#yes cultural depictions of masculinity and femininity vary over time from culture to culture but not so much that gender doesn't exist

[glitchlight]

[epic-sorcerer]

Merlin would have been so much more gay if the writers stayed true to Celtic paganism(the historicaly accurate “old religion”)

Trigger warnings:

Main triggers: talk of sex, homophobia, religion, Catholics, colonization, anti Celtic, murder

Mention triggers: rape and sexual assault, creepy men, gore, insest, toxic masculinity

I will mark the sections with quick triggers with 2 red lines. Below the second one is when the trigger is gone.

_____________

I am posting this on December 21st, as today is the Winter Solstice, a Celtic Pagan holiday. It will be posted at 3:33 PM, as 3 is a sacred number among the celts. Because of the special occasion, I will be speaking on a subject that was important to many of them—homosexuality.

Some stuff first for introductions. Yes, yes, I know this may be boring but it helps with context. This religion didn’t have a name other than Celtic pagan or Celtic religion bc it seams everyone there believed it. This was until the Roman Empire concurred what is now the UK. Since Rome had adopted Christianity—more specifically, Roman Catholocism—they only allowed that religion to be practiced.

———(genocide)——

Once England was concurred in 43 A.D, the pagans were killed and their religion was surpressed. Not much is known about the pagans for this reason. However, we do know somethings from what the Romans have written down. Although, it is biased, as they believed the celts to be barbaric and also didn’t wright much about women.

——gore ——

First, we know they preformed human sacrifice on kings when the kingdom suffered along with some other groups.This could be from bad ruling to really bad weather. These kings died horribly, as they seamed to be stabbed multiple times, had thier nipples cut off, and left to die in a bog.

They had thier nipples cut off because the subjects would suck on the kings’ nipples to demonstrate submission, so cutting them off would fully dethrone the king.

—————

Now, background over. Here’s where it gets good.

Nipple sucking between too lovers or ‘special friends’ was seen as a preclemation of love, physical intimacy, and sexual expression. This, like other types of sex, was seen as something beutiful and sacred. Often, male soldiers would have these ‘special friend’ relationships with many fellow soldiers in groups. The Romans even observed that Celtic men seamed to prefer other males for love/sexual interest over women.

Nipple sucking was mostly described was between two men. Although, we must recognize that women may have been left out of written history. I would also like to point out, this may prove that aromantic people existed in that time, as these ‘special friends’ had sex and were not mentioned to be romantically involved.

The celts were known for their sex positivity and even eroticism because they loved it so much.This is one of the reasons why the pagans and the Chatholics clashed so badly.

Before the Romans really took over, Saint Patrick—yes, the Saint Patrick—started to try to convert the celts into Roman catholosim. He was appalled at the wide acceptance of polyamory(women were aloud to marry however many people they wanted) and homosexual relationships/marriages. Not to mention the celts could have sex with any one at any time as long as it is consensual.

——(Tw creepy men)——

That means no waiting til marriage, unless a Celtic chose to do so. Although we should take into consideration a statement made by Diodorus Siculus, an antient Greek historian, that “the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused.” In his series Bibliotheca historica. This could mean that either creepy men were comman place, or that homosexuality was so comman and done with everyone, it was wierd to be rejected.

————

Getting back to the Roman Catholics, the book Sextus Empiricus is published in the early 3th century and states,

“...amongst the Persians it is the habit to indulge in intercourse with males, but amongst the Romans it is forbidden by law to do so...”

It also goes on to say,

“...amongst us sodomy is regarded as shameful or rather illegal, but by the Germanic they say, it is not looked on as shameful but as a customary thing.”

For clarification, Germany is apart of Celtic society. So what we can infer is a very serious culture shock in terms of Rome and other places. During Emporor Serverus Alexander’s reign, openly homosexuals were deported.

In early 4th century, Emporor Constaine—the first Christian Roman Emperor—destroyed an Egyptian temple populated exclusively by femme, gay, pagan, priests. The Emproror then went on to eradicate all of them. However in 337 A.D., 3 emperors ruled, including Constantius II and Constans I, who where both in mlm relationships.

An odd thing these emporors went on to do was criminalize male bottoming during mlw sex 342 A.D.. 8 years later, Emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius ferther punished this act by killing these men by Public burning at the stake.

———(Tw toxic masculinity)———

I believe this was because masculinity was very important and a man acting in a more feminine role was seen as emasculating and humiliating. For the average man, he had to fight and defend his masculinity. Not doing so was seen as a personal failure.

——————

The last ever known peice of European literature containing a positive representation of homosexuality for 1,000 years was a large epic poem by Nonnus of Panopolis. It was titled Dionysiaca and the first part was published in 390 A.D., the last in 405 A.D..

So yeah, The catholics were very selective in terms of sex. One can only imagine how badly the celts and Catholics clashed. Back to 435 A. D., Saint Patrick began to preach Catholism and around that time wrote in his Confessio. He recounted that he found a boat to get out of Ireland and refused to suck on the nipples of those aboard.

“And on the same day that I arrived, the ship was setting out from the place, and I said that I had the wherewithal to sail with them; and the steersman was displeased and replied in anger, sharply: ‘By no means attempt to go with us.’ Hearing this I left them to go to the hut where I was staying, and on the way I began to pray, and before the prayer was finished I heard one of them shouting loudly after me: ‘Come quickly because the men are calling you.’ And immediately I went back to them and they started to say to me: ‘Come, because we are admitting you out of good faith; make friendship with us in any way you wish.’ (And so, on that day, I refused to suck the breasts of these men from fear of God, but nevertheless I had hopes that they would come to faith in Jesus Christ, because they were barbarians.) And for this I continued with them, and forthwith we put to sea.”

—(Tw very mild rape/sex assault mention—

So, as you can see, Celtic and Catholic ways clashed horribly. Something seen as good and sacred to the indigenous tribes was seen as barbaric and sinful to Saint Patrick. Also, don’t worry, the celts did not press the issue ferther, or else this would be a very different story.

—————

This only snowballed into a much bigger issue much later in medival English sexuality. They were VERY picky on what sex was aloud. Missionary was the only aloud position and it has to be the least pleasurable as possible. Making out and masturbation wasn’t aloud either, as that was also seen as a sin. Here’s a low Rez chart to help figure out when sex was okay.

While we are discussing such a queer topic, I would like to bring up the topic of Anam Cara, or Soul Friends in Antient Celtic culture. A Soul Friend was a word used to describe a Philosophy in which one is not completely whole without thier “other half.” This person can be in a platonic, romantic, or familiar kind of love. Really, all it boils down to is that 2 poeple were made to be together since the beginning of time and will be at thier strongest when they become companions.

There is a Celtic legend that seams to depict a mlm Anam Cara relationship. It tells the story of Cuchulainn and Ferdiad, two male worriors who have known and loved each other a long time. But they must kill each other in a duel. Both are vary reluctant, as at least one of them will have to die.

————(Tw insest)———

Before I go on, it is important to mention there is a lot of debate on wether or not this is homosexual. Mainly because they were foster brothers, but since insest wasn’t as much of a taboo, I do not think this would be as much of a set back as it is today.

—————

They had tried to kill each other each day for 3 days, but they ended up hugging each other and kissing 3 times. On the fourth day, however, Cuchulainn killed Ferdiad. The man then holds Ferdiad in his arms and sings peoms for a long time. Here are some:

“We were heart-companions once,

We were comrades in the woods,

We were men that shared a bed

When we slept the heavy sleep

After hard and weary fights.

Into many lands, so strange,

And side by side we sallied forth

And we ranged the woodlands through,When with Scathach we learned arms!”

Heart companions seams to be similar or the same as soul freind, because of how it’s used. Although sleeping in the same bed isn’t inherently sexual, Cuchulainn then goes on to complement Ferdiad’s physical features.

“Dear to me thy noble blush,

Dear thy comely, perfect form;

Dear thine eye, blue-grey and clear,

Dear thy wisdom and thy speech”

Although this is deeply sweet I would also like to caution that Chuhulainn may have simply been commenting on his healthiness, but blush is an odd word considering he is now dead.

Two male lovers, one dead in the other’s arms. Soul friends, maybe. Reminds me of a certain show..I don’t know I just can’t put my finger on it...

I would also like to point out that because Celtics did not pressure others to have sex, and that a soul friend can be any type of love, I do think that an asexual or someone on that spectrum could live without judgment.Unfortunately, I could not find much about intersex, androgynous, or trans people. Perhaps if I find anything in the future and will make a new post.

In conclusion, if Merlin were more historicaly accurate, he definitely would have been queer. Especially because he is said to be magic itself, it would make sense for him to be the personification of Celtic values. That may include homosexuality, because as previously stated, Celtic men really liked other men.

I’m excited to see what will come of this post, seeing as not a lot of people in the fandom seem to know this. More fanfiction? More fanart? It would probably inspire a lot of creators. So, if you do make something because of this post, please notify me in the notes, an ask, an @ or something. Basically anything but a PM. I would be happy to see/read the creation.

Sources:

Sexuality and love in Celtic society:

Same Sex Celts

Druid Thoughts: of Sex and Druids

Anam Cara, what’s a soul mate?

Sexuality in Ancient Ireland

The Celts, Women, and Sex

LGBT history

Sexuality and love in Medival Society:

Getting down and medival: the sex lives of the Middle Ages

Sex in the Middle Ages

Here’s What Sex Was Like In Medieval Times. It’ll Make You Feel Glad You Weren’t Born Back Then!

General Celtic Society:

Who Were the Celts

Celtic Religion and Belieifs

Saint Patrick

17 Things You Probably Didnt know about Saint Patrick

Confession of Saint Patrick

Cuchulainn and Ferdiad

Cuchulainn and Ferdiad, Gay Lovers?

The Combat of Ferdiad and Cuchulain

Insest in Antient Celtic Society

Ancient Irish elite practiced incest, new genetic data from Neolithic tomb shows

Homosexuality in the Roman Empire

Timeline of LGBT history

Timeline of LGBT history in the United Kingdom

[leportraitducadavre]

I posted 1,212 times in 2021

533 posts created (44%)

679 posts reblogged (56%)

For every post I created, I reblogged 1.3 posts.

I added 587 tags in 2021

#anti konoha - 108 posts

#anti shinobi system - 108 posts

#naruto - 70 posts

#anti naruto - 70 posts

#anti hinata - 44 posts

#anti naruto fandom - 44 posts

#anti naruto uzumaki - 38 posts

#personal - 35 posts

#sasuke - 35 posts

#ino yamanaka - 35 posts

Longest Tag: 130 characters

#kagami - shisui and itachi uchiha are actually pretty good examples of the character of ariel from the tempest in the naruto manga

My Top Posts in 2021

#5

You're pitiful. Name one thing that you have done that Hinata hasn't.

Ugh... I hate when you guys ask questions so tough to answer!

Let's see what I can come up with:

What I have that Hinata hasn't:

Being an actual human-being and not a 2D character.

The respect of my peers who see me on eye-level and don't base that value over pitiness.

Men that are actually romantically interested in me.

What Hinata has that I don't:

Slaves.

161 notes • Posted 2021-07-15 15:10:48 GMT

#4

Female empowerment in the Naruto fandom

This is probably one of the most difficult posts I have made to date yet, not because I’m shy when it comes to discussing these types of things, but because of the emotional and political baggage that this particular topic carries -independently of the Naruto fandom.

There’re so many things to point out in this particular subject that I’m not sure I will even get to cover every aspect of it -and yes, this is an invitation to either debate, or add any element that might be missing, but I will do my best as to convey, respectfully (so I encourage to whoever wants to, to do the same), as much as I can.

If I talk about female empowerment, and while Naruto manga does possess a varied (as varied as a shonen can be expected to have) range of females, there’re two characters that are often tied up with the concept: Haruno Sakura (mostly portrayed as the only feminist lead, whose flaws are explained by misogynist characterizations of the author), and Hyuga Hinata (depicted, particularly by the Sakura fandom, as the idealization of the female figure by the patriarchal vision).

Let’s see how these characters (and their fandoms) interact with the “Female empowerment” concept:

'Female empowerment' is exclusively used for women who excel in a usually male-dominated field

I know this particular point comes with a lot of baggage because to this day the possibility of women (particularly of color) to access/grow in historically masculine fields is almost nil, but still, the glorification of these spheres over those culturally considered feminine presents a problem: There is nothing wrong with giving credit to women who, having an environment against them, develop in a usually masculine space; but then those "masculine spheres" are presented as spaces intrinsically superior to the feminine ones.

There is no questioning about patriarchal norms, rather, certain women are given a superior status over others who fail to shine in those specific fields, or to those who decide to develop in a usually "feminine" environment because, for them, it’s only natural to be good in such spaces (so no recognition is necessary).

In this sense, Tsunade is a better example as far as canon goes: she gets the position of Hokage -the maximum authority of Konoha, after Jiraiya declines to be the leader, and manages to establish her presence as a capable political figure (Konoha’s politics, that is).

