#i think we can argue that her story is bad because of misogyny if we wanted to cuz id say its a factor

[hecksupremechips]

When I think about Mizuki in aini it’s like, I know something is just so off about her but I have trouble articulating it. It’s really frustrating cuz she was like my favorite character in the first game and when I play the first game I feel like I have a really good idea of who she is as a character. Like she acts strong and and hangs out with people much older than her and has to take on a fuck ton of responsibility but she’s also just a kid she cuddles with a rabbit toy she raises fish in the fridge she can be kinda gullible in the way that kids are and she doesn’t always understand more mature jokes. She acts sassy and hostile towards Date but she’s described as kinda and compassionate by Hitomi and she defends the weak and loves her friends deeply and thinks Aiba is cute. She pokes fun at Date for being grumpy at the shrine and then excitedly holds his hand and drags him over to the offering box to pray for his safety and she gets scared when there’s danger and she hugs Date for comfort but then tries to brush it off because she was taught to feel shame whenever she required basic attention and affection. She was hurt badly by her biological family and finds herself at home with Date despite her fears of him not caring for her. Like she’s a really solid well rounded character with strengths and weaknesses and her story makes me feel every possible emotion known to man

Then I play aini and I was soooo excited to see that Mizuki was gonna be a protagonist and that she had Aiba (its what made me buy the game immediately after finishing the first game lol) and then like. I honestly can’t tell you a damn thing about her character in aini. Like she’s the protagonist for half that game and I can’t think of any particular struggles she has as a character or like any moments where she stands out. It’s like, I know this is Mizuki she has the same basic features of that character but she’s not really given much? And anything new you learn about her is just like, retcons of her already established and well written backstory that just. Really didn’t need to be made and honestly they just kinda do a disservice to her character

Like first off there’s the Bibi twist which. Oof. I have some pretty complicated feelings about Bibi in general like okay. When she appears as the masked woman I was totally on board and thought she was really interesting and I was so prepared for her to be a favorite character her somnium is probably my favorite one in the game. And then she was revealed to be Mizuki. And it was revealed that we were playing as her for half of the B side of the story and we didn’t know it. Like, where to even begin. They stopped writing Bibi as her own character and she pretty much just became Mizuki except idk, she has a bigger grudge against Ryuki and has a heart condition I guess. And like I think it really speaks to how flat Mizuki was in this game if we can play as two completely different characters and have them be indistinguishable. Bibi shouldn’t be anything like Mizuki, they’ve lived completely different lives. And I hate the clone twist like good god I really hate the clone twist because IT ADDS NOTHING TO MIZUKIS CHARACTER OR HER CONFLICT. In fact it like, actively goes against her arc from the first game??? Cuz like half the point of Date and Mizuki’s relationship is there to show that family isn’t what you’re born with, it’s what you make. Both Date and Mizuki feel like their little family can’t exist because they’ve been taught, like most of us have, that biological family is the most important and real and valid way to have a family. You’re supposed to love and respect your biological parents because they MADE you, and Date has to live with the anguish that he can’t be Mizuki’s REAL father because they aren’t blood related. So like, to pull the rug away and go "oh yeah btw I guess Mizuki was adopted lol" it just completely erases what made her story so impactful to most people. And the clone reveal adds nothing like Mizuki doesn’t NEED this at all she wasn’t looking to discover the truth of her backstory because. There wasn’t any truths that needed to be discovered, we already know her deal and so does she. And her having a clone doesn’t really fit with the half to whole theme cuz like, she wasn’t looking for a fucking clone or like a secret sister or anything like that. It’s just stupid it’s so stupid

What Mizuki needed was like, a new actual conflict that required her to overcome challenges and grow as a character. A lot of people, myself included, have complained about how her relationship with Date just isn’t talked about hardly at all, how he went missing for 6 years and they didn’t even get a proper reunion and the game kinda mocks you for wanting one. We dont get any context as to how Mizuki coped during that time like she was completely alone for the most major years of her life she was separated from the one person who was her real family and we don’t know what she felt during all that cuz the game refuses to talk about it. And there isn’t much indication that the adults care about this either, Boss maybe has a soft spot for her but that’s kinda the extent of it, she makes a joke that Date is probably off chilling in a hot spring in Atami so clearly no one is giving Date’s disappearance the weight it deserves. So like, we have this potential thing we could work with here like why is Mizuki a detective now and why does she care about this case? Because her dad was taken by tearer and has been gone for 6 years and she’s been all alone and she wants to find him and find out if he’s even alive and she wants to kick tearers ass cuz he tore (hehe) her family apart. And this can also give her an actual connection to Ryuki too like Ryuki is the one who betrayed Date and knew some shit about tearer and saw what happened to Date and he just never told Mizuki the truth and she’s spent all this time looking for Date so this would be like, pretty major conflict when it all gets revealed. And it actually gives what Ryuki did actual consequences that affect him cuz honestly the fact that no one seems to care that much about Date’s disappearance makes Ryuki’s guilt and depression seem completely fucking useless lol. So here we go, that’s some conflict for Mizuki to have and it gives her a personal connection to the case, we can add more to it but really even this alone is way more than what she’s given in the actual game. And I think just the big problem with her in aini is I think the writers were too afraid to do anything that could ruin her character or cause her to change too much so they just like. Didn’t write anything that could allow her to develop and instead just fucked with already established information about her which. I honestly don’t know how that is seen as better??? In what fucking world. It just feels really pointless to have even made Mizuki a protagonist to begin with since they don’t really do anything with her and lol I think the writers realized this so that’s why like. Ryuki gets all the character conflict but makes lowkey no progress in the case and the real investigation doesn’t happen until the Mizuki side cuz they needed to make up for the fact they didn’t write anything for her alskla

So yeah just to wrap things up, Mizuki just didn’t get to be a character in aini and she wasn’t given any interesting conflict despite how easy it would’ve been cuz the writers were too scared of doing anything with this character that could ruin her but dude. Dont fucking make her the protagonist then if you’re too scared of doing anything with her. Don’t piss me off like that

#aitsf #aini #ai the somnium files #ai the somniun files nirvana initiative #mizuki date #im still working out the kinks for my aini rewrite so i had to RESTRAIN MYSELF from getting into that too much lol #but yeah god like this is a really big problem and like its hard to talk about the fact that mizuki wasnt given any real conflict and was #basically just a cardboard cutout of a character this whole game #without it sounding like idk. complaining about the fact that shes a girl and just automatically writing her story off as bad #because shes a girl and just being really misogynistic cuz ive definitely seen that with her and its like AAAGHHH #i agree that shes not written good but its not cuz women are inherently boring and stupid dipshit #i think we can argue that her story is bad because of misogyny if we wanted to cuz id say its a factor #but yeah its just really frustrating cuz like ive played this game THOROUGHLY very thoroughly and still cant tell you much about mizuki #uh anyways i hate the clone twist i will never not hate it i was so ready to be a bibi stan i was so let down 😭

[chutkiandchotte]

On gold-diggers

So if you watch any amount of Indian tv at all, then you are familiar with a common belief in the world of rich people of ITV (and IRL as well of course, this is how audiences think too), that poor women are always on the make, looking to trap rich husbands for a better life, the double edged sword of the term "gold-digger". I uhhhh rambled a bit on this topic.

The idea of the "gold-digger" is so ingrained that we all instantly understand the negative power of it. We may object with horror and anger when the asshole hero, or his backwards family levy this charge against our beloved female lead; but we, the very same audience won't hesitate to turn around and levy the very same charge against the "vamp" character; the girl in tight clothes who drinks alcohol and *gasp* has no sanskaars - like clearly, SHE is in it for the money, otherwise why would she put up with such a toxic boyfriend?

(like of course it cannot be that the vampy girl is sticking around for the same reason that WE the audience are falling for this toxic male lead despite knowing how much he sucks - it cannot be that she finds him hot & values his good qualities & as for the bad qualities, he's just a traumatized lil baby, i can fix him! - no, that can't be it, because then it feels uncomfortably close to relating to the vamp, and that cannot happen, of course!)

no, she, the vamp, only loves his good looks and his money and his hotness, she doesn't love his "true" self at all, she's a GOLD DIGGER!!! we revel in the power of the gold-digger charge, and how it humiliates her.

----------------------------------------------

what inspired this rant? i had an intense argument with someone on another platform, about Lavanya's character (from IPKKND). this person insisted that Lavanya was a gold-digger who never loved Arnav. But La is rich, I argued. So what, she said. Even if she is rich, she isn't as rich as Arnav. Arnav is 10000 crore guy, Lavanya is just 1000 crore girl. A gold-digger. She just wanted him because he was a "catch" while Khushi wants him for his true inner self. But La put up with his family for his sake, I argued. She did so much to please him. Well, this person said. That's the proof. Lavanya tolerated all of Arnav's and his family's BS without objection, hence, she MUST be a gold-digger. didn't I know? rich men are always targets of "girls like Lavanya". of gold-diggers. she kept using that word over and over again for Lavanya, probably because by then she had realized how much it was pissing me off. (what can I say? i can definitely be an easy target for trolling at times).

internalized misogyny often goes like - most women are sluts/stupid/useless/greedy schemers/<insert other sexist tropes>, but I - I will prove myself worthy of men's affections by being not <sexist trope>, then maybe I won't suffer the negative consequences those other women do!

and yes, I speak from personal experience. what woman HASN'T harboured deeply toxic thoughts borne out of internalized misogyny at least once in her life? we live in society, how do we escape it's influences?

and caught in these confusions, when we read stories, we project.

