#i have no opinions on what his dynamic with jonathan would be other than i know that they would both be will's defenders | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

genderflu1dwh0r · 9 months

Text

Are you stupid?

You can be racist and have POC friends, Jason is way worse than Billy any day. Jason isn't the one being abused by his father everyday, he isn't poor, he didn't get taken from his home and live with a step sibling that he didn't know that well.

Jason is a horrible person and got his friend to tackle Erica, then he held a gun at Lucas. You can't tell me that that isn't racist, you can't tell me that's worse than what Billy ever did. Jason said "I thought you were one of the good ones". That. Is. Racist.

Billy got his bad traits from his father. Billy got beat by his father. Billy was crying into the phone for his mom to come home. Billy had no support system. Steve was the only person that Billy bullied and tormented, and in my opinion, Steve is a worse character than Billy.

Steve threw slurs, while Billy got slurs thrown at him by his own father. Just because you don't care about abuse victims, doesn't mean you have to spread your hate.

I think that Billy just wanted Lucas to stop hanging around because if Neil found out, Billy would be the one getting beat. Neil would probably hurt Lucas way more than Billy could have ever done. Billy was protecting Max and himself, he was scared that Neil would find out. He did care and love Max, he just showed it in some confusing ways.

Also, the Duffer brothers are racist, they wanted Dacre to say the N word. Dacre protested and it ended up not happening. Billy saying the N word isn't canon, cause it didn't happen in the show. Stop always going to that excuse for him being a bad person. He never said any slur.

People say "if the actor wasn't hot, then people wouldn't have liked him" and I disagree. His character is very interesting. He has a backstory, he has trauma, he has an actual interesting plot unlike any other character. Dacre is also a very amazing actor, he was able to make Billy even more interesting.

Dacre has said that his art imitates his life. He put his own life into the character, he didn't have a great relationship with his dad, he has said this.

Max is a horrible person too, she drugged Billy with something that she didn't know was in, almost hit him with Steve's bat, screamed at him before leaving and stealing his car. Billy could have died on the floor, he was drugged and had no car. Tell me that that isn't abuse. Just because Billy grabbed her wrist ONE time, doesn't mean it's abuse.

Siblings fight all the time, it's just what happens. Especially how their family dynamics was. I and many others have fights with our siblings. You get over it in like a day. That doesn't make Billy a bad person. He did some really shitty things, yes. But that doesn't excuse all the hate he gets. He's a complex character, no other character is like him.

That's why he's my baby boy. I relate to him, I'm an abuse victim, I love knowing that I have a character to relate to. Stop blaming abuse victims on how they grew up, they can change. He could have changed if he didn't die. He could have, but nobody let him.

Nobody tried to help him. He didn't have a support system. The people who compare Jonathan to Billy are wild, cause Jonathan did have a support system, his mother did so much. Billy had nobody. His father beat him, hi stepmother did NOTHING to stop Neil, she just watched. She was clearly abused too, but she's the adult, she has to be there for Billy. She has to get Max away from all of this, which in season 4, she did. But she turned into an even worse mom.

Right here. He was trying to get help, he was trying to get the MF to get out. He wanted someone to help him. He kept fighting, and that's how he saved everyone on the day he died. He knew he was going to die, he was sobbing.

Try to think before talking bad against Billy.

Why do people say Vecna/Henry/Jason/Troy/James/Angela are better than Billy?

Vecna/Henry literally tried to kill children and the whole world. Billy wanted to have some fun and games, he would never go to prison for killing a child. He was never going to hit Mike, Lucas, Dustin, or Will.

Troy/James made Mike jump off of a fucking cliff while wanting to take Dustins teeth out. Tell me that isn't fucked. MIKE WOULD HAVE DIED IF EL WASN'T THERE!!

Jason held a fucking gun to Lucas's head and got Erica hurt. He sent a witch-hunt over Eddie and that ended up killing that poor boy. Literally, he was poor and Jason is a rich christian white boy. Tell me that isn't classist. Jason also did this to get information out of a kid.

Angela deserved the roller skate to the face for what she did to El. I would have done the same thing, El never deserved any of what she went through there.

Anyone going to object? Cause you can't, my points are spot on. Why aren't we gonna get mad at Jamie Campbell Bower over saying he relates to Vecna/Henry? If Dacre is bad for doing so, why can't we shame Jamie for the same thing?

I would count the MF taking over Billy like that as a reference of sexual assault. His body gets taken away from him, he is crying for help, he is scared and tried to tell someone. I've talked to SA survivors and they agree.

Anyway, I am pissed at Billy antis and I am just so done with them.

#stranger things #billy hargrove #st billy #stranger things billy #dacre montgomery #neil hargrove #max mayfield #steve harrington #jason carver

157 notes · View notes

wheelercore · 10 months

Text

The Wheeler family, "normalcy", what that means in stranger things, how that possibly explains subtext behind the shifting dynamics of the family- particularly Ted's favoritism of Holly over Mike and definitely Nancy, and how this all connects to the Wheeler family show of opulence- more specifically, toys. Just a stream of consciousness honestly.

This one is for the rosegate girlies ***crowd boos***

Now, the Wheeler family has been one of the two main families of the show since the very beginning. However, in my opinion, what's been going on with them behind the scenes have been kept pretty subtle. And by subtle, I mean hidden behind so many layers of symbolism its crazy. From objects in the Wheeler home being reminiscent of things that could be found in the Creel attic (the white wedding dress, the wheel chair, the piano) + the grandfather clock chimes to Mike being able to sense the void, it's kind of obvious at least to me that the Wheelers are plot relevant, its just obvious as to what it is about them.

Over all, they are defined as being the "normal" nuclear family. Their opulence is shown consistently in the show, from Mike's basement full of toys and games, to Karen and Nancy having new outfits/hair-dos almost every season, to Holly's new lite brite (and god we will be getting to this one), and to Jonathan pointing out to Nancy that his father doesn't make 6-figures. The funny thing being that the Wheelers aren't even the richest family in the show. We don't know how much the Sinclair's make- however it seems like Lucas' parents can also afford to get him the walkie talkies and toys also. The Harringtons are by far the richest family we know of. But yet, the Wheelers are the ones the most emphasized to have more than enough.

Now, season 4 was the season where the writers, via Dustin and Steve, proclaimed they were going to have to spell it out for us. And spell it out they did (mostly in Henry's monologue). There are several quotes I want to point out that specifically describe what Stranger Thing's message on "conformity" and "normalcy" is. To summarize? It doesn't exist. Normalcy isn't real, it's a set of arbitrary standards used to keep the average person afraid of being different.

"Humans are a unique type of pest, multiplying and poisoning our world, all while enforcing a structure of their own- a deeply unnatural structure..." - Henry

(cont.) "Where others saw order, I saw a straightjacket- an oppressive, cruel world dictated by made-up rules. Minutes, days, months, years, decades, every life faded, lesser copy of the one before. Wake up- work- eat- sleep-reproduce- die-" - Henry

(cont.) "Everyone is just waiting- waiting for it to all be over, distracting themselves while performing in a silly, terrible play, day after day... I couldn't pretend." - Henry

(Henry describing his parents) "I saw my parents as they truly were. To the world they presented themselves as normal people, good people. But like everything else in this world, it was all a lie- a terrible lie. They had done things- such awful things-"

"I thought I wanted to be like you. Popular. Normal. But it turns out, normal’s just a raging psychopath." - Lucas at Jason

"A lie designed to conceal the truth"- Jason, shot focusing on the Wheelers for a moment

So what does this mean when the Wheelers are considered to be the façade of an average "normal" main family of the show? We see Mike, Nancy, and Karen struggle with conformity and their unhappiness with their "place" in life, but how does this connect to the overall plot? Why are the Wheelers subtlety connected to the supernatural? What is going on "behind the curtain" and what truth is this "lie" concealing?

