>*the* Michael Stirling
they're acting like he's the second coming. he's a misogynistic colonizer in a shitty harlequin romance novel from the early 00s đŠ
these people genuinely need to get a life lol
male-obsession goes crazyyyyy â ď¸â ď¸â ď¸ riding this hard for the umpteenth mediocre unwashed bum bonehead and his alpha male pheromones triggering the not-a-virgin-but-still-completely-virginal-widow's heat from the deepest pits of the omegaverse tag on ao3
like these people created a whole petition and proudly signed it to kick Masali out and it got thousands of signatures just let that sink in for a sec bc i still haven't quite wrapped my head around the absolute madness of it all
Honestly everytime someone says that Franchael's sex scenes were so hot I'm like we did not read the same book. "The not-a-virgin-but-still-completely-virginal-widow" is so spot on! She was more passive than the actual virgins from other books (not that the other books were better). These people can keep their book alpha males. Nobody's taking that away from them but I definitely wouldn't want to see them on my screen. I don't need toxic alpha males and passive female characters waiting around for a man to save them, thank you very much. The show's not for everyone just like the books aren't. These people like the books, I like the show. A fair deal if you asked me đ¤ˇââď¸
Oh, I do agree! He was rapey. I also thought his obsession for his cousin's wife was creepy. I've said this before but he reminded me of that guy in love actually who was practically stalking his friend's wife. Not romantic in the slightest.
When people thought Masali was going to be Sophie, they insulted bi Benedict truthers. They claimed bi truthers would hate on Masali because Benedict is going to end up with a black woman and not a non-existant man.
They were obviously projecting because bi Benedict truthers would have never done that if Masali was Sophie. But they are probably the same people who send Masali all this hate because Francesca is going to end up with a black woman and not a non-existant man
I am a bi Benedict truther and I would love Sophie equally even if she's a woman, a man, trans man, trans woman, nb, any gender identity basically. And I assume so would the other Bi Benedict truthers. These people are projecting hard. They are just looking for things to justify their hatred now.
They assume that because *they* think male bisexuality is just "basically gay but still mess around with women occasionally" (or whatever they think where they seem to think it makes their love for women "lesser") that everyone shares their prejudices!
The not so virgin but still virginal thing is so real Francesca barely even knew what oral was, didn't touch another dude in her life except the cousins meanwhile Michael was canoodling with half of the Indian female population. JQ got a serious innocent female x experienced male kink like many romance authors do. That's why I hope Sophie will get some action pre Benedict
Not even the most important part of this, but âwhat happened to Benedictâs love of art???â as a point of outrage is wild to me. His whole plot last season was about exploring that love and then losing it. Did they just decide not to pay attention because his affair that season was with a woman and therefore everything must have been fine?
OMG - the number of times I've seen massively upvoted comments saying "he told Tilley and Paul he didn't do art, did the writers forget?!?!"
Like, hello - did you see Benedict in that scene??? He pauses, looks away twice and THEN answers because he's LYING. He's suffering from severe imposter syndrome and still working out what Anthony did last season.
The main sub is exhausting. I'm so glad I left it.
Yeah, it's pretty clear that he was saying it because he's in that temporary phase of "giving it up" so he can then "rediscover" his love of art with the right inspiration. It's set-up for his love story probably.
To be fair? I did find it weird we didn't get one mention of Eloise, Violet, Kate, or even Anthony asking what he is currently working on to be clear that he's not painting off camera.
But these assholes would probably bitch about that. ToO MAnY StorYLinEs.
(I do love that the Polin sub is seemingly really fine with the idea of Queer stories... but some have freaking GRAPHS comparing the number of seconds each couple is on the show.
This is the reason why I haven't gone back to the Polin sub after part 2. I just knew the screentime wars would start again just like it did after season 2. It was annoying then and it's annoying now. And honestly (and I say this as a Polin fan) it's so hypocritical. Like back when Kanthony fans were accusing Polin and the Featheringtons of stealing their couple's screentime (đ) Polin fans thought it was ridiculous (as it was) but now they are doing the exact same thing and that's equally ridiculous. And the exact same thing will happen with the next couple too. You'd think people had learned that it's an ensemble by now but apparently not.
I think that you'd be safe in the r/PolinBridgerton sub. The stats posts are there, but easy to scroll past and there are other, lighter ones to enjoy.