However, many fans of Sakura proclaim that she would be a far better option than many male characters who aspire to become Hokage (Naruto, Kiba, even Sasuke) for no really good reason other than because she’s a woman, and that would be -somehow- progressive (reform comes in the aspect of another female Hokage, rather than a political system change). And I get it, watching women acquire positions of power that are usually given to men is always great (the three previous Hokage were males, as were Tsunade's two subsequent successors), but other than her gender, what does Sakura bring to the table?

Female capacities, much like in the patriarchal sense, get solely tied to their gender -but, unlike in the oppressive-male vision where women’s competence is degraded, here her abilities are magnified with no actual logical reason. Sakura knows exactly nothing about how to rule a village, but she’s the female protagonist, hence, she somehow deserves the position.

(No. I do not endure Naruto’s candidacy to become Hokage for the same reasons I won’t endure Sakura’s: They are both equally inadequate to politically manage a village, Naruto only has a far better chance at becoming the leader because he’s physically more powerful than Sakura, but beyond that, they’re similar in their incapacity.)

Feminist role models are women with archetypical male traits.

- And those who possess archetypical female behaviors are less valuable, despite their accomplishments. -

Very tied to the previous point comes this one, which you might notice has been summarized in the title. In this regard, we have the two female characters previously mentioned as models of both ends of the spectrum: Sakura represents the tomboy archetype (people want it to be Tenten, but she doesn’t have enough panels to become a role model at all), while Hinata is the overly-childishly feminine figure.

(I shall clarify this again: this point and the previous one are intrinsically tied to one another, I only divided them to make a more detailed analysis, but we can’t separate the notion of female empowerment being tied to women who excel in culturally male dominated-fields, of the idea of women dressing with “male” features)

Sakura always presented characteristics usually associated with male characters: A strong and rebellious personality, usually aggressive to the point of being capable of physical aggression, and with techniques associated with male heroes, possessing enough female traits to make her desirable to the protagonist (that is, showing concern on how appealing she might be for the men around her, particularly Sasuke).

She becomes the feminist role model par excellence because she detaches herself from the exaggeratedly feminine role to break in into the one usually reserved for the masculine gender, but in using her as a feminist’s standard, we commit -at least- two crimes:

1- We deny the relevance (in the plot and in the feminist movement) of other women who decide not to behave in the culturally associated male-manner.

Yes, I’m particularly speaking of Hinata, who sits at the exact opposite corner of Sakura, but I also include other female characters who are dragged for that very same reason: Ino and Mei, who sit in a comfortable middle (unlike Tenten, Anko, Tsunade, and Temari, who side with Sakura, Kishimoto made a point of doing female characters with strong personalities, it seems). Hinata becomes the enemy: an archetype we should destroy, the type of women we should not defend, who has no voice in the movement.

And while Hinata, particularly, does bring nothing to the discussion, Sakura -surprisingly- does it neither, this is because:

2- We do not question the patriarchal notion of power, rather, we model ourselves (the female characters that represent us) to meet those patriarchal standards, in order to be “rewarded” with some relevance.

And yes, this is absolutely tied to the first point of the post, women who usually excel in culturally male-dominated fields are shown to have also culturally associated male behaviors, that is no coincidence.

Sakura is often believed to be the strongest kunoichi, why exactly? Because she’s the female lead and has massive strength. That's why. Logically, there’s no reason to believe so, her power comes from healing, her strength, and Byakugou no Jutsu (which is a technique that allows her to heal fast, using no seals, but shortens her life span). A person with good speed and/or middle or long-range attacks and a decent chakra pool could be able to take her out -I’m not diminishing her capacities, but she’s particularly blown out of proportion-.

But why am I bringing this up? Sakura uses the type of techniques often portrayed by male heroes: massive strength, and that, for some reason, gives her an advantage in the fandom over other female characters who do not possess such technique.

Hulk, Captain America, Superman (although he does possess other powers, mainstream media loves to show him punching people), etc; all of them considered almost invincibles, share the same technique Sakura possesses: strength, a skill often used to portray male-physical (superior to women) power. We don’t need to go far to find similar examples: Valquiria (Thor Ragnarok) shares a similar tomboy personality and physical strength as Sakura -and she’s on the good side, so, female empowerment.

Physical strength (again, a technique usually associated with men), is then believed to be an almost-impossible-to-overpower technique; and many feminist like to think that the importance of Sakura having it is because she breaks the “only men can be physically strong” rule, but that is false: one, Tsunade is the one who came up with the technique, two, it works by enhancing your strength with chakra, so basically almost everyone can perform it if so they desire, and third, Sakura’s character does not question the patriarchal view in the importance of physical power (associated to men!). She cements it.

Female accomplishments mean nothing without the male's validation

If a woman accomplishes something and there isn’t a man to see it, does the woman really accomplish anything? For as long as I have been here, the female characters in Naruto are tied to the male character’s perspective. That is nothing but blatantly shown when it comes to Sakura and Hinata, whose fans use panels of Naruto (particularly) acknowledging Sakura (and Hinata) feats to either justify their ship, or the character’s growth.

Naruto recognized their capacities, therefore, their talent is a canon fact rather than a biased belief based on the affection Naruto has for them. I am not saying that both Sakura and Hinata’s accomplishments aren’t canon, but that the male’s validation of those accomplishments is far more important (for a large part of the fandom) than them having the actual skill.

Sasuke’s character is often attacked because he refuses to acknowledge Sakura’s skills, therefore, he doesn’t “deserve her”, despite the fact that his lack of recognition does not diminish the ability she has to perform. Even canonically Sakura states this, saddening at the thought that her efforts were “for nothing” (she doesn’t literally express this, but is not a reading difficult to make), because she lacks Sasuke’s expressed congratulations.

Women can’t do any wrong

The flaws that Kishimoto gave his female characters are either brushed aside or solely tied to the misogynistic beliefs of the author, excusing several toxic behaviors by labeling them as examples of “male authors not knowing how to write women”.

I will not deny that Kishimoto, as most male shonen authors, has sexist beliefs and those are reflected in his work, but if you choose to reduce Sakura and Hinata’s characterization as the result of a misogynist mindset, therefore, denying those of any relevance; then their accomplishments as ninjas should suffer the same fate.

Sakura is shown, for a large portion of the manga, as mean spirited: she often punches her male companions (those might be for comical purposes for the most part, but she punched Sai for the sole reason he bad-mouthed Sasuke, had Sai retaliated, he would have been reprimanded, Sakura wasn’t), speaks badly of her female comrades and often denigrates them in order to lift herself up. Her fandom purposefully brushes that behavior aside, excusing it with bad writing, but then my question is, aren’t female characters allowed to be mean?

As feminists, we preach for equal rights and treatment, but when Kishimoto presents us with a flawed female character that escapes the typical female protagonist prototype (the kind girl who follows the main character around), we can’t handle having a female lead that isn’t meant to be universally liked.

Sakura’s behavior (and even Hinata’s, don't think I forgot that she stalked Naruto and brought up Neji’s slave condition during their match) is either excused because she’s a girl or because of Kishimoto’s lack of writing skills. And both perspectives are unjust because Sakura is a decent written character meant to show a girl (and later on a woman), with deep unresolved self-esteem issues and frustrations.

Furthermore, excusing her behavior or diminishing the negative impact that it has on others is to be condescending of a woman’s capacity to cruelty, which is (behold!) a patriarchal belief.

Women are not intrinsically good, there’s a novel called Madame Bovary (that is considered one of the best feminist novels of all times) written by Gustave Flaubert (yes, a man), whose lead character is a woman who’s deeply frustrated with her life (spoiler):

She hates her husband, the church, her child, her gender (and what it implies in society) and seeks to have various affairs. She resents her life so much so, that she ends up committing suicide.

Truth be told, the author did not write her to be liked, but to be an example of what happens to young girls who don’t align with society, and yet, Madame Bovary surpassed the initial role it had: she became a memoir of women’s frustrations, of women’s lengths to cruelty (it's -for what I can remember-, described how Madame Bovary takes pleasure in mistreating her husband, who she hates for his lack of ambition and pride) and how a woman tries to fight an oppressive system.

Madame Bovary, flawed and full of resentfulness that eats her from the inside out, fights against the patriarchal system in a much more impactful way than Sakura does -especially if we destroy the flaws that make her a unique protagonist.

The idea that women need to be always kind perpetuates the belief that, because of our well-spirited nature, we need protection -either physical or mental, and as consequence, our harmful actions shall receive no punishment.

We aren’t fighting against the patriarchal belief, but we are twisting it to our benefit.

If readers do not allow female characters to face the consequences of their own actions, choosing instead to blame another (male) character or the (male) author, then they are denying the female characters their agency: Sakura made the decision to punch Sai, manipulate Naruto’s feelings for her own benefit -whether she considered to be doing it for the greater good does not negate her ulterior motives, and poke fun at Tsunade's age. If we don’t hold her accountable for such actions, then we strip female characters of actual decision-making: therefore, it's not about women making their own choices (they aren't given free will) but forcing them to follow the path we want for them. It's still controlling the female characters to "protect" them.

In that sense, if women can’t be responsible for their decisions, then women can’t be put in positions of power (such as the Hokage’s seat), since those spaces demand whoever occupies them to be responsible for their actions. Hence, if Sakura can’t be held accountable, then she doesn’t deserve to be the leader.

In the same manner, if Hinata is not responsible for her words during the chünin exams or her chosen ignorance on the matter of her clan’s slavery (even after Neji blatantly exposes it for what it is), then she’s definitely not fit to be the clan leader.

And here I'll add: Being accountable for their decisions does not mean forcing them to change things. For instance, in Hinata's case, it means to take a position about whether she endorses or not clan slavery and stick with it, if she knows it's wrong, but still chooses to support it, she'll have to deal with the political and moral consequences. Instead, we're allowing her to exist in a void that spares her from any consequence and gives her no actual political relevance.

Why is Sakura or Hinata not allowed to be flawed? Is it because their characters revolve around men? I have news: not only female characters have that trait. Naruto’s obsession with Sasuke is as enormous as Sakura is (and there’re fans that found it as equally romantic as SS), Gaara’s whole character revolves around obtaining Naruto’s approval/friendship after the chünin exams. Pein never got over Yahiko’s death, as neither did Konan and so on. We are more trained and prepared to see those types of things when it comes to female characters, but Kishimoto distributed fixation traits in equal measures.

As for romantic developments, it’s often that this fandom puts the female characters as the sole victims of the romance dynamics presented in the ending: SS and NH are a testament to how the male characters were trapped in a relationship they never expressed they wanted to be a part of. Furthermore, Sai never canonically expressed during the manga to want to be both in a romantic relationship and with Ino specifically (she did, however, voice interest). So how come we mostly treat romantic interest as coffins for female characters, instead of a two-way street?

Sakura is a character marked by her obsession with a boy, her lack of confidence, jealousy, and frustrations, in that sense, she clashes against the typical notion of a female co-protagonist, who’s brought into the manga by Hinata’s characterization only to be mocked.

Sakura, much like Madame Bovary, carries inside the Narutoverse the idea of an active libido, she’s driven by her awakening sexual desire over Sasuke -and her distaste for Naruto; she goes against the innocent role that the public expects of her, which gives her more depth and feminist relevance than the version the fandom chooses to worship.

(And no, Sakura's character is not groundbreaking either, Kishimoto is not that good of a writer: she does share similarities with other female co-protagonist, like their harsh demeanor. But Sakura is consciously and purposefully mean, while other female characters tend to have 'cruel moments' more in regards to their unconscious abrasive nature).

Hinata however, by being presented as the feminine archetype, does not have actual relevance to the plot while at the same time (pretty literally), lacks a -significant- voice. She’s not even allowed her own defense, which is in exchange carried out by the male protagonist. Whether Kishimoto intended the metaphor or not, that does not change the fact that might be read as such.

Lastly, why are the females’ questionable behaviors reduced to “Kishimoto’s bad writing”, while male behaviors (like Naruto’s rude attitude or Sasuke’s arrogance) are attributed to their character’s personality? Shouldn’t they receive the same defense as their female companions?

“Potential” is often used as a word to replace the fandom’s unfulfilled wish.

The idea that female characters had the “potential” to be great yet Kishimoto undermined them in order to both uplift the male characters and to introduce romance is, at least, debatable. For instance, the idea that Sakura should have gotten over Sasuke not only has no claims in canon (at no point in the manga did Sakura stopped being infatuated with Sasuke, therefore, she getting over him had no actual potential to develop), but also ignores Sakura’s expressed wishes: she made the conscious decision to chase after him.

Both Sasuke and Naruto are people that surpass shinobi standards, even Hashirama and Madara are considered inferior as Asura and Indra reincarnations, so why is Sakura being inferior so hard to accept? Kakashi, another fan favorite, also pales considerably against them, why is Sakura or any female character robbed of their potential, but male characters aren’t?

