#there's so much misogyny prevalent in society in the media and this is what you decide to get sand in your vagina about.

[akkawi]

I hate misogyny just as much as anyone else but good Lord some of you girls must be absolutely miserable with how much you try to willingly misinterpret things

[honeyriot]

So just a quick thing about Taylor Swift and eat the rich. Quick google search will tell you that other celebrities you mentioned - Travis Scott, Kendrick Lamar, Keanu Reeves - are all millionaires (approximately 80 million, 140 million, 800 million, respectively). And that’s a lot! They are rich! Taylor Swift, meanwhile, has a net worth of around 1.4 billion. I know you’re not an idiot, I don’t need to tell you how astronomically much more a billion is than a million. There are other celebrities around that mark, for sure, both male and female. But Taylor Swift is possibly the most inescapable famous people in the world right now, one who is astronomically rich and seemingly everywhere. Her womanhood has nothing to do with what she absolutely does deserve plenty of criticism for.

As much as I agree with everything you are saying, the specific calling out of her aligns far too neatly with reactionary antifeminist and anti woman rhetoric. You surely are aware of the rise of misogyny and the prevalence of abuse, harassment, rape and overall misogyny in society AND historically in marxist, and revolutionary organizing. You can call me an idiot when I have serious reasons for calling this out. Would it have been better if I had said, Jay Z, Dr. Dre, Stephen Spielberg, Paul McCartney, Peter Jackson etc? The reason is this: It is a very real and consistent fact that leftist men foam at the mouth for a "politically correct" to be misogynist to women. Many times culminating in very overt misogyny like rape jokes which are a form of harassment against ALL women. I've seen jokes on social media of reactionary women being put in rape/porn/sexualizing memes with tons of likes and laughing emojis. It's not a historical anomaly for rape and harassment to be a political force against women of all classes. We have to be politically aware of the gendered nature of our political conversations. To deny this is completely reactionary. To say "feminism is bourgeois" and act like we live in the early 20th century to dismiss that oppression of women occurs in ALL classes and even marxist and leftist orgs and communities have to grapple with this very reality!

[sandutita]

i need more people to talk about topfreedom. because the situation that we're at right now is really bad. it's REALLY REALLY BAD. there is a very strong inequality between men and women in this issue that it's genuinely revolting to me how it's so normalised and everyone seems to completely accept it. this society prides itself in being progressive and inclusive and respectful of women, yet no one fucking talks about this very prevalent part of misogyny.

it devastates me. i hate living in this inequal world which has so thoroughly sexualised and demonised human breasts. it fucks me up really really badly. and the fact that i'm transmasculine doesn't help at all. sometimes i feel better about it; i think to myself that maybe this society will be better someday. but other times i feel worse; i wonder if i we'll ever have topfreedom. if we'll even have it during my lifetime. is this really what my whole life is going to be like? being bound by misogynists, forced to cover myself forever, obliged to hide myself whilst people with masculine chests get to roam free?

i try to take my own steps as best i can. i make art and normalise exposed nipples within it. i try to send a message that female-presenting nipples are just the same as male-presenting ones, they shouldn't be separated, they should be seen and treated as the exactly same thing. i encourage everyone else to do the same. whether you make art or not. just because the big things matter more, doesn't mean the little things don't also count. it would mean a lot to me and many others.

it just depresses me really badly how these are the social media platforms we are doomed to use for our daily interactions. instagram. youtube. tiktok. facebook. they all ban female nipples. why do they do that? short answer: rampant misogyny. long answer: this post of mine.

this isn't fucking okay. this isn't treating humans equally. it isn't respecting of human rights. it's vile and sexist. it's misogyny justified by law. it's the deeply ingrained power of the cis man trying to have as much power over women and their bodies as possible which still strongly affects our society today. it has to be tackled.

something needs to fucking change. radical action has to take place. something CONCRETE has to happen.

i'm so tired of waiting.

[katyspersonal]

FUCKING THANK YOU jesus christ i was literally just thinking the other day "if i see one more 'bloodborne is about womanhood uwu' take i'm gonna rip my fucking hair out." altho i personally took it more as a social/class commentary than a statement about playing god so to speak, but i do think there are elements of all three- it's just that saying "it's about violence against women" is extremely reductive and ignores like...half of the game (and so does saying it's just a criticism of religion imo, which is also a take i've seen)

POV: You hoped for the better than puddle-deep takes on such an interesting game:

fdshsgdfds Honestly, I did want to add that themes of mob mentality and corruption of elitists and power of any kind are also very prevalent in the post :^) You think good, and fuckin huntsmen screeching at us for being a beast when they are themselves halfway transforming into one over this hostility, Beast Patients shown covering in fear before raging Old Hunters, Djura's character whole point, Suspicious Beggar's whole point... yeah, all of this is a brilliant commentary on humanity. There were plenty of reasons for the nerds of the setting to deem human nature "beastly idiocy" and wish to transcend (if not discard) it, after all! Soulsborne games love rubbing salt in the wound about how you're losing no matter what and you just choose to what extent you want to struggle for your own dignity as no matter what humanity has is imminently going corrupt. And attempts to pull the rest of the society with you towards "the better way" just will never, ever, EVER end well, no matter how sympathetic your motivations are!

Bloodborne is about several things at least, and whichever you see as a focal point, it should be something to prompt debates and more observations! I talk very confidently about my understanding of the story sometimes, but this search is never really over- like you can see even more questions prompted right here, right in this reply! But unfortunately some people don't like to have a discussion, they only like being "right" and act petty and codescending. Because their self-esteem as fans is supported not by their passion, but by their delusion of "being the only one with media literacy in the trying times of poor stupid uneducated fandom that is yet to learn what harm they're causing on society by not seeing a masterpiece as one-dimensional in the worst way possible". The 'Bloodborne is about horrors of misogyny uwu' squad is the most vicious, though, because THESE guys' attitude goes onto territory of personal attacks and stirring up petty dramas, if not gatekeeping the source material from ""wrong"" type of demographics. In a way.. THEY are those half-beast huntsmen screeching at anyone who isn't from their circle. xD

All in all, it is a matter of both 'arguements towards reducing the story to something this simple don't work' and 'there are other themes that are much more prevalent' 🤔 Also please don't rip your hair out anon dfshfhd

[dracotheocracy]

Please talk more about how bad the bond book was your last post about it was so fun to read

ask and you shall receive! happy you enjoy my james bond posting because i love sinking my teeth into problematic media and shaking it like a chew toy

last post i expanded on some stuff from my first ask that i either forgot about in the first 10 chapters or saw more of in the 18 chapters in part two. the majority of my analysis there relates to misogyny and queerphobia and we're not done with the former at all but i have a new element to add into the mix that was definitely present in part one but not really as prevalent

tw misogyny xenophobia/racism sexual violence

so the majority of part two takes place in istanbul and ian's contempt for eastern europe is palpable. i'll do my due diligence and acknowledge the historical context- this novel was published in 1957, western and eastern europe largely did not have a very amicable relationship coming out of the world wars and the cold war was well underway as well. james bond was probably successful in part because ian's biases to a fairly large extent would've reflected public sentiment in england at the time. again, not an expert in european history either take my word with a grain of salt

with that out of the way, let me just

"So these dark, ugly, neat little officials were the modern Turks. He listened to their voices, full of broad vowels and quiet sibilants and modified u-sounds, and he watched the dark eyes that belied the soft, polite voices. They were bright, angry, cruel eyes that had only lately come down from the mountains."

this is the first description we get from bond's POV of any non-british characters, and it's a running theme in the book that the only characters that are described amicably are tatiana romanova and anyone working for british intelligence. you know, the book that for the most part takes place in eastern europe. the book is full of slights like this; when ian introduces darko kerim this is how he describes the dude's handshake

"It was a strong Western handful of operative fingers--not the banana skin handshake of the East that makes you want to wipe your fingers on your coat-tails."

it's all very casually racist and it really just keeps going- there's a notable shift in tone when the orient express bond and romanova travel on leaves the balkans:

"The hard-faced Yugoslav plain-clothes men came on board. Then Yugoslavia was gone and Poggioreale came and the first smell of the soft life with the happy jabbering Italian officials and the carefree upturned faces of the station crowd."

this is done mostly by a shift in how he describes the infrastructure and the people. i don't think the former bit is inherently a sin but ian paints a very unbalanced picture of europe, where the east is mean and slimy and impoverished and the west is pleasant and well maintained. not that i was expecting nuance from a bond novel- much like being queerbaited by the MCU that's kind of like losing a game of chess to a dog, but my goal in these posts is a criticism of From Russia, With Love based on what it says about society

there are two chapters where darko and james interact with a group of romani people just outside the city because they work for darko and... hm. i don't think i can provide much meaningful commentary on it because i'm not familiar with romani cultures. i suspect that his depiction isn't very accurate to reality though, especially because there is one thing in his writing of this that i am pretty comfortable pointing out:

"Two girls of the tribe are in love with one of his sons. There is a lot of death in the air. They both threaten to kill the other to get him. If he chooses one, the unsuccessful one has sworn to kill him and the girl. It is an impasse. There is much argument in the tribe. So the son has been sent up into the hills and the two girls are to fight it out here tonight--to the death."

