the monster that chases you up the stairs

ray, he/they. i like several things but here i mostly post about hazbin hotel. i make music but i haven't posted anything in like a billion years i'll link my youtube here when i feel like uploading again.

[darkstarofchaos]

I definitely agree with you about Vox not being 1950s level bigoted and I'm very tired of people exaggerating his bigotry because He Is A White Man From The 50s!!! He Must Be The Most Bigoted Man In Existence!!! But I would be curious to hear those thousands more words left in you about the topic 👀

In that case, I want to get into the misogyny and how Vox actually interacts with women a bit more. Because people will outright make things up - or at best, misrepresent their headcanons as actual canon - to complain about how misogynistic he is.

Quick aside, because I keep seeing people say Vox has "internalized misogyny": Internalized means self-directed. I was giving them the benefit of doubt that they meant what they said and just didn't realize the proper term for men is "toxic masculinity", because he does have some feminine traits. But the other day I saw someone say he has "internalized racism", so now I'm forced to accept that y'all are just using it wrong.

Moving on!

First, a few general misogynistic behaviors that Vox rarely or never exhibits:

Commenting on women's appearances: The closest he comes is when he introduces Velvette as his "lovely associate". Which is a genuinely inoffensive compliment, and also a pretty common turn of phrase. It's actually kind of impressive that he never uses this kind of language, considering the Vees' overall business model and the fact that both his partners are openly judgmental about people's bodies and clothes. (He does voice approval after Valentino describes the rally's dancers as "tens, plus one eight", and he seems to do at least some of the Vees' recruiting personally. But given everything in his environment says he could get away with such language and he still doesn't use it, I can only assume it's because he doesn't want to. It's plausible that he just separates his personal opinions from his business dealings).

Treating women as objects of desire: People literally think he's gay because he shows no interest in the women he interacts with. So no (he does have an issue with inappropriate touch, but this is gender-neutral coming from Vox. The contact is also never sexual, save for one instance where he smacks Val's butt. Val is a man, and also Vox's partner, so it's not quite the same as treating a woman he just met the same way *coughPilotAlastorcough*).

Expecting women to do gendered jobs: Vox never comments on the career choices of any woman he interacts with, questions their ability to do the work, or implies that they should be doing something else. The closest he comes is, "VoxTek loves women in STEM!" (which is pandering, but could also be true for all we know. We've hardly seen any of his tech staff, who knows what the gender distribution is).

Punishing women for assertive behavior: He does refer to Carmilla as a bitch once (not to her face), but he also lets Velvette snap at him and tell him what to do. He pushes back when Charlie gets mad at him at the hotel, but he's being deliberately antagonistic, and would have done the same thing if she was a man. He seems to have a problem with people, not behaviors.

Use of misogynistic insults like "bitch": He does do this, with both men and women. So does everyone around him. If this is all it takes, I guess Charlie is a misogynist too.

Use of patronizing language: Technically he does this with Velvette in the form of endearments (dear, sweetie), but they have a close relationship and she uses similar language with him, so for them it's genuine affection. On the other hand, he calls Katie "honey" while condescendingly telling her how to do her job, which might be the most misogynistic interaction he has with a woman in the entire show (he actually never talks down to Charlie like this, even when antagonizing her. His use of her title may not always be sincere, but he still uses it).

And here are the rest of the things Vox does that could be construed as misogyny:

Reacts with disgust when propositioned by Katie (though I'd argue he's just repulsed by her specifically)

Calls Carmilla a "strong woman", implying that most aren't (he's trying to talk her around to his side, not insult her, so this one is unintentional).

Tells Charlie there's "no need to get hysterical" after she calls him a monster (he's being a jerk on purpose).

That's it, that's the list. He panders, uses a few offensive words, and is condescending once. I cannot think of a single other instance where he says or does anything to a woman that he wouldn't to a man. And even if you include things he shouldn't be doing to either demographic, all you add is socially inappropriate but otherwise innocent touching. That isn't misogynistic, that's just a lack of boundaries.

He spent all of S2 slandering Charlie. If he was going to be misogynistic towards anyone, it would have been her. But while he does question her ability to do what she claims, it's for the valid reason of not having proof of redemption, not because of her gender. None of his lies about her are gendered. The only time he truly dismisses her as incompetent, he's comparing her to her mother, so her gender has nothing to do with her "failure".

The only conclusion I can draw in the face of overwhelming evidence is that he isn't a misogynist. And might even be the least misogynistic of the Vees. Or at least no worse than Velvette (Val's misogyny is hard to judge, mostly because he objectifies and sexualizes everything with a pulse).

