#it all stems from misogyny one way or another

[fairiesheart]

Lucy and Juvia's hate feels rooted in misogyny.

Kind of feel like Juvia's hate is rooted in some people just hating to see a female character being so open with falling in love; out of all the complaints I have seen with people who hate Juvia's character, it always reasons related to her just being passionate about romance which for some reason some people see that as backwards writing for women which as a woman myself I don't really agree with. You can have a strong female character who, at the same time, is in love with another character, and it won't take away from her worth. Male characters who are often forward with romance, like Sanji from One Piece, are often well-liked by fans. If you are someone who sees a female character canonically in love with a male character and acts as if they can't stand outside of their ship as an individual, then that sounds like a personal problem. Many female characters, such as Sakura from Naruto (who had feelings for Sasuke), also had their own character arc of wanting to stand alongside her teammates and become a strong healing ninja, but because of this weird negative perception that a woman's only way to be seen as a well-written character is if they don't fall in love there are still people who overlook that Sakura did make several accomplishments as a character.

With Lucy, the hate stems from people who just hate that she has flaws in general. Like I see some people trying to ridicule Lucy for the person she was back at the beginning of Fairy Tail, which is kind of dumb to me, considering she throughout the series and becomes a strong celestial wizard who can open more than 2 gates now, and fight alongside her spirits. Lucy is such an appealing character because she feels very human and relatable; despite her feeling that she isn't one of the strongest members of Team Natsu, we see that she excels in intelligence and navigating strategies that help balance the team. It annoys me that antis will slander Lucy for making mistakes at one point in an early arc or somehow act as if her character isn't good because she loses the fight against Flare back in GMG when, in the final arc, she has trained her magic and was able to fight with her spirits playing a big part in saving END and stopping Aconologia. Lucy's hate feels hypocritical because antis will try to bring her character down for the earlier arcs when she could only watch her spirits fight but stay silent when talking about any of the male characters' flaws in the series. Lucy, if anything, is a prime example of how female characters should be written; a lot of new shounen really misses the mark by not having female characters grow from their flaws, and instead,d we are presented with characters who are already strong with no lacking skills (which as a viewer makes it incredible boring to watch) and hard to be emotionally connected to them.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that both Lucy and Juvia are actually really good characters who deserve tons of love and appreciation.

[femalethink]

Pornography is regularly used in ways that have nothing to do with sexual explicitness. Rather, pornography is commonly understood as a form of propaganda, a representational style linked with defamation and desensitization, if not destruction. Patricia J. Williams, who thinks legally, critically, and gracefully about race, sex, and injustice, calls pornography a "habit of thinking," and one that informs all manner of abusive and exploitative attitudes and relationships. Pornography, as I am using the term, is just that, a worldview, a way of thinking and acting that sexualizes and genders domination and submission, from the bedroom to the war room, making domination masculine (even when a woman plays that role) and submission feminine (even when a man plays that role), and making both the essence of sex. By wedding sexuality to inequality, pornography conditions women and men to have a substantial investment in maintaining the oppressive status quo—again, from interpersonal relationships to international politics.

Pornography kills off, and then substitutes itself for, the erotic—the life force, the earthy and ethereal force of growth, fruitfulness, exuberance, ecstasy, connectedness, and integrity. Pornography severs eroticism from intimacy and empathy and bonds it to voyeurism and objectification (of the self and of another). It incarnates pleasure in acts of hatred. It would have all of us believe, even those of us getting the "fuzzy end of the lollypop" (Sugar/Marilyn Monroe's lament in Some Like It Hot, Billy Wilder, 1959), that without a certain measure of power and powerlessness, danger, fear, pain, possession, shame, distance, and violence there wouldn't be any "sex" at all. Of course, the simultaneously pornographic, monotonous, and erotophobic culture tends to make that true. Variously damaged, alienated, and desensitized, pornography can become what we need in order to feel at all.

Some applaud pornography because it allows access to sexual imagery and language and easily offends offensive religious morality. Yet pornography is no real alternative to systemic sex-negative morality; rather it is an intrinsic part of it. Pornography and mainstream morality both stem from and continually reinforce a worldview that first makes a complex of body/low/sex/dirty/deviant/female/devil and then severs these from mind/high/spirit/pure/normal/male/god. For both, sex itself is the core taboo. Moralism systematically upholds the taboo and pornography systematically violates it. In the complex that evolves from this absurdity, taboo violation itself becomes erotically charged. Evil becomes seductive and the good mostly boring. Without patriarchal moralism's misogyny, homophobia, demand for sexual ignorance, and sin-sex-shame equation, pornography as we know it would not exist. And, together, the two work to maintain the sex and gender status quo.

—Jane Caputi, "Goddesses and Monsters: Women, Myth, Power, and Popular Culture."

[daenerystargaryen06]

Reasons Why Daenerys Sacrificing Herself is Stupid

So, I have seen from the fandom points on that while people might not believe Daenerys will be killed, she will die sacrificing herself for the good of humanity against the Others in the books. Thus ending her arc in a 'better' manner. Yet this STILL includes harping on a female characters death, even if it is 'heroic', it's still just as bad as contemplating Dany dying by being killed by anything else. Some reasonings based on this theory vary:

-Some say Dany sacrificing herself will be a 'redemption' after she goes mad in the books and burns shit down (which is as ooc as it is and stems off of misogyny).

-Some say it is better for Dany to die sacrificing herself as a hero to rid/atone of the 'sins' of her ancestors (also misogynistic, and stupid.)

-Some say they'd rather see Dany die through self-sacrifice than any other way (but why see Dany die at all? Why not want for her to live happily instead, either as Queen or in a home of her own choosing?)

-Some say Dany will sacrifice herself to Jon as Nissa Nissa for the good of humanity (also misogynistic. Reduces Dany as a character. Dany is Azor Ahai, not Nissa Nissa).

The issue within Dany sacrificing herself overall, is it is an inherently misogynistic act within itself perturbed by those who want it to happen. Either way Dany sacrificing herself makes her a plot device, no matter how it happens. It strips away her character and what she represents.

-Dany sacrificing herself as Nissa Nissa is misogynistic in the way it strips Dany down from her character and simply makes her a tool. A vessel used for 'man pain' and only given a role for the man to be the hero. The woman dies so the man can continue on. She dies for the man and that is her only role in this portrayal. Even if Dany 'willingly' made herself Nissa Nissa and allowed it, overall it leaves a bad taste. It paints a narrative that her only use was for another man. A narrative that she was only useful for being a man's 'lover' and murdered in the end. A piece to be used and tossed away once done with.

Let's face the truth here, Dany is Azor Ahai. Her dragons Lightbringer. Dany does not need to be Nissa Nissa, because she already fulfilled the prophecy. Drogo was the sacrifice in this situation instead of Dany. The roles were reversed.

-Dany sacrificing herself (through battle or other means) also paints a misogynistic narrative. Her being a piece for sacrifice strips her of all her qualities; her intelligence, her ability and skill, her overall character arc and what she has done and achieved. It paints a picture that she is only of use to die. It makes everything she has ever achieved and accomplished and learned wasted on nothing. What is the point of her arc and all that she has learned and done if it's all just going to be wasted on her death in the end? Her apparently 'sacrificing' herself?

I do not see anyone discussed more of sacrificing themselves than Dany. And it's sad how people cannot enjoy a deeply written and amazing character without speculating on how they're going to die. It's sad people cannot enjoy Dany just for what she is without needing to make up theories just for how she will die. Why must she die? Why can't she live and have an accomplished and complete arc that results in her eventual happiness?

-The theory that Dany sacrificing herself for redemption after burning a city (like KL) is gross. Season 8 isn't canon, it isn't a part of G.R.R.M's ending. I highly doubt Dany is just gonna go crazy and start massacring people, when that has never been the point of her character and arc. G.R.R.M paints Dany as a HERO. Her narrative arc overall is that of a heroic one (but that doesn't have to include self-sacrifice done as a 'heroic' or 'redeemable act' either). G.R.R.M has also already denied a theory speculating Dany burning down the Water Gardens, why would he have her burn down KL instead? It makes no sense and would be a very ooc thing for Dany to do (no matter the circumstances). It is again, misogyny, to believe that Dany would just suddenly go crazy and burn shit, only to be able to 'redeem' her actions later by sacrificing herself and getting killed. If I needed that shit of an idea as an arc for Dany in the books, I might as well just ring up D&D and ask them to finish the books instead.

-Dany sacrificing herself to atone for the 'sins' of her ancestors/bloodline is also just as bad. What sins have her ancestors committed that she needs to atone for? I'd say most of her blood already atoned for their own sins given the tragedy that befell many Targs throughout the years. It does NOT fall on Dany to 'atone' for what her ancestors have done by sacrificing herself. There is the saying 'not to judge a person by the sins of their family'. Dany is not her family. She does not need to 'atone' for any sins. I'd say she's already doing a pretty good damn job of it already by upending the slavery economy, and being the person that she is- kind, compassionate, etc.

