't believe in solidarity but usefulness.

[official-saul-goodman]

This is mainly my observation as a non black person watching the reactions of other non black people and especially white people to the show Interview With The Vampire, they are a result of a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the idea of horror.

in a world of white dominated hollywood horror movies that mostly contain gore and white familial tragedy and abuse, none of which ever ever include the concept of race, misogyny and homophobia, racialised misogyny, and racialised homophobia- people cannot digest a horror tv show wherein the main character is a black man who is always and forever a victim of systematic, social, and microaggressive racism. people, specifically white people, have always been uncomfortable with being shown the extent of anti black racism in a way that isnt heavily sanitised or sympathetic to the white cause. to white people, the genre of horror simply does not include race cause they have not experienced the horrors of colonialist genocidal white supremacist anti black racism. and i highlight anti black racism because it is the subject of the show, as well as being a topic that is discussed vaguely by non black people while still being the most perpetuated form of racism from a global standpoint.

to white people especially, as the people who are responsible for the worst crimes committed against black people, anti blackness is just one of life's constants that should not be addressed directly or in detail, so to depict anti black racism so openly as a part of the genre of horror is incomprehensible to them. they dont want to be shown even a smidgen of exactly the kind of shit their ancestors and peers are responsible for, cause horror to them must just be things that they relate to and nothing regarding race at all cause it causes them to confront their comfortable positions. this is the same reason why you see white people saying jordan peele's movies are 'too hard to understand' despite being very easy to understand.

horror to people of colour is a concept that intrinsically includes racialised violence, its a constant presence like a rusted nail hovering near an open wound. and white people reject this. which is why they decided to degrade and miscontrue the purpose of iwtv and call it 'just another self important show thats racist and not worth watching'. cause to them horror is meant to be enjoyable, they want limbs chopped off not the actions of their white ancestors coming back to remind and haunt them. even though horror is a genre that is meant to fill you with... horror. horror to white people does not include the politics of racism, cause they see horror as an apolitical genre (obviously incorrect when everything and the kitchen sink is political naturally).

to the people of color, it is a moment of feeling seen, to see a main character ( a flawed man a pained man) experience the horror of all round racial discrimination, to see the horror of him being dismissed and exploited by the white people around him, the moment of witnessing yourself in the other when you see Louis and Claudia being so utterly sabotaged by so many forces, the way they are pushed to making irreversible devastating decisions cause they think they have no other choice to achieve an escape from a multitude of things they suffer through, the manipulation and abuse they had to become accustomed to. this is the horror, the horror of being immortalised against your will and lack of choices you were given, the horror of being forced to be subjected to racialised misogynistic and homophobic violence for eternity. being forced to live with all these memories and no means of forgetting. all this while enduring the way a white man belittles them for even suggesting that he might be racist while he expresses racist micro agressions (both lestat and daniel). this is real horror that hits home, horror you want to devour as a person of colour cause you want to see more of this story continue, to see what becomes of this living limbo that Louis, Claudia, and eventually Armand have to go through.

and as most white people cannot fathom this, cannot relate, they dismiss this version of horror that focuses on racism as a core element from the perspective of a black man and forever young black girl. they dismiss the show as just being tone deaf colour blind casting cause they didnt even see the trailer or try to understand this show. the white guilt is a shield they use to defend themselves against the frank and honest depiction of anti black racism from the perspective of a black man. they do not want to understand. they want sanitised, digestible depictions of racism so the horror remains fun for them.

even though this show is literally categorised as horror, and has all the hallmarks of classic horror including the camp styling, the blood, the gore, the supernatural, and the violence - the single fact that the show's core theme is based around racism from the perspective of a gay black vampire man is enough for them to declassify as horror in their minds. cause people of colour and especially black gay men must always be shown as having a good time to dissuade the guilt of white people and their responsibility is establishing the systems that oppress gay black men. speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil, and the evil is not there anymore.

i may have more thoughts on this that i'll express later but thats all i have for now.

[irithnova]

I'm sorry if I am out of place talking about this as someone who isn't Chinese, but I'm bothered by the erasure of the struggles that gender non-conforming men face when people use the justification that "no man can face fandom/canon misogyny" when they try to argue that Wang Yao should not be a man. I'm not against people having their own China's being women at all however I find this justification to be poor and dismissive of how gender non-conforming men are categorised in society.

Gender non-conforming men, especially those who are more overtly feminine presenting do suffer from a level of misplaced misogyny.

I say misplaced because yes, misogyny is the hatred of women however gender non-conforming men's manhood or status as a man in society is not seen as valid or worthy as that of the status of a man who does adhere to gender expectations, because of gender non-conforming men's non-adherence to gender expectations. To an extent, more overtly feminine presenting gender non-conforming men are mistreated and brutalised in similar ways that women are mistreated and brutalised. When it comes to so called societal "appreciation" of gender non-conforming men, they are more often than not overly sexualised.