------------------------------------------------------

there are, of course, real life cases where there are women who (to quote Amy March) look upon marriage as an economic proposition and make matches based on financial gains. the horror!

of course, that its both men and women, who make decisions about marriage/love based on money, doesn't cross often our minds when we think about gold-diggers. that in desi society at least, majority of marriages ARE economic propositions involving heavy financial transactions, is not at all the same topic. because those transactions are done by the elders; by the men in power, and their enablers. those are transactions that keep society running in its status quo. the horror! the gold-digging horror of it comes in, when its a woman by her own volition seeking to better her financial status as easily as she possibly can, without making any sacrifice or compromise! how dare she? how dare! doesn't she know the tax of living for a woman is sacrifice. you can't pass go without it.

and the OTHER much much larger parts of reality definitely don't exist while people are busy labelling women as gold-diggers. the parts where the leading cause of sudden death for women is murder at the hands of an intimate partner, where 3 out of 10 women have been abused by a partner (and this is just reported stats - who knows what the real figure is). And what about the reality where one of the key aspects of an abusive relationship is financial abuse & power imbalance due to the victim having no resources.

in India, especially, the sad, sorry, disturbing TRUTH is, justice is a monetary transaction. the richer you are, the more you can get away, especially in the matter of women, since as a society we are ever-ready to disbelieve women.

this is also why in this reality we live in, many girls families themselves INSIST on paying dowry - on sending more and more gifts even after marriage - because you know what they're buying? no, not merely a "respectable" husband for their daughter. what they are paying for is the safety, respect, and dignity of their daughter in her married family and their own "standing" in society. its a grand and most successful blackmail scheme; because everybody knows, the girl who brings nothing to her husband's house, is fair game for every other type of exploitation. she's got to pay her dues somehow.

---------------------------------------------

so. when a poor girl marries a rich guy, it might seem like a fairytale on the outside. it might seem like, its every poor girl's dream. but in REALITY, what it is, is the girl signing up for a statistically much higher risk of being abused, raped, and murdered. not a dream so much as a nightmare.

yet, its always the woman's character that is on trial - SHE has to prove that she isn't a greedy schemer out for his money but a pure hearted girl genuinely in love - while all HE has to do, is stand there and be hot and rich; he never has to prove that he won't abuse her. heck, he will provide categorical proof of being a future abuser, and its absolutely no stumble in a romance path. the power of the word gold-digger is always hanging on her head; the hero as well as the audience, her lover and society, ever eagerly searching to judge her for the same; a little slip, and she could be in vamp territory!

-----------------------------------------

I tend to be...passionate...about my fictional people opinions. I have definitely heard "its just a story" many times in my life. But I disagree.

These conversations we have about fictional characters are reflections of our realities. And these are Indian daily soaps, not grimdark crazy premise sci-fic/fantasy HBO shows. The same court in which we judge fictional characters, also becomes a court in which we judge real people around us. This is the power of stories, the danger of them - they can reiterate the worst that is in us, reinforce our worst selves; or they can open us up to new perspectives and expand our empathy.

i mean we have seen SO MANY iterations of the angry anti-hero young man, embodying every trope of toxic masculinity, and then turning out to be a perfect husband at the end. character development and taming the beast. alls well that ends well. men can be fixed. sometimes love looks like hate. etc.

i long for a story where we see a heroine who IS a "gold digger"; who is practical, realistic, and smart, who has a career and ambitions but maybe has tasted too much of poverty to ever choose it for herself if given an option. who chooses and chases a guy because the thing that matters to her is financial security and an easy life. why does this girl always have to be the villain? if abusers can reform, why not gold-diggers? why can't SHE be hit with a character development stick, in the same general standard of dignity as a corresponding male lead, and learn some lessons and fall in love and become the best version of herself? and if she does get to do all that, why does she HAVE to be humiliated in some evil way, and/or die at the end, why can't she live, learn and have a happily ever after?

why, in fact, do we reserve so much passionate vitriol for the fictional female offenders - the vamps and the career girls and the ex girlfriends - the ones driven by jealousies and insecurities - while keeping infinite reserves of forgiveness for their male equivalents?

----------------------------------------------

No - Lavanya has to be a gold-digger, a hopeless harlot, for Khushi to be a perfect wife, for Arnav to be absolved of his sins against Lavanya as well as Khushi, for the audience to be in no danger of relating to a woman as evil and out of bounds as Lavanya, for us all to maintain our collective delusions that rich men are victims of those women, as opposed to being their predators.

EVEN in a show like IPKKND which went out of the way to have a different, ground-breaking narrative...there's this reading of the text. There's the cognitive dissonance to judge/hate Lavanya for certain traits while finding Arnav sexy for those same ones.

I don't think it is at all surprising that Indian tv can never seem to get over its madonna/whore complex - because honestly, we the audience, seem to enjoy it too much!

#this is a post inspired by an online argument so yeah its a ramble lol. i was angry but it also made me self-reflect. #when i was younger i have definitely internalized these attitudes #i've reacted from this place #of holding fictional female characters to much higher standards than male ones #because that is just #how we think in reality too #i like a story that challenges these ideas in a fun away #IPKKND was that with regards to Lavanya #IPKKND

[darklinaforever]

To be neutral in the Black and Green conflict :

When I see people say that Rhaenyra was intentionally written by the author to be unfit to rule and a bad ruler in general, I want to tear my eyes out. Let's voluntarily forget that she was mentally impacted by everything she got in the face in a short time. Usurpation, the death of his father, his daughter, his son, the war, the coffers emptied by the Greens, and I'm sure what comes next. Not to mention the likely (no actually it's even sure) anti-Rhaenyra propaganda led by the Maesters, trying to paint her as worse than she really was.

Also, this bullshit that by reigning and dying like she did, Rhaenyra CREATED precedent and prejudice against female rulers/queen reigning, which made it much harder for women to become full monarchs. As ? Wtf? What is this bullshit? There has literally ALWAYS been precedent and prejudice against women in Westeros in general, even more so in the idea that a woman can even rule. Shit, the fucking premise of this story is that Rhaenyra was usurped on the basis of her gender. They literally tried to steal the throne from her when she had done NOTHING wrong. Rhaenyra didn't create anything against her sex as a monarch at all, it was already there. And if we had left her alone instead of ruining her life, Rhaenyra would surely have made a decent queen. Not the best, but definitely not the worst either. What happened was literally a woman was declared heiress, the misogynists said no, spent most of her life rotting her, and when she later turns out to be unable to make a great/good sovereign in the midst of war against part of her own family, under pressure, bereaved and mentally impacted by the whole affair, it cries: "You see! We were right! She was destined to hold the role of sovereign badly!" When it's literally those people who rotted it until it was broken and messed up.

Let's not even talk about adding to the debate that the leader's gender mattered enough at the time that there were obviously protests against a woman. So you're actually trying to justify the misogyny of the time?

Then, while holding aside the discourse of neutrality, while sorry, Rhaenyra should have done what exactly? Let his brother steal what was rightfully his?

Spare me too your stupid speeches of course: All this (this war) was useless, under the pretext that there is no "real winner" in the end, only survivors. That betting on a particular team is ridiculous because they all do horrible things. That war is bad. That the real enemy in this story is war. That the point is that the nobility is eaten alive, the throne cuts you to pieces, etc.

But lol, do you think that at the end of his saga George's world will become a democracy? Wake up, you're literally in a feudal world you moron. Not to mention this stupid option that the author's stories are anti-war… Lol, I'm not even going to argue about that, it's so stupid. Reassure me, you know that just wars exist? It's stupid to say "war is bad" in any kind of context, because it's not.

Yes, the dance has impacted everyone. The Kingdom, the Greens, the Blacks, etc. But why ? Eh ? WHO started this whole mess? And why ? Well the answer is simple: THE GREENS! QUITE SIMPLY !

I love this talk of neutrality, because it basically serves to hide which team you really support.

The Greens have sworn loyalty to the rightful heir, namely Rhaenyra. Then, on the basis of her gender, they engineered a power grab and theft of the throne, committing treason and unleashing a war that set the kingdom on fire. There's no "both sides doing bad things that hold up" in there.

Also no need to use the argument, "but Rhaenyra had illegitimate children". Already because if it would have been a guy, no one would have cared. But in addition, in the first version of the dance, the children of Rhaenyra had to be legitimate, and guess what? The war would still have happened! Not to mention that the plot to depose Rhaenyra began long before she had any children, rendering that argument null.

Never mind that Rhaenyra didn't turn out to be a good queen! She was the rightful heiress and was usurped solely on the basis of her gender at the time, and the conspiracy began as soon as Aegon II was born. Rhaenyra had done absolutely nothing wrong to deserve having her birthright stolen.

And even when she doesn't turn out to be a good queen later on, it's forgotten how much she got in the face and how it impacted her mentally. Rhaenyra is literally a human being who has been kicked around for years because of being a female heiress.

The case is simple. The Greens have attacked the FIRST! Without valid reasons! And the Targaryens simply fought back, fighting for their right and their heritage. Did they commit war crimes? Yes. Guess what, always less worse than the Greens, waging war much more humanely than them. (Also, it's literally almost impossible not to commit a crime in times of war, it's even almost inevitable)

Yes, the war has diminished Targaryen prestige and power with the loss of the Dragons. But why ? Once again, it was not them who started the war. IT'S THE GREENS! THEN STOP WITH YOUR FALSE NEUTRALITY! THERE IS NO NEUTRALITY IN THIS MATTER! IF YOU DO THIS, YOU ARE LITERALLY SUPPORTING/ACCEPTING MYSOGINIA AS A VALID POINT TO STARTING A WAR!

The story of the dance is not about the ravages of war, or how wrong and useless it is. It's wrong. Yes, the war will have been horrible, but the only main point of this story is misogyny. It's the fact that a woman has been usurped simply because of her sex. That's even the fucking reason there was a war! Because a woman has been named heiress! Claiming the contract is completely stupid and hypocritical.

Not to mention the fact is that admittedly both sides lose quotes in the end. Except that the Targaryen line continues all the same BY RHAENYRA and that the Greens, them, end up at one time when another by all dying out. Even though Aegon III and Viserys II are broken, they continued their legacy, while the Greens, who once again started all this shit, eventually all die. This is what is called, in fiction, a karmic punishment. What ? Do you think it's a coincidence that the author killed all the Greens at the end? Doesn't that mean anything?

Really, I'm tired of seeing there's so much bullshit about being "neutral" (knowing that usually it's an excuse to side with the Greens and sure spit Rhaenyra as I l 've demonstrated) in this case because war = bad?

It's completely stupid.

