Tumgik
#as if i haven't said it enough
bekksrich · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
237 notes · View notes
thanes-krios · 7 months
Text
What it is about kind male video game companions that male gamers absolutely HATE?
I've seen it happen with Dragon Age's Alistair, Mass Effect's Kaidan, and even lowkey KOTOR's Carth Onasi (emphasis on kind, not necessarily nice, cause dude had a bit of an attitude in the beginnning). Now I'm seeing it with Gale of Waterdeep from Baldur's Gate 3.
Men hate him! Admittedly, many women seem to also hate Gale (Though from what I'm observing, it seems to be because his romance is bugged in a way that doesn't recognize when you've rejected him, so to many it comes off as not taking no for an answer -- but that's the fault of the game, not the character). The other reason I'm seeing from women is that he supposedly doesn't respect boundaries, citing his relationship with Mystra, but... were yall listening to him at all?
1. This goddess took interest in him as a *child* prodigy, became his mentor, and then his lover??? That's sus as hell.
2. It's not like he and Mystra had personal boundaries set specifically for their relationship, and he decided to cross them, it was that Mystra has general magical limitations for magic users in general, and Gale thought he would be an exception because she treated him as special, and because his reasons for pushing his magical limitations were to restore a part of her she'd lost. I've also seen people say he downplays that as a simple mistake made in his youth, but from the actual conversation with him, it's very clear he regrets that so?? I don't get it. (maybe I'm misremembering or missing more of the story, I'm only at the beginning of Act 2)
But this post is a reaction-rant to seeing too many male creators on tiktok hate on Gale so badly it's becoming obnoxious. And their reasons are so weak, yet fuel hatred so strong. They just find him so annoying, and I guess to each their own, but I don't get why, and I don't get why men always seem to find those kinds of emotionally available, kind for the sake of being kind, male characters annoying.
412 notes · View notes
forever-third-wheeling · 10 months
Text
Hetalia ‘I want a baby’ meme
Russia - America
Tumblr media
Sweden - Finland
Tumblr media
England - France
Tumblr media
Belarus - Liechtenstein
Tumblr media
Prussia - Canada
Tumblr media
Italy - Germany
Tumblr media
Poland - Lithuania
Tumblr media
Romano - Spain
Tumblr media
Denmark - Norway
Tumblr media
Austria - Hungary
Tumblr media
629 notes · View notes
ducktracy · 3 months
Text
proper reupload in the high quality this fantastic segment so deserves; eagle pig and duck bias notwithstanding, this will forever be my favorite variant of the fabled switcheroo (and a reminder that Daffy was first at his own game!) the committal on behalf of both characters--especially the sincerity of Daffy's feigned sincerity--really sets it apart
#that delivery of “don't you believe i'm a fish?” sounds so hurt and it's perfect#likewise i think there are few one-liners/toppers that make me laugh as much as 'i told ya i was a pig'#and that all knowing glance at the audience from Daffy doesn't feel obnoxiously smarmy or self aware#there's a friendly nonchalance to it. a very clear amusement and not in a way that undermines anything this segment is setting out to achie#again. my favorite buzzword: that sincerity! a sincere investment and amusement in watching Porky obliviously and endearingly make an ass#out of himself#and of course the cross dissolve and setup of the composition implying a story/sequence of events taking place within that time...#this short isn't my favorite P+D short--i still LOVE IT A TON but there are so many i revere--but i think it's one of the most definitive#if someone was looking to get a good understanding on their character dynamic this would be one of my immediate recommendations#i haven't had the bandwidth to spread my pig and duck gospel but please#watch Porky and Daffy cartoons#tangential but i've always loved the sound effect Treg Brown uses for Porky dropping the gun#good exaggeration/whimsy while also connoting Porky's stubbornness and that this stupid petty argument is enough for him to lose sight of#his motives and discard his murder weapon. all because of this joyously stupid argument. so i like the self awareness there with how obtuse#the sound effects are#because anyone who is not Porky Pig would have just shot him point blank#and that is everything i love about their dynamic and how Daffy's intoxicating charisma and ability to get people invested even affects the#very characters on screen#gee d'you think i ought to have said more about this scene#lt#duck soup to nuts#freleng#vid
88 notes · View notes
stone-stars · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
Suvi has such a small world... God, I want her to be there in time.
[ID from Alt Text: A comic of Suvi and Ame from Worlds Beyond Number. Steel is saying "The most common of their downfalls has been seeing the humility and serenity of witches, and underestimating it." Behind this, a young Ame opens a carriage door to see Suvi, curled up in her mother's cloak. Suvi replies "… Fair." Adult Suvi is standing in the center of a number of panels showing her memories of Ame as a child as she speaks. Ame is holding Suvi's hand, poking something with a stick, in the kitchen with Grandmother Ren, holding a turtle, balancing on a fence post, fast asleep, collecting sticks in the winter, holding a witch's broom. The last of these panels shows Grandmother Ren's cottage. Suvi finishes: "I am no stranger to witches." The final two panels show adult Suvi and Ame's eyes, each other reflected in them. There are tears welling up in Ame's eyes.]
