#esp when it relies on misogyny……..

[cuntylittlesalmon]

i’m finding it really hard to take more media discourse seriously right now because a lot of it tends to be hinder by emotional fragility. the “if something make me feel this type of way (namely the escapist, or the horny) it is inherently above criticism, and any attempts to critique (even if said critique is coming from a place of endearment) is an attack on my morality” stuff.

[nothorses]

this isn't @ anyone or any particular post, but. I do find myself questioning whether it's useful to distinguish "anti-masculism" from like... misogyny and patriarchy.

maybe it's just me, but narrowing the definition of "misogyny" to just describe contempt for women, specifically, has never felt super accurate to me; the overall system of oppression being described here isn't just about a dislike of women, it's a functioning system (patriarchy) relying on, and as a product of, systemitized misogyny. It's misogyny in a dominant role of power.

And that system (as it currently exists) also requires that gender roles are strictly followed and fulfilled, including by men. It requires no deviance; no queerness and no transness. It requires that women be babymakers and caretakers and sexual gratifiers, and it requires that men be protectors and dominant breadwinners, and seek out sex. (Among other things)

I think it's helpful to expand our understanding of misogyny to include the aspects of it that necessarily impact men; it's not just the toxic masculinity that hurts others, but the system that rewards and punishes conformity to misogynistic gender roles.

"Anti-masculism" feels like it's trying to describe an aspect of this; the way this system views masculinity as brutal and violent and monstrous, especially in relation to men of color, and as a corrupting force- particularly when in contact with (whoever patriarchy views as) women.

And these things exist, and happen, but (obv) so does a mirrored phenomena for femininity; are we calling that "misogyny", to the exclusion of attitudes toward masculinity? Because I don't think it's accurate- and tbh I think it's actively counterproductive- to define that by gendered expression rather than perceived gender.

I honestly think it does more to say that these are all a part of misogyny, and to identify contempt for certain expressions of masculinity as being inherently, necessarily intertwined with other parts of misogyny. Patriarchy relies on all of these things to function, and we need to get folks to understand that challenging these attitudes toward masculinity is, in fact, a crucial part of the fight against patriarchy.

I don't think it works to say "misogyny" is an umbrella term that enconpasses all of this, and that "anti-masculism" just falls under it, either; just practically speaking, I don't think it's helpful to differentiate this particular thing as separate from similar attitudes toward femininity. It's super easy to separate the word from that context (esp without a counterpart for femininity), and while I hate having to factor in optics, I do think there's a parallel here to "transmisandry" in the possible interpretation of the word to mean that men are oppressed/misogyny doesn't exist. Even if we know that's not the intent.

And I don't think it accounts for differences between how either of these manifest for cis vs. trans people, gender-conforming vs. GNC people, straight vs. queer people, white people vs. people of color, etc.; how and why it shows up is gonna be wildly different based on whether you're being presumed more masculine or feminine because of your race, size, or disability status, or whether you're being punished for not conforming to gender expectations one way or another- which will also look different for trans people who present more in line with what's expected of their AGAB vs. their actual gender.

Also- I'm saying this here because I'm open to discussion. I feel like I've read enough about it by this point to have an opinion, but I could absolutely be lacking some crucial info, insight, or perspective, and I want folks to engage with this as a mutual conversation.

[animazi]

icl i fundamentally disagree with the 'oh the acolyte shows anakin could have left the order anyway actually so he's so much worse bc he had an easy way out the whole time' discussions I've been seeing, because, like. literally why is this even a topic of discussion? ok ok hang with me here, I'm doing a list.

there is literally nothing in the prequels that suggests this is ever an option for him. up until shmi's death he is happy with the order - most of the problems he expresses come specifically from his relationship with obi-wan not the jedi generally, so why would he want to leave. once shmi dies, sure I getcha. his mum died and the jedi have a significant hand in that, and then he immediately breaks the code and does a massacre. however, and some may have missed this, its a fairly small plot point, the clone wars begin. anakin is not only never characterised as the sort of guy who would back out of this conflict (esp since he was involved from the get go), but also there is literally no time between anything - aotc and rots take place over such short time spans, comparatively; we see quite literally All the events happening at once.

so why doesn't he quit in tcw/rots? again. there is a war on and he is directly involved. tcw shows him as having made personal connections with the clones, and if there's one thing about anakin that everyone should be able to agree on its that he sure has attachments. also, again, rots takes place over such a short span of time and he is fairly clearly not in the best place in like fucking any of it

it probably wouldn't even fix anything bro. anakin is not the central turning point of the war, not really. that's palpatine. with or without anakin palpatine still gets the war, and realistically if anakin leaves the order then war breaks out, he is going to turn to palpatine as one of the only people he is close to, and ergo probably falls anyway. maybe he doesn't kill the younglings but like. shit still happens, jedi still get order 66'd

No Please Understand One Busy And Isolated Woman Is Not A Full Support Network Stop It. ok so. padme isolation is something that I fully see in the films. I will not yap on about that now, but take it as read for this point (although. even if she has a great and healthy support network that is not the issue! you are still saying that padme, who has a very busy job and her own life regardless, should functionally drop everything to support anakin). a key part of support networks is that they are a network aka not one woman. look me dead in the eyes and think anakin and obi-wan (already not having a great communicative relationship) are still talking after he leaves. go on. try. realistically speaking once the war starts anakin is in an, if anything, worse position - his fatherbrothermentor is out there fighting and he cannot help, his wife is barely home, the senate is always busy, and he is so so jobless (again. here is where palpatine would swoop in...bro cannot win fr fr). and Again, One (1) Padme Should Not Be Responsible For Dealing With The Entirely Of Anakin's Issues. stop it.

I don't actually have a full point 5 rn I just like it when the numbers do this :3

so bonus not-quite point: tcw and the acolyte both explicitly say the jedi don't prep you for the outside world if you leave the order, transferable skills etc etc BUT ALSO does your ex-jedi have any records of employment? any space gcses or a-levels or space degrees? a letter of recommendation? are they actually skilled enough in say mechanics/engineering to be able to survive in a world where droids exist and clearly have a huge presence in those sectors? any any money to help them get a flat or smth (not applicable in anakin's case but worth saying anyway)?

in short. I don't think it's a fair point to make when criticising anakin. it relies on a really weird reading of the prequels that misses a) the war, b) palpatine, c) the inherent misogyny of putting the wellbeing of anakin, guy who is hanging on the same thread as my sanity after exam week, entirely in the hands of one woman, d) the lack of regard for how support networks are, in fact, networks, e) how fast everything happens in the prequels

[doberbutts]

hey so feel free to delete this if its inappropriate/not the right time to share it

i’m a trans woman and (obviously) i can’t get pregnant, but i did get sexually assaulted by some guys trying to show was one of them. and also having an m marker has caused issues with trying to access resources and shit.

idk this isnt the same thing and all but my point is that im standing with u as some random trans woman with vaguely parallel experiences and im sorry to hear its somehow even worse & more likely for some of yall.

