#why does society hate intelligent women

[cahirsmommy]

this is my roman empire

[autisticrosewilson]

It's not that I hate fanon or that I think fanon is inherently less intelligent or morally wrong, but a LOT of fanon is based in racism, misogyny, and classism that I feel like a lot of you accept without question.

WHY is Duke (Daredevil, son of a god, has never once allowed himself to be defined by anyone's actions but his own) relegated to a background role, only characterized by reacting to the whims of other bats?

Why is Babs - Birds of Prey leader and backbone of the hero society, tells Bruce to fuck off and die 4 times a day and is constantly ruining her relationships by being biased and unhinged - Gotham bound, the mature responsible mom of the group who never argues with Bruce and never gets in trouble?

Why is Dick, both a tactical genius and master manipulator, a himbo only appreciated for his sex appeal? Especially when he is both Romani (group of people demonized and condemned as hypersexual by their nature alone) and an SA victim.

WHY is Damian "feral" and "uncivilized" despite being raised as a literal prince? Half of you treat him like a sociopath with no hope of redemption for an unfunny three second joke and the other half of you go full throttle into Bruce's white savior bullshit so that Damian can be "redeemed". Y'know when you're not villainizing Talia and acting like Dick is his other parent, actually.

WHY is Stephanie - extremely intelligent detective who can't stand Bruce and has a living mother she loves - lumped in as another member of the Batfam, a blonde ditz who only cares about prank wars and emotionally supporting Tim?

WHY is Cass - intelligent, a grown adult, suicidal perfectionist - emotionally intelligent, primarily existing to support the characters around her, immediately accepting of everyone she meets regardless of her own morals?

Why is Bruce the golden standard? Enough so that though everyone in the fandom could agree that he's an emotionally unstable wreck, being considered "the most like him" is seen as a compliment and not the HIGHEST insult? Everyone would agree if I said that Bruce purposely self sabotages his relationship half the time and the other half he simply does things without caring about the emotional impact it will have on people because he has to be the smartest in the room, but if I said that makes him a shit partner and emotionally abusive parent the fandom would bend over backwards to argue with me.

Why is Tim "the best Robin" when Dick Grayson invented the mantle, it is impossible for someone to embody the spirit of Robin better than him because he made it and he created what being Robin means. Maybe Tim is the best in Bruce's eyes, but what Robin means and who has the right to give it over was a significant thing they argued about. Tim the high school drop out, and yet also somehow the smartest? Tim "the most like Bruce" except no he's not, that's Cass. Poor neglected, abused, victimized little Timmy (the rich boy at the elite boarding school with loving albeit busy parents and almost every instance of him being victimized by another character has either been racist bullshit - The Al Ghuls and Rose Wilson- or a complete 180 for the character that made no sense when examined through the lens of prior characterization - Jason for instance.)

Almost every fanon trope that gets passed around like gospel seems to deliberately push POC characters and women into the background and strip them of interesting complex traits and stories, usually for the purpose of fitting them all into bite sized incorrect quote character types and uncomplicated narrative roles that are not only completely divergent from canon, but primarily exist to prop up the two rich white boys.

Also the insistence that Bruce, a 20 year old at the time, should actually be excused for how much he mentally and emotionally fucked Dick up because really they're more like siblings! While deciding that Dick at the same age was actually the perfect candidate to be Damian's new parent/guardian...have you lost the fucking plot you don't even make sense to yourselves.

Okay I lied at the beginning, I do hate fanon. You guys are so uncritical about the media you consume it is BEYOND just letting people enjoy things and have fun. I guess it's one thing if you KNOW this stuff isn't canon and UNDERSTAND why these tropes are problematic and you engage with it as such, it's fine read and write what you want, but just spreading the same nonsense around and parading it around as "better than canon" (version of the character so bland and boring you've somehow made the old white men at DC look like geniuses in the art of representation) is just infuriating.

[spacerockfloater]

hi! i noticed you learnt about what ryan condal said regarding blood and cheese. it was…something. i would like to know your thoughts on the matter. though it would be completely understandable if you need sometime to gather them together or if you would rather not at all! thank you and bye!

Hello beloved, thank you so much for asking me! I’d love to share my opinion!

If anyone’s wondering, @rhaenelle is referring to this interview where Ryan Condal essentially says he believes that Blood & Cheese’s brutality and heinousness was exaggerated by the Greens in a propagandistic attempt to convince their subjects that Rhaenyra and Daemon are the worst villains ever born, hence why he toned the event down; to show us what he thinks is the accurate version of Jaehaerys’ murder.

Now, I am aware that Condal had already warned us that HOTD was going to be a feminist retelling of the events of F&B, which practically means that his plan has always been to whitewash the everlasting fuck out of Rhaenyra. So what do I think about this?

Well, for starters, I think that Ryan Condal is an excellent businessman. He knows what kind of tropes are going to make the audience engage with his show. He understands that people need a hero to cheer for and a villain to hate, therefore he removed the moral ambiguity from all of the characters and divided them into two categories: the Blacks, enlightened revolutionaries full of passion, deserving of admiration and correct in everything they do, and the Greens, pious fools with a moral superiority complex who are stack in the ways of the past and commit despicable crimes. The average viewer does not possess the intelligence to comprehend that both parties have their good and bad moments, and that they’re both correct in fighting for what each believes is rightfully theirs. Simultaneously, he benefits from the modern trends that want women in media to take revenge when they are wronged and emerge as triumphant girlbosses, because of course a white upper class woman’s suffering in a western world (or Westeros) society has everything to do with her gender and nothing to do with her personality or decisions (even if this works solely for Rhaenyra, because Alicent seems to be held accountable for every single one of her actions). Finally, it is obvious that Condal is trying to appease disgruntled Daenerys fans, so he has rebuilt Rhaenyra into this tortured martyr that wishes to change the world for the better in an attempt to make her resemble her great granddaughter six times removed.

For all of these reasons, I find it very logical that he is going out of his way to minimise the tragedy the Greens experience. It just doesn’t make Rhaenyra look good and honestly, who wants that? The producers saw how unhappy Danny’s stans were when they made her lose her shit; they’re not going to make the same mistake twice. They don’t want their show to tank like the last season of GOT did, so they’ll do everything in their power to keep the audience happy. And it’s working! What’s the last thing Condal says in this clip? “You kinda start rooting for [Blood and Cheese]!” and boy oh boy, the TB stans sure do! Literally hundreds of memes that rejoiced at Jaehaerys’ death were posted on X this week, with tens of thousands of likes. But when Lucerys died, it was presented as the most foul thing to ever happen in the ASOIAF universe. It is the TB supporters that dictate which child murder is good and which is bad, and that decision usually depends on which child came out Rhaenyra’s womb, not let’s say, the fact that one kid was a toddler that could barely walk, while the other was a teenager that laughed at the disabled person he mutilated himself.

It’s all just marketing

That being said, I want to clarify that I understand why Condal and the HOTD producers do what they do, but being a good entrepreneur does not necessarily make you a literary genius. Now, I’m not gonna explain why stripping Rhaenyra off of every character trait that made her interesting is a bad decision and that in their attempt to remove the blame from her so that they can elevate her as this righteous patron of feminism, they’re accidentally removing all of her agency and turning her simply into a victim, because I have a whole blog dedicated to that. But let’s just say that presenting Rhaenyra as this sexually liberated idol that’s incapable of evil, when in fact she’s an entitled aristocrat who’s completely at the mercy of men around her, from her father to her husbuncle, is the most performative activism move ever pulled in recent TV history, as well as pushing the narrative that Alicent suffers from internalised misogyny because duh, a woman can only be good and a feminist if she supports Rhaenyra, not when she pursues her own interests.

