thatotherindianguy asked:

Actually Natasha called herself a monster because she was trained to be a killer. The sterilisation thing was a separate issue. She was sympathising with Banner after he said he can't have kids so she probably wouldn't be happy with him.

That is terribly optimistic of you. I very much got the impression that she was referring to her sterilization when she called herself a monster. When she was talking to Bruce she said in her graduation ceremony she was sterilized which was effective in making sure nothing was more important than her missions. Then she called herself a monster. The way the scene was written made her sterilization and her being an effective killer too wrapped up together to say she was only talking about one thing. 

Cisgender language: “I couldn’t have a significant other who was trans – I want biological children.”

English translation: “I have rigid views on medical transition and believe that all trans people go through hormone replacement therapy or are infertile/sterile for other reasons. I have no concept of egg or sperm banks, or of the idea that trans people can and do have biological children. I think adopted children are somehow inferior to biological children. I have rigid ideas of what a perfect family is – cisnormative and heteronormative.”

I really don’t seem to have a big of a problem with Natasha’s characterization in AoU as other people do, I don’t see it as ooc that she would like Bruce or that she would be very aggressive and forward in her advances. I do however have to say that having her call herself a monster for being sterilized is disgusting and Whedon should be ashamed. 

like. bruce/nat could have worked. if this film had been more interested in their relationship rather than their romance. 

like just imagine??? a scene. where bruce and nat are sitting down (earlier than the farm but after the initial hydra fight) & bruce says something like “youre right to be afraid of me” and nat immediately says “im not afraid of you”, but shes lying through her teeth and bruce knows it. shes terrified. not of him, but of what he can do, because she knows what men can do

and then slowly show nat fighting beside the hulk more and more often until eventually they get to the lullaby stage??? where shes the one whos able to calm him ??? and more importantly, where they trust each other enough to do what they have to do, because nat romanticizing bruce isnt going to work. there has to be a mutual trust and respect as a foundation 

for fucks sake, in the last movie she was shaking before him. tws saw all of nats history be leaked. instead of framing nat as a monster for not being able to have kids, have bruce mention something she did in the past. have the narrative realize that theyre two sides of the same coin; they both werent given the choice to do monstrous things, and they both prey on that in each other (possibly to hide from their own pain; this movie was so deeply personal, and tws just barely scratched the surface of nats complicated relationship with herself) & try to sugar coat it

dont give me Hopeless Romantic natasha, dont give me this forced relationship that came out of no where, give me a solid foundation and if you wanna go from there go ahead, but dont build me a house without any bricks

I understand that some people are really upset about the version of Natasha in Age of Ultron, and I’m sure you people are more familiar with her character in the comics than I am, but I do want to address something. 

I’ve seen some people saying that the scene where she reveals her forced sterility is Joss Whedon comparing sterility to being a monster. Please know, my Marvel compatriots, that there is so much more to forced sterilization than not being able to have children. Whedon wasn’t going for the “oh I can’t have kids, I’m a monster” thing, or at least, I definitely did not get that vibe. 

You could never plan on having children and be traumatized by forced sterilization. The point is that something was taken from Natasha, something that she may have never wanted, but sure as hell won’t be able to have now. The Red Room took a part of her she will never get back, symbolizing a whole bunch of other things that were taken from her–that molded her into the efficient killing machine she didn’t want to become. 

She was forced to be someone she didn’t want to be. A killer. An assassin. That is what she was comparing to monster-ness. Not sterility. Or at least, that is what I got from the scene. And it was a very powerful insight into a woman who has been conditioned to be someone she’s not. A woman who is now learning that maybe it is okay to seek love–that maybe it was okay all along. 

Dear god, my Natasha feels. 

somuchbraver replied to your post “Actually Natasha called herself a monster because she was trained to…”

I mean, but really, Bruce ALREADY KNEW that she killed lots and lots of people, EVERYONE knows that. The only new information in that scene was her sterilization, and she followed it with, “still think you’re the only monster on the team?”


I thought that in AoU Natasha was saying that she was a monster because the Red Room turned her into a killer with the serum and training. And the sterilization was a thing they did as part of the “graduation”. But all of the things the Red Room did to her was her reasoning for calling herself a monster, primarily the part where they turned her into a cold-blooded assassin.  

Did people think she was calling herself a monster only because they sterilized her…? 

