#and yes i think that is because he is a cis straight white guy who i also think is a weirdo just by looking at his directing choices | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mockerycrow · 8 months

Text

Talk About Sensitivity In The COD Fandom **Important.**

THIS IS NOT A DEBATE POST. DO NOT BOTHER.

Hey, everyone. After the reveal of Makarov in the trailer (as well as general concern), I think a chat about sensitivity is important. Since the trailer’s release, I have seen a major increase in simping for Makarov posts as well as genuine romanticization of Russia and/or Russian Soldiers. First, I want to talk about the romanticization of Russia and/or Russian soldiers because it’s seriously getting out of hand. I need you guys to realize that Russia is an ultranationalist country and yes, maybe not everyone who lives there believes what their government does, but it’s important to know a big portion of their population does. I have seen multiple posts and edits of this man right here (pictures below).

THIS GUY IS NOT SOMEONE YOU SHOULD LIKE, AND PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT HE DOES NOT LIKE YOU. This is one of the most popular Russian Soldiers amongst the internet due to the way he wears a mask, gear, has an accent, and is buff. He makes videos teaching soldiers how to kill people—innocent people in Ukraine who are just trying to survive. I have seen people straight up ignore when someone tells them what this man has done, so let me put it this way—he does not like you. He wants you dead. He is racist, a homophobe, transphobe, antisemitic, etc. He absolutely hates The West, and he does not like you unless you are a cis, straight, white 100% Russian. Even if you’re a woman, he DOES NOT LIKE YOU. If you American, HE DOES NOT WANT YOU ALIVE.

[This part is not targeted; just a general statement.] Second; there is a serious problem with how you guys address Makarov as a character. There is absolutely no problem enjoying him as a villain because I do too, but you guys have to realize that Makarov is an ultranationalist—which is exactly what Russia is right now, an ultranationalist terrorist state. “But he’s fictional, it doesn’t matter! it’s not that deep!” It actually is that deep. I keep seeing content for Makarov and I can’t force anyone to stop making “fluffy fics”, but I need y’all to have some fucking decency towards victims and people affected by the war. I know people who are affected by the war who feel ill seeing posts painting Makarov in a good light. If you are going to write Makarov, do NOT romanticize him as a character—do NOT paint him a decent or good light, because you can’t. Write him like the bastard he is. And no, this isn’t a “let people write what they wanna write” situation. You can do that, but please be expected to be judged and blocked by me and many others. Makarov is quite literally the characterization of everything that is wrong with Russia, and what HAS been wrong with Russia. Makarov is not a bad boy, a rebel, etc, he’s a fucking terrorist. Please be for real. “But the military in general is bad, so why does it matter specifically around Makarov?” Please see above my previous reasons. Thanks.

The overall message of this point is to be fucking respectful. There are actual people dying and slaughtered for no reason other than ruined pride and a lot of Ukrainian folk seek comfort and distractions in the internet and their fandoms. This ruins it for them and quite frankly, sometimes how Makarov is being written? It’s completely insensitive. Anyway, below are a few links where you can directly support the efforts and the people of Ukraine. Peace and love, and please write with critical thinking.

3K notes · View notes

flaetsbnortoriginals · 3 months

Text

I've just had a dream that was so steeped in Magic: The Gathering lore that I need to post it to tumblr on the off-chance that people who know enough to understand it will be able to read it, because if I tell it to the people I usually tell my dreams to they won't understand a dang thing. Sorry @one-time-i-dreamt

So. The dream was in Ravnica, and was about this planeswalker lady. She was white, with long straight blonde hair, and a fancy blue dress. I have the feeling that I was dreaming I was her before my dream remembered I'm a boring cis man without any amazing powers so as far as I can recall I'm just following her, like the main character of a story. I'm not sure I should call her my OC since she was created without any prompting of my conscious mind but none of the characters in the dream have names so I'll call her that.

OC was walking down a boulevard in Ravnica with this dude. They were pretending to be a couple, but the dude was actually a Dimir spy she had bested and was kind of her prisoner. Dimir guy wasn't very happy about it but wasn't too angry either, he saw his "custodianship" as a work thing and kind of respected OC, so they were chill.

OC saw a woman who she realized wasn't from this plane, although she was pretending to be a local. She challenged Dimir guy to point out what made them realize this. Now I expected this to go like a Sherlock sequence, with each one pointing out a detail in the woman's outfit or some very precise behaviour. Instead, OC starts by pointing out that this woman is wearing

A FRIGGING BRIGHT BLUE SOCCER JERSEY

and not only are soccer jerseys not usual clothes in Ravnica, (at least not until Hooligans at Rakdos Stadium is released), but it also has a giant number on it (77 if you're curious), except that Ravnica uses a different writing system, so any planeswalker would immediately clock her as an outsider. (I think that it's only sort of implied that each plane uses a different writing system, but in the dream that was settled truth.)

OC is so apalled at how poorly this woman - who needs a name, so I'll call her BadKellan for reasons that will soon become apparent - is at hiding herself, she decides to have a word with her. BadKellan realizes she's being followed and hoofs it - but OC and Dimir guy immediately use their Dimir crap to become invisible. BadKellan thinks he's shaken them off, but she's quite rattled, so she goes to her safehouse, which happens to be just around the corner. OC and Dimir sneak in behind her, then make themselves visible.

Now I should tell you that Dimir Guy does nothing else in this story. I was going to say that he's just Ken, he's just there, but it's actually worse - his presence makes the story make no sense, since OC is about to reveal some secrets to some random lady. But the dream didn't forget him: I vividly recall that he was still around all throughout this part of the dream, even though he does nothing else.

So. OC reveals herself and tells BadKellan that what she's doing is very dangerous. She tells her about the Dimir (the guild, not the random guy) and says that if they see her poorly sneaking around and think she's going to be trouble, or even can't figure out what her deal is, they're just going to kill her. Which means it's incredibly dangerous for her to go around like that.

BadKellan reveals a few things about herself. She's from Earth - yes, our real world. She's not a planeswalker. She was brought to Ravnica against her will and told to blend in and pretend to be a local. She doesn't feel comfortable revealing who told her to do that.

OC decides to give BadKellan a few pointers on how to lay low on Ravnica. She explains that she would dress mostly in gray, since colours are strongly associated with the guilds and she should stay away from them to stop making waves. She asks her to change her outift and she'll say if it draws attention.

BadKellan changes clothes. She's now dressed entirely in gray, which is good, except that her shirt

HAS A LARGE, GLITTERING PRINT ACROSS THE FRONT READING

girl

IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING AS BEFORE. IT'S A LARGE PRINT USING OFF-PLANE SCRIPT. It's not as large as the jersey number, sure, but I'd like to remind you that it's glittering!

OC is apparently as taken aback by this as I am, because she turns her into a squirrel.

In fact, she specifically turns her into the squirrel from Bloomburrow key art.

OC's logic is that BadKellan is so bad at blending in that this is the only way she can be safe. OC intends to release "squirrel girl" in a park while she tries to look into exactly whose plans she just ruined and how bad of an idea it was.

There was more to this dream, but my memories are fuzzy and it's (even more) uninteresting. I think it involves the Boros having a special currency that they gain when they help people but the Dimir also use it in a kind of ironic way? I don't remember.

#magic the gathering #ravnica #dimir #dream #yeah no idea but I need to share

190 notes · View notes

celluloidbroomcloset · 18 days

Note

Hi, first thanks for all the great meta and analysis❤️

So, I recently noticed this an increase of something that really annoys me: whenever the canyon stumbles upon an opinion they don’t agree with they’re acting like Con O’Neill is this helpless baby that needs protection from people criticising a character he played/his acting choices (because that obviously equals a personal attack🙄).

