#the patriarchy is important to the story??

[yuudarkspirit]

Thank you for your thread 🙏You have said that so well that I have so little to add. Thai GL stories literally made my life better. Western shows made me depressed, disappointed, hopeless almost every time I watched it. There are different stories and couples ofc but I hate the “Bury your gay” trope the most, cos it feels like it’s something that could be shown somewhere at the start of 20th century or earlier but not nowadays. And for me who’s living in the homophobic country where being a lgbtq+ member is against the law, representation is so important. Now, watching Thai GL shows I have more faith, confidence in myself or my future…It’s like I am finally cured without any meds or therapy. And it’s very pleasant feeling. Thai GL shows never disappointed me when it comes to story itself or leading actresses and it’s a fascinating fact…Meanwhile I cannot say the same about Western shows. I really think that Thai GL will be further and further from Western shows with every year. I just wish that more western people or creators of W|W shows watch Thai GL series to see the huge difference and better performance because it’s very significant for lgbtq+ community members around the world and not for patriarchy system!

Western lesbian representation is so bad. It’s either the series gets cancelled, a character dies, they don’t get screentime, or the storyline only focuses on the homophobia they face.

Meanwhile in Thai GL, there have been over 30 series announced for 2025 alone. And let me tell you, there’s something for everybody. Space lesbians, childhood best friends to lovers, period drama lesbians, boss x employee trope, multiple couples and love triangles, mafia action lesbians, idol x bodyguard trope, lesbian with powers to control time, prisoner lesbians, black cat x golden retriever trope, crime-solving lesbians, messy sapphic friend groups who are all in love with each other, high-school sweetheart fluff, weddings, happy endings and so much more. And this is just the beginning. There will be many more great series to come in the future.

The only thing that’s stopping more western people from watching is because of subtitles. Which is such a pity because these people say “there’s no good lesbian representation”, but there is. You just have to be better at looking for it. Don’t set yourself up for disappointment anymore, don’t watch something for the bare minimum representation.

As Bong Joon Ho once said:

[blissfulrain12]

Jimmy is the Protagonist

It's weird feeling like I need to say this but here we go. Jimmy is a villain protagonist. Protagonist and antagonist do not mean good guy and bad guy. The protagonist is just the main character. Jimmy is an awful person but he's still the main character. The antagonist is whatever force in the narrative that opposes the protagonist. In the case of Mouthwashing we can have really interesting discussions about just what is the antagonist of the story. In my opinion it would be something like Jimmy's hubris or capitalism or patriarchal hierarchy.

I love Anya but she is not the main character. She is a very important character who is essential to the story but she is not the main character. Same thing with Curly. He's not the main character but he is important and essential to the story. If you refuse to engage with or misinterpret or mischaracterize one of them you will not be able to fully understand the narrative and themes in Mouthwashing.

Which brings me back to Jimmy. You CAN NOT understand Mouthwashing if you don't engage with Jimmy as a character. It is through him that we see the world and other characters. He is the active factor in the story. He is at the center of everything. To understand Mouthwashing is to understand Jimmy. Jimmy is the source of horror in this horror game and it's not because he's a monster. Jimmy is a horror because he's an average man who fully believes in the ideals of the hierarchies that make up the systems in power and when those systems screw him over he destroys everything around him by trying to force those ideals on others.

[kataraslove]

there’s a reason why the entire story of avatar the last airbender begins and ends with katara. there’s a reason why we are introduced to katara first before we are introduced to any other character. there’s a reason why katara is the narrator. there’s a reason why the creators have emphasized over and over again that katara is just as titular to the story as aang - she’s the other main character.

when you water down katara - remove her compassion, her ability to connect with others, her nurturing role, her ANGER and RAGE and DRIVE - you water down the very fundamentals of the story. you drastically and severely alter the core dynamics of the gaang, because katara was so important to the development of every single one of them. she was the rock and glue that held team avatar together.

katara was unlike any other character to ever appear on television; she was a young brown girl who took no shit from anyone, yet at the same time remained kind and compassionate and nurturing. katara was a force of nature; proud of her heritage and culture, burdened by the responsibility of being the last southern water bender of the water tribe, angered over the death of her mother and everything that the fire nation took from her, determined to help every single person in need, determined to change the world, angry and resentful because old men and rules and laws kept telling her what she could or could not do, thus, she was determined to restructure thousands of years of patriarchy that stood against her from accomplishing her goals and dreams.

