#meanwhile he has more attacks on him than hes done on other people. his ratio is really good (32/30)

[every-captain]

Not to be a little bitch bbut :C :C :C I only got attacked once on artfight this year and it was my boyfriend :C

[finisnihil]

Hello pookies let’s talk about Aventurine and Topaz

Penacony spoilers+Analysis ahead

Let’s start off the bat, I personally like Aventurine more than Topaz and the main reason is because Topaz willingly works for the IPC while Aventurine doesn’t. Some people have pointed out in other posts of mine that Topaz didn’t voluntarily join the IPC. Her planet was dying and the IPC bought it, she joined because it was required of her, but here’s the difference. She chooses to stay.

She emphasizes in her talking with Bronya and the Trailblazer than she doesn’t stay with the IPC just because she has to or because she needs a paycheck. She stays because she likes working for them.

Also, she sees what was done to her planet as a good thing. In her eyes, the IPC saved her planet, in her eyes it isn’t exploitation. She tries to force the same thing on Jarilo-VI to the point she attacks the Astral Express for trying to stop her after Bronya declined the contract. She felt entitled to Jarilo-VI and when she was told no she ignored it. To her, the IPC are the best. It’s no wonder either, as far as we know she hasn’t seen the truly ugly side of the IPC yet because the IPC need her. In her character stories other IPC constantly hype her up, she’s a prodigy, she makes the IPC more efficient. She raises the success rate from 63% to above 80%. Even in her early days we see her breaking rules and getting away with it because the IPC value her too much to lose her.

They don't even question her calculations. Adding to this, when Aventurine is first introduced, it's after she's punished for her actions on Jarilo-VI.

He gives a lot of context about Topaz's power in the IPC. She "dodged a bullet there", implying she theoretically should've got a stronger punishment than being demoted a rank and losing some bonuses she's mentioned she doesn't care about. He even mentions that somebody is "looking out for her". Topaz has backing. He also mentions Jarilo-VI was a high-risk low-reward situation and that her "kind heart" was a liability. Topaz has the room to take on such cases and exercise her "kind heart" because she isn't at risk of losing everything if she screws up. There's little consequences to her actions, there's powerful people protecting her, and the IPC need her. Topaz can leave at any time, she choses not to because she likes the IPC. You see this power dynamic in her character trailer.

A throne is strong imagery and she's surrounded by money, the real representation of power in the IPC.

So let's talk about Aventurine and why I think he's interesting and why I like him more than Topaz.

Let's start with his power dyanmic within the IPC, or more so, his lack of one.

Aventurine has a serial number on his neck and Dr Ratio specifically calls him a "thrall". The term thrall in this context seems to imply he's a captive of some sort of the IPC*, to them he's a product. We can feel his lack of power in the way people talk to him.

Sparkle speaks to him in a super derogratory way and belittles him by implying he had to humiliate himself to influence Sunday. Meanwhile Dr Ratio writes him off as ruining everything before he gets to really do anything.

He gets power by gambling for it. Power is fleeting and he can lose it easier than most.

At one point he talks about how much money he loses wasting ten minutes. Ten minutes is nothing for Topaz but to Aventurine it's lost money and if he's not making the IPC money he's useless and viable to be cast aside. He can't afford it because he has no power. Compared to Topaz, he can't leave. He has less room for screw ups.

Onto friendship.

When friendship comes up, he keeps the idea at a distance. He asks how friends benefit him. Sparkle says he treats friends like bargaining chips and when he's talking with Dr Ratio he says that "Friends are weapons of Avgins". To him, friends are used for or against you.

He doesn't have any real friends, he's always on his own. He has no backing. He can't trust anybody because he's in such a vulnerable state and everyone around him looks down on him because of his heritage. Dr Ratio even tells him he causes too much trouble to have freinds, likening him to a peacock with a jarring call.**

Finally I want to analyze this conversation between him and Topaz. When asking for her help, he calls her old friend, implying he's planning to use her. The thing about Aventurine is that compared to Topaz, he's more ruthless because he has to be, he doesn't have the wiggle room she does, even Black Swan notes this saying he'll go to extreme lengths to maintain an advantage. Right now, that's what he's doing because he's being thrown to Penacony as a sacrifice. For the reasons above he seems to be the most expendable Stoneheart. He notes Penacony is a lost cause and Topaz is shocked that the mission isn't given to a higher ranking Stoneheart. He eggs Topaz into being his project manager with the idea she'll recover what she lost on Jarilo-VI. What he's really doing is using her to shield himself. With her involvement the IPC will be less likely to cut their loses with him, because they need Topaz and if he puts his eggs in her basket to care for they're less likely to be left to break by the IPC. If things go wrong he takes the blame… unless he has Topaz to sofen the blow. He's gambling on her power in their dynamic.

*My personal theory as of 2.0 is that the Sigonians and Avgins had a war and the IPC backed the Avgins for a benefit of their victory, assuring it. Aventurine was a captive or some sort of "war prize" hence the serial number and Dr Ratio calling him a thrall. It also explains the negative view of Sigonians and the very favorable view of Avgins among other lore we've gotten about it. I may do a seperate post of this theory.

**Sparkle and Dr Ratio liken Aventurine to a peacock frequently. Male peacocks use their feathers to attract the attention of female peacocks. This matches Aventurine's very flamboyant and charismatic character and his place in the story.

Feel free to add discussion, have a great day, mwah!

[everythingsinred]

Let's Talk About NatsuMikan: The Anime (pt. 6)

The anime is a different species than the manga, something that frequently happens during the adaptation from page to screen. Since they’re so different, I’ll analyze them separately.

In the previous sections, we talked about NatsuMikan's anime journey and how they differed from their manga counterparts. In this final part, I'll wrap up the anime analysis, focusing on the objectively worst arc in the story, and how even in garbage there are some diamonds to be found.

