#i clearly need him in a way that's concerning to feminism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

weebsinstash · 2 months

Note

more valentino PLEASE 🙏

How does the saying go, "i want this man in ways that are concerning to feminism"?

I was thinking of how Angel used to live in V Tower and, how fucked up would it be for him to receive a good morning text from Val to head up to his room, and AD is thinking it's a booty call, but it's ACTUALLY Valentino being a manipulative piece of shit

Angel comes into the room and Valentino is already half or fully naked but like, he's not hard or anything and Angel is confused? The moth is just, chilling naked smoking with this satisfied look on his face? And Valentino just, gives him some menial command to run him a favor, and he pauses mid-sentence to turn and call out YOUR name before regarding his Fizz Bot, "Kitty, why don't you make my baby a drink?" and you're just like, slinking out from under the covers, ashamed that Angel now knows you slept with the Overlord, let alone someone you know uh, treats him pretty fucking poorly (although I imagine not like, the entire entire brutal extent of it, also, Angel Dust using Reader as a shield against Val because they're both calmer when you're around)

Could you imagine some scenario, platonic romantic it doesn't matter, where like. Angel is talking to Valentino and he sees you in the corner of his eye and he just stops mid sentence, does a double take, looks at you half naked in his boss' bed, and Val forces him to focus and carry on the conversation while he's crying. Angel is just all but sprinting out of the room by the time he's dismissed and Valentino may even play fucking mind games to make him like, MARINATE in how horrible this makes him feel. Valentino is dragging out the conversation and putting on his nail caps or doing his skincare routine at his vanity and making Angel sit there and wait as he's deliberate dragging on his sentences and constantly pausing but if Angel moves to leave Val snaps IMMEDIATELY. So Angel is just. Forced to stand there.

VALENTINO TALKING TO Y O U, MAKING YOU ACKNOWLEDGE ANGEL AND THE REVERSE. Valentino being manipulative and awful and shitty and doing shit like "so Angel baby, I was gonna take a trip to the spa tomorrow, mhm, and also hey you're coming too *looks at you* so Angel what do you think we should get my other amorcito over here done?" the evil bastard is making you two talk to each other, about each other, when you're both like, IN TEARS

Angel, trying to hold on to the last shreds of his sanity: s so... h have you... ever had a facial before

Valentino pausing from doing his mascara with the biggest shit eating grin on his face: oh yeah, someone just had a really, really BIG one

Reader, happily getting drunk off the drink Kitty brought you because it helps take away the pain of this entire interaction: a. .. a massage or something might be nice

Valentino, doing his contour: but baaaabe, I thought you told me you were shy about who puts their hands on your body. Are you trying to make me jealous?

Angel, desperately trying to ignore Val blowing you a kiss and you clearly having bites and hickies alllllllll over you like there wasn't a single inch of you the moth didn't put his hands mouth or otherwise on: uh huh! Cool! So! Guess we can! Decide later right! :)

Valentino, doing his nails: wrong 💅 I also need you to

And the mf is just doing that shit for like 20 minutes straight which doesn't SOUND like a lot but when you're standing there just talking and waiting and, especially having a moment like THIS, it's just DRAGGING ON, and when Angel finally leaves, you're crying, and here's Valentino, "awwww, pobrecita, come here, what's wrong?" and hugging you and you need the comfort and you're drunk and, now maybe you're just a little scared he's the only person you have left....

Also. Bonus round for the angst. Can you imagine. Angel runs off and it's you sleeping with Valentino that finally hurts him so much he's finally RUNNING running away, meeting Charlie, having another place to live. He's still working under contract but the second his shift ends he's out of the studio without another word because... he can't protect you anymore. He feels like this is his fault. He failed Molly and now he failed you and he's worthless and trash and an addict loser-- meanwhile you're beating yourself up because you've lost your only friend down here and also your biggest supporter and Valentino all but lovebombs you (and the worst part is, it's genuine and if you reject ANYTHING, he's getting Offended Bigly)

Ugh. Ok. I'm sorry. Finally finishing the post with one more thing. Valentino is definitely the type to give you expensive gifts and he doesn't actually care about the amount of money he spends on you BUT, will use the fact he's spent so much money on you to manipulate you IN A HEARTBEAT

And also. You're not allowed to reject gifts because it sets him off in like 5 different ways. "Oh so my gifts aren't good enough for you?" "Do you have any idea how much I spent on this?" "I TOOK THE TIME to get this for YOU" God forbid if it's something custom. Could you imagine he offers you something and he doesn't immediately tell you it's custom, like he's got sketches in a notebook somewhere, this is MADE WITH LOVE ableit his creepy obsessive love, and you could literally have a very polite "oh my gosh I couldn't that's so expensive I, I don't deserve it, wow" where you're obviously very happy but just shocked and feeling guilty, like a FLATTERING rejection that is obviously an insult to YOU, NOT him, and he's just. The switch fucking flips. His head tilts. He lets out a hum as his smile pulls way too tight. Lashes out within seconds. Grabs you. takes that jewelry or watch or expensive thing he bought you and literally forces it onto your body, and he's not screaming or raising his voice, he's getting right up in your face and growling out the deeeeeetails of how he got this for you until you're crying and apologizing for your ingratitude

Ugh he's so cunty and mean and awful UGH WHY WOULD I LET HIM HIT, he would use that heart shaped belt he has to put heart shaped welts on your ass and then set your cute bruised heart covered butt as his phone wallpaper and your icon in his contacts and save your name as Ropebunny or something rhfkcsbfkhdxkfh

#yandere hazbin hotel #yandere x reader #valentino x reader #hh #yandere hellaverse #sinprompts #i actually started thinking of an idea where val calls reader bunny but funny enough bunny reader x val fics exist! kudos #in my idea reader isnt a bunny but jokingly calls themself the energizer bunny after val comments on them fidgeting while serving him #he starts calling you bunny so then he has 'his Kitty and his Bunny' fndkcbffjf #ive also thought of scenarios where valentino accidentally breaks kitty and forces reader to be his new servant and keeps it that way #like can you imagine. kitty gets fixed and val STILL has you wait on him lmao. reality hitting you like a brick wall

199 notes · View notes

teyamsatan · 6 months

Text

ᴋɪɴᴋᴛᴏʙᴇʀ ᴅᴀʏ xxɪ - ᴛʜʀᴏᴀᴛ ᴄᴏᴍᴍ ꜱᴇx

pairing: recom!quaritch x human!reader

➽ a/n: the time has come, my first time writing for quaritch. i need this man in a way that's concerning to feminism, and so the reader is very me coded in this whole drabble. enjoy x

➽ words: >600 words

➽ warnings: it goes without saying, but all of these works (kinktober-related) are smut and therefore minors should NOT interact with them. other warnings include: fingering, tiny little degradation, tiny bit of praise, masturbation

➽ taglist (x) ➽ kinktober masterlist (x)

“Touch that pretty little pussy for me. I want to hear you, sweetheart.”

You almost keen in your quarters at the sound of the rough, gravelly voice, the slight southern twinge of his accent so immediately recognisable, it made the growing wetness in your panties almost unbearable. He knew where you were, what you were waiting for. He knew how much you were waiting for it, desperate and panting almost every night as he snuck past the rest of the scientists in the RDA to show you in first-hand experience what it was like to be fucked until you passed out.

Were you proud of it, little miss perfect-schooling, outstanding-outbringing, sheltered-life girl that you were? Is this what you expected when you won a highly prestigious job straight out of university, looking at all the ways you could be integrating human life onto a new, foreign planet? Well, no. But… the hours were long, and the days were lonely, and if your dad taught you anything when he left your mum for a 20-something year old model, is that men love sweet, sensitive, young girls and well, it seems you loved to be fucked by an almost 10 foot tall man with no manners, no decorum, but who knew exactly how to turn your legs to jello and your your mind to mush with his tongue, and his lips, and his fingers, and his c—.

“Come on, cupcake. I know you’re waiting for me. I know you’re wearing one of your nice little frilly thongs, like the little good girl you are. I know there’s a growing spot in them from how needy you are to be fucked over and over until you cry on my cock. Daddy’s gonna run a little late today, so you’ll have to get yourself nice and ready for me, yeah?”

You barely touch the little button nestled comfortably in the crook of your neck, your other hand already following his order, parting the pink lingerie to the side and sliding two fingers in between your soaking folds.

“Y-yes, sir.”

There’s a distinct smirk in his voice when he speaks, clealry satisfied with the outcome.

“Attagirl.”

You moan in the radio, continuing your ministrations, trying to remember what he does and how he does it, because fuck, does he know how to work your body just like he knows how to work one of those guns he clearly loves so much.

“Fuck, doll, making me so fucking hard with those pretty noises. Such a good slut. C’mon, two fingers, in-and-out, in-and-out. Slowly… take your time, like daddy does.”

You slow down the erratic movements that match your intense impatience, because the quicker you do it, the quicker you’ll cum, the quicker he’ll come, the quicker you get to see stars and feel yourself getting split open and filled to the brim. It was obscene, feral, almost certifiable, how desperately you needed him, the extent to which you’ll go to continue feeling the way he was making you feel every night. It was messy, and loud, your arousal dripping from your fingers into the mattress as you continued fucking yourself with your delicate fingers, never as good as how he did it, but good enough for the opening act of what you expect will be a long, long play.

“S’wet for me, aren’t ya? So desperate to take my cock, huh?”

His words push you over the edge, the orgasm satisfying and intense, heightened by his cruel words and leathery, seductive voice and the promise of what's to come.

“Don’t move a muscle, sweetheart. Daddy’s coming.”

taglist: @pandoraslxna @sulieykte @blue-slxt @eywaeveng @neteyamsikran @elenamoncada-ibarra @spicymayyo @itsjazzsworld @daddysmurfslefttoenail @eyrina-avatar @iameatingmyhair @hadesbabygurl@linydoll @the-mourning-moon@kasai-https @dvxsja (if your tag doesn't work pls check your settings x)

#lunaskinktober2023 #lunaskinktober2023 re: teyamsatan #avatar #avatar smut #avatar the way of water #quaritch #quaritch smut #miles quaritch #recom quaritch #recom quaritch smut #quaritch x human!reader #quaritch x human!reader smut #atwow quaritch #colonel quaritch #avatar quaritch #recoms #colonel miles quaritch

188 notes · View notes

mcdevinpants · 9 months

Text

Barbie Movie thoughts

Saw The Barbie Movie tonight, and I liked it. I thought it had interesting and subtle things to say, and I want to put some of these thoughts out there, but not spoil anyone, so I'm giving plenty of warning, putting it behind a cut, and tagging.

This is your first warning.

This is your second warning. I'm about to get into spoilers. If you're on mobile and seeing this, this is your warning to scroll past.

The movie seemed to me to have very interesting things to say on Barbie and feminism and capitalism.

It also did some very interesting things with narrative structure.

This is your final warning before I start actively getting into spoilers.

I don't think the movie really had a villain or an antagonist. The closest thing it had was the Matttel executive board led by Will Ferrel, but they were only mild antagonists. What the movie had was Problems that needed addressing. And those problems were (as I saw them) the Patriarchy, and to a lesser but still very real extent, capitalism.

