#that is my new fave term for a vagina | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

manogirl · 4 months

Text

My Year in Reading, 2023

For the first time since 2012, I didn't do a GR reading challenge. In every year between 2012 and 2021, I read over 150 books. Some years it was closer to 150, some years closer to 200. In 2022, I read 83 books. In 2023, 79 books.

See, in 2022, my world broke. My brain broke. The big bad burnout turned my brain inside-out and upside-down and I lost reading. In that same long first half of 2022, I realized I had to leave librarianship. Not just my job, but my fucking career. See, I was a fiction librarian. I had this ultra-rare position that was my dream job, and reading was a part of my job. When people tell you not to make the thing you love your job, I know. I know what they're saying.

I spent the second half of 2022 living in a state of nearly constant joy. And I wasn't reading for a lot of it. If you asked me three years ago, I couldn't possibly have foreseen this turn of events. And for some of 2022, I was stressed about how much I WASN'T reading. I am trying to figure out how to express this, because it didn't feel BAD to not be reading. It felt right and it felt like I didn't want to be reading. But it also felt wrong because reading was a huge part of my life, and then....it wasn't.

I decided 2023 had to be different, in terms of how I related to reading, so I jettisoned the reading challenge and just let myself...be. Here's what I found out:

I read a lot of BL manga. I'm not a huge graphic novel OR manga fan, so this was a new and unexpected joy. This probably isn't surprising to you if you know me on tumblr through BL, but it was surprising to me. I figured I would dip into queer romance novels, but nope, it was the manga that I loved.

Danmei isn't for me. No idea why, because it seems like it'd be just my cup of tea, but it isn't. I like it, I just don't LOVE it, and right now I want to love the books I'm reading, especially if it's fiction because...

I read SO MUCH NONFICTION IN 2023. It's what my brain asked for, so that's what I fed it. It also probably contributed to my lower numbers; dense nonfiction takes a LOT longer to read than fiction/manga. I think...I'm a person who feels passionate about learning; I love it so so so much. And when my consumption habits switched to mainly frothy TV shows about men falling in love with each other, my brain was like, uh, you better feed us some facts, lady. So I did.

I...like?...memoirs? In my book club, I'm the person who hates memoirs. Memoirs that everyone loved I scoffed at. Memoirs, yuck. Except...apparently no. Apparently I like a memoir now. I guess this is maybe an offshoot of the nonfic bias but nonetheless, my brain continues to shock me and the people who know me best.

Anyway, here is a short, lightly annotated (not in order at all) list of my fave reads this year:

Tom Lake by Ann Patchett. Fuck yeah she doesn't miss.

Doppelganger by Naomi Klein. Oh this is the real shit, and she also doesn't miss.

Carrie Soto is Back by Taylor Jenkins Reid. Okay, a fiction book that I devoured. Sports + love + grief = a meditation on life.

Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma by Claire Dederer. I sometimes go back and read my highlights from this, because it was so fucking powerful and spoke to me so powerfully.

You Could Make This Place Beautiful by Maggie Smith. I loved this in a way I don't think I can explain. Simply stunning in all the right ways.

Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin. Video games + love + grief = a meditation on life. Fucking amazing.

Stay True by Hua Hsu. Oh jesus fuck this is sad but it is so so so so good.

Bookshops & Bonedust by Travis Baldree. Cozy fantasy that isn't romance is something I need more of in my life. Yes to orcs opening bookstores and coffee shops and very little fighting.

Witch Hat Atelier, all existing volumes, by Kamome Shirohama. I've been sharing these with my 8 year-old niece and it's just the nicest little happy thing.

Vagina Obscura by Rachel Gross. Yes, please explain my fucked up innards to me. Endometriosis ftw!

Fat Talk by Virginia Sole-Smith. Real, solid advice and real, solid evidence, and real, solid writing. Two thumbs up.

Maybe someday I'll do a post about how I've been tracking my reading since November 11, 2004. I guess we're hitting the 20th anniversary this coming year, after all.

I guess I do know one thing: I'm never NOT going to read at times. I still do love it, even if my needs and wants around it have changed. Happy New Year, all!

#a year in reading #fave books 2023 #former fiction librarian #best reads 2023 #best books 2023

4 notes · View notes

gingerswagfreckles · 3 years

Note

Queer is my fave word, thanks for posting about that book, I'm gonna try to get a copy! It's just awesome to have an umbrella term for not feeling cis-hetero but not entirely certain where you fit under the umbrella yet.

Ahh yes!! You mean Gay New York by George Chauncey? That book is THE book on queer history in the US (it's really not just about NYC, but it is focused there). Not only is it the most meticulously well researched book I have EVER read, it is just. So brilliant in how it analyses the construction of and intersection of gender, sexuality, biological sex, class, race, and society. Like I read it for a class in freshman year of college and trust me I was already EXTREMELY liberal and well versed in queer discourse. Yet it completely I mean COMPLETELY changed my understanding of not only sex and gender but just like. What identity is, how much of what we see as static and natural are actually very contextual social constructs. And it really showed in a very concrete and reality based way how every identity exists and is defined through the context of its environment, and that while our experiences are very inherently real, the lines we draw around these experiences to define them are not. Like. The existence of a queer identity the way we generally think of it now did NOT exist in the same way throughout history. The intersection of so many facets of life have been interpreted so completely differently throughout history and in different places and social contexts. The queer community has never been some static and well defined club that one is or is not a member of. It is and always has been a nebulous and highly changeable social network of people with common experiences and interests who have defined their own communities in wildly different ways depending on where you look. Trying to strictly define who does or does not belong in or who has or hasn't existed in the queer community throughout history is completely pointless, because in reality we are talking about an absolutely enormous group of people who have been variously connected to and socially isolated from others, who have seen their own identities and their own communities in completely different ways.