watering down katara into at most 2-3 tangible characteristics, stripping her away of all her motivation and agency and nuance, telling the audience that she wants to help and change the world only to have her stand in the background with an air of grief, demonstrates that the writers of the live action fundamentally misunderstand the spirit of avatar. and that’s something so unforgivable. no matter how many changes they decide to make, or how much they decide to stay true to the original story in other areas, no matter how many flashy VFX fight scenes we get - if you fail to properly understand katara, you fail to understand the heart and soul of avatar the last airbender, everything that makes avatar such a timeless classic.

[theskyexists]

Anyway that's enough terf shit. If you read too much about the patriarchy you drown in it

[whetstonefires]

#YEAH #especially since i think the fact this story takes place in an incredibly patriarchal heterosexual society. is actually really important #like. thematically #and it detracts from that to turn all the female characters into Strong Independent Lesbians Who Don't Need Men #instead of. women. who are trying to live in a world that is not made for them.

#not to mention it's boring. yeah i know there's only like 4 women in this story and it kinda sucks #but turning them all into action figures instead of letting them be unique 3 dimensional people isn't making the problem BETTER #it's just creating a different flavour of cookie cutter caricature of women (via @arcelian)

IDK but I really am irritated by the 'baddassification' of Yanli in fanon. Moments of ruthlessness in service of protecting her loved ones? I can see that. He being this post NMJ death NHS esque schemer who also slept with Wen Qing and pegs Zixuan? Not so much.

Right There With You, my bro (gender neutral)

i am Extremely Ancient but it makes me really sad when it sometimes feels like fandom's views of what makes a 'good' female character haven't significantly advanced since the days when I thought the female characters in Firefly were the pinnacle of feminist representation (spoiler: they're not)

on a meta level, you can be annoyed by Yanli's born-to-be-fridged role as the delicate and sweet and perfect and passive sister and want to reimagine her... but just like that characterisation is annoying because it's part of a broader pattern, the idea that Yanli only becomes a 'good' character if she's smarter, stronger, or meaner (or queerer) is annoying because of how ubiquitous it has become.

also-- and i feel this way about mianmian too-- isn't that moment with jin zixun better narratively and dramatically if it's this incredibly rare moment of asserting herself? something no one has ever seen her do before, and even she wasn't sure she'd be capable of until it was happening?

[shupadoop]

I don't care at all what pronouns you use for me (except not he/him; fuck the patriarchy and its history of ignoring non-men (but I 10000% respect your choice to use he/him, you are not personally responsible for the entire patriarchy, you don't have to justify your pronouns to me, and I will always make the effort to get your gender identity right cuz it's really a bare fucking minimum in this day and age)). And I get that not caring about pronouns is often a cis privilege, like of course it's easier for me to say that because I was never misgenered, so it's not a sore spot for me and it's completely fair for it to be for someone else. But like, hit me with all those great neo and non-binary and inclusive pronouns. Point me out to someone and use it as an opportunty to make thon happen. If you're telling a story involving me, have at it, pick your favourite pronouns! Change them every time if you want, make me an enigma!

[radfemsiren]

🤍A basic rundown of my beliefs as a radical feminist 🤍

(I don’t represent every radical feminist, but these are usually the standard opinions you’ll find of many radfems. Hate or disagree with them, that’s fine! But know the truth of who I am and what I stand for beforehand)

- there are 2 sexes, the male sex is oppressing the female sex

- femicide, rape, child sex abuse, hijab laws, female genital mutilation, domestic labor, trafficking, war crimes, revenge porn, prostitution… women and girls around the world are being exploited, tortured, and killed because of this oppression, and it must end.

- female oppression is sex based oppression, meaning a woman can’t just identify out of her oppression (for example hijab laws)

- sex is biological and an immutable truth, gender is a social construct

- gender should be done away with because gender roles are male supremacist and result in women and girls being stereotyped, dehumanized, barred from education, safety, bodily autonomy, etc.

