#sources available

[baby-girl-aaron-dessner]

It’s absolutely chilling how this crowd of Democrats respond with anger and physical agression towards a Jewish member of their own party for merely unfurling a “stop arming Israel" banner.

It's not even a radical banner. It's not calling an end to the state of Israel, or even for sanctions.

It is literally just "stop sending guns to the genocide, stop sending bombs to be dropped on families.”

That they have more anger about that banner than about a genocide says a lot.

That they will cheer "We love Joe" about a President who just LAST WEEK approved the sale of another $20 billion of weapons for use in a genocide sickens me to my core.

It’s so deeply disturbing.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Democracy Now! (@democracynow)

[soundleer]

sprunki drawing dumps hyee

[tritoch]

i know a lot of people (very understandably) dislike the paladin job quests in ffxiv, particularly HW, but i do think it's fun that, now that the pre-ShB MSQ revamp is complete, paladins now have a very cool and thematic in-game storyline that happens without a word being spoken: the development of passage of arms.

none of the below is directly stated in the script, but imo it's a fairly obvious gloss on what the game presents, if you assume a paladin warrior of light. spoilers for all expansions through the end of 6.X.

in the new version of steps of faith, as vishap breaks through each ward protecting ishgard from attack, lucia mounts a final desperate effort to hold him back, with a very familiar looking animation:

but even lucia can't hold back vishap's flame alone, so the temple knights surge forward to assist her. their efforts make the shield visually more powerful and larger. the temple knights here band together in defense of ishgard, and their knightly resolve to protect their home is the difference between victory and defeat.

lucia and the knights do ultimately succeed in defending the last ward, as you have to defeat vishap before their shield falls or you lose.

later in heavensward, obviously, we will get ffxiv's most famous (failed) attempt at blocking something with a shield.

this moment can be read as fairly impactful on the warrior of light's development; as i've noted elsewhere, after the trauma of watching haurchefant bleed out in their arms at level 57, at level 58 paladins learn to channel their magic into healing (and it's called "clemency," or mercy. mercy for whom? who was guilty?), and as someone pointed out on that post, at level 58 dark knights used to get "sole survivor", letting them heal in response to a marked target's death.

for a time, you literally carry haurchefant's shield with you, and 3.3 very much literalizes in genre fashion the idea that even when you are standing alone, your fallen friends stand with you. you don't need to call any allies to stand at your side and raise their shields with you because they are already there, in spirit.

stormblood marks a pretty important turning point in the warrior of light as a combatant, in my opinion, and the text makes this clear in several ways. first, in pretty much all your jobs, you've now far exceeded your trainers and are pioneering new techniques. this is no less true of paladin, which for 60-70 abandons any trainers at all for you to show off your peerless skills in a tournament.

second, stormblood is straight up a story about you getting stronger. at level 61, zenos kicks your ass. at level 70, you kick his ass. why? because you fought and got stronger and developed incredible new techniques and became a one-man army.

for a lot of classes, this story lines up nicely with the big rotation changes or flashy new finishers on the way from 60 to 70. SMN is now busting out bahamut and casting akh morn; RDM gets verflare and verholy; DRG starts harnessing nidhogg's power directly through dragon sight and nastrond.

the tanks are divided in two: warriors and gunbreakers get huge damaging upgrades at 70 in the form of inner release and continuation, each of which lets them hit the same button many times for lots of damage and satisfying animations. paladin and dark knight get more protective abilities; dark knight gets the blackest night, and there's been plenty said about that already by pretty much everyone.

paladins get passage of arms. instead of a relentless new attack (and you get requiescat at 68, which is a way bigger deal for your dps rotation), your big reveal at 70 for zenos in your fight in ala mhigo is a superior way to protect your party, a shield that lets you stand for your allies so they never have to fall for you again. it's lucia's same shield, except you need no allies' shields to reinforce you, proof of your martial prowess and your ability to transcend limits, and perhaps in truth a reminder that you never really stand alone.