So, in my view anyways, canon China being mistreated by other nations in an almost misogynistic and overly sexualised manner is not an unrealistic situation as this often happens to more feminine men in real life. And so this is why it bothers me when people insinuate that there's no way China should canonically be a man because a man being treated in that way is unrealistic - it's not, and I personally believe that harbouring that kind of mindset aids in the erasure of the hardships gender non-conforming men face.

When it comes to fandom misogyny, I do think that the way China is treated is a mixture of fandom misogyny and Sinophobia. As I've discussed before, more feminine gender non-conforming men face a level of misplaced misogyny. Female characters are penalised more often for perceived or actual bad behaviour than their male counterparts, and yes, I do see that seeping through in the way people treat China.

However let's not forget how deep Sinophobia runs in Western society (speaking as someone who was raised in the West and is part of the Western fandom). A large chunk in the way Chinese people are racialised is through criticism of their government. We can see how many people in this fandom treat Russia and America with gloves and often blorbify them despite the corruption of their governments and colonial past. This forgiving portrayal is not often extended towards China, because, as I've said before, a large chunk of how Chinese people are racialised is through criticism of their government, and Sinophobia runs deep in the West. People turn a blind eye to the wrongs of Russia and America's government for the sake of posting light hearted content, but cannot do the same for China.

All in all, I'm just frustrated that people say with no hesitation that they can't imagine a man facing that kind of treatment and that's their main justification as to why they do not like male China. You don't need to imagine it - it's right in front of you. Look only to how the fandom treats Yao, or better yet, look to the real world.

[tinmandyke]

i actually must singularly discuss this: femmephobia is such a blatant misunderstanding of misogyny and sexism that it's wild i heard it unironically from my cultural studies professor.

Based on Kate Manne's theory, sexism is a broad dismissal and devaluing of ALL women. Every example I've seen of femmephobia is pure sexism, whether its men being allergic to pink, the devaluing of women's interests and industries populated by women, the way women are dismissed as airheaded or bad drivers etc. Manne says that misogyny is where, instead of actions differentiating men from women, they differentiate good women from bad women.

On most counts, femininity is a method of gender conformity - if she is not heavily tattooed, deeply immodest, visibly alternative, trans, or performing femininity in a racialised fashion etc., then she is a good woman experiencing sexism. If she is gnc (be that the aforementioned femininities or female masculinity/androgyny) then she is a bad woman, and subject to misogyny. MIsogyny is hatred, vitriolic, it happens ON TOP OF SEXISM, and I'm sick of seeing cis, white feminine women who appear straight comparing their experience to that experience of being gender non-conforming, and deciding that not looking gay is harder.

[alrightsnaps]

Because eastern europeans are also white people girl

I assume this is about the post I made about British actors constantly playing the roles of Eastern European characters in light of Last Christmas. I'll also assume by your genius “white people” comment that you are American and I really, really shouldn't touch on racial/ethnic issues with a ten foot pole on the comically ignorant yet insufferably obnoxious platform that is tumblr but fuck. You. Anon. Since I grew up in a country where Eastern Europeans are one of the main groups on the receiving end of racism in all sorts of ways, this time I fucking will.

Eastern Europeans have been consistently portrayed in variably offensive ways in Western media, usually involving the dim-witted drunkard -insert EE ethnicity- that, for some reason, always has a Russian accent and the typical gold digger and/or prostitute. And to add variety to this, when there are beautifully written, heroic, complex Eastern European characters (Marvel, The Witcher) well... that's too bad for actual struggling Eastern European actors cause a British/Western European/American is 99.9% getting the part!

I'm glad people from Eastern Europe are “white people” (=privileged) in your world , anon, cause in mine (and all across Europe) they sure as fuck aren't. So when those that actually are the privileged ones (ie: Western Europeans and Americans), the ones that have been discriminating against Eastern Europeans for decades, the ones that have been hiring them for all the shitty jobs that are ~beneath~ them and taking advantage of them while paying them dust, the ones that have been sexualising and and grooming and trafficking their girls and “ordering” them as fucking mail brides while also scapegoating them, the “dirty immigrants”, for their countries’ troubles; when these people decide to include in their movies characters from Eastern Europe that don't resemble cartoons but are well written and multidimensional, or adapt an iconic piece of their literature for television, the very least they could do is FOR ONCE cast Eastern Europeans.

For a change.

Just once to spice things up or something.

[thedreadvampy]

ok the thing I'm struggling to find words for in my mind tonight is. a deep discomfort with the framing that complex relationships to sexuality and gender are something exclusive to queerness. that cishet people's relationship to sexuality and gender is by definition simple. and that's a tempting idea and like, yeah, there's much less impetus for a cishet person to examine their sexuality and gender. but that doesn't mean there's no complexity to it. and this isn't intended as a Don't Be Mean To The Poor Straights post it's just. observably not true that no cishet person has a complex relationship to sexuality and gender.

queerness is a complicating factor in people's relationship to sexuality and gender - we are made more conscious of the ways we don't fit what's expected, our sexuality and gender is often what is used to justify marginalisation and it comes with a whole host of pain and joy because of that, and the way that queerness is marginalised forces us into direct conversation with our sexuality/gender

but queerness isn't the only complicating factor in people's relationships to sexuality and gender. like as a woman who is pretty Definitely Cis I still have a huge ongoing wrestle with my gender - it's female, but what that means and how that's expressed and how that affects how i move through the world is still complicated and fraught and often messy and contradictory. that doesn't make me trans but it does feel pretty alienating that in a lot of queer spaces there's this implied assumption that the only type of gender complexity is a discovery of non-cisness.

