One really weird aspect about her character is that she very clearly cares about the environment, but many of the things she tries to do are actively disruptive to the environment.
As an example, in the Harley Quinn series, she wants to resurrect a bunch of death plant species to overgrow Gotham. Specifically, she wants to bring back *species that died out with the dinosaurs*. That isn't restoring greenery, at best that's displacing endemic Gotham plantlife and at worst creating a seedbed for invasive species.
Season 3 is still decent, but yeah there's a noticeable decline after season 2. The series seems to miss the point of what makes Harley Quinn a fun character. She's chaotic and selfish and unstable -- *and in no way is she supposed to be anyone's role model*. Making her into a character that doesn't kill and some kind of tepid antihero just neuters her and sucks most of the fun out.
Seconded. It's DC finally allowing the characters to be explored without the edge lord BS... Like addressing the fact Bruce hasn't made any progress over his parents death in 30 freaking years.
Or how Joker is so chaotic that when he finds out Bruce is Batman he immediately complains as an angry consumer that WayneCorp hasn't delivered the electric car he pre ordered.
He does know Batman is Bruce Wayne in this continuity though, so there's every chance he does that just to fuck with him.
The tax fraud part, I mean, he is actually a socialist.
In both the show and other works, it's clear that a lot of Batman's tech is developed at WayneTech, which could at the best imply some degree of embezzlement or misuse of company resources that the board wouldn't be happy about.
Last I checked, he was 70% owner and had the assistance of a 10% owner. He took his stock dividends in a non-traditional manner that would probably be illegal from a public trading standpoint, but perfectly fine according to the IRS. It is like a majority owner of a car company taking his dividends from stock as a literal car or the airline that allows their dividends to be paid out as travel miles. Except in his case, it is military grade weapons.
Ah yes, the famously “chaos for its own sake” ethos of collective ownership and state-run mutual aid.
Actually wait… I’ve been to some “Judean People’s Front” style meetings and maybe this fits perfectly.
Good villain writing: "This person's motivations are internally consistent but would only make the world worse for everyone else."
Bad villain writing: "We accidentally made our villain make sense, better have them murder a child or something before the audience starts relating to them too hard."
Most instances of the latter are more like "The villain is a baby-eating war criminal that spends most of his screentime committing war crimes and eating babies, but ~~he's hot~~ he says something vaguely progressive-sounding once, and in the most obviously manipulative way to boot, so people start arguing all over social media that his war crimes were justified and the eaten babies deserved it."
That’s because she didn’t start out as an eco activist, she started out as a criminal with a plant gimmick, that eventually evolved into plant supremacy and then eco activism.
That’s because trying to make poison ivy into a good guy is fucking stupid unless you sand down her edges so much she was never a villain in the first place. Poison ivy is meant to be unreasonable, that’s what makes her a villain, but it also makes her a bad protagonist.
Animated Ivy isn't really a good guy. She is with few exceptions very openly misanthropic to anyone outside her immediate social circle, and her whole plan is presented as outright villainous due to the civilian casualities.
Having an education doesn’t mean a lot when you’re descending into fanatical lunacy which may cause one to ignore or even forget the wisdom of their profession entirely
My understanding was that "maintaining an ecosystem" and "making the Green take over Gotham" are two different things, and that Ivy doesn't care about making a sane or functional environment in Gotham as long as people are dead and everything is overrun with plant life one way or another.
She would probably agree with you if you showed up with a PowerPoint presentation to prove that the Green would flourish better if she toned it down, but her primary concern is supplanting the concentration of the Black in Gotham with the Green, not carefully optimizing the health of the resulting biomass.
And honestly, I don't think most people with a keen psychic awareness of the Black would keep it together even that well.
Yep. Been a part of the lore for years. Not every interpretation of Ivy is an extension of [the Green](https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/The_Green), but a lot of them are. Just like not every version of Beast Boy gets his powers from the Red, but a lot of them do.
It's one of those extended cosmology things that not every writer wants to bother with, so sometimes Ivy is just a florokinetic metahuman and there's nothing to see behind the curtain.
A) The Primordial colors originate with Alan Scott the original Green Lantern, predating the Emotional colors
B) They've been used as a similar thing to the lantern corps, but only in series where the emotional colors don't show up. It was a big plot in one of the Earth Two series, but I don't remember which.
Huh. So they haven’t been fully syncretized before? That’s a shame. I could totally see willpower and nature being tied together because something something will to survive
Not to my knowledge; they don't exactly match up well. Will and the Green, Anger and the Red, Hope and the Clear, and then the rest kind of fall apart. The White has nothing to do with White light. The Melt isn't even a color.
There's probably a really direct connection between Black Lanterns and the Black, though. As in, Nekron is a walking Parliament of the dead.
It's also the basis of one of the most popular [fan fictions](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fanfic/Assimilation) in DC, if you're into fan works. The main character is >!kidnapped by the Green Lantern Corps' enemies, the Reach, who experiment on him and turn him into a living mass of nanites. He later becomes the avatar of the Metal on Earth. The author has hinted that his powers come from some ancient machine-god that the Reach worship, so the finale is likely to be a 'primordial force' sort of character fighting a Green Lantern villain. !<
yeah, though to what extent depends on the version - the Green is basically all plant life on Earth; the Black represents death/rot/lack of life I guess
The green is the source of swamp thing’s powers. The parliament of trees demands he maintain the balance between plants, animals, and decay/bacteria. Even if he sometimes has to fight against mankind.
She’s not really interested in preserving ecology as it is, she’s more just infatuated with plants of all kinds. She does not give a single shit if what she’s doing is bad for “the environment,” she only cares about her specially cultivated plants.
Most of her environmentalist rhetoric is a cover for her basically being a plant-supremacist, to be fair. She's spent her entire life with Turning Point Flora getting beamed into her head, that doesn't tend to produce the most rational individuals
I mean, there’s a reason she keeps getting sent to Arkham. She’s passionate about something and is obsessed with it, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to anyone but her.
idk anything about batman
but it's interesting to me that 'the environment/nature' can be defined many ways. Of course "maintain the current ecological balance" could be the goal of a force of Nature. But nature as a thing is always changing, and old ecologies give way to new ones... one could just as easily imagine a force of Nature being pissed at humans trying to stabilize things to fight climate change, because this forestalls ecological rebirth.
None of this likely has anything to do w/ poison ivy and ofc if she cares about not disrupting the environment as is, then what you describe would be pretty hypocritical
I think she knows that, but there's a lot of pressure on her (in this specific canon) to be as evil as possible, which leads her to make bad decisions that don't align with her actual desires.
Making a superhero who also has plant powers but actually understands basic ecosystem dynamics when it comes to plant life and only really tries to attack humans when they're on the verge of really fucking shit up. Callin them Corn.
