"Not Like That"- A Compendium of Thoughts on That Thing That Happened

I'm going to keep updating this as new info comes out, so if you're someone that gives a damn, maybe check back in a couple days. But I'm going to just sort of spat thoughts on the thing with the Catholic kids and the Native American elder. So there's no thesis or main point, here, just venting. I've been festering over this, and reached the point where the zit needs to be popped.

This article by Indian Country Today is a good compilation of videos encompassing the whole thing. The super long one, the one by those guys who identify themselves as Hebrew Israelites, hasn't really been given enough attention, and I want to start there- makes sense, chronologically, but also because what these guys were doing was pretty awful, too, and the reason all this shit went down to begin with.

So these assholes showed up to the Indigenous People's March, to protest it, apparently. And they were shouting all sorts of racist, disparaging things at the people marching. If you listen to the beginning of their (again, long) video, you hear them yelling at the Native Americans about how they knew Native history better than the Native Americans do- there's some garbage about how "before Natives worshipped totem poles," they had worshipped "the true God," or something like that. And that because of this "idol worship," their "land was taken from them."

I have to say, it's pretty vile to protest against indigenous people marching peacefully. Like, what are you really protesting to begin with? I guess, based on the shit they were saying, it was to "save" them? But, as people try to talk to them, they're entirely uninterested in dialogue and just talk over them, being super rude every time. If they were there from a place of genuine love and compassion, they would want to talk. No, they were there to pontificate, not to really help anyone or save any souls.

Something that confuses me: at 38:18ish, the guy with the phone starts mocking one of the students for wearing a MAGA hat to a Native American protest- and like, what? You've been standing here, telling Native Americans it's their own fault they're the victims of genocide, and now you're going to "call out" a white kid for being disrespectful? I mean, the thing is, within the first two minutes minute, they completely dismiss/talk over one of the Native Americans that is... wait for it... trying to point out that they're being disrespectful. I mean, seriously, I don't think the dude is able to finish a full phrase because the guy in the Hebrew Israelite group wouldn't shut the fuck up. So like, who the actual fuck are you to care about respect for the Indigenous march? "I'm just here to tell you what you have to do," he says to the Indigenous man. I guess the boarding schools didn't try hard enough.

Point there is, these guys are hypocrites. And they incited the whole thing, and their part in it hasn't been explored enough, as far as I can se.

(At about five minutes, a Black woman who has been visible for pretty much the whole video starts trying to talk to them and they say shit like, "Where's your husband?" as if to say he shouldn't have to listen to her because she's a woman- so like, dude, obviously these guys prescribe to some pretty regressive shit.)

Because after they mock that first kid, they go all-in at mocking the whole crowd of teenage boys. Sure, it's true the Catholic church has done some deplorable shit, but they're fucking teenage boys for crying out loud- if these Hebrew Israelites are half as smart as they think they are, they should have known that asking if they have "one nigga" in the group and calling them stuff like "dusty crackers" was going to create a huge kerfuffle- honestly, if Phillips hadn't stepped in, there would have probably been a riot (and I strongly suspect they were hoping the rich white kids would get physical with them, based on how they kept going). 

Which is exactly why he did what he did. He says he saw something about to happen and wanted to pray, to calm things down. No, he didn't realize how bad it was until he was in the thick of it, but dude, that's the point. It was that bad.

So then you have those shorter videos in the ICT article, and you see the progression of the behavior of the boys. For starters, it's clear there's space between Phillips and the boys, a space that gradually gets tighter and tighter, with fewer and fewer of the boys on the stairs- indicating the whole crowd was swarming Phillips and his fellow indigenous singers. Some of the boys do mock-Indigenous dances (apparently, some were attempts at the haka, according to Al Jazeera), the whole crowd engages in a mock-chant (more on that later), and there's this Nick Sandmann asswipe.

I first found out his name reading this NYT article, and it led me to his statement. And that. Oh, that. This kid is full of shit. In the first of the shorter videos from ICT, he isn't even visible- which means he deliberately positioned himself in front of Philips. In other words, in order to appear so close, had to push past his classmates. So duh, he was the one "invading personal space." And there's no reason to get that close to someone except in an attempt at intimidation.  As for that ridiculous smirk he had pretty much the whole time, it was obviously one of mockery, the same smirk guys in fake warpaint and war bonnets wear when confronted by indigenous people outside the stadiums where the Braves and Redsk*ns play. His statement is nothing but lies, passive-aggression, narcissism, and backpedaling. I suppose Trump would be proud.

I don't believe the diocese when they say they'll do anything. I just don't. The Catholic church was an active participant in the cultural genocide practiced against indigenous people on this continent up until the 1980s. I've mentioned before that my great uncle was beaten so badly by a priest for speaking Lakota at boarding school that he went to the hospital- what I didn't mention then, was it was a Catholic priest. Stewart Indian School, the last boarding school in the U.S. to stop operating as such (in 1980), was a Catholic school. If they continually sweep molestation under the rug, why would they care if some rowdy teenagers were rude to a Native American elder? I'll believe it when I see it, but for now, I don't.

Also, about that mock-chant in the videos ICT included in that article. It's the same one you hear at, like, Braves and Redsk*n games, or in the scene where they do "the chop" in Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Some even do the hand motion. (I feel like it's in Major League or one of the sequels, too, but this was easier to find, so here's the one from Men in Tights.)

So I don't see how anybody can still get away with saying they weren't mocking- then again, look at what our president gets away with every gorram day?

(As an aside, I'm pretty disappointed with that NYT piece- it's basically pulling an "on all sides" in its reporting, and it's pretty offensive they'd give credence to the claims that the indigenous people were somehow the aggressors, here.)

And yeah, the guy that calls Phillips "Grandpa" shouldn't have engaged with that teenager, but I get why he did it- he was angry, and hurting, and the kid was obviously painfully ignorant (or one of "those" debators, the kind that studies Schopenhauer's ways to win an argument)- whether or not indigenous people crossed a land bridge from Asia is entirely irrelevant to the fact that our lands were stolen from us and his ancestors committed genocide to do it. Aside from that, though, it's pretty clear that, despite the picture Sandmann and supporters are trying to paint, the indigenous people were the only ones that weren't being assholes. 

