#thinking about the thing anon said abt them being accused of being in a gay relationship by the tabloids

[cruyffista]

the dynamic between antonio cabrini and paolo rossi is so interesting to me.. like you have cabrini who was literally nicknamed italy's boyfriend, a handsome up and coming star for the italian national team and then you have rossi, who was in a disgraced position coming into the '82 world cup who is essentially seen as a matchfixing cheat but then through his amazing performance at the world cup was able to redeem himself and like despite all that they were apparently good friends. much to think about

[relaxxattack]

hi im asking u this bc u seem to be bee duo enthusiast so

ive been calling c! beeduos relationship platonic because i thought that was what their cc’s said, and i thought they had said that they were uncomfortable with ppl shipping the characters. But ive seen a lot of posts that say their relationship is canonically romantic? and i absolutely do not want to come across as homophobic by watering down a mlm relationship to just friends because that happens so much in media so.

what is the canon state of their relationship / ur opinions on the platonic thibg

dont worry abt answering if u dont want to!! i see a lot of differing opinions and i trust yours :)

aw it’s totally fine, im flattered you asked me about this!

let me put it simply: it’s a whole mess, lol.

first im going to talk about what’s happened fandom-wide that caused differing opinions, and then i’ll explain my own opinion/interpretation. :]

(this got really fucking long im so sorry)

ranboo and tubbo initially proclaimed the relationship was romantic, specifically in argument with the wiki editors who had set it as platonic by default. (you can see this in the vod where they decide they’re canonically married— it’s very funny. chat tells them the marriage is already on the wiki, they check, tubbo is jokingly offended that it says platonic and asks if he needs to up the romance).

tubbo also makes jokes about adultry, which sort of implies the relationship is not necessarily a platonic one.

(theres definetly more in that stream alone but it’s been a long time since i watched it so i don’t remember a lot of it.)

the wiki, because of this, suffers from going back and forth on platonic and romantic, seemingly unsure where the joke ends and the canon begins, or if its canonically a joke! a mess, as you can already tell.

this gets more complicated as the marriage bit goes on: outsiders, such as phil and scott, both at one point say “platonic marriage”, which then ranboo and tubbo agree with. however, when chat asks them if they’re platonic, they say the opposite. so there is a lot of confusion there.

there’s also the difficulty of being able to tell streamers and characters apart. ranboo and tubbo both don’t like being shipped irl, and that’s their boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed. (they’re also minors, but tbh when they’re 18 in a year i will still be following their boundaries regardless of their legal age).

due to people not wanting to be accused of minor shipping, they started adding the platonic tone indicator to most of their drawings— basically a way of saying “no homo”. meanwhile, tubbo frequently on stream flirts with ranboo and makes quite a bit of nsfw comments towards him that are frankly hilarious.

this goes on for a while with nobody really sure what’s canon, but a lot of people assuming it’s probably platonic, until: the drama of the mods night. a few mods dmed all the wiki editors telling them ranboo wanted his canon character relationship officially set to platonic.

unfortunately for those mods; the very same day, a few hours later, ranboo on stream makes fun of puffy delivering him and tubbo “friendship flowers”. because, and i quote, “bruh. we’re literally married. this must be how the ancient greeks felt.”

in case you don’t know, the internet often jokes about how historians will call ancient greeks ‘very good friends’ when they are quite obviously gay. so in this context, ranboo is joking that people will call him and c!tubbo, who are married, “close friends”, when he doesn’t think they are.

basically, ranboo canonized romantic bee duo, the very same day the mods told everyone he’d wanted a platonic one.

chaos and drama immediately erupted everywhere. on tumblr, we were talking about how weird it was of his mods to do something like that without asking him first. we ALSO talked about how weird it was of them to assume that ranboo can’t make his own decisions, or assume teenagers cannot be in relationships without it being sexual. twitter did the same thing but in the opposite direction: called ranboo mods homophobic, or said they were mad ranboo felt pressured into making a romantic relationship canon ‘just so people could have mlm rep.’

i dont want to go into detail about the drama that happened that night because apparently official people follow me and i dont want to stir it up or have them come “clarify” things. im just saying what we talked about.

ranboo in typical ranboo fashion apologized quickly and seriously. he was deeply sorry for possibly offending anyone with how he’d portrayed his rp relationship with tubbo, and he also assured everyone the mod thing was just a miscommunication.

he said he would talk to tubbo and they’d decide once and for all whether it was platonic or romantic, and then announce so everyone would know.

it’s now been a few months and we've had no word from them on that development. we still have no clue.

