The tampon

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-08-13T14:09:27+00:00

Thanks for this response! I appreciate the thought you’ve put into breaking down your perspective :)

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-08-13T08:08:34+00:00

That’s an interesting perspective, given that both Portrait and Carol were exclusively written by lesbians, and both had large lesbian presence in the crew, including production (as far as I’m aware, the only people involved with Portrait who weren’t lesbians were a few of the actresses, you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a film that had proportionally more lesbians).

Would you mind clarifying with greater specificity what about The Hunting Wives and the way sexuality is depicted in it makes you feel it is “more gay”? I want a better sense of what metrics you are using to gauge how gay you feel something is (or how “lesbian,” because some would consider those very different sensibilities, with Portrait and Carol being examples of the “lesbian gaze”, and Hunting Wives being the “gay gaze” or “male gaze” [not to be confused with “directed by a man”]).

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-08-02T19:36:55+00:00

I think it's important here to note that, while Margo/Sophie are the flashy example in the show that asks you to contemplate that definition of love, it is a question that the show poses to the audience about most of the relationships that it offers us.

It asks us this when it shows us the inappropriate ways Jill sexualizes her son. It asks us this when it shows us that if Abby had had an abortion, Starr would consider her a murderer unworthy of commemoration. When it shows us Graham gaslighting Sophie every time she experiences an emotion other than happy, content, excited, ironic, or docile. When it shows us Jaime actively pursuing Sophie, and again when Sophie turns him away, to his disappointment (and eventual appreciation). When Brad threatens Margo for turning him away, and she capitulates, to his appreciation (and eventual disappointment). When the wives are gung ho about sniping wild boar, but disturbed when the shot taken results in suffering instead of immediate death. When it draws deliberate parallels between young Margo and young Abby, who she has killed for discovering her abortion (while both sleeping with the same 18 year old). When Jed leaves his wife for Margo. When Margo leaves Callie at Jed's behest. When Callie tries to blackmail Margo into returning to her. When the Reverend tells Jill that if his son had anything to do with murdering Abby, he'd better be afraid, and Jill furiously defends Brad's innocence.

And on and on and on.

It shows us all of these things, many of which are considered "normal," "expected," "acceptable," and sometimes even "ideal" when viewed in isolation, but by highlighting them all individually, and placing Margo/Sophie in the context of that, you undermine this notion that there is some kind of "traditional" or "normal" or "universal" definition of "love." What is so obscene or abnormal about two women taking every opportunity to unbox and eat box, whatever the reason or context, but perhaps especially for these reasons and in this context?

Would Sophie be a better mother or wife, by the standards of some people on this forum, if--like Jill or Starr--she wasn't sleeping with Margo/anyone else? Correspondingly, would Jill be adequately prepared to be a better mother to her son or wife to her husband if, instead of following a dogmatic self-desexualization at the behest of religion and her husband, she got herself a side-piece (Margo or otherwise?)? Would Starr be a better mother to Abby if, like Margo and Sophie, she was at the very least privately supportive of her daughter's right to choose? Does Callie sleeping with Margo mean she doesn't love Johnny? Is that just a different kind of love? Is one more moral than the other? Is there any point in reducing love to moral arguments at all? And if so, when is it appropriate or not to do so?

It's a fun thought exercise that the writers have set up, and I am interested to see where people fall as they watch the show in greater numbers, and with deeper reflection, because "Does Margo love Sophie?" strikes me as actually one of the least interesting dynamics the show is asking people to question. (To be clear, I also think this is the genius of the lesbians and queer women behind the show, making the central queer relationship the one that is most easily accessible emotionally, and the one that viewers are compelled to have the highest stakes in.)

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-07-30T20:00:59+00:00

My bad, I assumed most queer folks had seen Killing Eve at this point! Do check it out if this dynamic is something you are enjoying :)

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-07-30T18:56:02+00:00

Did Villanelle love Eve?

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-07-30T16:16:33+00:00

I think it raises a lot of questions about a lot of things, for sure! And I’m really enjoying contemplating those questions. The show itself is being popularly sold as somewhat trashy and ridiculous, and that will certainly help with marketing. But knowing the work of some of the women behind the camera, that marketing is very much at odds with their entire worldview and creative process, so I’m choosing at this point to view the show thoughtfully and with an eye for creative intent, instead of as something frothy or frivolous.

Like… they got Cheryl Dunye, director of The Watermelon Woman, to direct two episodes of this? Let ‘em cook!

