#there's also a post about how generalizing about white women means white women should get to generalize about black men

[stupot]

I feel like, regrettably, this website needs a crash course in recognizing a particular brand of post about female martyrdom and suffering that is really, at its core, based on OP's views on a holistic level, a post about hating """men""" in disguise. Female anger is righteous and does come a from a place of personal and historical suffering, and should be expressed. I truly do think that. But I guess Tumblr's userbase sucks because then you go on these blogs and it's post after post about how men are ontologically evil and sex work should be criminalized and women are these broken shattered creatures unilaterally scorned by MALES with no hope for justice. Just the absolute most childish reductive way of analyzing misogyny in our culture that always boils down to racism, prejudice against sex workers, and transphobia

[not-a-space-alien]

I've seen a lot of "You have to communicate directly/don't expect other people to read your mind" posts going around tumblr lately and while I really do appreciate them because it's a skill a LOT of people need to work on, I do want to remind everyone to please meet people halfway sometimes.

I recently read a story on Reddit about a guy's pregnant wife texting him "I'm craving donuts but we don't have any in the house 😔" and he DIDN'T stop to pick up donuts on the way home from work. Everyone was taking his side because "she needs to communicate" and "he's not a mind reader" and "How was he supposed to know she wanted him to get donuts???" People, ffs, why on earth would she text him that while he was at work if not because she wanted him to get donuts? I was flabbergasted everyone was taking his side. "How was he supposed to know??" What? Like yeah it's true she didn't say "I want you to get me donuts" with those exact words in that exact order but the reason why people get upset if they hint they want you to do something and you don't do it is because they feel like you don't care about them and aren't actively thinking about their feelings. Especially in a marriage or LTR they are in a situation where the assumption is you care about filling the other person's needs.

Someone who loves and cares about someone will get the donuts "without being asked" just because their partner expresses a want or need. That's what someone is fishing for when they say "Aaaah I'm craving donuts 🥺🥺🥺" It's less about the donuts and more about feeling cared for. Sometimes straight up asking "Can you get me donuts?" defeats the purpose.

Also, women are typically socialized to communicate this way because they're punished socially for being too direct. I've heard that people of color, especially black people, often do this too because they're likely to be branded as "aggressive" if they're too direct with white people. So it might be a good idea to be a bit intersectional if we're trying to encourage people to be more direct.

Take the stereotypical example of a wife gets a new haircut and then gets upset that the husband doesn't notice. She's not literally mad at him for not saying the exact words "I like your new haircut." She's upset because she feels like he doesn't look at her and appreciate the efforts she's putting in anymore.

Obviously this will vary widely depending on the nature of your relationship with someone, but especially when it comes to intimate partnerships, there are certain things your significant other should not have to tell you directly. It's probably safe to assume your wife or husband wants a birthday present even if they don't ask for it. It's probably safe to assume your bf or gf would appreciate a valentine's day present or a compliment without them having to literally ask for it, unless they explicitly say otherwise.

This is difficult for a lot of neurodivergent people to learn manually if it's not instinctual and they didn't learn it growing up (lord knows I didn't) and yes, it's true that most people (especially NT people) should learn to communicate more directly. But also, your relationships would probably benefit from learning to read indirect cues and just pick up the donuts on the way home because you heard your wife is craving them. Sometimes what someone wants is for you to think about what they're feeling and what they want and do it without them asking directly. It's up to you whether or not you do that, but sometimes that is asking. I think this is what people generally mean when they say their partner is "thoughtful."

[bi-writes]

whats wrong with ai?? genuinely curious <3

okay let's break it down. i'm an engineer, so i'm going to come at you from a perspective that may be different than someone else's.

i don't hate ai in every aspect. in theory, there are a lot of instances where, in fact, ai can help us do things a lot better without. here's a few examples:

ai detecting cancer

ai sorting recycling

some practical housekeeping that gemini (google ai) can do

all of the above examples are ways in which ai works with humans to do things in parallel with us. it's not overstepping--it's sorting, using pixels at a micro-level to detect abnormalities that we as humans can not, fixing a list. these are all really small, helpful ways that ai can work with us.

everything else about ai works against us. in general, ai is a huge consumer of natural resources. every prompt that you put into character.ai, chatgpt? this wastes water + energy. it's not free. a machine somewhere in the world has to swallow your prompt, call on a model to feed data into it and process more data, and then has to generate an answer for you all in a relatively short amount of time.

that is crazy expensive. someone is paying for that, and if it isn't you with your own money, it's the strain on the power grid, the water that cools the computers, the A/C that cools the data centers. and you aren't the only person using ai. chatgpt alone gets millions of users every single day, with probably thousands of prompts per second, so multiply your personal consumption by millions, and you can start to see how the picture is becoming overwhelming.

that is energy consumption alone. we haven't even talked about how problematic ai is ethically. there is currently no regulation in the united states about how ai should be developed, deployed, or used.

what does this mean for you?

it means that anything you post online is subject to data mining by an ai model (because why would they need to ask if there's no laws to stop them? wtf does it matter what it means to you to some idiot software engineer in the back room of an office making 3x your salary?). oh, that little fic you posted to wattpad that got a lot of attention? well now it's being used to teach ai how to write. oh, that sketch you made using adobe that you want to sell? adobe didn't tell you that anything you save to the cloud is now subject to being used for their ai models, so now your art is being replicated to generate ai images in photoshop, without crediting you (they have since said they don't do this...but privacy policies were never made to be human-readable, and i can't imagine they are the only company to sneakily try this). oh, your apartment just installed a new system that will use facial recognition to let their residents inside? oh, they didn't train their model with anyone but white people, so now all the black people living in that apartment building can't get into their homes. oh, you want to apply for a new job? the ai model that scans resumes learned from historical data that more men work that role than women (so the model basically thinks men are better than women), so now your resume is getting thrown out because you're a woman.

ai learns from data. and data is flawed. data is human. and as humans, we are racist, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, divided. so the ai models we train will learn from this. ai learns from people's creative works--their personal and artistic property. and now it's scrambling them all up to spit out generated images and written works that no one would ever want to read (because it's no longer a labor of love), and they're using that to make money. they're profiting off of people, and there's no one to stop them. they're also using generated images as marketing tools, to trick idiots on facebook, to make it so hard to be media literate that we have to question every single thing we see because now we don't know what's real and what's not.

the problem with ai is that it's doing more harm than good. and we as a society aren't doing our due diligence to understand the unintended consequences of it all. we aren't angry enough. we're too scared of stifling innovation that we're letting it regulate itself (aka letting companies decide), which has never been a good idea. we see it do one cool thing, and somehow that makes up for all the rest of the bullshit?

[kytiapseud]

In Defense of Epic Manwhore au

Okay, so I’m kinda nervous to post this but I feel like it should be said. I hope I tagged correctly for the topics I discuss in this. So, in defense of the Manwhore au as for the concept being coerced, it’s not like the god(s) said ‘you’ll die if you don’t have sex with me’. Odysseus is the one who brings it up. Although yes, the line of consent there is a bit murky with Odysseus more doing so to get out of situations rather than because he wants to. It’s totally valid for some fans to not be a fan of the au, not everything in fan spaces is for everyone. You are entitled to your opinion and get to make your fandom experience safe for you. There is something I saw though that felt like commentary about those who came up with/ enjoy the au. To me this felt close to attempted fandom censoring or those who try to ‘cleanse’ all fandom content to what they think is morally correct. Again, it is fine if you want to share your thoughts on something. But I hope no one comes after those who do enjoy the au. I haven’t seen that happen yet, I’m hoping it doesn’t. But the generalization about what it says about those who enjoy the au doesn’t sit right with me. For reasons like I mentioned above, about worrying it could turn into attempted censoring. Especially if anyone tries to get others to agree to black-and-white thinking about what they think is true. That could easily turn into justification to harassment, which I have seen in fandom spaces before. Particularly with anti-proshippers.

There may be valid criticisms to this au concept, but that doesn’t mean everyone who is a fan likes it for the same reasons. Let me address some of what I’ve seen though. The joking about Odysseus being a Manwhore coming from homophobia. Yeah, that’s possible (although personally I feel like a homophobe is more likely to not even mention gay things.) I don’t think that’s always the case though. I know there was one animatic I saw, the first thing I saw for the au, that had a joke in it that I didn’t like. I don’t judge this creator, and in fact it’s a common joke I’ve seen. Particularly with people wishing they didn’t see something. It just doesn’t vibe with me. In no way do I think that those who say such jokes have something wrong with them. People have different senses of humor and I think some use such jokes as a way to cope.