[sabertoothwalrus]

much appreciation for people who create ocs that are clearly derivative of The Character because even if the inspiration is clear, they had the self awareness that their headcanons had snowballed so far past character analysis into pure self indulgence that there was very little of source material left. and that’s beautiful. sometimes when you’re preoccupied playing touys it’s hard to take a step back and realize you’ve actually created something wonderful and new

[chimerafeathers]

i think the thing that bothers me about the “everything is sex, even/especially things that aren’t literally sex” mindset that i keep seeing around—and specifically the positioning of it as this enlightened way of thinking—is that it is still holding up sex as the highest, most special and important form of intimacy possible. you know?? this is a moment of immense intensity and vulnerability and intimacy, therefore it must be sex, and in fact that’s the truest and realest and coolest way to read it. as though those things can’t exist outside of that framework.

idk man i just want sex to be a Normal Thing. not the most appalling shameful thing that no one should ever talk about so that the thought of something being created for a fetish makes people recoil, AND ALSO not held up as the Height Of Human Connection such that all art and all connection can and should be reinterpreted through it. both of those things suck.

[chimerafeathers]

“these characters’ feelings/actions towards each other are so intense and intimate, there is no platonic explanation, it has to be romantic” 🤝 “this scene/activity is so intense and intimate, it’s fundamentally sex”

[ryan-sometimes]

Popular ships are so funny because with some of them I can even see the vision, but with others I see their serious believers as the flat earthers of fandom

[asslingerer]

Ah yes the holy trinity of bible fanfic writers: Dante, Goethe, and Vivienne Medrano

[awholeweekofjustsharks]

@alastoressays

[pokemoniker]

Sometimes people here will say like “why is everyone ADDICTED to reading my posts in bad faith omg. Yes you get a very special goooold staaaaarrrr for your Incredible Reading Comprehension that insane exaggeration is OBVIOUSLY what i meant, not the actual words i wrote 🙄 piss on the poor ahh site” and then you look at their original post and it’s some “Horse ran past the barn fell” type shit

[pokemoniker]

If i can be mean… This was specifically prompted the op of that “characters don’t have to be relatable” post saying “obviously this was about racism in discussions around sinners 2025” like For Starters if someone is saying they can't relate to the protagonists due to them being black. I mean why are you implicitly agreeing with that sentiment

[myfootyrthroat]

Someone justifying harassing a minor internet personality by saying "You can't bully celebrities. The celebrity class can afford security and to avoid social spaces with commoners."

Ok, yeah, I don't think this nurse with 100k followers who makes videos of her dogs has a bodyguard.

[myfootyrthroat]

And I'm never sure whether this comes from the person being so poor that they don't realize that people making $100k don't have 'staff' or being so rich that they don't realize that people making $100k don't have 'staff'.

[aleshakills]

So on my posts about racism or transmisogyny, I often see tags that basically say “I don’t understand this but I’m going to reblog it anyway.” If you see a “social justice” type post that you want to reblog but don’t understand?

Don’t.

I know this goes against everything you’re used to hearing on this website, but listen. Reblogging posts you don’t understand is basically the equivalent of blindly repeating whatever you’re told. Even if you’re right, if you don’t understand why you’re right, you could be spouting utter bullshit and you wouldn’t even know it.

When I see “I don’t know what this means but I’m gonna reblog it anyway” it sends a lot of messages. It says that you care more about seeming right than being right. It says that you want good ally credit without any of the work of being a good ally. It says you’re on my side because I can make a post sound good, not because you actually agree with me on anything beyond the surface level.

So instead of just reblogging that post, save it for later. Like it, draft it, bookmark it, whatever. Go to the op’s blog and skim through a couple of pages, see if you can find some context. If the post is old, you could try asking for context in a non-condescending way. “Is this post referring to something specific?” is a lot better than, say, “Does this even happen? I’ve never heard of this.”

If that doesn’t help, do some more research. Google, search tumblr tags for recent posts on a subject, ask people who have EXPLICITLY stated they are willing to educate. Maybe in the process you’ll find more posts with a similar message to the original, but in easier to understand language. Maybe someone else already added a reply that adds useful information onto the op.

And maybe all of that takes a long time. Maybe, by the time you finally understand what the post was talking about, it’s months old and no longer relevant. Maybe you don’t even want to reblog it anymore. Who cares, fuck that post. You learned and grew as a person. That’s more important than looking good on a blog.

[glorious-spoon]

i don't usually go for crack fic, but there's something really beautiful about fic that takes a cracky premise and plays it utterly straight, to the point of genuine human pathos that's only enhanced by the sheer ridiculousness of what's actually happening

[chaumas-deactivated20240115]

the other thing about Internet dogpiling is that it is just not possible to think clearly during the acute stages. it’s so easy to criticize people for responding defensively or tactlessly to mass criticism but I cannot overstate the degree to which your brain becomes a rat in a trap. I think we do have to temporarily recalibrate our expectations in these circumstances and accept that they do not necessarily represent how that person responds to criticism. the skills for self-regulating and reacting to normal interpersonal criticism are not the same skills needed to respond to viral callouts.

[toastedmarshmallowrose]

It's wild that people think we're supposed to look down on Vox for relying on his teammates when this is the Important Lesson The Main Character Learns at the end of S2

(Also these two are so cute here wtf)

[darkstarofchaos]

"Vox acts like a white man from the 50s!" "Of course Vox did that, he's a white man from the 50s."

Genuine question, what do y'all think the 50s were like?