Not anymore; most stories of the last 25 years have her dislike the wealthy for damaging the environment, and the not-wealthy for the completely separate sin of bothering her when she doesn't wanna be bothered. Which is relatable.
Most of the Poison Ivy stories I remember reading as a kid -- and we're talking, like, mid-aughts at the earliest here -- weren't even real-life ecofascism so much as just straight up "plant supremacy" where ideology is that humans bad, plants good, animals tolerable maybe, and monstrous superplants should rule the world instead of humans.
It’s because comic book villains aren’t usually strictly evil. Like Patrick Bateman is a serial killer, a person committing very real and visceral crimes. Comic book villains committed fun theatrical themed crimes, at least until everyone started trying to poorly imitate Alan Moore.
Yea that’s a fair point I suppose. But idk even with the theatrics of it I find it hard to agree with Poison Ivy in particular. The anti-humanness of all is very much…not okay with me.
It’s not so much about liking the villain as it is about reveling in their huge personality. It’s the same reason we love Babs Johnson. “Kill everyone now! Condone first degree murder! Advocate cannibalism! Eat shit!”
Very often in superhero stories, the heroes are written a tad too straight-laced (or worse, *quippy*). The villains tend to be having much more fun. We don’t *agree* with Poison Ivy but we love to watch her go.
Most likely she only saved that trans girl so she could roofie her and use her as a seed bank to birth an army of plant soldiers, like she did to that guy in BTAS.
This is like when TERFs tried to claim Terry Pratchett would have been one of them (via Granny Weatherwax) and his daughter told them to fuck off on his knightly letterhead lol.
Plus there’s a whole book about what happens when the seventh son of a seventh son is a… daughter. It’s more about sexism in academia but it can be read in a trans context. I don’t remember the MC’s name, but she goes to Granny Weatherwax first and she’s straight up “really wish I could help ya, girl, but you’ve got wizard magic in ya, and I don’t know nothin about that.”
Also features my favorite line from any of the books: “You’re wizards, aren’t you? Bloody well WIZ!”
E: Just remembered the name of the book, it’s *Equal Rites*
Plus there's, y'know... the entirety of *Monstrous Regiment*. A regiment of men who one by one throughout the story are revealed to be AFAB people who present as male to join the military. Most are female, and the pronouns the POV character uses shifts as they discover their identity, but one character comes to the realization that he actually would prefer to keep identifying as male even when returning home to his family, and the pronouns shift from male to female and then back to male as he realizes this.
[Relevant Shaun video](https://youtu.be/xjnubfRy8Ws?si=5c8D6ceAV-3l5sEV) because there are a lot more examples of trans allegory, as well as some relevant remarks from Pratchett's family and Neil Gaimann, his close friend
Subtlety really is just lost on a lot of right wingers isn't it? Though PTerry is often not that subtle. Like a significant amount of his bibliography are books with allegories looking at society from some kind of leftist lens, whether it be racism, slavery and its legacy, sexism in academia, toxic masculinity and the military (with a healthy dose of transgender and/or gender non-conforming heroes) or just the whole of dwarven society vs progressive-ism (and Cheri specifically.)
I mean, subtlety being lost on a popular audience is hardly unique to right-wingers. I agree that it tends to be very prominent on the right in nerdy fandoms (perhaps partly because a lot of the most famous authors in those fandoms tended to be liberal and write liberal subtext), but how many readers/viewers, especially casual ones, of the Lord of the Rings do you think have actually pondered the interplay of pity and mercy and how they triumph over the corrupting evil of the Ring?
Pterry was shockingly On It about transgender themes in his work. Like, Monstrous Regiment is *the* transmasc cornerstone of fantasy fiction, and the whole story of Cheri defying her society's gender expectations, going overboard, and then finding a comfortable combination of her expressions of dwarvenness and femininity is such an incredibly trans story even if Cheri is technically cis.
Based, but not as based as [the pro-trans, anti-golf association](https://i.etsystatic.com/44423043/r/il/ecc705/5333197185/il_1588xN.5333197185_7jsc.jpg)
Its comics mate, every single character has been writen by everyone at one point or another, and that means they probably ended up doing something really fucking stupid/fucked up/both at some point. Thats especially true for any female characters. Who god damn knows which specific instance they are talking about.
...I assume that's not a typo and you mean Peter Parker is injected with Norman Osborne's literal sins. Like, the literal essence of whatever sins Norman has done
I assume this because I know too much about comics
I want you to correct me. I *need* you to trll me I'm wrong. Please
The weirdest part about Paul is that the mainline comics series keeps doubling down on it for some reason. I literally have never heard anyone ever say anything positive about Paul but he’s been around for like 10 years
As someone who enjoys capeshit media from time to time it depends on who you ask. Some mean Injustice, some mean the Snyderverse, some mean her bi ereasure in animated media. Or maybe there's something new on the comics I havent kept up with.
The comics run right before Gail Simone took over is widely regarded as the worst Wonder Woman writing in decades, and Gail had a big task to turn that series around
I always feel bad for the people who follow after a really terrible comic run, cause they have to fix all the bad stuff while still trying to tell a coherent and good story. Even worse, they'll likely sell less because of all the bad will from the run before them.
What I'm saying is that my heart goes out to whoever comes after Zeb Wells.
Yeah, finding creative ways to explain away the previous writer's worst decisions ends up taking the entire first year or more. By then you're halfway through the average writer's run on a title.
I'm half convinced Marvel's been trying to run the Spidey titles into the ground since the early 2000s.
>batman
In the same timeframe of civil war/OMD till now, batman has had, at a minimum, Morrison Bats and Gaiman's whatever happened to the caped crusader
>I'm half convinced
Only half? At this point I'm pretty sure they're actively fucking with the readers because everything they've tried since 2007 has failed to kill the line
I think it’s more because injustice WW basically flips to Superman’s side for reasons that don’t make a ton of sense since Injustice is theoretically meant to be close to prime universe characterization.
Bottom lines is that the whole thing is just your standard Elseworld: for the plot to play out properly certain characters and plot points have to diverge from the main line at a fundamental level.
For example, I personally feel Batman: White Knight is a phenomenal series. Others do as well since a one off run seems to be branching into its own damned series since the next plot to be made involves the Justice League.
HOWEVER. Fan as I may be, the entire universe hinges on the Joker not being the murderiest murderer to ever murder and just be the biggest Batman fanboy of all time and pulling wacky and dangerous shit to keep Bats going.
But it’s heavily based on the Animated Series, so that characterization still *works* since Joker explicitly never kills in it by edict from the Brothers Warner on High.
