#also…them acting like… most other things that exist isn’t anti women…. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hmsindecision · 2 months

Note

I hope one day you realize how horrid bigotry is, and can look back on these days with shame and embarrassment, but also with pride how one became a better person. When the people who want to oppress us are done with trans people they'll go after bisexuality next, then lesbians and gays, then women. We need to stand together or they will push us back into the 1700s.

In order to become an adult you need to release this “us vs. them”, black and white, dichotomous vision of the world. It doesn’t exist. There is no cohesive “they” that I must bond with any ally I can in order to resist.

Do you really think that I have gone any period of time without suffering from systemic homophobia and misogyny? Do you really think that I am sitting from a place of privilege looking down at people who are “one rung below me on the oppression ladder”? What a childish way of thinking.

A large proportion of the homophobia and misogyny that I have experienced has been from people who identified themselves as on the left, as trans, and whose values in some ways align with my own. That really sucks. It really sucks that I have been verbally berated and called slurs by both conservatives and trans people alike. Those who believe that performatively being homophobic or anti-lesbian to me have varied values, religions, creed, and political beliefs. They are a deeply heterozygous group. People approaching my short haired wife to ask her for her pronouns and therefore implying that she is improperly signaling womanhood are the most frequent gender police I encounter.

Why is it that I must accept things like being called names for being exclusively same sex attracted? I by should I accept that because other people have been targeted by the same people who have targeted me?

Why is it my womanly duty to provide solidarity with people who tell me I deserve to be raped, beaten, my career destroyed, my friendships rescinded…. Because I don’t ascribe to their philosophical beliefs? I don’t believe in gender as a framework to be upheld. I hold gender in the same regard as capitalism or the divine right of kings. It is a system of oppression designed to place men over women. It has had loopholes in many societies, mostly to create a third sex for homosexual men. It operates differently in different societies. But I think it’s anti-woman and anti-human. To ask me to believe that someone has an inborn gender identity/gendered spirit is like asking me to believe that corporations are people, that God chose a king, or that the world is flat. There is simply no evidence for that to be true, because it would require there to be something that makes us men or women beyond biology.

There is not. Non-biological differences between men and women are purely socialized. If it isn’t inscribed on the X or Y chromosomes, it’s something you were taught. The clothes you wear, the way you act, the things you like, they are all influenced by the society you live in. The associations of colors, toys, interests, and other things to our sex assignation is partially arbitrary and party about subjugation. Women aren’t born loving makeup any more than serfs are born loving to serve.

I believe everyone should express their vision of themselves as they please. I hate the micro labels that are now applied to all aspects of appearance because people cannot conceive of human difference. I think that even things which I consider anti-self and anti-human can be things which adults do to themselves. If you need surgery or pills, then it isn’t about identity, it’s about fantasy. I understand the necessity of fantasy in an oppressive system.

But gender isn’t just a source of oppression against women. It is also fuel to create and sustain oppressors. That is part of why the anti-feminism of the trans movement feels so comfortable to people raised in patriarchy (all of us). Because the idea that we all have a muliplicity of gender identities is also about absolving men of thousands of years of terrorism and oppression against us XX chromosome havers. Why should I assume my oppressed has good intentions because of their clothing? Because they got surgery? Does that make a trans woman any safer than any other male under patriarchy? Or is that just a safe illusion so you don’t have to deal with the reality?

Even your trajectory in this ask—you think they started with trans people, then bi people are next? How are they going to go after bi people without going after gay people? Unless you mean just angry social opinions as opposed to systemic oppression? Then women last? Literally what fucking planet do you live on? I’m assuming you are American based on… this ask lmao… but…

They have already come for women. Abortion is illegal in many places. Rape is such a constant that we can’t even meaningfully address it. Teen girls are killing themselves over male violence just into puberty. Famous rapists and abusers are constantly fawned over. In my state, DV services are so taxed with women that last year they turned down over 50,000 asks for shelter in the statewide network.

50,000.

And my local LGBTQ community center has a ban of events that say they are for lesbians, or even AFAB people. Did you ever think that maybe *you* need to start showing some solidarity?

When it comes down to it, men always, always choose each other.

I’m doing the most radical thing I can think of, and choosing women every time.

I don’t hate you. But you sure are good at falling for propoganda. Are you wasting your time fighting feminists because it’s easier to attack women than to stand up to your oppressors?

I’m very proud of myself and the woman that I am, and the activism I do (which.. is not on tumblr). I hope you can find the things that make you deeply proud of yourself as an individual, and that you live in accordance with your own values.

#feminism #gender theory

90 notes · View notes

hadesoftheladies · 2 months

Text

One of the biggest reasons that I know majority of current transgender ideology is faux-oppression is because of how copy-paste it’s analysis is, which makes its lack of serious academic thought that much more obvious. it’s activists use buzz words from other activist movements like the black liberation movement and feminism (“black trans lives matter”/“cis women can’t identify as transwomen”), co-opt terms from other oppressed groups like the intersex community (AFAB/AMAB), and when it comes to creating their own language, the words are utter nonsense, like “transmisogyny”, which is a nonsense word that pairs two charged words together without considering the internal meaning of either.

what oppression do trans-people face for being transgender? being trafficked (that’s usually black, homosexual people in poorer areas), refusal of hormones or surgery (which are damaging to your body), perception of transness (usually homophobic or misogynistic hatred), being killed (black people again), being the wrong gender (gender is made up you can act and wear whatever you like, and if it is harming you, is it not more helpful to reject gender than redeem it?) And yea, there can be issues of intersection, but what about transness is specifically targeted or resisted on a structural level? The analysis has to keep borrowing from other struggles (being a woman, homo/bisexual gnc person in a patriarchal misogynistic world, being black, the taboo of being intersex) and then labeling those issues as “trans” or “gender” issues. Dysphoria is disorder brought on by existing in a sick social environment, much like dysmorphia and depression can be (because gender isn’t innate). It isn’t about “female” or “male” brains. These are very real issues that women, gnc LGB and intersex people have gone through. Is it a coincidence that these demographics are where dysphoria most thrives? but they’ll never analyze that. gender has to be innate. they won’t analyze how consumeristic trans culture is. they’ll cry about how awful the trans genocide is, but the black trans-identified people dying in brothels won’t push most of them to criticize porn culture or criticize the pro-porn trans icons in their group. interesting.

which is further evident in the huge absence of internal diversity of thought. the rise of micro identities and the way a lot of “queer” activists speak (the endless virtue signaling and verbal diarrhea) shows that this is an “oppression product.” they popularized oppression olympics. having a micro identity is a fad. who is being denied a job for identifying as greysexual? mom and dad I’m so sorry I’m sapiosexual please don’t kick me out.

most prominent trans icons are from the rich white upper class. and also mostly male. they are product influencers, convincing women and children to please buy thing so they can finally be satisfied. isn’t being part of a niche underground “oppressed” group cool? when your oppressed people listen to you, and doesn’t that just feel so good? it’s so white. it’s so capitalist America. it’s so MRA in how it trivializes historic, academic and global human rights movements. like listening to a porn-addicted man ramble on about how feminism is actually just about hating men, and anti-racism is about hating white people.

devoid of any true social analysis, because then we’d actually have to talk about the underlying rot which real activist groups are being killed and censored and disrupted to stop addressing.

#oppression olympics #feminism #radblr #trans #discourse #gender #politics #racism

20 notes · View notes

patron-saints · 7 months

Note

Hand over your favourite Headcanon(s) of Olivier and/or Izumi!!!

hello my friend !!! i feel like you know most of mine for them already!!! but let’s start w the basics and see where we get:

olivier:

- autistic (food sensitivities, loves loopholes, takes things literally & has a hard time expressing her emotions to name a few) and masks a lot, relying on rules and societal expectations to cover for her when she’s not able to “act normal”

- trans! mtftnb, transitioned at 18, didn’t tell her family shit and they found out when she became the “first female general in amestris”, her second transition is more personal/internal, just a sense of realization in her 30s that she’s less binary than she thought (getting called “sir” is kind of nice, actually, and so is wearing suits… etc)

- buccaneer was not only her right hand but also her best friend, they met in boot camp and had almost exactly the same assignments their whole careers. he used to tease her a lot when they were alone - he’d never undermine her authority in public but he also never let her forget their history as pranksters lol

- she’s ambidextrous AND fights ambidextrously! not based on anything on the show i just think it’s fun. maximum efficiency etc.

- her uniform is VERY comfortable for her in both a literal and an autistic sense but you bet your ass she loves fashion too. she has a very like… you know that like… flavor of women’s fashion that’s like… blazers, jumpsuits, like… Formal But Still Somewhat Androgynous? that’s her vibe out of uniform. you will Never catch her in jeans and a t shirt. never worn a cozy sweater in her life. (this will change. she’s dating izumi.) she sleeps in like… a tank top and boxers probably. i think she’s also… modest isn’t quite the right word, but like, she’s particular about showing skin? so her bathing suits are like, trunks and sports bras, rather than bikinis etc.

- she’s extremely tidy and very organized and a lot of that is due to practice and training! she probably would be uncomfortable w messes anyway, but her ability to deal with them quickly and maintain her space comes from boot camp more than anything else. you know they had servants at armstrong manor. YOU KNOW.

- she’s a lesbian. always has been, always will be. there is a universe where she dated mustang and then came out immediately afterward but that is NOT. my universe. it is funny tho.

- (relatedly i also think she’s stone! you know the post that’s like. “i love locking my door at night. like, you’re not coming in. lmfao.” that’s her but about like. the northern wall, her emotional state, her sexuality, probably her actual door,)

- i think the fact that her and catherine are over 10 years apart in age and i think the fact of catherine being close to alex both means that olivier… kind of didn’t know how to have a relationship with her that was close and meaningful. i think catherine does admire her in some regard, but i think they just didn’t really have a chance to get to know each other and i think it would be rly cool if they did

- not really a headcanons but more of an anti-canon i simply do not think about the two middle sisters ever. to me they do not exist.

- this is already so long but i wanted to come up with new ones cuz i feel like you knew them all already shit and we still have to do izumi, but here’s one more:

- her daemon would be an amur leopard, and she didn’t fully understand why until she was 18 years old stepping off the train in north city, feeling the cold air hit her cheeks, and looked down at her daemon perfectly suited for snow, and then she was like, oh, i’m home.

izumi:

- let’s be real. she’s probably also autistic. who else would expel their students just so they could have a conversation.

- izumi is also trans. what’s her agab? what’s her gender? what was her transition like? to these questions she would either say “what are you, a cop?” or “I’M A HOUSEWIFE!!!!” this is normal and good. (my gender hc for are super flexible and i like different things at different times but i know she’s not cis i know it)

- not exactly a headcanon but she was 18 and sig was 17 when they met, and she attempted human transmutation only a year later. every time i think about the fact that she was only 19 i want to CRY.

- i hc her as mixed race, mostly black & japanese but maybe a little bit of whatever flavor ethnic group white people in amestris are. also i think all izumi flashbacks should have curly hair. i think she does have curly hair, but that’s something you’d only get to see in flashbacks, because i think sig does help her with the maintenance and upkeep of her braids on a regular basis.

- clothes wise i think she’s in a weird space between comfy and formal? most of clothes are actually pretty nice looking but her ass is always in those SLIDES. like those are her fuckin shower shoes??? please. i think she does have a taste in fashion, somewhat influenced by east asian fashion (that one flashback w training the boys she had a mandarin collar shirt that was super cute?) & also that she likes to feel pretty, but i think it’s way more fuss than it’s worth to her, so she saves makeup, jewelry etc for fancy occasions only. actually idk if she EVER wears makeup but i think she does like dresses. (she probably has like. full on pjs for sleeping. and she’d wear a black one piece with a scarf tied a skirt around her waist and a huge sunhat for a beach day!!)

- also super tidy but this doesn’t come from training this comes from an inherent housewife ability she’s had since birth. it’s destiny. magic. true power. i wish i was her.

- sexuality wise i think bi is probably a safe call but i think also “what are you, a cop” applies here too, like it’s a handwavery sort of thing when it comes to gender but in terms of like… i think she’s probably ace/aro spec because. well okay let me put it this way. i don’t think olivier was in love with anyone before izumi and i don’t think izumi slept with anyone besides sig before oliver. so there’s something. going on there. for both of them.

