gisborneholly

[bougiebutchbitch]

okay but I love that Shanks and Buggy are red and blue colour-coded, but the 'blue' guy is much more 'red' in personality than the 'red' guy, who is much more 'blue'?? you feel me?????

[tarobytez]

disability in the Six Of Crows Duology; an analysis of Kaz Brekker, Wylan Van Eck, and the fandom’s treatment of them.

****Note: I originally wrote this for a tiktok series, which im still going to do, but i wanted to post here as well bc tumblr is major contributor to what im going to talk about

CW: ableism, filicide, abuse

In the Six of Crows duology, Leigh Bardugo delicately subverts and melds harmful disability tropes into her narrative, unpacking them in a way that I, as a disabled person, found immensely refreshing and…. just brilliant. 

But what did you all do with that? Well, you fucked it up. Instead of critically looking at the characters, y’all just chose to be ableist. 

For the next few videos paragraphs im going to unpack disability theory (largely the stuff surrounding media, for obvious reasons) and how it relates to Six Of Crows and the characterization of Kaz Brekker and Wylan Van Eck, then how, despite their brilliant writing, y’all completely overlooked the actual text and continuously revert them to ableist cariactures.

Disclaimer: 1. Shocker - i am disabled. I have also extensively researched disability theory and am very active in the disabled community. Basically, I know my shit. 2. im going to be mad in these videos this analysis. Because the way y’all have been acting has been going on for a long ass time and im fuckin sick of it. I don’t give a shit about non-disabled feelings, die mad

Firstly, I’m going to discuss Kaz, his play on the stereotypical “mean cripple” trope and how Bardugo subverts it, his cane, and disabled rage. Then, I am going to discuss Wylan, the “inspiration porn” stereotype, caregivers / parents, and the social model of disability. Finally, I will then explain the problems in the fandom from my perspective as a disabled person, largely when it comes to wylan, bc yall cant leave that boy tf alone.

Kaz Brekker

Think of a character who uses a cane (obviously not Kaz). Now, are they evil, dubiously moral, or just an asshole in general? Because nearly example I can think of is: whether it be Lots’O from Toy Story, Lucius Malfoy, or even Scrooge and Mr.Gold from Once Upon A Time all have canes (the last two even having their canes appear less and less as they become better people)

The mean/evil cripple trope is far more common than you would think. Villains with different bodies are confined to the role of “evil”. To quote TV Tropes, who I think did a brilliant job on explaining it “The first is rooted in eugenics-based ideas linking disability or other physical deformities with a "natural" predisposition towards madness, criminality, vice, etc. The Rule of Symbolism is often at work here, since a "crippled" body can be used to represent a "crippled" soul — and indeed, a disabled villain is usually put in contrast to a morally upright and physically "perfect" hero. Whether consciously on the part of the writer or not, this can reinforce cultural ideas of disability making a person inherently inferior or negative, much in the same way the Sissy Villain or Depraved Homosexual trope associate sexual and gender nonconformity with evil. ”

Our introduction to Kaz affirms this notion of him being bad or morally bankrupt, with “Kaz Brekker didn’t need a reason”, etc. This mythologized version of himself, the “bastard of the barrel” actively fed into this misconception. But, as we the audience are privy to his inner thoughts, know that he is just a teenager like every other Crow. He is complex, his disability isn’t this tragic backstory, he just fell off a roof. It’s not his main motivation, nor does he curse revenge for making him a cripple - it is just another part of who he is. 

His cane (though the shows version fills me with rage but-) is an extension of Kaz - he fights with it, but it has a purpose. Another common thing in media is for canes to be simply accessories, but while Kaz’ cane is fashionable, it has purpose.

The quote “There was no part of him that was not broken, that had not healed wrong and there was no part of him that was not stronger for having been broken.” is so fucking powerful. Kaz does not want nor need a cure - its said in Crooked Kingdom that his leg could most likely be healed, but he chooses not to. Abled-bodied people tend to dismiss this thought as Kaz being stubborn but it shows a reality of acceptance of his disability that is just, so refreshing.

In chapter 22 of SOC, we see disabled rage done right - when he is called a cripple by the Fjerdan inmate, Kaz is pissed - the important detail being that he is pissed at the Fjerdan, at society for ableism, not blaming it on being disabled or wishing he could be normal. He takes action, dislocating the asshole’s shoulder and proving to him, and to a lesser extent, himself, that he is just as capable as anyone else, not in spite of, but because he is disabled. And that is the point of Kaz, harking back to the line that “there was no part of him that was not stronger for having been broken”. 

I cried on numerous occasions while reading the SOC duology, but the parts I highlighted in this section especially so. I, as many other disabled people do, have had a long and tumultuous relationship with our disability/es, and for many still struggle. But Kaz Brekker gave me an empowered disabled character who accepts themselves, and that means the world to me. 

Keeping that in mind, I hope you can understand why it hurts so much to disabled people when you either erase Kaz’s disability (whether through cosplay or fanfiction), or portray him as a “broken boy uwu”, especially implying that he would want a cure. That flies in the face of canon and is inherently fucking ableist. (if u think im mad wait until the next section)

Next, we have Wylan.  

Oh fucking boy. 

I love Wylan so fucking much, and y’all just do not seem to understand his character? Like at all? Since this is disability-centric, I’m not going to discuss how the intersection of his queerness also contributes to these issues, but trust me when I say it’s a contributing factor to what i'm going to say.

Wylan, motherfucking Van Eck. If you ableist pricks don’t take ur fucking hands off him right now im going to fight you. I see Wylan as a subversion another, and in my opinion more insidious stereotype pf disabled people - inspiration porn.

Cara Liebowitz in a 2015 article on the blog The Body Is Not An Apology explains in greater detail how inspiration porn is impactful in real life, but media is a major contributing factor to this reality. The technical definition is “the portrayal of people with disabilities as inspirational solely or in part on the basis of their disability” - but that does not cover it fully. 

Inspiration porn does lasting damage on the disabled community as it implies that disability is a negative that you need to “overcome” or “triumph” instead of something one can feel proud of. It exploits disabled people for the development of non-disabled people, and in media often the white male protagonist. Framing disability as inherently negative perpetuates ideals of eugenics and cures - see Autism $peaks’ “I Am Autism” ad. Inspiration porn is also incredibly patronizing as it implies that we cannot take care of ourselves, or do things like non-disabled people do. Because i stg some of you tend to think that we just sit around all day wishing we weren’t disabled. 

Another important theory ideal that is necessary when thinking about Wylan is the experience of feeling like a burden simply for needing help or accommodations. This is especially true when it comes to familial relationships, and internalized ableism.

The rhetoric that Wylan’s father drilled into his head, that he is “defective”, “a mistake”, and “needs to be corrected”, that he (Jan) was “cursed with a moron for a child” is a long held belief that disabled people hear relentlessly. And while many see Van Eck’s attempted murder of Wylan as “preposturous” and overall something that you would never think happens today - filicide (a parent murdering their child) is more common than you would like to believe. Without even mentioning the countless and often unreported deaths of disabled people due to lack of / insufficient / neglectful medical care, in a study on children who died from the result of household abuse, 40 of 42 of them (95%) were diagnosed with disabilities. Van Eck is not some caricature of ableist ideals - he is a real reflection on how many people and family members view disability. 

Circling back to how Wylan unpacks the inspiration porn trope - he is 3 dimensional, he is not only used to develop the other characters, he is just *chefs kiss* Leigh, imo, put so much love and care into the creation of Wylan and his story and character growth that is representative of a larger feeling in the disabled community. 

That being said, what you non-disabled motherfuckers have done to him.

The “haha Wylan can’t read” jokes aren’t and were not funny. Y’all literally boiled down everything Wylan is to him being dyslexic. And it’s like,,,, the only thing you can say about him. You ignore every other part of him other than his disability, and then mock him for it. There’s so much you can say about Wylan - simping for Jesper, being band kid and playing the fuckin flute, literally anything else. But no, you just chose to mock his disability, excellent fucking job!