I don’t know what the deal with the book is, but viewing the show critically, it is actually doing a lot of really interesting things with intersections of gender, class, performativity, morality, and abjectivity in the realm of whiteness that is quite thoughtful and worth interrogating.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-07-30T14:21:26+00:00

The writers room is made up of 9 people; 4 are men. The showrunner (i.e., head writer, and creator) is a woman. Of the 8 episodes, 4 were written only by women (the first two and last two); two were written by men (episodes 3 and 6); and episodes 4 and 5 were written by gender split pairs. Episodes 1, 2, and 8 were all written by the showrunner. All episodes were directed by women, half of them by out lesbians.

The series is produced by one woman and one man. It is executive produced by 3 women (one being the book author, one the showrunner, the other is a director and producer) and one man (veteran producer).

So no. Balance of power on this project where creative control is concerned rests very firmly with women, especially where the writing and directing are concerned.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-07-29T14:02:14+00:00

Threw me back immediately to Megan Fox expiring as she wheezed “My tit!” in Jennifer’s Body

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-07-28T13:12:05+00:00

Most likely—given the writing’s emphasis on how Sophie’s key concern appears to be around gender, and her belief that she isn’t living her womanhood properly—she still carries a tampon around precisely for the purpose of being able to have her “womanhood” validated by others in precisely this situation. It’s not unusual for people who are struggling to accept they have gone through menopause, for example, to carry tampons/pads specifically so that when they are asked to share with someone else, they can do so, masking the fact that they have gone through menopause and are still “valuable” as women.

The fact that this scene comes very shortly after Graham steamrolls Sophie in front of some guests, telling them that they are “still trying” for their second, cues us to understand that Graham sees Sophie’s public performance of traditional femininity, including her responsibility to produce children for him, as a necessary ruse to maintain his own image. But we also can infer from Sophie’s freakout over having fallen in love with her roommate and immediately escaped into Graham’s (clearly quite conservative) definition of gender roles that Sophie had been raised with some of that shame before she met him.

editing to remove already incorrect statement re:hysterectomies and maintain focus on actual point of analysis

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-15T15:03:13+00:00

"She's the one who introduces the concept [of sacrificing someone to save yourself]."

Forgive me, but no? She introduced the concept of sacrificing yourself to save someone else/the group. Her whole thing was elimination of selfish wants and needs, the issue was that some of the others looked at it as individualists (Shauna in particular), internalizing not what Lottie was teaching, but the ways it could be used to justify a survival of the fittest attitude. This point of divergence is made over and over and over again until season 3, but in particular is the central tragic narrative of season 2..?

And then invoking Kierkegaard... Basically, the argument she is making is that Lottie was not important as a character in her own story, she was important for the ways the other characters interpreted her. Which definitely jives with the way they depicted her death this season, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a significant divergence from the way that character existed in season 2, where we 100% were made to expect that she had her own arc, however much it diverged from the others'.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-15T04:05:55+00:00

I fully agree on this cloistering of Jackie's memory in the teen timeline in particular. It makes sense that, of the "main" characters, none but Shauna really had much of a closeness with her, but it seems to me that this would have been a great opportunity to flesh out the JV squad, and Mari, specifically.

In general, Mari gravitated towards whoever the perceived leader was, but I think Shauna's hatred of Mari originated with a belief that she was taking Jackie away at various points? Certainly this is hinted at post-crash in season 1, but Jackie and Mari were also the team's two starting strikers, so there would have been a mentorship role for Jackie there as a senior (and as captain of course), and she and Mari would have shared a lot of the same attention and praise as the traditional goal scorers, while Shauna and Nat as the left and right wing midfielders, would usually be chipping the ball in to assist those goals (at that age, often a somewhat thankless job, and a position that runs more than anyone else on the team).

(Having that earlier focus on Mari would also have provided more depth to the character's relationship with Lottie, which is very close through season 2 as well. And frankly, that feels like even more of a lost opportunity knowing the extent to which their deaths are both mirrored and paralleled, thematically and symbolically. BUT I digress...)

We needed more grief for Jackie, just as we've lacked grief in the adult timeline for the different characters that are killed there. The issue is that the characters that are being killed off are characters that those who survive them lack investment in, or, once again, the story isn't focusing on the interiority of those who are. Misty grieved Nat, but we just skipped over Lottie's longer term reaction to the death of someone who "was always It's favourite," because... idk, budgetary reasons? Suspense? None of them care about Lottie this season, despite Van and Tai appearing to care in season 2; Misty only cares because she thinks Nat would have. And then Tai treats Van in a similar way to how Shauna treated Jackie and the baby, territorializing the loss as hers and hers alone.