The Circus Arc (Episode 23, 24, & 25)

At first, the lion is just an opportunity to explore the common mistreatment of animals in circuses.

Later, however, it’s said that the lion is actually a preachy parallel to Natsume, treated like trash and forced to jump through fire to serve his master. Or at least, that’s what Ruka is brainwashed to believe, and he is shamed for feeling that way. Ruka, driven to rescue the lion out of a desperate desire to help his best friend, falls victim to Reo’s brainwashing to the point that his eyes lose their shine.

Meanwhile, Mikan also has developed beef with the academy, because they emphasize alices over hard work (something that is never brought up in the manga after she first meets Class B). This seems strange, because it isn’t even important to the Circus Arc, and is just used to give Mikan something to complain about for a few scenes.

Natsume is sick during a mission and, because this goes untreated, the next day he collapses. Ruka refuses to hand him over to Persona to go on yet another mission and instead barricades the classroom, not allowing any teachers inside. The only two words Natsume can make out are “Ruka” and “Mikan”, the names of the people closest to him. Mikan holds his hand while Ruka argues with the teachers on the other side. The Natsumikan (as well as Ruka’s protective love for his best friend) is one of the only reasons to watch the Circus Arc other than for the unintentional comedy.

Literally this scene is the only thing this whole arc is good for.

Natsume is handed over to Persona, eventually, when Narumi betrays Class B, and Ruka starts a full-on violent uprising with the Circus animals as a result (yes, this really happened)... (though to be fair I’d have done the same thing… it’s just the manner in which this is all done really frustrates me, especially because Ruka resents using animals for violent purposes).

Ruka, due to Reo’s brainwashing, sends a lion to attack Mikan while Reo and his goons escape. Another vaguely Natsumikan moment occurs when a barrier of fire protects Mikan from the lion and Natsume jumps over to Ruka to bitch-slap him across the face and snap him out of his brainwashing. That should have been enough, if it had to happen at all, but Natsume then proceeds to rant about how it’s not Ruka’s place to worry, and how Natsume doesn’t go on missions he doesn’t agree with, so it should be okay. This undermines everything that happened in the arc and even in the anime up to that point. Natsume is introduced as a depressed, cold, and mistreated boy who is abused and controlled by the school. The end of the Circus Arc claims that he is responsible for all of his own suffering and that the school, while not perfect, isn’t so bad and shouldn't be held accountable for its abuses and corruption. It’s not just unsatisfying, it’s downright infuriating to see an abused child coddle an oppressive system with his whole chest while shaming and discouraging any worry done on his behalf. It reeks of victim blaming and isn’t the beautiful message they seemed to have been convinced it was.

Episode 26

Anyway, the anime concludes with Natsume and Mikan having a positive relationship. Persona’s warning never meant much in the anime to begin with but it’s completely irrelevant now. Natsume helps Mikan by giving her advice about Hotaru and then giving her a nice smile. I like the Natsumikan in this ep, where Natsume not only notices that Mikan is sad, but is also bothered by it and wants to help her feel better. It’s cute. He is now at a place where he feels he can openly help her, instead of doing selfless things in secret. He can ask her how she is and give her advice, because she has helped him reach that point. They've been helping each other this whole time, of course, but this is the first time Natsume's smiled at her and the sweetest of all their interactions (in the anime).

We will ignore that the anime seems to think all these events took place over the course of three different seasons so it’s somehow spring now.

The anime leaves the love triangle “unresolved”, a claim Wikipedia supports. I’m likely to disagree with this opinion, not because I dislike Ruka (which is completely untrue), but because the love triangle was solved. Mikan didn’t pick Natsume or anything, there was no kiss or confession, but with the ratio of Natsume : Ruka, Natsume got the bigger helping of screen time with Mikan and her romantic feelings for him are glaringly obvious.

Conclusion

The anime is good at elongating episodes and adding new humorous side-plots. It was not good at formulating its own plot or trying to make out Natsume’s backstory (which, to be perfectly frank, I’m not even sure what anime!Natsume’s backstory is). They should’ve stopped at the Kaname episode if they knew they couldn’t handle creating a decent closing arc. How sad.

The otherwise open-endedness of the anime leaves much to be desired, especially after that abysmal Circus Arc, which leaves many viewers hankering after a different ending, a longer story, more to see.

That’s where the manga comes in, so stay tuned for upcoming essays about that!

<- Previous Part

[avengers-nextgen]

Prometheus XIV

Piper’s plan was well received by the others who were eager to settle down and spend time together.

James and Fox has come back from their trip and it was settled. Fox wouldn’t be returning home anytime soon. She was joining the agent force for one particular reason. No other kid-as long as she could help it- was going to be left uncared for in an abusive household.

Her parents hadn’t approved of the job offer. They detested it. They mocked it. They hated it. They disowned her. And Fox was okay with all of it. She no longer had an obligation to them. For someone who enjoyed freedom she’d been chained all of her life without knowing it, and the shackles were finally off.

Meanwhile, Penny spent all of her time in the infirmary reading away to the best of her ability. Chloe’s journal was exceptional. There wasn’t a page that didn’t have a part of her on it. Penny was finally getting an understanding of Arthur’s sister and things began to make sense. There were reasons behind her actions, habits, and comforts.

Her heart broke a little bit for the other girl, and she wanted to be friends with Chloe now more than ever before. Upon her release from the infirmary, Penny tracked down the eldest twin. Chloe was dancing away to broadway music while hanging up her clothes. In another life Penny bet she’d have been an exceptional ballroom dancer. From the looks of it she’d dabbled a little in ballet.

“Hey, Chloe?” Penny knocked on the door frame drawing the other girl’s attention. “Uhm, here. I finished. Sorry it took so long.”

“Don’t worry about it,” Chloe stammered quickly, “thanks.”