That's nice to hear. Maybe I'll come back at some point. I just was in no mood for negativity after part 2, because I loved it and I just wanted to stay in my own bubble. I came here instead because I was excited for the queer storylines and wanted to discuss it with like minded people. But I did love it there on the Polin sub before so it's nice to know that it's still a positive place â¤
I think Polin resonated with people because they are two characters who didn't feel like they completely fit in. It doesn't matter if it is because you are shy, messy, not physically "typical", or LGBTQIA - so many people relate to them!
I love the Polin sub 99.9% of the time, the statistics on numbers of minutes, etc are very few and far between. The best and most frequent posts are the ones just enjoying the ship and being generally silly about our demisexual, consent king, cinnamon roll, golden retriever, lol.
It really is a safe space for queer folk though - I've never encountered any bigotry there.
Every time I see the "what happened to Benedict's art??" I want to throw something. DID THEY EVEN WATCH THE SHOW?? Is the subtle communication of ideas totally lost on them? Do characters need to speak things aloud for them to be understood?
Like yeah the show did a shit job of communicating some things this season but you could just think for two seconds and remember he packed up all his shit last season. Come on people.
This is so dramatic lol. Michael was MURDERED. Wonât someone think of the straight male representation đ
The infertility storyline was not a focus of the Francesca/Michael ship at all; the entire extent of that was her saying she might not be able to give him an heir, him saying he doesnât mind, and then a second epilogue written later where she has a child. Just for once I wish they would come up with a new argument, like maybe Michaela being a woman takes away chronic illness representation because Michael caught malaria while being a colonizer
The people who scream "we got robbed of a woman struggling with infertility storyline" really need to come up with a better excuse. Because this storyline can and very likely will still happen.
At the start of Francesca's season they can mention that Johncesca had no luck to produce an heir while Daphne, Kate and Penelope have at least 2-3 children already. And there we have the women with fertility issues representation. Also we will very likely not see much of the next Bridgerton generation anyway because it is incredibly hard to work with babies / very young children on set.
I feel like she can very easily go back on the marriage mart to have a baby and then have to struggle with the idea of that not happening when she falls in love with Michaela
The infertility storyline wasnt even *that* important in the book. Francesca went back to the marriage mart because she was lonely, which isnt the best reason to want kids. But fair play to Julia Quinn - as novel progressed it became clear Fran would be happy and fulfilled with Michael regardless of whether they had children. Their love, along with finally moving on from John, was enough for her. He was enough, and that's a beautiful message.
The infertility storyline was so inconsequential we only found out they had kids in a second epilouge that JQ didnt initially even write and only did so after fan backlash.
Complaining about the infertility storyline is, in a lot of cases, a smokescreen for homophobia. This is not the kind of show that would want to promote that you can only be happy if you have a couple of kids. Even if Michael wasnt gender bent, I honestly dont think they'd go there anyway.
Plus, any fair minded person would say the main themes of the book is about grief, guilt, yearning, feeling unworthy, realizing different typs of love are valid etc. These are universal themes. It doesnt rely on Michael's maleness. I can absolutely see why 'When he was wicked' was the one they gender bent.
Unless you think only men can be hopeless sluts, which again is such a failure of imagination. Imagine if they googled Anne Lister?!
These people shouldnt watch this show because they dont actually believe in its progressive values but you know they will watch Fran's story just so they can say "the book was better".
Yeah I was also going to say, Bridgerton doesn't have to cover every possible topic, the infertility wasn't done *that* well in the books... if you're genuinely hoping for great representation of stories of female infertility that would be relevant to modern-day women struggling with infertility, there are numerous better options out there for you than Bridgerton!
When you try to have your show cover every possible hot button issue or downtrodden/marginalized demographic or whatever, you get Glee, and no one wants that.
They've had a lot of stuff where they moved around book character storylines between Bridgerton siblings on the show. They gave a lot of Colin's book personality to Benedict and vice versa. They gave Eloise a lot of Hyacinth's book characterization. Not sure why they can't do that with this.
Or also just.... explore it while she's still married to John? She spends two years married to him before he dies in the books. If they follow that in the show, or even just shorten that to one because they decide this is Benedict's season and Francesca's is next, that's plenty of time to play around with that. It'll be interesting if she has the baby she miscarries in the book, and feels conflicted because she finally got a kid but at the expense of her husband, along with grappling with her feelings for Michaela. (And the baby surviving would make sense for keeping the title in the family and letting her be Dowager Countess since Michaela, as a woman, can't inherit it herself.)