Ultimately, I think we just have to accept that this show is not meant for TG fans. We are not going to find any satisfaction in it. Everything that was unique and admirable about the Greens in the book has vanished. Their family dynamic is fucked up, Alicent’s children hate her, Aegon and Halaena cannot stand one another, Alicent is constantly a victim and never someone that chases her own ambitions, Halaena is very vague, Aemond appears to be more angsty than angry, Aegon is a stupid rapist, Jaehaerys’ death was turned into a mockery, Alicole was weaponised in order to make us shit on Alicent and Criston even more and so on. This show barely caters to us because we’re not making them any money.

The reason that there are more TB than TG stans is because (I’m gonna get so much fucking hate for this) most people who watch TV are fucking morons. I swear, when F&B came out 6 years ago, no one gave a flying fuck about Rhaenyra, because we all understood that everyone involved in the Dance of the Dragons was fucked up in their own way and that the message of this story, just like the general message of ASOIAF, is that nobody deserves to sit on that fucking throne. We were all in agreement about that. But then this fucking show came along and all the oblivious simpletons that swallowed whatever the producers shoved down their throats, grabbed the book and decided that “Woah, this book is obviously a critique on patriarchy and Rhaenyra is obviously the victim of the story”! As if GRRM, the man who said that he doesn’t sit down and think “Oh, I’m going to write a woman now” but instead he believes women to be people just like men, with complex personalities, would ever do that. And they just can’t believe that it is possible for book!Rhaenyra to be an evil racist classist full of entitlement! Surely it must be because the Greens are rewriting history! There’s no way GRRM, the man that created Cersei fucking Lannister, would ever make a female character that’s vicious and crazy just because she feels like it! Y’all need to sit down for a moment. I say this as a radical feminist that supports the 4B movement: you’re projecting your own ideas onto George’s work. Not all the media we consume has to reflect our ideologies, but if you think that it has to, then this book isn’t the anti misogynistic masterpiece you wish it was.

Like, when it comes to F&B, I am firmly anti Targaryen and did not wish for any side to win. I wanted them all wiped out to be honest. But when it comes to HOTD, I’m TG basically out of spite at this point.

All in all, I just think that things are going to go downhill for us from this point on. They’ll just keep glorifying the Blacks until the very end.

[olderthannetfic]

There is something confusing to me about older queer people (which is to say, older than I am, at a relatively young 24 years old) who get mad at original fiction whose worldbuilding involves neopronouns. I'm hoping maybe, ONTF, since you've been in queer spaces a lot longer than I have, you can explain why people have such a negative reaction to the idea.

Basically, I'm working on a novel based that takes white-throated sparrow biology and uses it for building blocks in the same way A/B/O takes (now debunked) wolf science and used it for building blocks. This means there are essentially four genders, the two viewed as more intelligent (brown-haired men and women) and the two viewed as more physical (white-haired men and women). Those two groups then get further divided along the lines of 'women are better at making smart decisions under pressure' and 'men are better at staying home and defending the children, as God intended'.

So it seemed natural to me that this worldwide quaternary system would result in at least some languages having pronoun sets for each of the four options. Some languages in real life have more complicated pronoun systems than that, particularly ones where there's a bunch of formal and informal pronouns. It'd also help the reader keep track of who was a part of what group without my having to turn around and state people's coloration constantly. Yes, these people are human, just as humans in A/B/O are, but society is fundamentally very different. I'm not throwing this in to just complicate things or sound smart or something. It's here because my minoring in Anthropology and majoring in Linguistics taught me language usage reflects the needs and values of a people.

The writing group I'm a part of IRL is mostly queer, mostly 40+, with some cishet women who are also present and active writers. The writing group I'm a part of on DW is mostly DWRPers, in their 30's and up, though no older than 50, and entirely queer. I did not expect these to be groups that were uncomfortable with the idea of "different world, different pronouns".

Instead the reception has ranged from suggestions it's pretentious or overthinking things to requests I reconsider doing it. I've been informed this could be seen as mocking the real life queer people who go by pronouns other than she, he, or they. One person asked if this was went to be me "artificially justifying" nonbinary pronouns and implying I didn't find them valid in the real world. That was an awkward conversation, to say the least.

In reality I wasn't really thinking about real life people who use nonbinary pronouns when I was writing. I was just asking, "Logically, wouldn't it make sense for things to work very differently under a quarternary than it does under a modern European binary?" and following my brain along to its' conclusions as it processed that.

I have gotten zero negative feedback from my queer friends my age regarding this. So obviously, generation and the experiences informing a generational context are key, here. I'm just... still lost on how anyone finds this objectionable.

Help?

--

Ahaha. Oh god.

Well, as a reader of sff in the 90s, the first reaction I have to such things is "IS THERE A CONLANG AND A MAP?" Because, man, the conlang people were some of the most tedious motherfuckers I ever had to deal with in sff spaces.

But broadly... I think the reasons queer people get annoyed about this stuff boil down to a couple of big factors:

Disrespectful children who don't know history

Idiot old people harrumphing about "history" they clearly failed to pay attention to while it was going on in the first place

I personally hate being asked to use new words most of the time. A few bits of fandom slang I'll pick up at once, but I'm usually like "Why would I call it 'spirk'? We already have 'K/S'!" *shakes cane*

If you're American, they're your "roommate", not your "flatmate". No, I don't care how much more precise this foreign term is, you pretentious wanker. (But then I'll use 'wanker' because fandom adopted that years ago...)

So my reaction to being asked to say aloud any pronoun not in very frequent circulation in my offline life is "Urrrgh. Do I have to?"

However, the reality is that people have been messing around with pronouns in English since forever. Do you see 'heo' in Modern English? No, you do not! (Not that it was gender neutral, but the point is that even words as ancient as pronouns have changed quite a bit.) The early internet was full of pronoun stuff in MUDs and the like. You had a choice of a lot more than just three in a bunch of these. People besides men and women have always been in queer communities.

So some people like to cry about neopronouns being actually neo, and they're just wrong.

As for the why do you care part...

There is a nasty habit in contemporary queer spaces to act like gay rights issues are solved. Bisexuality? Passe! etc. Gays and lesbians finally got a little mainstream acceptance only to suddenly be treated like the worst of the establishment by the queer youth. How dare?!?! It's even more egregious with bisexuality where the focus of a bunch of queer activism finally swung that way in the 90s... only to be sharply cut off in the 00s.

There's a real "You already got yours. Where's mine?" vibe to some queer discourse today, and it's directed at people who never got theirs. It shows up in demands for mentorship by people who've barely had a chance to escape a rocky start and figure out who they are themselves. It shows up in yowling about this or that bit of queer media we finally got not being progressive because it's the wrong letter of the acronym.

None of which has a damn thing to do with what pronouns you use in your novel, obviously, but I think some unresolved embattled feelings are why some older queer people are very weird about pronouns.

Some of them are also doing the old person version of throwing the weirdos under the bus to placate the normies. Respectability politics became a term long before the behavior was rife on tumblr.

--

If someone really does find it pretentious, though, and not just as a cover for crying about nonbinary identities being fake, I suspect they just remember how 1970s SFF was full of privileged anthropology students misunderstanding kinship systems from elsewhere in the world and then trying to tell everyone how ~deep~ their extremely contrived novels based on them were.

I'm not saying your writing is like this or that every one of these old sff novels was either, but when I hear "anthropology student", I groan internally. It's an instinctive reaction. It's less about the real fields and more about the bevvy of dilettantes I've run into over the years who'll say they study those things but really want to talk my ear off about Joseph fucking Campbell or the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis or something.

--

Those birds are a really cool source of inspiration. Like with A/B/O, the first thing I wonder is how queerness works in that context and how much people like to defy their designated roles.