- for a really long time i’ve headcanon’d mason as sig’s nephew but i also think it’s really funny if one day izumi says smth abt this to sig and he’s like. “i thought he was your nephew!” and she goes “my nephew? you know i don’t have any siblings!” but it doesn’t matter anyway because, he’s family

- relatedly, the elrics are also her family. i don’t think she ever says out loud like, “my sons” and i don’t think they ever call her “mom,” and i think that’s important, but i also think it’s important that they ARE her boys!! they can’t replace what she lost, and she can’t replace what they lost, but. they have each other.

- her daemon is a bear. because of course it is.

#I KNOW IM MISSING SOME STUFF I KNOW I AM #but i hope this was fun #olivier mira armstrong #izumi curtis #ask #littlebear1537 #olizumi #fma

13 notes · View notes

esther-dot · 2 years

Note

Apparently Sansa is 'most classist and most white character' in asoiaf. Add ableist and abusive also. If it's not good enough add a murderer to it. Sansa antis are so blind in their hatred for Sansa that they always over-exaggerate her flaws or twist them to make her sounds worst then actual criminals. If they can't take criticism of their faves then they should left Sansa alone.

I’m finally responding to asks again, anon. Sorry it’s taken me so long!

Discussion of Sansa’s flaws has caused some discord in the Sansa fandom because there are a lot of different takes on specific lines, however, I agree with you that antis have taken things ludicrously far in their efforts to prove she’s a baddie. There is a double standard in which The Hound slaughtering one child and intimidating, threatening, and intending to rape another child (Sansa), doesn’t mean he’s a monster, but Sansa saying a mean thing to her sister makes her evil. Make that make sense. 😂

Broadly speaking, I think the difference between anti Sansa takes and anti [insert fandom fav] is that usually we point to an action and say it’s so bad it indicates a specific role for them. Like, “You know, murdering your ex lover and wanting to rape your sister makes you a bad person, Tyrion” or “Hey, burning a person alive and profiting off of slavery feels like non-hero-y actions, Dany” whereas anti Sansa people can’t really argue that fighting with your sister makes you a villain so they’re forced to push it and argue, “no, she DOES know that they’re poisoning sweetrobin...” We don’t have the confirmation, there are no objective “this is wrong” signs, but they know deep down Sansa is evil so they insert into the story knowledge and intent to argue that she is. They’re free to do that, and I happily block them because if we’re expected to ignore what is explicitly stated while they get to write things into the text that don’t exist...well, we actually are reading different books!

So (again, broadly, there are instances of disagreement between well-intentioned readers), criticism of one character is based in what the text presents and the other is based in the readers feelings and there isn’t really a common ground to engage on because I don’t share their feelings. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have no idea what they might mean by Sansa being the “most white” when I would assume that would have to apply to all Stark kids equally? And if we mean that in a non literal way, but a broader “she is privileged in her world and benefits from that privilege”…well, again, so do the other Starks. We’re even shown that Jon, in spite of how he has suffered for being a bastard led a privileged life too, so I don’t buy that this is a valid complain against Sansa specifically.

A lot of fans have addressed the classist issue and I think the fandom overall does a bad job of accepting certain aspects of the world. It matters to Jon that his mother is a lady. Why? Because he’s in a classist society and he accepts the terms of his world even though he as an individual is a good person who does challenge some norms. He’s still a product of his world though. Being a bastard eats him alive for a reason. Trying to act like Sansa is particularly heinous in that regard is silly. Arya is a standout in rejecting certain norms and I think that’s great, but the contrast is part of the representation of two different types of women who both suffer in their world. The idea isn’t that Sansa should be Arya or that Arya should be Sansa. The author is talking about much bigger and less sexist ideas there. And while Arya will ultimately be free from the burdens of society, I think Sansa’s position within society will allow her to make changes that benefit others. As for their accusations that Sansa is ableist, a while ago I wrote this about Sansa and Willas:

She goes from asking if he’s a knight as her first reaction to saying it doesn’t matter about his leg. She chooses to not be fixated on it and reshapes her daydreams to accommodate him.

[...]

and sure, it’s a romanticized version of her life with him, but that’s just who Sansa is, and who she isn’t is someone who would hate a person or be cruel because she is ableist. She is cold to Tyrion because his family murdered hers and she was forced to marry him. I’d even say this whole section is a glimpse of her attempting to reprogram herself in-spite of the ableism of their world. (link)

She wanted to marry Willas, and in spite of being forced to marry Tyrion she felt sympathy for him. In spite of her own discomfort with certain aspects of sweetrobin’s behavior, she tries to comfort him and improve his life. People do not need to like her, but their hatred really has made them distort her beyond all recognition. Reading the books, Sansa seemed particularity compassionate to me and there were lots of moments that pointed to this, but perhaps the most significant is her knowing she should fall into the norms of her world and hate the entire family of those who have killed hers, but she can’t, instead she helps

I think any honest reader can see what the author is saying here. Sansa isn’t soft, weak, or stupid. Sansa is kind, compassionate, and brave. She is the kind of person we should want to influence their world because she would make it a better place. Refusing to see that and creating other accusations to lob at her means misunderstanding not only Sansa, but a huge part of the story.

#ask dot #sansa discourse #< tag to filter if you don’t want to see these

33 notes · View notes

papirouge · 1 year

Note

I don’t really belong to a denomination so I haven’t really ever gotten kicked out of a church or youth group before.

I was asked to leave a pro life group though. In was in person, way before covid. Very small group. We didn’t really have a prescience online. It felt more like a Bible group meeting up at someone’s house without the bible. I argued that women who either choose or were forced to go through a c section birth are still mothers after a young girl who isn’t a mother and never was one argued that they weren’t because childbirth pain makes you one. She went pretty far. Adopting your kids doesn’t make you one. Fostering kids doesn’t make you one. She said how women even dying in childbirth should die because it’s an honorable death. I sort of snapped since I lost a few members to childbirth complications in the past. I cussed her out so the group did ask me to leave. I was happy though that literally every one else called that girl out for being stupid and cruel. Even her own sister called her a dumbass out loud. And then she had to start crying and play victim. Last I heard, the group fell apart. I guess I triggered her because that young girl kept being bothered by me even after I left. I was actually asked to return but I wasn’t interested. That girl is young, I’ll pray for her, because throughout the time I’ve seen her, she just seemed lost and easily sucked into things she sees online. She was into crypto for a bit. Then e girl aesthetics. Then cottagecore. Then 1 week she tried to convert to Islam. A few weeks later, it was crystals and reiki and tarot cards. A while ago I remember she was like rad fem? I guess when I was there at the end, she was listening to male centric content that’s violent towards women. It explained the cruelty in what she said. But i believe also that she just tried to repeat what she read and heard from others online to me thinking I’ll somehow be convinced that she’s right. I’m not super close with her sister but I do follow her on instagram. Her sisters latest thing is anti capitalist liberal bimbo core. Bless her heart… she needs prayers, good lord.

Man, this girl is so stupid it's almost comical🫠

You should've asked her that since most women go through delivery with epidural anesthesia lowering the pain of childbirth, does it mean they didn't 'totally' give birth? 🤔

I heard so many drama about pro life group. It's like a nest intellectually sheltered young girls who will spout the most bizarre statements about basic biological facts. Yeah, she mingling with scrotes might explains her asinine takes. She should've asked them since men don't have pain during childbirth, does it mean none of them are father? 🤔

I always said that women shouldn't seek after men opinion when it came to issues exclusive to women. Especially biological sex. In another ask I was talking about a girl who was formerly a radical feminist who was now more like tradfem/conservative and she was doing a podcast with a meninist and who was like spouting the most basic gotcha about feminism à la "female solidarity doesn't exist, and when they do it only revolves around their biology" GEEZZZ I WONDER WHY JEAN-FRANÇOIS 🙃 This exchange was so low quality and underwhelming...it wouldn't be so annoying if both of them didn't act like they were really doing something but no actually this discourse already happened in 2013 during the SJW+libfem vs meninism fight uuuuugh French contrarian YouTubers are always so stupidly late to the party.....🫠 like that girl is pretty lost and I hope she'll grasp that leaving feminist and becoming trad doesn't mean eating up the koolaid of basic men "trad" who -while they don't have to agree with feminism- will never have to self awareness to grasp the dimension of femalehood beside a male centric perspective.

Anyway your friend might be like this girl, she's lost and eventually she'll come around. Especially if she's young. I'm glad I've never bothered to slap onto myself whatever trendy label (feminist, tradfem, conservative, contrarian, etc) bc I feel like it messes people up whenever they get challenged in theif fundamental belief system.

#answered

2 notes · View notes

fozmeadows · 3 years

Text

race & culture in fandom

For the past decade, English language fanwriting culture post the days of LiveJournal and Strikethrough has been hugely shaped by a handful of megafandoms that exploded across AO3 and tumblr – I’m talking Supernatural, Teen Wolf, Dr Who, the MCU, Harry Potter, Star Wars, BBC Sherlock – which have all been overwhelmingly white. I don’t mean in terms of the fans themselves, although whiteness also figures prominently in said fandoms: I mean that the source materials themselves feature very few POC, and the ones who are there tended to be done dirty by the creators.

Periodically, this has led POC in fandom to point out, extremely reasonably, that even where non-white characters do get central roles in various media properties, they’re often overlooked by fandom at large, such that the popular focus stays primarily on the white characters. Sometimes this happened (it was argued) because the POC characters were secondary to begin with and as such attracted less fan devotion (although this has never stopped fandoms from picking a random white gremlin from the background cast and elevating them to the status of Fave); at other times, however, there has been a clear trend of sidelining POC leads in favour of white alternatives (as per Finn, Poe and Rose Tico being edged out in Star Wars shipping by Hux, Kylo and Rey). I mention this, not to demonize individuals whose preferred ships happen to involve white characters, but to point out the collective impact these trends can have on POC in fandom spaces: it’s not bad to ship what you ship, but that doesn’t mean there’s no utility in analysing what’s popular and why through a racial lens.

All this being so, it feels increasingly salient that fanwriting culture as exists right now developed under the influence and in the shadow of these white-dominated fandoms – specifically, the taboo against criticizing or critiquing fics for any reason. Certainly, there’s a hell of a lot of value to Don’t Like, Don’t Read as a general policy, especially when it comes to the darker, kinkier side of ficwriting, and whether the context is professional or recreational, offering someone direct, unsolicited feedback on their writing style is a dick move. But on the flipside, the anti-criticism culture in fanwriting has consistently worked against fans of colour who speak out about racist tropes, fan ignorance and hurtful portrayals of living cultures. Voicing anything negative about works created for free is seen as violating a core rule of ficwriting culture – but as that culture has been foundationally shaped by white fandoms, white characters and, overwhelmingly, white ideas about what’s allowed and what isn’t, we ought to consider that all critical contexts are not created equal.

Right now, the rise of C-drama (and K-drama, and J-drama) fandoms is seeing a surge of white creators – myself included – writing fics for fandoms in which no white people exist, and where the cultural context which informs the canon is different to western norms. Which isn’t to say that no popular fandoms focused on POC have existed before now – K-pop RPF and anime fandoms, for example, have been big for a while. But with the success of The Untamed, more western fans are investing in stories whose plots, references, characterization and settings are so fundamentally rooted in real Chinese history and living Chinese culture that it’s not really possible to write around it. And yet, inevitably, too many in fandom are trying to do just that, treating respect for Chinese culture or an attempt to understand it as optional extras – because surely, fandom shouldn’t feel like work. If you’re writing something for free, on your own time, for your own pleasure, why should anyone else get to demand that you research the subject matter first?

Because it matters, is the short answer. Because race and culture are not made-up things like lightsabers and werewolves that you can alter, mock or misunderstand without the risk of hurting or marginalizing actual real people – and because, quite frankly, we already know that fandom is capable of drawing lines in the sand where it chooses. When Brony culture first reared its head (hah), the online fandom for My Little Pony – which, like the other fandoms we’re discussing here, is overwhelmingly female – was initially welcoming. It felt like progress, that so many straight men could identify with such a feminine show; a potential sign that maybe, we were finally leaving the era of mainstream hypermasculine fandom bullshit behind, at least in this one arena. And then, in pretty much the blink of an eye, things got overwhelmingly bad. Artists drawing hardcorn porn didn’t tag their works as adult, leading to those images flooding the public search results for a children’s show. Women were edged out of their own spaces. Bronies got aggressive, posting harsh, ugly criticism of artists whose gijinka interpretations of the Mane Six as humans were deemed insufficiently fuckable.