"The door in the wall crashed back and two girls, spitting and fighting like angry cats, hurtled through and across the grass and into the ring."

"They were both gipsy-dark, with coarse black hair to their shoulders, and they were both dressed in the collection of rags you associate with shanty-town Negroes--tattered brown shifts that were mostly darns and patches."

"Where this girl was a lioness, the other was a panther--lithe and quick and with cunning sharp eyes that were not on the speaker but sliding sideways, measuring inches, and the hands at her sides were curled into claws. The muscles of her fine legs looked hard as a man's. The breasts were small, and, unlike the big breasts of the other girl, hardly swelled the rags of her shift. She looks a dangerous little bitch of a girl, thought Bond."

what follows is the two women wrestling each other in a way that's described like a really weird catfight and also they both claw at or bite each other's boobs and tear a bit of each others' clothes off. i mentioned that the word "breasts" appeared 13 times in my last post and probably about a fourth of it was concentrated into this chapter because of the fight scene.

first quote is there purely because i don't want to paraphrase the context. i include the second and fourth quote because i want to look at how ian describes the women in this scene- first of all, again with the breasts mr fleming. how original. most importantly, though, he compares them to animals. cats, specifically, but the entire scene is meant to give the impression that these people are feral or savage, and the comparison of the women to a lion and a panther respectively, and describing them as hurtling into a fighting ring "spitting and fighting like angry cats" strikes me as a "look how barbaric these people are, how uncivilized their women!" comment on ian's part. this is compounded by the third quote here where he describes how they're dressed- he's explicitly drawing a connection between two oppressed groups here; it's meant as an indication that these two women are poor, but this comparison being drawn while flanked in between two paragraphs that describe the characters like animals makes it more suspect. there's other ways to describe how they're dressed in a way that indicates poverty and we already have a history of portraying black people as barbaric and uncivilized.

the last bit i'm going to chew on tonight is probably another intersection between xenophobia and misogyny and that's a little facet of darko kerim's character: he's violently misogynistic and that is not a fucking exaggeration,

so kerim is from trebizond and his father essentially had a harem- fathered a lot of children from multiple mothers and it's very much implied that kerim does the same. below i've attached some of his dialogue in a scene where he's talking to bond at a restaurant after they meet

"All women want to be swept off their feet. In their dreams they long to be slung over a man's shoulder and taken into a cave and raped."

"I had a little Bessarabian hell-cat. I had won her in a fight with some gipsies, here in the hills behind Istanbul. I had to knock her unconscious first. She was still trying to kill me when we got back to Trebizond, so I got her to my place and took away all her clothes and kept her chained naked under the table. When I ate, I used to throw scraps to her under the table, like a dog. She had to learn who was master. Before that could happen, my mother did an unheard of thing. She visited my place without warning. She found the girl. My mother was really angry with me for the first time in my life. I was a cruel ne'er-do-well and she was ashamed to call me son. My mother brought her some of her own clothes from the house. The girl put them on, but when the time came, she refused to leave me"

yeah so that second quote is one of the vilest things i've read

i'm calling this an intersection between xenophobia and misogyny because if i'm not mistaken darko being from trebizond makes him turkish. for the most part he's portrayed positively by the narrative, he and bond quickly become friends or something like it, bond isn't devastated or anything when kerim dies but he does view it as a loss. the thing is that, even for the 50s, this is not an acceptable way to treat women or talk about them. the most positive portrayed eastern european character in the novel is in all likelihood a rapist and is very transparent in his misogyny. furthermore again ian is comparing a presumably romani woman to a cat (through kerim's voice), and though everything expressed in these quotes is incredibly fucked up and untrue, there's a broader trend in the novel about the ideal woman being a submissive one- what darko is doing here is claiming that to be part of their nature and nowhere in the novel are his words contradicted at all unless we count rosa klebb, and with her being a villain it seems more natural to assume that ian agrees with the character rather than thinks he's spitting bullshit.

it's 20 past midnight and i'm rather tired so, i'll end this off with my impression of the story structure and all that. some plain old literary analysis. i think ian fleming spent too long on the setup because the payoff with grant and klebb accounted for the last 3 chapters of the book, compared to the 10 he spent setting it up. he built too much hype around bond's encounters with both characters for what they ended up being in my opinion, but i will give fleming that yeah those final confrontations were all right i guess i liked how bond managed to worm his way out of the stupid fucking mess he got himself in by falling for an obvious honeypot in the first place and then some. i think a lot of the building suspense was negated for me when i read it because my brain was too busy gnawing on. *gestures at the 3 posts i've written about this novel* all of that, to get invested in any of the characters and feel the tension all that much

[alleycat4eva]

I figured I would chime in with my two cents. TERF (Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist) is kind of a branch of radfem ideology. Radical Feminism is also fairly trans-unfriendly, but is broadly less targeted at trans people specifically. Radical feminism is generally anchored that the belief that misogyny is the ultimate, central oppression, and as such all men are oppressors, and are actors of such in all situations, even when a man might genuinely be a feminist or faces other oppressions like racism, queerphobia, ableism, or classism.

As such you can see this is the start of a big radfem -> terf pipeline (also radfem -> white supremacy pipeline, but thats a bit off topic), where transphobia becomes a central motivator and trans women are specifically targeted as predatory men seeking to enter women-only spaces (hence the Bathroom Panic). Trans men only factor into this as innocent "women" and "wayward daughters" tricked into thinking that thousands in medical bills and hormone therapies and the immense social stigma are easier then just not associating with men to escape misogyny. Tracing back to radfem this is really just a natural conclusion of the ideology as its so rooted in assigning morality to gender, thus already establishing the bioessentialist groundwork that is also so prevalent in transphobia.

Specifically regarding the reproductive and medical rights aspect, that is still be misogyny but kind of... redirected to affect trans people by virtue of the degree to which they choose to medically transition. Also transphobia in that our society largely just... doesn't consider transgender people outside of transition treatments. For example a trans man who chose to and already had his tubes tied could be argued to have no stake in the current reproductive rights either. Infertile cisgender women, or intersex women as well. As the cisgender white man is historically- and thus generally today as well- medical default this does ultimately leave blind spots in the lack of information of those outside that demographic- so vaginal health and wellness is understudied. That could affect a cisgender woman yes, but just as much if not more than a transgender woman who had a vaginoplasty and suffers from lack of diverse study of the vagina. If needed you can specify "oh those affected by cervical cancer" or "those with their reproductive rights at stake". Really when discussing an issue its best to specify what the issue is rather that who you first think is affected.

I hope this cleared somethings up for you, and that i managed to be as factual and unbiased as possible. As another long-time follower, I would hate to see you choose that path. This might sound sheltered but OTRAS was actually an eyeopener for me regarding the existence of the trans community, as theres a one-off line about Haku being DFAB and I wasn't familiar with the acronym. I think you're asking these questions in good faith but tagging "trans" "radfem" "terf" all together comes off as aggression on your part considering the vitriol trans people usually get from radfems and terfs, and radfems definitely want to flock to assure someone they think they can sway. Terms like "gender critical" "sex-based oppression" sound like neat and tidy clinical terms but they are ultimately considered transphobic dogwhistles, as they were created specifically to the exclusion of genderqueer perspectives.