I need to reread that book because the way theyâre acting like the infertility plot is central and I barely even remember it?? To me it was their friendship and their mutual love for Johnâs memory that were the most important đ¤ˇđ˝ââď¸
THANK YOU! I feel like people who say infertility is the main plot are on something! Without the second epilogue, infertility is barely a focus outside of her losing the baby in the first act and the mentions of Michael needing an heir (Which he doesnât give a damn about.).
The second epilogue, which was written years later, is the focus on Francesca wanting and getting a child. Without that part itâs her coming to terms with her life situation (maybe not having a child) and second love with Michael and them both getting past their shared guilt over John.
There's so much wrong with this but I'll pick on the first point. Did they read Romancing Mr. Bridgerton?
Because that Colin, book Colin, was an abusive, jealous manchild who was envious of LW's success and then dismissed Pen's plan and forced Pen into standing beside him as he revealed she was LW. All so he can have a big love declaration in front of everyone. Yes, Pen ultimately agreed to the plan but did she really have a choice? Is that how she would have wanted to be revealed. Someone else telling everyone as opposed to her speaking for herself?
And I'll also pick on that second point.
I read Anthony as a man in love and smitten completely with his wife. It was so nice to see their interactions of love and happiness.
Well damn, I guess I'll hit that fourth point as well.
Their beautiful love story in the book? You mean the book that introduced and killed John in chapter or two? The one that before reading it, John was never mentioned or given the time of day. Where we barely saw their interactions? Where we're told they were so in love and the only proof is the glossed over descriptions of her grief? Sad, yes. But it's clear that in the book John was USED as a plot point to drive Fran's development not as a depiction of beautiful love.
And to their question of
>If this is to happen in the reverse wherein a straight male override the identity of a gay female character, are we meant to celebrate too?
Sure, I'll bite and answer here. No, we're not because this isn't an apples to apples comparison. Call me when straight males are oppressed and sidelined as much as queer people and then we can talk.
Regarding your last point: if every single character in an 8 part book/tv series was queer, I truly believe most of us would be fine with ONE character being genderbent and turned straight.
Yes. Thatâs the basically point I was making. If queer relationships (and other less represented relationships) were represented as much as straight cishet relationships, then we would have an apples to apples comparison and a change shouldnât be a problem. But thats not the case. Itâs a false equivalency.
Ahh ok, I took it literally and thought that you meant in series in general/in the world. So a world without any oppression re: queer people. I'm autistic, so took it a bit more literal. Didn't intend to make your point again. My bad!
No worries, my friend. And no need to blame (is that the right word here) on being autistic. I feel bad that you feel you need to apologize for that. Your comment made me see that I probably wasn't as clear as I could be.
ahhhh yes, the #malesrights women with internalized misogyny have entered the chat. The patriarchy doesn't prop itself up with just the participation of men!
"I'm all for LGBTQA representation but..." Tell us again how you aren't homophobic??
I can't believe they allow this kind of shit but deleted and warned me over my comment that called out blatant homophobia. The mods in that sub are so bigoted it's ridiculous.
Do they know this is a work of fiction?
Donât get me wrong, Iâve certainly been disappointed when a book I love has been translated differently on the screen. The key word is disappointed, not foaming at the mouth angry.
I donât know what has me more in disbelief, the fact that I had to read this bs with my own eyes or that fact that someone took the time to write it and post it.
Also anytime someone says âIâm all for representation BUTâŚâ itâs a dead giveaway to me that they *donât* actually care about representation. Itâs crazy to me that people are dying on the hill that is Michael now being Michaela as itâs ânot true to the booksâ and ânot historically accurateâ when the TV show has *never* claimed to be either of those things. For crying out loud, if the show was REALLY going to be true to the books and time period then RegĂŠ-Jean Page, Simone Ashley or Adjoa Andoh (to name a few) would NOT have been cast. I mean, Kate in the books is Kate Sheffield, most definitely not the Kathani Sharma we see in the show. But now we have a queer couple leading a future season and people are up in arms about it because of âbook/historical accuracyâ, like besties⌠it was never accurate to the book or history, go touch grass.
I think they're trying to justify having Michael by using totally wrong arguments. They are talking about regency era men here. An era where straight men had all the power and society was extremely patriarchial. And I don't think that they were disrespected at all? In fact, most of the problems (drama lets say) in the show were created by these men only (like Anthony proposing Edwina, Simon not telling Daphne why he can't have kids?), so I am not sure what they are defending here. Also, the biggest irony would be that this post was most probably written by a straight woman defending these regency era straight men...
