#maybe its the lesbian in me; maybe its the feminist in me; but disliking the only two main women in a show? misogyny!!!!! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

prettycottonmouthlamia · 6 months

Text

So there was a conversation about queer representation in video games, and this got said in response to the perception that lesbians are more represented in video games compared to other LGBT identities (particularly gay men):

"Lesbians are fetishized by straight men, so that's why they're more common"

I'm going to be honest and say it's never really sat right with me from that point on. Not because I don't think there isn't some truth to the matter, but because I think it lacks a lot of nuance and a lot of much more important feminist thought. So let's just, break down my thoughts alright?

What does it mean to fetishize lesbians in this situation?

This is actually something I think is worth examining in a lot more detail, because when you talk about lesbian characters in media, there's usually one of two responses from predominantly cishet men regarding them:

The character(s) in question are vehemently disliked, often getting little attention, or as is common in fandom circles, having their character and the content surrounding them relentlessly criticized.

Strong affirmations that the characters involved are Definitely Not Gay and that it's reaching to insist they are.

This, to me, is kind of strange? It's in obvious contradiction to the idea that lesbian characters are getting the most representation. So what exactly is going on?

In truth, both responses highlight some truth, and to understand this, we need to look at the primary way men fetishize lesbians, which is through porn. When it comes to porn, often there is not an overt need to deal with the people involved as wholly unique individuals with their own feelings and thoughts and what not. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, porn actors are sex workers and that's going to be the result of that. It's just kind of a natural result and porn can handle this either gracefully or not.

But as an interesting side result, this means that it becomes very easy to decouple the actors away from the content. The second reaction becomes a dominant factor here: it becomes very easy to view the women involved as being available and often the primary way this developers from there is the idea of performance: a girlfriend and her friend performing for the boyfriend, or maybe two girlfriends etc. Now, again, there's nothing strictly wrong with that in concept as a sex act as long as everyone involved is aware and consenting and happy with it, but it's how it crops up in regards to how lesbians are viewed.

Lesbians are only tolerated when they're viewed to be available to men, and are often violently disliked when that's shown to not be the case. The world has not stopped oppressing lesbians for being overt in their affections towards other women just because of porn videos. This often has the effect that lesbian characters in media are rarely very explicit in order to preserve that illusion, or the much less comical and honestly perhaps somewhat grosser option I call the IntSys method where you just make your characters all bisexual.

To be clear, I find this really disrespectful and cowardly on principle. It really illustrates the extent that the creatives involved just see bisexuality as a convenience and not actually its own important identity. It becomes a way to still sell your lesbians to men, and frankly, eugh. Lesbians and bisexuals really deserve better than that and IntSys are still in fact tremendous cowards.

Fetishization does not correlate to representation either.

Guess who else is also fetishized by straight men its trans women babyyyyy! This is a very known quantity and its curious how that hasn't also caused a similar explosion in the number of trans women in video games. Actually what it has seemingly actually resulted in is more of the "trap" archetype, the transphobic and homophobic character who exists primarily as a joke.

Which is honestly a nice segway into the next point.

Lesbians do not necessarily represent a threat to masculinity.

If you wanted to know why so many lesbians in media are extremely femme and often conform to straight women beauty standards, this is it. It all has to do with masculinity. In fact, this really ties the knot with the problems with both lesbian representation in media (the absolute dearth of masculine women and butches (sorry that Genshin character is not butch)), the lack of representation of trans women, and the lack of representation of gay and bisexual men.

To transgress against masculinity in general has a habit of making you way more hated in our society which worships masculinity as a golden standard. If a woman is too masculine and is trying too hard to be like a man, she's often virulently hated. For trans women, the rejection of masculinity and the embracing of femininity makes them beloathe, and for gay and bisexual men, having sex with men is embracing what is seen as the female sexual role. We can even circle back here to the fetishization and lesbians and the anger of exclusion: it's okay for women to kiss each other and have sex as long as a guy is involved and enjoying it (and very bad if that's not the case). That doesn't even work with gay men, even though statistically more men are enjoying it.

There's an entire thesis that could be written about the stigmatization of the sexual role of the bottom in homosexuality, or on the eventual estrangement of the femme gay men in queer society. Ideas of masculinity are inextricably tied to straight men's perception of gay men, and unfortunately, gay men are often viewed as directly transgressive. A straight man being hit on by a gay man is often viewed as a direct assault on that straight man's masculinity, and as a result, gay men are just directly hated a lot more. There's a reason violence towards gay men is still staggeringly common. It's not like the video game industry is making any progressive waves in combating any of this either.

But there's one point as well in addition to this I would feel remiss not to bring up:

Are we really laying at the feet of a lot of good, honest queer representation in video games the burden of appealing to fetishistic straight men?

This one in particular bothers me because it is actually worth noting that there is a lot of lesbian representation that has nothing to do with fetishization at all. Not because it isn't sexual in any way, but because its created by queer lesbians wanting to see themselves in the media. So one must ask if there's something else involved.

For me, I have a general pet theory that's called Cluster Behavior of Exclusionary Qualities. The gist of it is that I've noticed that outsiders to a community often do not have one single defining trait that separates them from the majority, but often have more of them. The primary reason for this is that people who are already excluded will generally start to re-examine a lot of the other norms they take for granted. But I think another aspect of it as well is that the more reasons you have for not being accepted, generally the more it just makes you stubborn and angry. What are they going to do, exclude you harder? Ultimately, the industry is still really, really sexist and it's harder for women to even make a foothold in the industry at all to begin with. You're not fighting any less uphill, so why not just make something authentic to yourself and resist a lot of the bullshit?

This isn't to say there aren't gay men in the video game industry, there absolutely are, but I think the pressure to conform is probably a lot stronger, because acceptance really is just right around the corner. Sometimes it is easier to just go with the flow when its beneficial, and I don't judge for that its a bitch of a world and we all gotta eat somehow.

So what do I think at the end of all this?

I think that the fetishization of lesbians actually results in us getting a lot less authentic, well-written lesbian characters and stories, and what it does produce are a lot of ambiguously written characters and token attempts at inclusion that often fall flat. I do think it's likely even then that still outweighs a lot of other representation in video games, but I think there are much stronger factors to explain that.

At the end of the day, we're all fighting for fucking scraps out here. We're not going to get better representation by taking jabs at each other about this. But maybe, one day, we can live in a world where a Final Fantasy 19 has two women absolutely destroying it so I no longer need to see the straight couple from 16.

#video games :(

17 notes · View notes

ecoamerica · 2 months

Text

youtube

Watch the American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 now: https://youtu.be/bWiW4Rp8vF0?feature=shared

The American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 broadcast recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by active climate leaders. Watch to find out which finalist received the $50,000 grand prize! Hosted by Vanessa Hauc and featuring Bill McKibben and Katharine Hayhoe!

14K notes · View notes

thephantomcasebook · 1 year

Note

Honestly maybe Emma and Olivia should step down so that more capable and flexible actresses can come on the show, if the rumors about their fussiness to the scripts are true, all because of that ship that makes zero sense in the Dance. If they agreed to stay maybe its because they realised they have way more to lose and so many haters in the fandom that would readily celebrate their exit. Majority of team black fans dislike their takes actually. They have been fan-casting different actresses for the longest time.

I mean, let me get at the head of that line.

Look, don't get it twisted, I've always maintained that Olivia Cooke is both an amazing actress and very beautiful - I remember being smitten from the first moment she showed up on "Bates Motel" ... even with the oxygen tank.

I just think that she isn't mature enough, and neither is most of the cast, to carry a large tent pole show like this.

If you remember, "Game of Thrones" was helmed by a core cast of seasoned British actors that had done a ton of work and involved in large projects. And they were supported by great and legendary character actors that had been doing genre since Classic Era "Doctor Who" with Tom Baker. They had a bunch of young actors, but they weren't the stars and they weren't expected to carry the narrative. Emilia Clarke and Kit Harrington were not the whole show. So if they didn't work out there was a ton of better actors to rely upon.

"House of the Dragon" is not built on a foundation of seasoned veteran actors and legendary character actors who had been classically trained. They're relatively young actors in age or contemporary with Kit Harrington and Emilia Clarke. Most of the cast has never done anything this big before, and if they had, they weren't relied upon to carry the show alone.

The problem remains that Olivia Cooke and Emma D'Arcy aren't mature nor interested enough to carry a big show like this. They're in it for themselves, for awards, and to fuck around. They don't care about press, representing the show, or even being professionals. They don't understand the show, they don't understand the fandom, and they don't take any of it seriously. They want the characters they play to bend to their personalities, not them transform into and embody the characters.

The idea of making Alicent a closeted Lesbian and Rhaenyra seeing herself as genderless just proves that they're not mature enough to take on these projects ... and maybe they never will be.

Olivia Cooke is very talented and D'Arcy is mid as fuck ... but they're not ready for the grown up responsibility that it takes to be the faces and ambassadors of a huge genre show like this.

To me, I'd get veteran genre actresses who have been here before to take these roles on. Actresses that are proven talent, not cast because the showrunner's wife likes Cooke's bimbo feminist post on Instagram and they wanted to cast a "Non-Binary" actress for headlines and to make a statement.

I'd get someone like Michelle Dockery or Jessica De Gouw to play Alicent.

And I'd get Jodie Comer or Rebecca Ferguson to play Rhaenyra.

seasoned and talented actresses that have been part of large shows and franchises that know how to act like professionals and won't run their mouths and annoy or, worse, piss off your core audience.

#House of the Dragon #Alicent Hightower #Rhaenyra Targaryen #Olivia Cooke #Emma D'arcy #Michelle Dockery #Jessica De Gouw #Jodie Comer #Rebecca Ferguson

22 notes · View notes

theygotlost · 2 years

Note

FRANCIS. and donnie. and…… 🙈 ezzie… ezzie dax.

jesus christ this is long. im putting it under a readmore

franny:

Sexuality Headcanon: bisexual. I don't think he realized it until his teen/adult years and now it doesnt really affect his life much now since he married piama so young but I can also see him using the fact he likes men as a way to rebel against lois (sidnote i wouldnt really consider lois homophobic if any of her kids came out she would be like "well i believe in equality so I'm going to make all you boys' lives equally miserable regardless of your sexuality. idgaf if you're gay go clean the toilet". um anyway). i just think it would be funny if piama had a celebrity crush or something and she was like wow hes sooo hot and francis would b like yeah he is 🤨😳

Gender Headcanon: i think hes a whiny little cis boy sorry. francisgender

A ship I have with said character: i do think he and piama are cute together :) i just wish she was in the show more and had an actual personality and stuff >:(((((((

A BROTP I have with said character: I like when he's with the rest of his family and gets to hang out with his brothers :) DEWER ESPECIALLY there is something so special to me abt him taking care of dewey and being kinder to him than malcolm and reese are

A NOTP I have with said character: Any other time in the early seasons when he dated a random girl for 1 episode i was like. um ok? but i didnt really HATE any of those

A random headcanon: uhhhh i feel like i should have something prepared to say here but idk. I think he listens to. weezer. fuck this

General Opinion over said character: FEMINIST WOMEN LOVE FRANCIS. also you already know every opinion ive ever had about francis already but hes so pathetic and stupid I need to squish him between my thumb and forefinger

don of tello lol:

Sexuality Headcanon: HES SO GAYBOY. LOOK AT HIS GAY ASS ANIME GIRL STANCE WHAT IS THISSSSSS

Gender Headcanon: i dont think he is cis or trans i think he is a turtle . i think he can swimming in the water for algaes. hope this helps

A ship I have with said character: nobody... tbh the ninja turtles are kinda unshippable to me. theyre just Creatures they dont “date”. But im not that far into the show yet so maybe there is another character that he can have a yaoi moment with later. But im not counting on it

A BROTP I have with said character: obviously all 4 of da turtle brothers are awesome together but DONNIE AND MIKEY ARE BESTIE VIBES!! Theyre my 2 favorites and i love their dynamic esp since they get paired up kinda often. I feel like they are the closest to each other out of all of them cause they’re both kind of the “weird” ones. Theyre neurodivergent and a minor. Also i like that donnie calls mikey “michael” its funny

A NOTP I have with said character: theres not really any viable shipping options to like or dislike . other than like the really reprehensible stuff like incest which is just like Why. do you know how sad and upsetting it is that so many tmnt blogs have to stipulate “no incest” in their bio? Can we all be normal and regular please?