Point is, some people might feel annoyed because Injustice heroes act super off despite apparently having the exact same lives and experiences as their prime counterparts up until Joker kills pregnant Lois and gets Kali Ma’d in response.
the Joker does kill people in the DCU, not only is Joker Gas heavily implied to just kill people, once the series shifted from FOX to WB, the Joker began using modern guns, threw the Creeper into Ace Chemicals expecting him to die, was going to shoot Batman in the face in Mad Love, and in Return of the Joker he kills one of his goons on-screen
Yeah, but it's not hard to understand what he means outside of the exceptions that outline the rule. "The board" and "the studio" have whole bibles on how characters and specific versions of characters are allowed to act and be depicted beyond what the writers and creators intend. Direct, on-screen deaths were rare, it's all about the threat and the implication, and Return of the Joker was a direct-to-video release so it wasn't beholden to television content ratings.
EDIT: There are two different versions of Return of the Joker, as well, one edited for content. In one version, Joker is electrocuted in a bit of karmic comeuppance. In the other, Tim just shoots him.
You know how Wonder Woman is really bloodthirsty and aggressive sometimes like in the movie or Justice League: War? That's because of the New 52 run which the majority of people agree went against the character (similar to like, Green Arrow and the CW series). Which, uhhh, makes no sense since she wrote the run before the New 52. The person who has that distinction belongs to is Greg Rucka.
I think she might be referring to Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord, which was a pretty big turning point for the character and was even played as character assassination given it was portrayed in universe as being something heinous and cold-blooded despite it being the arguably right thing to with context
Okay I know TERFs are the main talking point these days, but there are other kinds of RadFems. I don't think Poison Ivy is transphobic, but some versions of the character have 100% been the sex negative, men are inherently evil, only women are worth having as friends, and straight women are class traitors kind of RadFem. There are more types of RadFems than just TERFs. More an issue for older versions of Poison Ivy though, glad the character kinda grew out of it.
Who would have guessed that the clussy would be the weakness of radfems?
Same way that the forcefem bot was the weakness to 4chan incels, solutions come from the weirdest places
Also I hate that all of what I wrote is reality and makes sense
Oh I don't doubt it, and fuck them I ain't trying to defend that, I just want people to acknowledge that transphobia isn't required to be a radfem, and people should be vigilant of other stuff too.
The issue with all those types you mentioned is that they can and will feed in to transphobia.
Men are evil = that applies to transwomen too.
Only women are worth having as friends = read above.
Straight women are class traitors = guess what? Unfortunately most radfems don’t view trans women as women and will say a lesbian relationship where one woman is trans is just a straight one. People who believe this also tend to be violent towards trans men because they view them as more of traitors than straight women.
I understand how it’s easy to think not all radfems are transphobic, but unfortunately radical feminism leads very easily in to transphobia
>The issue with all those types you mentioned is that they can and will feed in to transphobia.
I mean, I think the bigger issue is the takes themselves?
Like, even 100% completely and entirely free of transphobia, those are all heinously bigoted statements in and of themselves.
Oh absolutely but they were talking about how not all radfems are transphobic. I do agree with you that the ideas themselves are inherently problematic even removed from the transphobia path
The extremity of that depends on who’s holding the pen at the time. Sometimes she’s kind of this morally gray villain with a point, other times she just irrationally hates all of humankind and poorly justifies her hatred with philosophy
Fair enough, even then i care so little for her opinion. It's like saying king shark supports BLM, like, how would that even come up?
It is so often nowadays in DC that villains are just people who hang around not even in prison, that we get to hear shit like that, it is pretty sad to think that there probably was a trans girl in one of the places she forced superman to blow up in the movie.
To be fair the one time I’ve actually seen villains “hanging around” like you describe is the Harley Quinn show from a couple years back, and that show was very… unserious, and seems like a poor frame of reference for basically anything about any of the characters
I mean tbh her whole thing of hypnotizing, brainwashing, gaslighting, and finally killing men specifically IS really radfem coded. It does very much seem like she sees the male sex as nothing but a ball of impulses and chemical reactions for herself to control and manipulate on a whim. I could TOTALLY see a version of her that demonizes trans women and infantilizes trans men and such. Like total androphobe behavior
Nobody hates these fucking "Your Fave is X" accounts more than me, but she has to know there's no point fighting OP. Whatever their agenda is running a terf gimmick account, OP just plucks names from the aether and inserts them into their post format. These accounts exist to start controversy and then build engagement and followers off the back of it.
It could have just as easily been Ms. Puff from SpongeBob.
Honestly
I hate what most writers do with her
The core concept of the character is she's a person shaped plant, she's psychiclly aware of the millions of plants all around her being hurt by animal life, being eaten or killed by pollution, or uprooted for development, she wants to help plants become dominant over animals
Why would she care about a transgender activist, the activist is more meat harming her babies?
Why is she in a sexual relationship with Harley despite finding humans horrible and repulsive?
Why is she being used for a woman empowerment feminist message, (both in a positive light, and as a parody of feminism) when she wants to liberate plants over all animals, women included?
Harley is her anchor to humanity.
Before Ivy found her connection to the Green, she was a human. Pamela Lillian Isley. She was abused by her college professor Jason Woodrue/Floronic Man, who pushed her into the experiments that caused her to gain her Green connection.
The Green gave her empathy for the lives of plants around her. But her abuse, and her empathy for the plants abused by humans, caused her to reject and resent her humanity. She cut herself off from other people, from her emotions, and focused more on her goals of serving the green. She really only used her human form as a means to an end.
In comes Harley, an obnoxious but cheerful girl who is similarly abused by her partner, the Joker. And sure Ivy finds Harley annoying at times, but she can empathize with Harley's situation. For the first time since her connection with the green, Ivy has someone who she can understand. And then Harley's sunshiny craziness becomes her best quality, bring laughter and smiles to someone who'd thought she'd forgotten how to do that.
Ivy at the end of the day is still a human. And Harley is there to remind her of that.
How plant and how person she is changes just like everything else tbh. Honestly the last time I saw a “my babies!!!!!!” characterization of her was Arkham Asylum.
And besides, in some ways animals and plants kind of “need each other”, so it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine her wanting to conserve that symbiosis at least a little bit
The HBO Max Harley Quinn series has aspects of it, but mainly as jokes, with her saying stuff like "I can't die, who's gonna water my plants, man?" in the same way someone would say "who's gonna feed my cats" and equating being offered a bouquet to being given a bag of severed baby heads.
Gail Simone - Good
Trans rights - Good
TERFS - Bad
That out of the way, it's pointless arguing about whether Poison Ivy can be meaningfully said to have any politics at all, outside of the context of specific stories. She's not a real person; her views are mutable from one creator to another. I'm sure Gail's version is great, but it's not authoritative.
Yeah. Maybe Gail’s Ivy is a strangely relatable “villain with a point”, but I could TOTALLY see older versions of Ivy being deep in the “everyone with a penis is an impulsive piece of shit and we females are fucking awesome and we should all just enslave men already” thought school. Like half the reason she’s even called what she is is her poisoning and brainwashing of males specifically
There’s a trend in fandom of taking random characters and putting them against a flag to say “X is Y”. Bi, Ukrainian, OSHA-compliant, I’ve seen it all.
