I’m glad deadpool is canonically pansexual! but I really wish we could have some rep where a bi/pan character wasn’t super over-the-top sexual and really fucked up and sort of an antihero? because that’s already such a trope and it’s also a stereotype that affects real people

like, this is why I’m so for bi Steve Rogers, because he’s a classic hero and he’s fucked up in a quieter and less flashy way and he’s interesting but there’s not much that’s gritty about him

what I’m saying is that deadpool is great and he’s not enough, and I want more variety in the types of characters who are allowed to be queer

give me more

I’m obviously happy that Andy Mientus is coming back to The Flash because he was amazing, but I’m also a little scared. Ok, mostly scared to be honest. Because I really want the good and sympathetic Piper from the comics and there’s no indication that they will ever give us that on the show. And with Andy not being a regular there’s a chance the character will be stuck to his evil roots with no real arc, popping up just every now and then as a foe.

Maybe they’re waiting for Wally West’s version of the Flash? Because the Piper as a hero is mostly tied to Wally? I hope so. The way they presented him, Hartley will never become the positive presence he is in the comics. But I will be more than happy with a snarky antihero who banters with and friendly belittles his best buddy Wally. As long as he’s not always written as a villain.

Gender, Orphan Black & the Meta of Meta

Recently, my husband and I burned through S1 of Orphan Black, which, as promised by virtually the entire internet, was awesome. But in all the praise I’d seen for it, a line from one review in particular stuck in my mind. The reviewer noted that, although the protagonist, Sarah, is an unlikeable character, her grifter skills make her perfectly suited to unravelling the mystery in which she finds herself. And as this was a positive review, I kept that quote in mind when we started watching, sort of by way of prewarning myself: you maybe won’t like Sarah, but that’s OK.

But here’s the thing: I fucking loved Sarah. I mean, I get what the reviewer was trying to say, in that she’s not always a sympathetic character, but that’s not the same as her actually being unlikeable. And the more I watched, the more I found myself thinking: why is this quality, the idea of likeability, considered so important for women, but so optional for men – not just in real life, but in narrative? Because when it comes to guys, we have whole fandoms bending over backwards to write soulful meta humanising male characters whose actions, regardless of their motives, are far less complex than monstrous. We take male villains and redeem them a hundred, a thousand times over – men who are murderers, stalkers, abusers, kinslayers, traitors, attempted or successful rapists; men with personal histories so bloody and tortured, it’s like looking at a battlefield. In doing this, we exhibit enormous compassion for and understanding of the nuances of human behaviour – sympathy for circumstance, for context, for motive and character and passion and rage, the heartache and, to steal a phrase, the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to; and as such, regardless of how I might feel about the practice as applied in specific instances, in general, it’s a praiseworthy endeavour. It helps us to see human beings, not as wholly black and white, but as flawed and complicated creatures, and we need to do that, because it’s what we are.

But when it comes to women, a single selfish or not-nice act – a stolen kiss, a lie, a brushoff – is somehow enough to see them condemned as whores and bitches forever. We readily excuse our favourite male characters of murder, but if a woman politely turns down a date with someone she has no interest in, she’s a timewasting user bimbo and god, what does he even see in her? Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen some great online meta about, for instance, the soulfulness and moral ambiguity of Black Widow, but I’ve also seen a metric fucktonne more about what that particular jaw-spasm means in that one GIF of Cumberbatch/Ackles/Hiddleston/Smith alone, and that’s before you get into the pages-long pieces about why Rumplestiltskin or Hook or Spike or Bucky Barnes or whoever is really just a tortured woobie who needs a hug. Hell, I’m guilty of writing some of that stuff myself, because see above: plus, it’s meaty and fun and exactly the kind of analysis I like to write.

And yet, we tend overwhelmingly not to write it about ladies. It’s not just our cultural obsession with pushing increasingly specific variants of the Madonna/Whore complex onto women, such that audiences are disinclined to extend to female characters the same moral/emotional licenses they extend to men; it’s also a failure to create narratives where the women aren’t just flawed, but where the audience is still encouraged to like them when they are.

Returning to Orphan Black, for instance, if Sarah were male, he’d be unequivocally viewed as either a complex, sympathetic antihero or a loving battler with a heart of gold. I mean, the ex-con trying to go straight and get his daughter back while still battling the illegalities of his old life and punching bad guys? Let me introduce you to SwordfishDeath Race, and about a millionty other stories where a father’s separation from a beloved child, whether as a consequence of his actual criminal actions, shiftless neglect, sheer bad luck or a combination of all three, is never couched as a reason why he might not be a fit parent. We tend to accept, both culturally and narratively, that men who abandon their children aren’t automatically bad dads; they just have other, important things to be doing first, like coming to terms with parenthood, saving the world, escaping from prison or otherwise getting their shit together. But Sarah, who left her child in the care of someone she trusted absolutely, has to jump through hoops to prove her maternal readiness on returning; has to answer for her absence over and over again. And on one level, that’s fine; that’s as it should be, because Sarah’s life is dangerous. And yet, her situation stands in glaring contrast to every returning father who’s never been asked to do half so much, because women aren’t meant to struggle with motherhood, to have to try to succeed: we’re either maternal angels or selfish absentees, and the idea that we might sometimes be both or neither isn’t one you often see depicted with such nuance.