- defining women with anything other than biology is misogynistic and relies on stereotypes

- the biological differences between men and women must be acknowledged in order to effectively end patriarchal oppression

- radical feminism is getting to the root of female oppression (radical -> root)

- misandry is not real and is just an extension of misogyny (for example, “men are told not to cry!” Yes because women are seen as inferior and any trait associated with us is seen as degrading/emasculating for men. This is why there is no female equivalent to emasculation.)

- all current religions are patriarchal and made by men to exploit and control women

- access to abortion is a human right and should never be threatened, women are the creators of life and deserve to gatekeep it, as well as exercise full autonomy over our own bodies

- Using sexist gender roles to define yourself is giving these misogynistic stereotypes power (wearing makeup or dresses doesn’t make anyone less or more of a woman, this is misogyny)

- the beauty industry is patriarchal and exploits women, our bodies and our money

- sex work is not work, it’s always exploitation (consent can not be bought)

- the porn industry is patriarchal and relies on trafficking, coercion, and rape to function. It also conditions its watchers to be aroused by violence against women, and results in more real life consequences for women and girls

- women’s spaces and institutions must be protected. Women’s safety is more important than catering to male feelings

- marriage is a patriarchal institution made to exploit the domestic labor of women for her entire life

- BDSM/kink are patriarchal and only center the pleasure and well being of men.

- hookup culture is patriarchal and the risk to reward is not worth it for women to engage in it

- gender ideology is patriarchal and is a direct hindrance to female liberation (we can’t define ourselves or our oppressors, we can’t create spaces away from our oppressors, we can’t create laws and policy based on these definitions, people who are gender non conforming are pressured to alter their bodies to conform to a rigid standard and become lifelong medical patients, etc)

- choice feminism and liberal feminism caters to conforming to patriarchal standards and institutions, and refuses to examine why women make choices under patriarchy

- women of color face oppression on the axis of our sex and race, men of color only face oppression on the axis of their race

- non white patriarchal institutions must be criticized: a mullah is just as dangerous to the liberation of women as a pastor is

- women should decenter the men in their lives just as men have done with women. That means prioritizing us! Engaging in women’s media, art, stories, fostering female communities and support networks, uplifting and empowering their sisters around the world

- being a radical feminist means consistently taking radical action, big or small, we all can do it! Go support a female artist, go donate menstrual products to a shelter, go tell off a man when you see him making a woman uncomfortable. We all can make a difference!

…My feminism focuses on criticism of Islam and middle eastern patriarchy, but there are radfems with many focuses/passions… some in eco feminism, some on uplifting Romani women, black women, neurodivergent women, women with disabilities, prostituted women… some are passionate about women’s sports, women’s art, women’s writing, women’s history, lesbian and bisexual women’s stories… everyone has their passion on here, so before you come to attack, just check out my blog and click around at the different profiles on this corner of the internet…. maybe we might not be the terrible witches you thought us to be. Or maybe we are, but witches are awesome so who cares lol

[justalittlesolarpunk]

Happy International Women’s Day. Reminder that this day emerged out of labour organising and it’s not about celebrating girlbosses or any whitewashed corporate feminism. It’s about equal pay for equal work, full bodily autonomy, the liberation of queer and trans women, sex work decrim, fairly shared domestic labour, global decolonisation, fighting misogynoir, an end to sexual harassment and rape culture, a society that actually supports those trying to raise children, fair representation of women across all sectors and positions in society, media and stories that don’t cast women as passive and useless. Reminder that patriarchy is inextricably linked with the forces currently wreaking such destruction on nature and the environment, that a green future is a feminist future and a feminist future is a green future. From Greta Thunberg to Leah Namugerwa to Christiana Figueres, Mikaela Loach, Xiye Bastida and Nemonte Nenquimo, women are powerful and important voices across our movement, leading the way and demanding the change we need because they understand that it’s all connected.