Well, we already see from Mike, Nancy, and Karen's POV, so lets talk about Ted's relationship with his children aka why I believe the answer can be partially found there.

Honestly you could ask anyone and they would probably give you a different interpretation of this. And to be honest I think they're all very wrong [*boos and hisses from the crowd*].

What I personally think is that Ted lets his children go when they stop "performing" in the lie, the "silly, terrible play" that is the Wheeler family. And that happens to be when they get older, when they start to become individuals (and children should). We see Ted's relationship with this children get worse and worse the older they are. He seems to dote on Holly, at least speaks to Mike, and just completely ignores Nancy's existence.

Hopper has a quote about this that perfectly explains it:

"I think it must be hardwired into us to reject our fathers. So we can grow and move on. Become something of our own."

This quote happens after Enzo talks about his son "Mikhail" (which is literally just "Michael" in Russian kill me the curtains are so fucking blue guys).

Hopper: I bet Mikhail (Michael) will be proud of his pops, at least. Enzo: Mikhail (Michael)? Mmm. No. I can't do nothing right with him anymore, it seems.

The writers of Stranger Things intentionally associated growing up, becoming your own person, with rejecting your father. As in, at some point you just don't need them anymore. Don't need them to support you financially, to protect you. Two things that are seen as the fathers traditional responsibilities: to be the breadwinner and to be the protector of the household. Thanks for spelling it out for us, Duffers.

An intentional parallel also related to fatherhood in the show is letting your children go when they eventually begin to reject you. In the first Wheeler dinner scene in S1, Ted tells Karen to "let [Mike] go" when he storms away from the dinner table, distraught by Will's disappearance. In S4 we see Karen hug Mike, joking promising not even to let him go to college, not letting him go. In the same s1 dinner scene, in contrast with Mike, whom Ted at least attempts to talk calmly to, Ted repeatedly shuts down Nancy ("Language!"). He's already "let her go" by S1, refusing to even listen to her. Ted pushes his children away the moment he feels that they are beginning to "reject" him, and this is symbolized by their toys (which in my opinion is a symbol of Ted attempted to "buy" his children's love and we see that with Holly) and I will get to that in a second.

However, that phase was used similarly in the context of Brenner and Henry. El telling Brenner that he "could not let [Henry] go".

El at "Papa": So many dead. And all because of you. Because you could not stop. You could not let him go.

However as we're shown, both letting your kids go prematurely (Ted) or holding onto them too tightly in a controlling sense (Brenner) both are damaging to your children.

Let's start looking at some photos:

When I talk about Ted's relationship with his children it's subtly portrayed in the Wheeler family photos we get. Notice how Ted stands in between Karen and Mike, Nancy out to the side- not within his arms. Ted holds Nancy at arms length, Mike has not yet been given the full cold shoulder by Ted. This looks to have been taken around S1. And what looks like roses on Nancy's shirt.

They do a similar thing with the Creels, where we see Victor, Virginia, and Alice as a Unit, with Victors arms around Alice and Virginia- Henry is only held by Virginia's hand. Visual storytelling and all that. Henry is being held at arms length in his family, he is the "odd one out". You can even tell by the colors, Henry is the only one not in blue.

Then we see a completely different arrangement here. Now they are in a line. Ted has his arm around Karen (who is holding Holly), while Nancy and Mike are out the furthest away from him, Nancy being the farthest- as usual. Mike is also no longer within Ted's arm length. Notice Holly has one solitary red flower on her dress? Nancy no longer has roses on her shirt? This photo seems to either be taken before or after S2 (I'm not sure? Lol)

As we can see, by S1, Nancy has already been iced out and Mike is on his way by S2. This has a negative effect on the Wheeler siblings, as we see that they struggle with understanding close relationships, especially romantic relationships. Insecure attachments can become transgenerational, as a parent perpetuates it on their child in the same way it was perpetuated onto them:

Just like any other form of trauma or distress, an insecure attachment style can be passed down through generations.

Consequently, as children typically learn by example, a child picks up on this detachment from emotions and mirrors how their caregiver deals with unpleasant feelings ...

We see hints of this in Mike, who expressed his insecurity in his relationship with El:

Mike: Yeah, I know. I… I know she is. But… But what if after all this is over, she- sh- she doesn't need me anymore? Will: No, o- of course she'll still need you. She'll always need you, Mike. Mike: I keep telling myself that, but I… I don't believe it. I mean, she's special. She was born special. Maybe I was one of the first people to realize that. But the truth is, when I stumbled on her in the woods, she just needed someone. It's not fate. It's… It's not destiny. It's just simple dumb luck. And one day she's gonna realize I'm just some random nerd that got lucky that Superman landed on his doorstep. I mean, at least Lois Lane is an ace reporter for the Daily Planet, right? But…

We also see how Ted treats Karen mirrored in their children also.

We see Karen feel neglected by Ted in S2 and her restlessness/unhappiness leading her to fantasize via middle aged woman erotica. However, she is convinced not to cheat when she sees Ted cuddling with Holly on his la z boy. The song of choice of these scene, (I Just) Died In Your Arms, is very telling because its clearly from Karen's perspective about Ted. A few lyrics of note:

I keep lookin' for somethin' I can't get Broken hearts lie all around me And I don't see an easy way to get out of this Her diary, it sits by the bedside table The curtains are closed, the cats in the cradle Who would've thought that a boy like me could come to this Is there any just cause for feelin' like this? On the surface, I'm a name on a list I try to be discreet, but then blow it again I've lost and found, it's my final mistake She's loving by proxy, no give and all take 'Cause I've been thrilled to fantasy one too many times

While the song itself is about a one night stand with an ex, fundamentally its about someone who feels used by a partner but can't stop going back to them. Karen feels like "just a name on a list" and that her experience with Ted is "no give and all take" and love by "proxy" (ie not being loved by someone as they really are, but as who they pretend to be). Which, as we will get into, is a reoccurring thing with Ted and not just Karen but Nancy, Mike, and Holly too. Being used and then pushed out- like as I explained before is portrayed with Mike and Nancy, not only directly, but indirectly with their struggles with romantic relationships- ie not really knowing what love is or just generally not being very good romantic partners.

Now lets talk about Holly because this is fascinating to me at least. I see people say that Ted dotes on Holly, which is true in s3 & s4, but in s1 & s2 we hardly ever see him interact with her. In fact, Holly, in proximity, is more often associated with/near Karen than ever Ted in the first two season. At the dinner/breakfast table the arrangement is usually Ted -> Karen -> Holly. I don't think Ted pays any mind to Holly in the first two seasons in all honesty, unless I'm missing something.

However in s3 something shifts. Whereas before it was Karen and Holly, now its Karen, Holly, and Ted as the new family unit (to the exclusion of Mike and Nancy- who are being pushed out).

Holly is now associated with Ted. We see her cuddling with him on his lay z boy, they all go together at to the fair and Ted adjusts her shirt on the ferris wheel (and at some point Ted hands her the blue teddy bear), and in s4 Holly is constantly playing with her new lite brite in the wheeler den (which is the area of the home most associated with Ted) in pink/white. And as I mentioned before, in the second Wheeler family photo she has one solitary red flower on her dress.

And now we get a new seating arrangement in the church scene, Ted now in between Holly and Karen, again this new unit but with Ted in the middle now ("a lie designed to conceal the truth").

But what about toys? Well, as I mentioned before, its all about the Wheeler's show of opulence, which is directly associated with Ted- as Jonathan points out to Nancy, his father doesn't make 6 figures. When Ted begins to dote on Holly we see immediately in the next season she's got a new toy that she's constantly with. I mean constantly. Building her white rabbit, which in the theme surrounding predator and prey in ST, is a prey animal. Which makes it so much more interesting that the lite brite is used to connect to the UD, the representation of the "shadows" aka someone's fears/guilt/secrets/etc that they refuse to acknowledge. At least to me the toys in the Wheeler home that keep on getting brought up have thematic significance.

