#eah rant

Dumbass haircut and goatee FIRST OF ALL (that's reason enough)

Second of all, Robin hood is one of my absolute FAVORITE fairytales. He just did it for the love of the game and I hate when people butcher his character. He was kind and anti-cop and just wanted to help out his fellow man. I also don't like the Shrek version because of this mischaracterization, but he sings a silly song so it's more ok. Sparrow is nothing like him and I get it, rebellious teen and I also do not read about that man so idk what psychological issues he's got going on up there. But I really don't like him because he is everything Robin Hood is not.

Raven’s father is the Good King. He raised his daughter to be good, and kind, and helpful, and compassionate. AND! IT! WORKED!!! Raven’s problem in the books and show is the fact that the world is trying to force her to meet their expectations of her being a completely irredeemable villain like her mother because a page in a book tells them that she should be when she’s genuinely not a bad person!

Raven is genuinely not evil, and she doesn’t WANT to be. Her mother became the villain she was because she spent her whole life being called evil until she decided to not only become the villain that everyone saw in her but to become even WORSE than they expected! Meanwhile Raven’s whole deal is saying “No, I am not evil and I’m not going to let anyone MAKE me evil.”

This is especially important for me because, as I mentioned, her father is the GOOD KING. And yet she is only referred to as “Raven QUEEN, daughter of the EVIL QUEEN”. Half of her parentage is essentially erased when she gets to school. Which makes me wonder if she had been born male, would she have been referred to as “the son of the Good King”?

The more I think about it the more it feels like Headmaster Grimm said “Congratulations! Oh, you had a daughter? Well she’s going to be SUPER EVIL because she’s a girl! It’s her destiny, congratulations again and goodbye!”

I’ve had a disgusting realization about one of the source materials for a childhood show of mine, and I must tell someone!

Anyway, I could go on and on about how much I hate 2010s Girl Power feminism and 2020s Girl Boss feminism and how I feel like they’ve regressed us so far. But I’ll say only this now:

It’s a bad look to only have girl characters developed and the boys two-dimensional.

Fuck that misandrist shit, I’m being serious.

If we want any resolve on gender violence perpetrated by cisgender & heterosexual men, we need to understand how these people come to these ideologies—consciously and unconsciously—to understand how to combat it. It very much is our problem to deal with.

Men, of any intersecting identity, are as much a part of conversations about gender violence as all the rest of us. Men are not born predisposed to be violent towards women, and if you believe that, you are looking for a completely different solution that’s never going to be discussed here. Go somewhere else.

It dulls any argument made about (cis, specifically) women being equal to or greater than men when they’re competing or standing by background characters or characters that mysteriously aren’t included despite there being valid reasons for them to be included!

Is the shade of Kitty Cheshire's skin

Its inconsistent and bothers me immensely, especially as an artist.

She has purple skin in all of her dolls and doll art, yet has white skin across the entire web series, and in the comic book The Class of Classics.

It doesn't bother me the same way Briar's does, because that's just straight white-washing, but Kitty's isnt particularly a "racial" thing.

The question is, is it fur or skin (at least to me)

When I see her skin tone purple is assume it's a Monster High scenario, like how Clawdeen's skin is brown but it represents fur, just like Toralei, whose has orange and brown doll skin but it's clearly a fur, especially from the fact that Toralei in specific has stripes on her legs and arms, as well as a spot on her face.

When I go to draw Kitty I'm always unsure of which to go off of, but most of the time I simply use the show as reference.

like in the show, we don't really explore the sides of the royals and rebels beyond the usual stance of whether they go against following their stories and support raven, or whether they want to follow their stories and condemn raven for not signing and starting the entire rebel movement.

but in the books i love how shannon hale expands upon the sheer amount of utter classism present in the eah world, and especially present in this school; perfectly encapsulating how those in power are very, very concerned about keeping this brand of classism ongoing, about keeping that divide between the 'Royals' and the 'Commoners' apparent.

just the little details of the royals and the commoners having different seats in the auditorium, with the royals having comfortable padded seats as opposed to the commoners having more uncomfortable and hard chairs, how they both have different common rooms; just the little details in general which highlight how the entire concept of destinies and signing the book and legacies is a system that is established in order to keep this classism going.

the legacy system honestly just breeds more of this classism; it tells the royals they are above the commoners and it tells them about how they deserve the happy endings and the prince charmings and the glittering gold palaces, and it tells the commoners of their place beneath the royals and firmly shows them the differences between themselves and the royals and how the commoners should be happy and complacent with the endings that they get.

overall, it tells both of these groups to simply accept what is being presented to them; presents the narrative that change is unfamiliar and dangerous and bad, and as such, they should never question their system and should instead just be happy with what they get, because, surely, this system is fair, so it just ends up being what they deserve.

hell, even the fact that before raven basically formed the royal/rebel movement, people were simply separated on the basis of being royals and commoners; it could literally not be made more obvious.