#don't... also.... sometimes depict men just as inaccurately as men depict women?

[mermaidsirennikita]

the worst take in romance is that it's one of those "women's spaces" and "for women, by women" because

a) never been true; historically, many men have written romance under "feminine" pen names, and still do--also, the publishing industry was and still is largely run by men, and no matter what editors and writers do, that MATTERS

b) the reality is that this idea has usually meant "for [cishet white] women, by [cishet white] women"; trans, NB, and basically all people of color have been shut out by and large for YEARS in romance, and still make up small minorities of the amount of traditionally published writers in the genre... it's PROBABLY better in indie, but I don't have the data for that

.... so let's not kid ourselves, the genre has been shutting out MANY women for a very long time; it's never been a space that's welcomed women who aren't cis and white, and frankly women who are publicly queer, as it should

c) I don't mind reading M/M, for example, written by women, at all--but it is kinda (a lot) messed up the M/M is a significant category in the genre and is, by and large, written by women, and apparently lots of female readers don't feel like the existence of M/M, MMF, etc is intruding on a woman's space

d) romance is literally about falling in love, something that anyone of any gender can potentially relate to

e) women write a ton of misogynistic shit that I don't feel relates to my experience as a woman... at all...

f) there is not a universally female experience that a female writer can just inherently understand that a man can't, and frankly, I think it's rather reductive and gender essentialist to pretend there is one

[olderthannetfic]

I'm having difficulty with trying to place some of my fandom's feelings about misogyny in our source materials, GoT and HotD. On the one hand, I can understand how as women, we may not want to be confronted with the pitfalls and dangers of misogyny in the real world in a fantasy story with dragons, but on the other hand, it isn't like GRRM discusses misogyny in the books without tact. Margaery, Sansa, Cersei, and now Rhaenyra all have complicated relationships with gender and power in their own storylines that make sense in the context of the world. And GRRM doesn't shy away from showing the dangers of masculinity, either. Like, how mens' prides can doom themselves, their families, and entire nations, how most of the ones who die in battle are the poor foot soldiers who are usually men. Even how some men, in their pursuit of perfection/reinvention through their sons, harm the rest of their family, like Tywin. Or how there are men who use others that he thinks are weaker than him (sex workers, women, children, the poor) to feel bigger and more important, but their harm doesn't actually improve themselves, so they repeat cycles of hurt.

I don't think people are inaccurate in saying there is misogyny in the books, but this misogyny is purposeful and not accidental. Idk, to me pointing out how Cersei thinks misogynistic things about other women is like pointing out there's racism or homophobia in a Baldwin novel... yes, that's the point. Do you or others think that there's a disconnect between audiences of fantasy and mainstream? Like, with some people just wanting fun escapism but being reminded of the real worldvs. people who just want the story as-is. Because sometimes it sounds like when Anglophone westerners try to make "feminist" retellings of myths like The Iliad about Helen or Briseis, when all it ends up doing is proving that maybe Homer was more conscious of the realities and perspectives of women than they gave him credit for, or that they missed the point of Helen's story to begin with. Sometimes I think modern reviewers/critics get so caught up in pointing out every societal ill without context of the work, that we present discussions of these ills as failing of the work. Any thoughts?

--

A lot of "feminist" retellings are junk that misses the point of the original, sure, but the complaints I've heard about GoT are mostly about "But it's realistic though!" bullshit, particularly about the show rather than the books.

It's realistic for women to face sexual violence. It's also realistic for men to face it. It's also realistic for women to have nice lives.

This is fiction: everything someone chooses to put on page or on screen was just that: a choice.

I haven't consumed any of these canons. In the books' case, I hadn't heard of them back when I read fantasy doorstops by men. I no longer do that unless it's a queer book.

The show broke one of my cardinal rules: female full frontal without equal or greater male full frontal presented equally sexily and GOD DAMN shaved pubes that 1. don't make sense and 2. aren't equally common on men.

I'll watch a rule of horny show, but not if it's aimed at someone else's libido.

--

In the horny premium cable with sex and gore realm, I did watch the first season of Spartacus. That show was campy trash in many ways, and far less critically acclaimed, but it managed to show vastly more male full frontal and a really sensitive depiction of sexual coercion of a big, manly dude and what it did to him emotionally.

Lucy Lawless' horrible slave owner character was fantastically interesting and also shaped by misogyny and the expectations that she was only valuable for bearing an heir. All kinds of awful things happened in that season, but the only time I got the feeling we were there to gawk at tragedy porn or naked bodies, it was men on the receiving end.

--

People see GoT as neutral because they're so used to only seeing media that is by and for straight guys who are used to fapping to women's crying faces and calling it realism.

I can't speak to the books. From what people have said, they sound marginally more thoughtful than the show but still firmly in the Old Guy SFF tradition where "historical realism" upon which one builds one's dragon fantasy realm means abused women, not third gender priests or Muslim travel writers or any of the other underused historical shit you could pull from.