Because whenever I see these takes, or read fics with that tag, it always feels like a very modern perspective on the topic. People will pick apart a dozen little things Vox does or says as evidence of how bigoted he is, and bring up how he's from the 50s like it's the ultimate condemnation of his behavior. And sure, his time period is where he would have learned those attitudes, but like.

If you compare Vox's behavior in modern-day canon with actual 50s-level bigotry. And you assume he held opinions typical of his era while he was alive. He's um. He's pretty progressive.

Let's talk about it!

To start, racial segregation was still a thing in the 50s. The Civil Rights Movement started in the middle of the decade, but according to the Wiki, Vox died before that. So if he still had a 50s mindset, he would at best think it beneath him to work alongside, or even in proximity with, anyone from another race. The other end of the spectrum is racially motivated violence and murder. Given he was a literal serial killer, it's entirely possible that he was on that end of the spectrum, but given his motive for killing was personal advancement, it's also possible that he wouldn't have bothered. We have no evidence one way or the other.

In any event, Vox obviously does not require his partners (business or otherwise) to be white. He has not required it for at least a few decades, and he might not have ever required it, at least in Hell. Because the first guy he tried to partner with, whom he spent years getting close to and considered a friend, and even fell in love with, is Black Creole. And while it's possible he didn't know that, I'd argue that if race was a dealbreaker, he would have made a point of finding out. So he either didn't know and didn't care, or did know and didn't care.

Not caring isn't the same as not being racist, of course, and given his multiple transgressions in the present (both accidental and deliberate), he probably "didn't care" in the most offensive way possible. But he's spent decades working with Valentino, who's perfectly willing to scold and throw things at him when he crosses a line, and there's no way that partnership would have lasted if Vox refused to change. Given that he's had a lot of screentime and only been racist three times, he seems pretty teachable.

Still racist? Yes. 50s-era levels of racism? Not remotely.

So how about the misogyny, then? In the 50s, women pretty much couldn't do anything without their husbands' permission. Legally they could do things like open bank accounts and own property, but with no laws to prevent discrimination, men could simply refuse to do business with or employ women. Socially, women were expected to be passive, modest caregivers who put others before themselves. So as a man from the 50s, Vox presumably wants the women around him to be obedient doormats who cater to his every whim, yes?

Well, he and Velvette are introduced with her ordering him to come deal with his boyfriend. He does as asked without argument or reprimand, and while he's annoyed, it's not her fault and he doesn't take it out on her. He also never tells her how to do her job, or offers help she doesn't need, or even gives her unsolicited advice. She is his business partner, whom he chose to work with of his own volition, and he treats her as such.

He does expect obedience from Katie Killjoy (an employee, whose soul he probably owns), and as her boss, he also expects her to do her work to his liking. She also spends half their interaction sexually harassing him. And beyond his initial rejection, he never says a word to stop her, even though he clearly doesn't like it. He just kind of puts up with it.

Vox is by no means a pushover, but his social boundaries are. Not good.

Anyway, there is nothing 50s about the way he interacts with women.

Of course, no discussion about gender roles is complete without the other side of the coin. 50s men were expected to be restrained, self-reliant providers and protectors. Emotional displays (including anger, when in public) were considered weakness. Caregiving was unmanly. And now we're talking about Vox himself, so as a man from the 50s, he should be doing his damndest to live up to these ideals, right?

Let's see. He can be self-reliant, but he doesn't want to be, so cross that off the list. He can be emotionally reserved, but he usually shows his emotions in private, even if he doesn't act on them, and his public persona is more upbeat and energetic than stoic. So cross that off. He goes out of his way to make sure Valentino eats, and expresses concern about him not eating, which would fall under caregiving. Cross that off. The Vees all have jobs, which makes their income a collaborative effort, so he's not the sole provider for his family unit either.

The only box he really ticks, at least from the above list, is "protective". And given how quickly he reacts when the other Vees are threatened, I'm confident in saying he's protective because he is, not because it's expected of him. That's a score of... 1/5. So Vox does not particularly embody the 50s ideal of masculinity. In fact, by those standards, he is a complete and utter failure: weak, overly feminine, and frankly pathetic.

Hmmmm.

So! In conclusion:

"Vox acts like a white man from the 50s!"

Fucking HOW?

[its-a-seikret]

Tbh I don't understand anyone who denies their favorite character's flaws and acts like they've never done anything wrong when that is like consistently the most interesting part of any character ever

[freakbeastcentral]

also not a fan of the concept of hearing characters talk in therapy speak like it’s natural dialogue but the shit i’ve seen people call “therapy speak” makes me think idk man i think that’s just like two people talking

[freakbeastcentral]

“you didn’t mean to but you hurt me” “i’m sorry” is not a therapy speak exchange they teach you how to talk like this in first grade like

[diamondringsandgutterbones]

"get a job" "unemployed behaviour" okay but like. girl your ableism

[heating-element]

girl your abelism. girl your inexplicable capitalistic worldview. girl your view of labour productive for capital being directly tied to your worth as a person. but also really holy shit girl your abelism!

[hungry-skeleton]

Why isn't "too scary" a good enough reason to never drive a car

[joleneghoul]

i think censoring subtitles is actually ableism