And as if he is this groundbreaking queer actor that has done more for the LGBTQIA+ community then David with OFMD.

Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely respect Con O’Neill and I do believe him that he is queer (despite there having been some valid doubts in the past) but I honestly don’t see that he played Izzy as gay (again, not on him, he just went with the role of the antagonist that he was given and did that really well, and then the Izzy fans tried to make it something that it was not). And if he did try to play Izzy as gay within the limitations of that script, then ok….an old white cis gay man who also falls into that hurtful trope of queer coded villain…tell me how that is groundbreaking representation again?

The same goes for “all of the other queer roles” he played according to the canyon. There are two of that I think:

1)Cliff Costello, Cucumber (another old white gay men in a show with some very backwards views about how you are only properly gay if you get fucked in the arse or fuck others in the arse. No, I’m serious, the whole premise of the show is how horrible it is that the protagonist dosnt like anal!)

2)Val Pearson, Uncle (a character that fits every horrible stereotype of how trans people look, Con O’Neill stans love to claim that aCtUaLlY Val is gender fluid, but that is purely a head canon and never established in the show! If you know how 2000s media classically portrayed trans women and always made them the butt of the joke, this role is exactly(!) reproducing all of that).

Both of these are just side character btw.

And I’m not blaming Con O’Neill for taking on these very problematic roles, as queer people we often have to take whatever representation we are given. Still -especially as a queer person- we don’t live in the 80s anymore you are allowed to be more critical about the roles you take on.

And I don’t think /he/ was the problem with these roles, I actually watched Uncle and like the way he played that character but that dosnt change the fact that the character itself is written deeply transphobic.

So maybe we shouldn’t pretend that they’re great representation?

And maybe we shouldn’t act as if Con had specifically chosen to play queer characters?

Like two deeply offensive stereotypical LGBTQIA+ characters in 40 years acting career? -that’s not more then your regular straight actor has played.

He is a decent actor but it annoys me that the canyon tries to turn him into this activist or something!

Wow, this got longer then I expected, sry just had to vent a little after seeing some rather outlandish canyon takes in the wild😅

OK, before I answer, I want to remark that this is a very thorny issue. I am not trans, and I know that there are some trans people who saw themselves in Izzy's characterization especially in Season 2 or discovered their own gender identity through that character. That's absolutely valid, and no one should ever say that it isn't.

I have not seen Con O'Neill in anything other than OFMD. From what I've seen, he's a good actor and seems a lovely guy who strongly supports fans and the LGBTQ+ community. But I can't speak to the other roles he has played because I have not seen them.

I read Izzy as queer, yes, though that's less explicit in the first season. He's very much the "queer-coded villain" trope, which is a homophobic trope...but as with everything OFMD does with tropes, it's subverted because—surprise!—almost everyone is queer. Izzy is very much an archetype of toxic masculinity and I think part of the point of the character is to develop how queerness does not always equal liberation.

I think it's very easy to fall into stan culture and arguing that the actor is the role and vice versa (so a criticism of Izzy is somehow a criticism of Con O'Neill). We have an additional layer here that this is a very queer show watched by a lot of queer people who see themselves, some for the first time, on the screen, and so are naturally defensive of the show itself, the specific characters, and the actors who play them. And that can cause a lot of problems too, especially if you're invested in the character who is canonically The Antagonist. To complicate it further, he is representative of a very common trope that for a long time was the major way queer people were represented at all in mainstream media, and we have people reading him as though he is the sole queer character. Which he likely would be, in many other stories...but not here.

It's a complicated issue. I wish that we could all step back a bit from our emotional investment in these characters and actors and recognize that they are part of a TV show that wears its tropes on its sleeve, and that just because an actor is a lovely person in real life, he is not his character.

#ofmd #our flag means death #reply #izzy hands #con o'neill

40 notes · View notes

kitkatopinions · 11 months

Text

So I'm not going to make a big long post about the infamous "list," however, I think it's very important to actually acknowledge that there are very very few villains in rwby that are cishet white ablebodied white men that weren't also specifically made into in-universe minorities by the writers by being made Faunus. I'm only counting villains that had more than one instance of villainy in the show itself, so characters like Junior and Shady Man or whatever name they gave that guy don't count, I am also counting people as villains even if they 'got better later' like Emerald and Ilia, and I'm actually not counting just antagonists like Cordovin or Clover. Let's talk about it.

Salem - the biggest bad of the series, a woman (also worth noting, an abuse victim)

Cinder - the second biggest bad, a woman who as of season four is disabled (also worth noting, an abuse victim)

Tyrian - An in-universe minority as a Faunus, as of volume five when his tail was caught off, I also consider him disabled

Watts - Not white

Hazel - Not white

Emerald - A woman of color (also worth noting, an abuse victim at the hands of Cinder)

Mercury - A disabled man (also worth noting, an abuse victim)

Raven - a woman

Vernal - A woman (possibly a woman of color)

Adam - Disabled (he can only see out of one eye) and an in-universe minority (also worth noting, an abuse victim)

Corsac - Not white and an in-universe minority

Fennec - Not white an in-universe minority

Ilia - the first queer character in the show, a woman of color, and an in-universe minority

Harriet - A woman of color

Elm - A woman of color

Vine - Not white

Marrow - Not white and an in-universe minority

Winter (yes I'm counting her as a temporary villain,) - a woman

Ironwood - A disabled man (also worth noting, there is some discussion over whether or not he's Asian due to him being specifically designed to look like his Asian VA.)

Leo Lionheart - Not white and an in-universe minority

Lil' Miss Malachite - A woman

Neo - A disabled woman (also worth noting, a victim of abuse)

The Curious Cat - One of the first rwby characters to ever be non-binary

Roman Torchwick - An actual white able-bodied man that is not confirmed as disabled in any way and is also not an in-universe minority and in fact has been portrayed to specifically be anti-faunus

Jacques - An actual white able-bodied man that is not confirmed as disabled in any way and is also not an in-universe minority and in fact has been portrayed to specifically be anti-faunus

You know what, for the hell of it in the interest of being fair, let's include Cardin - An actual white able-bodied man that is not confirmed as disabled in any way and is also not an in-universe minority and in fact has been portrayed to specifically be anti-faunus

And this isn't even bringing up the extra content, tbh, like Doctor Merlot and Fifestone and Carmine.

Now let's talk about those three white straight cis able bodied men right there on the end included alongside twenty three other villains many of whom are very important to the plot, because if rwby is so so so very progressive in how they portray their villains then surely these three white straight cis able bodied men with histories of being discriminatory towards the in-universe marginalized oppressed faunus would be like really big bads that are important to take down and their discriminatory behavior would be called out and addressed!

Cardin - Portrayed as nothing more than a high school bully, never was given real consequences for his mistreatment of the Faunus, only had like two minor appearances since volume one in which he wasn't beefing with the mains at all, hasn't been seen since volume three. Jacques - Only made a couple of scenes in volume four and then was portrayed as a minor antagonist in volume seven rather than a major villain, treated like he wasn't a serious threat. He was shuffled off into an even less important role in volume eight before being killed to demonstrate how dangerous one of the disabled villains was. Roman - Actually was treated like an important and serious threat, Team RWBY's first archnemesis, however he also narratively seemed to represent the smaller scale bosses as a prelude to bigger things, died in volume three, and the only time we saw him since was a volume nine scene where Neo makes an allusion of him to help her in her own nefarious schemes.

