#the problem isn't women characters the problem is bad writing

[josru]

a little rant:

If you need to understand one thing about the Bear subreddit, here it is.

It's not a supportive place for women, let alone black women/women of colour. (Not surprising, as reddit is male and white dominated.) Sydney gets mad hate for daring to be apart of the main relationship in the show (that is now defunct), something that the writers wrote for her? Regardless if you see Sydcarmy as romantic or not. The whole point of the Bear is their partnership.

And yet the Bear fandom on reddit loves to diminish her role, and act as if Sydney is an uppity black woman who needs to be rid of. They act like it's surprising that people want to talk about her or like her. And they also think Sydcarmy is mad overrated and implausible. They bring it up constantly because it pisses them off that a sizeable portion of us love it.

Probably because Sydney is an actual character we can relate to and root for. But oh no, men don't like that because that means she isn't a perfect little white fantasy, and she has actual problems and ideas and speaks on them, and she's BLACK, god forbid!! And they could never have empathy for someone who wasn't themselves. Sydney is annoying to them because it reminds them they don't care about other people.

It's barely a place for white women too, because they only like you if you're a gf/therapist/not your own person. A flat, 2-D image with no problems. They don't care about Jess or Claire, they just want to fuck them. Even in this post, the respect of relatability and empathy is given to Richie in the title, because he finally "got some", despite the picture being of Jess. Like, great, guys, you diminished a woman (a PERSON) to being a "win" for a man, because that's all that matters, right? Whether or not a woman is a fuckable prize?

Even the writing of the show actually just pushes the whole "if women = gf, = only gf, nothing else" trope. So in a weird way, I guess I know where they're getting it from, but I expected more from adult men? My bad.

Women deserve to be more than someone's fantasy!! I am sick and tired of this misogynistic drivel. I also think it's fucked up how much of these dudes on reddit love Richie this much. Like, we get it, you think he's a self-help sigma alpha chad king now. Just keep ignoring the problems he keeps creating, how irritating he can be sometimes, as well as the fact that men picking up their lives will always have way more support than female characters. Richie is not some underdog character lol. The narrative of the show has made it clear he is very beloved and will have a nice, sweet arc.

Unlike Sydney, and Marcus, and apparently maybe even Tina. But yes, keep talking about how your white male character is the underdog who is being sooo mistreated and finally got something he deserved, even though in actuality, Syd and every other POC got treated like shit this season. It's like they swapped them, the real main characters, and made them the underdogs/tertiary while Richie has become so important. But it's key to reddit's white male victim complex that Richie is finally getting "good treatment" when he never suffered being completely ignored by the writers at all, and he was never at risk of that either.

[verosikastrikerstellaexcuser]

something i find really gross by the writers and fans of the show Helluva Boss is that everyone bemoans and bitches about Stolas being made to marry Stella and have a child with her when SHE WAS IN THE SAME DAMN BOAT. I am pleading with people to remember that women have been valued purely for their ability to bare children FOR CENTURIES, and is still idolized today. I am begging people to see Stella for what she was in a political marriage: a womb. Nothing more. Yet no one gives a fuck, cuz misogynistic writing is so engraved that critical thinking goes flying out the window.

THIS THIS THIS! Like, people calling her his rapist when St*las has said "This marriage was for one purpose, to birth an heir" Which she had to bear the physical brunt of since shes the one who had to lay an egg (equiv of pregnancy). Pregnancy takes a physical toll on the body. Ever since being a child she was expected to be okay with being forced to get pregnant with the child of a man selected for her. Its incredibly fucked up and that plus the fact St*las has all the property rights since shes been booted out and the show has shown us he gets to keep his palace which means he still owns it atm, the marriage literally favors him in multiple ways. Its literally less harmful (still harmful, but less) towards him than her in terms of legality and the fact her side involved forced impregnation as well as forced sex to boot. Its just so fucking gross that the writing does not address any of that at all and given the historical precedence of women being property passed around for arranged marriages. I feel like I'm going nuts at the latest plotline where St*las is a poor baby for being expected to split more in the divorce, I get it wasn't fair and neither of them wanted the marriage in the first place but they're writing Stella as a villain for expecting more than just her clothes and possessions and to also get a home/place she gets to live in and own too. Like, who wrote this? Viv and co. or reddit misogynists who think we should go back to when women got nothing out of divorces?

And I'm so tired of all the people who come out of the woodwork like "But shes mean" "Maybe shes just mean" "Stop overthinking it" "Why are you against female villains?" "Women can be abusers too" They're so dense when it comes to this, I'm sorry but its a stupid response that misses the point. I have never had a problem with female abusers in other shows such as TOH's Odalia and I wouldn't mind at all if Stella was written as an abuser who is lashing out due to being upset at what shes been forced to do. No, the point when it comes to Stella and HB is that, isn't it insidious? WHY out of all the villains is the female victim of an arranged marriage with so little actual power that stands in the way of an m/m ship chosen to be the "Shes just mean because shes a bad person not because bad things happened to her" archetype? And why is she specifically written as stupid and needing her brother to be the actual plotting villain; why does she barely get to drive the plot and her own story? Ever since they added Andrealphus hes stolen her spotlight/point in the story and shes just vehicle for St*las and Andre's beef now. Seriously like THINK PEOPLE. We KNOW that m/m fanfiction and yaoi focused spaces etc tend to use these tropes in which women are jealous men obsessed scumbags for the sake of being plot devices with no real writing, for the sake of creating drama that serves the male characters stories. I'm tired of being told I'm overreacting for recognizing obvious repeating patterns. Like it or not our biases will inform how we think about and therefore write certain groups of people. When you add in that male characters as a whole get so much more fleshed out and focused upon in Helluva Boss, and that its other female characters frequently don't get to express sexuality/sexual desires, and that female HB characters are so often just "X's cool hot looking partner" with little else to them, add in all that and it starts to paint an extremely suspect and ugly picture.

