#and entertainment value is conflated with... having something to say

[wowitsverycool]

please i don't want my video games to be toys. if the point of your game is to frustrate me by god please do that.... i feel sometimes that games are held back as an artform by their need to be. like. Products. in the sense that they're expected to be entertainment first and art second, yknow? a game will get praised for its wonderful story, but only if that story supports a Fun gimmick. it's like the art in games is seen as a vehicle through which gameplay is delivered, and when gameplay exists in service of artistic intent, it makes that game a Failed Product.

[sneezypeasy]

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.

[margaretthatchersdead]

The fact that the bitching about aros has been going on for so long but people refuse to get new material. Honestly if nothing else it's just lazy and boring. Compare what people were saying a decade ago to now and it's the exact same.

"Oh but what about the aro cishet man who just uses women?" Gee, what if. At the end of the day, if you think someone feeling romantic attraction means they have a greater level of respect for people, you're really weird. Through this logic are all gay men misogynist? I mean considering how the people saying this tend to be terfs, they probably do also think that. The logic does imply that allo cishet men would be some of the greatest respecters of women and I don't think reality reflects that ngl.

"You're not queer just because you don't want to date women" Yeah I don't think you get how sexuality works bestie. "Want" isn't really how that one goes.

"You're still straight even if you don't wanna fuck" We're still on the conflating of aro and ace apparently. So many years to be educated and you've neglected to even learn the meaning of two words. Truly aro exclusionists are on another level.

"Well if they're a guy and they don't want to fuck men then they aren't lgbt" Interesting use of "lgbt" there when implying the only way any guy could be queer would be an attraction to men. I'm sure there's no other reasons whatsoever a guy could be queer.

Like it would still be bad if there was new material but at the very least I could have something for entertainment value.

[paragonrobits]

apparently that One Youtube I Hate has recently been notably quiet after a lot of criticism of her 'writing tips' (the criticism being both entertaining and good writing thoughts, or at least approaches to creative works), but some of her videos lately have been about how binary morality is good actually (which is not at all terribly surprising) and that she really hates Puss In Boots The Last Wish for being... immature, apparently

because it has a talking, zoro-inspired cat fighting what she describes as 'baby's first OC' and saying its immature and doesn't have a mature story

the movie in question is VERY EXPLICITLY about the main character coming to terms with the inevitability of death, accepting his mortality and to appreciate what he has and literally making peace with death

this is not a metaphor, Death is the character he fights as a metaphor for taking his last life seriously and treating it with value, the movie is VERY EXPLICITLY about coming to terms with the inevitability of Death, that is KIND OF THE OPPOSITE OF IMMATURITY.

I'm not surprised she's fixated on binary morality, especially in a Good Guys Beat Bad Guys way (or rather, that anything a hero does is good because they're the Good Guys, and should feel free to kill villains without hesitation or remorse) and is apparently still trying to insist that the Dark Side should be treated more gray, or that the best series are the ones that treat it like that, and that's weird because LITERALLY NO CANONICAL STAR WARS SERIES DOES THAT

some might treat individual dark side users as somewhat complex (if tragically doomed to lose themselves) but the Dark Side itself is evil and makes you evil, no quibbling about it. It's also fascinating we have someone who is fixated on the idea of the Dark Side being good or morally gray, when we already have an aspect of the Force that does that. IT's the Light Side; the Dark Side is very much conflated with the evil fascist Empire that does 10 zillion atrocities a day. The dark side's signature technique is a torture beam that kills people as painfully as possible, and i think there is certainly some interesting analysis in the people who desperately want the Dark Side to be good, despite literally all canonical materials indicating how evil it is

there is also something to be said about how these mindsets take offense at a setting where controlling your impulses, reining in your desire to act out in anger during the heat of a moment, or otherwise exercising discpline, and REALLY want the power set that makes you want to strange people with your brain to be a Good Guy power, basically having the villains be the heroes but change nothing else

but also whenever I think about this person mention the name of Tolkien I immediately feel great rage and my mind shouts "YOU GET THE PROFESSOR'S NAME OUT OF YOUR GARBAGE MOUTH THIS INSTANT. NOW GO TRANSLATE BEOWULF FROM OLD ENGLISH AND DETAIL IN ANNOTATIONS ITS LINKS TO ESTABLISHED NORSE SAGAS AND LATER INFLUENCE ON FOLKLORE AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE DONE"

[writingwithcolor]

Jurassic period alien interacting with key cultures and historical figures in Middle East & Asia throughout history

@ketchupmaster400​ said:

Hello, so my question is for a character I’ve been working on for quite a while but wasn’t sure about a few things. So basically at the beginning of the universe there was this for less being made up of dark matter and dark energy. Long story short it ends up on earth during the Jurassic Period. It has the ability to adapt and assimilate into other life animals except it’s hair is always black and it’s skin is always white and it’s eyes are always red. It lives like this going from animal to animal until it finally becomes human and gains true sentience and self awareness. As a human it lives within the Middle East and Asia wondering around trying to figure out its purpose and meaning. So what I initially wanted to do with it was have small interactions with the dark matter human and other native humans that kinda helped push humanity into the direction it is now. For example, Mehndhi came about when the dark matter human was drawing on their skin because it felt insecure about having such white skin compared to other people. And ancient Indians saw it and thought it was cool so they adopted it and developed it into Mehndi. Minor and small interactions though early history leading to grander events. Like they would be protecting Jerusalem and it’s people agains the Crusaders later on. I also had the idea of the the dark matter human later on interacting with the prophets Jesus Christ and Muhammad. With Jesus they couldn’t understand why he would sacrifice himself even though the people weren’t deserving. And then Jesus taught them that you have to put other before yourself and protecting people is life’s greatest reward. And then with the prophet Muhammad, I had the idea that their interaction was a simple conversation that mirrors the one he had with the angel Jibril, that lead to the principles of Islam. Now with these ideas I understand the great importance of how not to convey Islam and I’ve been doing reasearch, but I am white and I can understand how that may look trying to write about a different religion than my own. So I guess ultimate my question is, is this ok to do? Is it ok to have an alien creature interact with religious people and historical events as important as they were? Like I said I would try to be as accurate and as respectable as possible but I know that Islam can be a touchy subject and the last thing I would want is to disrespect anyone. The main reason I wanted the dark matter being in the Middle East was because I wanted to do something different because so much has been done with European and American stuff I wanted to explore the eastern side of the world because it’s very beau and very rich with so many cultures that I want to try and represent. I’m sorry for the long post but I wanted you guys to fully understand what my idea was. Thank you for your time and hope you stay safe.

Disclaimer:

The consensus from the moderators was that the proposed character and story is disrespectful from multiple cultural perspectives. However, we can’t ignore the reality that this is a commonly deployed trope in many popular science fiction/ thriller narratives. Stories that seek to take religious descriptions of events at face value from an areligious perspective particularly favor this approach. Thus, we have two responses:

Where we explain why we don’t believe this should be attempted.

Where we accept the possibility of our advice being ignored.

1) No - Why You Shouldn’t Do This:

Hi! I’ll give you the short answer first, and then the extended one.

Short answer: no, this is not okay.

Extended answer. I’ll divide it into three parts.

1) Prophet Muhammad as a character:

Almost every aspect of Islam, particularly Allah (and the Qur’an), the Prophet(s) and the companions at the time of Muhammad ﷺ, are strictly kept within the boundaries of real life/reality. I’ll assume this comes from a good place, and I can understand that from one side, but seriously, just avoid it. It is extremely disrespectful and something that is not even up to debate for Muslims to do, let alone for non-Muslims. Using Prophet Muhammad as a character will only bring you problems. There is no issue with mentioning the Prophet during his lifetime when talking about his attributes, personality, sayings or teachings, but in no way, we introduce fictional aspects in a domain that Muslims worked, and still work, hard to keep free from any doubtful event or incident. Let’s call it a closed period: we don’t add anything that was not actually there.

Reiterating then, don’t do this. There is a good reason why Muslims don’t have any pictures of Prophet Muhammad. We know nothing besides what history conveyed from him. 

After this being said, there is another factor you missed – Jesus is also an important figure in Islam and his story from the Islamic perspective differs (a lot) from that of the Christian perspective. And given what you said in your ask, you would be taking the Christian narrative of Jesus. If it was okay to use Prophet Muhammad as a character (reminder: it’s not) and you have had your dark matter human interacting with the biblical Jesus, it will result in a complete mess; you would be conflating two religions.

2) Crusaders and Jerusalem:

You said this dark matter human will be defending Jerusalem against the Crusaders. At first, there is really no problem with this. However, ask yourself: is this interaction a result of your character meeting with both Jesus and Prophet Muhammed? If yes, please refer to the previous point. If not, or even if you just want to maintain this part of the story, your dark matter human can interact with the important historical figures of the time. For example, if you want a Muslim in your story, you can use Salah-Ad-Din Al-Ayoubi (Saladin in the latinized version) that took back Jerusalem during the Third Crusade. Particularly, this crusade has plenty of potential characters. 

Also, featuring Muslim characters post Prophet Muhammad and his companions’ time, is completely fine, just do a thorough research.

 3) Middle Eastern/South Asian settings and Orientalism:

The last point I want to remark is with the setting you chose for your story. Many times, when we explore the SWANA or South Asian regions it’s done through an orientalist lens. Nobody is really safe from falling into orientalism, not even the people from those regions. My suggestion is educating yourself in what orientalism is and how it’s still prevalent in today’s narrative. Research orientalism in entertainment, history... and every other area you can think of. Edward Said coined this term for the first time in history, so he is a good start. There are multiple articles online that touch this subject too. For further information, I defer to middle eastern mods. 

- Asmaa

Racism and Pseudo-Archaeology:

A gigantic, unequivocal and absolute no to all of it, lmao. 

I will stick to the bit about the proposed origin of mehendi in your WIP, it’s the arc I feel I’m qualified to speak on, Asmaa has pretty much touched upon the religious and orientalism complications. 

Let me throw out one more word: pseudoarchaeology. That is, taking the cultural/spiritual/historical legacies of ancient civilizations, primarily when it involves people of colour, and crediting said legacies to be the handiwork of not just your average Outsider/White Saviour but aliens. I’ll need you to think carefully about this: why is it that in so much of media and literature pertaining to the so-called “conspiracy theories” dealing with any kind of extraterrestrial life, it’s always Non-Western civilizations like the Aztec, the ancient Egyptians, the Harappans etc who are targeted? Why is it that the achievements of the non West are so unbelievable that it’s more feasible to construct an idea of non-human, magical beings from another planet who just conveniently swooped in to build our monuments and teach us how to dress and what to believe in? If the answer makes you uncomfortable, it’s because it should: denying the Non-West agency of their own feats is not an innocent exercise in sci-fi worldbuilding, it comes loaded with implications of racial superiority and condescension towards the intellect and prowess of Non-European cultures. 

Now, turning to specifics:

Contrary to what Sarah J. Maas might believe- mehendi designs are neither mundane, purely aesthetic tattoos nor can they be co-opted by random Western fantasy characters. While henna has existed as an art form in various cultures, I’m limiting my answer to the Indian context, (specifying since you mention ancient India). Mehendi is considered one of the tenets of the Solah Shringar- sixteen ceremonial adornments for Hindu brides, one for each phase of the moon, as sanctioned by the Vedic texts. The shade of the mehendi is a signifier for the strength of the matrimonial bond: the darker the former, the stronger the latter. Each of the adornments carries significant cosmological/religious symbolism for Hindus. To put it bluntly, when you claim this to be an invention of the aliens, you are basically taking a very sacred cultural and artistic motif of our religion and going “Well actually….extraterrestrials taught them all this.”

In terms of Ayurveda (Traditional holistic South Asian medicine)  , mehendi was used for its medicinal properties. It works as a cooling agent on the skin and helps to alleviate stress, particularly for the bride-to-be. Not really nice to think that aliens lent us the secrets of Ayurvedic science (pseudoarchaeology all over again). 

I’m just not feeling this arc at all. The closest possible alternative I could see to this is the ancient Indian characters incorporating some specific stylistic motifs in their mehendi in acknowledgement to this entity, in the same vein of characters incorporating motifs of tribute into their armour or house insignia, but even so, I’m not sure how well that would play out. If you do go ahead with this idea, I cannot affirm that it will not receive backlash.