Penny passed the journal over and before Chloe could move away Penny hugged her tightly. She didn’t say anything because there wasn’t anything to say. Then, as quickly as she’d come-she left. Heading back into the living room where the smell of cooking food wafted from the kitchen.

Bianca and Alex sat playing chess as they had been the entire day. They’d recently learned to play and there was no stopping them from testing out their skills. Bianca proved to be adept at the game. Her brain picked out patterns, planned moves in advance, and even predicted her opponent’s moves with ease. Alex simply enjoyed the company and lost with grace.

“It says it’s gonna rain!” Enzo cheered, having been watching the news with Scout. “Can we jump in the puddles after dinner?”

“Maybe,” Steve replied, “but that depends on how dirty you plan on getting.”

“It’ll be fine,” Nathaniel assured him.

“Says the kid who climbed into a pig pen on his field trip in third grade,” Clint snorted.

“You’re supposed to help me dad,” Nathaniel acted wounded, “whose side are you on?”

“Stop trying to steal food!” Wanda laughed, tackling Thalia in a hug and forcing her from the kitchen, “no taste testing.”

“What if it’s poisoned? What about disease?”

“No disease and no poison.” Wanda snickered. “Siyanda, watch her.”

Siyanda only rolled her eyes but Thalia good naturedly left the kitchen alone. In truth Orion couldn’t blame her-everything smelled amazing. His stomach wouldn’t shut up. Every time it growled Scout would slap him in the gut.

“What is the purpose of this?” Orion asked after the tenth time.

“It’s amusing,” Scout smiled thinly.

“Ha ha.” Orion replied sarcastically. “Perhaps you should care about the fact that your boyfriend is starving!”

“You’re not going to die!” Scout rolled his eyes running a hand through Orion’s green hair. “You’re not allowed to. It’s against my rules.”

“Scout help set the table!” Wanda called from the open kitchen door.

“Gotta blast,” Scout sighed, getting up and rushing off to help his mother. Orion followed closely behind eager to help. The two boys ended up racing to see who could finish their chore first.

“I win!” Scout bragged, taking his seat with exaggerated posture.

“I’m just happy to eat,” Orion remarked, but despite being a sore loser he pressed a kiss to Scout’s cheek.

“PDA at the table? Not on my watch,” Piper scoffed, but her eyes glinted with humor.

Slowly everyone piled into the dining area and took up their seats. The table was laden to the breaking point with food and silverware. Others arrived slowly to fill in the open seats like Penny’s parents, Stephen, the entire Space family (as Orion called it), and even the Asgardians -both the ones Thalia had found-along with her family.

The noise was loud but it was pleasant. Everyone smiled and laughed and seemed to be relaxed. Nathaniel launched grapes at Piper who was surprisingly good at catching them in her mouth while Enzo provided commentary.

“And she catches another! It’s a seven to ten ratio folks!” Enzo spoke into the spoon he was supposed to use for mashed potatoes.

“Peter, I hate dabbing,” MJ sighed, watching her fiancé from the corner of her eye.

“But it’s fun,” Orion smirked copying Peter’s gesture.

Scout’s eyes narrowed in distaste, “absolutely not.”

“What’s wrong with this?” Penny asked, doing as the boys had. Chloe, Scout, and MJ all groaned in mild irritation. They despised pointless fads.

“Rock- paper-scissors-shoot!” James and Alex fought over who got the last brownie. Unfortunately James was the victor.

“Bummer,” Arthur laughed, nudging Alex good naturedly with his elbow.

James grinned like a Cheshire Cat and popped the whole thing into his mouth at once.

“I hope you choke,” Fox mumbled and the remark nearly made James choke —from laughing.

“Thalia slow down you’ll die!” Bianca warned.

“I won’t die,” Thalia frowned but she looked to Siyanda for reassurance anyways, “right?”

“You’re fine, babe.” Siyanda laughed. “Just enjoy the taste of the food too. No need to be a garbage disposal-there’s enough for everyone.”

“You sound like a mom,” Piper teased.

“Well I do have to baby sit my father sometimes.” Siyanda smirked.

“OHHHH!” Nathaniel nearly fell off of his chair, “the shade! Holy shit.”

The table erupted into laughter but it died as quickly as it came due to a new appearance. The first to react was Enzo.

The boy bolted from his seat in a heartbeat and raced towards the dark suited man, “Father!”

Loki barely had time to react before his son latched onto him like a monkey, “Hello Enzo.”

“I’ve missed you. Where have you been? There’s so much to tell you!” Enzo stammered, his brain going too fast for him to effectively express his thoughts. He looked on the verge of laughing, crying, and smiling all at the same time.

“I have lots to say too,” Loki smiled thinly, running a gentle hand through Enzo’s hair.

“Come on. There’s plenty of room!” Enzo grabbed Loki’s hand and dragged the god towards the table. Every seat was full.

“Ah, I see it’s full.” Loki noted. “That’s alright.”

“You can have my seat.” Enzo promised.

“To be quite fair, no one was expecting your arrival.” Thor remarked calmly.

“I was invited,” Loki assured.

“By whom?”

“Your daughter.”

All eyes turned to Thalia who was now chewing rather unenthused. “It’s a family affair. I thought-well he’s...he’s family.”

“Did you ask permission?” Thor questioned, glancing to Tony.

“N-no.” Thalia spoke softly. “I’m sorry.”

“Why ask permission if family is invited?” Sif arched a brow, “it makes perfect sense to me. Not to mention he did fight to save Asgard from your deranged sister.”

“Those are events of the past,” Thor sighed.

“If I’m not welcome I will leave.” Loki glowered. “But I came with the intentions of seeing my children.”

“Which you’ve done.” Thor pointed out.

“I have more than a son you imbecile.” Loki glared.

“She doesn’t wish to see you,” Thor stated, “from what I’ve gathered.”