[seriousbrat]

I see many snape stans say Snape was groomed into being a Death Eater. But there’s no canon evidence 😭. Do you think that was the case for him?

yes and no. I think the issue is that "groomed" isn't the right word, I would use "radicalised." Unfortunately it's very common for teenage boys to be radicalised into far-right beliefs and hate groups, and while it's obviously justified to apportion blame to some extent, I also think understanding why that happens is important in order to combat it. And I think that requires a certain level of nuance and empathy.

Snape had a shit home life and was mistreated even further at school. He was given the short end of the stick in many respects, I think this is undeniably true and while it doesn't justify anything, is what opened the door for him to be radicalised. Obv he is still ultimately responsible for his choices, and they were bad ones, but for me Snape as a character is an interesting parallel to a real life phenomenon.

A lot of teenaged incels are miserable, because We Live in A Society and MOST people are miserable. Instead of reaching the conclusion that this is a systemic issue and correctly identifying the problem, they're led to believe by manipulative, bad-faith actors and echo chambers that the cause of their misery is X group (women, immigrants.) Not to get academic lol but Mark Fisher's concept of "capitalist realism" explains the way that it's impossible for people to see capitalism as anything other than the norm, the default state of society, and even begin to consider that alternatives may exist. So if you're miserable under capitalism without understanding why, you look for someone else to blame. This happens all the time and right-wing politicians are constantly taking advantage of working-class people's misery in order to stir them up into populist fervour- how else are you going to get the poorest people in the US to oppose public healthcare? If you stop to think about it, it's insane.

Back to Snape, I know this is mostly my interpretation and not fully based in canon, but the way I see and write Mulciber is as an extremely manipulative person, who identified Snape early on as both highly useful and as easy prey. The fact that Mulciber specialised in the Imperius curse points to his manipulative nature for me. As does the "he wanted Mulciber" quote, Snape was clearly very invested in gaining his approval (he wanted mulciber quote my beloved). I can see him being led to believe that Muggles (his father, and everything that came from his mother's choice to marry a muggle) and wealthy progressives (James) were to blame. Ofc there is hypocrisy in this, but people aren't always fully logical.

So IN CONCLUSION, while Snape was responsible for his own choices, I think it's worthwhile to think about the other factors at play in the situation. Fiction is a way to understand things that occur in real life, after all, so it's just interesting to consider through the lens of Snape's character.

[neverendingford]

.

[emdotcom]

*remembers what they did to Vanny* 500 FUCKING PIPEBOMB ATTACK.

[love-at-first-bite]

Sorry to still be a #Hater but, knowing I Will be playing 3 playthroughs of Persona 3 (2 Portable runs and one FES+The Answer run) sounds so much more fun and enjoyable than playing Persona 5 for a second time, vanilla or Royal I'M SORRY THIS IS A P5 HATE ACCOUNT NOW

[muertawrites]

one more thing about the whole cheerleader/bimbo/etc readers, i always feel like they’re meant for skinny white girls, which I’m not 😭 idk if that’s just bc I can’t see myself in it or bc the writers accidentally make it that way but 🤷🏻‍♀️

ooh honey you sent this to the right bitch. my bachelors degree is in media psychology and a lot of my studies were focused on stereotyping in different forms of media

and yeah.

they're definitely coded for conventionally pretty white girls.

[genericpuff]

What is the thing you feel like Lore Olympus failed at or did the worst. The comic has a magnitude of problems but what is one problem that you have the most hatred for or just flat out makes you angry?

(Just curious)

There are so, so many things I could point to as "the worst" thing that the comic did, because it has a LOT of worsts, but I think ultimately the failing of the original myth's messaging has to take the cake because it's ultimately the root of all of LO's problems.

Rachel herself seems to have this disconnect between what's going on in her head vs. what she's actually writing. It's especially present in her Q&A's and interviews where she claims certain things about the comic / text that just aren't present in the slightest during the actual comic. One such example that ties into my answer is this response she gave to Girl Wonder Podcast:

"I feel like female characters in general, people will be a little harsher on them and sometimes way harsher on them, and I used to be like.. before I started writing the story and like making a story I was like yeah, sexism is not that bad, and [now] I was like oh it's bad. It's quite bad [laughs], so like, I don't know, I feel like the female characters in the story don't get so much of a pass. But this isn't consistent across the board, it's not all the time"