It's just heartbreaking to watch Phillips at the end, shouting, "RELATIVES! RELATIVES!" and watch as nobody gives a shit. It reminds me of another great uncle, one that taught me about humility and forgiveness. He was a lobbyist for Indian Country, and I remember a conversation we had when I was around thirteen. It went something like this:

"Uncle Gerald, how can you be so kind to these guys that are making laws that hurt our people?"

"Because without grace, we're no better than them."

"But why forgive them? It's not like they've really done anything to make things right."

"Forgiveness isn't for them, it's for us. If we don't forgive, we carry hate in our hearts, and again, that would make us no better than them. We have to forgive and move on, and hope that eventually they'll listen and help us. With, of course, some forceful convincing on our part." [wink]

[He then taught me the Serenity Prayer.]

After all the mockery and meanness, Phillips says, "Yeah, let's make America great! Let's do that!" In earnest. Not sarcastically, not to be funny. In earnest.

One of the kids shouts, "How?"

And the guy that had called Phillips "Grandpa" says, "Not like that!"

And that's kind of perfect.

Nothing is going to get better if all this hate continues. And the kind of bullshit these kids (and those assholes that antagonized them to begin with) were acting out is just making it worse. And I wish I could talk to my Uncle Gerald about how to deal with these zealots- these MAGA-wearing, Trump-loving bigots. Because I strain and twist myself, trying to be compassionate and open like he taught me. But it gets harder all the time. And in the face of stuff like this? I just can't. And I wish I could ask him what to do.  He's gone, so I can't, and that hurts about as much as everything else right now.

And another thing that makes this so painful is the shit Phillips and his companions were dealing with? It's more like an everyday occurrence. I'm glad this one is getting attention, but what I need you to understand, reader, is that this kind of shit happens every day to indigenous people. And to people of color now that Trump is in office. And it's not just elders. It happens to kids at school. Trump gets quoted by fucking teachers being racist to their students. 

And yet, snotty little brats like Sandmann go unchecked when they play the victim. Major news outlets like the New York Times don't call him and his ilk on their bullshit.

And what that does, is it silences us. Those of us whose identities are being attacked. Whose very personhood is being called into question. How can we stand up for ourselves if lies about us, about what these people are doing to us, go unquestioned? If when we call for peace, we're depicted as the villain? If when we try to reach out, we're mocked and ridiculed, then turned into the scapegoat and have angry fingers pointed in our direction? So we remain silent. Because you can't reason with irrationality and delusion.

It reminds me of a quote from retired Senator Barney Frank: "On what planet do you spend most of your time? Having a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table."

It's impossible. So I don't have any answers. I don't know what to do. 

I guess I'll just pray to my totem poles that things will get better somehow. 

*Don't* Shut Up, Wesley!: When Hypocrisy, Vitriol, and Social Justice Collide

I've been sitting on whether or not to write about this for a bit now, ever since the news broke out, but given how much it bubbles in my brain and how much of an emotional response I feel when it does, I figured I should just get this out there.

This showed up in my news feed the day it went live, and it... Made me angry. Like, so angry I had to ask for a few extra minutes on my break because I had read it while at work, angry. It, along with the anger directed at Wil described there, are perfect examples of a phenomenon I have observed on the Internet, one that I think is completely self-defeating and outlandish. But allow me to explain here, in my own words.

Wil Wheton  started getting big on the Internet after showing up in niche nerd properties like The Guild and by his involvement in Geek and Sundry, especially with his show Tabletop, the latter of which I was one of the first subscribers on YouTube. So, y'know, full disclosure, I've been a fan for a long time. I especially appreciated how his motto of "Don't be a dick" was used on Twitter and the like by both him and his fans- he consistently decries the misogyny and hatred of the nerdboiz during Gamergate and Comicsgate, and all this recent Star Wars bullshit from the toxic minority (I feel like I saw something from his Twitter account or something, but I can't find it- he at least alludes to it here), and very openly supports (and calls for) attempts at diversity and inclusion within the various intersecting nerd-doms out there through his Twitter account and blog. 

So, naturally, he became a target. The nerdboiz he was calling out did some of the exact stuff he was highlighting to him, namely the ridiculous vitriol and bullying. Crucially, during the Gamergate stuff, he posted a block list created by Randi Harper under the auspices of a simple, hassle-free way to block misogynists and Nazis. It was later revealed that Harper is a hot-tempered terf, going so far as to encourage Gamergaters, the supposed enemy and problem, to dox trans rights people, and her list had in fact included myriad trans activists. As soon as he found out, Wil apologized, did his best to remove all of these people from the list and, when he couldn't, got rid of it and stopped promoting it altogether. 

Let me reiterate that last point: As soon as he realized the list he had promoted was secretly transphobic, he did his utmost to rectify the situation, by both unblocking trans people/activists and by getting rid of it. 

In other words, he did something in good faith, realized it was a mistake, and then tried to make up for it.

But that wasn't enough. He was continually being called transphobic and anti-LGBT and such, and was a consistent enough target of harassment and bullying by social justice advocates that he deactivated his Twitter, instead setting up shop on the purportedly ultra-liberal Mastadon. He was immediately the target of harassment there (you can see his responses to it on what's left of his page), a behavior which is supposedly against the platform's code of conduct. And he left Mastodon after his account was suspended by the admin of that instance, the admin telling him they received 60+ complaints about him in one night- notably, then, not for committing any violations himself, but rather because this big unruly mob flooded the admin's inbox.

Except they weren't nearly as cute- or musical.

I highly recommend reading Wil's piece on this whole thing. 

So here's why that first article I linked made me angry.

The author openly states that Wil was the target of a trolling prank on Mastodon, and that the perpetrator was a trans woman. But she makes him out as the bad guy for reporting the prankster, based solely on the fact that the latter is trans, ignoring the fact that the prankster was violating Mastodon's code of conduct in the first place. The author makes it out to be evidence of his supposed "transphobic agenda" or whatever, but dude- that woman on Mastodon being trans doesn't change the fact that she violated the server's terms. I get where the author is coming from, that she (the prankster) may not "feel safe around" Wil anymore, but you know what? Let's be a little more honest in our reporting/statements of facts, here.
Also, as a staunch supporter of the #MeToo/#TimesUp movement, I'm not super pissed he never ended up giving a detailed statement in:re Chris Hardwick. And I've been raped twice and was in an abusive relationship, folks. If he and Chris were as close as it seems, I totally understand. It's painful, and private. He has a right to privacy. He doesn't have to say anything. It'd be cool if he did, but these people don't know how that whole mess affected Wil personally, and while I am in no way saying he's a direct victim of Hardwick's alleged behavior, it's kind of asinine to demand a condemnation from the guy. I know all of my ex's friends and family know how he treated me, but I don't expect them to give him the boot because of it; how can I expect a stranger to do the same in similar circumstances? I know that's just my personal situation, but relationships are complicated, and so are people, and without being right there with them, we can't profess to know what "should" go on between two close friends when one turns out to be abusive; and it's also borderline cruel to expect a person to bare such deep, personal things to a mob of people that will condemn them either way.

