#portraying him in certain ways is inherently harmful or makes him weak

[cosmicswritings]

#also this is me just wanting a happy sparkling megastar au where starscream carries because#there are absolutely no happy megastar aus where starscream is a carrier it's always the other way around -ESPECIALLY tfp#like carrier starscream is usually seen as a punishment or to make him seem weak...same with submissive/bottom starscream tbh#kajdfl;ajf #like i hate how a lot of carrier starscream megastar is like this bad - traumatic thing for starscream whereas when it's the other way#around it's a good thing - same with making him sub and people don't realize the weird message that conveys

bro you LITERALLY put one of my biggest issues with megastar into words. I didn't know what the issue was and why I got weirded out by a lot of content but this is it. Especially 'when it's the other way around it's a good thing' part. People either make sub starscream the worst thing possible or talk about it like it's the worst thing to ever happen to his character and then flip things around with him and make him dom/sire and then suddenly he's not weak anymore. I wish people would put in more effort into making carrier/sub Starscream a good thing rather than making it this shameful, taboo thing that he's ashamed of. I really don't mind how people ship Starscream but like you I've noticed a ton of weird vibes. People can do what they want but you honestly just explained my issue with a lot of it.

putting this all under a cut --

In a funny way you put MY words words into words . THANK YOU.

this isn't the case for everyone, but it's something i've seen a lot. i've seen people who will write fics with starscream carrying with megatron and it's the worst experience for him, but then the other way it's like supposed to be good or even to show that starscream is powerful, or isn't weak or whatever.

It's so hard to find fics, or aus, etc. that have starscream carrying that don't push this idea that it's something truamtic and it's even worse to find people who don't see it that way but in conjunction see carrier megatron as the only 'acceptable' and non traumatic/abusive forms of sparklings and mechpreg in megastar. I don't think people know how weird it is to act as if starscream carrying (or lbr even subbing) by default is a bad thing and that it is the worst thing in the world so the fix if is to flip things around.

and then it's also unfair to megatron to portray him like only one way as a sire. like i hate that so many people portray him as a brutish, harmful and abusive person when he's a sire, when in reality i just find him being a very soft, nervous and caring sire...like do y'all hate him that much?? Do you hate him that much that you just rely on those unfair tropes for him, same with starscream.

but then when it's the otherway around suddenly it's all good. all the abuse, hatred, etc., is all gone??

[pumpkinpaix]

Hey, something I’ve been wondering since I first watched CQL: in ep 5, there’s a line where Wen Qing is talking to Wen Ning and says something like ‘Our family has been doctors for centuries, but I can’t cure my own brother’ (that’s verbatim from the US Netflix subtitles) and I’ve always wondered about that word, ‘cure’. As someone who lives with mental illness, I’m a little sensitive to the idea of a mental affliction being ‘cured,’ as though it’s a malady to be remedied, as though there’s something ‘wrong’ that can be ‘fixed’. The word ‘cure’ brings up all that discomfort for me, but I only know English, and I’m curious to know how accurate the concept of a ‘cure’ is to the actual conversation taking place there? I think a lot about the way neurodivergence is discussed in CQL, and I don’t want to misjudge connotation based on translation error.

hi there! so this ask is *checks* a month old yikes, but i’ve been thinking about it for a long time so here we go (finally)! :D

so here’s the scene in question:

[ID: two screenshots from episode 5 of the untamed. wen qing is speaking to wen ning. the subtitles read ‘我却治不了自己弟弟的病’ and ‘but i can’t cure my own brother’. /end ID]

with regards to your grammar/language question: 治 can mean both “to treat” and “to cure”. there are certain sentence constructions that can make it clear which it is, but not all of them do so.

for example, 治好 is definitely ‘to cure’ - the grammar there is [VERB + 好] can mean either “to finish VERBing” or “to VERB well”. so, to finish treating = to cure.

however, in this case, that’s not the construction that’s being used, and I would say it’s not clear-cut. “VERB + 不了” is “to be unable to VERB”. because 治 is ambiguous on its own, what she says here, “我却治不了自己弟弟的病”, comes down to “but I am unable to treat/cure my own younger brother’s illness”.

what I think is maybe a more complicated issue is the idea of mental illness and/or neurodivergence in CQL and how understandings of it impact our perceptions of the characters/narrative.

I’ve seen a lot of interpretations of Wen Ning’s affliction in CQL to be neurodivergence, but I’m actually quite surprised when I hear this. i believe the illness wen qing and wei wuxian refer to when talking about wen ning is his susceptibility/weakness towards resentful/yin energy, which manifests in fainting spells and long bouts of unconsciousness. to me, that is not analogous to mental illness or neurodivergence so much as something like epileptic episodes brought on by exposure to specific triggers. by CQL canon, we know that he has not always had this -- he contracted the illness after his encounter with the guanyin statue that sucked away part of his soul when he was a child, and this now gives him a weak constitution and makes him largely unsuitable for night hunting, especially unsupervised. this is what wen qing is trying to treat and/or cure. in mdzs, he does not have this condition, and wen qing never mentions anything about trying to treat or cure him at all.

given that this condition is most likely a creation for the sake of getting around censors at least in part (basically: a way to create a reason for why wen ning isn’t “dead” -- in addition, probably was also meant to increase wen sibs screentime/sympathy), I’ve always seen it as a bit of a handwavy physical condition that was tacked on as opposed to an actual statement about his character, if that makes sense.

in general, I’m hesitant to outright assign labels of neurodivergence or mental illness to mdzs/cql characters because I think that labels like that are inherently societally and culturally dependent. with the rise of identity politic rhetoric in the US and all of that kind of getting tangled up with our conceptions of being ND or mentally ill, I worry about trying to analyze mdzs/cql through such a lens because identities are so inextricably tied to environment. even if both i and a character could be “diagnosed” with the same condition, I think it would be undeniable that our experiences of such would be very different because we come from different cultural backgrounds. not just, chinese author vs american reader but like, fantastical xianxia chinese conception of a character vs chinese-american conception of identity.

alskdjfl idk if this even makes sense, but!! basically, I actually don’t think that CQL discusses or really portrays neurodivergence at all, not in such terms. I think it’s completely appropriate and valid to headcanon and interpret characters in ways that resonate with you! i certainly do, lol (morally scrupulous twin jades anyone? :D 🥃), but im nervous about asserting that any CQL characters actually are/have xyz condition because I don’t think that a discussion on that front is particularly meaningful. I know that this hesitance comes both from my own views on what neurodivergence/mental illness mean and how useful those terms actually are, and also from a very personal anger over some moral injunctions that I’ve seen people place on portraying characters’ “real” or “coded” mental states that are seriously misguided, harmful, and extremely culturally american in their claims (that will probably be a separate post though lol).

that isn’t to say there isn’t value in thinking about how one can interpret characters in one way or another, or that there isn’t value in discussing how unintentionally, a character might fall into archetypes that evoke certain identities and how that subtext might or might not impact a person’s experience or takeaway from the media! but I think all of that has to be contextualized as opposed to generalized. /o\

this.... came out a lot less coherent than i wanted it to be, but my brain is Not having it for some reason. I hope that I at least managed to answer your question/help you along in your continuing thought process!!! :D

(ko-fi)

[spiders-hth-is-an-outlier]

Today in Strongly Worded Opinions (That You Didn't Ask For), I'm going to assert that there are too objective ways to measure whether or not a relationship is strong in story terms – by which I mean, unrelated to whether or not readers/viewers personally like the dynamic or the chemistry of the actors (in such cases as there are actors involved).

So for the sake of clarity, be ye advised: this isn't about shipping, fuck it, ship whatever you want idc.  Shipping a strong relationship isn't inherently better than shipping a weak one – heck, you could just as easily argue that it's the lazier, less creative route.  Also, I don't care?  I don't care, it's just fandom.  Follow your arrow.  This is about ways to discuss whether or not a relationship introduced into a text succeeds or fails as an element of the story – or really as I'm going to prefer calling it, if a given relationship forms a strong or weak story element.

For this I'm presuming that you're creating a relationship between a protagonist and a secondary character introduced as a piece of the protagonist's overall story – protagonist/protagonist relationships aren't really a different situation, but they do have more moving parts, so for simplicity's sake, let's   stick with a Main Character (we'll call that M) and a Significant Other (S for short).  Also, these relationships by no means have to be romantic; any relationship can be measured as weak or strong in story terms.

Also, I'm going to say everything here as though it were factually true, even though it's just my opinion, which is correct, but if you disagree then it's only my opinion, but I am correct.  Ready?  Okay!

Strong relationships have story functions; in reality nothing means anything and people just like each other because they do, but fuck reality, it's a huge narrative mess.  And my basic premise here is that the story function of a strong relationship falls under one (or more, if you wanna get real fancy) of these three categories:

The relationship can unlock under-explored elements of M's story or character through mirroring or intimacy (often shows up as “friends to lovers”).  There is backstory that hasn't been unearthed yet, or some reaction or experience in M's life that could advance the story, and S can serve as a means to get at it.  Maybe M and S share a similar trauma or life story; maybe S is the first person M feels able to open up to about something profound and relevant.  Maybe part of M's story is a conflict between how they seem to others and how they see themselves or their own potential; maybe S is the person who sees them the way they see themselves...or sees M as the person they're afraid they'll never be.  The story goal being met here is giving M a boost toward successful completion of their story arc, so even though there could be conflict, S is fundamentally pulling on the same side as M in the major story conflicts, in such a way that by the end, the reader should feel like M's success is at least in part because of what they gain from their relationship with S.

The relationship can function as a piece of the story's overall conflict, or as a secondary subplot conflict (often shows up as “enemies to lovers”). Traditional romance novel plotting effectively slots the love interest into the role of “antagonist,” because the romance's conflict is generally driven by people not getting what they want from each other until certain win conditions are met.  In this kind of relationship, M and S might be actual-facts competitors, or be divided by ideological concerns, or they might be forced into proximity by the plot but clash on some personality level.  The arc of this relationship is typically going to be about the M softening up as the relationship develops – if M starts out ruthlessly single-minded, maybe realizing that they're running roughshod over S in the process is part of their character breakthrough; if the story is about M realizing that they've underestimated the complexity of the world around them, maybe coming to recognize S as an equal is how that gets concretized for the reader.  Basically this is a story where S presents a problem that M has to solve, and the more central to the narrative solving that problem is, the stronger the relationship is.

The relationship can serve to divide M's goals (often shows up as “love versus duty”).  This is a story where M has to accomplish two separate things in order to fulfill their arc, but those two things aren't easily integrated. One of M's goals might be fulfilling a vow, or filial duty, or seeking revenge, and the other goal is some form of protecting or obtaining S.  If the story puts M in a position of having to choose, then the relationship is inherently strong; it's providing narrative drive, whether or not S is especially well-developed as an individual character.  This one can be tricky, because a very weak relationship can serve a superficially similar purpose, by demonstrating M's devotion to duty or obsessive pursuit of whatever when M rebuffs S to keep them out of harm's way or to avoid distraction or whatever. The difference is that in those superficial cases, the audience is meant to recognize that aw, that's sad, M has really had to Make Sacrifices – but there's really no dramatic tension involved; we know all along that M is going to Make Sacrifices in purusit of the real goal.  When this is done seriously with a strong relationship, the audience is meant to feel divided as well; Romeo and Juliet just doesn't work as a story unless the audience likes Juliet and Mercutio, unless they fully identify with the dilemma that Romeo is in when he has to either avenge Mercutio's death or spare Tybalt for Juliet's sake and the sake of their future together. That's a big fucking story moment, and it only works because the audience buys both relationships – Romeo's with Mercutio and with Juliet – as narratively strong, to the point where Romeo's choice is not a forgone conclusion.  This one is much easier to get wrong, I think, than the other two are!