It's ironic at best and tone deaf at worst that she would claim that it's her audience being harsh on the female characters, when she's the one who wrote them into the characters they are that would get that reaction. Minthe had her BPD retconned so now she's just the abusive other girl. Hestia was turned into a cruel hypocrite when it was revealed she was a lesbian. Hera is racist to nymphs and cruel to the lower class and yet she's still rewarded in the end by getting to run off with a nymph girl who we've never seen her have any extended interaction with. And worst of all, Demeter was robbed of all of her agency all in favor of turning her into the evil Mother Gothel mom who's overbearing and cruel to poor Persephone. Some of these women deserve to be called out (Hera and Hestia), and others like Minthe and Demeter were simply used as props to do exactly what Rachel claims she doesn't like people doing and is labelling as sexism - to get harsh reactions and give the audience someone to hate on. Rachel desperately needs to learn to read her own work. Her audience is "sexist" towards these women because Rachel wrote them that way.

It fucking sucks and it's, ngl, extremely disrespectful to the messaging of the original myth that was written to comfort and empower the mothers who had lost their daughters to marriages back in the day. It wasn't some simple "aww the girl moved out and now she doesn't visit anymore!" girls who got married off were often literally never seen again and it wasn't by choice. Not only that, but in certain regions (such as in Athens) the women were isolated to their own section of the house upstairs (while the men lived downstairs) so that they wouldn't be seen by visiting guests or strangers.

It's why in some cultures the original H x P myth was considered a "golden standard" for marriages (at the time) because not only was Persephone given power over the domain alongside Hades, but she actually did get to see her mother - but it wasn't because Hades was just such a kind guy who would let her go willingly, it's because Demeter had to literally hold the world hostage and fight for her right to reunite with her child.

So for LO to not only twist Demeter's love and justifiable concern for her daughter into "helicopter parenting", but also rob her of her agency and power in fighting for her child, it fundamentally misses the entire point of the original myth and undoes itself as a retelling that's trying to be taken seriously in the discussion of Greek myth media. And for that, Rachel should be ashamed of herself.

[cardentist]

fandom isn't activism by the way. there's no way to do it good enough that it can stand in for putting in the work of real activism, but there's also no way to do it Bad enough that it cancels out any of your actual beliefs (as long as you treat the real people around you well, of course).

like, there's a difference between noticing that women tend to be under-represented in fics and linking that to societal misogyny (fandom as a whole is simply big enough that these trends are at least partially reflective of societal biases as a whole), and measuring specific characters and ships against each other and deciding that if one number gets below the other then feminism is LOSING.

or going up to specific People and grilling them about which characters they talk about most and why.

if someone is nice to women in real life and posts about wanting to raw old men all the time online then I think it literally doesn't matter at all actually.

recognizing that a trend As A Whole is probably influenced by societal bias doesn't translate to that Same bias being ever-present on an individual level. there's no way to write fanfic in a way that saves feminism.

fanfic is the Symptom, not the solution or even the problem. you treat the Societal Bias and the fanfic numbers change, you don't change societal bias by arguing with people online about the fics they do or don't write.

Sometimes people only write fics about gay sex because they're gay, and that's fine actually

[callofdudes]

Bro Ghost is literally military, he's literally a grown ass man 💀💀 he's not gonna cry and all that shit. You write him so bad bruh, learn joke ass 💀

I hate to waste my energy on this but I feel it should be said at this point. A lot of people have different opinions on Ghost, here's mine.

I know Ghost has a character. I know Ghost has been through hell and back, he's had a horrible family life and trauma even after.

Ghost probably does not have the best relationship with his emotions, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Just because he's in the military doesn't mean he isn't allowed to have insecurities and such.

And I'm so sick and tired of people thinking that in order to be confident and masculine you have to have no problems. Like, 'hes a grown man'. Ok?? Men have feelings. Men are humans. When Women break down and cry it's a totally different reaction than seeing a man do so.

It's not emasculating because Ghost has connections. He has deep rooted ties with other men which I think is incredibly healthy for guys.

Simon has a strong group of men that he can deeply connect with. A lot of men have that fear of not getting vulnerable around male or female friends, but are more likely to be vulnerable around other men.

As someone who is deep into psychology, I make most of the choices I do to write Ghost from a standpoint of how a human normally reacts to what they've been through and so forth. Keep in mind I'm female so I cannot always confidently react from the body of a male, to another male how some guys would.

Because I'm just different. But saying that Ghost is in the military has little effect to his emotions. How he portrays and conceals them sure, but he still has them.

So at the end of the day I say this. It is not weak to have emotional connections with the men in your life, it's healthy for men to have those pillars, especially in times like these.

Ghost has emotions, he has very deep connections and through those connections he can learn to be vulnerable. Men can still be strong and masculine while having trauma and vulnerability. Their not exclusive to each other.

Stay strong kings, just like Simon Riley 💪🏻♥️

[jerryterry]

There was one inevitable downside (/upside for Tumblr Drama fans?) to all of these poll tournaments coming to Tumblr, and that's "fandom polls being run by people with a massive bias/opinion that they can't help from plastering all over the posts". Like, there's this one New Vegas poll currently running where the OP has a seething hatred for Cass, among others - badmouthing characters in their poll posts, getting into ranting arguments about it. It's inconsequential and funny, and situations like this are a dime a dozen on this site, but seeing this made me want to take a look at this one a lil closer. Because it brushes into something small I've always found interesting about New Vegas: the rumor of homosexuality in the Legion, as well as a wider factor about the writing of companions in general (Under a read-more for length).