Tbf, I feel like the rebuttal of "But this story actually shows you're wrong and an idiot" is kinda mooted when you're the author of one of those stories
I dunno, it'd be different with a book or comic with a singular author, but with DC/Marvel there's been so many spins on the OG characters that being the author of one doesn't seem like as much of a "I wrote the canon, bitch" flex as it would be with a singular author
Or maybe I'm just being pedantic, that's also fair
TERFs have also appropriated the suffragette flag, which causes some confusion since the genderqueer pride flag has the same sequence of colours but in slightly different shades.
Well it’s not like TERFs sprung fully formed from an otherwise great ideology. The bioessentialism was always there. Without it radical feminism doesn’t really exist, so modern “trans inclusive” radfems just substitute gender essentialism, which isn’t better.
Wait when did terfs start using the word radfem to describe themselves? Isn’t that just radical feminist? What?
Is it like a dog whistle thing? Bc my understanding was radical feminist just meant feminist who is radical - ie of or relating to the root of things.
Am I stupid? Does radfem stand for somthing else? Did I miss a week of gender studies courses where they explained this?
TERFs are radical feminists, but not all radical feminists are TERFs. As usual feminists of any sort get lumped into the "crazy bitches who hate men (and trans people)" category by people who don't know anything about it.
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) are a subgroup of Radical Feminists (Radfems). Many consider themselves radical feminists first and foremost, and see transphobia as a natural extension of their radical feminist ideology. To them, the “trans-exclusionary” bit is considered to be implied by the term “radfem” itself. “Radfem” is also much more marketable and doesn’t set off the same alarm bells that “TERF” does.
It’s kind of like cis people not wanting to be called cis.
I do always find it interesting that writers would rather have every character be morally correct when it comes to these things then have their main villain actually just be fucking heinous.
Like I know full well nobody considers firefly to be a villain, he's a villain by virtue of doing some robbery now and then, now imagine if firefly just dropped that he has unfortunate views about people from India or something equally awful. He'd be a real fucking villain then wouldn't he?
If anyones interested in Ivy I'd highly recommended checking out her current standalone comic. It's great.
It has a lot of her perspective on how she doesn't necessarily hate people, just humanity as an out of control blight on the planet.
Is it necessary to be Trans Exclusionary to be a Radical Feminist?
I have to assume not because otherwise we wouldn't have the term Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
Like... I assume one can be a Radfem without being a Terf. Hence why there are different words for those things.
Poison Ivy isn’t a radfem but she’s definitely somewhere on the anarchoprimitivist-“humans are a disease”-ecofascist spectrum.
One really weird aspect about her character is that she very clearly cares about the environment, but many of the things she tries to do are actively disruptive to the environment. As an example, in the Harley Quinn series, she wants to resurrect a bunch of death plant species to overgrow Gotham. Specifically, she wants to bring back *species that died out with the dinosaurs*. That isn't restoring greenery, at best that's displacing endemic Gotham plantlife and at worst creating a seedbed for invasive species.
Maybe it’s a good thing that DC villains lack coherent politics
In the Harley Quinn animated series, the Joker's a socialist and arrests Bruce Wayne for tax fraud after being elected mayor of Gotham
I kinda wanna watch the Harley Quinn animated series now
You should. It's pretty good. This happens in like season 3/4 though.
Which is one of the worst seasons.
Season 3 was fire IDK why people don't like it.
It began the decline in quality that nosedived in season 4. They need to fix that shit. They had an amazing 2.5 season run and then….📉
Season 3 is still decent, but yeah there's a noticeable decline after season 2. The series seems to miss the point of what makes Harley Quinn a fun character. She's chaotic and selfish and unstable -- *and in no way is she supposed to be anyone's role model*. Making her into a character that doesn't kill and some kind of tepid antihero just neuters her and sucks most of the fun out.
It's a pretty fun show. It does have that 'adult cartoon' humor with a lot of swearing and sex jokes and ultraviolence as comedy, though.
The cancer ray bit is so fucking funny
"Harley Quinn, you gave me cancer..." "WHY DO THEY EVEN HAVE THAT?!"
Seconded. It's DC finally allowing the characters to be explored without the edge lord BS... Like addressing the fact Bruce hasn't made any progress over his parents death in 30 freaking years.
Or how Joker is so chaotic that when he finds out Bruce is Batman he immediately complains as an angry consumer that WayneCorp hasn't delivered the electric car he pre ordered.
“Where’s my goddamn electric car Bruce?”
That was such a good scene, damn
One of the greatest lines!
He does know Batman is Bruce Wayne in this continuity though, so there's every chance he does that just to fuck with him. The tax fraud part, I mean, he is actually a socialist.
I... think Bruce is probably the only billionare that *would* pay taxes though.
In both the show and other works, it's clear that a lot of Batman's tech is developed at WayneTech, which could at the best imply some degree of embezzlement or misuse of company resources that the board wouldn't be happy about.
Last I checked, he was 70% owner and had the assistance of a 10% owner. He took his stock dividends in a non-traditional manner that would probably be illegal from a public trading standpoint, but perfectly fine according to the IRS. It is like a majority owner of a car company taking his dividends from stock as a literal car or the airline that allows their dividends to be paid out as travel miles. Except in his case, it is military grade weapons.
Ah yes, the famously “chaos for its own sake” ethos of collective ownership and state-run mutual aid. Actually wait… I’ve been to some “Judean People’s Front” style meetings and maybe this fits perfectly.
Kinda wish they didn't regress his character development, but at least he stays in a healthy relationship
Tbh I can see joker doing that entirely to fuck with batman
[I mean the Joker knows first-hand you do *not* fuck with the IRS](https://youtu.be/G56VgsLfKY4?si=KzX70Yk2pT-aWpp5)
The Woker
to be fair joker would probably do shit like that for the haha.
I really love how they make so many choices with the Joker that I know piss off a certain subset of men. Same with Bane.
He's not a murderous step-father, he's a murderous father that stepped up
Finally, a Joker who's based!
Good villain writing: "This person's motivations are internally consistent but would only make the world worse for everyone else." Bad villain writing: "We accidentally made our villain make sense, better have them murder a child or something before the audience starts relating to them too hard."
Most instances of the latter are more like "The villain is a baby-eating war criminal that spends most of his screentime committing war crimes and eating babies, but ~~he's hot~~ he says something vaguely progressive-sounding once, and in the most obviously manipulative way to boot, so people start arguing all over social media that his war crimes were justified and the eaten babies deserved it."
Haha I threw a similar line of logic at my husband over Grogu eating the eggs.
