#Concept Theme Analysis

[shimada-death]

Ed not only being Non-binary but also transitioning along the story is really cool and something i have barely seen in other media (esp fem presenting nb) but i think deep down their current stance is just a culmination of their wish to being "someone else" while also being unable to

They were "adopted" by the Guerras yet after the divorce Angel never cared for them, he only has Isabel's custody and doesn't seem to be bothered for this. Francisco calls them a freeloader and they never call any of them "family" even if they legally are

Yet they're still asked to fill the "older brother" role for Isabel

This has led to Ed seeing Isabel has their only link to their family, even if they hadn't realized it yet. With that in mind their mental breakdown in chapter 5 changes a lot. It's not about "losing a friend", deep down it's about not filling the only role they've been asked to.

When they aren't asked to be"the older brother" then they're "the Burger's son", a living memento and reminder of their parent's disappearence

Bruce and Gwen don't really mean anything to Ed since they were too little to remember them, but they're asked to be on a constant mourning, Spender remembers all of the club members yet the only thing he can share about Ed is that they're the Doctor's child and what it means to his relationship with the doctors

This roles are no problem for them, they like to fill the mold that people assign to them after all

But they have become a core part of their identity. And when Ed starts questioning their gender identity they start to question why they can't fill those roles too.

And the wish has come true! they're someone else! they're smart and cute and aren't lacking anything in particular! They've broken the mold!

But that "someone else" is still the kid who wishes to fill the "Isabel's sibling" and "Burger's child" because Ed has entangled those concepts so tight to their identity and self that they can't imagine a version of themself without them.

Ed's identity as a whole has been what others have built for them and they have just accepted to be the reflection of that, realizing they're non-binary and be open about that (even with a big push from the wish) has been the first step to unbuild all of it, but they still need a lot of reconstruction to do which i think they're currently not smart enough to see.

[butchsophiewalten]

It always feels kinda strange to me positing this level of analysis for a series where like. So little of it exists right now, and it has had only such a small opportunity to actually introduce and develop its themes as a work. But I still love to think in part that The Walten Files' narrative can represent the way capitalism enables human abuses and stifles and silences stories of individual suffering.

It's Robot Murder webseries but I think it has a lot of threads that connect to themes of workplace coercion and abuse, to the bystander effect, to the way that individuals looking to cause harm will seek out positions of power and will be granted them out of corporate convenience. The way that victims' stories will be silenced and scrubbed from discourse, perpetuated only through exploitative rumor. And I don't even think these corollaries are necessarily unintentional?

Though we haven't seen this happen in earnest in the series yet, I think a very basic and obvious example comes from the implication that Jack and Felix reached some kind of 'truce' after Edd & Molly's deaths, arranged specifically for the sake of Bon's Burgers' success as a business. We know for a fact, now, that the Founder's Photo was taken after the crash. They are mutually roleplaying an amicable relationship, and in doing so lessening the consequences of meaningful human injustices, (Felix, let's say, deserves to go to prison, or to have his business fail, or to at least be denied the profit and reward from the success of his business, or some other consequence for his actions that isn't just the dissolution of his friendship with Jack,) for the sake of securing a profitable business venture. And I alluded to the aspect of coercion within this. We can imagine from Jack's perspective, say, that he's poured a lot of resources into Bon's Burgers as a financial project, and legitimately cannot afford to see it fail. It would ruin the lives of him and what is left of its family to leave it a crashing burning wreckage, so he sets aside, to some degree, his desire to seek justice, and passes a threshold where he becomes a wilful (note: not "willing") participant in the silencing of injustice.

I think this is going to become, like, an incredibly obvious recurring theme as the series continues. Which it already kind of is. Individuals being forced to adopt some level of complicity in their own suffering. For the sake of capital. We've seen this to some extent with Hillary's Findjackwalten page, where she airs out some of her guilt with having been associated with BSI for such a long time, despite her level of awareness of the company's shady business practice and rumored history of actual crime. One of her friends went literally missing, and she continued working for the company for years.