Silence settled in the room except for a loud pop and the tinkling of glass. Everyone’s eyes turned from Thalia to Sage who sat crammed in the corner and who hadn’t spoken a word since the meal began. She held fragments of her empty-and now shattered-glass. Blood slid in rivulets between her fingers as her eyes attempted to burn holes into the table.

The shattered glass acted as a symbol of retreat. The others quickly fled the scene knowing very well when family matters were meant to be private.

“Let her speak for herself, brother.” Loki glanced at Sage but she didn’t meet his gaze.

“I don’t want to talk. I have nothing to say.”

“Obviously that’s untrue,” Loki replied.

“Why do you care?”

“I’m your father,” Loki frowned, “why wouldn’t I care?”

“You stopped caring a long time ago.” Sage huffed. “The moment you left me in that fucking cell to rot!”

“It was for your own good I told you that.”

“If you really knew me at all you’d have known that a rejection wasn’t what I needed. I needed an actual father. Not some guy pretending to be one.” Enzo glanced between his sister and father unsure of how to respond. He could feel the tension in the air, and it scared him.

“Sage, I have always cared. I tried to protect you and I couldn’t. That kills me every day.” Loki’s voice cracked ever so slightly. “I’d rather have died than had your mother perish and leave you alone.”

“You lie.” Thor snorted. “You’re a self preservationist.”

“And you’re not?” Loki scoffed, “let us not forget that you killed an innocent woman and attacked a child for fear of your reign!”

“It was nothing of the sort.”

“Then what was it?” Thalia asked. She held eye contact with her father and didn’t dare break it. “How can you excuse murder? How are you different than your brother? One person is still murder. Just as six hundred is.”

“I was trying to protect the people.” Thor sighed, “I was afraid that you-Sage- would be used as a tool. That you would become a weapon for Loki’s personal schemes. When I learned that you had already been born and trained -albeit slightly- I grew angry. I grew frustrated and afraid. Your father mentioned nothing about you until years had passed. I only had suspicion to go off of. A child shouldn’t be a secret needing to be kept hidden.”

“That excuses nothing.” Sage snarled.

“Perhaps, but it’s my perspective.” Thor shrugged. “I learned, just as he learned.”

“Because you didn’t kill Enzo? Because Loki figured out how to actually raise a child? I’m glad I was everyone’s fucking test run.” Sage swallowed the lump forming in her throat. She couldn’t even look at Enzo.

“None of us are perfect,” Loki sighed, “and you can’t condemn me brother when you’ve done equal harm to your own daughter.”

“Such as?” Thor arched a brow. “I provided for her and I raised her.”

“But I didn’t know my mom,” Thalia’s eyebrows drew together and her moth pressed into a thin line, “why would you do that to me?”

“I was afraid that my brother would retaliate for what I’d done.” Thor explained.

“Did you ever think how I’d feel about it? What about my mom?” Thalia gestured to Sif who remained quiet. She simply watched with the gaze of a general who was studying a battle at hand.

“No. I was brash.” Thor admitted. “And wrong.”

“Why would I ever inflict the pain on you that you inflicted on me?” Loki frowned. “What satisfaction would I get out of ruining an innocent child’s life and a friend’s?”

“Perhaps I didn’t give you enough credit. You’ve changed more than I assumed,” Thor admitted. “As for you Sif...I am deeply sorry.”

“If you expect any form of forgiveness you would be sorely mistaken. Time is not something to be made up. You don’t even begin to comprehend the amount of loss you put me through.” Sif remained poised but her eyes were alight with rage.

“I don’t expect anything,” Thor admitted, folding his hands on the table, “your right to be angry isn’t something I’ll smother.”

“This is pointless,” Sage shook her head. “What does accepting responsibility do? It changes nothing for anyone!”

“Acknowledging your wrong doings doesn’t make them right, but it shows recognition from the person at fault.” Loki tilted his head, studying the scene. “For once my brother’s taken responsibility.”

“Now that everything’s on the table, is there anyway to fix it?” Thalia asked hopefully, taking a moment to study everyone. “Please? There’s too much pain in our history. If we can’t right ourselves how can we ever restore our kingdom? Our people...they need us. Even those who’ve done wrong have shaped us.”

“Some of us find it hard to love something we’ve never been a part of.” Sage glanced at her cousin and the two seemed to come to a mutual understanding. Sage stood to leave and only paused to give Thalia a small squeeze on the shoulder. She said nothing more as she headed down the hall cradling her injured hand.

[wendynerdwrites]

Meta Repost Project: Fandom Studies and the Personal Favorite White Boy

(note, this is an article I originally posted on therainbowhub and fandomfollowing two years ago but has been lost to caches and bad decisions on my art. Here it is again, non-caches and in full. This article has some errors and is out of date, but I wanted to preserve the original even if it is flawed. It works well as a reference and I may add/alter it again, but I wanted to post is and have it here, untouched, first)

This one’s gonna hurt…

Personal Favorite White Boy (n.): A (usually white) male character who can commit acts ranging from “pretty damn douchey” to “outright atrocities”, but is constantly defended by or stanned for by a furious fan base who will go to any lengths to excuse their actions and vilify critics. A male fave who is portrayed as a precious cinnamon roll who are only ever victims and heroes, and anyone who says differently is evil or illiterate. Who will have their fangirls who “understand” them furiously warp their characters, outright ignore their flaws, and attack anyone who points out anything remotely negative about their faves. Any woman who rejects them is an evil bitch, as is anyone who dares to hold them accountable for their actions. Everything they do is justifiable due to past abuse, “true love”, or a protective instinct. The figure from which Draco in Leather Pants, along with other modern fandom tropes, has spawned.

Fifty Shades of Grey fans will dox you online for saying Christian Grey is an abusive stalker despite the fact that he tracks a woman through her cellphone and uses faux-BDSM to hurt his wife for the crime of going out for drinks with a friend.

Twilight fans will lose their shit if you point out how not-okay it is that Edward Cullen took a piece of Bella Swan’s car engine out to keep her from going to see Jacob. Or if you make the point that Jacob forcing a kiss on Bella is, in fact, sexual assault.

