#Women should never be held accountable for the actions of men actually

[proudfreakmetarusonniku]

”he shouldn’t have had to apologise” he was fucking misogynistically blaming a woman for shit her grown ass son did and expecting HER someone COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the situation to do something bc she was a woman and woman have to take responsibility for what men related to them do actually. he should apologise bc messaging sarah at all is misogynistic as shit. like imagine if people sent dream's mums dms if he did shit they didn’t like that’d be obviously horrible and invasive and misogynistic as shit bc why you blaming a random woman for shit men did. he should be on his fucking knees begging bc he did like misogyny 101 blaming women for shit men did.

[bioethicists]

Genuine question, but is restorative/ transformative justice useful for addressing hate groups?

I was under the impression that the prevention of violence extended to hate groups, but I keep seeing the reoccurring message from some people that incels, for example, don't need compassion or community (reasoning being, that they became incels because of their entitlement and superiority complex, which would not be solved with accountable compassion or community).

But I don't really understand the unspoken alternative? It seems so much worse for the women they'll inevitably interact with to just leave them isolated in their community, edging each other to the extreme.

while i do think some people online genuinely believe that incels are like, broken sociopathic monsters who need to be murdered or abandoned by society because it's their own fault etc, i think most of the time what people mean by that is "the burden of teaching men not to hate women should not be on women; men are still responsible for their own hateful actions; they are not owed my compassion or empathy, even if it would 'help' them". it's also backlash to the fact that people like incels often get painted as poor little victims in a way many other people (like the women they hate so much) do not.

that being said, everything that happens to anyone ever happens in community, whether people like it or not. total individualism is fake + any leftist worth their salt knows this. if the only way you can imagine someone having accountability for their actions is to believe that something is entirely, 100% their fault with absolutely no outside influences or nuance, then nobody can never be held accountable for anything. everyone needs compassion + community (i would argue the benefit many ppl derive from hate group membership is a sense of community), but i wouldn't say they are owed it by any individual. i would also say that the way in which compassion/community is applied (often when there is no political analysis + it's just based on appeals to "everyone has good inside them" or "love away the hate") in these cases can become just a way of reinforcing an echo chamber, refusing to challenge someone's beliefs, or silencing the people harmed (critiquing ppl for not being "good" victims or not having compassion for their abusers).

ppl often misunderstand restorative approaches as being "lesser" or "letting people off" when they can often require more accountability + more demonstration of change than a carceral approach. it is not synonymous with "loving someone's hate" or "letting them off easy". i mean, under the u.s carceral system, membership in most hate groups is not illegal. even when it becomes legally relevant, the people who are actually harmed are rarely centered in these approaches- it's just a bloodfest over how much we can punish people so we can show off how we think misogyny is super bad even as the court system continues to be one of, if not the most prolific perpetrator of misogyny + victim blaming. as if a handful of violent misogynists' suffering is supposed to be vindication or deterrence (when it never rlly is).

ultimately, there are tens of thousands of reasons why someone may be a member of a hate group, but it usually boils down to the fact that they are deriving some sort of benefit- financial, emotional, familial, cultural, interpersonal, etc- for doing so. some people would probably respond really well to a restorative approach because they would be capable + interested in delving into why they believe these things + how they could get their needs met without harming others. others are fully aware of the fact that they are deriving benefit at the expense of others + simply do not care or, worse, that is the benefit for them- the hurting other people/feeling superior to others. part of moving outside of the logic of the carceral system is moving past the idea that every individual person must be either punished or saved, rather than focusing on the conditions which create hate groups + give them power.

there may be a lot of individual members of hate groups who would not benefit from restorative practices, but we can still make hate group membership as undesirable + lacking benefit as possible, minimize the amount of power + resources they have to do harm, magnify the amount of power + resources the people they are harming have access to. to me, this is restorative, because it focuses on minimizing harm rather than punishing perpetrators + centers around people who have been harmed. further, if we understand the needs or desires that often drive hate group membership, we can work to make those needs/desires easier to fulfill through less destructive means + do the structural work of addressing why, for example, so many teenage boys have a need/desire to feel sexually dominant or 'alpha'.

the biggest restorative work to me is not based on any one individual, but on making the pathways into hate groups as narrow as possible + the pathways out as broad as possible, while still emphasizing accountability + capacity for change.

[comradekarin]

That last ask you got here, just reminds me of the fact that while TS fandom claims to be all about feminism and women supporting women, it surely lacks intersectionality and it SHOWS and this is in great part because that’s the kind of advocacy they get from the celeb they worship, that’s why is dangerous to just pander to one kind of feminism as if everyone had an universal experience, when it couldn’t be further from the reality, we need to have those conversations we need to learn from one another and whoever has a privilege, should make good use of it to uplift those who can’t at the moment

Yup!! That’s basically the point I’m trying to hone to be honest. Again, I absolutely believe we should support female artists in the music industry, especially when they will be held to higher standards than other male artists (even in that area we can have a conversation about the dynamic race plays between male artists, too). However, it’s imperative we discuss how Taylor and her fans only use feminism to tell other people they can’t be mean to her, or critique her. Are these group of people the minority in the fan base? Maybe, sure. But should we sweep it under the rug and let it fester just because it’s the minority? No.

Do I believe the average Taylor Swift stan is normal and doesn’t hate black women? Yes. I believe there’s a lot of them who just enjoy her music and don’t feel the need to bash other black female artists in order to prove how much better Taylor is. Nonetheless, there’s still a large group of her fans who claim to support all women but will not hesitate to degrade and shut out the voices of woc making valid criticisms against Taylor. Just look at the Matty Healy situation. A white woman’s partner is exposed for making disgusting racist comments about black women, and the responses are not “this powerful rich white woman is continuing to date this man and is being complicit through her silence, which is enabling his repulsive behavior and she needs to be held accountable” but instead “we need her to stay away from this bad man!”. Yes, because the image and reputation of this white woman is more important than the dangerous rhetoric her partner is spreading about the same women she claims to support! Yes, because this white woman can have a collab with the same woman (ice spice) her boyfriend was making racist remarks about and everything is ok! Yes, because it is the white woman who is the victim here, and if you can’t see that you’re a misogynist!

Taylor’s silence during the wave of transphobia, the criminalization and banning of drag shows, the uptick of hate against black women, and so much more just makes sense when you look at the company she keeps. Didn’t her team try to sue a journalist for stating Taylor constantly toes the line with conservatives and white supremacists a few years back? Just look at the CO2 emissions drama where everyone was like “man I hate privileged white millionaires” and then she dropped an album and everyone forgot? Any critique for Taylor is met with these responses: A) Taylor isn’t the worst apple out of the bunch so why is she getting attacked like this B) Y’all would never do this to male celebrities so just say y’all hate women C) Why is Taylor blamed for the actions of other men or D) [justifying anything Taylor has done].

So, what you’re saying is correct anon. We can not talk about feminism and supporting “all women” while also trying to lump the struggles of all women into a single category. The initial Feminist movement itself excluded other women of color, it was something only meant for white women. White women have a level of privilege over other women of color, and we can’t pretend they don’t because they’re just “women, too”. White women and their fake white tears have done so much harm to marginalized communities, especially my own black community. I want this conversation to actually mean something, for it to be a moment of self reflection, for it to actually be about supporting, advocating for, and uplifting the voices of all women. I don’t want this talk of “support all women” to only be brought up when someone attacks your white fav.