Another point is that I anticipate part of the reason Charles and Susan sort of kept silence about their discomfort with Felix and his behavior post-crash is so that they could keep their jobs. Sure, that whole inner group of BSI members were a tight-knit "Family", but I think after a certain point the true dynamic became more evident, that Felix was their boss, and that he was only going to put up with so much scrutiny. Which obviously emulates a dynamic that exists in the real world, of an overly friendly corporate environment getting people in a lot of trouble when they realize too late that their boss is still their boss, and that their job will take advantage of the friendliness or charity they decide to show to their "friends" at any and every opportunity.

Just fundamentally, Bon's Burgers, as a business, and as a narrative mechanism, and as a literal front for serial murder, chews through people for the sake of success and profitability, and to guarantee access to more victims. In a way that is sometimes maybe a little bit more literal or fantastical than what tends to happen in the real world. But not that much more literal, because real-world capitalism also kills people all the time.

[werewolfoffeverswamp]

me when my fate approaches me at alarming speed but i am completely oblivious. because i am just a pool toy.

[wackywatchdotcom]

got reminded of it ... but i think about the symbolism of jax' model a lot bc i think its subtle!!! but its there

and i think the crux of it is that jax' model is very much a prey animal, something that contradicts his general tendency for reckless, mean bullshit. there could be something there about him having front-facing eyes too. and iirc gooseworx said the farm was a lie which i do take into account but also i think it helps w his generally very 'natural' or real-world-nature design components and ideas being evoked. he has clothes and these clothes are very minimal and hes a real animal fairly closely associated with farming or hunting and is very humanlike and his pocket just Has Mulch in it. even if the farm isnt real theres definitely something his design is evoking here

that and an idea ive thought of is that rabbits are VERY much animals that operate on instinct. they do a lot of things based on an immediate need, typically for survival, at least in the wild. and i dont know if id describe jax as fearful (some could argue he is in his own way, which i dont disagree with, but i think the implications can be a bit loaded- but theres many ways a person can be fearful) but he definitely operates on what he immediately wants. he wants to have fun. so he DOES. it doesnt matter what that entails. he wants control, so he takes it out on the others. it doesnt matter what that entails. etc etc. hes also running from something and i think the image of a rabbit fits that well

i think its deliberate that jax is the only design that actually revolves around an animal that we see. theres dobby and that worm on a string in the back but of the main cast its ALL humans or items, jax is the only one whos an animal (and probably still intended to be toy-like, but none of the others have distinct animals theyre meant to be). and it feels purposeful in a way i genuinely think about a lot. i cant place what its implying for certain because i genuinely dont think we have enough information on jax to fully understand his thought processes, but it does make him very connected to the real world, but in a distant way

[bonefall]

what concerning behaviors does bramble show in fatherhood? Genuine question I didnt read PO3 and I haven’t really heard anyone talking about that

I can't go and grab book quotations at the moment, hopefully I'll have time to make a big thing on this later this month (the breeze one took a couple days), but he has some odd trends.

NEVER once stands up for Breezepaw while seeing Crow openly, flagrantly abusing him, even responds to Crow's "I HOPE YOU'RE NOT STOPPING SO THESE LITTLE BASTARDS CAN REST" comment with "dont worry im not"

Completely ignores every sign that Lionpaw is being abused by Ashfur. There are several.

Quick to anger. Though he never "HITS" his children the same way Crow did to Breeze, he does a lot of "cuffing" and can be pretty mean to his kids verbally when they disappoint him.

When Hollypaw witnesses Ashfur physically abusing her brother, she tries to tell Brambleclaw and he tells her that it's fine.

During that, he launches into this big speech about how Ashfur came to butter him up, tell him how strong his son is, how good of a warrior he'll be, that beating the shit out of his teenage child was just a misunderstanding.

And then he segways into telling Hollypaw how Mature and Responsible she is, and how he needs to Rely on her to Keep Her Brothers In Line. All of this, REMEMBER, was in response to Hollypaw trying to tell her dad about her brother being abused by a teacher.

But in spite of all this, the narrative basically holds him up as the pinnacle of fatherhood. The Three are constantly thinking about how much they love him as their dad, BEST dad in the whole world, perfect amazing cool.