It grappled with the complicated relationship Barbie has always had with feminism, and the Patriarchy, and its successes and failures. I think I would have been much less satisfied if the movie had come down solidly on one side or another. Instead it acknowledged that it has been empowering in being an alternative to baby dolls that focuses on a woman herself and the roles she can fill in the world, while at the same time hurting women with unrealistic beauty standards.

I very much appreciated how in the Real World the Patriarchy was highlighted as still being extremely oppressive, but knowing how to paper itself over as more progressive. See the businessman Ken spoke to when trying to get a corporate position, and see also the all-male board of Mattel sitting in a pink boardroom at a heart-shaped table, and highlighting the one female CEO of Mattel (maybe two, but highlighted even more by the fact that Ferrel's CEO couldn't remember when she was there or give any names at all). And not to put too fine a point on it, but they literally wanted to put Barbie in a box instead of allowing her to wander around the world having agency of her own.

I also appreciated how enticing the Patriarchy was shown to be to those who only see the potential benefits to themselves and are either unwilling or incapable of understanding how it harms literally everyone. It was very meaningful to me that when Ken brought the Patriarchy back to Barbieland, even the Kens weren't getting what they wanted, or at least seemed to have wanted at the beginning of the movie. They were clearly unhappy with the way things worked in Barbieland, but they weren't resentful towards Barbie until they were told they deserved to be on top. I think this showed really nicely the idea that one kind of supremacy or another isn't the desired goal, the desired goal is equality.

The Capitalism aspect seemed to be a bit more limited, and was more confined to the executive board and Mattel. They were at no point really concerned with the message they were sending as much as the bottom line. They had no qualms about churning out Ken's Mojo Dojo Casa Houses because they were making bank. The CEO thought Gloria's idea was terrible until someone ran the numbers and showed him it would make them a ton of money. The message on Capitalism was more brief, but no less apt. Capitalism is nobody's ally but its own, and will champion any cause it can ride to higher profits.

In the end, neither of the two problems are solved, nor is Barbie's relationship with feminism in the Real World, or even Barbie's story, all of which I find more satisfying than the alternative. If The Patriarchy or Capitalism had been Defeated, I would have found it just as unsatisfying as a sitcom's All Problems Are Solved In Slightly Less Than Half An Hour phenomenon. I think it would have felt too self-satisfied. I liked the ending a lot, grounding Stereotypical Barbie in the real world, having to grapple with a Real Life situation that would be completely alien to anyone in Barbieland.

I also found Ken's "ending" to be poignant as he grapples with defining himself not in terms of Barbie and his relationship to her, but in self-actualization. And it seemed to me that Barbie, in helping him towards this new definition, helped herself towards a more self-focused-actualization than she had been privy to before.

Is Barbie a feminist movie? I don't know, and I'm not sure I'm one who should be making that call. I do know that I like a lot of the messages I took away from it, including that all of the problems faced are complicated and difficult. But what I can say for sure is this is hands down my favorite Michael Cera role. I have never enjoyed him more in a movie. Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling also knocked it out of the park.

#barbie #the barbie movie #barbie movie spoilers

5 notes · View notes

consumer-of-media · 6 months

Text

Barbie (2023)

I’ll admit: I thought I knew everything about this movie before it came out. It was going to be a feel-good, “summery” movie that would promote Mattel and encourage people to buy more Barbie products. This movie was going to make people forget about the controversy surrounding the concerning, and hopefully unintended, effects that Barbie had and still has on girls today. As it turns out, this movie clearly had effort put into it, already setting itself apart from movies created just to be cash-grabs. Barbie was entertaining to watch, but it was nothing to write home about.

If you continue to read any further, you will BE SPOILED. Though, the movie has been out for a couple of months, so...

Strengths

Really Funny

Most of the time Ken, as well as the other Ken’s, served as hilarious comedic reliefs, which is expected seeing as they tend to be melodramatic at times and portray a comical version of the patriarchy. Seeing the main Ken, who I shall refer to as Stereotypical Ken, rename things into something way too long and ridiculous (“Mojo Dojo Casa House”) before then seeing him get into a dance number with Rival Ken following the Ken War was a joy to watch. Basically, Ken is funny, but really, what else is new? (Also, that last scene with Gloria’s husband unintentionally saying something that is “a political statement” on accident is also extremely funny.)

Promotes Self-Acceptance

The scene where Barbie meets an old woman at the bus stop, sees her for her beauty despite her old age, and call her beautiful, only for the woman to reply with “I know” is amazing. Age doesn’t degrade a woman’s beauty, and this message is more important than ever with the anti-aging culture in today’s society. Plus, Barbie—essentially the “flawless woman”—is made up of multiple women of color!

Aesthetically Pleasing

Obviously, Barbieland is very pink and pastel, which I personally love. I’m pretty sure someone has used Barbie’s Dreamhouse in their Pinterest board as inspiration for their future dream house of their own

Points Out Societal Contradictions

More specifically, it points out contradictions upheld by the patriarchy. An example provided by the movie concerns dating men. You can’t accept them easily or else they’ll think you’re a “tramp,” but you can’t deny them or else you’re a prude

“Don’t Think, Just Watch”

If you’re looking for a movie that you don’t need to think over, Barbie is your movie. You simply need to turn off your brain and bask in the “feel good” energy of Barbieland. This movie is extremely refreshing if you watch it after Oppenheimer (which I might review later)

Additionally, the Matrix reference was delightful! I loved the parallels with the blue pill (the pink high heel) and the red pill (the Birkenstock sandal).

Explaining the Patriarchy to Men

This is an experience I'm sure a lot of women has dealt with. You're trying to explain your experience as a women in today's society, but the man, or men, you're talking to always come back with a "but these women" or "that can't be true." It's frustrating, and no matter how many times you try to reword it, they simply don't believe what you have to say.

Barbie is able to make it easier for them to understand by literally reversing the roles!

The Kens are mostly seen as accessories. The Barbies don't even know where they live, or if they even have a home. The Barbies hold all the positions of power whereas the Kens are simply their arm candy that make them shine all the brighter. Put it simply: "She's everything, and he's just Ken."

It's no doubt that the treatment of the Kens are similar to that of women of the real world, though I'd argue the Kens are treated somewhat better since the Barbies are simply ignorant to their struggles rather than actually looking down on them.

If men are offended by the blatant injustice towards the Kens, congratulations! You got to feel a fraction of what some women experience throughout their lives!

Flaws

“Feminism”

Barbie tries to toe the line between being a shallow, fun movie and being a socially critical movie, but it fails in this task, resulting in a confusing mess.

Of course, this is my opinion, but once you start continuously alluding to the patriarchy, you don’t have the luxury to not treat it seriously. This is opinion is further reinforced when Sasha called Barbie a “fascist.”

To continually refer to the mistreatment of women under the patriarchy yet not address why it exists is the equivalent of slapping a band-aid on a bullet wound.

The patriarchy, or misogyny in general, is supported by multiple systems. Among them, capitalism is a big one. After all, how else are you going to market your beauty products and overpriced clothes to women if they’re not shamed into having to dress nice in order to please men?

Yet this is never mentioned throughout the film. Instead, they portray the executives of big corporations (corporations that have a habit of exploiting women in factories where men verbally abuse them) as silly, goofy, harmless guys. They suffer under the patriarchy too guys!!!!

And before I hear "But the movie would have to be several hours longer if that were to be the case," that argument also applies to the movie's constant mention of the patriarchy. Why not explain more about Barbieland instead of bringing up the patriarchy for the nth time?

Referring back to Sasha and her wildly incorrect statement of Barbie, it felt like it was shoe-horned into the plot. In fact, the addition of calling Barbie a fascist made me confused as to message that Sasha’s speech was supposed to convey.

At best, it’s meant to characterize the tween as a “stereotypical Gen Z middle schooler” that throws around buzz words without knowing what they mean, which takes away the credit from actual valid points she made. At worst, it’s meant to portray people who have an issue with Barbie, like those criticizing how Barbie promotes unhealthy beauty standards, as foolish virtue-signaling individuals who don’t know what they’re talking about. (Her friend admitting to like Barbie before being shamed into claiming otherwise could also be a nod to the nature of cancel culture, which is something I appreciate.)

If Barbie is really a fun movie meant to watch with no deeper meaning, why bring up the patriarchy and the very real consequences of it every 5 minutes?

Final Judgement

Would Recommend: ✓

Good to watch if you...

Simply want to see a lighthearted, feel-good movie

A smidge of social commentary doesn't bother you

Enjoy a movie all about girl power

Want to see a movie affirming that you are a person, not a sexual object

Like Barbie and/or the color pink

Love participating in trends

Just watched two extremely uncomfortable sex scenes in a historical dramatic movie and need something to get your mind off of it

Bad to watch if you...

Want a serious look at the patriarchy

Believe whatever Andrew Tate and his fellow believers spew

Hate giving money/support to big companies such as Mattel

Literally and unironically think that Margot Robbie is a 2/10

Dislike women

#barbie 2023 #barbie movie #movies #movie review #film review #film

1 note · View note

galaxyshine24-7 · 8 months

Text

So The Barbie Movie, Let's Talk💅

Well, I never thought in a million years I would ever write something like this, but here we are. I saw the Barbie movie, and it was not what I expected. In some cases that was good, but in others it was not. Since I have many thoughts I decided to write them down.

Spoilers

Tw (Assault, Oppression, Misogynism, Misandry)

First off I’m a girl who has grown up with Barbie. She has inspired me in many ways and can be a good role model to girls and boys. Barbie is kind, creative, determined, and faces problems head-on. That is how I always saw Barbie and still do.

When I saw the announcement for this movie I was beyond excited. I have adored Barbie since I was little and I love Margot Robbie. She is amazing at acting and seems like a nice person. So I was engaged in the production of this movie the first time I heard about it. It was advertised as more of a self-discovery comedy movie in the trailers. So that is what I expected when I sat down in theatres to see the movie. In many places, it is, however, the heavy messages of patriarchy, feminism, and existentialism were not expected. I knew Barbie had always meant a lot to women and the feminist movement so that part I expected. The other topics didn't get as much care as I would have hoped.

Like a lot of things in this day and age, it could've been handled better.

Never in a million years did I think I would hear someone call Barbie a Fascist. (P.S. People need to stop using that word. They clearly don't know what it means.)

So let's talk about the major criticism I have seen. Is this movie anti-man? Well, most of the male characters are not portrayed in the best light, and their problems are pushed to the side and played for laughs, unlike the problems of the female characters.

So it doesn't look that good in my eyes.

Growing up with the Barbie franchise I have grown fond of many of the classic Barbie characters, especially Ken. He has always been a considerate and kind character to everyone he crosses paths with. Not to mention his profound love for Barbie, and how they are a team.

In this movie, Ken's portrayal is concerning, to say the least. In the first part of the movie, Barbie Land is shown as this perfect utopia for women and they all have these amazing roles, but the Ken's are just Kens. I found that strange since the movie showcases Barbie through the ages. Ken has also been able to showcase professions just like Barbie has. Has the movie goes on it is shown that the Kens seem to be pretty neglected and do not have much say in Barbie land. No Kens in important roles, and Barbie doesn't even know where they sleep since their houses are nowhere to be found. (Until they take the Barbie's houses that is.)