Plus, maybe if the vitriol hadn't been so fierce, he wouldn't have left Twitter when he did and, yeah, maybe he would have made some sort of statement- we'll never know because he left, but I can't help but think that he didn't get a chance before the pitchforks got close enough to his jugular that he had to call it quits.

And basically, the way I see it, Wil isn't the one with the "listening problem," it's all of the people attacking him. Because they ignore all of the positive stuff he's done before, and refuse to accept his apology for his mistake. 

And herein lies the problem: If marginalized communities can't listen when an ally apologizes, they aren't going to keep their allies. When they engage in the kind of behavior they decry and aim it at people that previously were on their side, all they're doing is adding fuel to the fire of their detractors.

I'm probably pissing loads of people off, but hear me out.

Wil's response when he realized the list was bad was what should be ideal for an ally- he apologized and tried to make amends. It's classic Ally 101 behavior, stuff I read about when studying in grad school (remembe the time I was almost an academic? Jeez...). Destructive allies don't apologize; ones that can help enact change do.

But that's just it- I can't say he actually made amends, because, like I said, it wasn't enough. A bunch of social justice advocates stuck their fingers in their own gorram ears and crucified him. And that's entirely counter-productive to "the cause," so to speak. Who the flip are you preaching to, if you condemn anyone outside your circle that makes the slightest mistake? I'll give you a hint:

It may be sacrilege, but I liked this one more.

And I say this as a woman whose own intersectional identity leads to all sorts of internalized discrimination. 

Allies are people, too. We have to let them make mistakes. We have to listen when they apologize. We have to be there with, and for, them when they learn and grow into better allies. We can't expect to keep allies when we don't allow them to just be human. I'm focusing on this treatment of allies, here, but Sarah Lynn Michener addresses this in her own piece about some of the problems of the ultra-left:

It's fine to call out a celeb if they've genuinely done something problematic. But if you then never forgive them, bring it up every time they are invited to speak at a rally, and routinely say they have no place in the resistance because of things they have long since apologized for, then you will have a very small and ineffective resistance. 

I couldn't agree with her more! By attacking current, imperfect allies, you're alienating potential ones. TURNING ON MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Or at the very least, it reinforces the crap right-wingers say about "social justice warriors" and the like. 

And it proves how that holier-than-thou attitude is nothing but snake oil. I'm not going to go down the path of discussing the implications of sending the lions after someone that legitimately, earnestly espouses discriminatory beliefs. That's its own post.

But. Doing so to someone who has consistently, adamantly, and thoroughly demonstrated to genuinely be on your side is disgusting. And yeah, I do think it makes those doing it look as bad as the people they're supposed to be "fighting" against in the first place, the people whose identities are so integral to their own- because without someone to not be like, they have no idea what to be like. And they have no idea how hypocritical it is to say conservatives are "closed-minded" when they literally cannot listen to anything that's remotely outside their exact idea of what any bit of discourse should look like. It's its own, messed up form of hegemony that just makes me ashamed.

And no. I'm not saying the trans movement is for cis white dudes like Wil (let elone ones less enlightened than him- because he admits whole-heartedly he has all sorts of privileges because he's a cis white dude, y'all). Or that any movement at all is "for" allies. I'm not that stupid, either. But what I am saying is that you can't have a successful uprising without help from those in the most advantaged positions. In other words, allies.

And you can't expect those allies to be perfect. I mean, for Pete's sake, even official members of the in-group aren't always perfect. But we have to take them seriously when they try to make it right, walking them through what was wrong, why it was wrong, and how to go about that fix.

On a super personal note, someone very dear to me, a cis white male, has said he's often terrified of opening his mouth in situations related to marginalization, be it in person or online, because he's afraid of being attacked by the very people with which he wishes to express solidarity. Because what if he accidentally "says the wrong thing" or "gets misinterpreted" or whatnot. And I think this is why this issue pisses me off so bloody much- I know damn well he would fight, literally and figuratively, with every last ounce for every cause I would, but he feels powerless to do so because of some damn ASSHOLES that can't chill out and are so damn territorial and unwilling to even consider the possibility that someone from the majority can mess up but still be sincere. I know it's anecdotal, but it speaks to the bigger issue- this person I care about refrains from helping for fear of backlash. And c'mon, he's not the only one. Obvi.

So, Wil, if you're reading this (which I highly doubt you are), remember that small, loud minority of people doesn't speak for everybody. There are those of us that already miss your presence on the intertubes. That are sorry those arsehats scared you off. And wish we could bake you cookies.

And my advice to my fellow liberals: Get your act together. Stop vilifying people that can and want to help for making mistakes, especially if they express a desire to reconcile. If you can do this, there's hope for the future, for the change you, we, so passionately want. The more you can, the more credibility you'll build up, too. 

 If you can't, or rather won't, well, I have absolutely zero inclination to join your particular team- I'm good on my own, thanks. So in that case, you can just

Wrong F-word, Runaways

I've been watching Marvel Runaways on Hulu, and it has totally sucked me in, let me tell ya! Admittedly, I had only heard vague whisperings of the comic on the intertubes, but I hadn't read it. But between the kickass trailer:

...and noticing that James Marsters* is in it, I decided I kind of had to see it for myself- and it hasn't disappointed.

For the most part. 

See, there's one** thing, one main thing that grates under my skin when I watch it. And the problem is, it's established so damn thoroughly in the pilot, I seek it out every time I watch a new episode, so that stuff that would be more innocuous otherwise gets to me. 