OP literally says "If you tell her you're a gay man, she calls you a nazi", so lets take a look at the line they cite for this:

There's multiple points where characters joke about the Legion having similar prominent homosexuality to the actual Romans (which was notable enough that there's straight-up a "Homosexuality in ancient Rome" Wikipedia page). For example:

- Veronica

- Major Knight

What's interesting is that the one character who talks about his direct experience with this subject, Jimmy (a former Legion slave), actually says something that contradicts that last quote:

This opens up the likely possibility that it's NCR propaganda - a homophobic lie to emasculate the enemy. Even if maybe it IS something common in the Legion, it's something frowned upon and is at best a rampant open secret. Either case makes Major Knight's quote provably false.

Regardless, it's a wide non-Legion belief that homosexuality is common and accepted in the Legion. If the source of that rumor IS cooked-up homophobic propaganda, it's interesting that it hasn't worked on the only characters who talk about it. All three of those quotes not only have no ill will toward the idea (Cass immediately states it's not an issue AND notes how common it is behind closed doors), but two of them are mentioned in a context of longing: Veronica's quote is immediately followed by her being angry that only men are allowed to be gay, wishing the same for lesbians. Major Knight's quote is in the context of him having to hide his homosexuality at work -- which sadly makes it clear that the propaganda was likely more effective in general than on the one straight character who mentions it.

I'd say it's funny that OP has a hatred of Cass for being homophobic despite being one of the few characters in-game who makes an explicit statement of not having a problem with homosexuality (I for one would've loved to see Boone - the biggest NCR bootlicker around - make his stance clear on the matter). But admittedly it IS tactless and clumsy to make a backhanded comparison of gayness to the Legion (that statement's obvious expository purpose aside). They also read "there's a lot more of that in the Mojave" to mean "ew, it's not this bad where I come from!", but Major Knight makes it clear that where she comes from is actually MORE supportive. As well as another comment she makes about having slept with women while drunk, which OP construes as likening homosexuality to a drunken mistake.

Like, relax. Yes, "I have no problem with it" isn't the most heartfelt statement of support. But the most Cass' words betray about her is ignorance. I think it's clear she's well-meaning but ignorant, and for the most part intentionally written that way. Most of the companions have intentional personality flaws - Cass is crass, tactless, and stubborn. Arcade is an idealist to a fault (in the game's opinion). Boone is blinded by loyalty to a flawed system despite enacting the worst parts of it. Veronica talks like every line was written by Joss Whedon. The others' flaws are a little more external, but ALL of the companions are intended to be flawed and have pros and cons (while not entirely equal), and all are still intended to be well-meaning people despite this.

It reflects a realism in the nuance of human beings. In general, the writing often tends to rely on this "no black or white, ALWAYS nuance" approach to an almost frustrating degree - like I WISH you could get a better ending for the Followers in a "did everything right" Yes Man ending, even though I know the phrase "did everything right" itself goes against the core philosophy of NV. The poll thing was intended as more of a jumping-off point to talk about some stuff in New Vegas I find interesting rather than a response to that post, but honestly - I know Tumblr has a bit of a problem with seeing nuance, but have a little faith in the writers, will you?

Oh. They... think the game itself pushes the idea that "all fascists are gay"??? How can you be a fan of this game yet have such a low opinion of its writing? Such a lack of critical understanding? This person says "According to my academically trained eye..." and then goes on a series of reaches that critically misunderstand the text in a really unfavorable way, just because they were (understandably) offended by a clumsy offhand statement a character makes and immediately clarifies. And they chose to run a poll despite their open hatred for some of the characters involved (they also seem to hate Boone, for obviously more understandable reasons). Interesting choice.

What's funnier is that OP's open disdain for this character makes it more likely for Cass to win the poll on account of spite votes. Cass would've absolutely been buried by Arcade and Veronica in any other scenario.

Anyway, here's a YouTube comment I found while grabbing these quotes that I found funny:

[Transcripts of screenshotted quotes are available in the alt text]

[lucy-and-rebecca]

Fontaine archon quest is Not misogynistic.

Now don't get me wrong, I have my fair share of problems with how the female characters are written in Genshin but Furina is in my opinion the most well written character in the game.

I love seeing powerful women in postions of power. It's a nice thing to have in a story but it's not a determining factor in the story.

Furina being powerless doesn't necessarily make her a weak character. Rather her powerlessness is exactly what makes her such a compelling character.

Her stubbornness, her persistence, her endurance and her compassion just would not have made the same impact had she been the "real archon".

Furina isn't immature but she is a child. She is a child who was forced to grow up to handle the responsibility that was forced upon her. Playing the role of an archon was a burden placed upon her. So if she had ended up with the responsibility and/or power of an archon it would have felt wrong.

I'm sure the story could have been written in a way where Furina ends up being powerful but I don't think that version of the story would have felt nearly as impactful.

As for the authority going to Nuevilette...

Well I wonder how people would react if the genders of all the characters were flipped.