-

now, here’s my opinion:

i want to take ranboos word for it that it was a miscommunication with his mods, but... we had it on good authority from people on the wiki team and people in the discord with the mods that (while it was happening) they were really going after the wiki admins, and also made some weird comments about it. that combined with the way ranboo seemingly had no clue (considering he canonized their romance that very same day).... it’s very. sus of the mods.

then there’s the canon we’ve got since then. although occasionally adults in the room have called it a “platonic marriage” and tubbo once (back when it first started) called it a “plankton tectonic” marriage, in roleplay it’s been... kind of not that. tubbo and ranboo make nsfw jokes about each other in character, and their characters also share a master bedroom and bed in the mansion. there's also the way c!tommy really thinks it’s a romance between them as well, and they agree with and play off that— for instance confirming that they “fell in love” when he asked, or ranboo confirming that they “make out on occasion”.

people will still put platonic on their art and posts, imo, because they’re worried about breaking ranboo and tubbo’s irl boundaries by looking like they ship them. or even just being accused of shipping real life minors. and that’s a valid fear to have.

the thing is though: c!bee duo are not cc!bee duo. they’re roleplay characters. cc!bee duo are not okay with being shipped, but they made their characters get canonically married, and call each other “husbands”. so it’s okay to write the word “husband” in your comic without adding “platonic” to it, i promise.

telling the ccs that their characters have to be platonic is... weird. it comes off as not only babying them, but also as saying teens can’t date without it being gross. which isn’t true.

(this is why seeing people overuse “platonic husband” so much bothers me. like, they ARE husbands. you can just say it. what are you trying to hide...?)

-

do i think they’re canonically romantic? ehh, its likely. it’s still okay to interpret them as platonic, because again, it’s hard to tell where jokes end and roleplay begins. like, maybe it’s jokes in the rp too, and c!bee duo are just friends. friends can and should be allowed to make jokes like that with each other! aro & ace marriages exist!

or, maybe it’s actually part of the rp, and they’re very much romantic. we don’t know!

some people say they could be a qpr (queerplatonic romance), which i could see. (a qpr is a relationship that fluctuates between, or can’t quite be sorted into, “romantic” and “platonic”. people in a qpr can do romantic things while having platonic feelings for each other). in my opinion this is a very valid interpretation as well!

-

CONCLUSION (sorry this got so long omfg):

are c!bee duo romantic?

its likely, but you can still interpret them however you like!

should i put /p on bee duo content?

ehhh? i find it annoying when it’s overused (as do others), but if you’re worried you can. its up to preference. putting it too much is weird though

should i put /p on things cc! bee duo do?

no. you’re not the one saying it so you can’t decide the tone tags for that. imagine you said something to your friend and a random stranger came up and was like “haha but that was /p right...?”

can i ship c!bee duo?

mmm. i’m not sure on this one. they are canonically married and very flirtatious, but the ccs don’t like being shipped and they’re close enough to being the ccs that actively shipping might be against boundaries.

can i treat c!bee duo as romantic?

yes. literally just don’t be weird about it. it’s not that hard! you can understand that two characters are husbands without making it weird

here’s the most important thing: boundaries. cc bee duo still haven’t told us what their preferences and canon is about this whole thing.

right now, i am assuming based on what they already show us they’re comfortable with, but! the second they give us any more info! all these opinions will change!

i am only going off what they do. i would never want to cross boundaries at all. i just wish they would make theirs a little more clear.

..... i hope that helped anon, i went way off the rails... i need to go to sleep.

[tequiladimples]

I hope this doesn't come off as rude, but I saw that you dislike when collision is branded het cause you're not het, but no one's talking about you personally? like for me, I really like collision but I can understand the criticism in a way and that isn't an attack on you (or an attack at all lol). again hope I'm not rude but idk it seems unnecessary to get upset, it's better to take it as constructive criticism

sigh i don't think ur rude but it simply isn't constructive.

look i’ll talk abt this one more time n then i Beg we can put it to rest! (this is gna be a lot of word vomit but if i'm elaborative now i hope i won't have to talk abt this ever again)

i’m deeply insecure abt many aspects of collision. i don’t really keep that a secret. i also know some ppl don't like fantasy, some ppl don't like the kinds of dynamics i like, some ppl don't vibe with my style of writing (hell, i barely vibe with my style of writing). those things are fine. i can't control that and i don't take that personally. the reason why this is the one critique i do take personally is because it genuinely presumes wrongful, harmful things about me and my values, especially when i've made deliberate efforts to avoid writing the exact flavor of fic they're accusing me of having written. just because people don’t mean for what they say to reflect back on me, doesn’t stop it from doing so.