CONSIDER THIS YOUR SPOILER WARNING, FOLKS

So first, a brief summary of the show, and a breakdown of the characters:

Six highschool friends that have been estranged for two years over the death of a seventh member of their pack end up, through some rather realistic happenstance, hanging out together "like old times" while their parents hold a meeting for a group called Pride. Pride, as is presented, is a charity organization all of the parents founded before their kids were born, meeting once a year at the house of one of the families, the Wilder's. By more happenstance, the kids end up going through a secret passage and observing their parents, wearing deep red robes, participating in some sort of cult-like ritual involving what looks like a human sacrifice. The series follows both the parents as their motivations and desires are explained, as well as the kids as they try to figure out what they saw, why it happened, and how to deal with it. On the way, we find out that each of the kids has either a special power or skill that essentially helps them progress in their quest of figuring out what the Hell is going on. 

Some things really going for this, first, and in no particular order:

- A very diverse cast. One thing I particularly like about this is that the individual cultures of each family's ethnicity are subtly and organically included: The Minoru  parents go out for "real sushi" and have some artifacts that look they're authentically Japanese; Geoffrey, the father of the Wilder family, is a former gangster who discusses that lifestyle in very real ways (and we also get some good snapshots of what that looked like, as well as how it follows him in his "legit" life***); the Yorkes are Jewish but aren't stereotypes that use Yiddish and complain about things not being Kosher or what-have-you; the women in the show seem to be the bigger power-players when it comes to the parents, and there are literally double the number of girls vs. boys in our group of teens.

-The parents themselves have great character development. Not all of them- the Yorkes seem to serve as a constant source comic relief, and Leslie Dean's backstory seems to be on the slow burn path, but pretty much all of the other parents have interesting roles to play and show multiple sides and personalities, especially Tina Minoru and Victor and Janet Stein. 

-A realistic depiction of an abusive relationship. The Stein household is fraught with pain and anger, and the way both  Chase and his mom, Janet both simultaneously love and fear Victor, the way they keep hoping he'll change, is incredibly and tragically lifelike. We're shown that Victor genuinely does love his family more than anything, but that he has a dark side that rages against them and doesn't comprehend how to deal with that intense love and the magnitude of other feelings he may have towards them as a result of that love. While we're led to believe the Big Change in Victor (that lasts less than a whole episode) is a result of some Jonah Magic, Chase shouts, "You did it again! You made me believe you've changed!" at Victor when the old demons show themselves again at the end of E8 (and earlier in the episode, Robert says Janet is "caught up in the cycle of abuse,") so it's made clear this is hardly the first time Victor as put on a gentle face to keep his family. 

-Slow burn! I like a mystery, even though I'm terrible at solving them! Having so many hints dropped is tantalizing, sure. But the fact that they do actually get resolved keeps me coming back, especially when they add more bits and pieces that need unwrapping. If they just kept dumping confusing and unexplained junk onto the audience, I'd be turned off (I'm looking at you, J.J. Abrams), but that's not what's going on at all. 

-Realistic teenagers. For the most part (see my second endnote), I think the teenagers are actually depicted fairly well-rounded and authentically. I especially think the hurt they all demonstrate over the loss of Amy (before the series starts) is especially poignant- so far, at least, we aren't told why Alex didn't attend her funeral, and I actually like that. And the fact that Amy's death seems to be what drove the group apart is a sad but understandable plot point. Each kid dealt with it in different ways- Nico turned Wiccan/goth, Alex bared down on the hacking, Chase went full-on jock, Gert became a self-proclaimed feminist and SJW, Karolina started spending even more time at the church, and Molly seems to have kind of stagnated emotionally (no doubt because on top of losing a close friend, she was already an orphan). 

Okay, but The Problem. And I think this sums it up:

Essentially, Gert is presented as a straw feminist and "insufferable social justice warrior."

I noticed almost immediately that any time Gert made a comment she, as a character, intended to point out some sort of injustice or inequality, it was played for eyerolls and to make her, or rather her point, look annoying and act as kind of a killjoy. Sort of following the "feminists/SJWs don't like nice things" vein. And that's a serious problem, especially given that, ostensibly, the show is about diversity and acceptance, among other things- I mean, like I said, the cast is organically diverse. 

If you're unfamiliar with the concept of "straw feminist," I highly recommend you watch this video- whether you agree with Anita Sarkeesian or not+, she does a great job of explaining the concept and gives some solid examples to help you understand what it is, as well as why it's a problem.

This is the exact kind of stuff Gert says in Runaways- her friends/adopted sister are doing something innocuous or understandable/expected of a teenager, and she makes a comment that comes across as mean-spirited and deflating, but under the guise of "feminism."  What's most damaging about this, though, is that there is validity to what she's saying each time, and in a different context, it would be entirely appropriate and necessary. But when it happens onscreen for us, it just presents her as an asshole that likes to harsh everyone else's mellow. I went back and rewatched the seven episodes that are up as of now, and took notes/quotes. And what I discovered is that in the first episode, I was able to fill almost an entire page of a spiral notebook with relevant quotes/situations. It varies in amount from episode to episode after that, but every episode has at least one or two zingers. And while I won't go through and recount every single one, I'll  share a few and why they're both valid but problematic. Let's just start with the pilot.

SCENE: Gert and her adopted sister Molly are getting dropped off at school by their parents. Molly, who is a few years younger, is upset because she has seriously bad cramps, and, after an embarrassing remark from Mom about her using an orgasm to relieve the pain, she tries to change the subject by cheerily saying, "Dance Squad tryouts are today!"

Gert responds, looking super disgusted, "Ugh, Dance Squad is just cheerleading without pom-poms. You're just reinforcing hegemonic masculinity while marginalizing women's identities."

Big Word Vomit aside, these are pretty much the first lines we get from Gert, and they're her using feminist critique to be mean to her younger sister. And, the thing is, there is something to be said about the jock-cheerleader-dynamic and its role in gender structures for youths (and professional athletes, for that matter), and yes, that is an important conversation to have, especially with a young woman that wants to participate. But not like that. Not the way it's shown here, not when its purpose is to essentially bully one's younger sister. It makes the whole idea of questioning the gender and social structures of high school seem like a, well, a dick thing to do.

So this is a pretty shitty first impression of Gert. And the rest of the episode, most of her dialogue or actions somehow involve her either being somewhat hypocritical or a flat-out mean-spirited killjoy. She advertises a new club she's trying to start called "Undermining the Patriarchy," but then later reduces Chase to, and these are her exact words, "some roided out jockstrap" whose opinions only go as far as "what protein butter to use," while at the same time, objectifying him by staring creepily at his ass while following behind him as he's talking to one of his teachers. And this is just the first episode.

