#Go Example

[dreadfulman]

It is genuinely fascinating how many feminist cis women, including those who are on paper openly supportive of trans people, struggle to actually think about trans men as a concept.

A few months ago I ended up having a very long talk with a friend of a friend. She told me that she'd never really spoken to a trans man before, the only trans people she knew were trans women. There was a point, after the third time I reminded her that I was a man, that she just sorta of slotted me into her mental box of "man", and I could tell that happened because after that point she started trying to explain things to me as if I was a cis man.

I categorically do not "pass" and likely never will. I'm very short, my hips are prominent because I'm fat, I keep my hair long, charitably I could be said to have a baby face, I have D-cups and cannot bind due to spinal problems. To the majority of cis people I do not "look like a man".

But for the rest of the conversation I had with this friend of a friend I had to keep reminding her of how other people are going to view me, because there was no room in her mental idea of "man" for a man who is not treated as one. This was not malicious on her part, she was very nice to me, and I believe her when she says she wants to support trans people. I do not think she was lying when she told me how horrified she was to learn about how her trans woman friends were treated.

She said she was envious of me going out alone and how I need to understand that's a facet of male privilege and I asked her to look at me and explain why I'd be any safer. She was shocked to learn that I've been catcalled, been assaulted, that I regularly get spoken down to by cis men, shocked to learn I don't have a single transmasc friend who hasn't. She couldn't understand that I'm going to be treated the same by misogynists as any fat cis woman who doesn't wear makeup. There was no room in her feminism for trans men, because there was no room in her understanding of gender for men who are not cis.

We ended up talking about politics. She told me she was terrified of abortion being banned, and that this would never be a threat if men could get pregnant.

[pangur-and-grim]

one thing that took me embarrassingly long to learn is "sometimes when people say things, they will not be true."

I used to tell people about this revelation and they'd be like yeah.....duh.....but like, why wouldn't my base assumption be that you're communicating to me in a straightforward manner. anyway, I get scammed a lot.

[daisywords]

One of my biggest nitpicks in fiction concerns the feeding of babies. Mothers dying during/shortly after childbirth or the baby being separated form the mother shortly after birth is pretty common in fiction. It is/was also common enough in real life, which is why I think a lot of writers/readers don't think too hard about this. however. Historically, the only reason the vast majority of babies survived being separated from their mother was because there was at least one other woman around to breastfeed them. Before modern formula, yes, people did use other substitutes, but they were rarely, if ever, nutritionally sufficient.

Newborns can't eat adult food. They can't really survive on animal milk. If your story takes place in a world before/without formula, a baby separated from its mother is going to either be nursed by someone else, or starve.

It doesn't have to be a huge plot point, but idk at least don't explicitly describe the situation as excluding the possibility of a wetnurse. "The father or the great grandmother or the neighbor man or the older sibling took and raised the baby completely alone in a cave for a year." Nope. That baby is dead I'm sorry. "The baby was kidnapped shortly after birth by a wizard and hidden away in a secret tower" um quick question was the wizard lactating? "The mother refused to see or touch her child after birth so the baby was left to the care of the ailing grandfather" the grandfather who made the necessary arrangements with women in the neighborhood, right? right? OR THAT GREAT OFFENDER "A newborn baby was left on the doorstep and they brought it in and took care of it no issues" What Are You Going to Feed That Baby. Hello?

Like. It's not impossible, but arrangements are going to have to be made. There are some logistics.

[ellorgast]

The thing that I think really sets Murderbot apart from a lot of other robot media (particularly mainstream entries like the I, Robot movie) is that bots and constructs aren't a uniquely oppressed class, and humans aren't a uniquely privileged one. A lot of robot media rings a bit hollow because it portrays humans as all living a lavish, comfortable lifestyle, free from the burden of physical labor or control by their corporate overlords, and it's like. I think if the rise of generative AI has proven anything, it's that corporations and billionaires have absolutely no interest in making life easier for anybody, but will gleefully use new technology to make life infinitely worse if it means an extra buck in their pocket.

We are shown over and over again throughout the Murderbot Diaries that humans are mistreated just as badly as (or sometimes, in MB's own opinion, even worse than) bots and constructs. We see humans stripped of their rights, reduced to corporate assets to be bought and sold, sent into suicidal situations, abandoned and discarded as things. We see humans trapped in multigenerational labor contracts -- people born into an indentured servitude that requires them to pay back their food and lodging to the same company that will not let them leave.

None of these are hypothetical scenarios. These are all things that happen to real people in our world today.

And that is a huge part of why it resonates so much. The overarching theme of "capitalism is hell" actually means something because it isn't only applied to the fictional dynamic of bots vs humans. The theme is constantly reiterated through the humans themselves.