It does clear some of the thing up for sure. And I appreciate you taking the time to talk about these things.

I can also see that trans issues and trans people aren't addressed outside of medical transition. But, and by God I do not mean this in offense even though I realize it might be improper to say, I see a lot of GNC activities shuffled into trans issues when it's like. Just a nontraditional activity or role.

I do see these opinions on transgender men in radfem posts, which seems somewhat infatilizing, but moreso? I... don't see transmen addressed in media and most all the posts. A lot of what I have seen is focused on transwomen? Like I just don't see many transmen in media at all. Which, when I looked into the assault numbers, it seemed like transmen were the majority in cases. And maybe that's because I don't have a huge window or wide enough lense or else it is literally observer effect. I very well could be wrong. (I also feel weird about self reporting in studies but I honestly see that that is a separate issue and am admittedly understudied in that area.)

As for the medical field, yes. I thing reproductive and sex specific issues are understudied in a specific sex. And so are symptoms as they pertain to that sex. And I see how that could pertain to people with vaginoplasty and effect them, but I am unsure if moreso. And then on that side, the failure to recognize that there are inherent (imo base) secondary sex characteristics that occur and give advantageous aspects in many areas is just. Like. Consistently unacknowledged or outright rejected, then laid at the feet of a certain group as not trying hard enough.

I also can see the need for more specific language in places but I also think that at times, instead of adding to the conversation, it detracts from it? Like, people with uteruses, yes, which are widely recognized as a certain word, but even those who identify as male and have a uterus should also check for or be aware of x, like . Almost creates a divide that is unessiscary in the contexts. Like I believe there is uniquely sex based oppression that has to be acknowledged and addressed, and those people empowered to be able to escape it, but it isn't because they are gnc and it would not be applicable to q trans in the same situation?

Like. Let say the church as an example (because I live life in areas where Baptist and evangelical churches reign). Now the church isn't jiving with almost all queers. But even if you were a transgirl growing up with church parents it would be a different discrimination than a girl growing up under heavily religious parents? Like, as a uterus owner a lot of the values and traits that made women less were sex linked. Not gender based.

And I had no idea the tags would be taken that way. I was trying to include tags that would be blocked so those that would be adversely affected by the issues of GC and terf stuff wouldn't have to see it. Is there a tag that I could add in there that would be better suited?

[loominggaia]

Anonymous asked:

How prevalent is the Nice guy mentality in Gaia? Dumbass loser believing basic curtesy and borderline stalking entitles them to sex, and throwing tantrums when their creepy, unwanted advances are rejected? And what about Incel culture, how prevalent are these bitter, lonely basement dwellers? And where would you find the most incels in Gaia, raging on about how women won’t fuck them while having the personality of a garbage fire?

Also how prominent is neckbeard culture as well? Where would one find the highest density of these smelly/ fedora wearing/ body pillow humping/ mi’lady stalking/ gentle sirs? Do these Nice Guy/ Incel/ And Neckbeard stereotypes have the same prominence across gaia that they do irl?

I think these types of guys exist everywhere on Gaia, in almost every culture, but some cultures foster them more than others. I can see them being a real problem in Zareen Empire just because of the toxic media bombardment citizens suffer there.

In this culture, men sit on their asses too much, watching too many films about unrealistic situations, spend too much time indoors not socializing with others, and I think that takes a toll on their mental health just like in the real world. They become poorly-socialized and entitled, despite having no real skills to take pride in, because the media they gorge themselves on tells them they’re special bois and they deserve the world.

This isn’t unique to Zareen Empire though. I could also see this mindset being prominent in places like Evangeline Kingdom, where misogyny is deeply rooted into the culture. Men here really do believe they’re entitled to female attention just by right of being men. Their religious texts tell them that they are superior to women in every way, and that women are little more than property of their fathers and husbands. It’s really nasty, and unlike in Zareen Empire, these guys aren’t even considered “neckbeards” in this culture. They’re just normal everyday Joes.

At least in Zareen Empire, women have basic rights. If a man makes unwanted advances, she’s allowed to defend herself and society will generally back her up. In Evangeline Kingdom, women are vulnerable to these incel types because if they get harassed, Evangelite society will perform mental gymnastics to explain why it’s the woman’s fault.

Evangelite culture only cares about women in the context of being a man’s property. Evangelites don’t get mad because some loser is making a woman feel unsafe, they get mad because some loser is disrespecting another man’s daughter, wife, etc.

Then again, these types of guys are also doughy and lazy, and that won’t fly in Evangeline Kingdom. Evangelites really value hard work and self-sufficiency. So if one of these neckbeard types thinks he’s going to move to this kingdom and have an easy time, he’s very mistaken unless he happens to have fat pockets.

I don’t think there are any cultures that respect these guys. Some do give offerings to the King of Incels, the divine Erasmos...I think it’s more out of pity than respect though.

*

Questions/Comments?

Lore Masterpost

[incorrectzutaraquotes]

let’s talk racial micro aggressions, because i’ve been seeing a lot of them being used online toward people speaking out about racism and even in fandoms unfortunately, so i think it’s time we have a talk. this is gonna be a semi long one, so buckle up.

just for reference, im asian american. because of that i’ve gone my entire life experiencing racism and discrimination simple because im not white. of course, i have definitely had it better than a lot of people, but that doesn’t take away from my experiences at all. i grew up hating the way i looked, trying to fix myself because i genuinely thought something was wrong with me. this led to years and years of insecurity and self hatred. something i had to go through alone, because my family was white and i was too afraid to tell them how i felt. i was afraid they wouldn’t understand. it’s still something i struggle with, though it’s gotten better.

growing up, as stated before, i was around white people. growing up in a very white town, i unfortunately wasn’t formally educated on racism or what micro aggressions were, i just knew that certain comments made me uneasy and uncomfortable, and hurt my feelings. it wasn’t until i was older, when i started using social media that i really came to understand what all of this was. 

a lot of you who have white privilege are using it to uplift bipoc voices, and i think that’s great. however it’s also important to acknowledge that many people who are actively anti racist still have implicit biases, which can lead to microaggressions.

first of all, what are microaggressions? you may or may not be familiar with the term. if you’re not, that’s okay! you can use this post to educate yourself and make sure you don’t make these mistakes in the future. microaggressions are defined as brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, particularly culturally marginalized groups.

basically, intentional or unintentional derogatory and prejudice behaviors directed towards marginalized groups.

these are very harmful to marginalized groups, mostly because they’re not as blatant as outright racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. this makes it often hard to detect, and you may have found yourself using micro aggressions at some point in your life. that’s not important though, what’s important is that, if you have used them in the past, you understand what you said or did was wrong, and that you learn from it.

now, what are specific racial micro aggressions? i’ve compiled a list of them under the cut, and explained why these are insulting and harmful to poc.

“where are you really from” – this insinuates that we will always be seen as foreigners, and not citizens to our own country. it brings on a feeling of not being good enough and that we will not be accepted. 

“not everything’s about race” – if you’re white stop telling bipoc how to feel about race. we are tired of it. please don’t speak over us when we are expressing our discomfort. if poc people are telling you something is racist, it’s racist. stop trying to argue with us, as you are not the ones being affected by it. 

“your food is so weird” – it’s only weird to you because it hasn’t been westernized or americanized. insisting that foreign foods are weird or gross because you aren’t used to it, is hurtful. it’s insulting. 

“all asians look the same” – by saying this, you’re taking away our individuality. asia is a huge continent, not all of us follow the same traditions and not all of us look the same. it’s not a funny joke, and it never has been. 

“you’re pretty for a *insert any race here*” – this is just such a backhanded compliment. it implies that we are not typically or conventionally pretty. it has the same negative connotations as saying “you’re really good...for a girl”. that’s misogynistic for the same reasons saying this is racist. 