Compared to Nancy in the end of S4, who donates her rabbit toy, mentioning that she doesn't need it anymore. In fact all throughout S4 we have moments where Nancy mentioned having grown out of things: when they visit her room frozen in time in the UD and also when she mentions her room poster after Robin brings attention to it.

We also see Holly in pink-white color scheme, a color scheme that Nancy was often associated with in S1 & S2:

Stole these images from @/boysdontcryboycry. you know. like a thief

(also notice her ballerina necklace early on? It's all a "performance".)

Also comparing this to Mikes basement, which is filled to the brim with toys and games. Mike is absolutely spoiled in this aspect from his very introduction in S1E1. And again, the Wheelers are not the richest family in ST, but yet its their status of having more than enough that we see over and over again. Where is Lucas' basement full of toys? It's not like his family seems to be short on money either. But with the Wheelers it's the classic contrast between riches and lack of intimacy, usually signified by the misconception that love can be bought with gifts rather than genuine emotional intimacy. And as we see when the Wheeler children grow up and start requiring that emotional intimacy rather than just being satisfied with toys, like say a child Holly's age, they are pushed out and forced to "grow up" too quickly (as symbolized by Mike being pressured to donate his toys).

When Ted calls Mike's toys "husks of junk" (or something to that effect I don't remember the exact quote), its not just him being rude, its subtextual. Ted is devaluing the affection he gave Mike previously when Mike got those toys to begin with, just as 6 year old Holly got her lite brite when Ted began to dote on her sometime between S2 and S3. Except now Mike is older, and according to Hopper, every child is destined to "reject" their father as they grow, so now those toys are meaningless to Ted who's gearing up to "let him go"- but Mike doesn't want to let go of them. He is only twelve, not yet ready to grow up.

Regardless, this is all to say that Ted prematurely lets go of his children when they start to develop as individuals, not just stuck in a state of being children who are only satisfied with receiving toys. He refuses to engage with his children in an emotional level as they grow, letting them go when they stop being cute, quiet, and easy to extract emotional validation and comfort from. And there is where we see an underlying emotional immaturity to Ted's behavior. While other fathers in the show (like Hopper and Enzo) express their feelings about their children growing up, they are still able to acknowledge that its normal, that they had done the same when they were young. Hopper himself behaved... unpleasantly when El had Mike over constantly in S3 but understands El is growing up and he was just too afraid to lose her. Ted however, seems insistent on rejecting his children before they can reject him- which reveals an inability to handle rejection/abandonment or a sensitivity to it. He would rather hold his own children at arms length and just move onto the next child.

The second part of this post would be to explain why he is like this, and that would require going back all the way to the quotes from earlier in this post. Particularly what The Duffers' mouthpiece Henry's monologue has to say about conformity being a distraction.

"Where others saw order, I saw a straightjacket- an oppressive, cruel world dictated by made-up rules. Minutes, days, months, years, decades, every life faded, lesser copy of the one before. Wake up- work- eat- sleep-reproduce- die- Everyone is just waiting- waiting for it to all be over, distracting themselves while performing in a silly, terrible play, day after day... I couldn't pretend."

Literally what have we seen Ted do throughout the show that isn't waking up, working, eating, sleeping, and reproducing. Its intentional. And these actions are not characterized as things that are healthy, but as distractions. Playing pretend. Distractions one takes while performing in a "silly, terrible play" i.e. the Wheeler family.

The thing is though, the play gets disrupted when Mike and Nancy act out. When they don't play their part, which is only natural as they grow up and become individuals. Then this "silly, terrible play" becomes Karen, Holly, and Ted- that is, up until Holly grows up. The Wheeler family is a "lie designed to conceal a truth" because it isn't a family born out of commitment and love (Nancy saying she doesn't believe her parents ever loved each other), but out of the need for a distraction- for Ted specifically. Which is why while we don't get his POV, we see the horrible effects it has on the rest of the family. Karen's disillusionment and unhappiness with her place in life (getting married young to an older man) and Mike and Nancy being unable to discern what love and commitment actually looks like. They've lived their whole lives in something entirely fake built to serve someone else's need for normalcy, which is partially why we see Nancy end up in an unhappy loveless relationship with Steve, or why Mike struggles in a ""normal"" relationship with El afraid that she won't need him anymore.

Its all neatly symbolized in this one shot from the end of S4:

One source of distraction paired with another- Ted's TV and the Wheeler family photo right under it, the earliest one where Nancy is still prim and proper, Mike is smiling widely, and Karen is still a brunette. With Karen and Holly right there next to it.

(and then Ted turns off the TV. Bad or good omen? You decide :D)

But the "truth" can be found with Holly. The red flower that can be seen on Holly's dress in the second Wheeler family photo and the white-pink color scheme she is in for the majority of S4 is associated with other characters.

The red flower (rose) in particular is repeatedly associated with mothers, for example Billy's mom who also had one clearly stamped onto the front of her shirt.

Or just in general roses all over the Creel home, including the glass door, Karen at many points, all the fake urns all over the Wheeler home, the real urn (which has pink flowers on it and straight up changes during the earthquake dont ask why oooh its just a production error), the Byers wallpaper- particularly the one Will was stuck behind, etc etc man just check out my rosegate masterpost.

The pink and white (and sometimes blue) color scheme also being often seen not only with Nancy but also with other characters, particularly mothers but not limited to that. Karen being one, Mrs. Cunningham, Tammy Thompson (described as a muppet), Virginia, El, and most importantly to me "Rose Weaver" Robin (whos hairstyle is literally just a mix of Karen's S2/S3 bangs and Virginias bob).

Holly... Holly is the last "distraction" left. And she'd dressed like Rosemary for a good portion of s4 and she's also the only blonde Wheeler sibling. Just a symbolistic representation of creating a family and using your kids to soothe and distract yourself. Holly is dressed like Rosemary because Ted seeks the emotional validation he never received (to what extent? We do not know) from this "silly, little play", in which now Holly is the only sibling left because Nancy and Mike have been "pushed out" due to well... being individuals that don't solely exist to provide a "distraction" and Ted's seeming sensitivity to his kids growing up and rejecting him (because Rosemary totally didn't reject him right? right? That can't be what this is all about lol. lmao even.)

And to see that Holly's lite brite was used as the connection between the RSU and the UD- the "light"/the good and the darkness that people don't want to acknowledge about themselves.

On the bright side (pun intended) I'm pretty sure this means that they are Ted's "light". However still fucked up. 1000 years in therapy for you. Your family arent solely just your "light" they are real human beings.

Anyways the lesson here is that people who shouldn't have kids shouldn't be expected to conform and forced to start a family lmao.

TDLR:

Wheeler s5 sweep

#brother I am still holding onto that wheeler happy ending white knuckles n all #rosegate #anyways this is my nuclear ted take. take it or leave it. rosegate be upon ye! Delusion be upon ye!

43 notes · View notes

paladibun · 11 months

Text

personal gay/bi mike ramblings & other late night thoughts //

Been thinking about how I relate way more to gay Mike as a bi dude rather than to bi Mike. (This isn’t whos interpretation is right or anything) I’ve seen the post that was like both gay byler would portray different experiences under one label and show that no label outright owns a specific experience. A bi Mike’s arc would be more about choices in relation to others with less introspection and a gay Mike’s arc would explain internal turmoil and self depreciation in relation to a queer identity and the need to hide it, which would require more of it . And ofc gay people don’t own this flavor of experience but in Mike’s case would explain his actions if under that lense for me personally. Also noticed the later headcanon is more prevalent for those with a bigger Mike bias than Will which is interesting.

