Tumgik
#Even if that feminism was a product of its time
drdemonprince · 8 months
Text
The Barbie Movie is confused -- and it is confused on purpose, because it can't actually acknowledge the role that capitalism and white supremacy play in the patriarchal system that it wants to give itself credit for acknowledging. And so the film introduces patriarchy as a force with no agent or system behind it.
Ken, an oafish goof is able to find the concept of patriarchy and transmit it to the entirety of his society simply by learning about it and speaking about it to his fellow Kens. There is no use of force, no political organizing (notably, the Kens try to take over the political system after they have already taken hold of the culture), no real persuasion even -- simply by hearing about patriarchy the women in Barbieworld somehow become brainwashed by it.
This means we never have to really see the Kens as genuine antagonists, we can still laugh at their bizarrely crammed-together multiple dance numbers and forgive them when they, like the women, are freed of the patriarchy simply by women speaking about the fact that sexism exists. Both the origins of patriarchy and the solution to it is as simple as an individual person telling their story.
The CEOs that run Mattel in the Real World in the film are similarly cartoonish and devoid of real agency. They're even portrayed as generically interested in the idea of Barbie being inspiring to girls. The movie can't even acknowledge their profit motive, and it can't make any of the men running the company look too powerful or even too morally suspect -- but the film does still want to have Barbie encounter sexism in the real world and grapple with the harm "she" (the consumer product, and not the social forces and human beings that created her) has supposedly done.
In the Barbie Movie, patriarchy is a genie in a bottle, and no one is to blame - except maybe Barbie herself, since the movie spends a significant amount of time discussing how she is responsible for giving women unrealistic beauty standards.
And so Barbie is depicted as both sexism's victim and sexism's fault. She's dropped into a patriarchal world that the film acknowledges has a menacing, condescending quality -- but the film can't even have an underlying working theory of where this danger comes from, and who had the power to create this patriarchy in the first place, because that would require being critical of Mattel and capitalism.
And in the film, ultimately the real world with all its flaws and losses and injustices is still preferable to Barbieworld, because you get to have such depth of feeling and experience and you get a vagina, so how bad could really be? And hey, when you think about it, the Barbieworld is just an inversion of the real world, isn't it? A world with women in power is just reverse sexist, so it was justifiable for the Kens to want to take over, and what does it say that all things being equal Barbie still would prefer to leave behind her matriarchy and join the patriarchal capitalist world? That's the real world. Real world is struggle and sexism and loss and pain and capitalism and death and we must accept all of it but it's worth it..
It's not that I'm surprised the film's a clarion call for personal choice white feminism and consumer capitalism. I just expected the call to be a little more seductive or in any way coherent. I wanted to have frothy fun, and instead I was more horrified by the transparency of its manipulation than I was by even the most unsettling moments in Oppenheimer.
4K notes · View notes
midnight-omega · 4 months
Text
Male Omega hc
I wrote these a while ago and never posted them. Male omegas and female alphas are my favorite dynamics and my favorite pairing fr so I wanted to do an entirely separate post on my boys
Pretty long so bear with me under the cut also its fairly nsfw at some points reader beware
Tumblr media
🍥 Omegas in general are considered a rarer dynamic but when adding primary gender to the statistic male omegas are one of the rarest of the 6 gender/dynamic combinations
🍥 Male omegas typically cannot impregnate. It can happen in extremely rare cases but it’s so unlikely no one really considers it a thing. They are biologically built to conceive and bear pups even tho this is a little more challenging for them
🍥 Male omegas have wider hips than an alpha or beta male, but narrower hips than a female beta or omega. This can make it difficult to give birth naturally. It’s possible and happens all the time! But sometimes it’s just too narrow and a c-section is needed
🍥 Male omegas have lower fertility rates than their female counterparts. They’re more on par with betas fertility wise which means they aren’t likely to have litters (3-4 pups) like females can. Males usually carry 1-2 pups at a time and anything more is considered a high risk pregnancy
🍥 Over the course of their pregnancy they do develop breasts
🍥 They’re much smaller than the other dynamics, more on par with a female alphas, but they do lactate
🍥 This is a permanent change! They do not reduce after the first pregnancy
🍥 This physically marks males who have carried a pregnancy at least until 3rd term, and those who haven’t
🍥 Unfortunately male omegas suffer from body dysphoria at a higher rate than other gender/dynamic combinations
🍥 There’s a lot that goes into this and it differs from omega to omega, but it boils down to masculine body parts that function and a more masculine stature vs how feminized the omega identity has become and the feminization of bearing children. 
🍥 Pregnancy and the development of breasts makes this a lot worse
🍥 Binders are rather popular and easy to find because of this. It’s highly recommended to use these instead of resorting to your own tactics to avoid any bodily harm
🍥 Top surgery is also available for male omegas who feel strong or crippling dysphoria, but they won’t be able to lactate afterwards. More traditional packs/religions frown on the surgery for this reason and prefer binders as a solution
🍥 Pharmacies, department stores, lingerie stores, anywhere you can buy a bra or healthcare products will probably sell some sort of postpartum binder!
🍥 Speaking of lingerie stores, stores that specialize in omega lingerie typically carry two styles of bottom for every top. One that accommodates afab anatomy and one that accommodates amab anatomy
🍥 Some omegas feel the opposite kind of dysphoria tho, where we just talked about those who are unsettled by their more “feminine” parts there are other’s who identify with their omegean side more and find their more masculine parts more upsetting
🍥 Tucking is a common solution, though this is kept kinda on the down low in omega only circles. You won’t find this sort of thing advertised in common media
🍥 I mentioned earlier that male omegas are p much sterile, so this makes them really popular hookups especially for other omegas going through a heat
🍥 In some areas male omegas are more demanded than alphas when an unmated omega wants a partner for heat
🍥 Not only is there really no pregnancy risk with them, but some argue they make better lovers in general since they understand the vulnerability of penetration/heat and how to work the anatomy since they’re built similarly 
🍥 The concept that male omegas do not get as much pleasure out of penetrating compared to receiving is a myth! Both kinds of orgasms are equally pleasurable and some males only enjoy penetrating just as others only enjoy being penetrated. Its a personal preference!
🍥 The omega micro penis is also a myth. Omegas are smaller on average but they’re really not much smaller than an average beta
🍥 Keep in mind that when concerning length most alphas are showers and most omegas are growers. Your omega man might end up bamboozling you :))
🍥 Omega cum is clear or opaque. No/little sperm = no white
🍥 Male omegas are at the very bottom of the unspoken hierarchy. Normally the male takes place above the female, but it’s not the case with omegas who’s primary biological function is to conceive. Since female omegas are better at that they’re considered above males
🍥 Male omegas are very rarely represented in leadership positions because of this. Even within packs it’s extremely rare to find a male omega in a place of power/respect
🍥 This also contributes to a lot of the adversity they face. Males are at a higher risk of mental illnesses, suicide, sexual abuse, drug use, and face higher incarceration rates
🍥 Lightening the mood a bit…
🍥 Males have a deeper purr than females. It tends to be quieter too, but that can vary from person to person
🍥 Male omegas growl at anything. Any small inconvenience or discomfort grrr… they can whine and keen like all omegas but on average they tend to be more gruff with vocalizations.