In that sense, “potential” and women empowerment are less about female characters' expressed desires and more about them choosing the path/romantical partner that the fandom wishes for them to choose.

Kishimoto owes nothing to the fandom.

The last point and the most controversial one: Kishimoto owes nothing to the fandom. He’s a male author that started a manga in 1999, having been raised in Japan under a patriarchal system.

His views on female characters are, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, far more open-minded than many mangas published during the same period. Furthermore, during the time Naruto was being published, Kishimoto allowed the fandom to have a say in many aspects of his creation, thus affecting the final product.

Kishimoto literally gave the public an off the norm female co-protagonist, choosing to show a deeply flawed individual (who does not acknowledge her imperfections, but the plot does it for her), and yet the fandom still is dissatisfied with the result.

Sakura and Hinata are, by no means, my favorite characters at all, but the way he wrote them is a challenge of the norm in itself; I understand that he accomplished little when it comes to appealing female characters (personal beliefs aside), but he gave them enough ground to move on.

The fandom is more focused on having overpowered women (being chased by male characters rather than the other way around), than having morally complex ones, thus, having three-dimensional women is not the actual fandom’s desire, but having prototypical male characters’ traits in feminine designs.

By following that path, we don’t challenge the norm, the notion of power and its patriarchal established significance gets cemented, and our individuality as females is then forced to mutate to reach the masculine standards to get relevance as a reward.

173 notes • Posted 2021-04-16 19:35:04 GMT

#3

On Itachi, his fandom, and moral standpoints

Once again I come back with a meta, unsurprisingly, of Naruto’s manga and, more specifically, about a character in particular, Uchiha Itachi, his fandom and what it entails and represents. My decision to make him the primary focus of this meta is just to bring light (open the door for more in depth debates) of a deeper, much more complicated problem that Itachi represents, but undoubtedly surpasses him and the Naruto manga as a whole.

Be warned, my take on Itachi’s fandom does not contemplate those fans who merely enjoy him but do not negate important parts of his character, if that’s your particular case, then be assured that I did not have you in my mind when writing this. This is about, let’s say, the hardcore fandom he possesses, that justifies (and to some extent, celebrates) his implications in the UCM and blindfold loyalty to Konoha and its system.

How can I even begin to introduce Itachi’s character? What he was supposed to be and what he surprisingly became? How to start to explain his fenomenon? Itachi was not supposed to be good, from his introduction he was a manipulative, dark character that tortured physically and mentally Sasuke and was a threat to Naruto’s (the protagonist) life. At no point during the first part of the manga were we able to see glimpses of a “good” Itachi that the narrative later on tried to establish, and yet, there were three (conected) factors of imperative importance to understand the raise of his character from the first part of the manga to the other. 

The first one was, let’s call it, his intrinsecal persona's appeal (and everything it encompases).

Itachi’s not the first cryptic male character that gets favored by a large part of the fandom for that mere trait (look at any shönen or show and see how many characters whose sole trait is to be mysterious becomes the fandom’s favorite), added to the fact that he’s powerful enough to subdue men who’s status of geniuses are often highlighted in the manga (Orochimaru and Kakashi), and his... physical charm, you have a powerful combo to make readers incline more and more on his favor. Itachi had sparked their interest. 

There are boxes to fill to attract the public interest to a character, and Itachi filled in all of them. 

The Power-Mystery-Beauty triangle is not an unknown formula (Christian Gray, Edward Cullen, to name characters from mainstream, from other manga there is Light, now surprisingly, Dabi) and in every fiction work it has appeared, it worked to lure the (female) public towards it.

But is that enough? For some, yes, for most, Itachi represents something that they desired profoundly, and that’s entirely attached to Sasuke’s character.

Even back in the first part of the manga, Sasuke’s character was received mixedly, there were people who saw his personality as too abrasive (similar to Itachi’s but because Sasuke was supposed to be with the nice guys, this aspect of him clashed rather harshly with his position on the narrative) and considered him a mere emo who believed himself to be better than Naruto and Sakura (he was, but he also acknowledged this fact, which make some readers disapprove of him even more). 

Itachi challenged that “so-called” superiority, additionally downgrading and humiliating him in a way readers felt he, to some extent, deserved. The dislike of part of the fandom of Sasuke’s character found a way of purchase inside the manga. Naruto wasn’t strong enough (and eventually cared too much) to subdue Sasuke, Sakura was too in awe with him to “stand up against him”, Kakashi saw his greatness and taught him powerful jutsus while paying zero attention to his other students. Until Itachi, no other character seemed to put Sasuke “in his place”, because even the villains of each arc seemed particularly obsessed with Sasuke and Sasuke only, elevating even more his importance and status and sidelining Naruto and (of course), Sakura, who were left with mere participations in what seemed a Sasuke-focused plot. Up at this point, Sasuke was far more important than the actual protagonist of the manga but Itachi, who was actually Sasuke’s goal, who was actually the person Sasuke aspired to surpass, abused him, manipulated him and -more importantly- seemed more focused on getting Naruto -hence, retribution: the only person Sasuke seemed to care about didn’t seem care about him at all.

Itachi’s coolness, strength and mature handsomeness (that Sasuke did not present until Shippuden, but Itachi was literally introduced with), plus the dislike of Sasuke’s character and the belief that he needed to be rectified, the reason of which will be brought up next, appealed the teenage fandom in a way strong enough to catapult him inside the popularity polls just right after his presentation. 

The Self-inserts inside Itachi’s fandom

As I introduced, a large part of the fandom back in the first part already, and in Shippuden particularly, had a deep dislike of Sasuke’s character and wanted him to suffer -to be beaten, to be “owned”, Itachi’s character fulfilled that wish, which takes me to the second factor. 

You can’t explain this point in particular without adding the “self-insert” and “reader-insert” notions that often gets attached to Itachi (Sakura, Naruto and Hinata) fans, 

“Self-insertion is a practice by authors of writing themselves into their own stories, either explicitly or in thinly-disguised form; in a fannish context this most often means fan writers writing themselves into their favorite source material so that they can interact with canon or its characters” (X)

Whilst

“Reader-Insert is a type of fanfiction, almost always written in 2nd person Point of View; the protagonist is always the reader, and is usually paired with one of the canon characters. "Reader-insert" typically has a hyphen hyphen, but is also known as Canon X Reader (sometimes CanonXReader).” (X)

In this particular case, many readers had succumbed to something slightly in between. The manga doesn’t belong to them, so the only one in position to literally self-insert is Kishimoto (canonically), so they are left with the option of attaching themselves personally to a pre-existed character with whom they feel somewhat represented. If not, then at least they attach emotionally to a character because it represents what they desire (this can be more observed in the shipping part of the fandom). Meaning, they use a canon established character that is not literally the reader, but who clearly represents them or represents what they want in their significant (romantical) other. 

Sakura was the only female lead who had a crush on the cool guy, readers (particular female ones) didn’t need much to feel a connection with her (during the first part, Kishimoto didn’t even give them much to do so, but they still attached to her with the prospect of what she might become), while Naruto was the dead last, it appealed to those who also felt that they weren’t popular or were mistreated by their peers.

But what the self-inserts of Sakura or even Naruto had to do with the increasing love for Itachi? 

To explain this in a way that can be understandable: Sakura fans who believed Sasuke disrespected her when not acknowledging her feelings or when downgrading her skills often turned their attention to the man of similar physique and strength to fulfill their fantasies of reciprocation -because canonically, Itachi had neither rejected, nor downgraded her character. In the same fashion, Naruto fans who believe Sasuke is egotistical by not caring for/acknowledging Naruto in the same manner he does (hence, not deserving him), tend to also indulge in the same type of behavior previously mentioned. 

Later on, when the narrative introduces the idea that Itachi stands alongside Konoha (Naruto and Sakura), thus, against Sasuke (from an idealistic standpoint), this particular practice deepens, grows. They feel validated on their idea that Itachi will treat  their favorite character (them) better, while at the same time punishing Sasuke for rejecting them.

There are not many cases of Itachi self-inserts, I’m not denying their existence however because he did fulfilled a wish many readers had (against Sasuke), but Itachi’s self-insert part of the fandom seems to be more in terms of female character fans that desire their favorite kunoichi to be loved/desired/respected? by a powerful, handsome, mysterious character. 

Sasuke’s importance in the narrative (and character growth)

Sasuke escaping Konoha to get to Orochimaru, train, and become strong enough to defeat Itachi and avenge his clan won’t hold up for the four hundred or so chapters Naruto Shippuden lasts. After Itachi’s defeat at his hands, Sasuke had no reason not to return to Konoha, more importantly, he had no reason to fight Naruto as it was the intention and ultimate and most important clash in the manga since the introduction of their rivalry. 

Sasuke’s growth as a character (that I spoke more detailed in this post) was tied to the introduction of a deeper, more important problem: Konoha’s involvement in the UCM. It wasn’t new in Naruto to present the dichotomy and harsh truths of the shinobi system (Hyuga clan, Haku, Jinchurikis), and the intervention of Konoha’s government in the massacre of the Uchiha clan provided the narrative with a reason to have both Sasuke and Naruto fighting in different sides of the battlefield, but also presented a deeper problem: Itachi couldn’t be bad.

He couldn’t stand in the “bad” side of the field because both, that would put Naruto (the hero) in the same morally bad position, and Itachi's fandom (which was massive), was eager for redemption, they demanded it, and Naruto is not a manga that doesn’t get influenced by what its purchasers want. In consequence, they needed to justify Itachi’s actions. We can talk about how abysmally bad they did it, we can talk about how much better this problem could have been sorted out, but that is not the core of this post. 

Kishimoto loved Sasuke, I have said this before, despite the fandom wishes, he stood his ground when it came to Sasuke and his revolutionary position until the very end. Maintaining that ideal as just, put Naruto (hence, Itachi) in the wrong. But because the narrative needed Naruto to be good and in the right, he ended up justifying genocide by justifying Itachi.

Consequently, and with the appeal he earned with his introduction and the Sasuke-hate (self-inserts), Itachi became a favorite character amongst favorite characters despite being a plot holes with legs. Readers eagerly consumed whatever panel proved that Itachi was not the bad guy he was previously believed to be. (proved or at least didn’t show, Itachi still commited genocide, but we don’t get to see such attrocities so its easier to forget he slaughtered innocent people, children amongst them). Readers who liked him were desperate for the narrative’s validation.

Core of the issue

Which brings me to the core of the post and in retrospection, I have already presented it: moral standpoints. This is not new, I’m not introducing any new idea, and this is hardly something that happens solely in the Naruto’s (and most specifically Itachi’s) fandom. Liking or not a character is tied to so many subjective variables that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what makes a character desirable or despicable despite solid traits being commonly shared on particular troups. And yet, liking or not a character became a moral standpoint for which people judged each other on a personal level. It has happened since always, but the internet did nothing but make more accessible and public this type of clashes. Therefore, Redemption Arcs became the most precious gem inside fictional works and Naruto fell for it, and fell hard. 

It’s almost mandatory to have the narrative’s validation in order to enjoy a character freely and Naruto provided it to Itachi’s fandom. His actions were justified by the manga and the most important (and beloved) characters stood by his side, even those who were victims of him forgave his actions because there was someone (with less appeal and more morally questionable actions under his belt) to blame further. Having the narrative’s moral validation is more important than actually being in the right. 

Itachi was manipulated by the Will of Fire who he learned from Hiruzen who was passed to him by Tobirama who created it because he was raised during the Warring States Period, so his apprehension to the Uchiha was justified. It’s a train of justifications that ultimately holds no one responsible for the genocide of an entire clan/race which then becomes something bound to happen. So to save face, they use an escape goat: Danzo and the Curse of Hatred. They put the blame of the massacre to a single character and the actual victims because, well, they were genetically prone to disaster and killing them was the only way to ensure (temporary) peace.

Liking a character doesn’t automatically mean condoning its actions but because that subjective appeal became more and more the reflection of the reader’s ideals (for some reason I’m not here to trace), those two actions merged, which translated consequently into demanding the narrative’s validation of our tastes. There’s no denial of the pleasing sensation that comes with having the plot’s endorsement for liking a complex/morally gray or even dark character, but that approval turned to be the most important/valuable requirement, which, in turn, made readers justificate (supported by the narrative) despicable actions, such as genocide. 

Let’s go back to the second bullet point, self- inserts, as to discern more in depth their reasons to look for a justification on Itachi’s character: Itachi (an Uchiha that was not affected by the Curse, as his peers were) who the narrative proclaims wanted his brother’s safety and happiness above all things, stands morally with Konoha (hence, the readers’ favorite character). Therefore, justifying his actions is justifying Sakura and Naruto’s actions against Sasuke (manipulation is alright because Itachi did it, trying to kill Sasuke because he didn’t want to bend to their will is alright because Itachi did it), it gives them reasons to believe that they are on the right side of the battlefield, it gives them moral superiority. They’re in the right, they are good people, Sasuke was too deep in his hatred to either see it or correspond their feelings and that’s why he needs to be saved, and who more appropriate to do so than the two characters that were mocked by him during the first part of the manga? Even in the end, Itachi still gives them the retribution they still feel deserve and that Sasuke -still- didn’t give. 

