The Problem With Us

Hey there, fellow U.S. Caucasians. It's time for some straight talk.

It seems like everytime there is an act of violence involving (however peripherally) a person of color in the US, voices ring out about how members of that particular race or ethnic group need to get together and get their house in order. Such claims are ludicrous, of course, based in arrogance and self-righteous superiority.

But I'm a guy who gets a lot of things wrong. So just in case, let's run that drill. It's time for us to get OUR house in order. The first step is admitting that we have a problem, and make no mistake, white folks, we have a problem.

I have a theory as to why the media is so eager to name violent people of color "terrorists" while white shooters are named "mentally-ill." Terrorism is systemic, a symptom of a larger problem that will not simply go away just because a single perpetrator, or even a group of perpetrators, is put away. For a society to consistently create terrorists there must be something in that society that is very, very wrong.

Wait! Do NOT run to the comments board just yet to tell me about how you've been saying that there is something wrong with Islamic culture blah, blah, blah. We're running YOUR drill, remember? But we're talking about US. About white people, and our own society.

If we were to call the white perpetrators of the past few years "terrorists," then we would be forced to acknowledge that there was something systemically wrong with US. Instead, we talk about mental illness, which is individual, unique. A mentally ill person is not contagious, so once they are contained, matter over, nothing to mess with.

But there IS something systemically wrong. With US... white people.

Just look at us. We're addicted to violence. It permeates every facet of our society. Our movies, our games, our sports. We worship our soldiers when they are in the field, and abandon them when they come home. We glorify the concept of "one man making justice" with a gun even as we watch hundreds use that mind set to destroy lives.

And we're afraid. Deeply, nearly pathologically afraid. And it's the fear of the bully. Bullies are often those who find themselves with power over others and then become afraid of losing it. We grew up fast, did White America, and quickly (on a historical scale) became the big boys on the playground. But we see that slipping. The world doesn't necessarily want to do what white America tells it to do anymore and that has us terrified.

So what do we do? We turn to what we know, and what we know is violence. To the image of the lone gunman, or the cavalry coming over the hill, or the good ol' boys marching back in World War 2, a time when we KNEW we were being heroic. So we go to war with nations that could never face us in a straight fight, bomb them from afar with drones. Or we take out our guns, and go to set things RIGHT... regardless of what, precisely, we decided was wrong.

Possibly the worst thing is that I think we know we have a problem, and I see that not in the think pieces or interviews that say "we have a problem..." but in the pieces that deny it. They are desperate, nearly hysterical with the need to deny our problem. Facts and history seem not to mean anything, demanding that we claim, over and over again, that nothing is wrong, when something is clearly wrong.

In such behavior I do not see the behavior of someone evil, or someone stupid. Instead, I see the behavior of an addict. Have you ever confronted an addict who didn't want to admit their problem? Their response gets hysterical, denies plainly obvious facts, or gets very, very angry... all to cover a truth as plain to them as anyone else. They have a problem.

We deny it because we don't want to stop. We take comfort in the knowledge that no one in the world could take us on and come away from it unscathed. That we hold the power of ultimate violent settlement both in overseas policy and in domestic dispute. We LIKE knowing that if those folks who don't look like us get out of line, we can roll in the tanks and the armed soldiers, either in the gear of our armed forces or of our police forces. And we have lived that way for so long that we can't imagine life without it.

And so we justify it. We point to human rights violations overseas while ignoring the state of our own migrant workers and our treatment of minorities. We point to acts of military violence while ignoring that we are the only country in the world to ever detonate a nuclear weapon in an act of war.  We point to systems of fear and oppression in other cultures while ignoring that, ever since World War 2, most of those systems were, either directly or indirectly, constructed at least with our encouragement.

We want to believe that when it is one of our own who commits an atrocity, that their actions do not reflect on the rest of us, all the while holding the rest of the world accountable for the actions of their outliers. But that is the critical difference... others cannot influence our actions unless we allow them to. WE have the power to influence everybody.

I don't think that it is hopeless. There have been voices of sanity from all over our spectrum. Even as Fox and Friends called this an attack on religion (much like how the Lincoln Assassination was an attack on live theater) Bill O'Reilly named it an act of racism and terrorism. Good on him. As voice after voice clamored to defend the Confederate flag, a member of the board of the Southern Baptist Church called for it to finally be retired.