The resulting fandom conflict was deeply unpleasant, but in the end, the verdict was laid down loud and clear: if you cannot comport yourself like a decent fucking person – if your base mode of engagement within a fandom is to coopt it from the original audience and declare it newly cool only because you’re into it now; if you do not, at the very least, attempt to understand and respect the original context so as to engage appropriately (in this case, by acknowledging that the media you’re consuming was foundational to many women who were there before you and is still consumed by minors, and tagging your goddamn porn) – then the rest of fandom will treat you like a social biohazard, and rightly so.

Here’s the thing, fellow white people: when it comes to C-drama fandoms and other non-white, non-western properties? We are the Bronies.

Not, I hasten to add, in terms of toxic fuckery – though if we don’t get our collective shit together, I’m not taking that darkest timeline off the table. What I mean is that, by virtue of the whiteminding which, both consciously and unconsciously, has shaped current fan culture, particularly in terms of ficwriting conventions, we’re collectively acting as though we’re the primary audience for narratives that weren’t actually made with us in mind, being hostile dicks to Chinese and Chinese diaspora fans when they take the time to point out what we’re getting wrong. We’re bristling because we’ve conceived of ficwriting as a place wherein No Criticism Occurs without questioning how this culture, while valuable in some respects, also serves to uphold, excuse and perpetuate microaggresions and other forms of racism, lashing out or falling back on passive aggression when POC, quite understandably, talk about how they’re sick and tired of our bullshit.

An analogy: one of the most helpful and important tags on AO3 is the one for homophobia, not just because it allows readers to brace for or opt out of reading content they might find distressing, but because it lets the reader know that the writer knows what homophobia is, and is employing it deliberately. When this concept is tagged, I – like many others – often feel more able to read about it than I do when it crops up in untagged works of commercial fiction, film or TV, because I don’t have to worry that the author thinks what they’re depicting is okay. I can say definitively, “yes, the author knows this is messed up, but has elected to tell a messed up story, a fact that will be obvious to anyone who reads this,” instead of worrying that someone will see a fucked up story blind and think “oh, I guess that’s fine.” The contextual framing matters, is the point – which is why it’s so jarring and unpleasant on those rare occasions when I do stumble on a fic whose author has legitimately mistaken homophobic microaggressions for cute banter. This is why, in a ficwriting culture that otherwise aggressively dislikes criticism, the request to tag for a certain thing – while still sometimes fraught – is generally permitted: it helps everyone to have a good time and to curate their fan experience appropriately.

But when white and/or western fans fail to educate ourselves about race, culture and the history of other countries and proceed to deploy that ignorance in our writing, we’re not tagging for racism as a thing we’ve explored deliberately; we’re just being ignorant at best and hateful at worst, which means fans of colour don’t know to avoid or brace for the content of those works until they get hit in the face with microaggresions and/or outright racism. Instead, the burden is placed on them to navigate a minefield not of their creation: which fans can be trusted to write respectfully? Who, if they make an error, will listen and apologise if the error is explained? Who, if lived experience, personal translations or cultural insights are shared, can be counted on to acknowledge those contributions rather than taking sole credit? Too often, fans of colour are being made to feel like guests in their own house, while white fans act like a tone-policing HOA.

Point being: fandom and ficwriting cultures as they currently exist badly need to confront the implicit acceptance of racism and cultural bias that underlies a lot of community rules about engagement and criticism, and that needs to start with white and western fans. We don’t want to be the new Bronies, guys. We need to do better.

#race #racism #c-drama #fandom #fan wank #fandom wank #microaggresions #culture #the untamed #bronies #whiteness #ficwriting #fanwriting #cultural bias #discourse

6K notes · View notes

koraki-grimoire · 3 years

Text

Witchcraft in Hellenismos

Disclaimer: This post is non-exhaustive, and though I'll try to equally spread my focus, it will inevitably lean towards the kinds of magik I personally practice.

Often, in modern pagan circles, people are under the impression that Ancient Hellenismos either didn't have or despised witchcraft. This is largely from three causes. The first is simply misreading, or failing to come across witchcraft in the Hellenism they research. Second is only reading about or adhering to branches that didn't like witchcraft (usually due to it being perceived as hubristic) and therefore assuming that's the most popular opinion. Finally, sometimes people apply their assumptions based on Christian and Germanic culture to Hellenismos, and assume it carries the same attitudes.

In actuality, the view of witchcraft was historically more neutral. Witches weren't typically seen as hags, but maidens, respectable men, priests, and more. It should also be noted that, frankly, "witch" is a slightly tonally incorrect translation usually applied to the word "pharmakis."

For historical attitudes towards witches, we can read works surrounding mainly Medea and Kirke, as well as Hekate if we go past pharmakeia.

But pharmakeia and nekromankia (necromancy) are far from the only forms of witchcraft or magik--which in Ancient Greek would be "mageia" or "goeteia" depending on time and place, but will simply be called "magik" here.

So, with that very long introduction, let's get into types of magik.

Pharmakeia - Herbal Sorcery, Witchcraft

Pharmakeia is perhaps the most recognizable form of magik in historical Hellenismos. As mentioned, it was associated with the heroine Medea, as well as the goddess/nymph/hero (it's complicated) Kirke. This was magik performed using the aid of herbs, and both historically and now blends magik and science. It includes brewing poisons, casting curses, potionmaking, transmutation, and more. Kirke, famously, used pharmakeia to transform men into swine, whereas Medea tended towards poisoning, but both had variety in their craft.

Generally, when pharmakeia is translated, it's done very broadly compared to other kinds of magik. For example, pharmakeia is usually translated, especially in the Odyssey, to "witchcraft" or "sorcery." Pharmakis--the word for a practitioner of pharmakeia--is usually translated to "witch." This often leads to misconceptions of witchcraft in Hellenismos being specifically oriented around herbs and transmutation, when that's only a small piece of the picture.

Nekromankia/Nekromanteia - Necromancy

Nekromankia is far more famous now in its Anglicized pop-culture form, but it was most certainly present in Hellenismos. It's important to clarify that in Ancient Hellas, nekromankia was magik pertaining to the dead, not things such as zombies and raising the dead. In Hellenismos, the maintenance of good relationships between the dead and the living is of great importance. There were plenty of festivals devoted to placating and celebrating the dead--not to mention the monthly Attic holiday Hekate's Deipnon, devoted to honoring Hekate, goddess of nekromankia. So, unsurprisingly, there were witches who gravitated towards this as a craft.

Multiple Hellenic deities were associated with nekromankia, the most notable of which being Hekate, but also Persephone. Though, of course, any khthonic deity--especially khthonic theoi who also had non-khthonic aspects--were relevant, such as Haides or Hermes. A practitioner of nekromankia would be referred to as a nekromanteías.

Manteia - Divination, Oracles

It should be noted that manteia is heavily contested as being a form of witchcraft or even magik in Hellenismos, but it certainly meets the qualifications. The main reason this debate exists is controversy around magik in Hellenismos in general, since as most Hellenists know manteia is so central to so much of our religion, and those who dislike magik are insulted by it being considered that. Additionally, the definition of magik is constantly in flux--it's debated in modern magik circles, and it's even harder to apply a definition we can hardly agree on to an ancient culture with its own independent definitions.

Manteia is, most simply, the power to give prophecies, divination, and the use of oracles. It's the power of the Pythia (Delphic Oracle), it's in the Olympian Alphabet Oracle, it's every single seer and prophecy and divinatory method known to us.

Someone who practices manteia is called a mantis (usually translated as "soothsayer" or "diviner") or a khresmologos ("oracle"), depending on station.

Heliomanteia - Solar Magik

Heliomanteia is hard to find detailed historical information on, but most simply, it's magikal invocation of the sun. This is generally done by attempting to harness the power of the sun, or by requesting the aid of solar deities (namely, Helios).

Interestingly, Helios had many associations with witchcraft and warding off evil. It could be assumed that, due to the qualities attributed to Helios, heliomanteia would be best used to reveal truth, ward off evil, harness the power of fire, promote life, and similar.

Presumably, a practitioner of heliomanteia is a heliomantis.

Goeteia - Magik, Charms

Goeteia (in modern times "goetia") is a term for magik that fell out of style for general magik around the 5th century BC in favor of mageia. It, additionally, was shoehorned into a dichotomy of theurgy (divine, "professional," and virtuous magik) and goeteia (low, malicious, and fraudulent magik). This was largely due to political and social overhaul. The name became associated with fraudulent and harmful magik, and talk of goeteia in Ancient Hellas is a major source most anti-witch Hellenists use.

The goes (practitioner of goetia) was maligned, seen as hubristic and either trying to go against the power of the gods or intending to scam others. Plato famously portrayed them as malicious frauds, and he was not alone. Since the term "goes" is generally translated as "witch," it's not a leap to figure out why this lead to a lot of anti-witch Hellenists.

However, before this (and technically after), "goeteia" simply meant magic, charms, and similar. As a unique practice, and not simply an umbrella term for witchcraft, it can be considered channeling, a relative of nekromankia, or baneful magik, depending how much one leans into the later definition.

Theourgía - Deity Work, Divine Magik

Theourgia (in modern times "theurgy") quite literally translates to "deity work" or "god(s) working." It is ritual, sometimes magik, done with the intent of invoking one or more of the theoi. This was the ritual magik often performed by priests. In fact, it could be considered the mainstream magik of Ancient Hellas--assuming, of course, that one considers it magik.

It's not only historic magik that was central to the religion, but sets historical precedent for the controversial phrase "deity work." The existence of theurgy as the "higher form" of magik in Ancient Hellas is singlehandedly enough evidence to prove the phrase is not and would not be considered inherently hubristic. It should be noted that this form isn't inherently superior, but if you asked Plato, he would disagree.

There are certainly more forms of mageia in Ancient Hellas--For example, I skipped over amulets (periapta), which were almost incontestably the most common magik in a lot of Ancient Hellas, since they could technically fit under some other crafts and because they're the easiest to research on your own. It's a similar case with potions, too.

One important takeaway is the hard line between magik, religion, and science is a fairly recent invention. Pharmakeia could act as medicine, not just sorcery. Many potions were also medication. Frankly, the more women were involved, the more practical it tended to be, with 'spells' often being genuine aids to childbirth and/or birth control. This didn't make them any less magikal, and the magik doesn't make it less real.

And I hope I made it very, very clear, but witchcraft has always been in Hellenismos, and isn't inherently hubristic. That is a myth, and is rooted often in historical (and modern) classism, misogyny, xenophobia, or similar. Always consider your source's incentive to stigmatize before discounting all Hellenic witches.

1K notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 3 years

Note

Hi. You made a post a couple of days ago about how queer historical fiction doesnt need to be defined only by homophobia. Can you expand on that a bit maybe? Because it seems interesting and important, but I'm a little confused as to whether that is responsible to the past and showing how things have changed over time. Anyway this probably isn't very clear, but I hope its not insulting. Have a good day :)

Hiya. I assume you're referring to this post, yes? I think the main parameters of my argument were set out pretty clearly there, but sure, I'm happy to expand on it. Because I'm a little curious as to why you think that writing a queer narrative (especially a queer fictional narrative) that doesn't make much reference to or even incorporate explicit homophobia is (implicitly) not being "responsible to the past." I've certainly made several posts on this topic before, but as ever, my thoughts and research materials change over time. So, okay.

(Note: I am a professional historian with a PhD, a book contract for an academic monograph on medieval/early modern queer history, and soon-to-be-several peer-reviewed publications on medieval queer history. In other words, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.)

