#i am all for depictions of uncomfortable topics or points of view in fiction if it serves the story

[pocketwish]

i tried to read one (1) fantasy novel written by a man and had to return it early

#i'd lulled myself into a false sense of security on my female author kick #forgot this is actually the norm #i chose it because i actually was really interested in the premise and worldbuilding and then it just took an ABRUPT turn #now that i look at them all the reviews are either men gushing about how amazing it is and then a few women being like 'uh...' #and like. i understand depictions of misogyny in books. especially when it leads to challenging a character's worldview #i am all for depictions of uncomfortable topics or points of view in fiction if it serves the story #but it's just so face-value and slap-in-the-face-unnecessary. the reviews that mention it at all say it only gets worse from here so #ran screaming back to one of my favorite authors that i TRUST #bea's thoughts

[laithraihan]

now i’m kinda curious to hear what you think of proshipping.. if you don’t mind of course

I'll share my thoughts, and if theres anything I say that doesnt make sense feel free to point it out to me because I mostly write with the help of a translator. Under the cut because I wrote too much stuff.

TLDR: proshippers hate me because I dont want to look at glorified depictions of pedophilia/incest/etc, antis hate me because my content isnt 100% sanitized. I stay around anti circles because I find it slightly easier for me to talk about my headcanons with them even though I think they can be insufferable.

So the thing about proshipping. From what I've seen it means being "anti-harassment" and being in support of curating your online experience, which sounds great on paper and that's practically what I do. I have over 3k accounts blocked on my personal twitter to navigate the website more easily and I also dont care if someone blocks me if they dont like my stuff.

Except proshippers never consider me a proshipper because I am uncomfortable with viewing glorified depictions of topics like pedophilia, incest, rape, all that stuff. The same way people are uncomfortable with excessive blood and gore (which I also can't really handle seeing). Whether or not it's always easy to tell if it's glorified is an entirely different topic, which is precisely why I stay away from all depictions in general to avoid being intrusive.

And what's interesting is that I do not label myself an "anti". Mainly because I don't even know what the term "anti" is supposed to mean ("anti-" what exactly. Genuinely please tell me because I actually dont know) But the ones who label themselves "proship" always call me an anti, because again I do not wish to engage with content related to pedophilia etc, and that alone apparently enough to be considered "a person who harasses others over fiction" even if I mind my own business and have no interest in forcing my personal tastes on others, especially if they make it clear that they wont change their mind. Which makes me believe that for a lot of self-identified proshippers, the definition of being "proship" would be more similar to "I love fucked up stuff and if you dont then youre lame and it obviously means you can't tell the difference between fiction and reality" which honestly seems like insecurity to me.

Forgive me for bringing up this up once again but I want to mention an example to make it easier for me to explain: yknow the whole thing with me drawing Minori and Reigen and labelling it "non-cp" which caused a wave of both self-identified antis and proshippers harassing me over that (I'll say that proshippers were more bold about it since the antis harassing me were all anonymous). Proshippers saw me saying "I dont ship that" and interpreted it as me being defensive and in denial, as if I said "guys I swear Im an anti !!! please dont think im a proshipper !!! ", when I meant "I dont want to discuss this with others in a shipping manner because thats not how I see it and I dont want to enter a space Im not comfortable with"

I admit I responded to this situation in a petty manner, but this was after several days of harassment done directly in my inbox and publicly (sometimes I wish yall remembered that group chats and priv accounts exist). My point is that simply saying you don't like seeing pedophilia in fiction is enough for proshippers to believe it's justified for them to harass you over it (and I'm fully aware they'll say it's not harassment, only when antis and "puriteens" do this to them then it's harassment)

Now about the anti side. Don't get me started on them either. If proshippers see me as an enemy then this must mean that I always get along with the ones who call themselves "antis" (I do not). Note that Im only talking about adults here, I dislike beefing with children and I think their feelings about this are entirely reasonable (I'll elaborate on this when talking about internet safety)

But anyways. I think a lot of adults are discourse-brained and do way too much. Im thinking of nonsense like "this ship is problematic because they are 'sibling-coded' so thats basically incest" "siblings giving each other a hug gives me proship vibes" things of that nature. And you're not allowed to do anything that even has the smallest possibility of being interpreted as "problematic", because then they'll harass you for it, and if you clarify your intentions, they expect you to apologize for "misleading" them because clearly they didnt do anything wrong by making assumptions about you.

There's almost no room allowed for creativity with them, everyone has to follow fanon because they consider it canon, if you ever want to try something other than the same boring domestic fluff then it's "too much" (and not even platonic affection is acceptable to draw in certain cases). Which is incredibly fucking boring to me who wants to see different types of content. People even said I was enjoying incest for drawing Reigen selfcest, and that I was "making others uncomfortable" by drawing it. Genuinely seems to me that they only care about moral superiority, that they never think about anything in depth, and I dont think they realize that it also shows in what they create: boring and repeated fanart and headcanons where the only thing you can say about it is "thats cute", nothing more because you saw it ten billion times already. You cant draw two people showing platonic affection that absolutely nobody would bat an eye if it happened in real life, you cant discuss something specific in more depth without people saying you have a fetish for it, and then they'll harass you based on their speculation that it's a fetish. I dont think many realize this, but fandoms are full of autistic people, so it's normal to see people who are interested in very specific things that dont make sense to others! I wish people were less judgmental, but at the same time I dont care if people think Im weird. I think what I mean is theres no reason to mistreat weird people who do no harm to others.

So yeah if you call yourself an "anti" I'll assume youre spend too much time engaging in fandom discourse and you're the type of person to believe that fanart where two people are holding hands is the equivalent to drawing them fucking each other. Which I think is a very childish mindset to have and it's worrying that many adults think this way. I also think that as an adult they should be capable of blocking stuff they hate instead of constantly arguing with people online because at this point it's just mental torture.

The thing about internet safety I mentioned earlier, I'd say this is the one thing that I'll always prioritize discussing whenever proship discourse comes up.... To put it simply: filter and limit the visibility of your content, do not put triggering stuff in the main tags, stay in your own circles. Whether or not you believe fictional rape/pedophilia/etc is bad is irrelevant, my point is that these are objectively triggering topics and should be filtered just like how there are warnings for violence and blood even if it's not real.

"But it's the parents' responsibility to control what kids look at online, this has nothing to do with me!" and I agree with the parents being the ones Primarily responsible. However the reality is that children are online and there's nothing you can do to stop it from happening. Kids will also enter spaces theyre not allowed in, theyre children and children are rebellious especially teenagers, I was like this as a teenager too. You'd be lying if you said you were always obedient since childhood and never did anything you were told Not to do. And you can't really expect teenagers to always block and not interact if they see something triggering. It's your responsibility to block them if they interact with you, because what I see most of the time is adults bickering with teenagers who are uncomfortable, calling them "puriteens", putting them on blast and allowing other adults including NSFW accounts to dunk on them.

Humiliating and degrading teenagers does not "teach them a lesson", it only makes the teenager more stubborn and reactive. Adults must accept that kids will always find their way in there even if your content isnt easily accessible. So I think it's stupid to feel offended at a child because they got upset when they found upsetting content like how any normal child would react. Which is why I wish more adults would keep blocking without saying anything petty to provoke teenagers.

Before someone pancake-waffles me and says "so youre fine with antis doxxing people" no I do not support doxxing. Ive been doxxed so I know it sucks. However the only times Ive seen it go this far is after continuous arguing because nobody knows when to stop. Im not saying this applies all the time nor am I saying doxxing is fine, but there are ways to minimize this sort of outcome as much as possible. Both sides have doxxed people over petty arguments that couldve easily been avoided if they just blocked each other and moved on.

The topic above (internet safety) is probably the only thing related to this where Im actively telling others what they should be doing. It's not only teenagers who are triggered by depictions of pedophilia etc but also adults like myself. In my case Im old enough to block content I dislike without saying a word, however I cant help but think that there's not enough being done about filtering especially when I do not search for this type of content and I still see it all the time.

I also think it's important for me to mention that I have a very poor sense of morality. I do not have a personal moral code that I adhere to, and I mostly stick to the basic universal ones that make sense to me. So I will not discuss the "morals" of consuming this stuff because I am not adequate to share an opinion on this, and I know the most popular topic of discussion related to proship discourse is morality which I frankly find counterproductive. I dont understand why people should care so much if I find something morally correct or not, unless it's to make themselves feel better about having a "superior opinion" to mine. Though I will say that if a man tells me he's into rape "but only in fiction!" then I dont think it will stop me of imagining myself bashing his skull repeatedly with large rocks. Maybe Im too mistrustful of men in general.

Final point I want to clarify is that I am not trying to assert some sort of superiority over people by disliking both sides, like saying "Im not an anti or a proshipper Im a Normal person" or something like that, and Im not expressing a "neutral" stance on the topic of fiction's influence on reality either. There are topics like racism and orientalism in fiction that Im vocal about (which is expected since Im Algerian). I genuinely believe there are many things that are interesting to discuss and should be prioritized, but too many people are chronically online, subjective and defensive, at this point I dont even think it's accurate to say that disliking one side automatically means you support the other side regarding fiction. To me, "proship discourse" is not about the debate of the effects of fiction on reality, censorship in media, etc. It's about everything I described earlier that happens online.

#asks #hopefully this doesnt start anything bad

[misteriouschum]

What is Insensitive?

a little essay i wrote on twitter that i thought would be formatted better here:

i think there is lots of controversy over insensitive art, but what is considered insensitive is different for each person. it is not seen as subjective though, so everyone adopts the same boundaries in the open when that is not naturally how it goes. it leads to lying.

i do not like it when someone is vague about what they consider to be insensitive, because they assume everyone has the same opinion. and for the most part everyone just agrees with the vague opinion, under the assumption that everyone knows what the other is truly thinking.

for me, i think art is only insensitive when it veers into reality, targets someone, or directly harms someone in the process. for instance: hate symbols, harming animals for art, inappropriate art of a real person without their consent.

other than that (which is also worded vaguely, but twitter posts are only so long), i generally assume someone has a valid reason for what they make even if it appears uncomfortable. art is for letting go of emotions or embracing them, whichever is healthier for the person.

i also notice a lot of people do not do research or consult therapists/psychologists about their opinions on uncomfortable or taboo art topics. the research i have seen people cite comes from malicious religious resources as well, such as inaccurate research on mirror neurons conducted to claim that gayness and transness is psychologically contagious. people apply this to claim that you must like murder, gore, or more extreme topics irl if you portray them in fiction for entertainment or coping.

i do think there is the potential for fiction to be harmful, but that is different from thinking that all similar depictions must be regarded as universally insensitive. it is best to block if you see something you don't trust instead of assuming anything more.

there is lots of context to why a piece of fiction could become harmful, not just the depiction itself, just as there is lots of context to why someone may draw something you view as insensitive.

i see lots of hypocritical opinions as well, excusing some taboo fictional topics while denouncing others. there is nuance to that discussion, but many of the takes i see don't seem very self-aware, or they ARE self-aware and just want to conform with the popular view instead.

i guess i should also clarify that i find many depictions of DID in media to be insensitive, so it is not only things that veer on specific events in reality that i find insensitive. but inaccurate or dramatized depictions of sensitive topics are not always insensitive in my eyes.

there is often a point, even if invisible to most people. and there is often not. it is best not to assume about the author as a person, and instead analyze critically while respecting the people who find comfort in it as well.

possibly an interesting point to make at a later time: there is a difference between what you are uncomfortable with and what you find insensitive. i am uncomfortable with many things while acknowledging that there is probably a point i am missing.

#zombie talk

[pianostarinwonderland]

ok so hi, i'm just passing by here, thoroughly confused and scared.

"It’s fine to be uncomfortable about shipping Malleus or Leona with the younger students. I respect the opinion. "

isn't it common sense to be uncomfy with adult x minor ships? 😭 it's not just an opinion because in what world or country think that, for example, a 14 year old and 18 year is ok? they're in different stages in life, what do they have in common?

"However, there have been instances where people who have shipped those two with younger characters have been harassed. There have been people who have shamed those shippers. It doesn’t just go for shipping third years with first years."

while yes, i understand that harassing them is wrong, they need to be informed that their ships are questionable and wrong. and if they dont like what they hear, welp, some people dont take it well 🚶‍♀️

"More often than not, people have shamed adults in their 20s for shipping themselves with the students."

now i am not going to sugar coat this, but what the actual fuck? 😁 what do they want from 16-17 year olds? i would be ok if its with lilia or malleus and the other 18 yr olds to an extent but WHAT? why do ppl in their 20s wanna be in the woohoo stage with kids? 😭 i'm 17 and i cant even look at a 15 year old in a romantic light. it's creepy, dont even say its ok.

so yes, here's my point of view in the issue, i am not intending to sound arrogant but this needs to be said 😭

[Reply to here!]

Hi anon! I thank you for the honesty in the ask. It’s well appreciated!!

First of all, the whole point of what I said was to point out the hypocrisy of those people who say “first years x third years shouldn’t be shipped together” but then pair their 16-year old first year OC/sona to a third year.