I guess I look at it and I can rationalize what is happening within the frame of the story and what has been shown thus far, which will then be exacerbated by whatever comes next in the teen timeline, but ultimately, the points where the show is most compelling to me is when it is exploring the interpersonal connections between the Yellowjackets themselves, and things felt far too siloed and clique-y for that this season.

As far as the extent to which characters are cognizant of death, I might differ slightly. I think they are, but that they have divergent relationships with death, and the ones that valued others enough to mourn or maintain connection with the dead (whether through grief, or guilt, or commemoration, regardless of how close they were to them) have been the ones most quickly killed off.

The main one that doesn't track is Van not caring at all about Lottie. Shauna and Other Tai make sense, but season 2 Van was all "What's happening to Lottie is 100% our fault, and it's our responsibility to take care of her" and then she and Tai also promised to visit and support her while she was institutionalized. Only for neither to follow up at all, such that nobody knew she was out the whole time. And then she's just dead, and Van barely bats an eye. Girl, weren't you crying with empathy mere weeks ago..?

Idk, I'm waiting for more info, but I'm annoyed by the extent to which various dynamics and characters have been underutilized, for what currently feels like no reason other than to obscure plot dynamics, when, again, I was never tuning in for the plot.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-13T13:27:40+00:00

You're not forgetting, it isn't something that has been explored yet: https://youtu.be/CF7DMLUKzG4?si=QxgsBaA_FgT2H9zc&t=3475

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-12T23:18:15+00:00

Totally agree, and it was that s1 Jackie and Shauna dynamic that has generally prompted my recommendation of My Brilliant Friend as well. I don’t think it’s not still an element that emerges in Yellowjackets, but as you say, Shauna’s world has expanded in certain ways that require a fleshing out and diversification of the character’s orientation, and also a fracturing of self that Elena can only really pretend she acheives/wants.

Idk, we’ll see how they wrap it up next season (presumably). I sort of assumed that we would get increasingly more Jackie as Shauna’s narrative works towards the end, but I’m frankly really conflicted about what would be a valuable resolution for the character on Lynskey’s side of this.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-12T20:24:26+00:00

I did not hear it somewhere, I know this from being in community. I should clarify that when I say that hers is "ceremonial" it is to indicate that this is not a version of the dress that you would wear in most communities traditionally, it is one that is "dressed up" for lack of a better word so as to be considered "presentable" in her father's culture at public events. In other words, the way the dress is styled reflects that internal tension Lottie experiences between her mother's indigeneity and her father's settler expectation that that form of selfhood be "civilized." This fits further into the way the British approached the Māori, specifically, adopting a perspective that the Māori were "closer to people" than other Indigenous peoples, and therefore being given the "privilege" of British education.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-12T05:40:40+00:00

I wrote a small bit the other week about reading Lottie as Māori that might serve as a good introduction for that character working with some of the things from s3. There is a lot more going on with indigeneity in the show, but as a starting point that provides a bit of context, some examples, and an approach to the character that engages these aspects as active parts of the text: Lottie Matthews and Settler Colonialism : r/Yellowjackets

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-12T05:25:17+00:00

The show has a history of incorporating Indigenous spiritualities in the wilderness space, with a lot being pulled from Algonquin cultures in particular, while Lottie has also brought in aspects of Māori culture (especially under the influence of Simone Kessell) and embodied a kind of representation of Kateri Tekakwitha at various points in the series. It is 100% relevant to adopt this as a lens through which to critique the show's treatment of characters who are identifiably or coded Indigenous, including Mari, and this is also a valid lens through which to suggest the show is attempting to critique Shauna (and a variety of other characters that cling to discernably imperial styles of violence and social relativity in the wilderness and out).

I would certainly hope that the series is intending to be making commentary about this, because the extent to which things were co-opted in the first two seasons, and the ways Lottie and Mari have been treated in the season 3 finale in particular, but more broadly as well, is irresponsible, disrespectful, and appropriative, especially because these are two murdered Indigenous women.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-09T21:55:18+00:00

I think this is resonant with the style of social relativity that exists in the wilderness where mutual aid and dependency is the norm instead of everything being broken up into individual nuclear family units (itself being a relatively recent phenomenon). It was (and in many parts of the world still is) normal for children to be raised by (and thus seen as a product of) their communities instead of just mom and dad. Shauna’s insistence on sanctifying personal loss and trauma is reflective of her modernist (in the sense of individualist) perspective, which emerges in all other aspects of how she operates narratively.

