#usually the strong female character is masculine and they do it in a way that derides femininity

[bluespiritshonour]

Broke: Mai is masculine, Ty Lee is feminine

Woke: Mai is dark feminine and Ty Lee is light feminine

#honestly #toph's the one who's not much girly #otherwise all of atla girls are girly #they're all girly and badass and i love it #usually the strong female character is masculine and they do it in a way that derides femininity #atla subverts it by having toph who's the tomboy #and all the other girls who are feminine #another piece of media that did the tomboy right #without deriding girly girls while writing a tomboy #is arcane #with vi #no one points out that she's masculine #her femininity is never questioned #and you have mel and caitlyn being girly and badass #and vi herself never looks down on women who're feminine #ty lee is obviously is girly #but mai and azula are too #i hate that that fandom thinks mai in particular is masculine #like damn y'all haven't seen masc presenting women have ya? (doesn't matter straight or queer) #atla #avatar the last airbender #arcane

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Some notes to myself for writing gay Roman dudes, based on details from Roman Homosexuality by Craig Williams. Not intended as authoritative, but I thought it might be useful for other writers:

Class matters. Are they both freeborn? Slaves? Is one a slave or freedman? This will play a big role not just in the power dynamics between them, but also in what their peers would consider socially acceptable.

Age matters. The Romans judged adult men more harshly for acting "effeminate" than they did for adolescent boys.

Yes, adult/teen relationships were a thing in ancient Rome. Not specifically a male/male thing; girls were usually married off as teens, too. But if (like me) you'd rather not write that, there's plenty of evidence for relationships between adult men (or between two teens), too. There were at least a few triads and other non-monogamous living arrangements, too.

Roman men wouldn't think of themselves as gay, bi or straight. They could certainly have preferences for one gender or another, but that wouldn't have any social consequences. There was no need to "come out" as being attracted to men; everybody knew that sometimes dudes were just hot.

On the other hand, performing masculinity was a big deal. There was a lot of pressure for men to act assertive, sexually dominant, self-controlled, and to get married and have kids. This could be compatible with also having sex with men - as long as you were the "man" in the relationship (excuse the heteronormative phrase). But more "effeminate" partner(s) would be looked down upon.

The Romans cared a lot about who topped or bottomed. This had consequences for a man's reputation. It could be interesting to explore how your characters react to these pressures, how they view themselves, and how they talk to their partners about it.

Sometimes falling in love was seen as unmanly. Roman masculinity demanded that men exercise control of their desires, and a man who seemed too emotional might get mocked or seen as weak. This might make for a neat internal conflict if a character cares way more than he's "supposed to" about his partner.

For consenting adult men, the "dangers" of a romantic/sexual relationship were low. This was not 1960s America; there were no cops busting down gay bars. A man who was seen as effeminate could get mocked, slandered, or passed over for promotion, and he might not be allowed to work as a lawyer. But he wouldn't have been ostracized, and almost certainly wouldn't face criminal charges. Numerous men were called "effeminate" but had successful careers. Wealth, family connections, or a strong military record could also shield a man from stigma to some extent. (Cf. Caesar getting called the "Queen of Bithynia" throughout his career.)

The concept of male/male marriage was understood and talked about. We have some limited (and maybe false?) stories of it happening, and it was never legally recognized. But our Roman sources claimed it happened sometimes, so Roman characters could theoretically consider doing it, too.

The strongest sexual stigmas appear to have been reserved for cunnilingus, fellators and female adulterers, not for effeminate men, and not for male/male couples.

Not all Romans had the same attitudes. Rome was super diverse in the 200 BCE-200 CE period. There were many ethnicities, languages, and religions in Rome itself, and people traveled a lot. Opinions also varied from more conservative to more open-minded Romans, between social classes and professions, and different schools of philosophy. Individuals developed their own opinions, too. So you have a lot of flexibility as a writer for what Roman characters might believe, and what their social circles and daily life might look like.

There was a general shift in the 300s CE toward prudishness. Laws got stricter, both toward homosexuality and toward non-married heterosexual affairs.

There's a difference between having prejudiced characters, and a prejudiced narrative. You might also choose not to talk about prejudice in your story if you don't want to. It's your story, after all.

(Please correct me if I got something really wrong. Not all scholars agree with Williams' conclusions, but I haven't had time to read others yet.)

#jlrrt speaks #writing #craig williams #roman homosexuality #the romans would have been SO bad about top/bottom discourse... #actually. is that where we got it from? is it their fault?? #jlrrt essays

[meatychunks]

Conan the Barbarian and how it correlates to Mike's inner struggles

I know the topic of Mike's bedroom has been talked to death, whether it's the one-way sign or the buff dragon with nipples poster. However, rarely do I ever see talks on the Conan the Barbarian poster or even on the film itself, which is properly due to the film being somewhat notorious for its terrible treatment of women.

Whenever I do see it, people usually stick it up to being a part of his gay sexual awaking, which was sprinkled throughout his introduction in this season. And while I agree that's a part of it, I believe that they choose this film specifically rather than its sequel (which was only two years old in 86') for its depictions of minorities and masculinity to perfectly sum up his struggles with not only conformity but also toxic masculinity of the 1980s.

A HEADS-UP WITH TALKS OF SEXISM, RAPE, HOMOPHOBIA PLUS BREIF NUDITY.

Let's start with how it portrays sensitivity among men. Right off the bat, we see the film favours traditional masculine values with a conversation between Conan and his father shortly before the massacre of his tribe by the doom cult, with him telling Conan not to trust anyone and allow himself to be vulnerable, only trusting the steel of his sword which, in the film's own words, was founded by men.

Rather than this being a critique on how men are often been forced out of emotional availability by generations before them, it's taken as words of wisdom that Conan takes to heart as we see him from a scrawny kid that lost everything to a muscular killing machine, stripped from sensitivity and is seen by other characters as the prime specimen of man.

Male sensitivity is often depicted as a weakness and is unsurprisingly lumped with homosexuality as something to be ridiculed. We see this as Conan tries to sneak into the temple of the cult by pretending to be a shy and nervous bystander while wearing flowers (to which he says "for a girl" when being asked the purpose of them the scene prior), this attracts the attention of a priest who makes suggestive comments about his body all while caressing his chest. He asks to continue their discussion in private, an obvious implication of a hookup, and ends up getting killed by Conan.

Not only it's presented as something antagonistic with the act of desiring another man seen as something perverse, but also, the implications of GNC men shouldn't be taken seriously and only seen as a target for sexual assault.

Traditional masculinity carries into how women are represented. With it not only their screen time is few and far between but also only serve as sexual reward to male characters or to show off their power, women who don't fall into this category are usually ridiculed by our main protagonist, often being called sluts or hoes. They are disregarded shortly after their introduction by being killed and/or raped (including a woman being raped by Conan during his montage to power).

The only recurring female character is Valeria (we only find that's her name in the film's credits, so take that what you will) who gives the illusion of a strong character with being able to fight aside the male characters and her snarky attribute during her introduction, but ultimately ends up being a tool for Conan by falling into the wife role with her never being able to have true goals of her own. She disappears from narrative, only to show up towards the end for a tiny bit to meet her demise.

The poster reflects her role in the narrative with its composition, with her kneeling down so the viewers' eyes lead up to the main piece Conan, just an add-on to show his power.

Now that's not to say it doesn't cater to female viewers (and unknowingly to queer men) by taking full advantage of the female gaze with multiple lingering close-up shots of Conan, some framed in suggestive angles and even scenes only exiting just to show off Arnold Schwarzenegger's muscular frame (take the random sex scene with the witch for example). And while there is female nudity, like women in this film, it's treated with a lot less care with being in wide shots and going just as quickly as it appears.

Which finally brings us to this film's queer coding. It's common for macho action films to fall into homoerotic undertones due to their misogynistic tendencies, this film being no different with it being parodied in other media, even during its initial release, particularly in underground comics.

An example I like to bring up is Conan's "first time" in a fight. He's confused and nervous as he's thrust into battle bare apart from a loin cloth and is attacked by his opponent, but as the fight progresses, he gets more confident and begins to relish in it.

Overall, the film does serve escapism for it's male audience with its power fantasy elements, but rather of it being done through our main protagonist, it's done through the world where the narrative inhabits with it taking pride that worth is achieved through physical strength, wealth and sexual conquest. And while the narrative is the classic trope of the underdog going against a figure of high power, even they can't help finding his lifestyle appealing.

Now....

What does this tell us about Mike?

Well, we know that his family often emotionally neglect him and encourage him to give up vulnerability (i.e., making him give up his childhood toys that have emotional value and viewing his outbursts as just "delinquent behaviour").

His poor treatment towards El starting when they are together at the start of season 3. Starting off somewhat small with implicitly being disinterested in her when they are actually alone, take their conversation during his bike ride to the mall during his introduction or him jumping on the first chance he got on reducing their time together when Hopper stepped in (despite going against his wishes when it came to looking for Will in season 1).