Speaking  of first impressions, Hulu filmed a non-canonical promo for Thanksgiving entitled "Not Your Typical Friendsgiving." The 47-second spot is our six teenagers sharing a Thanksgiving dinner together, at a table just large enough for all of them. It ends with a group of adults that are clearly their parents (their faces are invisible, but it's pretty obvious), in their big, red Pride ritual robes, popping up behind them and the kids looking scared, the final screen saying something like, "Now Streaming." The whole group starts the bit at least somewhat happy to be there, except Gert. Upon Alex remarking that Thanksgiving is his favorite holiday, she chimes in with, "Psh, of course it is. Hey, Alex, would you like this with a side of smallpox? Because that is what we served to the Native Americans, whose land we stole." Everyone is demonstrably uncomfortable in response, Nico even expressing that she's not hungry anymore. 

And okay, if you've read far back enough in my posts, you would know that I'm Lakota Sioux on my mom's side. And yeah, it pissed me off when she said it. But not at all you white folks. At the writers. Because it is true that the US was founded on murder and thievery and deception. That's a legit point, one that matters a HELLUVALOT to gals like me. And there are appropriate times to bring up how Thanksgiving is an easy way for people whose ancestors did the murdering and thieving and deceiving to feel better about/ignore their history (dare I say...  whitewash the thing? Eh?), while at dinner with your friends isn't. Not to be persnickety, but that's not the sort of thing you do during the event, you do it when invited and are politely declining. Or if you go, you don't bring it up, because it's pretty damn hypocritical for you to be actively partaking in Thanksgiving while disparaging it and its origins and all that jazz. 

Also, of all the people to direct that remark to, it's Alex. The Black kid. The kid whose ancestors were prooooobably slaves? Yeah, sure, blame his ancestors. Just plain tactless.

I digress... So once again, the real, valid point she's making is doing nothing to make viewers question the relevant geopolitical structures, but rather it's just making her look like an asshole that's entirely unconcerned for the social dynamics of the context in which she's in at the moment- and, in certain minds, no doubt, making them question the validity of her claims, rather than said geopolitical structures. Because it's made clear she understands things like conventional etiquette throughout the series; she just deliberately makes people uncomfortable with her "social critiques." And as this particular jab was about indigenous rights, I initially took it probably a little more personal than I should have. But when removing my personal baggage from the picture, it's disconcerting that a promo meant to draw in new customers that gives each character two lines at most, that its picture of Gert is one of mean "social justice warrior." 

Another angle she takes is "religious oppression." In the first couple episodes, she comes down hard on Karolina a few times about her family's religion, the Church of Giborrim. And it's juxtaposed against the other characters' perspectives, too. For example, in this same episode, Alex respectfully says he doesn't want to "interfere with [Karolina's] religion" by causing a scheduling conflict, an act of respect for Karolina's faith. And Karolina herself constantly talks about how genuinely happy her faith makes her because it's "positive and life-affirming," teaches her to see beauty and light in everything, everyone, and every situation. Gert, meanwhile, scoffs at the classification of "religion" for the Church of Gibborim, and asserts that "no institution has been as oppressive to women as organized religion."

And so again, the rub: 

Organized religion does have a shitty history in: re women. 

But instead, when she calls the Church of Gibborum a "cult" and says it's oppressive, she's bullying Karolina and insinuating she's stupid and duped, yet also complicit in the wrongdoing of all organized religion, and deceitful because she just "walks around with fake smiles, pretending to be happy all the time." So even though, sure, a legitimate critique of organized religion is absolutely necessary for good, inclusive feminist theory, Gert uses it as ammo to be cruel to someone she used to call a friend. And she reduces Karolina down to an antifeminist who only cares about "being a perfect church girl."

And what's hard is that it's made pretty obvious that most of her digs at Karolina are motivated out of jealousy because Chase shows signs of having, y'know, feelings for Karolina, while Gert has them for him. The most utterly disgusting bit of it comes across as passively homophobic, too.

In episode six, the kids are planning how to get to a party/gala thing Pride is putting on, and there's some talk about limos. Alex and Nico, who, at this point, are a fairly sold Thing, are going to take a limo together, and when Chase offers to get Karolina in his own, Gert says, "Ugh,

One limo, five stops."

Like, what the actual fuck? So what, queer people don't date? The writers co-opt the language of feminism to make a horrible blanket statement that disregards the experiences of GOD KNOWS HOW MANY NON-BINARY COUPLES/RELATIONSHIPS, and make Gert look like a homophobic asshole. It's reinforced by how uncomfortable the other kids look when she says it, too. And remember, this is in response to Chase offering Karolina a ride. The implication, here, is that feminism is really just the result of women's uncontrollable emotions. It gets further developed/pushed later in that episode, too. Nico and Karolina get ready for this gala together at Karolina's place, and Gert and Molly show up later, walking in on a pretty touching moment between the original two in the room. Later that night at the gala, Gert once again gets pretty homophobic for the sake of her feelings for Chase:

And Karolina, smartly, asserts that this would leave Chase available for Gert, who denies this is why. And when Karolina says she's wrong and ups the ante on her flirt game with Chase, Gert says, "Fine, enjoy, just know you aren't being honest about who you like."

This is pretty awful. In a different context, if we removed the Chase Factor, this would have been a beautiful scene. Lord knows queer teens have a hard time, and if it's true that Karolina is denying something because of that, a friend offering sincere kindness and support is exactly what she would need. But rather than being genuine, Gert's support for a potential non-straight identity in Karolina is presented as disingenuine and manipulative, as purely self-serving and hollow. And when Karolina calls it out, Gert acts as if she knows more about Karolina's own identity than Karolina herself does- and whether or not Karolina is, indeed, hiding something is beyond the point. Gert's assertion she knows "the truth" is arrogant and narcissistic, like she is the one that really knows what's best for Karolina. This is what some call "policing"- another thing antifeminists like to say is that feminism does too much moral grandstanding and "this is how you should behave"-ing, the "you don't really know what's best for you because you've been brainwashed by the patriarchy" condescension that actually does push people away from feminism. 

I should point out that Karolina is presented as her counter, though: While Gert is constantly pessimistic and mean, Karolina is optimistic and kind. Like in the first gif above, she stands up to Gert on more than one occasion, such as when she goes all in with Chase after Gert's "are you gay for Nico" bullshit. She also responds to Gert's "but we killed the Natives" remark in the Thanksgiving promo with a sweet declaration of her happiness to be there with her friends.  And her retort at Gert in the first episode during the "your 'church' is a cult and oppressive" bit, it kind of sums up the problem with Gert:

"You call yourself a feminist, Gert, but no one cuts down other women more than you do."