Anyways, I think some of the humor more comes from how unexpected it would be. I mean, we have a war captain facing foes who instead of choosing to fight goes for seducing them. It’s certainly interesting. I know some of the jokes come from the others not involved in the coupling being just shocked or grossed out. I think that more comes from like not wanting to see someone else talk about or get busy with another? I mean, some of these men probably consider each other to be like brothers. I imagine that would be weird. I think homosexuality wasn’t taboo in ancient Greece, I’m not entirely sure though I may need to do more research on that. So there could be some homophobia to the jokes, but I don’t think that’s the case for everyone. It certainly wasn’t for me. It could also be lgbt+ fans wanting to see more gay stuff in the story. Gay shipping isn’t uncommon after all.

I don’t think everyone who talks about the Manwhore au has no problem joking about sa. There can be many reasons why someone may enjoy a concept in media. You don’t know. Like how women are criticized for rape fantasies. I watched a documentary about sex once (I can’t remember which one this was in now) and there was a whole segment about the rape fantasy, discussing why this is an appeal to some women. It did not mean these women want to be raped of course. Part of it could come from a culture of feeling pressure to not experience any sexual feelings, so the scenario allowed them to experience something without feeling guilty about it. There isn’t always a clear explanation for why someone can find something sexy.

I think this started as a joke, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some who wanted something sexy in their Epic fan experience. I mean, having read the Odyssey in school (twice actually) I did not expect I would want to see Odysseus in such a scenario. But then I saw one sexy fanart of him with others and cough I ended up liking it more than I expected. Those who have seen my reblogs on this tag know heh.

There’s also the infidelity notion. I feel like given the situation, Penelope would understand. I also saw some comments that they could be poly, which is a concept I like for this. I’ve also seen mention that human relationships with gods have ended up tragically for the humans involved. I don’t think everyone who listens to Epic knows about that. I didn’t. But again, this goes back to it being fantasy. People enjoying picturing it the way they want to. It doesn’t have to be accurate to the myths. It’s fanfiction/au.

I think the infidelity notion to it didn’t bother me as much as others because in the original, he wasn’t faithful. Sorry for Odyssey spoilers I guess. Anyways, I was already used to him being a cheater. Although the one with Circe may match more with the coercion along the lines of ‘sleep with me for your crew’. The knife that’s been shown in some animatics wasn’t in the original. It’s been a while since I’ve read it so I’m not entirely sure about how that went down.

Referring back to if Odysseus wants it even if he was the one who offered (sorry if I’m all over the place with this, I have a lot of thoughts.) Seducing foes doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t want it. There’s a character in a Sanders Sides roleplay I was in named Remy (Sleep), whose rp version was created/and played by the wonderful @queroze , who was proclaimed by them to be a manslut. His go-to to get out of situations, if he saw it was a fit strategy, was to seduce. Sure, he got into situations that weren’t great, but often he was the active one in the seducing. I wouldn’t say his go-to being to seduce meant it wasn’t always consensual. In fact, there’s many descriptions and some statements from Que themselves saying Remy loved bringing pleasure to his partners.

Then there’s the mention of the unlikeliness of the scenario actually happening. I don’t think this matters that much to be honest. It’s fandom enjoyment. Who cares if people want to enjoy something that doesn’t seem likely in canon? I personally couldn’t see seduction working, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t find the concept entertaining. Sure people shouldn’t insist it could occur to the creators. But aside from that, it doesn’t affect you. Enjoying fan spaces is way more fun if we let things stay peaceful.

I kinda want to write a fanfic now that adjusts to some of the critiques I’ve seen of this au. I know I said I probably wouldn’t, but I got inspired while planning this heh.

[pawberri]

thank you for all the posts you've made, your takes are always so refreshing to hear.

I want to know your thoughts (if it's okay with you, you can also totally ignore this) about all the "men hate" I see online. like I (poc transmasc non-passing) get it, there are genuine societal gender problems. transmisogyny does exist-women face more challenges than men do. but it genuinely hurts when women, especially trans women, think it's funny/quirky to call men trash or say they want all men dead or whatever. idk I just am hoping someone else understands, you know?

There's a lot of nuances to this question. First, I just want to caution against focusing too much on trans girls as the perpetrators of this. A lot of the asks I get from trans men seem to really fixate on trans women as the perpetrators of hard line gender essentialism. I really think trans girls are not the main people we should be focusing on here. If a trans woman is saying this stuff, take the time to analyze her ideology outside of that pithy comment and consider how much trauma and how little power she has in the world. That said, trans women are affected by this kind of ideology just like us, and they rarely have the power to wield it against others in the way cis people can. I know it hurts to feel isolated by your own community, but that kinda gets into my second point.

Part of dealing with this is learning an impulse progressive cishet dude have had to get used to over the decade. Sometimes, "men are trash" or even "kill all men" are not literal phrases. They are things women say when they're in the throes of trauma to vent their frustration. "Men are trash" in particular is generally pretty lighthearted and used to complain when you have a bad date or something. You have to get used to analyzing what someone actually means and airing on the side of empathy. You, as a man, are the one with some amount of systemic power over that woman, so you are the one who needs to prove you are dedicated to not being a misogynist. The same thing happens when my friends say they hate white people. I have to assume they don't hate me given that I'm their friend, but that I still have some of the negative traits of whiteness. I need to care enough to be a good friend by being anti-racist and checking myself on my behavior. I need to be willing to prioritize their comfort over mine. That includes not becoming this meme:

Now that that's established, there ARE times when "all men are evil and should die" is an actual ideology. It's an ideology that hurts tons of minority groups before it hurts the most powerful, but it's also not really great if we assume it only hurts cishet white guys. Following it to its logical conclusion, it just proposes a reversal of oppression dynamics. This gender essentialism is a key part of radical feminism, trans exclusionary or not, but it leaks out of that community to general feminism all the time.

As a young person on Tumblr and Twitter, this deeply affected me. I internalized the idea that you can "just be a girl." It was repeated by some trans girls, but also a LOT of TME people. It was framed as trans inclusive, but it's trans inclusive in the way "political lesbianism" is lesbian positive. It posits gender as a moral choice that is completely up to the individual and unrelated to biology. It's the lazy version of "gender is a social construct." I felt sick and disgusting for wanting to be a boy because tons of well-meaning friends of mine had made it clear that "being a boy" was a choice, and it was the wrong one. "Boy" was a social category that could and should eventually be eradicated. Trans women were conditionally supported because they, in theory, made this future possible. This didn't amount to actual support, of course. It was an ideology mostly spread by afab queer people that mostly benefited afab queer people. There were a few trans girls who spread it, maybe some due to genuinely believing in the ideology and some due to social pressure, but there were also a lot of people straight-up grifting as trans girls who used this thinking to feel powerful in a niche community of teens. Remember fucking Yandere Bitch Club???

At a certain point, I genuinely thought of being a man as an unambiguous moral failing, and I lashed out at out trans men because of it. I wanted to feel powerful, and here was a type of man in my community I could shame and exclude. I still feel bad for making a bunch of ~girls only~ stuff in HS that excluded the one out trans dude at our school, my friend, because he was just a ~binary man~ and leaving him with no friends and no community. I treated transphobia like it wasn't a real oppression on its own and, in doing so, perpetuated transphobia. It happens a lot.

I wasn't really able to accept that there was nuance to the concept of manhood until I read this article while struggling to accept my own gender:

This is a pretty seminal piece of writing. It has its flaws, of course, but the empathy and intersectionality it highlights was life-changing. It also shows that this kind of thinking is largely perpetuated by TME people and hurts trans women greatly.

Gender essentialism is a bad ideology, it's a transphobic, transmisogynist, racist, etc etc ideology. It's literally essential to patriarchy. But it's also very easy to repackage into leftism and easy to dogwhistle. As a result, it's natural to be hesitant when you see someone saying they hate all men, but you have to tread extremely lightly and actually care what they're attempting to express. Because, yeah, men as a social class still hold power over women. They still have reason to fear and hate men.

I'm writing a comic about this stuff, actually, so look out for it in the future..........

[torimidori2-blog]

Can we please stop preventing ourselves from saying "not all men"? I honestly don't get people who are trying to stop targeted transphobia to transmasc people, yet still say that they're not trying to say "not all men". Trans men are men, right? Not all trans men are terrible right? We also have cis male feminists and allies, right? Are they helping us? So they aren't bad people? Hm.... Well if you said yes to all of these things, lemme tell you something that may surprise you... I know it's gonna be really absurd and you might just freak out about it, but uh... not. all. men.

