#misogyny and patriarchy at it's finest

[8picklesinatrenchcoat]

The way hubby told me he doesn't want to go watch Barbie really told me everything I needed to know.

He practically recoiled, offended that I would ask him such a thing. How dare I assume that he might be interested in watching such a movie!

Well, I went alone and had a great time! So suck on that!

[sonicfanj]

Ngl sometimes i feel like ppl are harsher on amy cause shes a girly character.

I've seen my fair share and more of bigotry aimed Amy's direction from straight up misogyny to more nuanced pigeonholing and appeals to power. That last bit in particular is interesting when you see people compare Amy to the likes of Sally, Blaze, and Rouge, with her lack of authoritative power or an "important" job being used to belittle her. Even more so how some people insisted that she was underserving when she did land such a position, so it could be her "girlishness" that people take offence to. That would not surprise me either considering there are people who have said that her "girlishness" and being open about her desire to have a relationship with a boy whom she structures her life around makes her a bad role model.

My thoughts on Amy representing the joy of just being yourself and never giving up on your dreams aside, looking at Sonic for role models is itself not a great idea since one of the values of the main character is to never compromise, a mentality in the real world that leads to war, murder, crime, abuse, and lots of other horrible things. So yeah, in that way Amy is a bad role model, but she's a fictional character, her job is to entertain you, not teach you how to live your life. So if her silly "girlishness" isn't someone's thing, it's better just to say it than try to justify it with misogyny and bigotry thinly veiled as watching out for all the girls out there who could be encouraged to enjoy traditionally girly things and like boys who inspire, motivate, and fill their lives with joy and happiness.

Don't get me wrong, it's easy to warp Amy's character into a symbol of pro abusive patriarchy as her character is kind of two-sided that way. I mean, if we look at what Amy wants, to be a part of Sonic's life and adventures, just to see him being him, Sonic doesn't even have to reciprocate her feelings. This traditional patriarchal idea feminine values revolving around a boy is very toxic and implies just a man's presence is enough to fulfill all of the life goals of a woman. That isn't good at all. It is however, a less than surface level look at the relationship the two have.

A lot of people like to cite that Sonic loves to run and Amy chasing him gives him reason to run. Even Hoshino-san (the man who led her creation) has alluded to that aspect of their relationship, so it's natural to see it as an important part. However, that is still looking at only the Amy working part of the relationship, and she works at it a lot, which is both for and against the toxic patriarchal view of her role and femininity. Consider, in a true patriarchy men are entitled to any woman they want and competition is limited to looks and looks alone. The work Amy puts in to have her dream fulfilled isn't necessary. Only her looks, which ironically Amy's focus on her looks is usually joked about at being at the expense of her health. She can take care of everyone else, but when it comes to selfcare she's literally only skin deep. Another fine example of Amy having aspects that work in a toxic patriarchy, especially if we consider that Amy's looks became more important to her chronologically when we transition from the classics when she wore whatever and was just another hedgehog to dressing herself up in a highly revealing outfit, that happens to be Sonic's favorite color (it's red, not blue like most people think. Just look at his shoes, plane, and even cars that he was affiliated with back in the classics) with her spines(/quills) distinctly styled. It's obvious that she wants to look good for him, which is indeed toxic patriarchy at it's finest in the handling of a female character. However, it is also a sign of love, to give unconditionally to the one that you love. But this then means that we have to look beyond just the patriarchal relationship where men are entitled to any woman of their choosing and actually need to look at what Sonic gives Amy.

Understanding what Sonic gives first requires stepping back and getting a bit meta, remembering that Amy was made specifically to be a girl in the franchise, Sonic's girlfriend (in a nontraditional relationship), and to have a personality that allowed her to perpetually chase after a guy who only looks forward to his next adventure or challenge. A lot of people call the happy-go-lucky girl who that birthed annoying and delusional, but it also shows a lack of knowing Sonic himself, something that the Sonic Origins and Sonic Prime versions of Sonic and tails' first meeting distorts. That will be relevant a bit later though.

While Amy's genki girl, rosy, and bubbly personality is what most people lock onto, usually insisting on a change in it, citing misogyny as a reason to practice misogyny against the type of girl that Amy is, the most important aspect of Amy's personality, designed to fit Sonic and his lifestyle is frequently overlooked. Even before meeting Sonic, if we go by the original continuity of the games, Amy's Rosy the Rascal moniker told us that she was the type of cheerful and optimistic girl who routinely got into and caused trouble for her own amusement. The getting into trouble part is the really important bit as Amy herself words it best in Sonic Adventure when yearning for the days of excitement she had as part of Sonic's adventures. She yearns for adventure, and expresses a love of it. And she isn't unexperienced either, as again, in the original continuity she travels to Never Lake on the order of the cards. The thing about Never Lake however, is it is a barren wasteland when Little Planet isn't present. This means that she went out there herself under her own power. She could not have done that without being at least somewhat experienced as an adventurer herself, and that's not even counting that she managed to get herself up onto Little Planet at all. But it shouldn't be a surprise since one of her hobbies is dowsing, a method for finding water, or treasures. This implies that she again enjoys being out either hunting treasure, or just needing to find water, a skill necessary when out in the wilderness, something an adventurer would be. Sonic being a world famous globetrotting adventurer in the original continuity also shows why she would have heard about him and wondered if her destined encounter would be with him. She's a hedgehog adventurer herself and he is the pinnacle of that, the pinnacle she wants to respect her as an equal. Amy being an adventurer is a huge, yet overlooked and underappreciated part of her character.