I wanr to preface this with a disclaimer, to get things out of the way first.

I am not trying to say that trans women do not experience devastating sexual assaults. They do. Quite often. Though to me, even once is too often. Rape and sexual assault are terrible, awful things. It's horrible that anyone has been made to go through this.

Nor am I trying to say that your M marker doesn't get in the way of things. When it comes to the domestic violence you experience, or the homelessness rates, or a determination of what prison you go to (esp since y'all are more likely to be wrongfully accused and arrested), or the various aspects of your own reproducive healthcare, your agab and gender marker is absolutely used as a weapon against you.

The question was asked for a unique example. Unfortunately, the conversation around reproductive rights is much different for me than it is for you. But it's also much different for me than for cis women and cis men as well. Those without a functional uterus cannot get pregnant. Those who cannot get pregnant are not forcibly married off to be raped until pregnant as a means of detransition and correction. This misogyny we share with cis women.

However an added aspect of that is that if this happens after we've changed our legal documents, an additional layer of transphobia occurs when insurances and doctors see our M or X markers and deny us care out of hand. Now we are stuck with a pregnancy we don't want and constant reminder of what happened to us, or a huge medical bill with devastating financial consequences.

And that's just for those who got out safety- for those who rely on shelters, again the choice becomes detransition for safety at a woman's shelter, or struggle in silence as a man. That, we share with you, though for different reasons.

A unique interection of transphobia and misogyny specifically experienced by trans men was asked for. That is what I provided. Much like how in Crenshaw's essays one could not provide a complete understanding of "because woman" or "because black" because neither would show the full picture of "because black woman", it is not possible to describe this fully as "because trans " or "because man" because the complete "because trans man" must be provided.

I am of the opinion that there is very little "unique" about oppression- mostly that the various points of intersection change its face. In other words, I think trans men share a lot with trans women, and I don't think that's a bad thing. I also think that doesn't disclude something from earning its own name or having its own place to be talked about.

I have hesitated to post those statistics because they can so easily be twisted to say "trans women don't experience these things" or "trans men have it worse". But, a look at the graphs say the first isn't true, it just happens at a statistically less rate. The second, well, I personally don't think it's useful to quantify who has it worse. I once was in that mindset, apologizing to my mentor (an older trans woman) for complaining about my problems because obviously she had it so much worse.

She told me she doesn't like to think about it like that. For her, she would rather be raped than killed. For me, I would rather be killed than raped. Who has it "worse" depends entirely on perspective. Murder and rape are both terrible crimes to be a victim of. Rather than weighing this violence in a scale, more effort should be put into stopping it from happening in the first place. I think she was very wise. I'm lucky to have known her.

I'm sorry that happened to you. I would like to reach across the table and take your hand, to walk forward into the future together. I think we are stronger when united in this world that hates us. You are my sister. We may fight like siblings, but you're still family.

[horizon-verizon]

A Little More on Daemon, Nettles, and Rhaenyra from this last ask

Even though I also have said what I am going to say below many, many times about this thought anon presents, I will bring them up anyway, along with those links jic there are other new people reading from me:

Daemon stayed behind to kill Aemond/Vhagar when he could have run away with Nettle if he loved Nettles so much more than Rhaenyra

how if he wanted to kill her first three boys who aren't his and are before their shared boys in the line f succession, he would have at least tried once and/or he wouldn't have gone out of his way to avenge Lucerys' death through an act that would have always made him "unfit" to be seen as a ruler in his own right to other lords so it could only have been about true love for both Rhaenyra and her first 3 boys...you may argue that this was more out of pride and to hate the enemy, except you'd also have to underestimate Rhaenyra's regard for her own kids and herself as there was at one point where she was angry and kept herself at a distance form Daemon (or seemingly so) after 111 A.C. where he couldn't even be welcomed by her on Dragonstone

how it was Septon Eustace--who hates and twists a lot of shit abt Rhaenyra to make her seem "worse" through stuff and descriptors that are actually not really morally bad but are actually but sexist shit meant to diminish woman (pregnancy weight, throne cut that even Aegon I had atp, Mysaria who Daemon hadn't seen in years and point blank said was a "lying whore" with no demonstration of pretense to the most objective, then-observing maester mentioned in the Dance era, Norren)--who says Rhaenyra "allowed" the "cheating" b/t him and Mysaria...so she never "lost" her beauty or her looks or whatever, Septon Eustace simply said that to diminish her as much as he could...and you yourself, anon, buy into that fatphobic misogyny, so really should anyone trust how you reason things? Relying on misogyny and fatphobia, etc. can indicate low intellectualism or just plain stupidity (fatphobic sexism is closely related to racism as EUs used "fatness" to further impose standards of superiority through their years long processes of colonization but before such, "fatness" or really "thicker" bodies, esp amongst wealthy or nobles, was considered attractive bc it showed how you didn't have to work yourself to the bone to live as luxuriously or have any economic means)

Daemon didn't exist in the first few drafts of F&B/Rhaenyra's story...she was married to Lyonel Strong...Daemon was literally created specifically for Rhaenyra to function as one, if not one of the only, most devoted supporters and family members...yes Daemon and Laena had a good marriage and loved each other, but why exactly does that mean he "hated" the woman he literally died for? Weird.

Then there is this post of an anon who explains to the purposefully illiterate Daemon's reaction to Rhaenyra's letter and how it shows how he def loved her and very likely did not cheat on her. I also mention some of that anon's thoughts abt Daemon and the letter along with others in this post.

These are most of the arguments I and others had for Daemon having truly loved Rhaenyra AND her sons. they have circulated on Twitter and Tumblr for MONTHS now.

It can only be that anon hates Rhaenyra themselves and are projecting, hoping, praying canon!Daemon does as well instead of writing a fanfiction about it.