Nuevilette is a fan favourite character but had he been a female character instead would people have the same reaction to her? I'm sure she would have had her fair share of simps but I also think she would have come off as a passive, Mary Sue type of character. Childe and Wriothesley barely made an appearance, a huge chunk of the quest focused on Navia. Although putting Furina to trial was Nuevilette's idea Navia and Chloride were the ones who came up with the plan. Focalor was the mastermind, Lyney, Lynette and Ferminet were acting on the Knave's orders who was ultimately able to get the gnosis, Skirk could probably destroy a national on accident by sneezing and Furina was the emotional core of the story. Something tells me that this version of the story would also be considered misogynistic.

People, including myself, have a tendency to equate physically/magically strong female character with good female character and progressive writing, and so the lack of that type of strength gets equated with bad female character and misogynistic writing.

It's easy to write a powerful character, writing an impactful character is the hard part.

Genshin has a lot of instances of misogynistic writing, Fontaine archon quest isn't one of them.

[scintillyyy]

I love your Stephanie Brown post. It verbalized this feeling I've had about her character for awhile but didn't quite know how to phrase.

Just wanted to thank you for that!

ah thank you <3

yea to me, the super frustrating thing is that dixon's sexism gives her flaws that i find super narratively compelling and interesting and 3-dimensional and overall strong in a way that other writers somewhat miss the mark for me (i actually have a lot of criticisms about bg2009 and how bqm wrote her--overall i find it a very surface level girl power story veneered over pretty standard 2009 era sexism wrt the dynamics between women that has not aged super well and doesn't do much for actually giving steph interesting depth as a character & i find it's weakened by the fact that it is a doylist apology for the absolutely horrific way editorial treated steph prior to her death (which. she does deserve an apology and to be treated better), but also by doing that it makes almost every other character such as babs seem unreasonable and bad for their very understandable watsonian response to being wary of steph for many valid reasons and also makes it hard to actually give steph any flaws that aren't just quirky or clumsy--she's not perfect because she's adorkable). dixon steph has so many problems, being written by dixon, but she's truly my favorite flavor of steph because despite how horrid dixon is, you can absolutely tell how much he truly cared about her as a character. like. i bet if you asked him, he would have nothing but positive things to say about her personality and other characteristics. in fact, i believe a lot of the letters to the editor that talked about her back in the early robin issues had a lot of super positive things to say about her! like he created her! she's his blorbo! he wants to put her through the struggles!

like so many of her struggles when he's writing her is so much due to his sexism (she's never quite as competent as tim, and shouldn't be because she's The Girlfriend--compare to characters like babs and dinah and helena that were women but also written as extremely competent and good at what they do) and also because he wanted to put her through the wars, give her adversity to overcome! like steph is treated horribly a lot. by everyone. but it's partially because he wants her to perservere through it because he likes her and wants her to succeed. like a couple of very common threads through dixon's storytelling for her are the following:

tim is condescending (because that's how boys and girls are. see also: every 90s tv show that had a beleaguered sensible man with a nagging, over the top, ridiculous woman who does silly things that the man Puts Up With) -> steph gets mad -> tim thinks to himself that he shouldn't be so hard on her and usually apologizes -> well, actually tim was probably right because steph did get into trouble but steph making constant mistakes isn't actually narratively seen as "hey, maybe she should stop if she's making mistakes" because dixon wants her to continue.

or

more experienced vigilante (male or female--tim gets a lot of flack, but honestly, almost every single vigilante in batbooks at the time seemed to think steph wasn't quite good enough--batman, dick had his reservations about her, barbara didn't really necessarily want to train her, *cass* straight up told her she shouldn't be doing this, dinah didn't want to be her mentor, etc) tells steph not to screw up -> steph screws up -> steph has to get bailed out by more experienced vigilante -> steph keeps trying despite this

like so many of her diary entries that steph writes involve some flavor of "i've been told not to do this, but i have to, it's something i need to do despite all the naysayers". and it's sexist! because chuck wouldn't necessarily write the 'screw up and overconfident which usually leads to needing to be bailed out but keeps trying anyways' kind of a narrative for a male lead character (male characters get the 'i'm super competent but insecure/humble about it and when i make mistakes i'm able to figure out how to fix them by myself' narrative). but at the same time, it's what he truly believed for her--that she deserved to keep going despite any naysayers. if he truly believed that steph shouldn't be a vigilante or thought poorly of her, she would have been written out and/or he would have written her as making a mistake so bad she wouldn't have continued her activities as spoiler and finally agreed with everyone that she's not cut out for this. but he didn't. dixon writes her as not as competent as her peers because he has a worldview where girls are lesser and not capable of being as good as the boys. but he writes her with dogged determination to keep trying despite this because dixon truly thinks she deserves to keep going despite any mistakes he writes her making and that her perseverance should be rewarded.

