#you don’t care about one gender not having equal rights unless it’s men. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

xxsabitoxx · 11 months

Text

My Personal Upper Moon 🍆 Ranking

Warnings: if it isn’t obvious already, this post is taking about the Upper Moon’s and my personal HC on their dick sizes. If that makes you uncomfortable in any way, just keep scrolling

A/N: I was actually very surprised by the amount of comments on my Hashira version of this HC post. So I feel a little more comfortable with giving the Upper Moons a go, especially since someone asked if I would do it eheheh. That being said, these men are demons, therefore you may find my size rankings to be a bit unrealistic. But I’m not gonna go crazy and say Muzan has a dick that’s 2 miles long.

This post includes: Muzan, Kokushibo, Douma, Akaza, Hantengu’s clones (Karaku, Urogi, Sekido and Aizetsu), Gyutaro and Kaigaku. And no Gyokko cause that man doesn’t have a dick, period.

In a category of his own: Muzan Kibutsuji

Muzan clearly deserves a category of his own for one particular reason: he’s able to alter his appearance.

Therefore, he’s able to change the size of his dick whenever the fuck he feels like it.

And don’t try and say that stupid cause he can literally change gender and age so changing his dick size isn’t out of the question

On average, Muzan prefers to have a larger dick, mostly because he’s a pussy ass bitch man that needs that kind of confidence down there, if you get what I mean.

Typically soft: 10.5

Typically hard: 11.7

But he can make it as big, small, curved, wide, as he wants

When he wants to torture your ass, he’ll make himself as girthy as he sees fit just to watch you cry and squirm and beg for something a little smaller.

Anytime you get “comfortable” he just increases his girth until you’re crying again. Your pleasure is never his first priority, it’s always his.

1. Kokushibo

Among the demons, it should be no shock that Upper Moon One has always been packing. This man is petrifying so it’s only right that his dick is equally as intimidating as him

Even as a human, this man’s dick was deadly. You can’t change my mind either.

Just in case you’re wondering, Yoriichi is bigger

That’s beside the point, Kokushibo has a lot to work with down there. Whether it’s hard or soft ngl

When soft: 9.5

When hard: 10.7

He’s long, girthy and curves slightly upwards. He’s heavy too, your jaw will certainly hurt by the time you’re done with him.

He’s the type to put a pillow or blanket of some sort under your lower back as he fucks you. Mostly because he’s not clueless to the fact that his dick is big

Kokushibo is the type to ease you into it though, he’s stern but he has a teeny bit of empathy when it comes to fucking you. Unless you’ve pissed him off ofc.

2. Akaza

I know this one is gonna be controversial, especially since I’m putting him above Douma but hear me out.

This man has audacity, which means he got a big dick. No demon is acting like Akaza and having a small dick to go with it. Nuh uh, no sir.

Akaza is sitting pretty knowing damn well his cock is bigger than Douma’s and it actually something Douma taunts him with… which you think the roles would be reversed but hey…

When soft: 8.5

When hard: 9.7

He’s straight, no real curve to him and he has a single blue line going up the underside of his shaft and one that wraps around just before the head of his dick. Like as in the lines that cover his body lol

Akaza is probably the “gentlest” of all the upper moons because of the respect he has for women

That’s not to say he isn’t rough with you, but he definitely cares about your pleasure and feelings more than Douma or Muzan would for example

He’s pretty confident in himself though, at least that’s how it seems to you. He knows what he’s doing to say the least

3. Douma

Alright listen, this man is still packing down there so don’t get mad at me for putting him at third.

His dick is smaller than Akaza’s but not by a ton. Let’s be honest Douma is probably the straightest and gayest demon to ever exist. The embodiment of bisexual LMAO

How does Douma know Akaza’s dick is bigger? The world may never know

When soft: 8

When hard: 9.2

It’s pale like the rest of him, a pretty noticeable curve to it as well. He has some prominent veins because of how pale he is. His tip is like a pinkish gray (idk why I felt the need to include this)

He’s pretty girthy too, so he definitely will make your walls stretch uncomfortably if he doesn’t offer you foreplay

Douma is rough, selfish and truly only cares about his own pleasure but he likes watching you whine and squirm while being impaled on his cock

Douma also has a thing for “belly bulges” so he will fuck you in some odd positions if he means he can see his dick from the outside… if ya know what I mean

4. Gyutaro

Listen, plz just listen cause I promise you I’m going somewhere with this. Cause I can already hear y’all being like ???Scrawny ass Gyutaro is in 4th??? Yes. He is.

Gyutaro got himself a bit of an upgrade when becoming a demon. He for sure does not look like he did a a human. By that I mean he’s taller than he was (even tho he’s hunched)

What I’m tryna get at is demon transformation made his dick bigger and Imma live in my little fantasy world

When soft: 6.5

When hard: 7.2

Gyutaro’s dick is as curved as his spine and as thick as his tiny ass waist. He’s got length but not crazy girth.

Even if he’s rough, it feels good. Like there isn’t a ton of discomfort if he goes in raw with no prep cause he wants to punish you, he’s like the perfect amount of stretch

He’s mean, verbally and physically but at the same time he’s a fucking sucker for your body so he can’t really say much without whining and groaning

He’s got some confidence in his cock but he’s also a bit envious of the other upper moons

5. The Hantengu Clones (Sekido, Karaku, Aizetsu, Urogi)

I’ve talked about my dick HCs for these four in my A-Z NSFW alphabet and I was tryna be realistic. However, when it comes to this post, fuck being realistic.

Sekido when soft 6.2 | when hard 7.1

Karaku when soft 6 | when hard 6.9

Urogi when soft 5.9 | when hard 6.7

Aizetsu when soft 5.7 | when hard 6.5

There is so much to say here but honestly my brain is malfunctioning so I can’t even delve into it

Regardless, the four of these demons fuck very differently and use their dicks very differently

Sekido and Urogi have no curve, Karaku has a slight curve and Aizetsu’s curves upwards

Hantengu himself had a 3 inch dick and you can’t tell me otherwise. Pussy ass bitch

6. Kaigaku

I hate this little bitch but I’m including him so I can rag on his fugly ass. Kaigaku simps I’m sorry but I can’t stand him

This douche has the smallest dick among the upper moons. This is full Kaigaku slander.

When soft: 5.2

When hard: 6

I’ll give him a decent dick tho cause boy does he have the fucking audacity

That’s all I’m gonna give y’all cause I ain’t wasting my time on him GOOD BYE I didn’t even tag is ass

2K notes · View notes

sometimes-men-need-help-too · 6 months

Note

Out of curiosity, why are you anti feminist? your whole set up here is kind of odd to me but this specifically baffles me (not out of hate or anything, just genuine ‘what is happening here’ energy). Feminism is just the supporting of gender equality so I don’t understand

-sincerely, some random feminist dude on the internet

Also, I hope your father is okay

Regarding my dad--thank you. The masses turned out not to be cancerous and he had his surgery and is all good now!

Onto the rest:

I'm curious what you mean by your whole set up here is kind of odd to me. Why is it odd?

Feminism is just the supporting of gender equality so I don’t understand

That may be what it technically means, but how people are upholding the movements makes me question it. And I'm not the only one. While I don't view all feminists negatively, I think quite a few have this distorted view of what equality is.

First off, I disagree that feminism as a movement cares about men's issues as much as they claim to. That's not to say that feminists as a whole don't care, because there are those that do and that's great. But they'll often say that feminism is for men too, that they've done more for men's rights than the men's rights movement has, etc. But then they'll immediately contradict this. Consider the reaction that you'll see if men's issues are brought up. If you don't have a problem with it, then you shouldn't be getting angry. But that's what happens. We're told that women suffer more on X issue (whether that is true or not, because sometimes the research is skewed) so they should be our priority. We're also told that it's not a woman's job to fix men and their issues. But that's not what majority of us, I'd say, are seeking. I know I want acknowledgment of these issues. I want there to be less hypocrisy and double standards. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

There's far too much pushback against criticism and questions. Now granted, this may not represent everyone's experiences and I get that. But it's been mine and it's something I've seen on various posts online. I understand that they probably get plenty of questions that are not in good faith, they probably get plenty of assumptions too. I get that. I've dealt with that as well. But there can't be this unwillingness to engage with people unless they agree with you. There can't be an unwillingness to answer questions because you* think it's not your job to educate them. You have to understand how that looks. It looks like you can't properly articulate your point, it looks like you don't have much of a point and it weakens your group and what you stand for.

There's a lack of accountability. I know that with a movement as big as this, it's not something that can be easily wrangled up and fixed. I'm not looking for perfection. What am I looking for more feminists to acknowledge the problems within the feminism movement. Oftentimes, this doesn't happen. I'm told that I simply do not understand feminism and what it's truly about. If I give an example of something that I find to be a problem, I'm usually told those aren't "real feminists." That just feels like a huge cop out. You can't just say that those people aren't feminists because it doesn't erase what's happening. It doesn't erase the terrible things they say. It doesn't erase what we're seeing on those social media pages. Those people will still see themselves as feminists. They'll still keep saying what they're saying while packaging it as feminism. Instead of trying to pretend that they're not part of the movement, there should be more effort in trying to combating that. Speak up. Speak up against the hypocrisy (example: body shaming is bad but penis shaming is different because with how you're acting, you probably have a small penis so it's okay. Or denying it altogether by claiming that only men care about their size).

I want to go back to my first point-I didn't want to make it too long. Men are told conflicting things about their own issues. They'll be told that if they want X issue to be discussed then they need to go make their own post instead of expecting feminists to do it. Okay, so they make their own post but suddenly that's not alright either. That's taken as a sign that they don't care about women's issues. For example, by talking about false accusations, you don't care about actual rape victims or you see all women as liars. That isn't true. And while I don't believe that false accusations occur as little as 2%, 2% isn't zero. There are still men that are suffering and having their lives turned upside down by those accusations. They don't simply cease to happen just because you don't talk about them. Talking about false accusations don't hurt rape victims. False accusations hurt rape victims.

I could go on. But I think this is enough. I hope this answers your question, though I can elaborate further if you wish

*I don't mean you. I just mean in general

#mens rights #answered asks

22 notes · View notes

fenharael · 2 years

Note

For the character ask thing. Varrè?

Disclaimer: Everyone's got a right to their headcanons these are just mine...etc.

Sexuality headcanon:

Bi/pan for sure. Honestly I cannot see him as a willing bottom/submissive for anyone except Mohg — and that likely would involve stockholm syndrome, cult indoctrination, and rape — the dude has way too much ego/pride and gleeful sadist energy. I do think he could sub if sufficiently psychologically broken though!

A ship I have with said character:

I ship him with the Tarnished mostly. I like the dynamic happening there in general and since everyone’s Tarnished OC’s are different there’s always a new story or angle to read.

I ship him with Mohg but only one-sided and unrequited.

I like the idea of him being insanely jealous of Miquella and maybe taking it out on his sleeping cocoon form somehow.

A BROTP I have with said character:

Courtesy of @quesoquejoso Varré and Eleonora are BFF’s.

In terms of my own hc’s though I see him as a loner lol. I don’t really think he has any friends, he strikes me as someone who is unpleasant to be around and would push people away and I don’t think being in a cult would make that better.

A NOTP I have with said character:

I don’t know if I have any NOTP’s for him really? I think the only one I don’t really like is Mohg/Varré that’s reciprocal or where Mohg treats him as an equal or as his lover as opposed to a tool or love-bombing him before tossing him away.

A random headcanon:

He’s dirty and doesn’t care about his appearance. You cannot convince me he is hygienic or washes his hands for an operation unless it’s for a person he cares to keep alive. Is he a huge hypocrite about this and will he get mad if you compare him to a barber surgeon? Yes. He shaves when his beard irritates him under his mask, he keeps his hair up to avoid brushing it. Doesn’t remember the last time he bathed.

I will not be taking criticism.

General Opinion over said character:

I think I wrote about this in another post so I’ll tl;dr with: Love the contrasts and contradictions in his character, love evil killer doctor men, love tragedy, courtly love, gender fuckery, sexy voice

He makes the dopamine happen in my brain I DON’T KNOW WHY.

Gender headcanon:

This is going to sound weird but I have a hard time separating his character from his design, his performance, and his behavior. Please forgive me because I'm gonna get long-winded and I'm gonna make a hard left before circling back around to get to my answer. 😅

Varré as he portrays himself part 1.

Varré seems very comfortable and confident in his identity in how he was acted by Pip Torrens, how his dialogue is written, and how he behaves. He is sinister, haughty, condescending, and passive-aggressive.

This line and it's delivery:

"...Yes, I see. Perhaps it's just as well. Besides, you are maidenless. One can only do so much with the materials provided..."

speaks volumes on his views of his role and of the Tarnished he is attempting to indoctrinate. He thinks he's wasting his time. I'd go as far as to say he killed those he found particularly unworthy outright — at least until Tarnished were harder to come by as time went on. You are a rare commodity and he has to use you though you're below his standards.

It's very clear to anyone paying attention that he feels this way, but if you were to take him at face value (as a naïve Tarnished might) he would come off as genuinely helpful and kind — he alludes to this himself when he says:

"... If you mistake kindness for frailty of heart, then perhaps a more physical lesson is in order!"

So, despite his best efforts to come across as a guide and trustworthy enough to set a new recruit on the right path — he doesn't make quite enough effort to conceal it completely.

This in itself might be a part of the recruitment test — as Roderika asks if you were "enticed" into heading to Stormveil on his instruction and in his cut dialogue Yura calls him "a charlatan”.

So other NPC's are well aware something is off about him and refuse to engage. The fact that you do — despite this — might be the point. He wants someone comfortable with a general feeling of "wrongness" who continues to do as he says anyway.