As I noted in that post, first of all, the growing emphasis on "accuracy" in historical fiction and historically based media is... a mixed bag. Not least because it only seems to be applied in the Game of Thrones fashion, where the only "accurate" history is that which is misogynistic, bloody, filthy, rampantly intolerant of competing beliefs, and has no room for women, people of color, sexual minorities, or anyone else who has become subject to hot-button social discourse today. (I wrote a critical post awhile ago about the Netflix show Cursed, ripping into it for even trying to pretend that a show based on the Arthurian legends was "historically accurate" and for doing so in the most simplistic and reductive way possible.) This says far more about our own ideas of the past, rather than what it was actually like, but oh boy will you get pushback if you try to question that basic premise. As other people have noted, you can mix up the archaeological/social/linguistic/cultural/material stuff all you like, but the instant you challenge the ingrained social ideas about The Bad Medieval Era, cue the screaming.

I've been a longtime ASOIAF fan, but I do genuinely deplore the effect that it (and the show, which was by far the worst offender) has had on popular culture and widespread perceptions of medieval history. When it comes to queer history specifically, we actually do not know that much, either positive or negative, about how ordinary medieval people regarded these individuals, proto-communities, and practices. Where we do have evidence that isn't just clerical moralists fulminating against sodomy (and trying to extrapolate a society-wide attitude toward homosexuality from those sources is exactly like reading extreme right-wing anti-gay preachers today and basing your conclusions about queer life in 2021 only on those), it is genuinely mixed and contradictory. See this discussion post I likewise wrote a while ago. Queerness, queer behavior, queer-behaving individuals have always existed in history, and labeling them "queer" is only an analytical conceit that represents their strangeness to us here in the 21st century, when these categories of exclusion and difference have been stringently constructed and applied, in a way that is very far from what supposedly "always" existed in the past.

Basically, we need to get rid of the idea that there was only one empirical and factual past, and that historians are "rewriting" or "changing" or "misrepresenting" it when they produce narratives that challenge hegemonic perspectives. This is why producing good historical analysis is a skill that takes genuine training (and why it's so undervalued in a late-capitalist society that would prefer you did anything but reflect on the past). As I also said in the post to which you refer, "homophobia" as a structural conceit can't exist prior to its invention as an analytical term, if we're treating queerness as some kind of modern aberration that can't be reliably talked about until "homosexual" gained currency in the late 19th century. If there's no pre-19th century "homosexuality," then ipso facto, there can be no pre-19th-century "homophobia" either. Which one is it? Spoiler alert: there are still both things, because people are people, but just as the behavior itself is complicated in the premodern past, so too is the reaction to it, and it is certainly not automatic rejection at all times.

Hence when it comes to fiction, queer authors have no responsibility (and in my case, certainly no desire) to uncritically replicate (demonstrably false!) narratives insisting that we were always miserable, oppressed, ostracised, murdered, or simply forgotten about in the premodern world. Queer characters, especially historical queer characters, do not have to constantly function as a political mouthpiece for us to claim that things are so much better today (true in some cases, not at all in the others) and that modernity "automatically" evolved to a more "enlightened" stance (definitely not true). As we have seen with the recent resurgence of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, and xenophobia around the world, along with the desperate battle by the right wing to re-litigate abortion, gay rights, etc., social attitudes do not form in a vacuum and do not just automatically become more progressive. They move backward, forward, and side to side, depending on the needs of the societies that produce them, and periods of instability, violence, sickness, and poverty lead to more regressive and hardline attitudes, as people act out of fear and insularity. It is a bad human habit that we have not been able to break over thousands of years, but "[social] things in the past were Bad but now have become Good" just... isn't true.

After all, nobody feels the need to constantly add subtextual disclaimers or "don't worry, I personally don't support this attitude/action" implied authorial notes in modern romances, despite the cornucopia of social problems we have today, and despite the complicated attitude of the modern world toward LGBTQ people. If an author's only reason for including "period typical homophobia" (and as we've discussed, there's no such thing before the 19th century) is that they think it should be there, that is an attitude that needs to be challenged and examined more closely. We are not obliged to only produce works that represent a downtrodden past, even if the end message is triumphal. It's the same way we got so tired of rape scenes being used to make a female character "stronger." Just because those things existed (and do exist!), doesn't mean you have to submit every single character to those humiliations in some twisted name of accuracy.

Yes, as I have always said, prejudices have existed throughout history, sometimes violently so. But that is not the whole story, and writing things that center only on the imagined or perceived oppression is not, at this point, accurate OR helpful. Once again, I note that this is specifically talking about fiction. If real-life queer people are writing about their own experiences, which are oftentimes complex, that's not a question of "representation," it's a question of factual memoir and personal history. You can't attack someone for being "problematic" when they are writing about their own lived experience, which is something a younger generation of queer people doesn't really seem to get. They also often don't realise how drastically things have changed even in my own lifetime, per the tags on my reblog about Brokeback Mountain, and especially in media/TV.

However, if you are writing fiction about queer people, especially pre-20th century queer people, and you feel like you have to make them miserable just to be "responsible to the past," I would kindly suggest that is not actually true at all, and feeds into a dangerous narrative that suggests everything "back then" was bad and now it's fine. There are more stories to tell than just suffering, queer characters do not have to exist solely as a corollary for (inaccurate) political/social commentary on the premodern past, and they can and should be depicted as living their lives relatively how they wanted to, despite the expected difficulties and roadblocks. That is just as accurate, if sometimes not more so, than "they suffered, the end," and it's something that we all need to be more willing to embrace.

#history #medieval history #queer history #meta #long post #anonymous #ask

125 notes · View notes

sladewilsonisanantihero · 3 years

Text

The Original Intent of Terra and how Deathstroke got the bad end of the stick for it

Okay, Deathstroke Children (Idk what to call you guys because fellow Deathstrokers would end this conversation immediately), I found the time to do this, so let's get to it!

(Note: My original laptop broke with my comics, so I have no images to spare, so it will be sourced. Another note: Many words will be in bold. Partly so that for those reading will not lose track.)

But if tl;dr:

Cold Hard Truth: Everyone from Terra fans to Deathstroke fans needs to stop seeing these characters as real people.

Original Terra wasn't human trafficked or whatever sob story people want to label her with. The CREATORS intended her to be written as Evil without the mental illness and to die for the shock value. They had Raven, The Literal Empath, spell this out in Judas Contract. As for Deathstroke's involvement, he was shoved into her creation story, and Marv Wolfman himself recognized his mistake in doing that.

And for those calling Deathstroke a nazi, Original Terra had nazi-like beliefs where common people should fear and serve them or be killed off just because they're 'special'. Again, BLUNTLY stated in the Judas Contract. So if you're going to call Deathstroke a Pedophile, we'll call OG Terra a Neo-Nazi. (But I highly advice for Deathstroke Fans to not start that kind of war, but I had to say what I had to say.)

Don't get me wrong. (Hopefully all) Deathstroke fans know that their relationship was wrong just like Marv Wolfman, and we do not support pedophiles! But Slade isn't a pedophile! He was never intended to be written as one! It was a mistake made on many levels and should be rewritten like OG Terra's Evil Neo-Nazi-like personality, instead of being thrown into cancel culture.

Also for Deathstroke fans, don't get upset over their content and begin any argument emotionally. Just enjoy whatever good content we can get and support it if you can. Hopefully we'll get our Deathstroke movies and so on!

So I've briefly chatted with one of you over the matter with Terra/Tara Markov and how upsetting it is about how people refer to Slade Wilson as a Pedophile. That is a serious accusation that would make it very uncomfortable to argue about since it can easily make it seem like we justify the actions of pedophiles, and that we are part of pedophile culture that does exist in social media space.

AND WE SHOULDN'T, AND FOR ANTIS READING THIS WE WON'T.

But there was a time when I used to have a blog called friendlyremindersofsladewilson, where I defended Slade and put the blame all on Terra. I was 14 at the time, and looking back at it, I am not proud of it because I realized now as an adult how I defended it for most of the wrong reasons, but still stand with the fact that SLADE IS NOT A PEDOPHILE.

And since this took place when I was so young, it compelled me to write this post because I fear some of you are really young, too, and may end up in this regretful position.

So to make it clear, what Slade had been written to do is a crime, and we should acknowledge it, but not in the way as if it was a crime acted out in real life.

What I mean by that is that there's a clear separation between fiction and reality where one isn't real (Duh!). In this case, it's about the mistakes made between fiction and reality. In reality, mistakes made by the person responsible is on the person. In fiction, mistakes made is dependent on the creator's intent, and sometimes the creators can make mistakes themselves.

Most notably Terra's:

Tara Markov/Terra was created by Marv Wolfman and George Perez.

In Marv Wolfman's literal website, he stated in his online "What the-?" column:

"Which leads to Terra. That was easy. George and I wanted a Titan who betrayed the others. we also wanted to play against every reader conception of who characters are. George and I knew her whole story before we began and we knew she would die. We set the story up with her trying to destroy the Statue of Liberty to show she was the bad girl, but we knew if George drew her as a cute kid everyone would simply assume she would be ‘turned’ from the dark side because that’s the way it was always done which is why that wouldn’t be the way we did it. Tara was insane an stayed that way right until the moment she died. By the way, she IS dead. I don’t know what other writers will do with her – if anything – but if they want to honor the original series they will leave her dead. The Terra from Team Titans was – as stated – some kid the villain kidnapped and physically and mentally altered her into looking and acting like the original. But she was NEVER the real Terra."

And it should also be noted that he stated before this statement that:

"...Only mistake I think I made with him is having him have a physical relationship with the 16 year old Tara Markov. That was wrong."

So Marv Wolfman himself recognizes that what he did was a mistake, but his intent on Terra was never to write a victim.

And quick note: Insanity isn't written as a mental illness here. It's written like how many villains are labeled as insane for having skewed beliefs that deviates from the common good.

Terra truly had some nazi-like beliefs where she BELIEVED that everyone who wasn't 'special' like her and the Teen Titans deserved to be treated like shit because they weren't 'special' like them. She bluntly said it herself in the Judas Contract.

As for George Perez's comment in an interview I found in this website:

"GEORGE: Tara was just a cute little girl, although I based a little bit of that on my wife Carol’s sister, Barbara. A little upturned nose… Barbara does not have the teeth that Tara had. I wanted Tara to be a girl who looked normal. Which also means her death caught everyone even more offguard.

Tara, she was made to be killed; she served her purpose. That was it.

ANDY: You didn ‘t get any attachment to Tara?

GEORGE: No, because I knew we were going to kill her. So I deliberately used all the things to make her as likeable and cute as possible, so people would never believe we were going to kill a sixteen-year-old. And she was a sixteen-year-old sociopath. She was one of our cleverest gimmicks; we deliberately created her in order to lead everyone astray. So we couldn’t build any fondness for her, ’cause we knew full well what her whole motive for existence was. Her existence was basically to keep the stories interesting; we were tossing a curve that no one would have expected.

ANDY: You didn ‘t even love to hate her, huh?

GEORGE: No. I loved handling her, because she was such a good idea. But she was an idea. Not as much a person. She was there to show exactly how much their humanity can be one thing they have to be careful about, the Teen Titans have to be careful about. . . they can be too trusting, or their own weaknesses can be used against them."

Terra was supposed to be a representation of An Evil Betrayal of Trust and That Not All Cute Girls Are Good.

But they took it too far by making her sleep with Deathstroke because they wanted to truly make her look evil by literally sleeping with the enemy. Y'know because this was the 80s, and women having sex was an evil act back then, and that point of view has somewhat or barely improved 40 years later.

Deathstroke was just shoved into this idea, and Marv tried and perhaps failed at trying to undo this mistake with his talk with Beastboy (Tales of the Teen Titans issue #55) and before his confrontation from Wintergreen (Deathstroke (1991); Chapter 35).

So just as I had stated at the top in the tl;dr, it was a mistake made on many levels and should have been rewritten out just as many had done with OG Terra's true personality, and be done with it.

Random person: "He still slept with a 16-year-old."

And it's not that hard to make other heroes and villains do this mistake. Because again, it's all fiction. Deathstroke's fictional. As in Not Real, so we could literally undo the damage by rewriting this mistake. Or make it worse by making Terra the rapist by her using her Earth powers to bind Slade down and force him, and you can't deny that it's plausible. Because she's fictional. Anything can happen. So why didn't Slade tell Beastboy whether he slept with her or not, maybe it was because he really didn't want to but he was forced into it. And that's just something you can't dump on a very emotional man who was trying to kill you a moment ago.

