#and it ends with 'isogyny' | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lonelier-version-of-you · 2 years

Text

What a fucking letdown of a finale.

Killing Jac is a decision that’s just stupid beyond words. By far Holby’s most iconic character and this is how they fucking treat her? Everything they’ve put Rosie through for the show and they can’t even give her character the happy ending she’s always been asking for? It’s infuriating.

I would go so far as to say Holby, under its last producers, appears to have an obsession with killing traumatised female characters, specifically abuse survivors, instead of letting them have happy endings. They started small, with Carole. Then they immediately moved on to Jac.

Compare Jac and Henrik. Two characters who have both led very sad, tragic lives. Both traumatised. Both chronically mentally ill. Both coded as bisexual. But Henrik gets to come out and gets a happy ending, if a very confusing one. Jac just ended up dead.

I spy with my little eye, something beginning with ‘m’ and ending with ‘isogyny’. Fuck this show.

And they didn’t even let her last past the first, like, 10 minutes of the episode. Yikes.

I can’t say anything more about Jac because I’ll get too upset for words if I do, but... she deserved better. That’s it. That’s all I can say.

As for Henrik. My darling, darling Henrik. He deserves a tribute post for everything he’s done over the years, but I don’t have the words to write him one just yet, so here’s what I can say about him in the finale: I’m glad the last thing I ever get to remember Henrik Hanssen for is him smiling at the man he loves. I’m glad we got that. I am grateful beyond words for it, I truly am.

But they just wasted so much time with Henruss. The Billie pregnancy plot, shipping Russ off to Leeds. I wish I could appreciate this ending for them more, but I’m just so disappointed in what their storyline became. Henrik’s internalised homophobia was glossed over. Russ’s grief was glossed over. We didn’t get a single mention of Gaskell, Henrik’s first ever male love interest, and how that trauma would surely have affected Henrik’s relationships - especially with men.

And we don’t even get to know what Henrik’s actually doing now? Has he quit Holby and is he gonna move to Leeds, will he stay at Holby and go long-distance with Russ, or what? I dearly hope Casualty will tell us. And I dearly hope he’s quit, or at least quit the CEO job, because there’s no happy ending for him if he’s still in that role.

Guy Henry was amazing throughout this episode, though. I have no words for his performance.

Everyone’s acting was amazing, really. Bob Barrett, Paul Bradley, Belinda Owusu... a lot of great performances in this episode.

And I did like that little moment with Henrik and Lexy complaining about the government. Gotta give Holby credit for that.

The little scene with Henrik and Mo was excellent, too. Even if it did make me cry.

The rest of the cameos, though... I wasn’t expecting much, but somehow Joseph only being there for 2 seconds in person was worse than if he was a vision Jac had. The Berena cameo was alright, nothing much.

I did actually love Ric’s cameo, though. It was short, but sweet. It’s nice to have the last thing we remember of him be him being busy at work, still saving lives.

And the montage of cast photos at the end was lovely. A better tribute to the show, I felt, than the episode itself was.

The stuff with Ken, and Dom and Josh and Ange, was alright, but didn’t feel like finale material.

I’m trying to find more to say. I wish I had more to say. But I just can’t, it seems. All I can say is I’ll miss Henrik Hanssen, and Jac Naylor, and all the other wonderful characters. I won’t miss the show.

#Holby City #Jac Naylor #Henrik Hanssen #Russell Faber #Henruss #Holby City spoilers

18 notes · View notes

brsb4hls · 3 years

Text

Gotta go on a small Sylvie-rant.

Not even that huge of a fan of her (but like her), but the negative reactions to that character are off the charts, really.

Imo she is a decently constructed character.

She has a relatable tragic backstory.

Her motif makes sense.

She clearly has layers.

Just think about her life: Everything gets ripped away from her as a child. She was at a very vulnerable and impressionable age when she suddenly was completely on her own, hunted and threatened and constantly surrounded by human suffering.

This is a huge pile of trauma. And she only pulled through all that because she set herself a goal. And yes, that goal wasn't healthy, but how was she supposed to find something else to keep her going? There was nothing positive in her life ever.

And her thriving on revenge, having to pull through with it and feeling empty the moment it was done is a classic trope.

(Count of Monte Christo anyone? People just don't read anymore, I guess).

While on her path to revenge Sylvie was still able to emotionally connect with Loki, which showed development.

She also did not betray him. She thought she found a partner in crime, someone to stand up with her against the injustice they both suffered. She always feared Loki could stab her in the back at any moment.

And when she is finally face to face with the one responsible for all her suffering, Loki pulls back. He had valid reasons, but Sylvie had different experiences and was to caught up in doing what she thought was the right thing- killing the bad guy.

