kirke_novak: (Marvel: Captain America)
kirke_novak ([personal profile] kirke_novak) wrote in [community profile] scans_daily2011-10-11 03:15 pm

Trailer for The Avengers - first "real" one

We still don't know who the enemy is (my money on Skrulls), I don't believe it's Loki
I already ship Natasha/Loki
Steve has a gun, all is right with the world
Don't like how they just attached Hulk at the end - is he in the film for just 3 seconds?
drmcninja: (Default)

[personal profile] drmcninja 2011-10-11 11:02 pm (UTC)(link)
In the long run, does it matter who named the Avengers? Not really. But Pym discovering the particles with his name on them and then becoming Ant Man is a major part of Jan's history as a character, in both the Ults and 616. If you want a movie jan that is true to character (either ultimate or 616) and does her justice you need to give them both time to get going. I would love to see a more diverse Avengers. I would love to see anybody of a different race or another woman on the team i keep saying I don't think she would be a bad character to have on the team. That isn't an issue. But how angry would you be if they quickly worked over her origin story in a few minutes and dropped her in the middle of the plot with no explanation? Not knowing you I can't say for sure, but I'd imagine you wouldn't be very happy.

She can be a scientist. She can be a special agent. But if you want to throw her on the Avengers she needs her powers. There is already a check box for talented non powered special agent with two X's. Hawkeye can work because even if his background is spec ops, the focus is on his archery. Its what makes him unique and makes him a different asset, while Natasha's is her stealth and covert operations experience. If you just want to say a depowered Jan could be made an Avenger just based off of her skill as an agent, it doesn't make her any different from Nat, and does her any justice either.

I feel the need to point out again that this isn't a race or sex issue. I'm not defending any kind of white male status quo. I think it would be wonderful if they could fit more diversity of any kind into the team. But the fact is, they didn't and they sure as hell couldn't even by the time they started making the Avengers.
valtyr: (Peej no thanks)

[personal profile] valtyr 2011-10-11 11:18 pm (UTC)(link)
But Pym discovering the particles with his name on them and then becoming Ant Man is a major part of Jan's history as a character, in both the Ults and 616.

And there's zero reason we couldn't meet unpowered Jan first and have Pym turn up later.

But how angry would you be if they quickly worked over her origin story in a few minutes and dropped her in the middle of the plot with no explanation?

What, like they did with Hawkeye? or Natasha? Sure, I'd rather she headlined her own movie, but hey, I'll take her added in.

There is already a check box for talented non powered special agent with two X's.

Sorry, two X's? You're basically saying that the Avengers already have an unpowered female agent, and they can only have one?

I feel the need to point out again that this isn't a race or sex issue.

Unless you come up with a reaaaaal good alternate explanation of the two X's comment, I'm sorry, it is absolutely a gender issue. You said we couldn't have a female special agent because we've already got a female special agent. You must have some serious cognitive dissonance going on if you think that's got nothing to do with gender.

Even the actual Avengers movie is giving us another female unpowered SHIELD agent in the form of Maria Hill. Thank fuck you weren't casting that. "But we've already got a girl! Another one would be redundant!"
drmcninja: (Default)

[personal profile] drmcninja 2011-10-11 11:38 pm (UTC)(link)
You're speaking as somebody who already knows the character. For somebody who doesn't know the Wasp, to go in and see her powered up, don't you think it would be a little odd for the audience and even a little degrading for the Pym to have the Ant Man movie come out and say "Oh, hey. Did we mention that this guy is responsible for her powers, and was actually a superhero first?" It just doesn't do either character justice. Unless you were to have Pym not be a superhero first, which changes a large part of both characters again.

Fair point on Natasha, but nobody really cares about Clint. People realize he's not a big name, and he's still just another white guy on the team. But his origin isn't that hard to grasp in a few lines during the Avengers, and neither is Natasha's. Ex-Soviet Cold War super spy. Elite Spec Ops soldier who specializes in archery. Even if simplify it so Jan came up with it herself or got subjected to it as a soldier, "elite special operative who got exposed to/discovered new size changing particles" is going to require a bit more explanation than that in order to not seem random and out of place.

