#men vs women but it shouldnt be that way | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

psychewritesbs · 5 months

Note

hi! i didnt have much success when looking through ur blog to see if uve addressed this alrdy so apologies if u have.

i was curious to know ur thoughts on jjk's portrayals of gender, esp women/femininity. if u have particular insight from a psych or philosophy bg, id be interested in hearing that (warning, i have a v feminist critique lens)

ik u love gege's writing 😅 but his handle on female characters/femininity has given me such a difficult relationship w jjk, and its v difficult to have discourse on it. on one hand, we're introduced to sm interesting realistic women, tbh i actually never stanned a woman in manga before jjk. but imo it cant be denied that gege is a sexist writer. despite how realistic jjk women r theyre all .. halfwritten? i cant think of a single one who isnt underwritten, not fully explored, not utilized substantially in the plot, etc. and there r sm ex's of extremely minor male characters in jjk who r given more thematic relevance than frequently recurring women that just underscores that gender gap imo

this isnt solely a gege problem ik but what bothers me in particular about jjk vs other mangas is how gege addresses strength, even in the light of nb/androgynous characters, and how it feels as if gege's def of strength is inherently masculine? even despite going so far as to give us a philosophical battle shonen w diverse reps of gender and emphasizing individuality that encompasses both femme/masc traits

how a reader interprets whether a jjk woman is strong or not is obv subjective. like, i think shoko is strong but shes not depicted as such bc she doesnt have a combative technique whereas yuki maki nobara or mei r depicted as "strong" bc of their battle abilities. but it also feels as if those women r strong bc they take on "masculine" traits/mindsets whereas there r no clear depictions of "femininity" making women or men stronger. even utahime who falls into v classic shoujo girl tropes is seen as weak despite teaching her students v proficientally in battle strategy (mechamaru v mahito is a good ex of that imo), as compared to how gojo teaches his (ie dumping them into missions for experience). but thats not what gege ever chooses to highlight

femininity also doesnt even seem to make men/nb characters stronger. the ex's i can think of r naoya as a vagina (lmao), geto as a mother to curses, yuta as highly attuned to his emotions, kenjaku as yuji's mother -- those r things that support these (mostly) men's strong sense of individuality but like, those arent really the things that lend those characters their "strength", u know? like geges just sprinkling in androgyny for the spice 🧐

what is feminine vs masculine, how an individual embodies those traits in their gender identity r already complex topics. im obv generalizing a lot here, but i just, idk despite how many other nuanced philosophies gege explores, what is strong/desirable in jjk still falls down to all-out fighting abilities/physical prowess, emotional detachment, isolation, extremism, etc -- all things we harp on toxic masculinity for. and even when he critiques that, theres no cogent counter solution/way to be strong that gege provides, much less one that incorporates "femininity" and women

maybe im just asking for too much from gege after having read so many great representations of women and gender by female (and male) mangakas/writers but.. i shouldnt be 🙄 he can utilize his female characters more imo, esp when he can clearly set them up so well. and im sure theres things ive misread about jjk and its portrayal of femininity, theres plenty of holes in my thoughts ^^ anyways, this is obv not a great topic to bring up in a fandom that is so polarized between dudebros and women w unaddressed internalized misogyny.. so i welcome any and all thoughts and interpretations on ur end! (also omg im rlly sorry this got so long)

I love you feminist anon, if I may call you that lol, I just always name my anons 😂. I am so grateful that you sent this.

I feel like you've very eloquently explained the deeper reason as to why I personally can't relate to the female characters in jjk. If I'm honest, I like them and think they are fun and good enough representations or attempts at depicting the archetypes that rule their personalities.

As you say, however, some of them remain rather superficial and underutilized... and please forgive me anyone who loves them, but some of them feel like they are basically dudes wearing skirts.

No offense to dudes who wear skirts or people who like men who wear skirts or anyone for that matter. It's just that, as a personal preference, I like female characters that wear skirts, pants, leggings, etc and have equal amounts of masculine and feminine energy.

So, even if I find they are good enough, I've never necessarily loved jjk female characters, because, as you also say, I've read/seen one too many amazing and iconic female characters by other authors...

And it's not like I think you're asking for too much from Gege in wanting better female characters, it's just that, as you also said, I like his writing and I read jjk precisely because of what it's doing for my masculine psyche. Like... quite literally.

So perhaps I'm more forgiving than you are because of it? Because in all reality, there are female character moments in other manga that I have to give the bombastic side eye to, and jjk isn't one of them.

Let's taco'bout it more under the cut.

So, that said, I have to admit that you might not find a lot of "feminist oriented" content in my blog because my feminist lens is reserved for dealing with lame dudebros in my real life, and also, I honestly do not know how to wear the lens on the same level of depth as you do.

Also, since my blog's lens is depth psych, I very much focus on femininity and masculinity as psychological qualities that exist on opposite ends of a continuum regardless of biological gender. You'll see me refer to femininity and masculinity like this throughout my answer.

So because of this, I'm coming at the whole issue from a slightly different angle than you are. The way I see it, I think the way the jjk female characters are written and thematically utilized (basically everything you said), ultimately comes back to how Gege's exploration of femininity is limited by his own sense of self, and very much likely biased by the sociocultural landscape he grew up in.

I don't know how much you know about Japan, but Japan has one foot in the future, and one foot in the past...

And like... ok I'm totally oversimplifying the whole thing. All I'm saying is... Gege is a man who grew up in a man's world, sharing his view of the world through jjk, which is a story about initiation of the male psyche that is published in a magazine for young boys.

Do you see the pattern there?

So If you feel like his female characters are underutilized and underexplored, and that thematically jjk focuses way too much on masculinity and masculine definitions of strength at the expense of the feminine archetypes he does present (like Naoya as a vagina LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL)... well... to me, we're basically looking at the limits of his own relationship to his femininity, which, this relationship is in turn an imperative precursor for psychospiritual development in depth psych. More of this in a bit.

Anyways, that's my anticlimactic reasoning for why I am more forgiving about the issue than you are. To be honest, I've been so consumed exploring my masculine psyche through jjk (because personally my feminine psyche is more developed in certain aspects) that I just never focus on the female characters (that is not to mention what I shared earlier).