-Mimi

These articles might help:

 Pseudoarchaeology and the Racism Behind Ancient Aliens

A History of Indian Henna (this studies mehendi origins mostly with reference to Mughal history)

Solah Shringar

2) Not Yes, But If Ignoring the Above:

I will be the dissenting voice of “Not No, But Here Are The Big Caveats.” Given that there is no way to make the story you want to tell palatable to certain interpretations of Islam and Christianity, here is my advice if the above arguments did not sufficiently deter you.

1. Admiration ≠ Research: It is not enough to just admire cultures for their richness and beauty. You need to actually do the research and learn about them to determine if the story you want to tell is a good fit for the values and principles these cultures prioritize. You need to understand the significance of historical figures and events to understand the issues with attributing the genesis of certain cultural accomplishments to an otherworldly influence. 1.

2. Give Less Offense When Possible and Think Empathetically: You should try to imagine the mindsets of those you will offend and think about to what degree you can soften or ameliorate certain aspects of your plot, the creature’s characteristics, and the creature’s interactions with historical figures to make your narrative more compatible. There is no point pretending that much of areligious science fiction is incompatible with monotheist, particularly non-henotheistic, religious interpretations as well as the cultural items and rituals derived from those religious interpretations. One can’t take “There is no god, just a lonely alien” and make that compatible with “There is god, and only in this particular circumstance.” Thus:

As stated above by Asmaa and Mimi, there is no escaping the reality the story you propose is offensive to some. Expect their outcry to be directed towards you. Can you tolerate that?

Think about how you would feel if someone made a story where key components of your interpretation of reality are singled out as false. How does this make you feel? Are you comfortable doing that to others?

3. Is Pseudoarchaeology Appropriate Here?: Mimi makes a good point about the racial biases of pseudoarchaeology. Pseudoarchaeology is a particular weakness of Western-centric atheist sci-fi. Your proposed story is the equivalent of a vaguely non-descript Maya/Aztec/Egyptian pyramid or Hindu/ Buddhist-esque statue being the source for a Resident Evil bio weapon/ Predator nest/ Assassin’s Creed Isu relic.

Is this how you wish to draw attention to these cultures you admire? While there is no denying their ubiquity in pop-culture, such plots trivialize broad swathes of non-white history and diminish the accomplishments of associated ethnic groups. The series listed above all lean heavily into these tropes either because the authors couldn’t bother to figure out something more creative or because they are intentionally telling a story the audience isn’t supposed to take seriously.*

More importantly, I detect a lot of sincerity in your ask, so I imagine such trivialization runs counter to your expressed desire to depict Eastern cultures in a positive and accurate manner.

4. Freedom to Write ≠ Freedom from Consequence: Once again, as a reminder, it’s not our job to reassure you as to whether or not what you are proposing is ok. Asmaa and Mimi have put a lot of effort into explaining who you will offend and why.  We are here to provide context, but the person who bears the ultimate responsibility for how you choose to shape this narrative, particularly if you share this story with a wide audience, is you. Speaking as one writer to another, I personally do not have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I think it is important to be face reality head-on.

- Marika.

* This is likely why the AC series always includes that disclaimer stating the games are a product of a multicultural, inter-religious team and why they undermine Western cultures and Western religious interpretations as often (if not moreso) than those for their non-Western counterparts.

Note: Most WWC asks see ~ 5 hours of work from moderators before they go live. Even then, this ask took an unusually long amount of time in terms of research, emotional labor and discussion. If you found this ask (and others) useful, please consider tipping the moderators (link here), Asmaa (coming eventually) and Mimi (here). I also like money - Marika.

[dreamhot]

the terf rhetoric of 'well i know you said those are your pronouns but i'm going to use these ones instead, to make /me/ more comfortable :D my feelings are more important!' getting normalised so much by people who should absolutely know better makes me so upset. like gender the fuck out of c!dream nobody worth listening to cares if anyone calls c!dream she/her, but cc!dream is a real ass person who deserves his pronouns respected like anyone else.

^ all right, so first off, Yes. there's been a bit too much about this debate that errs a bit gender essentialist for my liking in general - namely in how some people are choosing to express 'feminisation' by way of giving a cis male breasts and long hair (this isn't even a strawman cos i've seen the art myself lmao). in this regard, i'd like people to pause and think about what they're implying if making a male cc look feminine is done by giving him 'female' secondary sex characteristics. smells a bit transphobic to me!

(this isn't about outfits or anything like that - just how the physical bodies have been drawn. just wanna clarify that)

on the topic of pronouns ... i think where people have gotten a bit mixed up is in conflating people who go by any pronouns (like ponk or eret) and people who have said they don't mind what you use on your own time, but who still have a personal preference. dream is in the latter category, not the former. his bios say he/him because those are his pronouns. end of story. so what does he mean when a dono asks if they can use something else and he says it's fine? well,

1) the fact that anyone would ask this ANYWAY is still bizarre to me. dream isn't a character you can project your gender headcanons onto - he's a real person. would you ask your friend who goes by she/her if you could call her anything else? i would certainly hope not. it's not any different just because dream is a cc - treat him and his preferences with the same respect.

2) HOWEVER, i could understand if someone wants to ask if a person is okay with they/them only because they/them is frequently used colloquially as the neutral, nonspecific pronoun set. that is to say, sometimes we'll use it when talking about someone indirectly without specifying who it is. for example, i might be talking to someone who doesn't watch mcyt and say 'oh yeah, there's this one creator i like cos their videos are really entertaining' - it just sort of slips out naturally when we're talking about people in vague terms. however, some people - regardless of how they identify - don't want to be referred to as they/them, and it can be worth checking to ensure you're respecting that. THAT basis for the question, i get.

basically, what i think happened is that dream was likely intending for his statement to cover the latter situation, saying he's indifferent to how people refer to him nonspecifically in impersonal contexts. however, that's very different than addressing him directly - in which case you should be using his Actual Stated Pronouns. i'm aware that you could interpret his statement to mean he doesn't actually care either way. i know. but again, his bios say he/him. if you're talking to or about dream, i think you should also be using he/him. that's just basic respect, and i wish people on twt especially would value that over their weird little gotcha games.

[rosemary-is-in-pesterquest]

HS2's themes are fuckin wack crap cuz like... idk it all starts with the epilogues, right? the thing that the epilogues are trying to say is that all conflict that the characters face within the narrative is there because the audience cast their gaze upon this story and demanded entertainment. something has to happen on the stage to keep us watching, thus, it is the audience's fault that the characters suffer. but that's bullshit for so many reasons. for one thing, it ignores the role of the author. audience demand doesn't force an author's hands to write... that's a decision that the author made. we could've lived with nothing at all.

and conflict comes in many flavors. some stories hardly have any conflict at all. the whole iyashikei genre exists, like, I think we're well past understanding that cynicism, tragedy, and destruction are not the only forces that can drive a narrative. "conflict" is not the only reason for a story to be told. once again, stories tell us as much about the author as their audience. the kind of story an author deems worthy of telling is just as relevant to consider as the kind of story an audience deems worthy of attention.

and even in conflict driven stories... it matters what the conflict is, who wins, how, and why. as a simple example, when the conflict is a battle between good and evil, good wins, it does so by way of the power of friendship, and the reason it is presented this way is to promote the idea that you should be kind and help others... that's a story with a purpose. obviously this is like, children's cartoon level simple, and a story can be written to say different or more complex things, but I should always be able to ask those questions and come up with an answer.

if, as an author, Hussie wanted to accuse his audience of being culpable in the suffering of his characters, he would at least have to present the reader with a meaningful choice. and at first glance, it would almost seem like he did. meat and candy, even by their naming convention, seem as though they are giving you the option to consume a light or dark tale. but even in the names, there is a seed of judgement. Hussie has described the concept of a narrative containing both "meat" and "candy" in terms of story content, wherein meat is anything heavy in terms of plot or drama, and candy is anything that provides levity as a counterbalance, such as jokes or feel good fluff. these categories are already identified as "substance" vs. "a lack of substance" which places value on the cynical, dark route as being more truthful... conflating cynicism with realism.

and already I can see making a case for the idea that neither route is legitimate, because no story should subsist on just one or the other... both need to be at play for the story to be balanced. and you could even argue that the lampooning of the epilogues' legitimacy was the point... that they were supposed to be outside of canon and regarded as illegitimate all along. but then not only does that negate the author's ability to let the audience choose the kind of story they're participating in, but the story itself doesn't play by its own rules.

does candy truly read like some fluffy pandering fanservice filler, the way one might expect it to? and is meat totally devoid of any levity, while focusing only on plot machinations and/or the characters' dramatic downward spiral? I would argue that, even though the consensus seems to be that both routes are equally dismal, neither even gets dark enough to live up to that end of the bargain either. the execution is messy... the concept doesn't hold up.

and what of the initial concept? that the audience's observation of a story forces the characters to enact a conflict for the sake of our entertainment? is that really what's going on here? from the initial pitch, you could already tell that the answer was no. nobody asked for this. and so we cast our apparently destructive audience gaze onto Homestuck 2.

but there, we find another curveball. the story is... almost becoming self aware? in that it casts a character in the role of the author, and also identifies him firmly as the villain. but see, this is still a blame shift. and maybe that would've been less obvious if Andrew Hussie had not introduced himself as a character inside of his own web comic throughout the original narrative. the true author is already here.

the villain of homestuck was never the audience, and it was never a fictional character. if we're really shattering the 4th wall... if we're really ceasing our suspension of disbelief, pulling back the curtain, and acknowledging that these characters are fabricated, manipulated entities with real people behind the wheel, then there is only one conclusion we can possibly come to. the author has control over the narrative... no one else. and the things the author chooses to say with the platform they've made for themselves? those things are on them. what are we to understand about the author, as his audience?

this is why people are looking past the story entirely and engaging with the creative team, for better or for worse. if you break your story enough, it won't work anymore. and when the audience finds it in shambles, completely unusable as a story... you know, the thing it was intended to be? they might actually look to the people who broke it and ask them why they did that. it was a nice story. it performed several functions that people actually enjoyed. was dismantling it like this really the most fulfilling thing they could've done with it?

and I'll tell you another thing. part of why people take it so personally is because, just like how Andrew Hussie, the homestuck character, was a stand-in for Andrew Hussie, the human being... many of the characters in homestuck were stand-ins for us. John Egbert was for people who had an obsessive nerdy interest in movies, Rose was for people who wrote fanfiction, Nepeta was for people who ship characters a lot, she and Terezi were for people who RP, and also... Dave was for people who were trying to act cooler than they felt, Jade was for people who were lonely, Kanaya was for people who wanted to help people and be accepted, Vriska was for people who were hard to love and felt judged for that.

who do these writers think they're messing with?

and I just want to make it clear that I'm not condoning any kind of harassment of them, or anything like that. ultimately, my point here is that we are not our effigies. and in the same way that an author can't blame shift onto a fictional character, a person cannot claim the direction of a fictional story as a reason to do real harm.

but homestuck was always unique in that it spoke very directly to its audience. when Hussie added real pieces of us to his fake people, he had a powerful vehicle for the messages that he wanted us to hear. lots of stories have characters that are written to be relatable, but you'd be hard pressed to find ones that feel quite so specific as the cast of homestuck. to our era. to our humor. to the values of people growing up in our online cultural circumstances.

if this specific author is going to choose to act like a villain, at least in the small-scale context of this comic, then what is that setting us up to be? maybe nothing so presumptuous as a hero... maybe just like, Dave of Guy, y'know? but Dave made normal a pretty heroic thing to be... I think it's up to us to just be normal and have normal fun, in spite of the shit show. regular old homestuck already said all the valuable stuff it was gonna. for my part, I'm just gonna take that and run off with it. ignoring HS2 doesn't make it go away, but paying attention to it doesn't make it good either... so I guess whatever.

that's the themes. the themes are just a big "so what" shrug. most complicated way to say "who cares" I've ever seen.

This is a really good analysis

[ljf613]

Why Azula Doesn’t Need a “Redemption”

I recently read this fabulous meta by @deliciousmeta​​ about some of the issues with saying that Azula needs a “redemption,” and I completely agree and wanted to expound on it. 

