#a woman character written by misogynistic white men

[whencartoonsruletheworld]

"It’s no longer 1937… she’s not gonna be saved by the prince." 

The absolute DISRESPECT for the FIRST ANIMATED MOVIE EVER MADE and its female character who was strong in her own way! The DISRESPECT for Snow White coming from people who plan to """update""" her story??? I'm FUMING. i am FURIOUS. This is the SAME shit I said about Girlboss Cinderella do you understand???

Snow White was an abused CHILD who was isolated within her castle and then suddenly thrown into the  woods and she managed to survive using only her hope and kindness!!! She found a house and offered to work to earn her keep and she DID!!! Snow does not have to be a badass to be a strong female character. And more importantly, SHE DOES NOT NEED TO BE "BADASS" TO DESERVE HER HAPPY ENDING. Some of us in abusive situations CANNOT escape on our own. We CANNOT physically fight back and WE STILL DESERVE HAPPY ENDINGS.

Women don't have to be badasses in order to be strong female characters. So she needs to be saved-- so WHAT? Saying Snow White is an antifeminist character solely because she doesn't save herself is offensive to abuse survivors and to the original character who WAS a good character. You can criticize OTHER parts of the movie– the implication that men living without women will be useless and filthy the entire time, or we can discuss the Queen’s feud with Snow being fuelled by misogynist standards, etc.!! But just saying “she needs to be saved so it’s bad” LIKE. ARE YOU SERIOUS

Badass Snow White reboots are fine in moderation, but just like Girlboss Cinderella reboots, too many and it becomes clear what society is trying to say now- that if you're feminine and can't fight a battle, you don't deserve to be saved. Do you see why this is a bad message????? Some girls are badasses who can kill and fight as well as or better than the boys. Those girls have Mulan, Merida, Raya, Moana, Rapunzel, Elsa. They are good female characters. But you know what? So is Snow White. So is Cinderella.

I'm sure people are going to accuse me of being antifeminist for saying “oh she NEEDS to be saved by a man”– I’m NOT SAYING THAT. You could have her be saved by a woman. Be saved by the dwarves, her platonic friends. By the animals. You could write a badass Snow White reboot without being disrespectful to the original film or tale. Just fucking TODAY I read the Disney Mirrorverse Snow White book– it’s written for 13yos basically so not high art but even with them having to make her an adaptational badass, they managed to keep her personality PERFECTLY. She learns how to save herself in this book, but also remains HERSELF. And her previous inability to fight was NOT CRITICIZED by any character; her sudden badassery was a bonus for her, not an indication of her character!!!

YOU are the ones saying that if Snow White (and Cinderella) isn't saving herself, she doesn't deserve to be saved. But everyone deserves happiness and that includes those too weak to fight for it alone.

anyway that was a long feminist rant. this is also super disrespectful to the FIRST ANIMATED MOVIE EVER, the people who worked on it, Walt Disney himself, and everyone who enjoyed or was inspired by it. You absolute fucking dickheads.

also can't believe i have to say this but if y'all use this as an excuse to be racist towards anyone in the cast i will hunt you down and put shoelaces in your lungs

[cacodaemonia]

I just saw a post I'm not going to interact with claiming that people who say 'X woman character is written badly' are hypocrites because 'they would like the same character if it was a man.' My first thought was that this person who made the post is probably quite young, and unsurprisingly, I was correct.

Because there definitely still are terribly written women characters now, and I would argue that there are still quite a lot more terribly written women characters than terribly written men characters. However, if you go back to the early 2000s when op was a small child, or to the 90s, or 80s, or beyond, then the vast majority of women characters were written terribly.

That's simply a fact. Most women were on screen to look pretty and get rescued and make the white dude protagonist seem cool. Hell, most of the time, they were barely characters at all and more closely resembled cardboard standees.

That's why it was amazing when we occasionally got pretty fleshed out, three-dimensional women characters like Scully or Janeway or even Sarah Connor in T2. They were neither damsels nor solely 'strong female characters,' the latter of which has typically meant 'a woman who is physically tough and her only allowed emotion is anger,' so... yeah, not exactly interesting or three-dimensional.

And sure, there are some people who simply dislike women characters in general, but do you honestly think that group has a huge overlap with all these people in fandom who have been asking for interesting women characters for decades?

I know this is the 'nuanced opinions not welcome' website, but people are allowed to dislike a poorly written character without being labeled a misogynist.

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

Mad Queen Misogyny

All the mad queen Dany takes, from both D&D and the audience, are just plain misogyny. They are literally just repeats of common misogynistic ideas. D&D have given a few reasons for why they wrote the mad queen ending for Dany, and all of them are the same old misogynistic tropes of fantasy and mythology.

The Mad Queen:

I'm going to start this off by going into how the mad queen trope itself is rooted in misogyny. This is one of the oldest tropes in fantasy/fairytales. Whether it's Snow White's evil step mother or the Queen of Hearts, literature is riddled with mad queens.

The idea of the mad queen is informed by the desires of men to keep women out of power. Yes there are historical women who were horrible people and unstable when in power. However, those examples are not enough to justify the amount of times the trope occurs, especially since some of the examples occur after many stories have already been written (ie, Mary I and medieval fairytales). These fictional women were written as cautionary tales of what happens when a woman is placed in power.

By writing the mad queen Dany arc in GOT, D&D are perpetuating an old trope rather than "subverting" anything as they claim. The most powerful woman in the world turning out to be a war mongering and mass murdering tyrant isn't subversive in any way. The only reason it was surprising was because it came out of nowhere narratively.

ASOIAF fans who constantly try to justify this turn for Dany's book character are attempting to do the same thing D&D did. They want to employ an ancient trope to justify their dislike for her in name of being "subversive".

The Violent Woman:

A trope that stretches back all the way to the Ancient Greeks is that of the angry, homicidal woman in power. From Hera to Medea, the myths are full of women who commit atrocities simply because of anger. This trope isn't just about avenging a slight or retribution on the guilty; it's about a woman taking out her anger on innocent parties.

Daenerys has fallen into the role of the avenger many times throughout both the show and and book. She killed Mirri Maz Duur for the murder of her son and husband. She killed the Undying for attempting to trap/kill her. She kills Kraznys mo Nakloz and many other slavers for the atrocities they commit constantly on the people they enslaved.

In the show, she imprisoned Xaro Xhoan Daxos and Doreah in a vault for killing Irri and helping the warlocks steal her children. She killed the Khals who threatened to rape her. She kills the Tarleys for rebelling against the Tyrells, thus getting them killed, and refusing to bend the knee.

Every time Dany killed up until season eight, it was purely because those she killed harmed her or her allies/children. That is why none of her past kills justify her burning KL. The people of KL did nothing to her; it's not an established part of her character to harm innocents out of anger. She even outright condemns the killing of innocents in earlier seasons.

The inconsistencies show how D&D chose to blatantly ignore the complexities of Dany's character in favor of a sexist trope. They perpetuated the idea that a woman in power who is angered will ultimately commit injustice and atrocities.

Dany antis in the ASOIAF fandom are no different from D&D. A common argument used by Dany and Targaryen antis is that they are bound to be corrupt and tyrannical because they have dragons. Essentially saying that Dany was doomed to be the villain the moment she hatched her children.

They point to her dragons' existence and her conquest in Essos as reasons for her "villain arc", despite the fact that none of her actions reflect the things they claim. Dany is simply being condemned for being a woman with power; it's expected of her to be a tyrant for those reasons alone.

The Woman Scorned:

This reasoning given by D&D in a behind the episode interview is probably the excuse that I hate the most. They said that one of the reasons for Dany's descent into madness was because Jon Snow refused to kiss her back once he found out they were aunt and nephew. This is an insanely misogynistic trope.

Used time and again by writers (mostly male), this trope is about a woman who becomes an antagonist due to rejection, unrequited love, or betrayal from a lover. In the case of Dany and GOT, it's Jon refusing to continue their romantic relationship.

For some reason, this is seen as a breaking point for Dany. A woman who has endured poverty, homelessness, sexual slavery, a traumatic miscarriage and death of a spouse/protector, and the stresses of war was broken by a man refusing to kiss her. Doesn't that sound fucking stupid? Well that's because it is.

Dany has never felt entitled to people's love (with the exception of shitty writing from D&D) let alone someone's sexual/romantic reciprocation. It's out of character and flat out insulting to women to believe that is enough to make Dany into a mass murdering tyrant.

Once again, there are members of the fandom who espouse this reasoning into their own theories and metas. Jonsas especially are guilty of this; some claiming that Jon's rejection of Dany in favor of Sansa will be a catalyst for the "mad queen".

An offshoot of this thinking, is the idea that Dany went/will go mad because she was rejected by the realm.

In the show, the Northmen are dismissive or outright hostile to Dany when she arrives (even after she saves them). Due to this rejection by the Westerosi people, Dany decides "let it be fear" and chooses to burn KL to the ground.

Once again, this idea isn't grounded in her past actions at all. Dany has always known she needs to earn people's love and respect as a ruler, why should she change her mind the moment she steps onto Westerosi soil? The answer is simple: she's a woman, so she can't possibly be able to deal with rejection.

Fans theorize constantly that Dany is going to go mad and destroy KL and Westeros because the people will definitely reject her in favor of Young Griff/Jon Snow/any other king they can think of. This theory is simply clinging to misogynistic ideas about women and it's disgusting in every iteration (it also dismisses the fact that there are people in Westeros excited about the idea of Dany and her dragons in the books but that's a different post).

The Woman Bereft:

This argument is probably the least outright in its misogyny. The idea that a woman who has lost everything will lose her mind isn't a new one and it can be played in a non-sexist way. However, GOT played it completely in the sexist roots of the trope.

Throughout seasons seven and eight, Dany loses basically everything. All but one of her children, her closest advisor and best friend Missandei, Ser Jorah, a massive chunk of her army, her other advisors, most of her allies, and is rejected by Westeros and Jon. That's a lot of loss to endure.

