Tell me everything you hate about Leon Kennedy so I can agree

Careful, anon, or you'll make me fall in love with you

The things I don't hate about Leon would make a shorter list and my instinct is to give you a jokey answer, but you seem genuinely curious of Leon's faults as a character so I'll do my best to explain it:

Obligatory "just because a character sucks doesn't mean you have to hate them, and I'm not saying people can't like Leon, I'm simply expressing why I personally don't" statement for those with no reading comprehension <3

My biggest reason for hating him is the misogyny. Leon's most prominent trait is his continued misogyny. And while this previously was brushed off as "the writing of the time" in which the games/CG movies were released, that is no longer an excuse, because 1. Leon is still being written as a misogynist, just in a different context, and 2. There are other RE male characters who were never written to be misogynistic, such as Chris Redfield, and there are RE male characters who were originally misogynistic but have been rewritten to no longer be, such as Luis Serra. And of all of the RE male characters who were originally written to be misogynistic, the only character who has maintained that misogyny despite remakes is Leon. This makes it no longer just a reflection of the early 2000's writing, it now becomes a facet of his actual character. And while Leon's misogyny is no longer as blatant and bold as "following a lady's lead just isn't my style", or making demeaning comments on a woman's butt, or scoffing and spitting "women", it is still a part of his character.

Especially in relation to Ada Wong. The way he treats Ada is like a stereotypical reddit incel who experienced one breakup and now hates/disregards all women in his perceived dating pool. Ada never fully revealed who she was to Leon, she never promised him the truth, and she never expressed a want to allow him to see the real her - in fact, she did quite the opposite, constantly trying to push him away. But Leon - being a man who sees a woman in a dangerous situation as someone who needs his help, despite Ada saving his ass multiple times - sticks around. And because he knows nothing about her, he starts to create a projection of who he thinks Ada is, based entirely on the very minimal and evasive information she has given him. And yes, being lied to by anyone is not fun, especially in the middle of an apocalypse. But Ada made many attempts to get Leon to back off, to leave her be, and yet he in all his macho-heroism insisted on "helping" her, thus forcing himself into her line of work despite her warnings against it. And then, when her lie is revealed, he completely disregards his respect for her, and begins to view her as nothing but an emotionless manipulator. She refuses to shoot him, even though it meant forfeiting her entire mission, and he still actually believes she never cared about him. And when they meet again, his attitude towards her is utterly abrasive, inconsiderate, and cold. What makes this misogyny however, rather than just Leon being an asshole, is that we have another character in the same game who Leon used to admire and whose identity is revealed to be something Leon is morally against: Major Krauser. And yet, Leon entirely maintains his respect for, and his consideration for the feelings of, Krauser. Ada Wong was a mercenary who lied to Leon to keep her cover. Krauser was a war criminal who kidnapped the president's daughter, which brought Leon into this mess, and then murdered Luis right in front of Leon. And Leon has a very no-nuance, naïve, black and white view of morals prior to and throughout re4r, so if his vitriol for Ada was truly about conflicting morals, that would be reflected in how he treats Krauser, too. However, Leon maintains his respect for Krauser. Leon appeals to Krauser's honour, to Krauser's emotions. Leon actively tries to sympathise with Krauser in an effort to rationalise Krauser's actions in Leon's mind. And yet it is Ada Wong, who has saved his life countless times, who has shown him she cares, and who has helped him at no cost, who receives his ire; rather than Krauser, who couldn't care less about Leon and his predicament. This kind of misogyny is especially infuriating to me because Leon's actions are portrayed as Just™, he is still portrayed as the Correct Hero™, and the fans ignore his misogyny just as easily as the narrative itself does.

I don't hate Leon just because he's a misogynist; there's too many of those in media to hate them all for that. I hate him because his misogyny is made to be a quality of his character, and is never punished by the narrative nor is he ever forced to reconcile with it. And what's worse, the way he treats Ada is in turn perpetrated by fans who refuse to acknowledge his misogyny, and thus become little misogynists themselves, tearing into Ada with utter vitriol and no consideration for her as a character.

And obviously, not just Ada. Another modern example is how he treats Claire Redfield in re2r and Infinite Darkness. He sees her as a kid in need of protecting, despite her only being 2 years younger than him, and proving repeatedly that she's more than capable of handling herself. And when she asks when he'll stop treating her like a kid, he says "probably never". (I am strangling him I'm exploding him with my mind). But his misogyny towards Ada is the most significant and reoccurring. She has long been written to serve as the object of Leon's desires, and now that she's been given significant substance, fans hate her for no longer fitting into their own misogynistic ideal of who she should be. But that's another discussion.

There's other things I hate about him, such as his part in modern copoganda, or his arrogance, but the misogyny is the most prominent thing. And I truly admire fans who love Leon while actively acknowledging his misogyny. But to me, he has no other redeeming qualities significant enough to help me get over it.

Sorry that was a lot but if you read this far, I hope I did okay explaining my feelings on this. Thank you for asking <3

Why do you think so many people hate Mary? I want to blame misogyny, but a lot of women hate her too.

Oh you sweet summer child. Misogyny is a concept that describes how gender structures our society. For example, we live in a patriarchal society, therefore many of our beliefs are either deliberately misogynist (taboos and traditions rooted in fearing women who express sexual, financial, or social agency; re: Salem witch trials which targeted many a rich widows!) or indirectly misogynist. The latter is less about hating women but privileging cis men.

For example, due to our world's history and the fact that cis men dominated it, many in the US, UK, and Australia believe that, for women, to succeed, they need intelligence and hard work. On the other hand, the same 28,000-people sample cited that men would need connections to succeed.

This isn't 28,000 people saying this is how it is. This is them observing what actually happens. Men promote men because they are products of a patriarchal society that basically conditions cis men to rise to high profile jobs, and this sort of behavior isn't ACTIVELY misogynist, because those employers might not be deliberately trying to be sexist. Yet, all the social strictures placed on women (like needing time for children etc.) end up perpetuating this vicious cycle of cis men getting ahead generally via connections rather than merit.

Now I just went on a long ass preamble, and for why? What does this have to do with Mary? Because I want to address that part of your question that assumes women can't be misogynist or subject to the same biases that are built into a patriarchal society, like the one we live in. Because guess what? Women can definitely be sexist despite their self-proclamations of being feminist or progressive. Just like how people of color can also harbor racism against themselves and their own community, or racism against other ethnicities. You would think sharing the same experience enables empathy or something, but nah. People are that conditioned to passively allow this sort of bullshit. So long as it isn't blatantly or deliberately misogynist, they're going to go around holding Mary to an impossible standard and not examine their own biases regarding the role of gender in how they view her complex and messy emotions.

Just take for example how this fandom talks about/reacts to Dutch in comparison to the general feeling wrt Mary. Except for a few deluded fools, most people in the fandom find Dutch to be a flawed character, i.e. he serves the narrative purpose of being a complex and fully fleshed out character whose problematic actions drive the momentum of the story. In this case, Dutch is an example of 'good writing' (and I don't disagree with that). Even outside RDR2, any male character with a sociopathic, manipulative streak will be heralded as the pinnacle of writing. And I don't disagree. People who can write complex and flawed characters are actually great writers!

The problem is, people lose that type of rationale and analysis when you take even half the imperfections a character like Dutch has and put it on a woman/female character. Suddenly, she's not evidence of great writing, but she is a living, breathing person whose abusive behavior is condemned by a living, breathing 'trained therapist' so Mary apologists are clearly wrong and any attempt at understanding her role in the narrative is abuser apology.

lol sorry for being a bit on the nose, but you can't deny this pattern fo behavior in fandom and across other fandoms. Flawed male characters are complex and PEAK storytelling. Flawed female characters are bullies/manipulative/straight up bitches who need to burn in hell (sorry to use really outdated gender language, but I'm more broadly speaking to the cisnormative array of characters mainstream media tends to feature).

And I wish these same people who invest so much energy in justifying their dislike of Mary on the basis of moral condemnation could just STOP for a second and think about how insane that is. Here is Arthur, shooting, killing, stealing... but see he is a complex and complicated character!!!!! Fuck Mary though for using whatever means at her disposal to help her family. That fucking bitch!!! Look at how insane this is once you contextualize Mary in the actual fictional universe she exists in, rather than taking her out of context and cherrypicking 10-second clips to apply harebrained psychological analysis to???

So yeah TLDR I think people hate Mary because of plain misogyny. It's weird because I was never like an enthusiastic Mary fan when I first played. Like I loved her as a love interest for Arthur, but I never thought I'd spend THIS much energy defending her. And yet I do, because I cannot stand seeing people fall into this problematic pattern of thought any longer. I want people to sit down and just think for a moment. Is it okay to dislike Mary or not like her or not care about her? YES IT'S PERFECTLY OKAY. It's not okay though to overstate the harm of her flawed actions in order to shut down discussion and use her character as an excuse to basically be closeted misogynists. You guys are WAY more obvious than you think you are.

Mine headcanons to them:

Dieter is a proud misogynist. Like he HATES women guts. Chile he would be happy if us just disappear from Earth forever lol. Especially if womens next to Landa. But he never admit this.

Dieter is the one who has a big trouble inside him-internalised homophobia torture him and Hans always playing on this painful topic for him

Dieter is homophobic gay, Hans is chill bisexual

Hans somewhere can admit he cares about Dieter, Hellstrom? Hell, never !!!!!

But at the same time Dieter is very Vulnerable when he not trying to act tought

Landa always gives him a pet names and Dieter acts like he hates this(he lives for this low-key….)

Hans will always humiliate and mock Dieter about everything related to him, including his work, but he will do everything in his power to ensure that Dieter gets a promotion.

They both an assholes who breaks ups(if we call what they have a relationship) 2836271910101 times but always come back to each other’s bc they already dependent on each other and emotions that only they can give each other

they belong to each other’s more than they belong to hell.