This is progress. We aren't hopeless. We CAN learn. We can allow ourselves to listen to those who aren't quite us... we can even elect one president. We can, if we work on it, deal with our addiction to violence, channel that energy into other, safer things. (I don't actually think it is an accident that violent crime has decreased with the advent of video games, for instance.) And maybe we can learn even from our hunting and target shooting culture, where we can place our gun mythology safely in realm of sport, rather than the realm of justice or defense.

I have to hope so. Because as it stands now, improved or not, there is a lot of work to be done. Because we are violent. We are scared. And we are very, very powerful.

Help in times of Grief

My coworkers had a baby two months ago. The little guy was diagnosed with HGH this past Monday, and this morning we got a message from the dad about the treatment. The poor baby probably won't be coming home from the hospital. I know sitting around the office crying doesn't do anybody any good. We can't donate leave to the dad because of company policy. Do you have any ideas for practical help?
Thanks, Siz

-----------------

Thanks for writing in, Siz.

Grief is a strange thing. Everyone copes with it differently, and so without knowing your friend better, or the details of your company policy, it's hard to come up with a specific answer. My best (generic) advice is to send a card, saying that you're thinking of his family and are available if he needs something.

But I want to focus on one of the premise of your question... that sitting around the office crying won't do anyone any good. It's an assumption made by a lot of people that I have met, an artifact of some cultural impulse that pushes us to "not just sit around" and "do something practical."

But allowing yourself to cry can actually be VERY helpful.

Grief is a process, and you're obviously feeling grief at your friends terrible loss. I'm guessing that you would never, in a million years, tell them to just "suck it up." So why should you? Sure, some people showboat their grief, and in so doing remove focus from those who need it, but at this particular moment you're not getting in their way, you are simply acknowledging that you are sad, and allowing yourself to cope with those feelings.

Where this helps THEM is if/when they DO take you up on an offer of help, or even just when they come back to work, your own internal feelings have been given the time to air and heal, allowing you to focus on them if they need it. Sure, they may just need you to cry with them some, but doing so will be a choice, not an imperative for you.

We cry because we need to. Sure, there are times and situations where we need to suppress it so that we can get stuff done, but in general if something makes you want to cry, it is far better to allow it than to suppress it. Suppressed feelings in general have a tendency to back up on someone, and backed up grief is worse than a backed up toilet.

Good luck as you walk with your friends, and remember that, sometimes, the best thing we can do for people who are grieving a loss is be there for them when they need us to be.

(Oh, and remember that it isn't your job to cheer them up. Let them be sad as long as they need it.)

Vlog- Questions, Day 3

Breakthrough of the day- I can now laugh without guilt at cancer jokes!

The Next Step

A few nights ago, out of my mind on painkillers and generally philosophical about life and the world around me, I was talking to my brother about how things come and go in seasons. I was especially wondering what the next step for this blog would be. A little less than a year ago I kicked it up largely as a way to archive the answers I was writing for people on ANF about this, that, or the other. For awhile, I was amazed at the volume of questions I have received here, and with over 20,000 pageviews, Ask Pastor Dan has unquestionably been my single-best viewed bit of writing. Odd, given that it sticks to the realm of non-fiction, where I always see myself as a story teller.

Well, I have found that next step. I am keeping it non-fiction, but now I will have a story to tell.

Those who have been paying attention to my various cries for attention will be very much aware of the fact that I recently had surgery to remove an enlarged adrenal gland. The surgery was more complex than was initially envisioned and I ended up needing more recovery time than we had initially hoped for, but otherwise all was well and we were just waiting for the pathology report on the removed gland.

Well it has come in, and the news isn't good; they found cancer in the gland.

You know, I keep phrasing it like that. It's easier, I suppose. Like the cancer is the gland's problem and I am just someone it's inconveniencing. Stupid gland. I guess it is time to put it in writing: I have cancer.

The cancer I have is an extremely rare variety which was why all my doctors were so sure I DIDN'T have it until the biopsy came in. Even my oncologist doesn't know a lot about it, which is a problem when you have an imagination as overactive as mine... baring actual science facts, I can make up all KINDS of shit.