The main Ken is seen time and time again trying to get Barbie to notice him and he's ignored or treated like an annoyance. I found it sad when he expressed that in the real world, he felt respected because someone asked him to tell the time. I started to see that the Barbie land utopia is not really a utopia in my opinion.

So when the Kens revolt and take over Barbie land I can understand why they didn't want to be overlooked anymore. The main Ken only turned to learning about patriarchy so he could be seen in a world that never gave him acknowledgment. I didn't believe the Kens hated the Barbies it's really the opposite as shown in the movie. I could understand their frustrations of being cast aside, only being treated as an accessory, and I thought it would lead to both the Kens and Barbies acknowledging each other's problems and working them out. However, it leads to an off-handed joke about the Kens only receiving a voice in decision-making at the lowest level in Barbie land.

This movie had a big theme of man vs. women and the women's issues were explained, their voices uplifted, along with being dramatically and beautifully displayed. Barbie's emotions are always put on full display and treated seriously. When she cries it's a dramatic sequence since she is showing raw emotions. Ken starts feeling sad way before Barbie, but it is brief or it's just Ryan Gosling throwing himself around dramatically.

Yes, this movie does show both sides of men's and women's issues, but it's how it's treated that makes people question if it's anti-man. To be honest I'm not surprised if men walk out of this movie upset.

Another issue is how they separate the hardships that women and men go through. Men can feel unsafe when walking in public. Men can also be assaulted just like women can. So why when Barbie and Ken first get into the human world Ken portrayed as being okay and not cautious.

Now don't get me wrong Ken in this movie is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but Barbie is shown in the movie to represent women. So that means Ken is to represent men, and not having the same emotions Barbie has is not truthful and more importantly glances over the fact that a lot of the feelings men and women share are universal.

I like The Godfather and thought the Snyder cut was important what’s wrong with that? Why was it show has a purely man thing when it’s something both men and women can enjoy?

The speech that America Ferrera had during the climax of the movie about being a woman, many of those feelings can also be the same with men. They touched on this, but again women's feelings are treated seriously unlike the men's. That is the problem I have with this movie its treatment is not equal and when it tries to be it's just shallow.

Barbie and Ken should have gone on this journey of self-discovery as a team where men's and women's issues can be represented in the same way as each other. That is the movie I wanted to see if the writers and directors just had to go down this route, but instead, we got a confusing and existential movie.

Now I know I said a lot of criticism about this movie, but there are parts that I thought were done very well. When it delves into the true purpose of Barbie and brings in why she was made, those are the best parts of this movie. The talk between Barbie and Ruth is wonderful, and beautiful in so many ways. When they shine a lot on how inspirational she is that is where the movie shines.

I just wish it did a better job of trying to give detailed voices to all sides of the spectrum.

I wish the characters could've been written better as well. (America's daughter in the movie is pretty terrible, to be honest.)

Would I recommend it to people? No. Are some parts well made and done well? Absolutely. Could it have been better? Yes.

As always see the movie for yourself to form your own opinions instead of listening to one rando on the Internet.

#barbie #barbie movie #barbie 2023 #my thoughts

1 note · View note

lookwhatilost · 11 months

Text

film critics are also completely complicit in this too! when you write these think pieces or articles in the nyt or vulture or vanity fair and are getting hundreds of dollars from disney or warner brothers to write out of your ass, you're the generals leading this culture war.

like. i'm sorry but look at this shit. "Star Wars: The Last Jedi Offers the Harsh Condemnation of Mansplaining We Need in 2017"

That Holdo is kind yet dismissive of Poe only enrages him further. She urges him, for the safety of all concerned, to “stick to your post and follow my orders.” He doesn’t; as a result, many rebels die. Speaking about her character’s stylish-yet-firm leadership, Dern told Vanity Fair: “[Rian is] saying something that’s been a true challenge in feminism. Are we going to lead and be who we are as women in our femininity? Or are we going to dress up in a boy’s clothes to do the boy’s job? I think we’re waking up to what we want feminism to look like.”

One might argue that if Holdo had filled in Poe on her plan—to evade the First Order fleet long enough to get within range of an old base on Crait—Poe would have listened and fallen in line. But to borrow a phrase from Poe himself, this mission was a “need-to-know.” And as soon as a frustrated Holdo and Leia let Poe in on the plan, he blabs about it over the comms to Finn loud enough that Benicio del Toro’s D.J. can hear—and, later, sell them out. If Poe had just listened to Leia and Holdo from the start, the rebel fleet wouldn’t have been quite so decimated by the end of the film. Poe does clearly learn his lesson by the final frames of The Last Jedi—and only then do his admiration for Holdo, his respect for Leia, and his realization of just how much he doesn’t know position him to finally become the leader these powerful women hoped he’d be.

It’s clever for Johnson to have put this story on the very likable Poe. (Both Leia and Holdo are careful to reassure audiences that they, too, like the guy.) We expect dismissive sexism from the First Order (how many times do they refer to Rey as “The Girl?”), but to see it from a friendly face is even more instructive. Any female boss in 2017 or American still nursing the hangover of the 2016 presidential election can tell you that even nice guys often have trouble taking orders from women.

This message—women being largely right, and men being mostly wrong—extends to most but not all aspects of The Last Jedi. Rose Tico was certainly right to insist that Finn stay and fight, and right again to save him when attempts to needlessly sacrifice himself. Rey and Leia were right that Luke should join the resistance. But Luke still has some things to teach his young student. When they fight on the rainy cliffs of Ahch-To over her desperate hope that she can save Ben Solo, Luke is correct in telling Rey that “this is not going to go the way you think.” And in the end, no matter how Poe and Finn may have stumbled—or Holdo, Leia, Rose, and Rey may have triumphed—it’s still Luke Skywalker who gets the film’s big damn hero moment.

why is she making this stupid ass dig about luke skywalker getting a big hero moment? it's one of the few meaningful and interesting things that happens in this movie! "big damn hero moment" is literally a tv tropes phrase that comes from a line from firefly. is she aware that she's making a joss whedon reference lol?

#to the tune of mrs robinson: 'so here's to you joanna robinson. you're a hack and your opinions are gay. oh hey hey hey.'

0 notes

faustocosgrove · 1 year

Text

this is less of an adventure than it is an episode of “please reassure Fausto that he’s not fucking crazy”.

So uh, most of my coworker’s spouses do not show up at the job site. Yesterday, the one girl’s husband shows up and she introduces him to the Boss and me. but the way she introduces me was “this is Fausto, you’d like her, she’s a real good cook.” and the husband didn’t look particularly awake while talking to teh boss but as soon as his wife says “cook” his eyes shot open and he says “oh?” in the strangest tone. i don’t know how to describe it. it was as if i was going to whip a tray of hors d’ourves out from behind my back. like i was suddenly assigned wait staff status and was about to serve him. he then said “i like to cook and eat” in the most “i am a boring white man” voice you can imagine and the concern i had from the way the wife said “you’d like her” was washed away. still think that was a weird way to get introduced. she could have said “this is the one co worker i was telling you about who always packs really tasty looking lunches.” and not have made it sound like she was trying to pawn her husband off on another woman.

then today the same girl announces first thing when she walks in the door is that last night her husband gave her a back rub and it was the first back rub she’s gotten from him in the last 40 years. and then several hours go by and she notices me doing a shorter version of a task that both of us were doing last week that involves crouching down and doing bullshit on the ground. to which she states that i’m going to be the one who needs a back rub tonight.

so there’s the background info, and here’s teh question. is this some southern dialect i'm unfamiliar with that’s coming across wrong or is this lady trying to get me to sleep with her husband or am i just crazy and making connections that aren’t there?

anyway today’s second adventure was me giving the “why we have black history month” lecture to a gaggle of christian conservative mothers/grandmothers. things escalated into police profiling and then the history of the post slavery era. i think i actually made some headway with the one gal when i told her that slavery is still legal for convicts. the rest of them weren’t listening to anything i said and fucking whatever. pretty impressed at how quick the one turned around though. y’all know how there used to be a bunch of really basic anti racism, feminism, anti capitalism posts floating around circa 2014? y’know what those posts were very good at being? refreshers for how to talk to a conservative who finally questions their own biases. like clearly i only had an effect on the one who was wiling to take on new ideas, but i was so out of practice. like today i feel like i know more about white LGBTs’ racism and nazi dog whistles than i do about the kind of racism that affects the people i bump into on a daily basis. like ten years ago i feel i would have been better equipped to shut down the crazy old white lady yammering on and on about most crime being committed by black people. i wasn’t even on my game enough to say “i don’t know if that’s true or not, we should probably google it.”

third adventure: watched the movie Everything Everywhere All At Once. y’all were right, it’s ADHD as a movie and it’s good. and that’s all the review y’all are going to get because i am fucking exhausted send tweet. …wait twitter send tweet… tumblr send tumb. there we go send tumb.

#adventures with fausto #fausto polls #i am tired in my body and in my soul and in a secret third way as well

0 notes

therealvinelle · 3 years

Note

I've always wondered this, but what do you think the Cullen's political viewpoints would be, given their individual backgrounds? if vampires don't change after they turn, then surely they would all be extremely racist (especially Jasper). would this not come up at some point? they aren't like the Volturi because the Volturi are too old to care, but the Cullens are young enough that they have been brought up with opinions on stuff like sexism, racism, homophobia and the like.

Oh fuck.

You get an early answer because otherwise I'll just chicken out and delete this one, pretend I never saw it.

UMMM.

Since I'm guessing you meant American political viewpoints, we need a disclaimer. I am not American, and not too knowledgeable about your politics. Not just in the sense that I don't follow the day-to-day drama, but as I am not an American citizen there are several things I don't know, can't know because I've never lived in your country and therefore can't know what the effects of living in a country ruled by American policies is like. What I do know is based off of the news in the foreign section, social media (by which I mean tumblr posts), and Trevor Noah's Daily Show.

I am an outsider looking in.

Which is really rather appropriate, since the Cullens are too.

The Cullens go to high school and college, Carlisle works, they pay taxes, they own real estate, and submerge themselves in American culture. Esme, Edward, Rosalie, Emmett, and Bella are young enough that this is in many ways their world, and apart from timeouts they've more or less spent their entire lives, human and vampire, integrated into American society.

Not fully integrated, mind you, they do what they need to to fit in and get to school or, in Carlisle’s case, to work. They go no further. No extra-curriculars for the kids, no book clubs for Esme, no game nights for Carlisle. They walk parallel to humans, not among us.

In addition to this they're obscenely rich, which puts them another thousand miles from the experiences of your average American. They won't deal with the health system, which means healthcare is a non-issue, they're not going to need welfare or other social programs, unemployment is another non-issue. Name your issue, and the Cullens don't have personal stake in it. Even the climate crisis won't be a problem for them the way it will for us.

What I'm trying to say is, American political issues are a concept to them, not a lived reality. Just like they are for me. So hey, you made a great choice of blog to ask.

I'll also add here that you say the Volturi are too old to care, and I agree- from an ancient's point of view, racism is a matter of "which ethnicity are we hating today?", and it all looks rather arbitrary after a while. Same with every other issue - after a while it all just blends together into "what are the humans fighting over today? Which Christian denomination is the correct one? Huh. Good for them, I guess."