[llamasgotoheaven]

Especially upsetting now that there’s literally at least one study demonstrating how our brain capacity and ability to be productive caps at about six hours, and the rest of what we do at work is actually a sort of fruitless waste of time

I think it was in scandinavia somewhere that we tried introducing six hr workdays and it didn’t worsen productivity. What it did do was raise people’s life satisfaction and their wellbeing. Preventing mf burnout

I know I don't shut up about this but frankly not enough people are angry about the 5-day/40 hour workweek (and I am AWARE a lot of people work even more than that). I feel like a lot more people should be absolutely furious that we only really have two days a week and some occasional hours in the evening to socialise, run errands, do chores, or relax.

It's no wonder so many people are profoundly lonely and disconnected from their communities when maintaining a social life in what little free time we have is incredibly difficult. If you have kids, a second job, a very long commute, or other responsibilities, it's nearly impossible.

We literally aren't meant to live like this and I'll never stop being shocked how many people just take it as the natural state of things and don't want to throw a brick through a billionaire's window every time they think of it.

[nalyra-dreaming]

PSA

In light of season one of IWTV hitting Netflix soon, here’s just a few things I want to (re)state wrt the show itself and asks in general:

The Vampire Chronicles IWTV is built on has 13 books

The first two seasons are only the first book with some inclusions of later ones

There is a big shift in tone between IWTV and later books, as the rockstar teaser already makes clear

Season 3 will be built on the second book, called “The Vampire Lestat“

Lestat is and will be the main (anti) hero of the show. Louis is the main narrator for the first book, Lestat is for the upcoming four. That does not mean that Louis will disappear, but it does mean the focus will shift a bit

I have been a fan of the VC for decades. I love the movie and the show. I had not dared to hope for a show like this. If you ask me something I will answer with that background knowledge, which might contradict show-only-current knowledge since this show (and the books) only offers very flawed POVs and no absolute truths. Any hate bc of that will lead to a block (and yes blocking anon is possible).

The show gives a brilliant social commentary on a variety of issues, not the least patriarchy or racial discrimination, cycles of abuse and so on. However, it is important to differentiate the in-universe story level and that added social commentary level in discussion. And to differentiate the actors from the characters AND to realize you (we all) might not know all after season one. Don’t come to me if you cannot do that.

[wellofdean]

I read your post about Supernatural being queer somehow from season 1 and I have two questions.

1. Don't you think it straight-appropriates the word "queer" to say it just means "not normal"? That argument seems disingenuous to me, and a lot of us want representation, and to see that word applied to explicit depiction of queer sexuality, and it's a cheat that they don't. Queer studies did start as the study of queer sexualities and the experience of queer people.

2. Are you saying that the makers of Supernatural intended for it to be "flesh on queer bones"? Do you think they intentionally sat down to tell a queer story?

Those are good questions my anonymous friend. Thank you for asking. Here are my thoughts:

To answer your first question: no, I don't think it appropriates anything. Here's why: firstly, if we're talking about sexuality and gender, it's queer 101 that no one owes anyone a justification of their queerness, and not everyone who is queer is interested in labeling it or making it legible to you, and they have no obligation to do so, and not doing so doesn't make them any less queer. Furthermore, some people who are queer are not interested in sex, so what about them?

All of that together is why, for me, the entire queer project is much more deeply about non-compliance with hegemony, and specifically with hegemony around gender roles, sexuality and to put it under a big umbrella, patriarchy, than it is about who you fuck. Those things extend into so many other aspects of life that I think you can easily talk about "queering" a very wide range of topics, and possibly? ANY TOPIC.

You are responding to this post, I think, and in it, I made a choice to talk about family and hunting, and our heroes roles and characterizations in that, and did not talk about gender shenanigans or sexuality, because my point was that even before we get to anything to do with it, Sam and Dean are immersed in a queered world in a fundamental, structural way. That said, I assure you that if you go back into season 1 of Supernatural, you will find LOADS that could be said about gender and sexuality, too. As well as other things, and a particularly important area, as @ironworked pointed out in the tags, is blue collar/white collar class issues.

As I said, the depth of queerness in Supernatural is actually dizzying just in terms of the story's BONES to say nothing of how they flesh it out. Queerness is about deviation from the norm. It's about rebellion and disobedience against hegemonic systems for the sake of personal authenticity and love.