I'll give GRRM that many of the other cliched books are stealing from him and not vice versa, but this trend is more than old enough to predate A Song of Ice and Fire, which wasn't published till 1991.

So no, I don't think it's about escapism. I think it's about being bored of the same old, same old.

[rainbowsky]

Hello RBS,

I really love your blog, my daily routine is to check your updates before I go to sleep 😍

I have sent you many anonymous questions about ggdd before and you have answered them diligently.

This is going to be a personal ask - Do you think gay men and straight women make such great friends as shown in American movies?

Hi Anon, thanks, I'm glad you're enjoying my blog! I hope my ramblings don't give you nightmares! 😅

American TV/movie depiction of queer men is overall very offensive. It's awful, fake and totally glosses over the reality of how homophobic even liberal Americans often are.

Yes, straight women and queer men can sometimes make natural allies/friends. Straight men usually make shitty friends to women, because there's almost always going to be a time when he tries to get her into bed. Straight men will often 'befriend' straight women in the hope of converting the relationship to a romantic or sexual one. With gay men, this is a total non-issue. It makes it easier for trust to take root and grow.

Gay men often enjoy friendships with straight women because women are not afraid of emotions, and there's much more freedom to break out of gender role stereotypes with women than with men.

Gay men and straight women also don't have to deal with the typical competitiveness that often exists in same sex friendships, which makes it easier to just relax and enjoy each other's company. Over time they can often develop strong sibling-like bonds that enrich both of their lives.

HOWEVER.

The depiction of gay male/straight female friendships in popular media should not be taken as reality. Those depictions often serve a heteronormative or even homophobic purpose.

It's not that depictions are necessarily always inaccurate, it's just that the depictions that are chosen tend to be very narrow and specific, and tend to perpetuate and reinforce certain stereotypes. The more these specific depictions are presented, the more the audience starts to perceive them as 'typical' when in fact they are not.

Think of all the minority group depictions in media, and how they tend to artificially narrow the public's perception of what that group is like. Muslim terrorists, greedy or comedic Jews, gang-affiliated black people, South Asian cab drivers. All these depictions are bigoted because they perpetuate harmful stereotypes and present them as representative of the group.

In that same sense, yeah, there are gay men who enjoy being 'one of the girls' in a group of women - getting manicures and facials and going shopping. Yeah, there are gay men who enjoy giving fashion advice and being a shoulder to cry on. Yeah, there are gay men who want to get married and have kids. But that by no means is representative of what gay men are typically like, or of what these friendships are typically like.

These depictions present gay men as empty, emasculated, 2-dimensional caricatures that exist only as an accessory to straight women's lives, which reinforces the widespread perception that gay lives are shallow and superficial, and that their needs/interests are subordinate to straight ones.

What does anyone walk away thinking about gay people after watching a depiction of them in mainstream media? That we are just sassy Ken dolls who are there to boost and serve straight women. It's not at all unlike how female characters often only exist as a narrative device to fulfill the story of the straight male protagonist.

All this trash also helps perpetuate the misogynistic, homophobic idea that gay men aren't 'real' men, that they are essentially just hairy women. It helps reinforce heteronormativity by depicting gays as wanting to live out the standard heteronormative fantasies - the house, the two kids, etc.

I've talked a lot about homophobia and gender role BS in the past, so I'll just give you some of those posts.

DD being into skateboarding and motorcycles must mean he’s straight, right?

Feminization of GG in Fan Fiction

Drag, Gender Identity and Queer Culture

Homophobia and oversexualization in the fandom

In general, if it's on mainstream TV you should question it. Any depiction of anyone, not just gay men. It's all written to appeal to and reinforce mainstream social standards, expectations and conceits. It's not there to show you how things really are.

And I feel the need to add - I'm not an expert on gay men and their relationships just because I'm gay. That's kind of the entire point, right? There exists a wide, broad, diverse range of people who have different personalities, values, interests and approaches. Therefore my views are not a representation of anyone other than myself.

[badlydrawnarsenelupin]

what kind of hanfu would you envision lupin wearing :3c

// Hello anon, first of all: thanks for sending something so catered specifically towards me (designing useless alternative outfits for my blorbos). Second, I just want you to know that this was one of the most redraw-heavy, hair-pulling, triple-digit-layers experiences you've sent me on. Also lots of reading and research, which I am now going to make you read.

There's a lot of different styles of hanfu depending on the eras, the three main, popular styles these days are from the Tang, Song and Ming dynasties. There's more but you don't need to know about them here lol.