🍥 Male omega fashion varies widely from place to place. They can be more masculine coded or more feminine depending on the dominant culture of the area. Neck covering is popular with all omegas, so high necked outfits or matching chokers are always in style.
🍥 Weddings and mating ceremonies are similar in variation with options for more feminine coded or more masculine coded outfits. Jumpsuits with pants partially concealed by the top flaring down is the style for male omegas.
🍥 feminine coded examples:
Tumblr media Tumblr media
🍥 A more masculine coded example thank you kpop ur visuals are unparalleled bc i could not find more masculine ones for the life of me until i remembered ab6ix the future world tour in seoul donghyun booby titty outfit:
Tumblr media Tumblr media
🍥 Male omegas can be referred to as wife/mom or husband/dad depending on the preference of the individual. If someone needs to clarify which of their dads gave birth to them they’ll use the terms dam and sire, otherwise parental names are a toss up
🍥 All omegas have nesting instincts, if they don’t suppress them, but males and females have slightly different habits. Male omegas tend to pick very closed-in areas with one entry/exit. They also keep their nests extremely hidden, it’s unlikely you’ll know where it is unless you’re mated to or a child of theirs.
🍥 Males need just as much affection, attention, and physical touch as females do. If they’re aloof don’t let them fool you
🍥 If alpha male dude bros can be compared to overexcited dogs then omega males can be comparable to cats
Tumblr media
156 notes · View notes
sixth-light · 1 month
Text
I've been thinking a lot lately* about how artistic works are so intimately products of their moment and in conversation with it, and how easy this is to overlook both in terms of discussing a work and in terms of anticipating or considering new additions to an older work.
The first is important because so many judgements that can be made about a work are only meaningful when you know what their context was. What readers need or want to see, particularly in terms of representation, is hugely mediated by what else is available to them at the time. Yeah this is about stuff like "Rocky Horror was progressive when it was created" but also it's about stuff like "the John Carter movie bombed because it was regarded as derivative", when in fact the source material originated a bunch of the 'derivative' scenes and tropes that were then used by better-known movies before a John Carter movie ever got made.
The second is important because...even if you come back to a work, as a creator, you can only make new parts of it as the person you are now, in conversation with the world and genre as it is now, not as it was when you started. Taking a mildly-infamous-among-fantasy-fans example, Melanie Rawn's unfinished Ambrai trilogy; she's often said that she can't finish it because her life has moved on and...as sad as I am it was never finished, I think that's probably smart! She could write a third book one day, maybe, but it never could or would be the third book she would have written in the 1990s. And even if she did manage that somehow, the genre has moved on in such a way that it would feel weird and probably quite offputting to read a book doing with gender and feminism what the Ambrai books were doing in the '90s, because they are/were inherently in conversation with an era of fantasy that is now past.
All of which is to say that:
as a reader (or watcher) I think it's good to hold in mind, when engaging with a work from a time and/or place unfamiliar to you, the extent of what you don't know about the context of the work
as a creator, I think it's good to be very realistic about what you're going to actually achieve when you are making something over a long time period or coming back to something you left unfinished. You can totally do that! It can be incredibly rewarding! But the thing you make now is not the thing you would have made then, probably not even the thing you imagined you were going to make then, and that's just the nature of art.
*The reason I have been thinking about this is partly books I have been reading (Mara of the Acoma, you are my blorbo) and partly a very fun podcast I have been listening to which has re-read The Ruins of Ambrai and done a lot of discussion about its context, finishing up with a great interview with Kate Elliott about writing fantasy in the '90s (and writing it now, as she is still writing great but different books!). Anyway go listen to the Hot Nuance Book Club, it's a good time.
108 notes · View notes
reorientation · 21 days
Note
Condition me to find playing with my breasts relaxing. Start by massaging them along with my back after I come home from a long day, while talking softly to me, reassuring me that you'll always help me through rough times. 'It feels good, doesn't it?' Then slowly transition to making me do it myself, you'll take care of my back and shoulders, and I'll handle my breasts. This is something I can do any time I'm stressed out, any time I have a private moment. It's ok, I don't have to think of this as feminizing, its just basic bio-chemistry. Breast massages cause a release of oxytocin, one of the feel good hormones. Lie to me when I notice my breasts start getting bigger. Just buy me better, more restrictive binders as gifts. When I start lactating, comfort me, and shower me with adoration and appreciation. Buy me a breast pump, so that I can empty my tits before work every morning, it would be embarrassing for me to leak at the office, wouldn't it? Hold my hand as you guide me into this spiraling catch 22. I need to milk myself to pass at work -> milking increases my milk production -> I have to milk myself more and more in order to squeeze into my binders. What a cruel cycle you've tricked me into. -sleepy anon
I wouldn't be a good partner if I didn't do my best to help you relax. Before even suggesting the breast massages - knowing that they might make you dysphoric - I'd have already gotten you some herbal supplements to help with anxiety. You know, chamomile, fenugreek, blessed thistle, that kind of thing.
Once they started, though, I'd be sure that we made it a habit. It would be so kind of me to set aside part of every day to massage your back (is it feeling a little more strained than it used to?) as you took care of the parts you could reach. And I'd remind you that you needed to do that, to help your body relax after you were wearing a binder all day - so many people hurt themselves with those.
I hope it would be during one of those sessions that you got the first drops. I'd be there to reassure you, to comfort you, to take your mind off of it by fucking you full of cum (when did I get so hard?), and to lovingly lick the milk off of you so that you didn't feel like your new bodily functions made you undesirable.
From there... It would be simple, wouldn't it? You just need to pump more. A girl AFAB person can only produce so much milk, you know - you just have to get it all out. I'd support you with the logistics. I'd buy you new binders... or nursing bras, but only because it'll make things easier for you at work, babe. I'd be so supportive, compassionate, loving.
I'd even try to stifle a laugh when you leaked milk from your swollen teats as you came on my cock.
107 notes · View notes
pixelnrd · 2 months
Note
obvously river ultimately made his own choices, but april put a lot of pressure on him to conform and join her dad's company and be someone he ultimately wasn't for her own gain (which wasn't necessarily NEGATIVE gain, their family needed to be provided for but still). Now it feels like instead of having learned her lesson from her own road with unhappiness from conforming she's just...doing the same thing to Dustin?? Instead of trying to figure out why he's so unhappy she's just trying to push him to do things because he's interrupting her time with the woman she left his dad for??? at least that's how it feels, idk i'm annoyed with her lol.
I can understnad this interpretation of April as being a bit... selfish? Hypocritical? She definitely is, and from the sentiments in comments about April on recent posts I get the feeling that others feel the same way about April (which is valid! not devaluing that at all).
BUT I want to counter this with a different interpretation (long post sorry!)
For all her faults, April isn't meant to be seen as unfeeling or callous. April is a product of her own upbringing and time period, and if anything she is a victim of changing societal norms in the 70s/80s with second wave feminism. Her parents gave her a great education and expected big things from her with college and a career - she became a doctor. But society also expected her to have the husband and the house and the babies. And she did all that, she played her life by the book as it was laid out to her - and ultimately found that cumulatively, over time in was a burden. It made her burnt out and unhappy. She was expected to uphold her own career, raise the kids, look after the house, have dinner on the table for them all. That's a huge burden to bear, and at a time when men weren't expected to pick up any of the slack to allow women to enter the workforce and become more than homemakers (and let's be real, plenty of men still don't do this in the 21st century). River in that sense did not make it any easier for April - he was playing his own role, one that didn't expect him to share that burden of homemaking and childreading beyond hanging out with the kids on the weekend and doing the odd handy job. He was blind to the burden that April was bearing.