In regards to his personal beliefs Varré doesn’t lie or mislead the Tarnished at any point either. He simply suggests we visit the Roundtable and form our own opinion. He is even willing to share his own — That the Roundtable Hold’s glory days are far behind it and its remaining warriors are not what they used to be.

Once you have proven yourself as a truly worthy candidate, he will open up even further, divulging that he believes the Two Finger’s have given the Tarnished a foolhardy task and that their guidance was broken with the Elden Ring’s shattering. At this point he will bring up that they harbor “no love for our kind” revealing that, he too, may be Tarnished.

Up until now, the only deception Varré has engaged in is pretending to be nice and patient enough with you to get you to this point. Presumably, before his option to take you to the Roundtable himself was cut even that wouldn’t have been a lie, as he states quite plainly that he likes you and see’s enough potential in you to show you the way.

Despite the mask, despite being dressed as a “man of compassion” and a killer, despite offering you guidance in the ultimate hope of recruiting you as a Bloody Finger: Varré is remarkably honest and up front about who he is and what he feels.

So, once you are well and truly in his good graces and he trusts you... how does that change?

Varré as he portrays himself part 2.

For starters, let’s take Varré’s infamous opening lines:

“...Unfortunately for you, however, you are maidenless. Without guidance, without the strength of runes, and without an invitation to the Roundtable Hold... You are fated, it seems, to die in obscurity. Luckily for you, however, there is one shining ray of hope for even the maidenless. Me. Varré.”

While dripping with sarcasm, I’d argue the popular fan-interpretation of this being a come-on isn't far off. While seemingly a part of his ruse, Varré plays the role of stand-in Finger Maiden well enough if you decide to continue his questline. And if you do continue, it becomes clear it may not be a ruse after all.

Varré’s message to the Tarnished once we’ve defeated Godrick reads:

“Find yourself maidenless? Off to Liurnia with you, then! Seek the Rose Church, west of the Gate Town.”

This can be taken two ways, first it can be read as a personalized dig at the PC and second it can be read as an offer: “Find yourself maidenless? Would you like to change that?” if you decide you would like a maiden, he asks you to meet him at the Rose Church... wedding bells ring somewhere in the distance.

Pretty much everyone knows this by now, but in JP the substitute for “lambkin” is “watashi no anata” which is a possessive and traditionally gendered way of referring to someone in close personal context. Ex: A wife calling her husband “my (you) dear”.

In JP from the first time Varré calls you “my (you)” the association of him as your bride is made clear. His pet name “my lambkin”, on the other hand, evokes images of sacrifice and innocence. Is the bride marrying you into Mohg’s faithful flock? Or he is grooming you as a lamb for slaughter? Either way he’s taking you to the altar.

Aside from being your maiden and bride, he is also your Lady. He sends you off on different dangerous tasks, bidding you return, and giving you gifts. Most notably, he gifts you the “Lord of Blood’s Favor” which he bids you stain in the blood of your former any maiden to swear your allegiance. Which is then replaced with his true favor: A lovely brooch to declare your public devotion to the dynasty as his knight.

The Subtext ™

Sex in Elden Ring is very deliberate and very much lurking underneath the surface of almost every strange-looking rock. Generally it is used in connection to fertility and birth, but it also serves as a way many taboo things are explored or shown in the setting. This combined with Fromsoftware’s unique and subtle brand of storytelling — which puts a lot of emphasis on the little moments of human connection in a dark and dangerous world makes the Mohgwyn Dynasty, and in this specific instance, the act of becoming a Bloody Finger — stand out.

In a series of games where the act of holding hands or calling someone your friend is probably the highest form of human intimacy possible besides mercy killing or stabbing them in the face with a sword. Elden Ring shakes that up, with marriage and sex being talked of openly, but it isn’t handled in a crude or vulgar way. You never outright have mention of sex, of the two items that do mention it (turtle neck meat, Daedicar’s woe) one of them had the reference removed and the other is stated in a subtle way.

Mohg’s whole thing revolves around the birth of a new dynasty via Miquella as his consort. He “shares his bloody bedchamber” and sets his consort’s cocoon atop a giant pelvis. The sex imagery is very much front and center, though it is tasteful and understated, dressed up in symbolism and ritual.

Which brings us (finally) to the Bloody Finger scene. Probably the most blatantly erotic thing outside of the entirety of Bloodborne Lady Maria’s visceral attack animation and the Three Finger’s “embrace”.

To start, the animation for the way Varré extends his arm is just...very seductive. I am unsure of how else to phrase that, but the animation is unique and it is smooth and inviting up until the second he grabs your wrist and very forcefully restrains your Tarnished from moving.

Second, the delivery of:

“Oh good heavens! Clench your teeth or something.”

In the version of this line used in the retail game “Oh good heavens” definitely sounds like a man who wasn’t expecting to be turned on by your screams (to me) or wasn’t expecting you to scream that much. Followed by a dismissive and smug “clench your teeth, or something.”

and

“Never forget that feeling of agony. For it is what binds you to Luminary Mogh, to all of us. Ha ha ha... You have the sweetest scream. My lambkin.”

Self explanatory. Man gets off on your screaming.

Why the fuck did I write all of this?

I don’t know, I probably didn’t have to and I’m feeling sort of dumb about it.

But uh, to establish that Varré is confident and assured in his identity and that he deliberately and purposefully puts himself in the social context of being your maiden. Whether this is genuine or is just part of Mohgwyn Indoctrination 101 is unclear, but the fact remains he does it and he does it with enthusiasm.

To establish that sex and sexuality are a factor in his characterization and in his relationship to the PC with the context of the faction he is in and considering how Fromsoft has handled character relationships and how they showcase certain things.

In conclusion:

I headcanon Varré as confident in his masculinity, confident enough that he’s willing to play with gender fuckery and expectations to be a maiden and bride to a Tarnished Inductee and Knight. That he sees it as his sacred duty and an honor — or that he sees it as a necessary ploy to give his master what he wants — fresh blood. Either way Varré is Extremely Gender and I love him.

Edit regarding sexuality headcanon:

My gender headcanon may seem contradictory to my sexuality headcanon, why would he be willing to play the "socially subordinate"'role of a woman and not be willing to do that sexually?

Well, for one, I don't think the gender roles in ER are necessarily reflective of traditional gender roles in reality. I think the birth imagery around Miquella, St Trina's gender bending, Dolores's gender bending, the role and status of women in the setting, and the general gender neutral use of titles and treatment by characters supports this.

I think ones sexual preferences to top/bottom have less gendered weight and more weight regarding power and status.

That being said, to rephrase my sexuality headcanon: I think Varré is a man who wants power and is willing to debase himself for it. I do not think he sees anyone but Mohg as worthy or able to give him that power and thus would not place himself socially underneath them (willingly). I think his subservience to Mohg was a hard pill to swallow (lol) but was achieved, as previously mentioned, through torture and abuse. Once he drank the koolaid though, he was all in baby.

#white mask varré #varre #elden ring headcanons #elden ring #headcanon #morshuman #ask box #ask meme

35 notes · View notes

lovee-infected · 4 years

Note

I enjoy reading character analysis to understand them more and I've also noticed that some insert fics are like too exagerated and their personalities are far from the canon twst. I think some writers are just basing their fics to others and and makes conclusion about it and ignore important details or text on their cards?* And as a reader, I do sometimes think that "this" character are like that. Like Vil, being portrayed as narcisstic and beauty obssessed charac, I think he isnt like that and theres more to him than we think. Sorry for the long ask✌️

You're totally valid anon and I see your point, you know while I agree that each idea and interpretation on characters is worthy on its own and no one is bound to having a specific opinion or belief, getting too wild with personal fantasies and ignoring the originals can totally ruin the writing. Characters are often mischaracterized especially in reader insert fics and the most annoying part is that almost everyone is making the same mistakes about him-! Like some of the noticable mistakes would be:

(1) Femininely has nothing to do with Vil's terms of beauty

Oh lord what can I say- It's even against what Vil himself directly said through chapter five and how he cleared his point on male and female equal, and you can tell he is pretty strict about it.

Like did you just forget what he told Epel when he complained that he doesn't want to act like a girl: “a boy getting embarrassed about ‘acting like a girl,’ -- what year is your head stuck in??? did you take a time machine from 100 years ago??”

He doesn't seem to be one to appreciate the concept of labeling beauty as a female-only thing and on the other hand, he doesn't really seem to like the way women can be looked down on while being compared to men either. He seeks equality, and beauty wasn't ever defined as a feminine act in his dictionary; while there are tons of requests asking for: Vil forcing their trans s/o to wear more feminine clothes/ Vil asking their fem! s/o to wear more feminine stuff an look cuter/Vil complimenting s/o's appearance for not being feminine enough/... And literally TONS of requests like this. Please, you're forgetting one the most important parts of his personality, he considers male and female to be equal and it's so hecking important to show that he holds respect for all genders nonetheless.

(2) Vil's maturity is often ignored

Honestly, within all twst characters Vil's maturity on its own really impresses me. From the way he speaks to how serious and sincere he is all I gotta say is this man is waaay different from the way he's charactetized in most of the fics. Idk why but, he's sometimes charactetized as a guy who's ready to boil you alive if you dare touch any of his expensive make up pallettes or eyeshadows. Oh please, Vil isn't an angry child.

Also he often decides to keep his anger in, though you can tell when he's mad by just looking at his face. Clinching fists, trying not to talk and most likely, walking off or asking people to leave him alone until he calms down a bit is most likely his usual way of expressing his anger, but I've seen him being described as a loud, feral figure like Riddle is! Oh god no- Are you just ignoring how calm and collected Vil often tends to be?

(3) What's with the potato fetish?

While it's canon that Vil can sometimes call people around him potato. You may like to know that in some languages, potato is translated as "Apple of the ground", which can be an interesting reason of him using this nickname for people.

Watching Vil call students potatoes can be as entertaining as watching Malleus play with his tamagotchi, but again, it's important to realize that you don't have to only use potato when you're thinking of what Vil might say in a reader insert/situation!

Come on there are hundreds of different statements and sentences you can use other than just 'potatoes' and it'll get boring to read him saying the same nick name over and over in a fic. Good lord of course this isn't the only word he uses in communication so please try to avoid using it too much. This, is NOT the only word that he knows to use! (Seriously though I've seen being used like 6 times in a 500-word drabble)

(4) Please avoid spreading false information about him and his personality

Funny how I'm saying it here, but don't forget that you do not own him! Vil Schoenheit is a property of Disney/ Aniplex and all, which means that no one can certainly decide on his sexuality/ background/ unexplained character details unless it's officially announced.

Why am I saying this? Because some people are seriously going to far! I've seen people attacking others saying that Vil's pronouns are She/Her and not He/ Him like: EXCUSE ME...???

I don't want to get into details explaining how this drama is going but I've got to say something anyway, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE ON HIS PRONOUNS! None of us do!

It's totally okay to have your personal preferences on his pronouns or anything else, but you must avoid spreading such information and forcing them on others as long as they aren't confirmed! Please keep your headcanons for yourself and don't confuse the fandom with them. Everyone's free to have their own headcanons but it's never okay to force them on others!

(5) Vil has a LOT to talk about other than just beauty!

Man... sometimes I feel like the fandom is just doing him dirty. Most of the reader inserts, fics , and even Vil memes have something to do with beauty while it's important to try and look through his personality as well instead of just sticking with the beauty aspect.

For example, through the Halloween event, I couldn't be any more surprised when Vil found the crying child who had lost their parents through the crowd and instead of just leaving them to headmaster or asking someone to take care of them he actually started to play with the child and entertrain and confront them on his own! That was probably one of his sweetest moments through the whole game and it really changed my mind about him! It was great to know that Vil as well can have a softer side when it comes to children, just imagine how good this can be used while writing a father AU for him!

His talents on the other hand need to be recognized, for example: his acting skills back in the ghost marriage proved how much of a great actor he can be and this can also give us lots of ideas to use in writings. On the other hand he's much of a celebrity on his own ( Woop- he's also got 2m followers on magicam) which gives us another great plot to write for him.

The way he is around close friends, how he compliments them and gets complimented by them in return, the way he manages Pomefiore and tries to put the students into doing their best in using their skills and lots of more interesting details that can be found through his stories are there to tell you that he's a lot more than just a beautiful Queen. A considerable part of his background as well is going to be released at he end of chapter 5 (Yes baby after the overblot Vil) and I hope that gives us all the opportunity to come up with stronger personalities and plots next time that we're describing or even, characterizing Vil!

Lmao I kind of rushed to finish this so I didn't get to talk about him as much as I wanted to, but hope that this is useful anyway.

#twst #twisted wonderland #twst x reader #twisted Wonderland x reader #character analysis #vil Schoenheit #vil Schoenheit x reader

1K notes · View notes

hellomynameisbisexual · 4 years

Text

“QUEER”

First of all, let’s clear up a common misconception. Queer does not just mean gay. It’s an umbrella term for an identity which deviates from society’s perceived norm: heterosexual, or straight. Queer can refer to sexualities — gay, bisexual, pansexual, — or it can refer to being gender-queer; i.e, any label that deviates from the perceived gender norm: the binaries, male and female.

“Queer” is a reclaimed slur.

If you do not fall under the umbrella of queerness, it is safe to assume that you cannot use it. At all.

I am bisexual.

This means I experience attraction to plural genders. Pansexual also works fine. For the difference between bisexual and pansexual — see here:

Being bisexual isn’t easy. I went through similar hardships to gay women: I experienced attraction to women and was scared of what this meant for me, in such an oppressively homophobic society.

I am not saying being bisexual is harder than being gay, nor the inverse. But my experiences are distinctly bisexual, not gay.

