#ultimately I am annoyed by this discourse

[not-immune-to-propaganda]

Hey remember when a few months ago Pokemon Scarlet and Violet got raked over the coals because it was glitchy and unfinished even though almost everybody loved the character and pokemon designs and the story? And now the wizard game is getting great reviews even though from all I've seen and heard the story and gameplay are generic and the overworld textures looked rly good in Assassin's Creed like 10 years ago. And all that because you were hurt to read posts on the internet telling you to boycott it so you made it the ultimate gotcha to the sjws to cling to nostalgia for a franchise that lost its soul years ago.

No? Ok.

[wolf-skins]

online leftists are some of the dumbest motherfuckers alive

[hadesoftheladies]

I've been seeing some bad faith critcisms on separatism lately, but I will say I don't think it's entirely for no reason. for one, most radblr users don't read theory. it's not unique to radblr. It's just internet culture. most people just reblog quotes. So not only do we have a lot of radblr users that are unfamiliar with radical feminism as an actual theory, but you have a lot who simply don't know how to conceptualize separatism.

I'll be honest, separatism as a subject is confusing. It has many forms, many iterations and interpretations, and it makes sense that many feminists from all sorts of backgrounds get hung up on the details.

So all I'm going to do is clarify my stance in relation to Marilyn Frye's work:

There is no pure separatism. Not in feminist discourse, at least. Separatism as a concept is ALLOWED to be varied. Not marrying a man is separatism. Not living with one is separatism. Not listening to male musicians is separatism. Many feminists can and will disagree.

HOWEVER, I examine the use of separatism, like all other feminist actions, based on how it tackles the primary modes of female oppression by male persons: reproductive, sexual and domestic exploitation. In short, how effective is this strategy in limiting or eradicating men's reproductive, sexual, economic and domestic control over women? This is also what Marilyn Frye is talking about when she defines "sexual access" as the ultimate form of male dominance and patriarchal power. Sexual relations is the primary medium for male brutality and control. Understanding that is KEY to understanding female oppression.

Marriage is historically and institutionally a primary mode of women's exploitation. Just like prostitution and motherhood. Women are disenfranchised, disempowered and de-radicalized in marriages. They are more easily exploited (sexually, reproductively and domestically) and isolated (especially due to imbalance in domestic labor).

I also examine the effectiveness of feminist strategy not only by how it disempowers male dominance and control, but how it empowers female agency. Things that empower female agency are: same-sex spaces and programs, female solidarity, judicial and legislative power, economic power, etc.

By these two metrics, I argue that separatism, that is divesting from male hegemony in any way and centering female solidarity in any way, IS useful feminist action AND a worthwhile strategy BUT NOT a cure-all.

I get a little annoyed when non/anti-separatists discuss separatism as worthless or unserious because it cannot be done in total or even because it is difficult. All activism is brave and difficult because it goes against the status quo.

I won't speak for all separatists, because opinions will vary, but here's what I think:

When I call separatism or celibacy a preventative measure, I AM NOT equating it to being THE solution or THE ONLY solution. Separatism will not stop a woman from being raped BUT IT WILL REDUCE HER CHANCES OF DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL EXPLOITATION ENDEMIC TO THE SPHERE OF HET-MARRIAGE/DATING. The same way abstinence will not make your coochie immune to STD'S, just make the chances of encountering them less likely. All we can ever work with as humans is ODDS not CERTAINTIES. Decreasing the odds of being raped happens when you decrease the OPPORTUNITIES of being raped, and MOST RAPE IS DONE BY MEN WITH INTIMATE ACCESS TO WOMEN ESP IN MARRIAGE AND DATING.

Some of y'all straight up sound like that condescending ad for Bumble saying "You know celibacy is not the answer." It's AN ANSWER. One that works for very many women.

"But what about the women who can't?" Wherever they are, the conversation is clearly not about them. It's clearly about the women who can. No separatist is out here lecturing women and girls being forced into marriages about feminism to begin with. No separatist is blaming the women in Iran and Afghanistan for what the Taliban is doing to them.

Every woman and girl at some point knows that fear--when recognizing the ever-present threat of male violence--while a rational response, cannot be the solution. To live in fear will be akin to not living at all. It makes no sense to tell women to avoid every space a man may be in. Idk which separatist on here is saying that, but I would disagree with them. That would explicitly weaken other urgent feminist agendas such as acquiring economic and political power, so no I don’t think or support separatism in that sense. That is a decontexualized exaggeration of what most radblr separatists are saying. Fear should not control us but IT SHOULD INFORM US.

WE KNOW men are unavoidable. But the legally binding and socio-economically significant contract of MARRIAGE is avoidable for most of us, especially tumblrinas like let's be serious. WE KNOW that women do not choose whether or not they are victimized, but there are contexts and situations where your odds can increase or decrease. How safe a woman is when it comes to male violence is SIGNIFICANTLY dependent on HOW DEPENDENT SHE IS ON A MAN. Separatism is not, for me at least, a conversation on PROXIMITY but a conversation on DEPENDENCY. Something libfems and choicefems are NOTORIOUS for scapegoating. Women are likely to be endangered by a man if they are at his mercy at any given point and in any given sphere. So, the feminist's goal is to limit that dependence, in the work-force, government, and interpersonal dynamics.

The question of proximity is ALSO NOT (for me) about whether or not rubbing shoulders with a man on the bus will give me evil male cooties, but whether or not my female socialization will kick in and I will end up deferring to him and his needs instead of myself. THAT IS THE VULNERABILITY. Not that men exist, but that women so easily resort to fawning and pouring energy and effort into men for SIMPLY BEING THERE AS A MAN.

Women and girls need female-only spaces to combat female socialization. Without unlearning female socialization, female empowerment is moot. That's just the truth. You'll give a woman an education or a job, and she'll throw it all away for a man. We've all seen this happen. Separatism as a transitional phase is still vitally important.

To say that separatists are victim-blaming for suggesting that women DO have some say and some agency when it comes to protecting themselves is just ludicrous and absurd.

Not everyone can escape cancer. Sometimes it's genetic. Sometimes it's the air you breathe. You don't have total control, but YOU CAN REDUCE YOUR ODDS.

That is the point of a preventative measure. It is not a guarantee, it is just an extra safety net. Some men can and will cut through it, but to act like women can't do anything about it but try appease men, I find, on some level, insulting.

Because men are not these immovable or invulnerable creatures. Our freedom does not depend on their sympathy or moral sense. Case in point: history. Rehabilitating oppressors is not what got any marginalized group their freedom. Some of you sound like MRA's where the only chance women have is gonna come from convincing men and I'm just not sold on that idea like at all.

So am I saying we don't need male allies? Also no! I don't see why this has to be a fucking either or!