However, Dany has endured severe loss before and never reacted by murdering a city full of innocents. Again, this decision and descent isn't backed up by anything else in her storyline.

The sexism of this idea, that loss produces mad women, is that it's rarely applied to men in the same situations. For example: Tyrion lost everything he cared about, yet he's never written by D&D to be in danger of becoming a mass murderer. He even outright says he wishes he'd poisoned the whole court, but is never portrayed as a mad man by D&D or fans.

Dany is expected to go insane after enduring loss because she's a woman. She's perceived as being fundamentally weaker, mentally as well as physically, so she must be more vulnerable to madness than the male characters.

The Foreign Seductress:

The idea of the foreign seductress is a xenophobic and racist stereotype. For Dany, her antis use the instances of her exercising sexual autonomy and her life in Essos as fodder for this disparaging trope.

In the books and the show, Dany pursues sexual and romantic relationships outside of marriage. This is something that doesn't fall in line with the medieval setting of the world. In Westeros and Essos, it's common for men to do that, but not women, due to systematic misogyny. Because of this, Dany's antis often feel free to argue that because she doesn't act "pure", she is wrong and evil. Dany's bound to become a villain because she isn't a chaste and "good" woman.

In the same way, Dany is painted as wrong for wanting to take her family's throne purely because she wasn't raised in Westeros. She's perceived as a foreign invader by both her antis and D&D.

D&D wrote many scenes of outright xenophobia from the Northmen, Sansa, and Arya towards Dany and her forces without ever condemning those ideas. In fact, they justify them by writing the mad queen ending. The fact that Dany isn't "one of them" is used as an excuse for her descent.

Dany antis also employ this rhetoric, especially when people compare Dany's conquest for the IT to the Starks' desire to retake Winterfell. It's good for the Starks to want to retake their throne because they were raised in Winterfell, but Dany has no right to her ancestral home because she wasn't raised in Westeros.

However, this idea is never applied to Young Griff, who was also not raised in Westeros. Despite this, people will talk about how excited they are for his story and how sad it is that he's totally going to be murdered by his evil aunt. Once again a double standard is applied to Dany.

All this is because Dany is a woman who refuses to conform to patriarchal standards and was raised in a foreign country.

Never Good Enough:

Dany antis and D&D thrive on applying a different set of standards to Dany than other characters. They do this an a way that's reminiscent of the double standards set for women even today.

No matter what Dany does, it's never good enough for them. She dealt with Viserys and his death in the wrong way. She didn't protect her people in the right way. She tried to abolish slavery in the wrong way. She saved the goddamn world wrong. Like nothing Dany does is right in their eyes.

In their minds, Dany should've died in AGOT being a perfectly passive woman. She refused to submit to those (men) around her, and for that they punish her.

She's wrong for fighting the slavers, she's wrong for trying to avenge murdered children, she's evil for killing to protect herself. D&D used each of her actions throughout the show that they seemed too aggressive as justification for what they wrote. Dany's antis do the exact same thing in their theories.

The mad queen Dany theory is rooted completely in misogyny. It has no true justification in the narrative and every argument conjured up is just as sexist as the trope they want to perpetuate.

[punkeropercyjackson]

Imma try to chill so that instead of raging,i can just explain this politely:If you're in the Batfam fandom or are interested in joining,please be respectful of the Batkids' canon characterization and stories with exception of the offensive bits because that way,you will be able to fully appreciate and enjoy them as characters and get along with long time fans too as they'll appreciate you for it since Batfanon is so overwhelmingly popular and you'll be helping combat it

You want a ray of sunshine optimist who's actually realistic instead of a cornball and has depth and layers and is beloved by everyone in the DC world?Read for Dick but avoid Tom Taylor and Devin Grayson as their writing of him is extremely ableist,misogynistic(see Babs' character regression for his sake and the 'disposable black love interest' trope times 10x towards Kory)and anti-romani with Taylor being a whole ass zionist and Devin only made Dick romani to fetishize him and wrote canon Batcest and even other pedo ships.She has since apologized for the latter so Batcels can't use her as validation

You want a goth boyloser who's a lone wolf and has an awful relathionship with Bruce where both feelings are completely justified but he himself is morally gray and treated as such rather than coddled?Read for Jason but avoid og Rhato because it's a shitfest that screws over everybody involved including Jason himself and nobody who likes it cares about him at all since it's the worst thing to ever happen to him,INCLUDING The Joker.He was also textually miserable the whole time and is way happier with his new cast on top of being better written

You want a relatable teenage boy who's a positive role model for irl ones and is canonically into dudes and can be the token normie that reacts to the weirdness of his family for jokes?Read for Tim and please don't believe anyone who tries to tell you he's a bad person or a raging misogynist because they're the same niggas who stan Jason the ex-serial killer and Slade the pedophile who's child abuse even of the non-sexual kind is his defining character trait as stated by Marv Wolfman,who MADE him.He's literally just a 17 year old boy who's not perfect and people are just ageist and generally hateful.Everybody should care about Tim Drake /ref

You want a strong female character who's genuinely super weird and real and does justice for the girls that don't fit in and are abused by men but is also really funny and feminine?Read for Stephanie and don't buy into the bullshit propaganda DC keeps trying to keep selling since her debut that she's 'just a girl' or somehow less hardcore than the Batboys or ESPECIALLY the fandom's emphasization of her blondeness when she got it from her abusive dad and has never shown pride in it and was never an 'It Girl',she was the school outcast at ALL her schools,including college.Just because Stephanie Brown is a white girl that dosen't mean she's a white feminist or a prop or basic-She's literally a pastel punk who has a Metalica poster in her room ffs

You want a wasian with gender fuckery who was raised to be a weapon and had no parents until Bruce adopted her and became super human through crazy ass means and is a mega cool edgecase?Read for Cass and keep in mind she was created with the intention of defying easian woman stereotypes,including existing for white men and nothing else and that includes not forcing her to like Jason or steal her Shiva origin to give it to him and as an afro-dominicana,Jason feels more afro-dominican than he does anything else and we HAVE an asian Jason Variant but he was south asian,specifically indian and not easian/chinese so it's even more orientalist than before with Sanjay Tawde's canonicity in mind(He is from The Doom That Came To Gotham for anyone interested)

You want a brown boy raised by a bad organization he has complex ties to because his connection comes from his family who is very much a little shit and anger filled but also a sweetheart who's truly trying his best?Read for Damian but keep in mind he's a victim of anti-arab writers,he's not a demon or a villain or an animal-He's just a hurt little boy who's almost never known anything but pain and being seen as a monster compared to white boys and that's why so many Damian stans are so grateful for Flatline/Nika because she loves him as much as we do and gives him the TLC we wish we could(platonically in our case but still)

You want a troubled but good kid who has god-like superpowers and loves to run his mouth,gives Bruce's headaches with his shenanigans and is not only an unconventional Robin but Jason's Robin and vice versa?Read for Duke and don't even look in the general direction of runs that leave him out-Which do the other Batboys dirty too every time anyway!!Duke has refered to Bruce as his dad and Bruce has refered to Duke as his son and ALL the Batkids see him as their brother and the poor guy feels left out of them because DC are a bunch of antiblack pieces of shit who baited us with the first ever black Robin just to exclude him for his blackness and act like they were being 'careful'.Nah,FUCK that-If Cass can be respectfully written as Bruce's kid,so can Duke!He don't got parents either,the ogs got Jokerized and Gnomom is emotionally abusive and he's literally a minor!

And they're just the core Batkids!!!If you're looking for another type of character,then they definitely exist and i'd be happy to tell you who fits it so i can tell you what to read/watch/play for them!Trying to switch the Batkids CAN be good depending on how you do it but 99% of the time it's just bigotry!REAL bigotry minorities can't stop dealing with just by logging off and fandom is supposed to be a safe space for weirdos-Not 'nerds',WEIRDOS.Black people and woc and mentally ill people and autistics and abusive survivors and EVERYONE,not just stupid ass kinksters that think kink is inherently anti-establishment and white people who had 'hateful ideology phases' and think it's universal and play victim when told otherwise

'All Batboys are trans and autistic!'but then they leave out the most autistic-coded and tboy swag filled Batboy just because he's black and use the 'mains' excuse when they've never read enough comics to know that became a thing,that it wasn't always a thing and that it dosen't make SENSE for it to be a thing.'All Batkids are/do [x]' but they leave out the girls even though 'Batkids' is the gender neutral term as it's meant to refer to the whole gang.Do not fall for it.They're about as gooth faith as 'Allmighty God Superman who fucks all the women' dudebros.Please be kind and be a real superhero fan by reading the comics so you can join us in dunking on them.Please,you'll be doing the comics fandom a lot of good and you might even help influence the comics industry itself because it responds to mass fan appeal way far back and that's how we got a fair amount of runs and adaptions we do today and yesterday and tommorow.I promise it'll be infinitely more fun than fanon too

[raisedbythetv89]

I just started watching White Collar for the first time and a realization about most male written and directed media smacked me DIRECTLY in the face which is that SO MUCH media written by a for men is genuinely just male nerd self insert, non-canon compliant, AU fan fiction??????

Like them writing and creating stories is just “ok so these guys are soooo smooth and well dressed and women just flock to them at every turn and they can get away with anything and everyone believes and supports them when they do mess up and everyone thinks they’re sooooo brilliant”

This media isn’t just portraying women “for the male gaze” it’s EVERYTHING. Everything in these stories is supporting and uplifting mens’ delusions about who they are, how they’re perceived, and how they should expect to be treated. Which is incredibly ironic because anytime media portrays women or the world in the female gaze in a more “in my ideal world things would be like this” instead of portraying us as nothing but weak, broken, unloved, traumatized, victims OR one dimensional sex symbols with no needs or emotions they’re screaming, crying, throwing up about how stupid and unrealistic the story is….