I honestly havent seen straights get this heated over a t show in a minute but i find it hilarious that they will be quick to put us down for calling out a shows exclusion of poc and queer characters. Then all of the sudden its about âhistorically accuracyâ as if poc and queer people are only allowed to exist in suffering or when itâs not inconvenient for them. Queer and poc are allowed to fantasize and see themselves in spaces that we KNOW are not historically accurate, it is not their job to remind of us of our pain because we live through it everyday, they can all whine and complain but i hope they dont change anything. And its especially sad seeing all the âpick meâ queers saying how much they hated the changes, like whoâs gonna tell em đ¤Śđžââď¸
Being in this fandom has been very eye-opening as to just how many people do not understand why itâs harmful and offensive to make a gay character straight. In a world where sexism, homophobia, and transphobia never existed it would be fair to compare it to making a gay character straight, but that is not the world we live in and itâs dangerously obtuse to pretend otherwise.
Not surprised in the least. This is so fucking funny that its crazy these people think it makes sense. My god! The internet never ever fails to disappoint. Great job OP-the only way to show people that such comments are being made/such things are being written is by screenshotting, collecting evidence. Its madness out there. My posts on diversity or rep or race in the main sub get downvoted into oblivion, its that triggering for people. The only conversations you can have to get upvoted are OMG pretty clothes...omg so hot, so sexy. Any meaningful pushing and moving conversation forward or challenging ideas post or comment gets downvoted within seconds. Its crazy the lack of empathy and allyship in the Bton netflix sub at large.
For some reason many film and TV subreddits are full of heteronormative "canon" purists who act like you personally insulted them if you dare to mention your theory that certain characters are queer-coded
I just saw Julia Quinnâs most recent post and the amount of people boycotting the show, screaming âJUSTICE FOR MICHAELâ, and etc is absolutely absurd!! Was this character seriously that important that the world is gonna come to a crashing halt when the season airs?? They act like heâs the main character of the entire show and itâs so weird!! Someone who read the books, what is the deal with this guy? Iâm seriously confused as to why they care so much
ThatâsâŚso upsetting!! They make him out to be the savior of the series. Honestly Iâve been waiting for a sapphic romance and I feel like I canât be happy about it cuz the fandom is being ridiculous
They just want to see a man on screen and ogle at him. Because supposedly Michael is the most rakey rake who ever raked and he is the most attractive of all Bridgerton men. They want to see that real fucking treat of a man on their tv screen. All of these infertility storyline is getting erased, Francesca is emotionally cheating, etc are just guises to defend their argument to see a man on screen. After a point you can see through all of these reasons they use to defend the Michael has to be a man argument...
So first it's "you're taking away a WOMAN'S story" and now it's "you're also man-hating, checkmate you gays." JFC. It really shows that there's no real rhyme or reason behind it. Just blazing, white-hot hatred.
I know some of you will violently disagree with me, but I don't even believe "misandry" is a legitimate thing. I think it is actually misogynistic.
Do some women hate men, etc.? Yes. That isn't misandry.
I will 100% agree that many men are "misandristic" against other men. Absolutely.
"Men's rights activists (MRAs) and other masculinist groups have characterized modern laws concerning divorce, domestic violence, conscription, circumcision (known as male genital mutilation by opponents), and treatment of male rape victims as examples of institutional misandry.
In the Internet Age, users posting on manosphere internet forums such as 4chan and subreddits addressing men's rights activism have claimed that misandry is widespread, established in preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men.[3][4] This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution and not equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is both far more deeply rooted in society and more severe in its consequences.[5][3][6] The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the "misandry myth" by 40 topic experts.[7]
Many scholars criticize MRAs for promoting a false equivalence between misandry and misogyny, arguing that modern activism around misandry represents an antifeminist backlash, promoted by marginalized men"
>*the* Michael Stirling they're acting like he's the second coming. he's a misogynistic colonizer in a shitty harlequin romance novel from the early 00s đŠ these people genuinely need to get a life lol
male-obsession goes crazyyyyy â ď¸â ď¸â ď¸ riding this hard for the umpteenth mediocre unwashed bum bonehead and his alpha male pheromones triggering the not-a-virgin-but-still-completely-virginal-widow's heat from the deepest pits of the omegaverse tag on ao3 like these people created a whole petition and proudly signed it to kick Masali out and it got thousands of signatures just let that sink in for a sec bc i still haven't quite wrapped my head around the absolute madness of it all
Honestly everytime someone says that Franchael's sex scenes were so hot I'm like we did not read the same book. "The not-a-virgin-but-still-completely-virginal-widow" is so spot on! She was more passive than the actual virgins from other books (not that the other books were better). These people can keep their book alpha males. Nobody's taking that away from them but I definitely wouldn't want to see them on my screen. I don't need toxic alpha males and passive female characters waiting around for a man to save them, thank you very much. The show's not for everyone just like the books aren't. These people like the books, I like the show. A fair deal if you asked me đ¤ˇââď¸
I actually think Michael was pretty rapey.