#house of the dragon #daemon x rhaenyra #daemyra #rhaenyra targaryen #daemon targaryen #rhaenyra x daemon #daemon and rhaenyra #rhaenyra and daemon #house targaryen #house of targaryen #team black #anti greens

[sokkastyles]

So, this is a post for another fandom, but the discussion of Azula and Zuko came up in it, and OP revealed themselves as an Azula apologist. Thought you might be interested.

What's so funny about this is that before OP goes on their rant (so tired of people misusing feminist talking points to excuse abusive behavior) they themselves actually hit on, then immediately dismiss, the reason why people like Zuko more than Catra.

"just because her redemption arc wasn't as good"

Like, that's it. That's the thing. It doesn't matter what actions Zuko did that might be worse (although given what OP later writes, I would seriously question that statement). We're talking about stories, so the character who has a better written arc is going to be liked more, and that's that. It has nothing to do with gender at all. It also has nothing to do with who did what when they were a villain, because if the redemption isn't believable enough, it doesn't matter. Zuko has a better written story and in the land of fiction, that is always going to be more forgivable.

You could argue that there is misogyny in the fact that we don't get enough female characters who are as well-written as Zuko, but I'm a feminist who reads enough fiction that I don't need to pretend something is a good story just because it's female-led. I think a lot of people wanted the She-Ra show to be good for that reason, but in the end, consuming media isn't activism. And from what I've seen of the relationship between Catra and Adora - hell, from the way people talk about Azula, too - a LOT of people will forgive shitty behavior if a woman is doing it on the grounds of "feminism," and that's not only not feminist - how many women suffer because of Catra and Azula's actions? - it's extremely dangerous because it perpetuates the idea that women cannot be abusers.

You want good female representation? Maybe read a book instead of putting all your money on one or two popular cartoon series.

Now that I got THAT out of my system, there's a lot wrong with what OP says about Azula.

None of what OP says to defend Azula is feminist. Like, they don't even attempt to back up this claim the way some Azula stans do, they just say it like they think declaring themselves a feminist makes it so. And then they spend most of the post bashing Ursa, natch. OP will not explain why defending Azula is feminist (because it isn't), but I can explain why bashing Ursa is misogyny. Because you're taking a female character we know barely anything about other than that she was a mother and that she was fridged for the main characters, and insisting she must have been a bad mother based on minimal evidence. Even though we know why her children acted the way they did and we know it had to do with the negative actions of their father. Blaming Ursa for Azula is misogynist because it is shifting blame from a male abuser to a female character who was his victim, and focusing the blame on how she was a bad mother, with very little evidence that she was. But reducing a female character to motherhood and criticizing her for not being saintly is absolutely misogyny.

Where is it "expanded on in the comics" that Ursa gave up on Azula? Or that Azula acted out for Ursa's attention?

Here we see Ursa spending time with both her kids. Azula hangs back because she sees a flower in the garden that isn't as pretty, and waits until Ursa's back is turned to burn it. Then, when Zuko tells on her, she burns Zuko. Azula isn't trying to get Ursa's attention here. She waits until Ursa isn't looking and is mad when she gets negative attention from Ursa because Zuko told on her. She did not want her mother to notice her burning the flower. But when her mother does notice, Azula explains why she did it. Because it wasn't as pretty. It's very obvious what's going on here. Azula is acting out, but not because she's being neglected by her mother. She's acting out in the ways her father groomed her to act out, because her father taught her that if something isn't the best, it's worthless and deserves to be hurt. She then applies this to Zuko, who she thinks deserves to be hurt because he told on her.

And this is a pattern of behavior for Azula that we see not only in the comics, but the series itself. In "Zuko Alone," far from acting out to get her mother's attention because she "gave up on her," we see Azula lie to her mother so that she can get Zuko to play with her, with the purpose of playing a mean prank on Zuko.

Azula appeals to the fact that she knows Ursa thinks she and her brother should get along. If Azula was desperate for her mother's attention, if Ursa gave up on her, Azula would not be able to successfully lie to her mother this way.

What these scenes show is not that Ursa gave up on Azula or that Azula lacked attention from her mother, but that even at a young age (which was more like 8, actually) Azula was influenced by her father's cruelty and acted it out on others, and knew how to manipulate her mother in order to get what she wanted. Shifting blame onto Ursa for trying to teach her child right from wrong, for trying to protect her other child, is misogyny.

Also "Zuko let his insecurities get in the way of his relationship with Azula" is a weird way of saying that Azula deliberately played on Zuko's insecurities to hurt him. Like, you cannot ignore that the reason Zuko is insecure is, in large part, because of Azula, because she provokes his insecurites and then blames him for feeling insecure. This is victim blaming.

Also, the doll thing. I am so tired, y'all. If you automatically assume Azula getting a doll from her uncle is proof he doesn't care about her, who is the misogynist again? If the show wanted us to think this was a thoughtless, sexist, or even misguided gift, that would be shown. We would see Iroh ignoring hints that Azula does not like dolls. Instead, what we see is Azula getting a gift from a relative who hasn't seen her in years, and she burns it because it isn't exactly what she wanted, and then says she hopes her uncle dies. This says FAR more about Azula than it does Iroh, and it is meant to. The OP then goes on to say that Azula was right about Iroh when she mocked his son's death and said he should have burned Ba Sing Se to the ground, but then says he committed more crimes and bloodshed than her, conversely. What bloodshed? We're shown no bloodshed because this is a nickelodeon cartoon show. But we ARE shown Azula mocking Iroh for not being more violent. So don't tell me Iroh is somehow worse. Azula's coup on Ba Sing Se would not be bloodless if this was Game of Thrones, and overthrowing a city using deception isn't more moral than a siege.

Azula also was not "right" about Iroh in the way OP claims because they make it seem like she objected to Iroh ending the siege because she cared about her nation and people. That is not what she said. She said he should have burned the city to the ground to be "a real general." This, and Azula's other actions, such as giving irrational orders and making threats when they aren't carried out from her introductory episode, show that Azula has no real concept of statecraft beyond how to violently assert power, and we know who taught her that.

Also, Azula did not immediately apologize to Ty Lee after making her cry by slut-shaming her (how often the "feminists" forget that). She begrudgingly apologized, and then made it about herself and what Ty Lee should do for her.

Okay, okay, calm down. I didn't mean what I said. [Frontal view over Ty Lee's shoulder.] Look, maybe I just said it because I was a little ... [Whispers.] jealous.

I know people make a lot of this because it's a rare scene of Azula being accountable for her actions, but that alone should tell you something. It doesn't make Azula this kind and compassionate soul. It's not even a great apology. Sincere apologies do not begin with "Okay, okay, calm down." Azula just told her friend that boys only like her because she's easy. The fact that Ty Lee forgives her, especially after everything Azula did to her, makes Ty Lee a saint. And then Azula has a very difficult time admitting that she is jealous, because of course she does. And yes, I know, people make a lot of this because it's Azula, and yeah, it probably did take a lot of effort for Azula to admit that Ty Lee was better at her at something, but that is because Azula is egotistical and selfish and cruel to even her "friends."

And Mai...Azula does not get points for not understanding that she can't force Mai to murder her boyfriend for Azula. Azula asking Mai why she did it even though she "knew the consequences" again shows how little regard Azula has for even her friends, who she thinks she can control using threats. Azula thought she could use Mai to control Zuko and then when Mai's feelings were inconvenient, expected Mai to just watch Zuko die, and is so offended when that doesn't happen.

Also, Zuko never worked on his anger issues? It is literally a major plot point that Zuko says he doesn't want to rely on anger anymore and finds another way. And I've talked about this before, but this idea that Azula is so calm and collected is utterly ridiculous. You only have to look at the examples I mentioned above, but also many more, to see Azula fly into a rage at the slightest provocation, make threats, act out violently, and attempt to control others through fear to see that that is not true. The real difference is that Azula thinks she is justified in acting this way, and when that stops getting her results, rather than trying to change and learning to understand and value other people, she has a breakdown. You have to misunderstand Azula's entire arc to not get that. It is literally explained to us at every opportunity in the narrative.

Conclusion: if you claim to be a feminist, act like one and get to know some feminist theory. And just because you're a woman does not exclude you from being an idiot.

#azula #zuko #the discourse #abuse

[queerpanikkar]

man, that’s the biggest lie you’ve ever told

“Look,” Buck says, “Anyone can say that they’re bi.” He narrows his eyes. “I’d have to date a guy to prove it.”

“You’ve dated guys, Buck,” Karen points out, backing up her wife. “Even if you hadn’t, you’re still bisexual. I don’t see why you’re so insistent that no one will believe you.”

“You should get a nose piercing,” May says helpfully, while texting one-handed. “All bisexuals have nose piercings.”

ao3 | 16k

for my BELOVED @henswilsons <33333

There’s a reason Buck can’t be left alone in front of cameras.

This isn’t much of a problem until he dates a reporter—because no one else except for Taylor ‘the truth is everything’ Kelly would paint firefighters, of all community groups, in a bad light. Not that—okay, Buck practically does her job for her, these days, when she’s somehow at every single call the 118 takes, even the stupid ones, which makes Ravi giggle.

And also, because he’s Ravi, Buck’s partner, narrow his eyes at her like a guard dog.

“Shame that they couldn’t get anyone else to cover this,” Ravi will say, grinning with his teeth bared like some sort of giant teddy bear with teeth, like the evil one from Toy Story 3. “I know how much you wanted to do real journalism.”

It becomes sort of like an inside joke, only not really because Ravi’s laughing and Taylor looks like she wants to spit on him, and Buck will apologize, only it comes out way too sarcastic, and then Bobby looks like he wants to spit on them too.

—And the circle of life continues.

This time, though, Taylor’s not there. They’re at a minor car crash off Sunset and Beverly and they only have to use the jaws on one of the three sedans—Buck lets Ravi handle it as Chimney and Hen bandage cuts and deal with possible concussions—while he and Bobby clear the crash from the intersection. 

“I’m not lonely,” Buck argues as he takes a chunk of metal from Bobby. “Like, personally, I think everyone should be glad that I broke up with Taylor.”

“We are glad, Buck,” Bobby responds, with the air of someone who’s had this conversation before. He has. “We also think you might be lonely. It’s been a couple months now, hasn’t it?”

“A couple of months of freedom,” Buck counters, and Ravi appears out of nowhere to fist bump him.