Also thinking about what a mess or I guess how much ambiguity there is in both Will & Mike’s characterization when it comes to their relation to their sexualities which ultimately causes people to develop strong opinions and get angry when people get their arcs or dynamics wrong. The thing is that the Duffers like ambiguity - it gives them freedom and they also don’t like to state things outright when it comes to identities and very important sociopolitical issues while trying to be “realistic” /half-neg ( ex: Karen & Nancy talking about feminism without mentioning women, the way Robin’s coming out was handled without mentioning any gay words while the show is comfortable using homophobic words )

Anyway almost got heated on a completely separate topic.

It is sometimes confusing as to what is meant to be presented as a “Will Arc” and a “Mike Arc” On the one hand Will struggles from overt homophobia from others and from Lonnie growing up, on the other hand he has Joyce, Jonathan, Mike, and the party who adore him and while I doubt Will understands that they would accept him no matter what, there’s definitely an earlier self acceptance in his identity as a hyper-visible gay man(you can see it with the Turing Project & the bravery with the painting). I define internalized homophobia as “a set of complex contradicting behaviors based on society’s homophobia and heteronormative pressures” and some people define it as “being sad that people are being homophobic to someone” I think both Will and Mike have degrees of both and sometimes it’s hard to see how much of either both characters have. And for Mike, it solely depends on how you read his sexuality thus explaining his actions and feelings. Again, it is vague which I think is humanizing and realistic.

I won’t touch the dynamics topic until the tag evolves beyond late stage fandom spoon/fork binarization of gay relationships but just noting that aspect of byler isn’t void of complexity.

One last thought for the night:

Just looking at the fandom and noticing unfortunate patterns. Mainly the desire to be right above all else and largely at the expense of collective fun and creativity which is like the main point of fandom. I think it comes mostly from having to fight the GA and m*levens to prove we aren’t crazy (insert Joyce Byers gif here) a year ago and that mentality sticking for way too long. Like the desire to to defend your thoughts and feel your feelings strongly about a topic is amazing and is another big fandom driver but at some point people getting angry for fanon, headcanons, people having fun making things in a way that isn’t popular loud accounts approved is honestly concerning. I see it a lot from the side I agree with too and it’s like. We can do better right? Not everything needs to be activism tinged?

Anyway anyway thanks for reading this far I’m passing the whole fandom edibles as we collectively rewatch the source material and resetting our very “seeing red at posts we disagree with” adled brains. 💕

#stranger things #mike wheeler #will byers #byler #thoughts #vague discourse shit #fandoms should be fun #fandoms should be collaborative #fandoms should make you excited to see creativity and thoughts of others #did the autism machine break for half of you

34 notes · View notes

alwaysthequietones · 11 months

Note

i haven't watched dawson's creek but ever since writers made that tweet i've become more convinced that some of these parallels are actually worth looking into

i've seen people say pacey and steve are v similar and i have seen all the parallels regarding stancy and it does look like there's some actual connections

again i haven't watched the show, so i'll ask you for your (unbiased please) opinion; looking at the whole thing is there any way pacey and joey have some parallels with jancy as well? and when it comes to all the stancy parallels do you think writers making that tweet recently possibly alludes to them continuing with jacey/stancy agenda and actually giving stancy their endgame?

I mean, it is hard to say. These parallels might be completely a moot point and not have any correlation with what the Duffer brothers are doing. So I might be making these posts just for shits and giggles. lmao But we do know that the Duffer brothers were "obsessed" with DC. And then that tweet of the writers room with the Dawson/Pacey picture...Hmmm

Because the context of the love triangle in DC is completely different than the one in ST. There are a few little things here and there that could apply to j*ncy but when you look at the characters individually and the couple dynamics and their overall arc (individually and together) and growth, I feel fairly confident in saying Pacey=Steve, Joey=Nancy and Dawson=Jonathan. If I had to make a comparison, bc again a very different show than ST. Even hearing the showrunners commentary on why they ended up choosing Pacey over Dawson to end up with Joey in the end, is very stancy coded somehow? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaqTsKGxFzo)

Because the showrunner, from the beginning, had planned for her to end up with Dawson (Why? Dawson is universally hated.) But then things changed. Partly bc Joshua Jackson (Pacey) told them to reconsider, basically saying, look back on the journey, respect the journey, the only way is for it to be P/J. Pacey is also a very romantically centered character and the showrunners said that his arc had to be romantically fulfilled for him to have a satisfying ending. But he's always been in love with Joey and him ending up with someone that isn't her, would feel false. The showrunners also said that even though they had planned her and Dawson since the start, they actually couldn't envision them living day-to-day regular life together somehow by the time they were coming up to the series finale. + "P/j has the chemistry" "Joey becomes a lighter person around Pacey." etc....

Joey is also someone very ambitious, sarcastic, cynical (about love sometimes too), working hard to get into collage and get out of her small town....

Pacey is self deprecating, doesn't consider himself smart enough to make something of himself, often feels like the black sheep of the family...

Dawson is literally the worst and Jonathan despite obvious flaws is still 100x the man than that universally hated guy is an aspiring filmmaker. Has a pretentious air about him and often belittles others and their problems around him because the only problems he actually cares about are his own. Again, I cannot stress this enough Jonathan>>>>>>>>Dawson.

So it's interesting to see how their arc and ending are deemed satisfying in certain ways too (and honestly could be applied to N/S/J too):

Joey gets out her small town, becomes a talented editor and gets a partner that she loves and that fully loves her and moves in with her to the city. Career AND romantic life fulfilled

Dawson always dreamed of turning his passion into a profession and meeting Spielberg. He ends the show doing both. Career fulfillment

And Pacey, he only felt fully alive when he could be with and love the woman in his life. And he does. Romantically fulfilled.

In other words, this could all mean nothing and I have no fucking clue.

#ask #stancy #dawson's creek

29 notes · View notes

kotomori · 1 year

Text

So I have a question. One that links back to the scene in Season 4 during the conversation between Nancy and Steve in the Upside down during the last episode and why I'm not really a fan of how the aftermath of it is handled in some fics I've read, but this is solely based off my own opinion.

For the sake of fanon over canon (canon doesn't exist. I dont know her) Let's say theres a scenario where all of the party are together, Eddie and Max are recovering and they're all at Steve's or something like that. But if we're gonna go down more of a canon route in S5 with Nancy, Jonathan and Steve, I honestly dont think either of them will end up together. (Mainly because I have a bad feeling at least two of these three arent gonna make it out alive) but back to fanon, let's say Jonathan and Nancy have broken up but they're still learning how to be around eachother as friends just like Steve and Nancy are doing. Again, I feel like this would've been a way better way to go for their character development if Stancy were spending their time together just learning how to be around eachother again. It would've made for a much better dynamic in season 5 between the three.

Anyhow, I'm getting sidetracked. Goes without saying that Steve is easily my favourite stranger things character. However I've always had some mixed feelings when it came to Nancy, noticing on more than one occasion that while she is genuinely a good person and a complete badass who knows how to get shit done, she seems to have some problems feeling empathy for others, especially if the situation doesnt apply to her, though you could argue that Mike has the same issue when it comes to El and Will, in which he tries to understand but when he knows he cant he instead becomes frustrated and more often than not takes it out on them. Nancy definitely has this issue with Steve in season 2. During the first part of season 2 and to an extent season 1, Steve tries to offer her a distraction to her problems with guilt rather than a solution. And to an extent I believe that was how Nancy came to view Steve during season 2. A distraction instead of a solution, eventually realising this distraction was no longer helping her and taking out her frustrations on the distraction before finding a solution by going with Jonathan to find Murray for answers and realising that Jonathan was the one she wanted.

However during season 3 they seem to have a hard time understanding eachother and on top of that the two barely interact with Steve at all. Yet in season 4 Steve and Nancy are left to reconnect while Jonathan is in California, not to mention the underlying subplot that her and Jonathan are realising that much like her and Steve, they each have very different ambitions.