To be absolutely completely clear, I am not saying no villain should ever be part of a marginalized group. Though, it's important to recognize the pattern here in rwby and to also recognize that we shouldn't be giving the benefit of the doubt to Miles and Kerry specifically who helped created rwby every step of the way and have histories of bigotry, and I am of the belief that although some villains from marginalized groups can be done well (in the hands of sensitive writers, not the rwby writers who are horribly insensitive,) we should be pushing for more villains that are straight cisgendered non-disabled white men (preferably rich.) But that's beside the point, really, because my point is.... Anyone who tells you 'the villains in rwby are mostly white men' is deliberately lying and also is probably purposefully leaving out that many of the only 'white men' are also disabled or were made into an in-universe minority BY THE WRITERS.

I'm not saying 'every villain needs to be a straight cis white man who is not disabled or an in-universe minority,' but what I am saying is 'don't PRETEND that the majority of the villains in rwby are from non-marginalized groups when TWENTY THREE OF THEM are from marginalized groups and the three that aren't have either not made real appearances since V3, been treated as unimportant, or both!'

As for the list...

#rwde

21 notes · View notes

iris-echos · 2 months

Text

Vent thingyyy

Every single time i think my cis straight white guy friend is being less problematic he just says some shit like "what are you a feminist (derogatory)" (like yes i am go fuck yourself [his name]) or "chat you're actually autistic (derogatory)" or "its giving trans (derogatory)" like bro the only fucking reason i put up with you is because my friend likes you and you play with her feelings like fuck you man like I consider you MY FUCKING FRIEND but the second shes mot around its like im the weird emo kid you never wanna talk to also your sense of 'humour' is rubbing off on her like for example a couple months ago we were using the schools textbooks and unsurprisingly there was shit written in them and there was one thing that said "[name] is a fag" and she crossed out [name] and put ur instead and it made my kinda uncomfy but i thought shes bi whatever its fine THE NEXT FUCKING CLASS i make a joke about her liking women and she laughs awkwardly which confused me so i asked her why NEWS FLASH EVERYONE SHES FUCKING STRAIGHT SHE THOUGHT SOMEHOW THAT IT WOULD BE OKAY FOR HER TO CALL SOMEONE THE F SLUR BC SHE WASNT THE ONE WHO ORIGINALLY WROTE IT

Anyways i cant fucking wait for next year when my best friend and i will be at the same school

6 notes · View notes

alwaysgold03 · 2 years

Text

Rainbow capitalism, the exploitation of gays in media, and All for the Game: An Essay

TW: talk of regular aftg tws

THIS WILL GET TO AFTG I PROMISE YOU JUST GOTTA READ THE BACKGROUND FIRST.

The other day I was watching a new video by one of my favourite YouTubers (@/aretheygay) called “the end of rainbow capitalism”, where he was explaining from a sociological and capitalistic standpoint why a lot of queer people feel disillusioned from the queer media we’re given… and it got me thinking.

While yes, there are more queer characters in media these days, and there are more queer centred stories being told, 8.5/10 times (random number I made up don’t ask for sources) these pieces of media portray a VERY specific type of queer person, something that can be easily squeezed into a box and sold at the highest price, because, of course, everything comes down to capitalism in our world.

So, these movie/tv producers (most of the time, but this can also be seen in books) want to make queer characters that are gay enough for the gays, but can also cater to their straight viewers. Why?? To Maximize Profit.

So, This YouTuber gives us an explanation as to why we feel disillusioned: because these pieces of media were not made for queer people, they were made for queer CONSUMERS. They were made for money and, most of the time, nothing else. (CW: This is not for all pieces of queer media, this is a generalization).

This means that a very large portion of queer media is based around a white, cis guy who goes through the throes of coming out and homophobia in their community (normally high school) but oh my gosh they don’t deserve it!!… and then it eventually ends with unanimous acceptance or death.

Therefore, even though we are *technically* getting the queer media we all so desire and crave as most lgbt+ people do (because let’s be real, everyone wants to see themselves represented in media to feel more accepted), we are also being told we can’t complain about what we are given. We hear “oh my god, the gays whine so much, we literally gave them what they want”. But really, we weren’t. Not at all.

We are given these tiny crumbs of representation that only represent a chosen few that are easy to advertise to the masses, and also perpetuate a queer stereotype in a cishet society. Selling a “homosexual box” all tied up with a nice bow when, really, you cannot possibly fit all queer people into one category. That’s why so many queer people do not see themselves in the characters on tv.

Now you may ask, what does this homosexual box include?

- extremely washed out queer characters (diluting them like gingerale when you have the flu, of all controversies and “bad” qualities. The gays can be gay but not if they have sex or commit crimes like the cishets!)

- Mostly white, cis characters played by white, cis, het actors

- One single narrative of the “queer experience” being homophobia and exclusion.

What does this mean? Well, it means that these producers in the media are making millions of dollars catering to consumers, and by doing so, trying their hardest to make the queer characters the most unproblematic, “good” people they can, pushing a new stereotype in media. The “gay hero”.

I kinda came up with this term on my own (once again pls don’t source me) but it’s something I’ve always had a problem with. It’s the YA novels and teen tv shows/movies that star a cis white gay guy that never does wrong and gets praise for coming out and “telling his truth” and then THE END! (ex. Love Simon, which isn’t technically bad,,,, but. You know…) and really, for most queer viewers, this story is overused and boring. We end up reading the same characters over and over, craving some sort of representation we can see ourselves in, but just receive the same person with a new name that we end up forgetting everything about and never want to read or watch again.

I’m not saying stories about cis, white, strictly gay guys shouldn’t be told, because of course they deserve a place in media too, but come on. We need more than this box. We deserve more.

Because of this, in a lot of queer books, tv shows and movies, the queer character never does anything wrong, and perpetuates the ideology that queer people are different, something OTHER than human. Because it’s just a fact that humans make mistakes and do bad things. That’s what makes us HUMAN. That’s what makes us interesting and gives us DEPTH.

So here is where I start to think to myself. I am constantly looking for queer media to consume, as a queer person does, but I am also highly critical of it, and will not hesitate to shit on a badly written lgbt piece of media (to my friends only, because I don’t believe in open hate that the creators could see when my opinion could be subjective).

Of course, as my main genre to consume, I want these books and movies to be good, but more often than not, I am disappointed and give the book to thrift stores without a second thought. These books most often portray characters that have no depth, no individuality, no tension, and honestly, overall, are simply boring! This is mostly because they never did anything WRONG. They weren’t, in any way, bad people. They weren’t realistic! They were blank slates.

And so, I look at the lgbt media I like the most! Aristotle and Dante, Cemetery Boys, Banana Fish, Song of Achilles, Red White and Royal Blue, Carry On, (Nico Di Angelo and Piper McLean specifically from Percy Jackson), One Last Stop, Radio Silence, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, But I’m a Cheerleader, Doukyusei, Tamen de Gushi. These portray characters with complex background stories and embedded personal and generational traumas that influence their actions, be it good or bad. Some do things that are morally wrong or grey, they do what they have to for their own wellbeing, they have motivations and goals that go beyond “oh gosh my whole life revolves around coming out”. Because that is just not accurate.

All of the characters we know and love as our favourite queer characters (for me at least) make mistakes. They do bad things.

This is where All for the game comes in, aka my all time favourite series and hyper-fixation. I’ve been obsessed for YEARS and was unable to understand why I loved it so much. It has its faults, but it has held me hostage for this long, without any sign I’ll be let go in the near or far future.

As I was watching this video on YouTube, I had a “holy shit” moment. Because even in all those queer pieces of media I mentioned, all the characters are considered the heroes by the end of the books, they end up being the “good guys” all along, even if they might not always be the greatest or most morally sound.

But what, you may ask, ISN’T like that???

ALL FOR THE GAME.

I read All for the game a while ago. I have analyzed so much of the series you would think I’d be bored by now, but for some odd reason, I never am.

