#arguments welcome

[somelokivariant]

Would the avengers wear their own merch?

Tony: abso-fucking-lutely and it'll be the cringiest things too like bobble heads he also has spiderman themed things and all the other (6) avengers

Nat: prolly not- but scarjo makes me want to say yes

Thor: honestly probably doesn't know what merch is or if theres Thor merch. But if he did: hell yeah he would. I'm thinking mjolnir print pajama pants.

Clint: no; he finds it annoying

Kate tho has all the Hawkeye merch made (and when she gets her own she'll buy those too

Bruce: no he'd be shy ❤️ Prof Hulk would tho, for shits and giggles

Steve: no; he hates wearing that stuff

Sam however has all the steve-cap and sam-cap merch

[hubnert]

Ianthe drawing courtesy of @starcanist

[crumb-crumblet-s-crumbington]

willingly unloved

[lotsofspiders]

Have not stopped thinking about this as a concept

[iphnh]

The Origin of Misogyny: It is not Men’s Socialization or Men’s Nature, but Men’s Ability

The idea that misogyny comes from socialization is circular logic. Misogyny comes from misogynistic laws and religions? Who made the laws? Who made the religions? How is it possible that women were  socialized to be subservient to men in so many cultures, even ones that had no previous contact with each other?

However, the idea that misogyny comes from men’s nature is also flawed. Yes, men’s hatred of women is extremely common, as previously established, yet it is not completely universal. There have been matriarchal societies. And in our day-to-day interactions with men, we do notice differences between men based on how they were raised and their respective day-to-day environments.

So what is the root of misogyny, if it’s not men’s socialization or men’s nature? 

I think a more useful way of understanding misogyny (and honestly all forms of oppression) is not to focus on socialization or nature but on ability.

Men have a unique ability to harm women in a way that women cannot harm men. Men can impregnate women. Women cannot impregnate men. On top of having this unique ability, men also have major incentives for doing it: by impregnating a woman, they receive pleasure and a lineage. Unlike women, they also run such a small biological risk for producing a child. After having their orgasm, nothing else is biologically required from them. At worst, they might get an STD.

You might argue that some men are gay or do not want children. That’s all very much true. However, I am not arguing that men have a natural impulse to use their ability. I am simply stating that they have the ability. It is also important to understand that men exist as a class, as well as individuals. While individual men might not even have the ability to impregnate (due to infertility), we can hopefully understand that men as a class have this ability.

If it helps, we can think of this unique ability like a gun. Half of the population is born with a gun (ability to impregnate)  and a bullet-proof vest (inability to be impregnated); the other half is born with neither. The ones born with the gun and the bullet-proof vest  are not necessarily born with a natural impulse to fire the gun--but they are nonetheless born with one.

Even if a man never hurts someone with the gun, I want you to imagine how his psyche is formed just by virtue of having it. Imagine walking into a room with a gun and a bullet-proof vest, and no one else in the room has either. Even if you would never use the gun…just having one gives you a sense of protection, and perhaps a sense of superiority and power. Even if you would never use your tacit threat, you nonetheless have a tacit threat. And now imagine the psyche of those without the gun or the vest. They are vulnerable, and know that they are vulnerable, to the ones who do have one. And so their options are to either appease those with guns and vests, always tip-toeing around them--or to band together.

The ability argument answers the questions that the socialization argument fails to address; namely, it answers the question “where do sexist laws and religions come from?”  It comes from men’s unique ability to harm women in a way that women cannot harm men. This is not to say that men have a natural impulse to harm women--just that they can. 

[satandidyoumissme42]

i don't think these guys would fight tbh i feel like they would be ok acquaintances buddies at most

[carnivalcarriondiscarded]

In sally and poppy's character page it says "Sally and Poppy are often depicted together and, according to recovered material, could potentially be best friends."

and to that i say, best friends my ASS!! those are lesbians right there

oooo i actually talked about this in the update stream when i was reading the updated bios! to restate!

a common Cover for lesbians used to be "best friends". why are those two women living together? why they're best friends, so why not! why do these women spend all their time together? they're best friends! why are those women so physically affectionate - well! they're best friends! an excuse that would never fly with gay men is perfect for lesbians.

and you still see this in recent years! remember all of the posts making fun of facebook moms / grandparents seeing photos of lesbians and going "well they seem like a lovely pair of Best Friends!" this still happens! i'm sure there are people today seeing lesbians and thinking that they're best friends. the amount of times i've pointed out to my own parents "they're gay" and gotten surprise and sometimes even denial is response because they genuinely thought these blatantly gay people were only friends

to me and my current knowledge, this addition to Poppy & Sally's bios is evidence worth considering with this context. a tally in the "canon Popstar?" box!

[tales-of-snaktooth]

Welcome, Captain Seaside | Year 287 | Part 4

First | Prev | Next

Monohorn, the island's most unserious grumpus

[the-power-of-stuff]

I just wanna put it out there that this is a Netflix Live Action ATLA safe space.