Of course given the way she lived she didn't believe Kang and had to go through with her revenge. All that pent up anger and pain and suffering had to go somewhere.

And yet in the end she didn't leash out at Loki. They fought, yes, but more like an argument.

In the end Sylvie connected one last time with him (that kiss was fitting for both sides, they both craved contact the whole time and couldn't express or allow their needs. It worked, them being (similar to) each other, mirroring each other and giving in to that need).

Even if Sylvie in the end used it as a diversion, she got Loki out of harms way. She protected him while still going through with her plan.

She wasn't completely ruthless.

See also her interaction with hunter B15. Sylvie is a trauma survivor, not a mindless killer or simply an asshole.

And of course Sylvie and Loki react different to Kang's argumentation.

Sylvie simply cannot trust what he predicts because of her experiences. Loki had time for a bit more character development at the tva and a different backstory. Despite the trauma of finding out about his heritage Loki still had an upringing among family and friends.

Someone as isolated as Sylvie cannot suddenly leave her black and white path.

And just to put it into perspective: Loki killed people and tried to start an intergalactical war.

And we all love him as a character and acknowledge his torture and his trauma and him being manipulated.

So why doesn't this work for Sylvie?

I have the sneaking suspicion it could be something that starts with m and ends in isogyny, and then there's the additional ship war.

Yes, diverse representation would be great. And yes, I would be absolutely elated about more (or some at least) same sex kissing on screen and less tiresome het stuff (or het appearing).

But that shouldn't be mixed with the character of Sylvie.

Yes, Loki wasn't trickster Loki, we got to explore another angle. But the story the way it was told made sense, as did the motifs.

The actors put a lot of effort in and it looked all very pretty.

Tldr; it would be great if Loki-show criticsm wouldn't just mostly boil down to hating on one of the female main characters simply because she's female.

(Ravonna is an interesting and complex character too btw and I get where she comes from, but that's another post).

#loki show #loki spoilers #loki disney+#loki laufeyson #sylvie #sylvie laufeydottir #pro sylvie #loki show positivity #sylkie maybe #kang the conqueror #ravonna renslayer #female characters in media #wank adjacent #long post #my take #loki

57 notes · View notes

jacfletch · 7 years

Text

anyhoo i just think its so funny that y’all have so much sympathy for a guy that’s killed someone (accident or not, he covered it up and pushed the blame onto aaron), tried to & threatened to kill other ppl (including aaron), belittled aaron’s self harm, taunted him for his self harm/mental illness, lies & manipulates him constantly, cheats on him, etc., because he had a bad dad but you have no sympathy for a woman who was in love with a man who manipulated and lied to her and accidentally got pregnant.....who coincidentally also has a bad dad....not saying that she’s an angel bc she’s done some bad things too (tho imo, not comparable to what he’s done), but why is one more deserving of sympathy than the other? just wondering

#jk i know why #it starts with m and ends in isogyny

5 notes · View notes

puthyflapps · 4 years

Note

His fans, twitter(.)com/shtbellarkessay/status/1275585809152978944?s=21

What word starts with an M and ends in isogyny? 🤔

#ask #send me asks and headcanons #bellfart

9 notes · View notes

ms-hells-bells · 4 years

Note

(2/2) why are people getting all worked up about this then?? Hmmm...I’m thinking of a word that starts with ‘M’ and ends with ‘isogyny’ 😒 Revolutionary, really.

oops, here’s the rest lol

1 note · View note

daisyjohnsonx · 7 years

Photo

yosoycordova: Machismo, you’ve just met your worst enemy. A letter to end misogyny. To read letter please scroll through pictures. Share if you please. #TheFutureIsFemale #SexualHarassment #Misogyny #Machismo #endpatriarchy #dayofthegirl #journeeinternationaledelafille

#AoS #natalia cordova buckley #yoyo rodriguez #elena rodriguez #aos cast #marvel cast #day of the girl #elizabeth henstring #brett dalton #agents of shield #idk if any of the other cast has commented on this #these are the only guys that i've seen

80 notes · View notes

royal-mortician · 6 years

Text

hi all today i will give you a hint as to the real reason why people hate Mei: it starts with “m” and ends with “isogyny”. thanks!

#realposting about the overwatchs

1 note · View note

equalrightsforfathers · 7 years

Text

Seeking no more and no less than legal equality and genuine equity under the law

If you are facing Family Court Abuse and Children Protection Services Agency: CPS-DFYS / DCP&P / DCF / DHHS [whatever name CPS is called in your state] is involved in your case please join us to help defeat their fraud, pain and suffering, emotional, physical, psychological and financial abuse -racket.