Secondly, I understand being uncomfortable with shipping adults and minors. In real life, shipping real people in general is a big no-no, as it really hurts the people involved in the ship. But I want to take this time to respond to your concerns and share my views on the topic, not because I want to argue with you, but because I think this is an important discussion that needs to be brought up. You’re free to disagree with me even after you read through this.

I’ll begin by clarifying: For the whole people over 20 ship themselves with the characters, I think I should rephrase that because that was not worded well and I’m sorry about that. 😅💀 When I said that, I meant that people would create self-inserts of themselves or OCs as students in NRC to be with the other students. It’s not older people preying on minors irl >_>

That would be them exploring the world of Twisted Wonderland. What sort of interactions can they have with the characters? How would this character react to their sona or OC, etc? And this is okay.

In fiction, there’s no real harm done to anyone because the people in the ship are just pixels. Sure, you can come at me and say, “But that’s going to make you think that it’s okay to be lewd to minors, and it’s going to validate p*dos! Fiction does affect reality!” But in truth, it is on the responsibility of the individual to distinguish what is fiction and what is reality. It’s the individual who decides to have the kinds of mindsets that they have. Take the classic violence in movies example: people can watch and enjoy movies that have violence and gore in them and still speak up against actual violence done to real people in real life.

Think about all the novels that are on the shelf, the movies being sold, the shows on Netflix. Most of the stories are written by adults. They could be stories depicting violence, stories depicting high school life, so on and so forth. There are going to be stories that would depict “bad things” to you. Does that mean that those writers advocate for violence or being naughty towards kids? No. Fiction is always used to express and share something. Share a story, share a lesson, share something that is part of human life, share the fantasies in people’s heads. Of course, it’s important to note that we should not glorify things that are immoral. Like, we’re not going to say yes to murder because that’s a no-no. But glorifying is different from sharing or expressing.

Fiction isn’t going to just make people p*dos or murderers. If they have that mindset of “oh it’s okay to kill people” or “oh it’s ok to sexualize minors”, that’s already a mindset that they possess, not something that fiction caused. If people are going to copy the fictional thing into their actual lives, then either they are that impressionable or there is something wrong with the way they think. If able to, it’s recommended that they seek professional help.

I think it’s important to say here that just because 18 is the legal age, that does not mean you now have to be an adult, be a caretaker of a bunch of 17 year olds and younger, pay your bills, do important adult things like finding the best laundry machine. No, if anything, having the mindset that “oh an 18 year old shouldn’t get together with a 16 year old even in fiction” can feed into the bigger mindset that you now have to be an adult who can’t have fun because you’re putting this barrier between being a child and being an adult.

Also, I don’t know if 14 year olds are middle school age or high school in some countries, but here in the Philippines, 14 and 18 year olds are in high school (Grade 8 and Grade 12 respectively). And people in high school get into lots of things. 😂 Like one time, there was an incident in my high school where two highschoolers of those ages were making out in school. Not to say that I condone making out in school, I’m just sharing this because stuff like this happens in real life, and we have to accept that things that we don’t agree with do actually happen. And while in real life, there would be consequences, at least in fiction, people can safely explore these types of topics without any repercussions.

About telling people that their ships are “questionable and wrong”, pretty much most of what I said in the above is already a reply to that. But I’ll be frank with you. That in itself is already a form of harassment. Think: you’re going up to a stranger just to tell them that them shipping these two characters is wrong. It’s rude, and people need to be aware of that.

Reminding people to not ship actual people is okay because countless people who have been shipped have voiced out that they have been harmed by it, and we need to respect that. And I say remind because you shouldn’t just go “oi you’re being gross by shipping these two people, gtfo” because that’s rude. But to tell people not to ship two characters just because it’s “wrong or questionable” in your eyes can be harassment, especially if you call them disgusting or spread word that they are disgusting people for supporting the ships you disapprove of. To add, people may have their reasons for diving into such ships. Maybe they use those ships as a way to cope with or express something that they went through in their life, or they use those ships as a way to explore the thought processes of these characters in such a situation. We can’t judge why people ship those ships, and as long as no one is hurt over what they do, just ignore those people if you don’t like what they do.

I hope this clears up confusion. 😅 I don’t know if I ever quelled any fears, but this is my point of view on things, and I hope you understand. I respect your opinion on the matter, and I’m glad you didn’t attack me for what I wrote. You’re free to disagree with me, even send me an ask in reply, but I won’t change my stance on this topic.

#ask #discourse

[inthemediawithfredi]

Native American (Mis)Representation in Media

           Native American representation in media is not only lacking but also most times incorrectly done. I am always very fascinated by this topic because I’m an Ojibwe Native American woman, and rarely have I seen adequate and accurate portrayal of people like me and other Natives in film, tv shows, or really anywhere in media. That’s not to say that there are not some amazing Native directed and produced films with Native actors that portray what it is actually like to be Native American in the world today. However, the main problem is that there are majority of films that are produced, directed, and acted by White people that continue to show stereotypical Native American people and ideas that perpetuate societies incorrect ideas of what it means to be Native American. In return, racism, harmful stereotypes, and misrepresentation continue not only in media but also in daily life for Natives. This is harmful for Native culture because unless we make a change in how Natives are represented in media, non-Native people will most likely as a majority continue to be misinformed and uneducated, and as a result values of racism, white supremacy, and settler colonialism will continue to shine through in our society and harm our People.

           I want to start with a prime example of misrepresentation before I go into details. This example is the Disney movie Pocahontas. I still cannot believe that in 2021 this movie is still playing and no comment or acknowledgment of its complete racist and incorrect portrayal of a Native woman has been made by Disney. Almost the entire Disney movie is wrong and made up. Pocahontas should not be celebrated as a “Disney Princess” when she was actually kidnapped, raped, and forced to marry a White man.

Aside from the movie getting all the historical facts wrong and harming the history of Native Culture that way, more that you can see in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZMvyfDKMoQ), making her a Disney Princess continues to harm Native Peoples in other ways. One way that bothers me beyond measures is the cultural appropriation often displayed on Halloween. People think that because Pocahontas was a Disney Princess, it is okay to dress up like her in Native clothing and run around having fun. To make it clear, our culture is not someone else’s costume. Therefore, Disney almost makes it okay for kids and sometimes even adults to dress up in what they consider a costume (as pictured below this paragraph). This is extremely harmful for Natives. Our tradition regalia is clothing that is sacred to each tribe and each tribe’s culture. Feathers are also sacred and not everyone in a tribe wears headdresses. Wearing them as part of a costume for one doesn’t accurately represent Native culture and secondly is stereotypical and disrespectful. Not all clothing is the same for each tribe, and not everyone wears that clothing every day. Therefore, it continues to promote those stereotypes that this is how Natives dress, and this is what they look like. And again, that specific regalia is sacred to tribes therefore it’s not a costume and definitely not something just anyone can dress in because it is disrespectful and racist.

To continue on that point, while Pocahontas is an animated film, many real films continue to dress Native characters in these stereotypical Native clothes and outfits. Just to clarify, an example of real traditional regalia is pictured below this paragraph. To make these clothes is often a special, time consuming process that completes the overall sacredness of the outfit. However, as I stated earlier, these clothes are not something Native Peoples wear every day, and in fact not all Natives even own it. Therefore, media often stereotypes Native characters by dressing them in these clothes and perpetuating ideas that this is what you need to dress like to be a “real” Native American. As one Navajo actor states, “But as I climbed into the feathered costume and began to apply “war paint” to my face, I began to feel very uncomfortable. Even though I’m not of a Plains tribe, I knew that this kind of regalia was not meant for casual, every-day wear. For many tribes, including mine, feathers are sacred. Looking at myself in the mirror in full costume, I felt shameful for mocking my spirituality. I promised myself I’d never play “Indian” again” (Young). Even though they may cast Native actors, the stereotypical outfits they most often times make them dress in are actually harmful and insulting.

Even more issues can arise with the hiring of Native roles. One of the main problems is hiring non-Native actors for these Native characters. ““Redface,” the manufacturing of ersatz images of Native American identity, has long been a problem in Hollywood, and there’s a well-documented history of hiring non-Indians for Indian roles” (Maillard). Non-Native actors shouldn’t be hired for these roles because not only are problems like red-face involved but they often times try to find someone or create someone (as pictured below this paragraph) who “meets the criteria” for “looking Native enough” when in reality, not all Natives look alike or like the stereotypical historical portrayal that most people are unfortunately taught. This runs into the next problem of actually hiring Native actors for these roles.

In the film “Wind River” the director Taylor Sheridan made it a point to hire Native actors for Native roles, “He even told his casting directors that when it came to auditioning actors, “Don’t even read them unless you can vet the authentic nature of their ancestry” (Maillard). Here is a trailer for Wind River in case you’ve never seen it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7WuKdVhrmA). While I completely agree that Native actors should take Native roles, you can run into problems with distinguishing who is Native. Asking for blood quantum, tribal ID’s, or going based off tanner skin tone or stereotypical Native features are all tactics of settler colonialism that uphold systems of white supremacy and racism in today’s society. However, without some type of confirmation that an actor is Native, then you run the risk of hiring someone who claims they are Native but has no actual knowledge about their roots or ancestry-someone who just says it because it’s “aesthetically pleasing”-people I like to call “box-checkers” or “pretendians”. Therefore, I understand that casting Native actors specifically for Native roles can have its difficulties, but I still think it is something that needs to happen without a doubt.

Native representation in film, although lacking, affects both how others see Native Americans and how Natives Americans see themselves. “When present, even in contemporary media products, Natives are typically found in a historical context, reliving episodes of conflict between whites and indigenous people (Dances with Wolves, ``Geronimo’’) or as just-plain-folks (``Northern Exposure’’)” (Merskin 334). Therefore, non-Native people see Native Americans as what is portrayed in the media they consume because unfortunately many people believe what they see on TV and in Films to be true or accurate depictions, even if a storyline is fiction. These ideas are reinforcing what people are taught in school growing up about Native Americans; which is the reason some people still think of Natives in past terms (as depicted in the picture below this paragraph) where they only live in Tipis on reservations, dress in headdresses and other stereotypical things, and don’t interact with civilization, rather than looking at Native Peoples as real people who function in today’s world just like everyone else. It is harmful, stereotypical portrayals like these that perpetuate the oppression of Natives still to this day.

This also affects how Natives view themselves as well. “The homogenization of Native American identities inhibits the ability of Native Americans to see their group or to imagine themselves as anything other than the limited media portrayals. Moreover, in the absence of direct, in-person contact, the homogenizing of Native American identities creates a reference point around which Native Americans must orient themselves as they negotiate their identities” (Leavitt et al. 44). White children get to grow up seeing themselves in media and portrayed as successful, good people, but Native children rarely get to see themselves in media or anywhere in society, and if they do it is often depicted stereotypically or with negative features. When Native kids don’t see themselves represented in positive ways in media, they won’t be able to dream big or think that they can ever make it more than what the white man lets them be. I think now, luckily, social media is beginning to play a much larger role in allowing children to see themselves represented more often and more positively.

Social media is also allowing a platform for Native Peoples to amplify their voices. I would say of all media sources, social media is one of the ones that may have more beneficial uses for Native representation than any other sources. There is the ability for 100% Native operated platforms that bring awareness to many of the issues our People face today. One of the main issues I have seen promoted on social is MMIW, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. See this short clip for more information on this very important issue (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOXyGJuRMmo). While this is just one of many issues that affect Native communities, social media has been great with raising awareness for non-Natives beginning with the simple hashtag “#MMIW”. Hashtags have always been a way for anyone to get something trending. As pictured below this paragraph, hashtags can be used by Native Peoples to try to teach non-Native folks more about our culture and our People. For example, some sports teams have Native mascots and names which in return prompt fans to dress up in headdresses and war paint. Social media has been a great platform to try to teach these fans why this is harmful, offensive, and racist.

One last point I want to make is again regarding Native actors and characters in films. To trail back to the film Wind River, while it is a movie about Native Americans and problems they face, there are two white main characters who get all the glory both on and off screen. “These romantic and stoic characters hardly speak in the films; nor do they get heard. In Hollywood films and TV plays, Indians are paid to die, to fall off the horse, to confirm the “Vanishing Noble Savage” stereotype” (Liu and Zhang 109). The two white actors in Wind River get recognition on screen and off screen through interviews and awards, but rarely do we see any of the Native actors in that film acknowledged.

In conclusion Native characters need to be depicted more often, better, and less stereotypically. Native actors need to be casted in non-Native roles as well. They shouldn’t only be limited to Native roles because then we continue to lack adequate representation of Natives in the media as a whole. Media needs to amplify Native voices so that non-Natives can actually understand and be educated on what Native Peoples, Tribes, and Cultures are like in today’s society.

Works Cited

Leavitt, Peter A., et al. “‘Frozen in Time’: The Impact of Native American Media Representations on Identity and Self-Understanding.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 71, no. 1, 2015, pp. 39–53., doi:10.1111/josi.12095.

Liu, Kedong, and Hui Zhang. “Self- and Counter-Representations of Native Americans: Stereotypical Images of and New Images by Native Americans in Popular Media.” Intercultural Communication Studies XX, 2011, pp. 105–118., doi:https://web.uri.edu/iaics/files/09KedongLiuHuiZhang.pdf.