Look, in terms of having more than one female special ops agent on the roster, I don't mean that in terms of gender terms. Its not filling a quota or impossible, its a matter of distinguishing characters and not overlapping. Hawkeye and Natasha are already close enough without any characterization really given about them, only helped by the fact that Natasha has appeared before in a rather large role. To throw someone more similar in there without any special skill to separate herself just overlaps on Natasha's character. Its just not good storytelling when they overlap. You can see that in the actual Avengers comics too, both recent and old. There's rarely than one super high tech armored man on one team, or one son of the gods wandering earth on the same team, or more than one cold war super spy on the same team. Its just for effective storytelling.

But I realize that people have a legitimate view looking at it as a gender issue. I was pretty much referring to myself personally. I, personally, am not arguing this because I feel like one woman and an entirely white team is good enough and we've filled our minority quota. I don't even think I'm doing it subconsciously. I'm arguing this because you seem to feel like they would be able to do Jan some form of justice as a character by just dropping her into this movie. COuld she work in this movie? YES. But it would need preparation, backstory, and even if you make Pym a secondary, there is an entire movie worth of backstory and character that needs to be filled in for a character like her before you can even begin to make her work. Just dropping her into this like youre saying would be no different than dropping in Ms. Marvel or Spider Woman. There is no context or precedence to explain her being there, and she becomes worse than an actual throwaway character. She becomes a character who is solely there to put another woman on the team. Jan needs and deserves more work than that to end up in this movie. Same as Hawkeye does, exact nobody cares about Hawkeye like they do about Jan.
terra: (spider-woman)

[personal profile] terra 2011-10-12 12:53 am (UTC)(link)
>But his origin isn't that hard to grasp in a few lines during the Avengers, and neither is Natasha's. Ex-Soviet Cold War super spy. Elite Spec Ops soldier who specializes in archery.

These aren't their origins, though? They're concepts, the same way "engineer who builds robot armor" or "thawed out WW2 propaganda-hero" are concepts.

Natasha in 616 is someone whose government used her compassion for others to manipulate her into a lifetime of grisly duty, and the courage it took for her to get out of it. Her themes are control and liberation, and the shadows of an inescapable past. Clint is a circus hothead whose jealousy of superheroes led him to try to be one for himself, who quickly fell into half-hearted villainy because he wasn't about doing the right thing for the right reason, and his decision to go straight and not let anyone tell him that he couldn't are what drive him as a character. His themes are mistakes and second chances, and deciding you can be good enough. OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE NOT DOING THIS IN MOVIEVERSE.

I think Clint and Natasha are both there because they do have easy-to-grasp concepts ("expert marksman" & "world's best spy") that gel easily with movieverse tone and have few budget concerns, but I think their presence proves you can introduce characters without introducing their entire backstory. And as someone whose favorite Avenger is Clint Barton, and whose favorite character is Black Widow, I would so rather have them thrown in their half-assed like this than have them not be there at all. This way I'm way more likely to see them in their own films later on, for one.
drmcninja: (Default)

[personal profile] drmcninja 2011-10-12 01:11 am (UTC)(link)
No, you're right on that point. I was definitely getting concept and backstory confused, and I apologize for that. I think it is how their concepts are easier, not their backstories, thanks for correcting that.

But i think the part about them being half assed is where we just disagree. I would much rather them be fleshed out and given characterization in some other title and not be in the Avengers than having them dropped in half assed. The Movieverse is interconnected. If they don't show up in the Avengers, they always get the chance to show up later on somewhere else with a greater role, or where they aren't overshadowed by the large, established characters. I can guarantee you that the focus of the Avengers will be mostly on Cap, Thor, Iron Man, and even the Hulk to a degree. That means that Nat and Clint essentially become supporting characters, and what worries me is that they may get personalities to match. Hawkeye is in way more danger than Nat, just because she's already shown up. Audiences have gotten a feel for who she is personality wise, even knowing nothing about her, and that keeps it from happening too much. Hawkeye is basically a new character. And that's what I would be afraid of with Jan.