What I'm saying here is that a strong relationship isn't really determined by how personally compatible two characters seem to be; a lot of movies that fridge a character's wife, for example, rely on actors convincingly portraying, in a brief window of time, two compatible people who care for each other – I'm thinking of, like, Richard Kimble and his wife in The Fugitive, who I think do sell the idea of a loving and happy marriage, but the relationship itself is a weak one.  The story only really needs the bare fact of it – “Kimble had a wife that he loved and then this happened” – to kick off the actual story; the relationship between Kimble and Gerard is a stronger one narratively, because much of the emotional tension of the movie, what makes it more effective than just a series of chase scenes, is the way their mutual respect evolves as they compete against each other, and the story question of “Kimble really needs an ally, is this the right person for him to trust?”  It's such a strong relationship that it comes as a huge relief of tension when he does make that gesture of trust and it turns out to be the right choice.  The audience is happy that Kimble will be exonerated, but the audience is equally happy that the conflict between these two charcters is over – we didn't like them being at odds because we didn't want either of them to lose!  Now, would these two people ever be close friends, let alone come to love each other?  No? Yes? Who cares?  Kimble loves his wife more, but has a stronger relationship in this story with Gerard. From a writing perspective, it's trivially easy to introduce an S and say “M loves this person,” but it means relatively little.  It's harder to introduce an S and say “some part of this story now hinges on how M navigates knowing this person,” but that's kind of what has to happen in order to create a payoff that's worth the effort.  A strong relationship provides skeletal structure for the story; it can't be stitched on at the margins.

This is an even tougher sell in something like a television series, where the introduction of S may come in well after the story is underway and the bulk of M's characterization is already in place.  That's why introducing a late-season love interest is a notoriously dodgy proposition!  To demonstrate weak vs strong relationship in action, I'm going to take an example of what I think was a failed attempt and pitch some ways to doctor it up into a strong relationship: Sam Winchester and Eileen Leahy.

This is objectively a weak relationship.  She doesn't materially affect the metaplot of the series, or drive any major choices, or reveal anything about Sam's character.  She's just, you know, generally nice and attractive and Sam likes her, which is a fine start, but then the writers just leave her idling in the garage forever.  But it didn't have to be that way! Say we wanted to make it a Type 1 relationship: super easy, barely an inconvenience!  Eileen is very like Sam, actually, in that she lost her parents as an infant and then had the entire rest of her life shaped by the trauma and the pursuit of revenge.  That's amazing.  How many other people, even hunters, share that specific experience with Sam Winchester?  Sam was physically changed by drinking demon blood in infancy; Eileen was physically changed by being deafened by the banshee or whatever it was in infancy.  Even just allowing them to talk about that would have made the relationship stronger.  Sam is affected by the fact that there is no Before Time for him; even now that they've long since had their revenge on ol' Yellow Eyes himself, he grapples with the fact that he's forever robbed of any memories of innocence or safety or a life that wasn't lived in the shadow of this killing.  Eileen also has had her life's quest for revenge fulfilled, and also has to reckon with the fact that it doesn't actually give her access to the innocence that was stolen from her.  Maybe she struggles with that.  Maybe Sam can open up to her because she knows what it's like to look back on your child self and feel that however strong you've made yourself, you're never strong enough to protect that child.

What if you want to write something spicier than Sam and Eileen talking about their sad feelings?  Okay, let's take a Type 2 story.  Eileen has been a lone hunter with a disability all her life; it's fair to guess that even if she can't match Sam's physical strength, the fact that she's survived at all means that she's pretty indomitable.  Maybe she's had to be ruthless, even brutal in her hunting style; maybe she has a shoot-first-ask-questions-never approach to hunting that she credits with her very survival, but that Sam finds excessively rash and bloody.  Maybe they fight about it.  Have her kill some ambiguous, maybe-not-dangerous monstery types, a werewolf or something, and Sam's like, hey, we really can't just-- and Eileen is like, look, I hunt how I hunt, come with me or don't.  I mean, this is a retread in some ways of early season conflicts about who to kill and when, but everything in the latter seasons is a retread anyway, so whatever, and it provides something interesting to have Sam deal with this whiplash of how there seem to be two Eileens, the smiley, jocular sweetheart who eats pancakes with him and the one who kills like she's swatting flies.  What if he wants one but not the other?  It doesn't really work that way, does it?  Is this something he can dismiss as a foible, or is this a dealbreaker? The dude is almost forty, if he distances himself from Eileen, how many more hunters does he think he has a chance to meet and marry?  If she won't even listen to his concerns seriously, is it really a good relationship anyway, or will Sam's needs always end up taking a backseat to Eileen's?

A Type 3 fix could just come down quite plainly to, what if Eileen is ready to retire?  She's had her revenge.  She's lived her life on the hunt.  Maybe she's done, and maybe she wants Sam to be done with her.  Doing this in season 15 would circle Sam back to his season 1 story conflicts in a nice way, I think – why does Sam do this at all, if it's not for revenge any longer?  Does he feel personally responsible for every dead person he could've saved but didn't – is that a reasonable boundary, or lack thereof, to set?  Is a compromise possible – could he continue to coordinate hunts while also getting out of the field and starting a family, or is that still putting his family in the shadow of too much violence and danger to tolerate?  What's Dean going to say?  He's pitched a fit in the past when Sam said he wanted out, but he's mellowed with age, hasn't he?  Maybe he'll get it now?  But maybe Sam also feels guilty and fearful, because he knows Dean will hunt without him, so now he's in more danger because of Sam's choices, if Sam makes this choice.  It's a little heteronormative, as story conflicts go, but it's thematically appropriate to Supernatural, and the fact that Eileen isn't speaking out of timidity but out of the same weariness that Sam has so often felt about the whole endless cycle makes it feel a little less “the little lady won't let me go on adventures anymore.”  This might not be my pick of the three, but the point is that it makes for a strong conflict, a legitimate divided loyalty for Sam to wrestle with, and one that doesn't have a clear right answer.

Anyway, hopefully that helps illustrate what I mean when I say that the narrative strength of a relationship doesn't have anything to do with how likeable an S character is – Eileen is very likeable! But that doesn't substitute for building her into the fabric of the story in some way.  My expectation is that a serious protagonist relationship should bend the story arc in a way that requires response, and if it doesn't, I don't take that relationship particularly seriously.  Canon can declare a relationship real by fiat, but it can't automatically declare a relationship meaningful without, you know, making meaning of it.

Oh, and there's not anything really wrong with weak relationships – most M's are going to have several in the story.  My point is just that the difference between a weak relationship and a strong one isn't really a matter of taste or preference, but has a functional meaning that can be tested and measured, and if there's argument to be had about it, the argument can take place on evidentiary grounds.  Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[heraldofzaun]

This is a post I’ve been thinking about making for quite some time, especially due to looking at how my own personal depiction of Viktor differs from what seems to be the general fandom interpretation - especially after the LoR cards released and gave us a few canonical acolytes.

I won’t beat around the bush here: this is going to be about why I personally believe that associating the Glorious Evolution specifically with headcanons about Viktor or his acolytes being trans, or Viktor performing gender-affirming surgeries, or things in a similar vein is a poor decision, and why I don’t include this interpretation in my writings. This isn’t meant to discourage people from writing Viktor or his acolytes as trans, of course - my Viktor is agender, although he’s not aware of it, and it would be absurd to say that his followers have to be cis - but I think it’s important to look at the implications that come from writing Viktor as explicitly someone who helps people relieve and manage their dysphoria through his work with the GE.

Firstly, no matter how you spin it: Viktor’s idea of the Glorious Evolution has always been painted in a negative light. I’ve done my work to portray it as idealistically as possible, but at the end of the day his goals have always been about removing (at the very least, negative) emotions from himself, as well as mechanizing himself and others.

“Desiring both to revolutionize his field and to eliminate the jealous human emotions which festered inside him, he engineered parts to replace and improve his own body... He saw himself as the patron and pioneer of Valoran's future, a future in which man would renounce his flesh in favor of superior hextech augmentations.” (Original lore.)

“He saw human involvement in any part of a process as a grossly inefficient aberration - a view that put him at odds with a great many of his fellow students and professors, who saw the very things Viktor sought to remove as the source of human ingenuity and creativity.” (New lore.)

“Jayce reported the incident [of Viktor creating a device that allowed someone to “effectively control” another person]  to the college masters, and Viktor was censured for violating basic human dignity - though, in his eyes, his work would have saved many lives. He was expelled from the college, and retreated to his old laboratory in Zaun, disgusted by the narrow-minded perceptions of Piltover's inhabitants. Alone in the depths, Viktor sank into a deep depression, enduring a traumatic period of introspection for many weeks. He wrestled with the ethical dilemma he now faced, finding that, once again, human emotion and weakness had stood in his way. He had been trying to help, to enhance people beyond their natural capabilities to avoid error and save lives. Revelation came when he realized that he too had succumbed to such emotions, allowing his naive belief that good intentions could overcome ingrained prejudice to blind him to human failings. Viktor knew he could not expect others to follow where he did not go first, so, in secret, he operated on himself to remove those parts of his flesh and psyche that relied upon or were inhibited by emotion.” (New lore.)

This, when combined with how Viktor has also always been intended as a more villainous character - his visual design language, voice lines, and how he leans into the “evil Russian scientist” stereotype all confirm that - mean that from an out-of-universe standpoint, we’re meant to see his ideas as wrong and misguided. Multiple other champions have lines specifically about how he’s wrong - Ekko calls him “everything wrong with Zaun”, Camille (who is morally grey at best, and a cold-blooded killer at worst) calls his work “quaint”, implying that it doesn’t go far enough for her liking, and Heimerdinger makes the point that without humans, no one will be left to appreciate Viktor’s work. It doesn’t matter if Viktor has good intentions - the narrative tells us time and time again that his path leads to a very dark place, especially in new lore where he’s comfortable with violating free will for the sake of preventing death.

It seems obvious to me that a character who auto-amputates as a way to cope with overwhelming emotions, who decides that emotions themselves are a burden, who is repeatedly described as having an obsession with the Glorious Evolution regardless of lore, who is described as who you go to when you’re desperate in new lore... is clearly someone whose surgeries (at least of himself, where they are implied to be unnecessary - again, auto-amputation) and end goals are supposed to be read as a violation of human nature and dignity. Here we pivot to talking about trans issues in specific.

I’m of the firm belief that it’s not a good idea to associate gender-affirming surgeries, HRT, or any other thing used for transitioning with a character whose surgeries are supposed to be read as a violation of the human form. This plays directly into the anti-trans idea that transitioning is, well, a violation of the human form. It is not a good idea to write the man who cuts off his own limbs to poorly cope with his emotions as a patron of trans rights. It’s drawing a direct parallel between Viktor’s auto-amputations, which we are supposed to read as not only a very bad thing and the product of obsession, but arguably self-harm, with life-saving medical care.

(There’s also the issue that some people seem to assume that transhumanism is, in any way, inherently related to being trans - but that’s a whole other topic that I don’t feel very qualified to write on. I consider myself someone interested in transhumanist concepts, when applied appropriately (i.e. not ending up in eugenicist territory), but I am far from an expert on transhumanist thought. I think it’s enough to say that no, they’re not related. They’re just two things with the same prefix. Please don’t confuse the two.)

In my opinion, Viktor should not be seen as someone whose work is a direct benefit to trans individuals. (Again, not to say that Viktor can’t have followers who are trans. But please, please consider before making him the person that they go to for help with transitioning. The man doesn’t even have a medical degree, and his canonical work is described as being all about function over form. He’s not the surgeon you want.) I don’t think that Viktor’s gender identity, whatever it may be, should be associated with his obsession with the Glorious Evolution - or at the least, it shouldn’t be portrayed as a positive association. (In the sense of Viktor using the GE/his own surgeries as a positive affirmation of his gender... I’m struggling to precisely define this at the moment, apologies.) The GE is, textually, an unhealthy coping mechanism.

