clints-coffee:


YOUNG AVENGERS MASTERPOST
based on this post

Young Avengers Volume 1 (2005)

#01 | #02 | #03 | #04 | #05 | #06 | #07 | #08 | (Special) | #09 | #10 | #11 | #12

Civil War (Young Avengers & Runaways) (2006)

#01 | #02 | #03 | #04

Young Avengers Presents (2008)

#01 (patriot) |#02 (hulkling) |#03 (wiccan and speed) |#04 (vision) | #05 (stature) | #06 (hawkeye)

Secret Invasion (Runaways & Young Avengers) (2008)

#01 | #02 | #03

Dark Reign: Young Avengers (2009)

#01 | #02 | #03 | #04 | #05

Siege: Young Avengers (2010)

#01

I Am An Avenger (2010)

#01 | #05

Young Avengers: The Children’s Crusade

#01 | #02 | #03 | #04 | (Special) | #05 | #06 | #07 | #08 | #09 | 

Young Avengers Volume 2 (2013)

#01 | #02 | #03 | #04 | #05 | #06 | #07 | #08 | #09 | #10 | #11 | #12 |#13 | #14 | #15

clints-coffee:

YOUNG AVENGERS MASTERPOST

based on this post

Young Avengers Volume 1 (2005)

#01 | #02 | #03 | #04 | #05 | #06 | #07 | #08 | (Special) | #09 | #10 | #11 | #12

Civil War (Young Avengers & Runaways) (2006)

#01 | #02 | #03 | #04

Young Avengers Presents (2008)

#01 (patriot) |#02 (hulkling) |#03 (wiccan and speed) |#04 (vision) | #05 (stature) | #06 (hawkeye)

Secret Invasion (Runaways & Young Avengers) (2008)

#01 | #02 | #03

Dark Reign: Young Avengers (2009)

#01 | #02 | #03 | #04 | #05

Siege: Young Avengers (2010)

#01

I Am An Avenger (2010)

#01 | #05

Young Avengers: The Children’s Crusade

#01 | #02 | #03 | #04 | (Special) | #05 | #06 | #07 | #08 | #09

Young Avengers Volume 2 (2013)

#01 | #02 | #03 | #04 | #05 | #06 | #07 | #08 | #09 | #10 | #11 | #12 |#13 | #14 | #15

(via historymaker)

chescaleigh:

Robin Williams Is NOT Free (via Phoebe Gavin)

Did you know that suicide is contagious?
Yep. A great deal of research has been done on cases spanning the last three hundred years the show that suicide rates spike after a highly publicized suicide – especially when it’s a celebrity suicide.
Does that mean we shouldn’t talk about suicide or Robin Williams? No. It means we should talk about suicide and Robin Williams responsibly.
From the CDC: ASPECTS OF NEWS COVERAGE THAT CAN PROMOTE SUICIDE CONTAGION
  • Presenting simplistic explanations for suicide
  • Engaging in repetitive, ongoing, or excessive reporting of suicide in the news
  • Providing sensational coverage of suicide
  • Reporting “how-to” descriptions of suicide
  • Presenting suicide as a tool for accomplishing certain ends
  • Glorifying suicide or persons who commit suicide
  • Focusing on the suicide completer’s positive characteristics
"But Phoebe, they’re basically saying don’t talk about suicide."
No, they’re saying is don’t make it sound attractive. 

An example of what not to do: 

Robin Williams is NOT free.

Please watch this. 

(via dederants)

impossible girls

221beemine:

elizabethminkel:

unreconstructedfangirl:

elizabethminkel:

SNIP 

What I love about this idea is the generosity of it. I think there’s so often a real paucity of generosity towards writers/creators in fandom, and really, isn’t it ok for him to want to be the Doctor? To tell the story about the Doctor rather than making it about the companion who is usually a woman? I can’t see why, on a basic level, it isn’t ok for a man to tell a man’s story. I mean, I get that there is no shortage of such narratives, and that there are shortages of others, but for me, the blame for that doesn’t lie with the writer of such a story, it lies with the people who commission and fund stories, and with the audience that consumes stories and what it demands and rewards with its custom.

I think people forget, too, that a narrative is an exercise in a certain kind of economy, and that in order to tell one story, one cannot tell every story. Most narratives work by constellating characters and plot around a protagonist, and there can’t be lose threads and extra details — the other characters and the things that happen in the story are there further that agenda. If, for Moffat, the story is fundamentally about the Doctor, then it is appropriate that the other characters in the story serve narrative purposes that support that agenda, and as I said, there are lots of ways of looking at the story as presented and not all of them amount to unforgivable misogyny.

