#it's discourse that takes us back decades and it stems from some of the most the disgusting beliefs someone can have about gender

[artificial-ascension]

I saw someone talking about the hatred towards bi lesbians and in the tags they mentioned that bi gay men aren't given near the amount of hatred and I think that boils down to two thing:

1. Women aren't allowed to do anything, as an ex teen age girl I can confirm that no matter what you do as a women you will be judged (ex. Girls who like traditionally girly things are all judged as boring and basic and girls who don't are seen as "not like other girls" and "vying for male attention.)

And 2

Femininity it upheld as the golden standard of purity in alot of circles and therefore being a lesbian also attracted to men is seen as somehow 'tainting' the purity of being a lesbian by likeing icky icky men while on the other hand being a bi gay man would be viewed as the opposite, making up for liking men by being also attracted to good pure women.

And obviously not the case always and not all circles hold up the flawed belief that anything associated with men or masculinity is evil, but I think it's good food for thought and it all boils down to a mix of misogyny and man hating.

[gimme-mor]

ACOTAR THINK PIECE: ELAIN AND THE CONCEPT OF CHOICE

*DISCLAIMER*

Please take the time to read this post in its entirety and truly reflect on the message I am trying to send before commenting. My goal is to use my background in Gender and Women’s Studies to deconstruct the behaviors and comments I have seen on Tumblr and Twitter, and, more importantly, bring awareness to the ACOTAR fandom. I WILL NOT tolerate anyone who tries to twist my words and say I am attacking people and their personal shipping preferences. In fact, I AM CRITIQUING THE ARGUMENTS THEMSELVES NOT THE PEOPLE USING THE ARGUMENTS.

As someone who has been a long time lurker on all sides of the ACOTAR fandom, the growing toxicity and hostility has become more apparent to the point that civil discourse is, for the most part, entirely lost. More times than not, the cause of the communication breakdown centers around Elain and the relationships she has with those around her. Before and after the release of ACOSF, I’ve noticed that when the fandom expresses its opinions about Elain and her development as a character, whether in a romantic light or generally, the conversation wholly hinges on the concept of choice. Common examples I’ve seen include:

Elain has been stripped of her choice for a majority of her life

Elain should be able to make her own choices

The King of Hybern took away Elain’s choice to be human when he had her tossed into the Cauldron

Elain did not choose the mating bond for herself, instead it was forced upon her

Elain feels pressured to choose Lucien

Elain should have the choice to stray away from what is expected of her

Elain and Azriel being together represents a different and stronger type of love because she’s choosing to be with him

If you ship Elucien, you’re not Pro-Elain because you’re taking away Elain’s right to choose who she wants to be with and forcing her to accept the mating bond

Elain chose to accept Azriel’s advances in the bonus chapter 

When Rhysand called Azriel away after catching him and Elain together, Elain was stripped of her choice to be sexually intimate with Azriel

When Azriel and Rhysand are talking in the bonus chapter, Elain’s choices aren’t at the center of their conversation

If you suggest that Elain should leave the Night Court, you’re stripping Elain of her choice to remain with her family

If you suggest that Elain should be friends with someone else, you’re ignoring Elain’s choice to be friends with Nuala and Cerridwen

Why is the concept of choice exclusively tied to Elain and everything surrounding her character while simultaneously ignoring that other characters in the ACOTAR series have, to varying degrees, been stripped of their choices at some point in their lives? And why isn’t the concept of choice connected to these characters in the same way that it is connected to Elain? For example:

Did the High Lords strip Feyre of her choice to consent when they turned her into a High Fae?

Did Tamlin and Ianthe strip Feyre of her choice to consent when they started to control every aspect of her life in the Spring Court?

Was Vassa stripped of her choice when the other Mortal Queens sold her to Koschei, which resulted in her being cursed to turn into a firebird?

Was Feyre stripped of her choice to know the risks involved in the pregnancy?

Did the King of Hybern strip Nesta of her choice to be human when he had her tossed into the Cauldron?

Was everyone stripped of their choices under Amarantha’s rule?

Was Feyre stripped of her choice to just be a daughter and a sister when the Archeron family failed to contribute to their survival, which resulted in Feyre being the family’s sole provider?

Did Lucien’s family strip him and Jesminda of their choice to be together when they killed her because of her status as a Lesser Faerie?

Are Illyrian females stripped of their choice to consent when their wings are clipped?

Did the Hybern general strip Gwyn of her choice to consent?

Did Ianthe strip Lucien of his choice to consent? 

Did Keir strip Mor of her choice to consent to her engagement to Eris?

Universally, femininity is synonymous with weakness and women often face discrimination because the patriarchy is part of an interactive system that perpetuates women’s oppression. Since the ACOTAR universe is set up to mirror a patriarchal society, it’s clear that the imbalance of power between males and females stems from sexism. The thing that sets Elain apart from other female characters in the ACOTAR series is the fact that SJM has portrayed Elain as a traditionally feminine character based on her actions and the ways in which Elain carries herself. Compared to them, Elain is inherently held to a different standard because her femalehood takes precedence over other aspects of her character in fandom discussions. These conversations indirectly place Elain on a pedestal and hail her as the epitome of traditional femininity; and when her character is criticized in any way, it’s seen as a direct attack against women, specifically women who are traditionally feminine. Also, these conversations fall back on Elain’s femaleness when analyzing her character since it can be assumed from a reader’s perspective that Elain, despite being the middle sibling, is coddled by those around her because her ultra-feminine nature is perceived as a sort of weakness in need of protection. However, the fact that the concept of choice is used as an argument to primarily focus on Elain’s femalehood highlights the narrow lens through which Elain, as a character, is viewed. It implies that Elain’s femaleness is all her character has to offer to the series overall and insinuates that Elain’s character development is dependent on her femaleness. To suggest, through the choice argument, that ACOTAR’s patriarchal society constrains Elain’s agency and prevents her from enacting her feminist right to choose while failing to examine the patriarchal structure of the ACOTAR universe and its impact on the female characters in the series, the choice argument ultimately falls apart because it shows that it’s only used to focus on Elain’s femalehood. Furthermore, the implication that Elain’s right to choose is, in itself, a feminist act in the series indicates that the concept of choice as an argument is used to promote choice feminism.

Feminism is a social movement that seeks to promote equality and equity to all genders, and feminists work toward eradicating gender disparities on a macro-level, in addition to challenging gender biases on a micro-level. Historically, feminism prioritized the voices of white women, specifically white women who were cisgender, able-bodied, affluent, educated, and heterosexual. But over the decades, the inclusion of women of color and other marginalized women’s voices has broadened the scope of feminism and caused it to take an intersectional approach when discussing social identities and the ways in which these identities result in overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination. On the other hand, choice feminism, a form of feminism, greatly differs from what feminism is aiming to accomplish. In the article “It’s Time to Move Past Choice Feminism”, Bhat states:

“Choice feminism can be understood as the idea that any action or decision that a woman takes inherently becomes a feminist act. Essentially, the decision becomes a feminist one because a woman chose it for herself. What could this look like? It could really be anything. Wearing makeup is a feminist act. Not wearing it is also a feminist act. Shaving or not shaving. Watching one TV show over another. Choosing a certain job over another. Listening to one artist over another. Picking a STEM career. Choosing to dress modestly or not. The list goes on. At first glance, there does not seem to be an apparent negative consequence of choice feminism. A woman’s power is within her choices, and those choices can line up with a feminist ideology. For example, a woman’s decision not to shave may be her response to Western beauty standards that are forced onto women. Not shaving may make her feel beautiful, comfortable, and powerful, and there is nothing wrong with that. Women making choices that make them feel good is not the issue. The issue lies in calling these decisions feminist ones. Choice feminism accompanies an amalgamation of problems‒the first being that this iteration of feminism operates on faulty assumptions about said choices. Liberal feminism neglects the different realities that exist for different women‒especially the difference between white women and women of color, transgender women and cis women, etc. Not all women have the same circumstance and access to choices, not all choices made by women are treated equally, and not all choices are inherently feminist” (https://www.34st.com/article/2021/01/feminism-choice-liberal-patriarchy-misogyny-bimbo-capitalism). 

Just as white feminism ignores intersectionality and refuses to acknowledge the discriminations experienced by women of color, choice feminism and arguments supporting choice feminism have, by default, made the concept of choice exclusionary. The individualization of choice feminism glorifies the act of a woman making an individual choice and, by extension, gives the illusion that women’s liberation from gendered oppression can be achieved by enacting their rights to make personal, professional, and political choices. Herein lies the problem with choice feminism: it (the argument of “But it’s my choice!”) stifles feminist conversations from exploring the depths and intricacies of the decision making process because it’s used as a way to shut communication down entirely, shield arguments from criticism, and condemn those who criticize choice feminism for its disconnection from a larger feminist framework. Contrary to what choice feminism advocates for, it lulls the feminist movement into complacency because women’s individual choices do nothing to alleviate gendered oppression. Choice feminism’s leniency towards choice fails to address the limitations of choice in regards to women’s intersectional identities and enables society to shift the blame of women’s oppression away from the societal and institutional structures in place to women themselves for making the wrong choices that ultimately resulted in their circumstances. Choice is not always accessible to every woman. For instance, choices made by white women are, in some way, inaccessible to women of color, in the same way that choices made by cisgender women are inaccessible to transgender women. Choice is one of the founding concepts of the feminist movement and it “became a key part of feminist language and action as an integral aspect and rallying call within the fight for reproductive rights‒the right to choose whether or not we wanted to get pregnant and to choose what we wanted for our bodies and lives” (https://www.feministcurrent.com/2011/03/11/the-trouble-with-choosing-your-choice/). When choice, in a feminist context, is framed as something that is solely about the individual as opposed to the collective, the feminist foundation on which it stands “leads to an inflated sense of accomplishment while distracting from the collective action needed to produce real change that would have a lasting effect for the majority of women” (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/i-am-not-feminist-jessa-crispin-review/). 

By linking the choice argument with choice feminist rhetoric and extreme acts of progressiveness, it plays into today’s negative understanding of a social justice warrior and normalizes fake wokeness. In its original conception, a social justice warrior was another way to refer to an activist and had a positive connotation; nowadays, the term carries a negative connotation and is:

“. . . a pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will ‘get SJ points’ and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are ‘correct’ in their social circle” (https://fee.org/articles/how-the-term-social-justice-warrior-became-an-insult/). 

Today’s perception of the term social justice warrior is directly tied to fake wokeness because both are performative in nature, fueled by the drive to be seen as progressive, and derail necessary conversations from taking place by prioritizing toxicity. According to the article titled, “Three signs of fake ‘wokeness’ and why they hurt activism”, it states:

“. . . social media did not create activism: it did, however, create a legion of hashtags and accounts dedicated to issues . . . Sadly, fake woke people will use these hashtags or create these accounts, see that as contributing to a cause, and just call it a day; these same people tend to shame those without the same level of interest or devotion to a given cause . . . Ironically, as open-minded as the fake woke claim to be, they struggle to deal with opposition. More often than not, those who fit the fake woke bill will ignore, misconstrue, or shutdown anything remotely opposing their stances . . . Now yes, human nature often leads us to possess a bias against that which contradicts our views, but human nature should not serve as an excuse for irrational behavior. Opposition to our stances on issues helps activists more than it harms: it allows them to look at the causes they champion from a perspective they possibly ignored before, further enlightening them. More importantly, by discovering information that may refute what they believe, they can find and eliminate any flaws in their reasoning and strengthen their arguments. Activism involves opening up to change, something one stuck in an echo chamber can never achieve” (https://nchschant.com/16684/opinions/three-signs-of-fake-wokeness-and-why-they-hurt-activism/). 

Rather than critiquing ideas, thoughts, and theories about Elain and her character development with textual evidence, the concept of choice as an argument is used to silence opposing viewpoints. This is similar to choice feminism because the conversations start and end with the concept of choice, leaving no room for a critical analysis of Elain’s character. Although the concept of choice as an argument is intended to shed light on how ACOTAR’s patriarchal structure limits females’ agency to some degree, the fact that it’s only applied to Elain invalidates the point of the argument because it doesn’t include the experiences of other female characters when examining the impact of sexism in the ACOTAR universe. The failure to do so calls the intent of the choice argument into question. As it stands, the concept of choice as an argument frames Elucien shippers and those who are critical of Elain as woman haters, misogynists, and anti-feminists, especially if they identify as women. The belief that a woman is anti-feminist or a woman hater any time she dislikes another woman suggests that women have to be held to a different emotional standard than men. If men are able to dislike other individual men without their characters being compromised, why can’t women? Feminism and what it means to be a feminist do not require women to like every woman they encounter. One of the many things feminism hopes to accomplish is granting women the same emotional privileges afforded to men. 

Terms like “oppression”, “the right to choose”, “feminist”, “feminism”, “anti-feminist”, “anti-feminism”, “internalized misogyny”, “misogyny”, “misogynist”, “sexist”, “sexism”, “racist”, “racism”, “classist”, “classism”, “discrimination”, and “patriarchy” are all used in specific ways to draw attention to the plight of marginalized people and challenge those who deny the existence of systems of oppression. Yet these words and their meanings can be twisted to attack, exclude, and invalidate people with differing opinions on any given topic. When social justice and feminist terms are thrown around antagonistically and carelessly to push a personal agenda, it becomes clear that these terms are being used to engage in disingenuous discourse and pursue personal validation rather than being used out of any deep-seated conviction to dismantle systemic oppression. The personal weaponization of social justice and feminist concepts is a gateway for people who oppose these movements to strip these terms of their credibility in order to delegitimize the societal and institutional impacts on marginalized people.

It’s important to question how an argument is framed and why it’s framed the way that it is to critically examine the intent behind that argument: is it used as a tool to push a personal agenda that reinforces dismissive, condescending, and problematic behaviors, or is it used as an opportunity to share, learn, enlighten, and educate? The concept of choice as an argument is extremely problematic because: it limits fruitful discussions about Elain within the fandom; enables arguments that oppose opinions about Elain and her narrative development to masquerade as progressive by pushing social justice and feminist language to their extremes; normalizes the vilification and condemnation of individuals who are either critical of a ship, Elain as a character, or prefer her with Lucien; encourages an in-group and out-group mentality with differing opinions about Elain’s development resulting in politically charged insults; exploits social justice and feminist terms; ignores that harm done on a micro-level is just as damaging as harm done on a macro-level; and cheapens Elain’s character and her development.

There is more to Elain than her being a female who is traditionally feminine. Elain has the potential to be as complex of a character as Feyre, Nesta, Rhysand, Lucien, Cassian, Azriel, Amren, and Mor, and to reduce her character to her femalehood in fandom discussions is a disservice to Elain as a character, the ACOTAR fandom, and SJM’s writing. So I ask this: is there a reason why the fandom heavily emphasizes the concept of choice when discussing Elain that goes beyond a simplistic analysis of her as a character (i.e. using the concept of choice as an argument to reinforce Elain’s femaleness), or is the concept of choice used as a shield to prop up one ship over another?

gimme-mor library

[bluebellravenbooks]

It's January and winter blues is real, people! I've been trying to do more stuff that I love to keep the spirits up, and this includes studying animation. I've admired it for a long time, but mostly by just staring at concept art and reading on how really advanced stuff is made; however, after catching up on some cartoons during the lockdowns (such as Avatar, Over the Garden Wall, Gravity Falls and Steven Universe) I realized that I'm much more interested in the character animation and storyboard/storytelling part, which very nicely intersects with my other interests in writing and drawing - and I decided to study it all a bit more!

So these are my

complete beginner's notes on learning character animation that no one asked for, by someone who is definitely not qualified to talk about it

Figure drawing. This is the first thing that will hit you like a ton of bricks if you as much as glance in this direction. I'm in two minds about this: on the one hand, some practice in this area is obviously essential (duh!); on the other, this sometimes becomes a genre in itself, a specifically stylized drawing just for the sake of, well, pretty drawing. Which isn't helpful if you're doing it for practice. Also, if you thought that art of naked women in ridiculous poses is about two centuries dead... well, yeah you're wrong. (Seriously, what's up with that? There are some things in the art world that I just don't get.) As for how to learn it, there are plenty of classical books on the subject and apparently a lot of Discourse on which method is The Best; I'm trying not to get too deep into that and currently am just learning by practice and trying out different techniques.

The Animator's Survival Kit by Richard Williams. This book was quickly pointed out to me as A Classic, and I'm having a lot of fun doing some basics with it in Pencil2D, but oh my God a good portion of this book really did not age well. It's full of reverence towards the Golden Age of animation, blatant misogyny and the ever-present incompetent "in-betweener" (animation assistant), whose problems seem to stem from the fact that he's always "plugged in" listening to music (because I'm sure that's the only reason the lowest link in the famously underpaid industry would not produce a masterpiece in every drawing). Basically, animation basics are covered really well, but there are tons of animation industry (and just life) details that are decades out of date (or at least no longer relevant for most western studios from what I know about their workflow). I didn't know that an animation handbook could be so annoying.