(and tbh a lot of the time that's fair because a lot of people aren't cis and as I say like. it's much easier to Never Have These Conversations (with others or with yourself) if you're cis. so a lot of cis people never really name their gender troubles because they're not brought face to face with them.)

but there are a lot of things that affect your relationship to your gender. for me, I know I'm a woman, but how I'm a woman is a messy question wrapped up in trauma, in misogyny, in bisexuality, in autism, in body image, in the specifics of who I am and how I relate to the world and how I want to be seen and why. and there kind of is a thing in a lot of IRL queer spaces I hang out in where people jump straight to diagnosing me with Trans of Gender if I try to discuss a complex relationship with womanhood, or a desire to present as GNC, or a discomfort with being performed in certain gendered ways. and for a lot of people that is a step on the route but as far as I can tell it's not for me, I've spent many years trying out the shape of different genders because I had got into a headspace that any complexity in my relationship to genders must mean I was Not Cis, and for me it just didn't fit, womanhood remained the best fit. and I don't regret that, I think in an ideal world everyone should push themselves to question their gender and try out and see what good, and some people are just statistically gonna be cis like. it would be a weird numbers game for absolutely nobody's gender and sex to line up.

but I'm getting sidetracked. I was thinking about how cis and het people have the capacity for equally complex relationships to gender and sexuality as anyone else, and why that's important.

(I've never been straight or even thought I was straight, but I have occasionally talked to straight people and like. I have never met anyone, straight or queer, with a simple and uncomplicated relationship to their own sexuality - is it right, is it socially acceptable, there's shame, there's trauma, there's confusion, there's gendered and racialised and ableist baggage)

and like. it isn't that sexuality and gender aren't less of a fraught space for cishet people as a group than for queer people as a group. obviously in a group that faces a history and present of marginalisation and active violence on the basis of sexuality and gender, those are more intense complexities, and because of that there's also more intense joy as well as intense conflict. we are able to build community through marginalisation. we're brought face to face with our complex relationships to ourselves and because we can't ignore it we have built the language and community and frameworks to explore it and revert in it in a way many cis het people haven't.

but.

understanding intersectionality means understanding that as much as the marginalisation of queerness is bound up in the complexity of our relationships to gender and sexuality, so are power structures of race and gender and health and neurodivergence and wealth and class and geography and culture and language and religion and politics and education.

ultimately sexuality and gender are a huge element in how we relate to the world and our bodies and ourselves. and how the world relates to us. and there isn't a person on earth for whom that's 100% simple.

and idk I think a) to pretend that cishet people can't experience their bodies and themselves in a complex way is just a denial of reality, b) it simplifies out the many intersections of identity and power in all of us (even the straightest cisest manliest rich white dude) that make our social and personal identities messy and intricate and c) it gets in the way of us building meaningful intracommunity solidarity through a shared understanding of the beauty and pain and infinite variety of gender and sexuality

also idk. it's weird to me. to me it posits that to be cis, to be straight, to be allosexual and alloromantic, is a default whereas queerness is a deviation. and I just don't believe that, I don't think there's a 'normal' and uncomplicated Default State and then everyone outside it is a complication. I think there's value in embracing that othering in the world we live in, where we need to find strength in anger and in resistance, but I don't think it represents a truth about the world as much as a reclamation of the weapons used against us.

to me it feels similar to the way that white people thinking of ourselves as aracial and everyone else as racialised is an act of unconscious white supremacy. or the way that people are really keen to draw a sharp line between the Disabled Other and the Healthy Normal People. the idea that there's Normal People and Diverse People isn't...good...really? and this is in itself a messy issue because I do think there's a lot of power and value in taking pride in the complexity and thoughtfulness of queer relationships to sex and gender and I don't think there's some great evil in joking at the expense of the privileged. but when that starts to inform your actual serious thinking I think it can be counterproductive because erasing the complexity of cishet identities and acting as if any complexity in relationship to sexuality and gender means someone's Wrong About Being Straight/Cis is kind of reinforcing the otherising of queerness.

ughhhhh this is why I say it's hard to find words. because to me now it sounds like I'm saying 'don't suggest people might be queer' and like. do do that. we're in a world where that space isn't left open for the vast majority of people and straight or not, cis or not, allo or not, I think pretty much everyone benefits from having the space and community and language to have a conversation with their own identity. but that's kind of my thing like that conversation doesn't have a right answer. the conversation needs to have room for a model of straightness and a model of cisness that doesn't immediately slam the door on further exploration.

