#anime men supremacy

[themetalheadhippy]

So I started watching Trigun Stampede and the grip Vash has on me is unbelievable 😻💛💛💛 I love everything about him from his golden retriever energy to his kind hearted passion for helping people ❤️

[thegirlinthecher]

I mean I don't think I have a type

[fabled-lady-twilla]

Okay but the Season 6 Character Visual of Shiggy got me like HOLD ON A MOMENT STOP THE CAR!!! 👀

*car crash noise in the background*

Horikoshi has us all in a chokehold like:

"He was the best guy arouuuuuuund."

"What about all the people he murdered?"

"Whaaaaat muurrrddaaaaaa?!?!?"

🧎🏻‍♀️🧎🏻‍♀️🧎🏻‍♀️

[increasinglygeeky]

DAVID MATRANGA CANNOT KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THIS!!!!!!

(Are you fucking kidding me)

[minniiaa]

Nostalgia brain has me thinking about my childhood anime crushes and like… still tracks??

So here’s my top childhood anime crushes!

(Zoro is on this list too I just didn’t have enough gif space and he’s the obvious one)

1. Marik/Bakura - YuGiOh (my first fanfic ever was called silver and gold with them and god I wish I could read what my 12 year old self wrote so bad)

2. Hatsuharu Sohma- Fruits Basket (the OG and god do I still love him he needs protecting)

3. Syaoryn Li - Cardcaptors (yeah idk he was hot when I was 7)

4. Inuyasha - Inuyasha (white hair dog man made me feel some type of way)

4. Kenshin - Ruroni Kenshin (he’s just the GOAT how could you not want Kenshin to sweep you off your feet??)

5. Entei - Pokémon (no I will not elaborate)

6. Matt & Gabumon (yes I had a crush on them both again will NOT be elaborating)

7. Edward Elric - FMA (it’s Ed. I don’t have to explain this one.)

8. Toshiro Hitsugaya - Bleach (white haired anime men love started here. Still have a tshirt with this beautiful short king on it)

9. Sasuke - Naruto (literally every girl I’m basic)

[mediocremelatonin235]

I think of familiars in the TWST universe and the only ones known to us are Lucius for Trein but I do have some headcannons for the staff familiars:

Crewel- A Dalmatian ( a classic for him). Most likely would be named “Pongo” for male or “ Perdita” if female to give a subtle nod to the 101 Dalmatians movie. Would 100% try to fit them into any bag/purse he finds. True dog dad excellence. Would have the bond from puppy to full grown dog as well.

Vargas- A horse. A black Stallion named “Magnifique”. Has had the horse since he was a kid and the horse grew to be a very large boi. He has his own stable in NRC and Vargas is the only one allowed/can ride the horse. Will let you touch his mane in exchange for carrots/sugar cubes.

Sam- A tarantula. tarantula that stays in a tank and usually hangs out on Sam’s shoulders. Usually eats up any little pests and nicknames her as “ Angel”. She does also like to hang out on his hat a lot, which leads to Sam freaking out about losing her until he is told to check his head ( yes spiders count as having animal language !) he found her under a rock from having a broken leg and they became fast friends ever since!

Crowley- A raven. Named “ Diablo” aptly. He tends to want to go outside ALOT and is very noisy when hungry. He likes to perch up on Crowley’s shoulders during important meetings and perches on top of him to sleep.

[wind-becomes-lightning]

[nicoveil]

I despise the what if animation style.

[pathogenflock]

something painfully fucking white about the way some people in the queer community like to say shit like "i WISH masculinity was more hated like people say it is!!!1!" in response to masc queer people voicing their concern about how shittily we're treated. I'm not elaborating.