Think about Cas for a minute. Cas's whole story is that he rejects his role in a hegemonic heaven. He rebels for love, and that is pretty explicit as early as season 4 when he tells Dean "We're making it up as we go". Fellas, that is THE QUEEREST SHIT EVER even if he didn't do it for Dean, and like... HE DID IT FOR DEAN. Cas did not have to tell Dean he loved him for me to know it, and for Cas to be a deeply queered character. When he DID say it, I wasn't the least bit surprised he was in love with Dean, because seriously, we been knew. I was only surprised I got to have the immense pleasure of hearing him say it and looking at Dean's face while he took it in. Jesus. I will NEVER RECOVER.

This is my perspective on representation in Supernatural: It's excellent, and I relate to, and feel seen by it as a queer person. Nobody needs to get fucked on the maps table for me to do the math that this is a queer story. It is very, very, very thoroughgoingly canonically queer in so many ways, and not all of them are to do with sex. I think some fans will only allow it to be called queer if dudes make out in it. I am not one of those fans.

As to your second question, I think there is a wealth of evidence in the filmic oeuvre of Eric Kripke to suggest that as an artist and a writer, he is concerned or maybe even preoccupied with masculinity issues and issues around family, and around the way patriarchy fucks men up. So, yes. I think he knew what he was doing and he knew that queerness was part of the mix. For fucks sake, it's a family of men who hunt monsters. That is very fucking on the nose. Do I think he kicked off Supernatural in 2005 planning a 15 year operatic queer romance between Cas and Dean? No. I don't think anyone planned for it to go as long as it did, and it's a matter of record that some things were influenced by fan response, actors' chemistry, different writers and showrunners' preferences and etc. What I will say is that when they had a choice to "straighten shit out" or lean into the queerness, they fucking leaned in, nearly EVERY TIME. Like, it's pretty amazing how consistently they lean the fuck in.

I'll admit -- I wasn't watching it with those eyes the first time, and I didn't give it much real estate in my mind when I watched it as it aired from 2006 to the end, but the last three episodes reshaped it for me and made me angry, and also made me need to watch it all again, this time with an explicitly queer lens, and BOY HOWDY let me tell you this: the Supernatch rewatch journey is a wild and wonderful trip to Queertown. It is legit more difficult to argue that Dean is straight than it is to argue that he is queer. There is a full on CORNUCOPIA of story evidence to support that read and relatively little that convincingly counters it on the straight side, and that starts right at the beginning, when they bend pretty baby Dean over a police car in episode one, and he smirks insouciantly in his lip gloss. Do I think everyone involved knew how that looked? Sexy, submissive and a bit gay?

YES I DO.

[a-commas-a-pause]

@listen-to-the-inner-walrus i like your tags

No, but the "Jon and Catelyn" discourse in this fandom is absolutely nuts.

Like listen matey, I will be the first to roll my eyes when someone goes "They are privileged nobility so they should keep their mouth shut about having any other problems ever!!" about female characters in this story, but CATELYN?? Within the 15 years timeframe in which she's harbouring this bitterness against a mere boy specifically??

She's had hard times before that, she would have hard times ahead, but aside from the whole "literally at the top of the world, rich and privileged and if anyone in her family is kind of sad about something at any point then every man (or old enough boy) bellow her has to leave their own wives and kids and elders and go die for them, no choice about it", she doesn't even have any other problems that we might still pity women in her position for, still.

- Her husband loves her and she loves him back.

- He is a good man, too. She is respected, she has a voice in the house. She speaks over him when she thinks herself more in the right, at this stage in their marriage. She literally has the last word in the matter of "Jon and the Wall" for one.

- She is healthy and beautiful and thriving in her 30s. Hardships such as fertility issues, miscarriages or other typically female struggles others of her peers go through have evaded her.

- Her children are healthy and beautiful. No infant death, no grief until the Bad Things TM start happening because the story needs to start. If things kept being normal, it would never have been an issue.

But, hear me out, Jon being there means her life is not perfect-perfect and people should cry themselves to sleep over the hardship of (guiltily though!!) kind of wishing a child were dead or disappear through some other means idk rather than the (controversial!!!) "this is not the best thing ever and a character flaw I think :/?"

For real???