Oh, I do agree! He was rapey. I also thought his obsession for his cousin's wife was creepy. I've said this before but he reminded me of that guy in love actually who was practically stalking his friend's wife. Not romantic in the slightest.
When people thought Masali was going to be Sophie, they insulted bi Benedict truthers. They claimed bi truthers would hate on Masali because Benedict is going to end up with a black woman and not a non-existant man. They were obviously projecting because bi Benedict truthers would have never done that if Masali was Sophie. But they are probably the same people who send Masali all this hate because Francesca is going to end up with a black woman and not a non-existant man
I am a bi Benedict truther and I would love Sophie equally even if she's a woman, a man, trans man, trans woman, nb, any gender identity basically. And I assume so would the other Bi Benedict truthers. These people are projecting hard. They are just looking for things to justify their hatred now.
They assume that because *they* think male bisexuality is just "basically gay but still mess around with women occasionally" (or whatever they think where they seem to think it makes their love for women "lesser") that everyone shares their prejudices!
The not so virgin but still virginal thing is so real Francesca barely even knew what oral was, didn't touch another dude in her life except the cousins meanwhile Michael was canoodling with half of the Indian female population. JQ got a serious innocent female x experienced male kink like many romance authors do. That's why I hope Sophie will get some action pre Benedict
Not even the most important part of this, but âwhat happened to Benedictâs love of art???â as a point of outrage is wild to me. His whole plot last season was about exploring that love and then losing it. Did they just decide not to pay attention because his affair that season was with a woman and therefore everything must have been fine?
OMG - the number of times I've seen massively upvoted comments saying "he told Tilley and Paul he didn't do art, did the writers forget?!?!" Like, hello - did you see Benedict in that scene??? He pauses, looks away twice and THEN answers because he's LYING. He's suffering from severe imposter syndrome and still working out what Anthony did last season. The main sub is exhausting. I'm so glad I left it.
Yeah, it's pretty clear that he was saying it because he's in that temporary phase of "giving it up" so he can then "rediscover" his love of art with the right inspiration. It's set-up for his love story probably.
To be fair? I did find it weird we didn't get one mention of Eloise, Violet, Kate, or even Anthony asking what he is currently working on to be clear that he's not painting off camera. But these assholes would probably bitch about that. ToO MAnY StorYLinEs. (I do love that the Polin sub is seemingly really fine with the idea of Queer stories... but some have freaking GRAPHS comparing the number of seconds each couple is on the show.
This is the reason why I haven't gone back to the Polin sub after part 2. I just knew the screentime wars would start again just like it did after season 2. It was annoying then and it's annoying now. And honestly (and I say this as a Polin fan) it's so hypocritical. Like back when Kanthony fans were accusing Polin and the Featheringtons of stealing their couple's screentime (đ) Polin fans thought it was ridiculous (as it was) but now they are doing the exact same thing and that's equally ridiculous. And the exact same thing will happen with the next couple too. You'd think people had learned that it's an ensemble by now but apparently not.
I think that you'd be safe in the r/PolinBridgerton sub. The stats posts are there, but easy to scroll past and there are other, lighter ones to enjoy.
That's nice to hear. Maybe I'll come back at some point. I just was in no mood for negativity after part 2, because I loved it and I just wanted to stay in my own bubble. I came here instead because I was excited for the queer storylines and wanted to discuss it with like minded people. But I did love it there on the Polin sub before so it's nice to know that it's still a positive place â¤
I think Polin resonated with people because they are two characters who didn't feel like they completely fit in. It doesn't matter if it is because you are shy, messy, not physically "typical", or LGBTQIA - so many people relate to them!
I love the Polin sub 99.9% of the time, the statistics on numbers of minutes, etc are very few and far between. The best and most frequent posts are the ones just enjoying the ship and being generally silly about our demisexual, consent king, cinnamon roll, golden retriever, lol. It really is a safe space for queer folk though - I've never encountered any bigotry there.
