#feminist podcast

[mentallyamagpie]

Hey you! Do you need a break from audio fiction because that’s what it seems like everyone listens to here?

I like this one nonfiction podcast Unladylike. Read my review to find out why. Or don’t. Just listen I guess.

Or don’t. It’s fine. It’s your life. I just really love it and want more podcast friends.

[aleespace]

Alright but imagine we do get a Johnlock kiss in the podcast and it will be super cute and all and after that John will be "I think we need to cut this part out, I mean our listeners here for the true crime right?" but of course he will forget to cut it out and then everyone on Twitter will be congratulating them on their kiss and in the next episode John will be "Okay, um... apparently I forgot to cut that part... oopsy-daisy! But it won't happen again!"

And then it will happen again.

[stayathomegirlfriends]

Hello girls, gays, and theys of Tumblr! Are you in need of two loving gay aunties to share some wise words and help you feel less alone?

We are Cam and Gabriella, a couple of girlfriends who stay at home, and we just started a podcast aptly called Stay at Home Girlfriends. It's an advice podcast and a positive queer and also female-focused (though ALL are welcome) community and we'd love you to be a part of it!

Click the links below to check out our latest episode! I think you'll be glad you did 🥰

Listen on Spotify here:

Listen on Apple here:

OR watch us on YouTube here:

And click here to check out our socials or submit an advice request!

Hope to see you on the other side and remember you yourself as much as anyone in the entire universe are deserving of your own love and compassion! 💜

[fictionadventurer]

I think I have accidentally become very protective of the story of Snow White.

[strangekindstudio]

"Someone shot Clover. But Clover’s still alive. Luck. Heels. And a bridge by the river. She searches for her Somewhere on the perilous road to Nowhere."

CLOVER is a full cast, cinematic, feature-length prologue episode of KIND: An LGBTQ+ Mythical Noir Audio Drama. Listen now at your preferred podcasting network!

Strangekind Studio is a not-for-profit creative collective. We present cinematic, full-cast audio dramas that subvert tropes and challenge genre conventions. Our aim is to spotlight characters who are part of the intersection, including characters who are LGBTQ+, disabled, neurodiverse, and BIPOC.

Our first season, KIND: An LGBTQ+ Mythical Noir Audio Drama, is currently in production and due to premiere in October 2024. You can check out our podcast and social media HERE.

Poster art by Eva Monique

[fromtheseventhhell]

Sansa and Alicent stans acting like people dislike them because they're feminine, when ninety percent of all Westeros women dress and act feminine, in fact it's a cultural and societal requirement expected of Westeros noblewomen. If the fandom has no problem with the rest of the traditionally feminine characters but hates Alicent and Sansa, then femininity isn't the problem here.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, not everybody in this fandom is constantly sorting female characters into "masculine" and "feminine" categories. It's incredibly misogynistic to do so and ignores that they're fleshed-out, complex characters. The majority of Dany, Arya, Cersei, Brienne, Rhaenyra, etc stans don't consider them to be masculine, that's just something their antis came up with to portray them as "lesser" female characters. When this fandom talks about "femininity" they mean it in a patriarchal context and, shockingly, there are some of us who can enjoy their characters outside of misogynistic standards. No one dislikes Alicent or Sansa for being feminine, because that isn't their only character trait (and only their "fans" think it is). Now if you want to talk about the traditional standards they hold as a byproduct of adhering to traditional feminity, that's another thing. But saying that people dislike Alicent's misogyny towards Rhaenyra or Sansa's classism towards Arya because they're "feminine" is just hilarious.

[memento--moray]

As someone who engages a lot with fantasy/sci-fi/horror media, one of the worst tropes I see again and again is the "this entire group of people is inherently evil".

The fact that it's so easily accepted, particularly in DnD and related environments, is deeply unsettling, particularly because of how much of it stems from racism (and other "isms"). Beyond the horrible implications of this concept, it makes stories far less nuanced and interesting.