The ones I've drawn here aren't like.... super historically accurate but more of a mix of modern hanfu + Lupin-vibes for the✨aesthetics.✨

This is called Feiyu-fu/飞鱼服 from the Ming dynasty, which translates to 'flying-fish uniform' for its depiction of the Feiyu/飞鱼 in the embroidery. It's not actually a fish but a dragon-like creature, with wings and a fish-shaped tail (guess why it's called flying-fish lol). It's one of the more popular types you see in modern hanfu because it's just really elaborate and cool looking.

Speaking of elaborate, here's a closer look at my suffering!

Historically, Feiyu-fu was one of the type of clothing to be bestowed upon people by the emperor. There's like different tiers depending on the embroidery, the dragon or the Long/龙 is like exclusively for the emperor and then following that in order of tier are: Mang/蟒, Feiyu/飞鱼, Douniu/斗牛, Qilin/麒麟 etc. Those guys, unlike the Long has 4 or less claws instead of 5. If it's confusing, don't worry about it, they're basically different types of mythical "dragon-like" creatures.

There's a whole culture of gifting these specially embroidered clothes (from the imperial court to court officials, nobles, foreign royalty etc.) and it's pretty prestigious to get one. I found it fitting for Lupin since:

it's very lavish and opulent, also high-status

seems very much like the type of thing Lupin would somehow get his little thief hands on✨

unrelated but the two white stripes down the front on aren't a thing, I made it up for style + to add the lupine flowers on it (although they kind of look like wheat??? I tried my best ok)

Okok so fun fact, later in the Ming period, the Feiyu started to not be depicted with wings for some reason, and it became really really hard to differentiate it from the Mang, so some people just started wearing their Feiyu as a Mang... because it's a higher tier and second only to the emperor's Long-clothings. I just think that's funny and it reminds me of Lupin lmao.

Here's a more casual style with the Feiyu-yesa/曳撒 robes + a zhaojia/罩甲 on top!

So the flower here on the zhaojia is the plum blossom, or meihua. It's known as one of the four "gentleman-ly" flowers along with, orchid, bamboo and chrysanthemum (梅兰竹菊).

I thought the gentleman-ly theme was fitting for Lupin... although the four flowers' symbolism is more for strictly pure, noble and righteous characters.... That's ok, it's how Lupin thinks of himself anyways psh

Close-ups for the long-hair enjoyers. The little thing he's wearing is called fa-guan/发冠, it's basically a little crown-like thing that's used to hold up hair, sometimes coupled with a cloth/ribbon. The version on the right is a style very commonly seen in cdramas these days but it's historically-inaccurate... it looks cool though lol.

More details! These are called hebao/荷包 and they're basically little pouches to store things in, like money or handkerchiefs. They can also be used to carry fragrant herbs/perfume. They can also gifted from young women to men they like :^))))

For alternative hanfu styles, I think something like the modern Tang dynasty-inspired hanfu would fit Lupin as well... they're more flowy and with larger sleeves that you can hide stuff in... They look best in motion! An example from those videos of skateboarding hanfu guys.

Alright that's finally done! I'm going to go and pass out for the next 10 hours _(┐ 「ε:)_

[mixelation]

As an obnoxious artsy computer science academic, I can't stand a lot of sci-fi lmao. Most ppl tho don't care even if they're told it's completely wrong. I was wondering if you have any arguments for well scienced fiction other than mine, which is that it offends me, specifically

unfortunately i'm PRETTY MUCH LIKE THIS TOO. i really like biology so sometimes when scifi gets it drastically wrong i'm like. nooo not my baby......!

but the things that annoy me on like, the level where i think there's potential societal harm:

the way scientists are depicted in fiction is often just, like. actively anti-science, or otherwise make scientists unsympathetic in a way that makes people see them as like.... well, underrepresented demographics are more likely to go into STEM fields when they've experienced stories about scientists like them (ie, "humanizing" stories where people learn scientists are just people with a job, esp stories about scientists who are marginalized themselves in some way-- scientists of color, women, disabled scientists, first gen, etc), PLUS people are more likely to engage in good faith with science communication if they think they're just other people with jobs

popular media that misrepresents aspects of science often fuels popular misunderstandings that can lead to huge negative effects, i.e., Jaws depicted wildly unrealistic shark attacks and led to real human affects on sharks (no i don't really remember the specifics bc it's late and i've had two glasses of wine). or you get stuff like people WILDLY misunderstanding wolf social structures and then getting weird AF about it.... or misunderstandings of how gene editing or mutation works from the overwhelming scifi tropes that are just Wild In A Wrong Way

introducing biological determinism as an excuse for unacceptable behavior. this is like people who defend men harassing women as, like, their biological imperative to spread their seed, or people listing scientific "facts" as a reason for discrimination ("facts" in quotes because they're basically all bullshit or a misunderstanding)

sometimes popular depictions of how things work causes people to make dangerous IRL decisions. i'm specifically thinking of medical emergencies, but also sometimes tropes related to various types of natural disasters or characters doing funky physical things that would kill you IRL.