Now though, with Amy's character better examined, and why Sonic, his way of life, and even his trouble finding personality all can appeal to our rosy rascal, it is time to address his reciprocation to show that there is more to their relationship than a entitled toxic patriarchy. To that end, we have to again look at Tails and how he met Sonic. Origins and prime muddy things by going against the original continuity and actively having Sonic rescue Tails from his bullies. That never originally happened as it undermines Tails' character message of learning to stand up for yourself. What happened in the original continuity is that Tails seeing Sonic in person for the first time (again, he knew about him because he was a world famous, globetrotting adventurer from before even the first game) was a moment of tremendous inspiration for Tails. Actually seeing him made Tails want to stand up for himself and be cool like Sonic. To that end, Tails started following Sonic around while Sonic was on his runs on Westside Island. And this went on for days with Sonic actively being annoyed by it, only his live and live attitude allowing Sonic to say to himself to let Tails do as he pleased. And it's not like Sonic didn't try to lose him either. He did as I recall, but Tails could still keep up because of his namesake. And while I could go on here, the important for Sonic and Amy's relationship has been revealed.To help clarify the above, I'm actually going to refer to a moment from the Archie comics. A lot of game Sonic fans will consider this wrong, but for all of the bluster against interpretations of Sonic outside of SEGA of Japan, there are several things that became part of Sonic's character, chilidogs most notably. However, this fact allows for an example to be drawn to show Sonic's reciprocation of Amy's feelings and how that manifests. The moment in this case is a Sonally moment loathed by SonAmy fans and fans of Sonic's character alike. The moment when Sonic tells Sally that he can slow down for her. Loathed as the moment is, it actually captured an aspect of how Sonic handles romantic relationships.

While slowing down doesn't work for Sonic realistically in a relationship with Sally, since she outright requires Sonic to stop (exemplified, distorted as it may be, by the infamous slap), Amy is willing, desires, and has the freedom to put in the work to catch up with Sonic. Thus, when not overwhelmed by Amy's energy and overflowing emotions, Sonic will slow down for her, allowing her to chase after him into the adventures that she loves so much. A fine example of this is in Team Sonic and Team Rose's ending in Sonic Heroes where he could have easily outpaced her. When comparing how he treated Tails, who he still subconsciously expects to just keep up in casual situations, slowing down at all instead of trying to leave her in the dust speaks volumes. Addressing why this is all Sonic does to reciprocate Amy's feelings requires examining some of the bigotry inherent in the attack on Amy's girlishness as a reason to hate her and hold her to impossibly high standards.

To start, it has been stated by Sonic and Amy co-creator, Ohshima Naoto-san, that Sonic has the eternal heart of a boy (he really feels like Peter pan sometimes), but if he matured that he would choose Amy. So, this again puts us in toxic patriarchy relationships between a boy and a girl again, but as I said, there is bigotry at hand beyond just misogyny. Arophobia is easily the most blatant, though aphobia in general manifests when addressing Sonic's lack of romantic gestures, something Amy herself has indirectly said she doesn't need regardless of her cravings for it.

If you look at the larger LGBTQ+ spectrum, you will discover that aromantic and asexual people are part of the community. Or people who feel little to no romantic or sexual desire. To a lot of aspect people Sonic is extremely relatable as he just typically doesn't respond to it. For most people this says that Sonic doesn't like Amy, despite their co-creator saying he does. This would imply then that their is more going on, intentional or not, than just a boyish heart that is too immature for responding to the open heart of another. Such a heart however typically comes with expressions of disgust towards girls and a direct rejection of feelings that the boy doesn't understand. Sonic is presented very differently from that, usually just keeping his distance or fleeing when overwhelmed (this can also lead into discourse on how Sonic is actually very introverted but has a really good public façade and script). But as you follow the history between Sonic and Amy, you'll actually see him soften from being annoyed at her public displays of affection (something shown even in early concept art with his concept girlfriend Madonna, who Amy inherited the personality of), to being willing to walk side by side with her, letting her stand close, lying down next to each other and more recently actually returning her hug. This slow development shows what is potentially a demiromantic response (can still be aromatic, but my research isn't complete enough to make that determination), bringing forward the idea that Sonic simply needed time to form a bond close enough with Amy that would allow him to experience romantic feelings towards her. This is very different from the toxic patriarchy idea that Amy does all of the relationship work, as from am aromantic or demiromantic perspective, he very well can't put in the work Amy does as he isn't wired in a way to be able to, which aligns with the idea that it doesn't match Sonic's character as stated by Hoshino Kazayuki-san when describing why he gave Amy the personality that she has. It also means that anyone citing toxic patriarchy against the SonAmy dynamic are potentially themselves practicing bigotry, intentionally or not, against aromantic and demiromantic persons.

In conclusion, yeah, Amy's girlishness is definitely used as a point against her. But using it as a point against her is usually a sign of ignorance; either of the characters, their relationships, or the words and intentions of heir creators; failure to realize that Sonic is not a good role model himself, despite his heroic readings, meaning just by liking him and wanting to be part of his life neither is Amy, despite her representation of the joy of just being yourself and never giving up on your dreams; or bigotry through pigeonholing women into "acceptable" personalities and roles, and refusing to acknowledge that aspec and demispec persons exist. It's a very shallow reading of Amy's character and the complexity and nuance in her relationship with Sonic. And as thought exists on the conscious and subconscious levels, this isn't a matter of thinking deeper than the creators did (a strange claim to make without proof), as nothing exists in a vacuum and we all have far more subconscious thought then we ever give credit to. Trying to attack Amy's girlishness at best is just a sign of ignorance and/or malice, and I find that these days it's just so much easier and better for me to ignore that.

Sorry that ended up so long and meandering anon. It's a topic I can get very into, and I completely left out a lot of how I think Amy's girlishness helps out her and the IP on a whole due to the difference in perspective and approach that it brings.

Thanks for the ask!

[lemonhemlock]

It's so hilarious that some people desperately want Aegon to be Daemon's parallel and foil despite it's doesn't make any sense in terms of characterization , narrative and in terms of themes as well. Just because you know they happen to like Aemond and don't want him to be associated with daemon in any possible way. Despite the fact that Aemond was literally created in the first place to be Daemon's foil and therefore Aemond's whole characterization, his arc and even his death all of it have been made in the way they are in the book based on this simple fact , that Aemond (and none else beside him) is Daemon's foil. Aemond will never be Jon snow or jaime lannister type of a character no matter of how many times the showrunners try to whitewash him . His arc will still be the same despite everything else. That's fine to like Aemond and appreciate him for the villain he is without trying to make him this pure good-hearted person because none in the dance of dragons are . And Rhaenyra is the Matilda of this story and Aegon ii is Stephen ii , so yes Rhaenyra's true foil and parallel is her little brother who was the person who took the throne away from her and ended up killing her like Daemon ended up killing his foil. The only reason why this corny dialogue exited in the first place "tis i who studied the blade and philosophy" is because ryan got a boner for Aemond of all the other characters, while calling Alicent a woman for trump at the same time when she was a charismatic political shrewd and strong woman in the book (mix of margary and Cersei) this is woke misogyny at it's finest

I agree with Daemon/Aemond being foils and Rhaenyra/Aegon being foils, highlighted by the fact that they die by the hand of their narrative counterparts.