(There’s maybe something to be said for a Viktor who has disassociated himself so far from humanity that he no longer considers gender applicable to himself... but please, be careful if you write this. I’m speaking as someone who’s agender: I’m tired of my identity being used as shorthand for someone or something becoming or being nonhuman. I’m tired of people treating Blitzcrank being reskinned as a they/them pronoun user as something revolutionary, if they themselves don’t use those pronouns or aren’t nonbinary. I’m not going to pretend that I’m the arbiter of what people can and can’t write, but I’m tired of seeing myself - as an autistic and agender person - represented solely by unfeeling aliens and machines and whatever else, and being told that it’s good, actually, because any representation is good representation. I’d like for people to be more mindful in what they write and promote, but I think that this is becoming a tangent.)

I guess it comes time for me to defend my own depiction, then, since as I’ve mentioned above I do write Viktor as agender. I admit that I want to see aspects of myself in the characters that I like, but I also strive to be aware of the implications that these aspects may have. My Viktor’s gender identity has absolutely nothing to do with his idea of the Glorious Evolution - he has no dysphoria that he attempts to relieve through his surgeries, he does not see roboticization as a way to move past the gender binary... he doesn’t even realize that he’s not a cis man, because he hasn’t had the time or tools to introspect on that aspect of himself. (He’d be rather confused if you told him that people generally tend to feel as if they’re a certain gender - he’s just... himself.) I’ve written him in this way to try to make it clear that he has always felt this way about himself - that the GE has nothing to do with it - and that it has no influence on his actions as the Machine Herald.

There isn’t really a good way to wrap this up. Again, I am not saying that Viktor or his acolytes shouldn’t be written as trans, nor trying to stop people from writing that - only that their transness shouldn’t be directly associated with his idea of the Glorious Evolution. I think that we need to be mindful of what kinds of tropes that our depictions can fall into, and in this case a non-mindful depiction of Viktor as trans can seen as equating being trans to what’s easily read as self-harm/a violation of human nature. I doubt that anyone genuinely intends this association, but it can be made regardless, and so I prefer to keep the two concepts wholly separate in my depiction.

If you’ve made it this far, thank you for reading. I’m willing to answer any questions that arise from this.

[percival-queen]

Mun likes symbolism and The Little Prince jokes went way too far: a guide

{Special thanks to @stardemon39 for wasting an incredible amount of energy on figuring out my dumb dream symbols!} {LONG POST BELOW}

{For those of you who don't already know, for the past... idk... WHILE, I’ve been dropping cryptic hints about Percy’s dreams— particularly one consisting of a lot of imagery of yellow/gold roses, red foxes, and snakes in the grass! The first clue to deciphering literally any of this— which, interestingly, stardemon39 never once mentioned— is that all the imagery comes from the fairy tale of The Little Prince, yet another symbol that’s been talked about on this blog. We already know from Percy that, fitting to her name and manner of being portrayed, she is The Little Prince. But what do the other symbols represent?

Let’s start off with the easiest one— the rose. In The Little Prince, the Little Prince loves a rose: she is the first relationship the Prince has, and for a while, the only relationship he has. However, she unintentionally harms him with her thorns (which, as an anon pointed out, is in and of itself symbolism for the words she uses to protect herself from getting hurt). I thought this fit pretty well overall with Ramsey, and Percy’s first experience of loving someone outside her own family— especially considering he’s a criminal who starts off hurting her just by his way of living (think back to the thread where he broke out of prison and showed up beaten at her doorstep). However, the most important thing to me when devising this symbol was the color of the rose. The original rose in The Little Prince is red, and the Prince’s relationship with her is romantic. (It’s a fairy tale, don’t ask.) However, you all know my Percy is very firmly romance-repulsed, and I needed a way to distinguish that I was not taking anything in a shippy direction considering roses themselves are usually associated with romance. So after a bit of double-checking my flower meanings, I decided to explicitly make Ramsey’s rose yellow— or, as Percy retcons later, gold. Yellow roses (and flowers in general) are the symbol of friendship, and gold just so happens to be like a very intense version of yellow. This was perfect for me, because it links the flower directly to Ramsey, while also showing Percy’s state of mind regarding him: she knows she doesn’t feel romantically about him (red), but she’s not used to the experience of friendship at all (yellow), let alone one that’s so strong it transcends the usual color scale (gold).

TL;DR, Percy realizes that Ramsey means a lot to her, but struggles to put her feelings into words because they don’t fit with any of the relationships (normal flower colors/meanings) she was raised with.

Now we get a bit messier. I’ll confess that I DID briefly consider assigning BOTH the rose and red fox title to Zora— but I realized that while some of the rose’s themes fit her, the only reason I thought of the fox was because Zora herself matches with the stereotypes of a fox (cunning, tricky, clever), which all fit with the snake motif later anyway. Besides, the red fox had a much better match in the context of the story: Meryl. There are a few traits of the fox which suit Meryl well— the fact her hair is, in fact, red, added with how the fox wishes to make friends with the Little Prince (incidentally, because the Prince’s hair is “golden like wheat,” and will give the wheat-fields pleasant meaning for him), while the Prince himself is originally hesitant— but the most important key here is in the quote Percy once spoke to an anon:

“To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world . . .”

This is, essentially, how Percy views Mundies. It’s already pretty obvious at this point that she uses Epithets to recognize people, not to mention her beliefs about Inscribed being “chosen” as those worthy of gifts to serve others with (a belief further explained by Parapet). But her recent encounter with Meryl— which has been in the works for a long time— has started to give her a new perspective on that. She realizes, in one of those “oh, this should’ve been obvious, but I was too wrapped up in other thoughts to care” moments, that Mundies have unique personalities, strengths, and weaknesses, too— and that maybe she doesn’t hate Meryl’s as much as she thought. Allowing herself to “tame” anybody is risky, because then “[she] shall need [them],” but with Meryl, it’s even more profound, because accepting Meryl is a person is giving her a clear identity rather than just another Mundie/coworker/innocent. “To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world . . .”

TL;DR, Meryl forces Percy to recognize that all people (including Mundies) are unique when you get to know them, and that forming a kinship inherently adds to their value from a personal stance.

Which, finally, brings us to the snake in the grass: Zora. The snake in The Little Prince is a trickster, much like many snake stereotypes, but I found that it could give a more impactful meaning when you consider that before Zora, Percy never questioned her beliefs. Yes, she was always gullible, but as far as morals were concerned, she saw the world in black-and-white. It was Zora who forced her to think differently on this matter, and it’s Zora who she can’t bring herself to harm even though she has and continues to kill people. A sort of tragic reckoning; the Prince is never as wary of the snake as he should be, and continues to be drawn in by his words despite the danger. Not to mention, we have literally seen Zora as a snake before! And I’m not even the one who sent in that M!A!

Of course, with the end of the fairy tale in mind, what does this mean for the future...?

...Like I’d ever spoil that! But one thing is for certain: Percy should learn to recognize her own feelings, or she’ll be running into battles blind. :)

TL;DR, Zora twists Percy’s way of thinking and also represents an inherently dangerous foe, who Percy continues to encounter and treat on neutral ground even though that poses immense danger in every conceivable way— for better or for worse.

ULTIMATE TL;DR: MUN SPENT WAY TOO LONG MAKING UP SYMBOLS FOR NO APPARENT REASON BESIDES THE INHERENT AESTHETIC OF FAIRY-TALE SYMBOLISM.}

[valakobama]

Giving Visibility to Women to Better the Movement for Racial Justice

America has a long history of relying on the fruitful labor of women, whilst simultaneously rejecting their existence. The roots of this dismissiveness can be traced to the very systems and values that this country was founded on and are upheld by this country: capitalism, racism, ableism, the patriarchy, to name a few. Yet, it remains to be a surprise to many when this oppression is brought to light in the context of existing oppressed groups, specifically black people. There was a sentiment that was expressed during the class discussion of Black Feminism that centered around the fact that it is common to view infringements on one’s multiple identities can be a attacked only one at a time. This mindset is harmful but unfortunately has been the tone set by preceding movements organized to better the conditions of black Americans in regards to dealing with the oppression of identities besides race. It is important to make note of the very issue that oppression is not only limited to the traditional actor, the rich white male, but can take many shapes and forms, which is inclusive of those who are traditionally stigmatized to a certain extent. It remains, though, that black women have historically always been the ones to take up the laborious task of effectively organizing for their interests, yet their efforts have constantly been appropriated for a man to occupy the leadership positions and they fade into the backdrop. The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin is a very good example of this sentiment in the sense that while it is a beautifully composed narrative of the troubles of being a black person in the US, there is a noticeable lack of women in the book which is strikingly similar to the previously explained themes of black women lacking visibility.  It signals that the pattern of  denying black women roles in which their efforts can be attributed back to them, is rare in terms of history; but can be beneficial in finding successes through unity. Black women should not have to resort to infrapolitics within the movement for black lives, as movements like the black feminist movement arose to show that women’s rights are everyone’s rights, therefore need visibility to maintain an inclusive movement.

As it is rather unsurprising that black women have been left out of discourses that apply to their identities as black and women, in The Fire Next Time  it can be argued that the

illustration of the experiences of a black woman are minute but also relegated to traditional gender roles. This statement is divisive in a sense, but it also holds a lot of truth when considering that there are very little instances, in comparison with the various mentions of the black male experience, where the reader will find Baldwin take the black woman’s experience into account. This is not to say that there is no mention of women at all in the book, but that their roles besides being caregivers and needing protection are not simply enough. Take the meeting with Elijah Muhammad into account, where he is cognisant of the division in gender when he is at Muhammad’s house.Upon arrival to the residence, he notices that the women are sitting on the opposite side of the room and playing with a baby and the men are sitting with him having a discussion, until Muhammad walks into the room. He mentions how Muhammad acts a little flirtatious towards the women and they are responsive to it. The way he portrays this is interesting because while it is evident that he is knowledgeable of the simplistic role of the woman in the Nation of Islam, he doesn’t really expand on the experience as a . This is in stark contrast to the time that he spends expanding on the tumultuous experience of being a young black man. It is interesting to compare his dear regards for his nephew, in his letter My Dungeon Shook, where he takes the time out to speak on the transitional experiences of growing up as a black man, but he doesn’t pay much mind to the women that exist around him,  what he does tell him to do is reiterate the amount of love his mother and grandmother have for him. This is a constant theme throughout the book, in which the portrayal of women in this book are loving but also somewhat patronizing. One could argue that it could be that there is a difference in experiences, that the absence of the female characters could be attributed to the fact that men had more visibility to Baldwin. That lack of visibility, however, does not reflect on the amount of agency practiced by black women in the past.

Looking at the actions of black women through an infra-political lens may be helpful in understanding the not visible but powerful roles that black women have played in the movement for black lives. As discussed in class, infrapolitics was introduced as a concept of examining resistance tactics of oppressed individuals acting within their means, which often was a method used by women who were confined to repressive jobs and could not participate in other organizing methods. Robin D. G. Kelley’s We Are Not What We Seem explains the spaces dominated by infrapolitical action as, “the social and cultural institutions and ideologies that ultimately informed black opposition placed more emphasis on communal values and collective uplift than the prevailing class-conscious, individualist ideology of the white ruling classes.” This draws on a sentiment voiced during our class about the women’s era, in that the organizing model that these working class women embodied focused on what could be done in the confines of their positions rather than a traditional model that had centralized authority. Black women looked for more reform, rather than political rights. They did not seek to overturn hierarchies because they were barely recognized because of persisting gender roles. Although there was a move to during the progressive era to tried to change language from strict gender roles. Another common theme during this period was the aspiration of a level of respectability to achieve racial equality, which was gained significant participation by black women. While there were many black men that championed this ideal and created the “Talented Tenth”, women adhered to this hierarchy but also took the ideal a step further by using the idealism of respectability as a motivation to promote the theory of racial justice through furthering education. This is a widely touted solution to many problems, that was championed by women by the likes of Anna Julia Cooper and the motives were to get an education, move to south, challenge respectability politics (unfortunately not the level they were perpetuating) and challenge white womanhood morality through different representations of womanhood. While this provides an opportune framework for upward mobility, it was arguably limiting to those who did not have the resources to pursue this course of action. This was also  inherently exclusionary of the working class women who were already organizing within their positions of marginalization and disregarding to the contexts in which they already existed within, whether it was class, family life, geographical location, etc.