It really highlighted for me how pointless 99% of the discourse on this website is, and how much almost all of it boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what identity is. NONE of the identities we think of as inherently real are inherently real, and arguing about who should be included in a community or who's identities are "valid" just shows that you think the framework through which you understand sex and gender is universal rather than cultural, contextual, and highly individual. Like, identities overlap! Identities step on each others toes!!! Words and labels change, and people do not universally agree on what they mean at any point in time!!! You would not believe how many people who you would think of as being part of the queer community didn't think of themselves as part of the queer community, and you would not believe how many people who you do NOT think of as part of the queer community DID see themselves as part of it, and were accepted!!

Like, for example, the interpretation of what it even meant to be "homosexual" was SO different depending on what period on time you look at, what location, what social and financial class these people were part of, what racial identity they saw themselves as (and that's a whole 'nother can of worms!) Sexuality was often seen as MUCH more connected to gender performance and sexual roles one took than it is today, and a lot, I mean a LOT of men who always topped did not see themselves as homosexual/gay/part of the queer community at all, especially in working class communities. And!! Guess what!! This is the part that will really blow your mind!!!

T H E Y W E R E N ' T W R O N G!!!!!!!!!!!

They were not WRONG about how they defined their identities or how they saw themselves in relation to a certain social community!! Because they were using their OWN social and sexual framework to interpret their identities and their actions!!! And saying they were WRONG in their interpretation fundamentally misunderstands that the criteria YOU use to measure whether someone is part of an identity or social group is not any more correct or real than the criteria THEY used! Saying these people were "wrong" is to impose one's own modern and highly contextual social framework on people from the past-- and TBH it's fine to see people from the past through modern lenses, and to recognize that they would be seen as gay/a certain identity by modern standards. That's fine! But the way they saw themselves then wasn't wrong, it was just different, and your criteria for what you see as gay or straight or part of a community is just as arbitrary and based on the context of your environment as theirs was.

People like to argue with this all the time, saying things like that these individuals were just suffering from internalized homophobia, gender bias, ignorance of what this or that identity "really" means, and these people are really really really misunderstanding the point. These are usually the same people who say things like "words mean things!!" when points like the one I'm making are brought up, because they continue to misunderstand how much these words yes, mean things, but mean things within historical and cultural contexts that are NOT shared by the entire world. Like, ok, you may say our example man from the 1910s is gay whether he recognized that or not, because he engaged in homosexual acts. But what does it mean to have homosexual sex? To have sex with someone of the same biological sex? Well what is biological sex, and how do we define what makes ones biological sex the "same" or "different" from your own? Is it someone with the same type of genitals as you? That's not a universally shared opinion, and the way you define the "types" of genitals are not universally shared either. What if I told you that there have been cultures throughout history who have categorized biological sex through the length of the penis, with people with shorter penises being seen as a separate sex than those who have longer penises? So two people with penises could have sex with each other and not be understood as having sex with someone of the same sex, in that culture!

Oh, that's not what you meant? That's wrong? Why? Why? Because your personal understanding and your culture's general perception of what biological sex is is more valid and real than that culture's? Why? WHY? Could you really explain why, or is it just that the difference is making you uncomfortable, because it threatens your perception of a LOT of the ideas you see as inherently real?

And we could do the same thing with the ACT of sex! I mean, what is sex? What physical acts are sexual, and what aren't? Is it just someone putting a body part inside of another person's body in some way? Well what about handjobs and other kinds of outercourse? Is sex then some physical thing we do in pursuit of an orgasm? What if you don't orgasm? Is it not sex then? Is sex the use of our bodies to derive general physical pleasure? Well what about a massage? Is a massage sex? In some times and places, many people would have said yes!

These aren't just theoretical questions- Chauncey outlines how these differing definitions of what sex is and what makes it queer not only allowed for a lot of people we would unquestioningly think of as part of the queer community to exclude themselves, but also resulted in the inclusion of people we would never consider to be queer now. Like, most female prostitutes who served only male cliental absolutely hands down refused to give blow jobs in the early 1900s, because blowjobs were seen as an extremely deviant expression of sexuality and were understood to be part of "homosexual" activity, regardless of the sex or genders of the people involved, because it was sexual activity that explicitly was not seeking to create a baby. This was a widely understood concept at the time, and persisted despite the fact that many of these women were using contraception and therefore obviously not seeking to get pregnant. Blowjobs were still seen as perverse and "homosexual," and thus not something most regular female prostitutes were willing to engage in.

Therefore! Female prostitutes who only ever had sex with male cliental but DID provide oral sex (and many other not-penis-in-vagina-activities) were often lumped in with lesbians!!! And treated as such in arrest records and propaganda! And guess what?? As a result, guess who these women usually hung around with, and where they usually could be found? Within the queer community and queer spaces!! These women were seen by the broader society as well as by much of the queer community as QUEER, and many of them likely understood themselves this way as well!