Even when we're talking about Rhaenyra's treatment of Nettles and how it mirrors Jezebel misogynoir shit--even if we can prove w/o a doubt that this was really Septon Eustace again muddling shit, as he also makes it seem Mysaria "bewitched" Rhaenyra, as he hated Mysaria as well--it'd still be projection. I know some people wish to believe and realize the idea that Daemon didn't love Rhaenyra as a sort of self-comfort and sticking it to the racist/misogynoirist white woman who some might have genuinely experienced in real life (I certainly have), but we really need to call a spade a spade and read with our eyes open.

And the narratively desired man sometimes loves/cares for the woman we hate or judge to be "unworthy" of any sort of love, that's just how it be sometimes.

Daemon loving either Rhaenyra or Nettles does nothing--inherently--to their worth as people. At least it shouldn't...or you'd just be buying into more sexist shit, which I suspect anon is already in as they also try to upset me.

[metanarrates]

omegaverse has such a fascinating set of assumptions by the people who consume it and specifically posit it as queer friendly because obviously the first question is queer friendly for who, and in what way? And the answer is almost always friendly for cis people, in a way that approaches gender from a cis perspective— I’ve read some/a lot omegaverse, depending on your definition of a lot, and it often ends up regurgitating the same structures of gendered oppression and bioessentialism that people who write omegaverse argue they are breaking away from. There’s a lot I find interesting about how omegaverse as a kink trope (and one whose origins are founded on junk science to begin with) Does end up exploring gender, but not in the way that its authors argue: the amount of fics that use he/him pronouns for an omega character (lol) but then always refer to said character as a wife/queen/etc., the burgeoning proliferation of omegaverse where someone’s status as an alpha or omega ends up confirming their sex (ie when I once say someone say “the brilliant idea that all omegas have pussies,” pardon the language) leading to a blurring of gender and sex where transness is ultimately unable to exist in any meaningful way (I say this as in: omegaverse in these cases often posits a world where there IS gender-related strife, but also one where the facets that determine gender are both immutable and never questioned, but never need to be), but the fantasy of something “transgressive” and yet familiar remains the main drawing point— your favorite yaoi can now have missionary sex with a pregnancy fantasy! There is also the fact that I’ve seen people often argue that omegaverse exists as a way for (cis) women to depict misogyny and oppression familiar to them in an environment that does not harm them, because now the oppression is targeted on lithe twinks, and I’m sure that’s, to an extent, true? But not to a meaningful extent, when the vast majority of omegaverse fic is porn and when it refuses to interrogate the aspects of the societies depicted that allow it to BE both escapism and exploration. I realize you did not .. like… ask for this essay in your inbox but it’s a topic I find super interesting as someone who is interested in fanfiction trends and also analysis of those trends. Haha

NO I LOVE THIS SHIT. everyone should come into my inbox forever critiquing different aspects of popular escapist fantasy because it's interesting to discuss! "fiction/fanfiction trends and analysis of those trends" is something I'm in discord servers discussing like 24/7 actually lmao

also fully agreed with what you said abt bioessentialism and transgressiveness. omegaverse is also Massively intersexist and relies a LOT on the supposed transgressiveness of bodies with both penises and vaginas in order to sell its fantasy. there's a lot of fetishization of nonstandard bodies wrapped up in there! and of course all held together with the idea that an omega body and an alpha body must exist in certain ways, and interact sexually in certain ways.

imo, it's a way to have the idea of trans, intersex, and gay people, but not actually think meaningfully about how they exist in relation to power structures. sure, everyone is gay, everyone has a body that would likely be considered intersex in our world, but in THAT world, that's just the norm, and a norm mandated by the laws of the universe at that. people are still functionally heterosexual and cisgender and perisex by the norms of the universe. is this progressive? is this really the sort of world that's safe for lgbt people to see themselves in?

i also hate the argument that it's progressive because cisgender women can process their own oppression. firstly, as you said, they don't challenge it generally, but displacing misogynist oppression onto fictional gay men is not progressive either! i have a friend who is a gnc trans gay man and we talk a lot about how fandom stuff, esp omegaverse, makes him feel alienated and fetishized by the same people who claim that it's inclusive of people like him. i think if you're writing fiction ABOUT gay men but not even attempting to consider whether that fiction is something gay men would like to read, you've gone wrong somewhere!

I will say, however, that I do think there are trans people who do like omegaverse. ive seen other nonbinary people call omegaverse "gendery!" but that doesn't mean that it IS doing anything with its gender stuff, or that it's genuinely transgressive. in my opinion, it just means that there are trans people who aren't processing that it's a fantasy of the same power structures that exist in the real world, just reinforced and with the targets shifted. and like... sure, it's nice to see yourself, or something like yourself, treated as the norm in a fictional universe. doesn't mean that it's actually good lol.

(note to all of this: I am a perisex nonbinary lesbian, and I don't feel I'm fully familiar with how this affects intersex people, or gay/trans men. if anybody thinks i'm off base, or even just wants to weigh in, they're welcome to! this is just stuff I've noticed from reading this kind of fanfiction.)

[br1ghtestlight]

my angsty bob's burgers au that's like a character study for bob and louise (specifically how they enable each other's worst traits as linda pointed out) <3

when louise is three years old, gene is five and tina is seven linda goes to pick up gene and tina from school and gets into a car accident where all three of them are killed. bob was working at the restaurant and louise was w/ him

obviously they both take it pretty hard, since bob lost two of his kids and louise lost her mom and her siblings :( bob tries to keep it together for louise & continues running the restaurant and taking care of her while struggling with grief. he doesn't want to be like his dad and emotionally shut out louise or avoid all discussion of her dead family so he really TRIES to be there for her and vunerable and talk about her siblings and mom but it's hard and louise was already not a very social kid. they end up being pretty isolated from their community and mostly keep to themselves without having any friends or family to rely on. outcast type vibes </3 very similar to norman bates and his mom in bates motel (but less incest and murder-y). but louise is DEFINITELY a daddy's girl and has a very strong connection to him (and fear of losing him)

linda's family (and especially gayle) are obviously devastated without her and don't really talk to louise or bob anymore bcuz they're just a living reminder of what they lost. gayle didn't get along super well with louise to begin with

big bob tries to be there to support bob and louise bcuz he's been where they are, but it's hard on him too, losing two of his grandkids after he already lost his wife. and without linda there to repair their relationship and keep things friendly they eventually fall out of touch w/ each other

