#i'm here for the subversion of toxic masculinity | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

terezipyropescrocs · 7 months

Text

saw the barbie movie and am finally free to be a Hater on main without being accused of criticizing something without having watched it- anyway here is a non-exhaustive list of my Thoughts

this movie could have been nothing but fun dance numbers :(

i will say.........i like the costumes and barbieland set design. comparatively the way the real world is shot is so drab and visually uninteresting imo which. i don't feel is great given how much time we spend in it and that barbie ends up living there

the fact that barbies are supposedly affected by the people playing with them but they all act like..... That. just how shallow do they think kids imaginations are? why is there only one "weird" barbie???

admittedly i've never been to LA so maybe i'm completely off-base here but am i expected to believe that ken is automatically respected and admired (but not ogled! with no undertones of violence!) just for existing while my man is constantly dressed like he walked straight from a pride parade

on that note there was a lot of queer subtext/references but it was all very... wink wink nudge nudge in a way that honestly felt a little, idk, uncomfortable to me? but nothing overtly inclusive or even that subversive really

like with the construction workers scene i honestly can't tell if this was meant to be a trans positive moment or just a joke about them being dolls but if so it's like. you have these sexist catcallers but they support trans identities...? literally just as incoherent as everything else going on in this movie

why is barbie simply allowed to walk right into a school cafeteria

gloria and her daughter's relationship and the conflict between them was... very ill defined aside from the apparently all consuming and ever present suffocation of Womanhood™ like wtf is with sasha's line about hating women being the one thing everyone agrees on???? it's the kind of pseudo-pithy cynicism-laced quote that i would expect from a bitter 50s housewife or aging hollywood star, not a teenage girl who, idk, overuses buzzwords?

actually come to think of it pretty much all the female relationships in this movie are very surface-level and hinge almost exclusively on their shared gender identity and not much else!

the fact that all of the barbies were brainwashed to the point where they couldn't even remember their own achievements from ken mansplaining the patriarchy to them.......... and the fact that this is """explained""" with a fucked up and insensitive smallpox joke......... i am mad enough to spit tacks actually

pretty much the only thing i could think of during gloria's big feminist speech and subsequent appeals to the brainwashed barbies is that nothing she's saying actually applies to any of the dolls' experiences "You have to be their mommies but not remind them of their mommy." they don't have parents gloria

the use of push by matchbox twenty in the context of the movie sure is a Choice, seeing as the singer based it off a relationship where he was being emotionally abused by his girlfriend but had the lyrics widely misinterpreted as misogynistic.... anyway.

the way that all of the kens (and even allan) resort to violence and all of the barbies defeat them using manipulation and ~feminine wiles~.. thanks i hate it

i did like how the kens seemed to overcome their differences through singing and holding hands. also fellas is it toxic masculinity to want your girlfriend To see the man behind the tan / And fight for me?

confused by ken's "kenough" revelation from talking to barbie because he.... literally just sang all of that? I’m just Ken / And I’m enough / And I’m great at doing stuff / So, hey, check me out / Yeah, I’m just Ken is that all supposed to be just bravado? it's the same message but he needed barbie to articulate it to him for it to sink in. hm.

feel like barbie's motives for wanting to live in the real world could have been explored better because tbh... the pitch wasn't great!

like her arc is genuinely: experience insecurity for the first time ever because someone else was projecting it onto her > get over said insecurity (that till this point she had never struggled with) because that same person made a speech > gynecologist

not that gloria, the woc who all of barbie's issues represent and originated from gets any kind of satisfying resolution of her own other than pitching "everyday barbie"

the fact that barbie gaining an expanded range of emotions, many of which are negative, indicates that she is no longer a barbie and has to live in the real world to be fufilled- even though all of the insecurities barbie gained from entering a world that doesn't value her and not having a specific career, ken already HAD. men are automatically more human by default ig!!!

people saying that whole point of the ending is that barbieland is a mirror to the real world and the kens will only gain equality when women do as if it's not explicitly stated that the kens have LESS power and influence then women under the patriarchy... but that's fine because the barbies are nicer then men in the real world and kens have to earn their rights because we don't want to reward bad behavior and they need to prove their competence first /s

saw some other butches mention this but the fact that sasha dresses increasingly feminine to represent her character growth and overcoming internalized misogyny is an unfortunate trope

there was absolutely nothing that made me go "oh!!!" as a fan of the animated barbie movies + life in the dreamhouse, or someone who has the most basic understanding of barbie lore (they have one version of midge, skipper, and allan, but no chelsea, teresa, nikki, RAQUELLE, etc.?)

"stereotypical barbie" Her Name Is Barbara Millicent Roberts

#texts #barbie critical #barbie spoilers

67 notes · View notes

suffersinfandom · 7 days

Text

Half-baked thoughts about Izzy and toxic masculinity that I'm never going to bother turning into real posts part two (part one here for the curious, but it's not that good or organized).

Some folks think that season one Izzy was only being mean because he was worried about the crew's survival. I'd argue that they legitimately misread this character's purpose.

(Because yeah, secondary characters in well-written stories typically serve some kind of narrative purpose (which doesn't mean that they're not characters!). In OFMD, Izzy is the face of the specific kind of toxic masculinity that has controlled Ed and told him who and what he can be throughout his life.)

Izzy is mean because he's a miserable, power-hungry man who doesn't have the talent and charisma to attain the status that he wants. He hates it when men are soft and expressive and -- god forbid -- openly gay because that is not how he thinks men should be, and Stede and the entire crew of the Revenge are, in his eyes, idiotic subversives. Izzy is particularly cruel to Lucius because he's homophobic, not because Lucius is lazy (and Lucius isn't lazy, he just knows what his job is and who he takes orders from).

And Izzy dies at the end because this is the Dismantling and Destroying Toxic Masculinity Show. Yes, Izzy improves over the course of season two after he loses the job that is his personality and grudgingly accepts the compassion that the crew shows him, and that's great! It's hopeful! That tells us that it's possible to alter harmful, damaging patterns of behavior that have no space in a society where masculinity doesn't have to be controlling, violent, homophobic, and anti-feminine.

But even though Izzy can improve, he can never fully change. He was Ed's primary antagonist for years and will always be too tied up in everything that our main characters are trying to leave behind to be entirely free himself.

Izzy represents traditional piracy and all of the bullshit toxicity that that kind of violent, aggressive, emotionally stunted life entails. He dies because traditional piracy is dead. He dies because, for Ed to be entirely free, the man who loved and encouraged the monstrousness of Blackbeard has to go.

You can't divorce Izzy from the theme of toxic masculinity without making the show incoherent, and I think that some of the hate for season two comes from this. A lot of people want Izzy to be more than what he is in canon, and truly believing that he is more distorts the entire story.