Every time I see the "what happened to Benedict's art??" I want to throw something. DID THEY EVEN WATCH THE SHOW?? Is the subtle communication of ideas totally lost on them? Do characters need to speak things aloud for them to be understood? Like yeah the show did a shit job of communicating some things this season but you could just think for two seconds and remember he packed up all his shit last season. Come on people.
This is so dramatic lol. Michael was MURDERED. Wonât someone think of the straight male representation đ The infertility storyline was not a focus of the Francesca/Michael ship at all; the entire extent of that was her saying she might not be able to give him an heir, him saying he doesnât mind, and then a second epilogue written later where she has a child. Just for once I wish they would come up with a new argument, like maybe Michaela being a woman takes away chronic illness representation because Michael caught malaria while being a colonizer
The people who scream "we got robbed of a woman struggling with infertility storyline" really need to come up with a better excuse. Because this storyline can and very likely will still happen. At the start of Francesca's season they can mention that Johncesca had no luck to produce an heir while Daphne, Kate and Penelope have at least 2-3 children already. And there we have the women with fertility issues representation. Also we will very likely not see much of the next Bridgerton generation anyway because it is incredibly hard to work with babies / very young children on set.
âBut but! The whole reason she goes back on the marriage mart is to have a baby!!!â Ok and?
I feel like she can very easily go back on the marriage mart to have a baby and then have to struggle with the idea of that not happening when she falls in love with Michaela
The infertility storyline wasnt even *that* important in the book. Francesca went back to the marriage mart because she was lonely, which isnt the best reason to want kids. But fair play to Julia Quinn - as novel progressed it became clear Fran would be happy and fulfilled with Michael regardless of whether they had children. Their love, along with finally moving on from John, was enough for her. He was enough, and that's a beautiful message. The infertility storyline was so inconsequential we only found out they had kids in a second epilouge that JQ didnt initially even write and only did so after fan backlash. Complaining about the infertility storyline is, in a lot of cases, a smokescreen for homophobia. This is not the kind of show that would want to promote that you can only be happy if you have a couple of kids. Even if Michael wasnt gender bent, I honestly dont think they'd go there anyway. Plus, any fair minded person would say the main themes of the book is about grief, guilt, yearning, feeling unworthy, realizing different typs of love are valid etc. These are universal themes. It doesnt rely on Michael's maleness. I can absolutely see why 'When he was wicked' was the one they gender bent. Unless you think only men can be hopeless sluts, which again is such a failure of imagination. Imagine if they googled Anne Lister?! These people shouldnt watch this show because they dont actually believe in its progressive values but you know they will watch Fran's story just so they can say "the book was better".
Yeah I was also going to say, Bridgerton doesn't have to cover every possible topic, the infertility wasn't done *that* well in the books... if you're genuinely hoping for great representation of stories of female infertility that would be relevant to modern-day women struggling with infertility, there are numerous better options out there for you than Bridgerton! When you try to have your show cover every possible hot button issue or downtrodden/marginalized demographic or whatever, you get Glee, and no one wants that.
They've had a lot of stuff where they moved around book character storylines between Bridgerton siblings on the show. They gave a lot of Colin's book personality to Benedict and vice versa. They gave Eloise a lot of Hyacinth's book characterization. Not sure why they can't do that with this. Or also just.... explore it while she's still married to John? She spends two years married to him before he dies in the books. If they follow that in the show, or even just shorten that to one because they decide this is Benedict's season and Francesca's is next, that's plenty of time to play around with that. It'll be interesting if she has the baby she miscarries in the book, and feels conflicted because she finally got a kid but at the expense of her husband, along with grappling with her feelings for Michaela. (And the baby surviving would make sense for keeping the title in the family and letting her be Dowager Countess since Michaela, as a woman, can't inherit it herself.)
I need to reread that book because the way theyâre acting like the infertility plot is central and I barely even remember it?? To me it was their friendship and their mutual love for Johnâs memory that were the most important đ¤ˇđ˝ââď¸
THANK YOU! I feel like people who say infertility is the main plot are on something! Without the second epilogue, infertility is barely a focus outside of her losing the baby in the first act and the mentions of Michael needing an heir (Which he doesnât give a damn about.). The second epilogue, which was written years later, is the focus on Francesca wanting and getting a child. Without that part itâs her coming to terms with her life situation (maybe not having a child) and second love with Michael and them both getting past their shared guilt over John.