Anyone else been thinking about the relationship between these two nonstop despite having a total of like, two crumbs of information? Because I sure have.
417 notes · View notes
ftmtftm · 5 months
Note
Genuine question. But how are radical feminists; women's rigths activist who are exactly trying to detect, address and attack the roots of the patriarcy and it's problems (the literal definition of radical, "By the root") to make the world a better place for women and girls, comparable to religious evangelicals, incels and actual Neonazis?
Dunno, correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked those 3 last groups and unlike actual radical feminists, not only they don't support but openly and actively despise and try to eliminate progresive ideals like homosexual rigths, reproductive rigths, end workfield innequality, among many others.
Context: This anon is in response to this post. I do want to apologize to anon up front, because I assumed they sent this ask in bad faith based on several other bad faith asks that have been sent to me in the past. They however, did ask this in earnest. I genuinely hope this is a valuable resource to you and anyone else this post crosses paths with.
Okay so there's a lot of things I want to get into here and it's gonna get long so I'm going to break it into chunks. We're gonna look at what political extremism is, what a rhetorical fallacy is, what Feminism is (broadly speaking) and then do a deep dive into the actual nitty gritty people and politics of Radical Feminism in opposition to other types of Feminism.
TL;DR - Radical Feminism is an extremist, female supremacist, hate movement. It has more in common with Political Right / authoritarian extremist movements than it does with any Politically Left / liberation based radical movements.
So let's start with examining political extremism. What is Political Extremism? In turn, what is Political Radicalism?
Political Extremism is a very broad category of belief and action that gets thrown around a lot. Most people just use it to mean "strong politics that exist outside the status quo" however, I'm more interested in the way Astrid Bötticher defines Extremism vs Radicalism. In her definitions (here) she essentially describes that "Political Extremism" tends to get applied to Right Wing leaning politics and "Political Radicalism" tends to get applied to Left Wing leaning politics. She states that there is a fuzzy line between the two (think about the application of the phrase "Go so far left you go right") but that finding ways to define and distinguish the two is still important to political discussion.
Bötticher describes that Radical Politics tend to have a focus on:
anti-violence/selective use of violence
building a positive future
democracy/emancipation
pro-human rights, specifically in the context of providing them to the under privileged
disrupting status quo without a total destruction of society/diversity
standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment
coexistent withdraw with society when existing in small numbers
universal morality - a moral system that applies to all
egalitarianism/sovereignty of the common people
ideas inspired and informed by philosophical movements, starting with the 18th century Enlightenment onward
In contrast she describes that Extremist Politics tend to have a focus on:
violence as a legitimate form of action
looking towards an idealistic past
anti-democracy/authoritarianism/intolerance for other ideologies
anti-human rights (specifically in the context of people outside their own ideology - my own addition)
reinforce status quo while closing society off from conversation and diversity
standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment and also anyone who disagrees with the Extremist dogma
provocation and disruption, even when existing in small numbers in society
particularistic (exclusive) morality - a moral system that only applies to the Extremist group
totalitarianism/authoritarian control
ideas inspired by fanatical, usually (but not always) religious ideas that claim to hold a monopoly on truth on the basis of their own vision (that last part is especially important)
As you can probably gather, under these definitions generally speaking one would define most progressive movements as Politically Radical and most regressive movements as Politically Extremist. The Feminist Movement is, by and large, a Politically Radical Movement. Our conversation doesn't end here though. We have a lot more ground to cover. This is just the framework.
So, now that we've established the characteristics of a Politically Extremist movement, let's delve into the rhetoric they use to assert those aspects of themselves.
What is a rhetorical fallacy?
Rhetorical Devices are an important part of not just politics, but every day life. We use them constantly - I'm using them now, you use them, everyone uses them. When I speak to you, the reader, and appeal to you directly I am invoking Pathos (Emotional Appeal) by creating an air of casualness - as though we are engaging in a conversation. When I give definitions, statistics, cite sources, I am invoking Logos (Logical Appeal) by showing there is traceable, factual, credibility to the things I am saying. When I say that I have been studying Political/Feminist/Philosophical Theory both academically and in my own free time for the last decade of my life I am invoking Ethos (Ethical Appeal) by asserting that I have put an immense amount of time and dedication into this topic to showcase my own credibility.
The important thing about Rhetorical Devices here is how they are applied - especially in political discussions. When applied incorrectly or maliciously Rhetorical Devices begin to fall into Fallacies.
Fallacies are errors, or tricks, of reasoning. The provided link is from a college writing textbook and I highly recommend reading it over if you're able (genuine shout out to LibreTexts for their efforts in making textbooks free and accessible to the public). It gives a good enough explanation of fallacies as a whole that I won't be going too in depth myself, so as not to distract from my main points.
The specific type of fallacies that I'd like to get into are Linguistic Fallacies (equivocation, amphiboly, combination of words, division of words, accent, and form of expression) because they are a type of fallacy that Political Extremists (and really? also most people in politics with weak argumentative skills) like to employ a lot to make their points seem stronger or to manipulate their image. Though it is not listed as a part of the six Linguistic Fallacies, I consider Etymological Fallacy to be a kind of Linguistic Fallacy, as it relies on the explicit dissection of language.