All for the game is probably the only series I have ever consumed where every leading character (the foxes) is so morally fucked up that there are MANY instances throughout the series where I thought to myself, “damn, I really should not condone this!” And that makes it the most interesting cast of all time.

And yes, I do fault Nora for many things she has done. In all honesty, she was terrible at researching with accuracy for everything concerning the mafia, sports, mental illness, the use of medication, and basically all of the series’ main themes and subjects, BUT. That woman truly produced the most realistic set of character flaws ever in the history of anything I have ever read or watched. Every fox is completely different, completely their own, represents a different type of person, and interesting in their own ways. That, and Nora completely DE-STERILIZED the gays. She de-sterilized them so hard she basically dipped them in the Thames!

This, in my very uneducated opinion, is why we all love all for the game with such an intense ferocity.

Nora Sakavic created characters with so much depth, that were so fucking realistic, that we can see them as real people, with real problems and traumas, with realistic reactions to those traumas. Truly, I have not met a queer or mentally ill person who hasn’t related to at LEAST one of the foxes.

Because, to reiterate, this series isn’t a series where the queer characters “come out” and it’s a massive plot point and they are praised for it. It’s a series with its own plot with queer characters existing within it. They are queer characters being queer and living their (dramatic) lives. Queers in the wild! That in itself is realistic representation. This, along with the fact that the queer characters in the series aren’t, in any definition, good people. They have killed people for fucks sake, and otherwise done, morally, VERY BAD THINGS. But that’s what makes them so interesting! That’s why we can analyze them over and over and find new things to delve into constantly.

Nora gave us exceptionally interesting characters, and queer characters on top of that! Even the characters that never became canon (cough Renison the best wlw couple to exist cough), most everyone in the fandom agrees that they are together! It is communal knowledge that that series is full of traumatized queer characters because of how they were written with in between the lines context, canon or not. And, even though this is how we interpret the media, it is not a “gay story”. It’s a thriller, a sports novel, a mystery in some ways, and, of course, a romance. This is where the difference between “a gay story” and “a story with queer characters” comes into play.

And, yes, maybe the series is horribly unrealistic, and over the top, and dramatic, and badly researched, but the queer representation is REAL. It showcases everything, canon or not (it’s canon to us Nora, piss off)!

We have Neil, the main character, who is canonically Demisexual, and could easily be interpreted as a trans guy due to his backstory. We have Andrew, who is gay, with a very realistic backstory of sexual assault from men in foster care. We have Renee, a born again Christian who CLEARLY a lesbian (rainbow hair? Come on.), Allison the comp-het bisexual, Matt and Dan the poc bisexual power couple, Nicky the conversion therapy survivor gay poc who found a better life in a different country with a found family (we support fanon Nicky not Nora’s Nicky where she pushed obvious stereotypes onto him), and Kevin Gay- I MEAN DAY- who is so obviously bisexual that he publicly drools over Jeremy and then tells Neil that it’s easier to be straight. How would you know Mr Day??

And these are just. Facts in the fandom. And it’s all normal. There is no “holy shit, you’re gay?” *homophobia arc* moment when Andrew and Neil are sort of confirmed to be together. There is really no coming out moment for ANYONE, because it doesn’t matter! They just are!

And they aren’t made out to be these heroes who can’t do wrong! Because they are all royally messed up individuals who have made mistakes and went through shit and came out alive!

MORAL OF THE ESSAY: queer people can be morally skewed and still deserve love! Bad people can be bad and also be gay and still get the happy ending! YOU CAN BE A “BAD PERSON” AND STILL MAKE/FIND A FAMILY WHO LOVES YOU. YOU CAN GET A HAPPY ENDING DESPITE YOUR WRONG DOINGS OR TRAUMAS!!!!!

(I am not equating having trauma to being a bad person btw, I’m just saying that separately, most of the foxes have trauma, but they have also done bad things, and either way, with both, either or none, they deserve love.)

That, I think, is the key to why I love All for the game so much, as someone who is severely mentally ill and severely queer. We were given a story where the main characters are queer and mentally ill and traumatized and do bad things, but still get a good ending. We’re shown that what you do in your past, or what happened to you in your past, doesn’t define you. We’re shown REALISTIC, MESSY, IMMORAL QUEERS THAT DON’T FIT THE RAINBOW CAPITALIST BOX. We are given something we can see ourselves in. No matter her wrongdoings, I will always love Nora for that.

Anyways. I love all for the game. I think I always will. I hope you guys agree :)

104 notes · View notes

cock-holliday · 11 months

Note

Dude what is up with the person in ur replies. “Trans men don’t face transmisogyny but they do face transmisogyny” like???

The need to completely separate the experiences of trans women vs trans men, or even worse, reinvent the binary of “good gender vs bad gender” just hurts trans men, trans women, and the rest of us.

Always always in these conversations, a trans person (not even always or most often a trans woman) comes in with the hot take that anything that trans men face that isn’t “minor” transphobia, is just “misdirected” violence actually meant for trans women.

Trans men can’t ever be victims because they’re men, trans women and other trans folks can’t ever be laterally aggressive, because it’s Man vs The Oppressed.

These talks always are so hypocritical.

Trans men, apparently, are all supremely deeply privileged with male privilege in every aspect of their lives from the moment that they ID as men, and if they fail to recognize and atone for their Male Oppressor Status, then they are simply oppressing everyone more with their privilege. I definitely know what a privilege is.

There is common enough belief that the only misogyny trans men face is misogyny directed by the patriarchy at cis men. “Boys can’t cry”, male victims of SA, toxic masculinity, that sort of thing. When in reality, every single trans man who doesn’t pass for cis in 100% of scenarios is going to experience the usual levels of misogyny society puts on women also.

Apparently if you don’t pass it’s your fault, and you actually bring it upon yourself so you can be a victim, I have such good and healthy views about oppression.

At absolute best case, some trans men who pass as cis in all scenarios and can be stealth, and all their paperwork backs up the assertion they are cis…those men still have to fear being found out, because the moment they are, their privilege is gone. They are not cis, and will not be treated as cis.

The majority of trans men are not the above scenario. Even more complicated, is even if you are all of the above, if you are god forbid Black or something, the axis of your privilege changes anyway. A cis-passing Black trans man is not going to experience the same privileges navigating society as a cis-passing white trans man.

Trans men experience misogyny. They experience transphobia in ways trans women don’t. A big area for this is reproductive healthcare. You can be as cis-passing as you want, but sometimes the better you pass, the worse it is to navigate “women’s health” spaces. Trans men also experience antimasculism, a topic many lesbians and trans men have written about for decades.

And none of these things are “misdirected.” A cis guy with a faggy lisp getting jumped isn’t experiencing “misdirected homophobia” if he maintains he’s straight as a pole. He was attacked because he was perceived as gay. If someone thinks you are a woman and treats you with misogyny, that’s just misogyny babes. If someone thinks you are a woman but wrong that is misogyny plus antimasculism or queerphobia or transphobia and no one outside of that scenario is the “actual target.” The target is the target.

On the flip side, while it is somehow open season on The Men, there is suuuuch heavy pushback about discussing the male privilege of trans women. I’m sure even that phrase alone is making people’s skin crawl. “How dare you? How can you say she has privilege? If she’s treated like a man she’s being misgendered and so the other aspects of her identity—“ Yes. Do you understand now? Privilege is not a mark of being The Oppressor when it’s aspects of privilege trans men experience when they pass any more than the aspects of privilege trans women face when they don’t. Privilege is conditional, and if the conditions are not met, you lose it. Transfemmes have written about this for decades, notably in the transfeminist manifesto.