The primary fixation of separatist discourse should not be "abstinence" but "decentering." De-centering men in our lives, finances, decisions, etc. Because women are an important, perhaps the most important unit in the patriarchal machine. It is our loyalty to men, our worship of men, our efforts poured into men, that have facilitated the exploitation of our own sex. Being complicit doesn't mean we're any less victims. They are not exclusive in this case. When non/anti separatists deride “utopic separatists communes” that is also, to me, a distraction from the main argument. Men drain our resources in close proximity. Living in an apartment complex with only female residents doesn’t have to stop me from participating in the mixed-sex labor market or mixed-sex liberation movements. It just means that ultimately, whatever effort I am putting into either won’t jeapordize me because I am not going home to perform unpaid domestic labor or share my own wealth with a man. If anything, a female-only space empowers me more than not to effect change in the world.

Furthermore, foregoing marriage is NOT THE SAME as foregoing love. You can have a romantic relationship with a man and NOT COHABIT with him. You don't have to buy a house together or make yourself more vulnerable either financially or otherwise for the sake of proving your love or living up to this enforced ideal of what love ought to look like. You can have a fulfilling loving community and life OUTSIDE of romance, too! Like why tf are we still essentializing romance and gender in radblr???!!! Fucking frustrating! Like we're adults, y'all. We actually have to outgrow the Disney bs. Again, I'm not saying that liking romance is bad, but treating it as the end-all-be-all is literally for twelve-year-olds idc.

Instead of arguing with separatists about what makes a good separatist or not, encourage discussion on creative ways to live the rich life you want outside of patriarchal institutions. You can live with your sister and have a male partner. You can co-parent with your best friend instead of a husband. You can adopt instead of get pregnant or whatever. And if you create a bio child it can be a girl rather than a boy. Literally there's more options now than ever and I can't believe I have to keep explaining this to one of the whitest parts of the internet.

More than anything, I wish the separatist discussion would open up women's imaginations to LIFE OUTSIDE OF MEN. To focusing on WHAT THEY TRULY WANT instead of what they can or can't do. Loving a man doesn't mean you want to live with him or marry him. “Having a life” does not have to mean “living recklessly” and too many radblr users equate being in a romantic relationship with men as NECESSARY to having a life in the first place, which is part of the problem! Whether you’re attracted to them or not!

Use separatism and separatist discourse to de-center men from being these beings of ultimate fulfilment. Straight, bi, lesbian I DON'T CARE just make sure you're routinely in a space where you can TRUST that you are making decisions YOU WANT to make and that you are WARY of the way patriarchal society constantly coerces us into being in exploitative situations that benefit men more than us.

THAT'S ALL.

[drdemonprince]

The article regarding about annoying queer people sparked a by now long forgotten memory.

When I went to my first pride I snuck out secretly and thus was there after the parade. Most people were already some form of drunk or high(didn't know that at the time, I was 15 and naive beyond hope)

That was also the first time I saw puppies ever. In retrospect I must have stared and seemed like one of those annoying "no kink at pride" puriteens. They probably just wanted to allow themselves a small joke but what happened in praxis was, that a grown, white man in only puppy mask and boxers crawled up to me, stood up, started sniffing my breasts and when I started panicking and running away he run after me and everyone else watched and laughed. I think I screamed for help or cryed to please leave me be and was ignored but I can't remember much past the fear.

To them it was probably a small joke but to me it set me back for years. I didn't go to pride in that city ever again and took years to move past "no kink at pride" opinions, an opinion I didn't even have before that.

I felt incredibly isolated and wearing a small rainbow bracelet and cutting my hair took so much bravery. And it earned a lot of backlash too?

So often I see coloured hair and pins as this cutesy cringe thing of no consequence, but for me it resulted in hours upon of arguments and insults. It was worth it, because it helped me built my own identity apart from my families bigotry, but it sure wasn't fun or cutesy. Ultimately it led me to becoming brave enough to actually discover who I am and start making connections with the wider queer community.

Thankfully I had no social media accounts or I would have had some truly stupid arguments.

What I'm saying is, yes young queers can be annoying and it can be tiring to deal with them but being an asshole and vilifying them isn't the solution.

Making fun of teenagers doesn't make yourself more valid and doesn't give you the status of being an old experienced queer.

I'm saying teenagers here but the fun thing about queer people is that we can discover ourselves at any point in time. So it's less teenagers and more people newly discovering themselves as queer.

I get how annoying they can be very well now, doing voluntary work at pride does that.

Do many of those we consider annoying queers hold some harmful opinions? Yeah sure. (The amount of white queers, teens or adults, not dealing with systemic oppression beyond their own is staggering and they more than deserve to be called out. Just to be very clear, when I talk about annoying behaviour I do NOT mean microagressions or discrimination in any way)

But annoying behaviour is not synonymous to that and maybe we should all just start being less mean in public spaces? I get how satisfying it can be to get a hit tweet via a bitchy twitter reply now, but quite honestly I am more ashamed of that now than when I was running around in hoodies and short hair being painfully naive.

Because then I wasn't being mean to anyone. I had some stupid takes sure but no outlet. On twitter I was making fun of people to validate my own queer-ness. (Personally I think I was covering up for the fact that I was afraid the queer people I worked so hard to be part of wouldn't consider me one of their own. So I worked hard to show how I'm not one of "those queers".)

Either way, thanks for reading all this and thank you for sharing the article because it is something I strongly agree with. Just let people be annoying without making fun of them for it. It doesn't need to be a big deal.

Thank you for this wonderful, vulnerable, honest message about your slow path to self-acceptance in the face of a lot of barriers, anon. I'm glad that despite everything you've found your way.

Yeah, I think queer people have many reasons to feel terrified at the rising "no kink at pride" discourse, but sometimes when we lash out at puriteens we sound a bit like the childfree people who say that they hate kids?? Like, we're blaming literal children for an ideology of protecting "The Family" that has been foisted upon us.

I'm guilty of it. I was HAUNTED by the social pressure to get married and pregnant and raise a bunch of kids. It caused me massive dysphoria and didn't jibe with my queer identity. But I rebelled against it for far too long by saying that I hated kids.

It was not the kids' fault! It was the ideological specter of The Family as an institution that isolates and attacks all nonconformity and 'deviant' sexuality! Me being an asshole to children was not gonna set me free, kids were even more disinfranchised than I was!! I don't think I was ever overtly cruel to children, just kind of aloof and freaked out by them, but I definitely *did* say some numbskulled shit to my friends with kids a few times. Completely missing how disempowered mothers (and it was usually mothers) are in society BECAUSE of these same forces .

