#sorry but there's more of a double standard in people praising baghra for the things the darkling does

[greensaplinggrace]

it is just calling out misogyny. calling baghra abusive and not darkling because you want to fuck him.

i imagine this is about this post, in which case i want to be very clear here about a great many things. first of all, you are factually incorrect, and misconstruing the situation. it is not just calling out misogyny, because there would have to be misogyny occurring in the first place. which there was not.

second of all, i want to go over what exactly you did that fundamentally undermined your argument. what you were doing in that post is called a red herring. it is the act - in a debate or intellectual discussion - of diverting focus away from the original topic with an irrelevant one. what you are bringing to the table is a bias; it is the misconception that one must always be discussing what you believe is the more serious topic when addressing other issues - and it is the equivalent of, say, bringing up men's rights on posts about feminism.

to argue that there is a double standard occurring, one would have to have sufficient evidence that the template used to judge one side is being completely discarded or changed when judging the other. in that case, the biggest argument to be made in this fandom about double standards is the double standard of watering down the female loyalists while holding the male revolutionary accountable to an entirely radical degree.

but that's beside the point. because the post referenced didn't come close to showing any type of double standard in any direction.

now, i want to be very clear here: a woman being brought up or critiqued in any space does not equate an automatic attempt at misogyny. that one cannot discuss a woman's complete actions without also - by social consensus - bringing up a man to divert attention away from her, is more damaging in that regard than the initial discussion about the woman to begin with.

as such, what you are also bringing to the table is another bias - an assumption. that anyone critiquing a woman when there is a man right beside her is automatically ignoring his crimes. and not only that, but they are ignoring his crimes due to sexual intent.

this assumption often arises if one believes their own worldview is superior to anyone else's. and if one ignores how the delineation of focus and critique in fandom spaces operates. furthermore, this is rooted in the belief that moral pandering must be done at all times to remain acceptable in social (fandom, in this case) spaces. which i have already mentioned before as being incredibly harmful and engaging in a black and white worldview that simply does not comport with reality. people do not operate in boxes, and they do not need to give all of their focus all of the time to the things you have issues with. if they are so pressing to you, you should discuss them yourself.

in fact, this brings me to a recent post i made about cross-tagging, which seems strangely relevant to the way you and many others operate within fandom - and believe others should operate as well. and that is this: there is an obscene amount of inflammatory hate posts cross-tagged with irrelevant topics. they're always tagged with the groups or fandom spaces assumed to be similarly minded just because the media or character they engage with are more acceptable and "pure".

i've seen anti darkling posts tagged with genyalina. completely unrelated in any capacity to the subject of the main post. i've seen even more hate posts tagged with six of crows, when their only subject matter was shadow and bone. do you know why this is? it's because these people (when they are not simply trying to attract attention) believe wholeheartedly that their views on morality are homogenous with the whole, and that if one hates this amoral character in the ways they do, they must also like the morally acceptable things as well, and condemn others similarly. it is an automatic slide into 'us vs them' based on a shared impression of ethical ideology.

this is how people with little real capacity to decipher nuance end up getting their wires crossed about the complexity of literary discussion and personal interest in fandom. and how this somehow correlates to one's inherent goodness.

which is the long way of saying that a person does not have to raise every other issue when discussing one subject. they do not have to always mention the darkling when they talk about baghra - and they do not have to (as i am well acquainted with this fandom's obsession with female purity and gender essentialism) automatically support every female character spat out of those books just to make the people incapable of media comprehension and basic critical analysis feel better. they are not beholden to you, or your egocentric worldview of a homogenous social sphere. you are not the authority on operating in fandom spaces, and you are not - believe it or not - the authority on acceptable behavior in fandom spaces.