(also I've mostly been taking about cishet people here but let's be honest it's really a question of cis AND/OR het. one thing I'm finding really difficult at the moment is that there seems to be a lot of conversations about queerness and gender expression which conflate GNCness and a complex relationship to gender exclusively with being trans, and a lot of the time talk about how being a woman and being sapphic affect your relationship to gender are understood as less authentic explorations where they incorporate cis gendered identities. and a lot of discussions about complex cis wlw relationships to gender and womanhood get coopted by terfs who think that because their complex experience of gender is a cis one that means all complex experiences of gender are cis ones being wishfully misinterpreted (this is because TERFs have. no capacity or will to imagine experiences beyond their own, apparently) and that leaves. for me. often very little room to authentically discuss and explore with others my own identity as a cis wlw who uses she/her pronouns and still has a complex relationship to gender. and indeed as someone whose attraction to men (and no it's not straight but it's different-gender) is as textured and complex as her attraction to women. like it's a long way off the top of the list of Things To Worry About but I think about it a lot.)

[zuzuslastbraincell]

IMO, if you’re going to criticise the way zukka’s booming popularity ties into the racialised fetishisation of mlm (great article on this as a phenomenon here), you should make that the core focus of your critique? I’ve seen some takes recently that try to critique it from additional angles but I feel these arguments are 1. borne out frustration 2. flawed 3. miss the point.

For example, I’ve seen some posts criticising zukka that are frustrated with people not for giving the canon wlw representation in the avatar universe the same kind of popularity and attention. I’m sympathetic to this frustration (I share it), but I think framing it in this way fails to recognise that neither of these ships are in ATLA itself. One is from a different show, that has far more inconsistent and arguably poorer writing, whose world-building has been critiqued from anti-imperialist perspectives and anti-capitalist perspectives multiple times, and critically, the canon wlw ship, while groundbreaking in children’s animation for its time, was poorly developed and foreshadowed. While you could attribute this to disputes with the executives at nicklelodeon, it doesn’t change the fact that as a viewer it’s not as compelling as it could have been. I personally love korrasami but I think there are good reasons to be disappointed or underwhelmed by its portrayal, there are good reasons why fans might not care much for Legend of Korra; indeed there are ATLA fans who haven’t even watched LoK. The other pairing is from a spin-off novel series about an important minor character, which hasn’t received anywhere near the publicity as ATLA or LoK. Again, I adore Rangi/Kyoshi, but we should be realistic about how much we expect casual viewers to read a spin-off novel series and how much attention it should garner without its own TV series. To some extent we need to be realistic – why should we expect people who are fans of ATLA, and only ATLA, to give as much attention to ships that are not part of ATLA?

I’ve also seen some posts that question why people don’t find the canonical m/f relationships appealing, and urge people to reconsider them, often stating gay =/= better, or more politically correct. While it’s true that liking ships absolutely should not be a measurement of how progressive you are, I find this perspective fails to recognise that there are actual genuine critiques that you could level at kataang, sukka, and maiko respectively? In each case you could make an argument for lack of development, that these relationships tend to centre the male character and their feelings? There are genuine reasons why viewers might be put off by these dynamics (in fact, there is no obligation for them to care, there never is), and I think we shouldn’t overcorrect and ignore the flaws in the dynamics’ canonical depiction that people might take issue with. I am also skeptical of the implication offered by this line of critique, where these canonical m/f relationships are all more politically correct – even if that’s true, I really don’t think that a lone is a good reason why people should be more invested in them (especially if the viewer finds their dynamic otherwise uncompelling flat etc.). We shouldn’t confuse shipping children’s TV characters with activism; taking an anti-imperialist, anti-racist, and feminist approach to media is more to do with accountability than activism and about ensuring fandom cultures do not only only cater to white cishet men. 

The last argument I’ve seen recently has been to do with the fact that mailee shouldn’t be compared too closely with zukka – agreed, in that they’re very different dynamics, and again, I can understand the frustration there. But mailee is not “more canonical” than zukka simply because the former were childhood friends. Firstly, neither of these relationships are canonical (may I remind you that Mai ends up with Zuko). Furthermore, there also no firm, rock solid, near indisputable evidence that Mai and Ty lee always cared for each other more deeply or fully than Azula; there is no firm, rock solid, near indisputable evidence that Mai and Ty lee always knew they were going to betray Azula and were leading her on the whole damn time. This is an interpretation of the text based on some circumstantial evidence and body language. It is a potentially an interesting, compelling interpretation of the text that has some limited evidence suggesting it could be true - but it ultimately relies on conjecture and extrapolation. It is not canon. There is also space for an interpretation of the text where Mai and Ty Lee never particularly liked each other or understood each other, and largely tried to get along for Azula’s sake. We should be careful to ensure that we don’t treat our headcanons as if they are ironclad canonical fact. There is space for a variety of interpretations of Mai and Ty Lee’s dynamic and to call it “more canonical” presents an interpretation of mailee as fact in a way I think not only is just kidding ourselves / exaggerating what we saw on screen, but also I think doesn’t allow for alternate interpretations that more broadly, impacts fandom negatively.