The term redemption arc is so ubiquitous in fandom, especially when talking about Azula, and I hate it, but I can’t get away from it. If I want people to recognize that what I write is in any way about understanding or humanizing Azula, let alone about working on her healing or actively trying to do better, I have to tag it with “Azula Redemption,” or people won’t know what I’m talking about.

So let’s talk a little more about the concept of “redemption” within the Avatar world. 

The show does use the term redemption, particularly with Zuko and the Fire Nation, but it’s not talking about some arbitrary concept of “good person” vs “bad person.” No, words like “redemption” and “restoration” are specifically used regarding one thing: honor. 

Before we go any further, let’s define our terms: 

[ID: Dictionary definition of the word “Redemption”: Noun 1. the action of saving or being saved from sin, error, or evil. 2. the action of regaining or gaining possession of something in exchange for payment, or clearing a debt. End ID] 

Redemption has two separate meanings. The first is about being saved from sin/evil, and @deliciousmeta​​​ already went into many of the issues with this, but I’ll add one more point: it’s passive. There’s a person being saved, and another person doing the saving-- and the show itself rejects this. Iroh, no matter how hard he tries, can’t save Zuko. Zuko has to make his own decision to leave on his own terms. 

The second definition is the one that’s important right now-- regaining something lost. Zuko (and the Fire Nation) has (or at least, believes he has) lost his honor, and he wants it back. 

(Side note: That idea of reclamation/repossession is also something to consider when talking about Aang/the Air Nomads, the Water Tribes, and the Earth Kingdom regaining everything they’ve lost in the war. (I might discuss that in another post.) Redemption isn’t generally the word you hear in regards to victims, but it does apply.) 

[ID: Dictionary definition of the word “Honor”: Noun 1. high respect; great esteem. 2. adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct. Verb 1. regard with great respect. 2. fulfil (an obligation) or keep (an agreement). End ID]

From Zuko’s very introduction, we see that he does honor his word, even when his opponents don’t. He told Aang he would leave the Water Tribe village in peace, and he kept his word, even when Aang did not. 

Zuko’s obsession with redeeming his honor (again, that second definiton of redemption) is because he has conflated the two meanings of “honor”; he lost his esteem (read: privilege), and he thinks that somehow means he’s lost his integrity. In his obsession with regaining the first, he loses the second. This culminates in “The Crossroads of Destiny.” When he turns his back on Iroh in Ba Sing Se, he has broken the trust Iroh had in him-- he’s dishonored himself. 

(Which, in a sense, is a microcosm for how the Fire Nation lost their honor-- they broke the trust all four of the nations had for each other.) 

When he returns to the Fire Nation, he has what he thinks he wanted-- esteem and respect (read: his father’s “love”). But it’s a hollow shell of what it should be. He’s always been a person of integrity-- the person who’s being honored isn’t him. (Or, at least, it isn’t who he wants to be.) 

And so this time, he rejects that first definition of honor. In essence, he says that respect is useless if the person’s actions aren’t deserving of respect. 

In doing so, he takes back-- he redeems-- his real honor. 

That’s what Zuko’s redemption arc is about. It’s not about “becoming a good person” or “being saved from evil,” it’s about taking back what he already had. 

So I have no problem with calling Zuko’s story a redemption arc, because that’s what it is: a tale of a boy, and eventually, a nation, taking back what they’ve lost-- their honor-- through his own hands. 

Any narrative about Azula, however, can’t be about that. 

There are two reasons for this. 

First off, Azula herself doesn’t care about honor. Unlike Zuko, her honor has never been something she valued. In “The Chase,” she rejects the very notion of honor when, after claiming that “a princess surrenders with honor,” she breaks her word. For Zuko, his honor is an integral part of his value system and who he is, but Azula has never even entertained the question-- if it doesn’t help her acheive her goals, it’s worthless.

Second, as I’ve mentioned, true redemption is about regaining something that’s been lost. What does Azula have to regain? Azula’s drive has always been about getting things she doesn’t have. (See Mirror & Misdirection - The Distortions of the Mirror Scene from @cobra-diamond​​ for more on Azula’s goals and motivations.) 

And the most of the things she’s lost are things she can’t get back: 

Her relationships with Mai and Ty Lee were flawed from the beginning. Even if she does build new ones with them, they can’t be the same. Her relationship with Zuko might not have started wrong, but it’s become so warped and deformed, I don’t think either of them could get it back to the way it was-- nor should they. Most people have a different type of relationship with their siblings as adults than they did when they were children, and that’s okay. Her relationship with her mother is fractured and messy-- even if they did want to make up, it would, again, have to be a different kind of relationship. (And if you’ve been following me for any period of time, you also know my feelings on her relationship with Lu Ten, which, obviously, she can’t get back.) 

Anything else-- her relationship with Ozai, her title and status, and that expectation of being a perfect princess-- are things she probably shouldn’t get back, because they would do more harm than good. 

So no, an Azula story would not-- could not-- be about redemption. 

Ideally, a narrative focusing on Azula would focus on two things: healing and atonement. 

[ID: Dictionary definition of the word “Healing”: Noun the process of making or becoming sound or healthy again. Adjective tending to heal; therapeutic. End ID]

[ID: Dictionary definition of the word “Atonement”: Noun 1. reparation for a wrong or injury. 2. (in religious contexts) reparation or expiation for sin. End ID] 

(Read @deliciousmeta​​​‘s take on the difference between “redemption” and “atonement.” In short, redemption is about “being saved” from “inherent badness,” while atonement is about taking responsibility for your actions and doing the best you can to try and fix the wrongs you’ve done.) 

At the end of ATLA, Azula has what, in layman’s terms, is commonly referred to as a mental (or nervous) breakdown. I’ve seen arguments about how that “proves” she’s a “horrible person” (coming back to OP’s argument about our obsession with categorizing people as “good” or “bad”), and I’ve seen competing arguments calling this ableist and furthering the stigmatization of mental illness. 

I’ve talked about nervous breakdowns before, but here’s the gist: they are a body’s way of crying out for help. In real life, mental breakdowns are meant to be followed with the sick person (because mental illness is just as much an illness as cancer or sickle-cell anemia) actually getting the help they need. 

What Azula needs is help-- preferably from an adult who hasn’t been personally affected by her actions, and who she doesn’t have pre-existing negative feelings about. She needs to be willing to accept that help (because you cannot help someone who refuses to be helped). And she needs to come to the realization that she has made mistakes-- that her actions have hurt people. 

Only then will she be able to start making atonement for her actions. 

What would that look like? I’m not sure, but I’ve got some ideas...... 

(No, I’m not going to tell you what they are, I have to leave some surprises for my future fics!) 

[tlbodine]

The Great Content Warning Debate

Horror Twitter has been aflame for a few days now with heated discourse about trigger/content warnings, and I keep seeing the same arguments and questions and points come up repeatedly so I wanted to collect all of it into one place because I feel like discourse can only get so far if people keep reinventing the wheel -- so perhaps having the full discussion laid out in one place could be helpful.

Of course, the folks arguing probably won’t see this post, but perhaps there can be some benefit from talking about it anyway. This is intended to be more of an overview of arguments and counter-arguments, collected and displayed as impartially as possible, but of course my own opinions are going to leak in and color some of this. 

NOTE: This is written specifically from the perspective of the horror book community, a genre that traditionally is associated with troubling, transgressive, risk-taking and shocking works. There are discussions to be had for content labels on other types of fiction, but as I’m unfamiliar with the norms and expectations of, say, romance, I’m not going to wade too deeply into that here. 

So without further ado, the arguments and counter-arguments and discussion points that I keep seeing hashed and rehashed and circled around when the issue of trigger warnings comes up! 

If you’re sensitive, you shouldn’t be reading horror 

“Horror is supposed to be horrifying! It’s not fluffy bunnies and kittens! You’re supposed to be made uncomfortable!” 

There are a few problems with this: 

“Uncomfortable” is not the same as “Sent into a panic attack/flashback/relapse” (ie, triggered) 

People with PTSD and other issues can and do engage with horror all the time and often love the genre for entertainment or therapeutic purposes

Many people are fine with some types of content but not others; blood and guts won’t affect them the same as rape, or they’re fine with adults dying but can’t handle child death, and so on and so forth 

Knowing what you’re getting into can help you prepare/brace yourself so you’re not taken unaware; people with the right warnings can mentally prepare themselves and enjoy a book that they would not have been able to read if they were confronted with it unexpectedly

Trigger warnings are censorship 

Some folks have an implicit/kneejerk reaction that “trigger = bad thing” and respond to the request to put warnings on a book as a moral value judgment on the book’s contents. I can see why they might fear that, especially because at a glance it’s easy to conflate the groups asking for warnings with the groups who say things like “if your characters have underage sex then you the writer are literally a pedophile.” But by and large the folks asking for warnings do not seem to be asking for folks to stop writing certain difficult themes, only to provide a heads up for readers about the type of experience those readers can expect from the book. 

There is an argument to be made that warnings could affect the sales of a book, in much the same way that an NC-17 film doesn’t get the same distribution opportunities as an R-rated or PG-13 film, and that authors/publishers will make marketing decisions to include or exclude certain types of content in order to avoid this. 

Trigger warnings will spoil the book 

While some readers will benefit from content warnings, others might have their reading experience ruined by knowing about major twists. This seems especially relevant with a warning like “child death.” It’s very important that people who have, for example, recently lost a child not be unexpectedly re-traumatized by reading about a child dying without warning. But it’s also important that people who want to enjoy the full, shocking impact of such a scene have the opportunity to do so without having it dulled by forewarning. 

Any kind of warning system needs to be opt-in for a reader. Some suggestions include: 

Placing warnings at the end of a book, where readers can flip to that page to look (not helpful if you’re ordering online) 

Placing warnings on the author’s website, where readers can search (not helpful if you’re buying in person)

Given the limitations, a combination of those strategies seems to make sense. It may also be unfortunately true that someone looking for one type of warning (ie, rape) will have their experience ruined if they spoiler themselves for another warning (child death). This may be unavoidable collateral damage. 

Authors/Publishers should be responsible for putting warnings in their books

There seems to be some debate over whether the onus of responsibility for providing warnings rests on the author or the publisher. It should be acknowledged that authors may not always have the power to make this choice -- and if the presence or absence of warnings becomes a factor for judging the quality/moral fiber of authors, those authors could be punished by the reader community for a choice that was largely out of their hands (although, there’s still nothing keeping the author from hosting those warnings externally - how successfully that is implemented is another matter). 

Additionally, the demand for warnings will be placed more consistently on small presses simply because those presses are more likely to heed the request. This could create a double standard where readers might be more forgiving of large pub works that forego warnings because there’s no expectation that they would have implemented them anyway. On the other hand, this could be a way for indie publishers to differentiate themselves on the market and appeal more to certain subsets of readers. 

External groups or communities should be responsible for warnings

There’s a line of reasoning that an author or publisher may not be sensitive to the potentially triggering/damaging things in their work, and some kind of external governing body should manage this work instead. This does sound a lot more like the censorship argument that people are worried about. 

Wiki-style sites and places where people can freely tag books (such as Storygraph) also fit this bill to an extent. They would presumably have less power over the market than a ratings board like the MPAA, but could still exert influence over how a book is received. 

Demanding warnings will negatively impact marginalized authors 

We’re already seeing some evidence that BIPOC and LGBTQ authors are affected more by user-generated trigger warnings on sites like Storygraph, and that these warnings can be weaponized against marginalized authors. Much like review-bombing a book before it comes out can affect its launch, labeling a book with inaccurate trigger warnings could damage its sales. 

Similarly, lists of “safe” and “unsafe” authors have already begun to circulate among some groups, and there seems to be a disproportionate number of marginalized creators on that “unsafe” list -- at least according to the anecdotal reports I’ve seen. 

Historically, it is true that any attempts at censorship or content moderation will be more harshly applied to marginalized groups (see: film ratings for gay sex vs straight sex). 

It’s impossible to warn for everything

One hesitancy that some authors have with tagging their work is they’re not sure what to tag for. Triggers are highly personal, and there’s no way you can possibly guess what might upset a reader. 

