minor males: the ones i care about

Thoughts on Male Fantasy Authors Writing Female Characters*

*(mostly. it digresses. this is specifically a comparison among Neil Gaiman, Jim Butcher, George R. R. Martin, and Guy Gavriel Kay–possibility of minor spoilers, although I’ve tried to avoid them. any plot details given should be unspoilery.)

You know, because this wasn’t already written about enough, or something.

I’ll start by saying this: I actually don’t care very much when male authors don’t write women the way I prefer to see women portrayed. Neil Gaiman is one of my favorite authors ever, due to his word-smithing and world-building, and I haven’t found his match for evoking a feeling of eeriness like he’s writing about a world more true than our own. On the other hand, he definitely is a little weird in his descriptions of female characters. I particularly noticed this with the way the witches in Stardust swear by their sexual organs and the attention Shadow pays to Zorya Polunochnaya’s breasts in American Gods. (Shadow. Chill. FFS.) I’m probably forgetting other instances, because I’ve felt this way multiple times in Gaiman’s writing–it makes me go why the fuck is this relevant? and jolts me out of the story. (Some of his short stories get even more bizarrely sexual; there’s one about an STD that changes your personality. It was pretty uncomfortable, but it was probably supposed to be.) Another complaint I’ve seen is that his female characters aren’t that well fleshed-out, but honestly, neither are his male characters. And Gaiman is aware he’s doing it. I’ve read interviews and essays where he clearly states his love for established bodies of myth and stock characters. That’s fine; it’s the way he prefers to write, and in my eyes he’s a damn fine writer. (I love his poetry too.) Heck, the fact that I love it so much despite my preference for non-stock characters (and fewer interjections about breasts) says a lot. Gaiman, good job for doing exactly what you were trying to do.

Keep reading

A part of me will never stop being salty of how certain people have treated Bellamy Blake and Bob Morley, in some cases even erasing him completely from his status as male lead of his own show. At every turn, invalidating Bellamy’s AND Bob’s importance to the story and the show. Screaming for better treatment of characters and for better representation while simultaneously not even acknowledging the representation and importance that Bellamy and Bob bring. People like that don’t actually care about minorities and would gladly push aside one minority group in favor of another and still have the audacity to say “I stand for representation”. There are some very lovely people in this fandom and others who associate with this fandom and then there are those I’m referring to in this post. People who give themselves a pat on the back for “fighting the good fight” with no self-awareness that you are doing no one a favor by stepping on another minority group in favor of your own. You might not find representation in Bellamy Blake or Bob Morley, but invalidating them and erasing the importance of their representation for other people, is a shitty thing to do. The sad part is, it’s not just rude assholes in the fandom doing this but reviewers who have a plat form to spread their “opinions” and worst of all, some even enabling this in the writers’ room too.

anonymous asked:

multiples of 4 in the classics asks!

4. tell me about the classical ladies you love the most

cleopatra, for objectively being one of the coolest women to have ever lived, . fulvia i’ve talked about so much. vibia sabina for keeping hadrian on his toes, generally not caring about their marriage or bearing his children and potentially having an affair with suetonius. agrippina the younger and tullia minor, because i love murderous historical women, out here doing the Most for power. agonidce of athens, for pretending to be a male doctor in athens, became immensely popular w/ women and was then accused of seducing them by the useless male doctors. when she appeared in court for these charges, she straight up stripped and said listen my Guys i’m not seducing ur wives, i’m actually the reason u still have wives. legends only. aaaaaand i have no notable examples, but i love the positions that the oracle of delphi and the vestal virgins held. 

12. who is your favourite poet

not to be a cliche gay studying classics but sappho

16. cicero – love or loathe:

loathe. loathe.  just straight up Do Not Like. i mean, i can appreciate him in an abstract way as a figure of history and that he needed to exist for Things to happen but no fuckin thank U. 

anonymous asked:

What do you think of s*kura as a leader? i've seen many over-the-board s*kura fans claim she'd make a better hokage than naruto/sasuke. i don't think so, she doesn't try to understand people's hearts and i just can't imagine her changing anything about the system, in all honesty, her decisions haven't been that great, nor has her strength or teamwork, she's average through and through 1/2

I think the problem overall lies within the fans who glorify the female characters simply for being female and call it “progressive”, then label the rest of us as sexist, when what they’re doing is simply turning a blind eye to kishimoto’s sexism but hey i guess i’m going off topic ^^ 2/2

The overall problem is fans being delusional and no longer able to tell self insert from the real character.