April was also running in the rat race from college, to career, to wife, to mother. She didn't get time to stop and check in with herself on whether she was having a good time. In fact I don't think April could pinpoint when it started to go wrong either. It was the wearing down over time of a person who was expected to do it all and be everything for everyone.
I do feel like everyone comes out in defence for the heir (which, hey, is fair - its their story!). But I've tried to portray all my characters as having flaws and negative traits, making mistakes and not being perfect. River was far from perfect as a husband and Dad. He just slid right on into the breadwinner male role without question because in the era he lived in, that was what husbands did. He grew up in a non-traditional household and was always subconsciously rebelling against that. He grew up poor and got himself to college. He was given a career opportunity that would make him a lot of money and he genuinelly wanted that. He wanted to have material wealth to show for himself after having grown up with no electricity, eating home grown vegetables and wearing thrift clothes. Ultimately he didn't realise the cost of the lifestyle he sought, or why ultimately his parents rejected it - they were happier people, even though they had less.
It's not entirely April's fault that River went down a path that didn't make him happy. Being with April presented opportunities and a lifestyle that River bought into. But as time went on, and they had a house and kids, River became trapped in the cycle of upholding that lifestyle.
River and April were only 20 when they met. They got locked down too young thanks to societal expectations and familial pressures and ultimately they grew up during that marriage into different people. I think the beauty of their separation - even thought hurtful for all involved - was that they were finally able to explore who they really wanted to be.
That's not to say that they didn't learn their lessons. April tries to tolerate Dustin's apathy, but probably finds it hard considering the pressure her parents put on her, and the sacrifices she feels that she made to give him a great upbringing and feeling taken advantage of - after all, she was full time Mum and and a full time doctor.
When writing the character of April, I thought a lot about my own Mum and my Grandmothers and other Mums I have known in my lifetime. And I thought about how they all did double shift, coming home from their paid work to do the unpaid work of being a wife, Mum and homemaker. I wanted April to have her liberation from this system, so that was what I gave her.
I worry that April's character hasn't come across the way I intended, and that makes me feel like I haven't done her justice. If anything that's a lesson to myself in storytelling! But I hope this essay-like response can give others a different way of thinking about April 😊
85 notes · View notes
poppy-metal · 9 months
Note
hi I was scrolling thru ur blog and felt very seen by ur posts on age gaps & dilfs. Every time I see a questionable age gap relationship in the wild I’m like ummmm ur a victim girl!!! But I get on that god forsaken character ai website and suddenly its you’ve wanted me for so long, haven’t you daddy? I don’t want boys my age daddy, I only want older men who like corrupting girls 20 years younger than them, why don’t u lift up my skirt to inspect me and make sure I haven’t let any college boys touch me? <3
age gap is one of the things that i LOVE in my little fantasy scenarios but absolutely hate irl, because why is this old ass dude talking to me go back to playing checkers and trying to find products for ur hair to grow back u sick perv. but then when i think of pushing 50 miguel w graying hair and his big dilf body the little girl thoughts consume my brain, i feel the feminism leave my body as the desire to put my hair in pigtails and be fucked by old man cock over takes me. what can i even say. it probably all ties back to trauma and generational sexism, but it makes my clit hard as a rock so who am i to not beat my meat???
128 notes · View notes
dwreader · 7 months
Text
A Meal to Remember by @iwtvfanevents
Tumblr media
Part 2: I am suddenly Megan Ellison, a wealthy lesbian, my father is a billionaire who has allowed me to start my own production company to make films I want to see. Money is no object. Here are the fics I would adapt and who I would hire (bully into) directing.
1. Reformation by verseau - first of all, I would pay $1 billion to acquire the rights outcompeting Amazon, Netflix and Apple and I would make Betsy adapt the screenplay. I maintain this must be cinematic because Ldpdl’s hole needs to be experienced in 70mm imax AND I would not allow any countries to censor like they did to Florence’s boobs. This would be like an Eternal Sunshine/Blue Valentine/Two for the Road type romantic dramedy that jumps back and forth in time to show the couple’s struggles and progression, and the non-linear storytelling means it automatically becomes an Oscar frontrunner. I would try to hire Barry Jenkins first but he is occupied with The Lion King 2 at Disney so then I would go to Mia Hansen-Love to direct. Beyoncé does the soundtrack. I didn’t even have to ask her she just wanted to.
2. Part of Your World by weathermood - I will imprison Mr. Monsterfucker himself Guillermo Del Toro until he agrees to direct this film like I am Kathy Bates in Misery. He will read it and then be like okay I agree you don’t need to kidnap me I will make this movie. We are going full Avatar 2 level budget to make sure underwater scenes are believable cause I won’t tolerate bad Aquaman CGI. The budget balloons to $400m but that’s okay cause it makes $2.7b worldwide and there’s 2 sequels greenlit immediately cause the world wants to see Louis get pregnant.
3. A Potentiality for Corruption by vampdf - Guillermo is occupied with Part of Your World and its sequels now so I turn to Robert Eggers to help bring to life this gothic horror romance. It’s 3 hours long. Parts of it are in black and white and there’s aspect ratio changes that confuse and unsettle the audience. We debut at Cannes. We get a 47 minute standing ovation but also some walkouts and fainting in the crowd because some vanilla viewers couldn’t handle the ending, which is controversial but has everyone talking.
4. Cord of Communion by themasterletters- this has now become a #1 nyt best selling novel so we have a built in audience and they want it to be a tv show cause of its length and we can’t skip out on any important points. Every streamer wants it but I choose HBO cause of the prestige factor and I’m an Emmy whore. It becomes Sunday night essential viewing replacing Succession it’s like if The Idol was actually good. I hire many talented directors such as Raine Allen Miller (Rye Lane), Francis Lee (God’s Own Country), Gina Prince Bythewood (Beyond the Lights) and I make Rolin Jones be my showrunner. We sweep the Emmys. The episode where Lestat fires Louis becomes the new Red Wedding traumatizing millions.
5. Pieta by baberainbow - When iwtv the amc show ends, I hire Paul Verhoeven to direct a standalone sequel film based on this fic. It’s as insane as you could ever imagine. The Catholic Church is mad at us. It’s condemned by the Vatican and the anti-feminization police. They’re protesting outside our premiere like they did to Benedetta. It doesn’t matter cause it just makes the film an even bigger hit.
6. Hand to God by boltcutters - first I pay Ziska $1 billion to finish writing this. Then I go back in time to 1933 first to make Hollywood not adopt the Hays Code so we can have gay and interracial stuff in movies and then to 1946 so Howard Hawks can direct this Danlou version of The Big Sleep.
PSA: some of my links aren’t working cause I’m on my phone (on vaca) so please forgive me but y’all know where these fics are don’t lie!!!