#ofmd #ofmd meta #the izzy problem #izzy critical #i've been thinking a lot about the people who hate s2 #and the connecting factor between them is a sympathetic izzy read that's incompatible with izzy's actual role #this is all my opinion of course #i'm not going to declare my take correct above all others or take shots at anyone's media literacy #i'm just a rando with some thoughts and feelings

13 notes · View notes

1000punks · 6 months

Text

okay, so i think i've cracked the code

on why the girls, gays and theys all really like BG3

the short answer is the subversion of toxic gender stereotypes and the more or less relateable themes that each character has come up in game, or are implied, long answer under the cut

lots of people have been posting about individual (main and supporting) character motivations, yes but i haven't really seen any analyses based on gender and/or romance situations quite yet (please feel free to point me to them, i love discourse) as well, i am well aware that the romanceable characters are scare quotes "player-sexual" for the most part, but some elements of the gendered experience may feel more relateable to certain groups of players than others. i'm going to refrain as much as i can from making moral judgements (in terms of motivations and alignments) because all of these characters are morally complex. let's take it on a case by case basis, starting with the women in the game (minthara isn't included since i haven't done a playthrough with her as a companion yet :'D): Karlach

Karlach seems like this huge butch imo, but from what i can see she has to battle with the touch starved-ness. i guess you could make the argument here that that feeds into a stereotype about stone butches, but i think it presents a very relatable (and honest) representation of how a LOT of queer folks, especially queer non-men, deal with being touch starved. i think one thing that potentially a lot of queer women and femme-identifying folks can relate to is the fear of being "imposing" in wlw relationships. for example, i would say the fear of coming off as "creepy" or "dangerous." and inversely, the feeling of relief when you're assured that that isn't the case. the other thing that comes up, i think, with Karlach is that there's this stigma surrounding masculine women. for one, she towers over everyone else, and she's a barbarian. on the surface level, that can be extremely intimidating, obviously. but playing through her romance, understanding that she is capable of and honestly, exudes tenderness -- and the majority of which being without touching/sexuality, is just... it's really important y'all okay? Shadowheart

my personal favourite thing about Shadowheart and her storyline is that even if she appears very feminine, there is no part of the game that i can see (thus far) that has railroaded her into that stereotype. not even with the armour choices. in my file, the armour i've picked for her "end-game" level 12 armour is the shar justiciar armour she gets in the gauntlet. it's not stereotypically feminine at all. historically in video games, armour that covers everything on a woman's body (i will bring this up re: Lae'zel as well) is uhh.. really fuckin hard to find.

the other thing is while she may be very femme-coded, she doesn't necessarily use "stereotypical" seduction methods in her romance scenes. her first one is sharing wine with you and kissing, that's pretty much it, right? and if you call her beautiful, instead of acting coy, she says "i know." and thanks you for noticing. she doesn't need someone to simper over her and tell her that. she's also never shy about telling you exactly what she wants, whether in a romantic or platonic situation. picasso, i like it. Lae'zel

jesus, what can i start with here? this woman is an extremely skilled fighter, wears heavy armour, wields a fucking greatsword that's bigger than she is, all while being like, 5 feet tall. her first romance scene shows me that she is interested in sex but is primarily concerned with her own pleasure (this can be read in a positive or negative way of course: positive being she is getting hers, and negative being not concerned with her partner's pleasure). not only that but she is not interested in having kids at all, based on in-game dialogue. and like i mentioned with shadowheart, her armour (most of the gith armour options you can put her in, i would guess) are full sets of armour - minus the admittedly a little weird lack of butt coverage on most of the gith plate and half-plate that i've seen her in. uhh, yeah- wow. in a romance, it seems like she fits the "shrew" stereotype, but i argue that for lae'zel, it's more about respecting Tav than it is about swooning over them (and knowing that they're passionate). if she doesn't respect Tav, there's no way she's going to share a bed with them, never mind anything else. that to me, shows a woman who has self-respect, which isn't often something shown so strongly in a video game/media in general especially when it's written by men (which is fucking unfortunate!! i hate it!!) i think this is beaten over our heads as players most blatantly when she challenges you to a fucking duel in act 2 and then if Tav wins she boinks them right in the middle of camp. Jaheira

Jaheira is old enough to have adult children, for one. i know she's an elf, and there's some in-game dialogue that alludes to her having extended her lifespan, etc. but for argument's sake, let's say she's middle aged - she is in friggin' top physical condition. and while during the events of bg3 she is a widow, you think that's gonna stop her from meeting her goals? not only that, but her adventures didn't suddenly stop when she became a mother. there's not much of a romance element to her storyline, but she's definitely biffing off a lot of stereotypes about older women and mothers here.

the men - most of my arguments here are going to come back to the utter lack of hypermasculinity/toxic masculinity:

Wyll

he talks about dancing with you in his first romance scene, not seducing you - in fact, he shares a really chaste kiss and then is like "but now isn't the time to jump into bed, actually." he friggin blushes, because thinking about a romance with you gets him all giddy. the man dances for you. then he goddamn proposes to you like a proper gentleman. he is concerned with family. he's concerned with Karlach's well-being. he's concerned with other people's emotions, and is extremely considerate of them. he's pacted with Mizora, not some unseen super masc devil. Mizora the friggin danger femme. lastly, and i think this is really important: Wyll, regardless of a high-fantasy setting, is a black man. i am well aware that eschewing the many stereotypes of hypermasculinity in regards to black men specifically, cannot be undone with one video game, but i think it does a lot. it could do more, of course - but i feel that Larian made a wholehearted attempt with this specifically.

Minsc

the man is large and very visually "stereotypically masculine," yes, but all of his actions are either influenced by Jaheira or Boo. case closed, your honor. i'm joking. but really, Minsc respects and admires Jaheira intensely as a comrade. and what she thinks seems to matter more to him than his own motivations. that's what made it so easy for the Bhaalist assassins to manipulate him - they just had one person pose as Jaheira. boom.

Halsin

another very visually "stereotypically masculine" man, yes- but i have three things: he's open to polyamory that is represented in the game more or less in a healthy way he's very concerned with consent, both in a monogamous romance or a polyamorous one - this includes the bear scene, he does ask about it before like, barrelling into it (and no i'm not poking that bear any more than i have to in this post) uhh, have you heard him talk to/about Tav? my my. not only that but this man is quite literally built like a bear, yet he is a druid, literally about all things nature. you could make the argument that this subverts the nature/culture; emotion/reason debate as it relates to gendered roles.

Gale

okay so, not only has it been confirmed/alluded to by in-game dialogue that Gale does the cooking for the camp- (specifically by Wyll if i recall correctly), he's also just a fairly forthcoming person with his feelings and insecurities. i know a lot of people have deemed that a bit annoying, but i do think there is some value in it. for example, he is a little self-deprecating about being a bad kisser, but it's his way (especially if you read him as autistic) of saying "hey, i'm insecure about this and i usually spend a lot of time alone in a mother fucking tower in waterdeep." i.e. i don't exactly know how to do this. he's an honest, giving, and kind man, and is just as likely to show you as he is to tell you how his heart and mind function. he wants you to understand him. he's also very idealistic- that of course can be a double edged sword, but i think he comes by it honestly as well. given his background with Mystra. i shouldn't even need to mention it but the way the "with you i forget my goddess" and the "you would really prefer me as i am?" lines wrench my heart- like, okay that's very romantic but he's also (imo) accepting that he, a human man, cannot be perfect. that to me is like anti-toxic masculinity in the sense of accepting that a real relationship is where two people are equals and that it's founded in mutual respect and adoration. not unrequited love and service (especially service).

Astarion

get at me if you want, but this man is in touch with his feminine side. i would personally call him high femme, but that's a little besides the point, he sews, appreciates fashion, yada yada. the next part about him i want to discuss as delicately as possible- he's very forthcoming (once he feels relatively safe and in control of the situation at hand) with his experiences as an ab-se/SA survivor. most men do not have the space to do this, nor are they actively encouraged to share their experiences. and with that, depending on dialogue choices, he wants to cease all intimate contact and go at his own pace. not expecting men to be sexual is kind of big on its own, but given his background, i think it's especially important in his storyline. furthermore, in the spawn!romance stream, he is very explicit about moving forward with Tav as equals.

Raphael

you.. y'all. you already know what i'm going to say regarding the dialogue with Haarlep. i don't really know if i have anything to add besides reiterating that men do not have to be these perfect, virile sexual machines.

Extra Stuff

the emphasis on consent: whether it's in a romance dialogue or if it's the game warning you "you're about to do xyz, are you sure?!"

specifically consent in the romance dialogues though: there are usually 3-4 chances for you as the player to be like "actually, i don't want to do that"

queer couples (npc + npc or pc + companion) are just.. normal. once you get to the lower city you'll hear a ton of ambient dialogue where it will be like "my husband blah blah blah" and you look and it's a gnome and his dragonborn husband standing in the street

uhh, hi larian jumping on the character creator with gender neutral and gender-mixed/mixable options, way to make the player base feel seen. hearing my Tav (Festé) be referred to as "they" in dialogue without issue (especially glaring grammatical ones like i've seen in other games) was really big for me, personally.

openly trans npcs. the defense rests, your honor. okay but imagine my surprise when i hear abigail fucking thorn in a completely missable dialogue scene, where she (the character) talks openly about the fact that she is a fucking trans woman. like.