And I mean, of course it would take less time out of the movie to explain them so we could focus more on the actual plot, which is always nice.
terra: (jessica)

[personal profile] terra 2011-10-12 01:32 am (UTC)(link)
I guess like— with Black WIdow and Hawkeye, they were both dropped into the movieverse with very little explanation. Clint got a teensy cameo in Thor and Natasha got a larger role in IM2, but she was not herself through most of the film, she was pretending to be a deliberately boring person. I was lukewarm on Natasha in IM2! However, look, they're getting larger roles as part of this ensemble cast, and there's a definite possibility for even bigger roles going forward. There's a much better chance of getting a Black Widow or Hawkeye film if the Avengers film does well than in the absence of any Avengers film. (With Jan, admittedly, there is an Ant Man film in the works possibly.) And to the contrary, I think it's pretty likely that BW and Hawkeye will have a lot of stuff to do in the Avengers film, the same way the Avengers franchise gets to play around with Jan, Luke Cage, Vision, etc, the people who there's more freedom to work with because they don't need to preserve franchise integrity. We will just have to see.

But one thing I'm sure of is that their mere presence in the film raises awareness of their characters a whole bunch. Like I said, I was pretty lukewarm about Natasha's appearance in IM2, but I loved the Black Widow ongoing Marvel published to capitalize on it. The movie has to be really terrible for more popular exposure to be a bad thing, especially for B-list characters.

Ideally they'd do everything right, but me personally, I'd take not doing everything right but some degree of exposure over doing nothing at all. I can see why some Elektra fans might wish that movie had never come out, though. :)
drmcninja: (Default)

[personal profile] drmcninja 2011-10-12 01:39 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, true about Natasha being somebody else. But I don't mean that they won't have anything to do. I think the trailer at least does a good job of getting them in there, and I think screen time wise theyll hold their own. But when it comes to actual character focus, they'll be left behind. I think most of the drama in-team will be between the Trinity and Banner, because they've had their own movies, have established characters, and thus its easier to work with them and write better dialogue for them.

And personally, while I like he exposure they'd be getting, I really wasn't thinking about that. I'm not too interested here in getting them new writers, just in them being treated and characterized well. Both of them, plus Jan, deserve more space than this movie can afford to give. That was my original argument, and I'll stick to that, but I can definitely see how people would take just having them there now in a lesser role than being characterized fully later elsewhere but be missing from this.
terra: (coffee)

[personal profile] terra 2011-10-12 01:56 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, and my impulse is that it would go the other way. They'd hold off the Thor and Tony character work for Thor 2 and Iron Man 3, but they have a lot of free reign for Hawkeye development. That's at least, how it's always worked in the comics— sure, Thor shows up to hit things, but the big emotional beats have been stuff like the Vision/Wanda romance. But on that we're both totally speculating. My opinion will probably change around based on what actually comes of this movie. (And if they do Janet absolutely perfect in some other film!)

And really, however much I wind up liking the film (or not), I'm pretty sure the lack of diversity in the cast will always gnaw at me a bit, especially if they redo the comics lineup to match the movie better.
drmcninja: (Default)

[personal profile] drmcninja 2011-10-12 02:00 am (UTC)(link)
they kind of threw that under the bus when they went for a shakespearean drama for Thor. It look like theyre just taking a look at each character out of context and saying "What could best with this in a movie." But we know Jan'll show up in the Ant-Man movie if it makes it all the way. You can't have hank without Jan. unless she's dead, where of course she'll come back to life in the comics once that movie comes out. Which i will hate.
valtyr: (Default)

[personal profile] valtyr 2011-10-12 05:47 am (UTC)(link)
Pym not be a superhero first, which really changes

No it doesn't! It's a small change to 616, and in Ults she was powered first and they joined the team together.

It's totally feasible to intro a character efficiently and expand them (and power them up) later.

In terms of having more than one female special ops agent on the roster in don't mean that in gender terms

"It's because she's female, not because of her gender" seriously, are you - are you even reading your own words. Your theory that a movie audience will become lost and confused faced with two female characters who beat things up is complete garbage.