Perspective! For Comic Book Artists by David Chelsea. I picked this one up because of Rebecca Sugar's recommendation and all the interesting stuff she talks about in interviews about perspective. I can't comment on the book much yet since I've barely started it, but it looks fun, and perspective is definitely an important aspect that I hadn't been paying enough attention to; also interesting to try and tanslate some of these concepts to perspective in writing (reminds me about what Philip Pullman said about "camerawork").

Art books (featured here WolfWalkers and Steven Universe). I have a few more back at home - have always enjoyed them, and one can learn much from them as well. However they are heavy and expensive, so that's something to consider - for example if you're a student like me, who doesn't have tons of free cash and will probably have to move a lot. But hey, times are dark, so sometimes I do threat myself...

Software. I like doing doodles digitally, especially when learning - spoiling a lot of paper makes me feel bad, while digital drawing allows me to relax a bit more, since every bad drawing is just one click away from oblivion. The conventional choice for drawing is Photoshop, but there are definitely decent free alternatives out there. For animation tests I'm using Pencil2D - it's free and perfect for a beginner. However, one thing that you'll need if you want to try out digital art is a graphic tablet - I'm afraid computer drawing isn't really feasible without one, unless you're into VERY specific art styles. But in good news, there's not much difference between super advanced and very basic ones, so a simple one will serve you just fine! I'm using my old trusty Wacom, purchased many years ago for saved-up pocket money, and it's working great.

Well, there we are - no idea whether this is useful for anyone, but I hope it is. My take-home message here is that learning art is fun, and there are many different types of "art" that you can learn and do on your own - it's not just oils and pastels :) And of course it's not really feasible to get as good as actual art school students on your own - but there's still plenty of interesting stuff you can do!

If there are any actual art/animation people reading this - I apologize for my amateur dabbling, and would be interested to hear if you have any tips!

[smokeybrandreviews]

Binary

This started out as a whole thing about Brie Larson. She’s started a YouTube channel and i figured I'd follow it just for kicks. I’m not a huge fan of massive Hollywood stars invading more accessible spaces but, technically, they’re the “You” in YouTube, too. I can’t be too mad at that. Of course Google is going to cater more to their brand, mostly because they bring in the duckets and understand PR so they know ho not to cause an ADpocolypse, but it’s still mad sh*tty. Larson’s first post was just her being goofy, trying to figure out how to even be a YouTuber. You kind of see a side of her that i figured was there, but never really was able to confirm. Brie Larson is the poster child for Millennial geekdom and i find that adorable as f*ck. Which is why i don’t understand the MASSIVE waves of hate she’s getting from the community. Cats are reveling in her perceived failure, it’s actually insane.

Now, before we go any further, i just want to be clear; I am a fan of Brie Larson. I think she is excellent at her craft. Ma is from my hometown and it’s always great to see someone make it out of this cowtown. I believe she has every right to her opinions and the fact that she voices them from such a visible platform, makes her one of the most endearing and real celebrities in an industry maligned by the phony. Brie ain’t quite Russell Brand but she is very vocal about the unjust sh*t she sees and will totally let you know it. That, i think, is why she garners such vitriol. Look, I'm a black dude living in the US. If she gets on TV and says f*ck white dudes, I'm inclined to agree. But she didn’t say that. What she said was there needs to be more voices making film, different perspectives in the arts. White dudes dominate the industry and she’s tired of seeing that movie. I don’t understand how that’s a controversial statement. It’s true. We need more dynamic, more diverse, storytellers making films out in the wild. The thing is, that one statement earned her the ire of every entitled white boy with time and and the internet. These motherf*cker decided to take that personally and we were off to the races.

When Brie Larson was announced as Captain Marvel, i was okay with it. I thought Charlize Theron or Katee Sackhoff would have been a better look but i get it. Larson is young and can portray the character for years to come. Kind of how Florence Pugh is going to take over Black Widow duties from Scarlett Johansson. Pugh can be that character for close to a decade, as can Larson. Once again, however, the interwebs were set asunder with rage and malcontent over the Cap Marvel announcement. It was f*cking ridiculous to me. Sure, she didn’t look the part going into this but neither did Gal Gadot, the latter turned out to be the best thing going in that trainwreck DCEU. Larson grew into the part, put in the work to look the part, and is committed to the role. She did her research, consuming massive amounts of the comics, trying to find Carol’s head space, which was a goddamn feat. Captain Marvel is as controversial as Brie Larson, herself. And it’s just as stupid.

Look, i adore Captain Marvel. She’s my fifth favorite Marvel character after Spider-Man, Doctor Doom, Laura Kinney, and Illyana Rasputin. In that order. Captain Marvel grew on me during the whole Mighty Avengers and Disassembled story lines from years ago. I have no love-loss for Bendis but that cat did wonders for building up more obscure characters, Carol being one of them. I also like what he did for Luke Cage, too, but that’s not what this essay is about. I’ve been a fan of this character since the early 00s and have rode this Carol train for years. I jumped on bored when she was rocking her leotard, which i miss terribly, took my time to dig up the back issues where she was in the original red and blue digs and moonlighted as Warbird for a bit. Then, Marvel Now happened and f*cked it all up. Carol went from this attractive, uber-powered, mess of a woman to a cold, manly, aggressively stupid caricature of herself. The Carol Danvers i had grown to love, with all of her faults and trauma, became some sort of butch nightmare and the poster child for why Woke Marvel was failing. I don’t think that’s fair.

Comic Carol was on her way to becoming a real force in the Marvel universe. She had learned there was worth in her strength, one she had to drag out through deep introspection and an understanding of who she really is. No longer was she just a gender-swapped, copyright placeholder that no one knew what to do with. Now she had agency. Now she was a force. Now she was relevant. Now tore all of that away. After Marvel Now, all of that growth and nuance was thrown out of the window. She became the idealized version of what the SJWs thought a “Strong Woman” should be. Marvel gave her a massive push in an effort to  cater to this burgeoning Tumblr dynamic and it failed miserably. Marvel wanted that Steven Universe crowd and they tried real hard to get it but that sh*t did not work. The changes to the universe weren’t extreme or feminist or PC enough. Courting a fanbase that had no longevity, Carol was sabotaged and thrown to the wolves. That’s the environment we were saturated in when Disney announced Larson as Carol for the MCU. It was a perfect storm of Nerdrage, one that has not died down in any capacity all these years later for either Brie or Carol.

I don’t think the feminist slant given to the Captain Marvel movie was actually such a big deal. I think the vitriol that flick faces stems from the combined maliciousness both the new version of Carol in the comics and Brie Larson, herself, garnered. It’s kind of crazy the massive tantrum everyone decided to throw over this movie. Cats were looking for this thing to fail as some sort of petulant schadenfreude ignoring the fact that this movie wasn’t made for them. As frustrated as i was with the ludicrous discourse, i knew this movie wasn't for me. his wasn’t my Carol and i was good with that. Unlike Marvel who pandered to the trend of PC nonsense, the MCU had a clear vision in mind for the audience they wanted; Young girls. They wanted a character who was strong enough to hang with Thor, stand equally with Iron Man, and have the respect of Captain America. Captain Marvel was the best option. She would be the tentpole hero of the MCU going forward and i accepted that. I went into the film with that understanding and, on my way out, i saw, firsthand, what this movie meant to the target audience. There was a little girl, about nine or so, gushing abut how cool Captain Marvel was. She as ecstatic to see a girl like her, kicking so much butt. In the face of that, every entitled argument you have against the character falls apart in my eyes. Captain Marvel is to young girls and woman, as Black Panther was to us black folk. It’s the same energy.

Do i think the film could have been better? F*ck yea, i do. I think the script should have had one more revision and the directors definitely felt out of place. They’re good at their jobs, they mostly make A24-esque fare, but a massive, multi-million dollar, space epic connected to the most popular film franchise in history? Nah, these cats were way out of their depth. I think Feige dropped the ball on this one, a rare miss. I think Kathryn Bigelow, Patty Jenkins, Lynne Ramsay, Claire Dennis, or  Lorene Scafaria would have constructed a much better film, both visually and narrative wise. I think if the movie was better as a whole, a lot of the controversy and vitriol would have been neutered. Carol is written quite wooden and a little pretentious. The interactions between the supporting cast feels forced. The overall narrative is fine but definitely could have been embellished at parts. Captain Marvel is boring and i don’t know how that happened. You have one of the strongest characters in comics, with a distinct, visually appealing powerset, and you make her movie boring? Really? More than anything, though, is the absolute mistreatment of Sam Jackson and Nick Fury.

The writing reduces Nick Fury, the mind behind the entirety of the Avengers Initiative, to lap boy sidekick in an effort to up Carol’s own stature. That sh*t is poor writing and it’s mad frustrating to see. I hate narratives that have to job established characters, in an effort to push new additions. I just wrote a whole goddamn thing about that with Punchline, Joker’s new “partner”. It’s bogus, cheapening the character and opens up an avenue for bad-faith complaints. Rey Palpatine is another great example. Her entire character is built on the slow, methodical, violent, destruction of the Skywalker legacy. Interestingly enough, that character was launched in the same environment as New Carol so i understand why the movie is the way that it is. I don’t agree with it, but i know why. It was an incredibly poor choice to introduce Captain Marvel in this way, however, and she’s never recovered. Brie has never recovered. You want a 90s buddy-cop space opera? Lethal Weapon with Skrulls and starships? You need your Murtaugh and Riggs to stand on equal footing. That was not the case with this flick. Having Nick Fury job to Carol Danvers for two hours was the wrong way to go about all of this and i think a different creative team could have made something truly excellent.

It’s nuts to me that this is even a thing though. Brie’s personal controversy is so f*cking stupid, i choke every time i think about it. How are you mad she stand up for herself, her gender, and everyone else in a position of persecution? Don’t you want though with a platform speaking up about the inequities of our country? I feel like the same people who hate Brie for her vocal advocacy, are the same people who stan “All Lives Matter” when ever someone says Black Lives Matter. That sh*t feels like the same energy to me. I feel like the criticisms launched at comic Carol have real validity, even if most of them are just whiny man-children who miss the leotard. I miss the leotard, too, but come on? We’re passed that now. I do think, when written well, Carol can be a force in the books. Her run as part of the new Ultimates was pretty chill I think she needs that in order to be her true self, until we establish a true self for the character. It’s weird to say but Captain Marvel, Ms. Marvel previously, has been around for fifty years, and no one has any idea who she is as a character. I think Captain Marvel in the MCU, both the character and film, are hated for the wrong reasons. The fact that no one has any idea who this character is, makes for a lousy cinematic experience. The team put together in an effort to flesh this character out, didn’t have the creative capacity to do so and we were left with little more than PC tropes and Feminist agenda. The MCU let both Brie and Carol down in that regard.

Brie Larson isn’t a terrible person and she deserves more respect put on her name. She an accomplished actress with a bevy of awards and accolades to her name. She’s been in great films like Room and Scott Pilgrim, never once garnering a controversy. The fact that she speaks her truth, a truth the establishment doesn’t want to hear, should not disqualify her talent or the fact that she seems like a really chill person. Carol Danvers is a dope ass character with an amazing amount of potential. When she’s written well and not traded upon for trends, she can have real staying power. Her abilities open up a plethora of interesting, creatively fertile narratives yet to be written. Disregarding her just because Marvel decided to gamble on the pretentious third-wave feminism wave is shortsighted and makes you look like a childish brat. You’re entitled to feel however you want but let’s be clear; Brie Larson and Carol Danvers deserve so much better.

[aslamdiaz]

Intro to IR: Answering Question

Aslam Luqman Diaz-072011233076-USA

Nationalism is an ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests. Nationalism is a modern movement. Throughout history people have been attached to their native soil, to the traditions of their parents, and to established territorial authorities, but it was not until the end of the 18th century that nationalism began to be a generally recognized sentiment molding public and private life and one of the great, if not the greatest, single determining factors of modern history. Because of its dynamic vitality and its all-pervading character, nationalism is often thought to be very old; sometimes it is mistakenly regarded as a permanent factor in political behaviour (Kohn, hans, 1949-1962).

National character is an expression which describes forms of collective self-perception, sensibility, and conduct which are shared by the individuals who inhabit modern nation-states. It presupposes the existence of psychological and cultural homogeneity among the citizens of each country, as well as the idea that each nation can be considered a collective individual, with characteristics analogous to the empirical individuals who are its inhabitants. The noun character seeks to describe a universal aspect of social life-an internal dimension to the existence of individuals and an external one, observable through collective behaviour. The adjective national situates this universal aspect of social life in the specific context of those social units we call nations. Social theory interested in understanding the social force of feelings of national belonging has turned once again to this expression, which was first formulated in Europe during the second half of the eighteenth century. What distinguishes this trend is the fact that there is no attempt at attributing any theoretical status to national character; instead, it is more concerced with it as a practical category used in the discourse and action of the social agents and groups. The aim of this article is to summarize the genealogy of the expression and to discuss its current heuristic value (Neiburg, 2001).

One can differentiate between hard and soft power tools in international relations. Traditionally, the states opted for hard power tools in the framework of realpolitik thinking. Meanwhile, the scholars and practitioners start to recognize that the world is in need of a shift from old assumptions and rigid distinctions about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power since the economic and political challenges can no longer be simply resolved by military power or policy innovation (Bound, et al. 2007: 13). However, the concept of soft power, initially introduced by Joseph Nye (1990), is still in its theorization process and requires further studies. Hence, the aim of this paper is to evaluate the concept of power, with specific reference to Nye’s frames: hard, soft, and smart. The research objectives are three-fold; first, to provide an brief overview of the concept of power in international relations, second, to evaluate some of the key issues pertaining to the concept of soft power and, third, to assess education as a tool of power. This paper is based on the on-going research for the author’s Ph.D. dissertation.

The subject of power has been an interest of social scientists for many decades, if not centuries, if one were to go back to writings of Aristotle, Plato, and Machiavelli. Despite such great deal of attention, however, there are still notable academic debates over power’s specific definition and its features, which lead to the topic’s complexity and ambiguity. In discussing power, it is important to note whose power one is referring to. For instance, Arendt (1970: 44) defined power not as the property of an individual, but rather 2 argued that it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together. Meanwhile, Dahl (1957: 203) proposed to call the objects in the relationship of power as actors. The term actor is inclusive and may refer to individuals, groups, roles, offices, governments, nation-states, or other human aggregates. One of the most influential definitions of power in the field of social science belongs to Max Weber (1947: 152) who defined it as the probability of one actor within a social relationship to be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance. According to Weber, power is a zero-sum game and is an attribute that derives from the qualities, resources and capabilities of one subject. However, the Weberian definition attracted a number of criticisms. Martin (1971: 243) pointed out that Weber did not define power, but rather provided the basis for a comparison between the attributes of actors. Moreover, the author argued that, by building the element of conflict into his definition and viewing power solely in zero-sum terms, Weber disregarded the possibility of mutually convenient power relations (Martin, 1971: 243). In contrast, Talcott Parsons (1967) offered a conceptualization of power, which did not define it in terms of conflict, but rather views it as a system resource. Parsons (1967: 208) argued that power is a capacity to secure the performance of binding obligations by units in a system of collective organization, when obligations are legitimized with reference to the collective goals, and where in case of recalcitrance, there is a presumption of negative sanctions. In this regard, Anthony Giddens (1968: 264) stated that, among other things, the Parsonian definition does not take into account that power is exercised over someone and by treating power as necessarily legitimate and assuming a consensus between power holders, Parsons ignores the hierarchical character of power. To sum up, the two major threads in this discussion about power, the Weberian and the Parsonian, both suffer from major problems of definition (Martin, 1971: 244). These are just two instances of how power discussion attracts intense debates and disagreements. The purpose of this short discussion is to emphasize that power is one of the most central and problematic concepts in social science. Despite widespread use, there is little agreement upon basic definitions, with individual theorists proposing their own idiosyncratic terminologies of power (Bierstedt, 1950). Gallie (1956) confirms that due to the existence of competing theories and meanings, power is essentially a contested subject.