in many respects passage of arms should really feel like a paladin signature move to you now if you are playing it at this point, because you should be popping it in pretty much every fight (you are using your mits, right...?). basically every FFXIV fight has at least one big AOE with downtime that warrants passage of arms usage, usually after the mid-fight add phase with slowly filling bar. since that AOE usually drops during downtime, there's no reason not to pop passage of arms (which otherwise restricts your movement and actions), and even on normal, sometimes every little bit counts on a damage check even if it means dropping DPS (thinking here of harrowing hell P10N on release, which was...less consistent for a lot of roulette parties than you might hope).

so from 70 onward, passage of arms is in a sense a paladin warrior of light's signature move, and certainly the one a player gets to most actually enjoy (since if you're using it, you're by necessity not doing anything besides moving your camera and admiring your sick animation). it doesn't have any competition in terms of spectacle until confiteor, and those you're usually throwing out in the middle of movement.

it's such a signature, in fact, that the only other person shown using your one-person version of passage of arms is your greatest admirer, who studied your legend for over a century.

and it's when he fails (should've popped arm's length, bud) that the warrior of light decides they can't let their friends fall for them, and sends them away with the transporter beacon. this is all wrong: you were meant to die for them, not the other way around. yours is the shield that stands between your allies and defeat. it is you who will win this passage of arms and break your opponents lance. and you do.

and then later, when they need to quickly establish zero's domain as a place of fallen grandeur, the home of someone who once believed in heroes but is now a cool and cynical vampire hunter d, what do they use? a decayed statue of someone in the paladin endwalker gear doing the passage of arms animation, of course.

from a visible instantiation of knighthood as a joint effort to defend what is sacred, to a tribute to the fallen friends whose memories stand by you and animate you, to a symbol of the wol's power as emulated by their allies or darkly mirrored in other shards.

not bad for a mit button you hit once per fight and otherwise never think about!

[motelsnleatherseats]

[jofiah]

tall robot woman...

[should-know-better]

Today I discovered that Alex Turner was not* in an official relationship both times that TLSP projects started.

Timelines:

Jan 2007 - Alex and Johanna Bennett break up

Feb - Mar 2007 - AM on tour with The Liitle Flames. Alex and Miles write together. (* Nb: they had written some songs at the end of 2006 too so technically I suppose he was in a relationship then but hardly saw her)

Apr 2007 and Jul 2007 - TAOTU demos done.

6-8 Jul 2007 - T in the Park. Alex and Alexa meet but she already has a boyfriend.

Aug 2007 - TAOTU recorded in France.

Oct 2007 - Q Awards. Alex and Alexa officially together for the first time.

Apr 2008 - TAOTU released.

End Jan 2014 - Alex and Arielle break up.

11-20 Apr 2014 - Alex and Miles go on a road trip to Coachella and listen to old TAOTU songs on the way. Miracle Aligner first strummed.

Rest of 2014 - Alex and Miles - Power Couple Era

Dec 2014 - Aviation written.

Mar 2015 - Alex and Taylor get together.

Summer 2015 - EYCTE recorded in Malibu.

April 2016 - EYCTE released.

This is all just a very long winded way of saying what I said at the beginning. However I thought the timeline made the history clearer (well it does for me). I’d never realised that Alex and Alexa weren’t properly together when TAOTU was recorded in France during that idyllic summer…

[marshmallowgoop]

You came out of nowhere And you opened up my eyes to sunlight

[Song links: 1, 2] [YouTube link]

[h0neytune-cherub]

Animerica, featuring art from Yasuomi Umetsu's Kite on the cover and contents page. (via)

[holofizz]

I come with a gift.

50557

Ahem. The episode. Better than the existing youtube version. It wasn't easy to get or convert into a real video format, you're welcome.