ALL THE POSSIBILITIES BECAUSE IT'S FICITIONAL!

But ANYWAY, I went way too dark there.

Ending on a brighter note: Personally to all Deathstroke fans, please value your mental health, please don't start any arguments that'll compromise it, and continue supporting Deathstroke in whatever way you can!

#Deathstroke #Slade Wilson

79 notes · View notes

the-sound-of-her-wings · 3 years

Text

I Am Not Starfire, And That's Okay

I recently read I Am Not Starfire and I had lots of thoughts, which are under the cut. It is spoiler-heavy and an analysis of the main character, who I find to be a charming, flawed, and incredibly human character.

Mandy is a fascinating character and a great look at a teenage girl who feels ostracized by the people around her and who feels disconnected from her parent. Mandy is by no means flawless, and that's what makes her very interesting. It also makes her relatable.

Mandy starts by talking about how she's noticeably different from her mom, being the "Anti-Starfire". She's a regular kid, can't fly, and doesn't own a swimsuit, while her mom is a superhero, can fly, and always wears bikinis.

On page 11 she mentions "her mom hasn't liked how I looked since I was twelve. She wears less than a yard of fabric every day, yet somehow, I'm the one who's dressing weird". While I understand people who call this slut-shaming, and I'm inclined to agree, but I think it's a little more nuanced than that. The next page reads, "My friend Lincoln convinced me this is the cultural divide that happens between family generations born in different countries or universes. His parents were born in Vietnam." This tells me that the authors intended to point out the difference in dress more as another difference between Starfire and Mandy, and less as a reason to blatantly slut-shame Starfire. I think there's absolutely a conversation to be had about why the authors decided to use this language instead of conveying the point differently. I also think it speaks to how Starfire has more or less been sexualized from inception, and how people look down upon her character because of that. In the context of this book, though, it's one of Mandy's character flaws that I think fits her both as a character and reflects what I've seen from actual teenage girls. Our society coaches us to view women who dress a certain way as less than women who don't and unlearning that takes time and effort. I don't think this comment about her mom should have been put in there by the authors, but I do think it fits in with the values American society in particular teaches about women.

Page 15, 16, and 17 all point to a far more complicated state of existence than Mandy points out within the first few pages. For one thing, Mandy has to deal with people who love her mother and only want to use her to get information about her mom and the other teen titans. This is shown by the "Titan groupies" who ask her to tell Starfire what they say about her. Another thing she has to deal with is the expectation to be a superhero and have powers like her mom, and the questions about who her dad might be. She gains her first real friend, Lincoln, because he tells the people asking about her parentage that they are assholes.

It is revealed that Mandy has a crush on Claire after she gets assigned a group project with her. Mandy is in denial over the crush. She thinks about the fact she's meeting Mandy at the end of the day throughout the rest of the school day, causing her to explode something in Chemistry Class. I find this to be highly relatable and gives her character a softer side to the edginess she desperately tries to portray herself as.

While talking about the project with Claire, it is revealed that Mandy ran out of her SATs and didn't complete them. While Mandy tries to paint this as a cool badass moment, the way the comic artist portrays the scene makes me think Mandy had an anxiety attack. Mandy didn't run out of her SAT because she's some kind of alternative badass who doesn't need to take them. Mandy ran out because she got overwhelmed by the sounds of people chewing and the pressure of the test. While she frames it differently, it's clear to me that Mandy is avoiding taking the SAT again because she doesn't want that to happen again.

When Claire invites her to hang out with her friends, Mandy gets treated like she isn't there, or as some kind of unwanted outsider. The topics they discuss seem to be specifically made to make Mandy uncomfortable, like mentioning how stretchy jeans are only made for fat people, and asking if aliens don't go to college. Jaded by this, Mandy makes up that aliens actually have to go through this huge blood right and battle to the death, but tells Claire's two friends she was joking before leaving. This tells me that Mandy deflects her pain by using humor to cope and has no issue clowning on people who are trying to belittle her for being an alien.

Starfire tries to bring up going to college after this, and Mandy just flees to her room. She hasn't told her mom she didn't take the SAT yet or that she isn't going to college. She feels distant from her mom, which is explained further through a montage of birthdays where she never got her powers. Her mom expects a lot from her, and Mandy thinks Starfire is disappointed about her lack of powers.

Later, Mandy invites Claire over to her house to complete the project they are working on. The Titans are still there when Claire arrives, but she seems to ignore them, as they leave shortly after. Mandy and Claire bond as they continue the project. Mandy reveals to the reader that she's never had a girlfriend, except for one time at sleep-away camp where she kind of dated a girl for four weeks. She didn't tell her who her mom was because she was tired of living in the shadow of a superhero. But the relationship ended because Mandy had lied about who her mom was, and the girl she was dating didn't understand why she would lie. I think this really shows just how much Mandy actually wants to be a normal girl like everyone else, to the extent that she'd lie about who her mom was. Her edgy demeanor at school and around town where her mom is known to be her mom is a defense mechanism to having lived under the shadow of a superhero her entire life.

When it's revealed that Claire took a photo with the Titans at Mandy's house, Mandy is understandable heartbroken, and furious. She thought she had been making a real connection with Claire, but this photo makes her think she's been used, again. Claire seems genuinely baffled by Mandy's reaction to this, thinking little of it. But to Mandy, it is a breach of trust from someone she thought cared about her. I think her angry reaction to Claire makes sense because of this, even if it might have been disproportionate to the offense.

On top of this, Starfire has discovered that Mandy walked out of the SAT and doesn't plan to go to college. After a heated conversation, she runs away, but her mom finds her. And then Blackfire finds her. Turns out the fake story she told Claire's friends earlier in the story was actually true, even though Mandy didn't know it.

Since Claire actually cares about Mandy, she tracks down Lincoln who explains to her why Mandy reacted badly, and that she should probably apologize for taking the photo. Claire also admits that one of the friends from earlier, Deb, actually dared her to take the photo. Claire is a good person at heart, but this action shows that she can still be influenced to do something that would hurt another person. And while she might not have known it would hurt Mandy, Deb probably did.

Starfire and Blackfire fight since Mandy has no powers, but Starfire gets injured causing Mandy to realize just how much she loves and cares about her mom, even though they don't see eye to eye on most things. This finally unlocks her powers, as she's let go of most of the resentment she's held against her mom. She even gets asked for an autograph by someone in the audience after the battle.

The story ends with Mandy training her powers, studying for the SAT, and reconciling with Claire, sharing a kiss, and becoming girlfriends.

I've seen a lot of discourse that frames Mandy as being "not like other girls". I don't believe this framing actually fits Mandy very well. The only girl Mandy ever says she is not like explicitly is her mom. She is the only woman she compares herself too, and the only person who she seems to have a lot of resentment for, aside from people who use her to get to Starfire. Additionally, Mandy falls for someone who is what a stereotypical, normal popular girl is often portrayed as. She's preppy, wears makeup, gets good grades, has friends, and runs a fairly popular Instagram account. If Mandy was extremely into the "Not like other girls" rhetoric, she would've made fun of Claire for all those things. Instead, she admires her for them. Mandy is fat, has acne/freckles, dresses goth, and wears a nose ring. If this is the reason people are identifying her as a "Not like other girls" girl, then they don't understand that trope. Simply dressing differently from your peers, being fat, and hating your mom does not make her the "not like other girls" trope. It actually makes her like other, real-life girls who dress and act similarly, because that's who they are, not because they somehow think they are better than other women.

I'd also make the argument that, fundamentally, Mandy IS different from other girls on the account of having a superhero mother and potentially a superhero father. Her life is completely altered by Starfire's existence as her mom and is likely only relatable to the children of other superheroes and celebrities. She is not like other girls because of her mom, and that still doesn't make her someone who falls in line with the conception of being "not like other girls".

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and hope others do too. I read Mandy as a flawed character who was trying to figure out how to exist outside the Shadow of her mom- and eventually succeeds, by learning to embrace her mom. I would've preferred if Mandy had a slightly darker skin tone, as her features seem black-coded to me and Starfire is also often black-coded. Otherwise, I do think this was one of the best DC Graphic Novels for Young Adults I've read, alongside Teen Titans: Beast Boy and Teen Titans: Raven.

#i am not starfire #mandy koriand'r #mandy anders #i am not starfire spoilers #starfire

52 notes · View notes

justanothertiredlesbian · 2 years

Text

Define gender I tried to comment on an anti-trans video, transphobes got out of hand. This is the comment thread. I’ll update it when more of them rage at me. For some reason Peak Trans pinned my comment. If I’m mentioned it’s as @maddie, a friend of mine joined the debate, he’s @friend1. At this point it would make more sense to read the YouTube video thread, it’s now at 31 replies: Video here

my comment This whole video is a bit laughable. I only watched it because I have to balance an essay I'm writing about this, but I didn't actually find any logical arguments I could use. Have you thought that MAYBE, the reason Jammidodger has a larger following is because he has studied this in depth, and is actually a kind and an accepting human. Okay, so you mention that how would a person know what their gender identity was if it didn't match what they were assigned at birth? Well, how do you know your sexual orientation? It's a similar concept. Sexual orientation isn't determined physically or by stereotypes, gender identity isn't either. And bringing up some examples of the online abuse that JK Rowling has gone through? Trans people go through this and worse on a daily basis. Also, boiling down being a woman to gametes? This IS offensive to intersex people. But it is also offensive to Cis women, it's acting as if their lives as women are summed up by their sex cells. In addition, you mention Misgendering, and yes, JK Rowling didn't misgender the only specific transgender person she mentioned, but it is misgendering to refer to Transwomen in general, as "men who think they are women". And before any Transphobes accuse me of being an angry transgender person whom is overreacting and attacking people on the internet, I'm a CIS lesbian who supports trans rights, and trying to logically present an argument to people who don't seem to understand some pretty basic concepts. It is okay if people don't understand something that they haven't personally experienced, but defending that belief on the ground that they don't understand the basic concepts/experiences in a way that claims a group neither exists or deserves rights? That is discrimination. (Also the camera quality and audio are as awful/flawed as your logic.)

Transphobe 1 As most commenters here agree, this video is brilliant and you wouldn't recognize logic if it smacked you in the teeth. Name one thing in it that you can refute with logic - you can't. All you can do is throw out insults and wave your ignorance like a flag. You're too closed-minded to recognise intelligent arguments based on evidence. Your ignorance about intersex people is embarrassing. I suggest you watch Maria's video on that very subject and engage with the intersex people who have thanked her beneath it. Have you thought that MAYBE the reason Jammidodger has a larger following is because he's been making videos for ten years and this woman only started last year? Number of subscribers isn't a sign of quality - unless you think that Fox News and the Sun are epitome of intellectual integrity. Judging by your dumb comment, you probably do. my reply Um, did you read my comment? Because I refuted several points she made. I have 2 intersex people in my family, and they disagree with her points strongly, and I'm not exactly ignorant of the issues they face. You mention her videos, however how many other sources and media regarding these topics do you actually watch, and how much of it do you research yourself? Maybe Jammidodger has a higher following because he accepts people who desperately need acceptance and a community to feel safe in. Why would I think Fox News is the epitome of integrity? Everyone knows how insanely bigoted they are. Also it what way does me commenting to promote acceptance for a community that need acceptance and people to educate themselves on the issues in an impartial manner, mean I'm bigoted? Transphobe 1 reply 2 Stop lying. You haven't 'refuted' anything. You don't even know what the word 'refute' means and you are fooling nobody. Do you know what an argument is? It involved premises and a conclusion e.g. P1: Man is the word for an adult human male. P2: Jammidodger is an adult human female C: Therefore Jammidodger is not a man. Refute that.

transphobe 2 Hey, maddie, you realise you haven't presented a single counter-argument, right? Btw, kind and accepting humans don't make nasty videos lying about people. Jamie is a very disturbed and hateful individual. Maybe one day you'll be on the receiving end of the kind of hate Jamie doles out to people who disagree with her and you'll understand but now you honestly sound too young and arrogant to know what you're talking about.

