#(a line of argument that does not intend to but ends up actually perpetrating an idea of a 'good old days')to engage with existing feminist | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

galacticnova3 · 3 years

Text

Ok I had thoughts in the shower that are kinda serious/about something mature and I felt compelled to share. CW for discussion of prosh/pp/ng. If you do that and somehow found this, not sorry, this post isn’t for you, also stop doing that and get help. Won’t tolerate any clowning either.

I think the main reason “proshippers” get away with That a lot is because in many cases they’re warping actual fair arguments. Like, yes, there is not necessarily something majorly wrong with portraying unhealthy relationships, because they exist in real life, and ultimately all art reflects aspects of real life. It’s in the same boat as the fact that it’s not bad to portray bad people or horrific events. However, all of that hinges on whether or not these things are being shown for what they are; if you keep saying/implying a character is good or cool or “relatable” and that character is in a situation like that– victim or perpetrator– you are automatically glorifying that thing. You can’t write it off as “just a character flaw” if it is not being portrayed as a flaw; that’s how character flaws work, because ultimately the vast majority of flaws can also be virtues under the right conditions, and vise versa.

Then people make the argument “well authors/artists/etc don’t have to spoon feed what is and isn’t ok to their audience”, and while that is true on some level, that does not mean they have no responsibility at all. Not just to people consuming that content, but to themselves. If you write something terrible and put it in a good light, or what can be reasonably interpreted as a good light, you can’t get mad if people assume you are supporting that thing. In that situation you have not given any true evidence that you don’t; “I’m not x” isn’t enough, because people can lie. Generally, most murderers don’t answer honestly if someone asks them if they killed someone or not. Actions speak louder than words, and if your action is writing, you are responsible for what that writing reflects on you and your views. If people come after you for it, that’s a sign that you should reflect on what you’ve written, and what message it is sending. Even if you had good intentions, people don’t see your intentions, they see what you produced, and sometimes the two don’t line up. Cancel culture is a pain in the ass, but so is the fact that the proship movement allows legitimately disgusting people to thrive under the cover of plausible deniability.

In the case of fan content, there’s the simple fact that not all franchises are safe mediums for making that stuff. It’s not censorship for someone to tell you not to make that content if you’re making it with the characters/the universe of a children’s franchise. Because ultimately, that franchise is going to be majorly consumed by children. It doesn’t matter how well you tag things or how many warnings you put on it, because ultimately the internet is going to put that thing in front of eyes that can be harmed by it. I am saying this as someone who’s first exposure to porn, before I was even in highschool, was Kirby fanart on Google images, despite having safe search on. In the grand scheme of the Internet, the only control you really have is whether you put something on it or not, and where you put that thing, and this is a situation where that is an incredibly important decision. Do you post it on social media where it could very easily be exposed to people who should not be exposed to that, whether because of algorithms or others being less responsible? Do you post it privately in a place where you know(or assume) the other people there are responsible and not going to circulate it? Or, do you keep that content to yourself?

That is not you being asked to be a “second parent”, this is not a “think of the children!” argument. Or, rather, it is a case of the latter, but one that is justified. If you’re making that content with original characters, or characters from a mature franchise, thinking of the children isn’t a priority because the children aren’t supposed to be there, just like you’re not responsible if you’ve been made to share a house with a kid that ends up finding your stash of Mature Things. Whether it was them snooping around without permission or you told them to stay away from that drawer and they didn’t listen, that’s the kid’s fault either way, and thus you bear basically no responsibility. However, if you make that content in a franchise that is consistently, obviously, and intentionally made to be consumed by children, even if it can also be enjoyed by adults? That’s different. That’s like walking into a playground with a porn magazine; it doesn’t matter if people your age can enjoy some of the things there, like the swings or basketball court. You need, and are expected, to take into account that kids are not only likely going to be there, but are encouraged to be there. You walking in with that magazine is you willingly choosing to expose or risk exposing minors to content they should not be exposed to, no matter how you spin it. You could read that magazine anywhere else, and you chose the area with kids in it.