ANYWAYS, I fucking love what you wrote about Gege's exploration on power from a masculine perspective because you're 100% spot on. What I'll say to that is that, to me, from a depth psych perspective, that's kind of the whole point.

I invite you to look at it from this other level of perspective (in addition to the whole "Gege's psych is a product of his upbringing"): the whole idea of individuality and focusing on the sense of self as a measure of "The Strongest" is being shown as an incomplete part of the equation...

... that leaves "the strongest" ultimately feeling dissatisfied.

This is a sentiment echoed by several characters because ego strength (masculine definitions of strength) is ultimately an unbalanced measure of strength precisely because it ignores feminine values and measures of strength.

Who knows where Gege is taking jjk at this point, but I will admit I am hoping he is going to explore this in more depth because, central to Jungian thought and depth psych is the idea of the Buddhist middle path and union of opposites.

In Jungian psych this means that, when you have an unbalanced ego attitude like that, something has to give so that the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, which gives the ego the experiences it needs to integrate the "opposite" attitude. This ultimately results in a more holistic and balanced perspective for the ego.

That to say that I'm wondering if Gege is going to make the pendulum swing in the opposite direction with the whole "individuality" idea since self-preservation is a "masculine" trait. Again, psychologically, it's all about balance, and right now, the story is out of balance in favor of the masculine traits you mention.

But... to bring it back to Gege's possible limitations around his perception of femininity and how developing a healthy relationship to his anima (femininity) is a precursor for psychospiritual development... what if, on a meta level, jjk is depicting part of Gege's journey towards integrating and deepening his relationship to his femininity and what you're seeing is the beginning of that journey?

Hint hint Tsumiki! maybe I'll write about it someday

This is the thing... In depth psychology, more specifically what is called "the psychology of fairy tales", fairy tales and myths are stories that depict the thinking patterns of a peoples through metaphor and symbol. The characters in these myths and stories are thus characters playing out dramas in our own psyches. So basically, think of jjk as an objective exploration of Gege's subjectiveness (psyche).

Admittedly, even if the pendulum swings in the other direction (more feminine definitions of strength), you might find that his exploration is rather shallow or that it falls short of your expectations for what you'd like to see from a feminist perspective. And you wouldn't be wrong for it, it's just that Gege is probably not on the same level of understanding that you have about femininity because he's, like you and I, a human on a journey of self understanding and growth reflecting on how his environment has shaped who he is.

The same goes for women with internalized misogyny. Sometimes you don't know what you don't know, and coming to an understanding of it is a process that doesn't take place overnight.

So I think the only part I'll disagree with is that Gege is a sexist writer. But that's perhaps because I'm being a bit too technical in what sexist means? i.e. masc supremacy or hating women and perpetuating stereotypes. I think that rather than being sexist, his unconscious biases are showing, which is why someone like you can pick them out.

I do understand where you're coming from though, and admittedly perhaps I am being too forgiving of him.

Last thing I'll say is that I've said a couple of times that wanting for jjk to have these iconic female characters feels like an exercise in futility. In retrospect, I now understand that it's not that anyone shouldn't want for jjk to have iconic female characters, but that doesn't change the fact that jjk will probably remain the wrong manga to look for them, and that's something to make peace with because it is what it is.

So, here's to hoping we get a chance to see a deeper representation of feminine values in jjk or Gege's next manga. Because, if he's done such beautiful work with the masculine psyche, like you, I'd be curious to see what he makes of a deeper exploration of the feminine psyche.

Between you and I, I'd actually love reading a proper battle bl from Gege. And I mean proper. Like... gays so canon that even the dudebros can't deny it.

ANYWAYS... giiiiiiiirl what an ask 😮‍💨. I don't think I've done it justice tbh. But hopefully I made sense? I really do love what you wrote. It was very eye opening to see this age-old argument spelled out the way you did it. So thank you again for sharing your thoughts!

If you over have any other thoughts on the topic I look forward to hearing from you!

I rambled too so... hopefully I made sense 🤣.

#ask the mental gymnastics anime girl

16 notes · View notes

cobaltdevils · 5 days

Text

i feel like people have forgotten that “dont compare peoples suffering” means “suffering is valid even if someone else has it worse”, not “we shouldnt acknowledge the differences in how bad people are treated”

there should be no stigma against saying someone who is blind has it worse than someone who cant smell. it doesnt mean the one who cant smell doesnt struggle, and it doesnt mean they dont need help. its just factually true, and helps each person get the exact help they need

another prominent example: saying “trans men and trans women suffer just as much” is disingenuous. trans women are consistently treated worse than their trans male peers wherever they go, often BY trans men.

trans men have problems too, but the truckload of discrimination, violence, censorship and other problems trans girls suffer on a daily basis, by cis people AND other trans people, is demonstrably far harsher.

this is why “transmisogyny” refers exclusively to hatred against trans women, and it should stay that way. its a kind of discrimination that needs its own term more than any other.

you cannot fight for the rights of the oppressed without acknowledging the differences between them. its the classic “equality vs equity” debate: some people do suffer more, and need more help because of it. denying it is a matter of victim complex at best, and actively oppressing those you deem “lower” than you at worst.

#txt

2 notes · View notes

fizzingwizard · 5 months

Text

what is it with certain men and feeling superior because of biological advantage?

"oooh, a teeny 100 lb girl could NEVER jack a car to change a tire! but i, a man, who doesn't even work out, can do it no problem. another win for the men woot"

dude... you just admitted you've done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deserve what you've got. you were born with a certain body type through chance alone. also you're WRONG, plenty of women change tires all by their fragile-boned selves! one because we're not all so teeny and fragile, and two because many of us either work out to build muscle or have some trick or tool we use to help! like seriously. when a man uses a tool to make something easier he's "gaming the system" when a woman does she's "taking the easy way out" lol. lol. so funny fml.

this stuff bugs me everywhere it crops up. look at the olympics vs paralympics. everyone going gaga over able-bodied athletes for pushing themselves to the limit (probably on drugs... uhh nah it's definitely all natural bahahaha). look idk about the rest of you but I think someone who races with only one leg is more impressive than someone who races with two. period. so the two-legged racer makes better time. so what. the other guy has only one leg. and they're racing anyway.

im not saying able-bodied olympic athletes aren't awesome. i'm saying what people choose to do > what biological chance enables them to do. if someone chooses to work hard and becomes an olympic athlete great. but it's their hard work that makes them impressive. not the fact that they have two legs. and if you're born with an advantage in upper body strength and you choose to use that to be useful to others, that's also great. if you feel it entitles you to make fun of the fact that other people have to work to build strength then you're just painfully silly.

the flip side of this is how I was told, growing up, that if, for example, I have money to pay for a date, I shouldn't, because it's a blow to the guy's ego. like which is it. if women are supposed to be the weaker sex, why do men make fun of women for it? if women then try to get strong, why do men get mad? is that not what you were making fun of us for not doing?????