Here’s a list of commonly agreed-upon things that might make sense to tag for in a given work: 

Violence/gore 

Suicide/self-harm

Rape/sexual assault

Domestic violence

Child death/endangerment

Animal death/abuse

Drug use/substance abuse 

Racism/slurs 

That said, it’s still difficult to account for context. At what stage do you warn for something? If a character is drinking a beer, do you need to tag for that? Do you distinguish between the tone things are written in, such as being played for laughs vs seriously? If the rape scene is written artistically/metaphorically, does the same warning apply as if it were described act-by-act in a clinical sense? What if your blanket list of warnings gives readers a false sense of what the book will be like -- is it actually helpful at all, or is it just posturing/virtue signaling to include warnings that won’t actually be effective?  

Some would argue that this is dramatically overthinking it, but this does seem to cause a great deal of distress to authors who want to do the right thing but worry about getting it wrong. An argument could be made that trying and failing might be worse than doing nothing, especially if your attempts get you labeled as a “trustworthy” or “safe” author only for that trust to be “betrayed” by a warning you used incorrectly. 

On the other hand, many would argue that we all “pretty much know” what needs to be warned for, and that warnings are intuitive. These granular questions could be viewed as a distraction from more common sense issues. 

Readers are responsible for managing their own safety

Ultimately, because it’s impossible for every potential trigger to be identified and warned for, readers will need to remain vigilant. Of course, there are already ways to identify the content of a book without any kind of established warning system -- such as, for example, reading posted book reviews, asking a question on a book’s Goodreads page, reaching out to the author directly, asking about the book in a reading group online or having a friend/parent/spouse/trusted person read the book first and report back with their findings. 

This is the system we’ve pretty much used as readers for years, before “trigger warning” became part of the common vernacular, and it does have some distinct advantages just because you can get a lot more specific information this way. 

It is possible that if warnings become more commonplace for books that readers may become less vigilant about their own safety, which could paradoxically put them at greater risk of finding troubling content unexpectedly. 

There’s also the issue of “safe” and “unsafe” author lists. At the moment, while the discourse is hot, it’s perhaps more natural to pick sides and disregard some authors for reasons that may be unfair -- for example, marking an author as unsafe or boycotting her work because she doesn’t want to include warnings, but she wants to avoid warnings because she strongly believes they will be detrimental to a reader’s safety. A reader may or may not agree with that perspective, but it’s certainly not the same motive as an author who would do something actively malicious to a reader (like, idk, emailing a screamer to a reviewer or something. that’s a made up example.) 

In the end, trigger warnings are a good idea, but the issue is complex to implement and some people do still have reservations about their overall efficacy. 

We simply won’t know one way or another until we try to implement it. But in the meantime, I do think it’s valuable to continue talking about this, as long as everyone involved remains civil and engages in good faith. Once people’s perspectives start getting thrown out the window in the heat of the moment, or strawmen arguments are erected that don’t reflect what anyone involved actually believes, the discussion ceases to be helpful. 

[g-perla]

All right I need thoughts.

Last night I finished reading ACOMAF. I have been saving screenshots of certain quotes or sections that might come in handy for my larger analysis project. Most of these are about the Inner Circle dynamics, any scene with Nesta, and anything that mentions her.

Well, many things baffled me but I must share one, small, seemingly innocuous paragraph with you all:

ACOMAF, Ch-41

(I apologise for not being able to supply specific page numbers; I am reading EPUB versions of the books as I got rid of my personal copies two years ago in a fit of rage. That's a story for another day, however)

For context:

This is the chapter immediately preceding the trip to the Court of Nightmares. In this particular scene, Feyre learns the story of what Mor's family did to her after Eris said he no longer wanted her because she wasn't a virgin. As a reminder, her family nailed her to the ground at the border of the Autumn Court and left her there to die. Azriel found her and returned her to the Night Court. This scene has multiple purposes: insight into Mor's background and her dynamic with Azriel, insight into the culture of the Court of Nightmares meant to contrast it from the seemingly idyllic Inner Circle and Velaris and meant to make us understand why the aspect of Rhys that is cruel and unforgiving is necessary and justified. Additionally, it provides a comparison between the cruelty of Mor's biological family and Feyre's.

The last of these is of particular interest to me. It fits nicely into the book's theme of the found family as a structure of healing where attachment needs that were not met by a biological blood family are fulfilled (the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb). This is a wonderful theme because, for many, a found family is essential as it also allows for something that biological families tend to eclipse: the agency of each member. There is something moving and beautiful about a group of people coming together and freely making the choice of commiting to each other. This is a sharp contrast to the conventional understanding of a familial unit as one bound by blood and where each member, regardless of their wishes and circumstance, must be loyal and must serve the interests of the unit. What I can't understand is why Mor's family is even an equivalent comparison to Feyre's in Rhys's mind and that Feyre agrees with this equivalence. I guess it's the principle of it all? The assumption that I mentioned earlier about the implied duties of the biological family unit? I don't want to invalidate Feyre's trauma, because that home life was certainly dysfunctional, hostile, and led to severe self-esteem issues. But....mdfhhfjdkdkdd someone please explain.

Yes, I think we can all agree that the dynamic between the father, Nesta, Elain, and Feyre was and is a hot mess. It was a mess even when the mother was alive. Two neglectful, distant parents and post-wealth, a fractured and hostile sibling relationship. Yeah Nesta was a cruel mess, but how is Nesta's immature, unwarranted cruelty towards Feyre in any way equivalent to Mor's family assaulting her and attempting to murder her? I'm expected to empathise with Rhys in this moment through Feyre. I'm expected to understand his continuous anger and disgust towards Nesta via this realisation on Feyre's part. Instead, I am just utter confusion. Frankly, it makes Rhys look unreasonable because he yearns to be understood as a whole being, capable of great cruelty but also great love and sacrifice. The cruelty is just a necessary mask after all, right? No, the cruelty is a part of him that must be reconciled in the same way that Nesta's cruelty must be reconciled. Unfortunately, his rage makes it difficult for him to consider the possibility that Nesta might also hold this complexity. That she might also yearn to be considered as a multifaceted being and that she might also be full of self-loathing and pain. And this inability to entertain the complexity of these characters extends to readers as well.

There is a certain degree of irony in this set-up. We have a book where a central theme is basically "the masks we wear" and how no character can be taken at face value. And yet, the benefit of the doubt is applied unevenly both in the narrative and outside of it. This is really interesting to me. I'm not saying that you can't like some characters over others, or even that you can't absolutely despise certain characters, I certainly do. But I think it is a productive exercise to consider the complexities of characters and their dynamics, even those we do not like. A character need not be likable to be good or valuable. I think we often limit ourselves by conflating character likeability with character quality and significance.

I always jokingly say that SJM did not know what she was doing when she created Nesta. Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't. Regardless of SJM's intent, Nesta is a controversial character who deserves to exist. That characters in the narrative and that readers cannot give the same negative energy they give Nesta to Rhys or other messy male characters in particular, reveals something more profound that many before me have linked to sexism and misogyny. I think there is important truth in this argument and I will explore it with more detail at a later time, but I urge you to consider this as you read the books and even other books or movies that contain female characters like Nesta.

I would love to know other's thoughts about this small excerpt and anything else I mentioned in this post!

-G

[citrineghost]

On ADHD, Being Dramatic, and Being Lazy

Gather round everyone. It’s time for our every-few-monthsly post on ADHD by your local ADHD ghost. In this episode, we’re talking about ADHD and how it relates to “being dramatic” and “being lazy.”

On Being Dramatic

No doubt a lot of you have been told you’re being dramatic over the years. I know I have. There are a lot of reasons one might be dramatic, but they’re rarely about the drama.

If I’m to guess the origin of the word dramatic, I’d guess it probably has something to do with over exaggerating your response for the drama. I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of people being dramatic - on tiktok and vine, on youtube... drama calls for dramaticism.

Do you want to know what isn’t dramatic? Genuine reactions. That’s right - genuine reactions, inherently, cannot be categorized as dramatic or hyperbolic. There is nothing about them that is being overdone with the intention of getting attention or entertaining other people. So, let’s talk a bit about how this conflation has hurt us as a community.

Growing up, everything I did was “dramatic.” Crying because I didn’t want to do more chores was dramatic. Having a panic attack because there was a spider in the room was dramatic. Freaking out because I needed people to stop touching me was dramatic. Getting angry when my mother made jokes about my sex life as a teen was dramatic (and apparently abusive, but that’s neither here nor there). Nothing I did that involved a noteworthy amount of emotion was anything, if not dramatic.

On Being Lazy

I know a lot of you have also been labeled as lazy over the years. “Lazy” is the diagnosis everyone loves to give to those who don’t do enough, in their eyes. If you “could have” done something and then “chose not to,” you’re lazy... right?

Growing up, I was lazy too. I was lazy for avoiding housework. I was lazy for not wanting to brush my teeth. I was lazy because I didn’t turn in my homework. I was lazy for staying in bed, on my computer, most of the day.

If I’d only just “applied myself,” or if I would just “put in the work,” then I would be respectable to the people around me. But, because I wasn’t “willing” to put in the time and effort, I was lazy.

Why Is Emotion Dramatic?

The short answer is: it’s not. The real question is, why do people seem to perceive emotion as being dramatic? These are real emotions, after all - real and genuine feelings that are being dismissed as playacting. There are a number of reasons.

Why Are We Lazy?

Again, the short answer is: most people aren’t. The question here is, why do people see others not doing something and assume it’s because they simply don’t want to put in the work? Why do they not seek out an explanation or consider other alternatives? There are a number of reasons for that too.

The Answer...

Editing to put a Read More here because it’s very long

(TW for each of these sections in their name)

1. Sexism

At its core, seeing emotional outbursts or responses as dramatic is inherently rooted in sexism. Whether you’re a boy or a girl, man or woman, if your emotions are being mocked, it’s almost definitely because of our world’s history of sexism and relating emotion to women, who are “illogical” and “just want attention.”

And “real men” work! They work hard! They work long hours! They put themselves into an early grave, with pride, by never sitting down to rest! For this very reason, women, housewives of decades past, were expected, after a long day of doing housework and caring for the children - things that are just as exhausting as a full time job - to dote on their husbands who had just returned from work expecting a hot meal and a beer to be ready for them. Her work is devalued. It wasn’t grueling or tiring or important. It was just “women’s work.” A wife who does all of the housework and child rearing and fails to provide a hot meal and a warm body to her husband is “lazy.”

This is further shown to affect men as well. We can see, as early as non-manual labor-based jobs existed, the men who took them were lesser. Men who work at computers are seen as nerds and geeks - weak. Men who work in universities, coming up with new solutions to our medical needs and discovering the mathematics we need for space travel and advanced technology - they’re weak too. They’re unimportant to society because they’re not willing to get their hands dirty. Those men who prefer artistry are called gay and seen as disposable. It is irrelevant to the conservative man that his artistic counterpart designs everything that fills his home and office - that without artists we would have nothing.

2. Racism and classism

You might be surprised, but racism and classism both have their hands in this as well. I’m talking full on systemic oppression. The ability for people in power to look down on those they see as beneath them for being emotional or passionate about a topic or incident is all about power. You can see a million examples of this today. POC are called dramatic or are implied to be blowing things out of proportion by conservative white people because they want equal rights and feel they’re being treated unfairly. Their emotions are dismissed as irrational and dramatic. 

The cries of the poor, whether white or of color, are mocked. They have no reason to be having the emotions they’re having because they wouldn’t be in the position they’re in if they weren’t “lazy.” After all, only lazy people don’t have money. Only lazy people can’t get work. If they had just “applied themselves,” they would have an income, a home, and ample food on the table.

3. Ableism

And, last but not least, we have ableism. The neurotypical and abled people of the world, at large, cannot understand the experiences of the disabled, both emotionally(those with mental illnesses, disorders, and so on(whether or not certain disorders can be categorized as a disability in a just society is another topic entirely, but they are regarded that way, generally)) and physically.

If you have sensory overload, you are being irrational. It doesn’t matter to a NT if this is caused by an actually chemically different response in your brain. It doesn’t matter if it’s Real To You. To them, it doesn’t make sense, and so you deserve no compassion for your experience. Your emotional response is dramatic.