[crimson-and-clover-1717]

I’ve read a few takes which view Izzy through a Marxist lens and paint him as a working class* hero. The premise being that this proletarian warrior is unfairly usurped in the affections of Ed by some upper class, monied, artsy type; and to not root for the grassroots character makes you somehow a bourgeois prick.

Izzy is never in Ed’s affections romantically. Ever. So the premise falls at the first hurdle.

But for the sake of argument…

If you’re truly going to view the show as a Marxist allegory, in which an individual overcomes horrendous class obstacles, then that character is Ed Teach.

Ed rises from extreme poverty to become the most successful and infamous pirate in history. It’s a rags-to-riches story.

The takes I’ve read on this completely ignore the fact that Ed is also ‘working class’. And the only conclusion I can reach is that Ed is ‘the wrong kind of working class’. Because what these interpretations do is separate the idea of the working classes into a ‘deserving’, romanticised, white, ‘salt-of-the-earth’ type, and non-deserving groups not worthy of recognition, usually representing people of colour.

And so we’re back to race. The Marxist lens as I’ve seen it applied here defines the white working class man as having had his toy stolen by the white bourgeois man. Ed is a just an object. And when Ed’s handed back rightfully to Izzy by the British Crown as payment, he is literally chattel returned to the correct owner.

A large part of the show is Ed’s fightback against an ownership narrative in order to claim his identity for himself. That to be with Stede is his choice; and Stede’s initial obliviousness is an extremely important part of that narrative. The agency has to lie with Ed first, and the writers clearly understand this. Else we might be setting up a power struggle over ‘who owns the brown man’.

Stede never lays claim to Ed because there is no claim to lay. He instinctively and intuitively falls into a reciprocal friendship with Ed, which eventually grows into an equal love and natural affection. Stede always sees Ed’s personhood. And it’s really important that Stede views Ed, at the very least, as an equal in terms of human worth. Societally they are not equal due to white patriarchy; however, Stede’s giving up of his wealth, his bourgeois status, is another step towards a truer equality between the two.

Meanwhile, Izzy views Ed as a valuable asset to be utilised for a certain masculine glory and riches. Izzy might not be bourgeois, but his worldview is certainly bent that way. He will willingly and violently take possession of another human being as an interpretation of owning the means of production - that isn’t exactly proletarian. It’s participatory enslavement and a bourgeois act.

We know nothing of Izzy’s past. We can presume he’s from a working class background because Occam’s razor would suggest as much. But we are never explicitly shown Izzy’s class in the way we are Ed’s, because Izzy’s class isn’t overly important to the story unless it serves the narrative of Ed and Stede. It has no independent meaning. He’s an antagonist. And let’s face it: he cosies up to Chauncey and the British establishment pretty easily when it suits him.

If you must apply a Marxist lens to this story, your working class hero is Ed. And if not, why not?

*I’m using ‘working class’ as a Marxist term. I realise in 1717, it was not widely used

Ed Teach, finally co-owning property and a potential business. It’s not a fairytale ending entirely, but it is an important practical ending to a lifelong journey from nothing. And Ed might never have to go hungry again.

[allthinky]

OFMD fans on Bsky and to a lesser extent here are suggesting that we need to come together as a fandom, get over the divisions, etc. and in principle I am well in favor of that. The last thing we need is to show up as unhinged as we try to get the show picked up somewhere and Season 3 ordered.

But. A lot of folks were really harmed by the bullying, the name-calling, even doxxing? (I missed that, luckily, but certainly have been accused both of bad faith arguments and hatred for Izzy. [Ha. He's not real, for one thing -- also, he was drawn to be hated, right up until the middle of Season 2.] It's whatever. I've been trained in both argument and advocacy and can show up pretty...blunt? But still don't think people should encourage others to actually kill themselves over a tv show.)

I do think healing the rift is important. But.

It's not more important than respecting BIPOC and queer folks. I won't stop calling out racism and misogyny/homophobia where I see it, or at least suggesting that we can and should do better, especially for this show. For this show, omg!

