#and assuming that they are racist due to its history

[ladyimaginarium]

coining the term twospiritphobia / twospiritmisia.

Q: what is twospiritphobia / twospiritmisia?

A: the discrimination, hatred, exclusion & erasure of those who identify as two spirit and/or indigiqueer.

Q: why not just call it homophobia/transphobia against indigenous qipoc / queer indigenous poc?

A: because not every indigenous person identifies by western lgbtqia+ labels which are a predominantly western eurocentric concept that does not always align with indigenous turtle island concepts, not all queer natives identify with two spirit due to its heavy inherent historical, social, political, cultural, spiritual & ceremonial connotations & because we deserve to have our terms to describe our own experiences of discrimination that inherently includes our indigeneity & our own sacred two spirit nature.

Q: why did you(&) coin this term?

A: because i've noticed that in the past year & even before, the predominantly white queer community refuses to include us let alone see us & when they do, it's usually to tokenize us then throw us away when we're no longer convenient, erase us (see: nex benedict, when the mostly white queer community erased their indigenous two spirit identity to make them their trans/nonbinary martyr despite them being choctaw & completely ignoring mmeiwg2s+/mmeip issues which is never talked about in queer spaces unless natives talk about it), talk down to us when we don't conform to your western concepts of gender & orientation that do not inherently apply to us, speak over us & our issues & push us out of your fucking queer spaces without ever actually trying to work with us despite the fact that we the two spirit community who were revered as sacred have existed on turtle island for over 5000 years & were the first victims & survivors of racist imperialist homophobic & transphobic based war crimes & genocide & have been fighting & resisting for our liberation far before anyone else ever set foot on these lands, longer than any other queer community on turtle island, longer than stonewall & whenever queer history is brought up, two spirit people & the violence against us from the beginning of colonization of turtle island are never discussed & quite frankly i've had enough of native erasure both historically speaking & in the present day. there's a reason why there's a 2s in front of 2slgbtqia+ in "canada", because we were here first. we will not be erased. there can be no liberation without two spirits at the center of queer activism. by adding this to your vocabulary you acknowledge & honor two spirits as the first queer people of turtle island & we deserve your allyship, respect, protection & solidarity, respect the indigenous roots of the term two spirit, honor indigenous peoples' way of living, loving & learning & building communities across turtle island, emphasize the importance of indigenous perspectives & identities within the broader 2slgbtqia+ community & further acknowledging & recognizing the historical & ongoing contributions of indigenous peoples to discussions about gender & sexual diversity & highlights the need for visibility & inclusion of two spirits in these conversations & acknowledging, respecting & honoring indigenous peoples as the traditional stewards of the land & that indigenous peoples were the first to build communities that honored romantic, sexual, gender & sex diversity on the land of turtle island ever since time immemorial.

Q: what are some examples of twospiritphobia?

A: the erasure of two spirits both historically & in the present, assaulting/committing hatecrimes against individuals who are, or who are perceived or assumed to be two spirits, nonnatives — both white settlers & nonnative poc — culturally appropriating two spirit when it's an exclusive closed term from closed cultures for indigenous people of turtle island, if you are not first nations, métis, inuit, indigenous american, alaska native, indigenous mexican, indigenous central american, greenlandic inuit or otherwise not indigenous to turtle island and/or mixed with any of those groups, & you are not either reconnecting, semiconnected or connected to your culture, you cannot use the term, using antinative slurs against two spirits on any context or form that one cannot reclaim and/or using said antinative slurs casually/as insults, harassing/threatening/mocking/intimidating two spirit individuals while motivated by said individual's two spirit & indigenous identity whether online or face-to-face, treating two spirits differently than pericishetallo natives, even if one is native themselves, attempting to "correct" two spirits on their own identities, saying our two spirit identities are wrong, using religion and/or spirituality as an excuse to harm or exclude two spirit people, fetishizing/objectifying/sexualizing/romanticizing individuals based on their two spirit identities, opposing and/or dismissing the need for explicit two spirit representation & progress for two spirit rights & two spirit liberation, erasing two spirit issues as inherently gay/trans issues, not acknowledging twospiritphobic behavior in others, refusing to speak up for two spirit people, telling two spirits that they're unnatural or "attention seeking", speaking over two spirited people when they tell you you're being racist/being twospiritphobic, policing two spirits on who we can & can't be in relation to ourselves especially from nonnatives even more from white settlers, accusing two spirits of "oppression olympics" whenever we bring up our issues, not acknowledging two spirits as the first queer people who've existed for thousands of years on turtle island & denying indigeneity as the core element of being two spirit.

disclaimer: do not fucking remove credit from us& being the coiner of this term, while the experiences of twospiritphobia/twospiritmisia are nothing new, we& as an indigenous bodied system demand respect as the coiner of this term. please ask if you intend on using this term on your wikis/masterlists. do not use this term for yourself to describe your experiences if nonnative/2S. nonnatives do not fucking derail, especially yt folx.

[absoluteocellibehavior]

Oscar and Our Lady of Guadalupe

I've talked a bit about Oscar and his connection to Mary on here, but I figured it would serve best to actually put it together coherently.

Firstly, I must address the fact that, like many of the other people in the Malevolent fandom, see Oscar as Hispanic. Now, you may be saying "Ocelli! How in the world could Oscar be Hispanic? He is very clearly Scottish. Listen to him." yada yada and I hear ya. I hear ya. However, I cannot get the image of it out of my mind and this was before there was a lot of fanart of him out there. However, I do have some mild evidence of this. The Hispanic population in New York is very little in the 1900 area which is about the time we are estimating that Oscar was born. However, it's not zero. Additionally, there is a large percentage of Hispanic people that are Catholic, making Oscar's parents much more likely to have given him to a Catholic orphanage. With such a low population of Hispanics in New York coupled with the spike in racist nationalism occurring at the time due to European immigration, it is very likely that Oscar's family didn't have the means to raise a child. Based on the fact that Oscar never knew his parents, it's most probable that he was dropped off as a baby in which he was still learning how to speak. Therefore, he has a Scottish accent because he learned how to speak from his Scottish caretakers. This also gives reason for Oscar ostracization in the orphanage. Unfortunately...racism. It's assumed that Oscar never got adopted due to his violent act against Father McKenna, but this probably only agitated the motivations of not adopting him due to his race as well. Oscar's role in the church is somewhat in the background. It's assumed that he would run certain masses but based on the amount of availably he had in Season Four, it's probably just to fill in for daily mass. Rather, he focuses on serving the community. He would have been increasingly difficult for him to have been an authority figure in the church, but he fought tooth and nail for it in order to be able to balance out the evil in the magisterium like Father McKenna. This doesn't mean that they'd allow him to do everything he should be able to, hence him being put in the "messy" jobs so to speak. Oscar loves what he does, and he won't ever complain about it nonetheless.