And I think something similar is going on here. Queer people are tired of having "Family Friendliness" shoved down our throats by corporations and conservatives, and so then we lash out... at young queer people. it's fine to have 18+ areas and events; It's very, very important to me that spaces like Furfest have them. But that's not the same thing as claiming young people have no space in our community as a whole. And I do think we need to erode the barriers between the adult and child worlds in a whole lot of ways, and reorient our attitudes toward nudity, sexuality, roleplaying, etc in public life. but that also doesn't mean a pup should run you out of a pride parade actually fucking sexually harassing you.

It feels great to be able to talk about this stuff! Thanks for your message.

[angelsdean]

Honestly I hate that every meta post / analysis / discussion is viewed as "discourse" more often than not. And the idea that one interpretation MUST reign supreme among fandom. That we must all agree in order to get along. Or that one post is the end all be all of someone's takes. As someone who often enjoys entertaining multiple / contradictory takes and angles of interpretation it's...annoying. My opinions also evolve and fluctuate on rewatches / depending on mood / depending on fandom climate at the time / etc.

I like having discussions with friends (sometimes those discussions are public, sometimes they're not). I like trying to see their POV. Sometimes I come away seeing things differently. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I AM more critical of other characters in the moment. Sometimes I give them more grace. Sometimes I'll make a post in a rewatch, feeling big feelings, and then come back later to amend it, with a more balanced perspective. But there have been times when I have been blocked / unfollowed for one angle or take and that ends up not even being my MAIN mode of interpretation but just something I was rotating around. idk sometimes a post is not the end all be all of what someone thinks abt a character / plot point / story arc. Sometimes we can be critical without being a capital H hater. There is room for nuance. multitudes. contradiction. We can have preferences or think something was not portrayed as well as it could have been. We can be annoyed by those things and talk abt them. I also do not need to agree with every single take my mutuals and pals have. Sometimes I heavily diverge, and that's ok! I think having different viewpoints and candid discussions is often beneficial to fandom. But these discussions are not all "discourse" or "fandom fighting." Sometimes people just have different opinions or interpretations. Sometimes what looks like "discourse" is actually just fandom friends discussing differing viewpoints.

As someone who also likes arguing a thesis and citing sources to support an argument and doing analysis and literary interpretation, I can say that even for takes I don't necessarily agree with, effective arguments can be made for that interpretation and supported by canon evidence. I think that's why "open to interpretation" often chafes at some fans. Because it means multiple interpretations CAN exist and be effectively argued. Mine and yours. There is no one singular ultimate truth in literary interpretation. Not even authorial intent. That's the beauty and fun of media analysis IMO. We can each find different meaning from the same source material and diverge. I may continue to argue for my interpretation (in the academic sense of "arguing a thesis") because that's the position I've chosen to align with, but that doesn't mean I think it's the only one you CAN have. And no, not all interpretations are created equal or are argued in good faith. Some ARE more valid than others and better argued / supported. And sometimes an interpretation is only one of many a person can have.

Overall, I don't like the idea that fandom needs to be a hive mind, and that we all MUST have the same opinions or interpretations or come away from the show feelings the same way or else it's "ruining the fandom fun." Sometimes I staunchly disagree with people, especially when takes are rooted in bad faith fanon more than anything that actually transpired on screen. I won't play nice with people that are just Making Up Some Guy to be mad and insisting I must also hate that guy, who doesn't exist. But I can and do have discussions with friends and mutuals where we interpret canon events differently! And I value those other perspectives. They challenge me to question my own viewpoint, to interrogate my takes, to check myself when I get too rooted in Only One Way of thinking. I don't want there to only be one way of interpreting. And sometimes even I will contradict myself and explore other avenues, for the fun of it.

and before THIS post gets interpreted as discourse I would like to issue the disclaimer: that this isn't directed at any individual blogger or any specific post. do not go after anyone. this is just some general thoughts and feelings I've been having about fandom for a LONG time.

[kibor]

(I accept debates without any problems, I ask for education and respect <3).

Need to talk this here because no way i am the only person who think like this, but:

I HATE fans of the 2001 anime when they decide to talk about Seras. For me it's a kind of redflag when I see these guys want to say that the first Seras is better than the Ultimate one because she's more "serious, nihilistic (? wtf are u talking), intelligent" and reduce the 2006 one as a "whiny girl with big breasts who is disposable". I feel disgust, hate and want to murder anyone who says that, I've already written about Redpills co-opting Alucard as a "symbol of macho-man" (even though his character goes against EVERYTHING of that), these people are usally 5 options:

-Only consumed the 2001 and nothing else

-Only saw edits/scenes on the internet, thought it was cool to put Alucard's icon and made a larp about being a Hellsing fan

-Watched the 2 animes and read the manga, but only to do mediocre power scaling because when you actually ask about the story THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER ANYTHING, NOT EVEN THE BASICS OF THE BASICS OF HELLSING THAT YOU HAVE TO KNOW...

-Only watched the Abridged because it's based on the argument of "it's funnier and better than the original!!!" (lmao yes, a parody that has a humor that is the juice of 2010 and that only a few scenes save it - and even with those that are saved, they became EXTREMELY saturated by fans to the point that it's annoying when you go into a cosplayer's comment or Hellsing fanart and only have Abridged jokes)

-Or just an avowed Nazi (but that doesn't mean he's separate from the other options above, because I've seen a lot of these guys in what I mentioned in the 4 topics who have far-right attitudes in their veins)

and realize that it's usually straight men lmao.

But back to Seras, I cried watching Ultimate again after years and she is one of my favorite characters. I love both versions of her character (Gonzo's or Madhouse's), but the 2006 one has my heart because I identified with her a lot at certain moments. Seras was someone who only suffered in her life but continued to be strong and the sweetheart that she is. People think that someone who is not "serious, without emotions and feelings" is not someone strong and worthy of respect. Guys, the 2006 Seras adapts the Seras from the manga. In Ultimate and in the manga she constantly questions about the afterlife (becoming a vampire, since she is dead) and at first she couldn't dissociate herself from the "human" because it was something so sudden, she got a fucking shot in the chest at a time when she was almost going to be r**ed and killed, she was taken to Hellsing (without knowing anyone) and still has to deal with more deaths in front of her (whether caused by her or not). Do you really think she's mentally stable?

IMO, I think those scenes with Alucard where he tells Seras to forget that she was human are very important, because if you look at it from a post-humanist perspective, it makes a lot of sense, because it brings up the debate about "humanity" not being something good outside of common sense but rather as a colonialist and violent concept, which arises with the rhetoric of civilizing discourse against native peoples (as a Spanish-Brazilian, it's extremely sad to see the effects of colonialism, especially against indigenous peoples) . We notice this even more in the current context when we see how society deals with trans people, disabled people, racialized people, women and any social minority that does not follow the correct standard of "being human", all in defense of a human security system (which is just racism, patriarchy and all the ways to maintain the structures of violence that kill us every day). Alucard is disappointed when Seras doesn't drink the blood precisely because he wants her to be strong and finally independent, that she came out of that suffering as a human and can now have a new life (I don't like this reading of saying that Alucard was "enslaving her").

and that's why I like Seras from 2006, especially in the scene where she feeds on Pip to defeat Zorin, you see a new Seras indeed. You see our cute and charismatic blonde vamp finally accepting being more than human, accepting the change and wanting to protect those she loves in that chaos in London. Seras from the OVA has development, that's why I hate the guys who only like Seras from 2001 saying that she had "no development at all and only exists for the sake of existing".