I much prefer stories where evil is something on a societal or individual basis rather than inherent, since it allows us to explore why this evil came about. Exploring how propaganda, tradition, dogma, ect., might shape a society is far more interesting than just going "they're all born evil".

This certainly is not limited to DnD, just as someone who runs modules to practice encounter balancing, and has run 5e for people used to the rigid alignment system of earlier editions, you get reminded of this quite a lot in that space. There's a bunch of people talking about New Phyrexia in similar contexts, and while I don't feel like I know enough about the story to toss my hat into the ring, I will always be an advocate for nuance. Particularly when a lack of nuance means that "this group is inherently evil" accidentally ends up demonizing aspects of a very real group of marginalized people (as it often does).

Again, much more informed people than I have talked about this subject at greater length. All I can say as someone who's been in the fantasy/sci-fi/horror space for pretty much all of my life, I feel like there's certain standards that we really shouldn't accept as such, since they really don't have to be. In most cases, stories are more interesting when nuance is involved.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Stuff You Should Know episode description: We're gonna talk about roller derby and women's rights! Me: Uh-oh. Episode: There was a lot of misogyny in the early days.

Episode: For example, there was a large woman, and the announcer said "she was the size of Rhode Island"

Me: yeah it's not like there's any field of sports where men's size is regularly emphasized

Me Or any men in male dominated sports who are famous for their size.

Seriously, I'm not even an American football fan, and my first thought was "what about the fridge?"

[lindsaynichols]

I just finished listening, for the second time front to back, to @camlannpod — a Welsh, post-apocalyptic, queer, intersectional, #feminist, fictional #podcast about three friends and a dog exploring identity, mental health, and Arthurian legend. The story is completely original and utterly hopeful, the soundscape is lush and bright, the acting is brilliant and award worthy, the music gives me chills — all told, it’s simply, impossibly gorgeous. Possibly the best scripted podcast EVER. I highly, highly recommend! Thank you Ella Watts and Amber at Tin Can Audio. I hope Camlann’s home fires burn for a LONG time.

[zombified-queer]

Imagine how good butch4butch Manager/Hotel could be.

[absolutebl]

BL & Critical Analysis

Pop culture critique & a how to do it... or something

This meaty question came from the lovely @huachengeye Thank you!

Codicil: I do not get paid for pop culture critique (although I once wrote book reviews professionally, long story). So I’m entirely a dilettante. 

The Question!

Q1: Can you can shed some light on your process (of critical analysis)

This is a little like training your eye to edit a document (I bet you can tell that's not one my strong points). Or training your mind to look at data and data collection in terms of the results it may yield and what the initial survey says about the questioner's bias (or can bias results).

First, I have to ask... 

Do you really want to train your eye to critique?

Because it will become a lot harder to immerse yourself in a piece of media if you constantly feel obligated to step back mentally and think about it from various perspectives. 

In other words, you may enjoy BL, or all live action dramas, LESS if you try to think about them critically.

I have an intimate who is a pretty well known writer. She mostly writes humorous fiction. She's open about the fact that this means every time she laughs, she stops and thinks about why that happened and whether is could be used in her prose. She never gets to be fully absorbed by narrative ever anymore because her critical eye is always turned on, especially for the written word.

What you may sacrifice for critique, is a certain level of childish wonder. 

I’m not sure i would necessarily advise doing this. 

My Process 

My process is essentially now visible in this blog. As I watch a show I take a few notes on it (which show up in the weeklies) and then at the end I go through those notes, consolidate, try to be witty about it, and write up a review.

The review usually has something about:

characters, tropes, plot 

narrative & story structure & pace

how this BL fits in with the greater BL genre & history

any thoughts I have on the quality of the production, acting, and/or directing 

my own personal feelings about the show

Thus my reviews tend to take into account several criteria.