(anti-S*kura under the cut. Tagged.)

Keep reading

I’m so friggin angry, I know CNN is a flaming pile of garbage but I can’t help but to be upset at their claims.

Abortion is not a woman’s right. Abortion is evil and hurts everyone involved except for the people profiting from it.

No. If Hillary pushed the “Women’s Rights” aka Pro-Choice agenda more she would not have gotten more votes. Not even if it was another Democrat who was actually competent.

One of the main reasons I voted for Trump is because I know Republicans won’t push for more abortions. I would even say that it was my top priority.

And guess what. I’m not a white male Or ignorant suppressed damsel in distress. I am a Hispanic woman who uses logic and has compassion based on faith.

So the leftists and feminists who are pro-choice can just shove it with their “we care about minorities and women” narrative because they REALLY don’t.

anonymous asked:

What you're doing is so lesbophobic. You are not in a lesbian relationship!! Stop erasing real lesbian's identities. Being trans doesn't make you a woman. It makes you a TRANS woman, which still means you are biologically a man, so you can by definition, not be a lesbian. So stop, you are hurting real lesbians with this shit. I feel sorry for young lesbians who don't find any representation in the LGBT community when you say that a biologically male person can be lesbian.You're hurting people!

Oh, here we go… I suppose this was just a matter of time. Okay, here’s the short version for those that don’t like to read long posts.

What you really mean is that I’m not a part of your narrow definition of a “real lesbian”. Well, too bad. I’m sorry you feel that way, but I know many, many lesbians who don’t share your view and lovingly welcome people like me into the fold. In fact, I’m pretty sure that you’re just a tiny, vocal, shrinking minority and I really don’t care that you have a problem with me. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but I don’t.

Longer version time… Yes, my chromosomes are coded such that I was born with male reproductive organs but, for whatever reason, my brain didn’t develop to match. I feel, act, behave, look, sound, and am accepted by the people I know as a woman. I am happily married to someone else who is the same as me in that regard. When she and I go about our lives, no one sees anything other than an attractive couple of women together. 99.9% of people smile warmly at us when they see us together. Most people we talk to probably walk away thinking something along the lines of, “what a nice lesbian couple.” So explain to me how that hurts “real lesbians”? Where do my genetics or reproductive organs factor into those interactions in any way? Hint: they don’t. They’re invisible to how the world sees me, thus irrelevant.

So let me ask you, why the hell are you so hung up on something that doesn’t change a thing about how I interact with the vast majority of the world? Why should that disqualify a trans woman from being a “real lesbian”? How does that erase you in any way? How does that effectively nullify the representation of cis lesbians (of which there is an abundance) in the LGBT community?

Oh, and side note… I’ve always been clear that I’m bisexual. So is my wife. So technically, we’re two women in a bisexual relationship. It’s the rest of the world - people much like you, in fact - trying to erase bisexual identities that wants to say I’m a lesbian in a lesbian relationship. But I digress…

I understand that when people see us walking down the street, they can’t tell we’re bisexual by looking at us, so I let that go because I’m not hung up on invisible things. Speaking of invisible, they also can’t see my genes or reproductive organs. No, they just see a couple of women holding hands. Hmm, kinda like “real lesbians”.

Next point, but first a note to my readers. In this next paragraph, I’m going to extend the asker’s faulty logic in order to make a point. This doesn’t reflect my actual beliefs. That said…

You’re focused on how I’m “biologically male”, thus I can’t be a woman, thus I’m harming “real lesbians”. Let’s run with that logic then and see where it leads, shall we? If you’re born a cisgender woman, “biologically female”, then you’re born into a body that’s “biologically supposed to be attracted to men”. I guess that means you’re hurting “real women” with your “shit”. I really feel for all those young heterosexual girls who can’t find representation in their straight communities when you say that a biologically female person can be attracted to women.