Maillard, Kevin Noble. “What's So Hard About Casting Indian Actors in Indian Roles?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Aug. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/movies/wind-river-native-american-actors-casting.html.

Merskin, Debra. “Sending up Signals: A Survey of Native American1 Media Use and Representation in the Mass Media.” Howard Journal of Communications, vol. 9, no. 4, 1998, pp. 333–345., doi:10.1080/106461798246943.

Young, Brian. “Film: The Reality of Native Americans in Hollywood.” Edited by Zócalo Public Square, Time, Time, 11 June 2015, time.com/3916680/native-american-hollywood-film/.

[throwitawayokay]

Predators around every corner

This is confusing. A lot of your favorite fandom creators, out of nowhere, are being accused of endangering minors and others for making nsfw content or following/being-friends-with people who do; that is a serious claim, and a frightening one, and no one would say such a thing if they weren’t 100% sure they were correct about it, right? After all, to say something about someone is an awful thing to say, and needs proof and reason, or else it is libel and grounds for a defamation lawsuit and would, morally, be an absolutely terrible thing to accuse a person of if it was not true.

Obviously, they must have reason. Obviously, these accusations are founded and must eventually prove to be true, even if they cannot now, or maybe they can, maybe the accusations would hold up in a court of law, but for some reason the same people making these accusations... won’t come out directly and accuse these people and don’t have any evidence besides what they ‘think’ this other person is thinking.

Someone has made an argument, somewhere, that writing nsfw of aged up minor characters in atla is predatory behavior and endangering to minors. Is it?

1. Is it legal?

   Easy answer, yes. It’s legal. By definition it is smut of adult characters, regardless of where it originates. None of it is on tumblr, where it would not be allowed, but instead on a web site where it is clearly tagged and behind an age limit. In fact, this argument would be laughed out of court. Because no law is protecting the nsfw depictions of fictional characters, who are not real, regardless of age, besides potentially copyright.

If the stories are about underage fictional characters? It still, at least by USofA law, still not illegal. Yes. That’s correct. Stories depicting underage fictional characters in sexual situations does not follow under the definition of child porn and is allowed in publication and law. To see proof of that, besides reading the actual law which you are free to do, simply note the fact that Stephen King’s It is not only still in print but recently had two film adaptations.

So that, would in fact, be allowed; however what is being called into question is depicting adult fictional characters in nsfw situations. A completely different thing that is, actually, very different from the other. But, to simply answer the question of legality, it’s all legal.

2. When is it endangering to minors?

   This content can, in fact, be endangering to minors when they are exposed to it either without warning, in a search, or if they are sent this content by another person. Ways that this could happen are if nsfw images appear google searches (where such content can be reported and taken down) or if nsfw writing is not properly tagged or accompanied by archive warnings (posted on ffnet for example or not properly rated on ao3). If this is happening, it is a good idea to go to the website to report it properly, or have someone contact the artist/author about the lack of tagging - the content itself is irregardless, the problem that exists here is the lack of warning.

Nsfw art is also not allowed by the tumblr guidelines; feel free to report it if seen. Please, however, take a step back to remember than an image of a person in their underwear is not, in fact, pornography. If you’ve ever walked past a billboard for a clothing company or seen a Victoria’s Secret catalogue you should know this. There is, in fact, an actual parameter for what sets apart sfw and nsfw.

If this content, however, has been properly tagged and is behind a proper age limit, with warnings and the like, it is not endangering toward minors. Clicking on a nsfw art or writing with clear warnings for what it is does not make the creator of that content responsible; a porn star is not responsible for endangering minors if a minor answers falsely to a website agreement stating they are 18 and views their content. The responsibility lies with the minor as well as the guardians of that minor for not teaching them how to responsibly search the internet and recognize what they should or should not be viewing.

If you are not mature enough to recognize this, you should not be online.

3. But I disagree?

   You are within your rights to have a difference of opinion or feel uncomfortable if a person posts links to their nsfw content, or mentions that they make nsfw content. In fact, nsfw content makes many people uncomfortable. There are many ways to avoid seeing this.

First, go to the filter on your blog and filter all nsfw related tags you can think of, some starting points I would suggest are: nsfw, nsfw tw, nsfw mention, adult content, adult content tw, adult content mention (feel free to keep going, be as thorough as makes you comfortable). Next, block the blogs you do not personally like; feel free to block as many blogs, for any reason, that you like. This is absolutely fine and no explanation is needed. If you feel uncomfortable having your blog followed by any adults at all, you can also take steps to make the blog unsearchable and only follow as few people as you like.

What you should not do is harass people for making content that you personally do not like. This includes nsfw content. Making such incredibly serious claims as to state someone is a predator who endangers minors for making nsfw content in your fandom is unfounded, dangerous, and entirely irresponsible. Adults participating in this rhetoric need to take a very good look at themselves, and minors who have been experiencing anxiety as a result of this claim, I am very sorry.

4. What was the aunt-suki thing?

   Where did this whole thing start? No one was making this point only a few months ago, did it just pop up out of nowhere?

^ this blog, since deleted [also goes formerly by tumble-dump (nowlil-baby-man) as well as jetru(deleted) safe-for-atla, and dennis-quaid] spearheaded this opinion after accusing one of the largest creators in the fandom, an adult poc, of endangering minors for an image posted to tumblr with possible suggestive themes (Tumblr does not allow nsfw art, it was not nsfw). Aunt-Suki is a 23 year old, self-described “titanium white” woman. She stated directly that anyone who posted nsfw content behind age limit barriers was predatory and that nsfw artwork of atla characters was rampant on this website without evidence.

After curating a blocklist, and admittedly receiving hate for doing so (despite oddly enough asking for anon hate on several occasions) aunt-suki did in fact create a first draft blocklist including fandom creators who make nsfw content, who are follow or are friends with those who make nsfw content despite not doing it themselves, and people who specifically asked her to be on the blocklist. This, in itself, was fine. A list of creators making nsfw content could, in fact, be helpful and good for those who do not want to see such content to have a handy resource of who to block and avoid. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of “they are all predators” was something aunt-suki fostered and continued to repeat, getting a lot of people to also feel the same way. This invited harassment, much of which directly done and targeted at others by aunt-suki. She repeatedly stated on her blog ‘I am safe, no one else is unless I say so, in order to keep yourself safe you must ask me who is bad [paraphrase, not direct quote]’ insisting that anyone who wished to know who was a predator on the website had to privately DM her for the information. Aunt-Suki used this to gain followers of minors and to specifically foster friendships with them.

We know this because aunt-suki made a post exposing herself. An anon asked her to defend the way she interacted with minors and she defended herself with phrases such as “I love kids so much more than grown ups”[quote], stating she runs a server of 13+ wlw and they all “care a lot about each other”; she also admitted she takes it upon herself to “expose kids to [heavy topics]” including race, sexism, queer issues, mental health, politics, etc. Aunt-Suki is not a trained professional for these issues and admits in the same post that she does not understand there could be any difference in power dynamics between her and these teenagers.

In addition, while defending these close relationships with minors that she specifically admits to reaching out for, Aunt-Suki also divulged her past at 18 years old of saying the n-word (excused by explaining she has a black friend); saying that this is the reason why she should, as a 23 year old white adult, be allowed to discuss “heavy topics” with minors.

This most certainly calls into question the fact that it was, with one exception, non-white creators that aunt-suki chose to publicly call out by name.

After being asked to defend herself for these actions she admitted to, Aunt-Suki deleted her blog but has continued to go online on her others blogs and discords, dm’ing others and making posts accusing people who called her out of being predators, asking for sympathy, blaming her actions on her adhd, and refusing to answer any of the messages sent to her. Other large creators have made posts about this, very rarely using her name to allow her some anonymity or time to explain her actions which she has not done. She choose instead to send anonymous messages further accusing these creators.

5. Why did you tell me that?

   This directly illustrates the problem with presenting an issue such as nsfw art/writing in the fandom without pointing out why others might disagree with it; and jumping past logic to decry those who don’t agree with extremely serious accusations. Someone with actual ill (or misguided) attentions may take advantage, deliberately isolating minors and portraying themselves as ‘good and safe’ while slowly whittling down who the minors can and cannot follow until no one able to call them out when they are the one participating in actual behavior that is inappropriate to minors.

6. I still don’t agree with the first points.

   That’s fine. Please call out actual predators if you see them. Do not, however, do so without any evidence or for reasons that simply are not, and never would be, considered basis for doing so in any legal or reasonable capacity.

#zutara #zukka #kataang #atla #atla fandom #drama #discourse

[marshmallowgoop]

On Ragyo Kiryuin

Please note: This post will contain discussions of sexual assault and abuse.

I am not good at talking about Ragyo Kiryuin.

Every time I do, I mess it up. I don’t emphasize her atrocities enough. I emphasize her atrocities too much. I cause trouble for myself and others, and I always end up feeling awful.

My recent writing on Ragyo’s character—found here and here—proved no different. The reception for the first post was so overwhelmingly negative that it spurred on my first-ever legitimate anon hate, and the second post only made things worse. Even now, my inbox is being filled with dismissive, rude, heartbreaking messages that bring me to tears, and though my therapist has told me not to say that I hate myself anymore, it’s difficult not to in situations like these. I hate that my wording was so poor and that I stated my opinion so badly that I incited all this rage and aggression in someone (or someones, a thought that scares me more than I would like to admit).

It may be a mistake to try to explain myself further. But I hurt people with what I said, and that bothers me. I hurt people because I struggle to explain my feelings on a cartoon character well, and I’m sorry. I’m embarrassed. I’m ashamed. I want to at least put in the effort to be kinder, more nuanced, and more sympathetic.

And maybe it’ll all blow up in my face. But I don’t want to not try.

So. Ragyo Kiryuin. Mother of Satsuki Kiryuin and Ryuko Matoi, CEO of REVOCS, and the ultimate Big Bad of Kill la Kill. Love her, hate her, or love her and hate her, she’s certainly made an impression in the anime-viewing world. And though I can’t speak for anyone else’s impression, my personal impression is... mixed.

Let’s go through this bit by bit.

A Good Villain?

Though I don’t see it much anymore, I remember lots of comparisons between Ragyo and the villains of Saturday morning cartoons back in the day. She was described as a generic, two-dimensional “evilz for the sake of evilz” baddie and criticized for her simplicity.

And though I did admittedly agree to an extent—I craved a lot more depth and insight, particularly in regards to her haunting line about “still having something of a human heart” whilst brutally attacking her own daughter in the final episode—I also found Ragyo to be a remarkably compelling, powerful, and horrifying villain even without tons of backstory and explanation. Perhaps my write-up on her first scene in episode 6 best details why; this woman has such a presence, and the visual language of the series amplifies that presence spectacularly. Ragyo’s intimidating and scary without the audience even needing to know anything about her.

And... I’d say that’s a good villain. That’s exactly what a villain should do.

Why Does This Matter, Goop?

I know, I know. My talking about Ragyo’s efficiency as a villain probably doesn’t seem all that relevant to the stuff that egged on an anon hate assault. But I think it’s important to mention that I do believe that Ragyo is a great, powerful villain. My previous posts were so bleak and cynical that I didn’t make this point clear. It does, in retrospect, seem as though I am crapping all over the character and subtly dissing anyone who enjoys her. I’m sorry for that, and I want to stress that that was not at all my intention.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with loving villains—even when they’re morally bankrupt, atrocious people like Ragyo—because loving villains, of course, doesn’t automatically mean that you excuse or endorse their actions. Villains like Ragyo also leave such a strong impression on the viewers, and personally, I’ve been so captivated by this awful woman that my first attempt at my years-in-the-making Kill la Kill fairytale AU featured about a 30,000-word backstory for her. There is a lot to respect, love, and love to hate when it comes to Ragyo and how she’s written, and I never, ever mean to discount that.

However, as with all things, it’s possible to love a piece of fiction or a character or what have you and also recognize that there are problems in the portrayal. And when it comes to Ragyo, as much as I think she’s a fantastic, engaging, terrifying villain, I do take issue with her depiction.

The Sexuality Point

I got a lot of heat for my ideas regarding Ragyo’s sexuality, and I admit: I didn’t express myself well. There was a lot more I should have said and elaborated upon. Maybe I’ll still fail spectacularly, but as I said before, I don’t want to not try.

So first, I want to take a moment to discuss intentionality. While I absolutely value Author is Dead and respect fan interpretations of any work, I also recognize that narrative decisions in fiction don’t happen in a vacuum. The fact of the matter is, Ragyo was originally designed as a father but was later changed to a mother so the relationships Ragyo shares with her daughters wouldn’t seem so “murky,” “gross,” and “perverted.”

And... that disturbs me. The idea, as I see it, is that a father abusing his daughters is, more than appropriately, disgusting, but a mother abusing her daughters is somehow less bad. In fact, writer Kazuki Nakashima outright states that he didn’t want to explore the “murkiness” of these relationships, noting that he “didn’t want to mix [that] ‘murkiness’ into the battle.” My impression—which I understand might very well be wrong—is that there’s the feeling that female-on-female abuse just isn’t as serious or life changing as male-on-female abuse. There’s the feeling that you can just not talk about how devastating this sexual assault is, and that’s totally okay, because the perpetrator is a woman.