There. I said it! Not all men! We can't generalize anything about all men, because if we do, trans men will be in that generalization! Then we'll get people posting shit like "omg men are trash especially trans men lmaooo" We shouldn't be blaming men for the way people perceive gendered norms. If we can have a cishet man waving a rainbow flag to support his friends at pride, we can also have women who say that women should stay in the kitchen and live life like a 1900s housewife. People are pretending that the moralities are associated with gender and is black and white, when that isn't the fucking case at all. How about we blame our main offenders: Misogynists? Misogyny can come in many different forms and can be spewed by many different people, even trans people! If we fight against those people instead of blaming one gender for all our problems, we could actually have a chance at making a change and making people have revelations about the reason why they think men are trash. It's like even people within the LGBTQ++ community have a "Girls rule boys drool" attitude towards gender. Damn...

And for the record, I understand why those generalizations are made, because masculine cishet men are the most accepted people in society and their social pressures aren't as bad as everyone else's because men are the ones who made those gendered standards in the first place which caused them to oppress those who were different from them, but times are different and men are being encouraged not to hide how they express or how they feel even if they're cis. Masculinity in society is always expected to be as thick as an eyelash, but men are starting to realize what masculinity means to them on their own without letting society dictate that. Please give those people a chance, and stop making generalizations about them, that way, those stereotypes against them being aggressive, degenerates, airheaded, and egotistical won't be translated into the trans community towards trans men.

[rdng1230]

Sal Deluca Meta

Okie dokie here we go. Just remember y'all asked for this.

Here are some repeated talking points I’ve seen about Sal and why I think most of them are ignoring certain contexts or misattributing things to Sal that were said/done by somebody else. Also just general thoughts about our little mook.

Hen Begins

That Sal was a raging racist/sexist/homophobic. 

Let’s deal with the first one first. Is he a member of the white boys club? Absolutely. He makes no effort to include Hen and doesn’t really acknowledge her at all until he’s complimenting her for her skills at the end of the episode. This is OBVIOUSLY not good. He should’ve been kinder and more welcoming to her. But the only one who specifically makes negative/mean comments about Hen is Gerrard and Tommy. Literally the only thing you could even interpret that way is him saying “for real?” to Gerrard’s diversity hire comment and the fact that he drops the pick axe or whatever the hell that metal thing was on the floor along with everybody else besides Chim. Not great, but also with what we know about how other rookies are treated even by Hen herself, I don’t think any of this behavior falls into “irredeemable racist monster” Buck chased Ravi with a chainsaw for christ sake. 

Ok now the sexism. He actually stares daggers at Gerrard for the entirety of his stupid “waste of taxpayer money/women won’t be able to rescue my guys” spiel. Like the camera specifically focuses on Sal looking pissed as hell. Another thing I’ve heard falsely said is that after Gerrard storms off, Sal/Tommy follow him. That’s not true. They do get up and leave but they actually leave in the ass opposite direction. Sal’s face when he signals to Tommy to get up reads to me as “let’s get the hell away from the fallout of that grossness.” not “I agree with what that dinosaur just said.” But I also realize people can interpret that moment differently. 

I think the sexist reading largely comes from the Kristen Stewart conversation. And come on, This is the lesbian website, if we start dinging people for finding Kristen Stewart attractive, we’re all going down. Plus again, Buck was STEALING EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT TO GO GET LAID AND HE’S EVERYBODY’S FAV SO I DON’T WANT TO HEAR IT. We see Sal kind of ignore Hen but also agree with her at the same time during this exchange. Again a case of Sal not really acknowledging Hen but not attacking her either. Go and look at his face when Tommy says that NY bitchiness comment. Sal does not look at all happy with him. Most of the time when anyone is being actively mean Sal looks pissed off, not approving.

Ok now the homophobia thing. And it's at this point I’m going to bring up the idea that some characters seem bad/good not based on their actions but on whose perspective we’re viewing those actions from. I see this being a problem with several characters. Most notably Taylor Kelly. But that's a whole other post. 

Sal’s team Jacob comment is homophobic and gross but it's also 1) 2009 and 2) directed at someone who he clearly knows incredibly well and who we KNOW gives as good as he gets. I easily could’ve seen this interaction reversed with Tommy saying that to Sal because that's who they are and how their friendship works. But because we’re seeing this from Hen’s perspective it's another thing that makes her feel isolated and othered. And again THAT IS NOT GOOD SAL SHOULD NOT BE DOING THAT. But I don’t think Sal at all said that with the intention of putting Hen down, it very clearly reads to me as Sal teasing/riling Tommy up as they always have. Now obviously the harm still hits even if the intent wasn’t present. But I think if we can forgive Tommy for comments that were MEANT to be mean, then we can forgive Sal for comments that were just him fucking around with his best friend of several years. 

That Sal was the ringleader or Gerrard’s right hand man

Does Sal have a sort of in charge vibe? Yeah absolutely. But very notably the only thing he actually initiates is the olive branch. It’s him that offers a hand to Hen and says nice job and you’re good at what you do. I also will die on the hill that the hemorrhoid complaint was his. Chim would definitely say that but not in an official report, Tommy would definitely bad mouth Gerrard, but not like that. Now who is known for kind of cruder language and a short fuse and absolutely would put that down in an official report? Sal motherfucking Deluca that’s who. 

One notable thing that I find interesting is that Hen herself distinguishes Gerrard’s behavior from the rest of the team's. She definitely gives them hell during her big speech but when Chim does dishes with her she specifically says men like him not men like them. Just something I realized on my most recent rewatch. 

To summarize, the only real thing Sal did that was unique to him (because they all failed to stick up for Hen, yes even Chim. Chim was nice to her but he never actually stood up for her to Gerrard’s face. He tried to redirect the conversation a couple times but that was it.) was the Kristen stewart comments and the Team Jacob comment. I would argue Tommy’s comments in Chimney begins and his NY bitchiness comment in Hen Begins are way more targeted, hateful, and fucking rude. (said with all love because we know Tommy had a bunch of growth and change and became the man we all know and adore.) IMO nothing in Hen begins that Sal says/does is as bad as what Tommy did/said.

Bobby Begins Again

Ok another reason why I don’t think Sal is this irredeemable sexist/racist/homophobic pig is WHY ON EARTH WOULD HEN STAND UP FOR HIM IF HE WAS???!?!?!? Hen is THE FIRST PERSON TO CALL OUT THAT CRAP even from the first episode she says something like “why is that always the first instinct with you whiteboy macho types?” So why why why why would she stand up for Sal if he hadn’t shown any improvement in that area in the now 7 years minimum that she’s worked with him. Answer: she fucking wouldn’t. Ok moving on.

The Bobby stuff

So remember how I said perspective changes everything? This is the major reason why. We as the audience love Bobby and know intimately the struggles he’s faced, so we’re naturally going to be angered by anyone who is antagonistic towards him. The thing is Sal doesn’t know ANY of that. This is what Sal knows about Bobby.

He’s from somewhere in middle America and has never worked in a MAJOR American city like LA/NYC. That’s it. He COMPLETELY ACCURATELY I MIGHT ADD predicts that anybody with that background will struggle to adapt to the specifics of LA. It’s Sal that has to pick up Bobby’s slack as he adjusts, calling out the shots at the tree trimmer call, taking the initiative with Maurice even though Bobby does ultimately do the saving. (Which Sal actually seems impressed by btw.) Bobby still can’t even read the city map when they pull up to the restaurant fire call. 

Now imagine you’re Sal. First you had Gerrard as captain, who (I think it's fair to say) you DID NOT LIKE. One of the things he did was put down firefighters who disobeyed orders by rescuing people. We saw this with the “fetching a tide” call and with saving the boy in the submerged car. Hen disobeyed orders but showed real skill as a firefighter. And all she got for her troubles was being berated by her Captain. 

Ok then after Gerrard you have an interim captain that seems like a decent dude, but he leaves and for a while you have a revolving door of retiring brass that are checked out, behind the times, or just generally disengaged. You become used to filling in as captain and get actually pretty damn good at managing the team. (I say this because Sal leads the team several times in BBA and nobody looks at all like this is a new development) Then they finally pick a nobody who has never worked in a proper city before and to you he’s just the newest asshole that will probably screw up and get someone killed. Sal has no idea about the challenges or traumas Bobby has had to face, just like we have no idea what might have happened in the 5+ years between HB and BBA. Sal has probably MANY REASONS not to trust Bobby that we don’t know about. 

So how would you feel after you’ve successfully rescued a teenage boy’s life, if your new captain who you’ve known for like a day and still doesn’t even know how to get the engine to calls on time, calls YOU stupid for SUCCESSFULLY SAVING A CHILD’S LIFE. I think you’d be likely to blow up a little too. 