bob doesn't really talk to people or socialize outside of the bare minimum with his customers, and louise doesn't have her older siblings to push her outside her comfort zone or anybody to look up to and emulate other than bob so she becomes a social outcast herself & the kids at her school are scared of her and think she's weird and creepy (she def leans into the personality of s1 and s2 louise a little more with the voodoo/horror type stuff. she's got serial killer vibes tbh)

louise is creepy and generally keeps to herself but she's also just mean and pushy and rude to other people. she becomes a bit of a bully esp to the weirder kids like andy and ollie without her siblings around to morally guide her and remind her to be kind. bob definitely tries his hardest but parenting and grief is Hard especially with being a single parent and there's only so much he can do..... there's a little bit of disconnect between them. so when teachers from school call bob and tell him that louise is being kinda pushy and rude to kids on the playground he's just like "well she's louise. thats how she is" and doesn't challenge her as much as he probably should esp w/ the grief and trauma in her life, he feels like he has to go easy on her and let her get away with things she otherwise wouldn't have

teddy still eats regularly at bob's burgers of course but he doesn't exactly. make conversation with bob and without linda around he doesn't feel welcomed as a friend, he's more of just a regular customer who comes around a few times a week for a burger. definitely not bob's best friend

louise was so young when linda, gene and tina died that she doesn't remember them at all by the time she's her canon age in the show. she knows she HAD siblings and she's seen pictures of them but she can't remember what they sounded like or their personalities, sometimes it freaks her out and she imagines what they would say to her if they were still around. it's just hard for her :( and especially without her relationship with linda to show her the complexity of womanhood i think she has some more internalized misogyny. a lot of mental health issues and trips to mr frond's office (which she HATES)

because linda died after louise was already in preschool she did sew louise's ears for her before she died and they're her last keepsake from her mom, so of course she wears them all the time and has an even stronger emotional attachment to them. bob's pretty good at sewing and knitting so he fixes them up for her whenever they're torn

louise got tina's bedroom (previously their shared bedroom) all to herself after they died while bob stayed in his and linda's old bedroom. gene's bedroom becomes like a weird office/storage space that they dont really use for anything they just keep some of tina and gene's old things in there like his keyboard etc. louise's closet bedroom remains a closet lmao but louise does end up with a pretty cool bedroom when she's older

louise would eventually become friends with rudy in this au because he's like the first person to show her the kindness and empathy that her siblings would have if they'd been alive, and he's not scared of her. this au would mostly be about their developing relationship and louise trying to become a more social and less.... aggresive person??

bob could probably learn something from her too. it's so hard to lose your family and losing children is the hardest thing ever but you can't stay in that grief for the rest of your life. especially when you DO have a surviving child to take care of and love as hard as that might be sometimes (he's not neglecting her or anything but neither of them really..... moved on emotionally after the accident. bob probably doesn't drive bcuz he's scared of hurting her, and he's definitely overprotective of louise because he doesnt want to lose the only person in the world he's still alive for)

probably not gonna do anything serious with this au but it's something I do think about from time to time. also on a lighter note these messages w/ @goldendoodlerlockerlove

[sleepyperefix]

The barbie movie isnt perfect but I am kinda confused as to how many people think it's anti-men. It is a feminist movie and as such among other things, it holds a mirror up showing how we as men do ourselves a disservice by relying our self worth (and by proxy form our identities) on manhood and capabilities, instead of just who we are as individuals who exist. The movie is incredibly on the nose, which at first I thought was a flaw, but then I remembered that I have seen discussions where it was obvious that those sentiments actually need to be said out loud as they not obvious to everyone. On the other side apparently it should have been more clear with how it is not anti-men but also a commentary for all genders about growing and building an identity and self worth outside your designated role and question your world.

This ended up way too long but I hope it is understandable nonetheless. I am going to generalize a lot. Obviously people are not card boards and most men who are secure in themselves have an identity beyond manhood. I am broadly comparing toxic masculinity and gender hierarchies in reality to Barbies and Kens in Barbieland. Also spoilers.

The movie touches on how men, in order to hide their insecurities, lean into their role as man and acquire/max out object-focused (esp. male connotated objects and topics as cars, STEM and technology) knowledge and skills. This is to conform to the capability and providing standards for men, to find an identity within good role fullfilment and also a place in the united/uniform male experience (perfectly seen in 'push' and in men vs. women memes) since diverging from it devalues the own claim to manhood. The good ol' toxic masculinity spiel. Men in the patriarchy cope with the responsibility of power with misogyny, highlighting the perceived gender-dichotomy and how they are just biologically more [insert positively connotated attribute, men have claimed as part of their biology]. Then they assert the claim by 'proving' to be more capable than women. They decide the rules of the game and what a worthy skill is (and for whom), which they then get trained on as early as they are toddlers through toys. It is a lose-lose cycle.

And the Barbies do something similar at the beginning. They celebrate and are named after their professions/capabilities, believed they saved girls in the real world (legacy), and let the Kens worship them. They have more natural self worth and security as Barbies by virtue of being Barbies (just like men build their individual self worth on being man and their object-focused capabilites) but are somewhat empty because they are captives of their own system and habits, never really questioning it. They deserve power and to be worshipped, because they are Barbies. However Kens, at the beginning, are supposed to be empty on the inside and focused solely outwards on Barbies. It is not even that the Barbies want them, but this is how it is supposed to be. They are accessories. Their role inherently doesnt offer worth outside of Barbie, not even in capabilities (just as the women's role often is described as worthy only in relation to men and family). When the positions switched you then see how the Kens still not having the same natural self worth the Barbies had. It is socialized and fundamental, a casualness of design in Barbie society and the Kens are just copying the structure without understanding it and still having their old socialization internalized. Leading to Ken still being unhappy, chasing the same dream, and still insecure as a prestige role needs to be nurtured into natural self worth and with that a belief of deservingness and worthy capabilities to provide and be desired.

The movie then shows how men hold themselves captive in patriarchy, in the real world this is leading to sentiments such as: "Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provide something" (Chris Rock), which was discussed as if feminism was to blame for the transactional nature of love and not the patriarchy. But then the movie also shows them that they are enough and how to escape the cycle. Accept yourself and fill yourself with self-worth by virtue of existing as an individual. It is an extremely timely message for men in a time when hustling, grinding and becoming a "high value man" is taught to young boys by influencers.

