#but im saying the way it's framed is just so misogynistic

[cruelsister-moved2]

I actually think that these claims that making fun of men is biphobic because bi women sometimes like men or even misogynistic (because I guess liking men is inherently part of being a woman) are actually themselves biphobic and misogynistic. the men a woman dates/likes are not an extension of her, and her personhood is not vested within them. there are unsettling implications here about women's agency in the process of who to date. I resent the assumption that having a mockable (and potentially genuinely awful) boyfriend is an unavoidable part of being a woman and therefore a protected characteristic???

[snekdood]

Its wild to me that theres probably people out there that think im someone who needs to be educated on misogyny n shit bc of whatever my ex says, as if "snake" the character wasnt intentionally a joke character- like mj picks on him ALL THE TIME for his dumb misogynistic beliefs n shit, and its literally always fucking been that way, lol

[comradekatara]

Not to talk about ships but… I started watching a video essay about katara and how she faced misogyny from the narrative in a textual and meta sense… only for it to turn into zutara propaganda like… im not even invested in the shipping side of atla but i hate how some zutaras use katara as a pawn to further their own bullshit ship stuff. I dont have much of an issue with the ship itself but the way some of them act and treat the characters is extremely cringeworthy😭

I mean katara obviously did face misogyny, most notably in the northern water tribe, when she immediately and powerfully resisted it. I can also kind of see the argument for how the way she is sometimes framed through aang’s pov can be limiting, mostly because it’s cliched in a way that rankles me considering she is such a powerful, agentic, heroic character in her own right, and she must always be the author of her own story, which as the literal narrator, she usually is!

I guess you could also claim that the comics and lok reduced her to a more passive role, which I think is true, but also kind of an unfair criticism considering that literally no one in the gaang was rendered charitably or accurately by gene yang or lok either. katara was not uniquely assassinated by the narrative in that regard, even if I do find it blatantly outrageous how we’re supposed to accept that “she didn’t wanna participate in determining the sovereignty of her own tribe she has arthritis!!!!” (also, not for nothing, I’ve seen someone say something along these lines multiple times, and invoking “arthritis” is simply not the hilarious joke you think it is). but my many (many) issues with lok are not actually relevant to this discussion.

I really don’t think that if we just look at atla proper, katara’s agency is ever critically denied or reduced. katara is literally the hero of the story. she is the catalyst for the plot and the narrator of her own journey. whenever katara has a problem with the way someone is treating her, whether it be misogynistically or otherwise, she makes that issue known and immediately pushes back. she has no compunctions asserting herself and declaring her value, which is a beautiful thing. it’s clear that she was largely raised by women, namely her grandmother, and doesn’t feel the need to comport or reduce herself to please men.

even if she is someone who genuinely likes boys and wants them to like her, she never goes about it in a way where she’d pretend to be someone else to attract them. we can see that someone like ty lee, whose desire for male validation is hardly born of genuine attraction, and who knows how to manipulate those around her, vastly differs from katara, who is just a guileless, confident fourteen year old girl. the fact that katara is perfectly content in her own femininity, enjoys typically “girly” activities like fashion and makeup and boys, and is no less loud and assertive and reckless and angry and powerful for it is so impactful and incredible.

she’s such a realistic, multi-dimensional character who is allowed to be so many different things simultaneously, including feminine, angry, flawed, and heroic, often within the same episode. yes she faces misogyny within the narrative, but only so that she can immediately push back on it. I haven’t seen the video in question, but I have seen plenty of arguments that reiterate these talking points, and to me it feels uncharitable to frame katara is a metatextual victim of misogyny (in atla proper) when she is such an iconic and inspiring role model for young girls for the specific reasons I have just delineated here. reducing her impact for the sake of an agenda is just unfortunate.

[cupcraft]

At the end of the day, dreams behavior towards his fans is gross and he encourages unhealthy parasocialism.

In the lead up to his video he said deeply awful and victim blaming things. He made that inappropriate joke with the tik tok/miners shirt. He has leagues of history lying, being racist, bigoted, and recent history continually being misogynistic. His fanbase makes me deeply uncomfortable and unsafe with the amount of shit that is said. He never truly stops his fanbase from doxxing ppl, even when he "says its bad". The way he deflects blame onto other people really shows how awful he is. The way the video is framed to not just address serious allegations tells you all you need to know about him (like why eas the dsmp in there brother). The way he'll accuse fellow friends of causing his family's doxxing just because he didn't answer his text and Dream was the only one causing drama. He's said leagues of inappropriate things to Tommy who was a minor at the time during the dsmp days. Dream is a liar, and he can never take accountability for his actions. He can make this video, but it doesn't erase what he said about potential victims leading up to it. Dream is bigoted and it's clear with that recent tweet where he victimizes himself he doesn't care about that either.

Lastly, I will never apologize for supporting potential victims ever. I will always support victims no matter what as a victim myself and because I know how disgusting the justice system is in preventing justice for victims.

And im ending this post saying fuck dream. And I think after this whole ordeal im done posting about him as much as I've been doing so. It's a lot and stressful and seeing the things his supporters say that are wildly anti victim is so harmful to me. Its not to say ill never comment on anything but I think im.done and i just need to focus on the things and ccs i enjoy.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

Interesting post about the dispute regarding the successions of Rosby and Stokeworth.

https://www.tumblr.com/mononijikayu/713886501993431040/im-rereading-fb-today-and-found-something?source=share

Hi anon, thanks for sharing that post, it was interesting reading.