176 notes • Posted 2021-01-25 22:36:24 GMT

#2

How Sasuke and Obito surpassed their role in the manga

My proclamations of how Sasuke is the best-written character of the show and how Obito comes in second place for his characterization are not freshly introduced things in this blog, so the idea of Sasuke overgrowing his initial role in the manga should not be new to those followers who are used to my beliefs.

Sasuke was introduced to be Naruto’s goal and rival, the representation of everything Naruto was not but tried to be, his wall to climb and surpass. Sasuke was introduced to be the representation of individuality while Naruto supported himself in a communal view, in doing so, their ideologies clashed. 

Naruto followed the Will of Fire, which consists of a learned, supreme ideology that was about enduring the hardships of the shinobi system (but together!) that up until then proved to be successful in producing peacetime lapses. Whilst Sasuke was under the Curse of Hatred, a genetically inherited ideology (which affected only Uchiha) that was about caring more for people than the system itself; which pushed Sasuke to look for a structural change in the system that segregated, and ultimately killed his clan.

However, it appears that the Curse of Hatred that forces Uchiha to be genetically predisposed to revolution does not inherently affect all of the Uchiha, since Kagami, Shisui and Itachi were Will of Fire extremists, so the gene might skip a few babies or can be tamed. Or… does this mean that the so-called “curse of hatred” that Tobirama introduced is nothing but the genuine interest of an oppressed group to change an oppressive system that has not evolved since the Warring States Era? The narrative continues to try to push down this idea, forcing the concept that, no, the Uchiha are genetically bad, which creates a paradox.

Sasuke’s chosen path is often shown in a negative light when highlighting Sasuke’s “loneliness” (because bad guys are always alone!), completely ignoring the reason for such solitude. A Will of Fire extremist, his own brother, both killed his entire family and manipulated him to believe that he should not and could not surround himself with people he cared for, because those bonds will ultimately weaken his resolve to seek justice and the achievement of power he needed in order to defeat him. And even then, Sasuke did form a group with people with similar backgrounds as his, and whilst he did attack Karin, it was less to do with his genetic disposition to be bad, and more to do with a mental breakdown in the face of one of the responsible for Itachi’s sacrifice and the Uchiha clan’s massacre. 

Naruto, far away from giving him emotional support as he needed, acknowledges Sasuke’s tragedy but refuses to bring those responsible to justice. Characters that the narrative states over and over again want only Sasuke’s happiness, alienate him until he’s ready not to compromise, but to bend to their will. Sasuke is an emotionally compromised man and was manipulated by his peers to return and pledge loyalty to a village that had betrayed him since before his birth. Let’s think for a moment, what would have happened if Naruto told Sasuke “let’s not fight, I’ll help you put the elders on trial so something like the UCM won’t happen again,” instead of screaming at him for solid 698 chapters while attacking him with his Rasengan?

Everything that the narrative tried to introduce found its clash on Sasuke’s character and what he represented. The notion that he depicted individuality became paradoxical when his goal was to equalize both sides of the scale to fix power imbalance and force the villages to focus on him, fear him, and unite. Naruto’s goal (reach peace through dialogue with the other Kages to set aside their differences and unite) did not contemplate smaller villages and did absolutely nothing against power imbalance. Adding to this, it also leaves aside internal village issues that could lead to another situation like the UCM= A minority group that seeks change in the political structure of its village in order to counteract the oppression they’re under could mean a significant change in the bureaucratic relationship of the village with other nations, which might represent a danger high enough for those in power to believe that massacring them is the right course of action. In short: Naruto only presents a solution about villages’ relationship with each other, not about the structural internal system that allows villages to use and discriminate against minorities inside them.

Sasuke’s solution might seem individualistic because he intrinsically is focusing the solution on himself, while Naruto presents a solution where all the Kages work together. But Sasuke’s goal is not about him individually or the five nations, in particular, is about society, is about minorities, is about communities. Is about destroying the old system and force the shinobi world to built itself anew without bijuus who put particular nations on top of others.

Sasuke was supposed to be the redeemable antagonist saved by Naruto, he was not supposed to become the face of the oppressed, he was not supposed to present the narrative with so many counterarguments. He excelled, surpassed, overgrew his role and importance in the plot, he was not supposed to question Naruto’s hero status, he was not supposed to throw light on Konoha’s (and shinobi villages in general) corrupt and prejudiced pillars. 

It was a Shonen manga but Sasuke shattered the simplicity of a plot aimed at teenagers. He presented a problem because there were readers who questioned his antagonist/villainous status, so the narrative had to remind fans that the manga was about Naruto and his (correct) views. 

Hence, Uchiha were genetically bad, Tobirama had scientific evidence (that was never shown, but he was a scientist so it should be enough to appease detractors) to back it up. His dislike for the Uchiha clan was justified, his politics to segregate them were a mere precaution to prevent another “Madara” from rising, Madara, who left the village by himself because every Uchiha in Konoha rejected him. The isolation Tobirama claimed to be a safety measure was what ultimately turned the Uchiha against Konoha and Tobirama’s views, he helped no one, he brought Konoha its own “demise”, and yet, the narrative tries to justify and save the Nidaime. Some fans even fell for it. 

Tobirama’s political views and ideals are for a different post altogether but it does not come as a surprise that I believe them to be complete nonsense. There are plenty of lengthy posts about how his principles were ruled by his own bias and the point escapes completely the main objective of this particular post. Regardless, I can’t talk about Sasuke and what he represents without making a connection between the Uchiha’s segregation by Konoha’s elders and Kages, their attempt to coup, the UCM, and Tobirama’s policies.

The manga constantly explained and reminded people why they should stand by Naruto, but as time passes, Naruto and the Will of Fire are more and more questioned, while Sasuke and the Curse of Hatred get more supporters. As time passes, Sasuke fandom still exists, still is relevant, and the more relevant equal rights movements become, the more Sasuke fandom grows.

I’m not here to say that Sasuke’s characterization was perfect, I’m not saying everything he did was correct, I’m stating that he surpassed what he was supposed to be because he represents a still present and relevant problem that exceeds a shonen manga and jumps into reality. Segregated and minority groups are more willing to see Sasuke’s perspective of the issue because it resounds on them.

Obito was, while not Sasuke, not much different in the sense that he surpassed what he was supposed to be and represent. A flat, simple (common) way of reading him is to merely label him as a simp who started a war because his crush died, some other (more extremist) fans because his feelings were not reciprocated. For them, his goal is vengeance against Konoha, Minato, and Kakashi, nothing more and nothing less. But Obito begs to differ, more than once telling characters that he cares not for revenge, that he cares not for who lives or who dies, this world (the real world) will exist no more once his plan is through, he will create a genjutsu world were all the Uchiha (who he killed alongside Itachi for his plan, not because a personal grudge) are alive, where Rin (and even Kakashi) live happy, where there’s long everlasting peace. 

His character is flowy, there’s no other word as good as this to describe him. He’s duality, he’s change, flow: Tobi who is Madara who is Obito. Part of the Uchiha clan, then beyond, the Ten-Tails Jinchuriki. One of his Sharingan is on one side of the battle while the other fights alongside Kakashi, reading Obito flatly is a disrespect to Kishimoto’s marvelous work. 

His plan was not to simply avenge Rin, or even revive her -he could have done that with the Edo-Tensei technique, but he did not, and people who claim him to be a simp often forget this detail: when he looked for Kabuto’s assistance, he never asked to revive the girl he was in love with-. He understood that Konoha had used her, manipulated her to put it above her own life, he understood that they were seen as tools and that there was a system that, while in place, would never allow ever-lasting peace to exist. 

The system was subjected to people’s desires, Obito was not foreign to what people’s ambitions entailed or meant to others (Rin and Jinchurikis were an example, but also was the UCM and Tobirama’s policies that lead to it), so he wanted a complete change, and because he couldn’t trust people, he wanted to force his will through a genjutsu. Kisame was the only member of Akatsuki who understood and believed in Obito’s views (and he did so while believing he was Madara, Obito was that dual. He told Kisame the truth while everything about him was a lie!), that’s why he sacrificed himself before Konoha could get information through him. He did not do it for Itachi, he did it for Obito/Madara.

And while I’m on it, let’s talk a little bit about MadaTobi (not in the sense of the ship, but Obito’s representation of Madara). Obito chooses to perform Madara not as he actually was -there’s not enough evidence to support Madara was exactly as Obito performed him-, but as people (Konoha) thought he was. He lied to Itachi and told him he would help him kill the clan because he hated them for turning against him, and that was possible for him to pretend because Konoha had fed that conception of him to its citizens.

Madara’s name instilled respect and fear and Obito, knowing this, chose to run with it and encourage that perception to manipulate people into doing his will. Loyalty and control are two notions of great importance tied to Obito’s character, his time on Akatsuki and the weight he put on Pein’s betrayal is a great example of the first one while his allowance of Kakashi to pierce through his heart to become the Ten-Tails’ Jinchuriki to be the one commanding the Tsukuyomi, of the second one.

Obito escaped what he should have been, he was supposed to be an antagonist who represented what Naruto could have become if he kept following his hatred (?) instead of a more peaceful way out. Obito was everything Naruto was: an outcast who saw a prodigy and made him his rival and had a crush on the girl on his team (this is not about Sakura/Rin parallels, but Obito and Naruto). But Obito left behind those parts of him that attached him to his initial role. He outgrew the idea of simply being what Naruto “could” have become, his Tsukuyomi was not fuelled by hatred or resentment as the narrative seems to push to some extent (and some fans ate up) in order to make him a parallel to dark-naruto. It evolved by the growth of his ideals and a pronounced disappointment in people’s actions and true intentions. He trusted no one but himself, Kisame was the only person he regarded as “close” in Akatsuki, and that was because he was loyal to him and his plan, he was the only one who knew the truth about Tsukuyomi, and yet he did not trust him enough to tell him his true name. 

And even then, I keep thinking about where the Curse of Hatred is inside Obito, he was more than willing to go back to Konoha and leave Madara until he saw Rin die at the hands of Kakashi. Up to this point, every Uchiha that looked for a structural change seems to have been triggered by a huge loss at the hands of a Will of Fire extremist. 

Madara abandoned Konoha because he knew Tobirama’s bias will be his clan downfall, Obito looked to control the world through Tsukuyomi because of Rin’s sacrifice at the hands of Kakashi (whether Rin was kidnapped thanks to Madara’s plan does not erase the fact that she sacrificed herself to “save” her village), the Uchiha clan wanted to coup because the discrimination it suffered at the hands of the government and Sasuke sought revolution because Itachi massacred his clan by both orders and his own ideals. Every single one of the Uchiha’s actions can be linked to the Will of Fire since its conception, without Will of Fire, there will be no Curse of Hatred because the second one can’t exist without the first one.

But, while the Curse of Hatred, which encompasses the responses of the Uchiha against Tobirama’s policies is looked down upon, the Will of Fire, that provoked such actions, is celebrated. 

We can say that Obito committed alongside Itachi the UCM and that’s a more than valid reason to dislike him, but his resolution to doing so was because whatever happened in the real world could be deleted in the Tsukuyomi. His duality and flowness (yes, I’m definitely keeping that word), forced the narrative to keep up with his actions and come up with a counterargument that many times was full of plot holes, it forced the reader to -not condone him, but to understand where did he come from. 

Like Sasuke, there’s so much duality in fans’ perception of him because he makes us uncomfortable, it forced the reader to face reality: Konoha is in the wrong, the narrative wants to save us from the headache by trying to present the Uchiha as the genetically bad ones, but it fails miserably when it gives them reasons to rebel over and over again.

Obito does not deserve redemption (Sasuke doesn’t need one, period), his involvement in the UCM and the killing of hundreds of people to achieve his goal are despicable actions and he should be accountable for them. His final sacrifice to save Naruto, Sasuke, Kakashi, and the whole world from Madara and later on Kaguya doesn’t erase his crimes. Sasuke, on the other hand, never killed anyone but Danzo, Deidara (this is up for debate because he did kill himself to defeat him, so it wasn’t exactly by his hand), Itachi and I believe a samurai in the Land of Iron while trying to get to the Kage Meeting. 

Kishimoto was careful to not present him as a bloodthirsty man during Shippuden, so why is the narrative later on so intently focused into picture him as genetically predisposed to chaos? Because he was shaking the foundations that sustained Naruto’s status as a hero, how can the protagonist be the saver of a village that committed genocide? That will make him an accomplice of such atrocity! So they were forced to introduce the idea of the Uchiha being in the wrong, but Sasuke still presented counterarguments to that statement, Kishimoto couldn’t erase his creation.