[mothslimes]

sometimes i think girls who wear a full face of makeup every day and get lip fillers and other surgeries n shit. just forgot what an actual woman looks like. actually post cancelled I think so much of the world has forgotten what an actual woman looks like. genuinely can't imagine waking up every day looking in the mirror and feeling like i have to paint my face to be presentable. fucking terrifying man.

if you look at what women are trending it's so weird how many of them look exactly the same. same hair style, same makeup style, same outfits. and it's not just celebrities, i sit in class and the girls are all carbon copies. even have the same style of taking notes. pretty much all appear to be thinking the same way, even. what the fuck. those 2010 cheesy illustrations of a bunch of identical looking blond Barbies were right maybe

[themetalheadhippy]

If you see me liking Nanami, Satoru, Suguru, Toji, Jotaro (Part 4 or 6), Polnareff, Dazai, Kunikida, Vash or Wolfwood fanfiction mind your business 😅😘🙈👀

[15-lizards]

love what you do! do you think you could expand on the winterfell region or the or bolton/umber region fashion?

I am a firm believer in patterns for men. Ignore the show no Lord of Winterfell is going to wear old leathers like a plebeian. They have fine fur cloaks, carefully made brooches and clasps, and thick fabrics that may not be comfortable but are clearly patterned and well made (no one ever said serving cunt was easy) Ned should have been rocking the fit on the left when Robert showed up and Jon should’ve been eating bitches up on the wall like the fit on the right

I am also a firm believer in big fancy wide sleeve supremacy. And big fancy hat/kokoshnik. Since silk and satin and thin fabrics aren’t feasible in winterfell, the women focus on embroidery, beading, and fur to make their clothes look pretty. Perhaps the sign of the most affluent bitch in winter fell is how big can their headpiece get and how heavy can it get from beading and decoration until it’s hurting your neck. The more slouching the better.

Bolton cool blood-core aesthetic is sadly hindered by thick extra layers of clothing that leave you puffy like a marshmallow. Bc I doubt there is much central heating in the Dreadfort. Probably not as much decoration on the clothing for minor nobles, but Roose and his crew still have some. All in red of course. A lot of high collars, long sleeves, and tight jackets with fur cloaks over the shoulders there’s no shirtless sword practice here take ur ass back to Highgarden

Honestly the Umbers probably aren’t far off from wildlings themselves. Furs and leather and using every part of the animal for their clothing, but they also still have the (albeit minor) luxury of dyes and metals etc etc. They’re still physically threatening but also they’re trudging through waist high snow most of the year and have to waddle around in ten layers of extra clothes. So yea Greatjon is scary but less scary when you see him with three scarves around his face and an overcoat on big enough to cover his four layers of shirts

Extra: smallfolk from around the Umber and Bolton areas. Why is everyone in game of thrones wearing brown. Why are they only wearing two layers. That’s stupid D&D you are stupid. The smallfolk in my mind wear handmade patterns that were lovingly made by the fire. Cotton clothing dyed from berries and plants. Grey wool from the sheep and sun bleached leather that’s turned light brown. Fur hats to keep their ears warm and big pants to tuck into their boots. The smallfolk in my homeade ASOIAF universe are realistically able to survive winter

[biblioflyer]

Being right doesn’t mean you get to kill everyone else.

I’ve seen some griping that the writers of X-Men ‘97 “did Magneto dirty” by first showing how human / mutant coexistence was a delusion only to have Magnus go full genocidal tyrant. I think this, like the exchange between Rogue and Captain America has nuances that aren’t being appreciated, but I’ll grant the point that the demographic disparity and the destructive capabilities of the setting ensure that it doesn’t take broad support by non-mutants to enact a pogrom. Even before the revelation of Bastion, the idea of an attempt to kill as many mutants in one place as physically possible and ruin the illusion of safety wasn’t that far fetched: with or without the support and sanction of major world governments.

That Magneto would respond to the Genosha massacre with disproportionate force, and let’s call it what it is: killing humanity including quite a lot of mutants, is not the writers turning on Magneto. It’s who Magneto is in the animated series and at the moment in comic lore it’s based on. Who Magneto is is a mutant supremacist. Separation from Sapiens was never just about safety. Magneto wanted to build a parallel culture. Not for the sake of creating a culture and the beauty of creative endeavors but because of mutant chauvinism.