💔

Heehee! I see I must've influenced your headcanons a great deal (or we just think very much alike)! This is just me answering certain points in your list hear and rambling about my thoughts, hope that's okay! Dieter hates women so much. Naziism in general is so deeply misogynistic but he has even more piled on top of that in my hc's for him, due to his relationship with his mom and his perception of his parents' (mom and biological dad, then his mom and stepdad) relationship. He acts like he views his sister through a different lens but it's still very steeped in "I, your older brother (a man) know what's best for you." I feel like Hans admitting he cares is very much more like... well, it's more like, he knows exactly what will keep Dieter tied to him and i don't think it's inherently false, his need/want, but there's definitely the idea that he will get what he wants out of saying he "cares". Dieter's way of admitting it is being possessive and jealous, lol. I do actually have a "break-up" planned for them (as much as that's possible)! And it's like honestly the way I've written them they don't even consider themselves "together" for the first uh 6+ years so much as just conveniently hooking up. And this changes with the fic Der klaren Sterne (the one that centers around Hans visiting Dieter and his family over the holidays). I write Hans as, even from the beginning, being endlessly intrigued by what this arrangement with Dieter can offer him. Dieter on the other hand has no choice lol (well i guess to some extent he does but) but considering the trauma I've put him through, he'll deal with Hans (and especially all the sex they have) any day compared to what he's experienced with other men. I have so much good dialogue written with them that I haven't posted yet, that's like... they're terrible at communicating with each other but as the reader it expresses so much (and I think Hans at least is very capable at reading through the lines). You're right that Dieter becomes most vulnerable when he tries to be tough. Hans sees it... and loves it... but there does come a point too where he is also concerned and somewhat like... he really sees how deeply set in his ways Dieter is. For as much as Hans can manipulate him, certain things he can't change and it's like oh. 😬 The only ones I would say I differ on is Hans being "chill" re: sexuality because I do write him as EXTREMELY homophobic in the sense that he's like "omg Dieter why would you WANT to be gay, just fuck women hello they're so 🤤🤤🤤!" like he has no respect for people being mono-sexual, be it gay, lesbian or straight (i write him like this towards Francesca as well in the fics she appears in, since I hc as a lesbian. Like in the Retail AU he's just like all "uh she's too pretty to be gay and she just hasn't tried me yet 🙄") and it's like he's not even bisexual so much as opportunistic. lmao i hate him.

cw this post is about people acting like freaks about the heard/depp defamation case and involves ableism, misogyny, biphobia. feel free 2 rb if you so desire but please also feel more than free to scroll past if you're as sick of hearing about it as i am

i have no personal opinion on the depp/heard situation because refuse to look into it enough to actually learn the facts of the case. but the way people are talking about heard in particular in a very gendered "she's a mentally ill bitch of course she's making it all up" way is really truly disgusting. like if she is lying and depp really was abused by her and not the other way around then ok, again i literally do not know, but once you start throwing mentally ill people under the bus and calling women crazy lying cunts and being like "as if that would ever happen 🤣" when they talk about the details of their alleged abuse i think you're just an ableist misogynist and you need to get pushed off a cliff like asap.

like im not surprised by any of it but i am so enraged and saddened by all the people being like "she was diagnosed with BPD and people with BPD are ABUSIVE CONTROL FREAKS" and "she's histrionic which for those who don't know is basically SEVERE NARCISSISM they are psychotic manipulators let this be a lesson to stay AWAY from these people they're EVIL" "she's definitely a sociopath narcissist that's why she abused him i was in a relationship with a narcissist and-" like god shut the fuck uppppp. i hate every single one of you ableist fucking losers all these disorders people are attributing to her (regardless of if she has them or not, i do not know) are already so uniquely stigmatized and im genuinely worried this whole shitshow will exacerbate the problem and make things even worse.

also the way people are talking about her fucking facial expressions like "no real abuse victim would ever act like that" "if she was really abused she wouldn't have to fake cry" as if people haven't been using that against abuse victims for fucking???? forever????? because people have these preconceived notions of how we should feel and behave and speak and whether or not we're taken seriously is so often hinged on how well we live up to these notions. which, yes, sometimes does actually mean FAKING CERTAIN EMOTIONS. i have literally done this myself. it's not something only liars and abusers do. if the evidence shows that she abused him then thats literally all anyone should need. rely on the actual facts of the case, whatever they may be. do not be dragging survivors everywhere through the mud because you're a fucking freak who wants to police our expressions and feelings and tone thanks die

(see also: "if she was abused by him why would she still proposition him for sex/want to cuddle with him/etc?" it actually happens all the time. shut the fuck up)

ok and i don't think there's any reason to go very far into the sexist rhetoric on both sides because anyone with even a single tiny sliver of a brain would be able to see how horrible it is so moving on from that. the fact that ive seen people be like "poor johnny.... she's bisexual so she probably cheated on him too 🤣" ummmm once again. die. like fr. i hate you

again i cannot state clearly enough this is not a reflection of my opinion on who is guilty or whatever. i do not know because i haven't looked closely into the case. but despite my best efforts i still have been exposed to it and i think its inexcusable that people are treating it like a fandom war and whipping out like every possible form of bigotry to justify which "team" they're on. and im really genuinely worried for the damage this is going to do to the public's perception of abuse/mental illness/etc which is especially worrying because we were already so fucked up in all of those arenas and we really do not need things to get worse.

child abuse survivor's perspective

perhaps the cancel culture and the polarising nature of the Internet has meant that we have not discussed the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial repercussions with the complexity it requires.

the #MeToo movement is incredibly important. if you do not agree with me on that, then the rest of this post is not meant for you.

i also believe it a necessity to acknowledge the way that abusers can utilise misogynistic ideas to inflict damage on their victims. they can tell men to "man up," belittle them for being weak, make them feel bad for expressing any form of emotion. just because, for example, a woman says this to a man it does not absolve that woman of misogyny.

while this trial is inextricably linked to the #MeToo movement, i do believe that is (forgive me if i'm wrong) meant to be a space for the women who have not been believed. that focus needs to remain.

there needs to be a separate space for what has occurred in this trial.

i say this because i do not believe Johnny Depp was the perpetrator in this case. i've watched hours upon hours of that goddamn trial, not wanting my view of it to be too skewed by edited tiktoks or whatever.

i personally have been in two different familial domestic abuse dynamics, both times as the scapegoat child. i am fortunate enough to have escaped that situation, and have been no contact for over five years, all the while trying to break patterns instilled in me by my experiences.

i have seen my father be manipulated by my mother to harm us as his children, physically and emotionally. it is difficult to reconcile the fact that he was a victim too, especially since to me he could often be so harmful. a victim-turned-partial perpetrator.

i don't know if Johnny Depp ever harmed others to placate his violent wife. i do know that he is trying to do better, shown by some of his most shameful moments released to the public.

i have seen my father deny abuse on his literal deathbed. i really wish he had any kind of backbone to do what Johnny Depp is doing now.

so shouldn't he get that opportunity to heal? to unlearn whatever shitty things she instilled in him?

i certainly think so.

as a survivor of domestic abuse, this trial has been triggering and incredibly draining. please don't invalidate other abused genders in your efforts to support the #MeToo movement. that is not what it's about.

p.s. i bolded and italicised to make this easier to break down. i have also tagged this to decrease triggers. if you have been abused, i hope you receive and/or build the support to heal, recover, find justice, or whatever else you need to do; you deserve to experience a better world, my lovely. keep going until you reach it.

Jeanne, Vanitas and Agency

From the little I’ve dipped my toes into it, the VnC fandom seems pretty heated regarding Jeanne as a character. In drastic situations, I’ve seen accusations of misogyny based solely on someone’s comments on their feelings about Jeanne... a single character. And while yes, critiques can certainly be rooted in misogyny (must women be strong all the time? must they be submissive?), I think it’s important to consider not just the character herself, but how the story treats her and why we’re making the critiques we are.

Given that points of view in the fandom are so polarized, I’m going back to canon--to the text itself--to orient this essay. In particular, I’m going to focus on the point of agency--the freedom to make one’s own decisions about one’s self and one’s course of action. This goes beyond just Jeanne’s background as a borreau, trained to fight and follow orders. Agency is also consequential in her relationships with other characters and with the story as a whole.

(Content warning for discussion of abuse dynamics, and brief mentions of sexual assault.) 

--

It’s natural to start off with Jeanne’s first appearance in the story: alongside Luca, she’s introduced as a new agent of conflict with Noe and Vanitas’s budding alliance. In fact, she is the one who initiates the physical altercation with Noe and Vanitas, while Luca is still trying to talk them into giving him the Book of Vanitas:

Aesthetically and conceptually, she’s introduced as an active element of the story. At this point, the “forced kiss” scene during the initial fight seems more like a fluke, a comment on Vanitas’s personality (and willingness to do despicable things to get what he wants) rather than Jeanne’s.

That brings me to why I found it so jarring when colored art of her that was subsequently revealed: that agency fell away to portray a visually more passive air.

In the existing full-color art we have of Jeanne, she’s more static in her environment, looking towards the viewer but with a face that looks rather blank, even meek. Specifically I want to point out this wallpaper, which I obtained from the official site fairly early on in Vanitas’s serialization (December 2016), in contrast to another piece of official art that was released of Noe and Vanitas with Memoire 11, around the same time:

In both cases, the characters are posed intentionally, rather than actively doing something. And, they’re aware of the viewer’s gaze to some extent. However, Jeanne has her back turned to the viewer, and her expression is more idealized and ambiguous. Meanwhile, Noe and Vanitas are rather assertive: their expressions are more intentionally focused, and they seem to know their situation in the artwork. Jeanne is simply passive, very nearly objectified.

...Yeah, maybe this is just my art background speaking. But I also notice something similar happening in other official colored pieces of Jeanne, such as the cover of volume 4.