like consider the arc where steph finds out tim's identity. dixon makes steph seem unreasonable for daring to change her mind and realize that yea, she does want to know the boy under the mask she's dating after all (because dixon thinks that girls are fickle and change their minds and boys shouldn't have to put up with that kind of nonsense behavior, not because this is a super valid thing to want) -> he has her go beat up an innocent boy named tito and stalk him in the hospital (because dixon is a sexist who things girls are just like this) -> tim does rightfully get mad about this and leaves in a huff -> batman tells steph tim's identity and she gets what she wanted?? -> tim is mad at her and batman until JLL when this is all swept under the rug and they go back to happily dating again + at this point everyone is open to training her/finally giving her a chance (until murderer/fugitive when she gets locked out again--which also leads into the era where dixon is no longer writing her--and after this is when we really get a lot of the really iconic unfair treatment towards her because at this point didio wanted her gone). and it creates this absolute interesting dissonance where you can see the overt sexism in dixon's writing and it's infuriating. and at the same time dixon also rewards her for the sexist way he writes her and she does generally get what she wants because dixon wants to give her the reward for her perseverance.

hell, consider the pregnancy storyline which is beyond overtly sexist and conservative but is probably the part where steph is most treated the best/in the right. tim and her mom are shown as in the wrong compared to her "correct" decision to keep the baby and they have to come around to support her. not just that, but for her to be given a teen pregnancy storyline in the 90s and not be shown as a Bad Girl for getting pregnant as a teen? dixon hates women and yet to him steph is a good girl who makes a mistake (something something he'll judge others, but when it comes to his daughter that's a different case. exceptions apply.) and she gets an ultimately supportive good boy boyfriend who helps her go to birthing class despite the fact that i'm sure dixon looks down on unwed teen mothers a lot.

it's just. i want to study it under a microscope. there's so much to unpack there.

[depressedbloggerwrites]

i feel like writing an essay on why jeffannie is a horrible ship

disclaimer before i rant: you are completely entitled to your opinion on whatever ships you prefer! this is just what i think :)

i'm going to begin with the most obvious problem with jeffannie: the age difference. at the start of the show, she's eighteen (a TEENAGER, guys) and he's in his thirties. they are at vastly different stages of life. he has way more life experience than her.

even if we ignore that, they just make no sense together. they already have that father/daughter dynamic, and the chemistry community reddit is constantly on about is nowhere to be found. all the kiss scenes felt forced (maybe not debate 109, but i'll talk about that later). also, jeff having two awesome women competing for his love, and then going after the teenager with a boyfriend...interesting.

i don't think jeff is necessarily predatory; he is very clearly not exclusively attracted to girls as young as annie, but that doesn't mean his attraction to her isn't at least slightly iffy.

i saw someone say annie and jeff, a recovering addict and someone who currently has an addiction, would not have a very healthy relationship in the long run, and i agree. as the original poster said, annie worked so hard to put her addiction behind her, and being with jeff wouldn't be good for her.

also, whoever made that tumblr post saying every jeffannie episode would work better with jeffbritta or abedison was 100% right, which is why i'm going to discuss the problems with each jeffannie episode.

jeffannie began in debate 109, when annie and jeff had to argue the point that man is inherently evil on the greendale debate team, and the debate ends in a scene where the leader of city college's team launches himself out of his wheelchair; jeff instinctively catches him, and the leader uses this to support the point that man is good. annie proceeds to grab jeff and kiss him, which makes him drop city college's leader, which wins them the debate, because 'he dropped him because he was horny!'

god.

obviously, you can see why that made me uncomfortable to watch, but i guess you could look past it in the comedy and chaos of it all. anyway, jeffbritta would have made that episode so much better. britta would definitely be on the debate team, and since she and jeff actually had a normal age gap, which would make everything far less creepy.

next, let's talk about the worst thing in the world:

pascal's triangle revisited.

actually, the episode was fine. i enjoyed it. but that kiss at the end makes me so angry. jeff, you have these two beautiful women who you have been pursuing this whole season, and you go and kiss the teenage girl. THE TEENAGE GIRL. jesus fucking christ. and she had a boyfriend too. you know what would have worked? abed convincing annie not to transfer instead. infinitely better chemistry, and an abedison kiss that actually impacted the plot would have changed my life.

the conspiracy episode was excellent, but jeffbritta would have made it perfect. i don't think it expanded on anything problematic jeffannie-wise though, so that's a win.

and then you have intro to political science. i haven't really seen anyone talk about this, and it's once again not a bad episode, but i really think the writers just didn't want britta to have a storyline that actually developed her character, because she would have devoured in annie's place during this episode. jeff's dynamic with her is already perfect, and it would make so much more sense for them to run against each other, as opposed to jeff and annie.

all those alternate timeline jeffannie scenes in remedial chaos theory already sucked, but i didn't care too much because i knew they weren't going to push it into anything too serious, but then you had annie tell jeff he reminded her of her father mid-makeout and it's just...wow. so the creators knew they had this very obvious father-daughter like relationship, were fully aware of it, and still forced the ship. cool.

now, don't kill me for this, but i'm one of those people who actually genuinely, really liked season 4. and one reason why i liked it was because the one major jeffannie scene they had was the imaginary alternate timeline one, which acknowledged that jeffannie would not be good together, and was hilarious. so thank you season 4, they can never make me hate you <3

introduction to teaching was also great because there was a plotline centered around jeff and annie that never tried to force any sort of awkward romantic chemistry (at least that's how i remember it), which seems impossible in community. honestly, this episode just proved that platonic jeffannie is superior to romantic jeffannie.