Nancy is very career driven and wants to make a difference in the world. Jonathan just wants to take care of his family and stay close to them following everything that has happened and is unsure if what he really wants is to spend his life following Nancy rather than being by her side. Steve on the other hand has developed a somewhat paternal bond with the party following what is implied to have been a very fundamentally lonely life. It's for this reason that it makes sense he would he happy with a simple quiet life, travelling the world with a family of his own. I'm not sure if the Duffers did this on purpose to mislead us or whether they've just forgotten what each of these characters have been through in each season but when you put all that in perspective, none of these ambitions align in the slightest. If anyone thought that the whole winnebago talk would actually become a reality in season 5, maybe in an epilogue or something like that, then people seem to not realise that Nancy wanted anything but to end up like her parents and displays little interest in anything other than protecting those she has and focusing on her career. A simple life would not be satisfying for her.

Long story short, trying to put Stancy back together romantically would not work for either characters arc, at least in my opinion. If they were able to form a strong platonic friendship by the end of season 5 then that would be the most satisfying outcome to me.

On a slightly different note I started this with a question. I see it alot in fics where people tease Steve for expressing what he wants out of life, i.e, the whole six little nuggets conversation. Honestly I found that while scene really sweet and the characters in fics rarely bring this up as a way to be mean. But I've seen in some that Nancy actually brings up what Steve told her in the upside down as a way to tease him in front of their friends. Again, it's hardly ever written with any malicious intent other than to embarrass him but even so I really dont see that being something she would ever tell anyone, even their closest friends. While I stated previously that Nancy struggles with empathy, I fully believe that she sees that moment herself as Steve being truly genuine and heartfelt with her. Point being that as much as the idea may not appeal to her, she can see would not use something like that as an excuse to bring up in conversation as a way to tease him or embarrass him by stating out loud for everyone to hear that he once dreamed they would start a family. I dont believe that Steve would repeat it to anybody else either, even Robin. That is something personal to the two of them whether Steve really knows what he wants or not and it's clear that there are alot of unspoken things regarding the past between them that I can see bringing up some tension in season 5.

Though I can't deny that I've had some angsty ideas following these thoughts. Imagine another scene like the bullshit scene in s2, only its after she finds out that Jonathan lied to her about college and maybe she gets drunk again, possibly for the first time since season 2 and when Steve tries to comfort her (maybe he found her first or she seeks him out, idk) but she reflects back on how it felt reconnecting with him in 4 and the conversation they had and drunkenly makes a move on him and is left even more confused when he rejects her and throws back in his face everything he said to her. Maybe Robin or Eddie or Jonathan overhear and jump in to seperate them before it turns into a fight. Steve feels guilty while Nancy is just even more confused about her feelings for Steve and Jonathan. Maybe it ends with them finally talking things through, Steve confesses he has feelings for someone else (I wonder who) and with a clearer head they realise it makes more sense for them to just learn to get to know eachother as friends again.

Anyhow sorry for the ramble, that's all for now :)

#steve harrington #nancy wheeler #eddie munson #robin buckley #steve harrington headcannon #nancy wheeler headcanons #steddie #platonic stancy #platonic stobin #jonathan byers #stranger things #we need more platonic stancy honestly #let me know how you feel about this prompt

18 notes · View notes

thestobingirlie · 1 year

Note

THANK YOU. Robin and Nancy’s incompatibility aside, Robin and Steve’s soulmatism is one of the unshakable dynamics in the show and Robin Buckley would just never. I read fanfics for most ships, and the story you linked is the first r//nance story I’ve seen that doesn’t have a Steve with zero issues just giggling while his best friend in the universe gets with the person who canonically hurt him the most/he’s still in love with. R//nance usually goes hand in hand with having to ignore how significant Nancy and Steve are to each other, which reminds me of the…

The Vickie erasure. The fanon of bi Nancy while fandom totally ignores Vickie is not surprising considering there’s so much automatic hatred of canon. Robin calls Vickie the girl of her dreams! I also hoped for more Vickie in season 4, but Vickie as the embodiment of Robin’s peace at home is perfect. Rosie! That Vickie is too much of a side-character to ship with Robin is ridiculous when I’ve accidentally seen so many fics including Gareth. For real, who the fuck is Gareth.

Nancy still needing to learn how to process her emotions is why I think any Stancy endgame would be a denouement situation. The execution of the matchmaker trope was unnecessary. Three whole characters weighing in on that relationship? One of which was a stranger? Why.

maybe it’s just because i love stobin so much, but it is literally one of the best and strongest dynamics in the show, and i just can’t fathom needing characters to be in a romantic relationship so badly, that people just cast aside how important robin and steve are to each other.

and yeah, i avoid all r//nance fics, like even if they’re just a background ship. because i know that that background ship will be a throwaway line, and still manage to destroy stobin. like, you can’t just have causal r//nance in the background because by it’s very nature, it would tear the characters apart.

in canon, steve still has feelings for nancy. now you can decide if that’s just because he’s clinging to this ideal of life that he isn’t ready to let go of, or because he actually is in love with her, but to disregard their relationship entirely is dumb. like, in their first s4 scene together, nancy spots steve’s car and just instantly calms. like, whether they’re romantic or platonic, steve and nancy are really important to each other.

i honestly just cannot see nancy being queer at all, but i know that’s just my personal opinion. but the fact that people will totally erase vickie, and then get annoyed at the duffers for having minimal gay characters, or for not making r//nance canon. like, there is a bi women right there! stop ignoring her! and yeah, i think the excuse that vickie is just a side character is such bullshit, because she is spoken about a lot, we see her in multiple scenes. she’s more important than gareth, but somehow he pops up everywhere? and a lot of people who hate vickie will then ship buckingham (which i have nothing against!) but it’s like, how are you gonna pretend chrissy has more personality then vickie?

yeah, i hate matchmaking, but the duffers seem incapable of writing a romance without using it. honestly, the reason why i hated murray so much is because of that. like, some random middle aged man got two teens drunk and told them to fuck in his house, and i’m supposed to think that’s the height of romance?! ew. and yeah, i can see robin talking to steve about nancy, because they obviously talk about their loves lives to each other. and dustin is incapable of not inserting himself into steve’s life, but eddie? what does he know about the situation? it’s just so weird.

also, i actually find stancy interesting, at least, i’ve always enjoyed watching their scenes more than nancy and jonathan, but i just don’t think that nancy will be able to get enough development in time for her to end the show in a healthy relationship. though, i do kinda want stancy to be endgame just because i know how much steve antis will hate it. and i think that’s funny.

but honestly, when it comes to endgames i just don’t care. what ships the duffers decide to end on mean nothing to me. i will read whatever fanfics i want when the show ends, and who’s gonna stop me. “oh it’s not canon.” don’t care, didn’t ask.

#steve harrington #robin buckley #nancy wheeler #stranger things #anti ronance #asks #anon

25 notes · View notes

himynameis4 · 1 year

Text

Okay, imma elaborate on my madwheeler roleswap bullshit.

For those who have no idea what i’m talking about (probably most of you, i imagine 😅), the basic premise is this: what would Stranger Things/Hawkins look like if Max had lived in Hawkins from the beginning, and Mike & the Wheelers moved to Hawkins in season 2?

My previous posts on this are linked here (initial premise, basically breaking down how canon deviated to allow for the role swap) here (elaborating on potential implications of swapping Mike & Max’s roles for El & her relationships) and here (this talks vaguely about how removing Mike might change season one/party dynamics). All previous posts are gonna be elaborated on as i get further in my rewatch/plot this out more tho, lol. If anyone has any thoughts, other takes, or wants to bounce ideas around or offer their own opinions on how the season could potentially deviate based on this premise, i’d seriously love to hear about it (talking ab this stuff is my catnip ngl).