the thing about calling something a “het fic” is that the term brings along certain connotations which i don’t stand by at all and feel deeply uncomfortable and distraught to possibly have created. i’ve gone over this godforsaken story again and again just to be absolutely sure i didn’t actually do so. when people say “het fic” they generally don’t mean “boy meets girl and they fall in love”, they mean “super rude and mean boy meets uptight virtuous girl and makes her fall in dependence with him through manipulation and treating her like shit until she behaves how he wants.” and that is straight up not the fic i wrote. i’m not stupid. i know the dynamic i went with is widely and easily misused and there’s a lot of fiction depicting really bad, uneven, unhealthy relationships through it. i knew this going in, and i’ve tried persistently to avoid making those same mistakes. 

skipping over the fact that they’re both boys (bc duh)--harry doesn't exhibit any real manipulative power over louis. collision harry is a grumpy, fruity little nerd who happened upon a really unfortunate lot in life and managed to trick himself into believing he's evil for like half a second of the story and his resolves crumble like a danish pastry the moment he receives his first hug. he's kind of aloof and arrogant, and understandably hardened from his past, but he's not bad. he's just lost. that's the basis of his character arc. now on the other hand, louis has harry wrapped around his finger starting like chapter 4. harry’s the one who opens up emotionally first, harry’s the one desperately seeking louis’ approval and caring about his opinion, harry’s the one who makes himself vulnerable continuously throughout the entire story. the only time louis makes himself vulnerable on a comparable scale is during the smut scenes, and even then, harry is gentle and attentive and puts louis first. louis is less experienced than harry in that area, but he isn't scared or intimidated by harry, and he has full reigns of the progression and nature of their relationship as a whole. that’s kind of how it needs to go with tough x soft dynamics for the power balance to not feel uneven, and i wrote the story accordingly. if you then happen to still be so blindly determined to associate soft/small with weakness (and thereby uh, womanhood ig) that you still felt like louis had an inferior position to harry solely because he is indeed soft/small, that sounds quite frankly like a you problem.

now, the whole point of louis’ character is that he’s underestimated. sure, he’s naive and self-centered and sheltered from the real world--that’s the basis of his character arc. those things all change. but louis isn’t ever weak. like idk who apparently needs to hear this but you can be small and simultaneously not be a pushover. the two aren’t mutually exclusive. there isn’t a single time louis takes shit in this story, especially not from harry; he gives back as good as he gets every time. oh! and then he literally saves the entire universe and the execution of that whole thing was his idea alone. i tried really hard to underline how strong-willed and full of grit he is to contrast what others think of him. if you think he’s portrayed as a meek and frail damsel, you missed the point. once again, i feel like we circle back to this misconception of louis being kind of naive and physically small = louis being inferior = louis being female. just do some soul searching.

(i could also get into the fact that for a bunch of people who don’t know these boys personally (no matter how much we like to think we do), this fandom is weirdly opinionated about characterization. especially regarding sexual stuff. i know creating a version for ourselves of who we think these boys are based on things we recognize in ourselves or things we find endearing is part of the comfort with loving them. but that doesn’t really equate to actually knowing them, and besides, this is fan fiction; no one’s opting to write a biography, anyway. being experimental and explorative and putting different aspects of their personalities in different lightings is what makes fic fun. if someone’s writing harmful or one-dimensional characters, that’s one thing, and preferences is again whatever floats your boat. but the “out of character” argument feels mostly really strange to me. this is a bit of a tangent, though.)

lastly, the thing is that i will and i do take it personally if someone insinuates that a character--a gay character--that i, a lesbian, construed is a secret vessel for expressing heterosexual attraction. if someone calls louis a “self-insert”, that does reflect back on me. and to elaborate on that--i don’t particularly love to bring it up, but it's quite disheartening to pour personal PTSD experiences into a character and rly put effort into doing it right and justice and underline growth and healing, just to find out people disregard all that completely in favor of declaring that my self-projection lies in the attraction to a man--which is to say, the one thing i couldn’t possibly feel more estranged from. it's so incredibly tactless. i feel thoroughly whiny at this point but how is that not supposed to make me a little sad?

anyway. none of this is to say that you can’t dislike or critique collision. you can. sometimes ppl don’t like things. but i hope i’m clear about where i’m coming from with my discomfort now. people’s preferences and dislikes are indeed not mine to be hurt by, but these things are. this definitely got unnecessarily long and i probably look like i take myself unbearably seriously (i promise i don’t), so i’m sorry. but at least i've said everything now, and if i encounter this sort of rhetoric in the future, i have something to redirect people to. also anon, none of this is directly pointed at you, i know you mean well. take care <3

[triviareads]

Ok so this ask is in response to some of the other asks coming in and before I begin I would like to say that this is nothing personal so don't take it that way.