I can't put it any better than this post did, really. The Volturi are real people, humans are nerds and tumblr having Loki discourse. Aro thinks it's delightful and knows entirely too much about Watergate (and let's be real, Loki discourse as well), but the point I wanted to get at is that politics really don't matter to vampires.

And I don't think they matter to the Cullens either.

So, moving on to the next point while regretting I didn't put headlines in this post, I'll just state that I don't think vampires' minds are frozen. Their brains are unable to develop further, and they can never forget anything, but... well, this isn't the post for that, but in order for this to be true of vampires they would barely be sentient. They would not be able to process new impressions, to learn new things, nor to have an independent thought process. Yes, we see vampires in-universe (namely, Edward, who romanticizes himself and vampires) believe they're frozen and can never change, but there is no indication that this is a widespread belief, or even true. Quite the contrary - Carlisle went from a preacher's son who wanted to burn all the demons to living in Demon Capital for decades and then becoming a doctor and making a whole family of demons. Clearly, the guy has had a change in attitude over the years. Jasper, in his years as a newborn army general, slowly grew disenchanted with his life and developed depression. James initially meant to kill Victoria and hunted her across the earth, then became fascinated and changed his mind about it.

Had these people been incapable of change, Carlisle would still be hating demons, Jasper would be in Maria's army, and James would still be hunting Victoria.

It goes to follow, then, that they are able to adapt to new things.

The question is, would they?

Here I finally answer your question.

So, we have these people who don't really have any kind of stake in politics, who keep up to date all the same (or are forcibly kept up to date because high school) and are generally opinionated people.

Where do they then fall, politically?

(And this is where you might want to stop reading, anon, because I'm about to eviscerate these people.)

Alice votes for whoever's gonna win. She also makes a fortune off of betting each election. Trump's 1 to 10 victory in 2016 was a great day to be Alice. MAGA!

The actual policies involved are completely irrelevant, she does this because it's fun. Election means she gets to throw parties. Color coded parties for the Republican and Democratic primaries, and US-themed parties for Election Night! (Foreigner moment right here: I at first wrote "Election wake" before realizing that's not what y'all murricans call it.)

Alice loves politics. Doesn't know the issues, but she sure loves politics.

Bella votes Democrat. She actually knows about the issues, and cares about them. This girl is a Democrat through and through.

Carlisle doesn't vote. I can't imagine it feels right. Outside of faked papers he's not a US citizen, this is meddling in human affairs that he knows don't concern him.

More, this guy has never lived in a democracy.

In life, Carlisle lived under an absolute monarchy that, upon civil war, became an absolute theocracy. From there he learned that vampires live under a total dictatorship.

For the first 150 years of his life, democracy was that funky thing the Athenians did in history books thousands of years ago, no more relevant to him than the Ancient Egyptian monarchy is to me. Then the Americans, and later other European countries started doing this.

Good for them.

There's this mistake often made by those who view history from a... for lack of a better term, a solipsistic standpoint. A belief that the present day is the culmination of all of history. “My society is the best society, the most reasonable society; all the others had it backwards. Thank god we’re living in this enlightened age!”

The faith in our current system of government is one such belief. We (pardon me if this doesn’t apply to everybody reading this post) have grown up in democracies, being told this is the ultimate form of rule, and perhaps that is true - but remember the kings who have told their subjects they had were divine and the best possible ruler based on that. Remember also that most modern democracies haven’t actually been democracies for very long at all, America is the longest standing at some 230 years (not long at all in the grand scope of things) and they have a fracturing two-party system to show for it.

Every society, ever, has been told they’re the greatest, and their system of government the most just. Democracy is only the latest hit.

This is relevant to Carlisle because he’s immortal and decidedly not modern. Democracy has not been installed in him the way it was the rest of the Cullens, Jasper included. To him- well, it’s just not his world. He has no stakes in our human politics, and as he is older than every current democracy and has seen quite a few of them fall, he’s not going to internalize the democratic form of rule the way a modern human has.

I think the concept of voting is foreign to him.

It requires a level of participation in human society that he’s simply not at. He does the bare minimum to appear human so he do the work he loves, but nothing more, and I find that telling.

As it is I think he'd be iffy about his family doing it. He won’t stop them, but in voting they’re... well it’s kind of cheating. They’re not really citizens, none of this will affect them, and by voting they’re drowning out the votes of real human voters. He does not approve.

Edward votes Democrat. He's... well he’s the kind of guy who will oil a girl’s bedroom window so he can more easily watch her sleep without being discovered, justifying it to himself as being okay because if she were to tell him to get lost he’d stop immediately. Same guy is so sure that he’d leave and never return again if she wanted him to, except this is the man who returned to Forks to hang around his singer, knowing there was a significant chance he might kill her. To say nothing of his Madonna/Whore complex, or of the fact that he tried to pimp out his wife twice, and was willing to forcibly abort her child.

This guy is very much in love with chivalry, with being an enlightened and feminist man who supports and respects women, while not understanding the entire point of feminism, which is female liberation.

He votes Democrat because he’s such an enlightened feminist who cares about women’s rights.

Emmett doesn’t care to vote, but if he has to he votes Republican. The guy is from the 1930′s, and has major would-be-the-uncle-who-cracks-racist-jokes-if-he-was-older vibes.

Esme doesn’t vote, that would require getting out of the house.

More, I just... can’t see it. I can’t see her being one to read up on politics and The Issues, period, but if she has to then I doubt she’d be able to decide.

Jasper doesn’t vote. Alice can have her fun, he does not care.

There’s also the whole can of worms regarding the last time he went to bat for American politics.

I imagine he stays out of this.

Renesmée doesn't vote. She has no stock in the human affairs. Who would she vote for, on what grounds? When Bella tries to pull her to the urns, she points out that she's three years old.

Rosalie, guys, I’m sorry, but that girl is definitely gonna vote Republican. Perhaps not right now as it’s become the Trump party of insanity, but the Mitt Romney type of Republicans? Oh yes.

And for the record, yes I imagine she does vote. To step back from politics would be another way she was relinquishing her humanity, and that’s not allowed to happen. So, yes, she goes to the urns, less for the sake of the politics involved and more because like this, she’s still a part of society in some way.

Now, onto why I think she’s Republican, I think it’s both fiscal and social.

This girl was the daughter of a banker who somehow profited off of the Depression, and who then became part of a family with no material needs that would soon become billionaires thanks to Alice. Poverty to Rosalie is a non-issue, as it is I imagine she views it as a much lesser issue than what she’s had to deal with. The humans can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, Rosalie’s infertility is forever.

Rosalie’s empathy is strongest when she’s able to project onto others, and she won’t be able to project onto the less fortunate at all.

Then there’s the fact that the Republican party is all about traditional family values, and pro-life.

Rosalie, a woman from the 1930′s who idolizes her human life and who‘d love nothing more than to get to live out this fantasy, is down for that. And as of Breaking Dawn she’s vocally pro-life, so there’s that.

This all being said I don’t think Rosalie cares to sit down and fully understand these politics she’s voting for, the possible impact they’ll have- that’s not important. What’s important is what voting does for her.

TL;DR: I bet anon regrets asking.

#long post #twilight #twilight vampires #twilight meta #twilight renaissance #politics #history #twilight history #carlisle cullen #alice cullen #bella swan #renesmée cullen #jasper hale #rosalie hale #emmett cullen

316 notes · View notes

entity-of-the-opera · 3 years

Text

The Feminization and Fetishization of John Laurens in the Hamilton Musical and its Fandom

In this I will be talking about a few things:

The whole “turtle boi” thing

His role in the musical

The feminization of him in the fandom

The fetishization of him (and his relationship with Hamilton)

The shredded bits of personality he has in the musical

His historical personality being taken from him and instead added to Hamilton’s character

I will not be putting any art of him in here to respect the artists’ privacy, but if you’ve been in the Hamilton fandom or at least heard of the issues I’m talking about, you’ll probably know what drawings I mean. Also, no hate to anyone or any artists who I may indirectly mention, or to anyone in the Hamilton Musical fandom. I understand that not everyone in the fandom is like this, but I will just be using the broad term “the fandom” for simplicity.

[cw: mentions of alcohol and alcoholism]

“UwU Turtle Boi John Laurens”

This image of him likely stemmed from the one drawing he did of a softshell turtle. But how the fandom took that and blew it up into him being obsessed with turtles and other sea creatures is beyond my knowledge. A lot of art depicts him with turtle stuffed animals or riding turtles or just general turtle-lover stuff. Not only are these wrong, but they’re also pretty weird. They often tie into the strange feminization of him, which I will discuss later.

His Role in the Musical

Laurens in the musical acts like Hamilton’s sidekick. He follows him around most of the scenes where they are together. He is almost always at Hamilton’s side, and when he is not or he is at the side of another character, he ends back up at Hamilton’s side fairly quickly. This seems like it makes sense, right? Hamilton is the main character, of course, everyone else is going to be behind him or beside him in some way. But it feels very forced, like Lin-Manuel Miranda purposefully made it so Hamilton was above everyone, no matter the cost. Laurens’ character suffered from this, and any kind of standing or power he held just from his personality alone was gone. What he is to Hamilton is like what Patroclus was to Achilles; a sidekick, overshadowed by the other’s glory and popularity.

An example of this is the Laurens-Lee duel scene. Historically, Laurens was the “trigger happy” one. When the first shot was fired between himself and Lee, he wanted to go again. Hamilton was not very happy that the duel was happening. When both sides (Hamilton and Laurens, Lee and his second Evan Edwards) arrived, he and Edwards tried to get Laurens and Lee to just apologize and be on their way. Laurens refused. When Laurens wanted to shoot again, Hamilton prevented him from doing so. In the show, however, the roles seem reversed.

The Feminization of Him in the Fandom

In almost every Hamilton musical fanfic or story I have read (and I have read quite a bit from my time in this fandom) Laurens is so feminine-- especially in lams fics. He acts feminine, he dresses feminine, he is described in the fics as feminine, he carries around his cute uwu turtle stuffie wearing his cute feminine uwu turtle pyjamas. It’s sickening. John Laurens was a brave soldier and a talented artist and this is how the fandom sees him? As some freckled gay baby twink?

Not only is this disrespectful to John Laurens, it is also disrespectful to Anthony Ramos, who played him in the OBC.

The Fetishization of Him and His Relationship with Hamilton

This, the feminization of him and the “UwU Turtle Boi” character are all very similar. You could argue that this and the “UwU Turtle Boi” character are the same, or that this and the feminization of him are the same. You wouldn’t be wrong; they are all very similar and overlap a lot. Because I covered the “UwU Turtle Boi” character already and have no more to say here about it, I will talk about how the fandom treats his relationship with Hamilton.

There are two very opposite sides of the “was lams real” spectrum: “it was not real, shipping founding fathers is gross,” and, “they were gay!!! Laurens was gay for Hammy!!! Read the letters!!!!” Both sides’ beliefs are valid; you are allowed to think what you want about this topic. It is a somewhat controversial topic that has no clear answer, and therefore is always being discussed. However, just because your belief is valid, doesn’t mean that the way you chose to phrase it is necessarily okay. I get that most of the people who say the second opinion tend to be young girls who may not know better, but the way that something is phrased is very important.

