#romani feminist writings

[djuvlipen]

With the end of Pride Month and Romani Heritage Month approaching, I recommend every radical feminist to read Dzuvljarke

“Džuvljarke (*Ȝuvlӑrke) – is a term from the Roma language (Romani) and used among Roma living in Serbia. Together with its Serbian-influenced suffix, it is used to refer to a lesbian, a woman emotionally and sexually oriented towards women. This term usually implies a negative connotation, particularly within the heteronormative patriarchal Serbian and Romani social matrix.”

“The aim of this paper is to ensure that when lesbian existence is discussed, the conversation opens a path leading to the empowerment of these women, who are, at the moment nameless and invisible and remain objects of shame and victims of multiple forms of violence and discrimination.” (European Roma Rights Centre)

"Vera Kurtić is a radical feminist and a Romani woman. She is an activist and one of the coordinators of Women Space, an organization based in Niš, Serbia and one of is a founding member of the Romani Women Network of Serbia that gathers organizations and groups from across the country into a joint and unified force directed to enhance the position of Romani women. Also, she is a one of the founders of informal international Roma LGBT Network. She studied sociology and communications, the main fields of her interest are intersectionality of different discrimination based on gender, sex, race, class and sexual orientation, as well as representation of marginalized social group in media and public space. Vera is the founder of Campaign Month of Roma women activism, author of Džuvljarke- lesbian existence of Roma women, the first study on Roma women of different sexual orientation than heterosexual." (source)

It's available for free here: x

[tagthescullion]

I like how you write Maria di Angelo. I don't like it when people portray her as some modern-day at-odds-with-society feminist. Sure, she might've been liberal (probably unlikely though) but liberal *for her time*, which people always seem to forget. Maria could've been the most liberal-minded openminded person in the world and she would still be considered conservative by today's standards. This was the 40s after all, but too many people don't really seem to know what it was actually like then.

thanks anon, I do love talking about maria :D

TLDR: I assume she was liberal in a few aspects of her life, but considering the time and social context she lived. also, at least while she lived in italy, being openly nice to the people being persecuted meant dying, and she wouldn't have wanted to get nico and bianca into trouble

not only does maria belong to a different time but people have a very black-and-white view of liberalism

1- liberalism in the US isn't liberal by any standard outside of the US, US liberalism is as conservative as liberalism can get, so whenever the US half of the fandom speaks about it, pinch of salt and whatnot

2- having an open mind in some aspects of your life doesn't mean having them in every aspect of your life. I can be super okay with gay people and then get scared about the homeless; I can be supportive of socialism but think some people of colour aren't welcome in certain social circles; I can call my mother a snob and yet be the most christian conservative in the world.. hell, I can be racist to some PoC and supportive of others!

in maria's case, I think she was liberal enough when it came to:

women, I mean, she managed having two illegitimate children (regardless of how covered by her family that might or not have been)

she clearly didn't agree with italy's fascist regime (otherwise she wouldn't have moved to the US), so she would've been against the extermination of the ethnic/religious groups mussolini targeted

and in general, about her we know:

she was a good mother, she cared about nico and bianca, and was patient enough to have got to know hades' good side

she was also an aristocrat or rich enough to belong to the elite

that's virtually all we know. not more, not less

being against genocide isn't always a direct link to being okay with those groups, and so we can't know for sure if she was okay with gay people. since she's a good mum and loves nico, we can guess she'd have extended some support, but support at the time wasn't the same as now, it always came with a "but don't show it" side-message

being rich, it's likely she'd have been accidentally rude to middle/lower class people.. (nico should also be, but that's for another day) not openly targeting them, but comments here and there that make for awkward pauses

she would've been okay with PoC she knew, but not necessarily have a good idea of ethnicities as a collective group

as for openly showing that "liberal" side of her, we're talking proper fascism, gente, say you don't mind gay people, or black people, romani, jews, be too loud about how a woman should have a choice as to whether to be a housewife or have a paying job and not getting married.. you got shot or made to disappear

admittedly this is a headcanon of mine, but the way I see maria, she would've prioritised her kids over everything and everyone else. she'd have been kind and tried to help out as much as possible, unless nico and bianca were put in direct danger

[scarlet--wiccan]

Re: queer shit in Agatha: how is it really (in your opinion, if it’s not too soon to say)? I saw Aubrey Plaza say it was going to be the queerest mcu project, and well. I don’t think anything has even come close to runaways, which still managed to fumble incredibly when it came to xavin. I think the mainline stuff is pretty pointedly un-queer. I still can’t wrap my head around making Phyla (and America) children, NTM both times someone said a thor movie would be knock your socks off gay only to be incredibly overwhelming at absolute best

Not that it would in anyway negate the hideous racism and antisemitism, but it would be just a little vindicating if it also ended up being homophobic and/or queerbait-y after listening to certain people insist they have to support it bc there’s no other media in the history of the world centering on queer witches (/s)

By definition, it's not queer baiting. There are definitely gay people and gay relationships in the show. Locke's character is gay and has a boyfriend, who will appear in an upcoming episode, and although it's not explicitly confirmed yet, it genuinely does seem that Agatha has romantic history with Plaza's character, Rio.

And not for nothing, but there are at least three gay/bi actors on the cast, and out of the six main characters, four of them are gay or bisexual in the source material. The whole bit about this being the "gayest Marvel project"* does feel kinda cringey and I know it's hard not to be cynical, but from a purely numbers perspective, I don't think it's untrue. I can't speak to the quality or context of that representation yet, but I think that's more of a writing problem than anything else--we're already halfway through the series, and I feel like I barely know anything about the characters or their backstories besides, randomly, Alice, who has the least amount of material in comics.

To be honest, I don't think that the show is going to go out of its way to explore, like, queer narratives or experiences. I think the intention was to simply have a lot of characters who happen to be gay, and I do think that's something Shaeffer, et al have been pretty clear about. However, it's obvious that they're trying to capitalize off of the buzz that this generates, and it is really hard to not feel cynical about that when Disney/Marvel have done this so many times in such a tokenizing fashion.

For the record, I know people like to draw parallels between the history and persecution of "witches" and LGBT people, but I find it disingenuous, or at least, not historically truthful. People get too caught up in the modern fantasies and feminist narratives about witchcraft-- which are rewarding in their own right-- to engage with the actual history of that word. In the process, I think they do a disservice to the real women and people of marginalized genders/orientations who may or may not have stewarded those practices, or been affected by that persecution-- which I'll remind you, typically had more to do with colonialism and abuse of power than actual faith or magic.