-As for theorizing she will sacrifice herself because there is no other vision for her death- again, I ask the question: why does she need to die at all?

Dany doesn't need to sacrifice herself. I doubt her arc will lead to that for her end. She is TPTWP, Azor Ahai. Her role against the Others will be one of triumph, not death. Dany is fire, she is life, she is Mother. There would be no point in her entire narrative arc, or even her written existence for that matter being raised up as such a large role, just for her to die in the end through 'self sacrifice'. I am sure many sacrifices will be needed during the Long Night, but Dany won't be one of them.

Let's not forget that Dany is the only person to

-First learn of the Song of Ice and Fire within the books

-Bring dragons back from extinction into the world

-Upend the slave trade/economy to help those enslaved

-Walk through fire to hatch dragons from stone

It is not her role to simply be used and traded off as some pawn for sacrifice. Her role is much bigger than just that. Dany is one of the main central characters within ASOIAF, she is the Fire in the title: A Song of Ice and Fire. Her role is not to sacrifice herself to the Others, but to end the coming darkness and bring Spring.

Dany is a hero, and she will continue to slay. Stay mad about it.

[gayraltofrivia]

everyone else has posted their own takes, so why not mine! without further ado, i give you:

RESIDENT EVIL TRANS HEADCANONS (that are not wildly ooc)

enjoy! feel free to use in any portrayals.

~

JACK KRAUSER (trans man)

his hypermasculinity and borderline, if not outright, misogyny and homophobia (calling leon "pretty boy," etc.) stems from his own dysphoria and feelings of inadequacy. from a young age, he presented and acted as masculine as he possibly could, in order to prove to everyone that he could be a "real" man. by re4, he's probably gotten the government to edit his paperwork so that in all but the most classified files, he's a cis man. i like to think he might not have even had to get top surgery, as he had naturally small breasts, and then worked out to the point where they look like natural pectorals. he wears a packer religiously, at basically all hours of the day--he knows the military would never allow him to take time off for bottom surgery.

ALBERT WESKER (trans man)

from a young age, albert was encouraged to be something more, be something better than regular humans. therefore, it was an easy step for him to begin transitioning. he was intelligent enough to source what he needed himself, dose himself with testosterone and hormone blockers properly, and eventually get himself top surgery. he views his transition, and transitioning in general, as another, smaller way to improve yourself past what the majority of humans can be.

ALEX WESKER (trans woman)

capcom all but wrote themselves into a corner with this one, canonically. i'll link to the actual post if i can find it again, but basically, the virus alex was injected with seems not to work on afabs. but, it works on her. need i say more? as for the finer details of her transition, see above. i'm sure alex and albert helped each other with their respective transitions.

ADA WONG (trans woman)

ada is a proud and confident trans woman. she revels in her sexuality and (obviously, canonically) she uses her looks and her body as a weapon. especially if wesker is trans, i could see him wanting to seek out other trans people to work with, as he trusts them marginally more than he would cis people.

ETHAN WINTERS (trans man)

i've thought about this one so much. he met mia in texas, so it seems likely he grew up in or around that area. as such, it makes sense for a trans man to want to leave the southern united states as soon as possible. plus, california is one of the first states to adopt transgender protection laws! not to mention, careers in i.t., computer sciences, and similar professions have statistically higher percentages of trans people in them, due to the career path being somewhat less gender-stereotyped. rose has blonde hair and blue eyes, and imo looks super similar to ethan and nothing like mia, so i like to think mia used one of ethan's eggs to become pregnant with rose. this would line up perfectly with the idea that she basically wanted to experiment with ethan's mold dna.

~

other, miscellaneous ideas: unfortunately, as much as i fucking love trans leon, due to the time period of resident evil 2 it would be pretty implausible for him to be an out trans man and work in law enforcement or any other government agency. however, that's not to say that he doesn't occasionally like more cutesy or traditionally feminine things, like the color pink, or cute stuffed animals, or hair clips, etc. i needed to mention him because it seems wrong to not mention my boy leon in a resident evil post.

hope you enjoyed these takes of mine! <3

[mothdruid]

The Physics of Love - Prologue

series masterlist | part one

pairing.

robert 'bob' floyd x afab!reader

warnings.

insecurities, previously experienced misogyny in STEM, self-doubt. this content is meant for those who are 18 and older.

authors note.

professor coleman (hondo) is a real one who loves his students. but let me know what you think so far! i will be doing a tag list for this series, so if you would like to join that, let me know.

The red ink stared back at you menacingly. Every minus one, minus two, minus three points marks taunting you. Sixty-eight out of one hundred. It wasn’t the worst you had scored in the class, but it was too far into the semester for you to drop. If only you had actually considered it a few weeks ago. That foolish woman in STEM mentality got the better of you though.

“If there are any issues with scores, let me know after class.” Professor Coleman announced.

It was as if the whole classroom failed, many students hanging back to talk with Professor Coleman. And you were no exception, slowly packing your bag while leaving your test on the table. You flipped through it a little bit as you waited after packing. It wasn’t that you were embarrassed, you just weren’t sure what to do from here on out.

“Issue with your score?” Professor Coleman asked.

You shook your head, letting out a soft chuckle.

“No, I just,” your hand tightened on the marked up papers, “don’t know what to do.”

Professor Coleman gave you a questioning look. You watched as he adjusted his glasses, staring at you with an odd kindness. The tension in your shoulders started to dissipate, your body finally relaxing enough to let your frustration sift into worry.

“If I don’t pass this class, boom, bam, degree gone,” you set the packet on the table. It was annoying to think that this class would potentially make it or break it for you. Stripping you of that geology degree you had yearned for since junior high. Math? A struggle but doable. Chem? Not too bad. Physics? The bane of your existence.

“It’s not like the final is next week. You have passed both exams so far.”

“Barely,” your hands were starting to clench up. It was a nervous habit, one you couldn’t seem to shake.

“Still passed though,” Professor Coleman offered you a smile.

"My degree requires a C plus, something that looks impossible right now," you sighed, tightly running your forefinger and thumb across your forehead to block your vision. It was beyond frustrating.

"Have you thought about looking for a tutor?"

A tutor? Was he being serious? How could anyone help you learn this cursed subject? Let alone get you to retain the information. Plus, you had tried it last semester. It ended in a bit of a failure, on your part and the tutors.

"Yeah, last semester. Tutor got frustrated because I couldn't pick it up, and I got frustrated about not picking it up quickly and it was just," you removed your hand only to be greeted with a soft frown, "it didn't work."

"Would you be willing to give it another try?" Professor Coleman asked, pushing his hands in his pockets.

"I uh… I don't know. I'm not a huge fan of the tutor program here, especially after last semester." You looked over at him with a frown and shrugged. "Maybe this is the universe's way of telling me to give up on geology."

"Hey, some of the best things in life are hard to get, and this might be one of them." Coleman smiled softly at you.

Doubt with a hint of shame swirled around your mind. A storm cloud that didn't want to dissipate. As much as you wanted to believe his words, it was hard. It was hard enough to make it in this field anyways. Hell, any STEM major was hell to get into. It was exceptionally worse though being a female in the field though. You had had classmates and professors act as if you didn't belong among them. And now, it felt like it was all true.

"What if I found you a tutor? Hand picked by me," Coleman shrugged, his words catching your attention.

"Oh, you don't have to do that, I can just fail and go about taking it next semes-"

"I don't want to see you fail."

The two of you stood there for a moment, staring at each other. Coleman had been the first professor that had seemed to actually care about how you did, which was rare for a STEM professor. Most of them had a sink or swim mentality with their subjects, but not him. Not good ole Hondo.

You had heard about Professor Coleman through a few of your other classmates in your program. He used to be an astrophysicist for NASA but then decided to pursue the field of teaching. Or at least that is what you heard through the grapevine. He taught a collection of undergrad students and grad students. You heard Professor Mitchell call him crazy one time for teaching so many students, but you didn't think that Professor Mitchell had much room to talk.

"I don't know if anyone you pick will put up with my incompetence for physics," you hate to admit it, but it was true. You were incompetent at the subject, basically hopeless.

"You're not incompetent, we all have areas we struggle with. I have the perfect person in mind anyways," Professor Coleman said with a smile while leaning back against his desk, crossing his arms over his chest.

"Yeah? Who?" You gave him a curious look.

"It will be a surprise," Coleman said as he pushed up off his desk. He took a few steps over to you. "He will be helpful and patient, because it sounds like you haven't had much of that so far."

"But what if–"

Professor Coleman held his hand up to stop your words.

"No buts, and please just trust me."

"Fine, but if this doesn't work out," you grabbed your bag and slung it over your shoulder, "you're paying for my second semester of Physics ll."

Professor Coleman grinned, holding his hand out for you to take. The two of you shook hands, sealing the deal. As much as you didn't want to, there was an overwhelming feeling about you failing flowing through you. It felt like the only outcome, all your insecurities about your place in the world bubbling to the surface. But somewhere, deep down inside of you was a bubble or two, telling you that this tutor would help you survive the rest of the semester.