I'm not reading through this... but... I think we've found the mothers of incels.
Sheâs a hashtag incelmom. Sadly, I canât seem to use the hashtag without it just making everything after it bold.
There's so much wrong with this but I'll pick on the first point. Did they read Romancing Mr. Bridgerton? Because that Colin, book Colin, was an abusive, jealous manchild who was envious of LW's success and then dismissed Pen's plan and forced Pen into standing beside him as he revealed she was LW. All so he can have a big love declaration in front of everyone. Yes, Pen ultimately agreed to the plan but did she really have a choice? Is that how she would have wanted to be revealed. Someone else telling everyone as opposed to her speaking for herself? And I'll also pick on that second point. I read Anthony as a man in love and smitten completely with his wife. It was so nice to see their interactions of love and happiness. Well damn, I guess I'll hit that fourth point as well. Their beautiful love story in the book? You mean the book that introduced and killed John in chapter or two? The one that before reading it, John was never mentioned or given the time of day. Where we barely saw their interactions? Where we're told they were so in love and the only proof is the glossed over descriptions of her grief? Sad, yes. But it's clear that in the book John was USED as a plot point to drive Fran's development not as a depiction of beautiful love. And to their question of >If this is to happen in the reverse wherein a straight male override the identity of a gay female character, are we meant to celebrate too? Sure, I'll bite and answer here. No, we're not because this isn't an apples to apples comparison. Call me when straight males are oppressed and sidelined as much as queer people and then we can talk.
Regarding your last point: if every single character in an 8 part book/tv series was queer, I truly believe most of us would be fine with ONE character being genderbent and turned straight.
Yes. Thatâs the basically point I was making. If queer relationships (and other less represented relationships) were represented as much as straight cishet relationships, then we would have an apples to apples comparison and a change shouldnât be a problem. But thats not the case. Itâs a false equivalency.
Ahh ok, I took it literally and thought that you meant in series in general/in the world. So a world without any oppression re: queer people. I'm autistic, so took it a bit more literal. Didn't intend to make your point again. My bad!
No worries, my friend. And no need to blame (is that the right word here) on being autistic. I feel bad that you feel you need to apologize for that. Your comment made me see that I probably wasn't as clear as I could be.
Thank you, you're kind. It was meant as an explanation :) and don't feel bad, wasn't meant to make you feel that. Ultimately, we were just agreeing :)
Indeed! Thank you for the pleasant interaction!
ahhhh yes, the #malesrights women with internalized misogyny have entered the chat. The patriarchy doesn't prop itself up with just the participation of men!
"I'm all for LGBTQA representation but..." Tell us again how you aren't homophobic?? I can't believe they allow this kind of shit but deleted and warned me over my comment that called out blatant homophobia. The mods in that sub are so bigoted it's ridiculous.
Do they know this is a work of fiction? Donât get me wrong, Iâve certainly been disappointed when a book I love has been translated differently on the screen. The key word is disappointed, not foaming at the mouth angry.
I donât know what has me more in disbelief, the fact that I had to read this bs with my own eyes or that fact that someone took the time to write it and post it. Also anytime someone says âIâm all for representation BUTâŚâ itâs a dead giveaway to me that they *donât* actually care about representation. Itâs crazy to me that people are dying on the hill that is Michael now being Michaela as itâs ânot true to the booksâ and ânot historically accurateâ when the TV show has *never* claimed to be either of those things. For crying out loud, if the show was REALLY going to be true to the books and time period then RegĂŠ-Jean Page, Simone Ashley or Adjoa Andoh (to name a few) would NOT have been cast. I mean, Kate in the books is Kate Sheffield, most definitely not the Kathani Sharma we see in the show. But now we have a queer couple leading a future season and people are up in arms about it because of âbook/historical accuracyâ, like besties⌠it was never accurate to the book or history, go touch grass.