Omegaverse started on porn logic, so "The one I say tops always tops!" makes sense. When it gets expanded to try to make it make logical sense as a whole world, I often enjoy it, but it can break down quickly if treated as biology is law. I don't know how often the birds veer off of their set patterns, but humans certainly would.

One place where I get a strong "Oh god, this again" feeling from people's plotbunnies is when they're trying to make up a sff society that strikes me as too rigid in a way that real humans aren't. I'll see people using fake wolf biology (not just for horny reasons) but never looking at what's going on with gender in contemporary Thailand or whatever. Like... Le Guin may have made sedoretus feel plausible, but nobody I've ever seen stanning the concept as something fandom should play with has. That's probably because Le Guin was using over-complicated social norms as a thing that breaks down and causes trouble, and "This should be the next A/B/O!" posts are treating it as something that actually works and is a good way to get the pair you don't ship separated while shipping poly.

"It'd also help the reader keep track of who was a part of what group without my having to turn around and state people's coloration constantly."

This, in particular, gives me that cold shudder of recognition from when Homestuck fandom was everywhere and everyone wanted to over-explain those stupid playing card suits and why I should care.

Your concept sounds neat, and I think a set of four pronouns could easily make sense there...

But I also think that if people need the pronouns to keep track of coloration, you haven't set up a system that feels organic enough or haven't given enough cues about how characters are treating each other or why. Use the pronouns too, but just keep that in mind. It's like the "m/m is hard because the pronouns don't tell me whose hand is where" problem. It's almost never actually a pronoun problem.

--

Anyone else have thoughts here?

[askthegirlbossau]

Charlie and Bryce are both women born into a society/were raised in a society that scorns them for being women in contrast to Diana! Does this effect the trinity’s relationship in anyway?

Ohohoho why yes I have thoughts about this

Diana, of course, has literally no frame of reference for sexism besides maybe being a little disconcerted when she sees men. She understands it because when she enters the world of men, she experiences it. However, even when people are awful to her, she's hardly ever in real physical danger, she's an Amazonian for the gods' sake. She certainly uses her power to protect women physically, and her blunt honesty to confront assholes, but it was not part of her formative experience so she'll always be a little removed from it. she provides new perspective for Bryce and Charlie, but on a fundamental level, cannot understand their perspective, and there are some awkward conversations along the lines of "why did you let that man talk to you that way?" And Bryce and Charlie sort of glancing at each other because why did they? But also, that's just...how you respond to sexist assholes? Why doesn't Diana understand this?

Charlie, on the other hand, was raised in a small midwestern town. Though she was raised with loving and pretty open minded parents, I find it hard to believe she didn't internalize some attitudes about women or their 'place.' Not even in an inherently hateful way, but in the sort of way that assumptions about doctors being men or a single parent being a mother can become insidious. When she moves to Metropolis, I think that she be came aware of a lot of her internalized biases, they're definitely still there but she's working on it. Because of her physical strength though, like Diana, she is rarely in physical danger. She experiences more of the mental effects of sexism, like comments about her appearance or assumptions about her work and intelligence. She reacts meekly to this as Charlie Kent, but as Superwoman is able to stand up for herself more. The problem is that she doesn't always realize when she needs to.

Bryce between the three of them has received the full brunt of like. Being A Human Woman. She's hyperaware of her gender (in a way that is unusual and possibly a trauma response) and how it affects the way people perceive and treat her. Her choice to fight crime is made with the full understanding of the gender-based violence she could face if her identity was ever to be revealed. She is frequently in physical and social danger, especially as 'Brycie Wayne,' where she can't use her full abilities to fight back, and on some level she definitely resents Charlie and Diana for not having to 'worry about' the type of violence that is so often targeted at afab people.

And in conclusion they should all get a big hug and a beach vacation.

[theblogwithoutfear]

karen page is so annoying in the show...is she better in the comics somehow or is she just like that

So I've actually wanted to talk about this forever, but I kept forgetting to make a post about it. Your ask is a perfect opportunity to write down all my thoughts. Brace yourself, because I have a lot to say. Sorry in advance lmao

I actually prefer Karen in the show. To be fair, I have not finished all the comics, but so far I think her TV counterpart is a lot better (I still like her a lot in the comics tho, don't get me wrong). The NMCU version of Karen Page also has a lot of Kirsten McDuffie (another comic book girlfriend) in her, which is great in my opinion.

A lot of people find her annoying, but to me it's her flaws that make her such a fantastic character. She isn't a caricature, stock-girlfriend character pulled from a box of tropes; she's a well-rounded individual, extremely realistic, a mirror of Matt Murdock, and a woman with real agency. Her actions have major consequences on the plot. In my opinion, a lot of superhero girlfriends (in comics, movies, TV, whatever) are written more like props than characters, and they don't have any agency or actual plot relevance. Which is why, when a lot of them die, their deaths feel so cheap and inconsequential. That's where fridging comes from. It's been a problem with superheroes since their very inception; and a problem in storytelling at large. So often in fiction, women are flat and unrealistic.

So to me, Karen's heavily-flawed character is refreshing. She is extremely impulsive; she's deeply intelligent, but makes such stupid decisions; she can be hypocritical, self-destructive, and petty. Sometimes she manipulates people, even unintentionally. She's very well-meaning, but constantly makes mistakes. And it's these mistakes that move the plot forward, and reveal important things about both her and Matt. Her actions have real consequences for the story, and she undertakes her own journey throughout the narrative. She is almost as much a protagonist as Matt is, in terms of her character development and growth.

For that matter, every one of the flaws that I listed are things that Matt does too. They are almost perfect mirrors of each other; people who are immensely concerned with justice and compassion, people who care for the truth, and people who want to make their city a better place. However, as they go about it, they stumble and make mistakes and endanger other people. They're hypocritical and contradictory and impulsive. They constantly have to call their own moralities into question, because they almost never live up to their high ideals.

(Also, as a side note, I think many of Karen's flaws—as with Matt's—come as a direct result of all the trauma she's been through: her mother's death, her brother's death, her alcoholism and drug addiction, her dad cutting her off, being framed for murder, almost getting murdered in prison, etc. So I think it's fair to give her some grace.)

But what makes both Karen and Matt so lovable, imo, is that they keep trying. No matter what mistakes they make, they get back up and try again. They do everything they can to atone for the blood on their hands.

I think also (and I'm not accusing you of this, just a certain subset of people in the fandom) that people are more willing to accept Matt's flaws than Karen's—because there's a lot of misogyny built into our society, and there's this ingrained idea that women have to be paragons of virtue. Women, both in fiction and in reality, tend to be put under a microscope and dissected, while men can get away with a lot more. So Matt and Karen have identical flaws, but only Karen gets hate for it, which makes me very sad.

It may be the writer in me, but imo flaws are what make a character—and a story—meaningful. A well-flawed character can take a ridiculous, implausible story and make it feel grounded and real and impactful. A well-flawed woman even more so. I love Karen for the same reason I love Jessica Jones and Wanda Maximoff; or, to go beyond Marvel, for the same reason I love Jo March and Katniss Everdeen and Miss Haversham and Katherina Molina. They all elevate their respective stories beyond the initial premise and plot. Flawed female characters are realistic and impactful, and therefore empowering.

Obviously, to each their own. Some people just find her annoying and don't like her personality, and that's fine. But for me, that's what makes her feel real, and that's why I love her.

[creatingblackcharacters2]

How to spot a Stereotype: An Example

Okay, so I talked about this in my Lesson 6 Stereotypes series, but I feel like people haven't quite... Understood what I meant. So I'm doing a mini lesson/application. First, I'd really appreciate it if you take the time to read the links in my posts, because that will provide you the historical and social context necessary. If you lack it, you will never be fully able to understand this. Remember, all I do here is provide the beginning steps. You have to be willing to do the rest!