And most importantly it shows that we as humans can all be equal offenders if we have power but are emptily reproducing, insecure, and not reflecting. Ken is not an evil character. At first he is suffering from being oppressed. Not because Barbie doesnt want him, but because he isn't allowed and able yet to be anything other than the unloved and eternally competing and unsure accessory. His fault lies in going 'eye for eye' instead of for equality. Barbieland is said to be perfect but subtextually we are supposed to see that it is not. However, the Barbies are not evil either, they just don't know differently, they reproduce instead of question. This inherent human flaw is seen in them not establishing equality immediately but wanting to ease into it over time. They also are brainwashed in "seconds", because - an this is just my interpretation - they were just reproducing a (more prestige) role and an identity build on profession + role. Our main Barbie did not want to question anything either. In the real world then, men are also not inherently evil, but complicit in evil by naivety or ignorance, and with festering insecurity and lack of self-identity we have the very real potential to become toxic and alt-right. That's how they get you. They pick insecure men and give them a manual: (1) support the patriarchy and right-winged/conservative parties, (2) become capable and able to provide (dont worry, the path has been eased for you), (3) base your self worth on that, you will apear confident. Then women, who in this system have limited options, will want them and they will be powerful and worthy individuals. All in all, this message is as pro-man as feminism usually gets and supported in the movie by the men in the real world. They don't have an evil scheme to hurt someone, they even try to save Barbieland but ultimately cannot let go of their habits (almost like the Barbies) as they are ignorant and reluctant to lose power.

So no, Barbie (2023) is not anti-men. In fact, I felt more understood by this movie than by any other that sugar coats the lose-lose cycle of patriarchy. Barbie leaves at the end and that makes perfect sense. Like Frodo she has been irreversibly changed too much and and Barbieland has not. The Barbies might be capable and secure, but they are also just learning to question their world and changing it and themselves only slowly. The Kens are just starting to become secure and to find themselves outside of Barbies. The stereotypical Barbie on the other side has to go to a place where life might be worse but in the end as complex and full as she now is.

[roobylavender]

Do you agree with this statement,

"Canon doesn't apply to people just having fun. If a character is canonically gay or a lesbian, I don't think someone is a bigot if they ship them with a woman or man, respectively. Fanon holds no sway over canon. Shipping isn't activism, and AUs exist for a reason. If straight characters can be shipped with characters of the same gender, the same can happen in the other direction. People having silly stupid fun isn't a problem. Harassing people for ships instead of just blocking is."

i mean at the end of the day obv i can’t control what anyone does nor am i interested in doing so but i do think it’s weird to perceive fanonizing straight characters partaking in gay relationships, as equivalent to fanonizing gay characters partaking in straight relationships. the majority of characters across all mediums of fiction are straight. it’s considered a default setting. so when authors specifically go out of their way to canonically write a character as gay then we need to respect that bc there’s clear intent behind the decision. i do think there can be some leeway depending on the medium and authorial structure—for example, i don’t really care for tim being bisexual, because a lot of the fanon that was used to build that premise relied on narrative misogyny rather than intentional queer coding, and he’s a character written by several authors so i don’t feel particularly beholden to the ones who write him this way. but that’s also a position facilitated by the way comics work to begin with. i wouldn’t exercise the same liberty with, say, a book series written entirely by one author with a dedicated vision for each of their characters. and i esp wouldn’t exercise it if the author is gay themselves. it feels like it’s infringing on what little room they already have to write the experiences they live and personally i don’t want to do that

[izanyas]

Hi! Any opinions on how tumblr handles and talks about mental illness?

it’s bad, i can’t develop too much because i would have to share personal stuff none of you are interested in, but i think the self-dx is fine idea has gone too far. not in the “only professional opinion counts” way but in the people (esp kids) are a little too focused on labeling themselves with mental illnesses of any sort way... and focused on therapy as the be-all-end-all of how you should act re: your own insecurities or loneliness in society and everything... the more i see of this glorification of therapy the less comfortable i am, i’m someone who has very extensive experience with all sorts of therapy, therapy isn’t everything. many therapists take advantage of their patients, the history of psychiatry is ripe with racism and homophobia and misogyny and torture of many sorts. those things aren’t dead and never will be. and relying on the idea of therapy making you normal or fixing you is so weird to me... earlier i saw a post from a friend of mine saying that people who say stuff like “everyone should go to therapy” sound like they’ve joined a cult and i agree fully. i think we need to be more critical and more careful. it’s the same for any sort of medical needs. i’m only blindly trusting of my neurologist bc i know shit-all about brainwaves and stuff and how to read an mri or eeg... if she says i need to have my whole brain removed i will just nod and sign the paper

then i’m not fond at all of people diagnosing characters with mental illnesses either but that’s just me personally. idk i don’t even like acknowledging the things i have been diagnosed with i mostly focus on the symptoms and how to navigate them, idc about what it’s called. i can’t see the appeal of making a character have bpd or like randomly assigning the entire dsm on them. it feels weird and obsessive... telling me a character has ocd doesn’t make me want to know them more or less, it’s like when people say “this story is good it has a lesbian and a nonbinary character and mental illnesses” like ok but this tells me nothing at all. am i supposed to enjoy it just based on that?

anyway relying on mental illness labels to understand yourself and your personality and behavior is dangerous and can only hurt you on the long run esp if you end up using those labels as an excuse for doing hurtful or risky things. detach yourself from medical sorting when such sorting is not necessary (like to obtain treatment or medical leave etc) i feel the same about obsessive identity labels too you’re not gonna know or understand yourself any better by sticking 10 illnesses or identities under your name in a carrd