And I think that there are two things going on here. On the one hand, the OP is absolutely correct that the Rosby and Stokeworth inheritances were a catch 22 for Rhaenyra. Now, I think framing it as her "protecting" the Rosby and Stokeworth younger brothers from being murdered by the possibly disloyal Hugh and Ulf is a bit of a stretch, I don't think she cared about Rosby or Stokeworth or their heirs in the slightest (it should go without saying that we're talking about book!Rhaenyra here), and if she'd felt like making the daughters the Ladies of Rosby and Stokeworth and marrying them to Hugh and Ulf was the correct course of action, she would have done just that. I think she simply found Corlys' argument to be the more persuasive one-- if she created a precedent for absolute primogeniture throughout the realm she might lose valuable supporters and she could not afford to lose them at the time. Additionally, it's altogether possible that she did not want to ennoble Hugh and Ulf with their loyalty yet unproven. If they'd turned their cloaks not just with their dragons but with their newly acquired lands and armies, forget about the younger Rosby and Stokeworth sons, that would have been a disaster for Rhaenyra. The point is, there are reasons for Rhaenyra denying the Rosby and Stokeworth daughters the right to inherit ahead of their brothers, good ones even.

The other point the OP makes, that women often have to be just as brutal as men, but are judged more harshly for it is also true. You'll find no argument there. In fact, I've argued on this very blog that historically queens regnant have had to be even more brutal than men-- more punishing towards the smallfolk, quicker to war, harsher in their judgments-- in order to be taken seriously. So again, no argument from me there.

The thing is, there's a bit of a strawman here on OPs part. While I admit that there are fans who use Rosby and Stokeworth or Rhaenyra's ruthlessness as something of a gotcha, the point isn't that Rhaenyra should have given those lands to the Rosby and Stokeworth daughters, or that she was singularly worse than men who had sat the throne (she was worse than some, better than others), or even that she's a hypocrite. Rather, Rosby and Stokeworth specifically serve to counter the idea that Rhaenyra being queen would have meant anything positive for women as a whole. Because fans of Rhaenyra can't have it both ways here. They cannot claim that Rhaenyra is the more progressive, less misogynistic choice, but then make excuses for her regressive decisions and policies. And to be clear, I don't blame Rhaenyra for this. Obviously, individuals attempting to thwart the system without enacting broad changes often end up capitulating to existing power structures. In fact, it would be almost impossible not to within the feudal context. But regardless, either putting a woman on the throne is broadly significant as more than a historical footnote, or it isn't. And if it isn't, if Rhaenyra's policies do not benefit any women besides Rhaenyra in any meaningful capacity, then there's no greater good argument for her going to war.

And this only matters because many of Rhaenyra's fans try to frame the conflict in terms of morality, when you can easily reason that from a harm reduction standpoint, the actual moral choice would be for Rhaenyra not to press her claim. It's unfair, but Aegon got there first, was crowned and anointed first, and hold the city. If she accepts his peace terms, she can keep doing what she's been doing for the last decade, chilling on Dragonstone and tens of thousands of people get to stay alive. Now, I don't actually expect her to act morally here, she's acting in her own self interest rather than in the interest of the greater good, and that's fine, but let's not pretend she has the moral high ground.

[nothorses]

ive seen a few posts talking about gender socialization as a terf idea, and im not sure I understand... I was wondering if you could help? I understand gender essentialism is a dangerous tool they use, and I see how "socialization" gets used as a more acceptable way of framing hatred of trans people.

but also, im a trans man and I do genuinely feel like my being raised "as a girl" affected my personality and interests, especially in childhood. particularly things like being taught to be quieter and more polite than my classmates and stuff. is there something im missing here?

The term "gender socialization" generally implies that socialization relies strictly on gender, and I've seen this defined either to mean AGAB (trans women are socialized and men, and trans men are socialized as women), or the gender you actually are (vice versa). Either way, it's an extremely reductive and restricting view on what is, yes, at least related to a real phenomena.

The thing is, "socialization" is different for everyone. The factors that play into it can range from the gender other people think you are, the gender you think of yourself as (which might change over time), the gender you actually are, to things completely unrelated: race and ethnicity, disability status, religion, the culture you grow up in, and so many others.

What's being discussed is essentially the impact of one's culture, and their culture's view of gender, on the way they think of themselves. Boiling that down to "male or female", even if you're not calling trans women "men" and trans men "women" to fit them into that model, is still a massive oversimplification that denies any possibility of variation in experience.

For example: I also internalized a lot of misogynistic ideas about myself growing up. But I was raised by a single mother who believed in some feminist ideals, and in a progressive area, and without the influence of religion in my family; so some of the ideas I grew up with were "you're a bossy bitch who talks too much", and some of them were "Never Rely On A Man". And while I didn't know I was a trans man yet, I also felt dysphoric about things like crying; not because I believed men couldn't cry, but because my mom encouraged me to fake cry because crying (white) women get their way.

That's not really a comparable experience to one that, say, a Christian cis woman in the US south might have.

The other flaw in this theory is the implication that "socialization" is static. Once you reach a certain age (which is never really defined), you magically stop absorbing messages from the world around you, and become cemented forever as Socialized Male or Female.

Aside from the fact that this obviously isn't true, you have to wonder: what about trans people who transition when they're children? What are they socialized as?

This isn't just an inaccurate view of the way people develop. It's a form of gender essentialism- the idea that gender determines certain immutable qualities in a person- which is itself related to, and supports theory underlying, sex essentialism; i.e., TERF and otherwise transphobic ideology.

Buying into the same idea that "man" and "woman" are stagnant categories with no overlap isn't good when you allow trans people to be categorized by their actual gender instead of their AGAB. It's still the same core philosophy, and it's still just as damaging- to intersex and nonbinary people in particular, but also to all trans people. The gender binary doesn't serve any of us.

Trans liberation means understanding, or at least leaving room for, the nuances and complexities. It means allowing people to exist in complicated ways, and to define and categorize themselves. The strict, static, and binary understanding of gender presented by "gender socialization" theory only works against that.