You can tell the way Kishimoto enjoys and loves to write both Sasuke and Obito because every time you think the narrative has succeeded to take down their beliefs or ideals, they come back full force until they are compelled to be defeated by Naruto. And that’s why they surpassed their initial role.

197 notes • Posted 2021-01-23 00:22:41 GMT

#1

I don’t mind mentor who have past failures and mistakes, but Jiraiya’s failures are pretty unforgivable in my opinion. Add to fact they where ulimately caused by his highly selfish nature.

Let’s start a list:

He abandoned three orphans (for which he decided to be responsible for) after he taught them what he considered “enough” for them to survive.

Abandoned his newborn godson to chase Orochimaru -because he still had that imbecile hero complex-.

Threatened Tsunade and forced her to go back to the village.

Failed to tell Naruto who his parents were even after three years living together (Naruto already was in danger because he was being haunted by Akatsuki, and he was already protecting him, why wouldn’t he tell Naruto who was his father and mother? What’s the reasoning behind it? Naruto couldn’t be in more danger than he already was by knowing his identity!).

Assured two different children that they were the future heroes of the world because a frog-prophecy told him he will teach the World Savior, forcing then his narrative into two different people that acted by that premise.

I’ll reiterate: He abandoned the two children he was sure were the future world saviors.

Didn’t die painfully enough.

Feel free to add.

237 notes • Posted 2021-03-04 14:00:35 GMT

Get your Tumblr 2021 Year in Review →

[pynkhues]

I’m sure you’ve already gotten a bunch of asks since Manny’s Crime King interview! I’m just like confused about him saying he’s enamored by her world but honestly like how is his different (besides his obvious commitment to the game) he lives in a nice loft, takes his kid to baseball, drives a fancy car, and plays tennis at the club. It’s not like he’s living the life of a thug. I guess I’m not getting the exact contrast of their worlds.

(Rest of my ask) I’m probably missing some obvious point here which is why I’m asking you lol helllppp

I do think Rio’s enamoured with Beth’s world, yes! I think that really boils down to the fact that while on paper Beth and Rio aren’t living dissimilar lives in terms of their roles as parents, and while they obviously now share parts of the criminal world, I do think the show is actually pretty specific in how it represents those worlds, particularly in terms of the masculine / feminine, and how a part of the curiosity around each other is in viewing one another as a key that both compliments their own world, while also unlocking the other’s one for them.

The gendering of spaces in storytelling – but particularly films and TV is, hilariously, a topic that I’m incredibly passionate about and have both written it a lot in my original work, and written about it a lot for magazines, journals and media sites (I’m actually writing an essay at the moment for a literary journal about LGBTQI cinema and how lesbian romances are highly domesticised [i.e. Portrait of a Lady on Fire, The Handmaiden, The Favourite, The Kids are Alright] while gay romances are usually very pointedly about keeping away from domestic spaces, moving and traveling [i.e. Brokeback Mountain, The Talented Mr Ripley, Moonlight, Midnight Cowboy, even Call Me By Your Name is heavily focused on being Americans abroad aka away from home] but that all feels like a different story, haha).

Luckily for me, Good Girls is actually about as obsessed with the gendering of spaces as I am. It’s a major, major throughline throughout the show for many of the characters, but particularly Beth and Rio, and their intrigue with the other’s spaces – her interest in his powerful, highly masculine one, and his with her deceptively innocent, strongly feminine one – is really central to their intrigue with each other more broadly.

So to talk about this, we probably need a little bit of context.

(Under a cut because this is literally 4,000 words)

Gendering Spaces in Cinema

It’s probably not a surprise to anyone here, but places and spaces in stories are about as gendered – if not more gendered – as they are in daily life. In particular, cinema’s visual and textual language has historically been very clear:

The inside is female. The outside is male.

This concept has really been around since the beginning of cinema but became very popularised through Westerns in the late 1920s onwards, and really underlined by war films particularly during propaganda cinema in WWII. Men are outside, battling the elements and other men, claiming land, building outwards, while women are at home – either literally or figuratively (if they’re actually out at war, like in the utterly fabulous So Proudly We Hail!, they’re at the ‘home base’ as nurses) – building inwards. Men protect the home while women create it.

Westerns feature these images very potently and very literally. Almost every single western dating back to the 1910s will have some combination of these two shots:

a)       Woman at home, looking out into the wild:

b)      Man leaving home, stepping out into the wild:

(These two stills are from John Ford’s The Searchers which is generally regarded as one of the greatest Westerns of all time. It’s………very racist and misogynistic, as many were and still are, but in terms of technicality and visual language, it’s a very well-made film, albeit not one I enjoyed).

The purpose at the time, of course, was steeped in historic sexism and invested in maintaining that culture, particularly westerns and war films which are heavily devoted to ‘macho’ narratives. Women were passive, men were active, but these images really set the stage for how the ideas of ‘space’ continues to exist in cinema. A fact that’s bolstered by broader social discourses that still exist today – schools, grocery stores, laundromats are inherently ‘female’ spaces because they are seen as an extension of the home, while police stations, car dealerships, warehouses, are inherently ‘male’ spaces because they’re about work, protecting and providing for a home, and being pointedly outside of that domestic space aka ‘the wild’. It’s not an accident that the girls are robbing grocery stores and day spas, but I’ll get back to that, haha.

These ideas of gendered spaces underpin everything we watch, no matter the genre.

Sure, these ideas can be subverted to varying degrees of effectiveness (often it’s steeped in my least favourite trope – the ‘not like other girls’ heroine), but you can’t subvert a trope without actually acknowledging it exists. Sometimes these subversions are done brilliantly too – like in Legally Blonde which was not just about Elle existing in a space that was quintessentially coded as male, but embracing her femininity and womanhood within that space; and often brutally too in films like Winter’s Bone, Room and The Nightingale which all brutalise women in ‘male spaces’ while simultaneously weaponizing female spaces against them – usually the home. The lead character of Winter’s Bone is going to lose her house unless her absent father shows up in court, the lead character of Room creates a home that is simultaneously a sanctuary and a mockery of a sanctuary to try and protect her son from reality and survive, the lead character of The Nightingale has her home invaded, her husband and baby murdered, and is horrifically raped within that home.

Hometown Horror: a divergence

This is a slight aside to where I’m going with this overall, but please indulge me, haha. I’m a big fan of horrors and thrillers, which explore this in a really stark way. In that, the invasion of a home or a domestic space – whether by ghost, demon or serial killer, is, generally speaking, synonymous with the invasion of a woman’s body and the violation of her as a person.

Films that focus on a female survivor or a ‘final girl’ are very generally focused on the invasion of her home as much as it’s focused on the invasion of her body. Think The Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby, Scream, The Babadook, Hereditary, The Conjuring, Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Panic Room. The violation of a woman’s home is the invasion of her, because cinema relies on over 100 years of movies telling us that a house and the woman who lives in it are symbolically the same thing.

Horror films that focus on men are very rarely centred in the home. It’s men travelling, or men visiting a woman’s home, or men who’ve been taken. Think of the first Saw movie which takes place in a mysterious basement, Hostel which is at a hostel, Dawn of the Dead at a shopping mall, An American Werewolf in London while two men are on holiday, The Evil Dead is in a cabin, Get Out is at his girlfriend’s family home.

There are exceptions, of course! Family home invasion films like The Purge, Funny Games and The Strangers are rooted in the violation of that home, but still. You’ll generally find that it manifests differently narratively speaking for men and women. Rear Window too takes place entirely in a man’s apartment – but it’s interesting to note that most of the ‘horror’ comes from him spying on somebody else’s home – notably a woman’s, The Descent too is very much about women and is set during cave diving. Still! These are all exceptions, not the rule.

Good Girls and Gendered Spaces

Every single space in Good Girls is gendered. It’s actually one of the things I seriously love about the show because it’s thoughtfully done, and it is deliberate. We know it is, because they tell us explicitly in the writing multiple times. I mean – hell, think of Ruby telling us (well, telling Rio, haha) way back at the end of 1.04 when they’re selling him on the idea of washing cash through Cloud 9 – “Nobody thinks twice about a woman buying her husband a TV or new tires for the minivan.” A store like that is gendered, and Ruby’s reinforcing it by saying it’s a place women go to build a home. It hasn’t been weaponized yet - - but our girls know how to weaponize it. They’re playing on the fact that people think women’s spaces are effectively impotent, and they’re telling Rio – and us as an audience – that they’re going to exploit it.

This is an idea the show revisits frequently. Women’s spaces are – both in life and in storytelling – spaces that are viewed as passive because they are representative of women, and what the show is – I believe – very invested in, is showing how those spaces are fundamentally active. If you want a house to represent a woman – well, okay. Then you get to see what’s under the rug, y’know?

I’m going to come back to the home thread – because I really do think it’s very important, and I think the way the show depicts people in those spaces (and invading those spaces) is significant – but it’s not just homes that are looked at in this way. The show is very specific about having feminine spaces and masculine spaces, with only a few in between (and usually those in-between spaces are very specifically for Stan and Ruby, showing just how in-sync they are with each other and how much they operate within a shared space). Beyond the women’s homes, there are the kids’ schools, Fine & Frugal (very important here to note that Annie emasculates Boomer in what is an associated female space and that he retaliates by attempting to rape her in her own home aka not only another female space, but a space that is symbolically Annie, something he repeats later with Mary Pat – a violation on essentially every character, narrative and symbolic level, again), the waxing salon, Nancy’s day spa, Jane’s dance recital (and actually the physical object of the dubby – being a highly feminine object lost in a very masculine space), and already what we know of s3, with Ruby being at a nail salon and Beth being at a paper / card store.

The show also has very masculinized places – I’d argue Boland Motors is one of the biggest ones – very much about ‘boys and their toys’, which is why Beth pointedly feminising it when she takes over is so significant and symbolically indicative of Beth’s claiming of that space; but also spaces like the police station, the drug dealer’s house in 2.07, the hotel suite Boomer briefly occupies, even to an extent the church. When the girls are in these spaces, there’s a distinct feeling of encroaching on territory that isn’t theirs, or being in spaces that they don’t belong in. This is often done as a two-hander too – the police station and the church Ruby doesn’t belong in anymore, not necessarily as a woman, but as a criminal.

Nothing though, from a technical standpoint, is more masculine than the spaces that are shown to be Rio’s. From the warehouse spaces to the bar to his loft to his car, Rio’s ‘places’ are distinctly masculine and generally placed in direct contrast with Beth’s femininity. But I’ll come back to that point too.

Home, Identity and Invasion

Almost every female character on this show has a very defined domestic space, from Beth, Ruby and Annie, to Mary Pat, Marion and Nancy. These spaces are representative of not just who they are, but who they are as women, and really comes to routinely represent the interior lives of these characters. This is probably the clearest in 2.09 when Beth is uncharacteristically messy following Dean taking their kids, and in 2.06, when Beth and Dean switch roles, and Dean is incapable of maintaining that domestic space because it’s not his. But let’s not start there.

Let’s start with Annie.

Annie’s apartment is fun, feminine (but not overly so), youthful, sweet, and generally a bit of organized chaos. It’s often underequipped – there are several mentions of the pantry being understocked – but it’ll always do in a pinch. More than anything though, Annie’s apartment comes to life when her son is in it. She’s happiest when he’s there, and when he’s not, her loneliness drives her to pulling people into the space with her, whether that’s the electronics guy, Greg, or Noah.

This is particularly significant when Annie’s forming bonds with people. The show has symbolically relied very heavily on Annie’s moments of vulnerability and connection being grounded in her apartment or an extension of it – usually her car. There was her reconnecting with Greg over YouTube videos in s1, there was Nancy and her talking about pregnancy in 2.02, and there was Noah settling in across season 2. These are all substantial moments in terms of Annie’s interior life that are represented through her home – she lets them all in. Which is why it’s significant what people do when they are in. Particularly the show marrying Noah getting to know Annie while simultaneously rifling through her belongings, trying to know specific things about her.

This is only reiterated by Noah’s scenes with Sadie later in the season – always at home, reiterating just how much Noah’s invaded Annie’s life, how much he’s inside her, how much he’s using everything and everyone who’s important to her, and how much he’s a threat to all of that too.

Ruby and Stan are a little different. Ruby’s house is the only one that’s genuinely shared with somebody, and the show represents this across the board – Ruby and Stan wear similar colours, the house feels like theirs, and the parts of their worlds that are separate are still frequently pretty defined by each other (even when Ruby’s acting away form Stan, the show makes it clear that Stan’s at the forefront of her mind, and vice versa). This indicates their partnership, but the house really still is symbolically tied to Ruby. This is particularly represented by the effect of having Turner in the house, but, more than that, it’s underlined symbolically by Turner arresting Stan at home. If the home symbolically carries the meaning of the woman, Turner arresting Stan there is starkly about Turner taking Stan away from Ruby. That image would not hold the same weight if he was arrested at, say, the park or the police station, because the locations don’t hold the same meaning.