That being said, I'm not gonna lie to you, I really love and much prefer what they did to Aemond in the show. It proves that they can take what was basically an anime villain and properly build him up and humanize him. Generally speaking, I much prefer it when characters receive the multi-layered treatment, because it's better for the story overall to have complex characters than one-note NPCs. So I don't take issue with show!Aemond and wouldn't change him. And, yes, that goes even for team black - I don't have a problem with Rhaenyra being more sympathetic as I have with the unbalanced way the factions are presented.

But I must wonder, from a story telling perspective, when they all sat down thinking how to adapt FB into HOTD, how did they look at the text and decide that Aegon is the awful one (taking Mushroom at his word), whereas Aemond is the one who should undergo a rehabilitation?

Because, at the same time, you have this weird situation where Olivia doesn't know how to apologise more for Alicent in interviews and makes concession after concession to Rhaenyra-sympathizers, like how clearly Alicent is in the wrong to prioritize her own son's ascension over Rhaenyra's (?) or how her two sons are terrible people and she just ends up upholding the patriarchy for her male children.

But, then again, how is Aemond so terrible judging by the way he has been written so far? He hasn't done anything other than do his homework and brood. I find it very hard to believe that Olivia looked at Aemond's characterization in S1 alone and came to that conclusion, so IMO it's more possible someone briefed her to say that. But whether it was Miguel Sapochnik's idea to push for this narrative of terrible Aemond (though he directed the Driftmark episode) or it was Ryan Condal's idea, I cannot say, but something is happening, because they are not on the same page.

Someone in the creative team must really like Alicent to push for her humanization, but someone else must really have it out for her, hence this inconsistent messaging and the flip-floping in her motivations from episode to episode. And it's funny because, by targeting Alicent's capabilities as a mother, they also end up damaging Aemond's pristine reputation. So, which is it? Is Alicent a bad mother and Aemond a psychopath (although you took great pains on screen to show him differently) or is Aegon just an outlier and she has 3/4 lovely children who are just doomed to be irreversibly changed by massive trauma?

It's extra strange because Aemond's characterization is very straightforward and consistent, he doesn't flip-flop in his motivations and desires, so the writers must have decided on a clear thread with him and are seeing it through. Whereas for Alicent, they tell Olivia that both her sons are awful (?) and that she deep down thinks Rhaenyra would make a better monarch than her children.

I know there is a possibility that, when she was making those statements, Olivia was just influenced by the character work she is doing for S2, in which Aemond's character will get darker post-Storm's End. But she was still referring to Alicent in The Green Council, when she's actively making preparations to crown Aegon at Rhaenyra's "expense". Before Aemond has had any opportunity to go berserk. There have been way too many instances in which the people involved in the show, whether they be actors, writers or producers (or even GRRM with Daeron) came out and publicly said one thing, while the actual media text doesn't hold that up at all.

[andytheaspec]

heyyy you should drop that essay on tswift n her lyricism

Ok so I've always disliked Taylor Swift but only recently been able to put it into words anyways rant incoming on choice/liberal feminism, the Madonna and the whore complex, pick me girls (and how a lot of people hating them are also misogynist), the idea that straight women are somehow less straight than straight men (it sounds weird but it happens), and a whole bunch of other stuff about Pollution Queen

Warning for any Swifties about to send anon hate: I'm an ex swiftie. I'm not your enemy. I'm not attacking you. I'm just asking you to think critically about some of her lyrics. I'm not making fun of her for having mostly teen girls as fans (what I'm also accused of doing when I criticize the Twilight franchise, but that's another rant)

Ok immediately I would recommend this article as a jumping off point and to sorta explain my pov

Let's start with the pick-me vibes of a lot of her early work

This paragraph is a disclaimer. While tswift receives a lot of flack for being a pick-me, a lot of that is misogyny. People (yes women are people and do this to) use the fact that they only hate a specific type of girl to hide the fact that they hate girls. (Ex: hating white girls is just using anti-racism to hate girls)

Ooh boy. Ok so I'm mainly gonna focus on the prechorus of You Belong With Me here but I could break down the entire song but I won't for the sake of brevity. The lyrics to the prechorus are:

But she wears short skirts, I wear T-shirts She's Cheer Captain and I'm on the bleachers Dreaming 'bout the day when you wake up and find That what you're looking for has been here the whole time

Athletic women have always been under pressure to be feminine lest they be accused of being lesbians (as a queer person who was accused of the sin of lesbianism for daring to have a pixie cut and play softball, I can promise girls weren't afraid of this because we're homophobic, but because everyone else is homophobic) and then swift is making fun of girls for this, yet I know that if her proverbial soulmate dated a masculine softball player she'd say he's blind and she clearly doesn't like men

She claims to be idk more athletic/ one of the boys just because she wears tshirts and doesn't play a "feminine" sport. But at the same time she's much less athletic than the cheerleader.

Why wouldn't a boy want a girl who watches sports instead of a girl who actually participates in games? /Sarcasm

She also leans into the Madonna/whore complex quite a bit. The Madonna/whore complex (which will now be abbreviated to m/w c (oh god it's a math equation)) is basically when the Boy is dating a whore when he really belongs with the unconventionally beautiful (only because she wears glasses) Madonna. Taylor is obviously always cast as the Madonna in this scene. Her lyrics always villainize the whore in this scene as well.

And on to my thesis

Draw the cat eye sharp enough to kill a man

This is liberal feminism at its finest. Pretending to be feminist and revolutionary while simultaneously doing exactly what the patriarchy wants. Men aren't intimidated by good eyeliner. Makeup is not a feminist action, and portraying it as such works against feminism. I'm not saying that women who wear makeup are inherently anti feminist, just that makeup isn't a feminist action. Taylor pretends this line is feminist, but it's really just another brand of internalized misogyny. That's what her entire brand is. Internalized misogyny packages as feminism.