“Yeah, man,” Ravi says cheerfully, hair matted to his forehead. “Women suck. I love misogyny.”

continue on ao3

#PLEASE dont cancel me haha #inspired by that video of dom from shadowhunters tbh #buddie #911fic

[stardustjie]

[spoilers for babel by rf kung]

i could spend hours talking about this book in its entirety and im choosing to talk about letty instead. i think she isnt a bad person because she conciously chooses to hurt other people, we could argue she isnt responsible for the people im charge of the country, but she still choses to profit from an injustice system. a system that not only hurts those who she claims to care about, but hurts her and because she profits from that system can only see the way she is oppressed by it. what makes her character tragic is how she betrays the people who lightened her personal curse — loneliness.

because victoire herself tells us letty has always been lonely and we, as readers, can see the complexity of her character. she is a woman oppressed by the misogyny of her time who, despite her talent, had to witness her brother wasting her dreams. her father never loved her and she was destined to just be a wife if she didn’t write to her brother's teachers. in a way, letty is easy to empathize with. the irony is that she was finally loved and decided to throw it away because she wasnt able to see farther than her pedistal.

the truth is that it would have been easier if letty were just evil, if she decided to betray her friends because she just hates how they are her peers or whatever evil reason one could have, but she isnt like that. she chose to help her friends even when it wasnt in her best interest, she stayed when they told her they understood if she didn’t. letty loved her friends, for a time. until she had to challenge her beliefs and then she chose what was more important. she isnt evil, she is so much worse than that. she is a lonely little girl who could have been better, but wasnt. its just another story of failed potential, in a way.

(note: i wrote this at 2am and im not sure if it makes sense. dont hate me)

#babel rf kuang #babel an arcane history #babel #rf kuang

[linkspooky]

I do wonder if Nobara do return— And that’s a big if since it’s been a hot while we last heard about her— What would be her role?

Or not necessarily role, since she does have a unique ability to damage the soul. But more like… character arc I suppose?

Like some people would theorize that Nobara could possibly help Maki from spiraling. However, I personally believe it makes much more narrative sense that it would be Yuta that does it.

I must think that Nobara would possibly go through her own arc. But my question is how?

Since I thought her arc is to be less judgmental with her black and white thinking and expand her world view. But the only person that I can think would challenge Nobara on this is Mai. Since Nobara judged Mai harshly despite the fact that she too was a victim like Maki.

But then like… Mai died so… now what?

Okay, so all the reasons Nobara might come back, and some of the reasons she might not. 

Let’s start with why she might not. By the way I’m not arguing whether or not she’ll come back, because in my mind it’s a very strong “...Maaaaaaaaybe?” so it’s just easier to list arguments in support or against. 

This is definitely the biggest reason why it would be hard to reintroduce Nobara back into the story. Part of this is Gege’s fumbling his handling of female characters, simply put Mai and Miwa are characters who are better written with way less screentime because they both have obvious character flaws, a character arc is built around a flaw the character has that they either have to work on or face the consequences. 

In comparison to Noara, Megumi and Yuji have clear flaws. Megumi is at times borderline suicidal, he’s really emotoinally unhealthy, he picks and chooses between the people he saves and he lets die. He has a lot of connection to bigger plotlines in the Jujutsu World, the Zenin Clan, his legacy as Toji’s son. 

Yuji also has a major flaw of being self sacrificing and has little self worth, he prioritizes other people far above himself, he has a character conflict around finding a way to die, being a little too willing to die, acting like he has little agency or that he’s individually worthless and much preferring to be a cog in society, he’s also continually dealing with Sukuna’s machinations from inside his own body. 

They have clear flaws and they’re connected to the world around them, in comparison Nobara seems a little tacked onto the trio as an afterthought to the point where it is hard to even speculate on where she would fit in post shibuya. We get one flashback to her home village and it’s not even about her life as a jujutsu sorcerer in the country side, just a childhood friend she had. That childhood friend is apparently just fine in the city, so that character motivation and plotline is resolved for the most part. Everything we know about why Nobara became a sorcerer is shoved into a databook (her grandmother), Saori just seems to be a normal person so I don’t even think there was a mystery about her home town. 

You could say her flaw is both her naivete and egotism, she ends up kind of repeating misogyny against Mai when Momo tries to explain what misogyny is like in the Jujutsu World because she views Mai as a bad victim. Solidarity is solidarity with all women and victims, not just the people you personally like. Nobara’s belief that she can simply overcome all adversity with her strong willpower could also be seen as a flaw.

This is a mistranslation it’s more like ...

⇒ “How to put it… The seats in my life? I don’t want people who’re not sitting there to affect my mind in that way or another.”

⇒ “(…) Well, I guess there are people like you who just come bringing their own chairs and sit [with me], too”

which is Nobara saying she only cares about a select group of people, which in a way reflects Megumi’s flaw of just picking and choosing who she saves. 

Nobara’s flaw could be seen as her hypocrisy, she’s one of those loud, crazy people who can easily step on other people’s lives. If they’re not in her small circle of friends she doesn’t really care, she feels little remorse over killing Choso’s brothers. If she comes back that could potentially lead to a conflict with Choso, as unlike Yuji who Choso can forgive because they are brothers, not only is nobara also a murderer, but she doesn’t really feel sorry about it. 

Her naivete and hypocrisy are things that could come to have consequences for her upon her return, for instance you mention Yuta seems more appropriate for the role of supporting Maki and saving her from her spiral than Nobara does. If you look at it from that angle, Nobara could try to help Maki and fail, number one because she does not actually understand all that much about what happened in the Zenin clan she was just making judgements as an outsider and number two because she never liked Mai and that’s the person that Maki is grieving. Mai in general just represents a part of Maki that Nobara doesn’t understand in her amdiration of her. 

This is also the part where I start quoting other people, because I ferociously googled other people’s posts on how they think Nobara might come back due to this being a weak point for me. This post, brings up the fact that if you look at the losses Nobara has suffered so far, they could be the result of Nobara being arrogant and naive to the world and therefore her loss at Shibuya could be a low part in her arc that she has to recover from. 

Jujutsu Kaisen is nothing if not rigidly efficient in how it tells this massive story. I believe every instance of Nobara actually leads us to see a low point in her character arc in Shibuya and a possible return in the Culling Games.

The major foreshadowing to her return is during the Kyoto exchange arc. Her fight against Momo clearly has her ignorant of the plight of women in the JJK universe in Chapters 40 and 41.

This seems to return with Mai dead, Maki scarred and Nobara seriously injured. There's some that claim her not being dead would lower stakes when it's obvious Mahito still would have irreversibly destroyed her youth and beauty that she was proud of all the way back in her introduction in Chapter 4 believing she should be a model.

If being beautiful and dressing up is part of what makes Nobara Kugisaki, Nobara Kugisaki then what is she with half of her face deformed or missing completely?

If Nobara’s main strength is the power of her ego and self confidence, then introducing her back with a severely bruised ego with all the losses she has endured then that could represent a new struggle her character has to deal with. 

The second part of the post brings up that Nobara’s power is currently under-explored, as I said of Yuji and Megumi she seems to be the least connected to the Jujutsu World around her, but Gojo himself said that all of his students are supposed to have remaining potential. Nobara is referred to having come close to feeling the core to cursed energy, which is why she dealt a bigger blow to Mahito than Mahito expected having written her off as weak. 

As several people have pointed out before me, Nobara is the only one of the students to feel the core of cursed energy, which is mentioned s Gojo’s feat that allowed him to come back and defeat Toji. Nobara like Gojo, suffered a near fatal wound that put her on the brink of death, but Nitta went into painstaking detail to point out that there wasn’t a zero percent chance of her coming back due to his cursed technique preventing her body from getting any worse. Just like Gojo, her head wasn’t cut off and she wasn’t finished off. 

There’s two possible theories I’ve seen to explain what could lead to Nobara coming back, number one her unlocking reversed curse technique similiar to Gojo. Number one the clear parallel to Nobara in the past trio is Shoko. While Megumi is parallled to Gojo and Geto to Yuji. Gojo even says that reversed cursed technique is impossible to expain and has to be figured out intuitively. 

Nobara’s technique also has a couple of techniques that closely resemble reverse cursed technique. Resonance connects her to her opponent, she can even use her own body and connect her with her opponent to share their pain together. Considering she connects herself to the opponent’s soul directly to inflict damage on them (how she attacked Mahito’s soul directly), then either using reversed curse technique to heal isn’t that far of a stretch because she is already fighting y directly applying her cursed eenrgy to someone else, she just inflicts negative harm. Gojo explains reverse cursed technique is quite literally just reversing in order to heal. 

Or, there’s the theory my linked post posited that Nobara herself is going to be shown to be an expert of the soul. This is where I bring alchemy into the equation. 

This, is the alchemy triangle. 

I’ve explained the significance of the man and woman, small and large circles, square and triangle at some length.  For a story, we need to focus on the triangle.  In spiritual alchemy, the triangle represents soul, spirit, and body.  Heinrich Khunrath helpfully labeled the sides of the triangle in this emblem.  In red capital letters you have Anima (soul), Spiritus (spirit), and Corpus (body).  

It is ambiguous where cursed energy comes and cursed technique comes from, but we are given multiple references for soul, body and mind. Extremely early on it’s mentioned that cursed energy may come from the brain, later on Mahito is able to change Junpei’s brain around in order to awaken his potential for cursed technique. Much, much later Kenjaku does this en masse to awaken a bunch of potential sorcerers. 

Mahito refers to the soul and the body afterwards, completing the triangle. Mahito’s cursed technique specifically manipulates the soul to transform the shape of his body around it. In the world of Jujutsu Kaisen, the soul is definitely something that exists and has form. 

Todo even explicitly names the triangle later on when counselling Yuji, people exists in this world mind, body, and soul and sorcerers are at their strongest when they draw strength with all three are in harmony. Whereas Todo explains that the three of them being seperate and in disharmony makes cursed technique weaker.

So the goal of the triangle, and alchemy at large is to find the harmony between the alchemy triangle, or the three main characters that represent mind, body, soul (or sometimes, mind, body and heart). The Wizard of Oz is the most obvious example of three characters having to find harmony with each other in order to accomplish their goals by the end of the story. 

