Just looked up what time I was born and I’m so relieved that I can finally clear some things up! For those who have been asking, I’m an INTJ sun and an ENFP moon.
While I profoundly dislike astrology I can recognize that the vast majority of people who are into astrology are probably just having fun.
MBPI is a different story. If you’re someone who is really into your Meyers Briggs type and are, like, assigning celebrities Meyers Briggs types you are exhibiting Behaviors ™ that tell me you are at all times five seconds away from recommending that I watch a video on body language analysis.
Being really into MBPI types is like saying you think astrology is bullshit so you rely on scrying to get a feel for new people.
“I’m an INTJ so I’m suuuuuper unbiased and rational.”
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
I had an employer that made us do those tests. Like they paid a company real money to analyze all of us and tell us what our strengths and weaknesses were.
I purposefully picked all the “wrong” answers to avoid getting the one I always get (INFP or whatever the ‘mediator’ is), and I wound up with the 'executive’ (I don’t recall the designator). The one that’s good at administration and keeping everyone around them on task no matter what.
And despite having worked with me for five years and knowing I was an absolute chaos gremlin (thanks, undiagnosed ADHD) my supervisor was like, “Oh wow, yeah, you totally are. I see it now. We should reassign you.”
Like Karen (her actual name), I just took the equivalent of a Buzzfeed personality test rooted in white supremacy and eugenics. For the love of god, do not restructure the company based on this. Just ask me my star sign and project your biases onto me like a normal person.
It just kills me when writers create franchises where like 95% of the speaking roles are male, then get morally offended that all of the popular ships are gay. It’s like, what did they expect?
I feel this is something that does often get overlooked in slash shipping, especially in articles that try to ‘explain’ the phenomena. No matter the show, movie or book, people are going to ship. When everyone is a dude and the well written relationships are all dudes, of course we’re gonna go for romance among the dudes because we have no other options.
Totally.
A lot of analyses propose that the overwhelming predominance of male/male ships over female/female and female/male ships in fandom reflects an unhealthy fetishisation of male homosexuality and a deep-seated self-hatred on the part of women in fandom. While it’s true that many fandoms certainly have issues gender-wise, that sort of analysis willfully overlooks a rather more obvious culprit.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we have a hypothetical media franchise with twelve recurring speaking roles, nine of which are male and three of which are female.
(Note that this is actually a bit better than average representaton-wise - female representation in popular media franchises is typicaly well below the 25% contemplated here.)
Assuming that any character can be shipped with any other without regard for age, gender, social position or prior relationship - and for simplicity excluding cloning, time travel and other “selfcest”-enabling scenarios - this yields the following (non-polyamorous) possibilities:
Possible F/F ships: 3 Possible F/M ships: 27 Possible M/M ships: 36
TOTAL POSSIBLE SHIPS: 66
Thus, assuming - again, for the sake of simplicity - that every possible ship is about equally likely to appeal to any given fan, we’d reasonably expect about (36/66) = 55% of all shipping-related media to feature M/M pairings. No particular prejudice in favour of male characters and/or against female characters is necessary for us to get there.
The point is this: before we can conclude that representation in shipping is being skewed by fan prejudice, we have to ask how skewed it would be even in the absence of any particular prejudice on the part of the fans. Or, to put it another way, we have to ask ourselves: are we criticising women in fandom - and let’s be honest here, this type of criticism is almost exclusively directed at women - for creating a representation problem, or are we merely criticising them for failing to correct an existing one?
YES YES YES HOLY SHIT YES FUCKING THANK YOU!
Also food for thought: the obvious correction to a lack of non-male representation in a story is to add more non-males. Female Original Characters are often decried as self-insertion or Mary Sues, particular if romance or sex is a primary focus.
I really appreciate when tumblr commentary is of the quality I might see at an academic conference. No joke.