This exclusionary behavior has persisted regardless of recognition of the exclusionary themes that have existed in organizing in the movement for black lives. While the root of problem could be attributed to being socialized in systems that inherently oppress people. In attacking this issue, one can draw from Audre Lorde’s Age, Race, Class, and Sex to understand that without able to acknowledge that relying on traditional lines separating certain identities is weak, there is an inherent discord in a resistance movement. Audre argues that rejecting difference denies one the ability to be able to be apart of an effective movement that is inclusive of all because it is led through the perspective of the higher ups .  This is true for the many walks of lives that are covered in the movement for racial justice in the US, because with a traditionally male leadership, it has shown that many of the interests of women were disregarded. It can be argued that while using this perspective provided more unified and streamlined framework  to draw objectives from, but is exclusionary of the many people that benefit from this movement.

It is imperative that to continue an effective movement for black lives, that there is a move to be more inclusive not only of the laborious community of women that have been building the movement since the beginning. Black women have gone on to create more inclusive spaces and movements, such as the Black feminist movement and the womanist movements to organize. However if these perspectives are not recognized on a leadership level,

[strawberry-milktea]

I wanted your opinion since you like some Kpop and anime so you probably run into this. Do you think it's "bad" to like female artists or fictional characters that have a tomboyish style? I am a heterosexual female and not sexually attracted to them. But especially with fictional characters, some people will make theories about them being lesbian or trans even if it's not stated in the series.

You mean is it wrong of you to have a favorite character in a series/movie that happens to be tomboyish? I personally don’t see an issue with that.. generally speaking, not every woman is a girly-girl. It doesn’t mean she is trying to be a male or is a lesbian. However, it’s true that many people in fandoms like to interpret characters who aren’t girly-girls and say don’t like to wear dresses, make-up, etc as meaning that they’re transgender or lesbian. Although I don’t watch the series, I know a lot of people talk of how Tumblr does this to the character Pidge from Voltron. However, following this same example, you wouldn’t be wrong to like the character Pidge just because people in the Voltron fandom commonly do this. But generally speaking, in my opinion, liking a character in a series that happens to be say homosexual isn’t inherently wrong. If you’re approving of their decisions to act on homosexuality, that would be wrong. And if the series’ central focus is based around that sin (or any other sin for that matter), it raises the question of why a Christian would be watching the series to begin with. But finding a character likeable and seeing their value in a series doesn’t necessarily mean you agree with all of their decisions. For example, in Sailor Moon, Sailor Neptune and Sailor Uranus are openly a lesbian couple. While I disagree with their acting on homosexuality, I can still see their value in the series and the good in their personalities. There isn’t an exaggerated focus on their sexuality and it’s not depicted in a graphic/fan-servicing way, so I am able to watch the series without a problem. Or in the anime series Kuragehime (Princess Jellyfish), the main male character regularly cross dresses. I don’t agree with his decision to cross dress, but I still find him a likable character with depth to his personality and the series later reveals the deeper reason/past wound that motivates him to cross dress. Same idea applies to any decision a character I like may make that I disagree with. Any realistically portrayed character will have weaknesses of some form and may fall prey to those weaknesses at certain points, just like real people do. But liking that character doesn’t mean you agree with it when they make a decision that isn’t appropriate and harms themselves and/or others.I hope that helped answer your question!

[therealtraderhos]

Giving Visibility to Women to Better the Movement for Racial Justice

America has a long history of relying on the fruitful labor of women, whilst simultaneously rejecting their existence. The roots of this dismissiveness can be traced to the very systems and values that this country was founded on and are upheld by this country: capitalism, racism, ableism, the patriarchy, to name a few. Yet, it remains to be a surprise to many when this oppression is brought to light in the context of existing oppressed groups, specifically black people. There was a sentiment that was expressed during the class discussion of Black Feminism that centered around the fact that it is common to view infringements on one’s multiple identities can be a attacked only one at a time. This mindset is harmful but unfortunately has been the tone set by preceding movements organized to better the conditions of black Americans in regards to dealing with the oppression of identities besides race. It is important to make note of the very issue that oppression is not only limited to the traditional actor, the rich white male, but can take many shapes and forms, which is inclusive of those who are traditionally stigmatized to a certain extent. It remains, though, that black women have historically always been the ones to take up the laborious task of effectively organizing for their interests, yet their efforts have constantly been appropriated for a man to occupy the leadership positions and they fade into the backdrop. The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin is a very good example of this sentiment in the sense that while it is a beautifully composed narrative of the troubles of being a black person in the US, there is a noticeable lack of women in the book which is strikingly similar to the previously explained themes of black women lacking visibility.  It signals that the pattern of  denying black women roles in which their efforts can be attributed back to them, is rare in terms of history; but can be beneficial in finding successes through unity. Black women should not have to resort to infrapolitics within the movement for black lives, as movements like the black feminist movement arose to show that women’s rights are everyone’s rights, therefore need visibility to maintain an inclusive movement.

As it is rather unsurprising that black women have been left out of discourses that apply to their identities as black and women, in The Fire Next Time  it can be argued that the

illustration of the experiences of a black woman are minute but also relegated to traditional gender roles. This statement is divisive in a sense, but it also holds a lot of truth when considering that there are very little instances, in comparison with the various mentions of the black male experience, where the reader will find Baldwin take the black woman’s experience into account. This is not to say that there is no mention of women at all in the book, but that their roles besides being caregivers and needing protection are not simply enough. Take the meeting with Elijah Muhammad into account, where he is cognisant of the division in gender when he is at Muhammad’s house.Upon arrival to the residence, he notices that the women are sitting on the opposite side of the room and playing with a baby and the men are sitting with him having a discussion, until Muhammad walks into the room. He mentions how Muhammad acts a little flirtatious towards the women and they are responsive to it. The way he portrays this is interesting because while it is evident that he is knowledgeable of the simplistic role of the woman in the Nation of Islam, he doesn’t really expand on the experience as a . This is in stark contrast to the time that he spends expanding on the tumultuous experience of being a young black man. It is interesting to compare his dear regards for his nephew, in his letter My Dungeon Shook, where he takes the time out to speak on the transitional experiences of growing up as a black man, but he doesn’t pay much mind to the women that exist around him,  what he does tell him to do is reiterate the amount of love his mother and grandmother have for him. This is a constant theme throughout the book, in which the portrayal of women in this book are loving but also somewhat patronizing. One could argue that it could be that there is a difference in experiences, that the absence of the female characters could be attributed to the fact that men had more visibility to Baldwin. That lack of visibility, however, does not reflect on the amount of agency practiced by black women in the past.

Looking at the actions of black women through an infra-political lens may be helpful in understanding the not visible but powerful roles that black women have played in the movement for black lives. As discussed in class, infrapolitics was introduced as a concept of examining resistance tactics of oppressed individuals acting within their means, which often was a method used by women who were confined to repressive jobs and could not participate in other organizing methods. Robin D. G. Kelley’s We Are Not What We Seem explains the spaces dominated by infrapolitical action as, “the social and cultural institutions and ideologies that ultimately informed black opposition placed more emphasis on communal values and collective uplift than the prevailing class-conscious, individualist ideology of the white ruling classes.” This draws on a sentiment voiced during our class about the women’s era, in that the organizing model that these working class women embodied focused on what could be done in the confines of their positions rather than a traditional model that had centralized authority. Black women looked for more reform, rather than political rights. They did not seek to overturn hierarchies because they were barely recognized because of persisting gender roles. Although there was a move to during the progressive era to tried to change language from strict gender roles. Another common theme during this period was the aspiration of a level of respectability to achieve racial equality, which was gained significant participation by black women. While there were many black men that championed this ideal and created the “Talented Tenth”, women adhered to this hierarchy but also took the ideal a step further by using the idealism of respectability as a motivation to promote the theory of racial justice through furthering education. This is a widely touted solution to many problems, that was championed by women by the likes of Anna Julia Cooper and the motives were to get an education, move to south, challenge respectability politics (unfortunately not the level they were perpetuating) and challenge white womanhood morality through different representations of womanhood. While this provides an opportune framework for upward mobility, it was arguably limiting to those who did not have the resources to pursue this course of action. This was also  inherently exclusionary of the working class women who were already organizing within their positions of marginalization and disregarding to the contexts in which they already existed within, whether it was class, family life, geographical location, etc.

This exclusionary behavior has persisted regardless of recognition of the exclusionary themes that have existed in organizing in the movement for black lives. While the root of problem could be attributed to being socialized in systems that inherently oppress people. In attacking this issue, one can draw from Audre Lorde’s Age, Race, Class, and Sex to understand that without able to acknowledge that relying on traditional lines separating certain identities is weak, there is an inherent discord in a resistance movement. Audre argues that rejecting difference denies one the ability to be able to be apart of an effective movement that is inclusive of all because it is led through the perspective of the higher ups .  This is true for the many walks of lives that are covered in the movement for racial justice in the US, because with a traditionally male leadership, it has shown that many of the interests of women were disregarded. It can be argued that while using this perspective provided more unified and streamlined framework  to draw objectives from, but is exclusionary of the many people that benefit from this movement.

It is imperative that to continue an effective movement for black lives, that there is a move to be more inclusive not only of the laborious community of women that have been building the movement since the beginning. Black women have gone on to create more inclusive spaces and movements, such as the Black feminist movement and the womanist movements to organize. However if these perspectives are not recognized on a leadership level,

[thecorteztwins]

Mutant Empire: Salvation, Chapters 5 &6

Magneto isn't in these chapters either but we get some Juggernaut insight in Chapter Five, and we also get a neat moment between Charles and Senator Kelly in Chapter 6. I thought both were worth writing about. Tagging @malakhvent and @profxisajerk in case you’re interested in either of these things at all.

CHAPTER FIVE We're reminded at the beginning of this chapter how Cain's father abused him and the rest of the family. I like the detail that it was his father's cold words and hard looks that hurt more than the physical abuse. And how he saw his stepmother quivering and Charles withdraw into his studies, and he (Cain) started to hate them. He feels that they were weak, they deserved what they got, and Cain vows to himself to not be like them, to be strong, to never show weakness. Basically, it seems to me like Cain feels the abuse is his fault, that if he's not weak this wouldn't happen, and he's projecting that on to his fellow victims rather than his abuser. And so he becomes a bully in the schoolyard and worse to Charles, and becomes a criminal once he becomes the Juggernaut. And he always thought kindness and friendship were weakness. But then he met Black Tom Cassidy. Black Tom, for those who won't know, is Banshee's evil cousin. He and Jugs have been pals'n'partners in crime for a LONG time in the comics. And we learn that it was kindness and friendship from Black Tom that showed Cain he was wrong. Because Black Tom is the kindest and most ruthless person he's ever known. And he realizes that friendship is actually a desirable thing. It's specified this doesn't change at all how much he hates Charles, how hard he fights the X-Men, or that he's a criminal. But he's still changed in this way. And I really like that. I love villainous friendships and villainous character development that doesn't make them stop being villains.