[folklorespring]

I was watching video about Ukrainian combat medic and noticed it had English subtitles. Watched another video, also had subtitles. There're thousands informative twitter, instagram, tiktok accounts about Ukraine in English. Most news sources have English version of their content. If only people in the west reached out to learn more.

[didsomebodysaypancakes]

Paul McCartney telling Ron Howard (when he was making The Touring Years doc) "You know, if we're looking at the touring years, I would just like you to view the relationship John and I had through that lens. I've only begun to do this in the last couple of years. I've seen a couple of YouTube videos that fans made that just reminded me of how good of friends we were. And there's so much acrimony that came later that continues to reverberate. It even colors my thinking today, if I allow it. But I've begun to separate that from these years that you're going to be making a film about..." is low-key one of the saddest sentiments I've ever read

[sag-dab-sar]

To my fellow pagans/polytheists, a warning: the extremely antisemitic Satanism anon is going around again asking what you think of them. Don't publish it, don't give them the publicity they tend to send the same anon to a ton of pagans/polytheists all at once so they reach a wide audience that way.

[gay-otlc]

"Trans people can be heterosexual, but they can't be straight" is a stupid fucking take because not only does it misgender transhets, it's also just not the way language works.

The argument tends to be that "straight" refers to having a "normative" or "socially acceptable" sexuality, which heterosexuality tends to be seen as, but isn't in the case of transhet people.

It's true that "straight" has historically been used that way. For example, Transgender Warriors (1996) includes the line "The trans population is a reminder that not everyone who is heterosexual is straight!" (page 92). At this point, straight had a meaning that was distinct from heterosexual, with straight meaning "not queer" and heterosexual meaning "attracted to the opposite gender."

However, straight (in reference to sexuality) and heterosexual have both had a lot of different meanings over time, and it's pretty stupid to pick one at random and go yes, this is the true correct meaning.

The terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" appear in a letter by Karl Maria Kertbeny in 1869. Homosexual refers to erotic acts between two men or two women, and heterosexual refers to erotic acts between women and men. But Kertbeny still considered heterosexuals to be degenerates, as they engaged in nonprocreative sexual acts. (The Invention of Heterosexuality, pg. 33)

In 1892, Dr. James G. Kiernan used the word "heterosexual" in a Chicago medical journal. In this case, heterosexual referred to people who felt "inclination to both sexes." The hetero- prefix didn't refer to being attracted to a different gender than one's own, but to being attracted to two different genders. (The Invention of Heterosexuality, pg. 21)

Then, in 1893, Richard von Krafft-Ebing published Psychopathia Sexualis, where he used the term "hetero-sexual" to refer to sexual desire or "sexual love" between men and women, and is used to mean a "normal" sexuality. (The Invention of Heterosexuality, pg. 22)

In 1901, a medical dictionary defined "heterosexuality" as "Abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex." (The American illustrated medical dictionary, pg. 300)

In 1923, Merriam Webster defined "heterosexuality" as "morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex." Then, in 1934, the definition was changed to "manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex." (Merriam Webster's New International Dictionary, pg. xcii; Webster's New International Dictionary Second Edition, pg. xcvi

For much of the early history of the term "heterosexual," it was used interchangeably with the term "normal-sexual." (Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality, pg. 14)

The use of "straight" in reference to sexual orientation was defined in the 1941 book Sex Variants "To go ‘straight’ is to cease homosexual practices and to indulge--usually to re-indulge--in heterosexuality." It didn't refer to people whose innate sexual orientation was to be attracted to a different gender than their own, it referred to "ex-gays," or gay people who had recloseted themselves. (Origin of Everything, around 2:56)

From there, "straight" evolved to mean non-queer (as we saw in the Transgender Warriors quote), and now it's pretty much synonymous with heterosexual, being attracted to a different gender/the other binary gender from your own.*

*this isn't a perfect definition ofc because no sexuality can be defined perfectly, but it's better than "opposite gender"

So, over time, straight has meant "ex-gay," recloseted gay, non-queer, and heterosexual (as we know it today), and heterosexual has meant degenerate attraction between women and men, bisexuality as we know it today, abnormal/perverted attraction to the opposite sex, normal sexuality, and finally, attraction to a different gender/other binary gender.