Trans men who “fail” to be cis passing, who are open about their transness, who are visibly queer, do not hold the same power as cis men. Trans women may have benefited financially from being perceived as men for a long time before they came out. Maybe people listen to their Man voice more in meetings. Maybe they grew up being able to walk home at night safely. The tradeoff is always societal perceptions versus reality. Trans women aren’t bad for having had whatever privileges were available to them, trans men aren’t bad for moving into spaces of privilege. Both are at the mercy of society as much as the other, albeit in different ways.

The radfem juices keep flowing so bad on this website, that encourage the idea that essentially trans men are traitors for joining the Bad Gender while trans women are forgiven for their past Oppressor identity since they have now joined the Good Gender. That is until trans women side with or support trans men, then they’re traitors also.

This simplistic and yet incredibly harmful perception hurts everyone. And so many people’s transition journey revolves around repulsion towards “men.” Many trans women distance themselves from anything aligning them to maleness to the point that solidarity with gnc men is not an option because these two groups are “not at all the same how dare you.” A whole little clique formed on this website a decade ago of trans women who just aggressively hate trans men, and the remnants of it are still clinging to life. Many trans women grapple with attraction to men and struggle to separate out chasers from the rest, because of course the only way for a man to like a trans woman is if he’s being disrespectful about it. Many trans women are locked into a losing battle against all the features she has to hide to not be a “man in a dress.” And god forbid you’re a trans women who doesn’t change those things or LIKES those things. Your beard, your deep voice, your masculinity…those are making it harder for “real” trans women to make it in this world.

Many trans men avoid aspects of transition they want because they feel like they are betraying women by doing it, or will be MORE of an oppressor. T makes you a violent evil balding misogynist, of course. Many straight trans men wrestle with the idea that their attraction to women is predatory because they are a Man and Man means predatory always—it’s inherent, not an action or choice. Many gay trans men are ashamed of their attraction to men because ooh this is Double misogyny somehow.

It’s so fucking bad and we have to push back on this kind of divisive behavior. Trans men talking about their issues doesn’t hurt anyone or often even have anything to do with other trans people. Oppression olympics, gender essentialism, lateral aggression, it’s got to fucking go.

#transphobia #transanrophobia #transmisogyny #ask #anon ask

12 notes · View notes

tuiyla · 2 years

Note

Okay, sorry for sending two of these so close together, but the Finn/Kurt/Having My Baby situation also made me think about Kurt pursuing Finn in general. Kurt acted exactly the same way the straight boys do with their love interests, but he's the only one called out for it. Relentlessly pursuing the person they're into is what Finn, Puck, and Sam all do with every girl they date (Except Santana but she was never actually into any of them so she's an outlier). They don't take no for an answer (Puck goes as far as to get Quinn drunk to sleep with her) but the behavior is only treated as wrong when it's aimed at a boy... The only other time I can think of relentlessly pursuing a love interest being framed as wrong was when Tina was into Blaine and that was more played for comedy than taken seriously. So, the whole justifying Finn's homophobia by saying Kurt was predatory or whatever doesn't even make much sense since Kurt was literally mimicking the behavior he picked up partially FROM FINN!

How is it any different than the way Finn acted when he was pushing Quinn to leave Sam for him? Or when he was pushing Rachel to leave Jessie for him? Or when he was pushing Rachel to leave Brody for him? There's a pattern of girls being with someone else and claiming to be happy, then Finn bursts in to try and woo them. Kissing them, giving them gifts, competing with their boyfriends, giving sappy speeches, telling Rachel that no matter who she's with she's always his girlfriend??? How is the way Kurt acted any worse than that???? The double standards just get worse and worse the more I think about this show...

Sorry for not answering them close together lol.

Oh I have many feelings on how Kurt's crush gets treated, both within the show and the fandom. One of the recurring tired takes on the Glee sub was calling Kurt "predatory" which I most definitely don't agree with. Did he go too far with some of his stunts? Sure. Did he end up making Finn feel uncomfortable? Unfortunately yes. I don't think it was right, as such, to pursue someone so obviously straight. But Kurt was hardly any more harmful than how the guys constantly chased the girls on this show and it's a ridiculous double standard.

So to be clear, I don't tink Kurt was right in everything he did, far from it, but fuck exaggerating it into something it wasn't. And fuck Finn saying what he says to Kurt in 2x04 because newsflash, he SHOULD be kept away from women because he's been much more harmful towards them than Kurt ever was, or let's face it could have been to him. That "you weren't exactly innocent either" line pisses me off because it's the show trying to excuse Finn "lemme say a slur" Hudson. Again, I think his discomfort was valid but the extent of his reaction wasn't. Imagine Mercedes throwing a fit over Sam chasing her. Imagine Quinn yelling at Puck or Finn or, again, Sam. It's always charming when the guys do it. And sure, there's a chance and often a reality of reciprocation but you also have Brittany tell Sam no to kissing her, twice, because he clearly didn't listen the first time. You have the repulsive Quick scene in 1x22 that, somehow, isn't presented as assault.

The guys being gross doesn't excuse Kurt but I hate it when it's made out to be something it wasn't. He wasn't right, either, but the shoe (and the fans) should fuck off with trying to justify Finn yelling at him and trying to sabotage his duet with Sam. That was fucked up and it had everything to do with Kurt being gay. I think cis white gay men were treated much better than most other minorities on this show but fuck if they didn't do nasty shit even in Kurt's storyline. (I hate the callback to the infamous slur scene even in The Quarterback, but that's a much more touchy subject.)

And you're spot on with Finn's own behaviour too. "If I did that to a girl" oh fuck off Finn you've done much worse things to women. Coming from a guy who REPEATEDLY robs women of their agency and centers himself in their stories and refuses to take accountability for their pain. He was shitty to every one of his love interests, including his one-night stand Santana. We all know how that went down ("oh noo don't kill yourself you're so sexy haha") and then there's traumatizing Quinn twice and how he handled all of the Finchel relationship, in particular their breakup at the end of s3 and his continued entitlement to her in s4. Fuck that guy he has no right to lecture anyone.

#this turned into such an anti finn post #i am shocked! how shocking that would happen #the show treating kurt's crush as the most invasive thing ever sure is something #and again he wasn't in the right but he also didn't deserve that or that framing #anti finn hudson #glee asks #kurt asks #fallingoffasurfboard

30 notes · View notes

rosenecklaces · 1 year

Text

Ok I'm gonna say it because again some white acotar fans (and even fellow non- white to be fair..) rubbed me the wrong way in instagram when it comes to what they see as a gay man in this books

A cis white man being misogynistic doesn't mean he's secretly gay, misogyny doesn't immediately haves a connection or haves something inherently to do with being gay. the way I have seen people ignore the misogyny part and jump right to: " well he's just gay" "he's the problematic gay icon" in this fandom, oh my fucking god do I really have to say this...?

since I got in this online spaces it doesn't sit right with me how so much people are sure that that one character must be gay (even in canon) since *check notes*... he haves more sexual tension with the men he looks down his pureblood level than the women he belittles harass and makes fun of... (deep breathing in hispanic)

I'm commenting this because as someone who knows and hangs out with bi and gay men... is way too sus to me why that one was choosed to be the gay guy (theres already gay men in acotar btw like yes sjm doesn't cared about them but...they exist) and as far as I know it hasn't been gay men that has decided "that is the one" or had took him as a queer character, but women (mostly white and straight which...yes checks out considering All of Him) and listen, im simply a bi latina person and me knowing gay men doesn't mean I'm 100% right about discussions like this, tought doesn't mean we as a predominantly women fandom space ( and white! believe it or not it plays a big part in things like this) shouldn't think from time to time "ok but why is this a thing, why are we thinking like this, where does it come from, is this alright or should we question it, do we really know about this?"