Like, ultimately I feel that all of these arguments are flawed, but also I think they miss the point! None of these things have much to do with zukka’s sudden popularity or why a lot of interpretations of zukka delve into racist fetishisation and mlm fetishisation. If you want to criticise zukka and its sudden rise in popularity, talk about the key factors at play. Talk about how migratory shippers latch on to new fandoms without much care for the context and detail of the source text, treating characters like blank slates they can attach tropes to without regard to their actual characterisation, either latching onto white characters no matter how minor their role is, or, as in the case of atla, either erasing & “whitening” the cultural background of the characters or just perpetuating racist perspectives.

We could also talk about how there is not much space or resources in fandom in general for wlw ships and discussions and spaces. We could talk about how women are more willing to work with and interpret male characters than vice versa, in part due to the lack of interiority and complexity often given to female characters in children’s animation historically but also due to misogyny and the male audience’s unwillingness to treat women like people even when presented with complex and layered female characters. We could also talk about the history of whiteness in fandom and how the source text was written by white american men and is a limited western interpretation of asian cultures and how that impacts the fandom and the reception and treatment of said cultures.

Like. I think there are more important factors at play and we shouldn’t make these flawed arguments simply out of frustration that what we care about and what we’re passionate about isn’t getting the reception we think it deserves. Because I get most of this, most of these arguments are borne out of frustration, but we shouldn’t exaggerate, mistate the case, or leave no room for critique.

[tinmandyke]

I (respectfully) (subjectively) disgree, I think her complexity is a total win for female characters and defanging her actions would be a disservice to the major themes of the film.

I agree that by every possible metric, the Wizard and Mme Morrible have worse moral fibre, but they are entirely minor characters compared to Glinda with maybe three scenes each if that. They are also cut-and-dry villains, wanting more power and greater influence which isn't really interesting to analyse. Like yeah, he ends up being regretful but he isn't at any point going to be redeemed, and neither is the Mme.

Glinda, however, is a fountain of possible metaphors. Even starting far to the right, her middle-class background and zealous gender conformity make her fit right in with right-wing women who would embrace fascism as a means of self-preservation and status mobility. However, she is blatantly made unhappy by this mobility in the opening scene and regretful because of an incredibly powerful relationship with a racialised woman and her cause for Animal liberation. That is a fascinating character that deserves to be analysed to death and explored by the fanbase, because of her embrace of a fascistic regime (good intentions nonwithstanding) and her relationship with Elphaba.

Other interpretations have framed her as a white feminist/white saviour type, as a liberal centrist, or as simply fitting whatever will give her that status mobility. The film doesn't need to pick any of these and thrives by being a flexible political metaphor, in my opinion. However, the simple fact of her being perceived as 'good' because she is charming, unthreatening, gender conforming and born from wealth - all of this interacting heavily with her whiteness - is a major plot element for me. She is the 'good woman' that Kate Manne might imagine when writing Down Girl, and Elphaba is none of these things by circumstances or by choice.

The fact that people have put their thinking caps on to explore how heirarchies of oppression operate WITHIN gender catagories like womanhood for example is fabulous for me, especially because Glinda still receives so much empathy from the people I've watched (I'm primarily absorbing Glinda Discourse via youtube). There's not an immediate writing off of her character as problematic, but instead she gets to be written about and discussed with enormous depth, complexity, and care that isn't often afforded to female characters.

I wish there was more discussion of Elphaba - there's so much to say but much more just to feel, imo, with Elphaba's character socially and wrt personality, but her politics, like the Wizard and Mme, are cut-and-dry. She is completely justified (and single-minded) in her pursuit of justice and liberation. Glinda does not tempt Elphaba to abandon her politics the way she is tempted by Elphaba. We have a complex protagonist who is a good person through and through, so critiquing Glinda feels less like misogyny and more like an acknowledgement of how some women are encouraged and tempted to maintain systems of oppression that benefit them, at the expense of other women.

This is obviously a subjective take with zero stakes about film criticism so no wakkas if its not your truth <3

the amount of people acting like Glinda is the secret True Villain of Wicked is buck wild to me. The way people will beg for complex characters, but then when they're given a story with MULTIPLE they don't know how to behave. It's wild to me that in a story about the pervasiveness of fascist propaganda where you are shown EXACTLY who the fascist perpetrators are - people are watching that and thinking, "oh the True Evil is not The Man Responsible For Literally All This, no, the True Evil is this young woman who's whole character arch is about how thankless and difficult it is to fight and unlearn that propaganda and how once you do everything is meaningless. The misogyny is so crazy. How do people have more smoke for Glinda than for the Wizard? Or even madame morrible?? "How could Glinda not support Elphie??" she did, elphie wouldn't have escaped without her. "Why was Glinda defending the Wizard?" She wasn't. She was frightened and intimidated, that's not the same as supporting. "All Glinda wanted was power the whole time!" Is that really what you think she's choosing in Defying Gravity? Reopen the schools!!!

