Vivi is the girl who will sit by you with hot drinks and blankets and let you cry on her shoulder when your boyfriend has been a dick, she’ll give you advice and comfort you, tell you how you should communicate but keep your ground and know what’s best for you, offers motherly support and rational thinking
Mimi is the girl who outright says “lol just dump his ass you’re better than him anyway“
sorry but positivity posts like “support boys who get angry and yell and scream” like im sorry but men yelling is terrifying and traumatic for me and tons of other women they honestly dont need positivity for being aggressive
I restarted Skyrim recently and I forgot how much crap they make you go through before they let you meet Paarthurnax. And then you get up there and he’s like “but you didn’t come here to talk to an old dov.”
Buddy. Pal. Friend. That is the entire reason why I am here, let me love you.
It astounds me how often we fail at being able to comprehend two complex concepts at the same time.
I’ve been seeing this post going around in two forms, about how Rogue One (which I have yet to see, so please NO SPOILERS) has an extreme lack of women (including background characters). That’s a really good, important point to discuss. And then there’s a post bashing that same article, pointing to the fact that the film highlights many non-white men and dismissing the article as white feminism.
Both of these may be correct.
The ability of a film to have great representation for men of different races, creeds, abilities and backgrounds does not for a moment contradict the inability of the film to have adequate representation for women of any race, creed, ability or background.
This is why I hate the “trash fire” all-or-nothing mentality. It cannot cope with the notion that something can be good and bad at the same time, in different corners and contexts. For example: something can be great for racial representation and terrible for LGBTQ+ representation. The former does not automatically make the thing great; the latter does not automatically make the thing terrible. (Key word: automatically.)
Not only that, things can have different meanings to different people based on their different experiences. For someone mixed race Asian-white, a main character like Chloe Bennet’s on Agents of SHIELD may be hugely important. For someone black, the show’s troubling history of killing off most of its black characters may be deeply problematic. Neither is wrong.
Personal experiences shape our interpretations of things. Experiences are not universal. The world is not comprised of absolutes. The stunning lack of women in film (at every layer) intersects, of course, with the stunning lack of non-white people in film (at every layer), but neither is more or less important than the other. (Especially since the doubly stunning lack of non-white women in film is something we should talk about more.) It is not “white feminism” to point out that a film with ten character posters had only one devoted to a (white) woman (even if she is the lead), just because the remaining men are non-white. Nor is it misogynistic to appreciate the film’s focus on (male) non-white heroes.
“In the Victorian era, red was considered a strong, virile, masculine shade, while blue was dainty, delicate, and feminine. Young boys were more frequently seen in pink, while young girls favoured pale blue. It wasn’t until the early 20th century—quite possibly as late as the 1940s—that pink began to be universally assigned to girls and blue to boys.”
EDIT: this image now lives on my other blog, @kurobutler