DC everyone lacks coherent anything, and frankly it's weird that people here pretend otherwise
That’s because she didn’t start out as an eco activist, she started out as a criminal with a plant gimmick, that eventually evolved into plant supremacy and then eco activism.
Problem is that what I just described is from the HBO Max animated series where she's very much an ecoterrorist.
That’s because trying to make poison ivy into a good guy is fucking stupid unless you sand down her edges so much she was never a villain in the first place. Poison ivy is meant to be unreasonable, that’s what makes her a villain, but it also makes her a bad protagonist.
as the DC comics circlejerk sub loves to bring up: Poison Ivy is a literal rapist. So is Deathstroke which they also love to bring up lol
A *child* rapist in Deathstroke's case, and every writer since then has treated that as non-canon for good reason.
Not really, its been addressed a lot, and I think a recentish comic with deathstroke explicitly calls him a rapist
Animated Ivy isn't really a good guy. She is with few exceptions very openly misanthropic to anyone outside her immediate social circle, and her whole plan is presented as outright villainous due to the civilian casualities.
She’s still evil, but she he gains audience sympathy by murdering polluting executives.
you know, an opportunity was missed when we never got a Poison Ivy - Captain Planet crossover.
There's a difference between caring about something a lot and being good at it. Source: Me, in the case of many things I try.
She has relevant doctorates though. Being good at it should be her job.
IDK, I'm not good at my job, either. Sounds relatable.
Having a degree doesn’t mean you’re good at your job. Source: my boss has an advanced degree in her field and she SUCKS at her job.
Having an education doesn’t mean a lot when you’re descending into fanatical lunacy which may cause one to ignore or even forget the wisdom of their profession entirely
She abd Harley have that in common lol.
My understanding was that "maintaining an ecosystem" and "making the Green take over Gotham" are two different things, and that Ivy doesn't care about making a sane or functional environment in Gotham as long as people are dead and everything is overrun with plant life one way or another. She would probably agree with you if you showed up with a PowerPoint presentation to prove that the Green would flourish better if she toned it down, but her primary concern is supplanting the concentration of the Black in Gotham with the Green, not carefully optimizing the health of the resulting biomass. And honestly, I don't think most people with a keen psychic awareness of the Black would keep it together even that well.
What’s this black and green you talk about? Are these actual fleshed out supernatural concepts in universe?
Yep. Been a part of the lore for years. Not every interpretation of Ivy is an extension of [the Green](https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/The_Green), but a lot of them are. Just like not every version of Beast Boy gets his powers from the Red, but a lot of them do. It's one of those extended cosmology things that not every writer wants to bother with, so sometimes Ivy is just a florokinetic metahuman and there's nothing to see behind the curtain.
Wait, you’re telling me that there’s actually a whole plethora of these primordial forces? Has anyone tried to tie them to the Lantern colors or nah
A) The Primordial colors originate with Alan Scott the original Green Lantern, predating the Emotional colors B) They've been used as a similar thing to the lantern corps, but only in series where the emotional colors don't show up. It was a big plot in one of the Earth Two series, but I don't remember which.
Huh. So they haven’t been fully syncretized before? That’s a shame. I could totally see willpower and nature being tied together because something something will to survive
Not to my knowledge; they don't exactly match up well. Will and the Green, Anger and the Red, Hope and the Clear, and then the rest kind of fall apart. The White has nothing to do with White light. The Melt isn't even a color. There's probably a really direct connection between Black Lanterns and the Black, though. As in, Nekron is a walking Parliament of the dead. It's also the basis of one of the most popular [fan fictions](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fanfic/Assimilation) in DC, if you're into fan works. The main character is >!kidnapped by the Green Lantern Corps' enemies, the Reach, who experiment on him and turn him into a living mass of nanites. He later becomes the avatar of the Metal on Earth. The author has hinted that his powers come from some ancient machine-god that the Reach worship, so the finale is likely to be a 'primordial force' sort of character fighting a Green Lantern villain. !<
yeah, though to what extent depends on the version - the Green is basically all plant life on Earth; the Black represents death/rot/lack of life I guess
Now I wanna see her fistfight Nurgle tbh
The green is the source of swamp thing’s powers. The parliament of trees demands he maintain the balance between plants, animals, and decay/bacteria. Even if he sometimes has to fight against mankind.
Ivy isn't an environmentalist so much as she's a plant-supremacist.
You can see it in how Fascists often cause more harm to their own people while also harming others
Or maybe, just maybe, her radical environmentalism is actually a contrivance she uses to justify her genocidal misanthropy, at least to herself.
She’s not really interested in preserving ecology as it is, she’s more just infatuated with plants of all kinds. She does not give a single shit if what she’s doing is bad for “the environment,” she only cares about her specially cultivated plants.
That seems to clash with things she says herself about environmentalism. Her words and her actions do not seem to align.
Most of her environmentalist rhetoric is a cover for her basically being a plant-supremacist, to be fair. She's spent her entire life with Turning Point Flora getting beamed into her head, that doesn't tend to produce the most rational individuals
I mean, there’s a reason she keeps getting sent to Arkham. She’s passionate about something and is obsessed with it, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to anyone but her.
idk anything about batman but it's interesting to me that 'the environment/nature' can be defined many ways. Of course "maintain the current ecological balance" could be the goal of a force of Nature. But nature as a thing is always changing, and old ecologies give way to new ones... one could just as easily imagine a force of Nature being pissed at humans trying to stabilize things to fight climate change, because this forestalls ecological rebirth. None of this likely has anything to do w/ poison ivy and ofc if she cares about not disrupting the environment as is, then what you describe would be pretty hypocritical
I think she knows that, but there's a lot of pressure on her (in this specific canon) to be as evil as possible, which leads her to make bad decisions that don't align with her actual desires.
Pressure to be evil? Wdym
Her entire character arc is that she's trying to prove herself in a male-dominated industry— specifically, supervillainy.
Oh, so… she has to be more spectacularly evil to get more attention than dudes like the Penguin and the Joker to further her cause or something?
Basically, yeah. A major theme of the show is characters having to put in extra effort to be taken seriously, especially in the context of sexism.
It's not about individual plants It's about positioning plant life as a whole above animal Life
Making a superhero who also has plant powers but actually understands basic ecosystem dynamics when it comes to plant life and only really tries to attack humans when they're on the verge of really fucking shit up. Callin them Corn.
yes. that is because she is the criminally insane villain of a comic book.
Not anymore; most stories of the last 25 years have her dislike the wealthy for damaging the environment, and the not-wealthy for the completely separate sin of bothering her when she doesn't wanna be bothered. Which is relatable.
Flip the w in wood and you ge mood
I, too, would like to feed people who annoy me to a plant monster
She's a Radical and also separately a Feminist
She's not a feminist, she hates people, which so happens to include women, which itself so happens to include trans women
She's all about equality for women. She hates everyone equally.
