sorry but it's like they begged me to do this gifset

Okay so I saw this gifset on my dash today:

with appended commentary about how Steve doesn’t seem to care about Tony’s pain

and I’m like… nah fam?

(At first I considered attaching this rant to the post itself, but then I decided not to because 1) personal experience tells me that this sort of stuff is hell on the OP and 2) there’s nothing particularly uniquely atrocious about the commentary I’m referring to – it’s tiny and I’ve seen many versions of the same claim, it’s more a widely-held fandom belief than anything else at this point, it seems to me, and there’s no reason for me to attach a gratuitous wall of words specifically to that version because idk that just seems like a bitchy thing to do. I’m not like. Attacking it specifically. I’m just linking to the gifset as context bc I think I refer to it a couple of times)

ANYWAY! I’ve been trying to stay away from this shit but everyone has a breaking point and even as (or honestly, *especially* as) a hardcore Tony Stark fan, I’ve been troubled by the post-Cap 3 line of argument that generally holds that Steve “doesn’t care about Tony’s pain” and the more broad “where is his guilt?” etc

Keep reading

astynomi  asked:

*curtsies* Hello Duke! I have a question I think you’ll enjoy. I was wondering what your opinion of Jane Eyre is as a feminist novel. I find the composition profoundly misogynistic. Why does Jane have no female support? The other female characters are EITHER obstacles to Jane’s happiness- two-dimensionally bad (Mrs Reed, headmistress), petty by virtue of class (Mrs Fairfax, Reed sisters) or in order to be a foil for Jane (Blanche)- OR entirely non-sexualised (the Rivers, Helen). (continued)

(pt2) Helen in particular: I don’t think it’s a coincidence that she’s, essentially, fridged. I think Bronte’s hatred for Constantin Heger’s wife made her feel that women could be men’s equal, but not all women were up to the challenge. It’s sad, because I don’t think Jane Eyre IS a case of awkward friendless young woman overawed into flinging herself at brooding older male (HE’S the head-over-heels dork who pours his heart out), it’s so much more; but it almost begs to inspire that stereotype.

(not really part of question) I’ve been musing over this a while; I saw a gifset of Helen Burns which reminded me of it to the point of wanting to discuss it with someone who knows their shit, and as I gather you share my love of Jane Eyre (I have read it in English and French, and watched at least 5 adaptations) I thought you might enjoy thinking about it XD. I love Jane & Rochester so much (I LOVE that she tells him where to shove that ‘birdcage’ shit) but I do think they transcend the novel.

*Curtsies* Ooh, yes. Okay (tagging you @astynomi because I know it took me forever to answer this and I’m SO SORRY) I will first and foremost admit that I love Jane Eyre so I am a little biased. But I think it’s difficult to say it’s feminist or it’s not. Sometimes I think we forget that the overwhelmingly misogynistic worldview that existed in the centuries prior to ours affected the women as much as the men: women were taught that they were mentally inferior, and I’m sure a great number of them believed it, because it’s extremely difficult to unlearn what you grow up thinking is simply the natural, actual way of the world. (Lookin’ at you, Catholic school.) 

Now, Charlotte Brontë obviously wasn’t under this illusion, but I think her book acknowledges that a lot of women were, and Jane is the contrast to that. Jane is the one saying, “Girls, wake up, put down the knitting and let’s go.” I think she sets a very jarring example for the Rivers girls–who are for the most part good people, despite their being a little too submissive to their brother–but I also think they’re kind of meant to be a positive female influence to balance the earlier, negative female presences in Jane’s life. They’re going to provide the adult friendship she didn’t get to have with Helen. 

And I think her relationships with both St. John and Rochester reflect her independence. (Spoiler alerts ahead.) She consciously turns down a very good offer of marriage from a young, handsome guy because she’d rather marry this fucking weird and sort of ugly older man because he loves her and he challenges her intellectually. But the key thing is she has no problem telling Rochester to step the fuck off when he’s being overbearing, and he does eventually get it. The wife locked up in the attic who finally breaks loose and burns his big house down? If that’s not a metaphor for learning not be controlling and manipulative towards women I don’t know what is. It’s framed in a way that we’re still able to like him–because said wife in the attic was a fucking witch before he shut her up in there–but I think the moral is still present. At the end of the story, Jane is 100% the one in control of their relationship. She chooses to come find him and be with him and I think he will spend the rest of his life thinking about how lucky he is. He has already figured out how remarkable she is. (Can we talk about this line? “I was for a while troubled with a haunting fear that if I handled the flower freely its bloom would fade—the sweet charm of freshness would leave it. I did not then know that it was no transitory blossom, but rather the radiant resemblance of one, cut in an indestructible gem.” Fucking hell. I’ll take that over ‘You’re too good to be true’ any day.) But now this man is not only desperately in love with her but he is literally never going to take her for granted. He learned that lesson the hard way.

So, last thing: Rochester’s wife and the other negative portrayals of women. I think this is partly a case of unlikable male characters being ‘interesting’ and unlikable female characters just being bitches. Early in Jane’s life, everyone sucks and gender is kind of incidental. I didn’t read that as Charlotte saying, “All women are petty and vapid except Jane.” I read that as her saying, “Everyone in Jane’s life is petty and vapid and she needs to GFTO.” Because the men that surround her early on are just as bad as the women. So for the sake of playing devil’s advocate, I think you could actually make the opposite argument: that Bronte is actually all the more feminist because she shows a variety of female characters, and a lot of them are not the likable simpering bimbos that a lot of other people were (and still are) writing. Her women are real. Unpleasant, maybe, sometimes, but certainly three-dimensional. 

Anyway that’s my two dollars cents. Sorry this took me so long to get to! I wanted to do it justice when I wasn’t buried in schoolwork.