I will continue trying to answer questions that I receive in the format that Ask Pastor Dan has followed to this point, but going forward I am going to, on top of all of that, be telling my story as a cancer patient here, with my own limited and flawed view on things. Hopefully, this story will be very straightforward and boring, only to say that it all got removed when they removed the gland and now I just need to add an additional doctor's visit to keep an eye on things. If it becomes more, well, maybe it will serve to raise awareness of... stuff, I guess? I could easily write my own version of the Fault in Our Stars but again, overactive imagination, it isn't good to look too far ahead.

A few clarifications of what this will not be... I do not intend to use this as a fundraiser. One of the perks of being a Presbyterian Pastor is that I have some of the best health insurance available in the US, and so while the process won't be cheap, it should be within our means. I am blessed to be surrounded by people who work to care for others, and so I suspect that neither myself or Rose will ever really want financially while we deal with this. That wouldn't be true for a huge portion of the rest of the world, and so if my story inspires you to want to help financially (as some of you have tried to do for me in the past, you awesome lot) go ahead and find people who are not so privileged as I am and help them instead, knowing that I am well cared for.

As before, this will not be a direct evangelism tool... as in I will never write a post designed as a come to Jesus moment for any of you. While the people who make up my audience are precisely the sort of people I want in the church, that's just not how I roll. Now, if something I write makes you want to think about engaging your faith life, I am always happy to talk about that, too. But my point isn't propaganda. Of course, I may be talking about faith in some pretty serious context in the months to come... so be ready for it.

Finally, I don't see it being morose. Morbid, perhaps, but as a card carrying member of the humor as a defense mechanism crowd, I will be looking for the funny in my situation as hard as I can. I'll laugh at myself for being so dramatic if this all turns out to be nothing, and squeezing every ounce of joy I can get out of the moments should the worst happen.

And I will be honest, answering your questions and my own as truthfully I can within my context. I think that is the real reason people have put up with me so far. I am going to give as honest a portrayal of the life of an adrenal cancer patient as I can manage. That is the next step of "Ask Pastor Dan."

I hope you'll take it with me.

Thanks for reading,
Dan

Charlie, Charlie- I wouldn't worry.

So recently a decent number of Christian adults lost their collective minds on the internet. I know, this is hardly a rare enough occurrence to really require talking about but this particular instance struck me as particularly stupid.

For those of you who aren't regular followers of Christianity Today, the Evangelical magazine recently posted an article about a warning from a Catholic "exorcist" warning that the child's game, Charlie, Charlie, poses real danger as it involves "summoning a demon."

Now, I had never even heard of Charlie, Charlie before this article came out, which I am fairly certain is true for most of the adults panicking around it since this article was put out, but looking into it further it looks something like one of a thousand such "fortune teller games" that kids play in school when they're bored and have only paper and writing utensils at hand. Apparently the demon being summoned is from Mexico, and inexplicably named "Charlie."

(Oh, yes, the ancient Mexican Demon Charlie! FEAR!)

Ugh.

I've had a couple of people ask me for my input on this and so, what the hey, I'll share it with you all as well. For starters, to the question; "WHAT CAN THIS ARTICLE TELL US?" It tells us that Christianity Today is apparently not above click-bait in the same way that the sea is not above the clouds.

This article (which I shall not link, but its not hard to find via google if you wish) is curious for a number of reasons, not the least of which is, since when does Christianity Today, a Protestant, Evangelical leaning conservative Christian magazine, give two hoots about what ANYone from the Vatican thinks?

OHHH, but this guy is an EXORCIST. So it's spooky Christian mysticism, is it? OOOOH! I bet people will click to read that.

The great irony of this is that, like I said, games such as this one come and go all the time, played by generation after generation of children, and mass demonic attacks have, as yet, failed to manifest as result of them. We as adults know this, because we played them ourselves, and our souls remain blissfully intact. Part of the Christian faith is the belief that Christ triumphed over the powers of hell. If that triumph can be overcome by some bored kids with notebook paper, then we may want to look into a more powerful divine force.

Also, for the love of God, THINK people! All you need to play the game is some paper and pencils. If you're going to run around like chickens with your heads cut off over this game, forbidding your children to play it, saying that a REAL EXORCIST says that it WORKS, you know what your kids are going to do the moment you're out of eyeshot? The same exact thing YOU did when YOUR parents warned you about Ouija boards.

If you're really worried about demonic communication, you're doing a hell of a job advertising for Charlie.

But that's ok. In time, Charlie, Charlie will be forgotten, and our kids will be scrambling to forbid the play of Paulo, Paulo in an attempt to summon an ancient demon from Bangladesh.