I’ve written previously—and perhaps most overtly here—that female-on-female abuse seems to get brushed off way more than it should be. It’s cute when a girl grabs another girl’s boobs, even when that other girl is noticeably and visibly unhappy. It’s adorable when a girl forces a kiss on another girl. Charming. Sweet. If you have a problem with it, you’re a homophobe.

And I think that’s so, so damaging. I wish I had some statistics (oh anon hounding me about facts, if you’re here), but I recall reading about how this mindset—this idea that girls just can’t hurt other girls—ends up keeping wlw in abusive, toxic relationships. And that’s not even mentioning how the notion that women are harmless and can’t do damage is a totally sexist one that hurts men and other genders, too!

With Ragyo, I actually think there’s a lot of powerful potential. Kill la Kill could have shown that there’s nothing sweet or cute or charming or sexy about female-on-female abuse. It could have shown that a mother sexually abusing her daughters is just as horrific as a father sexually abusing his daughters. Both good representation and bad representation are important, and I do see the value in an evil, awful lesbian; as noted above, the idea that girls can’t hurt other girls, that wlw can’t be bad, and that only men can cause harm is a dangerous mindset to have. I think it’s important to address it, particularly in anime, which attracts younger viewers.

In the past, I argued that Kill la Kill did address it. I wrote, “These scenes [depicting Ragyo’s abuses] are full of what may be typically used as fanservice—female nudity, fondling, touching—but they’re all incredibly disturbing, uncomfortable, painful, and tragic. The series makes no joke about just how violating these instances are.” I’ve seen similar arguments made today. 

But personally, now knowing more about the creation of Ragyo and being aware of the gushy, “Wow, this is so hot!”-type comments concerning the notorious bath scene in the official Trigger Magazine, I’ve since changed my tune. I think it’s undeniable that there is some “this isn’t so bad and maybe actually kinda sexy” appeal to Ragyo’s abuses, and that’s very, very disappointing to me. 

Further, being a survivor, I also find it incredibly hurtful. I’ve been too traumatized to even date ever since what happened to me happened, and to see situations like what I went through depicted in such explicit, detailed, fanservice-y ways... it disturbs me.

I understand that my opinion isn’t going to be shared by everyone, but I’ve come to believe in a “less is more” approach when it comes to these hard, real situations. Implication arguably holds far more power. For example, in all of my college film classes, Osama left one of the strongest impressions. In it, a young girl dresses as a boy to provide for her family. She’s eventually found out when she has her first period, and she’s then married off to a much older man. The ending scene of the film depicts the man washing himself just as the girl, in disguise as a boy, had been taught to do after having sex. Unlike in Kill la Kill, you don’t see the unspeakable scene at all. You know exactly what happened with just that one shot, and that one shot has stuck with me ever since. That’s a powerful, respectful way of portraying these very real, very horrific problems.

I know I cannot speak for every survivor, but I personally disagree with the notion that fiction should not discuss these topics. In my mind, fiction absolutely should because these things are real, because they happen. There could have been so much power in Ragyo’s depiction, in Satsuki’s depiction, in Ryuko’s. But the severity of Ragyo’s abuses is brushed off, and, as I see it, fetishized. That’s what I take issue with—not that there’s a potential evil lesbian, not that there’s a depiction of a mother abusing her daughters, but how this is depicted: not respectfully.

Referring more to my troublesome posts, I also want to address my point of how girls showing affection for other girls is often portrayed negatively in Kill la Kill, which could potentially send the message, “Hey, lesbians just be evilz.” Perhaps more than anything else, this hurt my readers the most. I wasn’t very clear and didn’t speak well, and I apologize.

Maybe surprisingly, I’ve also taken issue with the argument that Ryuko kissing Nui shows that a girl having an attraction towards another girl is bad. As I saw it, the kiss was simply a shocking way of showing that Ryuko is not at all herself; someone kissing the person they hate the most says more than words ever could. The scene isn’t an attack on wlw; the protagonist and the villain in this case just so happen to both be girls.

And I still believe this rebuttal. But I also have mixed feelings, which explains my previous responses. I once more have to question intentionality: if Ryuko were a boy, as shonen heroes so often are, would this scene have happened? Would Nui have been so flirty with him? Would there have been so much screen time and detail put into the kiss? Similar to my arguments about Ragyo, could there have been a potentially much more powerful scene whose power comes from its implications, not what it actually shows?

In all my years in the Kill la Kill fandom, I’ve seen reactions to that scene that find it hot, as “proving” that Ryuko/Nui is the only canon Kill la Kill pairing, and that see it in ways that I find to be unsavory. If the goal of that kiss is to cement the fact that Ryuko isn’t herself in the most shocking way possible, I could argue that it failed for a lot of viewers. In fact, one of my more looked-at posts is about why Ryuko kisses Nui. Its execution is confusing, and yes, I do believe it could potentially send some bad messages about wlw, even if that wasn’t intended.

Which, to bring this discussion back towards Ragyo, I want to take a moment to say that bad messages can be totally unintentional. As a writer myself, I think about potential bad unintentional messages all the time. For instance, in my aforementioned fairytale AU, I had a theme going (’cause it’s a fairytale and all): a healthy, beautiful baby is good, a healthy, ugly baby is bad, and an unhealthy, beautiful baby is good. Notice how there’s only one ugly baby, and they’re bad? I realized that this could subtly say something about ugly people, and I’ve decided to make a point about a heroic character being ugly in order to send the message that anyone can be good or bad, regardless of if they’re beautiful or ugly, healthy or unhealthy.

With Ragyo (and with Nui as well), I don’t at all think the intention is to show that girls loving other girls is wrong and bad. But the depiction, to me, leaves things to be desired. A lot of it feels fetishy, and the fact that Ragyo was purposely changed to a woman for “gross” concerns also greatly irks me.

And before I try to write up a conclusion of sorts, I do want to offer this: what if Ragyo stayed a man, but he was associated with white and rainbows as Ragyo is in the final cut? It was stated at this year’s Anime Expo that director Hiroyuki Imaishi has his heroic characters in black and villainous characters in white, which could possibly send messages like Darkness Isn’t Bad and the real villains are the ones who are perverting the purity, goodness, and so on that are associated with white. In the same way, if Ragyo were a man who seemed straight but had rainbow hair, it could send the message that the real villain is the one perverting this symbol of love and acceptance.

I don’t know. Just some food for thought.

Conclusion

I am bad at talking about Ragyo. I am bad at talking about serious topics. I’m sure this post proves as much.

But I hope I’ve done a better job of explaining my point of view than I did before. But if I didn’t—which, knowing me, is likely—I just want everyone to know that I don’t think you’re a reprehensible person if you like Ragyo. I don’t think Ragyo is “too evil” to be representation. I don’t think she’s some terrible, awful character whom nobody can love. (At least, in regards to the writing. I hope there’s agreement that she’s a terrible, awful person.)

While I have problems with Ragyo’s depiction, I don’t think anyone is horrible and wrong if they don’t and resonate with it. I know I certainly like things that others find horrible and wrong, like the Ryuko/Senketsu pairing that I’ve been attacked left and right for, and I more than recognize and voice my own problems with it whilst still loving what I love (and politely disagreeing with the problems that others see that I don’t!)

I know I’m not good at this. But I hope I’ve conveyed my thoughts respectfully, and that, even if you strongly disagree, you know I welcome and am open to your thoughts and perspective, if you would like to share. That’s why I write these posts at all.

#kill la kill #ragyo kiryuin #analysis #ragyo discourse #ramblings #serious talk #the discourse #abuse mention #i'm sorry if this is awful i just got it confirmed that i do have adhd and hyper-focused on this even though i shouldn't have #and i haven't eaten all day 'cause i've been dying to finish this and i've spent several hours on it and... i'm trying #i'm sorry but i really really am trying

[booksbookandmorebooks]

Insatiable Netflix Review

So as you probably know recently insatiable season two has dropped on Netflix, and after a strange and rather abrupt ending to season one I was very apprehensive, but due to the fact I absolutely love Debby Ryan who plays the main character I thought why not give it ago.

As I expected, this show in the first season was gradually developing into something a little over the top but instead of it taking the pretentious road and pretending it was a high calibre show it has become very very self-aware. The mixture of self-aware humour and dark cheese surprisingly seems to work. While watching it I could help but be reminded of the golden age of TV, The pushing daisies, Ugly Betty time. Those over the top and comically dark vibes which I adored as a teenager. over all just a lot nonsensical fun. It’s a very easy watch if you’re looking for something as a distraction with oddly likeable and straight up ridiculous characters and plots.

One of my favourite things about this show is that In real life the amount of mistakes we see patty make when hiding a variety of bodies after her seemingly and arguably ‘’accidental’’ run ins with, well murder, is very unbelievable and I couldn’t help but laugh as any rookie cop would be able to find a mountain of evidence against her. Which is a private and hilarious point in season two as we see a police officer tasked with protecting patty and the pageant contestants and consistently see him failing over and over again, as he is shown to be one of the most incompetent police officers ive ever seen in a show. The number of silly situations and reactions we see while watching him more evidence that this show was become extremely self-aware.

Warning:

My one warning would be that you cannot, if you are planning on watching this show go into it with a serious expectation because that will result in a very disappointing experience. I am very much into my crime shows and documentaries whether it’s a fictional thriller or true crime but I was able to take this for what it is, silly and fun. Not every show that includes this type of content and topic has to be serious and Gorey. A prime example of why the show is similar to pretty little liars for example. This mindset was why I was able to really enjoy this and laugh at the show. When you accept this, you end up enjoying the ludicrousness of the show in spite of its screaming and laughable plot holes.

Now usually when I have watched a show, I really like I tend to do a little research in what other people thought and their views on it, and I could not believe the amount of people who disliked and trashed this show. I was genuinely surprised. But more than that, I was surprised at the straws some critics were picking at.

Amongst some of the silliest the one that really irritated me was the claims that this show mocks and poke fun at eating disorders. Now, on the offset I can understand that view but the more you look into the interactions and situations depicted in both season one and two the more and the more you pay attention to the smaller things, the expressions, the pain that the characters are showing, I can’t help but defend the show. Realistically I don’t think this subject could have been handled without a little push back from some people, because it depends on how people perceive something that is so personally to each of us struggling with this issue. It’s a very complex thing and everyone’s experiences and views are different which of course will lead to some backlash.

But this show manages to depict it perfectly for me, this was the first show I watched that was based around eating disorders where I felt genuinely recognised and given a voice. There are so many situations I saw shown that I have experienced personally, and while it was hard to watch it was handled so delicately and so accurately, I fell in love. it manages to deliver a strong message but instead of scaring people and ramming the subject down people’s throats which I feel a lot of productions do now, and use this idea to create a scandal , it shows a difficult subject in a more light hearted manner but still managers to get it message across clearly and delicately. Season two then ends up dealing with the struggle of accepting and getting help with problems to do with food and self-acceptance, it shows the stress and break down of all different kinds of relationships, it shows the harsh reality of people refusing to admit when they need help and while as I said can be a hard thing to show, it mixes this with the cheese that we all love to land their points effectively but with a softer landing.  It gives you a raw look at something so many people are either personally effected by or know someone effected by it without showing anything gratuitous or overly uncomfortable, not to mention I feel, bringing awareness to another eating disorder that I feel is not as talked about as it should be which is over eating and self-punishment to do with food and any show that takes a subject like that on and brings awareness is a success to me which is why I feel so strongly about this show and stand behind it.

Trigger warning this show depicts eating disorders and as i stated above, a lot of the struggles dealing with this. So please, be careful.

#DebbyRyan #Insatiable #Netflix

[dracaesanguinem]

My views and opinions on s08e04 (part 1)

I'm going to try to address this with the utmost care and respect for everyone... 

Please have in mind that my views toward the characters in the show don't affect my views of the writers on this website. This is just my opinion, which I am entitled to, just like you are entitled to yours. I am not going to back away from my opinions, I'm going to own up them and if you have a problem with that, my biggest and best suggestion is that you either decide to discuss it in a CIVIL MANNER or back away. I don't want to fight anyone. I am open, however, to civil conversation and a sharing of thoughts.  I'm not going to address every single thing I disliked about this episode and current show!canon, otherwise we'd have to sit through Berry writing a novel and, probably, the re-write the script of this entire season. 

First off, I wanted to address the decisions made for Daenery's character (given she's the one who is being portrayed on my blog), how she’s being written and, finally, my views on the topic.

There were moments in this episode where I felt very sad, very disturbed and very angry for the things that I saw Dany go through. You could say I feel empathy with her experiences and the way she reacted to them. Not in a specific order of occurrences, but: we saw Dany feel threatened that the cause she might be fighting for all her life might be in vain, we saw Dany fight Viserion last episode, we saw her oldest friend being killed and dying in her arms, we saw her bury and mourn him along with a big majority of her army, we saw her lose her khalasar almost completely, we saw her isolated in a feast and not eating, we saw her feeling down-treated or completely disregarded when she did the same things Jon did (the one mentioned: 'who rides a dragon and goes to war' or something on those lines), not given the respect she deserved and feeling absolutely desperate. Later, we see her being betrayed, doubted and, lastly, we see her witnessing the cruel murder of her best friend in cold blood.