A random headcanon: definitely the most online guy. Its really funny to enivision him being like a discord mod and getting into fights with people on reddit. Basically this 👇

General Opinion over said character: he’s kind so annoying but in a funny and endearing way (much like many of my favorite guys...) but he ourple so that makes up for it. My favorite tutle

ezzie:

Sexuality Headcanon: Dax and all their symbionts are like. Inherently and canonically bisexy

Gender Headcanon: everyone likes to take the “I’m having trouble with my pronouns!!” line out of context 😑 but for real she said “some mornings I don’t know if im a man or a woman until i pull back the sheet” which um... kinda transphobic... we CANCEL the ezri!!!! Jk she can be whatever you want baby. Any pronouns

A ship I have with said character: MIRROR EZRI INTENDANT KIRA HOT SOAPY BOOBS YURI LESBIAN KISS

A BROTP I have with said character: she has no friends lol sorry. Theres not really any bestie vibes between her and sisko the way there was with jadzia

A NOTP I have with said character: ONE MILLION TIMES JEZRI. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY!!!! umm also when she started making out with worf i was like fml. That episode got me feeling so worfzia warrior but only because i was thinking “damn i wish jadzia was still here and worf was making out with jadzia instead.” it just feels weird to me

A random headcanon: idk what do you want me to say. shes so tumblrina.General Opinion over said character: i know ive tormented you enough with the senorita awesome video but that really is how i see her. Im so sorry sam please dont be mad at me but I just don’t like her that much. She’s so #QUIRKY and its really grating. And I know that she didn’t formally complete her training but she is NOT a good ship’s counselor. If i went to my therapist and told her i was depressed or whatever and she was like “yeah sometimes i wanna kill myself too 😋 the #intrusivethoughts are so AWKO TACO!!” i think i would blow my brains out. But in Field of Fire when she was trying to solve that murder case and was hunting down that vulcan guy with a cool gun that was the ONE epsiode where i liked her and thought she was cool. I would like her more if she was badass like that more of the time

7 notes · View notes

menalez · 2 years

Note

I agree with anti suicide as man-hating is intrinsic to feminism because anger is a natural reaction to your oppression. This emotion is the driving force behind any social justice movement, without it, there would be no motive. So I think its natural for some of these women to get offended by that take because the trauma and consequent anger theyve suffered as a result of patriarchy were guiding forces to awakening to misogyny and accepting radical feminism in their lives. At the end of the day, you can love women as a class, but you do not need to love a woman to fight for her rights. What was that about feminism being for even the most vile woman? Many of these women have had shitty female relatives and friends that they might despise, but their hatred and anger of men and their male supremacy is their driving force to be passionate feminists. Also, i dont understand that ask that said it must be OSA women disagreeing with you— wouldnt OSA actually agree since theyd be the ones more likely to center males in their lives? Wouldnt they be more inclined to say that “man-hating” shouldn’t be the root of feminism? That didnt make much sense to me. Women often talk about their hatred of men because its unacceptable to do so in other spaces. Radical feminism is meant to be a space in which we can vent our frustrations with male supremacy. As for your comment about women who both hate men and women— well, those women arent feminists then. Theyre excluded from radical feminism by virtue of being misogynists so it wouldnt render your argument null. I hope this makes sense. Im trying to be civil

i addressed everything u said in other reblogs and posts but

1. didn’t say anything against man-hating. im literally a man-hater. i just don’t think the basis of one’s feminism being hating men is gonna work. loving women should always come first when it comes to fighting for the rights of women

2. said nothing against having emotions. loving women is an emotion, and it’s a motivating one. didn’t say anything against hating men, once again it just shouldn’t be the root of one’s feminism. nothing wrong with it as a secondary aspect of ur feminism but when it’s all about hating men and women come second then how is that even feminism anymore

3. it honestly feels like a slap in the face how many OSA women saw that im a lesbian and then used that to act like i haven’t been abused, raped, harassed, and oppressed by men. once again, ive said nothing against hating men nor against being angry at ur oppressors and it’s honestly offensive talking to a woman w PTSD as if she doesn’t understand that trauma first hand

4. i literally meant loving women as a class… no one can say there isn’t a single woman they dislike. im constantly talking about my ex and how she abused me like it’s not like im expecting anyone to love every woman otherwise they can’t support women’s rights. but how are you gonna fight for the rights of women when u don’t love women as a class? if u don’t centre that love for women in ur activism for them?

5. u don’t understand that ask saying OSA women are the one disagreeing with me because you didn’t check and see they are in fact OSA women who are angry with me because they were recently hurt by a man and assumed i was saying they aren’t allowed to be angry at men. nowhere did i not all men or justify men or say it’s not ok to hate them.

6. “well those women aren’t feminists then” you guys really can’t read because i literally said that hating men does not a feminist make and a true feminist is centring women and loving women before anything to do with men. that’s it. and after someone repeatedly making it clear her issue is with lesbians and “ssa radfems” and using that as her basis for attacking me, the same exact person u said u agree with here, maybe don’t try to tell me this has nothing to do with homophobia and being OSA

4 notes · View notes

olderthannetfic · 3 years

Note

I wanted to ask you about radical feminism (TERF-ism & TIRF-ism). Radical feminism never seemed to be *necessarily* some of the really bad things that people on this blog say it is. For instance, everything roach-works says it is in an earlier post. There are at least some people I've read who are part of the movement of radical feminism (whether or not they would self-identify as that) and who really don't espouse any of the views in roach-works comments. (1/2) Thinking of the list of points

From nothorses - the people I’ve read (e.g. Iris Marion Young) *do* espouse many of these, but not so in a way that has to lead to these more extreme views that roach-works mentioned. One may not agree with them but they don’t seem so bad to me? Are they? Am I a terrible person? It disturbs me to hear something with the word 'feminism' in it denigrated so harshly, and it always seems to me like the views get mixed up with the worst half of the people who believe in them. (2/2)

(Appendix...) I feel there's a lot of truth in SOME of the views that nothorses correctly ascribes (i. m. o.) to radical feminists, in particular: "Women are all miserable with their bodies, cursed with the pressure to reproduce and have sex with men. ... miserable with their genders, forced as they are to ensure the overwhelming and constant suffering that is patriarchy." Is it just that the "all" makes the views too strong? Or is there, for critics, a more fundamental problem I'm missing?

I've seen some much nicer, saner people self-describe as radical feminists and object strenuously to how I see radfems... However, all of them still kept talking about porn in terms that only make sense if you're talking about the evils of the mainstream industry, and moreso the mainstream industry of the 1970s (which is when a lot of this rhetoric comes from). And yet this attitude gets over-applied to porn in general, regardless of medium, working conditions, or level of economic necessity involved in its creation.

The attitudes I think are pretty much universal in this ideology, and universally shitty, come out when they're confronted with fsub content by and for women.

Yeah, yeah, "mommy porn". I'm not saying Fifty Shades of Grey is well written or not kind of embarrassing, but when people start bleating about how confused womenfolk will get bad ideas from it, you should be suspicious, whether they're radfems or fundies.

"The hot billionaire falls in love with me for no reason and does all the work to make sex hot while I lie there like a dead fish" is a common fantasy. It really doesn't say anything about the woman in question, nor does it make the patriarchy stronger.

The big one to look for from nothorses list is #5:

Sex, in particular, is more often exploitative than not. Only some kinds of sex are not exploitative. Many kinds of sex that we think are consensual, or that people say are consensual, are either rape or proto-rape.

This is saying "BDSM is rape", which is something that most radfems do think once you scratch the surface. Rape roleplay is also rape and furthering the patriarchy.

Even if they make some small allowance for informed adults doing BDSM in some strict environment with specific rules, show them 50SoG and women's right to choose goes out the window. Sure, the relationship in the book looks pretty unhealthy, at least at the beginning, but the thing being criticized is readers' right to choose.

Even the radfems who support butchness and don't think butch women are gender traitors will usually be assholes over trashy wank material like 50SoG.

And once you open the door to "your libido is political", you've started down a very dark road that leads to a bunch of naturally kinky tumblr teens sitting in their bedrooms, staring at their computer screens, and wondering if they're a future rapist because they like a/b/o or sex pollen or something.

I get where you're coming from. Maybe you're in a context where most women are pretty miserable. But I'm not. I was raised by a mother who thought diets were stupid and telling your daughter what you think of her body is active child abuse.

Being a victim of abuse, including "you're too fat" type abuse, is neither inherent nor unique to women. Sure, women tend to be under the microscope, but so are lots of people.

As an upper middle class anglo white woman in the US and moreover as a woman who looks fairly conventionally femme even with my very hairy legs (much to my annoyance), I honestly don't experience that much policing. I already, through no fault and certainly no merit of my own, conform reasonably well to the "neutral" standard of white womanhood. My male equivalent would be the most unmarked in the US, but I'm only a little marked.

What this gender-obsessed analysis misses is that it's not about womanhood: it's about failing to be the "neutral" default. Poor people fail. Black people fail. Asian people fail. Disabled people fail. At least in the US. In Japan, third generation Korean-Japanese fail. Burakumin fail despite being ethnically Japanese due to having been a separate caste for centuries.

"Intersectionality" on social media tends to get used as miserypoker: the speaker with the most listed oppressions wins the argument and you should signal boost them or you're a bad person.

In actuality, what intersectionality means is recognizing that gender and sex may sometimes just not be very important in a given person's life if they experience enough privilege or if, conversely, they have such a profound lack of privilege elsewhere that this other identity overshadows gender in terms of their lived experience.

Radfem ideology says I must prioritize Woman out of my many identities. But, in reality, I feel more kinship with bisexual men than with lesbian women. I feel more kinship with kinky straight people than with bisexuals who want AO3 and pride parades to be nothing but g-rated hand holding.

I get that it's upsetting for people to be railing against something called "feminism", but that's like saying that disliking the Jews for Jesus makes you antisemitic. The whole point is that a lot of people feel that radical feminism is pretty anti-woman in many of its core values.

I don't think you're a bad person. I do think that some of the underpinnings of radfem ideology lead directly to sensitive people who are concerned about such things wondering if they are.

80 notes · View notes

ecoamerica · 1 month

Text

youtube

Watch the 2024 American Climate Leadership Awards for High School Students now: https://youtu.be/5C-bb9PoRLc

The recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by student climate leaders! Join Aishah-Nyeta Brown & Jerome Foster II and be inspired by student climate leaders as we recognize the High School Student finalists. Watch now to find out which student received the $25,000 grand prize and top recognition!

15K notes · View notes

jeannereames · 3 years

Note

Hi, Dr. Reames! I just read your take on Song of Achilles and it got me thinking. Do you think there might be a general issue with the way women are written in mlm stories in general? Because I don't think it's the first time I've seen something like this happen.

And my next question is, could you delve further into this thing you mention about modern female authors writing women? How could we, beginner female writers, avoid falling into this awful representations of women in our writing?

Thank you for your time!

[It took a while to finish this because I wrote, re-wrote, and re-wrote it. Still not sure I like it, but I need to let it go. It could be 3xs as long.]