This doesn’t even account for the disparity in the amount of screen time/dialogue male characters to get in comparison to female characters, and how much time other characters spend talking about male characters even when they aren’t onscreen. This all leads to male characters ending up more fully developed, and more nuanced than female characters. The more an audience feels like they know a character, the more likely an audience is to care about a character. More network television writers are men. Male writers tend to understand men better than women, statistically speaking. Female characters are more likely to be written by men who don’t understand women vary well.
But it’s easier to blame the collateral damage than solve the root problem.
Yay, mathy arguments. :)
This is certainly one large factor in the amount of M/M slash out there, and the first reason that occurred to me when I first got into fandom (I don’t think it’s the sole reason, but I think it’s a bigger one than some people in the Why So Much Slash debate give our credit for). And nice point about adding female OCs.
In some of my shipping-related stats, I found that shows with more major female characters lead to more femslash (also more het). (e.g. femslash in female-heavy media; femslash deep dive) I’ve never actually tried to do an analysis to pin down how much of fandom’s M/M preference is explained by the predominance of male characters in the source media, but I’m periodically tempted to try to do so.
All great points. Another thing I notice is that many shows are built around the idea that the team or the partner is the most important thing in the universe. Watch any buddy cop show, and half of the episodes have a character on a date that is inevitably interrupted because The Job comes first… except “The Job” actually means “My Partner”.
When it’s a male-female buddy show, all of the failed relationships are usually, canonically, because the leads belong together. (Look at early Bones: she dates that guy who is his old friend and clearly a stand-in for him. They break up because *coughcoughhandwave*. That stuff happens constantly.) Male-male buddy shows write the central relationship the exact same way except that they expect us to read it as platonic.
Long before it becomes canon, the potential ship of Mulder/Scully or Booth/Bones or whatever lead male/female couple consumes the fandom. It’s not about the genders involved. Rizzoli/Isles was like this too.
If canon tells us that no other relationship has ever measured up to this one, why should we keep them apart? Don’t like slash of your shows, prissy writers? Then stop writing all of your leads locked in epic One True Love romance novel relationships with their same-sex coworkers. Give them warm, funny, interesting love interests, not cardboard cutouts…
And then we will ship an OT3.
I’m going to bring up (invent?) the concept of subjectification.
As in, people gravitate to the characters given the most depth, complexity, and satisfying interactions for their shipping needs, because those characters are most human, and we want the realest characters to play with.
In a lot of media, the most depth gets handed to male characters.
And, oftentimes, even when the screentime and depth and interactions are granted equally well to female characters, there can be a level of, for lack of a better word, dis-authenticity to those female characters: they are pared down, washed out, or otherwise made slightly less themselves than they could be, in the interest of making them decorative, or likeable, or “good,” or keeping them from upstaging or emasculating their male companions, or just that the writer whose job it is to write them doesn’t know how to write women the way they write men.
And you get the characterization equivalent of that comparison chart where so many animated female characters have the same facial features because the animators and designers are so worried about not letting them be ugly.
When you have a group that’s allowed to be themselves, warts and all, and another group that has to be decorative at all costs, the impression given on some level is that the decorative quality is making up for a shortcoming. That they wouldn’t be enough in their own right.
And sometimes that cost is authenticity. The interesting, striking, awe-inspiring, bold and glorious unapologetic selfhood that draws the viewer most particularly to those characters who are unapologetic in their particular existence, standing clear of the generic and bland and unchallenging “safe” appearances.
It is authenticity, not beauty, which powers subjectification. The love for a character, not because they are perfect, but because they are them.
They can be pretty, sure. They can be sweet. But being pretty and sweet is not a replacement, and too many female characters have been written by writers who think it is, while the interest—in appearance, in personality, in interactions, in plot development—goes to the men.
And when that happens, well. Surprise, surprise, that’s where the shipping goes.
Yeah I don’t really ship but I do write a fair amount of fanfic, and in most franchises working with the female characters is a chore.
You have to do so much of the work yourself, because the canon left them unfinished, with huge gaps or unexplored contradictions that you have to somehow resolve. Every female character you decide to integrate into your fanwork in some major role constitutes an undertaking in her own right as you patch together an understanding of her sufficient to model a consistent set of reactions and priorities &c.