If you have executive dysfunction, you are simply choosing not to do your work. It doesn’t matter that there is an actual reason, buried in you somewhere, for why you have become Stuck. It doesn’t matter if you feel crippled by this aspect of your life. They see that you have neglected to do something they deem easy. Therefore, you are “lazy.”

ADHD and Being Dramatic

For those of us with ADHD, being called dramatic is a very familiar experience. After a while, we begin to internalize it. We must be dramatic, right? After all, so many different people have told us we are - and for good reason. We do tend to get overly emotional.

So the question is, why? Why do we get overly emotional? Why are our emotions so much different than those of our NT peers?

1. Lack of Emotional Regulation

A big part of ADHD, which is not yet a diagnostic criteria, is our emotional disregulation. ADHD, inherently, comes with some amount of disregulation in our emotions. We have a hard time controlling the emotions that we feel and managing the intensity of them. They may come across as overly intense, or they may seem subdued, both for reasons we can’t possibly figure out as individuals. This disregulation is entirely out of our control, happening at a neurological level. Our brain chemicals don’t work as they should. But, no matter how unregulated our emotions are, they are still real. We do still feel them, exactly as intensely as we think we do. Disregulated does not mean made up.

2. RSD

If you knew about RSD before, or you’ve read my last post on ADHD (under my tag adhdghost), which has gained some popularity, you already know what this means. For those who don’t, RSD is short for Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria. This condition plagues something like 99.9% of people with ADHD (while not being ADHD exclusive.) It comes with the lack of emotional regulation and means we have a reaction, that seems out of proportion (or “dramatic”), relative to the thing that caused it.

In short, RSD episodes can look like an entire breakdown, a very sudden loss of any self esteem or confidence, the feeling that you are certain someone now hates you or has secretly always hated you, and/or an immediate need to get rid of the thing that caused it. These episodes are caused by any kind of perceived failure or disappointment. They can be caused by someone whose opinion or relationship we value who gives us a slightly judgmental look, someone saying they don’t understand why we like the thing we’re interested in, or even not living up to our own expectations. These episodes frequently lead to emotional outburts, episodes, breakdowns, and tears. Naturally, all of this is “dramatic,” despite it being very real and painful for those experiencing it.

3. Combination with Other Things

Emotional disregulation can interact with other parts of our lives as well. For instance, I have a lot of phobias. My reactions to seeing or being around the things that terrify me can be even more intense than how most people react to their phobias. They can cause anxiety attacks, emotional breakdowns, and lasting fear for hours or days after. My recovery from these instances is hindered by my inability to regulate the feelings they caused.

Emotional disregulation can also interact with triggers, trauma, sensory problems, etc.

ADHD and Being Lazy

And of course, if you struggle with ADHD, you want to know, “Why am I so lazy?” The answer is: you’re not! Laziness is a made up word. Laziness was created to pass blame onto people who struggle to do things that more typical people can accomplish with ease.

So, what is the reason we struggle to do these seemingly simple tasks?

1. Executive Dysfunction

This is The Big One. Of all the things that can cause an inability to do things, executive dysfunction is the Achilles heel of ADHD. Because ADHD causes a difficulty with prioritizing, rewarding actions with no immediate reward, and creating a list of steps for us to take (something that comes naturally to NT people), we sometimes get “Stuck.”

This feeling of being stuck may look like us just having fun and avoiding our responsibilities. You may be Stuck right now, scrolling through tumblr mechanically even though you’ve been needing to pee for three hours. Naturally, you’ve been wanting to go to the bathroom... you just don’t know how.

To a NT, this sounds ridiculous. “Just get up and go?!” I’m sure you can imagine your parents saying, when they simply don’t understand. The truth is, tumblr can be a nightmare for executive function. It endlessly scrolls, giving you post after post. There’s no natural stopping point. You keep an eye out for a natural end to this activity, but it’s hard to find the right post to stop on. If you find those, “This is your sign to go to bed,” posts helpful - otherwise locked into the activity of scrolling regardless of whether you want to - you might be struggling with executive dysfunction.

This inability to “queue” our actions or prioritize what we need to do, and in what order, can wreak all kinds of havoc in our lives. You remember you didn’t really understand that equation the math teacher explained earlier. You know today’s homework is related to its use. Therefore, you cannot start your homework. There are a number of possible solutions floating around your head. Maybe the book will explain it better. Maybe your parents know how to do this and you could ask them. Maybe you could Google it. It’s possible the homework is about something else. But, if it is, what if you don’t understand that? Maybe you should ask your teacher before class?

Even though you have all of these solutions in your head, because you don’t know which solution is the best solution, you find yourself unable to do any of them. You show up to class with no homework and your teacher gives you a disappointed look. “I don’t understand why you don’t just apply yourself more. You’re a very smart student.” The remark brings you to holding back tears, because you want, with every fiber of your being, to apply yourself and make your teacher proud, but you simply don’t know how.

This is the destructive nature of executive dysfunction, and it is not something to be taken lightly.

2. Distraction

For those with ADHD, the inability to regulate external stimuli makes focusing incredibly hard. You wake up one morning and plan to start that English paper after breakfast. You go to get yourself some cereal. You’re out of milk. You decide to make toast instead. You burn your toast because you lost track of time for just 30 seconds. You go to throw it away, feeling an overwhelming amount of guilt over the two pieces of bread you wasted. The trash is overflowing. You decide to take it outside. It’s a really nice day out. Maybe you should take your dog for a walk. You haven’t taken her on a walk in a while and you’re just now feeling motivated to, so you should take advantage of that. You go to retrieve your dog and take her for a walk. When you bring her back in, you go to get her treats from the shelf in the laundry room. Oh yeah, you’d been meaning to do laundry. You go to get your laundry hamper from your room and notice there’s a bunch of laundry on the floor. You begin picking up the laundry from the floor. You may as well tidy up the other things on the floor as well. You finally get around to taking your laundry to the washer. You’re out of soap. Maybe you ought to make a run to the grocery store. You take ten minutes to find your keys and wallet and then head out to the grocery store. When you get there, you’ve forgotten what it was you needed. “Oh, right! I’m out of milk!” You go and retrieve milk. When you get to the checkout and the cashier rings you up, you suddenly remember you need laundry soap. Well, it’s too late now. You’ll have to do laundry tomorrow. You can’t risk the cashier giving you a tired look by asking them to wait. You go home and make some cereal. You can’t really write while you eat, so you open tumblr. you scroll through tumblr for a while. Your cereal gets soggy, you notice, disappointed. You see a tumblr post reminding you that you forgot to order something important online that you need to get here as soon as possible. The day continues in this way until you finally realize at 5pm that you never started your paper. “It’s so late now... I’ll just start it tomorrow morning,” you tell yourself. Rinse and repeat.

If you relate to this, you might want to consider researching ADHD a bit, because this is a very typical ADHD experience.

3. Hyperfixation and Hyperfocus

The last prominent reason why people with ADHD are seen as lazy has to do with a cycle in hyperfixation and hyperfocus.

If you don’t already know, hyperfixations are those interests you have that fill you with an overwhelming love and which take up an incredible amount of your time, energy, and brain space. These could be fandoms, hobbies, characters, games, or otherwise.

Hyperfocus, on the other hand, can be related to hyperfixations or things that aren’t hyperfixations. Hyperfocus is when you get “locked in” on a task and can’t seem to put it down. If you started this post not knowing how long it was and find yourself still raptly reading, completely ignoring the world around you, you may have hyperfocused on it. If you ever start cleaning and just can’t stop until the whole house is clean, despite your lack of regularly cleaning for over a month, you are hyperfocusing on cleaning. If you write a 20k word fic in one night, you are hyperfocusing.

Hyperfocusing can leave you completely unaware of the world around you, causing you to neglect your own basic needs, such as food, bathroom breaks, water, and social interaction. 

Because people with ADHD are able to occasionally apply themselves to such an extreme degree, NT people don’t understand why ADHD people are unable to apply themselves to other things as well. The reason we can’t is because we do not regulate our hyperfocus. Hyperfocus comes from tasks that are giving us serotonin, to make up for our brains inability to give serotonin in the way it should - in the way NT brains do. Emptying the dishwasher just felt really good. The next thing you know, you’re filling it with more dishes and wiping off counters and sweeping the floor and, “oh god, it looks so nice what if I just-” and then you move on to the laundry and the living room and the bedroom and then somehow 6 hours have passed. You don’t know how it happened, but now your house is clean and you feel amazing... but also tired and hungry. So you go make some food and then pass out on the couch.

So, when NT people see this kind of laser focus, they demand to know why you couldn’t do that simple math assignment, or why you haven’t been returning their texts, or why you couldn’t apply the same level of energy and enthusiasm on that really boring geography project. They demand to know why you’re so “lazy” the rest of the time.

There’s also the element of hyperfixation. It is the ultimate distraction. Your parents tell you to do the dishes and you say you will. Suddenly, you’ve found a fanfiction about your hyperfixation and you can’t stop reading it. It’s 60k words long and it will take you all day, but you’ll find a break to do your chores somewhere in there, right?

Your mom is suddenly knocking on your door what feels like 5 minutes later, but it’s been an hour. She wants to know why you didn’t do the dishes yet. You’re upset at yourself, but you lash out at her, because you’re unable to regulate your emotions. “I’ll do it in a minute!” you say loudly from behind your door. She walks off, irritated. You ask yourself why you can’t just do it now. Why does it feel impossible to tear yourself away? Your hyperfixation is the ultimate creator of hyperfocus. It rules you.

Before you know it, it’s midnight. You’ve finished the fic. It was amazing. You realize with dread that you still haven’t done the dishes, so you sneak out to the kitchen, hoping your parents have gone to bed. They have, but you find the dishes have already been done by someone else. Suddenly, you’re holding back tears from the RSD episode this has triggered. You ruined everything. You disappointed your parents. You’re a lazy and terrible child and they deserve better.

The truth is, you’re none of those things. In fact, you’re struggling with one of the most difficult mental blocks someone can have. But to others, you’re just making excuses. To others, you should have been able to just do the dishes and then go back to reading. But you know it’s not that easy. But why?

It’s ADHD, Babey!

If this post is hitting hard in a way that feels like your life is being splayed out before you, you might just have ADHD.

The fact is you are not dramatic and you are not lazy. You are struggling with a lot of ADHD symptoms that are making functioning in a neurotypical world incredibly difficult. This world was designed by and for NT people. Your worth is not based in how you live up to their expectations.

If you think you might have ADHD, it might be time to ask your doctor about getting an ADHD evaluation. Please check out my last post (the one i mentioned is under my tag adhdghost) to get more information on RSD and on getting evaluated.

An Important Note

Many experiences and struggles caused by ADHD are also present in other disorders. For example, RSD can be seen frequently in autism as well as in anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Sensory overload, emotional disregulation, executive dysfunction, and so on, can all be present in things other than ADHD. If you want to know if you fit the criteria for ADHD, go check out the criteria on the ADDitude website, which is a great source for ADHD related information.

[shihalyfie]

No, Miyako and Iori���s Digimentals were not switched, can we please stop endorsing that

There’s a really common argument that Miyako and Iori’s initial Digimentals should have been “switched” (i.e. give Knowlegde to Miyako and Love to Iori), and accusing the series of trying to pigeonhole Miyako into a “girl” box by giving her the two Crests that originally belonged to her Adventure predecessor girls (Sora and Mimi). While I am not ever going to say that Adventure or 02 were the paragon of feminism, I seriously take issue with this reading, not only because of the fact that I feel it’s a misreading of Miyako and Iori’s characters to consider these Digimentals inappropriate, but also because the “alternative” suggestion of swapping them is an even worse misreading of what said Digimentals are actually about, and would result in an extremely unfitting result.

I would say that the major reasons these misconceptions get drawn a lot are mostly pertinent to the following:

A common misreading of the actual meaning of the “Crest of Knowledge”

The fact that Daisuke, Miyako, and Iori’s initial Digimental traits actually kick in the most in the latter half of the series, after they get their second set -- i.e., the secondary Digimentals are actually more obvious than their first set, even though the secondary ones are the ones to get focus episodes. (For a brief example with Daisuke, his “courage” resembled reckless foolhardiness for a lot of the first half, but at the end of the Kaiser arc and the entire second half it became very clear that Daisuke was still standing resolute in the face of what he knew were increasing stakes, which is a much, much more genuine show of courage.)