However, when she starts to gain some independence through Max and stops being "his pet", rather than admit his mistakes and apologise like how Lucas does with Max or how he does to Will shortly after upsetting him, he starts using sexist language and starts to get controlling when said independence is applied to her use of powers.

His implicit homophobia during his projection, when Will (Who is canonically considered GNC during this time) implies his changed in behaviour as something negative.

And this might be a stretch, but maybe him tying his self-worth to whether or not he is able to provide and protect is also due to the societal pressures of gender roles and him feeling inferior to El could possibly be a hint of jealousy due to her being able to fulfil said roles despite her gender.

And we all know he has a certain type when it comes to men.

#stranger things #mike wheeler #gay mike wheeler #byler #it's impiled so it counts #less of an analysis and more of a ramble after rewatching one of my gay awakening films after like five years #conan the barbarian #st #character analysis #Had to rewrite this three times due to tumblrs dogshit layout #This post is a bit all over the place so let me know if anythings confusing

[alpaca-clouds]

The Top/Bottom Thing

Okay, I need to vent about something. Because it really annoys me. You do not need to agree with me, but this is my blog, so I can vent about it all I want.

I hate how a lot of fandom stuff clearly assigns queer ships the "top/bottom" dynamic. I hate it so much. Because for the most part, it just tends to enforce heteronormative standards. Especially when we see who gets to be the top and who gets to be the bottom. Because, spoileralert, most of the time this is completely and utterly based on who is the more feminine and the more masculine between the characters.

Let's put a pin in that, because I want to talk about something else first.

*clears throat* You folks are aware that a lot of queer people switch positions, right? Sure, there are some that prefer one thing over the other, but in general a lot of queer relationships do not have "the top" and "the bottom". This is true for both gay and lesbian relationships. (And while we are on it: Some gay men do not like anal sex. I know, shocking, right?)

The reason this is so popular with fan related stuff (and also non-fandom female oriented mlm original fiction), really is that it kinda enforces heteronormative relationship dynamics.

A lot of queer people in same-sex relationships - especially of the millennia and older generations - know the question of: "But who in your relationship is the man and who is the woman?" Because straight people cannot imagine a relationship in which the partners are eye to eye.

In earlier queer anime/manga fandom we still had the idea of uke and seme. In which the uke was the girl in every way imaginable. It often looked something like this:

You had the big, masculine seme, and the soft, feminine, petit uke. In some manga it went so far, that the uke was even drawn like a girl. They tended to be like girls - just without breasts. It was also one of the main reasons for a lot of gay men in Japan very much despising yaoi, keeping very much with their own gay manga genre, bara.

Now, admittedly by now this has mellowed out a lot in yaoi manga. Newer yaois tend to have way less physical difference between the uke and the seme. While often we still have the scenario that the seme is more powerful and influencial, at least the uke is no longer "a girl".

Still, this dynamic then also got duplicated on fanfictions at the time. Basically fandom usually decided (especially with anime fandoms) that within a gay ship one was the uke and one was the seme. So in the fanfictions that followed, any canon characterisation would be ignored in favor of making the seme toxic masculine and the uke a little damsel in distress, who would cry a lot.

Now, most of fandom has grown out of this phase (thank God), and uke and seme has mostly been replaced by the idea of top and bottom, which usually tends to be way less extreme in the depiction. But... the general issue is still there, right?

Because... people still kinda subconsciously enforce the idea of a heteronormative relationship with queer ships.

For those who usually do not engage with this, quickly let me explain: The idea of Top and Bottom is about, who is the "giving" and who is the "receiving" part within a relationship. The bottom is the one, who gets penetrated, the top is the one who penetrates, to overly simplify this. But also generally it also kinda means, that the "top" tends in most stories be the one who holds the control or more control within the sexual scene. This is especially a big thing with male on male smut, where a lot of stories male it clear that one of the two characters in anal sex is the one who gets fucked, with the other one doing the fucking.

And most of the time this is very much based on who of the ship is the more outwardly masculine and who is more feminine. And yes, this even holds true for sapphic ships. Let me talk about some of my own ships, so you can see what I mean, alright?

Alucard/Trevor (Castlevania) is probably the least strong on this one. While a lot of fanwork has Alucard as the "bottom" - you know, the long haired, rather androgynous twink - his femininity clearly is a bit cancelled out by being half-vampire. So there is in fact a lot of stuff where he gets to be "the top". But still, there is a definitive tendency to have him as the bottom.

Hector/Isaac (Castlevania) is one, where I literally have never once seen a fic with Hector topping. Admittedly, I can understand it with them in so far, that Hector is not only feminine, but also clearly shown to be submissive within the show. So both things kinda go into one another. But, you know... While I have him be the submissive one and passive one more often, I do make a point of switching it around a bit. (And it should be noted: I have not found a single fic outside of my own, that even adress the fact that Isaac might actually not want to do anal sex, because the Qur'an is very clear on the topic of it being a taboo.)

Mizrak/Olrox (Castlevania: Nocturne) to me is probably the most offensive one in regards of Castlevania gay ships. Because while still fairly new, I only so far have seen Olrox as the bottom. Because of course the more feminine one, with a very masculine partner, has to be the bottom. *eye roll* Which in their case does so clearly just not even have any other possible explanation rather than "the masculine and the feminine". I doubly hate this, because this does play into a lot of racist ideas about indigenous men, but I will not go into that now. Just... why?

Joe/Cherry Blossom (SK8) is another one, were one partner is very masculine and one is very feminine in their appearance. And of course... this translates to like 90% of the fandom having Joe top and Cherry bottom. *sighs* I can't even...

Viktor/Jayce (Arcane) are a bit different, as neither of them is very feminine. Buuuut of course Jayce is still the more masculine between the two of them, so... yeah, you know it.

And again, this is even true for sapphic ships. I had people being very upset at me writing CaitVi a little kinky with a submissive Vi and a dominant Caitlyn. Because again, Caitlyn is more feminine, Vi more musculine. So oft course people want the relationship dynamic to reflect this...

And that... is exactly my point.

See, when I brought this up in fandom spaces, the answers I got were like: "Well, I just think that is their sexual preference." But of course not a single person could answer me, why that was. Why they think the more feminine (within a western understanding of this, mind you) would be the one who would prefer bottoming.

And that is without - again - going into the fact that not all gay people will have or enjoy anal sex and frankly, I find it unimaginative, how in so much gay fiction, anal sex gets depicted as the end-all-be-all.

I mean, I will openly admit that, yes, this does not only hold true for women writing gay fiction. Because there is a lot of historical baggage in this regard within the gay community itself. Because, yes, this was something explicitly forbidden by a lot of religion. Because, yes, this also is the one way (well, with the exception of 69) for gay man to have sex that can be pleasurable for both at the same time. And because, yes, there is a whole lot of just stuff of it being condemned and... It is a whole big thing.

But I just... I would just wish for it to be depicted with a bit more nuance. And for it to stop enforcing heteronormative genderroles. Because... god damn it. I am so sick of all of that.

#vent #rant #rant post #fanfiction #queer fiction #smut #mlm #gay #gay fiction #top bottom #heteronormativity #lgbtq #fandom #yaoi manga

[slugtranslation-hypmic]

I really liked reading your thoughts on hypmic and gender roles!! I would like to add some things about hypmic & female characters :]

I like the way Otome is meant to have a delicate (?) image, but it doesn't make her weak (I remember when her solo Just do it released and people talked about how before they had this idea that Otome was more like ruler who gives orders to her soldiers in the background, but after the song it was clear that Otome is actually in the front lines, leading her army)

And Ichijiku, who is sometimes cruel, with this strong image, this is framed not as a good thing, but a front she puts up to cope with her suffering (not that it's wrong for a woman to have traits usually associated with masculinity, but it's bad when you are doing it for the sake of looking "stronger", someone is not weaker for being feminine, as it seems to be something she internalized for herself/she doesn't seem to project that into others so it's just an unhealthy coping mechanism that hurts only herself), we can see from the drama tracks that before traumatic events her voice was much more high pitched (her natural one), and now she uses this lower, stronger tone, to not be perceived as weak (which I think kinda parallels Ramuda speaking in a higher pitch when his natural tone is lower). Basically a lot of the times when trying to write strong women, authors will take away their feminity from the idea that "you need to be masculine to be strong", that wouldn't apply to any of our female cast, even to Ichijiku who does put up a front to not be seem as weak, this is not a good thing & she still has hobbies/likes things usually associated with feminity (but as an exemple of masculine women also being treated well, we have Asunaro Bojo, she is a tomboy but that's not bad at all!!! Good for her, and there is also Iris from rhyme anima, that I could say is not particularly fem??? Also good for her and her cool motorbike)

And Honobono, I think it's really interesting that, in a society that demonizes feminity, she uses that on her favor, her feminity being her main weapon. Also I like her existence as a contraposition to Hypmic's main themes about bonds/relying on others, the power of words to resolve conflict as an alternative to violence / she wants to break bonds, uses her words as a way to do that, showing how powerful words can be when used for evil

As for them making bad decisions, I agree there were times when it was for the sake of plot moving, I also think some decisions are due to them being flawed characters, just like the rest of the cast is (Otome is impulsive and has a very "now or never" mindset, but so does Dice, Ichijiku blindly follows Otome even on her worst decisions, but that's because of her trauma and it's something she has to work on changing, etc)

And I do think a shifting is happening btw them being antagonistic side characters to them being integrated as part of the main cast in recent times!! That being said I'm very excited for the upcoming stage play focused on the girls only & with 2 new original women, I will love to see what they have ready for them

Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts!