Sounds like a steaming pile of B.S., right? Yep, and that’s exactly what your argument sounds like. After all, it’s almost word for word, just zoomed out a bit so you can better see what it really is that you’re saying.

I don’t know what trans women ever did to you to make you feel like your charming brand of bigotry is justified, but it isn’t. Let it go. It’s ugly.

The Schisms: on fandom and heresy

So after the whole damn fandom mess, for which there are multiple better-written essays than I can write to explain how much of a wank it is, I noticed a couple people coming back into a reblog I made of a very intelligent post by @fozmeadows about the gendered splits of fandom and how they approximately parallel splits between the curative fan effort (embracing canon, knowing canon in depth, etc., which I called ‘Canon Literalism’) and the transformative fan effort (fanworks, which I called ‘Canon Exegesis’). 

That analogy - the veneer of faith thrown over fandom, because let’s be real, the act of enjoying a piece of media is a ritual, we are congregants to our favourite work - was one I really wanted to explore further, but between the odd loss of focus or energy, a focus on my creative work, and generally being daunted by how impressively huge the fanwork academic scene is online, I never really dug deeper than my various notes on the topic. 

But I’ve discovered, more vividly in the wake of this fandom mess, something stark which makes what was at first a nifty lens through which to observe fandom and its engagements with the world even more critical; in other words, I discovered that there is another very key ‘faith’-object to apply to fandom: 


Keep reading

The Better Avengers

If you’re not up to date on the latest characters and story arcs in Marvel comic books then you might be surprised to learn that the current line-up for the Avengers looks less like this:

The classic “confused and somewhat disappointed” pose. Pretty accurate emotional response to Age of Ultron.

And more like this:

From left to right: The Vision, Sam Wilson as Captain America, Kamala Khan as Ms Marvel, Miles Morales as Spider-Man, Sam Alexander as Nova, Jane Foster as Thor, and Iron Man as super-genius Tony Stark. All coming together to drop the sickest album of 2015

Captain America is Black, Spider-Man is Black-Hispanic, Nova is half Latino, Ms Marvel is an second generation Pakistani-American, Thor is a cancer patient, Vision is an android, and Tony Stark is just happy to be here.

And it’s awesome.

I’m laying my cards on the table early, but I genuinely believe the new team are better Avengers. Yeah, Thor’s flowing silky, golden hair should still be regarded as a national treasure worthy of our finest artistic institutions and there’s nothing wrong with watching Black Widow kick ass on screen, but you’ll notice that the movie roster lacks a certain range.

Now you’re saying:

“But they’re a super-hero team, not a state college. They don’t have to care about diversity quotas.”

And now shut up and sit down as I explain how A) you’re wrong and B) I’m right:

A) You’re wrong

Do you see that symbol both Captain Americas carry around? On their chests, maybe on both their shields too? What do you think it stands for?

I’ll give you a sec.

You got it. It’s simplified flag of the United States of America, though you could be forgiven if you thought they were the proud colors of Puerto Rico. By wearing the flag, and having the name “Captain America”, these heroes market their ideals, what they stand for, and what they believe.

It’s not subtle and it’s not supposed to be. Superhero costumes and names stand in as a shorthand for their motivation and character so that when you pick up a new issue of Spider-Man and flip to random page, you can already infer something about who is the protagonist, what their powers might be, and where they come from.

But super-heroes don’t just wear symbols, they are symbols. They represent an ideal to strive for.

The Avengers team most of all, as they are Marvel’s front running series and the in-universe the greatest defenders of New York City. They fight things that are too powerful for one hero to handle, and they ‘avenge’ which is to say strike back at that which has wronged them.

Avengers are a representation of rebellion. That’s what they symbolize by their name and their actions by taking on villains who struck them first.  They are the fighters of oppression on a massive scale and what better way to symbolize that than to have them drawn from some of America’s most disenfranchised groups of people?