None of his flaws are addressed, as usual. He seems egotistical, emotional, and even sometimes oblivious to what's happening in front of him as he focuses on his OWN feelings at all times... and that's all without getting into OotS and his post-reveal behavior, which is a whole essay topic.

But I will end it off with this; the way he acts in OotS was never out-of-character. It's very consistent, actually.

[elkian]

Got LOTR on tape to listen to on my commute, partly because of current events, and good LORD Mr. Jirt never in his life was in the vicinity of fucking around.

Like, the description of the Ring and what it does to people maps so closely to real world problems, right now. The greed and selfishness of those who covet it, the fact that it will always destroy them in service to itself...

What really got me was Gandalf's comment about how those who use it "would not die. They would not grow or gain life," and like, it really puts me in mind of billionaire power grabs and pathetic attempts at appearing important, taking over projects doomed to fail due to their interference, and so much more. Especially that latter part: they don't grow, and they don't gain life. Bilbo left because he was feeling stretched - faded, scraped thin. This is seated in metaphor, but it's easy to see similarities with rich fucks like EM or JKR who've become parodies of themselves, self-perpetuating caricatures who can never produce anything new, only steal and plagiarize and self-refer.

(A friend of mine has told me about the Silmarrillion, and I think it came up in the Hobbit - it's very interesting to me that in this setting, evil and the inability to create anything new are explicitly intertwined so often. Evil is plagiarism, theft, machine generation, uncredited parody, etc.)

It's also fascinating to me how the Ring seizes people: the fact that Bilbo was able to give it up at all is, textually, a genuinely heroic act. Gandalf refuses offers of it and begs the Bagginses to not do that again, because even he is not immune to temptation and he knows his own power does not need to be amplified. He's wise enough to see the ruin that would unfold.

And then the bit with Saruman? "Only one hand can wear it at a time," good god.

This is Jirt saying that evil means cannot produce good results. That some acts, some tools, are so steeped in blood and cruelty and ruin, that you cannot "use it for good", because using it is evil. There's a lot of literature on objects being inherently morally neutral, and I definitely think this is a subject that requires engaging one's brain, but it kind of a rare narrative in my experience. (Completely unrelated side note, the older I get, the more I question my US Education's conclusion that dropping nuclear bombs on civilian targets (including testing sites with Indigenous populations, which my history class incidentally blipped over, somehow,) was "necessary". That's completely unrelated to the matter at hand. Anyways.)

And when this narrative does come up, I tend to see it from NRA types - people with a very particular flavor of agenda. It's important to remember that Tolkein had an agenda, too, even unconsciously - it's impossible to create something untouched by one's experiences and personal bias - but, at least for me, this is a pretty unfamiliar narrative and kind of exciting for it.

Anyways, the bit with Saruman fucking stings because that is happening irl right now in this very country, people we previously thought to be fairly intelligent, perceptive, and on our side deciding they want to "join the winning team". The dismissal of Radagast's importance by him after Gandalf went "hey wait you have the potential to help right now, in small but vital ways", puts me in mind of how current political figures are dismissive of "hippy dippy environmentalist tree-huggers" (hippies, who famously resisted a military draft and protested the Vietnam war,). Radagast doesn't need to come in swinging a sword to be important - and I like that Gandalf recognizes that he is important. I've been talking about it but I've been reading James Bradley's book "Deep Water", which goes into a lot of a directions about how the ocean is innately connected to basically everything. It's a fascinating, engaging read that really helped me conceptualize a lot about nature and my connection to it.

Environmentalists, biologists, scientists - these people are important, their work is important. I'm reminded of people critizing that headline about marine biologists putting shrimp on a treadmill, and, like, the results of that study may never affect me personally but that doesn't make it pointless. I went searching and the study is about water quality and how that affects crustaceans' health. The water in the ocean will eventually become water in the clouds which will become rain which will become groundwater which, eventually, I am going to drink. If there's a high level of, say, mercury in the ocean and it starts affecting shrimps' health (or microplastics, or whatever else), studies like this are important. It also affects predators (a lot of things accumulate in the body higher up the food chain, and eating carnivores or ominvores will increase the chance of that affecting you), which affect other marine life, and so on and so forth.

And those studies often reveal, as mentioned, the effects of pollution and worse - the consequences of lawmaker mismanagement, bribery, oil drilling, cut funding, and so much more.