By this point in the story, lack of agency has become an even more significant element in Jeanne’s character arc: we learn that she’s been cursed. Not only is she unable to speak of the curse, it’s also in direct opposition to one of her primary character motivations, to protect Luca and those she cares about. Due to her uncontrollable urge to kill and drink blood, Jeanne fears that she’ll unintentionally hurt the very people she’s trying to protect. 

Jeanne’s involvement with Vanitas also unfortunately comes with a sacrifice of her own agency. Seeing that she’s been cursed, Vanitas demands that she drinks blood from no one but him in exchange for keeping her secret. He further establishes her sense of reliance on him by promising that if he ever does see her lose control, he’ll kill her (so that she doesn’t harm Luca). Whether he’s simply a smitten 18-year-old who doesn’t yet know how to conduct healthy relationships, or whether he’s crafty and intentionally drawing Jeanne in further--or even whether it’s a mix of both--this idea of Vanitas’s control over her is reflected in the cover art for volume 4.

At this point, considering the literal events of the story, Jeanne’s passiveness is not only visual, but symbolic. In this illustration, Vanitas’s hand is grabbing Jeanne by her bow, and functionally by her neck: she’s being dragged along against her will, with little means of escape. And she looks at the viewer with a surprisingly similar expression to the previous illustration: one that communicates little say in the situation.

This matches up with their literal relationship in the story itself. Knowing she’s cursed, Vanitas is establishing her exclusive reliance on him, in exchange for keeping important secrets from others with whom she’s close (i.e. threatening to drive a wedge into their relationship). He’s already pushed himself upon her physically with clearly no warning or enjoyment from her. Yes, he’s been kind. And when Dominique trails Vanitas and Jeanne on their date, she notes that Jeanne is “terribly weak against any sort of kindness.” But in spite of some more “cute” and candid moments, the overall dynamic between Jeanne and Vanitas is far from genuine kindness. Returning to how Vanitas garnered an edge over her in their initial fight--with taunting, carefully chosen words--I would phrase it more as that Jeanne, a borreau trained to kill and inexperienced with matters of feelings, is particularly susceptible to emotional manipulation. (There’s more than a little irony in this internal comment from Jeanne, at the beginning of her date with Vanitas:)

Jeanne’s relationship with Vanitas becoming important isn’t, in isolation, inherently an issue. In most cases, it’s fun to see how a character who usually appears unshakeable is rounded out when we see them at their more vulnerable times. What makes me feel squicked out and worried on Jeanne’s behalf is how it’s executed, considering how it works in opposition to how she was introduced as a character, and how Jeanne and Vanitas’s relationship harkens back to known dynamics of abuse. 

In other words, my discomfort is not at Jeanne herself for falling for Vanitas and his tactics. It’s at how she’s introduced with a promise of agency in her own story, and that agency is subsequently taken away in how she’s portrayed in official art, and in plot points as the story progresses. It’s at how their relationship begins to fall into a harmful template perpetuated by rape culture, where a man forces himself upon a woman at first, but she is shown to eventually enjoy those advances even when unwanted. I had high hopes for Jeanne as a character developed with her own agency, motives (and yes, for cool fight scenes that WLW like me can admire), and so far, Vanitas’s effect on her has threatened to overshadow these. This is where I think sections of the fandom throwing accusations back and forth of each other being misogynistic, on the grounds of criticizing Jeanne and her relationship with Vanitas, fail to see the wider issue.

Of course, eliciting this sort of discomfort may even be the whole point. Jun Mochizuki is known for putting her characters through tragic and painful situations, and her previous work Pandora Hearts is rife with unstable, imbalanced, and otherwise less-than-perfect relationships. But even without this background knowledge, a decisive scene that convinces me of the intentionality of this purpose is one I’ve written about before: Jeanne’s internal fantasy as she’s left unattended by Luca and loses herself in a storybook.

Here, Jeanne fantasizes about being the agent in her own story, a position that, the art reminds us, is often occupied by a male character such as a prince. Ultimately, this progression looks innocent and could serve to remind us of Jeanne’s more vulnerable, innocuous side. But including it here in the story could also serve as foreshadowing, a contrast to what Jeanne’s situation is like for her in reality. (If you want to read more on this panel specifically, my analysis is in the source link of this post!)

Essentially, critiquing Jeanne as a character requires more nuance than simply judging her individual characteristics. It’s necessary to also take into account the way that the story treats her and her relationships with others and other forces in the story. Not just is she allowed to be soft and emotional, but what consequences does this have for her, and how do the story elements lead the reader to feel about her being soft?

Personally, I think she’s very likeable as a character--her situation just seems unfair, and I feel like she deserves so much better than Vanitas and his schemes. I mean, she could easily destroy him with her gauntlet, and he knows it! But, then, it’s Jun Mochizuki. We should probably expect to be feeling pain and pity for her characters. Still, the relationship between Jeanne and Vanitas has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way, and I think this pretty much sums up why.

tw: mental health, suicide mention, racism, misogynoir

The bullshit around Meghan Markle has got me real fucking mad but this post in the tag has got me real fucking LIVID. 

This post right here is one of the most condescending, tone deaf, racist, horseshit I’ve read so far.

1) this was a interview NOT an entire therapy session. She does NOT to need to go into full detail of her mental health trauma if she’s not ready to do so, so for this person who supposedly worked as mental health clinician to try to discredit her experience by basing the validity on rather or not it fit that ONE symptom out of many is fucking ridiculous and tone deaf.  The UK tabloids continued to obsessively trash her FOR YEARS, So of course it’s going to take a serious toll on her mental health, You have to be a whole clown to think it isn’t just because it doesn’t “look that way” TO YOU. 

2) Full stop this “she seems strong”. Black women are not emotionally indestructible. The narrative that black women and women in general need to be strong in order to be taken seriously is fucking offensive beyond belief. They’re allowed to be emotional, They’re allowed to express frustration with the way they are being treated. This is an awful take.

3) Both her father and half siblings had exploited her name for profit behind her damn back. She has every single right to cut them out of her life. She doesn’t owe them shit. 

4) Trying to paint the biracial black woman as a manipulative villainess  is fucking racist as hell. This is a tactic that is used a lot against them, and it’s not slick.  Reading and eating up tabloids in which no one shouldn’t be treating as legitimate source doesn’t make your dumbasses an authoritative expert on her entire being. It makes you looks like a misogynistic, racist twat that is hell bent on making her life miserable. Don’t act like you wouldn’t leave the country too if the press, tabloids and the racists supporting them is so ridiculously bent on trashing you to the point of them to actual compare your unborn baby to a CHIMP for shits and giggles. 

Fuck my heart hurts for Meghan so much. She deserve so much better than this clusterfuck of racism and misogynoir. 

Subversion of Tropes

Spoiler warning for Fear, Lies and Plague down below 

TW: mentions of s@xual @ssault and r@pe

In my recent post, Misogyny in Gone, I pointed out numerous instances in the series where misogynistic tropes are present, and how that affects the narrative of the story. The women often seem to be underdeveloped, sexualised and demonised for choices and characteristics that their male counterparts make and have with no consequence. Of course this is not true for every female character, and it is certainly not present all the time, but it still has a huge impact on the story. There is one scene in particular though, that seems to subvert these tropes and I wanted to talk about it as I think it is both a really important aspect of the story and introduces us to a fascinating power dynamic, that I really wish mg had developed further.

The interplay between sex and violence is a theme that is heavily prevalent in Plague and is present in both Lies and Fear. It shows up in many different forms throughout the series and presents itself in multiple ways such as: Caine and Diana’s relationship, Astrid and Orc’s Scene in Plague and Drake with pretty much every attractive woman he comes across. This is a theme that mg writes particularly well – Astrid and Orc’s scene in Plague (with a small cameo from Drake) is one of the best written examples of this trope I have ever read. However, for me personally, this scene is marginally outdone by another example of this trope that occurs in Fear – that being Caine’s cementing.

Not only does this scene have the cathartic tint of revenge to it, but it also subverts this trope in that it is the woman who is the perpetrator and the man (boy) who is the victim. When I first read Fear, nothing about this scene seemed even remotely sexual to me (because I was a child and unless it was outright stated I was never going to pick up on it.) But, when I re-read the scene a few days ago in preparation for my misogyny in gone post, I noticed how reminiscent Penny’s takedown of Caine is to the way women typically experience sexual violence (both in media and real life.)

So the scene starts out with Caine turning up to Penny’s house to discuss the situation with Cigar. Great. Fast forward a bit and we get to Penny outright telling Caine that she has a crush on him….and him outright rejecting her. Instead of accepting this, she pushes, telling him that she could be anyone in his imagination. He rejects her again. And she does not take that well. While she doesn’t show it on the outside, we as a reader get to see her internal monologue, where she has an extremely inappropriate reaction to his rejection. It is clear from this that she feels entitled to his affection, despite him never giving any indication that her feelings were reciprocated. Penny seems to believe that Caine has falsely led her on, but we as a reader know that he has rejected any and all advances that she has made and has not ever, in canon, used her crush to manipulate her. (Before I continue I want to make it clear that I am by no means saying that Caine is innocent. Penny has every right to be angry with him for a multitude of other reasons. But her reasoning here is misguided.) So the first question that this brings to mind is: Would Penny have continued with the cementing if Caine had welcomed her advances?? I think mg left this purposely ambiguous. But I like (and I use this word very loosely) the idea that she wouldn’t have. The trope of a woman having to cater to the desires of a man in order to avoid violence is one that is common in all types of media, and is one that we see throughout Gone as well. The best examples being Astrid with Sam and, of course, Diana with Caine. Both of these women are forced to conform to what Sam and Caine want them to be in order to be safe in the FAYZ, and so mg flipping the switch on this and having Caine’s inability to capitulate Penny’s desires being the final straw to his downfall (even if he was unaware of this fact) is an amazing touch.