[edwardsissyhandsthtdanceslikeabb]

i kinda hate bloberta puppington idk

its really easy to hate clay puppington, his characterization as the show's unflinching central antagonist is as unanimous as it is understandable.

however im probably the only person on earth who doesn't see him as the big bad, in fact i feel for him (shock horror). not in the coquette way or the equally misogynistic contrarian way, but out of genuine surprise that a character who gets universal sympathy and pushback in my hatred for them isn't the center of ppl's ire

— and that is bloberta.

yes ik, clay is responsible for his own actions, and there's only so much excusing that can be done before it overlooks one's agency and the resulting harm inflicted, but the way ppl gloss over exactly why and how clay ended up the way he did baffles me to no end.

clay was an initially decent guy, albeit a bit non-committal and weak-willed, which makes for redpill brainrot when mixed with toxicity, as evidenced by clay himself, but literally the only reason he ended up that way is bc he was saddled with a dependency by someone who gaslit and physically assaulted him into a relationship against his will, which is horrifying, especially in the context of his sexuɑlity. like bloberta isn't even a good mom, and ik that social conditioning + pressure inherently alienates ppl from their societal expectations i.e motherhood, kids... but then i don't understand how and why bloberta is characterized as this woeful damsel archetype when she's barely redeemable and merely overshadowed by someone more overtly troubled. dare i say she's victim only to her actions, bc what would've been the alternative?

clay staying passive and malleable and dependent, is that not infinitely more horrific? she literally ruined his life/entrapped him, stayed with him bc sunk costs, despite how that endangers her kids, and then is framed like the victim despite everything being a direct consequence of her actions, i just don't get it. ppl ascribe this sympathetic angle to her bc woe, she felt pressured and she's nuanced and obviously unhealthily coping but i hardly see that as a legitimate enough excuse for her actions, and im genuinely stumped by how ppl so readily neglect everything she did bc clay's now worse. like idk man, welcome to the consequences of your actions ig.

[molsno]

Your post on transandrophobia was the first time i'd heard of it and it from just reading your post it made sense why it couldn't be real. But i didnt want to adopt a new belief against something without looking into why people are for it. Upon reading many other posts and doing a bunch of thinking i now have a few thoughts on your post id appreciate your input on as you seem understanding and extremely well-read

please correct me if i'm wrong, but your argument against transandrophobia is that transandrophobia as the combination of androphobia/misandry and transphobia (to mirror transmisogyny being a combination of misogyny and transphobia) cannot exist because androphobia/misandry does not exist

you are completely correct that misandry does not exist in the same systemic way that misogyny does, it would be idiotic to argue otherwise, but our current system of gender stereotypes/expectations does also negatively impact men. Men are seen as inherently violent, dangerous, emotionless, and too sexual. (ie. men aren't belived when victims of rape bc/they must've enjoyed it, men are more likely to be incarcerated)

Men's Rights Activists and people like them were wrong in believing they suffered more than women and that women gaining rights was the cause of their suffering, but they did correctly identify that men also suffered from the patriarchy (and im forever gonna be salty that they were so close to understanding but instead of engaging in solidarity they decided to be misogynist about it)

When combined with other forms of oppression the often excused or ignored negative associations with masculinity are viewed as horrible problems

For example black men have to constantly make themselves less threatening when near white women because it is assumed they have malicious intent. Historically many many black men have been lynched in order to 'protect' white women. Yes it was very much racism, but it wasn't a coincidence that black men were the victims far more than black women.

Lesbians have historically been seen as inherently masculine therefore dangerous and predatory. The same associations now are used to justify transwomen being banned from women's spaces because they must be inherently masculine therefore inherently sexually predatory.

There is a narrative that Testosterone should be avoided for transmascs because it will make them into ugly violent monsters.

In specifically queer spaces there is often a strong stigma against being proud to be masculine. Which makes sense as most of the groups and people who have been openly proud of their masculinity before have been actively advocating for the elimination of queer people, but masculinity in itself is not anti-queer and shouldn't be treated as such.

There are many transmasc struggles seperate from transfem struggles that could potentially be more accurately described as an intersection of misogyny and transphobia, such as the infantilization and denial of control over our bodies, but because transfem people have established transmisogyny as a term to talk about their struggles and because there are several struggles resulting from our specifically trans masculinity, transandrophobia was chosen instead to not encroach on transfem's space while still having the ability to speak about our struggles.

thank you if you actually spent the time to read this and i genuinely hope you have a great day :]

thank you for being open to criticism with these ideas but oof, there's a lot to unpack here. frankly, I find it a little hard to believe you'd never heard the word transandrophobia before, considering you're regurgitating all of its talking points. you say that misandry doesn't exist at a systemic level, but then all of these points are framed as if it does. we'll go through that, but first, some foundations:

our current gender system may negatively impact men in a few narrow circumstances, but it is ultimately self-inflicted (even if some women do uphold it), and still benefits them. men are perceived as violent, dangerous, and too sexual because they continue to perpetuate a gender system that oppresses women with sexual violence. still, to this day, marital rape is not punished with the same severity as non-marital rape. still, to this day, women stay in abusive relationships out of fear that their boyfriends/husbands will commit acts of violence against them if they try to leave.

do you understand? violence, and ESPECIALLY sexual violence, is a tool men wield to maintain power, sometimes over other men, but especially over women. they wield this tool voluntarily because it benefits them, even if it does have its drawbacks in some circumstances. violence is punishable under the law, which is why men who perpetrate violence against other men tend to be incarcerated at higher rates than men who perpetrate violence against women. after all, women aren't considered full human beings with equal rights, so violence against them isn't a severe offense. our society was structured around the premise that women are men's property with which they can do whatever they want. that's why, for instance, when men are raped by women, they aren't believed; the very concept of a woman wielding sexual power over men is unthinkable in the eyes of society.

misogyny is one of the oldest forms of oppression - it's existed since nearly the dawn of society itself, and has existed in cultures all over the world for thousands of years. as a result, it is baked into the very foundation of society. if your analysis of gendered systems doesn't begin from this basic fact, then your analysis is incorrect.

certainly, men uphold very rigid, overly-restrictive notions of masculinity which can harm them in some cases, but this "toxic masculinity" as it's come to be known is really just a means of threatening other men with transmisogyny. I've written a whole post about it here.

with all of that out of the way, let's go through the rest of your examples of supposed misandry one by one.