Power remains one of the critical subjects in political science, including the sphere of international relations. The discipline of International Relations incorporates a number of competing schools of thought, but for the long time, the discipline has treated power as the exclusive prerogative of realism. In fact, there is still a tendency among scholars and 3 practitioners to view power predominantly through the realist lens. To reiterate, the five basic assumptions of realists about the international system are that it is anarchic; all great powers possess some offensive military capability; states can never be certain about the intentions of other states; survival is the primary goal of states; and states are rational actors (Mearsheimer, 2001: 30-31). The realists view the nation-states as the key actors in the international system. Hans Morgenthau (1954: 25) famously proclaimed that international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power and ‘whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim’. According to the author, the ‘ubiquity of the struggle for power in all social relations on all levels of social organization’ made the arena of international politics a necessity of power politics (Morgenthau, 1954: 31). Carr (1964: 102) was in agreement with Morgenthau and asserted that politics, at its heart, is power politics. For all realists, calculations about power lie at the core of how states perceive the world around them (Mearsheimer, 2001: 12). While realists are in agreement that power is a key determinant in political relations, there is there is a variation in how individual realists understand the concept. For instance, classical realists posit that the permanent struggle for power stems from the fundamental human drive for power (Morgenthau, 1954). In contrast, for structural or neo-realists, it is the architecture of the international system that forces states to pursue power and maximize their power position (Mearsheimer, 2001; Dunne, Kurki, and Smith, 2013). Furthermore, there are disagreements as to how the power should be conceived and measured (Walt, 2002). There are two dominant traditions of power analysis in IR: the ‘elements of the national power approach’, which depicts power as property of states, and the relational power approach, which depicts power as an actual or potential relationship (Baldwin, 2012: 2). In other words, some realists define power in terms of resources, while others define it in a relational manner as the ability to exercise influence over other actors. Proponents of the elements of the national power approach associate power with the possession of specific resources. All of the important resources that a state possesses are typically combined to determine its overall aggregate power. The resources that are indicators of national power are the level of military expenditure, size of the armed forces, gross national product, size of territory, and population. In line with this tradition, Morgenthau (1954) equated power with the possession of identifiable and measurable resources and listed geography, natural resources, industrial capacity, military, and population as stable power elements of a nation. Carr (1946: 109) argued that military power was the most important form of power in international politics, as it serves as both a means and an end in itself. However, one of the difficulties with the elements of the national power approach is the issue of power conversion.

Refrensi:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/national-identity

http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/content/pdf/participant-papers/2015-12_annual/Power-In-Ir-By-Raimzhanova,-A.pdf

#IRFEST_USA_Intro to IR

[back-and-totheleft]

A brilliant work about white nationalism and the cult of personality

This past week saw the release of Chasing the Light, the epic memoir of legendary filmmaker Oliver Stone. A word like "controversial" doesn’t even begin to describe the work of Stone, whose films have delved deep into hot button political issues and sparked intense debate for decades. Some have decried Stone as a radical conspiracy theorist who indulges in his own historical fantasies, while others consider him to be a noble patriot who ranks among the great American filmmakers of all time.

Stone had his own take on the Kennedy assassination in JFK. He skewered corporate greed with Wall Street and demystified the Vietnam War with Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July. He explored violence in the media with Natural Born Killers. He’s made films centered on the lives of Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, Edward Snowden, Alexander the Great and Jim Morrison.

Stone’s films that play with real people and events often draw the most attention, but he’s also shown an ability to create work that is ahead of its time. No film personifies this more than Talk Radio, Stone’s 1988 chamber piece that explores the complex relationship between an abrasive radio personality and his audience. In 2020, this story about participation in media, toxic masculinity, performative impertinence, mental health stigma and local news coverage is more prevalent than ever.

It’s no secret that ratings for talk and news radio programs are down across the state, with some experts suggesting that listeners are looking for escapism from news updates and political divisiveness. Talk Radio exemplifies those anxieties by showing how absorbing it is for a host to keep his listeners engaged by any means necessary.

Eric Bogosian stars as Barry Champlain, a Jewish radio host based out of Dallas who berates his callers each night with tirades of hatred and sarcasm. Champlain’s callers look to him for reliable nastiness, and throughout the course of his shows, the lines between performance and sincerity become blurred. It’s unclear if Barry talks the way he does because he needs a reaction, or if the everyday grind of listening to these callers has taken a real toll on him.

“I'm a hypocrite,” he admits at one point. “I ask for sincerity, and I lie. I denounce the system as I embrace it. I want money and power and prestige. I want ratings and success, and I don't give a damn about you, or the world. That's the truth. For that I could say I'm sorry, but I won't.”

What makes Talk Radio so significant for its time is how it deals with the cult of personality that often dominates media viewership. Champlain’s callers aren’t calling because they’re interested in his viewpoints or even his outlandish statements. They’re addicted to him. One caller calls to tell Champlain about her obsession with his show, but when pressed for details, she can’t name anything other than how she “loves everything about (him).”

Although the story is loosely based on the life of the Denver radio host Alan Berg, its relevance about the prevalence of white nationalism feels pertinent to the current moment.

Stone explores how dominating this on-air persona can be. Champlain receives a barrage of vitriolic calls every night from listeners who despise him and often sling anti-Semitic insults his way. Champlain takes each call in stride, aiming to never show a sign of vulnerability, as that would contrast with the person he is presenting himself as.

Any moment of sincerity feels like a loss from Champlain. When he shows genuine concern for a caller who claims to be nearing an overdose, Champlain quickly learns he’s been duped by a particularly vile prankster. The radio host becomes angry, not just because he’s been deceived, but because the concern he showed is at odds with the uncaring facade he has constructed for himself.

A common talking point in today’s political discourse links the rise of radicalization as a result of extremist movements that are passed along through social media channels, often preying upon easily impressionable listeners. Champlain begins to recognize this process for himself throughout the course of Talk Radio, in which he realizes that many of his viewers view his program unironically and treat his most absurd hyperboles as a form of gospel.

Champlain’s boss Dan (played by a young Alec Baldwin) tells him that it’s only a job, but throughout the course of the film the audience learns how all-consuming the work has become. A desperate Champlain calls his ex-wife Ellen (Ellen Greene) at one point asking for help with his depression, but when she calls him on air, he treats her with the same resentment that he does any other caller. Champlain’s staff are horrified at the fact that he would use his prior relationship as material for his show, but for Champlain, they have become the same thing.

The notion of Jewish anxiety looms over the film; Champlain is a Jewish man with leftist views, and he’s often at odds with his conservative viewers. Even if he’s able to lampoon his abusers with a clever one-liner, Stone notes the real danger that Champlain is in, particularly as one caller makes a bomb threat while espousing hate speech. Even if Champlain isn’t afraid to put himself out there, it’s clear that he’s facing an uphill battle every day.

Although the story is loosely based on the life of the Denver radio host Alan Berg, its relevance about the prevalence of white nationalism feels pertinent today. Champlain’s anxieties stem from the fact that his tormentors confront him on open airwaves, thus giving a voice to others who are inspired by hate speech. In a time when platforms like Twitter and Facebook are slow to ban calls to violence, Champlain’s experience feels less like an anomaly and more like a precedent.

Despite the attention he receives, Champlain is very much alone, and Stone’s notion that those with the most recognition are often the most isolated was a novel theme in the pre-internet era. Conversations about the impact of social media on mental health often note how online interactions can lead to a false sense of well-being, and Talk Radio explores the very idea of using superficial relationships as a coping method.

If many of Stone’s films feel like a rallying cry or a call to action, Talk Radio is among his more nuanced and meditative works. The film certainly has pity for Champlain, but it doesn’t condone his actions. If anything, Talk Radio aims to explore how hostile media environments create people like Champlain, and how people are seduced into granting him any power.

A cautionary tale and a useful tool in exploring the ways in which strangers interact, Talk Radio is a forgotten classic that sheds some insight into what discourse has become. As Stone’s entire filmography is reconsidered as his memoir is celebrated, Talk Radio deserves to be appreciated for the brilliant work that it is.

Talk Radio made its streaming debut on Peacock. It can be viewed for free there.

-Liam Gaughan, “Oliver Stone Has a New Film, but Let's Look Back at the Ever-Relevant Talk Radio,” Dallas Observer, Aug 2 2020 [x]

[the-irish-mayhem]

Happy Fosterson Week Day 2: Outside POV! This fic stemmed from my love of fake academia, but also my absolute desire to never write an academic paper ever again. So I found a bit of a middle ground. Fair warning: Both Jane and Thor have passed away in this. But never fear, their life together was long and happy.

A generation later, a budding social scientist tries to figure out Jane and Thor.

Read on AO3.

Legacy.

Post Thread Created: 1/23/01 Originally Posted: 1/23/01 Post Edited: 10/30/04

Edit 10/30/04: WOW, I did not anticipate that this post series would blow up the way it did! Thank you to all who shared this and supported me in this journey, and if you’re wondering, yes, my book is now out! You can get your copy of The Dynasty That Never Was: A Biography at your local retailer, the Bionic Press cloudstore, or at your local library.

Just a little bit of context: this was very early in my thesis writing process, back when Jane and Thor were only planned to encompass a single chapter of my book (ha!) and I was planning on writing a straight cultural analysis rather than the cultural analysis-slash-biography it became.

Okay, now on with the original post!

Good morning, fellow New Asgard Anthropologists. For any newcomers, my name is (future Dr.) Melanie LaComb, and the purpose of this blog has been to share my research on a little more of a ground level, record my process of writing my thesis, and talk/write through some problems and put them up for community collaboration. It’s also nice to be able to shed the academic discourse for just a few minutes and write informally. So much freedom! So many exclamations and I statements! Anyway, I’m writing this new post to talk my way through a bit of a new thorn in my research. The late Thor Odinson and Jane Foster.

A lot of academics have kind of scoffed at this problem of mine—they were two extremely famous individuals! Integral to so many galactically significant events! Of course there is absolute mega loads of information on them! There must be dozens of biographies and at least two definitive autobiographies for beings of such impressive historical stature!

This may shock you, but NO there actually isn’t. Or, I suppose in some ways there is but not in the ways that would be most useful for me. For Odinson, who grew up on Old Asgard, the destruction of the planet meant the destruction of many records kept from his years before the Greatest War Against Thanos. His years afterwards are better trackable, but hardly centralized and hardly the more personalized records I am (now trying to get at. Foster, known on Midgard as Dr. Jane Foster and colloquially throughout the galaxy as “Jane the Thinker” or “Jane the Brilliant,” is surprisingly easier to get a handle on. Her fame wasn’t contingent upon her marital status, and she was well-known in scientific circles even before the first battle of the War in the year 2012.

So the root of my problem is this: fitting this pair into my New Asgard diaspora research. Because they are….. how do I say this…. not fitting? With my methodology? (I went to the school of redundancy school, but F*ck I’ve been writing and writing and writing for like 8 hours today already and I’m not changing it so THERE.)

So most of my research deals with the formation of a New Asgardian identity, and it relies heavily upon the shared cultural experiences of the Dark Elf Invasion of Old Asgard and the death of Queen Frigga (an aside, but one of my classmates, Korla Majer, wrote a really stellar article on why the Dark Elf invasion should be included as one of the major battles of the Greatest War, and how the dismissal of the event by most historians actively hurts our understanding of galactic politics at the time and I absolutely 10/10 would recommend you go read it after you finish this blog post) as well as the battle for and destruction of New Asgard. For beings so long lived as us, Asgardians have proven that we can make our memories as short as we need to, and those two events seemed to create the largest basis for the new cultural identity forged on Earth. (For some obvious reasons, namely being the events that led to the planet being destroyed and necessitating the move to Midgard, but ANYWAY.)

But I can’t really deny Jane and Thor’s place in the New Asgardian identity because their effect on the masses is well-documented. There are libraries full of memes, old paper magazines with paparazzi photos paired with barely-real stories that say a lot more about the readership than they do the subjects, even some old FanFiction that I was able to dig up that is in some ways more helpful than all the academia from that time period combined XD

In my roundabout way, the problem I’m trying to sort through is this: HOW do I tackle the Jane/Thor chapter?

Because in my original outlining of my thesis, I had planned on their chapter being a quick summation of how they met just before the Greatest War’s beginning, courted through the course of it, and married at its conclusion. Then, I’d give some context on their influence on galactic politics (because despite what some people erroneously think, they actually were not the monarchs of New Asgard. They remained advisors only after Thor abdicated the throne and named Brunnhilde [of house Dragonfang, an extremely old and well-respected Old Asgardian family] his successor. There was the five year gap of the Blip where Thor was officially King, but it was hardly a politically significant time as for much of this period Thor was gone from New Asgard), how some political maneuvers affected the general New Asgardian populace, and then move back to the cultural study portion of things. But the more sources I gather about them, the more I think this chapter might need to be extended, or made into some… sub point of my main thesis.

Because while I said earlier that information on them is hard to find (because it is!!! You try making document requests to 17 different universities on 15 different planets!!!! Alfheim literally delivered what I asked for in a light spectrum file format!!!!!!!! Like WHAT!!!!!! AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THIS????? HOW DO I CONVERT THIS INTO A PDF OR EVEN JUST MAKE IT COMPATIBLE WITH HOLOREADERS) it’s not always the quantity that’s the issue, it’s the content. I found myself longing to know more about who these people were and why they did the things they did. I’ve always found that I've done my best research when I follow my gut feelings, and research things that I’m passionate about. New Asgardian diaspora culture? I’m living it, baby! I’m very interested because my generation is the first generation to have never set foot on Asgard, and that’s something worth exploring!

And now here I am weirdly fascinated by an almost-king whose magical powers are pretty legendary who was banished and fell in love with a woman (who was 100% human at the time, by the way) whose scientific theories were so advanced that her own people thought she was a bit of a kook until all of her theories started getting proven right. From a non-academic perspective, that sounds like a freaking romance novel or epic movie or something. (Which, by the way, it was! There were at least 6 separate pieces of media [film, novel, television show] that were based on their story that I can find on record.) So on a personal level, here I am wondering why two people in the past got married in spite of wildly different life circumstances/why one of them abdicated a throne that was his birthright, and on an academic level A) trying to figure out how to fit this weird fascination into my thesis B) how did these two political and cultural figures shape the cultural landscape C) was their effect on the cultural landscape more or less significant than the two events which have been taking the most of my focus for the last year? D) how productive is it to even ask the question of more or less significance?

*screaming*

A few people have asked me if I should just switch my track to talk about how they affected Brunnhilde’s rule over New Asgard (which, in case you missed previous posts, Brunnhilde is a huge part of my current thesis as she essentially presided over what I’m terming “The New Asgardian Cultural Renaissance” and was absolutely critical to how things were shaped.) I’m hesitant to do this because this has actually already been done. I’ll stick JSTOR links in the endnotes, but Dr. Hamel Radley literally wrote this. “A King For the Ages: Brunnhilde’s First Three Decades.” Also, Dr. Leslie Storn’s “A King’s Court: Brunnhilde’s Advisory Council.” AND Dr. Jorseph Naulty’s “King Brunnhilde’s Surprising Advisory Council: Steady Hands, Scientists, Military Minds, and Galactic Politicking.” Look, there’s a LOT on Brunnhilde’s rule, and a LOT written on her advisory council. She was the ruling monarch, so it’s pretty par for the course.

But for how politically and culturally significant they seemed to be, there’s not really much specifically on Jane and Thor. Their cultural influences are given lip-service, and that’s it. (Again, Jane has been scientifically significant in a way no one has achieved since Albert Einstein, so in that way she’s more famous than her husband, but scientific notoriety isn’t the same as recognizing the fullness of her cultural contributions.)

I brought this stuff up to my advisor, and she said to keep pulling this thread because I’m on to something here, I just need to figure out what.

So my next research goal is to reach out to their descendents. They have a few children and grandchildren living, and hopefully at least one of them is willing to speak to me about them as people so I can get that portion of things nailed down before I go insane.

My almost-insanity probably bled into this post a little bit because it’s redundant as heck and you can bet your bum I am not spell-checking or proofreading. I need a break from that garbage. The life of a doctoral student continues.

Here’s to pulling the thread. Hopefully something useful unravels.

-(Future Dr.) Melanie LaComb

Reply posted by: Winsome34, 1/23/01 08:23

Melanie--this is a super interesting track, and your advisor was absolutely right when they said to follow it. I think it would be really interesting to read a sort of half-biography, half-cultural analysis piece. Would be really unique, and I’m sure any doctoral committee would find it an engaging topic.

Not sure if you’ve tried the Avengers Museum and Historical Library yet, but that might be a good place to go for some more primary sources, since Thor was a founding member and Jane was closely tied to them throughout their life. They have a really solid amazing librarians there who know the stacks backwards and forwards. I relied heavily on them when I was researching my last paper about racism against superheroes of color in the early 21st century.

Reply posted by: KorlaMajer, 1/23/01 10:22

Thanks for the shoutout boo ;) Your thesis is gonna be amazing!