There is no reason, storytelling wise, that Jan should not have been set up in Thor and had a significant role in The Avengers. All your bullshit about doing her justice is just that - bullshit. Cram in more white men, but no women! That wouldn't be doing them justice.

And this idea it's somehow worse to put women in solely to increase the number of women. NO IT'S NOT. As long as they put as much effort into making her a good, integrated character as they do the dudes, it is FINE to add more women because they have hardly any women. You are a guy. You have the luxury of seeing lots and lots of male superheroes, leading teams and headlining their own movies. Don't fucking tell me that a movie studio catering to women by adding a woman to their line-up is somehow worse than not bothering.

Your idea more people care about Clint than Jan is also... seriously, back this up somehow. Evidence, produce it.

drmcninja: (Default)

[personal profile] drmcninja 2011-10-12 11:25 am (UTC)(link)
No, its because she's a woman, but not a gender issue. This isn't because of sexism. Its overlapping characters. Its a simple concept to grasp. I have a better idea. Why don't you go show me a period in avengers history where there were two members of the same gender on the same roster with the same powers and they stayed together on that roster for a substantial amount of time. Rhodey and Stark never are. Thor and Valkyrie never are. Maybe it will be clearer if I used two spec ops archers as an example. Hawkeye plus another archer just as good as him muddies them both up and takes attention away from each character. It's a really freaking common thing in media to keep that from happening.

Its not worse to put more women on. Stop trying to tell me I'm saying that. I'm not. I'm not a fucking sexist. If I was I never would be able to stay around on this site and be an active commenter. If you read the conversation with hymn right above here, in this same chain, I am equally worried about this happening to both Clint and Natasha, especially to Clint. The position theyre in is essentially supporting characters, and thats an extremely dangerous place for a character. I would much rather them (Jan, Nat, and Clint) all appear in other movies with more screen time and more time for them to develop as individuals and not be in the Avengers than I would them be thrown in here half assed. The only reason I think Hawkeye and Natasha would work better in here is because their concepts are easier for a new audience to grasp in a Universe where mutants don't exist yet and neither Pym nor Jan have ever appeared.
valtyr: (Default)

[personal profile] valtyr 2011-10-12 12:16 pm (UTC)(link)
of the same gender

AND THAT MAKES IT A GENDER ISSUE. Oh my god, you have got to be trolling, you cannot possibly be saying, again and again "because she's a girl but it's not a gender issue" without seeing it.

Why don't you go show me a period in avengers history where there were two members of the same gender on the same roster with the same powers and they stayed together on that roster for a substantial amount of time.

Current New Avengers line-up has two female flying bricks. Current Secret Avengers line-up has, um, two non-powered female SHIELD agents... and two non-powered male costumed superheroes who do hand-to-hand and throwing weapons.

Hawkeye plus another archer just as good as him muddies them both up and takes attention away from each character.

Unless she's a girl, according to your logic? Because... idk, magic?

Its not worse to put more women on. Stop trying to tell me I'm saying that.

Read your own words! "she becomes worse than an actual throwaway character. She becomes a character who is solely there to put another woman on the team." OH NO THE HORROR. NOT PEOPLE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO FIT MORE WOMEN INTO THEIR MOVIES! That's appalling, right? EXCEPT NOT.

The position theyre in is essentially supporting characters, and thats an extremely dangerous place for a character.

This is bull. Seriously. If you're ~equally worried~ about both Jan and Hawkeye, there's no reason Jan shouldn't have been introduced instead of Hawkeye. Your concerns apply equally to both, so why not get another woman on screen?

(Also, movies need supporting characters, that's the way it is, and if they prove popular they may be spun off into their own movie, as happened in Wolverine Origins, and arguably X-Men First Class. Supporting character in the Avengers would be better for Jan than mouldering in development hell in the hope of being... a supporting character in Ant-Man.)
drmcninja: (Default)

[personal profile] drmcninja 2011-10-12 02:22 pm (UTC)(link)
Okay, i am going over this one more time, because i am doing my best to explain this and you are just not getting, either through your fault or mine.