[agirlofwinterfell]

🔥🔥🔥(Fire in the hole!)

MOBILE ANSWER BUT

1. Can we talk about the misogyny in this fandom? Especially towards female ocs? Some of the finest ASOIAF characters I've ever seen on this site has been female ocs. Some of the best characters I've written have been female ocs. And yet this fandom FLOCKS and FAWNS over muns who portray male characters. As if they're BETTER than the female characters. Better than the female ocs. And it's absolutely abhorrent every time i see it.

Especially considering the amount I've seen people ONLY want male muses to ship with just to ship and not interested in the actual relationship. I love interacting interacting Dee and her muses because of the relationships she helps me explore and build. And even if some of our characters marry those marriages are not always romantic. You can have just as much fun in this fandom with female characters, but God forbid you get this fandom to admit that

And I say that as someone who loves a good ship. Its good shit. In this house we love and respect female ocs and their muns probably more than the muns of male canon characters just because of the stuff this fandom puts them through.

Secondly. This fandom needs to work on its communication. Especially given how misogynistic it gets - and no it's not misogynistic to not like female characters. You don't have to like ever character. Especially female characters who use the Patriarchy against other female characters. This is an intentional dig at some parts of this fandom, and no i will not elaborate. The girls who know, know, and those who dont... anyway. I'm not against ending mutuals because it's not working anymore. Either because of writing styles, character interpretation, just not vibing - whatever. Life is life. But expressing that to someone is usually better than just straight ghosting or blocking. Now this is different if they're an awful person, of course, or you've never interacted but you know you don't wanna - but this fandom is awful at communicating communicating each other. Roleplaying is a hobby, and hobbies are very much meant to be enjoyable. If you've got no intentions of making it enjoyable for someone - don't waste their time. (This is not a dig at people in different timezones to each other. Im in a different time zone to a majority of you). I'm trying to articulate this thought so muxh better and it's probably coming out wrong, but - COMMUNICATION IS IMPORTANT IN ALL RELATIONSHIPS.

Which is why I acknowledge to my dash that I am slow often. And what sparks the muse sparks the muse - and I will also be working on letting people know "hey muse isn't responding to that thing rn, will get to it when muse is."

Thirdly, can't believe I have to say this - the fact that book fans mostly kept their mouths shut when GOT was airing but GOT fans have been spoiling HOTD with clips from GOT that people weren't thinking of has been extremely annoying and disheartening to see. Now I have told people yes, such and such get married but only after it's been stated by someone else. Or someone asked. But the incessant need to spoil this show to casual watchers is - literally stop it.

[millennialslayer]

164 words & phrases I see the most online 2010s--now:

* aave * ableist * acab * a/b/o * and I oop * anon * anti * appropriation * aro * ace * afab * amab * ADD * ADHD * au * audacity * authentic self * austism * bean * bigot * bingo * black lives matter * block me * boot licker * braver than any Marine * but go off I guess * cancel culture * carrd * check your privilege * chile * chose violence * cinnamon roll * cishet * class war * clout * clown * colonizer * communist * conspiracy theory * copypasta * cringe * dead name * defense squad * depression * diaspora * die mad about it * discourse * DNI if * dog whistle * Doylist v Watsonian * eat the rich * echo chamber * educate yourself * enby * epitome of * fam * fan cam * fandom police * fan fiction * fast fashion * followers * galaxy brain * gaslight * gatekeep * gay icon * gender expression * gen Z * gtfo * ghoul * girlboss * go fuck yourself * go outside and touch grass * guillotine * hater * headcanon * held accountable * hellsite * hill to die on * himbo * historical gays * hits different * hypocrisy at its finest * idealogy * if __ dies we riot * I gotta stop learning news like this * I'm in this picture and I don't like it * indoctrinate * internalized * in this essay I will * __ is a slur * __ is my origin story * it's not that deep * I will never not reblog this * just say you hate women and go * just say you support __ and go * kin * kink * let people enjoy things * lgbt+ * lived experience * mansplain * Mary Sue * meta * me too * millennial * misandry * misogyny * mutual * my skin cleared, my crops watered * my truth * narrative * new __ just dropped * not a good look * __'s not going to fuck you * Nov 5 * nuance * ok boomer * op is a terf * patriarchy * performative * polycule * pronouns * propaganda * pry it from my __ hands * quarantine * queerbait * radical feminism * rape culture * ratio * read a book I'm begging you * representation * shipper * shipping war * simping * slur * smol * spread it like wildfire * stan * stay safe * superwholock * tag yourself I'm __ * terf rhetoric * thanks for coming to my Ted Talk * there's so much to unpack here * this ain't it * __ threw the first rock at Stonewall * tbh * tone deaf * trans * tw * troll * trope * uquiz * war criminal * war flashbacks * we killed another industry * white boy fave * white savior * woke * yass Queen * yes King give us nothing * yikes * you had me in the first half not gonna lie * your honor I

[jeanjauthor]

Hello I came from the ask on waoiaf. I’m a different anon but I thought your answer was pretty cool. Hope you do not mind me asking but I am in a similar boat with merging two cultures. I am making a female prevelant book with five female POV’s and most are in the merchant world which I took inspired from the late mediveal- Renaissance Italian era, I have two that are in the nobility which takes more after 16th century France and partakes in Salic law. Do you have any worldbuilding fem tips?

I don’t mind being asked, no worries!  My thoughts & ideas might work, or might not, but then that’s true for any answer I’d give, lol.  It all depends on the situation.

Okay...so if I understand correctly, it’s not real-world history, but you’ve got a created world culture with some late medieval Italian renaissance flair and some age of exploration French aristocracy with Salic law issues.  Had to look up Salic law, lol (for those curious, the wiki article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law ), but yeah...basically criminal laws that evolved to include inheritance laws & patriarchal/misogyny based issues as well, predominantly the “women cannot inherit titles /powers /duties /property” bs for royalty & nobility...

Mkay, first question, and this is a genuine one:  Is it necessary to have misogyny imposed by law for inheritances?  If so, is it part of the story, driving either the plot or the character’s struggles and growth?  If so for either of those, remembering that you’re writing for a modern audience (and that readers’ tastes have shifted quite a bit in the last 10 years alone!), are these issues going to be addressed in the story and overcome in a meaningful way?