And with all those meanings, it's kind of ridiculous to insist transhets are heterosexual but not straight based on just one of the many ways each word has been used. I could just as easily say that transhets who identified as gay before transitioning are straight because straight has been used to mean "ex-gay," and cishets who have never identified as gay aren't straight. Or that cis people attracted exclusively to the opposite binary gender aren't heterosexual, because heterosexual has been used to mean attraction to two different genders.

All that aside, both "heterosexual" and "straight" came into use with cis as the assumed default, without making the distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation that we have today. Transhets have no obligation to adhere to the definitions of either of those terms that operate under the assumption that everyone is cis.

And again- saying that transhets aren't straight is misgendering us. That should be the only thing that matters, but since clearly it doesn't, maybe it'll matter that enforcing "normative (cis) sexuality" as a universal definition for straight is bullshit.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Gotta admit to some confusion with the “Max is a sexist” takes? If it’s rooted in how he assumed Marinette didn’t know how to play the game, I could see a bit of merit even if there could be other reasons, especially since it happens in line with Kim’s more expressly sexist attitude of surprise. But when he loses, he congratulates her, and his upset while clear is framed as being completely due to losing his spot in the competition.

Ignoring how his anger was a part of his own private thoughts which HM exploits, Max as an Akuma targeting Marinette instead of Adrien always seemed to me to be due to the fact that she is the one who replaced him. Yes, they both beat him, but Adrien winning didn’t lead to Max losing his spot, Marinette winning did.

Also, the lesson of the day seems squarely centered around how Max deserves to play because he’s the one who really wanted the opportunity, which is why Alya as the writer’s mouthpiece scolds her beforehand about taking it seriously and cinched when Marinette explains why she’s surrendering her position. And while I’m not arguing the episode itself as whole doesn’t contain sexist elements, I feel the writers attempt to avoid that reading by having Adrien surrender his position to Marinette because she is the better player.

For Max, is there perhaps further context than Gamer that I’m just missing? Because I don’t nearly see the same amount of “Kim is a sexist” takes, and unfortunately Max being Black does put him at risk of being held to higher standards than other non-Black characters.

I will do my best to walk through the episode and explain why it makes Max read as sexist to a lot of people. (Or, at least, this is why I think people reach this conclusion. It's why I reach it.)

It's true that Max's reaction to Marinette wanting to play is potentially a little sexist because he assumes that she doesn't know how to play:

Max: The rules are elementary, You battle each other's robots with your own and... Marinette: Please... Every time you win, you loot its items and gain XP, which upgrades your mech. I'm not a noob, thank you very much. Max: Ah, sounds like you have a sufficient amount of knowledge. Let's see if it's enough to beat me.

It's hard to be sure, though, because we don't know if he tried to explain the rules to everyone. I still think it's fair to read it as sexist because it's paired with other characters acting like Marinette can't play, but I also don't think this is a big enough issue to call Max the clear problem of this episode. If he is being sexist, then he's far from the worst one in that scene and his initial reaction to loosing is excellent and without a hint of sexism!

Max: I accept this defeat. I relinquish my position at the tournament. Congratulations, Marinette. And Adrien.

It's also not even remotely sexist that he's upset by his loss and goes on to rant about it as soon as he's alone:

Max: I should've been going to that tournament. I was the chosen one! I worked so hard for it! This is Inconceivable!

While it's not sexist, I would argue that this reaction is something that he needs to work on. If Max wants to be in competitions, then he has to own the fact that he may lose them. This is an issue that we'll get to in a minute. First let's talk about what happens while Max is an akuma.