This theme is then continued in the way that Penny takes Caine down…by drugging him and incapacitating him. Now, these are occurrences that are usually associated with date r@pe, which is something that is mostly experienced by women. Of course, this is not what actually happened in the book, but the association is there for a reason, I’m sure. Given Penny’s attraction to Caine, her take-down of him is inherently sexual in both its execution and come about. Her extreme reaction to his refusal is probably a result of her less-than-ideal childhood. We are told than Penny’s father used to take inappropriate pictures of her older, but still under-aged sister. When her sister became of age, Penny assumed that her father would move on to her, but instead he skipped her and began taking photos of her younger sister. Mg doesn’t really go into much detail on how this must have affected Penny’s psyche – only that she was so jealous that she took her father’s laptop into the school and showed the other students, resulting in his arrest. It is heavily implied that Penny’s parents were not affectionate – they neglected their children (at least emotionally) and so Penny sought out attention and affection, as any child would. Seeing how much time her father spent with her older sister, and seeing why – it isn’t hard to believe that Penny would equate sexualisation to affection, and even love. (lemme just have a cry real quick.) This makes sense when you take into account her reaction to Caine’s refusal (which was actually pretty mild) and even when you look at earlier events – such as him helping to bathe her. I can’t speak for everyone, but if someone broke MY legs and then came in to help bathe me, I would not be happy, and yet Penny seems to almost enjoy it. We then learn that Penny and her sisters were sent to live with their aunt after their mother became too depressed to care for them. And, once again, Penny found that her sisters were getting all the attention. So she reacted with violence – by putting bleach in her older sister’s cereal. She later found out that her father had committed suicide in prison, after being beaten by other inmates. And so Penny’s formative years have been tinted with sex and violence – two things that no child should be exposed to (although that’s kind of the whole premise of the series.) When you look at her past it becomes clear that her take-down of Caine was an attempt to gain control over one of the many people who have denied her affection in favour of giving it to someone else. As she associates sex with affection, and responds to a lack of affection with violence, it makes sense that she would attack him in a way that is associated with sexual violence.

My final point is in relation to the actions that she takes while Caine is unconscious. She does three things that really give us an insight into her mentality regarding the cementing:

-          She cements him

-          She makes a tin foil crown for him

-          She cuts off his shirt

These actions again are reminiscent, at least subtextually, of the act of r@pe - a sexual crime done with the intent to both incapacitate and embarrass the victim – in essence, a power-play. And this is exactly what Penny does. She begins by entrapping him in the cement, taking his power from him. We know that Penny was not scared of Caine’s power, this was not an act of paranoia as the cementing of the Coates kids was. But rather, she knew how much his power meant to him, how much he relied on it – and she wanted to make him feel just as powerless as he had made her feel. This is further reinforced by her making the tin foil crown. Of course, she partly did this to cause him more pain (she literally stapled it to his head), but the main reason was to embarrass him. To turn his own narcissism against him. And then, to top it all off, she cuts of his shirt – which is just straight up sexual assault. This is the moment in the scene where the interplay between sex and violence really comes out. As she sees it, sexualisation is a form of affection. But as her whole life she has been denied any form of affection she has twisted this in her mind to where she sees violence as a viable outlet of emotions – or rather a replacement for affection. I think Caine’s cementing showed the breaking point for Penny – there are so many things she wants to communicate (her anger at Caine for all the horrible things he has done to her, her affection towards him, her desire for power and respect) and she just doesn’t have the emotional intelligence to do it, due to years of witnessing sexual assault and experiencing neglect. So instead everything gets distilled down into this twisted act of violence where she both expresses all of these things and gets none of them.

I really love this scene as I think it is a great example of mg’s writing ability. I know her attack of Caine was not only due unrequited affections, but I think this side of it is really excellently written, and makes me wish that we has seen more of Penny. I think it would have been a very interesting plot twist and a great use of character if Penny had managed to discard of Drake in Fear and take over his role in the story. Anyway this was only meant to be a short post and I really rambled on (as if anyone is surprised by now). Thank you for reading and please feel free to comment on/ criticise this!! :)

Patriarchy and Pop Punk

Written by Theresa Cambe. Graphic by James N Grey

Yes, misogyny exists in almost every genre of music. Rap and country are usually at the forefront of this conversation, however, today we’re going to dive into the misogyny in pop punk. Lets face it, the misogyny is just covered up with layers of nice-guy, sad boy introspection but deserves the criticism just like everyone else. Just because a man holding a guitar gets vulnerable for a second, it doesn’t mean he is exempt from possessing misogynistic tendencies.

Despite the sexism built into this genre, I am more than guilty of partaking in my fair share of pop punk music. I would try to be at every State Champs, Neck Deep, Real Friends, The Story So Far, and every band of the sorts in between, concerts in Southern California between the ages of 14-16. I finger pointed and yelled those angsty lyrics right back at the bands while crowd surfing towards the stage in whatever sweaty venue in LA they happened to be playing at the time. I bought the merch, I hung their posters up in my room, I reblogged their concert pictures on Tumblr, I was about it. And trust me, “No Good” by Knuckle Puck could come on shuffle again and have me passionately screaming the lyrics while driving alone in my car around my god forsaken hometown (but I love my hometown, contrary to the popular sentiment). However now, I am more conscious of its problems.

I think this is the case for many other non-male enjoyers of this music when they also recognize its misogyny. Of course, there is nothing wrong with enjoying pop punk nor do I think enjoying this music makes you a bad person or inherently anti-feminist. A good portion of the demographic for these bands are women. With this large and important part of the fan base, we should start considering the safety of the environments and attitudes they create.

The attitude of misogyny and objectification is built into the foundation of pop punk. It is apparent in whichever “wave” of pop punk you want to point to. Early Blink 182 and All Time Low music videos had women in them to be silent sexual objects parading around the rock star band. There’s Weezer’s infamous sexist, nerd-rock anthems. “Thank God for Girls” sings “Called upon to employ your testosterone / In a battle for supremacy and access to females glued to the TV”. In a Genius lyric annotation of the song, lead singer of the band, Rivers Cuomo himself wrote “I’m so jealous of the hooker-uppers. Seems like it’s so easy to get laid now. All these good looking athletic guys are getting so much free sex. It kills me. Such a bummer. Such a bummer. To be evaluated by women. To be graded. To be rated. Where do I stand? How big? How strong? How enduring? How energetic? How inventive? So sad that it comes to this. So sad. It IS a competition and I AM being compared”. It is really quite ironic that Cuomo writes this but in the same breath has lyrics “The thing I finally found with these other girls in town / She got hot, and they did not” from the song “The Girl Got Hot” and also “You come like a dog when I ring your bell / I got the money and I got the fame / You got the hots to ride on my plane” from the song “The Greatest Man That Ever Lived”. Then there’s also every song on the album Pinkerton that we don’t have time to get into. Even if this self-deprecating behavior is no surprise from Cuomo, it’s concerning and rooted in some serious hate. If you want to argue that it's all satire, they’re still weird thoughts to have.

I can go on about these recurring lyrical themes. For example, there is The Story So Far’s song “Roam” with the lyrics “I know where you’ve been, you’re ruining men, never again will I let someone in”. And the classic from “Mt Diablo” that sings “Do you look at yourself straight in the eyes and think about who you let between your thighs?”. Then there’s FIDLAR’s song “Whore” which as we can expect from the title, says “Why did you go betray me? / You’re such a whore”. Then there’s the mess of “Me vs. Maradona vs. Elvis'' by the band Brand New, which writes “I got desperate desires and unadmirable plans / My tongue will taste of gin and malicious intent / Bring you back to the bar / Get you out of the cold / My sober straight face gets you out of your clothes.” Look into any corner of pop punk and you’ll find these questionable attitudes, but I digress.

These men play the nice guys and aim at making you believe he is the protagonist in every situation. The commonality between all these artists is that they obsess and fantasize over a girl then turn completely sour once rejects them or leaves a relationship. They want a “cool girl” to listen to underground music and really comfort their sad, misunderstood selves but won’t allow them to make a decision outside of his own benefit. Because god forbid these women have their own thoughts and exercise their own actions! Their fantasy is essentially a manic pixie dream girl that doesn’t speak or act out against anything. These men beg to be at the center, and get aggressive when they aren’t.

This is not to be confused with writing a sad song after you got broken up with or hurt by someone in a relationship. This is also not to say that all women are exempt from having toxic behaviors or from being written about. The guise of the patriarchy also harms those it seeks to benefit and therefore enforces rules of masculinity that restricts men from expressing their frustrations and emotions. I believe that writing music about unrequited love or difficult feelings is a healthy way to combat these roles. However, there is a major difference between processing rejection and hating women for rejecting you, which is an area many of these men seem to blur together.

I still have love for these bands and this genre. I can still go to their shows and have the time of my life, easily. But it wasn’t until I got a little older and more realized with my femininity did I revisit these songs and wake up to the fact that it might have not always been in my favor . I was probably too young to notice or care and was distracted by the catchy, yelly tone and how fun it was to jump around to that I never really sat with what some of the lyrics really meant. It was a major factor in my own internalized misogyny back when I was in the throes of it all. I didn’t want to be like those awful girls that these pop punk dudes kept singing about. They were always described in such a terrible way, that all they do is betray and backstab people. They wanted a “cool girl” to understand them and not be like them. So I rejected femininity and disliked other girls as if I’m in this sort of competition for the sad band dude’s attention. I was idolizing these men whose music mainly centered around their disdain for the women they had experiences with so much that it stuck in my brain that I shouldn’t be like them, that I should be appeasing these people I look up to. But I’ve grown to realize that I was only hearing one side of the story. It was a straight white man’s voice constantly, no one else. This one sided narrative created a false perception of reality, one rooted in a sad boy victim complex, that women are the enemy that shouldn’t be trusted because they couldn’t fit the weird male fantasy these dudes possess. Rarely are women represented in this music except through the lens of a man, which as we saw is almost always disdainful or as a character rather than a fully realized and autonomous person. Women are portrayed as commodities to obtain. It alters our perception of reality.

But with most things you love, you want to see them get better. This music has a fond place in my heart and signifies a really fun time in my life where I found my love for music and concerts. But the genre and the spaces it creates has its own set of problems that I want to see improve.