These questions are predicated on the basis that you’re not writing real-world history, but rather a created world based upon, but not dependent on, these incorporated influences.

One of the reasons why patriarchy & misogyny are so heavily incorporated into European history is because of the patriarchal & misogynistic influences of the Christian Church after around 300 CE, iirc; my memory of the exact dates is fuzzy, but that’s about when it gets going--prior to this point, the Christian Church was a lot more egalitarian.  So egalitarian, in fact, that many major early Church leaders were women, to the point that it actually started to overshadow the standards of Roman custom, culture, & law of the day--Roman women could own property and run businesses, even if they couldn’t vote...but the Christians! *le gasp!* They were letting women vote on how their cultural government should be run??

Yeah, it wasn’t quite that dramatic, not in a widespread way...but at some point, male leaders in positions of power (secular and/or religious) decided to NOPE women out of positions of power, to make them second class citizens, and even nope them all the way down into being barefoot preggers in the kitchen, etc, chattel.  They used the Christian religion as their vehicle to gain power, influence, and dominance over society, warping the original Christian culture and its values away from egalitarianism.

But that is the real world.  So does your created world have that kind of religious /historical /cultural influence?  This is important because we know that in our world’s history, Salic law remained pretty firmly in place for well over a thousand years...and we’re still fighting to change it for the better today.  Your world is different.

If the inherent misogyny, etc, in a Salic law system is going to be an issue for your characters, can they overcome it in meaningful ways?  Are there going to be changes to the customs, whether local or regional?  Are there going to be changes to the laws, whether local, regional, or national?--This particular plot setup & payoff would be absolutely lovely to see in a fantasy / historical-esque world setting, to see actual changes happening, and not merely token-esque changes or an “exception made for this one (1) character.”  A meaningful change is one that affects not just the main characters, but secondary and tertiary characters’ lives as well.

You may have to bring some A-Game arguments into the story for these females arguing for their rights to inherit land, property, businesses, to run said businesses, to not have to be married or under the domination of their fathers, husbands, brothers, etc.  And it would be great if some of the males in these ladies’ lives showed some open support for them...and absolutely smashing for males in positions of power & authority who can change the laws to do so in a publicly acknowledging way. 

Literally, if the ladies campaign for the right to own property and run businesses and be inheritors for their fathers & mothers, then have the King or whoever show it by publicly decreeing or announcing,  “We have labored for far too long under the assumptions of misogyny, and have been held back by the weight of these pointless chains, which shall now be removed...”

or “I was wrong to assume that Lady Allania could only have brought her family’s merchant business to absolute ruin.  Instead, she has created alliances with former enemies and prospered our kingdom...and I must admit that she is not the only woman so gifted and capable.  When any female is given the same respect, training, education, and opportunity as a male, they, too, can do just as many wonderful things, and it is time this kingdom’s laws reflected this great, untapped potential, thus I am revoking or altering the following laws (blah blah blah)...”  or at least something along those lines.

It’d be some hard work, but if you go this route, a lot of readers will love your story all the more for it, since it genuinely will be something different.  If you don’t...a lot of readers will do the *eyeroll* thing and go “ho hum, another standard ‘fantasy world based on Europe’ and all its historical problems... Next?”  Not all by any means, but it is something to consider.

...Now with all that said, the next question is, which part of Italy in the Renaissance is being copied?  Because if it’s Venetian, you’ve got the Doge Era for hundreds of years, which was pretty much a mix of royalty, arosticracy, republic, and democracy ruling the city, all of which helped to spread the strength and wealth of the merchant class.  But if it’s based on Milan, that was a centralized monarchy.  And Rome, of course, was ruled by the papacy, which, hoo boy, was misogynistic AF as well as hypocritical in how it sent out a LOT of mixed messages, lots of bribery and usury, plenty of power-grabbing maneuverings, plus most high-ranking members kept mistresses, etc, while decrying sex out of marriage, blah blah blah...

From the way you mention merchant classes, I’m presuming it’s much more of a Venetian (or possibly Genoese) influence.  Running with that idea as the main cultural influence...how deeply involved are women in the merchanting and crafting businesses?  The fact that these women are engaged in business means that they could theoretically be interacting not only with men, but with a lot of women--the workers of these industries, even if the vast majority of them are not allowed to be owners or decision-makers.

Skipping up to England, in London in Tudor times, there was a whole guild of women who specifically made thread-of-gold for export.  They were pretty much the only ones doing this (because it’s expensive to make, for the first part), and doing it of such fine quality that they could command hefty prices for their skills.  They had influence on the textiles industry, demanding the best materials for thread, and influence on the goldsmithing industry, in their demands for the perfect type of gold foil, just the right thickness and plibility for wrapping around threads. 

It was a small corner of the textiles industry in England, but it was a commodity highly valued by nobles & royals across the length and breadth of Europe, including all the way down to Venice & beyond...because Venetian merchants would trade in this thread-of-gold and cloth-of-gold that these English women were making.

You can see the power and influence that the crafting trades and merchant classes could have.  One of the strengths of females throughout history has been our ability to bring together communities to work for the betterment of that community.  Are these women leading or otherwise involved in a revolution (peaceful or otherwise) that will pressure changes to these Salic style laws?  Who are they working with? And are they working with the noble-born women you mentioned to try to leverage the powers-that-be into granting women their rights in areas of inheritance, property, and commerce?

This will depend upon the overall plot, of course, but if you want to have a strong female presence in your story, then consider how daily life runs for females, how constrictive the culture and its laws are, how much these women can and will push at those constrictive boundaries (because we all do that; it’s just a fact of humanity), and how both the other females and the males around them will react.

Being only scandalized /outraged /reactionary to such things is definitely an overdone reaction, but you can get rid of that tired trope by having those who are scandalized or reactionary eventually getting over it, coming to accept it, or even be enthused by it.  Also, there will always a number of people who will be intrigued and even excited by these proposed or attempted changes.  You can build some of these struggles into a popular movement--and you don’t even have to show all of it “on screen” as it were. 