This theme isn't new, I have seen this phenomenon happens in other fandoms a lot, that's why im kinda stressed out that the same shit is repeating again here (not surprised but disappointed), and im not including race because my point was 'why and who we choose as the gay men-to-be' but...there's 100% a race discussion to make when the character is white and haves a certain narrative history lol

#acotar rant #not gonna say the name but yall can tell i think #if you can't then dm me i have no energy to deal with his fans #i want to add that even if gay men where the ones liking him and calling him and icon. it would still be a problem #misogyny and looking down to people ' ' lower' ' -cof cof minorities- is still bad people lol #and the fact is mostly white women assuming his sexuality uhm. yall better start analyzing why you doing that 🤨

20 notes · View notes

daughter-of-sapph0 · 1 year

Text

so there was this video where op was pointing out how this comment "if cis people were a minority saying they didn't like to be called that [cishet], it'd be respected" is a homophobic dogwhistle. hence the emojis. and this guy made a comment which I assumed was in good faith and just out of ignorance "you have cishet. so does that mean you also have trans het? and what about gay? cishomo? and gayhomo?

so I informed him that "yes. although it's usually 'cis gau and trans gay'." because transhet is an actual term used in the queer community. the other two are too, just not as much.

and he responded "then why cishet and not cis straight? seems odd to change naming conventions". at this point I start to think that he's possibly a little bit homophobic since he hates the term "het" but is perfectly fine with calling other people "homos" unprompted

so I tell him "I don't know. I didn't come up with it. I do know that homo has been used as a slur for decades. het or hetero hasn't." calling him out on his use of the word homo

he responds "true, but pretty much every word for being gay was a slur, including the term gay".

like, what kinda gotcha is that "haha you idiot, you don't want to be called a carpet munching dyke, but you're okay with me calling you a lesbian even though that was a slur?!"

so I called him out on that. I said "you know enough about queer history to know that every word we use to describe ourselves was once an insult, but not enough to know about reclaiming words? pretty much all of the queer community is okay with straight people calling us gay. pretty much no one is okay with you calling us a homo" at this point I'm actively calling out his use of the term earlier, because I'm starting to suspect more and more it wasn't out of ignorance and good faith

he responds "how does the straight community feel about being called cishet" and here's where I know he's homophobic. "straight community"?! the fucking "straight community"??!! straight people are not a community. they are a majority. also, straight people aren't being called cishet. cishet people are. because cishet refers to people who are cisgender and heterosexual. because there are straight people who aren't cis, and cis people who aren't straight. but both those groups of people are still queer. cishet refers to the majority of people who aren't queer, most of whom are our oppressors. cishets are not oppressed.

so I tell him "cishet people aren't oppressed, murdered, made illegal, beaten, raped, or electrocuted until they're straight. I think they can handle being called an adjective"

he starts going on a rant about how we should "respect everyone" saying "so you only have to respect someone if they are oppressed?" completely missing the point that calling someone a cishet is not disrespectful and not at all comparable to oppression.

so I say "how the fuck is the term cishet disrespectful? it's literally an adjective. queer people are currently being painted as sexual deviants, and you're mad at a fucking word?"

so he says "I don't know why a straight person would be upset with cishet. but some of them certainly are. does respect need to be justified". again, it's not disrespectful. it an adjective that perfectly describes them. also, I know why they're upset with being calling called cishet

"they're upset being they're homophobic and don't like being labeled as 'other'. the same way racists don't like being called white." I would have gave more examples, like antisemites who hate being called goyim, or racist us americans who hate being called gringo. but tiktok comment character limits are too short.

so I call him out on the bullshit of implying that the people who hating being called cishet (transphobes and homophobes) deserve my respect. I say "are you saying I should show respect to the people who oppress me?

and he has the fucking audacity to say "wouldn't the polite thing be to show respect to all people? arbitrarily respecting is how homophobic ppl justify their bigotry" and then puts his stupid little emoji at the end.

at this point I'm fucking done. I'm tired of his homophobic bullshit. I make a comment mocking him saying "'just be nice to the people who want to kill you'" and say "homophobes don't care if I'm a little bit nicer to them. they don't care if I'm a raging mean dyke or a happy neighbor. they want me dead either way".

respect is a fucking joke to these people. they see respect as a resource that you have to give out in copious amounts before you see any in return. they think that no matter what, anyone can do anything to earn respect. and if someone doesn't respect you, you have to respect them really hard until they do.

that's not how the real world works. you don't automatically respect everyone. and you certainly don't give anyone respect if they oppress you. I am not ever going to be respectful to my oppressors. because no matter how respectful I am to them, they will always want me dead.

"well maybe you should just try being nicer to.." maybe you should eat a handful of bees. shut the fuck up

#dostxt #homophobia #transphobia

15 notes · View notes

irish-urn · 2 years

Note

Duuuuuude Derek is SUCH a product of his environment and your analysis of the last two episodes hits the nail on the head.

(And let me start off here by saying that I am not defending Derek's sexism. But I think people forget what a truly terrible time it was for anybody who wasn't a straight cis white male in 2005. It was the times. It was just how it was. It wasn't okay, but it's a bit unfair to hold Derek accountable to today's standards)

Anyway. Just because George is nice doesn't mean he doesn't have blatant sexist tendencies. And he doesssss. The "girls are so emotional" and oh my god, next episode youre going to get George literally saying "boys will be boys" and both Casey AND Nora being upset with that response. And Derek growing up with that and how Derek's "discipline" is "Derek, knock it off" it's not shocking that he turned out to be an entitled classic 15 year old teenage boy.

And UGH don't get me started on George's "you're good at sports". No wonder that boy is emotionally inept.

I think people think that boys will only end up not liking physical or emotional affection if their dad is like– abusive, or something. But George (a nice man) and Derek (kind of an asshole) are the perfect examples of what might happen when you don't communicate with your kids. To me (and Nora is just as guilty of this) I think George sees his kids more as friends than anything.

Lmao sorry for dumping this all here, I just have so many thoughts and opinions on G&N parenting and how your parent doesn't have to abuse you (and how they can actually be extremely loving) and still end up not being great parents.

I can almost guarantee the creators didn't intend to do this, but they really wrote such relatable (as in subpar at best) parents. Like. A freakishly perfect job 😂

YES.

I cannot even blame Derek for being a bit of a dick. I mean, between the way George "disciplines" him and their odd form of communication—

It actually reminds me a little bit of Gilmore Girls, which I know is weird, but hear me out: Kind of like what you said about George seeing his kids more as his friends (and Nora to a point too), Lorelai Gilmore claims that Rory (her daughter) and her are best friends. And I know that Lorelai fosters that relationship because she had Rory at age 16, but every once in a while, she plays the "mom card", and Rory doesn't react well to it. Rory, who is by all accounts a very good person and rarely needs discipline — unlike Derek, who is a charming little asshole who needs someone to knock some sense into him (kinda like a less wealthy Logan???) — but Rory will get defensive when Lorelai suddenly starts acting like a mom who knows best.

And, like, Derek obviously loves and has some respect for his dad, but the way he talks to his dad?? And George rarely takes him to task!! And when he does, it surprises Derek, and I think George may overcompensate when he does discipline Derek because he's, like, overdoing it for all the times he doesn't; and I genuinely think that uncertainty about which version of your parent you're going to get — the friend one or the authority one — must be very tricky and affect a child.

Like, during "The Party", Derek is very concerned about his dad's reaction to the party — but also very hurt about his dad's lack of trust. I honestly think that the party Derek had planned wasn't that bad, nor was it worth freaking out about. It's only once people he didn't invite came over and the house got crowded that he had trouble — and he had trouble because he was more concerned about his reputation and looking cool and chill and unconcerned than taking control, and that's just part of being 15 and a popular guy. But his original plan? Man, that would've been okay. Derek's a dick, but he's not a bad guy. I don't think he meant any harm.