In the Wizard of Oz, Frank Baum used the heart/mind/body triangle in a completely different way.  Rather than marking his protagonist, Dorothy, as heart, as you would expect, Baum assigns heart, mind, and body characteristics to her three companions.  The Tin Man is in search of a heart, the Scarecrow in search of a brain, and the Cowardly Lion in search of “some nerve,” in other words the courage that Body characters typically lack.  

If you were to divide mind, body and soul then you can center the goal of each character of the main trio. Megumi has to find mind, he’s the most cerebral of the trio as the strategist, his entire arc revolves around his ideals (he hypocritically only chooses to save the people he wants too), his biggest flaw is also being inside his own head and refusing to connect with people. 

Yuji is obviously body, he shares his body with an intruder Sukuna, he is also out of harmony with Sukuna because Sukuna constantly possesses him to cause harm to the others around him. He only became a sorcerer in the first place because his body was modified the moment he ate the finger. He was also purposefully birthed for the sake of becoming a vessel, which means he was literally created to be a body for Sukuna to inhabit. Body characters are defined by their hunger and desires, Sukuna’s cursed technique literally revolves around cooking, his true form has a giant mouth on his stomach, Yuji has to eat fingers to grow stronger. 

That would leave Nobara as the soul, which is where I am going to reference the other post again. 

We never seen Gojo referring to Nobara's potential and so it's assumed it's because she's sidelined but there's no reason to say that it's not because her talents might be a major spoiler to whatever True Jujutsu and the Core of Cursed Energy is.

we already know that the power of the soul is something that goes beyond CE. Mahito even remarks all the way back in Chapter 31 that Sukuna should have less CE than Jogo yet his soul is simply on another level. It may be a completely separate power system and part of how Toji and Maki function so well with 0 CE. Their bodies after all can defeat souls.

, In fact, the separation of Sukuna's fingers into 20 is never explained as it's not a requirement seen for any other Special Grade Cursed Object capable of reincarnating like the Death Paintings (they are also mostly human but 1/3(?) curse). We don't actually know why he is different.

The influence souls have on cursed technique are unknown and unexplored too. The necromancer transfigures her grandsons bodies but specifically doesn’t summon the soul, but because Toji has a special body he comes back. 

Kenjaku even theorizes that the soul is the body, and the body is the soul therefore their connection influences one another both ways. Which is like... yet another way that Nobara can come back, if the body conforms to the soul and the soul conforms to the body, Nobara being able to manipulate her soul because her CT targets the soul directly could make her change her body enough to come back.

To make an argument with alchemy though, alchemy works by seperating the individual members of the triangle, and then eventually reuniting them. That’s a brief, brief summary of how alchemy works in a story, but basically for the story to be complete the alchemy triangle has to come together. For example, Naruto, Sasuke and Sakura are a similiar alchemy triangle, they spend most of the story seperated and developing on their own, but the story cannot end until the three of them reunite again. 

“The triangle symbolizes the tendency of the universe to converge towards the point of unity.” 

“Some philosophers maintain the quadrangle is to be reduced to a triangle, that is to body, spirit and soul. These three appear in three colors which precede the redness: the body, or earth, in saturnine blackness; the psirit in lunar whiteness, like water; and the soul or air, in solar yellow. Then the triangle will be perfect, but in its turn it must change into a circle (that is uncharangeable redness). 

“Out of man and woman make a round circle and extract the quadrangle from this and from the quadrangle the triangle. Make a round circle and you will have the philosopher’s stone.” 

The goal of alchemy is to form the philosopher’s stone, or essentially reach the endpoint of the story. The “man and woman” angle is also important. Remember, Nobara and Yuji have been depicted fighting together three times, the first time they were in disharmony because they just met, the second time they were in harmony after developing their bond as sorcerers and took on the death painting sibs together, the third time they were in disharmony again and they even seperated with Nobara’s “Death”. Alchemy would require the man and the woman coming together again at the end of the story (this doesn’t even specifically have to be romantic, just as symbols, Nobara and Yuji black flashed together they have a lot of potential for harmony). 

Whether or not you ship Sasuke and Sakura (PLEASE THIS iSN’T SHIpS I DONT EVEN SHIP THEM), the story also follows the formula of alchemy, Sasuke and Sakura are seperated for the majority of the story developing on their own and reforging themselves but the story cannot end until man and woman are brought together in a round circle. 

Therefore if Jujutsu Kaisen is an alchemical story, of mind, body and soul and cursed technique is at it’s strongest when these three elements are in harmony with each other, then the story can’t end unless the trio is repaired and Megumi (Mind), Yuji (Body) and Nobara (soul) are brought together once more. 

#metasks #nobara kugisaki #mai zenin #maki zenin #megumi fushiguro #yuji itdaori #jujuts kaisen #jujutsu kaisen meta #jjk meta #jujutsu kaisen theory

[aseriesofunfortunatejan]

Thank you for giving my old Mahiru post some love again. I remember this one! And honestly I thought it had more notes than it did. (Proof that tumblr overwhelms you with the notes on your posts.)

I don't hold it (the post) in such high regard today. I think it's pretty plain, but maybe that's because I take this point of view for granted. I think the meat of it is exploring how Mahiru put trust in Fuyuhiko in that moment... Especially as a girl who repeated that she couldn't trust men to do shit... And how brave it made her look. In the heart of action, and possibly because she was faced with her own mistakes, Mahiru's convictions led her to not only put on a brave face but also to believe in Fuyuhiko.

I like that Mahiru is a character who doesn't shy away from telling others the truth to their faces. It's a realistic trait that a lot of people will read as being aggressive, confrontational and such, but from Mahiru's point of view comes from a place of believing in others. I believe that if I tell you the truth you can learn from it and change. I believe in you enough to face you, and not to abandon you.

One main aspect I'd correct about this original post is my misremembering that the very sweet, much softer aspects of Mahiru's personality aren't shown in DR2. It's true that she was more of a softie in DR3, which can be explained not just by the story not having too much time for her, but also by the different setting that led her to behave in different ways. Meeting new people in a life or death situation doesn't exactly put the same pressure on you as... high-school. However, I think it's very obvious that Mahiru is presented with this "tsundere" aspect - a very surface level iteration of the trope, which contrary to what a lot of Danganronpa does, does not exaggerate her traits and instead portrays a fairly realistic teenage girl who doesn't want to admit her feelings. One of the arguments I've had about Mahiru that I feel the strongest about is one in which I had to point out that Mahiru's teenage girl experience is very relatable to people who have been teenage girls in the past - from not wanting to admit when you have positive feelings, to feeling pressured to be more responsible and mature by the men raising you, which both go hand in hand. And within this portrayal, Mahiru is presented as particularly soft. She has a strong sense of needing to be helpful, she blushes easily, she's passionate about seeing people's smiles and once you get her to lower her shield, she's a very sincere individual. The exploration of her sincere wants possibly makes her look like even more of a softie than she was in DR3.

(Ooooh noooo this is turning into another long pooost, from my cellular telephooooooone)

Ultimately, I'm just trying to comment on that old post I wrote. So I'll point out that if I sat down to actively write about Mahiru nowadays, I would most likely shift most of my focus to the unfortunately very common perception that "she hates men soooo bad". It's one of those takes that feel like a direct attack to my person - contrary to any random disagreement or misconception of a fictional character, which doesn't affect me personally - because it takes a very realistic depiction of something teenage girls are put through and insults them for it. Not just that, it also uses those feelings as an excuse to argue against feminism, with the usual "feminists hate men" argument. I don't think it's fine that I have to sit here and randomly see some new user on a Discord server tell me that this experience that comes directly from the misogyny we endure is instead women being the sexist ones! And how many times will this user soon reveal that "actually I never did Mahiru's FTEs. I didn't even know she talked about her dad." "Actually I just saw a Let's Play in 2015 and haven't seen the game since." Not playing the game fully is not a moral failing, but I think there is a lot to say about how this reputation was put on Mahiru's back and how willing so many people were to accept it.

I'll make a quick mention of it, since I recently replayed the game... Mahiru never hates men. Like that's straight up not a thing. (I'd bring up "Were you thinking of Tenko?" as a joke but the same people that argue the way I mentioned above will say she is in fact WORSE than Tenko in that regard. Huh?) Mahiru calls out the guys' bullshit to their face and has little patience for it - this has nothing to do with hating men and is in fact just a result of being more emotionally mature. So like, she's literally right for it. The more negative thing she actually does is assume that men can't take care of themselves. She is to some extent proven right when she notes that Hajime, for example, doesn't have the habit of looking after his clothes - but Hajime, being a resident Decent Person, defends his position that he can take care of it himself. In saying that, not only does he defend his own ability to be responsible, but he also doesn't put that burden on Mahiru. Although Hajime is like that, Mahiru explains that she is used to having to look after her irresponsible father. The one man who raised her. Her reference for what men are like. This man is a useless bum, so when she meets other men, she expects the same (and puts the burden of responsibility on her own shoulders! She's literally so nice about it!) - this is NORMAL. This HAPPENS. Please please please extend some patience towards teenage girls for once in your life. This is literally her dad's fault. She will learn. She does learn. She just needs some time to adapt. We've all had misconceptions based on the way we were raised as teenagers. She is a growing girl, and this is a common result of the way girls are mistreated. The narrative that Mahiru hates men is actively a label the patriarchy needs to put on these representations of girls to ensure that it keeps power over them - and so many people, regardless of gender, are playing right into it.

And if you want to say that it's not that deep, you're right! This is extremely surface level. Mahiru's real personality is extremely easy to find out about, and the treatment of any woman who calls men out as a man-hater is extremely common. None of this is deep because it was bound to happen. But the second someone tries to explain it, you assume they're making things too deep, because you're facing the deep-seated things YOU have to unlearn.