You’re a total simpleton if you think that Thomas Raith from the Dresden Files is rapist. Sure, he uses magic to compel humans into having sex with him, but he acknowledges he’s a monster and also consent doesn’t matter to vampires! He’s a hero because he feels bad about it. Can’t you just understand context?!

If you dare to mention that you’re not supposed to stand with Ward (or you get shot in the head because he’s a traitorous neo-Nazi rapist), some Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. fans will want your blood.

Finn Collins from The 100 has great hair and calls the lead female character Clarke “Princess”, but he also killed nearly twenty unarmed men, women, and children. That makes him a war criminal and the Grounders wanting him dead as an offering to insure their peace treaty (the one that will likely insure the safety and health of hundred, if not thousands of innocents) is pretty reasonable. As is how the lead character, Clarke, stabbed Finn to spare him a torturous death. But some fans of The 100 insist that Clarke is “a bitch” for doing this and not killing Grounder leader Lexa— even though that would surely result in the deaths of everyone she’s ever loved.

…I know, right? It’s maddening. How much media utterly idolizes men even if they’re shits? Or at the very least problematic?

These men— the Grant Wards, the Spikes, the Finn Collinses, the Tyrion Lannisters, the Edward Cullens—- are the Personal Favorite White Boys, and they get psychotic fandom defenses more passionate than anything. These PFWBs will be absolved of anything— be it rape, abuse, massacres, mistakes that lead to the violent deaths and starvation of thousands— by certain fans with defenses going from “He was abused as a child” to “He cried once.”

Which brings us to the first prong of my theory regarding the rabid Personal Favorite White Boy Defense phenomenon: male characters in media, agency, and our changing views of what we view as acceptable and unacceptable.

First, there are the roles of female characters in stories, and how the primary actors or aggressors in most stories are men.

Men were almost always the active players. Even in stories that feature main female protagonists, such as Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, those main female characters are so passive to the point of unconsciousness— and need to be saved by men in the form of what is considered modern day sexual assault.

But men were the primary agents, the true heroes, and so they had actions that could be judged for good or ill– choices they actually made. Whereas even the females’ characters choices were usually framed as a thing they did because “they couldn’t help it.” Still utterly passive, with no agency. So there is no instinct to defend female romantic leads in text much because there was never a real need. Even when they were objectively messed up people, they were always framed as a prize and their flaws had more to do with them being weak and dependent than letting us see their own choices and real motivations— think Daisy Buchanan (who was awful, but very much built up simply as an object rather than a person). So there simply has never been much encouragement for men to feel like they need to justify their fictional crushes. Once a woman did something bad, it was done. She was just bad. But she was always, always passive and always an object. There are some exceptions, of course, but often even those stories are altered or ignored. Compare and contrast how the stories of Joseph and his coat of many colors or David defeating Goliath are well known and publicized. Meanwhile few people could tell you much of Judith, who saved the Hebrew people by slaying the Assyrian general Holofernes.

In modern media, we’ve improved by increasing the actions of female protagonists, but in a world where the ratio of male to female characters in mainstream film is 2:1 and The Bechdel Test actually has to be a thing, we’re still used to having women as non-entities.

And that’s the narrative tradition we have. So while we can up female agency, men are pretty much NEVER without agency, even in woman-centric media unless it’s aimed at little girls. Men are still very often the heroes, the aggressors, the people who take active part in everything and have real choices to examine. And since we’re encouraging more progressive views, it means that arguing of the morality regarding men becomes far more complicated and nuanced.

Look at the changing views of characters like John Harker or Heathcliff, or any Byronic hero. Once they were an ideal, but now that our lens has changed, particularly when it comes to romantic/sexual matters, heroes get challenged in a new way, and are challenged to their potential romantic audience— primarily women. So the pressure is on the women to justify their fictional romances.

As said before, we’re used to, and comfortable with, judging women both fictional and factual. Women are encouraged to defend men, and expected to do it now with the rapidly changing social views that we have. And unfortunately, while the complex issues of things like personal autonomy, consent, and justice have been progressing, there are many people who are still woefully uneducated about certain issues. For instance, when I wrote in a blog post how in the A Song of Ice and Firebooks, the character of Tyrion Lannister molests his crying, terrified, twelve-year-old POW of a bride, I had a very sweet teenage reader go, “Wait, Tyrion rapes Sansa WTF???” When I replied that no, I said he molests her, the young woman asked, “Wait, are molestation and rape not the same thing?” She seemed pretty happy to learn this, even though she, like all other young people out there, deserve to have learned this at a much younger age.

We still have a ton of women these days who don’t know that sexual assault encompasses more than rape, that consent can be revoked, and are still heavily influenced by rape culture and sexist ideals. People who still think it’s not abuse unless the boyfriend gives his girlfriend a black eye. Who don’t understand that S&M is meant to be built upon clear, informed consent and communication.

So as a result, when you point out to someone that taking apart Bella Swan’s car engine totally qualifies as abuse, you have many fangirls who are shocked and furious. To them, domestic abusers are drunken stepfathers in wife beaters breaking bones, not well-dressed, sophisticated, “protective” Edward Cullen.

When you say that Christian Grey is an abuser since he manipulates ridiculously-innocent and ignorant Anastasia Steele into a “BDSM” relationship and continues it even after it’s confirmed that she doesn’t understand concepts like butt plugs and orgasm denials, then shames her for using the  safe word (which is, like, a totally normal thing to use), they become enraged.

When you mention Damon Salvatore raped someone, the response is often, “But she expressed interest in sleeping with him! They flirted!”

Now, everyone is happy to judge women, but rarely to ever examine their choices. Those judgments have always been simple: Virgin/Whore.