This explains SO MUCH about how male characters are handled in shows like Veronica Mars and Buffy. Even though they’re shows staring women all the “good guys” get the delusional self insert, y/n, AU fan fic treatment (Buffy still wants Angel in season 3 and Riley in season 6 even after everything they did and Xander is CONSTANTLY forgiven for all the atrocious shit he says and does and is wanted by all women besides Buffy. Veronica forgiving Duncan and getting back together with him and even CONSIDERING Piz could truly only be born from men being delusional AS FUCK. Writing how they want men to be treated by women rather than being based in reality and the woman having even an ounce of self respect.)

Which is why the “bad boys”, Logan and Spike are such better characters. They’re so much more realistic, they get held accountable by the women in their lives, have better growth and are just way more appealing and attractive because they’re not the walking embodiment of what MEN want men to be treated and act like.

Oh god this feels like such cursed knowledge to have like it’s important to see this media for what it really is but now watching it feels that much yuckier like finding the porn of someone you DO NOT LIKE but like their emotional porn “this is what life would be like in my fantasies” and they’re the fantasies of the grossest men alive 😭😭😭😭😭

Also it shows their emotional maturity like all of these things are what 13 year old boys fantasize about not actual mature, grown men….

Also just realized this is why the Star Wars sequels were so hated. It wasn’t just Rey being powerful and loved by her found family and Kylo. It was that the movies showed the reality of men like Kylo. They destroyed the male fantasy Darth Vader created. They aren’t super cool, powerful badasses. They’re extremely sad, broken, temper tantrum throwing lost little boys who just want love and acceptance but have lost the ability to accept it because of the dark side (aka the patriarchy) which is the reality and that made me SOOOOO ANGRY lololololololol and this is why Joss Whedon THOUGHT making Spike into a sad pathetic mama’s boy of a poet would make the audience not like him because that DOES work on misogynistic men who enjoy the male gaze but does NOT work and only humanizes and makes Spike even more complex and lovable to the female gaze 💀💀💀💀 oh good lord

[diaphin93]

The worst is that those Edelgard haters are bigoted ( misogyny is a very important part of it, but there's also so much casual racism, ableism and queerphobia, but I'm sure you've seen this better than I did :/ ) but they often believe themselves to not be, and so many of them try to make them like they're actually the one fighting bigotry.

For example, Edelgard has the biggest queer fanbase out of all the house leader and appear outside of the fire emblem fandom in sapphic online space ( hell she even had an irl drag performance ). But they can't really acknowledge that, because that would make them look bad.

So they pretend that actually the huge majority of Edelgard fan are straight men... But to pretend that, they have to play with reality. Edeleth is getting reposted really often in yuri reddit community ? That's because those community are actually all straight men fetishizing wlw. Edelgard is the only canonical bi lord? That's because they wanted to attract those straight men fetishizing wlw, so it's actually terrible male-gazey represention. Edelgard fanfiction are by the HUGE majority written by sapphic women? They'll conveniently only attack the one man that got his F!Edeleth fanfic popular. That guy actually has mostly sapphic and often trans reader? They don't mention it. He often talk about his own queer headcanon or analysis himself? They'll make shitty post on how those hcs or analysis are actually queerphobic.

And that's the same for sexism, racism and ableism. Edelgard is a character made for white straight men, so she's bad for minorities despite her own traits diverging from the norm: she's an acceptable target when you pretend to be against bigotry. Her fans are all white straight men, so they're acceptable target when you pretend to be against bigotry. ( And funnily enough, they never acknowledge when a non-negligible part of the fandom they're in, like Dimitri and Rhea, are full of straight white men )

But that's the problem, the huge logical issues they try so hard to bury, is that we're not actually white straight men. It's so alienating to have them talk about the bad white straight fans of Edelgard, while at the interacting with people like us. Like, did any of your detractors even ever genuinely acknowledged when you, a woman, accused them of incel like behavior without immediately scoffing at the accusation? Did they ever acknowledge that uncomfortable place of minorities in the Edelgard discourse, like they do so often with Rhea or Dimitri to portray themselves as fighter against bigotry?

They erase minorities in the fandom, but they pretend to fight for them.

And the worst is that they don't even really fight against bigotry in the fandom at all. There's so many racist, queerphobe, ableist, misogynist in part of the fandom like the Blue Lions. Hell some of them are very openly conservative or far-right! But they'll never attack those.

Even in the Edelgard community, where we do have small group of vocal straight white bigoted men like in Reddit... They don't actually do anything to them! Those guys are often just as busy fighting F!Edeleth and sapphic women in the community as they are engaged in the discourse. And the Edelgard haters, well, they don't like F!Edeleth and honestly they don't like sapphic women who like Edelgard either, so they have no interest in fighting them. Because they don't actually care about bigotry, they just want to shit on the character they dislike, not so rarely for bigoted reason on their own.

Hey, thanks for the message and sorry that I'm replying so late, started to write this up and then got distracted alot. And I feel you. I think many aspects of this whole Edelgard discourse and fandom Drama surrounding it are very symptomatic with issues in fandom in general, that can often be very hostile towards lesbians and sapphics in particular, due to the strong androcentrism that is visible across Fandoms. I think FE3H in this way represents somewhat of a microcosm of Fandom in on itself, due to the fact that Edelgard early on established herself as a fav of Sapphic and Yuri-centric communities inside Fandom, her most favored ships being w/w with m/w ships always being somewhat of a niche.

Like, Edelgards strong presence in the fandom as well as the preference of sapphic relationships surrounding her is quite an anomaly inside fandom which isn't very often seen and in my opinion the result of a perfect storm. I think what partially plays into it is probably t he way 3 Houses is structured, with the eponymous 3 Houses front and center and a chose your own Lord approach, which creats very much a faction system with this game and with it, encourages the development of communities centered around supporting their chosen Lord and House inside the broader fandom of 3 Houses. And the Black Eagles are just perfectly set up to draw out a strong sapphic and yuri fanbase for itself. There is naturally Edelgard as the central female Lord of the game herself, but I think what cemented it is having Dorothea next to her. Both of them are not only part of the, sadly rather small, cast of confirmed and unambigiously canonical queer characters with the ability to marry either Byleth, they also are themselves written in a way that would naturally draw sapphic audiences. Edelgard alone already fits right into typical tastes of both sapphic audiences and the more decicated fandom, being a canonically queer woman who serves as the central protagonist of her playable route and not only subverts traditional writing with her dominant, brunt and guarded personality, but also acts as a morally nuanced character with motivations strongly centered around the revolution against an oppressive religious institution and a heavy hitting backstory centered around themes of loss of abuse, loss of bodily autonomy and societal vilification. It doesn't hurt that her initial students uniform also strongly invokes an association to Utena if you look at her, even if it may happen unconsciously, who stands as one of the definitive icons of queer women and sapphic centric story telling inside japanese media. Her role is also close to the villainess genre, which is highly centered around a critical lense on the way female character usually are vilified and reclaiming them as empowered feminist symbols, often through the heroine subverting the predetermined narrative that sets them up against each other and chosing female solidarity and companionship with the villainess, which is basically the plot of the Black Eagles Route. The Narrative tries you to force siding against Edelgard and only through claiming authority and deepening their bond to Edelgard, can they defy it and side with her. With Dorothea, we probably have the most feminist character in the history of Fire Emblem, whose themes center highly around objectification and misogyny she faced in what hs implicitely a clearly patriachal society.

Both of them also have strong supports with the other two female members of the Black Eagles, whose personal themes go deep into patriachal abuse, misogyny and anxiety as well as xenophobia, imperialism and the loss of autonomy, both on a personal and national level. Them having these strong bonds with other women, but also female characters outside the Black Eagles, like Edelgard with Lysithea and Dorothea through their shared Paralogie with Ingrid, even if the laters support line is sadly cut short, creats an in short ideal set up a strong w/w centric community around the Black Eagles. With the Black Lions, with its extreme androcentrism, focus on male bonds and traditional Bishonen Design, drawing the traditional Yaoi but also het crowd, we have also a male supporting class who have strong queer subtext with each other, while also drawing in more non-conventional m/m shippers. Especially Ferdibert, due to Huberts more striking non-Bishonen features.

Sorry for the deranged long tangent and going so much offtopic, but I think it was interesting to go a bit into the factors that in my opinion lead to Edelgard and the Black Eagles having an by far above average w/w representation and appeal against the typical trend we see in more general non-female or sapphic centered media. And honestly, I think this is part of where the hatred comes from, because Edelgard and the Black Eagles just tick every box, but in a game that also features your typical straight white heterosexual with yaoi-bait possible Protagonist that draws Fandom attention, to which she stands in opposition. So it invokes hostility and ire, because it ultimately reveals the very centrist to conservative milktoast comforts of Fandoms that try to present themselves as bastions of progressive values and queer representation, when alot of m/m is less than an authentic representation of queerness and most often written around the comfort and gratification of a mostly cishet and in the case of western fandom also very white audience (look at how for example the m/m fandom on the Blue Lions side shuns Dimidue in favor of Dimilix, despite a much more tender relationship that can be read as romantic by the former). So they need to recontextualize Edelgard and her Fandom as actually not queer, as rightwing and reactionary but also engaging in the tactic of it being at one hand oppressively powerful and hostile but on the other hand also a niche delusional group that misreads the entire story. It is all to justify their own more conservative or centrist comfort zones and androcentrism, against a queer feminist Icon.