#baldur's gays #.txt #baldur's gate 3 #bg3 #baldur's gate iii #baldur's gate 3 companions

16 notes · View notes

ddepressedbookworm · 2 months

Text

hi my friend @counterculturecryer had to delete a post for safety reasons, but he still want it on here so i'm posting it for them

TW: rape, sexual assault

please take note of the TWs, thank you

I want to talk about SA on men by women and why male victims are often overlooked.

I'm sorry for the heavy topic, I just wanted to say this.

This is NOT to invalidate or "counter" any harm done against women, all victims of SA are important and we need to do our best and do what we can to help and spread awareness for all.

I am not an expert, and I apologise if I say something wrong. While this does not directly involve me, it felt important to say. Please raise your concerns if anything.

*The News*

As I scrolled down on some other articles cases, I noticed that for some reason when the case was a woman aggressor and a male victim, most of the articles were merely headlines "Woman R*pes Man" without any further details on the case, as if it is a sort of subversive headline. This media coverage which displays male r*pe victims as a rarity or even a surprise subconsciously promotes our thinking that males cannot be r*pe victims. It impacts the way we think socially about the issue. For example, there is an argument that it is "not common" — but so what? That does not make it any less important. And —it's more common than you think. it's exactly because of lack of coverage that makes it seem so "small and unimportant". By presenting it as a rarity, not only does it promote disbelief, it also promotes dismissal as we see it as a "minority" and therefore “unimportant”

*The Media (movies and so on)*

In especially comedies/rom coms, male SA is often played for laughs. SA is never funny and that does not change with the gender of (or anything else) who it happens to. The man does not consent and potentially tied up and the woman is portrayed as a "sexy femme fatale" when she literally assaults him. This is propagated by that idea that "men cannot control their sexual urges". Not only does that put women in danger and provide an "excuse" for some men's behaviour, but it makes it so that whenever a man is portrayed to have sexual contact EVEN IF IT IS NOT CONSENSUAL, he "enjoys it" because he is a man and he has "so much sexual urges" that ultimately he does "want it" which is absolute bs. It's played up for laughs because 1) audiences find it unbelievable and 2) is my next point

*Patriarchy Enforced Toxic Masculinity*

Male SA is also played for laughs, and often ignored due to disbelief because of the inherent argument that “men have to be masculine" and it is somehow unmasculine to be at the hands, the victim of, a woman. People use biological arguments like, "if men are stronger than women then why can't he fight back?" or "is it physically possible for a woman to assault a man?" The way society thinks of men and the way society thinks of what men are promotes the idea that men cannot also be SA victims, especially not victims of women.

IT IS 100% POSSIBLE

Men can be victims of SA too, we need to provide a safe space for them to voice out as victims without the fear of being shamed, disbelieved or "harmlessly" joked about. This also goes for all cases of SA, regardless of gender.

*stop playing SA on men for laughs*.

#twr*pe #tw sa

#stop playing SA on men for laughs

#tw rape #tw sa

4 notes · View notes

commandtower-solring-go · 6 months

Text

I'm fascinated by Drag King-dom. So here is a list of drag king names i came up with.

Jay Peg

He's a photographer. Shoots only on film. Tells everyone he invented the jpeg file type. Has peg in his name. Makes you think, 8/10

Chuck Mclargehuge

Sounds like a Chuck Tingle character. Named after him. Not a pun, just funny words. Needs work. 2/10

Saxon, The Bitch

Pun on Sex on the Beach. I think there is wide appeal in a character named Saxon. Very funny that he addresses himself as "the bitch". Its giving mean bear vibes. Blunt. 7/10

Cooper Tea

Some british rep. Is a twink. I like the name Cooper. Otherwise kinda weak. 2/10

Jesse McCree (the real person, not the character)

Big appeal to toxic masculinity. I think an open joke at the expense of a sexual harasser is very very funny. Good subversion of expectations. Yes the brackets are part of his full name. 8.5/10

Hugh Mongas

10/10

5 notes · View notes

rappaccini · 1 year

Text

travis martinez is a much more interesting character thematically than i think anyone in the yj fandom has thus far given him credit for.

putting aside that he is 1) a teenager 2) full of 90s-era toxic masculinity 3) who is going through the same fucked-up experience as the girls, 4) with the added stress of losing his father and trying and constantly failing to take care of his kid brother (because he is a traumatized teenager)...

ok. the thematic purpose of travis, beyond being nat's Fridged Wife Who Motivates The Plot in the present, in 1996 is to be the lynchpin of the subversion of the gender-imbalance group dynamic.

(an aside: hilarious in a meta way how the fandom treats the one underwritten male char in a mostly female cast the same way they usually treat the one underwritten female character in a mostly male cast: with anger, hatred and refusal to examine him with any nuance, especially as it pertains to being in a relationship with someone he isn’t ‘worthy’ of. aside over.)

to put it simply: flip the genders. imagine that the yellowjackets are an all-male team, and travis is the only teenage girl alone for months in the woods with a pack of hormonal athletic teenage boys who are going feral.

now you get it.

i think it's brilliant that that isn't even a possibility in the audience's minds at first that the same danger we automatically attribute to 'teenage girl alone, surrounded by boys with no one to help' goes completely unnoticed, when you know the first thing we'd all think if the genders were swapped would vary from 'haha hope nothing happens 🙂' to 'you're in fucking danger.'

it's so ingrained in us to assume, because of all the notions about teenage girl behavior vs teenage boy behavior, that travis will either be totally safe with them or The Man (jackie's 109 'dude stranded with a bunch of babes' comment, anyone?) who's gonna have an incredible time hooking up with all these girls.

and it doesn't occur to anyone watching to think that he might be in just as much danger, or that the girls might be capable of having the exact same bad intentions and being willing to act on them... until it already happens in doomcoming. (and even then, i don't see anyone in the fandom discussing this at all, or considering how they'd feel about that scene if it were a group of boys doing it to a girl)

so uh. a theory, about what travis's role in the wilderness cult could be:

[spoilers for seasons 1 and 2 up to 205]

the communal boyfriend. i am 100% serious. here's what i'm basing this off of:

the yellowjacket symbolism. it's the title of the series, the mascot of the team, and therefore should be examined more closely for symbolism and potential plot revelations.

yellowjackets in nature are particularly vicious species of wasp. they are a cannibalistic, territorial species who can sting many times without dying, who have an almost entirely female social structure-- queen, workers/soldiers-- with the only males being drones used only for reproduction. they live underground, hibernate and breed in spring. only the queen breeds and she disposes of any competition.

if the show's going to take the symbolism to its logical conclusion in terms of parallels, the girlcult must resemble a yellowjacket hive: we already have mostly-female cannibals occupying a territory that they are beginning to map in s2. they have retreated indoors during winter.

going forward, it'd make sense if

with javi's mysterious survival outdoors in a climate we know that will kill anyone who sleeps outside overnight, all these mysterious trees with melted snow, lottie envisioning underground tunnels, (and to a lesser extent the girls finding a stream running red and the compass not working, which could be caused by mineral runoff + the plane likely crashing in british columbia, which is full of defunct mines)... there is some kind of bunker, underground cave/cave system or mine that the group will find.

if the showrunners aren't lying, the group will split, ergo one needs to find a shelter other than the cabin. that underground lair will become the base camp of one of the two clans, probably lottie's if the symbolism will be at its strongest.

they will likely begin shrooming and dooming in earnest in spring/s3.