but that period of bliss where there was no romantic jeffannie didn't last long, because then you have g.i. jeff.

i love g.i. jeff. it's one of my favorite episodes, and was phenomenal for jeff's character. there was just one line, where animated coma dream jeff tells animated coma dream annie, 'look at the rack i gave you.' that was just kind of gross and didn't sit right, especially since a major plot point of this episode was jeff turning 40 and having a crisis. annie was *checks notes* 23-24 during this episode. the age gap is still very concerning here, and was made worse because of the fact that it really highlights how jeff is aging.

and then season 6 got so close to leaving jeffannie behind, forever, and then they had to ruin it with the series finale. i'm just saying, we couldn't have a platonic jeffannie goodbye like we got with jabed (speaking of which, the jabed goodbye arguably hurt more than the jeffannie one)?

anyway, i am desperately hoping we get jeffbritta/abedison (or trobed!) in the community movie, even though i know that's probably not going to happen, i do not like jeffannie at all, and thank you for reading my explosion of angry thoughts!

[atthebell-moved]

hi, i completely agree that the fandom has a problem with misogyny and often fails at self-introspection. my question is, do you have any resources/tips/thoughts on how to be better about it? even, how to recognize it in yourself the first place? "ok i'll stop being a misogynist now" is a lot easier said than done, especially for people who might not be that educated on the subject, and majority of the people in this fandom are quite young as well.

this is long as fuck and possibly somewhat incoherent bc it took so long to write but i did my best

my biggest tip for people who don't know much about misogyny is to look at your own behavior and learn how to clock what you're doing as sexist.

are you criticizing a female creator? think about why you're doing it, what the actual beef you have with them is. if it seems to be just a sense of discomfort or thinking they're annoying or overly loud or pushy, think about male ccs who act the same way and why you dont consider them annoying. are you annoyed with them for being on a male cc's stream? why? does it feel like theyre taking up too much attention? do you get annoyed with them for talking too much or flirting with guys? for gaming especially-- do you get annoyed with them for not knowing something or being "bad" at a game? think about why that is and why its just funny when a male cc is bad at games or doesnt know something.

a HUGE problem i see in this fandom is the Madonna-whore complex, repackaged as the little sister-racist dichotomy (kudos to @yourlittlemenace for that phrasing).

if a female cc is deemed to be "playing nice" (doesnt talk too much, is "nice", streams with male ccs but doesnt flirt with them, isn't "overtly sexual"), she's the little sister of the group. all the male ccs "protect" her, she literally folds their laundry, she doesnt call out how people treat her, and the fandom pretends that this is a normal and cool way to treat women who are public figures. this also goes for mom/big sister/etc. if you think you haven't done this, think about all the aus where you've forced puffy into some kind of maternal or sisterly role when it made no sense. then think about how pissed people got when she decided not to be the server therapist and was "mean" to Tommy (in lore, with permission. that she didnt even need to get. see that clip i rbed earlier from her podcast.)

if the fandom decides she doesnt play nice, if she flirts with male ccs too much or stands up for herself or points out how unfair it is that she's being treated this way, she gets demeaned, harassed, and shunned by the fandom. consider, again, puffy. consider how niki flirted with wilbur and talked about misogyny and got called a racist for *checks notes* "speaking to schlatt and fundy" and "not being a native english speaker". she got called a slut and a queerbaiter for kissing another woman despite being bisexual.

consider how hard people went down on hannah for having said the r slur several years back versus how hard they went on dream for the same thing. and how people dug it up as a direct response to her being on stream with dream. consider how every time hannah talks about how unfair it is that the mcc subreddit treats her like trash, she has to delete all her tweets bc they harass her to hell and back and act like she's an asshole for pointing out their hypocrisy.

the fandom doesnt do this across the board; i shouldnt have to say this, but its not an everyone versus no one issue. some people do this outright and loud, some dont seem to realize theyre doing it, and a few people dont do it at all (incredibly rare, i can count on one hand the number of people who genuinely seem to try to avoid these issues, which is why im complaining).

in terms of lore, have you ever once done analysis on a female character? why do you think you haven't? the bechdel-wallace test is an (imperfect) way of gauging how a piece of media ignores women and prioritizes men. think about the fact that there are FOUR female ccs on the DSMP and they are continually ignored in favor of male characters. consider that puffy and aimsey both talked about trying to do genuine lore and getting shafted, either because no one was online and wouldn't put in the effort to stream with them or because they received insane amounts of criticism for breaking anything on the server, despite the clear lack of "no griefing" rules and the precedent that you can blow other people's shit up (tommy leveling one of puffy's builds, amongst many other examples).

a quick thing about ships: have you ever wondered why m/m ships are so popular? the general consensus amongst people who care about feminism and are into fandom studies is that for a long period of time, m/m was hugely popular because women are so rarely written as full and complete characters in any media. so people took to engaging with m/m ships and writing about them because they were the most fulfilling relationships, and because misogyny led them to be predisposed to be uninterested in female characters.