And for the record, these questions of what sex is and what gender is and what makes it gay or straight or whatever are not questions that belong strictly to the past. Survey the general population about what act they consider to have been the one where they "lost their virginity," and you will get wildly different answers. Survey self identified gay or straight people on what kind of sex acts they engage with and with who, and you will similarly find an enormous variation in reports.

And these questions MATTER! These questions matter, not in that we have to find some way to answer them, but in order to understand that we can't, definitively, and that thinking our own perceptions of any of these things are more valid than others' perceptions is incredibly harmful and dismissive to the lived experiences of other people. You can't define other people's identities out of existence just because they threaten or overlap or contradict with your own understanding of some concept, because your definitions of literally any of the criteria you are using to try to build your boxes are ALSO up for interpretation!

Like, I'm sorry I know I am rambling soooo much but you opened the same floodgates that this book opened back when I read it. If the people on this stupid website had any understanding of the history they claim to know so much about, they would see how their attitudes of "this identity is more valid than that identity" and "you can't sit with us because you're not actually part of this or that identity because my definition is better than your definition" is nothing new or woke or progressive, but is the exact same shit that has always been done and has been used to marginalize people who's existence or behaviors threaten the status quo. Like yelling at asexual or pansexual or nonbinary or aromantic people or whatever other group that they don't belong, or that their identity isn't real because it threatens the perceived integrity of another identity...it's all so stupid!! Your identity is also just a way for you to define yourself within your cultural context! Like I've literally seen people be like "asexality isn't a real identity bc if we didn't live in a society that was so sex obsessed then you wouldn't feel the need to define yourself this way." And it's like....what?? Yeah, ok??? But we do live in this society???????? And you can say that about LITERALLY ANY identity??! Not even ones related to sex and gender! Like "you aren't really deaf and deafness isn't real, because if we lived in a world without sound then you wouldn't notice you couldn't hear." Like yeah?? But we do live in a world with sound?? So...people find this term useful to articulate their experiences? And they might even dare to form an identity around it, and maybe a community, and might even become proud of it, even though it is a social construct, just like pretty much everything else??

It just drives me nuts. We go around and around in circles without ever understanding that so much of the bigotry we face is the same thing we are perpetuating with each other, because we don't understand that it is natural and normal for people's definitions of certain identities to conflict, and for their interpretations of the world to run up against each other sometimes. And that there is no strictly defined queer community, and who does or doesn't "belong" is not a decision that any one person or even any one culture gets to make, ever.

To try to finally actually wrap back around to what your actual comment was to begin with, I think queer is a wonderful word, and that GENERALLY SPEAKING in our current cultural context, it is used to encapsulate so much of the messiness and overlap that makes people so uncomfortable, but is what makes the queer community so great!!!!! That being said, it of course has had different definitions in different time periods and cultural contexts just like everything else, and some people may still have negative connotations associated with it and therefore not feel comfortable using it to self-identify. And that's fine too, as long as you don't try to force other people to stop using the term to describe their own identities on the basis that your definition is more real than theirs, which is the opposite of what queer history is all about.

If anyone is interested in the book I am talking about, you can buy it as an ebook, audiobook, or paper copy here: https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/george-chauncey/gay-new-york/9780786723355/

It goes into way way way more depth about everything I'm rambling about here, and backs it up with the most research and evidence I've ever seen in one single book. The physical copy is about as thick as two bricks stacked on top of each other, so if you can't get an exclusionist to read it, you can always just whack them over the head.

100 notes · View notes

silver-kitsuneneko · 4 years

Note

Alrighty! I'm going all out on this one soo be prepared for a long haul since my curiosity MUST be quenched: 1, 3, 4-6, 11, aaand 13-16 for the writing ask thing, please

OOOH! Awesome!!! Okay! [rolls up sleeves!] Here we go!

1. What's something you've written that you know is OOC and you just don't care? Omg…I thought my dark secret would never be heard. Me and Incubirb wrote a fanfic together in high school called Dealing with Chibis. It’s a YGO fanfic. We had fun and it’s still posted on FF.net but the yamis are OOC. VERY OOC. Do we care? Nah, it was something we wrote when we were younger and it’s a reminder of the good ol’ days and annnnnnnnd how we improved n,n Yes it’s cringe but it’s OUR cringe damn it!

2. Something you hate to see in smut. No build up! Okay, I’m all for PWP because sometimes you just want to read smut without having to read a story behind it but please at least give the audience some foreplay. Also and I used to do this, don’t say womanhood an manhood, just say cock, clit, vagina, and things like that. Because well…sex is an experience, or I’ve been told, but it’s also dirty and passionate so using the terms can make it a little better or I can just be a huge perv. I’m probably the latter. Finally, weird ass things that would be near impossible during sex. Shampoo is NOT lube, ripping out a woman’s tampon and flinging it behind you is not sexy, sex in the shower/ on the beach/ is not romantic and I’m assuming harder than it looks. Or something that is outright gross that is supposed to be romantic >< I’ve read of questionable shit and I just had to pretend I never read it. Just…but logical about it, please!

3. Something you love to see in smut. I personally like non con…hear me out. It’s a fantasy, it’s a good plot device, and it’s just so dark. I also like a weird powerplay and pet play because…well no one needs to know that ^^: (stay tuned One Piece fans). I also like good chemistry with the characters, like the more experience boy or girl with another girl and descriptions. Like don’t just say “and they totally did it!” yeah no, describe the act and the senses.