ALSO: I have a light spectrum file converter from my dad. He does a ton of business with Alfheim and they are NOTORIOUS for sending incompatible LSFs.

Reply posted by: Chloe Durbin, 2/2/01 20:40

Hey! My mom is actually really tight with Thor and Jane’s oldest daughter Valkyrie. I think they knew each other from school or something back in the day, but she’s really awesome and basically my aunt, so if you need an intro or a number to call, I’ve got you! Just shoot me an email chdurbin02@naun.edu. She’s really approachable if you don’t mind walking up to a lady who is literally 6’8” and looks like she literally HAS killed a man with her bare hands. But super nice though!

Universal Reply posted by: Blogmaster, 5/3/01 06:27

Thank you everyone for the tips! It’s going to help so much! The Avengers Library has actually been majorly helpful (I never even thought to look there, honestly!) and Valkyrie has agreed to sit down to an interview (of sorts) so everything is seriously looking up. And THE LSF CONVERTER WORKED LIKE A CHARM.

[teamoliv-archive]

I don’t have much for unpopular opinions, but I’ll try this instead: what’s your take on the whole situation regarding RWBY and their recent decisions in the latest season? (Frcstbxte)

send me controversial or unpopular opinions and I’ll tell you if I agree or disagree 🐸 ☕️

Hoo boy. People are going to unfollow me for this one guaranteed due to how may super strong opinions people have about this. This one’s getting a cut to avoid drama.

I do want to stress that I don’t want to devalue or invalidate anyone’s complaints regarding the show. Enjoyment is a highly personal thing and if you’re frustrated, upset, disappointed, or otherwise had negative feelings don’t let this convince you that you’re not allowed to feel the way you do about the volume.. My gripes are more on the mechanical and storytelling aspects of things and with the arguments used to criticize the volume. I only hope I can make my case on why the commonly complained about parts of the show don’t warrant the vitriol in my opinion. I likely won’t convince too many people, but I’d like to make my case here anyway.

I honestly believe a lot of the complaints about the latest season from a writing standpoint are short-sighted, lack scope, and/or just miss the point of what we’re looking at. From an overall storytelling perspective this was definitely the most well put together season the show has had so far and a lot of the complaints only address individual concerns that some fans had regarding things not happening the way they wanted to without a regard for the overall plot. This is why I think a lot of the complaints don’t measure up and where my actual gripes with the part lie.

1. Theme

You cannot consider yourself to have analyzed a work without first looking at its overall theme. RWBY’s structure doubles up on this as not only does the show as a whole have its overarching themes and plot, but each individual volume has their own to deal with as well. Here the theme is trust, as directly stated in the opening lyrics and it’s a common source of problems and solutions throughout the the show. 

From an overarching standpoint, we have Salem doing her darnedest to break apart any alliances that could be formed against her. I do not believe this is because she fears humanity in terms of tactical numbers. This simply isn’t that kind of show. The writers have said in interviews that they take most of their story and theme cues from the magical girl genre. You know, the same “love and friendship conquers all” magical girl genre that all those shows not named Madoka Magicka use as the basis for their protagonists. The silver eye power seems fueled by that exact sentiment and I think that’s going to be a huge factor close to the end. This is not a setting where pragmatism and strategic thinking will carry the day- keep that in mind.

2. RWBY vs. Ironwood

This is the part everyone’s been talking about and I think a lot of the hard-line side-taking in either direction is missing the point entirely. This conflict was always going to happen and both sides have fault to bear.

The two sides can be seen as having their own character arcs on a macro scale. Individual character motivations weren’t nearly as important as they were in previous volumes and it helps to see them mostly through the lens of Ruby and Ironwood. The basic core of the problem throughout the series is this, Team RWBY has decided to go along with Ironwood’s plan for lack of one themselves, but don’t trust him with the whole truth until they know how he’ll react to it. This is a man with an army and a paranoid streak after all. This, of course, is a decision that winds up instrumental in triggering Ironwood’s paranoid shitstorm later in the volume.

That said, I don’t believe the problem is Ruby’s decision making- It’s the narrative. The whole reason this comes across as weird and contrived is that we are never told the reason Ruby and co. don’t trust Ironwood with the information from the lamp. By all accounts up until this point there was no visible reason for them to do so and we’re simply never told WHY. Answering this simple question would have made the entire rest of the narrative make a lot more sense were she just given a believable reason to hold the info back, let alone any reason at all.

Now let’s bounce back to Ironwood. I’m going to just go out and say I grew tired of the “Ironwood did no wrong.” discourse pretty quickly because, again, people are missing the point. For this one, we have to look back into the theme- trust. When Ironwood has his breakdown, he not only turns his back on Ruby and her team for lying to him, but he goes right into his martial law plan also betraying the trust of the council, Robyn, and the people of Mantle who are now going to be sacrificed for the sake of salvaging his original plan. Despite Ruby and co’s actions making the situation worse, we aren’t meant to see Ironwood’s new solution as a better alternative purely on the moral cost of what he’s doing. This is what is called in screenwriting the “Moral Line” defined as a vision of right and wrong as told through the protagonists. We’re meant to sympathize with Ruby owning up to lying to Ironwood and trying to move forward despite the setbacks, not cheer for Ironwood calling them out and forcing out a more pragmatic path.

To me, I think this stems from a common sentiment shared in a lot of popular media and deconstruction of tropes that idealism is a naive and childish flaw and that proper strategic logic is what solves problems. Again, I predict that due to the genre inspirations of this story, this won’t be the case at all. Ironwood is going to fail because he turned his back on moral idealism, trust, and friendship in favor of planning and decisive action no matter the cost, not despite it. Harriet summarized the entire philosophy well during her fight with Ruby:

“It’s not excessive if it’s necessary!”

This line feels, to me, like a reflection of everything that Team RWBY is now fighting against and we should be able to understand as an audience from a moral standpoint why this is the way it is.

As a small aside, let’s cap this off with the RWBY vs. ACE-Ops fight. A lot of people called foul because the ACE-Ops lost and I just don’t understand why. The moment the fight started, I knew what the outcome was going to be purely because the story as it was set up simply couldn’t progress otherwise. Much like Mercury and Emerald in volume 5, RWBY matching and defeating the ACE-Ops shows the progression of the main characters. Them choosing to fight also shows RWBY the final stakes moving forward and symbolically shows them that the might of the entire Atlas army is now their enemy moving forward. 

With this in mind, I want to go back to Ironwood’s martial law plan and defend some aspects of his character that should be. Up until the point of Ironwood’s breakdown it was seriously and soberly treated as a last resort option with a clear understanding by Ironwood, Winter, and the ACE-Ops that they knew exactly what was it was going to imply. This does not make them evil and it’s important to understand that. However the Tin Man needs a heart and this brings us to Ironwood’s fatal flaw. The real bad decision was that the martial law plan was enacted despite already having the unity of the people of Mantle behind them. He lost far more than the stands to gain with his decision, thinking only from a tactical and strategic standpoint regardless of what he has to sacrifice to get there. Those sacrifices have already all but left him facing Salem alone. If he survives next volume, I’ll be surprised.

3. Qrow and Clover

For a few moments, I do want to discuss Clover and Qrow’s dynamic because it’s very important to Qrow’s story throughout the part. Regardless of how you choose to interpret their exchanges, the important takeaway here is that for the first time in possibly decades Qrow had a friend he can talk to as an equal and not have Ozpin’s plans or a generational gap in the way. 

Ever since we were introduced to Qrow, he’s shown himself to be a dysfunctional loner who is only just recently trying to seriously pick himself back up off his feet. I believe the fact that he was finally shown that he can actually have friends is a huge factor in this. His life has always been dominated by his feelings and doomsaying. He spends every interaction waiting for the other shoe to drop and uses his own semblance as an excuse to perpetuate that worldview.

And this is why I think Qrow’s fight with Clover makes total sense to have happened. He’s one of Oz’s main team and also has a fatal flaw.

The cowardly lion needed courage and he died for his cowardice.

The tin man needs a heart and lost all his allies in the pursuit of his goals.

The scarecrow needs a brain and his emotional decision-making cost him his friend’s life.

This is a genuine tragedy, literary-speaking in fact. Qrow’s awful situation was one of his own making and he knows it, but I can’t imagine him doing anything else. One thing that I’ve seen throughout the show about Qrow is that he’s never given up trying to stop Salem- he’s an idealist like Ruby and in my opinion has been subverting the mentor archetype beautifully. However, every time he’s made a major decision in the series, he’s done it on an emotional or practical level. No real thinking ever goes into what he does. When Clover calmly announces to Qrow what was just ordered and Robyn summarily attacks him, his first instinct is to try and stop the fight.

I’m going to break here to discuss Robyn’s actions at this moment- another common complaint. Would we really expect someone like her to have done anything different with the news that the city she’s worked so hard to work with all those years was just cast aside? This would have been seen to anyone in her position as nothing less than a double-cross given how just a few hours ago everything for the evacuation was moving apace. From a characters standpoint, I don’t get why anyone would fault Robyn for being furious at this aside from “It’s not the smart thing to do right now.” No, it’s not, but I’m also very tired of seeing people complain about characters making non-optimal decisions. Not everyone things with perfect logic, strategy, or sense at every given moment. This is a perfectly human response to finding out your loved ones were just given a death sentence. She lashed out at Clover over lack of Ironwood face to punch.

With this in mind, Qrow’s decision to fight Clover is a bit more personal. He’s treating it more or less the same way that he treated Raven joining with Cinder a few parts ago. Qrow is clearly very much against the idea of leaving what’s left of Mantle to die and now has a lot of aggression to take out seeing how calmly and without complaint Clover takes the order. The only friend Qrow’s had in a long time chose his duty over him and he doesn’t know how to take that- so they fight. It’s safe to assume that Qrow is likely in a highly emotional state and, as we’ve established before, not thinking about what he’s doing. Robyn is passed out in the wreckage, Tyrian is left unattended, and they’re miles away from any real contact from anyone. Bluntly, he screwed up, he screwed up big time, but his character leads me to believe he wouldn’t really have done anything else.

Then we see Qrow in engage in a little something we in the literary community call “seriously fucking up.” In the heat of the moment, he decides to trust Tyrian at his word and it ends about as well as to be expected. Qrow made a mistake, one of the biggest mistakes in the entire series and one that looks plainly obvious and avoidable to the audience, but only when you consider it through the lens of someone who’s making calm and rational decisions. Yes, Qrow fucked up, I’m not defending his decision making; I’m defending the scene and why that faulty decision making was the only thing that could really happen. 

4. Winter and Penny

The biggest complaint regarding these two is Penny leaving Winter behind at the end of the part. Frankly, for this one I’ve got nothing so I’m not going to pretend I have an answer to the complaints. Much like Ruby early on, the show just outright refuses to give us the reason she left. Winter getting the maiden powers might have been part of the plan, but I don’t think Ironwood would be so inflexible as to not settle for Penny getting it instead. The only thing I can imagine that could be going through her head is that she still wants to try and save Mantle and live up to her title, trusting Winter can handle herself. However, again like with Ruby, I don’t believe that the character is to blame here, but the narrative just refusing to give us an explanation and leaving us to sit there in frustrated confusion. We might get it next part, but I don’t like that...

5. Can I Talk About Watts Now?

With that out of the way, I do have one really bizarre complaint regarding the part that no one else seems to talk talk about.

I am very disappointed with Watts. This is mostly just be griping about lost potential so bear with a small rant.

There was a lot of setup regarding Watts as a threat and when he got the codes. We’re told that given time he could control literally all of Atlas (because apparently two-factor authentication and dead man’s switches don’t exist but that’s a logical gripe for another day). My question is why this wasn’t capitalized on. I wanted a repeat of the mechanical soldiers turning on the Vale citizens. We could have had automated vehicles wreaking havoc, fights between people and robots, and all sorts of fun stuff. You can argue that Watts was distracted by Ironwood’s trap and didn’t have the time to really cut loose and I’ll accept that, but I just wish we could have seen more. Any Watts RPers out there who want some ideas, you’re free to steal this one.

[bettsfic]

a third stance on the moral dichotomy of fandom

i have one more thing to say, or i guess reiterate, on the topic of moral purity policing in fanfiction as perpetuated by minors, in a more rebloggable format than my previous asks. what i have to say is an incredibly unpopular opinion because it takes neither side of this dichotomized issue, and addresses, not the minors perpetuating the purity rhetoric, but the adults fighting against it. 

first i’ll offer a run-down of the overall issue at hand:

side 1, or what i call “think of the CHILDREN”: there is a large sect of people in fandom right now, mostly teens and young adults as far as i can tell, who believe that taboo works (noncon and underage) should not be allowed to exist. if they are written, they should be flagged and subsequently taken down. these people seem to hold these beliefs for several reasons, the prevailing ones being “fiction affects reality” and “children might read it!!” this stance is the active one, the (literal) minority, the side trying to enact change upon an established and (legally) supported status quo. these people do not separate the art from the artist. 

in practice, these beliefs are aggressive and toxic. we see them in rude or cruel anonymous asks urging writers to kill themselves. we see them in “only follow if” and “do not interact if” pages with lengthy bullet point lists of traits and behaviors that are Not Okay. we see them in yfip. we see them in anti tags. we see them in long, poorly researched and contextualized responses to well-meaning pro-”ship and let ship” posts. we see them in accusations of pedophilia for fics and ships that are not in fact pedophilic. we see them in phrases like “abuse apologists” and “problematic” and “romanticize” and “fetishize.” 

despite the seeming growth of what i’ve been calling the Gen Z Puritanical Movement, what we see on tumblr is only a narrow view of a much wider issue spanning outside fandom and into the world of art itself. it stems from problems of decades past, McCarthyism, the Hays Code, the nuclear family, for example, and the subsequent counterculture movements against them. right now Gen X has all the power and prestige in the enormous world art, and being the children of Baby Boomers, they simultaneously believe you must always separate the art from the artist, while also widely disbelieving (or having had to learn) that inequality and disenfranchisement have any bearing in the success of art. 

“the discourse” as we call it has its roots in every creative field and we are in midst of a revolution in the way we understand and interact with art. i believe, with any revolution, the answer is not in stalling it but negotiating with it, learning from it, interrogating it, and adapting. 

side 2, which i’ll unpack below, is comprised mostly of what i would venture are Millennials, and fall somewhere between Gen Z purity and Gen X freedom. and as much as i want to discuss this gaping chasm of beliefs further, i’m specifically talking about the way transformative art is presently policed by side 1.

which brings us to the other side.

side 2, or what i call “i do what i WANT”: these people believe that a fan writer/artist should be able to write, post, and share with the public any creative work the mind can devise as long as it is warned/tagged properly, and all people who do not want to view their art should walk away and not interact. key phrases include “ship and let ship” and “don’t like, don’t read.” the prevailing root of this belief is that all art is valid and important, all art belongs, even when that art is devised entirely by the id. additionally, they believe they do not have to justify, defend, or explain their art in order for it to exist, and most importantly, it is every reader/viewer’s responsibility to understand the difference between fiction and reality. these people separate art from the artist. 

in practice, these beliefs are poised to defend of the attacks from side 1. this is a reaction to a movement, an assertion of maintaining the status quo. we see posts speaking to an audience of side 1, pleading or at times demanding for them to learn not only the fraught history of fanworks but also the greater context of art and censorship. these posts are then reblogged by people with similar beliefs, attacked by side 1, and no one seems to really learn anything at all. the dichotomy is maintained. battles end as posts fall into obscurity, but the war rages on.

side 2 holds the status quo, the most common sense. it is the most educated perspective, upheld by the wiser and older parties of fandom, the transformative artists who have lived through strikethrough and boldthrough and have experienced the damaging consequences of the censorship and ideology of side 1. moreover, it is upheld by the actual people who built and run the archive on which our art rests. in this dichotomy, side 2 has all the power. side 2 is the majority. 

here’s where i get to my incredibly unpopular opinion:

people in positions of power have no reason to meet aggression with more aggression except to re-establish and assert that power over the minority opinion. aggression does not sway the minority opinion; it only fuels it. 

in other, more practical words, we are ADULTS sharing a public community space with CHILDREN, and some of those children have made it clear that they are angry. 

why do we meet that anger with anger when we are older and wiser and have all the authority? if a child is having a violent tantrum, do you punch them in the face? no, you hold their wrists. you calm them down. you ask them what’s wrong. you try to parse out what happened and work together to make sure it doesn’t happen again. you can’t expect them to articulate that anger; you have to ask questions. you have to listen to them.