That being said, I do have a bit of constructive criticism to offer to (partially) you and (mostly) your anons. I don't agree with a lot of your takes but that's whatever bcI don't expect everyone to share the same thoughts. But where I do have a problem is when your anon tried to psychoanalyze why women chose the characters they did because there is nothing wrong with relating to a character bc of their insecurities. But just because you relate, it doesn't mean that "most" of the fandom feels like male heroes are their's and shouldn't be messed with. I don't like how it seemed to put everyone in a box that doesn't really fit.

But I think the worst part of it is when your anons and you act like you are the woke part of the fandom and then proceed to put extreme labels on others just bc of their opinions. I don't even like Benophie but it's not fair to call them homophobic just bc they want to see their ship on screen. Benophie stans are a small subset in the fandom and it seems like everyone wants to gender-swap Sophie but keep every other ship. So this, understandably makes them defensive bc even if logic says Ben will not be gay simply bc that will not ensure a HEA and that's what BR is based on. It's not fair, imo, to put this label on them for wanting what every other couple has.

Also, on a smaller note, I really don't think calling Simon boring or not liking Marina makes anyone racist, it's just their opinion. Extreme labels like racist and homophobic being thrown around for having opinions and getting defensive will not get anyone woke points. While I agree racists do exist in the fandom, just bc they do not perceive a character in the same manner it doesn't mean they are racist.

So while this may come across as this hateful rant I just think you and your anons need to think about throwing such generalizations and accusations around bc while your opinions/fics abt gender-swap Sophie, Santhony, and Marina do not hurt, those do. So I hope you see this as an opportunity to maybe reflect and decide to be more careful with your language. I know this will prob get a lot of hate in your blog, but I think someone needs to say that just bc your anons seem like the ones exposing the problematic aspects of the show/fandom, they too can make mistakes and sometimes take things too far.

Firstly, I don't think this message will get a lot of hate in my blog (there certainly isn't any coming from me), because the people who I interact with, overall, are open-minded people who are willing to change. I know I am.

We are... a portion of the woke part of the fandom. I don't act like it. I'm fairly sure I am, at least. There is nothing wrong with it, especially considering all the interviews I've seen of Chris Van Dusen trumpeting how his show deals with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Add to that the apparently non-color-blind universe, and a family named "Sharma", that's just inviting the sort of commentary the people on my blog engage in, in my opinion.

I do not think I ever called shippers of Benedict x Sophie homophobic. That is a generalization. What is not a generalization is to say that a few (see, I'm learning as per my previous ask) people seem way too adamant about not gender-swapping any couple (I'd be open to Benedict or Eloise or anyone else- I don't really care either way) because it will "mess with the integrity of the love story". Besides, the "wokeness" that the show is aspiring to achieve will only be enhanced by having a same-sex couple, especially considering Bridgerton has already proved itself to be an unfaithful adaption in other ways.

Regarding Simon, I personally find him as a character boring (RJP did the best he could), and yes, I am aware that does not make me racist.

As for Marina, I think I'm more upset with the writers of Bridgerton that the fandom, because they chose to put a woman of color in the shitty position they did, even as they knew this was a race-conscious world. And to see these notions perpetuated in the fandom has just been... yikes, to say the least.

Honestly, I think people should get more comfortable with realizing that yes, they do have internalized racism and homophobia, and not get all hurt about it. As a woman of South Asian descent, I know I have learnt a lot about the sort of latent racism and homophobia I had internalized as a child, and continue to put in work to undoing what I was taught.

As for "taking things too far", that is what fandom exists for- taking things further than what was provided to us by canon. Ultimately, if you are so disturbed/hurt by what I write, tumblr has created a few lovely ways for you to completely ignore me. I suggest you use them.

[ingravinoveritas]

Ok that was saltier than necessary. But when you're an old-as-balls gay then everything is political. Surely you can see that rpf is distasteful to the vast majority of folk anyway?! Putting it under a cut is a matter of courtesy. I still had to scroll to the bottom in order to block your tags. If I had to go blocking every _fandom name_rpf tag it would take forever. rpf alone is good enough but I guess you won't use it because of my shitty tone *sad trombone*

Also your sexuality doesn't matter here whatever it is, because you're still not a gay man, and don't know what it's like. And I mean that as neutral a statement as possible.Flicking your bean to slash rpf doesn't make you a gay ally. Sorry. Do what you like and be happy, but don't try and pretend that this is progressive. I don't wish you ill, it's just frustrating to being able to avoid seeing mlm being fetishised. Take care x (2/3)

Okay okay I checked my blocklist and I'm a fucking idiot. I am guilty of being an technological idiot. But I stand by everything else I said abt mlm rights and using cuts etc 100%. But we'll get nowhere on that I think. Enjoy your slash rpf I guess. c ya. (3/3)

There are so many things I want to say to this, Anon. So many thoughts I had as I read your messages, emotions ranging from revulsion to disgust to just plain sadness. I will start by saying that you’re right about one thing. I am not a gay man. I am many different things, and a gay man is not one of them, that much is true. So I won’t sit here and tell you that I have so many gay friends and what a great ally that makes me, because that’s just tired, and it doesn’t prove a damn thing.