(a bit of "A Cyborg Manifesto" by Donna Haraway vibes but in the Hellsing context)

It's one thing if you like the anime version of Gonzo better and that's fine, I understand and respect it (i love this version of her too), but saying that Seras from the OVA is a horrible, useless and undeveloped character really upsets me.

[firethekitty]

Ranking Every Wolfwood!!

happy wolfwood wednesday! i've ranked every wolfwood and it very quickly got out of hand and turned into more of a character analysis/meta. it was really fun and helped me better understand why i love this guy so much!

yes, really!

i hope you guys enjoy and that my autistic rambling makes sense!

1. trimax wolfwood. yeah he’s perfect. nothing else to say. god bless

while i can’t fit everything i love about him into one post, just know that i’ve written almost 30,000 words in wolfwood (and vash) character studies. so when i say “i like trimax wolfwood” that really means “i am fucking obsessed with trimax wolfwood”.

he’s the perfect mix of silly and heartbreaking, funny and serious, annoying like an older brother, deeply kind, so so painfully human; and a PERFECT foil to vash. simply phenomenal writing.

my only complaint would be that his tits are not on display like they are in the 1998 anime. but i can appreciate the subtly, so this doesn’t detract from his otherwise flawless score.

2. 98 wolfwood. omg hiiiii hehe twirling my hair ohh he’s so handsome what an absolutely beautiful design for him. his nose, his spider-esque shape, his TITS…… they even kept his little whiskers!

on top of an amazing design, he’s a very good balance of silly, irritable, playfully annoying, and serious! he fits pre-trimax wolfwood to a T!

but, as trimax progressed…

he’s cool. too cool. he has too much pull. wolfwood should NOT have swag. genuinely it is imperative to his character that he is, and i say this as lovingly as possible, a fucking loser with no friends.

wolfwood is a deeply traumatized man. he isn’t nearly as charming as we, the audience, thinks he is. no one laughs at his jokes, his insults are crude and immature, he embarrasses himself in front of literal children…

god, he is so painfully awkward. and who wouldn’t be in his situation? to have your childhood stolen and forced to grow up as a weapon? not allowed to interact casually with anyone else during the most important developmental stage of your life?

he's just not suave like tri98 wolfwood is. so, while 98 wolfwood is an excellent character, he doesn’t entirely read “wolfwood” to me. similar to how 98 vash is good on his own, but he’s just not “vash”. this is, of course, the result of making an anime out of a manga that wasn’t even 30% finished at the time. while i don’t understand the reasoning behind this, i know that nightow desperately needed the funds the anime brought in, as well as the motivation to keep making trimax, so i have to simply make peace with the dated characterizations tri98 has.

but don’t get me started on the milly situation. really a godawful writing decision, idk who approved that mess.

3. tristamp wolfwood. he is so bullyable. he’s like a sopping wet cat. absolute fucking dweeb.

i debated this for a long time—whether i should rank tristamp wolfwood above tri98 wolfwood. and i asked myself, do i love tri98 wolfwood because he’s a good character and is similar to trimax wolfwood? does he even remind me of trimax wolfwood at all? well, not really, he’s very clearly based on pre-trimax, just like tri98 vash is.

ultimately i decided i do genuinely just prefer tri98 wolfwood, but i felt the need to defend tristamp wolfwood because i see a lot of fair criticisms but also really dumb discourse throughout the fandom about him. so here’s my attempt at trying to address these:

so, there are some things i really enjoy about him and some things i really dislike; and, unlike vash, most of these criticisms are not a result of time/pacing issues. they’re easily fixable.

like, for the love of god he NEEDS to get sillier. they got the loser part down, but he’s a bit too overtly sad in tristamp. i think he will be more like his trimax self in season 2, but wolfwood’s humor is in-part a coping mechanism and important to his character. he’s an older brother! he’s fucking annoying! he thinks he's funny when he isn't! we do get a little bit of this with him and meryl, when he's tormenting her at the campfire, and that’s what i want to see more of. even if he’s playing it up, he should be working on getting their guards down, convincing them he isn't going to betray them.

since tristamp takes place in a weird prequel sort of canon, i get that he would look/act younger than he is in trimax. i think he was modeled after the teenage wolfwood we see in the flashback scenes of him training for the eye of michael, where he’s noticeably less outgoing and more reserved.

however, this doesn’t change the fact that he WAS silly as a kid in trimax, before his “teenage angst phase” (hate to call it that when it’s more like a “realizing he’s going to die by the gun and not being able to do anything about it” phase). but he’s still a lot quieter and reserved in tristamp as a kid, so i think we really need to find a good balance here in the trigun adaptations.

another example of an easily fixable issue—i really hate how they did the “vash sees how kind wolfwood is” scene, in which wolfwood gives money/snacks to children. in tristamp, wolfwood already knows the kid is zazie, which tells us absolutely nothing about his character. this scene is almost entirely worthless, only good for reminding vash that he should eat, which gives tristamp its own not-as-good hospital yuri scene.

and, so, about the elephant in the room… i don’t think he was whitewashed. let me try to explain my thought process.

tristamp, as far as i can tell, doesn’t seem to be taking any inspiration from tri98, whose wolfwood is very explicitly a brown man. trimax wolfwood i feel is a bit more ambiguous in his skin tone, which alternates between dark screentones and completely uncolored pretty much at solid 50/50 odds. just fairly inconsistent overall, even on the official manga covers.

but this doesn’t mean wolfwood is white in tristamp, and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have his aquiline nose. the notorious scenes of him in the suns, looking white as a fucking sheet, shows us how a 3D environment can diminish a character’s silhouette and distinctive features.

compare this to scenes of wolfwood in a dim environment, or to the 2D scenes of child wolfwood and livio that i can't include bc i'm only allowed 10 pics. he looks MUCH better, much darker than vash, and as they both should appear in such lighting. it just doesn't add up—he should be much darker in strong light if they followed the same color values:

SO, even though i feel like all of this is more of a technical issue rather than malicious whitewashing, that doesn’t mean i think it’s acceptable. it looks fucking awful, and the lighting system needs major improvement to work with darker skin tones.

and, like, at the end of the day, wolfwood isn’t canonically latino, and he doesn't really have a consistent skin tone either. it’s a great headcanon, one i partially share, but it’s not canon. the only ethnicity that could technically be considered somewhat canon is japanese, as wolfwood was based off a japanese singer named tortoise matsumoto. you can see this resemblance best in early trigun!

