Spades and Stings - On March, Pt. 3 and 4
(unedited)

#TheBlogSeries

This is tomorrow y'all. For those for whom Posh isn't working, you can register using this new link.

See y'all tomorrow :)))
(I'll be the one in the black t-shirt with the big Shapers logo)

Waiting for y'all :)))

Fridging and Misogynistic Tropes in Literature

The question of whether female characters are written well has long concerned authors and audiences. Tests like the Bechdel test, the Mako Mori test, and others attempt to measure representation, but another approach is identifying recurring tropes that reflect bias. One such trope is fridging.

What are tropes and what is fridging?

Tropes are common narrative devices or patterns used across stories to establish expectations or quickly communicate ideas. Examples include the damsel in distress (Cinderella), the chosen one (Harry Potter), and the mentor (Obi-Wan Kenobi). Tropes are shaped by culture and power structures, and they often carry embedded biases. One persistent bias in storytelling is misogyny: reducing women to supporting roles, limiting their agency, or defining them through male relationships. Fridging is one manifestation of this.

Fridging refers to female characters being harmed, assaulted, or killed primarily to motivate a male protagonist’s emotional arc rather than serve their own narrative purpose. The term comes from Green Lantern #54, where Kyle Rayner’s girlfriend Alexandra DeWitt is murdered and her body discarded, prompting his story arc. Other commonly cited examples include Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man, Vanessa in Deadpool 2, and Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight, where their deaths primarily function to advance male protagonists’ guilt, rage, or transformation rather than explore their own narratives.

However, not every female death is fridging. Tragedy is a normal part of storytelling. Fridging occurs when a character lacks meaningful agency, when her suffering exists mainly to advance another character, and when the narrative shows little interest in her life beyond that function. A useful counterexample is Eo from Red Rising. Her death motivates Darrow, but she is not reduced to a passive plot device. She chooses to resist the system knowingly, making her death an act of ideology rather than narrative disposal. More importantly, Darrow’s revolutionary path is shaped not only by grief but by Eo’s beliefs, which continue to influence the story long after her death.

The pattern is not exclusive to women. Male characters can also be used as motivational sacrifices, such as Uncle Ben in Spider-Man or Mufasa in The Lion King. However, female characters are disproportionately placed into this role, especially in action and superhero narratives. Male deaths are more often distributed across multiple narrative functions, while female deaths are more frequently reduced to emotional catalysts for male growth.

If you're a reader trying to flag fridging, the following elements could be indicators: a lack of character development before death, absence of the woman’s perspective, and a sudden shift of narrative focus from her life to a man’s emotional reaction. If you're an author trying to avoid fridging, you should ensure female characters have independent arcs, agency, and thematic significance before any harm occurs. If a character dies, the story should treat that death as meaningful within her own narrative, not just as fuel for another character’s development.

All in all, fridging is not about avoiding female suffering in stories, but about recognizing patterns where women are systematically denied narrative independence. Critiquing it helps highlight when storytelling reduces characters to functional tools rather than full participants in the narrative world. At its core, the goal is not restriction, but richer writing: stories where every character’s life, choices, and consequences matter beyond. their usefulness to someone else’s arc.

Thing about Hope:

There are a lot of things she used to tell me/show me as a freshman that I... not ignored per se, but kept in mind and learned at my own pace that now, looking back on it, realize she was so damn right on. There are two things, mainly:

- Rule of three in productivity
Basically, the idea of only having/working on three things at a time at the maximum. Less than three (or two, depending on who you are) doesn't keep you on your toes and is lowkey boring, more than that gets you overwhelmed. If you had met me before this semester, I was on the two extremes; I either had nothing going on or I had 10 things going on. But since sometime in January, I decided to follow the rule of three principle and not overextend myself and damn, never been such productive in my life. Been getting things done, been moving quite fast, but without sacrificing my mental health (well... a bit of my sleep, but it's balanced), it's really been a good thing. Definitely a rule of thumb I'll follow moving on.

- The way she approached people, communities, and the places she stayed in
Looking back on it, I'm surprised by how accurate her judgement had been in places and people. Not saying she was perfect, but there were quite some people that I interacted with knowing her judgement in mind and yeah... I've learnt my lessons. One thing I've come to admire and trying to emulate has been the principle of "if it's not serving you or if the conflicts aren't worth staying, leave it". I've slowly been trying to implement that, and boyy, do you need that for your peace of mind.

Make of this what you will?

First performance of my child 🥹🥹

On Elections - Yap Moment
(unedited)

Hey guys,

I'm working on an idea around helping people get support for projects they want to build through community feedback and community backing.
Basically this is the idea.

Founders submit their projects on a public portal with a clear goal and full budget breakdown. The community can openly question and refine those budgets before anything moves forward. After that, projects are voted on and the strongest ones are selected for a live meetup where they pitch directly to the community.

Funding is fully peer-to-peer and works on an all-or-nothing model. People pledge support in cash or in resources like skills, tools, or connections. If a project reaches its target within a short collection window, the funds are released and the project moves forward. If not, no money is taken.

Every funded project is held accountable through public updates, receipts, and final outcome reports, creating a permanent transparent record of what was built and what was delivered.

It's still very early, but I'm looking for a few people who think it's interesting and would like to help build it.

If that sounds like something you'd be interested in, let me know. I'd love to chat.😊😊

DM me at @Nazrawitb

A reminder

For people asking me how to get better at art, I wrote this article.

Hope it helps :)

APLEO is Live.

🕸 apleo.xyz

Get started to get tailored opportunities @ApleoXYZBot or you can checkout all opportunities @ApleoScholarshipsEthiopia

#APLEO #LAUNCH

Anyone that knows youth organizations here that work on agriculture and food systems, DM me please.
Contact: @not_eldana

Thanks in advance :)