[arcaneillusion]

illyrian women being given the opportunity to train while nothing is done to challenge the systems behind their oppression has similar implications to women being given greater opportunities in paid employment while capitalism, racism & patriarchy remain fully intact.

it seems ‘progressive’ on the surface but in reality it:

a) does very little to combat the systemic causes of oppression;

b) merely results in what some sociologists call the dual burden, or women’s triple shift.

essentially, in heterosexual relationships, gender roles have remained largely unchanged, with women continuing to do the vast majority of housework and child-rearing. thus, the move into employment means that women now typically have two jobs (unpaid domestic labour and paid work) to their male partner’s one (paid work). this is the dual burden that many women face under capitalism.

the triple shift is a similar concept; however, it also considers women’s role in carrying out the emotional labour necessary to maintain close bonds within the (nuclear) family unit. this notion instead suggests that women have three jobs (paid employment, unpaid domestic tasks and emotional labour) to their male partner’s one.

there’s a lot of evidence to support both theories, but that’s not the point of this post.

to relate this back to acotar: rhysand giving illyrian women the opportunity to train is about as effective in alleviating their subjugation as access to paid employment was for women.

to be clear, i’m not saying that women shouldn’t be in paid employment (obviously), nor am i suggesting that access to work has done nothing to help improve women’s lives.

perhaps a better way of framing it would be this: did patriarchy collapse when women were granted access to the workplace? did paid employment ‘solve’ gender inequality? it has been decades since women started to transition into paid work, and is misogyny (and a whole other host of issues that stem from patriarchy) any less prevalent?

rhysand granting illyrian women access to training while the roots of their subjugation remain intact simply creates a dual burden. now, instead of just doing the domestic labour, they get to learn to fight so they can go die in wars waged by a ruler that cares very little for their existence beyond their use as cannon-fodder. yay! feminism!

there is obviously room here for a much more in-depth conversation about capitalism, racism and patriarchy & whether such systems are truly any weaker than in previous decades as opposed to having just changed forms/adapted to the modern world. additionally, much more can be said about the subjugation of the illyrians in acotar and rhysand’s role in it, and parallels can be drawn between this and real world contexts. but, for the sake of brevity, i’ll leave that for another time.

my main point here is simply that illyrian women being allowed to train causes further harm and very little progress. they face oppression at the hands of illyrian males, but all illyrians are oppressed by the unequal hierarchy of power that dominates the night court - a hierarchy that rhysand sits at the very top of.

just as in our world patriarchy will continue to function so long as racism and capitalism do too, so will, in the night court, the subjugation of illyrian women continue so long as the unequal distribution of power persists.

rhysand cannot, and will not, fix a problem when said problem is merely a symptom of his power. if illyrian liberation is contingent on the abolition of unequal hierarchies of power, it is therefore contingent on the abolition of rhysand’s position as high lord. freedom for the illyrians is quite literally against his interests.

any solutions he attempts to provide (such as granting access to training) are about as helpful as sticking a plaster on a broken bone.

[mariacallous]

On May 16, the gaming and entertainment news site Dexerto tweeted an image from the forthcoming game Assassin’s Creed Shadows featuring one of its protagonists, the Black samurai Yasuke, in a fighting pose. Across scores of replies, some voiced optimism, others fatigue with Assassin’s Creed’s now 14-game-long run, and a very vocal few expressed frustration and anger that a Black person was at the center of the narrative.

“Gonna pass on the DEI games,” wrote one blue-check X user, referencing the acronym for diversity, equity, and inclusion. “Why Wokeism?” asked another. Comments full of racist and sexist language filled the thread.

A more articulate undercurrent of these reactionaries, across many online forums, had a more specific set of complaints. Some alleged the race of the real Yasuke was never known, others that he wasn’t a samurai but a retainer, and another claimed he was never in combat.

These were all fairly elaborate conclusions to draw about a guy from 1581 who’s been depicted as a samurai in Japanese media many times, including in the 2017 video game Nioh and Samurai Warriors 5 in 2021, as well as his own animated series on Netflix.

They also may have been the last bit of armchair history we got on Yasuke if the conversation hadn’t been sustained by a set of accounts looking to build yet another front in the online culture war, fueling what some have been calling Gamergate 2.0. Whereas the Gamergate of 2014 focused on trying to drown out feminist voices, and the voices of women of color, in gaming culture, this second incarnation seems focused on pushing back against diversity in games of all kinds. Yasuke just stepped in their path.

The resurgence of the Gamergate moniker came earlier this year in reaction to the work of Sweet Baby. Staff at the small consultancy received a wave of harassment this spring stemming from misinformation and conspiracy theories claiming the company was a BlackRock-backed outfit trying to force diversity into games. (It’s not affiliated with BlackRock and merely advises on characters and storylines.) As the controversy around Assassin’s Creed Shadows intensified, several posts mentioned Sweet Baby, even though company CEO Kim Belair says the firm didn’t work on the game.

“I think it just comes with the post-Gamergate (late-Gamergate?) territory,” Belair wrote in an email to WIRED. “To a certain kind of person, largely trolls, we're synonymous with their idea of ‘wokeness in games’ or a vague idea of ‘DEI,’ but it's ultimately reflective of the overall misinformation that fuels this campaign.”

Gamergate was not the first harassment campaign conceived in the bowels of 4chan and its affiliate websites, but it was perhaps their crowning achievement. The attacks against developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu and media critic Anita Sarkeesian, among others, ranged from doxing to rape and death threats. Its tenets and tactics eventually proved valuable in bringing people into the burgeoning alt-right movement. Even Pizzagate and QAnon can, in some ways, be traced back to what was happening with gamers online in 2014.

“Gamergate was a recruiting ground, a pipeline to leverage the loneliness, discontentment, and alienation of young men—often white young men—into alt-right politics, extremist misogyny, and outright white supremacy and Nazism,” Thirsty Suitors narrative lead Meghna Jayanth told WIRED.

If the early days of social media incubated a cultural cold war, Gamergate turned it hot. Frustrated that they were no longer the sole demographic being catered to, Gamergaters saw “the growing visibility of women, not to mention their incomprehensible insistence that games cater to their perspectives as well, as an unwelcome intrusion in a space that does not belong to them,” Laura Hudson wrote in WIRED at the time. As a result, they wanted more than debate, they wanted blood—and nothing really stopped them from going after it.

Ten years later, aggrieved gamers are focusing on other forms of diversity and inclusion, which is how Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ Yasuke has become the latest point of contention.

While only so much can be truly known when it comes to history, accounts suggest Yasuke (the real one, not the video game character) was a man presumed to be from west Africa who served the Italian missionary Alessandro Valignano. He accompanied Valignano to Japan where he served Oda Nobunaga at the daimyo’s demand. Yasuke was presented with the trappings of a samurai: a house, servants, a sword. He would go on to be with Nobunaga, or near him, at the time of his death, before seeking his heir Nobutada and joining him in battling those responsible for Nobunga’s death, though unsuccessfully.

While Yasuke’s history is fascinating and mysterious, much of the fuss over him has concerned whether he was officially a samurai, a depiction that has shown up in media several times in and outside of Japan. Some insist that he may have instead been a retainer, page, squire, or sword-bearer. Others decrying his inclusion in Shadows said he looked gay.

“There is no easy way to separate the many threads of what we are seeing within the Yasuke backlash,” says Paula Curtis, a postdoctoral fellow at UCLA’s Terasaki Center for Japanese Studies. “There are legitimate complaints about the developers’ decisions regarding representation and historical engagement … There are also many discriminatory responses to the game that have been anti-Black, misogynistic, and politically motivated.” It’s important to note, Curtis adds, that Shadows’ fans and commentators, and the issues they’re raising, aren’t uniform.

When Japanese historian Yu Hirayama tweeted there was “no doubt” as to Yasuke’s samurai status, he was treated to a tirade of abusive replies in English, including one claiming he brought “dishonor to [his] family and Japanese history.”

Amid the backlash to Yasuke’s inclusion in the game—and specifically to his role as a samurai—Ubisoft, the game’s developer, issued a statement saying that while the company “extensively collaborated with external consultants, historians, researchers, and internal teams at Ubisoft Japan” on the game, “some elements in our promotional materials have caused concern within the Japanese community.”

Without saying specifically which aspects caused concern, the company added that it was taking this “constructive criticism” into account as it prepared for the game’s November launch, and apologized. (Ubisoft did not respond to a request for comment on this story.)

Jayanth believes the apology was a case of misplaced appeasement.

“The alt-right's fundamental drive is hatred of the ‘other,’” she says. “Even if we cleansed our games of women, non-white people, queer people—which is their ask, and one we absolutely should not give in to—they would turn to insufficiently ‘masculine’ depictions of white men. This movement exists only in opposition to some polluting ‘other,’ an enemy that must be manufactured if a real enemy cannot be found.”