"you shouldnt be weak! weak is bad! but i dont want you to be strong. because then i don't feel strong. and i shouldnt have to work to be stronger than you. i just should be. because i'm a man. so im supposed to be strong. and you're a woman. which means you're weak. which you shouldnt be! because weak is bad!"

lol

#rant

3 notes · View notes

himbos-hotline · 9 months

Note

What do you think needs improvement in wwe and aew

OKAY so prefancing this by the fact I have not watch WWE in over a year and the only things I know about WWE now is what im getting from tumblr

both companies need to stop relying on the old stars/ old wrestlers needing either a money hit or a cash hit or like another grasp at talent. as much as I LOVE daddy ass and re-living my childhood in wrestling but like I get sooo tired of seeing people relive the glory days when they shouldnt *cough* ric flair *cough*. like theres sooo many talented younger wrestlers that arent getting shown on TV/ in the companies because older wrestlers get quick pops because of the nostalgia run. I see goldberg one more time I will actually explode.

Aew needs to book more womens matches and treat them at the same like bundle and preface as men! Like give us a womans blood and guts!! and more womens matches in genearal where its more of a rough and tumble vibe with blood. My favourite womens match is the thunder rosa brit baker cage match!! Also give me more nyla like I love nyla rose sooo much and shes so talented and cool and I wanna see her wrestle more

also things that feel like "small" tag teams, like the best friends, arent being like shown how talent they are. I know that sentence doesnt make sense. But re-watching aew during the pandemic era- where you had the trent vs kenny match it was so good and it really showwed just how cool and talented trent is in the ring and I think both him and chuck should be allowed to wrestle more and actually wrestle like do moves and win matches, theyre not just to push other talent or let newer tag teams win, its kinda depressing when taented wrestlers arent used in the way they deserve too

another thing and this is just for me, maybe this is just for me. Like long term storytelling suddenly either being shifted/stopped. Like do you remember when mox was facing [I think its either max or jericho] and someone like attacked him backstage and we NEVER EVER got told/figured out who attacked him and its kinda just been forgotten? ALSO as much as I love the elite and the hangkenny storyline and hangman rejoining the elite. He caused so much issues and trouble with everything and he hurt them, like matt said that bte episode "it hurt my heart" and theyve all like, just kinda accpeted him back. No like deep apology or "you have to prove yourself" or whatever. Its like they forgot the entire three year story they told. Also kenny finding out about the fucking nod- it could have been done so much deeper and sadder and emotional, the bucks have been there with kenny since his breakdown/breakup with kota and theyve always had his back until the one moment he needed them and they sided with hangman. But instead of all of that we got "k its cool" and I dont know if its gonna like come back up after all the kenny dealing with callis emotions is gone. Cuz thats gotta like fuck someone up mentally, suddenly loosing that abusive manipultive hold on you suddenly disappearing.

and FANS!! like, I love wrestling fans but also god I hate them so much. Guys, Guys I am begging y'all to stop showing wrestlers fanfics/ship-fanart and everything else. its not like made FOR them its made FOR other fans. I wouldnt want to be exposed to being shipped with my friends by people online. Like....ugh. ALSO like a small thing that pisses me off is fans thinking we can like, touch them in sexual ways. this is mostly cis-het men touching cis women wrestlers on their asses and tits. Like you wouldnt like if someone fondled your dick without asking. Concent is important and its not just for ike, fucking. its for every single thing in life. Yall can cuddle the wrestlers if they say you can but god if youre making people uncomfortable and gross its fucking bullshit and youre a sucky human being.

#this is mostly just a vent im sorry #mouse has pals #anon notes

4 notes · View notes

baphomet--baby · 6 months

Text

bruh white people are talkin out there ass about israel/hamas. like just repeating shit from tiktok without any other context and they just sound dumb af

like i just saw a white bitch literally shaking making a video saying something basically “you shouldnt be scared to support palestine online for the fear of backlash and that it’s so important to makes posts in your support and we should think about the fact that you don’t want to live in a fascist country so making posts are imperative to saving gaza and the caption says “the silence is deafening”

like what what do you mean lmao. like it’s so absurd i don’t know where to start and i don’t feel like i need to explain why it’s all so stupid to see privileged people watch a war through a screen and use it as way to be position themselves as morally superior to other people online

also obv israel is the superpower it is bc the US funded it and is also a fascist country. wtf the fuck is a tiktok going to do besides put you on a list why tf should jews do that to prove they are anti zionist to a bunch of people that just learned that word a week ago like wtf is wrong with y’all

and it’s so black and white; good guys vs bad guys to them. like it’s not a war thats nuanced and terrible. like a man putting hamas on a pedestal like a group of men during war arent doing absolutely atrocious things bc they are doing it in the name of anti-imperialism. like y’all are doing the thing u hate so much; absolving yourself of your sins bc you identify with the correct political faction. you aren’t a good person bc you have colonialism that’s literally the bare minimum

ok but like how is it propaganda if you state that both people on both sides of this war are doing bad things to women. like omg wait i forgot we are just pawns for your little ideological wars u right :3

bro i’m back in my hating men era i can’t do this

#me

0 notes

feisty-yordle · 8 months

Text

I'm going to be more declarative.

I dont like hedging so much shit. Women do that, being all indirect, stating their feelings on a matter vs making a declaration, because they want you to know that her feelings matter the most. Why make an assertion when you can simply inform a person that the thing shared makes you feel ill? Everyone has a right to an opinion! No opinion is wrong!