For #1-2 I have a background in lit crit as an undergrad (and, like I said, I did once review books for a living) so these are kinda ingrained in me. I’m working on seeing the influence of soap operas, fan fic, and non-western story structures as critically valid, so these are the things I’m actively learning more about the most these days. 

For #3: How does this fit into the history of BL? Since I’ve made it point to watch pretty much all BLs, I feel like I’m set up to think and talk about this. AKA the spreadsheet made me do it. But since I also have anthropology in my academic history, I’m very interested in how a BL represents for its country’s BL oeuvre. I try to judge KBLs against other KBLs (and Kdramas) and look for patterns and trends in how that country’s interpretation of what it “means to be BL” shift over time. 

For #4: my IRL job is tangential to the entertainment industry so that’s accidentally trained my eye for film. I don’t know that I like this part about myself, but it’s happened whether I like it or not. And I don’t have a proper background in film critique. 

Final #5: will discuss further in a bit.

Suggestion? Establish A Rating System 

Come up with your own personal 10 star (or 5 star) rating system.

Write it down. Don’t be afraid to modify or adjust it. It’s yours, your tastes change, nothing is set in stone. 

Pick one ideal example BL for each category that you’re very familiar with for your reference point. Then you can ask yourself, after you’ve watched a new one, whether you liked it more, less, or about the same as that show. (relative rating, similar to grading on a curve) 

I change my examples regularly as my taste changes and as new BLs are added. The bar gets shifted, so to speak. 

My Rating System 

Your reasoning for rating a BL will be different from mine, but here’s mine as an example. 

(Also I never feel bound by this, sometimes I give a show a 8/10 just because it feels like that’s what it deserves.) 

10/10 - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED - my favorite precious squee!, faithful to tropes, happy ending, good chemistry, few flaws, high rewatch potential, makes me happy, examples: Semantic Error, Until We Meet Again 

9/10 ABSOLUTELY RECOMMENDED - loved it and good rewatch potential but probably a few pacing issues or one big flaw, still made me feel good/comforted, examples: Cherry Magic, Bad Buddy

8/10 - RECOMMENDED - some concerns around tropes (like dub con) or story structure/filming but still satisfies as BL, moved me emotionally, rewatchable in parts or not rewatchable but important, examples: Love By Chance, Between Us

7/10 - RECOMMENDED WITH RESERVATIONS - i.e. isn’t quite BL, convoluted, not strictly HEA, too short/long, and/or chemistry issues, may have impact on other BL fans but not me (or on me but not others) examples: Make it Right, KinnPorsche

6/10 - WORTH WATCHING BUT FLAWED - probably around the ending or in narrative structure/cohesion or censorship, disappointed expectations, unlikely to rewatch, examples: My Gear and Your Gown, Love Mechanics

5/10 - WATCH IF YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO - but don’t expect much, it’s a total hot mess interesting only because it's BL and I'm probubly pretty conflicted about it, examples: Advance Bravely, Even Sun

4/10 - FATALLY FLAWED - but still basically BL, however... do we want to support this kind of behaviour? examples: Precise Shot, Work from Heart

3/10 - I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM WATCHING AND NEITHER DOES IT, just seriously why did this get made? examples: Blue of Winter, Physical Therapy 

2/10 - IT'S DEPRESSING - they killed/tortured/etc the gay, save yourself, examples: The Effect, HIStory 3: Make Our Days Count

1/10 - IT'S AWFUL, I WATCHED IT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO, has all the flaws of 4-3 plus something even more egregious, personally triggering, example: My Bromance series, Round Trip to Love

dnf - self explanatory, but usually I drop because I feel like the narrative is already a #3 and/or headed for a #2 or #1 and then I’m told later that is went there, example: My Tempo

I hand out the fewest 1s & 10s. The most 8s and 7s. Everything else is pretty much on the bell curve you’d expect. 

Q2: What resources do you use to build your reviews?

I listen to a lot of pop culture review critiques in podcast form, often about stuff I'd never watch. But I like the way professionals talk about these things, even if they aren't MY things or don't jive with my personal opinions.