Was Sal a hothead? Absolutely. Was he being smart by mouthing off to Bobby? Absolutely not. But I think his lines to Bobby during that scene are so telling. “You’re just the latest jag off in a long line of jag offs to come to this house and think you know how to run it.” In other words, he’s not really seeing Bobby during this exchange (he couldn’t possibly, Bobby is still being very closed off and won’t tell anyone what his story is for years) he’s seeing the long line of assholes that started with Gerrard that Bobby is unknowingly falling into the pattern of. Just like how Bobby didn’t really see Sal and one relatively tiny restaurant, he saw his wife and family and a massive apartment building with no way out. That to me is the tragedy of Bobby and Sal. I genuinely think they could’ve learned a lot from each other if they had left their baggage at the door. 

In other words, would we judge Sal if he had gone after Gerrard in the way he went after Bobby? I doubt it. And that to me is what Sal is actually doing, going after Gerrard and all the other nameless asshole captains he’s been dealing with for YEARS. Sal was hotheaded and impulsive, but at the end of the day I think he was just dealing with misplaced anger that he put on Bobby, something both Buck and Eddie have done at some point or another even when they DID have all the information. If you can forgive the lawsuit arc, and Eddie’s comments in season 5 about Bobby’s kill count than dear god I think Sal has more than earned a pass. 

Overarching things I find interesting about Sal that I don’t see anyone talking about 

He cares a lot about the people they save on rescues, he’s the one on the majority of calls saying some variant of “its gonna be ok/we’re gonna get you out/don’t worry. Whatever the firefighter equivalent of bedside manner is, this guy has it. 

His personal code of who he gives a shit about seems to boil down entirely to who has skills/is talented and who isn’t. The minute Hen shows real promise by saving that little boy, he is down there hand shaking and complimenting her. Ditto Freddie Costas. “Smart kid, probably saved his own life with that move.” You see this in his conversation with Bobby too “that wasn’t luck man that was skill.” You have to earn Sal’s respect and the way you do is by demonstrating competence. Sal genuinely does look impressed with Bobby for apprehending Maurice and showing ingenuity, the problem is it's immediately undercut when Bobby belittles him for saving the kid. 

Anywho, that’s my Sal defense thesis. There’s probably other stuff I forgot but that's the bulk of it. I reserve the right to randomly reblog this with any other shit that comes to mind. Also as a disclaimer I still LOVE reading toxic Sal or asshole Sal content, absolutely eat it up with a spoon gimme gimme gimme. But I think it would be unfair to say that’s the ONLY read of him. He clearly does give a shit and is capable of growth and change, he just also happens to have a short fuse and very little willingness to go about things in a tactful way. 

TLDR: free my man, he did do some of that shit but so did your blorbos, it's just your blorbos had the narrative on their side when they did it.

[aretheyqueer]

Anyway I sent you that ask but I’m not like boiling over mad about it, it’s just like. The experiences of men and women are different but it is because a woman’s experiences breaks off from the default, which is the male experience. I do not think things can be that clean cut when it comes to gender identity but for cis men? The intersectionality of being black and disabled makes sense, the intersectionality of being black and a man doesn’t. That is called anti black racism. And it is foolish to act like the ways black men are seen, as violent, aggressive, poor, untrustworthy, older than they are as children, aren’t applied to black women too

what are you talking about

well its about this post and normally I try not to give attention to angry anons but I'll talk a bit about it

misandry. a difficult topic for some. it seems that a lot of people believe that in order for misandry to exist, misogyny has to not exist. but that's not true. both exist at the same time and both affect everyone.

men are seen as more violent than women, and if you combine that with the "black people are more violent" mindset, you get a violent black man stereotype, which is different from what a black woman experiences. doesn't mean one is more oppressed than the other. but one of them has been affected by misandry as well. one of the people I know is a black man and because we get "violent black person + violent man" together, people cross the street in order to not pass him on the sidewalk. he has been told to his face by women things like "you're actually cool, I thought you were going to hit me when I first saw you...", which they somehow think is a compliment. this is not only because of racism or misandry, but because of both at the same time.

generally speaking in the US, women get away easier with crime than men. there have been cases where all the evidence shows that the woman killed someone, only for it to be randomly decided that she didn't. this is a combination of pretty privilege, and difference in how men and women are treated. white people also get away with crime easier than black people. it's not ridiculous to think that these combine, that black+man (violent+violent) has different expectations of how much evidence is necessary and how harsh the punishment should be.

when a trans man transitions, it's likely that he will feel a change as he starts to experience male privilege. but things aren't as great as a man as they tell you on the internet.

men and women have different beauty standards. generally, it's seen as unattractive if a man is chubby, has acne, lack of muscles, beard growing in the wrong places etc. (even women who "like dad bods" often go for the conventionally attractive men). now, as a trans man basically going through your second puberty, acne, fat redistribution, hair growth - it can all impact your appearance in ways that you don't actually like.

and this happens. some trans men experience these "ugly" changes, and suddenly they go (literal quote) "people are so mean to me now!" becaaauseee... society has different expectations of men and women, and when men don't meet those expectations, they are treated differently. not only because they're "ugly", but because they are "ugly" men.

a lot of women don't like to admit it, but they can be really horrible to men. there's this assumption that men have it easy, which leads to a couple things:

"Ugly" men are treated horribly by women

Every ugly man is assumed to have worse morals than handsome white men

Women's abuse against men isn't taken seriously

Remember the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case? There was a lot of evidence that a man was being abused by a woman. Him literally taking her to court and showing the world that men CAN be abused by women and there are things you can do about it, was an inspiration to other men that had been abused. But then you open twitter, and... people are demonising him because he has "started a culture where men take women to court over every little thing". You hear that? That's misandry, baby. (btw, rape and abuse accusations have been used against men to take advantage of the "trust all victims" mindset. it's horrible to do something that causes distrust against women who speak up, but it is an unfortunate truth. this happens both off the internet and on the internet.)

Now...

It's important to step out of radfem and "hate all men" bubbles sometimes, because while their purpose is to support women, they are frequently spaces where misandrists thrive. there, it's normal to think every man you pass wants to rape and/or kill you, and it's normal to laugh at and make fun of ugly or weird men.

men and women have different experiences. disabled men and disabled women have different experiences. trans men and trans women have different experiences.

and that's ok. we don't need to have a competition about which one is worse. misandry being a problem doesn't mean that misogyny isn't. we can fight both at the same time.

I would encourage people to think about what they mean when they say they hate all men. if you tense up when you walk past men. how quick you are to believe that a man is a rapist before you've seen the proof. how you define an ugly man, and how you think about ugly and handsome men differently. if you've ever made fun of a man for having traits that you praise women for. if you've ever forgiven a woman for something that you would have never forgiven a man for. etc.

there aren't any titles or stuff in this post so I don't know how readable it is. but if you got this far, cool.

tldr: misandry is real and it is amplified to the max when a man is a minority or doesn't meet the expectations of what a handsome man is, go talk to a man in your life about it

[doberbutts]

about your TME/Imane Khelif post, i believe i can provide some answers (im not transfem myself but im very interested in transfeminism)

first of all, no oppressed/oppressor binary is going to be perfect. POC/white is a useful distinction, but last summer a white man was killed after being mistaken for being arab. a straight man may be harassed for hugging his male friend and being seen as gay, etc. TME/TMA are useful terms to describe the way transmisogyny operates in society, even though like all oppressions, things can occasionally get muddled IRL. it doesn't make those terms useless or incorrect. to go back to the harassed straight man example, that man would certainly be a VICTIM of homophobia, but that doesn't make him gay, or mean that he doesn't have any heterosexual privilege at all.

(you said imane khelif may be sent to jail IF she's ruled not to be enough of a woman. horrifying prospect of course, but that IF is doing a lot! a trans woman would not have that IF!)

just wanted to provide that perspective since you asked very genuinely and thoughtfully. have a nice day

I appreciate the good faith response!!! This is exactly the sort of discussion I was looking for.

I am mostly on board - I have discussed at length how these social categories are muddy at best and do not operate on strict lines, and that people in general are impossible to place into neatly sorted boxes. Similar to your first example, I reference frequently a past love of mine who was white but often mistaken for mixed asian (usually chinese/white) due to his monolids, facial structure, and facial hair pattern. Despite being a white guy, he had numerous encounters with racists that ended quite violently for him, and as a result was probably one of the most sensitive white guys I've ever dated regarding race.

Being mistaken for being chinese, while not actually being chinese himself, is not at all the same as actually being chinese. I certainly agree. However, I think it is wrong to say that sinophobia does not affect him or that he is exempt from sinophobia because he has the ability to say "hey wait a second I'm not chinese I'm white". Mostly because any time he tried to do that, it didn't work, and he still got beaten up anyway.