and i really need to defend his nose!!! a lot of people say he lost his nose but he didn’t!! i promise it’s there!!! another victim of his 3D model, you can only see his nose from the side or in the 2D frame after he gets his shit wrecked. see how clearly he has a very well-defined nose when he’s hand-drawn? this is what i mean when i say a 3D environment can drastically alter a character’s important features, as much as i otherwise adore the animation for this show.

also, if you think nightow would let studio orange get away with not including his nose, you got another thing coming.

in conclusion, while i think tristamp wolfwood is a great start, he’s just not quite there yet. but i have immense faith that the next time we see him, he’ll look and act a lot more like he does in trimax!

i know this is true, because there are already some shots in tristamp where i’m just like. oh yeah. there he is. that’s wolfwood. there's the guy i love so much

...

well, that was long! this was really fun to write and i

oh jesus christ what the hell is that thing

4. badlands rumble wolfwood. ah, now here’s a great example of overt whitewashing. no lighting excuses this time, just blatant colorism.

even if he wasn’t ghostly white, there's just something about his design that makes me viscerally uncomfortable and i can’t pinpoint what it is exactly. he’s just so… angular. he has no scruff, no kitty cat mouth, his eyes are very oddly shaped, almost no eyebrows... i just really hate looking at him!

his ONLY saving grace is how mentally ill he acts in this movie. and his tits. otherwise i don’t really have much to say about him!

ok, now we’re done! and here’s a handy wolfwood chart i made to summarize everything.

really hope this was fun to read and if people liked this i'd be glad to write a vash version or other characters!! happy woowoo wednesday :)

[anistarrose]

So the thing is, if people ship characters who are explicitly not into romance (whether aromantic or otherwise), that ultimately doesn't affect me on a level beyond "annoyance" — I can blacklist tags, and blacklist or block people who don't tag it. What I have to ask myself every time I see these things, however, is this:

"Does this reflect how this person feels about romance-averse people in real life? Does this reflect how this person treats romance-averse people in real life?"

Because how someone engages with fiction doesn't have to be a reflection of how they treat real people, obviously — and in this case, I would of course hope that it isn't. But if you know anything about what being aromantic is like, in real life or on the Internet... you'll understand why I'm not optimistic.

Thinking two characters are so cute together that you reject a bunch of their characterization to make it happen is just annoying, not a crime! But the second you make the leap to telling a real human person things like:

"I don't care how much you say you're not interested, because you just won't realize that you and X would make such a cute couple,"

or:

"I don't care how much you say you're not interested, because you're clearly just in denial which the Right Person has to come along and fix,"

or:

"But — but — but not falling in love is just so tragic! I want you to be happy, not sad and lonely your whole life!"

like the rationales that apparently motivate so many people to ship? Then that has crossed the line into harming real people.

I don't actually think that shipping aromantic characters is the primary cause in the cause-effect diagram, when it comes to the correlating the shipping with "likelihood to say these terrible, invalidating, autonomy-undermining things to real people." Precisely, I don't think it's a cause to a meaningful degree when you compare with the opposite direction — I think people who say these things to real aromantics (or anyone else who just isn't interested!), because of what they think about these real people, are in turn more likely to think amatonormative things about fictional characters. I think that there exists a feedback loop to some extent, because fiction can influence people's beliefs to some degree, but it's not symmetric. Real-life amatonormativity causes mass amatonormativity in fandom spaces.

So... at this point, do you see why aromantic people in fandom get a little defensive about aro characters, and about other characters who overlap with aro experiences? You see why we get kind of pissy when people very selectively throw a very specific part of their characterization out the window? You see why we maybe don't want to associate with those people? Why it makes us so uncomfortable?

"Stop shipping romance-repulsed characters," in my opinion, is a understandable outcry from the community that I obviously sympathize with — but it nevertheless conceals the core of the issue, especially from non-aromantics who aren't living with amatonormativity shoved down their throats at all times, and therefore might not be able to read between the lines. At the core, this isn't actually a debate about the morality of shipping in fiction, despite overlap with that discourse on the surface.

The real cry for change isn't "stop shipping that character." It's "start accepting me for who I am, without trying to either undermine or mourn it at every opportunity." Because at the moment, the overlap between people who erase fictional aromanticism and real aromanticism is significant — and even where they don't overlap, you know what? Romance-averse folks just trying to live in peace can't fucking tell the difference.

[worstcharacterpoll]

WELCOME TO THE WORST CHARACTER POLL

Hello tumblrinas. I have seen a lot of character polls where people vote for the characters they like the most out of a given bracket, or that they think best fits a category. However, I haven't seen a poll yet for the most hated motherfuckers out there, even though this website has dedicated tags for hating on specific fictional characters. So I thought it would be really funny if I hosted one.

The brackets are not currently set. I have a few characters in mind already, but not enough for a full bracket, and I want more varied opinions. So I am calling on you, dear Tumblr user reading this, to send me the characters you fucking despise and want to see fight other hateable characters to the death. The size of the bracket will depend on how many characters I get, although I doubt it'll be larger than 64.

General guidelines for submissions:

Fictional characters only.

Please give a short explanation as to why the character is hated. I don't know every media.

I don't really want to include characters that are heavily associated with real-life bigotry, to keep things light-hearted

Soft ban on characters whose main trait is that they're like a shitty parent or politician or something, because there are a lot of those and they're hateable pretty much by default. If I didn't do this I feel like at least half of the tournament would be Ozais and Bill Hawkses, which is kind of boring.

I'm less interested in characters who are like, well-written villains, or "love to hate," or designed to be hateable. I'm more looking for characters that piss you off because you don't like how they're written, or they're annoying, or they're supposed to be sympathetic but you hate them anyways.

These aren't particularly hard and fast "rules" (except for the first few); like, I already want to include Walter White which kind of violates the last rule. Exceptions can apply if it's funny enough, I think. But thats for me to decide >:)

Also, just to be clear, when voting, you should be voting for the character you hate more. Winning this poll will be the ultimate dishonor. Characters nominated will already be widely hated.

So... I hope for success in this endeavor! And please don't bring actual fandom discourse into my inbox

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hello :-) I was just wondering if you have overall thoughts now on how you feel about The Drop in series one now we’ve seen all of Louis’ perspective on what happened?

I’ve been mulling it over (and trying to separate it from the fact I find the discourse in fandom about it (Lestat) annoying). I can see why the show runners wanted to do it; it makes the relationship’s toxicity much more clear and Lestat was abusive in the books, just not as clearly as 1x05 lays it out. So I can see why they wanted to give Louis (and especially Claudia) that much more motivation. I did also find Sam’s reasoning - that it’s important to show Lestat’s underlying toxic masculinity more clearly - compelling too. But I also just don’t like that they did that to Lestat. I do think it’s something that changes who he is and what he’s capable of. But maybe I’m just too much a Lestat girl and it is better for the story and it’s actually just laying out some difficult truths about him in a way that’s not comfortable. Obviously he’s a monster, even if in the books he’s a monster that generally tries his best to help and care for those he loves. Where do you land on it?