We have to realize that music has a greater impact on culture. The attitudes that create the genre of pop punk affects the audience that consumes it. The one-sided narrative they build implants harmful ideas about relationships and dynamics into their young fans, as it did to me. Regardless if you want to say lyrics are just lyrics and are meant not to be taken so seriously, artists have so much influence on their fans. They are perpetuating the nice guy narrative that men are owed something from women. And sometimes we unfortunately see this point of view reflected in these band member’s actions. The accusations against them for sexual assault, grooming, and manipulation of young girls runs rampant in these spaces and remains to do so. They abuse their positions of power and influence. Using self-pity in songs does not excuse the shitty things you do.

There's a lot of things about Borderlands 3 that makes it kinda a garbage game. And all of those things are valid and true but a aspect of bl3 that deeply bothers me isn't something I've really seen people talk about?? Maybe they have but I missed it but I want to say my interpretation. (Also like, spoiler warning throughout all of this post)

To start off with: hi, I'm a autistic afab nonbinary person and this is relevant for this little rant I'm bout to go on.

I want to begin by stating why I love this franchise so much.

Borderlands, whether you like it or not, is INCREDIBLY queer. And not in a coded kind of way, it's just flat out gay as fuck. And that means so fucking much to me. Borderlands 2 was one of the first times I ever felt fully represented in a game. Zer0 being this dumbass making Yugioh references and generally being a fun garbage boy and also being nonbinary meant a lot to me and I adore him to this day (nonbinary people can use gendered pronouns fuc off). And getting more and more into this series and finding out that basically every character was on some level queer was really cool to me. Maya being asexual and most of the characters being attracted to multiple genders so honestly and off handily was so refreshing and amazing to get to play through. The casual mentions of a woman's wife or some man's husband in the echo's you find or Moxxi talking about her ex girlfriends was one of the reasons I loved this so much.

Another thing I loved particularly about Borderlands 2 was how feminist it was. I can not tell you how quickly I lost my shit at Mr. Torgue talking about the friend zone being misogynistic(it is btw). And the repeated jokes about fully murdering men for being rude to women was some of the highlights of my first playthrough. Punching a guy till he explodes because he disrespected a sex worker?? Fucking immaculate.

SPEAKING OF SEX WORK.

Mad Moxxi is a icon. She is a mother of MULTIPLE children, a survivor of rape and assault and a fucking bad bitch who runs a now intergalactic titty bar. Getting to have not only a sex worker be respected in a narrative, Moxxi is fun and a genuinely complex character who isn't defined by her job or her appearance. She is emotional and strong and funny and flawed but amazing person.

And then there's the way the male characters a represented and treated. I'll be honest here, I haven't really played Borderlands 1, mostly because have been spoiled by auto pick up and also I just didn't feel like it. So my idea of most of the men are based entirely off of Bl2, the pre-sequel and Tales. Anyway, Mordecai in particular is a character I really liked upfront. I love how a lot of his motivation and character is driven by his love of animals and Bloodwing. He's kind and though troubled knows when to get his shit together and be there when he needs to be. His casual "are you okay?" After the latter falls in the Arid Nexus was such a nice moment and the way he genuinely tries to be there emotionally for all of the people around him who he cares for is so fucking rare to see in a male character. And his arc of giving up alcohol to focus on being a better bird dad and you getting to help Brick make Mordecai a special gift to celebrate his sobriety is so amazing and I'm so proud of him.

Mr. Torgue is my dad and I love him. As mentioned, he is normal and believes that the friend zone is absolute garbage talk is ICONIC™ and the best scene in that game fight me. Torgue is a crybaby. He is an emotional person who is not afraid to express his pain and hurt when people are mean to him. He respects women and loves unicorns. The fact that is physical appearance is a big muscle guy who screams but is the literal opposite of toxic masculinity will forever make him the best male character of all time and I love him and he is my dad.

Roland was a character that I was never in particularly attached to but I still respect him and did enjoy his presence. I really appreciated his leadership style being primarily based on empathy and logic as opposed to him being a big meanie man with a HUGE dick who yells at people. I always really resonated with the echo from Tannis talking about how she came to Sanctuary. Roland going out of his way to bring Tannis to safety while completely respecting her autism and struggle with socializing really made his death hit harder when Tannis was very obviously distraught by losing him. It really seems that Roland was the only one who didn't treat her differently. And as someone who's autistic, finding people who legit 100% understand and respect you and just let you live the way you want/need to is kinda hard and those are the qualities I'd personally want in a leader.

Angel is also a big spot of affection for me. Handsome Jack being a irrefutably horrible person who Angel flat out says gaslights people and killed her means a lot to me considering 99% of Bad Parent stories end with "I forgive u" getting to see an abusive victim take that narrative and say fuck you was powerful and meant a lot to me coming from my own abusive home life.

There's a lot of other things I love about Borderlands but if I keep going I won't stop lol so let's get into why Borderlands 3 makes me so uncomfortable.

One of the main things that bothered me was the sexism. Its nothing too horrifying but given how feminist bl2 was it was really shocking and a bit hurtful the number of times women are called bitches or made to seem crazy. If you recall I brought up how you punch a man to death for calling a woman a bitch? Yea no, in this game we mock women for having boundaries and opinions because lol she's just a CRAZY BITCH who just needs to stop acting so hysterical am I right guys?

Yea the whole mission with that stupid bear thing and his ex robot girlfriend made me insanely uncomfortable and upset. I kept waiting for the gotcha moment where it says actually this bear guy is a dick and he shouldn't use language like that but no we just,,,,,, are supposed to laugh along. I hate it.

Even though Borderlands 3 is still very much queer, this game introducing 2 new trans characters as well as a whole DLC about a gay marriage and one of the playable characters being a lesbian there was this some shit that bothered me.

The mission where you crash and ruin a lesbian wedding.

That mission made so upset and uncomfortable. I hated how traumatized and hurt Tumorhead was as I murdered her family and wife. I hated how unfulfilling the mission was where PLOT TWIST the lady was actually a spy or whatever. I hate how there's a mission about ruining some poor psycho ladies wedding. I would've much more preferred a mission where Idk Bloodshine asks you to help her kill a spy who's causing problems and then fucking go around Promethea collecting wedding decorations or something. OR MAYBE JUST NOT A MISSION WHERE YOU KILL LESBIANS FOR NO FUCKING REASON.

I'm mad, anyway.

I also hated how Tannis was treated in this game. Under absolutely no circumstance would Doctor Patricia Tannis ever willingly take up a position of leadership. She is a severely autistic woman who gets nose bleeds from talking to people she wouldn't just be like "I'm in charge now pls talk to me!!!" Fuck off. And the joke about her dating a minecart isn't funny. The whole thing with the chairs, though funny in its absurdities was still a very important and powerful moment of character exploration. Tannis is insane. She is traumatized and hurt and in a moment of severe torture, she humanized some inanimate objects to cope. Tannis crying over the echo over Phillip is a heartbreaking moment of true vulnerability. It is also funny, because that's how good dark comedy works. It can be both hysterical and emotionally ruining at the same time. So what exactly does Tannis divorcing a minecart mean? What is this saying about her character? Why is it funny? Because lol lol reference??? Again, fuck off.

I hate how the Calypso twins childhood is handled. Troy implies it was horribly abusive and traumatic. But when we met Typhon whatever, he acts like it wasn't that bad??? He acts like he just didn't buy his kids the latest iPhone and oh no whoopsie now they're evil, my bad guys. It feels super weird and I don't like it.

Speaking of abusive parents. THEY DID MY GIRL ANGEL DIRTY SO BAD. This was literally when I decided I hated this game. Angel being the one who killed her mother and not Jack was fucking horrible. Especially after the literal foreshadowing in borderlands 2 implying he did. The fact that Jack is treated like a fearful man making what he thought was the right decision was insulting. I get that MattPat manipulated the fandom into thing Jack is a uwu bean but fuck you, you're the writers and you should fucking know better. Handsome Jack saw his daughter had power and turned her into a living battery for him to use as he saw fit. He was not scared and he was NOT right. Fuck you and fuck you for framing child abuse as chill and ok if your spooked enough like that. And the mission directly contradicts the echo's in Get To Know Jack. If Angel killed her mom why does she ask Jack where her mommy is when he's putting her in her chambers?? Why is it in the echo Jack is aggressive and forcibly and hurtfully makes her go into her chambers but in the memory, he's quiet and passive about it?? That's literally just flat out bad writing. Also fuck you.

Anyway,

I think that's really all I wanted to say about this topic. Obviously, there are also things that suck about bl3 but I'll try to chill and not make this too long.

I mostly wanted to make this to see if people cared/are bothered by the same things I am. I've seen how some of the fandom treats the more emotional and gay aspects of this franchise(the people throwing a fit over Amara, the friend zone line, not respecting trans peoples pronouns, sexualizing and being gross about Moxxi)

Anyway that's it byeeeeeeeeeeeee

To Dear Myself Review/Rant

If you’ve had the patience to watch all 45 episodes until the end, then you probably know what I’m going to talk about in this review. I feel like it’s pretty unanimous that the ending was awful. 

It’s a slow burn slice-of-life drama. I don’t normally watch these types of dramas and instead go for the ones that are fantastical and far away from reality so that I can completely get lost in another world. But Liu Shishi and Zhu Yilong are familiar faces, and I’m more likely to start a bad drama with familiar actors than a good drama with unfamiliar actors, because I’m basic and want to invest as little attention and mental effort as possible (it takes work to warm up to new faces). 

The drama started off promising: it introduced obstacles that normal couples and families would face. Obstacles like money, social class, infidelity, unemployment, workplace competition, the value and desirability of “aging” women who prioritize work over love. It was relatable, even though some of these are unfamiliar experiences for me, a psychology grad student in her mid-20s. I didn’t expect this drama to be inspiring. I didn’t want this drama to be inspiring. But I wanted it to be at least logical, if not realistic. The drama seemed to promise reality though, which I held out hope for, but instead it butchered the character arc for most of the leads. 