United we can! This is NOT Fathers Rights groups but FAMILIES fighting together the system. There are woman and men protecting our children's future that understand that Judges are destroying us all for money.

Men's Rights Internet Statement

– Living Document Born March 2013

General

principles that we believe are a forming, coalescing consensus.

A working group formed in December of 2012 through a variety of men’s rights publications, forums, and YouTube channels. Over four dozen people from around the globe participated in making suggestions and giving general input. Despite the large number of people from diverse backgrounds, and the fact that almost none of the participants knew most of the others, its development was shockingly un-contentious, even on some of the more contentious points.

This is not a document anyone is expected to sign or pledge to. It is an effort to identify a general consensus.

This document is not released with the intention being the definitive statement of goals for all men's advocates, but rather, a set of goals and ideas that we believe represent common sentiments within the movement. People will be free to agree with all of these, most of these, some of these, or only one of these; if they'll work with us on any of them, then we'll work with them on that. Furthermore, other groups are welcome to take these goals and adapt and change them for their own purposes.

The gender war is a destructive social construct. Viewing the other sex as an enemy to be fought, or an oppressor to be overthrown, does not benefit men or women. Only a select few will profit from the hostility and distrust this creates. The interests of both men and women are best served by ending the gender war, and to working together to alleviate the iniquities visited upon all human beings, regardless of sex.

Feminism is not necessarily what feminists say it is

Many prominent individuals who self-identify as feminists espouse ideals of equality and equity, but often act against an ethic of equality under the law. For this reason, many men’s advocates have come to the conclusion that feminist activism is dependent on identifying women as victims and men as perpetrators of oppression. While those not solidly entrenched in the day to day gender struggle tend to think “feminism is about equality,” professionals at universities, in government, and in political action groups often act against legal equality and genuine equity through their decisions and actions--and do so in the name of feminism.

Furthermore, anyone genuinely working under the “feminism is about equality” mentality should be natural allies in the collective fight for men's rights. But those feminists with actual power frequently endorse and exploit sexist ideas in order to promote their divisive ideology, and to raise money, and dismiss, marginalize, or outright mock men’s issues, occasionally even with violence.

For these reasons, self described feminists should not necessarily be considered de-facto experts on what constitutes gender equity. Men's voices must be heard, even if women aren't always comfortable with what they hear.

Traditionalism is a choice, not an obligation

No one can speak for all men's advocates, but most try to be accurate, objective, and honest about masculinity and femininity. They recognize that men and women are different, but they don’t want to promote discrimination, stereotypes, or prejudices that would limit anyone’s ability to exercise their own ability and talent.

Chivalry, a concept in which men have a social obligation to put their interests below women's, is common in many countries. Failure to adhere to this code can result in significant social backlash against men. We reject a code that ascribes greater value to one sex or the other. When men's advocates attempt to describe differences between the sexes, they are not trying to prescribe them. Men's human rights advocates look to the future, they don’t cling to the past, and they agree that your genitals should not determine your lifestyle or your rights. If you want to be a traditionalist, be one. If you don’t, that’s fine too.

Misandry is real, and pernicious

Most

respected dictionaries now recognize that misandry - the hatred or contempt of male humans - is a real word. Some gender ideologues continue to insist that misandry does not and cannot exist, but MRAs, by and large, understand that misandry is real, and is being used to strip men and boys of basic human rights and dignity. Misandric messages invalidate boys and men by telling them that they are guilty by association to all the harmful acts committed by other men, for no other reason than that they are male, but ignoring the corresponding association to positive acts by other men, of discovery, invention, daring, bravery, sacrifice, loyalty, love, and kindness. Misandric messages also tend to ignore negative and harmful actions by women. In general, misandry tells men and boys that part of what defines who they are, their very identity as male, is something dangerous and shameful. These messages are culturally toxic and psychologically harmful to men and boys.

Men

deserve the right to dignity, just as much as women. Men deserve the same right as women to not be associated with despicable actions simply because they were committed by members of their sex. Men’s rights advocates agree that misandry is real, and that it should not be tolerated any more than isogyny would be, and have taken on the responsibility for acknowledging, exposing, and opposing misandry. Because if they don’t do it, then who else will?

Strong, independent women are helpful, not helpless

Most men's human rights advocates love seeing strong, capable, and independent women as part of society. But they are disappointed to see the rise of idealized, infantilized, sheltered, and fearful women. Men's human rights advocates understand that power and authority should come with responsibility and accountability.