And this is a glorious window into just how much of Gert is made of straw. Because one of the big arguments antifeminists use against feminism is that it's "actually" harmful because it's "policing" and in itself oppressive and such. "If women want to be cheerleaders, isn't trying to stop them worse?" "If women want to practice [insert name of faith here], isn't it worse to tell them they can't?" Etc. And I think I've said before, I'm  a feminist that believes in a woman's own individual power over her body, her life, and her ideals. If a woman chooses to do A Thing, it's her choice. There's an addendum about knowledge and understanding and full internalization of the full range of choices available in a given context, but the example I usually  give is I have a Master's and would be happy to stay at home with the kids if my husband made enough money- not because I feel like I "should" do it, but because I grew up with a mom at home, and feel very lucky to have experienced that, and feel as though I would be good at it and want  to be as close to my kids as I am to my own mom. In itself, it has nothing to do with patriarchal structures, and I think that even if women do what's, on its surface, considered "upholding" the patriarchy, if it's done for reasons outside the parameters set in patriarchal structures, it can still "dismantle" it. 

And yes, that may sound like I'm actually giving a passive go-ahead for patriarchal norms, but this post isn't really about me, it's about Gert. If you want more on that, ask in the comments, but for now, just understand that I'm getting at how Gert's brand of feminism is the kind those against feminism point out when trying to argue against it. She's your quintessential "FemiNazi." Her constant finger-pointing and accusatory remarks make her the straw feminist of every intersectional feminist's nightmares, including your author, right here.

And let's not forget how in episode six, she pretends to be attracted to two guards at the Pride Gala, using her feminine wiles to clear the path for Alex and Nico to sneak upstairs. She isn't vocalizing a bunch of feminist taglines during any of these scenes, but it stands in stark contrast to the ideals by which she proportedly lives. This is more of the hypocrisy, then- women have been oppressed since the dawn of time, but it's totally okay for a woman to seduce a man to get what she wants. It's like something straight off of an MRA site, one of those "the femiNazis will do whatever it takes to get what they want" kind of rants. They'd talk about women faking feelings/attraction in the same breath (read: paragraph) as accusing "most rape victims" of being liars. The whole bit put a sour taste in my mouth. 

Okay, so now, Chase. I said before that she reduces him down to a dumb, sexy jock. This kind of goes to extreme places in episode three. She and Chase are snooping around his dad's workshop when they find a pair of X-ray goggles. Gert puts them on and, of course, starts... sizing up... Chase. 

So this is pretty gross. Calling it sexual assault is a bit strong, even for me, a survivor. But something like, I dunno, sexual misconduct? I mean, she sneaks a look at him with the goggles, denies it, and then makes a kind of snide remark about "scientific curiosity." She completely violates him, his trust, and his body, and then makes a shitty joke about it. Then? Then, when he gets the goggles in her parents' lab, she conveniently finds a lead apron, and when he catches onto her, this happens:

SERIOUSLY?!!??!!?!?!??!!?!?

This is the kind of hypocritical BULLSHIT that gets the menfolk's panties all up in huge wadded twists. The kind of double standard that MRAs warn about. The idea that feminism is about "revenge" with men, about "getting back" at them. Yes, it's about leveling the playing field, but

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NOT LIKE THAT!!!!!!

This is the most egregious, disgusting, rage-inducing bit in the whole show. This pisses me off way more than anything the parents in the show have done yet. Which is why I wanted to save it for last. Because it genuinely confuses me. I can't tell if the writers are trying to push a specific conservative agenda overall, or if they're just trying to make modern liberal philosophy look bad. I mean, let's also consider the fact that when Gert has to bail on her own club ("Dismantling the Patriarchy," remember?) and some other teens start it for her, she basically mocks them and acts as though they're an inconvenience to her. And this, again, is another myth about feminism, that feminists are only actually feminist when it's convenient.

And I feel like her mockery of these specific teens is how we're supposed to feel about feminism and the complex web of ideals wrapped around concepts like social justice and equal rights. She scoffs at them the same way her behavior makes us, the audience, scoff at her.++

It reminds me of The Big Bang Theory, in that however much that particular show passes itself off as a show for nerds, the nerds' nerdery is the butt of 85% of the jokes (the rest of which are Sheldon's ASD, sexual puns, or gender). While Gert's jabs aren't the main punch of the show, they're the ones that stand out to me the most. Because so much of the marketing is about how this group of teenagers "comes from diverse backgrounds" and they "find common ground" when investigating their parents together. It implies progressivism and a liberal bent. Yet the only character overtly expressing liberal ideologies looks like a bully. And I can't help but think that, since the show takes place in a super wealthy area in L.A. (there's a comment about Compton in a flashback for Alex's parents, so yeah), since all of the families in Pride are super stinkin' rich, that maybe the writers want her to look out of place because her ideas are out of place in such a well-off area, and to them, the writers. Out of all of the teens, she seems to be the most out of place, even more so than the one that does a Wiccan summoning ritual in the pilot. 

And this isn't done like one of those stories where there's a lone voice of sanity in a cacophony of draconian ideas. We aren't meant to sympathize with her ideas, we're meant to scorn them. We're supposed to think Gert and her beliefs are selfish, nefarious, hypocritical, and toxic. There are a few times where she seems to kind of come through and be kind, but her feminism and belief in social justice are still used as a punchline every episode. And it gets to me, under my skin. It's disappointing and, as I said, confusing. 

I can't imagine the confusion a kid would feel, one struggling with their identity. One that knows there's inequality and oppression, but isn't sure what to do or maybe even think or feel about it. Harping on the "diversity" thing, what about that queer kid of color watching? When they see stuff they believed in, presented as "bad" in a show they're supposed to relate to? Or the liberal kid in the conservative household that has been told by the adults in their life that they're wrong, what happens when this kid sees the adults' views ostensibly validated because Gert's meant to look like an asshole?