Read these two different phrasings of the same opinion, and think to yourself, “Which one sounds more fetishize-y?”

“I believe that Hamilton and Laurens were in a relationship based on evidence from the letters they sent each other.”

“Hammy and Laurens were gay! Read the letters! He says ‘I love you!’ They were super gay!”

Too many fangirls have called Laurens things like “gay boi” or “smol gay cinnamon roll.” I’ve also seen a very concerning amount of people call him their husband or hubby or dead boyfriend. I don’t think I need to explain how disgusting that is.

His Terrible Personality and Character

His entire character can be boiled down to “tyranny bad, alcohol good.” He’s loud and rowdy and a very boisterous person, shouting and running around and causing a ruckus. It is unlikely that the real Laurens was like this. Seeing as he came from a family of wealth and standing, he would have likely been taught to behave properly and be polite. He was rash at times, especially during battle, but other than that he seemed very professional. His rowdiness makes sense in some scenes when he’s in the war, but other than that part of the show, it doesn’t fit him.

Alcohol is a very big part of his personality for some reason. In his first (real) scene in Aaron Burr, sir, he’s talking about alcohol and drinking and even bragging about how much he drinks. At the very beginning of Satisfied, he’s offering drinks to other people and is very clearly drunk. As far as we know, the real Laurens was not a heavy drinker.

His lack of character can be explained, though. While writing the personalities of the characters, whoever was doing it took Laurens’ historical personality and gave it to Hamilton instead, leaving Laurens with almost nothing.

His Historical Personality Being Added to Hamilton’s Character

I’ve already talked about the Laurens-Lee duel, but I have yet to bring up what happened after it. In the show, Hamilton is brought into Washington’s office and Washington gets into an argument with him, which ends in Washington sending Hamilton home. Besides the fact that the timeline of these events is incredibly off, this is not at all what happened. After the duel, Hamilton wrote up a report on what happened to be given to Washington either the day of or after the duel. When Washington found out what happened, he was furious. Not at Hamilton, but at Laurens. Lin-Manuel Miranda took this from Laurens and changed the story so that it was Hamilton who got chewed out because Hamilton is the main character, not Laurens.

Conclusion

Lin-Manuel Miranda just tore up Laurens’ personality, leaving him as a rowdy alcoholic who eye-fucks Hamilton for the entirety of Act I. The fandom then took this empty shell of a character, combined it with random historical facts about him, and created a turtle-loving twink. Disgusting. Everything about this is so gross.

#achilles speaks #achilles writes #disclaimer: this is all my opinion #john laurens #hamilton musical #musical john laurens #hey babes #look what i did #i had to look up uwu turtle boi art for this rip #pls dont let this flop i had to watch the musical again for this and i stayed up til 4am writing most of it #hamilstans pls dont come for me

249 notes · View notes

eurofox · 3 years

Text

I remember reading those redpill cesspools years ago, like I was an alien observing a new species, and the difference between the women's and men's subs was depressing.

Redpillwomen :

-always have sex the way he likes it, even if you don't feel like it. You'll learn to enjoy it

-stfu (they literally put it like that). This was from anything to telling about your day, talking about your job. Anything really

-always give him the last word. They called their men 'captains'. They could only give their advice but they always stressed to follow his leadership.

-doll up. They said this incessantly. Look very feminine, unlike those ugly Jean and t-shirt wearing women with feminism rotted brain.

-always remember that he is more rational and logical than you and at the end of the day your worries and problems are petty.

-never ever critique his masculinity. But this doesn't apply to him and your femininity. Of course.

-don't keep male friends and get rid of any 'jealous' female friends who think your relationship isn't healthy.

-support and encourage him always. Make any sacrifice necessary.

-your male children should spend mo st of their time around him when he's a teen. Redpill men didn't seem to bothered about daughters except when it came to reminding them that they will expire at 30 and to not be evil harpies to the men they encounter. And not to be sluts and settle down early.

Redpill men

-you are the rational and logical sex, women are children mentally and should be treated as such. Ridicule her any time she has concerns or attempts to stand up for herself.

-if she has concerns they like to 'agree and amplify'. Taking any concern, wildly exaggerate it (while smirking, redpillers LOVE smirking) and then making it seem ridiculous so she feels like an idiot for even bringing it up.

-they LOVE the term 'caveman sex'. Where they are basically as rough as they want. Any concerns about it on her end are simply Lmr (last minute resistance) and should simply be ignored. But of course, false rape accusations are rampant and the number one evil in the world.

-constantly remind her that she is replaceable. They called this dread game. Done by flirting in front of her with other women and criticising her appearance in comparison to other women. Sure she probably just birthed your kids but the bitch is getting fat! Remind her constantly.

-keep reminding her that women as a whole are lesser than men in everything except child rearing (though plenty of redpillers believe men are better at hat as well) and any ambitions outside of being your partner are laughable. Any examples of women she can come up with are outliers. Maybe tell her they died alone with cats or something.

-if you hate women but still want to to fuck them, remember to use lots of feminist buzzwords. Then you can coerce them into bdsm, anal, or whatever you like.

-the golden rule. Your partner must be reminded that at 30 she will 'hit the wall ', will no longer be attractive with a 'tight fit body' (gag) and she needs to reminded of this. You however will age like fine wine so don't worry about it.

____------___----------__-----

I don't recommend looking at this shite for your own mental health. But at least be aware of some of the tricks they pull.

The women seem determined to turn themselves into doormats for men who clearly don't have the slightest respect for them and it honestly baffles me.

They have a married redpill sub as well with me pulling this shit on their wives who are trapped with them. Sounds like a nightmare. They even talk about introducing their kids to the content, sons and daughters.

Some of the redpill women are so misogynist that I can't even pity them however. They can lie in the bed they made.

#I did this so you don't have to #And try not to be too naive #These people are out there

129 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 3 years

Note

Hi Clyde! I know this might be a bit late to the conversation but I just wanted to ask if you think M&K are writing Yang through a male lens? Not in the sense she's hyper-sexualised, but in the sense she lashes out at her allies without consequences (Fiona), has little empathy for female survivors of abuse (Salem and Blake) and gives her loved ones the cold shoulder when she doesn't agree with them rather than trying to reach an understanding (Blake and Ren).

Hi there, anon! No one is ever late to the conversation around here, not when I'm forever answering months-old asks lol

On the whole I would say no, simply because - as many others have pointed out in regards to other posts - this behavior is by no means seen solely in Yang. Ruby is out there lashing out in Volume 6, Jaune was giving Ren the same cold shoulder, no one else has expressed any empathy for the abuse survivors lately (though Yang might actually have a point in her favor there, given her talk with Weiss in Volume 5, when she learns about her mom's drinking). My point being, pretty much everyone is written with this classic masculine lens right now, where being angry, violent, and dismissive are framed as the correct way to approach problems, whether we're talking about Weiss shoving her weapon in Whitley's face, or Nora coolly brushing aside Ren's concerns. The exceptions being, to my mind, Ren - who learned this season that considering a kinder, more strategic approach is wrong - and Oscar who is embodying the archetype of the innocent child so fully that it allows him to forgive/grant absolution outside of the bounds of the story's internal logic and gendered expectations. Him reaching out to Hazel, Emerald, and even Ozpin is less a commentary on gender and more an extreme upholding of his status as the youngest and, comparatively, most innocent (which, as said previously, bumps up against Ruby's same, former status). Think Harry Potter, destroying evil with the love in his skin as an 11yo by merely touching Quirrel's face, not an older teenager hurling a dark curse at Malfoy while overflowing with rage. Oscar is still very much in that initial stage of being the young, baby-faced character who is not yet jaded and is thus able to overcome evil purely by wishing it so. Yet everyone else, including Yang, gets by on lies, secrets, violence, and anger - no matter how much the story wants to dress it up as heroics. So Yang is by no means alone in that.

What does interest me regarding Yang characterization right now is not, strictly speaking, about Yang. Rather, it’s about the presumed relationship with Blake and how changes to Blake’s character have reflected back on Yang. I won’t go into a full, eight season analysis of it here, but suffice to say, Blake’s personality has taken a sharp dive lately, most notably in the most recent volume. She used to be an opinionated, outspoken woman, the kind of person who marched up to Weiss in the middle of the street to denounce her family’s slavery, fighting for her people with as much intensity in a conversation as she gave on the battlefield. This is the woman who stormed off in anger at Weiss’ racism, demanded a solemn oath from Yang if she was going to believe her about the Mercury fight, rallied an army to defend Haven, set her own house on fire to defend her parents... I could go on. Blake used to only be quiet when it came to settling down with a good book. Now she’s far more meek and submissive. She’s been reduced to blushing prettily at Yang’s praise, begging Ruby to save her, going along with Yang’s plans for betrayal because she’s scared about killing again, clasping Ruby’s hands to assure her that she’ll save them all, etc. I use the term “reduced” intentionally because, on their own, there’s nothing wrong with any of these traits. If anything, Blake should be a more well-rounded character for being able to collapse crying over Adam, or go tongue-tied at a compliment. The problem lies in replacing her original personality with this new one: softer, less confrontational, less skilled, no longer as determined, no longer as angry, keeping to the background to play at comic relief or the damsel in distress. I bring all this up because - within the comparatively slim queer rep we’ve gotten in media - there’s a long history of writing them so that one is clearly the “man” in the relationship and the other is clearly the “woman.” This extends from visual markers like dividing them between assumed masculine and feminine clothing preferences - who wears dresses and who can pass for a boy in a baseball hat and sweats? - to caching in on equally assumed personality traits - who is the calm and compassionate individual; who has the temper and is constantly itching for a fight? To use two examples, think of couples like Sapphire and Ruby, or Kurt and Blaine. One is a cool blue in flowy dresses, always working to be sensible, while the other is an angry red in a sensible shirt and pants, easily pissed off. One is practicing a version of Beyoncé's “Single Ladies” in a sequined leotard, framed as the lady, whereas the other sings “Teenage Dream” in a suit at the piano, a song meant to appeal to the teenage girls watching, no matter the character’s sexuality. I’m simplifying a LOT here, including the context for the times (Glee) and the ways in which this divide is sometimes flipped (Ruby and Sapphire’s wedding), but my point is that whether authors realize it or not, they often force their queer characters into the gender binary, even while they’re supposedly meant to be challenging those norms. Blake and Yang, to get to a long-winded point, are becoming a part of that trend, wherein the closer they get to becoming a canonical couple, the more classically feminized Blake becomes. That, in turn, positions Yang as the “man” of the relationship. Already embodying some of those assumptions with her tough personality and brawl fight style, Blake’s regression into someone in need of rescue, someone less likely to speak up, someone who is visually positioned as less confident and in need of emotional care (think of her drooped ears and inability to make eye contact in “Ultimatum)” only increases that reading, especially given arcs like Yang’s insistence that she doesn’t need anyone protecting her, morphing into her becoming Blake’s protector instead. Yes, the dialogue states that they protect each other, but we all know RWBY struggles to show what the characters claim. Scenes like Yang arriving on a badass motorcycle to fight the majority of the battle against Adam, ending with her cradling a sobbing Blake who promises to never leave her side, or confidently taking Blake’s cheek in hand to comfort her after their not-fight, a moment of confidence and (unneeded) forgiveness... this all speaks volumes of something RWBY doesn’t think is there. So I don’t believe it’s intentional and, as said, there are a lot of complexities to take into account here, but I nevertheless don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’ve lost so much of Blake’s original personality right around the time the show got more serious about their relationship. As a presumed queer couple, there’s an instinctual desire to figure out which is the “guy” and which is the “girl” in the relationship, with Yang being positioned as the former the more Blake changes to fit the latter.