Next up on “ableds stfu” - infantilization! y’all are so fucking condescending to Wylan, and treat him like a fucking toddler. And while partly it is due to his sexuality i think a larger portion is him being disabled. Its in the same vein of people who think that Wylan and Jesper are romantically one sided, and that Jesper only kind of liked Wylan, despite the canon evidence of him loving Wylan just as much. You all view him as a “smol bean”, who needs protecting, and care, when Wylan is the opposite of that. He is a fucking demolitions expert who suggested waking up sleeping men to kill them - what about that says “uwu”. You are treating Wylan as a burden to Jesper and the other Crows when he is an immensely valuable, fully autonomous disabled person - you all just view him as damaged. 

And before I get a comment saying that “uhhh Wylan isn’t real why do you care” while Wylan may not be real, how you all view him and treat him has real fucking impacts and informs how you treat people like me. If someone called me an “uwu baby boy” they’d get a fist square in the fucking jaw. Fiction informs how we perceive the world and y’all are making it super fucking clear how you see disabled people. 

Finally, I wanted to talk about how the social model of disability is portrayed through Wylan. For those who are unaware, the social model of disability contrasts the medical model, that views the disability itself as the problem, that needs to be cured, whereas the social model essentially boils down to creating an accommodating society, where disability acceptance and pride is the goal. And we see this with Wylan - he is able to manage his father’s estate, with Jesper’s assistance to help him read documents. And this is not out of pity or charity, but an act of love. It is not portrayed as this almighty act for Jesper to play saviour, just a given, which is incredibly important to show, especially for someone who has been abused by family for his disability like Wylan, that he is accepted. 

Yet, I still see people hold up Jesper on a pedestal for “putting up with” Wylan, as if loving a disabled person deserves a fucking pat on the back. It’s genuinely exhausting trying to engage with a work I love so much with a fandom that thinks so little of me and my community. It fucking shows. 

Overall, Leigh Bardugo as a disabled person wrote two incredibly meticulous and empowered disabled characters, and due to either lack of reading comprehension, ableism, or a quirky mix of both, the fandom has ignored canon and the experiences of disabled people for…. shits and giggles i guess. And yes, there are issues with the Grishaverse and disability representation - while I haven’t finished them yet so I do not have an opinion on it, people have been discussing issues in the KOS duology with ableist ideals. This mini series was no way indicative of the entire disabled experience, nor does it represent my entire view on the representation as a whole. These things need to be met critically in our community, and talked about with disabled voices at the forefront. For example, the limited perspective we get of Wylan and Kaz being both white men, does not account for a large portion of the disabled community and the intersection of multiple identities.

All-in-all, Critique media, but do not forget to also critique fandom spaces. Alternatively, just shut the fuck up :)

happy fucking disability pride month, ig

[waheelawhisperer]

I was gonna try to clear out a few asks today and maybe respond to some reblogs, but then I saw this post on my dash and started getting emotional because it really helped put something I've been thinking about for a while into words, even though I am neither this post's subject nor its target audience, so instead I decided to just shitpost a bit and then get my feelings out. I didn't feel comfortable reblogging the post even though I think a good bit of it is also applicable to me because I didn't want to turn this into an example of a straight white man making everything about him somehow and taking focus away from marginalized groups, but I did want to express my thoughts and feelings because they exist and matter to me.

I'm a bit less put together than I usually am when I post, so forgive me if I start to ramble or use terminology incorrectly or misinterpret aspects of LGBTQ or BDSM culture.

Ironically, despite my most recent Arknights shitpost, I'm... actually absolutely freaking terrified to express any serious desire to be sexually dominant - and I do have those desires (don't get me wrong, a strong, confident woman taking control is really hot, all you have to do is read my various shitposts to know I'm happy to sub, but the fact that I even feel like I have to qualify my desire to be dominant with "I also enjoy subbing" is the perfect illustration of my point). Men being submissive is treated as funny, like the setup to a joke about subverting typical sexual/gender roles. Men being dominant, despite what tumblr "punish me, daddy" thirstposting may lead you to believe, is often treated as threatening. Predatory.

This is especially true in the case of men who are attracted to women, at least from what I've seen. I'm very scared to approach women I'm interested in, because women in turn are scared of strange men. It's a justifiable attitude. There are more than enough shitty men out there that it makes sense for women to adopt that coldness, that wariness, as a defense mechanism. Given how much of the tumblr userbase, especially the userbase that participates in the same fandoms I do and thus might realistically be considered my audience, is female, I imagine that many of the people reading this post have had negative interactions with men who don't respect their boundaries or even treat them as human beings, and I am by no means trying to downplay that very real and reasonable fear. I'm just trying to explain how these circumstances and attitudes have shaped my own interactions with women.

The result of this need to watch out for danger is that unless you are a stunningly attractive man, women are on guard when they talk to you. I'm not a stunningly attractive man. Oh, I'm decent-looking, don't get me wrong (admittedly, my status as a proud short king is apparently a dealbreaker for many women, but there's not much I can do about that) - I'm in good shape, I bathe regularly and take adequate care of my skin and hair/facial hair, I wear clothes that fit me and aren't horribly unfashionable, I've been told I have pretty eyes and a nice voice, etc. - but I'm not the kind of heartthrob that can walk into a room and command the attention of every woman in it. I'm not a complete mess socially, but I'm not overly charismatic either, and I'm shy and awkward around people I don't know. As a result, when I approach a woman, she ain't thinking "wow, he's talking to me <3", she's thinking "who's this freaking weirdo, I hope he goes away before I have to pepper spray him".

Because of all this, I try to be nonthreatening. I try to be harmless, and that means repressing anything that might frighten the people around me, whether that be anger, personal conviction, or the desire to (consensually) pin a girl down and rail her. I'm terrified of scaring away potential partners just by having normal human desires and emotions, and it takes a mental toll.

I grew up (and still live) in Texas, which is not exactly a wellspring of progressive attitudes towards anything, much less women and relationships and sex and sexuality. I've been taught since I was very young that men, like me, should protect and alternately defer to or "care for" women (in a very patronizing and controlling sense), and in return, our reward was sex. While my immediate family was never this backwards, I can't say the same about the world around me at large, and the media I consumed (and still consume, because we've made progress but by no means conquered the issue) absolutely bombarded me with the idea that sex was not a thing women enjoyed. Sex was an activity they engaged in reluctantly, if at all, something they gave to men in exchange for whatever nebulously-defined benefits those men brought to the table, which were usually few, enumerated in derisive fashion, and far outweighed by the inherent flaws men possess for the crime of existing. I was taught that sex was a thing men enjoyed and women endured. I was taught that sex was transactional at best, a thing to be earned for good behavior because a woman would never want it for its own sake outside of procreation, and outright undesirable for half the participants at worst, forced upon women by brutish, animalistic men who could never be anything better than lust-ridden beasts.

This is without even mentioning the incredibly heavy, pervasive cultural influence of Christianity in America, and Texas in particular. I'm sure we're all well aware of how Christianity treats sex and sexuality and sexual expression, so I'm not going to go too deep into that, but rest assured the framing of sexual desire as inherently evil and sinful did plenty of damage to my psyche.

No matter how much I know that those views aren't true, that they're doing everyone a disservice, no matter how hard I fight against attitudes that have been ingrained in me since before I even knew what sex was by every bit of stupid bullshit "I hate my spouse" boomer humor I've ever encountered, they still impact my own ability to express my own wants and needs. They still make me feel like I am wrong or bad or evil for wanting to have sex with women, and especially for wanting to be an active participant or engage in sex acts where the focus is my pleasure, like having a girl go down on me.

I think that's one of the reasons I find pleasure in submission: if I'm not the one in control, I can't hurt anyone. I can't be a threat. I can't force anyone to do anything if I'm the one taking orders. If my partner is in control, if she's the one calling the shots in the bedroom, then I'm as sure as I can be that she actually wants to be here, that this isn't just a chore she wants to get over with as quickly as possible to keep me satisfied so she can go do something that actually matters to her.

