#so perhaps it's misogyny

[stuckinapril]

I just know I’m gonna struggle in my later years bc I don’t wanna get married I don’t want kids I just wanna rawdog life and be a hot milf

[waddingham]

was looking at some very old posts of mine and i just. when i finished s2 of ted lasso i was certain that a) ted would be going back to kansas and that b) ted and rebecca would not end up together on our screens. and i didn't have a problem with either of those things bc i was certain they'd be done with the same thoughtfulness that was present in s1 and most of s2. and i ended up being right about both things but so totally wrong about the execution of both??? yeah okay i hear you there was a three season arc, there was a plan, but wrt s3 you cannot convince me that plan consisted of anything that happened outside of "ted goes home". and even that decision felt shoved to the wayside.

i was dead certain that teds decision to go back was going to be informed by a deep exploration of ted and his past and his trauma and how the loss of his dad affects his own sense of fatherhood, that it was going to be ted's season entirely and would be as heart wrenching and uplifting as the rest of his story — so much so that by the time he decided he needed to go back, that we'd all be so on board. we'd all feel "oh of course he has to go back, look how much henry needs him and how much ted needs henry, how deep his fear of not being there for his son goes". why didn't we get that why did ted feel like a supporting character in his own show in his own SEASON why didn't the deeply traumatic event that informs almost all of ted as a character ever come up when it's so relevant to all of this why!!!! i need a 30 page essay from each of the ted lasso writers and a week long conference with js to explain it to me like im 5!!!!! am I stupid!!!

right anyway

when it comes to ted and rebecca i have less gripes but still am so baffled at the number of parallels drawn and connections made and support given to say "yes they're kind of intrinsically tied" for ZERO acknowledgement of it? which brings me back to the first point because that journey for ted could've leant itself so nicely to rebecca returning the kind of support to ted that he gave her? which in turn could've added a lovely extra layer to rebecca's story by seeing her find additional comfort and confidence in her own ability to support someone else and give love? it all could've woven together so neatly?? like??? am i stupid????? whether they ever hit the romance threshold or not (setting aside the fact of just how many and how often they tried to invoke rom coms but went "oh ew romance? no" when given a perfect opportunity to say something timeless but refreshing about second chance loves) continuing to see them grow together the way they had already accentuated through the whole rest of the show would've been more than enough for me personally. even if there was a heartbreaking parting it would've felt......earned? it would've felt right? just as fair to the viewer after absorbing all these things as it was to the story?

anyway......i feel like I'm missing something every time I think about it

[armoralor]

some folks are discussing fandom infighting, but I haven’t still seen any examples of wolfwren stans sending hate. I scrolled through every comment on the Ahsoka casts’ posts (yes all of them) and the only hate I saw was homophobia aimed at wolfwren.

does anyone have examples & links to wolfwren fans being toxic? so we as a community can block them + make sure they understand they aren’t welcome in the fandom? I have dozens of tangible examples of the vile hate people have sent to wolfwren stans (x x x) and a long list of transphobes/homophobes if anyone wants a block list.

[wonder-worker]

"...Walsingham, the monastic author of the St. Albans Chronicle, was by far [Alice Perrers'] harshest contemporary critic, who in his venom has (somewhat ironically) left us with the longest and most detailed account of her background and personality, her influence as Edward’s mistress, and her subsequent trial. He describes Alice as a shameless lowborn meretrix (a word variously translated as mistress, whore, or harlot), who “brought almost universal dishonour upon the king’s reputation […] and defiled virtually the whole kingdom of England with her disgraceful insolence.” Although Walsingham was not always accurate and, specifically in this case, clearly heavily biased against Alice, he nevertheless provides a truly contemporary account, and his importance as a source should not be underestimated. Likewise, the anonymous monk of St. Mary’s York recorded that in the Good Parliament the Commons (represented by their speaker, Sir Peter de la Mare) stated that it “would be of great gain to the kingdom to remove the said dame [Alice] from the presence of the king both as a matter of conscious and of the ill prosecution of the war.” During the same assembly, the bishop of Rochester, Thomas Brinton, preached from St. Paul’s Cross that “it is not fitting nor safe for all the keys of the kingdom to hang from the belt of one wife.” Although the word wife (uxoris) is used, it is widely accepted that this is a reference to Alice.”

-Laura Tompkins, '"Edward III's Gold-Digging Mistress": Alice Perrers, Gender, and Financial Power at the English Royal Court, 1360-1377", "Women and Economic Power in Premodern Courts" (edited by Cathleen Sarti). Italics by me.

[ladymacbeths]

yeah um No actually i think that any1 who reads macbeth as “good guy who’s manipulated into murder by his ambitious wife who Uses him” should 1. die 2. be forbidden from speaking about this play Ever bc ur doing Both of those characters a disservice

[ishouldreallybeelsewhere]

Episode one of Supernatural is so flawed that, had I watched it for the first time last night (instead of for the third), I would not have have watched the second. Ever. The flaws are things I simply didn't pick up on when I was thirteen, and memory glazed over with emotional attachment. I understand why these flaws are there, what the writers tried and failed to do through clumsy dialogue and strange character decisions. There's no subtlety. Everything Sam says is direct exposition, specifically the things that he would not have to say to his brother.

I do not do reviews so that's all I'm going to say.