Rewards come with risks: if you take credit then you should also accept blame. If you criticize, then you should also be able to accept criticism. Making excuses for bad behavior by women, or blaming it on men, is condescending. Women who want equality should speak out against such attitudes and behaviors. The only way people experience personal growth is through life experience and our present society stunts women’s growth b coddling them.

Men's rights advocates object to feminism’s narrow focus on women’s problems and fears, and to feminism’s track record of treating human issues as divisive gender issues. Men's advocates object to gynocentrism (focusing only on the female perspective) and female supremacism. We respect skill and maturity, regardless of whether the person is male or female.

General Men’s Rights Movement Goals

When it comes to men’s activism, some have already decided that their role will mostly be passive: become Men Going Their Own Way, by refusing to participate in marriage or even cohabitation with the opposite sex, or otherwise defining their own lives outside the dominant gender discourse, and nothing more. This is fine, as we are all free to make our own choices as to what role(s) we would like to play.

Others feel that "defeating feminism" is the only goal. Our view is that even without feminism, many of the problems we face would remain.

As in any movement there will be people with significant influence and authority even if this authority is informal. Who these people are will change constantly. As a result “We” can just mean “I.” There is nothing preventing you from deciding to care about one of these items, or three of them, or half of them, or all of them. The point is, they are goals not dogma.

Some of the goals for the men's movement are (in no particular order):

We stand for all boys and men. Questions of race, creed, color, nationality or sexual orientation are completely irrelevant to us. This is non-negotiable: we are a movement for the needs, well-being and interests of all men and boys everywhere, seeking no more and no less than legal equality and/or genuine equity under the law.

We are a human rights movement, and as such concepts of universal human rights are a part of that movement. Addressing the needs of men and boys is not a zero-sum game. Our focus is on men and boys because we believe men and boys are in particular need of help at this time.

We have no interest in legally denying anyone the right to control their reproduction; however we seek equitable reproductive rights for all persons regardless of sex. As a movement we believe no one should be forced into parenthood by the state or another individual, and that sexual intercourse is not consent to parenthood. As such, mothers seeking arbitration from the courts in order to collect child support from a man she names the father should be required to submit a written instrument of consent signed by him, in which he explicitly accepts responsibility for, as well as defines his rights to, his child/ren. This will allow him to positively establish paternity through a DNA test before signing and allow both mother and father to define the rights and responsibilities of both parties rather than allowing the state to do so. Furthermore, if a mother conceals a pregnancy and subsequent birth from a father and he learns of this afterward without being given the opportunity to negotiate parenthood with the mother then he should have redress to obtain paternal rights and responsibilities.

Development and availability of a male fertility control device, drug or method that is safe, affordable, effective and reversible should be a top priority.

Paternity testing should be a standard practice when a father is added to a birth certificate or otherwise formally (legally) recognized as the child’s father. Where there is a willfully false claim of paternity, prosecution should occur.

If a woman opts to give up a child for adoption, all reasonable efforts must be made to allow the father the option of being that child’s sole parent before the child can be given over to any adoption agency.

Women are frequently pedestalized, and men demonized, when it comes to criminal arrest, conviction, and sentencing. This is an injustice against men and infantilizes women. Laws and legal practices and customs which establish lighter or heavier sentences based on sex should be abolished.

Foster the emergence of a new cultural narrative where all men and women are encouraged to live their lives as they see fit, without preferential treatment, while also being expected to bear the responsibility for their personal choices.

Default physical and legal co-parenting must be the norm where both parents are competent, willing, and do not endanger the child’s physical or mental well being. We wish to promote a narrative of recognizing fair custody arrangements towards fathers as an important issue, both in terms of fair treatment of fathers, and as being in the best interest of all children's healthy development and quality of life. In divorce or separation of non-married parents, daily contact with both parents, and living arrangements which strive to be as close as practical to 50/50 time with both parents, should be the norm.

If there is strong evidence that children shouldn’t be with one or both parents, regular review of the conditions for access and visitation should occur to recognize that circumstances can and do change; the child’s right to both parents must be protected unless one or both has given up the child for adoption (i.e. legal surrender).

False and malicious accusations of rape or other violence, when they can be distinguished from mistaken accusations, must be subject to strict penalty under law. Laws against lying under oath or wasting time (of the police or courts) must be enacted where there are no such laws in place, and/or enforced without gender bias where they do exist.

The presumption of innocence must be seen as a fundamental right for anyone accused of any crime and restored to anyone accused of domestic violence or any form of assault, sexual or otherwise. So-called “rape shield” laws must either be extended to cover the accused as well as the accuser, or abolished entirely.