first, while you are correct that there is a long history of violence being enacted upon black men because they are perceived as a threat to white women, the cause of this phenomenon is just racism. as you will recall in an earlier paragraph, I stated that men are perceived as violent and dangerous because they uphold a system of sexual ownership over women. any man that may pose a threat to another man's ownership over a woman must be punished with violence. now, black people regardless of gender are seen as hypersexual in this white supremacist society, so when it comes to black men in particular, they are perceived as being more likely to threaten a white man's ownership over a white woman - hence the amount of violence they face.

now, I need to say, I'm white, and while I do my best to learn about racism and how it intersects with other forms of oppression, my understanding will always be limited by my privilege as a white person. I've never experienced racism and I never will, so I don't have the full nuance to explain this topic in particular that comes with lived experience. that being said, I find it very callous and cruel that transandrophobia truthers repeatedly use the violence black men face as "proof" of their beliefs, especially because they act like black women aren't also subjected to racist violence, which they very much are. here's a thread by two black bloggers about this topic that I think discusses this phenomenon better than I ever could - be sure to check the read more link in it.

moving on, your point about lesbians and trans women (note the space) is, frankly, extremely insulting. misandry is not a part of my oppression. people don't hate me because I'm masculine, they hate me because I'm a tranny. they hate me SPECIFICALLY because I reject manhood in its entirety. they hate me because my very existence calls into question the validity of the assumptions that 1. there are two opposite mutually exclusive genders with absolutely no overlap and 2. manhood and masculinity is inherently superior to womanhood and femininity. that's why they portray people like me as a threat to cis women. if I'm free to exist in the way that makes me happiest, then the gender system that gives men absolute unchecked power over women will crumble. lesbians are also reviled and viewed as predatory for their rejection of subservience to men and their attraction to women, which - again, threatens men's control over them.

I'm going to go out of order here and address your point about queer spaces being hostile to masculinity. it just isn't true. I've never seen a single person provide an adequate explanation for how there is a stigma in queer spaces against masculinity that wasn't just lesbophobia and transmisogyny in disguise. it always boils down to "waah lesbians and trans women are mean to men and people who like men :(", a la this post.

now, last but not least, your points about transmascs. they're discouraged from transitioning because we live in a transphobic society. there is nothing unique about that. transfems are subjected to the exact same rhetoric.

transmascs do not experience an intersection of transphobia and misogyny. they may experience both of these, but they are not intersecting, and any assertion to the contrary demonstrates an abysmal understanding of intersection, whether willfully or not. I've already written another post about this exact topic.

I hope this was helpful, but for future reference, I'm going to say this: most women are not going to be so patient and understanding when you approach them with a giant wall of text asking them to explain misogyny to you. I did not have to do any of this for you, and you shouldn't expect me to. I've already written and reblogged many posts about the topics you've brought up here, as you've seen, and you could have easily found most of them by looking through my writing and transmisogyny tags. I hope you have a good day, but please do not do this again.

[silent-sanctum]

i usually dont post unformatted stuff like this on the regular, but based on the amount of "jokes" ive seen in twitter and in tumblr about jotaro's character, i got some pet peeves that i may or may not be taking too seriously since he's my fave

but at the same time, a portion of the community is also taking these memes seriously as if it's the gospel and im kinda sick of it tbh so might as well treat this as a "in defense of" segment-

im sure there are others who feel the same way, but im letting everyone know that i feel the same sentiments:

Choosing Koichi over Jolyne

This is one that i don't feel that strongly about compared to the rest, but i feel like ive seen enough of these comments pop up in a youtube video and it makes me want to ask: "yeah? man literally let his emotions surface and sacrifices himself just to let his daughter know that he loves her over anything else".

And why? Because he stayed in Morioh and so happened to end up as a mentor-figure to Koichi (and, you know, to Josuke and Okuyasu too )? But why is it Koichi is singled out as "joot's preferred child" and not the rest? Cause he's child-sized?

Nothing much else to say but do stop treating jotaro like he fully abandoned his family just for shits and giggles.

Ocean Man x Dolphins

NOW. I have things to say.

What is up with these comments? Wherever I go (youtube, reddit, twitter etc.), i would see shit similar to this where he has a fetish for dolphins? Uhm, tf?

I get it if it's done for the memes, but istg, i see these in every reply in a thread as if araki wrote that in canon and people exaggerate this to an extent where "his lover is a sea mammal", "jolyne's mom is a dolphin", "he screws with dolphins", "make dolphin sounds to attract him" etc.

first off... how dumb and really stupid? Just because one of his P4 outfits had an abundance of dolphin pins doesnt mean he has an extreme liking to them. He wore that fit for one arc and thats pretty much it.

And to keep repeating that "i left my family to fuck with them" joke in every comment is just very subpar in terms of humor. It's not even funny to more it's used.

Need i remind these people that other than the clothes, he shows ABSOLUTELY no liking to dolphins at all in the show. If anything, he prefers starfishes over dolphins- he wrote a whole thesis about them and his office has an entire portion of a wall with framed starfishes.

don't know how the whole shtick blew up into this but omg it's annoying

I am Cold-Hearted Misogynist Giga Chad

Imma need everyone to stop mischaracterizing him as nothing but an "always angry" hates females person.

To address the misogynist topic, he talks regularly with the school nurse about cutting his pants, he emphasizes that he's deeply insulted when an innocent woman is hurt and that he considers that as true evil, protects and helps Anne when she's on screen, goes on a whole ass journey to help his mom recover, got married and had a kid with a woman, and offered a brief condolence to Tomoko about her dad's death.

also put in mind that he only barks up and become "misogynistic" (which not really) toward the females that obsess over him. I mean it's borderline sexual harassment if you ask me with the way the female students won't leave him alone and continue to be noisy around him or when adult women fawn over a MINOR.

AND EVEN THEN, when he goes to school with his fangirls flocking around him, he doesn't push them off. Why? Because it's unnecessary. He lets one of them cling to his arm and he just ignores them. After falling the stairs and they swarm around him, he doesn't become violent toward the girls and continues to ignore them. (sure he pushed those flight attendants away and punched his daughter to get out, but then again they were blocking his path and they needed to get out the room so he found it necessary to do those things)

again, him being annoyed with loud girls is reasonable but he isn't annoyed with every female in existence. That doesn't make him a misogynist.