With that explanation out of the way, I'm going to double back to the fact that Oscar NEVER was adopted. He never had a healthy father or mother figure in his life. So, I find it likely that Oscar would lean into Mary and Joseph as his spiritual parents. Think about it. I love the idea that he wears a rosary constantly. Someone once explained to me that holding the rosary was the equivalent of holding Mary's hand. So, Oscar wears a rosary as a symbol of his mom's protection and her watching over him.

Something that only enhances this, is Oscar discovering the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe. As Catholics, we believe that there have been multiple appearances of Mary all over the world. One of which (my personal favorite) is Our Lady of Guadalupe. As the story goes, Mary appeared to St. Juan Diego, an Aztec convert to Christianity in the 1500s, four separate times as a woman of mixed Indigenous and European features. She asked for a shrine to be built on the place which she appeared at (Tepeyac Hill) which the bishop of the region hesitated to do. On the fourth appearance, Mary instructed for Juan Diego to gather roses from that hill and bring them to the bishop. These roses were miraculous for two reasons: they were blooming in the middle of winter, and they were native to the bishop's homeland of Castile. When Juan Diego opened his cloak full of roses, an imprint of Mary was revealed to be on the inside of the cloak that we know as the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Our Lady of Guadalupe plays a large role in not only Mexico's religion but in its overall history. All that is to say, I think Oscar would find great comfort in not only Mary, but specifically Our Lady of Guadalupe. In the face of persecution, he was able to look up to Our Lady of Guadalupe and St. Juan Diego for guidance and spiritual support (yes, yes, he wasn't canonized until Pope John Paul II but this happened centuries earlier and he would have heard about it. Sue me). Additionally, I’d like to think Oscar picks his birthday to be December 12th, Our Lady of Guadalupe’s Feast Day, in order to share it with his “mom”.

Well! There you go! This is a very important Oscar headcannon to me and I thought you all might appreciate it!

[inanimateinsanitywiki]

im so sorry to ask because i know its a big deal in the fandom but if you don’t mind could you just quickly recap what taylor and justin did? im a little confused

taylor was removed from the team primarily due to an incident where he was getting into fights with fans defending an animator who did some racist shit at a meetup + generally being hard to work with and prone to getting into shit with fans in general. you'll still see people defending him to this day because they think he was fired over one misunderstanding, but people who have been around for as long as i have know that he has a long history of being a generally unpleasant person.

we don't know the specifics of what happened with justin because the other person involved isn't comfortable talking about it (entirely understandable, we know enough to get the gist of what happened and further details aren't necessary), but it can be assumed that they were removed from the team due to being predatory towards fans. we do know that they were in some kind of "relationship" with a fan who was 18 while they were 27, which while not illegal, is still EXTREMELY SKETCHY especially considering that they were in a position of power over them as one of the directors of a show they were a fan of. you'll see people throw around the word "parasocial" a lot when discussing this specific incident, but the victim has gone on record saying it was more than that.

[genderkoolaid]

hi! i was wondering if you'd be willing to do an analysis of the aromantic manifesto thats been going around? most of the ppl ive seen so far have been from either non-aro queer ppl or non-loveless aros and i cant find any loveless aros talking about it, and ik thats something youve talked abt b4 (loveless aros i mean) id love to also see your thoughts on it.

So funny enough I saw this manifesto a while ago, but didn't really have any thoughts on it because I had too much trouble reading it for brain reasons, because its just. A lot.

So @spacelazarwolf compared this to lesbian separatism/radical feminism and I think that is pretty apt. Radical feminism takes accurate criticisms of the patriarchy (such as gender as a tool of oppression and misogyny) and comes to the conclusion that gender is, in all forms, inherently oppressive, men are inherently oppressors, and that to personally identify with gender roles or men in any way contributes to oppression, so we must take on political lesbianism to reject this.

This manifesto seems to do the same with amatonormativity. There are real criticisms of amatonormativity in queer spaces here; aromantics have talked a bit about how focusing queer liberation on romantic love as a reason why we shouldn't be oppressed is alienating, and how queer spaces often reinforce amatonormativity. But it then comes to the polarized conclusion that romance is itself oppressive, identification with romance contributes to oppression, and that we must take on (essentially) political aromanticism to reject this.

Which, like political lesbianism, is just... unnecessary? This is not the only conclusion we can come to as a result of these criticisms. And these conclusions prioritize abstract political theory over people's real lives and autonomy. Which is a big reason (although not the only one) why radical feminism fell apart, because eventually women got tired of having to structure their entire lives and identities around acting out Good Political Theory instead of being able to. y'know. Be themselves? But also, these kinds of conclusions are so absolute and polarized. They assume that nothing about gender or romance can grow and be improved.

There are parts of this manifesto I like. The line "The first big ruse of romance is that it is ubiquitous because it is natural, and it is natural because it is ubiquitous" I think is actually pretty cool and can be adapted to all kinds of things; for example, capitalism does the same thing, taking over as much of the world as possible & erasing other ways of life, and then using its dominance as evidence thats its just how humans naturally are. It brings up criticisms of love that are big parts of lovelessness, like the idea that love is inherently a good thing when it can be harmful and still be "love."

But then it takes the... strange path of saying that if people can't help how who they love, then neither can racists and transphobes and fatphobes, which is why romance is inherently oppressive. But like. Even within relationship anarchy, where all hierarchies are rejected, this problem won't disappear. Its a problem of attraction & how social systems shape how we think.

I also disagree with how it frames private vs public life:

Public life concerns the interests of people as citizens and is regarded as a legitimate sphere of social intervention. Private life concerns the interests of people as consumers/individuals and is nobody’s business but those privately involved. While the domestic sphere fashioned by heterosexual kinship relations has been historically designated as private life, queer intimacies have instead been regarded as a matter of public concern due to moral panics associating them with predation and perversion throughout history.

I disagree with this framing of private life as something which is seen as "nobody's business." Maybe that's true on the small scale of social politeness and ideals. But on a systematic level, to me, this is absolutely untrue, and its something I've been doing some thinking about with regards to modeling the patriarchy.