Though I think especially on Tumblr, what also goes into it is this need to recontextualize fandom into activism. We see this alot with m/m fandoms for example, where, what is male on male stories written not for a queer audience but for cishetero female consumption first and foremost, is treated as the forefront of gay activism. I mean, we saw it with the whole SuleMio vs Destiel Drama here, didn't we? Where bitter Destiel fans expressed the view that their Supernatural ship was actually a major influence in the push for queer representation and acceptance, up to claiming yuri gundam from japan owes everything to some male-centered buffy rip-off that featured less explicit queer representation than its predecessor did at the turn of the millenium. In 3 Houses, we also see this as treating opposition to Edelgard as some form of activism, framing her goals as imperialist or outright colonialist in nature and making the divine whiter than white dragon people who are the immortal progeny of a dragon goddess into a representation of every real marginalized ethnic group on earth...in a game that eschews racial allegories in favor of actually depicting xenophobia, colonialism and genocide against human PoC characters. Many of these arguments actually reveal how Edelgards detractors are basically just performative progressive activists focussing their advocacy on wars against fictional european-inspired powers inside a game, while also clearly just repeating leftist words that they picked up without an understanding of their contemporary political context. Again offtopic, but using terms such as imperialism in its contemporary political context or even worse, colonialism, for wars of conquest and ideals between fictional nations inspired by medieval european kingdoms and empires is asinine.

As you also hinted at Captain Flash, I think there is also a hugh double standart towards male yuri fans which bothers me. First off is blanked hostility and accusations of fetishization towards these groups always linked by transphobic collateral, due to how many closeted sapphic transfems first explore their identity and sexuality through the safe confines of w/w fiction and especially Yuri and this kind of rhetoric will inevitably damage eggs. Secondly is it hypocritical as it often comes from white cisheterosexual women who center their media consumption around the blatant objectification and fetishization of male queerness, with the Yaoi Genre having a shit ton of homophobic, heteronormative, misogynist and transphobic baggage. It also shows a clear lack of knowledge and insight into the culture surrounding Yuri in general, with these kinds of detractors usually projecting issues inside the yaoi community onto yuri. Yuri, as a genre, just never had a split between male and female creators that queer male japanese fiction had, which was traditionally seperated into the female dominated yaoi and the male lead bara or gay comics genre. Sapphic women were always a driving presence both as creators and consumers of the Yuri genre and are very well capable of policing fandoms against fetishizing misogynistic influences. It doesn't even fit into consumption trends, gooners, to name them very bluntly, don't engage with fanfiction, yuri asa broader yuri or shipping discourse, they are much more pragmatic in getting off and just straight up jump into porn.

I think its especially nefarious if we look at the queer community surrounding Edelgard. I mean, Monica at this point could be a transbian icon, because I have seen so many trans women strongly identify with her and build their fandom identity around her, because they can immerse themselves so deeply into her love and appreciation for Edelgard due to her being such an important comfort character for them. Edelgards most passionate fans are often also among the most vulnerable people inside this fandom, who feel inspired and comforted by her. Hell, even Captain Flash, who is often heavily slandered by Edelcritical crowds for the crime of writing a f!Edeleth fanfic often expressed in his authors notes how important and comforting Edelgard is to him, due to his own history of trauma and health issues.

Though I will also say, I'm against the idea of pushing the entire Blue Lions Fandom under the Bus and villify all of them. And even if I did just write some accusatory shit against Yaoi Fans, there is no understatement that in this case I talk about problematic trends I noticed inside the broader fandom discourse as well as the subsection of Yaoi Fans who engage over and over again in hostility against lesbians. At this point, I don't really think the people you complain about, which bother me alot myself, are really a majority of Blue Lions and Dimitri Fans, they are just very loud, pushy and aggressive and are good in talking as if they have any authority (look for example at this asshole who goes into his large somewhat orientalist and overall just stretching interpretations of the games supposedly deep buddhist themes and characterizes Edelgard as some evil seductress due to his own misogyny and media illiteracy). We shouldn't forget that Dimitri for many is just as much of a comfort character and inspiration as Edelgard is for her fans, due to his themes of trauma, mental illness, redemption and forgiveness which resonate strongly with them and their lived situation. I also think the very loud edelcrit community really worked towards poisening the waters and radicalize discourse, but overall I would personally assume that the majority of Dimitri Fans can understand and appreciate Edelgard as what she is in the confines of his route, a well-intentioned antagonist who in their point of view goies to far in her ambitions and whose ideals are irreconcilable with Dimitris. Which is true from the point of view AM operates on, just as Dimitri for an Edelgard Fan represents a good man who has fallen victim to the System and its manipulators Edelgard fights against. Theirs is a conflict of opposing ideals and perspective and I would say its where the game manages to execute its themes of connections and outreach as well as differing perspectives the best. Like, normal Blue Lions Fans ultimately agree with what Edelgard wants to archieve, because their reading is that Dimitri wants to archieve the same, they personally prefer his approach and road towards that goal. I think this is a point where people should be able to have fun with heated discussions but ultimately agree to disagree, its a very subjective matter ultimately.

Actually, I would say the worst detractors and most toxic individuals of the community are probably the church of seiros fans and the "Rhea did nothing wrong" crowd. Like, they can be among Dimitri, Claude or Rhea Fans, but those are usually those who try to force their own rather reactionary interpretations onto the community and engage often in rather racist, religious apologetics and pro-eugenics as well as pro-feudalism talking points and have this weird disdain for humans and human autonomy & liberation, as if they really immerse themselves mostly into the fantasy of being from some superior race, lol. Most of them have rather twisted and messed up interpretations of the world and the story which they are adamant about and usually they build their interpretation of the game around what they want it to be, namely being very pro-theocracy, anti-liberation and espousing the idea that humans need divine immortal beings to lead them, as well as often also being super Pro-Crest. I mean, one of the most infamous Edelcrit Fanfics is basically just full on pro-theocracy, pro-feudalism and pro-eugenics. Usually they have a strong hate boner against Hopes because it really ruins their personal headcanons of what the game is, lol. And I think many of them seem to have strongly jumped to the Engage bandwagon, which is closer to what they want out of 3 Houses, playing the idea of a divine dragon ruler straight and justified feudal bloodlines straight.

But yeah, I think I went into quite a few tangents here, I hope it doesn't bother you. If you have any more asks you can hit me up. Ultimately, I call them out when they engage in Incel and Misogynist behavior and otherwise just clown on these trolls. Its also just sad in a way, because its clear, that they constructed this idea of what they think the game is in their heads and everything that came out after te initial release of the game contradicts it.

[missfreija]

You have to love the hypocrisy of the show acting as though being a pimp is so much better than being a slave owner; like it isn't still human trafficking, and as though in that time and place, black women wouldn't have suffered the most from it. It's a seriously disgusting thing to pretend that it's this cutesy, morally fine thing to do: if they're fine with Louis being a sex trader, than they should have been fine with portraying the actual story of the books - he's meant to be a passively bad person. The story is about evil deserving empathy. It would be different if they used the fact that he's a pimp to explore the fact that he's always profited off of human lives and was passively evil in life, that would have been different (though that's exactly what the books do, so it still would have worked with the original story and then the show might have been good), but it was used as a way to make Louis a morally fine uwu baby. I fucking hate it. It's disgusting for the show runners to pretend sex trading is okay and doesn't harm people, it's dishonest to pretend the show is a discussion about the legacy of race in America without actually discussing the way in which black women suffered as a result of misogynoir and how they were sexualised and their sexual exploitation was ignored (but we all know how the show feels about black women given what they did to Claudia), and it's ridiculous to pretend that it's a gothic story when it veers away from the moral complexities inherent to the gothic genre. It's a poorly written, malicious, badly developed show with subpar actors, and I hate how popular it's become. It feel as though it's defiling the legacy of the books. And apparently Marius is a pimp now too. I hate even engaging with it, but I had to vent. I hope it gets cancelled as soon as possible and the fan base dies down, in the meantime, I'll try to enjoy the books and the circle of book fabs that remain here. Of which your blog is a wonderful example. Love to you, hate to AMC.

I absolutely agree with every single word lol. As a woman and as a iwtv fan i am disgusted by the treatment of women in this show, but apparently the show writers and the majority of audience don't care about women representation, neither black nor white. Also the fact that they portrayed the sex workers (in the few scenes where they appear) as 'relaxed' women that seem to have a friendly attitude towards Louis (who in this show possesses a strong ambition for business) is weird and gives to the viewer a distorted view of reality. The narrative focused a lot on the issue of racism, so why not showing briefly the suffering of black prostitutes? Because the male gaze doesn't want to recognize it? I don't know. And don't get me started on the other female characters.

What happened to Claudia was completely avoidable and unnecessary and still rj opted for this version and said that the r4pe was 'a horrible thing that happened to her, but it has toughened her up'. I guess it is a self-explanatory sentence. I can't even imagine how SA victims felt while hearing him say it. It completely downplays the trauma of SA and implies that women get something positive out of it. I felt that episode and the scene in one of the first episodes where Louis burns the tapes of the '70 interview (the book….) were disgustingly disrespectful towards Anne Rice and her fans.

Last year I got into a heated argument with some show fans on twitter because they kept reiterating that 'at least prostitution gives more freedom to women/people than slavery', 'louis is a good pimp, he treats his girls with respect', 'he defends the prostitutes from cruel men' , 'at least he didn't enslave my ancestors unlike book louis', it was annoying and i was astonished of reading all their statements, very misogynistic.

Regarding pimp Louis: not only this is a way to avoid probing into the character's psyche/moral (and not include one of the most important themes of the novel), but it is a way of de responsabilize (and deny) the past. Louis is a man of his time and, with an accurate work of writing, it would have made sense to contestualize his privileged position and explain what it meant for him to be in charge of a plantation, it would have been interesting to show what it meant to be a landowner and slave owner at the time and the consequences of his actions reflected on his slaves, maybe introducing some of them into the narrative in a more concrete way (or do the same with the pimp/brothel storyline in the show, because it's equally evil), since it is a topic basically not explored in the book. But the showrunner decided that nowadays one should not represent these issues on tv and you have to disregard the past. It is extremely hypocritical.

And it's awful that for this reason they chose another historical setting, changing century and not addressing the fact that there were just as many issues in 1910/20 as well; apparently for the writers the XX century was a historical period with minor social problems where no difficulties existed (aside from racism, it was pretty much the most prominent theme in s1). And I doubt that the reconstruction of the New Orleans society of the time is faithful lol (and where is the voodoo?). All this imo denotes great laziness in the writing.