this isn't related to any ethical questions but like. i just think it brings an extra layer of cool when fictional is well-scienced???

oh!!! actually i REALLY HATE tropes that revolve around the way science is being conducting on screen as like. 100% deterministic, like, "we did the science and we are 120% sure how this DNA sequence translates into phenotype, and any dissent is proven to just be another person being a worse scientist." science is an ongoing moving target and people disagree constantly and basically no discoveries are the work of a single genius, and i'm just bored with fiction depicting it this way and making ppl outside of STEM fields think science works like this. see point one

obviously i don't think individual works need to be 100% scientifically accurate, especially if it's just one writer or a small team, and it's fun to have wild and impossible things in fiction, but certain trends across media particularly bug me. the major ones are 1) tropes re: medical treatments being misrepresented in ways that could get someone killed if copied IRL, and 2) people being completely uncritical of scifi tropes/motifs that are like two steps away from eugenics.

i don't think it's the responsibility of an individual creator to educate or explain all the Bad And Inaccurate things in their writing, ESPECIALLY if it's aimed at adults who should have their own education & critical thinking. but it's just like..... some patterns/trends and the way they interact with the overall zeitgeist are really frustrating

[evangelineartemiasamos]

Just wondering: why should the term homosexual be avoided? I'm sure there is a good reason but I don't understand it. Thank you!

Here are some quotes and links: From GLAAD

Offensive: “homosexual” (n. or adj.)Preferred: “gay” (adj.); “gay man” or “lesbian” (n.); “gay person/people"Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word “homosexual,” it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using “homosexual” except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using “homosexual” as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word “gay.” The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term “homosexual” (see AP & New York Times Style).Offensive: “homosexual relations/relationship,” “homosexual couple,” “homosexual sex,” etc.Preferred: “relationship,” “couple” (or, if necessary, “gay couple”), “sex,” etc.Identifying a same-sex couple as “a homosexual couple,” characterizing their relationship as “a homosexual relationship,” or identifying their intimacy as “homosexual sex” is extremely offensive and should be avoided. These constructions are frequently used by anti-gay extremists to denigrate gay people, couples and relationships.As a rule, try to avoid labeling an activity, emotion or relationship gay, lesbian, or bisexual unless you would call the same activity, emotion or relationship “straight” if engaged in by someone of another orientation. In most cases, your readers, viewers or listeners will be able to discern people’s sexes and/or orientations through the names of the parties involved, your depictions of their relationships, and your use of pronouns.

Source

More

The term homosexual can be used as an adjective to describe the sexual attractions and behaviors of same-sex oriented persons. Author and gay pioneer Quentin Crisp said that the term should be “homosexualist,” adding that no one says “I am a sexual.” Some gay people argue that the use of homosexual as a noun is offensive, arguing that homosexual people are people first, homosexual being merely an attribute of their humanity. Even if they do not consider the term offensive, some people in same-sex relationships may object to being described as homosexual because they identify as bisexual, pansexual, or another orientation.[1]

Indeed, some style guides recommend that the terms homosexual and homosexuality be avoided altogether, lest their use cause confusion or arouse controversy. In particular the description of individuals as homosexual may be offensive, partially because of the negative clinical association of the word stemming from its use in describing same-sex attraction as a pathological state before homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders in 1973.[2] The Associated Press and New York Times style guides restrict usage of the terms.[3]

Same-sex oriented people seldom apply these terms to themselves, and public officials and agencies often avoid them. For instance, the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington’s Glossary for School Employees advises that gay is the “preferred synonym for homosexual”,[4] and goes on to advise avoiding the term homosexual as it is “clinical, distancing and archaic”:

Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adjective). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, ‘homosexual’ is considered derogatory and the terms ‘gay’ and 'lesbian’ are preferred. Homosexual places emphasis on sexuality and is to be avoided when describing a person. ’Gay’ man or lesbian are the preferred nouns which stress cultural and social matters over sex.[4]

The New Oxford American Dictionary,[5] says that “gay” is the preferred term.

Likewise, the use of homosexuality to describe human sexual behaviors between people of the same sex may be inaccurate, although it is not perceived as being as offensive as homosexual.[citation needed]

People with a same-gender sexual orientation generally prefer the terms gay, lesbian and bisexual. The most common terms are gay (both men and women) and lesbian (women only). Other terms include same gender loving and same-sex-oriented.[2]

Among some sectors of homosexual sub-culture, same-gender sexual behavior is sometimes viewed as solely for physical pleasure instead of romantic. Men on the down-low (or DL) may engage in covert sexual activity with other men while pursuing sexual and romantic relationships with women.

source

As this is just a word we can easily avoid using it. Though I do wonder if this is an issue in other languages as well. Homosexuell doesn’t seem to have stigma for official use in Germany, but the media can be very ignorant of sensitive issues.