(I totally understand if you don’t want to open this can of worms, but I’d be interested in the discussion or you pointing me in the direction of your previous thoughts if that’s easier)

Hey!

All good. I have talked about this a few times, so I'll try to... condense where I am at this moment :)

So, re that "toxic masculinity" and the arc they're aiming for... I think it's important to remember here that Akasha does aim for Lestat as her tool because she does see "everything wrong with the males" in him. So that arc makes a lot of sense for them to set up.

Ultimately this is what she misjudges Lestat on though, and why she, why her quest fails - he actually isn't, and he turns against her because he isn't.

I said it before, the abuse is in the (first) book - but not at this level. And not with the added layer of domestic violence, and I think that level will come back to bite the show in the ass again and again (and the fandom is a mess because of it), because what the show showed - and what they let stand for almost two years - is something decidedly different than "two vampires fighting". Which we're supposed to take away from it now. And which is "only" the inside part of that... fight.

The outside has been hinted at in the video with Sam you're referencing now as well, totally apart from the missing blood everywhere which makes the scene unlikely to have happened as shown, there was also the hint re... something else, that Sam caught himself on. I have theorized early on that the outside might be connected to Amel, and I do think that might hold true. Which is no excuse, btw, since Amel uses certain skills and tendencies. We'll see.

So now the drop.

I am not sure if we have seen all, tbh. There were comments about something about the "blood of Akasha" that was cut from that scene, for example. It would certainly makes sense with the tower scene. Also Lestat being so frustrated with Louis and whatever discussion they had up there to drop him? Still doesn't make sense to me, but I guess that's more or less confirmed now. Still reeks like the tower drop parallel to me (that we might get in s3, who knows).

I think there is something quite powerful they could do with the drop vs certain upcoming book canon "flying scenes". I know some fans said that they destroyed that scene with 1x05, but I actually disagree. The level of trust needed would actually only enhance where they are with each other then, but we'll see.

So. After the comments re "toxic masculinity" etc (mostly by Sam) it made click for me.

I think I know why they're doing this, I think I know how they'll spin it. But I don't particularly like it.

Still, it will likely work. In the end.

After a lot of (fandom) pains.

[feminisedlad]

you cant say trans men are affected by misogyny but also you cant make up a new word because what trans men experience is just transphobia and misogyny but also if you say trans men are affected by misogyny its misgendering and youre a terf and you think trans women arent affected by misogyny. because ultimately everything that has happened in a trans mans life is actually secretly about trying to ruin trans womens lives and misgender them. checkmate transandrobros 😏

ill be real, i see the most annoying posts about it from trans men who think theyre defending hypothetical trans women by having slap fights online

i do dislike the catty meangirl baeddel-lite posting you sometimes see on here (where a distaste for trans men is presented as ironic despite OP clearly meaning every word). but the most virulent identity testing seems to come from other trans men

like if im fighting online, a trans woman will mock me for being a cross-dresser, or say i have a misgendering fetish or whatever. but its the trans guy who says im A Danger To Women by existing, hes the one who will tell me im a Traitor To Other Trans People.

i dont say this to paint a target on trans men, of course, because it all depends on who youre around and what you see. but i think its less about, "we think you're ruining trans women's lives," and more about, "it annoys me to see a trans man identify with his birth sex at all, stop doing that, youre making me dysphoric." the last part is unsaid but if you look at the way people argue, you'll realize that's a common undercurrent.

really i am starting to think this whole discourse is a proxy argument for "is secondhand dysphoria real." i think when trans men relate to their birth sex, it makes other ppl dysphoric: trans men who are trying to reject that same birth sex, and trans women who want to reject THEIR birth sex. in that framework, anyone who does the opposite is threatening their sense of gender

"if trevor's AGAB affects him to this day, is he saying that mine affects me? fuck him!" that's it, that's the whole argument

[skywalking-through-life]

what ship do you hate most?

LOL, oh my anonymous friend, I wondered if anyone was going to ask me this. I'm going to try to answer without opening a can of worms about my opinions that I don't know if I'm brave enough to crack open, but we'll see where this goes. This answer - even more than usual - is probably going to be long.

Okay.

I don't hate any ships.

I know that some folks may not believe me, but I genuinely, 100%, I do not. And will not!

Are there ships I don't understand, or don't find appealing, or find disturbing? Yes, very much so! I personally am usually squicked out by ships that are incestuous, ships between an adult and a child, ships where there is a clear and dangerous lack of consent, and ships that are shipped because the person doing the shipping wants to 'punish' or bash one of the characters, so they ship them with whoever will give them the worst time. I have very little patience for stories where the people in the ships cheat on or betray one another in some way as a feature of the relationship, and tend to roll my eyes when I see people use them to vent their feelings about other people's ships. I don't like ships that feel one-dimensional, and I don't tend to like ships absent passion.

But while all of that might annoy or baffle me, dislike of certain pairings or tropes isn't hate, and is small potatoes compared to what I see as a MUCH larger issue.

And that - what I DO hate - isn't any particular ship, but the culture of extreme, sometimes violent, often thoughtless and self-centered emotionalism that (unfortunately) has always been a part of shipping. Ship wars, pro vs anti ship discourse, and the idea that our feelings about the fictional characters we love and hate should somehow translate to how we - REAL HUMAN BEINGS - treat each other; all of this worries me deeply because in this I see the REAL evils of the REAL world bleeding into fictional ones. Hate is a powerful emotion, and to see it applied to real people because of fictional interests? I abhor that - and all it has historically led to - in my very soul.

Whenever I hear about people getting death threats in their inbox for liking/not liking/not having the correct opinions about a ship, whether 'problematic' or otherwise, I genuinely feel sick to my stomach. I understand loving something so much you want to defend it against any perceived attack; I understand thinking something is so evil that it needs to be spoken up against. But I do not, and never have, understood how and why so many folks apply that deep seated anger to FICTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. Our world is a beautiful and terrible place, and is so wide and complex - wider than the margins of any book, or the frames of any film. Surely we can better spend our passions out there, on the thousands of issues that deserve our attention, our care, and our hearts, rather than in here, on each other, over things that do NOT matter at the end of all things?

And so the end - the ultimate, the core - of this issue for me is this: hating a ship, or participating in ship discourse of some kind, would require me to let fictional worlds have access to my anger, no, to my real, roaring RAGE; to the messy parts of myself and my complicated relationship to the real world that I come into fictional worlds to write myself free of. And I just don't believe there is a place for that kind of vitriol in spaces that are, for me, meant to be joyful and liberative.