There’s never been any sort of need for men to try and justify their romantic choices, partly because heroines were so bland so often, portrayed as objects not people, and you can’t really examine the morality of an object that doesn’t make real decisions. Whereas male characters have historically always had agency.

But men aren’t objects. They are the people who, historically, have controlled the world in really messed up ways and we’re coming to realize that. So women will have put emotional stock in a character, and now are pressured to examine a male character’s choices in a way that men haven’t really had to, especially not through a lens of characters they find attractive.

For instance, guys will talk your ear off about how much Bella Swan from Twilight sucks, but were they ever in a position to get emotionally attached or attracted to her? No. Female characters are either identifiable with women or just titillation or prizes for men. Bella Swan was never meant to be lusted after or won by a male audience. Whereas women throughout history have been actively encouraged to think of Heathcliff or whomever as a romantic interest, and now that sort of thing is being challenged. Women are encouraged to be on the defensive about their romantic/sexual feelings, and that is their default setting.

Let’s face it: throughout history, those things that have been viewed as appealing to women, especially young women, are often denigrated and seen as “lesser” pieces of art than those marketed or made by men.

Sure, the word “fan” originally comes from the word “fanatic”, but that seems to only get recognized when women are involved. Male fans are just that— fans. Female fans are half-fan, half “lun-ATIC.” And no amount of football riots, soccer riots,hockey riots, or actual history will do much to dissuade people of this idea.

When Elvis Presley and The Beatles took over the popular consciousness, much was made of their legions of screaming fans— most of them young women. These “Beatlemaniacs” were a joke, a joke which ended up extending to the band itself.

Today, The Beatles are seen as one of the most important, artistically capable, and revolutionary musical acts of all time. Whereas before, during the height of Beatlemania, critics were quick to make snide remarks about their lack of artistic merit. “Is this the King’s English?”, one snide reporter wrote. They were seen as nothing but mop-topped sex symbols…

…Right.

Indeed, fangirls have had to defend their media preferences for a very, very long time– just as much for modern media as classic works. Plenty of people these days will sneer at a “feminine” love for classic knightly tales of chivalric romance— “All that stupid fairy tale romantic BS. That’s not how it was in the real Middle Ages!”

Granted, it is true that the knight in shining armor trope isn’t exactly historically accurate. But what many people seem to forget was the context under which many of these fairy tales and stories of courtly love were written. These stories were not just written to make naive women soak their petticoats. In fact, many of the codes of romantic chivalry were established by and for men in order to instill a more sustainable and less chaotic way of life for men at arms— a way of giving knights a code in order to keep any guy with a sword from randomly slaughtering and raping everyone he encountered. Indeed, many fairytales and fantasies— from Snow White to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight— were written with the intent of positively influencing and representing the cultures that spawned them; they were not only entertaining and educating their contemporary audiences, but serving as significant historical and social texts for people to study today. “Fairy tales” and myths of knights and ladies have huge academic and intellectual significance to the modern day. And yet, many call it “Fairy tale bullshit.”

As a result of this cultural bias, women just naturally feel the need to automatically be on the defensive about things they like, regardless of the artistic merit of said media. This includes the need to justify almost any sexual/emotional/romantic feeling they have for a male character. Men? Not so much.

We’re just not used to questioning the agency of men. We’re supposed to accept men as heroes and accept what they do “for love.” We have to always make excuses because they’re men being men. Women should be prizes for these men. And we should stand by our men.

Unfortunately, there are changing standards for acceptable behavior. What does and doesn’t count as sexual assault. What does and doesn’t count as stalking. What does and doesn’t count for abuse. What can and can’t be excused on the basis of age or history of abuse. Edward Cullen was “protecting” Bella. Grant Ward was abused as a child. Finn Collins was traumatized and was desperate to find Clarke, who he was in love with. Christian Grey is just into S&M.

Any excuse must and should be found. Or certain actions should just be brushed aside as no big deal, especially if they did it “for love” (often the excuse with Finn Collins defenders).

Now, it’s true that certain Personal Favorite White Boys are in fact characters with complexity. But the strange thing is is how often those very complexities that are praised by fans are in fact erased via white-washing, all while female characters are vilified for infractions as horrible as “crying too much”, “not falling in love with the guy who wanted her”. Tyrion Lannister from A Song of Ice and Fire is a great example (known more popularly by his show counterpart, who has most if not all of the character’s flaws erased… Yeah, the Personal Favorite White Boy can be extended to dudebros like David Benioff and D.B. Weiss making “adaptation” decisions as well). He’s a severely messed up person who has moments of great compassion and courage, but also sometimes does horrible things. This is not because he’s pure evil, but because the man is completely warped. But that does not make excuses, validate, or erase the horrible things he does. They do not make him a good person. Tyrion is still a character with agency, and oftentimes he uses that agency to do awful, awful things.

And if you bring that up, you’re an ableist douchebag who thinks people who have been abused should just “get over” things.How dare you call the man who willingly married a twelve year old POW selfish and sexist! His Dad was the one who offered him that marriage (along with another match as an alternative, with no threats of violence), and his dad has abused him, so therefore Tyrion did no wrong!

Just like Thomas Wraith can’t help hypnotizing people into sex, because he’s a vampire and vampires in the Dresden Files don’t care about consent.

It’s okay as long as he acknowledges that he’s a monster.

Even when a guy is a rapist, neo-nazi terrorist, the fact that his father beat him means #IStandWithWard.

That is not to say that all fans are like this. Nor is it to say that there is something necessarily wrong with having a problematic fave— as long as you acknowledge and don’t try to white-wash these things. There are tons of fanboys and fangirls who are perfectly ready and happy to admit the faults of their characters,  gleefully call them “shitheads”, and examine the issues at play in the media they consume. But unfortunately, the Personal Favorite White Boy phenom is great enough that it sort of sets the stereotype for empty-headed female fandom (which, by the way, is bullshit).