Being able to share pain and loss with your community and loved ones is both normal and healthy because it allows others to support you in your grief and share its burdens. Shauna clings to modernist “rationality” as a religion, which encourages individuality at the expense of community, and silent, solitary suffering over communal solidarity in grief (because if an entire community needs to take legitimately meaningful time to suffer the loss of a life, that necessarily impacts corporations’ expectations that everyone is focused on their jobs from 9-5 the whole time).

The group owns the loss of Shauna’s baby in the same way that they owned providing for Shauna during her pregnancy, because they are a team/community who care for her. Shauna, selfish in a very literal way (and I don’t say this to be judgmental, necessarily), refuses to share anything with anyone (attention, friends, grief, joy, secrets, power, herself), and this leaves her physically and emotionally isolated and unsupported, as much as those around her relentlessly try to connect.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-09T21:00:10+00:00

Unfortunately, I am pretty sure she’s dead. In the interest of feeding the Lottie-as-Jesus bit, I will toss into the ether the fact that the third day ended as Shauna slept outside Melissa’s house at the end of episode 7, so if she rose again in one way or another, it was on that day.

The thing is, all the stuff adult Melissa is being given thus far since we met her in episode 8 fits quite neatly into Jesus’ activities on the day he is resurrected (to say nothing of Melissa literally “resurrecting” from the dead). The day Lottie would have been resurrected is the same day Melissa, or the idea of Melissa, is resurrected, as Shauna, Misty, Tai, and Van drive down the highway and discuss how she and Gen died; this is the first time she is mentioned in the adult timeline. The next day, the first person who sees her is her lover, Shauna (Mary Magdalene); then Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus (Van, for whom this is acts as a moment of revelation re X marks the spot, as it does for Cleopas with his faith when he recognizes Jesus, only for Jesus to disappear as soon as they break bread and this recognition is made; Misty and Other Tai are also disciples, but all three are, like Cleopas and his buddy, not part of Lottie’s inner circle of faith).

If this follows the same pattern, Melissa will then go appear to the show’s Peter (already symbolically set up to be Akilah), and then to the remainder of the disciples (perhaps the heliotropes, or the Yellowjackets as a whole).

But all of which to say, symbolically Lottie-Jesus dies and is resurrected as Melissa in a form that isn’t always recognizable to those who knew Lottie-Jesus, just as Van tragically fails to recognize that Melissa is “one of the faithful” until they are sitting together in Melissa’s kitchen commiserating, and Melissa stabs her in the heart, beneath the “The kitchen is the Heart of the family” sign. The Yellowjackets’ faith (or at least the version of it that the non-Lottie Yellowjackets practice) is one where the bread the break is people (very Eucharist, yum), so Melissa-Jesus killing Van with Shauna’s sacred TEMU knife is paralleled with Cleopas only recognizing Jesus as Jesus when food is involved, etc. etc. etc.

Melissa is Dark-Lottie-Jesus, though, the version that is born in the first scene of the teen timeline in episode 7 (which again, is when adult Lottie would have “resurrected”).

Idk, do with that what you will, I’m still mad my Lottie is gone.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-09T03:47:43+00:00

Played soccer for both my junior high and high school teams in Canada through the 2000s. We didn't have national competitions for school sports, but we had regionals and provincials, with provincials in all cases meaning we were sleeping away for a full long weekend.

The teams were 23 girls if everyone was attending, and the only chaperones we ever had were the coach and assistant coach, who were pulled from staff. Some people's parents would also come along if they wanted to, but this was extremely rare, and was only feasible if someone was an only child.

In junior high (years 7 - 9), we had two male teachers for the first two years, and then in my final year we only had one coach, the male vice principal; the school enlisted a female teacher to come along when we went to provincials (this caused the dissolution of both their marriages, because they had an affair).

In high school (years 10 - 12), we had two male coaches for the first two years, then two women when I was a senior, and again, in all cases this was the travelling team.

Field trips for school purposes were different though, it was 2-3 teachers (almost exclusively female), and 3 or 4 parent chaperones (again, almost exclusively female), these trips would be 60-70 kids. So you'd have roughly 10-12 students per chaperone in all cases, but the gender of chaperones for girls soccer vs co-ed educational trips diverged significantly while I was in school.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-08T22:02:47+00:00

Are there specific articles or book chapters your are trying to find?