I’ll begin with the second half of the question, because it’s simpler. How do we, as women authors, avoid writing women in misogynistic ways?

Let me reframe that as how can we, as female authors, write negative (even quite nasty) female characters without falling into misogynistic tropes? Also, how can we write unsympathetic, but not necessarily “bad” female characters, without it turning misogynistic?

Because people are people, not genders, not all women are good, nor all men bad. Most of us are a mix. If we should avoid assuming powerful women are all bitches, by the same token, some women are bitches (powerful or not).

ALL good characterization comes down to MOTIVE. And careful characterization of minority characters involves fair REPRESENTATION. (Yes, women are a minority even if we’re 51% of the population.)

The question ANY author must ask: why am I making this female character a bitch? How does this characterization serve the larger plot and/or characterization? WHY is she acting this way?

Keep characters complex, even the “bad guys.” Should we choose to make a minority character a “bad guy,” we need to have a counter example—a real counter, not just a token who pops in briefly, then disappears. Yeah, maybe in an ideal world we could just let our characters “be,” but this isn’t an ideal world. Authors do have an audience. I’m a lot less inclined to assume stereotyping when we have various minority characters with different characterizations.

By the same token, however, don’t throw a novel against the wall if the first minority character is negative. Read further to decide if it’s a pattern. I’ve encountered reviews that slammed an author for stereotyping without the reader having finished the book. I’m thinking, “Uh…if you’d read fifty more pages….” Novels have a developmental arc. And if you’ve got a series, that, too, has a developmental arc. One can’t reach a conclusion about an author’s ultimate presentation/themes until having finished the book, or series.*

Returning to the first question, the appearance of misogyny depends not only on the author, but also on when she wrote, even why she’s writing. Authors who are concerned with matters such as theme and message are far more likely to think about such things than those who write for their own entertainment and that of others, which is more typical of Romance.

On average, Romance writers are a professionalized bunch. They have national and regional chapters of the Romance Writers of America (RWA), newsletters and workshops that discuss such matters as building plot tension, character dilemmas, show don’t tell, research tactics, etc. Yet until somewhat recently (early/mid 2010s), and a series of crises across several genres (not just Romance), treatment of minority groups hadn’t been in their cross-hairs. Now it is, with Romance publishers (and publishing houses more generally) picking up “sensitivity readers” in addition to the other editors who look at a book before its publication.

Yet sensitivity readers are hired to be sure lines like “chocolate love monkey” do not show up in a published novel. Yes, that really was used as an endearment for a black man in an M/M Romance, which (deservedly) got not just the author but the publishing house in all sorts of hot water. Yet misogyny, especially more subtle misogyny in the way of tropes, is rarely on the radar.

I should add that I wouldn’t categorize The Song of Achilles as an M/M historical Romance. In fact, I’m not sure what to call novels about myths, as myths don’t exist in actual historical periods. When should we set a novel about the Iliad? The Bronze Age, when Homer said it happened, or the Greek Dark Age, which is the culture Homer actually described? They’re pretty damn different. I’d probably call The Song of Achilles an historical fantasy, especially as mythical creatures are presented as real, like centaurs and god/desses.

Back to M/M Romance: I don’t have specific publishing stats, but it should surprise no one that (like most of the Romance genre), the vast bulk of authors of M/M Romance are women, often straight and/or bi- women. The running joke seems to be, If one hot man is good, two hot men together are better. 😉 Yes, there are also trans, non-binary and lesbian authors of M/M Romance, and of course, bi- and gay men who may write under their own name or a female pseudonym, but my understanding is that straight and bi- cis-women authors outnumber all of them.

Just being a woman, or even a person in a female body, does not protect that author from misogyny. And if she’s writing for fun, she may not be thinking a lot about what her story has to “say” in its subtext and motifs, even if she may be thinking quite hard about other aspects of story construction. This can be true of other genres as well (like historical fantasy).

What I have observed for at least some women authors is the unconscious adoption of popular tropes about women. Just as racism is systemic, so is sexism. We swim in it daily, and if one isn’t consciously considering how it affects us, we can buy into it by repeating negative ideas and acting in prescribed ways because that’s what we learned growing up. If writing in a symbol-heavy genre such as mythic-driven fantasy, it can be easy to let things slip by—even if they didn’t appear in the original myth, such as making Thetis hostile to Patroklos, the classic Bitchy Mother-in-Law archetype.

I see this sort of thing as “accidental” misogyny. Women authors repeat unkind tropes without really thinking them through because it fits their romantic vision. They may resent it and get defensive if the trope is pointed out. “Don’t harsh my squee!” We can dissect why these tropes persist, and to what degree they change across generations—but that would end up as a (probably controversial) book, not a blog entry. 😊

Yet there’s also subconscious defensive misogyny, and even conscious/semi-conscious misogyny.

Much debate/discussion has ensued regarding “Queen Bee Syndrome” in the workplace and whether it’s even a thing. I think it is, but not just for bosses. I also would argue that it’s more prevalent among certain age-groups, social demographics, and professions, which complicates recognizing it.

What is Queen Bee Syndrome? Broadly, when women get ahead at the expense of their female colleagues who they perceive as rivals, particularly in male-dominated fields, hinging on the notion that There Can Be Only One (woman). It arises from systemic sexism.

Yes, someone can be a Queen Bee even with one (or two) women buddies, or while claiming to be a feminist, supporting feminist causes, or writing feminist literature. I’ve met a few. What comes out of our mouths doesn’t necessarily jive with how we behave. And ticking all the boxes isn’t necessary if you’re ticking most of them. That said, being ambitious, or just an unpleasant boss/colleague—if its equal opportunity—does not a Queen Bee make. There must be gender unequal behavior involved.

What does any of that have to do with M/M fiction?

The author sees the women characters in her novel as rivals for the male protagonists. It gets worse if the women characters have some “ownership” of the men: mothers, sisters, former girlfriends/wives/lovers. I know that may sound a bit batty. You’re thinking, Um, aren’t these characters gay or at least bi- and involved with another man, plus—they’re fictional? Doesn’t matter. Call it fantasizing, authorial displacement, or gender-flipped authorial insert. We authors (and I include myself in this) can get rather territorial about our characters. We live in their heads and they live in ours for months on end, or in many cases, years. They’re real to us. Those who aren't authors often don’t quite get that aspect of being an author. So yes, sometimes a woman author acts like a Queen Bee to her women characters. This is hardly all, or even most, but it is one cause of creeping misogyny in M/M Romance.

Let’s turn to a related problem: women who want to be honorary men. While I view this as much more pronounced in prior generations, it’s by no means disappeared. Again, it’s a function of systemic sexism, but further along the misogyny line than Queen Bees. Most Queen Bees I’ve known act/react defensively, and many are (imo) emotionally insecure. It’s largely subconscious. More, they want to be THE woman, not an honorary man.

By contrast, women who want to be honorary men seem to be at least semi-conscious of their misogyny, even if they resist calling it that. These are women who, for the most part, dislike other women, regard most of “womankind” as either a problem or worthless, and think of themselves as having risen above their gender.

And NO, this is not necessarily religious—sometimes its specifically a-religious.

“I want to be an honorary man” women absolutely should NOT be conflated with butch lesbians, gender non-conformists, or frustrated FTMs. That plays right into myths the queer community has combated for decades. There’s a big difference between expressing one’s yang or being a trans man, and a desire to escape one’s womanhood or the company of other women. “Honorary men” women aren’t necessarily queer. I want to underscore that because the concrete example I’m about to give does happen to be queer.

I’ve talked before about Mary Renault’s problematic portrayal of women in her Greek novels (albeit her earlier hospital romances don’t show it as much). Her own recorded comments make it clear that she and her partner Julie Mullard didn’t want to be associated with other lesbians, or with women much at all. She was also born in 1905, living at a time when non-conforming women struggled. If extremely active in anti-apartheid movements in South Africa, Renault and Mullard were far less enthused by the Gay Rights Movement. Renault even criticized it, although she wrote back kindly to her gay fans.

The women in Renault’s Greek novels tend to be either bitches or helpless, reflecting popular male perceptions of women: both in ancient Greece and Renault’s own day. If we might argue she’s just being realistic, that ignores the fact one can write powerful women in historical novels and still keep it attitudinally accurate. June Rachuy Brindel, born in 1919, author of Ariadne and Phaedra, didn’t have the same problem, nor did Martha Rofheart, born in 1917, with My Name is Sappho. Brindel’s Ariadne is much more sympathetic than Renault’s (in The King Must Die).

Renault typically elevates (and identifies with) the “rational” male versus the “irrational” female. This isn’t just presenting how the Greeks viewed women; it reflects who she makes the heroes and villains in her books. Overall, “good” women are the compliant ones, and the compliant women are tertiary characters.

Women in earlier eras who were exceptional had to fight multiple layers of systemic misogyny. Some did feel they had to become honorary men in order to be taken seriously. I’d submit Renault bought into that, and it (unfortunately) shows in her fiction, as much as I admire other aspects of her novels.

So I think those are the three chief reasons we see women negatively portrayed in M/M Romance (or fiction more generally), despite being written by women authors.

------------------------------------

*Yeah, yeah, sometimes it’s such 2D, shallow, stereotypical presentation that I, as a reader, can conclude this author isn’t going to get any better. Also, the publication date might give me a clue. If I’m reading something published 50 years ago, casual misogyny or racism is probably not a surprise. If I don’t feel like dealing with that, I close the book and put it away.

But I do try to give the author a chance. I may skim ahead to see if things change, or at least suggest some sort of character development. This is even more the case with a series. Some series take a loooong view, and characters alter across several novels. Our instant-gratification world has made us impatient. Although by the same token, if one has to deal with racism or sexism constantly in the real world, one may not want to have to watch it unfold in a novel—even if it’s “fixed” later. If that’s you, put the book down and walk away. But I’d just suggest not writing a scathing review of a novel (or series) you haven’t finished. 😉

#misogyny in m/m romance #how to avoid misogyny writing women characters #writing complicated women characters #asks #writing life #writing advice

15 notes · View notes

sugar-petals · 4 years

Text

BTS Tarot Reading ➝ What Kind Of Porn Do They Watch? (18+)

↳ NOTE - due to several requests, a steamy and detailed one. ☕️ we’re asking the cards about the erotica they fancy in a wider sense.

warning ⚠️ 18+ // bdsm mentions, worship, kinks left and right. we’re going graphic in all types o’ ways, lads.

♡ DISCLAIMER // tarot is speculative, there is no guarantee for accuracy. believing in the cards is a choice. all portrayals are fictive and for entertainment purposes only.