Those narratives are absolutely reflected in Marvel comics, and in fact, Agatha herself typifies this convention. But I think what's happening on the show is so flattened and reductive, that there's little room for nuance and interpolation. And it's a real shame, because when you have a cast of characters with preternaturally long lives, there is an opportunity to look at other time periods, and really breathe life into what it was like to be a marginalized woman at various points in history. But based on what we saw in Wanda/Vision-- the reductive display of colonial New England + rampant anti-Blackness, antisemitism, and anti-Romani racism-- I just don't have high hopes.

To me, that's what really chafes about the cast and crew's attempt to spin this "witches are queer" narrative. But I don't feel that I'm being baited on the literal presence of gay people, and there's no reason for anybody to have any illusions about that.

*in the quote you cited, Plaza and the interviewer do not use the word 'queer,' they use the word 'gay.' In this context, I don't really think it's that deep, but I wanted to take a moment to say that those words and identities are not interchangeable, and I think it's best practice to quote people accurately, especially when they're expressing gender or sexual identity.

[electronicdelusionstarlight]

I'd like to bring up a second the way Intersectionality works in the Thaumaturge.

The Thaumaturge is a game set in 1905 Warsaw, Tsarist Empire. It presents a universe where everything is the same but some people can be Persona Users. This is a genetic condition inherited from parent to child.

Of course Thaumaturges are a Magical Minority seen with distrust if not outright oppressed, especially in the notoriously fucked up Tsarist Russia.

You can, playing the game, see a lot of parallels with IRL discrimination in the game. At one point you find a book called "The Precepts of the Masters of Thauma" or something, which is word for word an adaptation of the Protocols of the Elders if Zion but for Thaumaturges, you find a letter by a British man talking about how superstitious easterners were, and how it was a proven fact one could "fix" Thaumaturges with a lobotomy, you see a mother force an exorcism on her Thaumaturge child for "acting up" and being weird to her because "the devil stole him from me," again a lot of parallels with real life minorities and their oppression.

Except...

The protagonist of the game is Wictor Szulski. He's high bourgeoise, his father is a rich polish businessman, his mother is the sister of a high ranking russian officer in Poland. He lives in a grand, posh house, not having to work, always settling his debt by writing a cheque his sister will pay, and the one time he committed a major crime, his father and his connection instantly bailed him out, before he started a pleasure trip to France as a teenager and then all around the world.

He is still oppressed, he is still mistrusted, he is still victim of discrimination, but the thing is, he is so high bourgeoise he has it way better than others.

Contrast Ariel Rofe or Madame Samira, two other Thaumaturges he meets. Rofe is Jewish, Samira is... I think she's Romani, the first one lives in the slums, the other has to pretend to be a Charlatan Medium just to get by.

Contrast his Non Thaumaturge Sister Ligia, who is his same social class and yet is ostracised and mistreated for her gender, for her desire to take over her father's business, for her feminist leanings.

Contrast Wanda, the Socialist Leader, and all other left leaning characters in the game calling him out for his privileged position even if you try to play him as the most socialist possible.

Contrast the Doctor, a Tatar, a Muslim, a Polish Man, a Thaumaturge who supports the first and only female doctor in Warsaw.

Contrast the Lechites, a Nationalist Polish Independence group who is trying to create a "Pure" Poland, erasing all other foreigners and minorities from it.

The game is rife with parallels to real life minorities, while also talking at length about real minorities and how that intersections with one another.

And how those minorities can also be exploited, exploited by Fear, and by Power.

And how the only way to win, truly win, is to stay united as a community, together, united, against the overwhelming weight of authoritarian power, but again without tolerating those who wouldn't tollerate us in turn.

Case in point, Wanda shooting the Lechites dead if you give her the chance, despite their alleged common goal of a free Poland, because you shouldn't exchange a tyranny with another.

[smalltownfae]

Title: The Silent Companions

Author: Laura Purcell

Pages: 305

Rating: 4.5/5

The Silent Companions follows three timelines. It opens with the main character in an insane asylum as she starts to write about the events that lead her to that moment in order to prove her innocence. The second timeline consists of these writings about her recent past. The third timeline is of a diary from an ancestor of the Bainbridges.

The story follows Elsie, who is believed to have set her own house on fire. Elsie’s husband, Rupert Bainbridge, is found dead weeks after their marriage and she moves to his big house while pregnant with his heir and in the company of her husband’s cousin, Sarah. Quickly, Elsie finds a painted wooden figure (called silent companion) behind a locked door and decides to take it to another part of the house. After that, more silent companions start to show up around the house and they look strangely alive. The answers to the mystery might be in the diary that belonged to an ancestor of the Bainbridges and that was found in the same room as the first figure.

This supernatural gothic horror novel was creepy and engaging even though I saw the ending coming and I could predict what was happening from the clues that were given throughout the text.

The main character is not the most likeable. She doesn’t come from luxury but acts like she is above others because she married a Bainbridge and co-owns a matches factory along with her brother. Elsie has a lot of prejudices usually associated with people that are high born even though she got rich only recently.

The mysterious and claustrophobic atmosphere of the novel was really well done and the characters were well realized. Sometimes the dynamic between the Bainbridges and the servants reminded me of Downton Abbey even if it wasn’t as character focused as that.

The story comments on a lot of feminist themes and it has mostly a female cast, which I found interesting. It also provides commentary on social classes and abuse from family members.

The slur for the Romani is used in the book. However, given the kind of person who says it, it gives believability to the narrator.

I also have a bit of an issue with a certain aspect that is related to ending and, therefore, a spoiler. I don’t like when there is the belief that people are born evil and, especially, when children are the culprits. Agatha Christie did this too in one of her books that I will not mention because of spoilers.

Still, this was a great book and I am interested in checking more of the author’s work.

[saint-starflicker]

Florian on YouTube did this breakdown of Romani stereotypes in Wuthering Heights and especially Heathcliffe, and the main reason I read (just finished reading yesterday!) Jane Eyre is to find out what Wide Sargasso Sea did with the story. I ended up liking Jane Eyre a lot more than I expected to, even though there is casual antiziganism, antisemitism, indigenous stereotyping, whatever Georgiana's weight gain is supposed to imply...and phrenology that I'm not sure is ironic or satirical anymore.

And yes that's not fun to read. When we recognize that these are products of their time...just as, I'm sure, Wide Sargasso Sea will prove to be a product of its time even though it was recommended to me as an endeavor to fix Jane Eyre that was the product of an earlier time...What should that mean, though?