As for Nora and Casey's relationship, I honestly believe that originates a lot from Casey being a responsible person and Nora leaning on her during and after the divorce because she just couldn't do it all herself. I think both adults reacted to their divorces by essentially letting the kids raise themselves for a few years — which is very understandable and human — but Casey's personality made her uber-responsible and organized and take control, and Derek's personality meant he let things go slack and coast. Again, two very understandable reactions! That's just who they are!! The problem is, neither of them are very moderate about their reactions to the divorces and George and Nora's parenting, and so they go to slight extremes —

(also because this is TV and it needs to be entertaining)

—and I think the beauty of Derek&Casey is how they teach each other some of the positives of the other person. As they grow up, Derek learns to take some responsibility, learns how to study and focus (within reason; the seeds are planted and I think in university, they'd come to fruition (it's a fact that boys grow up slower than girls do too, so let's cut him some slack in that regard)); Casey learns to relax her grip, how to have fun, and that things don't have to be perfectly planned to be okay. And isn't that what love is all about: helping the other person grow and become the best version of themselves?

#asks #life with derek #dasey #did i also talk too much?#someone please let me know if this is all balderdash #because i may be talking out of my ass

26 notes · View notes

rjalker · 11 months

Text

I'm deleting useless files from my computer to save space so here's part of the response I sent back to That 90 year old cis straight white guy (no I'm not joking) who wanted to make it mandatory for everyone to use it/its pronouns because he thought this would magically solve...all bigotry.

No, I'm not joking, and he was 100% sincere.

= = =

Yes I have heard of Mx., as well as a few others, like Ind. (short for individual), I just wanted something different, since I have synesthesia, where colors and words seem to have inherent colors to me. M is red, which is my least favorite color, so I wanted something besides Mx. to use, and wanted it to be something specifically nonbinary, rather than simply gender neutral as Ind. and most of the other options are. (The difference being: anyone can use a gender-neutral honorific, while a nonbinary one would just be for nonbinary people)

I think the main problem with your idea is that you're looking at it as "removing other pronouns will solve male-default language"'.

The solution to bigotry will never be to make everyone exactly the same, because people being different isn't what caused the bigotry in the first place, that's just the excuse bigots use to justify it.

Bigotry is caused by people who want power creating a system that gives them that power, and setting up rules that decide who gets power and who doesn't.

In the case of misogyny, men decided that they should have power, and women, and anyone who didn't act enough like their idea of a man, didn't.

In the case of racism, many different people got together and decided to make up rules about who would be considered white, and who would not be, so that white people would have power over everyone else.

In the case of xenophobia, people from the same country (or similar countries) make up rules about why people from different countries are worse, and don't deserve any power.

But the solution here is not to deny the things that make us different, because our differences are not what caused the problem in the first place - hatred, cruelty, and selfishness are.

It's easy for someone who's part of the group with power to say that the solution is to disband all groups entirely, if they've never had to fight to be recognized or treated as equal. I definitely think you have a bias in this regard.

Let me share a metaphor if you will, to explain the problem with this thinking

Say a group of people are playing a game. One of them specifically set up the deck of cards ahead of time so that on their turn, they'd always get the best ones, and get ahead of everyone else. They also set the deck up specifically to give one other person in particular the worst possible cards, constantly freezing them in place or sending them back to their last spot on the board.

The other people eventually notice this, and

= = =

I could log in and get the finished message but I'm still boycotting iNaturalist for pride month so oh well.

3 notes · View notes

musical-chick-13 · 11 months

Note

6, 7, 8, 10, 13?

YES THANK YOU. BLESS YOU.

6. Which ship fans are the most annoying?

Oh, God. Um. Most of the popular ones, if I'm being honest. There are a bunch of different ways I could answer this, from "it's everywhere" to "people misunderstand this canon dynamic" to "people make disgusting bigoted comments toward another, '''in the way''' character" to "most destructively moralistic" so I'll talk about the fanbase that historically has encompassed all of these, which is. The J*hnlockers.

I don't think I can EVER explain how utterly unhinged (derogatory) this fandom was when the show was airing. People straight-up labeling their analyses as a "conspiracy," convincing others that there was a Super Secret Actual Finale Episode that would "fix" their ship not being canon. They paired the main villain up with a character who didn't even exist in canon because doing anything involving the women was, presumably, too much to ask. The absolutely horrendous things they would say about the female characters, ESPECIALLY to fans of them who were minding their own business. (Also, they called one of the gay co-creators "actually a straight man" for not canonizing this ship which is completely and utterly WILD to me.) Genuinely there was NO space more unsafe fandom-wise that I have EVER been in. I cosplayed Irene for a con one time and, though luckily nothing happened, I was AFRAID FOR MY LIFE THE WHOLE TIME. Like. The level of vitriol and misogyny and biphobia (I'm not even going to get into that one) was UNREAL. To the point where genuinely I hope we never get new content of any kind so I don't have to think about people who act like this ever again.

7. What character did you begin to hate not because of canon but because how how the fandom acts about them?

...........at the risk of getting murdered. MCU Steve. He was just kind of. There. To me. I didn't particularly care about him because he read to me as "generic good guy" which isn't an archetype that particularly resonates with me, but...then the fandom just. My God. Saying that EVERYTHING he ever did was right, that NO ONE had any points when they questioned him, that he EPITOMIZED goodness in a way no other character did ever, that anyone who liked Tony (or anyone who was ever perceived as being in Steve's "way" about anything, don't get me started on how people treated Sharon) was A War Criminal Apologist Irl and was Singlehandedly Upholding Every Type of Oppression, like it was. SO annoying. I went from indifference to borderline-hatred out of spite.

8. Common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

GOT SEASON 8 WAS NOT THAT BAD, GOT SEASON 8 WAS NOT THAT BAD, GOT SEASON 8 WAS NOT THAT BAD, GOT SEASON 8 WAS NOT THAT BAD, GOT SEASON 8 WAS NOT THAT BAD, GOT SEASON 8---*I am forcibly removed from the building*

(On a more, uh...eloquent note, Lady Macbeth is not a badass gender-binary-shattering Girlboss™ femme fatale, she is a complete mess struggling with layers and layers of psychological issues that she does not let herself process, as well as a HELL of a lot of internalized misogyny. I love her, too, but this creation of her into some sort of suave or cool monarch lady genuinely baffles me. But then again, this play was my Capstone Research Project my final year of college and I wrote a 50-page paper on it, so maybe I'm a little too invested in how people present her, lmao.)

10. Worst part of fanon

Tbh, everyone who insists that two characters [usually (cis, white, abled) men] MUST be in romantic love because they care about each other. Like...don't get me wrong, I love looking at a LOT of non-canon pairings through a romantic lens because It's Neat™, but showing physical affection or willing to throw down/break the law for someone or calling them things like "admirable" or "amazing" are not? Inherently romantic?? Like by so many people's standards I'd be in romantic love with all my platonic friends, I guess, and that's very annoying. Romance isn't the only kind of love that exists!!! Nor is it the only important or significant one!!!

(On a more specific note, there's a fairly pervasive idea that Aki/Himeno is...a grooming relationship? When according to the established timeline and personal events that would. Literally be impossible. People take the "I'm not old enough to smoke" line that happens not long after they meet as some sort of confirmation that Aki was, like, fifteen or sixteen at the time? Or something? Instead of like. Nineteen. Dude has to have time in the three years he's known her to change significantly in appearance, become old enough to smoke (the legal age for that is 20 over there btw), and develop a substance dependence. And given the visual markers of Himeno's appearance when the two of them meet and how drastically her appearance changes in the intervening years, she can't be more than a couple of years older than him? People also take a comment that's meant to convey that he's been at his job three years longer than another character as saying that he's only three years older age-wise than said character. Which, again, given the timeline. Would be impossible. And also. There is an example of grooming in this story! It's really important to the plot actually! It's meant to be seen as horrifying! You would assume that the fact that this relationship is not presented in the same way means something! Don't get me wrong, Himeno's done her fair share of shitty things, but grooming her fight partner was not one of them. There are plenty of reasons this ship isn't for everyone, you don't have to make shit up, lmao.)