SPREAD #1:

yoongi

⌈ THE WORLD ⇁ Jesus... Someone’s obsessed with girls in the nude. That card has a stark naked woman wrapped in very little satin on it so you know what our funky little guy is up to. Luscious aesthetic fotos might be just around his corner. Big duh, he’s a photography major. These folks are all about body appreciation. He’s also on a personal vendetta against lingerie 😂 Yoongi won’t get hard looking at even the most HD panty and bra ads. Only the skin in its full splendor will do, no editing. He loves pictures of nipples peaking through shirt fabric, it’s all over his phone. Yoongi likes his gals without underwear 24/7 just like he dislikes underwear himself. If we’re talking porn, the woman on the card is holding two very long rods so may I connect the dots: Threesomes, handjobs, blowbangs, spitroasting. Friction, friction, and more friction. To Yoongi’s brain, handjobs are a great um new version of holding hands. Sex standing up also, keeping it vertical. Yoongi doesn’t care about girth, inches count. Nice and elongated with a perfect plunge, something to hold onto. Yep, he’s pretty deliberate when searching that up. Yes, he loves the look of it. However, and you’ll be surprised: Even if he likes poly porn, it’s still nothing too extreme. This card is more about pleasure than pain. If a guy likes rough and degrading sex, you get swords and wands in his spread. THE WORLD is more about perfected skills and success. So, he likes the more accomplished porn stars. With a preference for curly blondes and redheads, that’s sort of the hair color on the card. Natural B or C cup. Medium height, not too curvy. Oversized booty not needed. In terms of nationality: We have three representative animals on the card. Eagle, lion and bull, plus a light blonde man’s head. So, anything that America/Germany/Albania/Mexico/Namibia (and so on, lot of countries with eagles as their national bird my dude), England, Spain and Scandinavia have to offer. Honey sugar is going international, baby.

hoseok

⌈ QUEEN OF WANDS ⇁ Did I just mention that guys who like rough sex in porn get wand cards in their readings in Yoongi’s segment? Well, there we have our candidate, with a very obvious card since it’s a court figure. Now, the thing is, this is not the guy being rough. The QUEEN OF WANDS is as notoriously femdom as can be. The very fiery and raw and fun version. So, with a degree of lightheartedness, but still being very fit — even buff — and hands-on with the sub. If you get the QUEEN OF SWORDS, that’s the more cool and calculated domme who signs you up for torture and humiliation, and she really looks like a domme. She’s all over the internet because she has the grit. Now wands combined with a tarot queen... it’s more about the stamina and she is approachable. Hobi does not like watching cruel girls, he likes challenging ones. Upbeat porn stars who can take a lot but most importantly dole it out assertively like pros are Hobi’s schtick. He’s unapologetic about that. With him it’s like, please not the local newcomers that turned legal a month ago. The queen cards are all about mature women. Mommy kink, hint hint. The kind of mommy who’s gonna whip out the spreader bar or cane (= wands again) and give a playful type of punishment. See how desert-like that imagery is, Hobi wants to sweat big time when he gets off to this. Now since wands also make for a damn good pole to dance on, go figure. This whole card has me wondering if, well alright, he is a Cardi B hard stan 😅 If Hobi blasts Money to get in the mood, I’d not be surprised. Anyway. Back to pole stuff: If you go through his youtube search history, you will find astounding things. I think he watches the more professional and athletic performers in competition though. High production value is key. Finally, an interesting card detail: There’s a sunflower on it. This is definitely his kind of tarot imagery.

jimin

⌈ KING OF COINS ⇁ This card always looks like a scene from a medieval movie so you might have an erotic film enthusiast here. The more chaste type of genre, pentacles are very grounded and not hypersexualized. The intimacy is slow and more about security and pleasure. It’s graphic and detailed, but gives you a sense of relaxation. With a bit of romance in the plot, that might absolutely be Jimin’s thing. Castles and wine and nobility. Interesting type of erotica. Historical and classy. As expected of a prince, mind you. He might enjoy books of that genre also. And we know Jimin is an avid reader, right up there with Namjoon. Now, even with more risque and contemporary stuff that he googles up, we have similar dynamics going down on screen. With Hobi we had femdom because it’s a queen card, now with Jimin we get the classic male dom type of porn because that’s how the King usually rolls, unless it’s the KING OF CUPS who’s touchy-feely and subby. Meanwhile, the KING OF COINS is your local sugar daddy. Leaning towards being a soft dom, he’s not aggressive. And Jimin surely has a little crush on that concept. Ye know, if all the other members have female cards and Jimin gets the sugar daddy, we might be dealing with mxm action. Because if this card was a porn star, he’d be a really, really rich producer and a bear who’s done this since the frickin’ 90s. He’s treating his subs very gently and lets them sit on their lap, the imagery is sort of like that because the King is balancing a pentacle on his left thigh. Sex and comfort all in one are life for Jimin. A sexy detail I only noticed at a second glance, the King also has a shortened golden staff with him, which has a rounded tip. If that’s not a butt plug… whenever I see props like that in tarot, I interpret it as a sex toy. So, good vibes in here. And a bunch of aphrodisiacs, the KING OF COINS is a foodie. Which you know, might just be a food porn type of reference. Jimin’s taste in sexy things is quite something else.

jungkook

⌈ THE EMPRESS ⇁ If there’s one thing I like, it’s the Tarot giving me the important archetypes during readings of that kind. The Queens, the Kings, the Major arcana (see Yoongi’s and Jin’s segment). You can really draw a lot of hints out of it. Now with the EMPRESS you have a similar case to Hobi’s, just a lot more softcore. Jungkook has a refined and pretty vast taste in erotica, if not the most refined in Bangtan next to Jimin who likes that kind of dignified touch to it as well as we saw. Jungkook knows his stuff when it comes to searching things up, he is a first class netizen in that regard. In terms of genre: The EMPRESS is your highkey feminist and wholesomeness legend, so — you won’t find any super creepy things in some hidden file on his PC, and things by female producers instead. No slut-shaming or name-calling here, everyone gets their pleasure in their own right. Thanks to online sex ed, Jungkook has a map to the clit and he’s not afraid to use it. He’s the type to watch solo videos ad nauseam. He’s fascinated. Masturbation until it gets all messy with the juices flowing, and you bet he wants to see the girls buzzing themselves off lying on their back. Maybe even outdoors in a field. Cum play is a must, cunnilingus is a must, he loves unprotected sex and creampies, he loves breast massages. And yes. Anything that involves sex with pregnant and chubby women. Similar to Taehyung, it’s all about the focus on the girl, he doesn’t bother much with the guy performers. And given Yoongi’s reading on top of that, we have three members in BTS who are all about worshipping the female body right here, breasts over ass, and he likes blondes, too. The EMPRESS card is like… the entire porn industry who does the MILF and BBW genre is financed by Jeon Jungkook’s website subscriptions. Cue GOT7, with Jungkook it’s girls, girls, girls. The thirst is going strong, and he’s unashamed times ten, sex is sex.

➝ we also have members who don’t really bother with erotica or have a complicated relationship with it.

SPREAD #2

taehyung

⌈ ACE OF WANDS reversed ⇁ He’s not about beating off until the world ends. Taehyung gets bored by porn or heated literature and doesn’t feel very motivated to search it up. He would rather come up with his own ideas to write but doesn’t have the energy. Sex drive: On hold, even if he tries to look something up it doesn’t feel very fulfilling to him. Most of it fails to turn him on, it’s not his kind of taste. He gets frustrated when he masturbates and would rather rest, dream, and doze. The only thing I can see him watch somewhat frequently — hold your horses — is lesbian porn. I’ll explain. The ACE OF WANDS is pretty much your most glaring handjob symbolism card. A hand gripping a stick. Yoongi’s THE WORLD card has very similar imagery, I mean even two wands and a girl, bisexual explosion much. He would be a big fan of the upright ACE OF WANDS card lmao! But the reversal is like, um no silly guys jerking off in here, pls. Keep your cum to yourself. That means: Zero dicks in Taehyung’s zone, girl-on-girl stuff is his very last resort for quality that he is desperate for but cannot find. And not the stuff where the producers just replace the guys with heavy arsenal sex toys, double-ended dildos, fucking machines, endless strap-on action without any clit stimulation on either side and whatnot. Taehyung is like ugh, cherie, why, give me the juicy stuff, give me the basics. What he wants is just pure scissoring, fingering, oral, little gentle bites, a lot of caresses and kisses. And slow, slow sex. Probably the amateur kind. He hates how brutal and exaggerated most things online are. Tae is looking for softness, a lot of lesbian action is what delivers in that regard so he takes all he gets. And it goes further than that, Taehyung knows the finest yuri recommendations, I’m telling you.

seokjin

⌈ THE STAR reverse ⇁ The opposite of Yoongi: not keeping it very naked in here. The upright card shows a nude woman pouring water from two cups. Hence a strong connection to the card of sexuality, TWO OF CUPS. Everything is very gentle and positive in that scenery. But then, the reversed card rather shows us that Jin doesn’t feel too thrilled watching other people film or write or photograph sex. Like in Tae’s case, he becomes bored, it’s all the same to him. Nothing’s ever new to him in porn. He feels negative and guilty rather than refreshed or entertained. He also doesn’t like a lot of kinks that very literally connect to, well, the pouring water. Squirting, cum play, watersports, sex in the pool or showers, lube overuse, creampies, bukkake, fake cum — Jin is rolling his eyes at that, he thinks it’s a circus. He’s surely given it a try, but ended up feeling worse and even more pent-up or dissatisfied. At best, you will find him on unknown websites looking for the most amateur videos there are. Because: THE STAR quite unequivocally hints at porn stars. If you reverse the card, it becomes someone not very well-known. He roots for the underdog. Accordingly, Jin’s reaction to mainstream videos goes this way: ‚Pipe down, you non-artists!’ 😆 Cause maybe, he does do it better aye, without the awkward angles anyway. He doesn’t want the body cult, like, put that airbrush and silicone out of my face bro. Not because he’s against surgery, but the idea behind sexual extremes and the shady high standards. It’s too polished for him to get turned on. And robotic/staged. Likely because he’s had an IRL sexual experience (gasp!) that set a different ideal to him, so the more glossy porn feels off. Home video has all he needs instead. I think it’s especially because you get so see more body hair there. The woman on the THE STAR card is all sleek, so the reversed card is the opposite, Jin wants that unshaved goodness.

namjoon

⌈ EIGHT OF CUPS ⇁ Now you’d think — and I thought, kinda — we’d get the master of erotica right here. And he’s had one hell of a reputation for that. Think of the ever-infamous Yaman TV interview where BTS were super upfront and revealing about their taste and what they watch privately. With especially Namjoon having the lion’s share. But this card says otherwise if his current state is concerned. The EIGHT OF CUPS shows a man wandering off into the night, leaving eight cups behind him. I think what that means is, he’s moved on. Namjoon’s cravings aren’t as strong as they used to be, nor does he have the time. He knows it won’t fix his loneliness or answer the questions of life. He might be on the search for different things to fulfill him, or ignore much of his hormones in favor for his career. Not that he didn’t dabble in it, he sure did, but that chapter is slowly closing and what’s next he doesn’t really know yet. He thinks about family and being a father, so the smaller and more risque pleasures become less significant. Desire, too. Ye olde soul syndrome is kicking in. The card is also centered around introspection, a quest for self, all these higher topics that aren’t the most grounded and don’t leave much space for being horny. Joon is simply to preoccupied and on the move. He sees porn as a distraction from his real self at this point, and he’s not the type to feel satiated after masturbating to something, similar to Jin and Taehyung. Instead, I think he carries that energy elsewhere, hence the wanderer going from A to B onto a mountain. In short, Namjoon naturally grew out of it by becoming more, well: Namjoon. He’s left a lot behind, he’s choosing self-development over temporary fun, and he will ponder a lot on the topic, the hows and whys and whats more often than not. So, he’s passed the baton to Yoongi and Jungkook if you will, and keeps a low profile as of now.

tarot mlist | ko-fi

----

for anon:

#bts tarot #bts #bangtan #bts smut #bts tarot reading #tarot #long post

381 notes · View notes

thecaffeinebookwarrior · 5 years

Text

More Female Characters to Avoid in Your Writing

A long while back, I typed up some posts ranting about characters and tropes I disliked. These were Male and Female Characters to Avoid in Your Writing, and they’ve become my most popular posts yet. Recently, I was struck by some topical inspiration, and decided it was time for a sequel!

One again, these are my personal, subjective opinions! No one dictates your writing or portrayals but you, and no one can or should decide how you consume fiction. Also, as you may notice, I actually like most of the ladies below; I just don’t like certain aspects of their portrayal.

Enjoy, and happy writing everybody!

1. The Daenerys (i.e. the spontaneous war criminal)

Image source

Who she is:

The formerly heroic Mother of Dragons, who randomly charbroiled a city full of innocent people.