Biologists define sex by gametes, intersex people are male or female and "gender identity" is hogwash. Your question about how you know your sexual orientation is unbelievably stupid. Finally, how are you defining 'woman'? my reply Why is there an assumption that being accepting to the trans community and researching it means I would be young? Is this assumption because all of you are in your fifties and sixties? Is this bigotry because you were all raised in a less accepting era, so therefore have to overcompensate for your lack of understanding in social issues, and what different people go through. Are you calling this lady "kind"? Because all the words you use to describe Jamie (Who is MALE - *him) personally describe this woman. It is strange of you to assume I don't receive hate in real life, however there is a support structure for LGBTQ+ people to fall back on. Is your resentment because you envy this support structure? Also, people DO know their sexual identity in a similar way how they know your gender identity, do I know I'm a lesbian because it's written in bold on my forehead? No, I know as an instinct, as a sense of identity in who I am. A woman is whoever identifies as female. Transphobe 2 reply 2 The assumption that you are young is based on the fact that you sound young: you said the video is "laughable" but didn't say why, you said you were writing an essay but "didn't find any logical arguments" in it, you ask "how would you know your sexual orientation" - which is possibly the dumbest question ever. These are not the comments of a mature person who has been around the block. Wake me up when you are able to put a coherent argument together. In the meantime, I'm sure you have some homework to do. my reply My argument about sexual orientation was to make my point as simple as possible. People point out that it's a stupid question, but then ask how people know their gender identity. If it's a stupid question, answer it in a way that can't be used to explain that people know their gender identity, go on. How do you know your sexual orientation? I've asked transphobic people before and all of their answers can be used to explain gender identity too. Therefore, a simplistic question, it may be, but it gets my point across. You use the phrase "around the block", which originally meant prostitution and sexual experience, are you implying that someone has to either have notable sexual experience or be a prostitute to be considered, in your eyes at least, mature? I feel that my arguments have been considerably more coherent and concise than yours. For some unusual reason you feel the need to attack age and use insults, mentioning how "dumb" my points are, but not saying anything to counteract them beyond your opinion of them. Reply when you can string a sentence together without an insult or stereotype? Have a nice night!

Transphobe 2 reply 3 You've been insulting to this youtuber from the outset, so don't get sanctimonious with me, child. You're not getting the point that so-called 'gender identity' is complete bollocks. I know my sexual orientation because I know the sex of people I am sexually attracted to. What is "gender" anyway? If you've watched the video you're dissing you should be prepared for the question and be able to define it but you can't define "woman" so I won't hold my breath. The expression "been around the block" has nothing to do with prostitution or sexual experience - don't you even have the werewithal to use an internet search engine? You don't even know what an argument is - if you think you've made any coherent ones, you are even more deluded than I first thought.

My Reply First of all, if you think what I started out doing was insulting then you have not spoken to a real human in a long time. Do not call me a child, you may be bored in retirement so seek out logical arguments to combat (or insult because I haven't been receiving many logical arguments), but if accepting people and not being a bigot is childish, then I would happily be a child. As it stands I am an adult. Again, Woman is the female identifying gender of the human race. Yes "been around the block" is a turn of phrase but if you research how the phrase became commonly used you would realize you are wrong. I could provide a link if it's past the retirement homes bedtime ;).

Transphobe 2 reply 4 I'll call you a child as long as you behave like one. For pity's sake learn the meaning of the word 'logic'. It doesn't mean "unsupported statements I like the sound of". You have been calling other people bigots since you arrived on this page but bigotry means intolerance and that is what you are all about. That is why you came here to troll and sneer and name-call. "Woman is the female identifying gender", For crying out loud - are you serious? Can you really not see that you are digging yourself deeper and deeper? Now your task is to define female and define gender. Good luck with that.

creator: Peak Trans " It is okay if people don't understand something that they haven't personally experienced,". I guess that's why you don't understand what being a woman means. Are you still in high school? my reply I understand what being a woman means, I just think it shows a socially regressive mindset that you see the social identities of women boiled down to their sex cells. It insults all women, in every sense, even those you refuse to be inclusive of. And what makes you think that having a different, more accepting mindset means I would be a child? Peak Trans reply 2 I haven't said anything about social identities. However they "identify", all women are defined are adult human females. It is because women and girls are female that they have been oppressed across cultures and throughout history - not because of how they "identify". That is what is important here - not not some subjective feeling of "who you really are". If you disagree, then feel free to provide your own definition of woman that is coherent, meaningful and non-circular. I guarantee you won't be able to. My reply Transwomen don't claim to have been repressed the same way cis women have, (this is another reason the adjectives exist, to distinguish the different experiences). However, Trans people are oppressed as well, like gay people throughout history. Ciswomen are oppressed too, no one is denying that fact, but acknowledging that trans people are oppressed in different ways will not take away from ciswomen's rights. There are different forms of oppression. A lot of Trans Exclusionary people do not acknowledge that gender identity, in the way people instinctively know it, is very similar to sexual orientation. My friend knows he's trans the way I know I'm a lesbian, it's instinctive. Peak Trans reply 3 You were asked to define 'woman'. Your inability to do so is noted without surprise. You know nothing. Stop wasting my time.

my reply @peak trans I did define woman. In 1 of my replies, I said "A woman is whoever identifies as female." And that is a definition. Please read a comment thread before replying to it. I feel your inability to accept changes and progress in society far outweighs any inability of mine. Listening to logic is never a waste of time, well not as much of a waste as the time taken to make this video. ;)

Peak Trans Reply 4 I did read it. That is exactly why I said you are unable to define 'woman'. You were not asked who is a woman, you were asked to define 'woman'. Do you know what 'define' means? It means explain the meaning of a word. The globally accepted definition of the word 'woman' is adult human female. See how that explains exactly what the word woman means? If you disagree with that definition, then by all means provide your own. To put it simply, the question is not who is a woman but what is a woman. Got it now? My Reply Your definition: Adult human female works for all women including transwomen, the definition didn’t specify adult human Biologically female, just adult, human and female. And you mentioned that you didn't mention social identities, but gender identity is a social identity.

Friend 1 @Peak trans Biological Sex - what you were born as and what the doctor originally put on your birth certificate Physical Sex - what your body currently is (for most people the same as biological) Gender Identity - what you identify as/want to be physically All three of these can be completely different. I cannot see what is so hard about these definitions and why some people struggle so much with them. Identity should be what people see as the person's actual gender but I can completely understand believing that Physical is the real one and I believe Physical should be the most important with things like toilets and competitions. Biological really shouldn't matter at all.

Peak Trans @Friend1 Define gender.

You haven't given a good or a bad or an indifferent definition of it. All you've said is that it is "what you identify as/want to be physically". That doesn't tell us what it is. If I identify as a vegetarian, does that make 'vegetarianism' my gender? If I wish I were Japanese, does that make Japanese my gender? Of course not. Try again

Friend 1 reply I did define 'woman', with all three definitions. Or at least better then you did, as yours doesn't even back up your point. Your definition, being "adult human female", doesn't at all exclude trans women, as they are still human, definitely female and usually an adult. I found this pretty funny to be honest, as throughout this video, you felt the need to pause Jamie an annoying amount to ask him to define woman, whilst at the same time providing your own definition that supports his point. You are correct with this, your definition does perfectly summarise what a woman is, I guess I did summarise Gender instead. With Gender Identity, the whole reason for it needing to exist is because it doesn't always correlate to the biological gender of the person. Also, I don't understand your argument of identifying as vegetarian or Japanese changing your gender identity, those two things do change your identity, but it is unrelated to gender. Gender Identity is the GENDER you IDENTIFY as, not your diet or ethnicity, Gender Identity is just for your GENDER, nothing else. Also @Blue Steel, I am finding it hard to believe that your aren't the troll here. I know for a fact me and @maddie are both serious about this and we both provide good points while trying to remain mostly passive. However, you here spend most of your comments insulting us, and when you do actually argue, it is a glorified "no u", which is so pathetic I don't even count it. I have defined Gender for you, and Peak Trans' definition of Woman is correct, but it doesn't support your point.

Peak Trans You still haven't defined 'gender' and you haven't defined 'woman' once, never mind three times. You evidently don't know the meaning of the word 'female' either. Those people you refer to as "trans women" are male. If they were female, there would be no need to call them 'trans'. Oh, and point to a single insult I have levelled at either of you. Here's a suggestion: watch my series about transgender ideology which unpacks all the awful arguments you make and then some. Start with the first one entitled: what is a woman. Then come back to me with your counter-arguments. Until you've done so, I really can't be arsed with you.

Friend 1, who is increasingly exasperated: I have defined gender 3 times but will do it again for you, Biological is whether you had a penis or vagina at birth, Physical is the one you currently have and identity is what you identify as. I have agreed with your definition of woman, and pointed out how it supports my point. Trans women are women, and you are right, there is no need to add the trans just like there is no need to add the cis to you, women are women. Trans and Cis just describe the women just like how transphobic and bigoted describe you, but there is no need to use them to describe the person every time. @Phil Hell, maddie has quoted and broken down not just multiple parts of the video in her original comment, but even talks about parts of JK Rowling's original essay, so not only has she done the research needed to comment on the video, but she has done much more as well. @kellysuther, if I was to get the surgery to become female, I would then produce the female gametes instead of male ones, so I don't really understand what your argument is. Unless you are saying that gender cannot be changed, to which I would ask how some "males" manage to become indistinguishable from females in every way.

Friend 2: @peaktrans @Gee Gog and @maddie have both defined gender multiple times, if you actually read the arguments against your points you would see. ‘Biological sex’ is defined by your gametes and sexual organ, this is the sex you are born with. Physical sex is your current sex/gender, e.g., a biological woman can get gender reassignment surgery to become physically male. Biological and Physical sex aren’t always the same thing, they can be i.e., cisgender. Gender identity is what a gender/genders/lack of genders a person identifies as at a certain time or all the time. A woman can be an adult biological male who identifies as female. If you are going to make a video on this topic you should have done this research, its laughable how this attitude is still widely accepted as ‘ok’. There are ‘different kinds of woman’ cis gender is one of those. Cis woman isn’t used to ‘reinforce the idea there are different kinds of woman’ it just refers to a biological woman who identifies as female. Woman is not your word, yes it refers to adult female, however you don’t have to be biologically female to be a woman. Cis is used the same way as how transgender is shortened down to trans. You say you don’t want the cis at the start of woman however it is necessary as it falls under the umbrella term woman. Being a cis woman is till being a woman. Trans woman are may be biologically male but they still are woman. If you need woman or gender to be defined again it is proof you are not reading arguments against your transphobic view.

26 notes · View notes

masterthespianduchovny · 3 years

Text

What fascinating about people who claim the anti Sam/Rebecca crowd are infantilizing Sam, with the implication of being racism being a driving factor, is that the aging up of Sam could also equally be argued as racist. But many lack the self awareness to see that or to account for this when lobbing out this defense and implied accusation.

More often than not, young boys and young black men are aged up to prove they knew what they are doing and are hardened criminals. They are seen as adults compared to their white counterparts even when they are legally minors and the white people are adults.

This perception of black boys and men are one of the cornerstones behind the “prison to pipeline” theory. When we refuse to see black boys and men as their age, we do them a massive disservice.

Now, this comes into play with Sam because this logic is being used for the pro Rebecca and sam defense. Sam’s consent and willingness is such a low bar to clear because many young men are interested in older women whether or not it’s to date or fuck them. This consent and willingness has nothing to do with ethics, it’s simply about legality. I’d also assert that the comparison to ted is disingenuous because it’s reactionary and not thoughtful. It pretends that these are two like things when they aren’t.

When we bring maturity into the discussion, it’s not a one size fits all type of thing either. Maturity is such a blanket term and does black children and young black adults disservice because it robs them of youth. Since they’re mature, they should know better or not act like other people their age. And it’s because in a sense, they are seen as older than they are as mentioned.

Stressing how mature Sam is and constantly accusing others of infantilizing him not only ages up Sam, but seeks to silence valid criticism about the red flags and inappropriateness surrounding this relationship.

Someone being consenting and willing isn’t enough when assessing the various power dynamics. That’s a start, not the end all be all when you see such a disparity between two people. I’d assert that due to such a large age gap and the added power imbalance, it’s even more crucial even more discerning regarding such a relationship.