I totally agree with your opinion about Otome. Her "coldness" (like, personality-wise) is a good contrast to Ichijiku's hot temper, but neither are in any way weak or frail. And as you point out with Ichijku, this too seems like her way of pushing away her own feelings in order to process them better. (True gender equality is everyone failing to process emotions in a healthy way? lol)

I also get what you mean about Ichijiku and writing strong female characters. (I'm immediately reminded of this comic. In terms of concept art, Ichijiku could fit right in with them lol.) She's an interesting example of a trope I see a lot. In Japanese, it feels like "cute" (可愛い) and "beautiful" (綺麗) exist as two opposite ends of a spectrum, where the latter is associated with maturity and elegance and the former with youth and innocence. Fictional taller girls or girls with more developed bodies often lament that they're pushed into the "beautiful" role even when they identify more strongly with being "cute." On the flipside, shorter girls sometimes wish that they could be taken more seriously if they were closer to the "beautiful" side of the spectrum. Ichijiku is pretty firmly in the "beautiful" camp but seems to desire "cuteness" (see how she reacts to tea parties with Nemu, who is more stereotypically "cute", and cultivates a hairbow collection). Yet she reacts with embarrassment when anything "cute" is brought up, likely because she recognizes she won't be viewed with as much authority if she presents herself in a "cute" fashion. That ties into what you're talking about with the pitch of her voice and her desire to appear strong. It's funny how there are expected societal roles ("cute"/"beautiful") nested within larger expected societal roles (womanhood). If all the female characters were like Ichijku, I'd be a lot more "eh :/" about Hypmic, but as you say, there's a wide variety of presentations, none of which are presented as "weaker" or more invalid. Like Nemu--she's definitely a "cute" character but is written to have an enormous amount of emotional strength following her decision to join Chuuouku. This suggests, then, that Ichijiku is incorrect in thinking she can't be strong and "cute." Likewise, the female characters as a whole can be strong and feminine or strong and more masculine-presenting. It'd be fun to see more female characters who lean into the latter (I'm not going to pretend that Hypmic is bursting with canonical masc female characters) but that seems a bit more progressive than Hypmic is willing to go. If it's still at the stage of "femininity != bad"... I'll take what I can get, haha.

I love everything you said about Honobono!

And I also agree that some flawed decisions Otome and Ichijiku make are due to them being ordinary, flawed individuals. Which is a good, humanizing writing choice! When I said that in the original post, I was referring to the sort of decisions that exist purely to set up the main conceit of Hypmic. The "Hmm yes I think I shall spend our man!tax dollars on constructing a huge, expensive stadium as a trial run for a future government-sponsored sport. Let's kidnap two children in order to convince one of the trial participants to rap against his friend, which is the most effective way to prevent a coup" kind of decisions. Team Rocket-ass decisions. I'm not knocking this concept as a whole, because goofy villainy and contrived plots can be fun. Even in semi-serious works, there can still be a place for contrived plot nonsense; the audience is capable of suspending disbelief when the silliness is not the main object in focus. But when we're later asked to examine some of Otome's decisions and thought processes in a more realistic and sympathetic light, I have trouble reconciling the two concepts in my head. In my opinion, Otome can either be the shadowy figure behind the Team Rocket desk or a real person with complex thoughts and feelings, but asking her to be both is not a great writing choice.

Finally, I can't wait for the stage plays either. I hope I get a chance to check them out! The Hypstages are always super, super fun.

#not a translation #asks #hypmic asks

[mbrainspaz]

this isn't meant to be @ anyone. I've wanted to rant about this for a minute.

In defense of Harry Dresden, a kinda toxic hero—

I've had several instances where I recommended the Dresden Files and got replies like 'oh I tried that but the main character seemed kinda chauvinistic' or 'those are guy books.' I'm not gonna argue with that assessment. I agree that Harry has some prevalent issues of the toxic masculinity variety. He admits as much. He doesn't do much about it in the first 17 books but he admits it.

I do get annoyed when I interact with guy friends who read him as a perfect role model. There is a toxic fandom element out there, not unlike with Star Wars or Harry Potter. People who got the wrong message from a complicated piece of media. I was actually dating the guy who introduced me to the series as way of excusing some of his toxic behavior, which he had directly based on Harry. I started reading the series to try to understand why he thought that was a good idea, and after reading it we had a talk about why it probably wasn't. He's living his best life with his soon-to-be husband now but we've stayed in touch just to chat about new Dresden books when they come out.

It's not only okay to read and enjoy books with problematic characters, I think it helps people develop a greater appreciation for nuance. Even when the actions of those characters aren't immediately and unequivocally condemned by the narrative, enjoying a 'problematic' book isn't an inherently bad thing. But Harry usually does get kicked in the pants for his bad takes and that is a reason I enjoy the series. Yes, he has chauvinistic views, but those almost always come back to bite him. In fact it's hilarious to me how many times the scenario: 'Hitting on a hot dame? Whoops she's a fae queen who just stabbed you.' plays out. It's not hilarious to Harry but unlike the Supernatural bros at least he learns from his mistakes and starts to get suspicious of supernaturally hot women pretty quickly.

As far as female rep goes, it does go borderline on the 'strong yet sexy female character' tropes at times but ultimately it's leagues better on that front than adjacent media like Supernatural, Libriomancer, or any series I've read about Druids where every dame in the book is apologizing for being an inhuman supermodel while still being an inhuman supermodel. Women in Dresden Files have a huge amount of depth and agency, and only about 7 out of 10 are supernaturally hot. Their narratives are rarely centered but oh well, some stories are allowed to be about guys being dudes. Dudes and their supernaturally sexy male model besties.

Harry is very much meant to be a hero character in the story but we mainly get that from the way other characters interact with him. Usually when he's confronted with the fact that other characters see him as a hero it makes him uncomfortable. Internally he's hugely critical of himself. He's also deeply introspective and empathetic, which would be good things for men to model. Anyone reading Dresden Files and going 'aha, see—toxic masculinity is based actually' is thoroughly failing at media analysis. Which is the norm, granted, but don't blame that on Harry. Heck, one of the central themes is him being at war with himself and his baser nature, both in a relatable real-world sense and as a guy with the potential to be a mega powerful dark wizard.

Personally Harry's struggles helped me to unpack a lot of the feelings I was having about religion as I tried to distance myself from evangelicalism, but maybe that's just me. These thoughts aren't perfectly refined and I wanted to go into the cop worship issue to but I can't waste another hour on this.

#harry dresden #dresden files #jim butcher #books I like to re-read #feminism #toxic masculinity

[avelera]

10. Worst part of fanon(sorry if this has been asked before)

I think there’s a general trend in fanon where all the sharp edges and unique features of the character get scrubbed off in the sort of general jostling of characters bouncing between people’s various headcanons and personal lived experience and art styles.

That's one reason I try to keep an eye out on things Hob (or Dream) does that I wouldn’t, because for me therein lies what I find most interesting about the character. I think, for example, that it's natural for a normal person to imagine immortality and losing everyone they love periodically and the stresses of constantly reinventing yourself and be horrified! To feel the tragedy of that preemptively and imagine that an immortal existence would be filled with sorrow. Indeed, that is exactly what Dream thinks when he accepts the wager with Death in the first place.

Except Hob constantly surprises him. Hob as a character is specifically the anti-standard immortal. He doesn't feel those sorrows, or at least he doesn't wallow in them, yet he doesn't detach either, he still feels deeply about those he lost. He still goes out there and dates and marries regularly in the comic, he doesn't shy away from those experiences, and it never dims his fervor to live. That's really hard to imagine! That's what makes him so interesting! He doesn't do what we would expect.

(Even more controversial takes under the cut)

There is also a tendency to make the characters more... in line with the values and worldview of a good portion of the fandom, which is often young (under ~40, but 20-something is a more common median), usually but not exclusively female-presenting, politically progressive, tolerant (or at least aspirationally so), heavily engaged with stories and media and things like mythology (especially in the Sandman fandom), openly queer, concerned with social justice, and in general concerned with trying to be a nice person.