Without further ado, here are the 3 things I’ve found to be the hardest about being queer, but not gay (enough).

#1: Finding My Place

Or, not being queer enough

I always knew I wasn’t straight, but I didn’t know what I was. Up until recently, I was still questioning. This didn’t feel enough to join groups or conversations with LGBT+ folk, let alone go to pride. Was I even LGBT if I was never L, G, B, or T?

I am still yet to attend a pride, even though I identify (fairly confidently) as bisexual. I am in a relationship with a man. This is (problematically) known as a “straight-passing relationship” and makes me feel even more undeserving of a place at pride.

This has been upsetting to me at times. But for others, it can be outright devastating. Growing up and needing support, but feeling like you’re ‘not gay enough’ to ask for it? So many young people are being left alone and afraid. Finding others like you is vital to figuring out who you are. Likewise, finding spaces which are safe and inclusive is vital for anyone, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity. A friend of mine happens to be a transgender man, and he summed up the issue perfectly:

“One thing that I keep noticing is how all hangout spots are “gay bars”, or (far less common) “lesbian bars”. I’m a straight man, so I don’t feel like I’m supposed to be there, but hanging out at regular bars is still too much of a gamble, so I don’t really have anywhere to go.”

It goes without saying that gay folk aren’t always safe in these spaces, as seen by the homophobic attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, in 2016. Bigotry hurts the entire LGBT+ community. Bigotry doesn’t stop to ask whether you identify as gay or otherwise queer before it pulls the trigger.

But the LGBT+ community itself is much more welcoming to those who “pick a side” and just come out as gay, already. The infighting is inexplicable when one looks to attacks such as that in Orlando: bigots don’t care which letter you are in the acronym. So why does gatekeeping exist when we need to be strong in the face of intolerance when fragmentation only makes us weaker? Who are we helping by continuing to exclude identities from the discussion?

#2: Myths and Misconceptions

Well, it stands to reason that if bisexuals are what they seem in TV and movies, why would anyone want to make them feel included? They’re “greedy” and inauthentic. They’re attention-seeking, not to mention their propensity for threesomes. Now, I haven’t been in a wild orgy yet, but it seems like it will only be a matter of time before I follow my natural path.

Straight men, in particular, need to own up to their assumption that bisexual women are down for a threesome. The thing is, we are. But not with you, you big ASSUMER.

Infidelity

All jokes aside, the stereotyping of bisexuals is not only hurtful, but leads to difficulties finding and maintaining relationships.

As I came to terms with my bisexuality, I also had to accept that I might never be fully trusted by my partner, regardless of their gender or sexuality. I was shocked when my partner reacted to my coming out with the equivalent of a shrug — so much so, that I burst into tears of gratitude that my soul-bearing moment hadn’t been met with slut-shaming or assumptions of disloyalty. Nothing has changed. If anything, our bond is even stronger for me having been more authentic after coming out.

But cruelty came from elsewhere: when I came out, I was told that my partner was to be pitied, either because I’m gay and in denial, or bound to cheat on him. The main consequence of such attitudes has been the crippling fear of coming out to my partner. It saddens me that I felt so relieved when he accepted me for being who I am, and loving him just the same as I always have.

This outcome is not the case for many couples, with straight folk worried that their bisexual partner will realise they’re gay and just leave them. This fear of abandonment comes from a place of ignorance. When the media presents bisexuality as a steppingstone on the way to “picking a team”, it’s no wonder that people struggle to trust their queer partners.

Other Queer Myths

The myth that all trans folk medically transition invalidates those who choose not to do so, and let’s not forget the ignorant jeers that it's all just a mental illness. Asexual folk battle the stereotype that they can never have a relationship and shall forever remain a virgin (because what an awful thing that would be, right?) And pansexuals… well, at the lighter end, they’re asked if they have sex with cooking utensils. But often, they’re erased as irrelevant because “we already have the label bisexual”.

This brings us onto the third and final difficulty that comes with queer folk who aren’t easily categorizable as gay: erasure.

#3: Erasure

Erasure refers to the denial of an identity’s existence or its validity as a label.

Non-binary folk face ongoing and loud claims that they simply do not exist. This is despite the historical and scientific evidence to the contrary. Plus, the most important evidence — them, existing. Asexual folk are told they simply have not found the right person yet, or that they are just afraid of sex. Demi-sexual folk are told “everyone feels like that, unless they’re just sleeping around!”. And bisexuals are dismissed as simply being in denial that they’re gay.

Monosexuality & The Gender Binary

Our culture is so built on monosexuality (being solely attracted to one gender — for instance, gay or straight). Monosexuality is reinforced through everything from marriage to dating apps, the media to what we teach in schools. People cannot fathom that someone might want to experience more than one gender in their lifetime.

The binary models of sex and gender are also deeply ingrained. These rigid belief systems combined are to blame for our inability to accept that bisexuals do not need to “pick a side”. I was paralysed by fear for 17 years because I found girls attractive and that might mean I’m gay, because bisexuals are just gays who haven’t realised they’re gay yet.

Bierasure

Bierasure is dangerous, firstly because it leads a child to have to internalise both biphobia and homophobia. For instance, I had to work through being taught to hate gayness, whilst being taught that any attraction to non-male genders made me gay.

Women were cute, and so I was gay, and this meant I was disgusting.

My own mother told me this. She also told me that something has “gone wrong in the womb” for a child to be gay. (Well, Mum, I’ve got some bad news about your womb!)And she, like any bigot, extended this theory to anyone who experiences same-sex attractions — anyone queer. This is another reason why bi-erasure is perilous. Whether you’re a gay, cis-male or a demi-bisexual, trans woman… if your parents will kick you out for being gay, they will likely kick you out for being any sort of queer.

If we deny the bigotry that bisexuals undergo, we will continue to suffer. It won’t just go away. It will fester, with bisexuals having no one they can go to who believes them. And thus:

Erasure Kills

Bullying and suicide rates of queer-but-not-gay people continue to sky-rocket. We must direct funding, support and compassion to every queer individual, as they are all vulnerable to discrimination and bullying. The problem is being left to fester. This is in part because bigots treat all queer labels as just ‘gay’, deeming them equally unworthy. This is how far erasure can go.

Conclusion

Earlier on, I stated that my experiences are distinctly bisexual. The same applies to any queer identity.

Emphasising our differing paths and struggles is important to avoid the aforementioned erasure of already less visible groups. But this does not mean that the LGBT+ community should be fragmented by these differences.

If we can unite in our hope to live authentically and love freely, we will be stronger against bigotry. We are fighting enough intolerance from without: there is no need to create more from within.

So out of everything, what’s the hardest part about being bisexual?

It’s the fact that nobody knows it’s this hard.

346 notes · View notes

meirmakesstuff · 4 years

Note

1/2 Hi Meir! I saw your answer on WWC, and since you mentioned you're professionals, I figured I'd ask directly: I'm writing a second world fantasy with a jewish coded people. I want to be clear in the coding but avoid the "if there's no egypt, how can there be passover?" so I called them Canaanites. I thought I was being clever by hinting in the naming that the whole region does exist, but I've since read that it might've been a slur in fact? Do you have any advice on this?

2/2 I did consider calling the group in question Jewish, but aside from how deeply Judaism is connected to the history of the Israelites, I haven't used any present-day real-world names for any other group, (I did use some historic names like Nubia). I feel like calling only one group of people by their currently used name would be othering rather than inclusive? Or am I overthinking this?

Okay so I want to start out with some disclaimers, first that although WWC recently reblogged an addition of mine to one of their posts, I am not affiliated with @writingwithcolor, and second that the nature of trying to answer a question like this is “two Jews, three opinions,” so what I have to say about this is my own opinion(s) only. Last disclaimer: this is a hard question to address, so this answer is going to be long. Buckle up.

First, I would say that you’re right to not label the group in question “Jewish” (I’ll get to the exception eventually), and you’re also right in realizing that you should not call them “Canaanites.” In Jewish scripture, Canaanites are the people we fought against, not ourselves, so that wouldn’t feel like representation but like assigning our identity to someone else, which is a particular kind of historical violence Jews continue to experience today. I’ll get back to the specific question of naming in a moment, but because this is my blog and not WWC, and you asked me to speak to this as an educator, we’re going to take a detour into Jewish history and literary structure before we get back to the question you actually asked.

To my mind there are three main ways to have Jews in second-world fantasy and they are:

People who practice in ways similar to modern real-world Jews, despite having developed in a different universe,

People who practice in ways similar to ancient Hebrews, because the things that changed us to modern Jewish practice didn’t occur, and

People who practice in a way that shows how your world would influence the development of a people who started out practicing like ancient Hebrews and have developed according to the world they’re in.

The first one is what we see in @shiraglassman‘s Mangoverse series: there is no Egypt yet her characters hold a seder; the country coded Persian seems to bear no relation to their observance of Purim, and there is no indication of exile or diaspora in the fact that Jews exist in multiple countries and cultures, and speak multiple languages including Yiddish, a language that developed through a mixture of Hebrew and German. Her characters’ observance lines up approximately with contemporary Reform Jewish expectations, without the indication of there ever having been a different practice to branch off from. She ignores the entire question of how Jews in her universe became what they are, and her books are lyrical and sweet and allow us to imagine the confidence that could belong to a Jewish people who weren’t always afraid.

Shira is able to pull this off, frankly, because her books are not lore-heavy. I say this without disrespect--Shira often refers to them as “fluffy”--but because the deeper you get into the background of your world and its development, the trickier this is going to be to justify, unless you’re just going to just parallel every historical development in Jewish History, including exile and diaspora across the various nations of your world, including occasional near-equal treatment and frequent persecution, infused with a longing for a homeland lost, or a homeland recently re-established in the absolutely most disappointing of ways.

Without that loss of homeland or a Mangoverse-style handwaving, we have the second and third options. In the second option, you could show your Jewish-coded culture having never been exiled from its homeland, living divided into tribes each with their own territory, still practicing animal, grain, and oil sacrifice at a single central Temple at the center of their nation, overseen by a tribe that lacks territory of their own and being supported by the sacrifices offered by the populace.

If you’re going to do that, research it very carefully. A lot of information about this period is drawn from scriptural and post-scriptural sources or from archaeological record, but there’s also a lot of Christian nonsense out there assigning weird meanings and motivations to it, because the Christian Bible takes place during this period and they chose to cast our practices from this time as evil and corrupt in order to magnify the goodness of their main character. In any portrayal of a Jewish-coded people it’s important to avoid making them corrupt, greedy, bigoted, bloodthirsty, or stubbornly unwilling to see some kind of greater or kinder truth about the world, but especially if you go with this version.

The last option, my favorite but possibly the hardest to do, is to imagine how the people in the second option would develop given the influences of the world they’re in. Do you know why Chanukah is referred to as a “minor” holiday? The major holidays are the ones for which the Torah specifies that we “do not work:” Rosh Hashannah, Yom Kippur, and the pilgrimage holidays of Sukkot, Passover, and Shavuot. Chanukah developed as a holiday because the central temple, the one we made those pilgrimages to, was desecrated by the invading Assyrian Greeks and we drove them out and were able to re-establish the temple. That time. Eventually, the Temple was razed and we were scattered across the Roman Empire, developing the distinct Jewish cultures we see today. The Greeks and Romans aren’t a semi-mythologized ancient people, the way the Canaanites have been (though there’s increasing amounts of archaeology shedding light on what they actually might have been like), we have historical records about them, from them. The majority of modern Jewish practice developed from the ruins of our ancient practices later than the first century CE. In the timeline of Jewish identity, that’s modern.

The rabbinic period and the Temple period overlap somewhat, but we’re not getting into a full-scale history lesson here. Suffice it to say that it was following the loss of the sacrificial system at the central Temple that Judaism coalesced an identity around verbal prayer services offered at the times of day when we would previously have offered sacrifices, led each community by its own learned individual who became known as a rabbi. We continued to develop in relationship with the rest of the world, making steps toward gender equality in the 1970s and LGBT equality in the 2000s, shifting the meaning of holidays like Tu Bishvat to address climate change, debating rulings on whether one may drive a car on Shabbat for the sake of being with one’s community, and then pivoting to holding prayer services daily via Zoom.

The history of the Jews is the history of the world. Our iconic Kol Nidrei prayer, the centerpiece of the holiest day of the year, that reduces us to tears every year at its first words, was composed in response to the Spanish Inquisition. The two commentators who inform our understanding of scripture--the ones we couldn’t discuss Torah without referencing even if we tried--wrote in the 11th and 12th centuries in France and Spain/Egypt. Jewish theology and practice schismed into Orthodox and Reform (and later many others) because that’s the kind of discussion people were into in the 19th century. Sephardim light Chanukah candles in an outdoor lamp while Ashkenazim light Chanukah candles in an indoor candelabrum because Sephardim developed their traditions in the Middle East and North Africa and the Ashkenazim developed our traditions in freezing Europe. There are works currently becoming codified into liturgy whose writers died in 2000 and 2011.

So what are the historical events that would change how your Jewish-coded culture practices, if they don’t involve loss of homeland and cultural unity? What major events have affected your world? If there was an exile that precipitated an abandonment of the sacrificial system, was there a return to their land, or are they still scattered? Priority one for us historically has been maintaining our identity and priority two maintaining our practices, so what have they had to shift or create in order to keep being a distinct group? Is there a major worldwide event in your world? If so, how did this people cope?