It doesn't anger me that she went through all of this, that is where I am sad, but it's part of her character's development arc — though I feel like it's a badly written one, still. What angers me (among other things in the episode) is people treating her consequent reaction as 'madness'. I am sick and tired of the entire 'mad queen' trope and the expression alone as well.

One of the many things that happened during my hiatus was the start of new cycle treatment to my mental health. I have addressed this very faintly in my blog, but I was diagnosed with a disorder, though that is not what I want to delve into right now. A lot of the things I constantly experience, fear, being them reasonable or moments of paranoia and mania, are very similar to those Dany seemed to show throughout this episode — and things she's shown frequently throughout the series. We see her reaching the point of begging Jon not to disclose his identity, which I was  a little shocked by, and acting on impulsiveness once more even though her armies did need rest, as Sansa pointed out.

The entire trope, however, of the so called 'mad queen' is being played in this show in a rather disgusting way, however. It's yet another show portraying, what might well be something else, as a case of female hysteria, which has been perpetuated in fiction and, consequently, real life. This is not the same sort of 'madness' / disorder we see, or rather know, was manifested in Aerys — where Aerys grew paranoid and unstable throughout his years, Daenerys actually is shown to be betrayed in this episode and has clear reactions to the things that are happening around her — concrete things that are happening, not just paranoia.  What Varys is doing, conspiring behind her back while being her adviser, IS TREASON. That is betrayal. And I think the next episode will show her deal with that in the manners that, most will feel uncomfortable, but are not going to be uncommon for rulers in the medieval ages — aka the exact same way she said she would deal with him in the case he betrayed her, which he already has. 

Bottom line: the show is portraying Dany going in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with due to the bad representation that it's being given. It shows the misogynistic way these writers deal with their female characters (and not just Dany, will touch on that in the other post), which I think that it will only get worse with the continuation of these episodes and, if leaks are true, I do believe it will completely reach a proportion that I will no longer be comfortable to portray; and also a very ugly depiction of what they continuously refer to as ‘madness’, when these are the reactions of someone who is constantly losing everything and has to witnessed horrible things happen to her. 

#/ episode spoilers #/ got spoilers #/ mental illness cw #/ mental health cw #/ long post tw #/ long post for ts #( out of character ) | ᴏɴ ᴡɪɴɢs ᴏғ sᴏɴɢ ɪ ғʟʏ ; #long post #anti got

[hisband]

warning for the gor.illaz rpc & for the rpc in general.

as a lot of you probably know by now, i seldom get involved in callout posts unless the person in question appears to be a legitimate threat to the safety of others. but it has come to my attention that this particular individual does, in fact, appear to be genuinely harmful, deliberately so or not. this person is 666-MUR/DOC. below is evidence that has been gathered of the previously mentioned harmful behaviour.

major trigger warning below for ableism, erasure, transphobia / transphobic slurs, racism / interracial relationship fetishization, abuse / abuse fetishization, mentions of rape / rape fetishization and mentions of incest / incest fetishization.

at first glance, their rules seem reasonable enough. this person states that they will not force their partners into writing content they are uncomfortable with, that they respect boundaries, that they are not going to be writing with minors, etc. but then you keep clicking through the blog and look at the sort of content they’re interested in pursuing, and actively admit to be interested in pursuing...

...which, again, seems reasonable enough at first, right? nothing wrong with two consenting adults shipping or writing nsfw of adult characters. but then you look into what kind of smut and shipping they like to do and it’s, quite frankly, fucking deplorable. their “fetish list” can be found here. (in case any links get taken down, i have a dropbox with the evidence here, along with some of the other links and screencaps mentioned in this post.) please proceed with caution before you click on it. it’s very heavily triggering and incredibly gross. to spare those who don’t want to suffer through that experience, and to save time, i will be highlighting the most worrying items on that list - and believe me, there are a lot of those.

the topic of the 2.D/mur.doc ship is extremely touchy at best. the two share a toxic relationship, canonically, and a highly abusive one. i understand those who use this ship to cope, or those who portray the ship while fully acknowledging how problematic it is and treating it as an abusive relationship. while i can see that this writer is aware how abusive the relationship is, the impression i’m getting is that legitimate sexual pleasure is derived from the way mur.doc treats 2.D. i can’t say for absolute certain, but things like this art piece (major trigger warning for implications of sadism & abuse), along with these “kinks” below strongly suggest as much:

keep in mind that 2.D is someone who canonically suffers from brain trauma and struggles with his cognitive functions, and this is listed as a kink. very concerning. unfortunately, the list keeps going on.

there’s no such thing as “dubious consent”. there is yes and there is no. “dubious consent” is literal rape. other “kinks” saved under their “favourites” section is the following:

items under the “likes” section include:

...incest. listed as a kink. i hope i don’t need to explain why this is incredibly fucking bad.

while i am not a POC myself, i really don’t like the implications of interracial relationships being on a literal fetish list, nor do i like the fact that amputees (you know... living, breathing people) are also listed as a fetish.

also on the “likes” section of the list includes:

“nonconsensual”... again, that’s literal fucking rape. as for their “maybe” section, the following can be found:

way to be vile and transphobic.

and as you can see, nonbinary people are listed as “potential fetish material” as well.

this individual does have a disclaimer:

however, even if they use the excuse “it’s the character’s fetishes, not mine”, “this is fiction”, etc, then that just means they’re willing to use a fictional sexual abuse / trauma survivor’s visage (and yes, these are canon elements of the character; mur.doc’s traumatic upbringing has been brought up repeatedly by the canon gor.illaz writers, and there have been numerous canonical references to mur.doc being a rape survivor as well) to explore incredibly triggering topics in a very exploitative and harmful manner. this person is the one who made the decision to apply these traits to mur.doc’s character, for no other reason than the fact they wanted to. this person is still responsible for making their willingness to write this shit in a fetishistic nature known; if a person writes fetishized abuse, they are still writing fetishized abuse whether it’s them getting off on it or “just the character” getting off on it. they are still actively making the choice to put that content out there, to encourage it in some way, and to publicly broadcast themselves as someone who will collaboratively write it with someone else. they can slap mur.doc’s name over it all they want, but never once did his creators claim, nor did they have him claim, that these are things that he would do. this person expressing desire to write triggering, controversial material in a fetishistic manner was their own decision, and therefore they don’t get to hide behind the “it’s fictional” argument. they are the one made that list. they are the one who compiled that list. they’re just using a cartoon character’s face for it.

a couple other important points i want to make:

1) i find it interesting that they deny getting a thrill out of writing this type of content, yet made that earlier statement saying they “love writing that shit” in their rules page. even if they’re only doing this for a cheap laugh or pure entertainment as opposed to sexual gratification, it’s not funny, nor is it in good taste whatsoever.

2) what’s up with these being in their headcanon section:

...they do realize that the traits they just described mur.doc having (abandonment issues, unhealthy sexual tendencies, obsessive tendencies) are literal symptoms of mental illness, right? since when does having mental illness make anyone a “cinnamon bun”? just what are they implying here? and if people want to headcanon mur.doc as someone who is autistic or has tourettes, why is that such a bad thing? who is that hurting, exactly, and why are they so opposed to it to the point where they feel compelled to make a statement like that on their blog?

this goes way beyond just “alternate character interpretation”. this doesn’t have anything to do with the fact they write the same character as i do, nor is the fact that they’re depicting mur.doc in a negative light - because mur.doc has done evil, despicable things in canon, and those aspects of him should be portrayed in a way that lets the audience know that he is in the wrong. he is manipulative. he is horribly abusive towards 2.D and has mistreated countless other characters as well. he is prone to causing violence and mayhem. he has kidnapped people. there is no sugarcoating these traits, or making light of them, and you shouldn’t sugarcoat or make light of them. but you also should not be open to writing said traits in a fetishistic manner, nor any other of the topics mentioned in this post in a fetishistic manner, period, regardless of whether or not they’re “your” views or your character’s views. whether you mean to or not, you’re still making these things look idealized. that’s incredibly damaging on so many levels.

that being said - while the material presented is extremely concerning, this post does not encourage hate being sent to this person, nor is it is encouraging those who read it to even approach this person. this post is not telling you how to feel about this person or the circumstances. all i’m trying to do is warn those who may be negatively affected by this individual’s behaviour and the depiction of which they approach triggering topics to be very careful, and to do what they need to do in order to avoid them (i.e. blocking, unfollowing, blacklisting, etc).

ignore or disagree with this post if you wish. reblog this post if you wish. all i ask is that the situation does not turn into a full-blown war. that is not what i want and not why i made this post. just read what i’m saying objectively and come to your own conclusions about this information. do what you want with it. just be careful, above all else.

#⇩ ▬ sᴜɴsʜɪɴᴇ ɪɴ ᴀ ʙᴀɢ ( ooc. ) #callout / #negative / #drama / #ableism / #racism / #incest mention / #abuse fetishization / #abuse mention / #i'm sorry for making a post like this #but i couldn't keep quiet about it #especially if there was a risk of letting things get out of control #people deserve to know what this person has said they're willing to write & the manner of which they're going to write it #and whether or not they want to avoid this person is their decision

[vroenis]

Art Created For Mood

I was watching a YouTuber I really like playing a game I really don’t like but from a developer that I also don’t like who does a thing I actually really like. That’s an opening and a half, but bear with me.

I don’t know if this book is good or not, but it’s here for the puns, and so am I. So is Max Kornell, it appears. I sure hope he’s an alright guy cos his children’s book is on my tumblr for a visual gag now.

It doesn’t matter what the game was, and it so happens it was DLC - some of you will be able to figure out what it was once I describe it, but very early on in the gameplay minutes of proceedings, the developers have the player-protagonist/avatar and your companion-of-the-moment engage in messing about in an old, abandoned fancy-dress store, picking up costumes and masks and larking about. I appreciate the YouTuber in question may have been partially or wholly playing up to the streaming audience ever-present at the time when they impatiently remarked “is this all we’re going to do” and “when do we get to actually play the game” etc., “when does the game start?” and so on, but as you may remember in my commentary on the Uncharted games a while back, interactions like these to someone like me are most often the most important - and now there’s no question what the game is if you haven’t figured it out already. As a side-note, I think the problem in this particular instance is one of pacing, and cold-opening the DLC with a scene like this may have been the issue. Video game pacing is tricky, tho, so it’s difficult to consider whether most players would be playing this content months after having experienced the main game, or whether the majority of players will be those who will have purchased it fresh on the newest generation of hardware, given the title actually launched a whole console iteration ago. Assuming that might be the case, the pacing experience might be entirely different, but I’m getting side-tracked.

I can’t account for what the YouTuber/Streamer was thinking and I don’t want to throw any shade and suggest they may have been performing for their audience - even if they were, it’s still fine - Streaming is performance, I feel like that much should be clearly evident. It’s not important to me where the truth lies within that individual. What the exterior performance telegraphs tho, is perhaps a misunderstanding of what the purpose of a scene like that is. I realise that in games that feature frequent occurrences of brutal violence, tension, excitement and anxiety, scenes of levity and peacefulness offer reprieve and introspection. They’re effective because of context and their rarity lends them power.

I’m still here to say a whole game of those kinds of things can still be powerful, you just have to be intelligent about the context. Reframing maturity to mean something other than violence takes real intelligence. It makes me question just how many actual adults we have developing video games. No, I don’t hate to bring it up again, but you need to play Kentucky Route Zero, Howling Dogs and a myriad of other Twine games and many other games created in queer spaces to perhaps broaden your understanding of what adults create when they don’t look to violence as a banner for maturity.

Naturally I’m going to turn to the most cliched of mediums; film.

For which I won’t apologise. That’s a frame from the montage in the middle of Mamoru Oshii’s 1995 movie Kōkaku Kidōtai - Ghost In The Shell, based on Masamune Shirow’s manga of the same name. I’d like to say that frame or the set of frames it’s taken from is one of my favourites from the film, because it is, but to be honest, the entirety of the three and a half minute montage is absolute perfection and every frame is equally important. It encapsulates the essence of the film without a single line of dialogue by playing a haunting piece of music expertly crafted by Kenji Kawai and showing seemingly disjointed images of the city in which the film is set. The film’s protagonist does appear in several shots, and some frames exhibit the city in decay, but some are completely urbane and simply show life in ordinary existence. Without discussing the main text of the film further, suffice to say it is the perfect frame for the subject of the narrative without stating it.

Before I embed the Ghost In The Shell montage, however, I want to share one Oshii created 2 years before it in Patlabor 2: The Movie. Let’s watch that one together, and even if you’ve not seen the film yourself, note in particular how topical the images are today, if you’re reading this some time around July 2020.

For those who’ve not seen the film, I highly recommend it. It’s not necessary to have seen either the series or the first Patlabor movie. It may help a little to watch the first film, mostly just to familiarise yourself with characters and terminology, but it’s not a necessity. The first film is much more comedic and while the second still has its funny moments, as evidenced in this montage, it takes a much more dramatic and sombre turn. Various domestic terrorist and military activities cause a declaration of martial law in Tokyo at roughly the mid-point of the film at which point this montage appears. The depictions of the citizenry, their interaction with the military and vice-versa are particularly interesting, and the film’s commentary as a whole is fascinating. That this has for the most part been lovingly and agonisingly rendered by hand in stunning animation detail is amazing.