side 1 says that taboo works are wrong and bad and shameful. i personally disagree with that belief, but my curiosity lies in the extreme emotional reaction and value judgments behind it. and when enough people are angry about something, if a movement becomes wide enough, it means there is something else going on, some seed of truth happening somewhere -- a needle in a haystack, an invisible shard of glass on the kitchen floor -- that needs to be found. i’m not saying side 1 is right, but i am saying that there is something in that anger which might ring true, even if the toxic rhetoric they are spouting is not. i don’t know what that truth is, and the point of this post is not to find it, but to encourage us to seek bigger answers about this very big problem.

side 2, you might be saying, they’re not children, they’re teenagers and young adults. you might be saying, when i was their age, i knew to obey the etiquette of fandom. you might be saying, we are not equals, they should be learning from us. you might be saying, it’s their responsibility to know fiction from reality. you might be saying, none of this is my responsibility. you might be saying, this movement is getting bigger and scarier and it may become an actual threat to our art. 

and you might be feeling: i have no interest in logically or morally defending the taboo nature my aesthetic interests. i know that they appeal to me, and i know i should not be tasked with or required to publicly explain myself. i should not have to assert that art is separate from the artist. i should not have to endure aggressive mobs of anons in my inbox. i should not be chased away by pitchforks held by my own community. i should not be accused of being a predator, rapist, abuse apologist, or pedophile. 

and maybe you know that you are not any of those things, and to be accused of them is ridiculous and appalling, but maybe it still hurts to be called all of that which makes life so dangerous and cruel. maybe it always hurts to have your art misunderstood.

this brings me back to anger. all anger is devised of pain and fear. we get angry when we’re hurt and scared. when i see two angry sides of a wide divide, all i see is that fear and pain, and all i want is to lessen it. 

on side 1, we have a group of young people whose only context is the present and whose only fear is the future. i put myself in the shoes of what it must be like to be a teenager in america in 2018, how different it is from when i was a teenager. teen stars on red carpet events in 2005 dressed in ugly cargo pants and sweatshirts. millie bobby brown at 13 was dressed like a supermodel at last year’s emmy’s. young people today have more and easier access to information pertaining to violence and sex, consume media steeped in those things, than they ever have. and it’s becoming increasingly difficult for parents to keep them from that interaction. side 2′s rhetoric around this is to wipe their hands free of it -- “your parents should monitor what you’re doing on the internet.” and they should, they absolutely should, but while technology has changed, teenage curiosity hasn’t. i clicked past every 18+ warning i’ve ever seen in my life, and that was my choice, and i handled the consequences. 

but just for a second imagine being 14 again, and curiosity getting the best of you, and clicking on something in which your physical equivalent is being hurt and abused and eroticized. can you imagine not having any understanding of the greater context of what you’ve just read, in art or in life? wouldn’t you be scared too, to know those things exist? wouldn’t you be reluctant to listen to the explanation of them when you are young and afraid and suddenly aware that you can be hurt? 

i am not encouraging writers to stop creating taboo fanworks. i think they have an important artistic purpose and function and place, and i value any mind that can conceive and face such darkness. but as someone who aims to understand as much as i possibly can about what it is to be human, to be alive today, i am inclined to consider the various interpretations of taboo art and its potential repercussions. 

teenagers today are more aware and attuned to -- and have constant access to -- current events than any other generation before, but that does not mean they have learned or educated themselves on the historical context of these events in order to understand them fully. they don’t have a wide perspective, but they do have their moral compasses guided by the abhorrence of the constant human rights violations that occur on macro and micro scales every single day, and it’s those compasses that place value judgments on the content they consume in fandom, the place where they feel, i speculate, the most valued. the place they have the most power and sway. the only place, maybe, that their voice and fear and anger is ever heard, witnessed, responded to, taken seriously. 

being a teenager today is a completely new and terrifying machine made of old parts. we, the adults in fandom, understand the parts but not the machine. how can all the same parts make something so different from us? who built this monster, and how to we destroy it? why is it attacking us when there are bigger and more important battles to fight? why doesn’t it go read a fucking book for once?

that brings us to side 2. if side 1 has the future, side 2 has the past. we see the toxic rhetoric of side 1 and we know what consequences can come of it because we’ve lived the worst of it. we have both the pain of the past and the fear of the future to handle, and neither are easy to cope with. 

so what do we do? we either get angry and fight back, or disengage. sometimes i think the latter is the most toxic of all, because i believe it’s every artist’s responsibility to understand the work they’re doing and the greater context of that work, how it fits in their given lexicon of art. they should not be required to defend it or speak for it, but they should know it. inside and out, they should know their art and why they make it. 

i also believe, if you know your art and why you make it, if you can separate yourself the artist from the art, why disengage from those who are repulsed but reaching out? it’s definitely my gut instinct to meet cruelty with anger and upsetness, but cruelty also piques my curiosity -- i want to know where the repulsion comes from. i want to ask questions. why are you offended by this art? how have you interpreted it? why are you afraid of it? how has its existence hurt you? if nothing else, it always gives me a broader understanding of my work and how it can be seen, which is invaluable feedback for any artist. 

if there is any bridge at all to be built between this divide, i think it is in our ability to ask questions, listen to the answers, and use those answers, not to argue with or defend ourselves or to become upset by, but to ask more questions. 

here are two ways this mentality has helped me -- 

in my old job (commercial finance real estate), i worked with upperclass middle-aged white men who got paid six figures a year to golf and cheat on their wives while i did all their paperwork. eventually i made a hobby of sitting in their offices and asking them questions, knowing they had authority over me, knowing our opinions differed. knowing i had no place to argue with them or leverage in telling them all the ways i felt they were wrong about politics and society at large. i pretended they were teaching me things, showing me the way of the world. i let them believe that, and i continued asking questions, forcing them to articulate aloud why they believed what they believed, hours and hours, slowly boxing them into corners from which they would eventually change their own minds.

in my current job (i’m a college instructor) i do something similar. i sit down with every single student one on one and i ask them questions about their political and social beliefs. often my students are 19, white, straight, affluent, conservative young adults who hold many of the same puritanical ideas as that of side 1 with less of the toxic rhetoric. at first, i was terrified to do this. it was different than my old job because suddenly i was the one with authority. i thought, what if i encounter racism? prejudice? sexism? what if they are fundamentally wrong on every level, and won’t listen to me, someone who knows the greater context of their opinions? what if i end up arguing with them? what if they don’t respect me? what if i can’t change their minds? and most importantly -- is it my responsibility to change their minds at all?

after the first semester, i realized how young they were, how much they still had left to grow, and learn, and live, and that my class would not be able to teach them everything they needed to know in order to strip away the prejudices and narrow-mindedness of their upbringings. i learned that all i could do was be a person in a position of authority listening to their beliefs and asking them tough questions no one has ever asked them. forcing them on the spot to articulate the beliefs they have not before had the opportunity to interrogate. i find i rarely agree with what they say, but i validate their right and ability to say it. to have a voice and space and responsibility in and to society. to think, itself. and most importantly to think through their ideals, which they cannot do if they are never given a chance to be heard, if they are never asked the questions whose answers will lead them to deeper and more meaningful insights.

i have never changed the mind of a single person by arguing, but i have changed several minds by asking. 

we have an entire generation of terrified young people who are lashing out, and i do not want to hate them. i do not want to meet their rage and toxicity with fear, defensiveness, and dismissal. i want to sympathize and listen. i want to know more about why they feel how they feel, what the real root of it is, the seeds of truth behind the rhetoric. i want to understand. and mostly, i want to help fix all the broken and awful things in the greater sociopolitical sphere that have built this terrifying machine and dug our moral divide.

[emilytutty-blog]

‘Social’ Media

When we pick up our phones, more often that not, it is to communicate with someone. A phone’s sole purpose is to connect one another through the use of messages and calls. If we go way back to 1973 when the first mobile phone was created, it allowed for 30 minutes of calls, with a charge time of 10 hours. Just over 40 years later and we now have abilities far and wide on these devices; abilities that never would have been deemed possible a few decades ago.

It is expected that by 2021, nearly one third of the planet’s entire population will be a part of the online community. This social network provides so much interactivity, with almost every aspect of our lives being shared to those who engage with our online accounts. But the question that I want to ask is whether this phenomenon of a social network has made us as a society more social, or if it has in fact lessened our social abilities.

The first two contradicting arguments that spring to mind are the obvious – yes, they have made us more social as we connect with people at times that we can’t be with them; no, they have not made us more social -  the addiction to the social network takes away from the moments that we do spend with people IRL.

But I want to go deeper than that, I want to explore why it connects us with people, solidifying friendships, and why it can also lead to the death of friendships. So, to begin…

The social network is a feature of the modern day that we can all access. We can access it from our phones, our tablets, our laptops, and even our watches it would now seem. With the development of smart watches where notifications can appear, the social network doesn’t just exist in something that we hold, but now it exists in an accessory that we wear. It is EVERYWHERE.

If you go to a shop and look at their posters in store, chances are they will have the handle to their social accounts readily available. Some companies even create their own hashtag to bring together their consumers under one discourse community: #babesofmissguided and #pltstyle are just two examples of a platform created for buyers of fashion clothing to come together to share their outfits. The hashtag #ootd is an internationally-used tag, whether it be by every day users, or by bloggers to share outfit inspiration - there are hashtags available to bring together a community of any size under an umbrella of common interest.

A social network extends beyond this – a social network allows for you to connect with your course mates about the latest assignment, it allows you to connect with your friends from home, your work colleagues, your family. It also allows you to connect with total strangers.

We all have group chats where we message multiple people simultaneously – it’s easy for convenience. Most students at uni I’m sure will also have a house group chat, I know I do. But why? I live with these people so I am guaranteed to see them. Why couldn’t I just save what I had to say until I saw them, rather than posting a message in the chat? It’s the immediacy.

Social media provides us with a platform to share news as soon as its happened. Gossip from Friday night? Of course, it has to be sent in voice notes to your course mates – it definitely can’t wait until Monday to be shared. We are now so used to receiving and giving news as soon as its happened that is a natural part of life. This is where Snapchat became so successful in the social media market.

The feature that Snapchat provides us all with is the ability to take a photo, or a video, of an exact moment in time. It saves us having to describe the amazing smoothie bowl that you had that morning at brunch, it saves you having to ring your friend from the shops and describe a dress to know whether to make the purchase or not and it saves the storage of your phone where photos disappear after 10 seconds! Its EASY. It makes our life a whole load simpler and that’s what we love. When life is busy, anything to help us save time is appreciated by all.

As I have grown up, I have seen the patterns of social media change. I first got Facebook at the age of thirteen. Messages would be sent with emojis made up of punctuation instead of the animated characters that we use today, both on Android and Apple. There has always been the need for multimodal forms of communication. An emoji helps to convey the emotions that a reader is trying to express in words where they can’t visually see the person speaking. Facebook is a greatly multimodal app with the ability to tag friends in funny videos, photos, share statuses, send messages – however, other social networks have taken over. Twitter is a greatly used multimodal platform to share content, arguably it has become more popular than Facebook with younger generations.

  Instagram and Snapchat are also platforms that allow for the sharing of strong visual content. The main feature of these social networks is the sharing of images, accompanied by text. This allows for a strong visual insight into the lives of others. The culture of online influencers has led to a strong curiosity to see how others live their lives. Online we are able to present ourselves in any way, shape or form that we choose to do so – we have the freedom that so many people wish for. So, what’s not to love?

In fact, put simply, quite a lot.

Social media is amazing, fantastic, brilliant…but it is also misleading, damaging and harmful. The ability to be able to share only your best life is very misleading. This can change people’s perspectives of the person that they thought you were when you met in person, or ‘IRL’, if we’re using netspeak. People may become bitter about your life you live online, people may feel that they’re not good enough, and friends may start to see you as competition, altering your friendship.

Online is a platform for mental health issues to arise rapidly – anxiety, depression and eating disorders are only a few of the problems that can stem from the use of social media. For the damage that it does, is it really worth it?

Not only does social networking take away from the precious time that you spend with those around you, but it disengages you from conversations that they’re having. Replying to a quick message? Yes, fine; but spending time scrolling through Instagram or catching up on your Snapchat stories instead of having a gossip or a catch up with the people who are there in the room with you could come across as rude. It is a statement without having to say anything – that you’d rather be elsewhere.

I feel like when I pick up my phone and mindlessly scroll I am by all means not saying to those I’m with that I’m uninterested in discussion, it’s just habit. Phones come everywhere we go – it’s like a fifth limb that we have all biologically developed in the 21stcentury. Science has truly gone crazy.

However, not only is it the barrier that using our phones poses, but also the expectation that the content that we see online poses. If you follow endless food accounts, it may make you feel guilty for eating any food that isn’t green and crunchy; if you follow lifestyle accounts it may make you feel like your relationship isn’t as healthy as it should be, that your partner isn’t taking you on dates as exotic and exiting as they should be; you may feel that your house isn’t as tidy and clean as it should be; you may feel like you’re not as toned and healthy as you should be; you may feel that your skin isn’t as fresh as it could be; you may feel that your job isn’t as exciting as it should be; you may feel that your weekend getaway isn’t extravagant enough; you may feel that…

STOP!

The pressure that we put on ourselves because of social media is immense. The culture that it creates is one of comparison – comparing every aspect of our lives and it isn’t healthy. It isn’t healthy for your body or mind. In Summer of 2016, 95 million posts were made daily to Instagram. That works out as 3,958,333 posts her hour, 65,972 posts a minute and 1,099 posts a second. It’s no wonder it feels like there’s no room to escape.

It’s important to take a moment to yourself and remember what really matters in life. Quality time with your family, your friends and yourself are essential to feeling at peace with the world. A book that has done me enormous favours is ‘Calm’ by Fearne Cotton (I have inserted the link to this book at the bottom of the this blog post). It has helped me to put things into perspective and to ‘let go’ of any issues or stresses I have that are out of my control.

Now, put your phone down, close your laptop and go and spend time with those who love you the most.

(https://www.amazon.co.uk/Calm-Working-through-stresses-peaceful/dp/1409183637/ref=sr_1_3?qid=1552217128&refinements=p_27%3AFearne+Cotton&s=books&sr=1-3)

[uk-news-talking-politics]

2018 highs and lows: A dead Guatemalan girl and what it says about us

Ian Dunt

High: The backstop

The backstop is a strange political object. It is simultaneously boring and fascinating. It is intolerable, but also oddly beautiful. Bear with me on this.

The high point of the year - although, this being 2018, it didn't feel that way - came in mid-November when Theresa May confirmed she'd secured a deal with the EU. The reason it was a high point may not have been immediately obvious. For a start, May's deal instantly imploded the Tory party, triggered several resignations and seemed to end all hopes of a managed way through the mess.

The howls of outrage were not illegitimate either. The backstop introduces a disturbing democratic phenomenon in Northern Ireland, where EU rules, as long as they are amended or replaced, are instantly imposed without any democratic representation.

So it's hard to see why it should be the highlight of anyone's year, except for perhaps a few political sadists. But dig a little deeper and it reflects something quite remarkable. It is the secured objective of a union of nations standing up for the smallest in their number.

The EU is a much-maligned institution. It is the subject of despairing commentary across the continent, from left and right. Even among Remainers in the UK, it is hardly universally loved. And indeed it has many faults. It legislates too widely. It is too tedious and complex for average voters to follow, which is a democratic problem in its own right. Jean-Claude Juncker is a particularly terrible Commission head whose behaviour is an embarrassment to europhiles and indeed European citizens in general. But quieten the noise for a moment and notice what was done here.

The Republic of Ireland did not ask for a Brexit referendum. Unlike the UK, its public did not vote for what happened. They were suddenly presented with a situation in which they were going to be torn apart. Their largest export market would pull away but they could not change to accommodate it because they were plugged into European rules. The spectre of border infrastructure, the physical architecture of the Troubles, was rearing its head. The commitment to an instinctively all-Ireland perspective, of walking together into the future, was being ignored.

At any other time in history, that would have been the end of it. The UK is much bigger, richer and more powerful than Ireland. It can boss it around. And it has done so, for hundreds of years, to disastrous effect. But this time it was different.

This time, a union of nations stood by one of its smaller members. It might not have been in their interest. Certainly it's true that the deal would have been much easier to sort if the Irish issue wasn't there. But they did it anyway, by showing commitment to the functional principle of the European project.

The emotional outrage of Brexiters during negotiations has largely stemmed from this fact. They hark back to a world where stronger countries could do what they wanted. Britain could boss Ireland. Only a handful of countries could boss it back. We dressed it up in all sorts of elegant names, and pronounced on it while wearing well-tailored suits from the chambers of parliament, but in reality it was the international law of the jungle - the political Darwinism of international relations. But now there is a new way of doing things, a way which we, ironically, have championed: nations acting together for their mutual advantage.