There are a lot of men like me. I know a lot of them personally. While I hesitate to call myself a good person, I can say with confidence that I would never willingly hurt my partner, that I would never knowingly force her into something she didn't want to do or violate her boundaries, and there are plenty of good, considerate men who would be horrified at the thought of doing something to a girl that that girl didn't want. So we live with the fear that we're monsters, that we're rapists waiting to happen, that even showing interest in a woman means we're unsafe and have done something wrong. We end up starved of physical and emotional intimacy, and it's a very sad and lonely experience.

I think I saw a post a while back, probably before I even started this blog, about a trans man talking about how very different socialization and social intimacy was as a man, and that post also did a great job of putting how I felt into words, but I can't find it right now. Regardless, it made the point that we're lonely. Isolated. We're not encouraged to be vulnerable. Writing this post has been very difficult for me because I was taught to never show weakness, that vulnerability made me a target, made me less, rather than a person in need of and deserving of support. We're not encouraged to develop emotional intimacy with other men outside of very specific situations (competition against opposing forces). Women look at us as threats (because to do otherwise without very good reason to trust runs the risk of actively putting them in danger). We are... so very alone.

[thoughts-of-loyalty]

Captain Marvel (2019) Review

So, I saw the Captain Marvel movie recently (on 3/9, as this’ll likely end up posted a bit late) and as the big movie that’s set to bridge the gap between Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, as well as the big-screen debut of Captain Marvel (not to mention the first Marvel female hero to get the limelight), there was a lot of excitement and hype built around this film.  Starring the titular Captain Marvel, real name Carol Danvers, and set in the 90s - before any film sans Captain America 1 - we’re given a look into the origins of the “Strongest Avenger,” the one Nick Fury sought to call upon at the end of Infinity War to fight against Thanos.

Full movie spoilers and my opinions below.

Synopsis: This film focuses on the origin story, so to say, of the future Carol Danvers/”Vers” (as she’s known among the Kree), in the adventure that sets her on the path to become the superheroine known as Captain Marvel.  Believing herself to be a part of the Kree due to memory loss, she is part of a group tasked with investigating the reported abduction of a Kree agent who was captured by the Skrulls (an alien species capable of mimicking the appearance of any human they view, one which is supplemented by their poorly-elaborated-upon talents at learning a lot about their targets).  Due to events beyond her control, she is separated from her Kree allies and ends up stranded on Earth.  Discovering details about her past life while there, she teams up with a young Nick Fury to discover the truth about her past and how intimately tied she is to the current Skrull-Kree conflict...

The Good:

The Visuals: To be sure, Captain Marvel - like all other big budget Marvel films - is a visual spectacle.  The CGI is very on-point for this film, the fight scenes are generally well handled, and it generally managed to capture the 90s look and vibes that the film is set in fairly well.  The Skrull are also made to look great for their big screen debut, with amazing work put into the transformation scenes, and Captain Marvel’s abilities are a visual delight.

Not Bogged Down by Continuity: One good thing about Captain Marvel in the relative sense is that it doesn’t bog itself down much with a desire to connect itself to the other films.  While some things will certainly make more sense in context of other movies (such as the importance of the power source everyone is fighting over and who exactly Phil Coulson is in relation to Nick Fury), the movie is self-contained enough that one can enjoy it without feeling they need to see everything Marvel-related prior to keep themselves informed.  This is in contrast to, say, Ant-Man 2 or Spider-Man, which require one to have seen Captain America: Civil War to understand all the ongoing character dynamics.

A Straightforward Story: Tying in to the above, but Captain Marvel never loses itself in trying to tell an overly-complex narrative with a million different plot-lines at once.  While there is certainly a twist or two to be had, the movie kept itself focused on the important characters and most of it’s attention was on Captain Marvel and her personal journey.  It told the story it wanted to tell and never did it veer into pointless sub-plots or give focus to truly meaningless characters.

A Lack of a Love Story: In what is something of personal gripe, I appreciate the complete lack of a romance story in this film.  A common criticism that has been directed at many other Marvel films was the inclusion of romance between the male lead and a major female character (usually inspired by one of the comic romances), usually to the detriment of the film as the romances were rather out of nowhere and had little purpose beyond just having one.  This film didn’t have any of that, and while one could make arguments or ship as shippers are wont to do, there was never a “These two are suddenly in love and kissing because there needs to be a romance” moment and I am glad.

The Cast is Well-Acted: A bit of a weird one, I suppose, but most of Captain Marvel’s cast is just as enjoyable to watch as any other Marvel movie’s cast.  I never felt a single cast member wasn’t giving the role their best, and while the dialogue could be cringe-worthy at times, it was only ever due to the script, not the actor/tress in the role.

A Good Message: It was made no secret that Captain Marvel would be a primarily feminist film and have messages about gender equality and women not needing the approval of men to be who they are.  And the film delivered it with only a minor heavy-handed approach.  The female characters were all competent and never eye-candy, but at the same time the movie never used the “machismo men who talk big but are actually pretty lame” trope other less-subtle movies used, all the characters were as competent as they were implied to be.  It was occasionally blunt during some portions of dialogue, but it never felt forced and it carried its message well.

The Bad

A Tonal Disaster: The movie was unfortunately bogged down by an overindulgence, so to say, on comedy.  Now, this in and of itself is not an issue, as Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor: Ragnarok can prove - a movie can be primarily comedic in nature but still have great stories and be serious when they need to (though one could argue both had tonal issues, I wouldn’t deny that).  That said, where this movie most falters is in how it tries to be primarily comedic at times where characters necessarily shouldn’t - for example, there’s a earlier on moment where Carol blasts open a door some time after Nick Fury had done secret spy stuff to open a prior one, making him incredulously ask why she hadn’t done so before and her responding she didn’t want to steal his thunder.  This is at a time when Carol knows there’s a time limit of sorts (the Kree are due to arrive in less than 20 hours to rescue her) and Carol is learning about events that may intimately involve her and her lost memory, but they let the cast wait around so they can have this joke.  This is around the point I started to worry for the movie, as well, because I could tell the movie would be willing to let it’s mood go to waste for a quick joke.

A return to basic villains: One common issue held with many of the earlier Marvel films was the very weak villains in their movies.  They could look cool or be menacing, but Loki was pretty was really the only one who was complex for the longest time.  It took until arguably either The Winter Soldier or Age of Ultron to buck this trend and give us memorable or complex villains.  This continued for most of Phase 3, with their villains being complex, sympathetic at times, or otherwise memorable presences.  Spoilers: the Skrulls were build up as that, but plot twist, the Skrulls aren’t the villains, the Kree are.  And the Kree do nothing to establish themselves as memorable villains - you could arguably have even forgotten two of them were main antagonists in the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie.  The only relatively memorable one is Yon-Rogg, Carol’s mentor, and the two spend so little time properly interacting after he’s revealed as a villain that any complexity he could have is never properly utilized.  For that matter...

The Supreme Intelligence is kinda pointless: Tying into how the Kree are an unfortunate return to basic villains, the Supreme Intelligence - the Artificial Intelligence ruler of the Kree - is an exemplar of this aspect of the Kree in this movie.  The Supreme Intelligence is something of a recurring presence in this movie (though I use that term lightly, given that it only appears before Carol for a grand total of five minutes if I’m being generous), and as the guiding force behind the Kree, it is technically the main antagonist of the film (Yon-Rogg is the most present of the Kree antagonists, but his actions are ultimately guided by the Supreme Intelligence).  As noted above, though, Carol and the Supreme Intelligence only spend about five minutes together, and only half of THAT time is spent as them on opposing sides, where it is little more than a generic overlord-emperor type, giving us a nothing driving force for the antagonists as a whole. Which is unfortunate, because...