And clearly this series does not belong to the gothic genre, it's more a teen drama. Beyond the surface level thrills, the gothic literature holds a profound mirror to the complexities of human psychology that here are totally absent. I also doubt that the show writers did extensive research on the figure of the vampire in literature.

We were all eagerly waiting for the cancellation of this garbage that is NOT iwtv/tvc and the immediate disappearance of the show fandom ahahah but unfortunately it has been renewed for s3 😔

Thank you for the compliments mwah! hugs!

[aurathian]

things that have stuck with me as a woc in (the zelda) fandom

Hey all. This post is mostly about the Gerudo and my own experiences in fandom as a Middle Eastern woman (will be using acronyms such as MENA and woc), because the longer I stay here the more insane I become. This post is mostly about a lot of horrible stereotyping, misogynistic, racist, etc. headcanons, and just downright horribly offensive comments I've witnessed that have stuck with me throughout my time here.

There are a lot of other problems in this fandom with a lot of other aspects of the games (the Zonai...) which I won't touch on, as the Gerudo resonate closest with me and I feel I have the authority to speak on these issues as I am MENA, and they are based on MENA stereotypes.

TW for racism, misogyny, xenophobia, abortion... it's just strange.

The most notable thing I've experienced during my time in this fandom is being spoken over, as a woc talking about woc issues, by white people. White people who were MY FRIENDS.

One instance that sticks out to me is when someone shared their art of Urbosa in a Zelda server. It was really sexualized, and her waist was EXTREMELY tiny. Below the art, the artist said, "her waist is snatched because she got an abortion." She didn't say this about the other characters she drew. Only the woc.

Do I need to elaborate on why that is a horrible, disgusting thing to say?

This really upset me. What upset me more, however, was that nobody spoke up. Nobody said hey, this is wrong, and what you said is gross. When I spoke about this with my friends, they continued to bash the art style or whatever and ignore the fact that what was said was disgustingly racist. Then, after repeating about 5 separate times the impact this had on me as a woc (because nobody was listening to me and the most action that was taken was hug emojis), I got asked: Are you MENA?

They chose to ignore the racism they were witnessing and then questioned my (already stated) credibility. To question my capacity to be upset, hurt, and angry. These were people I called friends.

This next instance was not me being spoken over, but it was... weird. In a Zelda server, someone shared their headcanons for their personal AU. One of these headcanons was:

The Gerudo stop aging until they meet their significant other.

The Gerudo stop aging until they meet their significant other.

This was to justify the person's pedophilic ship with Riju, which... yeah. Self explanatory. So not only that, but you are tying the life and worth of WOC to their partners which, in-game, are men. The Gerudo do not continue their lives until they met their partners. The woc do not continue their lives until they meet their partners.

Be real.

This person ended up getting called out (after MUCH convincing from me to do so...).

These are two specific instances that have stuck with me during my time in fandom, but now I'll touch on more general stuff.

The only way people speak about Urbosa or other Gerudo characters is sexually or violently. It seems we only have the capacity to say "yes mommy Urbosa step on me! Crush my bones!! Yes!!" which is actually extremely harmful. You can like the Gerudo. You can think they're sexy or hot. But you need to be more mindful about how you speak about them, because if the only way you can express your feelings about these woc is through acts of violence, that is a problem. Because you cannot see the Gerudo as characters beyond being man-hating lesbians to satisfy your own fetishes. By acting this way, you also contribute to the idea that Gerudo women cannot be feminine because they are brown-skinned. No other race in Zelda is spoken about this way.

The Gerudo are often attached to other characters, as mentioned previously. I think this is most commonly and easily seen with Urbosa. Whenever she is discussed, it is in relation to Zelda (mother-daughter relationship) or Zelda's mother (having an affair or whatever other headcanons there may be). It is rare that Urbosa is written on her own, outside of her relationships. Not like she has an entire society to run or anything.

Let's also not forget about the sexualization of Link in his Gerudo vai outfit. Yes, it's cute. Yes, it looks good on him. But so many of you borderline fetishize him wearing it. However, I don't think I know enough to speak on this specific issue, so I will stop there with that.

I will never forget the time I came across a post saying that the existence of Ashai, a pale Gerudo, is racist.

Here is Ashai. She teaches the dating lessons in Gerudo Town. As you can see, she is paler than a lot of the Gerudo.

However, contrary to the westernized belief that all Middle Eastern people are literally brown-skinned Muslims, the Middle East is extremely diverse. Middle Eastern people are pale, dark, brown, tall, short, Muslim, Christian, Jewish. We are not carbon copies of each other like this poster wanted the Gerudo to be. In fact, this same exact identical-ness is what made early versions of the Gerudo so racist. The one thing Nintendo did right was having a diverse range of skin tones for the Gerudo in BOTW, and by saying Ashai's existence as a pale Gerudo is racist, you erase all of that progress.

Race is not just in your skin tone. It's in your eyes, your nose, your mouth, your ears, your body. That is why, despite being pale, Ashai is Gerudo. Ashai is a WOC.

This post is not intended to stir up drama, because if you believe racism = drama, that is not on the poc calling it out.

If you are a white person who is friends with POC, this doesn't make you exempt from contributing to the harmful stereotypes or racism.

Sit down. Listen. And reflect.

[blazinghotfoggynights]

This fandom is turning into a madhouse!

Why? 😢

What is all the arguing about? Why are fans taking sides in multiple standoffs. How are these wars starting?

What I have to say may not be well-received by some sides in the numerous boxing matches active in this fandom right now, but I'm going to say my piece. 🤷‍♀️ I am not responsible for white-hot rage, tears, or epiphanies that you don't want. So, proceed at your own risk. Or whatever.

Buddie vs BuckTommy

BuckTommy fans, Buddie fans were not seeing things. Those characters were written as being pulled into each other's orbits and it was more than platonic. It wasn't blatant, and it has been hinted it couldn't be due to the network. Even now, with Eddie and Buck being in relationships, and Eddie somehow being in multiple, they are still using Buddie to promote the show. If they are not going to happen, then why the use that to get ratings? That is the definition of baiting.

Buddie fans, BuckTommy is canon. They may not last or they may be endgame. We won't know until it happens. Why lose your mind over fictional characters that one man controls? It's simple. If you feel they played the Buddie card only to put Eddie in a mess of epic proportions and make Buck become Evan Buckley-Kinard, tune out and keep fanfic alive. Do you know how many fandoms have followed that process? If Tommy was brought back just as a plot device, then it's not much better than baiting.

You know what would be hilarious? Buck meets a third person, falls in love, and marries them.

It would shut both sides down if it was a woman. (I may have a petty streak and if I were in charge, I could see making it Taylor or Abby.)😈🤣(Maybe then the warring factions could call a truce over tears and beers.)

Tommy Kinard was not a good guy. That's not delusion. That's canon.

BuckTommy fans, the character of Tommy Kinard has done multiple problematic things, and the writers are not addressing any of it. Telling people to get over it is not cool. Being closeted or confused is no excuse for calling Chimney the delivery guy and Hen the b-word. He was actively and willingly participating is some of the worst forms of bullying someone can experience. He wasn't a teenager who was just trying to fit in. He was a grown man. No excuses for his behavior are acceptable and, in the real world, you would be hard-pressed to find his victims forgiving him. They would not be his friends.

I can see why women, especially black women and LGBTQ women, and non-white men, especially Asian men, would say they don't like how his past transgressions are being ignored. He was openly racist and misogynist. That is canon. Nothing was misunderstood or misinterpreted. Tommy was a d*ck.

If you watch how Lou is portraying Tommy, there are indications that what we saw in season 2 is a part of his personality. The lack of discussion about his past could be intentional because it may come up in the future.

How has no one noticed how he speaks to Buck sometimes? Maybe I am just older than most in the fandom and have experienced a lot more, but there are things about Tommy Kinard's behavior that don't seem very...nice. The way he speaks to Buck sometimes is like he is dismissing what he thinks or feels. Sometimes he seems to be speaking to Buck as if he is a child. I was offended on Buck's behalf.

The biggest CAUTION sign so far was when he admitted he is jealous of the 118. What? That doesn't even make sense! Think about it. Tommy went out of his way to make the 118 hostile toward anyone who wasn't a het white male. When Bobby took over and changed the culture, he brought respect and openness which cultivated the friendship, and eventual love, that created the family the 118 is now. Tommy could have easily come out to the team under Bobby, apologized, and began building the bridges he burned. But he did not.

Tommy chose his side but now he is jealous of the work Bobby put in to clean up Gerrard's mess? Could it be something else giving his jealousy life? Could Tommy be resentful that the exclusive, prejudice environment he happily embraced, and helped keep in place, under Gerrard disappeared and because an inclusive tight-knit family created from the outcasts?

That is a very real possibility and if that is the case, it says a lot about Tommy Kinard and could lead to an interesting arc in the remainder of season 7 and season 8.

Eddie Diaz is not a bad guy.

I think Eddie has been teetering on the edge for many seasons. TBH, I am surprised he has been as stable as he has for this long. That man is walking meatsuit full of trauma.

People who are mentally stable and have healthy coping skills do not join underground fighting rings, smash their bedrooms, or ask relative strangers to watch his child and move in. There have been many indications for multiple seasons that Eddie is not in a good place but keeping it together for the sake of his son.

I do not think Eddie is trying to hurt anyone at all. I think he is trying to claw his way out of some hell his mind has had him in for a long time.

That man needs to be taken to the nearest inpatient facility and admitted. (If you are thinking of making a negative comment stigmatizing mental health awareness or treatment, reconsider, choose not to, and move along. Mental health is just as important as physical.)

Eddie Diaz is in no condition to be in a relationship with anyone except a therapist right now.

Whether you want Buddie, Eddie/Marisol, or Eddie/Wife's Ghost, if you want to see anyone with this guy right now, I have to ask you if you are feeling okay.