Does this mean that I like or agree with every choice the live action made? Definitely not. But it does mean that overall I find the live action interesting to talk about, even when it comes to the stuff I took issue with. It means I'm interested in hearing and sharing critical opinions as well as praise, and I'm interested in interpretations that are different from mine. And I will always try to approach things inquisitively and to judge the show for what it is (which, let's be honest, is basically someone's canon divergent fanfiction put to screen).

But what I'm not interested in is being right, or tearing the show down. So if you're looking for a place to read or share opinions about the live action that skew positive, or that are critical without being angry, or that are relatively neutral with maybe a dab of scientific curiosity, I hope you can find that here.

[pynkhues]

I recently read an article in which Quentin Tarantino stated that fewer movie stars exist as a result of "Marvel movies in Hollywood." I think Jennifer Aniston made a similar argument before saying that there are no longer any movie stars. I'm not sure what that means. I can think of a lot of movie stars right now, such as Zendaya, Timothee Chalamet, and Zoey Deutch etc. what do you think? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this and Quentin's comments.

QuillBot's

Months ago, when you sent me this ask, anon, I wrote out a really long reply and as soon as I hit post, my laptop crashed and ate the answer, and I was so annoyed at myself for not saving my reply, that I couldn't bring myself to try and re-write an answer. I'm really sorry for that, especially because I think this is such an interesting ask (or well, two asks, because I think the death of the movie star and the impact Marvel's had on the broader concept of a movie star, are kinda two different things).

I've been thinking about it a bit again recently though, particularly as the Oscar race gears up, and Jacob Elordi and Charles Melton''s respective stars are rising in an industry currently desperate to find the new young Hollywood male 'talent', and I've been thinking about it again because honestly?

I agree with Jennifer Aniston, I think the movie star is dead.

We are a long, long way from Golden Age Hollywood where actors like Cary Grant and Marilyn Monroe could captivate a public imagination in a way that translated to big box office effect, after all. Hell, we're even out of New Hollywood, an era dominated by names like Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, and Jane Fonda, and the Blockbuster era with Tom Cruise, Sylvester Stallone and Harrison Ford.

My original reply went into a lot of the different reasoning as to why this is (like with many things, I don't think there's any one reason for it), in particular how the advent of streaming has changed our relationship with films and TV shows, how the saturation of the market has diluted the staying power of celebrities, how social media and the perceived accessibility of celebrities removes personal mystique which in turn removes intrigue and increases a sense of entitlement, and the fact that so many people having stopped going to the cinema means that the experiential element of seeing a film in a setting larger than life has been diminished.

I think call out culture plays a role too, with any actor on the rise being torn down by tweets they made eight, nine or ten years ago impacting how their star rises, I think the dismantling of the studio system (which is a good thing!) also harmed actors in the long run as studios stopped investing the same resources into making and training stars (they used to be able to sing, dance and act! Now some can barely even act!), and I think, of course, the rise of prestige TV changed the industry substantially (after all, movie stars were movie stars - they traditionally did not, and would not, do TV, which created a clear class structure in terms of screen-based storytelling).

And yeah, I think the language shift from film and TV to content has done irrepairable damage to the artistry of filmmaking and the consideration of a movie star as an actor at the top of their field instead of an actor with the most Insta followers or YouTube subscribers (after all, if everything's content, isn't it the same thing? [no lol]).

Which I guess is kind of where Quentin Tarantino's argument comes in, right? What he's saying is that Marvel's made it so that the IP - the content itself - is the star, not the actor, and I'd say he's probably right with that.

Think of it this way - back in the New Hollywood/Blockbuster era, Harrison Ford was the movie star - he was leading new franchises left-right-and-centre between Star Wars and Indiana Jones, sci fi epics like Blade Runner, leading action thrillers like Patriot Games, The Fugitive and Clear and Present Danger and getting nominated for Oscars for Witness.

He was a movie star in every sense of the word because you could hinge a film - one with a new concept, not just remakes or sequels - on him and be virtually guaranteed a success. He was what sold the tickets, the director just hopefully had to make something good enough people would leave the cinema glad they saw.

Tarantino's argument is the Marvel model - - hell, even the new Star Wars properties, turned the franchise into the star, for better or worse, which means original films can't compete because nobody knows the IP. Back when Harrison Ford was at the top of his game, his name was what helped original films including smaller, standalone works like Witness find an audience, but the studios have changed that. Capitalism has changed that.

Properties with existing audiences and deep pockets for merch were prioritised, only now those franchises are faltering and you've got a generation trained that 'cinematic events' are reserved for blockbusters in established universes, instead of taking a risk on a new film because you know you love an actor who's in it.

Do I think we could go back?

Maybe, but probably not.

I think the place we are now in the history of cinema / TV / 'content' means you can't make a movie star anymore because I think the industry is simply so different that no actor can break through in the same way that even Leonardo DiCaprio could 30 years ago. That industry doesn't exist anymore, actors aren't guaranteed draws (Bones and All proved that for Timothee Chalamet, and Wonka I think could go a similar way), or they have to heavily rely on other industries to become household names which I think dilutes them as a pure 'movie star' (Zendaya's a great example of this - I like her a lot, but how many movies has she even been in? They built her career up in peripheral industries long before they tried to sell her as a movie star, and frankly, I'd question her even as a leading actress yet given she's typically only either been in ensemble casts or clear supporting).