The patriarchy is greatly concerned with the private lives of individuals. In order to keep its control over society in general via gender-sex-sexuality, its important to control how people interact with others. Even heterosexual, cisgender relationships haven't been free from patriarchal scrutiny; the wife must submit to the husband, the children must submit to the parents, and the queers must be kept outside the home. Again, on the level of neighborly politeness, people are going to say "what happens in the home is none of my business." But a relationship where the wife is the breadwinner and the husband stays at home is easily subject to scrutiny because it threatens the patriarchal norms, which causes unease.

Romance, as a construct, is a tool of oppression in multiple ways. But the physical reality the construct is built on top of is not inherently evil. The feeling of romantic love is not inherently corrupt, the same way the feeling of gender isn't.

Their advice for abolishing romance also feels kinda... vague and unhelpful and messy. I'm still not really clear on what "abolishing romance" even entails because most of the things they list can be done while romantic relationships occur. It just reads like they took the ideas of relationship anarchy and made it political lesbianism 2

I, as an aromantic, find the idea of political aromanticism to be pretty gross. I know how it feels to be pushed towards a certain relationship with romance and I don't want to seen it done in reverse, and tbh I don't like the idea of making my identity into a political stance. Being aromantic absolutely influences my politics, but its also my experience as a person. Again, similarly to why it would be uncomfortable to have lesbian spaces be full of women who are not in any way attracted to women but are making a political statement.

It disappoints me that this manifesto's conclusion is that romance itself must be rejected, the same way radical feminism does. Because there are good points here, but all-or-nothing conclusion, to me, is more divisive than connective and that's a big problem. My feelings about gender abolition are that, if we achieve true liberation from the patriarchy, our construction of gender is naturally going to be very different. Perhaps those people will no longer use gender, or they'll just use it differently- but trying to force a specific outcome is unhelpful and clashes with individual autonomy and culture for the sake of political theory. Same goes for this. Maybe in a post-amatonormativity world, "romance" will lose meaning, or at least be very very different. But trying to force that outcome isn't helpful.

Anyways I hope these takes were interesting! Honestly given how much arophobia I've seen I'm worried people are going to see this manifesto and get hostile to a lot of aromantic ideas. So I wanna suggest that people check out I Am Not Voldemort by K.A Cook, which is where the concept of "loveless aros" came from, as well as The short instructional manifesto for relationship anarchy by Andie Nordgren, which created the concept of relationship anarchy. Both of these essays do a much better job at criticizing love & amatonormativity than this manifesto.

[albonoooo]

wait you hate jewish people? 😰

i'm going to assume genuine ignorance from your side.

of course i don't hate jewish people, i never said i do and i never would because it's just untrue. anti-zionism is not automatically anti-semitism. there are unfortunately people who use the former as an excuse for the latter, but i neither agree with nor encourage that.

i say i don't want zionists interacting with me because people who are of the opinion that a state founded and maintained via the expulsion and murder of the indigenous population of its land, a state which has been violating the human rights of palestinians since said founding and has been committing crimes so horrendous that numerous major international human rights bodies classify its actions as apartheid, not only has a right to exist in its current form, but is also in the right to commit a well-documented genocide and claim it as self-defense, are people completely void of empathy, critical thinking skills and any understanding of history and its consequences and so on and so forth.

due to my country's absolute disgrace of a government's foreign policy clown show, i've found myself time and time again in the past half year explaining to people that anti-zionism does not equal anti-semitism and genocide is not self-defense, which is shocking. i strongly encourage anybody to put in a little bit of effort to learn what they're actually talking about before they go around accusing random strangers of being antisemitic.

i hope this was understandable. i will not be answering any other asks regarding this and i will also continue to block zionists (as well as anti-semists, racists and all sorts of -phobes, which i naively assumed was obvious) on here.

[yen-sids-tournament]

Animated 9: Cinderella III: A Twist In Time v Return To Never Land

Cinderella III {original-Cinderella (1950)}

It is in the words of Seamus Gorman 'A Masterpiece'. In his series reviewing the Disney Sequels it was considered the benchmark to measure all other Disney Sequels by. I don't remember which sequel got the damning 'It was good but it was no Cinderella III: A Twist in Time.' This movie has it all: time travel, characters with 3d personalities, that one iconic meme where the king says 'I forbid you to take another step' and the prince jumps out the window. Its so silly, its so fun, it is a masterpiece. Link to the Seamus Review:

~Anastasia redemption arc and character development ~The cat, lucifer, gets more screen time ~The king has a backstory

Time travel, and the prince. "But the talking mice say she's the wrong girl" " I forbid you to take another step down these stairs!" "Ok!*jumps out the window*"

Return to Never Land {originial-Peter Pan (1953)} *spoilers?*

It follows Wendy's canonical daughter Jane, in every version of the story where Peter returns to the Darling's window, he meets Jane, and this story gives her her own adventure. with Wendy as a turn of the century child, it isn't too much of a stretch to assume Jane would be growing up in the middle of a deeply contentious time in British History, that being the London bombings of World War 2, and Unlike Wendy, whom needed to understand that she didn't WANT to never grow up and embrace her coming maturity as it arrives, Jane had been thrown into a position in her family where she had needed to grow up too fast, and in her trip to Neverland understand the importance of that child-like wonder she had nearly lost.As such, she starts out deeply skeptical and frustrated by the nonsensical nature of Neverland, and being more trusting of adults than of children whose attempts of 'playing with her' were little more than bullying with the thin veneer of 'just a game', which ultimately allows her to be manipulated by Hook. But even then manages to grow attached to the lost boys and connect with Peter and due to her inability to fly for most of the movie had almost fully integrated into the world of Neverland and became the first Lost Girl by the time of the third act.While it's held back by the painfully early 00's music it's ultimately a very compelling story about a child in a deeply traumatizing situation finding temporary haven in a place untouched by the war that had so deeply distorted her worldview and ultimately reclaiming her right to have a childhood after constant danger of death and destruction had nearly wrenched it from her entirely.(also there's no racist Native American stereotypes that exist just for the sake of themselves and could have easily been some sort of fantasy species but nahhh it was the 50s so native americans were SUPER okay to be racist about/s)

[zahri-melitor]

Reading Digger Harkness as an Aussie: why he’s specifically written to wind me up, the undercurrents of many of his appearances, and why he’s voting No in the Voice referendum.