[floraltypes]

Show Me

paring - thomas shelby x fem!reader

summary - the shelby can’t help himself when making a business visit

warnings - mature audience only, read with caution! mentions of oral, hint of manipulation, inexperienced reader

In the early mornings of a new day, the sun has just begun its duty to rise while another is attending to his as well. With his cap tightly secured around his head, pockets filled with folded papers, and trousers neatly ironed he makes his way down the cobblestone path. 

A curt knock on the front of a numbered, wooden door brings the man back to reminisce of a time he had done a similar action for a very different reason. From the other side rustling and wandering around could be heard, and he could already picture the flowers beginning to bud around the home. 

“Mr. Shelby,” you gasp, hands fluttering to cover the feathery coverup as the air from the opened door rose the fabric. Your nightgown only goes right to your knees, leaving much of the skin to be now seen, you aren’t wearing stockings underneath and look completely up for devouring. “I wasn’t prepared.”

He can clearly tell and should refrain from letting those eyes wander but they can’t help but to look down. It’s a familiar nightgown, one he bought for you for your birthday after a curt mention of the clothing piece. Catching himself, he turns his head to look out upon the street.

“I came to chat, merely, about business with your father,” the kids are yelling around the streets, kicking some ball, while a dirty cat prances by with a specific hiss to the superior. 

“Oh!” you light up, hands now itching at the hair tied up in pieces of cloth from the attempt at a different curl. “Did you not hear?”

“Hear of what?” he glances back, eyes landing on your own doe-like ones. Your hands are playing with the ends of thread from the coverup, eyes searching anywhere but his own. It makes him realize how refreshing you are. 

“He was supposed to tell you before he left, well, to tell Polly. I did speak to Ada but she seemed preoccupied-”

“Tell me of what?” he cut you off, stepping inside and closing the door shut behind him. 

“That I was the one running the business. It was actually me, in secrecy.”

“You?” he looks down at the soft pout forming on your lightly tainted lips, twirls of hair coming loose, fidgety stance, and sweet pink of your dress mimicking the sweetness you possess. “You have been taking care of your father's plant business?” 

“I know much of nature,” you beam. “Please sit,” you gesture to him to an open seat in the nearby room, only two seats available. “I have tea ready.” 

You rush around the confined kitchen/dining room, pouring the steaming pot into a cup and gathering the limited sugar from the cupboard. Thomas sits gently in an open seat, legs crossed, and glances around the (somehow) nicer-looking kitchen. He never really noticed how much of an effect you had on the things you touched, including your father's business. 

“I read much, sir, especially when the men were away someone had to take over,” you explain, dropping a cube into his drink despite the lack of asking. “I now know much about,” you lean across the table, cupping your hand to his ear, “drugs,” you whispered. 

Thomas coughs, cheeks lighting up, “Who distributes them? You?” he takes another sip to try and cool the unexpectedness of your actions. A man of himself has had his fair accounts with women taking a liking to him, and their boldness, yet someone as you who has held such a place in his heart since childhood was the definition of unexpected. 

“No, father had a partner,” you easily tell him, pushing your dress down. It was always so simple for you to reveal secrets to a man you admire madly. “He picks up the items and sells them ‘imself. Kind fellow actually,” you add.

Thomas plants his feet firmly on the ground, now beginning to inch his chair over towards you. He moves it right beside your own, his knee touching your unclothed one. He picks through his pockets, a crumpled box filled with limited cigarettes. Propping open the box, his fingers picked their way toward a white roll, snugging it in between his pointer and middle finger. 

Your eyes were stuck on where your body was connected, feeling heated at the foreign touch of a man. He slowly looks you up and down, watching your fascination with his actions. “You have a light?” he whispers, words near your ear that you now feel as if those are burning as well. Looking back up your met with his stare, his eyes going back down to gesture to the cigarette between his fingers. 

“Mhm,” it comes out very quietly, hands fumbling towards the middle of the table where a matchbox lies. With a quick flick of the match a spark forms, you move the flame underneath the cigarette, watching the change in color at its end. He moves the stick to his mouth, breathing in largely before letting the smoke fall out. It isn’t surprising to him how your eyes are unable to glance away from his pink lips inhaling the substance.  

“Have you missed me?” Thomas questions, his hand moving to cup your cheeks. “You used to always complain when I went away when we were lads.”

“Of course.”

“Then won’t you show me?”

There is no movement on your part, pure shock at his words showing through the widening of your eyes. 

“Alright then,” he mumbles, pointer finger brushing back and forth against your cheek until his thumb prods at your bottom lip, “Why pretend innocence? You ‘ave done this once before.”

“I was nine, my eldest sister said I had to.”

“Did you not like it?”

You carefully take the cigarette from his grip, holding it tight and inhaling it in hopes to calm the bubbling nerves. Smoke falls past your lips and flows towards Thomas’s way. As he steals it back your hands stay motionless and he takes this opportunity to place his lips onto yours. 

It is a soft peck at first, the flavor of tea and smoke mixing with your own on your lips. His mouth opens as yours stayed close, hand still cupping your cheek before you open your lips for his tongue to dive in. The one hand holds the smoke away, focused on discovering your taste. He soon enough pulls away to watch you take a deep breath, eyes hooded, and body inching itself closer to his own. 

He flicks the ash into the small, empty sugar bowl, pressing it towards the bottom to stop the flame. With his now free hand, he moves to the hem of your nightgown, lifting the material and dragging his hand further up your thigh. What his other thumb once did to your cheek he now does to your inner thigh, finger dragging itself across the skin, that same skin heating his once cold hand. 

A small noise forms, where he was once staring down below moves back up towards your expression. Your hands travel underneath his coat, trailing themselves further toward his neck, and kiss him with eagerness. Soon enough your lips are opening themselves on their own, awaiting Tommy to take control once again. He deepens the kiss, that hand now resting on top of your underwear. 

You lift your butt slightly, scooting to feel his hand more. His finger points through the fabric slightly to allow you to feel the tip. “Tommy,” you moan during a break, grabbing onto his muscled arms tightly while he continues his movements below. 

His lips kiss down towards your neck, sucking on the open skin as your pussy keeps trying to move his finger deeper, yearning to feel more friction. You can feel the uplift of his lips on your skin and would imagine the gears turning in his head in regard to his effect on you yet your mind can only focus on one thing. He finds it endearing, exhilarating and entertaining all at once. 

“Do not get greedy,” he tuts, looking down at the mark forming on your skin. “This should be for me, show your gratitude.”

“Anything,” you hum, kissing his cheek where a fresh scar lay. He winces at the touch until the following kisses help him to relax even more in the rickety chair. “Anything for you, Tommy.”

He removes his hand from your pussy and totally removes himself from you. Your eyes are now fully open, looking at him, and a slight pout forms on your lips at the lack of contact. He takes your hand in his own, moving it down toward the top of his trousers. 

“Go ahead, show me,” he commands, your dainty fingers working to pop the button. Instead of continuing to pull them down, he takes charge once again, completing that for you. He guides your hand towards his crotch, placing it on the underwear covering it. “Feel it up, it's your first, ain't it?”