lottie is the only character who is built up enough and has the sufficient motivations and sway with the group to be the yellowjacket queen. it can't be any of the jv girls because they aren't developed enough. it can't be mari or van, because they're consummate followers. it can't be akilah, who doesn't have any interest in leadership, or misty, who no one would follow. it can't be nat, because she's a loner. it could be shauna, who has moments of leadership potential (see: starting the midnight snackie, being the source of the group's hope via her pregnancy), or taissa, who wants to lead the group badly (and whose fugue personality is connected somehow to the cult).

but so far, the only character with a built-up support base who buzz around her protectively, who keeps being framed with antlers around her head, is lottie.

so. lottie is the closest thing to a queen the group will have. whether this means she's literally delegating tasks, or behaving as an oracle figure is irrelevant. she is the leader.

the previous yellowjacket queen was jackie, who lottie humiliates and dethrones during doomcoming, when she crowns herself with the antlers. and what was jackie up to during doomcoming? fucking travis. we'll get back to that in a sec. first:

lottie will have some involvement in the death of shauna's baby. maybe she and her cult sacrifice it. maybe they smother it. maybe they leave it outside so ~the forest can decide what to do with it.~ hopefully it isn't justified as ~just a misunderstanding~ -- if the symbolism is at its strongest, the queen, who at this point can't be anyone other than lottie, will make the choice to kill or in some way cause the death of the baby because it isn't hers, in order to keep control of the group and weaken shauna (who is showing moments of strong leadership potential).

since the yellowjacket queen is the only one to breed (see: jackie getting angry at shauna for getting pregnant/having sex before she could, and taking travis, the only eligible guy, away for sex during the party), and since we've already seen travis show attraction to lottie, and lottie attempt to fuck travis during doomcoming...

and since the only male yellowjackets are drones used only for sex...

my guess is that travis's role in this society is as, well, community dick. this isn't gonna be the bachelor. this is going to be dubconny, creepy and deeply disturbing.

that was my main point, but here are a few others.

2. consider teen girl hierarchy: the highest-ranking teen girls are always in relationships, and within teen girl social groups, boyfriends are more like accessories than partners. a teenage girl's status is increased among her peers if she has a boyfriend, and if that boyfriend is desirable.

it follows that whoever the leader of the cult is (... almost certainly lottie), a symbol of her power over the others would be having (sexual) access to travis, and, if doomcoming is foreshadowing, being able to bestow it on others in her inner circle as a reward.

3. back on travis as a subversion of gender roles: instead of being a hunter, i think it'd be a natural reversal for him to end up being the one who stays at home and has to provide sex for survival. (recall his comments in 105 re men vs women and the role of the hunter)

4. if nat's s1 comments about travis not believing in lottie are going to make sense, he has to at some point before the rescue turn on lottie and her belief system and return to nat and her side of the clan divide.

the obvious breaking point would be javi, who seems afraid of lottie in particular (and likely witnessed her doomcoming activities) and may not want to go along with her activities. if lottie or her followers harm or kill javi, travis has to have a crisis of faith.

for what its worth, i also think that if he ends up in this ‘arrangement’ with lottie's cult, or realizes where it's going, that stands as sufficient motivation for him to break away from them and return to nat's side. it's not Why I Think It'll Happen, but it does strengthen the idea.

5. the writers say that the girls do far more transgressive shit than cannibalism.

sure, rape/coercing sex from someone doesn't have to be it, but it's definitely in the ballpark. especially if it's girls doing it to a boy, because of how little people are able to wrap their minds around it and how uncomfortable it would make them.

i mean, again, look at how people react to doomcoming and just consider: if it were a group of drugged-up feral teenage boys trying to have sex with an equally drugged-up teenage girl, pinning her down, ripping her clothes off, biting her, and then responding to her running from them by hunting her through the woods, tying her down, gagging her, and nearly slitting her throat... i don't think people would be brushing this aside as much. let alone insisting the ringleader is just misunderstood and well intentioned.

not exactly sure how to end this, so i'll just boomerang back to the lord of the flies question that got the story started-- why would we expect teenage girls to behave any better than teenage boys if traumatized and left to their own devices in isolation?-- ... why wouldn't this happen?

and as a depressing addendum, since he comes home in the 1990s, if this happens, he can literally tell no one because no one would believe it, or he'd become the punchline to a terrible joke.

#yellowjackets #travis martinez #yellowjackets thoughts

6 notes · View notes

onwriting-hrarby · 1 year

Text

Eight favourite films!

As tagged by @onigiri-dorkk, let me begin this amazing challenge! I'm only 28, and sadly I fall asleep with almost every movie I see, so my favourite movies are the ones that: 1) Keep me on edge, 2) Aren't too long, 3) Animation, because I believe those are the true evolved masterpieces from Cinema (and often musicals too).

I also tend to forget films a lot, so maybe here I feature some of the films that I have lastly seen and loved!

When I watch films, I tend to focus on the narrative (not the plot so much, but how it's done), the graphics (I... don't like... SFX...) and the portrayal of themes or leitmotivs throughout.

In no particular order, here we go!

HERCULES: This is SUCH AN UNDERRATED classic. The heroes story goes from point A to point B in a flowing script, full of jabs and references to the modern viewer ("somebody please call IX-I-I!" "Would you like a Solex?"). Graphically, the redundance of the clouds in all human forms (the biceps of Hercules, the hair of Megara, Hades' chin...) offers just an aesthetic, cohesive landscape. And don't let me started on the music... I can't believe how this movie flopped so bad with such MASTERPIECES! There is no one miss, not one.

TANGLED: Oh, my god, talk about underrated masterpieces again. Tangled features what I like the most about animation films: magic feelings (the bit with the lanters? Beautiful), great animation (Mother knows best! And the I have a dream sequence. Also when the water comes through!). And it features one of the least toxic relationships I have seen, with two characters struggling to be themselves and feeling guilt all over. An amazing masterpiece.

HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL (I would say HSM 3 would be my favourite, but they are all). In an age where the good ones where the blondes, it was so refreshing to see Gabriella Montez, a brainy student... a brainy, HISPANIC, DAUGTHER OF A SINGLE MOTHER STUDENT completely smash everyone! HSM is such an underrated films because it features what I liked about this tad of Disney first: it was inclusive naturally, without trying to force them into pieces. It spoke about toxic masculinity (Troy gets laughed at for "wearing leotards"), about toxic parents (Sharpay and Ryan), about jealousy between siblings but utter love, about the toxic separation of gangs in High School. And—AND! It has amazing music. What I like about HSM3 the most is that they completely acknowledged that they had the cast and the talent to do an incredible musical.

500 days of Summer: Ah....The love... The pain... Let me start by saying that I love films you can see over and over and get little things and pieces and new information. It's been a while since I haven't seen it, but I remember thinking that the character of Summer was "the bad one" when I was a teenager, only to find out years later that the boy was kinda scary and what Summer felt, completely valid. I'll be rewatching soon. The scene of the bench just broke me.

Koe No Katachi (A Silent Voice): I CAN'T SAY THIS ENOUGH, WATCH THIS. I cried for 30 minutes after the credits roll. I love the stories about bullying, about redeeming yourself of your past, about difference and friendship. This story is heart-wrenching with such good animation and lighting (no need to show a bunch of landscapes). It's so deep and profound but without the need to metaphor lots of things, and the resolution is just as real, just as how life normally is.

SHREK: ...An instant classic. 1 and 2. The Puss in the Boots dubbed by Antonio Banderas is undoubtedly one of the best additions to the cast. I love how as an adult you can get all the jokes (my my, Shrek is full of sexual jokes) and all the stereotypes and toxicity that they are trying to subvert. Because Shrek is this: SUBVERSION at its best. It never, ever gets old.

INCEPTION / SHUTTER ISLAND: I watched them at the same time, almost, and those two films blew my mind in terms of narrative, plot twists and tension. I think they are incredibly useful to see the pace, but I also think that Inception opened a new whole genre of films that obliterated the normal sci-fi of the time (quickly forgotten to send half of the next films to space... such a shame). All the interpretations are amazing, and the fact that it has an open ending... THANK YOU SO MUCH.

HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE: Ultimate comfort film. I like all the franchise but I do think that GOF is above the others. It's not the best adapted book to film but let's remember that I think it's the longest book, so to adapt that in 2 hours and a half and make it for kids to understand, while it's incredibly dark for children... We have so many iconic things: the dragon's egg, we have Ron and Harry getting angry and jealous, we have Viktor Klum and Hermione dating, we have the Yule Ball ("Can you dance like a hippogriff nanana ananna anna), and Cedric Diggory's death. This is incredibly difficult to put in a film in terms of pacing and adapting to kids. I love that the Harry Potter films don't use a chroma for the most part, and rely on physical goods to recreate the magical universe.

SPIDERVERSE: ....What an incredible masterpiece of animation!!!!!!!!!! I could rant and rant about it. But I think this is getting too long. You will never find a film like this, no matter what they want to make you believe ("from the same studio that did...")

And that's it, folks! Also, special mention to: Hookwinked! It was one of my favourite films as a child and it's a masterpiece about POVs, narrative and script too.

#films #narrative #film narration #animation #aesthetics #plot and narrative

12 notes · View notes

princesscolumbia · 10 months

Text

The funny thing about being a True Domme transwoman in her mid-40s who's getting into miscecanis as a subversive lifestyle at the same time as the Barbie movie is coming out is witnessing the multitude of fuckboys lose their collective shit over being fucking called out by a movie that is basically an extended toy commercial that managed to squeeze in a message that strongly resonates with its true target audience of women who have been fucked over by an oppressively patriarchal culture with an equally effective B-plot about how men have been fucked over by the exact same culture.

M'dudes, there are a few things that are obviously slamming against your amidships and not penetrating the several inches of Fragile Mayo-l Eggo (as opposed to 'male ego,' a healthy and non-performative masculine sense of self usually found among elder gay men far more than their supposedly heterosexual contemporaries) that I'm going to put here in plain text. If you don't get it at this point, then you're fucked, there's no help for you. Go attempt a survival challenge in the middle of the Sahara and lose your compass and canteen. You'll be much more useful to the world doing that than continuing to ignore the following:

The 'theory' of "Alpha males" that you think you subscribe to? Yeah, it's a disproven theory that was misinterpreted in the first fucking place and you can all get FUCKED for thinking you're at all valid for claiming that title. Others have explained the science better than I, and just by claiming "Alpha" to justify the absolutely vile behavior you've proven you could give two shits about science or intellectual anything or human achievement or progress or culture or ANYTHING THAT'S HUMAN YOU HORRID, SUB-HUMAN PIECES OF WALKING SHIT! SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP! THERE ARE MUSHROOMS I'D RATHER CLAIM KINSHIP TO MORE THAN YOU!

A true Alpha in the miscecanis sense is the Ultimate Caregiver. Defined by more than biology, the Alpha's role in the relationship is to provide a safe and secure place for their mate(s) and to be selflessly loving and kind. This requires that the omega (or beta, I'm not judging. Two Alphas could be in a relationship too, though that gets tricky as you're dealing with, essentially, two tigers in a bag) feel as though you are the very foundation of their world and that foundation is as solid as pure granite but inviting as a squishmallow nest. That means you're more an engineer than a commander. You're more a facilitator than a leader. You're not some fucked up piece of shit who thinks that the tackle between your legs means you're superior to the person you're presuming to stick that tackle in.

Any true Alpha would take one look at you and say, "Oh, hun, it's okay, we understand that you think that's how Alphas work. Don't worry, your Alpha will be along soon and take you away from all the big scary Alphas that you wandered into the middle of." You're a spitting, hissing kitten. Another omega or a beta might be fooled, but a true Alpha will take one look at you and see right through the act. And every single one of them could take you down without breaking a sweat, but they won't because they don't want to be a bully.

And on the outside, the remote possibility that you did happen to be an actual Alpha, you'd be one of those toxic Alphas the omega's birthing person warned them about. You'd be the reason for the #YesAllAlphas hashtag. You'd be the reason omegas carried cans of pepper spray on their keychain at all times. You'd be the reason yet another challenge fight resulted in an "accidental" death after the rest of the Alphas in the area got sick of your shit and arranged for all the cell phones and security cameras to be conveniently off or broken.

I haven't seen the Barbie movie yet, but based on what I've seen from the spoiler-tastic reviews and memes and GIF-sets, here's what I'm betting a true Alpha would say:

"Wow, that Barbie's gotta be an Alpha, look at how she just owns the space around her."

"Yup, she's commanding and every one of those omegas around her are following her orders. Wonder how many of them she's marked?"

"Ouch! First time in a beta-only part of society, huh? Yeah, that sucks how they won't acknowledge your true gender and judge you based on your outward appearance and have no clue that you're an Alpha because their senses are impaired in comparison."

"Look at her defending her pack! Go girl!"

(Again, I haven't seen it, and this is through my particular interpretation of miscecanis as a lifestyle.)

On the other hand, I'm probably not going to get through to any of you. You got it into your head that you're somehow cosplaying as either White Savior Jesus or his boyfriend Emperor George Washington (who both personally wrote the bible in their native language of Late 20th/Early 21st Century American English and snuck secret messages in it to you telling you to hate all people with any melanin in their skin or any sex and/or gender preferences that you, specifically, find icky) and you got more invested in that persona than I have of being a miscecanis Alpha.

#miscecanis #alpha #alpha woman #barbie movie #barbie

2 notes · View notes

aseriesofunfortunatejan · 1 year

Text

*takes a glance at my next scheduled Danganronpa brainrot essay* oh my god no not chihiro's gender no, no, nnnooooooooo-

The AFAB character who presents as a boy but is secretly a girl (because there is no other option than the binary, of course /s) is not uncommon in Japanese media. Putting aside my opinions on which ones are the worst written offenders, I'm thinking about it being a result of real, historical events or personal stories in which women were forced to pretend to be men in order to advance in life, get the opportunities they wanted, be left alone, or walk hand in hand with the love of their life.

By the way, since there are a lot of weird users on this platform: trans rights are human rights. If you disagree, go be weird elsewhere, I'm here to talk about the cute character from the 13 years old video-game.

Either way, the result is that it's common, and the story is often similar - either "my parents wanted a boy" (which is a reflection of another, more recent if not current part of history) or "I needed it to accomplish something/to be left the fuck alone while I did my thing."

Now what I'm thinking about is the fact that Kodaka likes to be subversive. He likes to take a common trope and put it upside down. One question about Chihiro has always been, to me... is the crossdresser character all that subversive? I mean, "cute girl is actually... 🥺 a boy 🤭" is really not that uncommon in Japanese media. I've already explored how both Mondo and Chihiro speak to toxic masculinity from almost opposite places, but just being different from Mondo doesn't feel like a satisfying answer to what is the subversive stereotype about Chihiro in the very first place, on the very surface.

What I think it may be is this: "what if instead of a girl who has to dress up as a boy to be left the fuck alone, it were a boy who has to dress up as a girl to be left the fuck alone?" Often with the "boy who dresses up as a girl", the writing has a lot more to do with liking it this way. ("What? Trans? Other gender identities? What are those?" /s) When it came to Chihiro, dressing up as a girl was a defence mechanism against societal pressure.

It came off as weird, something women are more likely to experience - the pressure that men are somehow "the norm", the fact that men are accepted more, left alone more - like from a realistic point of view, it was such a specific and odd choice that many players wondered if there wasn't something more to Chihiro's choice to present as a girl, somewhere it came from in the first place. But I wonder if that's not in fact meant to be the subversive aspect: "we're used to stories of women having to dress up as men for these reasons, but imagine a story in which it's a man having to dress up as a woman!"

At least, that's what may have been going through Kodaka's mind at the time. Then came what I view as the better aspect of Chihiro's writing, which is the exploration of toxic masculinity, how much it hurt him, and how much he accidentally contributed to it by buying into the idea that women are in fact weak while men are strong.