Revisionist approaches to history have seen a rise in recent years, especially in the interest of enshrining an idealist sense of a traditionalist past as an ahistorically conservative utopia.

“You see this in the false assertion of a purely white Middle Ages or the denial of war atrocities in World War II,” Curtis says. “Bad-faith actors may cherry-pick historical sources in order to craft specific narratives, completely ignore sources that do not support their views, or appropriate historical symbols as rallying cries to their causes.”

The proponents of Gamergate 2.0 have veiled their scorn for Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ inclusion of Yasuke within concerns for historical accuracy. Much Like the Gamergaters of old, who insisted they were defending ethics in gaming journalism and not harassing women they felt needed to be put in their place.

Gamergate then, and Gamergate now, are both ultimately about the sensitivities around who saw representation and how, made disproportionately important by how disempowered and alienated modern people feel. As games have made room for a wider array of characters, the gamers at the center of the backlash have seen this progress as a form of persecution. Games are changing, and as much as those upset over Yasuke’s inclusion in Shadows want to push back, they may not be able to stop that.

“It's certainly been strange to see us tied to a ton of games we've never worked on simply because people perceive ‘wokeness’ or progressive ideas in them,” Sweet Baby’s Belair says, “but maybe it's indicative of a greater truth that Gamergaters miss: No external consultancy is forcing studios to make their products more diverse or more progressive. The change, whatever you think of it, is coming from inside the house.”

[taylortruther]

Idk if this is an unpopular opinion or more of an observation: this fandom is very much not normal about gay men. It makes a 100% sense that conversations about homophobia in the fandom mainly are about sapphic swifties, because they are a huge part of the fandom and face intense harassment. Men generally are less prominent within the fandom, so I see why people don't always think about how they are spoken about. However, because of this and the fact that "twitter gays" are enemy of the state for swifties on that platform because of their frequent dislike of Taylor, it can feel like homophobia geared towards gay men is a free for all. And I don't just mean the absolutely horrendous comments people leave on Twitter, but also the way people talk about Joe's "lack" of masculinity or make jokes about him being bi* in a way that reduce (male) bisexuality to something ridiculous. Even the anon you got after somebody said Joe would have been good in Challengers felt (unintentionally) dismissive of him potentially playing a gay role. Why is that? This might also be a tumblr thing where the demographic of the website is a bit different then on twitter, but the fact that one of the main groups that regularly get harrassed by Swifties are gay men is frequently ignored and that rubs me the wrong way, and I think it relates to how the fandom in general talks about gender and sexuality.

*addition: the assumption that Joe must be queer because of his quiet demeanor or the field he works in was huge in the fandom at some point and it has always felt icky to me and very much tied to traditional gender roles, which is something this fandom is very infected by. But this was also very en vogue in gaylor spaces, for obvious reasons, but there is also a convo to be had about how gay women don't always treat gay men with dignity or respect. (Their male privilege is not a catch all excuse.)

you're preaching to the choir here. it stems from the same issues of misogyny and homophobia as the anti-wlw sentiments though. like, it's wrong for women to express sexual desire over another woman, especially one like taylor, whose femininity is pretty paramount to her persona. and in comparison to uber-masculine travis, joe becomes "gay," just like josh kushner was called gay in kaylor circles because of his ~mannerisms~ or perceived lack of masculinity. there are many other things to say about this phenomenon but it should be very obvious to everyone by now that swifties (like the rest of the world, but it's highly visible in this fandom due to who taylor is and how she looks) have very intense opinions about what femininity and masculinity should look like. and if someone in the universe steps out of line then it's criticized pretty openly.

[victimsofyaoipoll]

Round 1

Propaganda Under Cut

Han Sooyoung

han sooyoung is one of the main trio protagonists yet people constantly ignore her in order to ship the other two males despite the fact that they are all doomed by the narrative TOGETHER!!! fanon content is even worse because it either slaps a lesbian sticker onto her to shittily write her off in fanfic OR they make her so one dimensional its like a cardboard stand in. han sooyoung arguably has a more important/interesting dynamic with the main male protagonist yet everyone ignores her because they want their uwu gay babies IM SO SICK OF ORV FANS

Dokja and Joonghyuk are a very popular ship (rightfully so, i get it) but usually Sooyoung is seen as in the way of their relationship or not as valued as the other two even though her place in the story and relationship with the other characters is just as strong. Recently there was a post on twitter being rude about people who ship her and Joonghyuk (which is a super valid ship) and i saw a lot of hate that i believe just stems from her getting “in the way” of a yaoi ship. 

99% of that kind of symbolic fanart REFUSES. to acknowledge her existence man. even though she is part of the main TRIO man

Shinoa Hiiragi

The fandom hated her for getting in the way of Mika/Yuu (she had a crush on yuu). The rare times they didn’t hate her they made her into a fujoshi obsessed with shipping them which isn’t in character at all. In fact if you look at the owari no seraph specials she would ship yuu with kimizuki but no one even cares

One of my favorite characters ever forever and treated heinously by crazed fujoshis that hallucinated she was getting in the way of MikaYuu, which for the record she wasn’t! I mean even if she WAS getting between them it wouldn’t justify the crazy misogyny that got thrown at her but she had a ONE-SIDED CRUSH on Yuu. He didn’t even like her back. What was the issue, then? An unrequited crush is not going to prevent a relationship! Whatever I haven’t even told you about her. She’s Silly. She’s incredibly cunning and a great leader, in fact she is the leader of the anime’s main squad. She’s calculating. She’s a gossip and a prankster and a bit flirty and a bit mean-spirited and she presents herself in a Silly Goofy way, in part to cover up the amounts of angst in her backstory, like my girl has ISSUES. She even has an epic demon weapon that is better and cooler than most other demon weapons but if you ask any fangirl from way-back-when, she’s just a bitch and the personification of evil. and probably homophobic too, even though she has a girl rival-turned-friend which is the gayest trope out there. 

She seems to be the (male) protagonist's love interest and appears to be canonically in love with him, but he is not interested in her whatsoever, often brushing her off and dismissing her in favor of thinking about his found family instead. I don't necessarily ship him romantically with any other male character (i hc him as aroace) but by god the anime was extremely charged with homoromantic subtext in every corner. One of those "holding each other's faces in the opening, spends the entire first season pining and wishing to be reunited" types. The fandom ships her love interest with another male character to the extent that I started watching the show in the first place because i kept seeing ship posts of the main character with that other guy thought they were cute. And also i cannot fucking stand her personality and want to light her on fire. I think the rest of the fandom agrees with me but I'm honestly not sure. I'm also a gay man so i think you could argue that I, the submitter, could play the role of the "yaoi" terrorising her as well

[luxxsolaris]

The issues (and non-issues) of bimbocore

This little discussion is coming off the back of a thought (rant) I shared on another blog a few weeks ago, largely where reinvented bimbo started compared to where it is now and why is everyone blaming Chrissy Chlapecka?

the resurgence of the 'bimbo' aesthetic in the early 2020s embarked as a movement of reclamation, a way to assert that there was actually nothing demeaning about a barbie-esque appearance and to remove the power from stereotypes used against us, essentially centring the Bimbo in a queer, left-wing ideology.

If you were to ask a modern Bimbo why hot pink? Why bedazzled? Why perform this exaggerated caricature of femininity? You might end up in a seemingly unrelated discussion about the modern Western political landscape. Bimbo culture has essentially emerged upon the heels of the controversies surrounding feminine experiences and bodily autonomy across the United States- women feeling that they are being confined to a specific performance of femininity, that the government is regulating their femininity, may tell you that the idea of bimbo culture is a satirical backlash to the ideas of what a modern Western woman should be and what she is expected to be. She is nothing more than a doll to the culture that surrounds her and her response is to take what is expected of her and make it a performance a juxtaposition of what she is expected to be and what she is and make them hate her for the femininity she is presenting. And thats exactly what Lauren Pantin said in her short update newsletter - ' If you’re going to punish me for being a woman anyway, I’m going to be the silliest, brattiest, potty-mouthed no-no of a woman you’ve ever seen. I’ll be the dumbest bitch on earth! Where’s my crown!"

Ask another bimbo and she'll tell you that her bimboism stems from the movement to satirise consumerist culture and misogyny, aiming to remove the stigmas around hyper-femininity. Essentially, allowing women to empower themselves through their femininity (rather than the popular idea of in spite of their femininity cough cough inlog cough) and giving women ownership over their sexuality and their body in ways that actively combat the misogynistic standards held against them- oftentimes gearing it towards queer people. It's a new-wave feminist movement designed to avert the male gaze through women appearing as these caricatures of traditional femininity whilst emphasising their own dominance and independence as support for women's right movements.