(Speaking of! @faithfulcat111 hiiiiiiii! I figured i might as well tag you on this post, since this focuses a lot on how season 1 might be different—specifically, differences caused by the fact that Nancy Wheeler isn’t in Hawkins, since I haven’t gotten to posts specifically describing how season 1 could/would go down yet (…in part bc i haven’t decided how i think it should go down, & also bc i rlly have to do that rewatch 😅). I haven’t decided whether Will was biking home from Max’s the night he was taken, or if he was just… at home, y’know? Because if will was targeted by vecna, (& i think he was lol), whether he was biking home or just at his house wouldn’t matter, except for the fact that one option creates waaaaay more angst for our characters than the other, especially if the Mayfield’s trailer was the last place will was seen 😬🤷.)

Now, can we talk ab the potential implications of No Nancy Wheeler?

Like. Wherever Nancy Wheeler grew up, it sure as hell wasn’t Hawkins, and that has all kinds of impacts on the people who ARE still in Hawkins.

In Rebel Robin, Robin basically all but says that Barb chose Nancy over her. No Nancy… are Barb & Robin still friends?

Steve isn’t pursuing Nancy, which means Nancy doesn’t drag Barb along to Steve’s party, which means Barb doesn’t get taken—at least, not because of the party. Was Steve pursuing someone else? Maybe Heather Holloway, or Chrissy Cunningham? Maybe one of them is invited to the party. Maybe she dies earlier, in this universe.

Or maybe she survives the monster attacks. Become part of the action, part of the force against the Upsidedown.

Without Nancy there… does Jonathan Byers take the pictures? [We need to have a brief sidebar about Jonathan. First and foremost, I love this character. Second, taking noncon pictures of someone, especially when they’re in a vulnerable position, is never okay. What Jonathan did was badly handled in canon and, frankly, out of character.]. Perhaps, rather than taking the photos, Jonathan trips, falls, cuts himself while wandering the woods looking for Will. His blood draws a monster (that perhaps gets caught on jonathan’s camera?), which causes Jonathan to either scream, burst through the bushes into the pool party rambling about a faceless monster like a madman, or both.

Now, having witnessed Jonathan Byers’ incident, Steve’s involved. Maybe he gets suspicious of the woods around his house, catches a glimpse of the monster too. Potential slowburn Stonathan friendship bc it’s clear, from the fact that Steve goes to apologize & pays for a new camera & talks ab hanging out with Jonathan in season 4, that steve genuinely wants to be friends with this guy.

In this au, Steve likely wouldn’t break Jonathan’s camera, bc Jonathan hasn’t given him a (frankly, completely justified) reason to. Steve & Jonathan’s fistfight probably wouldn’t happen. But unless Jonathan sees the monster… without Nancy & the photos Jonathan took of Barb getting taken, Jonathan has no reason to believe his mother, and no reason to try & fight the demogorgon (which probs wouldn’t be called a demogorgon here, given that the party isn’t as into dnd w/out Mike, RIP).

You know what else No Nancy means? Nobody to make the connection about demogorgons & blood. & later, in season 2, No Nancy back in season 1 means Alive Barb, which means no exposing Owens/the lab, which means the lab is still up & running in season 3, & ALSO means no Murray until season 3 at Least (through Hopper), AND given Nancy’s wildly different relationships in this au could mean there’ll be nobody to stab Will with a hot poker & free him from the mindflayer at the end of season 2, and depending on how we resolve that & season 3—

Basically, Nancy Wheeler is insanely important, and her absence is gonna have a lot of implications. (Thankfully, given that the Wheelers move to Hawkins pre-season 2, she’ll be around for season 4. 🙏)

12 notes · View notes

harvlekinkey · 1 year

Note

Top 3 favorite stranger things characters?

Top 3 favorite stranger things ships?

Your favorite season and why?

Ooof okay I'll try!

Top 3 characters:

1. Unpopular opinion but it has to be Jonathan. Sure the show did him dirty since season 2 by making him Nancy's sidekick only to give him barely any importance in season 4 but he's always there for Will and he's been the very first character I fell in love with, so Jonathan Byers #1. (tho let's not talk about his sudden addiction in season 4)

2. How could I not include Steve 'The Hair' Harrington in this list. Before watching, I knew about his change of heart so even though he was a jerk I couldn't hate him. Additionally, Stoncy is my favorite team. And his friendship with Robin? Chef's kiss.

3. I'm tempted to go with Jason but as much as I love him, I can't. The third spot can only go to either Robin or Nancy. Since I've loved her ever since, I'm sorry Robin but make way for Nance. Like I previously said, my favorite team is Stoncy (I'm still dying to see them with Robin). She's smart, has a passion and her interactions with Karen? I'm all in for a tender parent/kid moment. Not to forget, she's a total badass.

Top 3 Ships:

1. Ever since I started watching, my heart beat for Stonathan. Sure, they turned enemies to friends so the step to turn lovers is there. Despite their animosity at the beginning they reclaimed a potential stable relationship with each other (even if it was for their mutual love of Nancy). They're the best trio and would make a cute couple. Please, Steve already looks after Will the same way Jonathan does. Cute babysitter boyfriends? YES PLEASE!

2. Since Jonathan and Steve are happy with each other, Nancy's all by herself. So, who's there to help? Someone who is very much like her but also her better half? Robin! Ronance is a not so straight follow up of Stonathan. Please, do I really need to explain? Season 4 gave us more than enough reasons to ship them!

3. So, I literally only found out about it recently but I don't hate the idea of Jason and Will. When Jason was first introduced, I never made the connection that he MIGHT be Will's love interest. And what's better than a D&D nerd and his hot jock boyfriend? Oh so I DID include Jason, but oh well. But other than that (and since I already got one MxM and one FxF ship), I do love Chrissy and Jason together and I HATE how we barely got anything. Like I couldn't hate Jason because I fully understood that he really, truly loved Chrissy. And we've been robbed of that.

And last but not least, my favorite Stranger Things season!

As much as I wanted to love season 4 (especially since it has Jason), I might have to go with the original and say season 1. Everything about it was great. The characters and their dynamics, the world building, the relationships... Season 1 blessed us with Steve the Ninja, Jonathan's and Will's bond, Ted and his chicken, as well as Karen and Joyce talking! Heck, give us more of them together!

#stranger things #Jonathan Byers #Steve Harrington #nancy wheeler #stonathan #steve x jonathan #steve harrington x jonathan byers #robin buckley #ronance #robin buckley x nancy wheeler #robin x nancy #Jason Carver #chrissy cunningham #Jason Carver x Chrissy Cunningham

10 notes · View notes

lost-shoe · 2 years

Text

Honestly I have so many thoughts about Bizarros in a Bizarro World, I dont usually write them out but I have to this time cause it was such a loaded episode and while it had its flaws (it had far too much to cover in a single episode so the pacing was breakneck at certain points to say the least, that some story elements weren't explored nearly enough) it really solidified writers' intentions for the characters' arcs this season (and last).

Jonathan/Jon-El - I've seen repeated expressions of frustration over the course of this season about Jonathan's treatment by his parents (and the show in general) and this episode I think validated those concerns. Or at least reassured that the show was aware of the imbalance between jordan and jonathan's support as well as the discrepancy between what support Jonathan needed and what he got, and that it was narratively intentional. Season 1 from the outset declared Jonathan the "easy" son, whereas Jordan was the emotionally vulnerable one, and when you have a child perceived as "easy" it can become easy to assume they're doing okay, that they dont need as much of your time and support. Both Lois and Clark, just like Bizarro!Lois stated, have made multiple mistakes with Jonathan, and their assumptions about his well-being have contributed to his spiralling this season. He hasnt been heard, listened to, or had his feelings validated, and the feelings of inferiority at the heart of that are of course what influenced his decision to seek out extraordinary in the form of X-K (and in the bizarro!verse to be vulnerable to Ally). I'm not condemning our Lois and Clark as bad parents, they're not, they love their sons fiercely, but they have let other issues rob time from Jonathan, and they've wrongly assumed Jon to be stronger than he is. Everything that's happening in the show right now is going to lead to a major turning point in the Kent family dynamics and its going to be hard but ultimately lead to a healthier place for them all.