And that's also why it's so important that MB demonstrates empathy for and solidarity with humans who are themselves victims of the system. Because ultimately, that's one of the main things the series is about. It's about what it's like to be simultaneously a product, and victim, of a corporate hellscape.

That theme simply can't work if the humans aren't also forced to navigate that issue. If the story can't acknowledge that right now, in our own world, there are humans facing these same problems, and that these human rights matter quite a bit.

[buggachat]

btw I am OBSESSED w this new character, Diane, who wears clovers and has a running gag about weirdly lucky things happening to her. i am eating her scenes up and i want more of her. new favorite minor character

[melioristicbeast]

Thinking 'bout.. Older Sterek and love bites 💭💭

[now available on Redbubble!]

[chalkrub]

some of the head coms from recently <:^) indefinitely still open for these !

[iampeachlesssssss]

yall remember when this was considered joint content. this is why i don’t crash out when dnp don’t post for 3 weeks. this was our standard for YEARS

[luanna801]

I feel like a thing I wish was more generally acknowledged across fandoms is that "I don't find this character sympathetic" and "This character was not intended to be sympathetic" are obviously connected but are, ultimately, two completely different statements that may not overlap at all.

Ultimately what you think about any given character is a completely subjective issue that has no right or wrong answer. The narrative may be trying to evoke sympathy for them, and you may just feel that it flat-out was not successful in doing that. You may look the author straight in the eye and say "Nope, I see what you're trying to do, but f*ck this guy actually, he's The Worst and that's all there is to it". And no one can tell you that you're wrong for doing so.

But when it comes to picking up on what the story is trying to do, whether you ultimately think it did a good job or not, I would argue there's at least some measure of objective reality. And I feel like people sometimes end up conflating them, so you end up with these posts like "I can't believe people sympathize with this character when the story clearly just wants you to hate them!" and it's like... yeah, I think people sympathize with this character because the story is very clearly and intentionally painting them as sympathetic. I could point you at a dozen different scenes that are clearly meant to evoke sympathy for This Character. You don't have to have found any of it compelling, but at a certain point recognizing it's there is a simple matter of reading comprehension.

[valtsv]

i think my favourite horror trope is what i like to call "it gets better before it gets worse". the evil is seemingly defeated. the worst is apparently over. it was tough, and maybe you didn't all make it out in one piece, but you made it. except that you didn't. you're still infected, still marked. you bring the horror with you wherever you go. and there's no timeframe after which you can say you're safe with any certainty. it might lie dormant for years, just waiting for you to turn your back to it long enough to let it find you again. it knows your scent, now. it can hunt you down wherever you go.

[taraxippos]

I think people tend to assume that any criticism of worldbuilding is ultimately a demand for a story to grind itself to a halt and give the reader 20 paragraphs of exposition, and like. Most of the time good-faith criticism of this nature is coming from a core aspect of the story not being grounded in the setting in a way that outright detracts from the story's quality. You fix it not by Explaining but by Showing it passively in the makeup of the world.

Like the last instance I saw this critique in was like 'you can't expect an author to stop and exposit the nuances of gender roles/Queerness in a fictional society' and it's like yeah I don't, and in fact this is actually one of the easiest things to show in the text without exposition. If a society has gender norms to begin with you'll see aspects of these norms baked into EVERYTHING. You'll see it in its stories, its religion, its taboos, its etiquette, its clothing, its family structures, its language, its insults, its labor, its leadership, etc. It will have massive impacts on how characters interact with one another and how they perceive themselves. It will help Shape your characters.

If you do this legwork to begin with for the core facets of your story, you will find very natural places for these concepts to be demonstrated without derailing the plot and with little to no exposition. THAT sort of thing is what's being asked of you.

[cipher-fresh]

A phenomenon I’ve seen in fandom with a large central ship is that people will have their shipping goggles activated at such an intensity, they doggedly erase character traits that don’t contribute to pushing forward romance. The two individuals in the relationship are rendered utterly one-dimensional through the loss of any individual aspects of their story or personality that could be interpreted as an obstacle to shipping.

This makes fanon interpretations of the characters boring and uninteresting to read about because they have no character traits other than being in love with their romantic interest. I like shipping as much as the next guy, but I hate fandom-at-large’s tendency to only engage with a story through shipping, and especially to the extent that the characters are barely individuals, and do not exist outside of the central romantic relationship

[yeehawesome]

"what radicalized you" idk probably opening my bible & reading verses like this:

[caemidraws]

Arcane AU ...

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Burning Rotten Bridges

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[kiwisandpearls]

“I’m anti cringe culture!”

are you cool with people shipping things you don’t like? Are you cool with people making fanfiction you don’t like? Are you cool with people making fanart you don’t like? Are you cool with canon x oc stuff? Are you cool with self-shippers? Are you cool with furries? Are you—