This personality profile is often where I see Hob and Dream's characterization drifting over time. And by the way, this is not unique to Sandman, it's pretty much par for the course in every fandom and it's totally natural that writers would drift towards their own lived experience when depicting characters.

For my own part though, I prefer writing characters who aren't me. I'm bored by me. I live me every day. I want to write characters who do things that I wouldn't do.

For example, I find Hob more interesting to write when he's not a mythology buff like I am. I don't think Hob is overly concerned with social justice until 1789 and even then, I don't think he became a crusader on the behalf of human social advancement. I find it more interesting if he's been a businessman through the ages more often than he was a soldier or anything more artistically inclined, because we see evidence of it on the page and because it's not what I would have done and I like to explore the mindset that leads to that choice.

And along these lines with regards to Dream, there's a personal...eh, to call it problem or even a squick would be too strong a word. "Difference of opinion" shall we say of a trend I've seen lately, which is Dream's gender fluidity and even the prevalence of him taking the more feminine role lately (thankfully, Hob and Dream seem for the most part balanced in which of them the fandom decides to depict in a more stereotypically feminine way from one creator to the next, even if I personally prefer to keep them both as masculine as is possible for my lived experience, it's not like Bagginshield where it was a 90/10 split on Bilbo being the one always feminized). I think this too arises out of the large percentage of queer writers in this space and it makes perfect sense to me.

However, personally, I see Dream as male. Which is funny considering I think I wrote one of the earlier "Fem" Dream fics with "Come live with me" but I vociferously stick to male pronouns for Dream in that fic even when he must present as female. Presenting as female is a source of difficulty for Dream in that story, he is not comfortable with it and would not do it if not for the requirements of the wager.

That said, in my fic Dream frequently presents with female sexual characteristics, like having breasts or a vagina or stereotypically "feminine" facial features. That's because, in my opinion, those things have nothing to do with whether Dream is male. I don't switch to female pronouns even when Dream is presenting as female, except when it is needed for the ruse, because having a cock or a pussy should have nothing to do with being male.

Dream is apathetic towards sexual organs, in my mind, but he has chosen to identify as male. (Edit: and just to be clear, I'm not saying gender as in "Gender is a choice" I'm saying this more along the lines of "right to self knowledge" which - Dream has determined himself to be male, therefore he is, and that deserves to be acknowledged and accepted without argument because it is his decision and his existence and no one else's) I think there's been a move in Sandman fanon towards saying that because the Endless should see gender as beneath them because they're eldritch, all-powerful beings, that they do. I actually find that much less interesting because it's so expected. I find it much more interesting that theoretically genderless beings choose to define their gender or lack of gender. If in our society someone can choose not to have gender define them, I think it is equally relevant to allow technically genderless beings choose the opposite, and I find it much more interesting if Dream chooses to be male and that, therefore, he is male.

Even in the scene in Overture when we meet all the different aspects of Dream, we have something like a 99-to-1 ratio of male-presenting (as far as we can tell) to female presenting Dream's in that milieu. And I find that intriguing. On the one hand, we could take that to mean that internally Dream is very male, but only has a 1% portion of him that defines herself as female. But I would go so far as to take it a step further and say if I was writing that version of fem Dream from Overture, I'd still have him use male pronouns, because appearing as female or having a stereotypically female appearance has nothing to do, in his mind, with who he is at his core. The Dreaming might be genderless, but I find it much more interesting and thematically relevant in Dream's struggle to find or resist his own personhood within his function if he has a strong sense of his own gender that is immutable across whatever form he takes, which is at odds with his function as the Dreaming not having a gender. It lends to the idea that Dream isn't just a function if he has a gender he has chosen. It lends to the theme of his independent personhood, which I find more interesting to explore.

And that's not necessarily a thing fanon gets "wrong" by the way, except insofar as I would point out that on the page, in the show and the comic, Dream isn't fluid. Of the Endless, only Desire is fluid in their presentation, the others present as male or female in contrast with Desire's identity. It's an intriguing fanon to say that all the Endless are fluid but it's not canon, it's not on the page, and for my own part, since I don't identify as male, I find it much more interesting to write Dream's experience as male, even when he has, for example, sexual organs I find more familiar.

#sandman meta

[kitkatopinions]

Sometimes I think of how people will see the most shallow bit of feminism and girl power in media and then treat it like the height of progressiveness and act like that piece of media is now incapable of being misogynistic.

Like I don't actually have a problem with some of the obvious girl power stuff - things like girls standing up to people who say they can't fight, or girls being confronted by guys who are like rating the attractiveness of them and their friends, or 'you should smile more' stuff, or things like that. Every time I see someone post about how 'we should be past that' and how 'everyone gets it' I also see both women expressing how it helped them and also terrible men talking about how they think it's overdramatic and lying and anti-men, so like... Yeah, we do still need some of this kind of obvious girl power, no we haven't actually progressed past men out and out saying they think women belong in the kitchen or should serve men or something, it actually is totally realistic and empowering to many real life women to see a female character openly stand up for herself and show up men and stuff.

But also that sort of on the nose shallow level stuff is often used in a very performative way, and there's often deeper levels of misogyny at play that writers usually don't seem to bother to deconstruct. And the willingness to only pay attention to shallow level stuff and call that good enough is in my opinion actually detrimental, especially when that's then used to try to shut up the women that are rightfully trying to criticize deeper misogyny.

A female character standing up to a male character that says girls can't fight might be and often is still not given a narrative outside of a love interest.

A female character being the main protagonist might still be shuffled to the side to give more attention to a male character, or not be allowed to be really flawed and therefore less of a real relatable character.

A confident and feisty female character might still be objectified and made specifically for male audiences to sexualize, designed to be sexy for men or just written in a way that's meant to be palatable for them (such as stripping femininity from a female character who is involved in action.)

A female character in a position of power might still be treated like a jealous power hungry bitch or a sad cat lady who secretly longs for a husband and babies, or be 'in a position of power' in name only and not actually be that big of a threat, or do nothing, or be propped up as the important bad guy only for the media to reveal that really, she's nothing compared to this new eleventh hour male threat.

A female character who stands up to one male character might still be written to wind up in a relationship with a male character that treats her like crap and acts entitled to her and yet it's still framed as romantic, or will be pressured into a romantic relationship with no one acknowledging it as weird or bad, or just is written to never really challenge her male friends.

A female character might be allowed to be non-feminine and dismiss beauty standards but she might then be portrayed as having no female friends and being not like other girls and meanwhile women who are more traditionally feminine are put down and men who aren't traditionally masculine are mocked and treated like they're weak and lesser. A female character might be allowed to be non-feminine and dismiss beauty standards, but she might be confined to not going over a certain line, like a female character who is portrayed as strong but not allowed to become muscled, or a female character who doesn't like make up and fashion but is still designed in an 'appealing' way and might have a 'oh no she has to dress all girly and hot against her will and the men will exclaim over her' moment.

Female characters might be given any of the above only for it to feel like the writers punish them for it. Brutally murdering them, having them tortured, having their friends turn against them, or even just the writing around them feeling snarky and pointed. Like a writer making a female character say something right and having a different character be like 'uh-huh, you're probably right like always.' Or a writer making a female character show up the boys in her combat training class only to then have her get brutally beaten on the field like her confidence must be destroyed or proven wrong or something.

Female characters might have everything technically right on paper, and yet be written in thin, spiritless ways that give them no real growth, dismiss their personal narratives, or are just dry like you can tell the writers don't actually want to be writing for the character and don't really care that much about them. Sometimes the misogyny is in the fact that other characters are allowed to have growth arcs and learn and change and go after their goals and make mistakes and forge important connections that are actually relevant, while the female characters that are meant to be important/badass/feminist icons are just a lot thinner and aren't given that same attention and just feel like they're around because the writers feel like they have to be.

I need people to understand that misogyny in media is rampant and that writers rarely seem to be interested in deconstructing their biases, and I need people to understand that the only types of misogyny in media aren't 'women characters only exist to be nameless sexy club girls' and 'women characters only exist to be teary damsel princesses in need of saving.' There's much deeper forms of misogyny in media.

And it's really very frustrating to try to talk about misogyny in various pieces of media and have people hold up shallow level performative stuff and be like 'But if they were misogynistic, they wouldn't have done this, checkmate.' Like, no, that's just the profitable bare minimum people think will get women off their backs. Even when it's meant sincerely (and again, I'm not saying it's always inherently bad) it's most often accompanied by some form of deeper level misogyny.

(Also radfems and terfs leave me alone, DNI, you guys are also really fucking terrible at writing women characters and I swear you've all got misogyny that leaks into that shit too.)