It is not a gender issue if it applies to both men and women equally. If Tony, Cap, Thor, Clint, and banner were women, but Nat and Jan were both men it would still apply in the exact same way. It's done for a reason. A man and a woman having the same traits are still easier to distinguish from each other than two people of the same sex being identical are. I couldn't tell you why. I am not a psychanalyst. But that's the way things are, and you see it everywhere if you actuallylook for it.

In the comics, Sharon does very little compared to nat. She is beasically an administrator who does some field work, while Nat is actually in the field doing things. At least thats how it was when I last checked at the end of the Mars thing and beginning of the Secret Empire. Same with Jewel and Ms. Marvel. Ever notice how rarely those two are seen on panel fighting together? Each gets the spotlight when the other isn't there. That can work in comic books. in a movie, not so much, not unless you want one of them to neglected and half-characterized.

And two unpowered men who throw things in the secret avengers? Who would that be, Moon Knight and Cap? Because the genetically perfect super soldier and schizophrenic avatar of a lost god don't really have that much in common.

When you put another woman on the team just to have another woman there, what does that make her? That's just trying to fill a quota. When you have a legitimate reason to add her, that's fine. We have nat as a shield agent already who knows how to do her thing. it means nothing and does no good if you just put her there because "Oh no, not enough women." I know that sounds really sexist. I know that makes it sound as if I dont want any more women on the team because one is enough. Thats not what i mean. What I mean is that is has to be done with purpose, or it serves no purpose.

And in the same vein, guess who would be perfectly happy if Hawkeye wasn't in this movie. Me. The reason why I argue he's a better fit right now is because his concept is easier to grasp. The Wasp and her powers, be they science or mutant, requires explanation in the Movieverse. And more than i feel like they could fit into the movie smoothly, especially since they don't even own the X Men licensing. "Guy who's good with a bow" is a much, much easier concept for people to wrap their heads around.
valtyr: (Default)

[personal profile] valtyr 2011-10-12 02:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Your explanation rests entirely on your theory that people can't tell two characters with the same skillset apart unless they're different genders. "I can't explain it," you say. How about you prove it? You've asserted this, now back it up.

Cap and Moon Knight? You said same gender, same powers, same roster. The fact they're completely different characters despite that and no one has difficulty telling them apart proves my point, thanks. Ditto Sharon and Natasha - same skills, doing different things with them, no one gets confused. As for Carol and Jessica, I really don't think artist is carefully separating them because he thinks his audience is too stupid to tell the difference. (In fact, that would be counterproductive. If they're never in the same panel, the poor stupid reader will think they're the same woman from panel to panel!)

When you put another woman on the team just to have another woman on there what does that make her?

It makes her still an improvement over another white guy. A 'token woman' can also be Janet van Dyne, Jean Grey, Storm, or Susan Storm, all the 'token women' (and token POC) on their teams who have become much-loved characters. Token characters can grow into real, three-dimensional characters integrated into the plot in the hands of a competent writer. A character who was never included can't grow into anything.

For about the ninth time, Jan doesn't need to be introduced powered. You keep using that reason you just... made up.
drmcninja: (Default)

[personal profile] drmcninja 2011-10-12 05:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Okay yeah, I'm pretty much done with this. I realize I've made some mistakes. i didn't realize you meant actually give her powers in the movie itself. I thought we were saying "give her powers" as in her having them randomly when the movie starts.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the number of women inserted onto the team. I would prefer them placed in with purpose or meaning after having been fleshed out to keep the characters stable and safe, while you would understandably be happier just having a larger percentage of the team be female and trust that they will come out okay as a character without more time to develop. Those are both opinions, and I don't think we're going to change those, so I'm just going to respectfully disagree now, and leave it at that.