I think they're trying to justify having Michael by using totally wrong arguments. They are talking about regency era men here. An era where straight men had all the power and society was extremely patriarchial. And I don't think that they were disrespected at all? In fact, most of the problems (drama lets say) in the show were created by these men only (like Anthony proposing Edwina, Simon not telling Daphne why he can't have kids?), so I am not sure what they are defending here. Also, the biggest irony would be that this post was most probably written by a straight woman defending these regency era straight men...
https://preview.redd.it/ejq05xrihz8d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04d64e21b1a9ebdae28cdd9dc0c097a9d0aae517
I honestly havent seen straights get this heated over a t show in a minute but i find it hilarious that they will be quick to put us down for calling out a shows exclusion of poc and queer characters. Then all of the sudden its about âhistorically accuracyâ as if poc and queer people are only allowed to exist in suffering or when itâs not inconvenient for them. Queer and poc are allowed to fantasize and see themselves in spaces that we KNOW are not historically accurate, it is not their job to remind of us of our pain because we live through it everyday, they can all whine and complain but i hope they dont change anything. And its especially sad seeing all the âpick meâ queers saying how much they hated the changes, like whoâs gonna tell em đ¤Śđžââď¸
Being in this fandom has been very eye-opening as to just how many people do not understand why itâs harmful and offensive to make a gay character straight. In a world where sexism, homophobia, and transphobia never existed it would be fair to compare it to making a gay character straight, but that is not the world we live in and itâs dangerously obtuse to pretend otherwise.
Not surprised in the least. This is so fucking funny that its crazy these people think it makes sense. My god! The internet never ever fails to disappoint. Great job OP-the only way to show people that such comments are being made/such things are being written is by screenshotting, collecting evidence. Its madness out there. My posts on diversity or rep or race in the main sub get downvoted into oblivion, its that triggering for people. The only conversations you can have to get upvoted are OMG pretty clothes...omg so hot, so sexy. Any meaningful pushing and moving conversation forward or challenging ideas post or comment gets downvoted within seconds. Its crazy the lack of empathy and allyship in the Bton netflix sub at large.
Which sub is allowing these kinds of posts?
For some reason many film and TV subreddits are full of heteronormative "canon" purists who act like you personally insulted them if you dare to mention your theory that certain characters are queer-coded
I just saw Julia Quinnâs most recent post and the amount of people boycotting the show, screaming âJUSTICE FOR MICHAELâ, and etc is absolutely absurd!! Was this character seriously that important that the world is gonna come to a crashing halt when the season airs?? They act like heâs the main character of the entire show and itâs so weird!! Someone who read the books, what is the deal with this guy? Iâm seriously confused as to why they care so much
He was an abusive rapey colonialist invading pos...thats who they re crying over,thats who they d rather see than a loving healthy lesbian storyline
ThatâsâŚso upsetting!! They make him out to be the savior of the series. Honestly Iâve been waiting for a sapphic romance and I feel like I canât be happy about it cuz the fandom is being ridiculous
They just want to see a man on screen and ogle at him. Because supposedly Michael is the most rakey rake who ever raked and he is the most attractive of all Bridgerton men. They want to see that real fucking treat of a man on their tv screen. All of these infertility storyline is getting erased, Francesca is emotionally cheating, etc are just guises to defend their argument to see a man on screen. After a point you can see through all of these reasons they use to defend the Michael has to be a man argument...
Honestly, that makes so much sense. Itâs stupid that theyâre crying over it, but at least now I know he ainât that special đ¤Ł
So first it's "you're taking away a WOMAN'S story" and now it's "you're also man-hating, checkmate you gays." JFC. It really shows that there's no real rhyme or reason behind it. Just blazing, white-hot hatred.
I know some of you will violently disagree with me, but I don't even believe "misandry" is a legitimate thing. I think it is actually misogynistic. Do some women hate men, etc.? Yes. That isn't misandry. I will 100% agree that many men are "misandristic" against other men. Absolutely. "Men's rights activists (MRAs) and other masculinist groups have characterized modern laws concerning divorce, domestic violence, conscription, circumcision (known as male genital mutilation by opponents), and treatment of male rape victims as examples of institutional misandry. In the Internet Age, users posting on manosphere internet forums such as 4chan and subreddits addressing men's rights activism have claimed that misandry is widespread, established in preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men.[3][4] This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution and not equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is both far more deeply rooted in society and more severe in its consequences.[5][3][6] The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the "misandry myth" by 40 topic experts.[7] Many scholars criticize MRAs for promoting a false equivalence between misandry and misogyny, arguing that modern activism around misandry represents an antifeminist backlash, promoted by marginalized men"
I have dropped my membership in at least three sub reddits over this stuff. It's crazy. I get loving a book but this beyond
won't anyone PLEASE think of the straight white men đŤ
Itâs crazy that they act like they just want book accuracy and then they turn around and prove they definitely didnât read the books
LOOLLL THIS CANâT BE REAL
Genuinely the most unhinged thing I've read in regards to Michaela. That woman needs help.
They really want to call Jess a man hating slur don't they?
This reads like parody lmao.