Every fan has a way they want it to be, and so many just aren’t willing to accept the fact that just because the story goes a certain way in their heads (or SHOULD go a certain way) doesn’t mean that’s the only way it can go in anyone’s head, or in the writer’s head, and still be of value. Our ideas and feelings about who the characters are and what they mean aren’t the only ways to think about them. I think it’s perfectly all right that Moffat has a different vision, and that he has a different desire to be fulfilled when writing his story, and it’s also perfectly all right that some people preferred a different approach. What I don’t always understand is why that has to lead to categorical accusations of personal evil and all the personal reviling. Moffat is clearly a very talented and intelligent person, who works side by side with a host of other intelligent and talented people, and I think he deserves a little generosity from his audience on the question. Or, at least the right to a learning curve rather than a summary, black and white dismissal.

IMHO.

And, tangentally, about Sherlock — I think it’s true that he is an iconic, narrative-driving masculine figure, but it’s important to note, in Moffat and Gatiss’s version, how sexualised and subjected to our (and John’s!) objectification he is with his too-tight shirts and the way the camera worships his prettiness. If I had the time to write a book, here, it wouldn’t be difficult to enumerate the ways in which Sherlock subverts that narrative and enters into a dialogue with it rather than presenting it straightforwardly, and I suspect it will go even further in that direction in the future. And, similarly to the Doctor’s heroism, Sherlock isn’t an uncomplicated, straighforward hero of the typical stamp, as much as he might like to see himself as a dragonslayer with a damsel to save. I mean, firstly, his damsel isn’t a damsel at all, but another complicated masculinity.

I know there are those of us who are rightfully sick to death about stories for boys, and I am, too, sometimes, but personally, I shop elsewhere for my feminine representation. Every work of art doesn’t have to be all things to all people, and I still find the stories men tell about themselves to be interesting and relevant to the aims of feminism.

elizabethminkel, thank you for starting this terribly interesting discussion!

Ahhhhhhhh I LOVE THIS SO MUCH. THANK YOU unreconstructedfangirl. If I wasn’t trying to plow through my poor old dissertation this afternoon I’d comment further, but I agree with so, so much of this. It’s incredibly well-put and super interesting, and something I wish I heard more of on a regular basis. Or, as Captain Jack might put it, it’s

 

I am loving this conversation. I think this topic in regards to Doctor Who and Sherlock is generally approached from only the “female” perspective on tumblr and in fandom, because the vast majority of vocal fandom fans seems to be female. But it’s worth considering from the perspective of a boy writing stories for boys and the interesting themes that recur.

One of the most unequal aspects of modern masculinity’s Rules is that men either Don’t Have Feelings, or Don’t Want To Talk About Feelings, or Can’t Deal With Feelings. The current onslaught of male anti-hero shows (Breaking Bad, Mad Men, name any other show on TV) are all variants of this trope. When I watch Moffat’s Doctor, I see:

  • a man who gets lonely
  • a man who openly talks about, or at least gives hints through subtext and acting, being lonely, about missing his family, about constantly searching for companionship, about the dangers that solitude causes, a man who tries to put on a brave face when his companions leave him but who we know basically curls up into the darkness when he is by himself
  • a man who cares about his companions very deeply, who wants to protect them even when he doesn’t understand them
  • a man—men, really—who fall for women who are smarter, bolder, cooler than he is and who are not unmanned by it, but who instead try to live up to their example. Rory in particular constantly deals with feelings of inadequacy and how he fits into his relationship with his wife, but this never makes him appear weak (IMHO), only human. He’s the human Nurse to the immortal Doctor who goes through many of the same struggles.
  • a man who tries to make the best decisions he can even if they cause him personal pain or cause him to act against his own beliefs
  • a man who regrets his bad decisions
  • a man who never forgets the people who were important to him even if he has to move on

When I watch Sherlock, I see two men who:

  • are dealing with their sexualities and the public performance of them in different ways
  • are trying to figure out what love and friendship mean
  • are lost in miscommunication between the modern idea of masculinity is that Men Don’t Talk About Their Feelings and they Don’t Admit That They Need Anyone and they are the worse for it
  • both, at some point, struggle to find a place in the world: John, who loses his identity when he returns from war injured, unemployed, lonely; Sherlock, who has never found his place nor been able to form close relationships. This only changes when they find each other and let each other in—in other words, form a relationship/friendship. Doing things on their own, like a solo Caped Crusader, without communication, without admitting the need for other people, is always shown as a bad idea.
  • And none of the loneliness, struggle, depression, or aimlessness is shown as cool. Compare to Mad Men, compare to Breaking Bad, compare to Game of Thrones, compare to a million other shows, where the stoic, unfeeling, brutal traits of the male protagonists are glamorized, idealized, and sexualized as the height of masculinity.

Imagine being a boy or a man looking for role models on TV, male role models who admit to having feelings, actively try to deal with them, and are trying to lead their best life. What does this tell us about Moffat’s goals? 