What I will tell you is that I am someone who is on the autism spectrum.

I am someone who knows what it’s like to be different, and to be hated and rejected for something that is a part of who you are. Something that you can’t change, even when you go to bed every night praying like hell to wake up as someone else--anyone else--in the morning, because growing up all I wanted was to be dead instead of being who I was.

I know that feeling very well, and I have found a tremendous amount of friendship in the gay community as a result, friendships with some of the kindest and most wonderful people I have ever known. People that I treasure and cherish and would fight for any fucking day of the week, even when I sometimes barely have enough strength to fight my own battles. I don’t know where exactly that puts me on the ally spectrum, but I also won’t sit here and be accused of not caring about the people I love.

I’m also not sure where you get off claiming that I’m pretending to be progressive. I do not write RPF out of some misguided belief that it makes me enlightened or advanced about LGTBQIA rights. Nor do I write it to fetishise gay men, because I don’t write it because Michael and David are gay...I write it because they’re them. If all I wanted was to see two men fucking, I could watch gay porn and be done with it. Right? Easy-peasy. But what captivates and fascinates and inspires me is relationships. The dynamic between two people, the chemistry, how they interact with each other. Hell, I actively avoided shipping Michael and David when I first got into GO last year, until the Great “He’s My Lover” Incident of June 2019 occurred, followed by the Press Tour of Endless Mouth Staring, and then it was all downhill from there.

But I can understand RPF not being everyone’s cup of tea, Anon. I can understand folks not wanting to read it (even if the majority of responses to my fic have all been pretty positive) and wanting those posts to be tagged as such, so if I failed to do that or didn’t put it behind a cut, then that is on me.

What I cannot understand, however, is you nearly torpedoing any valid points you set out to make by coming at me with some seriously misogynistic language and a clear dislike for women behind it. “Flicking your bean”? I realize that you are not inclined to see the appeal of female masturbation, Anon, but your disdain is more than palpable.

Your phrasing also reduces my arousal and why the thought of Michael and David together turns me on to something completely base and simple...when in reality it’s anything but. So, yeah...I have a bit of a problem with that, and while I know you said that you don’t wish me ill, surely you can see how language like that is insulting at best, and at worst, downright dehumanizing.

I truly am sorry for your frustration and what you have been through, Anon, but that does not give you the right to take it out on me. I just hope one day you’ll be able to find some peace and better outlets for your anger than fanfic writers on Tumblr.

[shelikesthosefunnypeople]

Pls explain more abt the ancient history thing b I’m very interested

Hello anon!

I know this was sent in months ago and I should have replied to it then but I’m a master procrastinator and life has been strange (before coronavirus kicked off I was in the middle of preparing for exams). Anyway, I’m happy to answer this.

I made a post in the distant past, basically saying that I think there is a view that history before 1800 is somehow less intellectual and that this is rooted in sexism. That post is here. Allow me to explain and please bare in mind that this is all just my opinion and is based off my experiences.

Apologies for the length.

Firstly, I love history. I’m a complete geek for it. I think it’s important, interesting and with a bit of luck I’ll be studying it at university soon. Therefore, this isn’t a post where I try to claim that actually history before 1800 is superior... because that’s just dumb. History is history and while historians can have personal preferences over which period they find most interesting, that doesn’t make that period “better” than any others. Literally. I mean, everything leading up to the present day didn’t happen in isolated, distinct boxes and all of it is useful to understanding how modern society has developed.

It makes sense that there is a general interest in “modern history”. After all, it is interesting and we have more information about it thanks to technological developments. The 20th century was a time of massive change if you compare 1900 to 2000 - although, I’m sure it’s easy for us to see the difference, seeing as the 20th century wasn’t so long ago in the grand scheme of things and many people who are alive today lived through a part of it. I’m sure people living in the early part of any century probably thought (if they had access to history) that the start and end of the previous century were hugely different. Nevertheless, I agree that the 20th century is quite profound in this respect, at least at the moment. In 100 years, who knows?

The 19th century also offers us a lot more remnants than its predecessors and I think culturally is still viewed as important. Some people have a rose tinted view of the 19th century. In Britain, I’d say it is seen by those of a certain political persuasion (check out Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg) as a time of peak Britishness(TM) and nationalistic pride... although that narrative is simplistic and disregards the suffering of the colonies and indeed the working classes of Britain, who had to prop up all this “greatness”. Anyway, I’m sure if you found a stuffy 19th century bloke, he would tell you how his society’s morality has gone to complete shambles and that he yearns for a bygone era that only really exists in his mind. I guess that’s just what some people always do. Conservatives, eh?

