Can we talk about how Steve Rogers would probably fight to keep abortion legal and safe, because he saw how many people used to die back in the day because all abortions were illegal and unsafe and he knows if a person is pregnant and don’t want to be pregnant they will find a way to not be pregnant?
Can we talk about Steve Rogers telling off right wing politicians who say minimum wage isn’t supposed to be a living wage? Can we have him saying ‘No, I remember when it was instituted. It was supposed to be a living wage, senator.’
Can we talk about Steve Rogers supporting a raise in SNAP benefits, because he knows how it feels to go hungry?
Can we talk about Steve Rogers having problems with this country’s military industrial complex?
What if Right Wing Politicians were using him as like a mascot before he was defrosted. Like Fox News has “What Would Captain America Do?” shirts and shit like that.
And then Steve wakes up “He’s just like, lol no don’t even say my name anymore.”
And then the daily show has an entire segment dedicated to the speech he gives and fox news’ reaction.
Steve Rogers is not the hyper-masculine ultra-patriotic gun-toting conservative puppet that Fox News wants him to be.
The news media has a field day on both sides about how he reacted to fox news.
Liberals and dems are cheering him on and talking about how great he is and having him speak on shows and conservatives and republicans are enraged and offended and yell about how he has betrayed them and try to get him to mess up in interviews and go “well no but you really mean this right?” and he blasts them down every time.
I need this written 4000 years ago
I feel uncomfortable turning Captain America into the subject of a highly partisan argument. He’s supposed to represent universal American values like democracy, liberty and freedom. He is a better representation of classical liberalism and founding principles than he is of either the Republican or Democratic parties. The idea of Captain America is to unite people, not divide them.
Non-theoretically, he was made to represent the 1940s liberal ideals.
Non-theoretically, he was the son of a single mother who grew up in New York in poverty.
Non-theoretically, he was made by Jews to fight against the oppression they experienced at that time.
Non-theoretically, Steve is leftist as fuck.
The entire plot of Cap2 is “Look at how fucked up the American Military Industrial Complex is! Look at it! We need to literally blow it up and tear it down. It can not be saved. It is corrupt to the core.”
Like, that’s the entire plot of the movie. Three soldiers finding out how truly fucked up the American military industrial complex is and deciding to end that shit. It’s a two hour criticism of domestic surveillance and American military force framed as a peacekeeping measure littered with explosions.
Steve is left of center as the day is long.
Allow me to quote Steve Attewell about one of my favorites:
“Steve Rogers grew up poor in the Great Depression, the son of a single mother who insisted he stayed in school despite the trend of the time (his father died when he was a child; in some versions, his father is a brave WWI veteran, in others an alcoholic, either or both of which would be appropriate given what happened to WWI veterans in the Great Depression) and then orphaned in his late teens when his mother died of TB. And he came of age in New York City at a time when the New Deal was in full swing, Fiorello LaGuardia was mayor, the American Labor Party was a major force in city politics, labor unions were on the move, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade was organizing to fight fascism in Spain in the name of the Popular Front, and a militant anti-racist movement was growing that equated segregation at home with Nazism abroad that will eventually feed into the “Double V” campaign.
Then he became a fine arts student. To be an artist in New York City in the 1930s was to be surrounded by the “Cultural Front.” We’re talking the WPA Arts and Theater Projects, Diego Rivera painting socialist murals in Rockefeller Center, Orson Welles turning Julius Caesar into an anti-fascist play and running an all-black Macbeth and “The Cradle Will Rock,” Paul Robeson was a major star, and so on. You couldn’t really be an artist and have escaped left-wing politics. And if a poor kid like Steve Rogers was going to college as a fine arts student, odds are very good that he was going to the City College of New York at a time when an 80% Jewish student body is organizing student trade unions, anti-fascist rallies, and the “New York Intellectuals” were busily debating Trotskyism vs. Stalinism vs. Norman Thomas Socialism vs. the New Deal in the dining halls and study carrels.
And this Steve Rogers, who’s been exposed to all of what New York City has to offer, becomes an explicit anti-fascist. In the fall of 1940, over a year before Pearl Harbor, he first volunteers to join the army to fight the Nazis specifically. This isn’t an apolitical patriotism forged out of a sense that the U.S has been attacked; rather, Steve Rogers had come to believe that Nazism posed an existential threat to the America he believed in. New Deal America.”