The dudes just get handed to you. Even the ones whose canon is a mess have properly developed character cores.
That you don’t have to unearth and piece together like some sort of volunteer archeologist coming up with theories way more complex than the available artifacts truly support.
Someone in an autism facebook group I’m in just asked “How am I supposed to earn enough to make a living without burning out?”
Someone replied: “You’re not. Even neurotypicals can’t right now in the system designed for them. We’re the canaries in the coalmine. When we start failing, they know something is wrong.”
People keep saying, “Oh, everyone thinks they’re neurodivergent now!” or they’ll say it’s the foods or chemicals or whatever other nonsense they’ve fallen for, but to me the answer is so obvious?
We’ve gotten to a point that more and more people are being left behind by the system, making it so that neurodivergent parents who could get by fine *enough* in decades/centuries past are bringing children into a world that cannot and will not attempt to accommodate them. There’s nothing in the water and people aren’t faking, it’s just that this is no longer sustainable or livable and of course people with disabilities will be hit first and hit the hardest. There aren’t more people with it, it’s just harder to go through life without being aware that you’re not functioning the way your peers seem to be able to.
i have. a lot of big complicated thoughts about how people tend to treat depression as like. as if it’s nothing. like it’s the most basic easiest mental illness ever. why do we do this. depression kills people. constantly. people will throw around “depression and anxiety” and say they’re totally normalized nonstigmatized disorders and then you realize they only think mild versions of these disorders exist. i have a laundry list of mental disorders and the only one that’s ever actually put my life at risk was depression. if you throw around depression as if it’s the mildest least harmful mental illness ever have you considered shutting the fuck up.
sticking these tags on the fridge and making everyone look at them
Every 21st century piece of writing advice: Make us CARE about the character from page 1! Make us empathize with them! Make them interesting and different but still relatable and likable!
Every piece of classic literature: Hi. It’s me. The bland everyman whose only purpose is to tell you this story. I have no actual personality. Here’s the story of the time I encountered the worst people I ever met in my life. But first, ten pages of description about the place in which I met them.
Modern writing advice: Yes your protagonist should have flaws but ultimately we should root for them and like them from the beginning :)
Charles Dickens: Here is the worst ugliest rudest meanest nastiest bitch you’ve ever met in your life.
Modern writing advice: Make sure your POV character goes through a significant arc! Make sure they are changed by the narrative! Make sure they learn a lesson!
Narrators of every book of the 19th century: the lesson I learned is these people fucking suck, sayonara you freaks
Modern writing advice: It’s all about the character overcoming obstacles and learning! They learn their lesson so they can fix their mistakes and make good choices in the future! It’s a character arc! It’s called growth! Readers love it!
Everyone from ancient times through the 19th century: would you like to watch a Guy fuck up twenty times in a row
I do understand that “intelligence tests” are inaccurate and stupid. That being said, does anyone want to see the IQ test question so terrible that I felt I had to stand up and leave the room?
ALT
I spent about ten minutes wondering how there could possibly be an “odd one out” that wasn’t related to letters, vowels, consonants, or syllables. I tried desperately to remember any definitions or colloquial uses for these words that could make two of them synonyms or otherwise connect them.
Eventually, I selected “mitts” on the basis that it used a soft “i” sound while the others used hard “a” sounds, even though the question specifically said that wasn’t the reason one word was an “odd one out.”
That answer was correct. I scrolled down to see what their reasoning for why mitts was correct was…
ALT
…and had to restrain myself from putting a fist through the screen of my laptop.
Completely valid reasons to guess the word “mitts”:
Mitts is the only word of the three that can’t be a verb.
Mitts is the only plural listed.
Grate and blame end in the letter E, and mitts does not.
Grate and blame share a vowel sound.
Reasons to guess the word “mitts” if you’re playing mental Calvinball:
Grate and blame can be “unscrambled” into Greta and Melba, which are names women can have!
ALT
ALT