For my part, I'm thinking it means that even though Charlotte Brontë was a keen observer of the (white) people around her (St. John holier-than-thou but Jane is not going to have a problem with the colonialism in his missionary vocation or giving him the final word in her story, why Eliza and Georgiana don't get along, why Diana and Mary do, etc.) she still had unexamined prejudices that she wasn't given the life experiences to examine. This book is a snapshot of that. I think gladly that we're in the 21st century when there have already been conversations and foundations for CRT readings (though as of now I get the sense that's still not as well established a literary analysis framework as Marxist or less intersectional feminist readings) that we can say what's not fun about it—as opposed to maybe being in the 1850's and reading Jane Eyre and feeling that's there's something tiresome and uncomfortable and not fun about it but maybe not being able to clarify why nor access the writings of people who can put better why (because—no internet.)

While Wide Sargasso Sea was next on my list, I did watch Picnic at Hanging Rock between chapters, and in the 2018 miniseries adaptation (spoilers under Read More)

Marion Quade is rewritten and cast as an Aborigine girl—so now I'm tempted to read Picnic at Hanging Rock next instead so as to maybe wrangle something about how reparative chromatization* is (or isn't) in the miniseries adaptation.

* chromatic fiction was introduced to me in 2015 as something fanfiction writers were doing when they (for example) write Bucky Barnes as nisei or Mary Poppins as South Asian Indian to explore what "work" that race changeup does in/to the story, what other dimensions that opens up for storytelling...but now when I look up "chromatic" fanfiction it's all about a default colorblind world until the characters meet their soulmate and then they see colors like being The Receiver in that dystopia, so I guess the general interest in exploring storytelling in that direction didn't really last? Which I completely understand if it went more sort of "Stop with the racebending! It fixes nothing! Write with our #OwnVoices maybe" which I fully support that last part while also I still think that chromatizing Marion Quade was a generally good decision.

can we talk about how Brontë works are actually very racist like WOW um HOLY SH*T I get it Heathcliff is an animal beast whatever and he’s the only brown man I GET IT PLEASE CALM DOWN. And I also get that Bertha is not human and she’s the only Creole / WOC!! And you don’t need several paragraphs describing Jamaica like this WHY DID YOU EVEN COLONISE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE IF YOU HATE IT??? AAAAAA

Edit: btw fellows I still love the Brontës and their works I'm just saying in this post that their dehumanising descriptions of the POCs in their stories aren't fun to read 😭🙏🏽. They're still great books but eh they're products of their time, and like, I can still hate those dehumanising descriptions of people like me.

[nellygwyn]

It is truly something (and incredibly offensive) to see 'white feminism' frequented totted out on Tudor Tumblr as a criticism of anything that is even vaguely positive and hyped-up about Anne Boleyn, as if we are not talking about mainly white historians writing about a white woman, surrounded by other white women and white men, and that includes every single one of Henry VIII's wives. 'White feminism' is a specific thing, something that specifically harms women of colour (and often people of colour more generally) in an attempt to uplift and empower frequently unpleasant white women. It is not simply 'Anne Boleyn was a badass and this other white woman in Henry VIII's court was less of a badass', you cannot "girlbossify" Anne Boleyn, someone preferring Anne Boleyn to, say, KoA is not 'white feminism' because both of those women were white. Now, whitewashing and lionising female European monarchs directly involved in and responsible for the suffering of people of colour/Jewish people/Romani in their own kingdoms and the indigenous peoples of the Americas? Ignoring anything that historians of colour have to say on that at the expense of white female historians who ignore all that in order to present said female monarchs as pseudo-feminist? That is, in fact, white feminism.

[mxpseudonym]

PB Season 6, Episode 4 thoughts and spoilers below

.

.

.

I really, really enjoyed the scene this episode with Arthur and Tommy talking. I think it made me realize that I miss characters other than Tommy talking about things that are more than just "we hate what Tommy has done," and are doing more than just introducing a new plotline. Not because he doesn't deserve it, but because it really narrows the perspective of everything going on.

Ex. Charlie on the stairs. That was the first time I've heard from him this season, and it gave space for me to soak up the grief that the family must be feeling.

The conversation with Ada and Karl. They did reveal Freddie to be Jewish, but mainly that conversation acted as a temperature check to let me understand even more how risky these situations are for Ada. And why it makes less fucking sense that she's involved at all with the fascists, even as a favor. You have a Black daughter, but you can dabble in girlboss-dom as a treat and ppl will say yass BDE, which is a very white feminist move.

I understood when Joe Cole (who played John Shelby) said he left because he felt like he exhausted John's character and it's "Cillian's show" anyway. But this episode helped it sink in. Like, oh, this really is Cillian's show because the other characters often show up as caricatures of themselves, never really growing on-screen, because they're all mirrors to Tommy's actions more than anything else.

I don't think we'll get this nonstop until the end. Some of the writing is still... ? Like, Natasha O'Keefe is really serving everything for this role, impeccable acting. And also, Lizzie's scenes as a character are just lacking for me this season. I hated the "I fucked Mosley" scene from earlier, but in this episode specifically I didn't really like some of the wagon scene. Her not wanting Ruby to burn but them burning her wagon anyway felt "look at what these romani people are doing to a grieving mother." I thought her walking in on the convo with the doctor, sitting there to get lied to, and then leaving was so fucking stupid. Like SK can't make it more clear that she is just a plot tool.

Anywho, to take it back to the top: this was still my fave episode of PB in a while.

[djuvlipen]

I grew up along Romania’s Black Sea coast. My father was the first in his family to graduate from university, and my mother went to a vocational school. Being educated was unusual in our Romani community. My parents raised me with a deep sense of justice and dignity. They told me to be proud of being Roma, while non-Romani people told me there was something wrong with me.

My parents still preserved some aspects of traditional Romani culture: They were obsessed with me maintaining my virginity and being a “good woman.” In many Romani communities, women get married as teenagers. Those who attend school often drop out before high school because they get married, or to care for their younger siblings and perform household chores. Others leave school out of fear of the racism they would face.

Romani women aren’t a monolith. But we all contend with patriarchy and marginalization both inside our culture and from the outside world. The contradictions I have witnessed led me to ask questions and eventually, to discover feminism and to fight for equality. Along this path of activism, however, I learned that I had to define my own understanding of what it means to be a feminist within my Romani identity.

Romani people have endured centuries of injustice across Europe, as an ethnic minority, yet we have a long history of resistance. By the late 1990s, I had graduated from university, gotten married and become a mother. I was also an activist in the Romani movement. I started to wonder what elders meant when they said that we struggled for our “rights.” I learned about the discourse around the universality of human rights. As Romani people, did we really believe in human rights? Or did we only believe in human rights when it came to our rights, Romani people’s rights? What about everyone else? And who is in the position of power to define Romani rights? I debated these questions with my soul mate and fellow Romani activist, Nicolae Gheorghe.