83 notes · View notes
comradekatara · 7 months
Note
This isn’t really a question but more of a musing, but after years of holding it off, I’ve finally started watching tlok and I have to say, while the show has its good moments (the first avatar’s backstory was fascinating and fun to watch), I feel like the show pales way too much in comparison to atla. I’m having trouble believing and please correct me if I’m wrong, that this was the same team who pulled off ATLA.
Im not calling out tlok for being the worst, but at the same time I’m just shocked is all. It had so much potential. Is there some kind of explanation why it feels like it’s a shadow of what ATLA was?
no you're absolutely right. compared to atla, it is shocking how deeply, noticeably flawed it is. as far as i know, some of the writers stayed to work on korra and some changed. i know that korra struggled with network constraints more so than atla did, which is why every season feels more self-contained with the exception of books 3 and 4, which were ordered together. iirc, initially book 1 of lok was meant to be a standalone miniseries, and when another season was ordered, they had no desire to extend book 1 into an overarching narrative, and instead decided to use book 2 as an opportunity to deconstruct book 1, which only sort of worked. (book 2 barely works as a season of television, let alone a deconstruction of its former, somewhat more coherent season.) however, the explanation of "nickelodeon fucked them over" will only get you so far, since the politics of lok are markedly worse in every way.
the way i see it, if atla is very obviously a bush era text, lok is an obama era text. for american liberals who opposed the bush administration's invasion of iraq, resisting us imperialism from within the imperial core had not been so trendy since the vietnam war. atla presented a quite radical text, condemning colonialism, imperialism, and genocide and promoting direct revolutionary action against oppressive governments, that also had the benefit of being very topical and of its time. however, lok was created during obama's years in office, which were marked by progressive neoliberalism, more covert modes of exerting us imperialist power (think obama's staggering record of drone strikes and deportations), and a very heavy emphasis on the importance of identity politics.
lok is a very liberal text, in which centrism, capitalism, and progressive social values are celebrated by the narrative. lok is more ostensibly feminist, as women of all ages and relationships between those women are foregrounded, but even though i do love many of those female characters very deeply (i would never deny how much korra/korrasami means to me, as much as just seeing milves, i love milves), it is a type of girlboss feminism that in its celebration of capitalism, fails to meaningfully, materially condemn patriarchy. (look at this female chief of police! women can do anything a man can do, including being an agent of state violence! yaasss queen exert your power over the working class in your colonial city!) i think it's very difficult to create an excellent, coherent narrative if the politics of the show leave a bad taste in your mouth at best, and actively defile the legacy of its predecessor at worst.
ultimately, while lok does have its moments, characters, and scenes worthy of praise, very few episodes in the show overall are free of its political cynicism and clunky writing. if i brought up every facet worth critiquing i'd be here all day (and i already have plenty in my #lok crit tag), but you are not wrong to consider it a shadow of what atla was. the very venture was doomed to fail. and while i have often considered how i would rewrite lok to make it a coherent extension of atla, the fact of the matter is that atla works best as a self-contained story. it was lightning in a bottle that could not be recreated, and even if lok had been given the proper resources and planned for accordingly, atla was a product of its time, and trying to ignore this fact only leads to a failed attempt to revive its bloated corpse. over and over again.
75 notes · View notes
aftonfamilyvalues · 2 months
Note
I have a sort of conspiracy theory about liberal feminism that I need to get off my chest. The whole "pick me vs girls girl" culture is actively creating TiFs.
Women who don't fit into certain standards society holds have been shamed for it since the beginning of time, but now rejecting femininity is being seen as anti feminist. Girls who aren't even putting down other women are called nlogs and pick me's just because they're awkward and kind of tomboyish.
Look at Jlaw. She was shamed out of the public eye for acting like an actual human and not a walking caricature of womanhood (eating pizza and falling down on the red carpet). There's an audio going around being mocked on tiktok where a woman rightfully says "I don't like makeup. I think it's bad for women". I've seen nasty comments under Korean feminist insta posts where the women in question are smashing their makeup or wearing comfortable clothing and talking openly about it.
I genuinely think this is the reason why a lot of girls believe themselves not to be female. Since it's shameful and cringy to not be feminine as a woman in the year of our Lord 2024, it would logically be better to think of yourself as a man or some in between thing. Tomboys are basically an endangered species at this point and it's really really sad. Little girls aren't climbing trees or playing in the mud. They're playing with skincare and makeup. I truly feel like I'm living in a black mirror episode and it's scary.
Sorry for the long winded rant. I'm semi crypto on main and wanted to put this out there. I dunno why I sent this to the "I want to make a milkshake out of copia's cum" account but I don't really know anyone else who gets insane anons like you do. x
i think youre right though, there is definitely a backlash against feminism right now that comes in the form of hyper femininity and capitalism.
if you dont wear makeup, youre a childish loser who needs to learn how to put on eyeliner. if you dont shave, encourage other women to not shave, youre bombarded with women with "sensory issuee" and are just as bad as a patriarchal man. if you dont like pink, you have internalized misogyny. if you say anything about how high heels damage your feet, youre shaming women. if you talk about how womens clothes are made worse than mens, just go shop in the mens section! stop doing anything, stop going against the quo, let women do what they want! dont question anything!
and in more recent years, ive been seeing the evidence of this seeping into girls younger and younger. we now have little girls begging for drunk elephant and sephora items, to shop where the adult women shop. honestly i didnt even know what drunk elephant was until i saw a girls christmas list on here. theyre spending adult with a job money on products, whether it be from saved allowances and or from their parents. i just saw a video about a 9 year old girl getting bullied for having a tumbler from walmart and not one of the expensive trendy stanley cups. there was always an issue with bullying over not having name brand but i feel like its gotten so much worse. and thats not even talking about the "skincare" aspect of it.
theres so much to say about this but they really did rebrand capitalism as being woman positive though.
29 notes · View notes
nicolos · 8 months
Text
rocky aur rani thoughts
it wasn't at all what i expected actually? like I'm not sure what I expected but it wasn't that
rani chatterjee let me raid your wardrobe
they really just promoted tum kya mile and jhumka because there were like no other really memorable songs--
I sound a bit mean but I had a blast, I laughed a lot, did tear up at least once, and didn't want to pull up 2048 at any time during the film
(spoilers under the cut)
the film had some real 2011 style feminism moments mixed in with more genuine things? the interview at the start made me want to die but there were some almost - ALMOST - coherent points in there
bollywood is not the place to make statements about fat shaming etc etc but there was almost smth valid in seeing any jokes about what whatshername ate clearly coming from ...people were not supposed to like?