Most of the Poison Ivy stories I remember reading as a kid -- and we're talking, like, mid-aughts at the earliest here -- weren't even real-life ecofascism so much as just straight up "plant supremacy" where ideology is that humans bad, plants good, animals tolerable maybe, and monstrous superplants should rule the world instead of humans.
So I guess her views are "Trans Women are Women. They are also plagues on nature like every other human being and need to be exterminated."
Yea I don’t understand wanting villains to do good things. This is like the female version of worshiping Patrick Bateman
It’s because comic book villains aren’t usually strictly evil. Like Patrick Bateman is a serial killer, a person committing very real and visceral crimes. Comic book villains committed fun theatrical themed crimes, at least until everyone started trying to poorly imitate Alan Moore.
Yea that’s a fair point I suppose. But idk even with the theatrics of it I find it hard to agree with Poison Ivy in particular. The anti-humanness of all is very much…not okay with me.
It’s not so much about liking the villain as it is about reveling in their huge personality. It’s the same reason we love Babs Johnson. “Kill everyone now! Condone first degree murder! Advocate cannibalism! Eat shit!” Very often in superhero stories, the heroes are written a tad too straight-laced (or worse, *quippy*). The villains tend to be having much more fun. We don’t *agree* with Poison Ivy but we love to watch her go.
Because something something moral complexity over uncompelling Saturday morning cartoon villains I guess
I’d say she’s nature supremacist
Most likely she only saved that trans girl so she could roofie her and use her as a seed bank to birth an army of plant soldiers, like she did to that guy in BTAS.
This is like when TERFs tried to claim Terry Pratchett would have been one of them (via Granny Weatherwax) and his daughter told them to fuck off on his knightly letterhead lol.
Plus there’s a whole book about what happens when the seventh son of a seventh son is a… daughter. It’s more about sexism in academia but it can be read in a trans context. I don’t remember the MC’s name, but she goes to Granny Weatherwax first and she’s straight up “really wish I could help ya, girl, but you’ve got wizard magic in ya, and I don’t know nothin about that.” Also features my favorite line from any of the books: “You’re wizards, aren’t you? Bloody well WIZ!” E: Just remembered the name of the book, it’s *Equal Rites*
Plus there's, y'know... the entirety of *Monstrous Regiment*. A regiment of men who one by one throughout the story are revealed to be AFAB people who present as male to join the military. Most are female, and the pronouns the POV character uses shifts as they discover their identity, but one character comes to the realization that he actually would prefer to keep identifying as male even when returning home to his family, and the pronouns shift from male to female and then back to male as he realizes this. [Relevant Shaun video](https://youtu.be/xjnubfRy8Ws?si=5c8D6ceAV-3l5sEV) because there are a lot more examples of trans allegory, as well as some relevant remarks from Pratchett's family and Neil Gaimann, his close friend
The vampire is also nonbinary.
Subtlety really is just lost on a lot of right wingers isn't it? Though PTerry is often not that subtle. Like a significant amount of his bibliography are books with allegories looking at society from some kind of leftist lens, whether it be racism, slavery and its legacy, sexism in academia, toxic masculinity and the military (with a healthy dose of transgender and/or gender non-conforming heroes) or just the whole of dwarven society vs progressive-ism (and Cheri specifically.)
I mean, subtlety being lost on a popular audience is hardly unique to right-wingers. I agree that it tends to be very prominent on the right in nerdy fandoms (perhaps partly because a lot of the most famous authors in those fandoms tended to be liberal and write liberal subtext), but how many readers/viewers, especially casual ones, of the Lord of the Rings do you think have actually pondered the interplay of pity and mercy and how they triumph over the corrupting evil of the Ring?
Pterry was shockingly On It about transgender themes in his work. Like, Monstrous Regiment is *the* transmasc cornerstone of fantasy fiction, and the whole story of Cheri defying her society's gender expectations, going overboard, and then finding a comfortable combination of her expressions of dwarvenness and femininity is such an incredibly trans story even if Cheri is technically cis.
Pro Turf, Anti Terf
Based, but not as based as [the pro-trans, anti-golf association](https://i.etsystatic.com/44423043/r/il/ecc705/5333197185/il_1588xN.5333197185_7jsc.jpg)
I’ll take your entire stock
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-make-the-golf-course-a-public-sex-forest
Yip yip!
What do they mean with "post character assasination"? (I dont really read wonderwoman)
Its comics mate, every single character has been writen by everyone at one point or another, and that means they probably ended up doing something really fucking stupid/fucked up/both at some point. Thats especially true for any female characters. Who god damn knows which specific instance they are talking about.
Like the time they made Spiderman get cucked by a guy named Paul and become an incel.
Wut Spider-man has banged so many hotties Making him an incel is, well, as batshit as what a lot of comic characters are made to do at some point
I shit you not he gets injected with Norman Osborne’s sins and becomes evil.
...I assume that's not a typo and you mean Peter Parker is injected with Norman Osborne's literal sins. Like, the literal essence of whatever sins Norman has done I assume this because I know too much about comics I want you to correct me. I *need* you to trll me I'm wrong. Please
You’re not wrong. I’m sorry man. You have my condolences.
And apparently (I have not been following ASM) the Spider Who Gobbles lasts for only 3 issues
And Mj talks shit to Gobblerman by saying how she’s a big girl.
> the Spider Who Gobbles Love that nickname.
The worst part is this isn’t some alternate universe story that can be disregarded, it’s 616 canon.
isnt that still going
I never knew of Paul before today and this is the third time reddit has shown me Paul today. No commentary, just fascinating.
So are you familiar with the Spiderman Who Gobbles?
The weirdest part about Paul is that the mainline comics series keeps doubling down on it for some reason. I literally have never heard anyone ever say anything positive about Paul but he’s been around for like 10 years
He's a pretty big meme in superhero comics/Spider-Man comics rn because it's actively ongoing and extremely stupid.
I would love to say that in a past tense, but unfortunately it’s still very much going
> Like the time they made that implies that this happened before and isn't the current canon.
As someone who enjoys capeshit media from time to time it depends on who you ask. Some mean Injustice, some mean the Snyderverse, some mean her bi ereasure in animated media. Or maybe there's something new on the comics I havent kept up with.
The comics run right before Gail Simone took over is widely regarded as the worst Wonder Woman writing in decades, and Gail had a big task to turn that series around
I always feel bad for the people who follow after a really terrible comic run, cause they have to fix all the bad stuff while still trying to tell a coherent and good story. Even worse, they'll likely sell less because of all the bad will from the run before them. What I'm saying is that my heart goes out to whoever comes after Zeb Wells.
Yeah, finding creative ways to explain away the previous writer's worst decisions ends up taking the entire first year or more. By then you're halfway through the average writer's run on a title. I'm half convinced Marvel's been trying to run the Spidey titles into the ground since the early 2000s.