They have been fighting prejudice and adversity already. What’s Ultron or Thanos in the face of four hundred years of inequality or an incurable disease where your own cells try to murder you? These “All-New All-Different Avengers” are not the privileged, the ones who can choose not to suffer. They already suffer but take on more burdens for people that will ultimately be ungrateful to them for their sacrifice. They have been struck and harmed not only by supervillains but by the people they try to protect. That makes a more interesting story and those characters also make better Avengers.

So yeah, a team called the “Avengers” does have to care about diversity.

B) I’m right

Outside of the narrative reasons why the the new Avengers make better Avengers, there’s also the real-world reasons why this change is awesome and great and amazing and wonderful for the Avengers as a comic book franchise.

The main reason is that the demographics of people who pick up a comic book, or something based off a comic book, are shifting from a white male audience to include more women, people of color, and basically anyone who is seeing the new Marvel/Disney movies (which are a lot of groups of people, if you didn’t know).

But seeing a cool movie with very attractive white people and explosions doesn’t keep people interested in a media, especially comics.

In mainstream comics, retention is massively important as stories take much longer to develop and reach closure. A character arc in a comic book will take several issues which means more than a few months of waiting around to see it resolved, so you have to make your audience care and feel connected to your character to have them keep buying your books.

A lack of significant characters to sympathize with is what kept a lot of people away from comics even when earlier comic book inspired stories did well in theaters. Nobody wants to read seventy volumes about the adventures of someone they can’t connect to and many audiences who liked the movies weren’t able to get into comics because they much more of an investment than a two-hour flick.

This why the success of Nolan’s batman films didn’t really translate to significantly better Batman comic book sales. This is also one of the various reasons why DC is struggling behind Marvel comics in sales. Both companies are using cross-over events and nostalgia pieces but only Marvel has found a way to get new readers interested in their series.The way that Marvel is doing this is by letting more ranges of people see themselves reflected in their media.

It’s a good way to build a connection with visual narrative. If you see people that share your interests, religion, and sense of identity you are more easily able to develop an emotional connection to the characters. This helps a spectrum of new readers who liked the movies and wanted to try a comic stick around and ultimately getting them buying more issues.

Not to mention that by including a diverse cast, our current media spontaneously generates instant free advertising due to people losing their shit that such and such is some gender, color, or creed that wasn’t expected. I think that’s a minor point honestly and really only contributes to short term interest.

In summary, the new Avengers say, “You don’t have to be a white, healthy male to be a hero. You can be whoever you are and do amazing things 'cause mutations, aliens, and magical space artifacts don’t care whether about your age, religion, melanin levels, or if you’re fighting cancer. You are a hero because you want be one and you are an Avenger because you stood up when others wanted you to stay down.” This makes a new spectrum of people stick around and buy comics, which drives sales.

So should the movies have the All-New All-Different Avengers instead of Chris Evans and the gang? Well, I think that’s a topic for another day. Thanks for the read.

If you liked what I said, why not follow me on twitter? https://twitter.com/KennyCheerios

To every man who’s had to deal with cruel women throughout their lives, this is for you

I’ve dealt with many horrible women in my life, including but not limited to my mom, my sister,all of my aunts, my grandmother, my ex, two of my English teachers, and many more women and girls at places like school and on here. It sucks, I know. And I know that you all have nowhere to go, because feminists are fighting hard against you and fighting against what little voice you may have. I’m not saying I’m a professional or anything, because I’m not, but if you ever need to vent about anything, I’m here.

I know feminists, especially on this toxic hellhole we like to call a website, will bash you openly for your problems. If you want to hear my stories as well, I’ll open up to you.

I’ve dealt with my share of the feminists on this website. I don’t care how much of a minority they are, but that vocal portion is the one with the most power. Those abuse centers that either don’t exist or disregard your problems? Guess who you can thank. Again, I’m not calling myself a professional, I would be lying if I was. But if you ever need to vent about anything, then hit me with all you’ve got. I’m not a therapist, but I am here to listen to your problems.