Because the setting is what it is, Charles the assimilationist is doomed. If the rubric for success is mutant safety and equality across the board, then it’s simply unachievable because tiny cabals of madmen can cobble together salvaged alien tech, secrets from the future, and knock off Stark tech to unleash horror that is obscenely difficult to prevent and doesn’t require widespread societal consent.

Charles chooses not to blame the people just trying to live day to day for the actions of hate filled mad scientists and lynchers.

Magneto blames the masses for not recognizing and stopping the threat in their midst, sees their inaction as complicity, and even if they are blameless then they are camouflage within which existential threats to mutants conceal themselves and if Magneto has to burn down the whole village or planet to deny genocidal schemers their cover, that’s what he’ll do. He’ll kill as many non-mutants as it takes to feel safe because he did not value their lives prior to Genosha, did not feel they valued mutant lives, and he has always viewed mutant lives as more valuable. Genosha ratcheted that up to genocidal rage.

Revolutionary, terrorist, oppressed, and oppressor are not static categories. Real life figures and fictional characters can slide between them very easily because monsters can make valid points and victims can do monstrous things. A correct observation about society doesn’t justify the monster’s darkest desires and suffering doesn’t make evil deeds justified.

That’s the point. That’s always been the point of X-Men. It’s not cops and robbers, bigots vs good people, it’s the struggle of everyone not to judge everyone else by the worst thing a member of the other group has ever done. Magneto and Bastion are the faces of giving in to rage and fear. Succumbing to the easy moral certainty of collective punishment and of the rationalizations provided by their respective supremacies. They always were. Even when they were making sense. Especially when they were making sense.

Epilogue: (Tolerance is Extinction pt 3 spoilers)

It’s never too late though to step off the path of the tyrant. Better early but late is better than never.

[communistkenobi]

Sorry if this is a dumb question can you talk a little bit more about what you mean when you say someone’s politics are reactionary? And what the opposite of reactionary would look like in politics or media or what have you? I get that it’s a bad thing but not totally why and also what something better looks like

Not a stupid question at all - I use the term reactionary broadly to refer to right-wing responses to/analyses of current political circumstances. They are reacting to social, economic, and/or political progress and fighting for those things to be dismantled or destroyed in order to return “back” to an idealised past where those social and political advances were not available to people. This is the reason why the right wing has an eternal obsession with “tradition.” I don’t know the exact scope of the term’s lineage within Marxist thought specifically, but part of reactionary politics is, well, reaction - there is no political imagination offered beyond what already exists or has existed, reactionaries can only react to current conditions, and so right wing political projects demand a backwards historical trajectory, either to an earlier stage of capitalism or even feudalism, where these institutions better enforced (in their view, not necessarily in reality) gendered divisions of labour and gendered roles in society, cisheterosexual norms and practices, racial segregation, imperial and colonial domination, aristocratic class structures, and so on. These are founded on moral claims about what society “ought” to be like, and those moral claims are often bound to religious authorities like the Christian church, intellectual and political projects like white supremacy, colonial states like the US or France or Canada or the UK or etc, and so on. The goal is to protect these existing institutions and reinvigorate them with more political and social power - to make them great again, one might say! 

Often to justify these political goals, claims are made about harm being done to a nation or people (this is what animates “the great replacement” conspiracy about white people being bred out of society), to traditional family values, to IQ, but these are not empirical claims being made - the harm is metaphysical, the progress they oppose destabilises idealistic categories like gender or race, it’s not actually physically harming real human beings in the world. Reactionaries can hold the belief that the white race needs to be protected from non-whites, for example, despite the fact that “race” is not something that can be discovered or proven in the material or natural world, it is a fiction that organises society hierarchically but is not premised on anything real. Reactionaries equate the destabilisation of these categories with harm (eg trans people destroy the gender binary, gender equality destroys the need for men, racial equality harms whites), and so their opposition is founded on maintaining these categories, not reducing harm. The harm is part of their goal! It’s why when you point out that, for examples, trans healthcare greatly improves the lives of trans people in order to rebut reactionary claims that most trans people regret transition, they don’t care - their goal is not to reduce harm, it is to maintain existing gendered institutions and norms. They are using the language of harm for rhetorical purposes, but they are not making empirical claims about harm because they don’t give a shit about reducing harm to trans people.