Scientists and researchers are liable to produce proof that those in power have done wrong. No wonder the first move is to discredit them.

(I can't find it, but there was a post on here a bit back about how the One Ring turning its user invisible isn't a mistaken relay of Hobbit power but rather because the first thing evil in power desires is complete immunity to accountability.)

Anyways, Radagast is literally going to have the animals report to him which really hammers this one home.

Also, very interesting that before the Saruman summons, Gandalf tells Frodo to gather his resources and both he and Frodo admit that Frodo isn't the smartest or strongest, but Gandalf assures him that Frodo can do this thing nonetheless (the tales of the hobbits so frequently are about humble regular people accomplishing great things and I love it). Pretty much immediately moving in to see how Saruman, the brilliant and wise, has decided to change his colors and join Sauron, feels very pointed. Jirt is setting up a narrative here, a heroic journey, and has basically said "you know Frodo is going to accomplish great things, even against people even Gandalf considers powerful" and it's really interesting.

Also, just, the hobbits continue to be great. And I love that Gandalf's response to Frodo's announcement is, "yes, you must go; yes, you must do the difficult thing; and yes, it will be a hard road. But you don't need to do it alone."

I've heard that Tolkein denied that his experiences as a soldier affected/directed the narrative, and I know that evidence to the contrary is woven in nonetheless, so I can't say for sure how intentional everything is, but there are some exceeding good and relevant points in here and I've barely started.

It frustrates me to think about, because fantasy is an undervalued genre; that magic equates whimsy and whimsy equates pointlessness, that because it could never happen then it doesn't really matter. J.R.R. Tolkein is making some extremely good points about fascism and how to resist it, and some people will never accept that because fantasy - even incredibly popular and renowned fantasy - is for entertainment and nothing else.

Edit: oh yeah and I definitely paid attention to Gandalf and Frodo talking about Gollum. I've seen the Jackson movies (I know some stuff was changed or dropped) so I have an idea of how Gandalf's prediction is going to turn out. But I'm also paying attention to how Gandalf talks to Frodo about mercy. It's interesting.

[felisgalactus]

Ok so I’m not exactly keeping up with any Undertale Orange projects, so for all I know this concept already exists, but I just gotta share my take;

Undertale Orange should be a horror game.

Like think about it, Undertale Yellow worked with the soul trait of justice as a theme, and the orange soul’s trait is bravery, and what’s bravery but the ability to go forward despite fear? Having strong themes of horror would absolutely enhance this theme, like to the point I’m not even sure if you could tell an effective story about bravery without fear.

[prismbearer]

Idk why there's disbelief over Mark S/Helly in terms of motivation. Helly is just as capable of cruelty and selfishness as Helena. They are at the core of it, the same person with different memories/experiences. They can be two perspectives worthy of indulging their own dreams and desires and also be the same person. Narratively here especially, this isn't about morality, it's about human nature.

Helly was never cruel, sure, of course. Helly felt like she was the same as the other people in MDR. But Helly has something right now that she never even achieved as Helena. Someone who loves her. Someone who is choosing her. Helly is Winning over Helena here.

Jame Eagen wanders down just to be a freak and reinforces the reality of it. Helly is "More" than Helena, hasn't been worn down by the weight of experience and the world (and their cult and corporate bullshit). She still has, in some way, the innocence of youth and lack of experience with the world. She doesn't have the same fears and burdens or triggers as Helena in her conscious experience. She still has the ability to express her passions and outrage and defend herself. And to love and not feel sorry for it.

Severance gave Helena a chance to exist without the learned perspectives and burdens of the Eagens and she is able to be free with herself and her passions and desires-- whereas Helena was likely drained of any dreams for potential beyond a strictly guided future decades ago.

Of course Helly is feeling a rush of joy and satisfaction over Mark loving her. Mark choosing her. She tried to do the "right thing" by being logical with Mark. "I'm her." Even outside of Lumon, if they bring it all down, there's no hope for an Eagen and an ex-severed employee in reality. In the Real World they will never be together. Mark couldn't love Helena, how could anyone love an Eagen? (Poor Helly really with like, the enemy is within etc, but that's kinda the situation framed by Lumon for everyone by setting the stage with your Innie isn't human kinda rhetoric.) (This was also reinforced by Helena trying to get close to Mark to see if he still had feelings or chemistry with her and finding out they were not going to work outside Lumon.)