My first thoughts on that whole scene were mostly about how Bruce was being used to give us insight into Natasha’s past and develop her character. (He got some development too, but not as much. I liked how that scene went.)

Me trying to be romantic
  • Me:*sees cute picture of couple cooking together with one assisting from behind*
  • Me::)
  • My partner:*wearing a hazmat suit, pouring solutions containing dangerous viral strains inside of a sterile room*
  • Me:*giggles bashfully and inserts hands underneath partners armpits and grabs hands to assist romantically*
  • Me:;) need some help? *kisses nape of hazmat suit covered neck*
  • Me:You're so funny :) *grabs top of liquid nitrogen cooled apparatus and freezes hand*
  • ME:are you not showering with me ;)
  • My partner:*throws me into chemical shower* I'll get my supervisor, wash everywhere!
  • Me:Remember how shy you were when we first met :)

Okay, so, after having seen the second Avengers movie, at the risk of being yelled at, can I ask why that scene where Natasha calls herself a monster because she was sterilized makes Joss Whedon an asshole? Because I didn’t see that and think “yeah, women who are sterile are monsters”, I thought “I sympathize with this because this is an obvious example of an abused person blaming themselves for something that wasn’t their fault”. And this is a deep point in Black Widow’s original storyline, right? That she hates herself for a variety of reasons? So then, out of curiosity, I asked a male friend who had seen the movie (who is really not a sensitive guy at all who most people here would find extremely problematic) what he thought of that scene and he said the same thing “it’s sad and ironic ‘cause they both [Hulk and Black Widow] hate themselves and think they’re monsters and neither of them are”. 

Though I wish Natasha wasn’t playing the damsel in distress in this one. And I really wish Bruce didn’t decide for the both of them what was safe or not ‘cause that’s a really common and annoying trope (she can decide for herself, honestly). 

So, yeah, thoughts? 


Am I the only one who interpreted Black Widow’s line about calling herself a monster as her saying it because she was literally forced to spend most of her life/from a tiny age train to be a literal killing machine, throughout the process being tortured and destroyed mentally and physically, causing her to feel like a monster? 

not just ‘oh i am sterile i am a monster oh no’

Women Prisoners Sterilized To Cut Welfare Cost In California

In California, prison doctors have sterilized at least 148 women, mainly Mexicans, from 2006 to 2010. Why? They don’t want to have to provide welfare funding for any children they may have in the future and to eliminate ‘defectives’ from the gene pool.

The sterilization procedures cost California taxpayers $147,460 between 1997 and 2010. The doctors at the prison argue it is money well-spent.

Dr. James Heinrich, an OB-GYN at Valley State Prison for Women, said, “Over a 10-year period, that isn’t a huge amount of money compared to what you save in welfare paying for these unwanted children – as they procreated more.

In 1909, California passed the country’s third sterilization law, authorizing reproductive surgeries of patients committed to state institutions for the “feebleminded” and “insane” that were deemed suffering from a “mental disease which may have been inherited and is likely to be transmitted to descendants.” Based on this eugenic logic, 20,000 patients in more than ten institutions were sterilized in California from 1909 to 1979. Worried about charges of “cruel and unusual punishment,” legislators attached significant provisions to sterilization in state prisons. Despite these restrictions, about 600 men received vasectomies at San Quentin in the 1930s when the superintendent flaunted the law.

Moreover, there was a discernible racial bias in the state’s sterilization and eugenics programs. Preliminary research on a subset of 15,000 sterilization orders in institutions (conducted by Stern and Natalie Lira) suggests that Spanish-surnamed patients, predominantly of Mexican origin, were sterilized at rates ranging from 20 to 30 percent from 1922 to 1952, far surpassing their proportion of the general population.

In her recent book, Miroslava Chávez-García shows, through exhaustively researched stories of youth of color who were institutionalized in state reformatories, and sometimes subsequently sterilized, how eugenic racism harmed California’s youngest generation in patterns all too reminiscent of detention and incarceration today.

California was the most zealous sterilizer, carrying out one-third of the approximately 60,000 operations performed in the 32 states that passed eugenic sterilization laws from 1907 to 1937.

Although such procedures may seem harsh, they are not illegal. The Supreme Court ruled in 1927 that women can be forcibly sterilized in jail in Buck vs Bell. Writing for the majority, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.