#danganronpa #cw: chihiro bs #lmao #chihiro fujisaki #jan essay

2 notes · View notes

thetypingpup · 2 years

Note

ngl i DO like some a/b/o, but like you said, when it's unconventional (and get curious about HOW it will be unconventional), and the author does something to... idk, ground it? yeah, i tend not to seek it out but if i like the premise of the fic i will look into it. i tend to be a sucker for α/α, for example, but there's so many other subversions i'm sure i haven't even though about.

usually abo is "alpha = toxic masculinity top/dom/all that shit and omega = bottom/sub typically femme coded (even in m/m pairings and i've seen it where it borders on complete misgendering which yikes)”. that's like the conventional way to write it, so almost anything else is some sort of subversion. so basically anything that's not the scenario in quotes i'm totally here for. alpha/alpha relationships are so fascinating, especially if you don't get into the whole "rawr who's gonna be the dominant one rawr" notion that, in my opinion, is kindof a shallow way to look at it. i also really like when the omega is the bottom but still dominant, or anything that recognizes that bottom doesn't always equal sub, and top doesn't always equal dom, and really plays around with those dynamics. there was one fic i read where the main character beta had an alpha dom and the built up a connection overtime, and it got into how the beta felt trying to navigate in a world that's so polarized with alpha roles and omega roles and trying to see where he fit into that, and it got into some pretty compelling drama which was cool to see.

1 note · View note

considermygenderminecrafted · 2 years

Note

That is an incredibly interesting post holy shit (coming from someone who isn’t British)

I would love to hear how this affects tommy and tubbo’s characters

Oh boy it Defo does. I'm just gonna,,, bullet point some off

Disclaimer I'm not as familiar with these characters or fandom around them. These are pattwrns I've noticed as an outsider

Background knowledge required: understandin of North South divide, understandin of class relations in the UK, basic understandin of how casual clasism presents

In terms of the characters:

- I think especially early l'manburg can be veiwed the lense of british politics with how both Tubbo and Tommy are treated by and react to when Wilburs starts viaing for political power. But all of my opinions thorugh this lense are very l'manburg critical (because I do not like the British gov kekw) so I'll leave that there for now

- I think the way c!Tommy speaks is often seen very brash and blunt and subversive Vs c!Tubbo is often not seen as someone who goes against the status quo and is often seen as a pretty passive. Both of these things and how their perceived is shaped by like, proximity to class.

- Summit that's WILDLY under appreciated is how much c!Phil and c!Tommy's relationship and communication is mediated by proximity to bein northern. Both of them come from similar backgrounds when it comes to understandin of care n their language usage and their understandin of things like community and masculinity. Like there's a reason Tommy was receptive to Phil's advice whilst it didn't seem to hit for a more American audience.

In terms fandom reaction?

- Treatment of cc and c Tubbo Vs Tommy is very stark. The focus of describing Tommy as feral and unkempt vs (especially in the past) Tubbo woobification is directly linked to how they present themselves, which is rooted in where they come from.

- Tommy is rarely given the benefit of the doubt in the way Tubbo is. Like if Tubbo is ignorant on a topic it's like rarely regarded as harmful in the way it seems to with Tommy. But again disclaimer, less familiar with these CCs and general discourse around them so that's second hand

- Hell tho, if we bring Wilbur back in, people reactions to Wilburs hyperbolic, satirical play on middle class southern toxic masculinity (in say your new boyfriend) Vs peoples reaction to Tommy's (mostly retired) exaduration of northern school boy persona steeped in toxic masculinity is Very stark.

Wilburs is often seen as oddly queer coded, or the inherent misogyny is under-acknowledged and the entitlement is largely missed. People are much more able to see the toxic masculinity in Tommy's

There's summit about how being southern (n therefore posh in this context) is seen as more feminine and non-threatenin. That has a huge impact on tubbo n tommy

Okay imma stop here. These are just some of my thoughts, sorry if they're Incoherent.

#fandom critical #tubbo #tommyinnit #l'manburg critical #sorry if ive not given yous the background #ive jusr discussed in the oast so like #i wanna get into the meat of it #id you're northern weigh in #am i ginna get ywlled at for this?#maybe #kekw

64 notes · View notes

on-wednesdays-we-eat-the-rich · 2 years

Text

I wrote an entire fucking essay in the middle of the night, help me

Here it is:

"Frodo's not a hero"

So many people have said this and I hate it, because it doesn't make sense. And I'm saying this as someone who used to agree with these people. I saw a few posts on social media criticising Frodo a couple of years ago, and because I hadn't seen the films many times and was a bit gullible, I thought they were right. Then later I actually thought about it, properly, and I realised it was kind of stupid. And the more I thought about it, the more stupid it sounded.

I've tried to figure out the reasons for people to have this opinion. I think the biggest ones I've seen are toxic masculinity, and the belief that in order to be a good character, you have to be 100% perfect.

Let's start with toxic masculinity. We probably all know what it is: the idea that doing anything typically associated with feminity makes a man weak, or stupid, or "less of a man".

It is fairly clear that Frodo has more "feminine" traits than "masculine" traits. He doesn't do very much fighting. He never kills anyone, though there are a couple of times when he threatens to. He cries several times. He gets scared and sad and angry. The fact that these traits are even called "feminine" in the first place is ridiculous, but they are, and that seems to be why people (especially men) don't like the fact that Frodo has them. When you think of a fantasy story with monsters and magic and war, the assumption often seems to be that the main protagonist will be someone like Aragorn: a tough, fearless man who wields a sword and has epic battle scenes. And there's nothing wrong with that. But Tolkien has written Aragorn and the other characters like him as side characters, and he's written Frodo Baggins, a small, innocent, kind-hearted hobbit who has never been part of a war in his life, as the central character. He's obviously not the only protagonist, but if someone asked you, "Who is the main character in The Lord of the Rings?" it's likely that you will say Frodo.

This subversion of stereotypes is one that people still seem to be getting used to. From what I've been able to figure out, a lot of people (especially men) are having a hard time accepting the fact that you can have a male protagonist who is stereotypically "feminine" and is not criticised for it by the other characters, and doesn't end up changing to become more "manly" by the end of the story. People are so used to the word "strong" being synonymous with "masculine" that it's taking a while for them to realise that you don't have to be a sword-swinging, orc-decapitating warrior to be strong.

You also get a lot of people who seem to be offended by Frodo's ability to cry. This is plain moronic. Yes, Frodo does cry, and if you ask me, he has every reason to. You know who else cries? Every other member of the Fellowship (except Legolas for some reason - and let's be real, he comes pretty close). Yes, even the really tough guys. Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli ... they all have feelings, and they all express said feelings. And for some reason, which I have tried and failed to identify, they don't get criticised for it, but Frodo does. It makes no sense. Is it because he's already "feminine" and being emotional apparently takes it a step too far? Or is it something else? I guess I'll never know.

Now let's look at the other reason. This one is more complicated. There are so many people preaching about Sam being the "real hero" that at this point, I think they might just be echoing each other without really thinking about what they're saying.

They're not entirely wrong. Sam is certainly an important character. But he's not the only important character.

A lot of Tolkien fans are convinced that in order for Frodo to be considered a hero, he has to be more like Sam. And on a surface level, this might seem to make sense. But think about it - Sam and Frodo have different tasks. Frodo's the Ringbearer. His job is to take the Ring to Mordor, where it can be erased from existence. He also willingly chose this job, knowing it would be hard, but knowing that someone had to do it, and nobody else was volunteering. Sam (and, for the start of the quest, the rest of the Fellowship) is going with him to offer support, because, as is made clear when showing the other people who had the Ring, it affects people - it clouds their judgement, above all else, and if Frodo had been alone with it, he wouldn't have had anyone to stop him making reckless decisions and the Ring most likely would have taken control over him much sooner.

