#like i’m perpetuating this default

[whatbigotspost]

Ya know what I don’t like about the chatter about “nepo babies” in Hollywood?

The fact that everyone doesn’t already assume that most famous people are them.

Because y’all. We should be assuming it’s the default in Hollywood. Because it is.

After 20 years in the extremely indie micro budget filmmaking community in both Indiana and Texas, I can tell ya, all over the country there are extremely talented folks creating, writing, acting, etc. who should be recognized but they’re not. Whose work should get more eyes but it doesn’t. And it’s pretty much exclusively because they don’t know the right people to open the right doors and they don’t have the ability (for a variety of very different reasons) to leave their entire lives and communities behind to move to LA and spending years taking abuse at low wage PA gigs, working 3-4 jobs to make rent, pounding the pavement with endless auditions, withstanding constant rejection, etc. waiting to see if they “make it big.”

Power perpetuates power. Hollywood insiders will always give advantages to their kids in ways big and small. Even if someone’s famous parents don’t ask for favors or overtly hire them, those kids’ social lives and networks are linked with the right people to open the right doors. Plus getting the education a mega celebrity can afford for their kids? The private lessons? The exposure to the industry from day one? Knowing the right way to socially comport yourself in Hollywood spaces from day one?

Advantage on advantage on advantage.

I’m not saying that there aren’t very massively talented nepo babies in their own right. But I am saying that for a nepo baby we can never REALLY know if they would have made it on their own. We simply can’t know if they grew up in a trailer park in Kansas if we’d ever know their names.

I think we should talk about that all the time and never stop letting them know we’re aware of it honestly 😂 I think that given all the advantages and given how gatekept Hollywood is, the literal least nepo babies can do is just own the truth that we can never ever ever know if without daddy they would have ever broken out.

[writing-for-life]

Nuance in (The Sandman) Fandom

Send me asks about everything Sandman-related!

I thought a lot over the past few days, partly prompted by discourse on here, partly due to a couple of “interesting” asks and messages I received (the type you don’t answer). I *think* they might have been prompted by engaging in discourse on topics like anti-blackness/racism, misogyny/sexism, TERF characters etc in The Sandman.

Fandoms are always getting super sensitive if someone shines a critical lens on their favourite works, authors and characters. So to make this clear (in case it isn’t already obvious from my brain-rot blog):

I love The Sandman. I love Neil Gaiman. I have an extremely soft spot for Dream (and Desire btw, who deserves a lot more character analysis than just being summed up as “villainous, sexy bitch”. One day, perhaps ;)).

I can read The Sandman and just get lost in the story, even after decades and many rereads. 

But I can also view it through a critical lens—these things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Not critical enough or too critical?

As fans, we can get trapped in certain thinking patterns, like:

“My blorbo can do no wrong”-syndrome 

“Characters with flaws are inherently problematic and imply authorial endorsement of those actions” 

“Characterisation and problematic subtext are one and the same” (aka overanalysing and looking for problems where there are none is the death of every story, but failing to see problematic patterns where they are clearly visible is a problem, too).

Don't say anything bad about my favourite character

I think this doesn’t need much further exploration. It’s not my personal way of looking at stories through permanently rose-tinted glasses (I always feel it stalls my experience, but my experience is not everyone else's). Some people prefer that type of escapism, and I’m good with that (although the downside is of course that by not willing to engage with issues, we can unwillingly perpetuate them). Live and let live, ship and let sail. But please, for the love of god: Don’t insult people via their inboxes or messages just because their opinions and preferences don’t align with yours. I’m not going to sugarcoat it or phrase it “nicely”: It’s infantile (and a form of bullying btw), end of.

How can you even like a character who's so horrible? And that author must be equally horrible, too

We have to separate flawed characters, even those who are written to be really problematic, from real-life endorsement of these actions. 

Author, narrator and character are three fundamentally different things, and don’t overlap as much as some people seem to think. 

We can write vile, despicable characters to make a point (for me, Thessaly was always a prime example for this, and I explained why here). We probably hate them as we write them. I don’t know what else to say, but this facet of writing seems to get more and more lost on people, and it’s a worry. Crying for sanitised characterisation is one step away from censorship. We explore what is problematic about people and humanity through story. That’s how we process and learn. It’s nothing new, but it becomes impossible if we can’t write flawed and even disgusting characters. 

Face value…

Since I’m mostly in The Sandman fandom, I often read that its ending is hopeless, and that’s supposedly the entire message. 

It is agonisingly sad, yes. But is it truly hopeless? I personally see it as quite the opposite, but of course that’s my opinion, coloured by my life experiences.

I also get that show-only fans often haven’t read the comics, or at least not the whole arc. And as such, their outlook from what they’ve seen so far (and choose to focus on) has to be different by default. I also understand that many people are quite new to the comics, even if they have read them in their entirety. I’ve sat with them for 30 years, and I still find new things on every reread (and I read it more times than anyone should 🙈), and I still don’t feel like I’ve understood it all. Perhaps because I still haven’t fully understood myself (and it’s unlikely I ever will). If there’s one thing The Sandman isn’t, it’s one-dimensional and easy to grasp in its whole depth.

I just wrote a ginormous meta on it, if you’re interested, it’s here:

Subtext, (not so) glorious subtext

This is where it gets complicated:

We shouldn’t mix up characterisation and story subtext. Overanalysing every line to death will always make us find something that’s “problematic”, when it really isn’t in the wider context of the story.

Zooming in is NOT always a good thing. Sometimes, we actually need to zoom out. 

But subtext *can be* (accidentally) problematic. Even in stories we love. And none of this negates what I previously wrote.

Stories have real-life implications of sorts, and we need to be able to talk about it. That’s where those slightly flabbergasting, hostile inbox messages come in, and I want to expand on that "topic of contention" a bit:

Neil himself confirmed that the Endless basically warp reality, and that this is why, after Dream’s failed relationship with Nada, many black women in his vicinity suffer terrible fates (Ruby and Carla in particular). And that this spell is only broken when he dies, and that it is the reason why Gwen doesn’t suffer the same fate. And said Gwen then gets used as a plot device to basically absolve Hob (who canonically really is a problematic character, whether show-only fans like it or not) from his slaver past. Once again, very clearly: No one is making this up. Neil confirmed it (for the comics, and that was over 20 years ago. It remains to be seen if his stance has changed as we move into that arc in the TV show).

I don't think it is correct to imply that Dream as a character is racist (I've read that, too) because he logically can’t be. He holds *all* the collective unconscious. He is also, strictly speaking, not white. He is everything and nothing, and he shows up in many different ethnicities throughout the whole arc, depending on who looks at him. But Neil played with a subtext here (reality warping due to a bad relationship which then affects everyone with similar physical traits) that will read very differently to a black person than it reads to a white person, and we have to understand why that is an *extremely* slippery slope.