Bizarro (Kal-El) - I just knew his story was going to be a tragic fall from grace and now I feel heartbroken for him. No, he wasnt the good Clark from our universe, his priorities were on the fame and attention and showmanship, but everything around him crashing and burning saw him learn and apologise for his mistakes and no doubt if he got the chance to speak with Jon-El he would seek forgiveness there. I'm still of the opinion that he's not actually dead, there was too much in the beginning of the season pointing towards his involvement in the main story arc, and too much revealed in this episode too, but we'll see :)

More Tal-Rho. We always need more Tal-Rho. We can never have too much Tal-Rho.

Tyler's acting was phenomenal this episode, there were a lot of intense moments for Bizarro but the scene between him and his brother, pleading and then punishing and pushing him away, really was heartbreaking and played so well. All the kudos.

Can it be next week already please??

#spoilers #superman and lois #tyler hoechlin #jonathan #jordan elsass #bizarro #this is just scrambled thoughts probably of no interest to others #just wanted to type something out #since it was rattling around in my brain

72 notes · View notes

maddy-ferguson · 1 year

Note

those who pick apart every flaw in the wheeler family dynamic to construe some kind of familial abuse storyline for mike lowkey remind me of steve stans who take the multiple instances of steve freaking about his dad ‘what will my dad think/my dad’s gonna kill me’ and the harringtons’ alluded to absent hands off parenting and construct steve a familial abuse backstory. If they wanted mike to have an abuse story they would have given him one. max and the byers are abused children, max by her brother and will/jonathan by lonnie. we also see the duffers write downright flawed parents, max’s mom coping from divorce and work woes with alcohol and not being present to her daughter’s growing depression, hopper suffering from his own fear of loss and lashing out against a child that obviously was gonna act out from being cooped up for a year. if the wheelers were supposed to be anything other than emotionally stunted, conservative parents that sometimes try and sometimes fall short they would be that instead. like max’s mom, like hopper, they contain parenting flaws. you’d think karen and ted were monsters for not always being the perfect support system for a child they cannot understand what’s going on with, supernaturally or otherwise, by the popular opinion of speaking of them here is

there's one key difference between people who do that with mike's family and people who do that with steve's: we're actually supposed to care about mike's family and his relationship with them. the wheelers are one of two families we meet in season one. we meet them first. mike is elliott in E.T and steve is...elliot's older sister's reformed boyfriend (elliott doesn't have an older sister). we're not supposed to care about his family. do the details we get matter? sure, it...explains why steve works at scoops ahoy i guess. you could find ways in which it informs his relationship with nancy i'm sure but it's not that important in the grand scheme of things because steve himself isn't.

what's annoying about people stretching what we see of mike's family and pretending that it's what's happening though is, well, the fact that they pretend it's what's happening and that they'll act like it's in the show and say you have no media literacy if you disagree. i think it's a thing in this fandom especially because people are sooo into Analysis that they forget that not everything has to be canon for you to enjoy it. steve is his stans' special little guy, of course they're gonna take the three things we hear about his family and make it big plot points in the fics they write, you're allowed to do that also. if you want to write a fic where ted is this lonnie type figure then by all means do it because he will never be in the show, just like steve's relationship with his parents will never be explored. that's something steve stans are well aware of, hence the fics and the frustration at the fact that despite his massive screentime steve's feelings don't seem to matter that much and that he doesn't get to process any of his trauma on screen. mike has family dynamics that are important enough to make it into the episodes. mike is given emotional depth. mike is a character that gets to be traumatized on screen. if you want to add to his trauma by making his parents worse than they are, that's what ao3 is for. if they wanted mike's parents to be abusive beyond redemption, they would've made them abusive beyond redemption.

#answering this ask because it turned one month old today <3 #guys why am i such a diplomat #(i'm actually not)#then again it also depends on what qualifies as abuse to you like if you think that their behavior's abusive you're obviously allowed to #but yeah. they're not writing them as abusive beyond redemption that's for sure #steve's feelings matter i guess but yk when he gets hurt it's also always like whoops there he goes again! not him getting tortured haha #and he says he got over nancy but then he's in love with her again like i can see that happening for sure but a lot of steve fans saw it as #them not caring about steve which i mean. fair. steve while being their big marketable character isn't their priority #there's a fascinating dissonance no one's happy here steve is always there but he also doesn't matter that much and steve stans will never #get the joy of seeing him break down because he's just a fun character but characters get sidelined because of how important he's gotten #to me steve stans are the ones who lost the most in season 4 like idk i would be sooo annoyed at the writers for the way they wrote him #like sure will has never been happy a day in his life but at least his trauma is important and when he's sad you're sad with steve it's #like oh. they decided that he loves nancy again. okay i guess? like idk #ask

9 notes · View notes

cherokeecharles · 1 year

Text

#Hottakes #10: Men are scary AF!

You give an inch they take a mile is how I can describe men’s behaviors at the moment. I’m pretty sure everyone is well-educated in sexism and misogyny, but it seems like it’s ramped up over the last couple of years. Whether it be actively supporting an abuser, the podcast man, or just being downright nasty to women men have been scarier lately. The recent Jonathan Majors news, and push us to the forefront that we don’t know who these men are in real life, or what’s their true nature. Men in positions of power are notoriously protected by media and their rabbit fan bases, but the case of Jonathan Majors makes this a bit more sinister.

Jonathan Majors has just had a breakout year by starring in the movie Creed III alongside Michael B Jordan. The publicity was high, and praise was raining in from all corners, yet somehow black men did not like him. Black men often criticized him for being way too feminine and pandering to the female gaze. Women often defended him against the misogynistic comments that were made towards him and supported him while people were being nasty. While not being the traditional beauty standards, women also went out of their way to complement his unique look and uplifted him rather than join in with the people who were bashing his looks. All of this came to a screeching halt on March 25, 2023, when it was reported that he was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend. It almost gave me whiplash to see the public opinion change on him within minutes. The same women who supported him in the past were shocked and disgusted that they even supported him in the first place, understandably so. But with me, the situation, just a little more sinister was the increased support that he got from black men, the very black man that didn’t like him, because he was pandering to women.

As the details were released about Jonathan Majors, dynamics shifted immediately. Black men who were the ones who didn’t support Jonathan Majors at all, and did not see the height behind him were all of the sidings championing him and protecting him from whatever backlash was to come from his actions. The ‘protect black men’ posse was out in rare form, trying to rehabilitate his public image while it was progressively getting worse. Multiple people who have worked with Jonathan Majors has alleged he wasn’t who he seemed, and yet you have people defending his name like their life depended on it. The bigger question that I asked is why black men amp up the support when the black man and question is being called out for their abusive behavior. Up to last weekend, Jonathan Majors was not a favorite amongst black men and now we’re being told that he’s the second coming of Emmett Till just because his accuser is a white woman. The accuser could be a textbook victim of domestic violence, and they wouldn’t care just because she’s white and white women and black men have a troubled past. This leads me to say that this builds somewhat of a distrust between black men and black women.

The relationship between men and women has been strained especially within the black community. The Jonathan Majors situation puts a light on the underlying issues that we have between black men and black women. Why are black men only in support of other black men when they’re being abusive towards women? Jonathan Majors expressing his femininity and then being an abuser is scary af. Of course, we don’t know who these celebrities are in real life but it’s almost like he knew exactly what to say to a particular audience that he knew would support him. Not too long ago he was talking about black men showing their feelings and emotions in an interview for the Creed III movie just so he could be an abuser.

