is anyone else just like. constantly filled with rage about their position under late capitalism and how we are expected to just keep playing this game that we know will literally kill us, is already killing people all over the world, and yet everyone around us is somehow fine with going about business as usual, with pretending we are free by being able to choose between different ways of being exploited. there is nothing more dehumanising than being forced to partake in a system that is actively detrimental to our survival as human beings, that is so physically, psychologically and spiritually destructive, and i don’t know how to deal with this anger anymore
like even in the men’s game in england, even the threat of outing players in the media has caused huge issues, both in terms of internal bullying cultures within clubs and reactionary fan responses, without even getting into this neo-colonial spectacalisation of third world sexuality. obviously there’s a lot of gay fans of the women’s game and that leaks into how u view the sport itself (i mean i am openly sexualising WSL matches on the regular on here) but when u r a paid professional you need to just pause for two seconds before shit like this. journalists are such vultures man
listen I say this with patience bc some people may genuinely have not thought about this before but if you firmly say “AI art is terribly unethical and steals from artists” (which is correct) but then turn around and use voice AIs to generate songs/voice lines that sound like your favourite voice actors or singers……………………………………that is also AI art and it is also terribly unethical
Without hyperbole government offices that take half an hour of waiting to get anywhere and close at 4pm are are a form of oppression against the working class
male gaze is not ‘when person look sexy’ or ‘when misogynist make film’
death of the author is not ‘miku wrote this’
I don’t think you have to read either essay to grasp the basic concepts
death of the author means that once a work is complete, what the author believes it to mean is irrelevant to critical analysis of what’s in the text. it means when analysing the meaning of a text you prioritise reader interpretation above author intention, and that an interpretation can hold valid meaning even if it’s utterly unintentional on the part of the person who created the thing. it doesn’t mean ‘i can ignore that the person who made this is a bigot’ - it may in fact often mean ‘this piece of art holds a lot of bigoted meanings that the author probably wasn’t intentionally trying to convey but did anyway, and it’s worth addressing that on its own terms regardless of whether the author recognises it’s there.’ it’s important to understand because most artists are not consciously and vocally aware of all the possible meanings of their art, and because art is communal and interpretive. and because what somebody thinks they mean, what you think somebody means, and what a text is saying to you are three entirely different things and it’s important to be able to tell the difference.
male gaze is a cinematographic theory on how films construct subjectivity (ie who you identify with and who you look at). it argues that film language assumes that the watcher is a (cis straight white hegemonically normative) man, and treats men as relatable subjects and women as unknowable objects - men as people with interior lives and women as things to be looked at or interacted with but not related to. this includes sexual objectification and voyeurism, but it doesn’t mean 'finding a lady sexy’ or 'looking with a sexual lens’, it means the ways in which visual languages strip women of interiority and encourage us to understand only men as relatable people. it’s important to understand this because not all related gaze theories are sexual in nature and if you can’t get a grip on male gaze beyond 'sexual imagery’, you’re really going to struggle with concepts of white or abled or cis subjectivities.
It's very telling how the Barbie movie is being accused of hating men when the movie treats men exactly the way most movies treat women: In Barbie, the men are treated as obstacles and side characters in the story of the female protagonist who the audience is expected to relate to. There's even several scenes where the men are clearly positioned to be eye candy. Put on your typical Indiana Jones or Bond movie and you'll see the exact same in reverse but men aren't used to it happening to them. I enjoyed the eyecandy scenes greatly btw


