I’ll actually get to the point now.

At my college, there were two history courses available: modern (involving subjects such as the Russian Revolution and Britain from about 1950-2007) and pre-modern (involving subjects such as the crusades and the English Reformation). I took the latter course and was in a class of 18, where there were 13 girls and 5 boys. Generally, the modern history classes were weighted in the opposite way, which simply suggests that at my particular college with my particular year group, boys had a preference for modern history and girls for pre-modern. I would argue that this preference appears to be more widespread in general, but that’s not definite.

The fact that this difference existed is not the problem. The problem is what people perceived this difference to mean.

I was told by a boy (not a nice boy, so not a representation of everyone) who was studying history that the course I was taking was “the gay version”. That, of course, is a puerile insult for 2020 and highlights his maturity level - all history is very, very gay and if you take issue with that then I don’t know what to tell you. Get your head out of your arse, maybe? But anyway... why did he feel superior about studying a different bit of history?

It wasn’t just him. A (male) teacher once told me that the history course I had chosen wasn’t as useful as the other one and that the only use it had was that I could apply transferable essay writing skills to my other subjects. Which was bollocks, might I add. Unsurprisingly, he wasn’t a history teacher.

So, where were these views coming from? Why was the English Reformation - which was basically 16th century Brexit - seen as lesser than the Russian Revolution? The obvious argument one could make is that events that have happened more recently are more important and have more of an impact today. However, without the events of the years before them, would these events have happened either? Does the Church of England not still exist? Do we not have a statue of Richard the Lionheart in Westminster (because we like giving statues to tossers, apparently)?

In my opinion, the answer to this odd hierarchy of time periods lies in gender socialisation and the propensity of people to view history in the same way they view fiction. We know that the traditional male/female gender socialisation patterns are different: boys are socialised to be “tough”, “leaders”, “aggressive” etc. whilst girls are socialised to be “submissive”, “friendly”, “polite” etc. This is hopefully changing now but inbuilt, subconscious biases about the genders and what quantifies masculinity and femininity are still around. There is the stereotype of boys being interested in war due to the toys they were given to play with. Surprise, surprise - warfare in the 20th century alone was vastly different to anything that had come before it and, as I said, due to technology we have more archived about it. I’m not suggesting that only boys are interested in historical war - again, that’s a stereotype. Anyone can be interested in war, 20th century or otherwise. Despite this, I’m not going to pretend there still aren’t those guys who get waaaay into warfare and that their interest and knowledge in history is largely confined to that subject.

And that’s fine! You know, as long as you don’t start worshipping Hitler or anything equally creepy. People aren’t experts on every little bit of history and are allowed to have stereotypical interests.

Yet, that still doesn’t explain completely why “modern history” is viewed as more intellectual, just because maybe it appeals slightly more to men (apart from the obvious that anything men like is viewed as superior in some way).

As historical societies are notably different to our own - especially on the surface - and because there is so much historical fiction that seeks to romanticise it, it is not massively surprising that many people do see history as an extension to fiction. It’s gone, we live in the now, lots of people don’t even believe history matters. The fantasy genre has a habit of adopting historical (often medieval) settings for its tales. It’s an obvious example but Game of Thrones was a retelling of the Wars of the Roses, amongst other things. I think when fantasy is applied to history it makes it seem even less real than it may already and this can lead to it being taken less seriously (though please do watch Horrible Histories or Blackadder and take the piss out of all time periods because humans of every age have been fallible). Of course, it is far easier to romanticise and play around with times that are further from our own because they are further detached and therefore more fantastical. This plays into post-1800 being seen as more “real” and “intellectual”.

Some men who wish to keep women out of the historical circle accuse them of only being interested in history because of “romance” or “fancy dresses” - princesses and knights and fairytales. This is more a low down problem with internet trolls than actual, published historians but the issue still stands. If you view “pre-modern” history through this veil of fiction then it must seem rather childish compared to the stark brutality of the World Wars and the political rise of the New Right in the West. However, conversely, it could also be argued that the nationalism and legend attached to recent warfare makes it equally comparable to a story. Not a happy story but then, Game of Thrones isn’t a happy story either.

I don’t think anyone serious about history actually believes that the romantic, fantastical elements attached to any historical periods are 100% true. Hopefully, most people don’t see them as proof that being interested in a certain period makes you better than someone who is interested in another period. Any period can be romanticised, including the “modern” one - Titanic, anyone? Not to mention the frilly view we have of the Victorians (although that’s not silly because of the Britishness(TM), remember). Actually, using history in fiction and even making fiction about history isn’t even a bad thing and I certainly encourage it. I just think that the truth shouldn’t be conveniently forgotten by those with weird superiority complexes who think that because The Tudors was all about love trysts and fine clothing, the entire period is “girly” and a write off.