This mentality comes from a strong social background. One in which we are expected to find reasons and explanations for the heinous acts committed by white men. Where the Aurora shooter was described as bullied and mentally ill, and will be nonviolently taken into custody for a life sentence after killing a dozen innocent people; where Jeffrey Dahmer is given due process and only restrained during arrest after killing and eating several people, but Walter Scott is shot point blank for running and 15-year-old Dejerria Becton is forced to the ground because of a noisy pool party.  One where women are not expected to have agency. One where rape culture and bigoted social mores are institutionalized. Where women expected (and are expected) to be judged for everything. Where women in media are sex objects, so there is no urge for the heterosexual males who want her to feel the need to defend her actions or choices. Meanwhile, women are actively encouraged to feel persecuted or defend “their men” no matter what. Where they’re automatically defensive because female audiences are so automatically looked down upon, and where media is being constantly re-examined through a rapidly evolving social lens. Where the issues of sexual assault and consent are so poorly explored and communicated that there are tons of people who still don’t get that hypnotizing people into having sex with you is still rape.

As a result, we’ve produced the culture of #IStandWithWard.

And then there’s just how female fans in general are treated– but that’s a different article.

(This is the first in a series of articles exploring fandom and its idiosyncrasies. Tune in next time, when Wendy deconstructs all the reasons fangirls are so automatically defensive of everything in the first place!)

[itsfinancethings]

New story in Politics from Time: Here’s What Trump Got Wrong About America’s COVID-19 Death Rate

During an interview with Axios on HBO that aired Monday night, President Donald Trump mischaracterized the U.S. COVID-19 death rate and underplayed the high rate of deaths in proportion to the U.S. population.

During the interview, which was filmed on July 28, Axios reporter Jonathan Swan brought up the recent surge in COVID-19 related deaths in the U.S., pointing out that, at the time the interview was recorded, the U.S. was reporting over 1,000 deaths per day.

The President pushed back against Swan’s statement, referring to charts he had brought with him and saying, “Right here, the United States is lowest in numerous categories, we’re lower than the world, we’re lower than Europe.”

When asked what he meant by “lower than the world,” the President handed Swan his chart, revealing that he was referring to the U.S. death rate in proportion to the number of its confirmed COVID-19 cases, rather than the death rate in proportion to the U.S.’s overall population.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Population (CDC) defines “mortality rate” as “a measure of the frequency of occurrence of death in a defined population” over a specific period of time. According to the non-profit fact checking project PolitiFact, the mortality rate shows how “common” it is for someone to die from COVID-19 in a given population—such as the U.S.—while the number of deaths in proportion to the number of cases shows how likely it is for someone to die from COVID-19 once they’ve already been infected.

As of Tuesday morning, among the 20 countries most affected by COVID-19 in the world, the U.S. has the fourth-highest number of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people, ranking behind only the United Kingdom, Peru and Chile, according to Johns Hopkins University. Meanwhile, the U.S.’s number of deaths per 100 confirmed cases (its observed case-fatality ratio) is 14th among the 20 countries most affected by COVID-19, per JHU, but still higher than Chile, India, Argentina, Russia, South Africa and Bangladesh.

U.S. COVID-19 numbers sharply rose throughout July amid widespread reopening measures that experts have criticized as having been premature. The high numbers of cases cannot be attributed to a higher amount of testing because the number of positive tests are also rising. According to an analysis from TIME, COVID-19 related deaths in the U.S. have risen 19.8% over the past 14 days as of Tuesday morning.

During the Axios on HBO interview, Swan pushed back against Trump’s characterization of the U.S.’s death rate, saying, “I’m talking about death as a proportion of [U.S.] population. That’s where the U.S. is really bad. Much worse than South Korea, Germany, etc.”

“You can’t do that,” Trump responded. “You have to go by the cases … What it is says, is when you have somebody—where there’s a case, the people that live from those cases.”

.@jonathanvswan: “Oh, you’re doing death as a proportion of cases. I’m talking about death as a proportion of population. That’s where the U.S. is really bad. Much worse than South Korea, Germany, etc.”@realdonaldtrump: “You can’t do that.”

Swan: “Why can’t I do that?” pic.twitter.com/MStySfkV39

— Axios (@axios) August 4, 2020

“It’s surely a relevant statistic to say ‘if the U.S. has X population and X percentage of death of that population’, versus South Korea,” Swan pushed back.

“No, because you have to go by the cases-” Trump said.

“Look at South Korea, for example. Fifty one million population. Three hundred deaths,” Swan said.

“You don’t know that,” Trump said.

“You think they’re faking their statistics? South Korea?” asked Swan.

“I won’t get into that because I have a very good relationship with the country, but you don’t know that, and they have spikes,” Trump answered. He then showed Swan another chart that appeared to showed the U.S.’s COVID-19 death rate in proportion to the number of cases.

“We’re last, meaning we’re first, we have the best,” Trump said.

“A thousand Americans are dying a day. But I understand on cases it’s different,” Swan said, appearing to try to move to another subject.

“No, but you’re not reporting it correctly Jonathan,” the President pushed back, showing Swan another chart.

“Yeah we do more tests-,” Swan responded.

“Well don’t we get credit for that? And because we do more tests, we have more cases,” Trump said. (Experts says the increase in testing does not account for the increase of cases.)

During the same interview with Swan, President Trump also spoke about the late civil rights icon and Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who died on July 17 at the age of 80 from pancreatic cancer.

When asked how he thinks history will remember the Congressman, Trump responded, “I don’t know. I don’t know John Lewis, he chose not to come to my inauguration. I never met John Lewis, actually, I don’t believe.”

Swan then asked if Trump found the civil rights leader impressive. Trump responded, “I can’t say one way or the other. I find a lot of people impressive. I find many people not impressive.”

“He didn’t come to my inauguration. He didn’t come to my state of the union speeches. And that’s okay, that’s his right,” Trump continued, adding, “Nobody has done more for Black Americans than I have.”