We also learn that Cain has always felt condescended to by the X-Men, that he finds them “holier-than-thou”, that their offers to “help” make it seem like he's weak, and how from his perception they treat him like gum on their shoe...”the same way Charles had always treated him.” Which I'm sure is objectively NOT how Charles treated him, but I'm fascinated this how Cain perceived and/or remembers Charles. I don't know if Cain has ever like...acknowledged his father as abusive and wrong, but if he hasn't, I'm really starting to think he directed all his anger and pain at Charles not just in the form of physically abusing him, but in making HIM the bully in his own mind because he COULDN'T bring himself to blame his ACTUAL abuser, whom he probably had a much strong familial bond with seeing as how that was his father whereas Charles was just some random kid he was now living with.

And Cain is thinking how Charles knowing his precious mutant soldiers are going into battle alongside the Juggernaut will just get under Charles skin so much and how he loves that and it's worth it even if Magneto hands his ass to him....Cain buddy boy do I have news for you. Seriously, I feel like Charles would be THRILLED to know that Cain has teamed up with the X-Men against Magneto even though there's nothing it for him.

We also learn Cain didn't finish high school idk if that's news to you

And he considers mercenaries to be scum. Which is weird cuz he openly admits in the same breath he's into crime for personal gain, calling himself a “career criminal”. I guess maybe to him robbery has some dignity and class (which he says mercs don't) but being a soldier for pay in a cause you don't care about doesn't? I guess that has a certain logic. He also seems kinda into cowboy movies, mentally seeing himself as one of the “black hats”, a bad guy/outlaw who still has some kind...again, class and dignity are the words he uses, I'm not sure if they're the correct words, I guess maybe...standards? Not so much morals or ethics, but standards. He'll rob a bank for the cash, but he won't do guerrilla warfare for a fee, basically. He'll work for a bigger criminal on a heist for a cut of the profits, but he won't align himself with a cause he doesn't believe it just because there's cash in it for him. And he takes blatant issue with the those who do. So that's really interesting. And not something I would have expected from Cain. Once more, Christopher Golden is being really great about giving every character some depth and POV, I'm honestly impressed by how many times he's done that, especially for villains and minor book-exclusive background types. CHAPTER 6 I would like to remind everyone that at this point I canon, Xavier was NOT known to the public to be a mutant or to have anything to do with the X-Men. The book reminds, however, that he is a celebrity “the way politicians ad scientists became celebrities.” That is to say, he doesn't have fans or the like, but his opinion on mutant issues is valued by the media and he's considered the most powerful pro-mutant proponent on the subject, so lots of major news stations have requested him for comment on the current goings-on in Manhattan. As a small note, it always bugged me that Xavier seems to not simply be the most important public person who is pro-mutant/human peace, but the ONLY person. We never see anyone else, let alone ACTUAL humans, who are vocal public figures about that UNLESS they're anti-mutant. We do get some “public figures who preach mutant/human peace” during the 90s (Haven and Empyrean) but they're short-lived, super-minor characters that no one knows or remembers. I kinda wonder why Moira MacTaggert was never asked on any TV show or radio debate that I can remember (she's a scientist who is the leading expert on mutants in the comics, not a CIA agent) then I remember that unlike the diplomatic Xavier, Moira has no patience with any bullshit and wouldn't pretend to. I guess the meta answer is because Xavier is one of the main characters and this lets us see him doing something, something that the other X-Men can't do, something that advances his beliefs without violating his morals or involving secret paramilitary groups of child soldiers, and I like that. I'm just saying I think it's weird they can't at least stick in one other famous person who agrees with him. Then again, I guess that also helps to show that this isn't an equal battle, the odds are against him. Anyway. Tonight he's going to be debating Senator Kelly on ABC news. I look forward to this. Kelly gets a really bad rap in fandom, and I do understand why, but a lot of people don't realize that in the comics, he's actually a very moderate guy whose concerns come from a rational place, in contrast to the usual frothing bigots like Pierce, Hodge, and Graydon Creed. Speaking of Graydon, Xavier finds it strange that he has all but disappeared from the “media circus” since last evening, something you'd think he would be taking advantage of big-time. Charles suspects that whatever the outcome of Magneto and Manhattan is, Graydon is simply waiting to pounce on the backlash. Me, I think there might be a bigger plot afoot. It also makes me suspicious when a news anchor Charles had made a connection to in previous books, an Annelise Dwyer, surprises him when she approaches without him sensing her first. He figures he's just tired. I figure this is a foreshadowing. During the debate, Charles is impressed by how calm and rational Senator Kelly is, and how clear it is that Kelly is a man who understands the power of words and does not wish to use them to cause a panic, but instead presents them in a responsible way. It makes him that much more pleased that Graydon Creed isn’t here. Kelly closes with an argument that I myself have made many times before: that the different in humans and mutants is not the same as a difference of race or religion or anything else like that. He says that though “all men and women were created equal, even if they are not treated so” until mutants came along, and that “Mutants are not equal to the rest of humanity. Mutants are greater. I do not say better, but greater. More powerful, and thus inherently more dangerous. For the good of the entire world, all mutants must be registered and monitored. Now, I do not agree with the registration and monitoring part, but I do, as I said before, agree that concern about mutants is not the same as concern about black people or people who are transgender. Because those traits don’t give you more power than everyone else. Mutation does. There is real concrete reason to be worried about people who can make you explode when they’re angry or wipe your mind with theirs. This is what I like about Senator Kelly---he doesn’t hate mutants for what they are. He doesn’t call them freaks or lesser beings, he doesn’t want them exterminated, he does not wish for them to be harmed simply for existing. He’s just raising the very rational question of, what about the rest of us? And I don’t like his answer, but I do like his contrast to the usual way anyone who doesn’t 110% love mutants is portrayed as a mindless straw-bigot who just wants to wipe them all off the face of the Earth. Xavier then makes his closing statement. He starts by praising Kelly as an intelligent man concerned for others, and that there is cause for concern after seeing what Magneto and his followers have done. But, he adds, one should be no more afraid of mutant terrorists than any other terrorists, that the men bombed Oklahoma city and the World Trade Center (note: He does not mean 9/11, this was written before then, this is in reference to an event earlier in history. Just thought I’d mention that so there was no confusion over when this is set) are dangerous too, not because of any powers at their disposal but the hate in their hearts. He says that there are many people proficient with guns and martial arts who could also be considered “greater” than other humans, yet no one has discussed taking away their civil rights. That every American has a right to life liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and privacy. That criminals, including mutants, should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but innocent civilians should have their rights preserved, that if all mutants were an evil conspiracy they would rule the world already, and that the fact they don’t is proof most simply live in peace. But that whether they get to “is up to you.” I do very much agree with him about leaving civil rights intact, but I have a lot of counterpoints to the claim mutants aren’t more dangerous than regular terrorists, but I feel like that would just veer into too much a tangent, so I’ll continue the summary instead. Especially since we’re getting to the part I really like!

After they finish and the broadcast is no longer running, Kelly approaches Xavier. And Kelly says something amazing to Charles: “I know you’re right.” Seriously. He says that. He really does. But he then follows it with that he believes that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Basically, he agrees with Xavier’s principles, but in practice feels the only way for the majority to be safe is for mutants to have their civil rights restricted, even if, as he concedes, that’s morally wrong. Xavier counters that mutants are PART of the many, and that people like Kelly are what forces them to splinter off and see themselves as something else entirely, as though they are another tribe at war with so-called “normal” humans...and if they are made to feel this way, what happens when mutants become the majority? You know, in his own way, Xavier is capable of motivating by fear as much as Magneto is. Like, this is NOT an appeal to compassion, this is PLAYING on the fear of mutant abilities with a “be nice now or else later” Which, admittedly, might be sensible. Kelly says he takes his point. He also says that he hopes this whole thing in Manhattan is resolved as quickly and “painlessly” as possible. Xavier says that’s at least one thing they can agree on. They shake hands, and Xavier’s “thoughts returned to hope.” I liked this :)

[ambigamingcorner]

It’s been a while since I’ve written about the quagmire that is gender and gaming. But we’re winding up for another set of posts on the topic, and what better way to ease into this topic than talking about toxic masculinity and toxic femininity/feminism?

The Issue of Non-Issue

What fascinates me about this particular issue is that because sexim is not blatantly overt in the general population, and gender roles have changed slightly, many people are content to dust off their hands, say, “Problem solved!” and give a side-eye to those who continue to question whether the solutions are as absolute as some people like to claim.

So, in this particular article, we will be defining masculinity and femininity, and talking about when these constructs are taken to their unyielding extreme and begin to not work in harmony, but strike at the foundations of a cohesive society.

A Few Definitions

When I posted about this topic on Patreon, I had a nice discussion with LightningEllen about toxic masculinity and toxic femininity. What was most striking to me was that there was no real definition to the latter and, indeed, the two of us had wildly different ideas as to what these terms actually entailed.

So, to make sure we are on the same page, for the following article, I will be defining the above terms thus:

Masculinity: physical, emotional, and behavioral traits traditionally associated with men. These characteristics are active (that is, the person is taking an active role in social contexts), and are opposite to the feminine.

Toxic masculinity: a state of being wherein masculine traits are exhibited to a point that they are harmful or oppressive to the person exhibiting the traits, and/or to those around them. A man must never show weakness in any capacity: physically, mentally, or emotionally.

NO NO NO NO NO

Femininity: physical, emotional, and behavioral traits traditionally associated with women. These characteristics are passive (that is, the person is being acted upon by other forces, such as the masculine), and are opposite to the masculine.

Toxic femininity: A sub-group under toxic masculinity. It is a state of being wherein feminine traits are exhibited to a point that they are harmful or oppressive to the person exhibiting the traits, and/or to those around them. Tends toward women being passive and being acted upon, rather than taking action.

  Do you know how hard it is to find a picture for toxic femininity? That’s how passive it is.

Feminism: a social idea that the genders should be equal in social, cultural, and vocational positions.

Yay! Yes!

Third-wave feminism: Extreme, revenge-filled feminism. It is a set of ideas that proclaims women to be superior to men, or otherwise labels men as “the other” or, worse, “the enemy.” Also sees women who want to be stay-at-home moms, believe that men should be the breadwinners, and/or who simply don’t believe men are The Enemy, as “the enemy.”

When It’s Okay, and When It’s Toxic

I have a radical idea: masculine and feminine are actually made to complement each other. The strength, courage, independence, violence, and assertiveness are balanced by empathy, gentleness, and sensitivity. There is nothing inherently wrong or toxic about any of these characteristics, and having a balance of both is – or should be – considered ideal.

This is actually a real idea!!!

When this begins to crumble is when they are taken to their extreme, to the point where a person is expected to have all of Column A without ever demonstrating characteristics from Column B. The characteristics in the above paragraph are some examples of masculinity and femininity, but within society there are many other expectations that pressure men and women to think, act, and feel in particular ways.

When all of these things become toxic, it’s because a person has adopted these characteristics, but then also attempts to take away another person’s autonomy because of them. This can either be internal or external. For instance, a man might feel pressure to not “show weakness” by crying at a movie, or he might think it’s okay to talk over women because he has been raised to always be assertive with his ideas. A woman might feel pressure to wear makeup and be appealing for “the male gaze,” or she might think it’s okay to wield her emotions like a weapon.*

Notice something here. These are both harmful, please make no mistake about that. But when one group is always the one “acting” and one group is always being “acted upon,” it not only harmful to the individual, but can be harmful to the group as a whole.

A Brief Digression

But Athena, some of you might wonder. If everyone just stayed in their gender roles, this wouldn’t be a problem. You said yourself that masculine and feminine are complements of each other!

The hammer and nail argument, yes. In Japan, there is a saying that roughly translates to: the nail that sticks out gets hammered down. Sure, yes, if everyone sat down, shut up, and continued on, yep this wouldn’t be a problem. We’d all be squeezed into our tiny little cookie cutters, whether or not we really fix, and go through our lives peacefully, if not incredibly unhappy.