(Okay if you know ANYTHING about Digger and about the Voice you already knew that, but making this current-relevant!)

George “Digger” Harkness is Captain Boomerang. He’s traditionally written by DC to be specifically, deliberately annoying and disliked. Due to this he’s simultaneously quite cleverly written while also being the laziest character stereotype imaginable.

One of the things that drives me up the wall every time I read him in a book is that due to a clash of a few things in his character design, the subtext he’s evolved over time is remarkably complex, but also geared to make me despise him. Also I can’t tell how much of it is deliberate on the writer’s part.

The first thing you need to understand is that Harkness is very specifically putting on a level of Australianness for his audience (the usually American characters around him). The fascinating thing in this is that, unusually for this trope, his writers are often aware he’s doing this. The common term for this is ‘ocker’. You can notice this in the language he uses: it’s specifically peppered with ‘Australian’ words and phrases.

Now this is a pretty common thing for writers to do to demonstrate a character is Australian. It sounds like someone trying to write Crocodile Dundee or Steve Irwin. However, to my ear (and years of putting up with this), the way it’s done for Digger is…off. It’s not the standard terrible way it’s used in American media, but it’s equally not written naturally for how an Australian who natively speaks ocker/broad would use it. Digger’s playing it up, and he’s playing it up badly. (the closest comparison I can make than an Australian might understand is he sounds more like Russell Coight than Steve Irwin, with all that implies) He wants people to think he’s an Australian stereotype.

Heck, let’s break down his name for a demonstration of this.

Captain Boomerang: this is a very, very, loaded name. Digger’s specifically racist, and he’s racist in a very White Australia Policy sort of way. The writers are aware he’s racist. He uses a boomerang as a symbol as he’s Australian (surface level) but they’re also specifically drawn as white a lot of the time, both in his costume and in the weapons themselves. They’re not plain wood or decorated with traditional art. They’re white. He has a history of making boomerangs and promoting them in Australia for sale, as a white guy, which is uhhhh Not Great. He’s assumed a traditional piece of Australian Aboriginal weaponry and culture as his own, and he’s painted it white. He’s asserting that it’s his culture now and has stripped it of its traditional meaning. (Also his boomerangs often don’t come back, and have sharpened edges and are used wrongly). He doesn’t like Black People ™ but also uses a weapon specifically associated with an oppressed minority in his place of origin. The white supremacy attitude is very much coded in.

“Digger” as a nickname: oh the way this clashes and interacts with the fact he uses ‘Captain’ as a title! Digger as a term is a general nickname for Australian Army soldiers. It comes from the Gallipoli landings and the trenches of World War I. By using it as his nickname, Harkness is evoking a whole HOST of imagery and specifically nationalist cultural imagery surrounding Gallipoli as a ‘birthplace’ of Australian identity, something that’s been weaponised particularly by the Australian political right for the past 30 years as a national symbol. In the stories that a country tells itself about who they are, Harkness is evoking a very major one and also one that can read as quite toxic if not done carefully. (if you need a quick entry to the way the nickname makes me wince, look up ‘Cronulla Riots’. That’s the sort of person his name is evoking for me) The other problem on top of this – this is a soldier’s nickname. Harkness has never been in the Australian military (as far as I can tell). Combined with the fact he uses the title of ‘Captain’, he’s suggesting he’s got a military background that he 100% does not have. He’s a giant hypocrite. Now being part of the military in Australia reads differently to being part of the military in the USA, in how society sees it, but this is still not on. It’s not a natural nickname for an Australian to have, in his circumstances. It doesn’t even make sense as a traditional ironic nickname given by his friends. Which means he picked it himself. And for that style of nickname…choosing your own? That’s considered to be poor form and trying way too hard. (And nicknames are culturally important! For the personality Harkness is trying to present to his audience, he SHOULD have a nickname like this. My father’s is ‘Bones’, for instance. But choosing your own, and choosing one that implies traits that are not yours to display? Really really bad form)

Basically in summary, Harkness is very much coded in a lot of ways to essentially be the Australian equivalent of someone who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. With that sort of view of his home country.

What is fascinating is that when Harkness interacts with other Australian characters, they do not like him, so the writers are aware that he’s been written to be this level of objectionable.

Now, some of this coding in his character has just accumulated over 60+ years as stereotypes have evolved and things have become ever more socially unacceptable. But the interesting thing here is that the writers ACKNOWLEDGE that unacceptable behaviour from Harkness.

I hate him so much. And I also want to fix his dialogue, which suffers from being written by Americans, to include a bunch more extremely country ocker sayings. He NEEDS to be saying things like “stone the flaming crows” and “fair shake of the sauce bottle” and “flat out like a lizard drinking” and “I didn’t come here to fuck spiders”. Because he’s putting it on. And these are the sort of things he’d lean in to to convey that level of “oh I’m not from around here, I am quoting Crocodile Dundee at you but you didn’t even realise” that he’s written to have.

[starstruckbyacomet]

Do Americans Hate Women?

Trump won the 2024 election. He's a sexual offender/rapist. He was convicted of digitally penetrating a woman's vagina without her consent (he was not joking when he said "grab a pussy" 🙄). He's a misogynist, a racist, and a fraudster. He was a Covid denier during his first presidential term, and has contributed to 1.2 millions of Covid death among Americans. Yet he won both the popular vote and the electoral vote in 2024 US presidential election. With such abhorrent resume, why did he win?

Because his opponent was Kamala Harris, who happens to be a Black female presidential candidate.

Americans have had a Black president before. Barrack Obama has triumphantly broken the glass ceiling with glorious two back-to-back presidential terms. He's been one of the most popular US presidents in recent history. He left the office with an unblemished reputation and adulation from all over the world. His legacy, the Affordable Care Acta (ACA) or Obamacare, stands to be remembered for a very long time.

Obama has proven that a POC could be a very successful president. That left Harris with another baggage: being a woman. Considering Americans have voted for Trump with his tons of red flags instead of Harris, people naturally wonder: do Americans hate women?

71% of 2024 voters are white (link), mostly cis het men and women with middle income, and identified themselves as Christians. Let's compare the risks and benefits of Harris vs. Trumps from their POV:

(As usual, Democrats and Republicans brought up opposite issues in their respective campaigns. We can assume that the risks / weaknesses of one candidate is the benefits of the other)

The biggest risks of Trump's presidency:

Diminishing right to abortion. A little more than half of voters are men. Most voters are middle class people who can afford to buy contraceptions. The risk of themselves need abortions due to health concerns is also low.