The Kree are very underdeveloped in general: This is an issue because for a chunk of her life, after receiving amnesia, Carol considers the Kree her people and becomes part of a Kree task force.  While somewhat understandable that she’d be willing to stand against them as they’re responsible for her predicament in various capacities, the movie spends so little time developing the relationship between them and the other Kree.  Neither she nor the named Kree she battles seem to hold any strong emotion about coming to blows, to the point that they could have been replaced with a random Kree task force she never knew and nothing would have changed.  This goes double for both Korath and Ronan, who were incredibly flat villains in Guardians of the Galaxy - any hopes one might have had that they’d receive stronger characterization was misplaced, as they’re just as one-dimensional as before.

“Subverting Audience Expectations” ruins the Skrull: Many have (supposedly?) praised the Skrull for their role in the movie as a red herring antagonist who are actually sympathetic, with many bringing back the old praise of “This movie is great because it subverts audience expectations” that popped up during Star Wars: The Last Jedi.  I have a much longer rant about that, but that isn’t the issue I mean to address here.  And before anyone gets on my case, I have no desire to argue “the Skrull are ruined because they don’t follow their comic book selves;” the MCU is perfectly allowed to reimagine the Skrull as they desire, and if they wish to make the Skrull sympathetic, then that is their prerogative. In this case, the issue is that they’re so intent on making the Skrull red herrings that the Skrulls pre-reveal and post-reveal are essentially entirely different beings.  Before the reveal, Skrulls are making an proactive effort to discover what they need, capturing a Kree agent and luring Carol in with deception to read her mind and learn where to go, and when they get to Earth, they immediately install themselves so that they can best discover what they need to know - which isn’t necessarily bad, because that can still be played as sympathetic but willing to do whatever is necessary to get what they need to survive.  But post-reveal, the Skrull we knew as antagonists are almost entirely different beings - Talos and his “Science Guy” are almost comic relief after the truth is revealed, albeit with a few moments of competence (for a prime example of their newfound incompetence, it’s revealed the Skrull couldn’t find Wendy Lawson’s lab because their “science guy” didn’t realize the coordinates they were trying to figure out were directing them to space).  Talos in particular goes from “Leader of the Skrull remnant doing whatever is necessary to save his species and his family” to “Leader of the Skrulls who wants to save his people but never wanted to hurt anyone while doing it.”  Sure, Marvel subverted our expectations, but when your red herring is essentially two different characters before and after the reveal, it’s no wonder audiences ended up surprised.

Nick Fury backstory is now a joke: Now, this in and of itself isn’t an issue - there’s no rule stating Samuel L. Jackson NEEDS to be badass in every movie, or we can’t have a “Younger Nick Fury who is comedic due to being new to it all.”  Like I noted above, Nick Fury is generally competent - as are most characters in this film, even the Skrull post-reveal - and does well enough in his role in the film.  But there’s an elephant in the room: how Nick Fury lost his eye.  Namely, he lost his eye to Goose the Cat/Flerken after the cat decided is was being messed with and scratched his eye.  Yes, you read that right.  Nick Fury’s lost eye was due to him essentially getting scratched by an alien in cat form he pissed off.  And no, it wasn’t “rampaging alien form that hit him with a massive claw,” no, it’s “small house cat claw to the eye.” Now, if it isn’t clear why exactly it’s bad, let me explain it in a bit better detail.  This isn’t just an issue of “We wanted to subvert audience expectations, so Nick Fury lost his eye in a funny way because no one saw it coming” - though it still is that, too.  Rather, the issue here is that what happened here is now canon, and is retroactively canon for the whole of the MCU up to that point.  Nick Fury justifying why he hid secrets to Captain Freakin’ America as because “Last time I trusted someone, I lost an eye.” - that’s the story he tells everyone because he’s too embarrassed to admit the truth.  That big reveal at the end of the Winter Soldier, where he reveals he had a backup retinal scan of his scarred eye because he was just that prepared in case someone tried to lock him out of the S.H.I.E.L.D. systems by removing the retinal scan of his good eye?  Thank goodness he had that eye scarred by a cat, otherwise, there’s no way that plan would’ve had a chance of working later on.  Him calling Coulson, his most loyal supporter, “His good eye?”  Thank goodness a cat clawed out his eye so he could make it clear how much Coulson meant to him with that distinction. That’s the big gamble you take when you retroactively introduce a character’s backstory in a prequel - everything that happened there is now canon to everything since.  And now Nick Fury’s backstory in the MCU will forever be “He lost it to an annoyed cat,” because Captain Marvel decided that it was better to make a joke of it.

And now, for a minor gripe: This is a bit of a lesser example, but y’all recall what S.H.I.E.L.D. stands for?  Don’t recall off the top of your head?  You could rewatch Iron Man, because it tells you in recurring joke form - Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division.  Someone really should shorten that, right?  Something the characters note anytime the full name is brought up.  And at the end of the movie, Coulson tells Pepper - who is going to recite it by name - that it’s S.H.I.E.L.D. for short now. If only Coulson was around back in the 1990s, where Nick Fury makes reference to how he’s “Nick Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D.” and namedrops S.H.I.E.L.D. a few times. *ahem* Yeah, it’s a minor continuity error in the grand scheme of things, but it was something I figured should be mentioned because that was something that I noticed and wanted to bring up.

Final Verdict

Captain Marvel is a... competently-made movie.  And I’m really sorry to say it, but that’s the most I can say about it.  It’s well-made, well-acted, tells a simple enough story to understand that isn’t bogged down by continuity, and it has good messages in it’s narrative.  But it loses so much of itself due to having an inconsistent tone throughout, and it’s plot goes from decent to bog-standard around the time it decides to “Subvert audience expectations” and give us some of the most boring villains this side of the Phase 3 MCU films.

Would I recommend others to watch it?  Somewhat.  It’s not exactly incredibly essential viewing for the MCU and I don’t think it’s really all that good, but it’s not a terrible movie, I can understand why one would like it despite all it’s flaws (people can learn to overlook nearly everything), and it does add to the MCU enough that it is worth seeing if you want to see all the Marvel films.  But if you want a good female superhero film with a feminist message, you’re better off watching Wonder Woman.

And now, to address the elephant in the room pretty much every male who didn’t enjoy the film needs to deal with:”You didn’t like Captain Marvel because the main character was a woman and it had a pro-women message and you must hate feminism.”  It’s a comment that tends to get directed at males who don’t enjoy films with female protagonists, regardless of quality of the film (see: Ghostbusters) or reasons for disliking the film (albeit not without reason, to some degree - after all, those biased against something would be much harder on it than something they aren’t even if their flaws are much the same).  Not helping matters were that trolls DID review-bomb its Rotten Tomatoes score before it even had a full day under it’s belt - which the movie didn’t deserve, it should be judged on it’s own merits, not targeted by insecure men angry about there being a Marvel movie starring a female hero.

And I don’t expect to convince anyone who isn’t willing to believe me otherwise.  I can point to all the video games (Metroid, Portal, Resident Evil, etc) I love that star female protagonists, or that I considered the Wonder Woman film to be excellent, and it won’t convince anyone.  If you think I’m sexist garbage because I’m a male who didn’t like the film, my reasonings above or thoughts below won’t probably won’t convince you.

Here’s my views on this, however: Marvel had taken much too long to give us a movie primarily starring a female hero.  Marvel has many great female heroes, Captain Marvel included, and any one of them would have been as worthy of a film as a male counterpart.  The MCU dropped the ball repeatedly when it came to giving their female heroes films - Black Widow would’ve been great for a film but never got made and the omnipresence of Scarlet Johansson has made many people not care; Scarlet Witch got primarily confined to Avengers-focused films; The Wasp is very enjoyable but still has to share screentime and billing with Ant-Man; Gamora was probably the best and still those films still spent more time with Star-Lord, not to mention she was killed of in Infinity War without certainty of her return, leaving that “Third Guardians movie focused on her” up in the air.