Political Extremists and other oppressive regimes often obscure their nature through carefully chosen linguistic descriptors that rely on fallacious intent. Early Nazis called themselves National Socialists when they were, in fact, not Socialists. The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is not a Democratic Republic for the People - it is a Dictatorship - and the Chinese Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is not Communist and China is not a Republic.
To obscure yourself behind intentionally chosen progressive sounding language to gain yourself more followers who simply say "Hey, Democracy and Socialism are good! Those guys must not be that bad!" or "Hey, I agree with women's rights and liberation! I think the world should be a better place for women and girls! Those Radical Feminists must be onto something!" is to rely on an intentional political obfuscation tactic that uses the Fallacy of Equivocation.
What is Feminism? What are the different schools of Feminist Theory?
A distinct and important part of Feminist Philosophy is quite genuinely - debating how to define Feminism and it's goals. Though they all follow similar themes, there are a lot of variant ways of defining this. Some definitions of Feminism include:
"The belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes." - Britannica / Merriam-Webster
"[The goal of feminism is] all genders having equal rights and opportunities." - International Women's Development Agency
"[Feminism is] the movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." - bell hooks
Generally speaking though, Feminism places itself as a movement for the advocacy of Women as a Class of people, operating under the context of combating / eliminating gender and/or sex based oppression - depending on the Feminist school of thought you are looking at.
Allison Jaggar, feminist scholar, defined four types of Feminism in her 1983 book Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Those types are: Liberal Feminism, Marxist Feminism, Socialist Feminism, and Radical Feminism. These tend to be the schools of thought you see brought up most often today.
I, personally, however, think that it is worth recognizing that there are in fact more schools of Feminist thought than just those four. In particular Intersectional Feminism, which was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her 1989 paper Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex, and Postcolonial Feminism which began to get its footing in 1984 with the publishing Audre Lorde's essay The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House (taken from a 1979 speech) and Chandra Talpade Mohanty's 1984 essay Under Western Eyes.
Postcolonial and Intersectional Feminism exist in direct critique of the Whiteness that was (and still is now) pervasive in Feminist Literature through the 60's-80's and into the beginning of the Third Wave of Feminism, which I will get into shortly.
Who is Radical Feminism by and for as a political movement? Who are the people creating the theory, past and present? Who are the people running the movement via theory, political organizations, and who are the faces of the movement? Who do they truly center?
Let's start with some basic Feminist history for a moment. The Feminist movement is broken into several waves. Presently, we are in what scholars are beginning to define as the Fourth Wave of Feminism, so let's briefly look at all four.
I want to state right off the bat that Feminism and feminist history as a whole is very US American and British centric. The First Wave of Feminism is defined by the Suffrage Movement and (White) Women gaining the right to vote in the USA in 1920. The Second Wave of Feminism is defined by the sexual liberation movement, the beginnings of Queer Theory, and the foundation of Radical Feminism as an organized political movement in the late 60's ('67~'68) on the coasts of the US and in England. The Third Wave of Feminism in the 90's is looser and exists as a dialogue between movements like the Riot Grrls, long standing Radical Feminists, and Feminists of Color (particularly Black Feminists) critiquing the Feminism of the previous few decades. The present Fourth Wave is currently being defined socially by social media usage and the MeToo movement and academically by its continuing recognition of Intersectional Feminist work.
I do think it is deeply important to note the racial dynamics at play here and address the fact that the Feminist Movement has also always been extremely White in many ways. This is not to discredit the work of Feminists of Color, but to say that their work, labor, activism, and theory often goes unrecognized by White Feminists. As previously mentioned, the First Wave of Feminism is largely defined by the Suffragette Movement and women's right to vote - however, Black Women and other Women of Color were not allowed to be fully included in this movement by White Suffragettes. Black Women did not receive suffrage until 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. This was just 2-3 years before the beginning of the Second Wave. I have written about this to a larger extent here so I won't be diving too deep in this ask, since we're already getting very long here.
So let's dive deeper into the Second Wave and Radical Feminist history. I would personally argue that the publishing of the SCUM Manifesto and Valerie Solanas' attempt on Andy Warhol's life is what kick started the Radical Feminist movement. I have talked about this to a larger extent here in relation to Political Lesbianism and really - I just don't want to retype an essay I've already written.
TL;DR - While the SCUM Manifesto may or may not have been satirical (Solanas went back and forth on this publicly) it was the first published work to describe ideas integral to Radical Feminist literature. It was born out of the same New York spaces as the rest of the Radical Feminist Movement and spread thanks to the New York gay newspaper, The Village Voice, and the publicity from Solanas' attempt at Warhol. Male Dominance Theory, the inherent violence of males, the idea that women are safer with other women than with men, the idea that lesbianism or celibacy are the only safe sexual avenues for women, etc. etc. were all published first in SCUM in 1968.