At the same time, I began to question the condition of women and girls in our community, and why we were treated differently from the boys and men around us. Even when I joined the Romani rights movement, I was expected to behave in certain ways that men defined. They determined who was a “good” Romani woman activist. Some Romani male activists tried to monitor my sexuality and called me a “whore” when I had a relationship with a man when I wasn’t married. It was the verses of our beloved Polish Romani poet known as Papusza (whose real name was Bronislawa Wajs) that brought me comfort. She wrote about the Holocaust and of being a woman defying constraints and traditional roles for women, for which she was ostracized by the community. Where were women’s rights within the discussion of Romani rights?

Then came feminism. I met Debra Schultz the American Jewish historian, who could see all these questions burning inside me. She bought me the first books about feminism that I read, including works by thinkers such as Simone de Beauvoir. But I really fell in love with the work of Black feminists Angela Davis and bell hooks, whose book, “Ain’t I a Woman” became like a bible for me. And later, I met law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, who introduced me to the concept of intersectionality between race and gender. Finally, the way I saw the surrounding world and my Roma world became clearer to me.

Feminism gave me the lens to question the world’s power dynamics, from private spaces to international politics. Despite this intellectual awakening, I still went on to face horrible racism when I met white feminists, who said they didn’t see the point of including Romani women in feminist agendas when there was already an existing Romani rights movement. When there was a spike in racism against Romani people in Europe around 2005-07, I reflected on how to practice a feminism that did not erase my Roma identity and that did not reinforce the oppression of my community.

Neither of the two social movements that I have moved between — feminism and Romani struggles — wanted Romani women’s concerns to be highlighted unless those in charge got to decide how to portray such issues. Every social movement has its prejudices, I learned.

So, what is Romani feminism? To me, it means I have the freedom to choose what version of a Romani woman I want to be. Romani feminism is the force that makes it possible for our communities to grow and to challenge others around us. Our feminism reminds us that the greater Romani movement should not only be about how to get into the structures of power, but how we should never forget the local communities, and the people. We should be close to our people at the local level, in their daily lives, while challenging both racism and sexism.

We Romani feminists reiterate pride in being Roma by constructing and reconstructing through archive, memory and art, the possibility for the next generation to practice a new identity, without the burden and control that our ancestors faced. Our work ranges from creating collaborations such as the Roma Women’s Initiative, a group of female Romani leaders across Europe, to providing social services to Romani women who continue to face harassment, racism and other challenges. We are creating our own ways to help each other.

Some may call me a pioneer, or a traitor for splintering the Romani rights movement. For others, I am not radical enough. But after three decades as a Romani feminist, I am still acting against “anti-gypsyism,” manifesting the love of my people, crying out loud with pain when I feel and see how others hate us.

Nicoleta Bitu is a Romani feminist activist and scholar based in London.

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

If it helps there are also other valid reasons to dislike Katherine Ryan, she defended jimmy carr, told a racist joke and argued with a teenager on twitter who called her out on said racist joke then complained about them in another routine. Also she’s just generally not a good person

Yeah, there are a number of reasons to have problems with Katherine Ryan. The Jimmy Carr thing is not great, getting up at and awards show to declare that comedy is dead if we're not allowed to roast Holocaust victims was an interesting choice. And she is generally a quick one to jump in and defend things like that. I found it funny when people on the right were claiming a victory that "even leftie feminist Katherine Ryan is defending Jerry Sadowitz" last month, given that defending people who use racial slurs is sort of her thing. Aside from advocating for some causes that benefit women like her specifically, I don't think I'd call her a leftie feminist.

I have my problems with Katherine Ryan - I did before I saw her show that defended anti-vaxxers (as a somewhat small part of a two-hour comedy show that was mostly funny, I should add), I don't know if I'm comfortable throwing the "not a good person" label on there. I don't know what kind of person she is. I still enjoy watching Catsdown and Big Fat Quiz (I don't like Jimmy Carr, to be clear, but I can enjoy a show that stars him and that comes to about the same thing), I enjoy watching Frankie Boyle's early stuff, I enjoy a lot of problematic comedy from men. And I don't want to judge Katherine Ryan more harshly for accepting shitty men than I judge the men themselves. Not saying the person who sent me this message is making unfair judgements, to be clear, it's completely fair if you want nothing to do with seeing Katherine Ryan on TV for all these good reasons, it's just something I think about for myself.

Hell, Russell Howard's probably said more offensive stuff than Katherine Ryan ever has. I don't even mean the Jordan Peterson thing, I'm just thinking about his Mock the Week days, and how if I'm going to start getting into moral judgements of comedians, then there are a lot of men who get passes because comedy is supposed to be offensive and I don't want to judge Katherine Ryan differently from that. And to some extent, in some ways, I think it actually is okay for comedy to be offensive. Where exactly to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable offensive comedy is a matter for significant debate; I personally put it somewhere between the worst thing Russell Howard's said and Jimmy Carr's joke about Romani people (as in, Carr was way over the line and I won't begin to try to defend that joke, and I think it's bad that Katherine Ryan did defend it). How do I justify putting the line where I do? I don't know, I've written a bunch of posts before trying to figure that out and I'm sure I'll write more in the future. It's some nebulous formula involving intended targets and thoughtfulness in the joke's design and execution and all kinds of other stuff.

Anyway. I do think a lot of Katherine Ryan's choices have not been good ones, and the more time goes on the more I realize how much I don't love that she's sort of the face of women in mainstream, televised British comedy these days. Also, I currently feel like my throat is being repeatedly stabbed with a knife from the inside, and I can't walk downstairs without getting dizzy and out of breath, and seriously, anyone who says that worrying about this makes you a weird extremist can fuck the fuck off.

[bemusedlybespectacled]

All Of My Thoughts On Enola Holmes Now That I’ve Seen The Movie (spoilers for both abound)

so I was a huge, HUGE fan of nancy springer when I was in middle school/early high school. I fucking adored “the tales of rowan hood” and I credit enola holmes as one of the influences on my interest in historical dress and gender-y stuff.

so, some things that the movie got right, some things it diverged from for good reasons, and some things it got wrong in a “jack thorne, the writer of this and Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, can’t write fanfic” way. 

things it got right

some quotes are direct or nearly-direct from the books, like enola’s initial message to her mom in the newspaper.

henry cavill is PERFECT and I LOVE HIM. do I care that he’s less of a misogynistic ass than he is (initially) in the books? not a whit. he’s amazing. shut up.

millie bobby brown a+ casting

helena bonham carter a+ casting

seriously everyone was just a+ casting

necessary changes

SO LET’S PROBLEMATIZE OUR FAVES FOR A HOT SEC

the original enola holmes books are very second-wave white feminist-y.