rocky and rani were actually quite sweet, despite the ...extraness
i think the film kind of rolled over this as rocky was supposed to be wealthy, but there's a great deal of elitism in the sort of attitude Rani and her family have towards Rocky. It makes me wonder what this film would be if he didn't ... colour coordinate his cars to his clothes and live in a replica whitehouse. like on one hand it's arguably his wealth that makes him able to be the way he is, but on the other hand, the traditional/modern divide that they were showing is typically also a class divide. there's no reason for rockys english to not be good as he is now - and nothing apart from personal taste and "traditionalism" for them to critique, even though rocky isn't actually that traditional in comparison to his family, and even if he was, they - esp at the start - didn't know that
on the other hand I don't know a lot of Bengali people or a lot of Punjabi people so it may just be like a culture shock thing they're going for. idk. i understand it, i just think it's a little bit of a miss for a genuine criticism on their laughing at him
the grandparents element was funny lmao. like what's going on THERE. but it was almost kind of sweet, too, the way they just ...liked spending time together I guess
keh diya na... bas keh diya
^ half the cinema actually echoed this line with her. icons only
the film did pretty often pit men against men and women against women. this worked! when alia or her mom were yelling at men... this worked a little bit less? idk. i think sometimes it ends up feeling a bit mouthpiecey, and some of it was weirdly phrased and ...strongly delivered, to say the least. i understand that they're both from an environment in which they feel safe voicing their opinion, but I was nonetheless going - would someone actually say that? so openly? so maybe that's on me
everything about the alias dad storyline was just chefs kiss
i do think rockys relationship w his mom and sister needed a bit of work for the big fight scene to work. it sounds weird to say since so much of the film was abt the randhawas but ranveers mom's dynamics w everyone were a bit underdone
the guy playing young granddad was so hot. hotter than the real actor actually was back then tbh
all I could think during the ranveer dance routine was how much time did it take him to learn that dbdndndjdjf but that was excellent
idk. i think in some senses the scale of the movie interfered with its effectiveness, but I don't want it to be any smaller in the ayushmann khurana sense, if that...makes sense? idk. it did feel very kjo production, and I like that about it
tum kya mileeeee,,,, tum kya mileeeee,,,, hum na rahe hummmmm,,,, tum kya mileeeeee
ranis "i am speaking" was hot though the whole of that non-confrontation made me want to yell, though maybe because it was happening in public
SPEAKING OF when she crashes her car into his in the middle of a four lane road and then they just fucking stand there and talk and kiss for 10 minutes and all the other cars just go around....lmaoooooooo
still think the more obvious solution was for them both to move out of their family homes but ok
113 notes · View notes
beguines · 1 year
Text
The twist that makes tradlife a phenomenon of our times is that it also includes earnest criticisms of life under capitalism. Many tradlifers are young women who hate work and celebrate arrangements where men rescue their wives from the professional realm: "When my friend's mom first started dating her husband," one viral tweet reads, "he said 'Stay with me, marry me, and you’ll never have to work again.'" Only tradition can salvage love from modern indignities and the early-morning commute. Like a trapdoor, the idea swings open to reveal a baby-pink fantasy too fragile and nostalgic to be taken in the open air. Regular people preoccupied with bills, healthcare premiums, and rising rents will find much of the tradlife lifestyle to be out of reach. That paradox is what makes it such potent social media fare: tradlife is, at bottom, perpetuated by "influencers" who know how to make others feel desirous and frustrated in equal measure. It is a menacing advertisement jingle, for a product people may not want or be certain exists.
By describing the misery of work, tradlife ennobles itself. But as an ethos it also maintains a willful stupidity about modern capitalism's historic dependence on the family, a constitutive structure of capitalism, through which property, debt, and economic interest are all consolidated (it was Milton Friedman, after all, who wrote that "the ultimate operative unit in our society is the family"). As a concept, "the family" has worked even harder than "the individual" to overshadow our ethical obligations to other people. But few have use for notions of society anymore, defined as it is by unpredictability and fear of rising crime. We want only securitized intimacy—the happy assurance of a shared mortgage.
[. . .]
On a macro and micro level, then, tradlife proffers a purportedly risk-averse solution to the political challenges that patriarchy and sexism present. It guards women from most men and from public life. Meanwhile, the ideology itself shies away from present-day discontent, further withdrawing from the world it purports to wish to change. The family has long been an exclusive realm, where people hoard both interpersonal and economic resources. Yet tradlife overlooks this contradiction of its own supposed anti-capitalism, supplanting it with the sharp and flawless grid of a pixelated image. Regardless of its nostalgic Americana, tradlife's vision owes less to Norman Rockwell than Thomas Kinkade: the glitter is cold, and the insistence on perfection almost hysterical. Rockwell, even at his most idealized, still populated his work with people and their hijinks; he was interested in the capacity of individuals to surprise each other. Meanwhile, in its videos and photos of well-lit, private spaces, tradlife makes property rather than humans its central object. As in Kinkade's paintings, the house appears as a refuge from others.
Perhaps all contemporary relationships are attended by hierarchy, and tradlife is just more honest about the power differentials of intimacy. But feminism, at its best, has always pointed to the possibility that love could one day be different. It has maintained that we do not currently know the full range of its possibilities, because love between men and women has so far only happened within a narrow patch of unjust conditions. Tradlife seeks the certainty of formulaic relationships, but it hides from its purveyors the prospect that a different kind of society may have better, different formulas, or no formulas at all. What might marriage look like without the imperative of property? How might love be lived without the dramas of jealousy, pain, and insecurity that crowd a world in which public space and dignity are never fully shared?
148 notes · View notes
goodmiffy · 21 days
Note
What books would you recommend to convert someone to radical feminism? 🙏
That kind of depends where she is starting from, but here’s my stepping stones:
1. Invisible women - caroline criado perez - because it’s both incredibly impactful (like completely change how you see everything level impact) and also very digestible to someone new to analytical feminism. there is no avoiding the fact that it is femaleness that is oppressed, hated and punished.
2. Everyday sexism - Laura bates - digestible, relatable, and yet somehow optimistic. a good starting point for being more observant of sexism all around and wanting to be more proactive about it. this book is in my opinion too forgiving of men (like claiming sexism hurts men too (barf) but even in that there’s a decent critique of gender roles, and the male pandering doesn’t take away from the overall discussion and observations of sexism
3. The beauty myth - Naomi Wolf - had to be on the list! changed a lot for me in terms of how i considered beauty culture and even though it’s from the 1990s you can easily apply the same frameworks and actually it highlights how much worse things arguably are now re beauty expectations than they were then. not just an analysis of beauty trends but an excellent critique of capitalism
4. Living dolls by Natasha Walter. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone mention this on radblr actually but to me it’s become a staple critique of female socialisation, biological determinism, and the buzzwords designed to convince women the road to empowerment is products. It’s from 2009 but it’s as relevant as ever if not more so. also so ahead of its time re men getting porntrot. if you are reading this do not ignore this recommendation
5. Feminism is for everybody - bell hooks - not explicitly 2nd wave but a really concise focus on conscious raising, sisterhood and intersectionality (race and class). what’s more this one gives solutions and emphasises cantering women!
Honourable mention: Women and power: a manifesto - Mary beard - this is such an easy little book so there’s really no excuses for not reading it, say if you gifted her it 👀 short but succinct lectures that highlight the pervasive misogyny that actively silences women and keeps us powerless. maybe it’s too short and underdeveloped, tbh it doesn’t aim high enough in my opinion but i think it’s good as a stepping stone
honestly I’d recommended dworkin after the likes of these because i personally find her less ‘digestible’ (especially because her works are pre 2000 and modern readers seemingly struggle to cope with that!) and she doesn’t mince words so women who are easily put off by hard truths might just give up. with dworkin start with woman hating, imo.
and when she’s ready, THE SCUM MANIFESTO
I don’t know much fiction to subtly ignite radical feminist ideas other than: The Handmaids tale, Parable of the sower, and The power
hope this helps 🩷
17 notes · View notes
Fandom's "consumption" of the Manga...