Mark Kermode is my favorite film critic and we like the opposite stuff, but the way he talks about film is very interesting to me. His podcast mini series on the "business of film" is probably one of my must listens. For his main podcast (Kermode & May’s Take), I always skip over all the interviews, people talking about their own films bore me to death (especially if they are actors on the promo junket, save me please). His rants are some of my favorites of all time (try Pirates 3 or Iron Man 2). Someone else’s list. 

I also like Pop Culture Happy Hour from NPR because it brings in multiple perspectives and varied cast of critics who often disagree and the "things making me happy" is a grab bag of fun.

The Bechdel Cast is a feminist critique podcast from Hollywood insiders and they do recaps as well as critique, and it's always fascinating to me to hear what people latch onto in a narrative. However, I only listen if I am already familiar with the film they are discussing.

My background is in anthropology and I've lived all over the world so that helps train me to think in terms on culture's impact on narrative as well as linguistics and so forth. As a personality I’m also quite reserved and deadpan, grumpy, stiff, strict, and kinda cold. I think I gravitate to being an observer and an outsider which helps if you want to analysis stuff. Which is not a claim to objectivity, I don't think there can be objective analysis of pop culture.

But it does make me pause to think, "that made me FEEEL something" why? What am I feeling? How did the actor do that? The script? The direction?

These shows are meant to entertain, whether they are successful or not, for me (and what "successful entertainment" means to me) and how they are doing it is the first question I always ask myself.

Q3: What are the things you look out for when watching a BL?

I ask myself a lot of things I would when looking at any piece of art. Or even when shopping for clothing or a new car or reading a book.

Did I like it? Why did I like it?

Did it move me? Why did it move me? 

Did I react? How did I react? To which bits? Why? 

What tropes and narrative beats was it using to manipulate me and my expectations? Did it meet those expectations? The promises it set up at the start? Did it fulfill the watcher-contract during the course of the narrative? 

Did the filming successfully telegraphy the journey I was meant to take? Did the actors? 

But also... would I rewatch it? Am I tempted to do so the moment it ends? For which bits?

The statistician in me wants to point out that these questions say a lot more about me and my relationship to art than it does about the art itself.

For example

Did I like it? Means... I'm motivated by pure taste and personal preference and complete subjectivity. This is in part formed by a person's background, life state, whole experience with culture and pop culture and society, family, friends. Taste is also just "that" bit. You know, that bit? Likes lemon deserts over chocolate ones, gravities to spicy food, favorite color is green, decorates with potted plants. Just my taste is my taste. I like what I like. 

Yes I have some criteria that subconsciously come into play: I look for clever story structure, subversion or manipulation of tropes, parody, not hitting any of my dislikes (like dub con). But also I have other biases impacting whether I like it (like physical appearance) which I can try to check but usually can't fix. (For example GMMTV's Gawin/Fluke looks so much like an ex of mine I really struggle with his screen presence.)

Did I like it?

The fact that this is the first question I ask myself also should tell you I'm motivated by the emotion these narratives engender. I want them to transport me and move me. I my case I want to feel comforted and satisfied and happy. The ones the make me feel discomfort, especially for too long in the narrative, I am simply going to like less. Sometimes less than I feel like I should (see my struggles with masterworks like ITSAY, YNEH, or The 8th Sense). The very BLs that most professional critics would tout as the best examples of the genre for a wider audience often turn out to be the ones I struggle with the most. (They are also, fortunately for me, the least representative of the bulk of the genre.)

In other words there is ALSO a part of me that genuinely likes and enjoys the trashy stuff. Even the trash I trash watch.

So I would advise you to come up with your own questions. Ask yourself what you want from these shows when you watch them. 

What motivates you? 

Why are you watching them at all? 

What brings you joy from an art or entertainment experience? 

What do you want them to do for you? To you?

You are going to experience them (and therefore analyze them) from this perspective whether you like it or not. So understand yourself is paramount. It's about your relationship to the art, not the art itself.