Your hand works, now clutching onto the bulge and letting your fingers be felt through the fabric. Your thumb rubs on the enclosed tip, trying to follow the length up to his waistline, slowly, inquisitive. His hands are now fumbling back with that same crinkled box, searching for another cigarette. Hesitantly you pull his undergarments down, watching as his cock springs to life, the tip hitting his stomach. You continue to feel the head, it's wet with precum and larger than you had imagined. 

“Just like a lolly now. Suck on it.”

He lifts his hand to push down on your bottom lip, opening your mouth. You lean further down, pushing the chair back, and getting onto your knees. You take the tip into your mouth, hollowing while trying to suck it like the sweet treat he told you to imagine it was. Your tongue moves around and eventually takes his cock out in order to kiss it up. 

The cigarette is now lit, placed between his lips as slit eyes peer down at you. He huffs at the smoke, admiring your fascination with his cock. You feel his balls hesitantly and begin to take his cock back into your mouth once again, trying to suck as he once guided before. 

Though it isn’t much, and he has experienced women who could at least take half, it is the fact that you are the one doing it. The only one who could calm the tremors he experienced during the night, the only one he could ever allow his softness to be seen by who wasn’t family. Some may say the Shelby became infatuated with you over the years, but those who would mutter such words knew the consequences they would weep. 

He thrust his hips, cock entering further into your mouth, tears forming in your eyes. Tommy knew he was almost at his point, quickly coming undone, and soon enough - with a grunt - you could feel an unknown liquid drip to the back of your throat. 

He pulled your face away, hands gripping onto your chin and trying to move you closer to his own face. Thomas stared at your fucked out gaze, brain hazy and hands searching for his own. He helped you get seated on the seat once again, liquid dripping onto your laced gown. 

“It’s a bit lonely here,” he looks around the silent home (besides your panting). “Come back to the house with me, see Ada, and we can continue to talk business there.”

“Yes, yes, Tommy,” you nodded, pieces of the cloth had fallen from your hair, allowing the strands to dangle. “I have to change.”

“Now, now,” he places the cigarette between your lips. “Take a drag sweet, I’ll go gather your dress.”

Though he didn’t mutter the words of fondness as many lovers would, he knew that he wanted you as his.

(peaky blinders masterlist)

[theladyofbloodshed]

SJM is a feminist qwueen.

Elain is Elain felt wrong at so many levels. Couldn’t understand why. But here’s my reason for hating it.

Elain is Elain means that Elain is not much. Not worth considering a threat or an opportunity. Not a villian, not a hero, not useful, just not much. Why would that be? What’s different? Nesta and Elain are both made by the cauldron. She’s eager to help (in ACOWAR).

She’s not doing what males do in SJM fantasy world. Not swinging a sword (like Aelin and Mor). Not rude and dismissive of authorites (like Feyre in the high lords meetings). She’s being normal and wearing dresses. And that’s completely fine.

But apparently not by SJM, the feminist queen and her fans. Because guess what, that’s not feminism. That’s internalized misogyny. You only like feminist heroines when they do something that males do. How dare she stay in the house and bake? Be queit and proper like a lady. Wear dresses!??? Go put on some fighting leathers and swing a sword. Only then will we value you. We are feminists. Can’t have a girl acting all girly and expect people to think she has some good qualities. Qualities worth appreciation. Nope, we will value you when you fight, put on some muscles and ditch those dresses. And get out of the kitchen!

Until then, Elain is just Elain.

Never tell me that young girls reading this are not getting a bad impression. I saw a 14 year old pick up this book today. SJM and her internalized misogyny, that the fans label as feminism ✨ is going to shape some young minds into believing a lot of fucked up things being right. Forgiving your abuser and sexual assualter (Aelin-Rowan, Feyre- Rhys), mistreating people with trauma (Nesta being locked up) and of course, the smaller problem discussed above. I am not old enough to have children yet, but I regret the fact that I read this crap and I beg all you fans out there to never have your children read this crap. It is honestly surprising that these books have not been deemed inappropriate yet. I have read a lot of dark romance and this is not it. The theme is clear in dark romance. Characters in those books are held accountable for their actions. The constant cycle of making the fans beleive that Rhys, Rowan, Cassian etc. are not wrong and you should want a partner like that..now that is harmful.

P.s. English is my third language. Idk if I made any mistakes, but do let me know if I did so I can take care of it next time.

It was such crap. If Rhys was actually held accountable for his words then yeah, okay, he can say that. But if Feyre ever questions him, it happens once then it's waved away by Rhys. Within a few minutes of meeting the sisters, he dismisses Elain as unimportant and Nesta is Illyrian at heart and he can never forgive her - for something that never ever involved him.

For me, it wasn't really about the fact that Elain is typically more feminine. Beyond the colour of their dresses where Elain favours pink, I'd say Nesta is also very typically feminine (for the time period). She doesn't like pants, her hobby is reading, she was saving herself for marriage. To me, what Rhys said aligned with Feyre's view of Elain from the first book where she said that it wasn't that Elain was being mean and not helping, she just didn't grasp that she might actually get off her ass and help. And Rhys is fine with that. Elain can be oblivious but that's okay and he won't ever push her <3 It's so hard not to compare how Elain and Nesta are treated. Both lived in the cabin. Nesta said mean things, Elain didn't. Nesta helped, Elain didn't.

At the end of it all, these men should stay far away from these women. The men all need therapy and should be taught how to be a better partner <3

p.s. your English is brilliant

[faintingheroine]

Hii, hope you are doing okay! I've been thinking why Halid Ziya Uşaklıgil decided that Bither would never have children in the book. It was more convenient for the plot? A mechanism so the reader to have more empathy towards Bither? How do you think Bither would have been as a mother? Thank you!

Hi! This is a very interesting question. @pileofsith recently asked me how the dynamics could have changed if Bihter had a child, but I hadn’t written about why the author chose to not give her one.

I think I once read in an academic thesis, I think it was this one but I am not sure, that the Turkish authors avoided making adulterous women mothers? I tend to agree. Hâlide Edip’s Handan in the novel titled after her isn’t a mother either and it is actually pointed out in that novel. The late 19th/early 20th century Turkish novels were in some ways more daring than you would expect, but motherhood as an institution is never tarnished in them. Not being mothers, women like Bihter and Handan are not proper “family women”, they are not “sacred”, they are “less responsible” and they are more “lonely”, thus their actions are considered way more forgivable than a mother’s would be.

Motherhood was something that Halit Ziya held pretty sacred based on his other novels and short stories and he was otherwise not a guy who held many things sacred, and Firdevs’s actions are judged much more harshly on the account of her being an unwilling and unloving mother to her daughters. Not being a mother, Bihter is less responsible and much lonelier, and thus she is more forgivable at the time and even today. And of course if she had a child after her affair with Behlül started there would be a question of paternity which would be very “unforgivable” and scandalous.

On a plot level Bihter becoming pregnant was never necessary. I think despite its long descriptions and reasonable length, Aşk-ı Memnu is a pretty economical novel in terms of its plot. There aren’t many unnecessary side tangents or complications or intrigue. A baby would just make things unnecessarily complicated and soapy.

On a thematic level, Bihter is a woman defined by her inability to escape her mother. Her youth is surprisingly emphasized at many points as I have rediscovered with @longagoitwastuesday yesterday. Her inability to mature parallels Nihal’s. Her not having a child despite regularly having sex with two men for nearly two years in 1890s can point to this thematic immaturity.