Why it sucks:

I’m not even talking about this from a feminist standpoint, or how one of the most consistently heroic and powerful female characters took an abrupt and undignified backflip into the Dark Side. I’m speaking from a writer’s standpoint.

Regardless of whether you liked Daenerys, she was rivaled only by Jon and Brienne as the show’s most consistently heroic character From locking away her dragon children to ensure the safety of her subjects, to freeing countless enslaved citizens, she’s spent a decade proving herself to be an altruistic and noble figure. And then, in the final two episodes of the entire show, the writers dracarys-ed that shit.

For some comparison, just imagine how ridiculous it would be if Jon Snow suddenly went batshit and started hacking up citizens because he was feeling stressed. That’s about as plausible as Dany’s sudden passion for genocide.

And for the record, I’m not opposed to Daenerys becoming Mad Queen. If it was done properly. This would mean informing the actress far in advance so she could modify her portrayal accordingly (which they didn’t), and building up to it through foreshadowing and established attributes. Not at the last fucking minute.

Honestly, the only characters who remained narratively consistent to the very end are Drogon and Ghost, who are both precious babies who did nothing wrong.

How to avoid her:

Decide as early as possible where a character arc is going. Contrary to what Game of Thrones seems to believe, the character arc is important. It should have a beginning, challenges that incite development, and a satisfying conclusion that showcases how a character has changed and evolved.

And if you didn’t decide early? You still have to come up with a conclusion that makes sense for your character, and not slap on the most unexpected ending possible in the name of Subverting Expectations.

On that note? Subverting expectations isn’t always a good thing, and a reader predicting your ending isn’t the worst possible outcome. Focus on telling a good story.

2. The Rayon (i.e. the transgender stereotype)

Who she is:

A transgender woman (portrayed by the male, cisgender Jared Leto) dying slowly of AIDS in Dallas Buyer’s Club. Her role in the narrative is to teach the supposedly heterosexual (more on that later) main character that queer people are human beings.

Why it sucks:

Rayon is many things in Buyer’s Club, and most are firmly rooted in stereotypes. She’s a sassy, flirtatious, clothing-obsessed, self-loathing, drug-addicted prostitute. She’s hypersexual, but never treated as romantically desirable. She’s tragic, but also one of the few consistently comedic characters in an otherwise bleak film.

It’s her job to gently goad the main character into treating her with basic respect, but he never quite gets there. He refers to her with male pronouns throughout the entire film, and never acknowledges her as a woman. At one point, he aims a gun at her genitals and offers her a “sex change operation.” Which, is supposed to be comedic.

This isn’t to say that there are no sassy, flirtatious, clothing-obsessed, self-loathing, drug-addicted transgender sex workers, nor is there anything wrong with “stereotypical” trans people. It isn’t the job of the marginalized to dispel stereotypes. And if real trans people had created and portrayed Rayon, she could have been a realistic, dynamic, and compelling character.

And I say “created” because Rayon is strictly fictional. Outside of this film, she didn’t exist.

“Well, at least they tried to offer representation!” you protest. “What else was it supposed to be about? A straight dude in the AIDS epidemic?”

Well, no. Though the main character, Ron Woodroof, is presented to us as a violently homophobic, transphobic, womanizing asshole, the real Woodroof was, by all accounts, kind-hearted, open-minded, and bisexual.

What could have been a powerful story of a queer man defying his diagnosis, living joyfully and meaningfully, and helping to prolong the lives of countless AIDS-sufferers, was instead watered down to a story of a straight, pugnacious asshole and his stereotypical, long-suffering, transgender sidekick who dies to Teach Him Compassion.

How to avoid her:

Read books by trans people. Consume media they create or endorse.

List of youtube channels created by trans people here, and 21 books for trans awareness month here.

Put out a special call for transgender beta readers to point out mistakes, misconceptions, and offer tips on an authentic portrayal.

Garner insight into their perspective and experiences, and give them personalities outside of being trans.

3. The Piper Chapman (i.e. the unflavored oatmeal)

GIF source

Who she is:

The “protagonist” of Orange is the New Black, and its least compelling character. She and Larry are the sort of people who would ask me for a threesome on Tinder.

Why it sucks:

Piper’s hook is that she’s a privileged, affluent white woman who unjustly finds herself in prison for -- well, for crimes she committed. But expected to get away with, because, Privilege.

This isn’t to say Piper is boring. She’s far from likable, but being likable and being boring aren’t the same thing. In another series, watching a relatively cushioned, naive, bourgeoisie woman string along various significant others, thoughtlessly incite violence, and navigate an unfamiliar prison setting would make for thought-provoking and hilarious satire.

But when compared to her charismatic supporting cast, with richly developed backstories, motivations, and relationships, she’s painfully bland. I would much rather watch a series centered around Suzanne, Nikki, Taystee, Poussey, or even Pennsatucky. They’re just more developed, opulent, enjoyable characters.

It could be argued that Piper is the viewpoint character, whom the audience is supposed to relate to. But I can assert that I don’t relate to Piper. At all. Her lack of empathy towards others -- such as leaving Alex after the death of her mother, cheating on her fiance, and inadvertently starting a *ahem* white power gang -- alienated me to her.

Which might not be such a bad thing, but Piper is (supposedly) the protagonist. We don’t need to like her, but we should probably be able to relate to her.

Or maybe I’m just jealous that hot women aren’t inexplicably fighting over me.

How to avoid her:

Your protagonist doesn’t have to be the most likable character in your story. They don’t even necessarily have to be the most interesting character in your story. And certainly not the most morally good, powerful, or knowledgeable. But the viewpoint character is the character who we spend the most time with, and from whose eyes we perceive the story. It’s important that we understand and relate to them emotionally.

Look at examples like BoJack Horseman, Holden Caulfield, Tony Soprano, Beatrix from Kill Bill, Mavis from Young Adult, Nadia from Russian Doll. All are complex characters, with varying degrees of moral ambiguity. Yet we can empathize with them emotionally and identify with them. Even if we’ve never been in their situation, we see where they’re coming from.

4. The Charlie (i.e. the dead lesbian)

Who she is:

One of the few recurring openly queer characters in the incredibly long-running Supernatural. A lesbian who’s journey was (sort of) brought to an end when she was killed and dumped in a bathtub to incite drama.

Why it sucks:

I love Supernatural but it can be remarkably tone deaf towards queer people, women, and marginalized groups. Which, probably merits fixing, considering its following is largely comprised of queer people, women, and marginalized groups.

I probably shouldn’t have to explain why killing off women and queer people for drama is Bad, but I’ll delve into its history a little: from what I’ve read, censorship laws of the twentieth century forbade the portrayal of queer people unless they were ultimately killed or “reformed.” This is why so much LGBTQ+ fiction is essentially gay tragedy porn, and why gays are so frequently buried to aid in the emotional narrative of their straight counterparts.

That’s not to say queer people can never be killed off. I might not have an issue with Charlie’s death (especially in a show as violent as Supernatural), if she weren’t the only openly queer character at the time.

And there’s plenty of room for representation! If Dean was openly bisexual, if angels were vocally confirmed to be nonbinary, and if there were more recurring, respectfully portrayed female and sapphic characters, Charlie’s death might not feel like such as slap in the face. But as it is, it feels like a contribution to an ugly pattern.

In fairness, Supernatural has since improved in its portrayal of queer people: two gay male hunters were introduced and given a happy ending, an alternate universe version of Charlie was introduced to the cast, and God is portrayed as a bisexual man.

Yes. All of that happened. You have to see it to understand.

How to avoid her:

Educate yourself on the history of censorship in the LGBTQ+ community, as well as hate crimes and decreased life expectancy. Make sure you aren’t contributing to the suffering of queer people.

If you have only one confirmed queer character in the midst of a very large cast, I’m inclined to think you need more. You could say I’m BI-ased on the matter, though.

Look up “fridging,” and think about how many stories use the death of female characters to incite drama for men.

5. The Allison (i.e. the reformed feminine)

GIF source

Who she is:

She’s one of the most interesting members of the Breakfast Club, and that’s saying something. A self-proclaimed compulsive liar who will “do anything sexual” with or without the promise of a million dollars (as well as one of the most quotable characters in the film) she demonstrates the emotional pain and complexity that’s often ignored or shrugged off as teen angst.

And then she gets a makeover and a hot boyfriend, and suddenly everything’s better.

Why it sucks:

It would be one thing if Allison’s problem was that she didn’t feel pretty or desirable. But she never (to my recollection) offers any indication of that, and that’s part of what makes her such a refreshing portrayal of insecurity. She’s emotionally neglected by her parents, and that is appropriately treated as devastating.

It’s a complex and beautifully-portrayed problem that deserved far more than such a superficial, slapped-on solution.

Similarly, there’s no reason why Allison is paired up with the jock at the end of the film. Neither showed any romantic interest in one another until her unnecessary makeover.

A much better ending to her arc would be her finding acceptance among her newfound friends, and finally garner the recognition and acknowledgement she never got from her parents.

I was torn between using Allison for this example, or Sandy’s makeover from Grease. In both, girls are encouraged to alter their appearances to solve plot-related problems. And both were “fixed” to conform to some standard of femininity or feminine sexuality that they didn’t meet before.

How to avoid her:

If a character feels the need to change their appearance to accommodate others or be respected, that should probably be treated as a negative thing.

Your character’s appearance can be a good tool to represent emotional changes. If they alter their appearance, there should be a meaningful reason behind it -- outside of fitting into societal norms or garnering the approval of others.

A girl putting on makeup isn’t a groundbreaking plot point, and girls who don’t perform to standards of femininity aren’t broken or deficient. They don’t need “correcting.”

#writing #writing tips #writing advice #game of thrones #daenerys targaryen #jon snow #game of thrones spoilers #transphobia #orange is the new black #supernatural #fridging #homophobia #charlie bradbury #the breakfast club #grease #sexism

2K notes · View notes

electricprincess96 · 4 years

Note

"Edelgard hate really is the weird fandom lightning rod for lesbophobia misogyny and anticommunism (or maybe just like, anti-revolution sentiments period? Tho I mean red and gold lmao) and it sucks" Take I just saw over Edelgard being made a legendary hero and people being annoyed with it because this is her third variation with a fourth one on the way in like two or three months.

"Rhea hate really is a lightning rode for lesbianophobia, misogyny and anti-religious bigotry"

They don't like it when you point out their flaws by comparing Edelgard to Rhea like this.

A few things 1. Edelgard is bisexual, not a lesbian, folks need to stop erasing part of her sexuality like that, besides Byleth most of her female endings are platonic for fuck sake 🤦🏻‍♀️

2. Just cause you dislike a female character doesn't make you a misogynist, modern wave feminists and fandom feminists have absolutely ruined that word to the point it is basically meaningless now.

3. Being anti communism is a good thing.... Like Communism has a higher body count than Nazism for fuck sake. But also Edelgard is not a communist, her ideology doesn't match with that. Now any political ideology that results in total control being bestowed upon one person (ie. The Emperor) and involves hostile take over of neighboring countries (Leicester and Fearghus) and you know turning a blind eye to human experimentation (Slitherers) and involves the active attempt at wiping out an already minority race (Nabateans) because you think they secretly are behind every bad thing in the world even though they didn't have anything to do with your childhood trauma shit like that is a bad thing. Bad, BAD thing.

Also I really don't give a shit that Edelgard got a Legendary Variant, I'm annoyed because as you pointed out not everyone from 3H is even in the game and yet in a few months time (maybe even before 3H is 1 year old yet) we will have FOUR Edelgard's... At least they spread the Camilla's out a bit more. Like Dorothea isn't even in the game yet, no Ingrid, no Sylvain or Felix or Dedue or Rhea or Seteth or Flayn or Manuela etc. Male or Female Byleth doesn't even have an alt yet but Edelgard's already got 2 with a 3rd on its way. Sure she absolutely smoked it with the CYH banner, but did they not notice ALL of those other units in the Top 20 that aren't even in the game yet? Like I'm not gonna tell people not to be excited cause I enjoyed every Camilla they gave me, but I will grumble a bit about the fact they aren't even spreading out her alts, cause if they did that I wouldn't mind as much.