Lastly, while I could make the argument of what reasoning there may be for wanting to make That Stuff with characters from a children’s series and then share it online in the first place, that’s been done by plenty of other people. Besides, I have a better argument: there is nothing stopping you from making that content with different characters anyways, be they your own or just from a franchise with a mature audience. You are not forced or limited to only portray a certain dynamic with certain specific characters. If the setting/universe is a factor, just make your own version with the relevant things in common, maybe change some terms and names, and there, problem solved. It’s not plagiarism if it is going to be utilized in a vastly different way, and as long as it does not just flat out copy every single aspect of the original. Something something a lot of fiction is derivative. Doing this could also allow a place for others to make similar content in what could eventually be your own “series”, without nearly the same level of risk of harm. If it is truly a case of just wanting to explore the dynamic, you can do so without having it be inherently tied to content made for young audiences, and if you have the skills and critical thinking necessary to understand both what makes it “special” with those characters, you should also be able to recreate the same thing in a safer environment.

I know I kinda focused a lot on “kid’s franchises” with this but the same things apply with other content. I.E. don’t make content that depicts mentally ill folks as dangerous where it could hurt/offend real mentally ill people and misinform those who don’t know the reality of mental illness. “Common sense” isn’t real; all “common sense” is learned, and not everyone has learned the same things you have at any given point. How else would ridiculous rumors and such spread, if everyone knew the truth?

TLDR:

-The issue isn’t you making the content, it’s you glorifying the content. Whether you intended to or not isn’t the point.

-You don’t have to spoon feed morals to your audience, but if people reasonably interpret unhealthy things shown in a light that isn’t explicitly or implicitly negative as your quiet support, that’s on you. You need to be sure that the message your content actually sends/how it reflects your views lines up with the message you intended to send and the views you actually have. Don’t blame others if you were the one who failed to communicate effectively.

-In the case of franchises specifically aimed at children, you posting that content is you saying you value sharing that content over the well-being of those likely to see that content. You had the choice to keep the risk of harm at 0%, but decided not to.

-That fact is not a “think of the children” argument, it is simply making the same point as someone telling you not to bring pornography into a kid’s playground, even if that playground has facilities others your age also enjoy. You are bringing adult content into a kid-oriented area, you cannot act like it is the fault of a kid for finding it when in some cases they weren’t even looking.

-There is ultimately no excuse for making that content within a children’s franchise, because there is nothing forcing you to remain in that setting and use those characters; if the dynamic is something you really want to explore, you can recreate it without ties that could lead minors to it.

-Though I used kid’s franchises as my main focus, this applies to any groups that your content could potentially harm or misinform. “It’s just common sense” is not a defense for the latter, because “common sense” has to be learned, and not everyone learns everything at the same time or by the same age.

#ask to tag #rambling #cw proship #ok to rb #just my thoughts on the matter #lemme know if this needs more tags I’m tired af and just kinda spat all this out #also yes I know this is basically the same as taking a bat to a hornet nest no I don’t care #let the hornets come I’ll fight them #or block rather #I will not give the hornets my time or attention

2 notes · View notes

honeylikewords · 5 years

Note

hi there! i hope this doesn’t come across as rude, and if it makes you uncomfortable i’m so sorry, it’s really not my intention i’m just genuinely curious! but i wondered what you thought about jon playing a character linked with the israeli special forces? do you not think being affiliated with that specific force is a little ‘problematic’ for lack of a better word? not job himself of course, i understand he’s just playing a character at the end of the day, but i wondered your thoughts.

It’s okay! First of all, thank you for being considerate in how you phrased this. I know it’s a delicate topic, and I am happy to discuss it, but I am very grateful that you are approaching it in a thoughtful manner. Second, let’s talk about where I stand on this, and how I hope to handle the topic!

I like Ilan as a character. I do. But you are right, the situation surrounding the Israeli government, its use of force, and its military is absolutely unbelievably dangerous and problematic, and not something I support. To be entirely clear, I do not support the violence being used in and around Israel to suppress and oppress people of differing faiths, ethnicities and cultures. It’s horrifying and by no means something I have any affiliation with, nor any support for.

I believe the inclusion of that particular force as his background was for dramatic effect-- the show runs on a lot of exaggerated references to ‘problematic’ topics as jokes-- but that doesn’t really dampen the reality that there is a huge amount of political unrest and violence being perpetrated by that government. It was intended as a joke, but that doesn’t mean I support it.

I intend to write about Ilan as an investigative journalist, in future. I don’t intend to erase the fact that he is Israeli-- that in and of itself is by no means problematic-- and there will obviously be a recognition that he is, in some way, militarily trained. But I don’t intend to write in a manner that seems condoning of that government or supportive of the clear abuses perpetrated by the systems it operates.