“i don’t see color” – again, you’re basically erasing our individuality and culture and telling us we shouldn’t embrace it. many pocs even completely distance themselves from their cultures to seek white validation, which is in every sense of the word, upsetting. people want to fit in so bad that they’re willing to leave behind their entire culture. something that sucks about being adopted at such a young age from a white family, is that i have never had a connection with my culture. i know nothing about it, and that hurts. i rationalized in my head that the reason i didn’t learn about it sooner was because i was happy, but that was a lie i told myself for years. the sad thing is, is that because i wasn’t connected to my culture at all, i fit in better and had an easier time making friends then other pocs in my school. 

assuming all asian people are smart or good at math – stop. it’s not funny. never has been. the stereotype that all asians are smart is not a compliment, and puts a lot of pressure on us as individuals. it objectifies us, assuming we are more like machines and not actual people. long story short, it’s dehumanizing. 

“im not/cant be racist i have black friends” – contrary to popular belief, yes you can be. you can still have a racial bias while being friends with bipoc people. being associated with poc people doesn’t suddenly mean you’re not racist. you may even make racist jokes and think it’s okay because they don’t tell you to stop. just because they are seemingly unbothered does not mean it’s not still racist. a lot of times we are uncomfortable in situations like that, but are too afraid to speak up in fear of our feelings being invalidated or being told to lighten up because it’s just a joke. saying we’re too sensitive when it comes to making mockeries of our races and cultures, is also a micro aggression. 

saying “you people” or “y’all” when talking, usually negatively, about a person of a specific race – you’re generalizing an entire group because of one bad experience which is just contributing to the stereotypes and racism we face daily. one or a few bad interactions with a person of a different race does not speak for an entire population.

clutching your bag tight when a poc person, usually black or latinx, stands next to you or following them in the store – the way i still have to explain this one in 2020. they are not criminals, but by doing this, you’re contributing to the stereotype that they are all criminals and thugs, which simply isn’t true. this stereotype is very damaging and harmful, as it also contributes to the systematic oppression of those people. 

assuming someone only got a certain job or position because they’re bipoc – this insinuates that we did not work hard to get where we are, and that we did not deserve what we got. we simply got it because we aren’t white. affirmative action comes up a lot in this conversation. all affirmative action does is help decide between equally qualified people by favoring the ones who suffer from discrimination in society, but it does not reserve spots for them.

assuming someone knows how to speak mandarin because they’re asian – asia is a large continent with A LOT of languages and cultures. not everyone is chinese. not everyone speaks the same language. it’s insulting and adds to the already hurtful stereotype that all asians look the same.

“you speak english really well” or “how did you learn to speak english so well” – it’s called practicing because people have been making fun of those with accents for years, simply because they are not used to it. being surprised when a poc speaks english well implies that you may think because they’re not white, they are less educated. we’ve simply assimilated because our cultures are constantly rejected and mocked by white people and even other pocs. this also contributes to the notion that westerners are more “civilized” or that they are better, because they(generally speaking this obviously doesn’t apply to everyone)make no effort to learn our cultures, but we have to learn theirs in order to be seen as “acceptable”.

“but *insert race* are racist too” or pointing out immoral things other countries do when people of that race speak up about racism - you’re redirecting the conversation to avoid responsibility. you don’t actually care about those issues, you just want to invalidate our struggles by pointing out that a place many of us have not been to in a long time, or ever, is very flawed. we have no say in what that government chooses to do. not all places are a democracy, and many democracies around the world are flawed.

something important to remember is that anyone can be guilty of implicit bias and micro aggressions. this is not selective to one race. 

if you have anymore of these, please feel free to add on. also, if you’re a poc and something i wrote made you uncomfortable, please tell me. i want to make sure im being truthful with what i said. i did do research for some of these, and some were based on personal experiences, but if you want to add to something or you want me to change or delete something do not hesitate to call me out. 

unfortunately they and other racial stereotypes are very prevalent in american media, which has normalized it in our society. this post is solely meant to educate if you weren’t previously aware of the dangers micro aggressions have on minorities. i started the list because i was tired of seeing so much normalized racism online, but i hope you learned something useful with this. if you stuck around this long, thank you for listening. i appreciate it a lot. 

as for my zutara fans, i apologize for making so many rant posts rather than posting incorrect quotes. i just feel like im able to reach a larger audience with the platform i have on this account than any other one. 

anyway, that’s all. thank you again for listening :) 

[attilarrific]

Okay, I want to discuss a Thing, because I feel like I see it get misinterpreted a lot (for completely valid reasons). Cool? Great, we’re discussing a Thing.

Tropes are value neutral.

A trope is a term for a repeated trend in media, any event or tool or dynamic that comes up in a lot of disparate narratives. That’s not positive or negative. For instance, the thing where a character goes “We’re absolutely not doing that!” and then it hard cuts to them doing it? Trope. You could overuse that, sure, making it boring and tiresome, or you could use it to great effect and get a good laugh and manage to skip the whole “the team convinces them” scene while still maintaining the characterization that this person isn’t someone who likes this plan. It’s not good, it’s not bad, it’s how you use it.

To be fair, this isn’t what I usually see people misinterpreting---the take I’ve just laid out is something I see plenty, I just wanted to explain it in case anyone needed the primer. What I do see people get wrong is when they fail to apply that (tropes are value neutral) to all tropes. And when I say all tropes, I mean stuff like Fridging and Bury Your Gays, because those are still value neutral.

And before you all immediately cancel me, hear me out!

Let’s define our terms. “Fridging” depicts a trope in which a female character is killed in order to fuel and progress a male narrative, where the death of the female character is, in fact, about a man in her life rather than the woman herself. (The name of the trope, as far as I’m aware, comes from a comic book superhero coming home to find his girlfriend dead in the fridge.) “Bury Your Gays,” similarly but somewhat more broadly, is simply the death of gay characters in media. Both of these occur so frequently that they’re tropes, and I’m sure you can come up with examples of both. Fun! We live in a society---a society that privileges male stories over female ones, that puts queer characters in positions to be expendable and has a legacy of requiring narrative punishments for their “deviance.” Hence the prevalence of the trope.

But both tropes remain value neutral, and that’s what I want to talk about. What we’re criticizing when we criticize the use of those tropes in particular is a) the society that produced them, b) the creator’s unwillingness to accept that their work doesn’t exist separately from a society that has used those tropes for erasure and harm, and/or c) literally just intentional misogyny or homophobia---which can, I’ll admit, be difficult to conclusively identify.

And there’s a lot of baggage that goes along with this! For instance, if you, say, wrote a scene where your character goes to super mega turbo hell as a direct and actual consequence of confessing his secret gay feelings for the first time, that’s what we would call a reiteration of that “punishing for deviance” thing, which is a much worse look than if that character had been visibly gay for several seasons of a television show and then died for unrelated reasons. Not that anyone would ever write that. Ever. Definitely not.

But I don’t want to get into the various pieces of baggage that go with those tropes. What I do want to push back against is the idea that if a piece of media kills a gay character or kills a female character in a way that centers the experience of a male character but you like that choice, it’s then not an example of the trope. Not just because you like the story (with full knowledge that you’re allowed to like things that make bad choices), but because this particular death was good. It wasn’t bad, it wasn’t offensive, it was completely necessary and narratively appropriate, and thus that character wasn’t fridged, those gays weren’t buried. I’ve seen this argument several times, and it’s...well, wrong. If that queer character died, a gay has been buried. If that female character died for a man’s arc, she has been fridged. It does not, however, follow that it’s always wrong to kill a gay or female character.

Machineries of the Empire is a science fiction trilogy by Yoon Ha Lee. It is, for the record, really fucking good, and I highly recommend it to anyone who doesn’t mind not understanding what the hell is going on most of the time. It is, however, a fairly violent trilogy. Many space fights! A lot of characters die. A lot of queer characters die, because most of the characters in the trilogy are queer, so it’s probably literally impossible to have it any other way. Should a reader who’s intensely (and reasonably) bothered by having queer narratives cut short read these books? Probably not. There are queer characters who make it to the end, but plenty of them don’t. Gays have been buried. However, do I view any of those deaths as a mistake? Also no! Both of these things can be true.