#rwby #mymetas

36 notes · View notes

nestable · 3 years

Text

Feminism in ACOTAR

(This is a bit long so bare with me)

As a politics student and general member of the public who's curious about feminist themes, I've read a lot of feminist writings which have informed my opinion in saying that none of the acotar books can be described as feminist.

I've noticed that the big motivator behind describing the books as feminist is feyres appointment of High lady. Though that may be pivotal in prythian history, we cant ignore the fact that it is still a fairly patriachal society. Having a few women in places of power like mor, amren, feyre etc. Is not enough because women don't grow up on an island and are also influenced by patriachal views or mindsets. In short, just because someone is a woman and is in a position of power, doesnt mean that they will cater to the needs of women or are feminist. Women, especially white women(this is important because sjms writes white feminism) have often gotten into positions of power and actually ignored women and done the same that their male predecessors have done and often threw other women under the bus in order to retain their tokenism status. And the main flaw of white feminism which is the reason why it coined the term 'white feminism' is that it doesnt encompass all the intersectionalities that women reside in and only focus on a western model of what it means to be a woman and anything outside of that is backward and 'barbaric. We see this in the judgement and disregarding of POC's experiences and outlooks on life because they are different to theirs. There are more than enough examples of the white women in the series judging the illyrians which are seen by the fandom as POC's and how they maliciously drag their customs through the mud. Instead of getting these views from illyrian women themselves, we get them from white women who arent connected to that culture whatsoever and who have nothing to say except judgement and critique instead of actually helping.

We see this with the white characters views of illyrian cultures and their conclusion of the condition of women without even having a single conversation with illyrian women. Illyrian women in this set up have no agency and no voice and that leaves the women of the IC to speak for them which is counterproductive. This is wrong in that many western cultures have misinterpreted different cultures and ignored the women in those societies as being disenfranchised and have used this as an excuse to invade and colonize under the guise of liberating women when in actual fact they dont care about the women at all, and are only concerned in reaping the benefits of that culture and keeping them under their control. An example of this is rhys ignoring the treatment of illyrian women but reaping the benefit of having illyrians fight in his wars.

Feyre as high lady

It's unfair to judge feyres actions as high lady as yet because we've barely seen her act, but from the little that we know, she follows Rhys' every action and decision without question. And rhys hasn't done anything for the improvement of women's position socially or economically at all (we all know the state of the illyrian camps) in all the 500 yrs he's been high lord. Apart from Rhys, the inner circle has 2 women in the highest leadership positions and even they havent done anything and have even ignored the plight of women under their jurisdiction, (mor with Hewn city) I dont even think amren cares about anything besides her jewels tbh. So it's fair to assume that feyre will follow in those very footsteps. She already has biased and low views on the illyrians and people who reside in hewn city to the point where she participates in the 'pimp and whore' act that she puts on t deal with them. And we've never seen her speak to illyrian women so to her their voices and autonomy dont matter.

Male feminism in the IC

The only male who can be seen as being feminist in the series is Cassian because aside from simply declaring that wing clipping is illegal, he actually does the ground work to ensure it doesn't happen by offering the women to train with him. Though this is a weak cure for the issues the women face in Illyria, it's a start and far more work than anything the other characters have done in the name of women empowerment.

Another so called feminist figure in the series is rhysand. Why he's described as such defeats me, but I'll go through some points to prove that hes nothing of the sort.

1. He created a library for sexual assault survivors.

Though this is a nice effort, it can't be described as feminism because he doesnt extend the same courtesy to the other women in his territory and is only concerned with women in Velaris. Supporting women who worship you isnt feminism isnt feminism either and we know that the entirety of Velaris see the IC as blameless gods. Based on mors history, its obvious that the women in hewn city are suffering just as much if not more but hes forsaken them to live under mors parents/abusers rule. And creating a safe house for sexual assault survivors isnt as much feminism as it is human decency. Especially considering how much money hes got.

2. Banning illyrian wing clipping

Wing clipping is still a pandemic in the illyrian camps meaning that he didnt put enough provisions to ensure that it stops. Passing a law and ensuring that it is followed are two different things and rhys clearly dowsnt know the distinction. An additional point regarding illyrian women is that it was mentioned in acofas that they were joining the men in rebelling, and if that doesnt say anything about their feelings with him being high lord and how he doesnt cater to them, then I dont know what does. This also speaks to the point of the assumption that women of color dont have agency in their own societies. He said something like the men 'manipulated' the women into joining their rebellion, which insinuates that they can't think for themselves and are completely voiceless and this is a factor of whit feminism, the belief that WOC colour cant speak for themselves and are meek and susetable to being controlled or manipulated. It is a huge possibility that the women can't really express their opinions because they are suppressed by their men, however we dont see rhys interacting with any women and getting their opinion on things. He assumes that they are forced into everything and though we havent gotten the book yet I'm gonna say this is false. The reason being if rhys was such a good high lord and cared for women's issues, why would the women side with their 'abusive' men instead of their so called benevolent high lord?

3. Rhys appointed women in his IC

First of all, appointing women based on merit and qualifications is feminism, not appointing family members and you underaged bride just because 'you love her'. Though mor and amren may be qualified, and that's a massive 'maybe', they haven't done anything to improve the lives of women. Like their high lord they are complacent and Hewn city and illyria are more than enough to prove this. What rhys has essentially done is nepotism and corruption and no one can convince me otherwise.

Going further on the inner circle women, rhys was willing to sacrifice these very women to achieve his goal and this is self serving and anti feminist. The first being abusing feyre UTM and then using her as bait for the attor, then later making a deal with eris even though he knows his history with mor. If anyone believes that these actions are remotely feminist or excusable, then feminism is not for you and need help because its abusive and patriachal.

In conclusion rhys isnt feminist, mor isnt feminist, amren isnt feminist, feyre isnt feminist, azriel isnt even in the conversation and cassian is the only one scratching the surface. Also, white feminism is an exclusive and limited way to portray and execute feminism, women getting leadership positions based on their proximity to men just advances the false notion that women can only succeed if they 'sleep' their way to the top and just because a woman is in a leadership space, thag doesnt make that state of affairs inherently feminist because women are also carriers of patriarchy.

I tried to sum up my points but for more on white feminism, feminist intersectionalites and how being female doesnt make a person feminist, I advice you read Bell Hooks' writings because she touches on these topics in far better ways than I can.

#acotar #acowar #acomaf #anti inner circle #anti rhysand #anti feyre #my take on feminism #stop caling female representation feminism #anti sjm #sjm critical

165 notes · View notes

ilikekidsshows · 3 years

Text

I edited the ask slightly to make it clear this is about apologists making excuses for Chloé's behavior and not fans who just feel frustrated over not getting an arc they wished to see.

Anon said: I think what really annoys me is Chloe apologists that cry she’s, “just a kid she can learn to be better and outgrow her abusive tendencies” seem to gloss over or ignore that Chloe has been given MULTIPLE chances to do better for 3 seasons and at every turn she always returns to her spoiled bratty bullying ways. Especially in season 3 where she didn’t listen to Ladybug about never getting the miraculous and felt entitled to the power.

It’s just so annoying how chloe apologists act like she’s the real victim just cause her mommy doesn’t love her, news flash she’s not the only character in the show who has a bad relationship with a parent. It doesn’t give Chloe the right to degrade and abuse people. Im not sure if Chloe needs to hit rock bottom before she turn things around or this is heading towards a corruption arc. However im also annoyed when parts of her fandom claim it’s misogynistic that she doesn’t get better.

Because sometimes bad people stay bad and never get better, it would be a very powerful lesson to teach kids who are in toxic abusive relationships especially with childhood friends that sometimes you have to let them go and cut them off because they’re causing you harm. It was very powerful of Adrien to stand up to Chloe multiple times as an abuse victim and not let her drag him down to her level. All the people mad at him for queen banana don’t realize that Adrien can’t make chloe a kinder person. No one can make someone mean good.

Plus the show is chock full of actual good and kind girls with positive supportive friendships so having one or even two female characters turn out bad isn’t sexist to me. Same with people who claim Zoe is a Mary Sue and it’s wrong that she’s replacing Chloe. Which is weird because Zoe can’t replace what Chloe never was, a friend to the main cast. Chloe was never close with the class or their friend even if she tried to be involved in their projects he never tried to get along with the others.

Plus Zoe made a mistake by trying to emulate her family and be a bully but eventually realized being awful like them wasn’t worth their approval. Whether she’s a better hero or deserves the miraculous is another discussion but we’re talking about Chloe here. If she continues down the path of selfishness and hate becoming like her mother and her sister Zoe, who also comes from an abusive family, doesn’t that just means one overcame their trauma and the other didn’t.

Sorry for the rant just I’m so tired of seeing the tag be cluttered up by Chloe apologists who won’t stop crying or complaining about her character.

With what the canon actually gave us, Chloé's arc could have gone, and could still go, either way on the redemption/corruption scale. Yes, Chloé messed up royally in the season three finale, but she was under duress to a degree. While Chloé showed few signs of becoming a selfless hero, since most of the people she helped as a hero were people she put in bad situations to begin with or she helped out to get to hang out with Ladybug, she's also showed no signs of becoming a true villain the same way Lila has. We can clearly see Lila developing into a supervillain, but Chloé is very much stuck in the middle and could go either way if she suddenly got superpowers with no strings attached.

The real issue here is Chloé's civilian life. She's never been kind to her classmates and goes out of her way to make sure they have a bad time. This has never been influenced by whether or not she had a Miraculous, so obviously something not-superpowers-related needs to happen for her to see anything wrong with what she's doing.

And there's a real chance Zoé is meant to be that thing that makes Chloé see. Chloé could see how her sister was forgiven and welcomed by her classmates and realize how easy it is to stop being awful and get validation and friendship from the class that way. This realization might make her look down on the class as gullible fools, like Lila, or it might make Chloé want to belong and try to adjust her behavior, having her follow Zoé's lead.

Of course there's still a chance that Chloé will just keep swinging between sitcom arch nemesis and not-quite-a-supervillain, that she'll still be used as a civilian life obstacle for the heroes to overcome and she's not meant to be redeemed or corrupted. In this case I can see this fandom discourse continuing for years to come, since it's the uncertainty of Chloé's role that's fuelling it so much.

Crying misogyny every time your favorite female character is treated in a way you don't like, when it’s used in a way that’s clearly just a buzzword meant to manipulate people, is something I'm just so done with. In the case of Miraculous, though, it's especially misguided, with how much the creators clearly try to be feminist. It's one thing to say something they did fails at that goal and leans into sexist attitudes and another to say they're being purposefully misogynistic because the show isn’t to your tastes. Because, let’s face it, a lot of the show’s attempts at being progressive have been tone deaf, but it usually seems to happen by accident and sometimes, at least with Fei’s design, they seem to be willing to amend a mistake when it gets pointed out.