It's a weird highlight, because the ramifications of the blackstop are ugly and no-one really wants it. But in an era when international institutions are being smacked around by authoritarians, and in which no-one will defend a more complex and fair way of doing things, it showed that the EU was going to stick to its principles. If it can make it out of the difficult years ahead in one piece, it'll be because it did so, rather than sacrifice them.

Low: The death of Jakelin Caal Maquin

Jakelin Caal Maquin was seven years old when she died, following a cardiac arrest, in El Paso Texas on Saturday, December 8th. The hardline policy of the United States means that Guatemalan immigrants like her have to find ever-more isolated parts of the border to try and cross. She and her father had made it to Antelope Wells in New Mexico, one of the most remote spots on the US' southern frontier. And she paid for it with her life.

The cruelty around the death began as soon as it was announced. Trump supporters laid the blame at the parent. You start to assume this kind of response now - a sub-human form of emotional opacity - in a way we wouldn't before. Many in the US use the word 'invasion' when talking about migrants, as British far-right figures talk of Muslim 'barbarians' when discussing the Middle East. It is a dehumanisation mechanism directed towards the Other, but which in fact operates upon oneself.

They did not mention the tiny wooden house Maquin lived in, with a straw roof and dirty floors, where she used to sleep with her parents and three siblings. And they did not think about why people make these journeys, in dangerous conditions, to find a better life.

Of course, this is just one death. There are countless others. Indeed, last Monday another Guatemalan child, named Felipe Gómez Alonzo, had died in American custody.

We don't know how many drowned in the sea trying to get to Europe this year. Not really. The authorities have started to close down any rescue service available to them. Earlier this month Medecines Sans Frontier confirmed it had to pull its rescue boat after aggressive Italian bureaucracy had kept it in port for months. Even saving migrants is no longer allowed. In Hungary a law was recently passed criminalising efforts to help people claim asylum. In the US,migrant children are separated from their parents and put in cages. We are becoming something less than we were before.

Across the West, the anti-migrant wave continues. It is there in the US under Trump, in Italy under Salvini, in Hungary under Orban. It is in every country, under different guises, focused on different groups. In the UK, where we pride ourselves on being more moderate in our policy and our discourse, millions of European citizens have lived in uncertainty, facing daily insults from a society which treats them as a problem rather than a friend. We have deported people who have lived here legally for decades. We have locked up countless thousands in detention centres, without trials or access to legal advice. And then, as the year ended, the home secretary stood up in parliament to confirm the end of free movement, arguably the greatest liberal accomplishment of the post-war period. And he did it like it was some kind of victory.

Those are the conditions under which the world's most important political debate currently takes place. The immigrant is the Other. They are the target, picked on and spat at and ultimately killed, while commentators tell us to understand the 'legitimate concerns' of those who despise them.

Next year, we should show less understanding of people's 'legitimate concerns' and more outrage over the victims of anti-immigrant hysteria.

[cmcsmen]

Keeping True To Mission

Developing Catholic men to make Jesus Christ the center of their lives.

As CMCS crosses over into another fiscal year, since 2004, I’d like to share some insights about this apostolate called Catholic Men Chicago Southland. Specifically, how we’ve sustained over the years, what our mission means, how we’re doing it, and what this will mean going into the future. 

As you may know, the CMCS mission is to foster Catholic Men in personal holiness, and to make Jesus Christ the center of our daily lives. Over the years the words ‘contemporary Catholic men’ was used in the mission statement and has created some confusion, so in printing the new prayer cards recently we removed it from the mission statement.  

So, CMCS has understood the words Catholic Men as "practical catholic" to mean a Catholic who accepts the teaching authority of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals, aspires to live in accord with the precepts of the Catholic Church, and is in good standing in the Catholic Church in union with the Holy See. The Precepts of the Catholic Church are laws binding upon the Catholic faithful and are prescribed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (CCC, 2041-2043) 

What this means in reality, or implementation, is to keep true to mission: Developing Catholic men to practice the basic foundations of The Magisterium of the Church. Yes, it is that simple!  The best way for evil to succeed is for good men and women to do nothing. This world needs more saints, bold witnesses for Jesus Christ. 

“When you foster a Man in holiness, the positive adjustments he makes can create a upstanding man, husband, or father, and this impact can be felt for three generations. “ 

 ~ Frank J Casella

The Catholic men’s movement across the country has really evolved over recent decades and, like the Church, there are many needs men have and there are many movements to feed those needs. Though, like the Church, CMCS has touched on these needs (such as marriage and divorce, pornography and other addictions) these needs are served by first keeping the fundamentals of the Faith. This is why, going forward, CMCS will emphasize more to stay neutral when it comes to the latest news in the culture or political discourse, and instead speak to these through going ‘back to the basics’, if you will. 

(Whether it is a corporation or a government, when ‘you’ move away from the fundamentals set by the founders, you flounder. Likewise, when you move away from the fundamentals of the Bible and the Church, you flounder. ) 

This is because our outreach is to Vicariate VI (which is one of the six Vicariates, in the archdiocese of Chicago, and thus the size of the average diocese in the country). In other words, we seek to keep things general because we serve mainly the masses of the Vicariate, with the byproduct of this overflowing to the archdiocese. 

The annual Bishop Perry Catholic Men’s Forum is the main function of our work, from which everything else stems from. The main idea is to feed the stomach, then feed the soul, which is nothing more than a prayer breakfast with a speaker who teaches Catholic men how to apply the basics truths of the Catholic Faith. Then Bishop Perry celebrates Mass with us and shares his homily reflection about what he wants us to know. 

The format of the event has been ‘locker room’ style, meaning the very basics of just tables and chairs to keep the focus on the message. From this outreach, as a separate ministry, are the CMCSmen Blog, Mailing List, and Resource Archive. The purpose of these, in addition to keeping CMCS top of mind, is to provide Catholic men a spiritual ‘tool box’ towards holiness as a work in progress while living on this earth. These methods see the best response from our followers, though may not be the most popular methods in the culture. 

To make all of this happen up to now, and going into the future, not only takes active participants, and prayer warriors, but active donors as well. Noteworthy to say, to keep to the CMCS mission, no revenue is generated by advertising, and funded only by individual support. Operation of CMCS is debt free, and donations over expenses contribute towards ministry work of the director. 

In other words, our online ministry though targeted to our local Vicariate, is made available to the men of the archdiocese and the world without subscription or pay wall, and likewise our (online) participants and donors come from all of these regions as well. We strongly support a funding outreach to men outside our Vicariate. Saint Paul did not hesitate to seek funds outside of specific churches in order to help the "poorer" churches. See Sunday's second reading. (2 Cor: 7,9 13-15.) 

CMCS is fortunate and blessed to have so many CMCS-Men (followers) who have shared with us what they have seen this apostolate has done for their Catholic walk. Likewise, we see men who pray for other men, and our mission, as well as share our spiritual resources. We’ve also had a few men introduce us to a donor from their professional network! I am a firm believer in this is how the Holy Spirit reveals that you’re doing things God’s way, and not your own way. 

“We believe Jesus Christ set’s the tone and the description for authentic manhood. The Gospels offer the outline and formation for manly maturity and the carrying out of responsibility as a single man, as a married man, family man, widow and for a man’s last days as he prepares to meet his Maker! A man can’t go wrong with taking on the task of the Christian lifestyle. “ 

 ~ Bishop Joseph Perry

[smokeybrand]

Binary

This started out as a whole thing about Brie Larson. She’s started a YouTube channel and i figured I'd follow it just for kicks. I’m not a huge fan of massive Hollywood stars invading more accessible spaces but, technically, they’re the “You” in YouTube, too. I can’t be too mad at that. Of course Google is going to cater more to their brand, mostly because they bring in the duckets and understand PR so they know ho not to cause an ADpocolypse, but it’s still mad sh*tty. Larson’s first post was just her being goofy, trying to figure out how to even be a YouTuber. You kind of see a side of her that i figured was there, but never really was able to confirm. Brie Larson is the poster child for Millennial geekdom and i find that adorable as f*ck. Which is why i don’t understand the MASSIVE waves of hate she’s getting from the community. Cats are reveling in her perceived failure, it’s actually insane.

Now, before we go any further, i just want to be clear; I am a fan of Brie Larson. I think she is excellent at her craft. Ma is from my hometown and it’s always great to see someone make it out of this cowtown. I believe she has every right to her opinions and the fact that she voices them from such a visible platform, makes her one of the most endearing and real celebrities in an industry maligned by the phony. Brie ain’t quite Russell Brand but she is very vocal about the unjust sh*t she sees and will totally let you know it. That, i think, is why she garners such vitriol. Look, I'm a black dude living in the US. If she gets on TV and says f*ck white dudes, I'm inclined to agree. But she didn’t say that. What she said was there needs to be more voices making film, different perspectives in the arts. White dudes dominate the industry and she’s tired of seeing that movie. I don’t understand how that’s a controversial statement. It’s true. We need more dynamic, more diverse, storytellers making films out in the wild. The thing is, that one statement earned her the ire of every entitled white boy with time and and the internet. These motherf*cker decided to take that personally and we were off to the races.

When Brie Larson was announced as Captain Marvel, i was okay with it. I thought Charlize Theron or Katee Sackhoff would have been a better look but i get it. Larson is young and can portray the character for years to come. Kind of how Florence Pugh is going to take over Black Widow duties from Scarlett Johansson. Pugh can be that character for close to a decade, as can Larson. Once again, however, the interwebs were set asunder with rage and malcontent over the Cap Marvel announcement. It was f*cking ridiculous to me. Sure, she didn’t look the part going into this but neither did Gal Gadot, the latter turned out to be the best thing going in that trainwreck DCEU. Larson grew into the part, put in the work to look the part, and is committed to the role. She did her research, consuming massive amounts of the comics, trying to find Carol’s head space, which was a goddamn feat. Captain Marvel is as controversial as Brie Larson, herself. And it’s just as stupid.

Look, i adore Captain Marvel. She’s my fifth favorite Marvel character after Spider-Man, Doctor Doom, Laura Kinney, and Illyana Rasputin. In that order. Captain Marvel grew on me during the whole Mighty Avengers and Disassembled story lines from years ago. I have no love-loss for Bendis but that cat did wonders for building up more obscure characters, Carol being one of them. I also like what he did for Luke Cage, too, but that’s not what this essay is about. I’ve been a fan of this character since the early 00s and have rode this Carol train for years. I jumped on bored when she was rocking her leotard, which i miss terribly, took my time to dig up the back issues where she was in the original red and blue digs and moonlighted as Warbird for a bit. Then, Marvel Now happened and f*cked it all up. Carol went from this attractive, uber-powered, mess of a woman to a cold, manly, aggressively stupid caricature of herself. The Carol Danvers i had grown to love, with all of her faults and trauma, became some sort of butch nightmare and the poster child for why Woke Marvel was failing. I don’t think that’s fair.

Comic Carol was on her way to becoming a real force in the Marvel universe. She had learned there was worth in her strength, one she had to drag out through deep introspection and an understanding of who she really is. No longer was she just a gender-swapped, copyright placeholder that no one knew what to do with. Now she had agency. Now she was a force. Now she was relevant. Now tore all of that away. After Marvel Now, all of that growth and nuance was thrown out of the window. She became the idealized version of what the SJWs thought a “Strong Woman” should be. Marvel gave her a massive push in an effort to  cater to this burgeoning Tumblr dynamic and it failed miserably. Marvel wanted that Steven Universe crowd and they tried real hard to get it but that sh*t did not work. The changes to the universe weren’t extreme or feminist or PC enough. Courting a fanbase that had no longevity, Carol was sabotaged and thrown to the wolves. That’s the environment we were saturated in when Disney announced Larson as Carol for the MCU. It was a perfect storm of Nerdrage, one that has not died down in any capacity all these years later for either Brie or Carol.

I don’t think the feminist slant given to the Captain Marvel movie was actually such a big deal. I think the vitriol that flick faces stems from the combined maliciousness both the new version of Carol in the comics and Brie Larson, herself, garnered. It’s kind of crazy the massive tantrum everyone decided to throw over this movie. Cats were looking for this thing to fail as some sort of petulant schadenfreude ignoring the fact that this movie wasn’t made for them. As frustrated as i was with the ludicrous discourse, i knew this movie wasn't for me. his wasn’t my Carol and i was good with that. Unlike Marvel who pandered to the trend of PC nonsense, the MCU had a clear vision in mind for the audience they wanted; Young girls. They wanted a character who was strong enough to hang with Thor, stand equally with Iron Man, and have the respect of Captain America. Captain Marvel was the best option. She would be the tentpole hero of the MCU going forward and i accepted that. I went into the film with that understanding and, on my way out, i saw, firsthand, what this movie meant to the target audience. There was a little girl, about nine or so, gushing abut how cool Captain Marvel was. She as ecstatic to see a girl like her, kicking so much butt. In the face of that, every entitled argument you have against the character falls apart in my eyes. Captain Marvel is to young girls and woman, as Black Panther was to us black folk. It’s the same energy.

Do i think the film could have been better? F*ck yea, i do. I think the script should have had one more revision and the directors definitely felt out of place. They’re good at their jobs, they mostly make A24-esque fare, but a massive, multi-million dollar, space epic connected to the most popular film franchise in history? Nah, these cats were way out of their depth. I think Feige dropped the ball on this one, a rare miss. I think Kathryn Bigelow, Patty Jenkins, Lynne Ramsay, Claire Dennis, or  Lorene Scafaria would have constructed a much better film, both visually and narrative wise. I think if the movie was better as a whole, a lot of the controversy and vitriol would have been neutered. Carol is written quite wooden and a little pretentious. The interactions between the supporting cast feels forced. The overall narrative is fine but definitely could have been embellished at parts. Captain Marvel is boring and i don’t know how that happened. You have one of the strongest characters in comics, with a distinct, visually appealing powerset, and you make her movie boring? Really? More than anything, though, is the absolute mistreatment of Sam Jackson and Nick Fury.

The writing reduces Nick Fury, the mind behind the entirety of the Avengers Initiative, to lap boy sidekick in an effort to up Carol’s own stature. That sh*t is poor writing and it’s mad frustrating to see. I hate narratives that have to job established characters, in an effort to push new additions. I just wrote a whole goddamn thing about that with Punchline, Joker’s new “partner”. It’s bogus, cheapening the character and opens up an avenue for bad-faith complaints. Rey Palpatine is another great example. Her entire character is built on the slow, methodical, violent, destruction of the Skywalker legacy. Interestingly enough, that character was launched in the same environment as New Carol so i understand why the movie is the way that it is. I don’t agree with it, but i know why. It was an incredibly poor choice to introduce Captain Marvel in this way, however, and she’s never recovered. Brie has never recovered. You want a 90s buddy-cop space opera? Lethal Weapon with Skrulls and starships? You need your Murtaugh and Riggs to stand on equal footing. That was not the case with this flick. Having Nick Fury job to Carol Danvers for two hours was the wrong way to go about all of this and i think a different creative team could have made something truly excellent.

It’s nuts to me that this is even a thing though. Brie’s personal controversy is so f*cking stupid, i choke every time i think about it. How are you mad she stand up for herself, her gender, and everyone else in a position of persecution? Don’t you want though with a platform speaking up about the inequities of our country? I feel like the same people who hate Brie for her vocal advocacy, are the same people who stan “All Lives Matter” when ever someone says Black Lives Matter. That sh*t feels like the same energy to me. I feel like the criticisms launched at comic Carol have real validity, even if most of them are just whiny man-children who miss the leotard. I miss the leotard, too, but come on? We’re passed that now. I do think, when written well, Carol can be a force in the books. Her run as part of the new Ultimates was pretty chill I think she needs that in order to be her true self, until we establish a true self for the character. It’s weird to say but Captain Marvel, Ms. Marvel previously, has been around for fifty years, and no one has any idea who she is as a character. I think Captain Marvel in the MCU, both the character and film, are hated for the wrong reasons. The fact that no one has any idea who this character is, makes for a lousy cinematic experience. The team put together in an effort to flesh this character out, didn’t have the creative capacity to do so and we were left with little more than PC tropes and Feminist agenda. The MCU let both Brie and Carol down in that regard.

Brie Larson isn’t a terrible person and she deserves more respect put on her name. She an accomplished actress with a bevy of awards and accolades to her name. She’s been in great films like Room and Scott Pilgrim, never once garnering a controversy. The fact that she speaks her truth, a truth the establishment doesn’t want to hear, should not disqualify her talent or the fact that she seems like a really chill person. Carol Danvers is a dope ass character with an amazing amount of potential. When she’s written well and not traded upon for trends, she can have real staying power. Her abilities open up a plethora of interesting, creatively fertile narratives yet to be written. Disregarding her just because Marvel decided to gamble on the pretentious third-wave feminism wave is shortsighted and makes you look like a childish brat. You’re entitled to feel however you want but let’s be clear; Brie Larson and Carol Danvers deserve so much better.