So it's a kind of sartorial rebellion against oppressive politics and culture? Well, it was at first. And to many it still is, however, as with all trends rooted in a sartorial culture the meaning tends to get lost in the shares and reposts as it expands across social media. Those who just happen across the culture or see nothing but images of it scattered across the internet arent likely to understand that this aesthetic is also a political performance, it will become a bimbo resurgence!... but not effectively hold the same weight and meaning that the movement was intended to hold.

One way to look at this is the trend of " girl [activity]" . Trends like girl maths, girl dinner, explaining things to the girlies. Now let me get it straight theres nothing wrong in finding a little fun in these trends- girl dinner was cute, as someone who loves cooking I loved seeing what everyone was making for their dinner until it got overrun by the 'I only had iced coffee today' brigade. Sometimes I'll see a girl maths video about how if I pay in cash its basically free since the number on my bank account didn't change and I laugh because thats logic I have applied to purchases before. There's little funny things and behaviours that people will have in common, and they're being labelled as 'girl [blank]' because it is predominantly groups of women discussing them and finding a little fun in it. But again, as trends reach a wider audience their initial intention becomes lost along the way and generalisations start to set in. TV shows and radio hosts have entire segments explaining girl maths, it has become cute and quirky to explain political landscapes in terms of shopping and makeup, and bimbo culture has become less of a satirical performance and instead commonly assumed as a Karen Smith- esque personality reminiscent of the 'dumb blondes' of the early 2000s.

Removing this sartorial protest from its context can be seem as damaging, especially in the way that social media currently presents aesthetics surrounding sexuality to young people. As bimbo culture reaches a wider audience it's likely to fall into the hands of young people who are, let's face it, not going to care about the deeper meaning. Young people are likely to see celebrities, tiktok personalities, attractive people in general donning their hot pink promiscuous outfits and feel inclined to join in on what is presented to them as nothing more than the newest fashion trend.

One of the key movements of bimboisim is to embrace feminine sexuality and overcome the stigmas about women expressing their sex and sexuality and sartorially this is represented by the micro mini skirt and the skimpy shirt. Society has had no difficulty pushing teenage girls to grow up rather quickly by presenting them with teen magazines in the y2k era talking about how to get a bigger bust or butt, social media promoting the attractive body type the attractive face the attractive makeup the attractive style of clothing that will settle their pubescent insecurities and validate them in the eyes of a society run by men. Young women are ridiculed for their bodies not being developed enough at 15, for not being sexually active at 16, must have lived the life experiences of drugs and alcohol and sex and heartbreak at 17 and are then turned into high school girl fucks random guy porn at 18. Removed-bimboism has become part of the problem in which young girls not only feel the need to dress promiscuously and express a sexuality that they still haven't fully explored in order to feel validated as an active part of society but also have to present themselves as stupid in order to seem funny cute and quirky. The idea that women are only able to understand complex theories if they are presented in terms of fashion and shopping and makeup is a stereotype enforced by tv and movie comedy that women have worked endlessly to overcome, and the reclamation of bimbo culture should not actively counteract the progress of feminist activity. You don't have to be smart to be a modern bimbo by any means, in terms of intelligence the movement is centred around a more relaxed approach to success that counters the ideology of the girl boss movement- you don't HAVE to be a huge success or overwork yourself to hell and back to validate who you are as a woman.

Modern bimboism set out with the comfort of knowing there is no pressure to understand everything, you might need something explained in your own terms, you might just be a little fucking stupid sometimes but there is no active harm in not always understanding. That, however, has been twisted through these trends discussed prior to make it seem like all bimbos (and by misogynistic extension, all women) are just not as smart as men. Which, as we know, is likely to be emulated by young people as it reaches a wider audience.

So it's understandable why there is concern over bimboism. But at what point does critique of bimboism begin to drift into the right wing? Blaming women who dress provocatively simply for being women who dress provocatively is not the answer, in my opinion, to the issues with the bimbo culture. There is (to the chagrin of many) nothing wrong with an adult women expressing the ownership of the sexuality that she was granted the right to express through the liberation of women, sex and queerness.

Tensions have been rising within more radical groups, or groups who are of the tendency to reject feminine presentation in regard to what they perceive as an active threat to the reputation of women. There has been a desire expressed across social media sites by these women that 'all women' should refrain from direct expressions of femininity and reject all social norms expected of women under the assertion that it 'makes us all look bad'. There is a lot to be said about the ways in which misogyny utilises stereotypes and generalisations of what is considered 'feminine behaviour' to degrade women, however, it is highly pretentious and internally misogynistic a notion that the very idea of feminine expression is to be at fault. The ideology begins to attack individual women, expressing that their online content is to blame for the ways in which men treat women, or that children have become so oversexualised.

In a way this reflects the puritan standards of online censorship frequently weaponised by the right wing in order to oppress further marginalised groups. 'Think of the Children' has been used time and time again as a way to bastardise protests of queerness, of sexual liberation of racial equity and it is being weaponised now again just as it was across the 70s against women who dare to be 'immodest' . It goes without saying that people who create content online are not responsible for the actions of teenagers who in the midst of discovering their sexuality, may seek out more mature content- not just for sexual gratification, but a newfound interest into how adults express their sexuality as a way to help them navigate expression themselves. To place limits on how women are allowed to dress or express sexuality is to revert to the ideas of puritanism that existed prior to the (well, partial) liberation of the marginalised people.

Is bimbo culture perfect? No, it's been washed out as a mimicry of early 2000s internalised misogyny. Is it worth hating on random women? No, there issue is more centred to how misgyny is so deeply rooted in our society that we are happier to blame women for the stereotypes forced upon them than to actually comment on how society cultivates these ideas.

[hxhhasmysoul]

Gender presentation of JJK female cast

This post contains spoilers for events in the JJK manga that happen after season 2 of the anime.

Part 1 - presentation

The first part of this post is going to be about how I perceive the gender presentation of most JJK female cast - aka the characters I’m fairly confident the author wants the audience perceive as women. 

There are a few caveats I need to make up front.

First of all I will be using adjectives like feminine and female, masculine and male to describe the gender presentation of characters. 

These categories stem from the cultural concept of a gender binary correlated with a biological sex binary that exists in many contemporary societies in one form or another. Concept because neither biological sex nor gender is binary. And this concept is very closely linked to traditionalist thinking, patriarchy, misogyny, right wing ideologies (including radfem ideologies) and fundamentalist religion and is reinforced by capitalism. All these forces have a vested interest in building up masculinity and femininity in opposition to one another and drawing a very clear distinction between them.

Of course as such these categories’ve been tackled by feminism, queer theory and general leftism, reinvented, reclaimed, etc. 

And like pointing out the origin of masculine and feminine is not me trying to judgemental about them. It’s to explain that when I’m using them here, I’m using them in reference to their origins, to what I believe a right wing person would consider feminine or masculine. It will become clear why later. 

The second caveat is that my perception on what would read more feminine and what more masculine is very subjective and deeply rooted in my own culture, my own experiences with gender and also what I’ve seen from other cultures over the years. And some of you looking at my categorisations below will think: nah, I don’t read that like that at all. I hope you will still understand my points even if you’d put some of the characters in different groups. 

The third caveat is that I’ve included most of the characters but not all of them, not even all of the ones the tier maker offered. I skipped them because I considered them too background to feature, like looking at them I couldn’t recall anything about their personality or anything like that. 

The last caveat is that by presentation I mean outer appearance (clothes, hair style, accessories) mixed with how the characters carry themselves and their mannerism. So like the overall visual vibe. 

_

I used the tier maker website but this is obviously not a tier thing but I just found this tool easy to organise the characters, it had most of the characters I wanted to use, and it was easy to upload the one I felt was missing. 

Since this is an organising effort, I actually put blank lines into it to separate the groups: masculine, mixed and feminine. 

_

And just one look at it shows how the vast majority of the women in JJK neatly fit into the feminine side of the presentation spectrum. 

So I divided it further. Here is my thought process behind it, and I know it may sound a bit weird. 

First of all, I separated classical feminine presentations from contemporary ones. 

The classical ones are for me ones that even rather conservative right wing people wouldn’t consider unfeminine, or not feminine enough. Even if they could consider some of the presentations sexually aggressive. 

The contemporary ones are those where some right wing dipshits would be like: she’s not trying enough to be appealing to my very narrow view of what a proper woman looks like.

The second distinction is between deliberate and casual. So whether there are grounds in the text of JJK to believe so or whether I get the overall vibe from the character that she’s putting thought into the femininity of her presentation or whether it just feels that she just leans that way and doesn’t consider the reasons for that. 

So the deliberate contemporaries all sometimes assume female associated poses and mannerisms at will and they are doing it consciously. And they seem to have an attitude towards their gender.

But they do not weaponise it like the deliberate classicals. Only Takada doesn’t do it for evil, she just does it for her career. The other four are very aggressive in their use of it. Mei Mei uses it to seduce her baby brother. Remi and Ogami to lure men to their deaths. Tsubasa to get her classmates to bully Junpei. 