the series features two cross-dressing villains: a man who dresses as a woman to pose as a psychic detective (solving crimes he himself causes) and a woman who dresses as a man, partly for freedom, partly to pose as her sister’s husband whom she murdered so as to keep the murder a secret. while I think the intended interpretation is supposed to be the malleability of gender presentation, it’s still Highkey Problematic for obvious reasons.

eudoria vernet holmes originally leaves because she is dying of cancer and decides to spend the rest of her remaining time on earth living in a Romani caravan because she’s a ~free spirit.~ these people are referred to using the G-word and are portrayed as superstitious, primitive,  and free of societal expectations in comparison with the logical, atheistic, but constrained English society. the last book in particular has eudoria holmes being treated like a literal, actual saint by the romani because she uses her artistic skills to restore icons and, it is implied, uses her upper-class white lady status to keep the police from bothering the caravan. yeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaah.

this movie improves matters significantly by totally excising the cross-dressing medium (who figures prominently in The Missing Marquess, which the movie is based on), having the totally new edition of Edith (fuck yeah), and making Eudoria leave for suffragette anarchist reasons instead of ~free spirit~ reasons.

I do think that plot thread wasn’t thought through enough, though, which is why it gets dropped after enola and sherlock’s talk at her school and never mentioned again. because jack thorne never considers the logical conclusions of plot elements

I totally understand why they changed the entire plot re: Tewky and frankly I like the changes involving his political aspirations.

everything involving the boarding school/Mrs. Harrison/Mycroft/etc. was IMO overdone and overly... aggressive? but I think it was necessary due to the shortened runtime and the need for a more clear villain. Mrs. Harrison is the personification of What Will Happen To Enola If She Conforms and I’m okay with it.

I’m okay with the little mini-decoder thingy instead of explaining all the many, MANY ciphers used in the books, again because of the runtime.

jack thorne can’t write fanfic

at NO POINT did enola ever dress as a boy, because she recognized that it was an obvious and clichéd disguise. she disguised herself as an adult woman – actually, several different adult women with different styles, personalities, and backgrounds – instead. THIS WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE VARIOUS FEMININE DISGUISES HOW COULD YOU FUCK THIS UP IT’S THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE SERIES

tewky, in the book, is even younger than enola, is not a sexy teenage boy, and importantly IS NOT A LOVE INTEREST. enola NEVER HAS A LOVE INTEREST. in fact, the books make it clear that she, like mycroft and sherlock, is not interested in marriage at all and her ultimate happy ending is getting to study at university. WOMEN CAN EXIST WITHOUT FALLING IN LOVE, MR. THORNE.

enola didn’t get to use her corset brooch dagger and I am heartbroken.

also they didn’t show enola setting up her remington steele routine which is obnoxious.

okay I am on the fence on this one but I’m ultimately putting it here:

ON THE ONE HAND, I understand why eudoria showed up at the end and gave enola a big hug and was shown to be emotionally supportive, because, like, we need that emotional resoution in a movie. I get it.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the MAJOR DEFINING FEATURE of eudoria’s character is that she’s someone who never wanted to be a wife and mother who was forced by society into being a wife and mother. “you’ll do well enough on your own, enola” is what she told enola while dismissing her to essentially raise herself, because by the time enola was born, eudoria had enough independence to basically check out of being a mom. 

like, in the books, enola knows the fake message in the newspaper is from mycroft and sherlock, and not her mother, not only because they used the word “mum” and asked to meet at a misogynistic location, but also she signed it with “love,” which her real mother would never do.

seriously, her mom leaves on her fourteenth birthday, and enola never sees her alive again. she fucking dies and enola doesn’t find out until after the fact. enola (and sherlock and mycroft) love her anyway, but not because she’s a paragon of motherhood.

SOME WOMEN ARE SHITTY MOTHERS AND THAT’S OKAY, THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT THEY SHOULDN’T BE FORCED INTO MOTHERHOOD IF THEY’D BE SHIT AT IT.

anyway I enjoyed the movie even though I had feelings about it and want a sequel with more henry cavill!sherlock in it

[teabooksandsweets]

Another type of comment I’ve seen made by various people about Elizabeth Goudge, which is not only factually incorrect, but, unlike the Victorian one, just without any proper reasoning behind it at all, is that some people think she was a Puritan – even though she “didn’t know it herself.”

Why? Well, because a) she liked simple things, and b) the Puritan characters in a clearly anti-Puritan narrative are plausible, and sometimes likeable characters, and unless you write people as monstrous villains you ~have~ to agree with them, right?

I think these comments come largely from vaguely Puritan-minded Americans who want to justify their own preference for her books before themselves, unlike the Evangelicals who openly declare her books as too Catholic, too pagan/witchy, etc.

And how do you do that with books written my an Anglo-Catholic feminist, Third Order Franciscan, and daughter of a clergyman with socialist tendencies, who clearly condemned Puritan and Parlamentarian activies in her books, and showed great sympathy for Roman Catholic minorities in modern Britain, as well as Romani people and wise women?

Obviously, by declaring her confused as to her own beliefs. An excellent writer of Christian fiction and non-fiction, but obviously wrong about her own beliefs, and not actually believing what she claims herself, and instead exactly what the reader believes, as supported by the fact that she... preferred a simply lifestyle and a habit of moderation for herself and portrayed fictional characters as wrong and behaving badly while still showing their humanity and ability to be better, which in turn means they are actually right, because according to this logic she’d have turned them into monstrous caricatures would she consider them wrong.

That is TRULY an interesting kind of reasoning. A very special brand of logic.

[djuvlipen]

The Domari people are a South Indian diaspora, more or less related to Romani people (it's highly debated but Domari activists often identify with Romani people, call themselves 'Gypsies' and use the Romani flag). Domari communities are found in the entire MENA region and in Central Asia, most of them living in Iran and Turkey

Amoun Sleem lives in Jerusalem. She grew up in one of the most impoverished parts of Jerusalem and had to drop out of school at age 7 to help financially supporting her family. She was 16 years old when she founded the Domari society of Gypsies in Jerusalem.

As she writes on her website, the Domari are an oppressed minority group living in East Jerusalem and its surrounding neighborhoods. Although they have lived in the area for hundreds of years, they are still challenged with discrimination and poverty.

Although the organization helps all Domari people, there is a particular focus put on women. Amoun Sleem herself is connected to international women's organizations for peace and empowerment, and her organization is supported by international aid and women's advancement foundations. She has also been invited abroad to conferences to make presentations about 'Middle Eastern gypsies' (her own words).