If you do go this route, be careful not to fall into tropes of modern or historical antisemitism: don’t have your culture adopt a worldview that has their deity split into mlutiple identities (especially not three). Don’t have an oppressive government that doesn’t represent its people rise up to oppress outsiders within its borders (this is not the first time this has occurred in reality, but because the outside world reacts differently to this political phenomenon when it’s us than when it’s anyone else, it’s a portrayal that makes real-life Jews more vulnerable). And don’t portray the people as having developed into a dark and mysterious cult of ugly, law-citing men and beautiful tearstreaked women, but it doesn’t sound as if you were planning to go there.

So with all that said, it’s time to get back to the question of names. All the above information builds to this: how you name this culture depends on how you’ve handled their practice and identity.

Part of why Shira Glassman’s handwaving of the question of how modern Jewish practice ended up in Perach works is that she never gives a name to the religion of her characters. Instead, she names the regions they come from. Perach, in particular, the country where most of the action takes place, translates to “Flower.” In this case, her Jewish-coded characters who come from Perach are Perachis, and characters from other places who are also Jewish are described as “they worship as Perachis do despite their different language” or something along those lines (forgive me, Shira, for half-remembering).

So that’s method one: find an attribute of your country that you’d like to highlight, translate it into actual Hebrew, and use that as your name.

Method two is the opposite: find a name that’s been used to identify our people or places (we’ve had a bunch), find out what it means or might mean in English, and then jiggle that around until it sounds right for your setting. You could end up with the nation of the Godfighters, or Children of Praise, The Wanderers (if they’re not localized in a homeland), The Passed-Over, Those From Across The River, or perhaps the people of the City of Peace.

Last, and possibly easiest, pick a physical attribute of their territory and just call them that in English. Are they from a mountainous region? Now they’re the Mountain People. Does their land have a big magical crater in the middle? Craterfolk. Ethereal floating forests of twinkling lights? It’s your world.

The second option is the only one that uses the name to overtly establish Jewish coding. The first option is something Jews might pick up on, especially if they speak Hebrew, but non-Jews would miss. The third avoids the question and puts the weight of conveying that you’re trying to code them as Jewish on their habits and actions.

There’s one other option that can work in certain types of second-world fantasy, and that’s a world that has developed from real-world individuals who went through some kind of portal. That seems to me the only situation in which using a real-world name like Jews, Hebrews, or Israelites would make sense. Jim Butcher does this with the Romans in the Codex Alera series, and Katharine Kerr does it with Celts in the Deverry cycle. That kind of thing has to be baked into the world-building, though, so it probably doesn’t help with this particular situation.

This is a roundabout route to what I imagine you were hoping would be an easier answer. The tension you identified about how to incorporate Jewishness into a world that doesn’t have the same history is real, and was the topic of a discussion I recently held with a high school age group around issues of Jewish representation in the media they consume and hope to create. Good luck in your work of adding to the discussion.

#Ask #kermab #Meir Makes Stuff #Writing #jewish representation #Fantasy Writing #fantasy fiction #Mangoverse #Meir Makes Long Posts

411 notes · View notes

unrestedjade · 3 years

Text

Baseless Ferengi headcanons no one asked for and that get increasingly queer-navel-gazing and self indulgent because the horrible space goblins have consumed my brain:

- Mobile ears, because if hearing is so well developed and important to them they should be able to aim those big stupid radar dishes. Also because then they can emote with them and that's cute. THE AESTHETIC IS PARAMOUNT.

- Since they canonically sharpen their teeth with chew sticks and sharpeners, their teeth must grow continuously. So I submit: subcultures that let certain teeth grow out as a fashion/political statement. Ferengi punks and anarchists with 5" tusks. Ferengi with all their teeth filed flat (mom and dad HATE it).

- Corollary to the above, most of their teeth are crooked. At the least, they don't share our fetish for straight teeth. What if their teeth are deciduous, and there's no point in trying to force them into perfect alignment, since they'll just fall out and get replaced? So like, sharks but their teeth can also grow longer with no limit. WHAT HAST EVOLUTION WROUGHT ON FERENGINAR :V

- Parents nagging their kids to sharpen their teeth "or they'll grow up into your brain and you'll die :)"

- Personal space? Don't know her.

Okay I need a cut because there's too many now. WHOLE SOCIETY OF GAY HOMOPHOBIC UNCLES AND AUNTS GO I HAVE A PROBLEM

- I can't remember who on here put forth the idea of them having retractable claws but Yes. :3

- Pushing back against the worst canon episode a bit but: relative ear size being the only obvious sexually dimorphic trait, and even that having enough of a gray area that the only way to be 100% sure you're talking to a male or female Ferengi is if you do a blood test. Unless they're intersex! *shrug emoji*

- This is why they're so fanatical about gender conformity and their Victorian "separate spheres" attitude to men and women's roles. Capitalist patriarchy is fragile! And as artificial to Ferengi as it ever was to Humans! (self-indulgenceeeee about gender shiiiiit)

- You know how with domesticated rabbits, the rabbit getting groomed and paid attention to is the boss? Yeah. Go ahead and paint your bestie's nails, just don't be surprised if she cops a little bit of an attitude with you from then on.

- Their fight/flight/freeze/fawn instincts skew heavily toward the last three, and what a lot of other species read as annoying sucking up is the Ferengi in question feeling anxious and unsafe. Especially if they don't feel integrated into the group. Even being at the bottom of the pecking order is better than not being in the flock at all.

- If they DO opt for fight, it's ugly and typically their last resort. Bites or scratches will get infected without intervention-- microbes that their immune system can handle could cause big trouble for aliens. You might wanna check for full or partial teeth that break off and get lodged in the wound, too.

- Too many of these are tooth related but I don't care. :B More teeth stuff: you know what else has teeth that grow constantly? Puffer fish. Likewise, Ferengi can chew up mollusk shells as easy as potato chips, and they need the minerals for their teeth. (Imagine grandpa Sisko offering Nog a crayfish for the first time and watching as he just...pops the whole damn thing in his mouth and crunches away...)

- Their staple foods seem to be grubs and other arthropods, high in protein and fat. I've unilaterally decided their cuisine also involves a lot of edible fungi, ferns, plant shoots and seeds. Gotta get those vitamins. Overall flavor profile leaning toward umami, vegetal, and fresh herbs, and pretty mild (or "delicate" if you wanna be snooty about it, which a Ferengi probably would let's be real).

- Not much sugary food. I'm basing this solely on Quark's aversion to root beer as "cloying". Which could definitely just be his personal preference, but most of the people I hear hating on root beer cite the actual sassafras/sarsaparilla flavor (saying it tastes like medicine) not the sweetness. Nog might be the weirdo outlier for being able to enjoy it.

- Their home planet isn't bright and sunny, so their eyes are better at discerning shades of gray in low light conditions, with relatively weak color vision. Which could explain why they dress Like That.

- Conversely, human music has a reputation for stinking on ice because a lot of it is juuuuust lightly dissonant or out of tune because we can't pick up flaws that small. Ferengi can, and it drives them up the *wall*.

- Music? So many different kinds. Traditionally, maybe lots of percussion and winds, and water as a common component of many instruments to alter pitch or tone. Polyphony out the ass. Some of the modern stuff is an impenetrable wall of sound if you're not a species with a lot of brain real estate devoted to processing sounds. Pick out one melody to follow at a time.

- Yes, back to teeth again I'm sorry. It's a sickness. At some point in their history, pre-chewing food was just something you did for your baby or great grandma as a matter of necessity. Possibly your baby gets an important boost to their immune system and gut biome from your spit. At some point takes on a more formal intimacy aspect and gradually drifted from something all adults and older kids do to something only women do. Your husband and older kids have perfectly functional teeth, but you love them, right? =_= (Think old memes about husbands being useless in the kitchen if little wifey isn't there to cook, but even more ridiculous. Ishka was right about everything but especially this. Thank you for making your family chew their own food, Ishka. Not all heroes wear capes. Or anything!)

- How did they get started on the whole men: clothed vs women: unclothed nonsense? My equally stupid idea: men just get cold easier. Those huge ears dissipate a ton of body heat. Cue Ferengi cliches like "jeez, we could be standing on the surface of the sun and my husband would put on another layer." At some point, again, this got codified and pushed to ridiculous extremes in the name of controlling women and keeping everyone in their assigned box, to the point that women just have to shiver if they really are too cold and men have to pass out from heat stroke if the alternative is going shirtless, because That Would Be Inappropriate.

- Marriages default to five years, but they're also the only avenue for women to have their own household or any stability. Plus their religion places no emphasis on purity save for pure adherence to the free market and the RoA. So, curveball to the rest of their patriarchal bullshit: female virginity isn't a concern in the least. Bring it up and they'll rightly side-eye you.

- Family law is absolutely bonkers and lawyers that specialize in it make BANK. I feel like custody would default to the father usually but oh wait, the maternal grandfather has a legal stake in this, too, and your next father-in-law is asking HOW many kids are you dragging into my daughter's house, etc etc. Growing up with a full sibling is way rarer than growing up with half or stepsiblings, since it usually takes both men and women two or three tries to find someone they vibe with. (Not love, unless you're super cringe.)

- A misogynistic society is a homophobic society. Imo those flavors of shittiness just come in pairs. Homosexual behaviors are fine within certain parameters (aka "always have sex with the boss") but not on your own terms. To add spice, bisexuality is their most common mode (because I'm bi and these are my hcs for my fics I'm not writing, so there), but capitalism demands fresh grist for the mill so you better get het-married and pop out some kids you lowly peons. You have a choice so make the proper one. :)

- Corollary to the above, that doesn't keep all kinds of illicit "we're just friends with quid-pro-quo benefits for realsies" affairs of every stripe and every gender from going on everywhere. Many Ferengi have a lightbulb moment somewhere in early adulthood when they figure out their dad's business partner or the "auntie" who visited their mom every month had a little more going on.

- Plus there's way more gender non-conformity and varying degrees of trans-ing than the powers that be have a handle on. Pel isn't unique, even if most would have to somehow make it out into space to be able to thrive.

Damn a lot of these are just my personal bugbears plus THE GILDED AGE BUT WITH HAIRLESS SPACE RODENTS ain't they

- Women can't earn profit, okay. But lending or "lending" things to each other isn't commerce, riiiiiiight? To be assigned female is to master navigating a vast, dizzying barter/gift economy. Smart boys and men leverage this, too, and there are splinter sects that view this as the purest expression of the Great Material Continuum.

- Of course plenty of women make profit anyway, and just do their bast to dodge the FCA. The tough thing about insisting on using latinum as currency is that cash can be so hard to track, you know?

- Because of the RoA, guys are discouraged from doing favors or giving gifts without setting clear expectation of getting some return on investment. This can twist into an expression of friendship (and of course women do it too), and the ledger will keep cycling between debit and credit among friends for decades. A common mistake aliens make is to tell them recompense isn't needed without explaining why, or return their favor or present with something that zeroes out the debt. The Ferengi will assume you want to break off the friendship. (I cribbed this from dim memories of an African studies course I took in 2007 and whose textbook I know I still have but I can't frigging find it...)

- Flirting, they do a lot of it for a lot of reasons. Roddenberry made it clear that they're just straight up pretty horny, but there's no reason it can't pull double duty for building alliances with other people, smoothing over feuds or disagreements, or cementing friendships. Ferengi who are ace and/or sex-repulsed are possibly viewed similar to the way we'd view someone who's "not a hugger/not big on touching" and if they flirt just don't get offended if it doesn't go any further; aro Ferengi don't garner much comment aside from an occasional "wow how badass, never falling in love with anyone."

- where to even start on making sense of the Blessed Exchequer??? Like seriously, what is this literal prosperity gospel insanity, I need to force myself to re-read Rand and like, some Milton Friedman for this shit. Help.

- fuck I'm probably going to actually do that, RIP me...

#ds9 #star trek #meta #ferengi #i love them Too Much help #reliving my brief libertarian phase from high school from the opposite direction #my heart wants to make them simultaneously as queer and as repressed as possible #i didn't even make it to the goddamned blessed exchequer my head is too full #i will find beauty in this vulgarity if it kills me #this is too long #why did i spend my time this way

138 notes · View notes

soranis-sunshadow · 3 years

Text

Hordak can’t catch a break even on his birthday...

Oh fandom, you really like this sort of drama don’t you?

A few days ago, on Hordak’s birthday, there was this ‘interesting’ post in the tag – since, apparently it’s impossible to get any peace even on that day.

I was too tired to answer it at the time after being on call the day before so, here’s my delayed answer to all of that:

First off: this post has this bit in it when asked what that person dislikes about SPOP.

He doesn’t need to get a redemption and he doesn’t get one in the show.

None of his actions constitute a redemption arc. The man merely acknowledged his personhood and freed himself from his master and God. That’s what his arc was about: the right to have a personal identity.

He gave himself a name and wanted to be his own person. That’s it. That’s all he wanted.

The man was merely freed from Prime’s influence- an influence he was born into since he’s been specifically manufactured to serve as a disposable mass produced soldier and worshipper of Prime.

If the argument that Catra was “forced” to commit crimes and thus she is not completely guilty of them since she was under duress – then the argument doubly holds for a person who has been directly programmed and conditioned to do so under the threat of death or mental rape (purification).\

Even while away from Prime, he was still conditioned to obey and brainwashed by Prime’s cult. He literally knew nothing else – he was not meant to. It’s how indoctrination works.

Prime’s clones aren’t people to Prime, they are tools. Those clones, while cut off from Prime still want to serve and please him: That’s what Wrong Hordak’s purpose in the show is- to show us just that.

Hordak is not considered “OK” because Entrapta likes him. Hordak is merely shown – by Entrapta that he could live apart from his cult and have worth outside what Prime tells him he has.

Just like real life cult victims, he needs an outsider to help him see a way out of the cult. The nature of indoctrination and brainwashing makes it impossible for the brainwashed person to know they are brainwashed unless someone points it out.