Reversal of marriage equality and LGBTQ+ rights. Most voters are cis het. This risk does not affect them directly.

Increased discriminaton towards POC. 71% of voters are white. This is not relevant for them.

Regressive policies about climate change. The climate change impact is slow and gradual. The earth will most likely still be standing even after the voters were gone.

Trump is a rapist, a misogynist, a racist, a fraudster, etc. It's a problem for people who have direct contacts with him. Most Americans don't.

The biggest risk of a female presidency (from voters' POV):

Women are too emotional and too weak to be a successful leader because their biology works against them.

Day-to-day experience of Americans only emphasized how unprepared women are to be leaders. Most single parents are women. Why? It's usually because their men are irresponsible scumbags who left them and their children. True. But it also means that men can take logical (albeit immoral) decisions without being affected by their feelings. And the fact that those women let themselves impregnated by irresponsible scumbags proves that women could be too emotional to take logical decisions. Women can't even make good decisions for themselves. How can they make good decisions for the whole country?

There is also the mysterious Pre-Menstrual Syndrome (PMS) which tortures a lot women every month. The effects on women are vary, from mood swing to debilitating pain that makes women bed-ridden for days. After the PMS era comes the menopause with its own health risks, from osteoporosis to endometrial cancer. Americans don't want their president to have mood swings while making important decisions, or to take three days PMS-related leave every month, or to have deteriorating health after menopause.

The biggest issue maybe the image problem. Americans want strong presidents who look like they can hold their grounds, and will not be intimidated during arguments and negotiations. Since decades ago, every president has been at least 6 ft. tall. Harris is 5'4".

There are hardly any successful female country leaders in recent history. New Zealand and Taiwan had ones, but both countries are tiny compared to the USA. Queen Elizabeth II was more of a glorified porcelain doll than an actual leader. UK's Theresa May and Liz Truss made news for their failures to hold on power. Even the great Angela Merkel of Germany had lost supports because her own supporters thought she had been too soft towards refugees (one of the stereotyped female baggages). Most Americans don't know about Ursula von der Leyen, the President of EU. The ones who know mostly think of her as a glorified administrator.

It doesn't get better in the US politics. Hillary Clinton made an unforgivable mistake by letting Americans died in 2012 Benghazi attack. Elizabeth Warrens failed to convince voters that she wouldn't raise their taxes to fund her programs. Sarah Palin became a national joke for spending $150,000 of campaign fund in clothing, hair-styling, and make-ups. Liz Cheney was/is a nepobaby, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too inexperienced and has little of actual achievements other than criticizing people left and right. The most successful female politician in the US history is arguably Nancy Pelosi, who knows better than put her own name in the ballots. Without even a single example of successful female political leaders in any big countries, Americans didn't want to gamble their fate by voting one for presidency.

Now, compared the risk of Trump vs. Harris from the average Americans' POV. The risks of Trump's presidency will not affect them directly, but the risks of Harris' presidency will. It makes sense that they voted for Trump.

I don't think most Americans hate women. They just don't trust women's ability to lead, moreover to lead their country. In their minds, female presidents come with too many baggages, while give too little benefits. They're not willing to take the risk of having one.

[erikaogrady]

Just watched the premiere of My Adventures with Superman and I have some thoughts.

I enjoyed the first season a lot when I watched it initially but I’ve soured on it since reading a lot more Superman comics and reading JESNCIN’s posts critiquing it (which you should all definitely check out, they explain all of their points much better than I could).

The first big issue I have is them having Jor-El reveal that Krypton was a conquering empire. The first season hinted towards that interpretation but I assumed/hoped that was just going to be a misunderstanding to make Clark conflicted about his heritage, but having Jor-El come out and confirm it means that’s just what Kryton was like. There’ve been a lot of interpretations of Krypton, some of which portray it as sort of a dystopian society, but it’s always been isolationist rather than a conquering empire. And if Krypton is a colonialist entity then you cannot effectively portray Clark as a refugee which this show really wants to do. Sure, they make it clear that Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van didn’t send Kal-El to Earth to invade it, but Krypton is dying due to the their own colonialist actions. Clark isn’t the survivor of climate disaster or genocide trying to find safety in a new world, he’s the last of a conquering people trying desperately to distance himself from Krypton’s legacy.

Another big concern I have is in making Kara Zor-El a baby when she leaves Krypton. One of the most notable and interesting things about Supergirl is that she, unlike Clark, remembers Krypton and lived through its destruction. While Krypton and its culture are all theoretical to Clark they are Kara’s lived experiences. Removing that history from Kara feels like a huge missed opportunity to explore more immigrant experiences, which this show is trying to do. If Kara had retained her history we could have seen a different side of Krypton from her perspective that could have served to flesh out the planet’s culture and perhaps shown that there are people on the planet who don’t agree with the planet’s colonialist history. But the show seems entirely disinterested in portraying Krypton as anything other than unsympathetic, which just doesn’t work if Kara and Clark are meant to be refugees misunderstood by Earth.

My third issue is Jimmy’s exchange with Lex about finding his own path. This could have been worked if Jimmy didn’t know anything about Lex and just saw a guy looking down and wanted to help him, but Jimmy knows that Lex is actively against Superman simply for being an alien, so why would Jimmy want to help someone he knows is actively publicly racist towards his best friend? That in addition to Lois telling Clark she’s not sure if they should find his cousin because she doesn’t trust Kryptonians other than Clark, feels like another example of these versions of Lois and Jimmy being weirdly insensitive of Clark’s experiences of allegorical racism. Which is weird when they’re both supposed to be people of color.

Overall it feels like the people behind this show did not think about the implications of any of the changes they made to Superman lore. In general I’m not somebody who cares to much about changes made in adaptation, I just want a good story, but every change made here actively works against what they’re trying to do thematically. There are so many comics that handle Clark’s status as a refugee and an immigrant in really compelling and effective ways (like Superman Smashes the Klan) but My Adventure of Superman feels like it’s working against itself.

Anyway, go check out @jesncin ‘s tumblr, they have a lot of great analysis of the show, and also go read Superman Smashes the Klan if you want a modern Superman story that handles immigrant themes better.