It is opposite to revolutionary politics, a political imaginary looking to produce new institutions, new forms of social and economic relationships, new political horizons not previously developed in human history, or to build upon past projects that have come before. These projects are premised on analyses of current political and social conditions in order to identify the harms they cause. Things like decolonisation, socialism, transfeminism, and so on can act as (potentially) revolutionary political projects that seek to abolish old social/political relationships and hierarchies, be they gender, capitalism, settler colonialism, etc, for the purpose of creating a more just and equitable society. Demands to abolish old social and political forms are founded on empirical claims of harm - settler colonialism produces harm, the gender binary produces harm, capitalism produces harm, etc., and we can measure and assess the extent of these harms. This is part of the reason people claim Marxism is scientific, because its political conclusions and proposed solutions are based on an analysis of “material conditions” ie the real world & its various structures

[disappointmentthemusical]

"Mainstream gender" as a system of oppression.

Imagine mainstream gender as a line. On one end of the line is "man," and on the other end is "woman" – this is the gender binary. The connecting line itself is representative, loosely, of "non-binary" gender. (I think this image is suitable, and if others disagree, I think that's more representative of how arbitrarily the binary is defined, rather than this image of it.)

This gender spectrum, dubbed "mainstream gender" because it's what the institutions of society use, only applies to certain groups – the group that controls it, really. White people.

Black people cannot access mainstream gender because they are barred from it via hyper-masculinization that borders on animalization. Black men are viewed as hyper-aggressive and predatory. To the white masses, the concept of "soft" Black masculinity is as real as the transatlantic slave trade (i.e., vague notions of it existing, but no personal experience with the implications, so it floats in the periphery until it's brought up again by a Black person). Black women, regardless of how much they lean into "traditional" femininity, will never be viewed as feminine. Black women will always be viewed as loud, aggressive and "man-ish," the latter contributing to transphobia that impacts both black trans women and black cis women.

By contrast, East Asians are hyper-feminized. East Asian men are stereotyped as soft and small and are portrayed as having little sexual appeal (and those who are viewed as sexually desirable are seen as exceptions to the mainstream; sexy despite their femininity). East Asian women are equally unable to escape femininity and are hyper-feminized to the point of infantilisation, both of which contribute to hyper-sexualization and fetishization. The hyper-femininization of East Asian people also lends itself to transphobia targeted at East Asian trans men (recall: the 2016/17 obsession with smol bois).

But not only is mainstream gender a tool of white supremacy, it also (obviously) is inherent to patriarchy (or, patriarchy is inherent to mainstream gender).

The binary is defined and propagated by men. So while all gender rules are arbitrary and constantly changing, "man" is always strictly defined, and the relief of "man" becomes "woman." This is evident both in masculinity being viewed as "gender neutral," as well as the sense of authority men feel over women's gender, commenting on makeup, how women dress, etc. As a result, the gender "woman" is inherently centered around "man."

In de-centering men, lesbians lack the rules to adhere to mainstream gender. That is why lesbianism is often described as a gender experience because lesbians operate on a new gender spectrum, specific to lesbians.

However, different from race, sexuality is not a visible barrier, and it can take work to exit from mainstream gender. Terf "lesbians" are not lesbians because they cling to the relief of "man" to define their gender; they're gay women. Similarly, white lesbians who prioritize their whiteness will continue to exist within mainstream gender. This also explains why white non-binary people are "like that." While they do not adhere to the binary of "man" and "woman," in participating in the system of whiteness, they remain within the confines of mainstream gender.