Maybe your characters in their struggle to maintain control over the family pottery business talked with other female potters about their problems, their demands, and asked for solidarity in the face of misogyny.  Maybe these others carried the news to other towns, and suddenly Altraltia, a city a few days’ travel away, center of the finest porcelains being produced in the known land, is experiencing a high revolution by the women who do most of the actual work with the ceramics, demanding that they be given rights and powers equal with the men, or they will not make any more porcelain.

Since the men of Altraltia were depending on their women to do all the fancy stuff (women tending to have modestly better fine motor skills), now that the women are on strike, these men can’t fulfill all these orders that the nobles have commissioned.  The city is in chaos, word has come back to your main characters that the strikers are demanding that the king change the laws--and maybe the next thing you know, women in other fields, basketmaking, weaving, etc, are also demanding the right to have their jobs and skills and capacities for running businesses and receiving inheritances respected... All while your main characters are shocked, and maybe even doing their equivalent of the Steve Urkel thing of *blinkblink* Did I do thaaaaat?  (And then celebrating, of course, when the king does change the laws for the better.)

Sweeping social movements and cultural changes don’t have to happen just during the era of social media.  People will travel, people will talk, people will write letters or communicate in various ways.  And those who know how to bring communities together, to instill senses of injustice, demands for change, expressions of how to change for the better...these communities united in these ways will cause those changes.

And because it’s not based on Earth’s history...you can get these types of Salic laws changed, presenting a pro-fem story in your own created world.

...Again, it’ll depend upon your plot, but for sure, women will lean in toward other women for advice, for help, for change.  Throw in some men who genuinely want to support these changes that will better their lives and their world, and you’ll have a powerful story that can inspire readers in this world to lean in, work together, and change our world for the better, too.

Hope at least some of that gives you some ideas!

(*The trope of women fighting each other, ruining each other’s chances of advancement, is also another tired old trope that can be flipped or tossed aside. Watch Legally Blonde to witness how the main female rival reacts to the main character, toward the end, to see how this is done believably.)

[thecatsaesthetics]

sassenach-on-the-rocks replied to your post “The fact that Outlander framed Geneva and Jamie as consensual sex...”

I had the feeling they were gonna go that route. Especially after RM has been building Jamie up as "the king of men".

Honestly, I don’t know if I can watch anymore it was that disgusting. It would have been one thing to just change the entire thing into consensual sex. Like some type of angry in the woods sex, but it’s another thing to keep the framing of Geneva blackmailing Jamie and then act like Jamie going through with her demands for sex as consensual. 

Again it goes back to the notion that all rape is violent. Outlander has been good at doing violent rape scenes and showing the ramifications. They missed the mark here and it’s obvious. Jamie says five seconds before having sex with her that he’s being forced to go to her rooms. That he isn’t there by choice. 

Then they have a weird conversation about her ability to consent, full well knowing Jamie has no ability to consent at all. Then the sex scene its self was titillating AF. 

It was disturbing. Imagine if they had framed the Black Jack Randell and Claire scenes as hot and titillating. People would have a meltdown. It would have been everywhere. But hey because it’s a woman who was doing the raping it’s “hot” 

It’s misogyny and the patriarchy at it’s finest.   

[silvachege]

The Beguiled Review

To call Sofia Coppola’s latest work - revolutionary, might strike some as an overzealous sell or even, slightly misguided. However, when you realise that The Beguiled bucks the status quo established over the past century, you might be tempted to come around to my thinking. The male gazed, so embedded into our subconscious by the patriarchy of production studios, you’d be forgiven for being duped into believing that it was the de facto perspective of cinema – women the observed, while men observe. Yet, with The Beguiled, Coppola refreshingly offers viewers an unprecedented narrative perspective – the female gaze, which offers her phenomenal film deeper layers of intrigue and complexity. With a greater drive for equality in the industry, in another centuries time, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see future critics looking back and considering The Beguiled as the spark that ignited the blaze.  

Despite the raging of a bitter, bloody Civil War only mere miles away, hauntingly, living in a blissful bubble of calm and routine, Martha (Nicole Kidman) and her little commune of discarded girls, seem to carry on with life unfettered by the brutality at their doorstep. Even as black plumes of smoke uncoil against the horizon and staccato gun fire fills the air, behind the safety of closed iron gates, the women are more than happy to frolic and sing joyfully under the embrace of the midday sun. Well, until the arrival of a wounded ‘blue belly’ soldier at their doorstep. Father figure, mysterious stranger, escapism and wounded bird to nurse back to life -  with barely a word passing from his lips and the past still shrouded in shadow, Corporate John Patrick McBuster (Colin Ferrell) quickly becomes the blank canvas to which female fantasies and erotises are projected upon. Once life in the big, white mansion could have been considered – utopian, as women liberated from the oppression of the men in their, are freed to be happy and united. However, the arrival of one man causes jealousy and lust to sprout, like weeds in their Garden of Eden.      

First, I feel it’s important to acknowledge that while Coppola’s film shares the same source material as Don Spiegel’s 1971 original, The Beguiled is by no means a remake, rather an entirely new entity in its own right – a reimagining if you like. And while the original has been tarnished by misogyny and Clint Eastwood kissing a 12-year-old girl, The Beguiled distances itself by subverting the gaze and focusing more attention on female dynamics rather than sexual desire; changes I felt benefited the film greatly and elevated the viewing experience.    

Examining the female gaze in greater depth; it was fascinating to see how age became the prism to which each woman saw John. Amy, the youngest and the founder of John, quickly sought him out as a friend. The teenager, Alesha (Elle Fanning), was instantly sexually drawn to him and twenty-something Edwina (Kirsten Dunst) almost fell in love with him. While, most telling of all, middle-aged Martha choose to mother him. Deeper reading might suggest, the sudden appearance of man causes the women to fall back into the feminine roles expected of them. However, Coppola doesn’t allow such stereotypes to imprison the women throughout, it soon becomes very clear that their union is by far more important than the life of any man.

It’s also interesting to note how men become marginalised in the film, as you only get to see them through snatched glimpses beyond iron railings and via the momentary flickers of candlelight. While in the younger women’s eyes they become almost disposable; chastising war deserters as ‘cowards’ and being nonchalant at the prospect of taking a man’s life. Perhaps, this is down to the fact the younger girls have only known the word during the war, and have been conditioned to consider men dying while women crochet to be a normal part of life.  