Another thing is that, as the thesis I linked to in the second paragraph of this post points out (really read its Aşk-ı Memnu sections if you know Turkish they are really good) the novel kind of portrays different stages of being a woman with Firdevs, Bihter and Nihal. Being archetypal, these women can’t pass onto the next stage of femininity, but also being fully fleshed out people, they suffer for their inability to pass onto the next stage. This other brilliant thesis (which again you should read if you know Turkish) adds Peyker into the mix: Firdevs is the Crone who desperately clings to the world of femininity. Peyker is the Mother who accepted the patriarchal role. Nihal is unable to enter the world of femininity in the first place. Bihter has the feminine power, owns it and then defies it, she is the disruptor. So it is fitting that this disruptor figure never becomes a Mother, THE role patriarchy assigns to women.

Another thing is that this novel is one full of replacement mothers where the actual biological mothers are nonexistent or inadequate - Peyker being a minor character. Here everyone yearns to be a mother to children who are not their own child, Mademoiselle to Nihal, Nihal to her brother Bülent etc. Bihter not being an actual mother and trying desperately to be an adequate stepmother continues the pattern.

How would Bihter be as a mother to her own child? I think Bihter would be a good, attentive mother to a baby. To an older child, especially to a daughter, I don’t know. Her own mother didn’t set up a good pattern, and her own resentment against 15-year-old Nihal at the end of the novel is a bit concerning. Nihal is insufferable and hateful towards her, but a biological teenaged daughter can also be that. That being said, the age gap between Bihter and Nihal is not wide enough for them to have a mother-daughter dynamic of any kind. Actually in the very first chapter Bihter laughs thinking that she should have given birth to Adnan Bey’s daughter when she was ten! So their dynamic can’t be an adequate metric by which to judge Bihter as a potential mother. A thirty-something will be more mature about a teenager’s antics than a twenty-something.

If Bihter had fallen pregnant with Adnan’s child before the affair with Behlül happened I think the affair wouldn’t end up happening because Bihter would be less lonely and would have a purpose in life. If she had fallen pregnant during her affair with Behlül it would be extremely stressful for her, maybe she would have tried to get rid of the baby, I don’t know.

Thank you so much for asking this question; it was so fun to answer!

[jamietukpahwriting]

The problem is not what women are wearing or how much we drink at parties. It is with boys who become men who think they are entitled to women’s time, attention, and bodies. We need to teach them that they are not. When they hear “no,” they should not feel like a “yes” is owed to them. Teach your sons that women exist for more than the purpose of pleasuring them. Teach boys that you take someone’s humanity away when you treat their bodies like property. Teach boys to be whole human beings by themselves, not just shells of machismo, with the full spectrum of emotions and the vulnerability that sometimes comes with it. They say girls are made of sugar and spice, but it seems we think boys are made of hormones and semen, because they are not held accountable for their actions or attitudes. We are told that “boys will be boys.” Nonsense. Can we stop living this lowered-expectations life when it comes to people who should be able to show restraint? I can hear you already protesting: “Not me; I would never rape or violate anyone. I respect women.” Okay, “good guys,” here’s how you can help. First of all, treating a woman with respect does not make you good. It makes you someone who is doing the bare minimum. Also, when you are silent or laugh in the face of jokes or stories about women being violated, you’re enabling misogyny. Speak up for us, even when we are not in the room. When your boy makes a rape joke or harasses a woman and you stand around not letting him know he’s wrong, you’re part of the problem. Our peers set aside the standards for our behavior, so when you let terrible things slide, you’re saying it’s okay. It’s an endorsement. So be an actual good guy. Walk the walk and stand up against rape culture when you see it. 

—I'm Judging You by Luvvie Ajayi

[goongiveusnothing]

i read your post with the anon about the liam interview on that godawful paul brothers podcast, and i agree with you and the anon that there were massive overreactions about it and the reaction was mostly fueled by harries who were just waiting to shit on one of the other members. but, i think there was some actually questionable stuff in there like the comments he made about zayn’s family not being supportive. i’m not muslim or brown but a lot of fans who are felt embarrassed and offended that he would comment on the way that zayn was raised by his family, especially bc it was probably way different from the way liam was raised. also, i’m pansexual, and he’s done some weird stuff before with praising the duck dynasty family after they were homophobic, and that song he wrote sexualizing bi women. i still don’t think all that was cause for the reaction it got, and the biggest thing i took away from that interview was that liam wasn’t in a great mental place and i genuinely hope he gets better, in spite of all the harries who just love to tear the other members down. still, he should be held accountable for the actual bad stuff he does, not stuff harries make up.

Obviously I think the entire interview and sitting down with a Paul brother to begin with was a disaster and a mistake and the entire thing is so cringeworthy to even watch, but this fandom wants Liam to be hated so will seek out things about him or anything he does and twist it to justify why they bully him.

The thing about Zayn's family is none of us knows that situation and maybe Liam does. Was it his place to comment on it? No. But let's not pretend we know if Zayn's family were supportive from the offset or not.

Liam has obviously also done things like the Duck Dynasty comments and that awful bisexual song, but he's also been much more openly supportive of LGBT people than Harry has. He's been very publicly supportive of transgender people in a way Harry never has. One of Harry's best friends is a political TERF in the UK, and he's never spoken about that or denounced him. Imagine if that were Liam. Liam's never spoken about how a movie about gay men being together isn't about gay men or how most gay sex is "two guys going at it". He's never tried to profit from the idea he could be queer like Harry has.

It's like the way Harries and the fandom go after Olivia and portray her as akin to Weinstein, but never criticise any of Harry's own shady or bigoted or bad moments. If we spoke about all the crap Harry has said and done like we did with Liam/Olivia then he'd sound awful and people wouldn't stan, but nobody does it because they've decided Harry is an angel and everything he does is pure. They will try and seek out the most generous explanations for Harry's actions, blame everyone else around him for them, so he's never held accountable or looks bad. We could do the same for Olivia/Liam but his fans never would, because they need punching bags and his mean girl fandom thrives only when they get to punch down on someone.

Louis's response also shows so much growth and maturity. It's sad to say but I suspect Harry's reaction to that interview was much like his fans, in which he relished watching one of his ex bandmates being destroyed because he knew it made him look better in contrast. He's always been very petty and sneery about them and I suspect he really enjoyed the backlash. Just look at what his friend Lizzo said about Liam afterwards.

[papirouge]

I think its telling that those users are getting triggered about women deciding not to partner up with men and not having children instead of addressing the real problem: the misoginy of korean men.

The obvious solution here is for men to step up and become better partners and human beings in general. Do these people expect these women to put up with men who see them as inferiors, sex objects that should serve them and kiss the ground they walk on?? Do these people not realize how messed up kids from these types of relationships end up being? Does it only matter to bring any kid into this world even If its with a horrible man in a horrible environment?

Look, im not antinatalist or anything like that, but people should actually be happy that women have such high standards that they prefer not to engage in modern relationships. They're not even having sex, which means that they'll never abort if they happen to get pregnant.... because they don't have sex.

Not to mention that celibacy is seeing as a good thing in the bible, because you have more time for God and Divine matters. Obviously as someone already pointed out, Korea is not a Christian country, but it's kind of funny seeing people so pressed at celibate women for a country they probably dont even care about.