Anti-Gay Pastor outed on Grindr.

You can find the details of this pastor at this link here. Short version, a vocally anti-gay pastor was outed for pictures of him on Grindr, a gay dating site. He has since resigned from his church, amid what I can only imagine is a lot heartache for him and his family.

This sort of thing leaves me really torn. On the one hand it seems obvious... don't simultaneously be against gay rights and cruise for a cuddle on Grindr. On the other...

I'm going to say this because I think I'm one of the few who can without being accused of having an agenda. This is a homosexual (or bi, I suppose) man who was hiding. The reason he was probably so loud about being anti-gay was due to self loathing and fear of being even suspected. In order to avoid being bullied, he turned to bullying.

Put shortly, I don't think this is on him. I think it's on the church. Not HIS church. THE church.

THE church created a situation where a man who (I'm guessing here) felt the need to be a teacher of the people, a counselor, a guide, a guy who very likely felt like he could help and wanted to, ALSO felt the need to attack people like himself in order to do so. How many hours of self-loathing and shame went into this guy's preaching? And then to still be so driven by the fact of who he was that he felt he had to put himself out there on Grindr...

The media will (and already is) calling him "yet another conservative hypocrite." The next pastor in his church may well call him an example of the "subversive gay influence." But I doubt he is either of these things, really.

This is a human being who was made to feel so insecure in his sexuality that he actually armed his closet. Who was made to feel so ashamed of who he was that he attacked others like him just to keep attention away. This man was simultaneously a victim and a perpetrator of a system that can turn people who do not fit inside the patriarchal sexual norm into their own worst enemies in a desperate attempt to belong.

Christians, this is not a leader gone bad. He is the perfect example of why we need to change the way we, as a religion, address sexuality. I honestly don't care if you believe homosexuality is sinful or not, that is not the issue here. Because even if it were sinful, if the way we teach about sin leads to be people living lies the way this guy felt he had to, then the way we teach about sin is WRONG. Full stop.

Why People Are Wrong about Black Widow

I think it's time to have another discussion about the Black Widow character from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and some uncomfortable truths she reveals about the more progressive side of geek culture. (Possible Avengers 2 spoilers below.)

Now anyone who follows my internet persona AT ALL knows that I am a pretty darn big fan of the entire media experiment known as the MCU, and that has always included Scarlett Johanssen's portrayal of Natasha Romanov. Like Hawkeye, Black Widow represents what seems to be an anomaly, a highly trained, but still undeniably human, member of a team that includes a super soldier, a rage monster, super-high tech armor, and an actual god. But unlike Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye, Black Widow also is an anomaly in another way as the only woman on the team. This was naturally always going to make hers a character that would be placed under the microscope of pop culture scrutiny, but sometimes I wonder if that same scrutiny doesn't sometimes say more about us than it does what her character represents.

Now before I get started I do want to point out that this is NOT some kind of “oh, don't point that critical lens at things I like!” rant. The MCU has some definite problems, with a glaring lack of diversity being at the top of the list. However, I do sometimes worry if our habit of dissecting more diverse characters doesn't add to the problem, and it's something we should really think about as both DC and Marvel prepare to broaden their cast lists with Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and Black Panther all about to make their debuts.

Ok, so back to Natasha. She's up against a LOT in these movies, and I'm not just talking about Chitauri bad guys. With no powers to speak of beyond expert level assassin training (more on that later) and all the above mentioned super-powered teammates she has, it would have been ridiculously easy for her to fall into the role of victim in waiting, or to even vanish from the movie. She is also played by Scarlett Johannsen, a legendarily beautiful woman even by Hollywood standards. While this is no doubt an aid in gaining roles, there is also a flip side of that coin, with many people refusing to take her seriously simply because she IS beautiful, and historically we have known that in a big budget action piece like Avengers, a beautiful woman is almost certain to play the role of damsel/eye-candy.

The fact that she HASN'T fallen into that cliché makes her all the more interesting. In each of her outings it is made more and more clear that any sexual behavior on the part of Romanov is a stunt, designed to get men to be a bit more stupid so she can do what she needs to do, and with each movie that comes out she has been sexualized less, as we her less and less from the perspective of those she is conning to the perspective of teammates and friends. In fact, based on revelations from the second Avengers movie I am starting to think that she may actually be asexual. We'll get back to that.