Plus, we are supposed to see Hob, who *was* a racist at some point (you can’t not be if you’re a slave-trader—it’s impossible by default) as redeemed. And yes, he *does* regret deeply, good for him (and if I were saying this aloud, you would hear the sarcasm in my voice, because it is indeed all about him. We are to sympathise/empathise with him and his character growth while there isn’t much mention of the people he maltreated). But also: it was a black woman who basically forgave him (with dialogue that personally makes me cringe). And that black woman who offers forgiveness is not truly a black woman—she is a character written by a white man. And as much as author and character are not the same (see above), there is an inherent sensitivity in that power imbalance that we can't brush under the carpet.

I don’t think Neil is racist. Probably quite the opposite, and I can even see that his intentions were good from a storytelling point of view. BUT intention and impact are two fundamentally different things, and telling the story this way (comic version) betrays blindspots only white people have. Just like women have blindspots when they tell stories about men, and men have blindspots when they tell stories about women (and there are a few of those in The Sandman, too). And and and…

As storytellers, we can’t always speak from lived experience. It’s impossible. And that also means we occasionally make mistakes that look bad in hindsight, even if our intentions were good.

I guess the proof is in the pudding: What do we do when people who *have* that lived experience tell us it looks bad? If they inform us why it is hurtful, plays into old stereotypes etc?

Are we willing to listen and yield (both are the foundations of allyship btw), or are we insisting that our viewpoint as someone *without* lived experience is right? That lived experience extends to all lived experiences (sex/gender, sexual orientation, age...), and from all we’ve heard from Neil so far, it seems important to him to rewrite what he sees differently today. Whether they’ll always get it right for the show—we’ll see. At the moment, it looks a lot better than in the comics, and certain issues are already being handled with a lot more sensitivity, but a few problems remain.

Pushing back on criticism that comes from people with lived experience is problematic—I’d encourage us to think about what it looks like if a white majority in the fandom is basically saying that the opinions of POC are essentially “overreactions” (and yes, that happened).

It’s complicated. The Sandman was written in a different time, and I think we have to distinguish between things that weren’t really problematic at the time but have aged poorly (again, Thessaly springs to mind, and I have lived experience as a queer person during that time, so I can see it in context while at the same time acknowledging that I would make changes to bring it to the present day), and things that were always a problem due to blindspots. They were a problem in 1990, and if they don’t get changed, they are still a problem today.

This fandom is generally so much more open and nicer than others I know. But that doesn’t mean it’s infallible, because it’s full of humans. 

Nuance is sorely needed, in both story interpretation and interaction between said humans.

[spctrsgf]

Hi! I had this idea if you would like to write. So reader and Steven go out in nature and make crowns from flowers. Reader is confident in their work, while Steven keeps saying that he doesn't know how to do it, and that it won't be good. They agree to give eachother theirs and reader is like surprised that he made it so good and starts talking about it, and then looks at Steven, who put the crown on, and is speechless how beautiful he is.

crown of daisies

word count: 1kish

warnings: language, teeth rotting fluff

a/n: anon, i am SO sorry that this took me literal months to finish, but i have been so demotivated i feel so bad :((( anyways here it is !!!

“I’m just going to make a bloody fool of myself. I don’t even know how to do it!” Steven protests, squeezing your shoulders from where his hands were placed. Your head tilts to study the way his eyebrows slip up, defaulting in worry. 

“Steven, it’s fine. I’ll teach you!” Your hands trek up his chest and come to rest on his cheeks. “But that’s embarrassing.” He whines. Always so adamant. You step closer, directing his head downwards to place a kiss in between his furrowed eyebrows.

“It’s not embarrassing.”

“It is.”

“It’s not,” you lament the word with another kiss, this one to his nose. You love the way it crinkles when you do that. “It’s cute.”

His eyes catch on your smiling lips. “Is it?”

“It is. It really is.”

“You promise you won’t make fun of me?”

“I would never.”

He huffs, pushing your hands— that were now trying to curl around his neck— away. “Bullshit.”

“Aw, Stevie, don’t be that way—”

“I’m going home.” He turns and walks away, leaving you and your picnic in the dust. 

You smile wickedly, knowing this adamance would last not two minutes before he came back. Instead of standing and waiting, you bend down and start picking daisies off of the ground. He was just gonna make a fuss about picking these up anyway. It wasn’t hard to stock up; they were quite literally everywhere.

True to your assumption, the Brit grumbles and mumbles back to you right on time, plopping himself unceremoniously onto the blanket. You squeeze his shoulder absentmindedly as you slide by him, picking at a particularly rich patch of grass. He trails your movements with a keen sort of gaze, steady enough that you too could feel it rest on your spine.

All the flowers have been plucked not long after, and you turn to smile brightly at Steven with them gathered in your hands. You hurry back over, fueled by the perpetual push of childish excitement. Steven tilts his head in amusement at the sight, a smile touching the edges of his lips. It’s silly, and you’re both probably a sight for sore eyes, but neither of you could find a care in the world to fix it. 

“Okay,” you breath out between heaves of your chest, plopping yourself across from your boyfriend, snagging a bite of the food you’d brought. “Ready?” He swallows, nodding. Something about the way you look at him, hopeful and excited and yet so incredibly understanding of his reservations tells him that this couldn’t be all that bad. 

“You wanna swap crowns when we’re done?” 

He bites down a smile. Adorable. “Sure.”

“Perfect! Okay, it’s relatively easy. Here, get two flowers…” 

And he learns. He only watches your deft fingers at first, enthralled by the way you laughed when the stem broke, the way you cheered when it didn’t. You notice after a while that he’s made no progress on his own flower crown, so you scoot yourself over to his side and guide his hands through the motions. Once he’s caught on, you leave him be, going back to your spot to work on your own crown. 

After you deem your crown big enough to fit on your head– and finally get the last knot to do the right thing, which took several minutes in itself– you bring the craft to hide behind your back. You gaze over at Steven, curious to see how his crown is going.

But he's already leaning over you, gingerly placing his crown on top of your head. Your eyes follow his movements, smiling mindlessly. He sits back, raking his eyes over his work nervously. Before he can get a word out, you're clambering over to him to place your own atop his mess of curls.

His hands fly up to pat the crown as soon as you lean far away enough for him to, obscuring your view. “Tell me if yours looks okay.” He tilts his head towards your phone, to which you oblige, opening up the camera app. 

And your jaw drops.

For someone who was as nervous and apprehensive as he was, you're blown away. Even for someone with experience, you'd still be blown away. You run your fingers along the flowers, amazed at how he managed to tie them without breaking several stems. 

“Steven, oh my gods,” you say without looking up, still admiring the crown. “It's amazing. How'd you even do this so well?” He snorts, and you can see him shift out of the corner of your eye. “I just did what you told me to do.”

