Disney: Stop Focusing On This Dumb Movie About A Hedgehog! Our Mufasa Deserves That Oscar! The Academy

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-

(also the art is amazing)

got some more oldiesss

i severely love these two as well btw,,, so they’re married

Shyte like this is EXACTLY why I left these people

Why is it when I tell people I don’t want to be called cis, because I’m just a woman, they mock and demean me. Yet those same people demand I call trans women real women, and trans men real men. Those same people demand I use their preferred pronouns and gender labels. They demand I don’t label them something they don’t identify with. But not a single one of them respects me enough not to label me against my will.

The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

I know I'm gonna ruffle a lot of feathers when I say this, but I think this is something people don't really touch on when it comes to the topic of female modesty (at least not too often).

A big criticism I have when it comes to the topic of female modesty (especially in some ‘Christian’ spaces) is that most who speak on it often approach it from the lens of “Immodesty makes men lust.” And regardless of how true that is, lots of women roll their eyes when they hear it because lots of us have experienced harassment (and a lot of women even sexual abuse) from men REGARDLESS of WHAT we are wearing.

Whether or not the message of “dress this way and men won’t harass you” was your personal intention or not, that is unfortunately the message that has been pushed on a LOT of women from the time we could first walk by OTHER people.

Sure, clothes have an effect on how people perceive us, I’m not gonna pretend it doesn’t. You obviously can’t walk into your office job wearing a low cut halter top and booty shorts—you have to dress for the environment you’re in (durr).

But clothes definitely have not stopped people from doing what they want to do to us at the end of the day. I think the main reason why lots of women roll their eyes when the topic of modesty comes up is because we’re being told the solution to a problem that we know for a fact has not actually worked.

If people kept telling you that wearing a helmet prevents serial killers from targeting you, but serial killers kept targeting you anyway, would you be more convinced to wear a helmet? No, because wearing a helmet didn’t change anything.

Lots of women realize this reality and so I think that’s why a lot of women dress with the mindset of “I’m gonna wear whatever the heck I want because it clearly doesn’t matter what I wear or don’t wear—men are still gonna behave the same.”

I’ve gotten harassed by a male ‘friend’ who bullied me in highschool and snuck around to obtain my phone number (without my permission) so that way he could flirt with me despite me telling him to stop (pretty tame all things considered). And all throughout high school, I wore nothing except big hoodies, jeans, and sometimes sweatpants.

Modesty is important, I agree. But stop promising women that it provides GRAND changes in how men will treat them. So many women have experience that proves it really doesn’t. Because it’s not about the clothes and never will be about the clothes, it’s about the character of the men we interact with. So if the only way a man can respect a woman is if she covers herself head to toe like a box, I don’t know if I can consider him a respectable person.

Sure, modesty can help people respect you more---but stop telling women that it ELIMINATES mistreatment from men---because it doesn't. And to tell something that isn't true is a lie.

Potentially Unpopular Opinion - A character grieving loss is not an excuse for them to be a killer

I'll further specify my points in the following post.

Now here's the thing--I'm not opposed to the trope itself and here's what I mean by that.

Scenario 1: Character's loved one is killed and they kill their loved one's killer. That's fine.

Scenario 2: Multiple people the character loves are killed by different people and they kill their loved ones' killers. That's fine.

Scenario 3: Character's loved one is killed so the character kills innocent people. That is NOT fine.

Grievance doesn't mean dookie if all that's happening is that the character is using it as an excuse to just go on a murder spree. Now these types of characters CAN make for good villains and/or antagonists and that's completely fine. I'm not even all that upset about the trope itself. More so, specifically what ticks me off is when people try to downplay the behavior of the character simply because they're likable.

It's one thing to like a character who does awful stuff. It's another to like a character who does awful stuff and then try to paint them as an angel who doesn't do anything wrong.

I don't think I'll ever be convinced by the "clump of cells" argument people like to use for abortion. "It's just a clump of cells---" Okay, and what are we? What are we made of? If anything, adults are just giant clumps of cells, so does that mean I can take life from you? "Oh, but we can feel---" So can a tree but you can't hear trees scream when you cut them down with a chainsaw, can you?