If you do want to make the argument that Miyako got this treatment “because she’s a girl”, you might as well argue that she was initially built from the ground up as someone who mixes core personality traits from Sora and Mimi. But she was absolutely not “pigeonholed”, and, again, I think it’s a severe misreading of her character to think that she was.

All quoted translations are by Ryuu-Rogue (Adventure) and PositronCannon (02).

The Crest of Knowledge

The Crest of “Knowledge” is a bit of a misnomer. It’s tempting to read it as simply “knowing a lot of information”, but note that there’s nothing really virtuous about that. You could easily be someone who “naturally” has a knack for studying or information, and then takes that information to be a smart-aleck who lords over everyone. Considering that the Crests were normally supposed to be about personal growth and virtues, “knowledge” seems like a very poor and incidental thing to be valuing.

In actuality, Adventure’s episode in relation to Koushirou and the Crest of Knowledge (episode 24) made it very clear that being intellectual had nothing to do with it. The entire episode revolves around Koushirou willingly giving up his “inquisitive heart” to the point where Tentomon considers him basically having thrown out himself. Koushirou spends the duration of the episode blindly accepting pseudoscience until Bubbmon snaps him back to his senses, and the “epiphany” that powers AtlurKabuterimon’s evolution later in the episode is as follows:

Koushirou: Staying ignorant isn’t what makes me, me! Wanting to know everything is part of who I am!...My inquisitive heart...I’m sorry for throwing you away. I want to know. I want to know!

The “actual” meaning of the “Crest of Knowledge” is defined here: it’s not about how much knowledge you currently have, it’s about how much knowledge you want to have -- wanting to not only have more information, but to also understand more. This is what fuels Koushirou’s character throughout all of Adventure -- he’s the one who can’t let something go whenever something interests him, and therefore he becomes the team’s valuable analyst and the one making the most progress in understanding the Digital World.

So when we get to 02 episode 2, and Iori claims the Digimental of Knowledge, Koushirou has this conversation with him to indicate him worthy of it:

Koushirou: Iori-kun, what do you think of the Digital World? Iori: What do I think...I don’t know, I just got here. Koushirou: But you’re thinking something, aren’t you? Iori: Yes...I have my own theories, but new questions keep popping in my mind and I want to know more. Koushirou: You have a really curious mind, as I thought. Iori: A curious mind? Koushirou: If you have any questions, please ask me. We’re your friends, and we’ll always help you out.

Just in case there were any ambiguity, Koushirou clarifies the “actual” meaning of the Crest of Knowledge right then and there: it’s not about having knowledge, it’s about curiosity, and that’s what we’re supposed to be looking out for with Iori’s character for the rest of the series.

Nevertheless, this conversation in episode 2 is a little misleading, and probably comes off as performative to many because Iori doesn’t actually show that much interest in the Digital World for the rest of the series, even though Koushirou had expected him to be like-minded in this regard. But what does happen is that once the Kaiser arc passes, and we reach the second half of 02, Iori starts to entertain some very interesting questions in regards to his stubborn insistence on black-and-white morality.

His first major shake to his frame of morality is episode 29, when he realizes that pacifist principles don’t mix well with a Digimon that professes to having no desire beyond wanton destruction.

In episodes 34-35, upon seeing Takeru gung-ho against BlackWarGreymon and the darkness to levels that disturb even him, he immediately goes up to Yamato to get answers on what’s up with Takeru without hesitation.

In episode 43, he starts to contemplate his stance on pacifism again after the SkullSatamon army ultimately forces the kids’ hands on breaking their anti-kill stance.

He asks his grandfather about his father in episode 47, and, upon coming face-to-face with Oikawa in episode 47, starts actually questioning him about his motives before he learns about Oikawa’s connection with Hiroki. The framing of the scene indicates he is very desperate to understand how Oikawa’s mentality could possibly make sense. Once he learns about the connection between the two, he gets even more desperate to understand how a friend of his father, whom he admired so much, could end up like this.

Eventually, his experiences with Ken and Oikawa lead him to become a defense attorney in the 02 epilogue, which is reiterated in side material (Spring 2003, Character Complete File, etc.) to be representative of his desire to “understand the hearts of criminals”.

Iori is not Koushirou, and his curiosity is not tied to intellectual pursuits or the Digital World, as much as he very much wants to understand morality and other people. He starts off the series with a very black-and-white view of it, but the more his intuition about it starts to crack, the more desperate and interested he gets about getting to the bottom of it. It’s a very unconventional way to see “knowledge” when such a term is usually applied to intellectual knowledge, but when you see it in terms of the Crest’s actual definition of “inquisitiveness and curiosity”, it fits like a glove.

What of Miyako? Well, she’s certainly got a lot of intellectual knowledge in the way Koushirou has, in terms of being good with computers, but...that’s...about it, actually. Unlike Koushirou, she doesn’t seem to be motivated by a drive to learn anything new with it. She can be curious about things, but that’s in the same way that everyone has a least a little of each Crest virtue within themselves to some degree; it’s not a driving part of her personality, and in fact, while she’s certainly not dismissive or callous, she sometimes even has a tendency to shut down at things she doesn’t understand and ask that it be simplified for her. In that light, “inquisitiveness and curiosity” actually feels very unfitting.

In fact, Miyako’s “intellectual” pursuits of being good with computers actually have very little to do with her character or personality. She has it as a peripheral hobby, and she engages in it, but unlike Koushirou, who uses his computer work as a way to gain more information and analyze things further, Miyako’s computer work really seems to be largely in the range of hobbies for her. A lot of her work is portrayed as favors for other people -- she helps fix Iori’s family computer, she helps out Yamato’s band, and she’s helpful to Koushirou as his junior -- in fact, the most pertinence Miyako’s computer abilities have with her actual personality is how much it puts Koushirou in her high esteem. So in actuality, all of that ties more into...

The Crest of Love

The Crest of “Love” is too often conflated with the potential for romantic love, especially because Sora was involved in the franchise’s most infamous love triangle, but the name of the Crest is actually aijou, i.e. “affection”. It’s a pretty neutral word, all things considered, and it has to do with being affectionate with and supportive of those around you.

Miyako starts off the series as a bit shallow and sometimes self-centered, but the way she interacts with Iori (someone from the same building quite a few years younger with her) already demonstrates that she’s open-minded about making friends and being friendly. On top of that, Miyako immediately demonstrates herself off the bat as being emotionally sensitive (see how she endears herself to Jou and Mimi in episodes 5-6 and has a bit of a mental health crash in episode 10).

Again, episode 2 tends to be a bit misleading, especially when Sora explicitly compares Miyako more to Mimi more than herself when she guides her towards the Digimental of Love. But observing Miyako’s behavior in most of 02′s second half indicates she is actually more than worthy of her title:

Starting as early as episode 3, she brings food for people, and does this a lot. She does this partially because she has privileges when her family runs the i-Mart, but she’s very much doing it to show her affection for all of her new friends -- it’s implied she’s the ringleader behind the “picnic” idea in episode 6 so that everyone can have a bonding session, despite it (at the time) having no relevance to the territory war and the fact that she’d just met everyone. By the time of episode 33, the way she cheerfully keeps in touch with Koushirou during her trip to Kyoto and brings souvenir yatsuhashi home for everyone (Koushirou included) indicates that she’s always got her friends on her mind.

Anytime she likes something or someone, she is perpetually open about her feelings and makes it very clear that she likes such a thing. Again, see how she immediately endears herself to Mimi, and later Michael in episode 14. (14 is interesting in that her “purity” is front and center that episode, because she calls herself out for being too straightforward about her own shallowness, but it’s worth noting that the way she manifests said shallowness is by being openly affectionate.)

Episode 24 has her notice that Daisuke’s feeling left out when Takeru and Hikari walk off on their own, and immediately assign him to nursery care duty where he can have fun and feel a little fulfilled teaching them soccer. This is a very often-overlooked scene, but she had basically no motive to do this except to make Daisuke happy, and the way she looks on the scene fondly indicates she’s very proud of herself for doing so -- she knew exactly what she was doing there, and is actually far more emotionally in touch with others than she’s often given credit for.

She is the second most proactive (behind Daisuke) to bid for Ken’s acceptance into the group, and while she initially seems to take a slightly more passive approach than he does, she immediately goes into given name basis with him (before Daisuke does, even!), takes a personal investment in seeing him become friends with Iori in episode 30, has a stake in reaching out to both Hikari and Ken in episode 31 (and is self-conscious about her running-her-mouth behavior being too insensitive), and Ken’s emotional well-being and welfare is a perpetual thing on her mind for the rest of the series (see: her going out of her way to accommodate his worries in episode 46).

Although Miyako’s propensity for affection is actually quite clear throughout the entire series, I do really think it’s the second half of 02 that brings it out the most, because her way of connecting to otherwise emotionally closed-in characters like Hikari and Ken ultimately demonstrate a lot about how outwardly proactive she is about those feelings, and how integral she is to keeping the group of friends together -- there’s very good reason she’s often referred to by third parties as a “mood maker”, someone there to keep everyone in high spirits.

And what about Iori? It’s hard to argue he doesn’t have love, of course. He has a very deep and passionate love for those around him! But, again, while he does have a propensity for it, that doesn’t mean it’s a trait that necessarily defines him, especially because his stubborn and passionate hatred of certain things ends up making the others have to pull teeth a bit with him at times.

Of course, one could argue that it comes out of his love for the things he wants to protect. But, nevertheless, I would still say it’s rather inaccurate to say that the trait defines him nearly as much as it does Miyako, who is openly and passionately affectionate, actively tries to be open-minded towards new things in her life, and spends a lot of her time doting on others and her hobby work doing favors for her friends.

[kyogre-blue]

FGO LB 5.1 Atlantis, complete

Finally finished this. It is a lot of reading, a lot of NPC support only battles, and generally a ride. Can’t wait for April and 5.2. 

The pros: 

The strongest part of Atlantis is definitely the characterization of the team. 

The Servants we pick up are.... Mandricardo is just perfect and amazing. Jason just got completely turned around from his Okeanos showing, while still remaining obviously himself. Corday had me in tears. Achilles and Paris interactions were great, as well as seeing Achilles explain himself in general. Chiyome’s personality is quite different from what I thought? Not necessarily in her core values, but in her bits of humor. Bart is a sweetheart, dumb fetish and all. 

And of course, I finally understand Orion and Artemis (a relationship that could never lead to something stable and long term but isn’t any less important or precious for it; no matter how much trouble they give each other, I can’t imagine either of them would ever even entertain the idea of giving up those memories and experiences). Amazing. I can’t believe Fate provides the good het. 

The Chaldea crew also continue to slowly solidify in their roles and development. It’s amazing to think about how far Gordy has come, and the introduction of the marines really adds something to Nemo. And of course, Mash... 

However, one of the big winners is also, surprisingly, Ritsuka. I’ve heard that LB6 will really flesh them out, but even here, Ritsuka has become an actual character with very understandable fears and hang ups, and a lot of the ways in which the Servants shine is their interactions with Ritsuka. The master-servant relationship has always been great in Fate, so it’s good to see more of that. 

Unrelated, but the visuals have also taken another step up. There’s a lot of very cinematic effects and good use of the CGs. It’s really become a full entertainment experience lol. 

The cons: 

There’s some general stuff like Chiyome and especially Bart being present as pretty much entirely utility. Bart really just exists to give us another ship and that’s it, which is a bit of a loss. He’s very cute when he does get something to add. Additionally, there’s a definite lack of both civilians and villains. Everyone in Atlantis is brainwashed to an entirely new level even by LB standards, so we can’t get much out of interacting with them, which is a shame. The union-mandated cute child character is usually quite good. 

As for villains, Wodime and Caenis drop out pretty early, leaving only Odysseus and later Chiron. Neither of them has much to say, and they’re more or less just roadblocks that you can explain the aesop to. There’s also not really a proper final boss, as a result, since Artemis is dealt with via cutscene, and Poseidon only has cores that function like large monsters more than bosses. 