❕❕❕

Like- why do they even care if those women don't have children?? They act like there weren't plentiful of others who will. Sorry but pro choicers are absolutely right to say that some pro lifers have a thing with controlling women.

Those Christian women popped up talking about ABORTION when women chosing to remain celibate is actually part of the solution to avoid unwanted pregnancy - leading to abortion. I kept having a back and forth with that mormon girl and she was unable to argue over 1 Corinthians 7 celebrating celibacy, to the point she started to quote some random scrote (I HATE when Christian use quote from randos to defend theological standpoints, whether it's CS Lewis, Charles Surgeon or whatever - USE THE SCRIPTURES!! idc shady European scrotes writing stuff about the Bible 200 years ago) and a whole different passage of the Bible about celestial bodies(??). Like - it's so obvious those women were influenced by a specific mindset, not rooted on the Bible but rather family and tradition. That's why it's so important to make a difference between culture/tradition AND the actual Bible.

And yes, they really told on themselves by criticizing those women and not having a thing to say about the abusive men that compelled them to make such a decision. I made a bunch of posts lately pointing out the hypocrisy/double standards of Christians giving excuses to male heinous acts ("nOt aLl yRadMeN") while it only takes a few women not wanting to have children for them to be responsible of the collapse of their society... EXCUSE ME? I thought men were suPpOSeD tO lEaD? (FYI that's why in the garden of Eden, even though Eve lead Adam to sin, God held Adam as much as responsible) Then why do they have such a hard time to ask accountability to men?? Why aren't they accusing Korean men of being so shitty with their women they are now reaping the consequences of their action, which will ultimately affect their country demography and ulti5 economical system (yeah bc if there are no more babies, who's gonna pay their pension)?? They are the root of this hellscape, not women, who are absolutely entitled to refuse to reproduce with piece of trash.

I'm so sick of those people using the Bible to excuse their obvious bias to enable men, while condemning women. I am sooo grateful i didn't grow up in a Christian clan, because they truly seem to brainwash women into being fricking enabling handmaiden for men WHATEVER THEY DO, but with no remote sense of charity for (unperfect) women.

[alanshee-keeper-of-realms]

Erm, hi, I saw your post and I can't help but agree with everything you've said because you're SO right. The Ninjago fandom is a majority dominated fanbase full of cishets, men, whites, NTs, and while they're not a majority group - majority of them are also children and let face it, why should we be stuck in the fandom full of little kids who doesn't want to do better than how they're presenting their fandom. People there are rarely held accountable for their actions and easily get away with it. The minute a ship they don't like is being shown in their screen they act all petty but when someone is being homophobic, racist, misogynist, ageist or abliest, they easily get away with it. The Ninjago fandom should rot as they deserve to be honest and they shouldn't even be complaining about why it's dead when the truth is in front of them. I've learned about how awful their fandom is through various YouTubers who exposed their fandoms like similarly they did with the Miraculous fandom, who also has the same history like the Ninjago fandom in terms of racism, misogyny, homophobia, and etc. which is why I'm glad I never joined as I'd rather be in a minority group fanbase full of women, queers, POC, NDs, and children who ACTUALLY know/learn better. I'm sorry to hear that this is happening in the ninjago fandom. I found this post through the fandom tag and I thought I should say something. Ninjago as a whole series is pretty mediocre to me.

*just points* You didn't hear it from me, Anon gets it.

While I don't want to see it rot things need to change when Outsiders are saying this about Ninjago and its Fandom.

This is why it's dead. Yall have perpetuated this for far too long and words gotten around.

Actions have Consequences

[avintagekiss24]

Hi! I don't want to start anything on here and am always willing for civil conversations. At this point there's so much I've found out about Seb (besides the video he liked, the tommy lee thing, and the girlfriend thing) that I feel so guilty if I would continue to support him. I love him sm but it just doesn't look good rn. He is associated/follows an organisation (for helping veterans) that has posted a blue lives matter flag picture and who's co-founder has sexual assault allegations against him, and worked with him in 'The last full measure'. His friend Paul Walter Hauser has done blackface in the past, and when called out on it he just listed a few people that also did blackface. There's more, I found a discussion on here that I can link. I seriously don't support "cancel culture" bc I don't think it helps anyone but there are just a lot of 'mistakes' and shady people that can be linked to Seb, I wish it wouldn't be that way. I honestly don't know what to think about it anymore.

Hi! I’m also open to having civil conversations and I don’t believe you’re trying to start anything. I really do think this situation of dragging up a four year old video and taking it completely out of context is harmful not just to Black people, but to fandom/activism in general. This is gonna be long because I’m going to take your points one by one, and I want to preface this by saying that I will not answer any derogatory, sideways asks pertaining to this subject. I will delete every single one and will block your silly ass. I’m not going to argue with people who think I’m blindly supporting Sebastian because I’m just trying to get fucked by him, or people who think I hate myself and am trying to appease some white man.

So, on with the discourse!

The video he liked - this video was taken completely out of context and that is my main issue with this whole situation. It was not a video of a white man saying that he thinks he should be able to say the n word as everyone claimed it was. They were quickly debating on whether or not it's okay to say in rap lyrics. He was told no, that's not okay, that's never okay and they moved on from it. That's it. End of story. That somehow was twisted into a click bait style headline of "Sebastian Stan likes a video of a white man defending his right to say the n word" when that is absolutely not true. My other issue is that people are more upset that Sebastian liked the video than they are about the white man in the video literally saying the n word. So, do you really care about the use of the n word like you're claiming? Cuz if you do, you'd be more upset at the white man that said the word than you would be about the white man simply liking the video. Or, are you just using this as an excuse to grandstand against a white man you don't like?

The Tommy Lee thing - Sebastian Stan playing Tommy Lee does not make Sebastian Stan a bad person. Is Charlize Theron a bad person for playing Aileen Wuornos, a prostitute who started murdering men? Is Leonardo DiCaprio a bad person for playing a slave owner? Is Edward Norton a bad person for playing a nazi sympathizing racist? Actors play bad people. That doesn't mean that they themselves are bad people. 1990's Tommy Lee was a bad person, but that should have no bearing on who Sebastian Stan is or his character as a man.

The gf/Paul Walter Hauser thing - Why are we holding Sebastian accountable for what the people around him are doing? Again, why are we more upset that Sebastian is associated with people who have done questionable things than the specific people themselves? I'm not going to speak on the kimono wearing -- I'm not Asian. It's not my place to say whether or not its offensive because it's not my culture, but she posted that picture and attended that party before she started dating Sebastian, quite possibly before she even knew him. Same with Paul. I think that black face thing was long before he knew Sebastian. Now, if Sebastian was defending these actions, going around saying "I think it's okay for white women to wear Kimono's" "I think black face is fine" "I think white people should be able to say the n word" then we'd have a different story, wouldn't we? But that's not what we have, and that's not what he is doing. He is not responsible for the things his friends do or have done in the past just because he's more famous than they are, and he is not required to speak on them. Let's put it this way -- would you be comfortable having to be responsible for something a friend of yours did before you knew them? Would you want to have to be forced to answer for your friend when you yourself had nothing to do with the questionable behavior?