There is nothing wrong with looking out and trying to protect a young black man, esp when society either demonizes them or leave them to their own devices. When such a relationship has the likelihood of blowing up in his face and him dealing with major repercussions as a result, regardless of consent.

And, although this isn’t on the same scale, it reminds me of Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. She was 21 when they had an affair, he was her boss, and it was fully consensual. However, when the news broke, who was dragged through the mud? Who was used as punchline? Who was attacked and stated to have known better?

Monica.

Where as bill’s presidential legacy is largely intact.

As a kid, I thought Monica was so grown. I couldn’t believe she did that.

Even before I turned 21 years ago, I was like, “she was young as fuck.”

She has to deal with harassment, bullying, and death threats. But she consented and was willing, riiiiiight?

Despite admitting it was consensual even to this day, which I’m not disputing, even Monica says the relationship shouldn’t have happened with one of the reasons being her age. And it’s truly fucked up what America put her through to the point she can barely keep a job, resorted to plastic surgery to hide her identity, among other shit. She has to develop a good humor about it because what else are her other options?

When we age up young adults, we don’t prepare them for if shit goes south. We pretend just because they have a certain level of maturity, that they have the knowledge, foresight, and skills to deal with a situation that turned into a shit show.

That is deeply unfair to them. Respecting a young adult’s adulthood doesn’t mean throwing them in the deep end, it means respecting where they are at and understanding the gaps in their knowledge and experience.

Christ, this doesn’t even touch how black kids are believed to be sexually mature at super young ages like 9-10. It’s not because they are, of course; but society projects these beliefs on them and treats them as teens in their later years or younger adults.

With the constant framing of Sam’s maturity and stressing that he consented, one could argue the same is happening here.

Once we get past the low bar of consent and willingness, what’s the worse case scenario of this relationship? The fact that Rebecca doesn’t even have to intentionally seek to harm Sam in order for him to be harmed in this situation should be enough to give everyone pause.

But alas, no matter what the critics say, its alway going to be called infantilization with subtle accusations of racism because these defenses lack nuance or are performative. Undoubtedly, racism exists in fandoms, however, our efforts to combat racism shouldn’t overlook the problematic nature and troubling implications of this relationship being criticized.

Although our first instinct is to protest black characters (and POC), our analyzation of what’s happening shouldn’t end there. We shouldn’t be advocating for something that is most likely detrimental to a black character to spite fans.

And considering the down spiral Rebecca is likely going through, we should want more for Sam than for him to be caught up in that shit.

#ted lasso #sam obisanya

38 notes · View notes

arinbelle · 3 years

Text

A Rant Because Why Not?

Okay

I don’t do this very often, if ever, because frankly, it’s not my problem anymore. But I went into the anti-Nesta tag, randomly, thoroughly convinced that there’s no way anything recent is in there. Because idk, if you hated Nesta before, most people tend to like her after ACOSF. A bit irritating that you needed ACOSF to see her potential but whatever.

But let’s get a few things clear in case it wasn’t clear, i.e., you don’t use common sense and don’t have basic reading comprehension.

1. Nesta was not responsible for Feyre. Not in the cabin, not when she was taken, not after they turned Fae, and not afterwards. When they were children? Yes, perhaps it’s harsh, and you don’t like to hear it, but it wasn’t her job to take care of them. It wasn’t Feyre’s either frankly but it’s good that she did what she did. I’m not saying it didn’t help and I am not undermining all that Feyre did to save her family. She did great. Let’s not say she did it out of self-sacrifice though- she did it out of a promise to her mother. This is in the book. I will not pull the notes. And let’s be clear, Feyre was miserable alongside Nesta and she admitted herself she didn’t know who acted worse with each other everyday. That is a FACT. You cannot argue that. And if you look a bit deeper, that’s how poverty works. It’s just how it is when you’re all living miserably, hungry and cold all the time. You snap at each other and you say horrible things. I don’t have siblings but even I understand that you literally cannot take 70-85% of things siblings say to each other to heart. You literally can’t. Why did I write this huge ass paragraph? Because of 2 points

a. Some people said that Nesta didn’t appreciate what Feyre did for her, didn’t care about her, didn’t acknowledge it.

“I am sorry for the loss of those children. The loss of one is abhorrent.” She shook her head. “But beneath the wall, I witnessed children—entire families—starve to death.” She jerked her chin at me. “Were it not for my sister … I would be among them.”- ACOWAR

She is fully aware and she is grateful for what Feyre has done. Don’t twist it just because she doesn’t fall at Feyre’s feet every 20 seconds. Her life has been uprooted over and over again and she is a victim every single time. She doesn’t get to make her own choices so many times in the narrative and ACOSF was about her realizing she is in control of her own life and making an active step towards it.

b. Other people, or the same people (idk and idc) are saying that Nesta should have been doing something to save Feyre when she found out she was dying.

AGAIN, NESTA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FEYRE. In fact, if you want to bring up responsibility for Feyre getting pregnant with a child that could kill her, Rhys is at fault. In multiple ways. For first of all not realizing that Feyre can’t have an Illyrian child (he knew this, we know he knew this because it is in canon when it’s explained. Everyone knows non-Illyrian women usually die when giving birth to Illyrian children. Rhys also says he knew how Feyre changes her full anatomy. So when she shifts back to her non-Illyrian form, obviously, she isn’t in the same form to have said child. And if you’re gonna say, well they didn’t know she’d get pregnant? Wrong again. They were actively trying for a child.) Now, this is not to hate on Rhys. Frankly, I think Rhys was a bit too OOC in ACOSF in that he was just a bit too dumb. Like SJM tried to make him more of a villain than he needed to be for genuinely no reason except drama. Rhys is supposed to be cunning and smart. He’s not supposed to make dumb mistakes like this. But I digress. The point is, it wasn’t Nesta’s job to figure out a way to save Feyre. One, because Rhys was already working on it. Two, because Nesta doesn’t even know the basics of being a Fae because no one ever really told her about it. She’s barely existing, doesn’t have a way to handle her own magic, and you expect her to figure out a way to deal with anatomy and magic that she doesn’t understand when their best healer literally ends up not being enough to save Feyre? Okay. Sure.

2. People say that Nesta never realizes that she’s wrong and she didn’t heal in ACOSF and she never apologized to Feyre so now I hate her more. Siblings don’t really apologize to each other. Next question. Nesta doesn’t know that she’s wrong and has been cruel and pushed people away?

“I hate it,” she said. “Every part of me that...does these things. And yet I can’t stop it. I can’t let down that barrier, because to let it fall, to let everything in...”... “I didn’t deserve that love. I deserve nothing.”- ACOSF

She’s very self-aware thank you very much. More so than most characters in the ACoTaR universe I would say. She knows full well that she’s done wrong and she also acknowledges later on that she doesn’t know how to address it to Feyre. NOT that she isn’t willing to, but that she literally doesn’t know how to. A therapist would have been helpful here. Also, she doesn’t just hate on other people, she hates herself. And I guess that’s the thing that irks me the most. She literally hates herself and all I can really see from antis is saying “Good. She should.” She think her father shouldn’t have loved her. That’s not how a parent’s love works. It’s not on conditions. It’s always there and it forgives everything. Again, a therapist would have been helpful here. As for the, “she didn’t really heal part,” I’ll agree with you there. But not to hate on Nesta, to say, it’s a process. It’s not going to happen overnight but she’s getting there.

Now if you were to say it’s a bad portrayal of healing, I’d have to semi-agree. I don’t really care for the fact that she still ends the book feeling like she’s not really enough but that she’s going to work to earn and deserve her sister’s, father’s and Cassian’s love. Because that implies that these are better people than her. And like it or not, that’s not true. But this is not a character mistake, this is an author mistake and this is not to slander SJM, but the healing is not at its best.

3. “The intervention scene wasn’t wrong.” I have to say this is a 50/50 for me. Because I’ve read people supporting Nesta saying that the IC abused her. They didn’t. Interventions are rough. They are quite literally, “we aren’t giving you a choice, either shape up or ship out,” as Nesta said. They aren’t easy and it is something the person in question feels completely attacked with. The problem for me is the consistency. You tell me that Nesta has to stop her dangerous behavior because we’re very worried about her health and state of mind? Good. She needs to channel everything into something more constructive like a job and training at least for some time so she isn’t out drinking? Good. Nesta never shows signs of addiction or withdrawal or anything remotely reminiscent of behavior in need of an intervention? Wrong. But this is another error on SJM’s part. So I’ll move on.

4. I have my issues with ACOSF because I do agree, Nesta didn’t heal in the way I wanted her to and I don’t like the way it ended. I don’t like how it was rushed and I don’t really care for the plot. But do NOT come for my Nessian. I love them. And you loving Cassian and hating Nesta is just so weird frankly. For people saying Cassian deserved better, I’ve had this fight so many times. Love is NOT about what you deserve, it’s about what you want and what the other person wants back and being in agreement of that. Next, you’re saying Cassian didn’t have a story or role to play? Cassian was Nesta’s sex therapist and that’s it? That’s fair, maybe he was. I’m not going to pull out the quotes where he talks about his childhood and trains the Valkyries and overcomes that feeling of inferiority with Eris by mimicking Nesta or how he fights off control of an ancient magic object to save Nesta’s life and ends up getting his own happily ever after too. Because, yeah, he’s totally just a sex therapist for Nesta. But if he is, what exactly was Rhysand in ACOMAF for Feyre? Did his purpose in the book serve any higher purpose than to help Feyre heal? Not really. And yet you all stanned tf out of it. I did too, don’t think I didn’t. It’s just, that’s kinda the blueprint for most SJM books, and you’re still here stanning Feysand. And I didn’t see Rhysand reduced to a “sex therapist” label even though he did literally the same things for Feyre as Cassian did for Nesta. Why? Because you love Feyre and you hate Nesta. That’s all it is.

I love Feyre. Don’t get confused. I actually really like her. I also think her character’s has been completely assassinated at this point, but I loved her once and that doesn’t just go away. I also love Nesta. And in case everyone’s forgotten, Nesta loves Feyre and Feyre loves Nesta. So hating Feyre to love Nesta is not needed. And hating Nesta to love Feyre is also not needed. There is no rant part to this, I’m just saying.

Thank you and goodbye.

#nesta archeron #pro nesta archeron #nessian #acosf #feyre archeron #rhysand #acotar

61 notes · View notes

writingwithcolor · 3 years

Text

Patrilineal Jewish girl, Sephardic culture

@feminismandsunflowers said:

hi! my character is a patrilineal Jewish girl in the usa, she didn't convert but still considers herself Jewish. her mom is Christian. her g-grandmother/father were undocumented refugees from Europe (antisemitism) and her g-grandmother was v closed off abt her origins but my character's dad thinks she said something abt being Sephardic. her fam has a fair amount of Sephardic culture. but could she claim Sephardic culture to any extent if they don't know? trynna get a handle on how to present her.

"My character's dad thinks she said something about being Sephardic"

and

"her fam has a fair amount of Sephardic culture"

are inconsistent statements.

The first statement sounds like the only indication Dad has of which Jewish culture they are is a statement he's not even sure about ("thinks"?) and the second statement sounds like Dad considers himself Sephardic and practices Sephardic traditions.

So, to me personally, this would depend on the level of Sephardic cultural practice she grew up with. If she grew up with those traditions and Dad sharing them with her, then yes, that's who she is. If Dad isn't even sure he's Sephardic and what she practiced in her upbringing wasn't distinctively Sephardic in any way, I have a hard time seeing why she should claim the culture if she's not even sure if her ancestors were Sephardic.

Disclaimer that the Reform position is to 'count' patrilineal Jewish people as long as they were raised in the traditions. This is not the Orthodox position but I am Reform.

--Shira

I'm also a bit confused about this situation. I think it would be helpful if you start by specifying where in Europe the family comes from and what anti-Semitism they were fleeing from. I'm Ashkenazi and not the most knowledgeable about Sephardi history, but as far as I know it wouldn't make sense for a Sephardi family to be seeking asylum from the pogroms in Russia or Poland, for example. I guess it could make sense if they were from Spain, France or Italy, but we would have to know more, and I'm wondering if this isn't a 'trace your logic' situation. Why do you want them to come from Europe? *Quickly cracks open a Claudia Roden book* Sephardi Jews have origins in many North African and Middle Eastern countries, such as Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Syria, Iran and Iraq just to give a few examples. If you want Sephardi characters, why not represent those cultures instead of re-hashing the same Euro-centric Jewish stories?