I'm just saying, two plus two doesn't equal three, it equals four :/

I hate how it's always a 'young woman who took advantage of a 60 year old for her position' and not 'a 60 year old man who only promoted women who were willing to give him sexual favors.'

Reasonable reaction, cuz like what, who wrote the scene? Never let them write again 💀

How dare Marvel Rivals make me obsess over a fictional couple I knew nothing about until a few days ago

My FAVORITE Ship Dynamics List

Pardon my awful coloration (and writing). What kinda ship dynamics do you guys like? There's probably one that I forgot here.

Hi, I liked your post criticizing the toxic dynamics in the Dracula family in Hotel Transylvania, and I want to ask for your thoughts on the movies in general, as well as your opinions on the concept of "zing", the way Mavis and Johnny's relationship is written and if the movie handled its message about acceptance well.

Personally I dislike the concept of "Love at First Sight" which zing basically is, because it robs a couple from getting to know each other, but also because it portrays an unrealistic view of love and romance. Real love can't come from mere physical attraction but has to be built.

HT also uses monsters as a metaphor for minorities to tell a message about acceptance and freedom from prejudice, which a lot of other media do, so Im curious about your opinion on if the movies handled this theme well.

Hi~! So sorry for the late response ^^

First of all, it's so nice having asks like this!

In terms of how I feel about the movies generally---they do have some likable characters and they do unfortunately hold some semi-dearness to my heart due to me enjoying it as a child. But as a 20 year old woman, I am MORE than aware of how deeply messed up these movies are---and as someone who does enjoy the intricacies of story writing, the Hotel Transylvania is very disappointing in that regard.

I agree with you on the 'zing' thing. I've come to despise the whole 'zing' concept because it reminds me of 'imprinting' that's used in other supernatural romances. Either way, I see it as a sloppy excuse or shortcut creators use to make characters have 'chemistry' without having it genuinely be earned.

Johnny is the everyman trope---a stupid regular degular dude who gets the manic pixie dream girl. Johnny's a monster fanatic---and Mavis is a vampire with limited knowledge on the world thanks to her piece of dookie father. The way Johnny and Mavis' relationship is written hits all of the wrong notes for me.

Regarding the whole minorities thing, as a woman who is part of a minority group herself, I can say for certain that if portraying metaphors for minority groups and acceptance was the goal, it didn't just miss the target---it actively didn't even hit the circle.

That's not to say that I can't *now* see where that might have been intended. But I think it still doesn't hit if that's what they were going for. Because throughout all of the movies, Dracula never genuinely learns his lesson. And sure, realistically, there are *some* people who never overcome their biases towards certain groups. But the franchise often tries to trick us into believing he's changed when he never does. He doesn't even improve.

Heck, he even mentally, emotionally, and physically endangers his own family for his own personal gain BECAUSE of these biases. From what I've seen, Dracula cares more about his own agenda regarding these groups than he does his own family. And regardless of how realistic it is or not----if the goal was to showcase acceptance (which I have a hard time believing it was), it did AWFUL.

There's a major difference between tolerance and acceptance, and Hotel Transylvania never evolves past tolerance. The humans had already accepted the monsters. In fact, the monsters very VERY beloved by the humans. It's DRACULA and those like him that seemingly never evolve.

Even in the fourth movie, despite MARRYING a HUMAN (a van HELLSING AT THAT), Drac lost his CRAP at the possibility of Johnny inheriting the hotel BECAUSE HE WAS HUMAN. I could understand if it was because Johnny's a doofus (which he is), but for being a HUMAN?!

Yeah, as much nostalgia the franchise brings, Hotel Transylvania fails IMMENSELY in terms of genuinely good writing and supposedly handling minority themes. Which is very disappointing because a (well written) series about a monster hotel would've been so great.

I hope that answers your wonders about my perspectives. I apologize for going on a tangent there ^^