So how has she done under the scrutiny of the modern movie watching audience? Not too badly, as it turns out, all the way up until Avengers 2. It's taken awhile for the MCU to seriously turn up on the non-geek critical radar, but after the mega-hit that was the Avengers and the surprise thoughtfulness of Captain America 2 (both which starred Scarjo as BW in HIGHLY important roles) the shield of “just Summer Schlock” has passed, and the sole important female superhero (you're not there yet, Scarlet Witch) currently in the cinema was bound to get more than a once-over.

These are the things that our more progressive critics have revealed about themselves in discussions of Avengers 2 in general, and BW's character in it in particular.

1- We don't always watch the movies.

I suppose we should have seen this coming. People who have managed not to be particularly aware of the MCU up to this point are likely those for whom it was never going to appeal for reasons having more to do with taste than the treatment of women within them. And yet, I read one review (linked, at least for a time, on the film's wikipedia page) deriding the movie as just “action and boobs.”

Now, as a pretty darn hetero guy it isn't exactly a point of pride to say that had their been any gratuitous viewing of boobs or even cleavage in the movie I probably would noticed. I honestly can't recall any. Like I said above, the sexualization of the BW character has grown progressively less with each movie. There is no “just out of the shower” scene, no “pulling on the tight jeans” moment. (If you want one, there is one, but it belongs to Chris Hemsworth's Thor character, whose adonis like physique will show up like clockwork in nearly any appearance.)

This was a weak attempt at sight-unseen criticism. And to be fair, in most action movies with an actress like Scarjo, likely a fair assumption to make. But as anyone who has watched her character progression as the MCU has gone on can tell you, Black Widow seems to be the exception to the rule.

2- We focus on buzz words, not context.

We all have seen the uproar about the comments of Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner on the press junket tour, where they supposedly “slut-shamed” the BW character for sleeping with yet another Avenger. And yeah, out of context, WHEW! Those are some crazy bad statements. At first I just figured it was the long press-junket tour wearing on them, but the more I think about it, the more I think they were trolling their interviewers.

Yeah, BW has appeared in many of these movies and developed relationships with Iron Man, Captain America, Hawkeye and now Bruce Banner. But as anyone who has watched the films can attest, not a single one of those relationships were sexual in nature, and up until Banner none were even romantic. She was spying on Tony Stark, a friendly ally to Steve Rogers (even repeatedly trying to set him up on dates) and a close friend with Hawkeye (even having one of his children named for her.)

And yet, in every movie where she stars, what do reporters and geek bloggers ask about her? Are they dating? Do they kiss? Who does she love more and why? You can see hours worth of these interviews and the script never seems to change. It's like Renner and Evans are a couple of guys going; “For crying out loud, how many times do we have to say that WE ARE JUST FRIENDS!” and finally deciding to troll the questions when they're asked. Given how tight the cast reportedly is, it wouldn't surprise me, in the least, if they were irritated on her behalf.

But they used the word “Slut.” And our reaction was predictable, despite the fact that, given every available ounce of context, the word had to be sarcastic. Because if truly meant, it's WILDLY inaccurate. This was a condemnation of the way these movies are reported when a woman like Scarlett Johanssen is involved, and rather than joining them in that condemnation, we jumped on the buzz word.

3- We build up new heroes by tearing down old ones, even when old ones are in short supply.

A great example of this exists in another Disney property... the Princess Franchise. Remember when Frozen came out? Suddenly Tumblr, Pinterest, and the whole blogosphere were all awash with what an "empowered woman" Elsa was. But that wasn't enough. She had to be the "first" empowered Disney woman, for some reason, and suddenly every other "princess" was held up, scrutinized, and found wanting. Here was the REAL woman to look up to! Thing is... why? Ariel was pretty tough in her movie, even if she was boy crazy. Don't even get me started on Mulan and Merida. And yet, for some reason, for Elsa to be the true empowered woman, we felt the need to tear down those she would be compared to.

I adored Agent Carter as did most who watched it. And yeah, she's a game changer for the series. Hopefully Jessica Jones will follow suit in her new series. But it sometimes seems like the first person they have defeat is not their rogues gallery, but Black Widow. And since we want them to be great, the best, we tear her down.