[spoilers ahead]

The devolution of Li Si Yu and Chen Yi Ming’s relationship was laughable. 

LSY is afraid of marriage, while CYM believes that the ultimate goal in life is to get married and have a family. They don’t see eye to eye on this, and so the pressure causes them to break up. I respect this. It’s a common problem: you can’t really move forward when one isn’t ready to settle down, and the other isn’t willing to wait or support them. CYM is portrayed as a calm, composed, and morally upright person who feels uncomfortable when LSY makes a questionable decision. But CYM is also a hypocritical person who suppresses his feelings. Whenever he’s displeased, he acts as thought everything is fine until he can’t hide it anymore and explodes with unbidden rage. He punches the roof of the car, he slams the desk. It’s a little scary tbh. LSY is portrayed as a passionate and impulsive career-driven woman. She has to make tough decisions, and you understand why she makes them. Whenever she’s unhappy, she’ll let you know. The drama seems to set up a character development arc for these two flawed characters. 

LSY starts her own company, but then fails, and ends up learning that while it’s important to fight for what you believe in, but you shouldn’t be too caught up in whether your fail or succeed. It’s the classic “it’s about the journey, not the destination” kind of lesson. 

After a bout of heartbreak, CYM is swept off his feet by the manipulative Wang Ziru. She lies to him, evades him, controls him. At this point in the drama, we think that LSY is better off without him because he seemed to have moved on so swiftly. CYM and WZR seem to have a calmer relationship than the one he had with LSY. They never argue. We see that he’s easily attracted to confident, powerful women, but expects them to settle down with him when they’re not ready. For a third of the drama, he’s happily in love with WZR and doesn’t think about or interact with LSY (except when he comes to her office to tell her to shut her company “for her own good”). It looks like he completely moved on.

LSY on the other hand, misses him. She’s always looking at the only picture that she’s saved of them together. She still loves him. 

I liked that they introduced Guan Xiao Tong as a potential love interest for LSY. Despite being over a decade younger than LSY and constantly being looked down by her because of this, I thought he was quite mature. I also liked how LSY wasn’t “moved” by him. The typical drama would have her eventually reciprocate his feelings and make him her rebound. Yes, she was amused by him, but she knew that he wouldn’t grow up fast enough with her, and so she never led him on. It made their relationship wholesome. Even though LSY  wasn’t attracted to him, I liked how the drama normalized a potential may/december relationship between a woman and man. Though I don’t think I can forgive the drama was making him disappear so abruptly after he found out that his dad was struggling financially. Maybe the drama implied that GXT was too busy “growing up” by helping with his dad’s business so his relationship with LSY came to an end and that he was no longer relevant to drama, but that wasn’t made clear at all. 

Zhi Zhi also stopped appearing after the 3rd last episode of the drama when she decided not to marry the misogynistic Su Li Xing and to instead stay in Shanghai for her career, which also implied that there could be a chance for her and Liu Yang to get back together (their storyline is a whole other can of worms, but I have to admit that no other drama, movie, or book has made me cry as hard as Zhi Zhi confronting the mistress and then getting publicly slapped by her husband. Not sure if it was the drama itself that had the power to move me, or if it was because I watched that scene at 3am on a Thursday, or because it reminded me of some personal experiences, but either way, I sobbed hella hard that night).

But back to LSY and CYM. In the last 2 episodes of the drama, they start appearing together in scenes again. There are some unresolved emotions. There is still attraction. Nervous, longing, awkward glances. After nearly 20 episodes of believing that a reconciliation is impossible, you start wondering if the drama is hinting that they’re gonna force them back together in the last 2 episodes. CYM sells his apartment to support LSY’s project. Haowen tells LSY that CYM still calls out her name when he’s drunk (although it’s still unclear if this was just a gimmick to distract her to sign the sale agreement). 

CYM can’t give WZR a straight answer about whether or not he still loves LSY. He punches Gong Jing in the face for cheating LSY out of her shares. 

And even after all this, guess what happens? He confronts WZR. She tells him she lied to him to help him preserve his dignity. She tells him she had to do underhanded, unethical things in order to save the livelihood of an entire company that she’s responsible for. He’s moved. He’s grateful for her thoughtfulness towards him. He stands by her. He chooses her. 

I mean, what? Does he really love her that much that he’s willing to look past everything she’s done? All the crimes and hurt she’s committed? I don’t need to him to get back together with LSY. I don’t want them to. I think he’s a terrible character who believes that happiness and fulfilment only comes form finding a woman who’s willing to let him love and dote on her. But this decision just doesn’t match the morally upright character we’ve been sold with at the beginning of the drama. LSY only made one morally questionable decision, of which she apologized for, and yet CYM was already questioning whether or not they should continue their relationship because he felt like they were going different ways. And yet he forgives WZR? Because he loves her? But? What about those ambiguous, uncomfortable faces he made when he was with her? Like that scene when he helped take off her coat before she went into the awards ceremony, and he stood back, leaning by the door, staring off into the distance looking sad and regretful?? What are we supposed to make of those scenes and expressions? I probably shouldn’t victim blame, especially since WZR created an uneven power dynamic in their (lowkey toxic) relationship, but I’m just not sure what the scriptwriter was trying to do with this plotline. It felt like they were condoning WZR’s behaviour (despite saying she was arrested in a voiceover) because CYM forgave her. Or were they condemning CYM’s passiveness? Again, not clear.

And then the final scene with the women marching on happy and hopeful, and then men staring out onto the city skyline looking lost and depressed? Female empowerment is great, and it was nice that they were all single at the end (except for Xiao Ling, I guess), but was it really necessary to tear men down to emphasize this? But then again, the drama kind of had to since they wrote shitty male characters. I just dislike creating the winner/loser dichotomy. 

I respect that Liu Yang is working his way towards forgiveness and has found what he’s passionate about. But I don’t know if he’s forgivable, because what he did was pretty unforgivable, but he’s showing growth and is working towards redemption, which is somewhat admirable. 

Haowen went from being the most level-headed one to becoming the most impulsive and obsessive one. 

CYM is just blank. Absolutely blank. There is nothing interesting about him. At first you pity him for being the one who’s always chasing after LSY and being the one to give in first for the sake of the relationship, but then you realize that he’s just trying to mold himself into what he thinks is the “ideal” boyfriend, which he thinks is someone who is able to succeed without the help of his girlfriend. He thinks it’s weak to rely on the help of his girlfriends, which is ironic since most of the career moves he made in the drama were directly because of his girlfriends. 

Anyway, I could just go on about how much I didn’t enjoy this drama, and other people on youtube and mydramalist have ranted more eloquently about this. I usually don’t write drama reviews unless there’s something I’m deeply unhappy about. 

My recommendation? Don’t watch this. But if you’re curious, don’t be afraid to jump and skip scenes. There are no likable characters. Even Zhi Zhi doesn’t start to become likable until she decides to leave her husband. Is this a feminist drama? Yes to the extent that it normalizes women in their 30s who are single and career-driven (which is a pretty big deal in China where unmarried women over 25/27 are considered “leftover” women), but I’m just not sure whether the plot does justice to these women. The verdict is still out on that. Thoughts?

Oh and one final qualm that I have with this drama is the LSY and WZR never had a final face-to-face confrontation. After everything that WZR did to LSY, LSY never got to interrogate WZR. WZR could have even gave LSY some final parting words. Instead, CYM took LSY’s place and the drama made it seem that WZR was only answerable to him and no one else. There was just absolutely no closure from this messy, messy drama.

the way my mom is so weirdly misogynist about gender and how she takes it out the worst way on my brother is so... :l

Like im fine w the fact hes her favourite on a gender basis it literally doesnt bother me bc Ive never wanted or cared for her attention in fact I actively avoid it It feels suffocating but its just that shes always telling him, someone who used to hang out w incels until recently, that women are over emotional manipulative liars out to hurt men??

and like everytime theres an incident she always blames me and my sister and goes “its always women who bring down men theyre always the biggest enemy all women are evil” and IN A WAY WHERE SHES SO WEIRD ABOUT MY BROTHERS MASCULINITY shes like “youre making him weak and wimpy hes gonna turn effeminate” in this like. ‘how dare you make my son less of a man’ way THAT IS JUST SO FUCKING STUPID and as youd expect theres also so much homophobia in it shell straight up use slurs. and she does it in very differnet ways w me and my sister w my sister its cuz shes the typical ~ evil emotional woman~ to my mom whose corrupting him and emotionally manipulating him .

and with me its like cause  she thinks im too mannish and that emasculates him somehow like ITS SO STUPID she wont even let me refill the watercooler cause somehow “girl” doing anything that is “mans job” in her eyes means im taking away from him being a man and im making him feel bad?? like he literally doesnt give a shit [and to an extent my dad was like this too he wouldnt teach me how to use tools or taekwando even tho i wanted to cause he was liek thats your brothers thing orwhatever]

and with the car crash happening she still blames me and my sister for it and SHESBEEN LETTING HIM. DRIVE HER AND MY SISTER PLACES AGAIN. AND HE STILL. FUCKING. SPEEDS. BUT SHE SOMEHOW WONT LET MY SISTER AND DOESNT WANT TO TEACH ME ANYMORE CAUSE IT WAS OUR FAULT APPARENTLY ITS SO FUCKING CRAZYYY

she so badly wants him to act like an adult just cause hes a man like idk she wants him to be a father to US, his two GROWN siblings, and sometimes he actually fucking takes it. this dude literally had the nerve to tell me to dress more modestly like what the actual fuck hes 16 years old. its just. so disrespectful and i hateeee it cause hes already had a history of him saying the most sexist shit and just cause he stopped on the incel community part doesnt mean its over.

and i know it fucking gets to him i remember incidents where she blamed him for not being a man enough even though he was a child and idk hes expressed to me in a rare vulnerable moment in the past how much he hates it. like just straight up said “i wish id been the sister and youd been the brother:” like man. if that doesnt say anything how she just makes it worse for him.