But Cap and Moon Knight aren't similar. One is genetically perfect, stronger and faster than any other human should be and calculating on an inhuman level in combat situations. The other is a normal guy who can fight pretty well except under a full moon, where he gets better. Pretty different to me, even taking away the concepts or any background at all. Its not an image thing, its a character thing. I'm not worried about people literally not being able to tell who is who, I'm worried that when they look back, neither will leave an adequate impression because they are so similar. I still stand by my point that its just the way things are because people work that way, but if you disagree, fine. I do see where youre coming from.

I just want to close in saying, I sincerely, sincerely apologize if I came off as discriminatory in any way. I'm not. I don't think I could handle this blog if I was. If I came off that way, then I apologize. AT the same time, I realize that you're an intelligent person and I could follow nearly all of the logic you used, and we just disagree. Whether or not you could follow all of mine would probably come down to my fault. I've always had a problem getting my thoughts down on paper, and I apologize for that as well.
valtyr: (Default)

[personal profile] valtyr 2011-10-12 06:37 pm (UTC)(link)
I've been pretty consistent from the start of this conversation about talking about an initially unpowered Jan who will later on get powers and perhaps an expanded role, so I'm not sure why you've failed to get that.

Characters can be developed in tight spaces. As I said, movies need supporting characters; Jan is just going to be Pym's (you've made it explicitly clear you will not accept Jan without Pym Being First!) so I think she would be better off being pushed as an Avengers supporting character.

Cap and Moon Knight have, functionally the same skillset. Cap is not faster and stronger and more quick thinking than any human should be, he is explicitly peak human levels at all these things. Moon Knight is also highly skilled in the physical arena; he's certainly not wildly outmatched by Cap. From a narrative point of view, they're unpowered guys who are really good in a fight and at throwing stuff. You're just trying to create a difference so you can justify your frankly ridiculous assertion that you can't have two people with the same powers of the same gender on the same roster. Seriously, it's horseshit. Leave it alone.

I'm also interested that you've valiantly argued the individuality of Cap and Moon Knight while cheerfully allowing those two chicks are virtually identical, sure, whatever. Blonde, black-costumed, masked ex-fighter pilot Colonel with Kree powers and brunette white-costumed private investigator journalist powered by chemical spill and married with kid? Sure, you'll acknowledge they're practically the same, lol! Look, the artist thinks so too, he's not putting them in the same panel!

Which brings me to my final point, that a person can be sexist without meaning to. They can believe sexist things (like 'two girls would be confusing') without realising they're sexist. They can passionately defend their sexist opinions as correct and even progressive (adding a woman just to have a woman is worse than NO women! Better to wait for the days when they give female superheroes PROPER treatment!). It's not enough to be passively well-meaning; we have all been raised in the patriarchy, and internalised many of its beliefs as 'normal'. (For instance! When presented with a group that is equal numbers of men and women, most people will believe it to be female-dominated. Fascinating.) To not be sexist, those beliefs have to be found and rooted out; but some of them are 'normal' at such a bonedeep level it can be very difficult.

I think you've been behaving in a sexist fashion, arguing in defence of discriminatory policies, and expressing sexist opinions. You can, of course, ignore my opinion; after all, you *know* you're not a sexist, right?

drmcninja: (Default)

[personal profile] drmcninja 2011-10-12 06:47 pm (UTC)(link)
And I've been pretty consistent in noting that looks are not the issue here, but you seem to love the idea that I'm saying that audiences will literally not be able to tell them apart because they look exactly the same. But nope. done arguing about that. Neither of us are moving in any direction on that front anymore. But if you're going to call me sexist, fine, go for it. But then I'm going to call you ignorant and working counter what you claim to uphold. If you value the idea of a token woman at all, it means you don't care if they should be put in because they could further the narrative or actually be well developed characters. By saying that you don't really care how its done, you would just be happy having another woman on the team is just saying, "No, its okay, they don't need any depth or character. As long as they're there and recognizable I'll be satisfied, please go on." Way to support the cause for enlightened, valuable, and promising female characters, because they don't have to be any of those things, they just have to be there.
valtyr: (Default)

[personal profile] valtyr 2011-10-12 06:56 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, good! A man has come to tell me how I'm doing feminism wrong. *slow hand-clap* That is a totally appropriate response to a woman telling a man he's being sexist . Not a fucking second's self-examination there, was there?