Which isn’t to say that we never see mothers struggling – it’s just seldom with their desire to actually be mothers. Maternal angels struggle with the day-to-day business of domesticity: how to deal with teenage chatback and those oh-so-hilariously forgetful sitcom husbands, how to balance the bills and keep everyone fed, how to find time for themselves amidst all their endless finding time for others. By contrast, selfish absentees are usually career-oriented single mothers in high-stress jobs, either unwilling or unable to find the appropriate amount of time for their children. Looking at the gender disparity in the characterisation of TV detectives who are also parents is particularly interesting: not only are the men more likely to have wives at home (to begin with, at least), they’re also more likely to be granted reconciliation with their children later. Contrast obsessive, depressive detective Kurt Wallander, who slowly rebuilds his relationship with his daughter, with obsessive, depressive detective Sarah Lund, who steadily destroys the possibility of a relationship with her son. Compare single fathers like Seeley Booth and Richard Castle, whose ability to parent well is never implied to be compromised by their devotion to the job, with single mothers like Alex Fielding andGloria Sheppard, whose characterisation is largely defined by the difficulties of striking a balance between the two roles. Orphan Black’s Sarah is a rare creature, in that she falls outside the usual boxes for maternal categorisation, and in so doing forces us to re-examine exactly why that is.

In fact, though their respective shows and stories are utterly dissimilar in every other respect, in terms of her approach to motherhood, the character Sarah most reminded me of was Laura Gibson, the protagonist ofSeaChange, an Australian show about which I have previously waxed lyrical, and which I cannot recommend highly enough. Though ostensibly subject to the same stereotyping outlined above – Laura was a high-flying corporate lawyer and newly single mother whose decision to move to a small town and reconnect with her family constituted the titular sea-change – she was written with such complexity and feeling as to defy the cliché. She was eager and well-meaning, but just as often selfish and oblivious. Though she learned to slow down and listen to others over the course of three series, she never became a domestic goddess or a motherly martyr; nor did she magically lose her flaws or suddenly develop a perfect relationship with her children. Instead, she remained a prickly, complex character, quick to both give and take offence, but also introspective, passionate, sly and caring. Like Sarah, she wasn’t always sympathetic, but that didn’t stop me from loving her, flaws and all.

But what of female villains? Perhaps I’m just not reading the right meta, but it’s always seemed a bit glaring to me that, whereas (for instance) there are endless paeans to the moral complexity and intricate personal histories of the Buffyverse’s Spike and Angel, their female counterparts, Drusilla and Darla, never seem to merit the same degree of compulsive protection. I’ve seen a bit of positive/sympathetic meta surrounding Once Upon A Time’s Regina, but otherwise, I can’t think of many overtly antagonistic female characters whose actions and motives are viewed as complex, and therefore potentially redemptive, instead of just as proof that they’re bad women. We think of men as antiheroes, as capable of occupying an intense and fascinating moral grey area; of being able to fall, and rise, and fall again, but still be worthy of love on some fundamental level, because if it was the world and its failings that broke them, then we surely must owe them some sympathy. But women aren’t allowed to be broken by the world; or if we are, it’s the breaking that makes us villains. Wronged women turn into avenging furies, inhuman and monstrous: once we cross to the dark side, we become adversaries to be defeated, not lost souls in need of mending. Which is what happens, when you let benevolent sexism invest you in the idea that women are humanity’s moral guardians and men its native renegades: because if female goodness is only ever an inherent quality – something we’re born both with and to be – then once lost, it must necessarily be lost forever, a severed limb we can’t regrow. Whereas male goodness, by virtue of being an acquired quality – something bestowed through the kindness of women, earned through right action or learned through struggle – can just as necessarily be gained and lost multiple times without being tarnished, like a jewel we might pawn in hardship, and later reclaim.

Throughout history, women’s legal status and protections have been tied to the question of whether or not they’re seen to be virtuous, whatever that means in context. The sworn virgins of Albania were granted equal status with men – indeed, were allowed to live and act as men – provided they never had sex, owing to a specific legal stricture which ascribed female virgins the same financial worth as men, while valuing women less. The big three monotheisms – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all boast scriptures and/or religious laws that have, both historically and in the modern day, allotted specific legal privileges to women provided they remain virtuous; privileges which are invariably retracted should the woman in question be seen to have strayed, or become tarnished, or to have otherwise lost her virtue. We see this echoed in modern rape culture, which puts the onus for self-protection on women to such a degree that, far too often, if a woman is raped, her victimhood is viewed as a consequence of poor character – because if she really was innocent, then how did she let it happen? Why was she dressed that way, or out late, or drinking? Why, if she wasn’t already lacking in virtue, would she have been in the company of a rapist?