And I also don't think it means he has no white privilege at all- certainly, we experienced it as a couple in real time because while he could be mistaken as a man of color, I absolutely am one without question. And, furthermore, I'm visibly black, not just "of color", which makes people really double down on the racism. Case in point, any time I parked my car in the visitor spot next to his apartment door, the landlord would run out of their office to chase me away stating the spot was only for approved visitors. Even though she saw me entering and exiting his residence in her pursuit to make me move my car. The town he lived in is less than 2% black, and these were luxury apartments that did not have a single black person in the building he specifically lived in. He could live there, but I couldn't even visit without being harassed.

Similarly, as I said in my post, I can see the logic of stating that there is privilege there even though Khelif is in a difficult situation currently, because yes, she can provide a birth certificate and a blood test and a genital check and be cleared of all accusations. I just think that being forced to submit to embarrassing and invasive testing, as well as being forced to provide personal documents, and having the world weigh in on the judgement of your gender, is not really a good literal get-out-of-jail-free card. It is certainly a leg up that she has the ability to do so. I do not think it is right that she should have to- but then I don't see the problem with trans women competing alongside cis women. I think it's stupid that sports are divided by gender and not by weight/height/proficiency.

And I think that forcing specifically women of color who oddly enough seem to be the vast majority of these cases (esp black women and esp esp black intersex women who didn't even know they were intersex before but w/e) to prove that they're woman enough to be qualified as women is racial violence with interphobia and transphobia as the weapon. Intersectionality and all that.

[spacelazarwolf]

hmmmmmmm i’m real fucking tired of jew haters lying abt me!

let's break this down, shall we?

white trans mascs like spacelazarwolf have no issue calling indigenous people "bone chillingly disturbing" for disagreeing with them.

actually i called what you said antisemitic, because it was. i called what i've witnessed from gentiles in general bone-chillingly disturbing and cruel, and that i've witnessed so much ignorance, hostility, and bloodlust from gentiles. because i keep seeing posts celebrating the massacre that happened on the 7th, and i keep getting anons that tell me "hitler missed one", "the world would be better off without your ilk", "we should have gotten rid of you all ages ago", "die zionists rats *nose emoji*", and a lot of very graphic descriptions of how they would like to rape and kill me. one user, blatantly on their blog, openly said that someone should kill me, and someone said they knew where i lived and could make that happen. that's not disagreeing with me. that is bloodlust.

they pretend to care about racism when trans women engage in it, but have zero issue jumping right to demonic stereotypes about indigenous people who dare to point out that their support of israel is supporting genocide.

hey asshole. I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU.

also. I HAVE BEEN OPEN ABOUT MY CRITICISM OF ISRAEL, MY REFUSAL TO SUPPORT IT AS A STATE, AND MY BELIEF THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS GENOCIDE. YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

literally just blatantly lying about a jew's opinion on israel so you can harass and demonize them is, i hate to tell you, antisemitic.

these so called "anti-semitic rants" were me saying jewish people can survive without israel and do not need to colonize or genocide another group of people to survive.

let's give some of the highlights of your posts:

"while you're here hand-wringing about the safety of israelis and spreading the white supremacist lie that they must be in israel to be safe, israel secured its continued existence by just now murdering 500+ parients and doctors under the excuse of 'well hamas is violent and is hiding in there"

'handwringing' do you mean mourning the deaths of peace activists and children? also if you've read literally any of my other posts on the matter, you know i literally talk about how zionists institutions and leadership use jewish safety and antisemitism in the diaspora to bolster support for a jewish state. pointing this out isn't agreeing with it when you do it, why is it when i do it? what could the difference possibly be??

also, there has been no confirmation on who caused the hospital bombing. there are many reports that it was a misfire by one of the groups in gaza, and those are still being investigated. regardless of who fired it, it's still a tragedy. it's still hundreds of innocent lives lost. and it does not change the fact that the lives lost on the 7th were also a tragedy. using this devastating loss of palestinian life as a bludgeon against a diaspora jew for having the audacity to mourn dead jews is disgusting.

"[you] only bring up jewish people of color to argue that israel is actually not a racist project because israel is the only thing stopping jewish people from being exterminated."

literally just lying.

"jewish people in israel are behaving as and acting as white supremacist colonizers of color"

thanks for literally just outright saying that you think the problem is jews, not the state of israel.

"colonizers globally are constantly killing kids"

and therefore the israeli children who died don't matter? are you expecting jewish people to choose between their nieces and nephews and innocent palestinian children who are killed in gaza?

"[spacelazarwolf has] ranted and raved that without israel existing, the jewish people would be genocided. he's appropriated the struggle of indigenous and black people abroad to cry that jewish people aren't welcome in countries like the us, despite living in the us and benefiting from his whiteness and the oppression of indigenous and black people as many other white jewish people do"

i think you've made it pretty clear you're totally fine lying about what i've actually said regarding israel, but the idea that jews are "appropriating the struggle of indigenous and black people abroad" when we talk about experiencing antisemitism in the countries we live in is so???????????? also you make it really clear in this snippet that your issue isn't with israel but with jews in general.

"white jewish people...have been able to exist in relative safety for decades in european countries"

are you actually fucking insane.

"israel's existence has made things more dangerous for jewish people in the middle east and north africa because these are areas that HISTORICALLY had co-existence between religious groups"

nice historical revisionism! swana was safer than christian countries for sure, but it's SO clear to me that you know absolutely nothing about the history of the jews of swana.

"he and israel supporters like him are constantly distracting from the war crimes and terrorism ISRAEL IS COMMITTING by handwringing perpetually about 'but violence is bad and hamas is bad for being violent, the only good palestinians are the ones that are quiet and don't fight back against us when we kill their kids"

sorry, who's "we"? are diaspora jews killing kids? or do you just equate every single jew in the diaspora to israel? also, yet more blatantly lying and claiming i support israel when i repeatedly have stated i haven't! but it's much more convenient to claim i have, because then you can say that i kill kids!

there's a bunch of other times you repeat the lie that i support israel and "advocate for the continued existence of a settler colonizer state and lying and claiming it's the only way for jewish people to be safe" but i won't include all of those bc this post would be VERY long.

"israel supporters are really out here arguing that palestinians need to hold hands with their genociders and forgive them and find peace - completely ignoring that for centuries there was peace between religious groups in the region and israel destroyed it"

goyim being embarrassingly ignorant of jewish history outside of a warped view of the holocaust? i am shocked!

"the supposed civilians attacked turned out to be iof soldiers so yeah actually it's fucked for you to say. they shouldn't attack people who colonize and massacre palestinian people for their day job"

blatantly supporting the massacre of 1,300 israelis, including children.

"all they can do is fight back or die, while israelis grab their passport and fly back to the us or some other european country and wait for israel to finish their genocide so they can go back"

feel like i don't need to explain why. this is conspiracy theory levels of antisemitic.

"the crying and bellyaching that if the jewish people don't have israel, they'll have to go back to countries that are hostile to them is not one i have sympathy for"

yeah we know you don't have sympathy for jews, that's very clear.

"jewish people, black people, and indigenous people all still live there and survive and fight back and thrive in solidarity together. and they DON'T participate in genocide against other groups of people"

yet again making the blatant assertion that it is JEWS who are committing genocide, and not the israeli government. also let's not pretend that. there's always been perfect solidarity between our communities. jews have not always been the best allies to indigenous people and black people, and vice versa.

"there are other places to turn to if you had any interest in NOT participating in western hegemonic white supremacy. but instead of staying and fighting and existing and thriving with other marginalized people who are at HIGHER risk than you in these countries, you argue that somehow jewish people should be exempt from this work that every other marginalized community does"

shouldn't have to point out that i don't argue that, but also this is, again, conspiracy theory levels of fucked up.

"bonkers to watch israel-supporters screaming and crying that if they don't colonize and genocide palestinians then jewish people can't safely exist"

yikes.

"if it were remotely true, israelis wouldn't have pulled out their dual citizenship passports and gone back to europe and the us to wait at a distance for their government to finish the genocide they started in 1948"

again, yikes.

there is a choice outside colonization - you can just fucking leave and go back to your home countries that are welcoming you with open arms cuz you still have dual citizenship. you don't have to commit genocide colonize people to exist."

more yikes.

"spacelazarwolf really wants to try and argue that they can't stop colonizing palestine cuz if they do, they have to go back to - checks notes - countries where a ton of people still live"

who is "they"?

"for some reason [spacelazarwolf] thinks that to avoid going through [genocide], jewish people need to be allowed to commit genocide themselves and eradicate palestinians"

once again lying abt me, and also openly saying that they believe it is jews who are committing genocide.

"fucking bonkers that he thinks he somehow has the right to commit genocide and colonize to avoid the situation other jewish people, indigenous people, and black people worldwide find themselves in. cowardly bitch baby behavior actually. like i'm sorry lots of other groups of colonized people, who have been subject to genocide and violence, and racism and are still undergoing it, has managed to NOT colonize other groups of people for their own gain."

bc jews are just inherently more evil than other marginalized ppl, right? we're just more prone to being selfish and hurting people? we're just sniveling whiny bitch babies who will turn around and stab you in the back, right?