Even though Adrien and Marinette are together when Gamer attacks, Gamer is only out to get Marinette. He is obsessed with the idea that Marinette should have lost and doesn't care about the Adrien loss.

(Suddenly, the Gamer's robot appears. Marinette and Adrien notice it.) Marinette: Tell me this isn't some kind of publicity stunt for the tournament! Gamer: Well, well. Marinette, let's see who's victorious this time. Adrien: Doesn't look like a publicity stunt to me.

Gamer: Game over, Marinette! Marinette: How does he know my name? Max! (the Gamer's robot fires lasers at her) I guess he really did want that spot in the tournament!

While this makes sense since Marinette is technically the one who cost Max his spot, it doesn't change the fact that this obsession and the earlier framing of Marinette's win make the focus of the episode Max's reaction to Marinette winning. That means that the episode's ultimate lesson will be about the validity of Marinette's win.

This is where Max's part in the sexism really kicks in. Not in the pre-akuma stuff, but the post-akuma stuff. That's where this image comes from:

[Image description: Max and Marinette standing outside of the tournament arena. Max has a sad expression and is refusing to look at Marinette who is awkwardly standing behind him]

As you can see from this image, we don't see post-akuma Max apologizing to Marinette for blaming her when she didn't do anything wrong. Nor do we see post-akuma Max just generally owning his loss, promising to work on taking losses better in the future, and saying something like, "I'll just have to do better next year." Instead, we get post-akuma Max pouting and refusing to even look at Marinette.

This is hardly the behavior of a good loser and yet the story completely validates it. We go from Max pouting to this:

Alya: You bent over backwards to be in the team and now you wanna pull out? Marinette: It's just that I feel so bad for Max. And well, it just wouldn't be right. Alya:(stops her) You're doing the right thing. But honestly, it's not like you get the chance to play with Adrien everyday... Marinette: ...Max? I've thought about this a lot, and... Well, I think you should be playing tonight, Max. Max: What? Marinette: Don't get me wrong! I love gaming, but it's not my heart and soul. This is your baby. It's your tournament, Max. I don't wanna take that away from you.

The appropriate reaction to Marinette's offer is for Max to say, "No Marinette, I'm sorry, I'm behaving terribly. The school is supposed to be represented by the most skilled players. That's you and Adrien, not me. I lost fair and square. I'll work on my skills and get a spot next year." This is how you show character growth and emphasize that Max has moved on from viewing himself as the "chosen one" while unfairly blaming Marinette. Instead we get this:

Max: I don't know how to thank you.

While Max certainly isn't saying anything awful like, "damn right I should be playing you stupid girl," this ending still validates his anger towards Marinette and implies that his behavior was perfectly fine. That it wasn't wrong for him to ignore her until she gave him back "his" spot. That's the sexist element. We should not have seen Max rewarded for treating Marinette poorly and making her feel guilty for daring to win a videogame.

It's important to note that this all happens on the day of the tournament, meaning that it's been days since Max lost and yet he's still mad at Marinette. That's not a great look. At the very least, he should be equally angry at Marinette and Adrien by now. Instead, his anger is still shown to be focused on Marinette as if she is the one and only source of his problems when, in actuality, it was his double loss that cost him his spot. Marinette only knocked him out of the running because Adrien won first. If the order was reversed, then would it be valid for Max to be angry at Adrien? According to the show, I think that the answer is "no." At the very least, I don't see how you can argue that it's clearly "yes" based on what we were given. Adrien's win is treated neutrally by everyone and Adrien letting Marinette play is treated as him being kind while Marinette letting Max play is treated as her righting a wrong.

As others have pointed out, when it comes to Max getting akumatized, what difference does it make if Max loses to Marinette in the preliminaries or to someone else in the main tournament? Do you really think that he'd be fine losing at any point in this competition when he thinks that he's the "chosen one"? At what point is it not cool to hold onto the anger of losing in spite of all your hard work? And why does Marinette's motivation matter when it comes to Max's feelings? He had no idea that she was only playing because she wanted to be Adrien's teammate. All he knows is that she beat him fairly and that she now feels bad about that for some reason.