According to the website of the organization,

-> The Domari society has four main goals: 1) providing education to Domari children, 2) helping and empowering impoverished Domari women, 3) providing humanitarian aid to Palestinian Domari people, who were hit particularly hard by the Covid crisis, and 4) preserving the Domari culture and language, threatened by cultural assimilation.

-> The Domari society fights the traditional and patriarchal Domari culture by economically empowering women. Here are their main goals:

“- Provide Dom women professional skills and enable them to establish small businesses (even in their homes) without the need for large initial investments.

The sub-objections are:

- Awareness of women's rights and of their right to decide about their own life and the wellbeing and future of their children, particularly girls, despite the challenges facing women in a traditional society.

- Enable Dom women to establish small businesses (even in their homes) without the need for large initial investments

- Greater self-respect and awareness of self-value bringing about self-confidence and assertiveness.

- Influence decision-making processes within their immediate and extended families.

- Serve as role-models for other women in the community, who will turn to the Domari Center for feminist-based empowerment workshops.”

Because they are neither Arab nor Jewish, Domari people are very isolated in Palestine. It's very hard to find articles about them but here is a more or less recent one, from 2020, that talks about their social exclusion from society.

The Domari Society of Gypsies in Jerusalem accept donations!! It's right there on their website.

AMOUN SLEEM // ACTIVIST

“She is a Domari (Roma) activist, who created the Domari Society in Jerusalem in October 1999. This aimed at “combating the major issues facing the Dom (Gypsy) community as severe discrimination, cultural marginalization and poverty”. She has published two books: Dreaming of Jerusalem and The Dom of Jerusalem: A Gypsy Community Chronicle, and is working on other publications to make available information on this segment of the population.”

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

Hi! As someone who’s literary opinion I really trust, I was surprised that you’re a twilight fan? I know almost nothing except commen knowledge things about that series, and I always assumed it was actually bad/un-feminist. What is it that you like so much that others seem to miss? I’m just genuinely curious about your take on the hate it always seems to get vs. it’s actual quality. I’m not gonna judge bc animorphs is also one of those books where you see it and assume it’s bad.

In over 14 years of loving this series, I’m not sure anyone has ever asked me why I enjoy it instead of simply trying to convince me that I’m wrong to do so.  So thank you for that.

First and foremost, I love the Twilight saga because of the vivid detail in Stephenie Meyer’s writing style.  The descriptions are so lush and dense with sensory information that you can practically bite down on them as you read.  Bella and Jacob aren’t just sitting on the beach; they’re sitting on a gnarled log of driftwood, worn smooth at the top from where so many Quileute teens have sat upon it during bonfires but still uneven enough to rock on its branches when Bella suddenly stands to rage at her own mortality.  Meyer describes that log in Twilight, so tangibly and with such economy of detail, that we recognize it immediately when Bella and Jacob return to that spot in Eclipse.  I’ve always disliked the movies, because I’ve always felt that the best part of Meyer’s writing simply did not translate well to the screen.

Secondly, I love the feminism.

Okay, let’s take a quick pause to let everyone gasp and clutch their pearls over me calling Twilight a feminist work.  I will address the criticisms later.  For now, please just hear me out.

Twilight strikes me as a premier example of what Hélène Cixous means when she calls for “women’s writing,” or writing for women, about women, by women, with a strong focus on the concerns and strengths and desires of womanhood.  This is a series about building and maintaining close relationships, both romantic and platonic.  It celebrates beauty, and love, and care.  Bella moves to Forks because she recognizes that her dad is lonely while her mom is quite the opposite, torn between family priorities.  She doesn’t simply subsume her interests to those of other people, but instead actively chooses how and when and where to express her love for her birth family and her found families.  Most of the other major decisions throughout the story — Alice “adopting” Bella, Carlisle moving the family to Alaska, Jacob becoming werewolf beta, the Cullens going up against the Volturi, etc. — are motivated by care and devotion for one’s family and friends.  Even the selfish or morally ambiguous character choices are shown to be motivated by love.  Rosalie tells Edward that Bella died because she genuinely thinks it’ll help him move on.  Victoria creates an army that nearly destroys Forks because she’s avenging James.  Alice abandons Bella and the others before the final battle because if she can’t save her entire family, then she’ll settle for saving her lover before letting him die in vain.

Not only is there a striking concern with love and care, but there’s also a strong commitment to avoiding violence.  Bella’s eventual vamp-superpower proves to be preventing violence and protecting others, an awesome character decision that I’d argue gets set up as early as the first book.  She lives in a violent world — this is a YA SF story, after all — but she has the power to suppress violence and create peace, both in herself and others.  I was already sick of “power = ability to inflict damage” in YA stories well before I knew the word “patriarchy.”  Twilight was one of the first books to convey to me that power could be refusing to do harm in spite of hunger or anger, that power could be shielding ones’ family, that power could be about building enough friendships and alliances to have an army at one’s back when facing an enemy too strong to take on alone.

Closely connected to all of that love and care, I love how much Twilight is about navigating teenage girlhood.  Is it empowering, intersectional, or all-inclusive?  Hell no.  Does it still dare to suggest that a completely ordinary teenage girl could have valid concerns about the world?  Yep.  The main conflict of the story, as Stephen King so derisively explained, is about the romantic entanglements of a teenage girl, and the book therefore has no literary merit.  (To quote my dad’s response: “Bold words from the guy who inflicted Firestarter on the world.”)

There is, indeed, a lot of romance in Twilight.  There are a lot of clothes.  Alice and Rosalie especially spend a lot of time on makeup, and hair, and choosing the prettiest cars and houses.  Twilight embraces all the stereotypically “girly” concerns of adolescence, and makes no effort to apologize for or condemn them.  Bella isn’t particularly good at performing them — she likes but doesn’t excel at shopping, fiercely defends her ugly car as ugly, hobbles through prom on crutches — but she can still enjoy the feeling of being pretty in a sparkly dress while dancing with her sparkly boyfriend.  And Twilight, like Animorphs with Cassie, takes the daring step of treating that feeling as valid.

Speaking of sparkles, I love the commitment to the fantasy concept in Twilight, including the myriad mundanities that Meyer brings with that commitment.  If you have super-speed, why not use it to play extreme baseball?  If you’re a mindreader with a clairvoyant sister, why wouldn’t you two play mental chess games?  I couldn’t tell you, after seven seasons of Buffy or eight of Vampire Diaries, what Spike or Damien or Angel or Stefan does all day when not brooding or lurking in the bushes to creep on human women.  I can tell you what the Cullens get up to.  Emmett and Rosalie work on their cars, usually by holding them overhead one-handed.  Carlisle and Alice read plays, and sometimes talk the whole family into home Shakespeare productions.  Edward and Carlisle debate theology, Emmett and Jasper have dumb athletic competitions, Edward and Esme play music, Alice manipulates stock markets, the twins go shopping online, etcetera.  The Cullens feel real, feel like the vampires next door, in a way that Louis and Lestat simply do not.