Mr. Blank Slate

As an introvert myself, i find it sad and lowkey insulting that when it comes to watching introverted characters, the audience find them as boring and bears no personality. And i can tell...because the audience finds jotaro and giorno, the 2 introverted Jojos, as characters who are dull and bland.

maybe that's why i kin with joot, because we just quiet and vibing, and somehow people misinterpreting that vibes as "we hate everything don't talk to us"

We aren't openly dynamic and spontaneous but that doesnt mean we don't have personality.

But I think that's because viewers are well-acquainted with "out there" characters who show an explosive and emotive reaction to stuff like Joseph or Josuke. Much like a typical Shonen protag.

jotaro is a stoic, reserved man with a kickass no bullshit personality who wants things done as soon as possible, but holds a soft golden heart deep down who wants his friends and family safe and happy. He's a dork who makes corny one-liners, watches detective shows and documentaries, does party tricks for his friends, very keen on maintaining his sense of style (his uniform, 20k yen pants, expensive ass watch), literally smiles in ^_^ (and yes... he does emote in the anime yall are just too stuck up in the notion of him being angry 24/7 for yall to notice), etc.

idk much about giorno yet im sorry but all i know is that the kid's got a dream so I guess you could say he's ambitious and driven to secure his goal of being a gang-star mafia leader.

all i can say is that, the quiet ones have some quirks to them too and it's not always the loud ones.

Are these controversial? Maybe, but I've seen some express their frustrations so why not as well. Am i being a killjoy and taking this too seriously? Debatable, but there are some of you who also take your jokes seriously so don't come at me.

Will i have more peeves in the future? Likely. Let's wait and see :>

[thereareeyesinsidethetrees]

cracks knuckles. so, been just trying to gauge overall reception with this, but what are your thoughts on the fan made return to the bunker episode? i’ve noticed glowing reviews from people who vaguely describe it—hit the character vibes right, jokes were cool, i liked the art, etc, but scathing ones from people who go more into detail—stan would never be this explicit in his desperation, ford was never this outcast or terrified of himself/others nor did he consider dipper as below, the entire thing was misogynistic, etc. so, what’s your opinion?

i did say i wasnt going to talk/reblog anymore posts about return to the bunker, but ill answer this anyway

i feel its kind of important to say right off the bat that i never finished the episode and i certainly dont intend to. i never even got to one of the b plot scenes with stan and dipper. i stopped around the bit where they got into the bunker and ford started trying to warn them about the shapeshifter. the clearly-not-ford-ness radiating off of 'ford' was too much to ignore and i couldnt finish it

anyway- what was good about the episode? well, the art and voice acting, for sure. during the first part, it also seemed like they had gotten the characters down pretty well and i thought some of the jokes were good.

in the first part.

and then mabel comes in. this is around the time real ford goes missing and fake ford shows up. no there arent two fords in the actual episode, its just that the difference between them is stark enough that theyre completely separate entities in my mind. anyway

i noticed that the sweater thing was weird to a lot of people. glad im not the only one that was extremely confused by the guy wearing a sweater saying it was too hot to wear a sweater. maybe it was meant to be a joke? it really just came off as ford trying to make excuses not to wear mabel's sweater.

which- its not like him not wanting to wear the sweater cant coexist with him liking mabel. maybe its a situation where he doesnt want her to see all his scars, or maybe he doesnt want it to get ruined when he goes to beat the shit out of the hawktopus (since yknow that was kinda the whole point of him being outside)

the point im trying to make here is that it really seems like the episode is just trying to paint ford as unreasonable and not liking mabel. speaking of which-

the way ford treats mabel is uncharacteristic. the first time we ever see ford smile in the show is when he's meeting mabel. he literally says 'i like this kid, she weird!', why are we acting like he doesnt like her?? genuinely confused. who looks at the way he was treating her in the episode and goes 'yeah fords just like that'?

sorry, anyway, last thing i have to say-

the entire bit where theyre making their way through the bunker struck me as a bit odd. it sorta felt like the episode was trying to make a joke out of ford and his wariness about the place? hes trying to guide mabel and some other kids he barely knows through the place, theyre rushing ahead (which cant be good for his paranoia), and for some reason when theyre getting close to shifty and hes trying to warn them its framed as him being melodramatic?

shifty locked his friend in a cabinet and pretended to be said friend so it could catch a look at the creatures in ford's journal and start transforming into them. i think hes allowed to be a bit cautious/afraid about meeting shifty again

and some bonus stuff ive heard about below:

ive heard that ford wipes their memories with the memory gun. he was a victim of it (implied or directly stated multiple times- who wants to bet hes got brain damage from that?) and he struggled so much to use it on stan in a situation where it was necessary to keep the world from ending. no, theres no way ford could just hit them with it like that

ive also heard fiddleford shows up and ford is weirdly antagonistic to him? 'im sorry fiddleford' is a phrase running through ford's mind on the constant for over thirty years and his first reaction to seeing fiddleford again is to apologize to him and assume he hates him. according to the journal, he actually mentioned to everyone else in the shack that he was wondering what happened to fiddleford. its implied he did that several times.

i dont have anything else to say and i dont know how to end this so. thats all. thank you for the ask and sorry if anything i said here sounded aggressive at all. not my intention.

uh moral of the story: i didnt like it :(

[genlossneg]

ok. i didnt mind genloss, it was ranboos first massive project, theyre only 19 and a streamer, ok. but oh my god would it kill to take an improv class. the first 2 episodes felt like an snl skit. especially when it was branded as original and then was just some sort of frankenstein of different horror tropes from ranboos favourite horror media, that just reminded me of snl stealing joel havers skit lmao.