Everyone wants to be the hammer, and doesn’t think about who is the nail.

Let’s face it, people. We’re all affected by “The Patriarchy,” but because within the confines of the masculine and feminine gender roles one is always active and one is always acted upon, some issues are a lot more immediately or externally harmful, and some are more internally harmful. As a blunt example: men can take what they want, when they want it, but if a woman wants something for herself (which is outside of her “gender role”) she must subvert the system and act in a manipulative way, since being assertive isn’t a socially acceptable option.

This causes men to be angry at how deceptive “women as an entire gender” are, and then further results in women being expected/forced to deal with/deflect/defuse their anger. And because men are supposed to be dominant, there is no room for listening to “her side” of the story. Man must stay in control, because men are always supposed to be in control.*

Two sides of one horrendous, ridiculous coin.

Games and This Whole Mess

Thank the Maker, we’re finally talking about video games.

I’m not even going to attempt to dive into the cesspool that is toxic masculine behavior online or within gaming communities, with gatekeeping, slurs, and general horribleness happening from men to women and men to other men. But I would like to talk briefly about the roles that games play in all of this.

For those of you who have been hanging around a while, you’ll know that I am a big believer in representation mattering in games. We emulate behaviors that we observe, whether that is in real life or on a screen. We emulate behaviors more strongly when we have an inherent disposition toward an idea (i.e., it’s “in our nature” or “our personality”), but we can also absorb as true the ideas that are presented to us most consistently, even at a subconscious level.

Remember a long time ago when I asked you to play a game with me? And then we talked about what the game was all about? Seeing how certain characters are portrayed, as you guys know, contributes to how a person sees themselves. Yes, it is possible to rage against the machine, as it were, but when operating within a social group, we are expected to fulfill the norms and expectations put on us, with a slight degree of variation (again decided by society) being acceptable. Break all the norms and expectations, and the group at large will not be accepting of your behavior.

How these norms are developed is far outside of the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that once the norms are developed, it is up to the member of society and the media of that society to maintain and enforce those norms. Such is the state of video games and the video game community.

On the video game front, we are given men and women who fall into masculine and feminine boxes. Solid Snake and Cole McGrath, for instance, are as comic-book-hero-esque as characters can get, and are examples of what A Man should be: powerful, aggressive, lacking any sort of emotional display other than outrage or anger (or, if they do, it’s not long before the more “acceptable” emotions come back, i.e., sadness turning immediately into anger). Compare to Raiden from Metal Gear Solid 2: still pretty powerful, still pretty aggressive, but also has a girlfriend that he loves and is emotionally hurt by. And fans called him a pansy.

Some men might not see this as a problem, though.

Let’s take two queens of gaming, Princess Zelda and Princess Peach. Avoiding stereotypical language, Peach is the woman who waits at home for Mario, baking him cakes and offering him kisses as rewards for doing things for her. She passively waits for Mario to actively go and be the hero. Princess Zelda (with the exception of possibly Wind Waker and Breath of the Wild) is demure and quiet, although enjoys the slight deviation from the norm by being wise and even taking a slightly more active role in Twilight Princess when she actually holds a sword for a few seconds and fires some arrows alongside Link, but sufficiently makes up for this by being largely absent as Link saves the world.

Compare this to another famous woman in gaming, Lara Croft, who started off as a female Indiana Jones and then was somehow twisted into gaming’s biggest sex symbol, because it wasn’t enough that she was smart and capable and the primary character like her male counterparts: she had to be appealing to men.

Notice as she became more realistic (in many ways), her body proportions changed.

Which brings me to the actual point of this article: the effects these games can have on a person. Video games enforce (for the most part) the ideals and values of the society, and so the societal pressure on a man to never be weak, and a woman to always be second, is reflected in that.

Why Is This Bad, and Why Aren’t You Talking About Games Yet?

I’ll be blunt: toxic masculinity is bad because it hurts people. It forces men into a role that is not sustainable, at least without compromising other people. How can one always be in control, unless one takes control away from another person? How can one always be the strongest, if the other person isn’t expected to be weaker? How can one always be right, unless other thoughts and opinions are silenced or belittled? How can one be expected to not emote, and yet be expected to be so compassionate as to risk life and limb for another person? How can a person help bring another person into being, and then think it’s okay to say that they are “babysitting” their own children, when in reality they are parenting?

What about toxic femininity? Well, that hurts people, too, but in a more reactive (versus active) way. How can one succeed in a job that requires you to self-advocate, when one is insulted for being assertive? How can one exert independence, when one is expected to sit quietly and wait for a man to come along? How can one ever hope for equality, when there is one superior and one inferior gender?

While some folks may disagree, media is so important. To be clear, no, video games, movies, books, and the like don’t need to validate my existence and I’m not asking society for permission to exist. But I’m asking media to have balance, to offer a window into worlds that we might not otherwise see, to offer a window into worlds that could be, if only we tried hard enough.

Because it matters.

Studies have shown that, when men are exposed to video games that glorify the “masculine” stereotype and systematically supports the oppression of women, those men have a greater tolerance for real-life violence against women. The same effects were not seen when women played these same games.

So what does that mean? That means that society primes men to think a certain way (they are “masculine”), and media reinforces that “masculine” means never being feminine, and that harming those who are “the feminine” is okay. Rewarded, even. So that’s what one learns.

And thus we have reinforced toxic masculinity.

Video games that portray men being violent toward women causes men to be more tolerant toward violence against women.

I… shouldn’t have to say anything after that.

Like violence before this, being subjected to certain themes in certain games can make you more tolerant of them. Maybe there isn’t causation between playing a video game and actually sexually harassing a woman, but seeing images of men dominating women reinforces that men are the ones who do the acting, and women are the ones who are acted upon. In these games, men are always in control and always exerting power over others. And the man doing the acting is the hero, and the woman being acted upon is just that: scenery, waiting for a man to show up and give her existence meaning.

Out of context game picture is out of context.

So, no, while playing a Grand Theft Auto game isn’t going to turn you into a sexual predator, it might make a man feel entitled to a woman, or reinforce that respecting her integrity or right to an existence outside of your gaze/pleasure is not necessary. And that’s a problem.

But #NotAllMen!

Yes. Not all men, and not all games. Men are not, I’ll remind all of you sharpening your pitchforks, the enemy here. No one is the enemy here. No one is an enemy. Say it with me: no one is an enemy.

In recent years, games have begun to explore more realistic portrayals of women, and that’s great. I’m certainly not saying that power fantasies are inherently bad; after all, who doesn’t want to be a superhero all the time? And I’m not saying that no video game should ever objectify or subjugate anyone else. I’m not completely out-of-touch: being able to exert power over someone else makes a person feel powerful. You can’t always do it in the physical world, so sure, put it in a game. But also realize that what you put in a game is going to affect how the person interacts with their actual, real world.

So men may feel pressure to never feel anything beyond angry, to “man up” and fulfill any number of stereotypes that can, at the end of the day, oppress their true natures. And women might feel pressured to stay a step behind men, keeping their heads down and their voices soft, waiting to be called on. Society says it, games show it, and that’s the only possibility that is ever given.

What I advocate, as per usual, is the inclusion of games into our collective minds that have well-written characters. Yes, there is a whole social brick wall that we’re going to run into, because men have been led to believe they can’t show emotions, and so will not want to play as a “sissy,” as we saw with poor Raiden. Women have been led to believe that being assertive is being a bitch, or that women cannot take care of themselves, and so may instead prefer playing as a “strong” man instead of a “strong” woman.

We’re all stuck in the matrix, folks. We are all constantly under pressure by society to fit into the little boxes it provides to us, all little pegs waiting to be hammered down into our respective holes, whether or not we actually fit in them.

I love video games. I love that they can open the door to new realities and experiences that aren’t possible in the physical world.

I love that they can open doors into worlds that are possible, and that could be, if only…

I love that games can hold up a mirror and say, here’s what is.

And I really love that they are important enough to us that they can influence our behavior.

…We just always need to be aware of the type of person we are being influenced to be.

What are your thoughts on toxic masculinity/femininity? How can this be translated into our real-world communities? Or is this not a problem at all? Let me know in the comments!

Thanks for stopping by, and I’ll see you soon! ~ Athena

Do you like what you’ve read? Become a revered Aegis of AmbiGaming and show your support for small creators and for video games as a serious, viable, and relevant medium!

For more reading on games and masculinity:

Fox, J., & Tang, W.Y. (2013). Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 314-320. Linked here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/be6b/69d4062dd20d35728ff2e515048b1dcd5f5e.pdf

Dill, K.E., Brown, B.P., & Collins, M.A. (2007). Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1402-1408.

http://www.marissabellino.com/uploads/7/6/6/1/7661682/content_analysis_video_games_and_gender.pdf

#ICYMI: Better late than never: #men, #women, #games, and #toxicity. Hold onto your hats! Oh, and maybe some #feminism, too. All in one #ThrowbackThursday #tbt It’s been a while since I’ve written about the quagmire that is gender and gaming. But we’re winding up for another set of posts on the topic, and what better way to ease into this topic than talking about toxic masculinity and toxic femininity/feminism?

[ambigamingcorner]

It’s been a while since I’ve written about the quagmire that is gender and gaming. But we’re winding up for another set of posts on the topic, and what better way to ease into this topic than talking about toxic masculinity and toxic femininity/feminism?

The Issue of Non-Issue

What fascinates me about this particular issue is that because sexim is not blatantly overt in the general population, and gender roles have changed slightly, many people are content to dust off their hands, say, “Problem solved!” and give a side-eye to those who continue to question whether the solutions are as absolute as some people like to claim.

So, in this particular article, we will be defining masculinity and femininity, and talking about when these constructs are taken to their unyielding extreme and begin to not work in harmony, but strike at the foundations of a cohesive society.

A Few Definitions

When I posted about this topic on Patreon, I had a nice discussion with LightningEllen about toxic masculinity and toxic femininity. What was most striking to me was that there was no real definition to the latter and, indeed, the two of us had wildly different ideas as to what these terms actually entailed.

So, to make sure we are on the same page, for the following article, I will be defining the above terms thus:

Masculinity: physical, emotional, and behavioral traits traditionally associated with men. These characteristics are active (that is, the person is taking an active role in social contexts), and are opposite to the feminine.

Toxic masculinity: a state of being wherein masculine traits are exhibited to a point that they are harmful or oppressive to the person exhibiting the traits, and/or to those around them. A man must never show weakness in any capacity: physically, mentally, or emotionally.

NO NO NO NO NO

Femininity: physical, emotional, and behavioral traits traditionally associated with women. These characteristics are passive (that is, the person is being acted upon by other forces, such as the masculine), and are opposite to the masculine.

Toxic femininity: A sub-group under toxic masculinity. It is a state of being wherein feminine traits are exhibited to a point that they are harmful or oppressive to the person exhibiting the traits, and/or to those around them. Tends toward women being passive and being acted upon, rather than taking action.

  Do you know how hard it is to find a picture for toxic femininity? That’s how passive it is.

Feminism: a social idea that the genders should be equal in social, cultural, and vocational positions.

Yay! Yes!

Third-wave feminism: Extreme, revenge-filled feminism. It is a set of ideas that proclaims women to be superior to men, or otherwise labels men as “the other” or, worse, “the enemy.” Also sees women who want to be stay-at-home moms, believe that men should be the breadwinners, and/or who simply don’t believe men are The Enemy, as “the enemy.”

When It’s Okay, and When It’s Toxic

I have a radical idea: masculine and feminine are actually made to complement each other. The strength, courage, independence, violence, and assertiveness are balanced by empathy, gentleness, and sensitivity. There is nothing inherently wrong or toxic about any of these characteristics, and having a balance of both is – or should be – considered ideal.

