“the submarine trip was stupid and rooted in classism”, “it’s absolutely hideous how much more manpower was put into saving and reporting on them vs the 500 migrants who died in a similar horrible fashion”, and “despite their actions, no human being (especially not a nineteen year old) should deserve to die like this, especially when their death will not actually herald any positive change/abolishment of the billionaire class” are three thoughts than can and should coexist. you don’t have to mourn their deaths, but you don’t need to celebrate them, either.
4K notes
·
View notes
I will say this once because I'm tired of seeing stupid discourse: anti-transmasculinity is not about being treated bad because we clock as men, it's about being treated as stupid little girls because transphobes think we've been tricked into this.
It's kind of the opposite of transmisogyny- instead of fear and revulsion, it's constant condescension, the implications that we've been whisked away from femininity by scary bad guys, that we're going to cause 'irreparable damage' because we don't know what's best for ourselves, somehow. People fearmonger a lot about the "ugliness" of transfem people, but for transmasc people that 'ugliness' is used as a warning- you'll look like THIS! You'll go BALD! Your top surgery scars will leave you MUTILATED! A lot of aesthetic concerns. Worry about our 'beauty'. Because it comes from that same stupid reactionary 'we gotta SAVE the WOMEN' shit, but this time they have to save them from getting 'stolen away', as if we're being seduced or pressured into this. As if we can't make our own decisions.
For TERFS specifically, they're losing one of their own. We're 'gender traitors', willingly aligning ourselves with the half of the population they consider unilaterally dangerous and evil.
We aren't REALLY trans, we just want the benefits that men get. You don't actually want to transition, you're just trying to avoid misogyny.
You aren't actually a man, you're just a self-loathing lesbian.
Why can't you just be a butch girl? Why can't you just be a tomboy?
Why can't you just be something that I don't think is icky?
Anyway. Like all things, it boils down to misogyny. Women stupid and gentle, dont know what best for them, evil men trick into taking man juice, must save because lady stupid and dont know what best for them (having babies and being Feminine).
Theres like. Obviously more to this but I'm just a Transmasc Rando explaining this from my perspective, and I'm not the best with words. Anyone is free to hop in and add on to this
2K notes
·
View notes
The repeated use of the specific word imperialism in fandom discussions of TotK really bugs me because like… we know what imperialism looks like, right?
Genocide either by murder or assimilation, leadership that is either of the conquering race or loyal to it generally for personal gain, control of the conquered’s resources, and a social climate where the conquerors are considered superior.
But in this Hyrule none of the other races had their cultures erased, they aren’t governed by Hylian leaders and the local leaders’ first priority is taking care of their people, they manage their own trade affairs, and Hylians don’t constantly subject others to put downs about their race.
If a Hylian man dares enter Gerudo Town without the Chief’s permission, they kick him out or put him in jail. That’s how much control the Gerudo have over their own territory and how little being a Hylian matters if you mess with them.
Rauru is accused of hoarding power but he literally gave his secret stones out to the other races and they remain in possession of them to this day.
Basically the only time the other nations seem to actually follow Hyrule’s lead at all is when facing common threats or working towards common goals. Hyrule only ever meddles in other lands affairs either to lend them aid (Link and Zelda fighting for everyone, the folks at Tabantha Bridge Stable providing disaster releif to the Rito, etc.) or requesting aid from them (Rauru and Zelda asking the Sages and Champions to help them fight Ganon[dorf].) They lead like a team leader leads.
Sonia and Rauru didn’t found an empire.
They founded an alliance.
I know I’m beating a dead horse here but to my eyes at least (for now) there is zero solid evidence of Hyrule exerting control over the daily lives of non-Hylians or stealing their resources, two major defining traits of imperialistic rule. Hyrule is at the head of the alliance, yes, but an empire isn’t the only system of governance that has one group or individual at the helm of a coalition. The difference is in the details and the details here are that Hyrule leads the others but it does not dominate them, and that is key.
The only empire in the game would have been the one Ganondorf was trying to force on everyone and that was pretty bluntly depicted as being a bad thing. How can we say it’s pro-imperialistic if the main conflict is preventing the rise of an evil empire?
You can’t effectively analyze a narrative by completely ignoring everything about it and its meta that contradicts a knee-jerk viewpoint. What is even the point of analyzing it at all at that point?
755 notes
·
View notes
Arya and Dany stans: *discuss the likelihood that they'll have a positive relationship given their parallels, foreshadowing, status as key characters, and being two of George's favorite characters*
Stansas: Is this Sansa shade?