Feelings are wonderful, weird, oddly shaped things. We use a lot of words in our lives, pragmatically to communicate, to instruct, to describe and tell stories. Funnily enough, when I was deeply entrenched in video games culture doing podcasts, playing a lot of games and writing a lot more about game studies etc., there was a lot of writing about the place about game verbs and it’s a great synthesis of design - a tool for describing the most simple actions in a game; move, jump, shoot, collect, talk, choose etc. In my introductory example, there are still a lot of verbs in play, like move, but the one most absent is of-course shoot, and the one that comes to the fore is talk. I feel like the scene at the beginning of that DLC is wholly intended to create a sense of atmosphere, to evoke certain feelings. Is it there to set the scene for context later on? Maybe. Is it for reprieve from violence? Also possible. But perhaps it’s just there to be relished, to be indulged. Maybe it’s OK to just be there to be felt, because feeling it is good, or even just feeling it is feeling something. Maybe it doesn’t have to be good, it’s just a different feeling to the way we feel when we’re reading an action feedback-loop where we’re engaged in move/shoot/wait/don’t die/melee/die-reload-repeat.

It’s hard for me to separate these montages from the films they come from. I want to say they’re powerful outside of the films, but I’ve seen those films so my viewings and re-viewings of them are loaded with my memories of the entire work; I have the full context. Tempted as I am to embed the montage from Ghost In The Shell 2: Innocence, I think that would be spoiling you too much, plus the film in its entirety really warrants a full viewing. Kenji Kawai’s music in the second film along deserves maximum volume and your time uninterrupted, so I won’t demean it with a tiny little window and a wall of text. I promised you the montage from the first GitS movie, so here it is, at three and a half minutes.

I’m using the word feel quite a lot in this entry and it’s intentional. In recent times, we seem to be de-emphasising our feelings somewhat and I’m all for some semblance of rationality and logic but emotions are important. Feelings are amazing - all of them. The ones that are good, the ones that are uncomfortable, the ones that are uncontrollable. I guess some folks try to talk about understanding feelings and there’s a little truth in that but I don’t think it’s something we can ever fully get a complete hold of, nor should we. I’m not here to attempt to provide you guidance on that, I think if you’re reading this, you’re well capable of gauging for yourself what the impact is of your emotions to your life and what you may need to do about it. Don’t read an implication that I mean to diminish their impact, either - you may well need to amplify their impact, I think a lot of people don’t consider that - now more than ever, but again, I wouldn’t know. You would. Only you do.

Anyway - I feel like a lot of art and moments in art, or sections of art, are being misinterpreted or criticised because people aren’t open to the intent. Again I come back to the example in the opening to this entry. Assuming on good faith that the YouTuber’s/Streamer’s behaviour was genuine, their reading of the activity in the game was that it was somehow not game, and that until there was either shooting or puzzling or adventuring of some kind, that those things would be actually game or real gameplay does that scene and activity a disservice. Of-course, maybe they just straight-up didn’t like it which is fair. I accept that, I guess - but I don’t like it.

It still bothers me tho. Even tho I really don’t like that game, I understand that the point of it is to ground the narrative in very human roots, in emotional engagement so that the character has something to celebrate, to cherish fondly, or even perhaps to regret or look back on with bitterness or anger. Regardless - even if it doesn’t have a payoff in the future, I still feel like it’s important as a representation of human behaviour in a game in which human avatars are depicted. The images on screen within that video game are for the most part not abstract. The themes shown and the narrative woven about their journey, their motivations, the justifications for their actions and the moralising therein within the fictional framework of the universe are all extremely human and intended to be analogous to the real human experience. 

That being the case, on that assumption, I’m surprised and even more disappointed that there aren’t more non-violent indulgences of peaceful human interactions on offer in these games.

People’s tastes in films, I guess, has been quite monolithic for some time. I mean, I’ve always had the throw-away semi-casual assumption of such but I didn’t think it was a real thing. I appreciate I’m into some fringe stuff and I don’t expect most people to get into the super-weird films, but that folks would be so narrow? Like... so narrow. I’ve said it before, I’m well accustomed to the art I’m into being heavily criticised by most people, but even the more approachable material I’m into, people seem to either struggle to digest or still regard as boring because it doesn’t register on some level of excitement that scales on a weird, reductive verb-o-meter not dissimilar to video games designed with the fewest of verbs; move, shoot and collect. Sometimes a film isn’t necessarily about what’s literally happening on the screen, or strictly about the narrative playing out. Sometimes art is about how you feel when you experience it - we’ve quite literally been describing art, in particular music, as mood pieces for years, and for quite some time now, video games. 

In film, David Lynch is a master at it to name only one, and there are a ton of others. You don’t have to immediately have to be able to process his narratives, your first concern is to how you feel when you view his films. The pragmatics can - and often do - come later. Once you familiarise yourself with his cinematic language of emotional tone and atmosphere, you may find that his narratives are actually quite simple and they quite easily make sense - they’re artfully told and are injected with immense feeling because they’re told in such unique and emotional ways.

How do you go about choosing a frame from David Lynch’s Mulholland Dr.?

I tend not to discuss general release films much - I don’t have any particular distaste for them at all, I’ve mentioned that I have a great appreciation for them but if there’s any way I can speak to the emotional responses I have to them, it’s that in a broader sense, most of my responses are more or less the same. That’s why I don’t really talk about them. Their impact to me and how I engage with art in my life is minimal. That doesn’t mean I don’t think they’re important in the world culturally or that I discount their cultural importance to others - not at all. If they’re important to you, then that’s wonderful and amazing and you should celebrate them. Nevertheless, there’s also a place for independent cinema and art and creating things that don’t directly speak to the most transparent of feelings. I understand that the audience is smaller and the financial availability is going to have to be smaller - that’s OK, but mood pieces are special and amazing and weird and sometimes indescribable and maybe you should give them a try because they can make you feel real strange and sometimes strange feelings can be powerful too.

Once in a while, some folks do make something that is super approachable and bridges that magical gap between indescribable emotion and mood, and audiences that need the most gentle of entry-points. I think Thatgamecompany’s video game Journey has to be one of the best examples of a work that transcends and overcomes a lot of barriers by removing so many obstacles not only typical of video games but art in general. It’s a truly gorgeous experience, and one that is uniquely evocative not only for its own but any medium.

While I’m sure there where throngs of mouth-breathers who flocked to reddit et al to decry Journey as NOTAGAME™, there were plenty of people who found themselves disarmed by its approach to play, playfulness, narrative and emotion. While you can watch a full play-thru video of the game, once-again I do encourage you to actually play the game itself altho so far from its release, there may be a critical component of the experience missing. A minor spoiler; central to the game is a sense of connection and yet separation. Lead designer Jenova Chen at the time was dismayed by online gaming behaviour and that engagement between players was so so toxic - it remains so today. He wanted a way for players to connect but not be able to be harmful and hateful to one another. The game will actually pair players together via online services, but there is no VOIP or text communication utility at all, nor can you see the username of whom you’re liked to. There is almost no way to communicate, save for a single button that will emit a musical note and an abstract symbol above your character’s head - that’s it. Beyond that, you may freely move about the world together, choosing to follow one-another or separate and ignore each other. That is the extent of interaction, and when the game launched in 2012, we discovered this together as a community - it was amazing and breathtaking, especially as the whole experience unfolded.

If Jenova Chen and his team at Thatgamecompany can teach people who usually shoot heads that moods can be engaged in and enjoyed with Journey, I feel like people have the ability to identify all forms of art that does the same. Art that deviates from the usual MO of fulfilling our usual roster of base needs. I’m not denigrating mass-market art by describing base needs -  not at all. Base needs are hella important, but if the violence in The Last of Us gives the reprieve of giraffes context, surely the base needs of mass-market art does the same for mood pieces?

This is a frame from Exit (2011) directed by Marek Polgar and you should 100% find it and watch it.

These are some of the more fringe works I’m into, if you’re particularly daring. I’ve no doubt that someone will find them pedestrian and that’s fine. At some point, tho, people have to be able to either go to a shop a buy it, or at least find it online somewhere, so I’m sure the video your mate from uni made is the highest of couture art, but if no-one other than you and ten friends have seen it, it legit doesn’t count ay.

By the way - these are all listed in Film Notes, but I’ll lazylink their IMDB pages here so you can see how bad their audience scores are.

Tokyo.Sora (come-on, it’s my favourite film of all time) Exit (OK so as much as I was being facetious just before, this is going to be difficult to track down, but worth it if you can) Womb (CW: incest) The Sky Crawlers (my favourite of Mamoru Oshii’s) The Limits Of Control To The Wonder (I know - Malick, but I feel like if you’re going to try one, try this - shorter, more intimate, less abstract - I find it’s his most tender) Holy Motors (be thankful I’m linking Carax and not Noé/Void or Climax)

#2020 #chrono #film #writing about film #ghost in the shell #art created for mood #patlabor #patlabor 2 #patlabor the movie #patlabor 2 the movie #mamoru oshii #anime #anime movies #writing about video games #video games #david lynch #thatgamecompany #journey game #journey playstation

[wolven0ne-universe]

On Writing Fiction: The Smell Test

I once heard a self-proclaimed storytelling expert say that you could do anything you want in a story, so long as it's creative. Well, I am here to tell you all that that isn’t wholly true.

The problem with this is that no matter how much you like an idea if it doesn’t seem plausible to your audience, it WILL break the suspension of disbelief. This is important for one very simple reason. Without that willful suspension, readers will notice every mistake you make, every inaccuracy and inconsistency. Everybody makes those mistakes when writing a story. There’s no such thing as a writer whose attention to detail is so great that they can avoid every plot hole or inaccuracy. But, when people are suspending their disbelief, they’ll overlook these things in favor of being engrossed in your tale. This, of course, begs the question, how do you convince your readers to ignore your flaws and maintain their disbelief. This is where the smell-test comes in. For purposes of demonstration, I’ll throw out some examples of writing decisions that wouldn’t pass the smell test, and then show you ways to fix them.

Say you’re reading a story about fantasy Viking’s, and one of the characters states that they’re a vegetarian and objects to how everyone eats meat. This is something that wouldn’t pass the smell test for most people. Generally, most readers realize that behavior like that doesn’t really fit the era or setting being depicted. So it comes across as the writer making a statement, and that’s very immersion breaking.

If you really wanted to make that statement though, you could have one character being visibly uncomfortable with the idea, while lamenting it’s necessity. That gets the message across while fitting that sort of setting. Let's take another fantasy setting that’s very Tolkienesque. This setting has very few big cities, most the cultures appear to be built around hunting or agriculture, and are overall fairly primitive compared to what we’re used to. Then, in this setting, posit that your character’s an Other. Something that would mark them as being extremely unusual by the standards of the culture of this world. Say, they’re a foreigner, mixed race, an odd skin color, are homosexual or whatever. But, utterly nobody cares about this, at all. (Note: it pained me to make this example because I hate touching on controversial topics. However, it’s a good world building exercise so please bear with me for just a moment.) Now, in that sort of setting you could definitely do that, but it might seem odd if nobody in that world had a problem with it. After all, we do have our own history as an example here, and pre-industrial revolution Europe wasn’t exactly very tolerant. So, how do you write a fantasy story like this, if you want your character to be a societal other, but don’t want them to be a complete and utter outcast? Well, you could either have some people indeed have an issue with it to a less severe degree, and have this character overcome that adversity. Or, you could pick a setting where this sort of thing wouldn’t be as unusual. (Personally, if it was me I’d go with a combination of the two.) For example, instead of fantasy Tolkien land, how about fantasy Rome, or maybe a fantasy version of Victorian-era England? While the later may not be the best example of a tolerant society, readers generally have an easier time accepting non-brutish behavior in a richer more prosperous culture. That may not be fair, but that’s generally how people think in my experience. Better yet, these are two settings that aren’t actually used all that often. That presents its own set of storytelling opportunities for you to explore.  How would a fantasy style Rome deal with things like supernatural monsters roaming about? How would elves and dragons and all that fit into a country that’s in the earliest stages of industrialization? Would the presence of magic and monsters change naval warfare Change how combat was done? Questions like these are a whole lot more interesting from a world-building point of view. And they wouldn’t have even been asked unless the hypothetical person creating it hadn’t wondered if there was a setting that would make more sense for the story they’d like to tell. So in short, yeah you can ultimately put anything you want into your story. But, if you want it to be really good you’ll take the time and work through questions like these. Better yet, find somebody you trust and bounce your world building ideas off them, as well. Asking questions and working through the implications is all well and good. But, it pays to get an outside perspective from time to time as well.

#story telling #world building #the small test #fair warning #if people object to my examples I may delete this later. #Suffice to say #I really don't want to get into any heated discourse #I actually held off on writing this for a week for this reason #that example of mine has simply been on my mind lately #so it was hard for me to ignore it

[kashif1550]

Post 3 - Multicultural America

1.What is the subject of your film, program, or internet/social media selection? Provide a brief summary, describing your selection and how it relates to our course topics, readings, and screenings.