The organization that supports the military/blue lives matter - Sebastian cannot control what message that foundation puts out and it does not mean that he is or is not pro-police himself. There is not enough concrete evidence -- if any evidence for that matter -- that Sebastian is a blue lives matter supporter. Did Sebastian donate before they put up the blue lives matter post? Or after? I don’t know, cuz I don’t follow him that closely, but if he donates before they come out with a particular stance, that means he should be held accountable for that? I know I donated to an organization once and they turned out to support something that i’m 100% against. That means I’m a bad person because I couldn’t see into the future? Another point, how can we be certain that Sebastian saw the blue lives matter post in the first place? I know I’m not online 24 hrs a day, I miss posts all the time and I’m just an average person. I make three or four tumblr posts a day, and I’m gone. I have to play catch up on social media, and even then, I still miss stuff. So I’m sure the same happens to a working actor. As for the co-founder, I don't know who this person is and would rather not get into any allegations against them because I don't want to trigger anyone who comes across this post. If Sebastian knows about these allegations, is a willing participant/supporter of this person then yeah, that's pretty shitty, but we don't know the inner workings of this friendship/acquaintance/work relationship. We don’t know how close they are or if they even still speak.

I’m a pretty big fan of Don Cheadle. He’s a stand up guy, he’s a great actor, he’s funny, he’s political and stands up for what he believes in and in a very public way. I support him. Don Cheadle is also friends with Chris Evans, RDJ, Mark Ruffalo, and Letitia Wright (just to name a few). Chris Evans has a bipartisan forum that highlights/promotes right wing politicians, RDJ defended Chris Pratt during the whole “he’s the worst Chris in Hollywood” crap, who’s technically done black face, and who once said to a female reporter “nice tits” when she walked into the room, Mark Ruffalo just walked back his support of Palestine, and Letitia Wright retweeted/supported an anti-vaxxer/anti-trans Pastor who equated an ingredient of the covid vaccine to the devil because it contained some parts of the word Lucifer. Does that mean Don is now a bad person because he’s friends with these people? Why isn’t he getting any heat for his friendships with them? Why isn’t he being held accountable for what they’ve done and said? Oh right, because he’s not a white fave. So people don’t care one way or the other, which brings me to my next point. 

I can guarantee you that if Sebastian’s gf or Paul or this co-founder were not associated with Sebastian in any way, nobody would give a shit about her wearing a kimono, about Paul doing black face, or about the co-founder/organization being blue lives matter supporters and in that lies the actual problem. Being critical of people and their actions should be consistent and should happen all the time -- not just when they interact with your white fave. That’s when it becomes performative and looks like you just want to be able to show internet people that you follow/support/stan unproblematic celebrities, when really, you don’t care.

I think the moral of this post is that I think it's unfair to hold a complete stranger to a standard that I cannot hold myself to. I also don't view celebrities the way most teenagers/twenty somethings do, and that’s because when I entered fandom we didn't have social media, so I grew up with a wall between myself and said celebrities. There is no wall now with the presence of social media. "Fans" nowadays have a weird ownership feeling over celebrities because they can read their personal thoughts or view personal pictures and think that they have this personal quasi-friendship with them. I can't get on board with that. I prefer having the wall and I still keep the wall.

If supporting Sebastian makes you uncomfortable, then by all means, stop supporting him. Just make sure you are making this decision for yourself based on credible sources and concrete evidence and that you're not letting this fake woke activist mob make you feel uncomfortable. Internet activism means nothing unless you put your money where your mouth is in your real life and 90% of the social justice internet warriors do not. Real activism is bigger than changing your avi to a black square.

[transmascissues]

correct me if I'm wrong (trying to find a cohesive thread through this issue) but it sounds like a gripe that people have with the terms transmisandry and transandrophobia is in part because they view it as theft of the concept of transmisogyny? i've seen that but i have also seen criticism of literally every other phrase trans men are trying to coin to describe their experience so it overall feels like a losing situation

yeah, that's one of many complaints people have about it

and i know you didn't really ask for my opinion on the criticism but in case anyone's wondering: you just...can't "steal" the concept of oppression. the concept of transmisogyny was coined first but saying that we somehow "stole" the concept by just...also talking about and creating words for our own unique oppression would be like saying the concept of transphobia is a theft of the concept of homophobia. i could keep elaborating, but the whole terminology discourse is honestly just too exhausting so i'd like to minimize the chances of someone trying to debate with me on this

generally speaking though, yeah you're absolutely right, there is no winning when it comes to the terminology fights - that's why they're so frustrating. people will never be happy with what we come up with because their actual problem is that we're coming up with anything at all. a lot of people just don't want to see us talking about our issues, and their reasons for not wanting us to be able to will vary depending on who they are and what circles they're in, but in general, having specific vocabulary makes our discussions easier and that means they're never going to like it, no matter how carefully constructed it is or how well we explain it or anything like that

and honestly, a lot of it isn't coming from a malicious place, it's just that the idea of us having a unique form of oppression challenges what a lot of people have been taught and some of them aren't ready for that so they fight it. a lot of trans women and transfems have been told by our current sort of ~activism culture~ that if you're not The Most Oppressed then your oppression doesn't matter at all, so the idea of other people in the trans community developing similar concepts of unique oppression genuinely feels threatening because they worry that people won't care about their oppression anymore if they're not seen as Definitively The Most Oppressed and like...yeah that's fucking scary, i won't pretend it's not! and a lot of trans men and transmascs (myself included) have been told by that same Most Oppressed philosophy of activism that, because trans women and transfems have been sort of placed as The Most Oppressed in our community, the focus should be on them as much as possible, so we end up feeling like we have to pick between talking about our own issues and getting pushed away by the larger community or just not causing a scene so we can retain our place in the community and again, the idea of being isolated like that is fucking scary too so i get why some people find themselves fighting against discussions of their own oppression for the sake of holding onto that community - i've had to fight the urge to do so myself. as angry as the pushback against our discussions makes me, i do have at least a little compassion for most of the individual people doing it because i know, for the most part, the motivation isn't malice, it's just fear. the genuinely shitty-through-and-through people are there for sure, but not in huge numbers

and honestly? knowing that makes it even harder to fight against the arguments sometimes because i can see what's behind most of them and it makes it a lot harder to be pissed, which is part of why i try not to get into it. obviously i think people should be held accountable for their actions regardless of how sympathetic the motivations are, but personally i feel like i'm better at just starting to have the discussions we want to have than i am at getting into the arguments about if we should be having them - i'll leave that to other people on here

that was a lot longer (and more rambly) than i was planning on and probably a lot more than you were expecting too, but i figured i'd kinda just put all my thoughts on the matter here (including the less "fuck you, this sucks" side of my thoughts, which don't always come across very much on here) since i don't usually talk about it at all. i'm a bit nervous to post it because i know i'm on that blocklist, but oh well, might as well

at the end of the day, most people's problem is that we're acknowledging our oppression in the first place, not the specific words we use (those are just easier targets), so i've personally chosen to just...not worry about the terminology and actually get to the discussions themselves. i have plenty of compassion when i think it's warranted, but i also have very little patience for the fights, yknow?

[kayrowsyrup]

I’m sorry but I gotta laugh at feminists who use “pick-me” as an insult because half the time they are t using it right.

They call any woman, who speaks out on actual privileges women have that men don’t, a pick me

Now what is a pick-me?