Anyway BONK amirite

#mahiru koizumi #danganronpa #sdr2 #danganronpa 2 #jan essay

[horizon-verizon]

Just because some people like this fictional character doesnt mean they have the same view as them *they were rise as royalty in medieval world that they think they were better than everyone else* if someone else still turn out good, well good for them people should not explaining this, George books is for adult, everyone with working braincells know racism is bad and i don't have to excuse Rhaenyra for that but the way this people thinking that Daemon is better than her is CONCERNING, Daemon also the one who calling baby Baelon as "the heir of the day" wtf did you thing a BABY did to Daemon? Existing? so they dont have the same rage with this because the baby didnt have character to talk about they even makes a joke of it just like Daemon was, he also constantly insulting his wife, the main characters in this story said fucked up thing Alicent also calling Rhaenyra's children "Bastards seeds of war"? Aemond constantly calling rhaenyra "whore" for sleeping with a man she likes and have children with harwin instead rap3 her gay husband or chosing some sex worker who have similar looks with her how dare her! And still want an iron throne?, she should keep her legs closed and lonely on her castle like good obidient women was, people killing children and their own sibling, rapng woman but this people draw the line at racism? Wow even Maegor wish he gets the same hate as her and treat as one of the most hated character in the entire franchise, but he's only a man everyone have excuse for a man's crime (he's just silly boy who decapitating kittens) unlike whore rhaenyra who raise taxes and insultingsomeone by their skin color

did you know celebrating a child death or insulting your wife is not real its only fiction when it was Daemon who did it? See Daemon is not racist at all when he calls women in the vale ugly than the sheeps This is not Racist he just saying truth because women in the vale is white (you could never be racist if they are white according to American logic) and according to people who see them they actually ugly so we didnt hate him for it, why people so hard to except the truth? So how dare people accuse him for racist? I could never! he defintly better than His racist niece, i still dont understand why Rhaenyra even chose man who looks "common" as lover she maybe drunk you know she's racist and Valyrian supremacist unlike Daemon (shakes my head)

I watch a movie called The return of the witch when the main character like Rhaenyra was, and there was a knight who being bothered by this witch thank god someone save his ass from her

Anon's probably responding to this post.

The anon of that posts said [excerpt]:

I am not here for any Rhaenyra’s stan trying to excuse or downplay a white woman’s misogynoir and classism because her sons died. Grief doesn’t make you suddenly racist, or compel you to say racist things. You were always that way. The grief just brought out the racism and supremacism that was always simmering beneath the surface.

You didn't need to move away from Rhaenyra's racism into the misogyny levied against her to argue against that past anon's words. That anon was expressing that they don't respect those who do stan her refusal to acknowledge her misogynoir against Nettles, that it came from Rhaenyra's will even under all those stresses, and that it is as serious as it should be seen.

A)

Anonymous, Daemon says the "heir for a day" in the context of wanting the throne but not actually having the biggest claim to it as the nephew or Rhaenyra would, bc he is not Viserys' child. It is a localized infraction, personal, against Viserys AND it was offhand. However, if someone calls me a racial epithet or does as that writer who almost got published did and tried to leave bad reviews of Black and PoC authors to establish dominance, then they are attempting to promote systematic suffering so they can come out on top. There is an intention to destroy a person's life AND to have socio-political privilege over others based on their socialized identity conditioned to be as immutable as possible. Like many said, you don't get to be racist because you had a bad day, are mentally ill, an alcoholic, your parents died, etc. as that writer tried to reason.

Racism is not this personal moral failing or symptomatic result of a racist facing oppression like hating on babies. It comes from systematic privilege given to the racist that allows them to see the oppressed as lesser than & historical, generational violence against said oppressed group. Hating on babies for one moment out of jealousy does not have that scope, level, depth, etc. racism does and never will. People may say often that "oh, they're being racist bc they have envy", and yes people default to their racism or sexism or classism bc they are envious...but their envy is the kind where they feel that the person they are envious of shouldn't have what they have bc what they have is something the racist/sexist/etc has learned they should have by "default" bc of their social class/race, etc. Key word is "systematic".

This reveals, anon, that you either are white or you are a PoC/Black person with a lot of internalized racism and a lack of understanding of racist history.

B)

You: "See Daemon is not racist at all when he calls women in the vale ugly than the sheeps This is not Racist he just saying truth because women in the vale is white (you could never be racist if they are white according to American logic) and according to people who see them they actually ugly so we didnt hate him for it, why people so hard to except the truth?"

Anon, what are you on about? Who said that Daemon was racist here? Who said anything about the Vale or that his comments to Rhea Royce were racist? Who is it that made Daemons' opinion about Rhea Royce's looks a racial thing? It certainly wasn't the past anon or me and I have never seen someone try until you just did.

You're making large leaps of logic here to justify and derail away from examining Rhaenyra's actions, as I already mentioned, to the point your words are incoherent. You are both trying to run away from race talk and flinging it at another character...

You: "So how dare people accuse him for racist? I could never! he defintly better than His racist niece, i still dont understand why Rhaenyra even chose man who looks "common" as lover she maybe drunk you know she's racist and Valyrian supremacist unlike Daemon (shakes my head)"

?! (incoherent)

#asoiaf asks to me #rhaenyra targaryen #rhaenyra's characterization #fire and blood characters

[mixelation]

One of the Fandom takes that make me genuinely angry is the Sakura is weak and useless take that's literally everywhere.

Hinata barely fights yet no one argues that she's weak becuase we all know she's strong. She's a capable ninja.

But Sakura? Break mountains and throw trees Sakura? Sakura who can heal even the most deadly of wounds and cure impossibly complex poisons Sakura? Sakura who has shown time and time again that she's strong and capable, that Sakura? No, she's weak. She's trash. She's worst girl 0/10.

It makes me so angry becuase she's genuinely a great character once you push kishimotos sexist bullshit out of the way. "Why didn't Sakura have any more good fights?" I don't know why don't you ask 'I dont know how to write women' Kishimoto over there. Ask him why Tenten or Hinata or Ino didn't get more fights either.

To me the take that Sakura is weak and the worst is a vile take and it will never not fill me with visceral rage.

God, YES, it's fine to not really like Sakura for whatever reason (including "well, the things that make me like characters usually involve cool fights"), but these arguments trying to PROVE why she's useless to the story are like 90% misogyny. 7/10 for rancid (EDIT: lowered this because some people do act like this to justify Sakura being sexually assaulted or murdered in fics which uhh 10/10 rancid, don't do that, but most people are just writing her as a screechy child who needs to be taught to not be so girly, which is gross but not AS gross).

First, I will admit that I think it's fine to hold Sakura to different standards than the other female characters, because she's the Main Girl. She should be getting cool fights while side characters don't really need them. She should have wider audience appeal (just from a writing perspective) than the other girls because we spend more time with her. These are fine things to point out when discussing Sakura's writing.

But some people genuinely spend time and energy writing up lists of reasons why Sakura is objectively not just a bad character, but a bad person who didn't deserve to be on Team 7. These usually either don't put things in context or make wild leaps of logic to justify why fic writers should abuse her, humiliate her, have horrible things happen to her, etc, because she "deserves" it. Even fans of Sakura will do this, writing her being shown how she's a stupid horrible person for being a normal young girl and having to learn to be better and become "BAMF."

Like, for example, people will come after her about that horrible line where she's like "Naruto misbehaves because he doesn't have parents" and argue she was consistently "awful to him." They do not mention Naruto trying to trick her into kissing him immediately before, or that we do see Naruto acting obnoxious to/around her, because no way could a TWLEVE YEAR OLD GIRL be justified in being annoyed by the class clown!! They also do not mention that after Sasuke tells her off, Sakura does treat Naruto much better, and most of the times she yells at him are when he is being genuinely obnoxious (and yes, she does hit him a few times, but those are all slapstick moments we're not suppose to take seriously, which is why Naruto is always 100% fine afterwards). No, instead they attack her for saying "Well, I'm on a diet anyway!" when she gives Naruto her food when he's hungry because "she's not a serious ninja is she's dieting." There is no way for Sakura to win, because anything she does is just proof she's horrible.

Not to mention the twisted sort of logic these fans go through to deny Sakura any of her on-screen accomplishments. Healing isn't a useful combat skill, duh. Her enhanced strength doesn't count because she's just a Tsunade knock off. She's stupid because she's not as smart as Shikamaru. What?? Like I said, it's fine to not like her, and it's fine to think her character went in a boring direction because you don't want her to just be a Tsunade #2. But the frequency with which people act like these things make her objectively a bad person is baffling. If you applied this logic to like 90% of the cast, you'd see people being like "well Hinata watched Naruto be lonely and never talked to him, so she obviously doesn't care about him and doesn't deserve his love" but you DON'T because Hinata has big tits because these arguments only make sense if you want to go out of your way to bash a character.

Just say you don't like her and move on. If you try to argue no one should like her, you just end up being like "Well, things girls do are STUPID AND BAD" and that's not a good look.

#ask meme answer #and DON'T get me started on 'BAMF Sakura' fics where the writer #clearly just hates how we see sakura in canon (a normal 12 yr old girl) #and go out of their way to humiliate her for BEING A NORMAL YOUNG GIRL so she can learnt o repent and fight good or whatever

[hamliet]

On Alicent and Rhaenyra

Yes, just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in. I'm mad about the fact that I like this stupid dragon show and am cautiously optimistic about it. WILL I NEVER LEARN?

Most of my analytical thoughts will be written up on like, a place where I actually get paid to write it (which I'll crosspost here when it goes up!) but for now, have thoughts on fandom discourse, because no place gonna pay me to talk about that but I still have thoughts, so blog, blargh, here we go.

My thoughts on the Alicent vs Rhaenyra diskhorse are that ppl are misunderstanding the genre. Like, House of the Dragon is a tragedy from the outset. Rhaenyra is our heroine; people aren't wrong for seeing that. But she is a *tragic* heroine. She rightly stands in opposition to a bad (patriarchal) society but also benefits from it, and therefore isn't willing to question certain things. She has hubris in this, in assuming she can get away with things other women can't, and it's going to get her killed because she reached too high.

Alicent is tragic as well, similar to Rhaenyra in that she's a victim of this society and also similar in that she's unwilling to really look critically at her role in it and thereby perpetuates it.

But it's also not wrong for ppl to notice that Alicent is the antagonist.