For the site I picked, I used the root dot com because I wanted to find a way to discuss white-passing and also how it’s changing. Initially, I was going to do that by introducing the 1950s movie, Imitation of Life, for my post about films. Both the remake and original, though, give off a white person’s narration of what it’s like to be a white-passing individual, similar to how Gone with the wind is a white supremacist view of how slavery in the south was like. 

(The way the slaves were depicted is far from reality, making it uncomfortable to watch at times when they portray the mammy character.)

In short, it sugar-coats the trauma, glossing over the true pains that black people faced when navigating their world—and for that reason, I avoided it. 

Before I dive into the article about white passing, let us review what “passing” is first. Passing can be used in more ways than just race. For someone to pass, it means to be perceived as something they aren’t. When it comes to the topic of race, white passing is when someone passes as white, but in actuality have a mixed-race background. Throughout US history, African Americans have passed as white as a means of survival, understanding that there life would be at risk if the truth was told about their parent’s racial background. Society was closed off for non-whites; the best schools, best towns, best jobs were in the segregated white side of town. 

For someone of mixed-race heritage to venture into those areas safely, they would have to embrace only one side and play into the image of what they wanted others to see when they looked at them. Because, at the end of the day, the system of how race operates is based on perception.

Still, to this day, people have to put up an inaccurate front, maybe even lie about their real name, to secure a job. Race-based implicate bias in workplaces has led to research being brought to the public’s attention due to how serious the issue has gotten throughout the years. 

Looking at a study conducted by Princeton professors, Paul von Zielbauer, of New York Times, discusses how race plays a big factor—despite having problems with law enforcement. White men with a criminal conviction get just as much, if not more, job offers than an African-American man with nothing on his record.

“White men with prison records receive far more offers for entry-level jobs in New York City than black men with identical records, and are offered jobs just as often—if not more so—than black men who have never been arrested, according to a new study by two Princeton professors.” (Zielbauer, 2005) 

Decades past The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom led by MLK Jr., African American men are still hindered at entry-level jobs. People tend to push the blame on minorities, stating that the problem lies that, however, that can’t be the case when the entire system of race was built on injustice. The system cannot be deemed broke if it is doing what it was meant to do, discourage darker skinned people from providing for themselves and achieving upward mobility. 

And that, sadly, leads us to why white-passing was so prevalent after slavery and into the 20th century. It was not because these individuals wanted to, but because they had to. Connecting this back to the reading, I think back to Peggy Mclntosh’s piece on white privilege. 

She says, “I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cash in each day, but about what I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes tools, and blank checks. Describing white privilege makes one newly accountable.” (Mclntosh, 1989) 

As Mclntosh stated, white privilege is ‘unearned assets’ given to you on the bases of your skin, not your skills. Continuously, we see people try and paint minorities as the ones that caused this curse of bad fortune, dismissing the existence of white privilege entirely in the process. Even more childish than that, people demand the end of affirmative actions as though the playing field has been set leveled for everyone. It isn’t, and to say it has is a clear slap to the face of every disadvantaged black and brown person who lives in this country. 

2. Referring to related and appropriate readings and screenings from the course, describe how your selection represents racial and ethnic identities (and if applicable, intersectionality). In what ways does your selection for each of the journal entries generate a conversation regarding race, ethnicity, and cultural diversity?

The way my selection has represented racial identity is through the lens of the one-drop rule. Through Henry Louis Gates Jr. article titled “How Many ‘White’ People Are Passing?’ he discusses how the roles are beginning to show what was the aftermath of the one-drop rule. 

When talking about the fallout of such a law, it iscreated a precedence of people ignoring the existence of their white parent in order to box that person in to a ‘colored only’ section. For the piece I picked, it creates a conversation by questioning about how often that rule wasn’t used and how it created an unneeded divided. 

“‘Bryc found that about 4 percent of whites have at least 1 percent or more of African ancestry […] “the percentage indicates that an individual with at least 1 percent African ancestry had an African ancestor within the last six generations, or in the last 200 years. This data also suggests that individuals with mixed parentage at some point were absorbed into the white population,’ which is a very polite way of saying that they ‘passed.’” (Gates, 2011)

However, when you compare that to African Americans, the percentage is far more staggering, showing that people who looked “white enough” wasn’t always the case for mixed-race people. Shockingly enough, it is stated that: “research shows that the average African American has a whopping 24 percent of European ancestry.” (Gates, 2011)

24?! That’s means, unlike with white people, African American’s bloodline had someone fully white not as far back. Many people of mixed-race background submerged themselves in to the African American community, as well as the obvious underlining effects of sexual assault of enslaved black women. The article gets even more interesting when they dive into where the hidden ancestry might show up more, showing that whites living in the south had a higher chance of having unknown African DNA. 

“In South Carolina at least 13 percent of self-identified whites have 1 percent or more African ancestry, while in Louisiana the number is a little more than 12 percent. In Georgia and Alabama the number is about 9 percent. The differences perhaps point to different social and cultural histories within the south.” (Gates, 2011) 

It begs to ask the question how many people are unaware of their own identity due to the fear of the past, having grandparents who lied about their linage in order to get a better life for their offspring. 

3.How does your selection relate to the course readings, screenings and discussions?  Reflect upon the representation and circulation of racial and ethnic identities in popular visual culture. Your reflections should be attentive to the intersectionalities of race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, socioeconomic class and gender.

When it comes to the popular visual culture and “white passing” the stories are definitely there. At the turn of the century, literature had a bit of an obsession of the concept of “passing” as white. The novel like “Passing”, “Imitation of Life” and other tales followed ambiguous African-Americans. The novel “Invisible Man” was less about running between the lines of white and black, but rather a social commentary about a fictional scenario of an ambiguous African American man who drifts between two worlds, unnoticed as an onlooker, and discussing economical and political tensions that are rising.

Overall, when we thinking of “passing” individuals in the media, we notice that many sided with their white side to secure roles. For Broadway star, Carol Channing, she did not even claim her black ancestry until 2002 - at the age of 80. Before that point, she only identified as of European descent. Having been shielded from her own identity till the age of 16, it wasn’t a surprise that Channing had a lot of unsettling ignorance resided about her own heritage, making cringeworthy comments.

When she was told that her father was partly black from her grandfather, she said: “I know it's true the moment I sing and dance. I'm proud as can be of [my black ancestry]. It's one of the great strains in show business. I'm so grateful. My father was a very dignified man and as white as I am. My [paternal] grandparents were Nordic German, so apparently I [too] took after them [in appearance]” (Chicago Tribune, 2003)

I feel uncomfortable now even looking at her say that being black was “one of the great strains in show business.” Her comments were distasteful, dismissing how slaves were forced to perform in front of their masters and how that led into subcultures of new music like blues and country. She chalked up all of her talent to her black grandfather and her white looks to her white ancestors. If only she knew that wasn’t how genetics work. Perhaps, if the divide placed on mixed-race people wasn’t so strenuous, we wouldn’t have cases of ignorance like this.

For the most part, the media has mainly shown the stories of mixed raced women, not showing the struggle of mixed-race men who have to choose if they’d “pass” as only one race. As I stated before, “Invisible man” isn’t really about passing because his own race wasn’t up for debate, but rather what he saw due to his ambiguousness. 

There’s many reasons as to why women were the main focus when talking about “passing.” However, it becomes obviously clear in the film Imitation of Life, writing the mixed-race girl off as a trickster for being something she wasn’t. In a sense, Hollywoods take on “passing” women was that they were deceptive, completely disregarding the essential need of passing as white. Sadly, in Imitation of Life, the mixed-race girl is beaten to a pulp after her white date finds out she’s mixed with black.  

Sources:

Zielbauer, Paul von 2005

    “Race a Factor in Job Offers for Ex-Convicts”

      New York Times, July, 17, 2005

 Mclntosh, Peggy 1989

      “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”

Gates, Louis Henry

    “How Many ‘White’ People Are Passing?”    

https://www.theroot.com/how-many-white-people-are-passing-1790874972

Rusoff, Jane

    “At 82, Channing still in step” Chicago Tribune 

[throwitawayokay]

This is confusing. A lot of your favorite fandom creators, out of nowhere, are being accused of endangering minors and others for making n*fw content or following/being-friends-with people who do; that is a serious claim, and a frightening one, and no one would say such a thing if they weren’t 100% sure they were correct about it, right? After all, to say something about someone is an awful thing to say, and needs proof and reason, or else it is libel and grounds for a defamation lawsuit and would, morally, be an absolutely terrible thing to accuse a person of if it was not true.

Obviously, they must have reason. Obviously, these accusations are founded and must eventually prove to be true, even if they cannot now, or maybe they can, maybe the accusations would hold up in a court of law, but for some reason the same people making these accusations... won’t come out directly and accuse these people and don’t have any evidence besides what they ‘think’ this other person is thinking.

Someone has made an argument, somewhere, that writing n*fw of aged up minor characters in atla is predatory behavior and endangering to minors. Is it?

1. Is it legal?

  Easy answer, yes. It’s legal. By definition it is p*rn of adult characters, regardless of where it originates. None of it is on tumblr, where it would not be allowed, but instead on a web site where it is clearly tagged and behind an age limit. In fact, this argument would be laughed out of court. Because no law is protecting the n*fw depictions of fictional characters, who are not real, regardless of age, besides potentially copyright.

If the stories are about underage fictional characters? It still, at least by USofA law, still not illegal. Yes. That’s correct. Stories depicting underage fictional characters in s*xual situations does not follow under the definition of child p*rn and is allowed in publication and law. To see proof of that, besides reading the actual law which you are free to do, simply note the fact that Stephen King’s It is not only still in print but recently had two film adaptations.

So that, would in fact, be allowed; however what is being called into question is depicting adult fictional characters in n*fw situations. A completely different thing that is, actually, very different from the other. But, to simply answer the question of legality, it’s all legal.

2. When is it endangering to minors?

  This content can, in fact, be endangering to minors when they are exposed to it either without warning, in a search, or if they are sent this content by another person. Ways that this could happen are if n*fw images appear google searches (where such content can be reported and taken down) or if n*fw writing is not properly tagged or accompanied by archive warnings (posted on ffnet for example or not properly rated on ao3). If this is happening, it is a good idea to go to the website to report it properly, or have someone contact the artist/author about the lack of tagging - the content itself is irregardless, the problem that exists here is the lack of warning.

N*fw art is also not allowed by the tumblr guidelines; feel free to report it if seen. Please, however, take a step back to remember than an image of a person in their underwear is not, in fact, p*rnography. If you’ve ever walked past a billboard for a clothing company or seen a Victoria’s Secret catalogue you should know this. There is, in fact, an actual parameter for what sets apart sfw and n*fw.

If this content, however, has been properly tagged and is behind a proper age limit, with warnings and the like, it is not endangering toward minors. Clicking on a n*fw art or writing with clear warnings for what it is does not make the creator of that content responsible; a p*rn star is not responsible for endangering minors if a minor answers falsely to a website agreement stating they are 18 and views their content. The responsibility lies with the minor as well as the guardians of that minor for not teaching them how to responsibly search the internet and recognize what they should or should not be viewing.

If you are not mature enough to recognize this, you should not be online.

3. But I disagree?

  You are within your rights to have a difference of opinion or feel uncomfortable if a person posts links to their n*fw content, or mentions that they make n*fw content. In fact, n*fw content makes many people uncomfortable. There are many ways to avoid seeing this.

First, go to the filter on your blog and filter all n*fw related tags you can think of. Next, block the blogs you do not personally like; feel free to block as many blogs, for any reason, that you like. This is absolutely fine and no explanation is needed. If you feel uncomfortable having your blog followed by any adults at all, you can also take steps to make the blog unsearchable and only follow as few people as you like.

What you should not do is harass people for making content that you personally do not like. This includes n*fw content. Making such incredibly serious claims as to state someone is a predator who endangers minors for making n*fw content in your fandom is unfounded, dangerous, and entirely irresponsible. Adults participating in this rhetoric need to take a very good look at themselves, and minors who have been experiencing anxiety as a result of this claim, I am very sorry.

4. What was the aunt-suki thing?

  Where did this whole thing start? No one was making this point only a few months ago, did it just pop up out of nowhere?

^ this blog, since deleted [also goes formerly by tumble-dump (now lil-baby-man) as well as jetru(deleted) safe-for-atla, and dennis-quaid] spearheaded this opinion after accusing one of the largest creators in the fandom, an adult doc (relevant later), of endangering minors for an image posted to tumblr with possible suggestive themes (Tumblr does not allow n*fw art, it was not n*fw). Aunt-Suki is a 23 year old, self-described “titanium white” woman. She stated directly that anyone who posted n*fw content behind age limit barriers was predatory and that n*fw artwork of atla characters was rampant on this website without evidence.