One thing I constantly emphasize is that it's not the description of a character that (always) reveals an existing stereotype, but the writing! And again, until you grasp why anti-Black stereotypes are what they are, you will continue to be frustrated with how to avoid incorporating them, both in your writing and in your mindset. I'm going to use one stereotype as an example.

The Mammy Stereotype

"[Black woman character] is very fond, doting, and protective. She's like the team mom of the group."

On the surface, people who are worried about this stereotype will worry, because Black readers have long rolled their eyes and said we're tired of seeing this as one of the Only Options for Black women characters. And we are. Here's the disconnect: the attributes are not what we're tired of, but how they were utilized in the writing- often by non-Black writers!

Mammy: put simply, the caricature of the Mammy is the Black nursemaid that would take care of the Master's white children and the Mistress, prioritizing them above the well-being of herself, her own children, and her own community. She is fat and homely (so as not to attract the Master from the Mistress), unthreatening, sweet and subservient.

In other words, the only value she held was to serve white people's needs (and quench their guilt).

While the image of the Mammy herself is a strong imagery that has faded from its specific origin, I would say the modern day fan archetypes that ring of the Mammy stereotype are the Black woman character that "holds the Braincell", the "begrudgingly fond mother of the group", the canon love interest now relegated to the "mommy/mean lesbian" whose feelings are erased altogether, her new role to help the two white characters get together without acknowledgment of her own potential. She has no real story of her own, or as mentioned, has her own story stolen because "it doesn't look good with her in it" (which is its own bag of worms).

Now, people often give these characters motherly (or what society deems motherly) traits: caring, sweet, protective, loving, self sacrificial. Because they want to defensively show that "they're a great person! Nothing bad! I still think they're good! I'm not racist!"

But upon learning of the stereotype, there appears this insecurity- "oh, my Black woman character has these traits, is she playing into this stereotype?" When you get to this question, what you really need to be asking yourself is:

What makes the Mammy a Mammy?

They are a tool, a utility to white people with more power.

They lack autonomy. How they feel is irrelevant, if it does not serve the white person.

Nonthreatening so as to feel "harmless" to white people who bask in her "selfless" care.

They are not allowed to show frustration or upset at their lot or at life; it is seen as a negative attribute because if they are not caring, they have no use (and may now even be considered a threat).

They will also disagree with anyone else, even to the detriment of themselves, to the benefit of the white person. This is considered "selfless", rather than sacrifice (consider that "real" Mammies were originally slaves. They probably hated every single day with the people they "cared" for, but God forbid they speak on it. To white people, they were supposedly so happy and grateful! Smile and nod!)

Notice, out of the things I listed, "strong", "protective", "intelligent", and "caring" (on its own) weren't there! Because those aren't bad attributes for a Black character to have! Why would we ever suggest that?? Why would I be mad that a Black woman was any of those wonderful things to her peers? That's not the issue. The issue is that they are often used in service of usually white characters and their stories. They're a tool of the writer to coddle their white characters, versus a character that has their own inner workings and existence.

Knowing what you know now; things that would make your strong, protective, and caring Black woman character fit the Mammy stereotype can include:

If she is pushed to the side with no autonomy or inner life of her own, as the narrative centers the white characters and their needs.

If she is never shown to have any reason for acting outside of to the benefit of the white characters around her. That's the only time her presence counts.

If her disagreeing with, getting upset with, or refusing (or really, just not being "motherly") the white characters is deemed trashy by the narrative (whereas anyone else receives nuance or reason for their behavior).

If the white characters in the story treat her poorly, and it is treated as a good thing that she "stays calm" without any sort of reflection on her feelings.

You can come up with any sort of setting, plot scenario, and description of your Black woman character. But at the end of the day, what's going to make it the stereotype is how the narrative treats her, which you will only find out by writing it, and then reviewing your own work!

You're going to have to approach any stereotype this way. It's part of the *intent* thing I keep pushing 😅 if you don't intend to write a stereotype, you're going to have to actively understand what it is, which will help you actively avoid it.

[i-guess-im-into-this-now]

The Apothecary Diaries

First watch of first episode

At a glance, I knew I would like this show, but after one episode I'm pretty sure I'm going to love it.

Btw, do y'all like it when people give their first impressions of your favorite shows/books/media? Or their thoughtful analysis? Or their shit posting?

I do. I'll try to do that for you here.

So I'm watching this on Crunchyroll with English dub. Right off the bat I can tell you that I'm in love with Maomao. The voice actress is terrific, but also the character is intriguing. She draws you in right away with her intelligence, competency, inquisitiveness, daring, sense of responsibility, need for justice and expansive caring for every including strangers. She's got a whole lot of A+ character traits to absolutely love. Considering she wants to keep a low profile in the palace that's going to be a problem. I'm pretty sure everyone in her orbit is going to be sucked in by her and either love or hate her. There isn't a lot of room for indifference with a person this interesting.

The very first scene I knew there was something atypical about this show because a charming conversation between a daughter and her father suddenly had a black and white still frame of the the girl being abducted. The hell?!

That paired with the next scene taking place in a brothel helped me grasp the tone of this show. This show is going to have some more mature themes. Now, I know, I'm ready for it. I think. (I'll be alright as long as there is no boiling of people. I've already had two shows I've watched this year cook people and I'm done with human soup).

So we see a courtesan ask Maomao without surprise:

Have you been wounding yourself again?

To which Maomao replies, as if it's obvious:

Well, yeah.

Okay so self harm is something Maomao does. Perhaps in service of her medical research, but if she's willing to harm herself for this, then she might also be willing to put herself in harms way under other circumstances as well. I think the show is trying to demonstrate that she's self sacrificing here. Love that in a fictional character.

She panics and runs when the brothel ladies tease her about becoming a courtesan. Why? Is she intimidated by intimacy? Has she witnessed the courtesans suffering? Is she afraid that future would derail her own plans? Does she always get this flustered when teased? I'm not suggesting she consider becoming a courtesan but her panic is telling of something more.

She immediately gets kidnapped, which due to foreshadowing we knew was going to happen, but what gets me is her blasé attitude about it. Like it's just an inconvenience and not a terrifying ordeal. I immediately thought they would sell her to a brothel, but she instead ends up doing laundry at the palace. So we learn that Maomao can stay calm in a crisis and this makes me even more curious about her reaction to the teasing by the courtesans.

We find Maomao settled into a life of servitude at the palace. She's accepted what happened even if she is unfulfilled. She misses her old life, including the brothel, wonders about her father and longs for meat screwers, but she's already figured out the ecosystem she's in and how best to navigate it. She's so savy here. She compares the palace to the brothel and applies her knowledge of that complex social system to navigate palace politics. Maomao has already analyzed what would happen if she revealed her competencies, and has decided to lay low until she is able to extricate her self in a couple years.

She tells the viewers what we need to know about harem life and mentions that if one isn't careful they could end up as a concubine. It's a future she wants as little as that of a courtesan, even though she mentioned that low ranked concubines are treated better than the servants. I have to wonder if this is foreshadowing or if it is commentary on the roles of women in this society.

Palace gossip! Oh there's a handsome new eunuch in the palace? Maomao couldn't care less. Well okay.

I'm going to make a few completely unfounded predictions here just to see how far off I am when I watch the rest of the series.

Regarding the hot eunuch:

He's not a eunuch. He's got all his bits and bobs.

He's not just a palace manager. At least not completely. He's probably a bastard son or royalty in hiding or something. He's not nobody.

Maomao is going to be down bad for this dude.