It’s also why there’s significance in Stan and Turner’s showdown narratively speaking happening at the police station. It needs to, because symbolically it should occupy a masculine-coded space, because that showdown isn’t just about who they are as people, but who they are as men.

Beth and Beth’s house is very, very different to Annie and Ruby’s, and holds a more substantial narrative and symbolic function. From the very first episode, the potential of losing her house is key to her arc, and key to her identity as a character.

Beth is a lot of things, but a recurring image with her as a character is that she is invested in projecting a dated idea of ‘perfect womanhood’, and, within that, actually pretty perfectly creates parts of it for herself. For Beth – as somebody who was a housewife for roughly twenty years – her house really is her in every sense of the word. Every threat to that house, every disruption, every wrinkle, every intrusion, every theft, every invitation is personal. Dean might have at least two rooms in the Boland House, but that space is Beth’s on almost every symbolic level. When people pop into it, it’s a direct invasion of her.

This is something that the show has revisited time and time again, particularly when it comes to Beth’s bedroom. When people want to be close to Beth, that’s where they go. Annie slept there across season one when she was vulnerable and lonely, despite Beth telling her to go home, Jane broke into Beth’s closet there when she felt she was being neglected, Dean’s constantly trying to sidle into it (and – pointedly – only really in it when they’re fighting and Beth is revealing something / letting him in on something – that they’re out of money, that she has Rio’s money, that she knows about his affairs). When Beth has been at her most vulnerable, she lets Ruby and Annie into it. That said, the only character who’s been explicitly invited into it has been Rio – significantly both in fantasy, and in the show���s reality.

It’s not just about inviting people in though – when she kicks somebody out of it, the act is loaded.

She’s not just pushing somebody out of a space, she’s pushing them out of her.

It’s not just her bedroom of course (although I do think that’s the most significant space on perhaps the whole show). Rio and Turner between them have regularly invaded Beth’s living room, dining room, her kitchen, her yard. These are often distinctly tied with her doing something domestic and / or distinctly feminine. She’s bringing groceries home, she’s baking, she’s trying on jewellery, she’s mothering her children. Symbolically, this is often when Rio and Turner both are at their most masculine and their most threatening, which just serves to underline the invasion of Beth’s space.

It’s not just the girls though, as I said above. Female domestic spaces on this show are significantly coded as belonging to women, even if they share those spaces. Think about Nancy and Greg’s house – which is Nancy’s space, not Greg’s, and throughout season 1, Annie was pitted as the outsider to that. She’s a smear of hair oil on Nancy’s perfect couch. It’s made all the starker when Nancy kicks Greg out, and when Annie helps Nancy give birth in that house – a distinctly female, intimate act, that not only operates as a significant feminization of that space, but also about Annie fighting for Nancy to let her in again.

These spaces all keep secrets for the women they belong to too – Mary Pat’s husband’s dead body, Boomer’s very much alive one – because, again, symbolically, they are these women.

Rio’s loft is a really interesting one to look at in this context, because not only is it hyper masculine, but the show underlines that it does not hold the same significance that the girls’ places have for them. Beth does not learn Rio by being inside him – something made stark through their game of twenty questions. In fact, being in Rio’s loft, in his space, only serves to point out how much Beth doesn’t know him. Not only that, but Beth’s inability to lose her house (which is really central to her arc) is paralleled exactly with how easily Rio can separate from his.

The domestic space is not male.

Rio exists outside of it.

Beth x Rio and the Feminine x Masculine

Rio and Beth are basically at polar opposites of the masculine / feminine spectrum, and it’s something that this show often casts in a really stark light through dialogue, visual language, character coding and symbolism.

Beth epitomizes the old archetype of femininity and the female world in a way that I don’t think Annie and Ruby do (although I do think Ruby does in some respects). This is coded into almost every part of her character – from her long history of domestic servitude and marital submission (letting Dean control their finances, not working, keeping the house, etc.) to her fertility (four children!) to the way she dresses in floral, bakes, to certain traits, namely her nurturing tendencies, overt empathy and guilt (not being able to kill Boomer). Even in terms of the casting – Christina is somebody who has a very distinctly feminine body.  

On the other hand, Rio, in many ways, epitomizes the old idea of masculinity and the masculine world. He’s coded that way almost as much as Beth is coded as feminine – he’s physically strong (beating up Dean, holding Beth up while they were having sex), assertive, dominant, capable and collected. That’s not even touching on the fact that the golden gun is incredibly phallic, haha.

The show loves to place Beth’s femininity in direct contrast with Rio’s masculinity in a way that it doesn’t do with the other girls or – in fact perhaps more notably – with Beth and Dean (if anything, Dean’s frequently emasculated around Beth, but that feels like a whole other thing, haha), and it does this frequently, and often even in the same shot.

Most notably, think of her pearls on the warehouse door handle:

Their cars parked side-by-side:

Her necklace, his gun:

Her light, his darkness:

Her floral, his solid colours:

Interestingly though, these things are very rarely in competition or combative (although occasionally they are – Rio trying to use her femaleness and his maleness / their sexuality to literally bend her over a table in 2.06 being the clearest example of that). Generally speaking, the show’s visual language though shows us how these things compliment each other. They occupy different gendered spaces, so they can ‘crime’ in different ways – Beth using the big box stores, the secret shoppers, robbing the day spa, are all things that are highly feminised, and give Rio by proxy access to a world he ordinarily wouldn’t (albeit it’s not always a world he’s interested in – like it wasn’t with the botox), and the reverse of that is that Rio gives Beth access to spaces that are highly masculinised and that she ordinarily wouldn’t have access to (again, not always a world she’s interested in either). It’s why when they’re working together, and acknowledging they have different departments, they actually become something really whole, comprehensive and effective.

It’s the exploration of this that I find really intriguing generally, and particularly a thread that I think is reiterated where Beth’s usually at her worst and her most ineffective when she’s trying to emulate Rio’s masculinity. We saw that at the end of 1.10 and the start of 2.01, and I think we saw it at the tail end of season 2 too. When Beth’s succeeding, she’s typically doing something that revels in the strength and power and the underestimation of femininity and female spaces, and turns places that are typically viewed as passive into active ones.

The Secret Shoppers (which worked briefly! And fell apart because she couldn’t handle Mary Pat. Notably almost every scene with them was inside Beth’s house):

The day spa heist:

The Boland Motors takeover / reclamation that focused on feminising the place:

Pretending to be somebody’s mum to get into the kids’ space (which would’ve worked if Beth and Ruby hadn’t started fighting):

Breaking into Rio’s loft:

Again, this is something that seems to be being teased out already in s3 with the paper store and the nail salon, and I’m sure we’ll see it coming up again and again beyond that.

But yes! Your question, haha. I think Rio is enamoured with the strong, feminine space and the untapped female world that Beth exists in, and the ways that she is actively capable of utilising her femininity and her womanness in a way that is completely impossible for him. She can manipulate these spaces – either those already female, or those she makes female aka Boland Motors – in ways that he can’t, and in a way that, at the end of the day, lines his pocket, in the same way that giving her access to his powerful, masculine world lines hers. It’s market development, y’know? But it’s also something that could be a true and successful partnership if they could stop, y’know, playing games and trying to kill each other, haha.

I think it’s worth noting here too that the show has shown us explicitly that Beth absolutely gets off on Rio being highly masculine, and while I think Rio absolutely gets off on Beth being a boss bitch too, it’s also important to note how he responds to her when she’s displaying vulnerability in a way often defined as very feminine – namely crying – and how that display of femininity not only affects him, but often makes him want to touch her (and more and more, follow through on touching her).

Basically I think they’re as obsessed with the contrast between the two of them as we are, haha.  

[thewhitefluffyhat]

Feminist Relevant Themes

<-Previous (Introduction)

To talk about Magia Record’s writing in detail, it helps to understand how the game is structured.

Magia Record has many story modes:

Main Story: The main plot, centered on new protagonist Iroha arriving in the city of Kamihama to search for her missing sister.  Everyone can read this at any time, and new chapters come out every few months.

Another Story: The events of the Main Story, but told from the point of view of the original Madoka Magica cast.  Also always available to everyone.

Magical Girl Stories: short stories centered on one specific magical girl - usually they tell the backstory of the girl’s wish.  Can only be watched after obtaining the character in the gacha.

Mirrors Story: A very slowly updated story unlocked by completing many player vs. player battles.  

Event Stories:  Short stories that come out roughly every two weeks.  Sometimes introduce a new character for the gacha, sometimes related to a seasonal holiday.  Playable to anyone around during the event (and will be stored in the archive afterwards).

Costume Stories:  Tiny story snippets involving a character wearing a special outfit.  Implemented one year in and unlocked by obtaining both the character and the outfit in question.

Good

Female Friendship

As with the better side of magical girl media, the game’s biggest feminist plus is its complex female characters and focus on female friendships, including some great examples of female mentors and role models.  The mechanics of the setting are even tweaked to facilitate this - gone is the TV series’ lonely, competitive system that isolated girls from each other.  Instead, in present-day Kamihama, witches are so strong and plentiful that magical girls are better off forming teams to support one another.  

While this change arguably waters down some of the thematic weight of the original (in that this isolation was another example of how Kyuubey’s system is an easy metaphor for other oppressive systems), I find it a worthy trade-off.  Allowing for magical girl teams to exist results in much richer possibilities for interactions between characters, especially welcome in a sprawling game with far more narrative content than a one-season anime.

And the game takes good advantage of this - no two magical girl teams are exactly alike, both in terms of internal dynamics and how they interact with other teams.

Doppels

The main gimmick of the game’s story is the existence of “doppels” - a mechanic where a magical girl partially transforms into her own witch to unleash a powerful attack.  And from gameplay to story to art, doppels are excellent.  They look cool and they’re rewarding to unlock and use in game.  From a feminist perspective, I also love the idea of reclaiming witches, the “adult” form of magical girls, into a source of salvation and empowerment for girls* instead of a curse.  On a meta-level, it echoes a common magical girl trope of the character transforming into an older version of herself, while specifically to Madoka Magica, it’s a creative way to dismantle the misogynistic implications of Kyuubey’s system!

(*There are supposedly drawbacks to doppels, but that bit of setting mostly serves to make them a ~dangerous forbidden technique~ that shouldn’t be overused.)

Struggling against class prejudice

The tensions between different wards of Kamihama are a key component of the setting, and affect many character interactions.  One aspect the Magical Girl Stories are good at is showing how arbitrary and hurtful this discrimination is, and how difficult it is to overcome prejudice once it has become entrenched.  It’s made abundantly clear that Kamihama would be a better city without these attitudes - the question is, how to get there?

A variety of careers

Several girls make wishes or have backstories centered on what they want to do when they grow up.  What’s especially neat is that most girls ask for the opportunity to follow their passions, rather than having a talent magically granted to them - thus avoiding the pitfall of having a female character’s abilities originate from a power granted by a male character.

The range of career interests depicted isn’t as amazing as it could be  (In a cast of 80+, I would love to have more than three girls representing STEM), but there’s some decent variety.  Many girls aspire to take over their parents’ family business, for example.

And even some characters who follow more seemingly feminine careers (a model, a chef, an artist, etc.) have serious narratives centered on the skill and effort needed to succeed in those highly competitive fields, which is quite refreshing to see.

Mixed

The many different ways to be a girl

The nice thing about having a large cast of female characters is that it gives plenty of opportunities to show how all of these characters are different.  And in general, Magia Record does very well on this front!  One aspect I’ve particularly been enjoying is the how the cast has widely varying tastes in fiction.  Yes, there are girls who like dreamy romances, but there are also girls who bond over their shared love of a hotblooded shounen series!  

Where this falls down somewhat is an overuse of “but look, she has a secret feminine interest.”  Sometimes this plot can work, if coming at it from the angle that superficial judgments can be misleading, or that there’s nothing wrong with having feminine interests.  But when all the more masculine-presenting girls end up with a hidden fondness for stuffed animals, the sheer repetition becomes rather irksome.  It’s as though the game feels the need to insist “but look, she really is a girl!” because the audience wouldn’t believe it without such a trait.

LGBTQ+ characters

In terms of LGBTQ+ content, the game feels rather similar to the original anime and other Madoka spinoffs.  That is to say, there are tons of shippable f/f pairings that get teased, but as of the present, only one new playable character (and a tiny sample of minor characters) are explicitly confirmed to be lesbians.  No trans or otherwise queer characters either, unfortunately.  (Though of course that’s not to stop a good interpretation or headcanon!)

However, as a whole, the game is oddly averse to showing the characters in active, healthy relationships.  One of the early frustrations I had with the new character’s portrayal was that the game’s one mutual gay relationship was never directly shown on-screen and gets broken up in favor of more ambiguous teasing.  That being said, all the het relationships are treated similarly, either never being confessed and requited or never getting shown on screen.  So… I suppose there’s not actually a double standard here, but players hoping for lots of canon yuri content might end up a bit disappointed.