We finally have a Marvel film that’s starring a female, and it’s primary message is about how feminism is important - and it’s good we’ve finally got one, but it took us until Phase 3 to finally get it and the film was marred by so many other issues I would struggle to call it good even with its positive qualities.  And that’s not the quality it deserved - not as a Marvel film, as a Captain Marvel film, or as a feminist film.  And anyone who would say “Who cares if it was not all that good, we’ve finally gotten a feminist superhero film from Marvel”?  You’re settling, and you shouldn’t.  What we deserved isn’t what we got, and by defending it, you’re essentially saying that Marvel can get away with low-quality movies so long as they can say “Sure, but fans were asking for this and we gave them what they wanted.”

You want a film with a female superhero protagonist that has a feminist message that is, above all else, good?  You should watch Wonder Woman.  And I know how there’s all the issues with the DCEU as a whole, or the rivalry between Marvel and DC fans and the former who wanted this movie to be good so they could be proud Marvel made a feminist hero film that was better than DC’s.  And kudos to you who support brand loyalty.  But DC did what Marvel didn’t for the longest time, and for all of the DCEU’s issues, Wonder Woman had very few issues on its own, and the issues that were present were very minor compared to everything it had going for it.  Wonder Woman was what Captain Marvel wanted to be, and what it ultimately failed to be.

[misterbitches]

@flootweed ​

ATOTS

That's super fucking romantic? Like tragic but in a nice way. i love that shit. i'm a monogamous slut for romance pghiosuag even tho we have to learn to live alone too but it's just like the NOTION is nice?!??! awwww i told my mom that SOPHIE's gf was like "she died taking a picture of the moon" and how it was like idk. the gf was just processing it and she thought it was romantic and my mom was like "wow.....depressing" bc think she thought it was stupid millenial shit i was like no mother doent u see she died in the BEAUTY LMAO but then i told her jessica walter's husband died the year before and then she died and she was like "aw...kind of romantic" LMAOOOO i guess two people have to die. why did i tell this story? i am so sorry. the show ended today right (ep 10?) i didn't realize it was that short. so i hope it was a happy ending? (tell me) i understand why you love the atmos! it's like, not really been done. there's this BL that i hear isn't too great but it does take place in a rural part of thailand and there's way less budget. a lot of ppl seem to like it. ep 6 LW / LW in gen gotta be honest, rushed through it. i knew spoilers from jump cause BL spoilers are just absolutely nothing and sometimes ur just like i need to know. i do not understand the ~silently lookin 4 u~ trope it always backfires and is also DUMB. so happy about tiffy. a girl who likes girls but ends up with a man bc of mommy and also the man is ok....it's me. she's gorgeous and actually [h*lf] gay so it's great. god ok i feel so old again. lmaooo but i was like obsessed with lady gaga for that reason (dont ask...also how i got kinda popular on tumblr way back in the day) and shes just absolutely fucking beautiful and bad ass. (which kind of doesnt helpcos they r all skinnty but that's FINEEEE) right? i mean like i guess cos we knew abt it? i can see why he was so pissed off, too? i mean i'm so fucking like...sensitive to being told what to do so i was angry for him from jump. i guess i was also looking at it different wholetime cos i knew the spoilers? i'm assuming u did too lmao. so we knew hed be pissed and leave. and frankly that's what sib gets. just for you my friend i will watch it and update. i think MANY times in shows in gen but it is something you notice a lot in BL bc they are just absolute novices most times. in this case, gene's actor mostly well (and i like him as a person just cos he was on that thai 3 girls in a car show and used to date on eof them lmao) can act so i will look over that scene to see how sib's actor plays off him. but the pausing in between sentences or for so long even decent actors or actors doing better. kao is not bad, not great so they will talk slowly because dramatic acting but the problem is most times it's too long. even if the person is an adept actor it won't always work and YES THEN THAT MEANS THE EDITOR COMES IN AND SNIP SNIP SNIP! it's too long. and sometimes it just does not work even if you can act. but it is GLARING when they cant or are average (someoe said this about tharntype and my god lmao tharn..is...so...slow...in...talking...the actor idk his name it's one of em, the other one with the nose (type) is....different not better but he certainly does not talk as slow. they arent bad but they are not good so.) also sometimes they are forgetting their lines. some ppl find this charming. clearly we do not lmao. what is their relation? what is going on there? i don't have a problem with stepbrothers as long as they didn't grow up with that sibling bond. many times blended families really have to watch out for that kind of fraternizing but it's always when theyre older and teenagers bc they didnt grow up w/ each other....i mean they have chemistry so i'm whatever. but. hennYYWAYYYS.actually it's bc im an idiot i didn't read it as Mhok (singular) and aey's father. Yes and his sister who i think i may hate? im like bitch okkkkkk but. his name is lhong. and he is a psycho. i mean so is type. so. oooh it could be that he stole! but also i'm pretty sure cos hes gay lol or did they

not make that explicit? the thing is i had to skip through most of that scene too because the drama was WAY too much for me. too much. lmao. the sister thing i got and it made sense and iliked that. oh yea he is gay and they know. that's a big one.

WBL

haven’t watched color rush! did you like it? i have seen wyel, parts of mr heart, and ofc to my star :) 

ohhhhhh ok. i get you. yea he definitely wasn’t being ooc cos i think that....what u said. and also like....ugh i cant even think rn. i like sam lin a lot so i like gao shi de but i gotta say. lmao. hm. first of all. yes it is creepy what he did. it’s fucking weird. and sad that his whole life revolves around him. it’s not as fucking weird as LW but still like when he did the door thing. i was like UMMMMMMMMM cos i really didnt want it to be constructed. and when it was i was like imma suspend my disbelief. but if anyone dared...

and so what he did in s2 i think he just couldnt realize that he was loved back which is why it’s good he WAS ALONE for 5 yrs imo. but he gave shu yi 0 choice and for that i am pretty sure i would be even angrier. i do think though that the father’s role is pretty important but i can see how the show is like....letting that go? bc as fucking weird as GSD is, he was still like...20? i guess and shu yi’s dad is like. crazy? i am also like he really had to fucking start a company to get noticed like are u joking? is it also that easy? and also why? lmao i just. ugh. i think that probs bothered me the most...priorities.

i like the show! well idk if i love it but sure. i think it’s decent lmao. i understand what you’re saying. for here it bothers me less but i certainly don’t think it was OOC. immature and stupid but like...that’s.....what they are. i also don’t have a problm with the timing from a technical point.

however, when i started the show? i had NO clue what concept of time it was. and that was very annoying. tehy redeemed it bc of the comedy aspects (the first time shu yi sees shi de is so fucking good, i really loved the shot and editing; it’s hilarious and silly) and i started to go with the flow of the show through that. but the fucking concept of time in the show in general esp with repetitive outfits (i understand that they are more likely to wear multiple outfits as well, it’s just that you have to split it up or it i sconfusing visually and looks like the same scene twice or just a full day of shooting which it could be but then something should change in the clothes. this is just an ex~~*~*) and partof that is they have this already controlled narrative i guess. 

i have to admit as well...i skipped episode 1. and most of 2. i was like i rly dont want to see someone slap a pereson even if they were like. not together. it’s just not cute also not in front of ppl. and then when they were yelling and bla bla i was like listen ladies lets calm down. too much angst in a boring way. what they have now is good. also they should probably like estrange the father but i doubt they will. 

i cannot make up my mind totally now bc i see what ur saying i guess i just don’t feel that way as much but i guess i have to think about it more, too. i do think he was contorlling in getting him or like when he didnt want shu yi to find out whwatshisface liked him. i guess for me it would be if he is still that way in the rship. but even tho he’s at fault for what happened, i’m also like but his dad? but also like...did he try? why did he just stop contacting? but then i guess he emailed everyday? DO U C MY QUANDARY.

alsoi have to say i do not care abt their backdoor being opened lmao like wow business? no thanks

LMAO. did they cry a lot in UWMA? i only know the teamwin parts. which one is fluke the really pale one who died? idk what it is about that kid but i just cant watch him. it’s not his fault it’s mine.