[dailybuglenow]

WEDNESDAY, 8 JULY 2024. EDITED BY J. JONAH JAMESON.

AMERICA’S FIRST FAMILY LEADS THE WAY!

Although responses to the newly created S.315, aka the Underage Superhuman Welfare Act have been decidedly mixed the first superheroes have finally stepped out in support. Fantastic Four members Dr. Reed Richards and Dr. Susan Storm-Richards announced that they not only believe in Kamala’s Law but have also registered their own children, Franklin Richards ( 16 ) and Valeria Richards ( 14 ) with Mister Fantastic set to sponsor Valeria while the Invisible Woman will register Franklin. This announcement may come as a surprise to some but analysts predicated it weeks ago due to the Fantastic Four’s history. Child Protective Services were called a few years back, according to government records, as it was believed that children could not be raised in a healthy and safe environment if superheroics are in the mix. It was ultimately decided that the Richard’s were fit to maintain custody of their children. Their current support of the Act shows a continued devotion to making the world a safe place for young heroes.

Psychologist and government agent Dr. Valerie Cooper pointed out that S.315 was not put in place to discourage underaged superheroes, only disruptive behavior. “During formative years it’s important for there to be structure and consistency. S.315 requires underage heroes to enter partnerships with established adult heroes who can provide advice and guidance.” By that definition it should be easy for people to take extra precautions to protect their children and set them up for success. Upon turning twenty-one sponsored heroes are able to become mentors themselves, therefore creating a positive cycle that shows sponsorship is not censorship.

“We want the world for our children,” the Invisible Woman said in a Fantastic Four press conference. “But we also remember the fear and struggle that can come with harnessing metahuman abilities. Our son has fantastical powers and with proper guidance we know he can do fantastic things. That’s why we support Kamala’s Law; it fosters potential. We’ve always been champions of positive change and hopefully, through this, a little bit more is passed onto our children.”

With the Fantastic Four now behind the Underage Superhuman Welfare Act more heroes are expected to step forward. So far none of Osborn’s American Avengers have been listed as potential sponsors but they are expected to be soon. Hero teams such as the Champions and the family of minors the Power Pack are expected to sign up for sponsorship soon or will face repercussions. As more and more time passes it seems as if President Osborn’s America may be here to stay. If the Fantastic Four leads the way we may very well end up in a world with supervised heroics. Hopefully this goes better than the last time.

— Christine Everhart, Daily Bugle News Senior Reporter

ROBBING THE C.R.A.D.L.E.: A CONTAINMENT OUTBREAK

Over the last three months the Child Hero Reconnaissance and Disruption Law Enforcement ( C.R.A.D.L.E. ) division of the government have rolled out raids and warranted visits to bring in underaged superheroes. As it stands, being a superhero under the age of twenty-one is not illegal as long as said hero has a government approved sponsor. The government has deigned Central VA Correctional Unit 13 in Virginia as the official C.R.A.D.L.E. Correctional Facility. “The goal is not long term residency,” C.R.AD.L.E. Captain Carolina Washington said in a statement after the announcement. “They’re not inmates. It’s a correctional facility in name but the point is to have a consolidated place to keep heroes safe while we process each case. After they comply they’re welcome to go home and continue making a positive difference.”

On May 25th C.R.A.D.L.E received an anonymous tip that the New Avengers would be having a meeting at the New Avengers Compound in Upstate New York. This tip came shortly after the Bugle received word that high school senior Peter Parker of Queens, NY was actually the masked hero known as Spider-man. Whether or not Parker was the reason C.R.A.D.L.E. was called to the Compound is unknown, but he was confirmed to be present. Please see our article by reporter Melita Garner on page 3 for more of Spider-man’s story. C.R.A.D.L.E. Captain Carolina Washington led the strike alongside America’s Avenger team-member Star, who was there to oversee the situation. Upon arriving they received pushback from Katherine Pryde ( Red Queen ), Sam Wilson ( Captain America ) and Carol Danvers ( Captain Marvel ) the operatives were able to take seven underaged heroes into custody. Parker managed to evade arrest alongside Illyana Rasputina ( Magik ) and Nathan Summers ( Cable ). The addition of the May 25th raid brought the total of arrested minors to seventeen total in the Correctional Facility.

Surprisingly, among those taken into custody was Xandra Neramani, daughter of the deceased Shi’ar Empress Lilandra Neramani and famed mutant leader and humanitarian Charles Xavier. The arrival of the Shi’ar in March revealed that the galactic empire had chosen to allow a fifteen year old to act as their Majestrix due to her Neramani royal blood.  She has been supported by Shi’ar Grand Council and former Majestrix Kallark ( Gladiator ). The Shi’ar are known for complicated family relationships, and it was her Aunt turned guardian Cal’syee Neramani ( Deathbird ) who handled the incident. Empress Neramani’s action as a minor on American soil conflict with her diplomatic status, but she was released the following morning to Deathbird’s care and the elder Shi’ar made reassurances that the Empire took no offense and that Empress Neramani’s position is an understandably delicate one. Xandra is the only arrested minor to be released and the rest were booked that night.

On June 15th there was a disturbance at the Correctional Facility when a group disguised as guards broke in. Security cameras have positively identified them as Avenger’s Hawkeye ( Barton ), Hawkeye ( Bishop ), Spider-man ( Parker ) and Spider-Woman ( Drew ). Also present were mutants Angel ( Worthington III ), Cable ( Summers ), Cyclops ( Summers ), Gambit ( LeBeau ), Hellion ( Keller ), Kid Omega ( Quire ), Illyana Rasputina ( Magik ) and Polaris ( Lorna Dane ).

No guards were killed during the break-in and injuries were minor. They managed to break into special holdings and free seven minors. Some of these youth were deemed a danger to themselves and others. Take for example, eighteen year old Lana Baumgartner, aka Bombshell. Baumgartner and her mother, Lori, were booked a decade back for robbery and the eight year old was sent to the S.H.I.E.L.D. Maximum Security Facility for Mutants. A child criminal with mutant terrorist charges, Baumgartner was deemed a victim of poor parental influence and given a parole that meant she was prohibited from using her abilities until the age of twenty-one. The revelation that she has been working with the Champions means she has broken her parole and is legally required to stay at the Facilities until she can be tried again. Cases like this show why C.R.A.D.L.E. is important. Some kids are caught up in things bigger than themselves but others make conscious decisions to do wrong and need to be held accountable.

C.R.A.D.L.E. is currently working to reprehend those who escaped. Jurisdiction remains complicated in mutant cases due to the fact that while they now claim Krakoa citizenship most were born in the States and operate here. The same goes for Terrigen fueled Nuhumans, but like Krakoa’s Quiet Council the Inhumans Queen Amaquelin has remained firm that her people - who are also Americans - should be allowed to live freely as both.

If you see an underaged superhero, please call the C.R.A.D.L.E. Hotline to report them. A list of sponsored heroes is available on C.R.A.D.L.E.’s webpage along with information on those who have warrants out for them. Like the government has said, this is for the good of underaged heroes. You’re helping both them and the country you live in.

— Sally Floyd, Daily Bugle News Senior Reporter

THE CABAL THAT ISN’T A CABAL AT ALL, OR, POWER PLAYS

Cabal, noun: a secret political clique or faction. Normally, the point of a cabal would be to stay true to its definition and remain out of the public eye but news broke back in late April that President Norman Osborn was assembling his own with an impressive array of world leaders in a new sign of unity and development. Shortly after the leak Oscorp’s new spokeswoman Lily Hollister confirmed that the Cabal was real and would function similar to the now defunct multiversal Illuminati of heroes that had consisted of heroes such as Doctor Strange, Namor, Black Bolt and others. According to Hollister, the Cabal was never meant to be secret but treaties and alliances had yet to be secured.

Now made public, the ‘Cabal’ name has stuck but the group is being touted as a sign of unity and progress. Representatives hail from across the galaxy and are compromised of groups that normally would not be seen working together. Of course, there’s been a fair amount of discourse stemming from the proximity and relationship that each member has with the leader of their populous. I was provided information on each member from Ms. Hollister with permission to reprint it here.

Representing Latveria is world leader Victor Von Doom ( Doctor Doom ). Doom is the current leader of Latveria but used to be at odds with the Fantastic Four. His participation on the Cabal is one of the least surprising. Representing the United States is Dr. Valerie Cooper, Special Assistant to the President's National Security Adviser. Dr. Cooper has been instrumental on setting up S.315 and overseeing President Osborn’s new programs and initiative. Part of Dr. Cooper’s platform, however, is the danger of mutants and how superhumans can be harmful to the country, which leads some to be uneasy about having her as a representative.

Representing Asgardia is Loki Laufayson, the adopted brother of Avenger Thor Odinson. Laufayson is infamous for attempting to take over New York through the force of the Chitauri during The Battle of New York in 2012. Although apparently redeemed, there were rumors that he was murdered by Thanos in 2018. Laufayson’s blatant disregard for human life and safety is not something most want to associate the United States with. Laufayson is also acting as a diplomat for Asgardia, but he was not appointed by their King nor does she support him. The only statement that the Valkyrie would make is that “he is a snake, both literally and figuratively.” Because of this it would appear that Laufayson’s words hold no power in the country is supposed to be representing.

In a similar position is the representative of New Attilan, Maximus Boltagon. Boltagon is the brother of former King Black Bolt and is known for his madness and attempts to seize the Inhuman throne. When Black Bolt and his wife, Medusalith Amaquelin, stepped away from the throne it was Amaquelin’s sister Crystalia Amaquelin who took over as Queen, effectively passing Maximus over. This comes across as another power play by Boltagon to claim the Inhuman throne. Queen Amaquelin emphasized the fact that the Inhumans have a Royal Diplomatic Party and Boltagon’s participation on the Cabal is not reflective of their stance. Queen Amaquelin’s cousin isn’t the only Cabal threat to rule over the Inhuman people though.

Representing the Kree Nation is Ronan the Accuser. Queen Amaquelin made waves with her brief marriage to Pietro Maximoff, twin of the New Avenger Wanda Maximoff, and their daughter marked the first and only mutant-Inhuman born ( the inhomosuperior ). Maximus Boltagon announced recently after Amaquelin’s blowback on his Cabal participation that, “My darling cousin is, to put it simply, upset and distempered. She feels insecure about her position but with the stress of running our nation - which has nearly been run into the ground - it seemed fitting that I slip into the Cabal’s shoes. Of course, I know there is the additional possibility that she is unable to look outside of her own past emotions and consider her people due to the participation of Ronan. Oh, yes. That’s right. It’s not commonly known but Crystal and Ronan did wed once upon a time. While it did to work out in the traditional sense it was never annulled and likely the reason why she fails to live up to her duties.” A royal representative did not deny the claims that Queen Amaquelin and Ronan had wed but said it was for the sake of alliances and had no continued contact, nor did his presence impact the Queen’s ability to rule. Maximus, who has been admittedly unstable in the past, is currently listed as working against his people although the Cabal does not denounce his actions and the Accuser has only commented on the state of the Kree and not his marital status.

As mentioned in Sally Floyd’s front page article, Cal’syee Neramani, the Shi’ar known as Deathbird, arrived on Earth with her niece Empress Xandra Neramani. The representative for the Shi’ar was announced to be Deathbird, though,  instead of the young Majestrix or former Majestrix Gladiator ( Kallark ) who had ruled after the death of Xandra’s mother, former Empress Lilandra Neramani. Deathbird and her younger sister had often gone head to head after Deathbird was exiled for matricide but still wished to claim the throne. During her banishment Gladiator became a prominent leader until Xandra’s existence was discovered. The teenaged Empress had been living with an attendant of her mother and her father, Charles Xavier, had not known of her birth. Because the Shi’ar believe a Neramani should sit on the throne Xandra was selected as Majestrix over Deathbird, who took on the role of advisor. Following Deathbird’s participation on the Cabal and Empress Neramani’s arrest by C.R.A.D.L.E. it looks as if there are cracks in the Shi’ar ruling infrastructure. “Xandra is our Majestrix,” Gladiator told the Times. “I serve the throne and she is the one who by blood and title deserves to sit there. Deathbird’s actions have been nothing short of treacherous and while that kind of behavior was endured by Lilandra it should not be by her daughter. We will not tolerate the behavior of Cal’syee. Any stances from the Shi’ar will come from the Grand Council. As for the Empresses arrest, we are currently working with the nation of Krakoa to look into the disrespect.” Heavy is the head that wears the crown, and it seems there may be one too many under it in the Shi’ar nation.

The most intriguing of the representatives is that of Krakoa’s, however. It came as a surprise to most that the mutant nation would get involved as they have been pushing their  sovereignty and independence. Emma Frost, the White Queen, was announced as the Krakoa representative and brought with her connections to their very exclusive  Hellfire Trading Company, the most recent iteration of the Hellfire Club. Frost’s participation with the Cabal allowed previously denied access to Krakoa’s drugs and medications and the Island stayed mostly silent about her involvement, although inside sources say their Quiet Council was far from pleased. A group of New Avengers and mutants crashed a Cabal meeting last month and Frost was seen getting into an altercation with Katherine Pryde, the X-Men formerly known as Shadowcat who has since become the Red Queen in Frost’s club. The incident involved Pryde apparently breaking Frost’s nose and rendering her unconscious before she was carried out by former flame and partner Scott Summers. In the week following the Hellfire Trading Company released a statement that, “While Emma Frost believed she was acting in Krakoa’s best interest it has since been decided that that is not true. Krakoa wishes to have no ties to President  Osborn’s Cabal and the Hellfire Trading Company will no longer dispense petals through it. All trading will resume on the same international level as before. Both Ms Frost and Katherine Pryde are fine, their disagreement a very tiny part of their impressive friendship and partnership.”

It seems that from multiple sides the Cabal may be crumbling. The Shi’ar are actively petitioning to have Deathbird removed and Asgardia and New Attilan have made it clear their supposed diplomats do not represent them. The resignation of Emma Frost marks a vacancy in mutant representation but Krakoa is making no moves to fill it. This old reporter has always had his hunches, some of them right and some of them wrong. Power hungry people working together can either lead to two things: domination or a fracturing with the potential to go very, very badly. Sometimes you say ‘only time will tell’, but in this day and age there’s an ever pervasive feeling that we don’t have all that much time before things go wrong.

— Ben Urich, Daily Bugle News Senior Reporter

PETER PARKER: THE WANTED WEBHEAD UMASKED

Peter Parker is Spider-man! As you may have read in my May 25th expose, the Daily Bugle received a hot tip that a photo had been taken of Spider-man maskless. I’m sorry to report to those who are crushing on our spandex clad wall crawler that Spider-man is actually just a seventeen year old from Forest Hills in Queens, NY. Photos of the teenager in costume were sent to our publication and after verification posted a digital article update on the situation. This comes as a surprise to most, including the Bugle, as the Midtown School of Science and Technology worked as a photography intern for us over the course of the last year and was the inaugural recipient of the Stark Internship in 2015. Due to Tony Stark’s work as Iron Man  it is likely that the deceased hero knew of Parker’s identity. His Internship now seems like an elaborate cover-up to aid him in dangerous activity instead of a real accomplishment. Bugle Editor J. Jonah Jameson sent out a press release that, “Spider-man is dangerous. Always has been, always will be. The Bugle was not aware of our connection to this deceitful young individual and we renounce any ties to him moving forward. It’s a shame. A real, crying shame.”

Another connection to Parker is Captain George Stacy, a respected member of the NYPD. It was confirmed by Parker’s classmates that for the last few months he had been seeing Gwendolyn Stacy, the Captain’s daughter. Although there’s been no word of how serious the relationship is Captain Stacy has announced that the NYPD will be monitoring the graduations of Standard High were Gwen and President Osborn’s son Harry go and Midtown School of Science and Technology for the safety of Parker’s classmates. “Leave my daughter out of this.” Captain Stacy ordered. “Gwen was just as in the dark as everyone else. Her personal choices are not yours to judge, and if she learns anything about Peter Parker’s whereabouts it will be reported.” Similarly, the White House issued a statement as Harry Osborn is a known childhood friend of Peter Parker’s. Secretary Henry Gyrich went on record saying, “Mr. Osborn believes, like his father, that America comes first. He is glad that a potential danger has been exposed and hopes Mr. Parker will do the right thing, turn himself in and register soon. The Osborn family will be issuing as no more further statements on the matter as President Osborn has a country to run and Harry needs to focus on preparing for his next stage of life.”