[ingravinoveritas]

regarding the post today about Anna's nasty comments, "jokes" etc about Michael's appearance in the last few years. Do you think there is genuine reason to feel worried about him and what it may be doing to his mental health overall? What I mean is I am starting to worry and then it makes start to spiral a bit and think that if he stays with her longer that the possibility of her "soft bullying" will escalate into actual abuse and I really don't want to think like that but it really makes me worry for him. Please tell me what you think and should I just take a step back and not think on it too hard (am I?) If you agree with me though, what do you think can be done to help him? Like as in a safe way for him to break up with her? I appreciate whatever you can do to help ease my mind at least.

martinsharmony replied to your post "So for those who haven't seen, AL posted a new..."

I have to wonder about Michael's state of mind. He has said he has his own body issues and has struggled with depression etc. The fact that he is "letting" her do this makes me worry about him a little. The fact that he's not standing up for himself and setting a boundary. From my own experience, all of this is okay, until it's not. My heart goes out to Michael. Of course I don't know the real truth. But I see a little of myself there. I recognize it.

(Grouping these two together due to having similar themes.)

First, I am glad that you felt comfortable enough to message me about this and share your thoughts. But I think there are a few things going on here, and it's important that we have some perspective. When I started responding to asks and questions about Anna on my blog four years ago, it was largely as a counter to what many of us were seeing the fans do, which was idealizing Michael and Anna's relationship and making it into some sort of fairy tale romance. Many of us could see things that did not seem to hold true to this narrative, but were afraid to discuss it openly. So the discourse became about open and honest conversations and speculation, and since GO 2 came out, that discourse has only seemingly increased (if the Asks and Anons in my inbox are anything to go by).

To your comments, @martinsharmony, these are some very good points you are raising, and I'm sorry that you see yourself in Michael's shoes. I think there's a chance many of us do, and is part of why we have the strong feelings we do--one way or the other--about this situation. I think a lot of us see Michael's visible unhappiness and are jarred by the sharp contrast between that and the narrative of him and AL being "madly in love."

I do, however, think there is a real risk of taking that line of thinking so far in the opposite direction. That is, if it's not okay for fans to assume that everything is perfect and wonderful and the absolute best with Michael and Anna's relationship, then it is also not okay to assume everything is the absolute worst, because extremes in either direction are not a good thing, and reality often exists somewhere in the middle. Reality and relationships are also infinitely complicated, which means that there often are no easy answers.

Also, because things are not ever truly black-and-white, I think it's important not to conflate being an unpleasant person with being an abuser. There tends to be an assumption that an abuser is mean and nasty all the time, every day, but so many abusers are viewed as "the nicest person you ever met" by everyone but the victim, which is how they are so often able to get away with what they do. Conversely, someone (such as Anna) might be self-absorbed, immature, and annoying, but that does not make them an abuser.

Again, in no way, shape, or form am I saying that it is a bad thing to care about Michael, or to want him to be happy. But what we are ultimately talking about here is Michael's agency--that is, his right to make his own choices, and to deal with and feel whatever he feels about the consequences of those choices. By either romanticizing or catastrophizing his relationship with Anna, we are unintentionally removing that agency. We have to remember that Michael is an adult man who has been in many other relationships in his life, and has navigated those (with varying degrees of success) on his own. So while we can have conversations and engage in discussion here, it is very much not appropriate and not our place to intervene with any of this personally or to try and facilitate the breakup of Michael's relationship.

Remember, too, that Michael has people in his life that he can trust and confide in--his parents (who are still alive and live near him, bless them), his sister, his friends. And he has David, of course, which we know is a beautiful thing. He and David have gotten immeasurably closer over the last four years and it is genuinely heartwarming to know that he can turn to David. The point here is that while we are fans of Michael's, we are not his family nor his friends. But Michael is not alone in this, and has support available to him, and that is something to be grateful for.

Going back to my previous comments about agency, one of the things that I know I love about Michael is that he is always going to do what he wants to do. He has reasons for doing those things, which means that if he is still with Anna, there is a reason for that (even if it is, as many of us believe, due to wanting to be there for the kids). And if/when Michael should decide to break up with her, there will be a reason for that as well. The most important thing, however, is that it's his choice. That if he decides he's made a mistake, it's his mistake to own, and not something for us to save him from.

I hope this has helped to put your mind at ease. I also want to make it clear that I absolutely do not have all the answers, and this (like all my posts) is my own opinion. Taking a step back might still be a good idea, as we can all find ourselves becoming too invested from time to time, and it is good to take a breather on occasion and find perspective. Glad as always for my followers to share their thoughts on this post as well...

[scoobydoodean]

I have some half-formed thoughts about the Sam / Dean autonomy discourse that I wanted to share and hear your thoughts on.

I agree that Sam is certainly not the only character who experiences loss of autonomy. I think reclamation of autonomy is the central narrative throughout the entire series (Team Free Will, anyone?). However, I think that the narrative arcs of each character with respect to autonomy are very different. I think that Sam's overall narrative arc is about manipulation, while Dean's is about objectification.

While Sam experiences repeated manipulations by demons, starting of course with Azazel's blood, the visions, and continuing from his childhood throughout season 4 with demons possessing the people in his life and Meg and Ruby etc., he is always treated as a person. Azazel wants him because he admires his stubbornness, strength, and intelligence. Sam would be his second in command. The demons are manipulating him, but they are giving him choices and their goal isn't to remove his personhood, it's to lead him back into hunting and revenge and make sure he develops the skills to be a good leader of hell.

When the angels finally appear in the story and we learn that Sam is Lucifer's perfect vessel, we again see that Sam is treated as a person. The angels see him as an abomination, but moreso they see him as a mirror to Lucifer, who up to that point is the ultimate example of free will and autonomy to angels. Lucifer represents individualism and is himself a manipulator. The angels see and treat Sam through that lens; he is his own person, and they believe he will make the choice of saying yes to Lucifer because of the kind of person he is. Continuing past season 5, other major narratives for Sam are about loss of autonomy through manipulation, namely his possession by Gadreel.

Compare this to Dean, who we see being repeatedly objectified throughout the course of his narrative. From very early on, we see many characters, including Dean and Sam himself, view and refer to Dean as a weapon, a tool, an animal (not to mention the numerous examples of sexual objectification by humans and monsters alike). He is a "blunt instrument" who exists to be used by the people around him - his dad, his brother, angels. He exists to take care of Sam (to raise him so that Sam can fulfill his own purpose) and save people at the expense of himself, because he is not a person, he is an object. This is especially clear when it comes to the angel arc; the angels don't view him the same way as they view Sam. Dean is "the Michael Sword", "the sword of Michael". This is the most objectified way we have ever heard an angel refer to a human vessel. It's most comparable to how demons refer to their vessels as "meat suits". Since angels require consent to enter a vessel, I think that there is still a certain degree of personification to at least the angels' use of the term "vessel". Dean doesn't even get that. To the angels, Dean is not even a vessel; he is a sword. A weapon. An object.