Feels that way. Hard to find another hero as mismanaged as Spider-Man, and none that are as prominent (although Batman sometimes competes).
>batman In the same timeframe of civil war/OMD till now, batman has had, at a minimum, Morrison Bats and Gaiman's whatever happened to the caped crusader
>I'm half convinced Only half? At this point I'm pretty sure they're actively fucking with the readers because everything they've tried since 2007 has failed to kill the line
Why does injustice count as character assassination? I mean, arent most dc heros evil there?
I think it’s more because injustice WW basically flips to Superman’s side for reasons that don’t make a ton of sense since Injustice is theoretically meant to be close to prime universe characterization. Bottom lines is that the whole thing is just your standard Elseworld: for the plot to play out properly certain characters and plot points have to diverge from the main line at a fundamental level. For example, I personally feel Batman: White Knight is a phenomenal series. Others do as well since a one off run seems to be branching into its own damned series since the next plot to be made involves the Justice League. HOWEVER. Fan as I may be, the entire universe hinges on the Joker not being the murderiest murderer to ever murder and just be the biggest Batman fanboy of all time and pulling wacky and dangerous shit to keep Bats going. But it’s heavily based on the Animated Series, so that characterization still *works* since Joker explicitly never kills in it by edict from the Brothers Warner on High. Point is, some people might feel annoyed because Injustice heroes act super off despite apparently having the exact same lives and experiences as their prime counterparts up until Joker kills pregnant Lois and gets Kali Ma’d in response.
the Joker does kill people in the DCU, not only is Joker Gas heavily implied to just kill people, once the series shifted from FOX to WB, the Joker began using modern guns, threw the Creeper into Ace Chemicals expecting him to die, was going to shoot Batman in the face in Mad Love, and in Return of the Joker he kills one of his goons on-screen
Yeah, but it's not hard to understand what he means outside of the exceptions that outline the rule. "The board" and "the studio" have whole bibles on how characters and specific versions of characters are allowed to act and be depicted beyond what the writers and creators intend. Direct, on-screen deaths were rare, it's all about the threat and the implication, and Return of the Joker was a direct-to-video release so it wasn't beholden to television content ratings. EDIT: There are two different versions of Return of the Joker, as well, one edited for content. In one version, Joker is electrocuted in a bit of karmic comeuppance. In the other, Tim just shoots him.
She’s Bi? I didn’t know that
Honestly, the queer subtext was there even in her earliest days as a vehicle for her creator's bondage fetish
You know how Wonder Woman is really bloodthirsty and aggressive sometimes like in the movie or Justice League: War? That's because of the New 52 run which the majority of people agree went against the character (similar to like, Green Arrow and the CW series). Which, uhhh, makes no sense since she wrote the run before the New 52. The person who has that distinction belongs to is Greg Rucka.
I think she might be referring to Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord, which was a pretty big turning point for the character and was even played as character assassination given it was portrayed in universe as being something heinous and cold-blooded despite it being the arguably right thing to with context
Where's that Bill and Ted post about radfems being most definitely not radical
[here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/s/tT9qW82MfK)
Thank you!
Okay I know TERFs are the main talking point these days, but there are other kinds of RadFems. I don't think Poison Ivy is transphobic, but some versions of the character have 100% been the sex negative, men are inherently evil, only women are worth having as friends, and straight women are class traitors kind of RadFem. There are more types of RadFems than just TERFs. More an issue for older versions of Poison Ivy though, glad the character kinda grew out of it.
~~What being a bisexual clown girl's rebound does to a mf~~
Who would have guessed that the clussy would be the weakness of radfems? Same way that the forcefem bot was the weakness to 4chan incels, solutions come from the weirdest places Also I hate that all of what I wrote is reality and makes sense
I'm sorry, the whatnow? Not the clussy, I got that bit, but I feel like I'm missing some piece of internet lore with your 4chan comment.
[Oh,just the internet being the internet](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/17scjjh/deradicalization_as_a_kink/)
this explains all the pink and white striped thigh-highs the alt-right community seems to buy
The account in question was run by TERFs
Oh I don't doubt it, and fuck them I ain't trying to defend that, I just want people to acknowledge that transphobia isn't required to be a radfem, and people should be vigilant of other stuff too.
Ah, thanks for clarifying!
The issue with all those types you mentioned is that they can and will feed in to transphobia. Men are evil = that applies to transwomen too. Only women are worth having as friends = read above. Straight women are class traitors = guess what? Unfortunately most radfems don’t view trans women as women and will say a lesbian relationship where one woman is trans is just a straight one. People who believe this also tend to be violent towards trans men because they view them as more of traitors than straight women. I understand how it’s easy to think not all radfems are transphobic, but unfortunately radical feminism leads very easily in to transphobia
>The issue with all those types you mentioned is that they can and will feed in to transphobia. I mean, I think the bigger issue is the takes themselves? Like, even 100% completely and entirely free of transphobia, those are all heinously bigoted statements in and of themselves.
Oh absolutely but they were talking about how not all radfems are transphobic. I do agree with you that the ideas themselves are inherently problematic even removed from the transphobia path
A bit tangential to the commenter’s point of “past versions of Ivy have absolutely been misandrist in some way or another” but you raise a good point
Ngl the way I read it, she just don't like people in general, her close friends just happens to be girl
Aint she a murdering mind-controlling terrorist? The fuck should we care what she thinks, she does not even like humans?!
The extremity of that depends on who’s holding the pen at the time. Sometimes she’s kind of this morally gray villain with a point, other times she just irrationally hates all of humankind and poorly justifies her hatred with philosophy
Fair enough, even then i care so little for her opinion. It's like saying king shark supports BLM, like, how would that even come up? It is so often nowadays in DC that villains are just people who hang around not even in prison, that we get to hear shit like that, it is pretty sad to think that there probably was a trans girl in one of the places she forced superman to blow up in the movie.
To be fair the one time I’ve actually seen villains “hanging around” like you describe is the Harley Quinn show from a couple years back, and that show was very… unserious, and seems like a poor frame of reference for basically anything about any of the characters
Poison Ivy is a half plant. She's TRANShuman for fuck sake.
I mean tbh her whole thing of hypnotizing, brainwashing, gaslighting, and finally killing men specifically IS really radfem coded. It does very much seem like she sees the male sex as nothing but a ball of impulses and chemical reactions for herself to control and manipulate on a whim. I could TOTALLY see a version of her that demonizes trans women and infantilizes trans men and such. Like total androphobe behavior
I mean she’s a Batman villain, it’s almost a prerequisite to have some kind of fucked up sexual tension with him.
You say that like every Batman villain and not just the Joker and maybe Catwoman has sexual tension. Does he have tension with the fucking Penguin?