Debtor’s prison has been abolished in most civilized nations except in one crucial area: men who are unable to pay support payments due to disability or other impoverishment. This practice must be abolished, and debts owed due to support must be treated like any other debt to be paid, and subject to reasonable negotiation and renegotiation when circumstances do not make payment of support practical. Throwing men in jail for being unable to pay not only violates their fundamental human rights; it often robs children of their fathers and leaves those fathers unable to work to pay the debts they owe. This is an abomination and must be ended.

We seek to promote social recognition that men can be victims and women can be sex offenders, and that statements which belittle or marginalize the experiences of male victims of sexual assault, including male victims of female sex predators, are likely based on a worldview that pedastalizes women and demonizes men. Such attitudes are hateful and toxic, and must be opposed.

Standards for what constitutes illegal violence - domestic, sexual, or otherwise - should not discriminate on account of sex or such things as size or weight. Violence is violence. Assault is assault. Sexual assault is sexual assault. The law must be neutral regarding sexual characteristics or physical traits. Zero tolerance policies which fail to differentiate between a heated argument and a crime must be abolished. Mandatory arrest policies must either be abolished or must treat both parties as potential co-criminals and both parties should be arrested. So-called “primary aggressor” policies which presuppose the existence of one “victim” and one “abuser” have been repeatedly shown to be wrong in most cases, and should be abolished as standing policy.

Mandatory restraining orders which isolate and intimidate couples who wish to communicate and cooperate with each other must be recognized as damaging, and the law must be made to recognize that such orders may damage career and reputations and as such should be expungeable if found to be fraudulently or frivolously obtained, or no longer needed.

Abuse of restraining orders by anyone seeking to use them as a weapon to deny access to children or gain an upper hand in divorce or custody disputes should not only be recognized, but subject to penalty under law.

Policies which allow alleged victims to be punished for refusing to cooperate with prosecution must be abolished.

Financial incentives for prosecution of any crime by the state must be abolished.

In divorce or separation of non-married parents, efforts should to be made to promote mediation and solutions that do not involve the court or other state agencies wherever possible.

Recognizing that marriage cannot be abolished by the state, because cohabiting persons will still have disputes over children and finances if they separate, “marriage” should be viewed as an enforceable contract. Couples wishing to marry should be allowed to negotiate what their marriage contracts involve to include issues such as child custody, any theoretical support, education, support payments in case of severance, and so on. Marriages are agreements between people, and contracts should spell out specifically what is and is not agreed to. In the absence of a formal contract, presumption of shared parenting must be enforced as noted above.

Any government funding towards health research and services, should such funding exist, should be allocated in a way that gives equal and fair consideration to the health needs of men, women, and children, recognizing that while maternal health influences the health of both boys and girls in the future generations, so too the health needs of boys and men should be recognized as equally important to all of society. We may argue later whether or how much government should spend on public health measures; in the meantime, men and boys must be given equal consideration under the law when there is such funding.

Government-funded educational programs (such as scholarships), if they exist, should either do away with preferential treatment by sex, or, be expanded to include programs to encourage males to enter fields where they are under-represented and or continue their education as they see it. One way or the other, the double standards in education must end.

Abolish medically unnecessary genital mutilation or surgery on infants and minors. If a person wishes to have their genitals altered, they may make this decision when they come of age.

There are documented and growing gender disparities in education with boys in particular lagging behind girls in multiple areas across much of the developed world. This must be addressed directly by looking at areas where boys as a group may have different educational needs from girls, and where teachers may be discriminating against boys consciously or unconsciously. Conscription or registration for conscription (“selective service”) must either be abolished or be an equal requirement for both sexes. One or the other…

We are under no illusion that all of these items will be automatically accepted overnight by everyone in the world, nor even that every men's advocate will necessarily agree with every word here. Nevertheless we believe it represents a road-map to a better future, and hope others will join, in whole or in part, in helping make these things happen.

This document last revised 3/11/2013. It is now considered “final,” although others remain free to copy and use it to their own purposes. However, modified copies must be clearly marked as modified from this original. Further discussion and debate is not only allowed, it is encouraged!

The initiator and primary editor of this document was Dean Esmay, who is solely responsible for any errors, omissions, or oversights. Others who wish to be identified as having given suggestions, input, or other collaboration should contact the author and let him know if they want to be publicly acknowledged.

3/13/2013: minor typo fixed, “deciding care” changed to “deciding to care,” removal of unneeded colon and a couple of unneeded periods in titles.

3/17/2013: Stray HTML tags that crept into the original removed. Addition of numbers to each of the goal statements, not for priority purposes but solely to make them easy to distinguish in discussion.

4/3/2013: Removed stray tag.

youtube

1 note · View note