This is actually a real idea!!!

When this begins to crumble is when they are taken to their extreme, to the point where a person is expected to have all of Column A without ever demonstrating characteristics from Column B. The characteristics in the above paragraph are some examples of masculinity and femininity, but within society there are many other expectations that pressure men and women to think, act, and feel in particular ways.

When all of these things become toxic, it’s because a person has adopted these characteristics, but then also attempts to take away another person’s autonomy because of them. This can either be internal or external. For instance, a man might feel pressure to not “show weakness” by crying at a movie, or he might think it’s okay to talk over women because he has been raised to always be assertive with his ideas. A woman might feel pressure to wear makeup and be appealing for “the male gaze,” or she might think it’s okay to wield her emotions like a weapon.*

Notice something here. These are both harmful, please make no mistake about that. But when one group is always the one “acting” and one group is always being “acted upon,” it not only harmful to the individual, but can be harmful to the group as a whole.

A Brief Digression

But Athena, some of you might wonder. If everyone just stayed in their gender roles, this wouldn’t be a problem. You said yourself that masculine and feminine are complements of each other!

The hammer and nail argument, yes. In Japan, there is a saying that roughly translates to: the nail that sticks out gets hammered down. Sure, yes, if everyone sat down, shut up, and continued on, yep this wouldn’t be a problem. We’d all be squeezed into our tiny little cookie cutters, whether or not we really fix, and go through our lives peacefully, if not incredibly unhappy.

Everyone wants to be the hammer, and doesn’t think about who is the nail.

Let’s face it, people. We’re all affected by “The Patriarchy,” but because within the confines of the masculine and feminine gender roles one is always active and one is always acted upon, some issues are a lot more immediately or externally harmful, and some are more internally harmful. As a blunt example: men can take what they want, when they want it, but if a woman wants something for herself (which is outside of her “gender role”) she must subvert the system and act in a manipulative way, since being assertive isn’t a socially acceptable option.

This causes men to be angry at how deceptive “women as an entire gender” are, and then further results in women being expected/forced to deal with/deflect/defuse their anger. And because men are supposed to be dominant, there is no room for listening to “her side” of the story. Man must stay in control, because men are always supposed to be in control.*

Two sides of one horrendous, ridiculous coin.

Games and This Whole Mess

Thank the Maker, we’re finally talking about video games.

I’m not even going to attempt to dive into the cesspool that is toxic masculine behavior online or within gaming communities, with gatekeeping, slurs, and general horribleness happening from men to women and men to other men. But I would like to talk briefly about the roles that games play in all of this.

For those of you who have been hanging around a while, you’ll know that I am a big believer in representation mattering in games. We emulate behaviors that we observe, whether that is in real life or on a screen. We emulate behaviors more strongly when we have an inherent disposition toward an idea (i.e., it’s “in our nature” or “our personality”), but we can also absorb as true the ideas that are presented to us most consistently, even at a subconscious level.

Remember a long time ago when I asked you to play a game with me? And then we talked about what the game was all about? Seeing how certain characters are portrayed, as you guys know, contributes to how a person sees themselves. Yes, it is possible to rage against the machine, as it were, but when operating within a social group, we are expected to fulfill the norms and expectations put on us, with a slight degree of variation (again decided by society) being acceptable. Break all the norms and expectations, and the group at large will not be accepting of your behavior.

How these norms are developed is far outside of the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that once the norms are developed, it is up to the member of society and the media of that society to maintain and enforce those norms. Such is the state of video games and the video game community.

On the video game front, we are given men and women who fall into masculine and feminine boxes. Solid Snake and Cole McGrath, for instance, are as comic-book-hero-esque as characters can get, and are examples of what A Man should be: powerful, aggressive, lacking any sort of emotional display other than outrage or anger (or, if they do, it’s not long before the more “acceptable” emotions come back, i.e., sadness turning immediately into anger). Compare to Raiden from Metal Gear Solid 2: still pretty powerful, still pretty aggressive, but also has a girlfriend that he loves and is emotionally hurt by. And fans called him a pansy.

Some men might not see this as a problem, though.

Let’s take two queens of gaming, Princess Zelda and Princess Peach. Avoiding stereotypical language, Peach is the woman who waits at home for Mario, baking him cakes and offering him kisses as rewards for doing things for her. She passively waits for Mario to actively go and be the hero. Princess Zelda (with the exception of possibly Wind Waker and Breath of the Wild) is demure and quiet, although enjoys the slight deviation from the norm by being wise and even taking a slightly more active role in Twilight Princess when she actually holds a sword for a few seconds and fires some arrows alongside Link, but sufficiently makes up for this by being largely absent as Link saves the world.

Compare this to another famous woman in gaming, Lara Croft, who started off as a female Indiana Jones and then was somehow twisted into gaming’s biggest sex symbol, because it wasn’t enough that she was smart and capable and the primary character like her male counterparts: she had to be appealing to men.

Notice as she became more realistic (in many ways), her body proportions changed.

Which brings me to the actual point of this article: the effects these games can have on a person. Video games enforce (for the most part) the ideals and values of the society, and so the societal pressure on a man to never be weak, and a woman to always be second, is reflected in that.

Why Is This Bad, and Why Aren’t You Talking About Games Yet?

I’ll be blunt: toxic masculinity is bad because it hurts people. It forces men into a role that is not sustainable, at least without compromising other people. How can one always be in control, unless one takes control away from another person? How can one always be the strongest, if the other person isn’t expected to be weaker? How can one always be right, unless other thoughts and opinions are silenced or belittled? How can one be expected to not emote, and yet be expected to be so compassionate as to risk life and limb for another person? How can a person help bring another person into being, and then think it’s okay to say that they are “babysitting” their own children, when in reality they are parenting?

What about toxic femininity? Well, that hurts people, too, but in a more reactive (versus active) way. How can one succeed in a job that requires you to self-advocate, when one is insulted for being assertive? How can one exert independence, when one is expected to sit quietly and wait for a man to come along? How can one ever hope for equality, when there is one superior and one inferior gender?

While some folks may disagree, media is so important. To be clear, no, video games, movies, books, and the like don’t need to validate my existence and I’m not asking society for permission to exist. But I’m asking media to have balance, to offer a window into worlds that we might not otherwise see, to offer a window into worlds that could be, if only we tried hard enough.

Because it matters.

Studies have shown that, when men are exposed to video games that glorify the “masculine” stereotype and systematically supports the oppression of women, those men have a greater tolerance for real-life violence against women. The same effects were not seen when women played these same games.

So what does that mean? That means that society primes men to think a certain way (they are “masculine”), and media reinforces that “masculine” means never being feminine, and that harming those who are “the feminine” is okay. Rewarded, even. So that’s what one learns.

And thus we have reinforced toxic masculinity.

Video games that portray men being violent toward women causes men to be more tolerant toward violence against women.

I… shouldn’t have to say anything after that.

Like violence before this, being subjected to certain themes in certain games can make you more tolerant of them. Maybe there isn’t causation between playing a video game and actually sexually harassing a woman, but seeing images of men dominating women reinforces that men are the ones who do the acting, and women are the ones who are acted upon. In these games, men are always in control and always exerting power over others. And the man doing the acting is the hero, and the woman being acted upon is just that: scenery, waiting for a man to show up and give her existence meaning.

Out of context game picture is out of context.

So, no, while playing a Grand Theft Auto game isn’t going to turn you into a sexual predator, it might make a man feel entitled to a woman, or reinforce that respecting her integrity or right to an existence outside of your gaze/pleasure is not necessary. And that’s a problem.

But #NotAllMen!

Yes. Not all men, and not all games. Men are not, I’ll remind all of you sharpening your pitchforks, the enemy here. No one is the enemy here. No one is an enemy. Say it with me: no one is an enemy.

In recent years, games have begun to explore more realistic portrayals of women, and that’s great. I’m certainly not saying that power fantasies are inherently bad; after all, who doesn’t want to be a superhero all the time? And I’m not saying that no video game should ever objectify or subjugate anyone else. I’m not completely out-of-touch: being able to exert power over someone else makes a person feel powerful. You can’t always do it in the physical world, so sure, put it in a game. But also realize that what you put in a game is going to affect how the person interacts with their actual, real world.

So men may feel pressure to never feel anything beyond angry, to “man up” and fulfill any number of stereotypes that can, at the end of the day, oppress their true natures. And women might feel pressured to stay a step behind men, keeping their heads down and their voices soft, waiting to be called on. Society says it, games show it, and that’s the only possibility that is ever given.

What I advocate, as per usual, is the inclusion of games into our collective minds that have well-written characters. Yes, there is a whole social brick wall that we’re going to run into, because men have been led to believe they can’t show emotions, and so will not want to play as a “sissy,” as we saw with poor Raiden. Women have been led to believe that being assertive is being a bitch, or that women cannot take care of themselves, and so may instead prefer playing as a “strong” man instead of a “strong” woman.

We’re all stuck in the matrix, folks. We are all constantly under pressure by society to fit into the little boxes it provides to us, all little pegs waiting to be hammered down into our respective holes, whether or not we actually fit in them.

I love video games. I love that they can open the door to new realities and experiences that aren’t possible in the physical world.

I love that they can open doors into worlds that are possible, and that could be, if only…

I love that games can hold up a mirror and say, here’s what is.

And I really love that they are important enough to us that they can influence our behavior.

…We just always need to be aware of the type of person we are being influenced to be.

What are your thoughts on toxic masculinity/femininity? How can this be translated into our real-world communities? Or is this not a problem at all? Let me know in the comments!

Thanks for stopping by, and I’ll see you soon! ~ Athena

Do you like what you’ve read? Become a revered Aegis of AmbiGaming and show your support for small creators and for video games as a serious, viable, and relevant medium!

For more reading on games and masculinity:

Fox, J., & Tang, W.Y. (2013). Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 314-320. Linked here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/be6b/69d4062dd20d35728ff2e515048b1dcd5f5e.pdf

Dill, K.E., Brown, B.P., & Collins, M.A. (2007). Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1402-1408.

http://www.marissabellino.com/uploads/7/6/6/1/7661682/content_analysis_video_games_and_gender.pdf

A charged #tbt for you all.... A talk of #men, #women, #games, and #toxicity. Oh, an maybe some #feminism, too. Hold onto your hats and join the conversation! It’s been a while since I’ve written about the quagmire that is gender and gaming. But we’re winding up for another set of posts on the topic, and what better way to ease into this topic than talking about toxic masculinity and toxic femininity/feminism?

[ambigamingcorner]

It’s been a while since I’ve written about the quagmire that is gender and gaming. But we’re winding up for another set of posts on the topic, and what better way to ease into this topic than talking about toxic masculinity and toxic femininity/feminism?

The Issue of Non-Issue

What fascinates me about this particular issue is that because sexim is not blatantly overt in the general population, and gender roles have changed slightly, many people are content to dust off their hands, say, “Problem solved!” and give a side-eye to those who continue to question whether the solutions are as absolute as some people like to claim.

So, in this particular article, we will be defining masculinity and femininity, and talking about when these constructs are taken to their unyielding extreme and begin to not work in harmony, but strike at the foundations of a cohesive society.

A Few Definitions

When I posted about this topic on Patreon, I had a nice discussion with LightningEllen about toxic masculinity and toxic femininity. What was most striking to me was that there was no real definition to the latter and, indeed, the two of us had wildly different ideas as to what these terms actually entailed.

So, to make sure we are on the same page, for the following article, I will be defining the above terms thus:

Masculinity: physical, emotional, and behavioral traits traditionally associated with men. These characteristics are active (that is, the person is taking an active role in social contexts), and are opposite to the feminine.

Toxic masculinity: a state of being wherein masculine traits are exhibited to a point that they are harmful or oppressive to the person exhibiting the traits, and/or to those around them. A man must never show weakness in any capacity: physically, mentally, or emotionally.