In terms of whether she could claim Sephardi heritage of any sort if they don't know, I'm interested in what Sephardi followers think. Religion-wise, I don't think there would be too much of a problem with it. Yes, Sephardim are more lenient on some things and stricter on others, so by picking the wrong one she may be following some of the rules wrong, but that's just a matter of tradition really. If someone was a ba'al teshuva and had no way of finding out which population their family came from, I imagine a rabbi would advise to choose one and stick to it without worrying too much about which one. I don't know 100%, though.

Culture-wise, I don't know if this is what Shira was getting at but I wonder if it would be cultural appropriation due to Ashkenazi Jews being more likely to be white-passing and getting more media representation. Is Jewish lineage enough to claim Sephardi traditions and culture, or do you need to know for sure that you're Sephardi - that will be for Sephardi followers to decide.

To build on Shira's disclaimer:

I'm Modern Orthodox and I would describe your character as someone who is not halachically Jewish, i.e. not in Jewish law. In most situations, this would be a technicality for me and I wouldn't hesitate to treat her as Jewish if she identifies as such. In particular, with her family history it makes sense that she considers herself ethnically Jewish and the legacy of discrimination is part of her identity - that's not something we can erase or overlook. It would be different if my kid wanted to marry her, I think (not that I ever plan to be one of those parents who would disown their kid or something for marrying out but I'm not going to pretend I completely wouldn't care, either). Then I might be hopeful that she may formally convert, especially if she had always lived as Jewish anyways.

Other things she may experience if she hangs out in Orthodox circles: a few people might act like jerks and be iffy around her like she's 'not really Jewish', probably the same people who are pro-Trump and mansplain why women's exclusion from parts of Orthodox worship is actually protecting us. On the subject of women's exclusion, if you have any male characters with a similar parental background, they can't get an aliyah in shul or count towards a minyan - the character you're describing couldn't anyway, though.

Hopefully if your other Jewish characters are nice people, they take to heart the teaching that you should rather throw yourself into a fire than humiliate someone else in public. When I was a student, there was a patrilineal man in our community who once entered the shul just in time to be the tenth man, making a minyan. A Chasidic man in the congregation quickly stood up and said "Oh no, I left the gas on!" and left. That way no one had to make a whole song and dance about the other guy not being allowed to count. Patrilineal Jewish followers, feel free to add more!

-Shoshi

I'm going to add some things here, about the terms Sephardi and Ashkenazi, that I think might be partially tripping the author up.

Sephardi and Ashkenazi are terms used to describe the traditions that a person follows. Those traditions are heavily linked to the land where they rose up, and to parentage, as people are typically encouraged to follow the traditions they grew up with. However! Converts exist, and converts are usually encouraged to join in on the traditions in their community. So, as an example, a person can be from anywhere in the world, of any racial or ethnic background, convert in a Conservative synagogue, and follow Ashkenazi traditions. A person can be from a place that is usually seen as very Ashkenazi-heavy, like Germany, and then end up converting in an esnoga (synagogue) in Spain, and practice Sephardic traditions. Either of those converts might have children, and those children will take on their minhagim (traditions), and will be a part of the culture their parents joined just like their parents were.

It can be confusing for many people because the terms are so often conflated with ethnicity, which is in turn conflated with genetic lineage. The trouble is, the groups they describe are older than the modern, western conception of race, and ethnicity, and we don't completely fit into these categories. Ashkenazi Jews don't all come from Europe, even their ancestors might not. In the US it's been estimated that at least 12-15% of American Jews are Jews of Color, and those JoC are very, very often Ashkenazi. Some converted, some didn't, but they are still following the traditions, and are still Ashkenazi.

So it's fair to say that the traditions of Sephardim grew in the Iberian peninsula, and North Africa, but they also moved along with those Jewish people as they dispersed, and were expelled. Jews from Portugal fled to the Azores, but also to the Netherlands, where there is a large Sephardic presence, right in the middle of a space that is assumed to be all Ashkenazi! Scores of Jewish people from Morocco moved to France. Then too, people marry folks from other groups. Often they will pick one family's traditions to follow, but sometimes they mix and match, and sometimes they end up moving somewhere else and taking on those traditions.

Because so many people have traditions that match their genetic background we've begun using the term Ashkenazi to mean strictly white, European Jewish people. Sephardi we have taken to mean strictly white, Iberian Jewish people (which doesn't even include the massive number of North African Sephardim). We've forgotten entirely to cover Mizrahim (a tradition associated with the Middle East), or the Romaniote, or Cochin Jews, or any number of other groups. Yes, genetic background accounts for a large portion of those people, but it doesn't map completely, and it's important not to forget that.

This complexity is why the statements Shira drew attention to:

"My character's dad thinks she said something about being Sephardic" "her fam has a fair amount of Sephardic culture"

Don't make sense. You would know you are Sephardic, because it's something you do first, and may be, secondarily, directly linked to something in your ancestry.

Finally, since you are showing a patrilineal Jewish person, I really encourage you to show them consistently engaging with their Jewishness, and actively participating in Sephardic culture. I'm the Conservative one here, and my movement, and Sephardi tradition (there are no movements for Sephardim, just varying observance) don't allow patrilineal descent to give a person Jewish status halachically. This is not something I endorse. Patrilineal descendants really struggle outside of Reform communities, to be seen as Jewish, and often to just be treated with respect, so it's important that you give this character every opportunity to participate, and show who they are.

-- Dierdra

#Jewish characters #Jewish culture #Sephardi #Ashkenazi #Jewish #Judaism #terms #asks

161 notes · View notes

betelguwuse · 3 years

Text

I’m starting to think maybe I don’t want to get married. Hypothetically I’d love to be in a godly marriage with a man who respects me and sees me as the person that God does (and not only me but women as a whole), but realistically do christian men like that even exist? Mainstream christianity, especially gender discourse, is so watered down and twisted into something that’s more political than biblical. I feel like this is gonna piss off both the christians and feminists, even though I’m both (though some might say I’m not a real feminist, whatever idc lol). Might also tag as Side B because I feel like this is also maybe a Side B mood? But here goes.

Color coded by vague topic, bolded so it’s easier to read.

Like I recently heard of a pastor being criticized for saying it’s a woman’s duty to look good for her husband, and the boomer conservatives were acting like criticisms of this pastor was the end of christianity. There’s no way “looking good” in a biblical sense was anything more than basic hygiene, nowhere near the beauty standards of today; and that is if the idea of looking good for your husband is even in the bible. These people siding with the pastor were saying that any woman who doesn’t shave or hide her “flaws” with makeup or basically completely embody the tradwife meme are bad wives. Like what the literal hell.

Honestly the entire tradwife aesthetic seems to be the goal for a lot of young christian couples, when it’s not inherently biblical. I used to be into it myself because heck yeah staying home, housekeeping, taking care of children, and wearing cute flowery dresses sounds like a dream. But my goals aren’t universal! Some women don’t want kids. Some women want to work. Good and God-honoring women of the bible didn’t all have kids and stay home. I mean the timeline of the bible spans so long, so yeah maybe there were times when most women did. But that doesn’t mean women who didn’t were bad wives or lesser women. Not to mention there’s such a blurred line currently between cute tradwife lifestyle and creeps who fetishize the idea of a traditional (and by traditional they mean submissive) wife. Gross.

Another thing too many christian men do is say women can’t be in any position of power in the church. There is the whole specific issue of whether or not women should be the highest up actual pastor of the church, and I don’t know enough about that whole debate to validate or debunk it, but I’m not talking about that specifically here. Aside from that one position, a lot of christians think women can only teach other women and girls but not guys, even like literal child boys. That’s so weird, like imagine thinking a little boy has more authority than, or even equal to, a grown woman? Couldn’t be me. And this whole idea comes from an out of context “I do not permit women to speak in the church” from a regular human guy. And the reason he said this was that the women around him were spreading heresy. I still think it’s flawed logic to exclude all women from speaking in that situation just because most of them were wrong, but again, this wasn’t a command from God. This was just a guy recording his church experience and doing his flawed human best to manage it. Various women throughout the actual bible outside of this one leader’s timeline held positions of power in various churches. And modern day american christian men think biblical womanhood is all about subservience? Bro what bible are you reading?

I just want to make it clear that these are all just generalizations, but having been in various actual biblical communities and conservative christian communities, I can kinda pick up on the general sexist behaviors of the latter. But unfortunately in today’s political climate more and more young christians are only being exposed to political opinions that are surface level americanized good christian morals, but not actually biblical.

Even on top of that, even if a man knows of these biblical misconceptions, we live in a society. Like we’re constantly exposed to women’s sexualization, and it’s pretty impossible to escape that. I don’t want to spend my life with someone who’s grown up in a world where women are seen as weak, objects, pleasure machines, etc. And yeah we can unlearn these biases (honestly I hate the word unlearn but I can’t think of a substitute rn), but it feels like a hassle to casually figure out whether a guy can make an effort to understand what women go through, and if I were to just bring it up I’d scare them away. And that’s not to say I’m some perfect person who’s never sexualized men, we are all sinners after all and we live in a fallen world etc etc. But a whole society where women are so objectified that it’s normal for little boys to be watching porn, that just doesn’t really happen with little girls. I can’t speak for all women, but when I started seeing men sexually it was in my late teens when I realized like ‘oh I can sexualize men too? wild. ok I’m an adult lemme check it out’. Still sinful, but not ingrained in me from porn ads as a kid the way most young boys have been since like the creation of the internet.

Even the men currently in my life who genuinely want what’s best for me are so incredibly misogynistic it’s baffling. My male family members see any woman who breaks an imaginary dress code or ideology is some kind of deviant. I just want to make it clear that this is MY family and I’M the only one who gets to complain about them. We all love each other here even if the males are horribly wrong.

So I shaved my head for halloween and my dad could barely look at me, not because he was exactly mad or anything but just because I looked ugly to him. He always says ‘close the windows in your apartment because men will spy on you changing’ but after my hair was gone he was all ‘actually don’t bother because nobody will look at you looking like that’ like wow I wasn’t aware men only sexualized women for their hair. Like you really think a gross creeper is gonna be turned off by a fully naked oblivious vulnerable woman just because she’s bald? That’s not how any of this works. And just today my sister was watching a goth youtuber egirl or something, I didn’t see her makeup but my dad said stuff like ‘ew why does she look like that, maybe it’d be cool as a costume but how is she going to get a job’. Like, I’m not one to go ‘women don’t wear makeup for men’ (because most women who only use makeup to hide their insecurities and follow beauty standards very much just do it so they don’t get backlash from others, if not directly to please men), but when it’s a fun crazy look that’s not meant to be pretty, I’m all for that shit and generally I hate when men lose respect for a woman just for wearing something they don’t like. Like fashion isn’t real and your appearance should be as costumey or weird as you want without people losing respect for you. Also like...do men know that makeup isn’t permanent?? Like if she wanted a job that required no makeup she could easily wipe her face off and get one?? Not only that, but people can work from home and/or be self employed. Maybe youtube itself was this girl’s job. Who the hell cares man. And the worst thing here is my brother outright said one time “the root cause of feminism is pride”. B r u h. And this was back when I considered myself an anti-feminist, even then I knew that feminism started for good reason and I was absolutely furious. I think I kept it to myself like a coward lol, but if anyone said that to me now I’d tear them apart. In a debate I mean, not like literal violence.

Tldr: I’m not trying to say men are inherently more evil because there’s evil in everyone, but the way it takes shape in men in most societies is so insidious and inescapable. I love my family and guy friends, but I don’t want to deal with one in a romantic/sexual relationship because I don’t know if even the most educated and goodest christian boi in this world can see me as a true equal. It sucks because I want sex and children, but when the mainstream idea of hetero sex is female submission, it just makes me shrivel up and contemplate becoming a nun. I’m not even catholic. But even nuns are sexualized and degraded in coomer’s disgusting brains. In conclusion I’m going feral and starting my own woman-only church in the woods let’s go ladies.

#christianity #biblical womanhood #christian woman #christian feminism #feminism #side b #side b christian

44 notes · View notes