The whole article (he knocks on Mark Millar!):http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/10/steven-attewell-steve-rogers-isnt-just-any-hero
spacebunnysparkle-empress asked: 1/2. answer to your post got too long. I think maybe Martin, as an author, is just portraying the world as it is. in the world we live in, those things are true. It is violent and terrible and men, particularly white men do have the power. For me personally, i see it as a mirror. i feel like he's exposing how awful we can be. plus it makes for conflict and you cant have a good tv or fiction without tons of that. also, in real world,
historically things like rape were either not discussed, considered NBD, or something which meant you must commit suicide because why would anyone want you after that? when i watch/read game of thrones, it makes me think about the brutality in our own lives, and how our media handles that. i dont know if it has that effect on anyone else though.
1. You’re wrong about social perspectives on violence, including sexual violence, from “history”. Firstly, because you seem to be generalizing the entirety of human history. Secondly,
According to the text of the Madrid manuscript of the “Synopsis historion,” a Byzantine chronicle written by John Skylitzes, “There were some Varangians dispersed in the Thrakesion theme for the winter. One of them coming across a woman of the region in the wilderness put the quality of her virtue to the test. When persuasion failed he resorted to violence, but she seized his Persian-type sword, struck him in the heart and promptly killed him. When the deed became known in the surrounding area, the Varangians held an assembly and crowned the woman, presenting her with all the possessions of her violator, whom they threw aside, unburied, according to the law concerning assassins.” In the image depicting these occurrences, the woman uses a spear to kill her attacker, and the other Varangian men approach her with armfuls of clothing.
Women’s History in regard to the European Middle Ages, specifically, is so constantly being revised, revisited, and rewritten, what is considered “the norm” and what is considered “exceptional” changes with the day of the week, the phase of the moon, and the latest piece of documentation being debated in various circles.
You can read this excerpt reviewing Gendering the Master Narrative: Women and Power in the Middle Ages in its second incarnation, versus the one from 1988 which the authors claimed focused too much on
"the positive"…. as you can see, these ideas are constantly in flux, as well they should be! I’m ready for another volume refocusing on the positive, myself…. :|
In other words, THIS is precisely what I mean-people get these ideas from media and project them onto history a lot of the time. And yes, there are plenty of counter-examples, we can talk about Artemisia Gentilischi, and a million other things, but my point is that you cannot universalize this.
2. That’s precisely the problem I’m talking about, that GoT is more of a reflection of our CURRENT SOCIETY than it is Medieval European Society, but it’s often being presented as or defended as “Just How Things Were Back Then”. You know, back when DRAGONS.
3. I think I’m going to have to have a whole speech very soon on how conflict in fiction is 100% possible without replicating or exaggerating gender or race-related oppression (Laurie J. Marks’ Elemental Logic series), AND without erasing gender (Ursula K. LeGuin’s The Left Hand of Darkness) OR people of color (like basically 90% of the genre of epic fantasy. And urban fantasy, for that matter.)
FYI, the Varangians were Vikings. This woman killed a fucking Viking and the others honoured her for it.
Let me rephrase that: a native Byzantian woman defended herself and killed a Varangian (a certain group of ‘vikings’, to be brief) who had come to these lands for trade and as hired guards (its more complex but bear with me). When the other Varangians heard of one of their own having attempted to assault a woman they proceeded to dump his corpse and give her all her belongings. Rather than, ya know, gang up on her like they constantly do in GoT (./vomit).
It is an extremely interesting manuscript excerpt to look at the interaction of different cultural groups, the way they value eachother within and across said groups, and the expectations on either side. The Varangians responded in the way they would when one of their own had attacked another, and the other had rightfully defended themselves. The fact that the ‘other’ was in this case a woman and of a culturally different group was completely irrelevant to them: someone was assaulted, therefore, it was obvious to them what aught be done - namely compensate her with the deceased’s belongings / holdings.
Thanks for adding more context to the story.
I really just want to add one more time that fantasy stories that you read or watch on TV are stories invented by writers. They are not fettered by “historical facts” to have misogyny (or racism, or anything else) hardwired into every storyline supposedly based on history. Their stories are the result of choices that they are responsible for.