Men share their opinions just as easily but they phrase it as an assertion. Instead of "that looks disgusting" they say "no one should eat food like that". Can they be wrong? Yes! Of course! Any assertion you make can be wrong! Maturity is understanding that any assertion you make can be wrong and making assertions anyway. When a woman says "that car is... not something id buy myself" because she thinks the car is downright ugly, what she believes could also be stated as "that car is bad but i do not wanna tell you that because i dont want to make you feel like your choices are wrong". Its the same type and strength of opinion that a man would have about a disgusting car but she wont make a declaration on it. Shes not being a coward, she's being efficient: she is only stating her feelings cause thats all that matters to her and to her audience.

I dont like walking the path of the woman on this. When i act the way of the woman, i expect people to take my opinion seriously (mostly guys) and get upset when others' opinions dont change. And then when i ask myself why am i upset, i fairly respond "for no good reason, because someone shouldnt change their opinion just because you are disgusted at something, gosh, the gall". So then why do i share my opinion in the first place? Should i? Clearly i care. Its why i started blogging again, to have a healthier avenue for expressing my inner voice. But i did not know what to do about my one-on-one interactions. What can i do instead of sharing an opinion or hiding it? Rephrasing it. Making assertions. Because then its a matter of fact or unfact. Someone can challenge my assertion and lose. Or win. Or take it as fact. And all of those are fair. And these are the people i want to talk with. Whats not fair is bludgeoning someone with an opinion he does not care about. If i want to do that, i should join more hippie girl spaces where my feelings will be taken seriously. Then i can whine about how unfair it is when people dont care. But i do not want to play that game, or seek out those spaces. They do not fit my lifestyle.

Also declarative speech sounds way cooler. 😎

#dear diary #txt #if youre gonna be androgynous its all about picking which gendered traits are the best and discarding the rest 😎

0 notes

butch-bakugo · 2 years

Note

I'm just asking since you can say it, I'm not going to say it but I've seen people discuss how trans women can reclaim fag- which even if I am trans, I'm not a trans woman so I have no experience with that. But I haven't seen it the opposite way round?

I'm not taking this as a way to say it- I'm just curious, is the history of D^^ke one that excludes trans men from it's usage ? Is it one that those who use it aren't sure on? Once again I'm genuinely not here to argue or say we should use it, I'd just like to see what's happening and what those of us here that like women feel about it.

Thank you and sorry about the long ask

This is... Kind of complex.

A binary trans man who isnt attracted to women shouldnt be saying or identifying as a dyke. However, if they vibe with the wlw/nblw communities and arent just a full binary man with no nonbinaryism in place, they can be a dyke.

The whole premise behind dykeism and what defines a dyke is a masculine person who isnt a cisgender man and has a prominent attraction to women. Of course, femme and feminine dykes are the exception to the masculine portion of the identity but in general, most homophobes only go out of their way to call masc wlw/nblw dykes.

Its really deep in the idea of how, as a trans person who is attracted to the opposite gender, your often mistaken as a gender nonconforming gay person. Theres also all the gender confusion that comes with nonbinarism.

Like.. Most of the time, a transmasc wlw/nblw/mlw is gonna be called a dyke for looking masc and being with women. Same for transfem wlm/nblm/mlm will be called fags for looking fem and being with men.

So yeah, if a transmasc nonbinary or nonbinary trans man loves women and feels at home in the dyke community, who am i or anyone else to tell them no? Most of them were butch lesbians before this. Theres even an identity for those who are both a straight trans man and a nonbinary butch lesbian called cuspers. ( cuspers also cover people who identify as both a straight trans woman and a nonbinary gay man)

Fluidity of gender really fucks things around and it gets dicey. I can personally attest to the confusion and this idea of singular identitiy alliances( like you should only really exist in the wlw community vs the mlm communtiy and bs like that) as someone who is both a man and woman and loves both men and women.

Historically speaking however, trans men who love women were included in dyke rallies and dyke events.

Final answer though: as long as the trans man is also nonbinary/isnt strictly male, loves women and feels a significant connection to the wlw/nblw communities enough to count themselves among other dykes, i see no issue with them saying or even identifying as a dyke.

The only people who genuinely care, usually like to police nonbinary lesbians identities and pronouns. They are sus at least and transphobic and racist at most.

#levi speaks #im kinda dissosciateing so i hope my point came across #many butch lesbians consider themselves also trans men or masculine in gender wether indepently or #as a result of their lesbianism and the push of heteronomalicy in society #transmasc nonbinary people who love women get called dykes even if they are bi #its about respecting it as a term and label above all else #like if your bi and mostly roam in mlm/nblm circles dyke is probably not for you #gay men have no business saying it regardless of gender #but most of the bs about keeping even highly masculine people out of the community is mostly pushed out by white racist femmes #gender and presentation can be fluid so people should learn to respect that more often and not try to control other wlw/nblw

7 notes · View notes

enderspawn · 3 years

Note

Quick question, I been in the fandom for a long ass time (since the first sadist animatic since I was a fan of sadist since their Batim days) so I think I good grasp on all of the folk in the smp but uh.... I kinda realised that I have no clue why c!Niki hates c! Wilbur and even more so, why does everyone thinks she's a girlboss for it??? Did I miss an entire plotline orrrr?