Ti-Grace Atkinson could, and should, be credited with the foundation of organized Radical Feminist politics in written works with her 1969 piece "Radical Feminism". She was an active defender of the SCUM Manifesto and Solanas - going so far as to get in trouble with NOW (The National Organization for Women) during her time as the organization's president for defending Solanas and attempting to involve Flo Kennedy in Solanas' legal defense (pay-walled article, unfortunately). While Solanas wanted no involvement with Atkinson, Kennedy, or NOW it's clear her ideas and actions deeply impacted them and other Radical Feminists. The events with Solanas inspired Atkinson to leave NOW and form the October 17th Movement, which then became the Radical Feminist group The Feminists.
If we look at other foundational Radical Feminists from the late 60's and 70's - Shulamith Firestone, Kathie Sarachild, Carol Hanisch, Roxanne Dunbar, Naomi Weisstein - they all also share one trait in common with Solanas and Atkinson beyond their politics. Whiteness. The only Woman of Color present so far in this history is Flo Kennedy, and Flo Kennedy was open about "Not feeling Black" and not really having community with other Black people. Her work definitionally was more Intersectional than Radical Feminist, however she dedicated most of her efforts to time in Radical Feminist spaces. Unfortunately as the linked book review begins to describe, like a lot of Feminist history, Flo's actual person-hood has been stripped from her work. She is often either used as a Token Black Radical Feminist or as a Token Black Intersectional Feminist in Radical Feminist Spaces, depending on where you look and who you ask.
I don't have the time nor space to do an entire history lesson on Radical Feminism, but suffice to say the works of the women I have previously mentioned very much inspired the works of more commonly cited, more modern Radical Feminist authors like Andrea Dworkin, Sheila Jeffreys, Julie Bindel, Catherine MacKinnon. Again, all White Women. You look to modern Radical Feminist and Women's Liberation activism and you see the same reflected in your average Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist as well as in the women in pop culture who are being celebrated by anti-trans Radfem spaces, like JKR and Kellie-Jay Keen / Posie Parker. Both of whom, by the way are actively buddy-buddy with conservatives and Neo-Nazi's. Shaun, the video essayist, has broken this down better than I can here (JKR) (Posie Parker).
Why talk about all of this? What is the relevance of political extremism and rhetorical fallacies in this conversation?
We began this essay (because, let's be real, that's what this is) discussing Political Extremism vs Political Radicalism so let's come back around to that and my claim that Radical Feminism is Politically Extremist, not Politically Radical now. Radical Feminists, like in this ask, have been in my ask box recently arguing that the "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" means "to the root" - like a mathematical root. That it means "Getting to the root of Patriarchy". However, I genuinely have not been able to find any such claim in any of my research. The "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" has always been used in the political sense of being "politically radical" in all of the reading and historical research I've done. Show me a legitimate source of this claim and I'll take it into consideration though.
I would like to breakdown Bötticher's list of traits of Extremism/Radicalism in relation to Radical Feminism now though, since we have established we are explicitly talking about Political Radicalism several times over.
1. violence as a legitimate form of action
Radical Feminism is founded on the idea that society needs to be completely dismantled in order to procure the safety of women. Be this by genocide, as SCUM suggests, or by a women led revolution as women like Firestone suggested there have always been roots of violence in Radical Feminism. Violence is a complicated topic in of its own right, which I've talked about my own feelings on here. I personally believe that the Radfem idealism towards violence and wanting to "flip" the violence of the Patriarchy back onto men - regardless of it is satirical or not - and the idea that violence begets violence falls under this category of Extremism, rather than under the category of Radicalism.
2. looking towards an idealistic past
I am of the opinion that the way Radical Feminism of the 60's and 70's idealized the Suffragettes and their work is a form of this. It is happening again now with the way modern Radical Feminists idealize the politics of Radfems of the 60's and 70's. There's this idealized version of Feminist history in Radfem spaces that completely ignores or denies the presence of Feminist authors that disagree with or criticize Radical Feminist thought. This happens generally via unwarranted assimilation (You see this happen a lot with theorists like Angela Davis, Audre Lorde, Judith Butler, and even Leslie Feinberg) or complete dismissal (you see this happen a lot with theorists like bell hooks, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Roxane Gay). You know the thing those authors have in common? They are all either Black or non-binary.
3. anti-democracy/pro-authoritarianism/intolerance for other ideologies
Current Radfem culture really hinges on dismissing anything Radfems disagree with as "Liberal Feminism" - referencing Jaggar's previously mentioned work. This is something I've noticed a lot in my own conversations with particularly young Radfems who are new to Feminism. There seems to be this idea that you can only be a pop culture-y, soft, liberal feminist OR a to the teeth, political radical feminist - with no thought for what might exist outside of that binary. Even Jaggar herself talks about Socialist and Marxist Feminism, which are in fact distinct Feminist movements in their own rights, and as previously mentioned Intersectional Feminism and Postcolonial Feminism, among many other types of Feminism also exist. To treat Feminism as though it was a binary dichotomy with a right answer is to fall under this category of Political Extremism.
4. anti-human rights (specifically in the context of people outside their own ideology - my own addition)
I've gone almost this entire post without going too in-depth on the subject of anti-trans rhetoric in Radical Feminism because that is, at least presently, something many, many other people have covered in the past. However, Radical Feminism as an ideology is in explicit opposition to the human rights of transgender individuals. This is not the post for that analysis, so I won't be getting into it to much deeper here. You can see my extended watching section at the bottom of this post if you're truly interested in this topic.