“Yeah, but– what the fuck??? It’s literally perfect. I can't even do that.”

“I think yours is absolutely stunning, love.”

“Nah, I think it could've been better if the stems didn't break.” Your head tilts back up to him in order to let you glare. 

But you don't even get a chance to frown. You couldn't possibly frown. Not when he looked like that. 

The crown, still on his head, seemed to be systematically placed so that all the flowers peeked out at you from behind rich brown curls. His eyes, a hypnotizing swirl of milk and dark chocolate, peer at you in his trademark gaze. It makes your head swim.

Steven leans forward as his head tilts to the side, gently bringing his hand to the bottom of your chin, closing your mouth. He sits back down, smiling bright at your glare. “Didn't want you to catch any flies in there. That would be unsanitary.” You chuckle drily. “So considerate.”

“Just looking out for you.”

You snort. “Sure. That wasn't to be cheeky.”

“Not at all.”

“Whatever.”

“You love me.” He nudges your leg with his shoe.

You roll your eyes, knowing he knew the answer.

Of course you do.

[inluvwcaitvi]

How about.........Vi and Jinx are two girls who grew up in perpetual survival mode and both processed it differently? I mean any one that decks their BABY sister's shit needs to be side-eyed. I know she had just witnessed the death of her father figure (courtesy of said baby sister, but it was unintentional) and the trauma reflex kicked in, but damn,Vi. She's like 8 and can't defend herself against you ( or anyone else apparently. Weakest link fr).

Also, let's be real with ourselves here. Jinx is like this, because Powder wasn't taught right from wrong. It's clear no one ever disciplined her at all. Vander didn't, Vi sure as hell didn't and Silco definitely didn't. So she grows up being taught that you can do whatever you please, as long as it's in the name of survival........and then motherfuckers want to be shocked that she turned out like that.

Tbh, who's to say Vi wouldn't be just as bad if she wasn't parentified from seemingly birth? I mean, OG Vi was a literal gang member. Current Vi was beating people's asses in jail on a regular basis AND literally ran up on Sevika the second she saw an opportunity . They're both violent as hell. Jinx just prefers to bring guns to street fights. Aggressive behaviour seems to be genetic with these two.

I guess what I'm trying to say is......they're both kinda awful. Doesn't mean I like either girl any less. But I'm not sure I can bear people acting like one sister is better than the other because "insert reason here". Both girls have severe and terribly managed mental health issues based in trauma. Both resort to violence as a first response. It is what it is.

first of all, powder was close to being 11-12, not 8. and ofc vi shouldn’t have hit her sister like that, i have alr said that in another post.

and it was more than just vi’s father figure, it was her two brother-figures as well, aka her entire second family after she alr lost her first one (minus powder ofc) years prior in a terrible traumatizing incident.

i always find it funny whenever ppl instantly and completely take up for and defend powder while glossing over or ignoring the fact that vi’s entire second family literally just died in front of her, it’s ridiculous. 💀

also, who is “shocked” jinx turned this way? who told u that lmao? cuz i’m sure not, and i’ve never seen anyone “shocked” at the way jinx turned out.

i’m completely aware of WHY and HOW she turned out this way. that doesn’t mean she’s exempt from criticism at all. 💀

also, sure, u can say that they’re “both awful”, but jinx is clearly worse, regardless of how u try to spin it lmao. and you’re better off at convincing a dog to speak than you are at ever convincing me that jinx isn’t. it is what it is. 🤷

like, jinx literally has several manipulative/abusive behaviors that make her worse by default, along with her absolutely lack of sympathy or compassion for literally anybody, unlike vi.

she literally implied that she murdered caitlyn after kidnapping her and put her head on a platter JUST to fuck w vi, even after she knew that vi didn’t intentionally leave her in ep. 3, and she has also almost killed her sister several times… but jinx isn’t worse, somehow?? like, bitch what??

[cadomoisspokenfor]

I haven’t watched the Knuckles show yet, but even before seeing it I’m tired of the discourse. Mostly I’m tired of the way this fandom talks about each other, and how we’ve seemingly given in completely to the narrative of universal toxicity prescribed to the fandom by people outside it.

If someone says they dislike a certain piece of Sonic media, or have even an inkling of criticism for it, they get thousands of responses decrying them with things like “the Sonic fandom hates fun” or “the Sonic fandom is so toxic, they can’t handle even the tiniest adaptational changes” or “Sonic fans literally don’t even like the character.”

If someone says they like a certain piece of Sonic media, or even just praise certain aspects of it, they get thousands of responses along the lines of “Sonic fans standards are so low they’ll praise ANYTHING” or “Sonic fans don’t even know what good media is” or “the Sonic fandom is a cult that doesn’t accept even the smallest criticisms of their god.”

First off, which is it? Is the Sonic fandom incapable of hearing criticism, or does it only ever criticize without enjoying new things?

Second, this idea of the Sonic fandom being inherently toxic no matter what is a large part of what’s breeding so much toxicity in the first place. Can’t you see it? Please tell me you can see it. If no one can discuss ANYTHING, no matter what opinion they have, without it being labelled as “typical Sonic fan craziness,” than any attempt at building healthy community in the first place is forfeit because it’s already been decided that talking about the character we all like is off limits. We’re all only here to be mad at each other. No one dares say they’re actually a part of the fandom. We all have to be “fandom adjacent” to not be perceived as toxic by default. And that’s stupid.

Why do we talk to each other with such condescension? Why have we just accepted this state of affairs? Why do we act like our opinions are objective and that everyones else must agree with us or else be labeled as “crazy Sonic fans” even if we’re clearly Sonic fans ourselves? And if we don’t act like that, why do we tolerate so many others acting this way and ruining what could be a fairly straightforward and happy fan community? (Not to point the finger but many popular youtubers who dabble in Sonic perpetuate the above quite a bit and I very much wish we’d all stop treating them as arbiters of reason. They’re just people, same as you and me. It’s ok to disagree with them. It should be at least.)

I’m serious. Toxicity in the fandom is a real problem that needs constant vigilance in order to maintain a healthy community space, but that idea has been weaponized and the fandom’s become exponentially worse for it.

I guess I’m just asking, more like pleading, that before you jump to labeling someone saying they like or dislike a piece of media as toxic, stop and ask yourself “Are they really being toxic? Or are they just having an opinion in a completely-unsensational-if-it-was-any-fandom-but-the-sonic-fandom kinda way?”

People need to be able to say “Yes, we’re Sonic fans” without it carrying a negative connotation. And that takes recognizing the humanity in each other first and foremost. If we keep capitulating to those who call the fandom inherently toxic, it will only get worse. Again, toxicity is bad but we lost the plot ages ago. Let’s try and find it and then maybe this fandom can actually be fun again.