Remember how Eddie's parents didn't want him dragging Christopher down with him? Right now, it looks like Eddie's carefully, barely held together existence is going to go boom. Anyone in the blast radius is in danger. The only dates Edmundo Diaz should be having is at least three times weekly and begin with a mental health professional asking him if he has something he wants to talk about.

Evan "Buck" Buckley is a grown ass man. Stop infantalizing him! They even do it on the show.

I can't be the only one who sometimes forgets that thick mountain of a man is not a young twenty-something just wandering out into the world.

He's in his thirties. He's been in therapy. He's grown. He has to do what all of us adults do: Make decisions, wait to find out what happens, and deal with the consequences.

Say it with me: Buck is not a baby.

No one who has any real knowledge is going to tell fandom what the future holds for the show.

Who doesn't get that?

There are unhinged fans on every side of every current fight.

If you are attacking actors, writers, producers, networks, or anyone else, I have to wonder if you should be in a room next to Eddie after someone who loves him takes him where he should go.

That type of behavior used to get you a room with soft walls and a free jacket that left you in a permahug.

You can make anything you want happen with the characters.

It's call fanfiction and AO3 is wonderful. If there is a great story that hasn't been told, get on Word, Docs, Libre, or whatever you have and start making it a reality!

Authors have major support and respect from the fans.

If writing isn't your thing, but you are great at prompts and don't mind authors taking your prompts and creating stories, find a way to share them!

There are positive ways to channel your eyerolls, frustration, anger, or whatever. Draw fanart. Write fic. Write ideas and throw them at those who draw fanart and write fanfic.

To the whole fandom: CHILL! PLEASE!

I don't want to watch another fandom I enjoy implode. I don't want to see other fandoms assume everyone in this fandom is in need of the soft room and permahug fashion I mentioned earlier.

Been there, done that.

At the end of the day, everyone needs to remember:

It's not real.

[horizon-verizon]

You’re a whole coon, of course Rhaenyra hates women, especially Black women, she tried to murder a 16 years-old Black girl, slut shamed her, called her racial slurs, and linked Nettles “ugliness/attractiveness” to her Blackness. Rhaenyra literally acted like a pathetic pick me in regard to Daemon and Nettles. If given the chance, Rhaenyra would have enslaved her. TB must truly despise Daenerys to compare her to Rhaenyra, they couldn’t be more different. (The way Rhaenyra is never mentioned in Dany’s chapters and GRRM has never discussed them in conjunction with the other, finally y’all can thanks HOTD for turning her into a progressive and flawless Mary Sue).

And really an insanely privileged white woman dying after putting a bounty on a lowborn Black’s girl head should be a good thing right ? We just gon have to celebrate Rhaenyra death with Nettles.

If you say so, anon, I guess I'm a straight up coon. 🤷🏿‍♀️

I suppose arguing how no one can be a feminist in a medieval world is coonish. I guess that pointing out how unconstructive it is to go "she wasn't a feminist so we shouldn't care about any possible effect her coming into power like the men before and after her have been able to will have an effect on other noble women's power to maybe implement some pro-women stuff in their own domains" to us analyzing why/how Rhaenyra is important to the history of Westeros and Daenerys is coonish.

I guess it's coonish of me to flout so many non-Nettles arguments of Rhaenyra's supposed bad leadership and amorality not once, but TWICE (that I remember), where it clearly just veers into straight up sexism: HERE and HERE....thus coming into why I even bother defending Rhaenyra (in some points).

It's not like I haven't already wrote several time in several posts how Rhaenyra's trying to get Nettles' head reveals much about the Targ-Andal paradigm she grows up in and tries to use to bolster herself through her going after Nettles to the end. It's not like I don't see how essentially different Daenerys and Rhaenyra are as people through the Nettles event as well as how they grow up and come into their positions of power and how/why they desire those roles:

It's not like I haven't already written about the Black Jezebel stereotype at least three times, including on Twitter and here. It's not like I have defended Nettles not just from "dettles" stans but also from people who call themselves Rhaenyra stans while bashing on Nettles and Mysaria, totally misunderstanding both characters and what even a supporting character is.

But sure, I'm a coon bc I don't want to ignore the journey of Rhaenyra's downfall and make distinct where she decided to destroy another woman vs her being the victim. Sure, I'm a whole coon.

And for the last fucking time, "compare" does not always or only mean "these two things are exactly alike and I will show you how"! "Comparison" analyses means that you will list out what traits or developments two things have, what inspirations, and see how they differ and how they don't. And through such a process, you will find out how many and how well/or not these two or more things are alike and how.

For Dany and Rhaenyra, I never said these girls/women were the same person. I said that both women, as women in male-designated positions of power, have to deal with people in world AND out of world must contend with misogynist feelings towards of their not deserving power or leadership on account of their gender, no matter what sort of characterization either had BECAUSE even with the main series not being like F&B, not being a history book, PEOPLE IN THE FANDOM STILL TEND TO MISREAD OR TWIST DANY'S ACTIONS AGAINST HER CHARACTER AND GRRM'S INTENT. Rhaenyra is meant to contextualize that very experience into a real event of catastrophe, she was set against ever since she was 10 bc she was female and another, older woman wanted power denied to her directly bc she was a woman. This is a fact, you nor I can change that. There is a difference between what we learn from the events to make the conclusions of who should rule ideally and what we should shoot for VERSUS thinking of the situation at hand for what it would have been like for the character.

F&B (having been written after the main series) continues even this "analysis" phenomenon; what do people choose to believe when it's a woman at the center of their stories?! No matter her real circumstances or their knowledge of things not present in their understanding of the world and of history?

I also mention, several times, how it is here, Rhaenyra's end, where the Targs lose their dragons because they have assimilated into the intenser patriarchal paradigm already mentioned to the point where they weakened their women's positions by denying them their autonomy and political powers...which plot sequence wise leads to the end of the dynasty as whole and Dany's exile. I'm must be a coon to not want Nettles, a 17 year old, to fuck a 50 year old, esp with her being his bio daughter. No, anon, I am too repulsed with direct vertical incest (parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, etc.).

Then there is how the Bloodstone Emperor and the Amethyst Empress and how the former usurped tha latter and plunged the entire world into mythological "darkness"--thus leading up to the importance of the Azor Ahai, aka Dany, directly seems to reflect how another brother--Aegon II--usurped his older sister--Rhaenrya--and thus the world loses a strong magical tool against darkness "dragons". An obvious link....

In fact, I tend to repeat how different they are as people! There's this whole thread talking abt the very thing I despise abt some critiques of Rhaenyra. I even say many times that Rhaenyra couldn't have the throne after the Nettles letter, that at that point, there needed a "refresh". Up until then, there was simply more reason for us to not think her a real terror except for maybe Addam and Alyn. But I have my misgivings there and it comes down to timing and grief.

No, Rosby and Stokeworth do not count and why? I already wrote why, but for someone who doesn't stan Rhaenyra or is not a fan of hers but actually stans just Daenerys--the previous ozymalek says:

I have myself said several times how I disliked how they rewrote show1Rhaenyra to make her a much less assertive version of herself, and I agree with others how they made her female-friendless. No matter how amoral or moral she was, similarly to Dany, people have written her sexistly in the show. I believe that this is CENTRAL to the point of F&B, how people refuse to see the point of it.

Finally, I really don't see how the hell show!Rhaenyra even is a Mary Sue or a NLOG, bc for the first, she displays no skill she excels over others at. A Mary Sue is:

Show!Rhaenyra, for some reason, seems "perfect" to some people. Esp with Luke saying so in epi 8. I never felt that way, I always thought she (older, not younger) was too meek and that is her great flaw---due to the sexist writing, but if kept at face value, that's the great flaw. Other definition: Who is inserting themselves into her character on the show? you got proof?

A NLOG (not like the other girls) is a Cersei like character who goes out of their way to destroy/diminish most women who are competitors for their power or destroy any semblance of socially-defined femininity and socially-coded feminine "weakness" so as to appeal to the male authority and get privileges. Problem is that EVERY SINGLE FEMALE MONARCH AND WOMAN IN SOME SORT OF AUTHORITY OVER MEN IN EVERY SINGLE PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY had to convince their male supporters that they were the one they should follow to some degree more than any male heir or candidate--during a time where they had to either fight for their "birthright" or they were planning coups (Catherine the Great), came into power through some accident, or whatnot--that their rule was in it for them. There is no pattern of woman-hating or self-hating to define Rhaenyra as a NLOG, where she consistently tries. NLOGs tend to hate women even in their own "race" or group for perceived acts of upheaval and destabilizing their positions of power. Alicent was and she uses misogyny to do so, so Alicent is not Rhaenyra's victim; other way around. Rhaenyra has all reason to despise Alicent, justified even. It's more than the positions, it's the whole targeting since 10 deal and trying to espouse Rhaenyra's inherent unworthiness for power.

So Rhaenyra deciding to do the Rosby/Stokeworth bit is her seeing how her greatest ally, a sexist man, has basically all her ships during wartime and insisting she does not give those girls their father's seats is Rhaenyra choosing wrongly, yes, but something I don't think that you or a small number of women would bow under considering the other shit she was going through. Yes, even black/PoC women. Again, this is not about Nettles but about women vs women (yes with them all being white or white-adjacent) bc I know that this will be the next thing some will say as a counterargument to what I'm saying here.

You are correct, however, in how similar Rhaenyra's behavior abt Nettles is pick-me-ish and NLOG concerning her intent to turn Daemon back to her and how this was her seeing Nettles as competition for "control" over Daemon, who was one of her principal military commands as well as her romantic partner...and like i said once before, this is a reflection on how this Andal-Targ patriarchal paradigm makes its own female "terrors" through misogyny. To ignore the process is to endanger its justified repetition. Yeah, Rhaenyra ends up becoming like Alicent in that way after the consistent losses, and I mean defaulting back to destroying another woman for a simulation of power. This doesn't mean that she was a feminist or that she didn't intend on using the Black Jezebel reasoning to get rid of "competition" to feel more in control. It does mean that her behavior reveals her enmeshment in the xenophobic, aristocratic, patriarchal Targ-Andal feudalist paradigm that she chooses to use to, again, construct more feelings of power at a time where she seemed to feel she was losing more and more--after the betrayals and the deaths of her sons in that moment. And yet if there is anything to be extracted from her narrative it is how that built-in classism (the companion and parent of racism) can become the thing these women default onto to retrieve/gain the agency & power denied to them. I believe this is also where you can draw a core similarity to Cersei, who is rather the starkest extreme example of that classism making up for her internalized misogyny through her Lannister Exceptionalism.