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

How do you think a genderbent Savanaclaw would be like? Cuz, personally, I dont think Ruggie and Jack's respective personality and backstory would be changed but given Sunset Savannah's more gender equal society, it begs the question on how Leona wouldve been treated if he were a girl. Would he still have been feared and looked down upon? Would he have been more respected? Would there be different expectations on Leona?

***JUST A QUICK THING:*** I go off on a tangent about some feminist and egalitarian points in this post; I wasn't sure if I should tag them as content warnings or not (since I don't think those topics are too contentious?), but I wanted to at least slap this little message on here for those who may prefer to not read too deeply into that.

In the case of sexual dimorphism in wolves, male ones are larger and more aggressive (some sources I looked at also said males’ fur is fluffier). For hyenas, it is the females who larger and more aggressive than the males. As for lions, the males are larger and stronger (+ they have manes), but it is usually the lionesses that do most of the hunting. (Note that in Twisted Wonderland, lionesses are said to be stronger than lions.)

If those traits were to be carried over to fem!Jack and Ruggie, well 🤔 it’d probably have an impact in how they present themselves and in some behaviors, although I don’t think to such an extent that they come off as totally different characters. I don’t get the sense that these changes in personality and/or minor physical traits would alter their backstories in any significant way either 🤷‍♀️ This is honestly true of most genderbent characters; unless there’s some inherent part of their past, identity, or other lore tied to the concept of their gender, then it doesn’t largely impact the story, their background, or their character. (For example, Epel struggles with having his views of traditional masculinity and femininity challenged by Vil; Epel also has insecurities associated with how naturally feminine he looks despite wanting to be seen as “manly”. How would these issues be perceived and addressed differently if it were fem!Epel wanting to be masculine, given that society more readily accepts a girl wanting to be a tomboy over a guy that presents as feminine?)

I don’t know if I’d call the Afterglow Savanna necessarily more “gender equal” just based on the one bit of lore about how most warriors (especially the high-ranking ones) are women. I guess it’s more “gender equal” if we compared it to some societies in the real world, but different societies differ in their values; there is no set monolith for comparison.

Another thing to think about is that we don’t actually have a lot of information about what it's like to be a woman in that the Afterglow Savanna. We know that women are respected, but I don't know if that's really an indicator of anything since ‘respecting’ is a vague term. It doesn’t automatically mean that women are put on pedestals or that they are treated the same as men. (Consider that we don't know about how women are perceived in other placed in Twisted Wonderland to use as a means for comparison. To say the Afterglow Savanna is "more" gender equal means there is something else that sets the baseline and is being compared to; in this case, we don't have that baseline.) On top of that, we only know a little about a single specific sector (military/the royal guard), which probably makes up only a fraction of the total women in the Afterglow Savanna; we don’t know if women are actually given equal opportunities on a larger scale or how that compares to those of men. (Like… what about women in STEM, art, etc??) It’s premature to suggest their entire society seems more gender equal based on just one area of specialty. Something else I have to wonder is this: if the women of the Afterglow Savanna are mostly expected to be "strong" warrior types, is that truly "equal" if it's basically no different than shoehorning them into any other position in life (for example, stay-at home spouses, or expecting men to also be a certain way)? There tends to be this belief that if women are in a traditionally male dominated role (ie warriors/soldiers), then that's empowerment. That's true to some extent, but that pigeonholes female empowerment into one "type" and leads to looking down on others that don't fit that mold (ie traditionally feminine women). In truth, true female empowerment is when women are free to choose to do whatever they want without repercussions or judgment, whether that means being traditionally feminine, traditionally masculine, or anything inbetween. I can kind of see why you’d come to the conclusion that you did, but 💦 I hesitate to agree with the phrasing. There isn’t a lot of evidence for the Afterglow Savanna being more egalitarian than other societies in the TWST world (or in the real world, for that matter).

fbjswbksksow Okay, back to the topic at hand! While Leona doesn’t have a large struggle that ties in with his gender, there is lore surrounding gender which may have had an impact on his (er, her?) childhood. In Leona’s post-OB flashback, we see a bunch of servants gossiping about Leona’s incredible power and being terrified of him because of it. Because females typically make up the warriors for the Afterglow Savanna and are admired for their strength, it’s possible that fem!Leona wouldn’t have received the same harsh criticisms that OG!Leona did?? As a woman, her powers would be admired as being a trait befitting a powerful and noble warrior. This, however, creates a dilemma and a contradiction for the main story—“How is fem!Leona supposed to be angsty and OB if they don’t get the same kind of childhood trauma as male Leona did?”

First of all, I’m going to avoid the “high expectations are put on Leona to take over the Lion Guard, so she gets stressed out” route because it doesn’t carry the same energy as the original. It gives way too much “hope” for the future when the OG idea is that Leona has none and keeps being beaten down no matter how hard he tries. Here are some alternate proposals for fixes (though, admittedly, none of them are perfect and they’re just ideas I came up with off the top of my head):

Make the servants dislike and fear Leona anyway regardless of gender. chajwjksksdo This is the laziest option in terms of rewrites (and ignores parts of canon lore), but I figured I’d slap it on here anyway 🤡

Make the situation progressive. Maybe everyone praised Leona at first, but then they grew to be fearful of her as she grew up (and her powers along with her). This option lacks the childhood trauma being concentrated in the past and is more of a slow burn. The issue with this one is that I don’t know if Leona’s bitterness would be as intense if the servants were so slow in the development of their apprehension.

#Leona Kingscholar #Vil Schoenheit #twst genderbend #twisted wonderland genderbend #AU #twst AU #twisted wonderland AU #Epel Felmier #Ruggie Bucchi #Jack Howl #notes from the writing raven #question #Savanaclaw #Kalim Al-Asim #Jamil Viper #Scarabia #Farena Kingscholae #Falena Kingscholar

[thegentlefem]

What got you into GFD?

I really love this question, and yet I don't have an exact answer to it. The short answer is that nothing in particular got me into gfd, it has always just been a part of who I am. I enjoy taking care of people and dominating men. I'm an independent person who doesn't conform to the mainstream. I have an innate hatred for the way society promotes toxic masculinity and toxic femininity. So gfd is my perfect niche. I'll give a longer answer below if you'd like to read it. Thank you for the question!

So I just went ahead and wrote an essay in 5 min oops it's probably more information than you wanted

I guess the origins of it can be traced as far back as elementary school. This seems really trivial but I used to be a competitive gymnast, so as a kid, I was constantly surrounded by strong girls (and boys) in the gym training for hours every day. It was normal for me to see girls who could do 50 push ups no problem or climb a rope with no legs, and at such a young age my female and male gymnastics friends were very equal in that regard. On the playground at school, I even remember arm wrestling a few boys during recess and winning. Things like that were fun, and they usually birthed friendships. No really one cared about society's views of femininity and masculinity because we were too young to understand. Good times.

In middle school, puberty hit and I realized that society didn't consider physically strong or independent women to be "normal". We were outliers. Dating became popular in school, although I never participated because it seemed too dumb to me and the girls with cliques or immature boys seemed so exhausting. My strength wasn't a source of friendship or interest anymore, and instead people (guys) were intimidated or weirded out I think. Goodbye male friendships. I was introverted and mature, not charming or cute like other girls. Girls were supposed to like smiling all the time and doing their hair, putting on makeup and acting cute to flirt with their boyfriends, right? I felt like that was foreign to me, that everything was backwards, because I knew that wasn't what I wanted. And no way was I going to sacrifice my personality for a stupid middle school relationship. So I stayed in my introverted lane and didn't get involved in dating drama.

In high school, I discovered more about my sexuality and about what I wanted from a relationship. Have you ever read Is It Wrong to Get Done by a Girl? because that's how I felt. Along with real life things, I also began consuming more media. I discovered movies and books with characters or scenes that sparked my interest. Whether it was seeing a man being tied up, a stoic character being comforted, or a man generally taking a submissive role to a woman, I was hooked. Like a memorable scene was seeing Wonder Woman tie up Steve Trevor in the lasso of truth, mwahaha. So no one event got me into GFD, it was just a desire that always existed within me and became more apparent as I grew.

My sexuality became centered on wanting to take a dominant role, but also on curating a relationship based on respect, love, and affection. I realized that toxic masculinity for men existed just like toxic femininity did for women like myself, and I just wanted to give men the love that the patriarchy of today will never show them. GFD allows me to be the woman that society will never appreciate properly: strong and in control, yet caring. GFD allows my partner to be the man that society will never appreciate fully: vulnerable and passionate, yet strong.

So, I appreciate anyone who has read this much, and I appreciate this anon ask! I also hope other women with a similar experience can read this and realize that they aren't alone in their desires. This really allowed me to reflect on myself and I would gladly answer similar questions.