In MDZS/The Untamed (which, if you’ve been on this blog at all, hey, you’ve probably absorbed some knowledge about), we also have a lot of characters die, and I’ve seen people arguing about whether Jiang Yanli’s death is or isn’t fridging. Which---yeah, it’s fridging. It is. She died; her death was for the narrative impact on a male character (Wei Wuxian). However! Almost every single death (many of which are deaths of male characters) in that story is for the narrative impact on Wei Wuxian, with the dubious exception of...hmm. Extras? Jin Guangshan and Qin Su, who are dying for the villain instead? But this is because Wei Wuxian is the point of the entire story! It’s all for him! And, given that, Jiang Yanli has the most important and necessary death in the entire thing. She has to die, like the wise mentor figure has to die in an epic fantasy. It can’t go any other way. It’s still fridging, but it doesn’t have to not be fridging to be good storytelling.* (Though, again, someone who absolutely doesn’t want to interact with the death of female characters shouldn’t consume this media---and that’s perfectly valid choice.)

That’s my whole point, really. The idea that in order for us to be Morally Okay with the death of a character we then have to prove that it doesn’t fall into one of these tropes---or the idea that falling into one of these tropes is what creates the problem---really feels wrong to me. The trope isn’t the problem. The problem is that we don’t have any other stories; the problem is that these are the characters creators view as expendable; the problem is the baggage that comes along with. When we criticize writers for fridging women or for burying their queer characters, it’s not about a single story---it’s a problem with how that story and its creators interact with the history of oppression and storytelling. We do not create art in a vacuum.

(And sometimes it’s about a single story. Looking at you, Supernatural.)

*Quick side note that I’m not absolving MDZS of Problems With Women. The low number of female characters period and minuscule number of female characters who survive are...hmm. Could be better. But Jiang Yanli’s death in particular, I would say, is literally required by the narrative.

[inadequate-nefelibata]

Okay, so I like queer!Johnny and l@wrusso just as much as anyone, but lately I’ve been having some thoughts about the way media and fandom frames violence in men as an indicator of potential queerness. Particulary on the way this can sometimes change how people interpret classic macho behavior, such as misogyny or agressiveness.

Despite the stereotypes that exist about gay men being more feminine, there’s also this narrative in our culture that men who are aggressively masculine, especially if is in a way that’s harmful to others or themselves, are probably acting out because of repressed homosexuality or queerness. This is easy to observe in media: there’s the trope “Armoured closet man”, and Rantasmo mentions some examples in his video “The homophobic hypocrite”. And like he explains, this is  something people sometimes apply to real life situations. For example, I have a friend who is usually pretty chill about engaging in gay behavior with other dudes for the laughs, and one day he was discussing it with a friend and they were like “Yeah, we don’t care. Some people care too much about appearing gay and we know why”. This idea it’s not limited to men: you can also find it in Lily Singh’s video “A Therapy Session For Homophobic People” where the homophobic lady ends up asking her out. Those are the first example’s I could remember, but there are more.

I’m not saying it’s not something that happens. Obviously, being homophobic or being conservative about gender roles does not guarantee that someone’s straight or cis. We were all raised in a homophobic, heteronormative society, after all. I was, at some point, scared of being gay. And I understand where the specific connection comes from: sometimes when you’re guilty or ashamed of something, you lash out more easily. That’s why there’s such a complex relationship between repression in queer men and violence: if you can’t express your desires in a healthy way, that can lead to channeling those feelings into aggression, which is more “socially acceptable”.

So it’s not automatically wrong to make the connection. What’s been bothering me lately is how interpreting homophobic, misogynistic, or just generally violent behaviors as secondary effects of repressed queer desire sometimes suggest that homophobia or misogyny are not enough on their own. Just like my friends said that one time: if you’re a man and you’re homophobic, it has to be for a reason. And that reason is not that you live in an homophobic, misogynistic society that makes you hate queer or feminine people, it has to be something particular about you that makes you more susceptible to those ideas.

The thing is that this is pretty convenient for cishet, conventionally masculine, men. It ends up suggesting is that homophobia, misogyny, aggression or other harmful attitudes have actually nothing to do with hegemonic masculinity. It’s only when men don’t fit into this ideal that these toxic behaviors start leaking out. And it’s not just convenient for them as individiduals, it also absolves our culture; if it’s the result of a particular experience, we don’t need to start thinking too hard about how our gender roles affects us in general.

Which reminds me of a video I saw recently, by Lindsay Ellis. She’s discussing transphobia in film, but there’s this moment when she’s talking about the movie Psycho, and she mentions Ed Gein, the real life version of Norman Bates. Apparently, he was originally presented in the media as a man who had unresolved queer tendencies, which served as an inspiration for the character in the film. But. That was a lie. There was no evidence that this was actually true for Ed Gein. As far as everyone knows, he was a straight cisgender man who killed women. And she brings up this quote, from Richard Titthecott, “Of men and monsters”:

So, the video is specifically about the perceived relationship between serial killers, trans women, and how this relates to transphobia. And I was talkig about seeing agressively masculine men, so I know it’s not exactly the same thing. But I keep thinking about that and about what Rantasmo said on his video. He goes from talking about canonical homophobic queer characters to talking about real life situations. And he mentions how sometimes when a homophobic hate crime takes place, people start speculating about whether or not the killer in question is queer himself, often implying that maybe it wasn’t really an explression of homophobia, but an example of the self-destructive tendencies of gay people. What he concludes is that this idea of the “homophobic hypocrite” is often used to “push the responsibility of homophobia and hate crimes off of heterosexuals and on to the victims”. 

While these examples have to do with particularly strong forms of misogyny and homophobia, it’s not out of the question to consider how this relates minor forms of violence. 

All of this is just about Thoughts. I’m not going to reach any conclusion here, because it’s impossible. Especially when it comes to what is and isn’t a Good or a Bad headcanon or ship. Like I said at the beginning, those ships can be fun and can be interesting for many reasons.  I just want to think about the things that may be influencing my interpretations of a story without my knowledge. If we start to believe that just living in a world where you know that being a straight man gives you certain privileges over women and queer ppl is not enough to be hateful towards them, it becomes harder to hold privileged people accountable. Or to explore how those privileges work and why they are put in place. Obviously, there are many ways to talk about this topic, and people can be more than one thing. A man can be queer and misogynistic for example, both privileged and opressed. I don’t know.

Basically, I’m just going to end this post by saying that the idea that “queer interpretations of mainstream media are a way to expand the narrative and include ourselves in the stories we love, and these interpretations are often mocked or rejected by mainstream writers and audiences that think that labelling something as gay is insulting, so they often go against the current” can coexist with the idea that “interpreting homophobia, misogyny, aggression or other harmful attitudes as indicators of potential queerness can be pretty convenient for straight cis conventionally masculine men, and also the association between queer men and violence and self-destructive tendencies is really prevalent in mainstream media and in our homophobic culture”. ???

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[rantingcrocodile]

so I have no idea if this would be relevant to your blog, but I’d like to share something. I’ve been going to counseling sessions for a few months now, part of this is due to the fact that I’m constantly freaking out over that state of women, my counselor is also a gender therapist. I have seen her other clients (all female). They all look like me (comfortable, not hyperfeminine clothing, and short hair). She has informed me that the majority of them are bisexual- all of them seem to be some sort of trans-identified. We have had MANY in depth conversations about misogyny and gender; from the beginning she had to check if I was trans because I go by my initials LOL. She has made the connection many times herself “you know, a lot of your problems are problems my other clients have…” to which I responded with “isn’t that interesting because I have never experienced gender dysphoria once in my life, it’s almost like this is a symptom of being female in our society” and she was all “that IS interesting.” And ladies, I have successfully terfed this woman out LMAO (exposed her to the bs jk is dealing with and the crazy harassment on social media of women and gay men/lesbians in general) she has told me point blank that our conversations have caused her to have a moral crisis because she realizes that I have a very good point… let me be clear, she is a good person, she thinks she is doing the right thing by giving the recommendations she does to these young women, but she had never once heard an opinion like mine (which makes sense given her background to be honest). I don’t really know what this contributes but I strongly feel like it is important to share- there’s just so much.