What a waste. Grade A quality genes and no way of proliferating them. -Maomao on Jinshi's appearance

So Maomao can't be bothered to spare a second thought about handsome eunuchs, or nonsense about curses, but medical ailments? Now you've got her thinking. And I love that about her. She knows how to diagnose and treat ailments and she cares so much! She's trying to lay low but her passion and integrity can't be tempered by her very rational plan to protect herself by staying inconspicuous. She knows how to help and feels a responsibility to do so even if that help puts her at risk. Hero qualities right there.

Also, I love a character that is just... better than every one else. Maomao is more informed, experienced and able to diagnose than the court physician. Competency porn yes, please!

Speaking of competency... We need to talk about Jinshi! Our handsome "eunuch" (he's getting that word in sarcastic quotes until I receive proof otherwise). Out of the 3000 people living in the back palace, he deduces which one of them sent a warning to the concubines, and rangles a confession with nothing more than a scrap of cloth. He observed Maomao muttering about needing something to write on, and her mended skirt. He recognized that scrap of cloth as belonging to a servant girl's clothing. He understood the importance of her literacy and cleverly used it as a means to draw her out. Jinshi is every bit as capable as Maomao, and he's out maneuvered her in this. Maomao has met her match.

To Maomaos horror she is promoted to lady-in-waiting and I am here for it! Girl you are in the shit now! She seems really panicked about the new promotion, because she is smart and knows that this new position is fraught with dangers even if she doesn't know precisely what they are. She seems pretty smart and capable but the fact that Jinshi was able to so easily draw her out and expose her means she will need to sharpen her skills. I'm hoping the concubine and Jinshi will be allies to her in the palace.

Her panic about entering the court reminds me of earlier in the episode when she ran from the brothel. Perhaps she fears becoming entangled with any type of social/political group? Does she have more secrets that she's trying to keep hidden?

I just know that this character is going to be put through some trials. But she has so many great qualities and strengths, that I'm confident she can adapt and overcome. I am looking forward to watching her persist and triumph. And maybe cause a little trouble.

There are some qualities that Maomao just can't mute. Curiosity. A thirst for knowledge. And a sometimes troublesome need to right that which is wrong. - Narrator

Episode 2

[the-most-humble-blog]

When Men Stand on Business: Why Certain Segments Turn Feral and Misandrist

Standards, Respect, and the Double Standard Circus

Let’s get one thing straight: having standards as a heterosexual man is not an act of aggression. It’s a basic human right. Yet, the moment men start drawing boundaries or—heaven forbid—voicing their standards, certain segments of society (you know who you are 👀) start frothing at the mouth like a 2003 internet forum caught in a flame war. Why? Because some people have been conditioned to see men as providers, protectors, and silent sacrificers—but not decision-makers.

Well, newsflash: men are allowed to have standards too.

Standards Are Not Misogyny

Let’s address the big elephant in the room: having standards ≠ hating women. If a man decides he wants:

A partner who values loyalty,

Someone who prioritizes emotional maturity over Instagram likes,

Or just someone who doesn’t treat their relationship like a TikTok content generator,

...why does that spark an apocalypse of rage and accusations of being controlling, toxic, or—everyone’s favorite buzzword—misogynistic?

Ask yourself this: if it’s empowering for women to demand “a man who makes six figures, is 6’4”, emotionally intelligent, great in bed, and can recite poetry while doing a backflip,” why does it suddenly become "oppression" when a man wants a partner who doesn’t treat commitment like an afterthought?

The Misandry Playbook

Here’s where it gets spicy: when men dare to stand on business, certain segments of the crowd will hit you with:

Gaslighting 101: “Wow, you’re so insecure if you care about stuff like that.”

Shame Grenades: “Only a weak man feels the need to have standards. A real man accepts anything.”

Projection Olympics: “You just want a submissive maid, don’t you?”

**Name-Calling: "When logic is refuted or falls on intellectually deaf ears, insults become the tool of the emotional, hysterical, and emotionally unstable."

The irony? These are often the same people who post things like, “Know your worth, sis,” on social media while belittling anyone else for doing the same.

Why It's Time to Dish It Back

Here’s the truth: you can’t play defense forever. If certain people feel emboldened to call men trash for expressing their preferences, then it’s time for men to:

Be unapologetic. You don’t owe anyone an explanation for your boundaries.

Dish it back—tastefully but firmly. Call out the hypocrisy. Example: “So if you wouldn’t date someone broke, why is it wrong for me to avoid drama queens, 304's, and independent feminists?”

Stop pandering. Being agreeable at all costs isn’t “nice,” it’s self-destructive, and diminishes a man's status among other men.

Respect should go both ways, and if someone’s going feral over the idea of mutual standards, that’s their problem, not yours.

Let’s Not Pretend This is Fair

The moment you flip the script, watch how the conversation devolves:

"Who hurt you?"

"Not all women are like that!"

"You just hate women because you can’t get one!"

Oh, the classic ad hominem Olympics. These are tactics used to derail a conversation instead of addressing the real issue: standards are universal.

Final Truth Bomb

The simple truth is, a man who knows what he wants and sets boundaries isn’t toxic—he’s dangerous. Dangerous to the status quo, dangerous to complacency, and dangerous to the idea that men should just shut up and take whatever comes their way. So to those turning feral at the mere thought of men holding themselves to a standard, here’s a revolutionary concept: respect goes both ways.

Like, share, or watch me get cancelled for saying this: Certain people (you know who you are) will weaponize this truth bomb faster than you can say 'misandry.' They'll screenshot, twist, and predictably call me toxic—proving my point in real-time. Don't let 'em win.

[insufferableprotagonistpoll]

Round 1

Propaganda why Joker is insufferable:

"I want to play a self-insert who is a normal guy. I don't want to play a self-insert who is super skilled in everything he tries, incredibly intelligent, unnaturally strong and agile, world famous, makes everyone's lives better by breathing in their direction, is necessary for anything to happen in the story and the world at large, never has a serious disagreement with a non-villain, and makes every woman he can interact with fall in love with him. like omg shut up"

"He’s not insufferable in the base game, really. He’s so hypocritical in Royal, it’s maddening. It’s the like writers and the protagonists are always on his side. There’s this guy in Royal—Maruki Takuto—who gives up his fiancée (so she can have a happy life by not remembering him and her interconnected debilitating trauma) in order to make everyone in the world happy. By changing reality itself so that everyone has a good ending. Sure, the way he goes about it is questionable, but he just needs some help. He gets punched in the face for his troubles. LITERALLY. The other villains in this game are actual criminals/murderers/downright VILE people. but only Maruki gets treated terribly for the crime of *checks paper* doing the EXACT SAME THING as the protagonists but more.

It’s like Joker and everyone else wants to be the /only ones/ who get to choose whose hearts to change. There’s no actual reason for them not to take Maruki’s side, even in canon. It feels like a mix of “I don’t want a stinky ADULT controlling everything” and “but but we won’t be as close without all the trauma and messed up things that happened to us!” Lady, your friend was so distraught that she jumped off a rooftop and you’re choosing to let that happen??

You can even say that society in the game was miserable. Miserable enough for them to want a false god controlling them just a few months prior, so most people would actually agree with Maruki. Maruki’s plan LITERALLY revived people who were dead, and it’s not fake or a dream. He’s genuinely a good person but Joker and his squad don’t want to be happy? Or something?? So they take away everyone else’s happiness because of their own pride.

I got so upset at Joker that I chose the “bad ending” and shelved the game for a year."

Propaganda why Quentin Coldwater is insufferable:

"Quentin is the epitome of self important, entitled young men who think it's okay for their actions to have consequences for other people because he's smarter than them. He's constantly letting his friends (especially the female characters!) take the brunt of his bad decisions (end of the first book, I'm looking at you.) Every time something he does comes back to bite home he goes all "surprised Pikachu face". And he's nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. Ugh."