there were so much issues with it and i feel like i wouldnt mind as much if it was branded as a horror comedy a few months before the show, not 3 days before the show. a few months before and the weeks leading up to may 24th, it was branded as "you arent ready for this. this is groundbreaking, nothing will ever be the same after this show. this is serious." etc and then i think it was like 3 days before may 24th there was that fucking showfall media psa that just felt like ranboo saying "oh btw its a comedy" without warning it caught me so off gaurd lmao.

then he streamed after that sfm psa released and, if i remember right, people were asking about it being a horror comedy in chat and ranboo was like "well yeah obviously did u think id make a project 100% serious? no lol" (dont quote me on that though its been a while) now theyre saying gen 0 and gen 2 are going to be completely horror now, but i dont think thats true bc they also said gen 1 was mostly horror and none of it is

speaking of, the advertising was just lies lol. the whole "little to no filler :D" thing. it wasnt like ranboo didnt expect the improv to last that long bc the expected runtimes (from their tumblr post on may 23rd i think) were sometimes longer than the actual ones. 1st ep was meant to be 1-2 hours, it was 1 and a half, so that much filler and standing around going "what the hell man" was PLANNED. they just lied about no filler to make people excited. just be funny and i wont mind the filler. i like sneegs humour in his streams but here he was just bickering with ranboo. same with ranboo to charlie, charlie was the only one making actual jokes so when ranboo and sneeg were alone it was just "wait so why didnt you just-" "well idk i thought u woul-" "well why would i-" and when i tell you it drained my soul.

ive been a massive ranboo fan for about a year (im recovering dw), and after the game theory episode i got really hyperfixated on genloss (up until the sfm keynote thing i think). i was hyped for it back when T_1 was the only thing released for genloss, and followed it all the way up to the streams. i watched them live and my face was just like 😐 I WAS SO DISSAPPOINTED LMAOOO

the box being 18k pissed me off so much bc an experienced filmmaker/writer/director could make something so much better than genloss with just that 18k. i aspire to make my own live action thing one day, and like, hearing them go "oh yeah the box was 18k and jermas face prosthetics were 10k teehee🤪🤪" was just. AAAAA. and the thing is, like the prosthetics were funny, but spending TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS as a BIT from jerma going "what if i took off the mask and it just doesnt look like me lol" then framing urself as jesus christ and a victim. i am so mad.

idk how to feel about ranboo anymore, i used to watch like every 2nd stream for a while but then the whole "GUYS BUY MY MERCH also racism bad MERCH!!!!! BUY!!!!" thing made me rethink lol. the racist and misogynistic undertones in genloss made me so uncomfy, and while im not poc so i cant speak on that, i have enough sense to know that having the only poc in the entire show play evil rats is so tone deaf.

and niki!! i was worried when the teasers were coming out bc every single person shown in it was a white guy (and a white enby), so i was kind of happier when niki showed up, but then she died within the hour to "commentate on misogyny in media". ranboo thought that he was commentating on misogyny by contributing to it. did they think this through at all. i would have LOVED if they did something special with niki and something powerful, but all that happened was she showed up, cried, then died and now ranboo fans are going "ranboo was so real for this!!!". ik niki had control over her characters writing but im sure ranboo was the one who decided when certain characters died and stuff.

also i hate to say this but the mask flashing to signify if he was in control or not was EXACTLY like a thing in the undertale fanfic (sfw im not weird) i wrote when i was 12 💀💀the characters eyes would flash when they were under control bc edgy. it was so weird watching genloss with that in the back of my mind 💀💀💀💀

in conlusion, genloss had so many flaws and so much easy fixes that it just feels so sososososososo rushed. another year in the oven wouldve been ok i think.

woah this is long im so sorry i do not think only type oops

- the i feel like i should label what kind of anon i am lmao anon

sorry before i get to anything else the undertale bit caught me so off guard omg.

anyways.

it wasnt like ranboo didnt expect the improv to last that long bc the expected runtimes (from their tumblr post on may 23rd i think) were sometimes longer than the actual ones. 1st ep was meant to be 1-2 hours, it was 1 and a half, so that much filler and standing around going "what the hell man" was PLANNED.

this!! the way the second stream just.. dragged was so rough.

the poc/women diversity discussion is something we had on the blog a bit ago as im sure you've seen so i don't have a ton to add but. yeah there were certainly choices that got made there.

very much enjoying all the essays getting dropped in here (even if i feel like my responses are weak sometimes lmao)

[termitesisagrandslam]

saw a criticism of people hating on the barbie movie bc of capitalism, saying it's misogynistic bc movies like transformers werent hated on the same amount despite also being big budget movies based on kids toys.

but i think that argument doesnt really hold up bc the criticism im seeing is very much based in the context of the barbie movie's advertising. the first transformers came out in what, like 2007 or smth? you cant really compare its marketing and all that to the barbie movie's. also there's just a different framing between the two. transformers was a michael bay film, it never pretended to be anything but a cash crab. something insidious about the barbie movie is the almost obscurement of its status as a cash grab. it is banking in part on the pretense that it is not just Capitalism Toy Game. that it is Meaningful and Feminist and Actually When You Think About It All Criticism of Twilight Fifty Shades Romcoms Barbie Is Just Misogyny. when sure, that stuff is often a factor but to reduce criticism down to that ignores all the real valid criticisms people have - and real reasons people have to hate or resent the piece of media

also for me, i am bothered by the Pink Feminism aspect of it! the fact that is a "girl" film is part of what bothers me. bc so far there is no evidence i see that this movie is going to, in any substantial way, subvert or criticize the barbie brand. what bothers me is seeing the same people, often other white women, who hold up media like legally blonde as peak feminism, fawn over this movie for the same reason.

it's not bad if you're excited but you cannot in good faith actually think the only reason it's getting criticism is "people hate things made for women or women being excited about flawed things". i love tons of flawed media, it's not really the point. i played with barbies for my entire childhood, i had SO many barbies and i loved them. but i can still look at this movie and see how it is representative of genuine issues re: (online) marketing, capitalism, the film industry, consumable pop feminism, etc.