Although Frodo and Sam both experience a lot of the same things externally, their internal experiences are completely different. And as a result of that, the external experiences affect them differently, because they have different mental states and different mindsets.

Frodo has the Ring even before the official quest starts, so it has probably already been starting to mess with his head a bit. He also has to deal with both the physical and mental trauma of having been stabbed by a Ringwraith. He is already somewhat mentally damaged at the start of the quest, and the mental damage only increases as the story progresses. Sam, on the other hand, does not have any already-existing trauma that is mentioned in the story. Plus he is not the one carrying the Ring.

Let's focus on the Ring for a second. It is very clearly shown to have negative effects on anyone who has it. And a lot of the time, the effects don't take long to make an appearance. Look at Isildur - he had it for only a few minutes before he turned down the opportunity to destroy it - or Gollum - all he had to do was look at it, and within seconds he was brutally fighting his friend and then literally killing him so he could have it.

It takes a lot longer for it to affect Frodo this severely. Whether that's because it was simply bothering him less or because he was mentally fighting it off, I'm not sure. But it is stated that it takes willpower to stop the Ring affecting you, so it's likely that that's the case with Frodo. It also presents itself as a physical weight that gets heavier the closer it gets to Mordor, to the point that when he's in Mordor, he can barely stand up.

It's made clear that the damage the Ring is doing to Frodo is physical as well as mental, and when you combine that with nonstop walking towards a terrifying place full of horrible people, while you may or may not have Ringwraiths looking for you, and you're also running on limited supplies, the whole thing sounds very unenjoyable. This experience is most likely affecting Frodo's perception of the other things happening to him.

A good example of this is Gollum: someone who had the Ring for five hundred years and became more of a creature than a person. Because Frodo has the Ring when he meets Gollum and he knows, firsthand, what it's like to have it and what it does to people, he finds it easier to empathise with Gollum than Sam does. He also knows that looking at Gollum is essentially the equivalent of looking at his future, if everything goes wrong and the Ring consumes his mind. Frodo's line, "I have to believe he can come back," refers to Gollum, but, if you think about it, also refers to himself. He shows compassion to Gollum, and that actually causes a change in his behaviour and, as is implied, one of his personalities, although it is short-lived. This gives Frodo hope - if Gollum can actually do something good and show signs of coming back to his former self after being so drastically changed by the Ring, so can he.

Frodo does succumb to the Ring in the end, and this is another thing that fans don't like. I suppose it might be disappointing to watch as a viewer - after making the whole journey, it would have been satisfying to see Frodo complete his quest. But the reality is that he's had the Ring for months up until this point. And he's in Mordor, the place where Sauron is most powerful. So it shouldn't be surprising that he doesn't manage to let go of the Ring, and yet here I am, arguing with the people who apparently did find it surprising.

It's important to point out that if Frodo found everything easy and didn't struggle with anything, he would be a terribly-written character. By writing him as someone who is impacted negatively by certain events and needs help to do some things, Tolkien has made Frodo realistic. Because everyone - everyone in the world - has problems and weaknesses as well as strengths. And I promise you, if Frodo was written as one of those characters who does everything really well and has no realistic flaws, everyone would be saying he was boring and had no personality. And they'd be right. So it's really quite stupid to dislike him for finding things difficult and not being able to do everything without help, because those are the things that give his character depth and relatability.

You could argue that Sam does a better job of resisting the temptation of the Ring better than Frodo, but you would be forgetting that Frodo has it for a lot longer than Sam. And even when Sam has had it for only a couple of hours, it still affects him. Yes, he gives it back to Frodo, but there is hesitation to do so that is clearly shown in the film and the book.

To say that Sam is inherently better than Frodo is to ignore all the differences in their experiences. And to say Sam is the "real hero" is to ignore Frodo entirely. What he did may not have been as dramatic or exciting as any of the battle scenes, but it ultimately led to the destruction of the Ring and the end of the war. So Frodo is a hero, and those who say otherwise have a lot to rethink.

Not to mention, if Sam was real and saw what people were saying about Frodo, he would absolutely flip his shit :)

#my english teacher would be so proud #listen all these points have been going round and round in my head for fucking weeks #and i thought it was about time i wrote it all down instead of just saying it to myself #frodo #frodo baggins #lotr #lord of the rings #i can't believe i put more effort into this than my english exams #priorities y'know #i hate when people read stuff i've written but i kind of want people to see this #so please don't judge my essay-writing skills #also i'm sorry it's so long #i have a lot of thoughts

13 notes · View notes

ivyboyinlace · 3 years

Text

Anyone who knows me well knows that I like to have conversations about gender, specifically the concept of masculinity. but if I hear one more mention of Ted Lasso being a role-model for men or the show being a subversion of toxic masculinity just because Ted Lasso is cool, I- I don't know what I'm gonna do but I'm gonna do something.

Yes those things are very true. I like that Lasso is a folksy sports coach who's not misogynistic and cares about the emotional well-being of his characters. But that's not what's remarkable about the series to me. I don't like the way people say the show "teaches men how to behave." Because ultimately I don't think the show is about Ted showing the bare minimum, I think it's about him going above and beyond, and not just from a gendered perspective.

Yes there are conversations about how women are treated in society, especially in the sports sphere. Yes there are conversations about toxic masculinity and the importance of breaking it down. But I don't think the goal of the show is to teach men how to behave, I think the show is meant to help viewers re-discover the value of kindness, authenticity, and intimacy. It's about encouraging all of us to be curious, not judgemental. I don't think that's exclusive to men.

I'm just kind of tired of the search for the one-good-man or the guidebook to masculinity. It makes sense given our current crisis in masculinity, but I'm tired of how the conversation about Ted Lasso so often centers around Ted being a Good *Man*™. For once I am tired of masculinity being such a prominent topic to a conversation.

Note that this isn't a complaint about the show itself, but the discourse that's been done a million times over.

I like that the show just is what it is without having to lean into how Ted is so good *for a man*. There are some brief mentions to masculinity and the crisis surrounding it, like Jamie's relationship with his father vs his relationship with Ted. The discussions about how the press treat women (specifically wags) vs men. The way Ted let's Rebecca paint his nails for a little while but it's not some big statement about norms of expression, it just is.

I like that the show breaks gender boundaries and has conversations about sexism without being preachy or the main focus. Granted, there's a time and a place for such content, I just like the way it written here.

That's my rant where I ended up writing exactly what I hate reading.

Don't forget to decolonize gender, folks!

#ted lasso

9 notes · View notes

tothedarkdarkseas · 4 years

Note

I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone ask you in particular this question yet, but what if Murdoc were a woman? Like, what would Stu think and would it change their relationship at all?

Under the cut for length, and because I know it may be an undesirable subject for some!

“What if Murdoc were a woman” is a question I ask myself every day. I’m not going to lie: I think about Stu/Murdoc and Murdoc’s gender very, very often. I’d recommend two great GNC/genderfuckery oneshots from @elapsed-spiral, Stage Door (GNC Murdoc, a little more tender, please tell them it’s tender with absolute damnation in your voice) and Sound Check (genderfuckery, not at all tender, Striking Vipers is the perfect 2Doc AU.)

I think there’s a really compelling narrative there, from a lot of different angles-- like, what changes if Murdoc was identifying female from the moment she met Stu? What changes if Murdoc began identifying female some time after? How would Stu process that? How would Murdoc handle it herself, quite frankly, coming from the time and area that she did? That’s something I don’t feel qualified to talk about, and while I do personally think it’s important to have varied and realistic narratives in fiction (as in, not solely escapism) I also recognize that it isn’t my place to say what a “realistic” narrative for that is. There’s a great, challenging and messy human story in there though, and I’d love if a more experienced writer ever tackled it.