I don’t think Ilan, himself, is problematic. Not really. Nothing his character actually does seems to be reflective of problematic traits. The reference to the IDF/ISF seemed to be more a throwaway line to exaggerate how dramatic and horrifying his past was, and then show how goofy it is that he’s being ‘broken’ by Titus.

I think we can keep Ilan and enjoy him, so long as we distance our enjoyment of him from any support of the actual political situation. It’s the sort of the same as being able to enjoy the character of Shane without being condoning of the police system’s current and historic abuses of brutality, although the situation surrounding Shane is about 100x worse (because he, in his character, makes DEEPLY problematic choices, completely separate from his profession as police officer).

So, how can we break this down more simply? Well, TL;DR: I don’t think the role of Ilan is actually that problematic.

I think his character is fine. I don’t think we need to take the reference to his past to be the be-all-end-all of him, since clearly he is removed from that, now, and his character is more up for fanon changes, so we don’t really even have to pay that close attention to anything about his past, period.

I sincerely dislike, disapprove of, and cannot support the IDF/ISF and do not wish for my work about Ilan to be seen, in any way, as a vote of support for them. My work about Ilan is exclusively about the fact that I like Jon’s work, I think his character was cute, and his brief on-screen time was enjoyable.

I do think we should be critical about the media we consume. I do think we should ask questions about why something is being said in the way it’s said. I do think we should assess jokes and ask ‘is that really funny, or are you just expecting people to laugh at something horrifying?’, and I think we need to be concerned about and aware of what we give our support to.

But I think Ilan is workable. I don’t think we need to, as the saying goes, throw the baby out with the bath water. We can take the baby (Ilan) and put him in new, fresh water (fanon material where he is Not Affiliated With That Organization). That’s fine, I think, at least in this situation.

Again, it’s a sliding scale of how we determine these things. Some people are going to feel one way while others may feel a different way. We need to just be thoughtful and come to our own conclusions about it, and then see if that conclusion is helpful to other people. I, personally, think Ilan is fine. Other people may not, and I’m here to listen to that and consider their side of the argument, too.

But, at least from where I stand, he seems salvageable from that ‘joke’, like a peach one cuts a bruised spot off of.

Anyway, that’s just my take on things, and I think it’s a fairly reasonable one. But, if more information comes up, I’m fine with changing my mind and my perspective on things.

I hope that helps!

(D/o/n’t r /e /b /l /o /g, since this isn’t a discourse blog or anything. Also, please don’t ask about my feelings on the Isr.ael/Pale.stine conflict or other things like that. This isn’t the space for it, and I won’t answer questions about it.)

#i'm no longer a huuuuuuuge fan of the show because it relies a lot on those kind of jokes #i.e. 'reference to problematic thing because ha ha isn't it funny how upset people get'#envelope pushing is one thing but insensitivity is another so we just need to be mindful #so i think ilan is fine and we can work with him so long as we're mindful of what we're saying #messages #Anonymous

3 notes · View notes

hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger · 7 years

Text

The Vindication of Venom Part 1: Introduction and Background Context

Part 2

This essay series is my attempt to address some of the criticisms surrounding the most famous Spider-Man villain of all time, Venom.

To be specific I will be tackling the original earliest portrayal of the character from Amazing Spider-Man #300 and the criticisms levelled at him in that issue.

I am not endeavouring here to look at the Lethal Protector era of Venom, the Daniel Way run of Venom or even versions of Venom from later on in the David Michelinie run of Spider-Man and make a case for why they aren’t so bad.

Fair warning, not only will there be SPOILERS if you’ve not read many Venom tales but this series as a whole is very lengthy. I will also be reusing images throughout these posts as reminders or to illustrate different points so apologies there. The same goes for some of my general points.

With that all said let’s kick off by laying down some foundations for what is to come.

Introduction

Long story short, my thesis boils down to two essential lines of argument (though there are some other points I will get into as well). These are:

a) That Venom/Eddie Brock was a more poorly conveyed character than an outright poorly conceived one. That is to say he isn’t a character who, as has often been the criticism, doesn’t inherently make sense. Rather the nuts and bolts of what makes him tick, whilst present when you look closely enough, are not made explained in the clearest way possible.

b) Readers of the past and present project expectations onto the character that are not in fact warranted by his original concept, or at least the original intentions for the character.

With that said, for the sake of context let’s give little bit of history on Venom leading into ASM #300 and his real life origins as they are vital to understanding people’s problems with the character and my proposed counterpoints.