[male protagonist shown in dragon age origins trailers]

[male protagonist shown in dragon age 2 trailers]

[male protagonist shown in all but one mass effect trailer]

[male protagonist available for every single game and never said otherwise]

[inquisition first gameplay demo shows male protagonist, making it quite clear you can play as a male]

[inquisition has two gameplay demos featuring a female]



Littlest Consulting X-Pert Kestrel turns 4 this week! Because Kes is AWESOME, she requested that for her birthday, all her kid friends and all her grown-up friends come dressed as superheroes.

Above: Kes as Kid Scarlet Witch; Rachel as Slightly Off-Brand O5 Cyclops and Miles as DIY Thor; and the full O5 group (L to R: Rachel as Cyclops, Dave Proctor as Beast, douglaswolk as Iceman, Jesse Miller as Angel, omgkatiep​ as Marvel Girl).

ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE: Here’s the frustrating thing about all of this: Almost everything at Kes’s birthday was DIY, because her folks could find nothing with female Marvel characters.

Kes’s absolute favorite is the Scarlet Witch, who she knows from Superhero Squad. Know who’s on the SHS plates and napkins? A zillion male characters, including super minor ones. I mean, Cyclops is there, and he’s in like one, maybe two episodes. Know who isn’t there? Scarlet Witch, even though she’s in the title lineup

And this makes me furious: how much this 4-year-old cares, and how little return she gets on that investment. Having great female characters is important, but when they don’t make it to the merchandise, that’s a very clear message to the girls–and boys–who love them.

Kes is a lucky kid: She has grown-ups with the time and skills and volition to fill those gaps with DIY; and she’s young enough that the discrepancy hasn’t hit her too hard yet. But it shouldn’t require that. Marvel: When you ignore kids like Kes, you are throwing away your future. This is the next generation of comics readers and creators.

And more important: You say over and over that superheroes stand for something. You need to show kids like Kes that you mean that, instead of leaving half of them in the lurch. Marvel, you should know better than anyone that heroes matter; that everyone needs heroes. Follow the hell through.


One of my coworkers, a middle age white male, has been wearing a safety pin to show his support to minorities ever since Trump won the election. While at register a woman in a hijab came up and she started crying when she saw it, he started crying too and they hugged. It meant so much to that woman to see this man who cared about her and who she is.
No matter who you are, showing support makes us stronger.

Putting this in a post since the askbox won’t fit my full reply. It also makes it easier to address piece by piece.

[gurrenbuster asked:

I must say, it was rather upsetting to learn one of my favorite online content creators (that being you) is a hateful, misinformed SJW.]

@bogleech answered you: “Okay, first of all, I did send you two detailed asks in response to this. Second, I don’t know what kind of answer you’re looking for since you didn’t do anything but vaguely complain in my inbox that I’m “hateful and misinformed” without even giving me an example. Third, I think it’s pretty decent of me to at least blank your name out considering you’re being hostile towards me off the bat.”

I addressed this on in an ask I replied with so there’s that out of the way.

“I have never made one of these ~unfair generalizations~ you speak of or declared any type of person “bad by default.” I have acknowledged that there can be good bronies, good conservatives, good gun hobbyists, even some good people suckered in by gamergate. Nobody is bad by default.”

You have, in fact, made such generalizations, albeit not directly. Most of the social “justice” themed posts on your blog have you at some point or another claim that the issue at hand is a result of X majority group causing the issue deliberately for their own benefit, and that being a member of that group makes you part of the problem. Standard SJW fare.

“In fact, that’s already what a “generalization” means in itself. It means a general trend, not an absolute. Generalizing a group implies there are exceptions to what you’re saying.”

This is legitimately you attempting to defend generalization. I don’t have to rebut this at all, it’s crap on it’s own.

“And when I treat gamergaters as being vicious, woman-hating assholes, it’s a fair and accurate generalization. Those are clearly dominant trends among their community.”

There is no such thing as a “fair and accurate generalization.” Especially when you’re entirely wrong. Not only is that NOT a dominant trend in GG, it’s quite the opposite. GamerGate promotes opening the wide world of gaming to everyone. This is why we’ve been pushing against media bias and the “gaming casues such and such negative behavior” narrative that’s been around since the 80′s.