What am I saying amongst this rambling mess? The next time you see a girl going through her Ancient Egypt phase, don’t roll your eyes. Not if you wouldn’t do the same when you see a boy with an interest in WW2 tanks. Whichever way people come to their interest in the past is valid (apart from the creepy fascist worshipping I mentioned). A lot of things in our world are gendered when they shouldn’t be; history should be equally open to all and although there is a focus on the past 200 years (just look at the uni modules on offer), that doesn’t mean that if you are interested in the years before, your interest isn’t valid enough.

I hope I’ve managed to explain myself properly and have gotten through how gender plays into this sufficiently. I know this is a very niche thing to have an opinion on and I’d like to stress again that this is just my opinion and you are free to disagree with me. That said, if you send me hate then don’t expect a proper response.

Thanks for the ask!

[gontagokuhara]

how do you deal with people bulling you, like after the lash out from jump? this isn't really related but all of the guys in my grade think I'm a lesbian which i didn't mind at first because I'm demi but it got to the point where all the guys think I'm disgusting and say that behind my back and its now more of an insult then when it first started out

hey! first off im sorry youre dealing with that kind of thing.

second, to answer ur questions: i think both situations r different in approach to fix the issue, so i’ll talk abt both separately!

so for me, when. well. Everything Happened, i took some time to regroup with myself and figure out how i wanted to proceed. a fair amount of the harshness and accusations were on jump itself, so it wasnt something i directly responded to which made it a little easier to distance myself from. as for the direct harassment i got in my inbox, i made a deal w/ myself to not answer a whole lot of it, at least not publicly.

i showed most of it to my friends (save for the few death threats and the like i got, which i just deleted bc Fuck That lol) and i shut off anon for a bit and said that Hey, i dont want to make this a bigger thing than it is publicly, if u want to talk about it pm me. and no one actually dm’d me about it (unsurprisingly, because once u cant do it anonymously ppl suddenly lose their confidence.)

for the whole Situation, i really focused on myself and reminding myself that Hey, /i/ know what i did and didn’t do, i know that i’m innocent and i made that the most important thing. believing in myself, as well as being able to fall back on my close friends whose opinions i actually valued, that made it easier to deal w everything! and here we are.

as to what specifically you’re dealing with: hi, gay and trans president of my school’s gsa here, and uve got protections in place ! u mentioned u are demi and get harassed at school by being called a lesbian. and while being demi (falling under the asexual spectrum) isnt falling under a protected class, there are laws in place in a lot of places that prohibit discrimination based on real or perceived sexual orientation.

that aside, i cant imagine there are many places that don’t have some sort of anti-bullying policy in place. these policies cant protect u if administration isnt aware of a problem, so as scary as it is u need to let someone know.

my experience w/ this kind of thing is that it’s…generally not as effective to go to a teacher. so i would really recommend going right to administration (principal/vice or assistant principal/etc) to deal w the issue.

this is strictly coming from a place of harassment around being lgbt, but when i went to my schools principal they listened. they have to. if u schedule a meeting with ur admin., lay out whats happening clearly and give names, and continue to follow up, things will change.

tldr: make it your school administration’s problem. make them listen. students have a right for school to be (for lack of a less corny term) a safe place for them to learn.

[ajaegerpilot]

You're one to talk about not making sense. So you admit that you think it's perfectly ok to insult and mock someone like they aren't a person with emotion and feelings solely over their appearance. Something they can't control- as long as they're a man.

i began writing response before xmas dinner w my family, and wrote abt 500 words and then I sat down after dinner to finish this response. and then i remembered. i don’t owe you a response. i don’t owe mental exertion to someone who will continually harass me anonymously despite my asserting my disdain and discomfort with people who behave like that.here’s some thoughts: i’m not attracted to those men (gay), those men give me bad vibes (not an accusation), i am not insulting (asserting discomfort is not an insult) or mocking (physically impossible to do so) those men. those men are extremely powerful (rich white and as you’ve noted male), even if i was insulting those men (i’m not) this would not change their conditions. women and people of colour face actual structural consequences for their appearances which non-disabled white men are immune to (economic opportunities and relationships). powerful white men are often if not exclusively romanticized in media (despite the quality of their person, even/especially when they’re dangerous), oppressed people are taught to not listen to their instincts about individuals more powerful than them at the risk of appearing rude (niceness =/= goodness). for me to actually harm these men requires a power imbalance (this point doesn’t require an explanation. this is why while why I am not insulting these men, i don’t care when people do. this point is why you’re so angry at me despite me not actually being the villain you want me to be).women and people of colour are not permitted as wide a diversity of expression as white men are, this is because all white men (including those which are threatening) are inherently humanized. all these actors lean into threatening/’dangerous’ expressions to look attractive - with the exception of adam driver whom you’ll have noticed I use a picture of a threatening character he plays whom is likewise romanticized. i’m unnerved by these men, and i’m unnerved by people who look at these threatening-looking men are preferred to women/people of colour who are not. like we could be having an interesting conversation about attractiveness, power, whiteness(?), and gender but instead you want to try to prove misandry - just so that you can end the conversation satisfied because you won’t have to think about anything since i’m just being a meanie to three celebs (i’m a meanie to taylor swift like come on yall i really dont discriminate idgiodgijodgf)