She's tragic, absolutely, but "antagonist" isn't a moral judgement itself. In fact, if you want to look into the tropes she's playing into (wicked stepmother, etc) and deconstruct the fairness of these labels--which honestly the show should do and ASOIAF does w Alicent's parallel characters (like Catelyn Stark)--please do, I encourage it. I call her the antagonist because Alicent makes the first move, regardless of her reasoning, and an antagonist is just an opponent of our protagonist regardless of the protagonist's morality.

Secondly, SPOILERS, but the story... does end with Alicent's line dying out and Rhaenyra's line going on to produce three heroes in our main saga: Jon Snow, Daenerys Targaryen, and even f!Aegon. Two of these save the world, whatever comes before/after. While I'd argue it's prudent to critically consider whether just having a line continue is evidence of anything redeeming or whether it's more evidence of injustice or both, that still exists as a fact for fans to ponder.

Anyways, it's not so simple as viral reddit threads assert. There is indeed grayness and misogyny in fandom, but there are also ways to critically think about the story's message and purpose that acknowledge why ppl have certain interpretations that don't involve chalking it up to bad faith on behalf of people on either "side." My personal stance is that I love Alicent as a character but I do not like the "uwu did nothing wrong" fan version of her, because it negates exactly what's most compelling about her character: that she's both victim and perpetrator, and as George RR Martin once said, the most intriguing thing to write about is the human heart at war with itself.

#hotd #house of the dragon #asioiaf #rhaenyra targaryen #alicent hightower #tragedy #NEVER TRUST CAPITALIST ART KATE #AND YET

[nebuvoid]

also also as much as people claim kishimotos women writing isnt rooted in misogyny. i think. well. im just sorting my thoughts here honestly i havent reread enough to make a proper post for this yet. but like lets just look at what we got:

sakura - written as annoying girl on purpose. not allowed to grow ever. no backstory, no red thread besides 'fangirl loves sasuke'

tsunade - well written but also despite being middle aged she has to be youthful and hot. arguably the only plot relevant woman and its the one with big bazongas

anko - pushed aside even though she couldve been relevant for sasuke. do we even see her after part1?

konan - somewhere at the bottom of the ocean. or lake i dont remember. yes the akatsuki are all killed but her death feels particularly undignified

kurenai - supposedly incredible at genjutsu yet its only used to belittle her next to itachi. pregnant and never seen again after.. sorry girl youre a mom now no more personality for you. not that there was much to begin with

shizune - tsunades faithful sidekick. nothing bad i can think of rn. has a pig very epic.

hinata - written as annoying girl on purpose 2! has very intriguing backstory that is shoved aside

tenten - who?

tayuya - dies as a one dimensional villain (as do her comrades)

miss orochimaru - pedocoded

karin - written as annoying girl on purpose 3! and like sakura has moments that imply change is possible only to fullstop. though at least karin has a supporting backstory that explains why shes Like That

shiho (thats the one that looks like ino with glasses) - instant crush on shikamaru for no reason

fuu - dead

ayame - ultra side character. she serves ramen. thats it

that sound girl in the forest of death - only serves to humiliate sakura for having long hair. while she has long hair

mito - only known as a jinchuu and hashiramas wife

mikoto - housewife even though she was a skilled ninja. one could argue she choose that out of love but objectively its still sorry girl youre a mom now thats it for you. but she had personality

chiyo - flawed character with story. allowed to be old even! dies

temari - written like a regular character. thumbs up

mei terumi - OHHH IM A GIRL WITH BIG HONKERS AND NOT MARRIED BOOHOO. cheap writing

yugito - dead

ino - her writing is okay..i guess... but often shown as shallow even though it makes no sense because her father is T&A

kushina - id say her writing is mostly on par with tsunade? from memory only though so what do i know. was clearly being setup for the housewife sentence if she didnt die though

rin - only existed for the plot

hanabi - shes. fine? idr

in conclusion: no kishimoto doesnt outright go and say EW ALL GIRLS HAVE COOTIES AND ARE INHERENTLY BENEATH THE MEN but like cmon. almost always sidelining female characters certainly isnt a good look. out of all of these the only ones i would title as 'well written' aka written like actual people would be tsunade, konan, chiyo, temari, kushina. big tits, dead, dead, married into housewife (though i dont really count boruto), dead

👍

#naruto talk

[frazzledsoul]

Thinking about the claims on here that I keep seeing that criticizing Rory Gilmore in any way is "misogyny" and well, no. I believe that in the OS although she does fucked-up teenage things and makes mistakes, generally she remains aware of her foibles and tries to make up for most of the bad things she does or at least minimize the damage. The narrative during the OS does seek to have Rory aware of the harm that she causes to others and is willing to punish her when she fucks up: for Lorelai, I feel it tries to argue that she's always right and is reluctant to have her apologize for her behavior. This is not to let Rory off the hook when she uses her love interests against each other or cheats or is cruel to her mother, but at least there's enough of a moral underpinning in her story that she's aware that she shouldn't be doing these things.

AYITL Rory is a different story. She's kind of a nightmare most of the time. She's basically living her life like her father did, like we see Logan and his friends do: fumbling around, choosing to be rootless and uncommitted, fumbling the opportunities she is given because she doesn't feel like applying herself to them, and being generally uninterested in improving her life until Jess comes in with his huge biceps and perfect hair and emotional stability and inspires her to get her shit together. Even then, she continues to kind of be awful. She throws a tantrum because Lorelai doesn't want her to write the book the way she wants (by exposing Lorelai's private life) and whines that if Lorelai doesn't let her do this she'll have to GET A JOB SHE DOESN'T WANT (the horror!), she continues to mooch off of Lane even though she can afford to get her own place, and to top it all off she has (unprotected?) sex with her engaged ex-boyfriend who she knows is going ahead with the marriage and is now living with his fiance and gets pregnant (even though Logan gave her a key to her own room and told her he didn't expect anything else from her). Yes, she makes up with her mom and tells her know she won't go ahead with the book if Lorelai doesn't agree to it but I don't think that makes up for so much bad behavior. And yes, she was at odds professionally and we can empathize with her crisis but she does a lot of cruel things and is generally incredibly irresponsible and selfish and I don't think the fact that she couldn't get the job she wanted really excuses the affair with Logan whatsoever or Rory's general indifference to how it affected Logan's fiance or the risks she was running. It takes Rory all of a day to realize her dalliance with Dean is a horrible idea and to remove herself from him and she was immediately apologetic for trying to use Jess to cheat on Logan, but she carries on with Logan in AYITL for months if not years and doesn't seem to really care about Odette (and even lets Mitchum call in favors for her). Any moral compass she had during the OS is more or less nonexistent: she only seems to give up on Logan when she realizes the situation isn't good for HER anymore.

Pointing this out is not misogyny any more than pointing out that her multiple infidelities during the OS were cruel and hurt people who didn't deserve it (except for Dean, because who cares about him). If you respect Rory as a morally autonomous individual, then you also respect that she is responsible for her own actions and the effect they have on other people. That's not hating her: that's respecting that she can and should do better.

The (fictional) world isn't going to end over this. She's not a supervillain. However, it is okay to point out when one of your favorites does stuff that's messed up.

#gilmore girls #rory gilmore #it's not hatorade it's facts! #meta

[limeade-l3sbian]

so I somehow found a discourse about if we need to use "female/male doctor" or "doctor/doctress" on your tumblr that was like a month ago. and so, to start with, in russia it's a common thing to hear someone arguing about that but it mostly anti-feminists against feminists, so I was surprised to see this on radblr. like, some girls there were talking about "doctress" and other terms like that sounding silly and that's what I used to hear from people who would also say that males are not oppressors. and for me and for the radfem community I used to, to say that we need terms that are specifying sex of the person you're talking about (so "doctress") is a regular thing just like saying that you can't change your sex. I actually sent an ask to menalez about that topic not that while ago, but I think I worded it wrongly so she didn't understand what i meant(her answer and poll actually still were interesting so I don't regret it).

and I am not trying to tell that anyone is bad here for her opinion, I am actually just very excited over and interested in how different our opinions might be because we're from different countries/speak different languages. I have a lot of thoughts on what can be the reason for it. the fact that languages are different? the fact that women in different countries experience misogyny differently? what do you think? I am so excited, I can't even explain how, I wish I knew all the languages in the world to know if this is a language itself or people who makes "doctress" sound weird.

also, something I wanted to add, is that I think that we need to use terms specifying someone's sex for the same reason some girls on here wants to use she as a gender neutral pronoun and prefer to say she/him instead of they when they're talking about a mixed sex group. I feel like when you're saying doctor or female doctor you still may sound like you're talking about a male or that you think that doctor is already a male and you're not going to use "male doctor" when talking about a man.

and another thing, it also can be the whole different story in english since english is not so gendered and you can only specify sex in nouns and pronouns while other gendered languages can also change verbs and adjectives. all the arguments I read that far made me doubt if the word "doctor", again, is actually a gender neutral term or is it just that it is used as one and in fact imply that this person is a male. like if "doctor" is gender neutral then why does "actor" means male and there's word "actress"? why some words are gendered and some aren't? I feel like this is very similar to how it is in russian, there are words that most of people use and don't see anything wrong with that but when feminists say that we can and should actually use other words like that too, because otherwise it is grammarly incorrect to use nouns gendered as male with verbs and adjectives gendered as female, people say that we're crazy. but, again, it might be different since english is not changing verbs and adjectives.

so, this confused and interested me a lot. like it is so similar but also different. I am going to blow up over how excited that all made me, honestly.

This was dope! I definitely was reading through all the responses of the post you mentioned and the topic of gendered language has always been so interesting, like you said.

I only speak the most boring language in the world so I honestly don't know, but I'm REALLY hoping the responses to this will give us that answer !

#ask

[navree]

I see a lot of people complaining that Grrm has written Rhaenyra story with very misgonystic undertones, is this true ? I didn't read the book and rhaenyra in the show seems boring but she is fine i guess??

