Insecticide

laporcupina:

image

There are valid reasons for why Marvel swapped out Janet Van Dyne and Hank Pym for Natasha Romanova and Clint Barton as founding members of the Avengers in the MCU. Especially for where Marvel’s collective head was back in 2008-2011, when they weren’t even sure there would be an Avengers to form. It required far less CGI (and thus less money), it fit better with the MCU conceit of the Avengers being a SHIELD-sponsored paramilitary unit instead of Team Treehouse living on Tony Stark’s dime, it avoided tipping the team too far into Science Geeks Plus Cap territory, Black Widow and Hawkeye had more currency, etc. These may not be the best reasons, the only reasons, or insurmountable reasons, but they’re valid reasons.

But Marvel is going to have to come up with perfect reasons to justify apparently fridging Janet in 2014 to give Hank a tragic past and Scott Lang an age-appropriate love interest.

They had options here, far more than they did in 2008 when this was all a pipe dream or in 2011 when they punched their golden ticket with The Avengers. The MCU has expanded greatly, both on Earth with Agents of SHIELD and out into space with Guardians of the Galaxy and there is plenty of room to fit Janet in. Janet’s tiny, she fits everywhere.

Except, apparently, in the MCU as a living woman.

Read More

An Open Letter to Kevin Feige

theladymonsters:

Dear Mr Feige,

You don’t know me, but I know you. I know you because you are the individual whose signature determines the future of a franchise that is dear to my heart, on which I have spent much of my hard-earned money. I know you because over the years you have made me and my sisters and the brothers of my sisters promises that have yet to be fulfilled.

Mr. Feige, when you say you won’t be “swayed by the backlash”—as if it is a negative thing, for billions of people to want for you to show that they, too, can be superheroes—what reason then should we have to be swayed to see what movies you do deem worthy of your attention? What justification do you have that we have not already heard countless times before and which has not already been disproven?

When, Mr. Feige, is “the right time”? When The Hunger Games: Catching Fire grossed over $800 million the world over—nearly as much as The Avengers and more than Iron Man 3—was that not the right time? When Life of Pi made more than the first Iron Man, and Django Unchained more than The Wolverine—was that not the right time? Or was the right time not when the first Pacific Rim made more money than the first X-Men?

When will the right time be? How many years? What does it look like? Quantify it for me, please, Mr. Feige, so that I might understand. You say you want a Marvel movie every year: what year, then, will we finally begin to see ourselves in starring roles in your films?

Do you believe piracy is wrong, Mr. Feige? Do you believe theft is wrong? Then how do you justify your constant thefts from us, Mr. Feige? You steal from us when you dangle vague promises in front of our noses and refuse to deliver. You steal from us when you promise us that our stories will receive adequate attention in movies that continue to give precedence to white men. You steal our hopes, our loyalty, and our money, and you do not deliver.

How familiar are you with statistics, Mr. Feige? Are you aware that the Motion Picture Association of America determined that 51% of the movie-going audience in 2013 was not white, and that 52% was female? And that is not even taking into account the rest of the world, Mr. Feige, which is far more diverse racially than this country is. The rest of the world accounted for the majority of The Avengers’s total gross earnings.

I work in retail, Mr. Feige. I see your consumer base. When a little girl approaches me after watching The Avengers because she wants to buy Black Widow comics, do you propose to tell her she is any less deserving of seeing herself reflected on the big screen as the little boys you feature in your films, inspiring and being inspired in turn by their heroes brought to life? When my female friends approach me to talk about their newly roused interest in comics and their restraining fear of the reception they’ll receive upon walking into a comic shop: do you wish me to tell them to stay away from the comic shops, Mr. Feige?

It’s time you start treating your female fans and your fans of color with respect, Mr. Feige. It’s time you start acknowledging that the wealth your franchise has made you and your company was made by people like us: made by women and by people of color who go to see superhero movies because we love superheroes. It’s time to acknowledge that we can be superheroes too—super heroes, not super sidekicks.

We’re ready, Mr. Feige. We’ve been ready. The ball is in your court. We’re waiting.

everybodyilovedies:

@missatomicbomb 

everybodyilovedies:

I feel like Marvel should listen to Jan and her opinions on ladies on superhero teams.

Oh wait they can’t because they cut her out of the MCU what a #JanetVanCrime

but isnt that carol saying it in the last two panels???

YES but it was Jan’s idea as chair to bring in more ladies like Carol and Jen onto the team. This is Jan’s first issue as chair during this run of Avengers Vol 3 and the very first thing she did was bring more ladies onto the team. ^.^

Film Review of documentary “Sounding the Alarm: Battling the Autism Epidemic”

autisticwomen:

Recently, I decided to watch the new Autism Speaks documentary “Sounding the Alarm: Battling the Autism Epidemic” and live tweet my reaction/outrage in real time.