[thatgirl4815]

Sand & Ep11

I keep remembering this ask I got a while back, and I think it's important now more than ever.

If I was Sand, I personally would not give Boeing the time of day for what he did to me. I would be livid. I would never speak to him again.

But Sand is not me. Sand is more forgiving than is probably healthy for him. Even though it is something I hope he works on for his own benefit, it doesn't change the fact that for the moment, that is who he is. That's his flaw just as much as it his strength.

Caring for people is generally regarded as a positive trait because it is, but there's a such thing as caring too much for people who do not show that same care back to you. That is the position Sand seems to find himself in continuously. I believe Ray does care about Sand, but it took so long for that to be communicated to Sand in the way he deserves. The reason their relationship has lasted is because Sand does not demand that reassurance the way many people would, even though he might want it. Words of affirmation are not at the top of Sand's love language list.

Abandonment

I don't want to prescribe any definitive long-term childhood response to Sand from what little information we have, but given the emphasis on Sand's absent father, I think it's safe to say that Sand faces some abandonment issues. Growing up, he only ever had his mom; of course he was bound to cling to her very tightly. That is where I imagine his caring behavior has stemmed from most. Additionally, having so few people on his life that he could rely on, he learned to be a support system for others and learn not to complain for what he has.

I think Sand is in a position where he objectively understands that he is mistreated. He admits as much to both Ray and Nick. But he can’t break out of this cycle because there’s a deep-seated fear in him. A fear of being alone? A fear of being abandoned? A fear of not being good enough or “special” to anyone?

I have been wrestling with myself over the past day about Sand’s behavior in Ep11. And I’ve realized that a reason why I feel so ambivalent about it—a reason I don’t like to admit—is because it’s related to Boeing, not Ray.

Sand has received the same criticism he’s facing in Ep11 in past episodes: i.e., “He needs to know his worth and tell off Ray for what he’s doing to him.” A very similar situation has now arisen with Boeing. Sand is once again trapped in the cycle. He is nice to Boeing because even after what Boeing does to him, he cannot handle the thought of banishing him from his life for good—not when Boeing is still here and willing to engage with him. Again, we see the conflict between what he knows he should do and what he defaults to.

I empathize with Sand’s plight here, and I understand that it is difficult for him to react to Boeing and Ray. Where my frustrations arise are in the way he reacts to Ray’s reaction.

Ray is insanely passive aggressive at the end of Ep11. Sand has seen this all before; Ray lingers at the bar after being told to go home, he invites Boeing over without really wanting to invite him over, and he invites Sand to get naked in the pool with them. Each time, Boeing eggs him on by agreeing, playing up the guise of “we’re all friends here!” while simultaneously making both pointed and subtle jabs at his previous relationship with Sand (the most obvious being the “we’ve already seen every part of each other” line).

I’m of the belief that Sand is very aware of how Ray feels, especially in that ending shot when he looks between Ray and Boeing. But he does not ever confront Boeing or disengage from the situation. He’s playing into Boeing’s guise, and both he and Ray know it.

In virtually every part of Part 4, we see Sand caught in this same perpetual cycle where he lets people walk all over him. While I empathize with his struggles, as I said, there's a part of me that believes his boyfriend’s discomfort with the situation should supersede that. He committed to Ray, not Boeing, and this situation with Boeing is posing a threat to that.

This is not me saying that Sand needs to scream at Boeing and cuss him out for what he did to him. But I do think Sand needs to acknowledge much more firmly that he is Ray’s boyfriend. Sand can be nice to Boeing and offer him friendship, but he cannot allow Boeing to make advances on him and hang around with them when Boeing so clearly has other intentions. (There’s an argument that maybe Boeing does genuinely want a friendship with Sand, but after the way he talks with Sand and how he handled the TopMew situation, I don’t believe that for a second).

This isn’t easy for Sand, but when Ray is right there, he has to be more direct. Boeing was his past but Ray is his present. Much like how Sand encouraged Ray to go to rehab, I think Ray will encourage Sand to stand up for himself against Boeing.

[courtana]

More recently, the teams behind Call of Duty have attempted to give more shade and nuance to their depictions of the Middle East. The Modern Warfare reboot centers on an Arab woman named Farah Karim, one of several playable protagonists. “It’s rare to find a memorable brown protagonist,” Hussain said when discussing the history of video games. But Farah is certainly memorable—she survives a chemical attack in the opening act and leads her home country’s freedom fighters [...]. But there’s one problem: Farah is from an entirely made-up Middle Eastern country called Urzisktan. All the other main characters have their roots in real places (Price is from the United Kingdom, Alex is an American), yet she is from a fictitious Middle Eastern place ravaged by war, divided into people who engage in terrorist acts and those who don’t. The entire region is flattened into homogeneity as a result, and it’s all too common in these types of games. “We jokingly call it ‘Arabistan,’” game developer and consultant Rami Ismail said via video call. “A game designer once came up with that term…I think a lot of us use [it]. Some people say it’s a nice thing, but I don’t really see it that way. It just means that we’re literally interchangeable, our cultures are interchangeable.” Ismail continued, “From where I’m sitting it’s like, ‘yes, there’s a country in the Middle East, it needs to be bombed.’ That’s not an improvement to me, at least have the decency of picking a place and then doing it. But by homogenizing it, they can effectively go, ‘no, no, we don’t mean any of the real people. We mean the fictional Arabs that by default are terrorists.’” [...] “It’s perpetuating the idea that there is a singular, Middle Eastern country,” Shammas said during our chat. ”It actually ties in very strongly [to current events] because we’re seeing people say, ‘Oh, well, just take the Palestinians into Egypt, take the Palestinians into Jordan.’ These are different people with different Arabic languages…Call of Duty reflects the fact that we treat these cultures as totally swappable and why people don’t care about the displacement of Palestinian indigenous people specifically.” Shammas returned to that concept later, when I brought up the image circulating social media of an alleged Israeli soldier wearing a face covering similar to Ghost from Call of Duty. “Stateless people, unnamed country—Palestine might as well be anywhere else,” she explained. “It helps with the subtle colonialist narrative that the space is empty, barren, and owned by babbling savages that you can now enter and make something of.” [...] But for many, reckoning with the legacy of military games seems nigh impossible. “There is no value in any military game, and honestly, people should find better games to play,” journalist Saniya Ahmed said in an email. “No cultural representation can come from Call of Duty, nor should it.” Shammas brought up God of War 2018 as an example of a franchise taking its core concept and turning it on its head, questioning protagonist Kratos’ legacy and relationship to violence. Can Call of Duty do something like that? “No. I don’t think it can,” she said. Ismail agreed. “The problem isn’t necessarily that we shouldn’t have Call of Duty games or that Call of Duty should be different from what it is,” he said. “Changing that would require a level of courage and a level of insight at the corporate level that just isn’t possible within our system of making games…Call of Duty is a roller-coaster built on the American consciousness of war.”