(via earnestscribblr)

timballisto: I'm writing a paper about the internalized racism in Shakespeare's Othello. Do you have any good sources about the Elizabethan interactions with people of color that can give me some context for this play? I asked my professor but he gave me the "there were no african peoples (Moors or otherwise) in England in this time period" spiel, but I'm sensing bullshit. Thank you!

medievalpoc:

medievalpoc:

thirddeadlysin:

medievalpoc:

Uhhhhh.

Okay well your professor lied to you.

Actually there were so many Black British at that time that Elizabeth I tried to blame the realms ills on them and have them all deported. Twice. She failed, probably because you can’t deport your own citizens very well under most circumstances. It’s actually a pretty pivotal point in English history.

Here’s one of the letters from her own hand:

image

[transcript]

An open le[tt]re to the L[ord] Maiour of London and th’alermen his brethren, And to all other Maiours, Sheryfes, &c. Her Ma[jes]tieunderstanding that there are of late divers Blackmoores brought into the Realme, of which kinde of people there are all ready here to manie,consideringe howe God hath blessed this land w[i]th great increase of people of our owne Nation as anie Countrie in the world, wherof manie for want of Service and meanes to sett them on worck fall to Idlenesse and to great extremytie; Her Ma[jesty’]s pleasure therefore ys, that those kinde of people should be sent forthe of the lande. And for that purpose there ys direction given to this bearer Edwarde Banes to take of those Blackmoores that in this last voyage under Sir Thomas Baskervile, were brought into this Realme to the nomber of Tenn, to be Transported by him out of the Realme. Wherein wee Req[uire] you to be aydinge & Assysting unto him as he shall have occacion, and thereof not to faile.

You can read another one in its entirety here.

Elizabeth I tried to use Black British as scapegoats for some of the problems in English society during the Elizabethan Era, problems that led to the passing of the famous Poor Laws in 1597 and 1601.

From The British National Archives:

But while Elizabeth may have enjoyed being entertained by Black people, in the 1590s she also issued proclamations against them. In 1596 she wrote to the lord mayors of major cities noting that there were ‘of late divers blackmoores brought into this realm, of which kind of people there are already here to manie…’. She ordered that ‘those kinde of people should be sente forth of the land’.

Elizabeth made an arrangement for a merchant, Casper van Senden, to deport Black people from England in 1596. The aim seems to have been to exchange them for (or perhaps to sell them to obtain funds to buy) English prisoners held by England’s Catholic enemies Spain and Portugal.

No doubt van Senden intended to sell these people. But this was not to be, because masters* of Black workers - who had not been offered compensation - refused to let them go. In 1601, Elizabeth issued a further proclamation expressing her ‘discontentment by the numbers of blackamores which are crept into this realm…’ and again licensing van Senden to deport Black people. It is doubtful whether this second proclamation was any more successful than the first.

Why this sudden, urgent desire to expel members of England’s Black population? It was more than a commercial transaction pursued by the queen. In the 16th century, the ruling classes became increasingly concerned about poverty and vagrancy, as the feudal system- which, in theory, had kept everyone in their place - finally broke down. They feared disorder and social breakdown and, blaming the poor, brought in poor laws to try to deal with the problem

As you can see, Black people were a pretty important and pivotal part of English society at the time. Basically, the Queen tried to convince the people that they had to “give up” their cobbler’s apprentices and weavers and other various other workingpeople (the Black musicians in the court were of course exempt from the deportations) to the crown, on the basis that they were “vagrants” and “mostly infidels”. This was not only a wild exaggeration (most were Christian with working class jobs like ya do), but it’s not a very compelling reason to frigging report your next-door neighbor Bill the Mason to immigration. Because then who’s going to do your masonry?

So anyways, the Poor Laws had to be passed, because you can’t deport your citizens/workforce and no one would cooperate with something like that.

And it’s not like those people went anywhere. They’re still there. They were there before that! Some had been there since like, the 4th frigging century when that was part of the Roman Empire!

Also check the tag for England here. Plenty more on lots of different people of color in England throughout many eras.

* this generally refers to the “master” of a workshop or guildmaster, not necessarily the master of an enslaved person, FYI.

oh my god how is this something i never learned about in three separate elizabethan era-focused classes??? (no need to answer; i know how) 

Three? Three?

Like, I thought my capacity to be disappointed in history education was full, but I guess not.

Seriously, the next time someone sends a message about how this is stuff “everyone knows” remind me to link this.

Reblogging this for the last five people who asked me if there are enough people who don’t know that POC lived in Europe in the past to “justify” Medievalpoc’s existence….

Because sometimes those people are your professor. Or someone who took three Elizabethan Era focused classes. Because I think everyone should know these things, whether you’re a history fan or not.