“And I’m being very generous, because I’m just ASSUMING there are non-disgusting gamergaters. I personally have never seen one. I have never, not once, heard from or seen a gamergater who was not misogynistic, racist, transphobic, homophobic or some combination of the four. Ever.”

The most likely reason is that you haven’t actually talked to a GamerGate supporter ever, and the ones you’ve “seen” were in posts on tumblr “calling them out.” Are there bad people who support GamerGate? Almost certainly. Even complete assholes can enjoy gaming. Are they the majority? Not even close. You might not be aware but pushing against something as powerful as the media itself makes enemies, who of course, employ libel. Sockpuppets, false-flagging, and some very long reaching have all been employed to paint GG as the “bad guys.”

“So, let me ask you two important questions:

1) are you going to be the very first exception to that? Are you going to be THE FIRST AND ONLY gamergate sympathizer to ever engage me who has zero issues with women, LGBTA’s or other races?”

Aaaand this outright confirms you’ve never spoken to a GamerGate supporter. Otherwise you’d be aware of #NotYourShield, a sub-tag of #GamerGate comprised of women and minority GG supporters tired of being erased by people like you convinced that GG is just “angry cishet white males.”

“And 2) will you being an exception make up for thousand-plus gamergaters who consistently acted like shitheels at me or people I care about?”

And this is hyperbole. Over a thousand people, all confirmed and provable GG supporters, have been “shitheels” directly to you and those near you? I’m gonna need some proof on that one.

“Furthermore, are you not generalizing SJWs and feminists as irrational and mean? Even though they’re incredibly broad umbrella terms for people fed up with clearly defined and supportable forms of injustice?”

No, I’m not, actually. Neither of those terms has anything to do with opposing “clearly defined and supportable” forms of injustice. An SJW, by definition, is someone who would rather go online and sling blame and hate and generally treat people poorly for how they were born and then call is “social justice” than actually attempt to do anything positive. Feminists are an entirely separate issue. There are good people who call themselves feminists, but the Feminism movement as a whole is a corrupt hate-group, the actions of which since it’s inception, have been solely to put males down while claiming to be about “equality for women.” Simply put, they’re bad people with good publicity.

“Meanwhile, gamergate is a movement formed solely around defending GAMES - not even human lives - from criticism, in incredibly hostile, toxic, mercilessly vicious ways. Again, I’ve seen no exception to that, and I’m not an outsider to gaming fandom by a long shot. They are nothing but a pathetic hate group that sprung up around an agenda to humiliate and destroy a couple “feminists” they thought were going to take away their playthings.”

Except that isn’t what #GamerGate is about at all. You’ve thoroughly proven you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. GG supports the right to criticize, unlike feminists and SJWs who will call you every x-ist and x-phobic under the sun the instant you say a single negative thing about them or their work. GamerGate also didn’t spring up around attempting to destroy anyone. It’s the exact opposite in fact. A better summary than I could give is here: http://gamergate-news.tumblr.com/post/124108970300/gamergate-in-15-minutes

“Your hostility towards “SJWs” says it all, really. You probably think radical, unreasonable SJWs are everywhere, ruining fun and attacking poor innocent people for trivial reasons.

They’re not.

Stories of them doing so vastly outnumber any real examples, and almost every example someone has cited for me has been a bogus troll, a red herring or a misunderstanding on their part.”

You use of scare quotes around SJW says more, I think. People that fit the description are, in fact, everywhere, shouting at everyone that they’re “offensive” or “problematic.” This website is a bastion for them, in fact. Every story I’ve heard, or better yet seen, is archived somewhere. People on my side of the fence actually ask for proof on… well, anything really.

“If you like my content so much maybe you should consider what I’m saying instead of listening to the same people who think a woman should be doxxed according to who she slept with.”

Your content has no relation to your views, this is a non-argument. As for that last sentence, GG is anti-doxxing. Assuming you’re referring to Zoe Quinn by “according to who a woman slept with,” what she did was a major breach of consumer trust, and highly unethical. Using sex to get positive ratings on a shit “game” and then accusing those who call you out of “slut-shaming” and “misogyny” is not something good people do.

As for that PS you sent me, that was just childish.