After curating a blocklist, and admittedly receiving hate for doing so (despite oddly enough asking for anon hate on several occasions) aunt-suki did in fact create a first draft blocklist including fandom creators who make n*fw content, who are follow or are friends with those who make nsfw content despite not doing it themselves, and people who specifically asked her to be on the blocklist. This, in itself, was fine. A list of creators making n*fw content could, in fact, be helpful and good for those who do not want to see such content to have a handy resource of who to block and avoid. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of “they are all predators” was something aunt-suki fostered and continued to repeat, getting a lot of people to also feel the same way. This invited harassment, much of which directly done and targeted at others by aunt-suki. She repeatedly stated on her blog ‘I am safe, no one else is unless I say so, in order to keep yourself safe you must ask me who is bad [paraphrase, not direct quote]’ insisting that anyone who wished to know who was a predator on the website had to privately DM her for the information. Aunt-Suki used this to gain followers of minors and to specifically foster friendships with them.

We know this because aunt-suki made a post exposing herself. An anon asked her to defend the way she interacted with minors and she defended herself with phrases such as “I love kids so much more than grown ups”[quote], stating she runs a server of 13+ wlw and they all “care a lot about each other”; she also admitted she takes it upon herself to “expose kids to [heavy topics]” including race, sexism, queer issues, mental health, politics, etc. Aunt-Suki is not a trained professional for these issues and admits in the same post that she does not understand how there could be any difference in power dynamics between her and these teenagers.

In addition, while defending these close relationships with minors that she specifically admits to reaching out for, Aunt-Suki also divulged her past at 18 years old of saying the n-word (excused by explaining she has a black friend); somehow stating that this is the reason why she should, as a 23 year old white adult, be allowed to discuss “heavy topics” with minors.

This most certainly calls into question the fact that it was, with one exception, non-white creators that aunt-suki chose to publicly call out by name.

After being asked to defend herself for these actions she admitted to, Aunt-Suki deleted her blog but has continued to go online on her others blogs and discords, dm’ing others and making posts accusing people who called her out of being predators, asking for sympathy, blaming her actions on her adhd, and refusing to answer any of the messages sent to her. Other large creators have made posts about this, very rarely using her name to allow her some anonymity or time to explain her actions, which she has not done. She choose instead to send anonymous messages further accusing these creators.

5. Why did you tell me that?

  This directly illustrates the problem with presenting an issue such as n*fw art/writing in the fandom without pointing out why others might disagree with it; and jumping past logic to decry those who don’t agree with extremely serious accusations. Someone with actual ill (or misguided) attentions may take advantage, deliberately isolating minors and portraying themselves as ‘good and safe’ while slowly whittling down who the minors can and cannot follow until no one able to call them out when they are the one participating in actual behavior that is inappropriate to minors.

6. I still don’t agree with the first points.

  That’s fine. Please call out actual predators if you see them. Do not, however, do so without any evidence or for reasons that simply are not, and never would be, considered basis for doing so in any legal or reasonable capacity.

#test it test test

[shipinpeace]

RE: Women and m/m fiction

Continued from this

@twoblogz​ Thank you for your response and the link. I would like to comment on it and I’d like @anakinsbugs​ to read it as well, because it is directly related to his post. 

Before I begin, let me make this clear: I am glad posts like this exist and people discuss the issues of how gay men are portrayed in the media (both officially released and fan created). We still live in a homophobic world and there is so much that has become the status quo for gay fiction, and the way it affects gay men is a crucial topic to discuss and share. However, discussing issues and attacking other are not the same.

First of all, neither you, not anakinsbugs specify what what fetishizing is and where does one draw the line between fetishizing and representation. Moreover, are gay men allowed to fetishize male/male relationships? If yes, how is that fetishizing different from fetishizing by women if the end result is the same?

The author mentions the women who started the whole slash movement in the 70s. Well if it wasn‘t for them, we don‘t know how long it would take for male/male relationships to get so popular. That (the Kirk/Spock community in particular) was what began slash as a fandom phenomenon and it has played a pivotal role in slash fiction (written by anyone) being so widespread today. 

The author said he was feeling like an outsider in the genre, which is a perspective I never thought about. I wish the genre felt more welcoming towards him, but I still believe this shouldn’t stop him or other male content creators from creating their own stuff. Why not make a tumblr blog where you collect stuff made by men? 

Next he discusses male/male in published literature and points out that most published authors are women and their books get more recognition. Well, it‘s a problem in our society, if books about gay people written by straight people are more popular than the ones written by gay people themselves. Think about it. If the public consumes the former, yet pretty much ignores the latter, would banning the books written by women make the ones written by men more popular? Not while we have homophobia. 

In my discussion with practicalityinpraxis they talk about this exact point:

“When a straight person writes queer characters, even very poorly, they tend to have their work touted and complimented excessively. It’s “avant garde,” it’s “intimate,” it’s “powerful,” it’s “perspective shifting.”

When queer authors write queer characters, it gets shoved off as autobiographical niche fiction that is never given the exposure necessary to turn it into a success.”

And sadly, that’s exactly what’s happening and more people should be aware of it. However, we shouldn’t forget that it’s publishers who make decisions here and their decisions are guided by money.

However, I don’t believe all books written by women show bad or inaccurate depictions. If it wasn’t for some of those books, gay men would barely get any representation at all, because, as the author said, books written by men are less popular, therefore they would still be not as easy to find.

At the same time, a book written by a man can be just as “shallow” as a book written by a woman. As I mentioned in the same discussion with practicalityinpraxis:

“Although I do agree that in essence queer writers are more likely to, as you put it, “fight for the accuracy” of their stories, it doesn’t mean all do. A queer author might agree to water down their work if the editor refuses to publish it otherwise. A queer person might also have internalized prejudice against their own identity, which in turn would make their work unrepresentative.”

Next, the topic of sex is discussed. I agree there’s a huge issue of inaccurate representation when sex is depicted in literature. But what about a gay male author who has never had sex? Would his sex scenes automatically be accurate just because he’s a gay man? Also, don’t gay men have fetishes?

As for safe sex – it is an issue in all sorts of pornographic literature. Written by anyone about anyone. I think (but that’s just my subjective opinion based on nothing but observation) that it is related to the desire for escapism. People may want to emerge in a world that is different from their own, or a world that provides them immediate gratification, neither of which is a bad thing, really. We all need different things to let of steam and we all deserve it. 

Also, what about the barebacking community? Gay men who promote unsafe sex in real life?

And here is it, the reason I keep arguing with people on this topic:

“and when men who love men like myself bring up the fact that maybe you guys should stay in your lane a little and let us take the wheel in a genre entirely dedicated to us having sex with each other, you somehow claim that we are “kinkshaming” you and being misogynist by taking away “the one place where women can explore their kinks without judgement”.”

Should stay in their lane? What does that imply? Does the author want to forbid women from writing gay male fiction? Let’s say he succeeds and women do just that. Then what? Will male/male fiction automatically improve? The depictions become more realistic? Safe sex gets portrayed more often? Fetishizing disappears? Weird kinks disappear? Homophobia disappears?  

First of all, it’s not very likely that published authors will ever care about this, so the people who are most likely to obey this demand are fans. Which means the only thing the author would have accomplished would be bully a bunch of fans into dropping a hobby they love (or might emotionally depend on – people are very complex creatures), stripping them away of the only thing some might consider escapism. And for what? To feel better about himself? 

I know these are harsh words and I’m sorry for being so blunt, but anakinsbugs, please, if you’re reading this, I ask you to consider this possibility no matter how uncomfortable it might feel. I deeply sympathize with your feelings and I wish we lived in a better world, but we don’t. And many people who share your point of view are only one step away from becoming bullies.

The author also adds “the one place where women can explore their kinks without judgement” as it’s something unbelievable and ludicrous, but that’s a reality for most women. They have been shamed for desiring sex for so long, no wonder for some gay sex has become the only safe outlet of their sexuality.

However:

“which is complete and total bullshit because FIRST OF ALL gay people are not your kink.”

And this is something I agree with 100%. When I first read saw him mention “kinks”, I thought he was being general, but if people consider gay sex a kink - it is deeply troubling. Frankly, I haven’t encountered such opinion in a long time, although I wouldn’t be surprised someone still thinks this way. But it’s one of these homophobic remarks we can fight by educating people.

At the end, the author states:

“i need a little more clarification about why it’s such an evil no-no for us to want to represent ourselves or speak for ourselves or tell our own stories. because it kinda seems homophobic that you’re so angry about gbt men wanting to represent themselves.”

and: 

“nobody’s saying you can’t be supportive of gbt boys and want to write about them in your stories. but for the love of god, don’t get angry when we want to tell our own stories, and don’t pitch a fit when we express that we’re uncomfortable with being objectified for your own sexual gratification.”

There is a difference between expressing discomfort and policing. Perhaps the author didn’t mean it, but then I’d like him to consider better wording. 

Sorry for making it so long. I’ve put the whole thing under cut so if you reblog it, it won’t spam your blog.

#shipping #shipping discourse #m/m fiction #straight people writing gay fiction #women and gay fiction #shipping as escapism #gatekeeping #lgbt

[marshmallowgoop]

Is it wrong and creepy if someone finds kill la kill's fanservice/ peeping tom humor funny? This anime is so wacky and exaggerated that its kinda hard to take the "harassment" humor seriously. Its not wrong if someone finds it uncomfortable, but its also not wrong if someone is okay with it.

I discussed this sort of thing here.

The post is admittedly rather meandering and unfocused, but the main idea is that nobody can change someone’s impression of themselves but that person themselves. 

In my case, I’ve often wondered if there’s something wrong with me for loving Kill la Kill at all. The fact that I also love the idea of a romantic relationship between Ryuko Matoi and Senketsu has made me feel even worse. 

But at the end of the day, while I know many others disagree, I don’t think that anyone is inherently “wrong and creepy” for enjoying a fun, heartfelt television series about friendship and pairing up two fictional characters—and that includes me, too. I’m willing to dialogue with those who don’t feel the same, and I’m willing to change my mind, but right now, I don’t think I’m a bad person because of my media preferences.

So, I have a question for you: Do you think it’s “wrong and creepy” to find the fanservice/peeping tom humor in Kill la Kill funny? Because I can tell you my own thoughts, but I can’t decide yours. Your own sense of morality—just as your impression of yourself—is completely up to you.

I say all this because I want to be clear, before I go any further, that I never, ever want to give off the sense that my opinions are in any way absolute. They’re not. They’re just how I view things.

On the topic at hand, I do personally take issue with finding the harassment humor in Kill la Kill funny or okay. Yes, fiction is not reality, yes, people know how to separate the two, but I think it’s pretty undeniable that fiction has an effect on reality. I could bring up Killing Us Softly and Jaws and all sorts of arguments and examples that point this way, but I feel like this stuff is so debated these days that you either agree or don’t by now. 

And as someone who agrees? I abhor when harassment and abuse is played for laughs in the stories we consume. I fear this normalizes the mindset that harassment and abuse is “just a joke” and “isn’t a big deal.”

Being abused and harassed is a big deal. But when it’s portrayed as not being so in fictional wacky, over-the-top situations, it makes it so much easier to brush off the occurrences in real life. To play the “I’ve Been There” card, I once had a partner who frequently mistreated me, and while I was definitely uncomfortable, I put up with the relationship for way longer than I should have because I didn’t particularly see the behavior as wrong. It was just playing! It was nothing to get so worked up about! After all, I got that message loud and clear from the media all around me.

And no, it’s not fiction’s responsibility to teach me what is and isn’t okay. But stories have influence and power.

And personally? I want that power to be used to help rather than diminish the detrimental impact of very real problems.

I love Kill la Kill. I really do. It’d probably be hard to find another fan who’s dedicated as much to the show as I have. But I am not at all okay with how the series handles abuse and harassment. A grown, married man peeping on a 17-year-old girl who’s essentially his adopted daughter isn’t funny. That man getting his young son and even his dog to join him is even worse. The rape joke in the first episode is unacceptable. The portrayal of sexual violence in the latter half of the anime is despicable. Seeing hurt similar to the hurt I’ve been through depicted in such ways is both heartbreaking and infuriating, and I don’t want to continue to see these kinds of depictions in the future.

Humor is a difficult topic. Harassment humor is also complicated because it brings up questions of what’s really “harassment,” and there are definitely gender-based double standards. Sometimes, I just have to stop and ask myself what I’m really laughing at if I smile or have a chuckle at something that I feel I maybe shouldn’t. In the case of Kill la Kill, is a 17-year-old girl getting violated and leered at truly something find hilarious?

I don’t have any definitive answers to give you or anyone else on these issues. But I do have very strong personal opinions of my own. If you’re interested in further reading, I’ve actually written on the topic of Kill la Kill and harassment quite extensively:

Ryuko’s Choice to Wear Senketsu

Senketsu’s First SceneFurther AnalysisEven MoreFinal ThoughtsWhat Changes Would You Make to Senketsu’s First Scene?

What if Senketsu Had Been More Female-Coded?

“What Would You Say to Someone Who is Hesitant to Watch Kill la Kill Solely Due to the Fanservice?”

8 Reasons Folks Can’t Get Down with Pairing a Girl and Her Sailor Uniform Together: Masterpost of Rebuttals to Common Criticisms Against Ryuketsu (Points 5 and 6)

There’s also the very first essay I wrote for Kill la Kill, though I would recommend reading the version on page 322 in my Compiled Meta Book instead for updated commentary.

#Anonymous #replies #serious talk #the discourse #abuse mention #rape mention #kill la kill #ramblings