-https://www.tumblr.com/jesncin/737954867195314176/a-failure-of-asian-lois-lane-pt-2-my-adventures

-https://www.tumblr.com/jesncin/747518315382063104/i-hope-superman-fandom-as-a-whole-will-one-day

-https://www.tumblr.com/jesncin/749324579544186880/my-response-to-the-potential-of-exploring-an

[scoobydoo-monster-archive]

Ghost of Geronimo

SDWAY: Decoy for a Dognapper Note: in the episode the gang continuously refers to Indigenous Americans as "Indians" which is short for 'American Indian'. This is an outdated term that is incredibly offensive to a lot of Indigenous Americans due to the origin being directly related to the genocide they faced when Christopher Columbus landed on Turtle Island thinking it was India. I will not be repeating that behavior in this review. No, I dont care that its "just a show". Racism is always that deep, so lets talk about it.

Plot: Buck Masters dognapped the top 3 dogs from the dog show who could beat Big Red (his dog). Big Red was then going to turn up right before the show and win first prize.

Legend: Geronimo, not explained in the episode, was a Indigenous American military leader and medicine man who fought against the Mexican and US Military attempts to continue colonization of the Native land. Shaggy is the one who names the ghost of Geronimo. It is unclear if Shaggy actually thinks the ghost is Geronimo the soldier, or if that just the only Indigenous name he is aware of and it just racially profiling. Considering he calls both the projection, and the witch doctor mask (a different one then he originally saw) Geronimo, it can be assumed that whenever he is spooked by anything vaguely Indigenous American he throws out that name. We can also assume by the setting of the abandoned Indigenous village that the ghost and witch doctor are attempting to protect the territory, but none of this is actually touched on in the episode. The lack of context leads this episode to being not only racially insensitive but very clearly a form of US anti- indigenous propaganda.

IMO: I think learning about the history behind this episode is actually very interesting. This episode is clearly a biproduct of the deep rooted racism in America, and learning how that history plays a part in episodes like this being produced is extremely important. Unfortunately I don't think any of the show runners moving forward learned from their mistakes here. I have seen some takes on this framing it as a self aware call out since a white man is exploiting anti- indigenous racism to scare the gang. However, I want to challenge that notion by examining the parts of the episode that are only for the audiences consumption.

First we get Shaggy looking directly into the camera with "Man, its Geronimo!" This line is only informative to an American audience who grew up with anti-indigenous messaging being passed down to them. In 1950 the American Government started removing Indigenous Americans from their reservations and began attempting to assimilate them into white American culture to solve what they called the "Indian problem". This episode aired in 1969, the people who this episode was made for would have had this context which would help explain the abandoned village. This line only ads to that context by relating the ghost to an 19 century indigenous soldier.

We then get multiple examples of Scooby using racist stereotypes while a laugh track plays in the background as he attempts to mimic what he believes to be an Indigenous American. The first is a bit worse as the gestures are also accompanied by a stereotypical 'war cry' which within itself is a bastardized mockery of indigenous cultures. The second of which is Scooby holding stereotypical objects to cast a vague shadow in an attempt to scare Shaggy. The damning part of this scene is that these arent even the props that the actual villain used. These are just vague objects used to create a racist caricature. In conclusion, i do not think the creators intended to subvert the racism of the time by making a white man the villain. I think this is just another time capsule in the long history of anti-indigenous racism. It wasnt okay for the time, its not okay today, and it should not be okay in the future. Side note: the art of this episode was still very good, especially the backgrounds and the opening. Seeing other dogs in this episode was also nice, they were all adorable. And red color Scooby is great. We also see that the Mystery Machine has always been high tech. The messaging of 'we take dog napping seriously because we want to protect Scooby' is very heartwarming. We also see multiple different locations in the cold open of this episode which is nice to flesh out the town.

[ceasarslegion]

The main critique I've seen about Oppenheimer is that it leaves out minority history & is altogether a bit historically inaccurate. It drives me up a fucking w a l l because honest to fucking god what do they expect. It was made by a massive Hollywood studio, and in general these things are never historically accurate. And if Oppenheimer is going to get trashed for being a historically inaccurate & racist Hollywood telling then uh. I guess every historical hollywood movie shouldn't be watched either. I'm tired of people expecting Hollywood blockbusters to educate the population.

This mentality makes me so fucking irritated. Like lets run through the most common accusations, shall we?

-"its historically inaccurate" what part of "dramatization" did you not understand? Does every single portrayal of a historical event have to be 100% cold and accurate for it to be valid? Must everything be in textbook format? This film wasnt meant to be an educational piece, it was meant to be an exploration of the questions of morality and complicated geopolitics that surrounded the very complicated man who built the atom bomb. It's an artistic rendition, not a fucking documentary.

-"it leaves out x history" yeah, because it wasnt ABOUT that history. It was about oppenheimer. Why are you acting so shocked and scandalized that the movie called Oppenheimer was a biopic about Dr. Oppenheimer? Every single one of these accusations are about issues that even the irl Dr. Oppenheimer had nothing to do with.

-"movies about historical sad white men are bad." So did you come up with that chronically reductionist take on twitter or all by yourself? Because i dont know which would be worse. Extremely progressive of you to be out here fighting on the front line that matters the most: judging a 3 hour densely packed hollywood blockbuster biopic based on its cover. I hate to break this to you but people like Dr. Oppenheimer ARE very interesting historical figures due to the conditions around them, not because they were sad white men who felt bad about their roles in it or whatever. Extremely ironic to me that the same crowd morally posturing about how X Issue Film wasnt Y Issue Film are out here cutting themselves off from entire chunks of historical context because they dont fit into their neat little narratives of right and wrong, perpetrator vs victim dichotomies.

-"people are going to watch it and think the bombs were good" uh oh, someone hasnt actually seen the film and is assuming what its about! Along with the infantilizing assumption that the target audience of a nolan film is too stupid to have any critical thought of their own! You ever hear of the phrase "every accusation is a confession"? I think it applies here.