"screaming and crying that 'we need to be allowed to genocide palestinians or otherwise we have to go back to the us, where we as white jewish people never have to actually deal with the things indigenous and black people there do' is disgusting genocidal behavior. the thought of actually being in solidarity with colonized people is repulsive to people like spacelazarwolf - that's why they all seek to justify colonial projects instead."

again, conspiracy theory levels of fucked.

at no point do i engage in anti-semitism. all i ever criticize is israel.

don't feel like i need to point out that this is not true.

he has repeatedly stated that israel has to exist, otherwise jewish people have to go back to the us, where indigenous people are being genocided.

cool lie! also fucked up thing to say!

i've said nothing about jewish pain and trauma. in fact, i have said on numerous occasions that jewish pain and trauma are very real and that they DO NOT justify. colonization.

mmmmmmmmmm nah. "whiny little bitch babies" is not saying that "jewish pain and trauma are very real." also oops you accidentally did dual loyalty again.

but spacelazarwolf is so rabidly racist he immediately began fearmongering about the bloodlust savage knocking at his door trying to kill him.

i'm on desktop or i would include that mike wazowski standing meme bc genuinely what the fuck.

anyway, i have no doubt that their support palestinians is genuine. that's great. but it is also incredibly clear that they hate jews, and that is going to be a huge detriment to their activism for palestinians, and they're not the only one this is happening with. people need to figure that shit out on their own instead of harassing and lying about jews online and perpetuating this kind of violently antisemitic rhetoric. bc this is like beyond fucked. i am tired of gentiles blatantly lying abt me so they can get away with saying horrendously antisemitic things to and about me. get your fucking shit together.

[curseanon]

The Issue with Eden Polycule

So I wanted to articulate my thoughts on a relationship that ive seen in fandom spaces and lots of fan art or fanfiction. I don’t have any opinions or problems with Adam/Eve/Lucifer/Lilith, but I feel like there are some implications and tropes that we should be more careful about when it comes to Eve/Lucifer/Lilith or even just Eve/Lucifer. Before getting into it though, just a disclaimer: this post is not about polycules in general. It’s not my cup of tea personally, but ship whatever you please! This post is just me rambling about my own thoughts. Feel free to have your own interpretations. ALSO! None of this justifies Adam’s behavior. He is responsible for his decisions, including his cruelty towards people, language, and his decision to essentially wage mass genocide each year. And this post isn’t to say that this relationship drama is the sole reason why he ended up doing exterminations.

1. I don’t really like portrayals that have Lucifer/Lilith (L/L) sleeping with Eve and having her cheat on Adam, especially when it takes place in Eden. I’m afraid Vivzie might have this narrative take place in HH, but doing so does a real disservice to Eve’s (and Lucifer’s if he acted alone) character by having her be willing to cheat, and also does a disservice to Adam by having him be cheated on for reasons that are probably not entirely his fault. Not to mention a lot of media where this happens often has the tone of just “haha let’s cuck Adam twice,” which comes off to me as petty and unfair. Not only is it not a funny joke, but it essentially reinforces and justifies Adam’s misogynistic tendencies later. Especially the ideas that women are promiscuous, always willing to cheat and be unfaithful. The narrative would do nothing to disprove this if BOTH of Adam’s wives did in fact cheat on him.

2. Another thing about Eden. Lilith was Adam’s first wife, literally created for the purpose of being his partner. This is also pre-Apple, meaning that Adam has no concept of right vs wrong. The way he acts, if he truly was controlling and mean and the story book wasn’t exaggerating (which I doubt), is entirely the programming of the angels and the way they tolerate or enable his behavior. Assuming we went with the theory that Adam never ate the apple, it’s the same situation with Eve if she left him and/or cheated with L/L. The way I see it, Lilith’s cheating on Adam is not justified, even if she disagreed with Adam on certain things.

3. I also want to note that cheating on one’s partner is not a justifiable punishment for Adam’s behavior. Whether pre or post apple (now assuming he did eat it), I see it as fighting fire with fire, and all it usually does is create even more hostility and problems than if the person just clearly broke off the relationship first. L/L/E runs the risk of inadvertently encouraging unfaithfulness in relationships and marriages as solutions to a problem, but this is rarely the case. As stated earlier, it only makes Adam justified in acting the way he does. And with that justification, is he really in the wrong for how he treats women? What reason does he have to change his behavior if he is right about them? I could probably accept both wives leaving him if the purpose is to justify Adam’s behavior and not just mock him, to show how morality is not just black and white and the villains sometimes have justifiable reasons for thinking the way they do. But it still seems very shallow on Lilith and Eve’s parts.

4. This part is just my opinion on L/L/E, but I don’t find the idea of Eve getting with the people who caused her to lose Eden very convincing. L/L are the reasons her and Adam were cast out of the garden and made to live for centuries laboring to survive, farming cursed ground and painfully delivering several children. Not to mention the bringing of sin and death into the world, losing Abel at the hands of his brother and Cain being cast away to wander the Earth. All the suffering she faced in life and the suffering of all of her descendants, all of humanity. Her sleeping with Lucifer makes no sense to me unless he seduced her (when she was more naive, maybe even pre-apple) intentionally, either for the purpose of hurting Adam or if he did just love her also, which makes him complicit in ruining someone’s marriage. None of this fits with Lucifer’s character, a malewife who adores his Tall Queen and comes off to me as being very loyal. The idea of open marriage is better, but Adam does not seem like the type of guy who likes to share anything, and his marriage is very clearly between Adam and Eve. That controlling personality indicated by the story book leads me to see him as likely having some jealousy and possessiveness (though not in extreme ways).

5. The only other option is Lucifer sleeping with Eve after her death and if she goes to hell, since we know Adam and Eve lived a thousand years married together on Earth, starting humanity. But I don’t see any reason for this. We need much much more information about Adam and Eve’s relationship and all four of their relationships’ to each other in general first before we can talk more about this. But until then, I don’t see any reason to break up Adam and Eve unless there’s some importance to it in the narrative. For me, I see Adam’s womanizing in heaven as a sign that Eve is probably not in heaven. And thinking that he’ll never see her again because “Hell is forever,” he eventually becomes bitter and jaded over thousands of years and decides that his relationship with Eve must be over then. Possibly the same case with Eve in hell, somehow leading up to sleeping with Lucifer. But considering she’s no where to be found with L/L and Lucifer only references her once, there seems to be zero indication of anything between them.

6. To briefly touch on the idea that once in heaven, Eve eventually left Adam because of his horrible personality and womanizing. This is still possible, but it seems like WAY too big of a personality shift to go from married and raising a family for a thousand years to suddenly being a massive asshole and a philanderer. Something must have happened that magnified all the worst aspects of his personality. There’s no way he is the same today as he was in Eden or on Earth. If he is, that’s just shitty lazy writing on Vivzie’s part and Adam is nothing but a one dimensional villain with no depth at all. Massive waste of a character with huge potential.

Tl;dr This post is already too long so I’ll just summarize everything. Although I agree that Adam is definitely an arrogant and annoying villain, Lilith and Eve cheating on adam is unjustified imo, there is no reason for Eve to cheat on Adam or leave him at all from what we can tell now, and her having any relationship with Lucifer also makes no sense considering what his choices turned her life into. But let me know your thoughts on all this, if there’s some point you want to make or a disagreement on something else!

[fereldanwench]

apropos of nothing and certainly not my tag rant from a few posts back

did you know that out of 150 popular video games released between 1985 and 2022, only 6% of them feature sole female protagonists?

did you know that prior to mass effect 3, female shepard was never used in any promotional material for the series?

(and there's no hard data available on this, but i very distinctly recall a lot of gamerbro outrage when me3 had an optional reversible cover so you could pick between male and fem shep on your personal game)

did you know that only 18% of players chose femshep in any shape or form (default or customized) during the original release?