– Alyssa Mercante, "We Have To Talk (Again) About How War Games Depict The Middle East," KOTAKU (December 7, 2023).

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

Okay, so continuing my Red Dead Redemption 2/Sons of Anarchy comparison (I’m only up to chapter 3 of RDR2 so this is subject to change):

1) Dutch Van Der Linde is Clay Morrow. They are the leaders who are growing increasingly erratic.

2) By default, Molly O’Shea is Gemma Teller. I guess the one thing they have in common is being a pain in everyone’s ass.

3) John Marston and Abigail Roberts are Jax Teller and Tara Knowles. John and Jax are the protagonists/irresponsible criminals who want to be family men. Abigail and Tara are focused on protecting their children. And since I played the first game, both couples are trying to leave the criminal life.

4) Arthur Morgan is a loose combination of Chibs Telford and Opie Winston. They’re the closest to a brother figure to John/Jax and they’re the second-in-command of the team. Arthur also has Opie’s bad luck with romance. (Hmm…I guess Arthur could also be Bobby Munson as well for these reasons)

5) Hosea Matthews is Piney Winston. They’re the old guys who keep questioning Dutch/Clay’s authority.

6) Micah Bell is sorta kinda Tig Trager. They’re the weird, aggressive guys who seem to get on the rest of the team’s nerve. But I like Tig, whereas Micah is annoying lol.

7) Kieran Duffy is Juice Ortiz. They’re the perpetual outsiders since they went against the team.

8) Sean MacGuire is Kip 'Half-Sack' Epps. They’re the little shits who are trying to prove themselves and the gangs treat as the youngest brother.

9) Leopold Strauss is Bobby Munson. This is solely because both men handle the finances of the gangs. For a comparison that’s closer to the character’s personality…maybe Charles Smith? Or Javier Escuella?

10) Sadie Adler doesn’t have anyone I can really compare to but if I had to choose, she could also be Opie Winston. She has Opie’s burning desire for revenge after losing their spouse.

11) The O’Driscolls are the Mayans MC. They’re the rival gang that isn’t so different from the main gang.

Also, just to emphasize how RDR2 is secretly a Western Sons of Anarchy, here are the lyrics to SOA’s opening:

Riding through this world all alone

God takes your soul, you're on your own

The crow flies straight, a perfect line

On the Devil's Bed until you die

Gotta raise some hell, 'fore they take you down

Gotta live this life

Gotta look this world in the eye

Gotta live this life until you die

[the-himawari]

A3! Furuichi Sakyo - Translation [N] MY WORST WEDDING

*Please read disclaimer on blog; default name set as Izumi

---

Sakyo: (Alright, I guess I’ll start headin’ over to the next site.) (Sakoda… ah, it looks like he’s talkin’ with the other guys.)

Ginsenkai member A: Are you pullin’ my leg!?

Ginsenkai member B: You’re goin’ on a date!?

Ginsenkai member C: Oi, who’s the lucky lady? Where’d you two meet?

Ginsenkai member A: Damn it! I’m jealous as hell!

Sakyo: Good grief… what are they making a fuss about?

Sakoda: Ah. Aniki, listen here! Apparently, this guy’s goin’ on a date with a girl!

Sakyo: I know. I could hear everything.

Sakoda: *Sigh*. I’m green with envy… Ah, but I have aniki, so…!

Ginsenkai member B: So, where’re you going?

Ginsenkai member C: No matter what, don’t bring ‘em to an old pub ‘round here, got that!

Ginsenkai member A: Wouldn’t some place like a French restaurant be a big hit?

Ginsenkai member D: That’s so outta character for me!

Sakyo: …

-pause-

Sakyo: (The budget this time is…)

Banri: Sup, Sakyo-san. Are you doin’ accounting work right now? Woah, your calculator skills are pro as usual.

Sakyo: I’m used to it, after all.

Banri: Oh yeah. Have you come up with a date plan? We’re supposed to come up with one for our role study by next week’s rehearsal. The deadline’s comin’ up, y’know?

Sakyo: No… not yet.

Banri: Seriously?

Sakyo: How about you?

Banri: I’ve got it in the bag. During the day, we’ll go shopping, catch a cup of coffee at a café, and head to a darts bar together… Then in the evenin’ we’ll ride a dinner cruise where we can enjoy the night lights. Sounds perfect, right?

Sakyo: I see.

Banri: Well, good luck, Sakyo-san.

*leaves*

Sakyo: …*Sigh*. (I know it’s for role study, so I should just get it over with.) (Wait, but…)

*imagination starts*

Izumi: Ehh! Sakyo-san, this date plan is never going to work! Even a 100-year love would freeze over!

*imagination ends*

Sakyo: …What am I thinking? (I know there’s no way she’d say that. But…) …Tch. I gotta do what I gotta do.

-pause-

Banri: …And that’s my plan.

Taichi: Woah~, that’s Ban-chan for you…!

Juza: Shit plan.

Banri: Say that again?

Azami: Next is shitty Sakyo.

Omi: Let’s hear it.

Izumi: Alright Sakyo-san. Please go ahead.

Sakyo: …Got it.

-pause-

Sakyo: …And so, that’s all for the date plan I came up with.

Taichi: Woah, the perpetually stingy Sakyo-nii… went for a high-class French restaurant…!

Sakyo: …Times like these are special.

Banri: You really went full-out, huh?

Sakyo: …

Banri: Got ‘em.

Taichi: With that, we’ve finished hearing everyone’s plans. Now then, Director-sensei. We’d like you to choose whose plan was the best!

Izumi: Well… let’s see…

Autumn troupe: …

Izumi: All the plans were great… I don’t think I can choose.

Taichi: HUH!?

Banri: For real?

Taichi: Are you sure, Director-sensei?

Izumi: Come on. I can’t choose between the plans that all of you poured your hearts and souls into preparing…

Omi: Director…

Juza: …

Izumi: But, also! When it comes to a date, curry is a must!

Juza: …

Omi: That was a blind spot.

Banri: I totally forgot about that.

Azami: So did I.

Sakyo: Geez.

Taichi: It’s a tie between all of us this time~!