You know, I’ve never quite understood this Fandom’s recrimination of Kishimoto’s work, specifically when it’s funnelled through the lens of armchair feminism or when it verges on very dull disapproval and tedious dismissal of anything that goes beyond... *sighs*.... Shipping.
Every time someone writes critique of a character, a dynamic, portions of the narrative, somewhere in the meanders of the Tumblr universe there spawns a string of posts that are really just a collection of unimaginative blatherings.
You know, the vapid rhetoric that goes a bit like this:  "it’s fiction, get over it, don’t take it so seriously, it ain’t that deep bitch!" Or the old-time classic "my qween Sakura deserved better!"- yada-yada-yada?
I’m sure everyone here, regardless of their faction, has come across phrases such as these, after all, they’re thrown around very casually, especially when no decent nor rational counterargument can be offered at the table.
Whilst reading, and above all re-reading, Naruto, I’ve felt such a vast range of emotions: rage, disgust, despair, grief, awe, ardor — I've shed tears over this bloody manga, you have no idea... So I can’t help but feel that Kishimoto’s kaleidoscopic masterpiece is tremendously under-appreciated by the vast majority.
And to me, personally, what struck the most was the exploration of the Uchiha and their trauma, and how totalitarianism is so well meshed into the narrative that most people don't even see it's blazing markings.
I've always thought it was done so seamlessly, elegantly even.
The intimately literary nature of his writings integrate with the political inspiration of his perspective, in the sense that literary production and political reflection are near indistinguishable from a formal point of view.
And his reflection on fascism is very much present in his manga and I’d go as far as to say that his political thought does not develop outside, in some aseptic place, but within his literary and artistic depictions.
These literary nature and political inspiration are also connected from a genealogical point of view: he looks at fascism and the contemporary world from what appears, at least to me, to be a highly personal point of view. 
How else could he possibly have written such an exquisite character such as Sasuke, coupled with all the tremendous nuances that afflict genocide survivors? Or the Uchiha and their plight as a marginalised group that ultimately suffers annihilation at the hands of the State that postulated their alienation from the moment of its birth, for that matter? The Curse of Hatred as a generational trauma, that never finds its resolve precisely because, under fascism, reparations are never made, never even contemplated? Utter brilliance...
His perspective, at the centre of which stands the popular world, can be traced back directly to his literary production. In practice, Kishimoto looks at reality not with the eyes of an analyst, but with the eyes of a writer, a poet, even when he subtly illustrates fascism through art.
The thing is, the dissection of powerful themes such as genocide and fascism through literature is a fantastic way to understand them: fiction offers this wonderful capacity for reflection and, one would expect from this, that it would eventually evolve and hone a person's critical reasoning skills — So then why, why are the fandoms of the Naruto macrocosm so... Banal, when it comes to critique?
Why does the overwhelming majority of the fandom at large degrade this masterpiece of a manga to a mere, very reductive, matter of pairings? There's such a loss of opportunity here, that it's jarring! So it's such a shame to see how Fandom treats the core and heart of the manga with such flippant disregard.
And no, I'm not referring to hedonistic self-indulgence, as most of us here have a tendency thirst to some degree over certain characters (myself included, *coughs*, Madara) and we all need a frivolous outlet from time to time - no, I'm talking shipping wars. Doxxing. Anon hate. Harangues and violent hate speech. Drivelling and restless discount-feminist tirades, all because the "wrong" characters ended up fucking by the end of the story; or because the alpha male of the series didn't satisfy fandom's irrepressible wanton desire to witness a romantic escapade with his female co-protagonist.
Tumblr media
Lord, there's a heavy dose of irony in here, but you see, today's fandoms are a byproduct of capitalism's greasy machinations, and yes, of modern fascism.
That's why everything is reduced to materialistic and covetous commercially-aligned consumption of media - and it's why shipping is placed upon pedestal, while the theme of genocide is entirely overlooked or, in the worst case scenario (albeit, frequently), mocked.
Is it possible that today fascism shows a different face, a Neo Fascism so to speak?
People have this ingenuous impression that fascism is well and dead, but they're forgetting there's a distinction between an ancient squad-based and violent fascism and a sneaky, treacherous, all-encompassing Neo Fascism. And it's extremely difficult to identify, you'd have to study it in a way that it elucidates its intrinsic link with the phenomenon of massive-scale industrialisation.
In order to have a broader overview and try to answer these questions, it's worth interpreting this phenomenon of Neo (or New) Fascism as strongly dystopian as it offers us a completely new and subtly ferocious nuance of the concept of fascism.
It is in truth a non-physical power that was created by man, though it is now acting independently of and beyond him, as if it escaped his control. It's not on a human scale. But it's incredibly real. It exists and has had an impact on our lives for more than half a decade, fundamentally altering all of the human experiences that we are aware of. And because it has no discernible face, we're unable to attribute to it any brand of culpability.
The most noticeable effect of neo-capitalism is homogenisation, which results in moral and cultural flattening. Mass consumerism, which is the only form of consumerism that can exist, has inexorably levelled out all the myriad particular and unique realities that have so far animated our world (particularly in the West), and corrupted every group of people—communities, families, and individuals— to become slaves to the same things. Useless. The so-called Superfluous Goods.
They make us part of a single, very flat entity, much larger and, at first glance, safer than the small rural communities that existed before. Provided, however, that we abandon everything unique that resides in us, everything that distinguishes us.
The problem is that a non-negligible gap has taken place between the old and the new strains of fascism.
Fascism is always and always will be a bourgeois phenomenon, but the identity of the bourgeoisie has changed considerably over the decades and, following the movements of capital, it has abandoned the old "clerical-fascist" values ​​​​to embrace those of profligateness, greed and wanton consumption.
Furthermore, if the old fascism had rudimentary means to extend its hegemony, this pop-brand-falangism that's infiltrated our lives, our mindsets, tainted us with its propaganda and laissez faire economics, makes use of a whole series of means of mass communication (first of all television) which allow a capillary diffusion of its messages.
To cite something close to home: Mussolini's regime had only managed to homogenise the Italian populace superficially, but without success, as it was not even remotely able to scratch consciences — however, where old fascism failed, neo-fascism succeeds because this late-capitalist civilisation of consumption has managed to penetrate deeply, right into the fibres of your average human. And, of course, they're none the wiser as this Neo Fascism of the plastic consumer society, silently dulls our critical sense, our attachment to culture, our particular and unique spirit, to make us part of a conformist multitude, devoted to the material, the fragmented and the superficial - so you see, it's greatest power resides in removing reality from the various ways of being human, and humane, that's characterised our multifaceted society since the dawn of civilisation.
Fascism essentially identifies itself as that defining moment in which the bourgeoisie colonises, so to speak, the popular world, destroying all those particular ways of being human, and humane, that have historically settled over time. Expressions such as "anthropological mutation", "genocide" or "bourgeoisisation" refer to the same phenomenon, namely the death of popular cultures and their replacement by a class, bourgeois culture.
So there you have it: today, this phenomenon has branched out further, with the advent of the Internet, online commerce, the onset of multinational production and the invasion of the market by very low-cost goods. To the point that "going back" and attempting to free oneself from this influence is almost pragmatically impossible, as no one is willing to give up on modern commodities, hence why this is a dystopian reality.