That's the thing: for me, OFMD showed up not only during Covid but also during a huge life upheaval. One that made me incredibly cynical about the odds of justice anywhere in the world. And it said, in every episode: cruelty is wrong. Misogyny is wrong. Homophobia is wrong. Trying to protect your family, trying to become yourself, trying to make amends for your wrongs: these are still good. You can still choose a family, a life, a way in which you fight racism, colonialism, patriarchy. You may find only a grubby little band of weirdos, but they will make your life good. And also, late bloomers can still find true, queer, love.

I love how so many fans have recognized this and are willing to fight for it. But when there are fans who decide that Ed or Stede are clearly the bad guys, or need to suffer! Or that S1 Izzy is the good guy, or Izzy "deserved" a better ending ... These takes pull me out of the little home that the show built for me. I know, rationally, that such interpretations don't actually threaten what the show is, but they still pain me in a way I'm not sure I can fully explain.

(Worse yet, the attachment some folks have to Izzy seems to mirror my own attachment to the crew and the themes. We're all just unhinged. I can't help but feel it's messed up to love Izzy so much he should be front and center, when we finally had a show where the white masc dude wasnt front and center. Even while I think people have the right to enjoy what they want to enjoy. And who doesn't enjoy that little rat, losing when he thinks he should win. It's perfection!)

By 2.4 or whatever, Izzy is fine, he's learning how to be family, he is still a mess in all kinds of ways but whatever. He can be their dick. Their nightmare. Fine. But make him the "hero"? That's an insult. He can do heroic things -- as we all can -- but it's not his story. It's just not, and man, it feels good that someone else gets to be the hero for a change.

I'm really putting this here for my own edification. This isn't meta, this is just: why is allthinky so touchy about OFMD? I'm not done, but I'm done for now.

[whumpyreader]

Whump Intro and Masterlist

Hi! It feels weird doing an introduction because I've been here for so long lurking and reading.

I am an adult and finally found the term "whump¨ a few years ago. As a child, I loved whump and kept it secret! As a teen, I assumed other people were like me so I started my quest to figure out "what was wrong with me". Then I found the word and found this community and I'm so glad this is wrong with me :D

I am a published author on the side but absolutely detest the publishing world. I find I enjoy stories here and on other platforms so much more. I originally meant to use Tumblr as a place to read but I had some stories asking to be uploaded here. They are not edited but they sure give me the whumperflies. I uploaded these stories here:

Masterlist of all my stories

I love pretty much any whump as long as it isn't tied to kink. My stomach is definitely not picky when it comes to whumperflies :D

I also wanted to add why I love female and male whumpees (because I think it's important): ever since patriarchy became a thing, women became forgotten. Their skills were forgotten, they weren't allowed to develop the skills they wanted, and suddenly society gave rise to these macho men that thought they were these amazing protectors. It's all a bunch of bullshit and whump is a beautiful way to not only even out the playing field but also explore new identities. Females in whump have these amazing back stories, grit to survive, badassery, and can be taken care of in deep, profound ways rather than being forgotten. And males can now be emotional, scared, weak, and need help in ways that aren't macho. Same with disabilities, sexual orientation, skin color, and more. As I have explored these "new" identities in whump (reading and writing) I have better been able to treat people for who they truly are in real life AND I see the bullshit all the more.

I have so many favorite authors here. Here is a list of the legends:

@deluxewhump, @whumpty-dumpty, @little-peril-stories, @galaxywhump, @squishablesunbeam, @hold-him-down, @peachy-panic, @whumpflash, @starlit-hopes-and-dreams, @i-can-even-burn-salad, @whumpwillow, @writereleaserepeat, @secretwhumplair

[golvio]

Fridging is also a fairly gendered phenomenon. The original name of this trope was “Women In Refrigerators,” coined by writer Gail Simone in criticism of an incident from the Green Lantern comic book series, which she and a lot of fans saw as part of a larger misogynistic trend of writers killing off female characters, typically love interests, who they didn’t know what to do with but wanted to insert some kind of shock value to raise the stakes for the (implicitly more important, more developed, more humanized, and therefore less disposable) male heroes. This term eventually came to apply to other media outside of comics, as it’s a trope that was fairly common in other genres (and still kind of is, depending on where you look).

me tryna explain the difference between "fridging" and "death by origin story" and "character dies and that impacts other characters and that's not a bad writing decision"