Now for my favorite thing:

and

oh and

Oh boy… this makes me just so damn uncomfortable.

To offer a bit of context as to why. I have never been on social media before SPOP or in any fandom and as such, I have never encountered the ‘all men are evil’ discourse that seems to infest these places. It’s been quite a bit of culture shock for me.

What is it that makes anyone think it is ok to judge a person because of an accident of birth? (being born male)

Why does hate for 50% of the human population get such a free pass on these platforms? Misandry is just as terrible as misogyny. You are being biased against another human because of their gender. I don’t care that males are perceived as ‘privileged’ – that doesn’t make it ok to be terrible to them unprovoked.

How does hating all men help achieve equity?

Do you realize that this sort of discourse is exactly how you radicalize people against the very cause you are championing? You breed hate and adversity for the rest of us who actually want to to have a discussion on the topic.

I’m a feminist myself (in a country where feminism is hard-work) and let me tell you, making all men hate us does nothing but push away potential allies and make it a lot harder for our voices to be heard.

Feminism is about equality, not women dominating.

Now onto the second post: the one comparing Catra and Hordak with the question of which of them is a better person.

This whole war orphans that were personally abducted and tortured into serving the horde HC that some ppl have is really starting to get boorish. This has been going on for more than 6 months.

I have no idea why everyone thinks he went down chimneys and stealing babies left and right while cackling villainously. The man had a busy schedule of brooding in his lab, wallowing at his inability to use insulated cables and having his device blowing up in his face with the occasional Skype call to Shadow Weaver to see what the Horde is doing.

And yet, to a part of the fandom, this is what he looked like:

( @bat-burrito made this one and it’s glorious)

And if you don’t believe me about the lab recluse thing, you don’t have to, the show pretty much states it for me.

and

Hordak is a recluse that stayed in his lab and let the running of the Horde and most operations to Shadow Weaver and later Catra. He did not personally abuse anyone and he is not the origin of the cycle of abuse.

Shadow Weaver was a child grooming manipulative woman before she even joined the Horde – she did this to Micah while she was not “evil” or presumably abused by Hordak.

Even if you want to HC that Hordak abused her somehow, he is still not the one who started the cycle: Horde Prime is.

The whole fandom seems to forget about the eldritch monstrosity that created a whole army of brainwashed slaves to worship and die for him. Prime is the one that sent Hordak to die and gave him the motivation to try to prove himself worthy of life and love. If you want to point fingers, point them at the origin of all of this. This fandom has a strange Prime blindness. He is never talked about when it comes to being the start of all of this.

If Prime didn’t exist, Hordak wouldn’t exist. If Prime hadn’t sent Hordak off to die, then his clone wouldn’t have accidentally ended up on Etheria. None of the things in the show would have happened.

Adora would have died of exposure in a field, the monarchies on Etheria would have continued as they are and the planet would have continued to exist in despondos.

He is a dictator, yes. So are the princesses. Monarchies are dictatorships where the ruler is born into power. Hordak gained his through military might while Glimmer was born with hers and enforced it with tradition. I don’t really care to play “who’s the better dictator”. The princesses have their power because of the runestones- magical rocks put there by the First Ones to channel the planet’s magic and use it as a weapon. How come no one talks about that?

Do you think a king/queen keeps their crown without effort or subjugation of their subjects?

Also, Hordak had never interacted with Catra before SW dragged her before him to be judged. He was indifferent to etherians in general and didn’t seem to care which of them were his underlings so long as the operations were running smoothly. He was more focused on his portal and returning home than on anything else. He did not set out to “ruin lives” or quest for power. What he wanted was to return to his deity and become a mindless part of the whole again – that is as opposite to power hungry as you can get.

Catra was directly abused by Shadow Weaver throughout her childhood. That makes Shadow weaver responsible for 100% of that abuse.

Catra was found in a box by Adora and adopted by Shadow Weaver. Hordak didn’t know or care that she existed.

He is responsible for the war, he is responsible for the war casualties and the property damage. He is not responsible for Shadow Weaver being a terrible person and mother figure.

Again with the orphan thing. We have 5 cadets in the show.

Adora was found in a field.

Catra was found in a box. Lonnie, Kyle and Rogelio are unexplained. The only lizard ppl we see in the show are in the Horde or the Crimson Wastes. The other two could just as well be the children of some of the soldiers.

I may harp on about what a bitch Shadow Weaver is – the reason I do so is because she is legitimately terrible to the two girls in her care.

I was the unfavorite growing up, I WAS the Catra in my family who could do no right while my sibling was the golden child. I don’t however hate Shadow Weaver. She is a cartoon character in a show and she does the things she was written to do. Hell, she is a very compelling and believable villain. Her motivations are clear and she is consistent. Her voice actress portrayed her splendidly and her character design is superb. I like her but that doesn’t mean that I don’t acknowledge her role in the story. I don’t however make up parts of the story to make her more evil than she was or treat my headcanons about her as absolute fact.

Again, sigh: Prime is the worst villain in the show. He is quite literally Nyarlathotep and does this to planets:

This to people:

and this to the people he created to serve, worship and love him:

How is that not worse?

I love Catra and it genuinely annoys me when people erase her agency or try to paint her as one-dimensional victim. Catra was an antagonist for most of the show and she rocked it! She was 400% more efficient at it than cloneboy. Give the queen some damn respect and recognition! Catra had a lot of agency and her actions moved the plot of the show more than those of the protagonists. (they were mostly reactive).

Catra pulled the lever of the portal in a moment of distress after a breakdown, a Shadow-Weaver related breakdown because that’s how trauma works.

Hordak didn’t make her do it, he didn’t send Catra after Adora either. These were Catra’s choices. They came from a place of hurt but they were her choices still.

The portal was a means of transportation, not a weapon. Building it was not Catra’s mission, it was Hordak’s. He built it so he could contact Prime and either summon him here or go home –whichever course of action Prime wanted. Again, Hordak wanted to go back to this:

...

The only person who knew the device was dangerous was Entrapta and she tried to warn Hordak about it. Catra was the one who stopped her, violently so, then sent her to die on Beast Island- the fate Entrapta saved her from a season ago. Catra then tried to have Hordak open the portal before it was ready.

When he wouldn’t – she pulled the lever herself because that is how desperate she had gotten at that point, to show Shadow Weaver how wrong she was. That is how hurt Catra was by her mother figure’s betrayal and abuse.

Don’t take that away from her. Don’t call it curiosity or naivete or whatever. She knew the portal was dangerous but she wanted to prove Shadow Weaver wrong so badly that she didn’t care at that point. She had been pushed that far.

Catra’s actions led to Angella’s death but she was not directly responsible for it. She didn’t activate the device to kill Angella, it merely happened accidentally. Catra was however glad it happened and wanted to profit from the aftermath of her death.

Hordak didn’t care or plan to kill Angella personally. There is no in-show moment where any of that is portrayed. Since he doesn’t care about the specifics of running the horde seem to know what they are conquering at the moment, it seems that that was usually a task reserved for his second in command.

^ - troop movement ordered by Catra

Hordak doesn’t even know what his own army is doing.

Again with the Hordak “drilling into orphan’s minds”… I seriously doubt that any of them had ever seen him out of his lab or that he came up with the propaganda himself.

Manipulation is more Shadow Weaver’s game not his. For all of Hordak’s faults, he is not deceptive or manipulative. If anything, he is woefully incapable of spotting lies. (it might have something to do with him being born in a society where lies were almost impossible because of the hive mind and Prime being able to browse his thoughts at a whim- as such, it wouldn’t be a skill he would have been able to develop).

Hordak canonically despises deception and lies. I really don’t understand where this image of a manipulative and cunning Hordak comes from. He wouldn’t be able to plot himself out of a paper bag if his life depended on it.

First off.. S4 Catra was his equal, not his subordinate. Don’t take that away from her. She earned it.

He doesn’t look that threatening here...

And again: Prime created the system. He made clone slaves and programmed them to serve. His clones have hardware installed for the express reason to facilitate his control over them. He has a religion in place to make sure their thoughts do not stray from his purpose. I am legitimately boggled by this fandom’s tendency to completely forget about his existence.Does anyone really think that these people that are born “prechipped” and programmed to know nothing but Prime’s Light are really knowledgeable about human morality?

That they would know that conquest is bad when that is the express reason for their creation?

If I were born in that situation, I’m not sure I would have known any better. Hell, if any of the clones even try to disobey Prime, they would get either mindraped (erased) or killed for the effort. They really have no choice, even if they knew that killing in Prime’s name is wrong (they don’t) they really can’t do anything about it. They have no choice but to be what they were made to be. I find it personally abhorrent when these designer slaves are held accountable for what Prime has made them do.

And to the people that say Hordak was free of Horde Prime once he was stranded on Etheria.. That is not how indoctrination works. The fact that I can’t go to church this Sunday because I’m locked in the house and can’t find the keys doesn’t make me an atheist.

Hordak was serving Prime even on Etheria. He keeps mentioning it to both Entrapta and Catra. He started the war because that’s what he thought Prime wanted of him and that’s what he’s been programmed to do. Personal and informed choice really doesn’t factor into his decision at all.

He is not sympathetic because Entrapta likes him. Notice how I haven’t brought up his relationship with her up to this point?

He is sympathetic because he literally had no choice but to do the things he was indoctrinated into doing. He was build and programmed for it, just like all the other clones. They are not able to deviate from that because of the way Prime functions and rules over them.

There is no point in the show where Hordak relishes over his status as a ruler or the “luxury” it affords him. He does not engage in the same behaviors his progenitor manifests.

There is no point in the show where Hordak relishes over his status as a ruler or the “luxury” it affords him. He does not engage in the same behaviors his progenitor manifests. He attempts to emulate Prime in order to project authority in the only way he knows how but since those are some really big shoes to fill, he is woefully inadequate.

If Hordak had been power hungry, he would have stayed in despondos and ruled his own faction. Being away from Prime is the most powerful and autonomous he’s ever been and yet, he wants to throw all of that away in order to be a powerless, nameless part of the whole. What Hordak wanted was to be enslaved by Prime because that’s what he had been created for.

“vengeful” – and how did Hordak manifest this vengefulness? Who did he take revenge on in the series?

“apologize” – when and where in his 3 minutes of screentime would he remember everything after 2 mindwipes, realize that the whole worldview he had since inception is wrong, realize that he had been mistaken into doing the horrible things he did and then go to all of the characters and apologize for it?

Would anyone be convinced of that had it happened in 3 minutes? I’d rather they don’t redeem him than do a shit job at it.

Very true. He’s not a better person. He’s just a person in an impossible situation. Both Hordak and Catra were handed a raw deal, I don’t understand why everyone insists on pitting them against one another. They both did bad things and they were both in horrible situations. The specifics don’t really matter since neither of them would have done the things they did had they been more fortunate.

This is the exact reason for which I don’t hold Cara’s actions against her. Catra’s only model of success was Shadow Weaver. She emulated her abusive mother figure because she had no other example and because she wanted to please that woman. It does not excuse the way Catra acted but it explains it.

I really don’t understand why some people want Catra punished. I’d rather she get love and help. That is what she needs. In time, she will want to do better and be better by herself. She doesn’t need to be forced, heavens know, she’s been forced enough as it is.

They are really different. Catra got an abusive, shitty and violent childhood. Hordak got this:

He was literally robbed of a childhood.

She was taught by Shadow Weaver that weakness gets you killed. Hordak was not allowed to have emotions to begin with, or thoughts of his own, or a name...

Comparing to victims of abuse to see which one of them is more likable is such a strange concept to me.

Catra was robbed in s5 too. I don’t hold that against her. I blame it on the writers. S5 could have been a lot better.

#Hordak #Catra #catra vs hordak discourse strikes again #can we please stop with this #it's been 6 months #my pixel is nicer than that pixel #a cartoon villain is not an actual despot #cartoon and fandom activism is not real activism #Cartoon characters can't apologize for their actions unless the writers make them #the writers in s5 were too busy with butchering the previous seasons to actually put any thought into the cohesiveness of this show's themes #everyone felt a bit ooc in s5 #spop critical #spop fandom drama #spop

195 notes · View notes

bonesy-doodles · 4 years

Text

As an avid user of social media, I’ve started seeing an uprising in discourse on whether or not nonbinary individuals can identify as gay (as in attracted to men) or lesbian. As someone who has identified as lesbian for the past four years and only recently settled upon my gender identity being agender, I’ve taken time to look at this discourse and arguments made on both sides. This, of course, is my own informed opinion based off my own experiences and evidence I’ve seen other nonbinary people give.

To start off, I mostly see this argument made around the lesbian identity specifically, with gay being mentioned every now and again, but rarely as if it’s a second thought. This discourse also can come along with the whole he/him and they/them lesbian discourse as well. Seeing as this is the case, I will mostly be referring arguments based around the lesbian identity, but know this includes the gay (attracted to men) identity.

First, the argument that nonbinary individuals should be using trixic (nblw) or toric (nblm) instead. Let me start with the precedent that it is completely valid to use these terms if you find that it encompasses your experiences. These terms seemed to have been made to liberate nonbinary individuals from the binary terms, but they are relatively new terms. For years, nonbinary individuals haven’t had these sexuality terms to use or explore to see if they are comfortable with them. And even after these terms were coined, many individuals don’t find that they encompass their experiences as a nonbinary individual. And for years, I’ve heard from several parts of the community saying that all sexualities can include nonbinary (and personally, that is up to the individual person to decide if they are attracted to nonbinary individuals or not).

The next argument I’ve seen if that lesbian and gay are binary terms, and that nonbinary people can’t use binary terms, full stop. This is a harmful idea that can shame us out of using terms that we are comfortable with. Each person who falls under the nonbinary umbrella has experienced their journey to discovering their gender differently. This means everyone has different words they are comfortable with. This includes pronouns (and remember, pronouns do not always equal gender).