"I hated this man so much I stopped reading an otherwise engaging book. I don't even remember all the reasons I just found him so infuriating that my hate for him survived multiple years."

"Affluent white kid, wants desperately to be in Narnia as his only ambition in life, stares at the boobs of nearby women, thinks people without magic are living empty lives even though he's desperately depressed and rudderless with it, cheats on his girlfriend for literally no reason. Also, incel vibes."

"He's a very Depressed White Sadboy about everything. He's got a very asshole attitude towards women especially, and tbh I don't really feel like it gets better, not even by book 3 (the way he "rescues" Alice and forces her to be human again by trying to like. Maker her love him. Was annoying and skeevy. This reddit thread sums it up well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/s/HlZU4Rb0UG"

[multifandombullshitbabes]

(Context: im thinking abt my post canon au, i explained on my ao3, u dont even have to read it just know its there)

Mizu revealing her being a woman to taigen AFTER he confesses his feelings to mizu AFTER being bested during their duel once again is literally so fucking personal to me. Jesus fuck... FUCK. Like. How overwhelmingly loved she must feel. How SEEN. Truly for once n not just but loved and wanted!!! Its so personal to me. Just. Taigen, losing, n then immediately leaning in for a kiss. Mizu is lost cuz what?? Why?? N taigen just. Confesses, but hes holding back cuz mizus reaction was not great and he doesn't wanna ruin the friendship they've formed these past months, they've grown so close so fast n its scary but so exciting n so right but if mizu doesnt want this then nothing is happening n its ok he has a CHOICE. Like. FUCK!! N then mizu telling taigen to wait and that night she reveals it. And its just sooo fucking intimate. Its so soft. And maybe taigen is confused but one look at how small mizu is making herself, like shielding herself from him. Like he gets it. The danger of it all. And its his promise to protect her if she ever needs to that does her in cuz. SHE HAS A CHOICE. TO BE PROTECTED OR NOT. THATS SO IMPORTANT TO HER. Yes, she can protect herself. Yes, it feels good to be protected. Yknow??

Mizu revealing her being a woman to akemi totally by accident AFTER they just had an argument abt women's choices in society AFTER mizu accidentally took one (1) big sip of sake, n then deciding fuck it im gonna win this argument, guess what akemi. And that's how akemi finds out. N Mizu thinks akemi is going to hate her, n she does for a bit in silence, but mostly shes just hurt? For herself AND for Mizu. Cause she understands, so suddenly, so intimately, how hard being a woman is and how mizu has had to hide as a man to survive (not even for plot reasons that we know, mizu being mixed AND a woman? Death sentence). And she just hurts. And they thought they'd always have this weird rift between them but they cry and they let it out (for Mizu, for the first time in YEARS) and its just. Its so emotional n so important and so personal and intimate. Its maybe winter all over again, a year has passed since theyd seen each other in kyoto, so much has changed and yet not rly and. They've grown but in different ways. Akemi, in taking life by the reins n being assertive and strong and so dangerously intelligent like shes always been but now, now its crucial to be that. And Mizu in realizing that she truly, truly wants to be loved so badly but to be loved is to be vulnerable and thats what scares her the most, to be weak; but ure only strong if u can be weak too, and thats what she learns. And i think this is where they really get deep into their feelings. Before it was a crush, an annoying one. Now? Oh bby theyre down bad. Yes they are.

[alannatheterrible]

No change can happen until we as a society stop considering women as an "absence", or beings that "lack" things.

Women are not seeing as individual beings. They are seen as non-men. In ancient times, fertility in women was celebrated. Women were the creators, they were to be celebrated. But a reactionary movement brought phalluses under the spotlight instead. Everything began to be centered around penises, and in turn, their lack thereof. To this day, it's still one of the worst thing that can be conceived by humans (=men and women who still haven't woken up): not having a penis, not having balls, having a small or non functioning penis. It's all about that. Dick, dick, dick. Dicks drawn everywhere, "dick envy", ordinary objects shaped like dicks, dicks celebrated as the gods of fertility. But sperm is always readily available, unlike eggs. Women who are fertile aren't fertile all the time, their ovulatory cycle is more complicated, and it works on the basis of selection, just like the selection of the winning sperm, so as to call it. But that is an argument for another day, going back to the original purpose of this post...

Men are the center of everything. Their bodies are the icons of strength, of functionality, while women are seen as weak, because they don't excel in the same fields where men are the most fit to excel in, because of biomechanics and all. And women do have their own strengths, strengths that men don't and can't have - because of biomechanics still. But they don't matter, all misogynists care about is how to weaken the image of a woman.

Men are seen as more intelligent, when you think of a philosopher, you'd imagine a stoic, solitary man, who is superior to all in his mind... And usually hates women, because unlike other men, women are too dumb to understand his man-struggles.

Men are the default. Masculine is the default. Women are sinners, they ate the apple, they were made from a man's rib, they have to cover their whole bodies because they're nothing but temptation to men. Even the most enlightened men that history celebrates were raging misogynists, women were and are treated as subhuman by the patriarchal society we sadly still live in.

And then comes lesbianism. Men just can't grasp the concept of a woman liking another woman. Not a failed man, not a non-man, not a weak failed copy of a man, not a sex object, not a child bearer, not a free house wife. Lesbians don't like women the way that men think they like women. Lesbians like WOMEN. To them, to us, a woman is the center of all. The body of a woman is not just a man without the holy penis and the holy balls, nor is it a talking breathing sex dolls with perfectly round boobs and easy-to-lubricate holes. A woman has her own shapes, shapes that don't need to be deformed in some unnatural way to fit a sex position, no, a woman has different body proportions, body fat distribution, and yet she has body hair, and isn't born with makeup.

Women are women. They are their own individuals, a man with long hair would not be a woman the same way that a woman with short hair would not be a man. They are different, and different ≠ inferior. Different means different skills, different ways to shine.

To a man, a woman being a lesbian is an act of rebellion. Because the lesbian both ceases to live as an object whose only purpose is to serve men, and because, being a woman who loves women, she does not center her world view around men. Men are not her default, women are. Men are not her focus, women are.

And it's why men can't understand why some lesbians for example like butches but, obviously, not men. They see women as non-men when they see hypersexualized caricatures of women, when you take that hypersexualization away, when a butch has short hair and wears "mens clothes" and "looks like a man" all she is, to men, is a man without a penis. So "why not just go for the real man, with a real penis?". They can't fathom the idea of not liking penis just like they don't understand that butches and women who don't perform the construct of femininity they built are, in fact, still women.

Same way how they see two "femme" lesbians in porn using a strap-on and say the same thing, how if they use a strap-on then they can do a real man. Firstly, they don't understand that a woman with a strap on during sex is, in fact, still a woman. And secondly, they are seeing a part of themselves, their most precious and cherished part, being used as an object without much importance by the category of people that will never link with men. And they can't grasp that.

To men, a man who lost or is without a functioning penis and balls is not a man. He's emasculated, he's not virile, he's weak. They may feel pity for him.

For women, a woman who lost or is without a functioning part of her reproductively apparatus is still a woman. A woman who isn't fertile is still a woman, and doesn't lose any value in the eyes of women (except conservative trad-wives, maybe). A woman who lost her breast(s) doesn't lose value. A woman who has bigger breasts isn't more valuable than a woman with smaller breasts, while men argue within themselves all the time with "who has it bigger".

Women are not non-men, they are women. We have been erased, we have been shaped to the liking of men for too long, it's time to react. We need to speak up, not only for us, but for those sisters who still haven't opened their eyes, and those sisters who can't use their voices because it puts their lives in danger. We are not men, we are not inferior because we are not men, we are different, but we are still strong. We are different, but just as valuable. We will not bear in silence.

I'm a lesbian, I love women. I don't love non-men, I love women and all that has to do with their being a woman.