[initiumseries]

RIGHT?! the only logical solution for Hayley was to have an abortion and yeah it makes sense that the reason they don't bring it up at all is bc of social conservatism, i honestly kind of assumed it was their personal politics.

Coco in dear white people had an abortion (makes sense bc id assume most of their viewers would be leftists/liberals anyway) and I feel like it was done well, one of the moms on Workin Moms also considered an abortion but i don't remember if she went through with it. I've heard they only introduced the pregnancy plotline on TVD bc Candice was pregnant but other tv shows have handled something like this so much better and i feel like julie has some obsession with pregnancy bc it wasn't a one off thing, like really how many miracle supernatural babies can we even have 🙄

Im honestly kinda glad i wasn't allowed to watch TVD as a teen when it was airing lol bc my god the way they treat their female characters is atrocious.

Ah makes sense, I couldn't stand dear white people so I didn't watch it, and I'm always distrustful of shows that put the dark skin female character through things like this (not saying that ds BW should never have abortions, what I'm saying is that abortion is usually framed as awful/harmful, and so, when the only time we see women actually having abortions, they're ds bw and usually framed as a punishment for slutty behaviour anyway, my side eye comes out), particularly when it isn't mainstream to see women making informed decisions about their body particularly surrounding pregnancy.

And like, introducing a pregnancy plotline for your character because she's pregnant has been done before, but Caroline is a vampire. So it's already INCREDIBLY stupid she's pregnant in the first place. Hide her behind a fucking comforter and boxes like everyone else lmao jfc. Tbh, I read the supernatural baby thing as 2 things: a deeply uncreative writer, and someone looking for a spin off.

Lol, the show actually wasn't terrible s1-3 when Julie didn't have control yet. It wasn't perfect, and still had some sloppiness, but there were stakes, and people stayed dead lol. But the rest was...increasingly awful. It felt like watching a poor man's days of our lives. Awful awful. And yeah, they definitely have a misogyny problem, but so many shows do, it's like...*sigh*, now I have to decide, what can I tolerate lol. And I just don't think you get to be horrible writers AND misogynist AND racist? Pick a struggle? So glad it's over lol.

[comradekatara]

It’s me again, and I’ve got another ask for ya @comradekatara

And no stupid pol meme’s that I gave only a cursory glance too and stupidly screenshotted this time!

I’ve seen a few of your post (at least I think it was your’s) about LOK. So I was wondering. In regard to the main villains, who is your least favorite/most disliked?

And what would you change about their motivations and perhaps their “villainous” means to make them a more compelling and/or sympathetic character?

lol this is a pretty big ask. i mean basically every villain in lok is completely incoherent thematically, politically, ideologically. people will call amon a communist but he doesn’t actually give a shit about economics or class in any capacity. people call unalaq a theocrat but as far as im aware he isn’t exploiting people’s spiritual faith to gain power, (maybe that’s what he was doing at first, but) he literally wants to submerge the world into “darkness” for one million years for… reasons and purposes. unalaq/vaatu is by far the worst lok villain, but that’s not even saying much because it’s so patently ridiculous and cartoonish. the red lotus are actually compelling but they also love chaos for the sake of chaos (because anarchism!) and want to violently murder a teenage girl and hold a genocided people hostage to do so (despite zaheer’s supposed respect for air nomads). and kuvira is an ethnonationalist who declares herself emperor, so i guess she’s at least a somewhat coherent portrait of a real type of person who actually exists, but the fact that the fascist despot is the ONLY character who points out that republic city was built on colonized earth kingdom land is um….. not a great look?

and then side characters like tarrlok, hiroshi, varrick, queen hou-ting, suyin(???), wu(???) who aren’t really the primary villains even though in many ways they’re more ideologically coherent, are just also kind of weird for their ambiguous framing. like hou-ting is literally kidnapping airbenders and putting them in underground labor camps where they’re tortured and ruthlessly trained into forming an army, which is something that chaisee does in the yangchen novels and is regarded as utterly reprehensible and heinous for it (because it is), whereas we’re supposed to feel bad for hou-ting when she dies because murder is bad uwu. and we’re supposed to forgive hiroshi for [checks notes] attempted filicide. and varrick is just some fun wacky little guy who is a ruthlessly amoral capitalist but also he does the charleston! and isn’t him marrying his overworked, exploited assistant cute?? and not at all grossly misogynistic and horrifying???? LOL!

so i don’t think going through every villain and antagonist individually and imbuing them with depth is really a worthy use of time, since the show largely suffers from incoherence due to the fact that it isn’t cohesive at all. besides korra’s character development (which is excellent), there’s no real central idea that ties every season together. take atla instead: it’s a very linear narrative, with an established goal that is always being worked towards and once it’s ultimately completed, the show ends. lok has no idea what that central goal is. so instead of trying to fix every character, it’s better to work from the center out and first simply define that goal. the central political tension in lok is, fundamentally, a question of whether it is better to alter the status quo in various radical ways, or whether it is better to maintain the violently upheld hegemonic norm by virtue of it being the status quo (and spoiler alert, it’s the latter!). and these radical ways, whether it be the terrorist movement of a fraudulent right wing populist dictator, or the terrorist movement of a bunch of commies, is always presented as equally dangerous and in need of korra’s gaggle of cops, liberals, and capitalists to suppress. what a great show.

however, the lok that lives in my head does away with most of that, and simply focalizes the conflict between the white lotus and the red lotus as diametrically opposing forces both vying to control korra’s position in the world as avatar and reconstitute her legacy on their terms. because korra’s arc is fundamentally about learning to define her selfhood and her role in the world on her own terms, and the one commonality between every villain is that they’re trying to suppress or control her identity in some way. because it’s also, incidentally, a show primarily concerned with the value of identity politics, and doesn’t actually give a shit about any of the class struggles that underpin the show’s worldbuilding and inform so many of its primary characters. so while i’m not opposed to korra’s struggle of identity, and in fact appreciate it a lot and find it personally affirming in multiple ways, korra deserves a show that is actually worthy of her brilliance as a character.