The best way I can convey this is by using myself as an example. I am agender, which personally means that I don’t really identify with any gender. However, I use prefer and use she/her and they/them pronouns, but I don’t care if he/him is used. I am very comfortable with certain binary terms, and uncomfortable with others. I do not refer to myself as a woman, girl, man, or boy (unless I am not out to the person I’m speaking to). I do use terms like girlfriend, wife, mother (and father as a joke), king, queen, priestess, and a few others, while I don’t use boyfriend or husband. I don’t use miss, mrs, or mr. I kinda use mx, but I prefer captain to be completely honest.

By saying nonbinary people can not use binary or gendered terms is a gross misunderstanding of what nonbinary is and can be from person to person based upon their own experiences. We were all raised differently, we all have unique relationships with our gender.

Next, I see people using the dictionary definitions to bar us from using these terms (I’ve mostly seen lesbian used in this case). And, I’m being serious when I say that I see a lot of TERF rhetoric being used during this argument. Yes, the definition is a “homosexual woman”. From this you would say lesbians are women that are only attracted to women, and since nonbinary people are not women, they are disqualified from being able to identify as lesbians. But, nonbinary isn’t a third gender in between or in complete opposition of man and woman. It’s a linguistic term that describes a large amount of queer identities that don’t fall into the traditional binary our society has set out. There is genderqueer, agender, demigirl, demiboy, bigender, genderfluid, and the list goes on.

So, now that you know nonbinary is a complicated category of gender experiences, what are “lesbians” and why can nonbinary individuals use it? Lesbian is an identity that is a subversion to what society sees as to what womanhood is. It goes against the idea that a woman’s life must revolve around a man, therefore it goes against and subverts our traditional idea about what it means to be a woman. Within the lesbian community, we see a wide range of gender non-conforming and people rewriting what womanhood is. And many nonbinary people have a strong connection or experiences with womanhood depending on if they were born afab or if they are more femme presenting.

The TERF rhetoric I see comes along with the hate many lesbians who use pronouns outside of she/her get. I’ve seen this called Vixenamoric. It is used by people who believe in some sort of purity surrounding the woman and lesbian identity. TERFs say trans women are invading women and lesbian spaces, and then Vixenamoric say nonbinary lesbians are invading women and lesbian spaces. TERFs believe in this purity of women, and Vixenamoric people say they include binary trans women, but exclude nonbinary lesbians because they believe in this purity of lesbianism. In both instances, they are simply transphobic and should be ignored for their “pick me” attitudes.

Finally, more transphobia I see is the double standard people have with cis lesbians dating nonbinary lesbians compared to nonbinary people identifying as lesbians. My girlfriend herself has experienced this double standard, and this whole argument invalidates her identity as a lesbian and other lesbians who date nonbinary individuals. She has received comments like “Oh, you’re dating a nonbinary person? That’s so cute” but then they smack my identity as a nonbinary lesbian as “not making sense”, “impossible”, and invalid. She said it herself, It’s blatant transphobia.

In summary, nonbinary lesbians and gays are completely valid identities because the individual themselves believes the linguistic terms describe their experiences. We need to stop pushing this purity culture and “pick me” attitude in our community. We need to stop policing other’s identities. Invalidating others isn’t going to make the LGBTQIA+ community any better. It’s going to make it worse and cause large divides. And it’s certainly not going to make you a better person. It’s all of us against the cis-heteronormative and allosexual world and we need to come together and learn about each individuals experiences and how complex sexuality and gender identity is. There is no one right way to do things.

If you still don't understand, do some personal research and find nonbinary individuals expressing their experiences. But, if you refuse to accept nonbinary lesbians and gays despite everything that has been presented to you, get yo transphobic ass out of here.

#lesbian #gay #nonbinary lesbian #nonbinary gay #nonbinary #nblw #nblm #not art #text

331 notes · View notes

derinthescarletpescatarian · 3 years

Text

Pro-variation vs. pro-selection culture

Evolution requires three things: some form of information that’s inheritable, some way to create variation from that information, and some way to select what information will be passed on to future generations. In biological evolution, of, course, we all know what these three things are: genes (information) can mutate (variation) -- well, it’s more complicated than just mutation, but this isn’t a biology lesson -- and those that are worse at surviving and reproducing themselves are of course naturally weeded out through cause and effect (selection). But other things -- art, culture, language, science, technology -- evolve as well, and they all need the same three things.

When it comes to variation and selection in things like culture and politics, there’s a sliding scale of which one people think is most important -- whether they’re more pro-variation, or pro-selection.

People on the pro-variation end of the spectrum tend to view diversity as a positive thing and selection as something that will take care of itself, or even something to be actively suspicious of because of its tendency to cause harm -- a rainbow queer community, an education system available to people of all cultures and economic backgrounds, country borders that are as open as practical, and embracing a diverse array of art make a community stronger, and things like gatekeeping, means testing and heirarchies on ‘what counts as art’ should be abandoned unless there’s a really good reason for the selective process to exist, in which case it’s grudgingly tolerated. To pro-variation people, exclusion and oppression within a community are threatening. Pro-variation people recognise that yes, you’re going to get some freeloading drains on resources and obvious money laundering schemes masquerading as terrible art and a few people pretending to be gay for a few years to look more interesting to their straight friends, and this is largely a non-issue, a perfectly acceptable price to pay for a diverse and fair world.

People on the pro-selection end of the scale tend to view selection as the main means of advancing or healing a society, and see diversity as something that will take care of itself and as something to be deeply suspicious of. Gatekeeping, unequal opportunities and financial heirarchies are needed to sort the what from the chaff and make sure everyone does their best (”capitalism breeds innovation”); initiatives to redress inequality and give minorities or poor people an ‘unfair’ advantage or make it easier for outsiders to enter the country should be abandoned unless there’s a really good reason for their existence, as they’re dragging down the ‘deserving’ and polluting the culture. To pro-selection people, contamination or invasion from outsiders is threatening. Pro-selection people recognise that yes, you’re going to lose some talented geniuses in sweatshops and stop some deserving people from achieving success and bully some LGBT people out of the community to face abuse and oppression alone, but this is largely a non-issue, a perfectly acceptable price to pay for an advanced and fair world.

“Oh, Derin, you’re just talking about left-wing vs. right-wing philosophies.” Sort of, but not really. It fits the stereotypes and common arguments to a T, but one can’t assume that all righties are pro-selection or all lefties are pro-variation. I have met pro-variation righties, although I’m not really sure how. And there are leftie TERFs out there, despite TERFism being an undeniably pro-selection philosophy. I find determining where people sit on the variation-to-selection scale to be a lot more useful for communication than left-to-right.

I say this because often I’ll see pro-selection and pro-variation people talking to each other, and notice that they’re having fundamentally different conversations. For example, let’s look at the issue of meritocracy. Most modern people would say that meritocracy is a good thing, but ’meritocracy’ means a fundamentally different thing to pro-selectionists than pro-variationists.

A pro-selectionist, when conceiving of meritocracy, tends to think in terms of, well, selection; devising a system where the strongest (those that excel in whatever the thinker thinks is important; innovation or determination or whatever) rise to the top and gain special privileges and power over others, that they can use to determine the rules and make life better for themselves and their children, elevating society as a side effect. To the pro-variationist, this is absolutely not a meritocracy. “You’ve built a system whereby those who don’t start out with more, those who are born poor or disabled or underprivileged in some way, have to work way harder and be lucky in order to get anywhere than those born lucky. People don’t get ahead on merit in this system because the playing field becomes drastically uneven after a couple of generations. This is not a meritocracy.”

A pro-variationist, on the other hand, would concentrate on making sure that everyone has a fair chance at exercising their skills and getting ahead. They’d focus on making sure that people had the space and security to exercise their skills and that, when it came to supporting the society to make that happen, those with more contributed more. To a pro-selectionist, this is absurd. “So those who have pulled ahead and succeeded are being penalised by having to give more? That’s the opposite of a meritocracy! That’s a system designed to drag the best down!”

I find this framework useful in explaining a lot of weird political quirks of certain subcultures. TERFs and tradwives, for example, are theoretically political opposites, but in practice their logic sounds almost identical to outsiders, sounding rather a lot like standard right-wing talking points and Fascism Lite. This is because they’re all using pro-selection arguments. To a pro-selectionist, the arguments of these groups look very different -- “we’re saying that X kind of people are good/virtuous/victims, and Y kind of people are bad/oppressors/sinners, which is the exact opposite of what the other group is saying!” To a pro-variationist, the fact that they are making literally the same argument makes them identical -- “you’re still putting people in your little ‘keep or cull’ boxes for exactly the same reasons, you just wrote different names on the boxes to keep or cull according to your personal taste.”

I think a lot of the things associated with right-wingers could be more accurately associated with people on the pro-selection end of the spectrum in general. It’s known, for example, that right-wingers tend to have a more sensitive disgust reflex and, as a consequence, be generally more xenophobic. You can see this in the way xenophobes talk of making room for outsiders; they talk of invasion, contamination, infection, hygeine, purity. LGBT exclusionists, lefties and righties, talk in the same sort of language. So do antis.

It’s also notable in the sorts of innocuous-seeming things that such people get really angry about. Right-wingers and authoritarians are known for their trend of an almost comical hatred of modern art. The idea that anything can be art, or that art can be measured on any level that isn’t strict complexity and realism of paint and sculpture, causes a surprising level of dislike in such groups. (See also arguments like ‘what is a video game’, ‘does this even count as a game’, althoughpeople thankfully seem to be bored of that now). Exclusionists are equally renowned for campaigns against inclusive terms like ‘queer’, and TERFs get obsessively nitpicky about people’s genitals to a really creepy degree and get very uncomfortable when you mention the ‘grey area’ in biological sex. This is normally assumed to be just dislike at people challenging their arguments, but I think it’s deeper. I think it’s like the modern art thing. Any kind of radical inclusivity is threatening to pro-selection thinkers, not because it’s a challenge to their rules and definitions -- they can have those arguments perfectly comfortably -- but because it is an attack on the very concept of meaning. “Words mean things! Groups exist! You can’t just... just get rid of groups and open up categories to include more people without putting them through a serious, rigorous proving ground first! You can’t just call anything you want to ‘art’, you can’t just call anyone outside cisheteronormative expectations part of the LGBT community, you can’t just call people men or women based on how they feel! That’s chaos! How can any progress be made if we just decide words don’t mean anything??”

(I also think this is a much-overlooked aspect of the same-sex marriage debate. Yes, most of that was garden-variety homophobia, but I’ve known a lot of people who were perfectly fine with ‘the gays having equal rights’, they just didn’t want it called marriage. To a pro-variationist, having the same legal language for partnerships regardless of the sex or gender of the participants is really important -- it’s a shield against future discrimination as the laws relating to either marriages or civil partnerships change over time. To a pro-selectionist, changing the definition of words related to fundamental cultural activities is a huge deal. “They’re eroding the very meaning of marriage! Chaos! How much more will the word change? Can people marry animals or cars next?!”)

As I said, this is a spectrum. I’ve met very few people who are on either extreme end -- even the most pro-equality liberal anarchist acknowledges that some standards of behaviour, community responses to inappropriate action and definitions of different communities do have to exist, to protect people, and the most hardocre fascist admits that there needs to be some measure of generating diversity to avoid stagnation and extinction. And people’s default reaction isn’t necessarily their position on all issues -- somebody who’s generally pro-variation might feel specifically threatened by immigration and think a strict proving ground for immigrants is necessary, or someone who is generally pro-selectionist might think that a robust social system is necessary because one’s economic status at birth has no bearing on one’s merit or value. But I’ve always found it to be a very useful general model.

#culture #politics #bigotry #left wing #right wing #queer #lgbt

48 notes · View notes

commonwealthoccurences · 3 years

Text

Companions React (+Maxson): Sole Comes Out As FtM

Note: I used he/him pronouns in this since the request was for a trans male Sole. However, if this was a misstep on my behalf (I am fully aware pronouns don’t equal gender so I may be wrong to assume all or most trans men use he/him pronouns), or if any part of this was handled poorly, please let me know so I can educate myself and come back and edit this. Thank you!

Cait:

Aggressively casual in response

“Ah, alright. What’s your real name so I don’t fuck up and call ya by your dead one?”

Honestly… doesn’t really react otherwise. She rolls with it quite easily and doesn’t feel the need for conversation unless it’s to make Sole more comfortable and for him to understand that she supports him fully.

Not good with emotions, though, so her support is gruff and short

She does her best

Very willing to beat the shit out of anyone who tries anything

Curie:

Enthusiastically supportive

“Oh, that’s wonderful monsieur! Congratulations!”

Beaming and gives Sole a big hug

Just wants him to know he’s always loved and accepted with her and isn’t afraid to ramble to make sure that gets through

Very conscious about what might make Sole dysphoric and is very adept about casually navigating around that stuff (ie subtly taking care of things that might be upsetting if she can)

Danse:

Easily summarized as “A little confused, but he’s got the spirit”

“Ah, congratulations Soldier.” A long pause. “I’m not quite sure what that entails.”

Fully on board once he gets the memo, just needs some guidance on what makes Sole most comfortable

Sole may find him practicing his name and pronouns over and over to himself- “This is Sole, he’s our best soldier.” or “Sole is the ideal recruit for this mission; he’ll know exactly how to handle it.”- when he thinks Sole can’t hear him.