Conception

In the mid-1980s writer David Michelinie was given the chance to write the recently launched Web of Spider-Man ongoing series. It was during his tenure as the writer of that series that he originally conceived of Venom, later bringing his ideas over to Amazing Spider-Man when he became the main writer of that book.

Michelinie’s original conception of the character though was drastically different to what we wound up with on the page in 1988. In a 2008 interview he explained in his own words the early thinking behind the character:

Initially she [Venom] was a woman...The whole idea is that whenever I write a character I try to utilize the unique aspects of that character. And one thing Peter Parker had that no one else had was his spider sense...Someone flings at him from behind its a reaction he doesn’t even think about it, he ducks. And this has saved his life so many times I started thinking ‘Well, what if there was a villain who didn’t trigger that spider sense? How would he react? How would he cope with that?’

And they had already established in Secret Wars that the black costume didn’t affect Peter’s spider sense. So I started working out a character who would join with the symbiote costume and actually be a villain...

...My original origin story had been a woman who was pregnant and...her husband was trying to flag a cab as she was going into labour, and a cabbie was driving along looking into the sky at the Living Monolith, tying it into that graphic novel, [Michelinie wrote the Graphic Novel in question] where Spider-Man was fighting the Living Monolith...and he hits the husband and kills the husband...the shock of this sends to woman into premature labour and she loses her child, all because the cab driver was watching Spider-Man. So she became unhinged and when she got out she had this fanatical hatred of Spider-Man, blaming him for the loss of her husband and their unborn child. And that drew the symbiote to her and she became one with the symbiote and was going after Spider-Man...

When Michelinie came to write ASM something special was required for the milestone ASM #300. To this end he proposed they use his Venom character, but then editor Jim Salicrup felt that the readers wouldn’t be able to accept a woman being a threat to Spider-Man. As such Michelinie revised his origin for Venom and we got the character we know today.

Now let’ take a look at Venom’s origins in the pages of the comics themselves.

Backstory

In the Marvel Super Heroes: Secret Wars maxi-series Spider-Man, among other characters, finds himself transported to the patchwork planet Battleworld to fight a group of super villains. Over time his costume is damaged and, on advice from other heroes, he seeks out an alien clothing machine. However he gets far more than he bargained for. Instead of simply replacing his traditional red and blue outfit Spidey now sports a sleek new black and white costume seemingly made of an extraterrestrial material that flows like liquid and responds to his very thoughts.

After taking the costume back to Earth and going through various other twists and turns in his life, Peter takes the costume to be analyzed by Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four where he discovers the truth about it. That is it not in fact a piece of clothing but in fact a symbiotic alien life form that does not wish to separate itself from Spider-Man.

The symbiote later escapes from the Fantastic Four and attempts to forcibly bond with Peter again in Web of Spider-Man #1.

Knowing the symbiote’s vulnerability to loud noises Peter frees himself by going to a church bell tower, although this puts his own life at great risk too. Unexpectedly the symbiote actually saves his life despite Peter’s rejection of it. This is because through being bonded to Peter the symbiote has begun to experience human emotions.

Though no one knew it at the time (and it wasn’t strictly speaking confirmed in-story until Amazing Spider-Man #388, published over 8 years later), the character we now know as Eddie Brock/Venom was first hinted at in Web of Spider-Man #18. In a single page Peter Parker casually awaits a train when a pink sleeved hand pushes him from behind into the tracks. Though he saves himself what is most alarming about the incident is how Peter’s spider sense never reacted to warn him of the danger.

Personally I think the pink coloured sleeve is a hint that this mysterious assailant was intended to be a woman.

A similar incident to the above occurs in Web of Spider-Man #24. Peter (sans his costume) is using his powers to walk on the outside wall of a building when a mysterious figure abruptly grabs his leg and detaches him from the wall sending him falling. Peter is alright but again he is alarmed by the lack of warning from his spider sense and presumes that the culprit of this incident and the one at the train station are one and the same.

On a side note the fact that the assailant was physically strong enough to detach Peter from the wall could have been a hint that they possessed a degree of super strength.

Though no readers knew it at the time, we got our next look at this assailant in Amazing Spider-Man #298 where he observed news clippings about Spidey and spoke about how he ruined his life and how he will soon return the favour.

We got our first full look at the character in the very next issue when he confronts Peter’s wife Mary Jane in their apartmen, giving birth to (for better or worse) a giant of the Spider-Man mythos.