[bauliya]

Desi person here. Your recent post. Yeah, I’ve been feeling uncomfortable about how white centric this fan base is because misogyny and racism cannot be separated. Not for WOC. We don’t get to decide whether it’s misogyny or racism. It’s always both. So while I understand wanting to do black out poetry for this show to get through it, which I too have been doing since I was 14, the consistent takes on, “well yeah it was always misogynistic but the racism is bad tho. Very bad.” Feels empty. Lol

And I’m here like ok you can’t separate the two. You don’t need to always mention it of course because it’s exhausting but I think white fans need to understand how white centric every thing is and how every thing is interconnected because colonialism. Blame the writers for sure, but when people keep saying well it was always like this tho.. what a privilege to be able to even put it at the back of your mind because when I watch this show I flinch when the Asian fetish shit comes up WHICH is both misogynistic and racist. Not just racist. And I swear this fandom forgets that because they are majority white. Some times even poc have white centric takes but i can’t blame us when white media raised us. So I understand that but white fans...

Media 100% influences society and we can’t pretend that it’s not harmful. The recent Asian attacks really made me think of spn tbh and that’s all I kept thinking about since I’m fixated on it again. 15 years they consistently kept writing this in and it is canon.

Obviously we can’t do activism through fandom but we can’t pretend like this shit ISNT exhausting for POC even if we are fans of this show. So when white fans speak they genuinely need to watch how they discuss this stuff.

Sorry for the rant. I hope I made sense. Love ur blog. Poc spn fans are elite. Genuinely.

I feel kind of weird about that post because I made it thinking people were just pointlessly attacking pr*ncessh*mlet for speaking out about dean winchester's issues (I haven't been online a lot during the last two days) but I did more research and. jesus fuck. also after they literally reblogged my post calling out the racialised misogyny of spn going "#spn fans of colour are so strong". cracker, the call is coming from inside the house.

but YEAH excluding the drama the point still stands. lemme tell you it gave me all sorts of issues watching the character that made me realise I was bisexual treat women who looked like me like that. I'm just.. really hurt they did that for fifteen years when there was literally no reason to. they could've just chosen not to. they didn't even have a single Asian love interest for dean. I just can't understand why :(

[pumpumdemsugah]

People on here love bringing up Black men whenever there's any general post about misogyny, drop the word gender and intersectionality and act like they're aren't derailing the conversion and implying it doesn't apply to Black women because we're too weird and negro to relate to misogyny

You're not intersectional, you hate any discussion of misogyny and sexism so you're hiding between Black men and other MOC

" Regular" misogyny applies to Black women. Racialised misogyny doesn't mean we never share anything in common with other women.

And it's always the same breed of mostly white people that love talking about queer this and that who do this so they can start talking about themselves. Queering the racism and misogyny away from things that impact Black people so I can talk about my own non-Black gender. No, this isn't entitlement or racism because I said gender and misused 5 concepts.

You lot think Black women and Black female academics exist as ventriloquist dummies for your hot takes. You think anti-Black racism is simple and stupid unlike you.

[mithliya]

how do you feel about white women criticizing moc or the way they focus white women specifically in some places? or white women criticizing islam (since it's a majority asian/arab religion). i've found that when i try to criticize either i'm immediately met with comments like "that's racist of you" etc even though i don't name-call anyone and i don't swear or label them bad names when discussing my experiences.

i do get suspicious when white women focus a lot of their energy on criticising moc but none on the men they’re typically more familiar with (white men), but i don’t think there’s anything questionable if a white woman mentions misogyny from moc. with criticising islam i don’t see a single thing wrong w it unless people don’t throw out … racialised and sensationalist language while doing it ig.

[frebster]

How's Stephen King homophobic? What?

I mean. listen. if you’re referring to That Post I reblogged it for the joke, but if you really wanna get into it - there is something to be said about a straight, white man being heralded for his contributions to a discussion about civil injustice when those contributions come in the form of writing terrifying, violent scenes where a straight, white man or some other symbol of oppressive force of similar character is the obvious aggressor. Especially when other authors, whose life experiences correspond to the struggles they write about are overshadowed in the same turn.

I realise the scene in the beginning of “It” was taken from real life, and when asked about it he talked about how he had been blind to homophobia of that degree for a long time, and yes, it was a decent way to show what kind of villain Pennywise was but then again - that specific scene wasn’t a resolution of anything. It was more or less the execution of a gay man. And “It” ends with one of the queer coded characters dying at the hands of that same villain, 

Bag of Bones also deals with racism, and racialised misogyny, but when reading it I didn’t feel like the oppressors got what they deserved, and it didn’t feel like criticism of something real. If he wanted to criticise the pain black women suffer at the hands of white men, he could do without writing a horrific rape scene. 

