ch 104

Took a look at the scanlation… oh no. There’s just… too much. My heart especially mourns the whole exchange between Ui and Matsuri, because it is hilarious. I don’t know how much it comes through in the scanlation, but Ui is the most passive-aggressive spoiled Princess. I love him in this mode. Let’s see, I tried to do justice to their respective dialogue (even though at this point it’s been translated like 5 times). It’s probably not as funny as I think it is. Imagine Ui widening his eyes and staying calm and polite, while Matsuri grows more terse with every word.

Matsuri: What’s the meaning of this.

Ui: The meaning of what?

Matsuri: Who authorized this operation?

Ui: It needed to be authorized by someone?

Matsuri: Yeah. Me. The acting Bureau Director.

Ui: First of all, the jurisdiction of that position was never officially sanctioned.

Matsuri: It’s customary. In an emergency, a Washuu blood relative within the bureau assumes executive authority.

Ui: Isn’t First class Furuta also a Washuu blood relative? Meaning, he has the same executive authority.

Matsuri: Let’s say it’s true. As a Special class, I still outrank him.

Ui: Well then, consider me his proxy. Any decision he makes goes through me, and I’m also a Special class.

Matsuri: …Right.

Oh, and one other big thing for me was Aura’s message to Aura Jr. 

“Don’t become so obsessed with a foe before you that you lose yourself. I pray that your hatred of the One-Eyed King does not consume you.”


Daredevil | Flares

The fire’s out, but still it burns
And no one cares, there’s no one there


NYPD sergeant kills Deborah Danner, a 66-year-old black woman who neighbors say was mentally ill

A black woman said to be living with a mental illness was shot and killed by a New York police sergeant in her Bronx, New York, apartment Tuesday evening. Police officials say the woman allegedly wielded a bat at a police sergeant. Commissioner James O'Neil admitted the officer didn’t follow protocol.

The transgressiveness of sexual banter–its tendency to report markedly offensive acts or desires in deliberately offensive (or in the media’s terms, ‘lewd’) language, is not just accidental, a case of men allowing the mask to slip when they think they’re alone. It’s deliberate, and it’s part of the bonding process. Like the sharing of secrets, the sharing of transgressive desires, acts and words is a token of intimacy and trust. It says, ‘I am showing that I trust you by saying things, and using words, that I wouldn’t want the whole world to hear’. It’s also an invitation to the hearer to reciprocate by offering some kind of affiliative response, whether a token of approval like appreciative laughter, or a matching transgressive comment. (‘I trust you, now show that you trust me’.)

When a private transgressive conversation becomes public, and the speaker who said something misogynist (or racist or homophobic) is publicly named and shamed, he often protests, as Trump did, that it was ‘just banter’, that he is not ‘really’ a bigot, and that his comments have been ‘taken out of context’. And the rest of us marvel at the barefaced cheek of these claims. How, we wonder, can this person disavow his obvious prejudice by insisting that what he said wasn’t, ‘in context’, what he meant?

What I’ve just said about the role of transgressive speech in male bonding suggests an answer (though as I’ll explain in a minute, that’s not the same as an excuse). Public exposure does literally take this kind of conversation out of its original context (the metaphorical ‘locker room’, a private, all-male setting). And when the talk is removed from that context, critics will focus on its referential content rather than its interpersonal function. They won’t appreciate (or care) that what’s primarily motivating the boasting, the misogyny, the offensive language and the laughter isn’t so much the speakers’ hatred of women as their investment in their fraternal relationship with each other. They’re like fishermen telling tall tales about their catches, or old soldiers exaggerating their exploits on the battlefield: their goal is to impress their male peers, and the women they insult are just a means to that end.

As I said before, though, that’s not meant to be an excuse: I’m not suggesting that banter isn’t ‘really’ sexist or damaging to women. On the contrary, I’m trying to suggest that it’s more damaging than most critical discussions acknowledge. Banter is not just what commentators on the Trump tape have mostly treated it as–a window into the mind of an individual sexist or misogynist. It’s a ritualised social practice which contributes to the maintenance of structural sexual inequality. This effect does not depend on what the individuals involved ‘really think’ about women. (I have examples of both sexist and homophobic banter where I’m certain that what some speakers say is not what they really think, because they’re gay and everyone involved knows that.) It’s more a case of ‘all that’s needed for evil to flourish is for good men to go along with it for the lolz’. […]

I said earlier that when Trump and his companions on the bus talked about women, the women were not the real point: they were like the fish in a fishing story or the faceless enemy in a war story. But that wasn’t meant to be a consoling thought (‘don’t worry, women, it’s nothing personal, they’re just bonding with each other by talking trash about you’). When you talk about people it SHOULD be personal–it should involve the recognition of the other as a human being with human feelings like your own. Heterosexual banter is one of the practices that teach men to withhold that recognition from women, treating them as objects rather than persons.


On banter, bonding, and Donald Trump - Deborah Cameron has written a good analysis of the linguistic problems with “just banter” on her blog

Also relevant: this twitter thread on the social function of humour and why there’s no such thing as “just joking”.


Creative Spark: Deborah Cook


Deborah Danner, a 66-year-old Black woman with schizophrenia, was shot and killed by police in her own home

The shooting has caused a major schism between the NYPD union and new commissioner, though it hasn’t garnered national attention. Now a powerful Black celebrity is speaking up for Deborah on Twitter so she won’t be forgotten.


Reflections in Black: A History of Black Photographers 1840 to the Present ( 2002 )

“Reflections in Black, the first comprehensive history of black photographers, is a groundbreaking pictorial collection of African American life. Featuring the work of undisputed masters such as James VanDerZee, Gordon Parks, and Carrie Mae Weems among dozens of others, this book is a refutation of the gross caricature of black life that many mainstream photographers have manifested by continually emphasizing poverty over family, despair over hope. 

Nearly 600 images offer rich, moving glimpses of everyday black life, from slavery to the Great Migration to contemporary suburban life, including rare antebellum daguerrotypes, photojournalism of the civil rights era, and multimedia portraits of middle-class families. 

A work so significant that it has the power to reconfigure our conception of American history itself, Reflections in Black demands to be included in every American family’s library as an essential part of our heritage. A Los Angeles Times and Washington Post Book World Best Book of 2000, and a Good Morning, America best gift book of 2000. 600 duotone photographs, 32 pages of color.”

by Deborah Willis

Get it now here

Photographer and curator Deborah Willis has essentially spent her career examining the visual representation of African Americans. After being awarded a MacArthur “genius” grant in 2000 for her “investigation and recovery of the legacy of African-American photography,” she published “Reflections in Black: A History of Black Photographers 1840 to the Present.” The 2002 book was the inspiration for the documentary “Through a Lens Darkly: Black Photographers and the Emergence of a People,” which is screening at the Film Forum in New York through Sept. 16. Willis, chair of the Department of Photography & Imaging at the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University, is a co-producer of the film.

[ Follow SuperheroesInColor on facebook / instagram / twitter / tumblr ]