[indigoh4ze]

ok so i’m lesbian (but aromantic and non-binary, so my journey w gender/sexuality is prolly a bit different from yours), and here’s just my experience w/ comphet and fictional characters and stuff. ok, so i USED to think i had crushes on SO many guys. turns out, i’m just terrified of men bc i was very uncomfortable around them and i thought that meant i had a crush. in fact, this is very wrong. so that’s when i knew i was aromantic and sapphic. now w fictional characters, i think about fictional men sometimes. like obviously i don’t feel romantic attraction to real people, but i feel something for fictional people, men, women, or other. this doesn’t mean i’m not aromantic anymore. just like thinking im attracted to fictional men doesnt make me not lesbian anymore. the idea of “fictional men” is just too much of a grey area, since yes, they are men, but they are NOT achievable, tangible, or obtainable in any way, shape or form. you simply rely on your head. so to process an entire relationship in your head is SO much more different than irl. like many of the fictional men i thought i had a crush on turned out to be guys i wanted to act like bc they gave me gender envy. others, i still think about but don’t think too hard on it bc again, they’re fictional. comphet comes from misogyny & sexism, and even i sometimes still questioning if i’m “faking it” bc i’m not a stereotypical man hating white lesbian, or if it’s bc of ppl like y’all who keep saying you can’t feel a single thing towards men, but y’all need to realize lys is still questioning. she has NOT confirmed being lesbian. when i was still questioning, i still (thought i?) was attracted to fictional men. and that, i can blame on comphet. she doesn’t HAVE to ever stop liking these men, they’re fictional after all. she can’t put to the test how she’d feel if she was ACTUALLY in a relationship w them. y’all don’t say shit when straight girls talk abt how hot female celebs/characters are or when they literally talk about fucking them when they’re STRAIGHT, but suddenly it’s a problem when someone questions being lesbian but still talks about FICTIONAL. MEN. y’all just wanna gatekeep something that (some of) y’all aren’t even a part of, and probably make being queer your entire aesthetic and talk abt how you’re gonna get “hate crimed” (looking at y’all white folks). but to make this simple, S. T. F. U. <3

- from the same non binary lesbian anon <3

no cuz i appreciate you so fucking much thank you. you explained it so well. and for me esp, my whole thing w fictional characters is that they’re like my spurces of comfort, so imagining im w them helps me. and yes, i find them attractive, bc they’re fucking pretty??? like by all those anons logic, if a straight girl called a fictional women pretty, they’d like women. which isn’t always true. obviously. my thing is, i feel like im faking it because of the whole fictional men thing, and i also just keep second guessing my attraction towards men bc like what if i just haven’t met the right one yet? and that’s all part of comphet. and let’s be honest. this wouldn’t be happening if i was a straight girl talking about fictional women. i could talk ab this forever but you covered the important parts so, annoying anons can kindly fuck off please <3

[the-eldritch-it-gay]

I've never actually done one of these ask things before, so here's hoping I'm doing it right! For the Magnus Archives ask: Melanie (out of the podcasts you've listened to over the past decade, how does tma compare among them?)

I think at least now, TMA would be ranked top among them. I don’t actually listen to many storytelling podcasts, tbh, the other podcasts I listen/listened to are MBMBAM, Sawbones, The Adventure Zone, Critical Role, various talk podcasts or history podcasts. If it’s not #1 of all the podcasts, it’s at least up there. And I feel like that’s saying something considering that just in 2019 I’ve listened to over 72582 minutes of podcast (which is over 1/8 of all hours in the year), and that’s not counting relistening to all 160 ep of TMA uhhh 3+ times.

The Magnus Archives I really like because it’s a storytelling podcast (and it’s easier for me to listen to a story rather than read one) and also it’s a horror podcast! Like, I really like horror, but a lot of horror movies and books aren’t that great (esp since a lot have shitty things like misogyny, racism, ableism, etc) or rely on things like jumpscares/excessive gore/sexual violence to add the horror. But TMA has like, genuinely good horror? Plus there are LGBT characters and that’s a massive plus.

I think one of the things I realized is like, while there’s like, a ton of content warnings obviously when an episode upsets me it’s not because I’ve been triggered? but rather that it’s a genuinely spooky episode that taps into a fear I have. Or it’s because I feel for the characters that are going through a lot. I know that might sound like, minor or odd, but I genuinely love being able to enjoy a horror story that doesn’t trigger any of my trauma. It’s just genuinely horror and well-written stories that avoid a lot of the tropes in horror that are triggering/upsetting to me.

And I think that it’s that fact that puts it up as one of the best podcasts of the decade I’ve listened to. Also some nice voices everyone’s got. Also, I’ve never really seen a character that’s widely accepted in fanon as a hijabi, hell yeah.

(TAZ and CR might technically be like. Storytelling, I guess, but d&d is a much different medium than just writing so it feels weird to compare. I really like just. Scripted fiction podcasts. The radio plays of our era.)

[horizon-verizon]

The way Rhaegar gets hate because he “cheated” from the same people who “ship” Nettles and Daemon, another adulterous relationship. Rhaegar is a monster for cheating on his gentle, soft, devoted (and ARRANGED) wife, but suddenly y’all support Daemon cheating on his wife, a woman who lost 4 children and is mentally destroyed.

Also, according to them, Daemon groomed Rhaenyra... So you agree, Rhaenyra is his victim ? But they still want him to mock and humiliate her.

Although there are valid & rightful criticisms of Rhaegar going for someone else while married even if Elia somehow cosigned it or "forgave" him (because women vs men have different consequences for cheating AND/OR their spouses cheating)...

yes this discrepancy is too much.

So you like a Targ man cheating on one woman (who happens to also be Targ) but not a Targ man cheating on a nonTarg woman...can we really say you like women, then? Because though Elia was never a princess or royal, she's still the scion of a "Great House" and a noble, so we can't use the old Alicent-Rhaenyra trick of "different privileges" (even thought that didn't work in that context either to exonerate Alicent of wrongdoing). We couldn't say that Alicent was Rhaenyra's victim nor that Rhaenyra herself did not go through patriarchal oppression, nor argue that "who suffered more" makes a victim the more moral actor than the other. Yes, book!Rhaenyra brought about her own end by going after Nettles while using misogynoir. that doesn't remove the misogyny & the fact that she was placed in the position she was in because women, in general, are not given the grace or authority to rule in the same way as more incompetent or evil men. So why?

Because they hate Targs--but really as a way of hating Dany. So they hate women first, then anything that affirms or enables them to have more power than men, or power perceived as "more". Esp women who take it upon themselves to accrue power without relying "enough" on previous patriarchal criteria for female rule (most of what Dany gets & needs from her father is the blood claim and what not to do as a ruler and she was already younger than the dead Viserys). And Rhaegar is the sibling that she yearns for the most, to compare herslef to, to wonder what life would have been like but also his ties to the prophecy she comes in contact with, etc.