say an m/m ship is incredibly popular, something like, i dunno, john watson and sherlock holmes from bbc sherlock. lets also say the canonical media presents one or both of the characters with a female love interest. how do you think a fandom that prioritizes m/m ships and is primed to be disinterested in women as characters (either because of our society's role in teaching people that women do not matter or because of fandom's history in assuming female characters are not fleshed out) is going to react? if you said theyre going to send undue amounts of criticism her way and act like its an act of homophobia to give a canonically straight character a female love interest, congrats, you've figured out a huge component in fandom misogyny. take this, amplify it over several decades, and add the psychic damage that supernatural gave society. queerbaiting is bad but mistreating female characters in service of nonexistent queer relationships is also bad.

this is relevant in general but i also believe its relevant for the dsmp because of the complete lack of m/f ships. aside from phil and kristin, who are literally married irl and kristin isn't even on the server, there are no m/f ships that involve female creators. this is not, despite what you may think, due to the inherently yaoi nature of minecraft roleplay. this is because the creators, including the male ones, are afraid of the blowback of m/f flirting and how fucking awful people are to female ccs anytime it happens. once again look at niki. as another example, consider how notfounders harassed the living daylights out of mxmtoon for flirting with gnf on twitter. if i was a cc i would avoid it like the plague too considering how happy people are to dig shit up about them or accuse them of being a slut or an attention whore/"pick me girl" for speaking to a man.

one last thing, this is more about fanart than anything else but stop drawing women to look like teenage boys. the amount of fanart i see where i literally cannot tell if someone has drawn niki or tommy is fucking insane. niki has curves. draw her with them. if you cannot draw women or people outside a very specific body type you cannot draw. fatphobia and misogyny have a clear overlap.

i cant think of anything else and ive already spent forever on this. look into feminist media analysis. think twice about how you react to female ccs & female characters. consider not just what characters have interesting stories but who is allowed to have interesting stories. you might be neglecting someone who has a lot going on because you're dismissing a female character as inherently less likely to be interesting. you might not even know someone has an interesting story because the fandom neglects it so completely.

as a final little note: like i said earlier, if you're not familiar with gender & sexuality studies, you may not know this, but homophobia and transphobia are rooted in misogyny. the idea that gender is immutable and rigid is because of the patriarchy. this is why gendered slurs are used against queer people and why queer men in particular get accused of and demeaned for being feminine. your understanding of queerphobia is incomplete without considering how sexism plays a role.

also go read everything rayne fisher-quann has ever written but especially this piece on getting woman'd and listen to you're wrong about

[coraniaid]

I guess I'm running the risk of sounding like a broken record at this point, but I don't think I'll ever not be deeply depressed by the way so many people on here talk about Joyce Summers.

I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here, but.  Maybe the reason that Giles was much more immediately accepting of Buffy's identity as the Slayer than Joyce was might have something to do with the fact that Giles has been training to be a Watcher for over three decades when he first meets Buffy? That his family sat him down and explained to him that vampires were real when he was a child, and that he's had over thirty years to get used to that fact? And that he is in fact literally paid to train Buffy and mentor her and prepare her for being killed in the Cruciamentum after she turns eighteen and he helps rob her of her powers her destiny? 

Whereas Joyce learns about the reality of vampires and Slayers and the supernatural for the very first time while in a state of extreme emotional distress, only hours after discovering that her daughter is wanted by the police for murder, and in circumstances such that Buffy simply has no time to sit her down and explain things in more detail in the manner they would both want?  Which is a turn of events that can be attributed in large part to the fact that Giles himself repeatedly told Buffy that she couldn't possibly tell her mother about vampires, even after (1) a vampire attacked her in her own home (in Season 1's Angel) and even after (2) the vampire Buffy had been dating, who had a standing invitation into her house, lost his soul and started going after the people closest to her, people explicitly including Joyce. (And note that Giles never offers a better argument for not sharing this potentially life-saving information than Xander's "the more people who know the secret the more it cheapens it for the rest of us".)

I mean, I know you're all pretty wedded to the popular competing theory that it's because *checks notes* Giles is a perfect dad who Buffy should have been much more grateful and sympathetic towards while Joyce is an evil bitch who never once did a good thing for her daughter (and Buffy must be stupid for ever thinking or saying otherwise), but the problem is that that theory is … uh, bad, actually.  Really incredibly cartoonishly bad. And dressing it up in pseudo-progressive language doesn't make it any better.

Wringing your hands over how poorly you think the show writes middle-aged women as if there's simply nothing to be done about it except conclude that they are indeed horrible people (and maybe give them some completely new flaws the show never did), while at the same time you write endless hagiographies and apologia for the show's canonically terrible (and often just as badly under-written) men is definitely a choice though.

And yes, it is definitely true that Giles matters more to the story of Buffy the Vampire Slayer than Joyce does. It is clear that the writers care about him more as a character than they care about Joyce, and that he is consistently used in a metaphorical way that Joyce normally isn't. At best you can perhaps argue that Joyce exists to vocalize and reify Buffy's own lingering desires to be seen as respectable and 'normal', but I don't think this is a reading the show ever commits to in the systematic way it does the Mind/Heart/Spirit reading of Giles/Xander/Willow. But on a less metaphorical level, thinking about the different characters of the show purely as distinct people in their own right, nothing Buffy says or does ever suggests she cares about her relationship with Giles more than her relationship with Joyce. Quite the opposite, in fact.