#thegentlefem #woah that turned into a long post #if you read it all i am impressed #thanks for giving me an excuse to overshare #asks #about me #if mutuals dm me about this i am happy to chat

[moonah-rose]

Need to talk a bit about how important Bangel was as a ship to me when I was a tween. Because even though I prefer Spuffy and Fuffy now, and find Angel's early character to be a little dull and flat, theirs was still the first ship I remember being truly feral over. I recorded my first viewing of Becoming Pt 2 and wore the VHS out rewatching that episode.

And I think a huge part of that hyperfix, despite me not really being attracted to "boys" without fully understanding why at the time, was how much Angel was a part of the whole "flipped gender roles" the show was going for. Because back in the 90s, or hell even nowadays, the only male characters who were constantly needing to be rescued were scrawny nerd guys or fragile old men. And if a woman was a hero she was mostly rescuing either other, usually more petite, women - or kids. Angel was a very feared and powerful vampire, but the show brilliantly laid out the reason for why he's not the hero of the show in the first episode.

"Because I'm afraid."

Courage is typically seen as a "masculine" trait, particularly in the context of battle, yet it's Buffy - the sixteen year old cheerleader - who is braver than the two hundred year old vampire. To quote my favorite Doctor; "Courage isn't a matter of not being frightened. It's being afraid and doing what you have to do anyway." Buffy is still afraid but she doesn't let that fear hold her back like Angel does. Also I think the fact Angel is humble enough to admit this to someone who is still a stranger at this point is pretty damn attractive. Hell, just the fact that he never complains about feeling emasculated or sidelined by Buffy constantly rescuing him or taking the lead in fights is Very Sexy, and I say that as a lesbian. It's one thing him and Spike have in common, these two are both proud simps for their queen (Spike probably a little more) and to this day I still don't see enough of Strong Man Saved By Even Stronger Girlfriend than I would like and why mlw ships rarely do anything for me because this show altered my brain chemistry so much. I will never not swoon at Buffy saying "No one hurts my boyfriend!" in What's My Line. Seriously, how often do you get to see the girl be the Protective Alpha in a mlw ship?! Not enough. Also I think it's telling how the least popular Buffy ships were involving the guys who did seem to take issue with the whole "not being man enough to be her equal" thing....*clears throat*

But as well as the fact he's the one being saved, he also owes most of his growth to her. When people say "Angel couldn't have existed without Buffy" it's true in both the meta sense but also who Angel was between S1 and S3. He starts off as someone too crippled by fear and guilt to act and cleaves to Buffy as his chance of redemption, starts to get more involved with the Scoobies only to eventually be trapped in his own body (and then Hell), then ends basically flying the coop to his own adventures. Even though Angel starts off as a mysterious guide and support role, in a way he ends up being her protégé because he learns how to be a hero from watching her. I truly believe she's what inspires him to stop lurking in the shadows and Do Something, which eventually leads to him getting his own show where he can be a more traditional hero (sometimes to the level of missing the whole point about gender roles of the OG show but we'll leave that for another rant).

Honestly imagine the reactions if they made a show like Buffy today, considering the vitriol haters have for something like the Barbie movie, or any female Marvel / Star Wars character just existing.

#trying not to get depressed thinking about it tbh #btvs #bangel #gender roles #buffy the vampire slayer

[brookheimer]

what do you think would be the best way for the pregnancy to be handled? pure personal opinion

hmmm i'm honestly not sure, especially given that this season is rumored to just take place over a span of ten days, each episode spanning a day. but i'm gonna go unpopular opinion here and say i would be pretty fucking disappointed if it's just, like, an immediate abortion??? like idk what tv yall are watching but i feel like abortion plotlines are a fucking dime a dozen these days and maybe like one in every ten is anything approaching 'empowering,' even though all ten are framed that way. i think abortion vs pregnancy is often framed as a, like, sophie's choice for women -- do you choose to be a person or do you choose to be a woman? -- and it honestly just reinforces the exact same dichotomies they're claiming to break in my opinion. not every abortion narrative but, like... too many of them. so i'm wary lol

rest under the cut cuz it got soooooo fucking long!!

it's the same as with Strong Female Characters: it's not actually a well-written, empowering female character if her 'strength' is dependent on her complete and total rejection of her identity as a woman and every trait associated with it. we've created these, like, anti-feminine career women girlboss warriors whatever as a balm to the terrible hyperfeminized mother-before-all-else classic caricature of womanhood, but tbh, both narratives are equally harmful -- they're not only both still reinforcing the same dichotomy of, like, family/love/emotion/empathy/interdependence etc vs self/respect/rationality/intelligence/independence, but even reinforcing the valuing of the latter (the 'masculine' traits) over the former! by defining strong female characters as those who reject femininity, you're literally just reinforcing the idea that 'femininity' and 'feminine traits' are bad, weak, etc -- the only 'empowering' thing is that hey! women who act like men can be respected! except not really and they'll always be viewed as a woman anyways!

kind of got off topic but, like, that's often what abortion plotlines come down to in my experience -- housewife or career woman? man or woman? and i'm just fucking sick of it, man. like, it's one thing, obviously, for the world of a show and the characters inhabiting it to enforce these views and be judgmental etc etc etc, but it's so frequently driving the writing and narrative itself. i think that abortion plotlines can be good, but honestly? usually only when the character in question genuinely has no desire whatsoever to have kids, like diane in bojack horseman. because if a character is unsure, what typically happens is they'll get bullied into a specific outcome, and it's then framed as 'empowering' and about 'the right to choose.' if a career-driven woman maybe wants to have a baby but gets an abortion because she knows it'll ruin her career, that's not empowering! that's so fucking sad! why are we calling that empowering! that's just as tragic as having a kid because you fear the ostracization you'll receive if you abort! so. i don't know. i think abortion plotlines are really hard to do well because they always just end up oversimplifying everything and turning it into proof of how Strong the woman who got the abortion is -- like, sometimes strength is not getting the abortion. it's not like being a mother actually makes you weaker or lesser. so why do so many of the shows who claim to criticize that notion end up perpetuating it?

i think there's a lot of really fucking interesting stuff that could be done with shiv's pregnancy, and honestly? most of it isn't even fucking related to what happens with her pregnancy. it's just using that as a vehicle to explore layers of her character that we haven't been able to before, largely because she's been so vehemently obsessed with obscuring them. i've been wanting to delve deeper into shiv's relationship with her gender, with caroline, with gerri, with notions of femininity, etc etc etc for YEARS and this is the perfect fucking opportunity. i want to know what shiv actually wants. who she actually is, beneath the 'hypermasculine' veneer she's had to adopt to even be allowed in the room, let alone respected. like does she actually want children, does she actually want a family? has she only been against it out of fear for her career? or is it genuinely something she desires? how much of her relationship with gender is rooted in spite? who is she outside of that spite, and how far will she go to achieve it? will she have a kid to prove to caroline (but really to herself because caroline doesn't actually give a fuck she's gallivanting in europe with peter munion) that she can be a good mother? what does she even think motherhood should look like? does shiv want to be seen as a woman? does she want to be seen as a man who happens to be in a woman's body? does she want to be seen as a man? like, there are so many fucking interesting avenues to explore, and i mean, she's not gonna fucking have the kid in ten days. i hope they actually make the most of the opportunity this could present -- with the exception of, like, one scene, we've only ever gotten to know shiv through her relationships with the men around her. we literally know nothing about what she is outside of roy masculinity. is there anything outside roy masculinity? does she even want there to be? honestly, i've been a little frustrated in past seasons with how surface level a lot of the shiv stuff has been -- the others get so much internal depth, whereas shiv's characterization has largely been reactionary. like, she's usually just reacting to things people (read: men) have done to her. we know so fucking little about her life before the show! she has the potential to be like kim wexler level if they dig into her more and part of that is digging into her relationship with her gender because, like it or not, she fucking IS THE GIRL. like, that's her defining fucking feature: being The Girl. so let's dissect that!!

i know this was such a long rambling, like, non-answer lol but basically i guess i don't actually care what the outcome is of the pregnancy arc so long as it's handled with care -- so long as it's used as a means to explore the shiv we already know, rather than creating a new problem to understand instead. i think an abortion plotline is the riskiest because they're so frequently done poorly, i have no idea how a miscarriage would go but i do think there are interesting ways it could be done, and i can't imagine shiv actually being a mom but i think there's a lot to unpack with shiv even just considering motherhood. idk what the end outcome will be, but as long as the pregnancy plotline is used to expand upon shiv rather than punish her for her femininity or make some grand moral claim about The Correct Way To Be A Strong Woman, i think i won't be too upset. and i have faith that it'll be decent, honestly. this show -- both the writers and snook herself -- cares too much about shiv to do her that dirty. ....i hope.