It's a whole new world, and yeah, I think the movie star is dead.

[babacontainsmultitudes]

Getting a tad niche here, and really this post is directed at like. 3 mutuals maybe but I've seen a few different dndads tma AUs at this point and I wanted to share this forever ago anyways soooo

These are my headcanons for what entity each character (dads, kiddads, teens) would be an avatar of, in addition to the most important fear that I think they would be marked by- the gist of the difference lying in what they help to propagate or embrace VS what they would actively live in fear of/try to avoid or just otherwise be most negatively affected by, I suppose!

I realize some of these will make more immediate sense than others lol, 👉👈 would be happy to elaborate on any of these if anyone's curiosity is piqued! Anyways here they are haha:

[statementlou]

I feel like when people ask famous personalities to participate in activism, they may be influenced by the parasocial relationships they have formed with these celebrities and not that they really care about what is going on. They expect famous individuals to act as role models or representatives of their beliefs. That's why I think, it is crucial to maintain a critical perspective and not depend solely on celebrities for activism. This can result in a passive approach to social change and disregard the significance of collaborative action and personal engagement. The majority of celebrities don't care lol even who speak up about it publicly. Their reality is different from ours, like Gigi Hadid also drank Starbucks the other day, Bella Hadid worked with a lot of Zionist brands and did a photo shoot with them recently, etc etc. And let me not start on stans culture... the worst thing ever

Okay this is fascinating because yes! I agree with you so much! But then I was completely floored by the choice of the HADIDS (literal Palestinians who never shut up about the cause) as examples- but actually I love it because I think it opens up two really really important points that maybe get to the heart of the whole issue. Gigi and Bella Hadid are, as I said, literally Palestinian, and have throughout their public lives (not just recently) never been silent or backed down in defense of Palestine even when it has very publicly lost them (Bella primarily) jobs and opportunities, and they both continue to be outspoken even while literally targeted and threatened by zionists. Pretty much everything anyone has wanted or asked for from any celebrity, right?! But here we have, first of all, Gigi having all of that discounted because she bought Starbucks, a brand that is not even an official boycott! I feel like this is a perfect example of prioritizing performative and symbolic activism over actions with material impact, if someone who has been so consistent and stalwart can see all that dismissed because they spent $5 on a coffee (that, again, has no material financial relationship to Israel). I personally think that on a scale of good done vs harm, Gigi can afford a lot of problematic coffees, and this is not even getting into the Hadid families finances which involve huge amounts of money being used and moved around in ways that do more to help the cause than any image choice can unbalance. And then you say that Bella has worked with zionist brands- I don't know anything about this so I can't speak to it. Given that we are also apparently considering starbucks a zionist brand despite the company not operating in or having any ties to Israel, I would question what this means. But it doesn't matter- I think the point is that consumer/ individual purity isn't possible! No one is making pure consumer choices, no matter how many brands they boycott, and certainly no celebrity can continue to be one without having unsavory connections. I think that BY DEFINITION no celebrity is politically pure because if they cut all those ties, THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE A CELEBRITY. Whether the pursuit of purity is realistic or desirable is a much bigger issue, but the point is that as you say, looking to celebrities to be activists will end only in disappointment. Their job is to entertain in specific ways and they do that; if that's not working for you, then consume some other celebrity's product (persona). As I have said from the start, if you want to stan Louis because he is talented and hot and kind and smart and fun then you are in luck! But if you are looking for an activist spokesperson, he is not going to be that, and yelling at him (or people who don't consider that a deal breaker) isn't going to change that.

[tacky-jack-with-a-hat]

Fourida Man in FourCal would be funny but not worth Gov's sanity.

[radfemie]

me still trying to figure out how it’s okay to identify as the opposite sex but it’s problematic to identify as a different age or race🤔🤔

if you can “feel” like the opposite sex then why can’t you “feel” like a different race or age?? if it’s all feeling based then how do you draw the line at whats wrong and what is acceptable? makes no sense.

[somelokivariant]

Would the avengers buy their own merch? (part two)

peter (parker) wouldnt buy it himelf he'd be embarassed, He does have little gimicks from ned or may because ned absolutly buys spiderman stuff

we know kamala does and will

carol wouldnt, might gift some captain marvel tees to fury tho

bucky would buy what hydra print? absolutly not. he might buy captain america stuff to piss of sam and steve tho

i feel like wanda merch would be so cute so maybe she has something here and there but generally no

vision wouldnt, hed be like 🤖why do i need that?🤖

t'challa wouldn't humble king

but shuri absolutly eats up all the black panther tees

ofcourse loki would egotistical bitch

[madmarchhare]

Sweetheart, you are so good, and so little lol. Also, Opera's face I love it.