The discourse has to include how we, the readers, over-blame Rhaenyra for things she has either very little control over or what she had no control over and for trying to, again, assert herself (before Nettles). She's a reflection of her times and situation; doesn't mean she isn't still a victim. You don't need to like her. I never asked for people to do so. I don't care if you do or not, I've never needed that. Just don't lie or twist information or ignore clear patterns GRRM establishes that are also important, or try to erase the lines of harm done to her and undo the work GRRM is doing to point out this pattern of misogyny that contextualizes one very key aspect of Dany's journey: sexism doesn't care how good or classist you are, you are a woman so you will be subject to disenfranchisement, distortion of facts, and destruction...if you are not like Dany, who intuitively and "rationally" discovers lanes of power while reintegrating her being to the natural process and relationships between herself and her dragons for the ecological benefit of the entire world (the Others, again). Unlike Rhaenyra, Dany doesn't fall into the ideological "trap" or the noblewoman's save-grace of exploiting of lowborn people AND dragons but intelligently seeks other non-exploitative ways to use her dragons and those inspired by he bravery. This again, does not erase or override the sexism and specific elements of gender politics that tie these two together.

It's a paradox, not a contradiction.

[hidingoutbackstage]

Many horror movies over the years have used voodoo as a catch-all scary thing to use as the villainy in their movie without acknowledging where it actually comes from and that it’s a genuine religion that people follow and shouldn’t be treated as intrinsically creepy. Night of the Living Dead was credited with creating the modern zombie, but the modern zombie comes from Haitian folklore and the fears of slavery. “The black guy dies first” isn’t the most accurate overall but it was common enough that black characters, sparse as they were, wouldn’t live to the end of horror movies, thus creating the trope. Plenty of horror movies have native savages as generic threats to the white protagonists. Majority of the people credited with “creating” the horror genre were white.

Women were so oversexualized and brutalized in subgenres like slashers and splatters that the entire genre was dismissed by many people as being outright misogynistic (and it’s still being done today, just look at the Terrifier movies). Majority of the well-known horror filmmakers, past and present, are men. The final girl trope was a very specific trope that came about because of the era of slashers, and it has been flanderized to have no meaning at all in modern circles when it was specifically about the objectification of women in slasher movies. The majority of female protagonists that are seen as icons are still white women.

One of the earliest slashers, earliest horror movies, was about a man dressing up as a woman to kill people. One of the most infamous horror “twist endings” is about a girl character being revealed to have been born male. A horror musical that people act like is the only horror musical ever has a main character that’s a man who dresses feminine and commits assault on unsuspecting male and female characters, and was written by a transmisogynist.

The fact that there have been progressive horror filmmakers in the past, present and future does not negate the fact that there was also extreme bigotry in the past, present and future of horror. Stop being ignorant. Stop claiming that horror is intrinsically leftist and punk and meant to be anti-conservative. The fucking Conjuring movies are 1000% conservative and they’re a multimillion dollar franchise. If you try to claim that real horror is always going to be leftist and that conservative horror isn’t “real” horror I’m just going to think you’re being intentionally obtuse for the sake of winning your own argument

[punkeropercyjackson]

A key part Zutarians and Kataang antis always miss of the feminism in character's Katara is that her rebellion and noncomformity don't involve a man.Fullstop.Yeah,Z/K is a misogynistic ship and K/A is a feminist ship but that's because of how Katara is written,not how Zuko or Aang are written.Women who're attracted to men should be allowed to date whatever man they want without being shamed but when it comes to woman characters,they need to exist on their own and not as props to male characters

Which Katara does,most of all her anarchism!Katara nonstops speaks out,helps the oppressed and does anti-imperalist actions and also forms her own girlhood by refusing to exist into the traditionalist,gender essentialist view of female identity the world has but proudly being feminine and not letting herself not be seen as completely like a girl(trans-coding imo but i already elaborated on that).Katara is a rebel because she's a punk native girl,NOT because of her taste in men.Girlhood is not defined by boyhood and saying so is not only sexist but also lesbophobic and aspecphobic as it erases lesbians and aroace women and can even dive into transmisogyny with how biology and gender as intersections are treated

No Kataang wouldn't have equaled canon Zutara because Katara's not a bicycle.She didn't sell out by marrying Aang and having kids with him because she still did all that shit and continued to do all that shit until she got too old to and even then she was praised as the best Waterbending Master ever and treated with no less respect than anyone else in The Gaang in Lok and most of the comics and the Aang in regards to to their fam allegations say a lot about y'all-Nobody hates Katara more than Zuko ass kissers who accuse her of being nothing but a doormat to her own husband she grew best friends with literally just because she settled down with him and make violating ass comments about her sex life because she dared to have multiple kids and they can't come to any conclusion other than she's a breeding machine like a bunch of conservative slut-shaming freaks.And their motivation behind this is her husband is a genocide survivor of an asian race that's not glamorized by the west so they think the only way he could ever view women is and i quote 'human incubators' because he's a depraved savage unlike precious classy japanese boyfriend they've always wanted Zuzu uwu

Nah,fuck that-Fuck your tropes,fuck your symbolism,fuck your gentrification of Katara.She's Master Katara,not the Fire Lady and being anti Zutara because she's brown is about as racist as not wanting black fem characters to date white supremacists.She's also The Painted Lady and that was her vigilante persona to do activism to help out a Fire Nation colonized community so look in a mirror when you say other ships rob Katara of her culture.It's Zutaras,it's ALWAYS been Zutaras.You can't be 'robbed' of something you were never only offered but told multiple times you were never getting.Zuko dosen't want Katara either,he views her as a child and that's how she wants to be seen,Dadko is Zuko's thing for breaking the cycle of abuse and healing his inner child and Momtara is silencing Katara to make her Zuko's.Little Miss Punk Tactics dosen't need a man to empower her and loving a man you dubbed not ideal enough dosen't erase her being a revolutionary.She can want girlhood and not fit into the box.Katara can do both.The sea does not like to be restrained

[daeneryseastar]

Honestly, I think the Alicent stans are gleeful about what the show did to Alicent's character because now they can fully indulge in their dislike of Rhaenyra (all Targaryen women because apparently, they're all evil whores who don't fit into the image of a perfect Westerosi Lady), prop up Alicent's "suffering" as something aesthetically pleasing, and fixate on Alicent being a repressed lesbian "betrayed" by her crush and how Rhaenyra is a spoiled brat who abused poor baby Alicent. Don't even get me started on the constant comparisons they make between Sansa Stark and Alicent Hightower. "ALICENT WALKED SO SANSA STARK COULD RUN!" The theme is not only worrisome but nauseating.

that seems to be the case, doesn’t it anon? i think it feels vindicating for them, due to the whole ‘she spent her entire life suffering in the name of duty and honor, she deserves a conciliation prize’ like you mentioned (maybe there’s some deeper trauma that needs to be looked into for some of them idk) as if said 'prize' doesn’t end up costing her her entire family. the way they’ve written her in the show just screams the glorification of abuse. she’s allowed to physically, mentally, and emotionally abuse her own kids in their eyes bc she too was abused, every misdeed she commits is because she was abused, etc. she isn’t allowed to just want her son on the throne despite the set-back it would do to women, she has to have some sort of sob story to make her seem more sympathetic bc women can’t just be against other women without reason (eye roll) or be antagonistic in general without reason. the queer plot-line was also not needed seeing as it was doomed to fail from the start and its existence dives deep into queerbaiting and even racist territory; subsequently, they decided to make the velaryon’s black and then completely sideline laena, rhaenyra’s actual queer love interest, in order to uplift and pair the sad white woman with her instead (which is strange since it seems like most rhaenicent shippers loath rhaenyra, but i digress). she’s not a complex character; she’s one-dimensional, inconsistent, AND the result of hypocritical writers not being able to understand that victimization doesn’t automatically mean interesting.

it also feels like half the time her stan's can’t decide if all of her suffering is bc of the men in her life, or if it’s *somehow* all rhaenyra’s fault that she was put in that position. the show has attempted to switch the power dynamics at play by aging alicent down and rhaenyra up, but it doesn’t work simply bc alicent still has more power than her as queen consort (and still spends around 10 years without otto's influence bullying and ostracizing rhaenyra, which is not how a mother terrified for her children's lives would act in the face of their would-be murderer). furthering that, the lack of critical thinking skills is blatant in this fandom and shows when they attempt to vilify the targaryen's (especially the women, yikes) because they only do so to uplift their own boring favs. show!alicent, and by extension, both media's versions of helaena, are passive characters who conform to and uphold the patriarchy, they’re the perfect type of women for incels and pick-me’s to glomp onto to ‘prove’ they’re not misogynists (see? we DO like women! (only if they’re submissive and don’t fight back ofc)).

the only comparisons between sansa and alicent would be their show characters. only the latter half of got for sansa makes any since comparison wise. she too was a character that was further victimized to make her seem more interesting and righteous in the show writers efforts to make her qitn (and also to further the bullshit mad queen dany plot line). sansa is still quite a compelling character without adding in an unnecessary rape plotline, but if they hadn’t included it the only similarities between these two women are that both are apparently redheads (nope) and bastard-phobic (debatable). that right there is where any and all similarities end. in reality, alicent is the cersei to rhaenyra’s sansa, not the other way around.

the fact that many consumers (especially the women) seem to like the adding of an abuse storyline to these characters is so gross, and really telling of how the media has construed the reaction one should have to gender-based violence (or benevolent sexism). they condemn and pity these characters for what they go through, but in the same breath, praise the writers for adding ‘nuance’ to these women’s stories. worrisome indeed.