13. Worst blorbo-ification

Genuinely I cannot choose between these two, so we're gonna make this post even longer.

Why do people like K*lo R*n. I don't understand. He was given the barest hint of sort-of, hazy tragic "backstory" and people...very much disagreed with me when I said I didn't think that was enough from a narrative standpoint to actually mean anything. And that's not taking into account that this blorbo-ification happened before we even knew that. When all we knew was that he felt kind of lost sometimes and killed his dad while helping head up a fascist empire, people went wild, and not in a "I like villains" kind of way. In a "he's MEANT to be read as mentally ill" kind of way (my God, please stop saying this about every character who is mean and exhibits one emotion) and "his parents MUST have been abusive to him" kind of way. Neither of those things. Has any basis in canon. Just. Just admit you like a character who's not a good person. And that you like a ship that's a dark romance. You won't explode, I promise.

The other one is Light. People want him to be a tragic anti-hero SO bad, I am incredibly tired. He went from zero to beyond 100 in the space of a couple of in-story hours. He's not some misguided utopian visionary, he's a hypocrite with a god complex. I have met too many people like this irl to get behind any positive or sympathetic interpretation of this character. (And don't get me wrong. I think in order to most effectively present the Themes™ of the work as a whole, he had to be written like this. I don't begrudge the creator (in this instance, anyway), I begrudge the fanbase. There's actually a lot I could say about this piece of media and general reaction to it, but my God this is already long enough.)

I choose violence asks

#tw: grooming mention #tw: abuse mention #long post #hope y'all like me being salty lmao #prepared to get a small slew of unfollows as per what usually happens when I do things like this lmao #multi t(ASK)ing #re: the last part-I saw something that said coming into contact w/the title object only allowed him to fully embody the person he was all #along. that he now had something that gave him the permission & ability to do what had always been simmering under the surface. and that's #ultimately how I view things as well #salty mc13 is salty

2 notes · View notes

luxshine · 2 years

Text

Sigh. Ok, Dear Moon Knight fandom,

We REALLY need to talk.

I've written now about... 5 posts begging people to tag their shit. In particular, to tag #Separate Bodies fics. For ME? It's a preference. I want to read about the Boys as whom they are, a System. I want to read about the challenges about navigating a relationship when everyone is in the same body (In those fics where Layla is not with them, although I do prefer them with Layla) or three people are in a body and the fourth one can only see/hear one at a time.

Is it challenging to write? Hell yeah. But it's possible.

HOWEVER, I am not the only reader of the Moon Knight fandom. Neither are all the members of the Moon Knight fandom singlets.

For obvious reasons, the Moon Knight fandom has a TON of interest from the Plural community. And THEY are the ones who get hurt and worse when they are hit with fic, after fic, after fic, after fanwork where the guys are depicted either as in separate bodies, or as thinking that the ONLY way to be happy is if they're in separate bodies.

Now, as every time, I will tell you that this is not a post about "Don't write X because of Y". This is a post that reminds you if you are going to write X... THINK of WHY.

And also, consider what the hell you are doing by turning a lovely Plural System into Three Separate Singlets just because it's easier for you.

Because what you are doing, intentionally or not? Is straight-washing, is white-washing, is Simple and Plain Erasure.

I can talk a lot about intersectional representation. Moon Knight, in the comics, is a Czech-American, Jewish, Neuro Divergent Plural Superhero. Do you know how RARE that is? Not only that, he's one of the very few, if not the ONLY representation of a System that doesn't have an Evil Alter, where every Alter cares for each other, and whose final goal is not Integration. Seriously, find another one. I will wait. Because the other two BIG ones in Marvel? Are Legion and Typhoid Mary. And BOY are those two a big package to Unpack.

With that in mind, making the boys have separate bodies? Is like making Marc Catholic considering that, in the series? He's the ONLY jewish character in the MCU. Yes, Magneto is jewish, but he is still not in the MCU; and Wanda and Pietro? Not Jewish even in the comics, because even if Magneto IS Jewish, their mother was Roma, and that's ANOTHER group that is so underrepresented that taking that away is a big no-no. Or grab one of the, again, incredibly few bisexual characters in comics and make them either exclusively homosexual or heterosexual. OR... well, sorry, grabbing a character of color and making them white.

I know some of you may jump at that comparison, but the boys's plurality is as basic and integral to their character as ethnicity is to T'challa or America Chavez, or Shang-chi. And since you wouldn't write white America Chavez... you shouldn't just write Moon Knight in separate bodies, at least not without WARNING.

Oh, and for those who want to say "But if I tag it AU is fair game"? No. Marvel Universe canon: Every single Moon Knight in every single universe of the multiverse? Is Plural. Hell, even Arachknight who is MORE of a Peter Parker alternate universe version has DiD, because he is also Moon Knight. Yes, some writers only pay lip service to the DiD -glaring at Dixon- but at the very least they DO describe Moon Knight as having Did. So the Au tag by itself doesn't imply otherwise. SO again, PLEASE, two words: Separate Bodies. That's IT.

Consider the group you are part of, because I am willing to bet that unless you are white, cis, straight, neurotypical, body abled AND within the margin of 25 - 35 years of age in the USA? You are part of an under represented or misrepresented minority group. How much representation in media THAT side of your self has. And how much of it is actually positive and not a negative stereotype that makes you be the victim of harassment or discrimination. And then imagine someone NOT part of that group coming, and striping THAT away from the one character you managed to find and claim as your own.

And again, yes, you may say "But Moon Knight is also Jewish representation, Autistic representation, Hispanic representation, so why can't we focus on those?" Well, first, I never said you couldn't. Yo can and you should. NO part of Moon Knight's background and personalities (as in, the personalities of each Alter, of course) should be erased. Marc and Steven are jewish, Jack -in the series - Is latino, not just "knows spanish" (and well, yeah, actually, all off them are Jewish and latino because that's something the Body IS, but of the three, Marc and Steven are the ones who got all the visual clues to their jewishness, such as the Star of David necklace, while Jack wasn't on screen long enough to know, and neither Steven nor Marc seemed interested in their latin roots given that their hispanic parent was, well, Wendy.), and because TPTB said so? The guys ARE Autistic. But before ALL of that? They're THEY. They're a System, and we must respect that.

And, unlike other changes and communities who WILL pile on you if you erase them (Seriously, I dare you: Say that Willow Rosenberg from Buffy the Vampire Slayer is Bisexual and not a Lesbian. I will be on the sidelines with popcorn because Man, that is always a shitstorm) the Plural community ONLY asks for respect in the form of Tags.

So yeah, keep writing your separate bodies fic if you want. But for the love of Tawaret (Because I know you, Moon Knight Fandom, not many of us love Khonshu) TAG YOUR SHIT!

#moon knight fanfic etiquette #This was going to be a meta about the importance of representation #and intersectional representation #but I ran across other THREE untagged separate bodies fics #And then one that called Jake Lockley's hispanic identity performative #and then that idiot who claimed that the lesson from Moon Knight #was about the spiritual path of singlets #AND those insisting that the only real happy ending for the guys is integration #And I saw red #and wanted to bring my bat to the party.#So instead of the bat #here's a long rant.

22 notes · View notes