In the book Rhaenyra has a lot of very unpleasant traits, she's pouty and she's stubborn and petulant and she holds grudges and she's got that thing royals have where they think everything they do is great because they're royal. And she does some really bad things, far worse than stuff portrayed in the show (in the book Vaemond dies because Rhaenyra orders that Daemon sneak onto Driftmark and kill him and drag his body back so that she can feed it to Syrax), but so have a lot of Targaryens. The Targaryen family is filled with some genuinely good people, some genuinely bad people, and a lot of people who are a grey mix of both, it's why people find them so interesting. The misogyny in Rhaenyra's story isn't necessarily about how she was written as a person (I think the only developed adult woman from the Dance era who doesn't have sucky qualities is Laena), but the story she has. The story of a woman who was the eldest child of the king and explicitly made his heir, but had the throne stolen out from under her, tried to fight back and regain it, ended up dying horribly, and is remembered throughout history as being in the wrong for exercising her birthright. That's what people have a problem with, the fact that Westeros's one attempt at a ruling queen before the main series was given such a dismal story. The issue isn't how Rheanyra is written as a character. The issue is whether or not you approve of the fact that ASOIAF is a misogynistic world by design.

Take Tolkien or CS Lewis, for example. Great writers, great works, seminal and classic, etc. But it's not that hard to point to misogynistic elements in their works and in Middle-Earth and Narnia, due to the fact that these men were products of their time and had views on women and how involved they should be in stories, which is why in Narnia Santa gives a whole speech on how Susan and Lucy can't fight in the battle because They're Girls and why Lord of The Rings's important female characters can be counted on one hand. That's when author bias is bleeding almost unconsciously into the work, which isn't what George is doing. George is acutely aware of the misogyny his female characters are facing, and the misogyny of Westeros and other countries in that world, because he's doing it on purpose. Issues of discrimination are everywhere in ASOIAF, from the ableism Tyrion has to deal with the class discrimination we see through Arya's eyes to the slavery in Essos (even though it's significantly less race-based than it is in GOT, as George was basing it off the system of slavery from Ancient Rome/the Antiquity) to the misogyny suffered by all our female characters, seen especially poignantly in Cersei's chapters. These issues are vital to our understanding of the characters and why they do what they do, how the react the way they react and what drives them in the narrative. George is very clearly doing this on purpose, creating a world that's intensely patriarchal and misogynistic, and having a portion of that world's history include an attempt for a female ruler to reign in her own right only for it to be shot down is part of that. It's very purposeful and done under the express consciousness of the author.

But the problem people have is that this is a fantasy world. George based some of the story on history, specifically the Wars of the Roses in medieval England, but not all of it. And while some of the society is based on medieval England, this is a world with dragons and magic and zombies and shapeshifters. So why, exactly, does it need to be an intensely misogynistic society where women are constantly abused and suffering and child rape is the norm? What purpose, some people argue, does it actually serve the overall narrative, the story of people vying for the throne but eventually having to band together to defeat an existential threat to the entirety of humanity? Does the intensely misogynistic society of Westeros actually further any character arcs of major figures, particularly the Key Five of the story (Jon, Tyrion, Bran, Arya, and Daenerys) or is it largely just character justification and flavor text? Is there an actual point, narratively, to Rhaenyra being denied what was promised to her by rights, just because she's a woman? There are people who say no, and that it's largely there just because George wanted to be able to write some trauma porn about women and that it's emblematic of his own misogyny. And listen, I do not know George Raymond Richard Martin, I do not know whether or not he's sexist or what he includes because it's part of his worldbuilding or just because he finds it hot, or where that line blurs. And whether you agree with that take on misogyny in ASOIAF isn't really something I can answer for you, it's largely a personal preference thing that falls on a scale of your own making. I know some people who aren't bothered by it, I know people who are bothered by it enough that it's a turnoff of reading the series as a whole.

It's also that, again, Fire&Blood isn't a novel. It's a history book. This is largely flavor text to help us understand the wold of ASOIAF, it's not vital to our understanding of the main story and these characters aren't treated as characters, they're treated as historical figures that some might find interesting, and some might not. That's why there's a lot less detail and stuff for us to look into wrt to characterization than there is in the main series, which is an actual narrative. So you're not going to get as in depth a look into what drives these people in the source material, that's for the show now. So there are probably some people who look at how barebones Rhaenyra is, how most of what we see of her is largely bad qualities, and then compare to the incredibly well fleshed out male characters in ASOIAF like Tyrion, and view Rhaenyra as being misogynistically written. But we also know frighteningly little about a lot of male characters in Fire&Blood; Aegon the Conqueror is notoriously written to have very little actually known about what he was like as a person, because this is a history book and people's characters and thoughts and feelings aren't often recorded in historical chronicles (trust me, it can be so frustrating).

By and large, the issue just seems to be the fact that GRRM has misogyny playing such a big role in the story at all, and that's what "misogynistic undertones" means as it pertains to Rhaenyra's story, and whether or not you view that as valid is ultimately up to you. But I do hope this at least somewhat answered your question!

#personal #answered #anonymous #fun fact anon the phrasing of 'is this true' sent me into a laughing fit #not because of anything you said but because there's a very famous childhood story of me and my sister #that involves that exact phrase and for some reason it just popped into my head #anyway i wrote all of this while listening to 'i don't like mondays' on a tuesday #i'm not an expert on this series or on misogyny in fiction by any means by the by #i'm just A Woman and i have a lot of opinions on things and i have a tendency to speak in full paragraphs #(that's not a joke that's an actual thing a teacher said to my parents about me once and it is true) #so have my lil two cents #hope it was at least informative

[iheartbookbran]

Ok the dance on its own would be a gruesome yet interesting story to watch, Rhaenyra is certainly a different character to how most sane readers would read the Dany of the first books. But S8 told the public her character was ultimately an evil ruler who massacred innocents to 'rule with fear". So the overwhelming majority will just see a similar narrative repeat and certainly connect those characters/outcomes. In the context made by HBO the Dance becomes a 'doubling down' by default. 1)

And personally, I can't really think of any way the people behind the decision to go for Rhaenyra/The Dance didn't see that at all, it actually seems quite deliberate to me. So tbh, fuck everyone, and I MEAN everyone involved with this who thought this would be a great idea; a great story to tell now lol. 2)

Er… I mean I think it could go either way honestly? I agree that Rhaenyra, at least how GRRM presents her in F&B, is closer to how Dany antis think of Dany, y’know, as “spoiled” and “cruel with the people who don’t agree with her” than how Dany actually is in canon, which we know is the opposite. Honestly I don’t even think Rhaenyra behaved with any more cruelty than the rest of her peers during the Dance, at least not until after the paranoia had truly settled in her and she lost almost all of her children and was betrayed multiple times. Overall Rhaenyra only ever really fought for her rights and that of her children, which again should not be considered as this unforgivable sin because almost everyone else is kinda the same :/

And I understand how Rhaenyra’s ending can be compared to Dany’s in the sense that both of them are women claimants to the Iron Throne who were betrayed and killed by their male relatives, but I also think that the circumstances in which it happened are completely different. The tragedy with Rhaenyra is that ultimately she “wins” because her line does end up in the Iron Throne, but the claim of her surviving sons doesn’t come through her but through Daemon, and it effectively ends any chance of a future female Targaryen to ascend the throne. Some of those same themes of misogyny and sexism exist in Dany’s story undoubtedly, but I also think that her story has so many additional themes and it is “bigger” so to speak.

I mentioned in my original post how Rhaenyra is very different from Dany, like for example how, when given the possibility of giving two lordships to female claimants, as the eldest daughters of their houses, Rhaenyra chooses instead to give the seats to their younger brothers, arguing that her own claim to the throne should be considered the exception and not the rule, since Viserys chose her specifically as his heir. And to be fair, this could’ve also been because she didn’t want to give White and Hammer more power through their marriages to those girls, but she also didn’t make any effort to give the girls the lordship without the marriages. To me that’s a stark contrast to Dany who’s out there fighting for the freedom of slaves and linking herself to every downtrodden person she comes across.

Not to say that this should fall into a “good” vs “bad” woman dichotomy when it comes to each women’s morality, and therefore that’s why Rhaenyra deserved to die at the end and Dany didn’t. I don’t think Rhaenyra deserved to die, but I believe that’s exactly the point GRRM was trying to make, hence why Aegon II also died and why Alicent’s whole line ended up dead as well. That’s a entire different message from what we got from GoT with Dany, who is a abolitionist and liberator for 7 seasons and then spends the first half of the last season saving the people of the North without really asking for anything in return, only to do a complete turn over in the remaining 3 episodes and burn a bunch of innocent people in a battle that she could’ve easily won with barely any casualties, just so the writers could “justify” equating her to a dictator and a n*zi, and have their boring action protag kill her while ugly crying—that’s like, not comparable at all with what Rhaenyra and Aegon had going on if you ask me.

I also feel like the general audience should be able to make the distinction between Dany and Rhaenyra because the general audience was just as outraged by the GoT finale as like, diehard Dany stans or book readers. Tbh, anyone who didn’t have an agenda or shipping goggles on could tell what an ass-pull that ending was. People are not stupid and if the writers keep all the characters’ characterizations consistent throughout as many seasons as they’re planning on having, I think they’ll be able to pull it off.

Also I think it’s funny that you mention the people who decided to make this particular period of time a show because GRRM himself was the first one to propose it, according to this podcast. I don’t think choosing to tell this story is necessarily the problem, unless the upcoming Dunk & Egg show ends up painting Aegon V as a tyrant because he wants to give more rights and protections to the smallfolk, in which case I will start thinking HBO is pushing some kind of message lmao.

It is precisely that we’ve got an upcoming Dunk & Egg show plus who knows how many Targ and/or Valyran projects without a single peep or a minimal acknowledgment from the network that what happened with Dany was wrong, that’s the real issue imho.

Like I don’t mean this to sound as if I’m trying to defend the show’s existence or that I think people should watch it, I’m not even sure I will watch it. I just disagree with the notion that the problem sterns from the similarities of two women veering for power ending up dead, because the circumstances leading up to it are so wildly different to begin with.

#Anonymous #ask #ask pam #sorry for my rambling #daenerys targaryen #rhaenyra targaryen #house targaryen #asoiaf #asoiaf meta #a song of ice and fire #got #dracarys to d&d #house of the dragon #hotd #fire and blood #f&b meta #meta #my meta