#starting to get to the point where i see Adult Women Shouldn't Be In Fandom takes and realize they mean Me

[thaliagrayce]

。*★.°*:.☆Don't Put Ship Hate In The Ship Tag☆.:*°.★* 。

[gorogues]

it-is-i-zim replied to your ask post: This is just my opinion but Ostrander's revamp of him was the worst thing thing to happen to him character wise. Fans of Boomerang are sometimes straight up harassed for what Ostrander did to his character. Like on one hand, one of the reasons why he was on the suicide squad for so long and we see him AT ALL is because of Ostrander but I'm sick of being called racist because of how my guy was written by Ostrander.

it-is-i-zim replied to your ask post: Identity Crisis was bad for Digger still though. It also made me kinda dislike Tim Drake fans but I also get that for ages their only exposure to Boomer was that comic. And the Knight Terrors: Robin comic bringing that comic back into the established canon did no favors either seeing that it was through the eyes of someone who wasn’t even there. An artistic choice for sure, but it’s also made Tim Drake fans feral about how AWFUL Digger is.

Unfortunately this is more of a fan problem than a writing one. I definitely sympathize with people who love pre-Crisis Digger but hate his post-Crisis self, because modern Digger can be a lot. But people being jerks to other fans because of it is 100% a problem with fandom, and it's got to stop. There's nothing wrong with liking problematic characters as long as you're honest about their flaws, because they aren't real people and they haven't actually hurt anyone real…and just because you like them doesn't mean you approve of everything they do.

It's also fine for people to dislike a character or avoid other fans if they make you uncomfortable for any reason, but it shouldn't get to the point of mistreating a real person over fictional stories and liking/disliking fictional things.

(To make things extremely personal for a moment, it took me over 25 years to figure out why I gravitate to unpopular villains: it was only once I understood that I was the family scapegoat that I realized I like unpopular villains because I'd been considered one/treated like one my entire life. People can have their reasons for liking villains and problematic characters that have nothing to do with the shittiest thing(s) the character(s) have done.)

it-is-i-zim replied to your ask post: And with Owen, arguably his worst characterization was in that one Supergirl comic where he tried to get with a 15 year old Supergirl while being established as an adult man and was like, “I’m not a creep” but then on the same page also called her “jailbait” which uh… Gross. I must say I’m not fond of him because of that and therefore didn’t mind the kinda bad revamp back in Suicide Squad (2016) #47

The question was "the most common way they're written badly", and while that was weird and creepy, it was thankfully just a brief anomaly in the Supergirl book (that's why his strange Rebirth revamp didn't get my pick; it was just one story). I found Owen's intelligence and skill level varied wildly throughout his appearances, and sometimes he was competent and sometimes he was a clueless dumbass. He seemed reasonably smart in his debut story, so IMO him being an idiot was the primary example of being written badly.

it-is-i-zim replied to your ask post: Sorry that my thoughts are kinda all over the place on the Captain Boomerangs.

That's completely okay, it's why we're all here! :)

parkakingrolo replied to your ask post: I'm gonna go a little against the grain on Lisa, and say some of her other characterizations I'm not too fond of are when she's now the moral compass, and I agree The Rogues should have a stronger one, but forcing it on Lisa feels awkward. Don't get me started on when she hinted at feelings for Barry too. Maybe it's just two extremes and they struggle for a healthy middle.

Yeah, that's fair. That one's a problem too, though the one I mentioned bothers me more so I guess that's why I went with it. Truthfully I think both versions are manifestations of sexist beliefs about women, one benevolent ("women are morally better than men") and one misogynist ("women are crazy bitches, especially ex-girlfriends" -- and on that note, I really hate what was done to Magenta by Waid and Johns. She should have been included on the previous list).

It would be good if DC strove for some middle ground between the two, because Lisa should be flawed but not constantly jonesing to slash people's faces.

[back-on-my-bucky-bs]

nah nah i think you're onto something. like when a creep gets actually exposed most of the defenders (if there are any, depends on the severity of what was exposed) end up male who think its not a big deal while female friends often see the red flags and call them the fuck out we seen this happen before so many times. so idk about anyone else but the fact dream is surrounded by female friends on all sides and they trust him? to the point of partying with him and visiting his house? that's fucking huge and a giant green flag. also i just think most of the male cc's that left and burnt bridges did it because they were big mad that dream no longer gave them clout that they felt they were owed and decided to farm clout by themselves using dream's name without his consent 🤷‍♀️ now that is a red flag and a dick move from everyone else but dream

ngl I worried I said to much with my observations but I'm also glad someone else is picking up on them

I know I'm speaking in absolutes and I know I'm an outsider looking in, and I also know women are capable of being predators, but I mean come on? you'd think if these allegations were at all true, Hannah, Slyvee, Bella Poarch, (the girl from the Everest music video I have no clue her name) would stay far away from him. They wouldn't be in the mv nor would stay the night at his house. But the men? The men who claim to say they side with survivors every time someone in the influencing world is "exposed"? Those guys drop him and say the meanest cruelest shit about him? The fuck is the logic?

Again I'm so bad at conveying this in a way that makes sense, but like I said there's something sus going on.