5. reinforce status quo while closing society off from conversation and diversity
Many Radfem spaces and a lot of Radfem literature tend to universalize the "woman" or "female" experience without consideration for the nuances and complexities of those experiences. Given the White American roots of Radical Feminism, I see this as an extension of the phenomenon of White Homogenization - which is the phenomenon related to the history of xenophobia towards groups like Irish and Italian immigrants and their subsequent assimilation into American White Identity once it was deemed convenient for White Supremacists. This is, in part why I would classify Radical Feminism as Female Supremacy. It's got all the makings of White Supremacist rhetoric thanks to the race of its founders, just twisted slightly to fit the means of White women rather than White people as a whole.
Radical Feminism constructs this status quo idea of universal womanhood and regularly shuts down conversations that question the authority of that experience, particularly in relation to Race, Ethnicity, Transgender Identity, and Intersex Identity.
6. standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment and also anyone who disagrees with the Extremist dogma
I feel like this one is self explanatory following the last few points about the universalism of womanhood and the way Radfem culture simplifies Feminist theory. Yes, Radical Feminism stands opposed to the Patriarchy and also it stands opposed to any other Feminist thought that might disagree with it to the point of ostracization, misindentification, and outright dismissal. The way many Radfems resort to pejoratives (as I've been experiencing in my ask box with an influx of asks calling me a tranny pooner among many other expletives I won't be posting) and dehumanizing language like calling trans people "TRAs" as a play off of "MRAs" is a good show of this.
7. provocation and disruption, even when existing in small numbers in society 8. particularistic (exclusive) morality - a moral system that only applies to the Extremist group 9. totalitarianism/authoritarian control
Grouping these three together mostly for the sake of brevity, as I've been working on this post for about 4 days and admittedly, I am getting exhausted exposing myself to rhetoric that fundamentally believes my own existence is incorrect and a bunch of other anons telling me to kill myself.
However, I do briefly want to take time here to address the fact that the way Radfems universalize womanhood ends up perpetuating this idea that women are inherently safer than men. That women, or females, are incapable of abuse because that's what men do. This separatism, this isolationism, is in of itself a breeding ground for abusive people to take advantage of others. These last three points are all three points that I think highlight the cult-like nature of Political Extremism. "Violence is good and justified when women do it to men because men are violent to women" type thinking. It preys on unresolved trauma - which I've briefly spoken about here. I could absolutely go into point 8 farther, and I have a lot more feelings about it that I'm getting into here - but I'm tired. I'll make another post another day and update this one when I do.
10. ideas inspired by fanatical, usually (but not always) religious ideas that claim to hold a monopoly on truth on the basis of their own vision (that last part is especially important)
This is one of the most important points in this list I think. A lot of Radical Feminism positions itself in a way that places itself and it's followers as arbiters of truth. If you disagree with Radical Feminism, you're a misogynist, you're a self hating female, you're wrong, you're ignorant, you hate women and support the Patriarchy. It's classic "Us vs Them" rhetoric.
I brought up rhetorical fallacies earlier as a primer to the fact that Radical Feminist rhetoric is full of rhetorical fallacies. Most specifically notably in this ask is the etymological fallacy of saying the "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" means "to the Root". "Woman = Adult Human Female" is also an etymological fallacy. Acting as though there are only two types of Feminism (Liberal vs Radical) is an argument based on fallacy. The list goes on, as most of the requirements for Bötticher's definition of Political Extremism rely on fallacy on the part of the Extremists because Extremism requires a skewed perception of reality based on the manipulation of facts.
That is all why I classify Radical Feminism as a Politically Extremist Female Supremacist Hate Group - especially modern Radical Feminism. That is why I classify it in the same extremist camp as Evangelicals, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and Incels. They all rely on similar rhetorical tactics to further their goals:
"You are only safe with your own kind. You will only find strength with your own kind. Outsiders are the enemy and you cannot find sympathy or empathy for them, lest you become brainwashed."
What are the alternatives? How do we move forward from Radical Feminism?
One of the most important solutions I can offer, in my opinion, is the encouragement to go and do your own research into Feminism and Feminist history. A Radfem view is one of many, many possible Feminist approaches as I've discussed at length here. I personally think "good feminism" is well-rounded Feminism that takes an Intersectional approach to Institutions of Oppression. Essentially, Feminism that recognizes that the Patriarchy is only one aspect of the oppressive forces of the world and that it works in tandem with other systems to cause direct harm to the oppressed.
First and foremost - I keep a reading list on my blog. I need to go through and do some serious updating to it but what it currently has is still a good jumping off point. The list isn't just reading materials, but also includes talks and interviews and audio books, if those things are more accessible to you personally.
My personal favorite feminist thinkers are bell hooks, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Leslie Feinberg. Audre Lorde, Judith Butler, and Kate Bornstein are also excellent reads when it comes to theory. I'm also including some extended watching recommendations at the end of this ask because I know for many people watching a video or listening to a talk can be more accessible than academic text. I do however, recommend popping into my reading list and looking at the talks and interviews that I have listed there as well.