What if the equator is a building that could be a continent? Can be their whole world? They're choosing to live Now. Together in the present despite knowing that with their half lives, they could be brought to an end at any moment. It's very willful young love of them. And why wouldn't it be? This is their First Love. They haven't even been "alive" that long or have any memory of romance beyond their current infatuation. They don't know the world or it's places, and maybe that's okay, maybe they can exist in this space so long as they have love and the others.

It's completely human for Helly to accept Mark choosing her. To run to him just to see him for maybe the last time. It's human for Mark S to run to Helly. It's human for poor Gemma, who doesn't even know her fucking husband is severed, to be pounding on the door.

But this is their Final Day to Mark and Helly. Maybe the very end of their world. It's Judgement Day. Of course they'd have them holding hands and running back to the unknown to face the end together. To die together.

There is also zero fucking chance Mark Scout would risk his life and brain continuing reintegration once his wife is back. Mark Scout is going to choose his wife. Mark is choosing Love on both sides here.

All of it is reasonable.

[jeremiahthefroge]

Unironically, IS there anywhere to get a good beat-by-beat plot synopsis of the original Minecraft Diaries without watching it all the way through? I want to get a good idea of all the plot beats and characters and the general timeline to see about writing some fanfic, because the characters are living rent free in my brain, but I'm also like... VERY aware that it's a 2016 minecraft roleplay series... and I fear that I will ruin my own mental image of the series if I try to rewatch it all...

[manicali]

It’s wild that I haven’t actually put heavier themes of hope into my writing. Like. I’m a danganronpa addicted freak. (And the concept has kept me alive but that’s irrelevant). I should do that somebody remind me to broaden the themes of hope.

[maryasmorevna]

so, folks. you're probably wondering why i changed my pfp and mobile theme and why tf is the joker's clown face in it. well! it's because i may be in my batjokes era (again)

[bitchkay]

I love reaction videos where they're just as hype or even morethan me

Cus it feels like were besties, I know people hate when people pause the video constantly but were having a parasocial conversation here

I'm watching it like RIGHT RIGHT! THATS WHAT IM SAYING AND LOOK LOOK THIS PART! RUN THAT BACK ONE MORE TIME WE NEED TO SEE IT AGAIN! YUP YUP THATS WHAT IM SAYING LIKE AND- EXACTLY! ITS SO BEAUTIFUL, SO GORGEOUS, JUST WAIT TIL THE END GIRL

Like we on ft and we're beste westies💖

My favorite kind of reaction videos tbh

[mysticdragon3md3]

[bl4ckbox]

rewatching squid game. why on earth did everything that happened to this show happen

[pumpkinnning]

Ask game!!! 10 for Sebchal -rolling-restart

hii

so i didn't know what the latin words were and now i am uhhh educated lmfao

this is kind of a non answer but generally when it comes to the who fucks and who gets fucked in smut scenes thing i'm like. whatever works for the story. (ok i'm aware this is less relevant for ppl who can write porn without 50k of plot attached. but you know.)

personally i tend to prefer versatile pairings and i think this works well with sebchal. It's the whole "anything you can do i can do better" thing with that mix of rivalry and mentorship. it's about unsettling expected power dynamics, competitiveness, and having tastes that are quite similar so you understand very well how to use that against each other in a game of psychosexual bullying and/or to take care of each other in hostile conditions.

ngl i also have a weak spot for dominant top Seb who is like a teasing control freak bastard but also very kind and caring and nurturing and gentle for uhhh reasons that concern me and my therapist. and Charles gives the vibes of being under so much constant pressure it would do him good to get railed. BUT i also think unhinged twinks should get to fuck their older teammates and give them an existential crisis. for funny reasons.

to sum it up there's so many fun ways this can play out. why limit ourselves.