4. Something you hate to see in dialogue. Using net speak in writing. Not making a conversation believable and writing an “accent” in someone’s speech. Once again, I was guilty of this years ago, minus the net speak. The writing accent thing can be good in some cases but horrible overall. Like in HP, JK Rowling writing the way Hagrid talked. I’ll admit, it did kind of get you into the mood that Hagrid had an accent but when she did it with the French accent and Bulgarian one, it just became really…distracting. Have your readers imagine it instead of having to read/listen to an accent. Just say that they had a strong accent or if they do speak in broken English in order to emphasize a plot, by all means! Once again one of my fave authors did this well. In one of her stories, the characters were aliens who spoke Russian, this woman had RUSSIAN in the book so the reader was just as clueless as the characters in the story. Same story and one of the characters had a thick Polish accent made it difficult for him to make friends, so she emphasized it when him and is stepbrother switched bodies and he realized that one of the things his new brother had to face.

5. What "don't ever do this" writing rule are you guilty of constantly breaking? I know I break a lot! Hell, there’s run on sentences and things like that everywhere XD But apparently the ,” that a dear sweet nitpicker brought to my attention. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not like “OMG HOW DARE SHE!” it’s more of, she was just doing it to be an ass? Like really trying to find something wrong with a story? Anyway, that. I don’t know why I do it. I think it’s a habit that I have to break but I didn’t know it was a habit? Like some writing rules says its okay. Some say it’s bad, some people don’t even notice it. But that’s just how I’ve always write. No one else seems to care so I just kept doing it.

6. What do you need to work on most? Rereading my work! I don’t get offended when my readers point things out! Like I welcome it because sometimes I’m concentrating on writing that I don’t see the mistakes or rapid typing that I forget to go back. Like I write in layers. I write the beginning, scenes in the middle, the end, refill things, connect things, and polish things before posting but even I overlook things. I don’t have a proofreader so I’m grateful for the extra pairs of eyes XD Seriously I don’t get offended in the least!

7. What aspect of writing have you had the most growth in? Character development! Seriously! It takes time and a lot of work to write a good character! My first real fanfic characters were OCs and one dimensional at most. Then again it was middle school and high school and emotions were high, things weren’t the best but still, they were my characters. They stuck with me in college and it gave me more than enough time to revamp them into proper characters. Also during that time I was working on a coping mechanism writing/story and learned how to really flesh out a character and giving them a back story on how they came to be instead of “this character was just born AWESOME!”

8. We all project onto our characters. Where has your personality or life choices leaked onto the page the most? Well, with me and not so much in my One Piece fanfics but Hetalia, my issues with my family, especially my mother/ grandmother. Because of my family situation, I never really had a safe place to express myself freely and when I did it was always taken away. I was around a lot of adults who were affected by my grandmother’s own issues which resulted in immature adults with issues of their own where I had to always be the “adult” or the “bigger person” one to someone who was twice as old as I was when I was a preteen/teenager and they were full grown ass adults. Which sucked since being a mature kid really gives more problems and doing things just to please a family who wouldn’t care less but I did have a Dad who really took the time to really understand me which was nice. So a lot of my Reader-chans have either unavailable parents, awesome parents, or raised by people who aren’t parents but the best parents they could ever have because in my opinion, sometimes the best people who actually care isn’t your family and if these people accept you, treat you with respect and genuinely care about your well being then they are your family.

9. What's the most ridiculous thing you've done to put off actually writing? Hmmmm Well I’ve always found time to write but usually now with the pandemic, it’s mainly “I have to clean!” which is partly true but malaise DX Well For one fandom at least. Not to mention I’m adding in a lot of filler so I can send a ton of sad fanfics without feel guilty XD

2 notes · View notes

vecna · 4 years

Note

For fandom meme-swtor?

Send me a fandom!

This one isn’t as spicy as the Dragon Age one, but I still got Wordy.

Also there’s lots of KOTFE/KOTET/etc spoilers in here, so don’t read if you don’t want to see em. (Looking at you, Chignon.)

The character(s) I first fell in love with:

My own OCs haha.

But more seriously: It was actually Darth Malgus! I was always going to play a Star Wars MMO, let’s be real. But when they started posting promo videos and cinematics for the game, my Sith-loving ass immediately gravitated to that guy haha. And then, it turned out he had the same VA as The Architect from Dragon Age, and that was it for me.

If we’re talking about companions, then it was probably Malavai Quinn. Sith Warrior was the first class I got to 50, and Quinn was the first companion that I really got overly attached to haha.

The character(s) I never expected to love as much as I do now:

Most (not all, but most) of the “new” companions that came in with KOTFE and beyond. I was initially really sour when I realized we were losing all our class storyline companions, and they were being replaced with a new crew of Lana, Theron, Koth, my mother-in-law Senya, etc. Especially when they – at the time – said we’d eventually get our class companions back, but it would be a while. So I started KOTFE sure that I would hate the new crew because I would rather have the old one…. and ended up liking them quite a lot! Mostly, lol.

The character(s) everyone else loves that I don’t:

Doc is the main one, jesus christ. If you didn’t read my last post, I just really really really do not mesh well with overly sexual and Adult Humor-y characters who scold you with a “You’re no fun.” if your OC isn’t into it. Doc is the worst example of it that I’ve ever encountered. I always play a male JK, and the fact nearly all of his convos amount to, “Boy, you and me are going to be up to our eyeballs in vagina when this war ends, amirite?” “You don’t want that? Come on, the Jedi Code doesn’t say you can’t FUCK, live a little.” “You’re no fun. Well, more for me.” drives me NUTS. This combined with how he interacts with Kira just does me in. Shoves him out an airlock.