So I don't have an answer. Because even if they mellow out and stop having her pull the "there are starving children in Africa"-type bullshit all the time, they drilled it so hard into the heads of their viewers that first episode (again, a whole page-worth of dialogue), it's there. It's part of her identity as a character, now. As a person. There's no escaping it. The only way to do it is to have her dramatically denounce feminism and the fight for equality, which would serve the same purpose as continuing with more of the same. There's legitimately no saving her character. And it breaks my heart. Through Gert, the writers are asserting that feminism is bad, dirty, something to avoid. And that breaks my heart, yeah, but also pisses me the Hell off.

Because I am so. Damn. Sick. Of us feminists getting a bad rep. 

I'm so. Damn. Sick. Of these straw feminists becoming the poster children. 

I'm so. Damn.  Sick. Of people that actually have a lot of feminist ideals at the core of their politics/worldview/etc. turn up their nose at the word "feminism," that interject, "NONONONO!" in a panic when someone has the audacity to describe them as a "feminist" in their presence.

"Feminist" isn't the f-word.





It's FUCK.









*I was always a Team Spike kinda gal- not because of the "bad boy" thing, per se, but because he had a much better character arch than Angel. He tried so damn hard to be good, and went from Point A to point, like, S. Angel was flat and boring- any development was forced because he sort of transformed, not because he actually made efforts to change as a person.

**This is actually another thing that kinda bothers me about the show- Molly's treated more like she's in middle school than a fellow high school student, by both the other kids and the adults. Granted, she does a couple things that certainly seem to place her maturity level far below those of the other teenagers, but I see them as reactions to how everyone treats her like a "baby," reactions that wouldn't have happened if they just treated her like, well, not a baby. 

***Although, yeah, there's definitely a critique of how his former friends show back up threatening violence. There's a trope about how Black characters are often depicted as "unable" to "escape" their pasts if those pasts involve "the hood," so to speak. I can't quite parse it out right now, but it's there. Still, knowing that Geoffrey's rise from Compton to super-rich L.A. is mostly because of their deal with "Jonah," the mysterious immortal figure with powers, is important because it demonstrates the power Jonah has.

+Full disclosure: I love her. And I'll just say here,  I think a lot of the hatred for her stems from the fact that she points out the shit that the white nerdboiz don't want to admit about the media they love- they can't admit their video games/comics/etc. are racist or sexist, because that would mean they were complicit in those ideals. And they'd rather shoot the messenger than do something about it that would, you know, lead to change. And also, projecting their own self-loathing onto her.

++I do think the fact that they essentially kick her out in the seventh episode is meant to be a reflection on Gert herself, that her attitude pushes everyone away, even though one would think she should be super close to and want to be around all the time, people who seemingly share her core beliefs. And, there's also the "exclusivity" thing, too. 

Wonder Woes, Part Deaux: FOR THE LOVE OF HERA, SEE WONDER WOMAN

In "Wonder Woes," I discussed some stress/anxiety/anger/etc. I was experiencing in light of a potential change in Diana's backstory. It turned out to be a rumor, but I'm calling this post a sequel because my source of frustration here is still what's going on with Warner Brothers and one of the myriad things they've chosen to do (or not do) that just will not help me relax about Wonder Woman. Seriously, pretty much the whole time I've been watching this whole thing unfold, I've felt frustrated and helpless.

Yup

My latest stress is that with the premier date less than a month away, I'm kind of out of sorts over the dearth of (good/smart) marketing promoting it. And I'm not the only one noticing it. All sorts of other fancy, more-read people have noticed it, too. Not only that, but one of the few advertisement partnerships WB has made is with gorram diet bars. (Yes, there have been a few other partnerships, but the main one available now is food "for women" and associated with weight loss/dieting/etc. Just totally not cool.) And while a lot of the other articles are pitched as a "fans are wondering  why" piece, I know why- or at least, I have a theory. It has to do with what I was talking about here, and more.  They may be making the movie, but they don't expect it to do well. So they're cutting their losses and saving every penny they can, since they don't think the movie will make much more than its $100M budget (an historical thing in and of itself, if you didn't know). 

And of course that  upsets me. I've blogged before about how it seems the Dudes in Suits are so paranoid about having a comic movie star a woman, they gender/character-swapped the Days of Future Past storyline for the movie.* I have zero faith in movie executives at this point. And it's not up to directors what kind of promotional materials get made/distributed/etc. for their movies- so Patty Jenkins, our director here, is entirely powerless, now that her movie is (presumably) finished. There's nothing she can do as WB's PR department completely drops the ball. I can only  imagine how upset she was when she saw the "Thinkthin" shit. 

What makes this troublesome for me is this "we don't think it's going to do well so we're not going to waste money promoting it" has the potential to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. And if the movie does, in fact, do poorly it's first weekend or two, low turnout will be used as the excuse to put a cease and desist order on any and all female-starring superhero movies ad infinitum. Not a damn thing about the lack of effort from the PR department will be said, just the poor box office numbers. Alongside Catwoman and Elektra, Wonder Woman will be touted as an example of how "women just can't star in superhero movies." It's being set up to fail, and that failure will in turn lead to zero faith on the part of the Dudes in Suits. 

And yes, I do think this means Captain Marvel will very likely be affected, too. I don't care if it's a different studio- these Dudes in Suits take notice of what each other are doing, how they're doing it, how it does or does not pay off, etc. Marvel Studios would totally reconsider a Captain Marvel movie if a gorram Wonder Woman movie tanks. 

(I was going  to have this point be a side or footnote, but I think it's important and relevant enough it needs to stick in the main body.) When having this conversation in person, and when I bring up the Captain Marvel/Marvel Studios point, the only time anyone resists/challenges me there is when I'm talking to a man. Any women I've discussed it with has agreed emphatically, while any man I've spoken with about it has always argued, or at least tried to make it sound like I'm jumping to conclusions or something about it. The fact that Marvel Studios is separate from WB, or that they already have people cast and a director and stuff for Captain Marvel are among the main things I hear these dudes say (and I should note, I've reached over half a dozen at this point, who have all done this to me). 