DUDE i still dont understand the husband and wife thing and ive looked into it multiple times. ive kinda just classified it as one of those things that make me uncomfortable but arent problematic lol. it you have any insight about it id love to hear it tho !!

it’s stupid. that’s what it is (husband and wife.) it’s just something they say like many gay couples may use pejoratives in conjunction with them, the f word etc. or even imply something about being a top and a bottom. whatever. but these arent gay spaces or gay storylines. sure gay men may direct them but since BL operates and relies on patriarchy without a doubt and also stereotypes poorly kathoeys or won’t cast trans women in anything substantial and use them as jokes (and see this is one of those things where it’s like...ud never see this in the US tho like our concept of third gender or kathoeys but life stillBOOOOO.) so it’s just useless when they put it into the scripts because it’s for people to consume and lots of girls are. obviously. so the idea that if you are being penetrated and u r the wife and this is used like literally anywhere but not from gay or whatever men is gross. are cis women’s vaginas sieves to them? are trans women not women? do we have to categorize people by PHALLIC OBJECTS IN OUR BODIES SPECIFICALLY A WOMAN? it dont make no sense. plus really most ppl just experiment, there’s more ways than one to have sex, we have lives so most times it’s not just full penetration for hours anyway. it’s just so gross. like oh that’s really funny lol ur the wife cos his dick goes in ur butt XD i get it, same. i say “i’m wife’ whenever there’s a penis in me. fucking kill me. it’s not a big deal but it’s just dumb and gross. if they use it they could try and subvert it too like i like how my engineer has  a whole absurdly stupid episode about it. but in TT the dad says “if ur the wife i wont accept it” and i was like u know what gals? im good. goodbye.

pgojaihousgajigko THAT’S SOOOOOOO OOWIEOFUGHOIJ WEIRD. FANDOM IS REALLY WEIRD. i have read rpf and written it once upon a time but dont do it anymore  uch. i mean it’s weird. no doubt about that. invasive, weird, strange. but very unreal anyway. it is. plus i dont like celebs or fame and think of it as a gross capitalist scheme so i had to stop (also so weird?) but i know very many people like lean in. lean in. LEAN IN. this youtuber i watch did a video on like insanely popular ships (like that 1d one) and their insane fandoms and i just couldnt. it’s so embarrassing? and then they’re so bold????? about it? 

yea it would be cool (more queer men or visibly we should say or like out whatever.) but it doesnt necessarily mean that will be good or beneficial i guess? i mean like. i dont know. so much about the genre is about wish fulfilment for young girls. its literally selling some fantasies because the other thing is for BL (i read a paper on this...) esp for girls in more conservative societies they cna maybe replace themselves in the character? but they may not feel a threat as a woman or like their life will fall apart if they engage in sexual things with anyone really. and that’s where i’m like....for a lot of these are they just writing a story and just replacing two men? bc they also seem to think it owrks like that. and in a way that’s what it is bc of the writing and how they use certain terms. you can tell the piece is about pushing a product and less about the real affects of a story. i think ITSAY is a great example of a really intelligent great piece of work that contains multitudes. and the girl was amazing. it just depends on the goal. and for most of the ppl the goal isnt...to do anything. so i dont know. idk how to talk abt representation anymore. it both is and isnt.

 i really liked tingting from my engineer a lot (idk if u have seen) she’s so fun and unapologetic. i love how much she drinks and if someone tells her to be ladylike she says no. and i appreciate that in the show when girls were rude to her she said nothing about the girls but said “NO IM NOT LUCKY TO HAVE ALL MALE FRIENDS?” i really want to see her more in the next season. obviously tiffy is goat. super excited to see how their rship develops.

[jjillekkot]

Rules: Answer the questions you’re given, write 11 of your own and tag 11 people.

I have had the pleasure of being tagged three (3) times for this sweet, sweet meme so brace yourselves, apparently you’re gonna learn a ton about me today! Placing it under a cut because.... you should really be thanking me, honestly.

1. it’s late in the afternoon and you’re in a new city. do you take the train, the bus, or do you walk to get back to your place?

Am I just moving to this town? Likely, I’ve probably visited before so I would have a sense of how to use the transportation. Or, Google Maps is pretty handy! I actually enjoy walking most places if it’s available to me; otherwise, I’m a train kinda girl. I’ll take the bus if I have to. I’m very positive towards public transportation and energy efficiency. Reduce that carbon footprint!

2. what’s your dream place to live (city or country? continent? in land or by the sea? cold or warm?)?

Okay, but... gonna go cheesy and say with my loved one. ‘Cause I’d honestly survive with any climate as long as I’m with them.

Assuming I’m single af and forever alone, or at least living on my own for a while? I’m definitely a larger city kind of girl, or near access to a large city. I wouldn’t mind living in a suburb and then commuting to the city, actually. I love nature, but I don’t want to be isolated in it for too long. I spent three months in a literal jungle. I’ve had my share of country times.

Also, having lived near Wisconsin-- I am way over the winter. I’m fine if I don’t see a lot of snow. I actually do enjoy rain, though. 

3. what’s one of your favorite threads across any of the muses you have ever played?

One of the earliest threads I’ve written on this blog was with @argentnoir​ & it was just kind of like a slow burn / pining kind of deal? Where Tseng acknowledges that Yuffie is up to be empress of Wutai and how inappropriate it is as one who has actively abandoned his nation that he would support her. So he tries to deny and reject any feelings which might surface for her, while Yuffie is  very much a “ forget protocol, I like you. ” I really liked that dynamic of how Tseng knew what was right for the nation even if he no longer belonged to it, and Yuffie was very “you belong to me, therefore you belong to Wutai.” 

I’m weak for Tsuffie okay like let me die with this ship.

4. five songs you’d love to share with people?

manzions // gorgeous. while my apartment was being renovated a few months back, i rented a room in an ex-friend’s house ( we were cool in high school but after that we grew apart ). anyway, the walls were paper thin & whenever i was depressed or crying or something, he would always play this song.

joji // will he. okay but a surprise twitter bop? also let him move on from his previous persona ok. yeesh. people are allowed heelturns. anyway, so this song is so mellow & i dig it, but also it just reminds me of the type of music a friend of mine used to send me all the time when we like... stopped being super close. that was their way of reaching out, was sending songs. and like. idk joji’s character / the lyrics super just make me think of that friend ‘cause that’s definitely what that friend would say to me, if he felt confident enough to ever use the words.

yakuza 0 // 24h cinderella. this is a guilty pleasure song. in case y’all didn’t know, i love rgg / yakuza almost as much as i love jojo ( that’s saying a lot ) & majima makes my life better okay. i am annoying & go around singing this. i’m pretty sure i’ve sang this like every week since release. i probably could use some help lmao.

utada hikaru // forevermore. don’t sleep on this song. idc if you didn’t see the show. i know everyone’s still screaming about omen / don’t think twice but i’ve been screaming about forevermore since she came back from retirement. bless hikki. also here’s a tissue for your eyeballs.

yumi kawamura // burn my dread. before we were shook over lyn inaizumi & shihoko hirata, we were all dying over yumi. who, by the way, is my literal queen ok. every time i see a persona concert online i sob profusely when yumi is on stage. i own the p4d soundtrack & i sobbed through her tracks on there too. honestly that was my most played music of 2016, that soundtrack. her voice is beautiful in every song, but i had to pick one, so why not the intro to p3 so we can all sob profusely. you’re welcome.

i would’ve put sono chi no sadame but i need to be tamed. i will, however, put the link to jojo’s first six intros performed live, though. that’s a real masterpiece that should go on the big screen. man, what i would do to go to a jojo concert.

5. are you good at math? (if so, why are you a nerd?)

i am rather proficient at math, actually. i wanted to go into medicine at one point, then psychology. you need a background in statistics to do that. but i also showed an interest in calculus, despite being terrible at physics and three-dimensional art. i studied it into high school, but gave it up in college to pursue language and fine arts instead. 

6. were you a goosebumps kid or an ‘are you afraid of the dark’ kid?

goosebumps. though i’ll admit i read the books more than watching either show.

7. how many tamagotchis did you own in the past, and what were their names (if you remember)?

i never had a tamagotchi. or a neopet. that’s a whole era that goes right above me.