[iceyrukia]

just like there’s nothing a woman can do to make sexual assault or rape happen to them (ex. A woman wearing revealing clothing doesn’t posses a man to sexually assault a woman - it’s an excuse used by men whole ALREADY had the desire to sexually assault women in the first place), it’s true for all variations of objectification that women face from men IMO.

Like men watching pornography, going to impoverished countries as sex tourists and buying sex from prostituted women are all things men justify as punishments for women ( look at how men talk about these women) and it’s all for sexual their sexual gratification. The misogyny is just used as a scapegoat to rationalized the glee and joy they get from objectification when men doing this shows exactly that they’re not oppressed like they pretend to be or that men’s hatred for women is the same as “misandary”.

There is literally nothing women can do that can justify men’s arousal towards objectifying women, in fact they are very trigger happy in using any excuse to act on their depravity.

[meirimerens]

i know the Willow Mellow lore gets worse the longer you dig inside of it + it reflects even Worse on the writers when you put the actual words on her situation but let's not forget Darlings she is a child. she is 15 to 17yo depending on what piece of documentation we refer to, too young to consent to sex and therefore does not fit the category of "sex worker", and instead falls under the definitions of "sexually exploited youth", more specifically "sexually exploited child", as UNICEF, UNESCO, Convention for the Rights of the Child, [...] and general common sense all define "child" as "person under the age of 18".

she is the victim of kidnapping by her """adoptive father""" and of sexual exploitation by her (presumably adult) "clients" (as she does not appear to have a pimp, and is instead written saying she loves what she does and such giddy teehee fun. [powerful side-eye through someone in the writing team.] [she's not a Real Person I have to stress, so someone wrote her like this, wrote this kid like this.] [it is all part of a narrative in which she is struggling to shake off her "father's" exploitation, an inherently tragic one, but she still was written that way, and could have been written any other way, with any other "rebellious" act]). calling her a sex worker as a child who is basically the same age as P2 Capella or Grace is putting her in a Grown-Up category especially harmful considering we are supposed to read her as an indigenous girl, member of the Kin (even if her lore is Mysterious and Hazy) and indigenous women and girls are sexualized in racialized ways which often paint them as more ~~~naturally~~~ sexually liberated, or docile, or submissive, or [insert racist x sexist stereotype promoted by colonizers to excuse the mistreatment of indigenous women and girls].

tldr yes it's worse when you actually call her what she actually is, and worse tenfold when you read what the writers make her say about it [even as an inherently tragic situation that we can recognize and put words on (hence this post), she could have been written any other way, with any other rebellious act, but you know.] but you know x2 (SIDE-EYES SOMEONE ON THE WRITING TEAM VERY HARD TIL ME EYES POP OUT ME SKULL)

[lez-exclude-men]

Where's that post that's like "doctors aren't like doctors on TV who will do anything to find a cure for their patients, they generally just do not care and will tell you you're faking it rather than help you" bc yes that but ALSO sometimes doctors THINK they're uwu heroic tv doctors when in reality they just assault their patients for no good reason to "help" them.

Like. I'm tired of hearing friends with chronic illness being held down to have blood taken against their will, or to receive an unnecessary shot of something to see "if it will help" when they literally have tried that before and no it doesn't help and the doctor doesn't believe them. That's assault, that's traumatic, don't do that to people!!!!

[praetorqueenreyna]

giggling over Locke potentially dating both twins, only for the plot to take a sudden turn

[echidnana]

really annoys us when people emphasize tsukasas trauma so heavily while completely ignoring saki. What are you talking about

[heliopixels]

-

[the-busy-ghost]

The utter fury of reading about a character in a Victorian novel who is frankly described as ‘ugly’ and googling them only to find out that absolutely every tv adaptation portrays them as ‘brown haired but otherwise conventionally attractive to the 21st century’

[leatherbookmark]

me: i still haven’t finished forbidden colours. its a penguin book, it’s very nice to the touch. i should pick it up again perhaps

the book, opened on a random page: a woman who is complimented feels, spiritually, something familiar to prostitutes.

me: closes the book.

[ecce-felix]

A Nesta and Sansa stan? Not surprised you’re reposting toxic Anti shit 🥴

I love women who are irrationally & unfairly hated by fandoms kiss my ass about it 🥰🥰

[yodeleyewho]

ok so I’m trying to figure out exactly why David would be killing the women if they’re providing for him. Why not settle with one woman and be set for life instead of making things complicated by murdering them? (+ other questions abt him in genera)

(i literally just finished watching the movie, so im probably forgetting some things)

In that one scene with Haines he mentions being raised in a military family, always moving around, and being raised by his mother who stole money from his dad, then giving some to him. Then after his mother died he started dating and usually looked for older and richer women.

Perhaps he never felt that any other woman could match up to his mother and that’s why he feels the need to get rid of them?

And his rant at his home where he blows up and rants about men being treated as sex objects, or being held to a different standard than women, how women get no judgement for taking money in exchange for their services… I think he’s wrong about that because women are indeed judged by society for doing those things that he’s saying that they can get away with just because they’re women (aka the terms: “goldigger” or “slut”). But in a way I understand what he might be referring to, like society looking down on emotional/vulnerable men, guys who take unconventional roles in relationships (ex: househusband), etc etc.

(He probably could’ve been doing that for his sob story to get Haines to feel bad for him, but anyways)