[antifathomable-shapeshifter]

i'm sure this true to some extent for all forms of oppression, but when i learned about and understood fatphobia specifically it was like opening pandora's box because that shit is so fucking blatant and everywhere that i end up justing standing there like

but more angry.

was gonna leave this in the tags but nah. vent under the read more:

maybe its because fatness is both strangely specific and yet not specialized to any one group. like its similiar to ableism except fattness doesn't actually affect your health directly, so fatphobes also pull on racist and gender-based-oppression tropes too

and its just so fucking??? accepttedd??? by everyone?????? NOBODY NOTICES THE GIANT RED BIGOTRY FLAGS SURROUNDING THE WAY WE TREAT FAT PEOPLE???????

i'm losing my mind. bigotry is so fucking insidious. and like i get it. society is complex and deep in history and customs. we are all raised in a fatphobic society and it takes effort to learn and push back on that.

but when we're already moving in a progress direction, i find it so frustrating when people don't/can't/won't take these ideas to their logical extreme. if trans people can cut their boobs and dicks off (/hyperbole), if disabled people can live wonderful lives with their disablity, surely, one would then assume there is nothing wrong with fat people existing. but its not that simple and a lot of people haven't even accepted any of these tenets.

i want to send love to all of the fat people who've had to put up with this bs. as someone who wants to be fat but is struggling due to health issues, i HATE that i have to JUSTIFY wanting a fat body.

like its not just a kind of body one can have or get. like its not the default / desired body type for general survival on an evolutionary scale. like its not a body that belongs to a PERSON.

its just a Body guys can we maybe calm the fuck down here???

[yen-sids-tournament]

Animated 2: Return to Neverland v The Pirate Fairy v Tinker Bell and the Legend of the NeverBeast

Return to Never Land {originial-Peter Pan (1953)} *spoilers?*

It follows Wendy's canonical daughter Jane, in every version of the story where Peter returns to the Darling's window, he meets Jane, and this story gives her her own adventure. with Wendy as a turn of the century child, it isn't too much of a stretch to assume Jane would be growing up in the middle of a deeply contentious time in British History, that being the London bombings of World War 2, and Unlike Wendy, whom needed to understand that she didn't WANT to never grow up and embrace her coming maturity as it arrives, Jane had been thrown into a position in her family where she had needed to grow up too fast, and in her trip to Neverland understand the importance of that child-like wonder she had nearly lost. As such, she starts out deeply skeptical and frustrated by the nonsensical nature of Neverland, and being more trusting of adults than of children whose attempts of 'playing with her' were little more than bullying with the thin veneer of 'just a game', which ultimately allows her to be manipulated by Hook. But even then manages to grow attached to the lost boys and connect with Peter and due to her inability to fly for most of the movie had almost fully integrated into the world of Neverland and became the first Lost Girl by the time of the third act. While it's held back by the painfully early 00's music it's ultimately a very compelling story about a child in a deeply traumatizing situation finding temporary haven in a place untouched by the war that had so deeply distorted her worldview and ultimately reclaiming her right to have a childhood after constant danger of death and destruction had nearly wrenched it from her entirely. (also there's no racist Native American stereotypes that exist just for the sake of themselves and could have easily been some sort of fantasy species but nahhh it was the 50s so native americans were SUPER okay to be racist about/s)

The Pirate Fairy {original-Tinker Bell (2008)}

>none submitted<

Tinker Bell and the Legend of the NeverBeast {original Tinker Bell (2008)}

It centres around Fawn aka the best Disney Fairy, KT Tunstell did the soundtrack which absolutely slaps and is unironically on my main playlist to this day. It made me cry when i watched it for the first and subsequent times. Its just so sweet and wholesome. Also apparently spice girl Mel B voiced a minor character in the UK release??? The voice casting alone makes this one of the franchises and films of all time.

[wodenscild]

Aaaaaaa things are getting wild here. For those who dont know next month we are having a referendum in enshrining an Indigenous Voice into the constitution. What this would mean is that there would be required Indigenous Representation in the Australian Parliament, which is MASSIVE! & honestly a real good step towards Reconciliation. I mean, given Aussie Invasion history, how horrid non-Indigenous consulted policies have been (cough cough the Intervention & the Stolen Generations to name a few), & the significance of acknowledging Country & the Elders- i wouldve assumed that were wouldve been no crazy backlash to this at all!

But nope- i was wrong =_= i’ll be honest i havent seen any backcry against the referendum until these past few weeks, except when the entire thing was even announced. Back then the main talking point for voting no was because it would give unequal racially biased representation… which is… straight up stupid? Firstly, the Voice would not be able to make & vote on laws, but rather only be able to suggest them. Saying it is racially biased is also just- stupid? Aboriginals & Torres Strait Islanders currently have nigh on none government representation. This is mainly due to the facts of non-Indigenous Australians vastly outnumbering Indigenous Australians & so their voices are heard above Indigenous ones, racism & social factors that generally stop Indigenous people from running in larger areas like along urban East Coast, & also a matter of culture & Reconciliation? Which is like- IMPORTANT!! Indigenous cultures all around the country, from Noongar Boodjar to Badu & Moa Islands, see the importance of having their Voices heard in the management of their Country, & those who live on it. Just as it was before Invasion.

Over the past few weeks things have just gotten mad tho. It started off with seeing a spray painted “Vote No” on a chair at a bus stop, which is… why? Why would you do that? It was weird. What really opened my eyes but to how fervently against this change people were was a demonstration i walked passed the other day while in the city. There were Eureka Stockade flags (which is the closest thing we sorta have to a Confederate flag), & upside down Red Australian flags being flown at each corner of the square of the plaza. It wss PACKED with people holding signs saying vote no. & the speaker- a European Australian who was yelling about how we shouldnt make this change & how itll divide the nation & how if we dont understand it that we gotta vote no- & the way she was speaking was like as tho she was an Elder telling histories of colonialism at an Invasion Day rally. The power & almost fear in her voice- & the amount of people there & cheering her on, it was honestly horrifying. Flying those flags, using ignorance to justify voting no as one would assume an excuse that wouldnt label them as racists, & all with such a passion i have only seen within protests & demonstrations IN FAVOUR of Indigenous rights. It was just- BOGGLING

Idk man its baffling. Any Aussies reading this, i know we are all required to vote & all, but when we get down to the polls, Vote Yes. & Vote with in mind yhe hope of further Reconciliation & with the hope that people like the ones at that protest will not win & will not keep a Voice away from those who not only need it, but deserve it.