it’s not that korra shouldn’t struggle to establish her identity on her own terms, but that the politics through which they attempt to communicate this struggle are incoherent. so i would simply reframe the conflict as one primarily between the white lotus, who are reformist liberals at best, and neoconservative reactionaries at worst. we see the best of the white lotus in atla (arguably), and the worst of the white lotus in the yangchen novels (which are fascinating and excellent and everyone should read them). xai bau is only ever mentioned in a single exposition dump (in one of the only truly great episodes of lok, i might add), but his philosophy and role in the narrative is nonetheless fascinating to me. the idea that the white lotus becomes more public facing after the war, leading to its detractors also growing more vocal, is genuinely interesting. the conflicts established between the white and red lotuses are genuinely compelling (to a point). but they never truly address how the white lotus kept korra locked away in a compound for the first 17 years of her life, they never meaningfully address the harm the white lotus has done to her and to the world.

like, of course korra couldn’t master airbending, the element of freedom, if she’s never been truly free. korra spent her entire life in a gilded cage, her role in the world and legacy defined for her by liberals who wanted her to be some kind of supercop instead of a genuine spiritual leader. it’s not korra’s fault that spirituality and harmony and meditation are difficult for her, she was literally denied those facets of herself for her entire adolescence. the white lotus constitute a microcosm of the ruthless neoliberal society korra encounters when first arriving in republic city. the white lotus are a metonym for the liberal identity politics centrist reformist vision of the world that lok uncritically presents as the ideal. in a better show, korra would question those systems, disavow them, and even perhaps attempt to dismantle them. korra would define her freedom of self on her own terms by realizing the ways in which the white lotus and their broader ideology has harmed her.

that said, the red lotus is also flawed. and i don’t just mean because they’re chaos-hungry terrorists who love to murder with impunity, but because they’re in the business of denying korra’s agency as a human being and not simply as the avatar. they want korra dead because they don’t believe in the role she embodies. and you know, they can want that for understandable political reasons without being completely evil about it, but obviously in a show as facile and shallow as lok, no they can’t. i think that korra’s brief pause in considering zaheer’s point of view should have lasted longer. i think that korra should have become disillusioned by the white lotus and the stipulations of capitalism (as early as book 1, frankly), and she should have genuinely considered joining them. and once she does eventually disavow them too, it’s not because of their evil commie politics, but because they’re also in the business of dictating her role in the world, and korra can’t stand to be boxed in by anyone, certainly not from people who claim to be in the business of dissolving borders.

so pretty much every villain in lok would fall under either the umbrella of white lotus operatives (whether direct or indirect) or red lotus (whether direct or indirect). people who want korra to be the world’s ultimate cop who upholds the systems that benefit them, or people who think that the avatar has no place in a truly just world, for (honestly) kind of valid reasons. the red lotus would be antagonists who work against korra’s arc of establishing her own freedom and agency, but the white lotus would be the “villains.” and the capitalist juggernauts who mistreat and exploit their workers (and their assistants and their daughters etc etc) would not be let off the hook so easily either. the neocolonial tensions in republic city wouldn’t be framed as an issue of the distant past. the issues of class and colonialism would be foregrounded alongside korra’s struggle to establish her identity. and then, perhaps, the narrative would finally cohere.

[erin-bo-berin]

can nobody see the misogyny coming through this discussion about joe keerys ex girlfriend and her dating life? about how she is in his shadow apparently and discrediting all her work because she’s been romantically involved with people more famous? sure joe or TC are more famous but literally so what? using a womans past and romantic partners as a way to insult her is misogyny. and idc if theres no explicit insulting, the whole conversation is an insult because of how negatively all of you in this joe keery echo chamber have framed her. im repeating myself at this point and im not saying any of you are misogynists but the behaviour is incredibly incredibly misogynistic. do better.

sure everybody likes to gossip but …. be for real

Like I’ve said, I just post people’s asks regardless if I agree with their opinion or not and I try to be as kind as possible. I’m not intending to come off as misogynistic at all.

[randombubblegum]

im the anon who sent the ask abt awsten and pete, thank u for answering !! I was a kid in the 2000s and mostly look back on it as a ‘scholar’ too lol so I don’t really have that frame of reference but I agree with you. I think it’s interesting to imagine what would’ve happened if tiktok existed back then bc the avenues to fame were soooo different than they are today. also I wanted to clarify, I kind of phrased it wrong in that I don’t think pete was any more misogynistic than any other guy at the time, just that he tended to be vocal about it (in interviews I’ve read/watched from that time + the book he wrote) (+he was asked a lot about women by interviews so obviously more opportunities to say the wrong thing lol) and now obviously doesn’t say those kinds of things anymore and I’m assuming that having a long term healthy relationship and kids probably contributed to it (obviously not that those things magically change someone but you get what I’m saying) im sure all the other band guys at the time were saying the exact same shit he said back then lol. tbh I feel like modern band guys are equally as misogynistic it’s just not (as) socially acceptable to say the kind of shit that it was okay to say back then lmao

ya its rly different!!! the avenues of fame and the role the internet plays in who gets “famous” have shifted so rapidly its insane. even in the last like 4 years LOL i was very much online before tiktok was ANYTHING so seeing the way its spurred online celebrity…… really fucking bad actually. actively detrimental to society and everyone living in it but thats a whole other post lol

i would say though, i dont think pete really said anything misogynistic as a common thing….?? like hed talk…. vaguely badly about ex gfs sometimes and obviously tttyg had some of the “i hate you bitch!” pop punk dude misogyny that was just all over the genre at the time. tbh the only actually misogynistic thing i can remember off the top of my head is a couple eps of some radio station talkshow called loveline(?) they did in like 2007 lol. which was stupid but also kind of a one off. idk the band scene was so RAMPANT with often violent misogyny at the time pete doesnt rly ping my radars yknow.

but yeah band dudes (and just dudes in general) are 100% exactly as misogynistic now (if not more! lol) but they just know what they can get away with saying and what they cant :) doesnt mean they treat women any better or respect them any more as people lol <3