From what we have been able to gather, almost no one knew Parker was Spider-man. We have reached out to his best friend, Ned Leeds, and ex-girlfriend and classmate Michelle Jones for comments but have been advised by the Leed’s family that Ned will not be commenting. So far we have not made contact with Jones aunt, Anna Watson. Calls have been made to Parker’s legal guardian. May Reilly-Parker, but she has left her Queens residency and been moved to the New Avengers Compound. It is not known if Parker is with her and the Avengers are aiding a fugitive. You can expect to hear updates as soon as  they are released.

— Melita Garner, Daily Bugle News Junior Reporter

IN OTHER NEWS:

June marks graduation season, and the Daily Bugle would like to congratulate this years group of seniors, many of which were victims of the Cleanse. For recognition, Midtown School of Science and Technology submitted senior valedictorians Elizabeth Brant and Michelle Jones. Their original submission included senior Peter Parker for his work with  the Stark Internship, but have requested that his name be removed following the recent revelation of his double life as Spider-man. Standard High would like to recognize senior valedictorian Gwendolyn Stacy, daughter of New York Police Captain George Stacy. Also coming out of Midtown is Harry Osborn, our country’s first son and the only child of President Norman Osborn. The Bugle congratulates this years graduates and wishes them happy, successful futures.

July 4th marked what would have been the 106th birthday of American hero Steve Rogers. Although our favorite Captain America ( sorry Sam Wilson! ) may have passed away back in 2023 following the fight against Thanos we will always remember the sacrifices he made for this country. Thank you for your service, Cap. We miss you.

High school student Kamala Khan remains in critical condition in an undisclosed hospital in New Jersey. Her parents have said that while Khan has made a lot of progress there’s still a long way to go. The former Champion and hero known as Ms. Marvel who is believed to be partially responsible is still wanted for questioning and considered at large.

[chicagoindiecritics]

New from Robert Daniels on 812 Film Reviews: AFI Fest [Reviews]: The Cave, Alan Pakula: Going for Truth, and Desert One

It wasn’t my intention, but at AFI Fest: with films examining Black love, injustice, and outer space—I discovered three documentaries about grief, each occurring in the space of three separate decades. These films demonstrate AFI Fest’s recommitment to critical documentary filmmaking, and they show us at our best, even when we’re usually at our worst.

Nosocomephobia: the fear of hospitals, isn’t uncommon. A dread seeps into the psyche: What could go wrong? But I doubt if many have visited the doctor’s office with fear of a bomb dropping over their heads—knowing they’d have to seek shelter in a series of claustrophobically constructed caves. Not to belittle such anxiety, but they do in Syria. The Last Men in Aleppo filmmaker Feras Fayyad returns with a harrowing story of a team of doctors who represent Syria’s last line of medical defense in The Cave.

While much of Eastern Ghouta has evacuated, amongst the destruction Dr. Amani Ballour and her colleagues hold firm. Because of such, they’re constantly inundated with shredded bodies—victims of the bombing campaign in the country. With limited supplies, they’re often left without answers. Instead, they must adapt and perform at their best. When they lack anesthesia, they use classical music to calm patients during invasive operations. When they dine, the doctors eat popcorn and try to imagine it’s cake instead.

As a woman, Dr. Ballour is constantly questioned by her male patients and even her father through his voicemails: pleading with her to return home and to her garden. She courageously leads this team, holding them together amongst a torn apart terrain of medical emergencies. In the face of war, the religious power structure has been upended: women aren’t stuck to tend the house. The team must also contend with their own PTSD and frayed nerves. Whenever a war plane buzzes overhead, they naturally duck. Sometimes they have a gallow’s humor about the perilous affair, but they’re scared. And yet everyday they return to work, even when they’re unsure if they’re making a difference.

Their powerlessness stems from taking shelter in the subterranean web of caves whenever a war plane flies dangerously close. It’s their only defense. And when Russians turn to chemical warfare, the doctors have even less answers. In a tidy 95 minutes, Fayyad demonstrates why he’s one of the most important documentarians of his generation, recording a tragedy that the world would rather look away from. The Cave like the region, shouldn’t be ignored.

Grief never truly stops, not for those left behind. Harrison Ford can barely form words, squinting away tears when speaking about his friend Alan Pakula. The famed producer and director who shaped works like To Kill a Mockingbird, Sophie’s Choice, Klute, The Parallax View, and All the President’s Men—died suddenly in 1998 when a metal pipe on the Long Island Expressway broke loose and pierced through his windshield. The freakish accident left a cavernous creative hole for loved ones and admirers like Matthew Miele. As a tribute, Miele creates a loving eulogy for the famed director in his poignant documentary Alan Pakula: Going for Truth.

Initially, Going for Truth diagrams the life and personality of Pakula. In a scene like the 1970’s, made up of celebrity auteurs like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, and Brian DePalma—whose names mean as much on the marquee as their actors—the Sophie’s Choice filmmaker didn’t seek the limelight. Many wouldn’t recognize Pakula if they were sitting beside him. And yet, he directed and produced immaculately fashioned pictures. He also crafted incredible barrier-breaking roles for women, taking a keen interest in developing fully realized female characters. Scores of former friends and associates share memories pertaining to the director, like Jane Fonda, Alec Baldwin, Jane Alexander, Jeff Bridges, Dustin Hoffman, and the aforementioned Ford. Fonda in particular credited Pakula with her incredible performance in Klute.

Each eclectic figure demonstrates the enormous impact the beloved director had on them personally and creatively. Furthermore, interviews with his relatives also shape the emotional tenor: describing how Pakula diverted from sports and more “manly” pursuits condoned by his father, to a life in art. His widow Hannah Boorstin and stepchildren also recount personal remembrances of him too.

And while Going for the Truth certainly serves as a tribute to the legendary director, when employing archival interviews, the documentary becomes a masterclass. With the central takeaway being: filmmakers don’t make movies as Pakula did anymore. They often over-cut when editing, lacking the patience for the inherent drama and emotion of the scene to evolve. The internal psychology of characters rarely flourish in today’s pictures, but they did in his. Part of such is due to Pakula’s unique style, his personal passion for psychology: his hunt for the cinematic. In a discourse taking apart what constitutes cinema, Alan Pakula: Going for Truth is a necessary balm, a touching memorialization of a visionary talent.

On Nov 4, 1979, the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line stormed the US Embassy in Tehran taking fifty-two hostages. Throughout America’s history, there exists arcs of unbridled confidence and a crisis of conscious: the difference between the idealized visions of World War II and the tragedy of Vietnam. The Iran-hostage crisis marks the latter, and led to one of the most audacious rescue attempts in United States history. The legendary director of Harlan County, USA and Miss Sharon Jones!, Barbara Kopple returns with the incredible and emotionally devastating Desert One—a portrait of heroism even when there’s no clear victory.

Kopple’s newest film sees her return to the politically charged narratives of her past. Moreover, one shouldn’t confuse Ben Affleck’s Argo (2012)—detailing the successful rescue of the Canadian embassy employees—Kopple follows the American ordeal. Desert One features interviews with both the retired Delta Force tasked with saving the hostages, and the former student revolutionaries who stormed the embassy protesting against the brutal dictatorship of the Shah of Iran. She charts the 444 days of the crisis, which witnessed the collapse of Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the creation of a team of special forces soldiers formed for the aforementioned incredible plan.

Anyone with a basic grasp of history knows that the code named Desert One mission ended disastrously. Soldiers flew into Iran during the dead of night, armed with eight helicopters and two refueling planes. They were land on a remote dirt road, board trucks, drive to where they believed the hostage were being held, and then fly out using the helicopters. The plan held multiple moving part, with very little hard intel to back up some of the assertions. At one point, the soldiers are reduced to watching Dateline for solid intelligence. Many believe the mission was a stunt, an politically ailing Carter taking a major risk with American lives in a feigned attempt of being re-elected. Kopple doesn’t parse through that theory with the depth required for the subject. Though, who could blame her? She only had twenty minutes to interview Carter.

Nevertheless, her documentary is actually eulogy to the soldiers. On the fatal night of 24 April 1980, the assembled Delta Force team were given a “Go.” Though they had doubts of the mission success, they still wanted to try. Within a span of few deadly hours, they lost three of their eight helicopters. Needing to abort, in their confusion, a helicopter crashed with a pane, resulting in the deaths of several soldiers. Worst yet, to evade capture they had to leave the bodies of their fellow American soldiers behind. In one poignant clip, days later, children are playing on the blades of one of the fallen choppers. The scene recalls Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down, a film about another debacle.

Even so, Kopple’s Desert One isn’t about failure. It demonstrates the valor in trying. Because unlike America, the soldiers that night didn’t experience a metaphorical defeat. They witnessed real grief; the event still drawing tears and anguish from them to this day. And Kopple, in the midst of their mourning, finds the greatest of intimacy in those who’ve lost the most. Desert One is a fitting memorial of courage, even in the face of insurmountable odds.

from 812filmReviews https://ift.tt/2rzx5uk via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2QV1BcA via IFTTT

[chelseaandthediscourse]

Drag vs Trans and how everyone loses

              As I was unable to address it in my presentation, I would like to take the opportunity to use this blog entry to discuss the feud between drag queens and trans women. These are two groups that, decades ago, often shared spaces and common interests, but have since been pushed apart by identity politics. And it is, I believe, this very thing that continues to drive the two groups apart and fuels the animosity between the groups. It is not my intention here to suggest that these two groups should be pushed back together. No, quite the contrary, I would argue that there is an extent to which a firm boundary between the two is useful and perhaps necessary for trans advocacy politics. This boundary may be complicated by the presence of individuals who claim membership in both communities, but, I believe, it does not nullify it nor reduce its necessity to trans advocacy. However, it is not my intention here to address this issue of those who traverse the boundaries, if only because this question quickly becomes one of why people perform drag, a question that is far too complex to attempt to answer within a single blog entry. What I do wish to discuss here is some of the root causes of this feud and to perhaps offer ways that trans women and drag queens can come together as political allies in ways that respect each other’s identities.

              From the perspective of many trans women, one of the root causes is a conception of drag queen performances as being, by their very nature, transmisogynistic. They are not the first to level these kinds of claims against the drag queen community. Writing specifically about black men performing drag, bell hooks argued that drag performances seem “to allow black males to give public expression to a general misogyny.” [1] This is an argument that has been repeated by many cis women in criticism towards drag performance (often without the racial specificity) and trans women critics utilize similar logic. For them, drag queen performances are merely an extension of the man-in-a-dress trope that turns the existence of trans women into a running joke in popular culture. However, to conceive of drag performances as always-already transmisogynistic is an over-simplification. Judith Butler, writing in part in direct response to bell hooks, locates these kinds of arguments on the same continuum as reducing lesbian desire as a product of failed heterosexual love. “This logic of repudiation,” Butler argues, “installs heterosexual love as the origin and truth of both drag and lesbianism, and it interprets both practices as symptoms of thwarted love. But what is displaced in this explanation of displacement is the notion that there might be pleasure, desire, and love that is no solely determined by what it repudiates.” [2] While here we again come again to the question of why drag performers perform drag, my only intention here is to argue that the always-already argument is a simplification that blinds us to the subversive potential of drag that can be used to denaturalize the ideology of gender that perpetuates harm against the trans community.

              But this is not to say that all drag performances are subversive. Butler herself recognizes this when she states “that there is no necessary relation between drag and subversion, and that drag may well be used in the service of both the denaturalization and reidealization of hyperbolic heterosexual gender norms.”[3] Rather, drag performances may reify or subvert gender ideology, or perform in a way that expresses ambivalence between these two options. Jose Esteban Munoz, in his work on disidentification theory, posits that “Commercial drag presents a sanitized and desexualized queer subject for mass consumption … [that] has had no impact on hate legislation put forth by the New Right or on homophobic [or transphobic] violence.” [4] I might add the caveat that the performances to which Munoz is referring have had no positive impact on hate legislation. Certainly, there is a history of mainstream drag performances actively disseminating transphobic discourses (see, for example, RuPaul’s Drag Race), and these may have arguably had a negative impact on the progress for trans rights. But there is a possibility of for drag that subverts. I think, again, here of Munoz’s work, in which he examines the drag performances of Vaginal Crème Davis, quoting her as saying, “I didn’t wear false eyelashes or fake breasts. It wasn’t about the realness of traditional drag – the perfect flawless makeup. I just put on a little lipstick, a little eye shadow and a wig and went out there.” [5] Further, I think of the film Madame Sata, in which the protagonist performs drag with no regard to passing, fully displaying their typically male coded body.[6] These performances subvert through highlighting the performative nature of gender, removing femininity as always-already attached to female coded bodies. I do not wish to posit this kind of drag as the only way in which to perform subversively, but only as one option.

              Here it becomes necessary to address the drag queen community specifically, because it is my belief that the drag community has a responsibility here. Stephen Schacht and Lisa Underwood, in their study of the culture of female impersonators, argue “that any meaningful models of what is subversive must take into account an actor’s explicit intent, the audiences for whom she/he performs, and dialectic between the two.”[7] I have to agree with this. And while, of course, no drag performer can be held responsible for how the audiences read their performances, I do believe it is their responsibility, to cis and trans women, to examine their intentions and their performances and make an active attempt to not reproduce harmful ideology, if not to actively attempt to be subversive. Perhaps more importantly, this responsibility does not stop at the boundaries of one’s own intentions and performances. While perhaps most drag performances that are culpable in perpetuating discourse that harms trans women do so unintentionally and/or out of unexamined intent, there are those who actively and knowingly perpetuate them. In an examination of the drag queens of the 801 Cabaret by Verta Taylor and Leila Rupp, the performers express their worry over one of their own exploring the possibility of identifying as transgender, stating that to do so “means you’ve lost your identity.”[8] A similar sentiment is expressed by Pepper Labeija in the documentary Paris is Burning. In the film, Labeija speaks at length of their belief that being transgender is “taking it a little too far” and expresses thankfulness that they were smart enough to never have a sex change.[9] These kinds of sentiments seem to be rampant within the drag community (see, again, RuPaul’s Drag Race), and any drag queen that wants to be an ally to the trans community has a responsibility to call out their fellow performers for perpetuating these ideas.

              Lest we place all the blame of drag queens, however, trans women have a responsibility to drag queens as well. As discussed, a large part of the animosity coming from trans women towards drag queens is the idea that their performances are inherently transmisogynistic. Stemming from that is the belief that their performances are helping to perpetuate the common belief amongst the general public that drag queen and trans woman are synonymous terms and that the latter are, like the former, (typically) men performing a role. But, as has also been stated, drag queens cannot be held responsible for how the audience reads their performances. Given the deeply entrenched nature of binary gender ideology, even the most subversive performances will still be read by some in ways that reify strict and essentializing gender norms. Trans women must understand that the onus of dispelling these ideologies is not on drag queens. As an extension of that, I do believe that there is an extent to which this feud is fueled by some akin to jealousy. The simple, sad fact is that drag queens have, by and large, reached a much higher level of acceptance in mainstream culture. There are those, I have met them, who love drag shows and refer to drag queens as she/her, but will not give trans women basic human respect. This is not the fault of the drag queen, nor is it a reason to attack the performer or the performance. Trans women, stop displacing your aggravation with a transphobic public on drag queens.

              This is a very complex topic for a relatively small amount of discussion. I have not endeavored here to solve the feud in its entirety. Rather, my hope here is to have highlighted some of what I believe are the major causes for this feud and offer some ways in which both parties can work towards ending it, possibly towards working concurrently to change gender ideology that harms both groups. As members of the wider LGBTQ+ community, there is, I feel, every reason why these groups should be working together instead of against one another, but we have to stop needlessly fighting each other first.

[1] bell hooks. (2008). Is Paris Burning? Reel to Real: Race, Sex, and Class at the Movies (pp. 275-90). New York, NY: Routledge.

[2] Butler, J. (1993). Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion. Bodies That Matter: On The Discursive Limits of “Sex”. (pp. 121-40). New York, NY: Routledge.

[3] Butler, J.

[4] Munoz, J. E. (1999). Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.

[5] Munoz, J.E.

[6] Ainouz, K. (2002). Madame Sata [motion picture]. Brazil: VideoFilmes.

[7] Schact, S.P. & Underwood, L. (2004). The Absolutely Fabulous but Flawlessly Customary World of Female Impersonators. Journal of Homosexuality, 46(¾), pp 1-17. DOI 10.1300/J082v46n03_01

[8] Taylor,V. & Rupp, L.J. (2004). Chicks With Dicks, Men In Dresses: What It Means to Be a Drag Queen. Journal of Homosexuality, 46(¾), pp. 113-33. DOI 10.1300/J082v46n03_07 

[9] Livingston, J. (1990). Paris is Burning [motion picture]. U.S.: Miramax