Listens very attentively whenever Sole explains an aspect of his identity/transition to him

Just wants to make sure Sole’s happy

Deacon:

Also extremely casual

“Oh, nice Boss!” and goes for a high five

(I hc Deacon as nonbinary and genderqueer/agender) Quite knowledgeable already, so he doesn’t need much explanation other than personal preferences for things

Cuts in to quietly and politely remind people when other Railroad members slip up on pronouns/name.

Gage:

Confused and short about it but willing to learn

Also not one for many words so he just nods in response and does his best

May not vocally be enthusiastic like Curie but Sole’s overboss nameplate switches from their deadname to his real name overnight after he finds out

Doesn’t make a big show of it but he’s very quietly and behind-the-scenes supportive

Once again, unless someone tries some shit. Then he’s willing to break some bones.

Hancock:

“Damn, Sunshine. Now I’m not the handsome half anymore. I’m alright with bein’ the pretty one, though.”

Semi-casual, though he does ask a few questions to make sure he’s got the information he needs to make sure Sole is happy and he handles everything correctly

Gets very excited about the idea of matching uniforms

Plops his hat on Sole’s head and pats him on the back

Asks if they wanna get high in celebration

Haylen:

Quiet as Sole explains and then nods and mulls it over to make sure she’s understood everything correctly

Asks a few questions but doesn’t need much information other than Sole explaining what he needs to feel comfortable (real name, pronouns, etc)

After their conversation is over she stands and glances around before inviting him to tea

Tries to use it as a signal that nothing’s changed between them other than her getting to watch him become more comfortable with himself

MacCready:

“Oh… okay. Do we need to get you new clothes or are you okay with borrowing mine for now?”

Catches on pretty damn quickly, though his father instincts kick in and he becomes a bit over-worried

“This won’t give you dysphoria, right? I wanted to buy you new shirts as a surprise but I didn’t want to get it wrong.”

Frets that he might do something upsetting, but isn’t overbearing about it

Checks in to make sure he’s been handling everything correctly and hasn’t done anything to upset Sole every now and then

Maxson:

“Of course, Soldier. I’ll let them know to correct your paperwork and holotags immediately.”

Requests they stay for lunch so Sole can explain what this means in regards to changes around the ship and how he refers to him

Asks him how he wants to tell the others in the Brotherhood and how he can help Sole with that

Doesn’t show much emotion and is mostly business-like other than:

“Know that you have my support, Soldier. If you have any issues let me know and they will be resolved immediately.”

Nick:

“Sounds good, kid. What do I call you from now on?”

Checks in emotionally after Sole’s explanation to make sure that 1. No one’s been an ass and 2. He’s doing okay mentally

Lowkey has extra conversations with Ellie so they both can practice Sole’s name and pronouns

Piper:

Doesn’t need much of an explanation and catches on quite easily

She and Nat also practice Sole’s name and pronouns together when Sole’s not around

Nat helps her make a new honorary-journalist’s hat for him with his real name

Preston:

Needs a more in depth discussion; it’s not like he’s never met a trans man, but it was never a discussed thing. It was “Yup. He’s a dude.” and moving on.

Asks some questions to better understand Sole’s experiences

More serious and calm.

“You’ve always got my support, General.”

X6-88:

Literally no reaction

Switches name and pronouns easily and doesn’t blink about it

Can come across cold in his response- “Yes, sir.” and moves on

It’s not a topic of conversation to him to be honest, he makes the changes to make sure Sole’s comfortable, but doesn’t have a Preston or Curie type response

Unless Sole expresses discomfort about his casual handling of it, he doesn’t react much

#fallout 4 #fo4 #fallout 4 companions react #fallout 4 headcanons #Cait #Curie #Paladin Danse #Deacon #Gage #Hancock #Scribe Haylen #RJ MacCready #Elder Maxson #nick valentine #Preston Garvey #X6-88

162 notes · View notes

sometimes-men-need-help-too · 3 years

Note

What does modern feminism do that you don't agree with? This is genuine btw

A couple things before I start:

- This is not meant to bash all the feminists out there unless they fit into what I’m saying. I know there are good feminists out there

- When I say ‘you’ I’m not meaning you, I’m saying it in a general way

-I hope I get my point across and it’s clear. I sometimes struggle with that

Also I’m sorry this is so long and it’s in no particular order and I hope none of this comes across as being aggressive or anything

A lot of my issues with the movement boils down to attitudes. To me, that is very telling of its true colors. And I do try not to necessarily judge an entire movement from just the bad people because I know that isn’t fair, although I do feel like the bad feminists have taken over the movement and end up drowning out the good voices and that’s why we hear more negativity than positivity.

One thing that I have issue with the lack of respect towards those that disagree whether it’s with the movement itself or it’s a particular thing. For a movement that preaches about a woman’s choice, I don’t feel that really happens like it should. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong here but depending on what the topic is I get a general impression like you’re not really supposed to disagree with what’s being side. You do and you might have someone lash out at you (that’s another point I have). Or if you say you’re anti feminist, you have people coming up with these reasons why they think you are; one being internalized misogyny and you get called a pick-me which I find a bit insulting. I should be able to have an opinion without someone assuming I’m trying to get a man’s attention or I can’t think for myself or I hate other girls. That isn’t it! Wouldn’t you think that is misogynistic?

And if it’s not internalized misogyny, then there are other factors; her being white (which usually then goes on to sound racist) or it’s because she has money or internalized racism or whatever they come up with. And it sounds condescending and that just bugs me. Hey, maybe instead of some underlying reason, we just don’t agree.

or you have people try to stick the label on anyway.

‘If you believe in equality you’re a feminist’

The label means nothing. I don’t understand why some will focus on this so much. I don’t want to be called a feminist. I don’t need to. In the same way, it’s not necessary for me to refer to myself as an MRA (men’s rights activist). And yeah, I know this says it’s an “MRA blog” that’s what I had when I started. But ultimately, the label isn’t important. I’m all for equality. It’s cool, it’s great. But I see this sort of thing (online that is) being forced on people and the thing is, with that wording it makes it sound like the movement is all inclusive when it’s not. You have to have certain politics and for the most part (unless you’re a religious feminist) you have to be pro choice otherwise you’re not a ‘real’ feminist.

My next issue is all the aggression. You can just tell sometimes with how people respond online or if you catch a video that someone posted. And not only that, but how quickly people fall into name-calling or just all around acting like a child. And for the most it seems pretty acceptable to some because it keeps happening. It’s not hard to find on this site or otherwise. If you can’t communicate your opinions about something without having a fit or blocking someone (excluding if they just keep harassing you) then you’re not mature enough. That shows me you don’t really care about having a real discussion. And some can say that it happening on here is probably done by teenagers and to an extent they’re probably right. But it happens on other sites and in real life as well and it’s more than just teens. It’s people my age and older and that’s not cool.

And then we have how some like to ignore the differences between men and women. Sure, yes, there are many things a woman can do just like a man but we also have to acknowledge our differences. I don’t see a lot of that with some forms of feminism. STEM, for example, is something I would attribute the differences more to just how men and women tend to be rather than sexism. Could there be certain circumstances where it is sexism? Sure, I suppose you can’t rule it out entirely. Otherwise I would say it’s just what they’re happy doing. I know girls who are doing science stuff or business things but I also know girls who are going to be teachers or psychologists or nurses. It’s not that they're actively being told by everyone that they can’t do it(I suppose unless they live in some other country like that). That’s just what they want to do, you know, their choice. Just like how some men go towards a job like with computers or farming or they’re pre-school teachers or gynecologists.

I found an interesting fact (source will be posted below) that said women are actually preferred over men two-to-one for faculty positions. The study was done by psychologists from Cornell University with professors from 371 colleges/universities in the US. It also noted that: “recent national census-type studies showing that female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, yet when they do they are more likely to be hired, in some science fields approaching the two-to-one ratio revealed by Williams and Ceci.”

Yet, we need to ask ourselves honestly, how often do facts like these get passed around vs the idea that women are suffering from misogyny and therefore are unable to fully represent in STEM jobs?

The next thing I want to address is misandry. Now there are a good portion of people who don't think it exists or if it does, it's really not much of an issue because of the "power" and the "privilege" men have within society. And to me, I have a problem with that. If feminism is supposed to be for men as well, I would think they would want to combat misandry as well as misogyny. If someone really doesn't think it exists, I would suggest that the person really take a look at what goes on in real life and online that's directed towards men.

There's the whole "male tears" thing which is on coffee mugs and t-shirts. There's the kill all men/yes all men thing. All of which are supposed to be jokes and if a man says something about it he gets mocked for his "fragile masculinity"

That's just not okay. They're being immature and a bully which they usually try to justify (men have done this and that throughout history to women) but you just can't.

I found this article, this really really atrocious article. It's one of those open letter things and found on this feminist website (feminisminindia) and I almost believed it to be satire with how.... stereotypically Tumblr it was. I did research and looked at the info regarding the site and nope, it's a serious site. I'll post the article below but I'll also summarize it:

Basically this woman is telling the men in her life that she will not stop saying "men are trash or other radical feminist opinions." She's saying it because women and others have suffered so much at the hands of the patriarchy because they're not straight white men. She goes on to say:

So let’s establish: misandry isn’t real. Just like unicorns and heterophobia, misandry is a myth because it isn’t systematic or systemic. Unlike misogyny, cis men don’t face oppression purely based on their gender. While they may encounter instances of racism, homophobia and ableism, they are not dehumanised as a function of their gender identity (read: cis privilege).

That is wrong. Absolutely wrong. Misandry is real. "Cis" people do face oppression purely based on their gender. Anyone can. To deny that lacks understanding.

And the rest is just saying that: It is time to start hating on men-as-a-whole and starting celebrating the men that you are.

And: Because at the end of the day, feminists need men. Whether it’s because you wield structural power or because we genuinely value your existence, we need to band together to destroy ‘men’ because men are trash, but you, if you made it to the end of this, are probably not. Prove me right.

I would imagine this is a common viewpoint. And it's not a good one. If you genuinely think a whole group as a whole is bad you need to reexamine your thoughts. It's not "men" that are bad, it's the sexist people.

To wrap this up (I'm sure you might be tired of reading this lol); like I said, the attitudes play a huge part of it. Modern feminism, in my opinion, is just not good enough for me to say I agree with it and want to identify as one. I just can't

Here is the link to the feminist article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/feminisminindia.com/2020/09/23/men-are-trash-and-other-radical-feminist-opinions/%3famp

And here is the link for the STEM thing: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

#mens rights #answered asks #i might have overdid this a bit....

23 notes · View notes

larenoz · 3 years

Text

There Has To Be Three - Updated

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

Originally posted as part of @rnmmarchformeta but updated to reflect some new additions. Only three eps in and already enough for an update!!

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

From the very beginnings of the show, symbolism related to the number three has been present.

The most obvious example of this is the mysterious symbol seen throughout the show. We see it displayed in the town lights when the power returns after Max causes the blackout. It has recurred so often in their lives that both Max and Michael have it tattooed on their bodies.

It is initially described in terms of being a beacon. In 1.09 Songs About Texas, Max sees the symbol on the flyer for the Indigenous faith healer, Arizona. It’s here that Max learns about the way the symbol mysteriously forms near certain people, and its link to the silent woman on the reservation.

We later learn that in addition to its role as a beacon, the symbol is used as a lock. It is the Pod Squad placing their hands on their respective circle on the symbol that unlocks Mr Jones’ cell.

And again, we see the number three associated with a lock and key on the box used to house Tripp’s diary left to Patricia.

But is the power of the design intrinsic or is it what the design represents?

Does the symbol in fact represent an important cultural or biological concept for the race of aliens to which Max, Isobel, and Michael belong? Join me dear readers on my journey into the “aliens need to be in groups of three to form stable relationships and be happy” head canon.

Could it be possible that the aliens only function successfully when they form relationships, be they romantic, sexual, platonic, sibling etc when it contains three people?

We see many different groupings of people, that don’t seem to work properly until they are together or that when fractured, bad things happen.

Pod squad - Iz, Michael, Max

Science Bros - Liz, Michael, Kyle

Family - Liz, Rosa, Arturo

Family - Liz, Rosa, Kyle

Friends - Liz, Maria, Alex

Barn Crew - Nora, Louise, Roy

The Parents - Mimi, Jim, Jesse

Manes Men - Alex, Flint, Greg

In 2.05 we are given an answer by Max:

“The thing is, there has to be three. Okay. There’s always three. Until the end.”

“Cause it’s all broken without three.”

This is confirmation from canon that at least for the Pod Squad, three is the magic number.

The question then becomes was Max talking only about their specific situation or is it indicative of the wider cultural/biological alien imperative?

In terms of the Pod Squad, even though they are together physically, emotionally they are distant. The events surrounding Rosa’s death break the trust within the group and the closeness they had before that event is lost. It’s only once those secrets are out in the open and they begin to repair their relationship as a group, that they each start to heal their other relationships as individuals. Obviously, there are other events impacting their individual circumstances but the point holds.

Could this within its full cultural manifestation be that triads are the norm for the aliens? And that the 2.06 threesome is them unwittingly falling into the cultural norms of Michael’s society?

Does the threesome between Maria, Alex and Michael happen because they were already the most likely (basically people who are all outsiders in some way and therefore already breaking societal norms) to be open to unconventional relationship structures and therefore more open to acting on the drive towards a triadic group?

Originally posted by rosaortecho

Like for Kaliz, Kyle provides that balance, cause Max isn’t great at setting boundaries with Liz.

And even with Alex, Maria and Liz, their friendship was broken until they all came back together.

Even in non-romantic/sexual situations the characters tend to work better in groups of three. It isn’t until Kyle, Liz and Michael all start working together that they start making headway on healing Max and it’s only when they all contribute something equally (Liz regrowing the heart, Michael making the pacemaker and Kyle conducting the surgery) that they finally succeed.