What I want to know is why they think any of that matters, here? Movies complete with directors, actors, scripts, etc. get cancelled all the gorram time. So what's so special about Marvel Studios?  To say a thing I've said a million times, Marvel isn't actually all that great with female representation onscreen. Women end up being sidekicks, mysteries, tools, obstacles, and damsels in distress for the men in the stories to interact with somehow. And now that the Avengers team is even bigger, more than doubled, after Civil War, I want you to look more closely at the cast of Infinity War Part I. There are six women listed as for sure (one as rumored). Six. And that list doesn't include extras or anything yet. Six, out of 30 (or 29, if you count the two rumored listings). That's only 1/5 of the entire named cast. Or watch this "first look" featurette:

Notice how it's all white dudes talking, and any character-driven plot they talk about has to do with men specifically or general groups (the Avengers themselves, the Guardians of the Galaxy), groups in which women are a minority. I think that just sort of sets the tone for what to expect from the movies- as with all other Marvel movies,  these women will be side characters, and the main players will be Iron Man, Captain America, Star Lord, and Thanos. Also, as I've said before, if Marvel Studios is still unwilling to make a movie for a guaranteed-money-maker like Black Widow, one they know all of the nerdboys drool and jerk off to, now that she's been onscreen in five of their movies (soon to be six/seven, with Infinity War), why the fuck would they hesitate to ditch an idea for a character that's mostly unknown to the uninitiated? (Seriously, I don't know a single person that doesn't read comics but knows who she is (compared to Wonder Woman, which is like "duh"), and when I inform them she's a she, they're usually super surprised. Which says a lot, I think.) I don't think they'd cut her from Infinity War, no, but would they give her her own movie? Probably not.

And to state the obvious point, this would have absolutely nothing to do with the character of Captain Marvel herself, or any projections based on her- it would be simply because the Dudes in Suits would see that a- THE- Wonder Woman movie bombed, ticket-wise (which is all they care about- even if it gets a 100% on Rotton Tomatoes or like a 95% on Metacritic, the decision-makers wouldn't care), and would change their minds. 

And then the Batgirl movie with JOSS WHDON at the helm that hasn't been openly denied by anybody will get canceled, too, which would make it the second Whedon-helmed, female-led DC movie that didn't get made.  

And I just... While the dudebros and neckbeards may think, well...

I don't really care. I need Wonder Woman to succeed. All women and girls do, as far as I'm concerned. William Moulton Marston, the man who created her character, knew how important it is for girls to see characters "like them" in the media- that was a huge reason he created Wonder Woman in the first place. Back then. In the 1940s. A man knew representation is important for the self esteem and well-being of little girls.

So why is that so gorram hard for Dudes in Suits nowadays?

I need this movie to be good on a deeply personal level, don't get me wrong. It would invariably send me down a bad spell if I leave the theater disappointed. But that's a somewhat different discussion. Like I said before, the execs won't really care if it's "good" or not, they're only going to notice how much money it makes. Shit, I'll buy tickets on Fandango that I won't use, if I have to.

And there's a valid comparison between the standards this movie's performance has to surpass vs. those of male-led movies and what women have to deal with in professional settings, too. While neither Thor solo flick barely beat $60m opening weekend, and the first Captain America did about the same (compared to both Avengers, which nearly doubled that, and the later Iron Man movies, which all did much better, too), the Norse God is still getting a third movie, and Cap already had one. Even Ant Man, which at $57M made less than every other Marvel Studios movie (except the second attempt at a Hulk flick) has a sequel in the works.** Wonder Woman is projected at making a bit over $80m opening weekend, and yet a number that high is actually being treated as if it's low. 

Which makes me  sick. But, y'know,

It's the same double-standard women in the workplace deal with- they have to do twice as well, be twice as nice, and still may get passed up for promotions, or the credit will go to the dude that did half as much, etc. Films led by men can have comparably sub-par performance and still have subsequent movies in their franchises, yet there's speculation the franchise starring a woman that may perform better may thus be doomed? Come ON, now.

So we all need this movie to make lots of cash. Thus, I implore you, please,

GO SEE WONDER WOMAN OPENING WEEKEND AND THE NEXT WEEKEND IF YOU CAN, TOO

I say the second weekend because the drop between opening and second weekend matters, too. 

But, anyway.

Tell your parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, friends, frenemies, enemies, customers, coworkers, bosses, students, teachers... Tell every person you interact with every day. Tell them to see it. Even if you don't think it's going to be good (which is a whole different rant, but suffice to say I get really fucking tired of men saying they think it's going to suck and are apprehensive about seeing it, but they are more than willing to see any and every Thor movie in theaters, even admitting to seeing previous ones more than once despite knowing they were awful), give them a (breifer) explanation like mine as to why: If this does badly, we can expect to have to wait  another ten-plus years for another superhero film to headline a woman. 

There is one more fear, related to this double-standard: That if the movie does well but is kinda crappy, they won't make it its own franchise. We're past the point where that matters, though- all we can do is vote with our wallets and show the Dudes in Suits we want more by getting our butts  in the seats. I truly think that, at the end of the day, these Dudes in Suits aren't being consciously, maliciously sexist. I think the film industry is just so bloody entrenched with misogyny that they can't help but follow those tracks and keep things as is. But, this is capitalism. And at the end of the day, money is the most important thing.

So I also am desperate to believe the opposite of these fears: That if Wonder Woman does well, it will pave the way for other female-starring superhero flicks. So that Batgirl movie will really end up being a Thing. Black Widow will indeed get her own movie. Other franchises will come out of the woodwork, ones we've already thought of, and ones we haven't. Hell, just run a Google search for "female superheroes that need movies" and you'll get a never-ending list of articles, some with lots of overlap, some that are completely original. But the point is, people care. They want to see women onscreen. WE want to see women onscreen. And if Wonder Woman does well, I think it's possible. The patriarchal trends in the film industry could be at least a little changed, and someday, entirely smashed.

This really is an issue about the fate of feminism in this country. Wonder Woman  has, since her inception, served as a symbol for feminist ideals. That's literally what she was created for in the first place. This character is been around for a lot of shit, and has made it through a lot of shit that the dudes in charge of her stories have decided for her. I don't just think  it's superhero movies at stake. Even though The Hunger Games was successful, it, and the handful of other movies starring women that also did well, aren't treated as the norm. If Wonder Woman does well, maybe it will help that radical notion that women are people, and that the movies starring them can be money-makers, will be more accepted. And then 

BAM! Feminism FTW!!!

So please, get out there. Spread the news, make sure everyone you know goes to see Wonder Woman. And keep fighting the good fight.



*In that post, I said I was sick of Wolverine. While he did have a small part in Apocalypse, his swan song, Logan, was a masterpiece, and I am very pleased with how they said goodbye to the character. Of course, as the new series moves forth, they'll probably find a new Wolverine, but, hey, maybe the break will be longer than the breaks we've had between Spider-Man iterations. 

**Source