Dark Side Jaesa is another big one, albeit mainly for OOC reasons. I just hate the fact that she even exists, really. I get the appeal of a story where a Sith corrupts a Jedi to the Dark Side, but the way she does a total 180 into gross hedonism while Serving You always just makes me cringe. Plus there’s the fact that straight dudebro gamers are really nasty with her, and she’s the main companion I always see men put into the slave bikini outfit, and just yikes.

Also just a lot of one-off NPCs that everyone goes crazy for and ships their OCs with, but I constantly forget who they even are lol. Attros Finn comes to mind. I don’t hate them! Just don’t get the appeal I guess.

The character(s) I love that everyone else hates:

Lord Scourge, although I’m not sure he’s really hated as much anymore. I just remember at launch, when all of the overly invested Revan stans absolutely HATED him because of what he did in the Revan novel, and then flooded the tags with vitriol over being “stuck” with him as a Knight, and having to hear about Revan in his companion convos. It was really, really tiresome! Maybe it’s because I never really cared that deeply about Revan as my personal character, but I could not understand the backlash.

Anyway, Lord Scourge is my favorite companion in the game by a long shot. I love the conversations you can have with him about the Jedi vs Sith, and I love the mutually respectful tone those conversations take. (Where other Bioware companions who disagree with you have a tendency to just go, “You’re wrong.” and shut you down.) The fact that he’s so tied in with the plot just makes me love him more, really.

The character(s) I used to love but don’t any longer:

Cytharat, Koth and Theron mostly. Although this takes a bit of explaining, and is a bit Discourse-y – because I really appreciate them as characters, but their role and Bioware’s decisions with them is what made me no longer love them.Here’s the thing: Bioware has a bad habit of introducing male characters that are bisexual, and then having them betray you, leading to situations where they either get murdered or vanish from the narrative entirely. Meanwhile, bisexual women like Lana are untouched and around forever.

I was overjoyed when I first saw Cytharat. Y'all know I’m a ho for purebloods, and the fact that he was Malgus’ apprentice was fascinating to me – and then he turned out to be a bi romance. I got very hyped for him, only to find out he dies like 5 minutes later – or if you save him, he’s never seen again. Huge letdown.

Koth was the first character I fell in love with of the new KOTFE crew – I even initiated a romance with him! – but it quickly became obvious there’s no way to play the expansion without him turning on you judgementally at some point or another. And then, hey big surprise, you can kill him or else he’s never seen again.

Theron I’ve loved since we first got to know him in the Forged Alliances content, but that whole storyline where he seemingly betrays you out of nowhere, only to later reveal he didn’t actually, idk. And then, once again, you either kill him or he disappears from the story. It felt like a weirdly shoehorned in plot for shock value, and robbed us of a second bi MOC character.

You see the trend here? I want to love these characters, but Bioware continually electing to do this shit with bi dudes is tiresome and makes me unwilling to invest any interest in the characters anymore.

The character(s) I would totally smooch:

None.

The character(s) I’d want to be like:

None really come to mind? I just want to be a Jedi, come on.

The character(s) I’d slap:

Hunter all day every day.

The pairing(s) that I love:

Haha, this question is hard, because most of the SWTOR ships I’m invested in are between my OCs and my friends’ OCs.

However.

SCOURGE / KNIGHT IS THE BIG ONE, THE ULTIMATE, THE ALL-TIME FAVORITE. It’s really hard to describe just how much I love this ship, and just how much time and energy I’ve invested into it over the past… 8 years wow……….. To the point of being almost territorial. And it’s also near impossible for me to talk about why I love it, because the version I ship is so personalized with my specific Jedi Knight, especially since it had to live exclusively in headcanon land for so long. Scourge is, more or less, my Knight’s support pillar and the thing that grounds him and keeps him humble, in a world where my Knight is surrounded by people who expect him to be a pure flawless messiah. But, I mean. How can you have a man look at your character and say, “I’ve waited 300 years to see your face.” and not immediately ship it. And then I finally got vindicated after all these years when it was made canon!

I really love Arcann / Knight for a lot of the same reasons as the above, but I just really adore his one (1) romance convo haha. Granted, yes he did a lot of fucked up things, but I was so grateful when he had like… a Zuko-esque redemption. Where he comes to your character and firmly believes he doesn’t deserve forgiveness, and especially doesn’t deserve affection, and is instead met with acceptance and a chance to grow and heal. That’s the good shit.

Others:

Lana / Warrior and Lana / Inquisitor are my particular jam. I endlessly enjoy the mutual respect between Lana and those particular PCs.

Malavai Quinn / Sith Warrior is a longtime fave, and although I DO love him with a female Warrior, I really do with he’d been an option for dudes as well. And I feel the same in reverse about Vette / Warrior – I do like her with a male Warrior, and it’s so sweet and wholesome and endearing, but man I wish she’d been an option for female Warriors.

I ship Risha with every woman – especially Vette and Sumalee – and will be salty until my grave that Risha / f!Smuggler isn’t possible, because I love Risha with the Smuggler but she gives me powerful WLW vibes.