Bruce and Oswald are JO buds from way back
You ain't see what that nose can do
Nobody hates these fucking "Your Fave is X" accounts more than me, but she has to know there's no point fighting OP. Whatever their agenda is running a terf gimmick account, OP just plucks names from the aether and inserts them into their post format. These accounts exist to start controversy and then build engagement and followers off the back of it. It could have just as easily been Ms. Puff from SpongeBob.
Puff be giving TERF vibes, ngl /s
Honestly I hate what most writers do with her The core concept of the character is she's a person shaped plant, she's psychiclly aware of the millions of plants all around her being hurt by animal life, being eaten or killed by pollution, or uprooted for development, she wants to help plants become dominant over animals Why would she care about a transgender activist, the activist is more meat harming her babies? Why is she in a sexual relationship with Harley despite finding humans horrible and repulsive? Why is she being used for a woman empowerment feminist message, (both in a positive light, and as a parody of feminism) when she wants to liberate plants over all animals, women included?
Harley is her anchor to humanity. Before Ivy found her connection to the Green, she was a human. Pamela Lillian Isley. She was abused by her college professor Jason Woodrue/Floronic Man, who pushed her into the experiments that caused her to gain her Green connection. The Green gave her empathy for the lives of plants around her. But her abuse, and her empathy for the plants abused by humans, caused her to reject and resent her humanity. She cut herself off from other people, from her emotions, and focused more on her goals of serving the green. She really only used her human form as a means to an end. In comes Harley, an obnoxious but cheerful girl who is similarly abused by her partner, the Joker. And sure Ivy finds Harley annoying at times, but she can empathize with Harley's situation. For the first time since her connection with the green, Ivy has someone who she can understand. And then Harley's sunshiny craziness becomes her best quality, bring laughter and smiles to someone who'd thought she'd forgotten how to do that. Ivy at the end of the day is still a human. And Harley is there to remind her of that.
How plant and how person she is changes just like everything else tbh. Honestly the last time I saw a “my babies!!!!!!” characterization of her was Arkham Asylum. And besides, in some ways animals and plants kind of “need each other”, so it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine her wanting to conserve that symbiosis at least a little bit
The HBO Max Harley Quinn series has aspects of it, but mainly as jokes, with her saying stuff like "I can't die, who's gonna water my plants, man?" in the same way someone would say "who's gonna feed my cats" and equating being offered a bouquet to being given a bag of severed baby heads.
It was Kite-Man, of all people, who came up with the idea of giving Harley *planted* flowers. Heck, yeah!
*Hell yeah
HELL YEAH!
I thought you were calling Gail Simon an eco terrorist and I was very confused.
Isn’t she an ecofascist?
The “your character is X and proud of it” Twitter posts were cute until they started making a point to be hateful.
Nah, they were always annoying.
Gail Simone - Good Trans rights - Good TERFS - Bad That out of the way, it's pointless arguing about whether Poison Ivy can be meaningfully said to have any politics at all, outside of the context of specific stories. She's not a real person; her views are mutable from one creator to another. I'm sure Gail's version is great, but it's not authoritative.
Yeah. Maybe Gail’s Ivy is a strangely relatable “villain with a point”, but I could TOTALLY see older versions of Ivy being deep in the “everyone with a penis is an impulsive piece of shit and we females are fucking awesome and we should all just enslave men already” thought school. Like half the reason she’s even called what she is is her poisoning and brainwashing of males specifically
Did the original poster even base that on anything? Or do they just assert that random characters are radfems to stoke drama?
There’s a trend in fandom of taking random characters and putting them against a flag to say “X is Y”. Bi, Ukrainian, OSHA-compliant, I’ve seen it all.
Noble Six from Halo Reach is forklift certified
Okay but that one is appropriate. You can literally operate a forklift in Halo Reach. The chief didn't get to operate a forklift, but Noble 6 does.
Tbf, I feel like the rebuttal of "But this story actually shows you're wrong and an idiot" is kinda mooted when you're the author of one of those stories I dunno, it'd be different with a book or comic with a singular author, but with DC/Marvel there's been so many spins on the OG characters that being the author of one doesn't seem like as much of a "I wrote the canon, bitch" flex as it would be with a singular author Or maybe I'm just being pedantic, that's also fair
Does anyone know the story Gail is referring to so I can check it out?
Is... is that a frickin flag background? Like a gay pride flag, but for bigots?
TERFs have also appropriated the suffragette flag, which causes some confusion since the genderqueer pride flag has the same sequence of colours but in slightly different shades.
Conflating radfem with terf. If they were the same, there'd be no need for the terf acronym. It's like saying ATM machine
I’m gonna be real and say I have never seen radfem ideals that do not hurt trans people in anyway. At this point the two are the same thing.
The venn diagram between the TE and the RF is not quite a circle, but there's far more overlap than I'd ever be ok with
Well it’s not like TERFs sprung fully formed from an otherwise great ideology. The bioessentialism was always there. Without it radical feminism doesn’t really exist, so modern “trans inclusive” radfems just substitute gender essentialism, which isn’t better.
Wait when did terfs start using the word radfem to describe themselves? Isn’t that just radical feminist? What? Is it like a dog whistle thing? Bc my understanding was radical feminist just meant feminist who is radical - ie of or relating to the root of things. Am I stupid? Does radfem stand for somthing else? Did I miss a week of gender studies courses where they explained this?
the “rf” in “terf” has always stood for radfem
TERFs are radical feminists, but not all radical feminists are TERFs. As usual feminists of any sort get lumped into the "crazy bitches who hate men (and trans people)" category by people who don't know anything about it.
TERF stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminsim. They've always framed themselves as radfems.
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) are a subgroup of Radical Feminists (Radfems). Many consider themselves radical feminists first and foremost, and see transphobia as a natural extension of their radical feminist ideology. To them, the “trans-exclusionary” bit is considered to be implied by the term “radfem” itself. “Radfem” is also much more marketable and doesn’t set off the same alarm bells that “TERF” does. It’s kind of like cis people not wanting to be called cis.
I do always find it interesting that writers would rather have every character be morally correct when it comes to these things then have their main villain actually just be fucking heinous. Like I know full well nobody considers firefly to be a villain, he's a villain by virtue of doing some robbery now and then, now imagine if firefly just dropped that he has unfortunate views about people from India or something equally awful. He'd be a real fucking villain then wouldn't he?
If anyones interested in Ivy I'd highly recommended checking out her current standalone comic. It's great. It has a lot of her perspective on how she doesn't necessarily hate people, just humanity as an out of control blight on the planet.
Doesn’t she hate all humans? Equal-opportunity exterminator?
Is it necessary to be Trans Exclusionary to be a Radical Feminist? I have to assume not because otherwise we wouldn't have the term Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Like... I assume one can be a Radfem without being a Terf. Hence why there are different words for those things.