Why did I do this?

Well, I had seen clips of the documentary. I’d heard some feedback that was concerning. I know that many of my friends wanted to watch but were afraid to. I think it is quite telling when a group called Autism Speaks puts out a documentary that Autistic people are afraid to watch. I wanted to watch it because I wanted to know what was being said about us, without us. Again.

Film Review of documentary “Sounding the Alarm: Battling the Autism Epidemic”

arcanewinter:

huntersonahotelbed:

oh my fucking god

so i’m reading this harry potter fic

and every now and then there are words like “arseented” and “marseaging” and “arseistance” and i was trying to figure out what the hell is going on

finally i got to the word “parse” and figured it out

they’re american so after they wrote it they did a find and replace to change every “ass” to “arse”

i can’t stop laughing omg

“Word has made 436 replacements.”

“That sounds right.”

This is a thing of beauty. Terrible, wonderful beauty.

citations for why “theory of mind” is bullshit

this-reading-by-lightning:

this is the brief synopsis (in articles/citations) of over a years work reading basically everything ever written on these subjects. i still study them. i plan to continue studying them. but i want to crowdsource knowledge of this stuff, because “theory of mind” (as applied to autistic people, and as applied elsewhere) is actually an intellectual farce. here is why, if you’re up to reading:

why theory of mind is psychological/cognitive bullshit:

“The weirdest people in the world?” by Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan in Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33

  • it’s bullshit because 99% of psychological research is sooo non-representative of humanity as a whole that it’s not. even. funny.

“Joint Attention: Twelve Myths” by David A. Leavens in Joint Attention (2013)

  • theory of mind is bullshit because this is literally the greatest thing you’ll read in a long, long time. i would propose marriage to david leavens solely on the basis of this piece. all his other work? ALSO GREAT. but thisss. this was published IN THE SAME VOLUME as (and was actually the chapter right before) work by almost ALL the most famous social psychology/’theory of mind’ researchers in the world. 
  • if you ever wanted to read someone INTELLECTUALLY WHOOPING SIMON BARON COHENS ASS IN A PUBLIC FORUM this is what you’ve been waiting for your whole life.
  • these arguments are on the topic of comparative psychology (i.e. comparing humans and other species—in this case, other ape/primate species) but they are like ALL relevant to human developmental psychology.

“Conceptual and Methodological Issues in the Investigation of Primate Intersubjectivity” by Racine, Leavens, Susswein, and Wereha, in Enacting Intersubjectivity (2008)

  • theory of mind is bullshit because the people who do all that research on babies and chimps and whatever else and autistic people and whatever…those people? yeah, they’re heinous at theoretical science AND heinous at experimental science. and here’s a discussion of why this is so by some great primatologists/comparative psychologists who work with non-human primates (including david leavens my boo). 

why theory of mind is anthropological/cultural bullshit:

“Toward a cultural phenomenology of intersubjectivity: The extended relational field of the Tzotzil Maya of highland Chiapas, Mexico” by Kevin Groark in Language and Communication 33

“Speaking the Devil’s language: Ontological challenges to Mapuche intersubjectivity” by Magnus Course in Language and Communication 33

  • (preface about anthropology: these are nerdy white male anthropologists acting as authorities on non-white, non-western cultures to which they do not belong. i dislike ethnography 99.9% of the time for these reasons, but these articles are tolerably not-dickish and very insightful/relevant, so i’m citing them)
  • theory of mind is bullshit because none (NONE) of the “normal human social development” or “normal human social assumptions” that theory of mind researchers constantly reference are consistently present in cultures besides highly industrialized western cultures.

why theory of mind is sociological/ethical bullshit:

“The Pathos of ‘Mindblindness’: Autism, Science, and Sadness in ‘Theory of Mind’ Narratives” by John Duffy and Rebecca Dorner in Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies 5:2

“Minds Between Us: Autism, mindblindness and the uncertainty of communication” by Anna McGuire and Rod Michalko in Educational Philosophy and Theory 43:2

  • boom boom boom theory of mind is bullshit because its so obviously an idea people have made up specifically to tell certain stories about autistic people AND about neurotypical people. and those stories they tell with theory of mind? they’re not innocent or neutral WHATSOEVER. they make up theories like this for a reason.

AND THEN the best of the best. this was published around the end of my year of researching this, when i had been told by my advisor that i needed to publish on the topic, and when i was sitting around saying “my life is in shambles, i am almost getting kicked out of school, all because i can’t write, how could i possibly write this now? but it needs to be written?” and then i saw this one morning, and spent the rest of the day dancing around campus. i squealed when i saw the title. just knowing that someone else was thinking about this in similar ways was enough to pull me through that time. i love this piece:

“Clinically Significant Disturbance: On Theorists who Theorize Theory of Mind” by Melanie Yergeau in Disability Studies Quarterly 33:4