To get to the elephant in the room — I just described Twilight as a feminist text! — let’s talk about the other thing the Cullens do for fun: they have sex.  Weird sex.  Kinky furniture-breaking sex.  Sex that Emmett (who would know) compares to bear-wrestling.  These books suck with regards to queer representation, but they are sex-positive.  They feature an old-school Anglican protagonist offering his daughter-in-law a medical abortion.  They treat Edward’s desire for sex only within marriage and Alice’s desire for sex outside of marriage as both being valid.  Like I said, not groundbreaking, even by the standards of 2005, but still more than most teen novels do even today.

There’s a passage from Breaking Dawn that people love to pull out of context as “everything wrong with Twilight in two paragraphs” because it describes Bella waking up the morning after sex with bruises on her arms.  That moment is shocking out of context, to be sure — but in context, it’s the end result of an in-depth consent negotiation that lasts four books.  Bella says that she’d like to become a vampire.  Edward says okay, but only if she spends a few more years living as a human and considering that choice.  Bella says okay, but only if Edward, not Carlisle, becomes the one to turn her.  Edward says they can use his venom, but that Carlisle, who’s an MD, really needs to supervise the process.  Bella doesn’t love the idea of Edward’s stepdad cockblocking what’s supposed to be an intimate moment, and so agrees only on the grounds that she gets to have sex with Edward as a human first.  Edward’s hella Catholic, so he requests that they get married first.  Bella’s super horny, so she demands that the wedding happen within six months.  Edward says that he might hurt her during sex, and Bella says that she wants a little hurt during sex.  They marry.  They bang.  During the banging, Edward makes every effort to be controlled and courteous and gentile, while Bella goes wild and crazy.  The next morning, she has bruises and he does not.  Edward apologizes, but Bella’s actually really into it.  She spends a while admiring her sexy vamp-marked self in the mirror, touches the bruises many times, and reminds us yet again that Bella Swan’s whole M.O. is being a monsterfucker.  Her kink is not my kink, and that’s okay.

To be clear, I think there are other aspects of the romance that get criticized for good reason.  Edward does not negotiate with Bella before sneaking into her room to watch her sleep, and he does make unacceptable use of their power differences when he thinks she’s in danger of being mauled by werewolves.  The text condemns Jacob’s “don’t wanna die a virgin” ploy to manipulate a kiss out of Bella, but not the wider conceit of all the male characters as possessing uncontrollable urges.  Bella’s struggles to adjust to a new town feel very feminine and realistic; her amused tolerance of Jacob’s and Mike’s sexual harassment as the price for their friendship does not.  Werewolf imprinting might be mostly platonic, but that doesn’t make it okay for Meyer to depict it as a form of soulmate bonding that happens with child characters. Those are good points, all around.  I just wish that most of them didn’t come up in the context of post-hoc rationalizations for loathing the femininity of a feminine text.

I’m not calling Twilight an unproblematic series.  I’m saying that it gets (rightly!) criticized for appropriating Quileute culture, while Buffy’s total absence of main characters of color and blatant anti-Romani racism are (wrongly!) not remarked upon. I'm saying that I’ve been told I’m a misogynist for liking Twilight but not for liking James Bond.  I’m saying that there’s a reason people tend to go “oh, that makes so much sense!” when I let them in on the fact that reactive hatred for “Twitards” started and spread on 4Chan, later home of Gamergate and incel culture.  I’m saying that Twilight depicts problematic relationship dynamics as sexy — but then so do Vampire Academy, Blue Bloods, Supernatural, Vladimir Tod, and Vampire Diaries.  All of which take the time to stop and thumb their noses at Twilight, smug in the superiority of having vampires that fly rather than vampires that sparkle, and for thoroughly condemning teenage girls for being girly while continuing to show men inflicting violence on them.

After all, as Erin May Kelly puts it: “we live in a world taught to hate everything to do with little girls.  We hate the books they read and the bands they like.  Is there anything the world makes fun of more than One Direction and Twilight?”  No one has ever called me a misogynist for liking the MCU, in spite of less than a third of its movies even managing to clear the low-low bar of the Bechdel test.  Because people are still allowed to like Harry Potter in spite of its racism, or Lord of the Rings despite its imperialism.  Because hatred for Twilight was never about its very real sexism, or the genuinely silly sparkle-vampires, until it had to justify itself as something other than hate for everything that teenage girls have ever dared openly love.

I enjoy the novels, and I enjoy the fan fiction that tries to fix some of the problems with the novels.  I appreciate the extent to which Meyer has elevated fan culture, and made an effort to acknowledge her own past mistakes.  I would love to be able to talk about my love for the series as a flawed but beautiful work of literature, but for now I’ll settle for asking that the world just let me enjoy it in peace.

[xgeorgiabethanyx]

I’ve literally got no followers on here but basically if I ever do get followers this is a post to say a bit about me 💪

My names Georgia and im 15 as of writing,, 16 in April next year.

I’m Romani by heritage, I also don’t like the use of the word g*psy so if you actively use that word and are not Romani then pls don’t interact.

I like to think of myself as a hippie, not for the “aesthetic” but I’m very big on helping the earth, I love plants and animals with my whole heart, I’m pro-choice and anti-violence, lgbtqia+ supporter & also feminist.

I go through many style “phases”, or as I like to think of it, I have a very wide style range. My current favourites are traditional boho, dark academia, cyber-y2k, basic 2010 kinda style and vintage boho.

I’m a practicing witch and I’m learning more about the wicca religion. I consider myself to be a crystal witch/hedge witch, and my favourite form of divination is tarot. I’m currently learning palm reading and tea readings. My favourite crystal is green aventurine, I wear it with a small protection spell jar on a necklace almost every day.

If you couldn’t already tell, I’m very spiritual lol. I tend to do a lot of meditation, and I like lucid dreaming and have travelled the astral plane several times. I’m trying to shift realities, been a long time trying however I believe it may not be my time yet hah.

I loveee classic rock bands,, my all time favourite being fleetwood mac. I also love led zeppelin, queen, the rolling stones, and the beatles. My favourite song is fleetwood mac’s “black magic woman”.

My favourite colours are purple and green, and I have a passion for photography and plan to go to sixth form for it when I leave school.

That’s really all there is to know about me at the moment, but if you read this far thank you <33

[valkerymillenia]

@animecat33​ tagged me for this

Rules: Name 10 characters from 10 different fandoms that you like, then tag 10 people.