This veered off topic. I realise that when it comes to homophobia, he could be worse, but while I don’t know what op was thinking about when making that post, for me it boils down to praising him as an activist when most of what he writes about minorities make those minorities deeply uncomfortable. It doesn’t feel like social commentary, it feels like torture porn, you know?

[akajustmerry]

please discuss eudora patch!

let’s go let's do it LETS GET INTO IT SHALL WE???

eudora patch was, at every level of characterisation, affected by misogynoir and the fandom absolutely reflects this most of the time.

first of all, the trope of the Black Cop is inherently racist, period. It was created to sell the myth of a post-racial imagining of the police that simply doesn’t exist. Black cops in film and television are there, not to genuinely represent the experiences of Black and Brown people in a force created to oppress them, but to skirt having to deal with the institutional racism inherent to the police because “we can’t be racist, here's a Black/Brown cop” and this is doubly Bad when using Black women to do this because its also a way to deny racialised sexism. 

SECONDLY. eudora is undermined CONSTANTLY by Diego and eventually goes along with it because of course a Black character can’t ever be allowed to be right. Even though it's done in a flirty cute way, its never going to fly with me that its cute for non-Black characters to constantly undermine and gaslight Black characters, particularly Black women who are famously unheard, which is what happens to Eudora constantly throughout season one of tua AND IT GETS HER KILLED.

which brings me to THIRDLY, eudora, A BLACK WOMAN, is essentially SHOT BY THE WHITE TIME COPS. what makes this EVEN WORSE IS that this is literally used as Man Pain for Diego. She is functionally, and in the most anti-Black way possible in the series, FRIDGED to push Diego into having a motive for wanting to go after the commission and she is not mentioned by name ever again after her death. Misogynoir to the max

FOURTH: Do we as viewers of the show know anything about eudora outside of her relationship to Diego, or her job? NOPE. you know why?? because her purpose is to be a plot device for us to a) sympathise with Diego (note: we never have scenes where Diego asks Eudora how she’s doing, etc. the relationship is so one-sided we literally know nothing about her she’s just an emotional foil for diego to vent to). She is not written as a fully fleshed-out character. she is a plot device whose purpose is to die and you can try to tell me things would be the same if she weren’t Black but I don’t believe you. we have more insight into fkn Dolores the mannequin than we do with Patch

I didn’t really get involved with tua fandom until season 2 so i can’t really speak to what was said by the fandom about Eudora during season 1. what i can speak to is how much I’ve noticed, now that Lila is in the picture, how much people are martyring Eudora as Diego’s One True Love, despite her a) being literally fridged for his character development b) being constantly undermined and disrespected by him when she was alive and c) being his emotional punching bag with zero reciprocation of that emotional labour. 

it's almost like these mostly white fans are so mad that diego is with a woc that they want to use their APPARENT “love” for Eudora to make it seem like their hatred for lila isn’t just more racialised misogyny. 

eudora deserved and deserves better from both the fandom and the show. eudora’s characterisation in the show was misogynoir to the max and if you’re a non-Black person claiming otherwise, then maybe u need to reflect on why such an anti-Black misogynistic depiction of Black woman seems so great to you. yes, her character had a lot of wonderful potentials but to pretend that potential wasn’t squandered?? does her a disservice 

[impertinentleft]

And She Ought Suffer What She Must?

Just because she works with her hands? Just because she works in the skies? Just because she works out of sight? Just because she works with guys? Just because she works in the spotlight? She ought suffer what she must? No factory floor, no mile high, no shop floor, nor trade plied. She must not.

First with the bow in her hair, then the colour of her dress, then the row of dolls she’s given, then the words of her Aunt Bess, and the hands of her Uncle, then her mother’s cooking, and her father’s rage. Then the roles she’s given, then the magazines and the banners, and the movies and the ads. Then the words and the shame.

It does not detract from others’ suffering when we see hers. We must stand for her, in every case. From one bears all – the whole is built from smaller parts. What’s evil permeates not just the worst but much of the mundane.

It’s not okay. It’s not okay in public, it’s not okay in private, near or far, wherever: it is our concern. Her home must be safe. Her street must be safe, her commute must be safe, her work must be safe.

It’s not a matter of personal preference or performance, it’s seeing others with full humanity. We must side with her when she’s yelled at, when she’s cornered, when she’s leered at, and when she’s groped, cut, raped, bashed or slaughtered.

I wrote these words more than a year ago. Reading over them again I feel a bit embarrassed by their forced nature, and my attempt at a poetic structure. I stand by the feelings behind them, and what I think my argument was - that misogyny should be met at all levels with resistance, no matter how trivial. This is because the social structure is pervaded by an ideology of masculine supremacy. There is a connectedness between the trivial and the hyperviolent, and recognising that makes it imperative to alter our behaviour at all levels, if we truly are concerned about the cause of gendered violence.