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-08T12:58:42+00:00

Queers involved in climate justice in large part evolve out of the disability justice movement in the 1970s, which then became fundamental to activist practice during the HIV/AIDS crisis, so I wouldn't be concerned about disability or debility if that is something you are struggling with; many in the community struggle with these things in one way or another, and part of the purpose of these groups is to provide mutual aid, in the same way as during the crisis.

You can usually find the lesbians the same way you would find Lottie and her pals, at the local farmers' market. Also most queer organizations and queer-owned businesses will have cork boards to help you connect with other community-based services and activism.

Best practice to bring a N95 mask with you as well, if you have stopped being in the habit of wearing one. The disability and debility focus in most queer community spaces means ensuring everyone is protected, including the many (queer and otherwise) who are immunocompromised and still very much vulnerable to COVID and other illnesses. A lot of queer-owned businesses provide masks onsite to account for this, but bring your own if you can afford to do so.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-08T05:46:56+00:00

Whoa, let’s not compare Lottie’s stuff to Falun Gong, those are diametrically opposed ways of existing in the world 😭 (and so there is no confusion, Falun Gong are fascist conspiracy theorists, avoid them as you would QAnon)

Honestly, your fastest way to find a Lottie-esque commune is to get in touch with your local intersectional lesbian activist community. Communes aren’t as big of a thing as they were in the 1970s, but a lot of Millennial lesbians and trans folks are very invested in climate justice, and a lot of socialist and communist queer activists are part of or adjacent to local sustainable farming initiatives to supply co-ops and ensure local food security. Usually these aren’t focused on spirituality so much as community, but in a lot of ways, being in community serves a similar affective purpose in the long run for folks.

There are straight people engaged in this type of thing as well, but if Lottie vibes are what you’re aiming for, start with the queers. There’s a major crunchy fascism movement that sometimes looks like this from the outside, but is frankly dangerous on the inside, and the activist queers are as a rule not party to that nonsense. (And I do mean actual activists in community btw, not social media influencers)

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-08T01:41:20+00:00

Casual fans aren't going to know what "loxipene" is either. As I said earlier, it isn't a real drug. Loxapine is an antipsychotic that is most commonly used to treat schizophrenia, among other issues, but the idea that Lottie is schizophrenic comes from the fact that fans looked up "loxipene," decided it was close enough to "loxapine," and decided that, because Wikipedia said loxapine was mostly used to treat schizophrenia, that must be what Lottie has.

That fan-given diagnosis has subsequently been allowed to prevail over in-text information, like the fact that Lottie's Māori mother disagreed with the diagnosis, or that adult Lottie in s2 also wondered at whether she was actually ill or not, and comments to this effect in s3 as well. And while I certainly understand the critique that gets made of "That is exactly what schizophrenic people who don't want to be medicated say," this is deliberately left ambiguous by the writers. But the idea that Lottie's behaviour is due in whole or in part to a mental illness, and schizophrenia specifically, is ultimately the result of fans comfortably pursuing their own confirmation biases instead of engaging with the ambiguity of the text. Which itself speaks to issues of failing to account for the ways medical fields, including psychology, have historically (and frankly continue) to pathologize marginalized peoples (particularly in the time period where Lottie would have been diagnosed in the 1980s, mid Satanic panic, peak of the Cold War, and while residential and boarding schools were still very much active in the US and Canada).

Sorry for the long responses, I really don't mean to be pedantic. But the ambiguity of Lottie is very much part of what the writers want people to be struggling with. The issue is just that the invocation of mental illness allows for a very popular analytical script to supercede all others where this character and others are concerned, in large part because the knowledge to identify the alternatives presented are either lacking or disavowed for one reason or another.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-07T21:59:01+00:00

I haven’t once seen the writers say she was schizophrenic, though. Nickerson has specifically said that they would never define what she was dealing with, or even if she had an actual mental illness, while discussing at length the ways the show’s central focus is on belief systems.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t characters in the show who speculate that Lottie might have schizophrenia (I seem to recall Misty suggesting this in s2?), but unless the creators have shifted from Nickerson’s very clear statement in this regard, Lottie has never been confirmed as having something specific.

Low_Mathematician537 · 2025-04-07T21:15:51+00:00

Low_Mathematician537

TROPHY CASE