It's really important for kids to learn that hard work doesn't always lead to a win, but this episode doesn't teach that. Instead it says that it's totally fine for Max to feel wronged and that you should only compete in tournaments if you want to win for the "right" reasons, whatever those are. If you're going to go this route, then at least give Max a noble cause to contrast Marinette's selfish one. As is, he's just as selfish. It's not like he wanted the prize money to save his family from poverty! As far as we know, there is no prize money! He just wanted bragging rights.

What's even more bizarre is that Adrien gives us the lines that Max should have given:

Adrien: Go on, Marinette. You're a hundred times better than me. You belong on the team. Win the tournament for the school. I know you can do it.

What even is this mess? The episode didn't establish that Marinette was better than Adrien! We did get this exchange:

Adrien: Wow! We won again, thanks to you! Marinette: Yeah, um, yes we did. Adrien: We? That was practically all you. You're amazing, Marinette. I guess you wouldn't even need me. I'm so lame compared to you... Marinette: Um, no no no, I... No, you're so good. I mean, I'm the one who's not good. I mean... I'm lucky, that's all.

Leading to Marinette giving Adrien her lucky charm, but this isn't Adrien losing to Marinette. It's just Adrien being impressed by her skills when their team won a match. We never once see Marinette beat Adrien.

There's also the fact that the rest of the episode is focused on Ladybug and Chat Noir gaming together against Gamer, proving that they're the dream team, not Marinette and Max. The logical ending of this plot is for Marinette and Adrien to do the same thing on the civilian side because they're the dream team no matter which side of the masks they're on. Instead we validate Max's anger towards Marinette and tell the little girls at home that it's wrong to show off to boys. How feminist?

It would have played so much better if Max initially took Marinett's spot, but changed his mind after Adrien's line since Adrien's logic isn't unique to Marinette. It applies to Adrien as well and logical Max should have seen that. Why is it right for Adrien to give his spot to the better player while it's fine for Max to take a spot from those who beat him? Shouldn't the best players be the ones to represent the school? Especially when those players have actually been practicing together while Max hasn't done any co-op training? The lesson here makes no sense at all!

It's definitely true that Max isn't the only one who comes across poorly in this episode. Kim, Alya, and Rose's reactions to Marinette's initial win all also play into the "A girl? Playing video games? No way!" issue. Alya and Tikki play into the, "Marinette was in the wrong to ever play because we must be good and virtuous in our motivations and not do things to impress boys" issue. Both of these elements exacerbate how Max comes across by setting a sexist tone to the episode, but that doesn't change the fact that Max completely failed to learn a very valuable lesson, unintentionally making him look like a bit of a sexist loser even without the sexist leadin.

Max's sexism is also heavily exacerbated by some real world issues that are going to impact the way that people view this episode, so let's skim the surface of those rabbit holes because I think we have to acknowledge them to really understand why this episode bothers people.

I'm going to give you some studies here to back up what I'm saying because, when it comes to these sorts of claims, I want to give you something you can evaluate for yourself. I don't want to just talk about known issues as if they're hard facts without any proof and I prefer studies to opinion pieces or articles that mention studies without the details for you to evaluate. However, I will note that I'm limited in what studies I can access because many research papers are stupidly price locked and my public library's research database is pretty limited, so I'm stuck between that and what I can find for free online.

Feel free to reblog this or to send me an ask with suggestions of better studies or books on these topics or even on the topic of the way that black people and characters are held to higher standards because that's certainly a very real issue that's important to keep in mind! We all have unconsious biases from things like the media we watch and the only way to become aware of these biases/learn to look for them is for someone to point them out and for us to do some learning. Like I'm trained to look for sexism by my experiences, but picking up on subtle racism is much harder since I don't have a lifetime of experience to pull from. There are lots of great resources out there, the trick is finding them and maybe even accessing them as I certainly found when I was looking for studies. I'm far from an expert on gender or racial studies. My hobby research field is history.