She thinks for herself constantly and is attempting to destroy one of the longest-lasting oppressive systems in the ASoIaF world, which intimidates their conservative or liberal sensibilities

she has the mightiest symbols and materials for power in this universe: dragons (perceived or acknowledged in-world) which many feel should be have been given to a male character like Jon...hence why the numerous Dany-as-Jon's-consort, Dany-is-racist-for-not-accepting-Quentyn (even though he goes for a pale girl himself, back home), Dany even losing her dragons to Euron and his dragon horn is seen as a positive plot point or her marrying him and him using her dragons...as if her dragons trust or care abt anyone other then their mother, who literally breastfed them (but then again, many fans probably hate their mothers just for existing)

there are heavy clues that she is the Azor Ahai--a principal actor to literally saves the world from ice monsters when in a more conventional fantasy world this person would be male

Elia--no woman--deserved what she got from Tywin Lannister & the Mountain (bc her rape and death are their fault. Her own brother says that often and his belief leads to his death for heaven's sake!). But Rhaenyra did not deserve to get cheated on by Daemon as she had done nothing to him PLUS there would have been heavy political consequences for her that Daemon did not get when he cheated on Rhae Royce several times. They also chose each other despite almost everyone's condemnations of it--it was not an arranged marriage.

Even if we argued she did, Daemon cheating on Rhaenyra--as a hypothetical--would have happened BEFORE Rhaenyra did anything to Nettles.

Finally, yes if we say Daemon groomed Rhaenyra, then why do we hate the victim?

[gizkasparadise]

How do you feel about Daenerys and Jon as characters in the latest season?

i was pretty ambivalent about both before the season started. i had been rooting for dany in the 1st and 2nd seasons, but then her storyline got real messy and it made me less invested in her. jon i’ve never had strong feelings about, one way or another.

fast forward to season 8

i am so! mad!! about how they’re writing/treating daenerys, esp if the leaks are true. this Mad Queen/Dany is Maybe The Antagonist angle could have been fun if it 1. had been developed properly, and 2. wasn’t rooted in complete misogyny/shitty Women Are Crazy tropes. 

it feels like they’re trying to trash her character as soon as possible, and that’s BS. ex: since WHEN has varys cared that she was a woman? it’s been multiple seasons and he’s not! once!! said anything about it. ex 2: they fridged the only woman of color, despite it not making ANY sense about how missandei was captured or identified in the first place, to make Dany more ~mad and ~unstable, which is completely gross for both characters. 

she also contributed more to the war in the north in terms of power-- she brought the armies, the dragons, etc. she lost one of her kids to save the #SuicideSquad north of the wall. without her they wouldve been completely screwed. yes, she did so the north would bend the knee-- but ultimately, she made a political promise and she followed through with it. is she a good person? not always & she’s done some terrible shit. does she deserve the iron throne? i don’t care. but at least write out an antagonist arc in a way that doesnt rely on sexist tropes to fast track through proper development.

jon im so heavily sighing over. the narrative is framing him as an Excellent Leader of Men but conveniently leaving out the fact that the last time he had a command they totally stabbed caesar!! it’s one of those things where i wouldnt mind it, but the show’s not addressing some pretty important things in terms of his characterization/history. he has zero political intelligence and would likely last 2 seconds in king’s landing before he got Ned’ed. but the show is treating him like he’d be a 1000% better ruler than Dany and that just doesn’t make sense. 

blech. i guess it could be summed up as this: if you’re constantly telling and not showing, it’s not good bro

[gothhabiba]

Hi Miss Najia, I've always loved your energy and confidence. Have you ever been shamed for owning your talents and gifts? Esp regarding your looks. I've found that if I say anything other than "thank you" to a compliment, it really rubs ppl the wrong way. It's like... Sometimes I AM dazzlingly gorgeous and I know it! I think it's bc ppl believe women's value is tied to their looks and it's a power move when men think they're reminding you of it.

(Compliment anon) I'm sure some blowback is radicalized for you as well, like white ppl think they're doing you a favor or something. I'm sorry about that.

my standard response to men complimenting my appearance is “I know” (because I’m not about to... thank them) & generally they act very charmed by it & then go on to compliment that attitude... I’ve only ever had one guy act taken aback & I remember it because it was such a strange occurrence for me. either way this always occurs in the context of street harassment or men I’ve been introduced to about twenty seconds before, bc I don’t interact with men voluntarily, so whatever reaction they have to it it doesn’t impact me for very long. & most of the men who hit on me are men of colour anyway but there’s a whoooooole weird set of politics attached to that. I’m quite sure that you’re right about the ‘rationale’ behind men being affronted when their ‘compliments’ aren’t met with adequate gratitude in general but it’s just not an experience that I’ve had personally.

regarding things other than looks, I do act very much aware of what my strengths are irl & the responses to it are very varied. I get a lot of woc telling me that it’s given them confidence, it’s inspirational, &c. I get a lot (a LOT) of mostly white people telling me (or telling other people behind my back) that I’m intimidating. I get a lot of people acting impressed by me in a way that suggests that they’re unfavourably comparing themselves to me, which is uncomfortable & I hate the way that things are set up such that everything is a competition... I think that when people are affronted by me knowing who I am a lot of it is racialised misogyny but a lot of it is also a lack of confidence & feeling threatened by the fact that someone has worked thro’ something that they haven’t been able or willing to work thro’ themselves. I’ve also gotten called ‘pretentious’ on here a lot but I’m not sure what that means or what it is that I’m meant to be being pretentious about; I think it’s just [see above]. basically yes I do think that people start getting very twitchy when a woman (esp. a woman of colour) doesn’t appear to be relying on external validation [woman_shrugging_emoji]

[misterbitches]

here’s what confuses me. we are on a public platform and people are posting things, tagging them, and even just perusing. ostensibly to be heard and get engagement. that’s how the internet works and what it encourages. so when people put something out there especially when they make it localized (? is that a right word) for access, why is the critique or response, even if it’s unfavorable, now a problem? we put it out there and it exists, if someone stumbles upon it why wouldn’t they engage? otherwise, why bother with all this output? i mean not many people read my posts but it’s a good thing for me to have them because what i do write it helps me understand the world better and something mainstream in ways it could be better and what could be done to get away from it. helping understand the context and history of the problems i am seeing on screen in many diff ways. but i do make it seen for a reason. i have drafts or posts privately that are just for me that i don’t think others should see so that means i do not want that engagement and i am closing it off. 