(sent this to a couple of other folk, hope you don't mind)

admittedly, im not the best well versed in it either (i'd recc going to mia geoguessbur, whos tbh the expert on c!wilbur and c!niki imo) but the short of it is: he realized the anger she had previously associated with tommy (because he "ruined everything", also see her attempted murder) was wrongly placed. he didn't do anything! ....and then she shifted the blame and that anger to wilbur instead of her like... dealing with her emotions. oops!

as for the girlboss thing... i think depending from person to person WHY they do it varies.

part of it is a willful ignorance of c!niki's character and her arc and instead working to fit her to a trope, i'm sure of it. likewise (though a bit cynical), i feel like a lot of people dont follow the female characters/ccs but dont want to LOOK like they dont so they... kind of fake it til they make it kind of thing? using the girlboss method is a great and easy way to show support for a character without having to actually care nor show any amount of depth in investment in who that character actually IS or going through. Again, thats a cynical view though and absolutely not the only reason ppl "girlboss-ify" characters.

some of it is encouraging bad decisions in the same way ppl chanted for wilbur to blow up lmanberg-- yeah its not healthy, but its fun and dramatic so im gonna be positive about it! go off!

some of it also (at least for me so im counting it) is like.... its more complex than you can get into comfortably (or at least casually). theres nuance and morals and what they're doing isn't right but its not a simple choice either. so you just... say girlboss instead and move on? again its also tied to the second point where you're encouraging bad actions, but with this point as compared the other like... intent that it IS deeper than that, its more tragic. you're glossing over it for the sake of levity, if that makes sense? Its a tragedy and you like it. (admittedly tho, i've used this type of "girlbossing" the most with like... c!quackity and the prison arc bc i was too tired to debate morals FJDSKLFJ)

its important tho to keep in mind the difference in how ppl treat male vs female characters with the "girlboss-ification" no matter what though. are you treating all female characters the same and glossing over their depth or erasing their character to fit a typical "strong girl" or "boss girl" archetype? also ties back to the first point, is your support superficial to make yourself look good?

theres definitely a trend in fandom i think to ignore the depth with female characters and their actions/motives while digging in deep to the male characters. men are allowed to be a tragedy while women are ''empowered'' by their tragedy. as an example off top my head: the eggpire. ive seen multiple points talking about the underlying tragedy of members like bad or ant and how they got to that point, but most ive seen about hannah are just... "yeah shes evil now #girlboss".

this isnt to say that you SHOULDNT acknowledge the depth of those male characters, nor to try and like.. single out eggpire fans, its just the clearest example i can think of. multiple characters going thru the same/similar scenarios, but the reception to them is different

despite all the of above, i dont think "girlboss-ifying" a character is inherently a bad thing. At least when used responsibly, like the second or third option presented. it IS a fun shorthand for "thing character is being active and doing things i like", often with a unsaid message of "this character is doing BAD things that i like". i dont think it should be tossed aside or never used, just used mindfully. again: why are you treating this character like this? how much do you actually know about the situation? etc.

#dream smp #mcyt #niki #og post #(jeb bush voice) please clap #answered #anon #long post #i've. thought abt this a lot #again bc i saw ppl calling out the female girlboss behavior #and my first instinct was to defend myself bc i Enjoy using girlboss like discussed #and esp bc i apply it frequently without regards to gender (i think)#but after stepping back: they're right and have merit to their point #there IS a marked difference in how characters are treated at large based on gender. its okay to like... acknowlege that.#you have to in order to be able to change it #also i dont call out those scenarios out of malintent. i know i have done the 'support [blank] bc i want to appear good' even if i dont car #like. thats human instinct to appear good its okay. you just have to #ACKNOWLEDGE it and realize what you're doing #and make a point to like. improve or stop or just continue knowing why you;re doing it yknow #idk man i love rambling in tags FJKDLSJF

20 notes · View notes

siswritesyanderes · 3 years

Note

This is a series of asks bc, while I do LIKE all the charas of Fantastic Beasts individually, much of the romantic pairings dont sit well with me. By that mean the messy love polygon w Newt & I think I finally figured out why & I'd like another's opinion on it. For starters, Newt's attraction with Tina is too fast for me considering he was friends w Leta, got expelled out of Hogwarts for Leta, carried Leta's photo in his case, & basically loved her for YEARS. But this is all undone by a [1]

jaunt in NY having met a woman, who he admittedly went on a huge adventure w, over the course of maybe a few weeks. He's so taken w her she replaces Leta's photo w her own &, after refusing to go to Paris for Dumbledore, leaves immediately once he finds out she's there. I just find this unbelievable. I can rationalize it from Newt's perspective where Tina is a fresh breeze sweeping into his life on (percieved) unrequited pining, but this is my conjecture based on my understanding of Newt. [2]

The audience shouldnt be left to rationalize endgame couple of the mc on their own. & the whole thing w Leta is so messily handled I dont think they can save it even if they bring her back in FB3. How she feels for Newt vs Theseus & unresolved lingering affection, etc. She & Newt were SO important to each other & we SEE that & they dont HAVE to get together, but they need proper resolution bc they have actual history between them. God Leta in general deserved so much better. [3]

But my main gripe is that this love polygon serves no purpose to what I believe is the main selling point of FB: the world. HP having love stories makes sense bc we're following the story of a boy as he goes through adolescence & his journey through that via school is part of that, which is why the romance feels fitting. It's a very personal story. FB on the otherhand is the best peak we have at the wider wizarding world beyond school. HP introduces the world of magic, but FB rlly expands it [4]

To that end Jakob & Queenie's relationship is the only one I find myself liking, bc it's deeply tied to the world setting, the series' biggest selling point (in my opinion, should have said this earlier). It underscores the attitudes of the period & the conflict they face feels suitably substantial & not like filler. There's a moral question between them of are they worth it? And how far should they go to be together?

Imma be real hear & say FB2 was rlly Queenie's movie & they should have been ballsy & just make Queenie the mc for FB2, bc her story was actually considerably more important to the overall development of the story than Newt's, which mostly came off as a rushed & a tad clichè soap drama. & making it about Queenie I think builds more room for good conflict & independent narrative for Tina that would serve her chara better. [5? 6?]

If I bad to be REAL ballsy, I'd say my big issue w/ the relationships in the FB series & how it enhances or impedes the main story & what I believe to be it's biggest attracter (the setting) could have been solved if they made Newt's romantic interest a muggle. It attaches a deeper meaning & relevance to them & the story so it felt more deeply that they truly moved WITH the narrative rather than beside it but I guess Im just picky. Thx for putting up w this! [Final]

(My response below the cut.)

Yeah, pretty much all of this is right.

Regarding the Tina thing, it was definitely rushed, especially since there was literally nothing romantic between them in the whole first movie, except maybe the end part where they're stumbling over their words. Despite knowing how movies work and knowing that they were the male and female lead, I still found that completely out of left field, because they don't really share any interests and I didn't feel like they felt anything in particular for each other before that. She really wants to be an auror and feels really intensely about it; he just wants to travel the world and write about magical creatures and take care of them. I don't see a lot of compatibility there, and the movie didn't really do anything to reconcile that gap.