8. what’s one situation you want to / wish to write your muse in? 

historical drama.

9. what’s one thing you’re really proud of, either in your portrayal or yourself in life? or both! actually yeah, list two things you’re proud of, one in your portrayal and one of yourself in life! ;)

i’ve survived a lot of tough things, so i guess i’m rather proud of that. 

i’m also like... happy that i’m able to pull off a yuffie that isn’t reduced to a sex object. it’s really nice actually to see people more these days seeing her for her maturity & respecting her for the amount she’s able to achieve. even square has backed off with making her such a heavy comic relief, at least in dffoo, and that makes me really happy.

10. pc or apple? (there’s only one right answer to this question, and it’s not apple)

i only own one apple product & that’s a iPad that was given to me during college. which, it was rather useful while i was in school, but i can say i’m not really a fan of the whole “apple slowing down your devices to make you upgrade” thing. also, it’s so expensive? i’d like to get into video editing and photography, & while i’m aware i don’t need an apple to do that, i like the simplicity and interface and hardware. but.. y’all these prices & these games are too much.

also, atm i don’t use either a pc or an apple: i’m on chromebook. & it’s really efficient if you’re into blogging or writing or really minimal things, like i am. c:

11. what’s the most embarrassing muse you have ever played :-)

maximillion pegasus. i wrote him as a joke in high school. i will not bring him back for anything lmao.

1. what season is your favorite in your most favorite running tv show?

i actually don’t... watch television... the last show i tried to actually pay attention to was designated survivor. ‘cause i’m weak for kiefer sutherland. and uh? idk i like it cause it has rising climax !

i also binge watched ghost adventures so.... maybe that counts. uh?? i would say maybe seasons 10-13 were my favorite because i felt bad for billy! always sending billy off on his own & his expressions about zak “can you stop summoning demons for a second?” is always great.

2. if you were apart of a trio like the three stooges, what would your names be (can’t be curly, larry and moe)?

actually, @lockedfighter​ & @crystarium-rose​ & i are the powerpuffs. i’m buttercup.

3. you’re a sailor scout, which one are you and why?

i love haruka for her ability to subvert gender roles. i’m really into androgyny & i don’t think my biological sex should limit my physical capabilities or interests. i also have short hair. however, people tend to liken me to ami, minako, & makoto.

4. what is your favorite mode of transportation and why?

jeeps with the doors off ! also tuk-tuk and motorbike. what a thrill !

5. what is a fruit you love but hate any byproduct made in its flavor (ie: grapes, love the fruit but hate grape flavored drinks or candies)?

cherry flavored things are always too strong for me.

6. you’ve lost one of your five senses, which one is it?

uh... smell? though tbh in the transition of winter to spring, it’s a combination of smell and taste because my throat closes off when lilacs bloom & i have to use throat numbing spray lmao.

7. you’re superman for a day, which one of his powers do you abuse the most?

laser vision. burn baby burn, disco inferno.

8. a favorite book you enjoy has comes to life and you are sucked into that world. what book is it and what character are you in that book?

that would be highly problematic considering my options would be the divine comedy or jojo. assuming i’m jojo.... i’d love to be caesar zeppelli when he first meets joseph. that’s quality.

9. do you have a birthday this month, when is it?

my birthday is july 23.

10. i just burnt your favorite dish trying to make it for you, what was the dish suppose to be?

if you burn pasta i’m kind of wary of you tbh.

11. you just got a very pretty parrot, what is the first word you teach it?

“ hewwo. ” i blame apollo entirely.

1. what’s your favourite comfort food ?

gummi bears !!! that’s not a comfort food? then mashed potatoes & gravy. surely that counts.

2. if you could physically go into a video game for a day, what game would you choose and why ? 

policenauts because i’m still weak for space exploration. that, or xenoblade chronicles 2 because i need to make friends with mr. turters & zeke stat.

3. what’s the first book you’ve fallen in love with ?

pretty sure it was an anthology of greek & roman mythology because i’m a nerd.

4. what’s gotten you into writing in the first place ?

i’ve been writing for like... ever. i’ve had diaries since preschool. it’s how i express myself.

5. what made you pick the character ( s ) you are currently writing ?

@lockedfighter​ “ asked ” me into writing yuffie & @kintsuggi​ asked me about writing paz.

6.  what do you cope with better : being cold or being hot ?

being cold. ‘cause i’ll just add socks and blankies & eventually fall asleep. i can only take so many clothes off. and i hate sweating. and drinking water helps to a slight extent but gawd.

7. what’s the one thing you love about your country ?

uh. can i talk about being first nations? great. i love how people who are ndn / first nations respect one another’s differences & how everyone is just “cousin”. that we’re all extended relatives of one another and support people in whatever they might need. i love that solidarity.

8. can you list five things that you love about yourself ?

i’m nice. i care about others. i help others the best i can. sometimes i can be cute. i’m smol & fit into places.

9. what’s your favourite tv show and why ?

24 because it’s action, espionage, justice & i’m weak for kiefer sutherland.

10. if you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be and why ?

probably my body because it brings me a lot of unhappiness.

11. if you could become a mythical creature, what would it be ?

a fairy. i would love to be like navi. “ hey, listen! watch out ! ”

TAGGED BY: @smashkick​ & @fcragil​ & @re-no​ ( this is why people think i’m popular i betcha. )

i do not possess the concentration to ask people 11 questions BUT if you wanna just talk about yourself, feel free to tag yourself in that lmao.

[profgandalf]

Gender Differences: What a Great Idea!

Applying the concept of gender dynamics to our understanding of Literature.

Note: to be clear, this discussion functions with the binary concept of gender.  I know that homosexuals are real as are individuals who are bi, but they still fit into one of the two.  If you are a gay guy, you’re a guy, and if you’re a gay girl, you’re a girl. “Sorry Tumblr”

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;

male and female created he them."

Genesis 1: 27 (English-KJV)

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and

 he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman,

 and brought her unto the man.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall

be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Genesis 2: 21-13 (English-KJV)

". . .neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

1 Corinthians 11:9  (English NIV)

EMILIA

'Tis not a year or two shows us a man:

 They are all but stomachs, and we all but food;

 To eat us hungerly, and when they are full,

 They belch us.  

OTHELLO

       Why did I marry?. . .curse of marriage,

       That we can call these delicate creatures ours,

       And not their appetites!            

DESDEMONA

EMILIA            

       But I do think it is their husbands' faults

       If wives do fall: say that they slack their duties,

       And pour our treasures into foreign laps,

       Or else break out in peevish jealousies,

       Throwing restraint upon us; or say they strike us,

       Or scant our former having in despite;

       Why, we have galls, and though we have some grace,

       Yet have we some revenge. Let husbands know

       Their wives have sense like them. . .

       Then let them use us well: else let them know,

       The ills we do, their ills instruct us so        

I would note that I consider this speech by Shakespeare one of his best examples of negative capability and that it matches the famous speech by Shylock in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice.Act 3 Scene 1 Lines 49–61

Introduction

Humans have always been fascinated by the fact that there are two kinds of us: female and male.  We are alike in so many important ways, and yet it is our differences which constantly confound us.

The Cause of Tension  

"The woman whom thou gavest to be with me. . ."

"Ew!  You actually LIKE Girls?!"  This raw response of a seven year old boy to a friend who has been "consorting with the enemy" reveals the underlining hostility which seems to permeate the relationship between the two genders.  Oh, we may change our tune when we get older.  Biological attractions overcome boyish disdain, but it must be admitted that on some level many men never get over their boyish opinion of women.  Thus, the term misogynist (one who hates women) has been in our vocabulary for quite some time.  The question we might want to consider is "why?"

Duh! For One Thing, We're Different!