[higheldertala]

doing a little rant about the doctor and gender. i gather this discourse is getting stale but im gonna give my two cents anyway.

anyone who’s read my opinions on the ch*bnall era will know i really didn’t like how the doctor’s gender was represented during this era and unfortunately that seems to has passed on to the rtd2 era. not that the topic of gender in doctor who is new, i would say the topic of specifically time lords and gender became more prominent with our favourite misogynist st*ven m*ffat when he introduced missy, explicitly claiming that she could never call herself the master while being in a woman’s body. thanks m*ffat!

i think it’s safe to assume that time lords shouldn’t care about gender. at least not in the way humans do. they’re aliens, they wouldn’t follow human societal gender constructs. that would seem like a simple conclusion but apparently not to the white boomer men writing the show. even within the show the doctor has stated that time lords don’t ‘obsess’ over gender as written by said m*ffat (before of course immediately contradicting this just one episode later, showing time lord do actually obsess over gender to the point where it’s literally ever other line of their dialogue).

okay back to the point. as within the ch*bnall and now the rtd2 era the doctor’s gender is ascribed upon by others. no where in these eras does the doctor ever proclaim their own gender, it is simply assumed by other characters and then never questioned or challenged, much to my frustration. and sure perhaps the doctor doesn’t care what human gender humans assign to them but for me this greatly robs their character of agency. even from a genderfluid or agender perspective, if the doctor just says this out loud then that would be enough for me to be satisfied that the doctor gets a say in it.

secondly the doctor’s gender is still just being used as a joke. the doctor’s gender (and ability to change bodies) isn’t treated seriously and more just a funny little quirk the audience can point and laugh at, being presented as ‘lol i was a man/ woman 5 minutes ago isn’t that so funny’. not only is this such a cisgender/fixed binary way of viewing gender it’s also really insulting to actual genderfluid people who do change their gender. their gender and the ability to fluctuate gender isn’t a joke, it’s a person’s identity and should be treated with respect.

in the star beast, gender comes up in the resolution of the episode where it has no place to be. it’s makes no sense to add gender to the equation as it provides no further explanation of the resolution. and the line about the ‘male presenting time lord’ is completely baffling in every single way. rtd has clearly shown he understands the existence of the spectrum of gender and non binary gender yet with this single line contradicts this by resorting back to gender stereotypes and essentialism stating ‘a man could never understand emotional intelligence of letting something go ’. in an attempt to make GirlBoss™️ moment, rtd has just created average sexism. truly two steps forward then one step back. and to further bring this back round, again timelords would not care about gender and are unlikely to perform gender sterotypes this way so why bring it up at all. the doctor’s emotional vulnerability whilst present as a flaw in their character, is in all incarnations regardless of the gender of the actor playing the doctor. to suggest that the 13th doctor would be immune to this flaw is again sexist and also a fundamental misunderstanding of the character, with 13 has been one of the most emotional constipated and closed off incarnations. it honestly makes me question whether rtd has even seen the 13th doctor’s era at all.

unfortunately i think my desire for gender to be discussed and explored within the show seriously is not gonna happen any time soon, and honestly to prevent further frustrations i would rather the topic is not raised at all, if it is gonna be treated so carelessly and flippantly.

[steampunkforever]

There's a sentiment in low-quality media crit circles that basically boils down to saying "you would be all over this unlikable character if she was a man instead" or "your love of this pathetic male character betrays a misogynistic double standard because you don't act like this about women." Often I see this used to either defend their consumption of badly written media as praxis-- see: defenses of Rey's character as somehow empowering rather than admitting that the Star Wars sequels were badly written --or (even worse) as attempts to drag mature media subjects (people who got really mad about Barbie vs Oppenheimer) into mire of gender essentialism.

Of course this sort of thinking doesn't produce any art worth paying attention to. The answer is simple: leave behind playground gender politics and arguments over the female Ghostbusters and just watch better movies. Tár is one of those movies.

Lydia Tár is an absolute disaster. Born in a wet cardboard box. She's my little meow meow. She's a composer spiraling into a tormentous nightmare. She's driving a porsche. She's seeing things. She's bothering the neighbors. She's getting violent. She's a genius, she's perfect, she's losing control. I'm obsessed with her on a level this website reserves for Columbo and certain marionette-like actors. Todd Field wrote this for Cate Blanchett and no one else, and the gusto with which she carries the film on her shoulders is downright beautiful.

Though I will not discount the importance of representation (I've enjoyed too many movies about Italians to refute the beauty in finding shared experience through cinema), I'll note that when it comes to making meaningful art, representation should not matter. I'm not a mean lesbian conducting the Berlin Philharmonic, nor do I necessarily want to be considering the events that unfold in the film, but even for as supremely unlikable as Lydia is in this movie, she's a star you wish to follow despite her downfalls of her own making.

There's a moment early on in the film where Lydia teaches a class at Julliard, and is confronted by a student who dislikes Bach on the grounds that he is a white man and presumably misogynistic due to the bevvy of children he had with his wife. This student is a self-described "BIPOC pangendered" individual, and a bit of a strawman for the sort of intellectually dishonest reasoning that's permeated pop culture criticism. Lydia, and the film itself, use this character as a punching bag, reaming him out in front of the class for the admittedly ridiculous positions on artistic analysis that are increasingly being touted by the people who unfortunately matter to this sort of thing.

I will admit, this is a bit of a soapbox, but the movie keeps one foot on the ground, as the scene ends in Lydia stating the premise of her entire character: she wishes not to be judged for her womanhood or sexual orientation, but rather for her actions. For her art. What she has done, Lydia posits, is how she wants history to classify as who she is.

Unfortunately for Lydia, she's an awful person who takes advantage of those around her, cheats on her wife with her own students in relationships that may be consensual but are certainly wrong, and ultimately deserves the blacklisting from the industry that she receives. Not relatable at all, and for sure to turn off the guys who walked out of Promising Young Woman complaining that Carey Mulligan's character hated men.

Yet Tár takes this human trainwreck and crafts a psychological drama the simply doesn't let you look away. Watching Lydia Tár experience the ultimate #WomanMoment as she spirals into insanity makes you understand all the awards this movie won. This is a great film, and like the main character, deserves to be judged for what it does rather than who it stars, though Blanchett's performance as Tár will keep me obsessing over this movie for a long time.

[lokiinmediasideblog]

I Intentionally Start Shit in the Loki Tag

If you complain about Sylvie being "harmful queer rep" BUT want "Lady Loki" in the MCU, which was Loki possessing Sif's body just to torment Sif, I need you to sit down and shut up. a. Genderfluid people don't go by "Lady " when they're femme or women. b. If you don't see the transphobic dogwhistles in the comics possession subplot, I don't know what to tell you... But let's say that hag that wrote those crappy books would love it. c. If you weren't aware about this, maybe you should read the wiki at least before giving uninformed opinions.

I definitely agree that they should not have led people on with the promise of genderfluid rep during the promotion of the series. But get mad at Disney/Marvel for that. Not at the writers or Sophia Di Martino that had to cave in to Feige's demands. That's literally what they have to do.

I really don't give a damn about the "autogynephilia" allegations, which again, is ALSO PRESENT IN CIS WOMEN. Like why the fuck should I care about someone finding themselves hot? There's fascists out there. AGP even if it was a trans-specific thing harms no one. The only harm said to come from it is DUE TO FASCISM because it plays into RESPECTABILITY POLITICS.

If you use AI to create a "proper" Lady Loki or love interest for Loki, you can't complain about the blatant product placement in S2. I am not a fan of product placement either and won't defend it, but those are the rules. Show some integrity. And before you ask, I have not given a cent to Disney since they pissed me off with attempts to trademark Dia de los Muertos for Coco.

If you complain about how being a "Loki" is not a role (unlike Spiderman) and how it should have been all 100% Tom Hiddleston, you don't get to call it selfcest as a gotcha, because you're already differentiating between the variants with different DNA. Like do y'all hate selfcest or not? Make up your mind. The series treats a Loki as an archetype of sorts, so it can be a role. Also, having the same name does not make you related because we don't know what Sylvie's parents are? And we don't even know if Sylvie is also a Jotun, a prop claims she isn't.

If you say you want Sylvie dead but claim to not be misogynistic, because you'd love if a specific love interest from the comics or mythology replaced her, STFU. You only like those because you can project whatever the fuck you want onto them.

If you claim Sylvie is a misogynistic depiction of women but salivate over characters written by cishet white men in the 1960s-1980s that made wanting to fuck Thor or being in a monogamous marriage with Loki their entire personality (there's so MANY OF THESE), STFU. Do you hear yourself? And no, it's not misogynistic of me, a woman, to criticize offensive depictions of women by cishet white men. They're not real.

Our MCU!Loki is not the young adult Ikol reincarnation currently. Of course 20-something Verity is not going to be there! The Loki show should be praise for having multiple female cast members around the same age as the protagonist and pragmatic clothing choices that allowed SdM to nurse her baby.

Selfcest isn't real and I cry tears of boredom whenever someone clutches their pearls over it.

The comics aren't perfect. As much as I loved the recent Dan Watters run (and German Peralta's art), the comics art has some very questionable tendencies, especially regarding Loki's nose when she's femme. It's associated with how some kinds of facial features are considered masculine or feminine (and racialized). Noses have no gender, ffs! Women with nose bumps exist! For some reason Loki always has a tiny button nose when she's a woman or femme. There's also the BLATANT physiognomy that has ALWAYS PLAGUED Thor comics since their inception, and Loki's facial features as they've become more "grey" and less evil is an interesting study. Peralta's far from being the only artist with this problem, and is far from being the most problematic. For comparison from Loki (2023) run:

Loki from ye olden days: