deflecting criticism

honestly i like that its implied that fareeha got a native parent but why they gotta only imply that shit? aint nothing stoppin them from adding it to her or ana’s backstory. we dont even know they name but we’re supposed to just accept this nameless tribeless ambiguously native person who appears in two pieces of canon material and nothin else.

Hello, I’m beanie man mcbeard face or something. I’m Queer. I want to be able to hit my girlfriend when’s she’s dressed up as a child, and I summon the protection of Sexual Preferences to deflect any and all criticism. Choices and consent. Also, I hate lesbians????? If you’re a lesbian prove you would succ a dicc immediately or else I declare you a bigot, by the power vested in me by the Inclusive Church of Douche City. Libertarian Postmodernism Progressive Blah Blah Wet Fart uwu. How funny would it be if we mass aborted and/or acid attacked terfs, which is a solidly defined concept for sure lol. what’s a cervix

3

autismserenity telling a self-admitted pedophile who has sent nudes to people without verifying their age to get in contact with these people again, especially if they are or were minors, to “make amends”

autismserenity is eating up the lies of a pedophile who has sent nudes to people despite knowing that they might be minors and not checking whether they were that he wouldn’t have done it if only he had known that they were minors.

what’s even worse, they are telling this pedophile to get back in contact with the people he sent nudes to (and to whom he also mostly likely talked about their masturbation habits!) because they believe that that’s “what would help the people who have potentially been harmed the most”. because being contacted by someone who sexually harassed you (which is what repstar3 did!) out of the blue because that person wants to ~make amends~ is not at all deeply triggering!

but the very worst thing is that autismserenity is actively encouraging a pedophile to go online, seek out people who are likely minors who he has had sexual contact with and contact them again to have a conversation with them about said previous sexual contact. this is putting children at risk! and all because they believe that that’s “what what will do the most to prevent future harm”.

let’s be clear: a pedophile with no sense of boundaries getting into contact with minors online will not prevent future harm. what would prevent further harm would be that pedophile getting his internet usage monitored strictly or him absolutely leaving all online spaces in which minors also move (like tumblr, for example!) or hin going to the police with this and telling them that he has sent nudes to people who were likely underage but the later is an option that autismserenity kind of flipflops on and then essentially tells the pedophile “eh, that’s your call to make”.

this is deeply, deeply disturbing and wrong. utterly and completely wrong.

(and autismserenity knows that, by the way, at least subconsciously because they’re already trying to deflect the criticism they expect to get for it in the last paragraph of their post by painting the people who will be rightfully angry about this as irrational and hateful.)

here’s the post in its entirity: https://autismserenity.tumblr.com/post/158012795436/hey-if-you-know-that-you-have-a-propensity

anonymous asked:

agree or disagree: su has a tone problem. what i mean is like when steven is in danger it sometimes treated as fatal (eg steven almost falling in rose's scabbard) but sometimes played for laughs (eg steven falling from a comparable height in steven floats but he walks it off despite hitting the ground pretty hard). like sometimes its hard for me to take some arguments seriously because even the source material is wishy washy about how certain things are portrayed

oh definitely agree with that

a major problem when it comes to even being su critical at all is that because the tone of the show is so confused on what it wants to be, fans of it avoid the critique of the bad aspects with “well, it’s a comedy slice of life show!” while simultaneously praising all of the over-the-top feels trips with “this is such a powerful and important kids show!!!11″

i think the problems stem from how the crewniverse doesn’t communicate with each other and hires people who tend to favor fandom-style ways of interacting with a story because they’re actually… fans…. it creates a disregard for the plot of the show and inconsistency with the characters 

fans interact with what is probably A Big Threat in the actual canon with memes and jokes and “wouldn’t it be funny if…” which is nice and fun when it’s fan content but gets really aggravating when the show is or at least should be taking itself seriously– with the kind of plots that SU put in place, it doesn’t allow itself to be slice of life or make those kinds of jokes anymore because it set a precedent to shift its tone which it’s not even sure if it wants to be because they clearly have no idea where they want to go with it 

tbqh… the crewniverse cares a lot about the “it’s slice of life!” deflection of their critics but not enough to completely give up the other thing they care about: being worshiped for their half-baked feels-trips 

it feels like a show written by people who only ever wrote sadstuck fanfics  

nothing highlights ea’s usage of supporting the lgbtq+ community as being an incredibly transparent pr move designed to deflect criticism more than mass effect andromeda’s handling on m/m romance 

in case you dont know, mass effect andromeda has a bunch of slavishly animated sex scenes for every relationship in the game

except for m/m relationships

for m/m relationships, you don’t even get to see the characters kiss. they fade to black for every kiss. same deal for the sex scenes. 

lesbian relationships? on-screen kissing and sex all over the place.

it highlights exactly what ea’s attitudes towards representation are. they dont care about actual representation, they just want the PR bump for having gay stuff in their games. they want to do the absolute bare minimum required for representation so that they can make a quick buck off of horny straight dudes that want to watch lesbian porn, and then they want to use their lesbian porn as a shield to call anyone criticizing their product bigots. 

Western Muslims are so privileged in a sense that we can speak out against atrocities that happen in the name of Islam or in so-called Islamic countries without fear of persecution or arrest and yet we choose not to. Or that even when we do, it is only to deflect criticisms and portray Islam in a positive light. I’m not talking about just atrocities that happen under the hands of ISIS but even those that happen in countries like Saudi Arabia. 

I understand that it is difficult to because most often that not, it is used against us. Islamophobes will talk about how ~evil Islam is all while vilifying Muslims. It is definitely a lose-lose situation in that sense, especially when they seek to portray Muslims in an orientalist fashion that we’re all “brainwashed” and “backwards”.

Ideologically Islam is used by many in power to either kill people who don’t fit the mould of what it is to be a perfect Muslim (LGBT, women, non-Sunni) or people who are non-Muslims. In the same vain, it used by western politicians to vilify Muslims by creating discriminatory immigration systems, surveiling communities, and even torturing alleged terrorists even when proven innocent. But let’s not deny that Islam is used in quite a regressive manner in places like the Middle East in a far more systemic way.

Islam isn’t inherently bad like Islamophobes love to assert but we cannot deny we have issues amongst our ranks. Like every religion, we have our fair share of people who adhere to the faith both in a progressive manner and a reactionary manner. It is no secret that there are quite a lot of people who agree with a lot of reactionary beliefs even when they say otherwise. Afterall, sheikhs who spew such beliefs are even normalised and are granted TV spots on Islamic channels.

Think about it. When non-Sunni Muslims or religious minorities in general are persecuted or killed, how many people speak out against it? Aside from tokenising non-Sunni Muslims to deflect and say “ISIS kills Muslims, too”, devoid of all context? Perhaps even only speak to justify it? “They deserved it, they were kuffar” Sound familiar? 

I don’t think we must continue to apologise for the actions of extremists but it is our duty to speak up and say it is not okay. It is important to acknowledge the role of western colonialist and imperialist governments in creating these groups and creating divisions, however, even on a rhetorical level, we must challenge these beliefs instead of sweeping them under the carpet. Otherwise, we’ll have blood on our hands and it is on us.

Change cannot occur unless we acknowledge these problems. 

On Science And Other Hoaxes

So yesterday was that March for Science thing. What a waste of time. What the paid protesters were too busy counting their stipends to notice is, science DOES NOT EXIST.

That’s right. Science is a made up construct like um…Santa. And the “new country music”. And Vin Diesel. Go ahead, look throughout history and try to find even 1 verifiable instance of science. I dare you.

Now some of you are probably saying, “What about the famous scientists like Madame Currie and Albert Einstein and Mr. Sheldon, who taught chemistry at Eastman High School?” Paid actors, I say. In order to deflect criticism from failed policies, the United States government hired these players to capture our attention and distract us with their “research” and “experiments” and their “life-saving discoveries”. And apparently it worked. We’ve bought this farce whole-hog to the point where some of our children want to grow up to be “scientists” too. I am disgusted.

So, given the fact that we have had the wool pulled over our eyes for the past, I don’t know, 2000 years or so, what should we do now? Well, first order of business is to close all “laboratories”, “research facilities” and “universities”. Then, funnel that money into something far more tangible and necessary: faith-based healing and Bible museums.

That’s right. Why believe in a bearded, white-haired, male, earth-based “scientist” when we already have a bearded, white-haired, male, heaven-based deity instead? And let’s face it, religion is a lot older than science and who among us can argue with longevity? Not me, that’s for sure.

And just imagine the look on those impressionable youngsters’ faces when they finally ditch those science textbooks once and for all and head over to the Bible museum to ride the animatronic dinosaurs like our ancestors did so long ago. Pretty inspiring, isn’t it?

So let’s save ourselves some additional heartache and valuable EPA funding dollars and just jump off the science bandwagon, shall we? Now if you will excuse me, I’m going to go outside and cut myself a nice slab of air to breathe and I suggest you do the same as well.

Emma Watson claims she can’t just be a white feminist “because my bosses are two black women.”

Look, I love Ms Watson as much as the next person, and while I’ve never been on board the He for She train, I have admired her work and am optimistic about where this will take her.

But man, I am SO disappointed to see her deflect a perfectly valid criticism and throw away the opportunity to open up an important discussion about inter-sectional feminism and acknowledge that WOC’s voices are largely absent from the movement.

Watson and the He for She movement have been pretty roundly dismissed by WOC since it hit the scene. I mean, you say you want “as many people as possible to feel seen, heard and included in this movement” and yet you focus on giving MEN a platform for feminism rather than minority women?

You FINALLY get a direct question confronting this very problem and you brush it off using the logic of “I can’t be racist, I have a black friend! Two, even!” ? Seriously?

Feminism doesn’t need more Emma Watsons, Taylor Swifts or Lena Dunhams. Feminist issues facing privileged white women are only one small part of the spectrum, and these women are fortunate enough to be able to use their privilege to openly confront it. Do you know how many marginalized women would KILL to have their voices acknowledged in that way? Do you not think that you could use just a LITTLE of that platform to direct attention their way and to their causes?

Sorry Ms Watson. You don’t even get a B for effort.

anonymous asked:

Is it possible to make a strong female protagonist but still make her mega insecure?

Yes.

You also never need to ask permission. You want to do something? Just go.

I’m tempted to just leave it there, but we should probably talk about character traits, flaws, and development. The issue with the term “Strong Female Character” is that it’s misleading and often misinterpreted. Very often, in certain circles, it’s presented that strong = flawless. Combined with the whole pressure cabin of worries surrounding the “Mary Sue”, it can lead to some interesting places. Usually into either too much or not enough territory.

When someone says “Strong Female Character” what they usually mean is “Well-written Female Character” which is, I admit, almost as intimidating. However, it’s not just that the well-written female character has flaws, it’s a matter of how those flaws interact with their narrative.

You want to write a female protagonist with insecurities? That’s great! There’s plenty in this world for a woman to be insecure about. However, the development doesn’t stop there.

The next questions are the most important ones when working with any flaw and all flaws. Ask yourself:

What is my character insecure about? How does that affect how they view and interact with the world around them?

One of the biggest issues with the ways that flaws get handled in some fiction, especially with younger writers, is that they assume the key way to escape the dreaded Mary Sue moniker is to  give a character flaws. The problem often being that those flaws often don’t affect anything. The difference between a well-written character and one that isn’t (but may still be compelling to some like wish fulfillment characters) is that their flaws directly affect how they engage with other characters and the surrounding story. They influence their judgement, cause them to make choices which may be dubious, build tension, and are often a direct source of character conflict.

The flaws serve a purpose rather than just existing in an effort to deflect criticism or to make the character seem more human. It’s important to remember though that the more deep seated the insecurity then the more difficult it will be to overcome. The same is true of any other kind of flaw and, really, any other kind of story. The bigger it is then the bigger the impact will be. The more powerful the characters then the bigger the narrative must be to accommodate them. (Or we go in the reverse and have human drama be the focus as it often is with characters like Superman.)

So, the deeper seated the flaw then the less easy a fix will be. They are the only one who can really decide whether or not their insecurities matter and no matter how many times someone else tells them that they’re amazing, confident, powerful, or strong, it might not take until they start to believe it themselves.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about:

Sara has been training at the military academy since her parents sent her when she was six, she’s now 17 and approaching graduation. Though she ranks in the top or near the top of her class, and is constantly complimented on her fighting prowess, she worries about how well her skills will translate into the field. Being near the top, she’s been trained to take charge of other cadets but the thought of possibly having to decide about her friends makes her feel a little sick. She works hard and doesn’t have time a for relationship with boys or girls, but every so often she stops and stares in the mirror as she’s getting ready. The face staring back at her looks nothing like the girls she’s seen crossing the street from the Prepatory, the ones all the boys and some of the girls sigh over, or the ones on the movie posters. The clothes at the mall never fit quite right.

Whenever she looks at herself a nagging feeling slips underneath the surface, is this a face anyone could love?

Jenna’s been scraping the bottom of the barrel since her parents pulled strings with the General to get her in. She never wanted a military life and she’s tried her best to washout. Blew off her training sessions. Skipped class. Flunked gym. Maybe she can put together her rifle in a few minutes, but it’s not the rigid coordinated thirty seconds of her classmates. Still, graduation’s approaching and the bottom is still a direct line straight into the army. She doesn’t want to be a jarhead, shaved is just not a good look for her. Maybe her family’s from a long line of career military, but she never wanted this. Sure, knocking a few good looking guys and girls around the training floor is fun but put a gun in her hands and ask her to shoot? That’s another question entirely.

The question here is how these insecurities present themselves and often our fears lead to deeper seated fears at the bottom of that deep, dark internal well. Then, there’s the question of how they deal with those insecurities in their day to day existence. Do they avoid them? Do they ignore them? Do they repress them? Do they try to find some other way out of these entanglements? A character labeled as lazy might be actually be trying to find a way out that doesn’t involve admitting they’ve quit.

However, the passage of thought often leads to more questions which allow you to explore the character and those surrounding them more fully.

If Jenna is so determined to drop out then why doesn’t the Academy let her quit or toss her out?

Are Sara’s insecurities a result of the fact she’s dedicated herself to an ideal and cause but never really stopped to evaluate herself and what she wants? Or is she just insecure about her looks? Either way, it’s lonely at the top.

Whatever you do, try to think about how it affects their personality, their interactions, and the way they behave in the world around them. Character flaws inform a lot about a person and their journey in overcoming those fears and adversity is what defines a character as “strong”.

That said, there’s nothing wrong with a character being weak, either.

It’s mostly just a question of the kind of story that you want to tell.

-Michi

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron.

I don’t know why people don’t seem to get that folks don’t think its okay to attack a woman of color because someone assumed she was Latinx and cast her as such.  They’re mad that a white Italian woman was cast as an explicitly non-white Latinx woman (and she calls herself non-white on the damn show) and we’re tired of Europeans (many who are brown because they…tan…just like white girls in America do) and Americans taking much needed representation from people of color who are desperately underrepresented and we’re fed up with other people using the experiences of actual people of color to deflect from any criticism.  In what world do you say that its wrong to criticize Floriana Lima’s casting because white people somewhere, probably were mean to her because of her tan just like they’re mean to Brown Latinx all of their lives…how do you even do that?  Just because someone might assume she is Latinx, because they think all Latinx are lightly tanned with dark hair, doesn’t mean every Italian woman who fits the bill is entitled to take Latinx representation.  Did Angelina Jolie get a pass for playing a woman of color because she has “exotic features” and can tan?  Floriana Lima is NOT a woman of color, she is NOT Latinx and has no ties to anything Latinx.  And people are frustrated that, yet again, a show played up their dedication to diversity and added yet another white woman. 

And if people want to excuse the show saying that its illegal to ask ethnicity if they’re casting a specific part (not exactly true but whatever helps them sleep at night) then you still have to criticize Floriana for walking into that as a white woman and getting that role.  And you can still criticize how their assumption of what a “proper Latinx” looks like led them to cast a white woman with no Latinx heritage anyways and think of what brown and black Latinx were passed up for that. 

  I don’t know how it became “the mean fandom wants to take away queer representation and attack a brown woman” (in a fandom that’s usually notorious for being hyper critical of women of color…until now…odd) when the woman isn’t Latinx but was cast to play one.  And you know they’d never cast a black woman as Latinx even when she actually IS one (ask Gina Torres about that…).  So maybe people have a reason to be perturbed by this.  Because this isn’t the first time someone has done that. 

And I don’t know, maybe its because I’m a queer woman of color, but I’m not interested in defending whitewashing just because the woman in question is our lesbian representation at the moment. 

Tl;dr: The issue isn’t whether or not she’s brown enough to play a Latina.  The issue is that she isn’t Latinx at all but was cast because she looks like a “true Latinx” should look (slight tan with dark hair and certain features).  And “she could be maybe, sorta, kinda” isn’t enough of a justification.. 

Edit: The other issue is that her character explicitly says they’re not-white.  So they cast a white woman with a tan to play non-white person, which is whitewashing.  

The reason why it’s wrong for cishet women to go to gay bars is because cishet women are literally no less homophobic than cishet men.

If anything, they can get away with being homophobic even MORE than cishet men. Because women are seen as gentle and non threatening, women who are racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. are able to take advantage of this idea to deflect criticism. Some women even use feminism as a mask to hide behind these things which is worse. And in this case, cishet women are using feminism as an excuse to invade safe spaces.

If you are a cishet and you force your way into a safe space and expect it to cater to YOUR needs, you are ABSOLUTELY homophobic. You are a privileged person demanding that an oppressed group bow down to you and tend to your needs. These gay bars you feel entitled to go to might be the only place someone feels safe enough to be themselves without getting killed and you’re trying to take that away from them.

Doctor Yellowface And The Bullshit Machine - Quill’s Scribbles

Doctor Strange. It feels like a lifetime ago since this whole debacle began. So with the movie coming out on the 25th October here in the UK, and on the 4th November in the US, I thought I would hold a little refresher course. Going over all the controversies, lies and general bullshit that have come out of this frankly deplorable piece of cinema.

Of course the first controversial thing about Doctor Strange is the fact that it exists in the first place. Created in the late 60s/early 70s by Steve Ditko (and Stan Lee, but mostly Steve Ditko), while the Doctor Strange comics were surreal, intelligent, philosophical and imaginative, they were also racially insensitive due to the time they were written. Often using racial stereotypes as well as incorporating the mighty whitey trope, where the white lead immerses themselves in another culture and not only learns their ways but becomes their greatest representative. Great care would have to be taken in adapting Doctor Strange because it could become very problematic if handled incorrectly.

More controversy emerged when Marvel announced that Benedict Cumberbatch would be playing the title character. This casting choice was something I actually supported, although I did sympathise with others’ concerns. Aside from some of the stupid shit Cumberbatch has said over the years about autism, mislabeling POCs as ‘coloured people’ and the fact that he played the whitewashed Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness, he is also a white man. Some believe that it would have been more appropriate to cast an Asian actor in the role, and I do agree to a certain extent. It would certainly have been a way to combat some of the problems with the original source material as well as a great way of diversifying the MCU, which has been repeatedly criticised for its lack of POC representation. However a white Doctor Strange isn’t necessarily a deal breaker. The original comics, particularly the origin story, was very much a criticism of certain aspects of Western culture, including white privilege, materialism and capitalism. With that in mind, Marvel could justify the casting if the film were to specifically address those points whilst also ironing out the more problematic elements of the story. Writing Asian characters that are three dimensional and that don’t conform to stereotypes, and making sure that Doctor Strange doesn’t effectively turn into white Jesus at the end.

But then the shit really hit the fan when Tilda Swinton, a white woman… as in a woman who is not Asian, was cast as the Ancient One. Doctor Strange’s mentor and an Asian character. Yes. Like Batman Begins, Pan and many other movies that came before, Doctor Strange became the victim of whitewashing. A reprehensible and unforgivable practice that erases cultural depictions on film as well as significant job opportunities for POC performers. Whitewashing is wrong. Plain and simple. And yet Marvel, even now, are still trying to defend the casting choice for multiple, ludicrous reasons.

First they tried to deflect the criticism, claiming that people were attacking them for casting a woman in the role as opposed to a man. Kevin Fiege even gave a statement saying that they chose Tilda Swinton because they wanted someone who was ambiguous in terms of gender (whatever the fuck that was supposed to mean). This was bullshit. Not a single person had a problem with a female Ancient One. The problem was the Ancient One was being played by a white woman. If they wanted to gender swap the Ancient One, there are many Asian women they could have picked for the role. Michelle Yeoh would be my pick.

Next they went for the ‘colourblind’ defence, where Marvel said they chose Tilda Swinton because she was the best person for the role and that her character transcended race. This was also bullshit. The Ancient One was written as an Asian character. His culture permeates throughout the entire story. I don’t care how good an actor Tilda Swinton is. She’s white. Casting her automatically erases the culture the character is supposed to be representing. Plus, crucially, the colourblind defence only really works if you’ve cast a person of colour. Because being colourblind should surely give you all the more reason to look outside of traditional casting channels and not cast a white person in a role.

Then came the defence of social progress. That we really should be thanking Marvel because the Asian characters in the Doctor Strange comics were racist stereotypes and therefore casting white people in the roles solves the problem and now everything is hunky dory.

WRONG!

Whitewashing doesn’t solve the problem. It just makes it worse. See while most of the Asian characters in the original comics were racist stereotypes, at least they were Asian. What Marvel are doing is removing the culture from the story entirely rather than putting effort into writing a version of it that is not racist or stereotypical. This isn’t a creative solution. This is a lazy out. If Marvel genuinely think that a bald white woman in a bathrobe is somehow a better solution than writing a three dimensional and respectful Asian character, then the art of storytelling is officially dead.

And then along came C Robert Cargill. Doctor Strange’s screenwriter and all round douchebag. Describing the role of the Ancient One as being a ‘cultural landmine’ in a podcast he said this:

“[The Ancient One is] a racist stereotype who comes from a region of the world that is in [a] very weird political place. He originates from Tibet, so if you acknowledge that Tibet is a place and that he’s Tibetan, you risk alienating one billion people who think that that’s bullshit and risk the Chinese government going, ‘Hey, you know one of the biggest film-watching countries in the world? We’re not going to show your movie because you decided to get political.’”

Oh boy! Where do I start with this?

Well for starters the film doesn’t have to be set in Tibet (and it isn’t as far as I’m aware. From what I’ve heard, the Ancient One is going to be based in Nepal in the movie) and you don’t even have to acknowledge the fact that the Ancient One comes from Tibet. As actor George Takei said in response:

“It wouldn’t have mattered to the Chinese government by that point whether the character was white or Asian, as it was already in another country. So this is a red herring, and it’s insulting that they expect us to buy their explanation.”

So what Cargill just said was a blatant lie. And if Marvel were that bothered by it, have the Ancient One come from K’un L’un. You know? The fictional city from Iron Fist? Yeah! That’s part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe too! Easy to forget I know considering Marvel have made little to no attempt to bridge the gap between the movies and the TV shows. Second, Cargill talks as though the Chinese market will make or break the movie, which is total bullshit as demonstrated by movies like Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Both were banned from China and both went onto to break loads of box office records and make over $700 million at the box office (which is even more remarkable considering that Deadpool was R rated and Suicide Squad was absolute shit). Third, if this statement was true, which it isn’t, it doesn’t exactly reflect well on Marvel does it? ‘Oh no! We’re not really racist! We’re just pretending to be racist because we want your money!’ And fourth, if a Doctor Strange movie really was this politically charged, which it isn’t, and could have sparked outrage internationally, which it wouldn’t, WHY ARE YOU MAKING THE MOVIE IN THE FIRST PLACE?! MAKE SOMETHING ELSE!

This, for me, was when the production of Doctor Strange went from being clueless to being downright insidious. This was further supported by the statements issued by Tilda Swinton and the film’s director Scott Derrickson. In response to the backlash, Swinton voiced her support for the Asian community, saying that they deserve representation, right before eating her own words and stating that she’s playing a white character as opposed to an Asian one, as though that somehow makes it okay. And then Derrickson, on his Twitter account, said this:

“Raw anger/hurt from Asian-Americans over Hollywood whitewashing, stereotyping & erasure of Asians in cInema. I am listening and learning.”

Nice sentiment, but it doesn’t excuse the fact that he himself is contributing to that same raw anger and hurt that he and Swinton are crying crocodile tears over. In that context, his tweet reads more like ‘Yeah I know I’ve done something wrong… but I don’t care. I’m still going to do it anyway. Fuck you Asians.’ What I would really like at this point (because it’s far too late to pull the film sadly) is for someone at Marvel to grow a pair, admit what they’ve done is wrong and apologise. But that’s never going to happen. Instead all we get is more lies. More excuses. More bullshit. The plain fact of the matter is this. Marvel know what they’re doing is racist, and they don’t care.

Now I’ve been very vocal about my distaste for what Marvel have been doing with this movie, and that has attracted a number of criticisms from some of the MCU’s more braindead fans and Doctor Strange apologists (a few of which, to my alarm, are actually my own followers. I’m not going to name them on here because I don’t want them to be unnecessarily harassed. But they know who they are and they’d better be reading this and taking notes). The most common criticism being ‘But Quill! Doctor Strange isn’t racist! They’ve got a black guy as Baron Mordo and an Asian guy as Wong! What’s the big deal?!’ Do you know what my response to that is? So what?

Yes it’s nice that Chiwetel Ejiofer and Benedict Wong are in the movie, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Ancient One is still being whitewashed and that the film’s Asian culture is still being homogenised. A child killer doesn’t get let out of prison just because the mother got pregnant again. Not to mention the fact that the casting of Ejiofer and Wong brings its own share of controversies. In the comics, Baron Mordo was a rival wizard that wanted to usurp the Ancient One. In the movie, Kaecilius (played by Mads Mikkelsen, another white actor) takes that role while Mordo gets to trail along behind Doctor Strange, following the footsteps of other black sidekicks to the white lead, such as Falcon and War Machine. And Wong initially wasn’t going to be in the movie at all, until Derrickson decided to whitewash the Ancient One, at which point he suddenly felt a desire to bring the character back in order to defy the stereotypes. Funny how he didn’t have that same desire with the Ancient One, huh? Which suggests that it’s okay to put in that kind of effort when the Asian person is just the manservant to the white lead, but when it’s a prominent leading character like the Ancient One, suddenly it becomes ‘too hard’.

At this point it’s perfectly natural to ask why I’m making such a big deal out of this. Well two things. One, this is a big deal for a lot of Asian people who feel as though this film basically serves as one giant middle finger up at their race and culture, and second, Doctor Strange just so happens to be a comic book series I really, really like. Sure it’s problematic, but it was written in the 60s and 70s at a time when people didn’t know better. It doesn’t excuse it obviously, but I’m prepared to overlook it because I feel the story’s central message is a good one. The idea of cultural equality through spiritual unity. That we all have a small, but integral part to play in the lives of others. And that we’re all cogs in an intricate and complex universe. Imagine that in a modern adaptation of Doctor Strange. One that’s politically correct. One that respectfully depicts Asian culture. Combine that with its unique visual style, that could be a powerful movie serving as a perfect antidote for the more chaotic times we currently live in.

This is NOT that movie.

This movie cannot use the same defence of ignorance that Ditko can. The filmmakers should know better than this. There’s simply no excuse for it. Not only is the film’s whitewashing downright offensive, it also completely goes against everything the original story was about. How can there be cultural equality when said cultures are depicted almost exclusively by white people? All that stuff I mentioned before about criticising white privilege and capitalism, you can forget that. Not only will this film not criticise that, it will practically celebrate it. This to me suggests that the filmmakers don’t fully understand or appreciate the comics they’re adapting. And if you require further proof of that, when asked once again to justify the casting of Tilda Swinton, Kevin Fiege said that the Ancient One was a title that was passed down. It’s not. The Sorcerer Supreme is. The Ancient One is the character’s actual fucking name. How can you be confident in an adaptation when the filmmakers can’t get even get the basics of its lore right?

This movie is undeniably more racist than its source material, and it staggers me that people aren’t making a big deal out of this (especially after Cargill’s most recent comments saying that Swinton should be exempt from criticism and that she can play whatever role she wants. He’s clearly unapologetic about how blatantly racist this casting choice is and to that I say that Cargill can officially go and fuck himself). When Suicide Squad came out, there was article after article criticising the movie for being sexist due to its problematic portrayal of its female characters and while the Doctor Strange controversy has been receiving some media attention, it’s nowhere near at the same scale. Why is this? Is it the Marvel Bias? I highly doubt it considering that that’s total bollocks. No, I think @thenameisgul has the right idea. In response to one of my random posts, they hit the nail right on the head. Most of the people who are going to watch this movie aren’t Asian. This doesn’t affect them. And if it doesn’t affect them, why should they care?

Well here’s the thing. I care.

I refuse to watch this movie nor any potential sequels that could come from it. I feel it would be wrong of me to do so both from a moral standpoint and an artistic standpoint, and I encourage you to do the same. Whitewashing is an absolutely disgusting practice that needs to be stamped out. Luckily there’s a precedent for films with whitewashed characters failing at the box office. Avatar: The Last Airbender, Aloha, Pan and so on. But this is Marvel. Populist entertainment. We need to send the message that what they’re doing is absolutely unacceptable in this day and age. And already people are coming up with excuses. It might be good. The visual effects look great. It might be well written. It doesn’t matter. No script or visual effect can solve what is fundamentally wrong with the movie. That is just a band aid over the cancer. If you watch this movie, you have to accept two things:

  1. The movie is more racist than the comics its based off of.
  2. Marvel knows this and have been blatantly lying to you in an attempt to cover their own arses.

Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is ever going to get better. If this movie is successful, it’ll just give Marvel permission to keep doing what they’re doing and it sends a message to the rest of the industry that this is okay. I implore you to save your money and spend it on something worthwhile. Wait until Disney’s Moana comes out and watch that instead. Save up for that video game you’ve been wanting to get. Stay in and binge watch that TV show you’ve been meaning to watch. Just do anything other than watch Doctor Strange. Let it fade away and be quietly forgotten about, as it should be. Otherwise, fuck it. We might as well just bring this back:

EDIT: Some interesting news has come to my attention (thanks to @captainivyb for bringing said information to my attention and @lyrafay for posting said information in the first place). Turns out Doctor Strange wasn’t always white.

See I started reading the comics from Strange’s origin story onwards, but that wasn’t the first Doctor Strange story. The first was Issue 110 of the paranormal anthology series Strange Tales. In these early Doctor Strange stories, Steve Ditko actually drew the character as Asian:

An Asian caricature, but Asian nonetheless. It was only when the character gained popularity that Ditko decided to make him white. Yes. Doctor Yellowface really is Doctor Yellowface. Initially content with having him be a racist stereotype, Ditko then whitewashed him the moment the character was required to be a three dimensional character. Now I legitimately didn’t know this and I’m quite shocked to say the least. A problematic comic book series that’s even more problematic than I first thought.

What does this have to do with the movie, you might ask? Well here’s the thing. If Marvel are as respectful and knowledgable of the source material as they claim to be, they should already know this. The movie would have been the perfect opportunity to make up for mistakes past. Dare I say they were even obligated to reverse this whitewashing and turn Doctor Strange back into an Asian character (one that wasn’t a racist stereotype of course). They did not. Instead they cast Benadryl Cluttercrotch in the role and thus chose to perpetuate this racist erasure into the 21st century.

Well i don’t know about you, but I think that proves Marvel’s inbred racism quite conclusively, don’t you? Don’t watch this movie.

this just randomly came up in my head and i’ve rarely seen this, only once, but just in case

disclaimer that i do not mind one bit if you see pearl, lapis, or peridot as asian or any other type of poc!

okay, now here’s the rant. if you’re a person who tries to deflect the criticism against the racism in the show by saying that lapis, peridot, and pearl are asian-coded and not white, uh…that kinda has problems. they haven’t done or looked like anything to make one think that they are asian coded, and the one time i’ve seen someone say this, they pointed out how pearl has a cherry blossom motif, how her character is about overcoming negative views on her in her society, etc.

let’s start with pearl. first off, her appearance. she’s like the very definition of a typical white person’s appearance. long nose, big, round blue eyes, and light hair. and of course she has literal white skin. second, her whole aesthetic and stuff. i, as a person who is part chinese, wouldn’t really appreciate it if pearl was asian-coded based on some stereotypes, such as the whole “sakura anime trees desu” thing she had for like…2 episodes with her favorite tree before it was forgotten forever. nothing else about her says that she’s asian. the “learning to be strong and overcoming problems in her society” thing is because pearls are literal slaves who can’t even have their own appearance or personality, they have to mimic their owner in every department. she also doesn’t use asian weaponry or wear asian clothes (except for her sash but she still just looks like a western ballerina). also, as much as the poc are unfairly demonized in this show, pearl has done the WORST shit and i really wouldn’t like it if she was the same but asian-coded instead, adding to the “bad poc!” pile.

now, lapis. again, nothing to indicate that she’s asian. she’s also a straight-up abuser, super bland (please not another personality-lacking poc in this show after what happened to garnet and amethyst), and she’s free from all consequences because…she’s nice to steven and is a docile, shy gem??? if she had a consistent personality, and the show decided to go with a nice and shy one, that wouldn’t really be the best choice. not saying asian women can’t act like this, but it would play into the uncomfortable stereotype that asian women are very quiet and submissive. this goes for pearl as well, since she’s the “dainty, ladylike” one, just like lapis.

as for peridot, she’d kinda go with the “asian nerd” stereotype, and we already have connie for that. i do like connie’s character, but i really don’t like this stereotype, it’s just annoying and another asian/asian-coded character falling into it is unnecessary. and for the third time, peridot hasn’t done anything to indicate any sort of racial coding. she also tried to kill steven and the gems multiple times and was completely indifferent to the horrible forced fusions. notice how these characters who are mostly seen as white, have all attempted to either kill or hurt steven/the gems, multiple times, while the demonized poc have literally never done anything even CLOSE to that??? besides jasper, if you see her as poc.

also, if the show kept the exact same characters, and the only thing different for them was how pearl, lapis, and peridot were coded (thus being the only asian rep in the show), i wouldn’t be very happy with the only asian characters being abusive, manipulative, attempted murders, completely unsympathetic to what is essentially bodies horribly stuck together while still being alive/sentient, or all of those traits and more. however, if there was more asian rep, then it would be a little better, because i know nobody can be excused from their actions just because they’re a poc. i’m sorry if i’m sounding dumb or trying too hard to call out nonexistent racism against asians in the show or something, and that other poc, specifically black characters, in the show are treated much worse than this, but this has just been on my mind lately and i needed to put it into words.

oh, and if anyone asks me how they should be asian-coded without being racist, offensive, uncomfortable stereotypes, it could start with giving them smaller, almond-shaped eyes, and for pearl, maybe darker or “tanner” skin, and darker eyes and hair? like she could be a brown pearl. and give them asian clothes that are more obvious (pearl’s sash is nice but is just really underwhelming) but not just random “kawaii” kimonos slapped on for the extra “anime” reference and aesthetic. and have them feel a connection to asian culture or something, like if the show ever lets connie actually express her culture to steven and he tells the gems about it or if lapis flew him to korea and took a liking to the language/understood it quickly and stuff (also why didn’t lapis just fly steven there instead of Racist Uncle lol).

anonymous asked:

Stop being so defensive and deflecting criticism by saying that everyone who disagrees with you is a privileged 15 year old American when you know absolutely nothing about the other person. It isn't healthy to have a couple so dependent on one another, that's all we are saying. It's fine if you have them like that, you do whatever the hell you want, but you have to know it isn't healthy, right?

Me: *says they’re in an open relationship and love their friends and respect one another*

You: that’s not healty.

And yes half the people who give me shit and start this drama are people from this description.
2

Western Muslim women who defend the hijab never seem to mention that there are countries where women are forced by law to wear them. I don’t think it’s reasonable to leverage your position of privilege (in a secular country) to deflect criticism of the oppression of women in Muslim countries. 

Whenever I make these posts, I always get a bunch of Western Muslim women telling me: 

  • a) I don’t get to have an opinion because I’m not a Muslim.
  • b) I don’t understand why Muslim women choose to wear a hijab.
  • c) I don’t get to tell anyone what to wear.
  • d) Muslim women are already on this and they don’t need any help.

Before you start auto-bashing your keyboard, here are some pre-emptive responses:

  • a) that’s not how opinions work.
  • b) I don’t need to be a woman or a Muslim to notice that women are punished in some Muslim countries for not wearing the hijab. 
  • c) I’m not telling Muslims what to wear. If you all decided to wear hijabs, I would defend that choice. (For instance, I would also be very opposed to the forced removal of hijabs, such as was practiced by Reza Shah in the 1930s Iran.) How about helping promote this same choice for women who live in Muslim countries?
  • d) Whatever secret plan you’re promulgating, it’s not working.

Additionally, there’s not much point in pretending that you’re at the forefront of feminism in the Muslim world, when the only time I hear any of you talking about the hijab is to complain about white people who’ve noticed it’s illegal to not wear one in some Muslim countries.

As ever, if this post does not apply to you, then it doesn’t apply to you. 

New York Times – Lynda Carter Deflects Critics of Wonder Woman

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/fashion/lynda-carter-wonder-woman-united-nations.html

Is Wonder Woman a “pinup girl” or a feminist icon? The question dogged a United Nations campaign that featured the superhero as a symbol of self-empowerment for girls and women.

While some feminists may have felt triumphant when the United Nations announced the end of the Wonder Woman campaign this month (in an earlier Times article, a United Nations spokesman said that the campaign had merely run its course, and that the end had nothing to do with the uproar), one loyalist was not going to sit by as her cape was dragged through the mud: Lynda Carter, the actress who starred in the 1970s television show “Wonder Woman.”

Of the pushback that accompanied the campaign, Ms. Carter believes that some of it may be because “the U.N. didn’t put a woman in there.” The ambassadorship was announced just weeks after the United Nations passed over several women to be secretary-general.

Now 65, she is preparing to pass her golden lasso to Gal Gadot, the Israeli actress who will appear in next spring’s film version of “Wonder Woman.” Ms. Carter took time from acting (including a role as the president on “Supergirl” and a governor in the coming film “Super Troopers 2”) and career as a singer (she just competed a four-city tour and is recording her third studio album) to discuss the complex legacy of her Amazon princess alter ego. (This interview has been edited and condensed.)

Q. There seems to be some disagreement about what a feminist icon should look like.

A. What I find interesting is that they didn’t look at the larger picture. I agree that the issue of gender equality is much larger than any character is, and I understand that a comic book character should not be representative of something that is that important. I agree with that. What I disagree with is this idea about Wonder Woman. She’s an iconic defender, she’s archetypal. It’s the ultimate sexist thing to say that’s all you can see, when you think about Wonder Woman, all you can think about is a sex object.

What about those skimpy outfits?

Yeah, so? Superman had a skintight outfit that showed every little ripple, didn’t he? Doesn’t he have a great big bulge in his crotch? Hello! So why don’t they complain about that? And who says Wonder Woman is “white”? I’m half-Mexican. Gal Gadot is Israeli. The character is an Amazonian princess, not “American.” They’re trying to put her in a box, and she’s not in a box.

Did you ever think of your character as sexy?

If you think of the ’70s, that was miniskirts and bikinis. I never really thought of Wonder Woman as a super-racy character. She wasn’t out there being predatory. She was saying: “You have a problem with a strong woman? I am who I am, get over it.” I never played her as mousy. I played her being for women, not against men. For fair play and fair pay.

Some critics called Wonder Woman a “male fantasy.” But wasn’t the show more aimed at girls than boys?

I still have women at airports coming up to me saying: “Oh, you don’t know what it meant to me. That show got me through this difficult time, that difficult time.” That’s really where the fantasy became a reality, where Wonder Woman became something much more than a TV show or a comic book. And I’ll tell you this, when women recognize me in airports, I hold them in my arms and they cry. If a guy comes up and says, “Oh my God, I had such a crush on you when I was a teenager,” I say: “Talk to the hand. I don’t want to know.”

i just get so mad at this typa shit like people talk about their experiences and the oppression that goes on within communities and what they and others have faced from that specific group and yall take it and deflect it or criticize the criticism! wild and sad lmfao.