okay wendy stans i have a question. How does it feel stanning the erasure of Romani and Jewish Representation in Marvel?
@starkwayne, I will never tell you that your anger at a removal of a character’s heritage is invalid or baseless; but I will invite you to consider where you are directing that anger, and whether you are venting it at an appropriate target.
Fans did not decide to leave out Wanda’s heritage in her screen adaptation. The studio – its screenwriters, its directors, its executives – did.
Now, I get that it’s easy to lash out at fellow fans. Punching laterally on a platform where you are heard and get responses (even if they aren’t always the responses you hope for) gives you a lot more power than railing at institutions and corporations with actual control. Blaming fans and getting them to feel crappy at least makes you feel like someone is being punished for the thing you’re upset about, since there’s no way any of the rich guys in charge at Marvel Studios or Disney are listening to any of us.
But you’re lashing out at people who are not actually responsible for what you’re angry about. Heck, a lot of them are also upset about the same thing – they’ve just chosen to respond to it differently. You may decide you just don’t want to consume media that has MCU Wanda, and that’s perfectly fine. You don’t have to like her, you don’t have to read fic about her, and you certainly don’t have to spend time in the pro-Wanda tag. I think I saw you mention elsewhere in a conversaiton with @essayofthoughts that you like Comics!Wanda, and I 100% get that it’s frustrating when an adaptation or version of a character you like isn’t specifically tagged for to differentiate from the version you don’t like (I can’t count the times I’ve flinched at the sight of HYDRA!Cap in the Steve Rogers comics tags), but the best way to deal with that is selective tag and user blocking, and sometimes taking a step back from tumblr for while until you can deal with seeing the content you don’t like without feeling the need to respond.
I won’t criticize you for your frustration or for your preferences; everyone is entitled to those. But what I will criticize is your decision to police and condemn everyone else’s interactions with the character that differs from yours.
Some people enjoy MCU Wanda because they feel represented by her in different ways than the comics. The comics representation still exists; now the MCU representation does too, covering a different demographic (refugees, eastern european displaced persons, trauma survivors, etc). Some people like Wanda for characteristics that are not explicitly tied to her origins (such as being a strong woman who has endured a hell of a lot while still retaining her compassion and exhibiting profound courage) and feel that the parts of Wanda they loved in the comics weren’t defined by her ethnic heritage. A lot of people are upset, just like you, about the failure of the MCU to incorporate and represent Wanda’s jewish and roma heritage – but you can be critical of aspects of a piece of media or a character or a story while still enjoying its merits.
And a lot of fans have also responded by compensating for that erasure in their fanworks, deliberately writing/drawing/roleplaying MCU Wanda with her comic book background. Personally, I love both comics and MCU Wanda, and where I find the removal of her heritage to be frustrating and problematic and I really wish the MCU had incorporated it, my response hasn’t been to hate the character, but to embrace the aspects of her that I love and then draw heras explicitlyjewish.
I will also point out that I happen to know a number of MCU Wanda Maximoff fans who are jewish themselves. Before you attack these fans, it’s worth asking yourself; what is your prioritization between the accurate adaptation of a fictional jewish character, and the wellbeing of actual flesh and blood jewish people? What is your prioritization between condemning an imperfect depiction of a female character, and attacking femme-identified people for enjoying one of the painfully few powerful female superheroes we’ve managed to get on the big screen? I’m not saying there’s always a cut and clear answer, because representation for a larger whole is important, but it’s worth considering your impact and how much good vs. how much harm your actions specifically do with your platform and your reach. Are you genuinely working toward fixing a problem? Or are you just making people feel bad on the internet for kicks and some nebulous sense of superiority?
If you want to increase Jewish/Roma representation, I would recommend starting a letter campaign or petition to Marvel or other studios to do better moving forward. Hell, if you do, send me the link – I’d be happy to sign and signal boost!!! But tagging hate in a place where people who don’t have a lot of social power go to share their enjoyment of a strong, compelling female character isn’t activism.
It’s just kinda being a jerk.
And I don’t know you, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I’d like to believe that you’re better than that.