In a time of High Superhero saturation in culture, there is a depressing lack of female heroes. But unless we can learn to value the new ones in ways other than lining them up in continuous comparison to their forebears, there will always seem like there was only one. It's okay to like someone more than Black Widow, obviously. But that doesn't mean you have to say she was just a sex symbol in order to do so.

4- We say we want complex female characters. When given them, we freak out.

Let's get to the big one, shall we? In Avengers 2, Black Widow exhibits a strong romantic attraction to Bruce Banner/Hulk, a feeling that is, apparently, reciprocated. And at one point in the movie Banner is there to rescue her from captivity. The buzzword police were set off again and the shouts of a strong character being “destroyed” began.

But was she? Black Widow has, to this point, been the most functionally invincible of the Avengers. She lacks the powers of some of her teammates, but choose a SINGLE opponent she has gone up against and been found wanting. In Iron Man 2 she cons a super genius with little difficulty, and finds said genius' rival and hacks into his systems with no apparent difficulty. In Avengers she takes out a squad of Russian Gangsters while tied up, goes head to head with the Viking God of Mischief in a battle of wits and wins, takes out Hawkeye in a straight up fight, and is the one who figures out a way to actually stop the infinite army coming out of the portal. She takes on the Winter Soldier in Captain America 2 with zero hesitation and pulls a called draw, holding him off for about as long as Captain America himself does. She's tough, she's capable, she's badass.

But as an another article pointed out, “strong and capable” is not a character, it's an archtype. A cutout. Every other Avenger, at some point, gets knocked down and is unable to get up on their own, and these are the true character moments for characters defined by their strength. Eventually, in order to really be a character, Natasha was going to meet something she couldn't just handle on her own. She's never helpless (even when imprisoned by Ultron, she manages to let the team know where she is and, in so doing, where Ultron is) but in the end someone was going to have to open her cage, and that someone got to be Bruce Banner.

Can we talk about that relationship for a second? Of all the available Avengers (a bunch of darn good looking guys, you might notice) she goes for the quieter of the geniuses and, also, the one who can't have sex. (Did you forget that part? In the Incredible Hulk, Banner starts to have sex with old flame Betty Ross when his heartrate jumps and he has to stop for fear of Hulking right then and there.)

She also, when making herself vulnerable to Banner, reveals her biggest personal shame. Not that she murdered a helpless person as a young girl, not the violence that has defined her entire life, but that, in order to graduate her training, she “volunteered” to have her uterus removed. This choice haunts her, makes her wonder if she is even a real person anymore. Again, it's not her infertility that haunts her, but that she CHOSE it for the right to murder people. It was a beautiful, moving, and painful character moment, a moment involving regret of a woman who, as a rule, regrets nothing. A moment roundly panned both for her being “damseled” by Banner and for not representing a proud push forward for fertility rights. BW's writers finally assumed that they had established her competence sufficiently to allow her to be a real character. And apparently they were wrong.

Do you see why this is frustrating to me? It's also worrying, because with the coming Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and Black Panther movies, the world of comic book movies will be attempting more diversity than they ever have before in such a short time frame. I am as worried as anyone else that they won't be handled well... there are a LOT of mistakes to be made in the handling of such characters. But I also worry about the other side.

What if we are presented with powerful, flawed characters, but get too antsy with our progressive microscope and nitpick them to death? No one complained that Iron Man's character was destroyed when he was unequivocally saved from death by the Hulk in the first Avengers. No one felt the need to put a definitive status on Steve Rogers ambiguous love life outside of the movies.

So what happens when movies who are riding on characters that break that white guy mold are put up to the same scrutiny? If they are done well, but still get panned by critics who were too lazy, too buzz word driven, or too reactionary to realize it, do the movie producers then say, “Well, crap, we tried to make that crowd happy, and see where it got us? Back to the safe white guy stuff.”

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is perhaps the most social savvy product of our day, built around fan obsession and reaction. Our opinions matter. Should these movies be solid outings, then we need for them to succeed so that we will get more. Make no mistake, the entertainment world will be watching, waiting to see if the world of characters from pulp stands can be among the first to truly offer a diverse view of the world, not just in terms of gender but of race, nationality, and perhaps even sexuality.

I even think they have a good chance of sticking the landing. The MCU has its stumbles, but it's treatment of women from Black Widow to Agent Carter has been pretty darned solid. I just worry that even if they do succeed, despite all the history that says they won't, the same media that should be celebrating it will be too busy nit-picking to notice.