Agent / Watcher Two is also a lowkey favorite, but I ALSO wish it could be done with a female Agent instead. Same with Agent / Raina Temple.

Agent / Vector is very sweet, but again, I will be salty until my grave that it couldn’t be done with a male Agent.

Can you guys sense a running theme here?

Finally: NGL I love Valkorion / Senya, even though that ended in pure disaster.

And people around here used to ship Keeper / Lokin, and tbh, I still kinda love it lol.

The pairing(s) that I despise:

In general terms, I fucking hate every single romance that involves the male PC romancing his padawan or underling, especially since most of them seem like very young girls. I don’t know why this is so pervasive in the game, but yikes Bioware. Consular/Nadia is the worst offender, but they’re all just cringe central for me.

But the big one is Agent / Hunter. This would have gotten me run off Tumblr back in the day, but god I hate this pairing. I mentioned in the last post that I just will never enjoy ships where the two characters actively want to murder each other, but. This just gets magnified for me with Agent/Hunter, where all the mind control and blatant abuse comes into play – and people have a tendency to write noncon rape fic of the two and present it as ~sexy rivalmance~, which is awful. Add to this the “no homo” reveal where Hunter turns out to be a woman, after getting everyone hyped about a dude flirting with their male character the whole game, and it’s just a huge No Thanks from me all around.

And for largely personal reasons I just don’t like seeing female Knights with Scourge. Listen, for YEARS I was treated like a pariah for shipping Scourge with my male Knight, while being unable to find Scourge content that didn’t have a female Knight plastered all over him. Even though he wasn’t even a romance option one way or another, the way the fandom treated m!Knight/Scourge with disdain while ardently shipping f!Knight/Scourge was offputting as shit. And then, after years, he was made a romance option for women AND men, and all these awful people acted like they were robbed, the way people reacted when Kaidan and Jaal were made bi in Mass Effect. I’m so tired. I never want to see Scourge with a female Knight again.

#misc: text #misc: meme #series: star wars #vg: the old republic #long post #scorpio-dw

4 notes · View notes

newstwitter-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/03/12/huffington-post-author-chimamanda-ngozi-adichie-under-fire-for-comments-about-trans-women-19/

Huffington Post: Author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie Under Fire For Comments About Trans Women

Feminist author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie has found herself at the center of a controversy over gender identity after comments she made about transgender women during an interview, which can be viewed in the clip above, recently went viral.

Speaking earlier this week with the U.K.’s Channel 4, Adichie, who is promoting her new book Dear Ijeawele Or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions, said, “When people talk about, ‘Are trans women women?’ my feeling is trans women are trans women.”

Her argument appears to stem from her idea that because many trans women have been assigned and raised male from birth until whatever point they decided to transition, she believes the male privilege they may have received fundamentally sets their experiences apart from those of cisgender women.

“I think the whole problem of gender in the world is about our experiences,” she said. “It’s not about how we wear our hair or whether we have a vagina or a penis. It’s about the way the world treats us, and I think if you’ve lived in the world as a man with the privileges that the world accords to men and then sort of change gender, it’s difficult for me to accept that then we can equate your experience with the experience of a woman who has lived from the beginning as a woman and who has not been accorded those privileges that men are.”

While she did also add that she supports transgender people’s existence, saying they should be “allowed to be,” she ultimately asserts that their experiences should not be “conflated” with women’s experiences.

“I don’t think it’s a good thing to talk about women’s issues being exactly the same as the issues of trans women because I don’t think that’s true,” she said.

Adichie, who is perhaps best known for her critically and commercially acclaimed book Americanah and a guest spot on Beyoncé’s track “Flawless,” was almost immediately called out on Twitter for her comments.

Someone come get your fave Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and fix her politics around trans women, please. As in like immediately.

— Zoé Samudzi (@ztsamudzi) March 10, 2017

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie really doesn’t understand how trans misogyny works

— Che G. (@chegossett) March 11, 2017

I’ve got all the respect in the world for Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie but trans-women ARE women.

— . (@enenicolea) March 11, 2017

Raquel Willis, a Black queer transgender activist and the communications associate for Transgender Law Center, offered an especially thoughtful and nuanced response to Adichie’s comments via a series of tweets she posted on Friday night:

Chimamanda being asked about trans women is like Lena Dunham being asked about Black women. It doesn’t work. We can speak for ourselves.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

We know exactly what you mean when you say, “Trans women are trans women,” but can’t simply say, “trans women are women.”

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Cis women don’t need to feel threatened by trans womanhood. If your experience means less because trans women exist, that’s your problem.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

When you ostracize and devalue trans women and their womanhood, you are operating as a tool of the patriarchy.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Just like white women historically felt threatened by Black women claiming womanhood on their terms, cis women feel this toward trans women.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Trans women aren’t saying their experiences are just like cis women, just as queer women don’t claim theirs are just like straight women.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

The average woman is cis. That does not make her womanhood more valid. All it says is that trans women are on the margins.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Yes, folks raised as girls are plagued with oppression in a different way than people not raised as girls. No one denies that.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

However, cis girls and women – in general – experience the privilege of being seen, accepted and respected in their gender from birth.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

That doesn’t negate threats of violence, harassment or oppression in a patriarchal society – things trans women of any age also face.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

This convo falls apart with more and more trans folks coming out at younger ages. It also conveniently leaves out transmasculine folks.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Do we tell a cis woman she’s less of a woman if she says she’s never experienced harassment or violence or overt discrimination? No.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

If you want to play Oppression Olympics, sorry cis women, you’re going to lose more often than not which is why this convo isn’t productive.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

It’s nonsensical and *privileged* to require trans women to experience certain instances of oppression to prove their womanhood.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

If that were the case many of your rich, cishet, white faves wouldn’t be “real women” either.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

We don’t need public debates on trans women. We need trans women elevated and allowed to speak for themselves.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Adichie did not immediately reply to a request from The Huffington Post regarding the comments she made during her Channel 4 interview.