[alpaca-clouds]

About Anarchism and Security

Alright, I promised @cofiandme to answer this, once I had time, so let me answer it now.

Quick quote of the question under yesterday's anarchism blog:

@cofiandme: Without prejudice and a genuine inquiry: If anarchism is "having no ruler" and, in theory, still have rules, who enforces these rules? Me: Society does. Basically the idea is that people are responsible for themselves and their community. (Additionally there is also the basic idea that humans are actually not inherently violent or anything, but are forced into violence through things like abuse and poverty.) @cofiandme: society? How so? Does that equate to morals and vague faculties? I too agree that men are not inherently evil, but I am pretty sure that they're self-centeredness (like what you've said, "people are responsible for themselves") will bring out self-interest, which is not necessarily evil but will inevitably result to some disputes, knowing resource limitness, scarcity, and all — how do anarchist society settle this? Within themselves too?

So, it has to be said at this point that we do not have any documentation of any large scale society, that lived by anarchist rules. While it stands to reason that those indigenous cultures that were basically living under a sort of anarchism when there was settler contact, those were often already quite descimated by the time it was documented. And modern anarchist communes rarely reach a size of more than a few hundred.

What I am trying to say: For the most part, we only have theory right now. But it should obviously noted, too, that we are only animals and surprisingly animals do manage to exist for the most part without murdering and raping members of their own species.

At the very, very basic level, anarchism assumes that people's nature is neutral, if not outright good. Because we have seen time and time again that whenever societal forces we have break down, people will help one another, rather than fight each other. Hence the assumption that people are neutral/good, but current systems are bad.

Before all else, we do need to break down the hierarchies of capitalism, by making sure that neither absurd riches, nor poverty should exist.

But also working at the abolishment of other hierarchical systems like the patriarchy and white supremacy. As well as create access to help networks for everyone. That includes especially healthcare - including mental healthcare.

Right now, most crimes are linked to poverty. Poverty forces people to commit crimes, and once people get into trouble with the law once (let's say for stealing food or selling drugs), there is a chance that this actually pushes them further into crime and violence. This is in fact more true, the harsher the anti-crime system of a country is. Hence: If you abolish poverty, you will already limit crime.

Then we have the other two big factors of crime: Hate-crimes and crimes commited out of mental health struggles. (Of course all the factors can be linked.) Working against discriminating structures would drastically limit the hate crimes. Mental health support the other.

So, why am I telling all that? Well, because it is basically the anarchist belief, that system changes would lower violent crime massively.

Now, let's get to the part with the rules.

A very, very basic assumption: Most people do not avoid violence against other humans because of laws, but because violence does actually feel bad.

But yes, society does need rules. So, instead of rules being unbending and only affected by a selected few, everyone gets to have a say about the rules, that would directly affect them. In old times and small communes, this usually happened/happens via a sort of townhall meeting, where everyone gets a chance to speak and then people cast their vote. If we had this as a system for a wider society, these processes would probably be digitalized. (There are a couple of other models/additions for this, that are possible for this, but the direct approach is technically the most anarchist.)

As for the enforcement: In general the anarchist idea is that punishment is not the way to go, but rehabilitation. And of course cops do bring so many issues with themselves... So basically the enforcement idea is, that everyone should be allowed to intervene, when violence happens. And that in general again the society as a whole should get a say in what happens with people - though generally never seeking punishment and rather a solution that aims for rehabilitation or, if that is not an option (like, you will probably not rehabilitate the nazi mass murderer), for security detainment.

And, see. The thing about "self-centeredness" is, that we as a society under late stage capitalism have one big issue: Our society is an individualist one. But this is actually counter to human nature. Humans are not individualist animals. We are social animals. A social rule that serves the many is in fact the one that best serves all the single beings within it.

/end long ramble