This Image taken from 10 Things Men Never Want to Hear Their Women Say

One of the central reasons why men and women frustrate one another is that in some ways we are just plain different.  For a light-hearted look at this check out Matt  Groening’s “Women speak in estrogen and men listen in  testosterone.” Whenever I teach this section I ask the students (just as I asked you) what differences exist between men and women.  Here are some of the typical responses

Men

Rational                                                       Practical (Concrete or Bone headed)                        

Insensitive

Steady

Communicative Challenged

Physically Stronger

Single Minded and

Hierarchical in tasks

Primarily interested in act of procreation

Women

Emotional

Abstract (Transcendent or Nebulous)

Empathetic

Uneven (cycles)

Communication Addicted

Physically Weaker (but able to handle pain better)

Simultaneous Multiple Perspectives on Tasks

Primarily interested in the emotional nest (romance) needed to maintain the products of procreation (children).

Please let me state here that I do not stand behind this list as an absolute definition.  At best these are but generalities.  My mother is a former math teacher whose rational skills have navigated us through many a map and have left me checkmated more often than not.  In my own marriage my wife is far better with math (and money) than I am.  And when we were joined, she was the one who brought all the practical power tools to the marriage.  I brought books.  What this list does do is show at least the perceptions of differences between the sexes.

The question which often confounds scholars is how much of this difference is artificially created by culture and how much is biological innate to our beings.

The debate is pretty heated about this.  The only true biological differences with which most agree is that women have the equipment to bear children and men, in general, have more upper body strength.  These differences are enough to lead into the next question of abuse since lack of strength and the connection to domestic work has left women often at the mercy of men.

Abused Power = Breakdown in Communication

It is a sad fact that among humans whenever there is an imbalance of power there is the potential for abuse.  It happens between grownups and children.  But historically it has especially occurred between men and women.   When such abuse takes place communication and understanding break down.  (One does not usually want to understand those whom one subjugates.)  So in many households there have been two adults living under the same roof with two different agendas.    How the weaker has achieved her ends has caused for an even greater division between the genders.

Some may claim that the subservience of women is God's Law.  This is a debatable point with Christians arguing on either side.  However, what some might call God's ranking system--which never condoned the abuse of women--can not explain the world-wide existence of female inequality.  There are so many social expectations around the world which violate Judeo-Christian expectations.  Thus, to claim God's law is responsible for male female inequality ignores the simple fact that even in places where God's will is barely known, women are still kept at a lower station then men.  Thus I conclude that Male dominance is not based in God's will: the cause must the use or abuse of power.

Let's face it, if all women were as strong as this young lady (Shelley Beattie) on the left appears to be, the number of domestic disturbances would probably go waaaay down. But most women are matched with men who are physically stronger than they. 

(Note: Please don’t fuss about how attractive you do or do not find Shelley; the fact is that this kind of conditioning involves training, a lot more than what most women and most men want to put in each day.  The point is that most women do not have this kind of physical strength.  Sadly I just learned that In 2008, Ms. Beattie committed suicide.  Very sorry.  According to the Wikipedia article about her, after her retirement Shelley not only starred in the TV show American Gladiators, but she worked with people with physical impairments (she suffered herself from deafness), made drums and jewelry, and worked as a personal trainer, clearly a special person lost).

Thus, women have lacked the power to achieve their goals directly.  When conflict interests occurs they have found other means to reach their ends than direct conflict.  See the lecture on   The Taming of the Shrew  specifically   Shakespeare's Good /Bad and Bad /Good Women. to see both methods examined as part of the analysis of the play.  Briefly women have two choices:

Confront the oppressive patriarchy directly–and be     branded a shrew (or in modern evangelical circles “a feminist”) or…

Submit and give verbal support that the male should be dominant and then subvert that power via manipulation be it sexual or psychological.

The Depiction of the Tension

The study of literature reveals the importance of the tension between genders.  Unfortunately until recently most of the canon has been determined and created by men.  So there are few female forces through history to help give alternative perspectives about the nature of, forgive the cliché, "the battle of the sexes."  (Note, the existence of this cliché shows how old the problem is.)

The Anti-feminist Tradition

Medieval literature abounds especially with antifeminist themes which they based on certain scriptures.  In a civilization which looked to scriptural narrative to explain who the world worked as it did, women were often blamed for the fall of humanity because Eve first gave in to the serpent.  Because they are weaker than men, women are often shown using guile and deceit to bring about the ruin of their opponents.  In some of the Arthur legends they play the role of enchantress and temptress.  And it is no small matter that Queen Guinevere love for Lancelot eventually brings Camelot down.

There exists also a long tradition negatively portraying women who contradict their husbands directly.  These developed into a "stock character" often called a shrew.  Such characters usually were only two dimensional and lacked development beyond just a joke.  One of the most famous examples of this appears in medieval mystery plays involving Noah's wife who insisting on her right to gossip with her friends even while poor Noah is attempting to get her safely on the ark.

These shrews also are portrayed as sexually overt.  Thus in The Roman De La Rose (the Romance of the Rose) there is an old woman who gives advice to a young bride on how to abuse her husband sexually.

The Wife of Bath in Feminist Tradition

Chaucer's Wife of Bath is both an affirmation of the medieval concept of the shrew as well as a rebuttal of it as the poet engages in a tour de force of the male imagination in "negative capability" (Keats).  He may start with a stock character-- a stereotype based on male fears-- but he then continues to reveal and develop her personality and examines her first from the outer qualities people see, then to her own experiences as framed by her testimony in her prologue (the longest in the Canterbury Tales) and finally to her own tale in which elements of her personality may come through without her overt knowledge. 

This is strong psychoanalysis for what is in essence a figment of an artists imagination and yet, in a very real sense, Chaucer shows a woman first physically, then through her mind and finally through her heart.  For more of this go to Chaucer's Multiple Levels of Revelation of The Wife of Bath

Shakespeare's View in Taming of the Shrew

Meanwhile, in Shakespeare's play The Taming of the Shrew he presents a wonderful study in contrast between two types of women (two sisters) with two different ways to deal with a oppressive patriarchy.  Bianca is all sweetness and all the men love her.  However, as the play progresses she is shown to be manipulative and not nearly so honest as her older sister.  Katrina meanwhile, confronts directly the male dominated society she finds herself in, but she also finds herself trapped in the cage of rage.  She is branded a Shrew and in fact fulfills that nature. This will be developed further in another lecture Shakespeare's Good /Bad and Bad /Good Women.

The Modern Feminist Tradition

Writers within this tradition embrace a wide variety of approaches to the question of women's place and power in culture and society.  Most of these approaches are allied by their critical analysis of patriarchal (male0dominated) and phallocentric (male-centered) institutions and practices.  Furthermore works may be analyzed by their interests in promoting women's issues and concerns.  These concerns rise to the forfront of literary concerns with the late 18th and early 19th century and have continued on to the present.  Among our readings the short story "A Jury by Her Peers" (written in the first part of the 20th century) is especially notable since it was written by a woman (Susan Gadspell). responding in a subversive way to the domineering and condescending attitudes of men 

The social parameters clearly shape the course of action that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters.  At first glance "Roman Fever" written by another woman,   Edith Wharton, a little later than the first (1934) does not at first seem to fit the Feminist tradition.  However, part of the difficulties these two women share is that in their world, affluent New Yorkers, they are defined by only their roles as wives and mothers.   In "A Rose for Emily" this same gender tension (complicated still further by the roles of a daughter to a domineering father) is at the root of the problems Faulkner depicts the aristocratic Emily Grierson.  Finally the struggle between sexes over what will happen to a woman's body finds a critical analysis in  "Hills Like White Elephants" by Earnest Hemingway

 Conclusion

Thus gender tensions should be kept in mind while reading our selections of literature.  Don't be afraid to object to what may be an inaccurate assumption by an author about the nature of a gender.  Also ask yourself whether negative capability actually exists which allows the author to transcend the limitations of his or her gender perspective.  Consider also the roles of the sexes in today's world and compare them with the times being depicted.  Even stories based in the 1930s find a world different than our own.  Consider the classic film A Christmas Story (Ralphie wants a bee bee gun).  The entire controversy over the leg-lamp could only occur in a house hold in which the wife did not feel she had the power to object honestly and overtly.