When I was four years old, a doctor advised my parents that I should undergo a “routine” hysterectomy. It was recommended, the doctor said, to prevent the future inconvenience of menstruation. My parents, thankfully, were horrified and high-tailed it out of there, taking me and my four year old uterus with them.

Photos: Survivors of North Carolina’s Eugenics Program
Photographs by Andy McMillan / Text by Maya Dusenbery

Between 1929 and 1974, North Carolina sterilized more than 7,500 of its residents. Most were operated on without their consent, having been deemed “feebleminded” and unfit to reproduce by the state Eugenics Board. Eighty-five percent were women; about 40 percent were black or Native American. As many as 2,000 victims are thought to still be alive.  [Read more.]

See also Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present by Harriet Washington.

Elaine Riddick was 13 years old when she got pregnant after being raped by a neighbor in Winfall, N.C., in 1967.  The state ordered that immediately after giving birth, she should be sterilized.  Doctors cut and tied off her fallopian tubes.

Riddick was never told what was happening.  “Got to the hospital and they put me in a room and that’s all I remember, that’s all I remember,” she said.  “When I woke up, I woke up with bandages on my stomach.” 

Her records reveal that a five-person state eugenics board in Raleigh had approved a recommendation that she be sterilized. North Carolina was one of 31 states to have a government run eugenics program.  By the 1960s, tens of thousands of Americans were sterilized as a result of these programs.

To read more about this story, click here. Dr. Nancy Snyderman’s full broadcast report, ‘State of Shame’, airs Monday, November 7, at 10pm/9c on NBC’s Rock Center with Brian Williams.

I am a lesbian woman of Color whose children eat regularly because I work in a university. If their full bellies make me fail to recognize my commonality with a woman of Color whose children do not eat because she cannot find work, or who has no children because her insides are rotted from home abortions and sterilization; if I fail to recognize the lesbian who chooses not to have children, the woman who remains closeted because her homophobic community is her only life support, the woman who chooses silence instead of another death, the woman who is terrified lest my anger trigger the explosion of hers; if I fail to recognize them as other faces of myself, then I am contributing not only to each of their oppressions but also to my own, and the anger which stands between us, then must be used for clarity and mutual empowerment, not for evasion by guilt or for further separation.
—  Audre Lorde, “The Uses of Anger,” Sister Outsider, p. 123

anonymous asked:

Hi. I'm 18 yrs old, in university, and have finally come to the decision I absolutely do not want children. I told my mum I would like to have a tubal ligation in my late 20s, and she laughed saying they won't do it until I'm in my 40s. Why??

Short answer: sexism.

Long answer: Doctors will often refuse to sterilize DFAB people, and insurance companies will refuse to pay for sterilizations, unless we’re literally dying, because they assume we’ll always regret it because we’ll always want more children by the simple fact we’re “women” and as such our only instinctual drive in life is to be mothers. 

And this DOES include denying trans people transitioning needs and procedures.

Even people who’ve had children have had to fight to be sterilized - my aunt, for example, had a serious disease in her uterus, which was putting her in so much pain she could barely leave bed, but they refused to remove her uterus until they had made her pay an exorbitant amount to “exhaust all options”.

As your mother has pointed out, some doctors/insurance policies will allow DFAB of certain ages to go through sterilizing procedures, including tubal ligation. The earliest I’ve ever heard is late 20s, but some may not serve you until your 40s or even 50s. However, I don’t know what one has to do in order to be given this chance, as I’m waiting to begin trying myself. All I know is that it’s almost always a struggle even in these cases.

For several decades, private agencies, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and the Puerto Rican government, with the support of federal funds, waged a crusade to sterilize Puerto Rican women. Women on the island were encouraged to agree to “la operación” by armies of public health workers who offered it at minimal or no cost.

The island-wide sterilization campaign was so successful that by 1968 more than one-third of the women of childbearing age in Puerto Rico had been sterilized, the highest percentage in the world at that time.

A similar effort on Indian reservations during the 1970s left more than 25 percent of Native American women infertile. In four Indian Health Service hospitals alone, doctors performed more than 3,000 sterilizations without adequate consent between 1973 and 1976. For small Indian tribes, this policy was literally genocidal. One physician reported that “[a]ll the pureblood women of the Kaw tribe of Oklahoma have now been sterilized. At the end of the generation the tribe will cease to exist.”

—  Dorothy Roberts, Killing the Black Body