I don’t want to say that it’s conscious on Gege’s part, that the cursed cat put this much thought into it. But it feels in line with how this classic femininity is seen as a tool by the right wing men. A tool they want to use but also fear because they feel weak to it. 

In this framing the deliberate contemporary would be not appealing enough to right wing men. It’s more a presentation that feels targeted to appeal towards centre left women. 

The casual classical presentation is probably the most desired by the traditionalist crowd. Women just falling in line but not trying to wield it.

But to people who are not into policing how others look and don’t follow right wing influencers, both casual looks classical and contemporary will likely register as neutral. 

I put three characters into the feminine but not sure how category. Uro has her jewellery and her body language slants feminine for me but she’s naked and I’m not sure how to read that. I also put there Sasaki and Nitta because we only see Sasaki in her school uniform and Nitta in her work clothes and after some thought I decided that I don’t want to make a decision without seeing their casual outfits, because I didn’t feel like they gave me enough of a clear vibe, unlike Mimiko, Nanako or Riko. 

_

Now to the three in the masculine presentation category, or at least leaning masculine.

Yuki often vibes masculine clothes-wise and posture but it’s not 100%. She has feminine outfits, she strikes feminine poses sometimes. For me she’s very “however I felt that day” gender presentation wise.

Miwa is fascinating. I searched for JJK wifu rankings (I took mental hits for this post, okay) and Miwa is in all of them, even the short, like 5 character ones. I haven’t seen her top any of them but she’s usually high. Miwa’s uniform is a suit, shirt and tie. I had a conversation about this with cursedvibes and he said that in a professional setting it doesn’t strike him as a masculine outfit, especially that the suit is cut for a female silhouette. But culturally, where I live, because she’s not wearing a blouse under the jacket, it would read masculine to a lot of people. It only shows how culturally loaded this all is. And then he found me a drawing of Miwa in casual clothing and it’s this:  

Yeah, her outfits are on the masc side but she feels so girly. I love her so much. 

Tengen will look masculine in a gown:

And she’s shown wearing suits with a masculine cut. Amazing.

______________________________________

Part 2 - Maki and Mai

So what prompted me to even think about the presentation of the female characters was this garbage post. 

It seems to have been deleted so I cropped the author’s name and icon out. Idk why the author did that but maybe they don’t hold these opinions anymore. Maybe someone pointed out to them that that vague about Maki is deeply misogynist and lesbophobic. And since they were trying to perform a feminism with this post, they just deleted it because it wasn’t a good look.  They could’ve just deleted that Maki vague, the rest of the post is inoffensive. 

Maybe they actually looked at the manga and realised that fuck, they are wrong about what’s in there. 

That Maki vague is very unpleasant to me on a few levels.

Before Jougo burns Maki, she usually wears skirts. She has a girly hair style. She wears the cutesy leg warmers. Maki pre burns actually tops several of the wifu lists I’ve looked at! Her appearance is read as girly and desirable by what I assume are straight male western anime fans who make these lists. 

So to associate Maki so strongly with masculinity you need to buy into the bullshit that personality traits are gendered. Or that having certain ambitions, desires or priorities is reserved for either men or women. 

That Maki’s ambition and/or lack of nurturing traits and/or her harsh bully personality make her by default masculine. While also pretending that Mai isn’t a harsh bully. 

Even after the burns her outfit is not masculine. 

It really accentuates her curves, it’s tight, it has the decorative belt and cape. Look how she poses in it. Cursedvibes said that he gets a superhero vibe from it and he’s absolutely right. Yorozu’s outfit has a similar vibe, and so do some of Yuki’s outfits.

But it also accentuates Maki’s arms. And she has amazing arms. 

Her pre burns outfits don’t expose her muscles so much. Her fighting style doesn’t really emanate with that much strength. 

The above post alludes to the moment of Mai’s death. The first time when Maki is wearing trousers while Mai is in a skirt in the same scene. It’s after Maki was disfigured, has shorter hair. Is in an outfit that accentuates her athleticism. 

Professional female athletes get their femininity questioned all the time, they try to perform femininity during competitions with makeup, hairstyles, sometimes their outfits to counteract that. Things that male athletes don’t have to do. 

And even though Maki’s outfit isn’t really masculine, it’s not as strongly feminine as her skirts because it doesn’t hide the physical strength in a palatable package. So there is some change in presentation but it’s not an obvious jump from full femininity to full masculinity. 

Also scarring is something women tend to hide more than men. Scarring is culturally charged considered a blemish and any form of deviating from the norm, clear and unblemished skin, carries the possibility of ridicule. But society puts extra pressure on the appearance of women. Naoya even attacks Maki’s post burns appearance directly. 

And this is the last level why that vague is unpleasant specifically in the context of Maki. Her family constantly challenged her value as a person. Tied a lot of their bullying to her not being enough. Not human enough because she had no cursed energy. And the only sliver of value they awarded to her was her attractiveness as a woman. Sliver because they despised her for not falling into the role of a meek, invisible woman, the servant to the heir. 

Yet neither she nor Mai seem to have ever rejected their femininity. Maki’s rebellion didn’t go into her gender or gender presentation. And it easily could’ve. With the trauma she has it wouldn’t be strange if she had a complicated relationship with her own gender. But she doesn’t seem to and that’s also okay. And this isn’t a criticism at creators of fan art or fic that depict Maki as more butch, that include considerations of gender and gender presentation into her trauma or rebellion against the Zenin. This is specifically an issue with these kinds of takes that wear the guise of interpreting the actual text of JJK. 

This is why I’ve been talking about how one needs to be careful when critiquing JJK from a feminist point of view. This is just the latest post I’ve seen where the author in their attempt to paint Gege as doing a supposed misogyny, did an actual misogyny themself. Here’s another one I actually responded to. 

One of my fandom friends, Subdee, has always talked about how radfems and right wing fundamentalists are astroturfing the fandom, how many people who pursue their fandom hobbies on social media get exposed to radfem ideology masqueraded as progressive feminism or queer theory. And if these people don’t have a solid foundation when it comes to these issues they will internalise the rainbow puritanism and radfem ideology. While they also usually get dragged into these ideas that fandom is activism, that you have to present a certain ideological purity through fandom not to be a bad person. That you have to be “critical” of what you “consume” and actively seek out the problematic aspects of the works and condemn them.

And it is very clear in both the post about Maki and the one about Nobara. The desire to be “critical” and the deeply rightwing radfem ideology. Because to think that Maki is masculine and Nobara is unfeminine you have to believe in such a painfully narrow idea of what femininity can be, an idea that you could hear espoused by a far right influencer. 

The Maki post actually went further than that. It hints upon other radfem ideas of any proximity to masculinity giving the person automatic privilege (aka butches have male privilege bullshit). But even if we imagined an alternative universe version of JJK which had grounds to link Maki to masculinity strongly enough for it to match Sukuna’s very obvious and aggressive traditional masculinity, there’s another radfem red flag in that post. The implication that a feminine person doing something for a masculine person is inherently an act of being exploited. Regardless of the circumstances of the situation, because the Maki/Mai situation is not even remotely similar to the Sukuna/Yorozu situation if you actually give it a few seconds of thought. The idea of femininity always being the victim of masculinity is one that inherently means that feminine people are weak, helpless and can’t make their own decisions, it strips them of any agency. It undercuts and disrespects both what Mai and Yorozu did. 

_____________

post script.

I recommend the interview that Gege did together with Kubo, the creator of Bleach. There's some interesting stuff in the about how for instance someone from the industry views Gege's female cast.

(Side note, one wifu list included guys and Gojou and Megumi were higher than Yuuji! Can you believe that? He’s the only proper wifu out of the 3 of them. Disgraceful, that’s why straight people shouldn’t have the right to vote on anything, even anime wifus)

[earlmothraoffangbanger]

Thoughts on Community, Media Literacy, and How One Conducts Themselves on the Internet.

Before I get started I would like to preface this with the fact that I am currently sick from coming off of medication. I will do my best to be coherent and concise in my writing. Thank you for your patience. Feel free to send Asks if you would like to hear more from me or need clarity.

CW: Mild mentions of abuse, SA, as well as harassment in general. Feel free to not read, your mental health is more important than my ramblings.

In this section, I will cover things I have seen in the trans community that I feel need to be addressed. The most pressing issue I feel is this presumption of guilt or innocence based on an individual's gender identity. Point blank I want to say it is not okay to assume ill of someone purely based on their gender. This is misogyny and there's no other way to skin it.

I've seen this weird idea that Trans Women are infallible to criticism or being called out on bad behavior just because they are trans women. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I have seen people say that all trans men are terrible based on the fact that they are men. If you believe this you are playing into misogyny and mysoginysic ideals. No one is absolved of criticism in this world especially if they are actively doing bad things. You can still be a trans ally by calling out the bad behavior of a trans person just because they're being a bad person or behaving poorly isn't a reflection of their transness it's a reflection of who they are as a person as a whole.

