yuri deities
winona ryder's character in stranger things has never been wrong even once and every time the fucking gravity turns off or whatever she says "hey thats weird right" and everyone in a 10 mile radius is like "woah category five woman moment incoming"
i feel this in my chest and throat but “erica help” will never not be the most devastating cry of helplessness in history bc that is his baby sister. he has exhausted all options that a boy so protective of his little sister would beg her to do something, anything.
Anonymous asked:
The writers' room is all white, can we really expect any difference. The moment I think they might develop and fix things I am met with *check notes* Erica getting tackled scene Jason pointing a gun at Lucas's face, the narrative doesn't mention any of these things and just portray how wrong Lucas was in thinking he could play basketball... i guess? Which was basically even a secondary point in his arc since Max's narrative took it over. I don't know if people are realizing how bad it all just looks. Combined with Argyle's character too, I like and adore him, but his portrayal wasn't .... it.
Hiii,
It's the hypocrisy for me, anon. They (audience, actors, showrunners, and producers) say, "It's a show about outsiders". When it's actually a show that focuses on just certain white outsiders (the self-insert types) and their progressive accessories. It's self-fellating is what it is.
Lucas is the obligatory black friend TM, a hallmark of post-racial American media representation. It's a lazy attempt of on-screen racial integration which would have been fine in the 80s. You know, when they were actively integrating black actors into mainstream Hollywood productions. However, this show was made 30 plus years after the fact, despite what the Duffers made themselves and you believe.
If this show is truly subversive as claimed (by viewers and production alike), the Duffers & Co. should have actually fucking subverting the audience expectation of limited POC screentime and importance.
Instead, I'm treated to one season (S2) of "Boo racism" in which the writers actively victimize a child and choose to never address it. Max has an empowerment moment in which she stands up to her abuser (Billy). Lucas doesn't have an empowerment moment, despite being physically assaulted. Despite Billy's obvious fucking racism. I am treated to a half-baked interracial love plot line with kids that favors a cliché white perspective, despite Lucas's family being. right. there. Okay, maybe it will be addressed next season...
Instead, I'm treated to another season (S3) of Lucas's racial trauma being ignored. In which his sister Erica is brought in--not because the Duffers planned to do so all along but because they liked her portrayal enough to give her more scenes--to act like a racial stereotype (sassy, strong Black woman little girl). I'm treated to Lucas acting as Mike's personal fucking Hitch, the love guru, as Mike bumbles his way through a slow burn gay realization. Mike and Lucas's friendship is unequal; it's Lucas doing things for Mike and not vice versa. This appears in fandom too, and it's rancid (Wheelclair). When Billy is elevated in narrative importance, the show focuses a little bit more on Max, which makes sense. The fact the writers choose to neglect how Billy's violent presence could impact Lucas (after S2) says a lot about their priorities: Lucas, his blackness, nor his interactions with racism isn't a priority.
episode 17 of revolutionary girl utena, the thorns of death, aired on this date 26 years ago.
I’m a filthy little fence sitter on like every issue but when it comes to LGBT pride discourse it is just all so obvious to me what everyone’s position ought to be. Overt sexuality, such as wearing kink gear, dildos, or god forbid doing anything explicitly voyeuristic, should not be happening at pride or in public on any given day. It does not matter the gender or sexuality of the people involved, non-consenting people (which includes children) should not be seeing these things. This behavior should be disavowed, not celebrated. It only gives ammunition to LGBTphobes who want to paint all LGBT people as being deviants and sexual predators. Pride should be a celebration of the rights and social acceptance and tolerance that LGBT people have gained. It should be a method by which we can sway people with negative views on LGBT people to at the very least accept that being LGBT is normal and not some kind of gateway into people pegging in public streets. You cannot market Pride parades as being “family friendly” while also being positive towards kink at pride, it makes you look like a predator. You are more than allowed to create 18+ pride events that include kink and explicit sexual behavior. This really is the most uncomplicated issue I’ve ever seen and the only reason you would want to make it complicated or debate the obvious fact that people must consent to sexual activities that you are an actual fucking sex pest.
"No one is conflating gender with sex!"
Yes you are. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you would say you were "masculine to feminine" and not "male to female." If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be using the term "assigned male/female at birth" to decribe the gender assigned to a person because of their sex. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be pushing to have the words "male and female," which are the only terms we have to refer to sex specifically, redefined to mean "person who identifies as belonging to the masculine/feminine gender." If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't so consistently act as though masculinity is what makes someone male and femininity is what makes someone female. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be saying that transgender people need access opposite sex hormones. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be calling surgery to make your genitals more resemble those of the opposite sex gender confirmation surgery. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be bothered by your legal sex being different from your gender. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be demanding access to single sex spaces on the basis of your gender. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be upset when homosexual people don't want to sleep with you because of your sex and not your gender. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't consider sexual dysphoria to be part of being transgender. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you would be distinguishing between people who are transsexual and people who are transgender, and you would have invented a separate word by now for people who are both, instead of using "transgender" to mean both or either. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be pushing the idea that sex is nonbinary, arbitrary, debatable, and a social construct in order to make how people think about it more closely resemble how they think about gender. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be claiming that gender identity is an innate and immutable part of a person's biology present at birth, just like sex, despite the fact that gender is a social construct and so by definition can't be inherent to a person based on their biological traits. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then when you argue that some people have the brain of the opposite sex, and thus are neurologically a different sex from what they are physically, you'd be using that to legitimize transsexualism and not transgenderedness (and even if we could easily and reliably identify the sex of a person's brain, that should be assumed to tell us nothing about their gender identity, since sex and gender are different things, right?). If you didn't equate gender with sex, then you wouldn't go to such great lengths to obscure the fact that most binary-identifying transgender people are also transsexual, that they want to belong to the opposite sex and not just the opposite gender, and that they want to adopt the gender associated with the opposite sex specifically because it would make them feel more like they belong to that sex.
It doesn't how matter how often or how vehemently you claim otherwise, you absolutely do conflate gender with sex, and it is one of the main reasons we take issue with your ideology in the first place. Women around the world and throughout human history have fought and bled and died for the idea that femininity, or a "feminine essence," is not what defines what it means to be a woman, for the idea that people of the female sex are oppressed on the basis of their sex and deserve not to be oppressed on the basis of their sex, and you people spit and piss on their graves and call feminism "regressive" while waving a flag with pink stripes for girls and blue stripes for boys.
A patriarchy that wants you to wear over sexualized clothing and a patriarchy that wants you to wear a niqab aren’t ideologically opposed. They are mirrors. Both define women by the reactions of our onlookers and not by our humanity
both libfems who thought barbie was such empowering feminism and alt right trolls who thought the movie was woke misandrist radfem propaganda need to watch revolutionary girl utena at least twice.