Update: Adichie posted the following comments on her Facebook page on Saturday morning:

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link

0 notes

repwincostl4m0a2 · 7 years

Text

Author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie Under Fire For Comments About Trans Women

“I don’t think it’s a good thing to talk about women’s issues being exactly the same as the issues of trans women because I don’t think that’s true,” she said.

Someone come get your fave Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and fix her politics around trans women, please. As in like immediately.

— Zoé Samudzi (@ztsamudzi) March 10, 2017

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie really doesn't understand how trans misogyny works

— Che G. (@chegossett) March 11, 2017

I've got all the respect in the world for Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie but trans-women ARE women.

— . (@enenicolea) March 11, 2017

Chimamanda being asked about trans women is like Lena Dunham being asked about Black women. It doesn't work. We can speak for ourselves.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

We know exactly what you mean when you say, “Trans women are trans women,” but can’t simply say, "trans women are women."

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Cis women don’t need to feel threatened by trans womanhood. If your experience means less because trans women exist, that’s your problem.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

When you ostracize and devalue trans women and their womanhood, you are operating as a tool of the patriarchy.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Just like white women historically felt threatened by Black women claiming womanhood on their terms, cis women feel this toward trans women.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Trans women aren’t saying their experiences are just like cis women, just as queer women don’t claim theirs are just like straight women.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

The average woman is cis. That does not make her womanhood more valid. All it says is that trans women are on the margins.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Yes, folks raised as girls are plagued with oppression in a different way than people not raised as girls. No one denies that.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

However, cis girls and women – in general – experience the privilege of being seen, accepted and respected in their gender from birth.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

That doesn’t negate threats of violence, harassment or oppression in a patriarchal society – things trans women of any age also face.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

This convo falls apart with more and more trans folks coming out at younger ages. It also conveniently leaves out transmasculine folks.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Do we tell a cis woman she’s less of a woman if she says she's never experienced harassment or violence or overt discrimination? No.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

If you want to play Oppression Olympics, sorry cis women, you’re going to lose more often than not which is why this convo isn’t productive.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

It’s nonsensical and *privileged* to require trans women to experience certain instances of oppression to prove their womanhood.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

If that were the case many of your rich, cishet, white faves wouldn’t be “real women” either.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

We don't need public debates on trans women. We need trans women elevated and allowed to speak for themselves.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Adichie did not immediately reply to a request from The Huffington Post regarding the comments she made during her Channel 4 interview.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2nqIchs

#DIYS

0 notes

newstwitter-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/03/12/huffington-post-author-chimamanda-ngozi-adichie-under-fire-for-comments-about-trans-women-18/

Huffington Post: Author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie Under Fire For Comments About Trans Women

“I don’t think it’s a good thing to talk about women’s issues being exactly the same as the issues of trans women because I don’t think that’s true,” she said.

Someone come get your fave Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and fix her politics around trans women, please. As in like immediately.

— Zoé Samudzi (@ztsamudzi) March 10, 2017

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie really doesn’t understand how trans misogyny works

— Che G. (@chegossett) March 11, 2017

I’ve got all the respect in the world for Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie but trans-women ARE women.

— . (@enenicolea) March 11, 2017

Chimamanda being asked about trans women is like Lena Dunham being asked about Black women. It doesn’t work. We can speak for ourselves.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

We know exactly what you mean when you say, “Trans women are trans women,” but can’t simply say, “trans women are women.”

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Cis women don’t need to feel threatened by trans womanhood. If your experience means less because trans women exist, that’s your problem.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

When you ostracize and devalue trans women and their womanhood, you are operating as a tool of the patriarchy.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Just like white women historically felt threatened by Black women claiming womanhood on their terms, cis women feel this toward trans women.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Trans women aren’t saying their experiences are just like cis women, just as queer women don’t claim theirs are just like straight women.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

The average woman is cis. That does not make her womanhood more valid. All it says is that trans women are on the margins.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Yes, folks raised as girls are plagued with oppression in a different way than people not raised as girls. No one denies that.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

However, cis girls and women – in general – experience the privilege of being seen, accepted and respected in their gender from birth.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

That doesn’t negate threats of violence, harassment or oppression in a patriarchal society – things trans women of any age also face.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

This convo falls apart with more and more trans folks coming out at younger ages. It also conveniently leaves out transmasculine folks.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Do we tell a cis woman she’s less of a woman if she says she’s never experienced harassment or violence or overt discrimination? No.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

If you want to play Oppression Olympics, sorry cis women, you’re going to lose more often than not which is why this convo isn’t productive.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

It’s nonsensical and *privileged* to require trans women to experience certain instances of oppression to prove their womanhood.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

If that were the case many of your rich, cishet, white faves wouldn’t be “real women” either.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

We don’t need public debates on trans women. We need trans women elevated and allowed to speak for themselves.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Adichie did not immediately reply to a request from The Huffington Post regarding the comments she made during her Channel 4 interview.