The whole point of the feminist movement is to give people more freedom regardless of gender. To break down the barriers that gender poses. This is not only for cis women but trans women as well as cis and trans men and people who fall under the nonbinary umbrella. Saying trans men have it better than cis and trans women is actively counterintuitive to this goal. Saying cis men have no issues is also counter-intuitive to this goal. For example, many men are taught the only emotions they can have is happiness, anger, and horny and because of this many cis men have poor emotional regulation While this can and does harm society we also need to remember the negative impact this has on cis men be it men that fall under the binary as expected by society, are nonconforming to said societal standard, or trans men who are already not seen as a man enough for some people and constantly have their manhood under fire. Cis men also continuously have their manhood under fire if they dare show any sort of "vulnerability" such as crying or actually being in love with someone. This also comes back around to harm cis and trans women as they can be seen are not feminine enough if they have even just one masculine trait.

This is not to say that cis men don't have an advantage in society, I am painfully aware of this fact. We just need to remember misogyny affects EVERYONE.

Another thing I notice is that trans women can tend to be treated overly delicately which is something that stems from how society treats women in general. For example, there is this media "critic" (if you know me you know who I'm talking about) who despite having actively harmful and downright racist and fatphobic takes on the media she attempts to criticize there are those who think she can do no wrong because she is trans. Her fan's arguments are always "She is a trans person of color there by default you are over-criticizing her." This is actually harmful as it the person in question is not expected to take any responsibility for any of her harmful retoric and actions. And that's just about her takes on media. I'm not even going to get into to the actual allegations of crimes levied against her.

I'd like to conclude this section that just because someone is (insert characteristic here) doesn't mean that they are by default a good or bad person. you need to look at them as a whole and what they're actually doing and saying.

Next, I just want to say not all media has to be happy and nice to be good media. Some media has darker stories to tell and in doing so bring concepts to people that they may not have thought about before. For example, I would have never known that my father was abusing me had I not watched shows that painted his exact behavior as abuse and not okay. Up until that point, I had just thought "Well dads are just like that." Sometimes the stories that are being told bring much-needed awareness to those who need it. That is not to say that you have to consume this media I'm just saying it has a right to exist and a purpose.

Lastly, this is a comparatively small section but I feel is just as important. If you tell people that you want to rape or sexually abuse them or you tell them to kill themselves or you doxx them you are a bad person. There's no other way to look at that. I've seen so many people do this over just little things like disagreeing on headcanons or even someone just liking a character. This could not be a more extreme overreaction. Stop doing this and if you see people close to you doing this stop them too they deserve consequences for their actions. It's disgusting when people get away with this.

Thank you for reading my rambling and have a good day!

[madara-fate]

my pet peeve with sasusaku is that sakura’s feelings were off screened in part 2 and there was NO substantial reason for her to feel that way and retain such feelings for so long, even tho the story’s backbone is the concept of bonds stemming from people who understand each other due to sharing heavy hardships. i mean, it would’ve been great if she got to reflect etc but ultimately it might come off as dumb bc what would she be thinking anyway? “oh it started as a schoolgirl crush but idk why it changed but nvm now idc like that bc he’s a terrorist i love naruto” kishi said himself he avoided writing in a reason for her feelings bc it would look contrived and he also said she’d be a terrible woman for moving on from sasuke and misogyny aside, it’s bc he wrote himself into a corner with her initial characterization & arc that he stuck with for too long.

my pet peeve with sasusaku is that sakura’s feelings were off screened in part 2 and there was NO substantial reason for her to feel that way and retain such feelings for so long

Firstly, I fail to see how her feelings were off screened when they were only reiterated at regular intervals. Secondly, they spent a lot of time together, she got to know who Sasuke truly was as a person, saw how much he was struggling internally, and wanted to help ease his suffering. Feelings can often very easily arise from wanting to help one in need. Thirdly, why would she need a reason to retain her feelings? It's not like Sasuke's suffering ceased during Part 2; he was still in desperate need of help and I'm gonna come back to this point later on when you mention "misogyny", because I'm so tired of people throwing around that term where it doesn't belong.

even tho the story’s backbone is the concept of bonds stemming from people who understand each other due to sharing heavy hardships.

That's not the story's backbone. Do you really mean to tell me that you can't name any close bonds in the story that didn't initially derive from the two people in question sharing some empathy?

i mean, it would’ve been great if she got to reflect etc but ultimately it might come off as dumb bc what would she be thinking anyway? “oh it started as a schoolgirl crush but idk why it changed but nvm now idc like that bc he’s a terrorist i love naruto”

I've explained why her feelings changed above - Her schoolgirl crush was based on this idea of a perfect Sasuke that every other girl in the academy seemed to have. The cool and composed Sasuke who gets straight A's in both the physical and written exams. All of that changed once she began spending time with him and discovering that beneath that seemingly perfect exterior was a very troubled boy.

kishi said himself he avoided writing in a reason for her feelings bc it would look contrived and he also said she’d be a terrible woman for moving on from sasuke and misogyny aside, it’s bc he wrote himself into a corner with her initial characterization & arc that he stuck with for too long

There's no misogyny here. Nothing Kishi said demonstrated any ingrained hatred or contempt for women. So for god's sake people need to stop throwing around that term whenever they come across a female character who they feel should have been treated better in one way or another. That "terrible woman" quote (which people constantly choose to just focus on that and ignore the entire context of the conversation), is Kishi saying that if Sakura suddenly switched her feelings to Naruto, right after he had become the village hero, and dropped Sasuke like a bag of sick despite him still desperately needing help, that would have made her look terrible, because it would've made her seem like she only cares about one's status, reputation and how "cool" they're deemed by society, but that was not the case. They even made a point to highlight this during her fake confession - Sakura referenced a quote describing women as fickle, but Naruto told her to stop lying to herself, because he knew that Sakura's feelings for Sasuke were anything but fickle:

This was no longer the Sakura who had a crush on Sasuke because she and every other girl in the academy thought he was "cool". No, Sasuke at this point was a wanted international criminal who was anything but socially "cool", and yet Sakura still loved him anyway. Why? Because she didn't care about how cool he was - She knew that Sasuke had a heart of gold, she knew that he was dealing with a lot of mental and internal strife, and she knew that he could still be saved. That's why she retained her feelings for Sasuke despite his transgressions, and it had nothing to do with apparent misogyny.

[horizon-verizon]

https://www.tumblr.com/miss-dollette/751777149185376256/wake-up-call-for-ballistic-team-black-and-rhaenyra?source=share lol

Lucky for me, I never thought that Rhaenyra was Daenerys or Daenerys-like. (my "Rhaenyra and Feminism" tag) I have said these things about these two:

Rhaenyra is not a feminist because no one can be at this time and feminism as a movement began in the 18th century under specific conditions of a particular philosophical movement and under specific economic conditions whereas Rhaenyra, Catelyn, Alysanne, even Daenerys all live in a completely different world, a medievalesque/"ancient" own.....does that mean we shouldn't care how any woman before the 18th century (or those in fiction who would exist out of a feminist-minded/included society) or who aren't full blown feminists do to try to gain autonomy for themselves or to help others altruistically? Misogyny still exists, and it existed "back then"; we need to understand these women and the contours of the sexist conditions under which they live which both helps us to define and trace sexism as well as understand and connect ourselves to these characters to understand oppressive structures' effect on individual who then go on to affect and respond to their oppressive societies. And thus, some women, because they are people too (novel idea) are going to be more selfish than others, and partly bc they have been subjected to this double standard and the socially-justified abuse done against them since young (Alicent-Rhaenyra, esp in the show with how fans kept saying "Alicent is queen, se can demand to see thr baby all she wants, Rhaenyra didn't have to go up there", ignoring the fact that Alicent is trying to humiliate her and she herself knows that she wouldn't like it if someone did the same to her when she birthed her kids; in the bk, she turns against Rhaenyra when R is about 9-10, after Aegon is born and Viserys kicks Otto out for protesting against his choice to keep Rhaenyra as his heir) So yeah, she became more self-focused.

but that doesn't give us license to blame things that were not her fault or her doing or came form people who existed way before she was born; ignore the fact that she loved her kids and vice versa; that she died by femicide and bc of systemic sexism against overt female rulership; that she is one of the only woman and one of the last woman who actually had more political power than her husband and chose him (Rhaenys was the other one who got to choose); that after her death and fall, magic in the world took another hit and the dragons that could have been used to fight against the Others was lost before Daenerys Targaryen reawakened them and gave a reboot to magic in general; [🖇rhaenin-time] that after Rhaenyra's fall, after the fall of one of the few women who a Targ male relative actively supported in away unlike most men of her society instead of just abusing, sidelining, and using up, most if not all other Targ women--who never able to choose their husbands--were not protected from Andal patriarchy and its licens eof spousal abuse because the dynasty itself has fully assimilated into Andal patriarchy with the loss

that fans discredit Rhaenyra's victimhood and problems stemming from sexism how they discredit Daenerys' past victimhood; and then they go on to say Dany wasn't a revolutionary figure bec she's a Targ and a child of incest and can ride "nukes" and profited off of slavery -- people will move goal posts to for their anti-woman agendas and the Dance is coming from and centered around that -- these two women are dehumanized both in-world and the fandom/real life because those do not like they are women who have both acquired power over men or "equal" to what men are granted/obtain for themselves

talked myself to death about how "bastard" is a legal and sociopolitical term that can be "fixed" or argued agianst, how only a King/Monarch could legitimize, how Viserys decided--with Corlys--to accept Rhaenyra's kids into his household and thus include in the line of succession, etc. etc.