Aside from that, I was personally not super impressed with the focus on technological advancement as a benchmark of “worthy” timelines. There’s moving forward and there’s “advancing” technology, and I don’t think they should really be conflated like that. The issue for the people of Atlantis isn’t that they don’t try to create better technology than nanomachines that already provide all their needs. It’s that they don’t even try to live, like going anywhere or creating any kind of art that we see, etc. 

This entire business with the pruning is created by the writer(s), and the framing is chosen intentionally. I don’t think tying in technology is necessary. There’s other ways people can live and “advance.” 

Misc:

The David Bluebook portion at the start was even more mysterious than usual. There is uh a lot to speculate about there, and I am seriously wondering about the possible Daybit connection. I’m sure it will all pay off...... in like five years lol

Jason’s Herc fanboying is really something.

Europa isn’t in the LB at all?? I have no idea why she’s released here. 

In terms of gameplay, this LB is quite easy. It does have a lot of battles with restrictions related to the story, like Support solos, but those battles are balanced toward the easy side (via nerfing the enemies and special buffs).

The Greek gods being spaceships is cool shit. 

There’s a lot of offhand lines that are kinda sus. Like Jason commenting that it’s almost like Atlantis was preparing for an entirely different enemy, not Chaldea, or Orion saying that Chaldea received the torch that the heroes of old passed on and that someday Ritsuka will also pass it on.

For now, they managed a fairly good balance between mounting difficulties and not making it so stacked against the team that their victory starts to seem like an asspull, but they are kind of starting to push too far with the narrations about how this is so much harder than anything we’ve experienced, how Olympus is so much harder than Atlantis, etc, etc. 

NPCs with too much knowledge talking shit cryptically in the darkness isn’t cool, it’s annoying. I’m going to blame Sakurai for this, deserved or not. 

[nomadicism]

In that one Voltron post about Keith in Voltron Force, you mentioned that "I don’t think that many western writers would ‘get’ that archetype". What do you mean by that exactly?

Hi! Great question, thank you for the Ask!

I’ll start this off by stating that when I say something like “western” or “American”, I don’t mean to conflate the two. The latter is a part of the former, and the cultural context is relevant to why I said “I don’t think that many western writers would ‘get’ that archetype.”

Not “getting it” comes down to DotU Keith’s original archetype is that of the super sentai team leader, and that’s not a thing that exists in the western popular media culture (we have something different in place of that). And, kind of like how westerners frequently misinterpret ronin and samurai, if you don’t grow up with it—both the culture that created it, and as a common story type within popular media—then you probably won’t ‘get’ it, at least not without a lot of study and work and awareness of what super sentai is about (and that’s true of anyone’s perception or experience of another culture’s media). It takes time to ‘get it’, and in some case one might not ever fully get it (and that’s okay).

The more I try to figure out super sentai—and the +40 years of popular Japanese culture around it—the more I realize that I have more to learn. Just like with super robot stories—while it’s really about selling toys and entertaining people—there’s something else to it, like the why of how its entertaining. That something else is the cultural time-and-place conditions that gave rise to super sentai and super robot in the first place. Those conditions did/do not exist in the west. Different cultures have different kinds of heroes, kind of like how Superman was borne out of the time-and-place conditions of his creators.

Super sentai team leaders (and for this, I’m including anime with super robot combining mecha team leaders that are based on the super sentai formula) are similar to pre-80s American super hero team leaders in comics, and thus some of the difficulties in writing them also happens in super hero comics too. This is how DotU Keith becomes Voltron Force Keith-with-all-the-toys, even though the story is supposed to be about the next generation of Voltron pilots or whatever (I never got the feeling that they made up their mind about that). It’s an awkward merging of two similar but different types of stories that come from different cultures. I don’t say that to imply that such a merge can’t be done, it’s just easy to do awkwardly (or worse).

What follows is some breaking that down a bit more:

VF Keith (and later iterations of Keith to a certain extent) is an example of the American tendency to de-emphasize the team-aspect of leadership, as well as the leader’s soft skills, while emphasizing solo action hero skills and lone wolf traits, and adding Marks of Specialness. I’m not sure if other western cultures have the same kind of Individuality vs Collectivism dynamic that we do in the U.S., but that’s something I see at play in how Americans write team leaders. It’s not a problem in the “Action hero has a backup team” story (and I think that type of story comes from the placement of the Individual over the Collective), but it doesn’t work well in a super sentai story where the Collective is structurally more important than the Individual, and the Leader is important b/c of his innate personality-based traits or virtues that inspire and bring together the Collective to save the day.

Technically, a super sentai leader doesn’t have to be a great leader, or the most qualified. He just has to inspire through personality and by being a virtuous paragon. It can be hard to quantify what a virtuous paragon is, but it is not the same thing as a moral paragon in the western sense, even though the virtuous paragon occupies an analogous place in a story. One could say that I’m splitting hairs there, but there is a distinction between “virtue” and “moral”.

So at first, DotU Keith had the super sentai team leader feel as he wasn’t changed too much from his counterpart in Golion. The most noticeable change to Akira’s character as Keith in 80s Voltron were that his spiritual traits were de-emphasized due to broadcasting/syndication rules at the time. Those spiritual traits are not a requirement for a super sentai team leader, but within the context of a Japanese story, they help define the leader’s soft skills and shape the kind of virtuous paragon he’s supposed to be. (that’s a tangent into some heavy cultural analysis though).

By the time we get to Voltron Force (nearly 30 years later), we run into the 90s Superman problem with DotU Keith (e.g. how do we make the boy scout relatable? plus edgy characters are en vogue). Voltron Force’s solution to that problem was to keep adding new traits/skills/marks of specialness to Keith in order to make him “more interesting” (in some cases, those traits/skills/marks of specialness were already present in other characters). The assumption is that “more interesting”, is how to get people (in this case boys aged 7-9 or 9-12) to pay attention to and relate to a character that was never meant to stand out in that way to begin with.

In the context of super sentai, of course Red Leader is the bestest Japanese Everyman and will lead his team to victory, but he doesn’t get all the toys, and he needs the team to come together to form the giant robot at the last minute. And since he doesn’t get all the toys, then that means that he doesn’t get all of the traits/skills/marks of specialness that are associated with having all the toys, nor does he get into conflict situations where resolution is completely dependent upon his ability to be the solo action hero or lone wolf with lots of toys. This is where Voltron Force goes wrong with Keith…and VLD S6-S8. (Arguably that could be S3, but a lone wolf/solo action star temporarily stepping into the moral-or-virtuous paragon’s leadership role can totally work as part of a growth arc.)

The problem here is the conflation of leadership with being “the most interesting” or being the solo action star, or that to be “the most interesting”, one needs to be edgy lone wolf. That’s literally not the point of a team-focused story, and that is not the place of a super sentai team leader.

In DotU, Keith doesn’t need to be the martial arts master brawler, that’s Hunk. Keith doesn’t need to be the tricksy-ninja, that’s Pidge (DotU de-emphasized that from Golion where Hiroshi had a ninja lineage). Keith doesn’t need to be cynical one that sees through the enemy’s tricks, that’s Lance. Keith doesn’t even need to be the heart, that’s Allura (in some cases the super sentai team leader takes on a larger heart role, but the real heart will always be the female character). Part of the super sentai team leader’s archetype is that he’s got a few things he’s great at (usually one combat skill set + driving/piloting + tactics), and he has flaws that are made up for by the rest of the team, as each member embodies the other archetypes that make up a super sentai team.

One of those flaws is a certain kind of naiveté, for example, Lance wouldn’t have gotten hit by a rock from behind by Lotor during a duel, as he never would have agreed to the dual in the first place, as Honor™ is not an innate part of Lance’s being. Honor is a virtue, and as the virtuous paragon, Keith’s sense of honor plays into his naiveté. Duals are honorable! Lotor gave his word, he must have honor! HAH. No. Honor in this context is an innate quality, and that’s very important for a super sentai team leader, even in an odd-duck combining mecha show like Voltron. 

Not to be that weeb with a “the Japanese prize Honor” take, but they kind of really do when it comes to how to define villains and heroes within certain types of stories. Virtuous, noble, and honorable villains (or antagonists) exist, and they get a completely different kind of death (arc resolution, sometimes in an eastern tragedy this leads to the hero’s catharsis) than a villain who is dishonorable, or without honor (those are not always the same thing). The western concept of honor is different (that’s not a value judgement, and of course variations exist b/c not all western cultures are the same).

In the US—when we’re not appropriating samurais for cowboy westerns—we tend to make honor into more of an aristocratic thing (thanks England), and that’s exactly what Voltron Force does to Keith when they slap on a secret Arusian lineage and special parental legacy of an Arusian Honor Guard. That completely undermines Keith as a virtuous paragon. He doesn’t need any of those things…and again, wasn’t the story supposed to be about Daniel, Vince, and Larmina anyway?

A secret lineage would be the kind of thing you’d give to one of those three, in which case, that would be Daniel or Vince, since Larmina is already related to Allura, even though Allura told everyone that her entire family was killed by Zarkon when Keith et al first met her and Coran. Being Arusian and royalty were Allura’s toys, Keith didn’t need them, he already had enough toys. This is a way in which the writers didn’t ‘get’ the archetype, and tried too hard to make it into something else.

The DDP and Dynamite iterations of Voltron still “give other characters’ toys” to Keith, but it’s not a problem b/c those iterations are separate continuities that begin (or reboot) in a way that is not super sentai. A few of the super sentai trappings remain, but they are much more like American super hero comics, and that’s fine.

In DDP Voltron, Hunk’s martial arts prowess is given to Keith, but Hunk gains a different archetype in return (that I really love and wish I could have seen more of). Hunk still has combat skills, but his archetype is not the big dude kung fu brawler. Even though DDP Keith has gained DotU Hunk’s toy, he’s still well balanced between solo action star and team leader, since he is only team leader b/c that’s what he was assigned to do. He’s not there to inspire his comrades through innate virtuous qualities. He’s there to lead a hail Mary mission for the most powerful weapon in the universe that everything thinks is a space fairy tale.

Dynamite Voltron Keith is okay, but he kind of falls into the solo action star trap in parts of Vol 2. VLD started off strong with a different archetype for Keith, but ended up giving him all the toys as was done with VF Keith.

Any continuity can do what they want, and use different archetypes for the characters, but if part of the goal is to start off with that DotU feeling (or like actually continue the DotU story), then those writing should try to get a better understanding of why all the characters (not just Keith) are the way that they are in DotU (and Golion). And also question why there is this inclination to single out Keith as a solo action star, rather than one part of a five person whole. The inclination isn’t right or wrong, it just is, and it has consequences for characterization.

[adevotedappraisal]

The Carter Trilogy, part one of five

Introduction: Let's make love in the summertime, and breathe in each other's arms

There's an interesting cultural and historical framing device us Americans have been using in order to make sense of, and to comb out the nappy-headed developments of the past couple of years.  In our interactions with each other, we've resorted to reducing our shared events, and this ol’ President, and this ol’ year in particular, to a television show.   The U.S. President assassinated a top Iranian General at the beginning of the year, and the news was communicated in countless late night jokes and online memes as the raucous events of the season premiere of 'America - The Series.' 

In conversations throughout the year we would reduce the countless and needless complexities of this year into bite-sized episodes, and the countless and needless complexities of the Presidency into a mean ol’ villain or defiant hero in that show.  We do this so we could for a moment, warren order from the disorder of a pandemic, and we do it in order to masticate Trump, in an attempt to find something of cultural value in the marrow there. 

Set against the backdrop of the fall of the American Empire, Presidential Press Secretaries are referred to as mid-season replacements, scandals like Russiagate get packaged by cable news hosts as a storyline culminating in the ratings bonanza Mueller report episode, murder hornets appear as a J.J. Abrams-esque black box mystery, and over video chat we joke to our friends that the interview the President gave on the virus was ‘brought to you by Regeneron’. We do it so we can turn ol’ Trump up when you and the missus need a laugh, or so we can box it all in, get the highlights, and turn it all off sometimes.