If I were to give you an assignment I would say start with one BL you really enjoyed, perhaps not your favorite but one level down. And then do one you really did not enjoy. And think about why... 

Happy analyzing! 

(source)

[joseinextdoor]

Chatty AF: Ace/Aro Representation in Anime and Manga

It's Ace Awareness Week, making it the perfect time to plug the two-part aspec rep podcast I did with Cy and Alex for Chatty AF! Because what better way to learn than through geekery? 💜🖤

✨️ Transcripts Included ✨️

Ace/Aro Representation in Anime and Manga - Part 1: General Discussion and Animanga Grab Bag

Ace/Aro Representation in Anime and Manga - Part 2: The Isaki Uta Appreciation Hour

[kamil-a]

assorted residents

[trojanwargeek]

To everyone who I’ve ever heard bitch about Athena being “the man’s god” and only helping men while only bringing attention to stories where she curses women - SHUT UP.

Reading Robert Fagles translation of the Odyssey and she literally went out of her way to make a phantom of Penelopes sister to comfort her before she fell too deep into depression after she learns of the suitors plans to find and kill her son she didn’t even know was gone.

All Gods have their faults in mythology written by a patriarchy, BUT DONT SAY ATHENA HATES WOMEN PLEASE YOURE SO WRONG.

[pernillemagda]

The impatient feminist - Are women worth less than men? With Emma Holten and Pernille Harder

The podcast in general is about feminism and this episode’s question is “Are women worth less than men” Pernille are talking about the time when they had to strike against DBU after the euros in a short feature

She's also speaking in the 17th minute about how Magda opened her eyes that she shouldn't accept the way they were treated and the importance of equality/feminism.

49:00 – They had asked Pernille about how she felt in the period after the Euro 2017 where they had reached the final and the time after that where they had to strike to get better conditions on the National Team.

49:05 – It was hard to feel the resistance from DBU (Danish football federation), and how little they really cared about us, luckily that has changed. We had to fight hard for conditions that were fair, we didn’t wish for extreme things, and I was really disappointed after we had just won silver in euros.

49:35 – It was something that really took a toll on me while I still had to fight for it and stand up for ourselves, it was really hard when we were told that the match against Sweden was cancelled, and I never thought it would have gone that far

50:00 – There definitely was a lot who supported us, but also many that thought we were, ohh, now I have a Swedish word snåla (yes, she really said that 😂), many thought we were greedy and just wanted more and more and that we didn’t deserve more than that we had.

50:27 – Sometimes it feels like when we get something, we have to be grateful, even though it should be things we always should have had. We should have had the same conditions as the men, but we have always been treated as a second priority and in that way, it feels like we always have to be more grateful for actually getting things.

50:48 – “Ohh, it was really nice you could get this match in Parken, you really deserved it” – Yes, but when will we get it again, in three years? Of course, we were grateful, and it was a really good experience, but it should also be experiences like this we should go for.

52:05 – It shouldn’t be such that it’s a “present” every time it happens. For DBU it would also be a great signal to send that men and women are equally worth. It would also mean a lot to all the young girls in the U-national teams and even younger girls that DBU sees equally as men and women.

After Pernille is off, the hosts talk about how people find the women greedy when men get millions by playing on the national team. It should be an honor to play for their country and then everyone should just get a small amount of money for doing it, and then the primary income should be from the clubs, but then the honor to play for the national team and amount of money you get from it, should be the same for all genders. They also notice that it’s never talked about men should have less in wages so that women could only get a little more.

(Overall men vs women in jobs) They talk a lot, like Pernille, about how women should just be “honoured and happy” to reach certain things, and they should be very careful to ask for “too much” because then the men or those with power can just turn the back to them again.

The hosts tell how Pernille “only” wished for better circumstances and more respect, they (the Danish NT) 100% did not ask for the same standards as the men, it would never come on talk.

[caitlinjohns77]