#princess answers asks #anon #edel discourse #lady baea

33 notes · View notes

thoughtfulpaperback · 4 years

Text

Charmed 2x12 Review SPOILERS!!!!!!

Okay let's do this. Sorry I skipped one but times are hectic. For entertainment I give it an 8/10. Same format. Dislikes, likes and highlights

Dislikes

1. Macy Kneeling to Abby.

Let's just get this one out the way. I can see where they might have been going with this.

They maybe are trying to move away from the ambiguous route with abby (trying to make her sympathetic with her whole patriarchy thing and her dead mom) I mean she is progressively becoming more predatory with Harry so with that in mind, this was possibly one of the "abby is really a bad person not a feminist as she is only out for her own gain and not the empowerment of all women". And I can get that maybe they were also trying to show "look Macy is willing to do the most degrading thing possible just for the chance at rebuilding that power of three/charmed bond with her sisters for the protection of the magical community".

But listen.....

We all know Abigael isnt a star feminist. We already know (although we dont exactly know) that she has some sort of plan up her sleeve to be weary of.

There has been too much attempted ambiguity and the main characters letting her get away with terrible things that the message isnt coming across.

Plus Maybe yes showing Macy being willing to do something that really probably hurt all of us (epecially those of us who are minorities) to watch, may have been to drive home the differences between her and Macy and play up Macy's love for her sisters

But like we know Macy and Abby arent similar (as much as you writers tried to play that up at first). And you know just adding more sister bonding moment and just the fact that Macy was willing to go to abby after all the previous stuff was enough to show she was desperate? Maybe just add more sister bonding moments so we can see how dedicated they are to each other?

Maybe? Just saying.

If the writers are finally going to commit to Abby being a full on villian then I guess the seen was worth cementing that she is horrible (sort of).

Here's my question though as I consider whether the scene was worth it. Who is this show for and what is it trying to show? I mean if it is for minorities and women then i can see how showing these historical and current issues (conflict of power and consideration among women where race is concerned) then I guess showing it and having that controversy makes sense. But like we live it.

As minorities we already know. I know I struggle between wanting my experience shown and also wanting to watch something where for once the minority characters arent subjected to that experience. Charmed did better at addressing controversy and women's issues in season 1. I dont care if it was "obvious" or "heavy handed" because when it is not you basically get the kneeling scene where you dont know what the point was, if it was necessary, and are left feeling hurt or bitter about it.

2. Hacy Kiss.

Listen Brenda/on, this is on my like and dislike list. I will mention what I dislike about it.

The first thing is that it was a fantasy. I mean yes I like that we get full on confirmation that Macy has romantic feelings for Harry and not just considering that she might have them, but I honestly hate the fact that they would tease us like that. Especially when Macy is at a low moment. Which I will get into.

They are kinda ruining Macy for me. Listen, at this point they havent given us enough insight into Macys feelings or thoughts to understand why she isnt pursuing Harry. We can speculate and infer based on previous seasons and some of what the writers or showrunners say on twitter, but this season itself hasnt done much in showing Macy's thought process and so it falls flat. It isnt her reluctance to let people in or not wanting to get involved with someone after Galvin since she does pursue Julian and gets serious relatively quickly. She, at least now we it is confirmed, has those feelings for Harry, but is still choosing to be with someone else inspite of those feelings. I hate that. Harry is obviously tempted by abby and is being naive with her, but he isnt pursuing her and has blocked her advances (except the kiss) so far which may change who knows, but the point is if Macy was just casually dating and enjoying Julian's company I would be like okay, still hate that she would lead someone on when she has feeling for someone else, but if its casual there is less of a chance of the other person being hurt.

I cant get behind Julian x Macy, not because of Julian (who so far is perfect and probably going to be a villian or some how connected to the villians because it is a common trope) but because of Macy. Julian x Macy isnt Healthy because Macy knows she has feelings for someone else. She is using him. That isnt to say she doesnt genuinely like or care about him, but at the end of the day she is using him. Which is crappy because Julian so far seems like a great guy and doesnt deserve being the "distraction". I mentioned this all the time but my least favorite love triangles are the ones where one person is using the other.

Healthy would be Macy and Julian being friends while she works through her feelings and then decides who she wants to be with. Not being with someone while having feelings for someone else.

Macy was shown in season 1 to be rational and could be rational to the point of compartmentalizing and coming off as cold. So maybe that is where they are drawing from, but again little effort has been made on the part of the writers to show what's going on in her brain other than that fantasy kiss. And again I am still like....okay so what does that mean in the long run you butts!!!

3. Helen's suicude

I am so iffy about how shows portray people completing suicide. Like on one hand I get that them showing her exercising free will, but suicide portrayed as a positive rather than a tragedy is just....ugh for me. I still am not sure how I feel overall about it.

Lore wise I hate that they use it to explain why Harry and jimmy couldnt kill each other, because in an interview rupert claimed Harry was immortal now because of the elder thing and the show said it in that first episode. So like are both true? So if harry tries to stab himself like Helen will he just end up back in the coffin and alive since she is immortal?

I mean we are 12 episodes in and have about 10 to go so we really should be working towards a cohesive lore and storyline not adding confusing or not well explained layers. The world building they did in the first half was a lot better which makes me wonder what they heck is going on in the writing room.

Likes

1. Parkerita

Let me explain. While I fancy Jordan x Maggie together. I'd prefer that be a slow burn and steady friendship first. Parker seems to be Maggie's first love. It makes sense that she is still grieving and holding on. While I kind of wanted to be done with Parkerita in fairness to all the season 1 romances that where tossed out, I like the nod to Phole. I felt the OG Phole relationship was not healthy, but I liked the tradgedy of it. I think if new Charmed wants to wrestle with that and do it better (although my faith in the writers is low right now) then I wouldnt be against it. I love a good tradgedy and I sat through Phole so I'll sit through this one.

2.Hacy kiss

I love that the writers finally did something to show us what is going on in Macys brain. I need more (not necessarily Harry fantasies but I wont complain if we get more of those). I do hope a real Hacy kiss is a bit different because one one hand the fact Macy wanted to kiss harry when she was feeling down says something to me about how she feels about him and that she still trusts him (but it could, If I wanted to be cynical, just be more evidence that Macy skews towards using people when she is repressing or feeling down although she didnt actually kiss him, if she had I think I would have not liked it in that particular moment given it would have felt more like using him that expressing feelings)

Highlights

1. Abby really thinks no means maybe 😒 . . .

2. Mel is a lesbian magnet and I'd be fine with her just casually dating while all this other crap is going on as long as she is happy

2. Helen

3. These horror movie vibes though!!

#the cw charmed #charmed reboot #charmed cw #charmed #charmed 2018 #charmed 2018 spoilers #charmed spoilers #hacy #macy x harry #harry x macy #harry greenwood #macy vaughn #mel vera #maggie vera

19 notes · View notes

blood-and-poetry · 3 years

Text

Only because I reblog something from a certain show or movie doesn't mean that I love it. This is mainly an aesthetic blog and kind of my "happy place". So I don't want to annoy everyone here with discourse. Sometimes a certain scene or a picture from a movie is touching to me even though the movie itself is garbage in my eyes. This is sadly and especially also true for some of the lesbian movies I reblog content from. For example, I heavily dislike "The Handmaiden" even though it looks stunning in many gif set compilations. I am also kinda critical of "Ammonite" even though aesthetically it's exactly my cup of tea. Wentworth went down the drain for me many times and I haven't seen some episodes because the writing regarding women is horrible sometimes but I'm obsessed with the characters and actresses.

It's no coincidence that the media I listed is written and directed by men. Most of the time I don't even know if something is written by a man beforehead but when I watch it I almost always instantly know that it is. I don't want to say that everything regarding lesbians written by men is bad (I enjoyed Bly Manor a lot!). But I just find myself getting more and more frustrated everytime a movie/show feels extremely off to me only for me to find out that it was because it was written by a man. And it happens so often. And sadly it is often times applauded by lesbian and bi women who then throw themselves in front of male directors and writers to defend them from those evil women who just state the obvious: these movies are written from a male point of view and it's only natural that many women feel put off by it. Or enjoy it but feel like it's just not... 100% right. It's okay to enjoy media that isn't perfect. We want representation and we want stories. We want stories that we like, with topics that we like, with actresses that we like, with motives and sceneries that we like. So if we find those things in a flawed piece of media that's written from the eyes of men it shouldn't be our first move to say "it's perfect and feminist and lesbian and you are not allowed to critize it!". The reaction should be to acknowledge that media written by men will never be peak feminism or peak lesbian representation. It just won't. And you don't need to make it that way to be allowed to enjoy it. And you don't need to shut down other women who felt uncomfortable because of it.

I think that my main issue with the internet and especially tumblr lies within the fact that media is either flawed to the core or perfect and can not be criticized. I know this has been pointed out to death. But it just makes me sad that many women are so starved when it comes to representation, that they will throw themselves in front of a piece of media and its male creator to defend both because they don't want to have this representation taken away from them. Don't worry, nobody is taking away anything from you. And your male director/writer will be fine.

I don't know exactly what this is or was supposed to be but if you take anything away from it then that these things have nuance and you can't really do wrong if you acknowledge flaws of something even if you love it. If a movie isn't very feminist or good lesbian representation it just isn't. You can still enjoy it. The media you consume doesn't have to be morally pure. And a knee jerk reaction of "this piece of media is perfect because I love it and it has to be perfect or else I would be a bad person for loving it!" everytime a woman tells you she is uncomfortable with it doesn't help anyone. If you hear other women criticizing a piece of lesbian/female centric media you love maybe just stop and listen for a moment. This won't hurt you and it won't take anything away from you. Especially if said media was written by a man.

(this isn't meant to be about anything or anyone specific. It's just a topic I stumble across quite often)

#mp

1 note · View note

lindaeastman · 6 years

Text

tagged by @thecryptkeeperssister ♥ thank you!!! sorry my answers are always boring

Gender: a young lass

Birthday: july 21st ‘94

Last movie seen: the last jedi

What do you post/reblog: carrie fisher, animals, my mom, vintage stuff?

Last thing you Googled: ?????

Favourite blog: mine cause i have great taste pffft

Dream job: gary’s fisher’s protector

Dream trip: northern france, hong kong, kyoto japan, arizona then off to see all my heroes graves in la (leave me alone)

What would be your first entry in a new diary: normally wouldn’t share but i started my first diary and it’s to carrie. just started it on monday.

Top 3 things you love about yourself: taste in music, taste in women, empathy

3 things you wish you knew how to do: speak mandarin, dance, get a good job

Something you wish you had discovered/invented first: ahhh cheesy but i wish i invented the keyboard or theremins

3 qualities you like in a person: good humoured, down to earth, kindness

3 qualities you dislike in a person: narcissism, overbearing, nosiness

Favourite planet: hmm... venus bc i’m that feminist lesbian bitch

A resolution you make every year: lose weight (its crap i know), be happy

Something you’re better at than most people: omg literally nothing

Something you’re worse at than most people: holding back tears

Favourite thing about tumblr: people (some) actually listen to what i have to say unlike real life lol

Least favourite thing about tumblr: there is so much to hate i truly can’t begin at 11:42 pm

Weapon of choice: razor sharp wit?