Also, a note on Homura specifically - this game’s version is “glasses Homura,” who hasn’t realized she’s in love with Madoka yet.  So despite what you might expect given Rebellion, in Magia Record there’s nothing beyond heavy hints and ambiguously cute scenes between her and Madoka.

Characters with disabilities

A few characters in the game have difficulty speaking.  It’s not made clear if this is a speech impediment or something like social anxiety (or autism - I know I’ve seen headcanons for that).  There is some depiction of these characters getting bullied, but in each case the character ultimately finds a group of friends who love and support them as they are.

After two years, now there is technically a magical girl who uses a wheelchair. (And it’s a cool custom wheelchair too!)  Unfortunately I hesitate to count this as a full positive, because shortly after she appears in it, the character becomes unable to transform and fight for an unrelated reason, so we haven’t seen her in battle since.  But who knows - the story’s still moving forward on the Japanese server, and there’s likely to be more content with her in the future.

At the end of the day, though, this is a setting with magic wishes and healing effects.  Thus, it’s very common for girls to wish to cure someone’s illness, or to use their abilities as a magical girl to cure themselves, which can easily fall into ableist tropes.

College age magical girls

Yes, really!  Although even the oldest characters are only nineteen.  However, there’s also a subplot about how two of the nineteen-year-olds are losing power because they’re older, which… hm. The message that we all need to accept passing the torch to the next generation is generally a valuable and good one.  Aiming it at older teen girls just on the verge of adulthood is where the implications nosedive into unfortunate.  Young girls already get far too many messages that their worth is entirely dependent on their youth/beauty/innocence and that it’s better to stay a “girl” than to be a fully grown “woman.”

The entire reason it’s exciting to see college age magical girls in the first place is that even now, it’s rare to see adult women as protagonists in these types of fantasy adventures.  By introducing these young adult characters only to caveat their inclusion with“they’re getting too old to be here”, it puts a very sour note on what’s otherwise a welcome expansion of the Madoka Magica universe.

(It’s also hilariously contradictory to other spin offs in the Madoka Magica franchise, including the implications of the anime canon itself, so… whoops?)

Bad

Lack of diversity

(Particularly racial diversity.)

The only non-Japanese magical girls are from the pre-existing Tart Magica spin-off set in medieval France… and Meiyui.  (And maybe Alina.)

Meiyui is a complicated case - her family has ties to both Japan and Hong Kong.  Meiyui herself is a fun character, but she also ticks a lot of the checkboxes for a Japanese stereotype of a Chinese person (a la Xiao Mei in Fullmetal Alchemist).  As a white person only familiar with US culture, it’s not my place to make a judgement call here, but I’d love to hear from someone who knows more!  

The largest disappointment, though, is in wondering what might have been.  The Madoka Magica anime implied that there are magical girls all over the globe from every different time and culture, so the game’s narrow focus on one modern Japanese city greatly limits the setting from its full potential.  And even within that limitation, the sheer homogeneity of the new cast is starting to get awkwardly same-y.  

The arc two’s logo teases what might be girls from several other backgrounds, though, so perhaps this will improve in the very near future.  Of course, success will depend on the writers’ abilities to handle other cultures.  Which, when given the example of Meiyui, might actually be cause for concern...

Revolutionary Girl Utena, this ain’t

In a game full of decent-to-good backstories, you’ll sometimes hit an unfortunate and very disappointing outlier.  

My personal least favorite is the victim-blaming one mentioned in the content warnings.  Another low point is a story where a girl frantically diets as a response to another girl’s comments about her weight.

Then there’s the backstory the above picture comes from.  It involves a girl who has to drop out of sports because her next school only has a boy’s team - and instead of challenging this situation, it’s the inspiration for her to discover she’s actually happier as a cheerleader anyway.  Hm.  

This last case is actually pretty emblematic of the game as a whole.  Whoever’s doing the writing (the credited scenario team is four people, and from the names at least two might be women?) mostly seems to mean well, but they occasionally step hard into the -isms that come from not actually thinking about the problems with the status quo.

So the game isn’t typically hateful, but it doesn’t push the envelope in any revolutionary directions either.  As a result - and it feels weird to say this, but - I really miss having Urobuchi as the writer.  Sure, his writing had its own problems, but in comparison, it was at least genuinely thought-provoking.  The way that even the adult female characters got complexity and screentime, that whole conversation between Sayaka and the misogynistic men on the train, the compelling exploration of consent and determination that underlies the whole anime – even six years later, these aspects hold up and stand out.

Magia Record is an inversion – far more pleasant on the surface, but without the backbone and depth that made the original so thematically intriguing despite all the suffering.

Next (Other Writing Aspects)->

[socjuswiz]

Masculinity, anime, and gender dysphoria

An analysis of media-induced transgender identification

Depicted: Rui Ninomiya. Actually just a cross-dressing boy but I wanted to use his image because it’s cute and fitting.

Anyone who spends a lot of time with the transgender debate will notice sooner or later that there are a ton of young trans-identifying males who are into anime, using anime girls for their social media avatars, sharing memes related to cute anime girls, and so on. We don’t have statistic or anything to confirm it (would be a strange thing to research), but the correlation seems beyond coincidence, and in this article I will put forth a theory on the dynamics behind the phenomenon, as someone who spent 5+ years in the anime community of 4chan, and developed a very mild form of gender dysphoria and autogynephilia during the same time.

Indeed, it’s a regular occurrence that people from the “Anime & Manga” board of 4chan visit the LGBT board and ask, explicitly: could it be that anime made me trans? Here’s a good example of a thread with many people admitting there being a connection:

https://archived.moe/lgbt/thread/7538520/

Their theories vary of course, and those convinced by gender identity ideology frame it as merely “discovering” themselves to be trans after getting into anime, as they don’t believe one can develop the conditions that lead to trans identification. They believe one can only be born trans.

Depicted: A formerly “cis” 4chan user talking about how he began identifying with an anime girl

To properly understand the phenomenon, or at least my theory of it, one needs to begin with an analysis of boys’ socialization into masculinity.

Masculinity

The stereotyping of humans in accordance with their sex begins before birth.

Yes, before birth.

I’ll update this article if I manage to find the study again, but basically, scientists observed how parents react when the unborn baby kicks, and found that, if the parents know the baby to be male, they are more likely to ascribe the kicking to the fact that the child is male and therefore assumed to be more physically active by nature.

Another study found that adults stereotype infants with accordance to the pitch of their cries. Low-pitched cries are attributed to boys whereas high-pitched cries are attributed to girls. When the sex of the infant is known, the pitch is assumed to signify how feminine or masculine the child is. When a male infant cries with a high pitch, it’s assumed to have a more serious cause than when a female infant does so, because female infants are assumed to cry with a high pitch anyway.

I’m giving these examples not to argue that kids begin to be affected by sex stereotypes starting before or soon after birth. I’m not an expert on neurological development, but would assume that babies that young don’t have the capacity to process how others treat them beyond a very basic level. My point is, rather, that by the time a child’s mind is developed enough to respond to such stereotyping treatment, the stereotyping is already happening. We spend not even the earliest phases of our mental development in an environment free of sex stereotypes. Our consciousness is born into a sex stereotyping environment, and grows within it starting from day zero.

For stages later than infancy, I’m not sure if there’s scientific evidence, but I would assume that my claims here are relatively uncontroversial: watch how parents, perhaps men in particular, interact with boys who even just begin to walk and talk, and you are likely to notice that expectations of masculinity are already there. Vaguely, the boy will be taught to be loud, active, self-asserting, to be king. If he is meek, passive, gentle, or otherwise “feminine” or “effeminate,” the boy will be met with disapproval or disappointment. Toy preferences will be policed: no, you don’t want to play with the pony with the glittering mane or the Barbie doll with the pretty hair and dress, those are for girls. Clothing is policed: only girls wear cute, pink, frilly dresses and skirts, or t-shirts with pretty kittens or princesses or whatever on them…

Now, I’m not trying to give a gendered upbringing 101 lesson. Especially for people well versed in feminist theory, all this stuff is basic. Instead, I want to draw attention to a very particular aspect of masculine upbringing, which ties into our topic.

A large part of masculine socialization is dependent on the killing of positive emotions that are deemed feminine, and the prevention of many ways of thinking and behaving that simply make a person feel wholesome, because they are simultaneously deemed to be girly.

I’m not the first to point this out. Andrea Dworkin talked about it as well if I remember correctly. (I probably picked it up from her.) The brilliant bell hooks explains the same thing the following way, as I’ve found just recently:

Depicted: bell hooks

The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence towards women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem. -- bell hooks

To elaborate: the boy has to be loud and active, so he can’t relax. He has to assert himself, which means conflict and stress. He can’t be too gentle — even to the things he loves — because he’s not some kind of faggot now, is he? It becomes worse when boys begin to ridicule, ostracize, bully each other based on perceived effeminacy. It becomes really soul-breaking at that point. Sure, masculine socialization means learning to be the oppressor under patriarchy, but for the individual boy, especially the one who has no natural predisposition to the characteristics expected of masculinity, who instead is soft and gentle by nature, the role he is expected to play is his doom.

For many, the result is massive repression. Repress all the positive emotions. Even if you’re not very active, never just relax and enjoy the calm; sulk around with a grim face instead. If you dare to feel light-hearted joy in the first place: don’t dare expressing it with a heartfelt laugh, because laughing is for when you’re victorious over your rival whom you’ve just dominated — otherwise it’s a frivolous girly expression. Gentle touches and caresses are for girls and faggots, so you don’t let anyone touch you. If you can’t be the glorious masculine hero, you become the emotionless robot, the gloomy depressed kid who’s indifferent to pretty much anything, because then at least he’s not girly.

This more or less describes most of my childhood, adolescent, and young adult years, and currently I have to watch the same thing happening to a younger brother, who has a lot of softness inside of him just like me.

Of course, repression never fully works. The boy is left with a deeply seated longing for all those “feminine”-deemed feelings. A longing for enjoying life again. For being allowed to enjoy life, even.

And now, enter the anime subculture.

Cute Girls Doing Cute Things

Depicted: Yuyushiki main characters being cute

This is literally a genre of anime. Frequently abbreviated CGDCT.

Famous examples: Azumanga Daioh, K-On!, YuruYuri, A Channel, Hidamari Sketch, Non Non Biyori, Yuyushiki, Gochuumon wa Usagi Desu ka, Yama no Susume, and the list goes on. These are all just off the top of my head.

Officially, their genre tends to be listed as comedy and “slice of life.” Slice of life is sometimes also called iyashikei — a Japanese word meaning literally “healing.”

Depicted: Miyako from Hidamari Sketch. One of the overall best anime in history, to be quite honest.

Generally, all the main characters are female. Male characters tend to be rare, sometimes entirely absent from the series. The context is oftentimes a girls’ high-school or something similar.

And all the characters are ultra-feminine blobs of cuteness who tend to express their utter joy in life in the most cheerful and dramatic ways possible, or at least represent various stereotypes of femininity that exist in Japanese culture. They showcase purified, sterilized, highly idealized versions of femininity.

So this is like My Little Pony and “bronies” then, right? Adult men creating a subculture around cartoons made for young girls?

Well, not quite. These anime are made for men. The official target demographic is more often than not “seinen,” meaning adolescent boys and young men, sometimes older men even. Which is also why the female characters are frequently covertly or overtly sexualized. (I won’t even get into the whole pedophilic aspect of it.)

The Japanese seem to have learned to turn the repressed femininity of young men into profit.

By the way, said representation of female characters is not unique to CGDCT. Romantic comedies, action anime, and really any genre of anime frequently contain female characters of the same nature. One doesn’t need to indulge in die-hard CGDCT subculture to be bathed in this representation of joyful hyper-femininity.

Depicted: Inari with the divine foxes. One of my all-time favorite characters. Maximum cute, maximum healing.

For the repressed lonely boy, getting into such anime is first of all a way to indulge in the joys of femininity in a way he himself finds acceptable. It may not be entirely socially acceptable for young men to watch “girly” anime, but the male-dominated subculture around them, and the knowledge that the anime are “officially” made for young men, provides sufficient self-justification to overcome the internal fear of indulging in the “girly.” Moreover, the female characters are not only adored, but frequently also sexualized, which provides further masculinity-conformant justification.

Eventually, since the anime girl represents all those repressed emotions in the purest, most concentrated way possible, and as the boy indulges more and more in the media, he is overcome with the desire of becoming like her. A strong identification with the cute anime girl forms. He finally admits he always wanted to be soft and gentle like her, carefree and cheerful like her, enjoy life in its fullest without the heavy chains of masculinity, like her.

And a belief in “female gender identity” begins to form.

I have to go on a slight digression at this point.