GUYS PLEASE READ THIS AND READ THIS CAREFULLY. THIS IS SO APPALLING. She literally has a medical freaking condition that could KILL her and they aren’t allowing her to accommodate for it. They can just admit that they’re just tired of this unstoppable black woman dominating and want her to be forced to retire or they want her to get seriously injured/sick. I’m so fucking sick of the elitism (and racism and sexism) that comes with tennis it truly is the worst of the globally popular sports. They should be fucking ashamed. This is sexism and misogyNOIR at its finest.
When King Conrad III defeated the Duke of Welf (in the year 1140) and placed Weinsberg under siege, the wives of the besieged castle negotiated a surrender which granted them the right to leave with whatever they could carry on their shoulders. The king allowed them that much. Leaving everything else aside, each woman took her own husband on her shoulders and carried him out. When the king’s people saw what was happening, many of them said that that was not what had been meant and wanted to put a stop to it. But the king laughed and accepted the women’s clever trick. “A king” he said, “should always stand by his word.”
Medieval women were BAMFs.
Seriously? This scene made me laugh so hard I fell in love with the movie several times over
I’m not defending her or anything but honestly, what do you expect? She’s a mainstream American politician. She might be better than most but if any politician at this point ran on a platform of not deporting anyone then they’d instantly be seen as too radical and “idealistic” by the media and the general public. I mean it took us a very long time before most people got on board with the idea that having a health care system similar to basically every other first world country wasn’t too radical.
The context for this was that a 95-year old Nazi war-crime suspect who happened to live in the district for which she is running for Congress was finally deported (he was actually ordered to be deported 2004 but no country would accept him until now, when Germany finally agreed), and the GOP attacked her for it, and then when she clarified that yes, she still wants to abolish ICE but some deportation will be necessary, like the deportation of Nazis suspected of being war criminals, the left attacked her for that, because that makes her a cop.
Actress Trần Loan speaks up for the first time after leaving social media because of the online hate she recieved in this piece she wrote for New York Times.
some stuff isn’t just a trope, you know? in the movies, we’re introduced to women who are “experts” who have trained for years, who live and breathe and are willing to die for whatever the male main character has never even experienced before. and then he takes the reigns and upstages her, instantly, with a little bit of friendly bewilderment because, come on, it’s not antifeminist, he’s just good, he’s standing there having shown he’s actually more powerful than she’ll ever be – and we buy it. and then we go home and when we live and breathe something we still ask ourselves. “am i actually good at this? or is some fool going to walk into this presentation eighteen minutes in and offer a sarcastic and biting correction?” we wait for the man to show up and prove that, despite awards and training and an excellent job position, we’re actually just secretly incompetent.
the trope isn’t just setting up for us “this man is good at what he does” – the fact that the trope demands our male hero upstage the woman says: even an incompetent man will always be better than the best woman. he could have upstaged the sage boss or whatever other male in power exists in the movie. but he doesn’t. he upstages the woman to earn his pack order because she is, intrinsically, the weakest link. the real fight will be man against man. it always is.
and i wish, i wish it stopped outside of the theater. but the number of men who try (gently) to assure me that they’re actually better at what i have multiple degrees and years of experience in – it tells me it worked. men are always looking to be the hero, to interrupt, to upstage, to flip the woman on her back and expose her to all your fellow men – see! for someone who has been doing this forever, she’s just another woman. i am reminded by a man this is called mansplaining. i said “it’s a system of silencing women” and he said, “no, it’s just an accident.” in the movie, he sees himself pointing to my equation on the board, having just walked in. “here’s the flaw,” he says. in the real life, i’m too frustrated to speak. in the movie, he’s inevitably right.
elle woods flipping her hair and saying what, like it’s hard? was a funny line. it’s funny because in every other movie, it’s said by a guy.
“wouldn’t you rather earn something than have it just handed to you?”
Yeah when it comes to actual awards and fancy goods, but when it comes to basic needs, basic human decency, and accomodations, those things should always be handed to people. No one should have to “earn” those things.Value people as people, not base it on how much they produce.
yeah but that creates a severe dependency that could be exploited easily, and creates a slippery slope @musical-clarity
Actually studies show that people who live in places with universal income (who are given money with no strings attached just for being citizens) do far better work than those who don’t and are more enthusiastic to do work.
This is because they still want nice things and will work for those but the part of their energy that was devoted to worrying about if they have enough money to pay the rent and bills this month is now freed up to do other things.