Jacob and Queenie made sense, because they actually sowed some seeds for it. It's not even about the fact that they both like to cook; they showed an interest in each other throughout. They noticeably like each other. Newt and Tina never really had that, to me, so it was bizarre for her to become his primary motivation in the second movie.

Queenie's trajectory in movie 2 overall bothers me, so while I agree it would have been better if they'd centered it more around her, I definitely think they needed to drastically rewrite pretty much everything she did. Enchanting Jacob at the beginning never sat well with me; I usually only have to say this in the Descendants fandom, but if one half of the ship is magical and the other half isn't, we can't have the magical one enchanting the non-magical one for romantic reasons without addressing what a violation of trust that is. Like, Jacob would be justified for never trusting her again, over that. Also, the fact that she apparently holds it against people if they think bad things about her is not something I would expect from someone who has been a Legilimens as long as she has, and not a detail I like, at all. Especially since it was used to give her justification to be mad at Jacob after she enchanted him in the first place. I find it sad, because Queenie was definitely my favorite character in the first movie. (Also, joining Grindelwald was a nonsensical thing to do. I can only assume she's there to spy on him or something, because it makes literally no sense.)

As for Leta, I really don't like how that was approached. First of all, I don't like how their mention of her in the first movie was "She was a taker; you need a giver," because once we actually met the character, that only made me resent Queenie for representing her that way. Leta deserved better in pretty much every way, and they definitely shouldn't have killed her off like that. I find the whole situation really iffy from a racial standpoint. The first black character to be written three-dimensionally in all of HP lore, and they make sure to preemptively tell the audience that she's a "taker", kill her in the same movie we meet her, and manage to trivialize her death by turning it into a little "Who was she saying 'I love you' to?" mystery. I like her relationship with Newt and Theseus, and I'd definitely want to see more of it.

Yes, it definitely would have been better, thematically, if they'd made the love interest a Muggle. (I'd honestly say they should've paired Newt with Jacob, but I know they're unwilling to do that. That would be kind of cool, though, to see the movie shaping up with two male characters and two female characters and have the men end up with each other and the women just live their lives as humans.)

With the story they ended up telling, though, I don't think that is needed; since Queenie is already dealing with the wizard/Muggle storyline, Newt could have a different conflict. Maybe his love interest should be a werewolf or something, to tie in the wizarding world's unresolved dislike for "half-breeds". And if he were in a relationship with someone already regarded as a creature, the wider wizarding world might take a different view to his studies and look down on him a lot more. Idk, a thought.

And then, with Leta/Theseus and Grindelwald/Dumbledore (if they were willing to actually deal with that), they'd pretty much hit every controversial beat they've got: wizard/Muggle, wizard/"half-breed", interracial, homosexual. Credence and Nagini are both creatures, kind of, but I still like them together, so their relationship doesn't have to tie into any theme; it just has to be developed way more.

On the whole, Crimes of Grindelwald felt like they skipped a movie. It feels like they needed a middle installment to make these relationships happen, instead of jumping from "Do Newt and Tina maybe have feelings for each other?" to "Newt loves Tina and Tina is possessive enough of Newt to be outwardly upset with him when she thinks he's engaged to someone else," and creating a whole relationship between Credence and Nagini that we see none of.

The fact that Queenie and Jacob were done well in the first movie gives me a fair amount of goodwill for them, but that goodwill only offers enough cushioning from the botching that movie 2 did that I'm near-indifferent to the ship, now, instead of actively opposed. I'd like to see things improved, but as it currently stands, I'd be just as happy seeing them end up not together as together. The fact that Leta's relationships with Newt and Theseus were more interesting than any of the aforementioned makes it that much more ridiculous that they killed her. What ship am I supposed to care about how? If I can't go into the next movie delusionally hoping Newt and Leta will get some moments, or enjoying the Theseus and Leta content, then I'll just be sitting there waiting for Credence and Nagini to share a screen, and who knows when that'll happen?

#long post #fantastic beasts and where to find them #crimes of grindelwald #newt scamander #leta lestrange #theseus scamander #jacob kowalski #queenie goldstein #tina goldstein #credence barebone #nagini

29 notes · View notes

ravenousgf · 2 years

Note

Hello um I know why ppl don't like terfs I mean duh TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN but what exactly comes under radical feminism that you disagree with... genuinely curious.

hiii omg thanks for the q. hello.

a few reasons:

firstly its just most radfems are terfs. the radfem-to-terf pipeline is very real:/

radical feminism has some valid ideas about dismantling the need for women to be gender conforming + celebrating gnc women, i guess? i'll give you that

but they seem to view any and all performances of femininity as painful and confining, which is just reductive. this post is a good example of what im talking about. it has a bunch of radfems+terfs agreeing with op (easy blocklist right there) and it makes me want to throw up

radical feminism sees men as the enemy, sees feminism as men vs women when really its people vs sexism/misogyny. we all have to unlearn harmful shit the patriarchy has made us believe--women are not exempt from views like those

it leads to a lot of egregious biphobia toward bi women specifically, especially if they date a guy. self-explanatory. gotta say as a bi girl it hurts to see lesbians hate on us like!! wheres your allyship now ffs!!! bi women are not any less queer than lesbians oh my god

several radfem posts that i had the misfortune to come across see women as the "good gender" and men as the "bad gender" -- and its ridiculous because

a) theres more than two genders

b) it pushes any accountability off these women by framing them as mostly powerless victims, and

c) men are not inherently evil!!! saying that just sets low standards for men, tells women they shouldnt expect anything better. its the "woke" way of saying boys will be boys, i guess.

and i think any feminist woman that has to hear boys will be boys one more time deserves to deck anyone thats stupid enough to say that

remember when i mentioned the radfem-to-terf pipeline? yeah this leads straight to that. seeing men as evil means radfems' view of trans ppl is inherently warped. theres actually people talking about how "trans men betrayed their gender" like. fucks sake. not everything is political lol some people are just men

also since they hate men for being men they use it as an excuse to exclude trans women from their feminism/wlw positivity just bc trans women have/had penises. i dont have to talk abt why that way of seeing it is a lava lake of burned fish. we are sooo past a kettle of fish.