If you made it all the way down here? Holy shit - congratulations and thank you for reading all of this, regardless of if we agree on this topic or not. This was a pain in the ass to put together honestly and I'm real fucking tired. I'm gonna go spend a week getting high and listening to live music with my best friend now.
Just remember: Do what you want forever :)
Extended Watching (Interviews + Talks):
In Life: Interview with Kate Bornstein, Leslie Feinberg (captions recommended)
Leslie Feinberg in Buffalo, June 2, 2006
Leslie Feinberg Celebrating Stone Butch Blues at Charis Books 1993 (captions recommended)
Berkley professor explains gender theory | Judith Butler
Feminist icon Judith Butler on JK Rowling, trans rights, feminism, and intersectionality
Extended Watching (Video Essays):
JK Rowling's New Friends - Shaun (previously linked)
Keelie-Jay & the Neo-Nazis - Shaun (previously linked)
Social Constructs (or, 'What is A Woman Really?') - Philosophy Tube
Identity: A Trans Coming Out Story - Philosophy Tube
Transhumanism: "The World's Most Dangerous Idea" - Philosophy Tube
Autogynephilia - ContraPoints
Gender Critical - ContraPoints
125 notes · View notes
doodlerh · 3 months
Note
how do you come up with poses for characters... esp the full body ones?
I always have such a hard time
personally i just draw em standing there </3 like other than the lil blue bg guy they're all sorta, just standing...i try and show off what's important though!! like if they have a cape or anything i try and have it sorta flying out of the way so we can see what's under em
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
but for other more dynamic poses, especially hugs, i just imagine what's coziest n most natural :')
64 notes · View notes
dirtytransmasc · 6 months
Text
I hope we get a scene of Alicent with Aegon's body. If her son is damned to die, if she is damned to spiral into insanity, if she is to lose her life too the grief, let me see her with his body.
let her hold her baby in her arms one more time. let her wipe the blood that poured from his mouth and nose as he died. let her run her fingers over the viscous burns that adorn his skin. let her fix his hair. let her bathe him with a cloth as she had when he was a babe. let her kiss his cheek, his forehead, his hair, his hands. let her lay her head against him, hugging him like she had failed to do for years.
he was her firstborn and yet, her heart was still beating and his was not, she was not yet cold in her grave, no, no her son was cold, her flesh was warm, too warm. he was her baby, her son, the boy she tried so hard to protect, who had loved even when it hurt, who she had stood in front of a dragon for. she loved him, the very bones of him, and now he was dead.
let her lose her mind right there, in that room, still clinging to her body, one that's too cold, too still, too quiet. let her scream out to the gods, damning them, cursing them for taking her eldest son, amongst everything else in her life.
I want her to drive away anyone who tries to take him from her, forcing the silent sisters or whoever would be left to deal with his body at that point. let her curse and spit and claw at anyone who comes too close.
she would stay there for hours, reflecting on her memories of him. maybe she talks to him or hums a lullaby until she finally loses her battle with what remains of her consciousness and sanity, falling still against the table.
she dreams of Aegon, she dreams of the life she wish she could have provided, the life she had tried so hard to give him. a life where he was safe, a life where she had been a better mother, a life where she didn't need to live in and impose fear up on her children. maybe if she had tried hard enough he would still be alive, she'll think as she floats in the space between consciousness and unconsciousness.
she'll wake in plain chambers she only partly recognizes, she'll learn of her sons lackluster and sparsly accompanied burning, she'll learn her son was gone and she was alone. there won't be much of her left to care. she just continues dreaming, dreaming of her dead children and spiraling to madness until her broken heart finally gives out.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
[my previous post inspired this, cause all I can think about now is Alicent mourning her son and its gonna put me in an early grave]
125 notes · View notes
viric-dreams · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Tamaas (eventually Tamara)
Addressed as: Madam* (she/her)
Age: 23
Height: 5’4”
Occupation:
Main Skills: Shadowy, Watchful
Prominent Quirks: Melancholy
Closest to: The Urchins
*it's a form of address that feels strange compared to its Varchaasi equivalent, but she no longer has any claim to that title.
Backstory below the cut:
She never questioned her life, much like she never questioned her love for Mihir and her native Varchas. One rarely has to when all is well and life is easy.
She doesn’t understand why her brother did not share this contentedness. Fraternal twins, they were ever-close, sharing everything, but his interest in the Jewel-Turbaned Youth and his fanciful club was something that she simply could not get her mind around. The rest of the family paid it no mind—they’re harmless anyway. Let him have his fun.
She doesn’t know what it was that stopped her from retiring to bed that one fateful evening, a nagging in the back of her head that something was off. When she stepped back out into the yellow evening lamplight, a familiar shape slipping down the streets confirmed her intuition. Her brother made it as far as the Mirrored Gate before she clamped her hand around his wrist. Was he mirror-mad? What could he possibly be thinking? Who would want to leave the light, and to set sail on a steamer with a Tamaas captain he’d only met that morning? She’d argued with him, begging him to see sense, until they were both shouting. Deep in their quarrel, she’d barely noticed the shape in the mirror pressed up against his back until it was too late. It struck and he screamed, jerking to the side. Hand still latched around his arm, she slipped in turn, down the slope beyond the gate and both of their lives ended in an instant.