Also, because sexism and feminism are about gender politics, the thing with discussing sexism is not actually comparing a female character with other female characters, it's about comparing a female character with male characters. If a show aims for gender equality, a character's gender can't influence how they are treated. This means we need to see if we can compare Chloé's character to a male character and find equality.

And we can. Miraculous Ladybug has a male character who causes others pain on purpose. This same character has several chances to stop being awful with "not being awful" costing him nothing. He even shows a softer side in 'Style Queen', just like Chloé in that same episode, but ultimately tosses that change aside when he finds something he thinks can help him gain his goals, like Chloé does in 'Miracle Queen'.

I am of course talking about Gabriel Agreste. I have repeatedly said that Marinette and Chloé are mirrors, what the other could be if they changed how they view other people and themselves. Gabriel is a foil to Marinette, so he naturally mirrors Chloé as well. However, Gabriel's arc has a similar forwards-and-backwards beat as Chloé's does. Even Chloé Apologists recognize the similarities between the two, since I've seen them voicing concerns that Gabriel might get redeemed while Chloé doesn't, because they think Gabriel having sympathetic aspects is a sign of a redemption arc for him like it supposedly was for Chloé. Instead, they are still both firmly in the area of antagonists and villains.

Although I will concede one key difference: Chloé is still way more likely to get redeemed than Gabriel.

I also think that, even if Chloé does get redeemed eventually, it’s still important that Adrien didn’t just hang on waiting for it when she spent so long proving again and again that she didn’t want to change. Because the other characters couldn’t know for sure if Chloé would change. Just like in the real world you won’t know for sure if your toxic friend will ever change, so you might have to let them go for your own sake. Even if they might get better one day, even if you’re not their target, it’s not on you to stand by them when they do things that are against your personal ethics.

#ml fandom salt #long post

19 notes · View notes

blackswaneuroparedux · 3 years

Text

Anonymous asked: I really enjoy your erudite and literary posts about James Bond in your blog very much. Your most recent post about Connery as best cinematic Bond and Dalton as the best literary Bond was brilliant. Although the PC brigade have been inching towards making Bond a woman or even non-white, Ian Fleming’s legacy of a suave but cold hearted English gentleman spy hasn’t been completely trashed. As someone familiar with Fleming literary lore can you also tell me where was James Bond educated? Was it Oxford or Cambridge? I was having a discussion over Zoom with friends and the Oxonians like myself thought it was Oxford because in Casino Royale with Daniel Craig it’s made very plain it was Oxford. Your thoughts?

I appreciate your kind words about my posts on James Bond and his creator Ian Fleming. It’s very hard to ignore the cinematic James Bond because he is very much an icon of our modern culture that needs no translation to transcend across cultures. Alongside Sherlock Holmes, another British literary and cinematic export, the name alone speak for itself.

James Bond appeals to both genders very well.

For the men, Bond dresses well and lives in a care free way. He is both ferociously intelligent and resourceful to get out of any tight corner. He drives incredible cars (from the incredibly stylish Aston Martin DB5 to the incredibly awful AMC Hornet) and uses awesome technology (he is the archetypal boy with toys). He's not afraid to get down in the dirt to fight or engage in lethal gun-play and spectacular car chases. He sleeps with beautiful women, regardless how strong and independent they are (or even lesbian if we’re being honest about Pussy Galore).

For us ladies, while he's not averse to action, he's also a cultured gentleman with suave and sophisticated manners. He's also a generally pretty good looking guy. In many ways, he's a conventional male ideal. So while his conventional good looks and manners aren't for everyone, they hit right the sweet spot of what women like. For everyone, he's a spy! Not at a grey real world nondescript spy, but a cool spy fighting larger than life bad guys whose bland sartorial choices scream mad super villain. It's a very black and white world that James Bond lives in. These bad guys truly are villainous in the desire to re-order humanity, and we need a debonair British MI6 agent to save us from these mad men who want to harm us by laying waste to a bonkers Armageddon.

When all is said and done I think that what makes James Bond so iconic across gender and generations is what Raymond Chandler wrote back in 1959, “every man wants to be James Bond and every woman wants to be with him”.

That sounds about right. Men want to be him, women want to be with him.

I know my first introduction to James Bond was through my grandfather on my Anglo-Scots father’s side who was a dashing gentleman in his day with a long rumoured hush hush work for Her Majesty’s government firmly shoved under the carpet to avoid further discussion that he - being self-effacing and humble - would find embarrassing that would paint him in any heroic light. Years later he had bought his Bahamas beach pile in Harbour Island out in the Caribbean for the family to rest up from cold winters in Britain. Amongst his immense stack of books dotted around the place were (and still are) first editions of Flemings novels which a few were signed by the author as he on occasion met Ian Fleming when he would sail over to Jamaica (they were also OEs which helped). We were not allowed to touch these but instead picked up the dog earred paperbacks that still retained their 60s musty smell.

On my teen sojourns there I would spend time along with my siblings just reading anything we could find to take to the beach or lounge around in a hammock or a chaise longue. That’s how I came to read the Fleming books - really out of necessity to avoid boredom on a beach (which isn’t really my thing as I prefer the rugged outdoors). But I was pleasantly surprised how well written the books were and I actually enjoyed the stories; it was a refreshing change from the more heavy literary tomes I was trying hard to wade through. As for the Bond films, I watched them on film nights at boarding school; I remember having a school girl crush on Connery, Dalton, and Brosnan.

There are many reasons for the successful longevity of James Bond in popular culture and literature but perhaps one of the most pertinent to our discussion is that James Bond is actually a blank slate and therefore malleable as a character and so he can capture the current zeitgeist in time.

This ability of the film to adapt to different generations while remaining relevant is an important factor for its longevity. For example, the early James Bond films were unashamedly sexist with characters using women as objects and discarding them. In the most recent James Bond films, certainly starting with Timothy Dalton, there is a subtle change in attitude with a few chauvinist attitudes.

James Bond today is more serious, seduces fewer women, and is more respectful towards women in his life, including his boss. This shows how the film changes concerning the rise of feminism in the West. For example, Miss Moneypenny used to be a minor character in the very first James Bond films. Today, she is more formidable and doesn’t tolerate sexist remarks.

Perhaps it is precisely because of this blank slate malleability that has allowed different actors that have been cast to play James Bond their own way - rather than get a straight like for like Scottish sounding actor to replacing Connery for example the film producers went across to Moore via Lazenby for example - and letting each actor imbue the super spy with different moods. They each added their own colour from the same broad palate to create different tones. However, each of these characters maintained the essential character that defines James Bond. The actors have broadly stayed true to the inherent mix of character and class associated with James Bond.

For this reason I have some empathy towards your concern that Bond would be held hostage to the current zeitgeist of white washing or genderising everything so as to avoid being a victim of cancel culture. But it’s only empathy because I feel there is a danger of misunderstanding just who James Bond is and what he represents.

What do I mean by this?

I mentioned James Bond is a malleable character to the point he’s presented as a blank slate. This is ‘literally’ true - certainly as far as the books go. Ian Fleming doesn’t tell us much about Bond other than his appearance in his books. Indeed - as I mentioned in my past blog post on Connery as the best Bond - Fleming wasn’t convinced by Connery as Bond. He was reported to have said, ‘I’m looking for Commander Bond and not an overgrown stuntman’ and even dismissed Connery as “that fucking truck driver”. Fleming has good reason to rage. His Bond as written in the books was someone like him.

Like Fleming, Bond was an Eton educated Englishman; an officer and a (rogue) gentleman who was a lieutenant-commander in Naval Intelligence. As Connery began to wow and win over Fleming as Bond, Fleming had a change of heart. Fleming in his later Bond books re-wrote a half-Scottish ancestry for Bond as a tribute to Connery’s portrayal. Bond’s Scottish father was a Royal Navy captain and later an arms dealer, Andrew Bond from Glencoe; and his mother, Monique Delacroix, was Swiss from an industrial family. Bond himself was born in Zurich. Bond isn’t English at all but half-Scots and half-Swiss according to literary canon.

So I mention this because the question who can play James Bond is not as straight forward as it might seem.

But clearly we now have a canon of work, both cinematically and in the literature, where we have base line of who Bond is - or what audiences could possibly suspend their disbelief and go with what is presented to them as James Bond.

I do vaguely remember the hullabaloo and hand wringing around Daniel Craig playing Bond because he didn’t conform to the traditional tall, dark, and handsome trope of James Bond super suave spy. People couldn’t get past his blond hair. Some still can’t. But in my humble opinion he has been an outstanding James Bond and has reimagined Bond in a fresh and exciting way. Craig is in fact mining the Fleming books for his characterisation of Bond as a suave, gritty, humourless killer of the books. Dalton got there before him but that’s a moot point. To our current generation Craig has modernised Bond and dusted 007 down from being a relic of the Cold War to being a relevant 21st Century super spy.

Can anyone play James Bond OO7? Yes and no. It’s arguing that two different things are one and the same. They are not. James Bond is separate from OO7.

Can a woman play Jane Bond or a black woman or non-white man play Black Bond? Respectfully, no. That’s not who James Bond is.

James Bond is a flesh and blood character with a specific genealogical history - whether in the books or on the screen. This Bond has literary back story that is canon and makes him who he is. Bond does transcend time - he can’t be 38 years old for over 75 years in the real world - but at the same time his character only makes sense when rooted in a specific historic context we know existed (and still exists) and not some wishy washy make believe fantasy of British society. He’s an Old Etonian and therefore an upper middle class male product of the British establishment that is identifiable in a very British cultural context.

Jane Bond would have to have gone to Cheltenham Ladies College, Benneden, or Roedean I suppose if we are talking about equivalence - but such girls’ boarding schools were not the breeding ground for future spies (more likely they married them or became trusted secretaries in the intelligence services as well as flower arranging in their Anglican parish church).

I believe they are letting in black pupils on bursaries at Eton these days to be more inclusive but again it’s an an exception not the rule and Eton doesn’t even get public credit for the inclusive work they try to do because it’s not well known.

Moreover we know Bond loses his Scottish-Swiss parents in a skiing accident. I don’t mean to sound racist but I ski a lot in Switzerland and I can say you don’t really find droves of non-white skiers on the slopes of Verbier or Zermatt. Of course there are a few but it’s the exception and not the norm. Again, I’m not trying to be racist but just point out some obvious things when it pertains to the credibility of character that underlines who Bond is. You pull one thread out of the literary biography and the danger is the rest of the tapestry will unravel.

Of course one could try and go for a Black Bond on screen and then hope there is a huge suspension of belief on the part of the audience. But I suspect it’s a bridge too far. It just doesn’t fit. Audiences around the world have an image of who Bond is - British at the very least but also male (damaged and flawed in many ways) and coming from a specific British social class background that serves as an entree to a closed world of English gentleman clubs, Savile Row, English sports cars, and the hushed corridors of Whitehall.