#as always sorry for the length and rambling etc #i might be a romangirl for succession but above everything else i am always ALWAYS a Complicated Female Character girl #perennially obsessed with characters who don't 'do gender right' to quote judith butler (eugh i know sorry yall) #thats part of why i love roman and shiv so much - both as charas individually and their dynamic #roman is a boy who displays 'feminine' (read: weak) traits like emotion empathy love sadness fear etc #shiv probably saw all that growing up and learned that she should be disgusted by it so she was #she molded herself into being a girl displaying 'masculine' traits bc it's the only way she could survive #but first and foremost she's always a woman which means that if she shows any emotion (and she does) she will be skewered alive #in a way that kendall for instance isn't. roman isn't either but that's also because he's always shown so much emotion that no one takes #him seriously -- no one takes 'feminine traits' etc seriously. so baby roman was fucked from the getgo bc he loved his parents more openly #than a boy should have or something #agh. so much thereerAJKKASJDjka #so many thoughts so little time #succession #succession spoilers #shiv roy #casey shut the fuck up about shiv roy

[thelesbianpoirot]

There are a lot of people who mock Taylor Swift because they don't like her music and she's a rich apolitical white woman so she's fair game to them and that is whatever. I don't like her music myself. Her fandom base is largely female, but she does not have the huge gay male backing big a female star usually has. That intrigued me because gay men love massive female pop stars.

However, there is a vocal section of men, straight and gay, that mock Taylor Swift. I learned it was because she isn't sexy to them. A lot of people who find her sexy are lesbians. She doesn't make sexually explicit degrading music which is usually what you need to be an uber popular woman in today's music market. So the female icons gay men of today flock to are all hot women showing their tits and ass.

once a post that got popular that said people need to leave lesbian women who are apart of the slash shipping industrial complex alone, because it doesn't mean attraction to these characters, it is just a dumb male centered hobby, and It compared it to how gay men love sexy starlets. It's why homophobic Nicki Minaj will always have a more loyal young gay following than Taylor Swift. Everyone on the post kept saying all lesbian shippers are actually bisexual. They couldn't fathom why women would be doing the woman hobby, identifying and engaging with male characters if they weren't sexually attracted to them.

Yet no one questioned the sexuality of gay men obsessed with the sexual appeal of female popstars. They can't just be talented, they have to be sexy. And so many gay dudes commented some version of "of course we wouldn't like her, she's flat, sexy as cardboard, etc misogynistic insults." So many gay men are mad when Billie Eilish wears baggy clothes and doesn't have her tits out. Why are you as a man invested a sexy woman if you're not attracted to her? Can it be you identified with these women growing up and still as a man you benefit on some level from the sexual exploitation of women in media. It can be a completely neutral and (or a negative thing) devoid of sexual attraction for you. The same thing with straight men, they idolize big strong masculine men in media or athletes, to the point of hero worship, collecting merch excessively, demanding that every male character be a muscular beast in the live action adaptations, posters on their walls, obsessive curating their online life about them. Get mad when even hot female characters take the limelight away from their male favorites. Are all these men bi or gay? You wouldn't think that.

So how about we apply this to lesbians? While tumblr is filled with openly faux lesbians (bi and straight up straight women dating men) there is a concerted effort to always question a woman's word, and believe everything a man says. Do we think lesbians raised in male dominated society are born inoculated against male worship/centeredness, even if it's not sexual. Straight men aren't. Do you believe lesbians are inherently born with a feminist mindset, and there aren't male worshiping lesbians out there. That there are certain hobbies that make a woman a lesbian, and some that disqualify her? There are some lesbians getting surgery to have a faux dick attached to her person, without ever wanting to ever be sexual with a real deal dick. it's clear that we are just as vulnerable to male hero worship as anyone born in this patriarchal society, and sometimes it manifests in the most womanly of ways, slash shipping.

Slayerlez was right. I miss her.

#thelesbianpoirot

[socially-awkward-skeleton]

8, 9, 18, 24, and 29 for kit and jacob?

thank you for the ask liz!! (sorry for my rambles)

8) What do they think about romantic love? Do they have baggage surrounding it? Do they idealize it? Is it an object of longing and wanting, or were they really not thinking about it until they started falling for the other character? What are their expectations like?

Kit lives in a world where romantic love has never been very kind to her. It's never lasted very long. It never felt very natural. She had one "true" love as a teenager and she's sure for a long time she will never find that again, especially as she expects her entire life to surround the military (until it doesn't). When she meets Jacob she's really not expecting to fall for a cult leader, especially when said guy has her imprisoned, brainwashed, fighting for her life and reminding her an awful lot of dear old dad, but alas...

Jacob is absolutely not interested in romance, he's got an army to train and lead and a militia to take care of (or at least Eli). He's still not really thinking about it even as he's eye-fucking her at the Grand View. His only expectation is for her to eventually kill him so he can be Joe's sacrifice, having a deranged female version of himself who's suddenly obsessed with him as much as he's becoming obsessed with her is just a great but weird happy accident.

9) What do they think about commitment? Is a long-term partnership the goal? Are they thinking about building a life with their partner, or are they focused on the present?

Kit's not thinking about commitment at first, for a long time there's still the whole "i'd kill him if i could, but instead i'll fuck him" going on. Eventually...after the starvation and the atrocities, she realizes "oh, hey, maybe I don't want to kill this guy and I'd prefer it if he also didn't get himself killed, so I guess he's mine". Then she becomes the obsessed gremlin who won't let anyone disrespect him and she sees him as the only one who she can be her "real" self with, so that must mean he's the perfect partner to spend the rest of her life with. Ultimately, her mind is focused on the present for a long time, trapped in the push and pull of the war against the Resistance, until the kids come around and Jacob's had a close call with death. then the future and building a life with him really starts to hit home for her.

Jacob is damn sure he's going to die before he ever sees the bunker, he has no expectations of the romance he has going with Kit to ever last. Is it the best way he could have imagined the last few months of his life going? Probably. He's not looking a gift horse in the mouth with this one, but he also doesn't see a future. So when Kit fights tooth and nail to keep him alive, when she brings home kids, when she talks about being in the bunker with him, his brain sort of short circuits because he doesn't see the point in it. There is no future for him. There's only the present.

18) They’re going through something incredibly difficult—perhaps they’re very sick, have lost a loved one, or have gone through a traumatic event. Do they ask for or accept support and care from their partner, or try to isolate themselves?

HAHAHAHA. God. Well pulling from supporting evidence from the fic, when isn't Kit going through a traumatic event? But in all seriousness, depending on the situation, it's usually Jacob who shoves himself into the middle of it because Kit is "his weapon and he doesn't want her breaking" (or so he tells himself, we all know it's really his protective streak). She won't specifically ask for help, usually preferring to handle it on her own, but she also won't push him away when he's there (something something hand on the leash, yadda yadda she secretly likes being cared for)

Jacob on the other hand goes into shut down mode. He is isolating, pushing her away, pushing everyone away. He's strong, he can handle it (toxic masculinity to the extreme). But Kit's going to ignore that and do what she can to get him to open up even if that means starting a fight just to get him to stop shutting her out.

24) What would their partner do that would really turn them on, perhaps unintentionally?

LMAO well again pulling from the fic...uh, acts of violence... you tortured someone for me? heart eyes. she's damper than a swamp. You just ate a man I served up on a silver platter? Girl, let me give you a rub down in the shower. Freaks, they are freaks.

Ultimately though, it's the utter devotion they show one another. That obsessive love does it for them both and I say good for them.

29) What compromises are they making in their relationship?

Kit compromises her own will and humanity for a long time. It's what she knows. Being a weapon, a tool, a dog on a leash being shown where to go and attack. It's easier than thinking for herself and living with the consequences and the weight on her conscience. She's happier being treated as an object because at least then maybe she won't be able to blame herself anymore for her actions, she can blame the person who was leading her.

Jacob finally compromises on his self-sacrificial ways. It takes a long time, and ultimately it comes from the fact that he refuses to let Kit die as the bombs drop (spoilers for that big ending) but despite the future he doesn't see happening for himself, he winds up in that bunker, raising a family, and making the best of whatever New Eden might end up being.

#thank you for the ask! #ship asks #ship: the wolf and the wildcat #oc: kit cross

[cerise-on-top]

ALLO!!!!

how are you, love?!?!!? I hope driving practice has been good!!

I was wondering this the other day, cuz I was rereading one of my favorite posts of yours about Rudy, and I’m curious, why does he feel the need to be strong and not be seen as weak? Like, why doesn’t he initiate that besides feeling like it would bother his partner? I wanna know who HURT MY BABY!!! >:(

Hey there!

I'm doing fine, thank you! How are you! Driving has been alright! I passed my exam and soon I will be driving with my mother for practice! I plan to get the practical exam done sometime before November :D

I can actually give you two answers to your question, a short, but truthful one, and a longer one! Under the read more so I won't clutter anyone's dashboard ^^

In short: Rodolfo is, surprisingly, the character I project onto the most while writing! So, yeah, him being the way he is is just me projecting my personality onto him!