A pick me is a woman who usually degrades other women to make herself more appealing to men, will not hold men accountable for anything, and usually Shame other women for their choices

See whenever I see a feminist call me or other non feminist women pick-Mes is usually when we point out that women often:

1: Get a slap on the wrist while a man can get years in prison for committing the same crime.

2: that family courts often take the mothers side even when she is unfit to be a mother

3: that when men, or boys, are raped and abused it isn’t taken as seriously as when it happens to a woman.

Now I don’t know about y’all, but when I was a feminist the whole idea of the movement was to make women equal to me. To me that meant that if women committed the same crime as a man she should get the same punishment. That family courts should worry more about the child’s well being rather than the gender of the caretaker, and that rape and abuse shouldn’t(and isn’t) be a gendered issue.

Secondly women who have a problem with feminism do NOT have a problem with women! We have a problem with a movement that constantly spreads hate and vitriol towards men, even ones who have never hurt them. We have a problem with a movement that won’t allow male victims of rape and abuse to be able to speak up because they(the feminists) are scared that they won’t have the whole world watching them.

And thirdly most women who criticize the feminist movement DO hold men accountable for their actions. You do something wrong you should be called out about it regardless of your gender. Male rapists deserve to rot in prison! If a man cheat he needs to be held accountable!

When feminists use pick me as an insult it’s because they have no actual argument for why they are right and why you are wrong.

Technically feminists are pick-mes as often or not they belittle women and their choices I’d they aren’t feminist. They don’t hold women accountable for anything. And they try to make themselves seem appealing to other women.

[burningtrashhh]

I hate ciset men 🤡

Tw// mentions of SA, rape, pedophilia, un-wanted nudes, homophobia/transphobia.

Time to rant. So just for some background, I am an AFB nonbinary sapphic. I define my gender as being non-existent and just me, and my sexuality being that I am attracted to more feminine individuals. I do date women and nonbinary people but when it comes to men I am more asexual towards. I do find attraction in men but it is so little and is only towards my really close male friends but even still I wouldn’t date them. I have also had some really bad experiences when it comes to dealing with men. I have been sexually assaulted multiple times by a couple boys when I was younger and have been sexually harassed online and in person by adult men and boys alike. I don’t feel comfortable around men and even my guy friends are held at arms length.

Now here comes the rant part. Why do men act so entitled and think that you owe them sex? I am a minor (16 turning 17 on July 23rd) which is illegal (in my country) for me to receive nudes and to send nudes of myself to people.

On my Instagram account I have recently just got 500 followers, a great milestone for an introverted geek such as myself. But when I hit that milestone, I had started to receive really gross texts from adult men and even an 39 year old woman who then proceeded to send a video of her f*ngering herself. Ofc, as a human literally just breathing, I found this quite disgusting. I even had this random man threaten to rape and kill me and my family if I didn’t send him any nudes. Even after me telling him it was illegal, I was a lesbian and I didn’t want to, he still kept threatening me. Mind you, my age is in my bio, and so is my sexuality and pronouns. If these creeps actually did check my bio, they would know that I am a minor and a lesbian. I don’t even post provocative stuff on there, it’s literally me trying out different outfits and makeup looks or pictures with my friends. I don’t even have bikini pics so I’m not even close to “asking for it”. I do understand that even if a minor posts “provocative content” that they don’t deserve sexual harassment. Bikini pics don’t make you a slut and neither does posting a bit of cleavage. I only mentioned that in the rant to diminish the argument of “you were wearing THAT so you were asking for it”. Clothings does not equal consent. Now the reason for the title is because the majority of these messages I get are from men which ends up with them threatening me. It’s the idea that these men and boys make sock puppet accounts to prey on young children who appear feminine and even go to sexualize them even further when they say they are lesbian. And in the end, shortly after I hit 500 followers, I make a story saying that I’m going on hiatus because of mental health and the sexual harassment I receive on Instagram. I shouldn’t be worrying about men coming to threaten and possibly rape and kill me, I should be worrying when the next sims 4 game pack is coming out and if it’s worth buying it. Children shouldn’t be worried about being traumatized.

Now is the next part of the rant, the “ciset” part of the title. To my knowledge, ciset means a straight cis person. This means that they identify as their gender assigned at birth and their sexuality is straight. All of the men that text me are ciset identifying and tend to make homophobic comments while talking to me. It isn’t uncommon for me to be called a dyke or a f*g and being threatened to be raped shortly afterwards because of it. I also receive transphobic comments because in my bio I have they/them set as my pronouns. Another homophobic action that they do is that they love to sexualize my sexual identity. I even had a man lie and pretend to be a trans woman to try to convince me to join a sexual group chat of lesbians who were minors. It was proven later that this man admitted to identifying as male. With the homophobic comments, I have also had answers where I had asked someone for their sexuality and they had replied mockingly “Christian” or “Hindu”. This isn’t okay and it’s a reoccurring thing on Instagram. This is also a thing on tumblr too, literally on the day that I “returned to tumblr” I was never on it in the first place, just had an account I see two women covered in a white substance in their oral area, the camera shot bust up, proceed to lick each other’s tongues in a sexualize way while the one on the right grabs the left’s breast. The only reason why I had seen this post was because I follow the hashtag “grunge aesthetic”. Lesbians aren’t your porn and fetish.

As of this I am done my rant. Idc if I get any hate comments or if someone happens to message me hate. You are only part of the problem and just prove it by making those comments. I also want to mention that I am not fishing for pity points. I am simply just addressing the issue at hand and using my platform although small to spread awareness to the subject.

Now it’s that, I hope you all have a good day and drink some water 🥰

[singwhenyoucantspeak]

I want to make a post about male characters and consequences.

I think this is something Madre Sólo hay Dos approaches and executes much better than any other show i’ve seen. And I will start by a possibly controversial statement, but that i don’t think would be as controversial if we lived in a world where men, both IRL and fictional, were consistently held accountable for their actions and made responsible for the consequences of their own actions. and that is

I liked Pablo and Juan Carlo both as characters. I did not hate them. I did not hate their storylines. were they messy? HELL YES. did they do some stupid/bad shit of varying degrees of terrible that hurt people, including but not limited to Mariana, Ana, Ceci, and Ro? yes they did. But I still didn’t hate them as characters and I still didn’t hate these storylines. and after some reflection, I’ve realized the reason is the way the show gives attention to consequences. I think this is a mechanism that we see in place for the female characters as well, but it stuck out to me much more for the men because MEN are the ones historically how are always given a free pass for their actions. but Madre Sólo hay Dos didn’t do that.

Here’s the pattern I see over and over again in tv shows with shitty male characters: Man does something shitty that ultimately hurts a Woman. Woman, rightfully, acts mad/hurt about what happened. Woman’s anger and refusal to spend time with the Man becomes the sole consequence of the Man’s action. In order to make HIMSELF feel better and GIVE HIM ACCESS to the Woman’s life again, the Man acts like a kicked puppy for an episode or two in order to GUILT the Woman into forgiving him and letting him back into her life. As soon as she forgives him and accepts contact again, all consequences of the Man’s actions, and in fact all evidence that he did a shitty thing in the first place, completely disappear from the narrative and are forgotten as the plot progresses.