She’d later piece together what had happened from The Sympathetic Captain, most of her memories a blur, and Mihir knows, she’d had enough time on that ship to play her retelling back in her head in endless combinations. Before her brother had even met the ground, before his head had hit stone and his heart had stopped beating, he was Tamaas. As was she, not a fraction of a second later. The Captain had heard the commotion and was not far from the bottom of the cliff. She had insisted that the Captain take them both, that no one in the city would help them anymore. She had to get him to the next port where he could recover.
How his body had disappeared a day later, on a ship miles from the coast, was not one the Captain could answer, no matter how much she raged, how many objects in the cabin she smashed in her fugue. The Captain could only offer a sympathetic ear and a cup of tea.
When the ship finally docked in London she disappeared into the darkness, too ashamed of her grief to say goodbye. Her life was over, but somehow she would have to keep living, Tamaas or otherwise.
37 notes · View notes
hephaestuscrew · 6 months
Text
Thoughts on the patterns of who speaks the episode title phrases in Wolf 359
This analysis is based on the data I gathered in this spreadsheet and summarised with graphs in this post. Basically I've been looking at which character first says the episode title phrase (i.e. the exact words which form the name of that particular episode) in every episode of Wolf 359. Go and look at the spreadsheet if you want more context.
I think we can view the episode title phrases as often expressing the key problem or question of that episode. (I might talk about this in relation to individual examples another time.) Through this lens, the consideration of who speaks the title phrase is about which character gets to frame the key issue of the episode for the listener. This doesn't necessarily mean we are meant to share that character's view of the issue, but it's why I think there is some potentially significant analysis to be done on this topic. (See below the cut...)
The proportion of title phrases said by Eiffel reduces with each season. 69.2% of the Season 1 title phrases are (first) spoken by Eiffel, compared to 46.6% in Season 2, 22.2% in Season 3, and 20% in Season 4.
This is perhaps unsurprising. Eiffel is very much the main perspective character and the primary narrative voice at the start of the series. And, as someone with unusual speech patterns, he is excellent at coining a good memorable title phrase. However, while I'd argue that he never stops being the main protagonist, over the course of the series, the narrative focus broadens away from a singular emphasis on Eiffel's perspective. This perspective shift is reflected in episode titles being spoken by a greater range of characters.
I think the decreasing proportion of Eiffel title phrases also reflects the podcast's shift towards a generally more dramatic rather than comedic tone. While Eiffel is capable of being serious at times, I'd argue that his mode of speech is particularly well suited to generating amusing unusual turns of phrase that work well within a more comedic context (e.g. Succulent Rat-Killing Tar, What's Up Doc?, Bach to the Future). As the stakes become higher and the tone becomes less humorous, characters other than Eiffel, who are more often inclined to take things very seriously, are more likely to speak the title phrases.
There's also just the fact that as we get more characters involved in the action on the Hephaestus, the opportunity to speak the title phrase is spread between more characters.
Although Eiffel is by far and away the most common speaker of title phrases in Season 1, in the first three episodes of the whole show, we get all the characters of that season represented in the title phrases. Minkowski speaks the title phrase in the second episode and Hera does in the third episode - but probably quoting a phrase from Hilbert. This gives us a good early indication that, while Eiffel may be the focal point particularly in this season, this is going to be an ensemble show and all of these characters are going to be significant.
Hilbert's only title phrase is in Ep12 Deep Breaths, in the first stage of his mutiny, arguably the only point in the show where he appears to clearly have the upper hand while acting alone.
After the SI-5 are introduced at the beginning of Season 3, we get five Kepler or Jacobi title phrases in a row, which solidifies the SI-5's presence in the show. It also highlights the fact that the SI-5 have taken over the Hephaestus and are now (at least ostensibly) the ones determining the aims of the Hephaestus mission.
In addition, these patterns might be seen to reflect the shift in the show towards a more conflict-focused tone (related but not identical to the movement away from comedy). While Wolf 359 has always been a show full of conflict, the balance of this conflict shifts with the arrival of the SI-5. For the first team, our protagonists are facing a unified team of antagonists. The potential for violence feels higher, as do the stakes. This might explain why, while we only had one antagonist-spoken title phrase across Seasons 1 and 2 (Hilbert in Ep12 - Lovelace doesn't get a title phrase while she's serving as an antagonist), 44.4% of our Season 3 title phrases are first spoken by antagonists.
The only title phrase spoken by Maxwell is spoken by her in a recording that we hear after her death. This isn't even the only posthumous title phrase spoken from the past in Season 4 - we've got one from Commander Zhang of the Tiamat as well. It's an interesting kind of legacy, an interesting way to emphasize the questions characters leave behind after death, recalling similar themes to those explored in Ep46 Boléro.