The context of what I wrote bears analysing too. I put pen to paper after having a heated discussion with a co-worker in 2019, regarding allegations made by an actor, who claimed a co-worker of hers at the time, Geoffrey Rush, had acted inappropriately towards her. It is here that I would link an article describing the allegations, but Australia’s defamation laws are so skewed that none exist and, strictly speaking, I too am beholden to those laws. Suffice to say that the discussion I had with the colleague assumed the allegations true, but this does not detract from the impetus for my writing, after having that discussion.

My recollection is that my co-worker felt that the complainant had overreacted by making a complaint about the alleged conduct. She felt not only that it was not worth making a complaint about, but also that by making that complaint the accuser was detracting from other, presumably more ‘real’, conduct and behaviour perpetrated against women. My colleague also seemed vaguely suspicious of the then emerging ‘#metoo movement’. As I hope is apparent from what I’ve written, I did not (and do not) agree with her arguments. As far as I see it, the victim in this instance, as well as those who spoke up about their own experiences during that time and since, are workers demanding safe working conditions. The end goal of which is not merely to demand that bosses improve those conditions (albeit, this is extremely important), but the end goal should also be worker control of the arts and the banishment of capital’s hold in the industry.

Thinking on the discussion now, my co-worker’s arguments remind me of Helen Garner’s book, The First Stone, which I would recommend to all interested in these issues (even if I do not particularly agree with Garner on much of what she says in that book). In her book Garner investigates allegations made by two students of the University of Melbourne, who alleged that the head of a prestigious college had sexually harassed them. Garner’s book still attracts controversy for some of the conclusions she entertains, and some utterances she makes (particularly in regard to the claimants).[1]

Garner is frank about her initial response to the news,[2] her past encounters with men acting inappropriately,[3] and her feelings about the players involved (the accusers, the accused, and everyone around them). She sways between wanting to understand the young women’s intentions,[4] feeling that they were overreacting,[5] and perversely extolling the polite virtue of the accused and lamenting his lost career. It can make hard reading for the converted feminist (or ally thereof) who believes both in sexual liberation and the existence of a patriarchal social structure. It should also be said, for me at least, the book offers important insight into how a woman, longing for the days of sexual playfulness, has come to feel increasingly invisible.

I recommend it, despite it’s challenging subject matter and defense of arguments I don’t agree with, because it is a well-written and complex analysis of competing schools of thought in modern feminism and criminology. Garner offers compelling arguments in favour both of my co-worker’s view and the more radical approach (I like to think I inhabit).

I share the feelings well summed up by Rachel Hennessy, writing 20 years later for Overland (hard copies of which can be found on many Melbourne university campuses including the one in question). Hennessy describes the experience of reading The First Stone as ‘being betrayed by a good friend’.[6] It is important to read the book because Garner’s ultimate conclusions represent an alternative view of sexual equality that many still hold, and clearly, the dialogue with my colleague is precisely what Garner was grappling with herself, and continues to be debated among those of us who deign to call ourselves feminists.

It is also tangentially an important book for its criminological content. Garner analyses what institutional response ought be taken against sexual violence, and makes interesting arguments about proportionality. We often argue for harsher penalties and sanctions for perpetrators (and understandably so), but this can be uncomfortable for those of us who know that our penal institutions are woefully inadequate to deal with any form of anti-social behaviour. It can be easy to argue for the end to the carceral state and defunding the police when we talk about the wrongly convicted and racialised policing (for instance), but it is far more challenging to argue for those things in the face of what is clearly objectionable conduct. If the state is to be involved in preventing harm (which it should be), does the argument against imprisonment hold true for all crimes or just some of them? Exploration of that question is best left for another time.

What we see from Garner’s book, and what I learnt from my discussion with my co-worker, is that, generationally, as well as politically, we are still divided on the issue. For those of us who have a more absolutist approach against sexual misconduct, it can be confronting to have these discussions. My writings above were an emotional response to what was a challenging dialogue. An attempt to elucidate the thinking that sexual violence is a part of a wider culture, one of misogyny, which finds expression not only in depraved acts of violence (like rape) but also in the mundane gender distinctions (like a man badgering a woman on public transport). If we act on principle that we ought be treated equitably as well as that all are inherently equal, then how is that we justify not resisting the trivial expressions of inequity as well as the more dangerous.

[1] Gay Alcorn, ‘Helen Garner’s The First Stone is outdated. But her questions about sexual harassment aren’t ‘, The Guardian (7 January 2018) <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/08/helen-garners-the-first-stone-is-outdated-but-her-questions-about-sexual-harassment-arent>.

[2] Helen Garner, ‘The First Stone’, page 16.

[3] See, eg, ibid page 62.

[4] Ibid page 78.

[5] Ibid 16.

[6] Rachel Hennessy, ‘ Why Helen Garner was wrong’, the Overland (24 July 2015) < https://overland.org.au/2015/07/why-helen-garner-was-wrong/comment-page-1/>.