The angels are particularly annoyed at Dean's refusal to play along with the apocalypse because they view him as an object; the fact that Dean is behaving as though he is a person is totally counter to their perception of what he is and how he should be acting. This theme of objectification carries past season 5, particularly with the Mark of Cain. Magnus views Dean as an object and wants to keep him in his collection in the first episode where we see the MoC affecting Dean, and the MoC ultimately makes Dean into a weapon. In fact, it's the ultimate cumulation of how Dean has been treated since his father first put a .22 in his hands at 6 years old and said that the child trying to get his father's love and attention had a "killer instinct".

Anyway. Like I said, some half-formed thoughts. And I'm curious to hear your take.

I think this is very well expressed. To be quite honest, I've been trying to respond to this all day, but I am having trouble picking one train of thought without immediately thinking of 7 other bunny trails of thought. There is something about the entire "autonomy discourse" (or multiple somethings) that leaves me very bothered in a way I haven't been able to put my finger on, perhaps partly because the topic is so broad, and contains so many little intricacies, but I also think it's something about the framing? I'm happy to share some thoughts as soon as I can refocus and figure out how to unpack some of what I'm thinking, but I also think what you've written here deserve a chance to be absorbed on it's own without any additional commentary from me. ❤️

[crystal-overdrive]

I don't want to get too hard into fandom "discourse" or whatever, but I've seen a couple posts recently that have rubbed me the wrong way. Folk seem to be annoyed that there aren't enough fan creations catering to their specific headcanons, and like, I get it, I'm in TavTash there are like five of us, but the way it comes across is so entitled and derogatory. First of all, fanart and fanfiction and all the wonderful things people make and share on here are not "content" (that's the word I've seen used a lot). They are not here for you to consume and move on. No one is getting paid. You are not entitled to our work. This is all done out of love. Because of that, people are catering to their own tastes! Like, Towards Tyranny is my stupid power fantasy where I get to forget about some of the moral and spiritual issues I'm dealing with in my real life and go "what if evil and fucking Enver Gortash huehuehue 😈". The fact that some of my readers have seen their own issues with cult-like organisations in the fic or that it's contributed to a changing perspective of female characters and evil for others is incredibly gratifying and encouraging, and I'd be lying if I said comments weren't huge motivators for me, but ultimately I am writing this behemoth for myself. As much as I love those fellow fans and love talking to them I'm not creating for them. This kind of ties into all the nonsense with TavTash, DurgeTash, 'canon' Durge, etc. Like, please share all your thoughts, I love to hear them, but don't tell other people they're wrong. This is fandom, transformative work: there is no canon once we take the work into our own hands. It's all valid, or, if you care about authorial intent, none of it is. So it doesn't matter. We're all as wrong or right as each other. If you want your headcanon enshrined in art, go and make it yourself! You have a device you can type on you made those posts with it, write something!

[scarletmaster143]

Okay here we go

The Barbie Movie 2023: a transcendental experience

I would like to preface this by admitting that I cried essentially throughout the entire movie. I was crying in the first twenty minutes when Barbie entered the Real World and found that it was the complete opposite of BarbieLand. Several other people have made this comparison but the scene where Barbie gets catcalled and harassed on the street, where she feels too conscious about everything (the tea scene with Ruth especially) is so vital because that is how every young girl I have met has felt when they begin puberty. Ken, of course exemplifies the masculine perception, the confidence and esteem that comes with realising that "Men rule the world". The way he is not a bad character but the draw of power is so strong even for someone as "accessory" as a Ken doll and so he goes along with the patriarchal system. Barbie feeling utterly lost after learning that she has not been in fact empowering women as she had thought, rather she was a "fascist". My take is that the criticism against Barbie is valid in that there is little diversity among the dolls and yes there are certain things that can be improved upon. However it is parallel-y true that Barbie can be ANYTHING. Especially in a world where success and happiness have come to be defined by such limited criteria Barbie rightly points out that most girls are ordinary, they are not scientists or presidents or nobel prize winners, however that does not mean they are unworthy of consideration, of respect and of care.

I am unsure what is the broad internet verdict on Barbie but I do believe that the movie encapsulates a very specific feminist experience where it's not that men are at fault for everything, Ken does ultimately admit, along with the directors of Mattel, that he does not want to be in power all the time. However, Gerwig refuses to dictate how men should behave, they will have to go to the Real World themselves and figure it out. Barbie however gets to learn that just saying "I don't want anything to change" does not stop things from changing. As someone who uses the exact same phrase several times, it hit me hard when, despite her best efforts, things kept changing. The loss of control and increasing uncertainty that adulthood brings is enough to make anyone into a Depression Barbie (complete with BBC Pride and Prejudice) but Gerwig also says that just because things are changing does not mean that we are simply helpless. We have people around us, mothers and grandmothers and daughters and Weird Barbies, who are there to support us. America Ferrara's rant about how women can never be perfect or likeable is a cinematic masterpiece- it reflects the constant discourse around what it means to be a modern woman and ultimately puts forward that women can be "anything", they don't need to be only perfect- if nothing they do is perfect then there is no need to desire perfection, they can remain as they are. Sasha was a surprisingly heartwarming character, I was fully expecting her to be annoying. All the Kens were hilarious, of course, the little Sex Education cast reunion was adorable. The style of the movie may not suit everyone's taste, it is loud, over the top and camp as fuck, everything is a reference, the fourth wall is essentially non-existent. But at its core the Barbie Movie is a lesson in growing up- it is a tale of someone who has to find herself and accept herself before becoming a human. Interestingly, Barbie reflects adolescence quite literally (I was half expecting Gerwig to put in a menstruating reference, but it makes sense that she didn't, considering the no-vagina thing) and the last scene where she asks to see her gynecologist is not only symbolic of her becoming a human but also of her becoming a woman. She is a doll in the beginning like pre-adolescent girls are often called but then she goes through terrible things where she is not fully doll, but not fully human, and lastly when she has become human, shedding her doll part. Adolescent girls are rarely allowed to be anything other than perfect "dolls" even when they are having the most terrible period of their lives and Barbie's constant desire to make things return to as they were shows how she also wants to remain a doll, but once she accepts that things need to change she starts shedding her doll nature and starts becoming human. This is still a sad process but now Barbie knows (thanks to Ruth) that no matter what she will be okay as a human.

In conclusion Barbie is not a movie that is of the feminist genre, at least not to me, rather it is a coming of age story for some of the most iconic characters in pop culture.