(anecdotally, i know a few people who didn't even realize you could play a female at all in me1 bc of how the cc is setup)

did you know with the release of the legendary edition in 2021 the percentage of femshep players didn't even double (despite jennifer hale's seemingly enormous popularity amongst the broader playerbase over the past decade) and is reported at 32%?

did you know that dragon age inquisition has the same breakdown between male and female inquisitors (68% to 32% respectively)?

did you know during the playtests for assassin's creed odyssey, it was a 50/50 split between kassandra and alexios, and ubisoft suits actually thought when the game was released, kassandra would be more popular? and yet once again, about 70% of players chose the male protag

did you know evie and aya were both supposed to have a much larger roles in assassin's creed syndicate and origins but were forced into a smaller role bc the ubisoft marketing team didn't think the games would sell well with a female lead?

cdpr hasn't released data on male vs female v, probably because the game handles gender a little differently than just two strict options like many other rpgs, but it was revealed that panam was the most popular romance, sitting at about 68%, which means at least 68% of players chose the male v body. I'm sure some players did not make that choice as a cis male v, but i would also guess that those who didn't are a small minority of this demographic, and if you factor in kerry romancers, this split is probably very similar to other games in the genre

now i realize that a lot of the male v players who are in more transformative fandom spaces (like tumblr) are not the str8 gamer dudebros of reddit angry about pores on a female character's face and whatnot. i realize that a lot of you are also on the outskirts of the perceived norm and also feel under-represented by mainstream male protags and that's incredibly frustrating and alienating and i genuinely feel for you

but female protagonists and female gamers who want to play as female protagonists and who have a few niche spaces to celebrate female protags are not the reason for your lack of representation

and frankly you don't sound a whole lot different from the angry incel gamer boys when you say shit like "fem v gets too much attention"

so maybe try advocating for male protags who don't fit the generic boring gruff white guy mold without throwing women under the bus. we're should be allies in this fight, not rivals

[valenschmidt]

Got to love people always assuming someone is straight. Heteronormative society. Oliver has as far as we know one long term female partner that he ended things with not too long ago (after nearly a decade it seems). That doesn’t automatically mean he’s straight. As mentioned by yourself, he doesn’t see a difference when having to kiss a man nor a woman. He also alluded to caring more about how a person makes you feel and if they bring happiness to you than gender (in the Men’s Health live from June). He also did a little interview from a few years ago where he said he loved Pose and wanted to be on the show. That is a show about black and brown queer characters in the 80s/90s ballroom scene in New York. The only white guy on that show was Evan Peters (who always works with Ryan Murphy) whose character liked trans women. Simply, if Oliver likes it, he doesn’t care what anyone else has to say.

Hello anon!!!

Right?!?!?! Bt mostly love to get Oliver into their argument saying that he is straight and that is why the kissing looks weird and bla bla bla and...

1st I didn't mention Oliver in that bucktommy post because He is definitely NOT the reason why that kiss (makeout session according to them) looks stiff and awkward

2nd Oliver actually confirmed he doesn't mind kissing men like he really said that it was the same as kissing a woman so the issue was not with him. If he has to tongue kiss a man he will absolutely do it

Also yes he has never actually confirmed his sexuality and even though we only know about his on and off for years ex Hannah, so we can't assume he is straight or not until he himself confirms it and until then, his sexuality is none of our business.

I will be using this post as well to make a clarification

I for one am straight so I never want to assume anyone's sexuality and I don't ever want to press someone to tell me because it is none of my business unless they want to tell me that. If someone is from the lgbtq community and wants to tell me I will be ready to embrace them and thank them for telling me and be as supportive as I can (I am quite literally called Valentina like the ally from that one video so it makes sense 🤣) so everyone from the community will always have a safe space in my blog to talk and I welcome any advice if I step over the line about something

Going back to Oliver, we should not assume he is straight but no one should ever question his sexuality now that Buck has been confirmed bi because he doesn't owe his sexuality to anyone so it pisses me off that bt want to excuse his fave lfjr being stiff while kissing a man by saying they are both straight so of course they are uncomfortable because they are actors but no. It shouldn't be like that... if they are not comfortable then they can say so and talk about it with the intimacy coordinator and Oliver has pretty much confirmed that he isn't uncomfortable so...

And on that topic I don't want a repeat of what Kit Connor went through so this is not for you anon this is just a general thing... If/when Eddie is confirmed gay and buddie gets together I don't want ANYONE talking about Oliver or Ryan's sexualities because they don't owe it to anyone to say anything.

Have a good day anon! Thank you for giving me the space to talk

[princess-glassred]

Alright hot take incoming:

Beverly Marsh in it 2017 is a terribly written female character and i'm tired of pretending like she's not.

As a woman, I love Bev in fics, I love 90's bev, I love fannon Bev, and this is no discredit to Sophia Lillis as an actor, or even 2017 Bev's personality, but it 2017 Bev is a perfect example of a character being fine but everything else about her being incredibly anti feminist (in my opinion).

First of all there's all the slut shaming, now don't get me wrong, i'd get it if this was just greta and henry and her dad. They're antagonists and it makes sense for the time period, BUT Bev is not jusy slut shamed by the antagonists, she's indirectly kind of slut shamed by the narritive. When Richie first meets her he tells rumors about her sleeping around, especially with Henry Bowers and he faces almost little to no pushback. Yeah eddie tells him to shut up, and Bill says "they're just rumors" but it really shouldn't matter if they're just rumors or not. The movie seems to think that the slut shaming is bad because she isn't sleeping with anyone, when slut shaming should be bad just because its a fuckin mean thing to do. Even if she did date Henry, who the fuck cares? It's literally her life, obviously she doesn't like him now. Also the way Richie words it as "Bill had her in the third grade" is 🤢.

In the bathroom scene they take time out of cleaning just so she can clarify to Bill that he's the only one she's ever kissed so I guess Bill can feel like a real special man. Even though she doesn't owe Bill really anything, let alone reassurance that she's only kissed him once. I'd absolutely understand if this was Bev reacting to her CSA, assuming she needs to make them men around her feel special by having a low body count, but the movie portays this scene as really sweet and romantic so i doubt it's the case.

The movie sexualizes Bev so much, and again, i'd understand if this was supposed to be commentary about her CSA but a lot of it is genuinely meant to further the plot or played off for laughs. Almost every single scene she has is about her sexual history or which guy she ends up with. Even Ben, who's entire thing is he's hopelessly in love with Bev gets more of a personality than just that. She's called a slut by greta keene, flirts with ben outside, """flirts""" with Mr. Keene to steal his shit, leaves the pharmacy to get oggled by Bill in slowmo, gets slut shamed by richie, gets oggled at the quarry, ect.

The movie also tries to act like she's a much stronger female than she really is, it reminds me a lot of in the 90's when they'd have those tough bad ass women who could sword fight and stuff but they'd always inevitably be kidnapped because of gener roles. I do admit that the scene of her jamming the fence post through pennhwise is cool, and so is the scene where she hits her dad, but her badassness is incredibly underminded in a lot of ways. First of all when they're asked who wants to go in she's the only one to raise her hand but she STILL doesn't go inside. Why? What possible reason could the narrative give as to why she stayed outside? To comfort Stan??? God forbid a girl helps save the boys unless it's in the smallest way possible. And then she gets kidnapped and essentially used as a plot device just for the boys to get back together. We can't just have them work things out and apologize and show up for each other because they're friends, they all need a woman to go rescue.

Having Beverly say "I am not afraid of you" is just lip service when you still have her be a damsel in distress, which she is officially rendered right after pennywise puts her in the deadlights. And now we come to the worst part of this whole thing, which is the deadlights kiss. Now, i'm some one who will defend snow white and sleeping beauty with my life, because i know how fairytale curses work and with sleeping beauty phillip is out right told that's what he has to do. This is not what happens in the movie. Ben and Bill see Bev dangling there, and after like half a second of trying to snap her out of it decide kissing her is the only way to get her out of this. Ben even sees Bill do it and fail but instead of trying literally anything else he thinks "i love her more, maybe it'll work with me!".

Guys I do not give a shit about how much Bill and Ben care about Bev, if anything that just makes kissing her while she's out of it worse. You may try to justify this by saying it really was the only way for them to do it, but that still doesn't change the fact YOU wrote it that way. YOU decided the only way to save bev was to kiss her without consent. Which you actively contradict with richie getting caught in the dead lights and snapped out it in it chapter 2. Stephen King didn't even write that shit, say what you will about the child orgy, but at least Bev was awake for it. She consented about as much as a girl her age could given that she's only 11. That's way more problematic than this but at least it was her idea, at least she conciously decided this was worth doing. All you've done is take a creepy sexual act that was at the very least consenual and displayed some sexual agency in the character, with a creepy non sexual non consenual act that took away agency. How girlboss is it that her first kisses with her love interests weren't even while she could could consent? She is kissed three times, once during a play and twice while she's unconcious, neither of which are her idea. I'm not saying a woman always has to instigate things romantically, but if you spend your whole movie talking about how she's a slut, maybe you should give her some free reign over her love life.