and isnt it funny. classing one's own gender as good, pious, empathetic, emotionally sensitive and another gender as innately bad. isnt it funny how that gives radfems a free pass to be absolutely awful people, and not allow for any self-reflection about their own choices

more often than not they either completely ignore non-binary ppl or see them as woman-lite. genderfluid, bigender ppl etc are also never really respected?? when someone thinks everyone but women is inherently awful im not sure how they'd feel about/treat anyone who isnt cis/doesnt fit into the gender binary

to summarize most of it is inherently gender essentialist bullshit

#thanks for the ask anon!! <3 #feminism #queer #bisexual #r*dfems and t*rfs dni obviously #mailboxing #ok to rb?? ig?#oh my god this got away from me i did nOt mean to write an essay about this but. *shrugs*#i do think the notallmen argument is pointless and stupid obviously #but the opposite is just as ridiculous and doesnt allow for nuance #raven talks

6 notes · View notes

halfemptygirlrps-archive · 4 years

Text

Polyamory CAN work (long post)

As a black, queer woman who could very well be poly, I am always looking for content to feed my soul and have for a few years now. I know I grumble about white/het couples a lot which makes me sound some kind of way but I ship a ton of white couples, that isn’t the problem. It’s the way representation is stepped on these days with toxic white couples being seen as true love that upsets me. And this is coming from a chick that lowkey ships Reylo.

I don’t understand and never will why writers in 2020 think that the only demographic there is are the people who can’t handle seeing anything but a white male and a white female be together. Interracial relationships CAN and DO work and f/f or m/m relationships or any race CAN work, so guess what, so can relationships involving three or more people and while difficult, it can work, even if the people are different races.

My annoyance also stems from Poly woman really getting shat on when writers hit a wall. Very few times have I seen it work out and that’s so stupid to me because she shouldnt’ have to choose.

I start with Wynonna Earp, a CLEARLY Poly woman with a strong sexual appetite that never gets shamed. She loved both Dolls and Doc and though Shamier left the show effectively forcing her to Doc, they still made it clear that she was poly and capable of having feelings for more than one man when they brought in Charlie. He was patient and sweet and while all three men wanted Wynonna to themselves, they NEVER gave her an ultimatum and even while PREGNANT WITH ANOTHER MAN’S BABY Dolls still loved her and held her in bed. I believe that had Shamier (Dolls) not left that they would have went on waiting for her to choose but also letting her know that she didn’t have to.

Then there’s my first real Poly stan, Bo Dennis from Lost Girl. Unapologetically bisexual and poly, Bo was in control at all times, both of her relationships and her sexuality. While she needed sex to feed like a vampire needs blood,she also enjoyed it and didn’t view it as a curse or burden and her partners were alwasy consenting, which was amazing. Lauren never shamed Bo (in fact she praised her sexuality and wished she could keep up) for liking men (thus not being toxic to bi women, which is an issue in the community I wont get into) and Dyson, Bo’s male lover never pressured her to submit to him. Here she is pictured with Tamsin, Dyson and Lauren, all her lovers, at once.

If all three of them can be respectful and understanding while each of them were with Bo alone, not a quad, then why do they make it seem so hard to have three people love each other? And yes, I know that couples break up, but on Tv they just dont need to when it’s what a show is based on.

I could go on about Bo all day but I will move on to one of my favorite movies: Prof. Marsden and the Wonder Women.

Now real or not this story had everything. It showed how slowly and steadily they grew to love each other, the highs and lows and the shame of the community that made them all stronger together. Was there jealousy at times, yeas, but they addressed it and learned that they didnt’ need to be and that they could all be together happily and that it could be easy to be in love with more than one person. Sure, it was the 40s but in this day and age it’s nothing to hide, and if they could have a happily ever after back then, why couldn’t it happen now?

Could it be because of race? Without kidding ourselves, we know that every fandom is capable of being toxic and that it’s just fact that the black girl is often hated. I call it the Iris West treatment, where the clear canon couple is hated and the black girl is trashed for the white option. I quit Supergirl after Season 2 but I hear that Jimmy’s sister is getting said treatment now from a friend that still watches and I am not surprised. You can’t force an actor to stay on a show and I get that having their ship destroyed build animosity, but I really can’t help but feel like had the other girl been white it wouldn’t have been such a huge issue. A Stefan vs Damon issue none the less, but still, less so. I say that because I have seen actual people defend Mon El in that fandom but saying “what’s wrong with owning slaves?” NUff said.

Another reason I bring up why it could be race is because of You, Me, Her.

I really enjoy this show and will be sad to see it and and while I recommend it, there are flaws, but none of these flaws seems to be that the three of them can’t work past it and get back together.

Emma and Jack are married, Izzy comes in and shakes up their world and they both fall ass over elbows in love with her and her with them. They go through the usual things:jealousy, favoritism, hiding their relationship then coming out, but they always work through it. When Jack leaves to date an ex, he comes back. When Emma leaves to date and ex, she comes back. When Jack and Emma think about moving away and Izzy doesn’t want to, they come back. When Izzy has a thing with a co-worker, she still chooses Jack and Emma because they know they all need and love each other. They even have babies together! Izzy sees the sonogram and her heart stops. She realizes that she is going to be their actual mom and they all get married and even look into tri custody because they know they are a family and that it’s not an odd man out type of thing. They try it with other people and with just one another but they know where they’re hearts belong. It works. Does it work because they’re all white? NOPE

Sense8 was a brilliant show. Here everyone was represented and it was such a shame they killed it. Still, they showed us that sexuality can be fluid and that a fandom can be supportive. Raj and Kala married in spite Kala loving someone else. They never made her choose and in the end, they accepted that she was poly and wanted both and guess what? The two guys even fell for each other! Here is a white, bisexual male with his Indian partners. India isn’t the greatest with being gay so for Raj this must have been stranger and scary but they both made him feel safe and comfortable, loved and supported and in the end it was canon that they were all going to be together and learn as they go. Like with You, Me, Her, the fandom is supportive of this and while we didn’t get much of Rajalagang, it is clear that they can work regardless of skin color, religion, and even long distance.