To be clear, I know this isn’t every black man who acts like this, or who is an abuser. The problem lies is with who women can trust. As a woman growing up, we all are taught every cautionary tale possible about how men are untrustworthy, and men are this and that. But when do you teach those men to do better? Jonathan Majors is just one of many celebrities who have been protected after showing an abusive nature towards women. At what point does it end? It’s almost like abuse and Hollywood go hand-in-hand. At some point, these behaviors will be called out and will have an in-depth discussion that isn’t coddling abusers.

Happy Women's Month! I hope you all had an amazing month and celebrated womanhood as best as you know how. What do y'all think about the Jonathan Majors story? Are we surprised? Did we expect better? So sorry for the late post but life has been life-ing lately so I'll keep everyone updated on that soon! See you guys next post!

Cherokee💓

#pop culture #hottakes #jonathan majors #abuser #hollywood #believe women #black woman #womens history month #black femininity #black womanhood #black feminism #black tumblr #black blogger

9 notes · View notes

sunnydaleherald · 9 months

Text

The Sunnydale Herald Newsletter, Tuesday, July 11, Part II

[Fandom Discussions]

What are your favorite things about bangel? by initiumseries

if your takeaway from s6 of Buffy was that she was anything other than the victim you’re wrong by targaryenvampireslayer

Something buffy does absolutely right by mixedmessaging

not to be bitter but by buffyjackets

one thing i will always think about is whatever (pre-evil) faith and dawn’s dynamic was like by buffyjackets

If you were to write a Buffy and Charmed crossover, what do you think it would be like? by takaraphoenix

as much as wesley’s character fascinates me in ats by buffyjackets

does anyone else just kinda have their own “canon” to how things in tv shows and stuff went…? by rachelsdamhairbrush

ok but it’s so odd how chill willow and xander were about jesse being killed by anxious-m3ss, rachelsdamhairbrush

Discussion of 4.09 "Something Blue" by Multiple Authors

These are some of my favorite reaction episodes and Channels. by fauxindigo

yknow. angel HAS to be miserable by dogmotif

Andrew by HopeMikaelson69

Xander’s speech in 7x18 should have set the tone for the rest of the season. by corematrix

Angel S4 Opinions by johnnyorac

Site has free to access transcripts for Buffy, many others by Inoutngone

I know i'm in the minority with this but don't like how Buffy acted here by AceItaliano

Am I imagining this or did Andrew try to steal Spikes look? by aeryn1227

“Wild at Heart” is harder to watch than “Seeing Red” by hthbellhop76

XANDER!!!! by Massive-Fan7861

What do you think about ATS? by albe_albi

In Angel season 5 episode 1 Harmony gives Angel a cup of blood by wtffu006

He counted the days... One of the most genuine moments!!! by LibrarianImportant29

Do you think Buffy and Spike had sex the night before the final battle in 'Chosen'? by RealisticAd4054

Hi, I’m Cordelia Chase, aspiring actress in LA. Roast Me! by Buffvamporigfan

Once More With Feeling Disney Remaster by LengthinessAncient12

Xander — fighting evolution by young-rapunzel-666

Kendra is one of the biggest what ifs by The810kid

I cry every time Angel shows up at the prom. by reformed_runner31

Oh no! Another 'Spuffy' question! by mskisskissbang

Anyone else really sad when they killed off buffys therapist? by oversaltedeverything

Dawns Safety by BreakTacticF0

How did the scoobies afford ANYTHING by bandanagal123

It’s about power. by PomegranateGarden

Jonathan by Impressive_Path1351

dawn as the key vs an object by bandanagal123

Thoughts on the gang’s social reputation? by Eagles56

Angel s2 / Buffy s5 Watch Order by Batmenic365

The Potentials Rant by Mat1711

I’m curious if there were any big riffs in the cast, other than with Whedon by PsamantheSands

I Only Have Eyes For You by atlasshrugd

Just noticed Giles had more than one wizard costume and it makes me absurdly happy by Babettesgnomes

Submit a link to be included in the newsletter!

#btvs #buffy the vampire slayer #angel the series #fan art #fan fiction #meta

4 notes · View notes

beansthebylershipper · 1 year

Text

Stranger things teens ship analysis

disclaimer: I can’t write about all the stranger things ships in one post, so I have another post about stranger things kids ships (Byler, Lumax, etc.), and am also planning to make one about the adults.

Jancy: Jancy was really cute up until season 4. Then their relationship became kinda toxic. But in all the other seasons I definitely shipped them, and I’m pretty confident that they are an endgame ship. Rating: 6.5/10

Stancy: I’ve never shipped Stancy, and I don’t think that the duffers want us to either. They were clearly just used as a prop to get Jancy going, and they were quite a toxic relationship. Steve and Nancy are better off with other people, and I hope that Steve will realize that like Nancy did. Rating: 0/10

Ronance: The idea of Ronance is cute and I ship it about as much as I ship Jancy, but I don’t see it becoming canon because Robin and Vickie both canonically like eachother, but who knows, I wouldn’t mind much if I were wrong 🤷. Rating: 6/10

Jargyle: Jargyle is awesome, and I love it. I ship it about as much romantically as I do platonically, and you guys are really out here doing gods work with the fanwork. I don’t see it becoming canon because it’s pretty clear that they are just besties, but I’d love it if it was. Rating: 7/10

Stonathan: to be honest I don’t see the chemistry at all with this one, but the idea of the ship is cute. And I mean, Steve was pretty chill with the fact that Jonathan literally slept with his girlfriend in season 2. Rating:4/10

Steddie: I liked Steddie at first, but Steddie fans have kinda ruined it for me. A lot of them are either Eddie stans/simps, or fujoshis, both of which are a red flag. The ship it’s self is really cute, but some of the fans are problematic and we all know that if one of them wasn’t white there wouldn’t be nearly as many fans, I mean look at them compared to jargyle, both are healthy ships, but only one has a large amount of creepy fans, and yet that one has WAY more shippers. I think that that’s a little suspicious. (Also I’m aware that there are plenty of normal Steddie shippers out there, I just think that there are more problematic ones than there should be.) Rating: 4/10

Stobin: NO. NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. ROBIN IS A LESBIAN. IF YOU SHIP STOBIN ROMANTICALLY, GET OFF MY ACCOUNT. Rating: -100000/10

Rockie: (is that the ship name for Robin and Vickie?) I don’t have that much of an opinion on this ship, but it’s pretty cute I guess. My only problem with it is that I wish that they had given Vickie more screen time or introduced her earlier in the series because it’s hard to me to care about a ship when I hardly know anything about one of the characters. I feel like that was kinda bad writing on the duffers part, but that’s my only problem with it, other than that it’s fine. Rating: 6/10

Buckingham: The fanwork for this ship is everything, but they literally have zero moments together. I get why people ship it though because the dynamic would be cute. Rating: 5/10

Chrissy x Jason: (what is the ship name for this????) Jason really cared about Chrissy, but they barely got any time together on the show, plus Chrissy was giving me lesbian vibes so- Rating: 3/10

Harringrove: Billy was definitely a simp for Steve, but Billy was rasist, abusive, and just a terrible person in general and Steve deserves a lot better. Rating: -100/10

Barb x Nancy: where is the hype for this ship?? It’s so cute! Barb wasn’t alive for very long so I don’t have that much to say on the ship, but i definitely shipped them while she was alive. Rating 7.5/10

Hellcheer : I didn’t see any chemistry for this tbh. They interacted once, when Chrissy tried to buy drugs from Eddie and then got vecnaed. I just dont see where people are getting a romantic relationship from, I guess. Rating 3/10

Part one ⬇️

19 notes · View notes