I like that alien culture isn’t just a replication or mirror of our world. And that the differences provide a lens for us to examine our own cultural defaults. - eg monogamy (which historically hasn’t always been the default even in the West). Canon has explicitly questioned the assumption that the aliens experience sexuality in the same way as humans. Michael says in 1.11 Champagne Supernova:

“Oh, we are literally aliens, and you’re gonna hold me to some outdated binary of sexuality?”

And Isobel in 2.07 Como La Flor:

“I mean, what does an alien care about human gender constructs?”

It isn’t such a stretch to suggest that how their society structures its intimate and familial relationships is also different than humans? If aliens aren’t monosexual by default, it’s highly possible they aren’t monogamous by default either.

While allegory plays an important part in the storytelling of the show, I wish that they would also take advantage of their sci-fi setting to explore other aspects of the aliens’ culture. Use the sci-fi genre to explore how they are different as much as how they are the same as humans. The story so far has given us so many elements that could be used as a what-if starting point for exploring different possible experiences. For example, how The Expanse has shown that as humanity expands into space different distinct culture develop. In the show, we see the exploration of a polyamous Belter family that Drummer finds herself in - the #PolyamBelterFam

Realistically, we aren’t going to see this. Even though hey even went as far as having portraying a canon threesome but stopped short of fully exploring the potential of this event by giving us a fully realised polyamorous relationship.

Nevertheless, I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the “three” symbolism and it’s going to be interesting to see if it gets developed further.

Update 11 Aug 2021 (Post S3 Ep 3):

So only three eps in and we already have new "There Needs To Be Three" content. Let's start with the most obvious!!

Our introduction to the home planet of the Pod Squad gives us this image of the night sky with Three Moons!! Which are sort of in the same configuration as the lock symbol?

In the dialogue of the show, Isobel actually uses the term "Triad" to describe the pod squad:

"Okay, you're right. We've all been hiding things from each other. And it has to stop.

We're not strong unless we're together. It's like you said; there has to be three. We're a triad."

(text courtesy of Saadiestuff transcripts)

In S3 Ep 3 we see Michael coming to possession of some enhanced turquoise. He ends up giving pieces to Alex, while Isobel also gets a piece. Both Michael and Alex use their pieces to boost or interact with some alien technology, while Isobel's piece enhances her empathic power.

This one is purely theoretical at this point, but what about the Lockheart Machine and Jim's Radio - is there a missing third machine to complete a machine/circuit?

#roswell nm #roswell new mexico #roswellnm #symbolism #michael guerin #alex manes #maria deluca #liz ortecho #rnm spoilers #max evans #kyle valenti #isobel evans

24 notes · View notes

word-addict-lisette · 3 years

Text

I can’t believe this!!!

So, something very weird and crazy happened yesterday night. I got i to little debate with my mom. It started from feminism and we ended on the LGBTQ community. But either way it was chaotic.

But the argument ended in me realizing that older generations... As in our parents, don't actually care about this feminism thingy at all. They don't care at all. They want good lives and want equality but it's for themselves, they fail to see that there are different types of women out there too. And even worse is that my mother has no idea of what the LGBTQ community is. And that's sick!

The only thing she is aware of is that gay is a bad word to call some like. What the hell? It sure as hell isn't! So it was like late night, and my mother was randomly scrolling through her phone while me and my sister were just cracking random jokes and laughing among ourselves.

That’s when my mother made this comment on seeing a post, “Women don’t look good until they have good hair.” I gave it some thought, not in the mood for an argument at 11 in the night. But my sister felt the need to speak so she retorted with, “Not necessarily, everyone looks good, and I don’t see how a person’s hair matters.” I agreed, my mother didn’t.

She said, “Not necessarily everyone looks good, we just say everyone is beautiful for the sake of it, but i don’t really think people look good with bad hair. And i don’t think really really short hair suits people either.” I didn’t like that comment one bit, so i stepped in.

“Not everyone says that everyone is beautiful just for the sake of it. Everyone truly is beautiful, and A lot of people look good with really short hair too, you can’t judge them like that.” She threw me a look for that.

“At that rate, you will say that even bald people look good. They don’t necessarily look good. they are people like that.” I shot back at her, cause now it was getting on my nerves. I told her, “Who said bald people don’t look good, i thought i just specified the fact that everyone looks good, and there are no exceptions to that case, even my sister had gotten my bald she was very young, you didn’t call her ugly. Then why others?”

“She said fine, I am not gonna argue with that, not necessarily all women and men look good. I don’t think that everyone is good looking. Beautiful doesn’t mean human, you need to have some things in you to be termed beautiful.”

My sister contradicted with, “I don’t think anyone set the parameters for beauty yet, if anyone has, they are crazy. Everyone is beautiful and if you don’t feel so, i’m sorry i can’t change that. But i’m with my sister in this.”

But i had a whole different topic to discuss after that, “This whole conversion was carried out as if it was pointed towards women, I don’t see why women don’t look good with short hair. Men look good in short hair, men and women are equal, and if men can have short hair and not be judged, it can be the same with women.”

That seemed to put my mother to think, but she didn’t change her thought one bit. she responded with, “Women and men are different, sure women and men are equal, but there are some differences, and by the way women are built differently and they ought to look good. That’s when you feel like a women.”

my sister felt differently, “Men and women are equal, at least they should be. And the word equal, doesn’t come with any exceptions like beauty or anything, so equal means equal. That’s what feminism is for.”

My mother looked confused at the last sentence, she looked like she didn’t know what feminism is. But then she automatically assumed it to have something to do with women being superior than men. She clarified that she didn’t think women ought to be on a higher position in the world, like unless the women actually deserved it with all right. But men had the higher position and the best we ought to get was gender equality, between females and males.

Until a few years back, i would have agreed with her, just the way my sister did after explaining the real meaning of feminism to my mother. But, I didn’t agree with that statement either. Gender equality did not mean equality between males and females, it meant equality between all the genders. That is when i got in the LGBTQ+ community. My mother had literally 0% idea of what that was. And i felt like digging my own grave and burying myself alive.

I did not even ask her to google the community like i had asked her to google feminism. I simply asked her what was her view on the transgenders. She said, “not much, they are like okay though i am not sure i really support them. I am still dicy about them.”

That reminded of something that happened long back. When I was in Class 7, one of my classmates accidentally called a guy in our class gay, because he used to make fun of them in class a lot. I truly used to resent it when they used to make fun of transgenders in my school, I wasn’t aware of the the LGBTQ+ community back then, but still I hated it.

When the fact a guy had called a friend of his gay in school spread around and our parents got to know, the kid got suspended for two days, and got a diary note. Moreover my mother told me then that I hope you don’t use such bad words and vulgarized language in school. If I hear you calling anyone such a foul word anytime, consider yourself grounded for a year.

That day stuck with me forever, How the heck was GAY a bad word?

So last night during the argument, I told her that gender equality meant it was for all the genders, literally all the genders. And i literally told her about the fact that she told me gay was a bad word whereas it wasn’t. I told her that there are homosexual people as well and just told her about the LGBTQ+ community. She didn’t seem to support them much. But at least she knew about it.

She still didn’t agree about the lgbtq+ community thingy and different genders. she also mentioned that she didn’t know anything about this community, and she wondered if she could have cared less about it before. And she was very shocked about the fact that i supported them, and that I was a feminist. she said that she never taught me any of this and was thoroughly surprised when she found out I knew so many things, that she thought that I shouldn’t.

It sucked that she thought of all of it in such a manner, But before i could go further with the convo, my sister just asked us to cut it out... Though i was so not pleased to know that my mom didn’t even know that there is something called the LGBTQ+ community and feminism. A similar thing had happened a few month ago, where i told her about black lives matter. Turns out our generation is quite more socially knowledgeable and mature than our parents.

But then again, this morning i was called lazy, and again made to feel like crap. my mother termed that i ought to study and not spend so much time on my laptop and mobile, because, they aren’t going to get me anywhere and social media is poisoning my mind. Interesting part.... TUMBLR is my only source of socializing on the internet! She isn’t even aware of that. But yeah... at the end: I am the stuck up kid in the house.

#from liz's thoughts #this is from my experience #i still can't believe it #lgbt #everyday feminism #feminismisequality #socialist feminism #feminist #debates in the house #im so done #we are really in it now #stuck up?#i can't belive this #ughhhh #my sister doesn't know about the lgbtq community #either of them #why is it like this

15 notes · View notes

fatesdeepdive · 3 years

Text

Entry 38: Jakob is Abusive

Paralogue 4: Fight or Flight

Jakob is heading to visit his son Dwyer when an army of purple ghost men show up. As the party fights off the invaders, Jakob chastises his son for staying back to heal the wounded instead of fighting the enemy. What. Since when is this Jakob’s personality? It’s especially dumb considering the fact that Dwyer is a troubadour and literally cannot attack.

This is a defeat the boss chapter where the boss starts right next to the party, meaning it can be beaten in one turn if you don’t care about EXP. I tried to play it the dev intended way, but the boss committed suicide on Reina. That was a fun chapter. I looked up Dwyer’s recruitment text online; Jakob is a dick to his son for being a medic and calls him lazy.

After the battle, Dwyer’s servants and caretakers all quit, which means we have to take him with us I guess. Side note, how much do we pay Jakob to buttle? Because he owns an entire mansion and hired a dozen servants to take care of his son.

As the chapter ends, an enemy sneaks up on Jakob and Dwyer slaps him in the face hard enough to kill him, earning his father’s respect.

Dwyer

Jakob’s son, a lazy, slobbish troubadour who sucks at being a butler. Except, his “laziness” is working as a medic, something vital for our army’s survival. Design wise he looks weird, with his sullen eyes and messy hair, but it works for his personality. His personal skill, Born Steward, makes him stronger in My Castle battles. It does nothing in normal battles, making it nearly useless.

In the past, I’ve used “Lord Corrin” and “Lady Corrin” for the different genders of Avatar. But, because we’re getting into the Supports where this actually matters more, I’ve decided to do what I did with Kana and give them different names. Female Corrin won the coin toss months ago, so she can have the name Corrin. For Male Corrin, I shall use a portmanteau of Man and Corrin that properly describes Corrin: Moron.

Support: Dwyer/Moron

C: Dwyer decides to follow in his father's footsteps and become an obsessively loyal servant to Corrin.

B: Dwyer bakes pastries, makes tea, and acts surprisingly competent. Corrin tells Dwyer that Dwyer doesn't work for him and Dwyer insists on serving. Dwyer announces he will climb a cliff to get mint for Corrin's tea.

A: Corrin goes out and gets the mint. Dwyer yells at Corrin for endangering himself and makes Corrin promise to stop being idiotic. Unfortunately, that's Corrin's entire personality.

Review: Not bad, but a bit odd. I was under the impression, from the Paralogue, that Dwyer was a lazy slob, not a carbon copy of his father.

Support: Corrin/Dwyer

C: Dwyer makes Corrin tea. It tastes like Jakob's, which annoys Dwyer, who wants to be better than his father.

B: Dwyer bakes Corrin cookies. Corrin tells Dwyer to relax and stop worrying about impressing her. Corrin asks Dwyer to treat her as an equal, Dwyer insists on buttling, and Corrin compromises by also being a butler.

A: Dwyer makes more tea for Corrin. Corrin tells him to stop competing with Jakob and gives him cookies she baked.

S: Dwyer proposes to Corrin, promising to always take care of her. Corrin says no, unless they have an equal partnership where she also does things for him.

Review: Corrin wanting to have an actual friendship with Dwyer, rather than a master-servant relationship, is nice. That said, this one is a bit repetitive. It’s also weird to have Corrin talk about wanting to be an equal with Dwyer and do her own laundry, considering that she is literal royalty. Like, you can’t have monarchs be just like everyone else and be relatable and also have them believe that they should have absolute power because everyone else is genetically inferior. Fire Emblem in general kinda glorifies monarchies, which isn’t great, but is also a problem found in almost all fantasy.

Support: Dwyer/Mother

C: Dwyer makes his mother coffee. His mother says it's better than Jakob’s and Dwyer says not to repeat that, because Jakob will get mad. It’s kinda uncomfortable how much Dwyer’s Supports revolve around Jakob being emotionally abusive.

B: Dwyer is depressed because he isn't suited for war because he hates fighting. His mother says that he should continue to be a child soldier, because it means he spends time with his family. Also that Dwyer is a selfless healer, but still.

A: Dwyer's mom apologizes for telling Dwyer to put himself in danger. Dwyer brushes it off, saying his friends will be in danger if he leaves.

Review: I’m really starting to feel bad for Dwyer. His parents are both awful to him. Focussing on this Support in particular, the C-Rank is disconnected and the B-Rank, where Dwyer’s mother guilts him into fighting in a brutal war, rubs me the wrong way.

Support: Dwyer/Jakob

C: Dwyer and Jakob both make coffee. Dwyer's is better, which anger's Jakob. B: Jakob makes some more coffee, which is still worse than Dwyers. Jakob decides to drag his son, who based on game mechanics cannot defend himself, to the field to spar. So we've moved to physical abuse. A: Dwyer says that he's glad he's been able to spend more time with his father. The two share a cup of coffee together.

Review: Weirdly enough, this one feels less horrible than past Supports, with Jakob being his fun snarky self and Dwyer matches him word for word. Still, Jakob acts absolutely horrible in this Support, insulting, gaslighting, and flat out beating his son for being better than him at making coffee.

Overall, this entry accomplished one thing: making one of my favorite characters an abusive prick.

#dwyer fe #dwyer fire emblem #corrin fe #corrin fire emblem #jakob fe #joker fe #jakob fire emblem

13 notes · View notes