[inadeqcies]

❝ —— MY  FATHER  SAYS  SHE  WAS  BORN  LUCKY  .  HE  SAYS  I  WAS  LUCKY  TO  BE  BORN "

WCS | MUSINGS | CLICK BELOW FOR INTRO

. ･ﾟ   ┇    (  taylor zakhar perez  .  cis male  .  he/him  )  .    ⸻ ricardo garcia  ,  twenty-seven years old  ,  has  survived  another  day  in  red  creek  where  they  have  lived  for 6 months . the  regal is  known  for  being  hubristic  and steely and  is  often  associated  with routinely clenching and unclenching jaws, slow smirks that feel like a deal with the devil, clean pressed perfectly tailored shirts matched with expensive cologne  .  in  a  small  town  where  they  work  as  the owner of the register word  travels  fast 

HELLOOO ! i’m g ! i’m 27 , living in the cursed aedt tz . . i use she / her pronouns . i am a proud indian , and lover of all poc ! i’m also doing the dolly parton working 9 to 5 , what a way to make a living ! so my activity will be v random as i also got a new job and i think the hours will be wild !

inspo for ricardo is jackson whittemore ( teen wolf ) , guzman ( elite ),  every character from succession , harry bingham ( the society ) maybe a little logan echolls ( veronica mars ) and a little bit nate jacobs ( euphoria ) 

he puts the ASS in ASSHOLE ( and clASSy , but i prefer asshole )

heterosexual cis male . . . that says it all :/

a demon boy

honestly ricardo is an arrogant and smug piece of shit , who has probably offended you or said something greatly insulting to you at some point in your life ( im so sorry and i will continue apologising for him but he really is so irredeemable ) 

uses people so he can get ahead / get what he wants

is only focused on himself and an outcome that suits him

will use you

will treat you like shit

will smirk annoyingly as he does it all

cruel

has major anger issues

has major issues in general tbh

honestly just really hates himself and has so much self hate and pent up anger . he probably should go to therapy

‘ i feel like i’m the worst , so i always act like i’m the best ‘

he was given up for adoption at a young age , and thats basically the main source of all of his rage and anger and ability to think he is not worth anything ( self fulfilling prophecy tbh )

he bounced around for a while , foster home to foster home . he got into a lot of fights , with other kids , and with foster parents . he was not an easy kid , nor did he try to be . if anything - he always did the opposite

lowkey definitely has commitment issues and doesn’t like the idea of needing anybody except for himself , hence why he will always be snarky and a lil ass

he finally got adopted properly when he was about 15 years old - by two women who are smart , intelligent , quick witted and very wealthy

he was not close to them , despite their best efforts , but he does greatly respect them and their ‘’’ Hustle ‘’’’

he's come to redcreek for . . . reasons that may be explained later hehe . he's been here for 6 months and he fucking hates it ! he hates u people ! he hates this shitty town !

he definitiely paid his way into owning the register like by no means should this be his job . he's so Succession coded .

i am soooo open to connections and plots ! sorry this isn’t v well developed but i usually work best off chemistry and just kinda running with whatever ? i'm online really sporadically so pls forgive that . . . also pls forgive me for bringing such a c-bomb of a character in LMAO .

[draculasstrawhat]

This is going to be a long post about unreliability in Dracula, because while I love how in to it everyone is getting, and don’t want to trash anyone else’s reading or feelings about it, I do feel that there’s a bit of a “previous interpretations hated [character] for no reason!” going on, and as an ancient fan… we didn’t just pull this out of our arses.

I feel like part of the shift in the viewing of some characters is as a result of the Dracula Daily format (which, incidentally, I love, and has given me a very valuable reappraisal of Jonathon’s character) but which both gives the narrative as linear in terms of TLs, and an immediacy which the original text lacks.

Put simply, Dracula - the novel - is a construct on three levels.

That it is a fiction created by Bram Stoker, in the social and cultural environment of the late 19thC.

That it is told through the diaries and letter (ie, constructed personas) of the characters, and

That it has further been compiled and edited BY the characters, with “extraneous material” removed, in order to tell a compelling narrative. The majority of the actual original documents have been destroyed.

Which is to say that from the little intro bit, Stoker is clueing us in that not everything here is 100% reliable. We should perhaps be on our guard.

Moreover, we should be aware of what Stoker might be trying to sell us with this story, and suspicious of it.

Now, I only have a very small amount of time for the most extreme examples of this tendency- that the whole thing is an arse-covering exercise for, “… and that, officer, is why we were obliged to desecrate a grave and murder a foreign national,” but, like… that is still as valid an interpretation as reading the thing at face value.

As I say, this isn’t to trash anyone’s headcanons, ships, or interpretations - it’s more about points of tension in the narrative, that clue us in to things going on beyond the story being told. Because at every given point, there is SO MUCH going on in Dracula.

And although this is my favourite sandbox and I could do this all day, to stop me from actually doing it all day, I’m just going to give an example of one character - the editor of the whole manuscript and everyone’s favourite Train Fiend…

Mina.

So, in what ways might Mina be unreliable?

Well, for a start, we are repeatedly shown that she is hyperaware of appearances, and concerned with how herself and those she loves might be perceived.

This isn’t me trying to paint her as an image obsessed bitch. It actually makes a lot of sense for her character - an employed, middle-class woman of the period, especially one who was entrusted with the education of other young women.

And our attention is drawn to this several times - the smearing of mud on Lucy and her feet to make it look like they’re wearing shoes, her thoughts about holding hands with Jonathon in London, even her insistence that they really did view old Mr Hawkins as a father-figure.

Mina cares how she is perceived. She does not want us to think negatively of her, or those she loves.

And she is the one who holds the major editorial pen in this narrative - everything we’re reading has allegedly passed through her hands.

So, where is a place that this fear of perception, and manipulation of perception might manifest?

So, it quickly becomes apparent that Mina has a number of very conflicted feelings about her place in society. A very specific gloss is put upon them at the level of the text (both in-world and by the author - but more of that later) but the dissonance remains.

Again, this is understandable, given that she is an intelligent woman of a shifting social class at a time of great social change. Her rant about the New Woman, and the apparent storm of tears that follow it, implies that this is tied up in her feelings and worries for Jonathon.

Now, I’m trying not to draw any inference here - although I have many theories - but I will say people rarely get that worked up about an unrelated thing unless there’s a deeper reason for it.

And while Mina repeatedly defines herself *against* the New Woman type, she does all the things a New Woman does: earning her own living, typing, shorthand, trying to write like a Lady Journalist. Even the long, vigorous walks come in to this.

What is more, she likes to be impressive. She repeatedly shows off her skillset of memory, organisation, typing in triplicate, short-hand, her understanding. She even states this at one point, justifying her behaviour by saying “some taste of the original apple remains still in our mouths” - again, framing her behaviour in femininity, even though what she is displaying is moves against stereotypical constructions of gender at that time.

So, perhaps one place that Mina is unreliable as a narrator is around her own femininity, and her comfort in her social role. She might, therefore, elide, gloss over, or re-contextualise anything that undermines any discomfort she has with het destiny as a wife-and-mother.

Which means we look for the cracks in that presentation- and there is evidence for them! A common argument is that there is a great frustration at the heart of Mina’s character. There she is, more driven, organised, and intelligent than most of the men around her… and stuck as an unpaid secretary. Like, yes, we all love the train-fiend thing, it’s adorable, but… also… c’mon. Memorising train tables is arguably the act of a woman who is being given far too small a stage on which to enact her life.

She presents herself as contented in that role , while evincing considerable evidence of being frustrated at - or at least conflicted over - it.