And so, our treatment of morally ambiguous female characters ends up paralleling some truly toxic assumptions about gender and morality. Women cannot act to redeem themselves independently, because under far too many laws, our need of redemption voids our right to try and reacquire it. Good women can redeem broken men, but good men can’t redeem broken women, because once we’re broken, we lose our virtue; and without our virtue, we’re no longer women, but monsters, witches and viragos.

Which is why, to come full circle, I fucking love the fact that Orphan Black’s Sarah Manning isn’t always sympathetic; isn’t always traditionally likeable.  She is, rather, an antiheroine in the most literal sense: and with all the Madonna/Whore bullshit we’re still caught up in imposing on women, that’s a class of character we desperately need to see more of.

(Note: I’ve only talked about men and women here, rather than third gender, genderfluid and other gender non-conforming persons, because it’s men and women we usually see depicted in stories, and whose narratives therefore form the bulk of our cultural stereotyping. The absence or elision of narratives concerning other genders, however, along with their own highly stereotyped portrayals when they do appear, is a problem in and of itself, and a contributing factor in the way men and women are stereotyped: because when we view gender purely as a fixed binary phenomenon, whether consciously or unconsciously, we make it harder to see beyond the rules that binary has traditionally imposed on our thinking, repeatedly foisting “masculine”/”feminine” values onto successive new characters without ever stopping to think that actually, we might challenge or subvert those norms instead, a blindness which only helps to further perpetuate the problem.)


I finished this guy a few days ago, but it was a birthday gift for my boyfriend so I can only just upload it now.

It’s a completely original pattern. I made it all myself, which is the first time I’ve ever done something without a pattern by someone else. I’m proud of the work it took to complete him! :)

If you’re interested in buying the pattern please send me a PM, or contact me on my Email or my Etsy shop!

NEITHER HEROES NOR VILLAINS |  [ Listen on 8tracks ]

A fanmix for amoral warriors; common soldiers and anti-heroes, sellswords and mercenary companies, between black and white, neither heroes nor villains, just broken men trying to survive.
Loosely based on Glen Cook’s The Black Company.

01. A Hymn For All I’ve Lost - young guns // 02. Iron (acoustic) - woodkid // 03. Soldiers Side system of a down // 04. War - poets of the fall // 05. Here We Are - breaking benjamin // 06. Soldiers - otherwise // 07. Innocent - fuel // 08. Warrior - evans blue // 09. Get Out Alive - three days grace // 10. World So Cold - 12 stones // 11. Hemorrhage - fuel // 12. After The War - young guns // 13. Time Of Dying - three days grace // 14. Castle of Glass - linkin park // 15. Oh Death - noah gundersen // 16. Soldier On - the temper trap

With friendly support by tomvorlostriddle.

anonymous asked:

Any tips for making an attractive villain? Someone you know is evil, but makes you feel tempted to serve him all the same?

  • Make him nice. There is a difference between being a villain and being wantonly cruel.  He can be charming, polite, and attentive to the needs of those around him while still wanting to enslave all of humanity.
  • Give her a real goal.  Some villains are Voldemort: they’re just gonna burn shit down because they’re angry and anyone with half a brain would look at them go “you got more issues than a magazine stand.”  And then some villains are actually trying to accomplish something.  Something real, mind you, not just “take over the world.”  She should have articulate goals and an actual plan for accomplishing them.  They should be noble or semi-noble goals, and her villain-i-tude should come from her methods rather than her end game.  Enslaving the world for shits and giggles (or because your boyfriend dumped you) is not attractive, but establishing draconian martial law because she thinks crime is out of control, that’s a different matter.  
  • Make him passionate.  There is nothing more attractive in this world than passion, and that goes for the bad guys as well as the good guys.  Goes hand in hand with the point above.  There should be some sore of *positive* passion to the character.  Something that is more than just a reaction, more than just “the world was mean to me so I’m going to be mean back.”  They should be excited about what they’re doing, and they should be eager to get others to their side because of how much they believe in it.  (If it goes along with their character, making them eloquent really doesn’t hurt here.)
  • Make her human. People will follow flat “paradigm of good” figures because, well, being “good” is usually convincing enough.  To get someone to follow evil, you have to make it personal by putting a relatable, squishy-human face on it.  (I’m talking about in-story, character-to-character.  As a writer, you should strive to make every character real to your audience.)  The CEO of Evil Corps should present herself as open, friendly, and personable.  Preferably because she actually is, at least to some extent.  She should let others see her passion and see her faults (or, at least, enough faults to make people like her) and see her struggle.  If her underlings identify her as a real person rather than some distant evil overlord, they’re going to feel connected to her, and they’re going to feel more invested in everything she does.