Here is what Madre Sólo hay Dos does instead: Men do some shitty things, there are consequences. A lot of things become very messy. The man has to learn to LIVE with the consequences of his actions, which impact his life even outside of whether or not the woman/person he hurt is still angry with him. His actions are not forgotten. the woman is not guilt tripped into forgiving him. Even after she forgives him, IF she forgives him, the consequences remain and HE still has to deal with them, but the onus for fixing the situation, repairing the relationship, getting life “back to normal” is NEVER put on the victim. And even once things go back to “normal” (which is debatable as to how normal anything returns to in this show), there are still subtle reminders of what happened and there are STILL subtle consequences for the man for the entire rest of the season. He is never once given a free pass. He is never able to just forget it ever happened, EVEN if the woman has moved on and she herself isn’t personally holding him accountable at every turn.

So. those are my thoughts about why I was able to love and enjoy this show so much despite some of the shit that male characters pulled, that I’m sure, had they been dealt with differently, would have caused me to hate them and all of their storylines and wish they never had any screentime. But I never felt that way. I never minded their screentime. Would I rather watch an entire 37 minutes of ONLY women on my screen? yeah of course. But these male characters actually added valuable complexity to the storyline, and I never HATED it because nothing that should have had consequences was just swept under the rug and forgotten. And because they always had consequences for their actions, I found it much easier to be sympathetic towards them. Maybe I could be sympathetic towards them because I knew that Mariana and Ana didn’t have to be.

[panvani]

Rereading the official translation and coming across this line made me remember a particular nuance I think Kimura’s translation erases in the use of a gendered pronoun in Oswald’s line here.

To clarify, the original line was “このような形になってしまうのか” (kono you na katachi ni natteshimau no ka, literally closer to “this is the kind of form that has come to be taken”), which does not specify an object. The line was definitely about Miranda in context, but no female subject is mentioned until Vincent’s following line “あの女だ…悪いのはぜんぶあの女なんだ…” (ano onna da... warui no wa zenbu ano onna nanda..., official translation is basically literal) “This is how she was transformed.” is not an inaccurate translation of このような形になってしまうのか, definitely, but I don’t think it carries the full nuance of the original line.

Oswald’s lack of specificity regarding subject in Japanese was, based on framing, probably intentional, at least from the narrative’s perspective. If you were to show a Japanese speaker that panel out of context, they’d immediately assume the person being talked about was Vincent. If Oswald’s line, which originally does not specifically reference any single subject, was only intended to be about Miranda, why put it against Vincent, with Demios notably out of view? Why follow it with a panel of Vincent as a child, asserting it had to have been Miranda?

The thing about this line about Miranda being implicitly about Vincent is it sheds a lot of light on how I think the two are meant to be read-- not as two, completely separate, narratively distinct characters, but with Miranda as a reflection of Vincent’s own character.

I’m not saying that Miranda isn’t “real” within the context of the story, exactly. Multiple characters interact with her and acknowledge her existence, even those who presumably had no idea who Vincent was. Her narrative role, however, cannot be separated from Vincent’s, and her arc is intended as a supplement to his. There are a number of reasons why I believe Miranda is a reflection of Vincent, as opposed to simply someone who traumatized him, however. A good part is how Vincent refers to her.

(chapter 39)

There’s one other instance of a character claiming to have been spoken to by the Devil.

(chapter 32)

Break, in reference to his illegally contracted Chain, claims to have been spoken to by the devil. Break and Vincent’s characters parallel one another in a number of ways- both are manipulative, deliberately offputting, living in anticipation of their death (as was Lacie... that’s another post, though). Both, out of a hope to save their loved ones, begin to sacrifice others while believing their actions would eventually be undone.

The reason this particular line is important though is because of who precisely Break’s illegal Chain was and what he represented-- that is, the White Knight. Just for absolute clarity, to “white knight” means to put yourself in positions of conflict out of the egotistical desire to be viewed as a savior. The word generally has different connotations when used for women vs. men, but that’s what it is at its core. This is also what both Break and Vincent do, as a consequence of having been influenced by their respective “devils.”

Immediately following the conversation from chapter 32 screencapped above, Break says “So people become stronger by living ‘for somebody else.’ Then how to go about it rightly? What should one keep in mind...? It must be... Never using ‘for somebody else’ as an ‘excuse.’ I hope he too... comes to realize that sooner rather than later, hmm?” Clearly referring to Vincent in context.

How that ties into Vincent’s encounters with Miranda is in the specific phrasing she uses to convince him to open the Door to Abyss. Vincent immediately recognizes Miranda as something hostile. He’s always afraid of her, believing the moment he sees her that she is something that seeks to harm him.

(chapter 39)

Yet he believes her, because Vincent does not only want Gil to be safe for Gil’s sake. He wants to save Gil to be the one to save him. This isn’t to say Vincent was selfish for wanting Gil safe- I know there’s a massive discourse about how selfish Vincent is or isn’t, so I’m not going to go into it here, but it’s explicitly canon that Vincent was an abused child in an extremely unsafe environment who in this scene believed his guardian intended to kill his brother. But his subsequent course of action was definitely influenced by his specific desire to white knight.

Other than Miranda as a representation of Vincent’s desire to white knight, another major reason I see her specifically as an extension of Vincent himself and not simply a good manipulator has to do with what Vincent says in the second panel of that first screenshot. He claims his actions are Miranda’s fault, that he can’t be held accountable, since everything bad was only because of her.

The thing is, Vincent thinks what happened is his fault. He does. He insists it isn’t, because he wants to believe that, the same way you might insist it couldn’t have been you who ran over your cat when you find her body crushed in your driveway. No one wants to believe they’re responsible for suffering, especially not on the scale Vincent saw. It’s evident in Vincent’s actions that he blames himself, though. Why represent her as an abstract monster with no human traits whatsoever while Vincent goes at length about his own weaknesses? Why connect the color of blood and his eye? If he truly blamed Miranda, why not kill her instead of himself?

He also admits that he thinks it’s his fault, though only once. (chapter 31)

The last part of why I think Miranda should be understood mostly as an extension of Vincent is the most obvious one: Demios is a representation of mental illness. I’m sure other people have gone far more in depth about this in the past, but the Chain Demios and Vincent’s relationship to her is strongly tied to Vincent’s character and feelings towards his own death. She kills those he loathes, attacks those he loves (but is never able to kill them), manifests at his worst to destroy his mind and is kept in submission when he finally accepts support.

So, going back to the translation I wanted to complain about: in translating Oswald’s line as “This is how she was transformed,” Kimura’s localization specifies a subject that was likely deliberately ambiguous in the original text. In the chapter titled Vincent, where Vincent as an adult and child appear in the same space, his line about having changed into something different (something regrettable, as the しまう conjugation implies) is juxtaposed with an image of an adult Vincent. In the original text, the line highlights Miranda’s role as an extension of Vincent’s own character, while the translation erases this. The fan translation actually does a better job of representing this nuance in using a pronoun that does not specify gender.

Obviously this isn’t a dig at Tomo Kimura’s translation as a whole, just an analysis of a particular line as it relates to a particular character dynamic. Vincent is one of my favorite characters in Anything so I have a lot to say about him.

"Ohhhh but my beloved what is the point of Miranda being a reflection of Vincent's internal monologue as opposed to a completely separate character?" Well. You ever hear of a gender?