Much like her debut feature, The Virgin Suicides (1999), which also examines female identity, Sofia Coppola imbues every shot with a woozy and dream like hue, as if she were carefully draping the finest of lace or chiffon across the camera lens; almost as if it was the physical manifestation of the mist shrouding the mansion frequently. While similar to her earlier Somewhere (2009), Coppola again deploys her light directing style here, in order to allow audiences to easily notice the subtle mood shifts and changing power dynamics among the women. Ultimately, I liken The Beguiled to Lost in Translation (2003), simply because it’s a career defining masterpiece for Sofia Coppola.    

[down-with-terf-ideology]

How can you look at all the trans women who have been murdered, raped, and abused due to transmisogyny, and tell them that they’re privileged for it?

Suggesting that women bring about their own oppression because they don’t bow down to the patriarchy is misogyny at its finest.

Trans women are in a lot of danger. Instead of excluding them from our feminism just because they face differences in oppression, why aren’t we helping to support and protect them?

[papofglencoe]

@posthungergamessyndrome

Hey M! The thread we were commenting on got so long I thought I'd start a new one. I think that, fundamentally, we agree on many things that were either explicitly said or implied. 

I haven't read many of the replies on the thread because the tendency of fans to pit celebrities against each other in a celebrity purity test (the Cinnamon Roll Bowl) drives me insane. I agree that women celebrities tend to get dragged harder than their male counterparts (misogyny at its finest, particularly along women)... although Josh has gotten a lot of static himself in the past couple years, and not just for being a Bernie Bro. 

I think the label "white feminist" is such an easy, go-to, and, therefore, cheap way to discredit a female celebrity when she makes a “let them eat cake!” gaffe. I think when a celebrity- any celebrity- makes a gaffe like that, it’s absolutely right to question them on it. But the casual use of the term also marginalizes many people beyond the celebrity impugned, and it ultimately uses the tools of racism and patriarchy to attack others within the progressive movement. Defining anyone as "Race, Sex" in a pejorative and dismissive way is ultimately unhelpful. If the term is used to criticize the predominant worldview, it well misses its mark. The predominant worldview doesn't have anything to do with feminism at all. It’s filtered through the lens of white/western patriarchy and capitalism- and those are predicated on the subjection of women and every kind of person deemed “other.” I hate seeing feminism dragged into the equation like it's the hegemony of those in power. Where in the western world or Global North are feminists running the country? I trust the label of “white feminist” about as much as I would an infiltrator sent to destroy an enemy army. I think its ultimate use is to fracture the left with yet another progressive purity test, and that only serves the interests of those in power. I know everyone has different levels of comfort with the bedfellows they make, but I’m okay making imperfect alliances based on common goals to get what we need done. I think it’s the only shot we have when the enemy is as powerful as they are.   

That's all a bit off point to what you were addressing in your comments, but the OP's use of the term while simultaneously propping up a man pissed me off. And I've been wanting to say something and have some kind of intellectual conversation about it (which you are always good for, and thank you for that! <3). 

As for the voice amplification issue... it's baffling how our culture looks to actors as spokespeople, like they're more qualified to speak for us than, say, those who've spent their lives studying and advocating for the issues. But America sure is a sucker for a pretty face. The onus is on us as viewers to be better than that- I can't fault celebrities for the soapbox we push at them when we're doing it to ourselves. Maybe this is my Marxist showing, but I think the fundamental fault with looking to celebrities as spokespeople is that they're swimming with money and are therefore vested in the system of privilege that has benefited them. And with enough money, a person can largely buy the privileges that might not be afforded to them because of their race, sex, and so forth. Which makes them not us.

It’s late and I’m rambling, but I wanted to give a proper reply to your response!   

[luxus4me]

Webmonkey http://j.mp/2rw8GBB

This weekend marks the unofficial beginning of summer. (Technically it starts June 21, but everyone knows it truly commences with the first three-day weekend during which it’s acceptable to wear shorts.) That means the time has come for taking hikes, playing frisbee, and spending long hours in a pool near you. But for a certain class of folks—the species known as “bookworm”—summer is the ideal time to practice their page-turning. But with so many new tomes hitting shelves, it’s hard to know where to start. Below are some of our favorite books of 2017. Pick them up; the last thing you’d want to forget on this Memorial Day weekend is a good read.

Exit West by Mohsin Hamid Saeed and Nadia meet and start dating. But, just as their courtship begins, the city they live in—an unnamed place full of migrants and refugees—starts to fall apart. Terrorism is on the rise, the government cuts off phone signals, and drones are surveilling everyone. As violence breaks out, the couple must flee. Much like Colson Whitehead’s The Underground Railroad took the historical Underground Railroad and turned it into a fantastical subterranean railway, Exit West transforms the realities of the refugee crisis in its own otherworldly way. At a time when the fate of refugees is at the forefront of American political discourse, Moshin Hamid’s new novel is an important, and beautifully written, read. —Lexi Pandell

Borne by Jeff VanderMeer Shape-shifting biotech, giant flying bears, genetically-modified feral children—Jeff VanderMeer’s latest novel is as wacky as it is futuristic. The book centers on Rachel, a scavenger in a post-apocalyptic city who finds herself the unwitting parent of a piece of biotech that grows from a plant to many-eyed lamp to feathery octopus. The creature, which Rachel names Borne, initially learns through reading, but when it starts gaining knowledge by absorbing people whole, it threatens to take down the city’s fragile ecosystem of survivors. The story is delightful, as are all of the author’s zany little details (surveillance moss, anyone?). Fans of VanderMeer’s Southern Reach trilogy won’t be let down. —Charley Locke