anyhow in all seriousness you give me much stronger bad vibes than any of those men even when they’re glaring at the camera like they want it to catch fire. you do not want to have a conversation with me. since i don’t believe you’re approaching me with any modicum of good faith, i don’t owe you a conversation either (not that I would anyway). get off anon or get off my blog. i will not engage with you on anonymous anymore, and even if you get off anon i still will owe you nothing. pretty sure i had said everything i needed to say here, but if anyone wants to engage with it off anon and u know.. actually discuss things i’m not currently in school so I actually have time now.

[bbhl-incporated]

why do you want every kpop idol to be gay? just because you "feel" like they are, or want them to be gay, doesn't make the gay. please understand that.

I can't believe I finally got snet this question!!! Everyone else gets them and I never do! This is a milestone!In all seriousness anon, do you really equate off-handed non offensive jokes to mean I *want* them to be gay? That's silly. I don't *want* the idols to be anything other than themselves. And I don't force my identity onto other people and expect them to conform. The sexuality spectrum doesn't operate on a level of straight vs "non straight"; there are ace, bi, pan, lesbian, gay, demisexual and polysexual people (and this does not even include the variety of combinations of romantic and sexual orientations!) So I mean ...... it'd be really hard for me to expect a) every other person to share my identity or b) "want" someone to be just one specific identity. "Yeah but what about when you said x y z thing was gay" I mean ..... I mean .... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably not a moose. Yeah not everything that doesn't adhere to strict norms of toxic masculinity or western notions of masculinity vs femininity is "gay" and I'm aware of that. Some people even see things typically perceived as romantic, as pltonic and think nothing of it. That's fine, perfectly valid, but always assuming the scenario that makes your fave straight and/or cis is pretty queerphobic. To always jump to the "Straight conclusion" erases the ways in which lgbtq folks actually engage in those actions and behaviors to express their identity, love, and attraction. So yeah I consider in my own mind how someone could do something platonically (I mean I'm aro so 🤷🏾) but I don't try to shout over everyone else when they talk about how it could... you know... not be platonic. And yeah I make posts joking abt how some things could be gay or queer but that doesn't mean I think that's the only possible reality? People are more than their blog posts.In the future I'd rethink my thought process if I were you anon. And I mean that in a constructive, not destructive, way. Many others like you send these asks from a place of heteronormativity and feeling "threatened" to some extent by the prospect of perhaps multiple idols not being straight and therefore "normal," and when they do so, it's pretty homophobic. I don't know you and you're more than one ask, so I'm not accusing you of that at all! I'm just informing you that sometimes questions and well intentions can function as attacks rather than constructive feedback.

[gaygajeel]

hey! i don't know if this is the right place / time to ask, but what's up with the latest "discourse" tag? i don't really know about it and it sounds important with the things i read about. but at the moment it's confusing for me and i don't really understand what's going on

#wildrhov discourse is about wildrhov, who started this mess by going on fairy-tail-salts post abt how yaoi culture is bad saying No, This Is Fujoshi Shaming, And Bigotrybut like people backing fairy-tail-salt such as myself are actually gay ppl unlike her, a cishet women whos. fucking 30 (the issue with fujoshi & yaoi itself of course is it fetishizes mlm & dehumanizes us)started out with memes but now we know she thinks "straightie" is a slur, is transphobic as fuck, accused a bi person (with bi literally in their fucking url) of being biphobic, fetishizes rape, and said she may get the police involved. which, normally i would drop this by now, but god, shes digging her own grave. if she gets police involved they will know she writes porn of teens, aka minors- in canada and the US that can land you in jail. in the US im pretty sure that could land you on a sex offenders list too. besides, shes literally going to the police with the intent of "help 911 im being cyberbullied!!!"what really is telling of her as a person though is her calling her fans "minions", not even respecting them as people.and get this, the "anon hate" shes getting from this is literally just criticisms, while my friends are getting death threats from her side.basically, this has just turned into a big ass mess. ill try tagging everything about it if you wanna blacklist it (its totally understandable if you want nothing to do with it)