I think it's hilarious that Stansas got mad at me for (accurately) pointing out that they accuse Arya and Dany stans of being motivated by Sansa hate simply because...we get along and like both of them lol. The idea of them getting along is about their characters and has nothing to do with Sansa. Just because they pit Dany and Arya against each other for Sansa's sake doesn't mean we're motivated by the same thing. Are there some conversations that bring up Sansa + Arya's strained relationship? Absolutely, that isn't baseless in the books considering they're written as foils and George has already said they have issues they need to work out. The "Stark sisters 4ever" fantasy they have is just that, and it's funny we never see this same energy for Arya being turned into a prop for her sister 🤔. Sisterhood didn't stop Sansa from siding with Joffrey, telling Cersei that Arya was a traitor (even though she had no idea where Arya was), or calling Arya unsatisfactory when she thought that she was dead so why are we supposed to pretend it's an all-important factor when discussing Arya's potential relationships with other characters?
133 notes
·
View notes
I’m already seeing male reactors get very verbally defensive about that scene in She-Hulk where Jennifer describes how, simply as a woman, she has more experience in suppressing rage than Banner because speaking out will get you labelled “hysterical”, “emotional”, “difficult”, “too much of a feminist”, the list goes on. And if you snap back at the wrong cat-caller, you can get murdered. So now mcu bros are rushing at the opportunity to cry out “this is just another ‘marvel throwing in another woke scene for woke’s sake’. But like...it isn’t untrue. Comic nerds are all for female superhero protagonists until she, god forbids, talks about the dynamics of what it’s like to live within the confines of patriarchy.
MCU fans are always clamoring for the social commentary to be more “subtle” and not so “in-your-face”, just so they can mindlessly enjoy a punchy fighty show and not have to confront any real-world intersections with racism, misogyny, xenophobia, transphobia, all the -isms and -phobias you can imagine. Additionally, even when the social criticisms are embedded into the story, the conflicts are routinely either overlooked or watered-down and discussed at the individual-level as if these are just isolated incidents and not reflective of larger phenomena. Dudebros forget that superhero comic media, from the very beginning, has always been political. A lot of the mainstream characters we know and love today were created in response to the anti-war and peace movements during the seventies in the United States (this is also not to say that there isn’t some definite war propaganda and Red Scare-inspired comics out there either).
Comics are teaching grounds for morality, human good, and bad, power, greed, corruption. Comics have been about the social commentary from the get-go. The idea that the government (and by extent society at large) is villainizing and surveilling a specific minority group who carry varying physical and genetic traits contrasting to that of the “ideal national subject” because of a perceived inherent aggression or difference based on their physical attributes *ahem ahem mutants*...where do you think they got that from?
I literally sat through a dude being like “IN MY EXPERIENCE AS A MAN, THAT IS NEVER THE CASE! IF A WOMAN GETS UPSET AND MAKES A SCENE IN PUBLIC, THE MAN ALWAYS LOOKS LIKE THE BAD GUY BECAUSE IT IS ASSUMED HE DID SOMETHING WRONG. MEN ARE THE ONES WHO CAN NEVER BE ANGRY.” (Obviously for Black men, my argument is different because when Black men express rage, they are viewed as a threat or turned into spectacle, but the person who made this rant was not a Black man, nor was he factoring race into his argument). As if masculinity and gratuitous violence have not become nearly synonymous. When male celebrities are accused of beating their partners, fans run to their defense to say “well she shouldn’t have provoked him.” When Will Smith slapped Chris Rock, the internet rooted for a televised boxing match between the actors/comedians. We all watched the Trump and Hillary debates right, where his belligerent behavior was coddled while she had to maintain composure?
We’ve collectively grown up watching male newscasters, talk show hosts, and reporters make jokes about angry women in sports, in the media or in news reports being on their periods, as a way to minimize the stressful and abusive circumstances, or people, women are subjected to. The world expects women to react to harassment with class and elegance; women’s anger, Black women especially, is never not mitigated. For male fans to come away from that scene wanting to eye roll is why the commentary is so “in-your-face” because a lot of y’all still don’t get it! Men are still finding ways to make women’s issues about them and the “loss” of their rights. In a world where Brock Turners are able to walk free, are you really trying to argue against this scene? Really? What else do you expect out of a series whose main character is AN ATTORNEY? Y’all are just not going to enjoy this series then, as per usual.
1K notes
·
View notes
annoying people: shehulk talking about her struggle as a woman are so insignificant. oh no she gets catcalled once or twice? and men call her stupid? cry me a river
also those same people: *immensely harass actors/actresses online when they dislike the character and basically proving the point of what she hulk said*
2K notes
·
View notes
ok actually I have one more thing to say but as someone who actively participates in fandom, fandom is rotting some people's brains I swear. "please don't hate me for this it's just my take" is for shit like "I actually think blorbo would be a top" not for when you're completely showing your ass talking about fictional portrayals of addiction in a way that says a lot more about how you view real people who are actually struggling with addiction in real life than it does about your whether or not you like a character
157 notes
·
View notes