NO NO NO NO NO

Femininity: physical, emotional, and behavioral traits traditionally associated with women. These characteristics are passive (that is, the person is being acted upon by other forces, such as the masculine), and are opposite to the masculine.

Toxic femininity: A sub-group under toxic masculinity. It is a state of being wherein feminine traits are exhibited to a point that they are harmful or oppressive to the person exhibiting the traits, and/or to those around them. Tends toward women being passive and being acted upon, rather than taking action.

  Do you know how hard it is to find a picture for toxic femininity? That’s how passive it is.

Feminism: a social idea that the genders should be equal in social, cultural, and vocational positions.

Yay! Yes!

Third-wave feminism: Extreme, revenge-filled feminism. It is a set of ideas that proclaims women to be superior to men, or otherwise labels men as “the other” or, worse, “the enemy.” Also sees women who want to be stay-at-home moms, believe that men should be the breadwinners, and/or who simply don’t believe men are The Enemy, as “the enemy.”

NO NO NO NO NO

When It’s Okay, and When It’s Toxic

I have a radical idea: masculine and feminine are actually made to complement each other. The strength, courage, independence, violence, and assertiveness are balanced by empathy, gentleness, and sensitivity. There is nothing inherently wrong or toxic about any of these characteristics, and having a balance of both is – or should be – considered ideal.

This is actually a real idea!!!

When this begins to crumble is when they are taken to their extreme, to the point where a person is expected to have all of Column A without ever demonstrating characteristics from Column B. The characteristics in the above paragraph are some examples of masculinity and femininity, but within society there are many other expectations that pressure men and women to think, act, and feel in particular ways.

When all of these things become toxic, it’s because a person has adopted these characteristics, but then also attempts to take away another person’s autonomy because of them. This can either be internal or external. For instance, a man might feel pressure to not “show weakness” by crying at a movie, or he might think it’s okay to talk over women because he has been raised to always be assertive with his ideas. A woman might feel pressure to wear makeup and be appealing for “the male gaze,” or she might think it’s okay to wield her emotions like a weapon.*

Notice something here. These are both harmful, please make no mistake about that. But when one group is always the one “acting” and one group is always being “acted upon,” it not only harmful to the individual, but can be harmful to the group as a whole.

A Brief Digression

But Athena, some of you might wonder. If everyone just stayed in their gender roles, this wouldn’t be a problem. You said yourself that masculine and feminine are complements of each other!

The hammer and nail argument, yes. In Japan, there is a saying that roughly translates to, the nal that sticks out gets hammered down. Sure, yes, if everyone sat down, shut up, and continued on, yep this wouldn’t be a problem. We’d all be squeezed into our tiny little cookie cutters, whether or not we really fix, and go through our lives peacefully, if not incredibly unhappy.

Everyone wants to be the hammer, and doesn’t think about who is the nail.

Let’s face it, people. We’re all affected by The Patriarchy, but because within the confines of the masculine and feminine gender roles one is always active and one is always acted upon, some issues are a lot more immediately or externally harmful, and some are more internally harmful. As a blunt example: men can take what they want, when they want it, but if a woman wants something for herself (which is outside of her “gender role”) she must subvert the system and act in a manipulative way, since being assertive isn’t a socially acceptable option.

This causes men to be angry at how deceptive “women as an entire gender” are, and then further results in women being expected/forced to deal with/deflect/defuse their anger. And because men are supposed to be dominant, there is no room for listening to “her side” of the story. Man must stay in control, because men are always supposed to be in control.*

Two sides of one horrendous, ridiculous coin.

Games and This Whole Mess

Thank the Maker, we’re finally talking about video games.

I’m not even going to attempt to dive into the cesspool that is toxic masculine behavior online or within gaming communities, with gatekeeping, slurs, and general horribleness happening from men to women and men to other men. But I would like to talk briefly about the roles that games play in all of this.

For those of you who have been hanging around a while, you’ll know that I am a big believer in representation mattering in games. We emulate behaviors that we observe, whether that is in real life or on a screen. We emulate behaviors more strongly when we have an inherent disposition toward an idea (i.e., it’s “in our nature” or “our personality”), but we can also absorb as true the ideas that are presented to us most consistently, even at a subconscious level.

Remember a long time ago when I asked you to play a game with me? And then we talked about what the game was all about? Seeing how certain characters are portrayed, as you guys know, contributes to how a person sees themselves. Yes, it is possible to rage against the machine, as it were, but when operating within a social group, we are expected to fulfill the norms and expectations put on us, with a slight degree of variation (again decided by society) being acceptable. Break all the norms and expectations, and the group at large will not be accepting of your behavior.

How these norms are developed is far outside of the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that once the norms are developed, it is up to the member of society and the media of that society to maintain and enforce those norms. Such is the state of video games and the video game community.

On the video game front, we are given men and women who fall into masculine and feminine boxes. Solid Snake and Cole McGrath, for instance, are as comic-book-hero-esque as characters can get, and are examples of what A Man should be: powerful, aggressive, lacking any sort of emotional display other than outrage or anger (or, if they do, it’s not long before the more “acceptable” emotions come back, i.e., sadness turning immediately into anger). Compare to Raiden from Metal Gear Solid 2: still pretty powerful, still pretty aggressive, but also has a girlfriend that he loves and is emotionally hurt by. And fans called him a pansy.

Some men might not see this as a problem, though.

Let’s take two queens of gaming, Princess Zelda and Princess Peach. Avoiding stereotypical language, Peach is the woman who waits at home for Mario, baking him cakes and offering him kisses as rewards for doing things for her. She passively waits for Mario to actively go and be the hero. Princess Zelda (with the exception of possibly Wind Waker and Breath of the Wild) is demure, and quiet, although enjoys the slight deviation from the norm by being wise and even taking a slightly more active role in Twilight Princess when she actually holds a sword for a few seconds and fires some arrows alongside Link, but sufficiently makes up for this by being largely absent as Link saves the world.

Compare this to another famous woman in gaming, Lara Croft, who started off as a female Indiana Jones and then was somehow twisted into gaming’s biggest sex symbol, because it wasn’t enough that she was smart and capable and the primary character like her male counterparts: she had to be appealing to men.

Notice as she became more realistic (in many ways), her body proportions changed.

Which brings me to the actual point of this article: the effects these games can have on a person. Video games enforce (for the most part) the ideals and values of the society, and so the societal pressure on a man to never be weak, and a woman to always be second, is reflected in that.

Why Is This Bad, and Why Aren’t You Talking About Games Yet?

I’ll be blunt: toxic masculinity is bad because it hurts people. It forces men into a role that is not sustainable, at least without compromising other people. How can one always be in control, unless one takes control away from another person? How can one always be the strongest, if the other person isn’t expected to be weaker? How can one always be right, unless other thoughts and opinions are silenced or belittled? How can one be expected to not emote, and yet be expected to be so compassionate as to risk life and limb for another person? How can a person help bring another person into being, and then think it’s okay to say that they are “babysitting” their own children, when in reality they are parenting?

Aw…

What about toxic femininity? Well, that hurts people, too, but in a more reactive (versus active) way. How can one succeed in a job that requires you to self-advocate, when one is insulted for being assertive? How can one exert independence, when one is expected to sit quietly and wait for a man to come along? How can one ever hope for equality, when there is one superior and one inferior gender?

While some folks may disagree, media is so important. To be clear, no, video games, movies, books, and the like don’t need to validate my existence and I’m not asking society for permission to exist. But I’m asking media to have balance, to offer a window into worlds that we might not otherwise see, to offer a window into worlds that could be, if only we tried hard enough.

Because it matters.

Studies have shown that, when men are exposed to video games that glorify the “masculine” stereotype and systematically supports the oppression of women, those men have a greater tolerance for real-life violence against women. The same effects were not seen when women played these same games.

So what does that mean? That means that society primes men to think a certain way (they are “masculine”), and media reinforces that “masculine” means never being feminine, and that harming those who are “the feminine” is okay. Rewarded, even. So that’s what one learns.

And thus we have reinforced toxic masculinity.

Video games that portray men being violent toward women causes men to be more tolerant toward violence against women.

I… shouldn’t have to say anything after that.

Like violence before this, being subjected to certain themes in certain games can make you more tolerant of them. Maybe there isn’t causation between playing a video game and actually sexually harassing a woman, but seeing images of men dominating women reinforces that men are the ones who do the acting, and women are the ones who are acted upon. In these games, men are always in control and always exerting power over others. And the man doing the acting is the hero, and the woman being acted upon is just that: scenery, waiting for a man to show up and give her existence meaning.

Out of context game picture is out of context.

So, no, while playing a Grand Theft Auto game isn’t going to turn you into a sexual predator, it might make a man feel entitled to a woman, or reinforce that respecting her integrity or right to an existence outside of your gaze/pleasure is not necessary. And that’s a problem.

But #NotAllMen!

Yes. Not all men, and not all games. Men are not, I’ll remind all of you sharpening your pitchforks, the enemy here. No one is the enemy here. No one is an enemy. Say it with me: no one is an enemy.

In recent years, games have begun to explore more realistic portrayals of women, and that’s great. I’m certainly not saying that power fantasies are inherently bad; after all, who doesn’t want to be a superhero all the time? And I’m not saying that no video game should ever objectify or subjugate anyone else. I’m not completely out-of-touch: being able to exert power over someone else makes a person feel powerful. You can’t always do it in the physical world, so sure, put it in a game. But also realize that what you put in a game is going to affect how the person interacts with their actual, real world.

So men may feel pressure to never feel anything beyond angry, to “man up” and fulfill any number of stereotypes that can, at the end of the day, oppress their true natures. And women might feel pressured to stay a step behind men, keeping their heads down and their voices soft, waiting to be called on. Society says it, games show it, and that’s the only possibility that is ever given.

What I advocate, as per usual, is the inclusion of games into our collective minds that have well-written characters. Yes, there is a whole social brick wall that we’re going to run into, because men have been led to believe they can’t show emotions, and so will not want to play as a “sissy,” as we saw with poor Raiden. Women have been led to believe that being assertive is being a bitch, or that women cannot take care of themselves, and so may instead prefer playing as a “strong” man instead of a “strong” woman.

We’re all stuck in the matrix, folks. We are all constantly under pressure by society to fit into the little boxes it provides to us, all little pegs waiting to be hammered down into our respective holes, whether or not we actually fit in them.

I love video games. I love that they can open the door to new realities and experiences that aren’t possible in the physical world.

I love that they can open doors into worlds that are possible, and that could be, if only…

I love that games can hold up a mirror and say, here’s what is.

And I really love that they are important enough to us that they can influence our behavior.

…We just always need to be aware of the type of person we are being influenced to be.

What are your thoughts on toxic masculinity/femininity? How can this be translated into our real-world communities? Or is this not a problem at all? Let me know in the comments!

Thanks for stopping by, and I’ll see you soon! ~ Athena

Do you like what you’ve read? Become a revered Aegis of AmbiGaming and show your support for small creators and for video games as a serious, viable, and relevant medium!

For more reading on games and masculinity:

Fox, J., & Tang, W.Y. (2013). Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 314-320. Linked here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/be6b/69d4062dd20d35728ff2e515048b1dcd5f5e.pdf

Dill, K.E., Brown, B.P., & Collins, M.A. (2007). Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1402-1408.

http://www.marissabellino.com/uploads/7/6/6/1/7661682/content_analysis_video_games_and_gender.pdf

Better late than never: #men, #women, #games, and #toxicity. Hold onto your hats! Oh, and maybe some #feminism, too. It’s been a while since I’ve written about the quagmire that is gender and gaming. But we’re winding up for another set of posts on the topic, and what better way to ease into this topic than talking about toxic masculinity and toxic femininity/feminism?