So then why not Polymarine? It was clear it tested well with the audience, haters aside, so what made them feel like they couldn’t carry on? Sure, people fall out of love, but in the show, they just didnt’ need to. Before Ryn Ben and Maddie were together without issue for almost a year. It was made clear every time that he was in love with her, that they had chemistry and that he was attracted to her, so how do they justify saying that this:

Wasn’t real and meant nothing? That this

Wasn’t the same?

If other relationships can survive and thrive then what is it that was so hard, so difficult for the writers that they remove the credit that they themselves paved the way for and throw it aside for something that has been done literally thousands of times? Why throw away what made you unique to fall in line? Why does a show about mermaids have to have this be the “realistic” thing?

#polyamory #polymarine #long post #maddie bishop #ben pownall #ryn fisher #ryn #siren #siren freeform #poly representation

237 notes · View notes

thetroublesofbeingtrans · 4 years

Note

idk of youve dealt with this b4 but,,, lets say, im a trans boy who likes fandom stuff very much and i see a lot of people marking men as "bad" and harmful and toxic and what not, and its for completely valid reasons and it makes me feel ashamed and wrong for identifying as a boy and ik these feeling are irrational but it hurts a lot, and i know it shouldnt, i mean, i shouldnt care abt what rando internet people think, but,i mean, i dont know how to deal with it all...ohmygod

Hey! These are totally valid feelings to have and I used to feel this way as well. I think what helped me understand it the most is that usually when these statements are being made, it’s more toward demographic trends than individuals.

For ex. when I sometimes complain about cis people on here, I don’t mean all cis people, I’m mostly referring to experiences that happen as an interaction between my identity as a trans person and their identity as a cis person. A lot of the complaints women and nb people have with men are in reference to the socialization and ignorance that a lot of men can sometimes have in relation to the struggles of those who identify with other genders, and the way that privilege interacts with their struggles. For ex. cis men don’t typically deal with being told they aren’t allowed bodily autonomy, and cis men (on basis of their gender not being sexualized) don’t typically deal with things like sexual assault at the same rate that women and nb people do. Because of that, and because a lot of men don’t grow up having to worry about those things, they tend to lack the perspective that women and nb people may have and may even believe some of the problems experienced by them are deserved or just. That’s kind of a simplistic example, and doesn’t really address a lot of the more deep-seeded issues within gender struggles but I hope it gets the point across alright.

My point is- men as individuals are not inherently bad, inherently toxic, or harmful. Demographic trends that are more common with men can be toxic, bad, or harmful, but if you’re a man who listens to what women and nb people have to say, makes an effort to understand and uplift the voices of those who suffer from that gender power imbalance, and holds other men accountable, you are using that privilege for good and being a good ally. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a man, and to say that there is something inherently wrong with a gender identity would undermine the efforts that those in social justice make to make the world a more just place.

There is a conversation to be had about privilege in regards to trans vs cis men, and I personally think that I hold privilege as a trans man and always have had that opinion of myself. I personally have not experienced a lot of the struggles that women and nb people have had to experience, but I recognize that there are elements of oppression that can sometimes cross over especially when we’re widening our understanding of sex and gender. I’m not super well versed in that issue, though, so I can’t really say I have any authority on that topic.

I hope this helped a little!

13 notes · View notes

armve1ns · 4 years

Text

opinion time

this is a list of my opinions on common trans discourse topics. subject to change

how many genders? enby discourse

personally, i believe there are only 2 genders as far as science goes. trans women and men have certain observable neurological characteristics that make them neurologically the gender they identify as rather than their sex. this disconnect leads to distress, and since you cant change neurology, you change the body.

that being said, i realise that certain identities (such as common/reclaimed historical non binary labels) are culturally important, and akin to things like androgyny and gender non-conformity. while these identities have no basis in neurology, they deserve respect. no one is neurologically a firefighter, but firefighters are a real thing that a person can be.

the issues need seperation, as both have a different sources. one is a medical issue, one is cultural. they are not mutually exclusive, and certain individuals can be both enby and a trans, but they are not inherently trans by virtue of being enby.

on that note, what makes someone trans? dysphoria discourse

gender dysphoria is the main diagnosable symptom of a gender vs sex disconnect. having gender dysphoria does not make you trans, but rather if you have a brain that expects the opposite body, you will have gd. it is the result, not the cause.

different people have different definitions of dysphoria. i believe it to be a clinically significant distress over ones primary and secondary sex characteristics. 'social gd' is a product of that distress, and is not enough on its own to classify someone as trans. social gd exists because being referred to as their birth sex reminds them of their sex characteristics.

some people who claim to only have social gd have actually repressed their physical distress. this was my case in regards to bottom dysphoria. i didnt realise i had repressed it until i had my top surgery. with that major stressor gone, i could cope with other stressors, and my brain allowed me to realise that i had been experiencing lower dysphoria this whole time.

some people who claim to only have social gd are actually just uncomfortable with the treatment they experience because of their percieved gender. sexism on both sides can lead to people wanting to distance themselves from that experience, thus the rise in the enby labels.

they are uncomfortable being viewed as either a man or a woman, not because it reminds them of their sex characteristics, but because people treat them poorly either way. if they are viewed as a woman, they get catcalled. if they are viewed as a man, they are treated coldly (gross oversimplification, but you get my point).

do you have to transition medically to be trans?

if you cannot physically transition, or are holding off due to health concerns, you are no less trans than historical trans people who were without the ability to transition.

passing and gender presentation?

gender non-conforming trans people and non passing trans people are still trans. duh. if you can avoid it, you shouldnt put your natal sex characteristics on display, as it may trigger dysphoria, but wearing clothes targeted at your birth sex/being non-passing does not make you not trans.

are trenders a thing?

yes, but imo, the term should be limited to people knowingly doing it for attention. people who are genuinely mistaken or misinformed, or even the willfully ignorant should not be called trenders.

#transmed #enby discourse #dysphoria discourse #medical transition #passing discourse #trender discourse

11 notes · View notes