Issue One: Female Socialization and Those Precious Male Feelings

It is a documented phenomenon that women are socialized to be nurturers. They're taught to prioritize the feelings of others - especially men - over their own wants, needs, and successes. One study on this topic focused on how success effects intimate relationships and noted that:

We find that climbing the societal ladder has positive associations with women’s well-being and relationship outcomes... however, these associations reversed for women who surpassed their partners in social status. ...Among women with higher status than their partner, traditional women intend to adjust their behavior to fit the gender norm (e.g., thinking about reducing work hours in favor of their time at home), whereas egalitarian women did not, but felt guilty toward their partner.

In other words, this study found that women have happier relationships when they don't do as well as their male partners. When they do surpass their male partners, they either try to compensate for that success or tend to feel guilty for failing to compensate.

While this study was about romantic relationships, I don't think that it's a stretch to apply it to platonic relationships, too, especially since we're talking about the messages a TV show is sending to young girls. That's where Gamer comes in. What does that episode have Marinette do when she surpasses her male friend Max? She feels guilty and compensates for daring to be better than him, reinforcing a pretty ugly gendered stereotype.

This type of thing goes beyond interpersonal relationships. It's a well-known issue that women are looked down on when they act too "masculine" in the workforce:

Numerous studies have highlighted that female leaders are evaluated less favorably than their male counterparts when engaging in identical behaviors. For example, using a job-hiring paradigm, past research demonstrated that female candidates who violated the modesty prescription by self-promoting during an interview were evaluated as less likeable and less hireable than self-promoting male candidates.

Gamer was not an instance of Marinette doing something questionable to get close to Adrien. It was her taking her hard-won skills and using them to show off to her crush so that they could get closer, a thing that Adrien was clearly 100% okay with.

This episode should not have been an instance of Marinette being show to be in the wrong. A show that aims to empower little girls should never include an episode where a girl is chastised for daring to self-promote, but that's exactly what Gamer does. It says that Marinette was wrong to put her wants over Max's feelings. What kind of girl power show sends this sort of message? How do you take a woman fairly beating a man and make it a bad thing?

If anything, the message of this episode should have been focused on Marinette being told to NOT feel guilty. After all, that's the far more likely issue for young girls to face. They will have lots of people reminding them to treat others kindly. The message could have also been about winning gracefully and been fine, imo.

Issue Two: Gender Discrimination in Male-Dominated Hobbies

It's a well documented fact that female gamers have long been treated as outsiders by the gaming community as this study discusses:

The researchers played against 1,660 unique gamers and broadcasted pre-recorded audio clips of either a man or a woman speaking... Findings indicate that, on average, the female voice received three times as many negative comments as the male voice or no voice.

Since most of that study is behind a paywall and I don't know if you can access it, I'll also give this openly available study that looked a subset of the recordings from the initial study as it gives you some fine details of what they saw. I think that this second study is a little weird in terms of what it's trying to argue, but the hard data and the research methodology seem fine and that's what I want to focus on here:

We show that lower-skilled players were more hostile towards a female-voiced teammate, especially when performing poorly. In contrast, lower-skilled players behaved submissively towards a male-voiced player in the identical scenario. This difference in gender-directed behavior became more extreme with poorer focal-player performance... Higher-skilled players, in contrast, were more positive towards a female relative to a male teammate.