In ASM #300 we finally got to see the face of our new villain and follow his activities leading into his climactic battle with Spidey.

And then of course, rather infamously, we got his origin story dropped on us.

He is Eddie Brock former reporter for the Daily Globe newspaper. During a killing spree perpetrated by the mysterious serial killer known only as the Sin Eater, Brock was contacted by Emil Gregg who confessed to being the Sin Eater. Brock published his story and later revealed Gregg’s identity to the world. However shortly thereafter Spider-Man captured Stan Carter who had been the real Sin Eater all along, Gregg merely being a mentally ill serial confessor.

Losing his job and reputation Brock hit very hard times and blamed Spider-Man for his misfortune, nursing a burning hatred for the wall-crawler.

Trying and failing to end his own life he found himself in the same church that Peter rid himself of the symbiote. The symbiote had grown to resent Spider-Man and sensing a mutual hatred in Brock bonded with him, granting him powers similar to the wall-crawler as well rendering themselves undetectable to his spider sense.

Armed with the knowledge of his secret identity they dubbed themselves Venom and embarked on their mission of vengeance by killing Spider-Man.

An important note to all of this is the fact that Brock’s recounting of the events surrounding the Sin Eater seemingly contradict the original story starring the character. In the original Sin Eater story arc (also known as ‘the Death of Jean DeWolff’) Emil Gregg dressed as the Sin Eater and invaded the Daily Bugle, where he was apprehended, Brock seemingly never playing a role in his capture.

I should mention that there are three mini-series which retcon certain elements into this backstory.

In Deadpool’s Secret Secret Wars, we discover that the insane mercenary Deadpool participated in the conflicts on Battleworld and actually wore the symbiote before Spider-Man, the story even alluding to Deadpool’s own mental conditions as contributing to warping the symbiote (and by extension it’s future hosts).

In AXIS: Carnage we revisit Emil Gregg who is operating as ‘the Sin Eater’, an apparently supernatural entity who literally consumes somebody’s sins. The story even outright states at one point that Eddie Brock was correct in his original outing of Gregg as the Sin Eater.

And finally during the Deadpool: Back in Black mini-series we see Deadpool once again bond with the symbiote a while after it was rejected by Peter Parker in Web of Spider-Man #1. It is in this mini-series that the symbiote first transforms into the fanged, long tongued monstrous visage we all know today. The story also hints that Venom’s very name comes from an encounter between the symbiote empowered Deadpool and Kraven the Hunter (the incident also apparently giving Kraven the idea to bury Spider-Man alive as seen in Kraven’s Last Hunt).

Whilst entertaining stories, since these stories are retcons stemming from non-Spider-Man titles (and also don’t make sense in some cases) I’m not going to take them into account going forward with this essay series.

The criticisms

Now we’ve laid out Venom/Brock’s origins we need to define what the main points of criticism are when it comes to Venom’s beginnings. Chiefly these amount to the following:

· The extraterrestrial origins of the symbiote are ill fitting for Spider-Man’s more grounded world

· The symbiote’s hatred of Spider-Man is contradictory to how it had been previously portrayed

· The symbiote is alive despite us seeing it die in Web of Spider-Man #1

· Other versions of the character (such as Spider-Man the Animated Series, Spider-Man 3 and the Spectacular Spider-Man Animated Series) all make Brock to be a much better dark reflection of Spider-Man than the original comic book version

· Brock was a previously unknown character who is unconnected to Peter Parker’s life in or out of his costume.

· Brock’s origin story involves rewriting events from the Sin Eater storyline to facilitate his fall from grace

· The reveal of Brock as Venom, especially in light of previous two points, is a bad resolution to the mystery story seeded in issues leading to ASM #300

· Eddie Brock’s motivations for hating Spider-Man are weak and make no sense, this being perhaps the single biggest point of contention surrounding the character

I am going to now try my best to address these criticisms in order although some of my points involve tackling more than one of them simultaneously, or otherwise weaving between them. Furthermore some of those points require multiple instalments to properly address, especially that last one.

Whilst I will endeavour to bring these point back up when appropriate please try to bear them in mind as we proceed going forward.

Part 2

#Spider-Man #Venom #Eddie Brock #David Michelinie #Peter Parker #Deadpool #Wade Wilson #Carnage #Sin Eater #Cletus Kasaday #spider-man the animated series #Spider-Man 3 #the spectacular spider-man animated series #marvel animation #symbiote #symbiotes #The Vindication of Venom

42 notes · View notes