Any woke film maker with an ounce of creative vision and talent and one who is invested in this would be better off creating a new character entirely - with their own specific biography that is both believable and relatable. Can you imagine an American James Bond? What a ghastly thought. Or worse a Canadian one? Canadians are far too nice and far too apologetic to produce a cruel cold eyed killer. But look what clever film makers like Spielberg and Lucas did with Indiana Jones and even later Doug Liman did with Jason Bourne - both fantastic creations that are part of the cultural zeitgeist now.

Or look at Charlize Theron who plays a MI6/CIA/KGB triple agent in Atomic Blonde or Rebecca Ferguson as Ilsa Faust in any of the Mission Impossible movies. I would eagerly watch any movies with these two badass women on the screen. All this talk about making Bond a woman or even coloured is just lazy thinking at best and at worst kow towing to the populist tides of PC brigade.

But I firmly believe one can have a female and a person of colour portraying 007. This is because James Bond and OO7 are two different things entirely. Many mistakenly believe 007 is Bond’s own code name and specific alias to him alone.

007 is a license to kill for a very specialised kind of intelligence officer. Bond has that privilege for as long as he serves at the service of Her Majesty’s pleasure. His 007 license can be revoked - and it has been in the past Bond films - and he’s back to being a just another desk jockey civil servant in Whitehall. So my point is OO7 is not sacred to Bond’s identity. Bond could continue to be Bond even if M took away his 007 license to kill.

The origins of the Double O title may date to Fleming's wartime service in Naval Intelligence. According to World War Two historian Damien Lewis in his book Churchill's Secret Warriors, agents of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) were given a “0” prefix when they became "zero-rated" upon completion of training in how to kill. As part of his role as assistant to the head of naval intelligence, Rear Admiral John Godfrey (himself the inspiration for M), Fleming acted as liaison to the SOE.

In the novel Moonraker it’s established that the section routinely has three agents concurrently; the film series, beginning with Thunderball, establishes the number of OO agents at a minimum of 9. Fleming himself only mentions five OO agents in all. According to Moonraker, James Bond is the most senior of three OO agents; the two others were OO8 and OO11. The three men share an office and a secretary named Loelia Ponsonby. Later novels feature two more OO agents; OO9 is mentioned in Thunderball and OO6 is mentioned in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Other authors have elaborated and expanded upon the OO agents. While they presumably have been sent on dangerous missions as Bond has, little has been revealed about most of them. Several have been named, both by Fleming and other authors, along with passing references to their service records, which suggest that agents are largely recruited (as Bond was) from the British military's special forces.

Interestingly, In the novel You Only Live Twice, Bond was transferred into another branch and given the number 7777, suggesting there was no active agent 007 in that time; he is later reinstated as 007 in the novel The Man with the Golden Gun. As an aside, in Fleming's Moonraker, OO agents face mandatory retirement at 45 years old. However Sebastian Faulks's Devil May Care (an authorised Bond adventure from the Fleming estate and therefore arguably could be considered canon) features M giving Bond a choice of when to retire - which explains why Roger Moore (God bless) went past his sell by date.

In the films the OO section is a discrete area of MI6, whose agents report directly to M, and tend to be sent on special assignments and troubleshooting missions, often involving rogue agents (from Britain or other countries) or situations where an "ordinary" intelligence operation uncovers or reveals terrorist or criminal activity too sensitive to be dealt with using ordinary procedural or legal measures, and where the aforementioned discretionary "licence to kill" is deemed necessary or useful in rectifying the situation.

The World is Not Enough introduces a special insignia for the 00 Section. Bond's fellow OO agents appear receiving briefings in Thunderball and The World Is Not Enough. The latter film shows a woman in one of the 00 chairs. In Thunderball, there are nine chairs for the OO agents; Moneypenny says every 00 agent in Europe has been recalled, not every OO agent in the world. Behind the scenes photos of the film reveal that one of the agents in the chairs is female as well. As with the books, other writers have elaborated and expanded upon the OO agents in the films and in other media.

In GoldenEye, 006 is an alias for Alec Trevelyan; as of 2019, Trevelyan is the only OO agent other than Bond to play a major role in an EON Productions film, with all other appearances either being brief or dialogue references only.

In Casino Royale with Daniel Craig’s first outing as Bond, we see in the introduction the tense exchange between Bond and Dryden, a section chief whom Bond has been sent to kill for selling secrets.

James Bond: M really doesn't mind you earning a little money on the side, Dryden. She'd just prefer it if it wasn't selling secrets. Dryden: If the theatrics are supposed to scare me, you have the wrong man Bond. If M was so sure I was bent...she'd have sent a Double-O. Benefits of being Section Chief...I would know of anyone being promoted to Double-O status, wouldn't I? Your file shows no kills...and it takes - James Bond: - two. (flashback of Bond fighting Dryden's contact in a bathroom.)

The OO is just a coveted position and nothing to do with who occupies it. Ito use a topical comparative example it’s like a football team in which a new star player would be given an ex-player’s shirt number e.g. Messi wears Number 10 for Argentina which is heavily identified with the late great Maradona. So conceivably there would be no problem having a woman or anyone else play 007. I think it would be an interesting creative choice to have a woman or someone else play OO7 and Bond is out of the service and yet he has to work together with this new OO7 - the creative tension would be a refreshing twist on the canon.

Your question about James Bond’s Oxford or Cambridge education is more easier to answer.

It really depends again which Bond one is talking about. The literary James Bond or the cinematic Bond.

In the Fleming books, James Bond’s didn’t go to Oxford or Cambridge or any of the other great universities of Britain. In the books Bond’s education is not gone into much detail. We know he was raised overseas until he was orphaned at the age of 11 when his parents died in a mountaineering accident near Chamonix in the Alps. He is home schooled for a time by an aunt, Charmain Bond, in the English village of Pett Bottom before being packed off to boarding school at Eton around 12 years old. Bond doesn’t stay long as he gets expelled for playing around with a maid. He is then sent to his father’s boarding school in Scotland, Fettes College.

Bond is then briefly attends the University of Geneva - as Ian Fleming did - before being taught to ski in Kitzbühel. In 1941 Bond joins a branch of what was to become the Ministry of Defence and becomes a lieutenant in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, ending the war as a commander. Bond applies to M for a position within the "Secret Service", part of the HM Civil Service, and rises to the rank of principal officer. And that’s it.

In the cinematic Bond universe things get more complicated and even contentious as you alluded to in your question. It’s never made quite clear which of the two - Oxford or Cambridge - Bond attended because it depends on how much weight you attach to the lines being spoken in each of the films where it is raised.

In Tomorrow Never Dies, Bond is up at Oxford (New College to be exact since his Aston Martin DB5 was parked in the courtyard at the entrance). He is seen bedding a sexy Danish professor, Inga Bergstrom, to brush up on his Danish (to which Moneypenny on the phone retorts ‘You always were a cunning linguist’). But it’s definitely doesn’t mean Bond studied there as an undergraduate.

Casino Royale is the film many think yes, James Bond went to Oxford because it is mentioned by Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) as she sizes up Daniel Craig’s Bond on the train. Here is the full quote as said by Vesper Lynd, “All right... by the cut of your suit, you went to Oxford or wherever. Naturally you think human beings dress like that. But you wear it with such disdain, my guess is you didn't come from money, and your school friends never let you forget it. Which means you were at that school by the grace of someone else's charity - hence that chip on your shoulder. And since your first thought about me ran to "orphan," that's what I'd say you are.”

The thing to note is that it’s Vesper Lynd taunting Bond and even then she takes a wide stab by saying ‘Oxford or wherever’ because she doesn’t really know and Bond doesn’t oblige her with an answer.

That whole scene struck me as strange because she’s guessing by the cut of the suit it must be Oxford (or Cambridge). Bond is wearing an Italian suit (Brioni to be specific) and not and English Savile Row one that presumably someone of Bond’s taste and background would be sporting.

A more plausible answer if we are going by the cinematic Bond universe is Cambridge. Indeed it is stated explicitly by Bond himself. Can you guess?

You Only Live Twice which is has the distinction of being the only Bond film (as far as I can tell) from being set in just one country - Japan.

You remember the scene. Lieutenant commander James Bond has just had a briefing with M on board a submarine and is naturally flirting with Moneypenny on his way out. Moneypenny playfully tosses him a Japanese phrase book, saying he might need it.

“You forget,” Bond responds with an expression just short of a smirk as he tosses it back to her, “I took a first in oriental languages at Cambridge.”

So it seems James Bond is a Cambridge man.

A first means - as any British university student would know - first class honours. It’s the highest classification grade one can get in their undergraduate degree ie a ‘first’. Although at Cambridge, like Oxford, you can also get a double first in the part I and part II of the Tripos. Both universities also award first-class honours with distinction, informally known as a ‘Starred First’ (Cambridge) or a ‘Congratulatory First’ (Oxford).

Another oddity is he says ‘oriental languages’ when one got a degree in ‘oriental studies’ at the Oriental Faculty at Cambridge. That is until 2007 when Cambridge bowed to public and student pressure and chose to drop its Oriental Faculty label and instead adopted the name the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. Oxford still hangs on to its name the Faculty of Oriental Studies.

My only reservation about crowing over an Oxonian is how truthful was Bond being with Moneypenny in this scene?

Is this line meant to be taken seriously or ironically? Most people seem to take it seriously, despite much of Connery's dialogue being obviously ironic and playful. Certainly, Bond is shown to have never been to Japan before and is incapable of saying anything in Japanese other than the odd "sayonara" and "arigato." But then again Bond does know the correct temperature sake is meant to be served at. So there’s that.

Or it could be Bond was speaking a half-truth. I know speaking from experience as someone who very nearly read asian languages instead of my eventual choice of Classics that ‘Oriental languages’ at the ex-Oriental faculty in Cambridge can mean many other languages e.g. Sanskrit, Hindi, Farsi, Hebrew, Arabic as well as Korean, Japanese and Chinese. It opens up so many other delicious possibilities for Bond. If he read Arabic then perhaps he’s being deeply ironic with Moneypenny (after all she would have drooled over read his MI6 personnel file).

If you think I’m losing my mind then ponder on the fact it was Roald Dahl who penned the screenplay of You Only Live Twice. Dahl was not above snark. Indeed pretty sure he would have got a starred first in snark at any university.

Of course the most obvious explanation is that it’s plot armour as a way for Bond to just get on with the story by suspending the audience belief. Why wouldn’t Bond know Japanese? He seems to know everything else imaginable.

However if it ever was it’s now become canon as EON - the production company behind the Bond films - have stated officially for the fandom that Bond’s official bio has it that he went to Eton and Cambridge, where he got a first in oriental languages. So that seems settled then.

In hindsight it makes perfect sense that Bond went to Cambridge since historically Cambridge has provided the bulk of the spies not just for Her Majesty’s service but also for the other side, the Russians - the so-called Cambridge Spies of Philby, Maclean, Burgess, Blunt, and Cairncross, and a host of other traitors. We seem to be an equal opportunities employment service.

I’m sorry to disappoint you and other Oxonians that despite what you might think James Bond didn’t attend Oxford. Believe me as a Cantabrigian it gives me no pleasure to say this…..too much.

Thanks for your question.

#ask #question #james bond #bond #film #cinema #ian fleming #oxford #cambridge #oxbridge #university #education #cancel culture #culture #society #britain #british #personal

122 notes · View notes