[papirouge]

akira toriyama saying he had never seen a black person before designing his black characters is sus. like he'd never seen an international baseball game (baseball is popular in jpn) or basketball or the olympics at least. what about a famous artist like michael jackson? he did redesign some like staff officer black (yeah, he named one of his black characters black).

i remember soul eater had a few black characters. they gave the black nurse blue eyes for some reason, and the black teacher became a zombie when the series started so he stayed blue for the rest of the series. i remember they were promoting this anime made by a black man and his main female protagonist had dark skin but blonde hair and blue eyes. I dont know the obssesion with doing that, specially to brown and black female characters, but it's specially bizarre when it comes from a black person themselves.

i also recall eyeshield 21 also had a black character nicknamed black panther (or just panther), he appeared when an american team came to play with a japanese one and the white coach didnt let him play even though he was the best player because he was black and the coach wanted an all-white team because he was racist (to everyone who wasn't white, as he also looked down the japanese team). he was drawn quite differently to the rest, but so were the white characters, so i don't know if he'd be considered a caricature...

also, papi, have you noticed how characters in anime are getting like paper white, specially female ones? I'm talking they seem to be using the almost literal white color to color their skins, it's so uncanny. the other day I was watching azumanga daioh and the characters had darker tones even though they were still pale, and they actually had different tones between each other. then I watched lucky star and the characters started having that extremely pale skin, but you still had characters with darker tones like konata herself. then there's k-on and literally every single character has the same skin tone except mugi, whos paler since shes supposedly of european descent, and finally I checked bocchi the rock and EVERY single character had that same pale skin color, literally no variation. I think it's interesting how you can see this change with slice of life anime so clearly

this is stupid but something that has always bothered me its when anime and manga authors decide to make a foreign character, they always choose europeans or americans or any other white country, if not they choose a brown country and make them the lightest brown they can manage. like when pretty cure featured international cures, the only ones that werent european or northamerican were the indian ones, and the designed them SO fucking pale like they were applying too much whitening cream, what were they thinking??? then they had cure soleil, a spanish pretty cure, whose skin is literally orange. she looks like she spent too much time at the solareum more than actually being from spain. i think it's kinda funny how pretty cure has featured a boy cure now before a brown or black female cure but whatever.

but yeah, japan doesn't have the best history when it comes to black and brown characters, I guess western animation is better in that regard? i'm guessing french cartoons are better too due to france's multicultural background.

Honestly anon you would gain inner peace to not have any expectation when it comes to a decent representation of Black people from japanese mangaka lol

I grew up watching "Fushigi no Umi no Nadia", and as much it was nice to see a character looking like me, homegirl had blue eyes with non textured hair... The original storyline is she believing she was from AFRICA (when she's actually the king of some Atlantis king but whatever) so it was weird Hideaki Anno thought designing Nadia like that was conclusive in assuming she *might* come from Africa🤔

It doesn't stop me from applauding when Black characters are being done justice

I think the biggest glo up was in Street Fighter : from Elena (SF3) who's supposed to come from KENYA (???) and is a light skinned blue eyed white haired woman

(she looks like a mixed breed south american - not African, idc)

... to Kimberley who looks like an actual West African woman (I LOVE how they clocked the big forehead which is very Bantu lol i'm obsessed)

(and lmaoooo at Manon nose - they did France dirty lmao but it's true french people can have HUGE noses - look at Macron who is quintessentially so french in the face 💀)

The difference? Japanese team finally reaching out a (Black) consultant to pull out a compelling design.

I also checked her in game and I was relieved she was absolutely cute and feminine, and not brash, masculine or aggressive like most Black characters are depicted in pop media.

[stormandforge]

Raw reactions to X-Force #8

Who needs a Tank identity reveal when you can get a Sage real name reveal!

Spoilers below.

Meet Teresia Karisik, everyone. She's stolen the show and our hearts (also Forge's house) and no one's complaining.

Sage was always on my mind when I was writing about Forge needing a real name, because of course they were in the same situation: 40 years of history without a real name. I am SO glad Sage's getting her due.

Now the question is: how did Teresia become Tessa? Hypothesis: Charles Xavier being a racist dick.

Geoff Throne says he's trying to fill in the blanks when it comes to both Sage and Forge, so I'm hoping for a Forge name reveal soon. Praying. Crossing my fingers and toes. Begging Marvel to give Thorne the time he needs to go where he wants to go. (Ignore me, I'm just worried about the impending solicits.)

Sneaky wench protocols, lol. Sage's humour continues to be gold.

Aww, is that Sage wearing her signature look in blue? It's nice to see her out of the black. (We don't talk about the Jubilee coat, it didn't happen.)

Having too many tabs open has never looked this cool.

I'm amazed at how Thorne transcribes Sage's mutation. He just goes for it. Most writers shy away from Sage, even Claremont. They leave her as an unrealised premise, because embracing her power and its implications feels too technical. (I could make a comment about keeping complicated women out of sight, or being afraid of their power, and oh look, I just did). What she needed was someone who did their homework and just...took the risk. And now she's shining.

We're all Sage's bitches now, I hope you realise. She's making us read her code, and not only are we obliging, we're asking for more. We are now her bitches. I don't make the rules.

Is that Xavier calling her at the end? What right does he think he has to ask for her help? I get the feeling he's using her name as a way of getting her attention as well, regardless of whether it's ok for him to use it. Absolute d***. Oh, I cannot wait for her to kick his ass next issue.

Marcus To + Sage close ups = happiness.

Oh Forge's eyes are shining like crazy. He has a power signature. My boy has a visible power signature 🥹

He just used his magic and his mutation at the same time. Like, in tandem. A combination of the two. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH SHITTY FANFIC TEENAGE ME WROTE ABOUT THIS?

Is that new though, or are we to assume he's always done it?

And now he's speaking in Cheyenne. I just died.

Geoff Thorne's Duolingo probably looks unhinged at this stage.

Oooooh, page turn on Forge making an entrance, NICE!

Let's think about the implications of what La Diabla's saying: is she just disparaging Forge's power, or is she implying that he's already built the wrong machine, or broken something?

I already liked Corazón, but the moment she first called Forge ''mi amor'' she became my soul sister. I call him that too. In my head. Sometimes out loud.

Forge calls the team his machine, or his fix. Does La Diabla mean something similar when she talks of an equation? Is the team the equation that needs balancing? Or is she trying to lead Forge to a certain point? I wanna knoooooow!

Yes, the Tank mystery is dragging at this stage. I don't think this issue eliminates Colossus as a contender though - we're just none the wiser.

Love all the swearing. It feels organic, so it works.

'Lady Braddock' is being used too liberally I think. When Forge said it once I thought it was cute, meant in an affectionate way. But now it's both Forge and La Diabla doing it, so it's starting to sound sarcastic.

Artists of Tumblr, here's a prompt: draw Betsy's Vogue and Elle spreads. Go!

Betsy's power signature making it look like she's surrounded by little hearts 💜

A very action-packed issue. My taste is with a slower pace, but this was great all the same.