it isn’t like people can’t see it and respond if they so choose  bc this is basically a tacit agreement of having this in public. so if you have an opinion and someone disagrees why would that be hard for you if you are the one who put it out there? we know how this website works and how the web works. do we just want to hear what we agree with or even just know? otherwise i wouldn’t know shit. even with my best friends we try and come to a form of understanding and get on the same page or ask questions. i don’t get upset when they say, “no, because” or introduce a new perspective and this happens with the people i am closest to. so on a public place what else would we get? we allow ourselves to be seen...

i don’t think i have blocked anyone but i know people have blocked me and it has been for probably me being annoying but still fairly innocuous when i reply with a critique or make a joke. you take this risk posting it every time. but i dont want to block people because they could be of value at some point even if i want nothing to do with them. but every time it so happens that i say something even a little off from what this person wants—and it’s generally when i go into things in detail—they shut down from the perception that i am being hateful or accusatory or unfair? even when i try de-escalation tactics or being like “calm down” (not that explicitly) so these seem to be very emotional responses to not hearing exactly what we want and knowing there’s objection when there should be anyway. even if pieces are damn near perfect there’s still something. i find it very hard to believe that there’s intense pain enacted on others for liking “unsavory” things when the “unsavory” is the mainstream and it is necessary to uphold these things and for capital to continue to produce what it does. you’re not different when you accept it into your life either critically or uncritically because that is the norm. so when people are knocking the norms, tropes, whatever it’s like a shock every time and like someone is telling you not to enjoy it. but, again, we put this shit out there and want a response so it cannot be just what we want to hear. i hate that i hate the idea that wanting a  work to be better and seeing shit critically even as a leftist or whatever is oppressive and limiting other ppl when it is in no way the same or even on par with being silenced in general because of the garbage you find in a work. you will still be the minority and it will still be popular so there’s a false sense of superiority put onto others who disagree by the ones who feel “attacked” or like they can’t defend themselves or whatever. and who fucking says? if some random says so like oh well man. you cannot compare it to the real shit these fans do and the massive fanbases they have and the shunning they love to do then feel as if they are priority in feelings.

 they say everyone is sensitive and not able to think about things with nuance but it’s the opposite most times. you aren’t and when someone pops up with it or even says something offhanded cos they dont feel like having a huge discussion that is not the same as pushing others down. there is no majority saying this is wrong and we don’t want it; there’s a majority dedicated to defending it, their choices, and frankly the false sense of even light persecution. especially as adults but in fandom you’re not encouraged to act as a fully fleshed out person for a majority reasons and esp in a fandom that will skew younger. they are reliant on rabid fans or uncritical ones and i have demonstrated that constantly and given quotes etc. we should talk about discourse and what the private owes to the public, what the state owes its viewers, what artists owe the people tuning in. we should talk abou tfreedom of speech forreal and what that means but if we go deep into that you’ll unveil more things you dont’ like how people absolutely rally against this shit and want nothing to do with it. if you don’t want to think about that that is fine but it doesn’t mean others won’t say it.

idk like it may seem insensitive but i dont like the idea that a person pointing out things that are gross or micro or macro agrressive or what the fuck ever is the ruler over the discourse and how people interact with the work when frankly that just isn’t the case in the pattern of the work that people do and utilizing fans and using capital to defend yourself and recreate industry. you may not like to hear that it’s all bullshit but people will say so and it holds not even close to the same weight that the tacit agreement in indulging can sway  us towards not great perceptions. the harm of pointing things out, or being rude, or whatever is not the same as what fans will do to those people and the obfuscation of the real fucking issue. 

now it’s no longer about the problems in itself but the way people are receptive to the way others respond when they have a problem with the very real and prominent problem. now there’s no interest in engagement or even seeing people who may have more to say to it. if we think constantly about defending our right to like a work then the work takes ona life of its own and it latches on to your emotions even more it’s so fucking silly bc it’s like....this shit isnt for us anyway and if it’s gonna be here we should make it better and talk about it but it’s not about that it’s not about the rapes it’s not about the culture it’s about personal feelings which is why it becomes about how we talk about it as if things that ever skew to the left or focus on liberation would ever be the most popular. since when did saying this is fucking bullshit, this shit sucks, this real “crime” means nothing because it’s just entertainment yet you must find ways to defend your right to see that entertainment. it makes no sense no one is talking about that we’re talking about the ins-and-outs of storytelling and the toxicity and nature of these REAL PROBLEMS THAT ARE PROBLEMS SINCERE PROBLEMS as in there is no negotiation in wrong or right because it is wrong in every sense it’s what you do with that wrongness and what the fuck you want to say. it’s not about what i say about them being fucking shitty about the way they say it. dont focus on the way i dislike it focus on what the fuck im saying man bc this shit is disingenuous and it COMPLETELY eclipses the issues and attitudes and it lets these fucking idiots off the fucking hook for making straight up garbage like not even in a sociopolitical way just thoughtless drivel sometimes. like most times i dont even hate the villains in these shows or the men who are o dark and fucked up but we still got to like them it’s literally like “no nigga like why r u here tho?” what do u fucking add. you’re dead space and they let us know it’s dead space by saying “oh man isn’t life SOOOO complex dont think about it just think about him being a nice rapist okay guys even tho we are gong to do NOTHING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to establish fucking any of that” 

this is what people said for tharntype and it’s what they say about fucking everything whether it’s about gay shit or not. good example is the star wars fans with that guy and that girl or wahtever in that stupid racist franchise. just clamoring to make sure we know you’re good and that you’re okay for thinking that way when no one says you aren’t. but if something is presented then expect to get a fucking response especially abut what it is about at its fucking core. enough of the bullshit about misunderstanding and acknowledge it’s about your comfort in your interests and not having that questioned or antagonized in a way that may implicate you are a bit complicit but fucking all of us are as consumers. you arent hurt for having an opinion that seems to not go with the flow but is certainly part of the status quo. the world relies relies on harm, in a way it is reliant on rape, and that permeates through us and always takes precedent. additionally, again, this shit is mad patriarchal so it does a disservice to us as well as women cos it’s like. no man that’s born out of misogyny actually. what can we do? well, dont rely on the state. but if you dont rely on the state then will you make real money? not the money we’re talking here with the genre in itself. to me that means they dont have an interest in showing different types of lives they have a majority interest in showing “attractive” “conventional” men kissing and making bank.