.......don’t be shy........ show us the comment 👀👀

lmao i will show you but only because i’ve already responded to it. I don’t want anyone to be mean to the commenter or make their own responses or anything like that. I’ve got no problems with people critiquing my work or offering suggestions on how to improve and she was very polite about it. It’s just that I didn’t agree with some of what she said lmao

okay so this comment was left on the prequel to Interloper (Snapshots From Before)

I usually don’t comment a lot in here (tho i do give lots of kudos) and the first part of this was so awesome that i’ve read it many times! However, this second part felt kinda... sexist? I think you gave this the wrong approach and ended up with the boys being a little mysoginistic, specially Roger telling y/n “if you are that hungry for dick you can ride me” (i’m not actually quoting the exact line but it was like that). I would’ve love to see at least one scene where you show some after care and the boys actually caring about y/n so we could see that their relationship is a healthy one. Without this, it just seems like she’s bassically a human sex toy. I get it, it’s the whole “she’s just holes to fill” and that’s great, i respect people who are into that, but even then there has to be some caring and empathy from both parties. Also, orgasm denial is hot but regardless, having sex has to be rewarding for both participants and Roger just sorta fucked her and asked her to leave? In a very non polite way? Sex is about both parties reaching to climax and equality for both lmao.😅 I know it’s a one shot but i would’ve like to see the non sexual part of y/n’s relationship with the boys other than post coital conversations. Again, i loved the first and third part, i think you have so much writing potencial within you and you should embrace it. These are all constructive critics and i do not wish to make you feel bad or offend you. I actually enjoy the whole mecanics of these raw, awesome, hot, sexy sex scenes but even though its fiction (which i know) and this whole slut kink is actually something people like let’s not forget to narrate healthy, caring relationships. Again, this seems like some eassay for a thesis but im just expressing MY point of view and i do not intend harm towards you as a writer or someone else as a reader. And yes, probably i need to “chill the F out” cause it’s just an ao3 bloody fic but still. Expressing an opinion that can help the writer improve is good! I think. Better than spreading hate. Hope you can see this note as friendly and respectul advice. Thank you so much for writing this. Have a great day! Stay safe xxx

and this was my response

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to comment, it really means a lot!

I will definitely keep in mind some of your criticisms as I continue writing, however there are a couple of places where our opinions differ, so I’d like to offer an explanation or two as to why I wrote it the way I did.

Firstly, I have to disagree with your statement that sex is about both parties reaching climax. It’s not. Not always anyway. Taking aside any kink related aspects like orgasm denial, sometimes sex just isn’t about finishing. It can be super rewarding and fun even without the orgasm. So much of an orgasm is related to a person’s mental state that little things like their mood or stress level or if they feel pressure to cum can have a huge impact on how easy it is to orgasm. And women especially can have trouble reaching climax. For some people, mostly women though it can affect men too, the sexual disorder anorgasmia makes orgasm physically impossible no matter how much stimulation they receive. So to say sex is about everyone getting to that end point isn’t totally correct. A lot of the time it’s less about the orgasm and more about feeling good during the rest of the act and/or strengthening a connection with a partner. Expecting everyone to orgasm every time is unrealistic and can in fact make it harder. Of course, that’s ignoring people who enjoy the kink side of it, intentionally stopping orgasms. A lot of people take tease and denial beyond just the length of a single sexual encounter, instead stretching it to days or weeks or months or even years of not being able to cum (fully).

Now, in regards to the fic itself. This chapter came about because I’d asked people to request concepts theyd like to see me write as a blurb or short one shot. I neglected to include the actual request in the summary or author note but the request was for a smutty prequel to interloper flashing back to when Reader was a groupie. At the time of writing I had a lot of requests I was trying to get done within a short amount of time so I was trying to keep things as brief as I could while still giving an entire story. The non-sexual aspects of the relationships didn’t feel important to include in this chapter because that wasn’t what was asked for. On top of that, the entire concept of the story hangs on how the sexual relationship dynamics change when the non-sexual relationship dynamics change and I wanted to make sure that wasn’t affected by the prequel. My goal was to establish a connection between the reader character and each of the guys and to make it feel as if there was history there, so I focused on flirty banter that led into sex scenes. And then, at the end of each scene, implied more would happen between the characters “off page”. I added in the Freddie section at the end as a way to solidify this chapter as a prequel and give a little explanation for how the main part starts (of course, at that time there was no third chapter). Plus, as Freddie doesn’t have a sexual relationship with Reader, his non-sexual relationship with her is very different to her relationships with the others, much closer to a friendship. (Which of course paves the way for how he’s on better terms with her at the beginning of the first chapter.)

One thing you imply in your comment is that as an author I should be writing healthy, caring relationships. I love writing those sorts of stories and relationships but I don’t believe I /have/ to write just healthy, caring relationships. I have a total of 38 fics posted on AO3 and I think most of them deal with “healthy” relationships. I make it a point to write aftercare scenes and to establish trust and safe words between my characters in most of my smut writing. And even if I’m exploring heavier kinks like extreme bdsm or hypnosis and bimbofication I do my best to stick to the rules of “safe, sane and consensual”. But, it is not my job as a writer to create morally perfect or role model relationships. I am well within my rights to explore relationships that don’t adhere to what is traditionally considered healthy, be that through ignoring safe words or foregoing aftercare or just having two characters be manipulative and mean to each other. If you want aftercare and “healthy” I have 37 other fics for you to look at. But this chapter doesn’t have to be that for it to be publishable.

And finally, I feel I have to defend Roger a little bit. I can definitely see how he could be read as sexist and I think part of the problem was just me trying to keep it short which meant I didn’t give enough space for Reader’s reactions or enough descriptions of emotion. But to me, as I was writing it, nothing Roger said was intended to be misogynistic or rude. I was playing around with one of my personal favourite kinks, degradation in conjunction with the orgasm denial (another favourite lmao). Everything he said was specifically to humiliate and degrade her, just because that’s what I find hot. Calling her desperate, telling her she sounds pretty begging, talking down to her, implying he’d /use/ her again later, all of that is part of the degradation kink and I intended for it to be a form of dirty talk. Similarly, the part where he says she can leave wasn’t meant to come across as rude. He calls her a good girl and brushes her hair back from her face first (a softer moment, contrasting everything else that happens between them) and then says she can leave, which plays into the denial kink and the idea that it could last longer than the time they were in bed together. Personally, I’m very very into extended denial, especially if it’s treated as a threat of punishment or something like that, and that was the inspiration behind Roger’s section of this chapter.

Thank you again for the comment, it really did make me think about how I’d written this particular chapter and my intentions behind it. And I fully agree that comments like yours can help writers improve! I’ll definitely keep in mind what you’ve said as I work on my next fic and hopefully avoid some of the unintended sexist overtones in future. Have a great day!

Movie review : the Favourite (2018)

This is very much a movie I can say that is objectively brilliant ; without being a movie I loved. The first half, in which the cousins vie for Queen Anne's affections and the associated power was just incredibly unhingedly funny in a dark way. But the second half, in which everything falls apart, dragged and the ending was incredibly depressing. It made sense ! But personally, I like to root for the characters I follow, and when it becomes too much about terrible people being terrible to each other, it becomes unpleasant to watch. It's a matter of personal taste, I guess - I don't enjoy stories that are too pessimistic about human nature.

At the same time I am very happy that this is a movie that exists, for what it does with its female characters.It's funny how it portrays three women who are arguably all horrible, all some sort of queer too, and somehow it doesn't come off as misogynistic or homophobic so much as simply deeply misanthropic. It made me think about what, exactly, makes this portrayal so interesting in terms of what good female characters are. I think a lot of stories are still stuck in this concept that to be feminist/empowering/etc their female characters have to be these parangons of likeability, competence and maturity because anything else would imply bad things about female nature. This is immensely problematic because : 1) it places undue burden on the female character to always be there for others - often men, do all the emotional work, etc...without being central to the plot because 2) it's boring and it makes for characters that, being perfect, don't need to evolve, have no real arc and therefore are sidelined ; and 3) is a stereotype and treats women as unreal projections that are not allowed to be human.

So this movie is really really not that. Right off these women are all ferocious in the expression of their flaws. Queen Anne is incredibly immature and spoiled, Sarah is domineering and downright abusive, Abigail is manipulative and will do absolutely anything in the pursuit of their goals. They all have understandable reasons for being like that, too : Anne is grieving so many dead babies and is in constant pain, Sarah is incredibly passionate about what she loves and Abigail wants to be safe. They are charismatic. They're allowed a depth and magnificence that is most often reserved for male antiheroes. I think the greatest part is how little fucks they give about anything. They are not demure or polite or hesitant or anything we have been trained to expect from women in period movies. And there is something about watching women behave badly with glee and without any guilt that is just so cathartic. It reminded me of Killing Eve in that sense, with a similar baroque, absurdist, dry sort of humor.

Of course the "women be scheming" trope is nothing new. But the way it is depicted here is ; it's not directed towards men. The power shown lies very much in the hands of the women - be it Anne's regal authority, Sarah's willpower or Abigail's charm - even though it is still a patriarchy and the men are buzzing at the edges of the plot to try and make themselves relevant. I studied political science and in the field there is this persistent fascination with the temper, charisma, "lust for power" of Great Men, whose glaring human flaws are set aside because they acted decisively in a crisis and met history or whatever the fuck ; something that is talked about in terms of dominance with sexual undertones and presented as this natural irrepressible force. It is then opposed to the feminine force, presented as passive, fertile but weak, something to be controlled and shaped like fate or history or chance or the land or the unwashed masses. So there is something incredibly significant in seeing powerful women represented like this : opportunistic, lusty, ferocious, decisive, flawed, power-mad, flamboyant. It breaks the concept that there is anything natural about each gender's approach to power. This is accentuated by the fact that the men in the movie tend to be presented in effeminate ways, wearing wigs and makeup whereas the three main characters are the one always in action, shooting guns, falling in the mud, running around, etc. (Special mention to Sarah's period-butch get up...incredible) Through their interactions there is this fascinating feeling that the power doesn't rest in one specific thing, it's morphing and situational. The cousins are not just struggling to win the queen's affection, she is also struggling constantly - with her grief, pain, loneliness. I love it when character dynamics are so shifting.