There's also this study which was free through my public library, so hopefully you can find a way to access it, too, if you want to read the whole thing. For the purposes of this post, I'm just going to highlight some of the statistics and cases that it talks about during its introduction:

Recent studies have suggested that sexual harassments in online games are committed mostly by male gamers against female gamers. For example, in South Korea, one of the countries with the largest per capita gaming populations, players who play the female character Mercy in Overwatch are commonly called by an online slang, Bo-Rcy, which literally means ‘Mercy played by female genitals’ and connotes that women are incapable [of playing] the game. Also, a female professional gamer has been falsely accused of using an illegitimate tool simply because her win rate was too high for a woman.

33% of female gamers experienced gender discrimination, and 57% experienced severe sexual harassment after disclosing their genders. Furthermore, 64% of female World of Warcraft players answered that they experienced various in-game sexism such as exclusion (i.e. removing women from the game-play) or gendered flaming (i.e. using derogatory language specifically against female gamers) Also, a report documented that women are exposed to worse forms of online harassment (e.g. stalking, physical threats, etc.) and that about 44% of Internet users, regardless of their sex, agreed that online gaming is ‘more welcoming toward men’. Overall, it can be concluded that ‘video game culture is actively hostile towards women in the private as well as the professional spheres’

In other words, by having Max only ever blame Marinette for his loss, Gamer has Max acting like a tame version your typical woman-hating gamer who can't handle the fact that they've lost to a girl. This is something that I've seen myself and is part of the reason that I lost interest in online gaming. I even know one girl who had to change her in-game name because it openly acknowledged her gender and got her a ton of harassment. Of course, the guys that we played with blamed her for choosing such a harassment-inviting name because heaven forbid that a woman openly play videogames!

Conclusion

Sexism or no sexism, Gamer undeniably validates Max behaving poorly. The perception of that poor behavior is simply exacerbated by existing gender issues. These real-world problems are why people look so negatively on Max's actions. While his behavior is far from the worst gamer rage that I've ever seen, it does represent a classic, sexist issue in gaming.

If it weren't for all of the complexity around the real-world treatment of talented women in male-dominated spaces or the issue of women being taught to prioritize the feelings of others, then this episode would just be one of those episodes with a nonsense moral. For example, it would still be bad if Adrien was in Marinette's spot, it would just no longer be sexist.

However, we don't live in a world without those issues, so this episodes comes across as hella sexist and Max is the main victim because he's representing some major gendered issues that woman have to deal with. I can name so many real world moments that this episode reminded me of and none of them are happy memories. Every single one of them involves someone telling me to put a man's feelings over my own desire or comfort. This is not the kind of messaging I want to see in shows aimed at young girls.

All that being said, I don't think that Max was supposed to be read as sexist. The writers just did him dirty and made him look terrible when he could have been a wonderful lesson on taking a loss with grace and treating female gamers with respect. After all, as we've already acknowledged, Max did start out handling his loss reasonably well. The rest of the episode just completely undoes that initial good reaction, making it so that a lot of viewers will only remember Max being a pouting sore loser who gets rewarded with the thing that he wanted while Marinette feels guilty and gets lambasted by others for daring to want a spot on the team. I am not surprised that the credited writers for this one are a pair of dudes. I sincerely hope (and assume) that this was them being oblivious to a gendered issue and not anything more malicious.

[lavendersewingcircle]

Catherine Hubscher, Maréchale Lefebvre Duchesse de Dantzig, by an anonymous artist circa 1810

Of all the Marshals’ wives, Catherine was one of the most loyal to Napoleon. This did not prevent her from criticising him though, and she did so bluntly when she felt it was deserved. Despite this, Napoleon and Josephine were both very fond of her and while some at court sneered at this woman of most humble beginnings, the Emperor made a point of using her title every time he spoke to her. On one occasion, when the Duchess of Lusignan snidely remarked “Sire, it pleased your Majesty to drop the title of duchess on Madame Lefebvre”, Napoleon rather coldly shot back “It pleased me to raise the title of duchess to Madame Lefebvre”!

x

[boyrobott]

for everyone who's been looking for their own copies of the 2009 comic series, some kind soul uploaded them to YouTube!