Something not many people know about you: one of my biggest things in life that makes me sad is that i will never be an aunt (i’m an only child) and i have wanted to be a cool and supportive aunt since i was like six

Favourite means of transport: i love trains and walking. but i’d love a streetcar ala meet me in st louis

Favourite story: any joni mitchell song

Chicken or egg: i’m a vegan

Something that always makes you laugh: carrie fisher

What is the strangest thing about you: oh hunny...

you get to switch places with someone for a day, who is it and why: a dead person so i can see if there is anything in the afterlife. or maybe hitler so i could pop a cap in my skull

tagging: @marymcmagic-hair / @dennyfreddielaine / @souralmondmilksea / @ladynoblesong / uhhhhhhh........... oh @carriefishr , its been a long time i hope you are doing well ♥ i keep in contact with like no one on here i’m sorry...

#i've only had half of a bottle of wine #but its magnum... and maybe i chugged a glass in under 13 second to beat my previous record

4 notes · View notes

violet--minds-blog · 7 years

Text

‘The Bold Type’ and Surface-Level Intersectionality

Piper Gibson | July 26, 2017

Long time, no write, I know. It’s hard, as a mentally ill person working and going to school and trying to stay politically aware in these trying times, to update this blog. But I’m back with another post, because I am annoyed.

I’ve caught up with The Bold Type, a new Freeform series which is about three friends who work at a women’s magazine and is currently airing its first season. As I’m writing this there’s four episodes, but each is packed with so much that rubs me the wrong way that I’ve been incessantly livetweeting on my (private) Twitter about it. I don’t even know where to start, so I suppose I’ll begin with a few things I like.

I like that it’s a women-driven show. I like that we get to see women in power and at the top of their game. I like that the side characters are kinda diverse. I like that it passes the Bechdel test in a major, major way. I like that they are at least trying to come from an intersectional feminist perspective. That’s actually why I’m really frustrated with this show, but I’ll talk about that more later.

Firstly. Jane, the kind-of main character (To me, she’s clearly the main protagonist, but it could be argued that her, Kat, and Sutton are all protagonists) is boring. I’m sorry. She just is the human embodiment of plain yogurt. I cannot bring myself to care about her budding career or mediocre hetero love life. I don’t care when she wins, and I don’t care when she loses. I guess to some, her story might be interesting, but I just... don’t... care. I feel basically the same about Sutton, but she’s a teense more likable because the glimpses of her backstory spark an interest in me. For Jane, I think the writers were going for a Gifted-Child-Who-Grew-Up-To-Need-To-Please-Authority-Figures vibe, which I can relate to, except I see basically nothing of myself in her. Maybe it’s the bland cishet girl thing, but she’s not doing it for me.

My main problem with this show is that they focus on Plain Jane (low-hanging fruit, I know, but I had to do it), who has the personality of a lightly-salted potato chip, way more than they focus on Kat, who is IMO the most interesting person on the show. For a series that’s at least kind of trying to be diverse, it’s frustrating to me that 2/3 of the main characters are white and cis and heterosexual, but anyway. They have two cis, heterosexual, white woman main characters and then a black woman main character who is questioning her sexuality. Who do you think a large portion of the viewership for a show that claims to be feminist is gonna gravitate towards? Not the pasty heteros, probably.

Kat is dynamic, and interesting, and good at her job, not to mention gorgeous as all hell. Yet they give her storylines like "Black Girl Who Grew Up Upper-Middle Class Has to Have Poverty Explained to Her by White Girl” and “Black Girl Living In Modern-Day America Somehow Doesn’t Understand Why A WOC Immigrant Might Not Want to Interact With Police” and “Black Girl Who Works at a Feminist Magazine Doesn’t Seem to Know About Bisexuality For Some Reason” and y’all. It’s honestly so tiring. I understand that Kat is the one with the majority of the interactions with Adena to set up the queer romance between them (which I love and appreciate) but this also means Kat is their point-girl to explain xenophobia and immigration issues to the audience.

I would like that they’re showing interracial ignorance issues, because people of color can be ignorant about and discriminatory towards other people of color, but I don’t think that’s what they set out to do. I think they wanted this to be a cool, hip, intersectional show, so they do a few kind of performative scenes where the Muslim lesbian woman on a work visa explains to another woman of color why she doesn’t take her hijab off or why she ran when the police showed up after a man assaulted her. At one point, Kat’s white boss actually explains to her that Adena ran from the cops because she could’ve gotten deported, which Kat hadn’t even considered somehow. What this actually does is tell the audience that Kat is ignorant on issues pertaining to women of color, and since Jane and Sutton literally never have race discussions beside one throw-away line about the Civil War from Jane, it feels like race is a topic secluded to only a few WOC characters. The women of color do all the literal and metaphorical emotional labor on this topic on the show, and the white women characters don’t have to deal with it. Which, I guess, is realistic to actual race relations between women, but I would like it to be acknowledged on-screen. For Kat to have to be the person with the brunt of the ignorance on xenophobia and queer issues while her white friends don’t have to deal with it is upsetting, to say the least. Because the show doesn’t address it, to me, it feels like them saying that white women are just so much better and more knowledgeable about these things than women of color, which is just... straight up wrong. I’d like at least one scene of Sutton and Jane not understanding something about race and Kat saying “Just Google it, I’m not gonna do the emotional labor for the both of you,” please, for the love of God.

This isn’t even all of my problems with the show. It revolves way too much around romance and sex for media that seems to say women’s lives don’t have to revolve around romance and sex, for one thing. Both Jane and Sutton’s love interests are white assholes. Sutton’s boyfriend works for the same company as her and as such, is in a position of power over her. At least the show acknowledges that if this were to get out, the high-up board member boyfriend would not be the one in trouble and probably fired. But he’s still touted as this super sweet guy who tries really hard, despite him talking down to Sutton about how young she is and how he “remembers feeling like” there was no time to accomplish things like he’s so much more worldly and intelligent than her. Ew. Dump him, sweetheart.

Jane’s love interest is the. Literal. Worst. His name is like, Tyler or Aaron or something douchey, and he’s my least favorite guy archetype. Tyler-Aaron works for the “rival” men’s magazine about sex and relationships, with stunning article titles like “How To Make Your Girlfriend Fuck Like a Porn Star.” I know. Obviously, White Feminist Jane hates him at first. But I am a smart person, so when I saw them get in a disagreement in which he condescendingly calls her article “cute” and she storms off, I said, “Oh no. They’re gonna fuck, aren’t they.” Because that’s what happens every time a man and a woman dislike each other in popular media. A woman thinks a man is sexist? Yeah, eventually she’s gonna see the error of her ways and they’re gonna have sex.

See, what bothers me about Tyler-Aaron is that they made him a Secret Male Feminist. He tells Jane, “You haven’t read my articles, have you?” after she calls them sexist, and everyone tells her that he’s a pretty good writer and not a bad guy. He told her there’s nothing he finds sexier than a woman speaking her mind, and he wrote one good article about how women feeling like they need to fake orgasms is the fault of men, so he really schooled her, huh? Jane stands there with her mouth agape as Secret Male Feminist struts away smirking, and then within a day or so she’s kissing him. Yawn. Puke. Etc, etc.

This storyline doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because he already was a dick. He already condescended her writing, said she was sexy when she called him out for legitimate reasons, and wrote shitty sexist articles. Him writing one good article or being nice to her now doesn’t change that. And making him teach her something about feminism or prove her ideas wrong is akin to gaslighting. Women are already told every single day that we’re imagining all this discrimination and violence, that sexism is basically over and we need to shut up, that Congress passed X thing or a movie had Y plot so we “won,” and it’s time to move on. We’re told this despite seeing and experiencing this violence on every level, starting with interpersonal and going up to governmental and global. Tyler-Aaron apparently being an okay guy instead of the sexist douche Jane once thought he was (and I still know he is) is basically the show saying, “Hey, crazy feminist, not all men are bad, and some can be feminist, so calm down, okay? Your gut-reaction of a man being sexist and condescending is a fake reaction and you’re just making things up and jumping to conclusions.” It’s gross. And I expect better.

That’s why I dislike the show. It’s clearly trying, at least a tiny little bit, to be feminist and intersectional. It could be a really great, diverse, ground-breaking show. Instead, it is still so limited, racist, and surface-level white feminist-y. Most of what it tries to do, it fails. And, okay, I recognize that it’s important that a show like this, with a large majority of female characters, even exists. But they’re doing a disservice to characters like Kat, a lot of characters are boring and one-dimensional, and they haven’t even mentioned issues like trans or disability rights. It’s just not great writing, folks. Personally, when a show claims to be feminist, I expect it to follow through.

#piper gibson #blog #text #essay #article #media

9 notes · View notes

olderthannetfic · 4 years

Photo

It’s International Fanworks Day and also the 30th and final post in this series. If you follow my tumblr, you know that my true fandom isn’t buddy cops or Highlander or any of those things. No, my true fandom is...

WANK

No matter which bitchy piece of fujo-course nonsense you’re looking at on tumblr, no matter which debate about WNGWJLEO or women in slash or fanfiction vs. media you're reblogging, your grandma was having that fight in a zine somewhere in 1985 and at Escapade in the 90s.

Here’s a vid review from 2002:

"History Repeating," [...] was an Amanda vid. In-fucking-credible. Who knew? Who knew I could like Amanda? Who knew there were fresh HL clips I hadn't seen a thousand times before in HL vids? (Of course, as someone pointed out, she had her own spin-off.) This rocked--sharp, fast cutting and pretty, pretty shots, with a hot bisexy vibe running through it. And, you know, people like to say that there's all this self-hating misogyny in fans--you know, that women hate shows about women, hate women characters breaking up the OTP, etc. But when you see a femme-centric vid like this bring down the house, you really have to wonder. Is it misogyny, really, or is just that we usually see a bunch of crap representations of women in media and resist them?

So on the theme of There Is Nothing New Under The Sun, here is a selection of past Escapade panels on gender, representation, and problematicness:

1993 - Anti-Feminism in Slash Fandom (Or, how 'it was never this good with a woman' syndrome... where are the women, and why do we care?)

1995 - Why Lesbians Read Slash - (What's the attraction? Why do they care? Why do they write it?)

1996 - Character Bisexuality: Convenient fiction or character trait? (Is this a good compromise between "We're not gay, we just love each other" and "I was gay all along and just faking it with women"? Or is this too easy? Special mention for the stereotypical bisexual villian who's evil, sexy, and can come on to everyone.)

1996 - Female Heroes: Female Empowerment, or male power in women's bodies? (Give a woman a gun and make her really tough. Wow, cool! yes, or no? Are we celebrating women, or are we merely putting breasts on male action heroes? Heroines under discussion may include (but not be limited to) Sara Connor, Ripley, Vasquez, Thelma & Louise.)

1997 - Gender Astigmatism (The Gender Continuum: in what we read, in what we write, and what we are, there is always a connection with a point on the gender continuum. How do our definitions of "feminine" and "masculine" influence our creativity? Where do bisexual characters fit in? (besides there, you dirty-minded person!)

1998 - Xena: Does Girl-Slash Get Us Going? (Xena is the first show with a feminine couple to be really popular. What kind of slash fans are interested? Does gender orientation matter? Or do slash fans love slashy couples regardless of their gender? Can m/m fans be 'converted' to f/f fans?)

1998 - Bastards & the Women Who Love Them (When Methos says, "you live to serve me," any normal '90s woman says, "I don't think so!... or does she? A happy contemplation on the virtues of handsome thugs.)

1998 - Slash: a Continuation of Women's Writing, led by Constance Penley (In case you didn't know, in her recent book NASA/TREK (yes, the slash is intentional), she addressed slash as a continuum of women's writing, combining women's romance, and the male quest romance. Join her for a discussion of slash -- where it was, where it is, where it might be going.)

1998 - The Trauma of Slash Fans in Het Fandoms (Or, what to do when find women doing all that cool, tough-guy stuff you love.)