It's funny! Your last comment, you realised I was an intelligent person and could follow almost all of my logic! But now I've dared call your behaviour sexist, suddenly you realise I'm ignorant and setting back the cause of feminism.

You're hilarious, in the depressing black comedy way.
salinea: Deadpool has a fucking horned hat on and is ready to kick gum and chew ass. Errr, moderate s_d. (mod hat)

Mod Note

[personal profile] salinea 2011-10-12 07:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Thread frozen while it is being under review by the Mod team.
salinea: Deadpool has a fucking horned hat on and is ready to kick gum and chew ass. Errr, moderate s_d. (mod hat)

Mod Warning

[personal profile] salinea 2011-10-13 05:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Because [community profile] scans_daily is a feminist community, I would like to remind you, as well as others on this post really, to consider their words carefully when arguing against people who are complaining of the lack of female characters, because you may easily fall down into patterns of silencing or derailing feminist discussions. It is important to be personally alert for this because unintentional sexism can be very upsetting to discover in one's own actions. It happens to many of us - what matters is how we react when it is pointed out to us or we notice it. Perhaps you might find a walk through our anti-oppression resources quick list helpful to know better how to avoid it.

Also because [community profile] scans_daily is a feminist community, being told that you have male privilege, that you said something offensive or sexist or acted in a sexist fashion is NOT considered an insult. Calling a fellow member ignorant in response on the other hand, is. For this reason, here is your FIRST OFFICIAL WARNING. Please note that if you receive two further warnings you will lose the ability to post on this community.
drmcninja: (Default)

Re: Mod Warning

[personal profile] drmcninja 2011-10-13 07:15 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, if it was bad enough to get me a warning, I am clearly in the wrong here. I have clearly made some mistakes, at the very least in wording and delivery. I would just like to reiterate that however it may seem, and even if it is indeed unintentional sexism, I did not intentionally make any sexist comments with that purpose. I apologize again to valtyr and any other member that might have been offended reading my arguments, but I would like to point out the irony in a woman who is arguing for equality saying that men can't believe in the feminist cause or interperit in different ways than women could.

Either way, I apologize.
salinea: Deadpool has a fucking horned hat on and is ready to kick gum and chew ass. Errr, moderate s_d. (mod hat)

Re: Mod Warning

[personal profile] salinea 2011-10-13 07:38 pm (UTC)(link)
While we appreciate the apology and that this was unintentional; I'd like to stress that we really do not believe that [personal profile] valtyr was saying that men can't be feminist or interpret it different. For the most part, valtyr emphasized that men see things from a position of privilege. I know many men whose opinion I respect a great deal on feminism; and all of them know to check their privilege in some situations, such as when discussing about women about issues related to gender. If you really care about such issues, I sincerely urge you to try to educate yourself on that topic if you weren't aware of it up until now.

And if you'll allow me a personal asides *takes mod hat off*
Token characters are bad. But lack of representation is worse.
drmcninja: (Default)

Re: Mod Warning

[personal profile] drmcninja 2011-10-13 07:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Understood. i think I will look into it further, because clearly I don't really know quite enough about it. Otherwise none of this would have happened to begin with.

And I would disagree. A token character with no character is nothing but a token to pay the toll.
valtyr: (Default)

Re: Mod Warning

[personal profile] valtyr 2011-10-13 09:47 pm (UTC)(link)
A token character with no character is nothing but a token to pay the toll.

Then you would have chosen no Jean Grey, no Susan Storm, no Janet van Dyne, and no Storm. And we would be immeasurably poorer.
mrstatham: (Default)

[personal profile] mrstatham 2011-10-12 07:54 am (UTC)(link)
Except Ultimate Wasp was a mutant and Hank apparently based all of his work on the study of her powers, although they kept it secret. Of course, you can't do the mutant concept in that Marvel Movieverse since Fox owns the rights to X-Men...

And they were already going as Wasp and Giant Man in the Ultimates as the first arc began..