---

[dykeulous]

a lot of uneducated radical feminists support carceral feminism, which is anti-feminist by default. it is a failed, racist, classist & capitalistic strategy.

these people support the legal system & prisons– which are the manifestation of colonialism. they believe that we can liberate women by strengthening the legal system & that we can bring justice for women that have been victims of violent sexist action by putting the perpetuators in jail cells, ignoring the fact that the prison is a capitalist & colonialist institution that has been “beautified” by spiritual capitalism to make it look like justice. the prison system is a distillation of imperialism. it’s important to understand that the historical context of imperialism has shaped the development & structure of contemporary prisons. many prison systems around the globe have roots in systems of control & punishment that were established during colonial periods. these systems were often used to suppress and exploit marginalized communities, including indigenous peoples and people of color. colonial powers used prisons as a means to exert control over colonized populations, imposing their legal systems & severely punishing those who resisted their abuse.

the legacy of these oppressive systems can still be observed today, with disproportionately high rates of incarceration among these communities. the prison-industrial complex further perpetuates these imperialist dynamics by profiting from the imprisonment of marginalized people. it’s crucial to address these systemic issues in feminist circles, and work towards a more rehabilitative approach to justice.

we have to incorporate decolonization in our feminism, and carceral feminism won’t help. focusing on rehabilitation instead of punishment is an important approach to promoting change & reducing recidivism rates. by prioritizing rehabilitation, we can address the underlying causes of criminal behavior & provide individuals with the tools & support they need to reintegrate into society successfully (no, i’m not talking about rapists).

one key aspect of rehabilitation is providing access to education & vocational training programs. by equipping people with new skills & knowledge, we empower them to secure stable employment and contribute positively to their surroundings. offering mental health & substance abuse treatment services is crucial, as many people involved in the criminal justice system struggle with these issues. these approaches focus on repairing harm caused by the offense, promoting accountability & empathy. through mediation, community service & victim-offender dialogue, people can develop a deeper understanding of the consequences of their actions.

providing mentorship, ensuring access to housing, healthcare & social services, connecting people with community resources can help them build a strong support network & reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

as feminists, it’s important that we include prison abolition & decolonization in our feminism, and address the issues of mass incarceration & the prison-industrial complex. and no, this does not mean that rapists will roam around free.

[laundrybiscuits]

10 Questions for Fic Writers

Tagged by @greenlikethesea! 

1. How many works do you have on AO3? 10

2. What's your total AO3 word count? 111,034

3. What fandoms do you write for? Right now, Stranger Things in theory; not very much at all in practice. I’m busy! I am literally at work right now! 

4. Do you respond to comments? Why or why not? When I got back into fandom a couple years ago, I set up some strict guidelines for myself in order to limit my time/involvement—it’s a bit of a slippery slope for me. I respond to direct questions and asks/DMs, but I try not to reply otherwise (although I do read and cherish each comment!). This has been my attempt at setting hard boundaries to make my fandom participation sustainable, even though that means I miss out on interacting with some lovely people. 

5. Have you ever had a fic stolen? Not to my knowledge. 

6. Have you ever co-written a fic before? Not really! I’ve collaborated on and contributed writing to multimedia fandom projects including fancomics, but I haven’t co-written a fic in the traditional sense. 

7. What's your all-time favourite ship? Y’know, I don’t really think of ships in that way! I tend to mull over one ship at a time to tease out the particular possibilities, but I’m fundamentally interested in potential. As a writer, I like a challenge—I used to write rarepair flashfic just to see if I could figure out a compelling angle on any given dynamic in a few hundred words. As a reader, I usually end up reading a lot of the bigger ships in any given fandom, because they often encompass a lot of iteration on interesting ideas, but I wouldn't say I get emotionally attached to the ships themselves. 

I just glanced through my folder of all-time favorite fics, and they range from IASIP to Calvin & Hobbes to Star Trek to RPF to WTNV. In that folder, there are ships that I’ve never read in another fic, and there are ships that I’ve read in literally thousands of fics. To me, the ship is more of a medium than a discrete entity. 

8. What are your writing strengths? I think I’m pretty good at avoiding lengthy exposition in fic, which is an especially significant accomplishment for me given that my default setting is “monologue.”

9. What are your writing weaknesses? I’m very bad at actually knowing where I’m going with anything; as a result, I have a lot of trouble with writing longer pieces. I typically don’t structure/plan my fics at all, because it’s not fun for me and at the end of the day I don’t really care enough about improving that skill. 

10. First fandom you wrote for? Almost definitely forum fic for Young Wizards, which was my first ever fandom more than 20 years ago. Honestly, that was an absolutely idyllic intro to fandom: a small, welcoming, literary-minded community with a lot of patience for a 13-year-old stumbling around and figuring things out. I am perpetually and deeply grateful that I got to have that formative experience.

[akanothere]

hiii! i hope this is okay to ask but I’m a huge fan of your art style and saw you also do your work in procreate & i was wondering what brushes you use to make your paintings? i’m perpetually stuck making lineart because baskerville is the only brush I feel comfortable with lol and I would really like to expand into painting. 100% understand if you’re not comfortable sharing your technique btw but if you’re okay with it I would love to get your advice! hope you have a wonderful day <333

Hello!

For paintings, I usually use a private pack made by a friend (I can’t share it but they have Chinese paintings brush stroke effects!), and just the default ones from paint (eg stucco and round brush). I found it more important to add layers for finish touches, multiplying noise/paper effect layers helps a lot I’m not even joking😩❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥 MY FAV

Also a very personal experience (not even an advice but um coz I get asked what brushes I use and I don’t want everyone wasting time like I did🥲):

To be honest, I find it easier to start practising with traditional painting first, then find or build/mod a similar paint that mimicks your drawings style on canvas, rather than accommodating a brush coz I once tried to get paint brushes that some artists use, I still couldn’t do what they did and spent too much time on trying… and now I’m lacking on perspectives… forever stuck in just drawing a few angles (but maybe that’s just me urgh coz I wanted a very realistic art style but my fundamental skills are not enough for that)

And side note:

Lately I’m starting to practise line art and I find the brushes from True Grit Texture Supply useful af!!! LOVE THEM!!!

Thanks for the ask and good day to you too!!!😳❤️‍🔥

[biblioflyer]

Evolving beyond your core conceits: risks and rewards.

Allowing a setting to grow while remaining recognizable and accessible to the audience is difficult. Too much of the wrong kind of changes can make a setting unusable for the themes and storytelling devices it started off with. It is, however, possible to grow without cheating the heroes of earned victories and without wholly divesting from core themes.

This is part 4 in a series of discussions about the pessimism of the X-Men setting, its origins, its consequences, and whether that’s even a fair assessment.

Part 1 laid out some of the core conceits of the setting.

Part 2 discusses theories of historical change.

Part 3 is about the messiness of allegories.

It's difficult to evolve beyond a setting’s original conceit without having to become something radically different, even unrecognizable.

I’m one of the people who started to lose interest when Stargate SG-1 moved beyond Earth as scrappy underdogs and essentially became a superpower, while still somehow being able to hide the entire program. Also it turns out that SG-1, regardless of the roster, always seemed to be exactly the right people in exactly the right place.