Even now, as the results of this Presidential election conclude, we refer to it as the ‘Season Finale’ (a multi-day, multi-episode story arch, if you will).  We pontificate on the next move the President might take with the same confident hand-waving we gave to theories about Rachel and Ross, or about who shot that mean ol’ oil man J R Ewing. Except of course, these are real people up on our television screen that we treat as characters, passing, or not passing real laws, no matter how brazen and cartoonish their villainy might seem.

They are public servants, selected to be dutiful arbiters of democracy.  They are unpackaged and unscripted members of society, in stark contrast to the other faces you would see on television and billboards, those manipulated faces and lives, augmented and born from tinseltown, giant recording companies and whatever technological medium of the day.  Those other faces on television were the “illusion" Howard Beale talked about in the 1976 film Network, a traveling troupe of jugglers, fire-eaters, movie stars, athletes, singers and rappers, all completely separate from reality, striking a pose with a song to sing as soon as you press a button on a remote. Nowadays though, everyone you see is a little of column A, and a little out of column B.

For a solid century, generations of celebrities were fully in column A.  Notoriously private, insular, and sexually closeted, they would spend their days galavanting across the estates of their private Xanadus, appearing every once in a while to grace us with their presence, and fill our hearts with the gospel of America, all glowing and bright up there on that movie or television screen, or curled over the glossed-over pages of magazines, then glowing again illuminated on the flat-screens of our lives. Every now and then a scandal might hit the supermarket rags, or a scathing memoir would be published, but for the most part, celebrities came to us in ordered, scheduled appearances, their actual lives, marriages and drug habits compartmentalized away from that glowing screen I told you about.

Lately though, they're everywhere, with quotes under their faces dispensing grandfatherly advice on our school-mates Facebook page, or appearing on our media scroll without makeup to give cooking advice, or getting into days-long Twitter clashes with some unemployed rando. Every one of them leveraging some personal story, reported first in the news in order to tie in to the release date of their next project.  Rap star Cardi B herself has described her upcoming album as having “my ‘Lemonade’ moments, my personal relationship moments,” a set that wishes to delve into the inner workings of her own troubled marriage to Atlanta, GA rapper Offset.  

And through this monumental change, where actors in crisis, rappers expanding their brand, desperate online characters and season finale plot-lines get mixed up with our actual families, loved ones and our country, we the people have been there, fully comfortable with this conflation, in fact welcoming this with open arms.  So when did we become so comfortable mixing our mediums of entertainment with our frameworks of reality?

Well, I don’t know when this started, perhaps it’s gone on longer than I’m comfortable to admit.  That said, I believe this knotted entanglement of media products and reality, became unmistakable and indelible during the events of three of Beyonce's and Jay Zs albums released in the heart of the 2010s: 2016s Lemonade, 2017s 4:44, and Everything Is Love, from 2018, a Carter trilogy of albums, which came to us through television screens, speakers and ear pods, spinning a yarn about the crisis of a super-star marriage, that we discussed with each other as if it were our own.

After camera footage leaked of an argument between Beyonce, her sister Solange and Jay Z after the 2014 Met Gala, rumours spread concerning the state of their marriage and familial relationships. Normally, unplanned and embarrassing footage like this would have been downplayed, with a vague statement issued. Instead, the next set of releases from the chart-topping couple dealt with the issue head on, a trilogy of albums that gave us a look into the most famous marriage in music and, in the process, cross-pollinated the separated fields between the entertainer and the entertained, giving us an unnerving glimpse, like coming across a worried theme park princess on her smoke break.

The issue was not that a personal story was used in an r&b song --the genre is built on those songs -but rather that the story got bigger than the song. Divorce albums are one-sided affairs, so getting a response record to it gave their story added life every time another album in the saga was released. The story became about the modern American marriage, concerning the overworked wife that believes she can have it all, the prodigal husband, and the lack of communication about the common purpose of this union. 

After a while, the details found in their songs mattered more than the songs themselves, in fact, the personal details became the drawing card to the show. The production on Lemonade’s "Sorry" is a thin summer trifle with squat synth bleats, but the exciting, chopped and screwed introduction of Becky with the good hair obscures that. Jay on "Kill Jay Z" from 4:44 confesses "you egged Solange on, knowing all along all you had to say you was wrong," and it adds a new clue to that fateful night, but was it a good line? It isn't his strongest, as the cadence is awkward, but it took a while to realise, while waiting for the dust to settle, for the band to start up again.

Another look at these monumental albums is warranted then, now that time has blown the debris of gossip blog stories away, so that we can separate the story of Jay and Bey, from the music they released. It is useful, in order to see what worked and what didn't, but also to discern the difference between the person presenting the show, and the show itself, for this will be an invaluable tool in the decade ahead of us, as more celebrities from the lighted stage immigrate in and out of our lives. It is an exercise though, that our bodies secretly undertook over the years as we returned to this or that song throughout this trilogy, to accompany us through a sobering chapter in our lives, or to remind us of that hour that love shined brightest, during the restless summertime, when we looked at each other, felt something realer than high definition, and we breathed in each other's arms.

[mikhalsarah]

The Emperor’s New Gender

How can you help a 3-year-old to stop misgendering family friends who are transwomen? She isn't trying to insult them deliberately, but just doesn't perceive them as women and won't remember being corrected the next time she sees them. -Quora

First of all, as per further information in the comments, this is not your child and it is NOT your place to be interfering in how this family handles the issue unless they have specifically ASKED for your advice. This is something for the offended friends and the parents to work out, and if you value your friendships you will back out of what isn’t your problem. The entire fact that you feel entitled to force your personal beliefs on other people’s children and intervene in their parenting and other social relationships is extremely disturbing. I suggest you get a good book on Co-dependence recovery.

Secondly, this is an “Emperor’s New Clothes” problem. There is NOTHING “wrong” with this toddler (who at 3 is actually a preschooler), so there is nothing the parents can do about it. You can’t fix what isn’t broken. This reminds me of medieval parents getting the idea in their heads that crawling was too animalistic and ungodly, and strapping their children to little roundabouts to force them to skip crawling and go right to “proper human” walking. Crawling is developmentally necessary for most children and they rarely skip over it, and their lower leg bones and muscles are not yet ready to bear their full weight, leading to possible bow-leggedness. You cannot force children to skip developmental stages because it offends people based on some ideology they have. It has consequences. It is grown-ups here who must accept the natural development of children however inconvenient it is. This is called ACTING LIKE AN ADULT.

This is a normal stage of neurological development. At a certain point in the developing brain it starts to categorize things as a means to understand them. The ability to understand who is biologically male and producing sperm and who is biologically female and producing ova is self-evidently crucial to the survival of every species on the planet that has sexual reproduction. Even for species that can literally morph from one sex to the other, it is still crucial to recognize which members of their species are in which sexual form, and to have that skill locked well down before puberty hits. Therefore that ability is hard-wired into us, just like our ability to acquire language is. This child has reached a stage where they can now identify key markers of biological sex in people’s body shapes (hip to waist ratio, shoulder to hip ratio) and faces (relative size and placement of eyes, nose and philtrum lengths, chin length and width etc) but they have no idea yet what “gender” is as a concept because their brain is not mature enough to entertain a concept that still confuses many adults, apparently.

Children are notorious for mis-gendering everyone, not just trans people. I was mis-gendered by two preschoolers yesterday when I appeared at work in a skirt instead of my typical jeans. There was even a story decades back in Reader’s Digest illustrating how they mix up and conflate sex and gender roles. It was submitted by a parent who allowed their 4 year old to go to JK wearing his sister’s barrettes, only to have the teacher overhear him arguing with another boy about whether he was a boy or a girl. The boy eventually became exasperated and pulled down his pants to show the other boy his penis to prove he was a boy, to which the other boy dismissively said, “Everyone has a penis, only girls wear barrettes.”

Here I will suggest that you also need some good books on child development and evolutionary biology.

This situation would not have been a problem even a few years ago, before “transsexual” was turned into a dirty word and transgender was foisted on us, instead. Once upon a time you could just tell a child that:

A) not everyone who is male or female fits neatly into the typical or average appearance for their sex (or behaviour, for that matter)

B) some people who are born into one sex are unhappy about it for reasons we don’t yet understand. They feel strongly that they are the other sex internally (in their mind/brain) and are much happier if everyone just lets them live as the sex they feel inside as much as possible, and they can have hormones and surgery to help them do so. Since most of those people don’t fully understand themselves until past puberty, they develop outwardly like their biological sex and it can take a lot of time and money to change that.

and

C) It’s impolite and unkind to make personal remarks, or to draw attention to physical features or other differences which people have no control over.

We don’t yet fully understand the biological working of things like gender development, gender identity, or sexual orientations, but there is more than enough evidence that they are “real” events with correlates in the material world. We know that people with conditions that are known to affect the structure and function of their temporal lobes are much more likely to be GLB (including sudden shifts in their sexual orientation after events like head injuries, strokes and seizures) and much more likely to identify as trans or otherwise not conforming to the gender binary (including again, sudden changes to their sense of self-identity in the wake of neurological events). Obviously the majority of people who are LGBT haven’t had a head injury, stroke or seizure, so being LGBT is not “caused by” those things, they’re just some of many things that can “flip the switch”; genetics, pre-natal hormone exposure, birth order, and developmental life experiences have all been tentatively cited as having a role to play.

*People on both the Right and Woke Left will be determined to misunderstand me here as saying that being GLB or T is evidence of a “sickness” of some sort…either agreeing and using this information as “proof” that it’s so or becoming angry at me for equating the two. So let’s just head off that nonsense at Go. ALL MANNER of changes can happen in the wake of neurological events in the temporal lobe or elsewhere. One man who had a head injury suddenly became a mathematical genius…do you think that’s evidence that being good at math is a “sickness”? One person finds they become more emotional, another less so (neither is a pathology unless taken to extremes that prevent the person functioning). Some people who develop Temporal Lobe Epilepsy suddenly take up writing or (less often) the visual arts. Is being a writer or artist a biological flaw? Obviously not. The linkage of any trait with an area of the brain is not evidence that the trait is pathological (it might be, it might not), it is merely evidence that one or more neurological substrates that control that trait resides in that particular part of the brain. As regards gender identity, it tells us that there is some part of our brains where sexual self-identity arises and therefore the person’s experience may be subjective (only they experience it, others cannot perceive it unless told of it) but is not imaginary.

In the past children gradually acquired the ability for more complex categorization and learned to differentiate between someone’s biological sex, their gender presentation (how closely they match others of their sex), and societal gender roles. Children are remarkably accepting of diversity and exceptions to rules when they are presented matter-of-factly. More so than adults who apparently can’t accept facts which don’t fit with their ideologies on the Left, any more than Evangelical Young-Earth Creationists on the Right can, and feel the need to tie themselves into mindless, slogan-droning intellectual pretzels as a result.

The fact that we now view even toddlers with suspicion of “transphobia” and seek to indoctrinate their natural neurological development out of them should be a GIANT F*ING RED FLAG that we are NOT becoming more aware of diversity and more accepting, we are becoming LESS able to see the full extent of how diverse humans really are and are being forced to pigeonhole them into categories that the average five year old is supposed to be outgrowing. What we are seeing is an extremely judgmental, rigid and abusive cult that denies an obvious reality that even a child can see, that biological sex is real and important, and cannot be replaced by or conflated with gender identity or roles, even if we also agree that gender presentation and gender identity are also important biological realities. It used to be only children who foolishly did so, but now we have adults telling children that everyone can have a penis and only girls wear barrettes.

In the original story of The Emperor’s New Clothes, the child’s lack of indoctrination into social hierarchies left them nonconformist, and free to state what they saw with their own eyes with impunity. The child was not punished because children are not expected to be politically correct. In fact, it led the adults to realize that they had let fear and desire to conform and be thought clever blind them to obvious reality. It is the adults in the end who feel foolish and ashamed, and change their ways. We’re not yet at the end of the story of The Emperor’s New Gender, but based on the current trajectory the “adults” are going to double-down and I will soon be looking for a new career, as I will be expected to throw away everything I know about child development so that daycares can be run like Orwellian indoctrination camps. I will not participate in the ideological and developmental abuse of children so that a tiny minority of adults can live in a fantasy world in which they deny an aspect of reality when it has the temerity not to give a shit about their ideology.