Some people will always be lazy and take advantage of the system, but they are always a tiny percentage and it seems ridiculous to me to punish the majority and severly hamstring their abilities just because a handful of people will simply live of basic income rather than work.
It’s been tested a couple times. In Canada, in some European countries, and the results are always the same.
There are two groups of people who show a statistically significant (Greater than one half of one percent, or 1 in 200) increase in Not Working and living off the guaranteed income. Parents of Children under school age, and full time students.
Among ALL other groups, employment actually INCREASED. Why? Because guaranteed minimum income means that homeless people can get at least a basic low end apartment. It’s hard if not impossible to get an above board job without a permanent fixed address. Also more people were able to have and maintain a BANK ACCOUNT. It is often hard to get a decent job without an account that can accept Direct Deposit for paychecks.
Also, lost work time due to illness and injury decreased across the board. It turns out if people are getting a decent amount of money each month they can A> afford to eat better, and B> obtain decent medical attention both preventative and emergency. Crazy right?
So why hasn’t it caught on?
Because it doesn’t directly benefit the people in power, and it increases THEIR PERSONAL taxes, their CORPORATE TAXES, and thus decreases their PERSONAL INCOME.
So, because Jeff Bezos and Alan Greenspan might fall from making 100 billion dollars a year to making 99.8 billion dollars a year, it’s a hard NO and we can all fucking die..
The End.
The other reason the people in power hate it is because it fundamentally changes the relationship between employer and employee. In regular capitalism, the employer has all the power because if you quit you starve and if you get another job it’ll be equally shitty because all the bosses know that they have you by the gonads.
But with universal income, power is given to the workers. If your boss is an asshole, you can just quit without worrying about starving. So the employers are the ones that have to sell themselves and offer value for your time in order to keep enough staff to survive. And they HATE that.
I think the Roundup thing REALLY infuriates me because I live in farm country. And I’ve seen so, so many farmers around here die of cancer young.
Shit. I’ve lost family young to, specifically, non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. I’ve watched them plant roundup-ready corn and soybeans and spray roundup by the thousands of gallons, and then die in misery and drown in medical debt. And we’ve always suspected it was the chemicals that did it, but of course Monsanto always claimed that of course it wasn’t, that it was PERFECTLY SAFE.
And now there it is, in court documents, that they lied. They knew the whole time and they lied.
Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study
Gabriella Andreotti Stella Koutros Jonathan N Hofmann Dale P Sandler Jay H Lubin Charles F Lynch Catherine C Lerro Anneclaire J De Roos Christine G Parks Michael C Alavanja … Show more
Glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide worldwide, with both residential and agricultural uses. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” noting strong mechanistic evidence and positive associations for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in some epidemiologic studies. A previous evaluation in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) with follow-up through 2001 found no statistically significant associations with glyphosate use and cancer at any site.
Methods
The AHS is a prospective cohort of licensed pesticide applicators from North Carolina and Iowa. Here, we updated the previous evaluation of glyphosate with cancer incidence from registry linkages through 2012 (North Carolina)/2013 (Iowa). Lifetime days and intensity-weighted lifetime days of glyphosate use were based on self-reported information from enrollment (1993–1997) and follow-up questionnaires (1999–2005). We estimated incidence rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Poisson regression, controlling for potential confounders, including use of other pesticides. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Results
Among 54 251 applicators, 44 932 (82.8%) used glyphosate, including 5779 incident cancer cases (79.3% of all cases). In unlagged analyses, glyphosate was not statistically significantly associated with cancer at any site. However, among applicators in the highest exposure quartile, there was an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with never users (RR = 2.44, 95% CI = 0.94 to 6.32, Ptrend = .11), though this association was not statistically significant. Results for AML were similar with a five-year (RRQuartile 4 = 2.32, 95% CI = 0.98 to 5.51, Ptrend = .07) and 20-year exposure lag (RRTertile 3 = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.05 to 3.97, Ptrend = .04).
Conclusions
In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes. There was some evidence of increased risk of AML among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation.
You know, a huge part of this case was the fact that Monsanto and the EPA colluded to ‘fix’ studies on Roundup and hide any research contradicting the company claim that it was harmless. They routinely paid off scientists and editors of scientific journals to ensure that any research contradicting the company line was killed, and churned out study after study claiming that it was safe. There are internal Monsanto memos that confirm this.
LemonGrenade 