This is why I love 90's Bev so much, she's just a little fiesty tomboy who saves the boys asses with a sling shot and an epic blow to the head. She doesn't get damseled in distressed (the only time she gets saved are when Ben defends her during the rock fight), the boys aren't overly horny over her, the only people who really treat her like her gender defines her are her father, Tom, and Henry she's just great. And that came out in the 90's! I don't think the 90's miniseries is necessarily better than the 2017 movies, but I think their treatment of Bev is just inherently more feminist given that they don't constantly try to define her by her body counts. Yes she loves ben, but she has more to her than that. Even if you bring up things like body count to try and say she isn't a slut who's obsessed with boys, it's still not feminist because you're still constantly equating her value to who she's with. The only proper way to adress slut shaming is by acknowledging it's none of the characters business what she does and that if you do it at all you suck. But IT 2017 doesn't do that, because Bev's sexual maturity is explored only through the eyes of men, and that includes the narrative.

Her promiscuity is explained through Richie when she's not even there (who i will give the benefit of the doubt here and say was being mysoginsitic to try and compensate for his queerness, but even then, using a woman's sex life as a tool to make yourself feel better is awful no matter your reason), she only consents to anything until the very end, and this movie tries to act like it's not doing any of it by giving her a few measily crumbs of strength outside of being the guys girlfriend. I never felt like IT 2017 was one of the guys, because the movie would never let her be that. Fuck.

If you are a woman, or even just AFAB and disagree with this you are free to, I do not speak for every woman in the world and if you feel differently I will not try to change that. I can only speak my truth though, and my truth is that it 2017 Bev pisses me off.

[notashadowbutawave]

i almost posted this on the true detective subreddit episode thread but thought better of it:

I've gotta say… I feel like a lot of complaints people are having about this season of the show don't pass muster objectively when held up against Season 1. Melodrama, "unrealistic" dialogue, complaining about being shown too much about people's personal lives and not caring about the characters…

There is so much unrealistic dialogue in season 1. The way Marty and Rust during their video interviews just come in talking about some big philosophical idea or "life wisdom" nugget in the middle of the episode (nobody talks like that IRL). The scene with Marty's daughter and the princess crown, for example. Marty cheating on his wife multiple times isn't like, objectively "more interesting" than Evangeline's sister having mental health issues or Liz being sexually promiscuous and a mess.

I've seen season 1 probably 10 times and I adore it but a lot of the angry comparisons people are making to S1 kind of just come off as straight up misogyny at a certain point. Like it rubs people the wrong way because it's women. Complaining about Liz and Evangeline going to the dredge without backup but when Rust and Captain America Marty Hart do something like that it's believable?

I don't think anyone's obligated to like the season by any means but you can just say you aren't feeling it as opposed to trying to make these apples-to-apples comparisons to season 1 that really don't hold water; I think people are just a lot more willing to accept this type of storytelling when it's about men and kind of has a fetishization/shame angle with masculinity in general. Like S1 is very masculine but it's also a love story. idk. I'm gay so I should probably stick to Tumblr for talking about this show, ya'll are wild.

----

idk watching people who are probably white dudes complain on Reddit that we are seeing too much "native culture" on the show strikes me as really icky.

i recognize that these are reddit comments and not like, actual media criticism but i think it says a lot about how people are conditioned to understand storytelling in general. like there's still so much fucking misogyny and white supremacy in our mainstream media and i realize a lot of people wouldn't say it out loud but i think they genuinely just find it exhausting that they're being asked to contemplate the interior lives of native alaskans and women by watching this show lmao

(that's not a value judgment about how well it is doing at depicting  Iñupiat culture because i'm not the person who gets to make that judgment but it REALLY rubs me the wrong way that people can't STAND even seeing it depicted)

(i think the fetishization of the American south also has a lot to do with it, like people are very willing to accept the aesthetic style of the American south as a vehicle for crime/mystery/possibly supernatural storytelling because it really doesn't challenge any conceptions they might have about the genre) (it helps that Woody Harrelson and Matthew McCounaughey are native southerners with great acting talent and natural screen chemistry who really took Season 1 to a higher level, in no small part thanks to their uncredited script doctoring. with lesser actors I think the story falls flat as hell because you need them to sell a rich relationship and complex inner lives with their performances because SO MUCH of their relationship is subtextual) (so when people see these great acting performances in the context of a police procedural set in Louisiana i think they're very pre-conditioned to elevate it to an almost mythical status in the genre because it doesn't present TOO many challenges to a conventional worldview about who has power and agency in stories)

like I said i've watched season 1 probably 10 times. it's very good. but it does MANY of the same things that people are complaining about regarding season 4/night country in terms of showing a lot of relationship/sexual drama for the leads and their Tragic Pasts. they just don't like it. which is fine. i just think it's a disingenuous angle to approach criticism of the show.

like if any actor other than McConaughey were doing Rust's monlogues in S1 it would not have been very good because it would have come off like self-serious edgelord shit, which is what it actually was (pizzolatto sucks) before it ended up in the hands of competent producers and performers. instead it really comes off like a man who has suffered and developed this worldview genuinely, within himself, not as a way to wield power over others but to protect himself from harm.

anyway....

for my part, i wanna know what the fuck is up with the spirals and the bad CGI polar bear visions and i'm going to be disappointed if it's not just some massive red herring designed to freak people out a little because that's what we deserve.

but in terms of like, the characters' lives, i generally find them very interesting. the opening scene of episode 3 with annie genuinely moved me to tears. annie seems like a fucking cool person and i would love another flashback about her.

i love that liz is a fucking asshole who is constantly being forced to confront her own behavior as racist, self-centered, impulsive, etc.

i love that evangeline is a very lonely person just barely keeping it together. kali reis is putting on an amazing performance. also, for the record, i'm VERY gay.

i wanna know more and there are only 2 episodes left and i hope it sticks the landing so i can write a big actual essay about what it did well from a storytelling perspective!

gosh i just love serialized fiction on the television

[fruitbasketball]

i see your stand point of cc. and i’m not trying to defend her in any way, but as a woc myself, i don’t see how this is fair to her at all. im a personal believer that your actions and words reflect you, and other people’s actions and words reflect them. i believe it’s in the way you treat people as a human being that deems you a ‘good’ person. as far as i’ve seen, cc has given praise to legends and poc before her. i do think color has a major factor in the way her fans act, but i don’t believe her fans are a reflection of her at all. she’s spoken out about how there’s no room for racism or bigotry in her fanbase/the wnba. i genuinely believe she wants to play the game of basketball and get her money. i don’t think there should be anything wrong with that. i don’t think any other wnba player has been asked to ‘talk to’ their fan base about the way they act on social media, because i don’t think any other wnba player has had the amount of fans that cc has had. i just don’t really understand why it’s expected of her to say something to a group of people that support her, while also supporting things (out of their own delusion) that she clearly does not support. we saw it in the way tom brady fans reacted to people calling mahomes the greatest of all time. brady wasn’t asked to or expected to quiet his supporters (even with the amount of racist remarks that were unnecessarily brought into the conversation). i don’t mean to come across as trying to start an argument, but i just want to understand why you believe it’s her responsibility to try to control a mass of people that don’t reflect her beliefs (that she has made public) in the slightest?

i appreciate this discourse!!

i think firstly, the nfl is a bad comparison. the nfl has a really shitty history dealing with political statement, or even statements of dissent. you can look to colin kaepernick for this; the expectation of the nfl is to remain a largely apolitical league.

the same is not true of the wnba. a league full of queer, black women cannot afford to be apolitical. conversely, a league full of straight men can largely afford that. the wnba can’t, nor has it ever attempted to.

you’re talking about a league that rallied for black lives matter, who came together to bring bg home from russia, who has and will continue to speak about injustices as frequently as possible. cc either needs to get with the program or get the fuck out.

that’s the other issue with comparing her to tom brady. we’re not going to sit around and say that they had the same impact on both their sports. are new england sports fans just generally and largely racist? absolutely. is it tom brady who brought them into the sport? certainly not. they were there before.

so when caitlin clark is bringing her fans into this black, queer space, she has to be aware of her privilege as a straight, white woman. “she just wants to play basketball and get her money” doesn’t work here. she chose to declare for THIS league. if she wanted to play in an apolitical space, she could’ve gone and played overseas. but she chose the wnba. so she’s just gonna have to suck it up.

and i know we want to say “she spoke out about this this and this”. no the fuck she didn’t?? she answered a question asked of her in a presser that most people didn’t and will not see. a statement made AFTER her teammates girlfriend tweeted out saying: “damn, this mfker needa say smth”. what was she going to say “yes, i condone racism”?? there’s no statement made of her own will, no instagram post, no tweet, no nothing. her “speaking out” was lazy, it was forced, and it was ineffective. it’s just not enough.

i don’t expect her to control her mass of racist fans. i expect her to make any attempt to do so. i expect her to make an effort to distance herself from that narrative.

and it is immensely disappointing that she hasn’t even really tried.