It's definitely relevant to my blog! Really, if you have something to share and you trust me enough to want to vent to me about pretty much anything as long as you're not going out of your way to deliberately cause harm, you should always say what you want to say!

That's a great positive, too! Although it's terrifying that your therapist compares your issues with trans issues. That kind of overlap and then thinking about what those women end up putting themselves through is devastating.

It's also one of the big problems when it comes to the main TRA voices: they genuinely believe that they're doing the right thing by being kind and validating, egged on by predatory men who are supported by naive women and gay men (also, most likely to a lesser extent bisexual men) that have been pushed towards a TRA understanding of themselves.

As evil as the TRA movement in general is, I don't believe that the majority of "allies" on social media are bad people. There are definitely overt misogynists and homophobes in there, but it's not as clear-cut as we'd like to think. That's why it's as prevalent as it is, because most ordinary people do want to do good, and often end up being misguided and end up supporting evil instead.

I hope that she has a full moment of reckoning and is able to better help the other women that go to see her. Good on you for having the courage to broach that conversation with her to start with!

[cardentist]

this isn’t a proper discourse post, I Agree with a lot of what the op said but there’s specific things about it that get under my skin in a way that makes me want to talk about it, but I don’t want to engage with that post both because I don’t want to speak over the point that’s being made and frankly because I don’t want to be misinterpreted because of the point that’s being made in it.

so for context, I’ll just say that it was a long post about how a lack of engagement with women characters in fandom spaces is tied to misogyny. just be aware that I’m responding to something specific and not criticisms of this in general. (feel free to dm me if you want to see the post for yourself)

the rest of this is going to be rambly and a bit unfocused, so I want to get this out the door right at the top: it is not actually someone’s moral obligation to engage with or create fan content. all other points aside, what this amounts to is labeling people as bigoted for either not creating or engaging with content that you want to see, and while the individual may or may not be a bigot it’s not actually anyone’s job to tailor their fandom experience to cater to you. 

fandom is not activism. it’s not Wrong to point out that a lack of content about women in fandom is likely indicative of the influence of our misogynistic society. and suggesting that people examine their internalized biases isn’t just fine, it’s something that everyone should be doing all the time. but saying that it is literally someone’s “responsibility” to “make an effort” by consuming content about women or they’re bigoted is presenting the consumption of fan content as a moral litmus test that you pass and fail not by how you engage with content but by not engaging with all of the Correct content. 

judging people’s morality based on what characters they read meta for or look at fanart for is, a mistake. it Can Be Indicative of internalized biases but it is not, in and of itself, a moral failing that has to be corrected.

if you want more content to be created about women in fandom then you do it by spreading content about women in fandom, not by guilting people into engaging with it by saying that they’re bigots if they don’t. you encourage creation Through creation.

okay, now to address what Mainly set me off to inspire this post.

this post specifically went out of it’s way to present misogyny as the only answer for why this problem exists in fandom spaces. and while I absolutely agree that it’s a Factor, they left absolutely no room for nuance which included debunking “common excuses.” which, as you can probably guess, contained the things that ticked me off.

first off, you can’t judge that someone is disconnected from women in general based on their fandom consumption because the sum total of their being is not available on tumblr. 

people don’t always bear their souls in fandom spaces. just because they don’t actively post about a character or Characters doesn’t mean that they see them as lesser or that they don’t think about them. the idea that you can tell what a person’s moral beliefs are not based on what they’ve said or done but based on whether they engage with specific characters in a specific way in a specific space can Only work on the assumption that they engage with that space in a way that expresses the entirety of who they are or even their engagement with that specific media.

what I engage with on ao3 is different from what I engage with on tumblr, youtube, twitter, my friend’s dms, and my own head. people are going to engage with social media and fandom spaces specifically differently for different reasons. you can’t assume what the other parts of their lives look like based on this alone. 

second off, there can be other factors at play that influence people’s specific engagement with a fandom.

they specifically brought up the magnus archives as an example of a show with well written women. which while absolutely true, does Not mean that misogyny is the only option for why people wouldn’t engage with content about them as often. for me personally? a lot of fan content is soured because of how it presents jon. I relate to him very heavily as a neurodivergent and traumatized person, and he faces a Lot of victim blaming and dehumanization in the writing. sasha and martin are more or less the only main characters that Aren’t guilty of this, and sasha was out of the picture after season 1.

while this affects my enjoyment of fan content for these characters To Some Extent on it’s own (I love georgie, I love her a lot, but I can’t forget that she looked at someone and told them that they were better off dead because they couldn’t “choose” to not be abused), the bigger issue is fan content that Specifically doesn’t address the victim blaming and ableism as what it is, even presenting it as just Correct. 

this isn’t exclusive to the women in the show by any means, this is exactly why I avoid a lot of content about tim, but it affects a lot of the women who are main characters. that isn’t the Only reason, there’s more casual ableism and things that tear him down for other reasons (the prevalent theory that elias passed up on sasha because he’s afraid of how she’s More Competent In Jon In Every Single way. which comes with the unfortunate implications of jon being responsible for his own trauma because he just wasn’t competent enough to avoid it) but that’s the main one that squicks me out.

of course not all fan content does this, and I Do engage with content about these characters, but sometimes it’s easier to just stick with content that centers on my comfort character because it’s more likely to look at his character with the nuance required to see that it is victim blaming and ableism. 

it’s not enough to say that the characters are well rounded or well written and conclude that if someone isn’t consuming or creating content about them then it has to be due to misogyny and nothing else.

there’s also just like, the Obvious answer. two most prominent characters are two men that are in a canonical gay relationship, which draws in queer men/masc people on it’s own but the centering of their othering and trauma Particularly draws in traumatized queer people that are starved for content. georgie and melanie are both fleshed out characters in and of themselves, but their relationship with each other doesn’t have nearly as much direct screen time. and daisy and basira have a lot more screen time together and about each other, but their relationship is very intentionally non-canon because of its role as a commentary on cop pack mentality.

people are More Likely to create content for the more prominent relationship in the show and be drawn into the fandom through that relationship in the first place. I have no doubt that there Are misogynistic fans of the show, but focusing on the relationship and the characters that make you happy isn’t and indication that you’re one of them.

which brings us to the big one, the one that sparked me into writing this in the first place (and the last that I have time for if I’m being honest). the “common excuses” section in general is, extremely dismissive obviously but there’s only one section that genuinely upsets me. 

without copying and pasting what they said directly, it essentially boils down to this: while they recognize that gay and trans men are “allowed” to relate to men, they’re still Men which makes them misogynistic. Rather than acknowledge Why gay and trans men would engage with fan-content specifically that caters to them they present it as a given that it’s 100% due to misogyny anyways. they present queer men engaging with content about themselves as them treating women like they’re “unworthy of attention,” calling it a “patriarchal tendency” that they have to unlearn.

being gay and trans does not mean that you’re immune to misogyny, being a woman doesn’t even mean that you’re immune to misogyny, but that’s engaging in bad faith in a way that really puts a bad taste in my mouth. 

queer men aren’t just like, Special Men that have Extra Bonus Reasons to be relate to boys, they’re people who are more likely to Need fandom spaces to explore facets of themselves. and while you can Relate to any character, it feels good to be able to explore those aspect with characters that resemble you or how you see yourself.

when I first started actively seeking out fandom spaces in middle school I engaged with content about queer men more or less exclusively. at this point I had no concept of what trans people were, and wouldn’t begin openly considering that I might be a trans person until high school. I knew that I’d be happier as a gay man before I knew I could be a gay man, and that’s affected my relationship with fandom forever. 