[ashmacg]

I see "KiShI's A mIsOgYnIsT" so often in Naruto Analysis posts and comments thereupon that it drives me nuts. Most of the time, it seems like a canned phrase, like some kind of wokist shibboleth, and rarely do those who use it or argue in favor of it engage fully with the characters whose writing they disdain. OP, you are exactly right. They demean Sakura's strengths, shallowly interpret her relationships esp w/ Ino, and dismiss the depiction of Sakura's insecurities as a shy, plausibly-butch girl with a high hairline—who has suffered the bullying of her classmates, the unreasonable standards of behavior set by her mother, and the cisheteropatriarchal expectations of society—as nothing more than Bad Writing™, hashtag-kishimoto's-a-misogynist. It's digusting coming from people who seem to be all for the uplifting of women in both reality and fiction. It's like they believe men are incapable of writing women characters who aren't chock-full of misogynistic tropes (which they confuse with realistic character flaws which often appear in women who live in highly mysogynistic societies), Q.E.D. Kishi = Misogynist.

Hell, I've even seen people declare that Sakura's intelligence is "pure fanfiction" or a Sakura stan's headcanon, and I'm like...no...no, see, it's right there in chapter 41: Sakura understands Newtonian physics enough to solve a trajectory equation for the lateral energy needed to throw a shuriken a certain distance while accounting for both gravity and aerodynamic drag. Sasuke, meanwhile, admits that he has no clue how to answer a single question...rather like Naruto, interestingly. There are other examples, too:

apparently Sakura's obsession with Sasuke is misogynistic Bad Writing™, and could not possibly be a result of her society's patriarchal expectations for girls combined with her social rejection and self-worth traumas pushing her to compulsively seek social status through a patriarchal understanding. It's as if the way that society pushes girls and women to define themselves in terms of boys/men could not possibly be intentionally depicted in a manga as part of the societal realism because obviously a mangaka can only depict society as he wants it to be and certainly not as it is

apparently Konan's perfect attack (look up "43,2 megatons of paper bombs site:reddit.com") being foiled by Obito's Izanagi asspull is misogynistic writing, and cannot possibly be uncannily allegorical for how powerful men, esp. from high-status families in Japan, can get away scot-free even when women bring bulletproof MeToo lawsuits against them. Seriously, if you're writing a ninja battle shounen, are you going to depict the dynamic of MeToo-defeating legal asspulls in a ninja lawsuit, or in a battle scenario? This is Naruto, not Ace Attorney. Don't get mad at Kishi not giving Konan the W, get mad at Obito, that complete bastard, for getting Uchiha Ucheatcodes.

apparently Konan is also just another example of a besotted damsel, being part of Akatsuki to be close to the puppetized corpse of her crush��and not because she's a co-founder of Akatsuki and ride-or-die with Nagato because she experienced the same traumas, wants to fight for liberation all the same, and grew up with both boys as members of a found family

apparently Ino is a shallow, vain Mean Girl who demeans her female friends (this claim is pretty much all based on the rivalry with Sakura), instead of a confident, feminine girl with the heart of a feminist who believes in body positivity and is also an expert in performative rivalry. Ino actively sought friendship with Sakura to uplift her and improve her self-image, and until the first time the topic of Sasuke came up, their friendship passed the Bechdel Test—that is, until Sakura used Sasuke as a wedge to be avoidant

apparently TenTen being a largely-unused side character with a narrow skillset is misogynistic Bad Writing™, and this narrative purposively ignores the fact that she is easily the most mature and sensible girl in the Konoha 11, who is shown to work incredibly hard to better herself without comparing herself to or demeaning other women in the process and does it out of aspirations towards a powerful kunoichi and not a man, and all that in spite of most of her training being likely self-guided due to Guy's lack of particular expertise in weapons or sealing. It ignores the fact that in spite of being a rare character, she is written as a wonderful person. It also ignores the fact that women are allowed to be specialists who can be bested in a contest by another woman (and, heh, an actual Mean Girl this time) whose signature technique is categorically a major weakness of the specialization.