Meanwhile, the novel as a whole resolves with her firmly situated in an expanded version of the wife-and-mother role. Stoker closes the book with a voice other than her own, and a baby on her knee. And while it is absolutely a valid reading to take this ending at face value, it is also worth asking what prompted Stoker to end the novel with that postscript.

Because he, too, was a product of his time and place, and he also would have been grappling with the changing place of women in society. Mina is a construct, not a real person, and what does it tell us that the author felt it necessary to contain her in the role of ‘Natural Womanhood’ at the end of the book?

Especially as the vampires in this novel very clearly invert maternal roles by devouring children - indeed, Jonathon clearly delineates between Mina, a woman, and the ‘devils of the pit’ which are the female vampires at Dracula’s castle.

And it is from these various tensions that tropes like Vampire Mina, Divorced Mina, and the Mina/Dracula romance spring (and I could write a whole ‘nother thing about the role of romance as a substitute for intellectual/personal fulfilment, but… this is long enough without that). They are ways of following those cracks, and offering alternative readings, rather than forced denials of the text, or reading with a distinct agenda.

I love the surface story of Dracula - it’s a wonderfully compelling adventure - but the reason I love the book so very much is because there is always, always more, in every direction.

[haggishlyhagging]

“It is a truism in the literature on working wives that although the husbands of working wives do help with household tasks, all too often wives continue to have responsibility for running the household. They rush home from work, shopping on the way, in order to have dinner on the table by six. They clean and tend to the laundry and do whatever has to be done in the evenings or on weekends. This is not role sharing.

The husband may promise to do his share, and increasingly he does or, at least, agrees to. But he can make his contribution so grudgingly as to force the wife to conclude that she would rather do it herself. Pat Mainardi has shown how such reluctant sharers of the burden manage to renege. She has translated all of their dodges. Eleven are standard:

“I don't mind sharing the housework, but I don't do it very well. We should each do the things we're best at." MEANING: Unfortunately I’m no good at things like washing dishes or cooking. What I do best is a little light carpentry, changing light bulbs, moving furniture (how often do you move furniture?). ALSO MEANING: Historically the lower classes (black men and us) have had hundreds of years experience doing menial jobs. It would be a waste of manpower to train someone else to do them now. ALSO MEANING: I don't like the dull stupid boring jobs, so you should do them.

"I don't mind sharing the work, but you'll have to show me how to do it." MEANING: I ask a lot of questions and you'll have to show me everything every time I do it because I don't remember so good. Also don't try to sit down and read while I'm doing my jobs because I'm going to annoy hell out of you until it's easier to do them yourself.

"We used to be so happy!" (Said whenever it was his turn to do something.) MEANING: I used to be so happy. MEANING: Life without housework is bliss. No quarrel here. Perfect agreement.

“We have different standards, and why should I have to work to your standards? That's unfair." MEANING: If I begin to get bugged by the dirt and crap I will say, "This place sure is a sty" or "How can anyone live like this?" and wait for your reaction. I know that all women have a sore called "Guilt over a messy house" or "Household work is ultimately my responsibility." I know that men have caused that sore—if anyone visits and the place is a sty, they're not going to leave and say, "He sure is a lousy housekeeper." You'll take the rap in any case. I can outwait you. ALSO MEANING: I can provoke innumerable scenes over the housework issue. Eventually doing all the housework yourself will be less painful to you than trying to get me to do half. Or I'll suggest we get a maid. She will do my share of the work. You will do yours. It's woman's work.

"I've got nothing against sharing the housework, but you can't make me do it on your schedule." MEANING: Passive resistance. I'll do it when I damned well please, if at all. If my job is doing dishes, it's easier to do them once a week. If taking out laundry, once a month. If washing the floors, once a year. If you don't like it, do it yourself oftener, and then I won't do it at all.

"I hate it more than you. You don't mind it so much." MEANING: Housework is garbage work. It's the worst crap I've ever done. It's degrading and humiliating for someone of my intelligence to do it. But for someone of your intelligence. . . .

"Housework is too trivial to even talk about." MEANING: It's even more trivial to do. Housework is beneath my status. My purpose in life is to deal with matters of significance. Yours is to deal with matters of insignificance. You should do the housework.

"This problem of housework is not a man-woman problem. In any relationship between two people one is going to have a stronger personality and dominate. MEANING: That stronger personality had better be me.

"In animal societies, wolves, for example, the top animal is usually a male even where he is not chosen for brute strength but on the basis of cunning and intelligence. Isn't that interesting?" MEANING: I have historical, psychological, anthropological, and biological justification for keeping you down. How can you ask the top wolf to be equal?

"Women's Liberation isn't really a political movement." MEANING: The Revolution is coming too close to home. ALSO MEANING: I am only interested in how I am oppressed, not how I oppress others. Therefore the war, the draft, and the university are political. Women's Liberation is not.

"Man's accomplishments have always depended on getting help from other people, mostly women. What great man would have accomplished what he did if he had to do his own housework?" MEANING: Oppression is built into the system and I, as the white American male, receive the benefits of this system. I don't want to give them up.”

Jessie Bernard, The Future of Marriage

[thequeenofterror]

[ softly screams ] hello hello everyone! i am mira (25+, she/her) and i am INCREDIBLY HYPE FOR THIS RP! this is song sunyoung, aka the 2016's qe1 queen bitch. with a misguided sense of justice and righteousness and an unwavering, ruthless ambition to make the world a more equal place, she is hellbent on ensuring everyone suffers the same she's had to endure. okay, possibly more, but you won't catch her saying that out loud. you can find general information & trivia for sunyoung on this page, and i'll also leave some stuff under the cut! i won't post any possible plots/connections as of now because i have way too many thoughts just from reading other canon descriptions alone, but please feel free to LIKE THIS POST ♡ and i'll come to you for plots, or you can add me on d*sc @ soverenyi !!!!

1993 liner, scorpio sun aries moon. so basically a mess.

she comes from a conservative family that thinks women aren't cut for the big pants jobs, and is one of the first to truly challenge that. in time she's earned her father's trust and appreciation, and he paraded her around as the perfect child which earned her an easy invitation to the club.

has two younger brothers, and while the youngest looks up to her and was coached by her to join the club as well, the middle sibling never made the cut and is endlessly resentful of that.

has a weird relationship with her mother, sort of resents her for not trying to break the mold? but also understands her role in the family and takes solace in her comfort from time to time. her mother taught her to play the violin and they often bond over classical music.

speaking of! sunyoung plays the violin frequently, as a way to decompress. during her initiation process in 2016, an "accident" caused her to break two fingers and, because she wasn't able to play as her hand healed, she went ballistic. and that's why your muse hates her now!

she was a political science major, then went on to study law. she now works in the human rights policy division in the government, but she wants to eventually move to more hands-on roles such as investigators. which is actually a bit of a downgrade for her position, but she really needs that field experience to further her career - particularly when she works with a bunch of dinosaurs that won't listen to her and because half the time she doesn't really know what she's talking about

the thing about her working in human rights is probably very funny to your muse, considering how much of a bitch she is. the thing is that she's great at giving speeches and blaming society for everybody's issues. deep down she does believe in her cause, her views are just. skewed slightly from all that pretty privilege lol

in case you're wondering by now: yes, she is a hypocrite.

she can be very impatient and stubborn, and set on her ways. you can talk sense into her and she's very open minded to change her opinion, she'll just. never apologize for being wrong. and might yell at you during the process so no one will fault you if you give up on teaching her tbh.

she is very intelligent and quick to pick up on things, and likes to play jigsaw with people and their connections. she will often introduce you to another member she thinks you can benefit from, mostly so that you can grow into whatever position she wants you to achieve. in turn, she will eventually ask something out of you to boost her own position.

i'm gonna cut myself off here because i wanna go read other people's intros lol SEE YOU SOON