Committing to the bit has risks too.

The X-Files solved and then had to unsolve its core mystery multiple times, becoming ever more convoluted in an effort to ensure its gnostic pursuit of ever deeper mysteries did indeed have even more arcane conspiracies hiding behind the busted ones.

Core characters evolved in Supernatural, but after a few repetitions of the Winchester brothers gaining and then losing access to resources and networks of allies, it almost became a bit of a joke that everything always led back to the two living out of motels. Yet while the situation of the Winchesters wasn’t allowed to change much, the threat of each season had to be ever more cosmic. This ultimately resulted in a direct and extremely meta confrontation with the very force that ensured their lives always defaulted back to misery and watching any progress they made fall through their fingers.

The conceit of Star Trek’s Federation is that our contemporary flaws can be resolved, but to model solving its allegories for contemporary societal issues it has to periodically discover new -isms that have emerged within it that the Federation has rationalized away. 

Augment proscriptions are rationalized as protecting the egalitarian nature of the Federation and preventing the rise of superior beings with superior ambition, fully sentient artificial intelligence had a rocky road to recognition, people struggle with fully recognizing XBs as fellow victims of the Borg Collective rather than conflating them with the destruction and horror the Borg have perpetuated. 

There have been enough repetitions of the storyline that there is something rotten in the Federation that needs to be confronted and opposed that many (not I) feel like the Federation has undergone a very cynical deconstruction in the streaming era (although it would probably be more correct to say it started with DS9.) Which is part of why the “Magneto was right” discourse began to alarm me, because I associate it with the increased sense in the Trek fandom that the Federation is both rotten at its core and too naive to survive without the rot.

Kudos to Star Trek Discovery though for reliably shifting away from the “edgier” darker tone it began with and embracing the idealism of the TNG era. I realize there are those who look at a dark and fearful world full of war and revanchism and find it childish for fiction to be aggressively sunny, but I enjoy having a few things to watch here and there that stimulate my mind but don’t leave me drained and morose when the credits roll. I don’t mind good pessimism, but I never felt like Discovery was doing more than gesturing at more mature, emotionally and ethically complex themes in its early seasons. It's still not doing more than gesturing, but in my opinion it's no longer pretending to be more than thoughtful camp.

The Expanse novel-verse is one of the rare examples I can think of a setting that resolved one of its core conflicts, but still managed to be an effective vehicle for storytelling about many of the same themes. By the end of the original six book series, Earth and Mars are on the path to reconciliation and the Belters have won statehood and the means to prosperity. 

The sequel trilogy introduces a new nemesis that partly resets the setting, but critically the reset doesn’t put the Belters back under the boot of the Inners or restart the original cycle of violence. In many ways, Earth and Mars get a dose of what it’s like on the receiving end of imperialism.

In this way, the writers could still speak about war, cycles of violence, paranoia, various forms of oppression, and the difficult moral dilemmas of gray zone conflict but without victims becoming oppressors or having all of their gains rolled back.

Did you forget this was an article about X-Men, bub?

Which brings us back to X-Men.

Because X-Men is a setting dedicated to storytelling about oppression, a critical thing to remember is that things are not going to get better in any lasting way. 

Not because the message you are supposed to take away is that nothing can ever be better and trying to disrupt violence and humanize oppressed people is self defeating, but because showcasing oppression and the fight against it without it ever actually being resolved is its raison d’etre. 

Unlike the Expanse novels, the X-Men is not a closed storyline with a limited number of authors tightly controlling it. While specific iterations of X-Men could, in theory, make progress against the core human vs mutant conflict without rolling it back in a devastating way, there is an expectation that X-Men more broadly is a bit like Coke or Pepsi: consistency and recognition across all “products” is a baked in assumption. X-Men without the mutant vs human conflict could drift away from the otherwise very low barrier to entry for the audience.

The last installment will discuss how X-Men '97 does leave the door open to some things getting better even though the general state of affairs seems poised to get pretty bad.

[dkniade]

Oh my gosh so much is going on in the music and visuals of the Xiao Chasm cutscene. So many thoughts, mostly from Xiao’s pov

For the narrative aspect, I’m looking at primarily the music’s motifs/leitmotifs, as well as the animation’s editing (that is, sequential order of shots) and shot composition (visual symbolism)

Context: I know the quest’s general plot but not the details. This is my first time watching this cutscene. This post will make more sense if you have it side-by-side with the cutscene video.

Warning: near character death, Xiao’s suicidal ideation is the general theme but I discuss it in a particularly graphic manner in one line for the 3:09 section

1:02 - is that the same motif that appeared in “Storm Befalls” and “Perpetual Motion of Wind”. Would that part symbolize the Anemo element—“Storm Befalls” plays when we first meet the corrupted/mind-controlled Stormterror who’s under the assumption that Mondstatians betrayed him when it was his duty to guard them—oh, and maybe duty vs freedom?

1:09 - is that the motif from the cryobedo shot in the 2.3 PV, what. Corruption? (Cryobedo is a Whooperflower corrupted by Durin’s blood, and Durin & Dragonspine heart is associated with deep red and black. likewise Xiao seems to be holding back some sort of deep red/black corruption)(that look like a whale for some reason. I’m probably distracted) Idk

1:24 - Yelan is showing off her elemental attacks so we’ve got the default motif based on a Mond battle theme that shows up a lot in attack shots of character demo soundtracks. Makes sense, good job

1:31 - I LOVE how Xiao’s leitmotif from his demo is included. In his demo this bit is played when he’s about to give in to the corruption at the marsh, I think.

1:36 - And then in this cutscene it cuts to a flashback of Zhongli’s lone figure with the music immediately calming (paralleling Venti’s lone flute in Xiao’s demo. I see what you did there.) and also obvious foreshadowing to Zhongli saving him a few minutes later

1:56 - Xiao’s demo leitmotifs continues as we move back to the present. We get multiple sections all out of order from the demo. We also see everyone fighting the dark blob things. These guys are in deeeeep danger—but especially Xiao.

2:29 - that shot communicates how tiny and weak they are against this dark energy as it overtakes the blue circle. Perfect

2:53 - the Fantastic Compass is cracking and Xiao’s mask too in the next shot. Really feels like they’re not gonna make it. The Yaksha General Alatus is going down

3:09 - Yenfei: “You can’t keep this up… your strength won’t last…” *Immediately a calm and inappropriately uplifting flute (?) & strings version of Xiao’s leitmotif (near the start of his demo, but that one is with a heavily distorted electric guitar) plays.* Xiao’s duty is coming to an end and he’s gonna sacrifice himself for the sake of protecting the rest of the group. (It’s like… the mentality of suddenly being calm and cheerful as one plans to commit suicide, not because they enjoy death, but because they believe this is the only way that their suffering will end.)