But...in the end, I have not seen enough happy and healthy portrayals of wlw relationships and intimacy to enjoy seeing women treating each other so badly. The overarching theme is that power and inequality of power just completely fucks you up, and your ability to have normal relationships which is...on point. But in terms of character arcs it just ends on a "oh this is just terrible across the board" feeling which is not my fave to end a story on. The women all let their flaws get them into this spiral of misery. Anne's choice is between someone honest who treats her like shit or someone who is sweet but also a manipulative liar ; Sarah is exiled from the things she loved most, her queen and country ; Abigail is reduced to servitude once again. The end. Resounding feeling is like woooow I'm happy that's not me. There is something about toxic relationships that kind of bores me to be honest, because there is something very previsible about it and the whole ha people are shitty thing. But I guess that's a matter of personal taste. In the end I think it's a great thing that this movie exists. I just hope we get more stories with morally ambiguous women we can root for until the end.

Why do they keep telling us we should stop dreaming of a better world? The Game of Thrones Finale

I will not lie: I am a nerd, and I had really studied before the last season started. In addition to that, for full disclosure, I had already bent the knee to Daenerys Targaryen in book 1, I stand by her, always will, and wanted Daenerys and Jon to rule together (I know, they are related, but it is the Middle Ages in Europe, it does not matter). However, the ending of Game of Thrones has been ... confusing. Confusing for me as a human really. 

I shall be forever grateful to the actors and the crew: all aspects of the show (but the writing)  were unbelievable, glorious, and should be covered, showered, with awards, but the writing ... should not.  MIND THE SPOILERS Aside from what was already said - the rushed plot that made no sense (so all the studying I did went out of the window), the trashed 10-years-long character developments, and countless wasted opportunities for potentially amazing dialogues (e.g. Daenerys and Cersei, Sansa and Cersei, etc.) - I was left bewildered and angry, with many questions about society, and the role of art in changing the world. Isn’t the role of art to remind us, and teach us, how to fight for ideas? For freedom, for equality, for justice?

I will be even more honest. I was triggered by the last 3 episodes, yet I kept watching, in the hope that the ending would have showed me what I had hoped to see. Eventually, to cope with the loss of Daenerys Targaryen (which never happened in my head, denial is always the way),

 and the disappointment, and the anger, and for the sole purpose of catharsis, I even dared to start writing what I would have wanted to see as conclusion of the show, which I linked here. And probably I will write myself a season 9 as a sequel for the show:  I am no writer, no psychologist, so this is merely my attempt to overwrite that last season in my brain, with the messages I would have wanted to see delivered by the end of the show, as opposed to what I saw.  I am mildly ashamed of what I am writing, it is maybe sentimental, possibly derivative,  maybe poorly written, but that is not the point here: I  had to express somewhere the ideas for which I wanted this show to fight, instead of perpetrating restraining and negative cliches. Watching the finale, I was left with many questions:

Why do they keep showing us toxic masculinity, instead of nice men?

Why are sex addicts sold as “average men”? The final all- males-council discussing brothels was appalling, not funny, appalling!

Why did they have one of the most powerful glorious female character in the history of literature gaslighted and killed by her boyfriend, who until that moment was one of the best positive male character ever written in the history of literature; he was courageous and sweet, generous and just and non-ambitious, a non-macho positive nice man. Why did they turn a perfectly nice guy into a murderer? Is there no way out? Why did they need to ruin Jon Snow, and leave us with Bronn and Tyrion? Seriously, Bronn? Seriously….Bronn? Jon, previously lovely Jon, left the stage to these sex addicts, for a spiral of hopelessness: should I infer from this that men are spineless, murderers, rapist, sex addicts, gamblers, liars, otherwise women put them in the firendzone (e.g. Jorah, Daario). 

So gents, those of you who are nice, will never be loved. Ladies, pets (cats, dogs, ferrets,…) are the solution. Pets.  

Why do we keep seeing sexism, instead of feminism? Specifically:

 Why do we keep seeing double standards: if a male ruler executes traitors is acceptable, but if a female ruler does the same thing it means she is mad? Daenerys had executed a bunch of enemies, as any king would do, yet in her case these were clues of madness. Oh well, we women are too emotional, aren’t we? (sense the sarcasm there) Sit still, look pretty, ladies. And do not forget to smile.

Why do we keep seeing that men judge women for every. single. thing. even though they are not really in a position to talk? Why did we see Tyrion and Varys (two men) discussing whether Daenerys was fit to rule, after she gathered the biggest army ever seen, saved everybody from the dead, actually fought into battle (while Tyrion and Varys were hiding in the crypts)? And why did we see a male character suggesting a man is more suitable than a woman to rule? It was one of the most appalling misogynist scenes I have ever watched in my life. Until a man told a man to execute a woman, without a trial, which brings me to my next question;

Is it ok that if man kills a woman, if he thinks it is right? Why was it represented as a heroic decision? She could have died in thousands of ways, yet the manipulated boyfriend, the only person she trusted, that killed her when she was vulnerable, with no explanation at all, no discussion aside from some ambiguous questions, seemed like a good idea; why?

Why did we see Brienne of Tarth, a warrior, writing about the man who had dumped her. in her nightgown. for his sister. after a superfluous-for-the-narrative one night thing. Why didn’t she write about herself? Why was she crying? Why did Cersei Lannister die crying? And of a death by brick, of all deaths? Why were all the women - warriors, mind- crying, pouring their hearts to undeserving men?

Between us, I was already angry at the conversation Daenerys had with the King in the North Jon, when he decided to bend the knee after Daenerys flew beyond the wall to save him (7thseason, episode “Beyond the Wall”). Daenerys says “I hope I deserve it”. OK. You raised 3 dragons, endured starvation, violence, gathered armies and fleets, freed cities from slavers, and lost a dragon to save him from his idiotic decisions: You bl**dy fu***ng do deserve it! Why did we see her asking for his approval?

Why are people with mental health issues feared and abandoned, instead of helped and supported? The mad-queen-twist was justified by the writers with a “there were clues” chorus. In my opinion it was not justified at all: there were clues she had occasional, and rare, anger management issues, and, in season 8, depression and anxiety; these could be a result of her PTSD, since she was sold and raped, and starved, and had to dodge people who wanted to kill her in many occasions, and not necessarily it had to be a hereditary trait. The people around her, and also the man who was supposed to love her, instead of building a support network around her and helping her, killed her. Too often individuals with mental health issues are ostracised, and treated with contempt, rather than sustained, so to me it would have been interesting to see a resolution of her problems (assuming she had any), rather than her impending doom.

Why was rape described as an occasion to become stronger? Why are we afraid to say what rape actually does to women? To victims? Why do we need to think that women recover and become stronger? Some do not recover at all. Some kill themselves. Why are we afraid of saying it?  It is not true that all that does not kill you makes you stronger: if it does not kill you as a whole, sometimes it has killed a part of you. As for the strength, I think that pain makes you impervious. It is love that makes you stronger. 

Why do they keep showing us competition between women, instead of sisterhood? Seeing Sansa and Arya fighting Daenerys for no apparent reason, was very disappointing. Seeing Sansa plotting against Daenerys, after the growth her character had in season 7 (”I am a slow learner, but I learn.”) was really sad: I was looking forward to team Dany-Sansa-Arya-Missandei-Brienne against the world, with packs of wolves and dragons as weapons.  That did not happen. Of course.

Why did we see weird racist scenes? The only woman of colour of the show died in chains. In chains. I do not think I have to add anything. 

Humans came out destroyed in this finale, as, apparently, one cannot change, ever: one is stuck with the hand one was dealt in the beginning, no matter the experiences, the fighting, the hopes, the work one has done on oneself; if one is born a slave, will die a slave; if born with anger management issues will not stop until everybody is dead (even though one had a spoiler about it years before, at the House of the Undying); there is no way out from toxic relationships; if born alone, even if technically the king, will still die alone; love does not conquer all, if one gets manipulated  well enough; and men can judge a woman, and, even without a trial, sentence her to death.

To me, the misogyny, the emotional and physical abuse, and toxic masculinity represented in the last three episodes of the show, represent the culture we are trying to fight, not the one that I would have wanted to stream to 60000000 people, including young adults, abused women, and people that hoped to see a message of hope, giving the dark times we are living: brave, sweet, courageous, honest, generous, smart, and mighty women and men, that work together for a better world; a world where there is redemption, freedom, diversity, and where people fight for what is important. 

For some reason, at some point, happy endings have started to be considered derivative. But people need hope. Young people need to be inspired, people who suffer need role models to help them overcome their pain. “Then they should not have watched Game of Thrones.” you say? I disagree. The show left the classic dichotomy between good and evil, and had complex characters that lived in the spectrum in between. The characters had the complexity of life into them.  

The greatness of the show, to me, was that most characters had overturned their destiny. If the final season had been written differently, GoT finale could have been the script for the resistance against violence, injustice, sexism, toxic relationships, defeat. It was not. 

I just want to add this: what they showed us is not true. Never stop fighting for what is important, even if it seems silly (like  getting angry for the last episode of a TV show): it does not mean one will necessarily win, it does not mean there will not be pain, but we can change this world into a better one. We can change ourselves, we can be kind to one another, we can support people who suffer, we can support  minorities. We can defeat the monsters, the ones in others, the ones in ourselves. We can break the wheel.

“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?”  Robert Browning

“Our fathers were evil men. All of us here. They left the world worse than they found it. We’re not going to do that. We’re going to leave the world better than we found it” – Daenerys Targaryen