68 notes · View notes
mrmosseater · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media
my brawlywood trio interpretations bc they're my fav trio and if brawl stars wont do anything with them then i will
51 notes · View notes
travalerray · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
I am going to slap you myself
29 notes · View notes
knifegremliin · 2 months
Text
sure he's 22, but with the back pain he's got going on, he qualifies for the senior's discount
40 notes · View notes
fuedalreesespieces · 4 months
Text
one thing that always gets me whenever i read inuyasha modern au fics is that inuyasha is supposedly "the slacker" or the guy who doesn't try hard on anything academia related, and that always struck me as odd bc you're telling me inuyasha wouldn't be competing with, say, koga for rank 1? that he wouldn't study his ass off in the subjects he's actually interested in? that he wouldn't pour his everything into extracurriculars he cares about? he has his aloof moments in canon but ultimately he's a hard worker and i think that trait should be reflected in aus!
plus if we're thinking about the setting here, inuyasha's canon behavior is greatly influenced by his upbringing (and later lack thereof). putting him in an environment (modern au, lack of youkai discrimination) where his talents are cultivated instead of looked down upon would give us a very different character. it's always interesting to me whenever i see canon-typical inuyasha behavior in an au where his mom is alive because it suggests that his mistrust and gruff behavior are just part of his personality and not largely a result of childhood events. i feel like modern aus are an opportunity to see how he might have grown if not for the death of his mother + father & the consistent threat looming over him as a child. what would his personality be like then? how would his first meeting with kagome go considering that? his dynamics with his older brother? his goals? it's something that could be explored in a fic taking place in the feudal realm but it's kind of difficult to just subtract the discrimination aspect that comes with that setting...just things to think abt ig!
52 notes · View notes
commsroom · 10 months
Text
doug eiffel is a car guy in the way that, like, he's got that pop culture attachment to the idealized great american road trip. there's not much eiffel dedicates himself to, but he learned to drive as soon as he could because having a car gave him freedom, and he valued that enough to care. he feels like the kind of person who has spent a lot of time sitting in his car listening to music, just to get away from... everything else. he's an analog guy; he can drive stick. he was made to go to drive-in movies. he calls the broken down shuttle he's stranded on - among other things - the "uss pontiac aztek", "uss ford excursion", and "uss reliant robin", so it's a reasonable bet he's got car opinions. monster trucks are on his list of things he misses about earth. he could be a nascar guy. eiffel was definitely living in an apartment, but if he had the space, he would love to be one of those guys with a bunch of rusted cars in his yard and an old truck up on cinderblocks. once zach said that if eiffel had money, he'd buy a motorcycle and tinker with it and never learn how to actually ride it.
"if eiffel had money" being the operative phrase. he used to drive a corolla - "that's the third warning. i'm not one hundred percent on how these oxygen meters work, but if they're anything like my old corolla..." - eiffel is a car guy in the sense he's got a list of dream cars, but they're all deeply impractical classic cars he just thinks are cool. in practice, he is driving the most 'dependable', most affordable cars possible, and he is not taking care of them. eiffel knows enough about cars that he could do his own maintenance, which means he won't pay someone else to do it, which means he's driving around with the check engine light on at all times. every car eiffel has ever driven has come like, pre-dented, permanently sounds like it's dying, and is just repulsive to be inside. it smells like old fast food wrappers and smoke in there. the back seat is full of miscellaneous garbage. the seats are stained and kinda sticky.
106 notes · View notes
non-sims · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
“I need a life.” ...
Will they or Won’t they  |  Chrono
PREV / NEXT
RAI: Lulu, Duke. Matt is finally out of the house.
RAI: I know I know, you two are going to miss him, giving you guys extra treats. You didn't think I knew huh.
Lulu & Duke *just staring at Rai*
RAI: …I need a life. Come on, let's go for a walk.
*Duke not moving from his spot*
RAI: Huh? You don't wanna go? Fine, we'll be back soon.
[25 minutes later]
RAI: You ready to go back home Lulu? It's hot today.
BRUNO: …Excuse me. 
RAI: Yes- *stunned* Bruno?!
BRUNO: Hey...Rai.
BRUNO: It's been a while hasn't it.
RAI: Yeah…it has.
BRUNO: Is it okay if I sit beside you?
RAI: Yeah, of course.
BRUNO: So are you still making music?
RAI: Not as much, but yeah sometimes.
BRUNO: That's good, I would love to hear some.
RAI: ...
BRUNO: You look good by the way, have you been working out?
RAI: I've been playing a little bit of basketball on & off.
*Lulu barking at Rai*
BRUNO: Who is this little pup?
RAI: Lulu.
BRUNO: *petting the dog* Hey there little lulu.
RAI: I got another one back at home too. His name is Duke.
RAI: …
BRUNO: You stopped messaging me.
RAI: Life got busy…
BRUNO: Guess you can say the same for me as well.
RAI: You could've told me that, instead of me thinking that you ghosted me. For almost a year.
BRUNO: You also could've done the same.
RAI: *sigh* So that's how we doing this?
RAI: What are you doing in the valley.
BRUNO: Finally visiting.
BRUNO: Could we go back to your place and talk more privately.
RAI: *scoffs* Sure, why not. ...
PREV / NEXT
60 notes · View notes