Update: Adichie posted the following comments on her Facebook page on Saturday morning:

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link

0 notes

newstwitter-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/03/12/huffington-post-author-chimamanda-ngozi-adichie-under-fire-for-comments-about-trans-women-17/

Huffington Post: Author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie Under Fire For Comments About Trans Women

“I don’t think it’s a good thing to talk about women’s issues being exactly the same as the issues of trans women because I don’t think that’s true,” she said.

Someone come get your fave Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and fix her politics around trans women, please. As in like immediately.

— Zoé Samudzi (@ztsamudzi) March 10, 2017

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie really doesn’t understand how trans misogyny works

— Che G. (@chegossett) March 11, 2017

I’ve got all the respect in the world for Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie but trans-women ARE women.

— . (@enenicolea) March 11, 2017

Chimamanda being asked about trans women is like Lena Dunham being asked about Black women. It doesn’t work. We can speak for ourselves.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

We know exactly what you mean when you say, “Trans women are trans women,” but can’t simply say, “trans women are women.”

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Cis women don’t need to feel threatened by trans womanhood. If your experience means less because trans women exist, that’s your problem.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

When you ostracize and devalue trans women and their womanhood, you are operating as a tool of the patriarchy.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Just like white women historically felt threatened by Black women claiming womanhood on their terms, cis women feel this toward trans women.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Trans women aren’t saying their experiences are just like cis women, just as queer women don’t claim theirs are just like straight women.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

The average woman is cis. That does not make her womanhood more valid. All it says is that trans women are on the margins.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Yes, folks raised as girls are plagued with oppression in a different way than people not raised as girls. No one denies that.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

However, cis girls and women – in general – experience the privilege of being seen, accepted and respected in their gender from birth.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

That doesn’t negate threats of violence, harassment or oppression in a patriarchal society – things trans women of any age also face.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

This convo falls apart with more and more trans folks coming out at younger ages. It also conveniently leaves out transmasculine folks.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Do we tell a cis woman she’s less of a woman if she says she’s never experienced harassment or violence or overt discrimination? No.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

If you want to play Oppression Olympics, sorry cis women, you’re going to lose more often than not which is why this convo isn’t productive.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

It’s nonsensical and *privileged* to require trans women to experience certain instances of oppression to prove their womanhood.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

If that were the case many of your rich, cishet, white faves wouldn’t be “real women” either.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

We don’t need public debates on trans women. We need trans women elevated and allowed to speak for themselves.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Adichie did not immediately reply to a request from The Huffington Post regarding the comments she made during her Channel 4 interview.

Update: Adichie posted the following comments on her Facebook page on Saturday morning:

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link

0 notes

newstwitter-blog · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/03/12/huffington-post-author-chimamanda-ngozi-adichie-under-fire-for-comments-about-trans-women-16/

Huffington Post: Author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie Under Fire For Comments About Trans Women

“I don’t think it’s a good thing to talk about women’s issues being exactly the same as the issues of trans women because I don’t think that’s true,” she said.

Someone come get your fave Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and fix her politics around trans women, please. As in like immediately.

— Zoé Samudzi (@ztsamudzi) March 10, 2017

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie really doesn’t understand how trans misogyny works

— Che G. (@chegossett) March 11, 2017

I’ve got all the respect in the world for Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie but trans-women ARE women.

— . (@enenicolea) March 11, 2017

Chimamanda being asked about trans women is like Lena Dunham being asked about Black women. It doesn’t work. We can speak for ourselves.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

We know exactly what you mean when you say, “Trans women are trans women,” but can’t simply say, “trans women are women.”

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Cis women don’t need to feel threatened by trans womanhood. If your experience means less because trans women exist, that’s your problem.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

When you ostracize and devalue trans women and their womanhood, you are operating as a tool of the patriarchy.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Just like white women historically felt threatened by Black women claiming womanhood on their terms, cis women feel this toward trans women.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Trans women aren’t saying their experiences are just like cis women, just as queer women don’t claim theirs are just like straight women.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

The average woman is cis. That does not make her womanhood more valid. All it says is that trans women are on the margins.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Yes, folks raised as girls are plagued with oppression in a different way than people not raised as girls. No one denies that.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

However, cis girls and women – in general – experience the privilege of being seen, accepted and respected in their gender from birth.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

That doesn’t negate threats of violence, harassment or oppression in a patriarchal society – things trans women of any age also face.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

This convo falls apart with more and more trans folks coming out at younger ages. It also conveniently leaves out transmasculine folks.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Do we tell a cis woman she’s less of a woman if she says she’s never experienced harassment or violence or overt discrimination? No.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

If you want to play Oppression Olympics, sorry cis women, you’re going to lose more often than not which is why this convo isn’t productive.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

It’s nonsensical and *privileged* to require trans women to experience certain instances of oppression to prove their womanhood.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

If that were the case many of your rich, cishet, white faves wouldn’t be “real women” either.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

We don’t need public debates on trans women. We need trans women elevated and allowed to speak for themselves.

— Raquel Willis (@RaquelWillis_) March 11, 2017

Adichie did not immediately reply to a request from The Huffington Post regarding the comments she made during her Channel 4 interview.

Update: Adichie posted the following comments on her Facebook page on Saturday morning:

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link

0 notes