Lewis was chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, one of the organizers of the 1963 March on Washington and lead the 1965 Selma to Montgomery March across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where he was attacked and beaten by police.

Trump tells #AxiosOnHBO that he “can’t say one way or the other” whether John Lewis was impressive.

“He didn’t come to my inauguration.” pic.twitter.com/L0uevhjrG4

— Axios (@axios) August 4, 2020

When asked by Swan if he found the civil rights leaders’ story impressive, Trump said, “He was person that devoted a lot of energy and a lot of heart to civil rights, but there were many others also.”

Trump also said he would “have no objection” to renaming the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma after Lewis.

You can watch the full Axios interview here.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2PqUu9I via IFTTT

[itsfinancethings]

During an interview with Axios on HBO that aired Monday night, President Donald Trump mischaracterized the U.S. COVID-19 death rate and underplayed the high rate of deaths in proportion to the U.S. population.

During the interview, which was filmed on July 28, Axios reporter Jonathan Swan brought up the recent surge in COVID-19 related deaths in the U.S., pointing out that, at the time the interview was recorded, the U.S. was reporting over 1,000 deaths per day.

The President pushed back against Swan’s statement, referring to charts he had brought with him and saying, “Right here, the United States is lowest in numerous categories, we’re lower than the world, we’re lower than Europe.”

When asked what he meant by “lower than the world,” the President handed Swan his chart, revealing that he was referring to the U.S. death rate in proportion to the number of its confirmed COVID-19 cases, rather than the death rate in proportion to the U.S.’s overall population.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Population (CDC) defines “mortality rate” as “a measure of the frequency of occurrence of death in a defined population” over a specific period of time. According to the non-profit fact checking project PolitiFact, the mortality rate shows how “common” it is for someone to die from COVID-19 in a given population—such as the U.S.—while the number of deaths in proportion to the number of cases shows how likely it is for someone to die from COVID-19 once they’ve already been infected.

As of Tuesday morning, among the 20 countries most affected by COVID-19 in the world, the U.S. has the fourth-highest number of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people, ranking behind only the United Kingdom, Peru and Chile, according to Johns Hopkins University. Meanwhile, the U.S.’s number of deaths per 100 confirmed cases (its observed case-fatality ratio) is 14th among the 20 countries most affected by COVID-19, per JHU, but still higher than Chile, India, Argentina, Russia, South Africa and Bangladesh.

U.S. COVID-19 numbers sharply rose throughout July amid widespread reopening measures that experts have criticized as having been premature. The high numbers of cases cannot be attributed to a higher amount of testing because the number of positive tests are also rising. According to an analysis from TIME, COVID-19 related deaths in the U.S. have risen 19.8% over the past 14 days as of Tuesday morning.

During the Axios on HBO interview, Swan pushed back against Trump’s characterization of the U.S.’s death rate, saying, “I’m talking about death as a proportion of [U.S.] population. That’s where the U.S. is really bad. Much worse than South Korea, Germany, etc.”

“You can’t do that,” Trump responded. “You have to go by the cases … What it is says, is when you have somebody—where there’s a case, the people that live from those cases.”

.@jonathanvswan: “Oh, you’re doing death as a proportion of cases. I’m talking about death as a proportion of population. That’s where the U.S. is really bad. Much worse than South Korea, Germany, etc.”@realdonaldtrump: “You can’t do that.”

Swan: “Why can’t I do that?” pic.twitter.com/MStySfkV39

— Axios (@axios) August 4, 2020

“It’s surely a relevant statistic to say ‘if the U.S. has X population and X percentage of death of that population’, versus South Korea,” Swan pushed back.

“No, because you have to go by the cases-” Trump said.

“Look at South Korea, for example. Fifty one million population. Three hundred deaths,” Swan said.

“You don’t know that,” Trump said.

“You think they’re faking their statistics? South Korea?” asked Swan.

“I won’t get into that because I have a very good relationship with the country, but you don’t know that, and they have spikes,” Trump answered. He then showed Swan another chart that appeared to showed the U.S.’s COVID-19 death rate in proportion to the number of cases.

“We’re last, meaning we’re first, we have the best,” Trump said.

“A thousand Americans are dying a day. But I understand on cases it’s different,” Swan said, appearing to try to move to another subject.

“No, but you’re not reporting it correctly Jonathan,” the President pushed back, showing Swan another chart.

“Yeah we do more tests-,” Swan responded.

“Well don’t we get credit for that? And because we do more tests, we have more cases,” Trump said. (Experts says the increase in testing does not account for the increase of cases.)

During the same interview with Swan, President Trump also spoke about the late civil rights icon and Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who died on July 17 at the age of 80 from pancreatic cancer.

When asked how he thinks history will remember the Congressman, Trump responded, “I don’t know. I don’t know John Lewis, he chose not to come to my inauguration. I never met John Lewis, actually, I don’t believe.”

Swan then asked if Trump found the civil rights leader impressive. Trump responded, “I can’t say one way or the other. I find a lot of people impressive. I find many people not impressive.”

“He didn’t come to my inauguration. He didn’t come to my state of the union speeches. And that’s okay, that’s his right,” Trump continued, adding, “Nobody has done more for Black Americans than I have.”

Lewis was chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, one of the organizers of the 1963 March on Washington and lead the 1965 Selma to Montgomery March across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where he was attacked and beaten by police.

Trump tells #AxiosOnHBO that he “can’t say one way or the other” whether John Lewis was impressive.

“He didn’t come to my inauguration.” pic.twitter.com/L0uevhjrG4

— Axios (@axios) August 4, 2020

When asked by Swan if he found the civil rights leaders’ story impressive, Trump said, “He was person that devoted a lot of energy and a lot of heart to civil rights, but there were many others also.”

Trump also said he would “have no objection” to renaming the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma after Lewis.

You can watch the full Axios interview here.