The Road to Jonestown: Jim Jones and Peoples Temple by Jeff Guinn The last time Jeff Guinn went deep on a decade-defining cult commander, the result was 2013’s best-selling Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson, a thoroughly reported, vividly written biography that remained engrossing right up to the last page—even if you already knew the ending. Road to Jonestown is just as satisfying, a detail-rich accounting of how Jones—who led more than 900 followers to their deaths in a 1978 mass suicide—went from lower-tier preacher to social-justice champion to a pot-bellied, pill-zonked maniac. But it’s also a story of how American mini-empires are built, detailing the various hierarchies, rinky-dink scams, and byzantine infrastructures Jones established in order to keep acolytes in his grip. And while the book’s final chapters are just as unsettling as you’d expect, Jonestown’s biggest chilling effect is the realization that, decades later, we’re as susceptible as ever to the kind of swagger and fall-in-line group-logic that made Jones infamous in the first place. —Brian Raftery

Void Star by Zachary Mason Admittedly, there aren’t a lot of artificial intelligence thrillers out there to choose from, but if you have to pick just one, opt for the novel written by a guy with a degree in computational linguistics. In Void Star, Zachary Mason imagines a near-future where AI is embedded not only in our interactions, but in our brains. Mason’s AIs think in glyphs, or waves of data, and only people with cranial implants can understand them. His book follows three such individuals as they are pursued by a mysterious AI, a 150-year-old billionaire, and memory-ghosts. The plot may leave you scratching your head, but the scenes set in a San Francisco overrun with technology—commuters getting dressed in drone cars, tech magnates commissioning homes that’ll last a millennium, ambitious young men faking autism to get promoted at tech companies—feel eerily spot-on. —Charley Locke

Startup by Doree Shafrir On your summer trips, you probably want to escape office drama. We get that. But if you have a hard time turning off and find yourself binge-watching Silicon Valley, you’ll probably want to read Startup. Doree Shafrir’s debut novel follows several interconnected stories in New York’s Silicon Alley: Mack McAllister, famed start-up CEO spurned by a recent office fling; Isabel Taylor, said office fling who is now being harassed by her boss; Katya Pasternack, a chain-smoking reporter for a tech site; Dan Blum, Katya’s boss; and Sabrina Choe Blum, Dan’s wife who is struggling to stay afloat in a tech industry she barely understands. Shafrir is a senior tech writer for BuzzFeed and, though she has made it clear the story is not a roman à clef, it certainly mirrors drama she’s seen and reported on in the tech world. Startup is a dramedy-of-errors, a Shakespearean yarn of secrets, sex, miscommunication, misogyny, and money. And unlike so many other industry parodies, this story focuses largely on its female characters. Crack this one open on the beach and you just might find yourself a little more enlightened when you return to the workplace. —Lexi Pandell

Seven Surrenders by Ada Palmer It’s got an Uber-ish network of flying cars that deliver you anywhere on the planet almost instantly, exquisitely racy scenes played out in Grand Siècle costumes, and a dark conspiracy. There’s also a little blue dog and a mysterious child who can turn toys into living breathing creatures and some American Psycho–level torture porn. Oh, it’s also got some potential incest, mysterious parentage, and patricide. And a cool tree that grows all the fruits. Ada Palmer’s Seven Surrenders, the second in the three-part Terra Ignota series, delivers all the imaginative, carnal futurism that make science fiction so enjoyable. Your pants and stomach will like this book. So will your brain (Palmer is a historian at the University of Chicago, after all): What do gendered pronouns do to your perceptions? Is it acceptable to sacrifice a chosen few for the greater good of the many? Is the wielding of feminine wiles a judicious use of soft power or a capitulation to the patriarchy? What is the nature of god, religion, revelation, and faith in a society that wishes to move beyond the destructive power of belief in the divine? Is a just, peaceful society even a good thing at all or does it ultimately serve to destroy the drive and ambition that can launch human beings into a flying-car future in the first place? Would you take orders from a well-read, thumb-sized Army major who has been touched into being by a golden child with the power to save the world or snuff it out altogether? After reading this book, you might. —Sarah Fallon

Lincoln in the Bardo by George Saunders Turns out, spousal squabbling and neighborly one-upmanship doesn’t end when life does. At least, not in George Saunders’ Lincoln in the Bardo, which tells the story of over 100 ghosts left lingering in a cemetery. The title alludes to Willie Lincoln, son of Abe, who takes up residency in the graveyard after dying at 11 years old, but the beauty of the book lies in all the ordinary people who died with unresolved problems. There’s a couple arguing about who left the fireplace grate open, three young bachelors intent on having the best night ever, a gloomy guy who died right before consummating his marriage. Saunders’ unparalleled ability to create characters through specific verbal tics and concerns is at its finest here as he renders a whole boneyard of unimportant, easily forgotten people as quirky, urgently real individuals. And if you’re looking for something for a weekend road trip, try the audiobook, which features a staggering 166 voices, from Nick Offerman and Megan Mullally to Saunders’ mom and high school geology teacher. —Charley Locke

Fever Dream by Samanta Schweblin Fever Dream is best downed like a shot, gulped in one go. Samanta Schweblin’s novella, structured as a dialogue between a sick woman in the hospital and a boy at her bedside, unfolds like a surreal film that begins as body horror and pivots into a tale of ecological disaster. In just under 200 pages, the book explores the anxieties of mother-child relationships, the uncertainty of sickness, and the biological impact of genetically modified crops. The English title is certainly evocative of the sensation you get when reading the book, but the original title, Distancia de Rescate, better reveals the book’s themes. It translates to “Rescue Distance,” a measurement the main character calculates to determine how long it would take her to get to her daughter if she needed to be saved from harm. It’s an estimate she makes to comfort herself, but as Fever Dream unravels, it becomes clear that sometimes no distance is close enough. —Lexi Pandell

Dear Cyborgs by Eugene Lim Looking for an inventive story about a friend group of philosophically-minded superheroes? How about the tale of how comic books brought two young misfits together in suburban Ohio? Well, you’re in luck: In Dear Cyborgs, you can have both. The novel flips back and forth between the two plots, punctuated by brief notes addressed to—you guessed it—cyborgs. Along the way, there are kidnappers hiding out in the remote Himalayas and meditations on art as a form of resistance. The sequential vignettes of Team Chaos superheroes and alienated Midwestern preteens can feel jarring, but you might just find yourself charmed by this slim book of brusque sentences and odd, precise descriptions. And the last chapter’s union of the two narratives doesn’t disappoint. —Charley Locke

Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.

http://j.mp/2qNkaUf via Webmonkey URL : http://j.mp/2doOGdb