apparently they can only see Hinata as a creepy stalker Narutophile who is entirely one-dimensional, that dimension being that she loves Naruto; meanwhile we can clearly see that she overcame parental abuse & abandonment/rejection to be so determined and courageous that she pushed herself every bit as hard in her prelim match as Rock Lee, and even was brave enough to directly and openly attack the Tendou Path of Pain, the most dangerous enemy the Leaf had identified by that point. Apparently if a woman musters such overwhelming determination, courage, bravery, etc because a man inspires her, none of it counts. Why should it matter who/what her inspiration is? Why would we gatekeep how women show great strength of character? And let's be clear; was Hinata inspired by Naruto the boy/man, or Naruto the Untalented Underdog? Obviously the latter, because she found herself in the same exact position in life. If Naruto were a girl and nothing else were different, their BFFs relationship would be hailed as wholesome because a girl is being inspired by another girl. So girls/women aren't allowed to feel inspired by men, got it. BRB, gotta go and devalue Master Chief, Ranma Saotome, Naruto, MCU Thor, my grandfathers, John Glenn, Daniel Jackson, Harold Finch, John Reese, .... And of course Hinata-antis often fervently ship SNS, but I also do and I can still think of Hinata as a decent person. They can hate The Last all they want, but since it's an explicitly canonical film, we can see that Hinata is also a solid spy. She's good for more than loving, blushing, and knitting, damn. Don't go calling her shallow for being het with strong feelings.

apparently Temari is not allowed to be attracted to Shikamaru because he's an edgelord misogynist. Not that he isn't, and he is the misogynist of the series and Kishi even writes scenes that either call him out or lay bare how cringe he is, but again—why are we gatekeeping women's choices? I thought the point of feminism was women's liberation, including the liberty to choose a fix-him romance. Maybe Temari thinks she's got the melones (as opposed to cajones) to change how he thinks, and we achieve liberation by changing how society thinks, one person at a time if need be. We, or at least I, also stan a bad bish who teaches a man to respect women by applying Big Domme Energy.

apparently it's misogynistic Bad Writing™ that Kurenai, stated to be a genjutsu expert—best in the Leaf—got her arse handed to her by Itachi; and it couldn't possibly be that she was meant to be whomped to show how severely powerful Itachi was, who had both prodigy-level skills and the kekkei genkai conferring high resistance to and excellent command of genjutsu. Got it; powerful femboy prodigies aren't allowed to defeat women in battle. Someone call the Herit*ge Fdtn, we got another case of a wrongly defeated female here!

fortunately everyone kinda leaves Tsunade alone in this regard. She's awesome. She's been through hell, lost loved ones gruesomely to war (and blames herself for Dan's death, surely), and in chapter 160, Kishi shows Hiruzen mansplain to Tsunade why the battlefield mortality situation just couldn't be helped. It's almost funny in a cynical way how condescending Lord Third is in that moment, whether he meant to be or not. And then we see another man do the right thing, the anti-misogyny thing, and support her idea for additional reasons without trying to appropriate credit for it from her. We see Tsunade fall in love with that same more-than-decent guy who also shares her late brother's dream. Kishi writes her as valuing people for all the right reasons, and her suffering for her losses can be seen as allegorical for all the ways that society lets us down and nixes progress. Are these the kind of narratives misogynists write? It's kinda interesting, honestly, that Kishi made his bustiest and fan-servicey-est character also be the story's foremost embodiment of hoping against hope for progress as well as the hurt that comes from stagnation and regression.

Point is, we need to be reading women characters back to front, bottom to top, and inside to outside if we intend to give them the analysis they deserve. We need to be combing through the source material and cultural backdrop with a comb just as finely-toothed as the one we routinely use for SNS. We also need to believe that women can be written well, even by a man. Even by a man in Japan. Even by a man in Japan writing shounen that we stan, yeeeaaauuuuhhhh! 🐙⚔️

my worst enemies are people who say the inosaku fight was about sasuke. like truly why would kishimoto write all of this purely to elevate sasuke. there are better and simpler ways of doing that. the whole point is sakura framing her goals to be more palatable to the patriarchal society they live in (to the point where she's constructed a separate identity around it). it's not subtle !!!!!

sakura has plenty of merits as a character, as do the majority of female characters in naruto, but some of you use "misogynistic mangaka" as an excuse -- subconsciously or otherwise -- not to engage with them (and at worst gleefully deride them). i do not love it