I don’t have a straightforward explanation of why this identification also leads to the development of autogynephilia — why the boy begins desiring to be sexually passive and submissive, even becoming “pseudo bisexual” in Blanchard’s terms, when he is originally heterosexual. Sure, masculinity very strictly forbids sexual submission (especially submission to other men), so if there were a natural desire for submission then those feelings would be repressed along with the others, but why would an average straight boy have feelings of sexual submission in the first place? (I doubt that any person naturally has such feelings.)

I suppose it has something to do with seeing such sexually submissive performance as part of the whole package of glamorized femininity. Perhaps, frequent consumption of pornography, in which women are portrayed behaving sexually submissive and enjoying it, causes the boys to subconsciously associate sexual submission with pleasure, and after the floodgates of femininity are opened, this also surfaces. Indeed, many people seem to have an autogynephilic fetish that is more strictly sexual in nature, and that in turn has often been theorized (by the men who have the fetish) to be related to porn consumption. So possibly we’re dealing with an interaction between two distinct psychological processes: a porn-induced subconscious association between behaving sexually submissive and receiving sexual pleasure, leading to the development of a latent autogynephilic fetish, which then surfaces through the embracing of total femininity when repressed feelings explode through identification with cute anime girls who are able to enjoy life.

Perhaps a little far-fetched, but it’s the best I’ve got for now to explain how autogynephilic fetishism ties into the theory of repressed positive/feminine feelings.

Let us go back to feminine identification and gender dysphoria though.

The boy who had repressed positive, life-affirming emotions his whole life has finally found salvation through his cute anime girls who show him how to live life to its fullest. How to be a cheerful person radiating all kinds of love and joy. It’s not merely a superficial attachment. It can be experienced as a very deep, sincere feeling, which finally pulls him out of a life-long depression.

This is why the boy begins to feel not just regular discomfort with his body, which he finds ugly according to conventional beauty norms; rather, the mere maleness of his body starts to feel like a profound contradiction with what he finally finds within himself. The boy still being brainwashed by masculine ideology, the body causes extreme cognitive dissonance and distress, because it’s connected in his mind with the polar opposite of his newly found true and inner self. If I’m a cute, soft, cheerful girl on the inside, he thinks, how could I possibly have a manly body like this? How creepy, disgusting, and plain ridiculous would I look behaving like the cute girl that I am on the inside, when I’m going through all the motions with this male body?

So there you get gender dysphoria. Your whole life you’ve been taught that you’re supposed not to be like the feminine girls and instead a masculine boy, which you subconsciously hated, perhaps to the point of suicidality, and now you’ve finally discovered, and fully embraced, that you’re “really” a feminine girl, but the male body is still there and ruining everything. It’s reminding people that you’re actually male — no, it’s making them think that you’re male. So you jump around between trying to modify (maybe even mutilate) your body into a more feminine shape, and yelling at people that just because you have a male body, doesn’t mean that you’re not really a girl.

It’s a miserable state to be in, and I don’t wish it on anyone.

Not to excuse any of the misogyny coming from guys like this. Women didn’t do this to them, and women aren’t responsible for fixing the issue.

Depicted: Transgender male on 4chan expressing violent hatred for his female psychiatrist, attached with an image of an angry anime girl. For some reason, he thinks serious gender dysphoria precludes the possibility of having an autogynephilic aspect to the condition.

As a final remark, let me add that anime with cute girls in them is just one possible way in which repressed femininity can explode. Representations of glamorized femininity exist in a lot of media and around us, so for any individual young man, the gateway to gender dysphoria may be something entirely different, and may occur in various stages of life. I suspect that the story I’m telling here applies not only to anime-obsessed transgender males, but to many more of them. Possibly, the same general phenomenon explains the dysphoria of many younger boys as well, and not just adolescents.

One way or another, we must abolish gender if we want to fight this issue. Until then, expect to see more young men who hate their body to the point of desiring medical intervention, and who enter an existential crisis if you even just suggest to them that they are perhaps not literally a girl.

[i-want-my-iwtv]

Ive noticed a lot of fanart of IWTV makes the boys look like girls. its not just one artist its the fandom's thing to draw them w not "feminine" but *female* features. Im a ftm trans artist so ive spent a lot of time looking at how male vs female faces differ and the iwtv fandom draws men with smaller jaws, bigger eyes, softer features, bigger lips, small/arched eyebrows. Besides long hair and elaborate dress the characters dont look female so do u know why the fandom draws them like that?

(1) First of all, I would encourage you to post your own interpretations, share with us how you see these characters, we have an insatiable hunger for more fanart ;] 

If your headcanon is different, that’s great! Variety is the spice of life. 

(2) In my experience, having been in VC fandom for 20+ years and on tumblr for about 3.5 yrs, yes, I’ve seen a lot of IWTV-era fanart depicting the male characters with feminine features, you may be right about that. But not all of it is.

[^X Louis, Claudia and Lestat, IWTV-era, by @superhiki, who often uses Daniel Tighe as a reference for Louis, and fandom favorite Danila Kovalev for Lestat (and, not pictured here but worth mentioning, Hiki uses fandom favorite Bjorn Andresen for Armand)] 

(3) I get the impression from your message that you consider that “fanart of IWTV makes the boys look like girls” is bad/wrong/incorrect. If that’s not your point, I apologize, and you can skip to (4), but if it is your point, please see this post about fandom policing, here’s an excerpt from @spiderladyceo:  

“And no matter how well-meaning you are, you don’t get to tell other fans what they can and cannot write, or draw, or enjoy. 

When you start telling people what they can create or enjoy, you invalidate the purpose of fandom, and create a situation where instead of free exploration, we have something similar to mainstream media in which certain tropes or topics are not allowed. This limits the free expression, exploration and innovation so highly prized in fandom.

…You don’t get to tell fans how to enjoy fandom. You mind your own path, your write your own fic, you write meta on why x trope is offensive/problematic/bad but you do not tell other fans how to enjoy fandom.”

(4) I don’t quite understand your distinction between “feminine” and *female* features, except that I consider “female features” specifically to mean female genitalia and secondary sex characteristics (breasts). So I’m only going to address “feminine” features. 

On that point, “smaller jaws, bigger eyes, softer features, bigger lips, small/arched eyebrows” are not exclusive to female characters. Jason Momoa is a man withBIG EYES, thick lashes, arched brows, big lips, soft jaw, round face,… and I think he is a cis man.

(5) I don’t speak for all the fanartists, but I sent your ask out privately to several fanartists, fic writers, etc., and the general consensus was that if you want to know why a fanartist or writer has made certain artistic choices, you should ask them directly about it and they will answer if they choose to do so. 

Some reasons they gave for drawing characters the way they do: 

Some fanartists have a different idea of what is “masculine” than you do. It just varies, even in people who express their assigned gender, features differ wildly. 

Anne Rice often describes the characters in feminine and androgynous ways. 

Many of her vampires were turned young, before developing your idea of “masculine” features, or they never did. Armand was “perhaps seventeen” (TVA) when he was turned and had stopped growing, had not developed masculine features by that time. “My hands are as delicate as those of a young woman, and I was beardless,” (TVA)

It was more fashionable for men during the IWTV-era to be fashionable and cultured, the style of which might be considered a little more feminine by today’s standards. See Dandy.

Their own aesthetic taste may be inspired by anime/manga. One example is Dany&Dany.

Fanartists often use models and actors as references. Many male models and actors have feminine features. One of them, Andreja Pejić, was a fan favorite as Lestat for many years, and she transitioned MTF in 2013.

^[X] fanart of Lestat/Louis by @sheepskeleton based on [X] this picture of Andreja Pejic (left) and Erika Linder (right).

Fanartists may have been inspired by movie!IWTV. Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt already had somewhat feminine features in the early 90′s, which were enhanced in movie!IWTV. This is one of my fave fanarts of Lestat, and it’s based on Tom’s Lestat:

^X Lestat by *HRFleur is so lovely. And someone commented on it that they think he is handsome w/o looking feminine. 

“I don’t think he looks like Tom Cruise. I think he looks better! it’s as if you took the essence of Lestat from Tom and pulled the real Lestat out. He looks as though he’s about to say something sarcastic or perhaps become peevish over something. I like that you made him handsome without looking feminine.”  

Feminine Jesus Christ:

The idea of drawing men with female or feminine features predates fanart. People depict Jesus Christ with feminine features when there is plenty of controversy about what he actually might have looked like:

^Not my comparison pic, I took it from Janet Carr @ THIS BUG’S LIFE’s post about the Jesus depiction issue. Carr writes that the more feminine Jesus depictions are “actually pictures of Cesare Borgia, son of Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI, and brother of Lucrezia Borgia… Pope Alexander VI had all previous depictions of Jesus destroyed in about 1492, and replaced with images of his son. Henceforth, these have been the images used to depict Christ.”

^Here’s our feminized Jesus and early 90′s Brad Pitt, for comparison. I remember Brad being criticized in the early 90′s by men for looking too feminine. The pic above is from a magazine, the Italian caption is “Blond, blue eyes, beautiful in spite of himself, and with a smile >.”

//end. Sorry for the long post, everyone. 

I didn’t put any of that under a cut bc I spent a lot of time on this response and I have found that people will reblog, trying to make a post into a discussion, without reading what’s under the cut. People may still want to try to do that, as this is a social network that encourages discussion, but I’m probably not going to engage any further in this topic. I think I’ve made my point, which is that fanartists draw what they want to draw.

[psychotherapyconsultants]

The Boys Club

Over the past several years sexual assault has become an increasingly popular subject. Whether this is because there is a rise in sexual assault or because it is simply more acceptable to openly discuss the matter, is unclear. Whatever the case, sexual abuse/assault/violence and harassment has exploded into common conversation.

A genre deemed ‘Misery Lit’ captures almost exclusively the lives of those who have overcome abuse. The memoir explosion and craze for reading about sexual abuse has mainly made its debut in America. While this could be due to the exploitative nature of America, it could just as easily have formed from our culture of masculinity. Brock Turner is a classic example of the normalization of rape in America. In 2016 the Stanford college student was charged with sexually penetrating an unconscious woman with the intent to rape her behind a dumpster. While he was given six months in jail, he was released after three. When his father spoke out about the case, he described his son’s behavior as: “A steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action.” In order to solve the problem of frequent and seemingly-acceptable sexual assault, our culture must begin with the boys. According to Childrennow.org when 10-17 year olds are asked about men’s roles on television, almost three fourths of boys describe them as “violent”. More than two thirds describe them as “angry”. A Michigan University study found that typical 2-5 year olds watch 32 hours of television a week. If prime social and relational development is cemented early in life, what does this say about the future of our society? This is not exclusively a woman’s problem. Men suffer too.

Ideas of masculinity vary from different countries. In China a common attribute to masculinity is success through career. It is not uncommon to sacrifice family time to be the financial provider. In some African cultures there are specific tribal rituals that encourage community as a strong part of identity. When discussing masculinity in America, many men are at a loss for explanation.

After asking a small selection of American men from different political backgrounds and different states, I heard these answers:

“Masculinity is a concept made entirely from the media.” “Being strong, holding a job, and supporting family.” “Being funny or angry. They’re kind of the same thing.” “Never showing too much emotion.” “There’s no such thing as gender.” “Porn!”

Although the last one was said with irony, I knew what he was trying to say. Pornography does have a connection to masculinity. Why would a (typical) recording of a man and a woman having sex be portrayed as masculine? Some would say, if they are both involved, it is equal feminine as is masculine. Because the man who had made the “Porn!” joke grew up in the age of the internet, however, he understands automatically that most pornography does not picture men and women equally. With often degrading scenes demonstrating dominance, violence, and humiliation, internet pornography is generally considered a man’s world. If the majority of porn on the internet is tailored for men, does that make it masculine? In the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity at Yale, a popular slogan emerged in 2015: “No means yes, yes means anal!”

Whether this would have happened without internet porn is up for debate, however, this type of hostile sexual aggression on school campus was not nearly as reported ten years ago as it is now.  In the past decade, the word ‘fraternity’ has started to gain a different kind of association.  Although not all fraternities are sexually hostile, the image of a large sign hanging above a Frat house with the words “Freshman Daughter Drop Off” sums up feelings of disgust from many women around the United States.

A large depiction of men in the media are shaped by a set of cookie cutter characteristics. Some of those traits include:

heterosexuality

work-oriented rather than home/relationship-oriented

non-white men are frequently depicted as having more aggression or hostility

If the only emotion that is acceptable for men in America to express is anger, men have a lot to be angry about. Countless studies show that holding in emotion can cause physical distress in the future and depression throughout life. If women are allowed to feel a full range of emotion, express those emotions with friends, and readily seek help if needed, the resentment that men have toward women may be growing.  

The Good Men Project is one website doing their share to promote healthy, confident men. In order to shape a new generation of masculinity, our society needs to find more outlets for educating male identity. Whether this is funded through public school classes, activity coaches, websites, community counseling or other avenues, we have an obligation to our girls and boys.

from World of Psychology https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2017/04/04/the-boys-club/