But if we’re just talking about a different timeline where Murdoc’s a woman from the start, I think a lot does have to change. Certainly in my presentation of their dynamic, there’s a lot of reliance on their upbringing leaving them with their own specific hang-ups toward gender or identity in a very masculine, small-town, working class British way-- that isn’t to say shame isn’t a universal concept, but the lens it’s examined through is sort of specific. It’s nice to say, you know, there’s complete equality between all genders and love is blind, but I do think it would simply be inaccurate to say the entire relationship would look and feel exactly the same; even if the same magnetic attraction is still there, there is a change in power dynamics, and in the way that societal influences would affect the relationship. Honestly, it’s difficult to say what exactly it would look like offhand because, to be frank, I can’t draw on anything I’ve established before here, this would really rewrite the whole relationship. Instead, I think maybe I should break it down into a few questions!

Is the relationship still unhealthy? Yes. Murdoc doing Stu the same harm she’s done doesn’t lose all meaning because she’s female. Stu would still act on his own shitty learned masculine behaviors and feel a need to assert himself, just in the opposite way.

Is Stu as resistant to Murdoc’s attraction? Probably not; as the relationship with Paula suggests, I don’t think Stu entirely minds being with women who may treat him poorly. Things differ because Stu is pursuant of Paula who is mostly disinterested, or girls who rejected him or dumped him and are hometown MILFs now-- is Stu pursuant of Murdoc? He wouldn’t really have to be if Murdoc was as obsessive over Stu in this version as well. While it could turn out soooort of similarly to Paula, where Murdoc is open to a sexual relationship fairly straightaway but simply cannot have a vulnerable emotional connection to someone else, it definitely feels like Murdoc’s clearly-reciprocated wanting of Stu plus the truly frightening damage she’s done to Stu’s life would be enough that Stu may not feel the need to cling as he did with Paula.

Is Stu nicer to Murdoc? Probably, but I don’t want to just repeat his behavior toward Paula entirely. I think Stu’s own internalized relationship to gender would prevent him from calling Murdoc “dead ugly” or “worthless” if she were female, I reckon Stu would have to be a lot more forgiving, but I do think Murdoc could end up pushing Stu beyond the limits. It would not just be an easy solution to their problems. I see a very Mountain Goats, very Los Campesinos! progression of this relationship, simply broken in a different way. (I mean, it already is that, but... I wouldn’t have to change pronouns in the songs.)

Is Murdoc still worshipful toward Stu/does Murdoc still crave degradation? Well, I know I’m certainly a lot more uncomfortable with it this way! I don’t think any of us like to imagine that, and I definitely do not think Stu would talk down to Murdoc as a woman in the same way he’ll talk down to him as a man, but... it is worth asking if Murdoc’s wants automatically change. On one hand, if Murdoc isn’t male then there isn’t anything emasculating about it, and therefore there isn’t anything subversive or taboo about a woman being submissive to a man. Where’s the fun in that? On the other hand, I do still imagine Murdoc has a unique compacting of gender and still has some very masculine traits and behaviors; I do think she’d still be influenced by the toxic masculinity of her environment as many women are, I think she would still taunt Stuart (much worse than Paula does; Paula is blunt, but Murdoc can be cruel) and uphold Stuart to a narrow standard of masculinity. I’m not against the idea of female Murdoc being more of a “dominatrix” type herself, but I also fear we’re losing a little too much of the contradiction in Murdoc there. Here’s the happy medium I’ll settle for: I’d imagine she herself would be a punkish, abrasive, unfeminine person, so there is still a “public vs private” thrill to Stuart in seeing and hearing her be, ah, very very receptive to him in a very non-masculine way. I do think a female Murdoc would be the aggressor in sex though, I don’t think she’s necessarily just letting Stuart do what he wants and I don’t think she’s eroticizing everything specifically so she’ll end up in a vulnerable position. (What I’m trying to say: I don’t think she’s getting choked.)

Those were some basics that came to mind, but let me know if you have a more specific question about that as well!

#headcanon posts #2doc//#ask to tag #Anonymous

3 notes · View notes

postmodernmulticoloredcloak · 7 years

Note

Do you think Dean used a hammer as his weapon of choice when he was a demon that one time because the show had previously established hammers as a tool of divine wrath? Specifically that Uriel and Castiel are referred to as hammers (and Castiel saying he's not a hammer), and later with the episode about non-Christian gods being called Hammer of the Gods? I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into it, but I think there's an argument for Dean literally being a tool acting out Amara's (1/2)

fratricidal feelings while Dean is a demon and not actively fighting her influence (though I'm not sure they knew Amara was going to be a thing in early season 10). (2/2)

This is an excellent topic and I am sure I’ve written stuff about that hammer, but a search in my blog gives me mostly results about Thor (눈_눈)

(No really, I’d find things if I didn’t suck at tagging.)

I think there are many layers to the choice of a hammer as Dean’s would-be weapon to kill Sam. From the basic Shining-style breaking of a door (although in Shining it was an axe, which suggests that the choice of a hammer instead is relevant for different reasons) to the fact that a hammer is a tool of construction, and Dean is basically constructing his identity separated from Sam (@treefrogie84 once mentioned a reading of Dean’s time as a demon as Dean’s “adolescence” and I think it’s really fitting because adolescence is when you build an identity separated from your family, roughly speaking).

I think what you’re saying is correct. Hammers have been associated to the divine, and in particular the masculine divinity (let’s be real, a hammer... is a metaphor). Dean being a “tool” for John fits in the theme of John being the equivalent of God on a micro-scale, and there is something ironic in Dean using a hammer, a tool, to destroy the legacy of his father.

Amara or not, season 10 is peppered by foreshadowing of ‘darkness’ and I believe that, no matter when they decided to make the Darkness the way they’ve decided to make, the darkness was always meant to be the opposite of the ‘masculine divine’ (and John being a micro-scale God, it was natural that the darkness would end up the opposite of God). You know, masculinity-equals-light-equals-reason versus femininity-equals-darkness-equals-irrationality, the paradigm of Western culture since forever. Supernatural does play with these paradigms and subverts them - and the subversion usually happens in Dean.

Dean is basically the character where contradictions meet. You see people coming to wildly different interpretations of Dean’s character - and yet being right. It’s because Dean is supposed to be contradictory, and yet his contradictions exist in him. Dean is a “virile manifestation of the divine” (7x07) and at the same time he represents the dark feminine. He’s father and mother (12x22). It’s no wonder years ago there was an interesting discussion about whether Dean, if he had the right resources and were free of the weight of social and internalized stigma, would identify as a cisgender man. But I don’t want to digress.

The hammer, symbol of the masculine divine (the light, the constructive force), becomes a weapon of the feminine (the dark, the destructive force). Dean, his father’s tool, tries to kill Sam (basically the reason his father made him a tool for) with a construction tool. Dean is trying to construct an identity separated from John, and that requires destruction. (12x22 is the positive equivalent: the grenade launcher frees Dean from Ketch’s imprisonment - Ketch represents toxic masculinity - and he saves himself and Sam.)

There’s also a whole parallelism with soulless Sam using first an axe to destroy a door, then a crowbar when he wanted to kill Bobby to prevent Dean from ‘curing’ him by putting his soul back. (I talked a bit about demon Dean and soulless Sam here) It’s no wonder there are so many things that remind of Appointment in Samarra in season 12 - Sam trapped in that basement by Toni, Dean hurting his leg (Sam hurt his leg with his own axe when trying to kill Bobby, when Bobby opened that trapdoor in the floor) and of course the natural order/cosmic consequences thing with Billie...

But a crowbar removes nails, a hammer puts them in. Sam’s actions were to keep his soul out of himself, it was about “removing” something that would make him hurt. Dean also tried to “remove” the burden of “family” but Dean’s action was also constructive - in a way, he was “fixing” himself from John’s damage, just in a demonic way. Now he’s fixing himself in a positive way.

#demon dean is an interesting topic #and so is soulless sam #spn meta #my spn thoughts #demon dean #spn 10x03 #spn #anon

22 notes · View notes