Some Master Posts with a List of Links Where I have Argued for Rhaenyra & Why We Should Care about Her

POST

POST

POST [esp against Criston Cole and the Idea that Show!Rhaenyra was Predatory]

🖇la-pheacienne's words:

This is a story about how even the "realm's delight" could not be considered worthy enough to live compared to her rapist scum of a brother, because even the "realm's delight" will always be just a woman so she will always be inherently inferior to any man however pathetic or incompetent he may be. This is a story of tragic irony because it is a woman, and Rhaenyra's descendant specifically, that is currently bearing the Targaryen name, it is a woman reconstructing the Targaryen legacy, it is a woman that brought back the music of dragons, almost two centuries after Westeros would rather have them perish and destroy everything in their passing than allow a woman on the throne, the very dragons that are now meant to save Westeros from its impending doom. And this feels like justice to me. I'm sorry that some people are so blind in their contrarianism that they prefer to make up a bazillion nonsensical headcanons than acknowledge that this is the actual theme of this story.

PRIME POST

If no one wishes to read from those links I give here, that's really not on me. It's be ironic, too, if they took the time to read all of that OP's long post anon' links, though.

[cto10121]

Finished watching that long-ass but well-done Contrapoints video on Twilight and it wasn’t clownish!!! It was literate!!! For once!!! Still, I have des Notes(tm):

Not sophisticated people like Contrapoints mixing up movie and book canon willy-nilly. 😑 Some of her analysis and argument, then, is greatly weakened by this, especially when she mentions Bella’s nightmare in Breaking Dawn (very different film vs. movie). Make it clear which one you’re talking about, sis!!!

By that token, her claim that the Port Angeles scene and the James fight in the ballet studio are examples of disavowal is not held up by the books. The would-be rapists are not described in any way, much less erotically; the focus is on Edward’s rescue and his fury. James is not even described as typically beautiful, actually average, and his framing is that of a typical villain

Re: Disavowal theory, Contrapoints misses the fact that Bella is a parentified teen of working class parents. There is even an in-canon explanation re: Midnight Sun as to why she doesn’t like birthdays (spoiler: her mother just dngaf). So Bella’s distaste for attention and parties and money is not an affectation or maidenly disavowal. It is a character weakness stemming from neglect. Her character arc is to accept her worth and to move away from disavowal and play-acting modesty, embracing her true self

She greatly undersells how much Twilight subverts typical gender roles and conventions. It’s Bella who wants vampirism, Bella who wants sex from Edward, Bella who comes up with plans and solutions, Bella who saved Edward. It’s Bella whose mind can’t be penetrated or manipulated, who develops an interest in motorcycles and loves her truck. Vampire Bella may be fully realized in her autonomy both physically and socially, but Human Bella did well with what she could do and worked hard to reach her goals (vampirism, sex with Edward). She was only physically weak.

Twilight also subverts the B&B/predator-prey dynamic just as much as it eroticizes it. Bella and Edward personality-wise are much more alike than different (there is definitely several shades of Romeo and Juliet there), so their physical inequality ends up being yet another obstacle to their romance rather than an inherent part of their dynamic. A big chunk of the reason why Bella wants to be a vampire so badly is because she knows it’s the only way to truly be with Edward, that this man-of-steel-woman-of-tissue situation cannot continue. The end of series sees Bella and Edward as explicit equals

Also, also, from the way the vampires are written in Twilight, becoming a vampire can be interpreted as very much an escape from patriarchal life. No need to cook or clean, male vampires can’t get you pregnant, and even if a male vampire threatens you, you have your own power to fend them off. Sex-based discrimination is impossible in the vampiric world. Only individual cases of misogyny can exist. So there’s that

For that token, there were and are hundreds of romance novels and erotica that do—or try to do—the same thing as Twilight. Before Twilight there was the Vampire Diaries and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And yet, while highly popular, none of these were as great a phenomenon as Twilight. Unfortunately, Contrapoints doesn’t really delve into what makes Twilight different from the world of romance and erotica, only why it was a success

A+ meta on how romance novels work. It’s a little no duh, but she explains it so well and eloquently

The toxic radfem/political lesbianism theory section explains the pearl-clutching around Twilight and Fifty Shades and misunderstandings about Twilight but did we really need a whole section on toxic radfem theory???? Otoh, I agree that bad intellectual ideas are super entertaining

Pamela discourse!!! Yeah, I learned all about that in my Development of the Novel course, it’s all good ☕️. But I disagree slightly with Contrapoints in that Twilight is not following that tradition. Bella does have virtue and purity signifiers; in many ways she falls under the Beautiful Maiden(tm) trope. But once again, Meyer gives it a twist in that Bella is portrayed as a modern agnostic girl who wants Edward’s D—preferably without marriage. And the narrative essentially cheers her on. Pamela would never

That Kristen Stewart interview where she says she didn’t feel like she was playing a character made me die inside and wonder if she has read the books. Contrapoints implicitly agreeing with her that Bella is a placeholder character made me die inside and wonder if she has truly read the books

Not Contrapoints actually agreeing with St. Augustine, that African-intellectual-turned-religious-dumbass 😑 Yeah, no, I do not agree that lust is inherently perverted. For one thing, what is “perversion” and what is “normal”? Spoiler alert: It basically all comes down to cultural and religious bias. It’s true that the sex act involves crossing boundaries and penetration of some form, but that in and of itself not inherently violent. You can hurt yourself exercising; doesn’t mean it’s something horribly violent!!! So yeah, there’s my fuck-St-Augustine rant for the day

[roachliquid]

Dissecting some examples of rhetoric that tries to force trans people into privileged/oppressed dichotomies (CW transphobia, transmisandry, misogyny, biphobia, aphobia, exorsexism)

NOTE: This list is not comprehensive. The point isn't to cover every possible piece of bullshit rhetoric, but to educate people on the common problems and logical errors that characterize these kinds of claim. As such, this is mostly going to cover shit that harms transmascs, because that's the material that I know the best. This is not a claim that this bullshit only goes one way. It can happen, has happened, with ANY group cast as the oppressor.

"Trans women are publicly shamed and bullied for being trans. Trans men are 'just' invisible, so they're privileged because they don't have to deal with that!"

"Transphobes want transfem people dead. But they just want transmascs to detransition, so transmascs have it better."

Both of these are examples of oppression Olympics - claiming that one group is really privileged because their oppression doesn't look as bad. It's also misleading as hell, because it never explores what the actual consequences are of what's being done to AFABS/trans men - for example, that invisibility exacerbates the difficulty of finding transmasc-inclusive resources, or that the reason many transphobes want us detransitioned is so that we will be "sexually available" to them (I.E. they want us as sex objects and breeding stock, which is not all that better than death).

"AMABs are hated no matter what they do, because they're either seen as perverts or Evil Men. AFABs can avoid being seen as either simply by detransitioning, convincing society at large that they are harmless, vulnerable women."

And here's yet another example of the claim that being forced to detransition isn't "that bad", as if gender dysphoria and the pain of being in the closet are magically washed away by the healing powers of society's overwhelming love and support for women. And the assumption that that exists is a problem in itself, because misogyny? Racism? Islamophobia, fatphobia, literally everything that causes people to clutch their pearls and treat others like absolute shit? Apparently none of that matters at all, literally any (supposed) cis woman can say "jump" and society will start tripping over themselves to do so.

"Nonbinary trans people aren't really trans, they just want to be because they think it's cool. They need to accept their cis privilege and get out of the way."

Folks, this is literally oppressor logic. Queerphobes have been trying to deny people rights since day one on the basis that their identities don't fit into mainstream concepts of gender expression. Are you trans, but mainly attracted to people of the "opposite" sex? Then you're not really trans, because normal people are straight. Are you bisexual? No, you're "really" straight or gay, because people are only attracted to one gender. Asexual? Bullshit, everyone's attracted to someone. Nonbinary? That's not a real gender, or if it is, it's not as important as my binary one.

You get it. This logic has been re-used and regurgitated so many times that it's mostly bare wires and bits of vomit. And yet people are still using at least half of the versions I just mentioned, plus more that I didn't have energy to cover. And all of it stems from the same, laughably conceited premise: that the mainstream model of gender and sexuality is so close to perfect that your understanding is all it needs to finish the puzzle.

I'm going to stop this here, because it's very tiring to write, but hopefully this helps to battle some of this nonsense.