I engage with most things pretty casually, reblogging meta and joke posts when I see them, but what I go out of my way to engage with is largely an expression of my gender identity and sexuality. I project myself onto a comfort character and then I Consume content for them because that was how I was able to express myself before I knew that I needed to. it’s not that girl characters aren’t “worthy” of me relating to them, it’s that I specifically go to certain fandom spaces to express and work through my gender and sexuality. that’s what I use those fandom spaces For.

I imagine that I’ll need this crutch less when I’m allowed to transition and if I ever find a relationship situation that works out for me. but also like, why should I? it’s not actually hurting anyone for me to explore my gender and sexuality through fanfic until the end of time. nor does it hurt anyone for me to focus on my comfort characters. 

fandom is personal comfort and entertainment, not a moral obligation. people absolutely should engage with women in media and real life with more nuance and energy than they do, but fandom spaces are not the place to police or judge that. 

[miss-atomic-bitchh]

Another pet peeve I have about the 2000s nostalgia crowd is their tendency to sometimes glorify really .................. dark aspects of that time period. it’s kinda disturbing whenever people say things like “omg I like SOOO totally wish it was 2006 again🤪wow I miss when britney lindsay and paris partied all the time and did crazy things in front of hoards of paparazzi” 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️ biggest facepalm ever. prime example of childhood nostalgia gone too far!!!!!!

Look I love me some 2000s pop culture too and I acknowledge the beauty behind the madness. I understand that people are drawn to the rebellion behind it all. That ability to say “fck you” to the press. I get it. But what’s NOT okay is to actually wish to bring those days back. I'd hate to go back to a time period when pop stars are treated as subhuman and their personal space is hoarded by disgusting paparazzi. I'd hate to go back to a time period when female celebrities' mental health was considered laughing stock and misogyny was still seen as normal. I'd hate to go back to a time period where my fav celebs' future is uncertain because of their mental distress. Be nostalgic and sentimental all you want, but have some boundaries and learn how to move on from certain things.

As iconic as those images and videos are, it’s not an era I'd wish to revive. I’m glad that paris and Lindsay are in a much better place today and that they've healed after those tumultuous years. And I’m also glad that the general public is becoming more aware of how society has wronged britney spears. I’m glad that we're spreading awareness towards her situation and working hard to free her from her suffering.

Even though celebrity gossip/paparazzi culture is still prevalent, I’m glad it isn’t as awful or extreme as it was back then. I’m glad that we've made a shift towards a more digital environment for such things rather than the constant physical invasions. And with COVID social distancing, even better!!! And I'm so glad that most people are finally realizing that invasion of celebrities' privacy is becoming shunned. Back then, people found it masturbatory to see celebrities as trainwrecks or to simply see their peace getting disturbed. The newer mediums that’ve risen since then have called for conversations about mental health. Especially in conjunction with sexism, racism, and much more. For example, I think about how meghan markle is constantly bombarded by tabloids but now the general public is more socially aware of how racist and sexist the media is to her and spreading awareness about it.

Exactly! I’m pretty sure that Britney’s mental breakdown was a still a meme and shaving her head had been deemed ‘iconic’ until recently when that documentary about her came out. And girls were still acting all crazy with the baby voice and shit like Paris Hilton until she revealed in her documentary that it was all fake lol 😂 I agree about the increasing mental health awareness but trolls on the internet seem to be getting worse and journalists like Piers Morgan will always exist, along with stans who still believe that celebrities don’t deserve privacy. I don’t really care too much about celebrities but I agree that the Noughties were toxic.

[darlingxdarkling]

I can’t believe my first Medium article is a pop culture piece criticizing Sindel’s depiction in MK11 Aftermath, but you know what? It’s totally worth it.

Full text under the cut in case the article is inaccessible because of Medium’s paywall. I want my pieces to be as accessible to the public as possible.

Warning: Heavy spoilers for Mortal Kombat 11 and its expansion, Aftermath.

Ever since its first release in 1992, the Mortal Kombat franchise is known for its extreme, action-packed violence and gore that led to the creation of the ESRB. It’s also know for its controversial depictions of scantily-clad women; however, did this not deter female gamers from becoming fans of the franchise, myself included. Admittedly I am one of the fans of Mortal Kombat who was late to the party, partly due to my age and inaccessibility of gaming platforms, only discovering Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 in 2010 while playing with my older cousins, who were mostly boys.

Eyes fixated on the pixelated, motion-captured sprites on the screen in wonder, I remember being a fan of characters such as Raiden, Nightwolf, and Sindel. Especially Sindel, whom I grew to adore because of her regal, gothic appearance. Due to the stereotype that gaming is a masculine interest prevalent during those times, I felt alienated at times, having no other female playmate aside from my younger sister. However, seeing female characters such as Sindel gave me characters to identify with in my formative years.

A decade later, I still am a fan of the franchise, and of those characters. With the years that passed, there had been significant changes in the video game industry, and the clamor for better depictions of women, people of color, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and other minorities. Mortal Kombat is one of the franchises that changed with the times, even introducing their first confirmed gay character Kung Jin in Mortal Kombat X, and depicting classic character Mileena and 3D era character Tanya as lovers in the same game, confirming that Mileena is indeed canonically bisexual.

Mortal Kombat X’s female character designs were diverse and realistic too; there were some female characters whose designs didn’t show too much skin, like Sonya Blade’s main costume, befitting her role and demeanor as a tough-as-nails general, and there were female characters like Mileena who had more skin in her costumes, justified by her character’s desire to compensate for her monstrous Tarkatan genes. It’s not perfect, but overall, Mortal Kombat X is a breath of fresh air to the franchise. As a bisexual, an Asian, and a woman, I felt seen. I felt good, because minorities like me are respectfully represented.

As for its sequel, Mortal Kombat 11, there are some noteworthy depictions of real-life social issues in the game, such as colonization, which is explored with Nightwolf’s revamped lore. In the rewrite, Nightwolf is depicted as someone who used to be angry that his people, a fictional Native American tribe called the Matoka, resigned themselves to colonizers in his youth, but was blessed by his tribe’s deity, the Great Spirit, with power to help his tribe move forward after he defended the Matoka’s honor against Kano. The subject of race is also explored with Jax’s ending, where he uses the power he obtains from the hourglass to create a world where Black people were never enslaved, which garnered manufactured outrage despite the lack of any real controversy. Another example is Fujin’s ending, where he uses his power to experience the lives of mortals of different races, realms, genders, and faiths, putting emphasis on the value of integrating with the masses in order to understand and serve them better.

However, there are some aspects of the game that left a bad taste in my mouth. No, that would be an understatement. It left me furiously disappointed.

John Vogel is the lead writer for the franchise since John Tobias’ departure, writing the bulk of the story until he left around after Mortal Kombat X. Dominic Cianciolo becomes co-writer, alongside Shawn Kittelsen. Cianciolo is credited as the Story Director for Mortal Kombat 11, and thus responsible for the bulk of the plot.

After being unplayable in MKX, Sindel returns to the MK11 roster in a Kombat Pack, expansions featuring characters who aren’t present in the main story or are guest fighters from another franchise, such as Nightwolf and the Joker from the DC Universe. At the announcement of their return, I was ecstatic. The way Nightwolf’s character is handled and the added lore left me positive and hopeful for Sindel’s return.

But then, the retcon happened.

Originally, Sindel is the deceased mother of Kitana whose husband was killed by Shao Kahn. She then sacrificed herself through a suicide pact in order to protect the realms, and was brought back to life as an evil queen by Shao Kahn milennia later, but then escapes his hold. Here, she is made to be evil all along, responsible for her husband’s death and willingly coming with Shao Kahn to rule alongside him. Sindel becomes a character from her society’s ruling class who is obsessed with preserving her privileged position. Some fans claim that this new depiction is “empowering”, but is it really progressive?

Today, the terms “empowerment” and “women’s empowerment” are becoming buzzwords used by advertisers and big industry writers in an attempt to sell their product to a growing number of women who takes part in geek culture or play video games, and a society with values that are getting more and more progressive. Some people call this phenomena “woke capitalism”, where a corporation adopts progressive political causes. The gaming industry is not exempt from that; people pay for games, downloadable content, and microtransactions after all.