I enjoyed this but... At first I thought, do I even have 10 I consider favs? And then I ended up with a list of, like, 25, and couldn’t pick 10 so I chose more or less at random. And I admit I cheated seeing as some kind of fit in the same fandom in some way.

It’s just too hard picking favorites. 

Undercut, cause it’s gonna be a loooong post.

1. Morticia Addams (Addams Family)

My tattoo probably makes this one obvious. 

I love Morticia so much, not only do I love her aesthetic, I just love her personality and attitude, not to mention her marriage is ‘goals’ and as a mother and matriarch she’s incredibly supportive and loving despite the unorthodox life the Addams’ live. I love a character that can be a mother without having it define her completely.

2. Catwoman/Selina Kyle (DC)

Selina was one of my OG crushes back before I even understood what I crush was or that being queer was even a thing (looking at you, Michelle Pfiffer).

I love her style and strength and personality (when she's well written), her grey morals and competence, and cats are just my thing, ok? Plus bisexual icon.

Have you noticed I have a thing for a dark women with grey morals?

3. Raven/Rachel Roth (Teen Titans/DC)

I kinda share a name with Raven but that's not why I like her. I've always loved the emotional complexity of this character, her incredible power (and how it's also her weakness), and style as well. I'm not too thrilled about some more recent incarnations of her but she'll always be an OG fav.

4. Nightwing/Dick Grayson (DC)

Yeah, yeah, DC again, look the other way, please (they have individual comics anyway).

I couldn't leave out my darling Dickie. I grew up with this dude and I love his backstory and relationship with his family. He's a beautiful ray of sunshine with a dark streak, a competent leader without being a broody bossy jerk like some and he's very well rounded and consistent in his characterization (plus that design is top notch). I know the Romani thing was a ret-con on something just vaguely implied in the past but honestly it was a good one and some much needed rep despite the constant whitewashing (though not as bad as others in his family).

Also, he drinks his 'respect woman juice', he's flawed without being edgy, and has been queer-coded and female-troped for decades which makes him much more likeable as a male character. He actually became an LGBT icon despite the cowards at DC constantly trying to shove heteronormativity into his storyline.

5. Rose Quartz/Pink Diamond (Steve Universe)

Is she problematic? Yes and that's part of the appeal.

I already loved Rose when she was this sweet, compassionate and wise old soul, this rebel and leader and mother with many secrets.

I guessed really early on that she was PD so that part didn't surprise me but when the backstory of her as PD finally appeared to give us so more in-depth knowledge I was surprised by the amount of hate the character got. To me, her flaws, pain, mistakes and growth were part of the allure.

Also, gorgeous and much needed plus-size rep. I loved cosplaying her more than anything.

6. Princess Leia (Star Wars)

Did I like her style or design? Nope, I much prefer her mother's but Leia is an immensely competent, wise, strong female character that takes no bullshit from the male-dominated plot around her, she deserved so much better. Honestly, she deserved her own goddamn movie.

Carrie Fisher was a feminist icon and an advocate for mental illness visibility. She's was also fucking hilarious. All this translated into Leia's character very well and she deserved so much better from society than being sexualized in a metal bikini and remembered that way forever.

7. Hela (Thor Ragnarok/Marvel)

I already loved Hela's character in the comics (except the arc where she sexually abuses Thor, that was shitty edgelord writing and I refuse to acknowledge it's existence) but Ragnarok gave her a whole new meaning.

Firstly, my God is she hot! Just.... Umpf! Step on me, queen.

Secondly, she's dark and evil but she has a goddamn point (people are hypocrites). And in the comics she's not even evil, she's neutral and only a villain because she opposes Thor on a personal level. She's also incredibly competent at what she does and if that isn't a turn-on idk what is.

8. Korra (Legend of Korra)

Korra will always be bae. There's a reason my behemoth of a fic revolved around her.

Not only is she incredibly well-rounded and fun, she's also very competent, has a fascinating backstory and is immensely powerful, plus she grows beautifully through her show. Not to mention she's GORGEOUS.

POC and LGBT rep, plus she showcased one of the most incredible arcs on disability and recovery that I've ever seen in a family show.

9. Scarlet Witch/Wanda Maximoff (Marvel)

You can pry Wanda from my cold dead hands.

I'm not even the biggest fan of her movie version, I'm all about comic Wanda.

POC rep and an incredibly visceral portrayal of mental illness and trauma. And she's beautiful beyond reason, morally grey, and powerful as hell.

Most of all what I like about Wanda is how loyal and family-oriented she is without letting it diminish her as an individual or as a powerhouse character, so many female characters loose all agency and individuality when they have kids, they get delegated to role of mother and lose their heroics or become extensions of their husbands and children, Wanda was nothing like that. Her relationship with her brother is fascinating too (let's pretend the incesty vibes in certain alt universes don't exist).

I only hate that she and Pietro always get the short stick in adaptations and their origins keep getting needlessly retconned (Magneto's kids with his Romani wife, raised by someone else- that's it, stop trying to change it and then change it back over and over). That and how she's not allowed to have her well deserved relationship with her babies because of stupid old-fashioned comic rules that led to a needlessly convuloted and far-fetch story arc (the erasure, reencarnation and hyper-aging of her sons).

10. Jessica Rabbit (WFRR)

For most people, Jessica's appeal is "she's hot" and yes, this "pinup femme fatale" look really does things to me, I won't lie about that, but that's not why she's my favorite.

Jessica is fav because she's loyal and loving to her goofy husband, she completely turns the femme fatale trope upside down for love and doesn't give a damn about looks, she uses her appearance as a weapon and she's confident but she's clearly not vain ("I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way" and "He makes me laugh"). She's also hilarious in her own deadpan way.

.

Other worthy mentions to this list are:

Wednesday Addams

Mystique (Marvel)

Shuri (Marvel)

Maleficent (Disney)

Vanya Hargreeves (TUA)

Blind Mag (Repo!)

Venom (Marvel)

Lust (FMA)

Evelyn O'Connell (The Mummy)

Alice Lidell (Alice Madness)

Jessica Jones (Marvel)

The Kagamine twins (vocaloid)

Amon (LoK)

Sesshoumaru (Inuyasha)

Loki (Marvel comics)

Liadan (Sevenwaters)

Furiosa (Mad Max: Fury Road)

Crowley (Good Omens)

Jericho (Titans/DC)

Sadako Yamamura (from the Ring BOOKS)

Susan Sto-Helit (Discworld)

.

I tag... @dymosara @abnaxus @polyx @bluetalesoftheheart @adka2333 @shinladyanarki @i-have-all-these-freaking-uwus @frank-a-lank @fluffynexu @teddy-fluffnhugs