Additionally the clout chasing, yeah I get that we're farther removed from the "drituation" (thank the gods) so this wave of hate (tommy specifically) is so out of the blue imo? I get Tommy's an adult and is capable of his own opinions but the change is so sudden and drastic, it's like someone else is influencing him to switch sides. I worry about Tubbo and Tina doing the same now that they're on the asshole smp. It's getting them streams/views and it is the only non-human dranti that exists imo because of who it was made by and the people who watch it. Like I already have an issue with BBH being on the server out of principle.

Idk where I was going with this last bit ngl. But either way I just hate so much the hate Dream gets. It's undeserved and yet so many people find fame in hating him, getting streams/views when they shouldn't.

slightly off topic but I have a point; anyway I recently saw a TikTok illustrating how "now" everyone loves Taylor Swift and those of us who loved her back in 2013/2014 when all the shit was going down online deserve a badge saying "I was never the asshole and have loved her the entire time" and I can see, 3-5 years down the line a similar video being made about Dream. Cause those of us here, now, who love him and have loved him since the start (or just whenever you joined the fandom) are fucking wonderful human beings and those who hate him deserve all the karma and those who will hopefully change their minds better own up to being shitty to him because it's so wrong and I just can't understand how/why so much hate exists for one person.

[struggle-but-its-all-ocean-floor]

What Armys did today with all the "freejk" "hostage" jokes and hate comments over such a simple post (clout chasing post or maybe it was with good intentions, whatever his intentions were) was so unnecessary and idiotic, like everyone knows Jay Park's problematic acts and what all he said about Bangtan but we don't have to start spreading THIS MUCH hate and toxic comments over such a post where he is complementing the boys (whatever his real intentions). It can be clearly used to show how Armys are the bad guys are by the antis. They could've let the post slide and not given it any attention. Ik it's a way of showing that we never forget whatever shit people do against bts and we'll protect them but this was unnecessary.

Now I know it was good to call out a problematic person but over such a post?? Not a good idea. Also why not call out other problematic celebs too then? Why so biased? Also they are literally adult celebs who can hangout with anyone they want, people change, relations change...going all "free jk" is so delusion and toxic.

I actually didn't know what Jay Park said about BTS until today... I only recently joined twitter... And I don't necessarily disagree with Armys blasting Jay Park like that. I just don't like how they weren't like this with other controversial celebs BTS have met and talked about. It's hypocrytical. And the hashtags were stupid. Jungkook doesn't need to be freed. But I wish BTS were more selective with the people they meet and admire. They would probably take a picture with Trump, shooting finger hearts at the camera, and the fandom would flip trying to make up an excuse for their behavior. I hate that I'm not confident BTS wouldn't do that. It says a lot about their easy-going attitude. I know a lot of assholes, and don't cancel or get angry at them over anything, but I also don't act like we're besties or excuse really bad shit. I guess I never had to. Celebrity bullshit is on another level. It's not just your racist grandad, but a millionaire living it up while treating people like shit and setting a bad example for the world. In Jay Park's case, it's not quite that bad. He's just another person who shat on BTS and who thinks he's all that. He's slime and seeing BTS smile next to slime is gross.

I don't agree with the point about antis using what happened to hate Army more. Armys don't need to seek approval from antis or to change their behavior to make people like them. Don't blame the "victim". That's like saying women shouldn't wear short skirts to avoid getting groped. People will hate Army no matter what. The problem isn't toxic Army, it's that people conveniently forget that everyone's toxic on twitter. And Army should be better, but not to please others.

[veliseraptor]

I think the age issue actually started from a pretty reasonable place: adults in fandoms with minors need to make sure they interact appropriately with them. Sure, agreed! But then it started turning into this idea that all fandoms were for minors, when in fact fandoms with mainly adults are very common, and devolved into some people saying that adults shouldn't be in fandom at all over a certain age. I don't think it's a majority opinion or anything, but it's still frustrating when it comes up.

I mean, I even think the reasonable part is a little more slippery than it seems at first glance. 

I see a lot of discussion of that aspect that assumes that adults on the internet in fandom are somehow required to basically...semi-parent minors on the internet. Where there’s this idea that you should be extra careful lest that dirty stuff fall accidentally into the hands of minors, and that it is your responsibility as an adult to ensure that minors don’t encounter anything that might be age-inappropriate.

And I think that is both a massive misunderstanding of how minors in fandom generally interact with the internet (at least in my personal experience, based on my life in fandom from thirteen onwards) and the duty of adults on the internet, particularly considering the opacity when it comes to how old people generally are. 

I don’t know right off the bat when someone interacts with one of my posts, or reads one of my fics, how old they are. If they put their age on their sidebar, sure, maybe, but a lot of people don’t - and that relies on me checking their sidebar. What responsibility do I have to monitor my interactions with everyone I may make contact with on the internet to make sure that they’re age appropriate? To what extent is it my job to act like a parent placing parental controls on a kid’s computer? 

I agree that was the place this issue started (though I think there are a lot of assumptions lurking underneath about specifically women, older women’s sexuality, and the idea that older women are expected to disappear from public view), but even from the get-go I think that perspective was flawed, and pointed down the path it ultimately has taken.