3:18 - *animation shows him sending everyone back* Yelan desperately reaching out to Xiao and with Paimon’s tiny voice calling out for him breaks my heart… and the magic compass. It’s shattered. He’s gone

3:35 - The golden threads of a Geo symbol save Xiao who’s falling in the darkness. It’s obviously Zhongli—as foreshadowed in that earlier shot I talked about. (Also isn’t that glow pattern the same as Zhongli’s “vision” glow)

3:47 - brief shot of Zhongli’s robe as he overlooks the chasm. Nice, obvious confirmation to every foreshadowing about him that occurred before. Woohoo. Xiao looks back in the next shot. He knows

-

General conclusion: I think… if you’re familiar with Xiao’s & Zhongli’s basic settings, Xiao’s character demo, the Yaksha intro cutscene, and the basic premise/plot of the Chasm quest, then by music alone you should be able to guess the major emotional beats in this cutscene. (The cutscene’s soundtrack is called “Hang by a Thread”.) Genshin Impact’s musical storytelling is godly.

-

Misc thoughts

Yanfei’s loredump of the Fantastic Compass could’ve been executed better ksjskks

Cinematography is also gorgeous of course, the visual effects and expressions whoa

He’s doing this as the Yaksha General Alatus huh…

Xiao needs to drink some water. (English dub)

[djnusagi]

I think associating being tall, having broad shoulders etc with sexual desirability but only in the context of sexual aggression, domination and topping is actually Bad for trans women.

I am rather tall (5’9” and tower over everybody I meet irl), my shoulders are pretty broad, and my collarbone is really prominent. I’m also outright repulsed by topping or being sexually dominant in any way. But I’ve had countless sexual partners who would SWEAR they understand and would respect my boundaries but still defaulted to “ur so big and strong uwu” “ur so hot step on me mommy” and pressured me into topping and performing sexual aggression when I didn’t want to. These partners were ALL trans, and mostly other trans women.

Like it’s actually really fucked up when people will try and perpetuate the idea that these traits I DIDN’T CHOSE TO HAVE are desirable, but ONLY if I act in a way that’s distressing to me, and that behaving in that way is actually the ONLY way I can be engaged with sexually. So maybe like, try a different approach or something.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

4 Popular Lies about Singleness

by Elizabeth Woodson

Many unmarried people in the church struggle to accept the label “single,” since churches can treat singles as second-class citizens. This treatment rests on wrong teaching about singleness. Simply put, the church can idolize marriage and make it the ultimate goal for maturity in Christ, relegating singles—no matter how old—to perpetual immaturity until they find someone to marry.

Confusing marriage with maturity has always been wrong, but it was easy when marriage was a cultural norm for the American church. At the turn of the century a large majority of the general population was married; in the 1970s the marriage rate had dropped to 70 percent; and by 2014 it had dropped to 50 percent. The inescapable reality is that countless congregations include singles of all ages. The church needs to learn how to love singles better—and the first step is repairing broken theology.

While this list isn’t exhaustive, here are four major lies that contribute to an unbalanced theology of singleness. By correcting these misguided interpretations of Scripture, we’ll be better equipped to love and serve the unmarried people in our congregations.

𝐋𝐢𝐞 𝟏: 𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 = 𝐀𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞 “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’” (Gen. 2:18).

Outside the companionship of animals and God, Adam was functionally alone. By default, he was also single. God declared that being on mission alone is problematic, and so he gave Adam a wife to help him.

We tend to approach Genesis 2:18 as a prescriptive text, concluding that God’s solution for lack of companionship is marriage. Yet if this is true, what does it imply about being single? It would mean God doesn’t think singleness is good. But if that were true, why were some of the major characters in Scripture single, including John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul?

To understand this text we need to widen our lens. I believe Genesis 2:18 is a descriptive text from which we can extract the prescriptive truth that living outside of community isn’t good. God created us to live in the context of relationships, and those relationships look different for different people. For some of us, community will take the form of a spouse and kids. For others, it will look like a good network of friends and extended family members. For all of us, it will mean belonging to a local church.

𝐋𝐢𝐞 𝟐: 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐈𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐞 “An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels” (Prov. 31:10).

I’m particularly sensitive about the messages we send single women regarding their value and significance in God’s kingdom. One phrase I’ve heard consistently is that a woman’s greatest fulfillment comes from being a wife and a mother. And for many of us, Proverbs 31 is the passage that springs to mind when we ponder what it means to be the epitome of a godly woman.

Yes, the Proverbs 31 woman is an example of spiritual maturity, but not simply because she was managing her home and providing for her family. It was because she embodied godly character.

Temporary life roles—like wife or mother—aren’t the ultimate markers of godliness. We should most strongly accent the godly character that will help a believer glorify God in any season of life. There is nothing special you need to be successful in marriage that you don’t need in singleness. No matter our marital status, we still need to confess and forgive, communicate well, and die to self every day. Let’s encourage singles to place their value not in what is temporary, but in what is ultimate: godliness.

𝐋𝐢𝐞 𝟑: 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐈𝐬 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐝 “Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart” (Ps. 37:4).

Context is crucial here. When we don’t read Scripture in context, we can make God responsible for promises he never made. David wrote Psalm 37 to remind God’s discouraged people that God would bring justice and bless their faithfulness. David wasn’t giving a blanket guarantee that whatever they desired God would grant, simply because the desire was good.

Sometimes people conscript this verse to teach about marriage, leaving many singles angry and bitter toward a God who never promised them marriage in the first place. The truth is, not all godly people get married. We need to embrace this, preach this, and celebrate this! God’s best for many will include a life without a spouse and biological children. These people will know him more deeply, serve him more powerfully, and experience greater joy than they could as a married person. Not because singleness is better, but because marriage wasn’t part of God’s perfect will for their life.

No matter how deeply we desire it, Scripture never guarantees marriage. But it does teach us to “not be anxious for anything, but with prayer, supplication, and with thanksgiving make [our] requests known to God and the peace of God will guard [our] hearts and minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6–7).

Scripture also teaches that God’s ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts higher than our thoughts (Isa. 55:9). We can ask God for whatever we desire—but he reserves the right to decide what’s best for us. And his “best” is never a consolation prize.

𝐋𝐢𝐞 𝟒: 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞 = 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 One common perception of marriage is that it’s near-perfect bliss. Social media, movies, TV shows, and books communicate that all our “single problems” will be solved when Prince Charming swoops in on his white horse and rescues us. In reality, marriage is two deeply broken people joining their deeply broken lives to become one. Wherever we’ve believed one of these lies, our theology of singleness needs to be revised. We need to dethrone our idol of marriage and learn to define our identity the way God does. He views singleness and marriage as equally blessed gifts to be stewarded for his glory (1 Cor. 7:7). Do we share his vision?