1999 - Male Slash Fans - Welcome Voice, or Infringement? (Slash is written by women for women — or is it? The Internet has attracted new fans, including the "male slash fan". Who is he? What does he think of what "we" do? Do we care?)

2002 - Femslash (General discussion on female/female slash fiction. If Buffy wanted something cold and hard between her legs, why didn't she just choose silicon?)

2003 - Slash: Feminist political act or really good porn?

2005 - Where have all the lesbians gone? (When some slash lists explicitly state m/m only, where do you go for femslash? Are there any hot femslash couples? Pimp your femslash fandom here, or bemoan the lack of strung female characters in the current conservative social climate.)

2007 - Femslash: The Other Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name (Femslash. It's a work that makes some of our hearts leap for joy and inspires complete and total disinterset—or even dislike and disdain—in others. Where can we find the good stuff? What makes it good? And what's up with the haters?)

2007 - SGA: The Women of Atlantis (What do we like about how the women of SGA are written and portrayed, and what makes us wince? What do we think about how their issues are being woven into the show's narrative?)

2008 - Gay is Not Slash (...even though slash is sometimes gay. The current argument about m/m romances by women as taking recognition *away* from male gay writers, depends on m/m writing being intended as gay lit. And slash, for one, isn't, even if there can be overlap. What overlaps? What doesn't? What examples do fans like?

2009 - Female Character Stories: Halfamoon, Full Moon or Just Moony (F/f slash, and other stories centered on female characters, are gaining visibility in fandom. Are there things fens will write about women that we won't about men? (Given MPreg, *are* there?) Should f/f be like m/m, or is it unavoidably different?)

2011 - My ***** is Not Ideologically Driven, But is it Homophobic (Slash fandom often sees itself as a mostly liberal community. IDIC, right? But recently there's been a slash backlash: it's anti-feminist, a 'symptom' of internalized misogyny. We're 'erasing' the women characters after all. Is slash homophobic? Does slash fandom appropriate gay culture? Is it awesome and ennobling as it makes us happy in our panties, or is all that self-hatred bubbling just beneath the surface of our porn?)

2012 - Natural Woman (We've lamented the lack of strong, believable female characters (who dress appropriately). But now we have them: Gemma Teller and Audrey Parker; Salt and Haywire; we've got Bechdel-passing women who look like they can throw a punch. Still, most of them are in the sci-fi or action genre, so are we really seeing progress? And what are we doing with them, as fans?)

2012 - Don't Call It a Bromance (It's Just Canon) (TPTB are increasingly aware of slash, and bromance is regular fare on TV canon these days. Does overt bromance make the fic and art hotter or just vanilla? Is there an anti-slash backlash in our shows? Is the emphasis on men's relationships making women disappear? Inquiring minds want to know. If you have answers, theories, or just want to squee, join in the fun!)

2014 - (The End of?) Ladybashing in Slashfic (Slashfic used to regularly feature bashing of female characters. Now, blatant bashing seems less fashionable. If you recognize this trend, let's talk! Were most ladybashing fics ones for juggernaut pairings in megafandoms, or were they everywhere? What's causing the change: more women in leading roles/ensemble casts, fic writers being more conscious to avoid bashing ladies even if they're not their favorites, more willingness to blame show writers' bad writing (instead of the character being just bad/evil/stupid) for bad female characters, or something else entirely?)

2015 - Fifty Shades of Fandom (Fifty Shades of Grey has become the representation of fan fiction in mainstream culture. It’s bad fan fiction, and it’s being used to ridicule women while making millions off women readers and viewers. Can we connect with these women: proto-fans who would love to read, and maybe write, great fan fiction if they found it? Can we use the FSoG phenomenon to expand our community? Does keeping our doors closed and our mouths shut perpetuate both monetization of our fan culture and misogynist scorn?)

2016 - Who Are We? (How do we define ourselves in this age of so many OT3s and team orgy pairings? Does m/m/f count as "slash"? Is slash-only space slipping away? (And would that be bad?) Do m/m and f/f belong together more than they do with m/f? Is "Media Fandom" a valid term any longer? Who are we if we start shipping het?)

2016 - Ladies Loving Ladies. (There would seem to be enough queer women in fandom to write/want more f/f. Do lesbians write f/f, m/m? Both? Do straight women? Or are we still missing the iconic female characters and relationships that create a great slash fandom? Did they figure out the answer to this question at TGIF/F and if so, what is it?)

2016 - By Us For Us (Fic, even kinky slash, is practically mainstream these days. The ebook revolution puts publishing within reach of almost anyone. Sundance hits have been filmed on iPhones. So why aren't fangirls making more media? Or is it happening right under our noses? Is this a place where our women's gift economy does our community a disservice? Discuss what's out there, what we'd like to see, and what's holding us back.)

2017 - LGBTQIA+ in Slash Fandom (Queer fans have always been here. In a subculture often defined as "for" straight women, what do we as fans have to say about non-straight, non-cis, and non-conventional sexuality and gender in fanfiction, in fandom, and in the larger culture?)

2018 - Confronting the Tensions Between Slash and Queer Representation (Slash fandom thrives on homoerotic subtext. Many queer fans are unwilling to settle for this quasi-representation. Part of every slash fandom seems loudly invested in their ship becoming canon. Some are queer fans who want actual textual representation in their favorite shows, and some are fans using queer politics to fight ship wars. Then the “slash is not activism” posts make the rounds. Is slash activism? Is advocating for slash ships in canon the same thing as advocating for queer representation?)

2018 - Representing Slashers (What does "representation" in the media mean to us? We know what more gay or POC representation means, but what about slash fandom, which is largely female and focused on bodies that don't resemble our own? Would better female characters in media better represent us? Or male characters written for a female audience? Come talk about the intersection of slash, personal identity, and media representation.)

2018 - Anonymity in Slash Fandom: Choosing to Hide (Why do the majority of slash fans hide their hobby? Is it fear of blackmail? Embarrassment? Fear of losing employment? How does this affect your happiness? How does this affect your security? What would an ideal world look like? Who would/have you told about your interest in slash? Who would you never, ever, tell?)

2019 - Fandom Post-Slash? (In an era of "ships" and #pairing #tags on Tumblr and AO3, has the "slash" label lost its meaning? Same-gender pairings are as popular as ever and fans still ID pairings with a virgule between the names, but how many fans still call m/m and f/f slash or femslash? How many fans identify as "slashers?" Het and slash were opposing binaries which few fans crossed. Are these barriers breaking down? What purpose has the term "slash" served? Has fandom moved

past it and, if so, what does that mean?)

#escapade 2020 #escapade con #fandom meta #fandom history

29 notes · View notes

vallern · 7 years

Note

For the salty ask give me everything that doesn't have the XXX on it pls

omg do you want to kill me or something

but sure anything for those titties

this is gonna be a long post bc i don’t have xkit (shitty notebook can barely runs)

1. What OTPs in your fandom(s) do you just not get?*

i have a lot of fandoms but i guess i’ll use supergirl since it’s my most active fandom (if you can say that… it’s not like i even enjoy the show, i’m still here thanks to the lovely eyebrows mcgoth) besides i like most of the pairings in my other fandoms. Let’s see… sanvers and karamel. I don’t have to go to length with karamel bc a lot of people already explained it, but as for sanvers? i don’t want to rant here but tl;dr version: maggie destroyed alex’s character. as someone who watched from s1 and not a part of Great Lesbian Migration™ alex is reduced to A Gay in this season. tell me a storyline where she’s not with maggie lmao. besides, it’s a badly written ship. sorry i refused to believe someone in her near 30s who had a life-changing realization wasn’t really shook™ over being a lesbian. it was too fast. i’d believe it more if they spend this season building it up, not three episodes.

2. Are there any popular fandom OTPs you only BroTP?*

tbh? sanvers. they’re good at being partners, they’re like characters out of buddy cop movies. karamel, and with 2A manhell because i have to admit he’s like that dorky cousin who came from ass end of nowhere and embarrassing the shit out of kara. after 2B? get that thing away from me

3. Have you ever unfollowed someone over a fandom opinion?

boi, have i ever. yeah. i’m a petty hoe

4. Do you have a NoTP in your fandom? Are they a popular OTP?*

yes, and yes. see number 5

5. Has fandom ever ruined a pairing for you?*

lmaoooooooooo yeah. in fact, fandoms ruins almost everything. i didn’t hate sanvers all that much before their fandom started to act all superior for being canon. like… chill. it’s for appeasing y'all over the great clexa incident in 2016 anyway. i used to be neutral about supercat, but some of their people grated on my nerves and they always touting about it so… welp

6. Has fandom ever made you enjoy a pairing you previously hated?*

i don’t think so, no

7. Is there anything you used to like but can’t stand now?*

i can’t think of any

8. Have you received anon hate? What about?*

idk if it’s count but i received a flame in my fic. they accused me of agreeing with muslim registry bc i said i agreed with lena about her alien detecting device. i laughed for 10 min straight bc 1. i’m a muslim… well, born muslim. i’m not practicing 2. i’m not american 3. kara agreed with lena lmao

4. Most disliked character(s)? Why?

maggie. she destroyed alex’s character, is irrelevant to the plot 90% of the time, you can replace her with a lamp and it’ll be the same. it’s not even bc of who flor is (although it kinda plays a role why i dislike maggie) but bc her character is so two-dimensional. even if dichen played her (which would be awesome bc i love her) maggie would still be two-dimensional and i’d still won’t like her.

also manhell for single-handedly turning a feminist show into a fratboy male fantasy show, with a lot of reasons a lot of people already covered.

10. Most disliked arc? Why?

the entire season 2 of supergirl. barring lena, lillian, and rhea, what’s the good thing about s2? i guess you can count m'gann, but tbh i didn’t pay attention to her. but i know she’s yet another wasted opportunity

11. Is there an unpopular character you like that the fandom doesn’t? Why?

uh… i like rhea. idk if she’s unpopular tho? i also like lillian. i wish the writers explores them more, especially lillian

12. Is there an unpopular arc that you like that the fandom doesn’t? Why?

nah i don’t think so

14. Unpopular opinion about your fandom?

i don’t really have any. it’s full of drama, but what fandom doesn’t?

15. Unpopular opinion about the manga/show?

hm well this applies to all shows. don’t drag it for too long, like idk svu or supernatural. as much as i love my shows, seasonal rot is a thing and the more seasons you have, the suckier it’ll be. for me, shows reaches its peak around season 3-5 and after that? hard to say. be like orphan black, who ended it up early by their own initative so it won’t be dragging too long

16. If you could change anything in the show, what would you change?

oh boi. a lot. let me see- astra lives- lucy stays- no manhell. let krypto come instead.- no maggie. or, if they really have to make a love interest for alex and it has to be maggie, develop her so she’ll be a rounded character- change flor to diane guerrero, probably- canon supercorp. but that means they’ll cut everything about it in less tolerant countries, like mine. hm, dilemma. fuck it, canon supercorp

Does not shipping something ‘popular’ mean you’re in denial and/or biased?

not really. tbh i don’t like most canon ships except maybe jake/amy from b99 and the hendrixes from orphan black, but it’s bc i think most canon ships are lacking something. idk what.

What is the one thing you hate most about your fandom?

the fics are mostly tagged with That Ship above as a side pairing so i can’t read it

What is the purest ship in the fandom?

supercorp, maybe?

What are your thoughts on crack ships?

depends on how well-written it is. for example, @foxx-queen wrote good crack ship like majorly judging you (alura/lucy). she wrote it so well i forgot that they never even met and i enjoyed their dynamics

22. Popular character you hate?

maggie

23. Unpopular character you love?

i won’t say i love rhea and lillian but i like them

26. Most shippable character?

the danvers sisters

27. Least shippable character?

maggie and manhell

1 note · View note