The long answer would be that he's actually got a bit of toxic masculinity in him. All those characters have been in the military ever since they were young, where I always liked to think the men would be rather toxic, not wanting to be seen as weak and just wanting to show off how strong and cool they are. I don't usually show too much of it in other characters, but another character who grew up and internalized some toxic masculinity, in my writing, is Soap. But he handles it a bit differently from Rodolfo. However, he would want to be seen as a traditionally strong man as well.

Rodolfo was shaped by his time in the military and started believing that he was not to show very many emotions either. Sure, he will show that he's happy, that he's somewhat annoyed, but not usually to the extent he really feels it, unless there's not a lot to that emotion in that moment. Everyone around him was a show-off, was cocky and somewhat immature as well. He has always been more mature than others his age, but it still rubbed off on him. Deep inside he does still want to show his emotions. But that's showing weakness to him. Sometimes he just wants to cry and have someone comfort him, he almost always wants someone to hold him and be sappy with him, telling him how much they love him. It doesn't even need to be a romantic kind of love, if a good friend of his was to ever tell him that they loved him then he'd be over the moon, even if he'd just answer with a simple "thanks".

Ever since he joined all those wannabe machos that believe that being strong means never showing how damaged you are, he sort of became like them. Sure, he usually has his emotions under control, you usually can't tell he's too upset unless he's about to tear someone's throat out, but that also means that the people close to him will never really hear the truth. He needs to be the big, strong man in your relationship, anything else just isn't acceptable. While he may not believe in all that alpha male nonsense, he does believe that he should be the one to make more money than his partner, that he should always take the bullet for them, that he should fight off any and all competitors out there.

It's more extreme when his partner is a woman, or female aligned, because in that case he really feels as though he has to be her pillar, that he can't show any "weakness" at all. With enough persistent persuasion, he could slowly change his mind, but it would take a while.

That toxic masculinity is also the reason why Rodolfo, as I write him, prefers men. Don't get me wrong, he still loves women, but when with a man it's not as extreme. He won't show everything he feels, but he'll be a bit more at ease. Even initially, he can be more open with a man because there's a kind of kinship he doesn't immediately have with a woman. If his partner is more open with his feelings, then he has a slightly easier time as well. If his partner is a "weak" man, who needs to be protected, then that's alright too. It shows Rodolfo that men don't always need to be those strong, aggressive beings. Besides, that toxic masculinity he believes in applies to him the most, it's not as severe with other people. So he won't hold his partner accountable for showing emotions or being affectionate with him. In fact, Rodolfo actually likes it when his partner is being affectionate with him, it means that he loves him. Rodolfo is affection starved anyway. Sure, Alejandro is affectionate with him, but it's not nearly enough to satiate him. He's very much like a black hole in that regard: No matter how much affection you throw at him, it likely isn't enough. He loves affection, but he won't show it through "normal" means, such as initiating a cuddling session, unless explicitly asked.

If asked, he will do just about anything since that's his job as a strong man, to make his partner happy. If you ask to hold him, then that's one of the only times he'll "swallow his pride". In reality, he could cry because he really just wants to be held. Deep down he wants to be pampered and taken care of as much, if not even more so than, his partner. He's actually a real sweetheart, he just can't show it all the time. Wants to be peppered in kisses and be told that he's the most handsome lad in the world. But alas, he can't even ask for comfort. If he's sad then he'll just swallow it down, not wanting to bother his partner, and, of course, to "seem stronger than he actually is".

So yeah, Rodolfo really suffers from all that toxic masculinity nonsense.

#cherry chats #do I tag this as #Rodolfo Parra #sorry this got really long I just have a lot to say about Rodolfo ^^; #but yeah toxic masculinity is a disease and Rodolfo caught it when he joined the military #he may not be as aggressive as other men. hell he's not a casanova either but you will mostly see him feeling neutral #so no one really hurt him he just became like that because of his environment #as mentioned before: Soap also has that. Graves too #most of the men do. not very many of them are entirely comfortable in their masculinity and need to show off whenever they can #I genuinely believe that Gaz is pretty comfortable with where he is though #but he's one of the only ones #while not all of them want to be pampered like Rodolfo they do want to be the bigger and stronger person #I'd even go as far as to say that someone being “stronger” than them would be a dealbreaker for some of them #Rodolfo would feel conflicted in a situation like that. he wants to be protected deep down #he wants someone to be stronger than him but he's not sure he could let something like that happen #so yeah! sorry again! thank you for letting me rant though! ^^

[vt-scribbles]

Giant/Tiny and Gender [ramble]

Y'know, instead of reblogging Terri’s post that’s semi-unrelated, I wanted to ramble about something that fascinates me about Giant/Tiny. Not calling anyone out with this, just musing.

I was never able to put it into words how fixated people in the GT community [and other communities in different flavors] are on the gender of the characters involved in things?

LIKE don't get me wrong, I get it in some cases. Like how some people don't like the idea of male giants because of the perceived power imbalance, or trauma. But then there's just. Cases where, to build off the same example, there will be a perfectly innocent/wholesome M/f or M/m piece of GT, and someone will be like. ‘This is great but I wish they weren’t male. :(’ ‘I would like this but it’s a dude so I can’t.’ ‘Why does it have to be a guy.’

And to hop off the anti-male example... I see it with feminine characters too. Less often, though. [This could be partially due to the oversexualization of feminine giants and the male gaze forcing itself upon a niche but I’m not here to get into THAT mess]

Moving On! Ramble time >:)

I can’t help but feel there’s a whole stew of different reasons for this. Some off the top of my head that I’m too lackadaisical to get into detail on right now:

Gender Preference::

- Despite many people saying GT is not a sexual thing for them [in that it doesn’t arouse sexual interest], this strange fixation on perceived genders involved in their niche interest may stem from their either known, or currently unknown, gender preferences in possible romantic or sexual relationships. This one is iffy because I know many people get into GT at a young age, and well into their teen years, so this may seem like a weird or icky take, buuuut people don’t start developing their ‘preferences’ ONLY after they turn 18, it starts much earlier and manifests in subtle ways sometimes. I’ve witnessed many female-presenting people who only liked GT with female characters, who later found that they were Bi or Lesbian. Same with male-presenting people who only liked M/M. Hell, I’ve seen dudes who were hyperfixated on only F/f, and it turned out they were trying to mask their homosexuality or convince themselves they liked girls ‘the normal way guys do.’ Those are just a few examples. Moving on to the next thing.

Aesthetics::

- Could just be a simple case of aesthetics! I don’t usually go with this, as often, people who claim ‘I just like X gender more aesthetically’ uuuuusually have some other reasoning beneath it, even if they don’t know that. But, maybe in the case of aesthetic attraction, this is true sometimes. 

Trauma::

- Like the anti-male example I gave far above, there could simply be a case of trauma involved. Not wanting to see certain genders: In charge, Helpless, Scared, Confident, Weak, Strong. [The opposite is true as well. Sometimes people WANT to see certain genders in those positions.] You get the idea. There could be a deeper seated, perhaps unresolved issue of wanting to see [or not see] characters of a specific gender involved in certain compromising or uplifting positions via the fantasy of Giant / Tiny. A feminine person with trauma relating to masculine people may be repulsed or even triggered at the sight of a tiny F character being powerless to a giant M character. But, the same can be said for GT being a coping mechanism. That same sort of person may find comfort in all SORTS of scenarios. Learning to trust a gentle M giant, or being able to overcome their power imbalance through some means, initially having a power imbalance but then the giant M is humbled by realizing there’s an imbalance and he works to fix it, etc. There’s this interesting stew of people who want refuge, people who want catharsis, people who want to see someone they relate to being in control, or on the opposite end: people who want to relive their trauma in a controlled fantasy setting where they can work through it and other outcomes rather than the one they got, etc. Trauma does odd things to you, and this one is probably just as much of a factor as the Gender Preference example.

Personal Projection::

- Personal Projection / an attempt at feeling connected to the character, or lack of being able to connect to someone that doesn’t look or act like them, could be another factor. As we’ve seen from COUNTLESS female-centered films [Turning Red being the most recent example], many people lack the ability to feel they can relate to a character that isn’t ‘like’ them. If they don’t see themselves in the character immediately, they lose interest and disconnect. There may be something like this involved in G/T gender fixation.

------------------------- End Topic

I KNOW there’s tons more I could dig into this for some juicy food-for-thought, but I have exhausted my steam on this post so I shall leave it there. If you made it this far and you have thoughts on this topic, feel free to add! I’m interested in seeing if anyone has thoughts on this, or hadn’t considered anything I might have put forward. Definitely some things to consider. Hell, after this post, I’m gonna make an addition where I talk about MY reasoning for my g/t gender preferences. That’ll be fun.

Anywho! Have a lovely day y’all!

#long post #gt #g/t #giant/tiny #VT text #G/T Psychology #I think that's what Cham calls it?