Anyway fwiw the asks in my inbox got me to Think About It (to myself) and articulate (in private) why I feel very differently about Cytherea than I do about Dulcinea, or other characters who are suffering from illnesses in ways that are... more mundane. I like Cytherea a lot as a character but I like her in the same way I like Alecto; they’re both very inhuman to me. IDK how else to put it besides: Dulcinea is a sick person. Cytherea is a walking body horror trope. There are a lot of layers to her character and her entire arc is basically a murder suicide mission with a flirty detour, and I think there’s a lot more to her actions and her choices than needs to be unearthed - it’s been years since I first read GtN but I’m still spinning her motivations in my mind trying to make sense of her etc.
She’s a person with layers but she’s also a literal walking biological bomb, and I think that’s very much a deliberate narrative choice on TM’s part, to take something that is common (illness) and bring it to its most grotesque extremes (illness frozen in time that can be manipulated by your enemies against you, etc with a touch of the Terminator thrown in). To me, it’s familiar in the way many chilling horror tropes have relatively mundane roots, but I really can’t see it as a normal or relatable illness in the same way I can’t see stuff like necromancers’ reproductive issues o their extreme fragility as 1:1 to real life counterparts. (And I think that if you that’s a very valid interpretation, but frankly it’s not fair to expect everyone should do so)
13 notes
·
View notes
I feel the need to periodically remind people that Idiocracy is a eugenics movie.
One of the things that eugenicists believe is that it is bad for society when the “wrong people” breed.
The entire premise of the movie is that “stupid people” kept having kids while “smart people” didn’t have kids, and it ruined society because stupid genes propagated while smart genes died out. This is eugenics propaganda.
I know people will read this and their response will be “actually it’s satire” but the movie isn’t satirizing eugenics. It’s satirizing anti-intellectualism, and consumerism, and it proposes eugenics as a solution.
When eugenics was first conceived, it was used as a way to justify inequality. The idea was that people who held privilege were able to do so because they were smarter and genetically superior to lazy and stupid people who don’t have privilege. Obviously this is bad and wrong, but it is also the core lesson of Idiocracy.
The movie literally ends with the main character becoming president and having “the smartest children in the world.” Because he and his wife have smarter genes than everyone else. The proposed solution for the things that Idiocracy is satirizing is for the smart people to have children that can be in charge of the world.
I know it’s fun to use this movie to dunk on anti-intellectualism and the MAGA movement, but we need to stop. When you quote and reference this movie you are spreading eugenics propaganda.
9K notes
·
View notes
saw someone on here the other day say that we don’t need aromantic and asexual representation in media because that’s a “sanitized” identity like BITCH WHAT????? IF YOU CAN ONLY SEE ASPEC PEOPLE AS CHILDREN THAT IS A YOU PROBLEM.
8K notes
·
View notes