This, in essence, is at the heart of it all and Fandom's intellectual deterioration is, sadly, just another one of Neo-fascism's reptilian Hydra heads.
58 notes · View notes
Text
First, degrowth identifies growth as fundamental to the capitalist system and develops a critique of that. Growth tends to enrich property owners and the wealthy, leaving the rest behind. And the environmental consequences of continuous growth are disastrous. Degrowthers are alert to the “destructive forces” that spring from what Marxists call the productive forces. Second, its critique of growth is based firmly on leftist positions: the deepening of democracy, feminism, and anti-racism. Inasmuch as reducing aggregate consumption is its goal, the focus is on the rich and the rich world. Third, its critique of capitalism is not restricted to property relations (private versus nationalized property) but extends to the nature and purposes of technology and of consumption. Degrowthers don’t assume that needs and desires are god-given. They have a critical take on the “manufacture of needs.” Finally, degrowthers recognize that the most fundamental human need is for a habitable planet. They are more sober, more clear-eyed than most on the Left in recognizing that facing up to the multiple environmental crises will require much more than nationalization of the energy sector and investments in renewable energy and  electric vehicles (EVs). It requires an extreme reduction in energy use and material throughput, at least in the rich world, a reduction that, while focused on the highest energy users, will affect working people, too, above all in consumption of such goods as flights and beef. Their pitch is that a world of “public luxury and private sufficiency,” with greater equality and democracy, less hierarchy, and much more free time, would enable the quality of life for the masses to improve immeasurably, even if some consumer goods disappear from the menu.
48 notes · View notes
adarkrainbow · 6 months
Note
what exactly is 'the bad “woke movement'. you mean Disney's attempts at political correctness in their casting choice? describing it as "woke" is a serious misuse of black slang.
I was a bit confused at first since I have switched the subject out of the Disney Snow White controversy some times ago.
I am sorry to inform you that the use of "woke" as a deragoratory term to designate the people we once called ironically "Social-Justice Warriors" is actually not a "black slang" anymore. In fact I didn't even know it was supposed to be a "black slang" originally, my perception of it was that it was originally a term that was created on the Internet in a positive way, to designate people that were actually fighting against all sorts of discriminations and social problems, and opening their eyes to the wrongness of societies and modern age... Only to then be switched, by the Internet itself at first, and then by the media who took the word back, to be used as a designation of extreme social-justice warriors, or people who'se extreme self-righteousness, mixed with either hypocrisy or just ignorance, resulted in them coming of as a more mad or harmful than helpful.
If you do not like me using the term, unfortunately for you you'll have to go after pretty much every American media, then after after European media - and I am not even counting the politics of both America and Europe! The term "woke" has left its Internet-exclusivity a long time ago, and now is used even in non-English speaking countries (such as France) to designate the extremes to which some people or groups carry on the "social war". Now the thing to be careful of is that many extreme-right or very hateful people will use "woke" as a way to degrade or humiliate rightful defenders of things such as feminism, transgender rights, homosexuality, etc, etc... So I want to insist: I am not susbscribing to any extreme-right ideology, and I know very well they are using this term for their own negative agenda.
But I am not of the extreme-left either, and as someone who saw very well the dangers of any kind of extremes, I have to recognize that there is indeed a bad, extreme "woke" movement, that ranges from the ridiculous to the hateful. It exists. To imagine that all fights for the right reasons are done with the right means is to be too naive.
A very recent case - which is not woke, because it isn't about social justice or social blights, but about ecology, however it illustrates VERY well the stupidity and hypocrisy of some of these modern extreme groups. In France there is an extreme ecological group that has been making a lot of noise and some extreme actions to alert people and authorities about climate change and asking for something to be done. Interesting, right? Good, right? Except that their actions are VERY dubious in effect. For example some times ago they did protests related to, I think it was the droughts and water supply handlings? I can't recall exactly the why of the protest - but they did so by destroying entire fields and putting several farmers in difficult position because they had their entire crops gone. It wasn't some big mass-industrial farming, it wasn't genetically modified stuff, it was just your regular farmer with his fields, and he had his whole crops destroyed by the group's protect - which wasn't even aimed at him (if I recall there was something about them mistaking his field for another nearby, or something). Now my memory of this case is very blurry as you can see - but one other case popped up just two days ago so I can clearly tell you the problem this time: a few days ago, the group protested against the instalation of a toxic waste disposal site near a city and precisely near a river that passed by the water's city. To protest that and alert the city's citizens, they poured tons of products in the river's water that turned it bright, glowing green - to show them the fear of toxic products reaching them by the water.
But what's the twist of the story? To make the water bright green, they poured ACTUAL toxic chemicals and colorants in the water, which resulted in killing numerous fishes of the river. It went viral on the Internet, the whole "ecologists kill fishes" thing, but it shows how by ignorance (here ignorance of the toxicity of the products you use), those who fight against pollution become the pollution-makers themselves.
Now, that was not related to social things so "woke" isn't to be applied to them - but it is a good illustration of how fighting one extreme can lead to another. But if you want a case of "bad woke" actions I have a perfect one for you - which is from before the term "woke" was taken back by the media. It was something that happened in the French part of Canada (and in general when you want some misguided and extreme woke behavior, you can go to Canada, they are very talented here at misguided good actions). It was a gesture done by Christian (Catholic) religious groups, related to the whole dreadful rediscovery of the horrors of the special so-called "schools" they had prepared for First Nations kids. You know, the ones with mass graves and such. To show that they wanted to bury the past behind them and reject the discrimination of Native-Americans, they decided to collect all sorts of old classics of French childhood literature that had depictions of First Nations people deemed offensive (for example Lucky Luke and Asterix comic books)... and they burned it in a huge bonfire.
Of course, thats CERTAINLY the best way to prove you want to help the people you have persecuted and killed for so long: do not give them money, do not change the laws, do not actually do something for them, just become book-burners! That's CERTAINLY going to help and that's CERTAINLY going to make you the "good guys".
You see what I mean by the "bad woke" movement? It isn't a movement in itself, but just the extremes these attempts at "good" and fighting against discrimination can lead to. Sometimes to the point of just coming off as a new form of discrimination. Another case, that was in France, and done in Paris. I personally think that it was a dubious idea, and maybe someone will disagree with me, but it was a project brought forward - to handle the help provided to rape victims. The whole idea was that man should be banned of all groups, organizations and help systems brought to rape victims, because in the politician's words, women had to stay between themselves, and rape victims had to cut all ties with men to get better. Another similar dubious "woke" incident (it happened, just like the one above, in Paris, because Paris recently went through a wave of bad-woke incidents and propositions thanks to the local government in power), was when a "set of safe space" was created, from which men were banned - all men - and which only welcomed... "Women and transgenders". The phrasing and formula might seem weird, and that's literaly how it was said, and it took not a long time to understand the problem: it welcomed all transgenders, and all women, but banned all men. Aka: transgender men either had to be banned from it, because they were men (so they lied upon saying they welcomed all transgenders) ; either they were allowed in, but thus not recognized as actual "men" and still considered women.
You see how there's some good intentions buried down there, but in effect it is twisted and warped in another form of discrimination?
When it comes to my worries about the new Snow-White movie, it isn't about an active, harmful, reverse-discrimination type of "bad woke". But I do fear about the "accidentally harmful" and "plain ridiculous" bad-woke. To handle the idea that a character named "Snow-White" is black is something that needs carefulness and intelligence - and Disney's had the bluntness and grace of a hammer wielded by an angry bear recently. I have one precise fear for example that I keep repeating around: if they choose to still refer to Snow-White's name as a reference to the fact she has a lighter skin and thus is beautiful because of it, and given they have chosen an actress with a light skin tone - it can result in a scenario enacting "colorism" fully. Aka, a practice and set of worldviews put in place in the slavery and discrimination-era America, about how the lighter the Black person's skin, the "better" and more "beautiful" they were. This resulted in practices such as putting "lighter" Blacks above "darker" ones, for example choosing Black people with light skin to oversee "darker" slaves and the "lighter" ones being given a less harsh treatment than the others.
Its a whole another cesspool of discrimination born of the horror that was America in this era - but it is still something that Afro-American people fight against and dislike today, and something many media have been accused of doing by putting "lighter skinned" Black characters in the position of "prettier" or "better" characters than "darker skinned" ones.
No need to tell you the whole dwarf issue is also a big "bad woke movement" move on the part of Disney. To answer to a loud minority that thinks the dwarfs roles in Snow-White is backward and insulting, they simply decide to erase them from the story... Despite the role of the seven dwarfs being something that many actors with dwarfism enjoy and defend because it was often their first entry into the acting world, and despite the fact that the original Disney seven dwarfs were positive and complex characters that were far more compelling and powerful than many other Snow-White adaptations (in fact, that's the problem, the reason the dwarfs are seen as "backwards" today is because so many post-Disney adaptations reduced them to goofy, joke secondary characters as flat as a cardboard cut-out). There are tons of ways of making the dwarfs strong and badass and cool and powerful characters - and it has been done before. (Just remember how the dwarfs in the original Disney movie are the only ones who stand up to the evil queen, and the only ones who make her VISIBLY AFRAID as they hunt her down to kill her in revenge).
So we come with the mixed and complicated result we have: Because a role is deemed "problematic", it is erased and replaced - but as a result, erasing an opportunity for actors with dwarfism to become famous and appear in a big blockbuster seen by millions is perceived as discrimination against said actors with dwarfism, as they are replaced by so-called "normal" people. They could have simply worked on making the dwarfs' characters a badass role the actors could have had no shame of playing, and they could have just gone wth what the original movie did - make the dwarfs the true heroes and protagonist of the tale. But they rather decided to close the door and make actors with dwarfism even less visible on screen.
I hope it clarifies my whole position on the subject.
22 notes · View notes
Text
speaking of film controversies and the fact that i was thinking about the jihad rehab shit again, it all reminds me that muslim female filmmakers of color maïmouna doucouré (director of cuties) and minhal baig (director of hala) were both accused of trafficking in islamophobic stereotypes for being even mildly critical of their own culture and religion. minhal baig was accused of laziness and islamophobia for writing a narrative around a young woman deciding to stop wearing hijab after being in a taboo and interracial relationship behind her parents’ back. and i don’t need to rehash every horrific thing that happened to maïmouna doucouré, but lost in the ruckus were the callous accusations of islamophobia against a filmmaker who was literally representing elements of her own upbringing in the film. writing for CAIR on medium (while also accusing doucouré of pedophilia), edward ahmad mitchell said this:
For me and other Muslims, this storyline sounds familiar, for it represents how anti-Muslim bigots typically think of the Muslim community — especially immigrant Muslim communities. Polygamist fathers, abused mothers, oppressed young girls, religious zealotry.
Because we have seen this story on the big screen and small screen many times before, we also know how the story unfolds.
Praying and wearing hijab supposedly represent symbols of oppression, so the oppressed must find liberation by disregarding prayer and casting off their Islamic clothing. For anti-Muslim bigots, the less you pray and the less clothing you wear, the more liberated and civilized you are.
doucouré is the child of senegalese immigrants and literally grew up in a polygamous family. and mitchell even acknowledges this, but still accuses her of bigotry and even complains that she equally condemns religious conservatism and secular sexualization.
this section in his article is particularly striking:
If you have any doubt about the film’s potential to reinforce negative stereotypes about Muslims and African immigrants, consider Cuties’ most vocal supporters.
According to Time, “Doucouré…has the support of the French government, who have expressed their wish to use Cuties as an educational tool for teachers, and have invited her to be part of a working group to combat the hyper sexualization of children in society.”
This is no surprise. The French government is openly hostile to Islam and Muslim immigrants. So is a large segment of France’s population. A film about a Muslim immigrant who liberates herself from her devoutly religious family fits perfectly into French stereotypes and expectations of Muslims.
Indeed, Doucouré should ask herself why French and American film studios were willing to fund, distribute and elevate her script over the many other positive stories that could be told about Muslims and immigrants in France. Other filmmakers who find Hollywood success with scripts about Muslims who disregard their faith traditions should ask themselves the same question.
(emphasis mine)
that is exactly the kind of criticism jihad rehab got. like exactly to a T, from the initial criticism that got it censored, to the later open letter from 5 former guantanamo detainees.
doucouré was also accused of, essentially, white feminism in filia, by natalya vince:
The fact that it is a young, Franco-Senegalese female director who has made a film which reproduces stereotypical representations of Black and Muslim women and girls in France makes it even more important to underline that Mignonnes is the product of something much bigger than its director. That is to say, it is the product of a structurally racist and sexist French film industry which ultimately decides what kind of stories get out there and which don’t see the light of day and which has an unenviable track record in putting women and girls in exploitative situations on set. Mignonnes is a deeply reactionary film, whose uncritical hypersexualised representation of 11-year-old girls is the dangerous but logical result of a half-digested message about individual empowerment and agency which fails to engage in structural power imbalances of age, sex, race and class.
vince also accuses her not only of being a stooge for the french government (because her film received funding from them, which is completely normal for small indie films. plenty of films by britons of color are partially financed by the british government’s film programs), but she also accuses her of exploiting the young actresses in the film, and cites the fact that there was one child psychologist on set, even contrasting it with the fact that there were two dog handlers. she claims that doucouré cared more about the dogs (twice as much she says!) than the children; it never occurs to her that a dog handler and a child psychologist have very different roles on a set, that dog handlers are not employed for the dog’s benefit, and that perhaps a small indie film could not afford to employ several fucking psychological professionals.
i’m going to stop because this post got way longer than i intended but my point is. people pretend when they advocate for censorship of white women’s works or are unfair in their treatment of films by or about white women that it is only about anti-racism. but you would be a fool to pretend like you don’t notice that women of color are subjected to the exact same sexist bullshit and often with more extreme backlash. other women of color subjected to this kind of shit: misha green, lena waithe, chloe zhao, and the list goes on. chloe zhao at least avoided a backlash that derailed the success of her film (nomadland), but her marvel movie had the worst showing of the 2022 releases (it was bad but they’re all bad). misha green’s show was unceremoniously cancelled (again) and lena waithe still enjoys success in television, but queen & slim was derailed by the backlash.
158 notes · View notes