More often than not, when male writers write “strong” female characters, they tend to focus solely on enhancing traditionally masculine values, such as fighting ability, ignoring what other values female characters have that make them strong, or they tend to be horribly, horribly tone-deaf, which I will explain in detail later. These representations of “women’s empowerment” should force us to reexamine the media we consume, and discern whether these are genuine depictions of social issues or woke capitalism disguised as such.

In the first place, why are so many writers obsessed with “empowering” female characters, instead of writing them as characters capable of fighting for their emancipation?

Empowerment is passive; it’s something granted by those who hold power, not earned nor fought for. In the rewritten Sindel’s case, she is empowered by Shao Kahn when he took her as his wife and gave her the privileges he enjoys. Sindel’s empowerment is selfish; her rise to power did not empower, emancipate, nor liberate her daughter Kitana, nor Jade, nor Mileena, nor the women of Outworld. On the contrary, it made life worse and oppressive for all of Outworld’s denizens, including its women, who now have to serve not one, but two privilege-drunk monarchs who rule with an iron fist. If that’s the values the writers want to impart on their audience, I have serious doubts on the sincerity of their “wokeness”.

The release of Aftermath takes things up to eleven, where Sindel betrays her own daughter to be with Shao Kahn, who, originally, enslaves her and forces her into marriage, which holds so much unfortunate implications for those in abusive relationships. It doesn’t help that Cianciolo liked a tweet from a fan that said the original Sindel, an abuse survivor, was never an empowered female character and a was bad mother for killing herself and leaving her child behind, bringing even more unfortunate implications not just for women in abusive relationships, but also for people who struggle with suicide. Somehow, Cianciolo and the fans that agree with him ignore these implications altogether and believes that the new haughty, tyrannical Sindel is an example of a strong female character. This isn’t the first time male writers tried their hand at feminist writing and ended up with tone-deaf plot decisions.

Cianciolo took a nuanced and well-written character and turned her into Shao Kahn 2.0. What happened is essentially the creative butchering of Sindel’s character; she went from being a survivor to an oppressor. Shao Kahn already fills the role of a cruel tyrant who refuses to relinquish his privilege for the good of the masses, and rewriting Sindel to become his distaff counterpart is not necessary at all. This treatment of her character isn’t feminist or progressive at all; it’s poorly-disguised misogyny. It’s implying that a woman can only be powerful if she submits to her husband so that he may grant her a taste of privilege reserved for powerful men, an antiquated sentiment best left to the feudal ages. Granted, the fictional realm of Outworld is ruled by a monarchy, but Sindel’s previous characterization is proof that writers can refuse or avoid using that trope.

Emancipation, on the other hand, is an active role; according to Ruane and Todd, it is “a process by which the participants in a system which determines, distorts and limits their potentialities come together actively to transform it, and in the process transform themselves.” This concept can be applied more appropriately to pre-retcon Sindel.

Going back to my days as a highly impressionable teenager, though I grew interested in her for her benevolent demeanor despite her intimidating appearance, Sindel’s roles as a survivor and a leader are what cemented my love for the character. Shao Kahn murdered her husband, usurped the throne, conquered her kingdom, and coerced her to be his wife. Later, she sacrificed herself for the greater good of a realm, and after being resurrected as an evil brainwashed puppet, she finally broke free from her abuser. With her newfound agency, she became a queen of Outworld who recognized her privilege and used it to stand with its masses against tyrants, and she also becomes a doting mother to Kitana, demonstrating great love for her family. When finally removed from her abuser’s influence, Sindel chose to be free, she chose to lead her people benevolently, and she chose to be with her true family. This Sindel broke free from the traditional Outworld power structure that Shao Kahn perpetrated for thousands of years, no longer a bride to be forcefully taken, nor a pawn to be manipulated by its emperor.

If you can look past the scanty costume design standard for video games of that era, the original Sindel could be a female character ahead of her time. Original Sindel not only can kick ass, she also has agency, willpower, and a heart; a strong female character with good writing. For those reasons, Cianciolo’s Sindel is #NotMySindel.

[hitchfender]

you know, I think a lot of this stuff comes down to how much women are capable of perpetuating misogyny in these types of fandoms. a lot of people should just... reevaluate where their responses come from and why they think the way they do. women are definitely not immune to the misogyny that's so prevalent in all areas of our society and we definitely internalise a lot of it.

i think taking time to consider our instinctual reactions will go a long way towards negating that sort of internalised misogyny, and i absolutely agree that it’s real. while i’m on jstor, here’s a really interesting piece on womanhood and feminist misogyny (be forewarned: it’s from 1994 and some of the language early in the article could be construed as biological essentialism. i direct you in particular to pp 456-8).

especially now, at the height of the social media era, this is a murky and disconcerting topic. i wish i had any worthwhile words of wisdom, but as you said, it’s always best to just carefully evaluate what we say on the internet. thank you for sending this thoughtful message. <3

[singwhenyoucantspeak]

I've been thinking about tumblr purity culture today and the whole uwu you can only write healthy relationship fic uwu attitudes and why it bothers me, because for a while I wondered if I really was just a hypocrite in calling out problematic m/f ships in canon when the kind of f/f ships I like are definitely not all that healthy. But I realized the issue comes down to two related things. 

1. most people who accuse femslash shippers of hypocrisy in this way (i.e. for shipping an unhealthy f/f relationship while criticizing the canon m/f relationship for being unhealthy) are often making a false equivalency. Usually the f/f relationships are unhealthy due to an interpersonal issue/personality clashes and/or personal insecurities. But the m/f relationships that are criticized are ALWAYS being criticized because their unhealthiness stems directly from the systemic oppression of women and misogyny. Unhealthiness on an interpersonal level can be rectified and often IS in the character development and the two characters learning how better to communicate and interact with each other. Whereas a misogynistic man oppressing his love interest is never going to be rectified without a much greater amount of work, change, and self reflection on his part, and by then that woman has no business being in a relationship with him because he has already done damage that will haunt the relationship. The crux is, no mainstream canon has done the work to ACTUALLY redeem a misogynist in a realistic way and actually call him out on his misogyny. That's not to say people IRL cannot learn and change, but that is not usually the journey that is shown. Usually, he will possibly alter his behavior in order to keep the girl with him (which means he hasn't actually learned especially if he still treats other women badly) or the girl will just learn to put up with her own oppression because "she loves him". It is also way more prevalent IRL for girls to believe they can change a misogynistic man and then end up in an abusive relationship than for the man to actually learn and change in this kind of situation. 2. Reading fanfiction that is portraying a type of unhealthy relationship that is unique and not normalized is very different than fanfiction or canon portraying an unhealthy relationship that has been so normalized by society that you could go out and find a hundred other books, movies, shows, etc, portraying that EXACT type of relationship. In the case of the first, readers will see "oh this is a unique/different/weirdly compelling fantasy I can read for the thrills," but in the second readers just see something so normalized that it resembles situations that exist in real life and have been pounded into our minds over and over again by the media. So that reader will either not recognize it as being unhealthy and oppressive because it is so normalized, or they will recognize it, but by consuming it will only add to their desensitization to that specific type of oppression making it harder for them in the future to react when they see it, either IRL or in fiction.

The point is, an unhealthy f/f relationship is not equivalent to an m/f relationship based in misogyny. In addition, it is nearly impossible to write a completely 100% healthy relationship, because tbh those just do not exist IRL either. Every relationship will have issues at some point. And while it is true that writing more healthy aspirational f/f fiction could be useful for expanding our imagination of what we as queer women want out of romance, it is also true that exploring complex and potentially unhealthy relationships also gives us tools to navigate more types of interpersonal situations and also give us more opportunity to pursue the kind of thrill and excitement that we wouldn't pursue IRL. In conclusion, it's good to have healthy ships in f/f fic, but it is also not SO HORRIBLE TERRIBLE KILLING SOCIETY to write problematic f/f fic either, and going around saying that people who write "problematic" f/f fic are horrible people is just so reductionist and pointless and tbh harmful.  Thanks for coming to my TED talk.